The Last Great Fight of All
“Deeper than speech our love, stronger than life our tether...”
I don’t follow the news on a daily basis, because it isn’t very pleasant or necessary to witness every single dying gasp of a terminally ill nation. But I did see a snippet of one of the recent ‘tea parties,’ during which Glenn Beck interviewed a white Texan who had shot two illegals that were attempting to rob his neighbor’s house. The Texan, I believe his name was Joe, seemed like a decent fellow who regretted that the housebreakers had made it necessary for him to shoot them, but he did not regret taking action against the banditos.
Beck quite rightly applauded Joe’s actions, but then he moved on to interview someone else, a conservative pundit. The pundit and Beck talked about how wonderful the ‘tea parties’ were because they were lawful and non-violent, in contrast to those protests by radicals in the 1960’s, which often were unlawful and violent. Does anyone see a problem with Beck’s and the pundit’s logic? First, did Joe defend his neighbor’s property by taking a vote among his neighbors and presenting the results to the banditos? “Hey, you fellows, 92% of the residents think it is wrong for you to break into my neighbor’s house, so will you please leave? If you don’t, my neighbors and I will have a rally, at which we will wave signs around that say ‘housebreaking is wrong’.”
I know the rejoinder to this: “Joe shot people who were breaking the law. You can’t act unlawfully or violently against a lawful government.” But is self-defense and defense of one’s kith and kin wrong if a man is defending kith and kin against the government? On his deathbed, Alfred the Great told his son to “govern himself by law.” But Alfred is referring to the law of God which he, Alfred, had made the law of the land. Is there any trace of Christianity left in the laws of the United States or the laws of the European countries? It seems to me that the formerly Christian nations of Europe and her offspring have institutionalized liberalism, which is to say they have institutionalized Satanism. Are we then obligated to meekly demure while the liberal governments systematically eradicate non-liberal, white Europeans?
And what about the Sixties’ radicals that Beck and the pundit mentioned? Did their more violent and unlawful rallies work? Yes, they did. The demands of the radical blacks, the radical feminists, and every other radical group that broke the law and used or threatened to use violence became the law of the land.
The tea parties remind me of the Contract with America during the first years of the Clinton administration, a gimmick created by a Republican liberal to gain some leverage on a democratic liberal. But the Contract with America movement was a movement within liberalism. And so are the tea parties. There might be some genuine white, non-liberal Europeans at the tea parties, but the leaders of the tea parties are part of liberaldom. The reason such leaders always fail while their more radical brethren, such as the feminists and the barbarians succeed is because of the Kerensky vs. Lenin phenomenon. When you are a radical, as Kerensky the socialist was, you have committed yourself and your followers to a vision of an ever-changing, ever-leftward and upward movement toward Utopia. But if upward and leftward is good, then even more upward and leftward is better. Lenin had the moral upper hand on Kerensky, just as the more radical liberal coalition of socialists, feminists, and black barbarians have the moral upper hand on the liberal capitalists. The Republicans want to stop at democratic capitalism while the radical liberals want to keep moving leftward and upward. The radicals always win such wars because their democratic capitalist opponents are always on the defensive. You can’t stop and get off the liberal locomotive half-way or three quarters of the way before the final destination. If you want an economic system where no one has capital except capitalists, you must keep on the train until you come to the final stop where only the government has capital. If you want a democratic egalitarian system with tolerance for all religions, you can’t stop the train from pulling into the abortuary at the end of the station. You can’t have just a little bit of liberalism.
Fitzhugh correctly pointed out that we could, “Throw our paper platforms, preambles and resolutions, guaranties and constitutions into fire, and we should be none the worse off, provided we retained our institutions – and the necessities that begot and have, so far, continued them.” Ah, there’s the rub. We have lost our institutions and necessities that begot them. Our institutions were Christian institutions and the necessity that begot them was our faith in Jesus Christ. The tea party protestors are not meeting to demand that we place Christ at the center of a white European nation. There was no call for the deportation of colored barbarians. There was no call for the destruction of the abortuaries and the organizations that sustain them. I heard only a plea for economic justice, which is certainly a legitimate plea. But if the restoration of white Christian Europe doesn’t take place first, how can there be any economic justice? Do you expect the minions of Satan to be just? Do you expect them to be merciful?
I spent some years of my youth involved in the pro-life movement. The movement was a failure because the leaders of the movement refused to treat the abortion issue as a war between Christ and Satan. They treated it as a misunderstanding, something that could be resolved within the framework of liberal democracy. “If we educate them about fetal life they’ll understand.” They do understand, just as the liberals understand that whites in South Africa and Rhodesia are being butchered like aborted babies in their mothers' wombs. The liberals know what they are doing; they are destroying the white race and they are taking control of the procreative process. They, not God, will decide who the chosen people are, and they, not God, will decide who dies in the womb and who sees the light of day.
And of course, the carnage in South Africa and Rhodesia has spread to all the formerly European nations. Can it be halted by any force within liberalism itself? No, of course not. Only men from the old Europe can stop the bloodletting. When white men meet, it should not be to wave protest signs and plead for inclusion into Satania; white men should meet to take oaths of fealty to a Europe that seems dead but is only sleeping:
The liberals have invoked Satan, and he has responded to their invocation. But he acts for his own ends not for theirs. What God should the white man invoke? If we throw off the false messiahs of science and democracy, we will find the same God our ancestors swore fealty to waiting to lead us against the satanic coalition of liberals and barbarians. Of course we can’t merely state His name and make the liberals disappear. Divine grace does not work that way. But the cross is also a sword. If we join our hearts to His sacred heart, we will possess the only weapon capable of penetrating to the heart of the liberal dragon.
I don’t follow the news on a daily basis, because it isn’t very pleasant or necessary to witness every single dying gasp of a terminally ill nation. But I did see a snippet of one of the recent ‘tea parties,’ during which Glenn Beck interviewed a white Texan who had shot two illegals that were attempting to rob his neighbor’s house. The Texan, I believe his name was Joe, seemed like a decent fellow who regretted that the housebreakers had made it necessary for him to shoot them, but he did not regret taking action against the banditos.
Beck quite rightly applauded Joe’s actions, but then he moved on to interview someone else, a conservative pundit. The pundit and Beck talked about how wonderful the ‘tea parties’ were because they were lawful and non-violent, in contrast to those protests by radicals in the 1960’s, which often were unlawful and violent. Does anyone see a problem with Beck’s and the pundit’s logic? First, did Joe defend his neighbor’s property by taking a vote among his neighbors and presenting the results to the banditos? “Hey, you fellows, 92% of the residents think it is wrong for you to break into my neighbor’s house, so will you please leave? If you don’t, my neighbors and I will have a rally, at which we will wave signs around that say ‘housebreaking is wrong’.”
I know the rejoinder to this: “Joe shot people who were breaking the law. You can’t act unlawfully or violently against a lawful government.” But is self-defense and defense of one’s kith and kin wrong if a man is defending kith and kin against the government? On his deathbed, Alfred the Great told his son to “govern himself by law.” But Alfred is referring to the law of God which he, Alfred, had made the law of the land. Is there any trace of Christianity left in the laws of the United States or the laws of the European countries? It seems to me that the formerly Christian nations of Europe and her offspring have institutionalized liberalism, which is to say they have institutionalized Satanism. Are we then obligated to meekly demure while the liberal governments systematically eradicate non-liberal, white Europeans?
And what about the Sixties’ radicals that Beck and the pundit mentioned? Did their more violent and unlawful rallies work? Yes, they did. The demands of the radical blacks, the radical feminists, and every other radical group that broke the law and used or threatened to use violence became the law of the land.
The tea parties remind me of the Contract with America during the first years of the Clinton administration, a gimmick created by a Republican liberal to gain some leverage on a democratic liberal. But the Contract with America movement was a movement within liberalism. And so are the tea parties. There might be some genuine white, non-liberal Europeans at the tea parties, but the leaders of the tea parties are part of liberaldom. The reason such leaders always fail while their more radical brethren, such as the feminists and the barbarians succeed is because of the Kerensky vs. Lenin phenomenon. When you are a radical, as Kerensky the socialist was, you have committed yourself and your followers to a vision of an ever-changing, ever-leftward and upward movement toward Utopia. But if upward and leftward is good, then even more upward and leftward is better. Lenin had the moral upper hand on Kerensky, just as the more radical liberal coalition of socialists, feminists, and black barbarians have the moral upper hand on the liberal capitalists. The Republicans want to stop at democratic capitalism while the radical liberals want to keep moving leftward and upward. The radicals always win such wars because their democratic capitalist opponents are always on the defensive. You can’t stop and get off the liberal locomotive half-way or three quarters of the way before the final destination. If you want an economic system where no one has capital except capitalists, you must keep on the train until you come to the final stop where only the government has capital. If you want a democratic egalitarian system with tolerance for all religions, you can’t stop the train from pulling into the abortuary at the end of the station. You can’t have just a little bit of liberalism.
Fitzhugh correctly pointed out that we could, “Throw our paper platforms, preambles and resolutions, guaranties and constitutions into fire, and we should be none the worse off, provided we retained our institutions – and the necessities that begot and have, so far, continued them.” Ah, there’s the rub. We have lost our institutions and necessities that begot them. Our institutions were Christian institutions and the necessity that begot them was our faith in Jesus Christ. The tea party protestors are not meeting to demand that we place Christ at the center of a white European nation. There was no call for the deportation of colored barbarians. There was no call for the destruction of the abortuaries and the organizations that sustain them. I heard only a plea for economic justice, which is certainly a legitimate plea. But if the restoration of white Christian Europe doesn’t take place first, how can there be any economic justice? Do you expect the minions of Satan to be just? Do you expect them to be merciful?
I spent some years of my youth involved in the pro-life movement. The movement was a failure because the leaders of the movement refused to treat the abortion issue as a war between Christ and Satan. They treated it as a misunderstanding, something that could be resolved within the framework of liberal democracy. “If we educate them about fetal life they’ll understand.” They do understand, just as the liberals understand that whites in South Africa and Rhodesia are being butchered like aborted babies in their mothers' wombs. The liberals know what they are doing; they are destroying the white race and they are taking control of the procreative process. They, not God, will decide who the chosen people are, and they, not God, will decide who dies in the womb and who sees the light of day.
And of course, the carnage in South Africa and Rhodesia has spread to all the formerly European nations. Can it be halted by any force within liberalism itself? No, of course not. Only men from the old Europe can stop the bloodletting. When white men meet, it should not be to wave protest signs and plead for inclusion into Satania; white men should meet to take oaths of fealty to a Europe that seems dead but is only sleeping:
Also, we will make promise. So long as The Blood endures,
I shall know that your good is mine: ye shall feel that my strength is yours:
In the day of Armageddon, at the last great fight of all,
That Our House stand together and the pillars do not fall.
Draw now the threefold knot firm on the ninefold bands,
And the Law that ye make shall be law after the rule of your lands.
posted by CWNY | 3:59 PM
<< Home