So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew thee out of my mouth. â Revelations 3: 16
__________
In a remarkable speech before the Dutch Parliament, Machiel de Graaf, a member of Geert Wildersâ Party of Freedom, made a plea for an end to the Islamization of the Netherlands. It was a brave speech, a speech that no American statesman would have had the courage to give, but sadly, within the speech itself was the seed of liberalism that rendered the speech useless as soon as it was given. De Graaf stated, when listing the negative effects of the Islamization of the Netherlands, that the Moslems were not as tolerant of lesbians, gays, and Jews as were the native Dutch. No man of Europe wants to exterminate homosexuals or Jews, but a true European does want deviant behavior and anti-European groups controlled. He does not want a democratic, multicultural society.
Now, I donât think de Graaf really cares all that much about gays and Jews; he was just trying to influence the liberals by showing them that the Moslemsâ values are in direct contrast to the liberalsâ values. But does this policy ever work? In our own country did the liberals stop aborting babies when the prolifers pointed out that blacks were aborting babies at a rate disproportionate to their numbers? Did the liberals sign on to stop Mexican immigration when they discovered that the Mexicans have very un-liberal ideas about the environment and pollution? And of course the most telling example of all: The liberals who claim that they and they alone really care about women continue to worship blacks who have made the rape and murder of white women their main occupation.
We must conclude that no appeal from a white male, which, if acted upon, would stop or slow down the ongoing colorization of Europe or the ongoing destruction of the traditional Christian faith of the European people, will have any effect on the liberal ruling class. And why is this? The answer is obvious to all those who have eyes to see. The liberals worship Satan, and Satan hates everything white and Christian.
White males such as Machiel de Graaf, who try to appeal to the liberals to alter some aspect of liberalism, fail to understand the nature of modern democratic governments. These governments are not derivatives of the old Anglo Saxon tribal democracies, they are the offspring of the French Jacobin democracy that Burke fought against with such incredible ferocity and nobility of spirit. âThe peopleâ must be served in the modern totalitarian democracies, and âthe peopleâ are the anti-white colored people of the world, particularly blacks, as well as every devotee of any religious sect opposed to the Christian faith. âThe peopleâ must be and will be served. So it is written in liberal law and so it shall be. The non-liberal white male is in the same position in a society governed by liberals as were the three soldiers put on trial for cowardice in the movie Paths of Glory. In that film, the defense attorney made it crystal clear that no man in any regiment had advanced further than the three men accused of cowardice, but the military judges had made up their minds before the trial began: Someone had to pay for the military commanderâs blunder, so the three soldiers were executed. In the liberalsâ mind it is better that every last white man should die and every last vestige of Christian Europe disappear from the face of the earth than they should have to face up to the reality that liberalism is not only morally irredeemable but is also a hopelessly flawed system of government that cannot sustain itself. (1) Europe will either be solely white and Christian, or it will be solely colored and heathen; it will not be multiracial, multicultural, and multi-religious. The colored heathens know this: Why canât the white man grasp it?
The colored heathens see existence as they have always seen it, as a struggle for survival and dominance. They donât understand why the white man will not fight for the survival of his people; all they know or care about is that he will not fight. They can have the white manâs women and everything of a material nature the white man possesses. They can never have the white manâs spiritual inheritance, but that does not concern the colored barbarians.
The popular neo-pagan explanation of the whitesâ surrender to the colored barbarians is that their Christian faith made them weak and passive. Only a man who cherishes his abstract idea of reality as a substitute for truth can swallow such an explanation. The Europeans, during the Christian phase of their history, expanded European dominance and influence on a much wider scale than the pagan Greeks and Romans ever did. Such an accomplishment is certainly not the proof of the truth of the Christian faith, but it does give the lie to those who claim that Christianity made the Europeans weak and passive.
The European people no longer defend their civilization, because they have mistaken their descent into the gutter of rationalism for an ascent to the heavens. Christian rationalists chopped away at the âfantasticalâ elements of Christianity until there was nothing left but the resurrection. And in the hands of secularists, the belief in the resurrection of Christ soon disappeared as well. The colored tribesmen have never known anything but the natural world; their gods are nature gods and their faith does not transcend the perimeters of the natural world. Not so with the Christian Europeans. For them the natural world was a mirror of a greater spiritual realm, a realm of midsummer nightsâ dreams in a kingdom of many mansions, presided over by a benevolent King. What happened to the Europeansâ dream? Why did they stop believing in their Fatherâs kingdom of many mansions?
In Robert Louis Stevensonâs short story âThe Body Snatchers,â the villains of the story murder men and women in order to sell their bodies to doctors and scientists for the purpose of dissection. What a magnificent description of modernity! In order to dissect, we must first commit murder. The rational men treated God as part of the natural world and then dissected Him in order to know Him by the sum of His parts. Is this the God St. Paul encountered on the road to Damascus? Is this the God of the Christmas carols, the dear Christ who enters into the hearts of those who seek Him still? The dissected god is not a living God; he is not the God of the antique Europeans.
The consequence of making Christ the god of rationality was that the people of Europe placed rationality above everything, even above the wisdom of the heart, a wisdom much greater than reason. The liberals respond to every black atrocity with a defense of the black murderer, because they worship darkness and not the light. But why do the grazers not cry havoc and let loose the dogs of war on the black barbarians? They donât do what is natural and right â natural in the Christian sense of the word â because they have been trained for centuries to be rational and moderate. Is that not the essence of the white manâs faith? The liberals are not rational and moderate; they use their reason to support their maniacal hatred of all things white and Christian. Are the colored barbarians rational and moderate? No, they are not. They are true to their animal instincts; when they sense weakness they strike, without any ethical concern about moderation and reason.
Nowhere is the sad spectacle of white rationality vs. liberal passion and black barbarism more apparent than in the letters to the editor sections of the liberal-run newspapers and websites. Itâs not often that liberal newspapers and websites publish letters of dissent, but when they do print them they are like the one I read a few days ago. The white author of the letter asked why there was no outrage last January when three black men kidnapped a white police officer in the state of Virginia and subsequently took him into the woods and killed him. Of course we know why there was no outrage about the murder of the white police officer. He was of the âdemonâ race, and his black murderers were of the âsaintedâ race. The letter writer then went on to reveal why white people are killed with impunity by black barbarians. He stated that he deplored the death of the white police officer just as much as he deplored the death of Michael Brown. Now, it is possible that the white author, like Machiel de Graaf when speaking of gays and Jews, did not really equally deplore the two deaths; he could have been trying to appease the liberals and get his letter published. Or, God forbid, perhaps he actually did deplore both deaths equally. But in either case, the fatal disease of the white man was on display in that letter. First, rational appeals to the liberalsâ rationality will have no effect. The liberals are rational! They are rationally committed to the inhumanity of Satan. Like the pro-choicers who know what they are doing when they murder babies, the liberals know what they are doing when they support the wholesale slaughter of whites. And secondly, the two killings are not to be equally deplored. A completely innocent white man was murdered simply because he was white and a police officer. Michael Brown was killed in self-defense by a white police officer who was responding to a report of a robbery and a beating, perpetrated by the now sainted Michael Brown. We might deplore the fact that Michael Brown chose to be a thug, but we shouldnât deplore the fact that the police officer killed him, because by doing so the police officer saved not only his own life but also the lives of the men and women who would have been killed by Michael Brown in the future.
The path of rationality and moderation is the path the liberals and conservatives always demand the white man should take. He must never, ever become âextremeâ â that would be bad. But the liberals are extremists. They have taken their hatred of the white race to the extremest height of their liberal kingdom of Satan on earth, and from that height they hurl satanic thunderbolts at whites. With each thunderbolt they throw, they say to their white victims, âBe moderate, be rational.â Again we must ask, are the colored barbarians moderate and rational? They are extremists, they seek the blood of the rational and moderate whites. Can a man be rational and moderate when his foe stands over his wife and children with a battle axe? Apparently a white man can be rational and moderate in the face of that threat. But should he be?
The liberals advise white men to be rational and moderate while their people are being slaughtered, because it suits their agenda. But why do the conservatives advise whites to be rational and moderate in the face of white genocide? It is in part because conservatives think in terms of abstract people. Human beings exist as generic cannon fodder for conservative intellectuals. Whether the cannon fodder is black or white makes no difference to most conservatives; they simply need abstract people to whom they can pontificate. But some conservatives do realize that without some whites left on earth they will have no one to pontificate to, because the colored races will not listen to white pontifications. Those conservatives preach rationality and moderation because they believe it is the smart thing to do, and smartness in the modern conservativeâs view of existence is the highest virtue. In the conservativeâs muddled brain he is following the Greek philosophers when he calls for rationality and moderation. Even if he was correct in his assumption that the Greek philosophers preached rationality and moderation, the conservative would be wrong to follow the Greek philosophers. There is a much deeper and profounder wisdom, a wisdom that commands us to be extremists in defense of our own, that is to be found in the Christian poets of Europe. But this âgolden meanâ of rationalism and moderation is not even consistent with the principles of the Greek philosophers. They advocated a golden mean between eating too much and eating too little, a golden mean between drinking too much and drinking too little, and so on. Even the Greek philosophers, the best of them, did not claim that you could take a middle ground between two opposed principles and come up with the right principle. Only a modern post-Christian conservative believes in such moderation and rationality.
The devil preaches rationality and moderation to white Christians so that they will remain passive in the face of white genocide. He has even entered the Christian pulpits, enlisting the formerly Christian pastors into his satanic army. We should and must listen to other leaders and other voices. We should listen to Burke, who told us that a man who did not hate where he should hate would not be able to love where he should love. And we should listen to Thomas Nelson Page, who enjoined us to be Christian Goths, loving and hating with all our hearts. I donât believe that a man with a European heart can ever be defeated. Such a man will be an extremist. He will fight for kith and kin in spite of liberals and colored barbarians. âOnce more unto the breach, dear friends, once moreâŚâ +
___________________________________
(1) The recent massacre in France is just one more example of the unsustainable nature of liberal governments. A multicultural, multi-religious government cannot protect its people, because such a government has no commitment to one people and one faith. If France was white and Christian, instead of multi-racial and irreligious, the real French people would not be sitting ducks in a Moslem shooting gallery.
The French government will respond to this new outrage as all the white, liberal governments respond to such outrages. They will condemn terrorists per se, but they will stress their love and support for the people of Islam. In short, they will be rational and moderate. The liberal west will never restrict Moslem or colored immigration, because the liberal west has only one real enemy: white Christians.