The Symbol and Substance of Europe

“The sign o’ the cross – the spirit above the dust.” – Herman Melville

Edward James Corbett was a British hunter, conservationist and author. He was born (1875) and raised in British India, holding the rank of Colonel in the British Indian Army. Between the years 1907 and 1938, Corbett tracked down and killed 19 tigers and 14 leopards. But Corbett did not hunt for sport. He hunted man-killers. It is estimated that the man-killers Corbett disposed of had killed more than 1,200 men and women.

Corbett always hunted the man-killers alone and on foot, at great peril to his own life. The natives regarded him as a saint with mystic powers. But of course Corbett had no mystical powers; he was simply a white man whose Christian faith was bred in the bone. In later years Corbett wrote a book about his experiences (Man-Eaters of Kumaon) and tried to teach the natives of India how to preserve their wildlife. The man-killers never got Edward James Corbett; he died peacefully in bed in 1955 at age 79.

Without in any way trying to diminish Corbett’s remarkable achievements in India, I must assert that Corbett’s efforts on behalf of Indian natives (“the least of these my brethren”) were duplicated by white men in India, Africa, and all of the colored lands. Wherever white men set foot, there was charity and mercy where there had never been charity and mercy before. Corbett’s efforts only differed from other whites’ charitable efforts by virtue of the fact that Corbett’s work was acknowledged and appreciated by the natives. Most other whites were rewarded for their charitable work with hatred. And some, like the missionaries Edmund Hodgson and Elton Knauf, suffered torture and death at the hands of the natives for whom they had labored their entire lives.

In hindsight it appears to me that men like Corbett and Hodgson should have stayed in Europe and worked to defend Christendom from the heathens instead of trying to make heathens part of Christendom. But what we cannot say about the liberals, that their hearts were in the right place, we can say with certainty about whites like Corbett. Their hearts were in the right place. They tried to convert the heathens of color. Their efforts were unsuccessful because of the colored peoples’ hatred of the light, not because of any failing on their part.

Will I not concede any imperfections in the whites who lived and worked in the colored lands? No, I will not, because throughout Liberaldom there is a hue and cry against the whites who took up the white man’s burden. I will not join the mob of liberal Jacobins. When taken for all in all -- and that is how human beings should be taken – the white man’s efforts on behalf of the colored heathens should be lauded to the skies, not condemned and covered with liberal scorn and derision.

The liberals present themselves as the light-givers. On a daily basis they shed light on the terrible racist past of the white men who ruined the Eden-like perfection of the colored lands. In print, television, and movie the white man is depicted as the great despoiler of the noble colored people. But is this unquestioned doctrine of the liberals true? Isn’t there anyone left who can see that the liberal Emperor has no clothes on? The naked truth is this: Wherever the Christian European went – China, Africa, India, and so on – the colored heathens in those lands were shown there was something infinitely more sublime and beautiful to be found in Christianity than in their heathen faiths. What has happened since the white man left the colored lands? The natives have returned to their Egyptian night.

I wouldn’t want to see the white imperial era return, not because the whites of that time period were evil – far from it – but because I don’t think whites should waste their spiritual energy in a futile attempt to convert colored heathens to the light. Far better to keep the faith in your own corner of Europe and let the heathen who has the humility to do so learn by the example of the Christian Europeans. Still, what the antique Europeans did by going to the lands of the colored barbarians and trying to convert them was far better than what the modern Europeans have done: they have denounced Christianity and invited the colored people into the European lands so that they can worship them, always reserving the center of the church altar for the black gods.

And we must ask, “Is this what our ancestors fought for during the Christian era of Europe? Did Alfred fight so that his posterity could worship negroes? Did the great composers, writers, painters, and sculptors of Christian Europe work and labor so that colored barbarians could destroy the work of centuries in one moment? Everywhere we see Satan triumphant. He has placed black idols at the center of what used to be Christian Europe, and he has managed to turn Christian worship into negro worship. Such abominations will end when the Europeans’ awake from their death-in-life existence. What would it take to awaken them? If God took flesh, dwelt among them, was crucified, died and was buried, and then rose again from the dead, would that revive the death-in-life Europeans? Yes, it would, and it shall. The neo-pagan is wrong to try to abandon the Cross. It is now and always shall be our hope, our strength, and our salvation. We need to strip all the theological blasphemies and anemic ethical systems away from the Cross. The Cross is a flame, a sword; it is the symbol and substance of Europe. By the Cross we conquer.

The liberal has pushed Satanism to its logical extreme: the worship of the negro and his culture and the demonization of the Christian European and his culture. It certainly would have been preferable to live in the 1950’s and the early 1960’s when white people still had a Christian hangover. But the evil was present then, couched in high-sounding words such as ‘civil rights.’ Now with the benefit of hindsight, we can see that the civil rights movement was the final nail in the coffin of Christian Europe. From that movement came women’s rights, which means abortion rights, and diversity, which means the extermination of white people. Satan needed a sign of contradiction to be the focal point of his earthly reign. And the negro was chosen to be that sign of contradiction to Christian Europe. Christ cannot reign in a nation consecrated to the negro. And if the whole world is consecrated to the negro? Then the Son of Man will have no place to lay His head and all the earth will resemble our modern college campuses where lost souls wander in and out of houses of desolation.

In the not-to-distant past, when there were a few social conservatives left in the conservative ranks, American conservatives would debate whether America was polluting Europe or Europe was polluting America. When Obama was elected that question was answered. The Europeans are like unto the American Europeans, but the United States has earned the title of The Most Satanic Nation on earth. When the Ayatollah Khomeini called the U.S. the “Great Satan” he was correct, but he was correct for the wrong reason. The Ayatollah looked on the U.S. as the foremost nation of Christendom, which made the U.S., from the Ayatollah’s Muslim perspective, the Great Satan. In reality, the U.S. was and is the leader of the new anti-Christian states of Europe. The sooner the current rulers of this nation and their European puppets are dead and gone, the sooner we can rebuild Christendom, purged of the colored tribesmen and the mad-dog liberals.

It has been a heart-breaking experience for me to watch my children, who were raised in the Europe of Walter Scott, have to go out into the cities of desolation in an effort to make a living. I recently told one of those children, now an adult, that I was sorry I hadn’t managed to fix it so she never had to have anything to do with Liberaldom. My daughter told me, “At least I know that Europe, and I’ll always carry the memory of it in my heart.” God bless her.

The death of Christian Europe is like the death of a loved one. The pain of their passing is only eased by the memory of their life here on earth and the hope of their resurrection to a better life. Of course the analogy isn’t a perfect one. All mortal men must die in the flesh so they can live eternally in the spirit; such is the will of God. But Christian Europe did not have to die; its death was not the will of God, but the will of the liberals and their master. And that is where our passionate hate should come into play. If we spend our whole life hating Satan’s Liberaldom, hating it because we love His Europe, we will at least be able to say we kept faith with our people and our God.

As regards our daily existence the Christian hangover years were certainly better than this our modern age. During the hangover years, there was still a certain sense of modesty and decorum between the sexes, and ordinary kindness had not yet become the political entitlement of only one sainted race. But there is one great advantage for an antique European living in modern Liberaldom. That one great advantage consists in this: The liberals have flown their colors. They have raised the flag of negro worship for all the world to see. Wherever that flag flies, we can strike home and know we strike an enemy.

I’ve been forced to observe the liberals at work and play for many years. And two pillars of liberalism stand out as the primary pillars of the liberal cathedral. Those two pillars are the church and the university. Every major university at one time was an adjunct of a Christian church. Now every church is an adjunct of the university. Such a reversal was inevitable once the church men unfettered reason from revelation and the human heart. If reason is all, why shouldn’t the academy, the citadel of unfettered reason, be all? But if reason is all why did the Christian churches’ only genuine theologian tell us that understanding comes from the heart and ignorance stems from the blindness of the heart? Academy and church keep the anti-European bonfire aflame and the flag of negro worship flying. At the onset I said that Edward James Corbett had no mystical powers, that he was just a white man whose Christianity was bred in the bone. That type of faith is far greater than any mystic mumbo-jumbo. The white man with such a faith will endure to the end. We must refuse to evolve, and stay with the bred in the bone faith of our ancestors who rejected the wisdom of the sages and placed their hope in the foolishness of The Cross. By the Cross we conquer. +

That Which Endures

Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

-Dylan Thomas

It’s truly remarkable, and not in a good way, that not one of the remaining presidential candidates cares to bring up the only question that matters: Do the European people have the right to survive as a distinct people? If the answer to that question is ‘yes’, then the presidential candidates should outline their programs for the preservation of the European people, who one would have thought were at least as important a resource as natural gas or oil.

Since no candidate has brought up the most important issue, we must conclude that none of the candidates think the survival of the European people is an important issue. In fact, I would go further. I think all the presidential candidates subscribe to the proposition that the world will be a better place when there is no such thing as a European.

Because the Republican presidential candidates have already given their assent to the extermination of the white race, this upcoming election will not be an election, as some conservatives have suggested, to determine whether the United States will become a third world nation or remain a viable European-style nation. That determination has already been made: the United States will become a non-European third world nation. What the election will determine is just how fast the United States will move toward third world status. The Democrats and their little black idol favor Babylon Now, while the Republicans, with the exception of Gingrich, prefer a slightly slower movement toward third world Babylonian status. I will vote for any Republican other than Gingrich, but in doing so I have no illusion that I’ll be voting for a man who wants to preserve the European people by ending all illegal immigration, restricting all legal immigration to whites only, and evicting all the colored people from the country. I’ll be voting for a President who prefers to execute his European prisoners in small groups at monthly intervals in contrast to his more impatient opponent who wants all Europeans shot at dawn.

The American political contests, in which every candidate tries to be inclusive and non-European, remind me of August Strindberg’s play The Dance of Death. In that play Strindberg, who had the misfortune to marry a feminist, describes a marriage that has become hell because one partner in the marriage has decided to rewrite the laws of Christian marriage. The European, who was wedded to Christ, has become the female harpy depicted in Strindberg’s play. God’s merciful ordering of existence became unbearable to the European rationalist, and he plays the part of the shrewish female: “I will have my way and not God’s way.” Hence the dance of death, in which white, soulless puppets dance to the music with Satan playing the tune.

What would it take to make a European cut the strings binding him to Satan and walk away from the dance of death? It would take a sustained, passionate rage against the dying of the light. Dylan Thomas was speaking not only to his father but to all Europeans when he urged us to “Rage, rage against the dying of the light.” But against whom should that rage be directed? And who will hear our passionate, enraged cry from the depths of our soul? Does the light still shineth in darkness? The European doesn’t know. He doesn’t know, because the rationalists of Church and academy have convinced the poor, bare, unaccommodated European that the outer crust of existence, the part of existence that can be put into a silver rod to be analyzed and discussed via the dialectic, is the whole of existence.

Faith does not exist on the surface of life, that outer crust that can be seen with the material eye. Faith exists only in the depths of the heart. A man must see life feelingly or he won’t be a man. Europeans are entering the last phase of a hideous dance of death, because they have blinders on their hearts:

Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart. – Ephesians 4:18

If the European stays on the outer crust of existence with his inclusive democracy, fusionist Christianity, and racial Babylon, he will surely die. But if he sees life feelingly and rejects inclusive democracy, fusionist Christianity, and racial Babylon, he will walk away from the dance of death and start to rebuild Christian Europe in whatever blessed plot of land in Christendom that God gave him to love over all. If the European’s love is like unto His love, and the European’s passion is like unto His passion, he will prevail over all the forces of hell which now seem so invincible. Lest we forget, the true European, the European who sees with his heart, knows not “seems.” The Hamlet analogy is apropos. Claudius was guilty of fratricide and regicide. And like Claudius, the modern rulers of Liberaldom are guilty of fratricide and regicide: the fratricide of negro worship, which entails the sacrificial offering of your kith and kin to the black gods, and the regicide of democracy, which entails the murder of all Christian kings and the dethronement of Christ the King, is absolutely essential for the survival of Liberaldom. (1) And the one thing necessary to ensure that fratricide and regicide remain the ruling principles of Liberaldom is the institutionalization of superficiality. There must be no Hamlets, no men of depth, because it is in the depths of the human heart that a man finds the truth about God and man. Listen to Claudius’s attempt to gloss over fratricide and regicide with platitudes:

'Tis sweet and commendable in your nature, Hamlet,
To give these mourning duties to your father:
But, you must know, your father lost a father;
That father lost, lost his, and the survivor bound
In filial obligation for some term
To do obsequious sorrow: but to persever
In obstinate condolement is a course
Of impious stubbornness; 'tis unmanly grief;
It shows a will most incorrect to heaven,
A heart unfortified, a mind impatient,
An understanding simple and unschool'd:
For what we know must be and is as common
As any the most vulgar thing to sense,
Why should we in our peevish opposition
Take it to heart? Fie! 'tis a fault to heaven,
A fault against the dead, a fault to nature,
To reason most absurd: whose common theme
Is death of fathers, ...

The liberals follow the same method as Claudius. They cloak their murderous intentions with high-sounding words: “Tis a fault to heaven if you are not inclusive,” the halfway-house Christians tell us. “Tis a fault to nature if you don’t worship the natural savage,” the mad-dog liberals tell us. And we have heard the other banalities too: we are stubborn, unmanly, simple, and unschool’d -- the liberals must have been schooled by Claudius! But we should look past the platitudes, as Hamlet did, and see the evil that lurks behind the wall of platitudes. Yes, we are stubbornly committed to the God of old Europe rather than the black gods of the modern European. Yes, we are unschooled and simple enough to love our own people, and we are ‘unmanly’ enough to shed tears for the death of our people. But the liberal should take note: first we weep, then we fight. There shall be a reckoning:

Hamlet. Here, thou incestuous, murderous, damned Dane,
Drink off this potion! Is thy union here?
Follow my mother! [King dies.

We know against whom our rage should be directed -- against the liberals and the colored barbarians. They have one abiding passion, the hatred of the white European. And we know to whom we should go for aid in the last great fight of all. Dylan Thomas’s prayer was a prayer to the unknown God; our prayer is to Christ the Lord.

When I went to college it seemed that every student in the dorm had the Henry David Thoreau poster: “If a man does not keep pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured or far away.” Every student fashioned himself a rebel stepping to the music of a different drummer, when in reality the students were one large herd of cattle, stepping to the same music, the music of modernity. The rulers of Liberaldom are the same as those students (in fact some of those students are the current rulers of Liberaldom); they fashion themselves as rebels against the status quo when in reality they are the status quo. The liberal rule of misrule is one big carny show. Behind the glittering lights of new, technological gizmos, and newer, better people -- better because they are not white -- is the grinning, hideous face of Satan.

The neo-pagan blames the Christian faith for the demise of the European. ‘Tis not so; the rise of the European people stemmed from their faith in Christ. When the Europeans’ passionate faith in Christ turned into moral theology, then the European people declined. When faith becomes a series of moral precepts, genuine faith dies. The moral theologians, pagan and Christian, never seemed to grasp the fact that a man must have his passions and his sentiments. Those who want to replace passion and sentiment with rationality must be judged, as Richard Weaver said, “the most subversive enemies of society and culture.”

Christ didn’t come to destroy man’s passions; quite the contrary, He came to inflame men’s passion for the things of the spirit. Illicit passions cannot be defeated by philosophy or moral precepts. A man’s passion for all women can only be overcome by his passionate love for one woman. A man’s lust for money and power can only be overcome by a passionate love for the God-Man, who bids us seek a Kingdom that is not of this world. And so it will always be; only passion can defeat passion.

The culture created by the European people was a miracle of grace. Their culture was not, as were the cultures of the people of color, created to give religious sanction to man’s baser passions. The Europeans’ culture, inspired by their passionate love for the Man of Sorrows, was based on the passions and sentiments that elevate a man, rather than debase him.

We come once again to the subject of these wars. The European people are hated because they were the Christ-bearing people. Even those who are willing to renounce their race are still suspect because they are the same color as the Europeans of old. And those of us who will not renounce the antique Europeans and their God? We are to be exterminated. But our hope lies in precisely that which the liberals order us to renounce. If we love the European hearth of our ancestors, where kith, kin and Christ were honored and loved, with a passionate intensity which passeth the understanding of the liberal and the colored barbarian, we will have the best hope of prevailing in the battle against principalities and powers. +

________________________________________

(1) In a very revealing remark, France’s President Sarkozy said recently that his country is a "regicide country" whose people "could, for the sake of a symbolic measure, overthrow the country." He’s proud of it! It makes me want to rise and ride for God and King!

Against a Regicide Peace with the Liberals

They never will love where they ought to love, who do not hate where they ought to hate. – Edmund Burke

Burke had great success in turning the tide of English public opinion against the French revolution, but he was not successful in convincing his fellow countrymen that the war against France should continue even after the death of Robespierre resulted in a diminution of bloodshed. The same regicides who had killed the king and broke with all the traditions of Christian Europe were still in power and still unrepentant.

The murderers of Robespierre, besides what they are entitled to by being engaged in the same tontine of Infamy, are his Representatives; have inherited all his murderous qualities, in addition to their own private stock. But it seems, we are always to be of a party with the last and victorious Assassins. I confess, I am of a different mind; and am, rather inclined, of the two, to think and speak less hardly of a dead ruffian, than to associate with the living. I could better bear the stench of the gibbeted murderer, than the society of the bloody felons who yet annoy the world. Whilst they wait the recompense due to their ancient crimes, they merit new punishment by the new offences they commit. There is a period to the offences of Robespierre. They survive in his Assassins. Better a living dog, says the old proverb, than a dead lion; not so here. Murderers and hogs never look well till they are hanged.

Burke poured his whole heart and soul into his letters against Regicide France and, by his own admission, was broken-hearted when his countrymen were willing to sup with the devil.

The same anti-Christian principles that Burke so correctly and passionately urged his countryman to fight against are the principles on which the nations of Europe have built Liberaldom. Every European nation has traveled the same road, some at slower rates than the other nations but in the end every European nation arrived at the liberal wayside inn; the inn of liberty from God, equality with the ape, and fraternity with the devil. And the Goddess of Abstract Reason was the lodestar that guided the Europeans to the wonderful utopian inn in which the negro is worshipped and adored in the chapel by the staircase and abortions are provided in the room down the hall.

There is no room for the Christian European in the inn of the Regicide liberals who have killed Christ, the crowned King of Europe. But why should we want a place in an inn reserved for Regicides? I’m sick to death of white nationalist and conservative leaders who tell white people to remain democratic, non-violent, and respectful of other races so the liberals and the colored barbarians will allow white people to live in Babylon. The problem with such advice is that it is based on three false abstractions.

1. As long as you have a democracy you will have a liberal oligarchy of men and women who know how to manipulate the masses through a system that rewards politically correct behavior, such as negro worship, and punishes anti-social behavior, such as the refusal to worship negroes. We are not permitted to vote for rulers who do not worship negroes, because no candidate is permitted to run for office who does not pay tribute to the gods of color.

Democracy is not compatible with the Christian faith of the antique European. You can’t take a vote to determine truth. There have been Christian republics and Christian monarchies, but there has never been – and there never shall be – a Christian democracy. The end result of democratic government is Babylon, which is opposed to the faith from which all our legitimate governments come: “On that religion, according to our mode, all our laws and institutions stand as upon their base.” (Burke) We need to destroy democratic, Babylon and return to our base.

2. It sounds very nice to say, “I’m against all violence,” but who is being served when white men renounce “all violence”? The blacks who murder and rape are being served, because if white people remain nonviolent blacks will not be held accountable for their crimes. And the white-hating liberals will be served because they will retain power, free to abort babies and worship the negro. It is not Christian to maintain a Quaker-like pacifism in the face of an enemy like the liberals and the colored barbarians, who are alternately the liberals’ gods and their henchmen.

The white nationalists’ call for non-violence in the face of negro atrocities could only come from white men who have abstracted themselves from existence. In the abstract non-violence sounds good, but when actual people, your own people, are the victims of terrible atrocities, perpetrated by the barbarians of color and encouraged by the liberals, a call for non-violence is not just muddle-headed, it is obscene. There are tactical considerations; when surrounded by Caesar’s assassins with their daggers still covered with Caesar’s blood, Mark Antony let them think he was going to passively accept their butchery of his friend. But such was not the case:

O, pardon me, thou bleeding piece of earth,
That I am meek and gentle with these butchers!
Thou are the ruins of the noblest man
That every lived in the tide of times…

Shall in these confines with a monarch’s voice
Cry “Havoc,” and let slip the dogs of war,
That this foul deed shall smell above the earth
With carrion men, groaning for burial.

Can such passion only come from a pagan? It was a Christian who put those words in Antony’s mouth.

And they were Christian soldiers who rode with Forrest when he assumed the leadership of the Ku Klux Klan. The only reason that the Southerners of the late 1800’s did not suffer the same fate as the French in 1798 Haiti was because Forrest and his fellow soldiers loved their own enough to eschew platitudes and to respond to violence with violence. The white Southerners only succumbed to the forces of Babylon when they became non-violent and democratic in the 1950s. The same can be said of South African whites. They avoided the wholesale extermination of white people in 1838 when Andries Pretorious avenged the massacre of Piet Retief and his followers by killing those responsible for the massacre, and they fell victim to systematic extermination in 1994 when they became democratic and non-violent. Should this really be that hard to comprehend? There is no mercy in the colored barbarian; we have ample proof of that. And the liberal? Will he try to stay the hand of his black gods? Never! The revolutionary, Mikhail Bakunin, stated the underlying ethos of the liberal:

All tender and gentle feelings of kinship, friendship, love, gratitude and even honor itself should be choked off in the revolutionary’s breast by the single cold passion of his revolutionary task. He is not a revolutionary if he has pity for anything in the world. He knows only one science – the science of destruction. He lives in the world with a single aim – its total and swift destruction.

Most liberals do not have the will to maniacally and consistently break off all human ties, but Bakunin’s ideology of hate is their ideology. The only difference between the liberals and Bakunin is that now the liberals are the establishment. Their task is to preserve Liberaldom and destroy all resistance, in contrast to Bakunin who wanted to destroy the existing order and preserve and nurture the revolutionary cabals. But in their cruelty and in their hate of Christian Europe the liberals and Bakunin are one.

How can a professed white nationalist remain a pacifist in the face of such ideological hatred against whites, particularly when that hatred is the direct cause of the murder of white people? A man cannot remain passive in the face of such ideological hatred, but a modern caricature of a man, a man who wants to jettison actual flesh and blood white people for a new world order in which white, black, yellow and brown all share equal but separate portions of Babylon, can remain passive and indifferent to the murder of white people and their culture. And therein lies the secret of the pagan, white nationalist. He has more in common with the liberal who looks to the future than he has with the white Christian European who looks to the past. He and his liberal soul-mate merely differ over the allotment of the utopian pie.

Thus far I have only talked about the white nationalist’s bizarre views on violence and the defense of the white race. But we need to look at the conservative Christian’s – or what I call the halfway-house Christian’s – views of violence in defense of the white race as well. The halfway-house Christian has no problem with violence if it is state-sponsored violence against people far away in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Palestine. Saturation bombing of innocent civilians far away is a holy and good thing in the eyes of the “conservative” Christian. But what about local killing in defense of white people? I think you know the answer to that question. How can the sacrificial killing of white people by black people be called murder? Can mere mortals judge gods?

The conservative’s love for murder if it is far away and condemnation of killing in defense if it is local is not confined to the issue of white self-defense. I once mentioned to a fellow pro-lifer of Irish extraction, who regularly sent large checks to the communists in the IRA so that they could kill innocent English civilians, that abortion doctors should be killed. The tough IRA enthusiast suddenly became a mad-dog pacifist before my very eyes. “Killing an abortion doctor would be murder,” he told me. I remember thinking of those lines from King Lear: “Tis the time’s plague, when madmen lead the blind.” The conservative who eschews violence in defense of the innocents at home and applauds violence against the innocents abroad is most assuredly mad, and those who follow him are most assuredly blind.

Most old saws are correct, but the old saw that proclaims “sticks and stones can break my bones, but names can never hurt me” is incorrect. Louis XVI, his Queen, and his son were killed because the French philosophers put the tyrant’s name upon the King. White people are being murdered and their lands pillaged because the liberals have been demonizing white people in print, pulpit, and university for the past fifty years. The barbarians of color did the murders, but the liberals provided the words that convinced the white grazers that they were not a people who had a right to self-defense.

The seemingly insurmountable obstacles preventing white self-defense, such as the extreme isolation of modern life and the negro-worshipping nature of all our major institutions, would not seem as insurmountable if white people believed themselves to be a people distinct from other races of people, with a common heritage that was worth preserving. Then they would work to stay in non-diverse communities and defend their own from governmental and barbarian encroachments. It wouldn’t be an easy task; the enemy is maniacal and implacable, but an integral (as distinct from an integrated) white populace could prevail over the liberal and the colored barbarian. It all starts, the white counter revolution, with a deep and abiding love and respect for the people of antique Europe and the heritage they bequeathed to us.

3. It’s all very high-minded I’m sure to say that we, as white people, respect all cultures and all religions, but such claims, which I hear ad nauseum from the white nationalists and the conservatives, are at best empty verbiage and at worst harmful to white people. All a white person can say about other non-white cultures is what Dickens said in his article on the “Noble Savage”:

We have no greater justification for being cruel to the miserable object, than for being cruel to a William Shakespeare or an Isaac Newton; but he passes away before an immeasurably better and higher power than ever ran wild in any earthly woods, and the world will be all the better when his place knows him no more.

We certainly have no justification for being cruel to the lesser breeds without the law. But we have every justification for protecting ourselves against liberals and militant colored barbarians who do not believe in charity or tolerance.

There are two fallacies in the modern propaganda of tolerance, “you respect my culture and I’ll respect yours.” The first fallacy is what we have just articulated: liberals and black barbarians do not want to respect any culture other than their own, especially the white European culture. And the second fallacy is linked to the first: how can people who have no concept of charity or mercy, like the liberals and the black barbarians, have any respect for a people who want to maintain their link to Christian Europe where men revered the God of charity and mercy? The principle of “you respect my culture and I’ll respect yours” can only be applied to differences between Christian European nations. – CWNY -- The Heroic Temper

The triune principles of democracy, non-violence, and tolerance are not the guiding principles of the Europeans. We are not democratic; the truths of our faith and the fate of our people shall not be determined by popular vote. Nor are we committed to non-violence in the face of evil. And lastly, we are intolerant of any faith or race other than our own, and we are intolerant of aggressive, militant barbarians of color who seek to impose their faith, which is really an absence of faith, on the European people.

How should we then live? If we are anti-democratic, violent when necessary, and intolerant and disrespectful toward colored barbarians and liberals, we will be keeping faith with our people and our God. And that is all that matters. +

In Spite of Liberaldom

That nature which contemns its origins
Cannot be bordered certain in itself

-Shakespeare

The billboards in Duluth, Minnesota on which white people are depicted as loathsome reptiles not fit to live were put up by the mad-dog, liberal Directory of Duluth. The usual suspects make up the Directory:

Central Labor Body
CHUM (Churches United in Ministry)
City of Duluth (the white, effeminate Mayor, Don Ness – no relation to Eliot – from the Mayor’s Office, the Human Rights Commission, and the American Indian Commission)
Community Action Duluth
Domestic Abuse Intervention
Lake Superior College
NAACP
St. Louis County Public Health and Human Services
University of Minnesota Duluth
University of Minnesota Superior
YMCA

It’s not often that white-hating liberals surprise me by the extent of their white-hating programs, but I must admit to being somewhat surprised by the billboards. It’s so blatant. If I were a mad-dog liberal on Ness’s advisory committee, I would have advised them not to be so blatantly anti-white, lest they arouse some whites, who had, prior to now, been too stupefied to act in their own behalf. Then again, jackals and vultures have an instinct for carrion, so maybe Ness and the Directory knew the white grazers were soul-dead and would not tear down the posters and launch a punitive expedition against Don Ness and company. Kipling warned the world that the English “were not easily moved,” but when they were they were dangerous:

It was not suddenly bred,
It will not swiftly abate,
Through the chill years ahead.
When Time shall count from the date
That the English began to hate.

Would that such a chilling prophecy was true today, not just of Englishmen but of all white men.

What has happened to the white man? Why does he permit his race to be vilified? Does he really believe what the liberals say about the white man? Unfortunately, to a large extent the white grazer does believe what the liberals say about the white race. He accepts the liberals’ interpretation of the white man’s history, which is, according to the liberals, a history of white exploitation of the colored races. Where the grazer differs from the liberal is on the subject of racism present. The white grazer does not believe he is racist, and he resents being told he is. For a time the “institutionalized racism” charge, that is, “you’re not necessarily racist but all your institutions are” kept the white man’s resentment at bay. Not anymore. Every major institution is stocked full of colored barbarians. So the resentment smolders: “Why am I accused of racism and labeled a pariah?” The white grazer doesn’t do anything with his resentment, because he doesn’t know what to do with it. Instead he tries harder to prove he is not racist and grumbles in private to his fellow grazers about being called a racist.

The white grazers lack two things that are needed to make them into white men again: they lack leadership and they lack faith. And the two components, leadership and faith, are interrelated. When the European intelligentsia, which consisted of the clergy, the academics, the politicians, and the journalists, succumbed to rationalism, they inevitably – over time – infected the European people with their faithless faith. The emergence of negro worship within the ranks of the white intelligentsia signified the failure of rationalistic materialism. Something more, something with blood in it, was needed. Enter the black Übermensch. Not exactly what Nietzsche envisioned, but negro worship is the logical outcome of a fusion of rationalism and vitalism. It’s the bloodless rationalist’s attempt to renew his blood by losing himself in the sacred blood of the black man. The once-Christian liberal will always keep elements of Christianity, in twisted, perverted forms, in his new Christless faith. Christians once believed that they were saved by Christ’s redeeming blood. Now the liberal believes that he will be freed from his rationalist prison by fusing his lifeless blood with the “vital, earthy, sexy” blood of the black man. It sounds insane, this new religion of the white intelligentsia, but it is their religion. They are attempting to become pagans again, not realizing there is no vitalism in blood without the spirit; there is only death. The antique Europeans were vital because their blood was infused with the spirit of God. That infusion of spirit and blood is quite different from the satanic fusion of white and black blood that the modern Europeans seek.

The great English historian, Herbert Butterfield, stressed that most of the important changes in the Europeans’ history came quietly, almost imperceptibly, while the noisier, seemingly more important events, but in reality less significant, got all the attention. He cites the Protestant-Catholic divide of the 1500s as an example of one of the less significant developments that got all the attention while a more significant revolution occurred that quietly changed the European people forever. That revolution was the scientific revolution of the late 1600s and early 1700s. The Protestant revolt was not an atheistic revolt against God; it was, in its essence, the revolt of a Christian people against a clerical elite that valued an abstract, rational system more than Christ. In contrast the scientific revolt was a revolt of positivist materialism, even though the original advocates of it were professed Christians. If that philosophy prevailed in Europe, the European would be worse than ere he ever was, because prior to his embrace of the Christian faith the European had ‘eat, drink, and be merry’ paganism to comfort him. Unable to return to paganism and unable to believe in Christ, the European would be lost. And of course that is what has happened. Positivist materialism, which sailed into Europe on the good ship Abstract Theology, has triumphed in Europe. There will be no revival of European culture or the European people until the positivist, materialist dragon is faced and overcome. But in order to face the dragon we must be connected to our past and believe what our ancestors believed. In the absence of that connection and belief we are dead souls whose spiritless faces appear on billboards that proclaim the evil of white people.

The liberal does not forbid the white grazers to invoke their past because the whites of the past were racist; that’s just a subterfuge. The liberal has closed the door on the Europeans’ past because he can’t bear to look at life as the antique Europeans did. Only the European of the old stock looked positivist materialism in the face without caving into despair. He didn’t need the soul-deadening escapism of negro worship because he had a faith in the God who lived. Life is indeed unbearable without faith, but the white cannot return to paganism. If he won’t have the faith of his ancestors, he will have oblivion.

The great enemy of the white man are those whites who jettison the Europeans’ Christian past in order to lead mankind to a new and brighter future in which the white man becomes one with inanimate nature, rather than transcending dumb nature through faith in Jesus Christ. Tolstoy was one of those false prophets of the future. He rejected St. Paul’s Christianity and replaced it with a type of Jungian, Emersonian, over-soul religion in which a man’s personality is extinguished by death, but he survives as an essence. The reluctant atheist, Anton Chekhov, rejected Tolstoy’s brave new faith.

He recognizes immortality in its Kantian form, assuming that all of us (men and animals) will live on in some principle (such as reason or love), the essence of which is a mystery. But I can only imagine such a principle or force as a shapeless, gelatinous mass; my I, my individuality, my consciousness, would merge with this mass – and I feel no need for this kind of immortality.

Nor do I. Chekhov gives us life without a commercial. The men and women he writes about are personalities of infinite worth, but because of some horrendous cruel trick of the universe they are condemned to die and fade into nothingness. But is that the promised end? Even Chekhov the atheist saw hope in the European past:

Now the student was thinking about Vasilisa: if she wept, it meant that everything that had happened with Peter on that dreadful night had some relation to her…

He looked back. The solitary fire flickered peacefully in the darkness, and the people around it could no longer be seen. The student thought again that if Vasilisa wept and her daughter was troubled, then obviously what he had just told them, something that had taken place nineteen centuries ago, had a relation to the present—to both women, and probably to this desolate village, to himself, to all people. If the old woman wept, it was not because he was able to tell it movingly, but because Peter was close to her and she was interested with her whole being in what had happened in Peter’s soul.

And joy suddenly stirred in his soul, and he even stopped for a moment to catch his breath. The past, he thought, is connected with the present in an unbroken chain of events flowing one out of the other. And it seemed to him that he had just seen both ends of that chain: he touched one end, and the other moved.

Maybe Chekhov was not the atheist he purported to be. For one moment when he wrote of the event that took place nineteen centuries ago, Chekhov stood in the presence of the redeemer who defeated dumb nature and will stand between us and extinction at the hour of our death. Would that Chekhov had been able hold to that vision for more than one shining moment.

It was Chekhov’s countryman, Dostoyevsky, the prophet with blinding sight, who diagnosed Chekhov’s dilemma and the dilemma of the modern European. “Can an intelligent man, a European, believe in the divinity of Christ?” The intelligentsia of Europe answered Dostoyevsky’s question with a definitive ‘no.’ But why should the answer to that question, the only question that matters, be no? Why should the advent of science make Christianity false?

In my father’s hometown the town character had an answer for anyone who wanted to talk about rocket ships and space. “Space is no place,” he told the townspeople. And likewise, “science is nothing.” It is not wise, because wisdom comes from the heart, and science has no heart. Chekhov was right to weep in the face of death. But he was wrong to separate his heart, which wept, from his head, which saw only dumb nature claiming its own when a human soul passed from this world to the next. Shouldn’t our tears in the face of death remind us of the Man of Sorrows who wept in the face of Lazarus’s death? And shouldn’t the heart that truly loves remember what occurred on that day long ago? “Lazurus – come forth!” I have much more sympathy for Europeans like Chekhov, who want to believe but cannot see past the façade of the material world to the spiritual world, than I have for the liberals who rejoice at the demise of Christianity and place their hopes in the fusion of science and negro worship. But ultimately, whether it is the heartfelt hopelessness of Chekhov, or the triumphant, satanic glee of the liberals, I don’t understand them. Nor do I want to understand them. A European who is connected to His Europe and His people will know, in his blood, that his redeemer liveth. The strength of the European people was always their faith in Christ. In the midst of paganism they cried out from the depths, “In life, in death, O Lord, abide with us.”

A false conservatism seeks to preserve the forms of things past even if those forms no longer conserve the spiritual values of one’s ancestors but are in fact used to further the destruction of the older civilization’s spiritual reserves. There is no need to preserve our democratic process, our established churches, our universities, or our “free” press. What needs to be preserved are our ties to the past, our ties to a people who placed their kith and kin above all others.

The grazers will return to their blood when the remnant band produces leaders who see with blinding sight because they see life with the heart of an antique European. Nationalist leaders who reject the Europeans’ Christian past are no more fit to lead white people away from the darkness of negro worship than a chimpanzee is fit to command a battleship. The European hero is a Christ-bearer, a warrior. His weapons are vision and memory, the vision of the Risen Lord and the memory of a Europe that was consecrated to Him.

The liberal Directory of Duluth did white people a favor. They made it crystal clear. Church and state consider themselves in a holy war against all things European. Since mercy only abides in old Europe we can expect no mercy from the rulers of Liberaldom. And to expect mercy from the barbarians of color is the height of absurdity. We have no choice but to call on Him who saves and ask Him to abide with us in the day of battle. +