On Europe and “the Faith”
by Dr. Andrew Joyce
“Too often you have not been welcomed…Forgive the closed-mindedness and indifference of our societies, which fear the change of lifestyle and mentality that your presence requires.”
Pope Francis, 2016.
“Europe is the faith, and the faith is Europe…I say again, renewing the terms, The Church is Europe: and Europe is The Church.”
Hillaire Belloc, 1920.
OVER THE YEARS my attitudes towards race and religion have unfortunately brought me into conflict with many Christians, some of whom have been very close to me. Closest to home, my wife is an evangelical Christian. Like many of her co-religionists, she believes much of what she is told in church, not only in terms of what is written in the Bible, but also in the social instructions her church issues in order to steer its flock towards a “good” and “moral” Christian life.
My wife and I are opposites in many respects. She is fully aware of my own agnosticism, and is equally aware of my positions on racial, religious and political matters. Possessing an abundance of good qualities as a wife and mother, I don’t think I am doing her a terrible injustice by stating that she doesn’t completely understand the complexities of the subject matter I routinely explore. To her, the thing that matters most is that my attitudes are “good.” It is the “moral” merit of my positions that she is most interested in, and because she is a Christian the question of how “moral” my opinions are is entirely dependent on how closely they fit with the Christian moral worldview — as taught to her by her church. Thus, when we discuss this or that aspect of the news she will often ask of my opinions: “Yes, but is that a good attitude to have? Is that displaying forgiveness? Isn’t your heart too hard?” If the discussion continues, it frequently evolves into a debate between (my) facts and (her) moral feelings.
For the sake of domestic harmony, I rarely enter into debates on religion and politics with my wife, much as there are a hundred responses I could provide to her questions. There have been moments, however, when the divergence between my wife and me on religion and race has become acute. I accompany her to church only on extremely rare occasions, and the last and probably final occasion was last Fall. It started like any other service had. As we entered the ultra-modern church facility there was a crescendo of pulse-raising feel-good music, and there were swarms of people equipped with Prozac smiles. Bowls of candy were offered. As the service began, some individuals competed with one another in jumping and skipping in the front, crying and smiling and throwing their arms in the air to demonstrate their oneness with God. Eventually the pastor appeared to huge applause and fanfare, telling everyone that they were loved and that God was in the room with them. This seemed to bring comfort to the motley group of former alcoholics, drug-addicts and abuse victims that earlier visits had informed me comprised a healthy proportion of the population of the church. Some began emotionally swaying, assenting and nodding to his words.
So far, so familiar. But as we took our seats and the sermon began it slowly became apparent that I was going to enjoy the “teaching” even less than usual.
The topic was the “refugee” crisis. At a recent meeting of local government, a vote had been held on whether to formally extend an invitation and welcome to prospective “refugee settlers.” The vote had been proposed by a female Leftist politician with mental health problems. (She is an acquaintance of my wife and I know more about her private life than I probably should.) After hearing about the vote, I mobilized some of my political associates in the local community and we set about lobbying several key politicians. Our efforts helped ensure that the vote ended definitively on the resolution that an invitation and welcome would not be forthcoming.
I viewed this as a small but significant personal success given the pro-migrant climate at the time, and was riding a high until that following Sunday. I now found myself sitting and listening while the pastor, who hadn’t achieved anything of significance in the real world, weighed in heavily against the politicians behind the vote. They were “un-Christian” and immoral. It was in fact our “duty” as Christians to let these people come into our communities and share our resources with them. A preoccupation with “economics” displayed a lack of faith and morals because God would provide extra jobs for the extra people just like he had provided loaves and fishes, and there would always be enough money and resources to go around if we just showed enough faith. It didn’t even matter that these poor “refugees” weren’t Christian because after just a few days among us they would be overwhelmed by the Holy Spirit and begin their own Christian journey. A glorious shared future lay ahead of us; refusing to accept refugees was “racist,” and “racism” was an “evil sin.”
The simplicity of this pastor’s worldview would have been humorous if it wasn’t drawing the noisy approval of almost a thousand European-derived people. My ears still ringing with applause, it struck me that this kind of moral instruction wasn’t just childish and full of logical errors — it was dangerous. These people were literally being told that the fate of their eternal soul depended on facilitating their own demographic displacement. I sat motionless, in horror, for the rest of the service. My wife and I talked about the service when we got home, and we’ve discussed the incident several times over the last six or seven months. She understands, and agrees with, my position on the migrant floods. She even agrees that her church is politically wrong on the issue (it should “stay out of worldly affairs”), as it has been on other social and political questions that she cares about. However, she insists that the church is morally correct on the issue of migrants. She continues to attend the church and her faith remains undamaged. Our debates continue, fruitlessly. And as we seek to equip our children with the best ideological tools they may need to survive and succeed in a world in which their race is dying, the imperatives of race and religion remain in contest.
The sensitivity of addressing the issue of race and religion within the walls of my own home mirrors the sensitivity of the issue within our broader movement. I see the many Christians in our movement not just as a source of much-needed support, but literally as part of my extended racial family. Like my own wife, they are simply indispensable. The prospect of either side attacking the other as ignorantly superstitious or as consumed by arrogant disbelief is similarly unconscionable, since it would open chasms in the family unit that could potentially be catastrophic and which we can ill-afford. Remaining silent, however, is equally problematic since it could lead to the building of deeper resentments and quiet estrangement. Although discussing religion is often taboo in our movement for fear of creating divisions, since religion is still of huge social significance some kind of dialogue needs to occur. We need to talk. And we need to talk now more than ever because our churches, to the extent that they are truly still ours, are acting more and more against the interests of our people.
First, there is the Catholic Church. If modern Christianity has raised the themes of “forgiveness” and “meekness” to an astonishingly prominent doctrinal position (above even the once greater themes of atonement and cosmic redemption), then Pope Francis is surely the personification of this sick glorification of humility and weakness. The image introducing this article speaks volumes about the decline of our civilization and the failure of Christianity to prevent it, but the Pope’s conduct has been even more far-reaching. Less than ten days ago, in a highly symbolic act, the Pontiff took three Syrian families home with him from Greece. Reading right out of the ADL playbook, he announced that the movement of the migrant hordes wasn’t a dire threat to Europe’s existence but rather “the greatest humanitarian catastrophe since World War Two.” Catholics singing from the same hymn sheet as Jews is becoming more common. From April 4–7 Poland played host to the 23rd International Catholic-Jewish Liaison Committee Meeting, during which Catholics and Jews issued resolutions insisting on the moral imperative that Europe welcome “refugees.”
Given such developments it is no coincidence that in the long history of the Christian religion, Pope Francis is the most popular Pope among Jews. In September 2015 Ronald S. Lauder, the head of the World Jewish Council, said that “never in the past 2000 years have relations between the Catholic Church and the Jewish people been so good.” When Pope Francis held a closed meeting with the WJC the following month, Francis informed Jewish leaders that he fully believed that any criticism of Israel was just as “anti-Semitic” as attacks on Jews. Lauder emerged from the meeting speaking of the Pontiff in glowing terms: “Pope Francis does not simply make declarations. He inspires people with his warmth and his compassion. His clear and unequivocal support for the Jewish people is critical to us.”
A prostrating Pontiff, overseeing millions of compliant Catholics worldwide, is indeed critical to Jewish interests. Francis may be seen as the perfect culmination of the Second Vatican Council, which was orchestrated by Jewish converts to Catholicism and annihilated the remaining power of the Catholic Church as a force for European culture. The poisonous seeds have given rise to a truly rotten tree, or in the interpretation of Francis himself: “The Council, with the declaration Nostra Aetate, paved the way. It said yes to the rediscovery of the Jewish roots of Christianity, and no to any form of anti-Semitism and condemnation of any insult, discrimination and persecution derived from that.”
Not only a traitor to the European race, Francis is either intellectually insipid or a disingenuous cretin. In January this man, who claims to be God’s emissary on earth, argued that “Europe has the means to absorb refugees without sacrificing its security or culture.” The Holy Father was presumably here referring to the thefts, rapes, bombs and deaths that have illustrated the remarkable success the Continent has met with thus far in preserving its culture and security in the face of mass foreign incursion.
What the Papal position does in fact illustrate is a stark, and terrifying, detachment from reality. Just as Jesus of Nazareth encouraged his followers not to worry about food or clothing because “the End” was imminent, so the Pope tells his followers not to worry about immigration because countries and races mean nothing when one is assured of a glorious afterlife. Just days ago, Pope Francis delivered his most grovelling sermon yet, when he addressed migrants by pleading: “Too often we have not welcomed you! Forgive the closure and indifference of our societies, who fear the change of life and mentality that your presence requires.” Apparently one can only enter Heaven on one’s knees.
The widespread raising of “meekness” and “forgiveness” to totemic significance in the broader Christian religion is an especially pernicious development that demands closer study and attention. It has been added to a dangerous cocktail of cultural destruction and racial guilt, and has undoubtedly contributed to the “cuckolded” nature of contemporary Western existence. Citing just one recent example, we may cast our eyes upon the sordid tale of the home invasion, sexual assault and murder of pregnant mother Amanda Blackburn at the hands of three Black criminals. Blackburn’s husband Davey is an evangelical pastor who made headlines when he offered his “forgiveness” to the animals that savagely slaughtered his wife and unborn child.
My wife is currently pregnant with my third child and I have to confess that when I read the words of Pastor Blackburn the blood drained from my face. I placed myself in his shoes and the only feeling in my body was a need for absolute vengeance and bloody retribution on those responsible. Pastor Blackburn, on the other hand, wants to share the gospel with them. Even more shocking, Blackburn’s response to his wife’s murder was fawned over and celebrated by White evangelicals the world over in an orgy of gutless pacifism.
As stated above, modern Christianity is only an ingredient in this pathology and it has surely combined with other facets of the cultural conditioning of Whites to produce this deadly effect. Ironically, and yet somehow so very obviously, it took Black preacher Jesse Lee Peterson to point out that Pastor Blackburn’s act of forgiveness was not only based on bad theology but also was a clear “sign of weakness.” Peterson argued that: “The criminals haven’t asked for forgiveness, so how does he know if they want to be forgiven? It’s the criminals that need to apologise to him for their heinous crime. They offended the pastor; he didn’t offend them. So I’m not sure why he feels the need to forgive them.”
The problem that Peterson can’t see is that Whites exist in a culture saturated with the theme of “forgiveness” — both the giving of it, and as Pope Francis illustrates, the asking for it. The end result in both cases is just as Peterson describes: White weakness.
Looking at the facts, there can be little doubt that White weakness is being systematically sown and harvested by the churches on behalf of foreign settlers. The Anglican Church, one of the most influential after the Catholic Church, has raised millions of dollars worldwide that it then gives to refugees in the form of transport, housing and ready cash. In England the Anglican Church contributed two chairpersons to the board of the National Refugees Welcome Board. The Anglicans took their seats alongside Pat Lynch of the Catholic Bishop’s Conference and Rabbi Danny Rich, the board aims to bring at least 20,000 migrants to Britain within the next four years.
In Australia the Anglican churches are working hard to expand the nation’s immigration quotas which they believe to be “tragically inadequate” and a poor response to “the size of the world’s problem.” Australian Anglicans have also expressed their concern “with talk in relation to recent asylum-seekers as ‘illegals’ and ‘queue jumpers’…There is no such thing as a ‘queue’ on a global basis, although there may be queues in places where Australian Immigration staff are present. There are many thousands of desperate people marooned in foreign countries with no hope of having claims to refugee status assessed by any member of the Australian Immigration Department. We believe many more overseas processing positions should be created.” In Canada several Anglican communities have arrangements with the Citizenship and Immigration service to facilitate the entry of migrants and their total subsidization by church members for at least one year.
Presbyterians have also been heavily involved. When Donald Trump likened the influx of Syrian migrants into the U.S. to a coup, asserting that some migrants could be terrorists, he was subjected to a scathing attack by Rev. Gradye Parsons, stated clerk of the Presbyterian Church (USA). Parsons wrote that “Presbyterians through decades of policy have demanded humane treatment of people of all nationalities and faiths who find themselves within our borders. … We have challenged our government when it neglects to acknowledge the refugee status of those fleeing persecution. We have pushed for due process at the border and we continue to petition for immigration reform that includes a path to citizenship for undocumented persons. … Knowing our Lord was once a refugee, faithful Presbyterians have been writing Church policy urging the welcome of refugees and demanding higher annual admissions into the United States since the refugee crisis of World War II.”
Even those Christians who claim to be concerned with the decline of the West are part of the problem. A few days ago Pat Buchanan penned a piece titled “If God Is Dead,” in which he offered a deracinated version of our impending genocide. According to Buchanan, “A people’s religion, their faith, creates their culture, and their culture creates their civilization. And when faith dies, the culture dies, the civilization dies, and the people begin to die.” He argues that only after the adoption of Christianity did the West go on to “create modern civilization” (the Greeks, Romans, Celts and Teutons apparently were little more than savages), and that Europeans have stopped believing in the Christian god and instead now turn instead to “secular religions.” These secular religions have contributed to declining birth rates and “while the European peoples — Russians, Germans, Brits, Balts — shrink in number, the U.N. estimates that the population of Africa will double in 34 years to well over 2 billion people.”
Buchanan’s perspective on the decline of the West is woefully simplistic. Firstly, Christianity did not create Europe or European culture. The Christian religion thrived in earlier ages because of the genius of the race that adhered to it. Aryan man merely grafted elements of this Middle Eastern faith onto its earlier customs and ways of life. It is race that creates culture — religion merely decorates it. Faith can die, but in the presence of other conducive factors, the civilization and people may well endure or even thrive — as the suppression of the Nordic Heathen spirituality under the Christians clearly illustrates. Thor may have died but Thorstein still ploughed his fields and raised his family.
Buchanan also ignores the heavy influence of universalist Christian themes on the very “secular religions” he castigates. Where would socialism, egalitarianism, liberal democracy and their host of hideous offspring be without the powerful influence of nineteenth-century Christian movements like the evangelical socialist contemporaries like John Ruskin? It was Christianity that provided these poisons with their level of toxicity.
And what has provided the greatest support for the African population boom that Buchanan claims to dread? Christian aid of course. It is Christian aid to the Third World that comprises the apex and focal point of what we call “White Pathological Altruism,” except the real horror is that it isn’t pathological at all. In a terrifying display of “logic,” since these people don’t believe in the value of their biological reality, they are prioritizing something that they do believe in — their spiritual evolution.
Aside from the disastrous genetic implications of this delusion, Buchanan illustrates perfectly the sad fact that many millions of White Christians are hypocrites and self-deceivers. Ralph Waldo Emerson put it best in his monumental essay “Self-Reliance,” where he encouraged these spiritual bigots to focus on their own kind:
Go love thy infant; love thy wood-chopper: be good-natured and modest: have that grace; and never varnish your hard, uncharitable ambition with this incredible tenderness for black folk a thousand miles off. Thy love afar is spite at home…Are these my poor? I tell thee, thou foolish philanthropist, that I grudge the dollar, the dime, the cent, I give to such men as do not belong to me and to whom I do not belong.
The fact remains that Christianity frames itself as a universal method of cosmic salvation accessible to every man. To a Christian, Emerson’s sense of national belonging must always be subordinate to his belonging to another people — the people of God. Christianity ultimately cares more about the future of Christianity than the future of the German or the Dane. A Bishop will rejoice at the conversion of a Senegalese witch doctor more than he ever will at a growing family of unbelieving Norwegians.
This truth lies at the heart of the vulnerability of this religion from the perspective of ethno-nationalism. Rather than encourage ethnocentrism like Judaism does, Christianity achieves the opposite. Other than an extremely radical departure in interpretation there are simply no grounds for believing that Christianity will be of any assistance in helping us to develop survival strategies as we enter terminal demographic decline. In fact, we are currently faced with the problem of trying to overcome Christian influence and its heavy contribution to White pathological behaviors and traits.
There is a long history of Jewish antagonism towards Christianity, and I know that many in our movement have a reflexive defensiveness regarding the Christian faith based on this fact alone. But this opposition had less to do with Jesus of Nazareth (Talmudic aspersions aside), and more to do with Jewish confrontations with the social cohesiveness of Europeans who happened to be Christians and the threat to the Jewish group strategy posed by evangelism and conversion. Modern Christianity has indeed found its “personal Jesus,” and this is a Jesus that poses no threat to Judaism, and it has in fact evolved into an entity that serves Jewish interests very well. This is Jesus the Jew, Jesus the Refugee, and Jesus the Forgiver. Jews and Israel are praised and supported by almost every mainstream church, and the churches are at the forefront of displacing the European peoples from their ancient homelands. Jews and Christians are now very good friends indeed.
The intention of this article is not to offend, but perhaps to provoke. I can’t think of a single Christian clergyman of any significance who advocates exclusively for the European peoples. This is very telling. Those who describe themselves as Christian White advocates need to become more vocal in articulating a more ethnocentric or culture-based theology that their co-religionists will find convincing. It is simply not enough to hope that Nationalists can achieve something politically and then come to the rescue of the churches. The churches, and Christianity, must prove that they are worth rescuing. Christian White advocates can begin by “evangelizing” their co-religionists for our cause, and thus take a step towards reclaiming the churches that are helping to destroy us. I’ll finish by returning to Emerson:
“Let us hear a whistle from the Spartan fife. Let us never bow and apologize more.”
* * *
Source: Occidental Observer