The People of My House

“A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation; but as immediate separation is impossible the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together… Such separation, if it is ever to be effected at all, must be effected by colonization… The enterprise is a difficult one, but ‘where there is a will there is a way’, and what colonization needs most is a hearty will.” – Abraham Lincoln

__________

A few days ago I heard a radio preacher, a self-professed “biblical Christian,” expounding on the Lost Tribes of Israel. It was his decided opinion that the Saxons were one of the Lost Tribes of Israel, but having come to that conclusion, the preacher felt the need to issue a warning: “Be careful – believing this could lead a white person to become a white supremacist, which would be the worst sin.”

‘White supremacist’ is the phrase liberals and now conservatives as well use as a bomb to blow up any white person who says anything to suggest that white people and their culture should be protected or segregated from the colored races. The liberals and the jump-on-board conservatives are not very precise in their definition of ‘white supremacist’ because they don’t have to be. No one ever challenges them. Once the term ‘white supremacist’ is hurled at the offending white person, the white sinner is excommunicated and all who associate with him are also excommunicated. As one of those excommunicated white men, I would like to challenge the liberal-conservative coalition of self-serving, egotistical maniacs and defuse their ‘white supremacist’ bomb.

We know very well what images the liberal-conservatives are conjuring up, quite successfully, when they use the term ‘white supremacist.’ The average white person thinks of white plantation owners whipping their slaves, of Ku Klux Klan riders lynching innocent, defenseless negroes, of white baseball players trying to spike the good and pure Jackie Robinson, of white South Africans gunning down defenseless negroes for the pure joy of gunning down defenseless negroes, and of kindly black families being sent away hungry from white restaurants. All this and more the well trained white thinks of when the ‘white supremacist’ anathema is hurled at a white man. (1) How could white people have any other image of a white supremacist? Haven’t they been literally deluged with anti-white propaganda in movies, press, and literature for the past fifty years? The truth about ‘white supremacists’ is quite different from the liberals’ manufactured white bogeymen, but before we defend the ‘white supremacists’ let us clarify something: there are currently no white supremacists in the strict sense of the word, namely white men who want to rule over blacks. There are an infinitude of black supremacists, of Asian supremacists, and Mexican supremacists, but there are no white supremacists. The white man who still remains a white man does not seek supremacy, he seeks the preservation of his race because he loves his people and because he believes God has ordained that a man should stay by his own racial hearth fire.

A white segregationist is not a white supremacist. I do not want to rule over blacks, Asians, or Mexicans. I want blacks, Asians, and Mexicans to rule themselves respectively in Africa, Asia, and Mexico. My distant ancestors, who were white supremacists in the best sense of the word, wanted to rule over blacks in Africa, Asians in Asia, and Mexicans in Mexico, because they thought blacks, Asians, and Mexicans were better off when whites ruled them. They were right, but such altruism – yes, I said altruism – has been too costly for whites. The colored would not be converted, and when white resolve weakened because of liberal insurgency from within the white strongholds, the colored people sought revenge on the whites for taking them out of bondage, away from their beloved Egyptian night. Better to let them have their Babylon and keep white countries white. But of course the liberals’ will not allow that. It is not only the colored countries that must be colored, it is also the white countries that must be colored. I know the liberals’ passion to colorize European nations is called diversity, but we know it by its proper name: genocide.

Because of the liberals’ passionate hatred of their own people, they refuse to allow whites to segregate themselves from colored people. They want whites to diversify themselves into extinction. For this reason the white segregationist has to be a white supremacist, so long as the colored tribesmen are in his nation. He has no choice. When whites rule other races, those other races prosper, but when the colored races rule white people are always fighting murderous barbarian hordes who want to kill every last white. Haiti was not an aberration: it was and always shall be the model for colored people. The colored people have a barbarian’s pride of race, which gives them an insatiable desire to conquer other races, but they do not love their own race as whites did when they were Christian. The love of one’s own race fosters a respect for other races, while a pride of race fosters a hatred for other races. This is why a diverse state (obviously not as desirable as a non-diverse state) must be a white-dominated state for the good of all. If whites rule, everyone is better off, but if coloreds rule everyone suffers particularly the whites. Pushed to the brink of the cliff whites must conquer or be driven off the cliff onto the jagged rocks of diversity below.

We live in the moral vacuum Yeats saw coming: “The best lack all conviction and the worst are full of passionate intensity,” because the colored peoples have never raised themselves above the level of racial pride, and the white liberals, who hate their own race, have descended to the depths of hell and left the grazers in limbo. The liberal, being post-Christian, mixes a secularized Christianity with paganism. He has the pagan’s pride of race, but he is proud of the colored races. By an intellectual metamorphosis the liberal has become one with the colored races in his own mind. I can still see, in my mind’s eye, the poster on the door of a young, blue-eyed, blonde student who roomed across the hall from me in my freshmen year at college. The poster showed a black man killing a white man. The caption on the edifying picture was a rallying cry for blacks to rise up and slay their oppressors. Did the white student think he would be slain? Of course not. He was not an oppressor. In his mind’s eye he was Atticus Finch, a white man with a black heart who would lead his people against the white oppressors. Kipling tells us that Gunga Din, because of his intense identification with and sympathy for the British soldier, “was white, clear white inside.” The Chris Matthews’ liberal is the exact opposite: despite his outward color he is black, pure black inside. And the former metamorphosis is what God intended: that the colored should be transformed by a sympathetic imitation of the white, while the latter metamorphosis is what Satan intended when he whispered “noble savage” and “Ye shall be as gods” into the white man’s ear.

Denying that they are repudiating Christ by joining the liberals, the conservative church men, such as that radio preacher, tell us they simply love their neighbor as themselves when they embrace diversity. There are two glaring errors in the treacherous church men’s assertion. First, loving your neighbor as yourself implies that you love yourself and your own people. You are not to hate your own in order to love the stranger. And secondly, is negro worship even remotely connected to love? What the liberals, and now the Christian churches as well, have done with the negro and the other races of color is what Hugh Hefner did with women in Playboy. They have made a god of the generic black man as Hefner made a god of the generic naked woman. Is such a generic love even remotely connected to the love of one’s neighbor that Christ talks about? No, it is not. Love of our neighbor implies the love of our own, those who are close to us. It is extremely difficult to love because human beings are small of heart and selfish. That is why God gave us a particular people to dwell with, which constitutes our best chance of stepping outside of ourselves, maybe for just a moment, and truly loving our neighbor as ourselves. The type of love the New Age clergymen recommend is a purely selfish love. Their ‘neighbor’ is a mind-forged abstraction who exists only to gratify their selfish need to worship a pagan god of nature, who prefers sacrifice to mercy.

I don’t know whether the radio minister was right about the Saxons being a Lost Tribe of Israel. I wouldn’t thump my chest in pride if it was proved to be true or be crestfallen if it was proved to be false. That the European people are the Christ-bearing people seems evident to me because of something independent of biblical or archeological research. I see Christ in the antique European culture, and I do not see Christ in the anti-cultures of the colored people. What is taking place in the conservative Christian churches (it has already taken place in the mainstream churches) is not a new ‘love thy neighbor’ policy, in which previously unwelcome people of color are welcomed into the Christian fold. It is a transformation of European Christianity, the true Pauline Christianity, into a pagan, nature religion with the negro as the centerpiece. In this movement toward the pagan abyss the conservative churches are merely following the lead of the secular conservatives and liberals. They are united in their heathenism because they are united in their hatred of the European and their love of the negro.

In his novel Uncle Silas LeFanu tells us that, “The devil approached the citadel of his heart by stealth, with many zigzags and parallels.” I think that is how he approaches most human beings. There are very few Richard the III’s who completely and wholeheartedly embrace the devil. Today’s churchmen are like Uncle Silas: their hearts have dried up because they left their racial hearth fire in order to go whoring after colored gods of their own making. Such gods cannot provide them with the warmth or the love they once had at their own racial hearth fire. They have become a pathetic sideshow in the great Babylonian pageant of darkness. The task of the antique European, living in this modern Babylon, is to reject the outright blasphemy of the liberals and the more subtle blasphemy of the conservatives. Like a rattlesnake both the conservatives and the liberals reveal their deadly intent: the rattlesnake with his rattle and the liberals and their conservative partners with their ‘white supremacist’ bomb. We should resist both forms of reptilian onslaughts. The liberal-conservative Christ haters are no more “of us” than the rattlesnake.

And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord. +

__________________________________

(1) Instead of “white supremacists” I think we might more accurately describe those men of old Europe who endeavored to help the colored races as white saints. In Africa, in India, and in the American South, wherever the white man went the colored tribesmen were exposed to — and benefited by the exposure to — a culture that put mercy above sacrifice. Anthony Jacob’s description of the old South accurately describes the white man’s charitable outreach in India and Africa as well:

“With regard to the supposed ill-treatment of the Negro slaves in the South, this was of course a myth. Far from suffering terrible hardships and miseries, they were at least as well off as the contemporary European peasant, and often in better circumstances than many ‘poor white’ Southerners. Foreign visitors were astonished – not merely surprised – to find how well fed and well cared for they were. The foreign visitors had fully expected to find the Negroes being flogged to death or hung in chains, and were disappointed to find they were not. It is true that whippings with a strap did sometimes take place, as many Negroes would only labour out of fear of the lash. But it was almost invariably a comparatively mild punishment and only administered as a last resort. Whipping was universal a century ago; and what the Negro slaves suffered in this respect was laughable compared with what British seamen or even Eton schoolboys suffered.”