Against a Regicide Peace with the Liberals

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Into the Hand of God

I said to the man who stood at the gate of the year,
‘Give me a light that I may tread safely into the unknown.’
And he replied: ‘Go into the darkness and put your hand into the hand of God.
That shall be to you better than light and safer than a known way.’
So I went forth, and finding the Hand of God, trod gladly into the night.
And He led me towards the hills and the breaking of day in the lone East.

In Solzhenitsyn’s novel The First Circle, the hero of the novel tries to explain to his friend why he is going to attempt to do something honorable. He tells his friend that he would like to be able to say that at least once in his life he didn’t behave like a complete scoundrel. The hero’s sentiments were my own when I first read the novel in my early twenties, and they are still my own now that I’m in my late fifties. There have been many dishonorable moments in my life, but I like to think that there were a few moments in my life when I didn’t behave as a complete scoundrel. One such moment occurred when I was twelve-years-old; I had occasion to stand between an eight-year-old boy and some teenage boys who were pelting him with snowballs. The snowballs weren’t the soft, fluffy kind either; they were the hard, icy type of snowballs. I didn’t know the boy well – twelve-year-olds don’t go around with eight-year-olds – but he was one of those boys, like Arthur in Tom Brown’s School Days, who brought out the protective instinct in anyone with a modicum of Christianity in their soul. I stood in front of the boy and screamed out something like, “Throw snowballs at somebody your own size if you want to throw snowballs.” Though big for my age, I actually wasn’t as large as the teenagers, but I thought that was what you said to bullies, because I had seen heroic boys in the movies say that in similar situations. The bullies took me at my word and pummeled me with snowballs, while young Arthur (I’ll call him by that name) stood behind me. I stood there until the school bus came and Arthur got on it. Then I got on the bus as slowly as possible to show the bullies that their snowballs had not hurt me at all. I think my strategy in the incident of Arthur and the bullies was rather questionable, because I never, in subsequent years, received such painful blows to the head in either boxing or football. But on the whole I think that was one time in my life when I did not behave as a complete scoundrel.

I bring the school boy incident up for this reason: my heart was aflame with righteous indignation that day because I saw what I perceived to be goodness personified, young Arthur, assailed by evil personified, the teenage bullies. Maybe I exaggerated Arthur’s goodness, but I don’t think so, and maybe I exaggerated the evil of the bullies, but again, I don’t think so, but that nightmare, the nightmare of evil relentlessly attacking the good, set my heart aflame and made me want to defend goodness.

I have felt for many years, and still feel, the same way toward the antique Europeans and their culture as I did toward young Arthur. They are being attacked by evil personified, and they are incapable of defending themselves. “Will no one step into the breach and defend them?” “Yes,” I answer, “I will.” How could a man with even a modicum of Christianity in his soul not want to defend the antique Europeans against the unrelenting attack of the satanic liberals and their colored henchmen? (1) Well, it’s apparent that very few people want to defend the antique Europeans, but I don’t know why so few want to defend them. Is it because there isn’t any of the “good Christianity,” the fighting Christianity, left in the Europeans? Or is it because the liberals have “done it awfully well,” meaning they have cleverly kept the focus on the motes in the eyes of the antique Europeans and ignored the logs in their own eyes? Whatever the reason, the antique Europeans and those Europeans who refuse to break faith with them are under the relentless attack of satanic liberals and colored barbarians. And the white grazers who do not understand the evil that menaces them, and hate those who try to tell them about it, are being attacked along with the recalcitrant remnant of the European faithful.

The actual physical attack on white Europeans, the murders, the robberies, the rapes, and the beatings, have been going on for the last forty to fifty years with increased ferocity and intensity every year. But it was the non-violent attack of the scientists and philosophers that laid the foundations for the actual physical attack on the European people. This is the vital point we must understand. The colored races have always hated the white race because the coloreds worship darkness and not the light, but it was only when white people lost their faith, because they succumbed to liberalism, that they became incapable of defending themselves against the colored barbarians. If faith returns to the white man his will to resist the savage colored hordes will return.

There is, of course, no magic wand we can use to make liberalism disappear from modern Europe. Nor can we go back in time and kill liberalism before it kills Christian Europe. Liberalism, which is the antithesis of Christianity, is now a part of every European's heritage, just as Christianity is part of a European's heritage. The modern European whose heart belongs to old Europe can exorcise liberalism from his heart, but he can’t ignore it because liberalism is part of his people’s history. Nor can the liberal ignore the antique Europeans’ heartfelt faith in Jesus of Nazareth, because that too is part of the white man’s history. He must exorcise it from his heart and kill the Christian hearts of other white Europeans.

The liberal thinks that the Christless European, with faith in nothing except the Babylonian night of Liberaldom, is the new, improved European who is here to stay, living and loving in a Godless world of scientific wonders and sensual, earthy people of color who do not have to kill the Christianity in their hearts because they never had any heartfelt faith in the Christian God. Which is why the liberal so desperately wants to merge with the colored races. He knows mankind can never be truly happy till the European’s racial memory of his past is completely eradicated by the extinction, through miscegenation, of the white race. In the Jimmie Stewart movie It’s a Wonderful Life, the teacher tells Jimmie Stewart’s daughter that every time a bell rings an angel gets his wings. The modern liberal tells his children that every time a white marries a person of color mankind moves closer to paradise. It’s as if a sorceress has placed white Europeans under a spell, a spell of science, sex, and futurity that renders him incapable of seeing who he once was, and whom he once believed in. It is the task of those of us who still see His Europe, as Puddleglum still saw Narnia, to destroy Liberaldom so that the Europeans grazing in the pastures of Liberaldom can look up from their seemingly green pastures, that “lead but to the grave,” and see their true Master and their true destiny.

The valley of the shadow of Liberaldom should not, and it shall not, be the final destination of the Europeans. We are, despite the fact that most Europeans can no longer see it, the Christ-bearing people. God will not abandon us if we call on Him by name. The main thrust of an attack against Liberaldom should focus on the ideological undergirding of the liberals, because without an ideological foundation Liberaldom will crumble, and the white man who once was blind will be able to see what his ancestors saw. With that vision before him, the vision of the Living God, the white man will reclaim his own again.

It is very easy to fall into despair when we look at the numbers arrayed against white Christian Europeans. But the numbers are deceiving. The vast majority of whites follow their leaders, who are in a minority but are full of passionate hatred against the European people. If you destroy the liberal elite you can destroy liberalism. The liberal elite are like the men who saw Jesus raise Lazarus from the dead; and seeing that miracle their only concern was to hide it from the people lest those people might see and believe. “But some of them went their ways to the Pharisees, and told them what things Jesus had done. Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, ‘What do we? For this man doeth many miracles.’” In those two verses from John 11: 46-47, we see the essence of liberalism.

A small cabal of intransigent liberals and their devout followers have banded together to hide the light that was Christian Europe from the eyes of the white people who are not liberal at heart but are grazing in the locust fields, deprived of the memory of what they once were and could be again. I have been accused, by the type of friends of which you say, “with such friends I don’t need enemies,” of being too easy on the white grazers. To those “friends” I reply that being called a grazer is hardly complimentary, so I’m not that “easy” on the grazers. But I do see more than just a little bit of the “spirit above the dust” in the grazers. Those football, NASCAR-stupefied men are the same ones who come to life when flood waters threaten to engulf such cities as New Orleans. And I still have the image of a white grazer of a policeman on our force coming to life long enough to go unarmed against a knife-wielding negro (see “The White Deer”). Unfortunately such outbursts of whiteness are few and far between and often misdirected toward liberal causes, but it is to our own people we should look for a revival of Christendom, not to the dark races that never have supported, and never will, the cause of Christian Europe. The devil knows this, which is why he has placed race-mixing at the very top of his agenda. No matter how stupefied the grazers seem they are still white, and the devil fears the white man. Why risk a revival of that hated Christ-bearing race when they can so easily be eradicated? It is our task, the remnant band of Europeans, to foil the devil’s plan by continuing to hold the banner of Christian Europe aloft, even in the midst of and in spite of Liberaldom.

Men in battle need clarity. They need to know their enemy. It’s clear that the colored races are the enemy of the European. But what is the ideological underpinning of liberalism that sustains the liberal and makes the white grazers hopelessly acquiescent to the assault of the colored hordes? We need not drag in all the philosophers, Greek, secular, and “Christian” who had a hand in trying to make the spiritual world subject to laws of the natural world. Suffice it to say that the edifice of Liberaldom is built on the idea that the natural, material world is the world. Men so deluded seek to scientize that which cannot be scientized, the soul of man. Anything that stinks of the spiritual is “dealt with” in a liberal state, sometimes with brute force, sometimes through ostracism or economic disenfranchisement, but whatever method is used the objective is the same, to kill all things of the spirit by scientizing existence.

There has only ever been two non-materialist civilizations in the history of the world, the ancient Hebrew civilization and the ancient European civilization. If you tell me that they are one and the same, I won’t dispute you, but whether the Europeans are the ancient Hebrews or whether their adherence to dictates of the living God made them seem like unto the ancient Hebrews does not have to be decided definitely before we can act on the sure and certain faith that the European people are the Christ-bearers, born to champion Christ against the satanic liberals and the colored barbarians. The European knows that over and above the natural world of the liberals and the colored tribes is His world, the world of storybook heroes and heroines, whose hearts are set aflame every time they see His Europe and His people attacked by the relentless forces of evil. Those forces of evil, and the personality behind them, shall not prevail because there are always a few Europeans who will respond to Christ’s call to arms. A handful of Cyranos are more than a match for a magnitude of liberals and their colored allies. +

_______________________

(1) The most striking thing about the apostasy of the Europeans from European Christianity is the apostasy of the white clergymen. They truly seem to rejoice in not only the destruction of European culture, but they also condone, by their silence, the violent physical assaults on white people by colored barbarians. “If you have not charity.” There is no Christianity left in the Christian churches because the “Christian” clergymen have not charity toward their own people.

The Hills of Europe

I will lift up mine eyes unto the hills, from whence cometh my help. Psalm 121: 1

Let’s suppose I’m a British soldier of the 19^th century, just returned “from Injia’s sunny climes” where I was “servin’ of 'Er Majesty the Queen.” At the dinner party my friends and family throw for me, the subject of the lesser breeds without the law comes up.

“As far as I’m concerned, we should dig a huge hole and bury the lot of them in it,” one of the guests asserts.

“Not so fast,” I tell him, “they worship a black-hearted god, but some of them, if they are shown a different God, can become something better. Take my regimental bhisti Gunga Din, for instance…”

And the 19^th century British soldier serving in China or Africa would say something similar to the “dig a hole and bury ‘em” civilian in those instances as well. When the white man’s role as the standard bearer for Christian civilization is taken as a given by his fellow whites, and when the white man is strong enough to impose his will on the colored people who resist white rule, the Christian soldier, because he is a Christian soldier, is generous in his praise of the colored people who are trying to move toward the light. A good soldier defends the wall of the fort that is under attack. So when the 19^th century Christian soldier praised his colored allies, he was not betraying his people, because the racial wall of the European fort was not under attack at that time.

It is quite a different story when we come to the 20^th and 21^st centuries in which the rule of whites over the colored tribes is looked upon as something immoral and opposed to Christianity, and when the white man is considered some kind of venomous creature not fit to share the earth with the noble black savage, the oh-so-spiritual oriental, and the brave and honorable Indian. At such times as these, when the battle is raging at the racial wall of the fort, it is a base betrayal of the European people and the Christian faith to attend university seminars and church socials where the beautiful people talk about the true and noble colored people and the evil white people. It would be like attending a funeral of good and noble man and insisting on speaking nothing but evil about the deceased.

Our Lord enjoined us to read the signs of the times. Is it really time to cover the antique Europeans with scorn and hatred and anoint the black race and their supporting cast of yellow, red, and brown people as God’s elect? I don’t think so. I would suggest that now is the time to talk about the ignoble barbarism of the black savage, the fiendish cruelty of the Asian, the savagery of the Indian, the merciless heathenism of the modern Mexican Aztecs, and the incredible contrast between the antique European culture that liberals condemn, and the modern techno-barbaric, colored-barbaric culture that liberals bid us applaud and support.

The emergence of a barbaric, technocratic, white culture whose people worship the colored races is a direct result of the scientific revolution that took place in Europe in the late 1600’s and into the early 1700’s. That revolution triggered the great betrayal; in response to the scientific revolution the European severed his ties to his past. Who needs the past when a fun-filled future of gizmos and gadgets awaits man?

The first men of science were Christians as well as scientists and would have been appalled at the logical consequences that the Voltaires and Rousseaus drew from their findings. Nor did the first philosophers of the scientific era think of themselves as atheists. But what is the logical consequence of Descartes' declaration that a man could “only study the universe after divesting himself of all that he had been brought up to believe”? Do we see in Descartes the echo of the medieval monk who sought to ride the rationalist chariot all the way to heaven? Such a deification of man’s power to dissect and analyze led to the French Revolution and the rule of the metaphysicians.

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. It is no easy operation to eradicate humanity from the human breast. What Shakespeare calls ‘the compunctious visitings of nature’ will sometimes knock at their hearts, and protest against their murderous speculations. But they have a means of compounding with their nature. Their humanity is not dissolved. They only give it a long prorogation. They are ready to declare, that they do not think two thousand years too long a period for the good that they pursue. It is remarkable, that they never see any way to their projected good but by the road of some evil. Their imagination is not fatigued with the contemplation of human suffering through the wild waste of centuries added to centuries of misery and desolation. Their humanity is at the horizon—and, like the horizon, it always flies before them. The geometricians, and the chemists, bring, the one from the dry bones of their diagrams, and the other from the soot of their furnaces, dispositions that make them worse than indifferent about those feelings and habitudes, which are the support of the moral world. Ambition is come upon them suddenly; they are intoxicated with it, and it has rendered them fearless of the danger, which may from thence arise to others or to themselves. These philosophers consider men in their experiments, no more than they do mice in an air pump, or in a recipient of mephitic gas. - Edmund Burke

Burke and later Herbert Butterfield and H. V. Morton were justifiably proud of their people’s refusal to jettison the past:

Let us praise as a living thing the continuity of our history, and praise the whigs who taught us that we must nurse this blessing—reconciling continuity with change, discovering meditations between past and present, and showing what can be achieved by man’s reconciling mind. Perhaps it is not even the whigs that we should praise, but rather something in our traditions which captured the party at the moment when it seemed ready to drift into unmeasurable waters. Perhaps we owe most in fact to the solid body of Englishmen, who throughout the centuries have resisted the wildest aberrations, determined never for the sake of speculative ends to lose the good they already possessed; anxious not to destroy those virtues in their national life which need long periods of time for their development; but waiting to steal for the whole nation what they could appropriate in the traditions of monarch, aristocracy bourgeoisie and church. - Butterfield

But in the latter half of the 20^th century the British people did jettison their past. And they seemed to feel a need, like the American Southerners who were the Burkean conservatives of their nation, to jettison their past at an accelerated rate in order to show themselves just as forward-looking and modern as the liberals on the continent. It is difficult to say who is more zealous in their current pursuit of racial Babylon, the British or their continental cousins in Spain, France, etc., but it does seem that the white nations who were the most reluctant to mix their blood with the coloreds in the past are now at the forefront of the European suicide movements.

Great writers, great defenders of Christian Europe, such as H. V. Morton, Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Edmund Burke, Walter Scott, Herbert Butterfield, and Rudyard Kipling all wrote about the dangers of caving in to the inhumanity of the scientific-philosophic, new age rationalists. “Don’t break faith with your past,” was their warning. However, none of those writers mentioned could foresee a time when the white European would allow the total annihilation of his past through race-mixing. It was too abhorrent to those men of blood. But is not race-mixing Satan’s supreme triumph? If he can kill the white race, then he can eradicate the past, the Christian past of the European people. Without that past there is no future for poor, unaccommodated mankind. It’s of no consequence to Satan if a theoretical Christ, fashioned to please the liberals and the colored races, exists in the Christian churches. All that concerns Satan is the non-abstract Christ, the Christ of the antique Europeans. If the European blood line dies, then faith in the non-abstract Christ dies with it. Racial Babylon is the work of a diabolical intelligence beyond the comprehension of our minute brains.

Satan’s plan to destroy Christianity through race-mixing seems to be succeeding, but there is a flaw in his plan. There always seems to be a few European recalcitrants who refuse to comply with Satan’s plan. Let’s call those Europeans 'the human element'. From first to last Satan has always hated the human element. He rebelled when God created man, and he laughed with scorn when Christ became incarnate. Humanity makes Satan livid with rage, because in the fully developed human being Satan sees the face of his arch enemy, Jesus Christ, the God-man born to destroy him. Is it any wonder then that he wants to eradicate the face of God in men through race-mixing? If the Christ-bearing race exists only in a past that is scorned and ridiculed by the Babylonians of the present, then where is the face of Jesus Christ? Whose face appears in the techno-barbarian, colored-barbarian culture of Babylon. Yes, it is the face of Satan, and he is exulting over his newly created world, the Babylonian world of white-hating, race-mixing Liberaldom.

The parasitic liberals of the academic and clerical professions, who owe their existence to the antique European culture which they despise, are all heirs of the scientific-philosophic revolution. Their great motivating fear is that they might be regarded as backward-looking ignoramuses. Balzac took their measure:

In Paris, when they want to disparage a man, they say: 'He has a good heart.' The phrase means: 'The poor fellow is as stupid as a rhinoceros.'

And I believe it was Péguy who said, “It will never be known what acts of cowardice have been motivated by the fear of not looking sufficiently progressive.” There is no room for the antique European in Liberaldom, because the existence of the liberal technocrat and the colored barbarian depends on the eradication of the European past. The threads of the past, which a European Christian wants to weave into his future because they are connected to Christ, must be severed by the Babylonians who look to a future world devoid of the faith, hope, and charity that permeated Christian Europe. Burke understood such liberals aright when he insisted that two thousand years of cruelty is nothing to them so long as they see themselves as progressing toward utopia.

But what kind of utopia is it that can only occur after the white race and the Christian faith are eliminated? And even the current petted and adored black gods of Liberaldom will not be as adored as the black gods yet unborn, who will be more noble and more progressive than the current ones, because true perfection is always in the future. I think much of the incredible liberal hatred of the unborn – for what is more hateful than willful murder? – is a bitter resentment that the unborn will be superior to the liberals because they will be further along the progressive highway toward utopia. It is the liberal who wants to stop the future, not the antique European, because the liberal glorifies himself by the abstract future he claims to be building for mankind. He doesn’t want non-abstract, real human beings to ruin his dream of utopia, and this is why the liberal yearns for the death of everything human that might impinge on his abstract unreality. In contrast, the antique European, who always moves into the future while holding on to the threads of the past, relishes the birth of concrete, non-abstracted Europeans, who will become part of a blood line that has its roots in His Kingdom, which is to come and is within us.

The late John Paul II once asked, with obvious perplexity, why the people with the correct views on racial equality and democracy had the wrong views on abortion. But it was John Paul II who was being inconsistent, not the liberals. The abortion that is race-mixing is akin to the abortion of the unborn. Once you permit the first type of legalized abortion you will ultimately permit, and even celebrate, the second type of abortion. You can’t stop halfway down the slippery slope of Babylon.

When I was a young man the charge that I “over-romanticized” old Europe usually forced me to at least re-examine my passion for Europe. But I always came back to my first love. And now that I am an old man, I can say, without ever intending to re-examine my passion, that it is impossible to over-romanticize antique Europe. The psalmist looked up unto the hills and saw his redemption. It is from the hills of Europe that we can see our Redeemer. Help will not come to us from the techno-barbarian, colored-barbarian world of Babylon. It will come to us when we honor our past by staying faithful to our people and their God. We are all, we Europeans, called to be Wilfred of Ivanhoe, William Tell of Switzerland, and Men of Harlech. Let Cyrano have the last word, for his white plume is the European vision:

Yes, all my laurels you have riven away
And all my roses; yet in spite of you,
There is one crown I bear away with me,
And to-night, when I enter before God,
My salute shall sweep all the stars away
From the blue threshold! One thing without stain,
Unspotted from the world, in spite of doom
Mine own!—

(He springs forward, his sword aloft.)

and that is…

(The sword escapes from his hand; he totters, and falls into the arms of LE BRET and RAGUENEAU.)

ROXANE

(Bends over him and kisses him on the forehead.)

--That is…

CYRANO

(Opens his eyes and smiles up at her.)

My white plume…

+++

They Turned All Their Faces Away

“Speak then to me, who neither beg nor fear
Your favors nor your hate.” – Banquo in MacBeth

Atrocities against whites by non-whites are commonplace, and the only unusual thing about this particular atrocity was that it was reported:

Racial Rapes

by Abigail Wilson LL.B. -- from the Australian On Target:

CBS foreign correspondent Lara Logan, an attractive blonde, blue eyed Nordic woman, suffered a “brutal and sustained sexual attack”, being raped for about three hours by Egyptian males in Tahir Square, Cairo. This brutal degradation was performed by the freedom loving Egyptians celebrated by the Western media.

The full details of the brutal rape was heavily censored by the mainstream media. Thus The Sydney Morning Herald, February 16, 2011, “US Reporter Lara Logan Sexually Assaulted and Beaten in Egypt: CBS” only says that “She was surrounded and suffered a brutal and sustained sexual assault and beating”. And that’s all.

However internet sources report that she was vaginally and anally raped for three hours, masturbated on, urinated on, beaten with sticks and she may have had her left nipple bitten off. (The lady in question held just one media interview and revealed she was rescued by women in full Muslim attire. They formed a circle around her thus protecting her from further brutal degradation and she was then able to flee…ed)

Brutal rapes by Middle Eastern men of women of a similar racial profile have occurred across the West – in Sweden, where the rape rate is 20 times higher than that of some countries in southern and eastern Europe, in France and in Australia. In Australia sentences for rape are lenient compared to other countries, but the head of the pack of the Middle Eastern rapists from a few years back got 55 years and others – 25, 23, 18, 71, 11 and 15 years. That is an indication of how horrible the crimes were. Yet the crimes were never seen as racially based. Why?

Essentially women of our race have been deracinated by the Establishment. They have no identity as an ethno-racial group, whereas if these events occurred to any other group, we would never hear the end of it. To suppose that Nordics, especially Anglo-Saxons could be targeted and racially profiled is a great no-no because it just might give this dying ethnoracial group ideas about its own racial rights and the need to preserve its racial identity. Multiculturalism has been based on the dilution of Anglo Saxons so the Establishment will never, never, ever admit any racial crimes against Anglos. Their race doesn’t exist, therefore there can only be crimes against individuals. I think about this as I leave work late at night, hoping that I make it to my car and survive the long drive across this thing they call a capital city.

What is left to say after such reports? I think of Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s great work The Gulag Archipelago. He wanted to give an accurate, faithful account of life in the Communist Gulag, but after taking us through over 600 pages of Communist brutality, he stopped at one point to tell his readers it wasn’t necessary to give any more graphic details: “you know the story.” Yes, by that time we did know the story. But as bad as the Russian Gulag was – and it was horrific – the new gulags are worse. There is now a worldwide system of gulags set up for the purpose of torturing and exterminating all members of the white race. In countries such as Rhodesia and South Africa, the extermination process is proceeding at a rapid pace. In countries such as the United States, Britain, and France the extermination process is slightly slower, but only slightly, because there are more whites in those countries.

One of the most terrifying aspects of the Russian Gulag was the completely arbitrary nature of the incarceration process. A man or woman could be thrown in the Gulag to be tortured and or murdered for no particular reason, other than the fact that the Russian Communist officials suspected that every Russian was plotting against the government; no one could be trusted. And no white person can be trusted in the Babylonian countries of the West; all are guilty, without a trial, of being white, which is the color of sin. Some tribunal was held somewhere in the past, at which the white man was found guilty of a heinous crime; hence there can be no such thing as an atrocity against white people because they are monsters who destroyed a colored Babylonian paradise in the past and are the obstacle to mankind’s progression to a Babylonian future. Of course it is not the colored barbarians who have adopted an anti-white metaphysic; the coloreds have no metaphysic. All they know is that their once formidable enemy has become “easy meat,” so they take advantage of that fact. It is the liberals who have developed an anti-white metaphysic which they have spread throughout Liberaldom to ensure that no white will ever regard himself as white. In fact, any white in Liberaldom who looks on himself as white is ipso facto guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors and will be subject to fine, imprisonment, and often death.

It’s quite true that white people, particularly the Anglo-Saxon whites, do not regard themselves as a race of people, separate and distinct from the colored races, and sharing a common heritage and destiny as a people. But that is only part of the reason that whites turn their faces away from atrocities committed against whites by the colored tribesmen. The white man has become a liberal, and the liberal is not merely indifferent to the antique European’s desire for racial solidarity, he is in rebellion against white racial solidarity. Mere indifference to race would not allow the liberal to stand by, and often applaud, the torture, murder, and rape of whites. In order to ignore or applaud atrocities, the liberal must hate the white race. And the liberal does hate the white race because he hates Christ. When my youngest daughter was seven years old, she asked me what a liberal was. It was a natural question coming from a child who must have heard her father mention liberals over a thousand times, and never once say anything good about them. The question was difficult for me because I wanted my daughter to understand the satanic nature of liberals without over-complicating the subject or causing her undue alarm. So I told her the simple truth: “Liberals are people who hate Christ. They might not say it outright, but we can tell by what they do that in their hearts they hate Christ.” Then I went on to tell her some of the things liberals did, such as kill babies (“Don’t worry, I won’t let them near you or your baby brother”) and offer up other white people to be killed by colored natives whom they worship (“You’ve seen them in the old jungle movies. Don’t worry, I won’t let them take you.”) It comes down to Blake’s profound and succinct insight:

"Man must & will have Some Religion; if he has not the Religion
of Jesus, he will have the Religion of Satan, & will erect the
Synagogue of Satan, calling the Prince of this World, God; and
destroying all who do not worship Satan under the Name of God.”

The first Europeans who heard and believed did so because the Christ story spoke to something buried deep in their racial memory: the memory of a fall from grace due to the influence of a spellbinding charlatan who peddled knowledge and power, and the memory of a promise of a savior who would redeem them from the consequences of their fall from grace. The European, when he was European, was the most fully human of God’s creatures, because he was the most fully conscious of the living God acting in his life and the life of his people. When the European lost his consciousness of the true God, he lost his identity. He can’t become a proud pagan because he already rejected the pagan gods. The colored people still cling to their pagan gods while the European is left bereft of God, of race, of place, and of soul. He truly is a man of clay, so why should he be upset if he hears about other white, clay people being mutilated and destroyed by flesh and blood colored men? Clay is of no significance, until it is made a quickening spirit by the living God, but that story has been thrown on the European’s trash heap.

When I was growing up I never even heard the term homosexual, and even in my late teens I had only an abstract notion of what a homosexual was. All that changed in academia. I saw that what was only an abstraction to me was a very real practice of flesh and blood people. I still couldn’t understand it from within, but I had to concede that it was real. This is how I feel about the liberals’ hatred of their own race and their religious devotion to the black race. I must concede that it exists, but I can’t understand it from within. And I abhor the liberal’s maniacal hatred of the white race and their sycophantic worship of the black more than any other of the liberal’s many evil manias. I think this is because the hatred of your own people is the satanic hate that produces all the other evils of Liberaldom, such as legalized abortion and legalized homosexual marriage. The denial of the blood ties given to us by a benevolent creator is the first step in the dehumanizing process that leads to the inhumanity of Liberaldom.

When Macbeth murders Duncan he severs the blood ties of kinship and kindred that linked him to his fellow men and to God, which is why he is speaking from the heart when he declares:

“Had I but died an hour before this chance,
I had liv’d a blessed time; for, from this instant,
There’s nothing serious in mortality.
All is but toys; renown and grace is dead;
The wine of life is drawn, and the mere lees
Is left this vault to brag of.”

The liberal, like Macbeth, made his fateful decision on the heath to murder his kith and kin, and having acquiesced to their murder again and again and again, the liberal has “supp’d full with horrors”; there is no such thing as an atrocity against white people, because the liberal believes that all white people who will not renounce their blood must be eliminated; they stand in the way of utopia.

“The castle of Macduff I will surprise:
Seize upon Fife; give to the edge o’ th’ sword
His wife, his babes, and all the unfortunate souls
That trace him in his line.”

Of course Macbeth had more of a conscience than the modern liberals – they do not consider white victims of black carnage worthy of being considered “unfortunate souls."

The European who stands with Europe is not involved in a misunderstanding with the liberals; he is involved in a war. The liberals know that it is war; it is time for the European to grasp that reality as well and never lose sight of it. Otherwise he will be absorbed into Liberaldom; he will make his peace with the powers that be and stop believing that there ever was such a thing as a Christian Europe.

The ties of blood, once severed, are very difficult to renew, but there is a beautiful fairy tale quality to the Christian faith. One Man of Sorrows spawned a small band of brothers who overwhelmed the world. Every renewal starts with a band of brothers, who have not renounced their ties of blood to kith, kin, and Him. +