The Code of the European
“But I have all my life long been prejudiced against that form of underhand violence which I have heard old men contend came into fashion in our country in modern times, and which certainly seems to be alien from the French character. Without judging others too harshly, or saying that the poniard is never excusable—for then might some wrongs done to women and the helpless go without remedy—I have set my face against its use as unworthy of a Christian soldier.” -- Stanley J. Weyman in A Gentleman of France
In the wake of the Norwegian massacre which is reportedly the act of a self-styled “Christian fundamentalist,” the Christian fundamentalists are rushing to renounce the shooter and violence in general. Christians should renounce the shooter for the reason that no Christian kills children, no matter what their color or party affiliation; killing children is what liberals are so fond of doing. But the second renunciation, the renunciation of all violence, is wrong. Christians must defend their own people, using violence when the enemy uses violence. When I hear self-anointed white nationalist leaders urging white people to renounce all violence, while the violence against white people is reaching unheard of levels, I know that the nationalist leaders are more concerned about their own careers than they are about the plight of white people.
I know Anders Behring Breivik, like Timothy McVeigh, was against many things antique Europeans are against – multiculturalism and Islamic encroachment on the West – but he was also a Zionist Christian and he made no attempt, like the IRA makes no attempt, to distinguish non-combatants from combatants. It is true that the murdered young people were liberals in the making, but that type of killing, destroying the enemy’s offspring, is pagan, not Christian. Christian warriors have often failed to live up to the code of chivalry, but that doesn’t make the code invalid or any less binding. Europeans of the past have successfully fought Muslims without becoming like unto the Muslims.
The liberals have quite predictably labeled Anders Behring Breivik a right-wing Christian and an immoral monster. But he is not a Christian as our European ancestors were Christian, nor is he an immoral monster. Anders Behring Breivik is a child of liberalism. He is the product of the new, theoretical Christianity first championed by Thomas Aquinas. If we cannot know the living God via the European people, who made Him the incarnate center of their civilization, how can we know Him? The Christian intelligentsia on the Roman Catholic side said that we could know God through the intercession of an infallible expert’s opinion of Church documents. And the Protestant experts told us we could know God through their interpretations of the Holy Scriptures. Both theoretical versions of Christianity left out the heart of Christianity, man’s personal encounter with the living God, as exemplified in the incarnational culture of the European people. By demonizing the Europeans’ past and denying the validity of their culture of “mere feelings” the European religious theorists cut the European off from his intuitive, instinctual life, which is a man’s only touchstone of reality, and allowed him only a second-hand life in which he was totally dependent on his own mind. He became a reed for any liberal wind that promised him some release from the void in his soul. The post-Christian European, the European who sees only a mind-forged reality, might become a mad-dog liberal and support the mass slaughter of babies and the extermination of the white race; he might become a halfway-house Christian and support the extermination of the white race and acquiesce to the slaughter of babies; or he might become a pro-Zionist white nationalist who believes in the extermination of the children of the mad-dog liberals. It is internecine warfare we are witnessing. We have yet to hear from the men of Christian Europe who do not fight as the pagan liberals or the pagan Muslims fight in order to combat the pagan liberals and the pagan Muslims.
Did our hearts soar when we heard the news of Anders Behring Breivik stalking and killing the Norwegian young people? No, but our hearts were stirred to the depths when Paul Hill stepped out and killed the abortion doctor and his assistant. That was life imitating art. When Paul Hill said, “You won’t kill any more babies,” it reminded us of Nicholas Nickleby’s response to Wackford Squeer’s brutal beating of Smike: “Stop! This must not go on.” It’s in the European’s blood, the instinct to stop brutality at any cost. But if the European has divorced himself from his blood, he will be a dead man from the neck down; he will be all head, a head brimming with the semi-Pelagian, mind-forged theology of St. Thomas Aquinas. In that theological schema, ensoulment occurs when the human mind says it takes place, and not when God ordains it. From a purely logical standpoint, Anders Behring Breivik was completely right to do what he did. He was following the dictates of his own mind-forged faith. The Labor Party was destroying his country, the party members and their children would never have souls – ensoulment takes place when the human intellect says it takes place – so the soulless liberals and their children were fair game for Anders Behring Breivik. All quite logical if the human heart is left out of the equation, as it is in all philosophical and theological systems.
We must fall back on Christianity, which embraces man’s whole nature, and though not a code of philosophy, is something better; for it proposes to lead us through the trials and intricacies of life, not by the mere cool calculations of the head, but by the unerring instincts of a pure and regenerate heart. The problem of the Moral World is too vast and complex for the human mind to comprehend; yet the pure heart will, safely and quietly, feel its way through the mazes that confound the head.”
Without the unerring instincts of his European heart, Anders Behring Breivik became one with the liberals who view the world and all those who inhabit it as grist for the satanic mills of their minds.
A friend who shares my loathing for Liberaldom told me that it was disingenuous to talk about fighting for the destruction of Liberaldom while denouncing the first man who had the courage to strike back at Liberaldom. I don’t see it that way. Liberaldom is the incarnation of Satan where Christ was once incarnate. Are we striking a blow for Christian Europe when we fight as a liberal would fight, with no regard for Christian chivalry? It seems to me that we fall into a satanic trap when we use the tactics of the devil in order to fight the devil. The lodestar of Europe has always been and always shall be Jesus Christ. I don’t believe that we have to abandon Him in order to fight, and win, against Satan and his liberal minions. As with Timothy McVeigh there will be no attempt to understand Anders Behring Breivik’s rage. “He is a monster,” the liberals tell us. But the rage is justified; all Christian Europeans should feel a rage against the liberals and their barbarian allies. It is still possible to channel that rage against the liberals and their barbarian allies without breaking the code of chivalry. In his book, Anders Behring Breivik linked the cause of Christian Europe with the cause of Israel. No man who fuses Judaism and Christianity can be trusted to act as an integral Christian. The Jews regularly attack the Palestinians, making no distinction between combatants and non-combatants, and quite possibly that was a significant influence on Anders Behring Breivik.
No doubt it is easier to never use violence for any reason or to use violence on all occasions and for any reason, than it is to make distinctions and use violence when necessary within limits and to refrain from violence when restraint seems necessary, but such is the cross the Christian must bear. In Caroline Gordon’s novel None Shall Look Back, she tells us of Nathan Bedford Forrest’s actions after he liberated a group of Confederates from a Union prison camp. He took one liberated Southern soldier aside and asked him if any of the Yankee soldiers had abused the Confederate prisoners. There was one who had, and he was shot. The rest of the Yankee prisoners were treated humanely. And again, when Forrest became the Grand Wizard of the K. K. K., he didn’t ride against every Negro; he rode against those who raped and murdered.
True Christian charity often demands that we kill, always in defense of, and always with men like Tell, Havelock, and Forrest before us as exemplars. They knew when to kill and when to refrain from killing, because they had faith that was bred in the bone, a surer and more certain faith than the mind-forged faith of the modern, wayward Europeans. +