Saturday, June 20, 2009

Against the Jackals

As Christian – man, I needs must
keep the vow which I have plight...


Simply being born in Europe or becoming a citizen of a European country does not make an individual a European. One must have white skin in order to be a European. Our skin color is part of our body, which houses our soul. Body and soul are not separate entities; they are inextricably linked. Prior to the 20th century, the great bulk of the European people believed as I do -- that one’s skin color is part of a man’s soul, which is a thing eternal. There certainly were Gnostic exceptions, but in the main the pre-20th century Europeans regarded skin color as an integral part of man’s spirituality. Now, in this 21st century, the century of the Jackal, the exception has become the rule, and the European who still believes that a man’s skin color is part of his soul is a tiny minority. Let’s look at the Gnostic jackals.

1) Religious, conservative-liberals
From the Catholic side, the Gnostic attack is best exemplified by a remark of a famous Thomist: “Western civilization has nothing to do with race.” The gentleman in question was quite a defender of Catholic Europe, particularly Catholic Spain, but he didn’t think it mattered one iota whether Spain was inhabited by white people or by black people. Actually, that is not quite correct: the pro-Western, anti-white writer actually had great hopes that blacks would come to the faith in droves and create a new earthier and “sexier” Catholicism, so presumably he preferred a black Spain. Only an academic could nurse such fantasies.

Of course the cause of the academic’s delusion was his Thomism. God is a disembodied idea to the Thomist, so it follows in the Thomist’s mind that individual human beings are also disembodied ideas. And even though the Novus Ordo Catholics have denounced Aquinas, the main architect of idea-religion, they have not renounced idea-religion itself. This is why the most vehement anti-white hatred comes from the pulpits, from those who believe in an idea of God and in an idea of man.

Occasionally I have observed puzzled, white Kinists trying to figure out what the problem with Pat Buchanan is. Well, the problem with Pat is the problem with an idea-religion. Buchanan will always throw individual white men under the bus whenever individual white men get in the way of his propositional faith in generic, idea-democracy and generic idea-Christianity.

The same obsession with ideas about God rather than with God himself, which we find in medieval scholasticism and in modern Catholicism, has spread like wildfire in the Protestant churches, too. The clergy in those churches regularly hurl anathemas at anyone who dares to suggest there is any connection whatsoever between skin color and spirituality. But who is flying in the face of reality—the anti-white churchmen or the last Europeans? On the side of the churchmen is a Gnostic theory about God. It does not come from Scripture, nor does it come from the Church Fathers. It stems from the scholastic tradition, which came to us from the Greeks. But there is no concrete reality to buttress up the “Western-civilization-has-nothing-to-do-with-race” theory. If the colored races can show us the face of Jesus Christ in their cultures, why have they not done so? Why are they unable to take even the smallest baby steps toward the light unless they are guided by white people? In contrast to the unreality of the churchmen stands the reality of Western civilization.

Few people live up to their creeds for good or ill. Many Marxists, for instance, who were opposed to Christian marriage, have been married in Christian churches. But a man’s stated creed still must be taken seriously. “Ideas have consequences.” And at the core of the pro-Western, anti-white Thomists and churchmen is pantheism, the worship of nature. While priding himself on his rejection of the bloody pagan religions, the modern, thinking churchman has reverted to the nature gods. With a mind untainted by contact with genuine human beings of flesh and blood, the modern “Christian” contemplates the natural world and sees in it natural savages who long to be controlled and enlightened by the Gnostic white man.

A European is not different from a pagan because the pagan has bloody sacrifices and the European uses his mind; the European differs from the pagan because he believes that God’s spirit dwells in the blood and not in nature. The pagan propitiates the gods of nature with his blood, and the conservative churchmen and Thomists worship their own minds through the good offices of the natural world.

2) Mad-dog liberals
The conservative-liberals still retain a respect for Western civilization while denying that the white man is necessary to Western civilization. They are liberals because they go against the traditional faith of the European people who thought their race was part of their very soul. But the spiritual children of the conservative-liberal take things a step further, which is why I designate them as mad-dog liberals.

The mad-dog liberals do not love Western civilization, they hate it. They find racism and sexism everywhere they look. So they hate the race that gave the world Western civilization. They are more consistent than the conservative-liberals who professed to love Western civilization while hating the white man. But before we award the mad-dogs the consistency ribbon, let’s look at their inconsistency. They feed off the fruit of the civilization they say they despise. They have their operations at hospitals started by Europeans who believed: “In so much as you have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, you have done it unto me.” They listen to music written by white men in tribute to the God of the white man. And on it goes. If they were consistent, they would all go to dog fights with Michael Vick and call it the apotheosis of their mad-dog lives.

While still being inconsistent in their use of the fringe benefits of Western civilization, the mad-dogs are taking what was implicit in the faith of the conservative-liberal Christians and making it explicit. The conservative-liberal still expressed his new faith in nature and the scientific method using old, Christian terms. The mad-dog has abandoned most of the old Christian terminology and has created a new faithless faith, a hodge-podge of Asian religions, Greek philosophers, and African voodoo cults. The old liberal-conservatives often clash with the new mad-dog liberals over such issues as abortion, but they are birds of the same feather. Their hatred for the older, flesh-and-blood faith of the European people is what unites them.

3) Neo-pagans
The neo-pagan hates white people in the same way that Hugh Hefner hates women: Hefner loves women as biological entities, but he hates femininity. In fact, Hefner denies that there is a spiritual, feminine component in a woman’s makeup just as he denies a spiritual, masculine component in men. Likewise the neo-pagan; he professes to love the white race, but he hates the spiritual essence of the white man, that which makes the white man distinct and unique. The neo-pagan would have the Christ-bearing race abandon Christ and simply look into the mirror above the computer or in the DNA lab when they want to worship. What a pathetic, soulless fate for the people who walked with God.

4) The colored hordes
The colored races share the liberal’s hatred of the white European. But the colored races do not believe, as the white liberal believes, that skin color is not a significant part of a man’s identity. The liberal, vis-à-vis the coloreds, is in the same position that Stalin was in with his own people during World War II. Stalin didn’t believe in Christianity, but a great portion of his people did believe in it, so he had to let a handful of Orthodox priests out of prison in order to bless the troops and rally the people to fight for good old Mother Russia.

The liberals invoke race when they want to rally their people (the colored tribes) to fight against their enemies (the recalcitrant Europeans). But it is always dangerous to stir up hatred against your own race, trusting that your colored allies will be satisfied with just the blood of your white enemies. Why should the coloreds be satisfied with only the blood of the old Europeans? If white is evil and whites are weak, why should any white people be left alive? The liberals' faithless faith will leave them defenseless before the colored hordes.

White conservative-liberals and mad-dog liberals hurl the pride of race accusation at Christian Europeans of the old school. Let me throw that lie back in their faces. The old “racist” Europeans did not have the pride of race, which all other races have; instead, they accepted the burden of race, and that burden was a cross, the same cross that He carried on His way to Golgotha. The superiority of the European, his complete dominance throughout the world, came about because the European’s heart burned within him. He saw something more than nature in the person of Christ, and he felt compelled to enflesh, in his culture, the vision he saw with his heart. Can one see with one’s heart? Ask Gloucester: “I see life feelingly.”

The conservative-liberal, the mad-dog liberal, and the neo-pagan have replaced the burden of race, a sacred burden, with the pride of intellect. They flee, like Jonah, from their duty to God and take refuge in the belly of the liberal leviathan. From inside that whale, they hurl anathemas at the white people who are still listening to the call of the blood. “Never abandon the white cross,” that quiet, gentle voice tells us, “because that cross is your salvation.” Pride of race? No, a humble and grateful acceptance of the awesome responsibility of race. That is what I see in the lives of the old, racist Europeans. It is better to live in exile, with the vision of their Europe in our hearts, than to move one single infinitesimal hair in the direction of the anti-white, anti-Christian purveyors of Satanic, one-world, one-race atheism.

Labels: , ,