It is surely not wise for the Church to pander to this idolatry. Even if Christianity were to be the religion only of a select few, it would be none the worse for that. Has it ever been anything else but the religion of a select few, and can it ever be anything else? Christianity is the religion of the White and not the non-White peoples, who debase it even when they accept it. They might pay lip-service to it where the white man is strong and his institutions accordingly respected, or where it has obtained a form of superstitious hold over them. But they can no more accept and comprehend essential Christianity than the white man can accept Shamanism. This, above all, makes it all the more reprehensible that the Church, instead of recognizing this, should swing round viciously upon the white man and hold him to blame for it – that white man upon whose unadulterated identity Christianity exclusively depends.
– Anthony Jacob
__________________________
The print media, which is dwindling fast, and the electronic media throw the word ‘conservative’ around a lot, but they never bother telling their audiences, perhaps because they are completely ahistorical creatures of the present, that the modern ‘conservatives’ are not conservative. A true conservative is in the Burkean tradition: he does not look on his government as a means of eradicating evil from the face of the earth and ushering in a new golden age. The Burkean looks on government as a means to an end, the preservation of a particular people and their particular culture. The government that works for one people might not work for another. And whether a European government works or doesn’t work is determined by how well it protects the people’s Christian faith. A government that works against God’s channels of grace – the familial and racial hearth fires – is not a government for a conservative, Christian people. That it was self-evident the Jacobin government was hostile to the Christian traditions and to the Christian people of France was the central argument in Burke’s case against the Jacobins. It was then and it is now impossible to reconcile a belief in Jacobin democracy, which includes its Russian communist and liberal American offshoots, with traditional, Burkean conservatism. Some modern conservatives will quote Burke while supporting American Jacobinism, but such conservatives are like the man who claimed he loved his wife’s cooking but then threw his food in the trash bin when she wasn’t looking.
Modern conservatives, because they are not Burkean conservatives, generally only argue with their liberal cousins over procedural issues within the confines of liberalism; they do not disagree about the sacredness of democracy. For instance, a small minority of conservatives will protest the government’s refusal to do anything to stop the flow of illegal immigrants, but they will not protest against the legal colorization of a white nation. This is because they believe in a democratic theory of government, and doing illegal things goes against that theory, rather than a conservative government constituted to protect its own people, a people of one race and one faith.
Since the modern conservative is loyal to a theory of democratic government rather than his kith and kin, he seldom does anything that attacks liberalism at its negro-worshipping center. When a modern conservative ventures over the line separating modern liberal conservatism from genuine conservatism, it always causes an uproar among the liberals and the liberal-conservatives. A case in point: the modern conservative columnist Ann Coulter recently wrote a column in which she criticized the evangelical missionary Dr. Kent Brantly for rushing over to Africa to “save” all of the Africans suffering from the hideous Ebola disease, which is almost always fatal. The doctor quickly contracted the disease and had to be transported out of Africa to a hospital in Atlanta. Coulter placed a toe over the line that separates the liberal conservative from the Burkean conservative when she criticized the doctor for going on a self-indulgent ego trip to Arica, while ignoring the work he could have been doing at home. Are there not souls to be saved in the United States? While avoiding the issue of negro worship, Coulter did take a step over the modern conservative line by criticizing the egotism of Dr. Brantly and his failure to practice the type of charity that begins at home. But then an egotist is incapable of loving anyone close to him and can only love abstractions of people who are far away: on such people the egotistic liberals can project their fantasies. They imagine admiring hordes of adoring negroes playing Tom Robinson to their Atticus Finch.
The Atlanta hospital where Dr. Brantly is receiving treatment has assured the public that the doctor’s presence in the hospital’s isolation unit will not endanger the lives of other people in the hospital and surrounding area. I hope that is true, but the hospital’s reassurances remind me of the reassurances of my supervisors on the police force. They told me that I didn’t have to worry about getting AIDs from incidental contact with prisoners who had AIDs. Yet I noticed that they themselves never went near the AIDs-infected prisoners.
Coulter’s mild criticisms of Dr. Brantly were roundly condemned by the liberals, who would have condemned him themselves if he had been an actual Christian missionary condemning abortion or homosexual marriage. And most of the conservative liberals, who share the mad-dog liberals’ love of the noble black savage, condemned Coulter’s criticism of Dr. Brantly as well. Which is what we would expect because it is the religion of the liberal-conservative coalition that is at stake here. Brantly went to Africa as a Moslem goes to Mecca and a Catholic goes to Rome: he went there to worship. If you criticize Brantly, you criticize the faith of the liberals and the modern conservatives. It is a faith that must be challenged and defeated before white people can rise from the ash heap of diversity and become a people with a local habitation and a name. I long for the day that a man can say “the European people,” and everyone that hears those words will visualize white people and white people only, preserving their own people and their cultures in every country throughout Europe.
My desire that European nations and their European colonies should be white and only white is now considered a heresy. Tony Blair’s opinion that Britain “must become multi-cultural,” has become the law throughout the European nations. But it is not a multi-cultural state that Tony Blair liberals are striving for. They are striving for a one-culture state, a Babylonian state devoid of white people. And in order to have that state, white people must be tortured, murdered, and raped out of existence. Is this the vaunted brave new world that liberals have promised us for the last 200 years? Yes, it is.
“Missionaries” like Dr. Brantly must be seen for what they are: they are heretics who have abandoned the Christian God to go whoring after the great negro gods of Liberaldom. Brantly had a ‘people,’ a people who needed to be reminded of who they were and who they still must be: the Christ bearers. Instead, Brantly, like so many other white, negro-worshipping Roman Catholics, Protestant evangelicals, and liberals, betrayed his own people to fulfill his dream of becoming a world-renowned Atticus Finch. Is he simply a little misguided? No, a man who sides with the torturers and murderers of his own people cannot act with good intentions toward any race of people; he can only act according to the dictates of his own exalted egotism.
In the late ‘60s a play called Little Murders was written, and in the 70s it became a movie. The play-movie was a kind of absurdist dark comedy which highlighted the escalating violence in American cities. The play was considered to be “brutally honest,” but it was not brutally honest, because violent crime was depicted as something that had just grown out of control for no understandable reason. It just happened. The rhinoceros in the bedroom, which the author of Little Murders ignored, was the black man. Violent crime did not become out of control in American and European cities until negroes were allowed to roam free in white cities. In seeking to build a utopia where violent crime was non-existent, the liberals turned our cities into places where murder, rape, and mayhem against whites became the norm, and what was considered normal, everyday life became an aberration. Is the negrophile world of the liberal and the modern conservative a paradise that we should work with might and main to perpetuate, or is it a monstrous empire of cruelty that we should destroy? I think we should pursue the later course of action. Can men with any humanity left in them choose any other option?
No white man wants Dr. Brantly or anyone else to contract Ebola, but who is being helped by whites abandoning whites in order to serve the negro? Ostensibly the negro is being served. If that is true, then why is Africa ready to sink into the abyss now that whites have become multi-cultural? Marauding blacks in the American and European cities prey not only on whites but also on themselves like monsters from the deep since whites have become “tolerant” of multi-culturalism. And whites? The new multi-culturalism has destroyed them; they have lost their faith in the Christian God and His people. So no one is being helped by the liberals’ egotistic march to the tom toms of multi-culturalism.
The liberals have spent centuries indoctrinating the white man. He now believes that a universal love of the colored stranger is the purest, finest love on earth. To love one’s own is mere selfishness, a selfishness that marked the European in the bad old days of Christian Europe. A man can only believe such satanic filth when he has no heart. Ah, there’s the rub. Appeal to a man’s pride of intellect and he will abandon his people and his God. Balzac saw the blood red tide upon the horizon: “In Paris to tell a man he has a good heart is the same as telling him he’s stupid as a rhinoceros.” And who wants to be as stupid as a rhinoceros? I do. I want to stay with the third dumb brothers of Christian Europe who slew dragons and defied Satan and his minions, because they loved their own people in imitation of their Lord, who was and is the embodiment of that charity of honor, the mark of the true European.
The new post-Christian morality is manifested in every aspect of the Europeans’ lives. We don’t protect our borders because the stranger is purer and better than our own people. And since the colored alien is better than the white citizens, he is allowed to murder, rape, and steal when he enters his new country. In my own anti-nation called the United States of America (it should be called the United States of Satan) elderly white people, I meet them all the time, cannot afford to pay for their health care unless they increase their incomes by applying for the welfare benefits that the colored aliens receive. But the older whites won’t apply for welfare because they don’t want to be a drain on their nation’s resources. The liberal Jacobins depend on the innate honor of the white people that they have sworn to exterminate. There is no reasoning with such monsters of the deep, who hate their own with the passionate hatred of their satanic master. From out of the depths, the depths of a European heart, we respond to the liberals’ satanic universalism of hate with a love of our own people, the people of our racial hearth fire. And surely that love will teach us to hate where we ought to hate and fight without ceasing against the liberals who hate their own in the name of a universalist theology forged in hell. Our short mortal lives will count for nothing if we don’t practice the charity that begins at home. +