âHereâs a good world the while! Who is so gross
That cannot see this palpable device?â
–from Shakespeareâs Richard III
__________
The late John Tyndall of the BNP once stated that he didnât want to comment on the specifics of the American waterboarding torture of Iraqi prisoners because he was against the war to begin with. Iâm not a white nationalist, Iâm an antique Christian, but I often find myself, like Tyndall, so outside the mainstream (Burnham placed fascists and racists on the lunatic fringe), that I canât enter any modern debate on a major issue without completely redefining the debate in order to put it into what I feel is its proper context. How could it be otherwise? If we truly believe, based on our Christian faith, that our modern European culture is demonic, how can we possibly expect to be at one with the people who frame and debate the important issues of our time?
One of the devilâs favorite ploys is to present us with two evils in the hope we will embrace one of them in order to combat the other. He does not want Christian men to say, âA plague on both your houses,â and then branch out on their own to form a third army opposed to the devilâs twin evils. World War II would be a perfect example of the twin evils ploy of the devil â Hitlerâs new world paganism or Stalinâs communist utopia, which will it be? The Western powers chose to side with communism, which was probably the greater evil, but that is not the point: we were not supposed to choose Hitler over Stalin because he was the lesser evil, we were supposed to â if we truly were knights of Christendom âsteer our own separate course opposed to Nazism and communism. Of course when the ranks of white Christians have dwindled to a tiny minority, it is tempting to say evil is good and join a more powerful army than the Christian European one. Thus the evangelicals join the âRapture of Israelâ army, the Roman Catholics join the âEcumenical Liberalâ army, and on it goes: the good cause, the cause of Christian Europe, is left without a people to champion it, and the European people languish in the darkness of Babylon.
All the modern issues are debated without taking the Christian perspective into account. The modern feminists, for example, have suddenly discovered that black football players like to beat their significant others. So the entire football establishment jumps on the anti-domestic abuse bandwagon and promises a no-tolerance program for any football player who physically abuses a woman. What is wrong with the pro football league tightening its rules on domestic violence? Everything is wrong with the policy, because it is driven by the feminist hell hounds. I once read a neo-paganâs column in which he said we should not refuse to join with feminists when our interests coincided. I disagree, because our interests, at the deepest level, a level the managerial neo-pagans never go to, will never coincide. The feminists want to use the domestic abuse issue to further the cause of feminism; they want women to have unconditional power over men so they can abort babies and use men as milch cows in support of whatever career they choose. I keep hearing from the suddenly outraged male football establishment, who are simply saying what the feminists tell them to say, that it is wrong to hit a woman. Is it? I think we need to make a distinction. A chivalrous Englishman from the Victorian era would not hit a lady; that would be the act of a cad. But the feminists have repudiated Christian Europe. They hate chivalry, all the males who once practiced it, and the contemporary males who still practice it. You canât have things both ways, at least you shouldnât be allowed to have things both ways. The feminists want the rights that should only be given to those Christian women to whom the European poets wrote sonnets and the Victorians placed on domestic pedestals. Is it wrong to hit a woman? No, it is wrong to hit a lady. There is a huge difference between the two. A man of the old school might defend a feminist virago from an equally ferocious black barbarian, but he would do so because of noblesse oblige (another ethos that the modern world canât stand) and not because of some law that compels him to do so. In terms of the law, a feminist should have no rights, because like Lady Macbeth she has placed herself outside the only law that counts: Godâs law. Why should we care about the domestic abuse of feminists when white ladies, white men, and white children of both sexes are being slaughtered throughout the European world by the barbarians of color? Let the feminists who have asked the devil to unsex them face the consequences of their demonic rejection of the Christian, patriarchal society.
Masculinity is not evil in and of itself as the feminists have been screaming for the past fifty years. Masculinity can be a source of grace if it is consecrated to the King of Kings. In old Europe, the true Europe, it was Christian males who took care of rogue males. They took care of them in the same way Shane took care of Stark Wilson. There is no escaping that very basic and very fundamental law of civilization. There must be good men and true to confront the rogue males who believe that what good people call civilization is simply a supply camp they can use to fulfill their predatory needs.
What is the alternative to Christian patriarchy? We are living with the alternative, it is called liberalism. This is how liberalism works â white males are subject to the rules of a fierce matriarchy. If they impregnate a woman, be she girlfriend or spouse, they have no right to stop said girlfriend or spouse from aborting that baby. Any manifestation of masculinity, be it the pagan kind or the chivalrous Christian kind, will be severely punished by the matriarchal powers of Liberaldom. But there is a devilish twist in our modern matriarchal system. When it comes to males of color, the matriarchal rules that apply to white males no longer apply. Males of color have free rein to murder and rape so long as they confine their murders and rapes to white women. To murder or rape a woman of color is bad, but to murder and or rape a white woman is good. So this utopian mixture of negro worship and matriarchy benefits the barbarians of color, but it does not ultimately benefit the white feminists who helped to create it. The feminists have outdone the fishermanâs wife: they didnât know what they wanted, but they wanted it very badly. And now they have got it. They have a society in which there are no chivalrous white males, because white males have been trained since birth to never contradict a feminist and to never regard any form of black or colored behavior as wrong, no matter how barbaric or evil that behavior might be. The evil that blacks do is all in the racist minds of whites. There can be no evil blacks, unless they practice their evil on women of color. Wow, that seems like a difficult catechism to learn. It is, but that is what our educational system exists for, to teach white males there is no God of charity and mercy who bids us fight for His reign of charity, there are only the savage negro gods and the cruel matriarchal goddesses of feminism who must be worshipped and obeyed.
The neo-pagans seek to restore the white male to manhood by getting him to take pride in his genes, in his superior intellect. But the pride of intellect is what brought the white man down. The intellectual separation from all things decent and honorable in the name of a Nietzschean future is not the restorative we need. The white man needs to feel at one with William Tell, who was moved to fight when innocence was threatened. Pietas: that is the mark of the European male, that is the spirit Burke fought to keep alive in his beloved Britain, and that is what separates the Christian hero from the pagan hero. Blood lust is the mark of the pagan warrior; that charity of honor, which comes from pietas, is the mark of the Christian warrior.
Bill Bradley gave the keynote speech when Bill Clinton was first nominated by the Democratic Party for President. In that speech he outlined the essence of liberalism. He said that all true Americans (and all European liberals are like unto American liberals) refuse to accept the existence of tragedy. They believe that tragedy can be overcome by the proper (that is, liberal) management of peoplesâ lives. Think about the stunning hubris of the liberals. Bradley, who spoke for all liberals, did not claim the tragedies of life could be mitigated, he said they could be eliminated. It is that promise, the elimination of the tragedies of life, which keeps the modern European grazers from becoming men again. They have sold their souls to the liberal managerial experts with the sure and certain hope that the managerial experts will eliminate the tragedies of life. Even if the liberals could actually win the fight against cancer, defeat heart disease and AIDs, would such triumphs spare men from the ultimate tragedy? No, of course they wouldnât. There is still death itself, the last enemy. But the liberals have an answer for death. If they destroy the image of God in man by pouring monkey vomit on the European peopleâs past, they will have successfully destroyed the Christian Europeanâs belief that every personality is a universe, a universe deserving of eternal life, because He has made us, He has infused us with His divine spirit. Once that Christian belief fades away and is succeeded by naturalist universalism â which says that we are not individual personalities connected to a personal God, but are instead isolated atoms connected to impersonal nature, the tragedy of death is eliminated. A part of nature returns to nature, why should that be tragic?
There was a romantic comedy called Houseboat made in 1958, starring Cary Grant, the king of romantic comedies, and Sophia Loren, a queen by virtue of her beauty. Most movies of that era reflected a Christian ethos while avoiding the question of, âwho created that ethos?â This movie couldnât avoid the question, however, because Grant played a widower who has moved his young family to a houseboat after the death of his wife. His youngest son broods over the death of his mother. Grantâs character does not try to comfort his son by telling him of Christâs promise, âI am the resurrection and the life, he that believeth in me though he were dead yet shall he live.â He canât tell him that because he is a modern man and doesnât believe such impossible things. Instead he takes a glass of water and throws it into the river. âThat glass of water still exists,â he tells his son, âbut has just become part of the greater river.â Would such a ânaturalâ explanation of death satisfy a son who truly loved his mother? What kind of people have we become who settle for such a casual dismissal of our honored dead? It must be all or nothing. Either Christ rose from the dead on the third day as He will one day raise us up from the dead, or else we plunge to the depths of despair, but to accept such naturalistic mush⌠Almighty God, forbid it.
This unceasing campaign of the liberals to laud masculine women, to demonize masculine white males, and to destroy all vestiges of whiteness is consistent with their new religion of nature. Anything that stinks of humanity, that distinguishes the human personality from the great compost heap of nature, must be eliminated, because human beings reflect the image of a personal God. We have left personality behind so that the ultimate tragedy of life can be defeated, not by a redeemer, but by absorption into a beneficent, impersonal universal called ânature.â In the older European culture that contained white-skinned people who were white, pure white inside, there were masculine white men who were committed to the code of chivalry and there were feminine white women who deplored feminism. The liberals will never allow such a spirit-infused world to come into being again, because such a world stands in direct contradiction to their soulless world of universal nature. This is the real War of the Worlds, a war between death in life liberalism and life after death European Christianity. Donât count the numbers against us; just look on Him who saves. +