A Conservatism of the Heart

Posted on April 21, 2012 by cwny

“I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.” – Revelations 22:13

__________

Since Ronald Reagan won the presidency running as a “conservative,” every Republican candidate has called himself a conservative. And of course no Republican candidate since Reagan has actually been a conservative. How about Reagan? Was he a conservative? I would say no, but in Reagan’s defense it must be said that he actually read Russell Kirk’s book The Conservative Mind, and Kirk spoke very highly of him. But in either case — whether Reagan was or was not a conservative — there is no question of any current candidate for the presidency being conservative in the true Burkean meaning of the word. Burke’s conservatism was rooted in the belief that men were bound to their past by unbreakable ties of honor and blood that could be traced all the way back to Christ’s birth in a stable in Bethlehem. And it was prejudice, so derided by liberals, that kept a people from breaking their ties to the past:

…we are generally men of untaught feelings; that instead of casting away all our old prejudices, we cherish them to a very considerable degree, and to take more shame to ourselves we cherish them because they are prejudices, and the longer they have lasted and the more generally they have prevailed, the more we cherish them!

Conservative and liberal candidates of today are committed to the exact opposite of Burkean conservatism. They are committed to a complete break with the past. Whereas the antique European was prejudiced in favor of honor, blood ties, and Christianity, the liberal is prejudiced against such things; he favors dishonor, hatred of blood ties, and the worship of the negro. 

Russell Kirk’s book, The Conservative Mind (1953), gave a certain intellectual respectability to conservatism that it had never had before, but conservatism remained a curse word to most intellectuals and the majority of the American people until Ronald Reagan came into office, after which conservatism became diluted and had nothing whatever to do with Burke or Russell Kirk. Today a conservative stands for less taxes, negro worship, and the saturation bombing of all Israel’s enemies. A liberal stands for more taxes, negro worship, and the saturation bombing of all Israel’s enemies. Not much of a contrast, is there? 

I was first exposed to European-culture conservatives such as Russell Kirk, Richard Weaver, and Whittaker Chambers through the good offices of National Review magazine. Though never living up to its stated purpose, “To stand athwart history yelling Stop,” NR did, in its early years, expose young people like me to European-American conservatives such as Weaver, Chambers, and Kirk, and to European conservatives such as Thomas Molnar and Erik von Kuehelt-Leddihn. Of course by the 1980’s NR had become an adjunct of the Republican party without any concern for European conservatism, which was inevitable considering the individualist, libertarian bias of its founder. But I don’t think William F. Buckley Jr’s capitalist-libertarian orientation was the only factor in the demise of European cultural conservatism; in fact I don’t think it was the main cause. 

What I’m going to say next will sound terribly ungrateful to the European conservatives of the mid-twentieth century, but I mean no disrespect. They were great men with a sound intellectual understanding of the basis of European civilization, namely the Christian faith. But for all their intellectual acumen they were missing something that their European counterparts in the preceding European centuries had. What was the missing element in the conservative intellectual movement represented by Russell Kirk? I think it was passion. Why do we call Christ’s Passion His Passion? Because it is His outpouring of love for His people. Listen to Kirk’s reason for writing The Conservative Mind:

…my contribution to our endeavor to conserve the spiritual and intellectual and political tradition of our civilization; and if we are to rescue the modern mind, we must do it very soon. What Matthew Arnold called an ‘epoch of concentration’ is impending, in any case. If we are to make that approaching era a time of enlightened conservatism, rather than an era of stagnant repression, we need to move with decision. The struggle will be decided in the minds of the rising generation – and within that generation, substantially by the minority who have the gift of reason.

Is it possible to revitalize a people who suffer from an excess of rationality with a rational analysis? Dostoevsky got it right:

I submit, however, that there are cases when there is more honor in allowing ourselves to be swayed even by unreasonable passion, as long as it stems from a great love, than in not being subjected to it at all. And that is particularly true in youth, for there is something suspect about a younger person who is always very reasonable, and I do not rate such a person very highly. So now you know my personal opinion! I suspect that some reasonable people may declare that every youth, after all, cannot expect to believe in such a superstition and that my young man certainly would not be a very good example for others to follow. To that, I would answer once more that my young man had faith, a sacred and unshakable faith, and that I still refuse to apologize for him.

Yes, a man can be too rational. Burke, whom Kirk lauds, was passionate. He used reason as a sword in defense of his passions, not as an end in itself. We must ask why Kirk’s book and not Anthony Jacob’s book White Man, Think Again!  became the benchmark book for conservatives. Jacob’s reasoning is certainly as acute as Kirk’s, but Jacob had an underlying passion that inspired his reasoning. His passion was for his people, not for an intellectual construct:

Unity, in any event, is strength only when it is based on enduring family ties, on the unity of like peoples. That is why Aesop’s object-lesson on unity was given to brothers and not unrelated men. It is nothing short of lunacy, or Liberal unrealism, to attempt to weld civilized white men and uncivilized black men into an enduring ‘family unity’. The two cannot mix: and all attempts to make them mix will work gravely to the detriment of the Whites, upon whom civilization exclusively depends. To my mind it is self-evident that the Anglo-Saxon and kindred peoples are absolutely irreplaceable, and that without them the civilization they engendered and represent would, with the possible exception of one or two curious deviations or malformations, soon cease to exist. Let there be no mistake about this. When we speak of civilisation we are referring to that which is wholly our own. There is no other civilization whatever. At best there are one or two minor foreign cultures. At best there are one or two successful foreign copyists of our civilisation’s more material aspects. But there are absolutely no imitators of its moral and spiritual uniqueness, because there are no other people like the Westerners whose possession it is.

What happens when we make the intellectual tradition of the West into the sum and substance of the West’s “spiritual tradition”? We have seen, in the last fifty years, what happens. Professed Christians treat the European people as something disposable. They think that the faith, since it is an intellectual thing, can be transported from people to people like an overcoat. But can it? Think with your heart. What do you see? I see a people who were once the Christ-bearers transferring their allegiance, at the urging of the rational men of the clergy, from Christ to the black man. And they do this because they believe that they are abandoning their prejudices, which are wrong, in order to adhere to a new religion, which is pure, intellectual, and righteous. But do we see the new people of God, the colored people, maintaining the old religion of the European people? No, we do not. We see a world gone mad with sex and blood lust facilitated by white clergymen who have abandoned a personal commitment to a loving God and his people for a universal love of the generic negro. 

The conservative intellectual movement chronicled by George H. Nash in his book The Conservative Intellectual Movement in American since 1945 was a failure precisely because it was only an intellectual movement. It was rooted in the Greek philosophical tradition of pure mind rather than the Pauline, Shakespearean tradition of the wisdom of the heart, which is why men like Anthony Jacob and Donald Davidson were not considered a legitimate part of the conservative intellectual movement. Those men, writing from the heart, saw with the blinding sight denied to the men of intellect. They saw that faith is not an intellectual construct, it is a burning fire in the hearts of those who call on their God by name. Ultimately intellectual conservatism, even if it affirms “our spiritual traditions,” ends up back with the God without a name.

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.”

The assumption behind the post-war conservative intellectual movement was that the cure for the faulty reasoning of the liberals was the correct reasoning of the conservatives. But can we really out-reason the devil, who is the man behind the liberals? I once got into an argument with a clerical Thomist who thought it was a sin to homeschool one’s children when a good religious school was available. “How could an untrained parent,” the Thomist argued, “teach a child the essentials of the faith?” The substance of my response was, “Who but a parent could teach their children the essentials of the faith because the parent teaches with a loving heart, the source of all knowledge.” 

Now is not the time to lie; I must invoke Edgar in Shakespeare’s King Lear and “speak what I feel not, what I ought to say.” The conservative sons of Martha cannot lead us into battle. The sons of Mary, those who love with hearts of fire, are the men for us. Whoever has kept faith with the European people in the past and continues to do so in the present, while all the compromising philistines of the right and the left demand that we deny our people, is the man to follow. The race issue is the primary issue for the liberals, because they need a black god to replace Christ. And the conservatives have made Christianity an intellectual construct so that they can avoid the race issue. “Western civilization has nothing to do with race,” they tell us. But Western civilization has everything to do with race, just as the Incarnation has everything to do with Christianity. The Christian faith needs to be embodied in a people in order to be revealed to all people. Christianity is a revealed religion, not an intellectual construct. God has revealed Himself through His people, and if we abandon His people we abandon Him. 

Conservatives who invoke Burke to support intellectual conservatism miss the main point about Burke. Burke was not an intellectual! He was something much greater. He was a man with a heart of fire. He loved his people and their God so much that he used the sword God gave him, a Shakespearean command of the English language, to attack the enemy of his people and his God, the regicide French. But take away Burke’s passionate heart and what is left? Only an intellect fit for clever comments and teaching seminars on politics, certainly not a Christian poet and warrior of the highest order. And haven’t the European people, nourished on ‘intellect-is-all’ theology, been left bereft of the passion necessary to mount a charge against the worst, the liberals, who are full of passionate hate for all things European? Christianity transformed the world because the European people fell passionately in love with Christ, and not because some very intelligent theologians distributed a six-point program for a belief in the Deity. Handel’s Messiah did not come from his brain; it came from a heart that loved. And so it always shall be for the Europeans. We are men to the extent we love our people and our God. And we are inhuman beasts when we abandon our people and our God. 

It fell to John, the apostle who laid his head on the Sacred Heart of Jesus at the Last Supper, to reveal to us our beginning and our end. We are the people who took Christ into our hearts. We believe in the fairy tale of the empty tomb. That is what distinguishes the European from all other peoples. And lest we forget, that distinctive faith of the European does not come from exalted reason, it comes from a faithful and loving heart. +

Posted in Blood faith, Defense of the White Race, Older posts (pre-April 2019), Rationalism | Tagged , | Comments Off on A Conservatism of the Heart

And There Reigns Love

Posted on April 14, 2012 by cwny

“O, God, we have heard with our ears, and our fathers have declared unto us, the noble works that thou didst in their days, and in the old time before them.”

__________

I had a religious studies professor in college who was always rhapsodizing about the wonderful cosmic canopy of the pagan religions. They were one with nature because their gods were nature gods. The great tragedy occurred for the European when he allowed the religion of Jesus Christ to replace the more natural, vital religions of nature. Such was the wisdom of my learned professor. 

Even a confused undergraduate such as me could see the fallacy in the great man’s paean to the nature religions of antiquity: what if the nature religions were false? My professor, in union with his follow academics and Pontus Pilate, who looked at Christ and asked, rhetorically, ‘what is truth?,’ started with the a priori assumption that truth was unknowable. Therefore man was free to make his own truth. And for my professor truth was nature and nature’s gods, because he found those gods more exciting, vital, and comforting than Christ. My professor was partially right; the pagan religions are more exciting and vital than Christianity if excitement consists of sexual licentiousness and blood-letting constitutes vitality. And the pagan religions are more comforting if a man prefers to live on the surface of life, anesthetized and fortified by a soul-deadening ideology that does not remind him of his mortality. That is the great benefit of living with the nature gods. You don’t have to go below the surface of life, and you can find superficial transcendence in blood and sex. Such transcendence has kept, and probably always will, the colored tribesmen content. But can paganism keep the white man in spiritual comfort? Won’t he eventually feel the need for a real faith? It seems that he doesn’t feel such a need; the combination of science and negro worship appears to be keeping the white man content. But if we look closer we can see that the post-Christian liberal is not being sustained by his new pagan faith. Having spent “the unbought grace of life” that came from Christianity the liberal is being sustained by the last lingering vapors of a civilization that has disappeared in the mists of time. When even the vaporous mists of Christianity disappear the liberal will be face to face with his negro gods, and he will not be able to endure it. 

What are the Christian vapors that sustain a liberal despite his hatred of all things Christian? The hated family ties are one example. My sister, a mad-dog liberal, still sends out Christmas cards and attends family gatherings at Christmas time. Why? Because despite her professed hatred of all things white and Christian, she still needs the comfort of Christian lingerings. The fact that liberals are living in houses that have not yet been confiscated and given to the negroes, which is the case in South Africa and Rhodesia, is also because of Christian lingerings. Soon even the last Christian vapors will disappear. Will that signal the end or a new beginning for the white man? When finally able to see what was lost, will the white man strike back or will he merely curl up in the fetal position and die? We don’t know the numbers. But we do know there will be a few whites who prefer to die standing up. And God will use those whites to restore His people.  It is an absolute in mad-dog liberal circles that Christianity was a false religion. “Christ did not die and rise from the dead,” the liberals tell us. And the halfway-house Christians parrot the liberals while adding their own twist: “Christ is still the son of God, but he is a son of God like we are Sons of God.” Richard Llewellyn, who wrote a heart-rending account of his Welsh coal-mining ancestors at the turn of the century, disgraces his ancestors by enveloping them in metaphysical filth:

It was then that I had thoughts about Christ, and I have never changed my mind. He did appear to me then as a man, and as a man I still think of him. In that way, I have had comfort. If he had been a God, or any more a son of God than any of us, then it is unfair to ask us to do what he did. But if he was a man who found out for himself what there is that is hidden in life, then we all have a chance to do the same. And with the help of God, we shall.

So Christ isn’t God, but there is a God, an unknown God. Everything Richard Llewellyn loved in that valley disappeared because he and his 20th century counterparts went searching for another God beside Christ. In the later part of the 20th century they found their new god, the noble black savage. Huw Morgan loved his father but couldn’t believe in the God of his father. What god do his descendents worship today? 

I’ve read How Green Was My Valley three times. And at every reading I tried to love the Morgan family. I tried to love them because my ancestors were also Welsh coal miners. But it is only the father, who does not give up his faith in Christ as true God and true man, whom I love and respect. His sons, who still practice the ethics of Christianity but no longer believe in the divinity of Christ, fill me with sorrow and anger. Sorrow because of what they could have been, and anger because they spent the unbought grace of life with no regard for the consequences to future generations of Europeans. We have only the vapors of a Christian civilization left to us because men like Huw Morgan felt a loving God should not countenance the suffering men endure on this earth. 

In contrast to How Green Was My Valley, which got great critical reviews and was made into a movie, stand the two Drumtochty novels of Ian Maclaren, Beside the Bonnie Briar Bush and The Days of Auld Lang Syne. No movie was made of the novels, which had popular success but no critical acclaim. Though the events depicted in How Green Was My Valley and the Drumtochty books were supposed to take place during the same time period, there was actually 46 years separating the works. Llewellyn’s book was written in 1940 while Maclaren’s books were written in 1894. The contrast is truly astonishing and all in favor, from my viewpoint, of Ian Maclaren’s Drumtochty novels. The men and women of Maclaren’s novels all believe in the Man of Sorrows. He is as real to them in His divinity and His humanity as the food on the table and the farmlands that yielded the food. 

I don’t think the difference in religious viewpoint between How Green Was My Valley and the Drumtochty novels was the result of the greater religiosity of the Scotsman over the Welshman, nor do I think the difference lies in the fact that the Welshmen in Llewellyn’s book were coal-miners and the Scotsmen in Maclaren’s books were farmers. I can think of no profession more soul-deadening than coal-mining, but I don’t think that explains the difference in religious outlook we see in the book of the Welshman and the books of the Scotsman. The religious difference lies not in the ethnicity of the authors nor in the professions of their characters, but in the authors themselves. Maclaren is still a man of the 19th century. He is aware of the forces of modernity, but those forces have not shaken his faith in the God-Man. Llewellyn is a man of the 20th century; the forces of modernity have shaken his faith in the God-Man.  W. H. Auden, writing about William Butler Yeats, said that Ireland had hurt Yeats into poetry. How Green Was My Valley didn’t hurt me into poetry, but it did, when I first read it as a young man, hurt me into thinking about the difference between the 20th century European and the pre-20th century European. You see, I desperately wanted to love those Morgans, “for I am Welsh you know,” but with the exception of the father, I couldn’t love them. Their authorial voice was suffering from the spiritual ennui that was spreading throughout all of Europe. And why should that be? We take it for granted now, but why should the 20th and now the 21st century European no longer believe that Jesus Christ is God and man? Authors such as Llewellyn usually cite the incredible suffering that exists on earth. That suffering, they tell us, makes belief in Jesus Christ impossible. But was the suffering of mankind in general and the Europeans in particular any greater in the 20th century than the preceding centuries? These things are hard to measure, but I don’t think we can say that suffering was any greater in the 20th century than in any other century. So if we can’t point to a sudden emergence of suffering as the cause of the Europeans’ rejection of Christ, the question hovers over us still: Why the loss of faith? I would suggest the Europeans’ loss of faith stems from their increased faith in science. It is easier to bear suffering if we think it is the inevitable lot of mankind. But once we are told that suffering is not inevitable, that science can eliminate it, we become more conscious of the injustice of our mortal condition and we reject the claims of a God who promised to redeem our suffering for the claims of a scientific cabal that can eliminate suffering. It is the oldest trick of the devil; he deceived Macbeth with it as he deceived Adam and Eve:

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

The honest trifle was that science could eliminate some of the suffering caused by plagues and disease. But we were deceived in the deepest consequence: science could not redeem men from their sins nor could it give them eternal life. And the unlooked-for consequence – only Satan saw what was coming – of the Europeans’ infatuation with science as a means to alleviate physical suffering was a tenfold increase in spiritual suffering, because the Europeans lost their faith in Jesus Christ who redeemed the world through His suffering and death on the cross. Men can endure suffering if they believe they do not suffer in vain or alone. Bereft of faith and feeling alone in the universe, the Europeans turned to science and negro worship in order to anesthetize their humanity and stimulate their blood. And of course it hasn’t worked. Try as they might white people can never become happy-go-lucky pagans. For them it is heaven or hell; there is no in between. 

In Scott’s epic poem Marmion he writes of the “tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.” The European has woven a web of lies around Liberaldom. And the first lie was the lie which spawned every other lie: “You shall be as gods.” With science to alleviate suffering and the negro to provide an object of worship, the European is desperately trying to keep the living God at bay and derive comfort from his man-made, mind-forged faith. And through it all, the liberal Europeans’ process of lying self-deception, the negro and the other colored tribesmen have remained the same. They follow the endless pagan cycle of sacrifice without mercy. The colored tribesmen do not understand the reason why white people have abdicated their right to exist. They only know that it is so, and they move in for the kill.  It’s not a case of “We must act now” and vote our troubles away. Nor is it the eleventh hour. We’re well past that. White people have lost their will to live, because they have no racial memory. The neo-pagan likes to hearken back to the pre-Christian era as the golden age of Europe. But the European never had a pagan era as the non-European people did. The European, even in the midst of his paganism, heard the call of the one true God speaking to His people, “I have some rites of memory in this kingdom.” Indeed He does. The Europeans embraced Christ as men embrace a brother or a father from whom they were separated when young, but with whom now, in their manhood, they are reunited. The Christ bearers! Listen to your blood, look back through the mists, and behold your God. He looks at us now, as He looked at Peter after the third denial, with infinite love and compassion. Truly that Man, fully human and fully divine, is worth fighting for. No other race will fight for Him if the European race does not. Multiculturalism and multiracialism are lies perpetuated by the father of lies. If we fight for the full restoration of the European people we fight for His reign of charity. “They shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it.” +

Posted in Europe as the Christ-Bearer, Negro worship, Neo-paganism, Older posts (pre-April 2019) | Tagged , , | Comments Off on And There Reigns Love

Death Is Swallowed Up in Victory!

Posted on April 7, 2012 by cwny

…for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.” I Corinthians 15: 52 – 53 

__________

I saw a small news item the other day that is emblematic of the state of Christianity in every European country. A group of Moslems living in Switzerland have demanded that the Cross be taken off the Swiss flag because the Cross is offensive to Moslems. The fact that Moslems are allowed in Switzerland, let alone that they feel entitled to demand that the Swiss abandon their cultural heritage to suit them, indicates to me that Christianity is dead in Switzerland as it is dead in every European country. And please don’t tell me about church attendance and celebrations of Christmas and Easter. The symbols and customs of a dead culture often remain for centuries after that culture has ceased to be a living culture. Christianity as practiced by Europeans prior to the 20th century is dead. 

Is Christian Europe permanently dead? A Spenglerian who believes that cultures like people go through an inevitable cycle of birth, maturity, decay, and death would answer that question in the affirmative: “Yes, Christian Europe is dead and will never return.” But a non-Spenglerian, a European of the old stock, sees something more than mere nature in a culture. The antique European sees that a culture consists of human beings with souls; therefore, a culture is a spiritual entity not subject to the strict, physical laws of birth, maturity, decay and death. Just as a soul can be reanimated so can a culture. What would it take to reanimate the souls of the dead-to-life Europeans? What is needful? Faith is needful. The same faith that animated Europeans for so many centuries prior to the modern age: a faith in Christ crucified, Christ risen. Recapturing that faith should be the European’s all in all. 

Of course faith cannot be merely an intellectual construct that serves a very limited material need on this earth. Genuine faith comes from the divine longings in the human heart. Though we still have Christian churches in Liberaldom, we do not have a genuine faith. The modern Christians have created a new non-spiritual Christ whose kingdom is of this world only. Let us look at the original, “this world only” defilers of the living God: if we go back to Christ’s first audience, to “his own, and his own received him not,” we are confronted by the Sadducees and the Pharisees. I see in these two groups the modern liberals and the modern conservatives. The liberals, like the Sadducees, see no animating spiritual principle in man. Man is doomed to die and return to nothingness, so the concern of man should be generic man, or, in modern terms, the generic Earth of Al Gore and the Hollywood crowd. Rock stars such as Madonna worship black Christ figures and wear crosses to accent their cleavage, but they do not worship the living God of the antique Europeans. Like the Sadducees, their god is sensual pleasure in this world only. 

The Pharisees believed in God and the immortality of the soul, so it is all the more striking that the Pharisees were so vehemently opposed to Christ. But then upon consideration we find that it is not at all unusual for men who make a living by saying “Lord, Lord,” to feign and propagate a belief in a false God in order to reap material rewards in this world. In Frank Morrison’s book Who Moved the Stone, he wonders if Caiaphas himself might have secretly believed that Christ was indeed the Messiah but refused to acknowledge the fact because it would have cost him his job as the head of the Sanhedrin. (1) 

The conservative, like the Pharisee, wants to be member of a church that is a power in this world. So when the culture that showed the world the face of Jesus Christ has fallen out of power, you simply proclaim your allegiance to a this-world-only faith and try to grab your share of the Kingdom of God on earth. What is multiculturalism and multiracialism other than an attempt to forge an alliance between Christianity and Babylon so that “Christians” can retain some power in the New World Order? And what is behind the incredible push to make Christianity and Judaism one faith? Christ enjoined His followers to spread the Gospel, but did He enjoin them to water down the Gospel in order to appease the rulers of this world? 

The European has crossed the Rubicon and entered the city of Babylon. But unlike Julius Caesar’s Rubicon, the European can go back because his Rubicon is a spiritual Rubicon. He can go back across the Rubicon if he stops believing that his advance across the river was a heroic Christian endeavor rather than a cowardly retreat. 

There have been some staggering changes in the European nations in the last forty years. During that time period the people of Europe embraced racial Babylon, which engendered the sexual Babylon of legalized abortion, homosexuality and sexual permissiveness. All the aforementioned evils were quite predictable given the decline in a genuine faith in the resurrection of Christ that occurred in the early part of the 20th century. Nations are moral entities; when the faith that created a nation becomes a dead letter, then moral decay is bound to ensue. 

What was not quite as predictable — it became apparent in hindsight — was that organized Christianity offered little resistance at first and then accepted virtually all of the new post-Christian Christianity. The church hierarchies debated the minutia of the law while ignoring the spirit of their faith. And the enemy from without became part of the fabric of the church. 

The churchmen of the West try to defend their apostasy by invoking universalist Christianity and the apostasy of the European people: “Christ came to save all people, and the Europeans have abandoned Christ.” In response and in defense: in order to preach the Gospel to all peoples there must be one people, a moral entity, that can go forth and preach the Gospel to every nation. The European people were that moral entity. In the past prior to the 20th century, when the Europeans apostatized, the Christian clergy called on their people to repent and return to God; they did not declare the European people a non-people and make the colored races into demigods on a higher plane of existence than Christ Himself. And how can the clergy justify the betrayal of their own people by claiming that their people apostatized, when they, the clergy, were the prior apostates? They made the living God into an abstract, dead God and then blamed their people for being apostate from that God. There is no universalist, abstract way to God. We find God in the hearts of His people, nowhere else. 

At Christmas time I always think of Dickens’ Christmas Carol; there are so many scenes from that story that have become part of my soul. And at Easter time I always think of Handel’s Messiah. Musical scholars tell me that there are better musical compositions, and there certainly are some magnificent works by composers such as Mozart and Bach. But for me Handel’s Messiah is of a different order altogether, because no other piece of music puts us so close to the divine humanity of God. Other works make us feel the majesty of God, but are there any other musical works that make us feel so close to the heart of God? 

And I think the singular and astounding magnificence of Handel’s Messiah comes from its simple retelling of the Christ story as it is told in the Holy Scriptures. From the comforting prophecies about the Lamb of God, through Christ’s birth, death, resurrection, and His life in eternity, Handel shows us God as He meant us to see Him, as an indwelling spiritual presence among His people. The Word took flesh and dwelt among us. 

No great artist, be he writer, painter, or composer, creates alone. His work is connected to the heart of his people and their God. The artist is infinitely more gifted than his fellow men, but he is of them. Handel speaks for the European people in the Messiah. His vision of God was the European peoples’ vision of God, and his vision of God is the vision of we few, the remnant Europeans. It’s not possible to keep God and jettison the people of God. The antique Europeans’ vision of the living God is the vision that must prevail because it is the true vision. We strive to remain separate from all other cultures and all other peoples so that the light of Christ can shine in the darkness. As Europe becomes Babylon, the darkness spreads. 

One of the many things I like about the incomparable Edmund Burke was that he was not afraid to wear his heart on his sleeve. He openly admitted in his Letters on a Regicide Peace that his people’s failure to see the necessity of war with Regicide France had left him profoundly depressed. Nonetheless, he fought nobly on. We can do no less. You would have to be a man of stone not to be depressed at the present state of the European people. But the Christ story so magnificently told by Handel makes it clear that Christ renews His people through a faithful remnant. Our faith in our people and their God, Christ the Lord, is not dependent on the numerical superiority sought by the Sadduceean liberals and the Pharisaical conservatives. Our faith is grounded in the blood of the Lamb that was slain. “Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing …” + 

_________________

(1) But the personal consequences to Caiaphas and his family were hardly less distasteful. We do not know what changes in the Constitution of the Great Sanhedrin would have taken place under a truly Messianic regime. They would probably have been very considerable. But one thing is certain: the supreme ascendancy of the High Priest, as the arbiter of the national fortunes, would have suffered eclipse. Whatever aspects of its ancient and historic form the Hebrew Constitution might have retained, the real Dynast would have been the Messiah. As the national Deliverer and the supreme Representative of the God of Israel, His right to impose policy and to direct events would have been final and absolute. The prospect of the Nazarene Carpenter stepping into this unique and unparalleled seat of national power must have been profoundly disturbing to certain men (and women) who had an unquestioned interest in the maintenance of the status quo.

Posted in Europe as the Christ-Bearer, Older posts (pre-April 2019), Restoration of European civilization, Resurrection | Tagged | Comments Off on Death Is Swallowed Up in Victory!

The Cross is Beauty, the Cross is Truth

Posted on March 31, 2012 by cwny

“Herein constitutes the great blasphemy of the negro-worshipping, halfway-house Christian: he flies in the face of the time-honored prejudices of the Christian European people. The modern, halfway-house Christian self-righteously takes it as a given that the Europeans of the past were insufficiently Christian because they placed a wall between the races and punished those who tried to breach the wall. Why would you assume such a time-honored prejudice was wrong? Was God wrong to discriminate against Ham and his descendants? Were millions of Christian Europeans wrong for century after century because they discriminated in favor of the white Christian civilization against the black barbarian civilization? If we are looking for diseased souls, we will find more than enough in the ranks of the halfway-house Christians. They see, when they look at the Europeans of the past, nothing but shameful prejudices, when (if they had eyes to see) they should see the image of the God they have forsaken for the Negro and the gods of the inclusive Christian churches.” – CWNY

__________

I have no quarrel with Keats’ famous poetic assertion,

“Beauty is truth, truth beauty,” – that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.

What I quarrel with is Keats’ inability to see beauty on the Cross. Scott did and so did all the European poets of depth. The superficial triumvirate of Shelly, Keats, and Byron could not see past the outward beauty of nature to the inner beauty of the Son of God. 

Our modern liberals, the spiritual descendants of Shelley, Keats, and Byron (even though they can no longer quote them) have given a local habitation and a name to truth and beauty:

“Beauty is the noble black savage, truth the noble black savage,”- that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.

I’m being unfair to Keats. He died young. Possibly had he lived longer, he would have found his way to the foot of the cross and seen truth and beauty when he looked up. And at least Keats left the question of what is truth and what is beauty unanswered. The liberals have supplied us with a hideous loathsome answer. Do I exaggerate to make a point? Unfortunately I do not. The liberal literally worships the black race. Their recent hysteria over a Puerto Rican’s self-defense slaying of a black thug is just one more example of the liberals’ intense religious devotion to their black gods. The father of the Puerto Rican boy is pathetically trying to explain that his son is not white, but once the liberal-colored barbarian mob has decided there has been a sacrilege committed, there is no mercy, no extenuating circumstances. We think of Cinna the poet. He tried to explain to the crazed mob that he was not Cinna the conspirator, but the mob would have his blood.

Cin. I am not Cinna the conspirator.

4th Pleb. It is no matter, his name’s Cinna. Pluck but his name out of his heart, and turn him going.

3rd Pleb. Tear him, tear him! Come, brands, Ho! Fire brands!

Despite being Puerto Rican, George Zimmerman has been labeled a white man who has committed blasphemy; he has struck the liberals’ god. The liberals have decreed that he must die. 

There is a twin dynamic at work in every self-defense killing of a black man. The liberals respond to the crisis with religious fervor. Their faith has been attacked and they feel called to defend, not to debate. On the other hand, the black barbarians who could care less about the death of a black man – they kill their own at an incredible rate – react to the self-defense slaying of a black with animal cunning. They know that if whites were to start defending themselves, the blacks’ reign of terror would come to an end. So they call all their white devotees to rally around their gods whenever there is a blasphemous act of sacrilege committed. And they are never disappointed; the whites always answer the call to man the walls of the “Africa in Europe” fort. It is significant that George Zimmerman was Puerto Rican. Had he been white he would never have defended himself against a black man. The white will not attack his god. As it stands now I fear that the young Puerto Rican will either commit suicide or be sent to jail, which is tragic because the young man was merely trying to defend his neighborhood from the criminal element, a noble instinct. 

The worship of the negro in the European nations is a direct result of the triumph of rationalism in the European world. Christ replaced the gods of the mystery cults because He loved with a passionate intensity which Cybele and Mithras could not come close to equaling. And He replaced the gods of the Greek and Roman sages because He was a living God, not an abstraction. Therein lays the key to the death of Christianity in Europe. A small group of medieval scholastics made reason the judge of revelation which opened the Descartian floodgates that made Christianity into a philosophy rather than a faith. First only a few, tired, burnt-out rationalists, such as Voltaire and Rousseau, sought refuge from their own minds by worshipping the bodies of the negroes. But as the small cabal of rationalists grew into a vast majority in state and church the stage was set for negro worship. When God becomes merely an end product of a rational, scientific process His people will go whoring after other more vital gods. Why did the European people settle on the negro gods? Because they are the exact opposite of the Christian God. Christ is light, they are darkness. Christ is merciful, the negro gods are cruel and without mercy. Christ is the Son of God, the negroes and their liberal devotees are the minions of Satan. 

Modern European paganism is a syncretic paganism that combines the rationalism of the pagan philosophers with the savage orgiastic rites of the most primitive tribesmen. And the central blasphemy of the new paganism is its emphasis on sacrifice rather than mercy. How many whites must die in order to propitiate the black gods? There is no finite number because the pagan religions are cyclic; they do not have a beginning and an end. That eschatology was part of the Christian faith. The liberals do hold out a hope for a kingdom of their black gods here on earth, but that can only come about when the cyclical sacrifice of whites ceases to produce any more whites to sacrifice. At that point the liberal will have ceased to exist as well and only the eternal night of Babylon will remain. 

Leaving aside the question of whether the Europeans are the original Hebrews of the Old Testament, I think it is perfectly clear that our history mirrors that of the ancient Hebrews. When God became an abstraction to the Hebrew people, because the Hebrews failed to keep faith with Him in their hearts, they went whoring after the gods of nature. Haven’t the modern Europeans done the same thing? What is the European deification of science if not another manifestation of a nature religion? And what is the worship of the negro other than nature worship taken to its most primitive degenerate level? 

Every branch of the Christian Church tells us that the Christian faith is not embodied in a people. We are told that a special expeditor of the faith gives us a rational explanation of Christ’s death and resurrection and by our mere adherence to the expeditor’s rational system we can know God. And if the faith is a rational system, then it is not necessary to pass the faith on through a particular people. The system is all; everybody can gain access to God through the system. But such a bloodless, rationalistic method of transmitting the faith doesn’t work. When rationalism enters a Christian Church the people go to the gods of the pagans. And then the expeditors invite the pagan gods into their churches in order to stay “relevant” and get more people back in the pews. If the European churches returned to the European Christ they would be able to take the negro gods from the altar and they could once again worship the living God in spirit and in truth. 

You can’t stay connected to the past by merely preserving a document from the past or a system from the past. You have to have a burning desire to know the past through your people. By an act of imagination and vision you have to put yourself in a position to see what they saw and feel what they felt. And you certainly won’t go through that necessary bonding with your ancestors if you come to believe they are irrelevant or evil. What do the halfway house Christians, and it’s a stretch to call them halfway-house Christians, think is worth preserving from the European past? It appears that they think there is nothing worth preserving because the Europeans of the past were sexist, homophobic, imperialist, and above all racist. “Ye shall know them by their fruits.” If you really think there is one single redeemable element in modern Babylon you are truly insane. White insanity, which stems from a loss of faith in the Christ of the antique Europeans, is the bone and sinew of multiracial, multicultural Babylon. If the white man ever regains his sanity the era of European Babylon will come to an end. 

Modern psychology has taught us that insanity is in the mind, and the cure for it is rationality. But if we step away from the superficiality of psychology and look at life from a more integral, poetic perspective, the way Europeans looked at life before the advent of Satanic psychology, we can see the true origins of insanity. Men are driven insane when they live only in the mind. The nihilistic father in Faulkner’s The Sound and the Fury, keeps telling his son that the tragedy of life is secondhand, it is an intellectual construct. When his son comes to believe that life is second-hand, he commits suicide. 

The basic premise of psychology, that a man has a mind but no soul, is the basic premise of Liberaldom. But the mere assertion, even if it is a codified, institutionalized assertion, that a man has no soul, cannot change reality. Man does have a soul. The modern European needs his negro gods because without those gods he is left alone in a room with his own mind-forged nothingness. His mind has rejected the reality of Christian Europe so he needs something else to fill the void. Once we grasp the religious nature of the liberals’ love for the black savage we will not be deceived into thinking that we can get the liberals to keep black savagery in check. They will not go against their gods. 

Liberaldom was founded on a belief in the supremacy of reason unfettered. But the liberal could not live with reason alone, so he added the negro. And he propitiates his negro gods in public ceremonies throughout the European lands. It’s ironic that only the white man, who the negro despises, treats the black man as a god. No other race, including the black race, worships the negro as a god. But there is a chink in the liberals’ religious worshipping armor. Only the upper echelon of liberals truly worships and adores the negro; the rock stars, the movie stars, the academics, and the young who want to be rock stars, movie stars and academics. The great unwashed are not so much in a state of belief in the negro as they are in a state of disbelief in anything else. They are easily led because the liberals are full of passionate intensity about the sanctity of the negroes while the grazers are bewildered and confused. If the grazers could be roused… I know the response: “If wishes were horses then beggars would ride.” 

Is there any sign that a revival of the European is any more than wish? Yes, there is one sign; it is the sign of the cross, the cross Europeans once honored. They did not hold any of the modern whited sepulchers of modernity as sacred; not the democratic process, not science, and not the negro. They cried from the depths for contact with the living God, and He responded to them. That sign of contradiction to the modern world, the Christ-centered culture of the antique Europeans, is still there. It is in our hearts and our blood. Only one people, as a people, saw beauty and truth on a cross. Look past the purple-robed priests and priestesses of cosmic modernity that bid us come to worship the negro, and see the living God who dwelt in the hearts of a people who loved much. “See how they love one another.” 

A man must have a local habitation, within a particular family and race or else he will never know the true God. The antique Europeans knew the true God, the modern Europeans do not. The difference between now and then is the difference between the Tower of Babel and the Cross. The modern liberals are forever building the Tower of Babel, which is supposed, when finished, to represent beauty and truth. We still have our defiant ‘no.’ We will stay with our own people who saw beauty and truth on The Cross. +

Posted in Christianity: Neither a Theory Nor a Philosophy, Negro worship, Neo-paganism, Older posts (pre-April 2019), Rationalism | Comments Off on The Cross is Beauty, the Cross is Truth

White Genocide

Posted on March 24, 2012 by cwny

“Love, like charity, not only begins at home but perishes without one.” – Anthony Jacob

__________

Like Badger in The Wind in the Willows I’ve always been fond of children. A few days ago I saw two cute, blond and blue-eyed children accompanying their father on a trip to the food store. They were Disney-type kids, a girl about five and a boy about seven; by ‘Disney-type’ I mean the type of kids Walt Disney might have cast in a Mary Poppins or a Swiss Family Robinson movie. The father was also a ‘regular guy’ type of fellow who looked like he could have played a father in one of Mr. Disney’s Absent Minded Professor movies.

Now here’s the kicker – I finished my shopping at the same time as the white poster family finished theirs and our cars were parked next to each other. When I saw the children up close I saw that they both were wearing tee shirts that said “This time for Africa.” And the car the regular guy drove had two prominent bumper stickers, one of which said “Obama in ‘08” and the other said something about loving Jesus. Is this the promised end for the white race? A soulless, mindless white man polluting his children with soul-killing drivel? I don’t usually engage such creatures in conversation, but this time I did. I asked the man-without-a-soul what his children’s tee shirts stood for. He told me the words “This time for Africa” were the theme of the World Cup which was held in South Africa. He also told me the words meant we should all fight racism.

“What do you mean by that?” I asked.

“We must fight racism,” he repeated.

“But, what do you mean by that?” I repeated.

“We should fight for Africa and fight racism,” he said with a rising note of anger in his voice.

“Does fighting racism mean you must destroy your children? Because that is what you are doing to them by teaching them to hate white people and love black people.”

“You’re a racist,” he said with all the righteous indignation of a Puritan condemning a witch. And that is where it ended. What did I accomplish by confronting the soulless man? Well, I certainly didn’t convert him. But then I didn’t think I could convert him. I’ve seen so many of those lost white souls that, just once, I thought I’d try to see if there was even a glimmer of light in the soul of one of the dead-to-life white men. There wasn’t.

That soulless man with the two unfortunate children is a sad, tragic sign of the times. I can’t help but think of the millions of white children growing up with such parents. A father and mother like the evil Murdstones in Dickens’ David Copperfield would be better parents for a white child than the modern, white-hating parents of today. I think of our Lord’s words when I meet such parents. “But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.”

The Christian hangover phase of the European’s history was from approximately 1914 to 1965. During that time period the bulk of Europeans still adhered to the ethical standards of Christianity, despite the fact that they no longer believed in the major tenets of the Christian faith. But in the late 1960’s young Europeans began to act on the premises of their secularized parents. During the last 45 years we have seen the complete dissolution of Christian ethical standards and the institutionalization of a new religious orthodoxy based on secular, utopian liberalism. At the beginning of the revolution in the late 1960’s you only saw long-haired rock stars, who named their children “Free” and “Starflower,” supporting radical African causes. Some 40 years later crew-cut good old boys adopt black children and have their white children wear tee shirts that say “This time for Africa.” The white expansion into Africa is now called black genocide. But it was in reality the charitable outreach of a Christian people to the lesser breeds without the law. Men like Edmund Hodgson and Elton Knauf were not the only ones who gave everything in an attempt to bring the negro out of his bondage to Satan. Even the hated “imperialists” such as Cecil Rhodes did more for the negro than could possibly be repaid in ten lifetimes. The white man never asked for thanks for being charitable to the black race, because noblesse oblige toward the lesser breeds was bred into the white man’s bones. He performed charitable deeds by instinct.

Black genocide is the genocide that never was. What should concern every white European is the white genocide that is taking place right now. European countries are simply collective farms in which white people are trained to serve the black gods of the European nations. And if white people do not care about white genocide, or – as is more often the case – if they encourage white genocide, there will be no one who cares to stop white genocide. There will be no one to stop the genocide of white people because it is only the whites who ever tried to stop the genocide of other peoples. The orientals never cared about their own as much as the whites did. Nor did the Aztec or the black. It was always the white race that tried to stop the genocide of other races. Now that the white liberal has turned on his own people there is no one to prevent the extermination of the white race.

We must always have before our eyes the enemy with whom we have to deal. The utopian liberal is the most cold-hearted creature on the face of the earth. He can remain unmoved in the face of bloodshed that would have sickened Genghis Khan, so long as the blood is spilled for the future happiness of mankind. The closest a liberal ever comes to condemning a black atrocity is the Pope John XXIII dictum of “regrettable” or the utopian white nation builders’ refrain of “growing pains.” “Yes,” the liberals intone, “they butchered thousands upon thousands of white people, but we need to understand their rage. And we have no doubt that in the long run…” The long run is here. The utopians have been in power for over forty years. White children grow up with no connection to their own past and no hope for any future but the future honor of being absorbed and destroyed by the black race. Every time one of the more blatant manifestations of black thuggery emerges, such as the atrocities in the New Orleans Superdome, the liberals find a way to blame the black atrocities on a remnant “culture of racism.” The liberals will never hold themselves accountable for the failure of utopia because they will never admit that utopia has arrived. It is always about to come to fruition, as soon as the last racist Europeans are destroyed. When there are no more racist whites, blacks will no longer be forced to commit atrocities, and harmony and understanding will reign supreme in Babylon. Such a belief is the holy writ of the liberal.

In a truly hideous funeral ritual white people are voluntarily digging their own and their children’s graves. Every week white people parade into churches and schools to hear the new gospel of liberalism: “Thou shalt love the black man with all thy heart and soul, and thou shalt hate the white man with all thy heart and soul.” In the 1960’s the new gospel was preached in the more modern up-dated churches and at the university level of “higher education.” Now even the “conservative churches” preach the new gospel of the negro, and every kindergarten student is taught how to hate white people and love the black. A friend of mine reported that at a recent conference on home schooling, a black journalist stood up during a question and answer period and asked, “How do we know that white homeschooled white children will be taught about slavery?” They – the techno-barbarians and the black barbarians – want to get them all. They want no one to escape to tell thee. And who ultimately will rule in the ruins of white civilization? The black barbarians can destroy but they will never rule.

Every person in your country, in a situation to be actuated by a principle of honour, is disgraced and degraded, and can entertain no sensation of life, except in a mortified and humiliated indignation. But this generation will quickly pass away. The next generation of the nobility will resemble the artificers and clowns, and money-jobbers, usurers, and Jews, who will be always their fellows, sometimes their masters.  — Edmund Burke

In every white church there is the mainstream church, and then splinter groups that have left the mainstream church and formed a new group they claim is purer and truer to the old doctrine of their former church. In the Roman Catholic Church the fight centered on the liturgy, with the more conservative groups calling themselves traditionalists and sticking with the Latin liturgy. In the Anglican Church the dispute was over the radical changes in the Book of Common Prayer and the ordination of women. The more conservative group, calling themselves Orthodox Anglicans, refused to ordain women and radicalize the Book of Common Prayer. In the Protestant churches and the churches that refuse the label ‘Protestant’ and prefer the term ‘Christian,’ the dispute was over the Bible. Is it God’s word or a bunch of fables? Obviously, any decent white man always inclines to the more conservative side in any religious dispute. But haven’t the white “conservative Christians” been fooled by Satan’s shell game? While the Catholic traditionalist looks for God in the properly performed ritual with the correct words, and the conservative Protestants look for Him in the proper interpretation of Scripture, haven’t they and all the conservative Christians abandoned the primary source of God’s grace, which is His people? The human heart is the conduit for God’s grace. Conservative and liberal Christians have determined that God does not impart to human hearts the blessings of His heaven. They believe God reveals himself through abstract thought. Such a belief places the conservative and the liberal outside of the European Christian tradition. The seemingly sudden emergence of the “race issue” in every branch of the modern propositional churches is the sign of the death of Christianity in those churches. The true faith can only be passed on through the little human things that cosmic philosophers ignore. We learn to love in small units: family, race, community, nation, and then mankind. If you deprive a person of those vital units of love, then you deprive him of his soul, because without those vital human vessels of grace he cannot be connected to anything but an intellectual concept of God, which is meaningless. Satan wants an endless debate between two groups of Gnostics, the conservatives and the liberals.

We must ask ourselves why Christianity is currently a meaningless word. It is meaningless because it can be anything; it is an airy nothing without a local habitation. But Christianity once did mean something when it had a local habitation in the European people. Is it just a coincidence that the Christian faith has become a propositional faith at the same time the European people have become a propositional people? No, it is not. Whenever cosmic, universalist, multiracial Christianity is preached and practiced, the image of God in His people is effaced and the world is plunged into darkness. The modern European is afraid to face the people of Nineveh. But he won’t admit that he is afraid. He labels his fear “growth” and calls himself courageous for overcoming his prejudices. But the raging tempest of modernity that surrounds us gives the lie to the modern European Jonahs. The tempest won’t cease until the European becomes, once again, what God has ordained him to be – the Christ bearer.

We are not meant to bandy words with God and make Him conform to our Grand Inquisitorial, intellectual concepts of the way He should be. We are meant to love Him and obey Him. Very few Europeans in any age equaled the Welsh pastor, Rev. Stephen Roose Hughes, that Dickens writes about in The Uncommercial Traveler, but the ‘racist’, kinist Europeans of old did show us the true faith. Their faith stemmed from a love for the Son of God that was engendered by their love for their own kind. If we can’t love our own particular people over all other people, how can we love Christ, the God who revealed His love for mankind through a particular people? This is not an esoteric theory that I have invented. Look at the collective face of the antique Europeans. And now look at the collective face of the modern liberals. On whose face do we see the image of the Son of God? Instead of supporting white genocide, which is the prerequisite for eternal Babylon, the European should love his people and their God with the fierce and abiding love that casteth out all fear. The liberal and the colored barbarian have not charity. Knowing that fact and knowing that the antique Europeans did have charity, because they knew the living God, should steel us in the day of battle. +

Posted in Defense of the White Race, Liberalism, Older posts (pre-April 2019), Religion of Satan, White Genocide | Tagged | Comments Off on White Genocide

To This Battle Field: Counterrevolution in Babylon

Posted on March 17, 2012 by cwny

How must we feel, if the pride and flower of the English Nobility and Gentry, who might escape the pestilential clime, and the devouring sword, should, if taken prisoners, be delivered over as rebel subjects, to be condemned as rebels, as traitors, as the vilest of all criminals, by tribunals formed of Maroon negro slaves, covered over with the blood of their masters, who were made free and organized into judges, for their robberies and murders?  — Edmund Burke in Letters on a Regicide Peace

__________

One of the nice things about traveling through Britain in the early 1970’s was that you could hitchhike and get picked up by perfectly respectable people. What was foolhardy in the States was considered quite safe in the United Kingdom. I have every one of the Brits who stopped and gave me a lift filed away somewhere in my memory banks. And every once and a while one or two of them pop up in my puppet show of memory. The other day I found myself remembering an Englishman who picked me up somewhere in Lancashire. I was on my way to the Lake District, and he was on his way home with his wife and two children from an outing in the resort town of Blackpool. At least I think it was Blackpool, but don’t hold me to that detail.

I don’t remember how many miles I traveled with the family, but I do remember that we stopped and had some tea and crackers at some sort of roadside refreshment stand. Of course it was useless to offer to pay; my money was never accepted by any of those wonderful, hospitable Brits. Naturally when someone is kind enough to give you a ride and welcome you into their family for part of a day you want to reciprocate your host’s kindness by being an agreeable companion and talking about what he is interested in. My host was passionately fond of hunting and football. As regards football – I couldn’t talk very intelligently about their English football, but I could and did talk about the differences between American and European football. Nor could I claim great expertise in hunting. I was a city boy without any practical knowledge of field and stream sports. But it was the talk of hunting that shifted the conversation into deeper waters. My host was not pleased with the red tape he had to go through to get a permit for a hunting shotgun. Nor was he pleased that once the permit was obtained he could not use lead pellets; he had to use the steel bullets. This was before Britain banned every kind of firearm. Without any premonition of impending doom I asked my friend if he thought Britain was moving toward a total ban on all firearms. “That will never happen,” he said, “It would be unthinkable.”

 Every time I see the Hound of the Baskervilles movie starring Basil Rathbone as Sherlock Holmes, I think of that good-natured, kindly Brit. I think of him because at a crucial point in the movie, when the Lord of Baskerville Hall is about to be killed by the hound, Holmes and Watson kill the hound with their revolvers. In modern Britain where the unthinkable happened, Lord Baskerville is a dead man under the same circumstances. That is what the mad-dog rulers of Britain want. They want to exterminate the native-born white Brits and replace them with colored barbarians, who are infinitely more evil and merciless than a savage hound. And no European, whose nation’s gun laws might not be quite as strict as Britain’s, can feel smug about his own country. The ruling elite in every European nation have the same goal as the British rulers, that is, the extermination of the native-born whites. Even without banning gun ownership, the liberals can demonize, isolate, and destroy. Witness the fate of Randy Weaver’s family and the Branch Davidians in this country. We should hold onto our guns as long as we can, but gun ownership is not a magic talisman. When white people do not believe they are a people, they will succumb to liberalism whether they own guns or not. And if they believe themselves to be a people with a special destiny, as the antique Europeans once believed, they will fight with or without guns, and they will prevail.

I often wonder what happened to that genial Brit, just as I wonder what happened to all the Southern segregationists of the 1960’s. Did they all go underground? Most likely. The “democratic” leaders of European nations, in the true spirit of democracy, never consult the governed on any radical shift in policy. The native-born Brits where not asked if they wanted to give up their right of self-defense nor were the Southern whites asked if they wanted to integrate. The liberal governments did not consult their people on such questions because they knew the people would have said, “No, we don’t want to give up our firearms,” and “No, we don’t want to integrate.”

After radical changes by fiat the liberals start the retraining process. School, church, and media attack racism, sexism, and gun ownership as something evil from the bad old days when white Europeans ruled the roost. But the retraining process only applies to white youths. The colored people own and use guns, much less constructively than white people. The colored people are allowed to be sexist. And the colored people are not only allowed, but encouraged to be rabid racists. It is only the white people, never the colored people, who need to be retrained into oblivion.

Democracy-loving conservatives are fond of scolding white people after the fact when they are deprived of their liberties. “You should have voted,” they say. “You should have formed committees, and sent petitions to Washington,” they scold. But it is completely ahistorical to say such things. Democracies are oligarchies in which all decisions are made by a select few who then impose their will on the people. All resistance from within the confines of the democratic system is futile, because the liberal rulers of the democratic oligarchy make up the rules for the democratic oligarchy. You can’t vote against integration, because that is a major tenet of the liberal oligarchy. You can’t vote against the systemic elimination of white Europeans through massive colored immigration, because the extermination of the white race is the raison d’être of the liberals. And on it goes — nothing that would alter the existing liberal power structure is ever subject to a vote. All committees and think-tanks that are created by “conservatives” with the stated intent to “have an influence” are just so much gas. They accomplish nothing because they are adjuncts of Liberaldom. You can’t destroy Liberaldom from within Liberaldom, any more than you can paint the outside of your house from the inside. 

I go back to Burke who said, “It is a great evil, that of a civil war. But in that state of things a civil war which would give to good men and a good cause some means of struggle, is a blessing…” Precisely, the liberals have created a demon-cratic state religion with a whole pantheon of greater and lesser colored gods. Every aspect of the pagan nature religions, including human sacrifice, has been re-created by the liberals with the addition of a few Christian symbols, perverted to stand for something diametrically opposed to Christianity. A civil war waged against such a satanic theocracy would indeed be a blessing. 

Whenever a man brings up the topic of counter-revolution – attacking the Western democracies from outside the framework of democracy – that man is called impractical. What could be more practical than fighting against demonic foes who will not rest until they have your heart’s blood? Most naysayers are infected with the democratic virus. They really believe that the democratic process in and of itself is a quasi-divine thing that all men must worship. And a small number of naysayers are against counterrevolution because they see no hope for its success. The latter have a narrow view of counterrevolution. Just because an immediate, full-scale military assault would not be successful does not mean the antique European has to embrace institutionalized Satanism. Far from it! We fight a war of spiritual preparation from within the bowels of Liberaldom until the day of a final reckoning comes. And if it never comes in our lifetime? Well, then we will have lived and struggled for “the good cause” and we will go to our house justified. Would you have it otherwise and die having served Liberaldom? What is Christian is always what is practical. If Satan rules Liberaldom, then we should stop worshipping the democratic process and fight against Liberaldom. 

I hear the dissenting chorus: “Democracy is the Christian way, multiculturalism is Christian tolerance, and miscegenation is Christian love and brotherhood.” Is it really so difficult to decide whether the modern Christian churchmen or the antique Europeans got it right? If you live only in the theoretical realm your faith will be a reed blowing in the winds of modernity. But if you have a heart that still lives you will see where the truth lies. Our minds can be blinded by an intellectual shell game, but not our hearts. 

When I read the history of the European settlements in this country and other countries such as South Africa, New Zealand, and Australia, I am struck by the fact that those white settlers took it as a given that they had to fight to carve out European homes while surrounded by colored barbarians who wanted their blood. And by a miracle of God’s grace and human beings cooperating with God’s grace, those white settlers of the colored lands, who are now called the spoilers of the colored lands, turned what had once been heathen lands into Christian lands. Now we are witnessing, throughout every European nation, the reversal of the European expansion into the heathen lands. The colored barbarians have driven the whites from their lands, and they are well on their way to making the formerly white European nations into colored barbarian nations. This is supposed to be a good thing. “We must be multiracial and multicultural if we are to survive,” liberals such as Tony Blair tell us. But no multiracial, multicultural nation ever survived. And the European nations will not be the exceptions. They will either be white Christian nations, because the whites finally rose up and drove the colored heathen into the sea, or they will be colored, barbarian nations. 

A demonic character in the Alfred Hitchcock film Strangers on a Train brags that, “I’m a very clever fellow.” And so is the devil a very clever fellow. The devil didn’t attack God head-on; instead he made Him of no consequence by trivializing Him. That is the striking thing about the new feel-good, fusionist Christianity of the Christian churches. It is astonishingly superficial and trivial because it is liberal, and liberalism is superficial and trivial. The Europeans have forsaken the spiritual depths of European Christianity in order to be multicultural. If blacks can’t relate to Christ as the Son of God, then make Him into a great civil rights advocate on a slightly lower level than Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King Jr. Similar accommodations have been made for every other non-white race. But when inclusiveness replaces spiritual depth, there is no real faith left in the organized churches; they become houses of desolation. The Christian faith is the bulwark of the Europeans. If they wallow in the superficial pig sty of inclusive, multicultural Christianity, they will not be able to mount an attack against Liberaldom, because they will not see any difference between themselves and the colored barbarians. They will have renounced the non-blended God of the antique Europeans in order to worship in the new inclusive Church of Satan, in which the negro always receives the greatest adulation and homage. 

At age thirty, Richard Weaver found that he had to rethink the basic assumptions of his twenties, because he had come to the realization that his basic assumptions had been wrong. I found myself in a similar position at age 24. I came to the conclusion that everything I had been taught for the past six years in the unhallowed halls of academia was fundamentally wrong. And I would sum up the fundamental error at the heart of my education and the education of all modern Europeans by citing Descartes’ belief that a man could only come to know reality by divesting himself of all that he had been brought up to believe. If such a dictate were to be followed, and it has been followed, the European would be cut off from his past where Christ dwells, and he would be cut off from his heartfelt sentiments about the nature of reality. And as a consequence the European is at the mercy of the abstract philosophers and their psychological descendants. I remember, toward the end of my purgatory in academia, asking my Shakespearean studies “teacher,” who insisted on forcing a Freudian interpretation on Shakespeare’s plays, how a second-rate philosopher-psychologist could tell us anything about a first-rate poet. Is our existence here on earth a poetic drama, as St. Paul and the European poets tell us? Or is it a problem in Logic 101? “There are more things in heaven and Earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in our philosophy.” Indeed there are! There is no God of love in ‘our philosophy.’ There is no personal God in all of feel-good, “I’m okay, you’re okay,” Jungian psychology. The European must seek the depths where his people reside because there He resides as well. All is cheerless, dark, and deadly, because the modern European is no longer connected to the fairy tale, Christian world of old Europe. He has embraced the oblivion of multicultural, racially diverse Babylon. 

A “mere” feeling is ultimately at the heart of our resistance to the mind-forged Babylon of the liberals. I recall a moment in my life that turned me into a raging anti-liberal. I was reading Bertrand Russell for a philosophy course. He stated with mathematical certainty that we lived in a godless, loveless universe. My heart rebelled against Russell’s cold, mathematical atheism. In a brief moment of illumination, I saw the image of God in man in the honored dead of Europe and in those still living who were connected to His Europe. I knew Russell was wrong. There is a deeper knowledge that is hidden from the philosophers and the Pharisees. Our sacred civilization was rooted in a faith in the personal God who St. Paul encountered on the road to Damascus. When we see with St. Paul’s eyes again, having cast off the blindness of superficial, Descartian logic, we will be men again, and we will do what our ancestors did so well. We will champion the true European fairy tale of Christ crucified, Christ risen, against all the world. +

Posted in Christian counter-attack, Liberalism, Older posts (pre-April 2019) | Tagged | Comments Off on To This Battle Field: Counterrevolution in Babylon

That Which is Lost

Posted on March 10, 2012 by cwny

“I had heard of that clergyman, as having buried many scores of the shipwrecked people; of his having opened his house and heart to their agonised friends; of his having used a most sweet and patient diligence for weeks and weeks, in the performance of the forlornest offices that Man can render to his kind; of his having most tenderly and thoroughly devoted himself to the dead, and to those who were sorrowing for the dead.  I had said to myself, ‘In the Christmas season of the year, I should like to see that man!’”  — Charles Dickens’ The Uncommercial Traveller

__________

A friend with kinist sympathies recently called me to express his delight that Pat Buchanan had been fired from his position from MSNBC. He was delighted because he thought that Pat would now be on our side! I can understand my friend’s feelings. Pat Buchanan, although marginalized, still has a voice within Liberaldom. It is only natural that a kinist from outside Liberaldom should hope for a voice within Liberaldom. But shouldn’t our hopes be based on something real? Pat has always consistently supported the propositional idea of a nation. He has never maintained that the United States should be a white, Christian nation. What Mr. Buchanan has consistently urged, as Simon Heffer also urged in Britain, is that immigrants of color should respect the existing culture and customs of the white Americans. That’s all Mr. Buchanan ever maintained. And for expressing those views, he was fired, which should not surprise us because we know that liberals are totalitarians. They talk about free speech and fair play when they are out of power, but once they obtain power they do not tolerate any opposition. And there has been a marked change in liberal behavior over the last ten years. They no longer even try to cloak the Babylonian night of liberalism with some of the trappings from the Christian day of Europe. Mainstream newspapers show homosexual lovers on their front pages, interracial couples are strewn throughout the television shows, and sexual depravities that would have made Caligula blush are celebrated in print, on screen, and on television. When such liberal depravities are so blatant, it’s a sign that the liberals do not think they will ever be outside looking in again. They are the powers that be and they see no sun setting on their day. 

What does it mean when journalists such as Pat Buchanan and Glenn Beck, men who voiced their objections to certain liberal policies respectfully while following the rules of Liberaldom, are cast out of Liberaldom? It means that liberals do not want a multicultural democratic society of “you respect my culture, and I’ll respect yours.” They want a totalitarian state dedicated to the hatred of the white Christian European and the worship of the black man. 

The so-called “democratic process” is merely a cloak for totalitarian liberalism. When liberals achieve the power necessary to quench all opposition they dispense with all pretexts. Elections in the European countries are merely state-sponsored show trials; we know the verdict before the verdict is given. The elected official will support “our democratic institutions” no matter which party he represents. And supporting our democratic institutions means supporting totalitarian liberalism and the state religion of totalitarian liberalism, which is negro worship. 

If we look at the existing world order with the eyes of the conservative prognosticators or the mad-dog liberals, everything seems cheerless, dark and deadly. But do those men of Liberaldom see with blinding sight? No, they do not. Even the conservative liberals who profess to be religious do not look at the Europeans’ history with their hearts. The eyes of reason see a Liberaldom that is forever. But the European heart, which has not been destroyed by the ignorance of reason, can see that antique Europe was His Europe and the antique Europeans were His people.  The European people will be tested and tried, but they will not perish if they hold to the vision of Christ that is the common inheritance of all Europeans who have not forsaken their blood. 

At this point I want to use a word that has been mightily abused. That word is ‘Biblical.’ It is currently used to connote a form of Christian Judaism in which the end of the world can be brought on by supporting the nation-state of Israel. I use the word in a more traditional and existential sense. The ancient Hebrews were enjoined by the prophets to view themselves as a Biblical people, a people connected to a God who ruled over all of human history. Their God was not to be found in nature. Whenever the Hebrews made nature their god they lost their vision of the true God. And the modern European has made the nature-worshipping heresy his own. 

God cannot come to a people who do not call on Him by name. If Christ becomes part of a rationalist nature theology, or if He becomes a super human civil rights worker or anything other than the God who is the beginning and the end, He will turn into airy nothing and be abstracted from the vital inner life of the European people. The existentialist writers of the mid-twentieth century were right to stress existence over essence, but why should such an existential emphasis lead to a denial of God? It should only lead to a denial of the abstract ‘Gods’ of the Christian theologians and the pagan nature religions. The God of Abraham, Jacob, Isaac, and St. Paul is an existential God! His existence precedes the theologians’ theories about the essence of God. When Europeans disregarded theories about the nature of a God whose existence could be inferred by reason contemplating nature, and concentrated instead on keeping faith with the God who took flesh and dwelt amongst them, they were a people with a purpose and a vision. Once they abstracted God from their blood, they lost their vision and their purpose. If the anti-European clergymen had kept faith with their people and the incarnate God, as distinct from the abstract God, they would not have gone whoring after negro gods in order to give them a vital blood connection to the deity. The kingdom of God was truly within them, and they gave it up for the abstract negro gods of nature. In the hands of the decadents, the 20th and 21st century Christless Christians, Christianity has become a faithless faith that is good when it serves liberalism and bad when it does not. The antidote for Christless Christianity is European Christianity, the faith of our ancestors. 

Prior to the 20th century the unquestioned assumption among Europeans, with the exception of a few Rousseauian intellectuals, was that European culture was good. And it was considered good because the European people were Christian. By the latter half of the 20th century the unquestioned assumption of the modern Europeans was that the pre-20th century European culture was evil. And it was considered evil because the Europeans of that time period were Christian. Because European Christianity was so evil, the mad-dog liberals dispensed with it altogether. The halfway-house Christians tried to save Christianity by making a distinction between the evil Christianity practiced by the Europeans and the new Christianity preached by the modern Christian clergy. But what if the Christianity of the antique Europeans was the true “practical” Christianity? In point of fact it was and it is. Kipling wrote that “The people, Lord, Thy people, are good enough for me.” The Christian faith of the antique Europeans is good enough for all of us. 

There are so many white moments in the works of Charles Dickens, moments when we see the image of our Savior reflected in the charitable outreach of one human being to another. One such moment occurs in the Pickwick Papers when Pickwick forgives Jingle. Another such moment takes place when Pip tells Magwitch that, “Please God, I will be as true to you as you have been to me!” And then there is that wonderful moment when Nicholas Nickleby steps forward and stops Wackford Squeers from beating Smike. Such white moments define European Christianity. Those Dickensian heroes of charity reflected the real, the true, European Christianity. Dickens called it “practical Christianity,” and he thought the real life embodiment of it was the Reverend Stephen Roose Hughes of Llanallgo, Wales. If you still have a European heart prepare to shed tears when you read Dickens’ report, in the second chapter of The Uncommercial Traveller, of a shipwreck that took place in 1859 off the coast of Wales. Over 500 men and women lost their lives in the wreck and the Rev. Hughes turned his church into a refuge for the relatives of the dead and his churchyard into a burial ground for the honored dead. Honored because they were human beings created in His image. Dickens came to the church some two months after the wreck. He never forgot the works of charity he saw performed by a man who had the true faith, bred in the bone.

So cheerful of spirit and guiltless of affectation, as true practical Christianity ever is!  I read more of the New Testament in the fresh frank face going up the village beside me, in five minutes, than I have read in anathematising discourses (albeit put to press with enormous flourishing of trumpets), in all my life.  I heard more of the Sacred Book in the cordial voice that had nothing to say about its owner, than in all the would-be celestial pairs of bellows that have ever blown conceit at me.

Again –

He had numbered each body in a register describing it, and had placed a corresponding number on each coffin, and over each grave.  Identified bodies he had buried singly, in private graves, in another part of the church-yard.  Several bodies had been exhumed from the graves of four, as relatives had come from a distance and seen his register; and, when recognised, these have been reburied in private graves, so that the mourners might erect separate headstones over the remains.  In all such cases he had performed the funeral service a second time, and the ladies of his house had attended…

The cheerful earnestness of this good Christian minister was as consolatory, as the circumstances out of which it shone were sad.  I never have seen anything more delightfully genuine than the calm dismissal by himself and his household of all they had undergone, as a simple duty that was quietly done and ended.  In speaking of it, they spoke of it with great compassion for the bereaved; but laid no stress upon their own hard share in those weary weeks, except as it had attached many people to them as friends, and elicited many touching expressions of gratitude.

And –

In this noble modesty, in this beautiful simplicity, in this serene avoidance of the least attempt to ‘improve’ an occasion which might be supposed to have sunk of its own weight into my heart, I seemed to have happily come, in a few steps, from the churchyard with its open grave, which was the type of Death, to the Christian dwelling side by side with it, which was the type of Resurrection.  I never shall think of the former, without the latter.  The two will always rest side by side in my memory.  If I had lost any one dear to me in this unfortunate ship, if I had made a voyage from Australia to look at the grave in the churchyard, I should go away, thankful to GOD that that house was so close to it, and that its shadow by day and its domestic lights by night fell upon the earth in which its Master had so tenderly laid my dear one’s head.

Rev. Hughes was an uncommon man even then. But such Christian charity and heroism was not that uncommon in Christian Europe. We must see what we have lost, the image of God in man, if we are ever going to cast off the Egyptian night of the liberals and seek the Christian day of the antique Europeans. 

Dickens used the term practical Christianity to describe the Rev. Hughes’ bred-in-the-bone Christianity. But is such a faith practical from a materialist standpoint? No, it is not practical from a materialist perspective. It is practical though, if human beings have souls. If that is the case what could be more practical than to be in union with the Blessed Savior whose love passeth all understanding? Very few moderns deny God; they simply put Him in an intellectual box and save Him for the next world in case science doesn’t conquer death before it’s their turn to die. But can God be put on hold in that matter? Should the living God be treated as one who is dead in this world? Won’t human beings then seek other gods, such as the negro, in order to feel connected to something other than their own minds? Frost wrote of two paths that diverged in the woods. Our ancestors took the path that led to Calvary because they saw their salvation in the cross of Christ. The modern Europeans took the other path. There was no cross and no thorns on that path, but there was also no God of love on that path. A science lab is a dark, loveless place. And a church with a negro God at the altar is a hideous, loathsome dwelling. 

Since the Europeans have followed the pied pipers of Liberaldom they have become as sounding brass. So long as they remain connected to the brave new world of negro-worshipping, Christless Christianity, and separated from the practical Christianity of the Rev. Stephen Roose Hughes of old Europe, they will be lost souls wandering in the desolate dwellings of Liberaldom. But the romance of the Cross will always have its European champions. The heart that truly loves, the European heart, will fight for that which is lost, our sacred Europe. +

No, the heart that has truly loved never forgets,
But as truly loves on to the close…

Posted in Antique Christianity, Older posts (pre-April 2019), White Moments | Tagged , | Comments Off on That Which is Lost

Courting the Friendship of the Wicked

Posted on March 3, 2012 by cwny

It is a dreadful part of the example, that infernal malevolence had had pious apologists, who read their lectures on frailties in favour of crimes; who abandoned the weak, and court the friendship of the wicked.  – Letter on a Regicide Peace by Edmund Burke

__________

I was a great deal less than ecstatic, but more than mildly pleased to see Simon Heffer’s article chronicling the Labour Party’s attempts to “destroy Britishness” through massive immigration. What I liked about Heffer’s article was his recognition that the native Brits had every right to expect their rulers and those immigrants who come to Britain to respect the native British culture:

In a society that remains more than 90 per cent indigenously British, it is ludicrous to be ashamed of national traditions, rooted in common values from a shared past.

And it is entirely right to expect those who come here to accept those values and traditions, and not be made – usually by mischievous, politically-motivated white liberals – to feel hostile towards them.

When even many atheists recognise the central importance of Christianity to the culture and institutions of our country – and I am one of them – it is offensive to the intellect as well as to the spiritual to seek to downgrade or marginalize that faith.

Our society needs an end to mass immigration.

What I did not like about the article was Heffer’s attempt to avoid both the racial and religious issue. He, like the members of the English Defence League (EDL), who wanted “all decent people be they black, white, Christian, Sikh, Jewish or Muslim…” to ban together for England, fails to come to grips with the fact that the non-white, non–Christian immigrants will never become good Britons. First and foremost they can’t become good Britons, because a good Briton, by definition, is white and he is Christian. There is no other kind of Briton. To suggest there can be an abstract British citizen, loyal to an abstract Britain with no racial or religious identity is to enter the utopian realm of Thomas Paine. And secondly, the Moslems and the people of color do not want to become good Britons. The Moslems want to make Britain into Islamabad, and the blacks want to rape and pillage their way through Britain.

Heffer, though an atheist, thinks that respect for Britain’s national identity, “Founded on Christian values of tolerance and decency…” is the best way to guarantee a harmonious future for all our people, of whatever racial background…” That sounds disgusting. Let’s all hold hands and sing the Coca Cola song. There are some nonbelievers, such as George Eliot, Thomas Jefferson, and Simon Heffer, who admire Christianity as an ethical system. Such “friends” of Christianity are dangerous because Christianity severed from the belief in Christ as the son of God becomes a secularized ethical system (I believe it’s called liberalism) in which faith, hope, and charity are replaced by “tolerance and decency” which translates to tolerance for evils, such as abortion and miscegenation, and respect for decency as defined by liberals. True charity, which stems from faith in Christ, is more often than not deemed too intolerant and indecent in the extreme by liberals who want white Christians to tolerate the evils liberals do and the moral indecencies that they glory in. 

Heffner has taken one baby step toward the light, but he will remain largely in the dark if he continues to ignore the obvious: Racial and religious diversity kills. Britain and every other European nation must be racially and religiously non-diverse if they hope to survive. 

Recent barbarian atrocities in Britain, a mild white protest of the atrocities, and a satanic liberal response to the mild protest, illustrate the present position of white people vis-à-vis the state and vis-à-vis the non-white cultures: In Rochdale, England (I’ve never been there but I’m told it’s in the northwest) eleven Asian men, at least they are called men, raped and assaulted a number of young white girls. In other words, the subhuman Asians are practicing pedophiles. When a few white teenagers threw rocks at the businesses of the offending Asians, the police threatened “robust” action against people seeking to “take advantage” of the racial tension in the town. And when the inclusive, “we love everybody” English Defence League (called an “extreme right wing” organization) planned a protest of the Asian barbarities, the police warned that “There are clear racial elements behind this. The EDL are coming to Manchester again on Saturday. We have a robust policing operation in place. I’m very confident of that policing operation.” The police went on to warn white Britons not to put anything inflammatory up on Facebook or Twitter. “We are, as a police service, monitoring all the sites. Where we see things that are inflammatory or trying to incite or corral people for criminal activity, we will act.”

It doesn’t matter what European country you look at; the same nightmare is unfolding. A sick, degenerate white hierarchy opens up their country to the colored hordes. They hope that the colored barbarians will dispose of the white grazers and then become loving subjects of the Atticus Finches of Liberaldom. The first part of the scenario is already taking place, the second part never will take place. 

Once they enter the formerly European nations the colored barbarians do what they did in their own countries — they behave like barbarians. The only difference is that in the white countries there is no one to check them. The colored barbarians have free license to murder, rape, and rob white people. If there is even the slightest murmur of a protest from white people the government responds as it did in the Rochdale pedophile incidents; it vows to crack down on white racists. And of course the crackdown works. Even mild protests are framed in such all inclusive language — “we respect all races and faiths” and “we deplore all violence” — that the protestors become a kind of support group for the barbarians of color, reassuring them that white people won’t become violent, and white people are not against all colored barbarians, just a few misguided, naughty ones.

I see the suicide of the white race taking place before my eyes, but I still can’t understand it. How long will white people remain a non-people? Shakespeare is the pre-eminent European poet because of the breadth and depth of his poetic vision. He is always our contemporary because he imagined and depicted every aspect of the human condition. He speaks to us, the suicidal whites, across the centuries:  King Lear brings untold miseries on himself, his subjects, and his loved ones by his folly. But through suffering, Lear is ennobled. Suffering has not driven him mad; it has driven him to sanctity. And it is from that new perspective, the perspective of a saint, that King Lear realizes there are human beings so hideously evil that there can be only one response to them: “And when I have stol’n upon these son-in-laws, Then, kill, kill, kill, kill, kill, kill!” 

While liberals look to punish even so much as an angry word from a white grazer, they themselves choose violence to solve all their problems.  Does childbirth interfere with a woman’s right to be free and fulfilled? Then wipe out the children in their mothers’ wombs. Do white people pose a threat to the new Babylonian utopia? Then bring in the colored barbarians and turn them loose on the whites. The liberals’ hands are covered with blood, and the barbarians’ hands are covered with blood. Yet still the white grazers remain tolerant, supportive, and respectful toward the governments that have sanctioned the extermination of the white race. Young white males join their nations’ armies and navies to fight for the new, white-hating Babylonian world order. And white parents support school and church where their children learn to hate the white race and worship the colored races. How long, oh Lord, how long? 

The conservative American columnist Chilton Williamson recently predicted that the United States would soon be engaged in a civil war because of the irreconcilable racial groups currently residing in the land mass called the United States. A civil war would be an improvement on the present war in which only the liberals and the colored barbarians are fighting. It would be most heartening if white people actually started holding up their end of the war. A war in which only one side is fighting can hardly even qualify as a war, unless you call killing cattle in a slaughterhouse a warlike activity. Without a whimper Europeans have turned themselves over to the butchers. 

Should we just assume that the white race is a cowardly race of spineless jellyfish and leave it at that? We can’t if we want to get at the truth. White people have shown tremendous courage during national disasters in their own countries and when going to the aid of victims of national disasters in other countries. It is in defense of their own against colored aggression that they seem completely helpless. Why should this be so? 

White people cannot act in accord against a common colored enemy, because they believe what their leaders have told them, that they are a pariah race of people who must do penance for the sins of their ancestors. This is why whites always frame even their most mild protests against colored atrocities in non-racial terms: “… all decent people, be they black, white, Christian, Sikh, Jewish or Muslim…” The whites will remain in bondage, at the mercy of a merciless, hate-filled hierarchy of liberals and the colored barbarians, so long as they continue to seek redemption from the devil. And it is the devil who rules Liberaldom through the good offices of the liberal. The ideals of the French Jacobins have become the ruling principles throughout the European countries:

The rebels to God perfectly abhor the Author of their being. They hate him “with all their heart, with all their mind, with all their soul, and with all their strength.” He never presents himself to their thoughts but to menace and alarm them. They cannot strike the Sun out of Heaven, but they are able to raise a smouldering smoke that obscures him from their own eyes. Not being able to revenge themselves on God, they have a delight in vicariously defacing, degrading, torturing, and tearing in pieces his image in man.

If white people, such as the members of the EDL who try to stop white genocide with Coca Cola songs, would look to a different leadership, the leadership of their honored dead, they could find in that leadership the white man’s answer to the demonic rule of the liberals and the colored barbarians. It was with the backing and the encouragement of Satan that the liberals urged, and then when they got power they demanded, that all Europeans break with their evil past, which was racist, sexist, homophobic and completely unprogressive. And thus far the white grazers have been mesmerized by modernity. Some aspects of it might make them uncomfortable, but they are still too mesmerized by it to forsake it. So they keep hoping against hope that the liberals will be merciful to them and let them live in Babylon. But the god of Liberaldom does not extend mercy to the penitent. No amount of groveling will atone for the white man’s sins against the black gods of Liberaldom. The white man will not be forgiven even in death. And what was the unforgivable sin of the white man? He was the Christ-bearer: that was his sin. Asian pedophiles rape white girls in Britain, and black barbarians rape and torture whites in the United States, South Africa and every European country, because the liberal hierarchies of every European nation condone such atrocities. And they will go on condoning and defending such atrocities because they hate the Son of God and His people. As Burke said, they want to tear God to pieces by destroying the image of God in man. 

When the British police officials warned that they were going to take “robust” action against whites seeking to retaliate against the Asian pedophiles, what were they really saying? Let me translate. They were saying, “I love the devil and all his works, and I hate Christ and all His works.” If the whites with some spark of whiteness left in their souls, such as the Coca Cola songsters of the EDL, could see who really rules Britain and all of Europe, they might stop seeking redemption from the prince of darkness and turn to the God who defends the hopeless and those who fight for the hopeless. Tolerance of evil is not Christian. Hatred of one’s own is not Christian. And the support of Satan’s reign on earth is damnable. We all die in the end, but shouldn’t we die fighting for His reign of charity rather than Satan’s reign of darkness? +

Posted in Europeans and Christ, Older posts (pre-April 2019) | Tagged | Comments Off on Courting the Friendship of the Wicked