Contra Traditional Youth Network: Christianity Cannot Be Hyphenated

By Todd Lewis

I’ve been following the Traditional Youth Network (TYN) for some time after my run-in with Matt Parrott over 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 exchanged a few words with Mr. Parrott over his comments on the Ken Ham/Bill Nye debate here: https://praiseoffolly.wordpress.com/contra-parrott-the-emptiness-of-third-way-anthropology/ Brief introductions aside, this paper concerns the recent schism between White Nationalists at the National Policy Institute (NPI)  and white-nationalist-Christians (or is it Christian-white-nationalists?) over at TYN. I remember an article  where Clement, The Swiss Kinist, and myself were arguing with Scott Terry about the about the prudence of TYN’s strategy of collaborating with non-Christians. I think  this question is important, for what common ground, if any, can 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.

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. As Elijah chastised the Hebrews: “How long will you falter between two opinions?” 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.

There are three people associated with TYN that I find particularly interesting in this regard: Matthew Parrot, Matthew Heimbach, and Scott Terry. They often organize and protest together and typically agree on the idea of “pitching a big tent.”

Matthew Parrot and Matthew Heimbach are both self-identified Eastern Orthodox Christians and self-identified white-identitarians, oftentimes making common cause with WNs and using imagery and allusions to the Third Reich in their work. Scott Terry is an unreconstructed southern who defends the system of slavery in the Old South and supports the Judaizing doctrine of Kinism; more on that later.

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. 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 I elaborate on the incompatibility of National Socialism (NS) I will give a brief description of certain trends I have been seeing in the alternative right movement, that seem to presage a permanent split between those who are secular humanists, WNs and NSs, and traditionalist Christians. We see as early as August of 2013 that Counter Currents’ Greg Johnson preferred liberals to Christians here, http://www.counter-currents.com/2013/08/that-old-time-liberalism/ where he basically argues he wants racist white liberals; had  he ever heard of Lothrop Stoddard and Margaret Sanger? Look where that got us. We also saw the schism between traditionalists like Alexander Dugin and WNs over the Ukranian issue, where Johnson supports the Jewish-Nazis in the Ukraine and most recently where Mr. Terry informs us that Matt Heimbach had been uninvited to an NPI conference, by Richard Spencer, over some anti-homosexual statements here:

https://shotgunwildatheart.wordpress.com/2015/10/30/fasting-problems-heimbach-and-the-npi-plus-shotgun-almost-fights-a-black-guy/

https://shotgunwildatheart.wordpress.com/2015/11/03/npi-2015-revenge-of-the-autistillectuals/

https://shotgunwildatheart.wordpress.com/2015/11/08/last-word-on-the-npi-ive-been-rejected-by-the-austisticrats/

As I have been saying for years, the WNs and NSs don’t want Christians and have actively attacked Christ as a dead Jew on a stick, Christianity as reactionary force (sound much like the Jewish controlled New Atheist movement and the “kosher” foreign policy of Christopher Hitchens?), etc. They don’t want Christians and for the life of me I don’t understand why Christians would ever want to collaborate with them.

Let’s look at the fundamental views and doctrines of Nazism, and to do so I will look at Hitler, his officers, and Savitri Devi. It is quite clear that whatever Hitler’s religious beliefs were or were not (atheism, agnosticism, paganism, the occult), he was most certainly not a Christian. Richard Evans, author of the Third Reich trilogy, states:

“Hitler emphasized again and again his belief that Nazism was a secular ideology founded on modern science.”[1]

Evans cites Hitler as saying:

“Put a small telescope in a village, and you destroy the last remaining vestiges of superstition.”[2]

“The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death. A slow death has something comforting about it. The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science.”[3]

“Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of human failure”[4]

“Let’s bet the only people who are immunized against the disease (Christianity).” [5]

Alfred Rosenberg outlined a 30 point Reich Church that entailed the total abolition of Christianity. Here are some of the planks of that church:

  1. “The National Reich Church is determined to exterminate irrevocably and by every means the strange and foreign Christian faiths imported into Germany in the ill-omened year 800. “Still but hurt over Charlemagne, and I thought Arabs had long memories.”
  1. “The National Reich Church demands immediate cessation of the publishing and dissemination of the Bible in Germany as well as the publication of Sunday papers, pamphlets, publications and books of a religious nature.”
  1. “The National Reich Church has to take severe measures in order to prevent the Bible and other christian publications being imported into Germany.”
  1. “The National Reich Church will clear away from its altars all crucifixes, Bibles and pictures of Saints.”

The complete list, including these points, can be found here:

http://blacksuninvictus.org/30point.html)

Does that sound Christian-friendly to you?

Reputable scholars such as Bullock[6] and Shirer[7] show that Hitler’s long-term goal was the destruction of Christianity. Contrary to what New Atheists assert, Marshal Dill states:

“It seems no exaggeration to insist that the greatest challenge the Nazis had to face was their effort to eradicate Christianity in Germany or at least to subjugate it to their general world outlook.”[8]

This anti-Christian hostility towards Christianity is made clear in Savitri Devi’s work, Gold in the Furnace. There, Devi agrees with Richard Evans[9] that Hitler only ‘courted’ Christianity because of its dominant position in Germany and the radical doctrines of NS; she states:

“However, apart from the fact that this could not be said in a political programme in 1920 — or even in 1933 — it could still less be done in a day. Christianity could not be too openly and too bitterly opposed, before the Nazi philosophy of life had become widely accepted as a matter of course; before it had firmly taken root in the subconscious reactions of the German people, if not also of many foreign Aryans, so as to buttress the growth of the new — or rather of the eternal — religious conception which naturally goes hand in hand with it. Until then, it would have been premature to suppress the Christian faith radically, however obsolete it might appear to many of us.”[10]

As to the compatibility of Christianity with NS, she has this to say:

“And it also remains true that the very fact of replacing, as we did, the link of common faith by the link of common blood—the creedal conception of community by the racial one—is contrary to the spirit of Christianity, no less than to its practice, always and everywhere, up to this day. It remains true, in other words, that if whatever religion that is “a danger to the national State”[11]

Citing approvingly Bergman’s The German Religion, she states:

“As for Christianity, it is frankly called “an unhealthy and unnatural religion, which arose two thousand years ago among sick, exhausted, and despairing men, who had lost their belief in life… I do not remember any writer having more strongly and decisively pointed out the contrast between the everlasting Aryan spirit and that of Christianity and, especially, having more clearly stressed the nature of the Aryan religion of the future.”[12]

She also cites Rosenberg’s The Myth of the Twentieth Century and Himmler’s The Voice of Our Ancestors approvingly as anti-Christian texts. Between the pseudo-Nietzschian babbling about Paul corrupting the teachings of Christ, Christianity as a slave religion, and a life affirming solar Germanic religion with a strange Hindu fusion, we see a kind of bigotry and pettiness in NS that rivals anything seen in the Bolshevik league of godless militants or your standard atheistkultist.

Having shown the native antipathy of NS with Christianity, an antipathy which is no less thinly veiled today, why do certain traditionalist Christians wish to collaborate with such people?

The problem I have seen in Heimbach’s message is his ambiguous Christianity. I will limit myself to his “Our Stuggle, Our Future” video found here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-BU2UFdkWQ

There are two main themes I find decidedly un-Christian and unhelpful about his views: (1) social Darwinism and (2) advocacy of barbarism. Heimbach is not a social Darwinist in the sense of advocating eugenics and ethnic cleansing, but his view of man as an animal that needs to express his animal instincts is a level of Darwinian thought that is completely at odds with any part of Christianity. The animal nature in man that Heimbach is referring to is what the Scriptures call the Flesh. As we see in Romans 8:4-13, the Flesh and the mind of Flesh is Death, and we see in Colossians 3:5 and 1st Thessalonians 4:1-8 that we should not live according to the passions. In 2 Peter 2:12-16, we see that such beasts deserve destruction. As a Christian, our people are not protected by channeling our “inner wolf”; Christ tells us in Luke 6:28 to pray for our enemies. We should trust in God’s righteous judgments and his promise to protect, as found in Deuteronomy 32:41.

The silliest of Heimbach’s calls is a call to be barbarians. We don’t need barbarians; we already have them; the roving bands of feral children, the gangbangers of the hood, and antifa. This glorification of those who destroyed civilization and ushered in the Dark Ages is disturbing to say the least. What we need are men of God who will protect and preserve the light of learning from the depredation of the barbarians, as I have detailed here:

https://praiseoffolly.wordpress.com/2015/07/22/the-not-so-dark-ages-part-one/

https://praiseoffolly.wordpress.com/2015/08/13/the-not-so-dark-ages-part-two/

We ought to channel the courage of men like Patrick and Boniface who combated barbarism with the wisdom and love of Christ. To quote Alistair Macintyre, “We are waiting not for a Godot, but for another—doubtless very different—St. Benedict.” We don’t need more barbarians, we need more Bonifaces.

Scott Terry is a theonomist and a kinist. He would argue that kinism is the true theonomoy. Theonomy means the law of god, a compound from ‘theos’ (god) and ‘nomos’ (law). Rushdoony popularized this movement amongst certain factions of Calvinism. The main distinctive of theonomy is its penchant for Judaizing. Rushdoony, North, and Bahnsen all insisted that the Law of Moses was still valid for Christians today; of course, they inconsistently rejected the purification and food laws (some at least) and economic laws of Moses (to be clear, most kinists are critical of the lassize-fair economic model of the likes of Gary North), but held to other aspects of the Mosaic covenant such as the continuing validity war against Amalek (where Rushdoony defines Amalek as non-Christians), the validity of Christians instituting the Mosaic civil penalties for theft, adultery etc. Kinism takes this further and argues that a true theonomist would also condemn race mixing. This is of course a thumbnail sketch, but one I believe is fair from years spent reading and conversing with theonomists.

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.

We see in Hebrews 8:1-13, 2nd Corinthians 3:7-17, and 1st Timothy 1:7-11 that the Law of Moses was displaced by the Law of Christ. This was predicted in Jeremiah 31:31-40. Hebrews 8:13 is very clear as to the state of the Law of Moses, “In that He says, ‘A new covenant,’ He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.” I don’t know what obsolete means to Mr. Terry, but I read it the same way everyone else does. We see in Galatians 3:1-25 that the Law of Moses was temporary, destined to be replaced by the Law of Christ. We see Deuteronomy 27:26, “’Cursed is the one who does not confirm all the words of this law.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen!’” I guess Mr. Terry enjoys living under a curse, since he presumably does not abstain from pork, ritually cleanse himself after touching leather, offer goats as sacrifices, or abstain from work on the Sabbath? If this was not enough, Christ states in Luke 16:16, “The law and the prophets were until John. Since that time the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is pressing into it.” I guess, like Bill Clinton, Mr. Terry would say that depends on what the meaning of “until” is. Most severely of all, Mr. Terry is a spiritual adulterer. Paul tells us in Romans 7:1-6 that a woman is an adulterer if her husband is still alive and she is married to another man and is only free to marry again in the faith after he is dead. Paul then states that, like the woman married to her first husband, we were married to the Law of Moses, and before we could be wed to Christ, we must die to the Law. Since Mr. Terry has such a hard time dying to the Law of Moses, he is a spiritual bigamist living with two Laws, as well as a spiritual adulterer unfaithful to Christ. We see the errors to which one can go by consistently applying a theonomist and kinist worldview in the person of Drake Shelton[13]. Shelton is a self-described Messianic Jew or Natsarim. Like Mr. Terry, he argues that in Matthew 5:17 Christ told us to keep the Law of Moses, logically he concluded that Christianity was incompatible with that interpretation. Mr. Drake’s commitment to theonomy and kinism has gone so far as to reject the trinity (possibly the divinity of Christ, unless he is a modalist), a line Mr. Terry, I hope, is loath to cross.  If Mr. Terry takes his theonomy and kinism to its logical conclusion, he should join the Natsarim. Maybe Mr. Shelton has an opening for him? I would love to see Mr. Terry and Mr. Drake go at it and watch the battle between the Judaizer and the Ebonite, seeing who can out-Jew the other.

Clearly this insistence to keeping the Law of Moses only in part is silly foolishness, since it is an all or nothing deal as stated in Deuteronomy 27:26, and one cannot be married to two spouses as stated in Romans 7:1-6.

Clearly NS and WN are ungodly and modernist beliefs. As Mr. Terry points out, they are given over to Darwinism and one of its social implications, socialism; they really don’t even like historical Europe (not only do they reject the Christian heritage of Europe, but also the Hellenistic as well[14]), LARP as pagans (but are really not) but yet reject spirituality. When it’s all done all you have is a Hitler cult that seeks to bore us to death with Hindu esotericism. In short, traditionalist Christianity does not need closet NSers or Judaizers. We just need Christians qua Christians.

I would say in closing that I pray that Matt Parrot, Matt Heimbach, and Scott Terry will abandon their unequal yoke with godless NS and WN, and in the latter’s case the doctrine of Judaizing also. To his credit, Mr. Terry seems already to have broken with WNs as is seen in Last Word on the NPI: I’ve Been Rejected by the Autisticrat. Seeing that he now holds a similar position to Clement and the Swiss Kinist, I wonder if he will apologize for chastising them while being in the wrong? He dealt specifically with Clement here: http://www.tradyouth.org/2015/08/hail-to-the-king/

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.” Amen.

 

 

 

 

[1]Evans, Richard J. (2008). The Third Reich at War: How the Nazis led Germany from conquest to disaster. London: Penguin. pp. 547–8

[2] ibid

[3] ibid

[4] ibid

[5] ibid

[6] Alan Bullock; Hitler: A Study in Tyranny; HarperPerennial Edition 1991; p 219

[7] Shirer, William L., Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany, p. p 240, Simon and Schuster, 1990:

[8] Dill, Marshall, Germany: a modern history , p. 365, University of Michigan Press, 1970

[9] Evans, Richard J. (2008). The Third Reich at War: How the Nazis led Germany from conquest to disaster. London: Penguin. pp. 547–8

[10]http://library.flawlesslogic.com/gold_02.htm (11/11/2015)

[11] ibid

[12] ibid

[13]https://sites.google.com/a/thekingsparlor.com/natsarim-nation/ 11/12/2015

[14] “What makes Christianity essentially non-European are the doctrines it shares with the ancient Greeks and Romans, and not with the Jews, namely the idea that a universal truth is the foundation of a universal community; if Christianity is true for all men, then it is a universal religion, not an ethnic religion.” http://www.counter-currents.com/2015/04/christianity-and-european-identity/ 11/11/2015

Advertisements

38 thoughts on “Contra Traditional Youth Network: Christianity Cannot Be Hyphenated”

  1. Heimbachs and Parrott can claim tone Orthodox all they want but Heimbachs was excommunicated and there’s no evidence Parrott was ever canonically received.
    The Trad Youth mob is attempting to bring either Christian Identity in to Orthodoxy or neopagan “kinism”.
    A look at their page and those of their followers and you’ll not want of actual Christian art and themes. What you will find us neopagan symbols galore. If it walks like a white supremacist pagan and talks like one it is one.
    Finally Heimbach wanting people to embrace their inner animal is consistent with his belief that humans of different skin colours are basically breeds of dogs (with whites being the superior breed) which is bordering on blasphemy because it denies the image of God all humans bear. It’s also dicey in that it implies the need for multiple Incarnations of Christ.

    1. […] is bordering on blasphemy because it denies the image of God all humans bear.

      Yeah. Keep trying to pin your secular political hatred of me on the ancient canons and traditions of the Faith. One of these days, you’ll catch us in one of your flimsy little theological traps and send us to Hell.

      It’s also dicey in that it implies the need for multiple Incarnations of Christ.

      Wait, what?

      The only thing dicey here is y’all’s making a mockery of the faith by insisting that anti-Whiteness is part of our tradition. We’ve never said or implied that one must be tribal or belong to a tribe in order to be a Christian. We’ve never said we’re superior. But keep quibbling about symbolic, implied, and associative heresies. You’ll get us eventually, pardner.

      1. No the ones who make a mockery of it are you with your heresies and deeply flawed understanding of Christ and the Theandic implications of what you preach. Humans aren’t breeds of dogs that alone is blasphemous beyond belief regardless of whether you believe yourselves the superior breed, which based on the corpus of your writings you truly do, or not. To claim that humans are essentialy dogs is an afront to the humanity assumed in the Incarnation. I don’t need to trap you in anything as you’ve done that yourself hence your being excommunicated after being received less than a month.
        You were excommunicated for a reason yet you continue to set yourselves above the Church, rather Protestant that, pretending to speak for it while wrapping yourselves in a cloak of pagan symbols and imagery.
        You and Heimbach are not greater than the priest who excommunicated you, the ROCOR priest you lied to in order to try and get the bar lifted, or above the bishop who up held the excommunication.
        The difficulty for you is that you really don’t understand the Church. Rather, in an oddly Platonist way, you have an idea of it formed by your own biases and the heresies of your past faiths. You’ve no actual understanding nor experience with the canons or councils of the Church because if you did you’d be aware that your racial nationalism, itself based on a deeply flawed understanding of the word έθνος, was explicitly condemn as a heresy by the Church and that is why you are in reality outside of it. Your pride in your skin colour, which you had no hand in creating, has put you in the position that you must advocate for it above the Gospel in which there can be no Jew nor Greek, white nor black because all one in Christ.
        The Christian Identity type things you preach along with the oddly pagan, or perhaps Judaised as the author here argues, notion of kin and kith you present does not conform to Tradition regardless of what Codreanu or Fr. John Raphael has to say. Your race is not your έθνος in a Hellenic, Roman/Byzantine or Orthodox sense.

      2. You are correct that he and Heimbach are phyletists. It is evident in their writings and most importantly the Church has declared them to be such, something they are powerless to overturn no matter how much noise they make.
        However, I would argue it’s good to have them here at the moment because this is a forum they do not control and that they cannot ban or censor commentators who ask them questions such as who blesses their activities and to whom do they answer to in the Church.

    2. It is just a matter of time that when we read about a terror attack or another massacre or another mass murder, it will be committed by someone who claims to be an Orthodox Christian. And they will have an FB profile with photos of Corneliu Codreanu, Tsar Nicholai II, and the “Mad Baron” Nicholai von Ungern-Sternberg. Their likes will include Brother Nathanael, Julius Evola and Aleksandr Dugin. Replete with the infamous quote of Metropolitan Volodomyr of how the republican priest is supposed to be a bad priest. With a confederate flag on top of it all. And a Putin supporter, too. With of course, a lot of chalk-board scratching complaints about “cultural Marxism”, “white genocide” and “political correctness”. Also with usual idolatry of things European.
      And they might actually be a member of the canonical Orthodox Church, on top of it all.

      1. Unfortunately that will be the case and if the individual is in someway tied to Trad Youth I’m curious what the reaction will be to their effectively having blood on their hands.
        Keep in mind it was rumoured throughout social media that Dylan Roof was a follower of their Facebook page prior to his murderous rampage.

  2. Kinism as a doctrine isn’t really the problem, whether you disagree or not. It is that many Kinists have sweeter and greater fellowship with white unbelievers than they do, even with white non-Kinists. This ought to tell you off the bat that they put their “folk” above their “faith”, regardless of what order they use in their slogan.

    1. What are you talking about?

      We’re getting steadily drummed out of the non-Christian White Nationalist community. Do you not keep up?

      We have very friendly relations with non-kinist, non-nationalist, and non-White Christians. We have a secular political rivalry with anti-White Christians, one which your anti-White friends here wish to make theological.

      1. This is us both political and spiritual and you know it. For me it’s primarily about protecting the Church from heresy but I certainly don’t want to see your delusion of Avalon become a reality as well.
        As to being drummed out of the nonChristian (as if WN is in anyway compatible with the Gospel) WN circles isn’t it telling to you that both Orthidox Christianity AND movements such as Astura are pushing you away? Did it occur to you that possibly, just possibly, both sides see you for the syncretic movement you are and that you are trying to hijack the respective faiths to further your own self aggrandising motives?

      2. Said the Phyletist. So yeah I guess condemning Phyletism makes me anti-white. Stop signalling SJW nobody is cares.

      3. Parrott, I thought that Clement put it really well in his recent article:

        http://truesonsofabraham.com/

        The sad fact is, it is the anti-Christ whites who are beginning to exclude the Christians, and not vice versa, as should be (2Corinthians 6:14-18).

        I have been around the Kinist movement long enough, and have gotten to know several of them on a personal level well enough, to know that, at least for many of them (I won’t put a number or percentage on it), they value fellowship at anti-Christ, pro-white people than they do Christian anti-Kinists. This is evident in the fact that, with a few that I know, they would rather attend a conference of pro-white pagans than they would a Christ-exalting conference that isn’t pro-white.

        In addition, they are MUCH more critical of anti-white Christians than they are of anti-Christ alternate righters. It’s just way too obvious. Most pro-white Christians also live with loose moral standards and have the spirit of Roman/Greek mythology rather than that of Christ.

        Pro-white advocacy should be a very real concern in the Church, and put on a top priority. But it should be done apart from haters of Christ. Only when we trust the arm of the flesh do we think we NEED anti-Christs to help our cause.

        But I realize all this gets confusing and messy because of Orthodox Christianity’s view on what the church should be, and how much Christian authorities should be obey. I suppose, those who are pro-white and either Reformed or Orthodox, are simply being consistent with their doctrine. In their view, the church is merely a Sunday social club, instead of a living organism, designed to storm the gates of hell and impact every area of society and every detail of life.

        And I am sick and tired of pro-white people using Christ as a means to and end.

      4. Matt Parrott, do tell us if the white people who just murdered the black lives matter protesters in Minneapolis are TYN members? I hope the FBI are interrogated you and Heimbach about it.
        In fact, according to you, proneness to violence is evidence of so-called race. Those murderers must be a different race from me, then, despite our skin colour!

      5. You are indeed not welcome with other white nationalists. Who routinely insult your son-in-law for his weight and physical appearance.

  3. Glory to God.
    Yes his notion that we’re breeds of sorts opens the door to to the real necessity of the need for multiple Incarnations unless of course he wants to admit he considers nonwhites non or subhuman, which he constantly tries to deny. I’m working a paper about that. Hopefully I’ll have it done and I’ll post it.
    I also suspect, based on conversations. I’ve had online with him before I get banned for asking questions he can’t or won’t answer, that he holds the soul has racial characteristic along the lines of a near physical body which is also theologically suspect

    1. Have you read this: https://ryanphunter.wordpress.com/2015/06/25/response-to-matt-parrott-matthew-heimbachs-supporter-who-responded-to-my-open-letter-to-archbishop-demetrios/#comment-11792
      “Glory to God.”

      Indeed, as Aquinas stated: There is no other name under heaven by which a man might be saved than the name Jesus Christ.” It is paraphased of course, but this kind of Phyletist heresy needs to be confronted.

      “I’m working a paper about that. Hopefully I’ll have it done and I’ll post it.”

      Nice let me know when you’ve finished it.

      “I also suspect, based on conversations. I’ve had online with him before I get banned for asking questions he can’t or won’t answer, that he holds the soul has racial characteristic along the lines of a near physical body which is also theologically suspect”

      Sounds typical Matt Heimbach. Ever heard of the guy who haunts white nationalists circle know as Fr. John? He really is Christian identity.

      Also who do you figure Kinism is pagan? I thought it was Judaizing.

      Also did you see Matt Parrot’s SJW flip-out on TYN?

  4. Fr. John Raphael or something like that isn’t it? My understanding is that he’s noncanonical but this is the first I’ve heard of him being CI. That does make sense though based on what I’ve read of him and by him. I often wonder if he’s Heimbach’s mysterious spiritual father although the big money based on the evidence is him being Romanian.
    I’m referring to the Asatru kinist stuff that’s out there, which I suppose might be more accurately termed neopagan. While I know many of its practitioners aren’t crazed white supremacists, far too many are. Heimbach certainly tries to appeal to some aspects of that in my opinion and much of the symbology I see on Trad Youth’s page is ripped directly from them which is odd given his claims to be Orthodox. Regardless his notion of dividing the Church up along racial lines is clearly phyletist as his his constant evoking or paraphrasing of the 14 words.
    I read Mr. Hunter’s well written article, the interview he did with Heimabach and his letter to Archbishop Demitrios. All were superb and Parrott certainly didn’t rebut anything that was written. I didn’t notice the comments till now and will read the blog you linked.
    And yes I saw the flip out. Sadly it’s not the first nor the last.
    Finally I agree this phyletist needs to be confronted but I fear, based on conversations, the bishops aren’t going to. Heimbach et al are seen as internet sensations and attention junkies (which are correct observations) but are no threat to the Church. I fear that may all change, and too late, when an white supremacist commits a massive hate crime and claims the Church’s teaching sanctioned it.

    1. I’m trying to get some background information on him. I don’t recall his jurisdiction but I seem to recall his views, like those of Trad Youth, got him bounced and he went vagante. He’s certainly not canonical by any stretch.

  5. I have to say that I am thankful for the solidarity I have received from blessedarethepureinheart, the Swiss Kinist and Mr. Campbell. I thank you all. Also despite what ever differences we have we all seem to agree at some level that are allegiance to Christ trumps our allegiance to everything else. I don’t know what your schedule is but I invite all of you to a skype or google hangouts chat, so we can discuss our shared values and differences in a civilized and Christian manner. If any of your are interested let me know. God bless.

  6. What’s sad is he acrually thinks we hate him because of his skin colour which is silly because by doing that we’d be guilty of the same heresy he is.
    The fact remains that he’s being opposed because his views are heretical yet he and Heimbach keep claiming they’re perfectly Orthodox.

      1. Tried a bunch of people. For the most part they seemed fairly ready to talk. I definitely avoided outright accusations of racism and kept things fairly civil. What’s your background and interest with the alt-right ?

    1. “What’s your background and interest with the alt-right?”

      I found them in 2011 when Richard Spencer founded alternative right and was pushing all this ‘traditionalis’. Then I realized they were liars all they were were Nazi’s in drag with some Nietzsche for good measure. Nothing traditional about that.

      Didn’t like their false advertising and their anti-Christian stupidity. Been their enemy since I figure that out probably two or three years ago.

      1. Yes, there definitely is a divide between the crazies (of which there are many) and those who are misguided by fear or progressive betrayal. I really don’t think we should write the latter group off. When I hear Millennial Woes or read a blogger like AntiDem, I see people just a hair’s width away from a conversion experience that will lead them to reject racism and embrace a true tradition of Christianity.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: