We must fall back on Christianity, which embraces man’s whole nature, and though not a code of philosophy, is something better; for it proposes to lead us through the trials and intricacies of life, not by the mere cool calculations of the head, but by the unerring instincts of a pure and regenerate heart. The problem of the Moral World is too vast and complex for the human mind to comprehend; yet the pure heart will, safely and quietly, feel its way through the mazes that confound the head…
Sure we are that a fire that would consume all the theological and other philosophical speculations of the last two centuries would be a happy Godsend.
–George Fitzhugh Cannibals All! Or Slaves Without Masters
Al Sharpton – we’ll dispense with his title – has been handed a bully pulpit on a major news station and direct access to the President. And every time a white public figure makes what is deemed a racial slur, that public figure must go and genuflect before Al Sharpton. So it would not be an exaggeration to conclude that the moral essence of the anti-nation called the United States of America is Al Sharpton. And what has our nation’s Moral Essence been pontificating about this week? Sharpton wants the Federal government to rescind the right of self-defense when the perpetrator of a crime is black and the victim is white. That a white man has no right of self-defense against colored savages is currently the unwritten law of the United States, but occasionally, as was the case in Ferguson, Missouri, a potential white victim fights back, and a jury, following the antiquated law of self-defense, acquits the white defendant. This won’t do. White people must never defend themselves against black savages. White self-defense is a sin that cries out to the Federal government (the liberals’ equivalent of heaven) for vengeance. The white man must submit to the will of his gods. Even if they slay him, still must he trust in them.
I would prefer that the unwritten rule not become a written law, because a few whites have escaped liberal “justice” under the unwritten “no white must defend himself” law, but whether the Al Sharpton law is adopted or not will not change the ruling ethos of our land: The white man must do nothing to stop black aggression against whites. The codicil to that law is that the white man must not defend himself against any non-white race or any non-Christian religious sect.
All anti-white and anti-Christian laws are adhered to in Europe as well as in the United States. There is no white nation not committed to the extermination of all things white and Christian. This liberal commitment to Satanism results in criminal absurdities. For instance, white liberals claim to have discovered the fact that rape is a terrible crime. We are harangued with all sorts of educational programs that are designed to “sensitize” males to the problem of rape. And the definition of rape has become so broad that no male is innocent; we are all rapists now. But wait – that statement must be modified – all white males are guilty of rape. As the Scandinavian countries become rape havens for Third World savages, and the United States follows in their train, the liberals stay focused on white kindergarten boys who pull girls’ hair on the playground, while they ignore the Muslim, Hindu, Oriental and negroid tribesmen who look on the rape of white women as their right. The same principle is applied to street crime. It is bad when whites shoot black thugs, but it is “no big deal” when black Mau Maus torture, rape, and murder white people. One need not have the acumen of Sherlock Holmes to see the pattern that emerges. Every act of violence that serves the savage hordes of color and the anti-Christian faiths is a good act of violence, and any effort of white people to prevent the murder and rape of white people, or to punish those who murder and rape white people, is a reprehensible act.
Should white people submit to their own extermination? Should they go quietly into the Babylonian night or should they rage against the dying of the light? We know the answer to that question. On every front, the answer is yes, the white man should go quietly into the Babylonian night. The liberals tell us we must self-destruct, because the white race is evil and not fit to live in the brave, new Babylonian world. The conservatives in church and state, the great intellects, tell us that the whole notion of white people with white souls distinct from other people of color is nonsense; there is no such thing as race. There are just generic, interchangeable people who are cogs in the mechanistic systems of the philosophical speculators: “My philosophy and existence are one. There are no racial hearth fires in my philosophy, ergo, there is no such thing as white people.” And by extension: “Since there is no such thing as white people, there is no such thing as white genocide.” Isn’t that comforting? And you thought white genocide was a real problem. The next time you feel that way, take two strong doses of philosophical speculation and call your local clergyman in the morning.
Whites have been fed the doctrine of passivity in the face of colored savagery with their mother’s milk. On the one hand, white people are evil; therefore, they must do penance and serve the negro, but when the colored races do evil, it is not really evil, because there is no evil in the colored races; that is a mirage, a white racist mirage. And the ribbon that ties the neat little anti-white box together is the doctrine of white non-existence. Whites can’t fight white genocide, because there is no such thing, in the spiritual realm, as white people. It always comes back to the separation of nature from spirit. Are we quickening spirits or are we the walking dead, mere creatures of nature? Race and faith are interrelated, just as spirit and nature are interrelated. As we lose our consciousness of the distinctness of the Christian faith, how it differs from all of the other nature religions, we also lose our consciousness of the distinctness of the white race. Philosophy demands that we stay on the natural plane, on the surface of existence. But what if truth exists below the surface of existence? “There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in our philosophies.” So long as the white man resists that essential truth, he will remain a passive recipient of the evil that blacks do.
Herbert Butterfield, one of the few great historians, tells us that a true historian must really want to discover the truth about the historical period and/or person he is studying. That type of historian uses primary sources, secondary sources, and his reason, and then he binds all those factors together with intuition and comes up with what he feels is an accurate history. The bad historian proceeds on a different path than Butterfield. He starts out with an a priori assumption about a particular historical subject, and then he only looks for evidence that supports his a priori assumption. The modern, anti-white, anti-Christian liberal has taken the bad historian’s approach. He looks at Christian Europe with just the eye of reason, or else he only looks at secondary sources from outside of Europe that do not tell an accurate, integral story of the Europeans’ history. The end result of the acceptance of the liberals’ bad history is the isolation of the modern European from his past and the God that resided there.
The liberal rejects Christianity because he claims European Christianity was evil. The conservative accepts the liberals’ view of antique Europe, but his response is different. He rejects the European people, but he keeps Christianity by maintaining that the Christian faith is not an incarnate faith passed on from one generation to the next by the people who loved Christ. Instead, the faith is a philosophy that great thinkers have passed on from one generation of great thinkers to another. It is easier to defend one or two theologians than an entire people. But if Christ cannot be known through a sympathetic attachment to and love for the people who loved Him, how can He be known? That other way, the way of philosophical speculation, seems simpler, but it leads to the house of desolation, not to His Kingdom come.
The common ground of all the organized churches, conservative and liberal, is their faith in intellectual Christianity. Each sect believes they can win in the open market of speculative theology. They all are emperors without any clothes, and they have left their adherents naked to their enemies, who are the liberals and the savage hordes of color. The Pauline Christianity of the antique Europeans has been thrown into the dustbins of organized Christianity, but that faith is the only restorative for white people. St. Paul did not try to define Christ, he bore witness to Him. St. Paul’s charity that never faileth and Burke’s charity of honor point us to one faith and one people that must be defended. If 300 pagan Spartans could hold the pass until the Athenians stopped debating and speculating, can’t we, the remnant band of Christian Europeans who have rejected intellectual Christianity, hold the pass until our modern white Athenians finally decide to fight?
Al Sharpton’s speech marks a new stage in the war against the white race. What was implicit is now explicit. The white race must be destroyed. The liberals will never oppose any force on earth that is anti-white and anti-Christian. They only hesitate when two anti-European forces collide, as in the case of Islam and Judaism. It’s significant that in such cases white Europeans are merely cast in the role of supporters. The conservative liberals and the moderate liberals support Israel while the more radical liberals and the neo-pagans support the Muslims. But the significant factor is that the white Europeans have no cause of their own, because they do not exist as a people. They have become what the church men wanted them to become: disembodied minds without souls.
Anthony Jacob correctly diagnosed the fatal weakness of the good Europeans in his book White Man, Think Again!:
It was the very trustfulness of the Kenyans which was employed as the means of betraying them: their Anglo-Saxon fair-mindedness which was employed as the means of overthrowing them. Above all, they consented to their own execution because their minds had been focussed on the Blacks instead of on their own White standing. The White tribe in Kenya could not have been dispossessed and expelled if it had not first been persuaded to surrender ‘some’ of its power, and to work for the benefit of the Black tribes instead of for its own benefit. The Blacks had to ‘evolve’, they were told; and they did not realise that all this meant was that the racial tables had to be turned and the Whites had to retrogress. Did they not think it morally imperative, they were asked, that they should do their utmost to help their black charges advance? And of course they agreed it was; for had they not since early childhood donated pennies and knitted garments for the poor naked peoples of benighted Africa? But if the question had been framed differently, and properly; if the question had been: ‘Are you going to make a sacrifice of yourselves and your children for the sake of the myth of Black advancement?’, then their reaction would have been quite different as well.
I saw this process at work in my own family. My grandfather was staunchly white in faith and ethos. He duly gave money to feed starving Africans, because his clergyman told him to do so and because he was a charitable man. But my grandfather never thought darkies should be placed on an equal footing with whites. He told me, approvingly, of his grandfather (I repeat myself with this story, but I claim an old man’s privilege to tell the same story over and over again) who was a veteran of the Civil War on the Union side. The grizzled veteran, who lived into his mid-nineties, told my grandfather that he would never have gone to war had he known it was a war to put blacks on an equal footing with whites. “They told me it was to save the Union.” The French Revolution in Haiti was the beginning, on a large scale, of the white liberal’s betrayal of his own people, and our un-Civil War was the next stage in that process. The deification of the negro in the 20th century was the beginning of the final stage. My father was part of the familiar pattern of white decline. He loved his father, but he denounced his prejudice. Why did my father denounce his father’s prejudice? Because my father trusted church and state. And all the King’s horses, and all the King’s men in church and state put their moral stamp of approval on the new intellectual Christianity that had no place for white souls with a thirst for the living God. I hope that family decline, the decline of white prejudice in favor of one’s own people over the colored barbarian, stops with me. Then my children will have something to pass on to their children besides a second-hand faith in the sacred negro.
When a black god can openly declare that all white resistance to the torture, rape, and murder of white people must come to an end, we know that we are in a new, bloodier, more desperate stage of the extermination process. No white who has crossed the line from a first-hand faith in his people and their God to a second-hand faith in intellectual Christianity will be able to resist the extermination of the white race, for the simple reason that the second-hand white man does not believe there is such a thing as the white race. The defense of the white race will depend on the few — all great defenses depend on just a few – white men who have not crossed over the line from His eternal Europe to Babylonian Europe. Wherever that line is drawn, no matter how few defend it, that battle line is Europe. In the old Welsh battle hymn, I hear our Savior’s command: “Stand and never yield.” +