Cambria Will Not Yield

Friday, October 28, 2011

The Forsaken Past of Europe

That all, with one consent, praise new-born gauds,
Though they are made and moulded of things past.

--William Shakespeare

Writing in the war-torn London of 1939, H. V. Morton had this to say of an Englishman’s debt to his past:

In times of peace it is permissible for all but a few antiquaries to forget the past and to forge ahead cheerfully into the future; but in war-time a nation, calling up its spiritual reserves, draws unconsciously upon the strength of its past, and owes to its ancestors more than it knows, or than may be set down in words. So if these sketches of a past that still influences the present have any interest, it is because they remind us of certain permanent values, and they promise that London, so old in experience, will one day pick up the threads of her existence and go onward in history.

Things didn’t turn out as H. V. Morton hoped. As a true-bred Englishman of the old stock, Morton quite naturally thought that the essential England would always remain: “There will always be an England.” But the jettisoning of the past which holds a nation’s spiritual reserves had begun before World War II, indeed it was the main reason for World War II, and it continued at an accelerated rate throughout the European nations after the war. This pillorying of the past, which is tantamount to national suicide, has continued unabated in every European country up to the present day. There is virtually nothing left of Europe’s past in any European country. Of course this is by design. You can’t get your ticket punched on the great Liberal Express train to Babylon if you don’t sever your ties to the past.

Tragically most Europeans have complied with the required act of renunciation. And by doing so they have lost their spiritual reserve when they need it most, when they should be fighting a war for the survival of the white race. They are not fighting that war, a war infinitely more vital to their interests than any of the World Wars, because they have surrendered their right to exist as a people.

At this point the conservative always brings in Malcolm Muggeridge’s 1979 article about the great liberal death wish. But the liberal doesn’t have a death wish. The policies he advocates will certainly result in his death, but the liberal is not supposing his death when he proposes the death of European civilization. The essence of the great liberal death wish is the sacrificial offerings of other whites, in order that the liberal can be ensured of life eternal. It’s a twisted reversal of Christ’s death on the cross. Christ shed His blood so that men might have eternal life; the liberal demands that the blood of others shall be shed so that he can attain a Faustian life everlasting. Babies shall be aborted so that the liberal will have breathing room, and the black gods must be appeased with white victims so that they will not vent their wrath upon the liberal. Of course the black gods will vent their wrath on the liberal and the non-liberal, but the liberal doesn’t believe that, and he doesn’t want the white grazer to believe that either. Which is why the victims of the black “gods” such as Eugene Terreblanche, the South African nationalist murdered by blacks, are called ‘white supremacists’ rather than ‘white nationalists’ or ‘white rights advocates’. The implied message in the use of the term ‘white supremacist’ is that the white victim would not have been a victim if he had not been an advocate of ‘white supremacy’.

There is an element of fear in the liberals’ new-found faith in the black man. They keep their fears at bay by the continual sacrificial offerings to the colored gods, and by constant propaganda against the European people who lived prior to our modern age of Aquarius. The obsessive-compulsive nature of the sacrifices and the relentless propaganda campaigns is a result of twin fears: the fear of the wrath of the black man and the greater fear of the return of white, Christian Europe. The second fear is the greater fear to the liberals, because such a restoration would mean, in the liberal’s mind, a return to Christianity that would necessitate the return of justice, mercy, and faith. The liberals want only justice as they, not God, define it. They have no need for mercy because they are the righteous ones, and they have no need for faith in Christ because they now have a new god in the form of the black man. Thus the liberal keeps his fear of the black man in check with sacrifices of white people and the pillorying of their past in order to avoid what he most fears, the Christian faith.

Satan serves as a kind of technical advisor to the liberals. And he has advised the liberals not to destroy the Christian churches or directly insult the Christian God. “Instead,” Satan advises his liberal fellow-travelers, “you must attack the European version of Christianity as something cruel, racist, and unscientific. Urge people to practice a new Christianity which is kind, non-discriminatory and up-to-date (meaning Christ is not the exclusive son of God – we are all sons of God).” Satan is very flexible – “whatever works” is his motto, and the attack on European Christianity and the people who championed it has proved most effective. All the white “Christians” have fallen in line with Satan’s command. In the name of racial equality, the Christian churches preach a “purer,” non-culture-bound Christianity designed to appeal to the colored races. The problem with that broad-based, broad-minded Christianity is that it is not true. In every century of the Christian era of Europe there were blasphemers who championed the forms of the faith against the substance of the faith. Walter Scott depicts such a “Christian” in his novel Old Mortality. John Balfour, a fanatical Scottish Covenanter, violates the law of chivalry, which was written in the hearts of all Christian Europeans, by killing, in the name of his mind-forged Christless faith, a Christian soldier of the royalist party who came to Balfour bearing a flag of truce.

“A free pardon to all,” continued the young officer, still addressing the body of the insurgents—“to all but—“

“Then the Lord grant grace to thy soul. Amen!” said Burley.

With these words he fired, and Cornet Richard Grahame dropped from his horse. The shot was mortal. The unfortunate young gentleman had only strength to turn himself on the ground and mutter forth, “My poor mother!” when life forsook him in the effort. His startled horse fled back to the regiment at the gallop, as did his scarce less affrighted attendant.

“What have you done?” said one of Balfour’s brother officers.

“My duty,” said Balfour firmly. “Is it not written, ‘Thou shalt be zealous even to slaying’? Let those who dare NOW venture to speak of truce or pardon!”

Such individuals as Balfour have always been part of Christendom, and they often obtained positions of leadership in their particular church, but the substance of Christianity, the vision of a merciful God who so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, has always been at the center of the Europeans’ view of existence. Faith needs to be embodied. Where is the Christian faith now that the incarnational faith of the antique Europeans has been vilified and rejected? In academia? You jest. In our churches? They have become adjuncts of academia. Do we see the Christian faith embodied in the people of color? No, we don’t. The clerics and academics have made the colored people their gods, but that is not the same as seeing the face of Christ in His people. The attack on the white race and their antiquated Christian civilization – antiquated by modern liberal standards – is not a purification of Christianity, it is a termination of Christianity. The halfway-house Christians who want Babylon and Christ can spin it how they will, but it always comes back to a very basic betrayal: the white man turned from his God to the gods of the stranger. And the result has been the devastation of Europe.

“They that do change old love for new,
Pray God they change for worse.”

Why in the present war, the war for the preservation of the white race, do the Europeans not unconsciously turn to their past and draw upon their spiritual reserves, as they did in other lesser wars? Is it because they have exhausted their spiritual reserves in a losing battle with the liberals who have convinced them that the past is evil and the Babylonian future is good? Yes, that seems to be the case. We no longer see the “animation of the European” in their eyes.

I seldom read the white nationalist publications because they don’t seem to have any respect or love for antique Europe and her people. Their god is not my God, and their people are not my people. They treat the Europeans’ Christian past as the liberals treat it, as something that is dead, and good riddance to it. But does that narrow, modernist interpretation of the past, in which people are studied like dead insects, tell us the truth about existence? The testimony of our ancestors puts things in a different light. To them the things of the material world were symbols of the things of a greater spiritual world. In such a world the past, present, and future form a trinity in spirit, all three are separate, but all three are also united, because they are of the spirit. When the liberal or the neo-pagan posits a future without the Christian past of the European people they are trying to breathe life into a corpse. There is nothing eternal in liberalism or neo-paganism; both lack an animating spirit because both have rejected the European past, where the God who united the past with the present and the future dwells. When you see the gulf, the mind-forged gulf, between the modern European and his past you are tempted to despair and join with Melville in asking, “Is all this struggle in vain?” But then the past wells up before you, a past in which a whole people loved a Fairy Prince who rescued them from the dragon of death. And the love that once was there is still there for the European who rejects the liberal’s Babylonian world of the future in order to live in the European past, rooted in the spiritual trinity of past, present, and future.

It’s not possible to predict a gloomy future for the European people or a glorious future, because the love that built Christian Europe is not subject to the rules of the material world. A fire kindled in that world will burn according to certain laws of the physical sciences. But a spiritual fire, engendered by a man’s love of antique Europe’s people and their God, could become a consuming fire that destroys Liberaldom. Satan knows that, which is why he never sleeps, but neither shall we sleep till we have restored Christian Europe.

“I will not cease from mental fight,
Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand,
Till we have built Jerusalem
In England’s green and pleasant land.” +

Labels: , ,

Friday, October 21, 2011

Hearts of Stone

This sort of people are so taken up with their theories about the rights of man, that they have totally forgotten his nature. Without opening one new avenue to the understanding, they have succeeded in stopping up those that lead to the heart. They have perverted in themselves, and in those that attend to them, all the well-placed sympathies of the human heart.

– Edmund Burke

It is one of the great ironies of history that Robespierre, the infamous architect of the reign of terror, was an outspoken opponent of capital punishment before the revolution took place and even after the revolution. How then did he justify what he did during his bloody reign? He used the justification of all utopian zealots. He claimed that for a very short period men had to harden their hearts against all human sentiments and be merciless and cruel in order to usher in a world where there was no need for cruelty and killing, because there would be equality and harmony. Such is always the mantra of the utopian reformers, whether they be French revolutionaries, Russian Marxists, Northern Reconstructionists, or modern day democratic egalitarians. Everything that stemmed from the ancient faith, love of kith and kin, honor, and fidelity to the time worn traditions of one’s nation, all had to give way before the new utopian creed which entailed hatred of kith and kin, a sneering contempt for the code of chivalry, and a hatred for the ancient traditions of one’s nation. The transition period in which there is to be no human sentiment is always supposed to be short. But it never is; it always becomes permanent. Humanity never returns to utopian nations unless the utopian heresy is rooted out of the offending nation. (1)

The abstract principle to which the utopian appeals to justify his bloodletting is “the people.” But of course it is a people narrowly defined. Everyone outside the orbit of “the people” such as French aristocrats, white southerners, or Russian nobles are to become the necessary sacrifices to the new world order that is to be ushered in by Comrade Robespierre, Comrade Lincoln, or Comrade Lenin. All “human respect” must be burned out of the new breed of men so that they can murder every man, woman, and child that stands in the way of “the people.”

And who are the people? That has changed over the years. Initially the people were the proletariat of every race, but the liberals discovered, over the centuries, that it wasn’t just the French nobility, the Southern aristocrats, or the Czar and his Cossacks that were impeding mankind’s onward march to the light, it was all white people – poor, rich, and in-between – who had blighted the world. It does no good to ask the utopians to compare the old, racist, non-utopian regimes to the new utopian regimes in order to show the superiority of the old order to the new order, because the new pigs of Animal Farm are in that “transition stage” during which the heart must be closed to every human sentiment and the mind must be focused on abstract notions of the people, which currently translates to blacks, first and foremost, and then the other colored races.

If the modern Europeans could see Christian Europe next to contemporary Europe, all but the worst, the liberals with the passionate intensity of the possessed, would follow the call of old Europe and old Europe’s God. But the grazers do not see; they have been anaesthetized incrementally. They no longer believe there ever was any other world other than Liberaldom. The halfway-house Christians? They are wedded to liberalism. They feel uncomfortable with some aspects of it, but they remain allied to the liberal succubus because of their inability to see that modern, democratic egalitarianism, in which the negro has been elevated to the status of a God, springs from the same utopian roots as the French and Russian revolutions. We have not dispensed with utopian animal farms because Robespierre was deposed and communist Russia is no more. The hideous, inhuman ideology of utopia still dominates every European country in the guise of an abstraction called democracy, which in reality is a negro-worshipping oligarchy.

It can’t be stressed enough that the transitional stage of utopia, during which the heart must be hardened against the old, antiquated notions of love, honor, loyalty, and faith, is a permanent stage. The liberal’s utopian promised land is a desert in which nothing human can live. If Europeans were not morally anaesthetized, they could see this clearly. Look at our comedy; it is base and degrading. Our drama? We have none. Our great works of art? They celebrate the disintegration of the human personality. A desert would actually be a step up from democratic utopia. We need to go to the Old Testament prophets to describe the “utopia” we live in:

Your country is desolate, your cities are burned with fire: your land, strangers devour it in your presence, and it is desolate, as overgrown by strangers.
Yes, that succinctly describes the “utopia” that is modern Europe. Strangers devour our land because we do not believe in the antiquated, non-utopian virtues that sustain a land against devouring strangers; faith, hope, and charity. And the greatest of those virtues is the virtue that is so obviously missing from the desolated lands of the European people. Divine charity incarnate reached out to mankind; the Europeans responded to Him and Christian Europe was the result. Is it possible for a heart that has been touched by that divine charity, through the good offices of the antique Europeans, to permit their civilization, which is ours as well, to be obliterated, along with those who are faithful to it, from the face of the earth? No, it is not possible. The hearts that truly love never forget. No Christian European can forget that the interracial utopia of the liberals was built with and is sustained by sacrilege and blood –the sacrileges of a legion of Voltaires and Rousseas and the blood of Christian Europeans that are sacrificed on the altars of the new barbarian gods. But of course, the liberals tell us, the absence of charity in the new utopia is only temporary. Charity will return when the recalcitrant remnant of Europeans are eliminated. Liars! It is the remnant band that must restore the Europe that revered the Man of Sorrows from whom faith, hope, and charity comes.

I do not agree with G. K. Chesterton’s flippant summation of Thomas Hardy’s work, “The village atheist commenting on the village idiot.” Hardy was an atheist, but he was not a sneering atheist. He wanted the Christian faith to be true but could not bring himself to believe that a loving God could permit the suffering that came with the human condition. And the village idiots? They are us. I certainly don’t feel morally or intellectually superior to the characters depicted in Hardy’s novels. Hardy was spiritually akin to Ivan Karamazov: “I don’t reject God, I reject His world,” and to the embittered, blinded Goucester prior to his conversion: “As flies to the wanton boys, are we to th’ gods, They kill us for their sport.” Hardy’s vision is hard to refute. It certainly cannot be refuted by Thomistic rationalism or by the type of Christian apologetics (“let me tell you why God makes you suffer”) practiced by Job’s comforters. But there is a response to Hardy, and the response came from Him, as Alyosha tells his brother Ivan.

“That’s rebellion,” Alyosha said softly, lowering his eyes.

“Rebellion? I wish you hadn’t used that word,” Ivan said feelingly. “I don’t believe it’s possible to live in rebellion, and I want to live! Tell me yourself—I challenge you: let’s assume that you were called upon to build the edifice of human destiny so that men would finally be happy and would find peace and tranquility. If you knew that, in order to attain this, you would have to torture just one single creature, let’s say the little girl who beat her chest so desperately in the outhouse, and that on her unavenged tears you could build that edifice, would you agree to do it? Tell me and don’t lie!”

“No, I would not,” Alyosha said softly.

“And do you find acceptable the idea that those for whom you are building that edifice should gratefully receive a happiness that rests on the blood of a tortured child and, having received it, should continue to enjoy it eternally?”

“No, I do not find that acceptable,” Alyosha said and his eyes suddenly flared up. “But a moment ago you asked whether there was in the world ‘a single creature who could forgive.’ Well, there is. And He can forgive everyone for everything, because He Himself gave His innocent blood for everyone’s sin and for everyone’s sake. You forgot to mention Him, although it is on Him that the edifice must be founded, it is to Him that they will sing. ‘You were right, O Lord, for Your ways have now been revealed to us!”

Our Lord has been condemned for breaking a promise He never made. He promised to redeem our earthly suffering, not to end it. The Jews of the hardened hearts could not forgive Him, despite the fact that the prophets told them of the coming of the suffering servant and not the king of the revels, for not setting up a paradise on earth. And the modern liberals have joined with the Jews in their hatred of the Man of Sorrows. Once again Christ has been rejected by His people. “He came unto His own, and His own received Him not.” But the promise was kept; He has redeemed our suffering. The antique Europeans bore witness to His act of redemption. “Truly,” the ancient Europeans tell us, “this man was the Son of God.”

By seeking to create a world different from God’s world, a world without suffering, the liberals have plunged us into a world in which there is even greater suffering, because it is a world devoid of charity and a world devoid of the faith and the hope that our suffering has some meaning because He has redeemed our suffering through His Holy Cross. We have lost so much by allowing the liberals to replace Christian Europe with their mind-forged paradise on earth, in fact we have lost everything that makes life bearable. Must we accept this brave new world? I don’t accept it. The liberals have convinced the grazers that there never was any other world but theirs, and they have convinced the halfway-house Christians that their advanced Christianity is the real Christianity. But the liberals have not charity; their regime is built on pillage, sacrilege, and murder. If we don’t love our faith and our people enough to fight the liberals and their barbarian allies to the death, we are worse than dead men, we are men without souls.

If we are alive to the Europeans’ Christian journey, the Via Dolorosa, we will know that there is a Man of Sorrows who stands ready to renew the covenant that was so shamefully discarded by an adulterous and evil generation of liberal vipers. We can go home again by simply affirming what Peter affirmed, many months after the night of his denials, “Yes, I know that man, He is the Christ, the Son of the Living God.” We know he said those words or words like them because we know that he was crucified because of his affirmation of Christ. We all suffer and we all die. The great question is whether we suffer and die for nothing, for nada, or whether our pain, suffering and ultimate death in this world has been redeemed by His pain, suffering, and death on the cross. The collective voice of the much-vilified and hated Europeans of the olden times says that we have been redeemed by the blood of the Lamb. We will hold to their vision in defiance of the Babylonian liberals and their dark barbarian legions. +


(1) Neither France nor Russia ever went back to their Christian roots. The French shifted to a more incremental utopian scheme, the democratic egalitarianism of the United States, and the Russians did the same in the latter half of the 20th century. Only those who equate Christianity with democracy would see Christianity in post-Communist Russia and post-revolutionary France.

Labels: ,

Friday, October 14, 2011

The Seat of the Scornful

“Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful. – Psalm 1:1

Walter Scott in the introduction to Quentin Durward and again in Kenilworth states that the mark of the devil is a sneering, mocking, scornful countenance. My own observations of liberals leads me to concur with Scott; the scornful derisive, sneer is truly the mark of the devil. Scott lamented that in his own time the contemptuous sneer was used to attack the Christian faith:

There has never been an hour or an age, in which this formidable weapon has been more actively employed against the Christian faith than our own day. Wit and ridicule have formed the poignant sauce with which infidels have seasoned their abstract reasoning, and voluptuaries the swinish messes of pollution, which they have spread unblushingly before the public. It is a weapon suited to the character of the Apostate Spirit himself, such as we conceive him to be—loving nothing, honouring nothing, feeling neither the enthusiasm of religion nor of praise, but striving to debase all that is excellent, and degrade all that is noble and praiseworthy, by cold irony and contemptuous sneering.
What would Scott say about modern liberals, who have mocked and sneered at the Christian faith to an extent that makes the 18th century mocker look like a good Joe in comparison? He would say what Macduff said: “Fit to govern? Not fit to live!” We are governed by an elite band of mockers and scorners who in healthy times would have been imprisoned for their poisonous, hate-filled ideology.

I think Scott was correct in calling our attention to an inordinate fear of ridicule that puts the antique Christian in a state of terror before those who mock and ridicule his Christian faith. Dickens makes a similar point in Great Expectations when he shows Pip to be obsessed with gaining the good opinion of those people whom he most despises.

The Rousseauian liberal – and all liberals are Rousseauian – used two very basic tactics to undermine the antique European's faith in his people’s vision of God and the culture they created based on that vision. First, the liberal mocked the intelligence of the antique European, claiming he was unscientific and childish. And secondly, he accused the antique European of being hypocritical because he fought wars in the name of the Prince of Peace, and he failed to treat all men, particularly the colored man, as his brother. In the first instance, the liberal’s assumption of superior intelligence does not stand up to the test of reality. Is Freud smarter than Shakespeare because he wore a lab coat, smoked a pipe, and had a doctorate? And was Darwin wiser than St. Paul because he was “scientific” and objective while St. Paul was unscientific and subjective? This is nonsense; the liberals’ heroes are intellectual pygmies because they can’t think with their hearts, the true source of knowledge. Shakespeare and St. Paul knew that; Darwin, Freud, and their liberal descendants never knew it and never will.

In the second instance, we are faced with another liberal hypocrisy. They deny the truth of the Europeans’ vision of Christ, that He was indeed the Son of God, yet they demand the right to tell Christian Europeans how they should live the Christian faith. What right does a liberal, who is a past and present advocate of mass murder (Stalin, Mao Tse-Tung, legalized abortion) have to condemn the Christian European for his failure to end war? Better to ask if the European’s Christian faith has made a difference in the way war is viewed and the way wars are fought? The man who looks through not with the eye can see a difference. And the brotherhood of man? No European of the Christian era ever equated the Christian belief in the universal brotherhood of all men and women in Christ, with a democratic, egalitarian society where there was no recognition of the spiritual difference between the races. Spiritual gifts are aristocratic, not democratic. The attempt to democratize things of the spirit is liberal uptopian, not Christian European.

The liberal rejects the older culture of the white man because the incarnate Lord can be found in that culture, and he hates the incarnate God just as much as the Jews and the Muslims hate the incarnate God. With the colored barbarians it is a different story. They don’t hate the Christian God as the liberals do; they are completely indifferent to Him. He doesn’t reach them at a deep level; they are more attracted to a God who promises them wealth and power than a suffering servant God who promises them a cross. This is why the “Christian” T. V. pastors who preach an Islamic Christianity always have an audience that is almost entirely black. And it is also why black Africa is becoming Islamic. If the Europeans were strong in their Christian faith they could at least compel the colored people to comply with the ethical standards of the Christian faith, even if interior assent to the faith itself was withheld. The blacks can always be kept in check if the white man is strong in his faith.

But of course the white man is not strong in his ancient faith, which is the Christian faith; he is zealous in behalf of his new mind-forged utopian faith. This new, bastard faith of the white man is based on a maniacal hatred of the incarnate Christ of Europe and an obsessive love of the generic black man, the noble savage. And the essential paper edifice of the liberal’s new faith is the abstraction. The Sadducees and the Pharisees were unable to recognize the true God when He came amongst them because they made the minutiae of the law the entirety of the law. They worshipped their own abstractions and neglected the true object of God’s law, which is justice, mercy and faith. Directly parallel in their mind set to the legalistic Jews were the French revolutionaries of 1789. Burke reports that the majority of French legislators had law degrees. Forgetting that all change in a Christian society should be change that conserves what is Christian, the French assembly of lawyers killed Christian France with a lawyers’ brief against their Christian King. All the governments of Europe and the European nations have followed the lead of the ancient Jews and the French revolutionaries, and have built a new world based on their own abstractions and a hatred of Jesus Christ. Why the hatred? Because the modern European, like the pharisaical Jew, cannot abide a God who bids us take up our cross and follow Him. What was once the hope and the symbol of Europe, the cross of Christ, has become a scandal to the European, just as it was and is a scandal to the Jews.

When the old “anti-semitic” Europeans warned about organized Jewry, what were they talking about? They were talking about a people who had hardened their hearts against all things Christian. Their legal system was set up to shield them from Christ’s love. This is why Antonio realizes the futility of looking for mercy from the hardened Jewish heart:

I pray you, think, you question with the Jew:
You may as well go stand upon the beach
And bid the main flood bate his usual height;
You may as well use question with the wolf
Why he hath made the ewe bleat for the lamb;
You may as well forbid the mountain pines
To wag their high tops and to make no noise,
When they are fretten with the gusts of heaven;
You may as well do anything most hard,
As seek to soften that--than which what's harder?--
His Jewish heart: therefore, I do beseech you,
Make no more offers, use no farther means,
But with all brief and plain conveniency
Let me have judgment and the Jew his will.
Of course Shylock didn’t get his will, because in that instance Christians refused to allow Europe to be run by the laws of Jewry. But now Europeans have become like unto the Jews in the hardness of their hearts toward all things Christian and in their use of the minutiae of the law to kill the spirit of God’s law, the law of justice, mercy and faith.

In his anti-communist manifesto entitled Witness, Whittaker Chambers told us of the communist leaders’ obsession with official documents. Every government department had mountains and mountains of official documents. In reflecting on that phenomenon Chambers came to the conclusion that the Communists inundated Russia with official documents because their regime had no moral legitimacy. They sought to replace moral legitimacy with an artificial legitimacy of official documents which were the moral equivalent of the deaf shouting warnings to the deaf.

America has achieved, or should we say has deteriorated to the same moral illegitimacy as the Russian communists. Justice, mercy, and faith count for nothing in America and Europe; the upward and onward push to a democratic, interracial, godless world counts for everything. But is equality ever really the goal of the utopian? No, it isn’t. Some will always be more equal than others. Remember the seven commandments of Animal Farm?
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
And then the seven commandments became one:
All Animals Are Equal
But Some Animals Are More
Equal Than Others
When “our grace we have forgot,” when we abandon our faith in a spiritual aristocracy we will have an aristocracy of the cruel and degenerate (the liberals) who will elevate the base (the negroes) to the status of gods.

In the fairy tales of the Brothers Grimm, the third dumb brother who is pure of heart often wins the hand of the King’s daughter despite his lowly origins. In the older European regimes there was seldom such a direct correlation between spiritual gifts and high office. The best man, as the character Sapp in Prisoner of Zenda tells us, does not always become King. Nevertheless the older Europeans tried to structure their societies in such a way that the principle of noblesse oblige took precedence over the rights of man. The former principle, though not utopian, is more conducive to fostering Christian faith and Christian charity than the latter principle, which, despite sounding quite humane, always produces a world where “humanity must perforce prey on itself, like monsters from the deep.”

Orwell, having fought his way through the process, saw the devil’s horns protruding from every utopian scheme. The liberals’ utopia started with a few high-minded edicts about racial equality, but in the end the liberals have only one commandment: “The white is evil, and the black is sacred.” And missing from the liberal’s “utopia” is the God who the racist Europeans held aloft as the Savior of all mankind. The only equality shared by all men is their dependence on His mercy. What kind of society is it that holds His mercy, and the people who sought His mercy, as something to be sneered at and held up to ridicule? It is a satanic society where black-worshipping liberals sit in the seats of the scornful. They think their reign will be forever, but the men of Europe who still see the Cross of Christ through a glass darkly will live to see the end of the men of scorn and the triumph of the Man of Sorrows. +

Labels: ,

Friday, October 07, 2011

The Red Cross Knights Of Europe

During what the Northern liberals called “Reconstruction” and the Southern people experienced as hell, the liberals of the North tried to exterminate the white race in the South, just as the whites in San Domingo were exterminated, by placing them at the mercy of black barbarians who had no concept of mercy. (1) The Northern liberals failed to exterminate the white Southerners for one reason and one reason only. Thomas Nelson Page, this nation’s Walter Scott, tells us the reason:

“It was a veteran soldiery that repeopled the plantations and the homesteads of the South, and withstood the forces thrown against them during the period of Reconstruction. In addition to such racial traits as personal pride, self-reliance, and physical courage, they possessed also race pride, which is inestimable in a great popular struggle. This race pride the war had only increased. However beaten and broken they were, the people of the South came out of the war with their spirit unquenched, and a belief that they were unconquerable.”

And of course the man who wrote The Needle’s Eye is not referring to the racial pride of the pagan, he is talking about the racial pride of a Christian, which is pietas, the love of one’s own and a consciousness of one’s responsibilities toward a God who enjoins His people to love their own as He loves them.

The civil war in this country was just a slightly more dramatic manifestation of the civil war taking place in every European nation. And in every European nation the outcome was the same. The “love that once was there,” the love that the white man had for his own people, died and the European succumbed to the liberal-barbarian coalition. By the mid-1960’s white Britain, the white South, white France, and so on, were no more. White people still existed in all of the European nations, but a people without pride of race are not a people; they are cattle waiting to be taken to the slaughterhouse.

What made the European stop loving his own? The philosophers and “thinking men” told him ad nauseum and into infinity that his own people were unworthy of love, and over time the European came to believe in the unworthiness of the European. “Better to lose one’s self in a cosmic secular faith, in which the white race is absorbed by the all good and all powerful black race.” It’s not superior numbers that killed the white man; it was the white man’s loss of faith in the goodness of the European people and the truth of their vision of Christ. Where the old European Christianity was personal, intuitive, and connected to the hearth fire, the new Christianity was impersonal, rationalist, and connected to a cosmic, Babylonian pleasure dome. The New Orleans Superdome during Hurricane Katrina and the United Nations’ building during the ongoing bloody carnage in the streets of New York (no more tripping the light fantastic with Mamie O’Rourke) are perfect examples of the heart and texture of the new Christ-less, hopeless world in which the white man has chosen to exist until his liberal and black masters decide that it is time for his body to join his soul in the Kingdom of the Dead.

Is a death in life existence worth living? Even the grazers have said that it isn’t. In the midst of their somnolence they have cried out. They cannot bear the banality of the racial and sexual Babylon in which they live. The traditional soporifics, blood sport, pornography, and Christless cathedrals presided over by a faithless clerical elite, have only produced despair. Men and women, especially white men and white women, need to feel that they are loved for what they are, not because of how well they denounce what they are. The color of a man’s skin is part of his essential soul; if he must deny that soul in order to exist he will pine away and die. That is what is happening to the white man, particularly the grazer. The halfway-house Christian has more successfully tapped into the demonic energy of the liberal.

Taken out of context Edgar’s words in King Lear – “Speak what we feel, not what we ought to say,” sound like some hippie platitude from the sixties – “Hey, man, I just got to go with what I feel.” But in the context of the play Edgar’s words cut to the heart of existence. King Lear has destroyed his realm and ruined the lives of his subjects because “he has but little known himself.” He created a false image of reality, which reinforced his own exalted image of himself, and tried to inflict that abstraction on his subjects. The result was a world where “Humanity must perforce prey on itself, Like monsters of the deep.” Such will always be the case when the European does not see life “feelingly.” When he worships at an altar created in his own abstracted mind, divorced from every clean and noble sentiment of the heart, such as love of race, family, and God, he becomes either a grazer who is preyed upon by the inhuman, liberal monsters of the deep, or else he becomes an inhuman, liberal monster of the deep.

The mind-forged altars of the black gods of Liberaldom were built by men like Voltaire, Rousseau, Twain, and Pope John XXIII. Their lies about the intrinsic evil of the European people became the faithless faith of the European people. There were no more mea culpas for personal sins; there was only one mea culpa, the mea culpa for being white. And the only acceptable penance for whiteness is self-destruction. This liberal-recommended self-immolation is not what the white should do. He should refuse to be part of the penitential rites of the Christ-less church of the liberals, and instead he should return to his own hearth fire and learn to see life feelingly again. Once the heart is engaged, sight will return to the white man and he will leave his Babylonian pleasure dome of oblivion to return home, to his people and their ancient faith.

The liberals were not reconstructing the South. If we reconstruct something we rebuild that which was broken or destroyed. The attempted reconstruction of the South was in reality an attempt to destroy the South. The first attempt failed, but subsequent attempts were successful, just as they were successful throughout the European world. The terminology used to describe the liquidation of the European people varies from nation to nation, but the desired object, the death of the European people, is the same throughout all the formerly white Christian nations.

I don’t dispute the math of the conservatives and the white nationalists who tell us of the coming colored majorities in all the formerly European nations, but I do dispute the notion that white nationalists need to “wake up” a majority of white people before they can affect any “meaningful change.” Is that the way Europeans, when they were real flesh and blood Europeans, used to view existence? The hero doesn’t wait for followers; he acts. The unquenchable spirit that rides triumphant over ruin and death does not care about demographic charts and prophecies of doom. Hamlet’s defiance of augury still stands today. Nothing is impossible in the spiritual realm. The European must decide to enter that realm once again. If we allow the “this world only” liberals to set the perimeters for us we will never come out of Babylon. But if we turn from the Duessa of Babylon, as St. George did, and keep our eyes focused on Una, the Faerie Queene of truth and beauty, who bids us look to Him as the beginning and the end of every quest, we will win. The liberal-barbarian dragon has no defense against the Red Cross Knight of Europe.

“The knight himselfe euen trembled at his fall,
So huge and horrible a masse it seem’d;
And his deare Ladie, that beheld it all,
Durst not approch for dread, which she misdeem’d,
But yet at last, when as the direfull feend
She saw not stirre, off-shaking vaine affright,
She nigher drew, and saw that ioyous end:
Then God she praysd, and thankt her faithfull knight,
That had atchieu’d so great a conquest by his might.”

Fairy tales again? Yes! Isn’t a belief in a fairy tale what separates the European from the colored races? Michelangelo (whose work is no different from an African voodoo sculpture, or so the liberals tell us) depicts the hand of God reaching out for the hand of man. Christ was and is the hand and heart of God. If the liberals were given ten thousand years to come up with a more sublime and beautiful image of God than the European vision of Christ, they could not do it. Keats was profoundly Christian without knowing it: “Beauty is truth and truth beauty.” Stripped naked the outwardly alluring Duessa was revealed as an ugly witch that turned men’s stomachs. The tragedy of the European is that he still sees Duessa clothed in the outward splendor of Babylon. It is the task of the Red Cross Knights of Europe to show the naked evil of Duessa. Then all will be clear. The battle lines will be drawn. It is the Red Cross Knights of Europe versus Duessa’s liberal-barbarian coalition. +


(1) Are there any blacks that have a concept of mercy? Yes, those who are loyal to their white masters and have adopted the values and beliefs of the white Europeans. Such blacks are few and far between. In all of San Domingo, for instance, there was only one recorded case of a black servant who didn’t turn on his white masters. Uncle Remus? The man was a saint, but he was a creation of a white man. Still, let’s concede the existence of a few faithful, black Uncle Remuses. How are they viewed by the black barbarians? Aren’t they vilified because they don’t hate the white race? Of course they are. We are engaged in a war with the prince of darkness and his minions. Let’s not indulge in “Find the good negro” parlor games.

Labels: ,