The Threads of Our European Past

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eternal Ties That Bind

“I am weary of your yoke of iron. A light beams on my soul. Woe to those who seek justice in the dark haunts of mystery and of cruelty! She dwells in the broad blaze of the sun, and Mercy is ever by her side. Woe to those who would advance the general weal by trampling upon the social affections! They aspire to be more than men – they shall become worse than tigers.” – Sir Walter Scott

Writing in the late 1800’s the English historian William E. T. Lecky claimed that Edmund Burke had exaggerated the dangers the French Revolution posed to the rest of Europe. After all, Lecky asserted, was not England still standing, free, constitutional, and Christian? But if Lecky had been able to see through the surface events of life to the spirit animating the events, as Burke could, he would have seen that the ideology that made Christian men and women into inhuman monsters in France was slowly and insidiously enveloping Britain and all of Europe. What in essence is the ideology of liberty, equality, and fraternity? It is a flight from the non-abstract, personal faith in Jesus Christ, to an impersonal abstract faith in humanity. And the most striking thing about the practitioners of the new faith, which is now a very old faith, was their hatred for the natural ties of affection that had previously bound all Christian Europeans to their nations and their people. When Edmund Burke strongly criticized the radical clergyman, Dr. Price, for exulting over the capture and humiliation of the King and Queen of France, Price asked Burke why he was a so concerned about the Monarch and his Queen.

Why do I feel so differently from the Reverend Dr. Price, and those of his lay flock, who will choose to adopt the sentiments of his discourse?—For this plain reason—because it is natural I should; because we are so made as to be affected at such spectacles with melancholy sentiments upon the unstable condition of mortal prosperity, and the tremendous uncertainty of human greatness; because in those natural feelings we learn great lessons; because in events like these our passions instruct our reason; because when kings are hurl’d from their thrones by the Supreme Director of this great drama, and become the objects of insult to the base, and of pity to the good, we behold such disasters in the moral, as we should behold a miracle in the physical order of things.

“Because it is natural I should.” Ah, there’s the rub. Burke, and most of his fellow Englishmen at the time, had no desire to have a new religion where original sin was vested in one unpopular branch of the human race, such as the rich or the white, and virtue was invested in only “the people” as narrowly defined by their lower class origins or by their noble, black skins. The sentimental English still believed that natural attachments to kith, kin and God were the best attachments. They did not, except for the radicals like Price and Priestley (1), abandon their natural ties to each other for a new faith in the god of abstract Humanity. One can appreciate the pride Burke had in his people when he wrote of the contrast between them and the French radicals.

I almost venture to affirm, that not one in a hundred amongst us participates in the "triumph" of the Revolution Society. If the king and queen of France, and their children, were to fall into our hands by the chance of war, in the most acrimonious of all hostilities (I deprecate such an event, I deprecate such hostility), they would be treated with another sort of triumphal entry into London. We formerly have had a king of France in that situation; you have read how he was treated by the victor in the field, and in what manner he was afterwards received in England. Four hundred years have gone over us, but I believe we are not materially changed since that period. Thanks to our sullen resistance to innovation, thanks to the cold sluggishness of our national character, we still bear the stamp of our forefathers. We have not (as I conceive) lost the generosity and dignity of thinking of the fourteenth century, nor as yet have we subtilized ourselves into savages. We are not the converts of Rousseau; we are not the disciples of Voltaire; Helvetius has made no progress amongst us. Atheists are not our preachers; madmen are not our lawgivers. We know that we have made no discoveries, and we think that no discoveries are to be made in morality, nor many in the great principles of government, nor in the ideas of liberty, which were understood long before we were born, altogether as well as they will be after the grave has heaped its mold upon our presumption and the silent tomb shall have imposed its law on our pert loquacity. In England we have not yet been completely embowelled of our natural entrails; we still feel within us, and we cherish and cultivate, those inbred sentiments which are the faithful guardians, the active monitors of our duty, the true supporters of all liberal and manly morals. We have not been drawn and trussed, in order that we may be filled, like stuffed birds in a museum, with chaff and rags and paltry blurred shreds of paper about the rights of men. We preserve the whole of our feelings still native and entire, unsophisticated by pedantry and infidelity. We have real hearts of flesh and blood beating in our bosoms.

“Oh, what a falling-off was there.” All Europe has now gone astray and institutionalized the abstracted, cruel inhumanity of the first French radicals. The European has been “completely embowelled” of his natural sentiments. In the French Revolution of America, the Civil War, the white people of the South became victims of the brave new doctrine of abstracted humanity. White Southerners became non-persons and the negro was declared a demigod and invested with all the humanity that the evil, white Southerner was said to be devoid of. Then, in the 1960’s, to the eternal shame of the Roman Catholic Church, the pope of abstracted humanity, Pope John XXIII, institutionalized the satanic principles of liberty, equality, and fraternity in the Roman Catholic Church. He spit on his own people, who were tortured and mutilated by bestial black savages, by lovingly forgiving the black barbarians who gleefully tortured and murdered white Christians. And every black atrocity since that loving forgiveness was extended by John XXIII has been praised and excused by the abstracted inhuman creatures that have come to be called liberals. The original French radicals were moral monsters – they had no right to kill their king. Nothing he had done reached the level of tyrannical despotism. But everything the French radicals did and everything our modern liberals do clearly marks them as tyrannical despots. Are such men fit to govern? Macduff had the answer to that question: “Fit to govern? Not fit to live!” Such men as the Rev. Price, Priestly, Pope John XXIII, and the legion of modern liberal academics and clergymen were created by God, so we will not, as they have done to the Christian Europeans, abstract them from the human race, but we will call them what they are: inhuman hellhounds who have betrayed their own people and their God in order to serve the satanic abstraction called “The People,” which in modern times has become equivalent to serving the negro. And why should we oppose them? We oppose them because it is natural that we should oppose those who try to kill our feelings of affection and love for our kith and kin. Such feelings and attachments sustain us in our day of battle against principalities and powers, and keep us connected to Christ, the God of the European hearth.

The new, abstract, utopian faith of the liberal combines the rationalism of the Greeks with the pagan rites of the mystery cults. Rationalism alone leaves a void in the soul, so the liberal adds an infusion of colored blood to inject mystery and direct communion with his god into his faith. The obvious missing link, a real missing link, is a loving God, who surpasses the understanding of the rationalists and who also surpasses, in breadth and depth, the cruel, loveless mysticism of the mystery religions.

Despite our Lord’s and St. Paul’s insistence that our organ of sight is the heart, not the head (or maybe because of that), the heretics of the European world have always insisted that reason, divorced from the heart, is the lodestar of mortal men. It was of no small significance that the bloodthirsty French utopians enthroned a prostitute as the goddess of reason, for reason, divorced from the heart, is always a whore.

The history of the noncolored people is a boring continuum of blood and sex. The only time their histories rise to the level of interesting is when they intersect with the histories of the white people. When the white people were strong, when they stayed close to the virtues of the heart and eschewed rationalism, their contact with the colored cultures did them no harm and humanized the colored people, to the extent that they could be humanized. But when European rationalism intermixed with colored barbarism, the bestiality of the coloreds was intensified, and the satanic evil of reason divorced from the moral sentiments inculcated by Christianity, was allowed to run rampant throughout the formerly Christian nations of Europe. The rationalist white Europeans returned to paganism and called it progress. Look at modern interracial Europe. Every pagan abomination has returned tenfold because the European has mixed his technology with colored barbarism in order to enhance and magnify the paganism which is called, by the European rationalists, the onward march of mankind toward heaven on earth. The dark minds of the rationalists will always seek to blend with the dark skins of the heathen because the light of Christian Europe is an anathema to them.

In Anthony Jacob’s magnificent book White Man Think Again, he emphasizes that the white race is not in decline because the black race is advancing. The white race is in decline because white people are retreating. And if we look at the retreat clearly, we can trace the retreat to one source, rationalism. When the white man renounced the ties of honor, faith, and love that formerly bound all white people to their European hearths, he became a creature created in the image of Satan, a sneering debunker of everything holy and sacred:

For this purpose Mephistopheles is, like Louis XL, 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

Yes, Scott has masterfully described the modern liberal. He uses his reason not to champion the divine longings in the heart, but to deprecate the very notion of divine longings. He is dead to the eternal verities; all he seeks, with the desperate cunning of a dope fiend deprived of his dope, is that which fulfills his own selfish appetites. The liberal doesn’t love his black god; he loves the gratification he gets from worshipping at the shrine of a god who permits every self-indulgence, so long as the devotee fulfills his sacrificial obligations. And such sacrificial offerings are easy for the liberal because he always sacrifices other whites, never his own sacred, self-indulgent person.

In capital letters writ large and ever before our eyes we should see the words, “Every time we abstract humanity, we aid Liberaldom and hurt the European people.” I recently saw a neo-pagan blogger applauding the beating of a white girl, by black marauders, in one of our major cities. The blogger was delighted because he thought that the beating and more such beatings would help whites to “wake up.” Nothing but more liberalism will come from such inhuman creatures as that white, neo-pagan strategist. To love the white race as a generic race, abstracted from individuals of that race, is liberalism. It is the liberalism of Hitler and other false purveyors of racial solidarity. There can be no solidarity where there is no humanity. The European does not love in the abstract. He loves his own particular nation, his own particular race, his own particular family, because God ordained that he love them over all. Such love – particular, intense, and personal – enables us to understand and respond to His love, which is particular, intense, and personal.

Exaggerate the dangers of French rationalism and utopianism? If anything, Burke underestimated the dangers. We have fallen infinitely lower than the French radicals that Burke so rightly deplored:

Little did I dream when she added titles of veneration to those of enthusiastic, distant, respectful love, that she should ever be obliged to carry the sharp antidote against disgrace concealed in that bosom; little did I dream that I should have lived to see such disasters fallen upon her in a nation of gallant men, in a nation of men of honor and of cavaliers. I thought ten thousand swords must have leaped from their scabbards to avenge even a look that threatened her with insult. But the age of chivalry is gone. That of sophisters, economists; and calculators has succeeded…

We still have our eternal, defiant “No” to the sophisters, economists, and calculators. And all Europeans still have a racial memory of the God who is the light that shineth in darkness, even in the darkness of rationalism and barbarism. +
___________________
(1) Priestley’s “advanced” views on the subject of bloodletting in the name of the universal brotherhood of man were so abhorrent to his English neighbors that they burned down his house, forcing him to flee to America, where he was petted and adored by American liberals.