To have once been nothing, and now to be co-heires with the Son of God: That Son of God, who if there had been but one soule to have been saved, would have dyed for that; nay, if all soules had been to be saved, but one, and that onely had sinned, he would not have contented himselfe with all the rest, but would have dyed for that. And there is the goodnesse, the liberality of our King, our God, our Christ, our Jesus. â John Donne
__________________________
It is easier for me to understand the nihilist than the halfway-house Christian. I disagree with the nihilist, but I understand him. If your reason will not let you believe that Christ rose from the dead, then it follows that life has no meaning. But the halfway-house Christian, the man who professes to believe in Christâs divinity and then rejects the aspects of the Christ story that do not agree with what he deems reasonable is impossible for me to understand. I must acknowledge the existence of such people, the halfway-house Christians, because they are legion, but I cannot really understand them from within as I can understand the nihilist.
Let me pick out one former acquaintance as an example of the halfway-house Christians that I cannot understand. He was a Roman Catholic priest in good standing with the Church. I naively thought when I made his acquaintance that since he regularly celebrated mass and recited the Nicene Creed in church he believed in the Christ story as I, a man in his mid-twenties who had gone from nihilism to faith in Christ, believed. But our two faiths were not compatible. My acquaintance did not believe in original sin as depicted in the Bible nor did he believe in any of the Old Testament miracle stories such as the Flood, the destruction of the Tower of Babel, nor the parting of the Red Sea. Did he still believe in Christâs resurrection from the dead? Yes and no. He believed in some kind of spiritual life after death, but whether it was a personal resurrection or not was unclear to him. What was this halfway-house Christianâs passionate belief? His passion was for the negroes. He passionately believed that they, as a race, were the suffering servants whom he had to love with his whole heart, mind, and soul. Now, that modern priest was probably closer to the liberal side of the great divide than other halfway-house Christians, but all the modern âChristiansâ have problems with some aspect of the Christ story which begins in the Garden of Eden and culminates in Christâs resurrection from the dead. My difficulty in understanding such âChristiansâ centers around my difficulty in viewing some of Godâs miracles as more rational than others. If Christ is truly who He said He was, why is it more difficult to believe in original sin, the creation of the world, the creation of man, and the other Old Testament miracles than it is to believe in Christâs divinity? If Christ was truly God and Man, doesnât everything else follow? Why should we stay in a rationalist limbo, trying to reconcile the Christian faith with a watered down intellectual Christianity that is more compatible with human reason?
The Christian rationalist has no firm ground to stand on. He is forever at the mercy of the next encyclical or the latest biblical study which will tell him just how much, or how little, he is supposed to believe of the Christ story. Thomas Hughes spoke to that very issue over a century ago:
At the same time, as we also know that the methods and principles of historical investigation are constantly improving, and being better understood, and that the critics of the next generation will work, in all human likelihood, at as great an advantage in this inquiry over those who are now engaged in it, as our astronomers and natural philosophers enjoy over Newton and Franklin â and as new evidence may turn up any day which may greatly modify their conclusions â we cannot suppose that there is the least chance of their settling the controversy in our time. Nor, even if we thought them likely to arrive at definite conclusions, can we consent to wait the result of their investigations… Granting then… that if these facts on the study of which they are engaged are not facts â if Christ was not crucified, and did not rise from the dead, and ascend to God His Father â there has been no revelation, and Christianity will infallibly go the way of all lies, either under their assaults or those of their successors â they must pardon us if even at the cost of being thought and called fools for our pains, we deliberately elect to live our lives on the contrary assumption. It is useless to tell us that we know nothing of these things, that we can know nothing until their critical examination is over; we can only say, “Examine away; but we do know something of this matter, whatever you may assert to the contrary, and mean to live on that knowledge.” â Alfred the Great
St. Paul enjoined us to keep in memory âthat Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; And that He was buried and He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures;â That Christ rose from the dead âaccording to the Scripturesâ was the faith that sustained our people against the pestilence that walketh in darkness and the destruction that wasteth in noonday. We have succumbed to the pestilence of liberalism and are being destroyed by the colored heathens because we have lost our connection to the living God. We canât know Him without hearts that love much, and we canât love in the abstract, we must love our own, the people of our racial hearth fire, or we will not have the heart to love God. Our minds might assent to the basic tenets of Christianity, but if our hearts are not moved by Christ, our faith is as a sounding brass and a tinkling cymbal. The 20th century conservatives in the church who wanted to conserve the church while jettisoning the European people, and the conservatives in the secular society who wanted to conserve our democratic institutions while jettisoning the European people, were not conservatives. They were the aiders and abettors of the outright liberals who wanted to attack Christ through His people. If you wonât defend the people who took Christ into their hearts, you are, in essence, leaving Christ behind and forging ahead with the liberals who have adopted a strange new God who requires sacrifice and rejects mercy.
In my lifetime I have seen the completion of the transformation process of the devil. Europe and Christ used to be synonymous. Ben Gunn said he had not eaten a Christian diet for three years on Treasure Island. There was no need for him to say he had not eaten a European diet because Christian and European meant the same thing. Now when you link the antique Europeans with Christ in âChristianâ circles, when you speak of the covenant between the ancient Europeans and Christ, you are treated like a pariah. How can you claim that racists were one with Christ? Is not racism the original sin? No, it is intellectual pride, pride in our ability to place God out there, away from our racial hearth fire, and proceed according to our own abstract idea of God, that is the original sin. Pietas is the way to God; it does not lead us away from God. When you proscribe the European hearth fire, you have proscribed the living God. The flood of non-European people into European countries is the equivalent of a satanic reversal of Christâs incarnation. When the âDream of the Roodâ Europeans took Christ into their hearts, He became incarnate in Europe. Now that the liberals have demonized Christian Europe and opened up the floodgates to the colored heathens, Satan has become incarnate in Europe.
Satan did not ask Adam and Eve to deny God, he bid them expand their knowledge of God. They were told to give up the provincial, sentimental God who cared for His children, in order to become full partners with a cosmic God. The devil was a Chardinian. Under the guidance of the liberals, the European people have participated in a second fall of man. They rejected the little way, the narrow path of love that Christ chose when He took flesh and dwelt among us, for the broad path of cosmic knowledge. Do we really know God better now that we do not love our people? It seems to me that we have lost God now that we no longer love our people. We are passengers on a plague-infested ship, piloted by the devil.
Anthony Jacob, who was banned from all the 20th century conservative publications, wrote that âcharity not only begins at home, it perishes without one.â Burke wrote about, âthat charity of honor,â which sustains a Christian people. Both men, Burke and Jacob, were true conservatives. They wanted to conserve their people, who were white and Christian. That should have been the goal of all the men who claimed to be conservative, but it wasnât. They sought to preserve an abstract, universal, conglomerate called âthe peopleâ who were loyal to a remote, abstract God who could only be presented to âthe peopleâ after he/she/it was dissected, analyzed, and purged of racism, sentimentality, and provincialism. Who is that purified God? Behold, it is the sacred negro.
The little Christ born in a stable in Bethlehem became the savior of the world. The great cosmic Christ born in the minds of Christian rationalists became an inconsequential God who lives only to rubber stamp the decrees of liberalism. It is now verboten in âChristianâ circles to invoke the Christ of old Europe. We are enjoined to look to the new, streamlined Christ, who cannot save, He can only provide comfort and support to the liberal elect who seek to build a kingdom of God on earth. In that kingdom, the liberal elect, who have purged themselves of whiteness, will take charge of the eternal religious festival dedicated to the colored gods who have redeemed us from… What, pray tell, do they redeem us from? Do they redeem us from death? No, but they do redeem us, if we worship them, from the original sin of racism. But then again do they really redeem the white man from the sin of whiteness? The reality of the liberalsâ brave new world seems to contradict their theory. No matter how devoutly the liberals worship the sacred negroes, no matter how subservient the white grazers are to the sacred negroes, âthou art a sinner because thou art whiteâ is still stamped on the foreheads of the liberals and the white grazers. Is there no atonement in the new religion? No, there is not. There can be no atonement, for the unpardonable sin of whiteness. Shouldnât that tell us something, shouldnât that tell us everything, about the new religion? Can a savior who has no mercy be a savior? Why were our peopleâs hearts drawn to Christ? Was it not because He, through His divine charity, redeemed us from sin and saved us from death? Why is that vision of the living God, the vision of the proscribed and condemned antique Europeans, now an anathema and the new vision of the merciless gods of color the ruling orthodoxy? Must the European people remain forever in their self-imposed exile from their people and their God all because of âracism,â that man-made bogeyman who keeps the liberalsâ kingdom of eternal night in order?
My children never went to âschool,â because they were educated at the parental hearth fire. Their religious education consisted of the literature of the West and the Bible. It was truly amazing to see how the literature of the West commingled with the Bible. The history of our people is the retelling of the Christ story. If you try to eliminate the Christ story from our peopleâs history, you eliminate our people. And conversely if you try to eliminate our people from the Christ story, you eliminate the Christ story as a historical reality. You make it an abstract theory. St. Paulâs âaccording to the Scriptures,â becomes âaccording to the abstract theories of really smart men.â And those smart men have given us a Gnostic God who is everything and nothing. He is too weak to be a savior, so he has given way to the new black Messiah. Our people, when they were a people, had a heart to heart covenant with the living God. Donneâs ode to âOur Jesus,â which was the lay of the antique Europeans, must be our faith while the lay of the liberals who sing of the colored gods of sacrifice must always be an anathema to us. In the name of the God of Mercy, we must cling to the Christ-centered hearth fire of the European people.+
______________________
Addendum: Letâs be clear about the liberalsâ fake tears for the victims of the shootings in the mosques in New Zealand. The liberals do not care about the death of Moslems. They do not care about the death of anyone, with the exception of their own illustrious selves. Bush and Blair killed millions of innocent Moslems with the consent of the liberals. The liberals will use this shooting to clamp down on white people who advocate, by word or deed, that white nations should remain white. âTerror has no religious affiliation,â the liberals intone. Donât believe them. Islam is a religion of terror and so is liberalism. Legalized abortion is terrorism, the massive bombing of civilian populations is terrorism, and on the Moslemsâ ledger is a legacy of bloody terror against white Christians. So was the shooting justifiable? You could make a case that it was; are not all Moslems by what they profess potential terrorists? Yes, they are. But still, my heart did not soar within me when I heard of the shootings as my heart soars when I hear of the shooting of an abortion doctor or as it would soar if I heard of the shooting of a violent Jihadist or a black murderer and rapist. A Christian should not live in the land of theory. Even though you can make a theoretical case for the shooting of all members of a religious sect that advocates terror, we must listen to our Christian hearts, which recoil at the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians, even if the civilians are members of a religious body, liberal or Moslem, opposed to white Christians. A Christian has the added burden of fighting within the moral parameters of his Christian faith. That puts him at a disadvantage when he fights enemies who have no moral parameters. But that is our cross, a cross that our Savior, in my judgement, wants us to bear.
The halfway-house Christians will rush to condemn the perpetrators of the shooting. They will not be full of loving forgiveness for the men who did the shootings, because the shooters were not members of a liberal-sanctioned religious sect. They were, in the vernacular of the liberals, âwhite supremacists.â But they are not the moral pariahs the liberals claim they are. White self-defense is not morally reprehensible. But we see, in these shootings, the insufficiency of white self-defense that is not grounded in the Christian faith. The mark of a Christian is not that he doesnât fight, the mark of a Christian is that he discriminates when he fights, between the militant, aggressive enemies of his people and the non-militant civilians who had the misfortune to be born into a false religion.
I realize that it is simpler to take either an âall violence is wrongâ stance, or a âby any means necessaryâ stance, on the subject of white self-defense. But I canât do that. The liberals and their heathen allies must be resisted. They are violent and merciless and we must resist them. With violence? Yes, with violence. But should our violence be without mercy? No, there is the difference between us and them. We must temper our violence with mercy. There will be no mercy for the shooters in this case, because they are white. But they should be shown mercy, because they are not as responsible for the killings as the liberals who let the Moslems into New Zealand and the Moslems who declared war on white Christians. But nevertheless, we must hold out for Christian warfare, which extends mercy to the enemy, a mercy that seems to be lacking in the men who did the shootings in the mosques.
The liberals have no problem with bombing Moslems over there, because over there, they are the enemies of liberalism. But they do have a problem with killing Moslems in white nations because over here the Moslems are part of an invading army that are doing what the liberals desire: they are destroying the white race.