Look at how uncomfortable in their own skin many of the paleos, indentations, nationalists are having to share the Bible and the roots of their own tradition with “the Jew”. Really is a form of ancestor worship.
The very thought that moral authority perhaps does not stem from their own “blood and soil” must be anathema to them.
At least the neo-pagan ones who reject all Abrahamic religions as alien and having been imposed by “the outsider” (we know who) are more self-consistent.
The very thought that moral authority perhaps does not stem from their own “blood and soil” must be anathema to them.
At least the neo-pagan ones who reject all Abrahamic religions as alien and having been imposed by “the outsider” (we know who) are more self-consistent.
Of course I don't know for sure, but I highly doubt that Watchung Eagle (courtesy ping) is a chrstian of any kind. He's much more likely to be in the Revilo P. Oliver/Ben Klassen/Sam Francis/Willis Carto/Francis Parker Yockey school of thought. They don't really have any use for chrstianity themselves, but they respect their "racial brothers and sisters" who have adopted it and made it their own (this is the same attitude atheist Communist Blacks have to Fundamentalist chrstian Blacks, btw).
Take Willis Carto. He always had trouble with Bible-thumpers and, though he didn't share their worldview, tried to crawl inside it to tell them why they should be anti-Jewish. One editorial in his American M*rc*y tried to explain that while Judaism may have been the One True Religion at one time, at a certain time this ceased and it suddenly morphed from the worship of G-d into the worship of "satan" (you know, like 1950s America suddenly morphed from a better, more wholesome time into some kind of Nazi dictatorship). Of course poor dear Willis blew it all away when he wrote another editorial snarking about how the Jews were actually kicked out of Egypt because they had leprosy and then wrote a fictionalized account in which they not only wanted out but the Red Sea actually parted for them! (One of Willis' readers actually had to respond that all true chrstians have to believe that story. It would be interesting the know the thoughts running through his head as he read it.)
But our boy Achtung Baby takes the cake. He actually so much as says that the older, more established part of the bible is somehow to the left of the "new testament." This is inherently impossible, as the whole point of leftism is the overthrow of the old and established by the new and radical (except for when it comes to "indigenous pipples," where Charles Darwin suddenly disappears). How can any proud racialist claim that the "new testament" has more nationalism in it than the TaNa"KH? The Hebrew Bible is all about blood and soil; the "new testament" is universalist, with its insistence that "there is neither male nor female, Jew nor Greek" (Achtung has probably never read either one). Even the so-called "identity" chrstians, who insist that chrstianity is the unique religion of the white race, have to claim to be the "true Israelites" of the "old testament" in order to make such a claim. Even they recognize that there is precious little nationalism or racialism of any kind in the "new testament." And honestly, which is more "right wing"--the Sermon on the Mount, or the Book of Joshua?
The only way I can find any "inherent" racialism or nationalism in chrstianity is from the concept of incarnationism. If G-d became a man (chas vechalilah!), then what kind of man did He allegedly become? He became whatever kind "you" are. To Armenians, chrstianity is the uniquely Armenian religion, the new chosen people (the church is the nation and the nation is the church). But there are no Armenians in the "new testament." The "new testament" says not one word about Armenia. So the Armenians have to make up a post-"new testament" story about J*sus descending from heaven in the fourth chrstian century and hitting the ground with a hammer, showing where the mother Armenian church was to be built and "choosing" Armenia has his speical, select, holy nation.
The Ethiopians take the opposite route. Like the white "Identity" people (talk about irony!), their "chosenness" doesn't come from the "new testament" but from the "old." They claim their ruling house is Davidic, tracing its ancestry back to Solomon and Sheba.
Well, these are extreme examples, but every traditionally chrstian country has this holy nationalist impulse which does not and cannot come from the universalist "new testament." Ireland, Spain, Italy, Greece, Russia, England, and even Protestant America (chosen by G-d as the place where the restored one true religion could be practiced) all have this impulse. Yet nowhere in the "new testament" is there the slightest intimation of such ideas. (Certain right wing Catholics seem to think that the "new testament," or at least immemorial apostolic tradition, contains all the instructions for the European High Middle Ages, including Pope and Emperor, knighthood, chivalry, and everything else.)
But it is what it is. The thing is, while the "old testament" may have all the nationalism and blood-and-soil rootedness that anti-Semites envy and desire for themselves, outside of the Chosen People the rest of the human race remains more or less in the same boat. This is what really rankles them. They think it hypocritical for Jews to claim to be "chosen" while everyone else is stuck with "racial equality," but that's simply the nature of a single chosen people called out from everyone else. These "palaeos" aren't very theological; they're merely identitarian, and they want every people to be "chosen," with its very own "gxd," "true religion," and "holy land." And this the "old testament" most certainly denies. This is the only cause I can find for "nationalist" hatred of the world's oldest nationalism. But to claim to find an authorization for non-Jewish nationalisms or "blood and soil" in the "new testament" (where it plainly doesn't exist) is an act of desperation.
They're obviously pretty desperate.