Christianity as a vehicle for white nationalism

Author: ponikshiy
praise Jesus
Barney
White power
Jim Cramer

Posts

Total: 59
Topic's author
#1
ponikshiy
ponikshiy's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 604
3
3
6
ponikshiy's avatar
ponikshiy
3
3
6
It is hard to be an open nazi these days. This is unfortunate for nazis. So when we push for pro white policies that allows people to rightly label us as white nationalists, which is not a politically viable position considering all the non whites flooding western countries.

However what the left cannot do is engage in religious bigotry. I know they do, but it is harder to justify, so pro white policies can be co ducted with the christian flag and I encourage white nationalists to accept Jesus Christ as their lord and savior. 

Potential policies and how to word it like a Christian.

1. Eradicating Jewish people

Call it something like "let's return God's people to the holy land so we can be ready for Christ's return"

2. Eugenics

Satan will carry a specific DNA sequence so we have to make sure babies with defective DNA are culled.

3. Nationalism

We are the new Israel and God wants us to be pure and crush our enemies in the name of love.

Just spit balling here but I think using Christianity as a flag could work and it allows a small movement to exert more influence by being loud members of a bigger organization that is still small enough where holding significant influence is doable
Topic's author
#2
ponikshiy
ponikshiy's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 604
3
3
6
ponikshiy's avatar
ponikshiy
3
3
6
Christians do not want to comment because I just exposed them. 

#pwned
#3
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 363
Posts: 11,011
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
It is hard to be an open nazi these days
How? You just rename it to MAGA and no one will figure it out.
#4
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,042
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
it looks like u r just making up ideas to suit your agenda, and in any way you could loosely call it christian, that's what u r doing. that doesn't mean those ideas are actually christian, though. but if that suits your agenda, your mission is accomplished. you surely won't be the first to wear the mantle of christainity for all kinds of things that should never be called christian to begin with. 
#5
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,171
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@ponikshiy
And a 4x4 pick up truck.

Whereas a pimped low rider is the Black Nationalists vehicle of choice.

The Atheists vehicle of choice is a bicycle.

Older Christians also like the Honda Jazz.


Orthodox Russians like anything painted green with a missile launcher atop.
Topic's author
#6
ponikshiy
ponikshiy's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 604
3
3
6
ponikshiy's avatar
ponikshiy
3
3
6
-->
@zedvictor4
We also are very fond of the letter Z. So maybe write Z on vehicle as well
#7
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,171
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@ponikshiy
For sure.

Very sort of Neo Nazi.

People like flags and symbols.

Makes them feel like they belong to a bit of the human race.


Do you think that Vlad admired Kim?
#8
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
These wylted allegations are becoming more and more reliable these days...
Topic's author
#9
ponikshiy
ponikshiy's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 604
3
3
6
ponikshiy's avatar
ponikshiy
3
3
6
-->
@Intelligence_06
What accusations did he make? 
#10
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,775
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

#11
Mharman
Mharman's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 5,620
3
6
10
Mharman's avatar
Mharman
3
6
10
-->
@ponikshiy
1. Eradicating Jewish people

Call it something like "let's return God's people to the holy land so we can be ready for Christ's return"

2. Eugenics

Satan will carry a specific DNA sequence so we have to make sure babies with defective DNA are culled.

3. Nationalism

We are the new Israel and God wants us to be pure and crush our enemies in the name of love.

None of these ideas are supported by Christianity. You are basing your judgement off of a few churches with theology so terrible I can’t even call them Christian.
Topic's author
#12
ponikshiy
ponikshiy's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 604
3
3
6
ponikshiy's avatar
ponikshiy
3
3
6
-->
@Mharman
Not yet but they could be with some finessing
#13
Mharman
Mharman's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 5,620
3
6
10
Mharman's avatar
Mharman
3
6
10
-->
@ponikshiy
Those attempts at finessing by some wolves in sheep's clothing are why Christians need to study their Bible and guard their hearts, lest they fall into their jaws and be swallowed by their ideas.

Your argument is a giant "what if"- a vague theory with sparse evidence. I could do the same thing; if anything, I bet I have an easier time doing it from an atheistic, macro-evolutionary standpoint. Observe:

"Survival of the fittest" means constant conflict (i.e. wars) among people groups (nations, races, whatever) results in the strong living on to pass their genes and the weak dying off. Any survivors with weak genes should either be eradicated, castrated, or forced into subjugation. This will evolve humanity even further in the end.
Topic's author
#14
ponikshiy
ponikshiy's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 604
3
3
6
ponikshiy's avatar
ponikshiy
3
3
6
-->
@Mharman
It is easier for society to attack social darwinism. However the left would struggle to attack an entire religion as it would make them look and feel bigoted. 

Observe the backlash the FBI recently received for looking into radical traditionalist catholics.

We also have examples we can use that could aid white nationalists into both a more digestible form of white nationalism and a path towards normalizing  hate within Christianity in the freemen movement that can be found in certain parts of Appalachia 
#15
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,993
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Mharman
"Survival of the fittest" means constant conflict (i.e. wars) among people groups (nations, races, whatever) results in the strong living on to pass their genes and the weak dying off. Any survivors with weak genes should either be eradicated, castrated, or forced into subjugation. This will evolve humanity even further in the end.
Survival of the fittest refers to the best adapted to ones environment. Violent conflict is just one piece of Darwinian evolution. Communication is another piece. 
#16
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,171
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Reece101
True.

But I think that evolution is bigger than Darwin.

Or more specifically, a universally concurrent process that preceded and exceeds species evolution.

Perhaps to a non-species conclusion.

The true GOD will be revealed but will we ever get to know it.
#17
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,453
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@ponikshiy
Why would anyone want to be a Nazi? It seems to me that racism is outdated and barbaric and contradicts everything about religion and in particular Christianity. 

Jesus came to break down the walls between Jews and Gentiles.  Paul confirmed this in his writings. 

The Church is people gathered from every race and tongue. 

Therefore, to be a so-called Christian Nazi is a contradiction.  In truth, I would suggest that if a person is a Nazi, then they have not understood the message of Christ. A message that is of reconciliation, not division.  It's true Jesus talks about swords and dividing families. Yet it is in the context of bringing people together under a common banner, i.e. of Christ. 

In other words, there is no other potential religion, worldview or social theory that actually has the capacity to unite people. Christianity acknowledges that position - which is why it says, die to yourself. And follow Jesus. Only in Christ is unity possible. And in fact, if unity is not occurring within communities that say they follow Jesus, then they are not following Jesus but something else.  Hence, why so-called Christian Nazism is not in essence true Christianity. It is just a social philosophy that has adopted the name Christian for its own agenda, not the agenda of Christ.  
#18
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,171
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tradesecret
Trouble is Trade.

Religion has always taken sides and sponsored wars.

Simply because a religious person is no different to a non-religious person.
#19
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,453
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@zedvictor4
Trouble is Trade.

Religion has always taken sides and sponsored wars.

Simply because a religious person is no different to a non-religious person.
I'm really not sure how your post adds to anything.    Christians TOTALLY agree that the religious and the non-religious are no different. 

We are all born sinners.  We all deserve to go to Hell.  We have all rejected God as the king and master of the universe. No one deserves heaven. 

Yet having said that - since our human nature is corrupted, and we have no method of changing that nature, we are able to acknowledge that fact. The rest of the world either ignores the fact that every person is sinful, doesn't care, or denies it.  

 Christians however, despite the fact that we all have fallen into the last three categories have by the grace of God, been enlightened by his Holy Spirit to recognise that we are sinners and worthy of Hell.  This doesn't mean that suddenly we have been given some kind of clue to become Christians. Yet it does have the impact or effect of causing us to humbly reflect upon why this is the case.  

In the NT, when people recognised that they were sinners, they cried out to the Apostles, what must we do to be saved? The response was - "believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved." The response wasn't to give up all your money to your favourite charity. It wasn't go and do good work. It wasn't to get wet with water. It wasn't to be the right colour or the right nationality. It wasn't to become the right gender. Or follow all these rules.  Nope. It was none of these things - because all of those things mean you have somehow found a clue. A right path to heaven. A magical superstitious method.

In Christian circles, there is a debate about whether belief in Jesus is a condition or not to become saved.  This is generally but not always referred to as the Arminian Calvinistic distinction.   Sometimes it is referred to as the Augustine Pelagius distinction.  In non-religious philosophical terms, it is referred to as the deterministic free will distinction.   I prefer to call it the Reformed non-Reformed distinction.

Basically, it comes down to whether God saves us or whether humans have some part in their destiny.  The Arminian or Free-will person would suggest that humans can be saved if they believe in Jesus as a condition prior to salvation.  Calvinists suggest that belief or faith is a gift from God that reflects that you have already been saved.   Hence the former would see the belief aspect as a condition to be saved. The latter see belief as a fruit of salvation.  I prefer the latter view since God doesn't play favourites.  Whereas I would hold to the view that the former view - suggests that humanity plays some part in their salvation. 

Hence, why I think the so-called Christian Nazis don't understand the concept of the gospel.   I take the view that the Bible teaches that there is nothing about humanity that God looks down on and says - they deserve to live. This is the only manner in which everyone can be equal. If there is something about someone, then God MUST save people and that wrongly puts an obligation on God. Yet, in Christ, people can be equal. 

So in response to your remarks, yes, religion takes sides. This is human nature and why non-religious worldviews also take sides. There is no such thing as true neutrality.  Yes, religious people are no different to non-religious people as a general rule as well.  Religion of course as a general rule is an ideology that subscribes to the view that the characteristics of a person - make them valid and worthy.  Hence, I put non-religious views into that category, i.e. atheism. Christianity on the other hand, although it is technically a religion is also non-religion in that it says - there is nothing you can do to appease God.  That's why Christians often say it is not a religion but a way of life. I am not a fan of that view. Yet, I understand where they are coming from. It is only Christianity, where God says - you can't do it, so I will do it for you.  For me that makes it unique and preferable.  And also reflects reality. Humanity has shown for the past several thousand years they don't have a clue. 
#20
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,171
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tradesecret
If we are all born sinners, then we were clearly, badly designed.

So not our fault.

The poor designer's fault.



Nope, show me an omni-sensible GOD Trade.

Not a sin and salvation nutcase.








#21
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,453
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@zedvictor4
So which court are you going to take God to for faulty design? 


Being born as sinners doesn't mean faulty design. That's a non-sequitur. 

Adam and Eve were made very good. No design flaws. It was however a decision stolen by Adam and Eve that we inherited.  We might have got their blessings, but instead, we get their debt.  Giving people the capability to make decisions even bad ones, is not a faulty design. 

And this debt needs to be paid. Bad decisions have natural consequences.  

Adam and Eve had it all. But they wanted more. And to get more meant breaking the rules. A rule they were told not to break or it would have consequences.  Like most people today, they thought God didn't mean it. They thought they would get away with it. Yet since God is not a liar, he kept his word. 

Breaking the rule wasn't just eating some fruit, it was an act of treason.  Even in our world, today, treason is considered one of the worst crimes. 

We inherited the estate of sin.  That is what we mean by being born sinners.  It means we are born in debt. Not free.   But we don't have enough money or wealth to pay the debtor. For the wages of sin is death.  The estate of sin means ipso facto that everyone dies.  


Hence - God is omni-sensible. He created humanity to look after the world. Humanity chose however not to look after the world, they wanted to steal it and make it their own.  It is not foolish to delegate responsibility. He gave one rule. One rule only. And with that one consequence.  That is not foolish. It is sensible. What would have been foolish is to not carry out his threat for their disobedience.  



 
#22
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,171
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tradesecret
If a GOD designed us and we are faulty.

Then the buck stops with the  GOD

Though  if a GOD was omni-sensible, it would have realised it's error, and rectified the design fault.

As it was we were  just let to get on with things.


Though one might suggest that in terms of material evolution and the role we play in GODS greater Universal purpose.  

Cognition and the development of intellect...Wanting more as it were...Is a specific and crucial design feature.


Really, sin is just a latter day side effect of the human condition relative to the development of sexual angst.

This probably makes GOD chuckle.

LGBTQ...Hark, is that roars of thunderous laughter I hear.


#23
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,453
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@zedvictor4
I don't think humanity is faulty. That is your conclusion based on what? 

All I have said is that God created humanity very good. And that humanity had the capacity to make decisions, including bad ones. 

Even in that humanity wasn't faulty. No design flaw. All non-sequitur arguments by you. 

When someone made the first gun, it did not have a design flaw. 

Just because it kills someone - isn't a design flaw. It has the capacity to kill if used wrongly by the person who fires it. But this doesn't make it a design flaw. 

In fact some might suggest that this simply demonstrates how good it is. 

God created humanity - but he did not create sin. In fact, he commanded humanity not to sin. 

so why don't you tell us what the design flaw was?  Is it the free will element? Is that what you are saying?  
#24
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,171
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tradesecret
You stated that we were all born sinners, and that Adam and Eve wanted more.

And you just stated that "God created humanity- but he did not create sin"...So who unwittingly incorporated sin into the design then?...And then blamed the product.

So my conclusion was based upon your statements.

If an omni-sensible GOD didn't want these features incorporated into it's design, then the design was flawed.

Which I think is a  pretty logical conclusion Trade.


And a gun is designed with a purpose, that if effective, is not flawed.


If I designed and built a fence, that blew down in the first strong gust of wind. 

Would that be the fences fault?

Or mine for building an inadequate fence.
#25
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,453
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@zedvictor4
Get it right, Zed,

I stated all humans SINCE Adam and Eve are born sinners.  Adam and Eve weren't. 

They were created very good.  No flaws. 

So it is a non-sequitur, to say that God created humans with a flaw. 

God gave Adam and Eve the capacity to think and the capacity to make decisions. Neither of those are flaws? Or do you think the ability to think and make decisions is a flaw?

God didn't create sin. Sin is an action - not something that is a thing. It is not a noun. It is something that is IMPOSSIBLE to be a creation. Yet it is an action. 

If you created a fence that would fall down in the first gust of wind, that would not necessarily be a design fault. It might be a fault of the designer, in relation to how and where he put the fence. 

But I think that a fence is not very helpful as an analogy in this situation.   Adam fell at a hurdle. Was it the first one? We don't know. Yet it was one that was recorded. Adam prior to eating the fruit named animals. He named his wife. First, he fell in love with her.  So I am not sure it was the first gust of wind. or hurdle.  

But for me - it is about purpose in the first place. Adam was the champion of humanity. He was its number one figure. He was humanity at its very best. Hence, no design flaws.  But he failed.  And that's why we are in the estate of sin. And die.  And that is bad news. 

but the good news is Jesus, alone of all humanity succeeded. He didn't sin. Yes, he had an advantage. He was God's son. Yet it meant that rather than trusting in Adam, who failed, we can trust in Jesus who didn't. And that is good news.  After all, not only did he die, even though he was innocent, he rose from the dead, proving his innocence and more than that - giving people who trust in him the opportunity to live forever. 

Purpose is important. 

#26
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 390
1
2
7
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
1
2
7
-->
@Stephen
@Barney


.
Stephen,

Once AGAIN, it is a full time job for Jesus and I and you to correct Miss Tradesecrets complete Bible STUPIDITY!


MISS TRADESECRETS BIBLE STUPIDITY QUOTE #1: “Yet since God is not a liar, he kept his word.”
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9898/posts/410780

WRONG!  In the following passages I have had to accept that my God Jesus LIED to  His creation, where a few of MANY biblical examples are shown herewith:

"For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie."  (2 Thessalonians 2:11)

“Now, therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee.” (1 Kings 22:23)



MISS TRADESECRETS BIBLE STUPIDITY QUOTE #2:  “Adam and Eve had it all. But they wanted more. And to get more meant breaking the rules”
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9898/posts/410780


Miss Tradesecrets Bible Duncery®️ is shown AGAIN!  It was EVE that first sinned in the Garden of Eden where Adam got a free ride: "And Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor." (1 Timothy 2:14)  

Therefore in simple language that even Miss Tradesecret can understand, “they” does not mean that both of them were deceived, but ONLY EVE!  Therefore it was EVE that created the first sin, and man has been paying for her ungodly action ever since, and where this is the start of women being 2nd class citizens, praise!



MISS TRADESECRETS BIBLE STUPIDITY QUOTE #3:  “Adam was the champion of humanity. He was its number one figure. He was humanity at its very best. Hence, no design flaws.  But he failed.  And that's why we are in the estate of sin. And die.  And that is bad news.”

WRONG AGAIN!  It was Eve’s transgression and not Adams, Adam didn’t fail, it was EVE THAT FAILED for Christs sake!   And because of this Biblical axiom where Eve was the transgressor, our ever loving and forgiving Jesus gave Eve the following as punishment for her wrongdoing: “I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you." (Genesis 3:16)


MISS TRADESECRETS BIBLE STUPIDITY QUOTE #4:  “but the good news is Jesus, alone of all humanity succeeded. He didn't sin. Yes, he had an advantage. He was God's son.”


WRONG AGAIN!  Jesus was not God's son, but God Himself, H-E-L-L-O, as this passage so states:  “Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours.” (2 Peter 1:1)

Miss Tradesecrets Bible ineptness never stops!



Stephen, at what point do the moderators of this well known Religion Forum have a talk with Miss Tradesecret relative to her outright and continuing Bible Stupidity?  She is giving this forum a bad name in her being here and blatantly spewing out her Satanic and ungodly inept statements relative to Jesus’ TRUE words within the Bible!  ENOUGH!

.


#27
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,171
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tradesecret
They were created good, but sinned.

So why did they sin?

Because the were created thus.


And then you go on to say that the weak fence was the fault of the designer.

Which was exactly the point I was making.

Week humans were the fault of the designer.



Thought is an involuntary, in built design feature and process of the functioning organism.

And sexuality is an in built and deliberate design feature of the organism.

So Adam thought about sex, by design.

As GOD intended.



And let's just make it clear that in the last instance, I'm referring to GOD, and not God.

Design or inevitable occurrence...Who knows.

Nonetheless Trade...Cause and effect.
#28
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,453
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@zedvictor4
They were created good, but sinned.

So why did they sin?

Because the were created thus.
Again non-sequitur. 

A good creation can do bad. What you seem to be arguing, without any foundation, is that good creation can never do bad. You need to establish what you are saying or arguing. 

I provided an example of a gun. Guns can do very bad things. But the purpose of a gun is to shoot projectiles. Yes, it can kill. It can save lives. But its purpose is neutral. 

Humans have the capacity to do lots of things. good and evil. but that is not a design flaw. That is what you continue to content, but not yet with any argument behind it. 

And then you go on to say that the weak fence was the fault of the designer.

Which was exactly the point I was making.

Week humans were the fault of the designer.
Seriously?  You raised a fence in the midst of a serious storm. I suggested doing so was silly. Humanity as a creation is not the same at all. And is clearly distinguished. 
There was no storm in the first place. And humanity only had to do one thing - obey God. It's not that hard. A fence trying to stand erect in the midst of a storm is quite a different picture. 


Thought is an involuntary, in built design feature and process of the functioning organism.

And sexuality is an in built and deliberate design feature of the organism.

So Adam thought about sex, by design.

As GOD intended.

The original sin had nothing to do with sex - except perhaps the male ought to have taken time to protect the female sex from predators. I don't agree that thought is involuntary. I think thought is entirely voluntary.  Yes, thoughts can fly in without much provocation, but the self-controlled person is able to quickly despatch award thoughts quickly. 

And sex is a good thing. Yet sex like everything else has a context. The question is what is the context? I suggest marriage is the context.  

And let's just make it clear that in the last instance, I'm referring to GOD, and not God.

Design or inevitable occurrence...Who knows.

Nonetheless Trade...Cause and effect.
Okay and what is your point?
#29
Mharman
Mharman's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 5,620
3
6
10
Mharman's avatar
Mharman
3
6
10
-->
@Reece101
Survival of the fittest refers to the best adapted to ones environment. Violent conflict is just one piece of Darwinian evolution. Communication is another piece. 
A conversation for another day. My point here is that it's ridiculously easy to speculate the worst of a viewpoint and then claim people who believe said viewpoint are going to commit atrocities (or that the risk of people committing atrocities is too high),  so the viewpoint should be dropped altogether. It's not a very intellectually compelling tactic.
#30
Mharman
Mharman's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 5,620
3
6
10
Mharman's avatar
Mharman
3
6
10
It is easier for society to attack social darwinism. However the left would struggle to attack an entire religion as it would make them look and feel bigoted. 
Observe the backlash the FBI recently received for looking into radical traditionalist catholics.
The backlash is because traditional Catholics are being associated with domestic terrorism. This idea that Catholics are being radicalized (what even is considered radical by FBI, anyway?) stems from the left's politically motivated paranoia- or probably the exploitation of it.

At this point, I feel this aspect of the conversation belongs in the politics forum.

We also have examples we can use that could aid white nationalists into both a more digestible form of white nationalism and a path towards normalizing  hate within Christianity in the freemen movement that can be found in certain parts of Appalachia 
1. Cite your examples, I have a feeling your examples may not be as radical or scary as you're making them sound. If the FBI can label a social media picture of a an AR-15 and rosary as a sign that "OmG tHE CaTHOliCs aRe BEcomInG DoMEstIC TerROrisTs," then I have into call into question how much "white nationalism" is actually present in your examples.

2. We have many more examples in recent history of Christians following the Bible and tearing down oppression. I'll give a quick few: Abolitionist movement and Civil rights era movements; various international efforts to "Make disciples of all nations" (as we are called to do in Matthew 28:19) in spite of governments that oppress other races, women, and religions that are not state-approved; women's voting rights being promoted by Christian women to the point where Christian men eventually agreed.