The Restoration of Innocence, Mercy, and Faith

Posted on September 8, 2012 by cwny

“Endeavouring to persuade the people that they are no better than beasts, the whole body of their institution tends to make them beasts of prey, furious and savage.”  

– Burke

__________

First Burke and then Taine, in their commentaries on the French Revolution, pointed out that the French revolutionaries had a pathological hatred for human beings. While professing to love humanity in the abstract, they hated any genuine manifestation of humanity in individual members of the human race.

This sort of people are so taken up with their theories about the rights of man, that they have totally forgotten his nature. Without opening one new avenue to the understanding, they have succeeded in stopping up those that lead to the heart. They have perverted in themselves, and in those that attend to them, all the well-placed sympathies of the human breast… Humanity and compassion are ridiculed as the fruits of superstition and ignorance. Tenderness to individuals is considered as treason to the public. – Burke

Such was the essence of French Jacobinism and such is the essence of modern liberalism. Burke warned that the death of Robespierre did not end the French Revolution. The snake had been scotched, not killed. And that hideous reptile has now grown to mammoth proportions, making its destruction impossible without the grace of God, which Europeans have ceased to pray for. “I serve the King and the King serves Christ,” is no longer part of the Europeans’ vernacular.

The utopian liberal (a redundancy because all liberals are utopians) builds his castle with the bricks and mortar of unreality. He lives in mortal fear of losing even one brick from his castle of unreality, so he employs masons to keep the castle strong and guards to protect the masons. And the keystone of the liberals’ castle of unreality is the sacred negro. If that brick is removed, the whole castle will come tumbling down.

The black man was not always the keystone of the castle of unreality. Originally the liberal tried using the father, the abstracted intellect. But alone the abstracted intellect could not capture the hearts of men. So the liberal added the son, in the form of the abstraction called ‘the people,’ to the castle of unreality. And to support the son, the holy spirit, science, was also brought into the castle. The son (the people) was always the keystone of Satan’s blasphemous mimicry of the Holy Trinity. Just as the Son of God represented, in His humanity, the highest form of humanity, so did the son in Satan’s trinity have to be the lowest form of humanity. So Satan moved toward the deification of the negro by degrees. The once Christian Europeans needed to worship the lowest dregs of their own people before they could be persuaded to worship the generic black man as the European messiah. But negro worship has come to fruition in Europe, which would seem to indicate from a Christian standpoint that the European people have reached the bottom of the pit and are now in the process of maintaining the pit against all invaders. Why would any European wish to defend a castle which consists of an interracial slime-pit? For the same reason the demons in the gospel wanted to be sent into the swine who plunged over a cliff. They hate the light and worship the darkness. Having lost faith in Christ the liberals need stronger and stronger doses of unreality in order to keep reality at bay.

What we are witnessing throughout the European world is the consolidation of the forces of liberalism. They have banned together to destroy anyone or anything that reminds them of Europe when Christ lived and dwelt among the European people. And who do they run to in their war against God? The descendants of Ham and Cush, whom we were expressly forbid to make our masters. We know neither the day nor the hour, but I often wonder why the halfway-house Christians who are so enamored of Israel because of “prophecies” do not look at the Biblical battle right in front of their eyes instead of the false Armageddon they have invented: The forces of Ham and Cush against the sons of Japheth and Shem. Why don’t those who call themselves Christian gird up their loins for that battle? Because they have not taken off the layers of unreality from their souls. All around them are the unChristian fruits of diversity, but they refuse to see, because in their hearts they have decided to stand with the liberals against Christ. The liberal disease took hold by degrees, but in the end it spread to the spine of the halfway-house Christians, and they, being unable to stand upright, could no longer see anything beyond the liberals’ pigsty. Now they think that racially diverse pig-slime is the only reality. If you suddenly showed them a vision of Christian Europe before it was turned into a pigsty, they would condemn it as a world of evil and unreality and proclaim their liberal pigsty to be the summit of beauty and truth.

A liberal kills all the divine longings in his heart so he can propound the abstract principles of his utopian brain. And with the circular logic of the madman, he always comes back to his own mind as the only reality. He will always find the imperfections of the King he hates and the culture he hates, because there is no perfect King and no perfect culture. But why does the liberal focus on the mote in Louis the XVI’s eye and ignore the log in the Jacobins’ collective eye? Why were the white South Africans condemned for compassionate apartheid and the modern negro rulers not condemned for the bloody massacre of whites and blacks? Why does Tony Blair tell us we must have a racially diverse Britain when racially diverse Britain is diametrically opposed to everything good and decent that used to exist in non-diverse, racially segregated Britain? The answer to all those questions is that the utopian liberal is criminally insane. Devoid of all humanity he uses his brain to support the inhumanity of liberalism, which holds the negro aloft as the holy God of Liberaldom. Is such a faith madness? Indeed it is. The negro worshipping liberal and the Jacobin are spiritually united.

“I must confess,” said he, “that for days I could neither eat nor sleep for excess of joy!” One day a Jacobin in the tribune declared: “We shall be a nation of gods!” – Fancies like these bring on lunacy, or, at all events, they create disease. “Some men are in a fever all day long,” said a companion of St. Just, “I had it for twelve years.” -Taine

Such a frenzy for satanic utopias is hard to maintain. As the faith in white Jacobins and Russian proletariat died, the faith in the colored people, especially the black, grew. Who could doubt, when witnessing the frenzy of the American and European liberals on the occasion of Obama’s election, that the spirit of Jacobinism, which is the spirit of the fallen angel, is alive and thriving in the negro worship of the modern Europeans?

Burke succeeded in turning his own people and the bulk of Europe against the bloody reign of terror. But he failed to convince the European people, after the blood-letting had ceased, just how deeply utopian thinking had penetrated France and Europe. If unchecked it would, Burke maintained, destroy Christian Europe. Every European liberal condemned Burke’s “wild speculations,” and even conservatives to this day claim Burke was “too extreme.” But ‘tis not so. What Burke feared, the destruction of the unbought grace of life, occurred.

I stand astonished at those persons who do not feel a resentment, not more natural than politick, at the atrocious insults that this monstrous compound offers to the dignity of every nation, and who are not alarmed with what it threatens to their safety… This pretended Republick is founded in crimes, and exists by wrong and robbery; and wrong and robbery, far from a title to any thing, is war with mankind. To be at peace with robbery is to be an accomplice with it. – Burke

The rest of Europe made peace with the robbers because they too wanted to spend the unbought grace of life in their own nations. They wanted to build abstract idols and worship those idols. All that was needed for Jacobinism to carry the day was a curb on the extreme blood-letting. Once that diminished, the Jacobin virus was allowed to spread slowly throughout Europe and slowly rot the spiritual spine of the European by killing the provincial virtues: love of family, race and place, and replacing those virtues with a love of abstract universal families, foreign races, and mother earth.

The mantra of liberalism is “always upward and always onward.” Toward what? Have we moved upward? Not in the Christian sense of the word. We have moved downward. We have moved onward though, onward to Babylon. And each stage toward Babylon, being that much further removed from Christendom, is crueler and harsher, more lacking in humanity, than the previous stages. So much so that liberals of former eras, men and women who tried so hard to be progressive and future-oriented, are not even cited or known by their liberal descendants. Bernard Shaw, who hated the British people for not allowing him to replace Shakespeare as the national bard and who attacked God by attacking His people, is an unknown to the modern liberal zombies. Nor does Bertrand Russell, Comte, Feuerbach, or Voltaire rate a hearing among the unthinking, unfeeling breed of modern Babylonians who have no idea that their modern pigsty was the work of centuries. Nor do they know that their progenitors still had some Christian lingerings that prevented them from completely living up to their cruel utopian plans. But we can rely on that no more. The new breed has no Christian lingerings in their soul. They are a final product of years of anti-European madness. Look around you. I have. There is no mercy, no pity in Babylon. The liberals have triumphed, which means Satan rules unopposed.

At the sight of European Babylon there must be a rage within the European that says, “This shall not go on.” Without that rage it is futile to oppose liberalism. One must love that which was lost and refuse to accept its loss. For one shining moment Dylan Thomas spoke for the European who refuses to accept the death of his loved ones and the death of his culture: “Rage, Rage against the dying of the light.” The European who is strong of heart will not leave the satanic liberals and their negro idols in possession of sacred Europe. They will rage against the death of innocence and the death of mercy and faith, until innocence and mercy grace Europe’s green and pleasant land again and faith is restored. Such a restoration is absurd from a democratic standpoint. But that will be the test. When Europeans stop thinking like calculators and start thinking with their blood they will know what Alfred and Tell knew: one man, who loves his people with a love and passion beyond the understanding of the liberal and the barbarian, will start a crusade or shoot an arrow that will eventually defeat the seemingly invincible forces of the utopian liberals and their heathen gods.

Before World War II commenced, King George VI of England read in his 1939 Christmas broadcast to the British Empire the poem “The Gate of the Year” by Minnie Louise Haskins. It was quite appropriate. Britain was already on the way to becoming a full-fledged Jacobin state at the time of that Christmas reading, but facing a world war the King instinctively reached into the past to inspire his people to fight for Britain. Old Britain was an “Into the Hand of God,” civilization, and it was the ethos of that older Britain that would see the British people through the war. We, the last remaining Europeans, are engaged in a war of infinitely greater magnitude than any of the preceding wars. This war is for the survival of the European people. If we refuse to let go of the “into the Hand of God” Europe, the segregated Europe which is religiously and racially non-diverse, we will certainly prevail over liberals who have placed their faith in science and the Noble Black Savage. There is no true strength emanating from such a perverse civilization. If the walls of Liberaldom remain intact it is only because we have not placed ourselves in the hand of God. Once we do so, the love that passeth all understanding will stir us to protect innocence, render the deeds of mercy, and destroy the liberal leviathan. +

Posted in Blood faith, Older posts (pre-April 2019), Restoration of European civilization | Tagged | Comments Off on The Restoration of Innocence, Mercy, and Faith

Strong of Heart

Posted on September 1, 2012 by cwny

You’ll find her father with her, and some more,
Who took the oath with you upon the Rutli;
Bid them be resolute, and strong of heart,–
For Tell is free and master of his arm;

– Schiller’s William Tell

__________

The essential ethos of a civilization is never written in a constitution or any official document. It is too sacred to be written down; it lives in the hearts of the people. For many centuries the ethos of the European people was a Christian ethos. In their hearts the Europeans believed that the touchstone of reality to which all questions of policy and ethics ultimately must be referred was the Man of Sorrows. He was the Hero of Western civilization. And one came to believe in The Hero through the type of hero worship that Thomas Hughes writes about in Tom Brown’s School Days:

And let us not be hard on him, if at that moment his soul is fuller of the tomb and him who lies there, than of the altar and Him of whom it speaks. Such stages have to be gone through, I believe, by all young and brave souls, who must win their way through hero-worship, to the worship of Him who is the King and Lord of heroes. For it is only through our mysterious human relationships, through the love and tenderness and purity of mothers, and sisters, and wives, through the strength and courage and wisdom of fathers, and brothers, and teachers, that we can come to the knowledge of Him in whom alone the love, and the tenderness, and the purity, and the strength, and the courage, and the wisdom of all these dwell for ever and ever in perfect fullness.

An incarnational faith needs men and women who embody the ethos of their God. Men like Alfred, Tell, and Wallace, and women such as Florence Nightingale and our mothers, sisters, and wives of the European hearth, who embodied the ethos of Christianity, pointed us toward Him. The attack on Christ and His civilization starts with an attack on the heroes of Europe because a people who lose their heroes cease to be a people. We live and die with the hero, his aspirations are our aspirations, his God is our God. We love him because in his selfless sacrifice for his people he imitates the sacrifice of Christ at Golgotha. That he is a man with faults makes us love him all the more because despite his faults he rose above the material and the mundane and strove with might and main for his people and His Kingdom come. 

Then the liberal comes along and either demonizes the European hero or abstracts the hero, isolates one of his virtues, and uses that one virtue in behalf of Liberaldom. Let’s take Nathan Bedford Forrest, Lincoln, and Robert E. Lee as cases in point. Forrest traded and owned slaves before the war. After the war he was the first Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan. From the liberals’ point of view he was Satan incarnate (metaphorically speaking, because liberals don’t believe in Satan). During the war and after “That Devil Forrest” was an anathema to the liberals. He was, and is, in liberal lore an unredeemable sinner. Yet to the white people of the South, the last Europeans, Forrest was the hero who stood above them all. He fought for his people to the last gasp, unconquerable during the war and still unconquerable after the war when the South lay prostrate before the seemingly invincible North. Forrest was a true European hero, in line with Alfred, Arthur, El Cid, Tell, and Havelock. In contrast, Lincoln was a new breed of liberal hero. He was willing to do the liberals’ bidding, so he was lauded, but not as a beloved hero who fought for his people, but as a man who fought for the abstract ideals of liberty, equality, and fraternity. The liberal never has any other kind of hero than the Lincoln-type, because the liberal is the man without a country, a man “concentred all in self.” This is the key to the liberal. If you abstract from men only the qualities that fit your abstractions, and then revere and worship the abstraction, to whom are you paying homage? Whom do you really worship? Yourself, of course. Lee was only clubbable as an abstract supporter of abolition and higher education, not as the man who was the defender of his people. And the abstraction process did not start with Northern liberals nor did it stop with them. The Son of God was abstracted from the heart of Europe. In a bygone era, He was the sum product of a theologian’s abstract notion of nature. In subsequent eras, He became Christ the Watchmaker, Christ the Marxist, Christ the Democrat, Christ the End Product of Evolution, and Christ the Negro-Worshipping Social Worker. But in every liberal manifestation of Christ there is no living God, no Christ the Lord who carried our sorrows and was wounded for our transgressions. We must and will have that God, the true God, who comes to us through “our mysterious human relationships,” that the liberals have maniacally abstracted out of existence. 

Every so often I read a “conservative’s” expose of our school system. The conservative tells us of the anti-European bias that exists in the grade schools, the high schools, and our universities. Everything European is considered evil and every sexual perversion is considered ground-breaking and therefore good. All this is true, except I would substitute the words ‘satanic hatred’ for the word ‘bias.’ 

There is one thing that always strikes me as woefully inadequate in the concerned conservatives’ suggested solutions to the liberals’ hatred of all things European. The conservatives always want more democracy! They want Joe Public and Peter Parent to put pressure, through petitions and “turn the scoundrels out’ voting, on the anti-European academics. But even if we assume, which is an unwarranted assumption, that there are members of the public who are against the anti-European educational system, by what stretch of the imagination are we to believe that redemption is to be had from the devil? Are the liberals going to tell us, “Yes, by George, now that you mention it, we are quite biased against the European people; we’ll correct that mistake immediately!”? Of course not. This is not a time for a reasoned, measured response, which we would give to someone with whom we had a mild disagreement on a minor issue. We are dealing with an enemy who we are diametrically opposed to. There can be no dialog, no democratic pleading, with an enemy whose a priori assumption is that you and your people must die. Our race and our soul are one; if the liberals abstract that from us, what is left? There is nothing left. Look to the north, to our past, when the newly Christianized men of the European forests and mountains were not abstracted men. They loved their own race more intensely after their conversions to Christianity. Which is as it should be with us. Nothing good comes from hating your own race. It shows no disrespect to other races when you love your own race above all other races, because a man who hates his own race will be unable to love any race. He will set up an abstracted idol of another race, and make that idol his God, but he will not love anyone of any race. The first great betrayal of his own race renders a man incapable of loving anyone outside of himself and anything that does not serve his exalted image of himself.  The religious justification for the hatred of the white man comes from the theologians of the abstract. If all our mysterious human relationships are suspect because human passions and emotions are involved in those relationships, then what is left? Abstracted reason is all that is left. And abstracted reason needs no body, no blood; it is a disembodied, cosmic thing floating above us and beyond us like a deadly gas. The churchmen, like their big brothers of the Academy, do not have the intellectual honesty or integrity to live in the mind-forged world of their own creation. While denying their own people the right to love their own above all others, they claim the right – because even liberals have human needs and wants – to make the colored people their own. But their love is a twisted egotistic love because of their rationalism. The liberals can “help” the colored people in a way that feeds their self-love. There is no room for God in Liberaldom because no God can enter into a mind-forged world of self-love. 

The first rationalist revolt took place in the Garden of Eden, when Satan reasoned things out with Adam and Eve and convinced them that they would not die when they ate from “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.” And that initial revolt, that passion to live with our own reason outside of God’s love is in us all. When the European people countered that illicit passion with a passion for intimacy with the Son of God, Europe was strong and healthy. When the rationalist serpent entered the church and spread outward the European people took sick and became a death-in-life people. 

Thomas Hughes, to his credit, saw the Christian gentlemen, Battle-of-Waterloo-playing-fields-of-Eton ethos when he attended Rugby under Thomas Arnold and later when he attended Oxford. He, and he alone, was critical of trying to go through life with the Greeks as a guide rather than Christ.

The result of Hardy’s management was that Tom made a clean breast of it, telling everything, down to his night at the ragged school, and what an effect his chance opening of the Apology had had on him. Here for the first time Hardy came in with his usual dry, keen voice, “You needn’t have gone so far back as Plato for that lesson.”

“I don’t understand,” said Tom.

“Well, there’s something about an indwelling spirit which guideth every man, in St. Paul, isn’t there?”

“Yes, a great deal,” Tom answered, after a pause; “but it isn’t the same thing.”

“Why not the same thing?”

“Oh, surely, you must feel it. It would be almost blasphemy in us now to talk as St. Paul talked. It is much easier to face the notion, or the fact, of a demon or spirit such as Socrates felt to be in him, than to face what St. Paul seems to be meaning.”

“Yes, much easier. The only question is whether we will be heathen or not.”

“How do you mean?” said Tom.

 “Why, a spirit was speaking to Socrates, and guiding him. He obeyed the guidance, but knew not whence it came. A spirit is striving with us too, and trying to guide us–we feel that just as much as he did. Do we know what spirit it is? Whence it comes? Will we obey it? If we can’t name it–we are in no better position than he–in fact, heathens.”

–Tom Brown at Oxford

But unfortunately there was another side to the British tradition, a classical, rationalist side that both the Catholic and the Protestant held to, that destroyed Christian Europe. Thomas Arnold wanted to make Christian gentlemen, but there was Greek rationalism in the classrooms which bore poisonous fruits in the next generation. Arnold’s son, Matthew Arnold, was the logical consequence of the ill-fated attempt to fuse Greek rationalism and Christianity. What a despair-ridden, bloodless faith results from such a pairing:

Ah, love, let us be true
To one another! for the world, which seems
To lie before us like a land of dreams,
So various, so beautiful, so new,
Hath really neither joy, nor love, nor light,
Nor certitude, nor peace, nor help for pain;
And we are here as on a darkling plain
Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight,
Where ignorant armies clash by night.

If the romance of Christianity is made into a philosophy, mankind will flee from that philosophy and take refuge in the romance of hedonistic, race-mixing Babylon. It’s a small step from “Dover Beach” to Woodstock:

By the time we got to Woodstock
We were half a million strong
And everywhere there was song and celebration
And I dreamed I saw the bombers
Riding shotgun in the sky
And they were turning into butterflies
Above our nation
We are stardust
We are golden
And we’ve got to get ourselves
Back to the garden.

The poor spiritually crippled children of Woodstock were merely acting out the despair of Matthew Arnold’s “Dover Beach.” The fruits of rationalism are poisonous as our Lord warned us they would be. We have gone back to the garden, to feast once more on the forbidden fruit. The Woodstock generation grew up and institutionalized racial Babylon, which spawned sexual Babylon and legalized abortion. We don’t need to go back to a liberal, utopian Eden, which is in reality a nightmarish dystopia. We need to go back to incarnational Europe, the land of the one true romance of life: The romance that begins in a stable in Bethlehem and ends with The Hero conquering, for the sake of His people, that last great enemy. Look to the heroes of Europe, past and present; they are the men and women who still dream dreams and see the vision of the risen Lord, presiding over His Europe. +

Posted in Blood faith, Christianity: Neither a Theory Nor a Philosophy, Older posts (pre-April 2019), Rationalism | Tagged | Comments Off on Strong of Heart

In Defense of the Racist Europeans

Posted on August 25, 2012 by cwny

The modern democracies of the West, with their philosophies of the stomach and the stock exchange, cannot inspire the people nor protect them. They despise nationhood and despise race. But without our national and racial backbones how shall we stand erect? With quicksands as our foundation how shall we build? How shall we be true to ourselves if we have no selves? Our race is what we are; it is our form. It is our fathers and mothers and brothers and sisters and wives and children. They are the race. How then shall we count it of little worth? Shall we despise our own flesh and blood? Is that what modern democracy is supposed to mean? Is that what Christianity is supposed to mean?

– Anthony Jacob

__________

After the Communist Revolution in Russia, fellow-traveler literature became quite common in the rest of Europe (Shaw, Wells, etc.) just as fellow-traveler literature became popular in the rest of Europe after the French Revolution (Priestly, Price, etc.). A small genre of literature in opposition to the pro-communist literature also developed in the West. That genre consisted of anti-communist literature, often written by former communists such as Muggeridge, Chambers, and Koestler. But with the exception of one lone Englishman, Anthony Jacob, the conservatives never linked their anti-communist views with a defense of the white race. On the surface the conservatives, particularly during war time, sounded very patriotic, but it was all smoke and mirrors. “Defense of Democracy” was all the rage, not a defense of the white race. But a rousing defense of an universalist idea of a generic, mixed race people is not patriotic, it is treason. It breeds the spiritual decadence that the great minstrel sings of: “Breathes there a man with soul so dead…” 

The type of universalist patriotism exhibited by conservative and liberal in the 20th century was only present in the liberals in the 19th century. Men like Havelock and Kipling — the latter was on the cuff between the 19th and 20th centuries — did not equate support for multi-racial democracy with patriotism. Havelock didn’t say, “There are hundreds of democracy-loving people in Cawnpore that we must rescue.” He said, “There are men and women of our own race held captive.” And Kipling did not write of the burden of the multi-racial liberals; he wrote of the “white man’s burden.” If you find a white man in the 20th, and now the 21st century, who will state unequivocally that the defense of his race and the defense of his nation are one and the same, then you will have found a true patriot. 

In our own nation, the great anti-nation of the world, resistance to multi-racial universalism came from the Southern, Burkean conservatives of the 19th century. The liberals of the north were universalists who had only just begun to work out the implications of their universalism. When they started to actualize the implications of universal democracy, they destroyed the divinely fashioned barriers between the races. The non-universalist culture, the South, put up more than just a modicum of resistance, but by the end of the 20th century there were only soul-dead universalists throughout all of Europe and the United States. (1) “O brave new universalist world, How do we love thee,” was the cry of the soul-dead Europeans. 

Fitzhugh warned us that a government was only beneficial if it was conservative. If a government becomes liberal, it ceases to be beneficial; it becomes harmful. Is there a government in any European nation that is trying to conserve the European people and their traditional faith? No, of course there isn’t. Are they legitimate governments if they don’t serve their people, but are instead at war with their people? Again, the answer is – of course not. The European people do not have a government; they have masters who hold them in bondage with the power of an ideology. So long as the white man does not believe the white race is a nation unto itself, he will be in bondage to the devil, who rules through his liberal minions. 

Occasionally a white man or a group of white men complain that they are not being treated equally in Babylon. They say they are being discriminated against. Of course they are; Liberaldom is based on the hatred of the white man. But it is useless for a white man to plead for equal rights in Babylon. Would you go up to brigands, who had invaded your home and thrown you out into the street, and ask them to allow you to live in a corner of the basement of your former home? I suppose you would if you were a modern European, but it would be far better to wait for the right opportunity and retake your house by killing the brigands. 

The post-World War II conservatives had no problem in vilifying FDR for turning Eastern Europe over to the communists, and for his refusal to do anything against good old “Uncle Joe.” (2) But did the post-World War II conservatives ever say anything against the type of race-mixing demagogy represented by Eleanor Roosevelt? “A great many people believe that there should be no intermingling of races… Nevertheless, down through the ages, it has been proved over and over again that this is one of the questions which people settle for themselves, and no amount of legislation will keep them from doing so. This is a question, therefore, that I think we have to leave to individuals, not only all over the United States, but all over the world, to handle.” 

What the 20th century anti-communist conservatives failed to realize was that if you don’t oppose the race-mixing heresy it is useless to try and oppose the communist heresy, because the race-mixing heresy is the bricks and mortar holding the communist-democratic heresy together. The communists and their democratic egalitarian cousins knew and still know that race-mixing is necessary for the triumph of communism and/or democratic egalitarianism. If a man can be induced to marry outside his race, he can also be induced to transfer his loyalties from his kith and kin to a “higher” loyalty, to abstract concepts such as the “proletariat” or “the people” or “humanity” or “the oppressed black minorities.” He will be a cog in the inhuman machine of one of the modern dystopian heresies. Of what use are strictures against communism then if the only people who would be against it, the Christian Europeans of old, have ceased to exist? And hasn’t that been the case? Who really cares about communism anymore? If a man has no loyalty to his kith and kin why should he care about communism? Because it is Godless? That is of no consequence to the modern European. When he severed his ties to kith and kin he also severed his ties to the living God. And the official word from the rulers of Liberaldom is that the Europeans are happy with their new black gods. 

When I was a young man the post-war conservatives were the Old Guard. I went to them for guidance. But as I grew older I realized that the post-war Old Guard were not conservatives. It was their great-grandfathers and grandfathers of the 19th century who were the true conservatives. The modern post-war conservatives were liberals. They had abandoned the fairy tale vision of God, which is found in the Bible and the European bards, for a more scientific view of God and man. And when a man becomes ‘scientific’ he always Gnosticizes Christianity. The belief in the resurrection of the body is changed to a metaphoric resurrection, and a man’s skin color is no longer seen as part of his soul. The Biblical truth, that the wisdom of man is in his blood, is looked on as unscientific and barbaric. The famous liberal, George Bernard Shaw, used to froth at the mouth at the slightest mention of Christianity. How could civilized men countenance a blood sacrifice? If a man’s blood is not part of his soul, then a religion that was redeemed by the blood of the Lamb would be barbaric. But our blood is part of our soul. Our bodies and our spirit are one, and we believe – those of us who remain European — that God intends to resurrect the whole man on the last day. 

The European “conservatives” of the 20th century were flawed conservatives because they did not wish to conserve that which is essential: the European people and their non-propositional Christianity. Instead the conservatives jettisoned the European people in the name of their pet abstractions – propositional Christianity and propositional economics. Run a little test of your own. Start using words like loyalty and honor. Tell people you must remain loyal to your own race, which is why you don’t watch pro football. Or better yet, tell people that you have taken a vow to refrain from strong drink and strong meat until the stain upon your honor, caused by the presence of liberals and negroes in your nation, is removed. Of course you will be committed if you use such language and then suit your actions to your words. But the antique Europeans did suit their actions to such words. They believed in “that charity of honor,” and they believed in loyalty and fidelity to their own race. If we don’t conserve their faith, we have no faith and no nation. 

The managerial conservatives of the 20th century accepted the liberals’ basic premise that a culture based on loyalty to one’s people, defined by their race, was unprogressive and inferior to a culture that was based on a universalist creed. The conservative opposition to communism was pragmatic. “There is no need to kill so many people in defense of a failed economic system. We can give people a better economy without killing quite so many people.” And even on that issue, the slaughter of innocents, the managerial conservatives did not understand that multi-racial universalism, whether it is communist or democratic, always results in the slaughter of innocents. If we tally up the aborted babies and the whites killed by the colored tribesmen who are permitted to live and breathe on sacred European soil, who’s to say that we of the liberal and negro-infested West haven’t compiled a more obscene number of slaughtered innocents than the Russian communists?  The “prejudice” that loyalty and fidelity to kith and kin is the first of all virtues, the virtue which anchors all other virtues, was formed when the Christian faith of the Europeans was at high tide. So why would professed Christian conservatives assume that the ethos of race-mixing Babylon was more in keeping with the Christian faith than the prejudices of their forefathers? Because they were and are divided men, with one foot in the modern world, and one foot in the old world. If they don’t become “racists” they will soon become complete men of negation; they will become holistic liberals. Only those who cling to the prejudices of the antique European racists will be able to stand against the liberal whirlwind. The managerial types of the conservative and halfway-house Christian variety, will be swept away by the liberals.  + 

_____________________________________

(1) The South was not wholly defeated until the 1950’s.

(2) FDR had this to say about Uncle Joe: “He is a man who combines a tremendous, relentless determination with a stalwart good humor. I believe that he is truly representative of the heart and soul of Russia; and I believe that we are going to get along very well with him and the Russian people — very well indeed.”

Posted in Blood faith, Christianity: Neither a Theory Nor a Philosophy, Defense of the White Race, Older posts (pre-April 2019), Scientism | Tagged | Comments Off on In Defense of the Racist Europeans

Bound in with Shame

Posted on August 18, 2012 by cwny

“Light vanity, insatiate cormorant,
Consuming means, soon preys upon itself.”

–Richard II

__________

From first to last, the Olympic Games in Britain were, as the British intended, an attack on Shakespeare’s Britain:

This happy breed of men, this little world,
This precious stone set in the silver sea,
Which serves it in the office of a wall
Or as a moat defensive to a house
Against the envy of less happier lands,
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
This nurse, this teeming womb of royal kings,
Fear’d by their breed and famous by their birth,
Renowned for their deeds as far from home,
For Christian service and true chivalry,
As is the sepulchre in stubborn Jewry,
Of the world’s ransom, Blessed Mary’s Son,
This land of such dear souls, this dear dear land…

Of course the Brits’ televised attack on white Britain was no different from the ongoing attacks on white people and their past that are taking place in every European nation. And the attacks on white people are being led by white people. The colored tribesmen hate the whites, but not with the passion that white people hate white people. It seems contradictory. How can people filled with self-love perpetuate a theology based on the hatred of themselves? We have seen, over the course of the last one hundred years, how liberals deal with that contradiction. They condemn white people of the past and all white people of the present who want to maintain any links to the past. Those whites are evil and must be destroyed. But the new whites, who deny that they are white, can be part of the new Babylon. The ideological support for the liberals’ jettisoning of everything white has already been written. “Scientific” minded liberals write tomes telling us that people with outwardly white skin often have more black genes than negroes with black skins. So you see, white rappers who claim they are really black are simply being scientific. Such delusional logic should tell us that people have passions, for good or ill, and they use their minds to justify their passions. It doesn’t work the other way. 

Is the liberals’ passion to deny their white souls a good passion or an illicit passion? The answer seems obvious. It is an evil passion that will carry the man or woman possessed of it to hell. And the people who anchor their churches and their governments on such an evil passion will have hellish churches and governments. We don’t need to play a game of twenty questions in order to discover the identity of the people who have made the hatred of the white European and the love of the negro the cornerstone of their uncivil civilization.  And where are the liberals? Quick, send in the liberals. Don’t bother — they’re here. 

Conservatives (who by the way are not conservative) are forever perpetuating the myth that a few corrections, a few little tweaks in the system, will stop the downward spiral of the European people. Such reasoning ignores the fact that “the system” of the European people is a system designed by liberals to destroy every last vestige of Christian Europe. It is not pessimistic to state that the Europeans who still regard themselves as a distinct people are a conquered race; it is simply reality. It does no good to deny it because the result of such a denial is despair. The conservative keeps promising an electoral victory that will reverse Roe v. Wade, stop illegal immigration, and restore our Constitution. If he would become a true conservative and see Western Civilization as the incarnation of Christian values, he would see that nothing that ‘stinks’ of European Christianity will ever be permitted in a civilization based on liberalism. But the conservative will never see this because his conservatism, unlike Burke’s which goes back to our Christian roots, is a conservatism that wants to stop halfway down the slippery slope. The conservative who says nay to legalized abortion but yes to feminism and race mixing doesn’t understand the satanic links that bind us to Satan. First comes racial Babylon, which leads to sexual Babylon. Then, once the ethos of Babylon becomes established, the murder of infants and other amoral deviations from Christianity become part of the fabric of everyday life in Babylon. 

We can see in the Olympics the tragedy of Europe. The modern Olympics were started as an attempt to revive the spirit of the pagan Olympic games. But when the post-Christian European tries to return to the paganism of the Greeks, he doesn’t even achieve – if such a descent can be called an achievement – the level of the Greeks. Instead he descends below the level of the pagan Greeks and ends up in the pigsties of Babylon. The European can never return to the Greek idyll. He must be a Christian or a Babylonian. The white rulers and their subjects have chosen to be Babylonians. 

The Babylonian captivity of the Europeans will continue so long as the Europeans remain ignorant of their captivity, calling their captivity the best of all worlds because it is democratic and progressive. But the democracy of swine, who eat, drink, and wallow before they are slaughtered is not a democracy to be admired or emulated. Europeans once had a higher destiny. 

All that was needful to make swine of the Europeans was the liquidation of their past. In their past was a spiritual culture. The antique European felt himself to be connected to his European kinsmen and countrymen by ties of spirit and blood, and through those ties the European felt connected to the living God. If there is no spiritual dimension to man, if his blood is not infused with the spirit of God but is instead mere vegetable matter, then he has no connecting link to those who lived and died before him. Vegetable matter has no kindred and no animating spirit. 

On Walter Scott’s birthday, my daughter played me a “Minstrel’s Lament” for the death of Europe’s greatest minstrel. It was sad because it sang of the death of Sir Walter Scott, but it was also a joyful lament. It was joyful in this sense: Scott sang of the eternal in man, so at his death, men thought of Scott and themselves in the light of the eternal God. And in that light, death is swallowed up in victory. The evangelist tells us that, “He was in the world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not.” The eternal “relevance” of the antique European culture, represented by Walter Scott, is that there were men and women of that culture who knew Him. Our present, anti-European culture boasts of the fact that they know Him not. And the bitter fruits of their proud ignorance are all around us. We live in a pigsty of liberalism, which the liberals have tried to pass off as a tropical island paradise. As one European after another forsakes his past, pigsty Europe becomes more firmly entrenched in people’s minds as the only reality. In such a frame of mind, the modern European looks on even the smallest ray of light from that other Europe, His Europe, as something to be shunned. He thinks, in his demon-possessed mind, the light that shineth in darkness will kill him, so he flees from the only thing that can save him.

For he had commanded the unclean spirit to come out of the man. For oftentimes it had caught him: and he was kept bound with chains and in fetters; and he brake the bands, and was driven of the devil into the wilderness.
And Jesus asked him, saying, What is thy name? And he said, Legion: because many devils were entered into him.
And they besought him that he would not command them to go out into the deep.
And there was there an herd of many swine feeding on the mountain: and they besought him that he would suffer them to enter into them. And he suffered them.
Then went the devils out of the man, and entered into the swine: and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the lake, and were choked.

The further the European sinks into the mire of Liberaldom, the more scornful and derisive he becomes toward the heartfelt faith, and the culture that sprang from that faith, of his European ancestors. The Olympic Games, in which everything that came from Christian Britain was mocked and spit upon was a painful reminder of how our Lord was mocked and spit upon when he was brought before the Sanhedrin.

Then the high priest rent his clothes and saith, What need we any further witnesses?
Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death.
And some began to spit on him, and to cover his face, and to buffet him, and to say unto him, Prophesy: and the servants did strike him with the palms of their hands.

When the pagan Clovis first heard the story of Christ’s crucifixion he remarked, “Oh, that I had been there with my Franks!” Can a European who still has a European heart do less in defense of Christ than a pagan? There are no extenuating circumstances. Modern, post-Christian, interracial, transsexual Europe is satanic in the old-fashioned, now discarded, sense of the word. The liberals are possessed of the devil. And those possessed of the devil will protect their demonic pigsties with the demonic fury of the devil. 

The liberals are now fighting in defense of the established order, because the established order is satanic. Events like the Olympic Games are mop-up actions and warnings. The liberals are putting the mutilated corpses of antique Europeans on display as a warning to anyone out there who might want to become an antique European. But there is always someone who sees past the mutilated corpse to the living, breathing person who still lives in His Kingdom come. The moral beauty of His face and His civilization can never be completely effaced. The moral beauty of the non-liberal Europe will reemerge from the darkness of Liberaldom, just as Christ emerged from the darkness of the tomb. +

Posted in Europeans and Christ, Liberalism, Older posts (pre-April 2019) | Tagged | Comments Off on Bound in with Shame

The Sport of Demon Worship

Posted on August 11, 2012 by cwny

The instruments of darkness tell us truths,
Win us with honest trifles, to betray’s
In deepest consequence.

– Banquo in Shakespeare’s Macbeth

__________

The official word has been pronounced on the Olympics: “Though it is only for two weeks it’s wonderful to see young people from all nations get together in the spirit of harmony and peace, which is engendered by friendly athletic competition.” Even if the competition was actually friendly, and a good deal of it is not, we should ask what end is being served by the “friendly competition.” The answer comes back, “Universal peace and brotherhood is being served.” But is universal peace and brotherhood, even if such a utopian scheme were possible, a desirable goal? The Olympic universal peace and brotherhood is the peace and brotherhood of a Babylonian orgy. The participants might be fairly peaceful immediately after the orgy, because they are tired, but in due time they will seek more of the unhallowed pleasures of Babylon. And they will quarrel, fight, and kill for their share of the limited allotments of the Babylonian pie.

Modern sporting events are the moral equivalent of the medieval morality plays, which were performed on the steps of the church as an extension of the religious ceremonies. Is there any doubt, if we view the “sports” of the modern Europeans, about the irreligion of the white man? The most abject, slavish worship that has ever been seen on the face of the earth takes place in the sporting events of the western world. Sports that do not have black participants are considered lesser sports. And when a white man succeeds in a sport that is dominated by blacks it is assumed that somehow the white’s success is due to prejudice against blacks. Our sports are part ritual, part drama, just like our church services, but the sporting events are purer, from a modern standpoint, in content than the church services because there is less of a Christian hangover at the sporting rituals. Sometimes old Christian creeds, slightly modified, are recited at church services, and some old hymns might sneak into a few services. No such problem in our modern sports. A Christian hangover might linger over some small issues of protocol, but by and large the sporting rituals in the western world have changed from Christian morality plays to pagan religious festivals. And the Olympic games are a syncretistic blend of all the pagan sporting events, which is why they deserve to be called the Babylonian Games or the New Tower of Babel Games.

Since there is a direct correlation between a people’s religion and their sport it should not surprise us that European sports have become less provincial and more corporate. When a sporting event is local and part of the life of a specific race of people living together in a specific geographical area, the sport becomes an integral part of the people’s identity as a people. The sport is not a good in and of itself, it is good because it allows for the dramatic enactment of the religious ethos of the people. In the case of the antique Europeans it was Christian values that were embodied in their sports. Sports were reformed or abandoned altogether according to how well they served the people’s need for dramatic, Christian morality plays. If you doubt for one moment the religious nature of sporting events, just look at how sports’ terms are used in a religious context. ‘When the great score keeper tallies up the score…”, “I’ve run a good race”, and on it goes. Desmond Young made a profound point when he said that the only way to make the English treat war seriously was to make them regard it as sport. Of course, sport is part of a people’s inner life; it must be taken seriously.

The Englishman who said that the Battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton was not being flippant. He was simply acknowledging that a nation teaches its young men, for good or ill, through sport. What are our young men, and our young women, learning from our modern sports? They are learning that negroes are to be worshipped and that loyalty to their race, and the culture that stemmed from their race, is outmoded and evil. Some future liberal historian will declare that the war against the white race was won on the playing fields of the European people. Of course after he pens those words, he too will be liquidated.

If we see sport for what it is — an extension of a people’s religious faith that has far greater influence than a church service, which cannot reach as many people — we can understand why we cannot view sport as something separate from the great liberal hydra that is intent on destroying the white race. Sport is a vital limb of the liberal hydra.

The late John Tyndall, who fought so nobly for Britain, once wrote of attending a football match (what we call soccer) between England and Germany. Naturally as an Englishman Tyndall went to the match in order to root for England, but much to his horror he saw that half the “English” team consisted of negroes. So he shifted his allegiance and rooted for the German team, which had no negroes playing for them on that particular day. Tyndall had the right type of patriotism, the only type of patriotism that is uplifting. He loved a particular people, his own people, not a propositional, generic people with a different race and culture from his own, who were polluting his homeland with their presence. Of course it was the United States that first championed the propositional nation over a kith and kin nation. “There is no black or white, Mexican or Chinese; there are only Americans.” What utter nonsense! Only the white man believes in such a dystopian proposition. The black, brown, red, and yellow people of the earth believe only in the triumph of their race, and the destruction of all other races.

The sporting arm of liberalism uses the same tactics to spread and propagate liberalism as the churches use. The churches place the emphasis on the corporate structure and encourage their devotees to place their faith in the organization rather than a personal God. Using the same tactic in the sporting arenas, the liberals emphasize the organization rather than any specific individuals. No sooner does a modern white child place a picture of his favorite white player on the wall, and his favorite player is traded because it is the corporation that matters, not the individual. And to whom or what is the sports organization dedicated? To the negro, of course. The white child with a favorite white player is encouraged to be loyal to the corporation, not his people, which is why the corporation will try to ensure that only black players participate in corporate sports. Then every poster will have a black god on it instead of a white devil. The Tim Tebow phenomenon of last year, when he was reviled by the liberals and the blacks for being white and popular, was an example of the institutionalized hatred of the white and the institutionalized reverence for the black that is at the heart of all white nations.

It doesn’t matter if a white involved in sports follows all the stated rules of Liberaldom. He will be persecuted and eliminated simply for being white and successful, because the unwritten law of Liberaldom is the essence of liberalism: The white must die so that the black gods can live.

The ongoing hatred and post-mortem skewering of Joe Paterno is another example of the way liberals use sports to destroy whites, even if the whites whom they wish to destroy tried to adhere to all the principles of Liberaldom. Joe Paterno was a liberal! He coached at a college with an interracial football team, and he gave to all the liberal causes. But he was a liberal in a Republican-George Bush sense of the word. As such he was considered too white to be lionized as he was by the ‘God and guns’ people of western Pennsylvania. He had to be destroyed. The Sandusky affair had no more to do with the liberals’ motivation for destroying Joe Paterno than Watergate had to do with the liberals’ motivation for destroying Richard Nixon. Paterno was humiliated and destroyed because he was perceived (and the perception was wrong) to be a conservative white man, just as Nixon was perceived to be a conservative white man (also incorrect) because of his successful prosecution of Alger Hiss.

It’s not possible for the white male to appease the liberal hydra by trying not to be white. Even if he supports the propositional society of Babylon his whiteness will make him an anathema. When the white Americans were held hostage by the Ayatollah Khomeini, he kept harping on the evils of the white Christian West, even though the West had long ceased to be Christian. It’s no matter; so long as whites exist, the enemies of Christ will regard them as the Christ-bearers no matter how often and how vehemently they renounce Christ.

It’s only because I remember Edgar’s warning: “Who is’t can say, ‘I am at the worst’? I am worse than e’er I was…” that I refrain from saying that the white race has hit bottom. I can only observe that white people, as a people, have descended further down the slippery slope of idolatry and devil worship than ever before. Does their downward spiral have an end? It doesn’t appear so; we seem poised for centuries of devil worship through the devil’s proxy, the negro.

Kierkegaard once said that there is a type of martyrdom that comes about as a result of being trampled to death by geese. That is the type of martyrdom taking place in the majority of white hearths. Some whites are dramatically martyred in the streets of Babylon, but most are just beaten down by the relentless anti-white propaganda spewed out from the many-headed liberal hydra. School, pulpit, press, and sporting event all bear witness to the evil of the white man and the grace, beauty, and sanctity of the negro. We should be prepared to defend our people against the violent assaults of the liberals and their colored henchmen, but we should also – and in this the remnant European is woefully inept – be prepared to fight the daily battle, countering the relentless pounding of the liberals with a relentless pounding of our own. The Hamlet analogy — “We defy augury” — is also apropos. The liberals want us to feel that resistance is hopeless because they have the numbers and the magic called science on their side. But we have something purer, nobler, and deeper than the liberals’ magic; we have faith in Him who turns lost causes into triumphs. Even the last great enemy, death, has no dominion over Him.

Resistance to Liberaldom is only hopeless if the European stays on the surface of life with the colored tribesmen and the liberals. If the European seeks the depths, he will find that within which passeth the outward forms of this world. He will find, in the depths of his soul, the true God who will give him the strength to hurl his defiance at the liberals and their black gods. Liberalism is a disease of the soul, and it has become deeply rooted in all the nations of Europe. It would take a miracle to root it out. But we few, we Europeans, who are about to die, believe in miracles. “The sign of the cross, the spirit above the dust.” +

Posted in Fear of racist label, Grazers, Halfway-house churches, Older posts (pre-April 2019), Religion of Satan | Tagged | Comments Off on The Sport of Demon Worship

On Scott’s Birthday

Posted on August 4, 2012 by cwny

Canto Sixth

Breathes there the man with soul so dead
Who never to himself hath said,
This is my own, my native land!
Whose heart hath ne’er within him burned,
As home his footsteps he hath turned
From wandering on a foreign strand!
If such there breathe, go, mark him well;
For him no minstrel raptures swell;
High though his titles, proud his name,
Boundless his wealth as wish can claim
Despite those titles, power, and pelf,
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, unhonored , and unsung.

-Walter Scott

__________

In honor of Walter Scott’s birthday, August 15, 1771, I would like to talk about his enduring value to all Europeans. I know Scott is of no significance to modern Europeans who do not believe that anything or anybody from the past has enduring value, but Scott endures, and always shall endure, in eternal Europe, and that is the only Europe I care about.

“Scott is long-winded,” “Scott is superficial,” “Scott is moralistic,” “Scott is sloppy;” all that and more have been hurled at Scott by the modern, soul-dead Europeans. But all the criticisms of Scott stem from one central premise of the liberals – “The Christ championed by the Europeans prior to the 20th century was not the true God.” So it follows, by liberal logic, that the most European of writers, the most Christian of writers, should be derided and discarded.

Scott’s works serve as a sign of contradiction to the liberals, because they told us that there was no such thing as Christian Europe and that there never were such men as Walter Scott. But when we turn the pages of Scott’s books, we see that there was a Christian Europe and there were such men as Walter Scott.

Scott’s appeal – and he was enormously popular in his day – was not to the propositional Christian of either the Roman Catholic or Protestant churches. Scott’s Christianity went much deeper than the outward forms of the sects. His Christianity was in line with St. Paul’s; it was a Christianity of the heart. The fact that Scott was so widely read in Europe and America, particularly in the South, is an indication that the Europeans of the 18th and 19th centuries still held the Christian God in their hearts.

My contention is that the vision of Christ which is crystal clear in Scott’s novels is the true vision. Scott’s faith is in line with St. Paul, the early Church fathers, and the great majority of European Christians prior to the 20th century. So if we look at the reasons why Scott has been rejected and discarded, we can see the reasons why the true faith has been rejected and discarded.

First, Scott’s Christianity is the fairy tale Christianity of the Bible. He depicts a Christ who comes to mankind through human hearts. The more “intelligent” faith of the medieval scholastics and their modern academic counterparts is not found in the heroes and heroines of Scott’s novels. Certainly there are the great reasoners, such as Louis XI in Quentin Durward, but he is the arch-villain of the novel as are all the great reasoners in Scott’s novels. When liberals say that Scott is just a storyteller without any realistic characters it is because they don’t believe that a portrait of a liberal who has lost faith in everything but his own reason and consequently given himself over to Satan is realistic, because they believe reason abstracted from God is a good thing. And since they do not believe in Satan or his Divine Antagonist, they reject as unrealistic and simpleminded anyone who believes in Satan and his Divine Antagonist.

In modern Liberaldom we search in vain for anyone in the Christian churches courageous enough to believe in the fairytale Christ that Scott and his readers believed in. But if Christ can only be known through the esoteric system-makers, who tell us of a Christ with no resemblance to the Christ of Scott’s Europe, why would we want to worship Christ?

The second feature of Scott’s Christianity is his Pauline belief that charity is the greatest of these. His heroes and heroines all have that charity of honor that Burke writes about. Without charity there can be no honor, and without honor, which encompasses our duties to God and our fellow men, there can be no true charity. Jeanie Deans, the heroine of The Heart of Midlothian, does not walk from Edinburgh to London to beg the King to pardon her sister because she believes the crime of child-murder is of no consequence; that would be a stain on her honor. She goes to London to ask the King to pardon her sister because she believes her sister is innocent of the sin of child-murder. That is true charity, charity with honor. We no longer have any true charity in church or state, because we have separated honor from charity. The willful murder of infants is considered charity, and the betrayal of one’s own people is considered honorable because charity and honor are now separate liberal entities.

The third aspect of Scott’s Christian vision is his provincialism: hearth fire – neighborhood – region – nation. The modern mad-dog liberals and the liberal conservatives are universalists. They love mankind while hating everything that makes a man humane. We learn to love God and man in those small provincial units the liberals condemn. Deprive a man of his hearth-fire virtues: love of family, race, and place, and you produce a cynical, cowardly man fit for treasons, stratagems and spoils. Such a man has no place in his heart for God, because he has not developed a heart. Without the provincial virtues he becomes only a creature of reason like the aforementioned Louis XI:

In this point of view, Goethe’s conception of the character and reasoning of Mephistopheles, the tempting spirit in the singular play of “Faust,” appears to me more happy than that which has been formed by Byron, and even than the Satan of Milton. These last great authors have given to the Evil Principle something which elevates and dignifies his wickedness; a sustained and unconquerable resistance against Omnipotence itself—a lofty scorn of suffering compared with submission, and all those points of attraction in the Author of Evil, which have induced Burns and others to consider him as the Hero of the “Paradise Lost.” The great German poet has, on the contrary, rendered his seducing spirit a being who, otherwise totally unimpassioned, seems only to have existed for the purpose of increasing, by his persuasions and temptations, the mass of moral evil, and who calls forth by his seductions those slumbering passions which otherwise might have allowed the human being who was the object of the Evil Spirit’s operations to pass the tenor of his life in tranquillity. For this purpose Mephistopheles is, like Louis XI, endowed with an acute and depreciating spirit of caustic wit, which is employed incessantly in undervaluing and vilifying all actions, the consequences of which do not lead certainly and directly to self-gratification.

There can never be an “I’ll respect your culture and you’ll respect my culture” peace between a universalist culture and a provincial culture, because a universalist culture is based on a man-made abstraction, while a provincial culture is based on the laws of God. The abstract culture must destroy the provincial culture completely so that the grace of God can never take root in the souls of men.

The grace of God is anathema to the universalists. The French Revolution and the war of Northern aggression in our own country were wars fought to destroy the unbought grace of life that God grants to provincial cultures formed by men with provincial hearts. The current “peace” is the peace of the grave. The liberals believe they have killed provincialism. But those of us who believe as Scott believed know that a hero, in imitation of The Hero, can restore provincialism.

Which brings us to the fourth component of Scott’s Christianity: his belief in the hero. It is the task of the Christian hero to break through, by the force of his spirit, the materialist façade of the world. By his spiritual exertions, he reveals to his people the animating spirit, which has a local habitation and a name, behind the material world. Liberals have no heroes because they are materialists. They have idols, such as negroes, who are the gods of the natural world, and they have systems, which wise gurus explain to their neophytes. But they do not have heroes; heroes come only from spirit-based cultures. Back in the day when liberals even bothered to comment on Scott’s novels, they would cast him aside as “unrealistic” because of his heroes and heroines. But aren’t the liberals making a priori assumptions about the materialistic nature of existence when they condemn Scott for his romantic heroes?

The Freud-Jung dispute speaks to this issue. If you recall there was once a clash of secularist titans. Jung, who was a secular disciple of Freud, broke with Freud on the issue of religious faith. Freud claimed that a man with religious faith was suffering from a neurosis, for which he needed a cure. Jung saw that all his patients had religious longings, so he asked the question, “How can something we all have, namely religious longings, be labeled a neurosis?” Of course Jung never went any further with his findings. He didn’t bend his knee to Christ. Instead he sat in his easy chair and thought about the Oversoul. But the Freud-Jung dispute is pertinent to the hero / anti-hero debate between the European and the liberal. If a longing for the hero, the man who can break through the chains of superficial materialism threatening to strangle his people, is in us, then how can it be an unreality? All my life, for instance, the longing for a hero has been much stronger and more real to me than a longing for an expert with a system. The former beckons me to the mountains where He resides, while the latter beckons me to a materialist hell on earth.

Scott’s novels in which the romance of heroism took center stage became as nothing to the 20th century Europeans because they had crossed a spiritual Rubicon. No more would they think of themselves as men with souls; they now belonged to nature and nature’s gods, the negroes. And the primary concern of the managerial liberal, in every European country, was to suppress any manifestation of the Walter Scott-type hero who would remind his people that they were the spirit above the dust who belonged to the Hero of Heroes and the King of Kings. The treatment of Rommel by the Nazis and the allies during World War II is a perfect example of the hatred the Christian hero draws from the scientistic, managerial materialists who run the Western world. Hitler, who was a demi-god of a materialist state, hated Rommel because he had a following among the remnant of German Christians. In the end the pagan demi-god had the Christian hero murdered, because the satanic demi-god cannot tolerate the Christian hero who is a sign of contradiction to his pagan reign. Throughout the 20th century and continuing into the 21st, no matter what side is fighting the materialist, utilitarian philosophy prevails. The allied forces were just as anxious as Hitler to suppress any manifestations of heroism, lest the people be converted to the true faith:

TO: All Commanders and Chiefs of Staff

FROM: Headquarters, B.T.E. and M.E.F.

There exists a real danger that our friend Rommel is becoming a kind of magician or bogey-man to our troops, who are talking far too much about him. He is by no means a superman, although he is undoubtedly very energetic and able. Even if he were a superman, it would still be highly undesirable that our men should credit him with supernatural powers.

I wish you to dispel by all possible means the idea that Rommel represents something more than an ordinary German general. The important thing now is to see that we do not always talk of Rommel when we mean the enemy in Libya. We must refer to “the Germans” or “the Axis powers” or “the enemy” and not always keep harping on Rommel.

Please ensure that this order is put into immediate effect, and impress upon all Commanders that, from a psychological point of view, it is a matter of the highest importance.

(Signed)

c. j. Auchinleck,    
General,
Commander-in-Chief, M.E.F.

From what the liberals would call “a psychological point of view,” and what we would call a spiritual view, any talk of or stories about the hero must be suppressed because heroism is the stuff the true faith is built on.

A fairytale-esque appreciation of the Christian faith as expounded by our Lord in the Gospels and by St. Paul in his Epistles, a charity of honor that comes from that faith, a provincialism that nurtures that faith, and a love for the hero who embodies and champions that faith, are all woven into one exquisitely beautiful tapestry (and I speak of the highest form of beauty, moral beauty) by my European kinsman and hero, Sir Walter Scott. Just as words cannot do justice to Scott’s vision of Christ’s people, the Europeans, there are also no words that can adequately describe the moral separation between our modern Europe and Scott’s Europe. To hate the former and love the latter is essential if we are ever to be worthy of the people and the God championed by Walter Scott. +

Posted in Christianity: Neither a Theory Nor a Philosophy, Older posts (pre-April 2019), Poets vs philosophers | Tagged , | Comments Off on On Scott’s Birthday

That Charity of Honor

Posted on July 28, 2012 by cwny

In the groves of their academy, at the end of each vista, you see nothing but the gallows. Nothing is left which engages the affections on the part of the commonwealth. On the principles of this mechanic philosophy, our institutions can never be embodied, if I may use the expression, in persons; so as to create in us love, veneration, admiration, or attachment. But that sort of reason which banishes the affections is incapable of filling their place.  – Edmund Burke

__________

Another 4th of July has come and gone. What are we to make of it? Is there anything left for white people to celebrate? I think not; the fire crackers remind us of Macbeth’s gloomy assertion about life: “It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” Surely the tale of liberalism is a tale told by idiots signifying a flight to oblivion.

The conservative liberals and the mad-dog liberals are in agreement that patriotism has nothing to do with race. They think patriotism consists of loyalty to an idea, which in their minds is much more noble than loyalty to one’s people. What seems like treachery to an antique European, namely the betrayal of one’s people, is deemed good citizenship and patriotism to the propositional liberal and his conservative counterpart. At a slightly slower rate than the French, the European Americans and the people of Europe adopted the liberty, equality, and fraternity patriotism of the Jacobins. Now, in the various European utopian states, a man is considered a patriot to the extent that he lives up to the abstract ideals of liberty, equality and fraternity. And such “ideals” always come with the proviso that some are more equal than others. The Haitian negroes were not only equal to the French aristocrats, they were better, because being more “natural” and without any taint of sin from the previous white regimes they were purer and more noble. The liberty, equality, fraternity virus engulfed all the European countries and gradually made the European people into one homogeneous, white-hating unit. All modern, white nation-states believe that genuine patriotism, which is racial, is evil because it is racist, and all utopian, abstract revolutionary ideals are patriotic. “Power to the people…”

We are told that even a man brimming with health has cancerous cells in his body, but the cancer cells are not able to multiply because in the healthy man they are surrounded and kept in check by the healthy cells. It is when the cancerous cells become stronger and more numerous than the healthy ones that a man succumbs to cancer. It was and is that way with the liberal cancer. Rousseau was one cancer cell, Voltaire another, then Darwin, Marx, and on it went until the European people succumbed to the cancerous ideology of Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity. Every white child should be stamped D.O.A. at his birth because the soul-killing ideology of liberalism can lead to nothing but spiritual death.

The death-in-life existence of the white man is in stark contrast to the people of the colored races. Their patriotism is for their race, not for an idea. Mexicans within the United States consider themselves to be Mexicans, not Americans. Arabs in France are loyal to Islam, not France. They will only be patriotic Frenchmen when France becomes Moslem. And so it goes with the oriental, the black, and the red. They are loyal to their race, not to the liberals’ ideal of liberty, equality, and fraternity. While the white-ruling class punishes all manifestations of white racial patriotism, the colored tribesmen practice their own form of racial patriotism, which consists of the elimination of the white race. And for that reason, the fact that the patriotism of the colored tribes consists of the hatred of the white race, I diverge from the white democratic nationalists. They simply want the rights of whites to be respected within a democratic nation of different colored people. But this can never be; it’s part of the false utopian thinking of the liberal ruling class. Only white people can love their own without hating others, because only white people made Christ part of their patriotic zeal for their own people. When you love your people in and through Him, you don’t hate the stranger unless he threatens your own people. Not so the colored tribesmen. They hate and kill for the joy of hating and the love of killing. The white can remain separate from the colored tribesmen, or he can rule the colored tribesmen, but he must never try to be on a basis of equality with the colored. Such equality is called liberalism, and liberalism destroys white people, because the central tenet of liberalism is that white people must cease to exist so that “the people,” who are the colored tribesmen, can live and strive. Who dares oppose liberalism opposes the kingdom of the colored gods on earth, which is being built with the sacrificial blood of the white man. And the white man is willing to sacrifice his blood in order to rebuild Babylon because he doesn’t believe that the soul of a man is in his blood. The abstracted intellect contains all the spiritual sustenance that a man needs. So says the liberal. But why then does the liberal want to mix his blood with the colored barbarians? If the abstracted brain is sufficient to sustain life, why doesn’t the liberal remain with Aquinas and Buddha, contemplating the abstraction called mankind with his disembodied brain? Because rationalistic Christianity, which is liberalism, is not capable of sustaining a people’s faith. Human beings need a faith with blood in it. Unable to believe in the blood faith of his European ancestors the modern liberal seeks to create a new blood faith by fusing his abstracted reason with the blood of the savage. The purest (not pure as in holy) example of the new white religion of intellectualized savagery can be seen in concerts of rock stars like Madonna and the geriatric Rolling Stones rock group. Prancing around in imitation of negroes (Mick Jagger said Tina Turner was his biggest influence) and simultaneously worshipping negroes (witness Madonna) is the essence of white rock music and the essence of the white man’s religion.

About 8-10 years ago I read an article in a British nationalist publication which was written by an American white nationalist named Kevin Strom. The article was written before Strom went to jail. In the article Strom stated that the white man needed a new religion to replace Christianity. Strom recommended a return to the Greek religion. Nothing new there. Anti-European intellectuals throughout the Christian European era have advocated a return to the halcyon days of the Greeks. But the utopian intellectuals see a Greece of their own invention. They see themselves eating feta cheese salads and drinking Greek wine while they pontificate to willing devotees of both sexes, who in return for the wisdom of the Olympian utopians will render their bodies to the intellectual giants. It is a totally earthbound religion, the religion of the utopian intellectuals, that ignores the Sophoclean heart of the ancient Greek culture. “Without a redeemer, a God-Man above the philosophers and the heathen deities, we are lost.” But they were not lost. The God that Sophocles longed for came and gave hope to men who loved Him enough to call on Him by name: a hope that the dragons of paganism and the demonic ‘other’ behind the abstracted intellects of the philosophers could be defeated.

We haven’t strayed from the point. The reason white people are propositional patriots instead of “my people, my race” patriots is because they are propositional Christians. Two armed theological camps, the Protestants and the Catholics, measure a man’s faith by his adherence to their propositional theologies. Individual human beings and distinct racial groups are as nothing to propositional theologians who have abstracted God into a miniature automaton who comes out of a mind-forged box to bless the Abstracted, Interracial, Interdenominational Church of the New Babylonian Dispensation, the A.I.I.C.N.B.D. Their petty quarrels and managerial madness have used up the unbought grace of life that the Europeans received from a loving God. We need to seek that God of infinite mercy and grace again. He comes to us in and through His people.

Every celebration of European “patriotism” is in reality a celebration of the death of European civilization, the only true civilization that ever existed. On the 4th of July, European-Americans celebrate their right to commit suicide in the New Babylonian World Order. In France they celebrate the same right, with different ceremonies, on Bastille Day. I don’t know on what specific date the British people chose to celebrate their extinction, but I know they celebrate their own demise. If I needed further proof of that fact I certainly got it when I saw a British Olympic official on the BBC. The British official told the reporter than it was “absolutely essential” that the international audience of the Olympic Games should see a multi-racial Britain. Why? Because white people worship colored people and hate their own people. That is the “essential” dogma of the Europeans.

The existentialists of the early and mid-20th century were right to reject the propositional theology of the Christian Churches. A false proposition about God is worse than a denial of God. But there is something more in keeping with existentialism than atheism. It is faith in the God who exists in the existential depths of the human heart. From faith in that God came the culture of honor, chivalry, and love that all Europeans who have not renounced their blood still revere and will champion in spite of doom:

Oh! What a revolution! and what a heart must I have to contemplate without emotion that elevation and that fall! Little did I dream when she added titles of veneration to those of enthusiastic, distant, respectful love, that she should ever be obliged to carry the sharp antidote against disgrace concealed in that bosom; little did I dream that I should have lived to see such disasters fallen upon her in a nation of gallant men, in a nation of men of honour, and of cavaliers. I thought ten thousand swords must have leaped from their scabbards to avenge even a look that threatened her with insult. 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. – Burke

Amongst thousands of remarkable phrases that I find in Burke, the phrase, “that charity of honor,” strikes me as the best description of the antique European civilization. ‘Who would be wedded to hell,’ asks Shakespeare’s Gremio. The modern Europeans would. They have turned from the charity of honor civilization and embraced the civilization of hell, which is embodied in the unhallowed halls of academia. “But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved,” our Lord assures us. Grace, once spent, is not like money. It can return if we ask Him to send us the grace to fight for His nation and our people. True white patriotism comes from a love of the European hearth and the God who presides over that hearth. +

Posted in Older posts (pre-April 2019), Propositional faith, Rationalism | Tagged | Comments Off on That Charity of Honor

Into the Hand of God

Posted on July 21, 2012 by cwny

And is then example nothing? It is every thing. Example is the school of mankind, and they will learn at no other. This war is a war against that example. It is not a war for Louis the Eighteenth, or even for the property, virtue, fidelity of France. It is a war for George the Third, for Francis the Second, and for all the dignity, property, honour, virtue, and religion of England, of Germany, and of all nations. – Edmund Burke

__________

When Jim Webb was writing as a former naval officer, not as a government official, he wrote an article stating his heartfelt opinion as to why women soldiers should not be used in combat. He was attacked by the liberals for his opinions. Once Webb became a government official, he changed his mind about female troops in combat. He was then lauded by the liberals for his “growth.” Chief Justice Roberts came to the Supreme Court as a Bush appointee and a “conservative.” As such he was, in the eyes of the liberals, a very bad man. But then the strict constructionist voted for Obamacare and he, like Webb, became a man of integrity who had “grown” during his tenure in office. He saw the liberal light. Even more recently a “conservative” columnist named David Blankenhorn, who used to be an outspoken opponent of gay marriage, decided that gay marriage was a wonderful thing. Need we add that Blankenhorn was lauded by the liberals for his new-found “integrity”? I could supply hundreds of examples of sudden growth by conservatives. It seems to be a very common phenomenon.

When I was in my early teens I remember seeing an ad for a Kim Novak movie (I realize I date myself by mentioning Kim Novak), which asked the question, “What strange power does she have over men?” It was pretty obvious, even to a fourteen year old boy – or maybe especially to a fourteen year old boy – what power Kim Novak had over men. It’s just as obvious what strange power the mad-dog liberals have over the liberal-conservatives. They hold the keys to wealth, power, and popularity because they are the rulers of the European people. It might be possible to obtain wealth without being a mad-dog liberal, but power and popularity in large doses are not attainable outside the kennels of the mad-dog liberals. And since the conservative-liberal is not really a principled conservative in the Burkean sense of the word, he can quite easily be seduced by mad-dog liberalism, just as the men in the old movies fell victim to the seductive charms of Kim Novak.

With the exception of some demented sickies such as Newt Gingrich, who is power mad to an extraordinary degree, the treachery of the conservative-liberals seems to be motivated by a fear of being unpopular. Of course in a democracy, which has obtained sacred status in the European nations, one’s popularity is connected to wealth and power. When an unpopular politician loses an election he also loses wealth and power. But that still doesn’t explain why politicians, who already have wealth and power and no longer have to worry about reelection still behave like cowards in order to avoid unpopularity.  Ronald Reagan was a classic case in point. There was absolutely nothing to prevent him from pardoning Oliver North, who had run afoul of the liberals because he served his President and his country, except for Reagan’s fear of being unpopular with liberals who wanted a witch-hunt show trial. It was the same with Reagan’s prolife stance. He could have personally attended the prolife rallies, instead of phoning in his “support,” and given a rousing fight to the knife speech, except for his fear of being unpopular with his liberal wife and liberals in general. I’ve also observed this fear of being unpopular with liberals in tenured, conservative academicians and ‘job secure for life’ clerics who profess to be appalled at some of the uglier manifestations of liberalism, such as liberalized abortion.

I once saw a journalist’s interview with a movie director who had a reputation for being an actor’s director, a director whom actors liked. The question posed to him was, “How did you become an actor’s director?” His answer? He told a story about one of his early directorial jobs in which Orson Welles was the star of the movie as well as the screenwriter for the movie. One day in the middle of a scene Orson Welles stormed off the set and went to his dressing room. Of course the young director went to Welles’ dressing room and asked him what the problem was. Welles asked the director, “Who’s the star of this picture?”

“You are, Orson,” the director replied.

“Am I doing a good job?”

“Of course, you are, Orson; you’re doing a magnificent job.”

“Who wrote the screenplay for the movie?”

“You did, Orson.”

“Is it a good screenplay?”

“Yes, it’s a great screenplay.”

“If I’m doing a magnificent job acting and I wrote a great screenplay, then why haven’t you told me about it and praised me for it.”

“But, Orson, I thought you knew you were excellent and the screenplay was great. I didn’t think you needed to be constantly praised for your work.”

Welles’ reply was quite interesting, and I think it applies to academics, clergyman, and politicians as well as actors. Welles told the young director that all children want praise for everything they do, no matter how seemingly insignificant what they have done might seem to the adults around them. And children in a loving home usually get that exorbitant praise, but most people, Welles maintained, as they grow up realize that they can’t expect the world to fawn over them and constantly praise them for everything they do. The actor or actress is different. Something happened to them inside; they never lost the desire to be constantly praised and fawned upon. The young director never forgot what Welles told him and consequently he became known as an actor’s director.

Actors, academics, politicians, and clergy might have a more obsessive need to be loved and adored than other people, but I think we all desire to be popular and appreciated by as many people as possible. It’s a very human desire and not necessarily an evil one. Unless – and the ‘unless’ makes all the difference – a man sacrifices his soul in order to be liked and adored by the multitude. Because a man, if he is a man, must have causes and people he loves whether or not they are popular. “Though all the world betray thee – One sword at least thy rights shall guard, One faithful harp shall praise thee,” must be the stance of a real man, a European man, vis-à-vis the things he loves. In my judgment the most damning thing that can be said of a man is that he doesn’t love anything or anybody deeply enough to love in spite of the hatred of the multitude. And that is the condemnation I hurl at the modern halfway house Christians and their secular counterparts, the conservative liberals. They do not love antique Europe and antique Europe’s God enough to forsake the fawning favor of the liberals, who call all loyal Europeans racist, in order to fight the unpopular and lonely fight for Christian Europe. “You can’t condemn them for wanting to be popular,” Mr. Smooth-it-over Easy tells me. But, to paraphrase Scott-King, “I can condemn them and I do.”

Let me go back to the Kim Novak analogy. Every civilization, including the vaunted Greek civilization of antiquity, could not handle the sexual aspect of man’s nature. The pagans tried to regulate sexual activity by incorporating it into their religions, but they never could elevate their civilizations to a level where men saw that sexual pleasure was only a minor component in a larger, divine plan for mankind. I’m not naïve about the failures of Christian Europeans to completely rise above the pagan temptations, but if we take Christian Europe for all in all, there is incontestable evidence that the Christian Europeans did what the wisest pagan sages considered impossible: by loving in and through the incarnate God they spiritualized human love without Gnosticizing it. Of course no modern European believes that such a Europe, a Europe that transcended paganism, existed. Having violated the pact between God and man, to use God’s gifts as God intended them to be used, the modern Europeans cannot conceive of a people who could transcend paganism.

The pagan, cosmic temptation, to lose one’s soul in the impersonal force of sexuality, was only conquered by the Christian Europeans’ passion to make human love and love for the living God an incorporate union. The modern Europeans’ desire to conform to liberalism and by conforming obtain the popularity that mortal men crave is the result of removing mortal love from divine love. Only a love for a personal God and the civilization that came from that love could turn a man away from the pursuit of vain glory and unlimited sexual pleasure.

In the absence of any personal attachment to the God and people of Christian Europe, the modern European will never leave the liberal pigsties of popularity. All his better instincts will be killed in their infancy because he will be afraid that if he follows his nobler instincts, he will be cast out from the company of his fellow men and from the love of God. And the last point is the key point. Only a man who feels that God is with him (if God be for me who can stand against me?) can stand alone against the world. So long as the European everyman accepts the mind-forged doctrine which says that God can only be known through a closed system presided over by clerical boogey men, he will remain mesmerized and emasculated by liberalism, because our churchmen tell us that their systems are all in all. And the all in all of a closed system, man-made Christianity is liberalism. (1)

A man needs to have faith in the living God rather than the parchments of a perfect constitutional system or a perfect religious system. Satan wants the Europeans to engage in endless debates about the best systems in politics and religion. And the Europeans have fallen into Satan’s trap. What Satan doesn’t tell the Europeans is that the living God is not to be found in their closed systems that they so proudly proclaim to be the truth and the way. The living god is above systems and the pygmy minds who invent systems as a replacement for God. If we accept the mind-forged world of the system makers we will never have the faith in God that is necessary to stand alone against the liberals, because the God of the system makers is subject to the rules of the system. If the system makers declare that Christ is subordinate to a natural world order dedicated to the worship of negroes, the man who doesn’t have faith in God instead of a system that encompasses God will ultimately become – even if he resists at first – a devotee of the Noble Black Savage.

The great divide between the antique Europeans and the modern Europeans is strikingly clear to anyone who steps away from the world of systems and enters the world of the Europeans of old. They, the Europeans who lived in the Europe of the living God, felt that God revealed Himself through His people. He spoke directly to them and he cared about what happened to them collectively and personally. As a result of that “rather odd” (from a modern standpoint) view of God, the antique European was not afraid of the dark because he knew that his God was with him and his people. Minnie Louise Haskins speaks for the Europeans who believed in a God above and beyond all systems.

I said to the man who stood at the gate of the year, ‘Give me a light that I may tread safely into the unknown.’
And he replied:
‘Go into the darkness and put your hand into the hand of God. That shall be to you better than light and safer than a known way.’
So I went forth, and finding the Hand of God, trod gladly into the night. And He led me towards the hills and the breaking of day in the lone East.

It’s one of the many paradoxes of the spiritual life. A man must not be afraid to stand alone against the world, with only his faith in his Redeemer, before he can discover that he is not alone. Faith builds upon faith, which is why one man with faith in the Christ who knows not systems can truly move the mountains of Liberaldom from the green and pleasant land of Europe. +

___________________

(1) The reason all resistance to liberalism fails is because the conservatives with some decent instincts, such as the Tea Party people, never attack the central faith of liberalism, which is the cult of the Noble Black Savage, because they fear the condemnation of the religious boogeymen who have transformed European Christianity into a nature religion centered on the worship of negroes.

Posted in Christianity: Neither a Theory Nor a Philosophy, Europe as the Christ-Bearer, Older posts (pre-April 2019) | Tagged | Comments Off on Into the Hand of God

The Rulers of Babylon

Posted on July 14, 2012 by cwny

And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth. –Genesis 11:4

__________

For nearly a century now the European people have been ruled by liberals. What can we say about them? Certainly nothing good. They are the most inhuman, cruel, tyrannical people that have ever walked the earth. And yet the liberals do not see themselves as cruel, inhuman tyrants. Why don’t they see what is obvious? They don’t see the obvious because they have reduced all of life to an abstraction. They never see individual human beings suffering terribly under their regimes because they have only an abstract idea of humanity that they lovingly caress in their own minds. They desire to help an abstract concept of ‘the people,’ which to them is all of humanity, and to reap the applause of ‘the people’ for their great benevolence. So the liberals keep “helping” their abstract, generic people while opposing all the ‘enemies’ of ‘the people’, and those ‘enemies’ are the real flesh and blood human beings that inhabit this earth. Any appeal to the liberals’ compassion from non-liberals will not only fail, it will bring the wrath of the liberals upon the appellant, because the liberals do not want anyone to challenge their abstract ideal of humanity and their vision of themselves as the great benefactors of humanity.

In the non-abstract world called reality there is no doubt that aborted babies are human beings, but for over thirty years the liberals have steadfastly resisted appeals on behalf of the murdered infants and the infants about to be murdered. All attempts to persuade the liberals of their cruelty and inhumanity are futile because they don’t recognize the humanity of the babies in the womb or the humanity of those who plead for them. It is the same with the slaughter of white people and the systematic eradication of their culture. No appeal to the humane instincts of the liberals will stop the extermination process because the liberals, having no genuine humanity, only an abstract idea of humanity, do not look on white people as human beings. Like Robespierre the liberals recognize only a small group of people as truly human. For Robespierre it was all the low class scum who fawned on him, and for the liberals it is the negroes.

The revolution goes on, but the ‘chosen few’ have changed. The concept of ‘the people,’ those persons who are designated as genuine human beings, has narrowed. Now it is only the colored races, with the negro taking precedence (some are more equal) that constitute humanity. And it is striking and very revealing to see how completely estranged, even those cohabiting, the black and the liberal are. The liberal doesn’t see the real black man; he sees only his abstract notion of a black man, and all that the black man knows of the white liberals, or cares to know, is that they are easy prey.

A culture based on a false abstraction, the belief in the Nobel Savage, cannot provide the spiritual sustenance to a people. White people are becoming extinct because they haven’t the spirit to survive. When the entire Western world becomes like Academia, where the abstraction rules, the white man will cease to exist, and the negroes, who are sustained by the white race, will become beasts of burden for their rival colored races. Having never been Christian, the colored rivals of the black race do not have the post-Christian disease. They do not view the black man as a Noble Savage.

When I was growing up a low budget movie called The Blob was popular. It has remained a popular movie to this day and can be seen on many of the old movie channels. It is difficult to see why The Blob remains so popular as it has no substantive plot. But then again, liberalism has no substantive plot and it remains highly popular. The Blob, who is the title character, starts out as a small, sticky, inhuman substance and grows, by feeding on people, into an enormous mass of inhumanity that needs to constantly feed and grow in order to survive. Hmm… is the Blob a metaphor? Yes, I think it is. That monstrous mass of inhumanity is what we now call liberalism. Within that mass of inhumanity is what is left of individual human beings. But they choose to extinguish their humanity and become part of an abstract monstrosity that has an overwhelming need to make all of humanity part of itself, the Blob.

About six months ago, I got one of those hideous summons to appear in court for jury duty. Since the summons came with a threat for non-compliance, I complied. Different courts use different methods of weeding out the undesirable jurors. Some courts get rid of the undesirables before selecting the jury, while others select the jury and then dismiss those who don’t pass muster. On this occasion the lawyers first picked the jury and then questioned them. I was selected as a juror, but then the questions began. Does anyone here know the defendant? Does anyone here know the defense attorney? And so on, and so on. Quite basic stuff. Then came the big question, at least from my point of view. “Does any member of the jury feel that they could not follow the judge’s instructions if his instructions went against their own personal beliefs?” I immediately responded: “My conscience does not belong to the judge. Of course, I’d go with my personal beliefs against the judge’s instructions.” I was on fire to continue; I wanted to go on about a morally bankrupt nation that gave legal sanction to the murder of infants. From there I wanted to talk about the necessity of making man’s law conform to God’s law. The judge was having none of that though. Despite the fact that he had debated with all other potential jurors who had brought up misgivings on lesser topics, he dismissed me immediately without any discussion.

The judge’s survival instincts were functioning properly. A government with no moral basis dare not allow courtroom discussion of the moral undergirding of its laws. As I was leaving the courtroom, I thought of Burke’s proud statement about the once great nation of Britain.

We are not the converts of Rousseau; we are not the disciples of Voltaire; Helvetius has made no progress amongst us. Atheists are not our preachers; madmen are not our lawgivers. – Burke

Ah, there’s the rub. We now are the converts of Rousseau, and madmen now are our lawgivers. Just as the satanic regimes of the French Jacobins and the Russian communists needed reams and reams of legal documents (90% of the Jacobin lawmakers were lawyers) so does our present government try to mask its moral illegitimacy by setting up a kingdom of legal documents. What kind of people do such governments produce? They produce an inhuman Blob of soulless people. I think many of those potential jurors, if you talked to them privately, would have assented to the proposition that God’s law trumps man’s law. But they would never apply that to their own country. Reared on the assumptions that what is lawful is right, and that a man’s religion is a private matter independent of the law, the seemingly human jurors became mesmerized zombies in the face of that triple-turned whore called ‘The Law.’

In reality all people structure their laws according to their religious faith. The liberals put forward the lie that liberal law is not religiously based so that they can keep the few remaining Christians out of the public debate. What kind of man agrees to leave his faith behind when deciding matters of great importance? A nothing man. All governments of the European world are now based on an inversion of the Christian faith, an unholy trinity that we encounter in every aspect of our lives: The Father – the abstracted intellect, The Son – the negro, and The Holy Ghost – science. All white children are taught the liberal faith, and they learn to practice it as they pass from childhood to zombiehood. The negroes? They hear of their divine status from cradle to grave.

It’s important to see that the liberals are conquerors. They have done to Europe what conquerors do. They have destroyed all that once sustained the culture they conquered. In religion, politics, law, and in civil society all vestiges of Christian Europe are gone. The fight must be to restore Christian Europe and destroy all vestiges of Liberaldom, not to beg the liberals for breathing room in Liberaldom. But the internal work against principalities and powers that St. Paul writes about must be done first, or all is done in vain. Superficial Christianity soon becomes liberalism:

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. The humour, however, is not general.    -Burke

We need to ask our modern liberal Jacobins what Burke asked the French Jacobins: “Having destroyed the old order, whose laws stemmed from the Christian faith, on what principle do you propose to base your laws?” And of course their answer to Burke was an abstraction called Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity presided over by a whore called Reason. And our modern Jacobins are of the same spirit. In their minds, which are abstracted from reality, they believe in a racially blended world, sustained by science and presided over by the negro.

A world such as Liberaldom, which is opposed to reality, must have cradle-to-grave propaganda. The great push for a universal educational system from which “no child will be left behind” is a thinly disguised program to make every white man, woman, and child denounce their European rights of memory and consign their souls, which are white, to the devil.

From approximately 1914 to 1965 the great bulk of Europeans had forsaken the Christian faith. But during that time period the great bulk of Europeans still believed in the ethical system that stemmed from the Christian faith. Race-mixing was not rampant, abortion was illegal, and feminine virtue was honored. But an ethical system cannot survive long without the faith that created it. In the second half of the 20th century we saw the collapse of the ethical system which came from Christianity. Race-mixing became holy, abortion became legal, and female promiscuity and sluttishness were considered wonderfully progressive and ground-breaking (witness Madonna cavorting at the Super Bowl). There are no adequate words to describe such a moral collapse. It is a tragedy that only Shakespeare could describe. There is only one benefit from the death of the ethical system that was the result of a Christian hangover. The one benefit is clarity. When non-Christian Europeans of the Christian hangover era shared the same values, if not the same faith, as European Christians, it was much more difficult to do battle with them. But now, when the New Age heathens regularly worship at the altar of the negro gods and revel in the fleshpots of Babylon, it is easy to see that the sword must be drawn and the battle joined. Who, having known His Europe and having seen the liberals’ New World Order, would ever sheath his sword until Liberaldom is destroyed? +

Posted in Jacobinism, Liberalism, Older posts (pre-April 2019), Rationalism, Scientism | Tagged | Comments Off on The Rulers of Babylon

Honor-Bound

Posted on July 7, 2012 by cwny

These are not natural events;
they strengthen
From strange to stranger.

-The Tempest

__________

I recently saw a televised debate between a mad-dog liberal Democrat and a liberal-conservative Republican. They were debating Obamacare. The liberal-conservative, who seemed to have actually read Obama’s health care plan, quoted chapter and verse from it and told the viewers why the plan would be bad for the American people. The mad-dog liberal did not deem to answer one single point raised by the liberal-conservative. Instead, he simply played the race card. All opposition to Obama’s health care plan was racist, case closed. The liberal-conservative had all the wind taken out of his sails and spent the rest of the debate defending himself against charges of racism.

I turned off the debate, which was no longer a debate but a televised show trial. The conservative-liberal was desperately trying to defend himself against the charge of Racism. And wasn’t that show trial a mini-preview of the upcoming Presidential election? Romney will make some critique of one of Obama’s programs, and the mad-dog liberals will turn the tables on him with the race card. And Romney will run and hide under the bed. As Yogi Berra once said, “It’s déjà vu all over again.” It’s the old infallibility debate. During John Paul II’s reign of terror, the papolators squelched all opposition to John Paul II’s liberalism by playing the Pope card, just as the mad-dog liberals trump all opposition by playing the race card in defense of Obama. What will happen when a black man becomes Pope? That could cause a schism; there will be two Popes.

Maybe the time will never come when we have two Popes, but let’s not delude ourselves about the fact that we do have a black Pope. Obama’s election and his continuance in office is the result of the religious fervor of white Americans. If white people did not worship the Noble Black Savage, Obama would not be our Presidential Pope.

If by some chance Obama should lose the upcoming Presidential election, the liberals will become sedevacantists. The throne will be vacant, so they will worship and obey a composite collection of black Popes from the past and present, such as Martin Luther King, Jr., and Nelson Mandela. And they will continue to clamor for a new black Pope to fill the vacant throne because in the eyes of the liberals a white man is, by virtue of his whiteness, a heretic outside the ken of humanity. In Liberaldom only the colored races are considered fully human. The upcoming election will not change the religion of the white race. Whether Romney wins or Obama wins, the worship of the negro will continue to be the state religion of the European people.

Ronald Reagan was not precisely correct when he called the Soviet Union the “Evil Empire.” The Soviet Union was an evil country within the evil empire of Liberaldom. Every modern European nation is part of that evil empire and the evil empire acknowledges the negro as God. The edifice of negro worship is science. If you criticize science you are considered a Luddite who is against life-saving advances in medicine. But science is so much more than some practical inventions that have helped men to adjust to their natural environment. Modern science is a monstrous man-child that has turned against his parent. It is one thing, which is far from harmful, to look at the world of nature in order to see how human suffering can be alleviated by obtaining some mastery of the laws of nature. It is quite another thing to try to scientize God, to make Him into a God who is confined within a natural process called nature. The “educated” men — and all Europeans believe themselves to be educated men – do not believe that the visible material world of nature is a pale reflection of a far greater spiritual world. They believe in a world of fact and science. Thomas Gradgrind’s philosophy of education has become the credo of the modern European:

“Now, what I want is, Facts. Teach these boys and girls nothing but Facts. Facts alone are wanted in life. Plant nothing else, and root out everything else. You can only form the minds of reasoning animals upon Facts: nothing else will ever be of any service to them. This is the principle on which I bring up my own children, and this is the principle on which I bring up these children. Stick to Facts, Sir!”

A world of fact and science needs a god who is of this world only. That is why the future-oriented “intelligent” men such as Voltaire and Rousseau, choose to worship the Noble Savage instead of Christ. But such a horrendous falling off, from Christ to the Noble Savage, is a return to paganism. The liberal envisions some kind of synthesis of the Greek intellectual tradition with the earthiness of the vital and natural people of the colored races: “They’re so authentic.” Wine, cheese, avocado dip, and couples of every color and sex pairing off for moonlight trysts under the spreading palms. Such are the fantasies of the liberals. But it doesn’t happen like that. Since the coming of Christ the light is greater, but so are the shadows. It is all or nothing for the white man. He can’t have just a little bit of paganism, a nice pleasant Greek idyll. The idyll will quickly become a nightmare from which the white man will be incapable of escaping. He feels the void in his soul, but he does not seek to fill the void in his soul by repentance. Instead he goes deeper into hell. The paganism of the Greeks is on the outer circle of hell; the post-Christian white man feels driven to go further down and closer to Satan. He is like a drug addict who needs larger and stronger doses of his drug in order to keep reality at bay. And sadly the reality of Christ crucified, Christ risen that the white man wants to keep at bay, is the only reality that will cure the white European. Until he looks up and seeks the light, he will continue to make his descent into hell with the demons of black barbarism scourging him every inch of the way.

The modern European world has a nightmarish quality to it because there is no room in the nations of Europe for the people and the culture of Europe. If you go out into a major European city you will see large groups of colored barbarians determined to infuse their cultural values of rape, murder, and mayhem on the Europeans. If you wander into a European church, any denomination will do, you will not hear anything about the Christ of the European people. You will hear of the social worker Christ who died to make future generations free to worship the noble black savage. And lest you think you will escape from your nightmare into leisure sports, the liberals have made it clear that all sporting events must be connected to the religious life of the people, so no sporting event is valid that doesn’t have negroes in it.

The reigning credo of liberalism is that all white men are evil and all evil men are white. This will be the ruling principle of Liberaldom so long as nature is our god. Listen to Robespierre on the 8th of June, 1794, when he spoke at the festival in honor of the Supreme Being:

“The Universe is here assembled! O, Nature, how sublime, how exquisite is thy power! How tyrants must quail at the contemplation of this festival!”

And who were the tyrants? Anyone who opposed Robespierre’s abstract idea of nature. And the work goes on. Rival factions of Jacobins called Republicans and Democrats, Tories and Laborites, socialists and Christian democrats, will oppose each other, but they are all working toward one goal, the murder of the ancient regime, which is Christian Europe. All white men are connected by blood to the ancient regime, whether they like it or not. It is ordained that they must die so nature can rule. Nicolas Sarkozy, former President of France, spoke for every European nation when he said France is a “regicide country.” Yes, indeed France is a regicide country, and so are we all, the European people, members of regicide nations. We have forgotten that we are the Christ-bearers who were born to bear witness to the God who transcends nature: “there is in this business more than nature, Was ever conduct of.”

If there isn’t something more to the business of life than mere nature, if indeed Christ be not risen, then the liberals and the neopagans are right. Let’s return to the paganism that provides the most creature comforts. But if Christ is risen we cannot live in peaceful accord with the regicides of Liberaldom whether they call themselves liberals, conservatives, or neopagans.

The modern Jacobins of Liberaldom, who believe in their own abstracted world of noble savages and enlightened white people can make Christ into whatever they want Him to be. He can be a social worker who supports integration, a tolerant good fellow who supports homosexuality and a woman’s right to choose, or a lesser god who worships the black gods right alongside of the Jacobins. But the Christian European has a different relationship with Christ. His Christ is the Living God, whom the European people took into their hearts and homes. We are honor-bound to bring Christ back into our European home and destroy the regicide liberals. They have turned Christian Europe into a Babylonian whorehouse which is roughly equivalent to our modern college campuses. In such a “natural” setting the Jacobins can satisfy their lusts of the flesh and their pride of the intellect. Let us bid the hell hounds turn and fight to the death.

It is not a case of fixing a process that has gone wrong. The democratic process has not gone wrong. It was always wrong. The evil mind behind democracy is Satan. He wanted, and still wants, to destroy the Christ-bearing people, and by doing so he hopes to deal a death blow to God. The European no longer sees through the same eyes as the Europeans of the past. He doesn’t see Europeans as His people, who are involved in a war with Satan and his colored minions, but he still sees images of good and evil. He sees the forces of democracy, with the negro as their god, fighting evil white men who are trying to return mankind to the unscientific, unenlightened era of the Europeans. But look at the nightmare world the negro worshipping liberals, who see nothing but evil in old Europe, have created. What world, antique Europe or their hell on earth, are we honor bound to champion? +

Posted in Christian counter-attack, Europe as the Christ-Bearer, Older posts (pre-April 2019), Religion of Satan | Tagged , | Comments Off on Honor-Bound