So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth. – Revelations 3: 16
The old debate: whether it was American decadence that corrupted Europe or European decadence that corrupted America was settled when The Obama was elected President of the United States. When a nation that still has a majority of white people in it elects a glorified ape to preside over them, they are truly the most decadent of the decadent. But European conservatives have no cause to thump their chests in triumph nor do European liberals have any cause to lament their second place showing. The United States has descended to the deepest region of hell, but the Europeans are only one circle of hell above the Americans. So whether one set of Europeans is deeper in hell than another is kind of a moot point, considering they all are in hell.
Tennyson laments after the death of a loved one that his tongue cannot adequately convey his sorrow. He then proceeds to convey his sorrow quite well. But I don’t think Tennyson’s lament about his inability to express himself was affectation. When the heart truly loves all words are inadequate to express one’s feeling of sadness when the beloved has died. We see through a glass darkly, and we speak and write in the face of that same dark glass.
The death of Christian Europe is like unto the death of a loved one. Its death makes us feel as Tennyson felt:
But O for the touch of a vanished hand
And the sound of a voice that is still!
But if we can still remember and lament, the loved one is not dead, the beloved sentry is still there, and He will sustain our honored dead. The task of the living is to keep faith with the dead.
The Europeans of the latter half of the 20th century severed all ties to our honored dead in order to be part of a multi-racial, multi-faith, multi-sexual utopia. And looking back we can see quite clearly how Christian Europe became Satandom.
The creation of Satandom did not begin with the French Revolution, but that event did show us the first incarnation of Satan within the heart of Europe. So it behooves us to take a look at the various forces arrayed against each other in that Revolution, because they are the forces that exist today and always shall exist in every revolution.
There were three forces present in the French Revolution. We begin with the forces of evil. Burke, the metaphysician and poet, captured the essence of Jacobinism in his writings while Taine, writing 80 years later than Burke, gave us a detailed account of the sins of the Jacobins. Let us go to Burke for a crystal clear summation of the essence of Jacobinism:
The rebels to God perfectly abhor the Author of their being. They hate him “With all their heart, with all their mind, with all their soul, and with all their strength.” He never presents himself to their thoughts but to menace and alarm them. They cannot strike the Sun out of Heaven, but they are able to raise a smouldering smoke that obscures him from their own eyes. Not being able to revenge themselves on God, they have a delight in vicariously defacing, degrading, torturing, and tearing in pieces his image in man.
And to Taine for an insight into the bloody nature of the new religion of philanthropy:
All means are justifiable and meritorious with traitors; now that the Jacobin has made his slaughtering canonical, he slays through philanthropy.
Nothing has changed since those wonderfully madcap days (according to the liberals) of the French Revolution. All whites have become the traitors who must be eliminated, and the people of color have become “the people,” but the revolution goes on as Satan desires. So long as the Europeans are demonized and the negro, the conduit to Satan, is deified, the forces of hell will rule in what was once Christendom.
And what of the forces of good? Were there no good men left in France to defend the King, his Queen, and eternal France? No, there were not. There were no good men in the highest sense of the word. There was no one who could see evil for what it was and then fight to defend the good.
It is now sixteen or seventeen years since I saw the queen of France, then the dauphiness, at Versailles; and surely never lighted on this orb, which she hardly seemed to touch, a more delightful vision. I saw her just above the horizon, decorating and cheering the elevated sphere she just began to move in,–glittering like the morning-star, full of life, and splendor, and joy. Oh! What a revolution! And what a heart must I have to contemplate without emotion that elevation and that fall! Little did I dream when she added titles of veneration to those of enthusiastic, distant, respectful love, that she could ever be obliged to carry the sharp antidote against disgrace concealed in that bosom; little did I dream that I should have lived to see such disasters fallen upon her in a nation of gallant men, in a nation of men of honour, and of cavaliers. I thought ten thousand swords must have leaped from their scabbards to avenge even a look that threatened her with insult. But the age of chivalry is gone.
In Britain the situation was much the same as it was in France. There were many reasonable, moderate men (we shall come to them later) who deplored the excesses of the French Revolution, but they could not see, because their hearts had grown tepid, that Jacobinism was an intrinsically evil, satanic attack on Christian Europe. All they saw were political reformers who had gone overboard. “It couldn’t happen here, you know, we just don’t do things that way.” Only Burke saw the Revolution for what it was and spent what remained of his life trying to battle the ignorance in the hearts of his countrymen:
Viewing things in this light, I have frequently sunk into a degree of despondency and dejection hardly to be described: yet out of the profoundest depths of this despair, an impulse which I have in vain endeavoured to resist has urged me to raise one feeble cry against this unfortunate coalition which is formed at home, in order to make a coalition with France, subversive of the whole ancient order of the world. No disaster of war, no calamity of season, could ever strike me with half the horror which I felt from what is introduced to us by this junction of parties, under the soothing name of peace. We are apt to speak of a low and pusillanimous spirit as the ordinary cause by which dubious wars terminate in humiliating treaties. It is here the direct contrary. I am perfectly astonished at the boldness of character, at the intrepidity of mind, the firmness of nerve, in those who are able with deliberation to face the perils of Jacobin fraternity.
Jacobinism was never checked. Once the French disposed of the manically philanthropic Robespierre, they and their satanic creed were allowed a place in the fraternity of European nations. As recently as 2009, the former French President Nicolas Sarkozy said proudly that France was a regicide nation. And why should that raise the ire of anyone but me? At present aren’t all the nations of Europe regicide nations? Now if Sarkozy had said, “We are a Christian nation, we will not be overrun by Moslems and negroes,” then all the people of European descent would have risen up and denounced France as a pariah nation that must be eradicated from the face of the earth. And we know who would be leading the chorus for the destruction of Christian France: the Christian clergymen of all the European nations. Despite the fact that the Jacobins tortured and murdered the clergymen who refused to take the oath of obedience to the Jacobins, despite the fact that the Jacobins institutionalized atheism, the great bulk of our modern clergymen would condemn any resurgence of Christianity in France and would support, to the death, atheist, Jacobin France. They would do so because they are Christian atheists just as Dostoyevsky’s Grand Inquisitor was a Christian atheist. It is better, in their minds, that millions should die and Christ should be supplanted in the hearts of men than they should give up their systems. It is the sin of Caiaphas! To his dying day the great “conservative” Hilaire Belloc supported the French Revolution, because the French monarchy did not live up to his system. And the moderate men with one voice declared Burke’s “metaphysical meanderings” to be “obsessive” and unwarranted. “After all, they were only political reformers who went a bit wrong.” Which brings us to the men without whom no Revolution can succeed or be sustained.
We have come to the third force, the moderate, reasonable men, who really are only a force because their lack of moral strength allows the forces of evil to triumph. Reasonable, moderate men are perfectly good citizens when passionate men with hearts of fire keep the forces of evil at bay. But when the ranks of the good men with hearts of fire diminish and the ranks of the Christ-hating liberals swell, it becomes necessary for the reasonable, moderate men to step into the breach and cry halt to the evil. They never do. Because of some inborn or acquired lukewarmness of heart, the reasonable, moderate men always misread the revolutionaries’ intent, and they betray their own people as they cite platitudes about moderation and reason. In France during the Revolution the moderate, reasonable men sat on their hands and watched “political reformers” kill their King.
So long as the moderate, reasonable men are few in number a nation is safe. In the South Africa of the 1840s, for instance, when only a few of the white settlers supported lifting the ban on apartheid, the few reasonable, moderate men did no damage: “The negroes are not animals, you know. I think we can interact with them without any fear of them molesting our daughters or killing us in our beds.” But when the moderate, reasonable men with the tepid hearts become a majority, as they did in South Africa, the people perish because the evil liberals and their colored allies overrun the good and noble whites and turn Christian nations into hellish nations consecrated to Satan. In France before the Revolution, in Haiti before the bloodletting, in Russia before the Revolution, in South Africa before one-man-one-vote, and in the modern white nations before multi-racialism became the law of the land, it was always the moderate, rational men who paved the way for the massacre of the white race by their reasonable, moderate responses to evil. It is always the extremists who are condemned by the moderate, rational men, and it is always the extremists who are right. Burke was called obsessive and extremist when he said Jacobinism unchecked would lead to a Jacobin Europe, which would devour Christian Europe. He was right. Dostoevsky was considered too extreme when he said that should the Bolsheviks obtain power they would slaughter millions of innocent people. He also was right, while the moderate, rational men were wrong. And Anthony Jacob was right when he said that multi-racial conservatism was an impossibility because it was an offense against God. Why are the moderate, rational men always wrong? They are wrong about human events because they are wrong about God. They are afraid of a passionate God, so they put Him in their little geometrically perfect box from which He is only supposed to come forth when the moderate, rational men want Him to come forth. But God is fire, passion, and desire. He can’t be contained in a rational box. In the Chronicles of Narnia C. S. Lewis tells us that Aslan is not a tame lion. No indeed, he is not.
The modern, white-hating Satanists, and the colored tribesmen did not conquer the whites in Rhodesia, South Africa, and the European nations because of their superior numbers. They conquered because the Europeans exchanged their faith in the untamed, passionate Christ of their forefathers for a moderate, rational, civil-rights-worker-type of God: “So long as there is diversity, which is the whole sum and substance of my divine message, I’m happy.” That is the reasonable, regular guy God of the moderate, reasonable Europeans. So long as that false craven image of God keeps them from seeing the true God, the Europeans will serve the negro gods and by doing so will serve Satan.
In this century and the past century when we refer to the rational, moderate men, we are talking about the conservatives. They treat all mankind as generic units sharing the same values as they do. When things go wrong, as they did in the last Presidential election in this country, the conservatives do not question their universalist principles and say, “Maybe all races are not alike, maybe the European people are different from the people of color.” No, instead they start thinking about “winning over the blacks” or “appealing to the educated Hispanics.” And on and on go the good, solid, well-meaning, intelligent conservatives. They will still be blathering when the stew pot is closed over their heads. If you avoid the race issue, if you don’t fight for God, for England, and St. George, you might avoid conflict in the short run, but in the long run you will perish because by denouncing your race you have denounced your soul. I believe our Lord summed up the tragedy of the moderate, rational men: “He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.” You can’t step outside the realm of the spirit, which is what a man does when he forsakes His people for generic mankind, and still hold on to a place in this world or the world to come.
A friend, who knows how I feel about whites and negro worship, asked me if I was delighted that the new Pope was white. Leaving aside the whole ‘whore of Babylon’ argument, I told my friend that I felt as I would have felt had Romney won the Presidential election: glad to see a white man in office rather than a black man, but aware that the problem of negro worship still remains the same. Practical, reasonable men such as the conservatives — religious and secular — still believe in a generic system with the negro at the center rather than a particular God who comes to us through our racial hearth fires.
I have in my possession a story book that my grandfather gave to my mother when she was a little girl. When my mother died, I was given the storybook. In the book is the story of Roland. If you remember, Roland was killed fighting a heroic battle against the Saracens when he and his followers acted as a rearguard for Charlemagne. The Saracens were able to ambush Roland because Roland’s stepfather, Ganelon, had betrayed him. The story concludes with these words:
Scarcely had Roland breathed his lasts when Charlemagne arrived to find of all his twenty thousand not one left. Mournfully he called his peers by name. Not one there was to answer, not a single one. And on the height, his face toward Spain, they found the hero Roland. Great was the grief of all. Great was the grief of Charlemagne. His host pursued the Saracens and by the river E’bro, the Moors paid to the full the penalty of their treachery. Then bearing the bodies of Roland and Oliver, Charlemagne returned to France. Laden with chains and tied to a stake like a wild beast Ganelon was led before his judges for trial. By his dark deed lay twenty thousand dead. He was condemned and suffered a shameful death. But in the hearts of Charlemagne and all the people of France remained undying love for Roland, for he took his stand, and held it, never yielding, unto death.”
Undying love? No, the people of France are regicides now: it is Ganelon who is honored in France, Gessler in Switzerland, Mordred in Britain… We do not honor our dead, we demonize them for being provincial, Christian, and racist. This Babylonian world, ruled by Ganelons and colored tribesmen, was ushered in by moderate, reasonable men who, having lost their connection to their own people, lost their connection to the living God, Jesus Christ, the only one who gives Europeans the heart and the passion to take arms against and defeat Satan and his minions. +