What Alt-Christianity?

On May 26, the Kings return published my article 21 theses
Alt-Christianity. In this article, I presented the case of an idea called
Alt-Christianity, a new state of the Christian spirit that focuses on
several basic concepts that are too often ignored by this generation of
Christians.
First, Alt-Christianity is a traditionalist movement of the political
right, and it is an alternative to the corrupt Churchianism that although
envelope of modern Christianity. Alt-Christianity is offensive in nature
and initiative; he is proud of Christianity and do not back a fight, as he
uses all the resources at his disposal for this fight.
Then Alt-Christianity believed that the traditional Western civilization is
the best civilization that man has ever created, and Alt-Christianity also
holds that Orthodox Christianity is an integral part of this civilization.
As such, and in the interest of supporting Western civilization,
Alt-Christianity supports the foundations of Christianity itself, which the
patriarchal system, family, Christian apologetics, and acceptance of the
nominal value morality and the teachings of the New Testament.
Alt-Christianity is anti-globalists and nationalists, and a movement that
recognizes the value and primacy of identity. In addition, Alt-Christianity
supports the right to self-determination to all religious groups /
ethno-ideological, and it promotes the secession as a way to ease tensions
between the groups. In addition, Alt-Christianity rejects the idea that
must be separated church and state; He also rejects the false myth of human
equality or human perfectibility.
Finally, Alt-Christianity is a men's movement, to be led by men, and in so
doing, Alt-Christian values ​​male nature of Christ that overturned the
tables and was intellectually bold against its enemies and detractors.

Now, the details of each of the different theories of Alt-Christianity can
be read in the previous article. However, in this article had many
questions and interesting comments were generated. And these questions
provoking and issues provoking involved in various reviews, all deserve an
answer, what is the purpose of this current. So let's start.
Question 1: Alt-Christianity a new type of Christianity?

One of the main issues raised against the idea of ​​Alt-Christianity was
that Christianity does not need further divisions, which is something that
embraces Alt-Christianity might cause. And to a large extent, it is true
that Christianity would not benefit other divisions. However,
Alt-Christianity is not a new form of Christianity; it is not a new
religious sect. In fact, if anything, Alt-Christianity seeks to return to
the Christian Orthodox cultural and political positions, as stated and
shown throughout the past hundred years of Christian history.
At most, Alt-Christianity is a new state of Christian spirit. It is a new
way for modern Christians to think. He asks Christians to focus on
Christian ideas that were mined in the current social time, but he does not
ask Christians to form a new set of beliefs. After all, all believed
Alt-Christian can be justified and supported by biblical passages and 2000
years of Christian tradition.
Ultimately, the best way to see Alt-Christianity as an informal
organization-denominationally diverse, but politically and culturally
minded Christians who find unity through their embrace of nationalism, the
traditional morals and the right of political leaning. And this kind of
political and cultural unity between modern traditionalist Christians, as
opposed to the theological unity is what is sorely needed today.
After all, unlike hundreds of years ago, the disputes in the West are now
moral and not theological, and as such, the Protestant and Catholic
traditionalist traditionalist (and even traditionalist unbeliever) have
greater reason to unify together rather than separately unifying with
liberal portions of their names.
Question 2: Why "Alt" Christianity?

Ultimately, there is no absolute need to Alt-Christianity to be called
Alt-Christianity. It could, for example, be called Hard-Christianity, or
Christianity-Men, or neo-Christianity, or Christianity Reactionary or even
followers of the way (Acts 9: 2 & amp; 22: 4). But in this present age,
there are good pragmatic reasons to call this set of ideas of
Alt-Christianity. "
First, Alt-Christianity is supposed to be an alternative to many modern
manifestations of Christianity, and thus the "alt" prefix makes it clear
that this new Christian mentality is an alternative to cucked, Churchian
and mindset Progressive that permeates much self -described Christians
__gVirt_NP_NN_NNPS <__ today.
Second, Alt-Christianity is also a strong label because links prefix "alt"
this new Christian mentality at the right Alt, Alt-West, and Alt-Lite; this
is precisely the type of link Alt-Christianity wants to do, because he
wants to be as different from traditional Christianity as Alt-law is
different from mainstream conservativism.
Question 3: Alt-Christianity Just a new brand of Christianity?

Yes and no. Somehow, the slap "alt" tag to Christianity is "re-brand" it.
However, the main reason to set the "alt" prefix at the end of Christianity
is to reinvigorate the interest in Christianity. For example, consider a
youth on the right which has already rejected modern Christianity does not
help in the battle for Western civilization; when this young person hears
the term Alt-Christianity, it may take a second look at what "type" of
Christianity and can then realize that Christianity is much more favorable
to Western civilization than he thought to origin.
Thus, if the "brand" Christianity as Alt-Christianity can simply
meaningless if she can just get a number of people to reconsider
Christianity that might have otherwise rejected it-designate
the "Alt-Christianity" Success has been.
At the same time, branding some Christian mentality as "Alt-Christianity"
also gives a name to the general ideas that many traditionalist and
reactionary Christians already hold, but that has not been properly
labeled. Thus, Alt-Christianity can serve this purpose too.
Question 4: Is Christianity compatible with Red-Pill?

Some commentators have argued that Christianity and the "red pill" are
incompatible, and therefore Alt-Christianity is undermined by the fact that
it approves the red pill. Now, if the red-pilled be defined in some way,
then it could be argued that Christianity and the red pill are
incompatible. But at its fundamental level, being "pilled red" is simply a
description of a person who has accepted the truth about illusions, not
only regarding the sexual dynamic, but regarding all reality. When
understood in this way, not only fully compatible with Christianity the red
pill, but Christianity is a red pill!
After all, to be a Christian is to accept the hard truths that Satan is the
prince of this world, the world hates you and persecute you, so that you
might have to part with your own family to be a Christian, and so on And so
on.
So when the red pill is simply understood as a willingness to accept the
truth about reality, no matter how the truth can be, it is quite clear that
there is no problem between the Christianity and the red pill. After all,
as a very important Christian said: "You will know the truth, and the truth
shall make you free. "(John 8:32)
Question 5: What is the separation of church and state?

Another question that was raised about the principles of Alt-Christianity
was its rejection of a final separation of church and state. But is this
principle, in fact, a negative?
First, note that Alt-Christianity does not require the creation of a
theocracy, but it rejects the ultimate separation of church and state. For
example, the removal of symbols and religious practices of political and
social institutions is an ultimate separation of church and state, and
Alt-Christianity rejects such maneuvers; but that does not mean necessarily
Alt-Christianity or approves requires that the religious clergy have some
type of formal political power. Thus, this distinction must keep in mind.
Second, the idea that there is such a thing as a true separation of church
and state is a myth. After all, a church or a specific religion, that is,
is basically just a worldview that addresses the most critical issues of
life and dictates the way people view the world. Therefore, no one is
without such a vision of the world guide, not even a state, and certainly
not the state officials.
In reality, the church and state are not separated; the only issue is
that "the Church" inform the State. At present, the world view of western
states in large part guide is a sort of liberal secularism that directs how
a State takes its decisions and actions.
Thus, the idea of ​​an ultimate separation of church and state is rejected
because it is a myth, like the idea of ​​authentic religious freedom is a
myth; after all, in our state religion "free" religious Aztecs, for
example, are obviously not free to sacrifice other human beings, or Mormons
or Muslims be polygamous, and so their freedom of religion obviously
shortened to some degree. Thus, Alt-Christianity rejects "freedom"
religious, ultimate separation of church and state, because these things
are as much a myth as equality and utopianism are.

Moreover, the idea that unity between church and state is a bad thing
itself is questionable, at least in cases where the people of the nation
are religious dependably. Note, for example, that the current governments
of Poland and Hungary strongly affirm their Christian identity, yet both
countries have probably the healthiest governments throughout Europe, at
least in regard to nationalism, Islam, immigration, and so on.
Finally, note that another reason not to separate church and state in the
case of Christianity is due to what could be called the first law of
Christ, which is the world hates Christians and therefore where Christians
are not culturally and socially dominant, they will be persecuted and
discriminated against.
The story is this: after all, the Roman Empire persecuted Christians;
Christians persecuted Jews; persecuted Muslims (and even persecute)
Christians; persecuted communists (and still persecute) Christians; Hindus
persecute Christians; persecuted Christians Asian cultural groups, and so
on and so on. It is therefore for the same protection of Christians that we
must reject the false concept of separation of church and state.
Question 6: Why not-secular Humanism?

Besides all the other reviews of Alt-Christianity, there were a number of
comments arguing essentially that the best way to do this would effectively
abandon Christianity and simply adopt the secular humanism, way forward for
the West. But there are many reasons why this idea is not advisable.
First, the secular-humanism is false, and Christianity is not, which is a
key reason in itself to accept Christianity on-secular humanism. Moreover,
many of the principles of the secular-humanism are largely inconsistent,
and therefore can not form the basis of a vision of the solid world. Third,
the secular-modern humanism cucked as, if not more cucked that modern
Christianity is.
For example, many secular atheists and agnostics are strongly left, even
only in practical terms, secularists are opponents on the right and
Alt-Christianity; it may even be something to that secularized mentality
predisposes to secular progressivism and state-worship as a substitute for
God.
Also, if you look at some of the recent manifestos of secular-humanist, you
immediately notice the calls contain implicit and explicit to
progressivism, globalism, and so on. Again, these ideas are not right, and
they are the same ideas that we are fighting. Thus, the adoption of secular
humanism as the adoption of the ideology of the enemy while trying to
defeat this common enemy. It's absurd.

Finally, look at many highly secular country / non-religious in the West:
How are Sweden, Great Britain, Germany, France and how in making informed
decisions on Islam, immigration, etc. .? Not too well, and certainly worse
than religious country like Poland and Hungry are. Maybe this will change,
but right now, this fact is a strong indication that secular humanism-is
not the answer to the problems of the West. And, frankly, given the
religious nature of the human, secular humanism will most likely never the
answer to cultural problems of a nation.
Question 7: What about Israel?
Finally, some questions were raised about the Alt-Christian position on
Israel and the people of ethnicity / Jewish heritage. To this I would
simply reiterate the ideas of Christianity Alt-9 and 12, which explain that
Alt-Christianity supports the right of all ethno-ideological and / or
religious groups to exist as separate, but Alt Christianity is opposed to
the rule unrequested, domination or excessive influence (by any means) of
any ethnic and / or religious on another.
What this means is that Alt-Christianity is entirely in favor of a Jewish
state for Jews, just as it is entirely in favor of ensuring that the Jews
do not have undue influence on the States non-Jewish -nations. And that, I
contend, is a position quite sound.

So hope this article has answered a number of questions on
Alt-Christianity. And while I know that I have not addressed all the issues
and concerns that have been raised about the concept of Alt-Christianity, I
wish I said enough to give everyone a better understanding of what
Christianity is-Alt .
Read more: The 21 theses of Alt-Christianity