In the wake of the Lindsay Clancy trial, when it transpired the only juror who wanted to convict the defendant for murdering her own children was black, many commentators were shocked. As it is an innately “progressive” thing to murder one’s own children now—indeed, infanticide is soon to be positively relabeled as “delayed postpartum abortion” and legalized under a looming pro-choice Herod Act—left-minded persons automatically assumed the holdout juror must inevitably have been a white man. As white men uphold the oppressive norms of systemic white cisheteropatriarchy, this was the only skin color such an ingrained subjugator of would-be emancipated females like Clancy could be.
When it turned out otherwise, many leftists simply didn’t know what to say (nothing would have been a good idea). One saucer-eyed Clancy-supporting feminist in particular went viral as saying in a TikTok video that “I’m not going to share any opinions as I’m not a person of color.” As that implies, the TikTokker was white; but she herself would disagree. “I am a non-practicing white,” she declared, to which everybody else sane then asked, “What’s one of those?”
Non-Practice Makes Imperfect
In an earlier TikTok video, from 2022, a very loud Medusa-haired black lady calling herself “Kween werK” explained just what the hitherto-obscure term meant. Firstly, compliant whites had to publicly admit whiteness somehow did not exist at all. Then, paradoxically, they had to disavow their white heritage anyway and start listening specifically to black women (not black men, they might let female murderers off from killing their children) and begin paying reparations to Africans. If white people aren’t really white, though, then how can they possibly pay reparations to black people for what their white ancestors did to them?
Despite her argument’s lack of internal logic, responses to Kween werK’s video proved full of approving sentiments like this, from a Caucasian Canadian called Paige, whose very name contained within it unacceptable echoes of papery whiteness:
What does Paige think about the 1.7 million Muslims from countries like Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan, and Algeria who now live alongside her in Canada, I wonder? They are not the indigenous population of the country either, are they, any more than she is?
You may think that being a non-practicing white person is fundamentally different from being a non-practicing Christian—as having white skin and genes is an innate characteristic, whereas believing in any given religion is not. Unlike a cassock or rosary beads, a person of European heritage cannot simply shed their white skin like a self-hating snake. Remember the cautionary case of Rachel Dolezal?
Therefore, to become a non-practicing white has to be conceived as a fundamentally behavioral project. One non-practicing white described the idea like this:
To say non-practicing white is to admit that the greatest problems facing our world—structural injustice, systemic inequality, climate collapse, the hollowing of our social fabric—have been authored and perpetuated by white people in power…So when I say I’m a non-practicing white, I don’t mean I can [physically] scrub off the identity…I mean I refuse to practice the habits that have caused harm: silence in the face of injustice, complicity when institutions crush the marginalized, comfort over truth…Because if we can have non-practicing Catholics, non-practicing Jews, even non-practicing vegetarians, then surely we can also have non-practicing whites. After all, whiteness in America has always been less about biology than about practice. And practices, unlike skin, can change.
Sharp Practices
The link between non-practicing whiteness and non-practicing Christianity comes in the fact that Christianity is now widely viewed, within secular and left-wing circles, as being in itself an unacceptable expression of whiteness. As a religion born from the life and work of a Middle Eastern Jew—and the majority of whose modern-day adherents, in lands like Africa and South America, are not even white at all—this notion makes little rational sense; but then, neither does the above-cited notion of a “non-practicing vegetarian” (i.e., one who actually eats meat, they just wish the sausages had been transubstantiated into celery).
Books like the one below are today dismayingly commonplace, printed by major academic publishers like Oxford University Press, InterVarsity Press, and Yale University Press.
One modern theology professor, writing for a Reformed Church journal, comments that “Race, in many ways, is a Christian invention.” Why? Because, in 1492, European Catholics recaptured Spain from Muslim occupation. Any remaining Jews and Moors were forced to convert. A new term was needed for these people, and the Spanish term “raza,” cousin of the English term “race,” was appropriated from animal husbandry, where it referred to different breeds of dogs or horses.
Therefore, Spanish Catholics “invented” the idea of race, supposedly. In which case, it must be asked why the occupying Muslims themselves already distinguished between Moors, Jews, and Europeans in the first place? Blaming Christians for “inventing” the concept of race on these purely verbal terms is akin to blaming whoever coined the term “atomic” for Hiroshima.
Once the concept of race had allegedly been “invented” by Christians (and definitely not by Muslims) in this way, the path was then set for white Christians to invade, convert, and enslave non-white persons all around the world, this line of reasoning goes. Therefore, any subsequent white-on-non-white race-related incident, from Al Jolson wearing blackface to the imprisonment of Nelson Mandela, was ultimately the fault of Christianity. And, thus, Christianity had to change—either to purge itself of its innate whiteness or to abolish itself altogether.
Blaming Christians for “inventing” the concept of race on these purely verbal terms is akin to blaming whoever coined the term “atomic” for Hiroshima.Tweet ThisPracticing Deception
You’d expect most promulgators of this deranged theory to be either outright atheists or non-practicing Christians themselves: but no, many are actual believers, or say they are, from all denominations. Outlets like the National Catholic Reporter carry post-George Floyd op-eds with titles like “White Catholics must lead the way to end white supremacy,” in which one such highly sinful white Catholic self-flagellator complains that, in Sunday School, she never once learned that “in 1452 Pope Nicholas V morally sanctioned the trans-Atlantic slave trade by issuing the papal bull Dum Diversas, which permitted the kings of Spain and Portugal to buy and sell Africans.”
She must also never have learned in Interfaith Friday School that the Koran explicitly endorses slavery and that Muhammad kept plenty of such helots himself. He must have been white too; it’s hard to tell, there are so few pictures of him available to check.
The current worst offender in this regard is surely the Church of England, whose present archbishop, Dame Sarah Mullally, is engaged in an obsessive crusade to become a non-practicing white person herself by ritually bowing down in obeisance before all other races and religions at every available opportunity. Her latest effort was handing out a special award on behalf of her fellow We-Really-Don’t-Want-To-Be-Christians-At-All to the below highly-tolerant-looking Muslim gentleman, Hafiz Tahir Ashrafi, for reputed services toward “Reconciliation and Interfaith Co-operation” across Pakistan. With impeccable timing, she handed out the award on the utterly religiously obscure date of 9/11.
Five minutes of entry-level Googling later and the entire Internet had discovered Ashrafi had previously once proposed handing out a religious award of his own—to Osama bin Laden. He has also praised polygamy, called jihadis freedom fighters, and called for the United Nations to make it globally illegal to criticize Islamic holy figures. Judging by her own dhimmified attitude, Dame Sarah appears to have complied with that latter regulation several years too early.
The archbishop has since rescinded Ashrafi’s award. But former Anglican bishop Michael Nazir-Ali, now a Catholic convert, thinks this act itself may endanger Pakistani Christians, who could be attacked by Muslims in religious revenge. Maybe Mullally, as a white Christian, does have something to say sorry to non-whites for after all, then. If she hadn’t been so desperately trying to apologize for her own Christian whiteness, all those poor brown people in the Punjab would never have ended up fearing death threats.
Ashrafi had previously proposed handing out a religious award of his own—to Osama bin Laden. He has also praised polygamy, called jihadis freedom fighters, and called for the UN to make it globally illegal to criticize Islamic holy figures.Tweet ThisTarget Practice
Another CofE bishop, Arun Arora—an ethnic Indian with Hindu and Sikh parents—has just declared that white English anti-immigration protesters who were heard chanting “Christ is King!” during marches opposing the spread of Islam across England of late are white supremacist Nazis. This hyperbolic assessment was made in a September speech at a “celebrating diversity” conference in the Anglican equivalent of the Vatican, Lambeth Palace, and hence carried official church imprimatur. Vicars, he said, had to challenge the “sinful idolatory” and “twisted theology” of white people who felt that Christ was indeed their King, accusing protesters of using the cross as “a fashion accessory.”
Arora is the Bishop of Kirkstall in the Muslim-filled English city of Leeds. The overall CofE bishop of Leeds is Toby Howarth, a non-practicing white man born in Kenya, who seems to have been appointed to the role mainly because he is an expert on Islam—whose number of adherents is growing in the city, while Christians and Jews flee or die off. Howarth has a master’s degree in Islamic Studies, a subject he then taught to students in the U.K. before embarking upon a high-flying career in interfaith relations.
The end result of putting such apparent non-practicing Christians in charge of Christianity in Leeds is, as I have just exposed elsewhere, that the city’s largest Anglican church has now been abused and desecrated by holding a massive display of tapestries commemorating “martyred” infidel-murdering terrorists from Palestinian Islamic Jihad. But they were non-white murdering terrorists, so that was religiously OK.
The display’s chief organizer was Mary Evers, another left-wing, white-skinned, pro-Islam campaigner who doesn’t think she’s really white. Evers is an ethnic Irishwoman with a “Palestinian heart” who was glad to escape all the white Christian religious bigotry back home and live, instead, in the Middle East—where interreligious tensions are, of course, completely unknown.
When such Christianity-destroying useful idiots of Islam talk about “twisted theology,” they should take a look in the mirror. They—not the supposedly “anti-Christian” white street marchers—are the ones truly guilty of using the cross as a mere surface-level “fashion accessory.”
Non-Practice What You Preach
Despite such fools’ best efforts, self-hating liberal pseudo-Christians like today’s CofE bishops are actually every bit as unable to escape the age-old Christian heritage they seek to so proudly and publicly deny—as if a non-practicing white person is able to deny their own genes.
The mental and moral architecture even of a left-wing, anti-racist, non-practicing Christian is still substantially inherited from that of their Christian ancestors, whether they know it or not. What would the pre-Christian pagan Romans, as opposed to the figurative Romans of the Roman Catholic Church, have cared about the issue of race-relations or slavery, for example? Nothing.
By showily professing to care so much about the well-being of other ethnicities, on the grounds that all men on Earth are equal, and trying to atone for their ancestors’ past sins, such wannabe Rachel Dolezals are only acting in accord with Bible passages like Galatians 3:28, but in a theologically perverted way: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, neither bond[man] nor free[man]…For ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” If descendants of foreign slaves had asked the Romans for apologies or reparations, they just would have gotten a sword to the throat. The same with Muslim slavers, too.
According to Canon Law, a non-practicing Catholic still remains a Catholic, as the mark left upon their soul by the sacrament of baptism is indelible and cannot simply be washed away, any more than Neil Armstrong could wash away the “sin” of his own white skin and magically reveal the darker but “purer” hues of Louis Armstrong hiding beneath. White or Christian, such confused self-deniers can pose as being non-practicing all they like; but, ultimately, their actions are mere re-creations of the words of Jeremiah 2:22: “Though you wash yourself with lye and use much soap, the stain of your guilt is still before me, says the Lord God.”
Their primary guilt here is that of overweening moral pride and vanity—not the supposed “original sin” of being born white and Christian.
There are no comments yet.