On Europe and “the Faith”

Andrew Joyce, Ph.D.


“Too often you have not been welcomed…Forgive the closed-mindedness and indifference of our societies, which fear the change of lifestyle and mentality that your presence requires.”
Pope Francis, 2016.

“Europe is the faith, and the faith is Europe…I say again, renewing the terms, The Church is Europe: and Europe is The Church.”
Hillaire Belloc, 1920. 

Over the years my attitudes towards race and religion have unfortunately brought me into conflict with many Christians, some of whom have been very close to me. Closest to home, my wife is an evangelical Christian. Like many of her co-religionists, she believes much of what she is told in church, not only in terms of what is written in the Bible, but also in the social instructions her church issues in order to steer its flock towards a “good” and “moral” Christian life.

My wife and I are opposites in many respects. She is fully aware of my own agnosticism, and is equally aware of my positions on racial, religious and political matters. Possessing an abundance of good qualities as a wife and mother, I don’t think I am doing her a terrible injustice by stating that she doesn’t completely understand the complexities of the subject matter I routinely explore. To her, the thing that matters most is that my attitudes are “good.” It is the “moral” merit of my positions that she is most interested in, and because she is a Christian the question of how “moral” my opinions are is entirely dependent on how closely they fit with the Christian moral worldview  —  as taught to her by her church. Thus, when we discuss this or that aspect of the news she will often ask of my opinions: “Yes, but is that a good attitude to have? Is that displaying forgiveness? Isn’t your heart too hard?” If the discussion continues, it frequently evolves into a debate between (my) facts and (her) moral feelings.

Advertisement - Time to SUBSCRIBE now!

For the sake of domestic harmony, I rarely enter into debates on religion and politics with my wife, much as there are a hundred responses I could provide to her questions. There have been moments, however, when the divergence between my wife and me on religion and race has become acute. I accompany her to church only on extremely rare occasions, and the last and probably final occasion was last Fall. It started like any other service had. As we entered the ultra-modern church facility there was a crescendo of pulse-raising feel-good music, and there were swarms of people equipped with Prozac smiles. Bowls of candy were offered. As the service began, some individuals competed with one other in jumping and skipping in the front, crying and smiling and throwing their arms in the air to demonstrate their oneness with God. Eventually the pastor appeared to huge applause and fanfare, telling everyone that they were loved and that God was in the room with them. This seemed to bring comfort to the motley group of former alcoholics, drug-addicts and abuse victims that earlier visits had informed me comprised a healthy proportion of the population of the church. Some began emotionally swaying, assenting and nodding to his words.

So far, so familiar. But as we took our seats and the sermon began it slowly became apparent that I was going to enjoy the “teaching” even less than usual.

The topic was the “refugee” crisis. At a recent meeting of local government, a vote had been held on whether to formally extend an invitation and welcome to prospective “refugee settlers.” The vote had been proposed by a female Leftist politician with mental health problems. (She is an acquaintance of my wife and I know more about her private life than I probably should.) After hearing about the vote, I mobilized some of my political associates in the local community and we set about lobbying several key politicians. Our efforts helped ensure that the vote ended definitively on the resolution that an invitation and welcome would not be forthcoming.

I viewed this is a small but significant personal success given the pro-migrant climate at the time, and was riding a high until that following Sunday. I now found myself sitting and listening while the pastor, who hadn’t achieved anything of significance in the real world, weighed in heavily against the politicians behind the vote. They were “un-Christian” and immoral. It was in fact our “duty” as Christians to let these people come into our communities and share our resources with them. A preoccupation with “economics” displayed a lack of faith and morals because God would provide extra jobs for the extra people just like he had provided loaves and fishes, and there would always be enough money and resources to go around if we just showed enough faith. It didn’t even matter that these poor “refugees” weren’t Christian because after just a few days among us they would be overwhelmed by the Holy Spirit and begin their own Christian journey. A glorious shared future lay ahead of us; refusing to accept refugees was “racist,” and “racism” was an “evil sin.”

The simplicity of this pastor’s worldview would have been humorous if it wasn’t drawing the noisy approval of almost a thousand European-derived people. My ears still ringing with applause, it struck me that this kind of moral instruction wasn’t just childish and full of logical errors — it was dangerous. These people were literally being told that the fate of their eternal soul depended on facilitating their own demographic displacement. I sat motionless, in horror, for the rest of the service. My wife and I talked about the service when we got home, and we’ve discussed the incident several times over the last six or seven months. She understands, and agrees with, my position on the migrant floods. She even agrees that her church is politically wrong on the issue (it should ‘stay out of worldly affairs”), as it has been on other social and political questions that she cares about. However, she insists that the church is morally correct on the issue of migrants. She continues to attend the church and her faith remains undamaged. Our debates continue, fruitlessly. And as we seek to equip our children with the best ideological tools they may need to survive and succeed in a world in which their race is dying, the imperatives of race and religion remain in contest.

The sensitivity of addressing the issue of race and religion within the walls of my own home mirrors the sensitivity of the issue within our broader movement. I see the many Christians in our movement not just as a source of much-needed support, but literally as part of my extended racial family. Like my own wife, they are simply indispensable. The prospect of either side attacking the other as ignorantly superstitious or as consumed by arrogant disbelief is similarly unconscionable, since it would open chasms in the family unit that could potentially be catastrophic and which we can ill-afford. Remaining silent, however, is equally problematic since it could lead to the building of deeper resentments and quiet estrangement. Although discussing religion is often taboo in our movement for fear of creating divisions, since religion is still of huge social significance some kind of dialogue needs to occur. We need to talk. And we need to talk now more than ever because our churches, to the extent that they are truly still ours, are acting more and more against the interests of our people.

First, there is the Catholic Church. If modern Christianity has raised the themes of “forgiveness” and “meekness” to an astonishingly prominent doctrinal position (above even the once greater themes of atonement and cosmic redemption), then Pope Francis is surely the personification of this sick glorification of humility and weakness. The image introducing this article speaks volumes about the decline of our civilization and the failure of Christianity to prevent it, but the Pope’s conduct has been even more far-reaching. Less than ten days ago, in a highly symbolic act, the Pontiff took three Syrian families home with him from Greece. Reading right out of the ADL playbook, he announced that the movement of the migrant hordes wasn’t a dire threat to Europe’s existence but rather “the greatest humanitarian catastrophe since World War Two.” Catholics singing from the same hymn sheet as Jews is becoming more common. From April 4–7 Poland played host to the 23rd International Catholic-Jewish Liaison Committee Meeting, during which Catholics and Jews issued resolutions insisting on the moral imperative that Europe welcome “refugees.”

Given such developments it is no coincidence that in the long history of the Christian religion, Pope Francis is the most popular Pope among Jews. In September 2015 Ronald S. Lauder, the head of the World Jewish Council, said that “never in the past 2000 years have relations between the Catholic Church and the Jewish people been so good.” When Pope Francis held a closed meeting with the WJC the following month, Francis informed Jewish leaders that he fully believed that any criticism of Israel was just as “anti-Semitic” as attacks on Jews. Lauder emerged from the meeting speaking of the Pontiff in glowing terms: “Pope Francis does not simply make declarations. He inspires people with his warmth and his compassion. His clear and unequivocal support for the Jewish people is critical to us.”

A prostrating Pontiff, overseeing millions of compliant Catholics worldwide, is indeed critical to Jewish interests. Francis may be seen as the perfect culmination of the Second Vatican Council, which was orchestrated by Jewish converts to Catholicism and annihilated the remaining power of the Catholic Church as a force for European culture. The poisonous seeds have given rise to a truly rotten tree, or in the interpretation of Francis himself: “The Council, with the declaration Nostra Aetate, paved the way. It said yes to the rediscovery of the Jewish roots of Christianity, and no to any form of anti-Semitism and condemnation of any insult, discrimination and persecution derived from that.”


Not only a traitor to the European race, Francis is either intellectually insipid or a disingenuous cretin. In January this man, who claims to be God’s emissary on earth, argued that “Europe has the means to absorb refugees without sacrificing its security or culture.” The Holy Father was presumably here referring to the thefts, rapes, bombs and deaths that have illustrated the remarkable success the Continent has met with thus far in preserving its culture and security in the face of mass foreign incursion.

What the Papal position does in fact illustrate is a stark, and terrifying, detachment from reality. Just as Jesus of Nazareth encouraged his followers not to worry about food or clothing because “the End” was imminent, so the Pope tells his followers not to worry about immigration because countries and races mean nothing when one is assured of a glorious afterlife. Just days ago, Pope Francis delivered his most grovelling sermon yet, when he addressed migrants by pleading: “Too often we have not welcomed you! Forgive the closure and indifference of our societies, who fear the change of life and mentality that your presence requires.” Apparently one can only enter Heaven on one’s knees.

The widespread raising of “meekness” and “forgiveness” to totemic significance in the broader Christian religion is an especially pernicious development that demands closer study and attention. It has been added to a dangerous cocktail of cultural destruction and racial guilt, and has undoubtedly contributed to the “cuckolded” nature of contemporary Western existence. Citing just one recent example, we may cast our eyes upon the sordid tale of the home invasion, sexual assault and murder of pregnant mother Amanda Blackburn at the hands of three Black criminals. Blackburn’s husband Davey is an evangelical pastor who made headlines when he offered his “forgiveness” to the animals that savagely slaughtered his wife and unborn child.

My wife is currently pregnant with my third child and I have to confess that when I read the words of Pastor Blackburn the blood drained from my face. I placed myself in his shoes and the only feeling in my body was a need for absolute vengeance and bloody retribution on those responsible. Pastor Blackburn, on the other hand, wants to share the gospel with them. Even more shocking, Blackburn’s response to his wife’s murder was fawned over and celebrated by White evangelicals the world over in an orgy of gutless pacifism.

As stated above, modern Christianity is only an ingredient in this pathology and it has surely combined with other facets of the cultural conditioning of Whites to produce this deadly effect. Ironically, and yet somehow so very obviously, it took Black preacher Jesse Lee Peterson to point out that Pastor Blackburn’s act of forgiveness was not only based on bad theology but also was a clear ‘sign of weakness.” Peterson argued that: “The criminals haven’t asked for forgiveness, so how does he know if they want to be forgiven? It’s the criminals that need to apologise to him for their heinous crime. They offended the pastor; he didn’t offend them. So I’m not sure why he feels the need to forgive them.”

The problem that Peterson can’t see is that Whites exist in a culture saturated with the theme of “forgiveness” — both the giving of it, and as Pope Francis illustrates, the asking for it. The end result in both cases is just as Peterson describes: White weakness.

Looking at the facts, there can be little doubt that White weakness is being systematically sown and harvested by the churches on behalf of foreign settlers. The Anglican Church, one of the most influential after the Catholic Church, has raised millions of dollars worldwide that it then gives to refugees in the form of transport, housing and ready cash. In England the Anglican Church contributed two chairpersons to the board of the National Refugees Welcome Board. The Anglicans took their seats alongside Pat Lynch of the Catholic Bishop’s Conference and Rabbi Danny Rich, the board aims to bring at least 20,000 migrants to Britain within the next four years.

In Australia the Anglican churches are working hard to expand the nation’s immigration quotas which they believe to be “tragically inadequate” and a poor response to “the size of the world’s problem.” Australian Anglicans have also expressed their concern “with talk in relation to recent asylum-seekers as ‘illegals’ and ‘queue jumpers’…There is no such thing as a ‘queue’ on a global basis, although there may be queues in places where Australian Immigration staff are present. There are many thousands of desperate people marooned in foreign countries with no hope of having claims to refugee status assessed by any member of the Australian Immigration Department. We believe many more overseas processing positions should be created.” In Canada several Anglican communities have arrangements with the Citizenship and Immigration service to facilitate the entry of migrants and their total subsidization by church members for at least one year.

Presbyterians have also been heavily involved. When Donald Trump likened the influx of Syrian migrants into the U.S. to a coup, asserting that some migrants could be terrorists, he was subjected to a scathing attack by Rev. Gradye Parsons, stated clerk of the Presbyterian Church (USA). Parsons wrote that “Presbyterians through decades of policy have demanded humane treatment of people of all nationalities and faiths who find themselves within our borders. … We have challenged our government when it neglects to acknowledge the refugee status of those fleeing persecution. We have pushed for due process at the border and we continue to petition for immigration reform that includes a path to citizenship for undocumented persons. … Knowing our Lord was once a refugee, faithful Presbyterians have been writing Church policy urging the welcome of refugees and demanding higher annual admissions into the United States since the refugee crisis of World War II.”

Even those Christians who claim to be concerned with the decline of the West are part of the problem. A few days ago Pat Buchanan penned a piece titled “If God Is Dead,” in which he offered a deracinated version of our impending genocide. According to Buchanan, “A people’s religion, their faith, creates their culture, and their culture creates their civilization. And when faith dies, the culture dies, the civilization dies, and the people begin to die.” He argues that only after the adoption of Christianity did the West go on to “create modern civilization” (the Greeks, Romans, Celts and Teutons apparently were little more than savages), and that Europeans have stopped believing in the Christian god and instead now turn instead to “secular religions.” These secular religions have contributed to declining birth rates and “while the European peoples — Russians, Germans, Brits, Balts — shrink in number, the U.N. estimates that the population of Africa will double in 34 years to well over 2 billion people.”

Buchanan’s perspective on the decline of the West is woefully simplistic. Firstly, Christianity did not create Europe or European culture. The Christian religion thrived in earlier ages because of the genius of the race that adhered to it. Aryan man merely grafted elements of this Middle Eastern faith onto its earlier customs and ways of life. It is race that creates culture — religion merely decorates it. Faith can die, but in the presence of other conducive factors, the civilization and people may well endure or even thrive — as the suppression of the Nordic Heathen spirituality under the Christians clearly illustrates. Thor may have died but Thorstein still ploughed his fields and raised his family.

Buchanan also ignores the heavy influence of universalist Christian themes on the very “secular religions” he castigates. Where would socialism, egalitarianism, liberal democracy and their host of hideous offspring be without the powerful influence of nineteenth-century Christian movements like the evangelical socialist contemporaries like John Ruskin? It was Christianity that provided these poisons with their level of toxicity.

And what has provided the greatest support for the African population boom that Buchanan claims to dread? Christian aid of course. It is Christian aid to the Third World that comprises the apex and focal point of what we call “White Pathological Altruism,” except the real horror is that it isn’t pathological at all. In a terrifying display of “logic,” since these people don’t believe in the value of their biological reality, they are prioritizing something that they do believe in — their spiritual evolution.

Saving their souls, destroying their race.

Saving their souls, destroying their race.

Aside from the disastrous genetic implications of this delusion, Buchanan illustrates perfectly the sad fact that many millions of White Christians are hypocrites and self-deceivers. Ralph Waldo Emerson put it best in his monumental essay “Self-Reliance,” where he encouraged these spiritual bigots to focus on their own kind:

Go love thy infant; love thy wood-chopper: be good-natured and modest: have that grace; and never varnish your hard, uncharitable ambition with this incredible tenderness for black folk a thousand miles off. Thy love afar is spite at home…Are these my poor? I tell thee, thou foolish philanthropist, that I grudge the dollar, the dime, the cent, I give to such men as do not belong to me and to whom I do not belong.

The fact remains that Christianity frames itself as a universal method of cosmic salvation accessible to every man. To a Christian, Emerson’s sense of national belonging must always be subordinate to his belonging to another people — the people of God. Christianity ultimately cares more about the future of Christianity than the future of the German or the Dane. A Bishop will rejoice at the conversion of a Senegalese witch doctor more than he ever will at a growing family of unbelieving Norwegians.

This truth lies at the heart of the vulnerability of this religion from the perspective of ethno-nationalism. Rather than encourage ethnocentrism like Judaism does, Christianity achieves the opposite. Other than an extremely radical departure in interpretation there are simply no grounds for believing that Christianity will be of any assistance in helping us to develop survival strategies as we enter terminal demographic decline. In fact, we are currently faced with the problem of trying to overcome Christian influence and its heavy contribution to White pathological behaviors and traits.

There is a long history of Jewish antagonism towards Christianity, and I know that many in our movement have a reflexive defensiveness regarding the Christian faith based on this fact alone. But this opposition had less to do with Jesus of Nazareth (Talmudic aspersions aside), and more to do with Jewish confrontations with the social cohesiveness of Europeans who happened to be Christians and the threat to the Jewish group strategy posed by evangelism and conversion. Modern Christianity has indeed found its “personal Jesus,” and this is a Jesus that poses no threat to Judaism, and it has in fact evolved into an entity that serves Jewish interests very well. This is Jesus the Jew, Jesus the Refugee, and Jesus the Forgiver. Jews and Israel are praised and supported by almost every mainstream church, and the churches are at the forefront of displacing the European peoples from their ancient homelands. Jews and Christians are now very good friends indeed.

The intention of this article is not to offend, but perhaps to provoke. I can’t think of a single Christian clergyman of any significance who advocates exclusively for the European peoples. This is very telling. Those who describe themselves as Christian White advocates need to become more vocal in articulating a more ethnocentric or culture-based theology that their co-religionists will find convincing. It is simply not enough to hope that Nationalists can achieve something politically and then come to the rescue of the churches. The churches, and Christianity, must prove that they are worth rescuing. Christian White advocates can begin by “evangelizing” their co-religionists for our cause, and thus take a step towards reclaiming the churches that are helping to destroy us. I’ll finish by returning to Emerson:

“Let us hear a whistle from the Spartan fife. Let us never bow and apologize more.”

Originally posted May 1, 2016.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks

20 Comments to "On Europe and “the Faith”"

  1. October 8, 2016 - 12:57 pm | Permalink

    However pope Frankenstein sees that, here is how Muslims see it. Pope washing and kissing the feet of Black Muslims: Christians know their place. Even their king kisses the feet of the humblest Muslim.

    Took once a class at University of Central Florida (UCF). The White presenter was so excited that the demographic had changed over the years, Whites had become minority. Why is that good, I don’t get it.

    Had a look at the volunteering groups at UCF. White privilege: they were almost to the last person White, while Whites are under 50% now at UCF, unfortunately.

    • Sgt. Pepper's Gravatar Sgt. Pepper
      October 9, 2016 - 4:20 am | Permalink

      The White presenter was so excited that the demographic had changed over the years, Whites had become minority. Why is that good, I don’t get it.

      It has to do with the personality of whites. Its been called different things (e.g. “Faustian spirit”)— but recently I’ve been thinking of calling it “perfect”.

      Think of Christian Lander’s “Stuff White People Like”. The “perfect” bicycle, the “perfect” sandwich, etc. And of course recycling, because recycling is “perfect”.

      In his peanut of a white brain, your professor believed he was being “perfect” by helping non-whites.

  2. Lynda's Gravatar Lynda
    October 8, 2016 - 2:59 pm | Permalink

    The Christian civilization of Europe begins historically with Nuova Roma when Constantine obtained the victory of unification over the warring tetrarchy in the fall of pagan Rome.

    Against the fall of the W Empire to the barbarians, the capitol was moved to Constantinople. And the Christian ethnostate of a baptised ethne /nation became a reality within the framework of a new Roman empire both East and West under Byzantium. HRE under Charlemagne extended this model in the West and it lasted until the fall of HRE with the victory of Napoleon over Francis II at Austerlitz 1806.

    For better or worse, the HRE was the basis of Christian European civilization. It might not have been holy or wholly Roman, but beginning with Charlemagne and ending with the abdication of Francis II, if this wasn’t an empire, then nothing is an empire.

    The Christian ethnostate (a baptised ethnic population) existed within this framework of HRE. The Church of the Latin Patriarchate was the basis of its social order and jurisprudence – the basis upon which they legislated and ruled. These ethnostates recognised much of customary, common law of the people and contrived some of the most democratic and fundamentally sound instruments for self-government ever imagined – such as the Bretton Parliament. In England, before the Dissolution of the Monasteries, even nonbaptised outgroups enjoyed toleration in the ancient sanctuaries ‘where the king’s writ did not run’ – the highways, byeways, forest sanctuaries, holy wells etc.

    The Revolutions instigated by the Synagogue carved nations away from this foundation and now Freemasonry and its constitutions written upon the principles of the Revolution 1789 are the basis of the social order of all multicultural, post Christian W nations. As the Great Revolution (inaugurated 1789) rolls into its global totalitarian phase (Communism) the non-separation of synagogue and state will become more blatant and oppressive.

    This Revolution succeeded at the level of the universal Church in 1963 changing the faith, morals and sacramental life of the Western Church. I mean, if your idea is to rule the world, you aren’t going to leave an international organisation with roughly a billion people out of your plans.

    At no point in the history of Christian European civilisation has the traditional faith and morals of the Church ever tolerated Islamic invasion or approved of Islam as a legal code holding sway over baptised populations.

    The conciliar popes who bang on about ‘we all worship the same g_d’, praying towards Mecca and in the synagogue are not speaking and acting on the basis of the Catholic faith. Rather they are acting on the basis of the Revolution in the Church (1963…)

    The Church today holding to the pre-Revolutionary faith and morals might be reduced to a very small number, but here is one of its bishops on the subject of Islam:

    Walid Shoebat, a traditional Catholic also has an excellent website devoted to the history of the great Christian persecution currently unfolding in the ZOG wars.


    • Plato's Gravatar Plato
      October 9, 2016 - 2:41 am | Permalink

      Since its inception, Christianity also means the destruction of European tribalism. The logical result is European man’s current condition. I have to confess, it is my firm belief that Christianity gradually broke down European man’s ethnocentric tendencies, first starting with the dissolution of European tribal boundaries and then moving towards the dissolution of European national boundaries. Christianity knows no loyalty to European tribal identity. It is just loyal to its Jewish origins, while it always recognised some sort of special relationship with Jews which European pagans did not, and it is loyal to the concept of a single universal humanity and one single universal deity.

      • Lynda's Gravatar Lynda
        October 11, 2016 - 10:42 pm | Permalink

        This thesis would never hold up.

        Even within the framework of HRE, small Christian ethnostates could exist alongside more powerful neighbours. The ethnostate might have the dominant group, such as the Franks in France – but there were also Brettons, Basque, Saxons and Danes (Normans).

        The Italian peninsula was even more fortunate – the entire patchwork of city states, principalities, little kingdoms was at peace and so culture, dialect, customs flourished instead of warring states and tribal rivalries.

  3. Santo piece und luv's Gravatar Santo piece und luv
    October 8, 2016 - 6:33 pm | Permalink

    War of worlds metaphor

    Jewpods versus whitehumans

    “They’ are here since a long time and it’s a slow and sophisticated extermination.

  4. PaleoAtlantid's Gravatar PaleoAtlantid
    October 9, 2016 - 4:06 am | Permalink
    • Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
      October 10, 2016 - 4:19 pm | Permalink

      No offense meant, but strictly speaking it’s incorrect to treat the Remnant and the Rorate Caeli website as authentic mouthpieces for Traditionalist thought and attitudes. I know a good many hard-nosed Trads, and all of them consider these sources deeply compromised, as do I. Indeed, if they were political rather than religious in orientation, one might call them cucked and not be far off the mark. Not even a single true Trad holds Pope Francis in anything but contempt.

      Essentially every Trad I know is a foe of globalism, US imperialism, the welfare-warfare state, the coddling of blacks, Hispanics, and other “diverse” groups, and immigration, whether legal or illegal. A great many of them are Trump supporters, too, though a sizable minority believe little he says and find him far too morally and politically compromised to vote for. Lots of them are radically pessimistic about the government and what it plans for us in the near future. In fact, it was from these men and women that I first learned the term “doomsday prepper.”

      Most of all, none I have met fail to see the importance of keeping the West white and Christian, and all of them are at least Holocaust skeptics, many indeed siding with Bishop Williamson in being full denialists. Last but not least, all support total destruction of Jewish power and influence via any means short of extermination or selective misuse of the “justice” system. Loaded dice, after all, are notoriously no respecter of persons.

      As is true of every human group, a certain number of Trads aren’t particularly bright or mature, but surely the same may be said of an occasional [ahem] TOO.commenter, too. Hard to credit this, I know, but still …

      • PaleoAtlantid's Gravatar PaleoAtlantid
        October 11, 2016 - 3:00 am | Permalink

        Well, I guess I’m one of those commentators to whom you refer, that’s ok as I don’t claim any special knowledge of the workings of the Catholic Church or its ‘traditionalist’ groups. All the information I have been able to glean comes from those and similar websites. Agreed, Rorate appears cucked but the De Mattei article clearly states that high ranking bishops and cardinals such as Martini of Milan were actively supporting the migratory invasions. That is quite a revelation. Again the Remnant article doesn’t pull punches it openly states Soros and pope Francis are working together.
        This may sound overly dramatic, all the evidence points to the Churches, yes, all of them, having made a knowing and willing alliance with those forces working to destroy European peoples. If somehow we manage to survive the oncoming maelstrom the Churches will be held accountable as accessories in attempted genocide.

        • Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
          October 11, 2016 - 9:58 am | Permalink

          No, sir, you mistake me. My intent was by no means to suggest that you were one of the commenters I facetiously referred to. Please recall that I have vigorously applauded some of your comments in the past.

          You are quite right, of course, about Mattei’s article. But overall the guy is no more than a barometer of what passes for acceptable opinion among Italian journalists covering the Vatican. Mattei and certain other Italian scribblers much beloved of the Judeophile Rorate Caeli moderators are what the French call flâneurs: polished, articulate, but vain and feckless men-about-town. It is hardly an exaggeration to say that hanging around the Vatican in order to hear and contribute to gossip is what Mattei does to pay for the several Camparis and soda that presumably end a typical afternoon of his. Mattei talks and talks and talks whilst saying little of substance and frequently even less that comports with the obvious facts of whatever situation he deigns to comment upon. His speaking out now about betrayal by Martini and others, however good it is to hear such sentiments expressed by someone with a readership, means primarily that enough people with genuine influence in his working environment find these views tolerable.

          So the long and short of what I meant earlier is that one ought to guard against assuming that because Mattei and Rorate Caeli hit the mark once, they may safely be taken for reliable sources on most or many occasions.

      • Betty's Gravatar Betty
        October 13, 2016 - 12:29 pm | Permalink

        Hi PdC. Do you accept the RCC as the universal church which must accept all races as equal? Do you accept black/Asian priests-popes? You still have not answered this question. If yes, what is your interest in the West?

  5. buckle's Gravatar buckle
    October 9, 2016 - 6:10 am | Permalink

    It’s all very well blaming this pope and that pope for the post-1962 disaster but it was clearly an American show as was the EEC. There’s no going back and it saddens me to spend my declining years witnessing this mess which has resulted in Kevin and so many others losing their faith.

    • Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
      October 10, 2016 - 12:18 am | Permalink

      I agree that “it was clearly an American show,” but of course, to say that is effectively to say that it was a Jewish show—as indeed it was (cf., e.g., Léon de Poncins on the council).

      Also, I agree with your second sentence in toto, and I suspect that you’ll agree with me that things must inevitably get worse before they get better, even if Trump gets elected and turns out to be the heroic figure that many here believe him to be and that many others (including me) would love to see him turn out to be despite their pessimism (and mine) about him and his bona fides.

      No society that is as marinated in Jewishness and Jewish “values” as ours is can be repurposed to serve the deepest aspirations and needs of white men and women by simply eliminating, expelling, or reghettoizing all its Jews. Yet that is plainly what the vast majority of our brothers and sisters are looking to do. Even so, virtually any beginning, any turn away from the present sorry state of affairs, seems to me better than none at all. Whether it is or isn’t, surely it is the most I shall live to see.

  6. Jeff's Gravatar Jeff
    October 9, 2016 - 8:38 am | Permalink

    At least 95% of church-going Christians are non-White. In a brown country with a Marxist regime like Venezuela everybody goes to church. Like IsIam and Marxism Christianity appeals to the masses of slaves. We need NATIONALISM!

  7. October 9, 2016 - 4:02 pm | Permalink

    “Aryan man merely grafted elements of this Middle Eastern faith onto its earlier customs and ways of life..” – with respect, this seems completely wrong. Jews helped Constantine, a bastard usurper type, and thereby had a foothold as the Roman Empire collapsed. From the Jewish viewpoint, the fall of Rome was desirable, just as the fall of whites now is regarded by Jews as desirable. (At least while they have control).
    . . . Modern people must face the fact that Jews invented the whole rubbish of Jesus, miracles, ridiculous phrases, airy remarks, and all. The ‘New Testament’ is a collection of film scripts, putting Jewish supposed interests first.
    . . . The hatred for ‘Jesus’ idea was necessary, because Jews were hated for their massacres in Cyrenaica et al., and the preposterous claims in the faked ‘scriptures’ would have been rejected for this and of course other reasons. Don’t be surprised – Jews stick to lies like [some unpleasant metaphor]. It was the same policy, then: Jews thought “we are the experts in religion – what do a few lies matter? Or a few million?” Ever since, the Church and Jews have had a tug-of-war for hearts, minds, and money. At present Jews are winning. Even Mel Gibson showed ‘Jesus’ as good-looking, not a fake Jew film hero. View Christianity in this light, please. (Email me with any new insights, too!) It was as fake as the Holohoax.

    • October 11, 2016 - 5:53 am | Permalink

      NB looking at the elderly people with their red buckets for donations, I’d advise some scepticism at the ‘saving their souls at the expense of race’ idea. They know perfectly well the contributions are peanuts, and if offered the money themselves they know perfectly well it wouldn’t pay for very much. How many would voluntarily give up their houses, possessions, healthcare etc? About as many as Bob Geldof, i.e. none at all. How many would fund a truth-about-Churchill campaign, for that matter? They are not altruistic, which is the reasons Jews are going for dispossession by their invariable policies of lies, deception, frauds, force, and corruption.

  8. Betty's Gravatar Betty
    October 13, 2016 - 12:39 pm | Permalink

    Jesus cannot change genetics, i.e. IQ/race. The soul and spirit of a person are also tied to these two. We need to reformulate Christianity because we cannot toss out 2000 years of its Western history. It has to be a Western Christianity with the repatriation/segregation of blacks-Asians.

    • October 15, 2016 - 9:47 am | Permalink

      The 2,000 years idea is a fantasy. Another huge problem for whites is the Jewish insertion of their garbage into the mentalities of white women, notably in the USA.

      • Betty's Gravatar Betty
        October 15, 2016 - 6:23 pm | Permalink

        Constantine the Great legalized Christianity and held the council of Nicea in 325 A.D. There is a 2000 year history.
        White women must constantly be confronted with logic. I
        once worked with a lesbian who asked my views on gays, gay marriage. I told her I was a Christian who believed in evolution. From a Christian perspective, it’s sin. From an
        evolutionary perspective it is a biological degeneracy. There is no reason for gay marriage. I also told her that the day science finds a genetic component to “gayness,” then gay fetuses would have to be aborted as they serve no evolutionary purpose. From a Christian perspective they must be cast out. She started crying. I’ve confronted other women starting with I.Q. and evolution. They refuse to discuss the issues.
        But many men are like too. Especially when I tell RCC men that I don’t accept black-Asian priests-popes. Their heads explode and their headless bodies start flapping around. Logic is very difficult for people.

  9. Lina's Gravatar Lina
    October 17, 2016 - 1:35 am | Permalink

    We Shall Destroy the Clergy
    2. For a long time in the past, we have taken care to discredit the priesthood of Goyim, and thereby to ruin their mission on earth which might still be a great hindrance to us in the present day.

    Day by day it is losing its influence on the peoples of the world. Freedom of thought has been declared everywhere and the moment of the complete wrecking of the Christian religion is now only years away. As for other religions, we shall have even less difficulty in dealing with them, but it would be premature to speak of this now.

    We shall restrict the ability of the clergy to influence the government into such narrow frames as to make their influence move increasingly backward in comparison to their former progress.

    3. When the time finally comes to destroy the papal court, the finger of an invisible hand will point the nation’s anger toward this court. When, however, the nations come to attack it, we shall come forward in the guise of its defenders as if to save excessive bloodshed.

    By this diversion we shall penetrate to its very inner sanctum and be sure to never come out again until we have gnawed through the entire strength of this place.

    4. The king of the Jews will be the real pope of the universe, the patriarch of the international church [The Antichrist??].

    5. But, in the meantime, while we are reeducating youth in new traditional religions and then afterwards in ours, we shall not overtly lay a finger on existing churches, but we shall fight against them using criticism calculated to produce internal disunity…

    6. In general, then, our contemporary media will continue to condemn State affairs, religions, and imperfections of the Goyim; always using the most disrespectful expressions in order to lower their prestige by every means and in a manner which can only be done by the genius of our gifted tribe…

    7. Our kingdom will be a representation of the Hindu deity Vishnu – our hundred hands will be on the controls of the machinery of social life. We shall see everything without the aid of official police which, because of the limitations on their powers, hinders governments from seeing properly. We have made a list of similar limitations to be applied on the Goyim.

    Christianity – under Jewish attack…
    Christianity is historically in conflict with Jewish values and the Christian New Testament replaces the Jewish Old Testament. The Christian apostle Paul even writes in the Thessalonians (2:14-15) about “the Jews,who both killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out. They are not pleasing to God, but hostile to all men”. But the ranks of Christianity have been corrupted, materialism and pro-Imperialist support on behalf of the Church has tarnished the legacy of Jesus Christ, the freedom fighter. And so-called convert Jews have entered the ranks of Christianity, even its leadership. The Jew and Cardinal Jean-Marie Lustiger in France was even contemplated as one of the candidates to become the new pope. On a visit to Australia, Cardinal Lustiger was quoted in The Weekend Australian, 4-5 August 2001, p. 9:
    “I was born Jewish and so I remain […] For me, the vocation of Israel is bringing light to the goyim. That’s my hope and I believe that Christianity is the means for achieving it.”
    This quote of Judaism using Christianity as a means for Israel is corroborated by Rabbi Martin Siegel, who in New York Magazine, January 18, 1972, p. 32, said:
    “I am devoting my lecture in this seminar to a discussion of the possibility that we are now entering a Jewish century, a time when the spirit of the community, the non-idealogical blend of the emotional and rational and the resistance to categories and forms will emerge through the forces of anti-nationalism to provide us with a new kind of society. I call this process the Judaization of Christianity because Christianity will be the vehicle through which this society becomes Jewish.”


    This book, first published in 1952 is a small (5′ X 7′) format, of only 120 pages. One of the ‘little gems’ that has been suppressed and gives us a side of history that has NEVER been included in the history books for all to see. Captain Ramsay, WWI veteran, former member of His Majesty’s Scottish Guard, and finally a Member of Parliament, was arrested and imprisoned for nearly three years under an Orwellian law in England, without formal charges or a trial, because he had discovered and was attempting to expose the orchestrators of WWII.


    Edward I banished the Jews from England for many grave offences endangering the welfare of his realm and lieges, which were to a great extent indicated in the Statutes of Jewry, enacted by his Parliament in 1290, the Commons playing a prominent part.
    The King of France very shortly followed suit, as did other Rulers in Christian Europe. So grave did the situation for the Jews in Europe become, that an urgent appeal for help and advice was addressed by them to the Sanhedrin, then located at Constantinople.
    This appeal was sent over the signature of Chemor, Rabbi of Arles in Provence, on the 13th January, 1489. The reply came in November, 1489, which was issued over the signature of V.S.S. V.F.F. Prince of the Jews. It advised the Jews of Europe to adopt the tactics of the Trojan Horse; to make their sons Christian priests, lawyers, doctors, etc., and work to destroy the Christian structure from within.
    The first notable repercussion to this advice occurred in Spain in the reign of Ferdinand and Isabella. Many Jews were by then enrolled as Christians, but remaining secretly Jews were working to destroy the Christian church in Spain.
    So grave became the menace finally, that the Inquisition was instituted in an endeavour to cleanse the country from these conspirators. Once again the Jews were compelled to commence an exodus from yet another country, whose hospitality they had abused.”

Comments are closed.