This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. –2 Timothy 3: 1-7
After the Antifa threat and the subsequent Antifa massacre in Las Vegas, a woman of my acquaintance, a white grazer, asked me what I thought of the Antifaers. When I told her they were possessed by the devil and were hell-bent (pun intended) on destroying the white Christ-bearing race, she was very disturbed. I hadn’t told her what she wanted to hear. It is very unsettling to think that one has an enemy who cannot be appeased by anything less than your heart’s blood. But what is the use of lying to ourselves? Isn’t it crystal clear now? It wasn’t crystal clear to that woman, and it isn’t crystal clear to the rest of the white grazers.
Satan had to morally anesthetize the white race before he could work his will upon them. And he has done that quite well. Whenever the colored heathens or the Jacobins, which is what the Antifaers are, commit atrocities, the white grazers instinctively (such instincts have now been bred in their bones) look for the white provocation of the violence: “We have not gotten the blacks jobs,” or, “Trump is too confrontational.” It is always something the white man has done that causes violence, because, as church, state, and academia tell us, the white man is evil. And although this makes the white grazer somewhat uncomfortable, he accepts the theology of the white man’s responsibility for the evil that men do. He accepts it, because he respects the moral authority of his leaders in church and state, and he accepts it because he would rather think that the bloodletting can be halted by appeasement than face the fact that he has an enemy that cannot be appeased, because that enemy is driven by a satanic hatred for the white race.
In the old Christian hymn, “A Mighty Fortress Is Our God,” we are told that our enemy is “armed with cruel hate.” It’s curious, now that Satan has become so visible through the works of his minions, that modern Europeans thoroughly reject the notion that Satan prowls about the world seeking the ruin of souls. But then again maybe it is not so curious. Since Christ has become less visible in the works of His people, wasn’t it inevitable that men would redefine and rehabilitate the devil? Christ has been demythologized, and so has the devil.
I doubt there is a single mad-dog liberal (they call themselves Antifa) who believes in the devil. But the devil does not want their belief. If they truly believed in his existence they might come to believe in Christ. What the devil wants is the liberals’ compliance with his will. And he has that. What is the devil’s will? To attack God by destroying His people. His great frustration is that he must work through humanity to strike at God. The great hater of mankind, the archangel who spits on the God-man and the image of God in man, must work through human beings in order to obtain his will. So must our Lord work through human beings, but the divine condescension was not abhorrent to our Lord and Savior — He took flesh and dwelt among us. ‘Tis not so with the devil. He does not move men’s hearts with his sacrifice, he moves men’s minds with his appeals to their pride and self-will. What will the Antifaers gain by the destruction of the white Christ-bearing race? What did Satan ultimately gain by his rejection of God? He gained hell and lost heaven. And that is what the Antifaers want. They want hell on earth. And when do they want it? They want it now. The liberals are like unto Lady Macbeth — the new generation no longer tries to disguise it: “Fill me from the crown to the toe top full of direst cruelty! Make thick my blood; stop up th’ access and passage to remorse, that no compunctious visitings of nature, Shake my fell purpose, nor keep peace between th’ Effect and it!”
The devil does not necessarily want the Antifaers to be so blatant. He can inspire them, he can fill them from crown to the toe top with direst cruelty, but he cannot personally take charge of their war against whites. Did he want the German Jacobins to say we’ll bring you hell? Did he want the American Antifaers to say they were going to disrupt the nation by whatever means necessary? And did he want that Las Vegas shooter to kill all those white people? I don’t know. If the white grazers are aroused by such bloodletting then the liberals have miscalculated. But it doesn’t seem the grazers will be aroused. “It was the work of a mentally deranged person,” the Satanists tell the white grazers. If the grazers accept that, and there is every indication that they have accepted that explanation, then the Antifaers have not made a blunder and Satan will step up the bloodletting. (1)
The Las Vegas massacre represents a change in the liberals’ conduct of the war. Hitherto the liberals have been content to kill by proxy, letting the colored heathen do their killing for them. But now they have stepped forward, and we should take note of the shift in tactics, because the white techno-barbarian brings a technological mind to his killing. He can kill with a much greater efficiency than the colored heathen. But why is the liberal so impatient? After all, the extermination of the white race was proceeding at a nice steady pace. The liberal can’t wait because of his intense hatred. His hatred knows no bounds; the mere thought that there are white people still living and breathing the same air as their exalted liberal selves and the colored heathens fills the liberals with rage. They crave their bond, which is the blood of the white man.
The great advantage the Antifa liberals have over the white grazers is their passionate hatred. The grazers cannot defend themselves because they have been morally neutered; they are incapable of responding to the liberals’ hatred with a passionate hatred of their own. But isn’t it wrong to hate? No, it is not. We hate the devil and his minions, because we love Christ and His people. We must separate the hate that stems from love from the hatred that comes from vanity, envy, and pride. The man who doesn’t hate those who attack his people and blaspheme against his God is no man at all. The liberals’ hatred of the white race is grounded in their hatred of Christ. If we loved much we would hate the devil’s minions and fight them with a passionate intensity greater than the liberals’ passionate hatred. As it stands now, the white European has been enslaved by liberalism. His passivity before the enemy denotes a moral decline of epic proportions and serves as a tragic example of what happens to a man without a faith.
This New Year’s Eve will mark the second anniversary of the rape of the women of Cologne. In the aftermath of those Moslem outrages I read the commentary of a female Danish reporter who deplored the lack of manhood among the German males who stood by and did nothing to stop the outrages. She wanted to see some chivalry in the German males, but she went on to say that she did not want to return to the repressive, sexist days of yore. She just wanted to see some manhood when Moslems attacked the liberated women of the 21st century. You can’t have it both ways. Chivalry stems from a blood faith, a faith in Jesus Christ as true God and true man. It is not a faucet that can be turned off and on according to the whims of supermarket, intellectual Christians who want to pick and choose the Christian virtues that best serve their needs. That charity of honor which stems from a man’s faith in Jesus Christ was bred in the bone of our European ancestors. You cannot systematically remove that faith and replace it with a bloodless faith in a synthesis of rationalism, paganism, and Christianity and expect to see the same type of men and women who once existed in old Europe. European women no longer behave in a manner that inspires European men to be chivalrous, and European men no longer have that within which makes a man respond to the rage of the heathens with a passionate rage in defense of the innocent.
In Charles Dickens’ novel Little Dorrit, Arthur Clemens runs afoul of the Circumlocution Office when he attempts to aid Little Dorrit and her family. The Circumlocution Office is a vast bureaucratic network that tells the British people how not to do things.
Because the Circumlocution Office went on mechanically, every day, keeping this wonderful, all-sufficient wheel of statesmanship, How not to do it, in motion. Because the Circumlocution Office was down upon any ill-advised public servant who was going to do it, or who appeared to be by any surprising accident in remote danger of doing it, with a minute, and a memorandum, and a letter of instructions that extinguished him. It was this spirit of national efficiency in the Circumlocution Office that had gradually led to its having something to do with everything. Mechanicians, natural philosophers, soldiers, sailors, petitioners, memorialists, people with grievances, people who wanted to prevent grievances, people who wanted to redress grievances, jobbing people, jobbed people, people who couldn’t get rewarded for merit, and people who couldn’t get punished for demerit, were all indiscriminately tucked up under the foolscap paper of the Circumlocution Office.
Numbers of people were lost in the Circumlocution Office. Unfortunates with wrongs, or with projects for the general welfare (and they had better have had wrongs at first, than have taken that bitter English recipe for certainly getting them), who in slow lapse of time and agony had passed safely through other public departments; who, according to rule, had been bullied in this, over-reached by that, and evaded by the other; got referred at last to the Circumlocution Office, and never reappeared in the light of day. Boards sat upon them, secretaries minuted upon them, commissioners gabbled about them, clerks registered, entered, checked, and ticked them off, and they melted away. In short, all the business of the country went through the Circumlocution Office, except the business that never came out of it; and its name was Legion.
The classical liberals are one big circumlocution network set up to tell whites how not to respond to the liberals’ and colored barbarians’ hatred of the white race. They must be cautious in their rhetoric, lest they inflame the mad-dog liberal (as if a mad-dog liberal is not already inflamed), and they must never insult, accuse, or act against any barbarian of color. In short the white man must learn how not to do anything about his own destruction. He must let be.
Do pagans love their own? Yes, to a certain degree they love their own. But did the pagans love their own with the passionate intensity of the Christian Europeans? No, they did not. The mark of the European during Europe’s Christian centuries was the intensity of his love, which passed the understanding of the colored heathens. And now? The mark of the mad-dog liberal European is his hatred of his own, and the mark of the modern European everyman is his complete indifference to the rape, torture, and murder of his own people. It is intellectual Christianity that has brought Europeans to this pass. Edward Gibbon, the author of the epic historical work, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, was a convert to Roman Catholicism in his youth and then a convert to Calvinism. In both cases, his conversions were intellectual conversions. He looked at Christ with his mind’s eye, not through the eyes of his heart. And when he came to write his history of Rome, he wrote with poetical fire about the pagan faiths, but when he wrote about Christianity he sounded like an accountant reading his ledger to his employer. The Rev. H. H. Milman responded to Gibbon’s back-door assault on the Christian Europeans and their Lord and Savior.
Christianity alone receives no embellishment from the magic of Gibbon’s language; his imagination is dead to its moral dignity; it is kept down by a general tone of jealous disparagement, or neutralised by a painfully elaborate exposition of its darker and degenerate periods. There are occasions, indeed, when its manifestly beneficial influence, can compel even him, as it were, to fairness and kindle his unguarded eloquence to its usual fervor; but in general he soon relapses in to a frigid apathy; affects an ostentatiously severe impartiality; notes all the faults of Christians in every age with bitter and almost malignant sarcasm; reluctantly and with exception and reservation, admits their claim to admiration. This inextricable bias appears even to influence his manner of composition. While all the other assailants of the Roman empire, whether warlike or religious, the Goth, the Hun, the Arab, the Tartar, Alaric and Attila, Mohammed, and Zingis, and Tamerlane, are each introduced upon the scene almost with dramatic animation—their progress related in a full, complete, and unbroken narrative—the triumph of Christianity alone takes that form of a cold and critical disquisition. The successes of barbarous energy and brute force call forth all the consummate skill of composition, while the moral triumphs of Christian benevolence, the tranquil heroism of endurance, the blameless purity, the contempt of guilty fame and of honours destructive to the human race, which, had they assumed the proud name of philosophy, would have been blazoned in his brightest words, because they own religion as their principle, sink into narrow asceticism. The glories of Christianity, in short, touch on no chord in the heart of the writer; his imagination remains unkindled; his words, though they maintain their stately and measured march, have become cool, argumentative, and inanimate.
Is not Gibbon’s cynicism the essence of the liberals’’ attack on Christ and the Christ-bearing race? Let me extend Rev. Milman’s defense – It is Christ and Christ alone who can cure our moral blindness, the moral blindness that makes us indifferent to the suffering of our own people – “For judgement I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.” What is the blindness of which Christ speaks? It is the blindness of those who do not see the moral beauty of Christ’s birth, crucifixion, and resurrection from the dead. The European hearth fires of yore honored the Christ story, not as an intellectual construct, but as a living reality which animated their hearts. Classical liberalism has no answer to those who hate the white race with a passion fueled by Satan. But St. Paul does have an answer. The European men and women who circumcise their hearts will love their people in and through the Savior. That breed of Europeans, if there are any left, and that breed alone, will be able to defeat the liberals and the colored heathen. +
(1) It matters little whether the Vegas shooter was a convert to Islam or whether he considered himself part of the Antifa movement. His inspiration was the same in either case. His heart was poisoned against the white race, because he was one of Satan’s minions. The Satanic, anti-white poison has entered the bloodstream of the anti-white liberals. Such creatures can only be conquered by white men who have hearts of flesh consecrated to our Savior, who is Christ the Lord.