Islam and Christianity: the essential reason that I repudiate both Islam and Christianity is that it has been shown, even in materialist terms, that race is a vital facet to reality. In essence, the left rejects heredity (family, nation, race)—and both Christianity and Islam, as a necessary corollary from their positions as universal faiths (that will save all people), must, in the end, reject race (and, indeed, family and nation—and aristocracy).
Hence the Christian, even the attenuated and decadent Christian, who welcomes migrants to Europe is, at base, closer to Christ’s message than one who does not (the doctors of the Church called men to defend their nations, but Jesus did not—the defence of nations had to be “added on” to Christ’s message to make it stable; if you take Jesus raw, then you must love and serve the stranger and even abandon your family to follow Christ). Jesus is for everyone, Muhammad is for everyone—the model is tribal, not aristocratic (the tribe must hold back the more able in order to facilitate intra-tribal stability and obligations; hence tribal organisation precludes excellence—Christianity and Islam, like Communism, are universal tribes).
Since race is real and both Islam and Christianity reject race, it follows that these cannot be the truest religions—that doesn’t mean there is no truth to them, since the death and resurrection took place and Muhammad spoke to Gabriel; but there have been many “empty tombs”—it’s an old trope with the Taoist sages. Charles Murray estimates there have been about 4,000 men of “genius” from 800 BC to 1950 AD; and I would say there have been, perhaps, an equal number of men with “religious genius”—so that walking on water is more common than is generally supposed, albeit not that common. Truthfulness > “the truth”; and, therefore, Islam and Christianity cannot be the most truthful religions—since they deny a key facet of reality. Since I value truthfulness, I cannot follow them or endorse them.