Due to the large numbers of unbelieving white nationalists and the widespread apostasy of the modern multicultist church, it is crucial to establish the Christian religion as the sine qua non of a robust white nationalist movement. I have already argued that morality, obviously necessary for the moral foundations of white nationalism, requires God as Lawgiver. Yet another consideration is in order. I contend here that the theocentric nature of reality is the only framework in which a love of one’s own people can properly and reasonably be embedded. To elevate race to an ultimate level brings about nihilism by implication, contrary to the purposeful and meaningful struggles of white nationalists. But before I flesh out this conclusion, I need to spend some time explaining particular objections to Christianity vis-à-vis the Christian doctrine of the glory of God.
God’s Glory, Our End
After reading about God’s existence and the nature of morality, some might remain unconvinced of their obligation to worship God. They might still be unsure in their minds as to whether God really exists and, even if He does, why they should be so committed to His worship. Going to church every Sunday to sing songs and give money seems less worthy than opposing the dispossession of possible destruction of European-derived peoples. The commitment to the ostensibly frivolous practices and extraneous doctrines of Christianity just seems to be a commitment to irrelevance. Even if God existed, would He really care if I expended my energy in saving my people rather than in being a Christian? Is He concerned more with my sitting in a pew weekly than with my noble actions to prevent my own ethnic dispossession and death?
Such questioning misunderstands the Christian and commonsense conception of God, or at least fails to draw proper applications therefrom. The living God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and in possession of all other superlative attributes. He is utterly perfect in every way. He is the instantiation and the source of all good, the repository of all gifts, and the fount of all excellence. The consequence of this is that He is utterly and intrinsically worthy of all rational creatures’ worship and obedience: deity’s image-bearers have a primitive (and unqualified) moral obligation to glorify Him in everything, reflecting all praise vertically. All is to be focused on Him.
Along with racial orthodoxy, this doctrine of God is generally neglected by the modern church, which views salvation as primarily meeting a human need. Churchgoers choose to ask Jesus in their hearts because they have a “God-shaped hole” in that organ, or because they need a personal relationship with the Lord, or just because they are told they need to be saved. They might have the motivation to obtain “fire insurance” by turning to Christ, believing in Him primarily to get to heaven. Whatever the variation, salvation becomes on this view the way to get as much happiness out of life as possible, and the preaching of the gospel becomes an appeal to self-interest. Its ultimate end or purpose is therefore human well-being.
Without denying that salvific union with Christ leads to a joyous personal relationship and the fulfillment of a psychological need, neither of those can be one’s ultimate motive in seeking such a union. Our fundamental reason to repent must be ad maiorem Dei gloriam: for the greater glory of God.1 Obedience to God and to His gospel must be motivated within our souls by the apprehension that He is completely worthy of our obedience, an obedience we have completely failed to give Him. We ought to obey Him—even if hell is our destination (cf. Rom. 9:3)—simply because He is worthy to be obeyed and glorified in our obedience, not because we expect future reward. His glory ought to be an end rather than a mere means; human happiness ought to be strictly subsidiary.
This preeminent aim for God’s glory ought to characterize all our actions, not merely our pursuit of salvation. For instance, our motivation to help a neighbor in need should not be that our neighbor is our highest end, for God is. Likewise, our motive to support our family through material gain should not be that our family is our highest end, for God is. And the same goes with the extended families that our ethnic and racial groups are. We have obligations to love and benefit our people, our “kinsmen according to the flesh,” yet these obligations, to be morally situated, must be subordinated to our love for God, as He is our summum bonum. There will sometimes be conflicts between these lesser goods and the Good Himself, such as when family members entice us to sin, but ordinarily we serve God precisely through our service unto the natural relations He has given us. At times we must oppose father and mother for Jesus’s sake, since they are lesser loves than God Himself (Matt. 10:34-37), but in the natural course of events, where family members have not sinfully disrupted God’s order by making familial allegiance supersede God’s claims upon us, we show our love for God primarily through our love for family. Jesus Himself castigated the Pharisees for encouraging children to “serve God” by denying provisions for their own fathers and mothers; He rightly saw such a moral imbalance as a denial of the fifth commandment (Matt. 15:3-6). We likewise need to strike this balance concerning race, seeing it as an important moral end, yet not the highest one.
Such a balanced kinist view of race and God’s glory is entirely lost on unbelieving white nationalists, who interpret this exaltation of God’s glory as egalitarian. Witness, again, Gregory Hood’s article on the subject:
And of course, that divine order is, at its heart, egalitarian. Though Christianity properly understood does not demand egalitarianism, racial suicide, or messianic liberalism, the central doctrines of the cult of the cross make this evolution natural. Like acid, Christianity burns through ties of kinship and blood – as Christ states “He that loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.”
God did not create the family and command us to honor it only to then deny the propriety of all familial allegiances. Our family is an ever-important moral good, and so long as, in God’s providence, family members do not sinfully cause others to choose between family and God, our choice to love God necessarily results in love for our families. Because family is a natural institution created by God, it is a means by which we ordinarily can demonstrate our love for Him. Conflicts between the lesser good of family and the greater good of God emerge only if sin has driven a wedge into this natural order. But the same occurs with race: it is a divine creation of God to provide national and societal harmony, peace, and stability, and consequently it is a real and important moral end, just not the highest one. Christianity is so far from “burning through ties of kinship and blood” that it actually establishes them, for God has designed us to especially love our blood relations.
God’s Glory, His End
On the anthropocentric view, not only does man, in salvation, act ultimately for man’s good, but God does as well. The presumed motive for God to create the universe in the first place was to enter into a “love relationship” with humans, and the only reason any suffering occurs in the world is for the future benefit of the sufferers, rather than any satisfaction of retributive justice. According to modern philosophical literature on the “problem of evil,” any painful events that occur in the world require a justification on God’s behalf located in His love rather than His justice, since God loves everyone equally and bears no other disposition towards them. This type of theology is thus overtly man-centered, viewing man’s joy as God’s highest goal. As these humanists conceive of the issue, what else could He value?
Against this egalitarian error of the modern church, Scripture clearly states, again and again, that God acts for His own glory, or “for His name’s sake” (e.g. 1 Sam. 12:22; 2 Sam. 7:23; Ps. 23:3; 31:3; Jer. 14:7; Isa. 63:12; Ezek. 20:9). The Puritan philosopher and theologian, Jonathan Edwards, likewise wrote that the end for which God created the world was His own glory, the manifestation of “a supreme and ultimate regard to himself in all his works.”2 Sheer logic even demands it: man is a contingent rather than necessary being, and therefore it is absurd that God, as a necessary being, should hold us contingent creatures as His ultimate end. Such a conception would involve a great deficiency in the self-existent Trinity apart from the creation of the universe; the three blessed Persons would not be persisting in self-sufficient intra-trinitarian love and indwelling, but would rather be unfulfilled and lacking until the creation of man. Worse, after creation, this man-worshiping God would not even fulfill His purposes, as a substantial mass of mankind would eventually enter perdition! This is neither a reasonable nor a biblical conception of the God of Scripture and of nature, all of whose plans will certainly come to pass (Ps. 115:3; Job 42:2).
The centrality of God’s glory is a cardinal truth of the Christian faith. Normatively speaking, all our actions ought to strive towards the effulgence of His everlasting fame (1 Cor. 10:31), and positively speaking, all being converges and will converge on the resplendent glory of God.
Consequent Obligations for Unbelievers and Agnostics
What should be obvious from this doctrine of God is the comprehensive transformation it ought to effect in a believer’s life, even apart from direct supernatural influence. Even if God does not exist, it is true that if He does, He would clearly be the focal point of all that is and of all human thought; and therefore those who believe in His existence would grasp the immorality of denying Him the total and complete reverence, worship, and obedience which He intrinsically deserves. Even if believers were completely wrong, it is lucid that they, to be consistent, ought to act in an overtly theocentric way, ordering their lives with Him at the center.
What this implies, in turn, is that unbelievers, if they are wrong, are also committing great sin by denying God the worship and obedience He deserves. And unless they think that the issue is fully settled, that atheism has been stringently and fully demonstrated, it therefore follows that they could be very, very wrong about the way they are living their lives, and consequently ought to heavily investigate the question. Even the hypothetical proposition that God might exist, given His existence’s behavioral and noetic implications, obliges unbelievers (and believers, for that matter) to seek out the question and follow the true religion. The weightiness of this conditional proposition—if God exists, then He deserves our full obedience—should oblige anyone skeptical of the question to seek out the answer with all his heart and mind. In other words, obeying the first commandment, which prohibits idolatry and mandates the worship of the true God, is an obvious obligation we can perceive from the created order (cf. Rom. 1:18-21).
Unfortunately, many unbelievers, not apprehending the vital importance of the life of the mind, fail to act in accord with their obligation to seek out the question of God’s existence and how to obey Him properly. The vast majority of people frankly lack any interest in truth, selfishly concerned more with the various mundane events and tasks of their own lives than with anything to do with God. Certainly, many will be (more or less selflessly) preoccupied with rather important responsibilities, such as supporting a family or even striving to resist anti-white forces; but to disregard the pursuit of God, who is Himself Truth, is heinously foolish (cf. Ps. 14:1). Yet even with that qualification, frivolities such as television, idle chatter, and video games, as well as the sin of fornication, are the predominant idols of the modern pantheon. Engrossed with these gods which are no gods, most unbelievers today, including the vast preponderance of professing believers, practice a mindless atheism. They are not studied atheists or studied agnostics, but just religious apathists. Their desert will be just.3
This silences the objection of the apathist who sees no good reason to even pursue the God-question. It is not as if one must choose between boring church banalities and determined white nationalism. The inquiry of the true worship and obedience of God is the most important investigation one could undertake.
Theocentrism the Alternative to Nihilism
While I have answered the objection that becoming a Christian and worshiping God through His Son seems like a purposeless superfluity in contrast with the purposefulness of irreligious white nationalism, I additionally contend that any pursuit, white nationalism included, becomes meaningless when divorced from a God-glorifying and theocentric outlook. Christian worship and practice is not only compatible with the purposefulness of white nationalism, but necessary unto it.
While atheism in several ways entails the objective lack of meaning, value, or purpose in life,4 there is additionally a significant sense in which idolatry—elevating a lesser entity to the place of God—by implication reduces life to absurdity. On the Christian view, the glory of God is the end or telos by which every subsidiary purpose gains its significance. Every other human pursuit attains meaningfulness inasmuch as it relates to the everlasting glory of God. (On a similar note, consider how theology is the “queen of the sciences.”) This overarching purpose to life is also inexhaustible; even 10,000 years in glory will not work to complete this end.
By contrast, every subsidiary end is necessarily finite and exhaustible. God Himself can suffuse these various ends with meaning, but on their own they can have meaning only through the subjective intention of human agents. Without God, existentialism surfaces, and so does the existentialist maxim that meaning is whatever you make of something. Do you love your family and seek to help them? Do you love yourself and seek to live a life of gratuitous hedonism? Both of these are equally legitimate options, so long as you find them meaningful. The worthless and destructive love of fornication and television becomes as objectively meaningful as the most ostensibly important white nationalist movement. All that is important is that you “stick to your values,” whatever values you so choose to have. This problem of existentialist worthlessness springs up in any godless worldview. The only answer is Christian theism.
It is true that we intuitively recognize certain purposes as possessing objective goodness, and certain purposes as having substantially more objective goodness than others; but this recognition on unbelieving presuppositions must be explained as just what we feel due to cultural consensus. Society just happens to agree that certain purposes (say, raising money for the poor) garner more outward esteem. However, to be consistent, no unbeliever could affirm that any purposes have greater objective goodness.
This reduction of goodness-recognition to subjective consensus is worthless and inadequate; the true doctrine is that we correctly recognize various ends as better than others. A life of hedonism is objectively worse and less meaningful than a life devoted to one’s family. But if we can clearly recognize objective meaning in its varying degrees, then God’s existence, and the entire theocentric worldview associated with Him, becomes a necessity.5
God’s glory must be central in everything we do, the (temporal and eternal) salvation of our people included. Yet, the motive to obey God is not that we may attain heaven, nor that it will benefit white people, nor that it will bring about world Christianization. The fundamental reason we all ought to repent and believe in God is because He irreducibly and intrinsically deserves our obedience; He is glorified in and by it. We ought to see God as worthy of our obedience and love even if we can expect hell as our ultimate destination. Contrary to anthropocentric theologies, everything we do needs to converge on God’s glory.
Furthermore, since everything gains meaning inasmuch as it reflects its own glorification unto the Creator-King, a proper view of race, and a love of for European-derived peoples in particular, must be embedded in a more comprehensive worldview which values the glory of God above all else. Without such an inexhaustible end of our existence, all degenerates into nihilism. Religion in principle must trump race, lest race decay into meaningless existentialist drivel. Although motivated by a righteous desire to see white people increase and prosper, unbelieving white nationalists, whether pagan or humanist, need to affirm the God of the Bible as the Savior of Europe.
- Do not interpret the inclusion of this phrase as an endorsement of the Jesuits. ↩
- See Edwards’s piece with that exact title, “The End For Which God Created the World,” for a fuller inquiry: http://www.prayermeetings.org/files/Jonathan_Edwards/JE_A_Dissertation_Concerning_The_End_For_Which_God_Create.pdf. ↩
- I should qualify this by also noting that people are differently equipped in their intellects to properly wade through all the evidence for the true religion. Christ’s righteous judgment will certainly take this into account. ↩
- For instance, see this excellent question-and-answer by William Lane Craig. ↩
- As with the article on morality, one could again object that this proves only generic theism, and not Christianity specifically; but again, I am not concerned with a cumulative-case apologetic in this singular article. If the options are reduced to deism, Islam, Judaism, and Christianity, then, especially given the white demographics of historic Christendom, I doubt that atheistic white nationalists will see the other three options to be as prima facie acceptable as biblical religion. ↩