Cambria Will Not Yield

Saturday, October 25, 2008

In the Land of the Stranger

Reflections on The Content of America’s Character: Recovering Civic Virtue, edited by Don Eberly

In the margin of Herman Melville’s copy of King Lear, next to the passage in which Edmund, the bastard brother, defends bastards, Melville comments, “There is often a vitality to demonism that mere virtue lacks.” The articles in this book underscore Melville’s wise observation. After reading through these articles on virtue and character, one is forced to conclude that a person with character and virtue is as dull as a burned-out light bulb. Most of the articles read like chapters from Ph.D. dissertations, and indeed, most of the articles are written by Ph.Ds.

And therein lies the great dullness and weakness of most of the authors. So many of them, with the exception of Keith J. Pavlischek, advance Aristotle as our guide to recovering civic virtue. Here they make a crucial mistake. In an effort to find a non-Christian and therefore non-threatening guide to virtue, most of the authors seize on Aristotle. They forget an important fact: the Incarnation took place. One cannot go back to ethics without Christ once Christ has entered history. As wise as the Greco-Roman sages were, the final vision of their world, as depicted by Virgil, is despair. The “grandeur that was Greece and the glory that was Rome” is ashes without the God-Man. Dostoyevsky correctly diagnosed the problem of modern man when he stated, “Whether a man, as a civilised being, as an European, can believe at all, believe that is in the divinity of the Son of God, Jesus Christ...”

Only one author in this collection of essays faces this issue head-on. In Chapter 8, “The Religious Roots of Character,” Keith Pavlischek contrasts Tocqueville’s view of America in the 1830’s with Solzhenitsyn’s view in the 1970’s. Tocqueville was amazed that a society with a government that espouses no particular religion should have a people that seemed very religious. Pavlischek quotes Solzhenitsyn, who saw a different America:

Every citizen has been granted the desired freedom and material goods in such quantity and of such quality as to guarantee in theory the achievement of happiness. In the process, however, one psychological detail has been overlooked: the constant desire to have still more things and a still better life and the struggle to maintain them imprints many Western faces with worry and even depression, though it is customary to conceal such feelings. Active and tense competition permeates all human thoughts without opening a way to free spiritual development.
Why the different views? Pavlischek suggests that what appeared to be our strength, the lack of a public religion in the 1830’s, turned out to be the Achilles’ heel of our Republic. The public orthodoxy that banished all religions gradually marginalized American Christians to the extent that Christianity now has no real influence on public life. This situation, according to Pavlischek, is intolerable:
Of course, a significant portion of the American public dissents from this view. Religions conviction continues to shape their lives and they are increasingly alienated from a legal and political system that trivializes those convictions. Over the next several decades Americans will be forced to reflect seriously on the words of Joseph Story: ‘the promulgation of the great doctrines of religion... can never be a matter of indifference to any well ordered community.’ Indeed, we may ask whether the real question is not if we will have a community that is well ordered, but, given the lack of a broad-based moral consensus, whether we can have any community at all.
It is impossible to have any community at all, if the individual members of a community do not have a common religion which they desire to see enshrined as the public orthodoxy. And that is why, independent of whether McCain wins the upcoming Presidential election, I think the liberal liberals who support Obama will ultimately win out over the Rush Limbaugh-type of conservative liberal, for the reason that the liberal liberal has a religion and the Limbaugh liberal does not.

Having lost their faith in the God-Man (the modern liberal has answered Dostoevsky’s question with a decisive ‘no’), liberals have replaced Him with the black man. There is no escaping that fact.(1) The zeal with which the white establishment has responded to the Obama presidential run can only be described as a religious frenzy. The Limbaugh-neo-con appeal to avarice and greed has been a somewhat successful counter to the liberals’ black worshipping faith, but because of his Christian past the white liberal needs a more unselfish sounding faith (and I stress the word ‘sounding’ because ultimately it is a very selfish faith) than the faith provided by the liberal conservatives.

The new-breed of white man has made his faith the public orthodoxy. A public-spirited citizen of the modern world must worship the black man. And a community organizer is a person who looks for pockets of resistance to the public orthodoxy so that he can eliminate those pockets of resistance. This state of affairs will only end when white people replace the great black god with the God-Man. Impersonal appeals to our Greco-Roman Christian heritage won’t be effective. The new Europeans have their new god. We must cling to the old God and we must call on Him by name: “The Christ, the Son of the Living God.”

The United States and the collective states of Europe have become the land of the stranger. The Christian European does not feel at home in what was once his homeland. And it is good that he does not feel at home, because this strange new world worships, in the form of the black man, Satan. I recall a Davy Crockett song I used to sing when I was a child. One line still comes to mind with overwhelming force: “In the land of the stranger, I rise or I fall.” There is no room for us in this new world – who wants room in such a world? The black worshippers, who represent the new orthodoxy, want to eradicate all religions that are not black-worshipping religions. They will not be dissuaded by reason, by appeals for mercy, or by offers of compromise.

We are in for a long, bloody battle, which is not a very pleasant prospect. But the alternative is surrender to the forces of Satania. That might be less painful in the short run, but in the long run it would be, quite literally, hell.
(1) Once again, let’s refer to Richard Weaver’s book, Visions of Order. He points out that Socrates did undermine the Greek religion by talking about the Greek gods in an objective, analytical way rather than as an enthusiast. This is why you hear the various newscasters hurling jeremiads at anyone who does not wax rhapsodic about Obama. One should not, the liberal media tell us, talk about one’s god in any terms except those of a laudatory psalmist. I agree with that sentiment, but I have a different God than the PCR whites.

Labels: , ,

Saturday, October 18, 2008

A Different World

It is really impossible to tell whether McCain, the white-hating, liberal, technocratic egomaniac, or Obama, the radical, white-hating Mau Mau, will do the most damage to white people. The one certain thing is that the anti-white agendas of the previous Republican and Democratic Presidents will be continued and broadened.

I do not believe that an Obama presidency will “mobilize white people.” Why should it? From where will the pro-white, anti-Obamba white people come? The churches? They were the first to succumb to the white-hating virus. From our public schools? That idea is laughable. Or possibly from the ranks of the average American Joe? The average American Joe has slid too far down the slippery slope. How are you going to mobilize a man, who regularly worships black people on the television set, into opposing the anti-white policies of a member of the same race that the average American Joe worships? No, counterrevolutions are not brought about by fat, contented hogs. They are brought about by a remnant band of lean and hungry lions. Only those men who have rejected it all, American pie, rock and roll, and Amway, will be able to mount a charge against the liberal leviathan.

In the 1950’s Herbert Butterfield correctly identified the problem with liberals. By cutting away the traditions and sentiments that came from Christianity, they were not, as they thought, moving mankind toward a brighter, purer world, but were in reality
moving mankind toward a world in which only the devil, and those possessed by the devil, could feel at home.

The cutting and pruning has been going on continuously for the past fifty years and it is difficult for the liberals to find anything left to cut. But they must claim there is still some European, Christian ‘undergrowth’ left to be cut down, because if all the undergrowth is already gone, why is utopia not here?

St. Paul tells us that the last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. The Europeans made that Pauline belief the center of their culture. At the “last trump” at the “twinkling of an eye,” the Hero will step in and defeat the last enemy: “And Death once dead, there’s no more dying then.” (1) The Europeans used to believe that.

In a satanic civilization everything is inverted. The antique Europeans celebrated the death of death at Easter, while the modern post-Christians celebrate the death of Christian culture by honoring the birthdays of satanic figures such as Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King Jr. And every day is a macabre celebration of death in the satanic abortuaries throughout the Western world.

The liberals always react with glee every time they cut down another piece of Christian ‘undergrowth’ because they think, to the extent that they think at all, that doing so will bring mankind closer to a magnificent future. But it is not in the future that we can see the realization of the liberals’ dream. It is in the past, the past of the non-European cultures. The non-European cultures had, and have, no faith, no hope, and no charity. One lives one’s life in such cultures in a world without forgiveness, because there is no concept of sin, and without mercy, because there is no concept of a divine link between humanity and a merciful God. This is the end the liberals have promised us. And every Presidential election takes us closer to that end.

The liberal future, a world without mercy that worships death, is already here, with one exception. In the future there will be no white technocrats at the top of the food chain, because the white technocrat has made a crucial mistake. He thinks that by denying the existence of race he can remain in Satan’s utopia. But the other races do not deny the existence of race, and the white technocrat will be replaced by the Asian. The orthodoxy of the Orient, the idea of the sovereignty of detached reason, was always the heterodoxy of the West. When that heterodoxy became the European’s orthodoxy, the West became an intellectual counterpart of the Orient.

It is far from a certainty that the European will embrace Christian orthodoxy and rebuild Christian civilization. But it is a certainty that there will be no civilization, in the non-anthropological sense of the word, if the European does not rebuild Christian Europe.

In the current presidential election we are being asked which one of Satan’s minions we want to rule us. We are not being asked, as both the Republican and Democratic parties would have us believe, to chose between good and evil. And we can never hope to run a white Christian European for elective office because no white male can run for office unless he denounces his Christianity, his maleness, and his race. (Soon even a white’s denunciation of his whiteness will not avail him.)

I grew up in a post-Christian rationalist (PCR) household and went to a PCR school and a PCR church. But I was lucky. The ‘Gingerbread House’ technique did not work with me. I became exposed, through the works of authors, such as Shakespeare and Scott, to a world diametrically opposed to the PCR world in which I grew up. Once exposed to that different world, I could never go back to the post-Christian rationalist world. I don’t know what percentage of the post-Christian rationalists live in Satania because they prefer it to that other Christian world and what percentage live in Satania because they don’t know there is any other world. For that reason, I think the Christian soldier’s fight is on two fronts. He must see that the other world, the Christian European world, is represented to the inhabitants of Satania, in order that those who might see and then believe can be converted. And he must fight those who have seen and prefer the darkness to the light.

The central fact, from the standpoint of an antique European, about the upcoming Presidential election (and every election in the Western world) is that the election is a celebration of the great satanic void. All the non-European tribes -- the liberal technocratic tribe, the black barbarian tribe, the Oriental tribe, etc. -- are meeting to celebrate the triumph of darkness over light. Christ’s apostle, John, put it best when he said: “And the light shineth in darkness and the darkness comprehended it not.” Men of our blood once did comprehend the light. That is why we must try to see with their eyes and feel with their hearts, for that same beloved apostle John tells us that those who are united to His civilization in spirit and blood, “shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it.” +
(1) Sonnet 146
Poor soul, the centre of my sinful earth,

[...] these rebel powers that thee array;
Why dost thou pine within and suffer dearth,
Painting thy outward walls so costly gay?
Why so large cost, having so short a lease,
Dost thou upon thy fading mansion spend?
Shall worms, inheritors of this excess,
Eat up thy charge? is this thy body's end?
Then soul, live thou upon thy servant's loss,
And let that pine to aggravate thy store;
Buy terms divine in selling hours of dross;
Within be fed, without be rich no more:
So shalt thou feed on Death, that feeds on men,
And Death once dead, there's no more dying then.

- Shakespeare

Labels: ,

Friday, October 10, 2008

The Faith and the Race Are One

I’ve had over 10 years now to adjust to the fact that I need glasses to read, but I still forget to take them with me when I go out. So if I need to read a label at a supermarket (to see how much food, if any, I’m getting with the chemical preservatives) or if I need to read the small print of a book at the bookstore, I have to ask for help from a person who did not forget to bring his glasses. But I’m lucky, considering that every other member of my family needed glasses from junior high school on. My older sister hated to wear her glasses. She believed the old adage that men don’t make passes at girls who wear glasses. That little adage almost cost us both our lives the night my sister drove me to basketball practice.

My high school basketball coach thought that we should practice at the same time that we played our games, and we played our games at night. So one night when she needed the car, my sister drove me to practice. On the way, I noticed a car pulling out of a driveway approximately 25 yards ahead of us. I did not, like most people, appreciate back-seat drivers, whether in the front seat or the back seat, so I didn’t say anything about the car to my sister. After all, it was a car, not a mouse; how could my sister not see it? Well, my sister was not wearing her glasses, and it seemed, by the rate of speed we were traveling, we were going to collide with the other car. I finally decided, at the risk of being called a back seat driver, that I should mention this fact. “Do you see that car in front of us?” No, she had not seen it. She slammed on the brakes, our car spun around, and we avoided a head-on collision by a hair’s breadth.

Now, at this point, the reader, who has better things to do than read boring reminiscences of my high school days (wait till I tell you how I made the winning basket in the big game) is probably wondering what the point of this story is. “Does this lead up to anything?” Why, yes, it does. It is a preface to a reluctant criticism of the leadership of the white, right wing. I hope this criticism will be taken in the spirit in which it is given. We are members of the same family, in the same vehicle, and I would like to prevent the wreck I see coming. Although it is a recent article that has provoked this response, my comments are based on thirty years of observing the white, right wing movement in action.

The white, right wingers’ fatal flaw is their lack of a religious vision. Now, I know the white, right wingers talk about our Germanic, Celtic, Greco-Roman, Christian heritage, but that kind of combo-sandwiching of traditions indicates the problem. The Europeans have only one tradition and one faith. When we make that faith and that tradition a side issue, or only one small component among other, more important components, like our genes, we are not responding to existence as the white Europeans of old responded to existence, and we cannot then claim any link to the white Europeans of the past.

It is ahistorical to ignore the white man’s Christianity. The New Age white leaders act as though they woke up one morning and discovered they were white. Hence, they prefer the white to the colored race, but they have no appreciation of the white man’s heritage, because they don’t place any great emphasis on the only thing that ever mattered to the white man, his faith.
The lack of a religious vision has paralyzed the right wing. The reason they always prophesy that “white people are beginning to wake up,” and always are sadly mistaken in their prophetic utterances, is because they have been seduced by one of the most seductive of all the sirens of modernity, the democratic siren. White Christians cannot campaign merely for equal rights within a secular, Godless utopia; they must rule in a Christian society.

If you try to micro-manage history for a purely secular result, history will always knock you flat on your back. The antique European, the Christian European, who took seriously our Lord’s injunction to “Seek ye first the kingdom of God... and all these things shall be added unto you,” was able to build Western civilization because his hope was not in this world only. That is the paradox. If you see only this world and act according to that vision, you will fail in this world, but if you act in accordance with Christ’s injunction to “seek ye first,” you will succeed in the things that really matter, to a far greater degree than the ‘this world only’ devotees. In this world only there is nothing but despair. Grim statistics are final and unalterable in such a world, barbarian hordes are invincible in such a world, and white and black, good and evil, are meaningless abstractions in such a world.

The right wingers need to step out of that world. But of course they cannot do so for merely pragmatic reasons. They must see what their European forefathers saw; they must see “their Master in the sky and call on Him to save.” Vision cannot be forced; if they do not see, we cannot follow them, for “if the blind leadeth the blind, shall they not both fall in a ditch?”

The sad truth is that the right wing leaders are not sufficiently anti-modern. They differ from the white liberals, because they feel, correctly, that the white technocrat wants to exclude them from the brave new technocratic world of the future. Hence their leadership consists of programs to reawaken whites so they will fight (democratically of course) for their rights in a multi-racial culture.

But by so urging, the right wingers are asking the Christian European to walk away from his heritage. This he cannot do. The reason there is such a disconnect between the white leaders and the white Christian remnant is because the remnant senses the right wing leaders are just as lost in the slough of modernity as the liberals are.

Sometimes two groups can be united in their opposition to a particular group or –ism, but still be in complete disagreement regarding what they are for. Such is the case, for instance, with the Southern agrarian and the communist. Both oppose capitalism, but they differ greatly on the reasons for opposing capitalism, and they differ greatly in what they favor as an alternative to capitalism. Such is also the case with the white, New Age, right wing leadership and the antique Christian. In fact, the contrasts are quite striking.

1) Democratic Government – Christian Europeans adopted republican forms of government when they felt, quite possibly wrongly, that their rulers were insufficiently Christian. They did not view the bastardized corruption of republican government, secular democracy, as a magic talisman that was self-evidently the end of man’s search for a perfect government. Far from it. The antique Christian knew that where God was not sovereign, there could be no true government.

2) Other Races. At first glance, the right wing leaders and the older Christian seem to be in agreement. The right wing opposes multi-culturalism and so does the Christian. So they are in agreement, right? No, they are not. The right wingers properly point out that multi-culturalism does not mean, “I’ll respect your culture, and in return you respect mine”; it means that the white man must have no culture and must worship the colored cultures. On that there is agreement between the Christian and the right winger. But the right wing whites go on to claim that they believe that the colored has a right to his culture just as the white man has a right to his. All the right wingers are asking for, they tell us, is a niche for the white man in the great pyramid of cultures.

This is not what the Antique European is looking for. He knows that such a thing is impossible. The colored barbarians do not believe in respecting other cultures; they believe in conquering other cultures. If a white plays the ‘respect other cultures’ game, he will always be the only one playing. And he won’t be playing for long.

There is another aspect of the ‘respect other cultures’ issue. In the modern, decadent social sciences, such as anthropology, we are informed it is wrong to say that someone or some group has no culture. “Everyone has a culture,” we are told. But in the non-anthropological sense, there is only one culture. Only the Europeans made the attempt to weave faith, hope, and charity into their culture. From a Christian standpoint, it would be morally wrong to respect the “cultures” of the colored races. Did the Spanish respect the Aztec culture? Did the Brits respect the Hindu culture? No, they respected their God, who called all men to abandon heathen idols and come to Him, and they respected Him too much to leave individual heathens in perpetual darkness. To subdue and convert, to the extent that such a conversion was possible, was the way of the non-democratic, pre-20th century European. And he would rather fight to the last man than be part of a multi-colored, many-tiered pyramid of nations.

3) Democratic Quakers. I recently saw an article by one of the right-wing leaders in which he warned against the dangers of assassinating Barack Obama. I completely agree with the author on that issue. It would not aid white people if Obama were assassinated. Tyrannicide is not outside the ken of the white European tradition, but Obama is not a tyrant whose death would bring great benefits to the white race. He is a small, little cog in the great liberal machine. Killing him would be harmful to whites.

However, the author in question goes on to condemn all violence under any circumstances. That type of thinking goes against our European Christian heritage. There are things so hideous, such as the murder of a baby in his mother’s womb, the rape of our women, the torture-murder of innocent young people like Channon Christian and Christopher Newsome, that they cry out to heaven for redress. You cannot claim to respect the white European heritage and then tell white people to dogmatically renounce all violence. That type of advice is irresponsible at a time when our “laws,” passed by white technocrats, have left white people almost defenseless against the barbarians in our midst. I recall a scene in Walter Scott’s novel The Black Dwarf in which some border raiders have abducted a Scottish lady and taken her across the border. An old man advises the young men not to break the law and be violent. A member of the rescue party replies angrily to him, “Don’t talk to us about our heroic ancestors and then tell us to do nothing.”

Certainly there are prudential concerns, but violence in defense of Christian men and women and Christian principles should never be routinely condemned. And we should always keep in mind that the white man is in Hamlet’s position. They have murdered our King and our Father (1); if we don’t set things right, who will?

There is something called a Euro-Conference scheduled for early November. If just one lonely white man meets a lonely white woman there and they subsequently marry and have children as a result, the conference will not have been wasted. But I hope some European leader at the conference will dare to link Europe and Christ and denounce anyone who tries to tear them asunder in either word or deed.
(1) Grant me some poetic license here. They have murdered Christian civilization and are murdering His people and His little children. “Let them come unto me.” Does not Christ our King and Father suffer when such murders take place?

Labels: , ,

Saturday, October 04, 2008

Monsters of the Deep

A friend sent me a news item from Canada written by Paul Fromm, director of an organization called Canada First Immigration Reform Committee. Apparently some Tory MP had slipped up and blurted out the truth about third world immigration and crime to the media. And what was so horrendous, but all too typical, about the liberals’ reaction to the Tory MP’s statement was that no one cared to discuss whether his statements were true or not. The liberals simply said he was racist and called for his resignation. Fromm pointed out that the MP’s statement was correct and concluded that truth no longer mattered to the white liberals. “In this super constipated country minorities are so protected from criticism by human rights commissions that even truth is no defence.”

It has been thus for quite some time in the Western world. I recall a similar incident I was privy to about 20 years ago. I was working at a university (no need to mention the name because such universities are legion, with cookie-cutter sameness). The powers that be found it necessary to discuss a ‘problem student.’ I was invited to sit on a panel that was to decide his fate. And what, pray tell, was the student’s crime? Did he break into the Dean’s office and urinate on his papers? Did he set fire to the R.O.T.C. office on campus? No. Fifteen years earlier students had done such things at colleges and were not expelled. So, what was the young man accused of? He was accused of having made ‘racist’ remarks in class, critical of blacks. The question in the minds of the liberal panel was not, “Should we expel Student X?” No, the question was, “How can we do it and still seem like liberal, fair-minded, due-process type liberals?” Since I was going to be asked to vote on the fate of this particular student, whom I did not know, I asked if the statements he had made were true. There was an embarrassed silence before one member of the panel confessed that yes, the statements were true. And yet the student was expelled. The official reason was that he had used tacks instead of tape to place a poster on his dorm room wall, but of course that was not the real reason for his expulsion. He blasphemed against the liberals’ god, so he had to be cast into outer darkness. I was the only member of the panel to vote against the expulsion, which was quite ironic as every single member of that panel was theoretically more committed to the principle of free speech than I was.

Of course such incidents of white liberal chicanery and dishonesty have become the norm, not the exception now. Big Brother and Big Sister rule with a merciless consistency that makes Orwell’s 1984 world seem like a pleasant place to live.

It seems that something momentous has taken place in the last twenty-five years in the Western world as Satan has consolidated his power. Liberals have always loved their own abstractions more than the truth, but in the first half of the twentieth century, they tried to claim their abstractions were true. They delighted in debate and felt quite confident their theories would prevail in the battlefield of ideas. But false ideas are always easier to defend when they have never been embodied in a culture. It was easier for the liberals to claim the black man was just a pigmented white man when his criminal tendencies were kept in check by a white hierarchy. However, when the black man actually was given a chance to show himself to be the wonderful, worshipful human being the liberals claimed he was, the reality, the truth, was quite devastating for the liberal. The white liberal then had two choices. He could give up his abstract, utopian faith in the black man, or he could give up debating the truth and simply punish the people who spoke the truth. Of course the liberal chose the latter. This is the same policy the communists and every other anti-European group have followed: when you have not yet succeeded in making a particular part of your agenda, like racial diversity or legalized abortion, the law of the land, you debate. But when you have achieved your goal and made that which was once forbidden the law of the land, then you forbid, with the full weight of the law, all debate, and punish those who speak the truth about the perversion that has become the law.

The 21st century liberal, therefore, is a lot meaner and less willing to engage in debate than his 1950’s counterpart. He is meaner because his ideas have become embodied and are self-evidently wrong, thus forcing him to stay mad-dog delusional every single second of his life. And he is unwilling to debate because he has consolidated his power and doesn’t have to debate.

This ugly state of affairs is the result of the de-Christianization of the European man. Butterfield put it quite well when he said that liberals had destroyed their guardian angel when they cut away the traditions and sentiments that came from Christianity.

Edmund Burke was correct when he said the first liberal was the devil. It is sometimes difficult to see just how satanic liberalism is because we do not see its full embodiment in the past. But in our own day, it is crystal clear. We can see Satanism in all its hellish glory. And the primary mark of a satanic society is the abstraction of everything human. Christ humanized every aspect of European culture, and Satan has systematically undermined His civilization by encouraging a spirit of abstraction. When that abstracting spirit takes hold, human beings can be squashed like bugs in the great, abstracted cesspool of life. Babies become ‘fetal tissue,’ civilians become ‘collateral damage,’ white men become ‘generic men,’ men and women become ‘generic humans,’ and on it goes.

It is a given that our current society is satanic. Since surrender to such a culture is unthinkable, we need to strike back. And the satanic liberals have shown us the place where Satan is most vulnerable. What issue are the liberals concerned with more than any other? It is this issue of diversity. While even “conservative” church men blab on about the irrelevance of race on the one hand and the evils of the white race on the other hand, the liberals, who are legion, are ever-vigilant in putting down every attempt, in word or deed, by the white man, to re-establish his ties to his racial forefathers. (1) The pre-20th century Europeans had a Hebraic relationship with their God which was based on ties of blood. Christ was their King and their kin. When those ties of blood are broken, it makes no difference whether one gives intellectual assent to the idea of Christianity or if one intellectually affirms the meaninglessness of existence, since both affirmations belong to Satan. By what authority do we live? By the word of God, embodied in a particular people and culture. When faith no longer has “a local habitation” in a race, faith becomes a meaningless abstraction, and then “humanity must perforce prey on itself like monsters of the deep.”

Richard Weaver made the point in his book Visions of Order that Socrates was guilty of undermining the faith of the Athenians. By abstracting the Greek gods and making them part of a dialectical debate, he helped destroy traditional faith in the gods. Philosophy eventually replaced faith. This has always been the essential conflict in the Christian Church. The theologians place God in a philosophical prison and then claim they and they alone possess the key to unlock Him. The European with blood ties to the past, however, knows that God is not to be found in the Gnostic prisons of the theologians and the philosophers. He is to be found at the marriage feast of the antique European in the person of Christ.

The ‘idea Christ’ of the philosophers is not a concrete personality. He exists only in the minds of the liberals. He is a phantom God who comes to life only when the liberals need him to condemn racism. In contrast, the real Christ, the Hero-God of the Europeans, is always present where genuine humanity is present. He is the enemy of generic humanity and the passionate champion of the human personality. In fact, He can only be known through the human personality. When the white man gives up the most essential part of his personality, his white identity, he loses his soul and his God.

The revolution has been successful. There is no room in the great liberal Utopia for the human personality. Walking, talking caricatures of human beings now inhabit the white countries that used to contain human beings. But in the secret recesses of European hearts who still see with “blinding sight” and still feel connected to His Europe, the counterrevolution has begun. And in a non-utopian future, a future wedded to the European past, we shall see the triumph of our Lord.
(1) The white church men constantly tell us there is no such thing as race, but there is such a thing when they demonize the white race, and when they fall on their knees to worship the black race.

These same church men no longer believe in original sin which all mankind inherited from Adam. Instead, they believe that original sin exists only in the white race. In a perverse way, they affirm the humanity of the white race and the inhumanity of the black, when they claim that the white man alone can trace his lineage back to Adam. Scott tells us about the tangled web we weave when we deceive. Let the white, black-worshipping clergyman beware of the tangled web of deceit he weaves when he demonizes the white race and worships the black.

Labels: , ,