|
PULPIT OR SOAP-BOX? We have become all too familiar with ‘anti-racist’ diatribes from many clerics over the years . For the most part they issue from local parsons joining in the anti-BNP witch-hunt in order to ingratiate themselves with woolly-minded parishioners and parade their own high-mindedness. The tenor of all such effusions is that support for any avowedly nationalist political party is incompatible with Christian doctrine ; thus branding all its membership as un-Christian. The clear intention, of course, is to deter any professed Christian from lending support to the nationalists, since no one likes to feel themselves excluded from the ‘moral high ground’. A very pertinent question then arises: are these ‘anti-racist’ clerics speaking for themselves, or do they have the whole authority of the church to say what they are saying on this highly contentious subject ? Well let us now see what some very eminent Christian authorities have had to say. A Catholic Educational Trust: ‘ Much of this drive to so-called pluralist societies is done in the name of Christian values and Christian charity. It is promoted in such a way as to give the impression that Catholics are obliged to accept and celebrate such societies, as though they were articles of the Faith. Yet the fact remains that this is not so. Patriotism is a virtue consistently extolled by the Church. Homogeneous societies are, also, perfectly acceptable to Catholic teaching in every way, precisely because they tend to be more stable and peaceful’. ‘A generation ago, love of one’s own people, their customs, their language, their traditions, their culture was deemed the most normal thing in the world. Now we are being told that such things are ‘evil’, and that the only way forward for mankind is the creation of multi-racial, multi-cultural and multi-faith societies. The fact that colossal numbers of people - White, Black and Yellow - don’t want this kind of society is either ignored or attacked as ‘backward’. The fact that History shows that attempts to create such societies always lead to disaster is either not mentioned or smoothed over in the most superficial way. The fact that the modern world is full of violent conflicts borne of such attempts to create ‘pluralist’ societies - Palestinians and Jews, Tamils and Sri Lankans, Kossovans and Serbs, Chechens and Russians, Turks and Kurds to name but a few - seems strangely unknown to journalists and politicians’. Archbishop W.P. Whelan: ‘The church regards as immoral any policy aimed at levelling such ethnic groups into an amorphous cosmopolitan mass. The Bishops of the United States have even gone so far as to say that these heterogeneous racial and cultural groups have an innate right to exist. This is also the attitude taken up by the United nations in 1948-49, when it condemned genocide, which was extended in meaning to include the physical destruction or enforced integration not only of racial but of national and religious groups as well ‘. Hamish Fraser, former Political Commissar in the Spanish Civil War who converted from Communism to Catholicism: ‘There is nothing which more clearly demonstrates the essentially unrepresentative nature of liberal democracy than the massive immigration which has been allowed to take place in the last quarter of a century, without even a pretence of consulting the people of Britain. For if there is one thing which the British people as a whole are unanimous about it is the undesirability of having their country transformed almost overnight, without having been consulted, into a ‘pluralistic’ hotch-potch of cultures, religions and languages completely alien to the millennial traditions of these islands’ 'It is precisely because the British people are so essentially tolerant and open-minded that the liberal Establishment (which includes the Conservative party, far ‘Left’ and all those between) has dared to impose on them an immigration policy which would have been overwhelmingly rejected had it ever been subject to approval by referendum '. ‘It must therefore be most strongly emphasised that disapproval of massive immigration and of ‘cultural pluralism’ must not be equated with ‘racism’ or ‘xenophobia’ as it has been by the Race Relations Industry’. ‘The different colours which go to make up humanity reflect the will of the Almighty, Who also created us male and female - thus proving to the liberal Establishment that in addition to being the first racist the creator was also the original male chauvinist pig. One cannot but suspect that ultra-liberalism may see massive immigration as one way of thumbing its unbelieving nose at the works of Creation. Is not miscegenation an ideal way of undoing at least one of the ‘errors’ of the Creator?' ‘The greatest scandal of all, however, is that in the name of Christ and the One True Church, prominent churchmen too have jumped on this essentially racist bandwagon Indeed ,they have succeeded in creating the impression that ‘cultural pluralism’ is a law of God and the Church to which all must submit or suffer denunciation from the pulpit as ‘racists’, ‘fascists’ etc.’ He went on to urge across the board support for a generous repatriation policy, as ‘this would enable all who wish to do so to leave cloud cuckoo land and come face to face with at least one aspect of contemporary reality’. Fra Edward Cahill, author of ‘The Framework of a Christian State’: ‘The higher and more perfect culture of a people must develop along the lines of the national characteristics and traditions. A declassed man or woman who, owing to worldly training or a false ambition for social advancement, has come to disregard or despise his or her own immediate family, forfeits the respect of right-thinking people; and from such a one nothing great or generous may be hoped. The same applies substantially to the more or less degraded citizen who has lost or never possessed the love and appreciation of the nation to which he belongs and to which he is bound by the closest of natural ties.’ Fra Cahill then quotes Chateaubriand, the Catholic apologist and historian: ‘ We doubt whether it is possible for a man to possess any real virtues, any real talent or ability, without love of country’. Read also ‘The Patriotic Idea’ by G.K.Chesterton. ‘A stunning essay which destroys the lies and myths of cosmopolitanism and Imperialism, and brings out the full beauty of the Christian virtue of Patriotism’ The foregoing extracts have all received the imprimatur of the Catholic Church, so are not open to challenge by any local cleric as ‘unChristian’ - unless he happens to be a rabid Protestant using this for another anti-Catholic tirade. Suffice it to say that , if the Anglican Church for its part is seen to reject the foregoing observations about the most contentious issue of our troubled times, it thereby forfeits any entitlement to popular allegiance. In recent times it has tended to reach accommodations with fashionable politics to an extent that reduces the faith of our fathers to superstitious sociology. The Archbishop of Canterbury is in danger of becoming indistinguishable from the apocryphal Vicar of Bray. Our great cathedrals were not built by people besotted with multi-culturalism. Our 11th century crusaders , like the defenders of medieval Christendom against Muslim invaders, were not laying down their lives to facilitate the downfall of Western civilization. And Blake’s ‘Jerusalem’ did not envisage mosques overshadowing a mongrelised and demoralised population. Thus any allegedly Christian cleric inveighing against perfectly reasonable and wholesome resistance to mass immigration, and against entirely legitimate expressions of patriotism, is using the pulpit as a political soap-box to propagate renegade views. That is to say, views which have never represented the native population of this country and which threaten its traditional freedoms, unique culture, independence and very survival. So keep the faith. F Kimbal Johnson November 2006
|