Home I return across the sea,
And go to bed with backward looks
At my dear land of story-books.
-Robert Louis Stevenson
__________
The late John Tyndall of Britain and the late Samuel Francis of the American South were two of the last pundits with some kind of official status, the one the founder of a political party, and the other a journalist for a Washington-based paper, who defended white people’s right to maintain their own culture separate and distinct from the people of color. That doesn’t seem like too much to ask for, but it was too much for the liberals. Tyndall was jailed for an offhand remake about Moslems and Samuel Francis was fired from his job at the Washington Times for writing that there was no evidence the white man’s culture could be maintained by the blacks. Tyndall and Francis were condemned and punished even though they were always democratic – they never advocated fighting liberalism outside the parameters of democracy. But should white people start looking outside the parameters of democracy? Of course they should, but at present they won’t.
There is a tragic flaw in the democratic populism of Tyndall and Francis. Let me state it bluntly: Both Tyndall and Francis treated the issue of the empty tomb as a side issue, when in fact it is the main issue. When Dostoyevsky said that the whole issue facing the European was, “Can an intelligent man, a European, believe in the divinity of Christ?” he was placing the European peoples’ dilemma squarely before our eyes. People act according to their religious vision. The liberals believe in the unholy trinity of the abstracted intellect, the negro, and science. The blacks believe in the power and might of black barbarism, the Moslems believe in Allah, and on it goes through the entire pantheon of heathen gods and their colored devotees.
What all the colored races have in common is that their religious faith determines their actions. And since every heathen faith is opposed to the Christian faith, every colored heathen hates the white man. The liberals’ post-Christian heathenism is in one accord with the colored heathens’ faith on that one central issue – the hatred of the white Christ-bearing race. Even when a white man wins an election in that milieu (the Trump victory is cited as a victory for Samuel Francis-populism), the victory is quickly turned into a defeat, because it is only a delaying action and does not significantly alter the ongoing liberal attack on the white race.
Whites cannot go up against liberals and colored heathens, who have a religion, without a religion beyond some vague belief in democracy and the rule of law. Democracy is an anti-Christian heresy, and the rule of law is liberal law, which is codified hatred of the white race and the Christian God. The liberals’ reign has never been opposed by the European people, because the European people no longer take their strength and inspiration from the Europeans who firmly believed that Christ rose from the dead.
In my freshman year in college, I repeatedly sought out a teacher who shared my interest in English literature. The teacher’s particular favorite author was Herman Melville, who, as even a casual reader of Melville can grasp, was obsessed with the Dostoyevsky issue, “Can an intelligent man, a European, believe in the divinity of Christ?” Since that was my obsession as well as Melville’s obsession, and since my teacher was a great devotee of Melville, I thought that he would share my obsession. He did not. He was completely indifferent to something that was mine and Melville’s primary concern. How can you be a Melville scholar and be indifferent to Billy Budd’s question, “Sentry, are you there?” and Clarel’s quest:
Then keep thy heart, though yet but ill-resigned–
Clarel, thy heart, the issues there but mind;
That like the crocus budding through the snow–
That like a swimmer rising from the deep–
That like a burning secret which doth go
Even from the bosom that would hoard and keep;
Emerge thou mayst from the last whelming sea,
And prove that death but routs life into victory.
And how can you be a white populist and treat the antique Europeans’ belief in Christ’s resurrection from the dead as a ‘side issue’?
Granted, that quarrels between Christian denominations have caused wars, granted, that Christians fought Christians during the Christian era of Europe, which has led many theologians to deny that there ever was a Christian Europe, but total war came in the post-Christian era of the Europeans’ history. Before that, when Christians fought Christians, there were some limits placed on the ravages of war. The better men on both sides had some feeling for their foe, who was, despite their differences in political alliances, their brother. When his Indian allies violated the terms of the surrender and massacred British prisoners during the French and Indian Wars, the French general told the British commander that he would have sooner lost the battle than have been responsible, through his Indian allies, for that breach of honor. It’s easy to sneer at such contradictions – trying to kill your enemy on the battlefield and then showing mercy when they have surrendered – but such contradictions bore witness to a people who were still trying to respond to the Light. Now the struggle is over. There is no honor, no chivalry, there is only an ignoble surrender to death-in-life liberalism. We are no longer involved in wars, we are engaged in a surrender that is worse than a war. The European people have declared themselves a non-people who can only exist through the life-blood of the colored heathens: “You live to serve the colored heathens, serve them well, and you shall live,” is the dictate of the liberal tribunal.
It is good to kneel in prayer to the living God, but it is a terrible thing, a blasphemy, to kneel before the liberals and their colored gods. Is this the promised end for the white man? Must he live a monk-like existence in prayer and penance for the sin of whiteness? “Through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault, I have sinned against the colored races. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.” Mere populism is an insufficient response to liberalism, because it doesn’t fill the void in the white man’s soul. In the absence of faith, a real faith as distinct from an intellectual faith, the white Everyman will always be defeated by the liberals, who do have faith. They believe in the unholy trinity.
When Christ tells Nicodemus that he must be born again in order to obtain eternal life, Nicodemus is confused:
Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?
We, the European people, must be born again. We must return to our European childhood in much the same way that Nicodemus returned to his childhood of prophecies and miracles and as Robert Louis Stevenson returned to his childhood in his A Child’s Garden of Verses. Stevenson knew that he was falling victim to the spiritual ennui that comes upon a man who has lost faith in the God who bids us believe “like unto a little child.” He restored his faith by reconnecting with his European hearth fire.
It is not an easy thing to do, to believe as a little child, but it is the only way for the European people to regain their souls. We are not like the other races. We cannot believe in our race if we don’t believe that our race and our faith are one. If we are not the Christ-bearing race, what are we? We can’t be like unto the colored heathens, because we are white. We can be post-Christian liberals who worship Satan in and through the colored races, we can be un-men who graze in the liberals’ pastures while waiting for our turn to be slaughtered, or we can be Europeans again and live according to the Word that was made flesh. That really is what is at the heart of the cultural wars. The antique Europeans made the Son of God their touchstone of reality. What was perfect, what was good, came from Him. And what was wrong and what was evil was opposed to His word. We cannot make common cause with post-Christian liberals who believe that everything opposed to the faith of the antique Europeans is good and everything connected to our ancient faith is evil.
I frequently hear classical liberals expressing their astonishment at the mad-dog liberals of the European nations. “Can’t they see that massive immigration is killing their nations?” No, they do not see. They are religious zealots who see everything through the eyes of their faith. They believe in their triune god — the abstract intellect, the sacred negro, and science –that will deliver them from the unholy night of Christian Europe and usher them into a new and glorious world freed from the bonds of whiteness and Christianity. It all sounds quite fantastical, doesn’t it? But that is what liberals believe and that is the faith they will fight to defend.
On the surface it seems like the new faith of liberalism that replaced Christianity started in the mid-1960s, but that is not the case. The 1960s marked the beginning of the final stage of the liberals’ revolt against Christ and the Christ-bearing race. In the final stage, the liberals institutionalized the satanic values they had been preaching in the universities and the churches for the past 50 years. Now, in the 21st century, there are no traces left of old Europe and the people who saw a great Light. St. John tells us that Christ “came unto His own, and His own received Him not.” What must have been Christ’s reaction when the modern Europeans whose ancestors made Christ their own, rejected Him? His sorrow and pain is infinitely greater than ours, the rejected and despised Europeans, because His humanity is infinitely greater than ours.
When I went to college, every course in the humanities, no matter whether it was literature, religion, or history, always turned out to be a course about the evils of Western culture and the glories of the non-white cultures. In comparative religion courses, for instance, the heathen religions of the colored races were always presented as infinitely superior to European Christianity. This was the mind and soul dirtying of the white race that Anthony Jacob wrote about in White Man, Think Again. And it is an effective tactic. The response of the church men to the attack on European Christianity was to denounce European Christianity and blend Christianity with the natural religions of the colored heathens. Pope Francis the blasphemer’s adulation of the people of the Amazon rain forest is the end result of the synthesis of Christianity and the nature religions of the pure and noble savages of color.
There is something satanically clever in the liberals’ incorporation of the noble savage into their trinity. Satan, who hates humanity, knows that man needs human conduits to his gods. So he has induced the men of reason and science to bring the heathens of color into his unholy trinity as the saviors, who will act as conduits to Satan and his kingdom of everlasting night. The clear-thinking classical liberals, the conservatives, always lose in their contests with the mad-dog liberals because the mad-dog liberals have a human conduit to their god, who is Satan, while the conservatives have only reason and science. They have the father and the holy ghost, but they do not have the savior. I recently heard Tucker Carlson asking why liberals, who are supposed to believe in reason and science, do not see that Third World immigration is destroying the West. They do not see that reality because they have a different religious vision from Tucker Carlson. They believe in the noble savage. The colored races are their messiah. You can’t counter that belief with abstract reason and science. You can only defeat that faith with a belief in the Christ of old Europe. The tragic flaw of the conservative populists is that they do not believe in the divinity of Christ so they cannot go into battle with the armor of Christ as their European ancestors did.
In my own case, the mind and soul dirtying tactics of the liberals did not work. The study of the heathen faiths filled me with disgust and gave me a greater appreciation for the faith of my European ancestors. I still do not understand, from within, the appeal of the noble savage and the religions of nature. I can only conclude that the spiritual ennui caused by reason and science has made the European people susceptible to any religion with blood in it, even if it is heathen blood.
But a man must go with his own vision. I must assert, against the mad-dog liberals, that there is no love, no honor, no charity, and no truth in their noble savage religion. And I must assert, against the classical liberals, that abstract reason is a whore and science is a poor substitute for the real Holy Ghost who proceeds from the Father and the Son. I refuse to believe that my people are irredeemable. If we, the white remnant, stand by the antique Europeans, others will follow in our train. +