Ascending The Tower – Solo Climb 5 – Ethnic vs. Religious Loyalties

This week, Anthony pulls in religious traditionalism and begins looking at conflict points in relation to ethno-nationalism. He sets the stage for the next several weeks with a survey episode of the current situation within Restoration.

Solo Climb #5 is brought to you in part by generous donations from our listeners Bermudan Reactionary, Gladio, and Walrus Aurelius. If you would like to sponsor an episode of Ascending the Tower, e-mail survivingbabel AT gmail.

4:15 The tension between trad religion and ethno-thedishness
6:58 Different European strains of trad religion
14:42 Historical perspectives on ethno-religious European conflict
23:27 Sources of restorationist conflict between ethno and religion
37:24 How do we resolve these conflicts in order to help the Project

Related Show Links:
Opening Music – “From Sky to Abyss” (excerpt) – Quantum Ocean

Closing Music – “Instrumentel” – d-alternative

Christian Conversions by the Sword in Northern Europe

La Wik on the Filioque

Time’s “American Malvern” rescued by Nick B. Steves

The European Ecumenical Assembly: Christian neoliberalism


Subscribe to

Ascending the Tower

Or subscribe with your favorite app by using the address below

Liked it? Take a second to support Social Matter on Patreon!
View All


  1. Well, you have certainly wet my appetite for more on this topic. I have both Protestant and Catholic ancestors and I was raised by Protestants. I currently ally vaguely with a traditional PIE polytheist worldview.

    Something to keep in mind regarding Catholicism is that in Europe it is much easier for it to be aligned with various national identities. In North America, I see a lot of multicultural Catholicism which basically negates ethnic loyalties. So if I had to become a Christian, I would most likely become a high-church ‘protestant’, probably an Anglican given that most of my ancestors come from Great Britain. But I have an open mind about things and look forward to what you have to say in the future about these conflicts.

    1. Chiraqi Insurgent April 1, 2017 at 11:27 pm

      So true regarding the inauthentic Catholicism that reigns in the U.S. today. It is repulsive. If the Catholic Church wasn’t such an SJW today I think it would get a mass influx of WASPs who are witnessing their country being given away to foreigners by their own preachers in the name of Christ. The new mantra being: white is bad, non-white is good.

  2. Mike in Boston April 1, 2017 at 3:44 pm

    This seems as good a place as any to note a typo in the snarfed text of “The American Malvern”: “goals and services” should read “goods and services” as can be verified from the original scan. No introducing typos into scripture!

  3. Catholics are wonderful people. They understand that there is no value in race and that religion is the foremost identity.

    1. Chiraqi Insurgent April 1, 2017 at 11:30 pm

      The Catholic Mexicans of La Raza are especially wonderful people.

    2. Someone hasn’t been to Evolutionistx

  4. Chiraqi Insurgent April 2, 2017 at 12:09 am

    I’ll try to break it down briefly. We have come to the point in U.S. history where as whites we must put aside our religious differences in the interest of self-preservation as a race and to forge a distinct nation of Euro-mutts/Mischlings. Everything is in flux now, so we simply need to be flexible and see how things play out. I can stand up for a white nation in the U.S. and still be an authentic Catholic. Maybe we can carve out a white nation divided along religious lines like Germany. Regardless, I would much rather live amongst Protestants and ethnic pagans than be surrounded by non-whites who might be Catholic but with whom I have no common ancestry or language. Plus, who’s to say the Prots/pagans couldn’t convert in the future?

    Regarding Europe, the nations have already been established. If, according to your example, Ireland was to outlaw Catholicism, every Catholic would have the duty to oppose the decree. But that wouldn’t make him less an Irishman. I think you present the dilemma as binary, which need not be the case.

    P.S. Has anyone out there read The Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity? IMHO it’s required reading for this crowd.

    1. “I can stand up for a white nation in the U.S. and still be an authentic Catholic.”

      Most Catholics, Clergy and Laity, would disagree with you there. Even among the highly traditional, racialism is but a fraction of an already small fraction. It would not be out of bounds for the Church to consider racialists heretical. After all, many Church Fathers were not Europeans.

      1. Fr. Vincent,

        What does standing up for a white nation have to do with Church Fathers being Europeans? What is your definition of heresy, such that racialism could be heretical?

        I buy Moldbug’s “Why I am not a White Nationalist” piece, and so I am not going to give a full throated defense of it. But you are being intellectually lazy, Padre, by labeling heresy something which bothers primarily modern/secular sensibilities.

      2. Chiraqi Insurgent April 2, 2017 at 5:33 pm

        Father, I appreciate your reply. First off, I’m speaking with regard to the situation in the U.S. specifically. We are living in a time where because of radical demographic changes people are starting to question their identity (nation vs. citizenship) and looking for answers that our multicultural wasteland cannot provide. This has nothing to do with Church Fathers who were of non-European heritage.

        Secondly, with regard to heresy I think you are confusing the historical, authentic Church with our present-day SJW Church. By your standard, and that of most of today’s apostatized Catholics, Cardinal Mundelein would have been excommunicated for heresy when he told Catholic blacks on the South Side of Chicago to attend only their own parish(es). The Catholic Church has always recognized blood ties as legitimate. While all Catholics worldwide are united spiritually in Christ and temporally under the Pope and the Magisterium, we are certainly not all united racially, nor ethnically nor culturally. I honestly don’t even understand what you mean by racialism. What I am simply saying is that race exists and is one of the foundations of a nation, and Americans of European ancestry have a legitimate right to consider themselves a nation, distinct from all others. The fact that blacks (to use just one example) consider themselves African-Americans, distinct from all other U.S. citizens, simply proves my point. Should Catholic African-Americans who advocate for safe spaces on U.S. college campuses be considered heretics? They are dividing themselves along racial lines. What about the African-American Mass at Notre Dame University? Why do they need such a thing? Are they heretics for dividing themselves racially? My views, which were considered normal and healthy for all of human history until a generation ago, are only considered anathema today because the Church has succumbed to Marxism.

  5. Edward of Arkansas April 3, 2017 at 11:44 am

    The Southern Baptist Convention might as well be an ethno-national state church. It can be easily moved as long as it’s guided within the framework of its understanding of the world. Trump managed to appeal bigly to this sector. It certainly is not high church, but it is traditional in a sense. Depending on the size of the congregation and tendency towards Paleo-Baptist organization, a good, reformed SBC could fulfill the role of a powerful civic religion even with a declined liturgy versus the high churches. The key to this is forming antiseminaries to train very right-wing pastors for churches. Once again, it all comes down to forming parallel institutions.

  6. You make a point that ethno-pagans shouldn’t ignore the Christianity of their fathers for a thousand years. In humanity’s 50k year history a thousand year is just a blip. Religions come and go, paganism, Greek pantheon, Roman, Christianity. It appears that paganism had been around before Christianity for longer than 1k years.

    Your second point about Christians being the winners and converts. True, but raising up once the occupying force weakens is a natural event. I appears to me Christianity won out because it was more violently virulent.

    We’ll never know how Europe would have developed under say Odinism. European art was an expression of “whiteness”. (see Greek art) We could have grand “cathedrals” to Odin or Athena now. Christianity’s positive role in unification is also questionable, just look at how much religious warfare happened in Europe among Christian factions. An Odinist or Greek pantheon might have eventually unified Europe too. Weather with more or less religious warfare than Christianity, it’s unknowable.

    Even if Christianity have been useful to uniting white people it’s definitely betrayed whites now. I see no reason to support it.

    1. Chiraqi Insurgent April 3, 2017 at 6:51 pm

      Think of it this way. Is Christianity true? That should be your approach when considering it, not whether it’s backing whites or not. With that said, I must admit that what passes for Christianity these days is terribly unappealing to the average male who is looking for deeper meaning and a reinforcement of healthy masculinity. So I really can’t fault you for rejecting it on the surface.

Comments are closed.