I read R. Jamison's recent post
in which he quoted a black columnist's reaction to the white protests of the torture-murders of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom. The columnist's reaction? "Cry me a river."
To say I felt rage would be a gross understatement. I felt something burn within me that went beyond rage. And yet I did not go down to Knoxville, kill the murderers, and beat the columnist to within an inch of his despicable life. Why didn't I? For the obvious reason that I don't possess the superhuman courage to offer myself up for martyrdom. Antique Christians make a mistake when they depict liberals as weak. Liberals often seem weak to those on the right because they will not fight in defense of the things for which old style Christians used to fight. But liberals will fight, and kill, for causes they hold dear. The murder of Paul Hill by liberals is a case in point.
I want to emphasize, however, that I would kill those inhuman murderers and beat the liberal columnist senseless if the liberal state did not stand ready to execute me for such actions. However, I do not refrain because I think my Christian faith forbids it. Indeed, I would claim that my desire to kill the murderers and punish the columnist stems from my Christian faith. So either I or our contemporary Christians are in error, because they certainly would not support my view of Christianity and killing.
I could, if I desired, cite chapter and verse from Catholic and Protestant moral theologians on the subject of a 'just' war, and the prohibitions on an individual taking up arms against the state. But I will not cite from those weighty tomes. And I will not, because, just as our initial intuitions of life are anterior to our rationalizations about life, so are our heartfelt passions, to kill in defense of and to punish home when innocent blood is shed, anterior to the theological commentaries on the subject of when a Christian should kill. The theologians are no more capable of giving us sound advice on killing than a eunuch is capable of fathering a child.
How did men, real Christian men, of the past respond to atrocities committed against their own? They came upon the perpetrators of such deeds and killed them. Sometimes, when Christian men were in power, they punished home with the full weight of the state behind them. But when they were out of power and ruled by satanic forces (as was the South during the "Reconstruction" era), they still found a way to punish home.
There is no escaping it. Either our American European and European ancestors were wrong about Christianity and killing, or our contemporary "Christians" are wrong.
The truth of the matter is that democracy, as Richard Weaver has pointed out, means something much more than a form of government to modern Christians. It is Zion. Read through the rhetoric of one of the first, "new breed" Democratic war mongers, Abraham Lincoln. Though he objected to the excessive zeal of the radical abolitionists, he threw his lot in with them, because both "were moving toward Zion." There is no difference between the secular Zion of the democracy advocates and the worker's paradise of communism. The utopian theory behind both systems states that the people rule. And in both systems, a tiny oligarchy actually rules.
Institutional Christianity is satanic because the churches have bedded down with the whore called democracy. Our satanic democratic government has nothing in common with the town meeting styled democracy of the rural farmers and tradesmen of the 1700s. It is a capitalist oligarchy without room for anything that touches or deals with the spiritual dimension of man.
And the only opposition to the democratic oligarchy seems to come from the ranks of the white pagan groups. White Christians are deterred from action because, despite their grumblings about them, they have an inordinate respect for their clergymen. But the clergymen have placed their hopes in a philosophical system that consists of pseudoscientific meanderings and psychological hocus pocus. They still call it Christianity, but it is not. If we look at the past with a sincere attempt to understand the spirit behind the traditions of our ancestors, we will be able to judge our contemporaries who claim they support murder and torture because they are democratic and Christian. Understanding tradition is an act of the imagination and the heart. One has to have a desire to see things as the men and women of the past saw things. You cannot simply copy an external ceremony or rite and be united with the past, and what we find when we unite with the past is that Christian men fought and killed in defense of kith and kin.
If we clear away all the cant about "sacred democracy" and break free from clerical domination, we will see that defending our own and punishing those who attack our own is a tactical problem, not a moral one. We have a duty to protect and defend. The only question should be, how do we do so in the face of the most thoroughly satanic governmental power structure ever conceived.
We are in a much more desperate situation than the Scottish people were in after their defeat at Culloden in 1745, and than the South was in during the era of Reconstruction. In both cases in point there was a clannish solidarity among the disenfranchised. The Scottish Highlanders paid double rents, one to the English under compulsion, and a second to their exiled chieftains out of loyalty. And in the South, the Klan was able to rise and ride because there was overwhelming support for their efforts. In the contemporary U.S. and Europe, there is no spirit of clannishness, which is the reason that the white Christian remnant writes anonymous blogs in cyberspace. Such blogging is a step up from hiding in the basement, but our ultimate goal should be the restoration of Christian Europe and the defeat of democratic capitalism and racial babelism.
The modern white man believes that democracy, whether it be democratic socialism or democratic capitalism, is the end of human history. The colored tribes, because they can be ruled by sacrificial offerings of "worthless, non-productive whites," are an essential part of the post Christian's democratic vision. Whether it be McCain's vision of grateful Mexican peons licking his presidential feet or Pope John Paul II's vision of happy, vital Africans kissing his pontifical ring, it is the same fantasy: A high, mucky-muck white liberal presides over large tribal hordes of colored men and women who have enough sense, unlike his fellow whites, to accord him the dignity and honor he deserves. That is their delusional vision. And it should be noted that even fundamentalist Christians, who profess to be against evolution as it pertains to the origin of man, believe in an evolutionary, mystical concept of American democracy; they believe that it is God's preferred system of government and that any previous or contrary system of government is backward and unChristian. But such is not the case. The first European Christian form of government was the clan. And as we move from the clan to monarchy to democracy, we make a descent, not an ascent. The hearth, the village and the field, those are the components of a Christian commonwealth, not the factory, the city, and asphalt. This ludicrous notion that without democratic capitalism we would all live in huts without indoor plumbing is nonsense. We would not have condos or skyscrapers, but we would have houses that were homes with Christian hearths.
The difference between a tribe and a clan is the hearth. In a tribe, fire is necessary to cook with, and both human and animal meats are cooked on the tribal fires. But the hearth fire in a clan is the place where two or three gather together in His name. It has been sanctified because He is welcome there. When many such hearths are banded together, they constitute a clan, which is why it would be an ascent to a higher plane of existence, not a descent, if white people could become clansmen again.
One thing should be fixed in our mind before we proceed against the satanic whites and their barbarian minions. There will be no mercy in them. They have rejected the religion of mercy. In their value system there is no punishment too severe for the undemocratic, unredeemed white Christians. So maybe in the beginning, the fight will have to be with blogs. But when the time is ripe, it is
Christian to fight and to kill in defense of, and to punish home.
It is important as well that we not let young white men who have a desire to fight with something besides words be siphoned off by satanic, Christ-hating Christians. When society only permits warlike behavior in defense of satanic causes, it is difficult to stop young men from serving those causes. "It's easy for you to say," the young man says. "Your blood has cooled with age." But I do know what the young white male feels, because my blood has not cooled with age and because I have vivid memories.
I think every police officer, at least those with white blood, has a very basic, rather romantic, notion of his job. He believes that he is Wyatt Earp or some such figure, and that he stands between the bad guys and civilized society. I know I had such notions when I was a young police officer. But the reality was quite different. I was only allowed to act against lower class, drunk and disorderly whites. I was not allowed to act against the more dangerous black criminals. To do so, we were informed (not directly, but implicitly) would bring a host of civil rights organizations against us and could result in our own incarceration. Now in my district there was a black section that we were periodically told to go through and show a police presence. But we were not to respond in any way to what was thrown at us – bottles or words – as we proceeded down the mean streets. On some hot summer nights things got so bad in the district that our sergeant took an entire squad of police officers through the black district. On one such night, a homemade bomb was thrown from one of the houses bordering the street. It hit one of the officers. I felt a rage run through me similar to the rage I feel now toward the black torturer-murderers. Apparently I was not the only officer who felt that rage because that night we didn't crawl. It was a very instructive experience for me. Sneering, smug barbarians became cringing, cowering creatures. The barbarians do not know what to do when enraged white men show a united front.
Although nothing was done that night that was morally wrong, much was done that was politically incorrect. There were repercussions, from white liberals of course, and many officers were made to regret the one night when they responded to what was in their hearts and blood instead of the dictates of white liberaldom.
It might seem that I've muddied the waters. I started with a plea for Christians to break the chains of democracy and to start thinking about fighting and killing in defense of kith and kin, and I ended with a plea to young white men to shun warlike behavior. But of course there is no contradiction. My plea is not for killing for the sake of killing. The barbarians do that. It is a plea for a sense of clannishness among white Christians and a realization of what actions might be necessary to defend the clan. Sometimes defense of the clan will require violent action, and sometimes it will require a loss of a career because that career would require a young man to act with violence against the interests of his clan. If Christian males, for instance, ever get past the blogging stage and really start to show a united front against black and Mexican barbarians, do you think a president such as George Bush would hesitate for one second to send federal troops against them?
What seems like a hopelessly complicated problem in moral theology is not all that complicated. Show me a man with a truly European heart, a heart in tune with His Heart, and he'll know the difference between fighting for the leviathan and fighting for kith and kin. And when white men break free from the mind-forged manacles of democracy, such men will rise and ride when they see the fiery cross.
Labels: cry me a river, democracy and Zion, difference between a tribe and a clan, on killing