“You Bid Me Seek Redemption from the Devil”

I have before me an article by one of those old-fashioned conservatives who is against the demonizing of the white race. He writes that America has Hispanic history months, Asian history months, and black history months (it seems like every month is black history month). The main theme of all the history months is the evil of white people. The author of the article deplores this and suggests that we, the white people, “should seek – via letters to editors, school board members, and other elected officials – to assert not only the truth about America, but also the value of their own identity.”

Granting that the author of the article has his heart in the right place does not his advice strike us as a bit ludicrous? Are editors of newspapers, school board members, and other elected officials going to respond to letters from white people asking them to resist the Asian, the black, and the Mexican invasion? Of course they’re not. Well, let me rephrase that. They will respond. If you are foolish enough to put your name on the letter, they will respond to your letter with some sort of bureaucratic intimidation. You will be either audited, fired from your job, or fined.

The well-meaning conservative is asking us to seek redemption from the devil. Are liberal bureaucrats who make their living exposing the evils of “Euro-centrism” and the virtues of multiculturalism going to respond favorably to a letter extolling the virtues of European culture and the evils of multiculturalism?

Our well-meaning conservative is laboring under a false assumption when he suggests we defeat the devil with a letter writing campaign. The false assumption is that the mark of the white man is an abiding respect for the rule of law. This is not so. There is ingrained in the European a respect for laws that stem from the Christian tradition. But there is also ingrained in the European a disrespect for law when it is not grounded in Christianity. Thomas Nelson page wrote eloquently on this subject when he addressed the Negro question in the post-Civil War South of the 1890’s.

It is charged that the written law is not always fully and freely observed in the South in matters relating to the exercise of the elective franchise. The defence is not so much a denial of the charge as it is a confession and avoidance. To the accusation it is replied that the written law, when subverted at all, is so subverted only in obedience to a higher law founded on the instinct of self-protection and self-preservation.

If it be admitted that this is true, is it nothing to us that a condition exists which necessitates the subversion of any law? Is it not an injury to our people that the occasion exists which places them in conflict with the law, and compels them to assert the existence of a higher duty?

Page’s apologia still stands today. If the law tells us that we must self-destruct as a people then we will defy that law in the name of a higher law.

It has appeared to some that the South has not done its full duty by the negro. Perfection is, without doubt, a standard above humanity; but, at least, we of the South can say that we have done much for him; if we have not admitted him to social equality, it has been under an instinct stronger than reason, and in obedience to a law higher than is on the statute books: the law of self-preservation. Slavery, whatever its demerits, was not in its time the unmitigated evil it is fancied to have been. Its time has passed. No power could compel the South to have it back. But to the negro it was salvation. It found him a savage and a cannibal and in two hundred years gave seven millions of his race a civilization, the only civilization it has had since the dawn of history.

We have educated him; we have aided him; we have sustained him in all right directions. We are ready to continue our aid; but we will not be dominated by him. When we shall be, it is our settled conviction that we shall deserve the degradation into which we shall have sunk.

The great majority of white people have decided they prefer the reign of Satan to that of Christ. Satan’s values are more in keeping with their values. And the colored tribes have always preferred Satan. Those groups of people do not concern me. It is the remnant, Europeans like the conservative columnist who want us to write letters, with whom I am concerned. The white remnant has been beguiled by the democratic serpent. They think that so long as they are allowed to vote, even though there are no truly white candidates to vote for, and so long as they are allowed to write letters to the editor, that there is no need for extraordinary measures against the New World Order. But it is the survival of our race and our faith that we are talking about. The colored hordes and their temporary allies, the white-hating technocrats, have made it clear by what they say they are going to do and what they have already done, that they mean to destroy the white race.

And the white haters have not had to suffer one iota for their anti-white ideology or their anti-white actions. Far from it, they have been rewarded. What would happen if they faced an enemy that took a “whatever means necessary” attitude whenever their race or their faith was endangered? (1) An enemy that does not regard democratic protocol as something sacred? I think the New World Order would start, slowly at first but then quickly, to crumble.

The remnant white man is not deficient in courage. If his home were attacked directly, he would fight. What he lacks is vision. He can no longer see things clearly because he is only looking at life through a rationalist-tinted window. This is the window Satan wants the European to look through, because as long as he sees life through that window he will never act until all is lost. He won’t fight those who would destroy his home until they are at his door because his mind can’t comprehend the evil nature of his enemies. The rationalist always thinks men do evil when they think irrationally. Therefore he thinks that if he appeals to their reason they can be converted to the path of virtue. But reason is the servant of our passions. If our passions are evil, our reason will serve those evil passions. The desire to destroy the white race is the passion of the colored hordes and the technocratic whites. An appeal to their reason will not deter them. Their passion to destroy must be met by a greater passion, a passion to defend what we hold sacred, our race and our faith.

The pro-life movement, in which I spent many years, is a perfect example of the insufficiency of rational argument against satanic forces. Year after year the pro-life people show pictures of the baby in the womb and present a rationally irrefutable case for the humanity of the child in the womb. But the abortion mills keep grinding and no one seriously contemplates a reversal of Roe v. Wade. The only men who seem to understand the abortion issue are those men who are killing abortion doctors.

Since reason only serves the passions of our heart, the appeal for the preservation of the white man must be made to the hearts of the anti-white liberals. And that appeal has been made and it has been rejected. When two factions are fundamentally opposed, where the sacred heritage of one faction is the hated evil of the other, then those two factions are at war. Up to now it has been only the liberals and their barbarian allies who have been fighting. They fine, they imprison, and they kill when they are threatened. We cannot fine, we cannot imprison, we don’t the legal power, but we can kill. That, as Nathan Bedford Forrest said so succinctly, is what war means. It is all well and good to talk about a cultural war, but it is just that, talk, if we don’t realize what a cultural war entails. When the Islamic cultures and the European cultures clashed in the medieval ages, they fought a whole series of wars. I believe they were called crusades. When cultures clash there is war, unless one side simply surrenders.

I believe our un-Civil War was tragic because the cultural divide between the North and the South was not so great that it could not have been bridged. But the tragic element in the current cultural war is that the European remnant does not see that no bridge can be built across the chasm that separates him from the white liberal and the barbarians. We are back to the failure of vision. If he could see those things that are not dreamt of in our philosophies -- a God who loves with a love that passeth all understanding and the limitless potential of a faith grounded in His love -- the European would take the “to the knife” vow and would eventually triumph over the liberal and the barbarian.

War certainly means killing, but it doesn’t mean the indiscriminate killing indulged in by Timothy McVeigh and the IRA. A Christian rejects 'collateral damage' warfare. Nor does the realization that we are at war mean we should go out and kill the first liberal or barbarian we meet. If we see with blinding sight what we must do to prepare for the war, it quite probably will come to that -- killing liberals and barbarians. (2) But first we must take the vow in the cave like the Spanish did in 770, we must also use a Samizidat press like the Russian dissenters did, and we must form counterrevolutionary cabals like the revolutionary Marxists did. Above all is the vow in the cave. So long as one faithful white man is alive the war goes on. “To the knife.” (3)

__________________________
(1) I don’t think civil disobedience is an option for the white man. The reason being that civil disobedience only works if the existing regime agrees with the civil dissenters. The British wanted to get out of India as badly as Gandhi and company wanted them out. Our federal government wanted a multi-racial society just as much as Martin Luther King Jr. wanted it.

The abortion protesters are a stark contrast. The government wants abortion so those protestors are thrown in jail. It always, or so it seems to me, comes down to the ‘seeking redemption from the devil’ problem. If you are protesting a demonic policy, such as race-mixing or legalized abortion, your appeal will be heard if, and only if, your government is not satanic. If it is satanic, any person or group of persons who appeal to said government in the name of Him will suffer the same fate that He suffered.

(2) It never ceases to amaze me when liberals are allowed to get away with the assertion that they are non-violent. The liberals kill directly in their abortuaries and they kill by proxy in the streets of our cities when they incite (and then excuse) the murder of whites by colored barbarians.

(3) Patrick Buchanan in a recent Chronicles article states that the white man is finished and that he can only hope that the Asians and the other non-European cultures treat us better than we treated them. I don’t think that is possible, Mr. Buchanan, because only in an utopian world could a ruling people possibly treat other cultures and other people better than the Christian Europeans did. There were no Haitis when Europeans ruled. There were no Fu Manchu-type dynasties when the Europeans ruled. When you’re through spitting on your ancestors, Mr. Buchanan, try to look through the eye of your own people instead of with the eye of a statistician. I regret every good thing I ever wrote about Patrick Buchanan.