The Christian Doctrine of Nations (AR July 2001)

www.amren.com/0107issue/0107issue.htm

Biblical law respects boundaries of race and nation

by H. A. Scott Trask

In the September 1997 issue of AR [see below] there was a debate on whether Christianity is at least partly to blame for the demise of Western Civilization and the suicidal course being pursued by Western peoples. Both positions were ably argued, and on the whole I had to agree that the key to the controversy was a distinction between historical Christianity and contemporary Christianity. As Michael W. Masters (“How Christianity Harms the Race“) acknowledged implicitly and Victor Craig (“Defense of the Faith“) acknowledged explicitly, the two are not the same; and, as Mr. Craig argued persuasively, historical Christianity has not been indifferent to the fate of the European peoples.

The situation today is quite different. Whether Catholic or Protestant, conservative or liberal, all Western churches have embraced leftist dogmas on questions of nationality and race. The only difference appears to be that the more liberal churches openly support the multicultural and anti-white agenda, while the conservative churches ignore it. Of course, ignoring an agenda that pervades everything from politics to advertising is a form of tacit acceptance. The question is not whether Western churches are betraying their predominantly white congregations; they are. The question is whether they have doctrinal justification to do so.

It would be hard to overestimate the extent to which churches have surrendered to the leftist racial world view. Two years ago, the Pope said this about the inundation of Western countries by Third-World “refugees:“ “These foreigners are above all our brothers, and no one should be excepted for reasons of race and religion.“ Of course, one could argue that race and religion are the two most important reasons to prevent foreigners from settling in one’s homeland. A common race is the foundation of any true nation, while a common religion is the foundation of a common moral code.

Leaving aside the race question for a moment, what kind of insanity has gripped the Catholic hierarchy that it would maintain that a Christian country should not keep out non-Christians? Whatever the answer, Protestant churches in Northern Europe and North America suffer a similar affliction. While liberal Protestants prate about the endless benefits of “diversity,“ conservative Protestants boast they will convert the newcomers. So lost have they become in the mists of political correctness, so effeminate has become their Christianity, they do not realize the erection of mosques, Hindu temples, and Buddhist shrines in the formerly Christian lands of the West is not a sign of progress in world evangelism but is terrible regress and defeat.

If the children of these pagan newcomers are, indeed, to be converted from the religions of their parents the contest will be between evangelicals and hedonistic liberals. Is there any doubt that the latter will sweep the field? These children’s parents came here to enjoy the good life and escape the challenges of building up their own nations. Their children will inherit this materialistic and self-seeking orientation. Christians can boast all they want about tolerance and love of foreigners, but immigration is only further marginalizing Christianity in our culture.

Some Christian leaders have been so bold as to call on the Western peoples to commit racial suicide so as to make the newcomers feel more welcome. Billy Graham himself recently told white Christians they had a moral duty to foster total racial integration “in our homes, in our worship services, even in our marriages.“ Of course, if every young European in the world were to take a non-European wife or husband, the European people would cease to exist in just one generation. It would be hard to overestimate the extent to which churches have surrendered to the leftist world view.

As far as I know, not a single Christian leader condemned, or even criticized, Billy Graham’s call for white extinction as a solution to the race problem. Billy Graham’s position is similar to that of the former Republican congressman from Southern California, Robert Dornan, who said before a USA Today editorial board meeting: “I want to see America stay a nation of immigrants, and if we lose our Northern European stock—your coloring and mine, blue eyes and fair hair—tough! So what if 5,000 years from now we’re all going to have a golden tan. . . . We’re all going to be blended together because of travel, and because of the information highway.“ On the race and nationality questions the churches are following the lead of the dominant secular culture, not the other way around.

While few evangelical leaders are as bold as Rev. Graham, many come close. The former director of the Christian Coalition, Ralph Reed, has been particularly eager for the “Christian Right“ to support the racial agenda of the Secular Left. At the first Congress of Racial Justice and Reconciliation, held in Washington, DC, in May 1997, Mr. Reed agreed that racial “injustice“ was widespread in bank loans, housing, inner-city funding, and in prison sentences. He also agreed there had been a white racist conspiracy to burn black churches. (Readers of AR know that this “conspiracy“ was a hoax.) The Christian Coalition launched something called the Samaritan Project, to help rebuild black churches.

Nor should it be forgotten that Mr. Reed and the Christian Coalition are largely responsible for stopping Pat Buchanan’s insurgent drive for the Republican presidential nomination in 1996. After winning in New Hampshire, Mr. Buchanan had only to win in conservative South Carolina to establish himself as the front runner ahead of Bob Dole. Mr. Reed and other coalition members simply repeated the leftist media charges that Buchanan was a “racist“ and an “extremist,“ thus helping Mr. Dole win the primary and nomination.

About the same time, the Christian Coalition helped defeat proposed legislation in Congress that would have cut legal immigration by a modest one-third on the grounds that it would have prevented immigrants from bringing in relatives, thereby thwarting “family reunification.“ Such an objection is sentimental nonsense, for it is immigrants who first chose to separate from their families and people. Americans are not obligated to end such freely chosen separations by throwing open their borders. [On this incident, see the remarks made by the president of the American Immigration Control Foundation, John Vinson, in his pamphlet “Immigration and Nation, a Biblical View“ (AICF, 1997), p. 16.]

Most Christians never mention, much less oppose, policies that directly harm whites: racial quotas, affirmative action, anti-discrimination laws, forced busing, extortion-motivated “civil rights“ lawsuits, black-on-white hate crimes, interracial marriage, and Third-World immigration. They believe Martin Luther King, Jr. was an American Christian hero who truly deserves to be the only American with a national holiday in his honor. They believe “racism“ is a sin, but a sin only when it is white racial consciousness or loyalty, never non-white racial consciousness or identity. They believe whites have a moral and Christian obligation to “bridge the racial divide,“ integrate their churches, reach out to people of color, etc. It therefore seems a bad joke to speak of Christian conservatives or the Christian Right, for there is nothing conservative about acquiescing in a demographic revolution to turn whites into a minority.

White Christians became racial liberals mainly because the Church has been besieged by the same forces that now dominate every other Western institution. The universalistic and egalitarian ideas of the Enlightenment have now fully penetrated Western culture. Feminist and socialist values have worked their way into Western culture and have overthrown traditional ideals of manhood, patriarchy, and chivalry. Biblical illiteracy, illogic, and historical ignorance have created an environment in which the Scriptures have been perverted into a religious justification for racial liberalism.

There are many examples of such perversion. Christian ministers and writers love to cite the Apostle Paul, who wrote that “there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him“ (Romans 10:12, New American Standard Bible; all quotations are from this translation, which is known for its accuracy.) They argue this means we should make no racial or ethnic distinctions or even think in racial terms. Paul is said to be conveying the same idea in another epistle: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus“ (Galatians 3:28). In context it is clear these two passages reveal God’s offer of salvation to all regardless of race, nationality, social standing, or sex. They do not mean—and as we will see Paul himself makes it clear he does not mean—that such distinctions should be ignored, that they are unimportant, that acting upon them is sinful, or that they should be overthrown.

If the liberal interpretation of these passages were correct, God would be not only a racial liberal but a socialist and a feminist as well. If these passages endorse the abolition of racial identity and distinctions based on them, they also endorse the obliteration of sex distinctions. And if the Bible supports racial liberalism, why has this fact come to light only in the past century, a century known for its secularism and declining moral and cultural standards?

The Old Testament

Contrary to what one has heard from the pulpit or on Christian radio, the Bible supports racial preservation and even separation. The Bible teaches that mankind is composed not of an amorphous mass of individuals but of nations. It also teaches that the basis of all genuine nations is a common ethnic stock, which is more important even than a common language, culture, political allegiance, or locale. The Bible praises homogeneity as a blessing, and posits it as the basis of love, friendship, social peace, and national harmony. The Bible also sanctions love of nation and fatherland, a virtue antagonistic to indiscriminate and large-scale immigration.

According to the famous “Table of Nations“ in Genesis 10, God organized mankind into discrete nations in the aftermath of the Great Flood. He created three sets of nations, each set descending from one of the three sons of Noah: Fourteen nations from Japheth; 30 from Ham; and 26 from Shem. After listing the progenitors of each of the nations that sprang from Shem, Genesis uses a formula closely repeated for Ham and Japheth, “These are the sons of Shem, according to their families, according to their languages, by their lands, according to their nations“ (Gen. 10:31). The Genesis account of the dispersal of the nations concludes, “These are the families of the sons of Noah, according to their genealogies, by their nations; and out of these the nations were separated on the earth after the flood“ (Gen. 10:32). These passages make clear that the essential constituent element of each nation is common ancestry, together with a “land“ and a distinctive language. This is God’s creation, with no indication that it is anything other than entirely in accord with His will.

Genesis describes the areas in which these different nations settled in terms of migration patterns that conform to a broad division of races. For centuries there was universal agreement in Christendom that the Europeans were descended from Japheth, the Semites (Jews, Persians, Syrians, Arabs, and Asians) from Shem, and the Africans (including Egyptians and Canaanites) from Ham. However literally or figuratively one chooses to interpret this account, Genesis clearly divides the peoples of the earth into groups of related but racially distinct peoples.

Modern Biblical commentators and Christian leaders have tried to deny the obvious by insisting that the division of nations is not providential but accidental. They believe God intended the nations to be all as one (i.e. to cease being distinct nations). Therefore, they urge Christians to do all they can to restore mankind’s lost unity by tearing down national boundaries, promoting mass immigration, teaching English as a universal language, and intermarrying freely with members of other racial families.

This interpretation suffers from several flaws. First, if God intended mankind to be as one, why did He create many nations in the first place? Second, it is contradicted by the order of the Genesis narrative. The Table of Nations comes before the story of the Tower of Babel, indicating that God’s ordering and separating of the nations was part of His plan from the beginning. The sons of Noah refused to follow God’s clear mandate to separate and fill the earth. Instead, they gathered together, founded a city, and built a huge tower as a symbol of their power and independence. However, God’s sovereign purpose cannot be frustrated by the designs of men: “The Lord confused the language of all the earth; and from there the Lord scattered them abroad over the face of all the earth“ (Gen. 11:9).

The scattering was neither arbitrary nor chaotic. According to the Biblical account, people moved with their nations in an orderly exodus that fulfilled God’s purpose. As we learn in Deuteronomy, God gave each nation or people its own lands and separated these lands by territorial boundaries: “When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, when He separated the sons of man, He set the boundaries of the people“ (Deuteronomy 32:8).

The third flaw of the modernist interpretation of Genesis 10 and 11—and from a Christian perspective the most dangerous—is that it repeats the sin of the people who built the Tower of Babel. The modern desire for global unity, amalgamation of peoples, destruction of territorial boundaries, English as a universal language, and construction of a world government is difficult to see as anything other than a sinful desire to rebuild the Tower of Babel and create an autonomous humanistic order independent of God. It is a rebellious project that defies God’s plan for world order based on discrete nations each residing within its own lands.

Fourth, the project for global unity sullies the beauty and diversity of God’s human creation, in that it suggests that the existence of different races, which vary markedly in physical appearance, is a mistake that man is to remedy by racial intermarriage. In this warped version of creation, God is the bungler and man the redeemer. Noah and His Sons Building the Ark, Raphael, 1517.

Throughout the Old Testament, Biblical writers consistently refer to mankind as composed of distinct peoples and nations, and not as an undifferentiated mass of individuals. In fact, Hebrew has no equivalent for the English word “people,“ meaning mankind in general. The psalmist is therefore talking about separate peoples when he declares that all the non-Jewish nations are in rebellion against God, and asks “why are the nations in an uproar and the peoples devising a vain thing?“ (Psalm 2:1 NASB). When the psalmist speaks of the day when all mankind shall acknowledge the one true God, he shouts “Praise the Lord, all nations; laud Him all peoples“ (Psalm 117:1). Likewise, “All the nations whom You have made shall come and worship before You, O Lord“ (Psalm 86:9). Although the nations join in praising God, they by no means lose their national identities.

The New Testament

The New Testament reaffirms the national and ethnic distinctions of the Old Testament, if anything, in stronger and clearer terms. Unlike Hebrew, the Greek in which the New Testament was written does have a word for mankind, anthropon; however, it is used infrequently and never suggests the elimination of the national or racial divisions of mankind. Luke wrote that God “made from one [Adam] every nation [ethnos] of mankind [anthropon] to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times, and the boundaries of their habitation“ (Acts 17:26). Christ himself commanded his disciples to go and “make disciples of all the nations [ethna]“ (Matthew 28:19).

Paul—though often cited in Christian attacks on race and nationality—both in his writings and personal loyalties clearly supports the view that nationality is based on a common ethnic origin. To begin with, one can well ask to what nation did Paul belong, and on what basis? He was born a Roman citizen in the province of Cilicia in Asia Minor. He spoke both Hebrew and Greek fluently. Religiously, he was not only Jewish but a Pharisee. He converted to Christianity. In answer to our questions about his nationality, the modern Christian could offer four possible answers: Paul was a Cilician (place of birth); he was a Roman (citizenship); he was a Greek (language); he was a Jew but became a Christian (religion).

According to Paul himself, all four answers would be wrong, for Paul on numerous occasions, after he became a Christian, identified himself as belonging to the Jewish nation on the basis of birth and heritage—not merely a Jew but of a particular tribe. He was, he claimed, “of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews“ (Philippians 3:5). When he wrote to the Romans in the city of Rome, he did not claim to be Roman (except by citizenship) but Jewish: “I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin“ (Romans 11:1). He referred to the Israelites as his “brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites“ (Romans 9:3, 4). He also referred to the Roman Christians as his “brethren“ (Romans 11:25), but he is clearly speaking in a spiritual sense.

Thus, Paul made a distinction between his ethnic nation (Israel) and his spiritual nation (the Christians). Far from the latter superseding or abolishing the former, as most modern Christian leaders would claim, Paul affirms and honors both as an integral part of his identity. He hoped that more of his ethnic kinsmen would come to accept Christ as the Son of God: “Brethren [Roman Christians], my heart’s desire and my prayer to God for them [Israel] is for their salvation“ (Romans 10:1 NKJV). He also expressed confidence that God will not “reject His people,“ meaning the Jews (Romans 11:1).

Paul uses the Greek word laos (a people) to refer to both an ethnic people, as in the people of Israel, and a spiritual people, as in the people of God. Paul’s use of that word in both contexts proves that ethnicity is not rendered obsolete or illegitimate by coming to Christ.

Paul’s ethnic identification is consistent with everything we know about the ancients, whether Greek, Roman, German, Celt, or Semite. They understood a nation to be a people of a common ancestry or race. The Roman Empire was not a nation, nor did any ancient author consider it to be a nation. They understood it to be an empire made up of many nations.

Differences between English and the Greek of the New Testament can cause misunderstanding. Christ’s commandment that Christians should “love their enemies“ sounds in English like a radical, all-embracing injunction that would do away with ethnic or national differences. Greek, however, distinguishes between personal enemies and foreign enemies. It has three words for enemy: polemios (a foreign enemy), agonistes (a competitor or rival), and echthros (a private enemy; literally, one whom you hate). When Christ commands Christians to “love their enemies“ (Matthew 5:44; Luke 6:27,35), he uses the word for one’s private enemy, that is to say someone with whom a Christian has quarreled. Never is this injunction applied to foreign enemies, the enemies of one’s people.

Intermarriage

The Bible endorses ethnic homogeneity as a positive good that contributes to peace, harmony, and happiness, whether it be in marriage, friendship, or society. The Hebrews were forbidden, first by their patriarchs and later by God Himself, to marry the sons and daughters of the peoples of the land God had promised them. Abraham made his chief servant swear not to search for a wife for his son Isaac “from the daughters of the Canaanites [Hamites], among whom I live; but you will go to my country and to my relatives [descendants of Shem], and take a wife for my son Isaac“ (Gen. 24:3,4).

When Jacob and his family (sons, daughters, and grandchildren), 70 persons in all, went to Egypt to dwell in the land of Goshen under the protection of Pharaoh, only one son, Simeon, had a Canaanite wife in addition to a Hebrew wife (Genesis 46:8-26). Thus, out of all the grandchildren of Jacob, only one was part Hamitic. Upon their return to the Promised Land some 400 years later, Moses forbade the children of Israel to intermarry with the Canaanites, whose land they were preparing to invade and occupy (Exodus 34:12-16; Deuteronomy 7:3). Tower of Babel, Peter Bruegel the Elder, 1563.

Modern theologians, Bible commentators, and pastors are quick to insist that God’s prohibition of such marriages was based on religion rather than race or ethnicity. Their shocking conclusion is that while white Christians are forbidden to marry non-Christian whites they are free to marry non-whites so long as they are Christians. They fail to see that God’s prohibition was based on both religious and racial considerations. God does not condemn interethnic or interracial marriage per se, but He does lay down a principle that would forbid it as a common or widespread practice. The late Rousas J. Rushdoony points out that Biblical law and example is against all kinds of unequal yoking: “The burden of the law is thus against inter-religious, interracial, and inter-cultural marriages, in that they normally go against the very community which marriage is designed to establish“ (The Institutes of Biblical Law, 1973). Many scriptural examples support this interpretation, as we shall see.

Liberal Christians repeatedly point out that God blessed certain interethnic marriages. The examples they cite are always between Israelites and members of other Semitic peoples who were their ethnic kin (descendants of Shem). When Joseph was serving the Pharaoh of Egypt as his chief adviser and servant, he married a member of the ruling class of Egypt and had sons by her, including Manasseh and Ephraim, both of whom would become the patriarchs of two of the twelve tribes of Israel (Genesis 41:8,50-52). However, his wife, as well as the entire ruling class of Egypt of that time, were Hyksos (a Semitic people who were ruling Egypt at the time). They were thus the cousins, or racial kin, of the Hebrews. Undoubtedly, this ethnic and cultural kinship had something to do with the favor with which the Pharaoh and his people viewed the Hebrews during this period.

When Moses fled Egypt some 400 hundred years later, he sought refuge among the Semitic Midianites, a people descended from Abraham and Keturah, and he took a wife from among them. He thus did not violate God’s prohibition against intermarrying with the cursed Hamitic peoples. (After Ham showed disrespect to his father Noah, God cursed him and all his descendants—Gen. 9:20-25.) Nor does the famous marriage between Boaz (an Israelite) and Ruth (a Moabite) violate the principle of ethnic consanguinity, for the Moabites too were Semites, being descendants of Abraham’s nephew Lot.

Foreign marriages in the Bible are almost always portrayed as acts of unfaithfulness, disobedience, or lust. God promised Abraham many descendants and to make of them a great nation. Abraham believed the Lord, but his wife Sarah was too old to bear children. She therefore permitted Abraham to have intercourse with their Egyptian maid, Hagar. As God intended miraculously to open Sarah’s womb, the result was that Abraham soon had two sons, Ishmael by Hagar (a Hamite) and Isaac by Sarah (a Semite). The result of this mixed lineage was a divided and unhappy household. Eventually, Abraham sent Hagar and Ishmael away. As Hagar chose an Egyptian wife for Ishmael, the Ishmaelites gradually merged into the surrounding Hamitic peoples and soon ceased to exist as a separate people.

Later, Esau (Isaac and Rebekah’s eldest son) demonstrated his unfaithfulness to God and his people, as well as his lack of sexual restraint, by marrying two Canaanite women who became a “grief of mind to Isaac and Rebekah“ (Gen. 26:34, 35). The descendants of Esau’s marriage (the Edomites) became persistent enemies of the Hebrews.

The great Israelite hero Samson had a weakness for foreign women. Against the wishes of his parents, he took a wife from among the Philistines, and he afterward frequented Philistine harlots. It was this lack of sexual restraint and his unwillingness to abide by God’s laws that led to his blindness and death at the hands of his enemies (Judges 16).

Centuries later, when a remnant of the Hebrews returned from their long captivity in Babylon, they repented of their fathers’ propensity to intermarry with foreigners: “The people of Israel and the priests and the Levites have not separated themselves from the peoples of the lands . . . , for they have taken some of their daughters as wives for themselves and their sons, so that the holy race is intermingled with the people of the lands“ (Ezra 9:1, 2). This is an unmistakable condemnation of ethnic mixture.

Prophecy

Prophecy in both the Old and the New Testament gives strong evidence that God considers his division of mankind into various national or racial families not as an obstacle to be overcome but as an integral, praiseworthy, and permanent part of His creation. In some passages, prophecy points to the eternal significance of these distinctions. David prophesied that “all the ends of the earth will remember and turn to the Lord, and all the families of the nations will worship before Thee“ (Psalm 22:27 NASB); and that “all the nations whom Thou hast made shall come and worship before Thee“ (Psalm 86:9 NASB). James, the half-brother of Jesus, declared before the Jerusalem Church Council that the Father had revealed through the prophet Amos that He would send his Son (Jesus Christ) “so that the rest of mankind [anthropon] may seek the Lord, even all the nations [ethne] who are called by My name“ (Acts 15: 17). Election does not destroy national identity.

The Book of Revelations provides clear evidence for the eternal destiny and indestructibility of the nations. In the New Jerusalem (Heaven), “the nations [ethne] shall walk by its light, . . . and they shall bring the glory and honor of the nations [ethnon] into it“ (Rev. 21:24, 26). Furthermore, John revealed that the leaves of the Tree of Life in the midst of Paradise “were for the healing of the nations [ethnon]“ (Rev. 22:2). These passages are impossible to understand without recourse to a doctrine of Christian ethnic nationalism.

Moreover, it is only recently that the churches of the West have claimed that ethnic and racial nationalism are in conflict with Christianity. The great Protestant reformer John Calvin affirmed the necessity and goodness of the national division of mankind: “Just as there are in a military camp separate lines for each platoon and section, men are placed on the earth so that each nation may be content with its own boundaries.“ In this manner, “God, by his providence reduces to order that which is confused“ (Quoted in William J. Bouwsma, John Calvin: A Sixteenth Century Portrait; New York: Oxford University Press, 1988, p. 35).

Of the major Christian churches, only the Eastern Orthodox Church seems to have retained an understanding of the legitimate and necessary place of the nation in the life of the individual Christian. In a recent document, the bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church affirm both the universality and particularity of every Christian: “The universal nature of the Church, however, does not mean that Christians should have no right to national identity and national self-expressions.“ Rather, they urge Christians to develop “national Christian cultures.“ Samson and Delilah, Rubens.

The bishops also challenge the leftist dogma that nationalism is acceptable only when it is based on non-ethnic factors: “Christian patriotism may be expressed at the same time with regard to a nation as an ethnic community and as a community of its citizens. The Orthodox Christian is called to love his fatherland, which has a territorial dimension, and his brothers by blood who live everywhere in the world.“ In addition, “the patriotism of the Orthodox Christian should be active. It is manifested when he defends his fatherland against an enemy, works for the good of the motherland, cares for the good order of [a] people’s life through, among other things, participation in the affairs of government. The Christian is called to preserve and develop national culture and people’s self-awareness“ (“Bases of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church,“ Jubilee Bishops’ Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, 13-16 August 2000, pp. 4-7).

One cannot imagine the Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican, Methodist, Baptist, or Presbyterian churches issuing a document of such wisdom. It is no coincidence that the one prominent Christian writer who understands that nationalism and Christianity are not in conflict is an Eastern Orthodox Christian, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. Upon returning to his homeland in 1993, the Russian patriot explained why he had left a comfortable existence in the United States: “In Vermont I had wonderful conditions, better than anything Tolstoy ever had. . . . I could have stayed there peacefully and in great happiness. But it would have been running away from my duty not to have come back. I could not escape our people’s pain.“ His words stand as a rebuke to all Third-World Christians living in America who refuse to return to their homelands to build their own nations and help evangelize their own people.

For centuries Christians have had no difficulty accepting the important teaching of Scripture about the legitimacy of nations. That they now ignore this teaching or misinterpret it points to the poisonous infiltration of Enlightenment and socialist modes of thought. Socialism, whether of the Eastern Communist or Western Social Democratic variety, has been consistently hostile not only to Biblical Christianity but to the national division of mankind. The Russian Christian writer Vadim Borisov described socialism almost thirty years ago as “a well-thought out plan for the destruction of the Christian cosmos, a plan to turn mankind into an amorphous mass.“

The fall of Communism ten years ago did not discredit socialism. The Social Democratic variant is stronger than ever, and continues its work of national destruction. Borisov warned that the socialist promise of happiness through liberation from the past and the imposition of equality was false, for “an impersonal, unstructured, formless existence is impossible.“

The Apostle Paul warned believers to beware of “false prophets and deceitful workers,“ for “Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light“ (2 Corinthians 11:13, 14). The medieval theologian Thomas Aquinas warned Christians that Satan and his angels disguise themselves sub species boni (under the appearance of good). European Christians should be on their guard against socialists posing as Christians, for the socialistic dream of racial reconciliation and world unity leads to nothing less than the extinction of Europeans as a separate people and the destruction of their civilization. Christians must stand in defense against those who would—in the name of Christ—have us abandon our lands and our people.

Dr. H. A. Scott Trask is an American historian, a writer, a Protestant, and an Anglo-Celt.



One Blood

One Blood, subtitled, The Biblical Answer to Racism, is written by Ken Ham, Carl Wieland and Don Batten, with a foreword by Zig Ziglar. Even if they are not familiar to AR readers, these names are well regarded in evangelical Christian circles. One Blood, published by Master Press, is considered “mainstream“ Christian literature even by some conservatives.

They say you can’t judge a book by its cover, but in this case you can. The cover picture represents the three races of man, all grouped together in the same drop of what is presumably blood. Of course, despite having the word “race“ in the subtitle and depicting races on the cover, the authors promptly assert that there is really no such thing as race. The differences we have been taught to think of as races are essentially just variations in skin color, which are nothing more than different concentrations of melanin. One Blood goes on to cite the very slight genetic differences between racial groups (they prefer the term “people groups“), but since the authors are creationists they do not mention that humans are very closely related to chimpanzees. One Blood even endorses the theory that human life originated in sub-Saharan Africa. This apparent conflict with creationism is nothing but an accommodation to the liberalism that has crept even into religious literature.

The crowning achievement of One Blood is its blatant endorsement of interracial marriage. On page 92 there is a chart illustrating who may marry whom, the point being that Christians should not marry non-Christians. The one illustration of an “unacceptable“ marriage is a depiction of two whites, one of whom is Christian and the other “non-Christian.“ The two illustrations of “acceptable“ marriages are both interracial. One is of a white man and an Asian woman (both “non-Christians“ and therefore acceptable mates), and the third—the “ideal“ marriage of two Christians—is that of a black man and a white woman.

The Bible’s “Great Commission,“ found in the final verses of Matthew and Mark, instructs believers to preach the Gospel to all nations—not to invite them to settle in your neighborhood and marry your daughter. There was a time in the not-too-distant past when white people understood this.

—Jerry Prater, Cross City, Fla.

Christianity, Pro and Con

The AR readers‘ survey, published in the previous issue, reveals considerable disagreement among subscribers about the effects of Christianity on the struggle to preserve Western Civilization. AR itself takes no position on this question, but in this issue two thoughtful readers offer alternate views.

----------

AR September 1997 Issue

http://www.amren.com/979issue/979issue.html

I. How Christianity Harms the Race – by Michael W. Masters

“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.

Christianity‘s Decline

Christianity has universalized altruism thus stripping us of our defense against multiracialism 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 “secular humanism” 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. The universalist campaign continues to this day, with ordination of women and soon, one fears, homosexuals.

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 people, 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.

Altruism

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.) Prof. 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.”

A self-sacrificing conscience and unfettered altruism, are self-eliminating.

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 Prof. Hardin‘s prediction about the self-elimination of conscience is demonstrable false, since it still exists. Nevertheless, what matters is the time scale. Conscience- obsessed Western man is declining in numbers, and his morality and behavior are declining with him.

Universalism

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.” Prof. Hardin adds: “Universalism is altruism practiced without discrimination of kinship, acquaintance- ship, 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.”

Christianity Today

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.

A Chimera

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 Prof. 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.

Christians must return to that “old-time religion.” Today‘s version is destroying us.

Michael W. Masters is the author of “The Morality of Survival,” which appeared in the July and August 1995 issues of AR. His articles have appeared in The Social Contract, Southern Patriot, and The Citizens Informer.

II. A Defense of the Faith –by Victor Craig

There is a breathtakingly simple question that haunts those of us who are loyal to European Man and his culture: What has happened to us? Why has a once-proud and courageous people that stretched its dominion from Europe to North America to Australia simply abandoned its heritage and surrendered to aliens? For many, the prime culprit, or at least a major accessory, is the Christian faith.

I believe this blame is misplaced. Over the centuries not only did Christianity preside over vigorous expressions of racial nationalism, it created the very culture that men of the West claim to defend. Far from causing the decline, Christianity has itself been debased along with so many other principles that once guided us. Christianity must therefore be rescued and revived, not reviled.

What we now think of as “liberalism” rose up as a force independent from and hostile to the Church, and opposed the social order over which the Church presided. In fact, in the longer sweep of history, the Church has been one of the final citadels of resistance against assaults on tradition and the social and moral decay that follow. The same revolutionary forces that undermined Europe‘s civilizational and racial identity have only recently succeeded in undermining its religious identity. Therefore, to condemn the Church for what amounts to an eleventh-hour conversion to a movement it has adamantly opposed for generations is short-sighted and unfair. No student of history can argue that Christianity is somehow “inherently” defective in ways that weaken the race.

I would argue further that men who claim to be fighting for their race and culture have gone over to the enemy when they attack Christianity. As Hillaire Belloc said, “The faith is Europe and Europe is the faith.” The two are inseparable. It is far better for a man to believe, but even if he cannot, respect for his ancestors and love of his people should put him firmly in the camp of the saints. For the race to survive, we must restore its ancient and defining faith.

The Rise of Liberalism

Ever since the French Revolution – even from the time of the Renaissance and Reformation – powerful forces have been changing Christianity just as they changed Europe as a whole. “Liberalism” as we conceive of it today, begins with the rejection of hierarchy. It is the sworn enemy of class, of the importance of lineage as manifested in monarchy and aristocracy, and of the myriad differences that distinguish all people. And yet hierarchies of all kind were once central to European thought and were wholly sanctioned by the Church. For most of its history, Christianity has been the essential ballast against egalitarian experiments.

Traditional forces stoutly opposed universal rights, pluralism, democracy, etc. and among those forces was to be found inevitably the Catholic Church. Pope Pious IX‘s 1864 Syllabus of Errors is a strong and eloquent example of commitment to the Old Order. Its list of the “principal errors of our time” concludes with the most famous: the mistake of thinking that “the Roman Pontiff can and should reconcile himself to and agree with progress, liberalism, and modern civilization.” Protestants tended to be more receptive to “liberalism” than Catholics, but they too long opposed tampering with the sexual, moral, and racial norms of society.

One could argue that the success of counter-revolution in Europe between the First and Second World Wars was a sign that liberalism could be turned back, but this was the last real success. Even at this relatively late date, when confronted with the agonizing decision of whom to support in the Second World War, traditional Christianity often held its nose and supported the Axis. Whatever one may make of this choice, it certainly demonstrates that there was nothing in the old faith inherently at odds with racial theory or policy.

It was nevertheless the upheavals of the two wars that finally ended the struggle between revolution and the Old Order. It was only after these great struggles that ideas of equality – originally applied only to the men of one‘s own people – were extended to women, children, people of other races, and to hosts of ever-proliferating victim groups.

Although liberalism has been ascendant everywhere since 1945, even in the post-war era it has been traditional Christianity that provided spirited defenses for everything from the preservation of French Algeria to the support of Apartheid and Southern segregation. It is only the final absurdities of liberalism that have had the support of organized Christianity.

Those who talk of the “inherent” flaws of Christianity seem to forget that it has taken a very long time for those alleged flaws to reveal themselves. The Latin Vulgate dates from the 4th century AD, and by the mid-6th century the complete Canon in a single cover was in common use. For 14 centuries European man has lived and conquered with this Bible in his hand. It is implausible to argue that it suddenly revealed its true, race-destroying character only in the last few years.

Of course, as liberalism invaded the church it established a new understanding of Christianity. Mainstream churches have now jettisoned any teaching of the old faith that they found incompatible with the current zeitgeist. A great many “Christians” now openly reject the clearest possible Biblical condemnation of homosexuality, for example, and some are so brazen as to question publicly the existence of God. Even the Catholic Church has been in an extraordinary rush to abandon centuries of dogma and practice in the four decades since Vatican II.

This new, liberal Christianity, which is really just liberalism dressed up with a few of the old forms, is now an integral part of the juggernaut that has produced a multi-racial America and that preaches immigration, integration, and capitulation. The brotherhood of man now means that all men must live together in the same country with no distinctions.

There are still pockets of Christian resistance. The old Christianity is believed and practiced off the beaten path by small groups and congregations. Organized Christianity, on the other hand, is still organized, but it is far from Christian. The new Christianity is as dangerous to real Christianity as it is to the survival of European Civilization and the white race.

The Old South

The two societies that offered more than token resistance to post-World War II multi-racialism were the American South and the South Africa of the Afrikaner-led National Party. These were both highly traditional Christian communities. They found nothing in their faith to curb racial awareness.

In fact, the literature of race that grew out of both these cultures (often written by clergymen) may still be profitably referred to today. It is stunning how prophetic the Christians of those two societies were in their predictions of the long-term effects of racial mixing. They did not have the scientific evidence for racial differences we have today, but the common-sense observations of these deeply Christian folk arrived at the same truths about race that the Jensens, Rushtons, and Levins would express in technical terms much later.

In the pre-Civil War South, slavery was thought to be a moral institution. However jarring this may be to modern sensibilities, Christianity endorsed an explicitly racial concept of bondage. Clergymen frequently invoked Noah‘s curse upon his son Ham, who was to be “a slave of slaves to his brothers.” They also referred to the clear acceptance of and detailed regulation of slavery in the Old Testament. As Richard Fuller, an ante-bellum South Carolina Baptist declared in a dialogue with Francis Wayland, president of Brown University, “What God sanctioned in the Old Testament and permitted in the New cannot be sin.”

The religious defense of racialism continued in the post-slavery period as a defense of segregation. Robert Lewis Dabney is probably the most famous of the thousands of preachers who found a Biblical basis for white supremacy. In his more than 50 years of professorships and pastorates he opposed everything from black suffrage to black schooling. The former was a “fatal innovation” that would eventually “destroy both American liberty and civilization.” The latter would “only prepare the way for the abhorred fate, amalgamation.”

Richard H. Rivers was the author of Elements of Moral Philosophy, which served as the standard work on ethics for Methodists. In it, he wrote that the duties of whites to blacks “are no longer the duties of masters to slaves. They are, however, the duties of superiors to inferiors.”

Many Southerners today recall how, even during the fervor of the 1950s and early 1960s, the battle to preserve segregation was often led by clergymen. Of course, by then mainstream Christianity had become so weakened by liberalism that many Southern clergymen could be found on the other side as well.

Universalism

The Christian is indeed summoned to spread the message to all men, and it is Christianity‘s universalism that critics point to as its central flaw. However, universalism does not require equality. Among the Afrikaner, when the family gathered for prayer and Bible study it was customary for the black servants also to attend, but to sit on the floor. A concern for another man‘s soul does not imply that I think him my equal. He may be superior or inferior to me in any number of ways. Though not blind to his station, I am still summoned to care for his spiritual and even his material well-being, and a case can certainly be made for the view that apartheid did more for the black and colored man than will be done by self-rule.

In the end, the question is one of identity. May a Christian have any identity other than that of Christ‘s servant? May he be loyal to nation, culture or race? Traditional, European Christianity encouraged all these loyalties whereas liberal Christianity denies them. The denial is not only a recent aberration, it is a departure from Biblical teaching.

It is true that for the man devoted to the Lord, race will not be his only loyalty or even his first, but this must not render him suspect in the eyes of men who do not believe. Of the 391 readers who responded to the American Renaissance poll, 262 believe in God and 177 practice a religion. Of these, 167 are Christians. Their numbers, which amount to almost half the AR readers who responded, show that a true Christian‘s love of God need not dim his love for his people.

A Challenge to Non-believers

I would go farther and say that not only should Christianity not render a man suspect, Christians might even be justified in doubting the conviction of racialists who explicitly reject the faith. I know that among some non-believers there can be a tendency to mock those who believe, to think of us as somehow not intellectually complete. With all due respect, let me offer the view that perhaps no man of the West can be complete if he is not a Christian.

I do not here intend to issue a challenge to believe. I suspect that many racialists will always be non-believers because it takes a powerfully skeptical mind to resist liberalism‘s incessant propaganda, and in any case, faith does not come from the pages of magazines. Instead I appeal to tradition, history, and the beauty of what is uniquely European.

Our culture is so saturated with Christianity that the two simply cannot be separated. Can a man who claims to speak for European Man appreciate the B-Minor Mass in anything like the manner Bach intended if he does not share Bach‘s faith? Can a true man of the West look upon Notre Dame cathedral with nothing more than an art critic‘s eye? Can today‘s Southerners, who claim to be so proud of their Confederate ancestors, understand the minds of Stonewall Jackson or Robert E. Lee if Christianity is to them nothing more than an alien superstition? The art, the literature, the music, the sculpture, the history, the very essence of our heritage is suffused with faith and the symbols of faith. To strip Christianity from Western Civilization is to tear out its heart. Christianity is so characteristic of Western man that for centuries Europe was known as “Christendom.”

How can whites claim to be defenders of a people and of a race and yet scoff at the deepest convictions of their ancestors? How can they speak of “preservation” when they oppose the faith that has for so long defined and guided our race? Today‘s whites are the final link in a chain of faith that reaches more than a thousand years into the past. If they can throw off their ancient religion so easily what else might they cast aside? Their language, their culture, their race? Should we not be suspicious of men who invoke the wisdom of their ancestors‘ views on blacks or immigrants but who reject the spiritual foundation on which their ancestors built their lives – who reject what their ancestors would have said was the source and strength of all wisdom?

To be sure, it is not given to all men – not even to all good men – to believe. To those men I would say: If you love your race and its heritage, do not mock the Church. Respect it, honor it, and even – yes – join it. As a duty to your ancestors, in solidarity with the ancient traditions of your people, as an act of participation in the faith that suffuses our culture, stand with the believers even if, in your hearts, you do not believe.

I know that what I propose is difficult, even shocking. It is contrary to today‘s cult of the individual. It requires that personal qualms be set aside in the name of something greater. But for those who think in terms of race it should not be difficult to understand that there is something greater.

Those of you who were reared in the faith will find unsuspected solace in the familiar music and liturgy of your childhoods. Also, churches are not subject to civil rights laws and many are therefore the only fully segregated public institutions in America. Support the faith, work to restore its dignity and traditions and, eventually, the faith may become your support.

Those who do not believe should remember that it is a matter of pride among the liberals to flaunt their atheism. This is because they see religion as one of those loathsome things from the past, like “racism” and “sexism,” that must be destroyed. It is no coincidence that Communism persecuted the church. Therefore, do not side with the Bolsheviks against your own people. Whether you call yourself a racialist or a conservative or a reactionary, if you join the assault on Christianity you league yourself with those who hate Western man. It is precisely now, when the crisis is worst, that men of the West must march together and be guided by the same light.

Rather than turn their backs on the faith of their fathers, non-believers should ask themselves whether our people can be saved if our faith is not restored. Can it be a coincidence that racial consciousness in the West collapsed at precisely the moment liberalism invaded the Church? There have been many deeply religious European societies that took pride in race and nation. Has there even been a non-religious one that did? Do we even know whether whites can build a racially conscious society on material grounds alone? Those who think of Christianity as an obstacle and a stumbling block should ask themselves whether it may be that Christianity must be cured of liberalism before the West can be cured.

Europe is the faith and the faith Europe. Those who would be faithful to Europe but not to the faith will find that Europe cannot be Europe without the faith. Even if some biologically authentic remnant of the race succeeds in securing a material corner of the earth, it will have established a nation without an identity and a body without a soul.

Edit