“Satan conquers by distorting and diverting man’s spiritual eye, his heart. So keep thy heart, thou man of Europe, and thou shalt ride triumphant over ruin and death.” –CWNY
The Family Research Council is one of those moderate Christian outfits that opposes gay marriage and legalized infanticide within the framework of Christ-hating democracy. The very name – Research Council – gives you an idea of just how dangerous they are. They are going to think the evils of liberal democracy away by careful study and a presentation of the facts to their misguided liberal brethren.
Despite their timidity and their willingness to stay democratic and innocuous, the Family Research Council was labeled a hate group by a true hate group, the white-hating, satanic organization called the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). In response to the SPLC’s vicious smear campaign, a left wing devotee of the SPLC went into the Family Research Council headquarters and shot a security guard. There was of course no outcry against the SPLC for encouraging the shooting, nor did any members of the SPLC express contrition for their part in the shooting even though the security guard was black. But why should they be contrite? They are just being consistent. They hate the Family Research Council because it supports white Christian causes, so should they shed any tears when one of their followers attacks such an organization?
Just as disturbing as the shooting – and this always seems to be the case nowadays in the aftermath of liberal hate crimes – was the reaction of the Family Research Council. The FRC and their supporters pointed out that it was their attackers, not them, who were intolerant and hateful. That is all too true; the liberals are the intolerant and hate-filled ones. Should the Christian hate, should the Christian be intolerant, or is Christianity synonymous with tolerance and the absence of hate? It would seem so if we listen to the modern proponents of Christianity. But aren’t “Christians” who tell us that we should not hate really telling us to surrender to the liberals? Why should a professed Christian spend his entire life explaining why he doesn’t hate gays, abortionists, feminists, and negroes? Far better to hate the devil and his minions as a true European Christian should: “They never will love where they ought to love, who do not hate where they ought to hate.” Is it iced tea or skim milk that flows through the veins of the purveyors of tolerance, in the face of evil? Whatever it is, it isn’t blood.
This tolerance is not confined to the whites in the United States. Remember the English Defence League’s response to black hoods who were terrorizing London? They wanted “all decent people be they black, white, Sikh or Muslim…” to band together for England. That kind of response to violence against your own people is a response that will ensure that violence against your people continues. If William Tell responded to Gessler as “decent” whites now respond to liberals, there would be no legend of Tell because he and his family would have been exterminated. We can see the scene in our mind’s eye: Tell successfully shoots the arrow off his son’s head, but he does not, before shooting, put that second arrow, meant for Gessler if he misses, into his quiver. After Tell’s success, Gessler asks Tell if he harbors any resentment against him, Gessler, for putting his son’s life in jeopardy, and Tell responds, “No, there is no room in my heart for hate. I seek only to live in perfect accord with all men.”
“That’s all well and good,” says Gessler, “but I think I’ll throw you in prison anyway.”
As you recall, on the way to prison Tell is needed to steer the boat in perilous waters, so he is unbound. Once unbound, he escapes to the mountains, shoots Gessler, and leads his people in a counter-revolution. The modern version would be quite different. Once free, Tell would start printing pamphlets explaining to his countrymen why he was so tolerant of the man who wanted him to kill his own son. “I’m just too good and decent to hate. I won’t lift a finger against those who attack my kith and kin. That is not Christian.” As a result of Tell’s ‘tolerance,’ his family and his people are wiped out, and Gessler dances over the graves of Tell’s kith and kin.
What kind of people accepts Satan’s definition of tolerance and decency? The liberals define decency as an acceptance of their indecencies, and they define tolerance as a tolerance of the atrocities that they and their colored gods commit against white Europeans and unborn babies. No one cries “Hold, that’s enough,” in the ranks of the Europeans because the European has cut himself off from the mysterious human relationships, the love for his kith and kin, which engenders the passion in a man to protect innocence and fight to the death in defense of his own. If a man renounces his own people for an abstract faith in decency and tolerance, he has nothing to fight for. And such is the case with the “decent European.” He will blather on endlessly about decency and tolerance, but he is incapable of loving decent European people enough to defend them against the liberals and their barbarian allies. And he is too afraid of being called intolerant and hate-filled to attack the great haters and murderers of his own people.
Solzhenitsyn, when he first came over from Russia to the West, made the observation that the most striking thing about the Western people was their lack of courage. He didn’t understand why they didn’t defend themselves and their allies against the communists. If he would have probed deeper he would have discovered that the people of the West did not lack courage per se – they weren’t all congenital cowards; what they lacked was a passion for the little human things, hearth, home, and race, which engenders the spirit to fight for the right. A man who believes in the abstract principles of negro-worshipping democracy is not going to be passionately opposed to communism. He will be passionately opposed to South African apartheid and Southern segregation.
The Russian people have not thrown off the yoke of egalitarian Satanism; they are still riding the liberty, fraternity, and equality express train to oblivion. All that has changed is the train’s engineer. He now wears a democratic hat instead of a communist hat. The spiritual backbone that Solzhenitsyn said was lacking in the Western peoples is also lacking in the Russian people because they too have the white man’s disease. They have forsaken their people to go whoring after the gods of diversity. It’s happening slower in Russia than in the West, but the drive toward racial diversity and oblivion is in progress in Russia as well as the West. The worship of the great negro god is supposed to bring about the unity of east and west that all liberals long for. Is such a unity, the unity of the slime pit, possible? I suppose it is, but is it desirable? The antique European says it isn’t desirable, and he will fight to the knife against such a hellish final solution. But the liberal, the colored, and the ornamental, tolerant Christian will accept Satan’s slime pit so long as it is racially diverse.
The propositional Christian who has forsaken the bred-in-the-bone Christianity of his European ancestors will be forever trying (and trying in vain) to prove that Christianity and liberalism are compatible. On that issue the liberal has more sense. He will cite Christianity when it suits his purpose: “You are intolerant and unchristian.” But he knows who his enemies are. The enemy is Christ and the Europeans who cling to their prejudice in favor of Christian Europe over Babylonian Europe. The halfway house Christian who thinks he can preserve Christianity by joining it to Babylon has already, in his heart, surrendered to Babylon.
This question of tolerance is central to the demise of the European because his demise was caused by the evils he was tolerant of. He was tolerant of miscegenation, he was tolerant of sexual permissiveness, he was tolerant of feminism, he was tolerant of abortion, he was tolerant of homosexuality… Why such tolerance? The tolerance stemmed from men and women who severed their ties from Jesus Christ, “the God of their succeeding race,” for a faith in an abstract, philosophical Christianity that was flexible enough to bend with the times. You have no touchstone of reality if your faith is not in your blood, because the problems of life are too complex for the mind to solve. Our Lord became incarnate so we could know Him through the blood. When we try to know Him with our minds, through the contemplation of nature, or the contemplation of our navels, or any other form of mental computation, we always end up back in the Garden eating the forbidden apple.
Is it really so difficult for a European Christian to determine what is Christian tolerance and what is Christian apostasy? I don’t think it is. It is only difficult for ornamental Christians who want to blend Christianity and liberalism. The non-blended European, because his heart still lives, knows when it is time to sheath the sword in deference to human foibles to which we are all subject, and when it is time to unsheathe the sword because innocence and His people are at the mercy of tyrants who have no mercy. A man would have to be dead to every decent emotion that elevates a man in order to be tolerant of modern race-mixing, sexually liberated, Babylonian liberalism.
What Burke said of the French Jacobins, that they were seeking to attack God by destroying His image in man, is true of our modern Jacobin liberals. And they have in large part succeeded in effacing the image of God in man, because they have convinced Europeans that racial diversity is synonymous with Christianity. How could such a blasphemy become holy writ among the Europeans? Isn’t a diverse people a non-people? And doesn’t a people without an identity produce an abstract god without an identity? We have lost Christ because we have lost His people, the Europeans. The liberals, in hypocritical desperation (they claimed they could live in their minds alone) have placed the black man on their altars. Has there ever been such blindness of heart?
The race war instigated by the liberals has nothing to do with the enfranchisement of blacks. It is about the disenfranchisement of the white man from the human race, because if the white man disappears from the earth the image of God in man disappears from the earth. I hear the sneering pastors deploring the ‘racism’ of those white Europeans from the past: “Thank God we have overcome our prejudices.” I don’t know what god the Christ-hating pastors are thanking, but it is most certainly not the Man of Sorrows. God’s love was given a local habitation and a name when the Europeans asked Him to come “abide with us, for the darkness thickens.” That’s what the race war is all about, Charlie Brown: Whether white people will survive and show the world the image of God’s love in man, or whether they will succumb to the powers of darkness and allow the image of God in man to be effaced forever in a racially diverse hell on earth. Christian churches and organizations can survive without the European people. But faith in the God whose love passeth all understanding cannot survive without the witness of the European people, who knew that Man.
Their images I lov’d I view in thee,
And thou, all they, hast the all of me. +