Churches Bent on Suicide

[R. Bryant]

by Dr. William L. Pierce

THERE IS NO more striking symptom of the terrible illness of Western civilization than the self-destructive behavior of the Christian churches in recent years. and that behavior is displayed nowhere more starkly than in the attitude and actions of the churches relative to the Black-White conflict in Africa. (ILLUSTRATION: In the 21st century, even churches which once encouraged racial integrity have joined the “anti-racist” crusade.)

It was six years ago that the World Council of Churches, representing 267 different Protestant and Orthodox denominations from many countries, established its Fund to Combat Racism. Each year since then money from the Fund has been awarded to various non-White groups, engaged in “liberation” struggles against “White racists.”

In 1974, for example, at the annual convention of the WCC in Geneva, $450,000 was handed out, the bulk of it, $322,000, to Black “liberation” groups in southern Africa. Of this sum, $197,000 was given to various guerrilla factions then waging war against the Portuguese presence in Africa, including $60,000 to the Marxist “Frelimo” group in Mozambique. Another $30,000 went to two Black terrorist groups in Rhodesia.

Black gratitude for this support has been less than overwhelming. Now that the Frelimo terrorists have driven the Portuguese from Mozambique and their leader, Black Marxist Samora Machel, has become dictator, Christian missionaries in Mozambique are being rounded up and put into forced-labor camps. Diplomatic sources in Maputo (formerly Lourenco Marques, the capitol of Mozambique) say that as many as 150 missionaries and church workers are also being held without formal charges in the central prison there and in a jail in the port city of Beira.

Mission schools and churches have been nationalized by the communist government of Mozambique and converted to stables and warehouses. There are many reports of imprisoned priests being tortured and executed.

Nor is the situation in Mozambique an exception to the rule. Similar treatment has been dealt out to the Christian Churches and their representatives in Uganda, the Congo, and other African countries which have recently gained their independence with church help. The churches can expect the same fate shortly in newly “liberated” Angola.

And yet the churches’ frenzy for self-destruction continues. Their commitment to, and support for, anti-White terrorists in Africa and elsewhere is stronger than ever.

“Our principle concern must be to see that [Christianity]
does not succeed in pulling the race down with it.”

Nor is this activity limited to the World Council of Churches. The Roman Catholic Church, anxious not to seem less anti-racist than its Protestant competitors, has also taken an activist role. Roman Catholic Bishop Donal Lamont, of Umtali, Rhodesia, has spent more time in recent years acting as a mouthpiece for Black terrorist groups than he has preaching the gospels to his White parishioners. One of Bishop Lamont’s pet projects is the repeal of the Byrd Amendment, which allows Rhodesian chromium ore to be imported into the United States.

As might have been expected, there has been a certain amount of protest from individual White Christians, who have objected to the money they drop in the collection plate each Sunday being used to buy weapons to kill White Rhodesian and Portuguese farmers. In the case of the World Council of Churches the lame excuse has been offered that their grants are intended for “humanitarian” purposes only: medical supplies and social services, but not weapons.

In other statements, however, WCC leaders have left little doubt that they have no real objections to terrorist activities — as long as the terrorists are Black and their victims are White. After its meeting in Uppsala, Sweden, in 1968, the WCC’s official report of the proceedings contained the statement: “Some of us hold that Christians may well participate in the violent struggle for liberation, if there appears to be no other way left. Others of us would argue that as Christians we are committed to non-violence under all circumstances. Despite the difference of opinion, we are agreed that as Christians we cannot condemn liberation movements which take recourse to violence as last resort against oppressive systems.”

Apartheid: during healthier times in southern Africa there were separate facilities for Whites and Blacks.

The commitment of the member churches of the WCC and of their Catholic counterparts goes far beyond their financing Black guerrillas in Africa and their terrorism against Whites. For example, the Christian churches have been in the forefront of efforts in the republic of South Africa to undermine racial separation there.

White priests, ministers, bishops, and deacons have defied the laws against racially mixed public assemblies by holding integrated worship services. They have filed lawsuits against the government and issued inflammatory statements to the press. And, most important, they have tirelessly agitated directly among the Blacks, urging them to rebel.

It almost seems the Christian churches in general, both inside and outside the WCC, are now giving expression to a deeply ingrained death-wish. They are, as a whole, betraying the race which has nurtured them and are baring their throats to alien races who have neither understanding nor sympathy to Christian doctrines.

There has been, of course, a great deal of subversion of the Christian religious community in the last century. Jewish influence has spread through both the Catholic and Protestant churches, resulting in radical changes in church doctrines. Seminarians are exposed to this influence and later transmit it to their congregations when they become priests.

Daniel Francois Milan, Sr.: Like father, not like son

But deliberate subversion appears to account for only part of the problem. There is also a large element of natural decadence present. This decadence is showing up not only in the Christian churches in America and Europe and in the “progressive” Catholic and Protestant denominations of southern Africa, with their largely English-speaking members and their substantial Marrano contingents, but also in the much more conservative and fundamentalist Protestant churches in southern Africa.

The Dutch Reformed churches, composed of three Calvinist sects which represent most of southern Africa’s Afrikaans-speaking Whites and which were formerly considered bastions of resistance to the forces of racial suicide, are showing definite symptoms of the same disease afflicting other Christian churches. One prominent Dutch Reformed minister, the Reverend D.F. Milan, has recently joined the priestly chorus in South Africa calling for Black “equality.” He is the son of the former Nationalist Party leader, Daniel F. Milan, whose name is most closely associated with the apartheid system.

At the rate the churches are headed downhill now, it will be surprising if Christianity survives its second millennium as a significant force in the life of the West. Our principle concern must be to see that it does not succeed in pulling the race down with it.

From Attack! No. 46, 1979

transcribed by Will Williams from the book The Best of Attack! and National Vanguard, edited by Kevin Alfred Strom; first digital publication on The Legacy of Dr. William Pierce


http://nationalvanguard.org/2014/01/chu ... n-suicide/

[Will Williams]

So much has changed in southern Africa in the 34 years since Dr. Pierce wrote this article. He predicted what was going to happen there if things continued as they were going in 1979.

Television was first allowed in South Africa only in 1976, and that, as feared, added to White South Africa's downfall.

Wiki:
Television in South Africa was introduced in 1976. Despite being the most economically advanced country in Africa, South Africa was relatively late in introducing television broadcasting to its population.
Opposition to introduction
The country's white minority government, under the National Party, viewed television as a potential threat to its control of the broadcasting media, even though the state-controlled South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) had a virtual monopoly on radio broadcasting. It also saw the new medium as a threat to Afrikaans and the Afrikaner volk, giving undue prominence to English, and creating unfair competition for the Afrikaans press.[1]
Prime Minister Hendrik Verwoerd compared television with atomic bombs and poison gas, claiming that "they are modern things, but that does not mean they are desirable. The government has to watch for any dangers to the people, both spiritual and physical." [2]
Dr. Albert Hertzog, Minister for Posts and Telegraphs at the time, said that TV would come to South Africa "over [his] dead body,"[3] denouncing it as "a miniature bioscope [cinema] over which parents would have no control."[4] He also argued that "South Africa would have to import films showing race mixing; and advertising would make [non-white] Africans dissatisfied with their lot."[5] The new medium was then regarded as the "devil's own box, for disseminating communism and immorality".[6]
---

Kevin Strom's American Dissident Voices broadcast today brings the reader up to date on what happened to White South Africa, and why:

American Dissident Voices: Loyalty, part 2
Broadcast of January 25, 2014
by Kevin Alfred Strom

ONE OF THE WAYS that the Jews and multiracialists got South Africans to surrender their independence and freedom — and abandon their Apartheid system of racial separation — was through sports. Because so many otherwise sane South Africans were fiercely loyal to their cricket, rugby, soccer, and other teams, and because much of the world was boycotting South African teams so they could not compete on a worldwide basis, the Jews had the sports-minded South Africans in a classic carrot-and-stick situation. The Jews and their Gentile collaborators were saying in essence, “Abolish Apartheid and allow the races to mix freely in your country, and we’ll let your team play in the World Cup competition like it used to do. Keep Apartheid, and fail to vote in the new constitution, and we’ll make the boycott even stronger. You’ll be totally isolated.”

The boycott of their sports teams was a major issue in the South African press for years, and it loomed large in the minds of those White South Africans who pulled the lever and basically gave away their country and their children’s future by voting for one-party Black rule under Nelson Mandela.

Another, and even more significant, way that White South Africans were persuaded to sign away their self-determination was through their church. The dominant church among the Afrikaners, who form the majority of White South Africans, is the Dutch Reformed Church. The Afrikaners are a pious people, and much of their identity is and was wrapped up in their church, the doctrines of which are closely related to Calvinism. The Dutch Reformed ministers inspired the pioneering South Africans of 300 years ago with verses from the Old Testament, relating their struggles in a new land with the struggles of the ancient Hebrews in the deserts of the Middle East more than 20 centuries earlier. The Afrikaners were encouraged to see themselves as similar to the Jews, a “Chosen People” specially blessed by God and bringing Godly ways to a new and hostile land. The Afrikaner’s Great Trek was seen as their “Exodus” into a “Promised Land,” and the parallel with the ancient Hebrews was a major part of their national identity.

When they fought against British rule, and the British Empire’s idea of integrating Blacks into their society, they didn’t base their fight on scientific or even practical ideas about race — they based it on loyalty to Calvinist doctrine, on the way of life that had, in their view, sprung from those doctrines, and on the ungodly ”Enlightenment” ideas — the worship of supposed reason, instead of God — followed by their British adversaries. So, when the Apartheid policies of racial separation and self-determination were established in South Africa, they were justified in large part by scripture. It wasn’t so much that “the races should develop separately or our precious genetic heritage will be wiped out” but rather that “the races should develop separately because that is what Jehovah commands in His holy book” and “Jehovah’s holy book brought us safely to this land and we must follow its teachings.”

But anyone who looks at the multiplicity of Christian sects can see that there are hundreds, even thousands, of different and mutually exclusive teachings supposedly based on those same scriptures. And it’s almost as easy to see how Christian teachings change over time: Some of the very same churches that inspired Europeans to fight to keep Islam out of Europe now teach us that we must welcome Islamic invaders; many of the same churches that once rejected homosexual perversion and called it a sin, now say it’s a sin not to support homosexual marriage — for but two examples.

So it’s not surprising that after several decades of the world’s richest ethnic group working to undermine Apartheid, and after getting all the mainline churches in their corner — and even getting the World Council of Churches to kick out the Dutch Reformed Church for its supposed “racism” — that new clerics eventually came to power in that church, clerics who suddenly “discovered” that Jesus and Yahweh actually meant exactly the opposite of what the church had said they meant yesterday. In 1992, two years before the referendum on the new constitution, the South African church issued an edict calling Apartheid – which the church had been instrumental in creating in 1948 — a “sin.”

And, since the loyalty of the Afrikaners was more to their church than to their race, since their very identity itself was more bound up in their religion than in their blood, a large number of them voted as their church evidently wanted them to vote. And so the Whites handed over total power to the Black communists of the ANC.

There were other factors, too, including the total corruption of the major White political party in South Africa, the National Party, but these two examples are enough to illustrate my point: The South African people’s loyalty to their sports teams — and their loyalty to their church — were enough to tip the scales in favor of political and racial suicide in that sad country.

And sad it is, too. Since the imposition of Black rule in South Africa, the country has rapidly descended into chaos, filth, disease, madness, tyranny, and genocide. South Africa is the AIDS capital of the world, with over 17% of the adult population being infected — but its then-president Thabo Mbeki claimed in 2000 that AIDS is not caused by HIV and hundreds of thousands died as a result; South Africa is the rape capital of the world — one in four men admitted raping someone, half of them admitting they’d raped more than one person, and one in three South African women said they’d been raped in the past year; and the South African government turns a blind eye as roving gangs of Blacks murder White farmers by the thousands. South Africa under White rule was a First World nation, outstanding in science, medicine, and technology. South Africa today is a Third World hellhole.

If the White South Africans had been loyal to their people first, loyal to themselves, their families, their nation, and their race, this could never have happened. When the Jews and their collaborators tried to use sports and new interpretations of scripture to get them to hand over total political power to the Blacks, they would have said “Hell, no! We won’t sign over our right to rule ourselves to the Black majority — or to anyone! Having our own government and our own territory is absolutely essential for our survival. Being ruled by Blacks is a death warrant for our sons and daughters — and anyone who wants to kill our sons and daughters is our enemy and will be treated as such.”

They wouldn’t have cared much about whether or not their soccer team could play in London or Los Angeles — or whether some minister said it was a “sin” to do whatever it took to survive as a race. They would have booted the suicidal preacher out of their church as unfit to lead and apt to mislead those in his charge. And they would have laughed in the face of anyone who tried to use a sports boycott to get them to commit national suicide. They would have just organized their own championship games — and kept on developing advanced weapon systems just in case the group behind the boycotters decided to attack them when the boycotts didn’t work.

That’s what a sane people, with their natural, healthy loyalties intact, would have done. But it’s not what the White people of South Africa actually did.

For the “honor and glory” of their cricket team, and because someone wearing a clerical collar told them so, they gave up the political power they absolutely needed for survival — and condemned their children to murder, rape, disease, and life as a hated and dwindling minority...

More here: http://whitebiocentrism.com/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=553