An Integrated Sewer

Long before a people develop a constitution and written laws, they develop traditions and codes of behavior based on their religion. These traditions and codes of behavior are infinitely more important than the paper and ink that comes later in the form of constitutions and codified laws. Since a nation’s tradition stems from the people’s faith, any subsequent written law must conform to that sacred tradition if it is to be a valid law. Laws are not sacred because they are laws; they are sacred when they codify some aspect of a sacred tradition.

The problem that arises in nations with a long history of codified laws is that the people often retain a respect for the law when the laws of that nation no longer support the religious tradition that formed the nation. Worldly wise revolutionaries in the Western European countries have learned that it is far better to destroy a traditional culture through legal, lawful means than to throw bombs into government buildings. Through trial and error, the revolutionaries have learned that a revolution wrought by law takes longer but is more long-lasting because there is never any counter-revolutionary reaction. In fact, the most passive element of the populace will be the very people who would have opposed the revolution had the revolution been an old-fashioned, violent one. But having made a whited sepulchre of the law, divorced from any religious tradition, the ‘conservative’ element of the populace simply acquiesces to every hideous aspect of the new, radical, lawful regime. It is no coincidence that the United States, whose people pride themselves on their Constitution and their respect for law, now has the most radical, anti-Christian government on the face of the earth.

Satan does not require a majority or even a large minority to complete a successful revolution in a traditionally Christian nation. All Satan requires is a small minority completely dedicated to him and a lukewarm moral majority on the other side. We are told that the Lord vomits out the lukewarm. And if we look at the history of the Christian West, particularly the United States, we can see why. Satan’s minions are the “worst” who are full of the “passionate intensity” that Yeats wrote about. And the “best” are the lukewarm ones who “lack all conviction.” Satan’s minions cannot be stopped by a middle-of-the-road, lukewarm faith. The devil can always make that type of faith work to his advantage. The abortion wars were a perfect example.

In the early 1970’s there was a moral consensus against abortion. But the moral consensus came from a majority who were not intensely against the slaughter of innocents. They thought it was wrong but not all that wrong: “there are special circumstances under which...” We’ve all heard that song before. What Satan plays on so adroitly is the half-truth. He takes one part of Christianity and makes it the whole. In the case of legalized abortion, he focused on the chivalrous instincts of the European male. It is right to cede to the wishes of a Christian woman on all matters pertaining to the cradle, hearth, and kitchen. But when a woman steps away from the Christian hearth in defiance of God’s law and becomes a Lady Macbeth, is it still Christian to acquiesce to her wishes? Of course not. And only a lukewarm Christian would step back and allow a Lady Macbeth to have her will.

Satandom, like Christendom, was not built overnight. The devil has chipped away at Christian Europe and gradually dismantled it. Having established his rule, he now needs to consolidate it. He is following the same procedure that the Christian Europeans followed. After establishing traditions and codes of behavior based on their religious principles, they then sought to codify those principles into law. Satan has been codifying, through his minions, his religion into law for the past fifty years. Abortion, sodomy, and race-mixing have all been enshrined in law in the Western world in direct contradiction to the sacred traditions and the laws based on those traditions of Christian Europe. (1)

If the virtuous majority had had the passionate intensity of the satanic minority, Satan would not now be the king of Western civilization. But now that he is king, it will take a passionate Christian minority to begin the long, arduous process of unseating Satan from his throne. “We few, we happy few, we band of brothers” are no longer fighting in defense of Christendom -- Christendom is dead -- we are now fighting an offensive war against Satandom.

The recent election of Barack Obama to the Presidency of the United States has enormous significance for people of European blood. The election represents a new stage in Satan’s great consolidation effort. By giving sacred status to a mixed-blood Negro, the people of the United States have made a religion of race-mixing. If that new religion is followed to its ultimate conclusion, there will be no Europeans left to maintain a Christian counter-revolution.

There is another element in this ongoing satanic revolution that we must take note of. The worst, having achieved their satanic society without bloodshed because they thought the shedding of blood tactically unwise, will not be squeamish about shedding blood now that they have power. They will continue to preach nonviolence to the lukewarm in the increasingly unlikely probability that a few of the lukewarm might become intense; however, they, with the full weight of the government behind them, will become increasingly violent. And although we few, the last remnant of Europe, can occasionally adopt nonviolent means to counter the devil’s consolidation plans, we cannot be dogmatically nonviolent as the leftists were in their revolutionary takeover, for the reason that the lefties knew Christian Europeans would not use violence against them so long as they invoked the word “law.” But we know that quite the contrary is true for us. They will use violence against Europeans no matter what magic word we invoke. Anything that serves Satan is lawful to the liberal. We are at a disadvantage in that regard. But within the limits of Christian warfare, we should be violent when necessary. It is another trick of the devil to encourage, through our “Christian pastors,” the belief that pacifism and a Buddhistic indifference in the face of evil are virtues.

There is one great advantage that a modern man of European blood has over a European of the 1950’s. Now there is clarity. The European of the 1950’s could walk out into the streets of his city and see movies that by and large still supported indirectly, and sometimes directly, the faith on which his nation’s traditions and code of behavior were based. And whatever Christian church he entered would have still supported, at least in word, the faith that made Europe. But at the same time there was a disturbing undercurrent. The European man, in tune with the evening lingerings of European culture, could sense the dike was about to break and release a century’s worth of satanic refuse on his beloved nation.

And now, when everything Europeans held sacred has been defiled, the battle lines are clearly drawn. The European knows what has to be done. He doesn’t have to ask himself whether it is necessary to draw his sword. There is work enough for ten lifetimes before him. He can draw the sword and throw the sheath away.

I have read most of the ‘Death of the West’ books beginning with Spengler’s, who first started the genre in the early 1900’s. But there is only one author who correctly diagnosed the problem of the European. In his book, White Man Think Again, Anthony Jacob points out that the white man has not been defeated by an outside force, he has not been overwhelmed by the barbarians; he is in decline because of white liberalism. His destiny is in his own hands, or to be more precise, in his own soul. If he returns, in his heart, to the faith that transcends all constitutions and the historical process, he will once again be what he was meant to be, the Christ-Bearer. And then his children and his children’s children will know what it means to live in a segregated culture consecrated to God, instead of in an integrated sewer that empties into hell. +
____________________
(1) The Fundamentalists from Bob Jones University recently issued an apology for their former strictures against integration and interracial dating. Their capitulation indicates to me the insufficiency of the Scripture-alone approach to Christianity. The devil can cite Scripture for his own purpose if he is allowed to quote Scripture independent of the tradition and culture of the people who made Christ their King and Kinsman.

To whom can we appeal if there are different interpretations of the Scriptures? To the Pope? That solution has its problems as well. The Novus Ordo Catholics and the Traditionalist Catholics are constantly fighting it out over the “which pope?” question. So while the Scripture-alone Protestants and the “Scripture and documents as interpreted by the Pope” Catholics are arguing, the Christian everyman needs a guide.

What seems like an insoluble dilemma when posed as a problem in theology is not so great a problem when we see it through the eyes of faith. It is not possible to look at segregated Christian Europe and our modern integrated Babylon and say that integration and Negro-worship is God’s will. Is there one ounce of faith in the Protestant or the Catholic who makes such a blasphemous claim?

Well, they’ve flown their flag of Babylon. We will fly the colors of old Europe and “see them all to Davy Jones.”

Betrayal

I will forgive much if a man is sound on the race issue, and I will forgive nothing if he is not; which means I have few friends in the intelligentsia because the white intelligentsia has betrayed their race. And by the term ‘intelligentsia’ I mean those who make their living with pen and mind, not necessarily those who are intelligent.

The black intelligentsia defends blacks, the Mexican intelligentsia defends Mexicans, the Puerto Rican intelligentsia defends Puerto Ricans, etc. But only the white intelligentsia betrays its own.

The betrayal stems from a secularized Christianity perpetuated by cowardice.

It is the white man who embraced the Christian Faith, lived the Christian Faith, and held the image of the God-Man in the deepest regions of his soul. So, it is no coincidence that the most depraved, secularized versions of Christianity should also come from the soul of the white man. And the betrayal of one’s own race, the race which was the Christ-bearing race, is a base perversion of Christianity. The Good Samaritan was able to see the humanity of another because he saw the humanity of his own. He loved his own. He did not wake up in the morning and strangle his wife and children so that he could go out on the highway and help others. No, if he had done that he would not have been the type of man who would help others; he would not have been the Good Samaritan.

Of course, this is not a difficult concept to grasp. In fact, it takes a deliberate, cold-blooded dive into stupidity to so pervert the Good Samaritan parable, which is why I say the betrayal of the white race is perpetuated by cowardice. One does not get tenure if one is “racist,” one does not get published in the “higher class” publications, and one does not get the approval of one’s peers. But what about truth? What about faith, hope, and charity? How can we credit anything said by a member of the intelligentsia who bases his writing on a lie and a betrayal of his own? Of course, we can’t credit anything he says.

If one reads only respectable publications from the mainstream press – periodicals such as the New Republic and the National Review – and if one only circulates with people in academia or the clergy, one gets the impression that the hatred of whites and the worship of blacks is a universal sentiment that unites all people everywhere. But if one circulates with older white folk in the plus-45 age range who do not work in academia or in the sexier professional jobs, one gets a very different impression. Every time I meet such people (and sometimes, despite all liberal brainwashing, I meet younger ones), the same opinions surface: “We don’t have a crime problem, we have a black problem,” and, “You bet there are cultural differences – they are barbarians.”

Are these older whites simply prejudiced? Yes, they are prejudiced; they are prejudiced in the way they should be. They have a prejudice for truth rather than falsehood and a prejudice for decency over barbarism.

The reason that there must be such draconian methods used to enforce black worship is because it runs so counter to the truth. As with the enforcement of feminism, there can be no tolerance of any divergence from the party line, because the party knows that the slightest crack in the totalitarian system can bring the whole lie-infested structure down.

Very few members, almost none, of the white intelligentsia have dared to defend the white man and attack the black man. Anthony Jacob practically stands alone. He didn’t mind being called a racist, which he was not, nor a Nazi, which he also was not. He loved the older white civilization, and he defended what he loved. I honor him, and I revere him for his love for, and his passionate defense of, the civilization and the people that I love.

It is nothing short of lunacy, or Liberal unrealism, to attempt to meld civilized white men and uncivilized black men into an enduring ‘family unity’. The two cannot mix: and all attempts to make them mix will work gravely to the detriment of the Whites, upon whom civilization exclusively depends. To my mind it is self-evident that the Anglo-Saxon and the kindred peoples are absolutely irreplaceable, and that without them the civilization they engendered and represent would, with the possible exception of one or two curious deviations or malformations, soon cease to exist. Let there be no mistake about this. When we speak of civilization we are referring to that which is wholly our own. There is no other civilization whatever. At best there are one or two minor foreign cultures. At best there are one or two successful foreign copyists of our civilisation’s more material aspects. But there are absolutely no imitators of its moral and spiritual uniqueness, because there are no other people like the Westerners whose possession it is.

From White Man, Think Again!

Addendum: I think the abandonment of the white race by conservative Christians is the main indicator that Gnostics own the soul of that group as well as the soul of the liberal groups. A love of kith and kin is at the heart of Christianity as is a belief in the resurrection of the body. Both that love and that belief are eroded when the new ideas of race are adopted.

For this reason I view authors such as Joseph Pearce (one among legions) as politically correct modernists rather than as counter-culture writers. Pearce, in his latest book on Solzhenitsyn, tries to present Solzhenitsyn as a pro-democracy, anti-racist, modern Christian. He excuses Solzhenitsyn from the charge of racism with this quote from Solzhenitsyn:

Much in man is determined not so much by his physical side or by blood but by the spirit… Russia covers large territories with different people mixed together. You cannot trace the blood… He who is Russian is so by spirit, is so by heart, by the direction of his loyalties and interests. So there is a spiritual unifying of people and not a blood-based one.

Who is being disingenuous here? Does Pearce seriously believe that this applies to anyone but Russians and their kindred races? Dostoyevsky, for instance was half Lithuanian. But does Pearce really believe that Solzhenitsyn would like to see Russia overrun with be-bopping Negroes or Moslem Afghans?

“Ah,” you say, you armchair integrationist, “Solzhenitsyn wouldn’t mind if a huge influx of Orthodox Christian Negroes entered Russia.” No, he wouldn’t, but this is the point: a huge influx of Orthodox Negroes is not going to enter Russia. That fantasy is just as ridiculous as the Wilhelmsen-Bozell fantasy of a huge conversion of American blacks.

There are two different ways of abandoning the West. The first way is the way of the liberals: “The West is evil and should be abandoned.” The second way is the way of the conservative Christians: “The West has nothing to do with race.” That is tantamount to saying that the Incarnation has nothing to do with Christianity. To deny the means by which God revealed Himself to man leaves man cut off from God. And to leave the defense and the preserving of European culture to anyone but the white man is to leave the white race and all the other races bereft of the spiritual substance of that culture.

“King am I, whatsoever be their cry;
And one last act of kinghood shalt thou see
Yet, ere I pass.” And uttering this the King
Made at the man. Then Modred smote his liege
Hard on that helm which many a heathen sword
Had beaten thin; while Arthur at one blow,
Striking the last stroke with Excalibur,
Slew him, and, all but slain himself, he fell.

From Tennyson’s Idylls of the King

The White Deer Returns

From “Sanctuary” by Donald Davidson

…you may lie
On sweet grass by a mountain stream, to watch
The last wild eagle soar or the last raven
Cherish his brood within their rocky nest,
Or see, when mountain shadows first grow long,
The last enchanted white deer come to drink.

I think one of the reasons that liberals hate Hitler so much is because he revealed their big secret of mass hypnosis: if you tell a lie big enough and often enough, most people will come to believe it. For quite some time now all the institutions of our country—the press, the churches, the government, and the civic organizations—have been propagating the lie that the white man and the culture he created is evil. In contrast to the white man, the great liars tell us, stands the black man: pure, noble, and oppressed.

White children are taught to hate their ancestors and to prepare to live a life of reparation for the wrongs done by their ancestors. Black children are taught that everything beautiful is black and that no act of vengeance against ‘whitey’ is too vile or wrong. After all, is not ‘whitey’ the fount of all evil?

How did it come about that the descendants of the creators of Christendom should curse and excoriate their ancestors and refuse to lift one finger in combat against the despoilers or lift one voice in anger against them?

It is very difficult to find an articulation of why the white man is the ‘fount of all evil.’ The ‘fact’ is just supposed to be quite self-evident. If one challenges the unreasoned assumption, one is immediately either marginalized, excommunicated, imprisoned, or killed. But amidst all the noxious anti-white gas, there does seem to emerge some fuzzy apologias for the white man’s guilt.

The blacks hate whites, because they hate all those outside their tribe, but the white-hating whites base their hatred on Christianity. Let’s examine the various briefs against white people by white “Christians.”

1. Liberal Catholics. On the subject of race, the Vatican stands with the liberals. The liberals claim that the whites have despoiled Africa and violated the Christian principle of brotherhood by enslaving blacks. Is there any truth to this charge?

I’m sure that every white who entered Africa did not do so with the intent of helping Africans, but Europe at the time of the African colonization was still largely Christian in its ethos, and the record of Europeans in Africa is astonishing. Wherever they went, tribal warfare was held in check and the corporal works of mercy flourished in areas mercy had never been before. The life of Edmund Hodgson is one among thousands of examples of the truly heroic efforts of whites in Africa:

Northern Katanga was also the territory of a renowned English Missionary, Edmund Hodgson of the Congo Evangelistic Mission, who had been in the Congo for forty years before he was murdered by the Baluba. He was a surgeon, builder and teacher. He founded 157 churches in the Congo, roofing many of them himself. His pay, if it may be mentioned, eventually reached the grand equivalent of £17 a month in Belgian currency, which in the Congo is enough to buy you a good meal and a haircut. He built schools, where for the first time the tribal language was set down in writing. He built a motor launch, which he used as an ambulance; and as the years went by he built several more, giving each one away to the Natives as a new one was finished. He was also a crack shot, ridding the villages of a rogue elephant and marauding lion. On one occasion he was called out to deal with a pride of six lions that were stalking a village, and shot all six of them the same day. His biggest enemies in the early years - as in the later – were the witchdoctors and secret societies, who of course ruled by terror. Hodgson wrote to the C.E.M. headquarters in England: “The witchdoctors are like banks and bookies. They win every time. To denounce a witchdoctor is the worse sin known.” But, traveling on a battered old bicycle through hundreds of miles of swampland for months at a time, he set out to break them. A fellow missionary said of him: “Often he would walk into the middle of a secret society meeting to rescue the young girls they used for their orgies. He was a mild man, but he would risk any danger to prevent these children being tortured, wading in with his fists if necessary.”

In 1952 Hodgson’s wife died; and he toiled on alone, taking his leave every five years but still having to work to make ends meet. But, following Independence, he saw his life’s work literally going up in flames. He wrote: “This last six months has seen the bottom drop out of this fast-created world. Now there is no Belgian or African authority in this district. The sad part of it all is that it is the innocent ones who suffer...”

Shortly after Hodgson wrote this report he visited the ‘parish’ of the New Zealander, Elton Knauf. He was at something of a loose end now, as his churches had been burned down and he had been forced to leave his own parish by the tribesmen he had spent his whole life slaving for. He and Knauf went on a mercy mission, taking food and medical supplies and even money to distressed villagers. It was in an area where, like his own, nearly all the mission posts had been plundered and burned down. Soon their truck was stopped by Balubas, and the two men were dragged out. The tribesmen offered to let Knauf go. But he refused to leave Hodgson, and so both men were put to death. According to a Christian tribesman it was a slow death, and both men died praying. Unlike the witchdoctors who ruled the people by terror and had survived through the ages, the white men had tried to inspire the people by self-sacrificing example, and had succeeded only in making the supreme one.

Of white men like these, tribute seems inadequate. Silence seems more fitting. But normally, while they are alive, they receive the sort of silence of which Kipling wrote: “The reports are silent here, because heroism, failure, doubt, despair, and self-abnegation on the part of a mere cultured white man are things of no weight as compared to the saving of one half-human soul from a fantastic faith in wood-spirits, goblins of the rock, and river-fiends.”

--from White Man Think Again! by Anthony Jacob

And what happens in Africa when the kindly restraining hands of the whites are taken off the Africans? What happens when whites tell Africans that they, the Africans, have been right all the time, and when whites rush to condemn other whites as racist and sexually repressed? Does African then return to a Golden Age? History says otherwise:

It turned that in Kongolo nineteen missionary priests had been massacred by the Congolese troops, and that African student priests had been commanded to throw the bodies into the river. One of the student priests related that the bodies had been stripped and their hands cut off, eyes stabbed, and other unmentionable mutilations as well as arrows planted in the bodies.” On hearing of this massacre the late Pope John said his heart was full of grief but that he had “no feeling of hatred—only loving charity and forgiveness.” No doubt he felt the same way about the outrages inflicted on the nuns, forced to dance naked and sing hymns in praise of the Messiah Lumumba before being taken and ravished and subjected to bestial tortures. It appears that nothing, absolutely nothing the black man does will ever open the eyes of the people in Europe. They are determined not to see because if they do see it will mean that they will have to discard their ‘humanism’ and find another philosophy. To deprive them of their liberalism will be like cutting off their hands and feet.

Northern Katanaga is where the cannibal Balubas live. According to a missionary, Mr Burton, of the Congo Evangelistic Mission, cannibalism, which had always been practiced in secret among the Balubas, is now quite openly practiced. In extenuation of African cannibalism, a newspaper article explained that it had a purely “religious” significance. But Mr Burton stated that there were two types of cannibalism: the ritual type, for ceremonial sacrifice; and the other, which was simply a craving for human flesh. “It is like alcohol—the more they get, the more they want,” he said.

--White Man Think Again!

Did you take note of Pope John’s new interpretation of Christianity that was to become the standard for all subsequent popes? We no longer have to forgive our own personal enemies; we have only to forgive other people’s enemies. And we get to call the victims (and the defenders of the victims) names—names like uncharitable, insensitive, unforgiving, racist, and reactionary.

The record of whites in North America is supposed to be as vile, if not more so, than the record of whites in Africa. But let’s take the whole record. Did the Southern whites take free, happy blacks from the heart of Africa and bring them to a life of torture and barbarism on this continent? No, they did not. They took black slaves, enslaved by other blacks, and made them serfs, under working conditions far superior to that of the Northern factory workers and the serfs of Russia. After fighting and losing a civil war, did the Southern whites continue to segregate whites from blacks and to enforce that segregation with violence if necessary? Yes, the Southerners did. And they should be lauded for their efforts, not vilified. The Southerners had something sacred to protect.

The liberals love to show us pictures of lynched black men, but those pictures don’t tell the whole story. What was the crime of the lynched black man? And if the lynching is unjustified, the lynching record of the Southern whites must be measured against the records of other dominant races and civilizations. How well did the blacks do in Haiti or the Arabs in Arabia? What emerges in the South is an incredible record of Christian forbearance and charity toward a foe who himself would have no mercy were he in power.

And why are the atrocity stories so one-sided? Why do we never see pictures of the victims of black atrocities? Indeed, to bring that up is uncharitable and racist.

And the civil war continues. Who will speak and fight for all the silent victims of black barbarism? Do we care? They seldom die quickly because their murderers have no concept of mercy, which is after all only a central tenet of the evil white man’s religion.

2. Conservative Catholics. There is no difference between liberal and conservative Catholics regarding the present. Conservatives, like liberals, view blacks as wronged and therefore sacred. William F. Buckley, Jr., and countless conservatives like him are a living testament to the two-step process of self-deception. First, one accepts a lie because one is afraid to speak the truth. Then one begins to believe the lie rather than accept the fact that one is a coward.

Conservative Catholics do differ somewhat from the liberals in their view of the European past; they are unwilling to label all white culture as evil, and a few of them will even say some good things about the South. But they all parrot the notion that a defense of European values has nothing to do with a defense of the white man. “The white man has betrayed the faith,” they chortle, “so he must be supplanted by the black man.” Yes, the majority of whites have betrayed the Faith, but are blacks a noble race of savages prepared to take up the white man’s mantle and restore the Christian faith to its former glory? Where is the evidence for this?

It is Islam, not Christianity, which is gaining in Africa; and when African blacks become Christian, their Christianity is a different faith from that of the old European Faith. It is a syncretistic combination of voodoo, animism, and tribalism, which is why those conservatives who push for the immigration of black Christians miss the mark. Black Christianity is not Christianity; the rare black who practices real Christianity is shunned by his fellow blacks as a tool of the white man. Where genuine Christianity still lives among whites, blacks oppose it.

The problem of lapsed, white Christians will not be solved by turning, with false utopian dreams, to the black race. It will be solved by appealing to whites to pick up the mantle of their sacred, Christ-bearing ancestors and to renew the struggle for Christendom.

I have not included Catholic traditionalists in the discussion because traditionalists are outside the human sphere. While there are some human beings in their ranks who just stumbled into traditionalism while trying to escape clown masses, the traditionalist hierarchy cares nothing about race or any issue that “stinks of humanity.” Michael Davies, the chief lay spokesman for Catholic traditionalism in the English-speaking world, revealed all we need to know about traditionalists when he played the race card against an Italian cardinal who argued against selecting a black pope.

3. Liberal Protestants. The liberal Protestants are much like the liberal Catholics; they are fascinated by the black man as a harbinger of death while at the same time they need to believe he is an oppressed noble savage in need of their beneficence. Neither the liberal Catholic nor the liberal Protestant has ever done a thing to improve the black man’s lot or to convert him to Christianity. They merely use the black man as a trump card against fellow whites.

4. Conservative Protestants. The conservative Protestants such as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson have completely capitulated to the blacks, as have the conservative Catholics.

5. Fundamentalist Protestants. Some fringe Christian fundamentalist groups have held the line on issues such as immigration and mixed marriages. But unfortunately they are a dying breed. Bob Jones of Bob Jones University caved in awfully quick.

6. Conclusion. The white surrender to black savagery was orchestrated by white Christians, but the surrender was not mandated by Christianity.

Such great counterrevolutionary thinkers as Plinio Correa de Oliveira and Thomas Molnar have told us that revolutions succeed when those in authority begin to doubt their own legitimacy. Thus, those in authority fail to avail themselves of the means of supporting their regimes. Similarly, white Christians began to doubt Christianity. They began to doubt its uniqueness, and began to doubt whether there was really anything so extra special about Jesus. Would not Gandhi or Nelson Mandela or Martin Luther King, Jr. serve as well? So Christianity became a major force for egalitarian notions of the universal brotherhood of all men of all faiths.

But when Christian principles are adhered to, Christians should discriminate against those values that are non-Christian, and they should segregate themselves from those who are non-Christian. Richard Weaver makes such a case in The Southern Tradition at Bay: “Civilization is measured by its power to create and enforce distinctions. Consequently there must be some source of discrimination, from which we bring ideas of order to bear on a fortuitous world.”

White Europeans have more than a right; they have a duty to preserve white European culture. They cannot do this while teaching their children the evils of the only culture that placed mercy rather than sacrifice at its center.