We Gotta have Faith in the Alt-Right

Now that the Alt-Right has become the beacon of unity for the WhRight, one of the more promising trends I've noticed is the reversion to faith. I say “promising” not as a giddy Bible thumper, but as one who understands the importance of faith in a society. The revolutionaries who created America understood the importance of faith, too. George Washington said as much in his farewell speech to the nation:

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism who should labor to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness-these firmest props of the duties of Men and citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

The founding fathers were brilliant and brave men. They were also European men of Christian faith. Not one of those four characteristics are irrelevant or interchangeable. You can't exchange any combination of those four traits and expect the same result (eg - brilliant for average; brave for cowardly; European for African; Christian for atheist = America). Anyone who thinks such, probably also believes that you can pluck negroes out of the Congo, give them a pair of shoes and teach them how to read and BAM! Suddenly they're Europeans with black skin.

For those who cite some quote by Jefferson, or Franklin, or God forbid, Thomas Paine (the Godfather of shitlibs whose anti-Christian rhetoric made him so popular that a whopping six people attended his funeral) to insinuate the lack of unified faith amongst the founders are completely missing the point. Unlike White Nationalists, the think tank consensus within the Alt-Right seems to understand that nationalism isn't about me, it's about We; that nationalism is a collective concept, not a LARPing precept. That traditional American values are explicitly and culturally Christian.

The significance is not so much that so-and-so (insert influential Alt-Right name) wholeheartedly believes that Jesus was the son of God and rose from dead, or walked on water, or turned water into wine. It's that so-and-so understands the role that faith plays in a prosperous, homogeneously White society. And not just faith, but what faith represents.

Faith represents tomorrow. Faith represents hope. Faith represents camaraderie. Faith represents unity. Faith represents humility. Faith represents love. And probably most importantly, faith represents forgiveness. We are all wrecked by shame to some degree (if you're not shameful of anything you've done, you're most likely a sociopath).

Personally speaking, it's not about whether the resurrection really happened, it's about the unburdening of sin and shame that Jesus' crucifixion represents for the hearts and souls of humanity. This enables us as individuals in a society to accept our flaws and move on and be productive members of the community. To avoid divulging in degeneracy in order to escape our past transgressions. In my humble opinion, this is the miracle of Christianity.

Hebrews 11:1 in the Bible defines faith as, “the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” I like to differentiate between hope and faith. Both are very powerful concepts, but hope tends to be anticipatory, fear-based thought (I hope I don't get cancer; I hope blacks don't move in next door; etc), whereas faith is trust-based action in the Now (forgiveness, prayer, loyalty, etc).

Theologians have long argued whether the gift of God referenced in Ephesians 2:9 (For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God) is salvation or faith. As one who has struggled with faith, I personally think that faith is the gift of salvation.

I'm 100% positive that there are those logically minded anti-Christians reading this and thinking to themselves (or aloud) that I'm full of shit. I'm just another holy-roller who wants to push his ideas onto others.

Far from the truth.

The primary point of this piece is to establish the vital role that faith plays in a healthy White society. Again, it's about We, not about me. To illustrate my point, I'll provide some insight into my personal philosophy.

First of all, I don't believe man can conceptualize God (have you ever asked someone to define God?). I believe a man's philosophy should transcend his theology. Mortal man is incapable of knowing absolute truth, only relative truth (truth is perception). St. Augustine surmised that absolute truth certainly had to exist independent of the observer. I suppose that if we could escape the limitations of our consciousness that we could know the definitive yes or no answers to all the big questions (Is there a God? Or, man's ultimate question, according to Hawking, which is to know the mind of God.).

Then I realized that we wouldn't just have to escape our individual consciousness, but would have to get outside the limitations of the human consciousness all together (exist as nothing observing everything). That path led me to biocentrism, where I concluded that what we perceive as reality is a process that involves our consciousness. That our consciousness creates the universe and not the other way around. That the universe exists because of creation, and not from a random collision.

So, do I believe in God? Absolutely! Is it the God of the Christian Bible? I'm not sure, but everyday I'm thankful that somebody was willing to give his life for my sins.

Hopefully, by sharing my views I was able to illustrate that my motive isn't to shove Jesus down your throat. But enough about me, the relative question is what do you believe?

For decades, religion has been one of (if not THE) the biggest ideological dividers concerning White Nationalists. This is obviously understandable for two primary reasons:

1. The importance that WNs place on the JQ, and the Jewish genesis of Christianity.
2. White nationalism is intellectualism.

Let me clarify a few things first. When we say “White Nationalist” we're speaking euphemistically, not realistically (as I said in this paper a few years ago: Is White Nationalism Real?). And that's totally fine. We need to be the authors of our terminology (gays do it, blacks do it, illegals do it; narrative control is crucial to acceptance). But let's be honest, intellectualism is about how far you can piss and who you can piss on, as opposed to what you have to say and what difference it's going to make in the grand scheme of things.

White nationalists tend to put their faith in logic. The problem with being logical regarding faith is that logic is the enemy of faith. It's an apples/aliens argument. As much as I appreciated Ken Ham's attempt to debate Bill Nye, it was futile and counterproductive. Trying to “prove” the Bible is truth kinda defeats the whole purpose of faith, doesn't it? Jesus addressed this in the Bible with the story of doubting Thomas (Jesus said to him,“Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”)

The logically minded, anti-Christian WN would say something like, “Christianity is a Jewish religion that centers around the worship of a dead jew on a stick.” Or, “Christianity is a passive religion that is largely responsible for White people turning the other cheek while our countries are flooded with non-whites.” I know this, because I've read and said these same things myself countless times. But it's a dead end street. Nobody understands the Bible, they just pretend to (they might be able to regurgitate scripture, but they really don't understand most of it). That's one of the great things about Christianity. It's open for translation, which is why there are so many denominations with different interpretations of scripture. However, I don't believe the tenets of Christianity are universal. What I mean by that is religion is cultural, like language. The people and the religion have to be compatible. For example, Islam isn't a good fit for Europeans. So if Europeans had adopted Islam during the Crusades, European Islam would culturally and spiritually be a lot like today's Christianity. Scorsese does a good job illustrating this concept in his film Silence. The movie's plot centers around Portugese priests who want to spread Christianity into Japan in the 1600s. Liam Neeson discovered that the Japanese people weren't congruent with Christianity. That they weren't capable of the same level of abstract thought as Europeans, which is an essential component for Christian faith. Neeson gives the example that the Japanese think in terms of nature. So when he mentioned the son of God, they would process that abstraction as the sun.

Pre-1960's, Christianity was very racial (pro-White), patriotic and nationalistic before the fangs of cultural Marxism injected their venom into the church. The founding fathers understood that as America socially “progressed,” the church would be susceptible. After all, the church is just an extension of society. People assume that the separation of church and state was meant to protect the state from the church, and it was to some extent. But it was also meant to protect the church from the state. The church's evolution over the last 50 years is exactly what Jefferson hoped to prevent when he addressed the subject in the constitution,

Don't get me wrong. Organized religion isn't flawless. Christianity isn't flawless, either. It definitely has a Jewish element. So, I'm not saying go to church this Sunday and sing “Jesus loves me” and all our/your problems will be gone. But consider this: the primary targets of political correctness are the institutions of Western morality. What institution represents the constitution of Western morality more than any other? The Christian church; which along with academia has been under perpetual attack by the radical Left for the last 50 years. Just the simple fact that Jews hate Christ so much should at least steer WNs in that general direction. Just look at the persecution Mel Gibson went through for making The Passion of the Christ, which accurately implicated the Jew's complicity in the crucifixion of Christ.

Nonetheless, the church is only as strong as its preacher. Preachers are men, and men are conformists. When the ethnostate is formed, faith will be paramount. I'm confident the future founding fathers (as did America's founding fathers) will agree.

In my most recent book, an army of White men procured part of Idaho as a White homeland. Their constitution gave them the right to freedom of religion, but atheism was prohibited. A belief system in nothing is just stupid. Anyone dumb enough to have a belief system in nothing is also dumb enough to think they are a man trapped in a woman's body. Or dumb enough to adopt a horde of Haitians. Or dumb enough to think borders are racist (actually they are, but for good reason).

Faith isn't just about thought control. There are countless examples of the benefits that faith has on a society. There is data that supports the correlation of faith and religious practice with social stability and individual well-being. Specifically:

Greater educational aspirations and attainment, especially among the poor

Higher levels of marital happiness and stability

Higher levels of good work habits

Greater longevity and physical health

Higher levels of well-being and happiness

Higher recovery rates from addictions to alcohol or drugs

Higher levels of self-control, self-esteem, and coping skills

Higher rates of charitable donations and volunteering

Higher levels of community cohesion and social support for those in need

Lower divorce rates

Lower cohabitation rates

Lower rates of out-of-wedlock births

Lower levels of teen sexual activity

Less abuse of alcohol and drugs

Lower rates of suicide, depression, and suicide ideation

Lower levels of many infectious diseases

Less juvenile crime

Less violent crime

Less domestic violence

According to Patrick Fagan of the Heritage Foundation:

“No other dimension of life in America -with the exception of stable marriages and families, which in turn are strongly tied to religious practice- does more to promote the well-being and soundness of the nation's civil society than citizens' religious observance. As George Washington asserted, the success of the Republic depends on the practice of Religion by its citizens. These findings from 21st century social science support his observation.”

And I haven't event mentioned the benefits of birth rates, which might just be the most important factor of all. Fundamentalist Christians (like the Amish and Mennonites; even Baptists and Pentecostals to an extent) reproduce like rabbits. And guess what? Their offspring are White! Healthy White societies produce healthy birth rates.

The Alt-Right mantra is: We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White children.

Remember, it's not about me, it's about We. And....

We gotta have faith!

The Trans/Sociopath Overlap

About a year ago I became interested in the study of sociopaths and the effects they have on society. I read several books on the subject, but one of particular interest to me was titled, Confessions of a Sociopath: A Life Spent Hiding in Plain Sight. Unlike the books, The Sociopath Next Door and The Psychopath Test, Confessions of a Sociopath was written by a sociopath, therefore the narrative was focused on insight as opposed to observation.

For those uneducated on the topic, sociopaths lack empathy (for all intents and purposes, sociopaths and psychopaths are the same thing, but for the sake of confusion I'll use the term sociopath). Jay Harris defines sociopathy as such:

“Sociopathy is a syndrome in which either one or both of the orbital frontal association cortices cannot assess socially unconditioned somatic signals. Sociopaths cannot emotionally condition social experience. Because they have no capacity for emotional organization, sociopath’s source memory has no relevance to behavior.”

One of the most common tests to diagnose sociopaths is the Hare Psychopathy Checklist (a score of 30 or more confirms diagnosis as a sociopath/psychopath; most people have at least a few of the traits). There aren't any conclusive theories as to the cause of sociopathy, and there is no treatment or therapy. Some think sociopaths are born that way, others (myself included) believe sociopaths have the genetic predisposition to sociopathy that is environmentally triggered very early in life (toddler years or before). Estimates vary (sociopaths know they're different and avoid psychiatrists like the plague, so conclusive data is difficult to attain), but anywhere from 1% - 5% of people in the U.S. are thought to be sociopaths (more extensive research is done on prisoners and roughly 15% - 25% of the U.S. prison population is made up of sociopaths, which is also about the same percentage of inmates who engage in homosexual activity while incarcerated). Individualized societies, like the U.S., are more conducive to producing a higher percentage of sociopaths than collective cultures, like in East Asian countries, where that type of behavior is intolerable and virtually non-existent (.003% according to a study in Taiwan). In a trust-based society populated by people who operate on shared morals, sociopaths (particularly those of high IQ; sociopath intelligence is represented along the same bell curve as non-sociopaths) game the system without emotional hangups such as remorse or guilt. The higher sociopathic prevalence in individualistic cultures like the U.S. is likely the result of natural selection (there are evolutionary advantages to being a sociopath, as well as having sociopaths in a society). To the sociopath, life is viewed through the tunnel-visioned lens of wins and losses. The high IQ sociopath has the tendency to become a CEO, lawyer or politician (10 most common professions that attract sociopaths). The average IQ sociopath plays sexual partners for personal gain, becomes a soldier or games the welfare system. The low IQ sociopath commits petty crimes to see if he can get away with it. Life literally is viewed as a game.

In her book Confessions of a Sociopath, the author M.E. Thomas (who writes pseudonymously) is a diagnosed sociopath who founded and moderates a website for sociopaths. She writes that she has dealt with thousands of sociopaths (and non-sociopaths - “empaths,” as she calls them - who think they might be sociopathic) on her forum, and she claims that of the many questions she is asked on a daily basis, the main one is, “Do you think I'm a sociopath?” It's common for many people to have several sociopathic traits, but, aside from lacking empathy, which only that person knows for sure, she ultimately bases her determination on taking jabs at their sexuality (eg “What, are you gay or something?”). Sociopaths don't have an identity, they play roles (remember, life is a game to them). Thomas states she has encountered thousands of sociopaths and she has never met one who wasn't at least bisexual (herself included). If the person takes offense to her sexual ribs, she eliminates them as a sociopath. When you consider that homosexuals and sociopaths represent roughly the same percentage of the population (about 2% of the U.S. population is homosexual), and exhibit many of the same personality traits and characteristics (narcissism, high suicide rates, Machiavellian, disregard for personal safety, etc) it's almost analytically impossible to ignore the possibility that there may be a huge overlap between the two groups. In fact, the majority may be one in the same. This observation led me to pose the following hypothesis: All sociopaths are LGBTQ, and most LGBTQ are sociopaths (if I'm basing my hypothesis primarily off of Thomas' theory, technically it would be just B, but B is G, and G is Q, and Q is L, and T is just confusing, so, I decided to include all the letters as not to discriminate; tomayto, tomahto). Undoubtedly, detractors will pass this hypothesis off as homophobic conjecture, but due to lack of empirical evidence (according to Thomas, sociopaths know they're “different” and refuse to go to psychiatrists. There's nothing advantageous that accompanies a sociopathic diagnosis.), the doubter's rebuttal would be conjecture as well.

The significance of this, aside from homosexuality being accurately identified as a mental disease, as it was until 1990 (personally I view homosexuality as a genetic defect that acts as an evolutionary firewall for the gene pool), is on exhibit in the status quo. The “trans” agenda is currently at the forefront of the Marxist movement. Ten years ago nobody had even heard of the term “transgender,” and now 1.4 million Americans identify as such, doubled in just the last five years:

About 1.4 million adults in the United States identify as transgender, double a widely used previous estimate, based on new federal and state data.

As the national debate escalates over accommodations for transgender people, the new figure, though still just 0.6 percent of the adult population, is likely to raise questions about the sufficiency of services to support a population that may be larger than many policy makers assumed.

“From prior research, we know that trans people are more likely to be from racial and ethnic minorities, particularly from Latino backgrounds,” Jody L. Herman, a scholar of public policy at the institute, said. “And they are also younger.”

The following prediction almost seems to easy: Five years from now, at least 2.8 million people will identify as “transgender.” But will there really be that many more people held hostage in the opposite sex's body? Or will the vast majority be sociopaths disguised as “transtrenders” doing their part to unweave the moral fabric of society for their “misery seeks company” pleasures? Doesn't it seem as if homosexuals and sociopaths are the happiest when they make others unhappy? All in the name of love and rainbows, of course.

If the trans/sociopath overlap were established at a disproportionately high rate, almost certainly that would discredit the trans movement. Sociopaths at their worst are serial killers, and at their best are emotionless predators gaming something or someone. SJWs will have a hard time finding advocates of potential serial killers (although I'm sure there will be a few disturbed souls on board, like the feminist who proudly held her “Will trade racists for rapists” sign). Even if researchers found my hypothesis inaccurate, I'm confident that the findings would show a statistically superfluous amount of trans-sociopaths, as well as trans-psychotics.

Transgender isn't an identity, it's a role. It's not a physiological reality manifested independently, it's a psychological delusion based on conformity and collusion. A person is born either male of female, any gender identity differing from one's biological anatomy is an influenced, assumed role. Nobody would check the “trans” box if that box didn't exist. As Steve Jobs used to say, “people don't know what they want until you show it to them” (for the record, I believe Jobs was a sociopath). As I've already stated, and which can't be overemphasized, sociopaths don't have an identity, they play roles. But nonetheless, as a rational empathetic person, I'm all for compromise. I wouldn't have a problem with Washington D.C. granting gender neutral driver's licenses as long as the licensees agreed to submit to a psychiatric evaluation to prove that they aren't delusional or sociopathic. As healthcare officials will attest, the biggest problem with mental illness, is the mentally ill don't think they're mentally ill and refuse treatment. As long as they can pass an examination that states they aren't a threat to themselves or society, and aren't sociopaths gaming the system, then give them their desired “X” for gender on their driver's license (and if Target wants to spend $20 million to build gender neutral bathrooms in all their stores, that's their decision, but considering their stock has dropped 25% since the announcement, and during a record high bull market at that, their PR stunt speaks for itself).

The Army has a slogan that says, “be all you can be.” I agree 100%; as individuals we should be all we can be. Not just for ourselves, but for our family, our nation and our God. But in the same breath we shouldn't be disillusioned by ourselves, or anyone else, into believing we're something we are not (it took awhile, but about age 17 I realized I wasn't Larry Bird). The transgender movement of today, will be the trans God-knows-what of tomorrow (radical liberalism can't stay stagnant, it always has to double down). In my mind, the only difference in a woman who claims she's really man and a wacko like Jim Jones who claimed to be the messiah is that it's still politically correct to call Jim Jones a wacko (I was actually banned from Facebook recently for saying, “Trannies are mentally ill”).

The modus operandi of the trans movement is transparent: transplant the morals of traditional Western culture with the depressive emptiness of degenerative Marxism. The modus operandi of the sociopath is also transparent: assume whatever role necessary to achieve the end goal, leaving a path of destruction along the way. When the two are merged you have another cog in the wheel for a future cultural Marxist dystopia.