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.” +