Cambria Will Not Yield

Friday, January 27, 2012

For Whom Should We Weep

“What’s Hecuba to him, or he to Hecuba,
That he should weep for her?”


I recently saw a news special in which a group of conservationists were lamenting the fate of the African black rhino. Apparently the black rhino has become extinct because the Asians believe the black rhino’s horn has magical healing powers. That superstitious belief, of the oh-so intelligent Asians, made the extermination of the African black rhino very profitable. And the African authorities, who could care less about the extinction of the black rhino, were quite willing to look the other way while poachers made enormous profits selling “magical” black rhino horns to Asians.

Oddly enough the liberals in the special did not blame the Asians for the extinction of the black rhino. Nor did they blame the Africans. Guess who they blamed? No, I’m not going to tell you; I want you to guess. What’s that you say? You’re right! They blamed the white man. Why was it the white man’s fault? The conservationists didn’t say; I suppose it was another one of those self-evident truths apparent to everyone who can see the Emperor’s new clothes and not apparent to those of us who only see a fat, naked emperor.

Two points need to be made about the liberals and their concern for the extinction of the black rhino. The first and lesser point to be made is that the people of color whom the liberals worship do not support the liberals on most issues, such as the preservation of endangered animals, in which the liberals happen to be in the right because they retain a remnant of Christianity in their souls. The colored tribes only support the liberals when it comes to the one central issue, the hatred of the white man. It’s a contradiction the liberals are unwilling to face: their colored gods do not value what they value. Other than their shared hatred for the white man, the liberals and the colored tribes have nothing in common. Is a shared hatred something to build upon? Only in the short term; in the long term the liberals and their colored gods are going to come into conflict. What a shame.

The second more important point is this: an infallible way to learn what an individual or a people value is to look at whom they have compassion for. Because I am a white man I regret the extermination of the black rhino. It was not a good thing. However, my sympathy for the black rhino is nothing compared to my sympathy for the white race, which is also being exterminated. But do the liberals who weep for the black rhino share my sympathy for the white race? No, they don’t. They are worse than indifferent to the sufferings of white people; they rejoice in everything that hurts the white man and moves the liberals and the colored people further along the road to Babylon. When white people are tortured, murdered, and raped by black people, the liberals go on the attack against anyone who tries to hold blacks accountable for their crimes. And yet when there is even a suggestion that a black has suffered at the hands of whites, as in the bogus rape allegations against the Duke lacrosse team, the whole liberal world is roused to a fevered pitch of righteous fury.

Such sympathy for black Hecubas is truly revealing. Why do the liberals have such sympathy for the blacks and no sympathy for their own people? Because the generic suffering black is the liberals’ substitute for the Suffering Servant of the Christian faith. They have created the black suffering servant to worship and adore, so even a hint of an attack on their god elicits their sympathy. It has always been thus and it always shall be. Liberalism is from the devil; therefore, the liberals will always reserve their sympathy for their devilish gods and those who further the cause of their devilish gods.

In Burke’s third letter against a peace with the regicide French, he comments on the English liberals’ hatred of their own Christian countrymen and their love and concern for French atheistic rebels.

Men are rarely without some sympathy in the sufferings of others; but in the immense and diversified mass of human misery, which may be pitied, but cannot be relieved, in the gross, the mind must make a choice. Our sympathy is always more forcibly attracted towards the misfortunes of certain persons, and in certain descriptions: and this sympathetic attraction discovers, beyond a possibility of mistake, our mental affinities, and elective affections. It is a much surer proof, than the strongest declaration, of a real connexion and of an over-ruling bias in the mind. I am told that the active sympathies of this party have been chiefly, if not wholly attracted to the sufferings of the patriarchal rebels, who were amongst the promulgators of the maxims of the French Revolution, and who have suffered, from their apt and forward scholars, some part of the evils, which they had themselves so liberally distributed to all the other parts of the community. Some of these men, flying from the knives which they had sharpened against their country and its laws, rebelling against the very powers they had set over themselves by their rebellion against their Sovereign, given up by those very armies to whose faithful attachment they trusted for their safety and support, after they had compleately debauched all military fidelity in its source.
The man who sympathizes with the demonic ‘other’, whether the demonic other is a French Regicide or a colored barbarian, is a man with a disordered soul who will always champion the cause of Satan over Christ. I agree with Burke; once we see where a man’s sympathies lie we know the man. My sympathies lie with the white victims of colored atrocities, and I hate those who have made gods of their murderers. I don’t think a white man can feel any other way and still be a human being, because once a man severs his natural ties to kith and kin, he is open to every unnatural tie that comes his way, compliments of Satan. And the satanic, unnatural ties – feminism, homosexuality, and negro worship – are all presented to the European as progressions toward a multi-racial, multi-sexual utopia. Only prejudice can stop the building of utopia, so prejudice must be, according to the liberals’ bible, eradicated.

Mainstream conservatives in church and state spend most of their adult lives trying to prove they are not prejudiced. But we are all prejudiced; we could not live, as Richard Weaver so eloquently told us, without prejudice. Our prejudices stem from our heartfelt sentiments about the nature of existence. The liberals who deride “prejudice” have deep-seated prejudices of their own. When they accuse their enemies of “prejudice” they are merely using a diversionary tactic. It is not prejudice that bothers the liberal, it is prejudice that does not coincide with his prejudice that he is against. It is not then a question of eliminating prejudices, it is a question of whose prejudices are correct. Is the negro really a demi-god devoid of original sin? Is the Christian faith of the antique Europeans based on a lie? The liberals’ deep-seated prejudices compel them to answer yes to both questions, just as my deep-seated prejudices compel me to answer No! to both questions.

Just because all God’s children have prejudices does not mean all prejudices should be tolerated. A man’s prejudices must stand the test of reality. If they are false and vicious, they should be challenged, and the people who hold such prejudices should be fought. Because the liberals have a prejudice against white Europeans, they have no sympathy for the torture and murder of white Europeans. Because the liberal is prejudiced against Christ, he makes a substitute Christ out of the black savage. Liberal prejudices are not based on reality. They are the prejudices of men and women who have severed the ties that bind them to humanity, in favor of abstract theories of life which promise them unlimited pleasure in a paradisiacal world devoid of the pain and suffering, caused by white people and their God.

In a Christian European society liberals would either be incarcerated or be in hiding in some cellar writing hate-spewing pamphlets against their own people. But we do not live in a Christian society. We live in Liberaldom, which has institutionalized the satanic love of the demonic stranger and the hatred of one’s own kith and kin, so Christian Europeans have been relegated to jails and cellars.

Liberals frequently say of other liberals, when one of their utopian schemes goes awry, that their hearts were in the right place. But the exact opposite is the case. The liberals’ hearts are not in the right place! Their hearts should be with their own people and with their peoples’ God. Rousseau’s heart was not in the right place when he fantasized about the Nobel Savage. Pope John XXIII’s heart was not in the right place when he forgave the unrepentant black savages who tortured and murdered his people. Nor is any liberal’s heart in the right place when he longs for the destruction of everything European. A utopian mind stems from a sick soul. One’s own race is always the hated race in the mind of an utopian liberal. Maybe his mother beat him, or his father abandoned him, or he does not feel that his own people truly appreciate his great genius. So the demented liberal creates, in his mind’s eye, a kinder, gentler race of people who truly love and appreciate him. And in doing so the liberal steps away from humanity and walks into the arms of Satan. God gave us one people to love over all others so that we could be connected to Him through that love. The liberal who rejects the personal and particular love of his own people for the love of an abstracted image of the demonic stranger is a man without a soul.

The soullessness that Scott’s Last Minstrel speaks of – “Breathes there a man with soul so dead…” – is the modern European. Just as Christian chivalry was bred in the bone of the antique Europeans, so is a condition of soullessness bred into the very bone of the modern European. He says that his world has been expanded so that his potentialities to love and be loved have expanded. But that is a bitter, loathsome theory very far from the truth. Love stems from a depth of feeling that can only come from a close attachment to our own kith and kin. The modern existentialists such as Camus, Becket, and Sartre wrote that any contact with one’s fellow human beings was hell. Their prejudices against humanity stemmed from their loss of faith in the humane God. Human contact of any kind without faith in Christ is indeed unbearable. Who can stand such an existence? Certainly not the liberal, so he seeks oblivion in Babylon where the colored, demonic ‘other’ dwells. “Blessed stranger, lead me into the darkness of oblivion and away from the unbearable burden of my race,” is the prayer of the modern liberal European.

Whenever (which consists of the bulk of my waking hours) I place myself back in the Europe of my ancestors by way of book, movie, or vision, I am struck by the tremendous gulf separating them from the modern Europeans. And if I was asked to explain that deep gulf, I would say that it was the result of the antique Europeans’ fairy-tale comprehension of life, which is in direct contrast to the modern European’s material view of existence. Like the ancient Hebrew the antique European was aware that there were laws of nature: a man had to eat; a spear, an arrow, or bullet could kill him, and so on. But the world of nature was not the antique European’s world anymore than it was the ancient Hebrew’s world. The antique European viewed the natural world as a mere backdrop for the greater world of the spirit. The soulless modern European needs to find that ancient world again. And it falls upon the remnant band, the last Europeans, to place the threads of the European past into the soulless Europeans’ hands and bid them make their way back to the land of the fairy tale, the land of love, the land of honor and of faith. The evil wizards and witches of Liberaldom will try to prevent the return of the Europeans to their homeland, but the liberals are not infallible or invincible. “We are in God’s hands, brother, not theirs.” +

Labels: , ,

Friday, January 20, 2012

The Threads of Our European Past

“It is with an armed doctrine that we are at war.” – Burke

Martin Luther King Jr. Day has come and gone, but we are enjoined by the liberals to keep the spirit of Martin Luther King Jr. Day in our hearts 365 days a year. And most whites do just that. I saw a horrendous story out of Britain (there don’t seem to be any good stories coming out of Britain) about a 14-year-old white girl who was beaten by a gang of black girls. The white girl’s father said his daughter “was just a grain of sand,” without significance; no need to make a fuss about the incident. And the white girl who was beaten reiterated her father’s unconcern. Some have suggested that the girl who was beaten and her father are suffering, like so many whites, from the Stockholm or Patty Hearst syndrome, in which a kidnapped victim, after long captivity, starts to identify and/or sympathize with his captors. There are certain parallels. The white race is currently held captive by the black race, and the white people have given up their own identities in order to submerge their whiteness in a sea of blackness. But there is a huge difference between the Stockholm syndrome type of kidnapping victim and the modern black-worshipping Europeans. The Stockholm syndrome hostages and Patty Hearst were forcefully taken prisoner and converted after months of isolation from anyone but their kidnappers. The modern Europeans were not forcibly taken; they willingly surrendered to the black marauders. Why? What took place before the whites’ surrender to make them so willing to become worthless grains of sand, who lived only to serve the needs of the black race? I think my sister, who is a mad-dog liberal, can supply us with the answer. My sister has been mugged many times by negroes, but after each mugging she is more vehement than ever in her defense of the essential goodness and divinity of the black man. While listening to her talk about the ‘black man’ I can’t help thinking of the words from the Bible: “Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him.” My sister’s credo, which is the credo of all mad-dog liberals, is, “Though the black man slay me and thee and every white person, yet will I worship him.” And why must the liberal worship the black man? Because the post-Christian white needs to worship something, and the black man fulfills that need.

At first it was only the post-Christian liberal elite who worshipped the black man, but the halfway-house Christians soon followed in the mad-log liberals’ train. If we look at the phenomenon of Abraham Lincoln, we can better understand the relationship of the halfway-house Christian to the liberal. Lincoln found the mad-dog abolitionists personally abhorrent, yet he ultimately did their bidding, saying, “We are both moving toward Zion.” Dishonest Abe was a halfway-house Christian. In the absence of a firm Christian faith, he was unable to resist the passionate intensity of the thoroughly secular abolitionists. Such is always the case. When a man wavers in his faith moral rot sets in, and he is unable to resist the blood red tide of men who are full of the passionate intensity of demonism. The modern halfway-house Christians have gone with the tide of liberalism because it is easier to surrender than resist, and because they lack the intensity of faith of the negro worshipping liberals. The end result is that the halfway-house Christians become one in faith and brotherhood with the liberals. The whites who do not suffer from the Stockholm syndrome are those men and women who have strong religious faith. If the halfway house Christians had not already had one foot in the liberals’ camp they would not have succumbed to the new faith of the liberals.

The grazers fill in the European demographic chart. They do not love the negro like the liberal and the halfway house Christian, but the grazers want to survive and they think they can survive if they appease the ruling elite. Their position is kind of like the average Joe who works for a boss who has made his son plant supervisor. The average Joe must be nice to the boss’s son for the obvious reason that he wants to keep working. The grazers must pay lip service to the liberals’ gods because they want to keep working as well. But sadly the grazers do not figure in the liberals’ plan for the future, because in the end the liberals do not trust the white grazers. They are always worried that a leader might arise and turn the grazers into white men again. So the mad-dog liberal, the halfway-house Christian, and their black gods will trudge on into the future together. Or so the liberal and the halfway-house Christian purpose. Their black gods have something else in mind for them; not by plan but by instinct, they hate the white man.

Many of the saints and mystics (we won’t debate here how saintly they really were) talk about losing themselves in God. They talk about dying to self in order to be open to the will of God. I see this religious mysticism, directed toward the negro rather than the Christian God, in the white liberals such as my sister and the ‘grain of sand’ father. Such “mysticism” seems somewhat sick to me even in the Christian mystics, because it seems in the extreme cases to be an attempt to place the ecstatic religious experience above communion with the living God. But in the case of the liberals, who want to die to all things white in order to become one with the soul of the black man, it is the height of blasphemy. And just as the Christian mystic often puts the religious experience above genuine contact with God, so does the liberal put the ecstatic experience of losing himself in cosmic blackness above the experience of actually dealing with the black as if he was a fellow human being. If the latter was the case, that the liberal really viewed the negro as a human being, he would deal with the negro as Prospero dealt with Caliban; he protected his own from the savagery of Caliban while sternly, but kindly, showing Caliban the light:

Prospero. He is as disproportion'd in his manners
As in his shape. Go, sirrah, to my cell;
Take with you your companions; as you look
To have my pardon, trim it handsomely.

Caliban. Ay, that I will; and I'll be wise hereafter
And seek for grace. What a thrice-double ass
Was I, to take this drunkard for a god
And worship this dull fool!

The secular-oriented nationalist publications set great store in “getting the message out to white people.” But isn’t that putting the cart before the horse? White people have to first regard themselves as a people before they will respond to pleas to rise up in defense of their people. The colored races have the same pagan blood and sex religions that they have always had. They hate each other, but above all they hate the white man. And the liberal worships the negro and hates the white man with a religious fervor. How can mere pragmatism counter such hatred? Passionate religious intensity can only be countered with passionate religious intensity. I share the white nationalists’ disgust with the Christian churches, but mere occupancy of a building that was once a place of worship does not make a gaggle of fusionists into Christians. It’s not as if there is no historical record of Europeans who were Christian. There is! And European Christians, for all of their faults, did not betray their own people by blending with the colored races or by sacrificing their own to the colored savages to be tortured and murdered. Let me amend that. No honorable white mixed his blood with the coloreds or offered his people up for sacrifice to the coloreds. Pirates, prostitutes, and carpetbaggers did just that.

After the worst of the reign of terror was over and France was under the Directory, the practical men thought it was time to make peace with regicide France. Edmund Burke objected to such a peace. He pointed out that no man could be a member of the Directory who had not given his consent to the murder of the King. How could such men be trusted to make an honorable peace with Christian nations? And how could Englishmen and men of honor in every European nation permit the principles of atheistic revolution to spread throughout Europe because of the failure of the European nations to punish regicide? Well, practical men did make peace with the regicides, and the ideals of the French Revolution did poison and kill Christian Europe.

The racial suicide of the Europeans is the final denouement of the French revolution. First, regicide was permitted and celebrated as a great step forward for mankind. Then every advance that pushed Europeans further away from God and closer to Satan was celebrated until an atheistic hierarchy passed a death sentence on the Europeans by mandating the worship of negroes throughout the formerly white Christian nations of Europe. In Liberaldom there is one major condition, to which one must agree in order to be a member of the governing Directory of Liberaldom. One must consent to the death of the European people through miscegenation, and no member of the base populi can dissent from the primary credo of the Great Liberal Directory if they want a share in the post-Christian, post-European world of the future.

Time has proven Burke right, and the practical men, who thought Burke exaggerated the dangers of the spread of French utopianism to England and the rest of Europe, wrong. For years England was held up as a model of civilization by French and English historians. England vowed “never again” after their bloody civil war, and they kept that vow, always moving into the future “while holding on to the threads of the past.” This was true of England up to and through World War II, but then England let go of her past at an accelerated rate as if the English people, having been the most “backward” of people (from a French avant-garde viewpoint) became the most determined anti-European nation in Europe. It is only a difference in degree though, because all European nations are liquidating everything that stinks of old Europe.

The spirit of abstraction that Burke rightly saw as the spirit of atheism and revolution turns a people into an aggregate herd and an individual into an inanimate grain of sand. There is no such thing as a practical world distinct from the spiritual world. We are not meant to be divided men; we are meant to live connected to a non-abstract, personal God who bids us live and die connected to Him through our love for our kith and kin. When the liberals tell us we must walk away from our race in order to be accepted in their world they are really telling us to turn from our personal God to their abstract black idols. The eternal quest of Satan is to separate man from God by dehumanizing and depersonalizing every aspect of our existence here on earth. And the most dehumanizing and depersonalizing thing a man can do is to give up his racial identity, which is of the spirit, in order to serve in Satan’s Babylonian dystopia. That man who said the beating of his daughter had no more significance than a grain of sand is a man of whom we can say, “He did not die but nothing of life remained.”

When Burke turned the sentiment in his own country and other European nations against the French revolutionists he evoked images from his nation’s past. He showed his countrymen that in their past was kith, kin, and God. Why should they give that up for an abstract future devoid of kith, kin, and God? And the Burkean vision of a people that marched into the future while holding on to the threads of the past stood the blessed plot and her people in good stead, until they cut the threads to their past in the second half of the 20th century. Now the blessed plot is leased out to the abstractionists and the barbarian hordes of color.

The moral conservatism of Burke was not invented by Burke; it was embedded in the soul of all European nations. But Europeans needed a Burke to redirect their vision to the sacred treasures contained within their own countries’ traditions that were not the traditions of abstract thought unconnected to the human heart; they were traditions connected to the hearth fire, where a man was not an abstraction, but a particular person connected to a particular people and a personal God. Burkean conservatism was the conservatism of our Lord. Throughout His ministry here on earth, He took great pains to show that His future death and resurrection were tied to the past that His people must know and cherish. “Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.”

And at the inn at Emmaus it was Christ who showed the apostles, His people, just how intimately their past was connected to Him.

Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. And they drew nigh unto the village, whither they went: and he made as though he would have gone further. But they constrained him, saying, Abide with us: for it is toward evening, and the day is far spent. And he went in to tarry with them. And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them. And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight. And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

“Did not our hearts burn within us…” Yes our hearts do burn within us when we are connected to our European past that contains the European Christ story, which is not an abstracted theory about the rights of man; it is the story of God’s grace and a people who responded to His grace. The new multi-racial, multi-faith world that we are told we must accept is a world we most certainly will not accept. We will not accept that world because He doesn’t dwell in that world. We are bound to our European past with ties that cannot be broken by liberals, colored barbarians or Satan himself. In the midst of the Babylonian night the European remnant turns to Him, who never has and never will refuse to hear the prayers of His people:

“Abide with us: for it is toward evening, and the day is far spent.” +

Labels: , ,

Friday, January 13, 2012

The Liberal and the Colored -– United in Hate

The crimes that the White community of Southern Rhodesia had committed were obvious. In the first place they are White, and in the second place they are guilty of having brought civilization to a land of black Stone-Age savages. – Anthony Jacob

The hostility in the liberal and black community toward that young football player, Tim Tebow, is another sign of the times. What has the young man done to elicit such hatred from the liberal-colored coalition? He prays before, during, and after his games to the God of the Christians. And during last year’s Stupor Bowl, which is sometimes called the Super Bowl, he and his mother did an anti-abortion commercial. For that the liberals and the blacks want him eliminated. I’m told that Saturday Night Live, the sacred theater of the liberals, did a sneering satire of Tebow’s Christian faith. So what else is new? Don’t liberals usually attack and mock the good and defend and praise evil? Yes, they do, but the noose is tightening around white Europeans. Just 10 years ago the appearance on the scene of a mild-mannered white sports figure who claimed to be Christian would not have evoked such blatant and open hostility. And forty years ago the liberals would have kept their hostility to themselves, but we live in the era of liberalism triumphant; the liberals feel that they no longer have to tolerate even the slightest deviation from liberal orthodoxy. Why should they? Does the wolf tolerate the lamb? And we should note that Tim Tebow has not said one “racist” thing. In fact, I’m sure he has all the correct views on race, but that doesn’t matter to the liberals and the colored barbarians. He is white, and he has become a hero to many young white people. That is bad. Why is it bad? Because whites, particularly young whites, are not allowed to have heroes who are Christian and white. That could lead to white youths thinking they are entitled to regard themselves as a particular people with a special destiny as a people. Such a departure from liberal orthodoxy is forbidden.

From Tim Tebow to Patrick Buchanan – a liberal-black organization has called for his dismissal from television because of his “racism.” But mild-mannered Pat has never said anything “racist.” He merely pointed out in his last book that multicultural America is not working because the new wave of non-European immigrants do not want to be absorbed into American culture; they want to impose their culture on white Americans. For such views he is supposed to be a dangerous racist. Pat receives the liberals’ seal of disapproval despite the fact that when he ran for President the last time he choose a black running mate and despite the fact that he has never advocated segregation or the deportation of colored people. Buchanan’s moderation counts for nothing with the liberals and the coloreds. They still consider him a racist and therefore damned. Unless you are a rabid, blaspheming negro-worshipper, you will be linked with the racists anyway, so why not, if you fashion yourself a conservative, go all the way over to the side of the kinist, Christian, European remnant? The adage, “one might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb,” applies here.

If we cross the ocean we come to the once proud nation of Ireland. The left-wing administration of Trinity College in Dublin cancelled a scheduled talk by British National Party (BNP) Chairman Nick Griffin, on the subject of immigration, claiming that the cancellation was a “victory” for multiculturalism. I view the cancellation of Griffin’s talk as vindication of the late John Tyndall, who was the founder of the BNP. Griffin ungraciously purged Tyndall from the BNP because he was supposedly too extreme. Griffin thought his conciliatory approach of asking that whites be looked on as a legitimate part of multicultural Britain was more practical than Tyndall’s “whites only” advocacy. When will the “practical” white men learn that nothing but the annihilation of the white race will satisfy the liberal-colored coalition?

The condemnation of whites for being white never ends. Geert Wilders asks for restrictions on immigration, and the Muslims sue him in court. Arizona’s Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio tries to enforce the state immigration laws, and Obama’s communist Justice Department accuses him of discrimination against Hispanics. And in every case I’ve mentioned, from the football player to the sheriff, the white in question is simply hated for being white. They have not attacked, either verbally or physically, anyone of the colored races. And that is the pity of it. The colored races are fighting a war against the white race, and whites are not fighting back.

Every conflict between faiths ends up as a conflict on the battlefield. The whining lawsuits of the liberal-backed Hispanic, black, and Asian organizations are to the colored hordes and the liberals what the Communist Manifesto was to the Bolsheviks. The whining lawsuits are their declarations of war. From the liberal and colored standpoint the murders, rapes, and other assorted atrocities perpetuated against white people by the colored savages are the sanctified acts of a people fighting a holy war in defense of Babylon. No white conservative will ever be able to convince the colored people to allow the whites to be part of a multicultural state, because the essence of a multicultural state is the hatred of the white. In fact the only shared value of the yellow, the black, and the brown is their hatred of the white man.

The colored hordes know only about the bloody sacrifice of other races to the needs of their own race. They have no concept of mercy. Mercy is a white man’s word, and to the colored tribes a sign of weakness. They do not see that the sight of innocence under attack, of decency under attack, of one’s people under attack, can stir up feelings of mercy in a man’s heart that makes him want to do battle in defense of innocence, decency, and his people for mercy’s sake. The colored races do not see this because they fight for bloodlust and gain, never for mercy’s sake. “This is all too extreme and harsh,” the white halfway-house Christian tells me. But is it harsh? Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say that it is too truthful for the halfway-house Christian to accept? First and foremost, the Christian European loves and extends mercy to his own. But did the European’s mercy end with his own race? No! The only mercy that the colored races, particularly the beloved black race of the halfway-house Christians, ever knew came from the hated and persecuted white race. And I will repeat what has become a refrain with me, a necessary counterpoise to the liberals’ white-hating refrain: If the white race disappears, absorbed into a Babylonian, mixed race, mercy will disappear from the face of the earth. An old Christian hymn warns the sinner to “Look down, look down, that lonesome road before you travel on.” The halfway house Christians need to look down the negro-worshipping road and see where it ends. It ends in a hellish, nightmare world of lost souls.

I recently read a conservative columnist’s careful analysis of the upcoming Presidential election. He concluded that despite The Obama’s terrible record as President he was going to be re-elected. He professed to be clueless as to the reason for this: “How can the American people re-elect such a terrible President?” I find it hard to believe that the conservative columnist did not know the answer to that question. I suspect he was being prudently disingenuous. But then again, white people who genuinely believe that all of life consists of propositional faiths, and propositional people, might not be able to understand that the colored races do not believe in the propositional theory of existence. The reason, Mr. Conservative, Obama is still the favored darling of the American electorate is because black people always support their own, and white liberals have replaced their Christian faith with negro worship.

The conservative who draws back from the obvious conclusion to be drawn from the coloreds’ rhetoric and their actions, that there is a race war in progress, does so because he is still laboring under the false impression that the liberals and the coloreds are just as reasonable and willing to participate in the give and take of a republican form of government as 19th century Englishmen. Such is not the case. The 19th century Englishman was still operating under the assumption that his political opponent was a human being created in the image of God. And men on both sides of the political aisle believed in the humbling doctrine of original sin.

“And none is so unforgiving to the transgressors as the person who does not believe in original sin. Here is a system which releases us from self-discipline, authorizing us to treat the political enemy as subhuman, irredeemable. In consequence the good are engaged against the wicked in a more irretrievable warfare, where the makeshift of the ballot-box may itself become intolerable, and nothing is left but the resort to force.”-- Herbert Butterfield
Prophetic words indeed! Now we have come to a state of “irretrievable warfare.” The liberal has transformed the Christian belief that all men are tainted with original sin into the belief that only the white male is tainted with original sin. Eliminate the white male and the rest of mankind will live happily ever after in a white-free paradise. Such is the liberal agenda. By a special form of Gnostic denial the liberal has convinced himself that he is not white, so he doesn’t apply the jeremiads against whites to himself. Nor does he envision himself in the black stew pots into which he is consigning all non-liberal, and therefore subhuman and irredeemable, whites.

The transference of all sin to the white male and all virtue to the colored people is the reason we never hear any criticism of the black race. No crime committed by a black is ever the fault of the offending black. The explanation for the crime is always twisted around and becomes the fault of the white man. If you doubt that liberals have made a god of the black man, simply observe them at work and play. Do they blaspheme Christ in their theaters and ban Him from the work place? Yes, they do. Do they permit one single critical statement to be made about the black man on stage or screen? Of course, they do not. Do they ban the black man from the workplace? Far from it, the liberals grant blacks privileged status in the workplace and regularly pay homage to the greatness and the magnificence of the black god who condescends to preside over white devotees, providing they pay him proper homage.

The current battle between the liberal-colored coalition and the white European is not a one-sided war because the colored barbarians outnumber the white Europeans; it is a one-sided war because the liberal and the colored barbarian have made the hatred of the white the central tenet of their religious faith, while the white man has no faith to set in opposition to the liberal-colored faith. On whom can the European call in the day of battle? He doesn’t have a clue. He is back with the god-with-no-name championed by the pagan Greek philosophers.

I once, while traveling in England, viewed an old historic English church that had been built, the guide told me, over the ruins of a pagan temple. It occurred to me then, and it seems even more certain today, that we are witnessing the reverse of the Christian church being built over the ruins of a pagan place of worship. The current liberal, negro-worshipping churches have replaced, not physically but spiritually, the old Christian churches. Europeans need to break their attachments to the church structures and the church organizations so that they can reconnect with the substance of the Christian faith, The Man of Sorrows. From such a connection comes the will to fight for mercy’s sake.

The only sure thing about the historical process is that it cannot be used as a magic talisman to predict the future. Human beings make human events, and they are too complicated to be played upon by the Rosencrantzes and Guildensterns of the world. We know nothing for certain about the future of the Europeans. At present they don’t seem to have a future. But there is the grace of God and there are still Europeans who believe that one man of faith can move mountains. We fight without yielding because we only know Him through His people; we are all called, those of us who still belong to His Europe, to keep the European light shining in the darkness of Babylon. +

Labels: ,

Friday, January 06, 2012

Into the Hand of God

I said to the man who stood at the gate of the year,
‘Give me a light that I may tread safely into the unknown.’
And he replied: ‘Go into the darkness and put your hand into the hand of God.
That shall be to you better than light and safer than a known way.’
So I went forth, and finding the Hand of God, trod gladly into the night.
And He led me towards the hills and the breaking of day in the lone East.

In Solzhenitsyn’s novel The First Circle, the hero of the novel tries to explain to his friend why he is going to attempt to do something honorable. He tells his friend that he would like to be able to say that at least once in his life he didn’t behave like a complete scoundrel. The hero’s sentiments were my own when I first read the novel in my early twenties, and they are still my own now that I’m in my late fifties. There have been many dishonorable moments in my life, but I like to think that there were a few moments in my life when I didn’t behave as a complete scoundrel. One such moment occurred when I was twelve-years-old; I had occasion to stand between an eight-year-old boy and some teenage boys who were pelting him with snowballs. The snowballs weren’t the soft, fluffy kind either; they were the hard, icy type of snowballs. I didn’t know the boy well – twelve-year-olds don’t go around with eight-year-olds – but he was one of those boys, like Arthur in Tom Brown’s School Days, who brought out the protective instinct in anyone with a modicum of Christianity in their soul. I stood in front of the boy and screamed out something like, “Throw snowballs at somebody your own size if you want to throw snowballs.” Though big for my age, I actually wasn’t as large as the teenagers, but I thought that was what you said to bullies, because I had seen heroic boys in the movies say that in similar situations. The bullies took me at my word and pummeled me with snowballs, while young Arthur (I’ll call him by that name) stood behind me. I stood there until the school bus came and Arthur got on it. Then I got on the bus as slowly as possible to show the bullies that their snowballs had not hurt me at all. I think my strategy in the incident of Arthur and the bullies was rather questionable, because I never, in subsequent years, received such painful blows to the head in either boxing or football. But on the whole I think that was one time in my life when I did not behave as a complete scoundrel.

I bring the school boy incident up for this reason: my heart was aflame with righteous indignation that day because I saw what I perceived to be goodness personified, young Arthur, assailed by evil personified, the teenage bullies. Maybe I exaggerated Arthur’s goodness, but I don’t think so, and maybe I exaggerated the evil of the bullies, but again, I don’t think so, but that nightmare, the nightmare of evil relentlessly attacking the good, set my heart aflame and made me want to defend goodness.

I have felt for many years, and still feel, the same way toward the antique Europeans and their culture as I did toward young Arthur. They are being attacked by evil personified, and they are incapable of defending themselves. “Will no one step into the breach and defend them?” “Yes,” I answer, “I will.” How could a man with even a modicum of Christianity in his soul not want to defend the antique Europeans against the unrelenting attack of the satanic liberals and their colored henchmen? (1) Well, it’s apparent that very few people want to defend the antique Europeans, but I don’t know why so few want to defend them. Is it because there isn’t any of the “good Christianity,” the fighting Christianity, left in the Europeans? Or is it because the liberals have “done it awfully well,” meaning they have cleverly kept the focus on the motes in the eyes of the antique Europeans and ignored the logs in their own eyes? Whatever the reason, the antique Europeans and those Europeans who refuse to break faith with them are under the relentless attack of satanic liberals and colored barbarians. And the white grazers who do not understand the evil that menaces them, and hate those who try to tell them about it, are being attacked along with the recalcitrant remnant of the European faithful.

The actual physical attack on white Europeans, the murders, the robberies, the rapes, and the beatings, have been going on for the last forty to fifty years with increased ferocity and intensity every year. But it was the non-violent attack of the scientists and philosophers that laid the foundations for the actual physical attack on the European people. This is the vital point we must understand. The colored races have always hated the white race because the coloreds worship darkness and not the light, but it was only when white people lost their faith, because they succumbed to liberalism, that they became incapable of defending themselves against the colored barbarians. If faith returns to the white man his will to resist the savage colored hordes will return.

There is, of course, no magic wand we can use to make liberalism disappear from modern Europe. Nor can we go back in time and kill liberalism before it kills Christian Europe. Liberalism, which is the antithesis of Christianity, is now a part of every European's heritage, just as Christianity is part of a European's heritage. The modern European whose heart belongs to old Europe can exorcise liberalism from his heart, but he can’t ignore it because liberalism is part of his people’s history. Nor can the liberal ignore the antique Europeans’ heartfelt faith in Jesus of Nazareth, because that too is part of the white man’s history. He must exorcise it from his heart and kill the Christian hearts of other white Europeans.

The liberal thinks that the Christless European, with faith in nothing except the Babylonian night of Liberaldom, is the new, improved European who is here to stay, living and loving in a Godless world of scientific wonders and sensual, earthy people of color who do not have to kill the Christianity in their hearts because they never had any heartfelt faith in the Christian God. Which is why the liberal so desperately wants to merge with the colored races. He knows mankind can never be truly happy till the European’s racial memory of his past is completely eradicated by the extinction, through miscegenation, of the white race. In the Jimmie Stewart movie It’s a Wonderful Life, the teacher tells Jimmie Stewart’s daughter that every time a bell rings an angel gets his wings. The modern liberal tells his children that every time a white marries a person of color mankind moves closer to paradise. It’s as if a sorceress has placed white Europeans under a spell, a spell of science, sex, and futurity that renders him incapable of seeing who he once was, and whom he once believed in. It is the task of those of us who still see His Europe, as Puddleglum still saw Narnia, to destroy Liberaldom so that the Europeans grazing in the pastures of Liberaldom can look up from their seemingly green pastures, that “lead but to the grave,” and see their true Master and their true destiny.

The valley of the shadow of Liberaldom should not, and it shall not, be the final destination of the Europeans. We are, despite the fact that most Europeans can no longer see it, the Christ-bearing people. God will not abandon us if we call on Him by name. The main thrust of an attack against Liberaldom should focus on the ideological undergirding of the liberals, because without an ideological foundation Liberaldom will crumble, and the white man who once was blind will be able to see what his ancestors saw. With that vision before him, the vision of the Living God, the white man will reclaim his own again.

It is very easy to fall into despair when we look at the numbers arrayed against white Christian Europeans. But the numbers are deceiving. The vast majority of whites follow their leaders, who are in a minority but are full of passionate hatred against the European people. If you destroy the liberal elite you can destroy liberalism. The liberal elite are like the men who saw Jesus raise Lazarus from the dead; and seeing that miracle their only concern was to hide it from the people lest those people might see and believe. “But some of them went their ways to the Pharisees, and told them what things Jesus had done. Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, ‘What do we? For this man doeth many miracles.’” In those two verses from John 11: 46-47, we see the essence of liberalism.

A small cabal of intransigent liberals and their devout followers have banded together to hide the light that was Christian Europe from the eyes of the white people who are not liberal at heart but are grazing in the locust fields, deprived of the memory of what they once were and could be again. I have been accused, by the type of friends of which you say, “with such friends I don’t need enemies,” of being too easy on the white grazers. To those “friends” I reply that being called a grazer is hardly complimentary, so I’m not that “easy” on the grazers. But I do see more than just a little bit of the “spirit above the dust” in the grazers. Those football, NASCAR-stupefied men are the same ones who come to life when flood waters threaten to engulf such cities as New Orleans. And I still have the image of a white grazer of a policeman on our force coming to life long enough to go unarmed against a knife-wielding negro (see “The White Deer”). Unfortunately such outbursts of whiteness are few and far between and often misdirected toward liberal causes, but it is to our own people we should look for a revival of Christendom, not to the dark races that never have supported, and never will, the cause of Christian Europe. The devil knows this, which is why he has placed race-mixing at the very top of his agenda. No matter how stupefied the grazers seem they are still white, and the devil fears the white man. Why risk a revival of that hated Christ-bearing race when they can so easily be eradicated? It is our task, the remnant band of Europeans, to foil the devil’s plan by continuing to hold the banner of Christian Europe aloft, even in the midst of and in spite of Liberaldom.

Men in battle need clarity. They need to know their enemy. It’s clear that the colored races are the enemy of the European. But what is the ideological underpinning of liberalism that sustains the liberal and makes the white grazers hopelessly acquiescent to the assault of the colored hordes? We need not drag in all the philosophers, Greek, secular, and “Christian” who had a hand in trying to make the spiritual world subject to laws of the natural world. Suffice it to say that the edifice of Liberaldom is built on the idea that the natural, material world is the world. Men so deluded seek to scientize that which cannot be scientized, the soul of man. Anything that stinks of the spiritual is “dealt with” in a liberal state, sometimes with brute force, sometimes through ostracism or economic disenfranchisement, but whatever method is used the objective is the same, to kill all things of the spirit by scientizing existence.

There has only ever been two non-materialist civilizations in the history of the world, the ancient Hebrew civilization and the ancient European civilization. If you tell me that they are one and the same, I won’t dispute you, but whether the Europeans are the ancient Hebrews or whether their adherence to dictates of the living God made them seem like unto the ancient Hebrews does not have to be decided definitely before we can act on the sure and certain faith that the European people are the Christ-bearers, born to champion Christ against the satanic liberals and the colored barbarians. The European knows that over and above the natural world of the liberals and the colored tribes is His world, the world of storybook heroes and heroines, whose hearts are set aflame every time they see His Europe and His people attacked by the relentless forces of evil. Those forces of evil, and the personality behind them, shall not prevail because there are always a few Europeans who will respond to Christ’s call to arms. A handful of Cyranos are more than a match for a magnitude of liberals and their colored allies. +


(1) The most striking thing about the apostasy of the Europeans from European Christianity is the apostasy of the white clergymen. They truly seem to rejoice in not only the destruction of European culture, but they also condone, by their silence, the violent physical assaults on white people by colored barbarians. “If you have not charity.” There is no Christianity left in the Christian churches because the “Christian” clergymen have not charity toward their own people.

Labels: , ,