Churches, Cults and Front Groups

Because of the relative freedom of speech online, the pro-White movement has attracted an unprecedented number of young white people. It’s because being for your own race is natural and forced “diversity” and “multi-culturalism” are unnatural. A lot of these young people are discovering the “right wing” and traditionalist ideas of the past. This is a good development, but one problem we are alreadying seeing is that because a lot of this generation doesn’t really know anything about America’s unique Protestant Christian tradition, they are suspectible to smooth talking con-men using the Bible as a prop.

In Christianity, there is a concept called “Ecclesiastical polity” that has to do with the structure and authority of the Church. These concepts are applicable to many social institutions and often an ecclesastical polity has a secular counterpart. For instance, the ecclisastical polity of the Southern Baptist Convention has a political counterpart called “anarcho-syndicalism.”

In Kevin MacDonald’s recent lectures on the origin of White people, he mentioned two cultural types that Europe sprang from. First was the “hunter-gatherer” groups. These were small, independent groups where blood relations and clain ties were deempaphasized and a “moral ingroup” defined insiders and outsiders. The second type is “Indo-European” which had a defined “ruling class” that were essentially imperialists. Members of the ruling class were also more or less “equal” to each other but above their subjects.

Polity tends to go from “high church” to “low church.” The Roman Catholic church and the Eastern Ortodox Church are at the “high church” end of the spectrum, while the Quakers are at the extreme of the “low church.” “Low churches” have little to no hierarchy, while the “high church” has a rigid and well defined hierarchy.

Presbyterianism has its own very specific and very well thought out system of Eccliastical policy. In fact, Presbyterian ecclisastical polity had a direct impact on the structures of modern European democracies and republics.

Presbyterians thought long and hard about these issues, and their polity developed over time as they faced new challenges. The purpose of the polity is to keep the church from degenerating into a cult or a cult of personality.

In America, we have freedom of religion, so any jackass can start calling himself a “Presbyterian” and no one can stop him. But the actually existing Presbyterian institutions don’t have to recognize just any old jackass using their name.

High churches have this a bit easier. You can call yourself a Catholic but if the pope ex-communicates you, so aren’t a Catholic anymore. Matt Heimbach and Matt Parrott can lie and call themselves “orthodox” and they, like “Brother Nathaniel” the Jew, can dress up in a priest costume and wave around a cross, but no one in the actual Orthodox church recognizes them. The Southern Baptist Convention has a rather unique system of polity of mutually-recognized independent congregations. Anyone can call themselves a “Baptist” but if no other Baptists recognize you, you’re just some crank.

American Protestant Christianity is unique; it developed in a unique way under different circumstances than the churches in Europe.

There have been three major “infiltrations” of American Protestant Christianity, movements that originated outside of the Church but nevertheless were influential in the Church. The first of these was Fundamentalism, which was a well financed movement by business leaders to uncut the labor movement in the early 1900s. The second of these was Pentecostalism which is where racial integraton was introduced. The third was Christian Zionism which really took off under D. L. Moody of Chicago and reached its zenith in the Air Force during George W. Bush’s presidency.

Rushdooney is most well known for his book Institutes of Biblical Law which was named after John Calvin’s magnum opus, Institutes of the Christian religion. He was very influential in the “religious right” of the 1970s-1980s. There was, of course, a huge backlash against the cultural revolution of the 1960s, and Christians began to create a “parallel” set of cultural institutions. While this was usually not purposefully segregationist, it definiately had segregationist tendencies. Rushdooney was essentially the Godfather of the Christian home school movement and the religious right in general.

Of course, Rushdooney stepped down from his church when he divorced his first wife and married another woman, making him an adulterer and by his own standards should have received the death penalty. But free of the institutions of the actual Church, he built what was essentially a cult of personality around himself.

In actually existing Christian churches, Rushdooney’s ideas basically started a revival, but it also attracted a number of cranks who had no actual ties to any existing Christian institution. As was typical of such movements, once outside of the actual Church institutions, “theonomy” simply became a series of cults-of-personalities and publishing businesses. By the time Rushdooney’s son Gary North took over the enterprise it had devolved into a get-rich-scheme to sell cassette tapes and books much of it only minimally related to Christianity.

So what we have here is a front group cherry-picking some of the most “extreme” of Rushdooney’s “theonomist” ideas – without any connection to any real existing church group. Anybody can declare they are a “theonomist” but are any of these people actually involved in these actually existing Church institutions that the religious right set up in the last 50 years?

Rushdooney had specific ideas about how the local church congregation was supposed to be run. Sure, even if he himself was basically a hypocrite and didn’t practice what he preached, nevertheless Christians all around America took his ideas to heart and created a number of real life institutions based on these ideas.

What about the fake front-group, Traditional Youth Network? Do they have any actual organic ties to any actual Christian group?

Does Scott Terry actually have real life connections to any actual Presbyterian church? Or even an actual theonomist-oriented group? Because anybody can declare themselvse to be anything they want, anybody can say they want to institute Biblical law. Anybody can make statements that various groups should be executed according to Biblical law. But theonomy was about a hell of a lot more than just stoning people, although those ideas did specifically tend to attract a certain type of fanatic.

What we have here in the White Nationalist movement are a bunch of posers pretending that they speak for Christians. They don’t. No one is trying to drive out Christians from the White Nationalist movement. In reality, we have a bunch of trolls pretending to be Christians are starting divisions.

Parrott and Heimbach aren’t even smart enough to make a convincing go of it. Heimbach said he read one book about the Iron Guard so he decided to “convert” to orthodox Christianity. He doesn’t know anything about orthodoxy, he literally just read some book. A serious convert to a real religion like orthodoxy would place themselves under the authority of the legitimate church authorities and an hones person would seek to LEARN something about their faith, not try to twist that new faith to be compatible with their pre-existing political ideas.

I’m guessing that Scott Terry is about the same; learned a few catchphrases, picked up the “radical” scary parts, then poses online as a theonomist. The only actual theonomist idea he seems to care about is stoning people; that gets peoples attention, that’s “radical.” But the meat of theonomy? The really existing practical application of those ideas as they related to the actual Christian Church, Presbyterian or otherwise?

I’m guessing no. It’s all very, very obvious that the Traditional Youth Network and the people around them are essentially “riffing” on ideas they seem to know very little about.

Since most people in the White Nationalist movement don’t really know much about American Christianity, it’s easy to fake it.

You know, until they get caught by people who DO know.

2 thoughts on “Churches, Cults and Front Groups

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s