|Thread begun by Robert on Fri 9/22/06 - 8:33 AM CDT
The Christian Doctrine of Nations (AR July 2001)
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Modern Biblical commentators and Christian leaders have tried
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
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
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
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
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,
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
Thus, Paul made a distinction between his ethnic nation
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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 in both the Old and the New Testament gives strong
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
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
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,
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
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
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, 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
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
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
—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
I. How Christianity Harms the Race
– by Michael W. Masters
“The Roman empire did not die any differently, though,
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
Christianity, which many believe to be the noblest moral
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
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 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
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
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
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
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
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
In fact, universal altruism has unintended consequences, some
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,
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
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.
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
“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,
“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
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
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
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
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
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
“Across the country, conservative congregations and
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
The Christian is indeed summoned to spread the message to all
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
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
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.