Is Universalism So Bad for Whites?

Our current disastrous situation is that the White race is rapidly declining in absolute numbers and the countries it built are being taken over by the Third World.

There are, clearly, two elements to this. The first is that Whites are disappearing of their own volition because they don’t reproduce.

The second element is unrestricted immigration and multiculturalism.

It’s my argument that universalism in general and Christianity in particular didn’t produce either (for simplicity I’m assuming that Christianity is universalist although there are exceptions). The distortions of the Left did.

The elephant in the room which nobody is too happy to mention is that the evident reason for the demographic suicide of White, Western peoples is that they have dissociated sex from reproduction, which Christianity teaches not to do. Here, far from Christianity being the cause of this White birth decrease, there is its opposite, the erosion and abandonment of Christianity, at the root of this trend.

There is a Jamie Kelso video in which he confronts young Whites about such an issue as well.

Whites have done this to themselves (I’m childless, so I’m not blaming others, just stating a fact). There is no amount of mass immigration, no number of people from alien races and foreign cultures that could have imposed sexual promiscuity, widespread use of contraception, abortion en masse and similar behaviour on our populations.

After Jesus, Judaism has taken, with the Talmud, a completely different path from its previous history and has become virulently anti-Christian — hence the deceitful ambiguity of the expressions “Judaeo-Christianity” and “Judaeo-Christian”.

For major Jewish movements and organisations in the Diaspora, the erosion of Christianity and traditional Christian sexual mores in Western societies has been a primary goal.

Christianity is what has made the West strong and united for a long time; Jews saw this as a threat.

But it’s up to Whites not to fall into this trap.

Having fun (sex without children or “strings attached”) and the ambition to make money and get influence (pursuing a career) have become more important than family. This is the Christian priority of values turned upside down.

We can forever speculate about why Whites — women in particular — decided to stop having children or greatly reduced their number, but that they did it is beyond dispute.

We have all the possible empirical evidence in the world to assert that wide use of contraceptives and abortion, starting from the mid-60s, the time when Jewish influence on the minds of the young reached its full maturity, resulted in declining Western birthrates and populations.

Patrick Buchanan, in his book The Death of the West (Amazon USA)  (Amazon UK) , is justifiably gloomy:

Only the mass reconversion of Western women to an idea that they seem to have given up – that the good life lies in bearing and raising children and sending them out into the world to continue the family and nation – can prevent the Death of the West.

Why are Western women having fewer children than their mothers or none at all? Why have so many enlisted in what Mother Theresa called “the war against the child”? Western women have long had access to the methods and means of birth control but chose not to use them to the extent they do today…

From studying the birth charts, we find that something happened in the mid-1960s, in the midst of the postwar prosperity, that changed the hearts and minds of Western women and killed in them the desire to live as their mothers had.

That something is the counter-cultural revolution of the 1960s when the movements of the left originated and dominated by ethnic outsiders achieved hegemony over the culture of the West. But there is no usefulness in always blaming someone else. We have to accept our responsibilities and change our views and behaviour.

We have been brainwashed, yes. The great battle over the last century has been a fight for the minds of the Western peoples, which was won by acquiring control over practically all of the mainstream news, information, education and entertainment media, and using that control to disseminate their message and the way they want us to think.

It has been a top-down revolution carried out originally at the highest levels of society by hostile elites motivated by hatred of and alienation from traditional Western societies. Although their rhetoric always promises a Utopian future free of sexual neurosis and ethnic strife, it is motivated first and foremost by hatred and desire for revenge against the traditional peoples and cultures of the West. It is, as Roger Scruton once noted, “a way of taking revenge on a social order from which they feel alienated.”

So the first thing is to fight the battle inside ourselves. We’ve got to stop thinking in a way that is still affected by Leftist influences, ways of thinking which we may have absorbed in our university years.

In the same way as the words ‘Nazi’ or ‘Hitler’ evoke in most people a classical, Pavlovian conditioned response of rejection of everything associated with them, developed through decades of careful conditioning, so that the conscious part of the brain is totally bypassed and — without the possibility of considering the merits of it — there is an automatic reaction, not dissimilar from a kneejerk, so words like “God”, “Christian doctrine” and “Catholic teaching” evoke conditioned negative responses, inculcated by the same sources, and similarly without the benefit of knowing or reflecting on what is being rejected.

We may have become thoroughly aware of the control of the education system and media and entertainment industries by anti-Christian elites, but are we just as thoroughly capable of neutralising and rejecting their effects on the less conscious parts of our brains?

How many of us have refused Christianity only on the basis of the scantest, most superficial knowledge, mostly coming from the distortions of the mainstream media in Christian-hating hands?

Universalism and Christianity don’t require suicide: this is an incorrect, deformed view of their meaning.

The idea that someone should suffer or die so that others can prosper has a long history.

First there are the animal and human sacrifices of some ancient — and contemporary — religions, including paganism. Animal experimentation which, although clothed in pseudoscientific garb, may be seen as a revisitation of the ritual animal sacrifices of primitive religions.

While animal and human sacrifices were immoral and just useless, animal experiments are worse: they are dangerous and harmful to the human beings whose health they are supposed to protect, due to the extreme unreliability of their outcome, on which treatments for humans are based.

But then scientific activity is much more dogmatic than people think, and wrong but well-established theories are hard to die.

The most recent incarnation of the belief in sacrifice is the problem we’re dealing with: the indigenous people of the West are supposed to sacrifice themselves, by allowing their countries to be flooded with populations from another day and age in the distant past (that’s what the Third World is), which will set the clock back for Westerners as well, in order to help these destitute, primitive populations. A modern version of the White Man’s Burden thing in which White people are implicitly seen as superior to the poor and downtrodden they are helping.

Like the other forms of sacrifice described above, it will not help the supposed beneficiaries.

For the result of this invasion of epic proportions will be the eventual destruction of Western civilisation.

Whites are declining fast and furiously in number; Arabs, Blacks and Browns are replacing them in White countries due to the rates of both their migration and their reproduction. What will happen is that the less advanced human elements with higher rates of reproduction enabled by the advanced welfare and medical care systems of the West will replace the traditional peoples of the West.

It’s easier for a more advanced state to revert to a previous one than the other way around. It may well be impossible for Third Worlders to adapt to a far more sophisticated society. But it will be relatively simple for them to destroy it from within, and that will become even more effortless as their numbers and percentage of the population increase.

There is a certain entropy in human affairs as well as in nature: disorder is easier than order, destruction is easier than construction, barbarism is easier than civilisation.

If we look long-term (rather than short), we see that the West, the civilisation created by Whites, will be no more as the same process will be repeated in every part of the West.

The image of a lifeboat that can only take a certain number of victims of a shipwreck springs to mind. It sinks when that number is exceeded so that everybody on it drowns and not even the original number can survive.

Is this a rational strategy to pursue?

Of course not. It’s not callousness, selfishness or particularism which make us realise that the West cannot take this unsustainable level of immigration and survive.

It’s realism and rationality.

From an ethical, universalist viewpoint, it’s essential, nay imperative, to preserve Western civilisation, which has established important moral principles to apply to humans and all other sentient beings. Without it, the world would — will? — be a much worse place. What other culture outlawed slavery for moral reasons? Without the West, the world descends into barbarism and  moral particularism.

Therefore, there is no contradiction between opposing mass immigration from the Third World and embracing universalism, no conflict between advocating a stop to this colonisation and believing in Christianity.

People quote Pope Francis and other representatives of the Church who say the opposite.

But we mustn’t forget that this is the post-Vatican-II Church, which is completely on board with the Third Worldization of the West and, not coincidentally, apologised to the Jews and totally changed its views on them.

The Church has for a long time been pressured by Jewish activists and infiltrated by crypto-Jews and Jewish converts. We can’t understand the contemporary Church without appreciating the impact of Jewish influence since Vatican II.

But it has not always been like this. In fact, it has been only in the last few decades of its two millennia of history. We have to understand what happened to the Church, not just with Vatican II, but during decades and centuries before.

To reject Christianity on the basis, as I have read sometimes, that it’s “not White”, it’s “Levantine” or of Jewish derivation is every bit as rational as if the Japanese, in an outburst of self-harming hypernationalism or racialism, had historically rejected Western technology because it hadn’t been created by Japanese or Orientals but Whites.

Finally, one has to ask oneself why, if Christianity were so bad for Whites as some people think, the media, entertainment industry and intellectuals are constantly bashing and deriding it. Is it atheism or Christianity that they fear?

They don’t attack and ridicule paganism or atheism. They actually promote and lionise atheism day in and day out. We don’t have Hollywood films making fun of atheism or criticising it.

This is a comment someone left to one of my posts on Facebook:

Christianity is a Roman reworking of some sand demon kult…

They [Christians] have no place being here in the heartlands of the Celto-Germanics/Nordics. The west died when Rome/Catholics tried to destroy our real heritage.

It could sound like a fairly common — if not typical — observation from a White advocate. Except, as I discuss, there were several telltale signs that he’s in fact Jewish. Not all those who trash Christianity are what they seem.

Enza Ferreri is an Italian-born, London-based Philosophy graduate, writer and journalist. She has been a London correspondent for several Italian magazines and newspapers, including Panorama, L’Espresso, La Repubblica.

She blogs at

65 replies

Comments are closed.