The modern democracies of the West, with their philosophies of the stomach and the stock exchange, cannot inspire the people nor protect them. They despise nationhood and despise race. But without our national and racial backbones how shall we stand erect? With quicksands as our foundation how shall we build? How shall we be true to ourselves if we have no selves? Our race is what we are; it is our form. It is our fathers and mothers and brothers and sisters and wives and children. They are the race. How then shall we count it of little worth? Shall we despise our own flesh and blood? Is that what modern democracy is supposed to mean? Is that what Christianity is supposed to mean?
– Anthony Jacob
After the Communist Revolution in Russia, fellow-traveler literature became quite common in the rest of Europe (Shaw, Wells, etc.) just as fellow-traveler literature became popular in the rest of Europe after the French Revolution (Priestly, Price, etc.). A small genre of literature in opposition to the pro-communist literature also developed in the West. That genre consisted of anti-communist literature, often written by former communists such as Muggeridge, Chambers, and Koestler. But with the exception of one lone Englishman, Anthony Jacob, the conservatives never linked their anti-communist views with a defense of the white race. On the surface the conservatives, particularly during war time, sounded very patriotic, but it was all smoke and mirrors. “Defense of Democracy” was all the rage, not a defense of the white race. But a rousing defense of an universalist idea of a generic, mixed race people is not patriotic, it is treason. It breeds the spiritual decadence that the great minstrel sings of: “Breathes there a man with soul so dead…”
The type of universalist patriotism exhibited by conservative and liberal in the 20th century was only present in the liberals in the 19th century. Men like Havelock and Kipling — the latter was on the cuff between the 19th and 20th centuries — did not equate support for multi-racial democracy with patriotism. Havelock didn’t say, “There are hundreds of democracy-loving people in Cawnpore that we must rescue.” He said, “There are men and women of our own race held captive.” And Kipling did not write of the burden of the multi-racial liberals; he wrote of the “white man’s burden.” If you find a white man in the 20th, and now the 21st century, who will state unequivocally that the defense of his race and the defense of his nation are one and the same, then you will have found a true patriot.
In our own nation, the great anti-nation of the world, resistance to multi-racial universalism came from the Southern, Burkean conservatives of the 19th century. The liberals of the north were universalists who had only just begun to work out the implications of their universalism. When they started to actualize the implications of universal democracy, they destroyed the divinely fashioned barriers between the races. The non-universalist culture, the South, put up more than just a modicum of resistance, but by the end of the 20th century there were only soul-dead universalists throughout all of Europe and the United States. (1) “O brave new universalist world, How do we love thee,” was the cry of the soul-dead Europeans.
Fitzhugh warned us that a government was only beneficial if it was conservative. If a government becomes liberal, it ceases to be beneficial; it becomes harmful. Is there a government in any European nation that is trying to conserve the European people and their traditional faith? No, of course there isn’t. Are they legitimate governments if they don’t serve their people, but are instead at war with their people? Again, the answer is – of course not. The European people do not have a government; they have masters who hold them in bondage with the power of an ideology. So long as the white man does not believe the white race is a nation unto itself, he will be in bondage to the devil, who rules through his liberal minions.
Occasionally a white man or a group of white men complain that they are not being treated equally in Babylon. They say they are being discriminated against. Of course they are; Liberaldom is based on the hatred of the white man. But it is useless for a white man to plead for equal rights in Babylon. Would you go up to brigands, who had invaded your home and thrown you out into the street, and ask them to allow you to live in a corner of the basement of your former home? I suppose you would if you were a modern European, but it would be far better to wait for the right opportunity and retake your house by killing the brigands.
The post-World War II conservatives had no problem in vilifying FDR for turning Eastern Europe over to the communists, and for his refusal to do anything against good old “Uncle Joe.” (2) But did the post-World War II conservatives ever say anything against the type of race-mixing demagogy represented by Eleanor Roosevelt? “A great many people believe that there should be no intermingling of races… Nevertheless, down through the ages, it has been proved over and over again that this is one of the questions which people settle for themselves, and no amount of legislation will keep them from doing so. This is a question, therefore, that I think we have to leave to individuals, not only all over the United States, but all over the world, to handle.”
What the 20th century anti-communist conservatives failed to realize was that if you don’t oppose the race-mixing heresy it is useless to try and oppose the communist heresy, because the race-mixing heresy is the bricks and mortar holding the communist-democratic heresy together. The communists and their democratic egalitarian cousins knew and still know that race-mixing is necessary for the triumph of communism and/or democratic egalitarianism. If a man can be induced to marry outside his race, he can also be induced to transfer his loyalties from his kith and kin to a “higher” loyalty, to abstract concepts such as the “proletariat” or “the people” or “humanity” or “the oppressed black minorities.” He will be a cog in the inhuman machine of one of the modern dystopian heresies. Of what use are strictures against communism then if the only people who would be against it, the Christian Europeans of old, have ceased to exist? And hasn’t that been the case? Who really cares about communism anymore? If a man has no loyalty to his kith and kin why should he care about communism? Because it is Godless? That is of no consequence to the modern European. When he severed his ties to kith and kin he also severed his ties to the living God. And the official word from the rulers of Liberaldom is that the Europeans are happy with their new black gods.
When I was a young man the post-war conservatives were the Old Guard. I went to them for guidance. But as I grew older I realized that the post-war Old Guard were not conservatives. It was their great-grandfathers and grandfathers of the 19th century who were the true conservatives. The modern post-war conservatives were liberals. They had abandoned the fairy tale vision of God, which is found in the Bible and the European bards, for a more scientific view of God and man. And when a man becomes ‘scientific’ he always Gnosticizes Christianity. The belief in the resurrection of the body is changed to a metaphoric resurrection, and a man’s skin color is no longer seen as part of his soul. The Biblical truth, that the wisdom of man is in his blood, is looked on as unscientific and barbaric. The famous liberal, George Bernard Shaw, used to froth at the mouth at the slightest mention of Christianity. How could civilized men countenance a blood sacrifice? If a man’s blood is not part of his soul, then a religion that was redeemed by the blood of the Lamb would be barbaric. But our blood is part of our soul. Our bodies and our spirit are one, and we believe – those of us who remain European — that God intends to resurrect the whole man on the last day.
The European “conservatives” of the 20th century were flawed conservatives because they did not wish to conserve that which is essential: the European people and their non-propositional Christianity. Instead the conservatives jettisoned the European people in the name of their pet abstractions – propositional Christianity and propositional economics. Run a little test of your own. Start using words like loyalty and honor. Tell people you must remain loyal to your own race, which is why you don’t watch pro football. Or better yet, tell people that you have taken a vow to refrain from strong drink and strong meat until the stain upon your honor, caused by the presence of liberals and negroes in your nation, is removed. Of course you will be committed if you use such language and then suit your actions to your words. But the antique Europeans did suit their actions to such words. They believed in “that charity of honor,” and they believed in loyalty and fidelity to their own race. If we don’t conserve their faith, we have no faith and no nation.
The managerial conservatives of the 20th century accepted the liberals’ basic premise that a culture based on loyalty to one’s people, defined by their race, was unprogressive and inferior to a culture that was based on a universalist creed. The conservative opposition to communism was pragmatic. “There is no need to kill so many people in defense of a failed economic system. We can give people a better economy without killing quite so many people.” And even on that issue, the slaughter of innocents, the managerial conservatives did not understand that multi-racial universalism, whether it is communist or democratic, always results in the slaughter of innocents. If we tally up the aborted babies and the whites killed by the colored tribesmen who are permitted to live and breathe on sacred European soil, who’s to say that we of the liberal and negro-infested West haven’t compiled a more obscene number of slaughtered innocents than the Russian communists? The “prejudice” that loyalty and fidelity to kith and kin is the first of all virtues, the virtue which anchors all other virtues, was formed when the Christian faith of the Europeans was at high tide. So why would professed Christian conservatives assume that the ethos of race-mixing Babylon was more in keeping with the Christian faith than the prejudices of their forefathers? Because they were and are divided men, with one foot in the modern world, and one foot in the old world. If they don’t become “racists” they will soon become complete men of negation; they will become holistic liberals. Only those who cling to the prejudices of the antique European racists will be able to stand against the liberal whirlwind. The managerial types of the conservative and halfway-house Christian variety, will be swept away by the liberals. +
(2) FDR had this to say about Uncle Joe: “He is a man who combines a tremendous, relentless determination with a stalwart good humor. I believe that he is truly representative of the heart and soul of Russia; and I believe that we are going to get along very well with him and the Russian people — very well indeed.”