The following are responses of Greg Johnson to Christian sympathizers at Occidental Dissent right after the Breivik incident (slightly edited):
Before you draw conclusions about the usefulness of Christianity as a vehicle for White racial preservation, you need to read the Breivik manifesto.
First, in the name of Christian Universalism, for instance, he advocates treating all Christians as Europeans, no matter what their race, and even bringing non-White Christians into his Templar Crusade.
Basically, Breivik’s concern for preserving Nordics is trumped by his Christian universalism. If all the Muslims in Norway converted to Christianity, he would have no objection to them.
Second, in the name of Christian universalism, Breivik envisions crusades into the Middle East to help the local Middle Eastern Christians. So Europeans will spill their blood to help the genetic first cousins to Europe’s Muslim invaders, so long as the beneficiaries are Christians.
This is the logic of Christian universalism at work. Blood is particular. But Christianity is universal. Blood is natural. But Christianity aims higher than nature. Thus Christian brotherhood always trumps and undermines blood brotherhood.
It is possible to hold conflicting values without problems as long as they are merely in one’s mind, as abstractions never tested in the real world. The problems emerge when you try to live by them, then they actually do come into conflict, and you actually do have to decide which value trumps which.
Say that you are a devout Christian, and your daughter wants to marry a devout Black Nigerian Christian. You now have a conflict between blood-based values and Christian universal values.
Which is more important to you: maintaining genetic distinctness or honoring the universal community of the church? If a Black man is worthy of sharing heaven with you, through accepting Jesus Christ as his savior, then why should he not be worthy of sharing the same neighborhood with you, the same public transportation, the same church, the same water fountain—or holy wedlock with your sister? Or do you think that there will be Jim Crow in heaven?
Christianity will not be dead until its secular offspring, liberal universalism, is dead as well. But you know that, don’t you?
Christian fanatics are precisely the ones who believe that blood differences don’t matter. One can work with lukewarm or confused Christians, or people who are racists first and Christians second. But you can’t work with real Christians, because they take their supernatural universalism seriously, which pits them against blood brotherhood wherever and whenever it conflicts with the supernatural brotherhood in Christ which is the Church.
Judaism is an ethnocentric religion. Racism is just a form of ethnocentrism. Christianity is a universalistic religion. Paul, who is part of the Bible and therefore part of Christianity, makes it clear that the differences of blood and nation make no difference once one enters into the universal brotherhood of the Church. Christianity is therefore anti-ethnocentric, anti-xenophobic, and anti-racist—even if “racism” was not a word at the time.
This means that all kinds of men can share heaven. Again, if a black Christian is good enough to share heaven with you, on what grounds [he can’t] enter holy matrimony, one of the sacraments of the church, with your daughter?
Good luck to you. There is nothing we need more than a Racial Reformation of the Church, and only practicing Christians can provide it.
The Churches have always been willing to compromise with the Zeitgeist because ultimately their kingdom is not of this world. Once a racialist Zeitgeist re-emerges, we will hear less and less about Christian anti-racism.
But if we get that genie back in the bottle, we will always have to be eternally vigilant, lest it escape again. Because Christian universalism is, in fact, opposed to racialism and thus will always pose a danger.
Update of 3 May 2012:
Johnson has now commented at The Occidental Observer:
[Christianity] did undermine racial exclusivity for nearly 2,000 years. Racial and subracial differences were no bar to marriage, as long as both parties were Christian. Christianity spread in the racially and culturally mixed seaports around the Mediterranean, to the lowest strata of society, which included slaves and freedmen of all races. Of course we do not have records of these people’s marriages, but surely the church blessed many miscegenating matches from the very beginning.
We have better records from later times, when Christianity was the dominant religion of Europe. Here are just a couple of random examples. In the 8th century, the Byzantine Emperor Constantine the V married Irene of Khazaria, a daughter of the Khazar Khagan. Their son, Leo IV, also called Leo the Khazar, ruled the empire from 775 to 780. But Constantine himself was no Greek or Roman. His family were from Syria, but they married into the Byzantine ruling class. Because of Christianity, the Byzantine Empire had lost its ethnically Roman and Greek character by the early 8th century, taking on instead a heavily near-Eastern (Armenian and Syrian ethnic composition). The later Phyrigian and Macedonian dynasties were actually Armenian, and they married their sons and daughters to the Frankish and Russian aristocracies. Indeed, Grand Duke Vladimir of Kiev Christianized himself and the Rus in order to marry Anna, the daughter of Romanos II, in the late 10th century.
Race mixing has, of course, increased with the greater mobility of populations. But wherever Christians of different races and subraces existed together in the past, the Church has been willing to bless their matches.
Jews, of course, are not Europeans, yet the Church has blessed marriages between Jewish converts to Christianity and European Christians, and these sorts of matches must have been quite common in the early years of the Church.
And of course the Crusades, in which Europe spilled the blood of generations of its finest and fairest Frankish nobles for the freedom of Near Eastern Christians, could hardly be said to be in the genetic interests of Europeans.
Update of 27 March 2013:
Johnson has now commented at Counter-Currents:
Where are the WN Christians in your little scenario? Apparently they have no agency whatsoever. The Left has conquered the churches, and New Right pagans argue that this is no accident on tiny websites and in the pages of low-circulation books and magazines. But where are the pro-White Christians?
Oh, wait, they are here, trying to shut down anti-Christian discourse on the Right. Because that is what you are saying: shut up; stop agreeing with the Left that Christianity is a universalistic, egalitarian, individualistic religion. Which it is.
Again, I have to ask: show me evidence that you are actively combatting anti-white hate in the churches and I will take you seriously as a white advocate rather than merely a christian apologist.
As for the either/or: that comes from the Bible. Yahweh is the only god, and all the others are false. Christianity actively wiped out paganism. Those Christians who incorporated elements of paganism killed it before they ate it.
I regard Christianity as part of my cultural heritage too. But I don’t regard it as true. I try to focus on the things the Christians created, rather than the things they destoyed. And I look at Christian art as merely the ideological channel through which white genius was forced for a long time to flow.
Update of 29 May 2013:
Johnson has now commented at Occidental Dissent:
Here’s my breakdown of the ultimate causes of our plight:
1. Whites are prone to universalism: the idea that there is one humanity and one moral law that transcends differences of race and culture. This tendency is pre-christian. One finds it in the Ancient Greek philosophical schools, and Stoicism is perhaps the most striking expression of it. Whether this plight is genetic in any meaningful sense or not is an open question. I hope it is not genetic, because we don’t have time to change our gene pool to fight it.
2. Christianity, which is a universalistic religion grafted on the trunk of Jewish tribalism, and infected with Jewish fanaticism and intolerance, came to dominate the West, which pretty much explains why whites are open to everyone, but Jews are somehow more equal than everyone else.
Of course, Christians who take the New Testament seriously and who remember the early history of the Church, made a distinction between the old holy Jews and new, unholy Jews who crucified and reject Christ, and imposed legal restrictions on the latter that lasted until the Enlightenment. (That distinction is lost on today’s mouth-breathing Christian Zionists.)
3. Enlightenment liberalism pretty much secularizes Christan axiology, and since it discarded Christianity, it discarded Church-based impediments to Jewish emancipation, opening the doors to Jewish hegemony. To secular liberals, however, Jews (and blacks) are more equal than others because they believe that they suffered from intolerance to unique degrees.
Any group that practices rigorous ingroup nepotism in a liberal society while demanding that the rest of the society treat them with tolerance and fairness has a built in advantage that will cause them to accrue power and wealth at the expense of the rest of the society. South Asians and East Asians in the US are now using the same techniques, with similar results.