Destroyed by Fire

“I may not hope from outward forms to win
The passion and the life, whose fountains are within.”

-Samuel Taylor Coleridge

I recently saw a baseball game at a relative’s house, but it was far from the enjoyable experience it could have been if white Americans did not worship Negroes. The players all wore the uniforms of the old Negro Leagues. (Apparently it was “civil rights’ week” in baseball – although isn’t every week “civil rights’ week” in baseball?) And every other word out of the white, play-by-play announcer’s mouth was in condemnation of the bad old days when evil white men kept Negroes out of baseball. The other word out of the announcer’s mouth was of course in praise of the godlike Negroes, past and present. I feigned some vague illness and left my negro-worshiping cousin’s dwelling before the game was over.

In a totalitarian, democratic, egalitarian society such as the United States of America, there is no aspect of the citizen’s daily life that is not used for propaganda purposes. Sport, at least as pertains to males, is the primary propaganda instrument of the government. You could claim that the United States government does not force white males to watch Negro-worshiping sporting events, and you would be correct, to a certain extent. The U.S. government does not use the straight-forward, masculine form of compulsion championed by the former Soviet Union, but the United States does compel in a more feminine, seductive way. In the soulless, meaningless world of modernity that is the United States, where can a man turn to get some transitory relief from the mundane reality of modernity? The more energetic turn to illicit sex, while the rest of the white males turn to sport. And our sports reflect the ideology of our government. Men that couldn’t be reached by any other means, because they don’t care about anything else, are reached and indoctrinated through sporting events. The South was not dead as a viable living alternative to the modernist, Unitarian North until they integrated their local Little League teams in order to be allowed into the universalist, integrated Little League of the liberals. And likewise the white South Africans; they sold their souls for the right to participate in worldwide sporting events.

While watching the ballgame and watching my cousin’s enraptured love for the Negro ballplayers, I thought of Carl Jung. Jung was a protégé of Sigmund Freud, but he broke with Freud on the issue of religion. It was Freud’s contention that all religious belief was neurosis, but Jung saw that all of his patients had some kind of longing for the transcendent. “How,” Jung asked, “could you call something a neurosis that was a universal feeling or sentiment?” The religious impulse was not a neurosis confined to one individual, like an impulse to drive one’s car off a cliff or to plunge a dagger into a stranger’s heart, so how could the religious sentiment be a neurosis? It couldn’t, Jung decided. And ministers and priests were delighted with Jung. “You see he says we are not sick.” Who is the greater danger though: Freud or Jung? I think it is Jung. Freud attacks your faith head on, and you can meet his attack head on. But Jung tells a Christian that it’s OK to have a faith in Christ, because He is a symbol of a need for some kind of transcendent being that exists in all people. “But what of Jesus of Nazareth?” the Christian asks: “Did He rise from the dead on the third day?” Of course, not,” Papa Jung tells us, but it’s all right to feel the need to go to Church and pretend that He rose again from the dead on the third day. “You’re alright, and I’m alright.” Thanks for nothing, Carl Jung.

Jung and his discipline Joseph Campbell, the author of the Hero with a Thousand Faces, uses the term ‘oversoul’ and the ‘oceanic feeling’ to describe man’s religious longing, but in the end Jung, like Shaw with his “creative evolution” bids us have faith in an airy nothing without a local habitation and a name. It is regurgitated Platonism, and like the original Platonism, it proved unsatisfactory to men because “hope without an object cannot live.” (1) Which brings us back to the baseball game. What if we combine the psychological mumbo-jumbo of the ‘oversoul’ and ‘creative mind’ with Negro worship? At last! Now the liberal intellectual and the common man are one; they have found an object to worship – the generic black man. Of course the new fusionist religion of abstract philosophy, pop psychology, and Negro worship is a very superficial religion. There must be constant state-sponsored events and programs to keep the Negro ever before the white man’s eyes, lest he forget that he is supposed to worship and adore the Negro, who is not really (when we look at him as he is) a very adorable object of worship.

The reason right-wingers from the BNP and the American Renaissance fail to make a dent in the liberal machine is because they do not see that the civil rights movement was not about equal rights for blacks. Some whites who were involved in the civil rights movement, quite possibly a majority, might have told themselves and believed their own lie, that they wanted civil rights for the black man. But that is not what they were after then or now. The white liberals wanted a new god to replace the old, dead God named Jesus Christ. No disenfranchised white European will become enfranchised by pleading for equal rights with the black man. Such a plea strikes the white liberal as blasphemous. How can sinful man (remember original sin still exists in the white man) obtain equality with the black gods? It’s not possible within the Negro-worshiping confines of Liberaldom.

The white man cannot fight for equality within Liberaldom, equal rights will not be given to him; he has only the right to dig his own grave. But the European can and should fight with his whole heart and soul to destroy Liberaldom. Think in terms of kingdoms. We live in a kingdom that is irrevocably opposed to everything an antique European holds dear. And it’s not a question of choosing war over peace; there is no choice. We can’t make peace with liberals that have only one definition of peace: an open grave for white men.

Liberaldom has been set up along the lines of the old Roman Empire. All faiths are tolerated so long as they are subservient to the state gods. That’s where the Christians ran afoul of the Roman Empire. They refused to bend their knee to any God but Christ. The new halfway-house Christians, who are not Christian by the old European standards, save their “faith” by discarding their belief in Jesus Christ as the one true God. In the modern Christian churches Christ is a ‘best man’ type of God; He plays ‘best man’ at the one-sided marriage (all the love comes from the white man) between the European and the black man. Of course the new marriage vow is somewhat different than the traditional Christian marriage vow. In the new vows the white man pledges to forsake the true God and to worship and obey only the black god.

In old Europe the Christian faith was woven into the fabric of European culture. When you attacked the European’s God, he rightly saw that it was an attack on his home and everything he held dear in life, because everything that the European valued was connected to Christ. Likewise the modern liberal. If you attack Negro worship, you attack a whole pantheon of values that stem from Negro worship. The feminist circles the wagons, because Negro worship precedes feminism on the slippery slope; without racial Babylon there could be no sexual Babylon. And sexual Babylon is a necessity for the feminist and her cousin, the homosexual. The capitalist who thrives on the idea that there are no natural ties of kith and kin, only ties forged by self-interest between atomistic individual units, will fight to preserve the atomistic theology that dissolves all bonds of kinship within the white race. How can he run roughshod over his fellow competitors in the marketplace if he respects kith and kin? And on it goes, doctor, lawyer, and Indian Chief all have a vested interest in keeping the Negro as the centerpiece of the new religious faith.

The white liberal has given up his childlike faith in Christ for an adolescent crush on the Negro. And he thinks, in his mush-brained adolescent way, that if he will only be faithful, loving and true to his new god, the great black god will be true to him. “Only bad whites will be exterminated,” the white liberal intones. I can still hear the voice of that insipid, loathsome, play-by-play announcer mawkishly weeping over the poor Negroes who were forbidden to play baseball with the evil white players, while he simultaneously hurled invective at the evil white players of the segregated era. Someone tell that modern homosexual version of Little Lord Fauntleroy that Pope John’s nuns were flaming Negro-worshipers, but that didn’t stop the Negroes from raping and torturing them. And I have yet to hear of a black rapist or murderer extending mercy to a white person because of their liberalism. “Though you slay them, yet will I believe in you,” is the cry of the white liberal to his black god.

The European who still calls his soul his own is in the same situation as Hamlet the Dane. A kingdom of Satan has been built over a once Christian kingdom. All the externals of a Christian kingdom are intact, but they are being used for satanic purposes. A hero is needed, a man who has “that within which passeth show…” It was our Lord who said, “For behold, the Kingdom of God is within you.” In that kingdom, the kingdom inside a faithful European’s heart, is the fire and passion to destroy ten thousand liberaldoms. If we wonder where our ancestors got the innards to keep the Jew at bay, defeat the Moslems, and turn back the colored hordes, we need only go back to the deserted European village, which still exists, waiting to be repopulated, in the heart of every European.

It’s not second sight that we need. The European needs first sight. He needs to see God as the first Christian Europeans saw Him, pure and undefiled. He calls us still, to follow in His train. The old hymn tells of “a glorious band, the chosen few on whom the spirit came.” It’s a mystery why so many do not see. St. Paul tells us that moral blindness comes from a hardened heart. The vision of our Lord softened St. Paul’s heart and turned his hate for Christ into love for Christ. The simple vision of a European hearth presided over by Christ the Lord once inspired the European people to build Christendom. When the external façade is removed from Satandom, the façade of Negro worship, and all that Negro worship spawned, the light of the world will once again be able to touch the hearts of Europeans who now seem dead to the light.

It’s difficult, when viewing the immense superstructure of Liberaldom, to believe that there ever was anything besides Liberaldom, or that Liberaldom could ever cease to be. But the faithful heart sees through the external façade of life to the Kingdom within. In that Kingdom He still reigns and will reign forever and ever. It is now only an underground whisper, the European Hallelujah Chorus, but just a whisper of His name once set Europe ablaze. Liberaldom is not forever; eternal Europe, which is His Kingdom, is forever. +
_____________________

(1) ) The result of Hardy's management was that Tom made a clean breast of it, telling everything, down to his night at the ragged school, and what an effect his chance opening of the Apology had had on him. Here for the first time Hardy came in with his usual dry, keen voice, "You needn't have gone so far back as Plato for that lesson."

"I don't understand," said Tom.

"Well, there's something about an indwelling spirit which guideth every man, in St. Paul, isn't there?"

"Yes, a great deal," Tom answered, after a pause; "but it isn't the same thing."

"Why not the same thing?"

"Oh, surely, you must feel it. It would be almost blasphemy in us now to talk as St. Paul talked. It is much easier to face the notion, or the fact, of a demon or spirit such as Socrates felt to be in him, than to face what St. Paul seems to be meaning."

"Yes, much easier. The only question is whether we will be heathen or not."

"How do you mean?" said Tom.

"Why, a spirit was speaking to Socrates, and guiding him. He obeyed the guidance, but knew not whence it came. A spirit is striving with us too, and trying to guide us--we feel that just as much as he did. Do we know what spirit it is? Whence it comes? Will we obey it? If we can't name it--we are in no better position than he--in fact, heathens."

Refusing to Live in Babylon

What distinguishes this book, American Statesmen on Slavery and the Negro, written in 1971 by Nathaniel Weyl and William Marina, from almost every other book on the same topic is the authors’ commendable effort to avoid moralistic scolding of whites in general, and to avoid demonizing Southern whites in particular. The authors state in their introduction:

Other contemporary studies of slavery and the Negro suffer from an intense moralistic bias and from the fact that their authors seem more interested in scolding their subjects than in understanding their reasons for their action. The proper business of the historian is not to inflict his prejudices on his readers, but, in the vernacular of modern American youth, “to tell it like it was.” As the German historian of civilization, Leopold Ranke, put it, perhaps a bit more eloquently: “Ich will bloss sagen wie es eigentlich gewesen ist.” (“I shall merely state how it actually was.”) The Greek Sophist, Lucian, once observed: “Historical characters are not prisoners on trial.” It may be tempting for the historian to arraign great men, prosecute them and convict them. It panders to his prejudices, inflates his ego and is invariably successful, since they are not present to defend themselves. Nevertheless, it is none of his business.

We believe that the record of the judgments made by American political leaders on slavery and the Negro, their analyses of the underlying problems and their proposed remedies cast light on the difficulty and durability of the problem and its imperviousness to easy solutions. This record now stretches over two centuries which are almost bisected by a civil war that many thought might reduce racial strife in America to inconsequential dimensions. In presenting this record, our purpose is not to place American statesmen in pigeonholes and still less to moralize concerning their doubts and conclusions. It is simply to write down, to the best of our ability, the record of the past in the hope that it may shed light on this vexing topic for the
present and the future.

Would that all historians had the same intentions!

The views of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Franklin, Woodrow Wilson, Andrew Jackson, Teddy Roosevelt, and many others are presented by the authors. There was a consensus amongst the statesmen mentioned above and the American public that the slave trade and chattel slavery was wrong, but that miscegenation and integration were abhorrent and would mean the extinction of the white race. Jefferson and Lincoln favored re-colonization, which was made impossible after 1865; and Woodrow Wilson, Teddy Roosevelt, and others favored legal enfranchisement with the strictest segregation possible in terms of social contact. All of these statesmen perceived a danger if the Negroes were integrated into society as if they were simply pigmented white men.

The Civil War erupted, the authors claim, when two minority factions collided, forcing the men in the middle to choose sides. Robert E. Lee was not in favor of chattel slavery as were Calhoun and the radical slavers, but when forced to choose, he chose to fight for his native state. Lincoln was not in favor of full black integration into white society, but when forced to choose between the radical abolitionists who wanted full integration and the pro-slavery contingent, he went with the abolitionists.

What is depressing but true is that the abolitionists won out. Despite the warnings of every single statesman in American history, by 1960 the radical abolitionists had won.

Weyl and Marina suggest a compromise. They recommend full economic and political enfranchisement for Negroes and the right of free association in private schools, clubs, and neighborhoods for whites. And that right of association would have the complete support of the federal government.

They quote a very interesting work by William Graham Sumner called Folkways, in which Mr. Sumner maintains that federal encroachment on the folkways of the South made racial antagonism inevitable:

In our Southern states before war… whites and blacks had formed habits of action and feeling toward each other. They lived in peace and concord, and each one grew up in the ways which were traditional and customary. The Civil War abolished legal rights and left the two races to learn how to live together under other relations than before. The whites have never been converted from the old mores… The two races have not yet made new mores. Vain attempts have been made to control the new order by legislation. The only result is the proof that legislation cannot make mores. (p. 384)

The authors go on to point out another factor which no-one today will deal with when they ask the question of why the Negro has not, like other minorities, been raised to a higher level after years of efforts. White oppression is not, in the authors’ view, the reason.

These misgivings have, it would seem, been amply justified by the course of events. The United States has undertaken an historically unparalleled effort to raise the Negro by governmental action to the political, cultural, social, and economic level attained by the white man. In the pursuit of this objective, it has spent billions of dollars. It has promoted men to positions for which they are not qualified solely because they are black. It has persuaded universities to admit students who do not qualify educationally or mentally exclusively because of their color. It has filled some of the highest positions in the executive and judicial branches of government on the basis of race and without regard to merit.

The reward the United States has reaped is to be denounced across the world as a racist state and as a recrudescence of Hitlerism. By contrast, the Japanese, who continue to oppress one and a half million Etas, have been silent about their misconduct and it has passed unnoticed. The Indians, who have abolished caste more in name than in fact, remain immune from world criticism even though their untouchables are still largely pariahs. The masochistic traditions of liberal Protestantism, reformed Judaism and modern Catholicism to the contrary, those who publicly display their sores are tagged with the leper’s bell. (p. 387-8)

Their advice? Refuse to wear the leper’s bell. Instead, they suggest:

Government should continue to act to ensure that no citizen is denied his civil rights or access to public schools, public office or other governmental facility because of race.

In the private sector, individuals should have the right to associate or refuse to associate with anybody they please without interference by governmental authority.

Racial mixing of schools, neighborhoods and residential complexes according to bureaucratically prescribed formulas is an abuse of governmental power. It is the business of the state to see that people are not deprived of their rights because of their race; it is not the business of the state to decide how they should be mixed in relation to race. (p. 390)

If the suggestions of Weyl and Marina had been followed back in 1971, there would not now be any need for a white counterrevolution. But now that liberals have institutionalized forced integration and mandated the worship of blacks, more extreme measures than those suggested by Weyl and Marina will be necessary.

If we want to successfully eradicate institutionalized racial Babylon, we need to understand why such reasonable and beneficial – beneficial for both races – proposals such as those suggested by Weyl and Marina were not adopted by our government.

If, in 1971, you had had the opportunity to sit down privately with the individual congressmen in both the state and federal legislatures, I think you would have found that the great majority agreed with the analysis of Weyl and Marina. But not one of those legislators would have voiced their agreement with Weyl and Marina in public because democratic governments are not run by majorities. They are run by passionate minorities who are able to convince finger-in-the-wind pragmatists that their cause is the will of the majority or, at the very least, the will of the majority of the future.

The integrationists consisted of two groups of radicals. The first was made up of secularized Christians and secularized Jews. Having lost their faith in a transcendent God, they made a god of the noble black savage. The second group was the capitalists. They were often opposed to the secularized Christian and Jewish radicals on many issues but they were united with them on the integration issue. In fact, it was the capitalists of the late 19th century who killed the back-to-Africa movement. They needed cheap Negro labor in order to keep making exorbitant profits.

The racial secularists and the capitalists had the religious zeal that the pragmatic men lacked. Only a faith can counteract another faith. So in the absence of a Christian resistance movement, the Christless faith of the secularized Christians and Jews and the golden-calf faith of the capitalists won the day. The integrationists threw their gauntlet onto the courtroom floor and no Christian champion picked it up. The integrationist champion then entered the lists unopposed.

Of course now, some 37 years later, if you sat down privately with the members of the state and federal legislatures, 99% of them would not agree with the modest proposals of Weyl and Marina. And that is a sign of a successful revolution: what was formerly the majority opposition now gives internal assent to the enemy.

In 1971, the hour was very late, but it was still possible then to say, “If we act now we can still conserve a significant portion of European America.” But white people did not act, and European America was jettisoned. True conservatives, cultural conservatives, must now (they have no choice) become counterrevolutionaries. The revolutionaries started out as tiny minorities on the fringe of Western civilization, and now we, the European minority, must start out on the fringes and in the cellars of the new Babylonian empire, and begin the long, slow, painful reconquest.

The only sure way to get a reputation as a prophet is to never make a prophecy. Then, no matter how events turn out, you smile and nod in a Pumblechookian manner and pretend that the way everything has turned out is exactly the way you thought things would turn out. No one can say for sure that a series of cataclysmic events won’t shift the balance of power back into the hands of the Europeans, but one can say that such an occurrence would be highly unlikely. The more likely scenario is that we will have to put in a few centuries of counterrevolutionary work before we see Europe rise from the ashes. But if it be not now, then it will come. Hamlet is right: “The readiness is all.” Now, or later, Europe will rise again. It will rise again, because I and other Europeans, “We few, we happy few, we band of brothers,” will never let the image of His Europe fade from our hearts. Europe is the friend, our friend, that Thomas Moore wrote about:

It is not the tear at this moment shed,
When the cold turf has just been laid o'er him,
That can tell how beloved was the friend that's fled,
Or how deep in our hearts we deplore him.
'Tis the tear, thro’ many a long day wept,
'Tis life's whole path o'ershaded;
'Tis the one remembrance, fondly kept,
When all lighter griefs have faded.

Thus his memory, like some holy light,
Kept alive in our hearts, will improve them,
For worth shall look fairer, and truth more bright,
When we think how he liv’d but to love them.
And as fresher flowers the sod perfume
Where buried saints are lying,
So our hearts shall borrow a sweet’ning bloom
From the image he left there in dying!

Addendum: You will know the European Phoenix is about to rise from the ashes when Europeans stop writing books and citing demographics which show how outnumbered Europeans are and instead start issuing orders to tear down the heathen altars. What were the odds against Cortez? Something like 50 million to one? What were the odds against the British in India? 100 million to one, wasn’t it? Numbers only matter if you plan on living in a democratic, oligarchical, racial Babylon. And the true European refuses to live in Babylon.