A Christmas Carol

'I am mortal,' Scrooge remonstrated, 'and liable to fall.'

'Bear but a touch of my hand there,' said the Spirit, laying it upon his heart, 'and you shall be upheld in more than this!'

It’s the time of year when I read A Christmas Carol, Dickens’ marvelous Christmas gift to the people of Europe, with my family. There is always something new that comes across to you when re-reading a great work of literature such as A Christmas Carol. On this reading I was struck by the relative ease with which Scrooge was brought to repentance by Jacob Marley and the three spirits of Christmas. Scrooge was in desperate spiritual straits, which is why the spirits visited him, but he was a mere traditional sinner addicted to greed and avarice. The spirits of Christmas touched his heart by showing him scenes from his childhood, former loves lost because of his avarice, and his eventual lonely demise if he remained obdurate. And Scrooge did repent, but what if he had been a liberal (which is something infinitely worse than a miser)? Would the spirits have had such an easy time of it? Could the Spirit of Christmas Past touch a liberal’s heart as he touched Scrooge’s and transform the liberal into something other than a liberal? No, the triune spirits of Christmas could not melt a liberal’s heart; we have seen the liberals reject the spirits’ overtures time and time again. What enables the liberal to remain steadfast against the light that caused Scrooge to repent? Solzhenitsyn wondered about the phenomenon of the liberals’ stubborn resistance to the light in the second book of his Gulag memoirs. He concluded that it was ideology that gave the liberal such an advantage over the regular sinners like Scrooge and the Macbeths. The Macbeths had guilty consciences after their blood-letting, Solzhenitsyn opined, because they lacked a utopian ideology that could kill all the “compunctious visitings of nature” in the human breast. Burke made the same point as Solzhenitsyn centuries earlier when he wrote about the radical French revolutionaries, the progenitors of the Russian communists and the European liberals:

Nothing can be conceived more hard than the heart of a thoroughbred metaphysician. It comes nearer to the cold malignity of a wicked spirit than to the frailty and passion of a man. It is like that of the principle of evil himself, incorporeal, pure, unmixed, dephlegmated, defecated evil.

To completely divest oneself of all humanity is no easy task, but the liberal, for all practical purposes, has done it. He has built a world where every good and noble sentiment stemming from the human heart is condemned by law, or else, if not proscribed by law, covered with scorn and ridicule. The liberal has succeeded where Scrooge failed, because he has made his rebellion against the light into religious orthodoxy. He has become a Jew by hardening his heart just like the Jew:

You may as well do anything most hard,
As seek to soften (than which what’s harder?)
His Jewish heart.

The spirits of Christmas had to convince Scrooge that his contra mundum stance had alienated him from his fellow men by killing the ties, such as our attachments to kith and kin, that make us human. The spirits of Christmas have quite a different task ahead of them, a much more difficult task, when they face off against the modern liberal. Unlike Scrooge, the liberal is not, at least at the superficial level, an outcast from his fellow men. Nor is the liberal contra mundum; quite the contrary, he is completely in sync with the modern world. It’s ironic – the repentant Scrooge, were he to be transported to modern Liberaldom, would have to be contra mundum if he wanted to hold onto his new faith in the God who “made lame beggars walk and blind men see.” The repentant Scrooge living in modern Babylon would face different visitations than the unrepentant Scrooge living in Christendom faced. The satanic Spirit of Earth Days Past would show him the girl he could have married had he been willing to abandon his sexist, patriarchal notions of marriage. He would also show him scenes of his childhood in which the other children shunned him because he didn’t worship negroes or blaspheme the living God. Then the demonic Spirit of Liberaldom Present would show Scrooge all the jobs he had lost because he would not bend his knee to Babylon. And finally the Spirit of Liberaldom Future would show Scrooge his lonely demise, shunned by his fellow men for his refusal to worship the gods of Liberaldom. But of course the satanic spirits would not show Scrooge what awaits him beyond the grave, a crown of glory, for having fought the good fight. Nor will any of the demonic spirits of Liberaldom past, present, or future, show their adherents what awaits them when they cross the bar.

A direct attack on God Himself is beyond Satan’s capabilities. But he can attack His people. Following the same procedure that a farmer might follow to eliminate vermin (and that is how Satan views human beings) Satan works to destroy the breeding grounds for God’s grace. He seeks to separate a man from his ties to kith and kin that enable him to feel there is a human heart at the center of the universe. “From my hearth fire,” the antique European asserts, “to His heavenly kingdom is not such a great leap, because my God has taken flesh and dwelt amongst us.” The desire to keep the vision of a loving God revealed to us at the European hearth remains the same. But the struggle has changed. The arch enemy of mankind has shifted the scene of battle. Satan used to fight contra mundum; he was against Christian Europe, but in the Babylonian present he fights in defense of Liberaldom. The antique European now must be contra mundum; he is against the Babylonian state, against the negro-worshipping church, and against the new family structure of the liberals which consists of inter-racial couples gathered around one universal bonfire dedicated to the gods of Babylon.

The antique Europeans’ situation is far from hopeless. We are no worse off, as regards the numbers arrayed against us, than Alexander Smollett was when he flew his sovereign’s colors in defiance of a seemingly invincible horde of pirates. But we must respond to the liberal-barbarian coalition as Smollet responded to the pirates. He was confident in the rightness of his cause, and he knew that his enemies had an implacable hatred for him and his fellow Englishmen. The fight had to be to the death; pirates do not give quarter. Nor do the liberals and their barbarian colored allies give quarter to white Europeans. Babylonians can never unite in love, because there is no love in Babylon, but they can unite in hate. And they hate with the satanic fury of a people wedded to darkness. If the remnant band of whites were to be eliminated the dark races and the liberals would dry up and die, because the sum total of their lives is the hatred of the white, and they feed off that hatred like vultures feed on carrion.

You can’t reason with the liberals or the colored tribesmen. Their hatred is deeply ingrained in their souls, and they will not abandon it because it is wrong -- they have declared that wrong is right – or because it is un-Christian – they are at war with Christ. Jean de La Fontaine wrote a fable called “The Wolf and the Lamb” that the European who wishes to remain European should take note of.

Might has a conquering logic of its own,
As will immediately be shown.

A Lamb one morning to the brink
Of a clear stream went down to drink.
A Wolf adventuring in quest of food
Came to the spot, and flew into a passion,
Saying: ‘I like your hardihood,
To foul my drink in this disgusting fashion.
Now for the chastisement I owe you!’
‘Nay,’ said the Lamb, ‘so please Your Grace,
Your Lordship’s wrath is out of place.
A moment’s thought will clearly show you
I’m drinking twenty yards below you,
And therefore cannot possibly
Befoul your beverage in the least degree.’
‘You do,’ he snarled; ‘moreover, I’ll be sworn
‘Twas you maligned me last July.’
‘How could I, when I wasn’t born?
I’m not yet weaned,’ was the reply.
‘Well, if it wasn’t you, it was your brother.’
‘I have none.’ ‘Then it was some other
Of your insufferable crew--
‘Tis common talk on every side.
I’m sick of being vilified
By sheep, lambs, dogs, and shepherds too:
‘Tis time I made my vengeance good.’
Thereon he haled him to the wood,
And ate him in a righteous fury
Without recourse to judge or jury.

The antique European has been found guilty, “without recourse to judge or jury,” of crimes against the colored races. And for his crimes he, and all those who refuse to renounce him, are to be destroyed as the Lamb in La Fontaine’s fable was destroyed. If you feel angry at the unjust condemnation of the ancient Europeans, and if you are enraged at the liberals’ efforts, in tandem with the colored barbarians, to destroy the European remnant, you will face the liberal and colored coalition with the resolve of the European heroes of old. We are told to hate the devil and his works. The techno barbaric-colored barbaric world of Liberaldom is the work of Satan. The passionate love of our people, the remnant Europeans, will enkindle a hate for Liberaldom that will ultimately break down the walls of Liberaldom. What is needful is that the European should hate and love with all his heart.

It’s quite telling that Scrooge’s journey toward redemption starts when the Spirit of Christmas Past touches his heart. That is our starting point for a European counter-revolution: a heart connected to our European past. Christ loved so much that He refused to let those He loved die. We, who love His people and the Little European Town of Bethlehem that they built and consecrated to Him, should love enough to keep the European Bethlehem alive.

The modern liberal professes to be very wise, much wiser than the Europeans of the past. But if the liberal is so wise, why does he worship the ignoble black savage? And the churchmen who ape the beliefs of the liberals? Why does their new faith of the illuminated elect boil down, in practice, to the worship of the negro? Because the modern liberal and the modern cleric have forsaken the incarnate God of the Christmas Carol for a mind-forged, esoteric system that bids its devotees kill the heart so that the mind can be ‘illuminated.’

And we see before us the results of their wonderful cogitations. We must reject their world, in which the Light of the world is replaced by darkness, and stay connected to the non-esoteric world of Dickens’ Christmas Carol. That is our world, a world where a repentant sinner can become a man with a heart connected to His Sacred Heart:

…and it was always said of him that he knew how to keep Christmas well, if any man alive possessed the knowledge. May that be truly said of us, and all of us! And so, as Tiny Tim observed, God bless Us, Every One!

+++

The Red Cross Knights Of Europe

During what the Northern liberals called “Reconstruction” and the Southern people experienced as hell, the liberals of the North tried to exterminate the white race in the South, just as the whites in San Domingo were exterminated, by placing them at the mercy of black barbarians who had no concept of mercy. (1) The Northern liberals failed to exterminate the white Southerners for one reason and one reason only. Thomas Nelson Page, this nation’s Walter Scott, tells us the reason:

“It was a veteran soldiery that repeopled the plantations and the homesteads of the South, and withstood the forces thrown against them during the period of Reconstruction. In addition to such racial traits as personal pride, self-reliance, and physical courage, they possessed also race pride, which is inestimable in a great popular struggle. This race pride the war had only increased. However beaten and broken they were, the people of the South came out of the war with their spirit unquenched, and a belief that they were unconquerable.”

And of course the man who wrote The Needle’s Eye is not referring to the racial pride of the pagan, he is talking about the racial pride of a Christian, which is pietas, the love of one’s own and a consciousness of one’s responsibilities toward a God who enjoins His people to love their own as He loves them.

The civil war in this country was just a slightly more dramatic manifestation of the civil war taking place in every European nation. And in every European nation the outcome was the same. The “love that once was there,” the love that the white man had for his own people, died and the European succumbed to the liberal-barbarian coalition. By the mid-1960’s white Britain, the white South, white France, and so on, were no more. White people still existed in all of the European nations, but a people without pride of race are not a people; they are cattle waiting to be taken to the slaughterhouse.

What made the European stop loving his own? The philosophers and “thinking men” told him ad nauseum and into infinity that his own people were unworthy of love, and over time the European came to believe in the unworthiness of the European. “Better to lose one’s self in a cosmic secular faith, in which the white race is absorbed by the all good and all powerful black race.” It’s not superior numbers that killed the white man; it was the white man’s loss of faith in the goodness of the European people and the truth of their vision of Christ. Where the old European Christianity was personal, intuitive, and connected to the hearth fire, the new Christianity was impersonal, rationalist, and connected to a cosmic, Babylonian pleasure dome. The New Orleans Superdome during Hurricane Katrina and the United Nations’ building during the ongoing bloody carnage in the streets of New York (no more tripping the light fantastic with Mamie O’Rourke) are perfect examples of the heart and texture of the new Christ-less, hopeless world in which the white man has chosen to exist until his liberal and black masters decide that it is time for his body to join his soul in the Kingdom of the Dead.

Is a death in life existence worth living? Even the grazers have said that it isn’t. In the midst of their somnolence they have cried out. They cannot bear the banality of the racial and sexual Babylon in which they live. The traditional soporifics, blood sport, pornography, and Christless cathedrals presided over by a faithless clerical elite, have only produced despair. Men and women, especially white men and white women, need to feel that they are loved for what they are, not because of how well they denounce what they are. The color of a man’s skin is part of his essential soul; if he must deny that soul in order to exist he will pine away and die. That is what is happening to the white man, particularly the grazer. The halfway-house Christian has more successfully tapped into the demonic energy of the liberal.

Taken out of context Edgar’s words in King Lear – “Speak what we feel, not what we ought to say,” sound like some hippie platitude from the sixties – “Hey, man, I just got to go with what I feel.” But in the context of the play Edgar’s words cut to the heart of existence. King Lear has destroyed his realm and ruined the lives of his subjects because “he has but little known himself.” He created a false image of reality, which reinforced his own exalted image of himself, and tried to inflict that abstraction on his subjects. The result was a world where “Humanity must perforce prey on itself, Like monsters of the deep.” Such will always be the case when the European does not see life “feelingly.” When he worships at an altar created in his own abstracted mind, divorced from every clean and noble sentiment of the heart, such as love of race, family, and God, he becomes either a grazer who is preyed upon by the inhuman, liberal monsters of the deep, or else he becomes an inhuman, liberal monster of the deep.

The mind-forged altars of the black gods of Liberaldom were built by men like Voltaire, Rousseau, Twain, and Pope John XXIII. Their lies about the intrinsic evil of the European people became the faithless faith of the European people. There were no more mea culpas for personal sins; there was only one mea culpa, the mea culpa for being white. And the only acceptable penance for whiteness is self-destruction. This liberal-recommended self-immolation is not what the white should do. He should refuse to be part of the penitential rites of the Christ-less church of the liberals, and instead he should return to his own hearth fire and learn to see life feelingly again. Once the heart is engaged, sight will return to the white man and he will leave his Babylonian pleasure dome of oblivion to return home, to his people and their ancient faith.

The liberals were not reconstructing the South. If we reconstruct something we rebuild that which was broken or destroyed. The attempted reconstruction of the South was in reality an attempt to destroy the South. The first attempt failed, but subsequent attempts were successful, just as they were successful throughout the European world. The terminology used to describe the liquidation of the European people varies from nation to nation, but the desired object, the death of the European people, is the same throughout all the formerly white Christian nations.

I don’t dispute the math of the conservatives and the white nationalists who tell us of the coming colored majorities in all the formerly European nations, but I do dispute the notion that white nationalists need to “wake up” a majority of white people before they can affect any “meaningful change.” Is that the way Europeans, when they were real flesh and blood Europeans, used to view existence? The hero doesn’t wait for followers; he acts. The unquenchable spirit that rides triumphant over ruin and death does not care about demographic charts and prophecies of doom. Hamlet’s defiance of augury still stands today. Nothing is impossible in the spiritual realm. The European must decide to enter that realm once again. If we allow the “this world only” liberals to set the perimeters for us we will never come out of Babylon. But if we turn from the Duessa of Babylon, as St. George did, and keep our eyes focused on Una, the Faerie Queene of truth and beauty, who bids us look to Him as the beginning and the end of every quest, we will win. The liberal-barbarian dragon has no defense against the Red Cross Knight of Europe.

“The knight himselfe euen trembled at his fall,
So huge and horrible a masse it seem’d;
And his deare Ladie, that beheld it all,
Durst not approch for dread, which she misdeem’d,
But yet at last, when as the direfull feend
She saw not stirre, off-shaking vaine affright,
She nigher drew, and saw that ioyous end:
Then God she praysd, and thankt her faithfull knight,
That had atchieu’d so great a conquest by his might.”

Fairy tales again? Yes! Isn’t a belief in a fairy tale what separates the European from the colored races? Michelangelo (whose work is no different from an African voodoo sculpture, or so the liberals tell us) depicts the hand of God reaching out for the hand of man. Christ was and is the hand and heart of God. If the liberals were given ten thousand years to come up with a more sublime and beautiful image of God than the European vision of Christ, they could not do it. Keats was profoundly Christian without knowing it: “Beauty is truth and truth beauty.” Stripped naked the outwardly alluring Duessa was revealed as an ugly witch that turned men’s stomachs. The tragedy of the European is that he still sees Duessa clothed in the outward splendor of Babylon. It is the task of the Red Cross Knights of Europe to show the naked evil of Duessa. Then all will be clear. The battle lines will be drawn. It is the Red Cross Knights of Europe versus Duessa’s liberal-barbarian coalition. +

_____________________

(1) Are there any blacks that have a concept of mercy? Yes, those who are loyal to their white masters and have adopted the values and beliefs of the white Europeans. Such blacks are few and far between. In all of San Domingo, for instance, there was only one recorded case of a black servant who didn’t turn on his white masters. Uncle Remus? The man was a saint, but he was a creation of a white man. Still, let’s concede the existence of a few faithful, black Uncle Remuses. How are they viewed by the black barbarians? Aren’t they vilified because they don’t hate the white race? Of course they are. We are engaged in a war with the prince of darkness and his minions. Let’s not indulge in “Find the good negro” parlor games.

After the Hangover

The spirit of chivalry had in it this point of excellence, that, however overstrained and fantastic many of its doctrines may appear to us, they were all founded on generosity and self-denial, of which, if the earth were deprived, it would be difficult to conceive the existence of virtue among the human race. – Walter Scott

For a recent birthday my children gave me a complete set of the old TV comedy Car 54, Where Are You? I found the episodes to be just as funny now as when I was young. And it struck me while watching those old shows that a comedy like Car 54 could not be made today. At the time Car 54 was written, European Americans, like their European counterparts, were still in the “Christian Hangover” stage of their existence; they no longer took Christianity seriously as a faith, but the vast majority still took the ethics that stemmed from Christianity seriously. In consequence the humor in shows like Car 54 occurred within a world where the sanctity of marriage and the virtue of chastity were unquestioned, male friendships were not homosexual, and the good-hearted boob always triumphed over the sneering, heartless intellectual. But Car 54 was at the end of the Christian Hangover era. Modern man was about to emerge on the stage of history, devoid of even a Christian hangover. O brave new world!

The post-Christian era, in which Satan uses the forms of the Christian faith to subvert the Christian faith, is the era of the intellectual sneer. Everything noble is sneered at, and everything base is exalted. Our comedies are so filthy and degenerate that no citizen of the original Sodom or Gomorrah could sit through them without being disgusted. Our drama’s are devoid of sense, soul, and drama. And our churches have outstripped even the heathen in their worship of the heathen. And what or who is behind this plethora of filth? Is it the Jew? No, the Jew aids and abets the filth, but he is not its source. Satan, our ancient foe, is the architect of the brave new world. He was miserable in Christian Europe and uncomfortable in the Europe of the Christian Hangover. Now he is comfortable, to the extent that such a restless spirit can be comfortable.

Walter Scott, in his introduction to Quentin Durward, gives us an excellent portrait of the sneering intellect who presides over hell and over our modern day post-Christian Europe:

Among those who were the first to ridicule and abandon the self-denying principles in which the young knight was instructed, and to which he was so carefully trained up, Louis the XIth of France was the chief. That Sovereign was of a character so purely selfish—so guiltless of entertaining any purpose unconnected with his ambition, covetousness, and desire of selfish enjoyment, that he almost seems an incarnation of the devil himself, permitted to do his utmost to corrupt our ideas of honour in its very source. Nor is it to be forgotten, that Louis possessed to a great extent that caustic wit which can turn into ridicule all that a man does for any other person’s advantage but his own, and was, therefore, peculiarly qualified to play the part of a cold-hearted and sneering fiend.

In this point of view, Goethe’s conception of the character and reasoning of Mephistopheles, the tempting spirit in the singular play of “Faust,” appears to me more happy than that which has been formed by Byron, and even than the Satan of Milton. These last great authors have given to the Evil Principle something which elevates and dignifies his wickedness; a sustained and unconquerable resistance against Omnipotence itself—a lofty scorn of suffering compared with submission, and all those points of attraction in the Author of Evil, which have induced Burns and others to consider him as the Hero of the “Paradise Lost.” The great German poet has, on the contrary, rendered his seducing spirit a being who, otherwise totally unimpassioned, seems only to have existed for the purpose of increasing, by his persuasions and temptations, the mass of moral evil, and who calls forth by his seductions those slumbering passions which otherwise might have allowed the human being who was the object of the Evil Spirit’s operations to pass the tenor of his life in tranquillity. For this purpose Mephistopheles is, like Louis XI, endowed with an acute and depreciating spirit of caustic wit, which is employed incessantly in undervaluing and vilifying all actions, the consequences of which do not lead certainly and directly to self-gratification.

Scott has shown us the way the Evil One undermines a Christian civilization. He does not attack in manly fashion, with a direct challenge. There are no devilish gauntlets thrown in the face of Christian warriors. Instead, the devil uses his “depreciating spirit and caustic wit” to undermine the Creator by destroying the image of God in man. The devil supports everything that dehumanizes man. By zigzags and parallels he attacks every aspect of man’s life on earth that makes him feel, “A personality stands here.”

The dehumanizing and depersonalizing program has proceeded at an accelerated pace since the European left Christendom for Satandom. Once the elite palace guards left their posts, there was no longer any reason why Satan and his minions had to refrain from attacking and destroying the European castle.

The demise of Christian civilization always begins with the satanic sneer. In Eden the sneering devil told Adam and Eve that they would not die. “That was just moralistic God talk.” Liberals today mimic their master; if you love your race and kin, you are sneeringly labeled a white racist; if you protest the torture-murder of your people, you are told, “to cry me a river”; if you protest the murder of the innocents in the womb, you are a sexist; if you protest democratic tyranny, you are a fascist. All the venom of the liberals is spewed out with a satanic sneer. The self-proclaimed lovers of humanity hate humanity. Their generic love for the rights of women, the black race, and democratic humanity is a subterfuge for their hatred of the human personality. Anytime there is any manifestation of the one culture that stressed the infinite value of the non-generic human personality, the liberals go berserk and seek to crush that manifestation. Because the slaughter of innocents, the worship of black people, and the implementation of a draconian, secular democracy, is so antithetical to the values of a Christian European, the liberals must be merciless in their suppression of any European opposition to their brave new world.

The hazy, lazy days of the Christian hangover, during which we shared some values if not the same faith with our fellow Europeans, are over. The conservatives, the mad-dog liberals, the halfway-house Christians, and the neo-pagans want us to fade away. And if we refuse to fade away, they will gladly, in the name of racial equality, democratic humanity, and the rights of women, have us exterminated.

When Solzhenitsyn came to the West in the 1970’s he stated that the most striking thing about the European people was their lack of courage. And of course Solzhenitsyn was not saying that there were not any Europeans left who would rush into a burning building to save a child or face a firing squad without flinching; he was talking about the courage to defend one’s people against an implacable enemy. In order to have the latter type of courage a people have to be a people. They must feel bound to their people by ties of faith and race. The problem with the Europeans is that they don’t believe they are a people and they do not have a faith.

The colored people of the world do have a faith. They believe in their race as a herd, and they worship the aggregate power of the herd. The European was never able to convert the non-European people to the faith that revered an individual’s race because it was part of a man’s personality, which was connected to a personal God. The halfway-house Christians who deny a man’s race is part of his personality have already said in their hearts there is no personal God, only an abstract God who rules an abstract utopia created by the mind of the liberal.

As Scott pointed out in his introduction to Quentin Durward, the devil destroys a man’s faith by making all the human bridges to Christ things of ridicule. When we hear halfway-house Christians such as Thomas Fleming mock white people for wanting to protect and defend their own, or when the clergy tell us to shun our blood ties to our kith and kin in the name of a universal religion, we are hearing Satan speak. There is no higher religion than the religion of the God-Man, who revealed Himself to mankind through the provincial, human things that all the modern, authoritative voices want us to abandon. The European’s answer is ‘no.’ He will not abandon the European hearth, because that is where his heart is, with his God. Outside of the European hearth there is nothing, no love, no virtue, and no charity. All is dark and deadly if we acquiesce to the liberals and consent to fade quietly away into the dark night. The heart revolts at such a surrender. And it is our hearts, filled with European prejudices that make us prefer our own to the stranger, honor to treachery, and Christ over Satan, which will take us through the dark night of Europe to a brighter day where we will see our Lord and kinsmen. +

Against the Gates of Hell

“Give peace in our time, O Lord, because there is none other fighteth for us but only Thou, O God.” -- Welsh prayer

The other day I heard one of the conservative liberals lamenting the fact that the mad-dog liberals did not really believe in democracy. He used their attempt to ram a health care bill down Americans' throats as one example of the non-democratic nature of the mad-dog liberals. The conservative liberal was right: the mad-dog liberals do not believe in democracy, at least not in the same way as the conservative liberals believe in it.

The mad-dog liberals use the democratic system to further their ends. If the system does not further their ends, they go outside the system. The mad-dogs, at this point in their history, have only one faith, which is the black man. If every single rule of democratic, traditional protocol and current democratic procedures has to be broken to elevate the black man, the liberal will ignore traditional protocol and violate current procedures. The faith in, and the worship of, the black man is what is essential to the liberal.

In contrast to the mad-dog liberal, the conservative liberal worships democracy in and of itself. He doesn’t see the democratic process as a means to an end; he sees it as an end in itself. When the civil rights protesters violated the law in the 1960’s, the National Review conservatives, who worshipped the democratic process, condemned them for breaking the law. They did not disapprove of the protestors’ professed goal, an integrated, colorblind society; they only disapproved of going outside the democratic process.

The conflict between the American conservatives and the liberals is a conflict within liberalism. The liberals generally defeat the conservatives because the liberals have a metaphysic. They can cite their love and concern for the black man, while the conservatives can only cite their love for the Constitution. Both loves are abstractions, but the liberals’ abstraction seems less inhumane than the conservatives’ abstracted love.

The conservatives are always hurling the “He doesn’t really love the emperor” charge at the liberals. And they are right. The liberals support democracy because it serves their purposes most of the time. But they are willing to jettison democracy when it interferes with their satanic mission to build a kingdom of Satan on earth. The conservatives are less likely to go outside of the democratic perimeters, because to do so, in their judgment, would be to go outside the faith.

What happens when a man emerges who rejects the satanic vision of the mad-dogs and the faithless faith-in-a-process, of the conservatives? He is marginalized and/or destroyed. Alexander Solzhenitsyn is a case in point. When he came to the U.S. in the 1970’s, he had a friendly debate with a fellow Russian exile named Andrei Sakharov. Sakharov believed that Western-style democracy would solve the problems of the Russian people. Solzhenitsyn disagreed. He said that the Western democracies lacked a spiritual foundation and that the political parties of the Western democracies always sought their welfare over that of their nation. The British author Brian Crozier echoed Solzhenitsyn’s second point in his book The Minimum State: Beyond Party Politics.

Solzhenitsyn’s views were nowhere near as popular as Sakharov’s. The mad-dogs demonized Solzhenitsyn, and the conservatives focused on his anti-communist writings and ignored his critique of secular democracy. When he returned to Russia late in life he was not received well by the same type of people in Russia who constituted the mad-dog liberal and the conservative liberal factions in America. He did receive a state funeral when he died, but I don’t think we can realistically claim that this means the Russian people rejected the democratic heresy.

What was it about Solzhenitsyn that was so unacceptable to the liberals in both camps? It was the fact that Solzhenitsyn was an antique European. He started life as a good Marxist and he ended his life as an integral Christian European. He loved his God and his country, so he desired that the two should be united. Was not that the desire of almost every European prior to the 20th century?

H. V. Morton once sadly noted that European Christians had done things in the name of Christ that made Christ weep, but that judgment of Morton’s comes from a Christian European. If there were no longer Christian Europeans to pass judgment on the erring Christian Europeans, who would end the bloody wars between covenanter and cavalier, and between Protestant and Catholic? Do the communists have their own equivalent of the Sermon on the Mount? And who will oppose the democratic, egalitarian abortionists if Christian Europeans are extinct?

You can’t forsake the living God because all Christians do not live up to His teachings. Cromwell and Torquemada represent only the lunatic fringe of Christian Europe. And even such monsters were lambs compared to the totalitarian tyrants of the godless 20th and 21st centuries.

The European Everyman has been set adrift by his church leaders and his political leaders. He seems destined to perish. Only the antique European, who has become a stranger to the modern European, can return the Everyman to a safe harbor. But will the modern Everyman be able to recognize the hero? Or will he, after years of living in liberaldom, be unable to see with the blinding sight necessary to distinguish between a Christian hero and a liberal charlatan?

Trevelyan said that it was the special mission of the European to reveal the heroic Christ of mercy to the heathen world. That is still the mission of the European: to show the world the face of the Hero God by imitating the Hero God.

Let us pray, let us watch, let us be prepared
For the warrior hero who saved us.
When Jesus on high came from His Kingship
The world’s five ages were in common captivity,
In the grasp, in the misery, in the depths of hell,
In the cold bog’s affliction.
Renowned God, acknowledgment of you
Do I make, Lord God, strength of every people.

--Einion Ap Gwalchmai

William Blake desired to build Jerusalem, “in England’s green and pleasant land.” The modern European’s passion is to bring the depths of hell into Europe’s green and pleasant land, and he has accomplished his desire. Post-Christian Europe is hell, and we can’t vote hell away. Satan is not a live-and-let-live type of guy. He hates with an everlasting passion. Who can stand against him? The Christian Europeans once stood against him. They weren’t physical stronger or smarter than we are today, but spiritually they were giants. They rested their heads on His sacred heart as St. John did at the last supper. And as a result they saw visions of the risen Lord and could fight the devil with a passion for good that was superior to his passion for evil. No second-hand faith for us. It is all or nothing. We can restore the Europe of the Hero God of mercy, or we can wallow in the depths of hell. +

A Christmas Reflection on Post-Christian Europe

Thou know’st the marksman – I, and I alone.
Now are our homesteads free, and innocence
From thee is safe: thou’lt be our curse no more.

-- William Tell

The torture-rape of a fifteen-year old white girl by Mexicans and blacks at a San Francisco high school was certainly heinous, but it was not an unusual occurrence. Such violent crimes are the norm now that America has become a multi-racial land mass rather than a white nation. There is no reason to believe that the colored hatred of whites will ever abate until they have killed every last white. The liberals’ exultation at every new atrocity against whites is the folly of a people who have declared themselves an evolved species of being who no longer regard themselves as white people. “It is those other white people who must die. And good riddance to them!” is the cry of the liberal.

The liberal’s maniacal hatred of white people stems from his fear that Christianity might be true. The liberal fears judgment. And like a child who has done something wrong and fears punishment, the liberal wants to eradicate the evidence of his wrongdoing. “If there is no evidence, there is no crime,” the liberal reasons. So what is the evidence that Christ the Savior once visited this earth? The answer is the white European culture. And if the white European culture and white Europeans are destroyed, the liberal will not be haunted by fears of God’s judgment.

It is important that the European Christian not get drawn into the neo-pagans’ orbit, whose concern for the white man is only skin deep. They have no love for the white man’s heritage which stems from his Christian faith. And the leadership of the neo-pagans cannot envision any solution to the problem of anti-white violence that is not a democratic solution. It is quite alarming when leaders in the neo-pagan movement proclaim their steadfast belief in non-violent protests and democratic discourse. Is it possible for anyone to believe that the colored tide of violence against white people can be halted by democratic means? Will the type of barbarians who tortured and raped the white high school girl stop raping and murdering whites because they are afraid white people will vote against them in the next election? And will the liberals, who have forsaken the religion of charity and now have not charity, the same liberals who glory in the annual murder of a few million babies in the womb, have compassion on the victims of black atrocities and seek out the guilty parties? That is not what I see happening. Every time white people speak out against black and Mexican violence, the government moves against the whites who protest against the atrocities. Implicit in the neo-pagan pleas for non-violent protests of black atrocities is the assumption that once we have evolved to the higher level of democracy it is not necessary to actually fight evil, we need only vote against it.

I recently saw an article by one of the right-wing leaders in which he warned against the dangers of assassinating Barack Obama. I completely agree with the author on that issue – it would not aid white people if Obama were assassinated. Tyrannicide is not outside the ken of the white European tradition, but Obama is not a tyrant whose death would bring great benefits to the white race. He is a small, little cog in the great liberal machine. Killing him would be harmful to whites.

However the author in question goes on to condemn all violence under any circumstances. That type of thinking goes against our European Christian heritage. There are things so hideous, such as the murder of a baby in his mother’s womb, the rape of our women, the torture-murder of innocent young people like Channon Christian and Christopher Newsome, that they cry out to heaven for redress. You cannot claim to respect the white European heritage and then tell white people to dogmatically renounce all violence. That type of advice is irresponsible at a time when our “laws,” passed by white technocrats, have left white people almost defenseless against the barbarians in our midst. I recall a scene in Walter Scott’s novel The Black Dwarf in which some border raiders have abducted a Scottish lady and taken her across the border. An old man advises the young men not to break the law and be violent. A member of the rescue party replies angrily to him: “Don’t talk to us about our heroic ancestors and then tell us to do nothing.” – “The Faith and the Race Are One” (Oct. 2008)

That British martial song “Heart of Oak” is considered quite comical now to Britons reared on Monty Python and punk rock, but it really expresses what should always be the European response to barbarism:

They swear they’ll invade us, these terrible foes,
They frighten our women, our children, and beaus;
But should their flat bottoms, in darkness get o’er,
Still Britons they’ll find to receive them on shore.

Heart of oak are our ships, heart of oak are our men;
We always are ready, steady, boys, steady!
We’ll fight and we’ll conquer again and again.

The European civilization was the God-Incarnate civilization. When a European issued his call to battle, it was not for vainglory or bloodlust, it was in defense of the Christmas things: hearth, mother, child, and faith. Are not those same things precious to the heathen as well as the Christian European? No, they are not, at least not to the same degree or with the same depth of passion as they are to the European. When the European joined his civilization to Christ's sacred heart, the European’s heart became more fully human. And burned into the heart of the Christian European is the knowledge that the Herods of the world will always usher in Christmas with the blood of the innocents.

Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem and all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under... – Matt 2: 16

We are all called to imitate Tell and defend the innocents. The European hearth -- the Christmas hearth -- was made possible because Christian Europeans fought the barbarians and the Herods who sought to desecrate the Christian faith and murder the innocents. “God Rest Ye, Merry Gentlemen, Let nothing ye dismay” is a fine song for the Christmas season. But let’s add an equally fine Christian vow to the song: “They shall not prevail!” +

The Heroism of White Men

Andries Wilhelmus Jacobus Pretorius (b. November 27, 1798 – d. July 23, 1853)

The story of South Africa is that of two fine European peoples, as alike as two races can be, who have established their civilisation at great cost and with courage upon the tip of Africa. In spite of their unhappy schism they have managed to exert their sway over, and to accept responsibility for, a greater number of servants than any nation has been blessed or cursed with since the slave empires of antiquity. – In Search of South Africa by H. V. Morton

A new movie about Nelson Mandela, the murdering black thug who became a liberal saint, is coming out just in time for Christmas. All good white people will see the movie with their two quality children, or, if unmarried, with their significant other. Such movies are the life blood of the white liberal. Nothing delights them more than to further defile the corpse of Christian Europe. The movie will emphasize the goodness of the black South Africans and the evil of the white South Africans, thus completely distorting the reality of South Africa’s history.

The white South Africans can justly claim that no race of people, with the possible exception of the pre-Civil War southern whites of North America, has ever done more for another race of people than the white South African has done for the black South African. What took place in South Africa prior to black rule was a miracle of God’s grace, and the white Europeans were the conduits. It would be an unconscionable oversight if the story of South Africa was told without properly applauding the achievements of the white South Africans. But of course the story is told without lauding the white South Africans. They are not just ignored – that would be bad enough – they are made out to be the villains in the story. And this is what we should expect since Satan is the guiding light of white liberals. The South African story is now told from Satan’s perspective.

As late as the 1960’s, writers such as Anthony Jacob were praising South Africa for holding the line against American democratic egalitarianism and Russian Communism. But by 1994 the white South Africans had succumbed. Why? It was not because they were defeated in battle, and it was not because of any trade embargo by the democracies of the West. They were simply tired of being excluded from Western sporting events and being told they were the ‘bad guys.’ But they had been the bad guys for many years prior to 1994, and they didn’t capitulate. Then what was different in 1994? The difference was Faith. The white South Africans suffered from the same malaise as their fellow Europeans: they no longer believed, with sufficient fervor, in the Christian faith. Having lost their faith, they lost two essential qualities that are necessary to maintain a minority government against a hostile majority.

1) The fortitude to stand against the world and be unpopular. The Christian expects, because His God told him it would always be so, to be hated by the world. But his faith in Christ sustains him when the jackals of the world attack him for his fidelity to the cross. When the South Africans felt themselves to be fighting for a Christian civilization in the darkest region of the earth, they were strong, and no force or earth could defeat them. When they lost that faith they crumbled.

2) The ability to see reality. A Christian can see reality, but a liberal cannot. When the white South Africans were Christian, they could see that they were the only force that could prevent South Africa from descending into a hellish black nation dedicated to murder, torture, and demonism. But when they ceased to look at existence with the eyes of Christians, they saw reality as the Western liberals do. “Why can’t we have a Babylonian, mixed race paradise right here in South Africa? All that stands in our way is apartheid.”

If a European is not a Christian, he will be susceptible to utopian thinking – Communism, racial egalitarianism, neo-paganism, whatever ideology that looks to a future without God and without real human beings of flesh and blood.

The weakness of a white man without faith was brought home to me recently when I saw the neo-pagan Nick Griffith try to debate a group of anti-white British liberals. He tried to conciliate them and use the democratic jargon with which they were familiar, but it was to no avail. They believed in their godless faith more than Nick Griffith believed in his ‘equal rights for whites’ advocacy, and they had no interest in conciliating Nick Griffith.

We can’t ignore the one great similarity between the neo-pagan, the democratic egalitarian, and the communist-socialist. All three look to a Godless future where the traditional faith of the European is held in contempt. And we should not ignore the striking contrast between the successes of white Christian South Africans, in dealing with barbarians, and the lack of success of the Nick Griffiths and the post 1994 white South Africans. What is missing? The real Christianity.

H. V. Morton, in his book In Search of South Africa, tells of a typical Zulu massacre of whites.

Before the Boers realised what was happening, the Zulus had flung themselves upon them. Thomas Halstead cried, “We are finished!” “Treason!” “Help, O lord!” were other cries, as the seized men fought savagely with knives. Several Zulus were killed and others, maddened by knife-wounds, broke the command that no blood must be shed in the kraal as they clubbed some of the Boers to death on the spot. The rest, fighting and stabbing were over-powered and dragged away to the Hill of Execution. Above the screams, the howls, the chanting, and the rattle of spears against shields, was heard the great voice of Dingaan ordering the murder.

Just before this happened a Zulu knocked at the door of Owen’s mission station with a message from Dingaan. He bade Owen not to be frightened, but he was going to kill the Boers. Owen, who had been afraid for days, was wondering how he might risk death by warning the Boers, when someone in the room shouted, “They are killing the Boers now!”

“I turned my eyes and behold! an immense multitude on the hill,” he wrote in his Diary that evening. “About 9 or 10 Zulus to each Boer were dragging their helpless unarmed victim to the fatal spot, where those eyes which awaked this morning was to see the cheerful light of day for the last time, are now closed in death. I lay myself down on the ground. Mrs. and Miss Owen were not more thunderstruck than myself. We each comforted the other. Presently the deed of blood being accomplished the whole multitude returned to the town to meet their sovereign, and as they drew near to him set up a shout which reached the station and continued for some some time... At this crisis I called all my family in and read the 91st Psalm, so singularly and literally applicable to our present situation, that I could with difficulty proceed with it!”

The Boers died fighting hopelessly to the last. Retief was made to witness the death of his son and his followers. The young boys were killed with the others. The bodies were piled upon the hill of death, and over them were the bodies of the grooms and
attendants. The heart and liver of Retief were removed and taken to Dingaan so that he might look upon them. Over sixty Boers, one Englishman, and numerous attendants lay dead in the sunlight of that morning in February, and the vultures of Hlomo Amabuta came down from the sky.

And then he writes about the European response:

Under the leadership of a great Afrikaner, Andries Pretorious, who subsequently gave his name to the Transvaal capital, they formed a Commando of four hundred and sixty four men and set off to face an enemy who was numbered by tens of thousands. They took with them sixty-four ox-wagons. On the way they begged God to help them and vowed that if they were granted victory they would build a church and for ever keep the day of their triumph as a Holy Sabbath. Professor Uys tells me that while this vow was made, the laager was guarded by Englishmen.

The commando made contact with the enemy near the Zulu capital and formed a laager with a river at their back. In the morning the Zulus attacked and the Boers held their fire until the enemy was ten yards off, then a hail of elephant ball and buck-shot poured from the wagons. The battle lasted three hours and the Boer guns were smoking hot.

Then came the moment in the plan of a Boer battle which above all others rouses admiration. Bart Pretorious, the brother of the General, put himself at the head of a small body of horsemen and galloped out, the men levelling their hot gun-barrels and firing from the saddle. In the last of three charges the Boers managed to split the Zulu army. Seeing this, Andries Pretorious took command of three hundred horsemen and came galloping out of the laager. He rode straight into the gap between the Zulus, and then one section wheeled left, and the other right, and each began to press back and drive the now demoralised enemy in front of them. The rout became a headlong flight.

When the Boers rallied and assembled, and came back to the laager with their hot guns and their spent ponies, they saw that the river was red with Zulu blood; and its name on the map to-day is Blood River. If one sometimes suspects upon reading of these Homeric contests, that the casualties must have been estimated on a classical basis, there is at least firm authority for the statement that the Zulu dead at Blood River, which were carefully counted, numbered some three thousand.

H. V. Morton describes the battles as Homeric. But Homer in his wildest imagination could not have conceived of the heroism displayed by the Afrikaners, and the South South African English. And they kept their vow:

At Pietermaritzburg, which became the capital of the republic in Natal, they built a church; and to this day December 16, Dingaan’s Day, is a solem day of remembrance throughout the Union.

The reason the neo-pagans keep attempting to win whites over to neo-paganism is because they think they must have the strength of numbers in order to win battles. Since they don’t believe in the Christian God, they are unable to see that numbers do not ultimately determine the victor in battle. The great victories of Christian Europeans always came against a multitudinous majority. It is the singleness of purpose that comes from a common faith, and not numbers, that the Europeans need. They do not need “one man more” to fight their modern battle of Agincourt.

I know in my own life the only times I’ve ever approached the heroic mode was when I invoked my God. And if we look at the incredible history of the European people, we see that it was their God, the Christ, who inspired them to a level of heroism that the post-Christian man has never and will never come close to reaching.

The liberals have buried the cross of Christ fathoms deep in the ocean. They now sleep quite content in the knowledge that no European is capable of, or willing to, resurrect that cross. But the God who made the deaf hear and the blind see can also make heroes of ordinary men who still seek Him in their hearts. The faithful European will plunge the depths and bring His Cross to the surface again. And then? The European Phoenix will rise from the ashes of neo-pagan despair and suicidal liberalism and bear witness to the world that it is only through His Cross that a people can overcome the world. +

The Outlawed European and the Practical Conservative

“He was cold and phlegmatic, and utterly devoid of that sacred fire which is the incentive to noble deeds...”

___________________________

In Shakespeare’s Richard III, Buckingham, having done every dirty deed that Richard asked him to do, balks at the suggestion that he kill the young sons of Edward, the former king. Buckingham felt he had done enough; he helped Richard become king by treachery and murder, and now he wanted his reward, a dukedom and the lands and revenue of those he killed. But Richard of Gloucester didn’t see things that way. Having become king by foul means, he needed to maintain his kingdom by foul means. His friends are those who do his bidding, and his enemies are those who will not do his bidding. So Buckingham, despite his former services, becomes a proscribed traitor.

Buckingham, like Macbeth, thought he could use the devil for his own ends and then opt out of the devil’s service. Likewise the modern conservative-liberal. He thought he could go along with part of the liberal agenda and then opt out of the parts of liberalism that he found offensive. It doesn’t work that way.

First the conservative-liberal caved in on segregation. “That’s not essential – in fact it’s antithetical -- to our vision of a democratic society.” Then came feminism and its logical consequence, legalized abortion. “Full equality between men and women is certainly compatible with democratic egalitarianism, and legalized abortion is something we will permit so long as there are laws that sanction it. Nothing should ever impinge on the democratic process.” And once you’ve made your peace with feminists, it’s only a matter of time before you must accommodate the homosexuals. Having made the commitment to liberaldom, you can’t flinch at any of your rulers' commands.

The practical conservative-liberal is the Christian European’s greatest roadblock, because Mr. Practical Conservative wants to make the war between liberaldom and Christendom into a family quarrel within liberaldom. In point of fact, Mr. Practical Conservative dislikes terms like liberaldom and Christendom. He is a no-nonsense, meat-and-potatoes man who simply wants white people to have their own culture within liberaldom. What, however, is the white man’s culture? What does it mean to be white? It wasn’t a complicated issue until the latter half of the 20th century. To be white meant to be Christian. The terms were synonymous. But practical conservative man doesn’t want to hear such nonsense. In his practical mind, the white man is a biological entity who supports the democratic process, tax cuts, and organized, integrated sports.
How practical is the practical, conservative man? For years he ranted at the European separatists, who told him that there was no hope for European man within the democratic process, that talk of separation was surrender. But who turned out to be correct? Practical, conservative man or the European Christian? What has ‘get out the vote, don’t be impractical’ accomplished? It has brought the European to the block, that’s what it has accomplished.

The practical conservatism that either treats Christianity as a small cog in the great Greco-Roman, Germanic wheel, or that dismisses it altogether, is not practical. It is not practical because it treats the most essential issue, “Did Christ rise from the dead?” as a side issue of no particular concern for practical men. How can white men band together without a spiritual connection? What is the common culture they are trying to preserve? Capitalism? Agrarianism? No, there was only one fire inside European man, the Christian fire. And when that fire went out, the European did not actually physically die, but nothing resembling life remained in his heart. It doesn’t matter which European country you look at – Sweden, Britain, the United States – they are all helpless in the face of barbarism. Why? Because they have lost their faith. Liberalism isn’t a faith; it’s an absence of faith, pure negation, or at least the negation of everything the European Christian once believed. So, how can a European stay connected to liberaldom and remain a European? He can’t.

The practical, conservative men always point out the futility of an armed, separatist attack on the liberal leviathan, but such an attack is not the essence of a European separatist movement. A final Armageddon-type battle may well be the final outcome of a separatist movement, but the separatist movement is first and foremost a spiritual movement. “I shall serve Christian Europe; I shall not serve satanic liberaldom.” That internal determination is the heart and soul of the separatist, European movement. If a European separatist actually has enough money to buy some land and physically separate himself from liberaldom, then God bless him. But most of us do not have the financial means to make that kind of a separation from liberaldom. Most of us have to live and work in liberaldom, but that should not deter us from being European separatists. We are among them, but not of them. We are outlawed men, and we shall do whatever we can to undermine and ultimately destroy liberaldom. Geoffrey Household once wrote an excellent novel called Rogue Male. The main character no longer accepted his nation’s definition of morality. He set out, in defiance of his country’s moral standards, to kill the dictator who killed the woman he loved. The liberals have killed the culture we loved, and they are killing, through their barbarian henchmen, the people who constitute the remnant of the civilization we loved. Should we ask the liberals, ever so politely, to let us live in liberaldom? Would it do any good to make such a plea? There shall be no mercy for the white man. Then let us take heart and make a virtue of necessity. We are outlaws, so be it; at least we can be men again, no longer bound by the satanic rules of liberaldom and no longer bound to meekly demure and confine our protests to angry letters when our fellow Europeans are despoiled of their lands and murdered in the streets.

The advocates of practical conservatism have undermined European man in two ways.
1) They have wasted his spiritual energy by getting him to focus on equal representation within liberaldom rather than focusing on resistance to liberaldom.
2) By denying the existence of a spiritual dimension to life, they have given the European the false impression that only the empirical matters. No movement which only acknowledges empirical results will ever be successful. When Claus von Stauffenberg made the decision, quite correctly in my opinion, to kill Adolf Hitler, he wanted the plan to succeed, and he did everything in the practical realm to make the plan succeed. But he didn’t view the assassination attempt as just a ‘practical’ step to insure that Germany got a more competent leader. Von Stauffenberg believed in a mystical, Christian Germany. He believed that the fact that there were Germans willing to oppose Hitler made even more difference in the spiritual realm than the actual success or failure of the assassination attempt. This might be impossible for a practical, conservative liberal, raised on think-tanks and opinion polls, to understand, but I understand von Stauffenberg, and so does every European who still remains European.

I once read a criticism of Whittaker Chambers by a leading proponent of the white, anti-immigration, practical conservative movement. He criticized Chambers for not leaving behind some program for white people to follow instead of some metaphysical mumbo-jumbo. Well, having read Chambers’ works and the works of the Mr. Practical Conservative, I can say that Mr. Practical’s works did nothing for white people compared to Chambers’ works. Chambers bore witness to the light, the light that inspired white people to fight for the people Mr. Practical Conservative claims to care about. To what did Mr. Practical bear witness? What inspiration can we take from empiricism?

One could, from the practical conservative’s standpoint, say the same thing about Alexander Solzhenitsyn that was said about Whittaker Chambers: “He didn’t leave behind a practical program.” No, he didn’t. Is it really necessary to point out that he left behind something more precious and spiritually practical than a plan to capture an electoral victory?

The conservative-liberal movement failed because the leaders of the movement had the same beliefs as the liberal-liberals. Both groups rejected the Christian European view of man. The antique European believed that each soul counted, that what happened to every single human being had eternal significance: “Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.” Hence it followed from that quaint belief of the older Europeans that every Christian act of mercy, every Christian act in defense of other Christians, made a difference no matter how insignificant it might seem to the empiricist who sees only the aggregate herd and not individual human beings. Any movement that discourages the European from those ‘insignificant’ acts of mercy and those insignificant acts in defense of, is a movement that beckons us to hell.

We have forgotten what Hamlet learned through suffering and travail. It is not given to us to know the future or to know what effect our individual acts will have on the future.

Not a whit; we defy augury. There’s a special providence in the fall of a sparrow. If it be now, ‘tis not to come; if it be not to come, it will be now; if it be not now, yet it will come; the readiness is all. Since no man has aught of what he leaves, what is’t to leave betimes? [Let be.]

It is only given to us to know what our blood tells us. He will not leave us bereft of comfort, and He does not want us to become practical, conservative empiricists. “Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more.”