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:
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.”
Evans cites Hitler as saying:
“Put a small telescope in a village, and you destroy the last remaining vestiges of superstition.”
“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.”
“Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of human failure”
“Let’s bet the only people who are immunized against the disease (Christianity).” 
Alfred Rosenberg outlined a 30 point Reich Church that entailed the total abolition of Christianity. Here are some of the planks of that church:
- “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.”
- “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.”
- “The National Reich Church has to take severe measures in order to prevent the Bible and other christian publications being imported into Germany.”
- “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:
Does that sound Christian-friendly to you?
“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.”
This anti-Christian hostility towards Christianity is made clear in Savitri Devi’s work, Gold in the Furnace. There, Devi agrees with Richard Evans 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.”
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”
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.”
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:
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:
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. 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), 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.
Evans, Richard J. (2008). The Third Reich at War: How the Nazis led Germany from conquest to disaster. London: Penguin. pp. 547–8
 Alan Bullock; Hitler: A Study in Tyranny; HarperPerennial Edition 1991; p 219
 Shirer, William L., Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany, p. p 240, Simon and Schuster, 1990:
 Dill, Marshall, Germany: a modern history , p. 365, University of Michigan Press, 1970
 Evans, Richard J. (2008). The Third Reich at War: How the Nazis led Germany from conquest to disaster. London: Penguin. pp. 547–8
 “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