The Outlawed European and the Practical Conservative

“He was cold and phlegmatic, and utterly devoid of that sacred fire which is the incentive to noble deeds...”

___________________________

In Shakespeare’s Richard III, Buckingham, having done every dirty deed that Richard asked him to do, balks at the suggestion that he kill the young sons of Edward, the former king. Buckingham felt he had done enough; he helped Richard become king by treachery and murder, and now he wanted his reward, a dukedom and the lands and revenue of those he killed. But Richard of Gloucester didn’t see things that way. Having become king by foul means, he needed to maintain his kingdom by foul means. His friends are those who do his bidding, and his enemies are those who will not do his bidding. So Buckingham, despite his former services, becomes a proscribed traitor.

Buckingham, like Macbeth, thought he could use the devil for his own ends and then opt out of the devil’s service. Likewise the modern conservative-liberal. He thought he could go along with part of the liberal agenda and then opt out of the parts of liberalism that he found offensive. It doesn’t work that way.

First the conservative-liberal caved in on segregation. “That’s not essential – in fact it’s antithetical -- to our vision of a democratic society.” Then came feminism and its logical consequence, legalized abortion. “Full equality between men and women is certainly compatible with democratic egalitarianism, and legalized abortion is something we will permit so long as there are laws that sanction it. Nothing should ever impinge on the democratic process.” And once you’ve made your peace with feminists, it’s only a matter of time before you must accommodate the homosexuals. Having made the commitment to liberaldom, you can’t flinch at any of your rulers' commands.

The practical conservative-liberal is the Christian European’s greatest roadblock, because Mr. Practical Conservative wants to make the war between liberaldom and Christendom into a family quarrel within liberaldom. In point of fact, Mr. Practical Conservative dislikes terms like liberaldom and Christendom. He is a no-nonsense, meat-and-potatoes man who simply wants white people to have their own culture within liberaldom. What, however, is the white man’s culture? What does it mean to be white? It wasn’t a complicated issue until the latter half of the 20th century. To be white meant to be Christian. The terms were synonymous. But practical conservative man doesn’t want to hear such nonsense. In his practical mind, the white man is a biological entity who supports the democratic process, tax cuts, and organized, integrated sports.
How practical is the practical, conservative man? For years he ranted at the European separatists, who told him that there was no hope for European man within the democratic process, that talk of separation was surrender. But who turned out to be correct? Practical, conservative man or the European Christian? What has ‘get out the vote, don’t be impractical’ accomplished? It has brought the European to the block, that’s what it has accomplished.

The practical conservatism that either treats Christianity as a small cog in the great Greco-Roman, Germanic wheel, or that dismisses it altogether, is not practical. It is not practical because it treats the most essential issue, “Did Christ rise from the dead?” as a side issue of no particular concern for practical men. How can white men band together without a spiritual connection? What is the common culture they are trying to preserve? Capitalism? Agrarianism? No, there was only one fire inside European man, the Christian fire. And when that fire went out, the European did not actually physically die, but nothing resembling life remained in his heart. It doesn’t matter which European country you look at – Sweden, Britain, the United States – they are all helpless in the face of barbarism. Why? Because they have lost their faith. Liberalism isn’t a faith; it’s an absence of faith, pure negation, or at least the negation of everything the European Christian once believed. So, how can a European stay connected to liberaldom and remain a European? He can’t.

The practical, conservative men always point out the futility of an armed, separatist attack on the liberal leviathan, but such an attack is not the essence of a European separatist movement. A final Armageddon-type battle may well be the final outcome of a separatist movement, but the separatist movement is first and foremost a spiritual movement. “I shall serve Christian Europe; I shall not serve satanic liberaldom.” That internal determination is the heart and soul of the separatist, European movement. If a European separatist actually has enough money to buy some land and physically separate himself from liberaldom, then God bless him. But most of us do not have the financial means to make that kind of a separation from liberaldom. Most of us have to live and work in liberaldom, but that should not deter us from being European separatists. We are among them, but not of them. We are outlawed men, and we shall do whatever we can to undermine and ultimately destroy liberaldom. Geoffrey Household once wrote an excellent novel called Rogue Male. The main character no longer accepted his nation’s definition of morality. He set out, in defiance of his country’s moral standards, to kill the dictator who killed the woman he loved. The liberals have killed the culture we loved, and they are killing, through their barbarian henchmen, the people who constitute the remnant of the civilization we loved. Should we ask the liberals, ever so politely, to let us live in liberaldom? Would it do any good to make such a plea? There shall be no mercy for the white man. Then let us take heart and make a virtue of necessity. We are outlaws, so be it; at least we can be men again, no longer bound by the satanic rules of liberaldom and no longer bound to meekly demure and confine our protests to angry letters when our fellow Europeans are despoiled of their lands and murdered in the streets.

The advocates of practical conservatism have undermined European man in two ways.
1) They have wasted his spiritual energy by getting him to focus on equal representation within liberaldom rather than focusing on resistance to liberaldom.
2) By denying the existence of a spiritual dimension to life, they have given the European the false impression that only the empirical matters. No movement which only acknowledges empirical results will ever be successful. When Claus von Stauffenberg made the decision, quite correctly in my opinion, to kill Adolf Hitler, he wanted the plan to succeed, and he did everything in the practical realm to make the plan succeed. But he didn’t view the assassination attempt as just a ‘practical’ step to insure that Germany got a more competent leader. Von Stauffenberg believed in a mystical, Christian Germany. He believed that the fact that there were Germans willing to oppose Hitler made even more difference in the spiritual realm than the actual success or failure of the assassination attempt. This might be impossible for a practical, conservative liberal, raised on think-tanks and opinion polls, to understand, but I understand von Stauffenberg, and so does every European who still remains European.

I once read a criticism of Whittaker Chambers by a leading proponent of the white, anti-immigration, practical conservative movement. He criticized Chambers for not leaving behind some program for white people to follow instead of some metaphysical mumbo-jumbo. Well, having read Chambers’ works and the works of the Mr. Practical Conservative, I can say that Mr. Practical’s works did nothing for white people compared to Chambers’ works. Chambers bore witness to the light, the light that inspired white people to fight for the people Mr. Practical Conservative claims to care about. To what did Mr. Practical bear witness? What inspiration can we take from empiricism?

One could, from the practical conservative’s standpoint, say the same thing about Alexander Solzhenitsyn that was said about Whittaker Chambers: “He didn’t leave behind a practical program.” No, he didn’t. Is it really necessary to point out that he left behind something more precious and spiritually practical than a plan to capture an electoral victory?

The conservative-liberal movement failed because the leaders of the movement had the same beliefs as the liberal-liberals. Both groups rejected the Christian European view of man. The antique European believed that each soul counted, that what happened to every single human being had eternal significance: “Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.” Hence it followed from that quaint belief of the older Europeans that every Christian act of mercy, every Christian act in defense of other Christians, made a difference no matter how insignificant it might seem to the empiricist who sees only the aggregate herd and not individual human beings. Any movement that discourages the European from those ‘insignificant’ acts of mercy and those insignificant acts in defense of, is a movement that beckons us to hell.

We have forgotten what Hamlet learned through suffering and travail. It is not given to us to know the future or to know what effect our individual acts will have on the future.

Not a whit; we defy augury. There’s a special providence in the fall of a sparrow. If it be now, ‘tis not to come; if it be not to come, it will be now; if it be not now, yet it will come; the readiness is all. Since no man has aught of what he leaves, what is’t to leave betimes? [Let be.]

It is only given to us to know what our blood tells us. He will not leave us bereft of comfort, and He does not want us to become practical, conservative empiricists. “Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more.”