Religion, Race and Politics American Dissident Voices Broadcast of May 13, 2006 Hello, this is American Dissident Voices, America's foremost radio show for patriots, and I am your host, Shaun Walker. One of the issues surrounding the debate over the non-White invasion of America, Europe and Australia, which is currently underway, is the fact that almost all of the churches in these countries have come out in favor of continued non-White immigration. Now, religion, because it is so divisive, is a topic usually best left untouched, but in this particular topic, the blatant interference by the Church's leadership, which is something different from the ordinary church member, is something that needs to be addressed. I am sure all listeners are familiar with the unrest at Australian beaches towards the end of last year. What happened there was that after several months of non-White attacks and assaults against White people visiting the beach and against beach lifeguards, the local White population of Sydney rose up in spontaneous rebellion and drove the non-Whites off the beaches. Now, while we would of course, not endorse people of any race being attacked like that, we do fully understand what drove the Whites to such desperate measures: Sydney has seen a huge influx of Middle Easterners from all parts, and they have become known locally as 'Lebs" or Lebanese. Of course, not all are Lebanese, but that is just how Aussie street slang has named them. But, the ongoing violence, however, was just too much. Now, one would think that a church's proper role in society would be to seek to address the causes of any social disturbance. But what did the Catholic Archbishop of Sydney do? Did he try to address the very real issue of how non-White crime was affecting the lives of his White parishioners? Nope, instead he lambasted the White people for daring to defend themselves, and added insult to injury by telling them that Jesus was "of Middle Eastern appearance." I can imagine the reaction amongst his parishioners to that one. Now, bear in mind that all opinion polls conducted in Australia have shown that an outright majority of White Australians are opposed to further non-White immigration into that country, yet the Catholic Church has gone head to head with the majority of its own followers in supporting a continued non-White influx. And yet, it does not stop there: even more recently, the Australian government introduced measures to try and stem the flow of bogus asylum seekers to that country, by reintroducing the policy of detaining them on islands away from mainland Australia while their claims for asylum were assessed. The chairman of the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference Committee for Migrants and Refugees, Bishop Joseph Grech, described this otherwise very sensible policy as a "step backwards" and called for its abolition. This, only a week or so after a Catholic Church in Sydney had held a special service to welcome some Stone-Age Papuan asylum seekers into that country. Then, the Uniting Church of Australia, which is a coalition of the Congregational Union of Australia, the Methodist Church of Australasia and the Presbyterian Church of Australia, also attacked the government's asylum policy as an "act of moral abandonment." The Anglican Archbishop of Perth then got in the act as well, describing the asylum policy as "terribly sad." Archbishop Roger Herft went on to say that, quote, "At the end of the day we've got to ask the question that whoever comes to our shores, we've got to treat them as human beings." No matter which way you look at it, there can be no doubt that all the leaders of the large churches in Australia have sided with the non-White invaders against White Australians. There is just no getting away from this fact. What makes it even stranger, is that the vast majority of non-Whites entering Australia are either Muslims, or they are from Papua New Guinea, who are some type of Animist religion, or Buddhists from China. I mean, it's not like the church leadership is actually welcoming Christians into Australia. On the contrary, they are welcoming non-Whites who belong to religions that have decisively rejected Christianity already and, if they come to dominate Australian society, will see the end of Christianity in that country. It just doesn't make sense for the Church leaders to be on their side, does it? Now, if we look at Britain, we see an identical pattern once again. Although the British National Party is not as stridently racial as we in the National Alliance are, at least they are a party that is standing up for White people in Britain. Recent events in that nation have seen what seems like a groundswell of support for the BNP, with some polls saying that as many as a quarter of Britons are now considering voting BNP. Foremost in the attack against the BNP are the Churches. The Anglican Bishop of Sheffield is personally busy spearheading a campaign against the BNP in that city, leading so-called "peace walks" in areas identified as having strong pro-White supporters, in an attempt to emotionally blackmail those White people into not voting for the BNP. He is joined on these peace walks by a collection of Rabbis and Muslim Imams. Several other Anglican bishops -- most notably those of Wakefield and Pontefract -- have also publicly launched attacks on the BNP, accusing that party of having policies that are, quote, "trying to cause disharmony." Now, just as in Australia, the really strange thing is that opinion polls in Britain, over many years, have shown that the vast majority of White Britons have opposed the non-White immigration policies, yet the Church leadership is once again completely out of step with the vast majority of its congregation on this matter. And, of course, the vast majority of the new non-White immigrants are not Christians either; those coming from Africa are Animists, and those from the Indian sub-continent are either Muslim or Hindu for the largest part. Once again, the people of who the churches are welcoming into Britain come from cultures that have decisively rejected Christianity and, if they come to dominate British society, will extinguish Christianity in the country. Once again, it seems as if the Church leadership is engaged in a deliberate policy of suicide for itself and for the White people of Britain and Australia. And here in America, what do we find? Exactly the same pattern: the leadership of the White Christian Churches are completely out of step with their White congregations. Just the other day, a USA Today-Gallup poll asked whether illegal immigration is "out of control" or "not out of control." Fully 81 percent said, "out of control." Fox News asked how serious illegal immigration was as a problem: 60 percent said very serious, 30 percent said somewhat serious. This shows that at least 80 and more likely in excess of 90 percent of Americans are desperately concerned about the immigration invasion and wish to see it stopped. Bear these figures in mind as we now review what the church leadership has said about the immigration invasion. The Roman Catholic Cardinal of Los Angeles, Roger Mahony, has become a national figure in the immigration debate, directly interfering in politics by not only testifying before a Senate committee on the topic, but also actively leading prayer days and fasting in solidarity with illegal alien invaders in America. The leader of the largest Catholic Archdiocese in our nation said the proposed immigration legislation currently before congress would make it a crime to help any of the nation's 12 million illegal immigrants. And this pattern has been repeated up and down the country. Recently in Iowa, for example, Church leaders, representing several different denominations -- Catholic and Protestant alike -- expressed support for what they called "undocumented workers," which is their code language for the non-White illegal invaders pouring across our borders. The Catholic Church leadership has, however, led the way in supporting the illegal alien invasion. There is absolutely nothing to which they have not resorted, and I really am not exaggerating here, including advocating breaking the existing US Immigration laws. But at least here I can see some semblance of reasoning from the Catholic Church's point of view: the masses of Mestizos entering America are for the greatest part Catholics, so it is a way to swell the, until now, steadily emptying Catholic Church pews. Catholics make up about a quarter of the American voting public. Now, take a step back: remember those polls that showed that 80 or 90 percent of Americans were desperately concerned about illegal immigration and wanted to stop it. Now, you have to wonder, how is it that the Church leadership appears to be so far to the left of the vast majority of their church members? What do the average White American churchgoers think, for example, when they see their Church leaders taking part in pro-immigrant protest marches, when they see the bishops on television lobbying congress, when they attend a Good Friday Mass in which an illegal alien stands before a cross to symbolize Jesus -- all of which has happened over the past few weeks? A look at history shows that the worship of Christianity has changed over centuries. The Crusades, for example, were Christian-led, race wars against the mixed-race Muslims in the Middle East. The Reconquest of Spain by Ferdinand and Isabella saw the Catholic Church play a hugely important role, as it did in the later expulsion of the Jews from Spain in 1492. One can only shudder at what the Christians of the Crusades and of the Spanish Reconquest would have said to the Church leadership of today. I personally have little doubt that the Catholic leadership of Spain in 1492 would have seen to it that the Catholic leadership in America today were burned at the stake for what they are doing and much the same goes for many of the other denominations I have mentioned. Martin Luther, the so-called father of the Protestants Reformation, who wrote a booklet entitled "The Jews and their Lies," would never have agreed to the interfaith conferences, which include Muslims and Jews, to which the Lutheran Church leadership today subjects itself. Luther, in all likelihood, would have split from them as well, as dramatically as he did from the Catholic Church. And there are, of course, followers of these churches in America, Britain and Australia who do not support their leaders' point of view. Most recently there was an article in the Washington Times on precisely the topic of Catholic parishioners being uneasy with the Church's stance. Some Catholics, the article said, are confused by the Church's willingness to disregard a law it deems unjust. Catholics are morally obligated to care for the vulnerable, but to what extent are illegal aliens morally bound to respect a country's laws? Yet the church leadership is in practice inciting people to ignore the proposed law that is designed to prevent help being given to illegal aliens, and this causes dissension amongst rank-and-file Christians, as the Washington Post pointed out. The Post quoted a lifelong Catholic, who said, quote: "The teachings of the Church say help the people that need help; nowhere in the Bible does it say illegal.'' Indeed. That is a purely modern interpretation, which has been given by the current Church leadership. Then there are some legal issues that have rank-and-file Christians upset. The parishioner quoted in the Washington Post said that if his church wanted to be so political, it should forgo its tax-exempt status. It bothered him that donations are being used to help illegal aliens in the country. Now, according to the tax code, it is illegal for non-profit organizations, specifically including churches, to engage in political activism under the Constitution and federal law and still remain tax-exempt. In fact, most of the Church leaders have now actively become involved in politics. During the 2004 presidential election, for example, some Church leaders were even scrutinized by the IRS for unlawful electioneering. Some Catholic Bishops even went as far as saying that parishioners who voted for John Kerry could not receive communion. Well, that's something we can't really comment on, although I would guess it should also apply to those who voted for the Moron from Texas as well, but that's another story. To cap it all, several recent public opinion polls show that a large majority of Americans don't want their churches to become involved in politics at all. So where does that leave us, the National Alliance? On the one hand, we recognize and accept that there are many Christians who are racially aware and, who can, and have, made great contributions to our struggle. But, I think that we have to be honest and tell everyone, that without any question, the vast majority of the leaders of the churches today have openly declared their hostility towards the continued existence of the White race, and indeed, in many cases, towards the very continued existence of their own religion as well. If we look at it honestly, we see that Christianity has only taken hold properly amongst White peoples, and almost never amongst non-Whites, with the notable exception of the mixed races of Central and South America. And there is a reason for this: and that is that many of the tenets of Christianity are in fact innate to Europeans. In fact, there are scholars who argue that these characteristics -- things such as charity, compassion for the poor, the sick and the desire to be treated fairly -- are in fact European traits, rather than that of any religion per se, and that they became integrated into Christianity after that religion came to dominate Europe. Or it might be so that that religion contained those traits, and therefore appealed to Europeans most of all. Certainly, it did not appeal to the Jews, with their ethnocentric and Gentile-hating religion, nor did it appeal to the Arabs, Negroes, or the Chinese or Japanese, all of whom were subjected to extensive missionary work when the Europeans colonized the world. Yet today, the Church leaders, as opposed to their followers, are responsible for some of the most hideously anti-White acts one can hope to see. It really does seem as if they are more concerned with being anti-White, than listening to the real concerns of their own congregations, who, in overwhelming numbers, oppose the political direction their Church leaders have taken. It is not our task in the National Alliance to dictate to people which religion they should or should not be. Our task is to work for the survival of our race, as a free and sovereign folk in our own territories, wherever that may be. We really believe that the Founding Fathers of America -- unique in world history -- hit upon the correct solution when they defined the concept of separation of Church and State. As they wrote in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." The phrase "separation of Church and State" does not appear in the Constitution, but rather derives from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a group identifying themselves as the Danbury Baptists. In that letter, Jefferson referred to a "wall of separation between church and state." James Madison, the father of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, wrote in the early 1800s, "Strongly guarded . . . is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States." Ulysses S. Grant also called for Americans to: "Keep the church and state forever separate." And we agree with that. We work for the creation, on this earth, for White societies, and do not concern ourselves with the liturgical issues. We respect the rights of people to believe whatever they want to with regards to the hereafter, but here, on earth, we live and work according to one principle above all others: that which is in the best interests of our race is the ultimate good, and anything that is against our race, is the ultimate evil. We do not discriminate against members who might be atheists, Catholics, Protestants or whatever -- although we certainly do draw the line with Jews, needless to say -- as long as members of any of those groups understand that they cannot bring their belief systems to try and dominate ours. We don't tell the atheist that he or she must believe in something, and we don't tell the Christian that they must not believe. We only require two things of our people: first and foremost, they must support our race above all else, and secondly, that if they are in churches which actively work against our race, it is their obligation to speak out and act against those Church leaders who seek to turn those institutions against our race. We will oppose all those -- regardless of religious affiliation -- who seek the destruction of our noble White race. This is our mission; nothing and nobody will stand in our way. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= The text above is based on a broadcast of the American Dissident Voices radio program sponsored by National Vanguard Books. It is distributed by e-mail each Saturday to subscribers of ADV-list. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= ==> To SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to this mailing list go here: http://www.natvan.com/mailing-list/ ==> The National Alliance has a strict anti-spamming policy. This information is intended for interested parties only and is not to be indiscriminately distributed via mass e-mailing or newsgroup posting. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= SUBSCRIBE to NATIONAL VANGUARD, our unique, thought-provoking magazine -- $22 US, $30 Canada, and $40 Foreign. This is for six high-quality, glossy color issues: SEND $3 for our 88-page CATALOG of books and other items: National Vanguard Books P.O. Box 330 Hillsboro, WV 24946 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Donations are needed to keep this program on the air. Give $20 today! http://www.natvanbooks.com/cgi-bin/webc.cgi/st_prod.html?p_prodid=599 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= To report typos and technical errors in ADV-list or our web site, please write to: webmaster@natvan.com (Subject: TYPO) The National Alliance: www.natvan.com & www.natall.com National Vanguard Books: www.natvanbooks.com (c) 2006 National Vanguard Books