For Sympathy

Posted on November 2, 2013 by cwny

The time seems long; their blood thinks scorn
Till it fly out and show them princes born.

–Cymbeline

__________

What I would laughingly call the conservative Christian remnant, except for the fact that their cowardly apostasy is not a laughing matter, is in the process of severing all their ties to European Christianity. They have embraced miscegenation and negro worship to please the liberals, and they have made the Jewish people, the Christ haters, their people. In both instances the “conservative” Christians are going against the Christian faith of their European ancestors. It simply won’t do to claim that the modern conservative Christians are clearing up a few misconceptions of the antique Europeans, while maintaining the core of their faith. Such a disingenuous explanation won’t wash. To practice miscegenation or not to practice miscegenation and to claim allegiance to the unrepentant Jews or to Christ’s people are not minor moral issues. To say your ancestors were wrong about race-mixing and the Jews is not like saying that they were wrong about tooth decay or laundry detergents. Either the liberals are right when they claim Christianity is a myth like all other myths, and race-mixing, negro worship, and Judaism are the necessary opiates to make up for the void left by Christ’s dethronement, or else our ancestors were right: The Christ story is true, Christ is risen, and we should not tamper with God’s creation by trying to rebuild the Tower of Babel or uniting with the people who crucified Christ.

The conservative Christians remind me of the Mormons. When it became apparent that they would always be outcasts so long as they practiced polygamy, the Mormons announced a new revelation in which God told them they should stop being polygamous. For many years they held to the belief that the negro could not obtain the same place in heaven as the white man. When that belief ran contrary to popular opinion, they once again announced a new revelation that welcomed the colored races into the Mormon fold. The Mormons are good, practical children of Mammon, just like the conservative Christians, who profess to be so appalled at the Mormons’ rejection of the divinity of Christ. How do the Mormons differ from you, Mr. Conservative, except for the fact that you have embraced race-mixing, negro-worship and Judaism with an even greater zeal than the Mormons?

It was inevitable that the conservative churches would follow the liberal churches out of the Christian fold and into the satanic mainstream, because the conservatives had no living faith; they had only, like their liberal brethren, a faith in a system. And systems do not fulfill the very human need for a savior and a people. Enter the negro and the Jews.

In my undergraduate days, I had a very knowledgeable professor, a lapsed priest, for a course in Greek antiquity. My professor, who was a great admirer of Greek philosophy, could never understand how such an intelligent people could have such an infantile religion. I disagreed then and I disagree now. And I think the reason for my disagreement with my professor was the reason why he was a lapsed priest rather than a believing priest.

The assumption that philosophy, which talks of man in impersonal terms and treats the universe as a closed system that can be grasped by the human mind, represents a much higher form of wisdom than poetical truth which speaks of men in personal terms and only intuits truth through a glass darkly, is still the short-sighted, superficial view of the cleric and the academic. But what the “childish” Greeks intuited in their “fantastical” gods and goddesses was a racial memory of a great God who had ruled over man, who had created man in His own image, and who, after man’s fall from grace, gave the promise of a redeemer. Such a religion is only ‘infantile’ if all the longings of the human heart are infantile. What happened when Greek philosophy destroyed the people’s faith in the gods? Did they all become philosophers? No, they went to the mystery religions which gave people what they longed for: contact with a personal god. A system about God or about the essence of the universal mind of the universe might satisfy a few proud minds (although I have no doubt such proud ones will seek the gods of sex and blood in their private lives) but it will not answer the longing in people’s hearts.

All Christian churchmen after St. Paul always erred on the side of pagan philosophical systems rather than the personal, poetical, passionate element within man. But was Christ the answer to the longings in the human heart or was He the answer to a problem in philosophy? If He was the latter, then His passion and death on the cross was not necessary; mankind only needed His teaching. Our European ancestors did not see Christ as the great philosopher. They saw Him as the true Zeus, the true Woden, the God above the Gods who was a God because of His supreme humanity not because of His philosophical lack of humanity. Because passion is messy and dangerous, the churchmen went with philosophy and worked on killing the yearnings in the human heart. They succeeded so well that they left the Europeans bereft of a living God. The people, as the French proletariat, the Russian workers, then as the sacred negroes, became the saviors in a new faith, whose devotees worshipped a god whom they saw embodied in their culture just as Christ was once embodied in the culture of the antique Europeans. Destroy that ancient culture, cut the strings leading to the European past, and you have successfully turned the Christian faith into a negro worshipping offshoot of Judaism in which the hardened heart, armed against the Son of God, rules.

Throughout our European history, the theologians have told us that there is no such thing as a Christian culture. There is only the city of God, which is the church of the theologians, and there is the city of man, which is the European people, who are no different from any other people of any other race. But doesn’t this ignore the truth of history? Do we not see the face of Christ in the culture of the people who loved Him? How can any man with a heart capable of love not love those people from long ago? But the theologian sees nothing there. He sees nothing because he wants to see nothing. He has eyes that do not see because he is lost in his own abstractions. If Christ never entered the hearts of the European people, then the theologians, the men of intellect, can forge ahead with their mind-forged systems about God, systems which ignore the living God who once dwelt among the European people. Small wonder that Christians raised on the principles of a religious system become Judaic Christians who worship the negro. In Judaism the savior has not come, just as the savior has not yet come in the minds’ of the theologians who deny that He dwelt in Europe’s green and pleasant land. If that Christ, the European Christ, the Christ of Handel’s Messiah, Dickens’ The Christmas Carol, and the European everyman who listened to Handel’s Messiah and read Dickens’ The Christmas Carol never existed, then who and what is Christ? Must we wait until a panel of experts tell us who He really was or if He existed at all?

The conservatives in Church and State have joined hands with the liberals to form a negro worshipping state, hardened and buttressed by the unhallowed leaven of Judaism. This coalition seems invincible. But then again so did the Spanish Armada seem invincible. The European hero, who is missing from the modern stage of Europe, knows not seems. It was the Europeans who turned Christianity back to its source, the son of God, when Roman systems threatened to turn the faith into a pagan philosophy.

The Nordic religion was not a religion of dread, or of magic formularies to propitiate hostile powers. Instead of covering its temples with frescoes of the tortures of the damned, it taught people not to be afraid of death. Its ideal was the fellowship of the hero with the gods, not merely in feasting and victory, but in danger and defeat. For the gods, too, are in the hands of fate, and the Scandinavian vision of the twilight of the gods that was to end the world showed the heroes dying valiantly in the last hopeless fight against the forces of chaos—loyal and fearless to the last. It is an incomplete but not an ignoble religion. It contains those elements of character which it was the special mission of the Nordic peoples to add to modern civilization and to Christianity itself. – G. M. Trevelyan’s History of England

“Be it known to you, that we consider it our duty to obey and submit to the church of God, to the pope of Rome, and to every good Christian – to love them in every situation and in all circumstances, and to assist all both by word and deed, in becoming children of the Lord. We know of no other obedience to him you call pope, or father; and this we are prepared to render to him and to every Christian for ever. Beyond this, we are subject to the archbishop of Caerleon, who is a guide and an overseer, under God, to direct and keep us in the spiritual path.” – Dynawt, the Abbot of Bangor-is-y-Coed

It was always the European hero, the Christian Woden, who fought for the true hearth-fire faith of the Europeans. We have had no other faith throughout our history. If we take the European Christ out of the Christian Church, then there is only a church of the negro, the Jew, and the Jacobin liberals.

If you are wrong about the way we know the truth about God, as my professor of antique religions was wrong, you will be wrong about everything important in life, despite your infinite knowledge of academic minutiae. The human mind acting alone, without the passions of the heart, can never know the living God, because he will not have any attachment to the human channels of grace that connect a man to God. A man whose heart does not within him burn at the thought of his racial hearth fire, will not be appalled when colored barbarians murder, rape, and torture his people or blaspheme against his God. “People?” the modern, soul-dead European responds, “I have no people and no God but the negro.”

The return of the European hero, the Christian Odysseus who will clean his house of the evil suitors, will not immediately awaken the souls of dead-to-life Europeans. But there will be some souls who appear to be dead, who will come alive again when they see a man who loves and hates with all his heart, standing alone against the enemies of his people from within (the systematizers) and from without (the colored barbarians). Such a hero will stir up a racial memory that a few Europeans, and that will be enough, will respond to.

‘Tis still a dream, or else such stuff as madmen
Tongue, and brain not; either both or nothing,
Or senseless speaking, or a speaking such
As sense cannot untie.
Be what it is,
The action of my life is like it, which I’ll keep, if but for sympathy.

-Cymbeline

The action of the lives of that special brood of heroes, the antique Europeans, should become the action of our lives because they had that charity of honor which can only abide with the people who made the living God the King of their racial hearth fire. If we keep faith with those Europeans, if but for sympathy, the shadows of Babylon will give way to the light of Christian Europe. +

Posted in Christianity: Neither a Theory Nor a Philosophy, Europeans and Christ, Negro worship, Older posts (pre-April 2019) | Tagged , | Comments Off on For Sympathy

The Shadows of Hell

Posted on October 26, 2013 by cwny

These things have I spoken unto you, that ye should not be offended. They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service. And these things will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father, nor me.  But these things have I told you, that when the time shall come, ye may remember that I told you of them. And these things I said not unto you at the beginning, because I was with you. But now I go my way to him that sent me; and none of you asketh me, Whither goest thou? But because I have said these things unto you, sorrow hath filled your heart.  Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. – John 16:1-7

__________

In Dickens’ A Christmas Carol, Ebenezer Scrooge, by the time the ghost of Christmas Future appears before him, is truly repentant. But he wants to know if the shadow of damnation hanging over him and the shadow of death hanging over Tiny Tim can be altered:

“Before I draw nearer to that stone to which you point,” said Scrooge, “answer me one question. Are these the shadows of things that Will be, or are they shadows of things that May be, only?”

Of course we know the answer to Scrooge’s question. God is merciful to his prodigal child, Ebenezer Scrooge, and the shadows are altered. Scrooge was not damned, and Tiny Time “did not die.” Like Mary, Scrooge sinned, but also like Mary he loved much and was forgiven.

I would like to borrow Dickens’ image of the shadows that portend tragedy if they are not altered, because I think the modern Europeans must look at their ghosts of Europe past, present, and future and seek to alter the shadows of the hellish future they have hammered out for themselves in every link of a chain of sin and apostasy that makes Jacob Marley’s chain look like a small charm bracelet in comparison.

The Europeans’ apostasy begins with the scientific revolution in the late 1600s through the early 1700s. At that point in European history a few ultra-rational rebels minimized, and in some cases denied outright, the effects original sin had on mankind. The men who minimized original sin asked the question, “How can men who achieve such stunning scientific results with their god-like reason be tainted with anything so silly as original sin?” When men began to think like that, the march to scientize existence was on. When the movement was complete, the European became a mere cog in the great natural, scientized world. He would no longer be a man created in the image of a God above nature: he would be the insignificant by-product of biological nature – a man without a soul who lives life second-hand through the more natural (because he was never tainted by an unnatural religion) noble, black savage.

Reason detached from the heart fathered the new religion of the Europeans in which the negro is the savior and science is the holy ghost. No break with white-hating liberalism can be complete unless there is a break with the liberals’ triune god. But how can a man break with a religion in which he has a father, a savior, and a holy comforter? He can’t and he won’t so long as he remains completely cut off from his past and the people who had a different father, son, and holy ghost. I’ve often asked myself what does the modern European see in the religion of the antique Europeans that makes him avoid their religion like the plague and what does he see in the new Babylonian triune faith that makes him so devoted to it. I’ve come to the conclusion that the new religion of Satan has succeeded because of the Satanic comforter, science. Before the scientizing of Europe, the heretical utopians obtained some devotees. But such devotees were a small minority, the lunatic fringe, if you will, of a strong Christian people who kept such aberrations on the fringes of their society. But with the coming of the utopian equivalent of the holy ghost, which was science, the men who had turned to Christ as the God who saved them from the inhuman, cruel forces of nature now turned to science. To the penny-wise, pound-foolish new European, the great benefit of science over Christ was that science gave a man power over nature in this world rather than the next. And the next world, the rational men told us, was a whimsical fancy of people who didn’t have science. A French farmer once told me that the major difference between the farming methods of his ancestors and himself was that the ancestors sprinkled holy water on the ground and asked God for a good harvest while he irrigated his crops.

The obvious comeback to my criticism of the scientizing of Europe is the assertion that there is no conflict between religious faith and science. Why can’t a man irrigate his crops and believe in the Christian God? In theory, he can, but in practice there does seem to be a correlation between science and the new Babylon, because modern man does not make any distinctions between the world of biological nature and the realm of the spirit. He blends them and calls the mixture psychology and other such satanic code words. We are told, in our scientized world, that the mystery of man can be solved in much the same way that a scientist solves the mystery of a frog. He dissects it and catalogues its various parts. Shakespeare, the poet who saw with blinding sight, saw the dangers of scientizing man. Through Hamlet he hurls his defiance at the men who would scientize the human soul:

HAMLET. Ay, but “While the grass grows,” – the proverb is something musty. O, the recorder! Let me see. – To withdraw with you: — why do you go about to recover the wind of me, as if you would drive me into a toil?

GUILDENSTERN. O my lord, if my duty be too bold, my love is too unmannerly.

HAMLET. I do not well understand that. Will you play upon this pipe?

GUILDENSTERN.  My lord, I cannot.

HAMLET. I pray you.

GUILDENSTERN. Believe me, I cannot.

HAMLET. I do beseech you.

GUILDENSTERN.  I know no touch of it, my lord.

HAMLET.  It is as easy as lying. Govern these ventages with your fingers and thumb, give it breath with your mouth, and it will discourse most eloquent music. Look you, these are the stops.

GUILDENSTERN. But these cannot I command to any utterance of harmony. I have not the skill.

HAMLET. Why, look you now, how unworthy a thing you make of me! You would play upon me. You would seem to know my stops. You would pluck out the heart of my mystery. You would sound me from my lowest note to the top of my compass; and there is much music, excellent voice, in this little organ, yet cannot you make it speak? ‘Sblood, do you think that I am easier to be play’d on than a pipe? Call me what instrument you will, though you can fret me, yet you cannot play upon me.

Dostoevsky’s underground man concurs with Hamlet: “A man lives his whole life to prove that he is more than just a piano key.” In our modern kingdom of Babylon there is no charity or mercy for white people because the blood of white people is necessary for the building of utopia, a utopia presided over by negroes united to the men of reason and their comforter, holy science. Conservatives and nationalists who try to enter into the holy kingdom by affirming reason ad science will not be admitted into Babylon because no one cometh to the father except through the son. The negro must be worshipped before a man can enter Babylon. A white man has only two options. Either he can accept the entire Babylonian faith and be absorbed, sans soul, into the kingdom of Babylon, or he can pick up the discarded threads of his past which will lead him back to Christian Europe. And then, rejecting rationalism, negro worship and science, he can launch an attack on Babylon.

The idea that there is a moral equivalency between science and faith, that a person is full of grace to the degree he is scientific, has taken hold of the European. And a man who is full of grace, full of the unprejudiced, scientific view of man, will worship the natural, noble savage. Behind the lab coat is the most primitive of faiths.

Christ has consistently, in the eyes of the modern scientized European, refused to perform miracles – “Thou shall have no signs” – while science has performed miracles. But I would suggest that the scientific miracles are the honest trifles of Satan which he uses to fool us in matters of deepest consequence. We who are about to die need a miracle that science cannot provide. And by de-Christianizing Europe in order to make room for science, we have left the European without spiritual sustenance in this world and without spiritual consolation at the hour of his death.

Christ set the standard for miracles when He walked the earth. His miracles of healing came from a heart that loved, not from a God trying to impress others with His power. We can see Christ in the miracles of healing performed by Dr. MacLure in Ian Maclaren’s novel Beside the Bonnie Brier Bush. There we see science used in its proper context, in imitation of Christ’s mercy and charity, not as an instrument of power placed at the service of Satan. Who has been served by the ascendancy of a technocratic elite in the Western world? The negro has gained by it, because the scientifically-minded white man is committed to the elevation of the negro to the status of God, but the white everyman has lost everything. He has lost his racial nation and his God.

Having crawled down into the pit of modern science, it is not so easy to climb back out of it, but it is necessary that we make the arduous climb out of the pit. In order to do so we must see “science” for what it is. It is not the gateway to heaven on earth; it is the gateway to hell. To think scientifically means to think of all men as recorders or piano keys who can be played upon and destroyed at random in order to serve the second person of the liberals’ trinity. The negro has no inkling why the white man adores him so; all he knows is that everything the white man has, his women, his family, his civilization, belongs to the negro because the whites will not defend their own. They will not strike back at their new savior.

The shadows of hell which hang over all of the European nations can be altered if the Europeans renounce all three aspects of the liberals’ unholy trinity: the pride of reason, the worship of the noble black savage, and the scientizing of existence. Will they do so? I don’t know because, contrary to the modern notion, men are not as mathematically predictable as recorders and piano keys, but I do know that the other trinity, the one that our ancestors believed in, contains the person of Jesus Christ. If the antique Europeans renounce their pride of reason, their love of the noble black savage, and their desire to scientize man, because of their love for the Man of Sorrows, then the shadows of a hellish Babylonian future will disappear.

Christ has never forsaken His people, but His people have forsaken Him more times than we can count. He has always welcomed the return of the truly repentant sinner. If Scrooge could alter the shadows of a hellish future by his repentance, why can’t we do the same? “Thy mercy on thy people, Lord.” +

Posted in Christianity: Neither a Theory Nor a Philosophy, Incarnational Christianity, Older posts (pre-April 2019), Scientism | Tagged , | Comments Off on The Shadows of Hell

The European Side of the Great Gulf

Posted on October 19, 2013 by cwny

Unfortunately liberals do live and they govern us. But we must guard against the fatalistic assumption that we can’t ever throw off the yoke of liberals. Such would be the case if men were only biological specimens with no animating spirit within. Then men’s lives would be as predictable as the ocean tides or the turning of the earth. But Europeans, more than any other people, should know that history is as complex as the human soul. The spiritual tide of human events can be turned by men who live in the spiritual realm. Nothing is written, except the character of the enemy. We must fight them even to the edge of doom because of whom and what we fight for and because of whom and what they fight for. There can be no peaceful accord with liberals. – CWNY

__________

The late Malcolm Muggeridge came to Christianity very late in his life after he had already achieved a prominent position in British journalism. I’m sure the liberals would have liked to get rid of him because he caused them a great deal of embarrassment. A British journalist espousing Christ in the very citadels of Liberaldom was a very rare phenomenon. Muggeridge could have kept his new convictions private and maintained his status as a first-rate journalist, but he chose to become a clown, in the liberals’ eyes, for the sake of Christ. He was, by his own admission, not the best spokesman for Christianity, but he was the one placed in a position to publicly defend it. To his credit he did not shirk his duty.

There were two Malcolm Muggeridge moments that stand out in my mind. The first was when he told a panel of experts, who were criticizing Solzhenitsyn for his attack on European liberalism, that the liberals were incensed because Solzhenitsyn left Russia and came to the West to tell us that Christianity, not liberalism, was the answer to communism.

The second moment came when he confronted the heinous, homosexual comedy team called “Monty Python” after they had made a blasphemous, hate-filled attack on Christ in a film called The Life of Brian. In front of a sneering, hostile audience and the sneering, mocking Monty Python crew, Muggeridge pointed out that everything of value in the Western world stemmed from the singular event called the incarnation of Christ. To mock and ridicule that event was the most destructive thing a person could do. The Python team’s response was the expected one: “He is just mad because the audience liked us more than him.” Should such creatures be permitted to live? The last thing Muggeridge was expecting or seeking when he went on that talk show was applause from the howling jackals of the devil. Let the Python team have their applause in this world; Mr. Muggeridge will get his applause in a much better world on a more important stage. One is reminded of the scriptural contrast between Lazarus and the certain rich man.

And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.

But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.

And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.

In a previous column I focused on the evil that Monty Python represents (O Nation Miserable). What I want to focus on now is the “great gulf” that exists between Lazarus and the certain rich man, because that great gulf also exists between the modern Europeans and the antique Europeans. And until the “conservatives” plant themselves firmly on Lazarus’s side of the great gulf, there will be no conservative movement. Reading through the literature of the post World War II conservatives (and I did that when I was a young man) is like wandering through a desert looking for a water hole that doesn’t exist. There are volumes of literature about preserving various systems – our democratic system, our economic system, our classical, Greco-Roman university system – but there is nothing in respectable conservative journalism about preserving the white people of Europe and the faith of those white people. And it remains the same today. Even those conservatives who express concern about the wholesale liquidation of white people and their culture do not take their stand against the liberals because the liberals are the great despisers of Christ and His people. Instead the conservatives invoke democracy, and democracy’s attendant gods: capitalism, science, freedom, and equality. We should not go down that road because democracy is a false messiah. Even if white people could obtain equal rights within a racially mixed, democratic society it would ultimately be their death, because the forbidden fruit of multiculturalism would eventually kill them.

Of course in reality white people will never be allowed into the new democratic world that they have created. Their own logic forbids it. All democracies are oligarchies in which a handful of bureaucrats run things in the name of “the people.” And in a post-Christian democracy the people who are more equal than others are the black savages. The managerial conservative types, who are constantly trying to come up with a plan to win in the great board game called Democracy, do not understand that a board game without Christian Europe on the board is not worth winning. We need to go back, beyond the quicksand of democratic Europe and find firmer ground, the ground of Christian Europe, from which we can launch our attack against the white-hating, Christ-hating liberals and their colored barbarian allies.

This was the battle cry of Burke who was the first to face off against institutionalized liberalism. The British constitutional monarchy, which was unique to Britain, having developed over the years in response to the ‘Divine Right’ monarchs, was developed for one reason – to allow the Christian faith to flourish among the people of Britain. That faith was the life blood of the people. Any change in the British system had to be a change that was necessary to maintain the Christian institutions of Britain. This is why the new Whigs ran into conflict with Burke. Burke only wanted changes when those changes strengthened the Christian fabric of British culture. The new Whigs wanted to jettison Christian Britain and replace it with a new utopian, democratic Britain, modeled on the new atheistic French republic. It is quite a heart-rending moment when Burke says good-by to the men he thought were his allies in his efforts to keep Britain free of French Jacobins:

The Whigs of this day have before them, in this Appeal, their constitutional ancestors: They have the doctors of the modern school. They will choose for themselves. The author of the Reflections has chosen for himself. If a new order is coming on, and all the political opinions must pass away as dreams, which our ancestors have worshipped as revelations, I say for him, that he would rather be the last (as certainly he is the least) of that race of men, than the first and greatest of those who have coined to themselves Whig principles from a French die, unknown to the impress of our fathers in the constitution.

If your faith in Christ is a living faith, your ties to your ancestors and the laws they made which stemmed from their living faith will be unbreakable. Burke would not break faith with his ancestors because he was one with Christian Britain. Like St. Paul he fought the good fight and he kept the faith. And the faith that Burke kept was one and the same as St. Paul’s. Both men were able to fight the good fight in this world, despite the fact that the forces of darkness seemed to be overwhelming superior, because their faith was not in managerial systems designed for triumph in this world only.

Even if the managerial conservatives could win an electoral victory by jettisoning Christian Europe and making themselves appealing to the citizens of the new Babylon would such a victory really be a victory? What does a man win if he gains the whole world and loses his soul? If we jettison our past we jettison our souls. And for what? Contrary to what the conservatives maintain there is no dichotomy between what is morally right and what is practical. It is not only immoral to jettison your Christian past in order to survive in the pagan present, it is not practicable either, because a man – particularly a European man – needs something outside of himself to motivate him. If he won’t be moved by Christ, then he will be moved by Satan. This is the great error of the conservatives. The liberals have a fighting faith, they have faith in the new Babylon presided over by the negro. What is the conservatives’ rallying cry? Onward to reduced taxes? Upwards to a balanced budget? In Stevenson’s “Ebb Tide” he writes about the light in the eyes of the European. What is the source of that light? Does it have a name? All of our ancestors speak with one voice on that subject. Christ is not a metaphor for the good that is in men, nor is He an auxiliary god in a pantheon of gods, with the negro as the foremost god. He is our Lord and Savior. The liberals can mock and jeer at that singular and heartfelt belief of the antique Europeans, just as the certain rich man mocked Lazarus, but their mock and jeer will double back on them and destroy them in the end. Like the swine in the Gospel they trample each other in a mad rush to plunge headlong over the cliff.

I sometimes get stuck behind local school buses if I am traveling at the wrong time of the morning or afternoon. It’s sad to see the older students with their green hair and tattooed, pierced bodies. And it’s even sadder to see the younger children going off to or coming home from the indoctrination centers. We know what goes on in those fiendish, inhuman institutions. White children are taught to stay on the wrong side of the gulf, a gulf which separates them from their past. They will never know what it means to have a racial homeland and a special connection to the people and the God of that homeland. They will be taught to hate the white and to love the negro, and they will learn to sneer and mock the good and to love all that is ignoble and base. All this they will learn in the name of “education.”

A truly conservative movement should work to place those children on the European side of the gulf. But that is the tragedy. The conservatives are on the wrong side of the gulf as well, trying to use Satan to further their more moderate agenda. It never works: the enemy of mankind is far more clever than the most brilliant of humans. You can’t traffic with the witches on the heath and expect fair dealing.

There is no fighting faith emanating from the conservatives, because they stand with the liberals. They don’t believe in the God of the antique Europeans enough to fight in His name. They have chosen to try to mollify the devil rather than fight him. This essential liberalism of the conservatives was brought home to me when I read a self-professed conservative theologian’s defense of the Christian doctrine of the resurrection of the dead. He started off by ridiculing the notion that we meet our loved ones in the flesh with the purified bodies of incorruption that St. Paul wrote about. No, that was too quaint and old-fashioned. The new concept of the resurrection did not involve a bodily resurrection. It involved vapors and gases and indeterminate, vague, inhuman conglomerations of atoms. This was called blending science and religion. What utter nonsense. It’s all or nothing! Christ is who He said He was, and our resurrection in Christ means exactly what our ancestors believed it to be, or else Christ be not risen, and we are of all men most to be pitied for believing and living a lie. If we look at Christ as He revealed Himself through His people, we cannot come to any other conclusion than the one our ancestors came to: “Christ is the Son of the living God.” Keep Christian Europe before your eyes, and then take a quick sidelong glance – that is all that will be necessary – at the sneering Monty Pythons of Liberaldom. You will know which side of the gulf you stand on and you will have a fighting faith. +

Posted in Christianity: Neither a Theory Nor a Philosophy, Incarnational Christianity, Older posts (pre-April 2019), Scientism | Tagged | Comments Off on The European Side of the Great Gulf

The Evil That Men Do

Posted on October 12, 2013 by cwny

In the great hand of God I stand, and thence
Against the undivulg’d pretence I fight
Of treasonous malice.

–Banquo

__________

The ongoing war being waged by the colored races against the white race, which is being aided and abetted by the liberals, has become a real life horror film. Grisly torture murders of whites and heinous sexual assaults against whites have become so familiar to us that we risk becoming as insensitive to them as Macbeth became to his barbaric acts:

I have supp’d full with horrors;
Direness, familiar to my slaughterous thoughts.
Cannot once start me.

The liberals have gone further down the slippery slope than Macbeth. (1) He at least acknowledged that his barbarities stemmed from his illicit desire for the crown, whereas the liberals see nothing illicit in their desire to have the white race exterminated. In fact the liberals have given religious sanction to the extermination of the white race. It falls upon them to defend their gods, not to debate. Every time a new colored atrocity occurs the liberals bare their fangs and attack any white who shows the slightest inclination to criticize the colored demons or to strike back at the colored demons. Asking the liberals to do something about the colored atrocities is like asking Nero to protect the Christians from the lions. You can’t seek redemption from the devil.

I frequently hear conservatives, secular and clerical, say that whites should remain civilized and not respond to colored atrocities with violence. Is it really the mark of a civilized man that he does not respond to violence with violence? It certainly was not the mark of the heroes of our precious European civilization. The mark of a civilized man, a European, was that he did not allow colored barbarians to assault his people without striking back at them. This Buddhistic, Thomistic quietism in the face of colored atrocities against whites is a new ethos totally opposed to the ethos of the antique Europeans. It is an ethos from hell, and it will not be voted away, nor will the liberals be persuaded to allow white people who adhere to the ethos of old Europe to live. White people, because of their cultural dominance in the past, cannot be allowed any breathing room in the New World Order:

But a great state is too much envied, too much dreaded, to find safety in humiliation. To be secure, it must be respected. Power, and eminence, and consideration, are things not to be begged. They must be commanded: and they who supplicate for mercy from others can never hope for justice thro’ themselves. What justice they are to obtain, as the alms of an enemy depends upon his character, and they ought well to know before they implicitly confide. – Burke

We should know the character of liberals by now. They have held the reins of power in the West for nearly a century. Has any good ever come from appealing to their mercy? They are completely devoid of charity and mercy. Their techno—barbarianism gives the barbarians of color the type of iron-clad support necessary for the wholesale liquidation of the white race. And when the clergy back the liberals, the jihad is complete. The white race becomes the pariah race that can be despised, vilified, and subsequently exterminated with the religious sanction of the liberals.

A young white soldier is killed in South Carolina by five negro savages who simply wanted to “kill a cracker.” In 2013, over 1,000 Swedish women, 300 of them under age fifteen, were raped by Moslems. Are these isolated, random acts? No matter what the liberals say to the contrary, we know they are not isolated, random acts. They are acts of war. And they are acts of war committed by an enemy that knows nothing of chivalry. There will be no quarter given and no honorable terms of surrender coming from the liberals or the colored barbarians. White people are trapped in Lucknow, in desperate need of men like Havelock, men who know how to respond when colored barbarians attack their people.

When your daily life is spent in the “underworld,” which is now the case with white people because liberals have institutionalized hell, you lose sight of the fact that there is another “overworld” which is the real world. There once was a world where sex was connected to love, where charity and mercy were seen as attributes of God, and where men and women of faith shunned the devil and all his works because they believed in the Son of God. That world is lost to the modern Europeans. And because they have lost that overworld they have accepted their assigned place in the underworld, the victim’s place. The life of the European is a life of dread, hoping against hope that he will be sacrificed at the altars of the liberals’ gods at a later date than his neighbor, or that a sudden pang of mercy will come upon the people who know no mercy. The young Europeans growing up today have no idea there once were white people who did not permit colored barbarians, at the behest of the creatures called liberals, to murder, rape, and plunder at will where white people dwelt.

“What is a white person?” the liberal catechist asks.

“A white person is an evil creature that must be sacrificed at the altars of the colored gods,” replies the young European catechumen.

“Until his final sacrifice, what is the duty of the white person?” the catechist asks.

“To love the negro and the colored auxiliary gods with my whole mind, heart, and soul,” the catechumen replies.

“Very good,” says the aged catechist.

And that is the only way a European can be called good: when he accepts his place in the underworld of liberalism.

After Woodstock in the 1960s, the hippies sang of a return to nature:

We are stardust
We are golden
And we’ve got to get ourselves
Back to the Garden.

Such a sentiment can only be expressed by a people who believe there was no fall of man. A Christian European would never seek to return to Eden, because that is where he fell from grace. He looks to his racial hearth fire where the God of mercy, the God who is more than nature, dwells. A return to nature is not a happy return, it is a return to barbarism, to a wretched existence where there is no charity, no mercy, no love, only cruelty and savagery. This is the only world the coloreds have ever known. But the white man? Why should he, having once known a better world, want to return to the world of the ignoble savages? The answer lies in the mystery of iniquity. The liberal wants nothing to do with the overworld, he wants to live like a creature of nature in the underworld with his savage gods. They will tear him to pieces, but the liberal will still follow his new gods, because the God he left behind requires mercy and not sacrifice, and the liberal wants nothing to do with the burden of mercy.

I saw an old movie recently in which an American missionary who had spent fifty years in China was asked if he had made much progress preaching the Gospel in China. The old missionary sighed and said he hadn’t. Then he told a story which illustrated his failure. He told how he had once spoken to a large gathering of Chinese about Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection. The audience seemed very interested, listening intently as he described the crucifixion, and the missionary had high hopes, thinking they had been touched by the story. But later the attentive Chinese went out, waylaid a caravan of travelers, and crucified the members of the caravan. The Christ story never reached their hearts. So it remains today.

The Christ story did reach the antique Europeans’ hearts, which makes the betrayal of those people and their God, by the modern liberals, seem like a second fall of man. The liberals have once again, under the advisement of Satan, sought to find a power in dumb nature that can make them co-equal with God. When a man becomes one with biological nature, the type of nature that can be seen and studied under a microscope, then there is no need for and no belief in the God who is above nature. What is natural becomes bestial, and what is unnatural becomes the religion of a Savior who is over and above biological nature. What was natural to Edmund Burke — his sympathy for the royal family of France — was quite different from what was natural to Dr. Price — his hatred for the royal family of France. Two epochs were clashing. What was natural for Burke was what was Christian. What was natural for Dr. Price was what was bestial and savage. Which is why the liberal successors of Dr. Price worship the black and hate the white. Whatever is closest to the primitive, merciless forces of dumb nature is deemed to be good, and whatever stinks of a spiritual realm beyond nature is deemed to be bad.

Once we see that “nature” is the wall that keeps Christ away from the liberals, we can see why they never resist and even encourage murder, rape, and pillage by the colored barbarians. If the liberals were to face the fact that the noble savages were not noble, they would have to give up their faith in nature, which is their one great defense against a God who places ethical demands on them. He requires that they go and learn the difference between mercy and sacrifice. And after they have learned the difference, He expects them to act according to the dictates of mercy. This is intolerable to the liberals because it requires work, deep down in the trenches of the soul. For this reason the liberals will never take down their ideological wall of nature. Which means they will always be at the ideological center of the colored barbarians’ war against the white race. Nothing is sacred to the liberal but the barbarians of color, so there are no limits to what he will tolerate when it comes to atrocities against the white race. Everything is permitted except mercy.

Macbeth pursues his bloody course in full knowledge of what he is doing. He feels driven by his wife’s ambition and his own, so he destroys the unbought grace of his life:

All is but toys; renown and grace is dead;
The wine of life is drawn, and the mere lees
Is left this vault to brag of.

Like Macbeth the liberals have chosen their bloody course, but unlike Macbeth they still have the capacity to stifle any “compunctious visitings of nature,” because they do not believe man’s nature includes a soul. They would never lament as Macbeth does, that they have lost their “eternal jewel,” for the reason that they have eliminated the soul from their religion. There is only nature, devoid of an animating spirit, in the liberals’ soulless, heartless ideology. But if there is a personal, animating Spirit behind nature, the liberals’ denial of that Spirit cannot change the reality of His existence. Yet the supposed opposition to liberalism never invokes that Spirit. We must invoke that Spirit. In full consciousness of what we are fighting against and who sustains us in our fight, we must say to the bloody, multi-headed liberal hydra, each viciously fanged head representing a different barbarian tribe of color, what Macduff said to Macbeth, “Turn, hell-hound, turn!” And then, like Macduff, we must make our sword arms match our words. +

________________________________
(1) Macbeth still had “compunctious visiting of nature” because he had not put on the armor of liberalism. Had he done so he could have slept like a babe after he murdered his king and kinsman. Even popes such as Pope Francis, who outwardly profess the Christian faith, can surpass the Macbeth family in the evil that they do. Such is the power of an ideology in which nature and nature’s god, the negro, is the ultimate arbiter of men’s consciences.

Posted in Antique Christianity, Christianity: Neither a Theory Nor a Philosophy, Europe as the Christ-Bearer, Older posts (pre-April 2019) | Tagged , | Comments Off on The Evil That Men Do

The Resurrection of Europe

Posted on October 5, 2013 by cwny

A brilliant morning shines on the old city. Its antiquities and ruins are surpassingly beautiful, with the lusty ivy gleaming in the sun, and the rich trees waving in the balmy air. Changes of glorious light from moving boughs, songs of bird, scents from gardens, woods, and fields—or, rather, from the one great garden of the whole cultivated island in its yielding time—penetrate into the Cathedral, subdue its earthy odour, and preach the Resurrection and the Life. The cold stone tombs of centuries ago grow warm, and flecks of brightness dart into the sternest marble corners of the building, fluttering there like wings. – Dickens The Mystery of Edwin Drood

__________

During the course of my search for the last outposts of civilization — those remaining book stores that contain many a volume of quaint and forgotten lore — I encountered a woman in her mid-seventies, who was of Southern extraction but living in the North. Over the course of a year we had what were at first, at least on her part, very guarded conversations. But then as she began to trust me she opened up on the subject of the negro and the South. She felt compelled, as all older Southerners do, to insist she wasn’t prejudiced, but… The gist of my friend’s caveat was that integration hadn’t worked. The blacks had stayed savages and the whites had become less civilized. She made that observation with a furtive glance around her and with an expectation that I would disagree with her. But instead of disagreeing I went further: “The blacks have become much more savage now that the whites don’t control them, and the whites have set up a kingdom of god on earth with the negro as god.” The woman from Georgia didn’t disagree, which actually surprised me somewhat. It usually takes a little time for a person to see the connection between liberalism and negro worship. But apparently, in this case, the notion of negro worship had already been crystallizing just below the surface of her consciousness. “We’re still fighting the Civil War, aren’t we?” she asked.

“Yes, but now there is only one side fighting. It’s the liberals and the black barbarians against a white remnant who can’t or won’t fight back.”

The thought that there is one single “racist” out there makes the liberals mad. But I don’t think they are overly concerned about the existence of one mid-seventyish woman who doesn’t worship the negro. “Such people will die out,” the liberals reason, “and then there will be heaven on earth.” The liberals are right: such honorable, decent Europeans are dying out, but I’m not so sure there won’t be others to take their place. History is made by human beings, and human beings are not the passive slaves of a biological process. Spengler was wrong: birth, maturity, decay, and death apply to vegetable matter, not to human beings created in the image of God. A man only becomes a slave to the biological process when he no longer sees himself as a man with an immortal soul. Then he acts according to rote and becomes a mere lab specimen devoid of all humanity.

Every governing body of the European nations has rejected Christianity and the white race in favor of an anti-white, anti-Christian, utopian ideology in which the noble black savage presides over what is supposed to be a beautiful, utopian village, but is in reality a soulless city of desolation. Not every European nation arrived at their utopian villages by exactly the same routes or by the same methods, but they all got there, which indicates to me that there is one suicidal common denominator among all the European nations. Of course we don’t need a master sleuth to help us find the suicidal common denominator, we know what it is: all the nations of Europe were once Christian and now all the nations of Europe are post-Christian. Three European nations, France, Russia, and the United States, went to utopia by way of a violent revolution, while the rest moved toward their Babylonian paradises without violence. The United States, which the Ayatollah Khomeini correctly called the “Great Satan” but for the wrong reason, differed from France and Russia in this regard – the real American revolution, the Utopian revolution, did not come from outside of the government. In 1860 the American government itself waged a war to make the nation safe for egalitarian democracy. Dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal? So the northern utopians said. What was the truth? The northerners were half right. Jefferson, Madison, and Franklin, the most influential of the Constitutionalists, were ‘brave new worlders.’ But the Southern cavaliers, as Thomas Nelson Page points out, were not new worlders, they were Europeans who wanted nothing more from life than to extend Christian Europe into the heathen lands.

The Northern colonies of Great Britain in America were the asylums of religious zealots and revolutionists who at their first coming were bent less on the enlargement of their fortunes than on the freedom to exercise their religious convictions, however much the sudden transition from dependence and restriction to freedom and license may in a brief time have tempered their views of liberty and changed them into proscriptors of the most tyrannical type…

The Church, which viewed the independence of the Northern refugees as schism, if not heresy, gave to this enterprise its benison in the belief that “the adventurers for the plantations of Virginia were the most noble and worthy advancers of the standard of Christ among the Gentiles.” The company organized and equipped successive expeditions in the hope of gain; and soldiers of fortune, and gentlemen in misfortune, threw in their lot in the certainty of adventure and the probability that they might better their condition.

Under such auspices the Southern colonies necessarily were rooted in the faith of the England from which they came—political, religious, and civil. Thus from the very beginning the spirit of the two sections was absolutely different, and their surrounding conditions were for a long time such as to keep them diverse. – Thomas Nelson Page The Old South

The last incorporate body of Christian Europeans on the North American continent were finally defeated in the 1950’s when they succumbed to integration. What remains hovering over the South is a lingering cloud of suspicion, the suspicion of racism, that every new generation of Southerners, ever since the sixties, attempts to dispel by being more anti-racist, which means hating the white and worshipping the black, than any northern liberal.

My bookstore friend was correct: we’re still fighting the Civil War. We are fighting it throughout all of Europe, because this is not a war of geography, it is a race war. The same dynamic that was present in the American Civil War is present today in all the European nations. A numerically small governing body of passionate, negro-worshipping, white-hating liberals are attempting to exterminate the white race, while the great majority of whites sit and graze in the pastures of oblivion. The whites in Haiti took the first utopian salvo, and then the Southern whites were under the gun. Now it is all whites, but it was always every white that had to die. The liberals’ strategy is to isolate the “bad whites” in Haiti, in the South, in South Africa, while making the white grazers believe that they will be spared if they only behave. But the grazers do not realize that the dynamic of utopia demands the sacrifice of all whites. Even if a white grazer was willing to sell his soul by betraying his people in order to save his life, he would still find himself in the black stewpots. The bad whites are really all whites – you can’t escape from your racial nation by betraying your race. Your destiny will catch up with you. Fight or die, but stop grazing in the fields of oblivion.

We can’t really call the ongoing extermination of the white race a race war because only one side, the liberals and the colored barbarians, are fighting the war. It will be a step up, a consumption devoutly to be wished for, when white men actually start fighting back. This will happen when the white man recovers his religious sentiment. At present the liberals have a religious sentiment for the black man and the other auxiliary gods of color. But the conservative has let the liberals sneer him out of his faith. Read through Thomas Nelson Page and then through Richard Weaver if you want to see that which is lost. Or better yet, read through Russell Kirk’s The Conservative Mind and then through Anthony Jacob’s White Man, Think Again! Weaver and Kirk are not in the wrong; what they write is very objective and true. But they are “passion-spent,” too reasonable, too scholarly, too balanced. Partisanship is not unreasonable, especially when it stems from love. Page and Jacob have more than just an intellectual understanding of the crisis of Western civilization because they love the people who made Western civilization. And because of their heartfelt love, they see what has to be done to restore Christian Europe much more clearly than the calm, detached conservatives. A burning, sentimental attachment to our racial nation, to our European river, is what is needful. While the conservatives were trying to eliminate their sentimental attachments to the European people the liberals were and are indulging their religious sentiments. For example, the contemporary liberal opinion on the death of Little Nell in Dickens’ The Old Curiosity Shop is that it is a piece of “cloying sentimentality.” Oh really? The Victorians did not think the death of a saintly child who came to know the Savior was “cloying sentimentality.” They thought that Dickens had drawn back the curtain and given them a glimpse of the Savior who turns all our human tragedies into divine triumphs. The Victorians wept openly when they read of the death of Little Nell:

She was dead. No sleep so beautiful and calm, so free from trace of pain, so fair to look upon. She seemed a creature fresh from the hand of God, and waiting for the breath of life; not one who had lived and suffered death.

Her couch was dressed with here and there some winter berries and green leaves, gathered in a spot she had been used to favour. ‘When I die, put near me something that has loved the light, and had the sky above it always.’ Those were her words.

She was dead. Dear, gentle, patient, noble Nell was dead. Her little bird–a poor slight thing the pressure of a finger would have crushed–was stirring nimbly in its cage; and the strong heart of its child mistress was mute and motionless for ever.

Where were the traces of her early cares, her sufferings, and fatigues? All gone. Sorrow was dead indeed in her, but peace and perfect happiness were born; imaged in her tranquil beauty and profound repose.

And still her former self lay there, unaltered in this change. Yes. The old fireside had smiled upon that same sweet face; it had passed, like a dream, through haunts of misery and care; at the door of the poor schoolmaster on the summer evening, before the furnace fire upon the cold wet night, at the still bedside of the dying boy, there had been the same mild lovely look. So shall we know the angels in their majesty, after death.

In contrast, the liberals weep for Trayvon Martin and his many equivalents, fictional and actual. Such people, whose religious sentiments cause them to hate and sneer at all that is good, pure, and noble, and deify all that is evil, base, and ignoble, are a people eminently suited to build hell on earth, but not fit to live with or worse yet, govern Christian Europeans. Whom do you want to stand with? The Victorians who wept at the death of Little Nell or the liberals who exult in the torture murders of white children and weep over the death of a black thug?

Without a deeply felt, passionate, religious sentiment a man is nothing. I once read an article by the former Stormfront leader, Kevin Strom, in which he stated that the white man needed a new religion. Such a vile suggestion illustrates the problem with the white conservatives and the white nationalists. They have no heartfelt attachment to the Europeans’ past or to the Europeans’ God. What faith they have is in their own intellects. Such a faith cannot sustain a man in this world or in the world to come. The liberals have a faith in the negro, the colored barbarians have faith in their various heathen gods which are merely the personification of the murderous, licentious vices of the colored tribesmen. These are the gods the white men are flocking to because they no longer have a heartfelt, sentimental attachment to the Christian God. About 17 years ago a pseudo-religious expert named Peter Kreeft wrote a book called Ecumenical Jihad. In the book, Kreeft argued that Christians should join with Jews and Moslems against the liberals. This is a desperate attempt by a man without a vital faith to latch on to what he perceives to be the more vital faiths of the unrepentant Jews and the militant Moslems. It just won’t do. The Europeans have one God, Jesus Christ. If a man, a European, cannot form a heartfelt, sentimental attachment to that God and the people who championed that God against the sneering pagan intellectuals and the murderous barbarian hordes of color, he will become the wretched man that Walter Scott writes about:

The wretch, concentred all in self,
 Living, shall forfeit fair renown,
And, doubly dying, shall go down
To the vile dust, from whence he sprung,
Unwept, unhonor’d, and unsung.

To a man, the sneering clerics, the merciless liberals, and the ecumenical conservatives all tell us that we must give up our ties to our racial nation in order to save their greater nation, whether it be negro-worshipping Babylon or the democratic republic of free markets and Super Bowls. Whatever new nation is thrust upon us is always based on the repudiation of the white man’s past and a commitment to liquidate the white man as we progress into the future. Those Europeans who have formed a sentimental attachment to the God and the people of old Europe will not go peacefully into the hellish future of the utopians.

As the darkness deepens, so must our faith. The strength to endure comes from a connection to our past. If we love much, uniting our faith in His resurrection with our faith in eternal Christian Europe we will not be overwhelmed by the arrows from the colored barbarians or the pestilence of the liberals. +

Posted in Homeland, Honor, Incarnational Christianity, Older posts (pre-April 2019), Resurrection | Tagged | Comments Off on The Resurrection of Europe

Passion and Honor

Posted on September 28, 2013 by cwny

We must have leaders. If none will undertake to lead us right, we shall find guides who will undertake to conduct us to shame and ruin. – Burke Letters on a Regicide Peace

__________

Two opponents of the French Revolution, Burke and Taine, made similar observations about the mindset of the French clergy at the time of the French Revolution. First Burke and then Taine, some eighty years later, noted that the French clergy had made the French people incapable of summoning up the spiritual fortitude necessary to defend their nation against the Jacobins. By emphasizing loyalty to their particular sect of the European Church rather than faith in Christ, the French clergy turned a living faith into mere obedience to a dead letter legalistic system.

Burke: “I have no doubt that some miserable bigots will be found here, as well as elsewhere, who hate sects and parties different from their own, more than they love the substance of religion; and who are more angry with those who differ from them in their particular plans and systems, than displeased with those who attack the foundation of our common hope. These men will write and speak on the subject in the manner that is to be expected from their temper and character. Burnet says that when he was in France, in the year 1683, ‘the method which carried over the men of the finest parts to Popery was this – they brought themselves to doubt of the whole Christian religion. When that was once done, it seemed a more indifferent thing of what side or form they continued outwardly.’ If this was then the ecclesiastical policy of France, it is what they have since but too much reason to repent of. They preferred atheism to a form of religion not agreeable to their ideas. They succeeded in destroying that form; and atheism has succeeded in destroying them. I can readily give credit to Burnet’s story; because I have observed too much of a similar spirit (for a little of it is ‘much too much’) amongst ourselves.”

Taine: “Unfortunately, the Assembly, in this as in other matters, being preoccupied with principles, fails to look at practical facts, and, aiming to remove only the dead bark, it injures the living trunk. For many centuries, and especially since the Council of Trent, the vigorous element of Catholicism is much less religion itself than the Church. Theology retires into the background, while discipline has come to the front. Believers who, according to Church law, are required to regard spiritual authority as dogma, in fact attach their faith to the authority much more than to the dogma.”

This inability to distinguish between the kitchen work of the faith and the faith itself goes all the way back to Martha and Mary.

But Martha was cumbered about much serving, and came to him, and said, Lord, dost thou not care that my sister hath left me to serve alone? Bid her therefore that she help me.

And Jesus answered and said unto her, Martha, Martha, thou art careful and troubled about many things: But one thing is needful: and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her.

Christ’s rebuke is mild and we have no doubt that Martha heeded His rebuke. But what happens when Christ’s rebuke is not heeded? What happens when “that good part” is left out of the church? The French Revolution was and is emblematic of what happens when that good part no longer plays a vital role in the life of the European people. A large segment of people, the Jacobins, go whoring after other gods. In the case of the Jacobins, they turned a whore into the goddess of reason while the modern liberals have turned to the negro. The more conservative element stays within the confines of traditional, outward Christianity, but they have no vital force to resist the passionate intensity of the liberal Jacobin types because their faith is lukewarm: it consists of a belief in systems rather than the living God.

The French quagmire of a passionate, anti-Christian minority and a dull, easily led lukewarm majority that has been spiritually neutered by systems-analysis Christianity is the quagmire of the modern Europeans. Passion, not numbers, determines history. This is why opinion polls are so misleading. A pollster might claim that 51% of the people are against abortion, but are any of the 51% as passionately against abortion as the liberals are passionately for it? It’s the same with the colored invasion of Europe. A majority of Europeans would rather not be invaded, but are there any of those Europeans who feel passionately enough about the invasion of their nation and the murder of their people to counter the liberals’ passionate hatred of the European people with their own passionate love of the European people? And how can that love be engendered if the European has renounced his own hearth fire and the God of that hearth fire? A cold system is no substitute for the living God. Negro worship, which entails the liquidation of the white race, will be the ruling credo in European nations so long as Christ lies buried beneath a mountain of Christian systems.

Within the European fold were two faiths. The first faith, the true faith, was the European hearth fire faith. This faith was passed on from generation to generation by people who chose “that good part.” The Europeans believed in Christ because they knew Him through the people who loved Him. A mere intellectual description of Christ’s attributes would not have convinced the Europeans of His divinity or His humanity. There were and are plenty of false “God stories.” We know the Christ story is true, because it has touched our hearts, through a sympathetic, loving connection to His people.

The second faith is the faith that turns to ashes as soon as it leaves the brains of the experts. An intellectual faith, the faith in man-made systems, has no life blood. It’s a severed limb of a faith that leaves its adherents naked and defenseless before the relentless passionate intensity of the liberals and the blood-thirsty ferocity of the colored barbarians.

The neopagans solve the Christian dilemma by attempting to eliminate Christianity from the European’s future. They, like the liberals, look to a Christ-less future. The only difference between the two camps is that the neopagans want white people to be part of the Christ-less future. But what kind of future is possible for a people who deny their past and run from the living God? Rather than go down that vile neopagan road, why not go the way of the antique Europeans, rejecting liberalism and the mind-forged Christianity that leaves a man defenseless against liberalism? 

Let’s look at what happens to an intrepid heart who goes the way of the systems-analysis Christianity: take a young Roman Catholic, for example. He grows up under a system in which the Pope gives out marching orders to the Bishops, who in turn give out the marching orders to the parish priests, and they in their turn tell the laity what to do. We’re assuming our young man does not want to be a liberal, which means he plans on adhering to the rules of the Roman Catholic system. He respects authority and has no intention of being more Catholic than the Pope. What happens then, when the young man’s Pope becomes a negro worshipper? The young man might become an adherent to a traditionalist sect that has its own system in competition with the Pope, he might become a negro worshipper like the Pope, he might become a neopagan, or, most likely, he will simply become a divided hodgepodge of a man, lacking a firm faith because he has no people. Oh yes! The two are linked. A man with no racial nation will not feel connected to the God of his ascending race. When Walter Scott wrote, “Breathes there the man, with soul so dead, Who never to himself hath said, This is my own, my native land,” he was not talking about geography. He was talking about a spirit and blood connection to one’s people, one’s kith and kin. And what is more, he was talking especially about European people whose hearth fires were warmed by the Son of God.

The Protestant youth who is enslaved by the negro worshipping experts’ formulaic rules concerning the “born again” experience or the proper forms of church government is in the same rocky boat as the Roman Catholic youth. Faith will return to both individuals when they love their God in and through their own people. Loving your own and forsaking all others does not mean you hate all others any more than loving his wife and forsaking all other women means a man hates all other women. What it means is that you cherish the channels of grace that God has provided for you.

When a man breaks free of systems-analysis Christianity, he will feel as the blind man in the Gospels felt when he regained his sight. He will see who it is who makes the blind to see and the lame to walk. And his heart will be drawn to that Man of Sorrows, who presides over the hearth fires of the antique Europeans. Then when he reads about the torture murders of his people, he will wake from his spiritual stupor and he will fight for his people. And no wolf-in-sheep’s-clothing clergyman will say him nay.

Such a reawakening of the European people seems like an impossibility. But aren’t we told in the Scriptures that a people who believe in Christ shall dream dreams and see visions? The dream and the vision are father to the deed. The people whose dreams and visions are focused on Christ shall not permit their world to be polluted by satanic liberals and murderous colored heathens.

In the old nursery rhyme, Thursday’s child has far to go. The modern European is Thursday’s child. But his “far to go” is not into the Christ-less future envisioned by the negro worshipping liberals and the technocratic neopagans. The European must go far back into his past and find that which is lost – a way of living and loving that set the Europeans apart from all other people. The Europeans must once again go and discover what Christ meant when He said, “They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick. But go ye and learn what that meaneth. I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” The ancient Europeans were integral, whole human beings, which is not to say they were perfect. They believed in real actual sins, not make believe sins such as “racism.” And they believed in a real Savior who could forgive them their sins, in contrast to the modern liberals who believe that if they sacrifice enough white people to their black gods, their gods will be merciful and forgive them their sin of racism. Of course such an absolution will never take place because the black gods do not have any mercy, they only understand sacrifice.

A long line of managerial experts have told us that systems about God are more important than God Himself. And what has been the result? The liberals who worship the negro and passionately hate the white man rule, while the colored barbarians have free license to murder, rape, and pillage in the nations that were once the citadels of the white race. No white man will say, “Stop, this must not go on,” because the white man has no passion for the good to counter the liberals’ and the colored barbarians’ passion for evil. When Thursday’s child goes back to his racial hearth fire, he will discover that he has the spirit and the will to fight for his people and his God. Having rediscovered the difference between sacrifice and mercy, he will be a whole man again, a man who does not accept the rule of liberals and the barbarities of the colored heathens.

First and foremost the black fiend who tortured and murdered Jonathan Foster is responsible for his murder. But we all, we Europeans, share in that murder. We have allowed the systems-minded men to overrule our passion to protect and defend our own people. “Mustn’t be violent, mustn’t be prejudiced!” We must leave such evil counselors behind. Let us once again act as whole men, fearing nothing but dishonor and wanting nothing more from life than to serve our people and our God with that charity of honor that is the mark of the true European. +

Posted in Charity, Christianity: Neither a Theory Nor a Philosophy, Honor, Older posts (pre-April 2019) | Tagged , | Comments Off on Passion and Honor

Breaking Free of the Unholy Union

Posted on September 21, 2013 by cwny

Mr. Hyde was pale and dwarfish, he gave an impression of deformity without any nameable malformation, he had a displeasing smile, he had borne himself to the lawyer with a sort of murderous mixture of timidity and boldness, and he spoke with a husky, whispering and somewhat broken voice; all these were points against him, but not all of these together could explain the hitherto unknown disgust, loathing, and fear with which Mr. Utterson regarded him. “There must be something else,” said the perplexed gentleman. “There is something more, if I could find a name for it. God bless me, the man seems hardly human! Something troglodytic, shall we say? Or can it be the old story of Dr. Fell? Or is it the mere radiance of a foul soul that thus transpires through, and transfigures, its clay continent? The last, I think; for, O my poor old Harry Jekyll, if ever I read Satan’s signature upon a face, it is on that of your new friend.” –“The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde” by R. L. Stevenson

__________                          

Robert Louis Stevenson was one of the profoundest writers who ever took pen in hand, but he is always undervalued by the literary critics for two reasons. The first reason was his popularity. The critics believed that anyone who was popular with the general reading public could not be genuinely profound. The second reason was that in an age when the new scientific-Darwinian-Freudian-progressive view of existence was becoming all the rage in intellectual circles, Stevenson took a decidedly Christian and reactionary view of existence. Nowhere is Stevenson’s contra mundum world view more apparent than in this short story, “The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.”

If you recall the story, Dr. Jekyll, a respectable, fiftyish doctor and scientist decides that he can no longer suppress his lower nature. But if he is to indulge his baser nature, what happens to the career of the respectable Dr. Jekyll? The good doctor was truly on the horns of a dilemma, but he solves it. He discovers a scientific formula that can turn him into a fiendish, loathsome, thirtyish man called Mr. Hyde. Hyde can do everything that the respectable Jekyll cannot do. Then, when Hyde is through indulging himself he can return to the form and personality of Dr. Jekyll. And as Dr. Jekyll, he is very supportive of Mr. Hyde, telling his servants to let Hyde have free use of his home and even making out a will bequeathing all his money and possessions to Mr. Hyde. It seems like Dr. Jekyll has done it. He can be respectable and debauched, just like the surgeons in the liberal television show M.A.S.H. But the liberal fantasy doesn’t work. Hyde begins to take over, and it takes stronger and stronger doses of the formula to go from Hyde to Jekyll. And Hyde complicates things further by committing a murder. Soon Hyde consumes the personality of Jekyll, and with the law closing in on him Hyde commits suicide, thus ending the respectable life of Dr. Jekyll and the infamous life of Mr. Hyde.

The liberals have attempted the same transformation as Dr. Jekyll. The psychoanalysts told them that repression led to neurosis. And who wants neuroses? Throughout the early 20th century the European intelligentsia was in the process of becoming Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. With science as the facilitator the liberals tried to become one with the negro, who was their Mr. Hyde. By the latter half of the 20th century, the transformation was complete. When the negroes murder and rape, the liberals try to protect them, because by a strange transference the liberals feel they and the negroes are spiritually joined in a triune union that consists of the white man, the negro, and science. Liberals no longer can feel anything directly, so they try to live vicariously through their negro counterparts, but as in the Stevenson story the negro Mr. Hydes have taken over the personalities of the liberals. What the negro wants is what the liberal wants; what the negro does is what the liberal sees as real life, which he attempts to enjoy secondhand through his negro Mr. Hyde, whom he has come to worship and revere as the source of his being. And how can a man be more humane than his God? He can’t. The inhumanity of the negro is the inhumanity of the liberal. They have no mercy or charity because their god has no mercy or charity. And they lay their merciless, unforgiving science at the negro’s feet in token of their devotion to their god.

I have watched this symbiotic relationship between the liberal and the negro develop over the years. Take a look at our local liberals. Their personalities have been consumed by the negroes. They hold down jobs and do mundane liberal things in their white bodies, but their heart and soul belongs to the negro. The only difference between the modern liberal and Dr. Jekyll is that Dr. Jekyll, when the end was near, knew that he had done wrong when he created Mr. Hyde. The liberals showed no such repentance before their final transformations.

Of course the whole point of the Stevenson story is that we can’t abandon the war against our baser natures by surrendering to them. The Christian faith does create a conflict within a man. St. Paul tells us that the good he wants to do is often thwarted by the evil he wills not to do. But St. Paul kept fighting against principalities and powers; he didn’t surrender to them. Darwin, Freud, and all the Oriental gurus tell us to simply give in to our baser passions. In point of fact, there are no baser passions in the new age of psychoanalytic animalism. There is only self-destructive or anti-social behavior; all other passions can be indulged. Thus an excessive passion for alcohol or drugs requires a psychiatrist because that is self-destructive. And a desire to punish negroes who murder and rape is deemed anti-social because the very fabric of society is built around the loving reverence and worship of the natural and noble black savage.

Just as Jekyll made a conscious decision to descend, with the aid of science, to the level of a savage, so did the liberal, with the aid of science, make a conscious decision to descend to the level of the black savage. The liberals used the “scientific” findings of Darwin and other such “experts” to justify their descent into animalism. Instead of thinking of man as a spiritual being connected to a personal God they saw man as part of nature. And to deny that animal nature by stifling any of the animal instincts became repression, and repression is bad.

The 20th century became the century of the scientific expert. Every two-bit doctor of psychiatric mumbo-jumbo was allowed to pontificate about the hypocrisy of the antique Europeans. “Look at their brothels, look at their wars, all such things will not exist in the new world order where men and women do not repress what used to be called the baser instincts, but which we now know to be natural instincts.” So long as what is natural means whatever is base and foul, the white man will remain enthralled by the “natural black savage.” This transformation of what is considered natural was the turning point of Western civilization. Burke, viewing existence from a Christian European standpoint, thought it was natural that he should weep for the fallen Queen of France. While Dr. Price, who saw life from a new godless utopian standpoint, thought that it was natural to exult in the degradation and the humiliation of the Queen of France.

Why do I feel so differently from the Reverend Dr. Price, and those of his lay flock who will choose to adopt the sentiments of his discourse?—For this plain reason—because it is natural I should; because we are so made, as to be affected at such spectacles with melancholy sentiments upon the unstable condition of mortal prosperity, and the tremendous uncertainty of human greatness; because in those natural feelings we learn great lessons; because in events like these our passions instruct our reason; because when kings are hurled from their thrones by the Supreme Director of this great drama, and become the objects of insult to the base, and of pity to the good, we behold such disasters in the moral, as we should behold a miracle in the physical, order of things…

Why? Because when such ideas are brought before our minds, it is natural to be so affected; because all other feelings are false and spurious, and tend to corrupt our minds, to vitiate our primary morals, to render us unfit for rational liberty; and by teaching us a servile, licentious, and abandoned insolence, to be our low sport for a few holidays, to make us perfectly fit for, and justly deserving, of slavery, through the whole course of our lives. – Burke in Reflections on the Revolution in France

In Stevenson’s story, Hyde, after he had overmanned Jekyll’s personality, had to hide from the rest of society which still viewed him with horror. But what if the rest of English society had started taking Jekyll’s formula and they too became Dr. Jekylls and Mr. Hydes? And what if their better natures became absorbed into Mr. Hyde? Then, instead of abhorrence they would feel loving acceptance and admiration for Mr. Hyde. Eventually they would institutionalize the worship of the original Mr. Hyde and all the followers of Mr. Hyde, because in so doing they would be worshipping a god that had become part of them. This is what has happened to the modern liberal. Instead of feeling a natural aversion for the negro, he fells a special closeness to the negro, just as the antique European once felt a special closeness to Christ. And the modern liberal has institutionalized the worship of his god just as the antique European institutionalized the worship of Christ. This hideous blasphemous transfer of allegiance was brought home to me recently when I went to a book sale at one of those big, old, impressive churches that used to be a place where Christians worshipped the living God. The books were being sold in a large room adjacent to the chapel. Some pictures on the walls showed the apostles as negroes. And another picture had a negroid Christ on the cross. Now, all churches have not become that blatant in their representation of their new god, but I don’t think that the new symbolism in that old church was out of line with the current religious sentiments of the liberals in state and church. They have replaced their old god for a new one and they have, from my perspective, changed for the worse.

There are a few conservative groups out there who try to keep abreast of and report the black atrocities against whites. The liberals’ reaction to the reports of black atrocities seem, from a Christian perspective, to be cruel and inhuman. They get angry at the people who report the atrocities, calling them racists, and more often than not they try to find some fault with the white victims of the atrocities. But the liberals are not Christian; they worship the negro so they have no charity and mercy in them. They do not believe in black atrocities. Mortal men cannot judge the acts of gods: they can only praise god for his infinite goodness and continue to fight evil, which is racist whites.

A liberal is no more likely to extend mercy to a white man than Mr. Hyde was likely to extend mercy to any human being. Grasp that fact and proceed from there. There can be no surrender to an enemy that has willingly extracted every last vestige of charity and mercy from his soul. All that is left of the liberal is an empty husk of a human being, completely devoid of humanity, addicted to the lowest forms of vice and the lowest form of religion, which is negro worship, a religion that validates the liberals’ vice. So long as they think good thoughts about their negro gods they can let their bodies wallow in the pig sties of Babylon.

The idea of an intellectual descent into controlled debauchery is not new. The Greeks practiced it in the cult of Dionysius, and the Roman sages wrote serious tomes about the proper way to indulge the baser appetites at an orgy. The Orientals were also masters of the art of cold, dispassionate debauchery and vice. Even with those pagan cultures I would argue that ultimately they could not keep their passions for vice and cruelty under sufficient control so that their Mr. Hyde personalities did not adversely affect their societies. But I would most definitely – the destruction is before our eyes – claim that a Christian culture cannot possibly be sustained by men and women who think you can indulge the Mr. Hyde side of one’s personality with impunity. The spiritual heights to which a man who responds to God’s grace can ascend is greater in a Christian society than in a pagan society. And the satanic depths to which a man can sink are also greater in a Christian society. The European is made for absolutes. There is no happy medium between God and the devil. It is all or nothing. Either we strive, on a daily basis, to kill the old Adam and seek our Lord’s grace, or we become Mr. Hydes, bound for hell.

Dr. Jekyll’s theological division of himself was evil. He separated his intellect from his evil passions thinking his intellect could control his illicit passions. That is an impossibility. Evil passions can only be overcome by an overwhelming passion for the good. The Prince in Sleeping Beauty triumphs over the evil sorceress because he loves much, not because he outthinks the satanic sorceress. But Dr. Jekyll, having succumbed to the modern heresy that views the natural world of dissection and microscopes as the whole world, is unable to summon up any good passions to overcome his evil passions. That is the conundrum of the modern European. There is a passionate faith greater than negro worship. It is an ancient faith fueled by an eternal flame. Greater than theology, greater than evil, is the European’s true faith.

At the heart of our people is His Sacred Heart. The one true fairy tale of the world came from the antique Europeans who loved much. Once we abandon the scientized, managerial ethos of Dr. Jekyll, which leads to the sinister ethos of Mr. Hyde, we will unleash our passion for the King of Kings and Christian Europe. And then — “what larks” — we will ride triumphant over the liberals and their colored Mr. Hydes. +

Posted in Europeans and Christ, Incarnational Christianity, Negro worship, Neo-paganism, Older posts (pre-April 2019) | Tagged | Comments Off on Breaking Free of the Unholy Union

Elegy at the Gravesite of Christian Europe

Posted on September 14, 2013 by cwny

“If I may touch but his clothes, I shall be whole.” Mark 5: 28

__________

Anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear knows that all the governing bodies of the European countries are committed to the liquidation of the white race. But I think we should give special stars to governments that go blatant with their plans to liquidate the hated white race, because blatant, unadulterated hatred is preferable to camouflaged, sneaky hatred. So kudos to Sweden, a country that already had problems with Moslem rioters, for putting no restrictions on the number of Syrian refugees who can pour into Sweden, thus guaranteeing that Sweden will cease to exist as a white country. I know that Sweden, like all the nations of European origin, has not been Christian for some time, but so long as there are white-skinned people in a nation there is hope for a Christian resurgence. Once colorization is complete, there is no hope. Sweden will become colored and permanently heathen, which will necessitate an invasion rather than a defense. But from what white nation will the white invaders come, since all the other European nations are following a suicidal path that is similar to Sweden’s? I don’t know from whence they will come, but they will come to every European nation and they will reclaim those nations for white Christian Europe.

I do not make such an assertion based on signs that “the people are starting to wake up.” I don’t see any signs that the grazers are beginning to wake up. Quite the opposite seems to be happening. The grazers are becoming more beaten down and befuddled, the negroes and the other colored tribesmen are stepping up their murderous attacks on whites, the Moslems are conquering Europe, and the liberals, like sharks smelling blood, are moving in for the final blood feast on the white race. So why is there reason for hope? Because of the prayer our Lord taught us: “Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.” It is not God’s will that the European people, the Christ-bearing people, should be exterminated through outright slaughter or through miscegenation. Passionate hearts united to His sacred heart can alter the shadows of future events that seem inevitable. Nothing is written except this: He is the “Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.” This is not mysticism, it is reality. The tenure of our lives bear witness to that reality. Have you ever stood over the grave of a loved one and felt an irreparable sense of loss for the loved one who lies in the grave? There is sorrow for the loss, anger at the finality of death, and a despair bordering on madness because you must walk away from the grave and leave your beloved dead in the cold, barren ground. Only one hope enables us to walk away from the gravesite. The hope that He will see to it that nothing good and pure and noble dies. Our hope and faith is one with Shakespeare:

Thy bosom is endeared with all
Which I by lacking have supposed dead,
And there reigns love and all love’s loving parts,
And all those friends which I thought buried.
How many a holy and obsequious tear
Hath dear religious love stol’n from mine eye
As interest of the dead, which now appear
But things removed that hidden in thee lie!
Thou art the grave where buried love doth live,
Hung with the trophies of my lovers gone,
Who all their parts of me to thee did give;
That due of many now is thine alone:
Their images I loved I view in thee,
And thou, all they, hast all the all of me.

Men with good hearts lose battles. We might never restore Christian Europe to that which it was. But that which was of enduring and eternal value in Europe still lives with Him. If we stay connected to that Europe, we will stay connected to Him. And who can say that the war is lost when His people can call on Him by name? There is power in the blood, but only when our appeal to Him comes from an absolute faith in His divine charity. The woman in the Gospels who had “an issue of blood twelve years,” believed that, “If I may touch but his clothes, I shall be whole.”

The history of the European people is contained in that Gospel story. Because of the Europeans’ incorporate union with Christ, the European culture became Christ’s raiment. When a person touched the raiment with faith in the divine Savior the raiment enclosed, that person was made whole. When the modern theologians and biblical exegetes look at old Europe and see only racism and sexism it tells us all we need to know about those modern theologians and biblical exegetes. It tells us that those experts are too full of intellectual pride to see the living God. They can worship no God who comes to them through humanity, they must worship their own mind-forged God of inhumanity.

A prayer to Him is not a five step program hatched from the giant brain of a neo-pagan guru or the collective brain of a conservative think tank. It is a cry from the depths of the heart of a people who cannot walk away from the grave of Christian Europe without the hope that what was thought to be dead still can live again on earth as it always shall live in heaven. Those who profess to be Christian but will not fight for Christian Europe are trying to play fast and loose with God. You cannot dispense with the people who became Christ’s garment and still remain connected to the living God. You will remain connected to a kind of demi-god: the devil. Taking the hand of Satan, through his conduit the negro, will not result in an outpouring of grace from the Christian God. But then the modern post-Christian European does not seek the grace of God, he yearns for the negro god and the kingdom of Babylon. “The Negro’s kingdom come, His will be done, in this Babylonian kingdom on earth,” is the liberal’s prayer.

I would not call the maniacal hatred of the liberals for all things white and Christian white guilt. What I see in the liberals is not guilt, at least not in the traditional, Christian sense of the word ‘guilt.’ A Christian feels guilty for his sins, which in all mortal men are numerous and varied and which stem from our fallen natures. But the liberal does not believe that he has a fallen nature. He believes that sin is located in other people, namely white people who have oppressed the colored races and stifled the sexual liberation of mankind. I think we ignore an essential part of the liberal pathology if we fail to note that racial Babylon and sexual Babylon are linked: both are necessary if mankind is to be truly free of the oppressive personal guilt that comes with a racially and sexually “oppressive” civilization such as Christian Europe. If a man joins himself to the new Babylon he need feel no guilt at all so long as he condemns all men of the past who were not supporters of Babylon and all men of the present who are trying to impede the implementation of a Babylonian world. The liberals have their prophets — such as Rousseau; their original sinners – the antique Europeans; their Savior: the negro; and their heaven, which is on earth, an earth free of the ignoble white racists. Guilt is something the liberals hurl at the white grazers to keep them in line: “Worship with us or stand before the bar of liberal justice as one found guilty of racism.” The grazers simply cannot face up to such a condemnation. They fall in line and worship, but not with the full internal assent that the liberals prefer.

In this modern Babylonian era a person who does not whole-heartedly endorse the ethos of Babylon is often dubbed a Puritan. It is meant to be an insult. I always take it as a compliment, because I know it means that I am against the racial and sexual ethos of Babylon. If I thought I was actually being accused of being a Cromwellian, I might take the time to explain to my accuser that I have always leaned, emotionally and spiritually, to the side of the cavaliers. I could not abide Cromwell’s ban on Christmas celebrations and all dramatic productions. How could the nation of Shakespeare ban the drama? Nor is it possible for me to believe that a Lord Protector is better than a Christian King. But let us get back to the liberals and their own brand of Puritanism, which is much more draconian and far less Christian than Cromwell’s Puritanism. The liberals are absolute in their defense of Babylon. Any movement that even hints at a challenge to the ethos and the colored gods of Babylon is squashed without mercy. Some misguided whites are often fooled into thinking that they can plead for breathing rights within Babylon. Such breathing rights are never granted. The liberals are committed to a burn and destroy policy; they will not permit any dissenting voices within Babylon. It is absolutely essential that the European remnant realize that the liberals are satanic and that whoever advises the Europeans to deal with them is advising we should deal with the devil, who never deals fairly and always seeks to destroy us. If we keep that knowledge, the knowledge of the satanic nature of liberalism, in our hearts we will never be tempted to waste needless spiritual energy in futile pleas for liberal mercy — they have none; or liberal reason – they use it to defend Satanism.

The indulgence of a sort of undefined hope, an obscure confidence, that some lurking remains of virtue, some degree of shame, might exist in the breasts of the oppressors of France, has been among the causes which have helped to bring on the common ruin of king and people. There is no safety for honest men, but by believing all possible evil of evil men, and by acting with promptitude, decision, and steadiness on that belief. I well remember, at every epocha of this wonderful history, in every scene of this tragic business, that, when your sophistic usurpers were laying down mischievous principles, and even applying them in direct resolutions, it was the fashion to say that they never intended to execute those declarations in their rigor. This made men careless in their opposition, and remiss in early precaution. By holding out this fallacious hope, the impostors deluded sometimes one description of men, and sometimes another, so that no means of resistance were provided against them, when they came to execute in cruelty what they had planned in fraud. — Burke

Abandoning false hope can turn us toward our only hope. It is only when we place our hope in a plan to “win the liberals over” and “wake the people up” with a super-intelligent, non-violent program for the renewal of the world, under the management of giant-brained neopagans, that we come to ruin. The old ways are best. Liberaldom was built brick by brick by men and women who believed in a guilt-free, interracial, sexually promiscuous utopia consecrated to the negro gods. Now Liberaldom must be torn down brick by brick by men and women of Europe who still have hearts of flesh, hearts that reject liberalism and cling to Christian Europe.

When Liberaldom falls, will the liberal look at the gravesite and weep as the antique European now weeps for the death of Christian Europe? No, he won’t. He will howl as a predatory animal howls who has lost his prey. He will howl as Satan howls when a soul that he counted as his own turns from Satan to the living God. The Christian European and the liberal are of opposed spirits, eternally at war. The liberals are fueled by Satan’s hatred and their intellectual pride, the European is empowered by his faith in divine charity, which never faileth.

It won’t be a new system that ‘wakes people up’ that will turn the tide against the liberals; it will be the sword of charity wielded against the Jews in the market place, the colored barbarians in the streets, and the liberals in their gilded, Babylonian palaces. The Bible is a very personal story of a people’s relationship with God. Whenever the ancient Hebrews tried to depersonalize God by making Him subordinate to nature gods, they lost God. Such is the plight of the modern Europeans. They were not defeated on the battlefield, they surrendered without a fight because they no longer saw themselves as a people apart from the colored tribesmen. They saw themselves and their God as part of nature, and at the liberals’ insistence, they conceded that their race and their God was a lesser, ignoble part of the natural order of existence. Standing before the grave of Christian Europe, amidst the conquering army of liberals and colored barbarians, we can take hope from His divine charity and strength from the vision of the ancient Europeans who wore His raiment. We go from the gravesite to the battlefield, because it is not right that the liberals and their colored allies should be allowed to defile holy ground by their sneering, gloating presence. Our entire history as a people points to one thing. When we align ourselves with God, because we love Him, not because we seek our own personal gain, we are the most formidable people on earth. Only the European loved God because he saw all that was truly noble and beautiful embodied in the divine humanity of Christ. Those who fight because they know God through and in the people who loved Him will never cease fighting, because they don’t believe that Christian Europe is dead. They believe as Hansel and Gretel’s father believed: “When hope is nearly gone, God’s relief to us will surely come.” +

Posted in Antique Christianity, Christian counter-attack, Neo-paganism, Older posts (pre-April 2019) | Tagged , | Comments Off on Elegy at the Gravesite of Christian Europe

Resisting the Categorical Imperative

Posted on September 7, 2013 by cwny

But ‘tis strange;
And oftentimes, to win us to our harm,
The instruments of darkness tell us truths,
Win us with honest trifles, to betray’s
In deepest consequence.

-Banquo in Macbeth

__________

Let me begin with George Fitzhugh:

We employ the term Benevolence to express our outward affections, sympathies, tastes, and feelings, but it is inadequate to express our meaning; it is not the opposite of selfishness, and unselfishness would be too negative for our purpose. Philosophy has been so busy with the worst feature of human nature that it has not even found a name for this, its better feature. We must fall back on Christianity, which embraces man’s whole nature, and though not a code of philosophy, it is something better; for it proposes to lead us through the trials and intricacies of life, not by the mere cool calculations of the head, but by the unerring instincts of a pure and regenerate heart. The problem of the Moral World is too vast and complex for the human mind to comprehend; yet the pure heart will, safely and quietly, feel its way through the mazes that confound the head.

-Cannibals All! Or Slaves without Masters by George Fitzhugh

Recently a friend of mine sent me a press release from a group of white nationalists, advocating nonviolence. It brought to my mind the quote from Fitzhugh, because the white nationalists have chosen to deal with the trials and intricacies of life in quite a different manner than Fitzhugh and the Europeans of the past. The mind, pure and undefiled from tradition, passion, and poetry is their guide to truth.

Nowhere is this ahistorical, nontraditional, abstract approach to existence more apparent than in the white nationalists’ stance vis-à-vis violence. While conceding a limited right of self-defense in the home, the white nationalists embrace a rigid Quakerism in regards to all other forms of violence: “We must categorically renounce violence,” and, “We must clearly denounce and avoid violence.” Now, if the white nationalists were to say, “We do not think that violent resistance to the liberal leviathan is advisable at this particular moment in history. We are much more concerned with helping white people learn to cherish their past and revere and respect the Savior who once was respected and revered by all Europeans,” then I would have no problem with the white nationalists. I might disagree with them about the strength of the liberal leviathan, but I would not be opposed to their statement of principle. But they do not put any qualifications on their Quakerism. They state that violence is wrong, and anyone who will not unequivocally renounce it is outside the white nationalist fold. Well, then I am unequivocally outside the white nationalist fold, because the white nationalist philosophy, if embraced, drives the dagger of abstract philosophical speculation into the heart of the European people and renders them incapable of any heartfelt response to the complex intricacies of life. And without the heart we are reeds for any and all philosophic ill winds that blow our way. The white nationalists do not just excommunicate all those violent-hearted men of the present. They condemn all our people, particularly the heroes of the past who were violent in defense of the innocent and the good.

Christian morality does not change. If your philosophy condemns all violence other than that violence which is necessary to defend the narrow confines of one’s home, you have condemned Franco’s courageous ouster of the democratically elected, left-leaning government of Spain, the inspired and heroic Klansmen who rode with Forrest, and all the William Tells of Europe who stood against the tyranny of those who attacked innocence.

It’s difficult to believe that the white nationalists truly believe what they say. Do not their hearts burn within them when they hear of the torture murders of their own people? Would not they, if they had the opportunity and the means, kill the perpetrators of such atrocities? The white nationalists remind me very much of the prolifers with whom I used to spend a lot of time. The prolifers talked a lot about defending the unborn and making war on the abortionists, but if anyone actually said that abortion doctors should be shot, they were regarded as moral pariahs. I don’t understand such people, nor do I want to understand them.

The modern European of every type, conservative, nationalist, liberal, and grazer, is unable to understand anything but a syllogism, because a syllogism can be put in a silver rod. Violence, in the modern European’s eyes, is either good or bad; there can be no other conclusion, because no other conclusion can fit in the silver rod of the philosophers. Chaucer’s knight, who killed the infidel in the Holy Land, was depicted as peace-loving and gentle inside. How can such a contradiction exist? It is only a philosophical contradiction; it is not a poetical contradiction, because only a man whose heart burned within him at the plight of the innocent being tortured and murdered in the Holy Land, or one who witnessed the infidel defile all that was pure and noble, would have the passion to fight and kill. All violent acts do not stem from illicit, evil passions. They can, and in the case of the antique Europeans often did stem from good and noble passions – the love of one’s own and the hatred of the devil and all his works. And what could be more devilish than colored savages or Moslem infidels, murdering and raping their way through one white village after another? When white settlers made punitive raids, now condemned by moral theologians, on the Indians who attacked and massacred white settlers, they were practicing Christian charity. “He who strikes one strikes us all.” The noble go on such raids because of that charity of honor, the pragmatic go on such punitive raids because they know that if they do not attack the savages who murder their neighbors the savages will soon be at the door of their own homes. And then it will be too late, but the murdered white settlers will have the satisfaction of having followed the principles of unequivocal nonviolence.

In a movie called Northwest Passage (1940), Rogers of Rogers’ Rangers’ fame, is asked by a British general why he is planning a punitive expedition against the Indians. Rogers says, “For years now the Indians have been coming into our settlements and murdering, torturing, and raping our people. What would you do in our place?” The British general replies, “I’d go get them!” The only people I hate more than the colored barbarians who murder, torture, and rape my people and the liberals who sanction the murder, torture, and rape of my people, are the white nationalists who tell whites that we are not to “go get them” when they murder, torture, and rape our people.

Only men who think they can ignore all the moral principles of their ancestors, which stemmed from a heartfelt, passionate love of the Savior, would arrogantly adopt a new Christianity, based on the esoteric theories in their Gnostic brains. Such men are not fully human, they are mere shadows of men, trying to substitute syllogisms for faith, and egotism for love. Now more than ever there is real fighting to be done. In many parts of Europe and America there is virtually no law. (1) Barbarians of color roam these lawless zones and prey on defenseless white people. Defenseless because they have been beaten down by the “You must clearly renounce violence” tirades from the clerics and the white nationalists. Why shouldn’t white men venture out to avenge and protect white women, white children, and all white people from the barbarian hordes? Or should they simply stay cringing in their homes until the barbarians come for them? I detect some awareness of the insanity of doctrinal nonviolence in some of the European right-wing groups, but I see no such awareness in the American nationalists, who seem to be eternally wedded to their abstract faith in some abstract future state of utopian bliss where giant white brains rule over a kingdom of unequivocally, nonviolent white people. There are some kinists who do not unequivocally denounce violence, because their faith comes from a heart that loves. From those people will come the white resurgence. (2)

The most striking thing about the white nationalists is their hatred of the European peoples’ Christian past. The neopagan regards white men as delusional fools who created a false religion and attempted to ruin the world with its precepts. The tiny minority of white nationalists who attempt to maintain a nominal link to Christianity do so by rejecting the traditional Christianity of the European people and inventing a new Christianity that is more in keeping with the credo of the neopagans. But if the people who took Christ into their hearts were wrong about all the essential doctrines of Christianity and the moral precepts that flowed from those doctrines, such as when to kill and when not to kill, how can we trust anyone else, whether liberals or white nationalists, to be right when they tell us what Christians should believe and how they should behave?

Much of the white nationalists’ fear of white violence stems from their fear of what the liberals will do if a lunatic with a Bible in his hand starts shooting people. They think it will hurt the chances for white nationalists to win elections and “win the people over.” But the question of whether to kill or not to kill must be based on the spirit within. When the heart demands that we fight, we cannot ignore our duty for fear we might be lumped with the Timothy McVeighs and the Anders Behring Breiviks of the world. (3)

There are many different interpretations of Christ’s words about violence: “And from the days of John the Baptist until now the Kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.” I always took those words to mean that we must be passionate about all things pertaining to our faith, passionate in defense of our God and our people. And since we are not disembodied spirits but are in fact human bodies animated by the spirit, we cannot just gnostically condemn evil in our minds, we must also fight evil when it becomes embodied in human beings. Most of us will quite probably never actually fight liberals or the barbarians of color to the death, but if we don’t believe that such a fight is just, honorable, and Christian, we will have denounced God in our hearts and we will lose all those internal battles against principalities and powers. And, which is just as disastrous, we will have created a climate of support for the liberals and a climate of condemnation for heroes of the faith, such as Paul Hill, the first man who shot and killed an abortionist. Had every Christian supported Paul Hill at the time of that shooting, there would have been more dead abortionists and quite possibly a European counter-revolution against the forces of Babylon. But so-called prolifers rushed to condemn Paul Hill for taking seriously the injunction of Christ: “Verily I say unto you, inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.”

The tortured aborted babies and the tortured murdered white people who are being aborted outside the womb by the liberal hierarchies, through their colored henchmen, are “the least of these my brethren,” who should be fought for in the name of Him who calls on us, the Christ-bearing people, to fight for that charity of honor which our European ancestors fought for. If we are to become mere desiccated death heads, talking about nonviolence, Viking sperm banks, and bloodless, soulless, white utopias, we are as nothing. Almighty God, forbid it! The European is not meant for such a destiny. He is Hamlet, he is Tell, he is von Stauffenberg, loving and hating with all his heart and fighting and killing when his heart of fire calls on him to do so.

The mind-forged, foreshortened vision of existence, which leaves out the better part of man, his heart, is the vision of the white nationalist and the liberal, but it is not the vision of the antique European. The old vision of a passionate, Christian people fighting to preserve their faith and their race in the midst of a hostile world is the vision of the European who has not severed his ties to the past. I don’t see any beauty or romance in the competing visions of utopia set forth by the liberals and the white nationalists. Nor do I see the Christ of Europe in those dystopian worlds. As the shadows of utopia lengthen, please Lord, with us abide. +

_______________________________
(1) In many American cities there are all negro zones, where whites dare not go. There is Sharia law in many sections of London where whites are subject to the less than tenders mercies of Moslems.

Why shouldn’t whites form colored-free zones in their cities and in their nations? Apartheid, rigidly enforced, would be a great blessing. Let the colored live with colored and govern themselves and let the whites live with whites and govern themselves.

(2) There are huge tactical problems connected with the use of violence against the liberal leviathan. No white man wants to see white youths launching suicidal assaults on an enemy that will kill them without mercy. But there should be no moral imperative against violence: quite the opposite should be the case. If white men with hearts of fire and the rational capabilities to back up their passion decide to strike the leviathan they should be commended, not condemned.

(3) In Great Expectations, Dickens observes that we always seem most afraid of the ill opinion of people we profess to despise. The liberals are going to lump all white people who want to remain white in the same basket. If they can’t find a true accusation, then they will make up a false one. Living one’s life trying to appease the liberals is not only immoral, it is an impossibility. Instead of constantly assuring the liberals that whites will remain nonviolent no matter what is done to them by the liberals and barbarians of color, why not let the liberals and the barbarians of color start worrying about what those angry white people might do if the violence against their people and the blasphemous attacks on their God do not cease?

Posted in Christian counter-attack, Europeans and Christ, Neo-paganism, Older posts (pre-April 2019), Propositional faith | Tagged , | Comments Off on Resisting the Categorical Imperative

Of Soda Pop and Babylon

Posted on August 31, 2013 by cwny

And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all.  – Revelations 18:21

__________

It’s always surprising, this puppet show of memory. The other day it took me back to my tenth year on earth. I was on vacation in St. Augustine, Florida, with my parents and siblings. Motels were a relatively recent phenomenon at that time, and they provided infinite delight to me and my brother. We ran up and down the outside corridors and counted all the different types of soda in the soda machine. An elderly woman and her husband, both with thick Southern accents, ran the motel. By rights they should have told my brother and me to get lost and stop fiddling with the soda machines, but instead the woman invited us into her office and asked us about our school. When that failed to ignite a spark in us she asked us about baseball.  That worked. I proceeded to babble on about my prowess as a hitter and fielder, piling lie upon lie. Then I had a root beer and my brother had an orange crush, compliments of the management, before going back to our room.

The next day we went to the beach, and we were quite surprised to find the beautiful St. Augustine beach to be completely deserted. Was the water shark-infested? Was the air filled with those hideous green flies? None of the above seemed to be the case, so my family and I had a wonderful day on the beach. On our way back to our room, my father and mother stopped in at the motel office and asked, “Why were the beaches so empty — it was a beautiful day?” The reply: “Some black boys tried to swim on the all white beach the other day, there were fights, and the police had to come and clear the beaches. It will be a few days before things return to normal.”  Obviously, after all these years I can’t quote the exact words of the elderly lady, but that was the gist of her reply.

Then, as he left, my father passed a remark to my mother, which (I’m paraphrasing) amounted to a criticism of Southern whites, “When will these people learn to get along.”

As my parents left, I lingered and heard the woman say to her husband, “They just don’t understand.” Now ten-year-olds are not the sharpest tacks in the human drawer, and I was not a particularly bright ten-year-old, but I did understand two things. The first was that the elderly couple, particularly the woman, had been kind to my brother and me. And secondly, it didn’t seem at all unreasonable to my unseasoned young mind that the blacks should keep to their beaches and the whites should keep to theirs. I could see that my father’s remark had hurt the woman’s feelings, and I felt vaguely responsible. I wanted to say something of comfort, so I stammered out, “I love Robert E. Lee.”

The woman’s reaction took me back. She got all teary-eyed and came around the counter, over to me. “You’re a little darling,” she said as she kissed me on the forehead. I’ve never been one for public displays of affection, so I was not too thrilled about the kiss, but I did have a good feeling when I left the office because I felt I had been of some comfort to the woman who had been kind to me.

Now why do I tell such a story about some obviously “bigoted” Southern people from a bygone era? I tell that story, because those kindly Southern people, born in the 19th century, were Europeans. They were the last of a breed of people that has largely disappeared from the face of the earth, who once inhabited the countries of Europe and various offshoots of Europe, such as South Africa, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States. They were a special breed of people who saw life feelingly. In their blood was an instinctive hatred of all things cruel, ignoble, and uncharitable. They loved and respected the ethos of Christian Europe. “All this from a bottle of pop?” Yes, all that from a bottle of pop. Walter Scott could have walked into that motel office and been right at home with those dear old folks from long ago. One generation later and Walter Scott wouldn’t have known what planet the strange new breed of people were from. And it has been my task, regardless of my fitness for the task, to render homage, respect, and love to those older European people and their culture. They, like the Southern motel owners, have been maligned and spit upon by state, church, and press for so long and so often that words in their defense seem so inadequate in the face of the avalanche of hate falling on them from Mount Liberaldom. But it is natural, in the spiritual sense of the word ‘natural,’ that a European should defend that which is good and true and noble. Even if all the world cries “crucify them” we should stand with the antique Europeans, for they taught us, by their example, what moral beauty is. It consists of fidelity to the Cross of Christ through fidelity to His people. When the Christ story is internalized by an entire people, a miracle of grace occurs. A world languishing in the darkness of paganism sees a great light. Deny those ancient Europeans, cover their culture with calumny and hatred, and you extinguish the light. Burke, who saw with blinding sight, warned us what would happen if we traded the traditions and people of old Europe for the utopian pretensions of a new utopian Europe ruled over by hard-hearted liberal theorists.

But the age of chivalry is gone. That of sophisters, economists, and calculators, has succeeded; and the glory of Europe is extinguished for ever. Never, never more shall we behold that generous loyalty to rank and sex, that proud submission, that dignified obedience, that subordination of the heart, which kept alive, even in servitude itself, the spirit of an exalted freedom. The unbought grace of life, the cheap defence of nations, the nurse of manly sentiment and heroic enterprise, is gone! It is gone, that sensibility of principle, that charity of honor, which felt a stain like a wound, which inspired courage whilst it mitigated ferocity, which ennobled whatever it touched, and under which vice itself lost half its evil, by losing all its grossness.

I’m glad Burke went on to expound on the nature of chivalry by linking it with “that charity of honor.” By doing so he tells us that true chivalry is something much greater than knights and battles and courtly manners. True chivalry is of the heart: it consists of “that charity of honor.” What an apt description of what makes the European unique. If we put it in the context of a Charlie Brown story, it would play something like this:

Charlie Brown: “Isn’t there anyone who can tell me what a European stands for?”

Linus: “I can, Charlie Brown. ‘That charity of honor…’ That’s what a European stands for, Charlie Brown.”

It has been the task of the liberal to set down the old European culture, the charity of honor culture, as backward and hate-filled; backward because the antique Europeans believed in Christ, and hate-filled because the antique Europeans did not believe in the inherent sanctity of the black man. And beginning with the French Revolution, the European liberals have justified all their bloodlettings under the cover of moving mankind forward to utopia. Of course, we never quite get there, because there are always South African apartheidists, segregationist Southern whites, imperialist Englishmen, and right-wing fringe groups who impede the building of utopia. When the last racist white is eliminated, utopia will be ushered in, and we can all dance around the throne of the noble black savage. But wait. I see no white people dancing around that throne. The liberals envisioned themselves surrounded by admiring darkies, thanking them for eliminating all the white racists from the face of the earth. The liberals are mistaken. The noble black savages do not make such distinctions. All whites, be they liberal or not, are to be consigned to the stew pots.

A white man should reject the new kingdom of Liberaldom, because of that charity of honor. Liberaldom was built by the devil and his minions. How can a European have anything to do with it? The pragmatic Europeans, those Europeans who are betwixt and between Liberaldom and Christendom, are trying to survive as part of Liberaldom. But this is not possible. Liberaldom is built on a universalist lie. There is no such thing as a multi-racial people or a multi-religious culture. A man must have one people or no people, he must have one God or no God. The liberal is a man who hates his people and his God, so he turns to the stranger and the stranger’s god, or else he makes a god of the stranger. It may be that the liberal had an unhappy family situation growing up or that at a later period of his life he was denied some job he knew he deserved, but all such family and employment difficulties are not the cause of the liberal’s betrayal of his people and his God. The fault lies in the liberal’s deficiency in the region of his heart. His extreme egotism, his love for his own mind-forged abstract world ruled by his gigantic unappreciated brain, has caused him to banish the love of the pure and noble from his heart so that he can love and adore himself. This is the key to the liberals’ worship of the negro and their hatred of the white. They never have to acknowledge their betters if they demonize the antique Europeans of the past and banish, from their utopia, all present day Europeans who desire to maintain a link to old Europe. In the liberals’ mind the negro is the perfect god. He will be grateful and permit his white subjects to indulge themselves with wine and cheese parties ad nauseum. An academic of my acquaintance (not a friend) hosts an annual wine and cheese party, which is attended by one black couple who are petted and pampered by all the liberal academics in attendance. That, in a nutshell, is the sum total of the liberals’ vision of paradise. Their gods love them and appreciate their sacrifices and reciprocate by blessing them with their presence at those great wine and cheese parties of Liberaldom. One is reminded of Karl Barth’s remark about Feuerbach:  “We have heard Feuerbach speak and we have heard something disgustingly, nauseatingly trivial.” So it is with Feuerbach’s modern day counterparts, the negro-worshipping liberals.

The disgustingly, nauseatingly, trivial fantasies of the liberals would be something to laugh at if they were just the fantasies of a few beatniks in a 1950’s coffee shop, but those utopian fantasies, spawned by Rousseau and his white-hating ilk, have been institutionalized throughout the European world. And they are maintained with the blood of the white man. The colored gods do not know mercy; they only know sacrifice, so the liberals must keep feeding their black gods with more and more white victims. The seemingly endless cycle of white sacrifice will end when men with that charity of honor decide to put an end to it.

The state religion of Liberaldom is negro-worship. We did not come to that state of affairs by accident. Year after painstaking year, the liberals built up their poetic defense of a racially mixed, sexually promiscuous, guilt free utopia, facilitated by scientific advances and presided over by the negro gods. In movie and in print, all moral values stemming from Christian Europe were depicted as retrograde, unscientific, and racist. All values stemming from the new Jacobin faith of liberals were depicted as more humane, more advanced, and infinitely more godly, because godliness in Liberaldom is determined by the intensity of a man’s and a nation’s devotion to the negro.

The idea of moral evolution and the new racial and sexual ethos that goes with it has enthralled the European people for the past century. The pathetic, blood-thirsty fantasies of a few sick intellectuals were institutionalized in France and gradually became the accepted dogma of the Western world. Is this the promised end? Is this what Alfred, Charles Martel, and their everyman counterparts fought to preserve? Let one example suffice for what has been a consistent avalanche of propaganda spewed forth by the enemies of the light: In a movie called Time Limit, made in 1957, the sensitive hero of the movie, who is guilty of treason by the old standards of treason, but not guilty by the new standards of liberal morality, says; “Why is a man only allowed to be loyal to one family, one country, and one religion? Why can’t he be loyal to all families, all countries, and all religions?” Why indeed? Doesn’t that sound very moral and refined? Such an apologia is the basis of the liberals’ poetic. They are the humane ones, they are the godly ones, and the antique Europeans are the inhumane and ungodly ones who would try to stop the moral progression of mankind. But how can a denial of our family, our racial nation, and our God, be a moral progression?

The liberals have successfully implemented their new society in which the negro is ensconced at the top of the pantheon of liberal gods. However, his place there is only guaranteed so long as the poetic of the liberals remains unchallenged. The “Christian” catechisms and theological treatises have certainly proved no match for the liberal juggernaut. But didn’t Christian Europe have a poetic that made liberalism seem like the thing it was, an ugly patch of weeds in a beautiful garden? Why did Christian Europeans voluntarily give up on the great romance? Is the Christ story a great dramatic poem or is it a theological  treatise? Was Christ the Messiah who transformed human hearts with the passion of His heart, or was he a wise Socratic teacher, a professor of morals and ethics? The poetic of mankind’s forward march to racial and sexual Babylon built and maintains Liberaldom. The poetic of Christ crucified, Christ risen as seen through the eyes and felt in the hearts of the European people will bring Liberaldom down. +

Posted in Bred in the Bone, Charity, Chivalry, Defense of the White Race, Liberalism, Negro worship, Older posts (pre-April 2019) | Tagged | Comments Off on Of Soda Pop and Babylon