Turning Back the Tide of Color

The white man is responsible for every single civilized feature that Negro Africa possesses; and the present negrophile psychosis, as Dr. Verwoerd calls it, spells doom not only to the white man in Africa but everywhere else. The line has to be drawn somewhere, for there is no limit to the demands that are made upon us. For every one demand we meet, two fresh demands are instantly made. Extended appeasement, Dr. Verwoerd predicted, would lead not only to the return of heathendom and chaos in Africa, but to the eventual overwhelming of the Western nations themselves by the unopposed and actively White-assisted, tide of colour.

-Anthony Jacob in White Man Think Again


There are small but significant coalitions of anti-immigration groups in virtually every European country. Because the anti-establishment groups are primarily white, the liberal establishment calls them racist. Would this were true. The groups are not racist. They don’t talk about restricting colored immigration, nor do they urge the deportation of the colored races from Europe. They simply want to slow down the immigration rate, and some of the bolder members of the immigration-restrictionist coalitions want the new immigrants, “no matter what their color,” to “respect our culture.” This, of course, will never be the case. The Celts can let the negroes toss the caber in the Highland games, which they have done; the Brits can let black soldiers into their army, which they have done; the Basques in Spain can feature negroes on their websites, which they have done, and on and on it goes, but such appeasements will never make the colored savages respect the white culture. In their minds there is only one culture – the blood-soaked culture of the African jungle. Whether it is Somalians in Minneapolis or Zulus in Sweden, it is all part of the same worldwide process: the Africanization of the European nations. When that process is complete, not even the liberals who set the process in motion will be left alive.

The spirit of the various anti-immigration groups throughout the European nations still savors too much of modernity. The use of the phrase ‘tea party’ in America illustrates the weaknesses in all the European resistance movements. The phrase ‘tea party’ conjures up an old quarrel of whites against whites. What if the tea parties had called their movement ‘Rorke’s Drift’ and carried placards calling for the end of the negroization of the white nations? No doubt the liberals would be angered, but the liberals are not going to budge one inch from their negroization policies because of polite, white requests to slow down the negroization of Europe. So why not counter the implacable hatred of the liberals with an implacable hatred of our own? The white man’s fear of being called racist must cease before white genocide can be halted. I don’t see any diminishing of that fear in the ranks of the tea parties of the U.S. or in their European counterparts, which is why I still don’t see any movement that is leading us away from the negroization of Europe.

In a relatively recent biography of Stanley, the African explorer, the mad-dog liberal author wrote of the cowardice of another English explorer who stood by while some African natives killed and then ate an African girl right before the English explorer’s eyes. The English explorer claimed he had no idea the Africans were going to do such a hideous thing, because he never dreamed that any people, even African people, would do such a thing. The author didn’t believe the English explorer and spent a couple pages commenting on the moral shortcomings of the “cowardly” Englishman. First off, I believed the Englishman. I don’t think he knew what the Africans intended to do. Secondly, what if the much-maligned explorer had known that the Africans were going to kill and eat the girl: how was he supposed to stop them? Only an extraordinary man would have even attempted such a futile rescue. It would have been more difficult than taking a lion’s meat away from him as he was about to take the first bite. So why should the Englishman be condemned for not knowing the African natives were going to kill and eat the girl right before his eyes, or, if he is to be viewed in the worst light possible, why should he be condemned for not being as courageous as St. George? Why is the liberal author’s focus not on the subhuman bestiality of the Africans who killed and ate the African girl? I think we know why: it’s because nothing, absolutely nothing that negro savages do is ever, in the eyes of the liberal, their fault. Somehow, by a strange, mystical transformation, the evil that black men do becomes the fault of the white man. “Yet though he slay me, yet though he commits every seeming evil under the sun, still will I trust in the noble black savage, because he alone is the holy one, he alone is the lord god.” So the liberal believes. Can a man who believes such things be swayed by reason, pity, or compassion? Of course not.

I believe that a resolute band of white men, if they truly act as white men, can turn the colored tide away from the white lands, but we must first see just how deeply the “negrophile psychosis” has seeped into the soul of the modern Europeans. When I was an undergraduate, an older professor, a devout liberal, confided to me that he had all the correct opinions about blacks, but still he had to confess, much to his shame, that whenever he saw a black person up close and personal, a little voice inside of him said, “You’re black and not to be trusted.” That liberal professor was much like the firebrand abolitionist preacher who toured the U.S. just prior to the Civil War, exhibiting a free, educated negro who was “just as good as any white man.” Yet when the negro started acting on the ‘just as good as any white man’ dictum by making advances toward the preacher’s daughter, the preacher went berserk. Obviously those two men, the liberal professor and the abolitionist preacher, had a serious conflict between their rational, stated beliefs and their heartfelt instincts about the nature of existence.

The aforementioned professor and preacher were relics. The modern liberals no longer have a conflict between their expressed love of the negro and the call of their blood. They have killed their white instincts and allowed the love of the black man and the hatred of white men to enter the inmost recesses of their soul. No longer having to forcibly make their rational self coincide with their inner soul, the liberals instinctively blame black atrocities on whites and assume that all problems on earth stem from the “racism” of the white man. Following that reasoning to its logical conclusion, the liberals will do whatever it takes to ensure that the white nations of the world become black nations. And why is that a bad thing? To men and women whose inmost souls are tainted with liberalism, it is a consummation devoutly to be wished.

As the negrophile psychosis sinks into his soul, the white liberal starts to become like unto his god. He starts to act out a perverse parody of Thomas à Kempis’ Imitation of Christ. The liberals’ Imitation of the Negro is a Gnostic imitation because the white man cannot actually become a negro, much as he yearns to. His grandchildren can become negroes if his offspring will mate with the negro, but until that blessed time the liberal must become a Gnostic negro. Where the negro actually cannibalizes his own people, the liberal must be satisfied with gnostically cannibalizing his people by turning them over to barbarians of color to be tortured and murdered in the name of diversity. Where the negro destroys and murders the innocent with his own hands, the liberal destroys the innocent secondhand in abortuaries. The ethos in both cases is the ethos of the jungle. Only the strong survive; the weak and the helpless live or die according to the whims of the strong. Thus nature’s god, the negro, and the cosmic naturalists, the liberals, are entwined together on the satanic tree that holds the forbidden fruit. Negro worship represents a second fall of man: it is Satan’s ultimate gambit. By negroizing Europe the liberals are building the kingdom of Satan on earth.

God will judge the disposition of their souls, but it is up to us to judge the words and actions of the Christian missionaries, Catholic and Protestant, who helped to build the kingdom of Satan on earth. Starting with the assumption that we are all God’s children and armed with Christ’s injunction to preach the gospel to every nation, the white Christian missionaries went forth. (1) But the best of the missionaries, a minority, were misguided, and the worst, the majority, were egomaniacs who felt that they were not sufficiently adored by their own people, so they sought the adulation of their new people, the innocent, often wayward but nevertheless loving children of nature, uncorrupted by the evils of the white man’s civilization. Maybe the majority of missionaries were not egomaniacs, maybe the majority were humble men of God. So let us say that the ones who gained influence in the West, who took pen in hand to write about the noble black savages of Africa, were indeed negrophile utopians. They excused every negro atrocity by bidding us look to the future when the playful childlike negroes, who just happened to like human flesh, would, in the words of John Paul II, “astound the world.” And the genuinely saintly missionaries (if you don’t like the world saint then just substitute ‘far ben’) such as Edmund Hodgson and Elton Knauf, were tortured and murdered trying to Christianize a people who had no word for charity and only knew brute force. Such men are heroes, but I wish they had stayed at home and worked to keep Europe Christian.

Whether the missionaries were mainly good or whether they were mainly liberal ego maniacs is not our ultimate concern. What should concern us very deeply is that the effort to Christianize Africa was a dismal failure. Evangelization turned into negro worship, and instead of Christianizing Africa the Europeans applied their missionary zeal to the negroization of Europe. Surely He who is our common hope does not want Europe to become Africa. How can any man, be he pope or peasant, call himself a Christian if he doesn’t oppose the negroization of the white nations?

It always comes down to one startling fact: the liberals, despite the fact that they are white, desire the extermination of the white race. You can’t find common ground with such creatures. You must fight them with a religious zeal greater than their religious zeal. Once the European everyman comes to believe, as his ancestors believed, that the love of God and the love of one’s people are intertwined and not opposed principles, he will have the spiritual fortitude to fight the negroization of the European nations. And the European must fight this new world of darkness because of all the horrors that exist on this earth the greatest one is a world without charity. Such a world is the one we all face if the European people do not invoke their God and turn back the colored tide from the European nations.+

(1) There is nothing in the Bible to indicate that Christianity equals racial equality. In fact, the opposite seems to be the case: the story of Noah and his three sons is the primary example to the contrary. And the fact that racial equality soon turned into negro worship indicates to me that there were serious flaws in the African missionary movement from its very inception.

This entry was posted in Christianity: Neither a Theory Nor a Philosophy, Europe as the Christ-Bearer, Neo-paganism, Older posts (pre-April 2019) and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.