A United Federal Party advertisement asked dramatically: “Are you a man or a Dinosaur?” The moral here was that the dinosaur was a brainless creature that had become extinct because it could not meet the challenge of a changing environment, a fate that would also overtake the Rhodesians – and particularly the women and children – if they did not merge with the black race! – Anthony Jacob
__________
I don’t have many happy memories of my childhood, not because I was beaten by my parents or sent to a boarding school like the one run by Wackford Squeers in Dickens’ novel Nicholas Nickleby, but because of a certain inborn melancholy that the German poets describe as Weltschmerz. I found the tedium of school rather oppressive, which made me grateful for a friend who shared, not so much my melancholy, but my disgust with a school system that lacked a poetic. Schools then, as they are now, were simply indoctrination centers. Now they are indoctrination centers for mad-dog liberalism; back then they were indoctrination centers for middle-of-the-road liberalism. My rebellion and Rick’s rebellion, I now realize, came from two different spiritual currents, but at that time I felt we were kindred souls.
We were not 1950’s ‘rebels without a cause.’ Our rebellion did not involve switchblades and fast cars. One brief illustration will suffice. Picture an interminably long double class of social studies and English. Picture a teacher who thought that 8th grade students could not understand real literature and therefore had to be spoon fed didactic Horatio Alger pap instead. While reading a play in class, a dumbed down Horatio Alger story, Rick and I, without any prearranged plan, started changing the meaning of the play by placing different emphasis on certain words. What was supposed to be a didactic play about hard work and the American way became a sinister melodrama. Our classmates rewarded us with laughter, and our teacher rewarded us with detentions. Such were the small, but significant to me, battles that Rick and I waged with the school system we hated.
No matter how old a friend or loved one is when they die, that mysterious intruder is always unwelcome. But Rick’s death a few years ago in his mid-fifties came as even more of a shock to me because he was quite below the allotted lifespan. I hadn’t spoken to Rick since high school, but anyone who has had a best friend in those formative years knows that the memories of an early friendship stay with you for your entire life.
There was a reason I never contacted the friend of my youth after our graduation from high school. In our last year in high school Rick and I became aware that we were only united in spirit by what we were against; we were not united in spirit by what we were for. Rick had become a man of the left, particularly the French left as represented by Sarte and Samuel Beckett. My spirit was of a Dostoyevskian nature. I was concerned with one thing, the same thing as the great Russian: “Can an intelligent man, a European, believe in the divinity of Christ?” I spent my college years trying to answer that question, and I came to the same conclusion that Walter Scott and my European ancestors had come to. Rick, on the other hand, went to France and practiced what he preached, radical French politics. He lived and died within the terrible confines of liberalism. Of course Rick would not agree: he would have said that I had become addicted to an illusionary God and as a consequence lived my life in fetters. Be that as it may, I am just as determined to live and die a Christian Goth as Rick was to live and die a member of the sans-culottes.
My old friend came back to the United States and lived a perfectly respectable life as a middle-class bourgeois. And he did so without abandoning any of his principles. His beliefs had become mainstream. My beliefs were counter-culture, and I was the one that lived estranged from my fellow Europeans. How have we come to such a pass? Why has the traditional faith, the faith of the antique Europeans, and the values that stem from that faith, become a hole-and-corner, proscribed faith that must be clung to in the private recesses of the heart and never be proclaimed in the open? We have come to such a pass because the left has a poetic that moves them, and the right has no poetic. That has made all the difference. This basic, startling difference between the right and the left is always brought home to me when I pick up a work of a 20th century man of the right that I once read in my late teens and early twenties, trying to find an alternative to the poetic of leftism. The literature disappointed me back then and now I find it positively unreadable, because of the one glaring weakness in all of the right wing, 20th century authors – they saw rational analysis as an end in itself rather than as a sword to support their passions, thus leaving the field open for the leftists who did use reason as a sword to defend and advance their passions. Where the communists formed cells within a country to spread propaganda and bomb factories and defense plants, the men of the right formed think tanks and held forums to discuss the demerits of communism and the merits of the free market. So while the left invoked “the people” the right invoked “right thinking,” forgetting that passion can only be overcome by passion. The Southern people did not stop Reconstruction in its tracks by think tanks. They rose and rode in defense of their people, whom they loved enough to fight for. A handful of British soldiers did not liberate the captives of Lucknow because of their rationality. Certainly Havelock thought about his plan of attack, but his decision to fight and liberate was based on the same passionate love for his own that motivated the Southern people during the Reconstruction era.
Colored atrocities against whites are as common today as deliveries from the milkman used to be, because liberals believe in the new poetic, which is “the negroes,” who have become “the people,” while the whites do not believe in the poetic of the antique Europeans. First came the purification process in which believing Christian theologians such as Reinhold Niebuhr tried to purify Christianity by purging it of its European trappings and blending it with modern liberalism. That “purification” process soon resulted in a secularized Christianity with the negro taking the place of Christ. When the men of the right responded to the negroid secularization of Christianity with Greco-Roman rationalism, they made themselves an irrelevancy. Rationalism was found wanting in its Greco-Roman heyday, losing place to the mystery religions, it was found wanting in its medieval Catholic days, and it was found wanting in its resurgence in the Protestant “Biblical studies” sects. But still the men of the right pushed on. At age 59, Whittaker Chambers, having clawed his way up from the pit of communist hell, enrolled in college in order to pursue a “formal, intensive training in history, philosophy, and economics.” How could such a brilliant man have failed to see the obvious? How could he fail to see that it is at the academy, the collective high priestess of Liberaldom, where a white man learns to be a secondhand man? He learns to love abstractions and reject all things that stem from the spirit. The academy is the enemy: it destroys a man’s spiritual vitality and leaves him with the goddess of reason who, as Unamuno tells us, is a whore.
It is only the liberals who benefit from their association with the great whore, because they only use the whore-goddess Reason to advance their satanic passion to destroy God by destroying His image in the European people. By screaming “racism” and “simple-minded superstition” the liberals sought to kill all opposition to liberalism. And they have succeeded. “Who is here so base that would be a racist? Who is here so rude that would not be opposed to superstition in the form of an incarnate God? If any, speak for him have we offended.”
The men of the right did not speak. They simply cried, “We are not racist, we are not simple-minded, we believe in the rationality of the Christian faith.” But the love of one’s kith and kin is beyond reason, and that same love brings us to the foot of the Cross, to the God whose love is beyond reason. When the men of the right stepped away from their racial hearth fire to embrace reason, unfettered by prejudice and tradition, they betrayed their people and their God.
The rational dissection of man into separate parts in order to learn the truth about man is never a good thing. Somehow when the parts are put together again we always end up with a Frankenstein monster instead of a man created in the image of God. A man of the right who wants to fight liberalism with rationalism is still under the influence of liberalism. He is still a man who can get lost in a fragment of the truth without seeing the whole truth. The whole truth is that God’s channels of race are not to be circumvented; we need a particular people to belong to, heart and soul. The face of the living God does not appear to men who are loyal to an abstract, universal people. The right wing rationalists are the more consistent branch of liberalism. They want to be loyal to all races equally. The left wing liberals are more practical. They know they need a people, so they have made the black race their people and their god, which is in keeping with their satanic nature. They have inverted God’s grace. Instead of the face of God, they see, in their perverse vision of God’s people, the face of Satan. To love the negro with one’s whole heart, mind, and soul is to love the devil and all his works.
In the Gospels our Lord connects the love of God with the love of our neighbor. You can’t have one without the other. And our neighbors are the people who are close to us, the people of our racial hearth. The good Samaritan extended his love to the stranger, but if he hadn’t first loved his own he would not have cared about the stranger because he would have been a moral pariah, a liberal. Where is the love in our modern multiracial utopia? The torture, murder, and rape of white people is the raison d’etre of the colored races, and the worship of those who torture, murder, and rape white people is the religious faith of the liberals.
There is a very dangerous dynamic (at least for a police officer) that takes place during a domestic disturbance. When the police are called, they find a husband (sometimes it’s the other way around) beating his wife. The husband is the aggressor, the wife is the victim, and the police officer is the rescuer. But when the police officer tries to restrain the husband, he becomes the aggressor and the husband becomes the victim. What role is left to the wife? Precisely: she becomes the rescuer and tries to stick a knife into the back of the arresting officer. I’ve seen this scenario played out many times. Why do I bring this up? Because the liberals have invented a false scenario in which white people are the aggressors, black people are the victims, and the liberals are the rescuers. If anyone denies the reality of the liberals’ false scenario they are treated as blasphemers and are cast into outer darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth. But there is a real domestic drama taking place throughout the European world. And contrary to the liberals’ party line it is white people who are the victims, and the colored barbarians and the liberals who are the aggressors. Where is the rescuer in this real life drama? Ah, that is the question. There is no rescuer because the 20th and 21st century men of the right are too rational to believe that they have a people whom they must protect and defend. Such men are not of the same spirit as the integral Europeans of the Christian era. I know this to be true because I spend most of my time with the Europeans who lived, died, and fought before the 20th century, the post-Christian century. The men of Walter Scott’s Europe would not sit idly by talking about economic systems and universal panaceas to end discrimination, while their people were slaughtered right in front of their eyes. They would act as Christian men should act in the face of a barbaric, aggressive invader devoid of the slightest trace of humanity. This insane, horrific, murderous attack on white people will continue unabated and in fact will intensify until white men acknowledge that the bardic Europeans of the past who loved and hated with all their hearts were the true men of the right. They believed in Christ risen and they believed that the first rule of charity, the charity that never faileth, is the love of our own people. At the moment that such love, the love of our own racial hearth, became a matter for rational debate, the white man was lost. Only he who remains faithful, faithful to all the instinctive promptings of a heart that still loves, will be able to help his people survive the dark night of Liberaldom and live to see His light descend, once again, over Europe’s green and pleasant land. +