Saturday, May 09, 2009

The Darkness of Liberalism

“You can’t have just a little bit of liberalism...” CWNY

That their enemies are “hate-filled” is a favorite axiom of the liberals, but in reality the essence of liberalism is hatred. No white Christian can hate like a liberal. And Herbert Butterfield tells us why this is so in his book, The Englishman and His History:
When he has failed, or when he is in difficulties, the liberal of the continental type too often has only one thing left—his moral indignation. At this point he does indeed pick up the doctrine of sin, but it is important to note that he wears it with a difference; for, as we have seen he does not commence with it, as the Christian tradition had always done—he drags it from under his sleeve at a later point in the argument. Concerning the sin, of course, he is (as somebody wisely said) “against it”: indeed he hates it, with the added frenzy of the partisan who has discovered here the totally unexpected obstacle. On this view of life the sinners are indeed fewer in number, but how much wickeder to make up for it! And none is so unforgiving to the transgressors as the person who does not believe in original sin. Here is a system which releases us from self-discipline, authorizing us to treat the political enemy as
subhuman, irredeemable. In consequence the good are engaged against the wicked in a more irretrievable warfare, where the makeshift of the ballot-box may itself become intolerable, and nothing is left but the resort to force.
I think Butterfield has described the inner dynamic of liberalism. Liberals always hate those who oppose them, because if you oppose them you are standing in the way of the perfection of mankind. (1) They don’t believe that all men are tainted with original sin; they only see sin in those who oppose liberalism. And there is no self-control in the liberal’s makeup; being without sin he needs no self-discipline. Like a spoiled devil child he can indulge his every whim. And his whim is that his enemies must be eliminated at all costs.

We know who the liberal’s enemies are. They are white Christians who believe in original sin and the rest of the Christian story. The escalating hatred of white people throughout the world is a direct consequence of the triumph of liberalism. Any white counter-attack, if it is to be successful, must be fought with an uncompromising faith in the whole Christian, European tradition and a clear understanding that liberals will never allow white Christians to live in liberaldom, hence a Christian European’s only defense is to destroy liberalism. But that is never seen as an option among the European people. Some group will emerge that doesn’t like one aspect of liberalism, and they will try to change that one thing, but they will retain the essence of liberalism, which is a hatred of the white, European, Christian tradition. The groups that just want a little bit of liberalism, the liberalism that suits their fancy, are in many ways more dangerous than the total liberal, because the half-way house liberals are more deceptive. You think they can be your allies, but in the end their hatred of the white European Christian is just as intense as their liberal cousins. Let’s look at two of the half-way house liberals.

1) The neo-pagans.
The neo-pagans are not the pagans of the stream, the field, and the hunt; they are not the pagans of old. If they were, a Christian could work with them. The old European pagans were willing to bend their knees to a God above the pagan gods, but the neo-pagans have no God. Most don’t seem to feel the need for one. Others write articles about the need for a new religion for the white man. That type of thinking typifies the neo-pagans, who have no ties to the white European tradition and no ties to reality. Can you make any claim of solidarity with white people if you reject Christianity? And can you be taken seriously as a man if you think religious faith can simply be manufactured to serve as a motivational tool for the advancement of the white gene pool? Reading the writings of the neo-pagans is similar to looking at a surreal painting; there is no trace in either of beauty or truth. I recently read a self-promotional ad in one of the neo-pagan’s publications; the author quoted Dostoyevsky’s assertion that only “beauty could save us.” But the neo-pagan neglected to say what Dostoyevsky considered beautiful. The Great Russian had one true love who combined, in His person, perfect beauty and complete truth: “... he passed through all the circles of human hell, one more terrible than the medieval hell of the Divine Comedy, and was not consumed in hell’s flame: his duca e maestro was not Virgil, but ‘the radiant image’ of the Christ, love for whom was the greatest love of his whole life.”

The more subtle of the neo-pagans include Christianity in the white man’s history. They use phrases like, “Our Celtic, Saxon, Germanic, Greco-Roman, Christian heritage.” But when you get past the clever phrasing you realize that the neo-pagan who talks about that kind of encyclopedic heritage thinks the European invented Christianity. To such a neo-pagan, Christianity is a reflection of the brilliant creativity of the European, but it is not true. The neo-pagan has already made the determination that the natural world is the only reality.

What does the neo-pagan look to as a substitute for God? He, like his liberal cousins whom he despises, looks to the future. In that world there will be no individuals, just an intellectually, biologically superior herd of white technocrats. The neo-pagan’s dream is the same dream as the liberals: they too look to a future where the herd has triumphed over the individual. The two groups simply differ over the preferred color of the herd, but they are united in their common hatred of the white, Christian European.

2) The half-way house Christian Rationalists.
The neo-pagan wants to sever Christianity from the white European in order to save the white European, and the half-way house Christian rationalist wants to sever the white European from Christianity in order to save Christianity. But the half-way house Christian, in his rejection of “European Christianity,” is really rejecting Christ. Let’s look at this rejection more closely.

St. Paul tells us that neither the Greeks nor the Jews rejected the idea of God. They simply rejected the notion that Christ was God. To the Greeks the idea of an incarnate God was foolish, and to the Jews the idea of a suffering servant who came to them via the humble things and the meek and mild people of the earth was blasphemous. And we see this twofold rejection of the incarnate God in the half-way house Christians’ rejection of white European culture. Do we need a historian from Mars to render an objective account of the European’s history? Why is the obvious fact that pre-20th century Europe was a result of a particular peoples’ love affair with Christ so difficult to see? And can the Christian faith be severed from those people and remain the Christian faith? I say no. A philosophical system can be passed from one mind to another mind. A scientific formula can be passed on from one scientist to another. But a faith? A faith is held in the heart and is passed on through the blood. Sever the white men from Christianity, and you have struck a blow at the heart of Christianity. It can survive as a bloodless philosophy or as a utopian, feel-good universalism, but it will no longer be the faith that men wrote hymns about and martyrs died for.

Again I refer to St. Paul. “Who shall separate us from the love of Jesus Christ?” he asked. The liberals say, “We shall!” And they mean it, because they hate with a hate that is inspired by Satan. Satan knows that if he kills the connecting link to God, the white man’s culture, he will separate mankind form God. The radical democrat, the neo-pagan, the half-way house Christian are in their liberalism all compact. They hate the white, Christian European, and will continue to hate him until they are converted or defeated.

Theoretically we all have homes, but the true, spiritual reality is that only a Christian European has a home he loves. The liberal, in his many guises, looks to the future when he will have his perfect home; then, he will love it. And the barbarian sees a home as something of merely external value, that one robs and plunders when it belongs to someone else and that a man uses until it becomes despoiled if it is his own. But here again he does not love his home. The Christian loves his home because He is there, and He has consecrated it with His love. The European home is the source of our strength and our faith. As the liberals’ hate intensifies around us, we will cling to our European home, and surely the love that we have for our home will prevail over the liberals’ hatred. +
(1) Robespierre was the quintessential liberal. He was an anti-capital punishment zealot who nevertheless ordered thousands of executions in order to build a perfect world where capital punishment was unnecessary.

Labels: , ,