How Christianity Harms the Race
The Roman empire did not die any differently, though, it’s true, more slowly, whereas this time we can expect a more sudden conflagration … Christian charity will prove itself powerless. The times will be cruel. — Jean Raspail, introduction to the 1985 edition of The Camp Of The Saints
CHRISTIANITY, which many believe to be the noblest moral system ever conceived, must now share blame for the dissolution of the West. A faith that once served as an anchor for Western civilization has become a source for the same self-flagellating guilt that typifies liberalism. Today, Christianity’s public expression differs only cosmetically from Marxism in its attitudes towards economic redistribution, equality, and racial integration.
How has Christianity sunk so low — and our people with it? The answer is that it has subverted inbred traits of altruism that help family and tribe survive, and has transmuted those traits into agents of passivity and surrender. Christianity has universalized altruism, thus stripping us of our defense against multiracialism. Today’s Christianity drives us to betray our own interests to whoever asks. At the same time, a preoccupation with eternal reward in the world to come blinds some Christians to the consequences of their actions today.
Loss of racial loyalty is recent. For centuries, race consciousness posed no moral dilemma to Christians. That “old-time religion” was good enough for Charles Martel when he smashed the Muslim invasion of Europe in 732 at Tours. It was good enough for Pope Urban II when he launched the Crusades in 1095. It was good enough for Columbus and Magellan, who claimed newly-discovered lands in the name of both king and faith. It was good enough for European colonial masters who ruled millions of non-Whites, untroubled by egalitarian scruples.
Christianity’s divorce from racial consciousness was both sudden and recent. Only in the 20th century did [anti-racial “morality”] infiltrate virtually every mainline Christian organization. By the 1960s, organized Christianity was working hand in hand with organized Judaism to dismantle the South’s self-protective wall of racial hierarchy.
What transformed the church? The problem is that Christian dogma has always contained dangerous moral precepts that undermine the natural instinct for group preservation. These precepts may be summarized thus: Sacrifice yourself today for the benefit of others, buoyed by faith in an “eternal reward.”
In earlier times, this idea posed little danger to White survival because it was preached by Whites living in an almost all-White world. Today, on a crowded planet filled with envious Third World peoples, its consequences are lethal. The mentality of sacrifice has resulted in an inability to assert the imperative of survival — an imperative that puts family, tribe, and nation at the center of moral life.
Christianity must therefore share a major part of the blame for the abnormal belief that we must commit racial suicide in order to be “moral.” This is not, of course, to lay blame solely on Christianity, but neither should Christianity escape examination solely because it has long been the guardian of the moral beliefs of Western peoples.
What then, are the beliefs that characterize today’s self-destructive Christianity? They are altruism and universalism. These two beliefs so dominate public Christian discourse that they are contradicted from no more than a handful of pulpits — even in the American South, where ministers once invoked God in defense of segregation.
Let us first consider altruism, the Good Samaritan reflex. The Golden Rule — which is the ideal of Christian conduct — exalts altruism, or acts beneficial to others without regard for one’s own interests. If followed by everyone, surely the Golden Rule would produce world peace and harmony.
In fact, universal altruism has unintended consequences, some of which are shocking to Christian sensibilities. Biologist and human ecologist, Garrett Hardin, explained why in his 1968 essay, “The Tragedy of the Commons”: “Conscience is self-eliminating from a population.”
(The tragedy of the commons is the tendency to over-exploit any resource that is available for all to share but that exacts little or no cost from any one user.)
Professor Hardin first makes his point with respect to voluntary birth control, then generalizes it:
People vary. Confronted with appeals to limited breeding, some people will undoubtedly respond to the plea more than others. Those who have more children will produce a larger fraction of the next generation than those with more susceptible consciences … The argument here has been stated in the context of the population problem, but it applies equally well to any instance in which society appeals to an individual exploiting a commons to restrain himself for the general good — by means of his conscience. To make such an appeal is to set up a selective system that works toward the elimination of conscience from the race.
Conscience is eliminated because it is not randomly distributed in a population but is to some degree inherited from parents. Even if willingness to restrict breeding for the good of all is only slightly heritable, an appeal to conscience will steadily remove it from the population. The fact that self-sacrificing conscience, or in a broader sense, unfettered altruism, is self-eliminating is a fundamental truth with which any lasting moral order must contend.
There must be a dual code of morality — one for one’s own group and another for everyone else. Harsh as this may sound both to Christians and non-Christians, Nature will inexorably eliminate the flawed genes of any group that fails to make this distinction.
In fact, we take the dual code for granted. We devote much of our lives to rearing our own children but we ignore the children of strangers — an obvious double standard. We save the lives of our comrades in battle but we kill the enemy — another double standard. The universal altruism of the Golden Rule undercuts both forms of group loyalty. After all, we might well wish that strangers would devote themselves to our children. If we took the Golden Rule seriously we might then devote ourselves to the children of others and neglect our own. Likewise the Golden Rule might require us to betray our own side to the enemy, inasmuch as that is what we might want done for us. Clearly, groups and individuals that behaved this way would not pass on their perverted morality to many descendants.
Some will object that Professor Hardin’s prediction about the self-elimination of conscience is demonstrably false, since it still exists. No: What matters is the time scale. Conscience-obsessed Western man is declining in numbers, and his morality and behavior are declining with him.
Today’s Christians have confused the Biblical injunction to be our “brother’s keeper” — a moral code based on blood kinship — with the opposite notion that every human on Earth is our brother. More than a century ago, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon observed, “If everyone is my brother, I have no brothers.” Professor Hardin adds: “Universalism is altruism practiced without discrimination of kinship, acquaintanceship, shared values, or propinquity in time or space.”
Biblical testimony on universalism is, in fact, mixed. The Old Testament praises altruism only within the community, and commands the Children of Israel to shun other peoples. For example, Deuteronomy 7:2-3 reads:
2 When the Lord thy God shall deliver them before thee, thou shalt smite them, and
utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto
them; 3 Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. . . .
One finds national and presumably racial separatism in the New Testament as well. Acts 17:26 reads,
[He] hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the Earth, and hath determined the times before appointed and the bounds of their habitation.
Matthew 25:31-32, in which Christ speaks of his future reign, adds:
When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit on the throne of his glory: And before him shall be gathered all nations; and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats.
But all too often the New Testament, particularly in the letters of Paul, promotes universalism. Today’s Christians love to cite passages such as Galatians 3:28-29:
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond or free, male or female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if ye be Christ’s then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
It is on the basis of passages like this that Christianity has abandoned the defense of our people and has become an accomplice of those who would displace us. The National Council of Churches donated money to Marxist revolutionaries in Africa — revolutionaries who sometimes murdered White missionaries. The Southern Baptist Convention’s leadership recently bowed before its one Black member, apologizing for slavery and racism. Typically, the Black member showed little gratitude for the gesture, complaining that not nearly enough had been done to alleviate the lingering effects of slavery.
Like their atheist counterparts, Christian trend-setters preach what amounts to the dissolution of the White race. Christian Coalition founder Pat Robertson supports more immigration from “south of the border” because the newcomers are nominally “Christian,” support “family values,” and are “our kind of voters.”
Mr. Robertson seems not to realize that Mestizo Christianity is often based on “revolution theology,” and its symbol is a Christ-figure with arms upraised, brandishing an AK-47 assault rifle. Revolution theology will help create “Aztlan,” the Bronze Continent, the new home of La Raza — literally, “the race.” Even a nominally Christian Aztlan would effectively decapitate Christianity as Mr. Robertson understands it, since altruistic universalist Christianity is largely a habit of Western people.
Too Much Sacrifice
Billy Graham goes one further and says that the only solution to our race problem is for us to breed with non-Whites until human differences disappear. He says we must take alien peoples into our hearts and our homes and, yes, “into our marriages.”
With ministers preaching racial suicide, Christianity may now be more of a threat to our survival than liberalism. At least with liberalism, one recognizes the enemy. But when Christian leaders take liberal positions, they leave the flock defenseless. Ralph Reed and Billy Graham are our opponents, no less than Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy.
The Wall Street Journal recently ran a front page story titled “Racial Reconciliation Becomes a Priority For the Religious Right”:
[T]he most energetic element of society [today] addressing racial divisions may also seem the most unlikely: the religious right.“Across the country, conservative congregations and denominations, while sticking to other stringent principles of conservative religious thinking such as the proscription of homosexuality and abortion, are embracing a concept called “biblical racial reconciliation’ — a belief that as part of their efforts to please God, they are required by Scripture to work for racial harmony.
If even “the Christian right” has become part of the rout of traditional Christianity; it is because the New Testament opens the door to universalism. Oswald Spengler wrote that “Christian theology is the grandmother of Bolshevism,” and indeed, ministers routinely preach the “social” gospel, invoking a universalism that differs little from the agenda of the radical left.
Yet ironically, the universalist goal is a chimera. Since those who displace us do not, by definition, maintain our moral standards — for if they did they would not be replacing us — our flawed moral system will vanish with us. As Professor Hardin explains in his 1982 essay, “Discriminating Altruisms,” “[universalism] cannot survive in competition with discrimination.” A group that practices universal altruism — and Whites are the only group that does — cannot compete against groups that do not.
Some Christians would say that none of this matters because believers will one day ascend to their reward in Heaven. However, the vision of Heaven can subvert the imperative of survival. If, in their fervor to enter Heaven, Christians fail to have children or to build a nation in which their children can maintain their way of life, the race will not continue. It is worth noting that Heaven is an entirely personal reward, which can be pursued at the expense of family, tribe or race. Selfishness thus joins universalism in modern Christianity, completely inverting Nature’s design of loyalty to family and tribe.
Christianity’s flaws did not threaten us until technology and ideology made their consequences felt on a world-wide scale. Now, our moral code must renounce universalism and emphasize our own survival. Unless we adopt moral beliefs in keeping with the realities of today’s demographics, we will not survive the mounting wave of Third World immigration, procreation, and miscegenation. It is in this sense that, as Jean Raspail says, “Christian charity will prove itself powerless.” Christian charity can hardly stop a demographic displacement that it helped set in motion.
* * *
Source: Read the full article at the Mail Archive (1997)