Cambria Will Not Yield

Friday, September 30, 2011

The Walls of Utopia

“Hope for the future has been transferred to the peoples of the developing countries, to disaffected national minorities, for example the blacks in the U.S.A….” -- Igor Shafarevich (1975)

Utopian visions of society existed in pre-Christian Europe (witness Plato’s Republic) but the virtual explosion of utopian literature did not occur until the Christian era in Europe. It was an easy leap, in the minds of the utopians, to go from a belief in the second coming of Christ that would usher in the end of history, to a belief in a paradise on earth that signified a new era of equality, liberty, and fraternity. The utopian schemes usually came from clergymen, and those that were actually instituted were maintained by violence and eventually suppressed by violence. The utopian “visionaries” were amazingly consistent in their insistence on the abolition of private property, the abolition of the family, the abolition of traditional Christianity, and the enforced equality of all mankind. In almost all of the utopian fantasies of the Christian era Christ was part of the utopia, but it was not an incarnate Christ who had a local habitation in the hearts of the European people. He was an abstract Christ who was invoked to give men like Thomas Muntzer permission to sleep with any woman past sixteen years of age or to bless the bloody rampages -- in the name of utopia, of course -- of men like Dolcino and Robespierre. The common theme was always a denial of the Christ of the Gospels in favor of a pantheistic figurehead Christ who gave his blessing to insane visions of an earthly paradise founded on sex and blood. In the modern, post-Christian era many of the utopian liberals dispense with Christ altogether, but there are still some who keep Christ somewhere in the background of their plans for heaven on earth.

The noble savage has always been a central figure in utopian literature. He was prominent enough in 18th century and 19th century utopian literature to invoke critical reactions from Samuel Johnson and Charles Dickens, but there is a big difference between the popularity of the negro in certain academic and clerical circles and the institutionalization of negro worship throughout the European world. That doubtful blessing did not occur until the latter half of the 20th century and the first eleven years of the 21st century. In fact we should probably change our dating system to acknowledge our new god. Under the new era, which began in 1965, 2011 A. D. becomes 46 A.N. (After the Negro), the Year of our New Lord.

It is depressing to read white nationalists literature from the 1970’s and the 1980’s, because their literature reads the same now as it did then: “White people are starting to wake up.” But they are not starting to wake up. What is the use of lying to ourselves?

The reason for the failure of the white nationalists, such as William Tyndale and Samuel Francis, to 'wake up' white people is similar to the reason a tree cannot be felled by merely chopping its limbs. You need to cut the tree down at its roots. And the root of negro worship is the utopian mindset of the European liberal. So long as the European views existence through a distorted utopian prism he will worship the negro and attack the four pillars of antique Europe: faith in Christ, the patriarchal family, private property, and a hierarchical, non-egalitarian society.

I remember seeing a Hercules movie starring Steve Reeves when I was young. At the beginning of the picture a beautiful maiden had lost control of the horses pulling her chariot and was about to plunge headlong over a cliff. Suddenly Hercules appears, tears a tree from out of the ground, and hurls it in front of the runaway chariot in time to stop the horses and the maiden from plunging over the cliff. That type of Herculean effort is needed from the antique European. Liberal, bloodless, utopianism has been planted in the soil of Europe. There needs to be an uprooting, because utopian ideals, when they become part of the fabric of a nation, kill the soul.

That the European people in mass have turned from Christ to a sci-fi world in which the black man is worshipped and adored is self-evident. The reason for the great apostasy is not self-evident. It involves a mystery, the mystery of iniquity. Why do some people fall in love with a vision of the true God and others fall in love with their satanic, abstracted, mind-forged gods? We seldom view intellectual dishonesty as a sin, but is it not the greatest of sins, having its origin in the pride of the intellect? Isn’t a utopian using his reason to create his own world separate from God’s world? And isn’t that the height of blasphemy?

In his notes in the margins of his copy of Shakespeare’s King Lear, Herman Melville made a comment next to an impassioned speech of Edmund, the evil, illegitimate son of Gloucester, that demonism often has an energy that mere virtue lacks. The poetic whaler was right. The vast majority of modern Europeans are not card-carrying members of an utopian organization, but they do not have a passionate faith in the non-utopian Man of Sorrows who stirred the hearts of their European forefathers. And in the absence of such a faith the grazers and the halfway-house Christians have been swept along on the current of the passionate faith of the utopian liberals. Rather than stand athwart the liberal current and try to stop it, the barely virtuous grazer and the merely virtuous halfway-house Christian swim with the worst who are full of passionate intensity.

The lack of passionate intensity is the most significant factor in the decline of the white European. The communist revolutionaries in Tsarist Russia did not try to get the Russian Everyman to convert to communism; they merely tried to weaken the Russian people’s passionate attachment to their Tsar by constantly pointing out just how far the Tsar’s regime fell short of utopia. It was the same in Louis XVI’s France. The radical utopians didn’t have to make a large number of converts to their cause; they just had to turn passion into tepid virtue. C. S. Lewis makes a profound point when he emphasizes in The Chronicles of Narnia that Aslan is not a tame lion. The lukewarm are grist for Satan’s mills.

When the utopian is out of power he tries to kill the passionate love a man has for race, family, and faith by pointing out the deficiencies of a man’s people, his family, and his faith. And when the utopian obtains power, he continues to attack the moral pillars of the older, non-utopian regimes in order to keep the passion levels of the grazers and the halfway-house Christians as low as possible. When egalitarian democracy produces a sexual and racial Babylon, the liberal keeps the placid, white people in the fold by pointing out the excesses of the European monarchs. When the new Babylonian churches preach a blended Christian faith, the liberals stifle all opposition by pointing out the racism of the antique Europeans, the religious wars of the antique Europeans, and the antique Europeans’ unscientific notions about the origins of man and the cause of lightning. The criticisms of old Europe and its inhabitants are unremitting. There is no evil, past or present, which is not attributed to the European people of the pre-modern era. And by and large the modern European has accepted that liberal condemnation and forfeited his right to be passionately opposed to anything that is detrimental to the European people. Do whites ever criticize black murderers without prefacing their criticism with a litany of all the truly “good black people” who are just too wonderful for words? Do they dutifully turn their faces away when whites in South Africa and Rhodesia are routinely murdered by state-sponsored terrorists? Of course they do. They do so because their Christ is a blended Christ subordinate to the black gods of utopia. When was the last time a white man refused to be understanding about the slaughter of his own people and the denigration of his white forefathers? Such an event, and it would indeed be an event, has not occurred in my lifetime.

It is the white man’s Christian conscience that has been used against him. In C. S. Lewis’s book Reflections on the Psalms he points out that the Jew looks on himself as a plaintiff in a court case in which he expects God to award him damages, while the Christian looks on himself as a defendant in a court case who is hoping for mercy from the judge. But the consciousness of our own shortcomings and our people’s shortcomings, when compared to God’s perfection, should not blind us to the infinite value of a civilization and the people of that civilization, who built a Europe consecrated to Him. The utopian liberals should not be allowed to continually attack white people and their Christian heritage. Who will stand up for antique Europe? I loved Burke’s feelings of horror at the lack of French cavaliers ready to rise and ride in defense of God and country: “I thought ten thousand swords must avenge even a look that threatened her with insult.”

There is only one sin in Liberaldom, and it is not any of the seven deadly sins, which are approved and lauded by liberals. The one sin is a white man’s love for his own people and His non-blended god. That love compels him to defy the idolatrous black gods which form the metaphysical basis of Liberaldom. The satanic intelligence behind the new utopia is correct. The white man who loves and hates with all his heart is his greatest foe. If the European ever comes to love his own again, the walls of utopia will come tumbling down. +

Labels: ,

Friday, September 23, 2011

Eternal Ties That Bind

“I am weary of your yoke of iron. A light beams on my soul. Woe to those who seek justice in the dark haunts of mystery and of cruelty! She dwells in the broad blaze of the sun, and Mercy is ever by her side. Woe to those who would advance the general weal by trampling upon the social affections! They aspire to be more than men – they shall become worse than tigers.” – Sir Walter Scott

Writing in the late 1800’s the English historian William E. T. Lecky claimed that Edmund Burke had exaggerated the dangers the French Revolution posed to the rest of Europe. After all, Lecky asserted, was not England still standing, free, constitutional, and Christian? But if Lecky had been able to see through the surface events of life to the spirit animating the events, as Burke could, he would have seen that the ideology that made Christian men and women into inhuman monsters in France was slowly and insidiously enveloping Britain and all of Europe. What in essence is the ideology of liberty, equality, and fraternity? It is a flight from the non-abstract, personal faith in Jesus Christ, to an impersonal abstract faith in humanity. And the most striking thing about the practitioners of the new faith, which is now a very old faith, was their hatred for the natural ties of affection that had previously bound all Christian Europeans to their nations and their people. When Edmund Burke strongly criticized the radical clergyman, Dr. Price, for exulting over the capture and humiliation of the King and Queen of France, Price asked Burke why he was a so concerned about the Monarch and his Queen.

Why do I feel so differently from the Reverend Dr. Price, and those of his lay flock, who will choose to adopt the sentiments of his discourse?—For this plain reason—because it is natural I should; because we are so made as to be affected at such spectacles with melancholy sentiments upon the unstable condition of mortal prosperity, and the tremendous uncertainty of human greatness; because in those natural feelings we learn great lessons; because in events like these our passions instruct our reason; because when kings are hurl’d from their thrones by the Supreme Director of this great drama, and become the objects of insult to the base, and of pity to the good, we behold such disasters in the moral, as we should behold a miracle in the physical order of things.
“Because it is natural I should.” Ah, there’s the rub. Burke, and most of his fellow Englishmen at the time, had no desire to have a new religion where original sin was vested in one unpopular branch of the human race, such as the rich or the white, and virtue was invested in only “the people” as narrowly defined by their lower class origins or by their noble, black skins. The sentimental English still believed that natural attachments to kith, kin and God were the best attachments. They did not, except for the radicals like Price and Priestley (1), abandon their natural ties to each other for a new faith in the god of abstract Humanity. One can appreciate the pride Burke had in his people when he wrote of the contrast between them and the French radicals.

I almost venture to affirm, that not one in a hundred amongst us participates in the "triumph" of the Revolution Society. If the king and queen of France, and their children, were to fall into our hands by the chance of war, in the most acrimonious of all hostilities (I deprecate such an event, I deprecate such hostility), they would be treated with another sort of triumphal entry into London. We formerly have had a king of France in that situation; you have read how he was treated by the victor in the field, and in what manner he was afterwards received in England. Four hundred years have gone over us, but I believe we are not materially changed since that period. Thanks to our sullen resistance to innovation, thanks to the cold sluggishness of our national character, we still bear the stamp of our forefathers. We have not (as I conceive) lost the generosity and dignity of thinking of the fourteenth century, nor as yet have we subtilized ourselves into savages. We are not the converts of Rousseau; we are not the disciples of Voltaire; Helvetius has made no progress amongst us. Atheists are not our preachers; madmen are not our lawgivers. We know that we have made no discoveries, and we think that no discoveries are to be made in morality, nor many in the great principles of government, nor in the ideas of liberty, which were understood long before we were born, altogether as well as they will be after the grave has heaped its mold upon our presumption and the silent tomb shall have imposed its law on our pert loquacity. In England we have not yet been completely embowelled of our natural entrails; we still feel within us, and we cherish and cultivate, those inbred sentiments which are the faithful guardians, the active monitors of our duty, the true supporters of all liberal and manly morals. We have not been drawn and trussed, in order that we may be filled, like stuffed birds in a museum, with chaff and rags and paltry blurred shreds of paper about the rights of men. We preserve the whole of our feelings still native and entire, unsophisticated by pedantry and infidelity. We have real hearts of flesh and blood beating in our bosoms.
“Oh, what a falling-off was there.” All Europe has now gone astray and institutionalized the abstracted, cruel inhumanity of the first French radicals. The European has been “completely embowelled” of his natural sentiments. In the French Revolution of America, the Civil War, the white people of the South became victims of the brave new doctrine of abstracted humanity. White Southerners became non-persons and the negro was declared a demigod and invested with all the humanity that the evil, white Southerner was said to be devoid of. Then, in the 1960’s, to the eternal shame of the Roman Catholic Church, the pope of abstracted humanity, Pope John XXIII, institutionalized the satanic principles of liberty, equality, and fraternity in the Roman Catholic Church. He spit on his own people, who were tortured and mutilated by bestial black savages, by lovingly forgiving the black barbarians who gleefully tortured and murdered white Christians. And every black atrocity since that loving forgiveness was extended by John XXIII has been praised and excused by the abstracted inhuman creatures that have come to be called liberals. The original French radicals were moral monsters – they had no right to kill their king. Nothing he had done reached the level of tyrannical despotism. But everything the French radicals did and everything our modern liberals do clearly marks them as tyrannical despots. Are such men fit to govern? Macduff had the answer to that question: “Fit to govern? Not fit to live!” Such men as the Rev. Price, Priestly, Pope John XXIII, and the legion of modern liberal academics and clergymen were created by God, so we will not, as they have done to the Christian Europeans, abstract them from the human race, but we will call them what they are: inhuman hellhounds who have betrayed their own people and their God in order to serve the satanic abstraction called “The People,” which in modern times has become equivalent to serving the negro. And why should we oppose them? We oppose them because it is natural that we should oppose those who try to kill our feelings of affection and love for our kith and kin. Such feelings and attachments sustain us in our day of battle against principalities and powers, and keep us connected to Christ, the God of the European hearth.

The new, abstract, utopian faith of the liberal combines the rationalism of the Greeks with the pagan rites of the mystery cults. Rationalism alone leaves a void in the soul, so the liberal adds an infusion of colored blood to inject mystery and direct communion with his god into his faith. The obvious missing link, a real missing link, is a loving God, who surpasses the understanding of the rationalists and who also surpasses, in breadth and depth, the cruel, loveless mysticism of the mystery religions.

Despite our Lord’s and St. Paul’s insistence that our organ of sight is the heart, not the head (or maybe because of that), the heretics of the European world have always insisted that reason, divorced from the heart, is the lodestar of mortal men. It was of no small significance that the bloodthirsty French utopians enthroned a prostitute as the goddess of reason, for reason, divorced from the heart, is always a whore.

The history of the noncolored people is a boring continuum of blood and sex. The only time their histories rise to the level of interesting is when they intersect with the histories of the white people. When the white people were strong, when they stayed close to the virtues of the heart and eschewed rationalism, their contact with the colored cultures did them no harm and humanized the colored people, to the extent that they could be humanized. But when European rationalism intermixed with colored barbarism, the bestiality of the coloreds was intensified, and the satanic evil of reason divorced from the moral sentiments inculcated by Christianity, was allowed to run rampant throughout the formerly Christian nations of Europe. The rationalist white Europeans returned to paganism and called it progress. Look at modern interracial Europe. Every pagan abomination has returned tenfold because the European has mixed his technology with colored barbarism in order to enhance and magnify the paganism which is called, by the European rationalists, the onward march of mankind toward heaven on earth. The dark minds of the rationalists will always seek to blend with the dark skins of the heathen because the light of Christian Europe is an anathema to them.

In Anthony Jacob’s magnificent book White Man Think Again, he emphasizes that the white race is not in decline because the black race is advancing. The white race is in decline because white people are retreating. And if we look at the retreat clearly, we can trace the retreat to one source, rationalism. When the white man renounced the ties of honor, faith, and love that formerly bound all white people to their European hearths, he became a creature created in the image of Satan, a sneering debunker of everything holy and sacred:

For this purpose Mephistopheles is, like Louis XL, endowed with an acute and depreciating spirit of caustic wit, which is employed incessantly in undervaluing and vilifying all actions, the consequences of which do not lead certainly and directly to self-gratification. – Scott

Yes, Scott has masterfully described the modern liberal. He uses his reason not to champion the divine longings in the heart, but to deprecate the very notion of divine longings. He is dead to the eternal verities; all he seeks, with the desperate cunning of a dope fiend deprived of his dope, is that which fulfills his own selfish appetites. The liberal doesn’t love his black god; he loves the gratification he gets from worshipping at the shrine of a god who permits every self-indulgence, so long as the devotee fulfills his sacrificial obligations. And such sacrificial offerings are easy for the liberal because he always sacrifices other whites, never his own sacred, self-indulgent person.

In capital letters writ large and ever before our eyes we should see the words, “Every time we abstract humanity, we aid Liberaldom and hurt the European people.” I recently saw a neo-pagan blogger applauding the beating of a white girl, by black marauders, in one of our major cities. The blogger was delighted because he thought that the beating and more such beatings would help whites to “wake up.” Nothing but more liberalism will come from such inhuman creatures as that white, neo-pagan strategist. To love the white race as a generic race, abstracted from individuals of that race, is liberalism. It is the liberalism of Hitler and other false purveyors of racial solidarity. There can be no solidarity where there is no humanity. The European does not love in the abstract. He loves his own particular nation, his own particular race, his own particular family, because God ordained that he love them over all. Such love – particular, intense, and personal – enables us to understand and respond to His love, which is particular, intense, and personal.

Exaggerate the dangers of French rationalism and utopianism? If anything, Burke underestimated the dangers. We have fallen infinitely lower than the French radicals that Burke so rightly deplored:

Little did I dream when she added titles of veneration to those of enthusiastic, distant, respectful love, that she should ever be obliged to carry the sharp antidote against disgrace concealed in that bosom; little did I dream that I should have lived to see such disasters fallen upon her in a nation of gallant men, in a nation of men of honor and of cavaliers. I thought ten thousand swords must have leaped from their scabbards to avenge even a look that threatened her with insult. But the age of chivalry is gone. That of sophisters, economists; and calculators has succeeded…
We still have our eternal, defiant “No” to the sophisters, economists, and calculators. And all Europeans still have a racial memory of the God who is the light that shineth in darkness, even in the darkness of rationalism and barbarism. +
(1) Priestley’s “advanced” views on the subject of bloodletting in the name of the universal brotherhood of man were so abhorrent to his English neighbors that they burned down his house, forcing him to flee to America, where he was petted and adored by American liberals.

Labels: , ,

Friday, September 16, 2011

One Civilization

The poison of diversity kills the soul just as surely as a knife in the heart kills the body. – CWNY

In H. V. Morton’s book In Search of South Africa (1946), he tells us of waking up in a small town in South Africa on Christmas day and feeling homesick for England. But then he hears the villagers singing some English Christmas carols, and he attends a Christmas dinner “right out of Dickens.” The carols and the dinner make him feel at home. In fact Morton felt so ‘at home’ that he eventually settled in South Africa. The European people used to make foreign countries – such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the United States, and South Africa – into European countries. Now the reverse is the case. The European people invite colored tribesmen into formerly European nations and allow the colored tribesmen to turn European nations into colored, tribal nations. And the assumption behind all the suicidal surrenders to the colored barbarians is that there should be less white people in the world and more colored people. Why? Because white people are bad and colored people are good. That, in the liberals’ eyes, is a self-evident fact. It is not self-evident to me; in fact I think the reverse is true, but we’ll let that pass for the moment.

No-one except the antique Christian European has faced the present consequences of a diminished European presence in formerly all European nations. Nor has anyone, except the antique Christian European, faced what will be the final consequences of the absence of any European presence in the formerly European countries.

The mad-dog liberal sees a coffee-colored future where only black skins and brown skins exist. But in his mind he shares that coffee-colored world with the black and brown skins. The Gnostic liberal believes if he thinks black, he will be black. The mad-dog liberal also sees, in his coffee-colored world, wine and cheese parties where everyone uses biodegradable cups. He sees a world where Elizabeth Gaskell is awarded the honors over Shakespeare, and non-polluting homosexuals and feminists join together to stop global warming. Does the mad-dog liberal realize that blacks do not read the white man’s literature, whether it is feminist literature or genuine literature? Does he realize that black and brown people do not care about biodegradable coffee cups or global warming? Of course the mad-dog liberals don’t realize such things; they are too intent on their headfirst plunge off the cliff, like the swine in the Gospel.

The conservative-liberal does not hate white people as the mad-dog liberal does. He simply views white people as irrelevant. In church and state the generic person is what counts to the conservative-liberal. “If white people won’t work for slave wages in the factories then we will get non-whites to work in the factories.” “The faith is transmitted from great minds to lesser minds; it doesn’t matter what color the new neophytes are; it is the docility of their brains we are interested in, not the color of their skins or the state of their souls.” Thus the capitalist wants an influx of colored people into his nation so that he can “compete” in the “free market,” and the churchman wants an influx of colored so that he can compete with his different denominational rivals. Both variants of the conservative-liberal do not see the consequences of their betrayal of their race. The conservative-liberal might stave off economic disaster for a time, but ultimately the social unrest caused by anti-white immigration policies will kill the businesses that sought to profit by betraying the white race. And in the church the conservative-liberal who tries to transmit an anemic philosophy to the colored barbarians, while holding as naught the bred-in-the-bone faith of the ancient Europeans, will reap a whirlwind of barbarism that will kill the Christian faith by diffusing it into other faiths.

In the last week throughout my anti-nation, which none dare call a country, there was much devastation wrought by floods. Many people were left homeless, and whole towns looked more like abandoned towns than towns where people actually lived. The flood-devastated towns represent the present spiritual state of the European people. The floods of diversity have left the European people in a state of shell-shocked somnolence. Will they never wake from the hideous nightmare of diversity? If they don’t their future will be that of the people and towns who were not merely devastated, but were actually consumed by the flood waters.

We must – those of us who are not Negro-worshipping liberals of either the mad-dog or conservative camp – ask why Europeans must now be governed by a barbarian race. Is the black lifestyle, the black religion, which is really an absence of religion, something a European should adapt as his own? Of course it isn’t, but the liberal seldom deals with the black man as a black man. He casts him in the role of the noble savage as described by Rousseau, as the noble victim as described by Harper Lee, and the noble man of the future as described by the liberal legion. What kind of future is there for a people who worship a lie? The cult of the great black god is like the cult of the golden calf; it is unadulterated paganism, made all the more heinous by the shameful spectacle of the white Europeans worshipping at the altar of their black god.

During the recent floods white grazers came to life. They manned pumps and organized rescues for stranded flood victims. They were finally allowed to do something! Rescuing flood victims is still not a proscribed activity in Liberaldom, but in the floods of the future, when the white rescuers are extinct, who will rescue the flood victims? Will the great black gods step forth to rescue white people? Will they step forth to rescue black people? Anyone who has eyes to see can answer those questions.

I once served on a police force in a city that lost its power for three days. The mayor said that looters would be shot. Immediately the black organizations and the liberal press called the mayor a racist. But why did the blacks and the liberals assume the looters would be blacks? Isn’t such an assumption racist? In point of fact, all the looters were black, and the liberals put their own spin on the black looting. “It’s only natural that black people should steal things during a power outage. They are the most disenfranchised people and they don’t have the extra quantities of food and water that whites have.” But why do they never steal food and water? Why do they steal television sets and electronic devices? And why do they step up the rapes and murders during a power outage? Is that because they are poor and oppressed? Of course the liberals don’t really try to answer the last question; they just scream ‘racist’ and that, in their minds, ends all arguments. Nothing the black man does is the black man’s fault. Everything is the white man’s fault because he and he alone has the taint of original sin. The colored people were all born without original sin; they are the pure, innocent children of nature.

It’s a curious phenomenon, which could only occur in a post-Christian nation, this phenomenon of white grazers suddenly leaving their pastures to protect and serve in national emergencies. Then, when they are no longer needed, they are sent back to graze, while the blacks, who raped, murdered, and looted during the national disaster, are set right back on the altars of the white church-going grazers to be worshipped and adored. “Penance have they done, and penance shall they do,” is the liberal plan for white men.

The European countries and their offspring, such as the United States and Canada, are dying slower than countries like South Africa or the San Domingo of the 1790’s, because whites, up until the last 20 years, were the vast majority in those countries. When the blacks outnumber the whites, the rules of egalitarian democracy dictate that formerly white countries will be transformed into modern day South Africa's and modern day Haiti's. And the black majority in those newly-formed black European countries will not respect the rights of the white minorities any more than their black brethren in South Africa and Haiti respected the rights of their white minorities.

Edmund Burke almost singlehandedly turned English public opinion against the French Revolution. He appealed to the innate conservatism of the English people, and they responded. Only the utopian liberals, such as Priestly, supported the homicidal radicals of the French Revolution. One of the overlooked aspects of Burke’s criticism of the French radicals was his defense of the French aristocrats. Burke personally met with and aided many of the French nobility who managed to find asylum in Britain. Burke found the French aristocrats to be the best of the breed, whose loss France could ill afford. It’s quite possible if France had not lost such men, and many others who didn’t manage to get to England, that Europe would have been spared the militarism of Napoleon who became an inevitable consequence when the French radicals murdered their aristocracy.

France never did recover from liberty, equality, and fraternity. Appalled by the extreme violence, they decided, after Napoleon was deposed, to commit national suicide at a slower, democratic rate. And all the other nations of Europe have followed France’s lead. “Utopia Now,” if it meant violence, was not acceptable to Europeans (except to the Russians), but “Utopia Soon,” so long as the death toll was not excessive, was acceptable to Europeans.

What happens when the radical ideals of liberty, equality, and fraternity are injected into a nation with a white ruling class and a black majority underclass? The result is Haiti. The U. S. Civil War almost produced another Haiti, but white Southerners had greater solidarity than the French of San Domingo. Now white people do not have either the solidarity or the faith to stand up for white people and their civilization.

The black barbarian we will always have with us. The white men never civilized the blacks. When white men were strong and believed in their civilization, they kept the blacks in check, but that is all they did. Contrary to what the Unitarians and the other assorted sectarian sects have said, the black man was never civilized. The fuel on the fire is the Utopian white man. When the white forsakes Christianity for Utopianism the inert mass of black men are set on fire to murder, rape, and pillage.

Should there be less white men? No, there must be more white men, ready to fight for the only civilization that ever existed. Don’t tell me about the pyramids or even the Parthenon. I care only about the civilization that produced men and women who took Him into their hearts and lived by the creed articulated by the Gentle Bard:

The quality of mercy is not strain'd,
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath: it is twice blest;
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes:
'Tis mightiest in the mightiest: it becomes
The throned monarch better than his crown;
His sceptre shows the force of temporal power,
The attribute to awe and majesty,
Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings;
But mercy is above this sceptred sway;
It is enthroned in the hearts of kings,
It is an attribute to God himself;
And earthly power doth then show likest God's
When mercy seasons justice. Therefore, Jew,
Though justice be thy plea, consider this,
That, in the course of justice, none of us
Should see salvation: we do pray for mercy;
And that same prayer doth teach us all to render
The deeds of mercy.

The humanity of God! A people who once felt so close to God that they could hear His heart beat, just as the Apostle John heard it on the night of the Last Supper when he laid his head on the Sacred Heart, is a people that must not perish from the earth, lest the earth lose all connection to His Sacred Heart.+

Labels: , ,

Friday, September 09, 2011

In Defense of the Non-Inclusive European

Yet many a minstrel in harping can tell
How the Red-cross it conquered, the crescent it fell:

-Walter Scott

When I was an undergraduate I had a professor who was a Marxist. Now, a Marxist in academia is not a rare thing, but this particular Marxist was different from the typical American Marxist. For one instance, this Marxist was a Stalinist. He denied the purges that even Khrushchev said took place. It was all lies -- the Gulag stories of Solzhenitsyn and so many others -- lies, lies, according to my professor. Secondly, the Marxist academic was more consistent than his liberal brethren, most of whom considered themselves Marxists as well. He was more consistent because he hated Shakespeare and regularly denounced him from his Marxist pulpit. A Marxist should hate Shakespeare’s vision of life; it is diametrically opposed to Marxism. On the other hand, the other academics, the liberal fellow-travelers of the Marxist, did not share his opinion of Shakespeare. They went into raptures about Shakespeare’s poetry, about his humanity, and about his keen insights into human nature. But they had no right to rhapsodize about Shakespeare. The Marxist professor was correct. From a liberal or Marxist view, which amounts to the same thing, Shakespeare is poison; he is a corrupter. As much as I hated the Marxist for hating my Shakespeare, I hated his liberal colleagues more, for trying to take comfort and sustenance from Shakespeare when, based on their professed beliefs, they should have left Shakespeare to the non-liberal Europeans and tried to take sustenance and solace from their modern garbage poets of Liberaldom.

I’ve come to have the same feelings toward the halfway-house Christians that I had towards the Marxist professor’s liberal colleagues. Why do they want to retain Christ for comfort and solace while remaining steadfast supporters of Liberaldom? They support Negro-worship, Christian fusionism with the Jews, the Muslims, etc., and they have an undying commitment to secular democracy. When they oppose the liberals, on such issues as abortion and evolution, they do so within the framework of Liberaldom. They differ respectfully and never try to topple Liberaldom for institutionalizing infanticide or blaspheming God. Indeed the halfway-house Christian believes that democratic, egalitarian Liberaldom is the Christian form of government. How does he reconcile that belief with legalized abortion and the sacred status of the theory of evolution? He reconciles his Christianity to liberal egalitarianism by calling legalized abortion and Darwinian evolution a misunderstanding: “If they only knew that the fetus was a child, and if they only knew the scientific evidence against evolution, they would understand and join hands with the Christians and celebrate what we all believe in: the worship of the Negro, the inclusion of all faiths in a pantheon of faiths, and the divine mandate to live and die according to the principles of democratic egalitarianism.” Negroization + inclusion + democracy = Christianity. Such is the faith of the halfway-house Christian.

The new false Christianity of the halfway-house Christians has done more damage than all the direct assaults on the faith by outright Christ-haters such as Marx and George Bernard Shaw. Why? C. S. Lewis gives us the answer in his seventh and final Narnia novel, The Last Battle. The Christian heroes of the novel find out, to their horror, that the result of years of false teaching about Aslan has made people stop believing in the real Aslan. “Tirian had never dreamed that one of the results of an Ape’s setting up a false Aslan would be to stop people from believing in the real one.” And where has halfway-house Christianity, the false Christianity, come from? It has come from the organized churches. If we break the stranglehold that the organized churches have on Christianity, we will have taken the first step, the most important step, toward bringing down the walls of Liberaldom.

There are no liberals in the colored cultures. There are some coloreds, like the Obama, who parrot liberal catch phrases because their bread is buttered by the liberals, but there are no people of color who have formed a passionate attachment to the liberal faith. The reason for the absence of liberal coloreds is obvious. Liberalism is a disease of the post-Christian white; the non-white people have never embraced Christianity, so they have never suffered the after-effect of post-Christianity.

The white man’s fate has been the same as Peter’s when he walked on water but then fell victim to fears and doubts:

“But when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried, saying Lord, save me. And immediately Jesus stretched forth His hand and caught him, and said unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?”
The building of Christian Europe, through the grace of God, was equivalent to walking on water, but when the European started to sink he didn’t ask Christ to save him; he turned to science, and he turned to organized, inclusive Christianity instead of Christ. Churches are buildings; they are not the faith itself. If Christianity is not preached in the Church buildings, then the Christian Church is somewhere else. Why should this be so difficult to understand? St. Paul clearly tells us that the Church consists of those who believe in Jesus Christ. There is no other church. The Christianity of St. Paul, of the Gospels, is not compatible with the fusionism of the modern churches.

In the black mass the devotees have a valid priest say the mass, using the proper words of consecration. The Satanists think they can use Him for their own satanic purposes. What blasphemy! As if the Son of God would allow Himself to be used in that manner. The devil and his adherents are strict formalists, but our Lord, who bids us worship in spirit and in truth, is not.

Something similar to a black mass is taking place in the Christian halfway-house churches. They want to further the cause of their black gods, so they invoke Christ’s name to aid them. But does anyone believe that Our Lord, who sees into the secret recesses of our hearts, can be made to support the worship of Negroes just because halfway-house Christian clergymen invoke His name? Negro-worshipping clergymen will be forever at war with Christian Europeans, because in order to deify the Negro they must demonize the Europeans of the past, who did not deify the Negro. And in that European past, in the lifeblood of the European people, is the true image of Jesus Christ. You can’t have a church that worships the Negro and that worships Jesus Christ. The liberals and the halfway-house Christians have made their choice, and we have made ours. All talk about a European resurgence is useless if we do not break with the Negro-worshipping, anti-Christian Christians, who constitute the heretical center of organized Christianity.

Time and time again, I’ve seen some struggling white turned away from drugs or alcohol or sexual depravity by a burgeoning faith in Jesus Christ. And time and time again, I’ve seen the stream of that emerging faith diverted into a fusionist hell of Negro worship. The halfway-house Christian is like the seed in the Gospels that falls on the rocks; he has no roots, he has nothing to keep his faith in Christ from being washed away by liberalism.

Satan knows what has to be done to keep his kingdom, Liberaldom, in order. It is necessary that the European should divest himself of prejudices. And what are prejudices? They are the European’s link to the past. He prefers the values of white Christians to the values of black barbarians, and he prefers his exclusive Christian faith to the inclusive anti-Christian faith of the liberals. Burke said all this many years ago:

… in this enlightened age I am bold enough to confess that we are generally men of untaught feelings; that instead of casting away all our old prejudices, we cherish them to a very considerable degree, and to take more shame to ourselves we cherish them because they are prejudices, and the longer they have lasted and the more generally they have prevailed, the more we cherish them!
Herein constitutes the great blasphemy of the Negro-worshipping, halfway-house Christian: he flies in the face of the time-honored prejudices of the Christian European people. The modern, halfway-house Christian self-righteously takes it as a given that the Europeans of the past were insufficiently Christian because they placed a wall between the races and punished those who tried to breach the wall. Why would you assume such a time-honored prejudice was wrong? Was God wrong to discriminate against Ham and his descendants? Were millions of Christian Europeans wrong for century after century because they discriminated in favor of the white Christian civilization against the black barbarian civilization? If we are looking for diseased souls, we will find more than enough in the ranks of the halfway-house Christians. They see, when they look at the Europeans of the past, nothing but shameful prejudices, when (if they had eyes to see) they should see the image of the God they have forsaken for the Negro and the gods of the inclusive Christian churches.

The white man’s sphere of activity has been limited to “whatever serves Liberaldom.” It’s sad to see a once great race of people, the Christ-bearing race, beg to be allowed a small corner of Liberaldom. In the wake of the recent race riots in London, for instance, some 60 members of the English Defense League gathered in a park in a London suburb, sang patriotic songs, and chanted, “England, we love you!”

When I read that statement for an instant my heart soared. Were patriotic Englishmen about to make a stand for white, Christian Britain? No, they were not. They followed up their patriotic songs with a declaration that indicated they belonged to the new, inclusive England which is not England; it is nothing: “The EDL and all decent people be they black, white, Christian, Sikh, Jewish or Muslim are sickened by this mindless, selfish and ultimately self-defeating behavior.” The white man has been carefully trained to preface all his protests against colored violence with “not all blacks, not all Muslims, not all…” – why go on repeating the drivel of trained parrots? The black and Muslim violence is not “self defeating”; it is meant to further the defeat of the retreating white Englishmen. The blacks and the Muslims do not dream of a multi-racial Britain where “all decent people” live together. The blacks don’t dream at all; they just murder, rape, and pillage, and the Muslims dream of an Islamic Britain. Only white men who consider their race, their nation, and their faith as one sacred entity, which must be defended against all the world, will be of any use in the ongoing war against Satan and his colored legions. +

Labels: ,

Friday, September 02, 2011

Europe Regained

Expose thyself to feel what wretches feel,
That thou mayst shake the superflux to them,
And show the heavens more just.

-King Lear

About ten years ago, when my mother was still alive, she sent me the obituary of the man who had been my Little League manager. He was the type of man who would make a good subject for the old Reader’s Digest feature called “My Most Unforgettable Character.” Mr. Gulf was the only manager who didn’t have children on a team. His kids were all grown, but he stayed on as a volunteer umpire and a manager. When he died at 88, he had only been retired from Little League baseball for six years. Mr. Gulf was a tall, barrel-chested man with a gravel voice, but he was very patient with his charges and seemed to have grasped the fact, unlike some of the other adults involved with the Little League, that Little League baseball was supposed to help boys become men, in the ‘Battle of Waterloo and the playing fields of Eton’ sense. The Little League was not designed, in Mr. Gulf’s eyes, to help grown men become little boys again. To many of the parents and other managers Mr. Gulf was a figure of ridicule because he regularly sat on the edge of the dugout and spouted sport clichés. But he wasn’t comical to us, because Mr. Gulf actually believed in the clichés and his belief made us believe.

One of Mr. Gulf’s favorite axioms, which he delivered to every boy before he stepped up to the plate, was, “Son, you’ve got to believe that you can hit that ball. If you don’t believe in yourself, you’ll never get a hit.” A cliché? Not to Mr. Gulf and not to us. More often than not, we did hit the ball because Mr. Gulf made us believe we could hit. And it seems to me that the problem with the modern European man is that he no longer believes in himself. I don’t mean this in the blasphemous sense, in that a man should believe only in himself and in nothing outside himself; I mean it as an extension of Mr. Gulf’s ‘Battle of Waterloo and the playing fields of Eton’ metaphysic. The European used to believe that his culture was superior to every other culture, and that superiority, which came to him by the grace of God, entailed certain responsibilities, chiefly the responsibility of defending his race and his people against the onslaught of lesser breeds who were outside the law and did not know or respect the God of charity and mercy. Strength, vigilance, and unflinching loyalty to white culture was thought to be necessary because the European considered his race as the Christ-bearing race.

The modern European, to the extent that he has any strength, vigilance, or loyalty, expends it all in attacking the white race and the religion that was championed by the white race. There is no escaping that fact. Halfway house Christians will claim that they are just removing the bad European cultural baggage from Christianity and restoring the Christian faith to its original purity, but it is not difficult to see the disingenuousness of their claim. Every single “improvement” on the European-centered Christianity is in line with liberalism; not the gospel of Jesus Christ, the God of the antique Europeans. The new spirit of inclusion is not an improvement; it is a dethronement of Christ. The new cult of Negro worship is not an advance; it is a blasphemous capitulation to the lowest form of paganism. And where in Scripture did Christ say that it was permissible to make Him subordinate to the democratic process?

The new Christianity is not Christianity. Those who equate Christianity with an organized, philosophical system or a social club will follow the new anti-Christian Christianity to its logical conclusion, which is hell. But the Europeans who yearn for a God of charity and mercy above the nature gods will still seek the Son of God. The problem facing the drug-soaked, sex-crazed, nihilistic European, who still feels a void in his soul, is that the Christ he sees before his eyes is a liberal Christ. He needs to seek out the same hovel that Lear took refuge in. And there, in the hovel of spiritual desolation, he will see the Christ, not the Christ of the liberals, but The Christ, The Son of the Living God.

In one post I wrote, titled “The Gingerbread House,” I mentioned that the United States and the western European countries used the seductive form of the egalitarian heresy. They covered the books about the European past with monkey-vomit and told the lost souls of modernity that they were welcome to read that filth if they could stand the stench. By and large the confused modern turned from a past covered with monkey vomit. But some pilgrims were so desperate or possibly so cynical that they had to see the monkey vomit books for themselves. I was such an individual. And in those books whose covers were sprayed with the liberal monkey vomit of scorn, derision, and accusations of racism and infantilism, there was a compelling image of a God whom the European people used to worship. He was not the God of the modern, organized churches; He was not the God of the philosophers or the Negro-worshippers; He was Jesus of Nazareth, the Man of Sorrows, who took flesh and dwelt among us. This the antique European believed.

The antique European also believed in his eternal moment. He believed that what he did on this earth made a difference, because his blood was connected to a loving Savior who had forged a connection to His people more mystical and mysterious than the most devout devotee of the ancient mystery religions could conceive, and more intrinsically humane than any philosopher or moral theologian could possibly imagine. The liberal has convinced the European that he has no eternal moment, that there is no link between mortal man and a loving God. We are all, we Europeans of the old stock, in Hamlet’s position. We are born to set it right. We will not be played upon by liberals who are determined to pluck out our mystery by denying our blood connection to the living God:

Ham. I do not well understand that. Will you play upon this pipe?

Guil. My lord, I cannot.

Ham. I pray you.

Guil. Believe me, I cannot.

Ham. I do beseech you.

Guil. I know no touch of it, my lord.

Ham. ‘Tis as easy as lying. Govern these ventages with your finger and thumb, give it breath with your mouth, and it will discourse most excellent music. Look you, these are the stops.

Guil. But these cannot I command to any utterance of harmony. I have not the skill.

Ham. Why, look you now, how unworthy a thing you make of me! You would play upon me, you would seem to know my stops, you would pluck out the heart of my mystery, you would sound me from my lowest note to the top of my compass; and there is much music, excellent voice, in this little organ, yet cannot you make it speak. ‘Sblood, do you think that I am easier to be play’d on than a pipe? Call me what instrument you will, though you can fret me, you cannot play upon me.

There is a world in those words, “Call me what instrument you will, though you can fret me, you cannot play upon me.”

Just as Claudius sought to impose his world, based on adultery and fratricide, on Hamlet, so do the liberals seek to impose their world of Negro worship, infanticide, and Christ-less Christianity on the European. The grazers have accepted the legitimacy of the liberals’ world, but we few, we Europeans, will not accept their world. In our blood, which we have not forsaken, we have seen another and better world than Liberaldom.

The majority of the French people at the time of the French Revolution did not support the radicals who murdered the King, but the majority of French people had become grazers. They were indifferent to the ancient ideal of “I serve the King and the King serves Christ.” And no doubt the indifference of Louis XIV and Louis XV, not Louis XVI, to that ideal did much to breed the indifference. A small minority with conviction will always triumph over a majority of indolent grazers. This is why the polls constantly fool the conservatives. They take a poll among the grazers and find out that a majority favor older traditional values. “Behold!” the conservative exclaims, “We are turning the corner.” But the grazer is indifferent traditional. He would prefer his neighbor to be white, but he isn’t going to get upset if he is a Somalian; he doesn’t like the idea of homosexual marriage, but he isn’t going to lose any sleep over it so long as the network keeps showing football games. And on and on it goes. Has the white man really become such a creature of indolence that he can be played upon so easily by the liberals? Yes, he has become such a creature.

Virtually all white Europeans are liberals by what they acquiesce to. But liberalism still has only a minority of adherents who have given their hearts and souls to liberalism. If a European Hamlet emerges, he who has that within which passeth show, who is willing to attack liberalism, he will find that the walls of Liberaldom are not as impregnable as the liberals want us to believe. They are vulnerable to a passion for His Europe that is greater than their passion for Satan’s mind-forged walls of Liberaldom.

One of the many admirable aspects of Hamlet’s counter revolution was his complete unconcern as to whether the people, the grazers, were for or against him. He knew what his duty was and he did what his high calling demanded of him. We don’t know if any of the grazers will follow in our train if we attack Liberaldom, but by the same token we will never know if we don’t attack Liberaldom without any expectation of help from the grazers. There might be genuine heroes among the ranks of the grazers who are just in need of a heroic example. If the last Europeans do not act as Europeans they will truly be the last Europeans.

Last week I took my youngest children to an amusement park to enjoy the last rose of summer. While they were enjoying themselves on the rides, I ordered our hamburgers at the food stand. Ordering food at the same time were some liberal ‘care providers’ (liberals can always be identified) for a large group of retarded young adults and older adults. As the retarded people sat waiting for their food, they started yelling the f-word at each other. The care providers didn’t ask them to stop; in fact they seemed quite amused. I went up to the care providers and told them I wanted them to tell their charges to stop screaming the f-word as my children would soon be coming to eat their lunch at a nearby table. The care providers told me what was obvious, that their charges were retarded. Then they went on to explain that we all had to understand that retarded people had to be treated differently than other people; “we must make allowances” etc. But who teaches retarded people to yell the f-word across a crowded room? The liberal care providers do, by their smiling acquiescence. It is just as uncompassionate to allow retarded adults to wallow in moral filth as it is to allow them to sit in soiled diapers. I never remember retarded people screaming obscenities when I was growing up. They take their cue from their leaders.

The white grazers that I see every day remind me of those retarded people. They take their cue from the liberals and say and do horrendous things. But what if some Europeans would emerge and present a different example for the grazers to follow? Would miracles occur? We don’t know. But we do know that truth needs to be embodied in a person. He taught us that. The hero, not the solecism or the platitude, is the European bridge to His Kingdom come. +

Labels: , , ,