The Return to Europe

‘Tis still a dream, or else such stuff as madmen
Tongue and brain not; either both or nothing;
Or senseless speaking, or a speaking such
As sense cannot untie. Be what it is,
The action of my life is like it, which
I’ll keep, if but for sympathy.

-- Cymbeline by William Shakespeare

Once, when forced to sub for a civics teacher, I had to preside over a class studying the American Constitution. Though not a great admirer of our Constitution I refrained from any editorial comments as the class and I read through the Constitution and the civics book. Then (out of the mouth of babes), a young female student claimed, “This doesn’t work. The founders said the legislative branch was first in power, the executive second, and the judicial third and last. But nowadays it is exactly the reverse. Nobody follows the Constitution any more.” Of course, the young woman was right: “Nobody follows the Constitution any more.” And even if you are one of those people who think the Constitution is a wonderfully written document, you must concede that neither the letter nor the spirit of the U. S. Constitution is being followed. And my question to the conservative constitutionalist is, “What is your recourse?”

Year after year the pro-lifers put out books and pamphlets arguing that there is no constitutional right to abortion, and year after year the liberals say, “Yes, there is a constitutional right to abortion.” What is the pro-life response to the liberals? They keep writing more pamphlets and exercising their right to protest, democratically of course. In other words, the “pro-lifers” – or more appropriately, the constitutionalists – concede that there is nothing they can do to stop legalized abortion, because every year they make their constitutional points and then run and hide when the liberals say, “Abortion is a constitutional right.”

We should put the same question to the immigration restrictionists in Arizona and Hazelton, Pennsylvania: “Now that the courts have said you can’t restrict Aztecs from invading your town and your state, what is your recourse?”

The Southern secessionists suffered through the same process that the constitutionalist pro-lifers and the constitutionalist immigration restrictionists are now suffering through. Any fair-minded person then and now would concede that the U.S. Constitution provided for secession from the Union, but a constitutional right is just a paper-and-ink abstraction if it is not backed up by a people and a tradition. The Northern, Unitarian, utopian tradition was more powerful than the Southern, Christian tradition. And in politics the powerful, not the constitutionally or morally correct, rule.

These are not little issues, the murder of the innocents and the invasion of the barbarians, which an honorable man can pacifistically ignore. Europeans used to fight wars to stop the murder of innocents and the invasion of their countries. Is murder and invasion any less conscionable if it is sanctioned by a state tribunal? We are faced with the tragic spectacle of conservative groups endlessly citing the Constitution to correct evils, while the liberal hierarchy ignores the Constitution and works to maintain and expand what really matters to them – their power. When a people no longer have a common religious faith they become a collection of lawyers poring over documents. The governing body of a people without a faith seeks to fill the moral void in the nation with documents. The more immoral a regime, the more documents that regime produces. Whittaker Chambers in his book Witness tells of the endless documentation the Soviet leaders put out in order to prove their legitimacy. If Khrushchev and Gorbachev had not undermined the documentation of their precursors it is quite probable that the Soviet Union would still be standing today.

Documentation works. Charlie Brown is not deceived by Lucy’s promise to hold the football steady while he kicks it, until she shows him a signed document in which she pledges not to remove the football while he is attempting a kick. We know how that turns out: “This document was never notarized.”

Butterfield in his The Englishman and His History states that the Magna Charta only became important to the English people many, many years after its signing. It wasn’t important till Englishmen began to lose faith in their traditions. Then they sought to replace their loss of faith with a document. The United States started out with a document instead of a traditional faith, because the founding fathers had no faith in the traditions of their British ancestors. It was the rank and file European Americans who carried the real European traditions, the Christian traditions, over to this country. When the docu-men at the top destroyed those Christian traditions, the reign of Satan began.

We owe nothing, as a Christian people, to the United States Constitution. There is no reason to acquiesce to the rule of Satan simply because the liberals wave a document in our face that they take out of the closet when it suits their purpose and throw back into the closet when it doesn’t suit their purpose. What we owe allegiance to is traditional Europe, the Europe created by the union of Christ and the European. When a nation enters the democratic era of its existence it has entered the final phase of its existence. When a people are spiritually healthy, they are a hero-and-story-book nation. When they tell of their history, they tell of the heroes of their race. They tell the story of Alfred the Great, of William Tell, of The Cid; they do not talk about their new and improved democratic government unless they have become a non-people, having replaced a belief in the heroes of their race and the Hero-God of their race with a belief in a non-personal, Universalist system of government.

I don’t think it is a coincidence that the age of democracy and the scientific age have happened simultaneously. The urge to democratize and the urge to scientize come from the same sick desire – the desire to escape the pain that comes with the human condition by divorcing oneself from it. In a democracy there are no painful duties, no responsibilities; there are only ‘rights.’ Painful duties were part of the non-democratic era; they have no place in the democratic age.

The anti-human, democratic man simply demands the right to be part of generic humanity and to have all his rights, including the right to a pain-free life that science can provide, guaranteed to him by an official document.

The halfway-house Christians always equate Christianity with modern democracy. But are the two really compatible? It would seem they are not. Democratic regimes produce legalized abortion, Tower-of-Babel race-mixing, feminism, war without the mitigating code of chivalry, and an economic war of all against all. Can the halfway-house Christian blithely ignore such evil consequences of democratic government just so he can keep up his delusion of a Pelagian paradise right here on earth? Yes, he can, and he does.

If the young woman in my class who was not exceptionally perceptive saw that democracy did not work, why can’t the powers that be of the democratic West see that it doesn’t work? Is it because something obstructs their vision? Or is it because they do not want to see clearly? I think it is the latter. The rulers of liberaldom do not want to see reality because to look at reality without faith is tantamount to looking at the face of Medusa. It turns a man to stone. Existence is paradoxical. A man can’t look at reality without faith, but he can’t have faith unless he sees something at the core of reality that inspires faith. All paradoxes are mazes without exits if we consult only the theologians and the philosophers. It is in poetry we meet and defeat the fire-breathing, paradoxical dragon of existence. The hero of song and story draws us to him because he sets our hearts on fire. How can we not trust him? The hero-gods of the pagan Europeans prepared the way for The Hero-God. We followed Him as they, the first Christian Europeans, followed Him. Whenever we let go of the poetic of existence we let go of Christ. The democratic system of the European is the endgame depicted by Samuel Beckett. If the modern European turns away from the democratic, constitutional scrolls and toward the instinctual, poetic life of the antique Europeans, he will see with blinding sight and become something infinitely better than an Übermensch or a noble savage; he will be a European. +

Till the End of Time

There was the grass and there were the trees: ‘But what am I to do with them?’ said John. Next it came into his head that he might perhaps get the old feeling – for what, he thought, had the Island ever given him but a feeling? – by imagining. He shut his eyes and set his teeth again and made a picture of the Island in his mind: but he could not keep his attention on the picture because he wanted all the time to watch some other part of his mind to see if the feeling were beginning. But no feeling began: and then, just as he was opening his eyes he heard a voice speaking to him. It was quite close at hand, and very sweet, and not at all like the old voice of the wood. When he looked round he saw what he had never expected, yet he was not surprised. There in the grass beside him sat a laughing brown girl of about his own age, and she had no clothes on.

‘It was me you wanted,’ said the brown girl. ‘I am better than your silly Islands.’

And John rose and caught her, all in haste, and committed fornication with her in the wood.

-- The Pilgrim’s Regress by C. S. Lewis

In 1942 a movie came out called Son of Fury featuring the incredibly handsome actor Tyrone Power and the incredibly beautiful actress Gene Tierney. And unfortunately the movie was well done. It was unfortunate, because the movie was an anti-European-genre movie, a genre invented by Satan and perpetuated by such anti-European writers as Addison, Dryden, Voltaire and Rousseau. In the movie Power plays a disinherited (by his evil uncle) member of the English nobility. He goes to sea, jumps ship, and discovers a tropical island inhabited by simple, saintly natives. The hero falls in love with a native girl (played by Gene Tierney), but he has to go back to England to reclaim his inheritance and marry the white woman with whom he is also in love. With the aid of hundreds of rare pearls, given to him by the natives who have no need of them (being non-materialistic and virtuous because they are so close to nature), the hero returns to England. Once there, he beats his mean uncle to a bloody pulp and discovers that the white woman he thought he loved is really a money-worshipping, unnatural product of a decadent civilization. He then gives up his inheritance and returns to the wonderful, natural, brown people who really know how to live.

The noble savage myth was made more acceptable to the 1942-audience by the presence of a beautiful Caucasian woman playing the native girl. “See, they are just like us, only better, because they embody as an entire people the noble ideals that only a few of our noblest minds believe in.”

Of course now that the Son of Fury fantasy has become a dogma in church and state virtually every movie and book that comes into the theaters and off the presses is a Son of Fury fantasy. And now the message is not sanitized; the pure, uninhibited natives have free (Margaret Mead style) uninhibited sex with enlightened white people. The enlightened whites are generally, in the modern books and movies, women. The white males are all evil uncles now. The liberal has invented a word for Son of Fury ethics: the word is ‘diversity’, which we have come to learn means the worship of black people. The vast majority of European literary works prior to the 20th century were salvation plays. Men and women were participants in an eternal conflict between God and the devil. That spiritual struggle within the soul of the European was more exciting to a Christian European than an insipid sexual travelogue from a utopian brain. In Jane Austen’s novels, for instance, the characters seldom leave their upper and middle class houses, but there is genuine drama in the novels, the drama of human souls struggling to the light or falling prey to the wickedness and snares of the devil. There is nothing more interesting, to a man with a soul, than the eternal struggle – God, man, and the devil.

The Son of Fury fantasy is the fantasy of the white ruling class. And the obvious question we need to ask them is this: “If white people are so evil, why should the benevolent brown people want to mix their untainted, pure blood, with your evil white blood?” The liberal’s answer is that he and Atticus Finch have willed themselves beyond whiteness. By a mystical chemical reaction within their psyche (they don’t believe in the soul), they have made their white blood into colored blood. “So let the white blood bath commence; it has nothing to do with us.”

Our entire world, school and church, arts and entertainment, and the media perpetuate the Son of Fury fantasy. The all-pervasiveness of the refrain is unheralded in European history: “White is bad, the colored is good; white is bad, and the colored is good.” There is never an amen; it’s the refrain without end.

The European accepted Christianity as the true faith because a God of spirit and blood, the Christ, was a God to whom the European could bend his knee without being degraded. The blood of the Son of God made the sons of man something more than savages who worshipped the gods of blood and sex; it made them kith and kin to a Hero-God above the nature gods, a God that could be worshipped in spirit and truth.

The sexual fantasies of a few dried-up Western intellectuals have become the orthodox faith of the European people. Is the worship of the colored people a progression? If it is, we need to regress to Christian Europe. The wheel has come full circle; it was Christianity that gave the European science, and even the atheist Bertram Russell conceded that point. If there are no gods in nature, man can study nature and use the result of his studies for the benefit of mankind. But the conquest of nature institutionalized the Son of Fury fantasy. It allowed the Europeans, en masse, to believe that maybe they could achieve paradise on earth, a world without pain, a world of unlimited sexual pleasure. And what or who becomes the enemy of the new European? The God who elevated them above mere nature. Since He now stands in the way of utopia, He must be eliminated. As the wicked magician Uncle Andrew says of Aslan, “The first thing we must do is get rid of that brute.”

Christian Europeans and their God must be gotten rid of so the modern European can sail the good ship Liberaldom to the isle of the blessed brown and black people. It is useless to point out to the liberal that we have institutionalized racial and sexual Babylon. The contemporary Western world does not look like an enchanted isle, it looks like hell. The liberal is beyond reason; he is as blind with hatred and fear of the Christ as the demon-possessed swine in the Gospel.

Ernest Hemingway wrote one novel, The Old Man and the Sea, and made one statement which revealed he was not without a religious sensibility. He once said that whenever he wanted to be cheered up he read Shakespeare’s King Lear. For all his flaws, he showed himself with that comment to be above his fellow utopian Europeans. King Lear is the Christian’s answer to the utopian. “Life is suffering, there is no avoiding it, but there is redemption in suffering, and there is life eternal through, in, and with the God-Man of infinite love and compassion, if we endure.” That is the Christian, Shakespearean response to existence. The liberal’s response? “Christianity is pain. Eliminate Christianity and everybody and everything connected to it, and mankind will live a happy, pain-free, eternal life here on earth.” The two visions of existence are incompatible; the adherents to one will always be at war with the adherents of the other.

In rare isolated cases there are ‘road to Damascus’ conversions from utopian liberalism. But in the main, the battle lines are drawn. There will be no massive defections in the liberal army. Will there be defections within the ranks of the remnant band of Europeans? Possibly. But there will always be a few that will endure to the end. The great advantage of the liberal is that he promises sexual pleasure and freedom from pain. The great advantage of the antique European is that he has a vision of the living God, the God whose love passeth the pleasure of illicit sex and the ennui of an eternal, painless existence in the isle of lotus eaters.

Our entire modern world is based on the Son of Fury fantasy. Every form of civil and ecclesiastical power is used to enhance and solidify the dystopian, anti-European, anti-Christian view of existence. The image of a vast machine, the utopian machine, is an appropriate image for the modern state. Against that machine, the European of the old stock will fight to the end of time. For the hate of the liberal machine and the love of the God of Mercy is the lifeblood of the European. +

Reflections on Sir Walter Scott’s Birthday, August 15th

That elder leader’s calm reply
In steady voice was given,
‘In man’s most dark extremity
Oft succor dawns from heaven.’

-- Walter Scott’s The Lord of the Isles

As soon as the Tea Party Movement became a movement to prove “we are not racist,” it was finished. And so is every “grass roots” conservative movement finished before it starts when white Europeans of American and European heritage believe it is a sin for white people to defend or champion their own people. They have derived that idea from their schools and churches, both of which taught them that hatred of the white and love of the colored were the first and second of the Ten Commandments. Until white people are willing to abandon church theology and dismantle the schools, there will be no successful ‘tea parties’ in America or Europe.

Until that blessed time, when church theology is abandoned and the schools are destroyed, the Europeans who are not afraid of being called racist must keep the bridge to the European past safe and secure in case some last minute convertites want to become Europeans again and need access to the European past.

If a scared and timid European came to me and asked how he could stop being afraid of the racist label and start listening to the voice of his European ancestors, I would tell him to start with the man whose birthday we celebrate tomorrow, Walter Scott.

Scott has been called the father of the historical novel, but that does not describe the man’s work. Scott’s achievement was Shakespearean; he established the universal truth that Christ is risen from the dead, by faithfully depicting the culture of a particular people, the Europeans. By chronicling the lives and loves of the European people, Scott, like Shakespeare, gave us a vision of the living God. He is a mere “historical novelist” to the modern European because the modern European does not know how to think. Scott thought biblically, which means he thought from the heart outward. His heart informed his mind, not the reverse.

In the European fairy tales, the third dumb brother is really only dumb in the eyes of his worldly brothers. The third brother’s thought springs from a heart connected to Christ; therefore, his mind expresses thoughts that seem like idiocy to those men whose minds are corrupt. In their hearts they covet the things that only Satan can provide. When and if the European man tires of the Faustian things, he can turn to Scott to help him understand the eternal things.

I once read a literary critic’s commentary on Jane Austen in which he claimed that you couldn’t tell from her writings that she was a Christian. What fools these literary critics be! Austen’s Christianity is evident in every line she wrote. It is the same with Scott. The reason the modern intellectuals and the modern halfway-house Christians do not see Christianity in the novels of Scott is because their concept of religious faith is a modern, anti-Christian notion of faith. They think a faith that is embodied in a culture is not a faith. For them a faith must be made into a disembodied theology in order to be genuine. But the poet from antique Europe does not desire to be wiser than God. The Savior took flesh and dwelt among us; why then should we not look to see the faith embodied in the people who believed in the incarnate God? In Scott’s works, the European Christ, the God who is above us and beside us in spirit and in blood, takes center stage.

Because Walter Scott’s thought came from his heart, he was one of the last European intellectuals who was not a blood-sucking leech. We are all too familiar with the blood-suckers. They need the European past because it was real; there were genuine men and women back then. So the blood-sucking leech feeds on that past. He writes books and articles about those interesting antique Europeans, but always concludes by telling us just how wrong those people were – wrong about God, wrong about men and women, and wrong about love and honor.

A book called The Return to Camelot by a leech named Mark Girouard is an example of the modern European practice of desecrating Christian Europe and Walter Scott in particular. Girouard writes about the revival of chivalry in Britain during the late 18th century, extending through the 19th century, and into the early 20th century. Scott is credited with starting the revival, but Girouard has a surprise waiting for the reader who picks up the book thinking it is a book in praise of British chivalry. Oh no. At the end of the book he informs us that the English gentleman’s love of chivalry was the major reason for Britain’s involvement in World War I. He goes on to tell us that World War I was the end of chivalry altogether, and good riddance to it. And by extension, good riddance to Scott, since Girouard claims Scott spawned the chivalric revival in Britain.

In its essentials Girouard’s attack on Scott is the same as Mark Twain’s. By writing favorably about men and women who took the Christian principles of honor, loyalty, and pieta seriously, Scott undermined the modern civilization which liberals like Twain and Girouard think is self-evidently superior to antique Europe. Now, for the defense: The chivalric code of the Middle Ages is infinitely superior to the modern anti-chivalric code, but Scott’s chivalry is not medieval. Scott appreciates what was good in the Middle Ages, but he does not want to revive the cult of chivalry as practiced then. Scott’s chivalry, like his Christianity, is more organic, more personal, and more like the Christianity of his European forefathers who humanized the overly systematized and overly intellectualized Roman Christianity. The cult of chivalry as an affectation, as something separate from a man’s Christian faith, was repellent to Scott. The genuine chivalric code comes from a filial relationship with the triune God, not from the mind of man; nor is it necessary to be a soldier in order to practice it. Witness Reuben Butler in Scott’s The Heart of Midlothian.

Far from causing Britain’s involvement in World War I, Scott’s brand of chivalry, if the British people had adhered to it, would have prevented their involvement in World War I. The War came about because the leaders of Britain and the other European nations no longer believed in the code that flowed naturally from a belief in the God whose portrait we see in the novels and epic poems of Sir Walter Scott.

I’m frequently chided and sometimes excoriated by practical-minded right-wingers for bringing mere writers of fictional fables, such as Walter Scott, into serious discussions on such issues as race and immigration. But don’t you see? Europeans are hopeless and helpless in the race war because they don’t see what Scott saw when he looked at Europe. The men and women of Scott’s Europe would not write a protest letter when barbarians murdered and tortured their own people. Nor would they try to vote an invasion away. Scott is more than relevant, he is a necessity. The European must see what Scott saw and feel like he felt if he is ever going to reclaim his soul and his nation. Scott taught us as Dominie Sampson taught young Bertram of Ellangowan:

“But I trust,” said Bertram, “I am encouraged to hope, we shall all see better days. All our wrongs shall be redressed, since Heaven has sent me means and friends to assert my right.”

“Friends indeed!” echoed the Dominie, “and sent, as you truly say, by Him, to whom I early taught you to look up as the source of all that is good.” +

__________________________________________________

In Scotland Again

No home, I am sure, in which a great man has lived, preserves his memory more vividly and more lovingly than Abbotsford preserves the memory of its founder.

Sitting here in his study, it is difficult to think of Scott’s place in literature. It is of the man I think, the man whose character was pure gold. It is a commonplace that we who come after must forgive many a man for his sins because he was a great artist. Scott needs no forgiveness. He was a perfect man.

-- by H. V. Morton

__________________________________________________

Tales of a Traveller

Of his public character and merits, all the world can judge. His works have incorporated themselves with the thoughts and concerns of the whole civilized world, for a quarter of a century, and have had a controlling influence over the age in which he lived. But when did a human being ever exercise an influence more salutary and benignant? Who is there that, on looking back over a great portion of his life, does not find the genius of Scott administering to his pleasures, beguiling his cares, and soothing his lonely sorrows? Who does not still regard his works as a treasury of pure enjoyment, an armory to which to resort in time of need, to find weapons with which to fight off the evils and the griefs of life? For my own part, in periods of dejection, I have hailed the announcement of a new work from his pen as an earnest of certain pleasure in store for me, and have looked forward to it as a traveller in a waste looks to a green spot at a distance, where he feels assured of solace and refreshment. When I consider how much he has thus contributed to the better hours of my past existence, and how independent his works still make me, at times, of all the world for my enjoyment, I bless my stars that cast my lot in his days, to be thus cheered and gladdened by the outpourings of his genius. I consider it one of the greatest advantages that I have derived from my literary career, that it has elevated me into genial communion with such a spirit; and as a tribute of gratitude for his friendship, and veneration for his memory, I cast this humble stone upon his cairn, which will soon, I trust, be piled aloft with the contributions of abler hands.

-- by Washington Irving

The Land of Evening Lingerings

Be as thou was wont to be;
See as thou was wont to see:

-- A Midsummer-Night’s Dream

The white man needs a romanticized ideal in order to live. The colored races can get by with sex and blood cults, but the white man needs something more. For 1600 years prior to the 20th century, the Christian faith was the ‘something more’ for the European. A great hero full of infinite compassion and mercy came down from heaven to wrestle with the dragon of death. And He prevailed!

The poet-historians of our race, Scott, Shakespeare, Hughes, Dickens, Le Fanu, and Maclaren, all bear witness to the reality of a culture where even the great sinners took Christianity seriously enough to be aware that they were sinners. The cad in Scott’s The Heart of Midlothian at least marries the girl he impregnates. Nowadays, the cad would give his girlfriend the money for an abortion and proclaim himself beneficent.

In that excellent movie Miracle on 34th Street, the young lawyer defending Kris Kringle cuts to the chase by saying, “All these complicated tests come down to this: you say Kris is insane because he says he is Santa Claus.” And all the complicated and intricate analyses of the demise of the European come down to this: “The European no longer sees any romance in Christianity. He has ‘moved on.’”

And where has the European moved to? What is his new romance? The modern European has fallen in love with the idea of diversity. Go to any of the universities (which are still religious institutions; they have just changed their religious orientation), and read their manifestos. Diversity is their credo, diversity as defined by the liberal to mean the worship of generic mankind and the denial of a personal God. And there is a hierarchy within generic mankind. The topmost place is reserved for the generic black male, and next comes the generic female of any color, followed by the other races of color. The white male has no place in this diverse society; in fact, the major goal of such diverse societies is the elimination of the white male.

The obsessive hatred of the white male in our modern society stems from the fact that the European male is seen as the harbinger of death. He represents the things of the past, the worship of Christ and the hatred of diversity. Two such evils cannot be tolerated by the diversity-loving modern European. The only surviving white males within the new hierarchy are white technocrats who savagely condemn all other white males while simultaneously denying there is any such thing as a white male. It remains to be seen how long the technocratic male can survive. He is a necessary prop for the feminist and the black; in fact, they are helpless without him, but swine possessed by demons seldom act in their own self-interest. The technocratic white male will be the last of the whites to go, but he will go; diverse societies have no place for the white man.

I once read a story to my children about a farm boy who somehow or other got a position in the court of Queen Elizabeth. All the city boys and girls made fun of the country boy and his ways. When given a chance to perform before the Queen, the country boy sang a song he had learned while growing up on the farm. He sang the song in spite of the ridicule and scorn of the city boys and girls. An old courtier applauded the country boy and told him, “Never be ashamed of the things you love.” The point is we can’t make the liberals love Christian Europe nor can we stop the halfway-house Christians from trying to combine the love of diversity with the love of Christ; we can only be faithful to our own true love.

Before the European fell in love with diversity, he was in love with Christ. From that love came everything good in European civilization. The diversity-loving liberals think they can eliminate the good things which they regard as evil, such as the respect for the child in the womb, the assumption of the superiority of European culture over all other cultures, the respect for patriarchy, and so on, and can just retain the things they still have a need for, such as wine and cheese parties, the right to travel through Europe, and marvel at the sight of the monuments to the faith they deplore, and so on, and so forth, ad nauseam, and on it goes. Every European liberal and halfway-house European think because they live near a police station (which of course they theoretically deplore), lions no longer need cages.

Of course I have no idea when, if ever, this hatred of the white man and of Christian Europe will end. I do know that miracles occur when Europeans are faithful to their one true love. We seldom see what is happening in the mystical body, but the collective voice of our European ancestors assures us that the battle for Christian Europe is worth fighting.

We are in a war and we should follow the advice of Nathan Bedford Forrest: “War means fighting, and fighting means killing.” Not that killing is the only aspect of a war; it is most certainly not. The most important aspect is spiritual: “All things are ready if our hearts be in the trim.” But to acknowledge that killing is a necessary part of any attack on liberaldom is to make the final break with liberal democracy. We can’t destroy liberaldom through the channels set up by liberals to preserve liberaldom. Witness the recent attempt by besieged white people in Arizona to put some small limits on the number of murdering Mexicans flooding into their state. The two major provisions in the anti-illegal alien bill were struck down by the courts. It will always be thus in every formerly European country. The colored man is part of the new romance. His right to murder individual white people and to destroy the few remaining remnants of white culture will always be supported as an inalienable right by the white-hating technocrats of European descent.

Dostoyevsky used the example of the swine from the Gospel to illustrate the modern European liberal. They are so afraid of Him that they will willingly run off a cliff to avoid Him. One can make all sorts of excuses for the liberals: “They never heard any Christ story but a perverted, sectarian, hate-filled version,” or, “They want to believe but their hearts have been hardened against the truth,” or, “They find it impossible to reconcile reason and faith.” The list is endless. But the fact remains that the European has a new love that inspires him more than his old one. It is my contention that we should not aid or abet the new diversity-worshipping European any more than we should aid or abet a husband in abandoning his wife and children for a young girl; which means, let the liberals fight their own wars against the Iraqis and the Afghans with a feminist and black army. We will fight the battle at our doorstep against the aliens the liberal has loosed upon us with the express purpose of exterminating every man, woman, and child of our white race.

The race war is a war to preserve the divine presence on earth. Blake’s dictum, “Where man is not, nature is barren,” should be extended to “Where God is not, man is barren.” In Dore’s paintings of mankind prior to the flood, we see a diversity of bodies fit for nothing but oblivion. We do not see distinct personalities who reflect the image of God. Our modern, anti-European world resembles the world before the flood. Christian Europe stands in direct contrast to the modern, racially blended Europe. There were personalities then. H. V. Morton once commented that Dicken’s characters were not exaggerated. Such personalities as Wilkins Macawber, Samuel Pickwick, and Joe Gargery really existed in Europe’s halcyon days. To emerge from modern Europe and return to antique Europe is like awakening from a hellish nightmare and discovering all over again the enchanted fairy land called home.

Kenneth Grahame calls antique Europe the land of evening lingerings. And we linger there because it is our home; it is where we find the master of the house holding out his arms to greet us and usher us in to sit beside the warm hearth. The brave new, diverse world the liberals have prepared for us is nothing like our European home. There is no light, no warmth, no God in the liberals’ diverse world. There are only hideously inhuman creatures trying desperately to deny that God once visited earth. Their world is perishing, but the old Europe survives. Beyond liberaldom we hear the European chorus: “And He shall reign forever and ever.” +