The Code of the European

“But I have all my life long been prejudiced against that form of underhand violence which I have heard old men contend came into fashion in our country in modern times, and which certainly seems to be alien from the French character. Without judging others too harshly, or saying that the poniard is never excusable—for then might some wrongs done to women and the helpless go without remedy—I have set my face against its use as unworthy of a Christian soldier.” -- Stanley J. Weyman in A Gentleman of France

In the wake of the Norwegian massacre which is reportedly the act of a self-styled “Christian fundamentalist,” the Christian fundamentalists are rushing to renounce the shooter and violence in general. Christians should renounce the shooter for the reason that no Christian kills children, no matter what their color or party affiliation; killing children is what liberals are so fond of doing. But the second renunciation, the renunciation of all violence, is wrong. Christians must defend their own people, using violence when the enemy uses violence. When I hear self-anointed white nationalist leaders urging white people to renounce all violence, while the violence against white people is reaching unheard of levels, I know that the nationalist leaders are more concerned about their own careers than they are about the plight of white people.

I know Anders Behring Breivik, like Timothy McVeigh, was against many things antique Europeans are against – multiculturalism and Islamic encroachment on the West – but he was also a Zionist Christian and he made no attempt, like the IRA makes no attempt, to distinguish non-combatants from combatants. It is true that the murdered young people were liberals in the making, but that type of killing, destroying the enemy’s offspring, is pagan, not Christian. Christian warriors have often failed to live up to the code of chivalry, but that doesn’t make the code invalid or any less binding. Europeans of the past have successfully fought Muslims without becoming like unto the Muslims.

The liberals have quite predictably labeled Anders Behring Breivik a right-wing Christian and an immoral monster. But he is not a Christian as our European ancestors were Christian, nor is he an immoral monster. Anders Behring Breivik is a child of liberalism. He is the product of the new, theoretical Christianity first championed by Thomas Aquinas. If we cannot know the living God via the European people, who made Him the incarnate center of their civilization, how can we know Him? The Christian intelligentsia on the Roman Catholic side said that we could know God through the intercession of an infallible expert’s opinion of Church documents. And the Protestant experts told us we could know God through their interpretations of the Holy Scriptures. Both theoretical versions of Christianity left out the heart of Christianity, man’s personal encounter with the living God, as exemplified in the incarnational culture of the European people. By demonizing the Europeans’ past and denying the validity of their culture of “mere feelings” the European religious theorists cut the European off from his intuitive, instinctual life, which is a man’s only touchstone of reality, and allowed him only a second-hand life in which he was totally dependent on his own mind. He became a reed for any liberal wind that promised him some release from the void in his soul. The post-Christian European, the European who sees only a mind-forged reality, might become a mad-dog liberal and support the mass slaughter of babies and the extermination of the white race; he might become a halfway-house Christian and support the extermination of the white race and acquiesce to the slaughter of babies; or he might become a pro-Zionist white nationalist who believes in the extermination of the children of the mad-dog liberals. It is internecine warfare we are witnessing. We have yet to hear from the men of Christian Europe who do not fight as the pagan liberals or the pagan Muslims fight in order to combat the pagan liberals and the pagan Muslims.

Did our hearts soar when we heard the news of Anders Behring Breivik stalking and killing the Norwegian young people? No, but our hearts were stirred to the depths when Paul Hill stepped out and killed the abortion doctor and his assistant. That was life imitating art. When Paul Hill said, “You won’t kill any more babies,” it reminded us of Nicholas Nickleby’s response to Wackford Squeer’s brutal beating of Smike: “Stop! This must not go on.” It’s in the European’s blood, the instinct to stop brutality at any cost. But if the European has divorced himself from his blood, he will be a dead man from the neck down; he will be all head, a head brimming with the semi-Pelagian, mind-forged theology of St. Thomas Aquinas. In that theological schema, ensoulment occurs when the human mind says it takes place, and not when God ordains it. From a purely logical standpoint, Anders Behring Breivik was completely right to do what he did. He was following the dictates of his own mind-forged faith. The Labor Party was destroying his country, the party members and their children would never have souls – ensoulment takes place when the human intellect says it takes place – so the soulless liberals and their children were fair game for Anders Behring Breivik. All quite logical if the human heart is left out of the equation, as it is in all philosophical and theological systems.

We must fall back on Christianity, which embraces man’s whole nature, and though not a code of philosophy, is something better; for it proposes to lead us through the trials and intricacies of life, not by the mere cool calculations of the head, but by the unerring instincts of a pure and regenerate heart. The problem of the Moral World is too vast and complex for the human mind to comprehend; yet the pure heart will, safely and quietly, feel its way through the mazes that confound the head.”

Without the unerring instincts of his European heart, Anders Behring Breivik became one with the liberals who view the world and all those who inhabit it as grist for the satanic mills of their minds.

A friend who shares my loathing for Liberaldom told me that it was disingenuous to talk about fighting for the destruction of Liberaldom while denouncing the first man who had the courage to strike back at Liberaldom. I don’t see it that way. Liberaldom is the incarnation of Satan where Christ was once incarnate. Are we striking a blow for Christian Europe when we fight as a liberal would fight, with no regard for Christian chivalry? It seems to me that we fall into a satanic trap when we use the tactics of the devil in order to fight the devil. The lodestar of Europe has always been and always shall be Jesus Christ. I don’t believe that we have to abandon Him in order to fight, and win, against Satan and his liberal minions. As with Timothy McVeigh there will be no attempt to understand Anders Behring Breivik’s rage. “He is a monster,” the liberals tell us. But the rage is justified; all Christian Europeans should feel a rage against the liberals and their barbarian allies. It is still possible to channel that rage against the liberals and their barbarian allies without breaking the code of chivalry. In his book, Anders Behring Breivik linked the cause of Christian Europe with the cause of Israel. No man who fuses Judaism and Christianity can be trusted to act as an integral Christian. The Jews regularly attack the Palestinians, making no distinction between combatants and non-combatants, and quite possibly that was a significant influence on Anders Behring Breivik.

No doubt it is easier to never use violence for any reason or to use violence on all occasions and for any reason, than it is to make distinctions and use violence when necessary within limits and to refrain from violence when restraint seems necessary, but such is the cross the Christian must bear. In Caroline Gordon’s novel None Shall Look Back, she tells us of Nathan Bedford Forrest’s actions after he liberated a group of Confederates from a Union prison camp. He took one liberated Southern soldier aside and asked him if any of the Yankee soldiers had abused the Confederate prisoners. There was one who had, and he was shot. The rest of the Yankee prisoners were treated humanely. And again, when Forrest became the Grand Wizard of the K. K. K., he didn’t ride against every Negro; he rode against those who raped and murdered.

True Christian charity often demands that we kill, always in defense of, and always with men like Tell, Havelock, and Forrest before us as exemplars. They knew when to kill and when to refrain from killing, because they had faith that was bred in the bone, a surer and more certain faith than the mind-forged faith of the modern, wayward Europeans. +

That Which We Hold Dear

And Memory, Use, and Love make live
Us and our fields alike—

--Rudyard Kipling

In Arthur Koestler’s autobiography he told of a woman who had spent years as a devoted communist and then one day became an ardent anti-communist. Koestler, now a former communist himself, asked her why she had left the Party. She replied, “One night I heard screams.” Of course there had been nights and nights of screams, but one night the screams of one tortured soul penetrated the soul of a communist who thought there was no such thing as a soul. Such conversions were rare, Koestler went on to say, but they did occur.

Because “one night I heard screams” conversions sometimes occur, we should never stop trying to report the atrocities of the black barbarians. There is always the chance that an atrocity story will penetrate the soul of a liberal and he will be converted, but we cannot make the reporting of atrocity stories our only hope. In the main, the liberals have formed a protective shell around their hearts that makes them immune to an appeal for charity and mercy. Augustine once said that there was one deathbed conversion in Scripture, lest you despair; but there was only one lest you presume. We cannot hope for the equivalent of mass deathbed conversions from liberals as a result of getting the information out about black atrocities. What can we hope for then, in lieu of the conversion of the liberals? We can hope and work for the destruction of Negro worshipping Liberaldom.

In a centralized state such as the United States only a small minority of people are really committed to the preservation of the state. The vast majority of people are merely grazers; they go along with the powers that be, but if a different group took over the grazers would go along with them. The late John Tyndale, a British Nationalist, was well aware of the grazers. He once wrote an article explaining that more often than not he found that the British grazers agreed with him on the necessity of a white Britain, but they wouldn’t support him because they feared the loss of their jobs and the stigma of “racist.” Seize electoral power, Tyndale argued, and the grazers would go along with the new powers that be, the BNP. I agree with Tyndale about the grazers, but I don’t think you can defeat democratic, utopian liberalism from within utopia. You must destroy utopia and rebuild Christian Europe.

Behind Negro worshipping diversity is the desire to eliminate all that elevates a man to a spiritual plane above the nature-worshipping societies of antiquity. And the return to nature, which results in the worship of the savage, occurred in the European world when religious faith became a philosophy. When a man looks at religious faith philosophically he has already started the divorce proceedings between his heart and his head that will lead to the betrayal of his God and his people. He is a man fit for treasons, stratagems, and spoils. Stanley Weyman, in his novel The Long Night, depicts a staunch and principled Switzer who betrays his people during their wars with Savoy because he succumbs to the philosophical temptation.

After all, a live dog is better than a dead lion – only you will not see it. We are ruled, the most of us, by our feelings, and die for our side without asking ourselves whether a single person would be a ducat the worse if the other side won. It is not philosophical, with another shrug. “That is all.”

Therein lies the key to the demise of the European. The devil bids us divorce ourselves from our people and our God in the name of a higher philosophical principle. In reality, an egotistical adherence to a “higher” philosophical principle, higher than “mere feelings,” leaves a man in a morally ambivalent state in which he can be easily manipulated by the devil.

This brings us to the necessity of concluding that the upholders of mere dialectic, whether they appear in this modern form or in another, are among the most subversive enemies of society and culture. They are attacking an ultimate source of cohesion in the interest of a doctrine which can issue only in nullity. It is no service to man to impugn his feeling about the world qua feeling. Feeling is the source of that healthful tension between man and what is – both objectively and subjectively. If man could be brought to believe that all feeling about the world is wrong, there would be nothing for him but collapse. -- Richard Weaver

The European has been brought to believe that all his feeling about the world is wrong, and he has indeed collapsed. The abstract philosophical poison, the European’s inheritance from Greece, killed the Roman Empire, and then in turn killed Christian Europe. It’s not hard to see why the Greek poison is so deadly, nor is it hard to see why men drink it so readily. The Greek philosophical poison consists of the “you shall be as God” liquid. If existence can be put in the silver rod of the philosopher, the philosopher can become God. It’s ironic that Plato, the most anti-European of the Greek philosophers, has been carried in the humanities curriculums of European universities for century after century. Plato’s cruel utopia, where the patriarchal family is outlawed, abortion is legal, and all ties of kith and kin are obliterated for the sake of the common good of an abstract humanity, was to become a shining light to anti-European intellectuals throughout the long history of Christian Europe.

Every utopia is antithetical to Christianity, even though many utopian schemes, in fact most utopian schemes, come from heretical Christians. Christianity celebrates the living God who saved individual human beings from sin and death. The utopian celebrates humanity in the abstract, which he plans to deliver from the pain of existence by virtue of the power of his mind. Such egomania always ends in oblivion, because individual human beings cannot live in the prison of the abstracted mind, abstracted from God and from man. The Roman Catholic priest, Jean Meslier, who rejected Christianity for his own abstract theology of utopia, at least had the decency to follow his abstract theory to its logical conclusion: After stating “I myself am not more than nothing…,” he committed suicide. The same fate has befallen the modern European people; believing they are nothing, a people without kith or kin, they are committing suicide.

All my life I’ve heard of the Greco-Roman heritage of Europe. And the unchallenged assumption is that the Greco-Roman heritage is good. But the type of heritage that liberals and conservatives are referring to, the Greek philosophical tradition and the Roman organization, have not been good for Europe. The discarded poetical heritage of Homer, Sophocles, and Virgil, the men who felt that there was a God beyond the gods, would have been a heritage for the Europeans to build upon, but it was not that heritage that became “our Greco-Roman heritage.”

Our Greco-Roman heritage is the heritage of the utopian Greek philosophers and the race-mixing Romans who put loyalty to the idea of Rome above loyalty to one’s blood. The startling fact that comes to the forefront when we look at the European’s history is that the classicists have always regarded the European as a barbarian because the European regarded the purity of his race as something sacred. I remember being shocked, because I had always been told the Europeans who invaded Rome were barbarians, when I first read about the real Europeans, such as Dietrich of Berne and Alaric the Goth, men of great heart and of a great civilization. They kept what was good in the Roman empire, the Christian faith, and discarded what was evil, the Roman policy of mongrelization in the name of Roman unity. It was the task of the European hero then, as it is his task now, to keep the Greco-Roman hell-hound at bay.

Right from the beginning then, there was a Greco-roman dagger aimed at the heart of European civilization. So long as the Europeans’ maintained their bloodlines, they were shielded from the Greco-Roman dagger. But when the shield of race was lowered the dagger of the Greek philosophic tradition and mongrelizing Rome was able to penetrate to the heart of the European civilization. In the purely material world a dagger to the heart is fatal, but in the real world, the world of the European fairy tales, a man and his people can survive a dagger to the heart; they can rise again, and ride triumphant over ruin and death.

Of course all talk of the European riding triumphant over anything is futile if he doesn’t recover his identity as a European. He is the Christ-bearer who preserved the faith by preserving the purity of his race. Whenever he wavered toward a Greco-Roman-philosophical utopia, his faith in the living God diminished. How could it be otherwise? Love, charity, and mercy stem from a living God, a God who is man and God; they cannot exist as philosophical abstractions or the “ethical ideals” of an organization dedicated to one-world, one-family, one-multicolored race.

The first European Christians viewed fidelity to their race as they viewed fidelity to their wife and fidelity to their God. The liberals accept that European vision of race and faith as the true Christianity, and then damn Christianity. The halfway-house Christians condemn the “racist” faith of the antique Europeans and point to a new Christianity where Christ appears, blesses Babylon, and then leaves the stage.

Can there be any faith in Christ outside the hearth fires of the condemned Europeans? The answer to that question is obvious to anyone who has a heart that still lives. The path through the European woods takes us to Him; the path through the new improved woods of the liberals leads to Babylon, and beyond that, hell. I have no desire to be wiser than my ancestors. They knew and loved God because of His divine humanity. They saw the human in the divine, because they were faithful to a particular race of people, not a philosophical utopia or a multi-racial organization. The European cottage in the woods, when inhabited by men and women of our own race, is infinitely more beautiful than the gaudy palaces of Babylon peopled by an indeterminate race of subhuman monstrosities. In the former dwelling we see the face of Christ reflected in his people; in the latter we see only darkness. We’ve truly lost our way if we prefer the Babylonian palace to the European cottage. +

The Darkness of Diversity

The darkness deepens; Lord with me abide! – H. F. Lyte

In his book Language is Sermonic, Richard Weaver made the point that every society has God words and devil words. Such words convey a meaning beyond the mere dictionary meaning of the words. Weaver used the words "democracy" and "reactionary" as examples of God and devil words. Both are still used today as God words and devil words, but there have been a number of new God words and devil words created by the liberals since Weaver wrote Language is Sermonic. A perusal of the new lexicon of God and devil words is like reading the pages of a tragic volume; it tells us the sad tale of the Europeans’ descent to oblivion.

The great God word of the liberals is diversity. Every college curriculum must have it, every business mandates it, and every neighborhood and school is supposed to celebrate it. What is this marvelous thing? It sounds even more wonderful than flubber, that miraculous substance Fred MacMurray invented in the Disney movie called The Absent-Minded Professor. After all the superlatives we’ve heard about diversity, aren’t we entitled to regard it as something more incredible than flubber? Yes, we are so entitled, and fortunately, the liberal informs us, diversity is just as beautiful and stupendous as we were told it is. Diversity is the cornerstone of paradise; it is what ushers mankind into the land of liberal milk and honey, much tastier and sweeter than the Biblical milk and honey which came with the taint of God upon it.

God words are seldom defined, and when they are they do not behave according to their definition. Diversity is supposed to mean a variety of differently colored people all living and working together inside of a great pleasure dome. But the outside observer (Martians are convenient for that type of work) notices that liberals do not mean varied when they use the word diversity; they mean a non-diverse monolith. The Martian observes formerly white countries with their own religion and their own culture based on that religion turning their country over to colored people. He further observes that the retreating whites forsake their God and worship the colored people as gods. He also notes that formerly white neighborhoods become all black neighborhoods, and formerly white customs and white traditions become banned customs and traditions, while all things pertaining to the worship of the Negro are proclaimed “diverse” and therefore sacred. The Martian observer leaves our planet in a daze and is unable to explain our bizarre double- and triple-speak to his fellow Martians.

The white leaders, the sons of Voltaire and Rousseau, talk diversity to the masses, but what they dream of is a non-diverse, non-white society. What about the white grazers? Do they really believe in the myth of “I’ll respect your culture and you’ll respect mine”? Yes, I suspect most of them do. The rationalist, scientific revolution was the prelude to Negro worship. Without their faith in Christ, the grazers lost their grip on reality. They became members of the liberal cult. Whatever their leaders tell them, they believe. And their leaders have told them that diversity means, “I’ll respect your culture and you’ll respect mine.” The white grazers would need the blinding sight that only comes from being an antique European to see that the white is not permitted his own culture; it has been labeled demonic. The antique European is only given the right to worship and serve the Negro. The “I’ll respect your culture and you’ll respect mine” gambit was only necessary for older whites who had a culture separate from the Negro culture. Now that every white child is taught “diversity” at his daycare provider’s knee, it is no longer necessary to tell whites that the Negro will respect their culture if they will respect the Negro’s, because the modern white man knows only one culture, the culture of Negro worship.

Diversity, as the liberal defines diversity, means the extinction of the white race. The colored hordes have always known what diversity means. That is why they support diversity in white nations while they outlaw it in their own nations. When the white nations have become diverse, in the liberal sense of the word, then the colored peoples will put an end to all diversity, in the actual sense of the word.

Racism has been a devil word in the European world for over half a century, but it does not mean what the straight dictionary definition says it means. Racism as a devil word can only be applied to white people. There are no black racists in Liberaldom. All white people are racists just by virtue of being white, but some whites are more racist than other whites. The racist whites, a vanishing breed, are the whites who persist in regarding white people and white culture as a people and a culture worthy of respect, love, and honor. That small remnant refuses to accept diversity. They are, according to liberal dogma, racist vermin who must be exterminated. The anti-white liberals who have denounced the white race have filled the spiritual void in their lives, caused by their rejection of the God of Europe, with a very real and personal hatred of antique Europeans and an abstract love of the black man. Their hate is more real to them than their love; hence, the primary passion of the liberal is his hatred for “racist” white Europeans who refuse to go gently into the dark night of diversity.

The heroes in the novels of the English author A. E. W. Mason and the Southern author Thomas Nelson Page all have one thing in common: they are uprooted from their one special spot of ground that they love over all, and must fight for spiritual and physical survival in foreign lands. In the case of Mason’s English heroes, the foreign land is usually India, and in the case of Page’s Southern heroes the foreign land is the North. But the heroes do not go to the foreign lands alone. They take their homeland and the code that sustains their homeland with them; it is in their blood. Hence, when Mason’s heroes face down howling devil worshippers, the servants of Kali, and prevail against all odds, they have made that spot of ground part of English soil, part of Christian Europe. And when the Southern heroes of Thomas Nelson Page refuse to abandon their bred-in-the-bone chivalry for the ethics of the utilitarian moneylenders of the North, they too have made foreign soil part of their soil, part of Christian Europe.

We few, we “racist” few, we Europeans, are in exile. But we hold Christian Europe in our blood, and wherever we fly our flag, that land remains Europe. There can be no compromise with the haters, because the essence of Liberaldom is the hate of white Europeans. How can they compromise and survive? They can’t and they won’t. Nor can we compromise. We can’t try to become part of Liberaldom, as the conservatives do, by proving that we are not racist. That policy doesn’t work, and it is a satanic policy because it requires that we renounce our blood. We are racist, we prefer our own to the stranger, and we hold Christian Europe as a sacred land separate and distinct from the colored lands. As Europe and the other white countries become colored countries, Christian Europe will become a vague memory and then a fantasy to the remaining Europeans still left alive. It is the task of the hero (and the remnant band of Europeans must assume the heroic mantle for the simple reason that there is nobody else) to make sure that Christian Europe remains a vivid reality to the liberals who hate it and the grazers who have forgotten it. We no longer have a country to return to as Alexander Smollet did, but we can still say, as Alexander Smollet did, that where we stand is Europe.

In the old Perry Mason novels and movies, Perry Mason is both the defender and the prosecutor. He defends his client by exposing the guilty party. We stand in that position vis-à-vis the antique Europeans and the culture they created. They are accused of the unpardonable sin, which is racism. And because of their alleged sin, the building of paradise has been delayed. The sentence of the liberal tribunal is death. Why have no clergymen come to the defense of Europe? Why is it left to the inarticulate peasant class? Because the Christian clergy heard the siren call of paganism and succumbed. In the pagan religions the sacred rituals performed with the proper wording, form, and ceremony, by a member of the elect priestly caste, is the way to God. 'Tis not so with Christ. His blood was our blood, and He comes to us through the blood, not the rite. The clergy jettisoned Christ our brother in order to hold on to their privileged status as keepers of the esoteric rites.

Have Europeans polluted the world and delayed the building of Utopia because they believed in Christ? No, the guilty party, the murderer of everything pure and decent is the liberal. There is an historical record. The only glimpse of charity and mercy ever seen on the face of the earth came from the antique Europeans, who have been convicted without a trial by the guilty-as-sin liberals. What have the liberals, after 60 plus years of power, produced? (1) “The result has been legalized abortion, war without the mitigating influence of chivalry, the absence of charity and mercy, sexual permissiveness and sexual perversion, the rise of the effeminate white male and the decline of the masculine white male, and the de-feminization of the white female. And at the top of the perverted list of European innovations is the innovation that holds Babylon together (or should we say keeps Babylon from being anything but Babylon): the worship of the Negro.” At present the liberals don’t even bother to defend themselves because their power is such that they don’t have to answer to anyone for their crimes. But in the early days of their reign, when they still felt unsure about the permanence of their triumph, they defended the more blatant crimes of Liberaldom, such as increased sexual promiscuity and rising black violence, as mere growing pains of a brave new world. When the Utopian system was completely in place, they insisted, there would be no more glitches in the machine. And who became the glitch that had to be eliminated? Yes, it was the remaining white Europeans who wanted to remain white Europeans.

All antique Europeans living in modern day Liberaldom face a crisis similar to those crises faced and overcome by the British grenadiers in the A. E. W. Mason novels. The liberals and their black minions are howling Afghans, Fuzzy-Wuzzies, and the devilish followers of Kali all rolled into one. It would seem that we, like Mason’s heroes, must fight on alone without hope of reinforcements. But we are not entirely alone. We take our European home, and the strength that those home associations give a man, into battle with us. The Christian European has never been afraid of the valley of the shadow of death, because he knows, with a faith bred-in-the bone, that the Son of God walks by his side. It is eventide for Europe, but no one’s death, and no civilization’s death, is a mathematical certainty so long as He abides with us. +

___________________

(1) I noticed a news item on the AmRen page that was one more proof of the ascendancy of liberalism over Christianity.

Young people, according to the post, now use the term “that’s racist” in a mocking way, much like an Eddie Haskell in a bygone era might have told a dirty joke in a church parking lot. The young people are being iconoclastic; they are poking fun at the establishment.

The liberals, despite trying to present themselves as downtrodden outsiders, are The Establishment. If a young white person wants to be truly anti-establishment, let him take up the cause of Christian Europe. It was a cross our ancestors gladly bore.

Shielding Innocence

“There can be no charity in Liberaldom because the liberal, of necessity, must kill Christian charity so that Liberaldom can survive. It’s a war to the death.” – CWNY

The recent skewering of the liberal-conservative commentator Glenn Beck was a striking example of the cruelty of the utopian liberals. Beck was one of their own. He regularly had shows on “our black founding fathers,” he said that Geert Wilders, the Dutch immigration restrictionist, was “too extreme,” and he always made sure to have blacks in his audience. Still he was driven off the air while the mad-dog liberals sat around gloating. Why was he driven off the air? He was driven off the air because he failed to understand the nature of the democratic liberal utopian machine that he served, just as Alexander Solzhenitsyn failed to understand, prior to his conversion, the nature of the communist utopian machine he served. Solzhenitsyn told us in his Gulag books that he was a good communist before going to prison. He was a true believer. He had merely written a letter to a friend criticizing some of Stalin’s wartime strategies. There was no criticism of communism in the letter, but Solzhenitsyn was more of a believer in communism than Stalin. Stalin believed only in the personal aggrandizement of Joseph Stalin, so Solzhenitsyn got what turned out to be a fortunate trip, for him and us, to the Gulag.

Beck was more of a believer in democratic egalitarianism than the mad-dog liberals. He failed to understand that in all utopian states “some are more equal than others.” From Beck’s perspective all racism in utopia is evil whether it comes from the white or the black, so he pointed out the racism of The Obama. But utopian states are not about democratic egalitarianism; they are about power. The liberal must have power to crush the enemies of utopia. He believes in an anti-white paradise presided over by a benevolent black god. With the election of the Obama, the United States liberal feels he has lived to see the coming of his god. When the Obama was elected the ecstatic faces of the liberal commentators told us all we need to know about liberals, utopian states, and the noble savage. It’s a war between two diametrically opposed visions of existence. The liberal sees Babylon, and the antique European sees Christian Europe. Beck’s failure to understand the nature of the conflict was not surprising: how can you understand the satanic nature of the democratic egalitarian heresy if you are a true believer in the democratic egalitarian heresy?

So long as white “conservatives” believe in utopian democracy they will continue to be white meat for the liberal machine. And it is a machine the white man is up against, an inhuman entity devoid of pity and full of remorseless cruelty. The white man must renounce Founding Fathers egalitarian democracy or he will be ground into nothingness in the gears of the liberal machine.

In America and Europe the democratic era is treated as an ascent, a triumph of progress, but in reality the democratic era signals the demise of Christian Europe and the rise of Babylon. From approximately 1914 to 1965 the European people had problems believing in Christ’s divinity, but they still maintained the ethical standards of Christianity. From the mid-sixties to the present the European has been trying to live without faith in Christ and without the ethical system that stems from a belief in Christ. The result has been legalized abortion, war without the mitigating influence of chivalry, the absence of charity and mercy, sexual permissiveness and sexual perversion, the rise of the effeminate white male and the decline of the masculine white male, and the de-feminization of the white female. And at the top of the perverted list of European innovations is the innovation that holds Babylon together (or should we say keeps Babylon from being anything but Babylon): the worship of the Negro. For how can a man be expected to be better than his god? With the Negro as his god the white man can descend to the level of a primitive ape and call such a descent progress because he is getting closer to his god. But he cannot quite make it. He can’t be as truly “natural” as his god; there is always something in his way. That something is of course his racial memory of a Christian past; it is a memory he denies in himself and seeks to eradicate in other whites. He has been largely successful in his denial and eradication, but he will never be wholly comfortable with the noble savages.

Some conservatives such as Beck and some halfway house Christians such as Pat Roberson and Pope Benedict XVI will express dissatisfaction with the declining sexual mores of the modern European, but in the same breath they will denounce the racism of the Europeans of the past and praise the new racially diverse future mankind is heading toward. You can’t have it both ways. Racial Babylon and sexual Babylon are one! If white people worship the black they will have no frame of reference to launch an attack against the evils of a sexual Babylon presided over by black gods.

In a religious cult the leaders of the cult try to get the members to have only one frame of reference: the cult leader or leaders. The behavior of cult members might seem bizarre to individuals outside that particular cult, but that is precisely because they are outside of the cult. From inside the cult it makes sense to drink poisoned kool-aid, to go into battle believing no bullet can harm you, to sit on a platform waiting to be taken up to heaven… and on and on. Everything the cult leaders say makes sense to the religious devotee because whatever the cult leader says represents God’s truth. That is why it is useless to point out the savagery of the NWCL (Negro Worshipping Church of Liberaldom) because as a member of that organization the liberal believes that whatever the black does is good and right. That is the liberal’s unshakeable faith, his black gods can do no evil. This is why crimes of rape, murder, and mayhem, when perpetuated by blacks against whites, are called natural responses to racism – or a simple overflowing of youthful exuberance. Only members of the NWCL could remain steadfastly loyal to their gods despite the white genocide going on around them.

In my mid-twenties I was a member of a parish in which a young white boy, about 14 years of age, was shot by several black “youths” in a drive-by shooting. The boy was an only son with four sisters and a mother and father who loved him with an intensity of love that only a white man could fathom. Neither parent asked the men of the parish to go out and find the blacks responsible for the shooting; they knew vigilantism would be punished, but the parents did hope for justice. They were old-fashioned enough to believe that the murdering scum who killed their son should be killed themselves, even though they were black. The poor, unenlightened bigots! Didn’t they know that black youths were never wrong? If they didn’t know that they were soon going to be informed of that doctrine. The parish priest gave the most blasphemous homily I had ever heard (since that time I’ve heard many such) in a house of God. The priest talked about racial justice, about white people who called black people niggers; about healing the wounds caused by slavery… you know the litany. But not one word about the necessity of loving one’s own and protecting them from Satan’s minions, the Negros. Nor was there a call to punish home so that such an atrocity would be less likely to happen in the future. Of course I was naïve! Imagine expecting a Christian response to existence from a modern clergyman who was a card-carrying member of the NWCL.

If I’m becoming too anecdotal, forgive me and just chalk it up as an old man’s failing. I see another young white boy in my mind’s eye. He was a student in my English Literature class. In that class I took it for granted that my students had all been born and raised to be good liberals. I saw it as my task to try to make them start to divest themselves of their liberalism, or, failing that, to let them know that the literary giants of the Western world were not liberals.

There was one particular student who was always shocked at what he saw as my off-the-wall declarations: “With very few exceptions there has been nothing written of any value since the early 1900s”, “All English literature is a footnote to Shakespeare.” He would respond to my off-the-wall declarations with exclamations of “Mr. ___, how can you say that!” I got into so many arguments with the young man that I began to think of him as the “How can you say that” boy. But he was alive, he had a soul, and he was open to the call of the poets. When he asked me, “How can you say that,” after I called Stephen King a hack writer he actually listened to me when I explained the difference between Shakespeare’s Macbeth and a Stephen King horror novel. And during the course of the year the How-can-you-say-that boy actually saw the difference between Shakespeare and Stephen King. “It has to do with spiritual depth, doesn’t it?” “Yes, it does,” I told the How-can-you-say-that boy, who became a man during my class. Only God knows why he died at the hands of a “black youth” who robbed the convenience store at which he was working the late shift. Don’t ever let your children work at such places. Convenience stores are convenient places for blacks to drive to in order to murder and steal.

There is an organization that all remaining antique Europeans should be members of; we needn’t write up any official documents because we don’t need paper and ink and notary for things of the spirit. We are members of the OWT (Order of William Tell). Our order is dedicated to the fight the enemies of His reign of charity and to hunt down and kill anyone who comes against our kith and kin. There is certainly enough work to last a lifetime for men who want to join such an order. What did the old Jacobite say? “I’ve drawn my sword and thrown the sheath away.” +

Time was, my dearest children, when with joy
You hail’d your father’s safe return to home
From his long mountain toils; for, when he came,
He ever brought with him some little gift,--
A lovely Alpine flower—a curious bird—
Or elf-bolt, such as on the hills are found.
But now he goes in quest of other game,
Sits in this gorge, with murder in his thoughts,
And for his enemy’s life-blood lies in wait.
But still it is of you alone he thinks.
Dear children.—‘Tis to guard your innocence,
To shield you from the tyrant’s fell revenge,
He bends his bow to do a deed of blood!

The Blood Red Tide of Liberalism

Turn, hell hound, turn!

(Macduff’s challenge to Macbeth)

Spirit, Water, Blood recently ran some excerpts from Charles Dickens’ essay on “The Noble Savage.” Dickens got it right: the savage is savage, but he is far from noble. From Samuel Johnson (“Don’t cant to me of savages”), to Dickens, to Thomas Nelson Page, the consensus opinion of the white poets was in line with the Bible. The sons of Ham were meant to be subordinate to and kept in check by the sons of Shem and Japheth, because left to their own devices they would inevitably become predatory animals. Nothing happened in the 20^th century, in regards to the Negro, to refute what would now be called the racist rants of poets such as Johnson, Dickens, and Page. In fact, everything that happened in the 20^th century in Africa and the United States (read Anthony Jacob’s White Man Think Again! and the U. S. crime reports) make the white poets’ comments on the Negro seem much too mild. And the activities of the 21^st century Negro has only confirmed the warnings contained in White Man Think Again!, just as Jacob’s book confirmed the insightful writings on the Negro of the 18^th and 19^th century white poets.

At the time Johnson was telling Boswell “don’t cant to me of savages,” and even later, when Dickens wrote his attack on the noble savage heresy and Page wrote about the Negro problem, the majority of the European intellectuals and the bulk of the European people did not believe in the Noble Savage; they believed, with the white poets, that the black man and the other colored races were the “lesser breeds without the law.” But there were a few atheists such as Rousseau and Voltaire who needed a substitute for the Christian God whom they had forsaken. So they created, in their sick, demented minds, abstract, paradisiacal states inhabited by pure, sensuous, earthy, noble savages (see Till the End of Time.) And the utopian fantasies of a few white intellectuals have become the faith of the modern Europeans.

The worship of the black man is a uniquely European phenomenon. Other colored races see the black man for what he is, a savage predator, who is a danger to any stable society. I remember asking a Korean shop owner in my home city, why, during a spate of black riots, was his business the only business in five blocks of businesses that was not touched by rioters. His answer was quite simple: “I don’t taken any b___ from niggers. They know I’ll shoot them.” The Korean shop owner did not believe in the Noble Savage.

Of course the time is fast approaching – in Britain it has already come – when no one will be allowed access to firearms with which to defend themselves against the barbarian hordes. The NRA has never grasped the fact that gun control and Negro worship are woven together. To own a gun for self-defense is to openly declare that you do not believe in the sanctity and goodness of the Negro. But if the will to defend one’s own is in a man, he will fight with whatever weapon he can lay his hands on.

In his excellent book Counter Revolution Thomas Molnar pointed out that revolutions first succeed in the hearts and minds of men before they succeed on the battlefield. The seeds of Christian atheism, which substitutes the Negro for Christ, were sown by philosophers such as Voltaire and Rousseau. “Mock on, Mock on, Voltaire, Rousseau, Mock on!” was the impassioned defiance that William Blake hurled at the utopian atheists, but the Europeans preferred the promise of a Negro-infested future to the green and pleasant pastures of Christian Europe.

Utopian atheism and Negro worship are eternally bound together. The unspeakable atrocities in Haiti that occurred in 1789 (see Tintagel vs Haiti) came about as a result of a fusion of utopian atheism and Negro worship. In the utopians’ minds, the old Christian regime was evil; therefore, the antithesis of white French Christians, namely voodoo-worshipping Negroes, had the right – nay, not just the right, the duty – to exterminate the white, Christian French. And they did, to the last man.

In the United States during the infamous “reconstruction” period in the South, the Negro worshipping, democratic egalitarian, atheists turned the white Southerners over to the tender mercies of the Negro barbarians. The Southerners were saved, but only temporarily because the extermination process was resumed in the latter half of the 20^th century, from the fate of the French in Haiti by the emergence of Nathan Bedford Forrest and the Ku Klux Klan.

The English everyman of the 19^th century reading Dickens’ “The Noble Savage” might even have said to his wife, “Why does anyone have to write this down. It’s just common sense.” But now? Just common sense is uncommon. We live in a cruel dystopian oligarchy where good common sense about the sacred things, such as the love a man has for his own and the hatred he has for those who would destroy his own, has been outlawed, and the practitioners of good common sense have been forced to go underground.

I once read a neo-pagan blog in which the author tried to maintain that the European people had never really taken Christianity seriously; they had just had it foisted on them by their leaders. Such an argument undercuts the neo-pagan’s professed love for white people. How can you respect a people who practiced, for over 1500 years, a religion that was merely “foisted” upon them? I couldn’t accept the ‘foisted upon them’ theory of the neo-pagan, nor can I accept the ‘foisted upon them’ theory when it is used to explain the reason for the Europeans rejection of Christianity for utopian Negro worship. Granted, the utopians were quite clever. At first (and some still do) they fused Christianity and utopianism in order to slowly wean the European from his Christian faith. And utopianism was always posited as a cure for some genuine evil. But ultimately a man doesn’t change gods because he was tricked; he changes gods because he believes in the truth of the new god and not in the truth of his old god. It was inevitable once the forces of rationalism and science undermined the European’s faith in Christ that the European would embrace Negro worship. Seen through the eyes of faith Christianity is the natural faith for a man, because it is a faith that encompasses all of reality; it tells a man what he is and where he is going. But if a man foreshortens his vision and looks at the natural world as a self-contained world devoid of a personal God sustaining it, he will be doomed to worship at the satanic altar of the natural savage forever. Nature divorced from God is a Medusa’s head; to look upon it in such a distorted fashion -- and science bids us to do just that -- is death.

The road to Negro worship was built brick by brick by theologians and philosophers who told the European to look to nature in order to find God. He wasn’t there, so the European assumed He didn’t exist. Now he has nature and nature’s god, the black man. Is he content with that god? He says he is, but behind the façade of Liberaldom is suicidal despair. We are a society addicted to every form of anesthetic: drugs, sex, blood sports, the list is endless. Why, if the Negro god is all sufficient, do Europeans need to anesthetize themselves?

We need to take the European’s anesthetics away from him and make him look at the “utopia” in which he lives. What is the essence of this brave new world? All utopian states are built on cruelty; without cruelty the utopian state crumbles because the utopian must destroy the old order where truth, honor, and Jesus Christ reigned:

“All tender and gentle feelings of kinship, friendship, love, gratitude and even honor itself should be choked off in the revolutionary’s breast by the single cold passion of his revolutionary task. He is not a revolutionary if he has pity for anything in the world. He knows only one science—the science of destruction. He lives in the world with a single aim—its total and swift destruction.” (Mikhail Bakunin)

Yes, destruction and cruelty is the inner law of all utopias. Christ’s law of charity, which was the inner law of Christian Europe, became the proscribed law in utopian Europe because utopias are built with the blood of the innocents of the present in order to ensure the security of the chosen ones in the future. There can be no charity in Liberaldom because the liberal, of necessity, must kill Christian charity so that Liberaldom can survive. It’s a war to the death – the Christian European is committed to the destruction of Liberaldom because the liberals are committed to the destruction of everything a European holds sacred.

When we see the essence of utopian liberalism, which is cruelty, we can see why two seemingly disparate groups of individuals are united. The rationalistic, scientific liberal seems to be miles apart from the Negro barbarians. But they are united in their cruelty. Having renounced the source of divine charity they can only live by hatred; they hate the Christian European.

The liberal hates because he must destroy Christ’s people, and the black hates because it is in his nature to hate the white. Needless to say there is no love in the alliance between the liberal and the Negro; both are incapable of love, which belongs to a higher order of existence that the liberal has renounced and the Negro only knew when he served in the tents of the white man.

There is a litmus test for entrance into Liberaldom. You must be willing to stand by and applaud the murder and destruction of your own people in the here and now, and you must applaud the condemnation of the Europeans of the past. Certainly the clergy of the anti-Christian Christian churches, particularly the Catholic popes, have passed the test with flying colors. And the European laity has followed the lead of their blaspheming priests and pastors. But there will be those who refuse to pass the litmus test. God bless them.

When I was young I read a number of the Bulldog Drummond novels by H. C. McNeile. Mr. McNeile always made light of his own intelligence and his hero’s intelligence. But Bulldog Drummond had wise blood. He was always up against some criminal mastermind who was trying to manipulate the various utopian radicals into a coalition that would bring Christian Britain down. Drummond was always in defense of, and he was always up to the mark. Two white moments from the novel Bulldog Drummond Strikes Back stand out in my mind. While convalescing in a hospital from wounds inflicted by the evil mastermind, Bulldog Drummond is informed that the evil mastermind has destroyed a trainload of innocent people in order to further his own devilish schemes.

“He listened in silence whilst Darrell told him everything that had happened: then without a word he got out of bed and rang the bell. He was still shaky on his legs, but on his face was the look of grim determination that Darrell know well of old.”

And then later:

“This thing is going to be finished one way or the other, Peter,” he said after they had turned the car. “This globe isn’t big enough for Demonico and me. And he and I will have a final settlement tonight.”

His law of charity demands that we refuse to accept the liberals’ law of cruelty. From Marxist Russia to the black-worshipping nations of America and modern Europe, the force behind the utopian movements is the same: it is our ancient foe. It’s not all that complex; either we serve Satan or Christ, Babylon or Christian Europe. +