RE: Todd Lewis on Hyphenated Christianity


The latest subscriber to our affiliate marketing program where we link to bloggers with less traffic than ourselves when they make wild and personal accusations against our project is Todd Lewis. His winning entry, “Contra Traditionalist Youth Network: Christianity Cannot Be Hyphenated,” goes for a straightforward Category C smear of our project.

Category A: Matthew Heimbach is Fat

Category B: TradYouth is too Christian

Category C: TradYouth isn’t Christian

We contend that Heimbach’s not fat, but merely hefty and big-boned. We’ll be sure to replace him as soon as our talent search for a male model who’s as productive as him pans out. Regarding religious affiliation, we’re a political organization and not a religious order. While we take the lead in defending traditional Christianity, we’re not an exclusively Christian order, our religious litmus test is limited to precluding folks of the Jewish and Satanic persuasions, and every denomination (or lack thereof) is welcome and encouraged to join us as equal partners in our broad struggle for identity and tradition.

I’ve been following the Traditional Youth Network (TYN) for some time after my run-in with Matt Parrott on Attack the System. For those who do not know Mr. Parrott, recall that he is Matthew Heimbach’s father in-law, and that I had a run-in with Mr. Parrott over his comments on the Ken Ham/Bill Nye debate.

After that run-in, one would think he would know better than to charge at me with a bunch of half-baked assumptions.

While his attack is directed at me, his purpose is to drive a wedge between identity and tradition.

I think this question is important; as what common ground, if any, does the traditionalist Christian movement have with the New Right, White Nationalists, etc? The answer I think is pretty obvious: nothing. I will explain why shortly.

He’s a typical anti-White fundamentalist type who carelessly and cluelessly conflates fundamentalism and traditionalism. While his antiquarian fundamentalism and orbiting affiliation with the New Right makes it non-obvious, his arguments and positions are fundamentally indistinguishable from your generic anti-White troll.

The main problem with modern Christian movements is that they try to be something else first; they try to analyze Scripture through a lens crafted by the ideologies of men, and then tack on cherry-picked Christian themes and motifs as though somehow Christianity could neither be relevant nor survive without these man-made “interpretive tools.” For example: anarchist-Christians, socialist-Christians, liberal-Christians, libertarian-Christians, and racialist-Christians. As you can see, the ideology is in front of the hyphen and “Christian” is placed after. No! You are either Christian or you are not.

I’m a Christian first, and we’re quite clear that our mission is “Faith, Family, and Folk,” in that order. Whatever your faith or denomination is, we ask and expect you to put that first. Metaphysics precede metapolitics, and a solid spiritual grounding is a prerequisite for effective metapolitical and subsequent political work. It presumes that Christianity is limited to one political position and belongs to one singular identity, both of which are supposedly clearly delineated in the Bible.

How dare you be a euchre-enthusiast Christian? You’re either playing the card game or you’re worshiping Christ, heretic scum. Make up your damn mind! smdh 2015

He’s self-aware enough to catch himself in the middle of his fundamentalist tirade, narrowing the scope of his “No true Scotsman!” charade to identitarians.

Christians can have different views on how social issues need to be resolved, but at the end of the day we need to identify first and foremost as Christians, and if we have an African or Syrian brother, then that must trump our ethnic loyalties; if not, then you really are only secondarily a Christian, which is to say your ideology comes first and your faith second.

I’m not a sola scriptura Protestant, so I’ve got a couple millennia of applied Christian tribalism and nationalism to lean on, but I’ll be a good sport here and play by his Anabaptist house rules. 1 Tim 5:8 insists that “But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.” The Bible quite clearly establishes an intuitive and natural concentric circle of concerns for Christians. Note how the verse even anticipates and deflects Todd’s wish to frame that in exclusively familial terms. Saint Paul in Romans 9:3 declares that he wishes he could damn his eternal soul on behalf of his “kinsmen according to the flesh.”

Different Christians of different denominations square up their relationship between their faith and their identities in different ways, but one thing is sure. Christianity is perfectly compatible with identitarianism and the vast majority of prophets, saints, clergymen, and parishioners throughout Christian history (and even today, outside the West) held positions on identity and tribe which Todd Lewis considers so heretical as to fundamentally contradict the Christian faith entirely.

Modern Christianity has discovered, after nearly two millennia of the contrary position that identity is heretical, but only when it’s White people being identitarian? And they just happened to do it when global capitalists and the Jewish oligarchs declared that anti-White anti-racism is a central plank of their secular humanist globalist pseudo-religion?

How convenient.

The problem here is that Paul clearly warns against being unequally yoked in 2nd Corinthians 6:14-16. Neither Mr. Parrot nor Mr. Terry were able to give satisfying answers when pressed on the issue by Clement and the Swiss Kinist.

Both Mr. Pulaski and Swiss Kinist are heretics for believing that White people have a right to exist, by your own estimation, so I don’t know why you would lean on their critiques and concerns. If I were you, Todd, I would think twice about unequally yoking myself with those nationalist Christians. Any stick will do to beat a dog, right?

Both of them and others have expressed concerns about how to engage the rest of the identitarian world, just as many of our Orthodox brethren have expressed concern about our engagement with other Christians. Then you also have the secular and folkish identitarians who arrive with their own ideas about how we should all work together. I consider that a friendly brotherly dialogue which we should all continue to respectfully have between ourselves. As an anti-White, you’re not really a welcome part of that discourse.

National Socialism is completely antithetical to anything Christian or Traditional. To pretend that there is some common ground between them and Christian Traditionalism is a laughable folly, as I hope to show.

Before you attacked my position on Nationalsocialism, you should’ve taken a few minutes to figure out what my position actually is. The first thing to understand is that I make a concentric and gradated distinction between allies and comrades, rather than the limited and problematic Dubya-style “with us or against us” approach.

For example, in my essay, Never Leave a Fallen Comrade, I distance myself from the 20th Century political party while confirming my fellowship with them in the identitarian struggle.

I’m no Nazi. I have no German heritage. I don’t have much use for their pagan revivalist undertones or their dehumanizing “cattle-breeding” perspective on heritage and genetics. I think their relentless persecution of Jewish rag merchants while allowing the Jewish oligarchs to slip off and regroup is the very model of how not to handle the Jewish Question. I can’t justify or defend everything they did because I don’t agree with everything they did. That being said, Mein Kampf is certainly closer to my heart than anything to be found on a mainstream conservative’s bookshelf.

I explain the distinction in more depth in my essay, Andrew Anglin Isn’t Radical Enough.

For all the exaggerations, distortions, and lies about the NS regime, it was a 20th century political answer to 20th century political problems. The Nazis were a political party with no coherent religious or metaphysical vision. A lot of the early leadership were folk religionist, the rank-and-file were almost entirely Christian, and Hitler himself was about as close to being an atheist as a politician is allowed to be. They were a proportionate reaction to the threat of Bolshevism on the horizon, offering both Christian workers and their employers a robust alternative to the threat of Jewish Bolshevism.

My personal loyalties are closer to Romania’s Iron Guard than to Germany’s more secular project…

Corneliu Codreanu’s Romanian Iron Guard was superficially similar to and allied with Germany’s National Socialist regime. Both carry the largely meaningless and derogatory epithet “fascism”. Yet the former was distinct from the latter in critical ways which make it a firmly superior model to emulate. Most importantly, Codreanu understood Christianity’s roots-deep challenge to the Pharisees (contemporary Jews) in a way that the Germans never did. To the limited extent that the Germans of the time grappled with Christianity, it was with the mistaken premise that Christianity was an integrally Jewish religion to be contorted and adapted toward their political goals, rather than the metaphysical answer to and final negation of the Jewish Project.

Of course, Corneliu Codreanu was ultimately undone by degenerate clergy and nobility. That’s why it’s vital for Radical Traditionalists to be on guard against antiquarian and fundamentalist conservative sentimentality contra authentic Tradition. Todd Lewis’s conservatism is a shadow of Modernity, and he’ll follow it right into perdition. He’ll cling fast to the superficialities, clutching his bible, baking his own bread, and lovingly grooming his lumbersexual beard, all while gradually inculcating the globalist, capitalist, and Jewish fashions and taboos of the age.

After the fall of the Third Reich, ideological hacks were second only to vengeful Russian and Black American infantrymen in their eagerness to dive into the ruins and exploit the situation. Entire bookshelves can be filled with tacky attempts to frame the Nazis as anti-Christians, as radical Christians, as closeted homosexuals, as tools of the bankers, as space lizards, or whatever. Alfred Rosenberg’s anti-Christian ax-grinding was never the dominant position in the party, and his Positive Christianity scheme was a flop. Savitri Devi’s fusion of NS with Hindu and Perennialist themes firmly belongs to the post-war neo-Nazi tradition, and certainly can’t be mistaken for mainline NS ideology by serious historians.

Reputable scholars such as Bullock[6] and Shirer[7] show that Hitler’s long-term goal was the destruction of Christianity.

Having studied Hitler’s life and writings in some depth, I’m quite convinced that Hitler simply didn’t care all that much about religion. All of the attempts, across the board, to stuff him into their religious framing are ideologically motivated and lacking in compelling original sources. He was a largely secular historical figure. I don’t give a damn how awkward it makes it for cucked adherents of Holocaustianity that we refuse to dishonor or denigrate a courageous man who gave everything in life, including his life, in the service of my extended family. We’re not throwing Hitler under the bus.

Regarding the Syrians, Todd Lewis has been convinced by the mainstream media that “helping” Syrian refugees, a mere fraction of whom are Christian, is a simple matter of inviting them into our communities and guest bedrooms, then inviting them to marry our daughters. I pointedly disagree with that framing. TradYouth has, more than any other political organization in America, been vocally advocating for and supporting Christian Syrians and the allies and protectors of Christian Syrians since the beginning of the conflict.

We’ve been raising money for them and even donating money to local charity efforts from the beginning, because Christian fellowship transcends race and tribe, and our Christian brothers in the Middle East are in a desperate genocidal situation. When “charity” extends to genocidally displacing my own kith and kin from our own homeland, then that’s more charity than my own understanding of Christianity allows for. If I don’t first account for my household and extended family, then I’m worse than an infidel, after all.

The problem with kinism is not its segregationist views, per se, but what it shares in common with theonomy: its Judiazing. I also would say I am a theonomist in that I seek to teach and obey God’s law, but Moses’ Law, while righteous, is done away with for the perfection of Christ; the theonomist denies this and is thus a Judaizer.

Just cut the theological crap and admit you’re anti-White. If you’re opposed to theonomy, then oppose the theonomists on whole, not the subset of them who happen to be pro-White. The pattern of attack is clear, so just come out in the open and explain why the White race has no right to exist, and perhaps also explain why God went through the trouble of creating it, only to make it imperative that it be abolished by integration and open borders. And if you’re not merely anti-White, then quit wasting your time with us numerically and politically insignificant White identitarians and start battling with the billions of non-White Christians around the globe who are proud of their racial and tribal heritage.

If, as you insist, that loving your race is an outright anti-Christian position, then your Christian duty is perhaps to become a missionary in Africa, going from village to village demanding that they abandon their racial and tribal loyalties. We both know you won’t do that, because your prerogative is enforcing the Modern anti-White taboo, and a disingenuous reliance on theological arguments is the way to go about that when attacking your fellow Christians. You’re not a traditionalist. The issue here isn’t segregating identitarians from traditionalists. It’s segregating fundamentalist conservative Moderns like yourself from authentic traditionalists (inb4: not all of whom are necessarily White or pro-White).

The message I leave traditionalist Christians with is best summed up by Mr. Terry himself in the comment section of said article: “The “alternative right” and all the white nationalists are a bunch of modernist atheists and pagans and I no longer care one bit for their “movement” or anything they’re doing. To Hell with them.”

All throughout Christian history, Christians have allied and worked with folks of different denominations and even faiths of varying degrees when it’s been the moral and right thing to do. It’s only an unequal yoking when there’s a loss of perspective and priority. We’re working with secular identitarians toward a secular goal, not marrying them. Whether secular and Christian identitarians can continue working together in common defense of our identity remains to be seen. There are certainly somewhat organized anti-Christian elements who share your interest in guaranteeing that a broad alliance in defense of our faiths, families, and folks never emerges. I think they’ll lose, and I think with time the silent majority of skeptics and folk religionists who aren’t hostile to Christianity will defeat the vocal minority of anti-Christians.

You can begin your fight against hyphenated Christianity by ceasing to be an Anti-White Christian.

See Also: Poor Shotgun is Attacked by a Cultist


  • Shotgun

    Yeah – and I don’t appreciate him trying to use my words out of context to support his position…but whatevs.

    Excellent reply, Parrott!

    As a side note, it’s disingenuous to try and critique National Socialism (and it’s contemporary adherents) by citing a few quotes. Hitler, himself, says in Mein Kampf that his movement isn’t one mired in intellectual abstraction, rather, it’s more of an aesthetic or poetic movement, aimed at capturing the “fly-wheel-like” momentum of the masses (who aren’t able to understand complex philosophical ideals anyway). Childers (a prominent WWII historian) notes that Hitler almost never wrote down his ideas – it’s admittedly difficult to pin him down ideologically. Can Todd really write off the entire thing with just a few cursory, cherry-picked quotes?

    …this is the sort of intellectual dishonesty the zealot (of whatever ideological persuasion) is likely to engage in.

  • J.j. Cintia

    I just love these pseudo Christians with their selected quotes taken out of context to justify their Anti-White Anti-Life satanic positions. Jesus was no socialist, he had no political aims at all besides being the master of mens’ souls to save them from perdition.
    This crap of multiracialism is outright heresy. God himself split men apart to keep them out of the hands of madmen who would enslave them to stupid idolatry of false gods and wasteful tasks such as The Tower of Babel, which caused the splitting of mankind into different races and tongues.
    The New World Order is just a satanic Tower of Babel where a false god called Lucifer wants to misrule mankind by mixing their blood into a mongrel race of worthless meandering slaves.

  • Both sides of this are in error. Todd Lewis claims that Theonomy is “Judaizing” and Parrott claims that Todd Lewis is “anti-white”. Neither are true. But it sure appears that most Christian Nationalists are using Christ as a means to their end.

    Scott, brother, have you gone schizophrenic? This isn’t the first time you have essentially renounced nationalists and the “movement” who/that are not Christian. Then you turn around and essentially deny what you even wrote. I understand that certain life events can spark emotional and hurried remarks, but at least clarify. You are communicating to your audience entirely opposite views, depending on what day of the week you are writing.

    At least clarify, “Hey, you know, I was just really angry at WN’s at the time, and didn’t mean what I wrote about them… I really do want to join in unison with those who hate Christ, for the cause of saving the white race” or whatever. Does that make sense? Please clarify. I don’t want to misunderstand you, and I am sorry you are taking my intentions the wrong way.

    • Swiss Kinist,

      All throughout Christian history, different Christian nations, tribes, and factions have fought between one another for various reasons. There’s nothing un-Christian or heretical about Christians fighting, and there’s nothing heretical about arm’s length alliances with non-Christians in the pursuit of Christian goals.

      To believe otherwise betrays a startling lack of familiarity with theology, history, or even current events. There are multiple flashpoints around the world where Christian factions are fighting amongst themselves. One of those, falling somewhat short of a hot war, is the between between Nationalist Christians and Globalist Christians.

      The anti-White Christians are trying to frame things in theological terms because there are evidently plenty of gullible people out there. The anti-White Christians never hesitate to collaborate with non-Christian globalists when it suits them, and are even gladly working to import Muslims as part of their anti-White agenda.

      Now, I’m not saying Todd Lewis isn’t a Christian. Most of us involved are sincere Christians, but that’s beside the point. Figure out whether you’re a pro-White Christian or an anti-White Christian. If you’re struggling to figure out whether to be pro-White or pro-Christian, then you’ve already endorsed the enemy’s terms. You’re already an anti-White Christian.

      Change your alias to Anti-Swiss Kinist and get on with it.

      Parrott claims that Todd Lewis is “anti-white”. Neither are true.

      Todd Lewis believes that his Christian faith requires him to permit and allow integration, open borders, and miscegenation in his community. He authentically believes that White Genocide is Christ’s work. How could he not be anti-White?

      But it sure appears that most Christian Nationalists are using Christ as a means to their end.

      We’ve been remarkably consistent with our message. Note how I’ve never once accused Todd Lewis of not being a Christian? That’s not because he’s more Christian than we are. It’s because we refuse to stoop to that game of muddying the theological waters to win our secular worldly battles.

      Chrisitanity is for White Nationalists. Christianity is for globalists. Christianity is for Blacks. Christianity is for Arabs. Christianity is for EVERYBODY. It’s catholic, universal. We are not the ones politicizing the gospel. That’s you and your anti-White friends, claiming that Christianity is only for globalists and not for nationalists.

      Besides, the kinds of folks who fall for those tiresome riddles and false dichotomies are of worse than no use to us at this early stage in the struggle for our folk. They can have all the pseudo-intellectuals and armchair prophets. What if we’re struggling for our kinfolk and we’re relying on you in a pinch and some anti-White tosses Galatians 3:28 at you?

      Should we all stand by with our hands in our pockets and wait a few months for you to figure out that the verse is speaking to the universality of the faith rather than requiring miscegenation and mixed-gender restrooms?

      Scott, brother, have you gone schizophrenic? This isn’t the first time you have essentially renounced nationalists and the “movement” who/that are not Christian. Then you turn around and essentially deny what you even wrote. I understand that certain life events can spark emotional and hurried remarks, but at least clarify. You are communicating to your audience entirely opposite views, depending on what day of the week you are writing.

      Scott only appears schizophrenic because you’re stuck in the wrong framing. Presuming the framing is whether one’s going to stand for his faith or his folk, then Scott’s definitely schizophrenic. He appears to be standing for both at the same time. Pick one, Scott, you mental case!

      “Are you White or are you a Christian? Make up your mind!” says the anti-White theological trickster.

      Scott’s trying to navigate our perilous situation as Christian Nationalists. We’re pinned between anti-Christian nationalists on one side and anti-White Christians (like Swiss Kinist and pals) on the other. If you’ve been paying any attention to what’s going on in the “movement,” you would know that we’re constantly at odds with anti-Christian nationalists, and they’re trying to drum us out of the movement because we refuse to put our faith second to our folk.

      We’re not backing down because we refuse to choose between being White and being Christian. We are White and we are Christian. We will neither deny Christ’s message nor betray our extended family. If that actually were the dichotomy, we would stand with Christ. We’re quite convinced that tribal stewardship is part of our Christian duty, so it’s a non-issue. You’ve evidently been convinced otherwise.

      We’re both Christians, but we are enemies. Quit tarrying between the two camps. Quit confusing people by calling yourself a kinist. Head on over to the globalist camp and stay over there.

    • Parrott, just because I don’t violate the 1st commandment and put my race ABOVE my God, does not make me anti-white. You sound no different than those who throw around the term “Racist” to accuse us. It appears you are the one calling for others to choose sides; “either be pro-white or pro-Christian” while you separate the two into categories. The type of Christianity I present, is to be pro-white because I am pro-Christ. In your case, because Christianity is just a means to an end, you can separate the two.

      I am not telling anyone to choose one or the other; that is what you are doing, quite hypocritically. I don’t have to abandon my Kinism simply because I don’t want to violate 2Corinthians 6:14-18. And I don’t have to put my race above Christ in order to stay a Kinist.

      You say I am anti-white; yet a more definite case can be made that you are anti-Christ. I advocate for our people among the Christians that I know and have made progress with them. If that is anti-white, then I don’t know what to tell you. I think you are just upset that a genuine Christian, who IS pro-white, is actually calling you out for what you are; a Christian in name only, who uses Christ as a means to promote his own goals.

      All that said, I still appreciate the positive work you do and don’t consider you an enemy.

    • Swiss Kinist,

      Parrott, just because I don’t violate the 1st commandment and put my race ABOVE my God, does not make me anti-white.

      Read the following very slowly, meditating on it. After reading it, go on a nature walk while reflecting on the words and what they mean:

      If you think that you must choose either your faith or your folk, then you’re already anti-White.

      I’ve said that my faith comes first while sitting down. I’ve said that my faith comes first while standing up. I’ve said that my faith comes first while lying down and while in motion. I’ve integrated it into our FFF slogan, and regularly remind people that there’s an implied order to it. I’ve ordered my private life around my faith. I’ve conformed my behavior substantially to be more Christ-like in my daily life. I’ve repeatedly insisted that Christianity is first and universal, even making a point just moments ago to confirm that I honor Todd Lewis’s sincere faith, despite our differences.

      You sound no different than those who throw around the term “Racist” to accuse us. It appears you are the one calling for others to choose sides; “either be pro-white or pro-Christian” while you separate the two into categories.

      No. You struggle with reading comprehension. I quite clearly and directly insisted, pointedly, that one can be a Christian and be outright anti-White. I even named Todd himself as a sincere Christian who happens to be anti-White. I called that dichotomy false repeatedly, though I evidently didn’t repeat it enough for you to understand it.

      Pro-Tip: “False” means untrue, the opposite of correct; wrong.

      The type of Christianity I present, is to be pro-white because I am pro-Christ. In your case, because Christianity is just a means to an end, you can separate the two.

      Behold the anti-White’s most reliable calling card, accusing those he disagrees with in a secular debate of not being true Christians.

      I don’t have to abandon my Kinism simply because I don’t want to violate 2Corinthians 6:14-18. And I don’t have to put my race above Christ in order to stay a Kinist.

      The implied context is obviously in religious matters. Or are you proposing that one can’t donate to a food drive if there are non-Christians who’ve donated cans? Are you proposing that I shouldn’t shop at Wal-Mart since non-Christians shop there? If a Chinese army crested the hill, would you refuse to fight them alongside your neighbors who don’t belong to your denomination?

      Christ asked the Samaritan woman at the well for a drink, did he not? Perhaps Christ should have been more Christian by refusing to unequally yoke himself with that non-Christian?

      You say I am anti-white; yet a more definite case can be made that you are anti-Christ.

      Of course you’ll call me anti-Christ.

      I advocate for our people among the Christians that I know and have made progress with them. If that is anti-white, then I don’t know what to tell you.

      What’s the point of getting them all proud of and defensive of their identity if you’re only going to inform them later that they must choose between being Christian and being White? Why bother?

      I think you are just upset that a genuine Christian, who IS pro-white, is actually calling you out for what you are; a Christian in name only, who uses Christ as a means to promote his own goals.

      Trying to excommunicate Christians because they disagree with your secular politics is the definition of “using Christ as a means to promote your own goals.” Knock it off.

      All that said, I still appreciate the positive work you do and don’t consider you an enemy.

      Don’t accuse me of not being Christian, accuse me of putting my race before God, collaborate with anti-Whites against my kith and kin, then wrap it up with a bow. Quit unequally yoking yourself with this here project. I consider you an enemy.

    • Shotgun

      Every time I try to “clarify” my views for Swiss Kinist, they’re never understood or accurately interacted with, so… why bother?

    • By the way, if Scott Terry is true to his own doctrine, then by his standards you are not even a Christian. Orthodox “believers” worship idols, a clear violation of God’s law, and idolaters are listed among those who will not enter the kingdom of God.

    • If Christians all agreed on what it meant to be Christian, then we wouldn’t have all these different denominations, now would we?

    • Shotgun

      I’ve never met a Reformed seminarian nor academic theonomist who says Orthodox Christians aren’t actual Christians.

      …I’m sure there may be some, especially among laymen Reformed, who admit as much; they damn any and everyone to Hell anyway. C.S. Lewis is Hellbound on their view.

      Every time I’ve heard a Reformed scholar address the orthodox church, they always say things like “They’re wrong on a lot but right on some things too…”

      Theological mavericks can’t understand that sort of thinking though.

    • Benny Ehud

      They banned me from Faith and Heritage. But I have to respond to James saying that Christianity came to whites first. That’s a lie. The Gospel went to the Jew first, then to gentiles. It’s written in the book.

    • Can you point me to some of Todd Lewis’ writings or podcasts that back up what you are saying about him? I don’t know a whole lot about him, but I know he has been a guest on Traditional Right’s podcast; I would assume he is not anti-white. But by your definition of anti-white, I wouldn’t be surprised; anyone who does not support Trad Youth is obviously anti-white.

    • Swiss Kinist,

      But by your definition of anti-white, I wouldn’t be surprised; anyone who does not support Trad Youth is obviously anti-white.

      Todd Lewis opposes us for being pro-White, not for our failure to take a hostile stance toward nationalists who don’t happen to be Christian. You seem to be projecting your position onto him.

      The dude’s actually quite simply and directly anti-White.

  • Fr. John+

    “I’m not a sola scriptura Protestant, so I’ve got a couple millennia of applied Christian tribalism and nationalism to lean on, but I’ll be a good sport here and play by his Anabaptist house rules….”

    I about fell out of my chair, laughing!

    This is THE crux between REAL Chrsitians and the psedo variety (which includes all prots and Vatican Eww filioquist heretics, along with the Fordham PhD’s in the Scoba-dox category). Once I understood via Dr. Farrell’s ‘God, History, and Dialectic’ that the filioque was the “…. outward, efficacious, and visible symbol of an inward and metaphysical depravity”- (referencing the Anglican Reformer’s view of the Eucharist, parody-fashion) all of the pieces of the puzzle fell into place.

    The modern ‘evan-jelly-goo’ Xtian is nothing less than a heretic who actually thinks he is ‘doing God service;’ [John 16:2] much like the Christ-killing jews of AD 33 Palestine. And for much the same reasons. Trying to mold a god of their own making, into their own Image (‘some children see him black and white, they are precious in his sight’) rather than realize that YHWH God, by being Trinity, has a Son, whose very DNA is hypostatically tied to that of Adam, and who is therefore ETERNALLY incarnated into ONE race, ONE Flesh, One People. And therefore, God has an ETHNOS that is not like the morphing Martian in Bradbury’s Chronicles of the same name, no matter how much the Hamites and the Presbytuckians, and the Baptists ‘white with foam’ may scream ‘nay.’

    In short, the “White Man’s God’ is HIS God, [ Matt. 1:21] for a reason. And multiculturalism/universalism is THE Christological heresy of the 21st century.

    Which clearly makes the multicultural idolator, a heretic, and without the pnevma. Nuff said.

    Happy Thanksgiving to the race of the Ecumene, who gave us Christendom, in the first place.

sermon

By: Matt Parrott


Matt is a founding member of TradYouth and is currently the project's Chief Information Officer. He's been active in the White Identity cause for years, primarily as a blogger but also as a street activist and regional organizer.
%d bloggers like this: