Christian Apologetics for the Alt Right

Over a year ago, at the genesis of this blog, I wrote a series of pieces where I attempted to define the Alt Right in the wake of Trump’s election, and to further provide a bridge between Alt Right instincts, many of them righteous, and orthodox Christianity, properly understood. The posts are presented here in their original order, with relevant follow-up posts:

What Is the Alt Right?

The Alt Right, Aesthetics & Practical Atheism

An Alt Right Defense of Theism, Part One: Foundations

An Alt Right Defense of Theism, Part Two: Heuristics for the Plausibility of Theism

An Alt Right Defense of Theism, Part Three: Evidence, Intuition & Faith

An Alt Right Defense of Theism, Part Four: Critiques of Christianity

An Alt Right Defense of Theism, Part Five: Practical Steps

Tom Wolfe’s The Kingdom of Speech, A Review

Christian Ethics & Dysgenics

Abortion & The Alt Right

Guilt, Paganism & Christianity

Reader Mailbag: Losing My Faith


Planting Churches to Save Our Civilization

Planting Churches to Save Our Civilization





The Precipice



It’s Only Getting Worse




















The Opportunity





Orthodox Doctrinal Minimalism






Take Up Physical Space





















Deliverables: Feminism Mitigation











Deliverables: Real Community



Defining the Boundaries of the Church Community








Crazy Like a Fox






Screen Shot 2018-06-19 at 10.34.13 AM.png




Church Advantages, Form & Government















The Limits of Trolling

Some commentators have acidly criticized the Alt Right this past year for problems at public events. The Alt Right was vastly successful with online activism, beginning in 2015 and leading up to the election of Donald Trump. What shocked me and many others who incline towards civil discourse is that the shock tactics of trolling seemed effective. As long as not done too earnestly, and with a sense of irony, mocking the holiest Leftist narratives in a maximally offensive way was effective.

This same approach does not work offline, as Heilgate, Charlottesville, and University of Florida have shown. What accounts for the difference?

Trolling works best anonymously. My GPA in college was lower than it should have been because of lost hours spent playing Panzer General and Panzer General II. The game was a strategic masterpiece, challenging the player to win with the largely outgunned and undersupplied WWII German military. From it, I learned some basics of military strategy, particularly the elements of blitzkrieg. For the entire war, the German military was inferior in numbers and, much of the time, equipment quality, to their opponents. In such a scenario, the player could not try to win battles by attrition and the art of blitzkrieg consisted of largely avoiding attacking entrenched enemies, moving as quickly as possible behind them, forcing them to abandon their defenses, then destroying them from the rear with very concentrated attacks against softened targets. Online trolling is very much like an artillery barrage, useful as a prelude to a conventional attack. Artillery are very soft targets if attacked, which is why their location must remain hidden or defended from the enemy.

The anonymity of trolling is like an artillery piece – however well entrenched the enemy may be, the shots fired do make an impact, and they have to sit there and take it. In such an asymmetrical environment, a sort of Darwinian rhetorical meme war can take place, with different people trying different approaches, most of them ineffective and many of them overly offensive. Both of the latter categories tend to get buried from visibility by the social media engagement algorithms. However, occasionally, out of hundreds of thousands of memes, something hits home, like the “cuckservative” meme. The enemy overreacted, generating publicity and sympathy for nationalists.

Real life brings real vulnerabilities. We all have fragile bodies, and lives we want to live with people we care about. We are not yet at the point where people are willing to die for this cause, and hopefully our situation never becomes so desperate. As a father, I cannot with good conscience risk my life unless it is in direct defense of my children. With Antifa allowed to terrorize as they wish, showing up in person is seen as very risky.

Real life allows the media to distort. The fat guys with bad beards, some of them feds, who like to LARP as Nazis, or barely disguised Nazis, are too dumb generally to have much influence in the Darwinian world of online activism. I think they are frustrated by this. It used to be that you could be a loser, setup a Nazi website, and get lots of media attention. Now, the Jerry Springer tabloid TV world is behind us, and quality, true quality activists, are being rewarded with influence in the meritocratic and competitive social media landscape. Because it is so hard to get quality people with something to lose to show up in real life, organizers of these events end up casting a big tent, so as to make the movement appear as large as possible. The result is that a disproportionate number of attendees, or a sufficient number, are aesthetically revolting to normal people. While the media would look ridiculous quoting some Neo-Nazi Twitter account with few followers to smear the serious Alt-Right, in real life they can get all the photographs they want of the troubled people who are attracted to this movement. They can also bait these less intelligent folks into violence more easily, as they have less to lose, and perhaps notoriety to gain, by being arrested. Some guy with 30% body fat who thinks he’s SS material can’t meme very well, because he’s dumb, but he can get arrested and patted on the back for his ideological purity. Normies are very convinced by visuals and real life events with idiots involved gives the media all they need.

The transition to real life will require starting small and purging liabilities. It feels wrong to “punch right,” after so many Alt Righters have felt unfairly attacked by movement conservatives who ought to know better. That said, you cannot have an effective public movement with lunatics involved. This may explain why Jared Taylor has had so much staying power. Agree or not, his reputation as a Jewish-friendly race realist helps filter the nutjobs from associating with him. And, honestly, many of the anti-Semites are nutjobs, taking a tendency among Jews to be an absolute. One could make an argument that Taylor’s neutral stance is a feature, not a bug, in that whatever concessions he makes to the truth on the JQ is more than compensated tactically by repelling crazy people from his orbit. I have an intuition that some, but not all, in the “Alt Lite” take a similarly practical position. The crazies are so destructive in their LARPing and virtue signaling that you may be a more effective activist by keeping your actual position somewhat hidden, allowing you and your audience to have plausible deniability as you work on stretching the edges of the Overton window rather than pointlessly banging your head into the brick wall to its right. Better to be labeled a “cuck” than have to constantly deal with dumb people who don’t get the practical necessity of honing messages for maximum impact.

Again, it feels bad to punch right. Many of these people are white brothers who have the right instincts, but just aren’t smart enough, or come from a lower social class, and can’t understand the problem with their approach. We should be as graceful as possible, but we must separate ourselves from liabilities if we are serious about winning.

Real life requires defenses in depth to repel an attack. If online trolling is artillery, real life activism is the infantry. Only dumb infantry officers charge into entrenched enemies on unfavorable ground. Much smarter is to take and hold some favorable terrain and make the enemy come to you. To convince normies in the great public debates, we must find the minimal public position that the Left will not tolerate, and then defend that position, counting on the Left’s hubris and overreaction to cause them to counterattack. The “It’s Okay to Be White” meme was a brilliant example of this. Make them attack on unfavorable ground, choose battles we can win, and disappear into the forest to fight another day. For this tactic to work, we cannot have attention-seeking crazies sieg-heiling and undermining our entrenchments.

The flash displays of banners with reasonable rhetoric in public places by Identity Europa and others is a great step in this direction. Our public activism must be “above reproach.” Perhaps white advocates have a lot to learn from Martin Luther King, Jr. While a degenerate and radical in private, in public he picked defensible, sympathetic positions, maintained a pristine public image as a pastor and family man, and goaded his enemies into overreacting. We can begin, like MLKJ did, with small demonstrations of carefully vetted, normal, attractive individuals. The right people will join us once we appear normal and sane. This is how we convince the broader white population that we are serious, and that we can win.

My social group is mostly normal middle class people, and I observe them as an outsider since I’m a working class kid who caught some breaks. I cannot tell you how important this is. Something has to appear socially acceptable before they can even begin to evaluate its truth.

Reader Mailbag: The Jewish Question

Reader Mailbag: The Jewish Question

Another reader writes this week with a question about the “anti-Semitism” of the Alt Right. The reader seems to equate orthodox Christian belief with friendliness and good will towards the Jewish people. Presumably the reader is sympathetic with Alt Right positions on immigration and race but is having qualms with the common anti-Jewish sentiment.

First, I would encourage the reader to study the history of dispensationalism, which is the theological position that the Jews remain God’s chosen people. Like many in today’s evangelical church, I am guessing the reader believes that dispensationalism is equivalent to the Christian faith. There are many online critiques of dispensationalism (Google “problems with dispensationalism” and the like) so I will not detour into a theological refutation. I am personally not a dispensationalist, and I came to this conviction after realizing that it is a relatively recent theological innovation, not even 200 years old. Most Christians for most of church history have adhered to a view that the Church represents the ultimate fulfillment of Old Testament Israel. I am satisfied with that interpretation.

Nevertheless, just because a doctrine is new does not mean it is necessarily wrong, so I will delve into the Scriptures just a bit. The primary tension between dispensationalism and older views are certain passages in Romans that seem to imply a Judeo-centric “plot” to the Gospel. Romans 11 is probably the strongest passage implying the dispensationalist position. I would argue that the entire debate over dispensationalism is essentially whether one uses Romans 11 as a base text to interpret the entire book of Galatians, or if one uses the entire book of Galatians to interpret Romans 11. That requires a judgment call, as the fundamental rule of proper Bible interpretation is that clear passages must be used to interpret unclear passages. Galatians, in my view, makes it very clear that the Church is the true Israel:


Rejoice, barren woman who does not bear;
Break forth and shout, you who are not in labor;
For more numerous are the children of the desolate
Than of the one who has a husband.”



Cast out the bondwoman and her son,

31 So then, brethren, we are not children of a bondwoman, [w]but of the free woman.

In this passage, Paul compares the Jews according to the flesh in Jerusalem to Hagar and Ishmael, who are to be cast out in favor of the children of the spirit, the Church.

Others, however, might believe that Romans 11 is the clearer passage. My personal interpretation here is not that the Jews retain any special status, but rather a specific prophecy that God will, at some point in the future, convert a significant number of Jews to the Gospel. This does not imply all of the other strange doctrines of dispensationalism, such as the reinstitution of temple sacrifices and the Mosaic law for a set period before a global World War against a reconstituted nation of Israel.

I have a good friend who is Alt-Right, JQ aware, and a dispensationalist. How does he reconcile the two views? He hangs his hat on Romans 11:28:


My friend argues that the fundamental error in dispensationalism, practically speaking, is not their particular eschatological beliefs but rather their deliberate ignoring of this instruction by Paul that the Jews remain “enemies.” Dispensationalists are constantly “jumping the gun” so to speak, hoping to accelerate Christ’s return through this or that political maneuver involving the Jews. However, if dispensationalists followed what the Bible actually says, there is no actual conflict in seeing Jews in their particular way and simultaneously treating Jews as enemies of the gospel for the time being.

Americans, it seems, have a particular attraction for apocalyptic cults, perhaps because of our overly optimistic tendencies. Instead of facing the fear and reality of death, many of us have been tempted into thinking the end of the world was nigh, and the idea of being raptured sounds better than old age. The dispensationalist eschatology was also formed in reaction to liberal theology, as a desperate attempt to take the Bible as “literally” as possible as a bulwark against progressivism. Later, it morphed into an escapist mechanism for Christians afflicted with despair about the state of the modern world.

Hardcore dispensationalism today is in decline, as newer scholars in the tradition eschew the date setting and Middle East politics of the older generation. “Progressive dispensationalism” is the order of the day, as a face-saving bridge between the cringe-worthy embarrassments of the past without the need to repudiate the doctrine wholesale.

To return to my reader’s inquiry, if you remain convinced of dispensationalism, this does not necessarily preclude an Alt-Right awareness of the Jewish Question. That Jews might support destructive, even Satanic, policies is fully compatible with dispensationalism.  Romans 11 speaks of a hardening and darkening of the hearts of the Jews, until some point in the distant future. Paul in 1 Thessalonians 2:15-16 further elucidates what this hardening entails, that the Jews are “hostile to all men” and that God’s wrath has coming upon them “to the utmost.”  There is no theoretical or ethical problem with simultaneously not persecuting Jews while at the same time preventing Jews from enacting destructive, Satanic policies. A family with a child suffering from a severe mental illness might love that child, want the best for that child, yet still seek to restrain and prevent that same child from hurting himself or others due to his condition.

There are many variants on the Alt Right regarding this question and in its most basic and broad form it asserts that Jews have a paranoid tendency to seek to undermine Western societies. These patterns are strong and objectively verifiable for anyone who seeks the truth. Jews are simply overrepresented in every area of destructive liberal ideology.

I am personally not a Semitic determinist, in that I think individual Jews can deviate from and break this pattern. Stephen Miller is great example of this. Steve Sailer has posited a hope that Jews can see their own self-interest here, as an America that has always tolerated and rewarded them is a much better risk than the multi-racial, largely anti-Semitic world their destructive immigration and cultural policies are bringing about.

The Alt-Right’s supposed anti-Semitism is largely explained by the hypocrisy of American Jews who advocated nationalist policies for Israel, including a border wall, while undermining the American nation at home. The Alt Right is also annoyed at the virtual deification of the Jewish people and the intolerance visited upon anyone who notices patterns about Jewish involvement in liberal causes. What may most bother my reader is the over-the-top semi-ironic anti-Semitic memes. These are best understood as transgressive humor designed to mock and tear down the idols of our society, which includes the worship of and inability to criticize Jews, and especially the elevation of the Holocaust as the central event of history and the sole source of moral authority in an otherwise amoral world. They have more to do with troll culture than actual serious policy positions (see my first post on describing the Alt Right).

There is some hopeful evidence, in my view, of a divergence in the Jewish community. The smarter, conservative Israeli Jews may be beginning to realize that their Western brethren are fully invested in the death cult of Western liberalism. Netanyahu, a realist Sephardic Jew, is forming alliances with the far right parties of Eastern Europe. Is it possible Israel, in fulfillment of the Zionist dream, is becoming a “normal country” populated by Jews, capable of rational alliances with other states?

These things are still undetermined, but I see no necessary contradiction between the Alt Right understanding of the JQ and philosemitic dispensationalist theology. If anything, we are working to save Jews from their own worst tendencies, and from destroying the society in which they have most thrived historically.

Reader Mailbag: Losing My Faith

Reader Mailbag: Losing My Faith








The Spencerian Gambit & Southern Slavery












Guilt, Paganism & Christianity

Guilt, Paganism & Christianity

How Kevin MacDonald’s new article relates to Russell Moore’s cuckery:

Alt-Right folks who dislike Christianity often cite Christian theology’s legitimization of guilt as crippling to whites worldwide.

In this view, the modern cult of “white guilt” is simply the secular form of Christian guilt, with gibs for minorities as a collective act of penance. While not literally believing in pagan gods, anti-Christian Alt Righters harken back to the days of paganism as a time of spiritual freedom.  Pagans, it is said, ruthlessly pursued their self-interest without reference to superstitious notions of sin and guilt.

A Christian counter-argument: the corruption of the church in the West shares a common cause with all of our other corrupt institutions, so why single the church out as a cause rather simply a symptom of our decline?  Wouldn’t it be simpler to say something terrible happened to Western man, and it infected all of our institutions, religious and non-religious? This argument might be right, but it misses the point.

The pagan Alt-Right is correct to single out the church, and surprisingly, such strong disapproval of cucked church institutions is consistent with Christian theology.  Christ said that false teachers would be better served by having a millstone cast around their neck and cast into the sea compared to the wrath of God stirred up by their deceptions. Paul said that false teachers of religion will be subject to a higher standard of judgment, since they not only deceive themselves, but also others. Christians can agree with the pagan, secular Alt-Right that the Christian teachers who push a cucked version of the faith deserve more condemnation than secular anti-West voices. In other words, Russell Moore is worse than Michael Moore.

The secular Alt-Right and non-cucked Christians can agree that deception under cover of religion is worse than other forms of deception, because the essence of religious abuse is to hijack the rational thinking processes and utilize the fear of God’s wrath as a means of coercing someone into a particular belief. When Russell Moore implies Christians who vote for Trump might be hell-bound, his words are much more coercive than Michael Moore ranting about white privilege. Besides the religious coercion involved, Moore appears to be one of us, a conservative Christian from Mississippi, and as such the masses of Christians are less likely to think critically about his message, whereas Michael Moore is a known enemy whose words are automatically discounted. Russell Moore and his ilk are not only religious deceivers, but also an enemy within, traitors to their own people, a threat much more serious and deserving of moral condemnation than the obvious enemy without.

If Alt Right Christians and Alt Right pagans can agree that religious deceivers represent a particularly loathsome Trojan Horse within the West, what can we say about the pagans’ idea that Christianity is the source of guilt within Western societies? Pagan Alt-Righters say that our people were an ancient race of Nietzschean supermen bolding conquering and pursuing their self-interest; that a little inconsequential tribal god named Yahweh was invented by the Israelites as a projection of their own obsession with sex, uncleanness, and sin; that Christianity was a Hellenized version of this same Jewish cult that carried the virus of sin and guilt into the Western mind. Until recently, I don’t know that I had a good answer to this argument, other than to straightforwardly disagree and say that sin and guilt are real, and there is a God with universal standards, whom we are to obey. In other words, I could only make a faith-based argument, as this subject bled into the territory where Christianity becomes more of an intuition, further than reason can take us.

That is, until yesterday. Perusing my latest copy of The Occidental Quarterly, I was reading Kevin MacDonald’s article on the origins of the Indo-Europeans, and I was struck by a passing reference. MacDonald reports the phenomenon of pre-Christian, pagan European chieftains who had their priests kill them as a human sacrifice to the gods, to appease their wrath in times of military defeat, bad harvests, or other situations where the gods seemed mightily displeased. What kind of Nietzschean does that? This triggered a cascade of thoughts about the pagan world, where human sacrifice, animal sacrifice, sexual asceticism (e.g. Roman vestal virgins) and other practices were thought to appease the gods for man’s sinful acts. The urge and drive to sacrifice to appease for sin was a universal human instinct before Abraham and Yahweh enter history as a specific faith for a specific people.

The secular Alt-Right is absolutely correct when they point to the idea of sin and guilt as a huge problem. It is not, however, a result of Christianity but something inherent in man. You can still be secular and believe this – you would just need to admit that sin and guilt are universal human afflictions, some artifact of our evolution, not simply a cultural artifact of Christianity. Clearly, sin and guilt need some legitimate outlet, like other human drives. Uncontrolled, it will strike out randomly in destructive ways, like the cult of white guilt which serves as a quasi-religion to spiritually empty, affluent Westerners. In fact, if Christianity didn’t exist, we would almost have to invent something like it.

Think about what Christianity does functionally: it replaces archaic systems, some, simply messy, like animal sacrifice, and others truly horrific like the infant sacrifice practiced by Near Eastern pagans. Christianity says God came to Earth and made one sacrifice that suffices for all sin and guilt, forever. This sacrifice is memorialized in the eminently civil ritual of the bread and the cup, and remission of sins is ritualized through the simple use of ordinary water in baptism. If you wanted to take man’s sin and guilt instincts and channel them into a benevolent form, you would have to invent something like Christianity. Christianity, however, still preserves all of the upside of the sin instinct. Basic morality like not stealing, not murdering, not lying in court, not committing adultery, not being envious, etc. are necessary practices to build the sort of high-trust, highly advanced, specialized societies Europeans desire. You have to admit that an earnest Christian is less likely to put melamine in the baby formula than a Chinese pagan. Sociopathic behavior by high-time-preference people is efficiently behaviorally balanced with some sort of belief in eternal torment and punishment for heinous acts. It’s ugly and inelegant, in a way, but any religious system has to account for the full range of human depravity.

One more observation: by relieving people of the burden of sin and guilt, and the uncertainty associated with the mercurial pagan gods, Christianity allowed its adherents more freedom to pursue their destiny as a people. The most highly refined form of Christianity, that of free grace salvation, emerged in Northern Europe after the Reformation. Fully freed from any residual guilt, the mightiest empires emerge from these Northern European countries who conquer the world, in their view with God’s approval. The most powerful empire of all time, the British, was an amalgamation of the high ritual of Catholicism, but the free grace of the Reformation, all under the umbrella of a King as head of government and church. This Empire saw itself as explicitly doing God’s work in bringing other peoples into subjection, and represents possibly the most purely “Nietzschean” society, the race of supermen upon whose lands the sun never set.

I’m not here to make a utilitarian argument for Christianity, though I think one can obviously be made. I simply point out a number of interesting and unlikely coincidences:

  • The universal sin and guilt drive of man, not indigenous to Judea, which results from man’s moral instinct but can express itself in very destructive ways, from human sacrifice to white guilt.
  • Christianity’s elegant repackaging of this instinct into a one-time sacrifice and a ritualized, civilized system of memorializing the sacrifice, while also creating an imperative for the moral behavior necessary to a high trust, advanced society.
  • The strange coincidence of Christianity’s central truth claim: God came to Earth and the Jews murdered Him.
  • This little vignette prophetically foreshadows the rise of Christian Europe as the most powerful civilization of all time, along with its perennial enemy.
  • The juxtaposition of Christian Europe both being the most powerful civilization of all time, but also the most humane and just. Power, justice, and mercy happened to combine in history, a paradox mirrored, and mocked by pagans, in the Christian faith itself.

These could all be coincidences, or they could be the fingerprints of something else. What you can’t say, based on history, is that Christianity created the problem of guilt and sin. Arguably, it solved it.