Death in Life

Wake ye from your sleep of death,
Minstrels and bards of other days!
For the midnight wind is on the heath,
And the midnight meteors dimly blaze:
The Spectre with his Blood Hand,
Is wandering through the wild woodland;
The owl and the raven are mute for dread,
And the time is meet to awake the dead!

-Walter Scott

There is a relatively new development in the ongoing race war which only one side, the wrong side, is fighting. Blacks are now using what I believe is called ‘social media’ to aid them in their war against white people. The blacks target a particular area, such as a mall or shopping center, and they use their cell phones to help coordinate the attack. At the opportune moment, a black horde of twitterers descend upon their white victims to rob, rape, and murder them. O brave new liberal world that has such creatures in it!

Of course the media do not report the crimes as racially motivated. When the crimes are reported at all, and they generally are not reported, they are reported as crimes committed by “youths.” Wouldn’t the liberals howl if I did a documentary on Nazi Germany and reported that the upper echelon of the Nazi party was composed of middle-aged men of unknown origin?

Let’s look at this as Shane would look at it. He didn’t like the fact that Stark Wilson had the front wall and he was left in the open part of the room. But he accepted it as the reality he had to face and deal with. And in the end Stark Wilson was dead.

The reality is that the black race hates the white race. Blacks will kill, rob, and rape white people unless white people show them, in no uncertain terms, that there will be consequences for their actions. The black hatred of the white is not the result of slavery or poverty or anything the white is supposed to have done to the black. The blacks hate the white race because it is in their nature to hate; they have been at war with the white race since the beginning of time. It is only in modern times, however, that a large minority of white people, called liberals, have joined with the blacks in their maniacal hatred of the white race. And the rest of the whites, the grazers, have consented to their own destruction, so long as they are properly fed with Superbowls, NASCAR, and porno movies on their way to the slaughterhouse.

There is also nothing to be gained by ignoring the obvious source of the white hatred of white people; the source is the Christian churches. I know that a great deal of white nationalists blame the Jews for the decline of the white man, but the European-hating Jew we have always had with us and always will have with us. Christian Europeans used to know how to protect themselves from the Jew just as they knew how to protect themselves from the Negro. We need to ask ourselves why the white European has caved in to the Jews and the Negroes. Again, the obvious answer is that the Christian churches preached the inclusion of the Jews and the worship of the blacks. And the clergy of the Christian churches preached those ungodly heresies because they had ceased to be Christian. Just as the Greeks abandoned their gods, the Europeans abandoned Christ.

The Renaissance poets and painters often brought the old pagan gods into their works, but the pagan gods were no longer real to the Europeans; they were used to symbolize some aspect of the Christian faith, which had supplanted them. It might seem like a sad fate for a god, to become merely a symbol for another religion, but the pagan gods could not satisfy the longing in the European’s heart. He needed a Hero-God who was a hero because of His humanity. Christ was like unto men, but He was more than men, not by virtue of His inhumanity but by virtue of His humanity. He was strong yet meek, and He was just yet merciful. And above all His heart was aflame with the charity that passeth all understanding, at least the understanding of the human mind; European hearts did understand and believe. - The Trumpet Shall Sound

In Liberaldom, Christ merely represents, as was the case with the Greek gods in Renaissance Europe, the virtues of the new religion that has supplanted Christianity. Christ is the civil rights worker, the man who condemns apartheid and segregation; he is the pacifist who is against violence; he is the communist who condemns private property and greed… he is the embodiment of all the liberal virtues, but he is not, to the liberal, the Son of God. The reason the liberal clergymen scream “Inclusion! Inclusion! Inclusion!” is because they hope to fill the void, created by Christ’s demotion to a virtuous liberal, with a pantheon of heathen gods such as the generic black man, Mohammed, Buddha, the unrepentant Jew, the gods of Montezuma, and every other heathen deity they can stuff into their new, inclusive pantheon of heathen gods. What about Christ’s warning that He is a jealous God? That’s the old Christ; the new Christ is a hero from an F. Scott Fitzgerald novel. He is the nicest liberal in town, and he would never be jealous of other gods.

The Christian clergy, who are not Christian, are the embodiment of Stark Wilson, the hired gun who came to town to destroy the white homesteaders. We must face them, just as Shane faced Stark Wilson. I know the objections by heart, “What about the sacraments -- how will I get valid sacraments?” “What about honoring the Sabbath -- God wants us to attend Church!” There are one thousand reasons and ten that one could list in favor of a pious, humble acceptance of clergy-worship. But in the end we must ask ourselves if Christ, the Son of the Living God, wants us to hate our own kind. And we must also ask ourselves if Christ wants to be worshipped as one god among many and have His name linked to modern liberalism. When the modern clergy blather about inclusion, we should take a page out of Cyrano and tell them, “Say this to all the world, then whisper to me, 'I no longer believe'.”

The white-hating clergy have managed to make the white man’s love of his own into something filthy and dirty. The mere mention of black on white crime or the need for segregation brings the label of “white supremacist” down on the head of the white man who dares mention the unmentionable. I’ve noticed that even “white nationalists” try to escape the white supremacist label. I recently heard a white nationalist leader deny that he was a white supremacist: “I’m for equal rights for all people.” Is that really something a white man should be for? Are black people willing to accept equal rights? The black man only understands a master-slave relationship. If you grant him equal rights, as the French revolutionists did in Haiti, he takes that as a sign of weakness and sets out to do what he does best: rape, murder, and pillage. The white and the black can only co-exist in a master-slave relationship with the white as master. If the reverse becomes the case, if black men rule, then the whites will be exterminated, and the blacks will be in constant warfare with each other. But since the modern world demands equality, the liberals (especially the clergy) should accept segregation: “Let the blacks have their equality of the dung heap, but keep them away from my people.” The disingenuousness of the liberals becomes crystal clear when we see their unwillingness to let the white man segregate himself from the Negro. If blacks are so wonderful, and whites are so evil, shouldn’t the liberals be demanding that the two races segregate? We have brought the lie of the liberals out into the open. They don’t want ‘separate but equal’ because without the white man the black man will perish. When the whites were exterminated in Haiti, did a new paradisiacal world emerge? No, of course it didn’t. And when the black man’s war against the whites of Europe and the United States ends with the extermination of the whites a new paradise will not emerge.

Of course it’s a “if these shadows are not altered” scenario. The death of the white man only seems inevitable when we look at contemporary, Negro-worshipping Liberaldom. We know that the white European once drew strength from Christ, not from democratic ideals and dreams of liberal utopias. If He could once again become the focus of the European, then there would be no attack on the innocent that would go unavenged and there would be no “inclusiveness” in the Christian churches.

In Scott’s epic poem Marmion he writes about the tangled web of a liar:

O, what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practice to deceive.

Satan ensnared Adam and Eve with his lie about a power in nature that was greater than God. And when the clergy studied nature as something separate and distinct from God, they came to believe in the lie of their own godlike powers. “If God is less than nature, and we can understand and harness nature, are we not at least co-equal if not superior to God?” The liberals have returned to a pagan concept of God, and the grazers have fallen in line with the new-old pantheon of pagan gods. The great deathlike sleep that has fallen on the people of Europe is the result of the new paganism. There are no longer Europeans with personalities; they all resemble vegetative matter. They no longer love, strive, or worship; they simply vegetate.

Can a human vegetable become a European again? He can if he sees that other Europe, the Europe of the incarnate God. But he won’t be able to see that Europe unless someone from old Europe shows it to him. That is the task of the hero. The hero is one who has not broken faith with the past and who embodies in his person the virtues of the past. The survival of a remnant, a “chosen few,” is a mystery. Why are there always some men who still see with blinding sight? It’s not given to us to know such things as we might know the answer to a mathematical equation. God’s grace and our free will are of the spirit, and such things cannot be measured, quantified, or put in a silver rod.

There is a false dichotomy that theologians addicted to the dialectic often set up. They label certain virtues ‘active virtues’ and others ‘passive virtues.’ In reality, there is no dichotomy. The inner contemplative war against invisible principalities and powers that takes place in the dark night of our soul is a necessary preparation for the outer war against visible principalities and powers. What does that mean in the modern world? It means that white people won’t fight for their own because they no longer have the spiritual depth to fight the good fight in the deepest recesses of their souls. Without the spirit to protect and defend their kith and kin, white people have lost the will to protect and defend as well. It would take a miracle, like a man rising from the dead, to put the spirit of faith and the will to fight in the white man.

Lincoln was wrong when he claimed that the fate of modern Europeans hung on the slender thread of democracy. It was Dostoevsky who was right when he asked whether it was possible for a modern European to believe in the divinity of Christ. Is our faith still so ancient and so new? If we don’t believe it is, then to whom can we turn? All the pagan world can turn to the gods of color and the god of science, but not the European who still believes that his Redeemer liveth. +

Shielding Innocence

“There can be no charity in Liberaldom because the liberal, of necessity, must kill Christian charity so that Liberaldom can survive. It’s a war to the death.” – CWNY

The recent skewering of the liberal-conservative commentator Glenn Beck was a striking example of the cruelty of the utopian liberals. Beck was one of their own. He regularly had shows on “our black founding fathers,” he said that Geert Wilders, the Dutch immigration restrictionist, was “too extreme,” and he always made sure to have blacks in his audience. Still he was driven off the air while the mad-dog liberals sat around gloating. Why was he driven off the air? He was driven off the air because he failed to understand the nature of the democratic liberal utopian machine that he served, just as Alexander Solzhenitsyn failed to understand, prior to his conversion, the nature of the communist utopian machine he served. Solzhenitsyn told us in his Gulag books that he was a good communist before going to prison. He was a true believer. He had merely written a letter to a friend criticizing some of Stalin’s wartime strategies. There was no criticism of communism in the letter, but Solzhenitsyn was more of a believer in communism than Stalin. Stalin believed only in the personal aggrandizement of Joseph Stalin, so Solzhenitsyn got what turned out to be a fortunate trip, for him and us, to the Gulag.

Beck was more of a believer in democratic egalitarianism than the mad-dog liberals. He failed to understand that in all utopian states “some are more equal than others.” From Beck’s perspective all racism in utopia is evil whether it comes from the white or the black, so he pointed out the racism of The Obama. But utopian states are not about democratic egalitarianism; they are about power. The liberal must have power to crush the enemies of utopia. He believes in an anti-white paradise presided over by a benevolent black god. With the election of the Obama, the United States liberal feels he has lived to see the coming of his god. When the Obama was elected the ecstatic faces of the liberal commentators told us all we need to know about liberals, utopian states, and the noble savage. It’s a war between two diametrically opposed visions of existence. The liberal sees Babylon, and the antique European sees Christian Europe. Beck’s failure to understand the nature of the conflict was not surprising: how can you understand the satanic nature of the democratic egalitarian heresy if you are a true believer in the democratic egalitarian heresy?

So long as white “conservatives” believe in utopian democracy they will continue to be white meat for the liberal machine. And it is a machine the white man is up against, an inhuman entity devoid of pity and full of remorseless cruelty. The white man must renounce Founding Fathers egalitarian democracy or he will be ground into nothingness in the gears of the liberal machine.

In America and Europe the democratic era is treated as an ascent, a triumph of progress, but in reality the democratic era signals the demise of Christian Europe and the rise of Babylon. From approximately 1914 to 1965 the European people had problems believing in Christ’s divinity, but they still maintained the ethical standards of Christianity. From the mid-sixties to the present the European has been trying to live without faith in Christ and without the ethical system that stems from a belief in Christ. The result has been legalized abortion, war without the mitigating influence of chivalry, the absence of charity and mercy, sexual permissiveness and sexual perversion, the rise of the effeminate white male and the decline of the masculine white male, and the de-feminization of the white female. And at the top of the perverted list of European innovations is the innovation that holds Babylon together (or should we say keeps Babylon from being anything but Babylon): the worship of the Negro. For how can a man be expected to be better than his god? With the Negro as his god the white man can descend to the level of a primitive ape and call such a descent progress because he is getting closer to his god. But he cannot quite make it. He can’t be as truly “natural” as his god; there is always something in his way. That something is of course his racial memory of a Christian past; it is a memory he denies in himself and seeks to eradicate in other whites. He has been largely successful in his denial and eradication, but he will never be wholly comfortable with the noble savages.

Some conservatives such as Beck and some halfway house Christians such as Pat Roberson and Pope Benedict XVI will express dissatisfaction with the declining sexual mores of the modern European, but in the same breath they will denounce the racism of the Europeans of the past and praise the new racially diverse future mankind is heading toward. You can’t have it both ways. Racial Babylon and sexual Babylon are one! If white people worship the black they will have no frame of reference to launch an attack against the evils of a sexual Babylon presided over by black gods.

In a religious cult the leaders of the cult try to get the members to have only one frame of reference: the cult leader or leaders. The behavior of cult members might seem bizarre to individuals outside that particular cult, but that is precisely because they are outside of the cult. From inside the cult it makes sense to drink poisoned kool-aid, to go into battle believing no bullet can harm you, to sit on a platform waiting to be taken up to heaven… and on and on. Everything the cult leaders say makes sense to the religious devotee because whatever the cult leader says represents God’s truth. That is why it is useless to point out the savagery of the NWCL (Negro Worshipping Church of Liberaldom) because as a member of that organization the liberal believes that whatever the black does is good and right. That is the liberal’s unshakeable faith, his black gods can do no evil. This is why crimes of rape, murder, and mayhem, when perpetuated by blacks against whites, are called natural responses to racism – or a simple overflowing of youthful exuberance. Only members of the NWCL could remain steadfastly loyal to their gods despite the white genocide going on around them.

In my mid-twenties I was a member of a parish in which a young white boy, about 14 years of age, was shot by several black “youths” in a drive-by shooting. The boy was an only son with four sisters and a mother and father who loved him with an intensity of love that only a white man could fathom. Neither parent asked the men of the parish to go out and find the blacks responsible for the shooting; they knew vigilantism would be punished, but the parents did hope for justice. They were old-fashioned enough to believe that the murdering scum who killed their son should be killed themselves, even though they were black. The poor, unenlightened bigots! Didn’t they know that black youths were never wrong? If they didn’t know that they were soon going to be informed of that doctrine. The parish priest gave the most blasphemous homily I had ever heard (since that time I’ve heard many such) in a house of God. The priest talked about racial justice, about white people who called black people niggers; about healing the wounds caused by slavery… you know the litany. But not one word about the necessity of loving one’s own and protecting them from Satan’s minions, the Negros. Nor was there a call to punish home so that such an atrocity would be less likely to happen in the future. Of course I was naïve! Imagine expecting a Christian response to existence from a modern clergyman who was a card-carrying member of the NWCL.

If I’m becoming too anecdotal, forgive me and just chalk it up as an old man’s failing. I see another young white boy in my mind’s eye. He was a student in my English Literature class. In that class I took it for granted that my students had all been born and raised to be good liberals. I saw it as my task to try to make them start to divest themselves of their liberalism, or, failing that, to let them know that the literary giants of the Western world were not liberals.

There was one particular student who was always shocked at what he saw as my off-the-wall declarations: “With very few exceptions there has been nothing written of any value since the early 1900s”, “All English literature is a footnote to Shakespeare.” He would respond to my off-the-wall declarations with exclamations of “Mr. ___, how can you say that!” I got into so many arguments with the young man that I began to think of him as the “How can you say that” boy. But he was alive, he had a soul, and he was open to the call of the poets. When he asked me, “How can you say that,” after I called Stephen King a hack writer he actually listened to me when I explained the difference between Shakespeare’s Macbeth and a Stephen King horror novel. And during the course of the year the How-can-you-say-that boy actually saw the difference between Shakespeare and Stephen King. “It has to do with spiritual depth, doesn’t it?” “Yes, it does,” I told the How-can-you-say-that boy, who became a man during my class. Only God knows why he died at the hands of a “black youth” who robbed the convenience store at which he was working the late shift. Don’t ever let your children work at such places. Convenience stores are convenient places for blacks to drive to in order to murder and steal.

There is an organization that all remaining antique Europeans should be members of; we needn’t write up any official documents because we don’t need paper and ink and notary for things of the spirit. We are members of the OWT (Order of William Tell). Our order is dedicated to the fight the enemies of His reign of charity and to hunt down and kill anyone who comes against our kith and kin. There is certainly enough work to last a lifetime for men who want to join such an order. What did the old Jacobite say? “I’ve drawn my sword and thrown the sheath away.” +

Time was, my dearest children, when with joy
You hail’d your father’s safe return to home
From his long mountain toils; for, when he came,
He ever brought with him some little gift,--
A lovely Alpine flower—a curious bird—
Or elf-bolt, such as on the hills are found.
But now he goes in quest of other game,
Sits in this gorge, with murder in his thoughts,
And for his enemy’s life-blood lies in wait.
But still it is of you alone he thinks.
Dear children.—‘Tis to guard your innocence,
To shield you from the tyrant’s fell revenge,
He bends his bow to do a deed of blood!

The Return to Europe

‘Tis still a dream, or else such stuff as madmen
Tongue and brain not; either both or nothing;
Or senseless speaking, or a speaking such
As sense cannot untie. Be what it is,
The action of my life is like it, which
I’ll keep, if but for sympathy.

-- Cymbeline by William Shakespeare

Once, when forced to sub for a civics teacher, I had to preside over a class studying the American Constitution. Though not a great admirer of our Constitution I refrained from any editorial comments as the class and I read through the Constitution and the civics book. Then (out of the mouth of babes), a young female student claimed, “This doesn’t work. The founders said the legislative branch was first in power, the executive second, and the judicial third and last. But nowadays it is exactly the reverse. Nobody follows the Constitution any more.” Of course, the young woman was right: “Nobody follows the Constitution any more.” And even if you are one of those people who think the Constitution is a wonderfully written document, you must concede that neither the letter nor the spirit of the U. S. Constitution is being followed. And my question to the conservative constitutionalist is, “What is your recourse?”

Year after year the pro-lifers put out books and pamphlets arguing that there is no constitutional right to abortion, and year after year the liberals say, “Yes, there is a constitutional right to abortion.” What is the pro-life response to the liberals? They keep writing more pamphlets and exercising their right to protest, democratically of course. In other words, the “pro-lifers” – or more appropriately, the constitutionalists – concede that there is nothing they can do to stop legalized abortion, because every year they make their constitutional points and then run and hide when the liberals say, “Abortion is a constitutional right.”

We should put the same question to the immigration restrictionists in Arizona and Hazelton, Pennsylvania: “Now that the courts have said you can’t restrict Aztecs from invading your town and your state, what is your recourse?”

The Southern secessionists suffered through the same process that the constitutionalist pro-lifers and the constitutionalist immigration restrictionists are now suffering through. Any fair-minded person then and now would concede that the U.S. Constitution provided for secession from the Union, but a constitutional right is just a paper-and-ink abstraction if it is not backed up by a people and a tradition. The Northern, Unitarian, utopian tradition was more powerful than the Southern, Christian tradition. And in politics the powerful, not the constitutionally or morally correct, rule.

These are not little issues, the murder of the innocents and the invasion of the barbarians, which an honorable man can pacifistically ignore. Europeans used to fight wars to stop the murder of innocents and the invasion of their countries. Is murder and invasion any less conscionable if it is sanctioned by a state tribunal? We are faced with the tragic spectacle of conservative groups endlessly citing the Constitution to correct evils, while the liberal hierarchy ignores the Constitution and works to maintain and expand what really matters to them – their power. When a people no longer have a common religious faith they become a collection of lawyers poring over documents. The governing body of a people without a faith seeks to fill the moral void in the nation with documents. The more immoral a regime, the more documents that regime produces. Whittaker Chambers in his book Witness tells of the endless documentation the Soviet leaders put out in order to prove their legitimacy. If Khrushchev and Gorbachev had not undermined the documentation of their precursors it is quite probable that the Soviet Union would still be standing today.

Documentation works. Charlie Brown is not deceived by Lucy’s promise to hold the football steady while he kicks it, until she shows him a signed document in which she pledges not to remove the football while he is attempting a kick. We know how that turns out: “This document was never notarized.”

Butterfield in his The Englishman and His History states that the Magna Charta only became important to the English people many, many years after its signing. It wasn’t important till Englishmen began to lose faith in their traditions. Then they sought to replace their loss of faith with a document. The United States started out with a document instead of a traditional faith, because the founding fathers had no faith in the traditions of their British ancestors. It was the rank and file European Americans who carried the real European traditions, the Christian traditions, over to this country. When the docu-men at the top destroyed those Christian traditions, the reign of Satan began.

We owe nothing, as a Christian people, to the United States Constitution. There is no reason to acquiesce to the rule of Satan simply because the liberals wave a document in our face that they take out of the closet when it suits their purpose and throw back into the closet when it doesn’t suit their purpose. What we owe allegiance to is traditional Europe, the Europe created by the union of Christ and the European. When a nation enters the democratic era of its existence it has entered the final phase of its existence. When a people are spiritually healthy, they are a hero-and-story-book nation. When they tell of their history, they tell of the heroes of their race. They tell the story of Alfred the Great, of William Tell, of The Cid; they do not talk about their new and improved democratic government unless they have become a non-people, having replaced a belief in the heroes of their race and the Hero-God of their race with a belief in a non-personal, Universalist system of government.

I don’t think it is a coincidence that the age of democracy and the scientific age have happened simultaneously. The urge to democratize and the urge to scientize come from the same sick desire – the desire to escape the pain that comes with the human condition by divorcing oneself from it. In a democracy there are no painful duties, no responsibilities; there are only ‘rights.’ Painful duties were part of the non-democratic era; they have no place in the democratic age.

The anti-human, democratic man simply demands the right to be part of generic humanity and to have all his rights, including the right to a pain-free life that science can provide, guaranteed to him by an official document.

The halfway-house Christians always equate Christianity with modern democracy. But are the two really compatible? It would seem they are not. Democratic regimes produce legalized abortion, Tower-of-Babel race-mixing, feminism, war without the mitigating code of chivalry, and an economic war of all against all. Can the halfway-house Christian blithely ignore such evil consequences of democratic government just so he can keep up his delusion of a Pelagian paradise right here on earth? Yes, he can, and he does.

If the young woman in my class who was not exceptionally perceptive saw that democracy did not work, why can’t the powers that be of the democratic West see that it doesn’t work? Is it because something obstructs their vision? Or is it because they do not want to see clearly? I think it is the latter. The rulers of liberaldom do not want to see reality because to look at reality without faith is tantamount to looking at the face of Medusa. It turns a man to stone. Existence is paradoxical. A man can’t look at reality without faith, but he can’t have faith unless he sees something at the core of reality that inspires faith. All paradoxes are mazes without exits if we consult only the theologians and the philosophers. It is in poetry we meet and defeat the fire-breathing, paradoxical dragon of existence. The hero of song and story draws us to him because he sets our hearts on fire. How can we not trust him? The hero-gods of the pagan Europeans prepared the way for The Hero-God. We followed Him as they, the first Christian Europeans, followed Him. Whenever we let go of the poetic of existence we let go of Christ. The democratic system of the European is the endgame depicted by Samuel Beckett. If the modern European turns away from the democratic, constitutional scrolls and toward the instinctual, poetic life of the antique Europeans, he will see with blinding sight and become something infinitely better than an Übermensch or a noble savage; he will be a European. +

Reclaiming Our Home

Once beyond the village, where the cottages ceased abruptly, on either side of the road they could smell through the darkness the friendly fields again and they braced themselves for the last long stretch, the home stretch, the stretch that we know is bound to end, some time, in the rattle of the door latch, the sudden firelight, and the sight of familiar things greeting us as long-absent travelers from far overseas.

-- The Wind in the Willows by Kenneth Grahame

_________________________________

The last Christian king was Charles of Austria, who ruled the Austrian-Hungarian Empire for only two years during World War I. He died much too young and in exile in 1922. The great democracies, America, France, and Britain (great in the sense that Satan is great) all decided that such things as Christian kings and Christian empires were obsolete. Democracies which promised freedom and enfranchisement were the wave of the future. But the future led to Gulags and legalized abortion, because abstractions in politics as well as in religion are code words for tyranny and bloodshed.

Charles knew, in contrast to the tyrants of the modern democracies, that ‘the people’ can never be sovereign. Only God is sovereign, and a Christian king rules as God’s caretaker. Charles viewed his kingship as a consecration to God. Implicit in his vow of fealty to the crown was a pledge to maintain the ancient Christian traditions of the Austrian-Hungarian people.

I know there are a few figure-head kings and queens floating around in Europe today, but do they take seriously the oath that Charles took seriously? Do they want to preserve and defend a Christian people’s ancient traditions? Of course not. In fact, I think the modern rulers of the European countries want to do the exact opposite. They are doing everything in their power to destroy the ancient traditions of their respective nations. What is more traditional to a nation than its people and its faith? And what are Britain and the other European countries destroying when they allow colored invaders into their nation? They are destroying their people and their people’s faith.

The essential flaw of the American experiment in democracy, which has been slavishly copied by all the other European nations, is this: there cannot be a government where the will of the people is sovereign. Where is the check on the people’s authority? What happens when the will of the people conflicts, as in the case of legalized abortion and so many other modern perversions, with the will of God? What happens is that the will of God is set aside. And you cannot protest against a government “by the people and for the people,” because the people are sovereign. A tyrannical king can be deposed when he violates his oath to protect and defend his nation’s people and sacred traditions, but a tyrannical, anti-Christian democracy is an unending nightmare because the people can never be deposed. The right to vote is a satanic joke; what does it avail a man to be able to vote if he is only voting to determine which democratic devil shall rule?

It is unconscionable that Christians, with the daily murder of infants before our eyes, should seek to perpetuate the ungodly myth that our nation was founded on sound religious principles. The history of our nation’s founding is not lost in the obscure mists of time. It took place a relatively short time ago: a coalition of 18th century rationalists, represented by Jefferson, John Adams, Franklin, and Madison, got together with some evangelical Christians, such as Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams, and tried to come up with a government. The religious input came from the Protestant evangelicals, who very much wanted a government that acknowledged itself as Christian. However, they also were dead-set against a state religion. They had a great fear of a state-supported Anglicanism or a throne-and-altar Catholic state. In addition, the Baptists were worried about a Presbyterian state, the Presbyterians were worried about a Baptist state, the Methodists were worried about the Congregationalists, and so on.

The rationalist deists used the evangelicals’ fear of a state religion to place ambiguous phrases in the Declaration of Independence and in our Constitution that could be interpreted in a religious sense or in a non-religious sense. (1) The primary example of this double-speak was the phrase “nature and nature’s God” that was placed in the Declaration of Independence. An evangelical would interpret those words in a Christian way. Nature’s God is Christ, of course. But a deist believes nature is God, and Christ is just an ordinary man subject to nature’s God. The deist would then interpret the phrase, “nature and nature’s God,” in a non-religious sense. The same thing occurred in the oft-quoted ‘separation of Church and State’ clause of the Constitution. The evangelicals interpreted the clause as excluding a state religion, not as excluding Christianity from public life. The deists themselves did not necessarily anticipate a situation in which all religions except the Christian religion could be taught in our schools, but the 1963 Supreme Court decision (Murray vs. Curlett) banning school prayer is in keeping with the spirit of 18th century rationalism. When the conservatives claim that the Founding Fathers never intended to ban Christianity from our public life, they are only partly right; one must ask: which Founding Father?

You have, from our nation’s beginning, a federal government poised, python-like, to slowly squeeze the religious life out of its own people. The Southern states rebelled against that federal government, and they were defeated. Indeed, every group and every person who has gone against the federal government has, in the earthly sense, lost.

Today, isolated attacks on the federal government from the outside by such individuals as Timothy McVeigh are ineffectual because the McVeigh types only invoke pagan gods. Their attacks are used by the government as excuses to further tighten its coils. And attacks from the inside always fail, because the secular principles of pluralism planted in our Constitution serve to render Christians impotent, as illustrated by the betrayal some years back of Pat Robertson and the so-called Christian Coalition. When Newt Gingrich informed them that welfare reform, reverse discrimination, crime, and taxes, could be included in the Contract with America but that abortion could not be, the “Christians” acquiesced. Why? Because there is no consensus among the American people on the issue of abortion as there is on the other issues. And in a democratic society, don’t you know, we must have a consensus, because the people are sovereign.

What is needed among White Europeans is a spirit of separatism. Christians should separate from the federal government. Of course, the federal government will not allow us to separate from them. The Leviathan, aptly named by Donald Davison, needs victims to squeeze in its coils.

I hear quite frequently from practical conservatives that separation is 1) immoral and 2) impractical. But quite the contrary is true. American democracy is immoral, and to stay wedded to an experiment in Satanism is immoral. Americans and the Europeans who have followed them down the democratic path are being disloyal to their European homelands. They have replaced home, hearth, and nation with an abstract notion of an abstract people. They have become men without a country:

Breathes there the man with soul so dead,
Who never to himself hath said,
This is my own, my native land?
Whose heart hath ne'er within him burned,
As home his footsteps he hath turned,
From wandering on a foreign strand?
If such there breathe, go, mark him well;
For him no minstrel raptures swell;
High though his titles, proud his name,
Boundless his wealth as wish can claim,--
Despite those titles, power, and pelf,
The wretch, concentred all in self,
Living, shall forfeit fair renown,
And, doubly dying, shall go down
To the vile dust from whence he sprung,
Unwept, unhonored, and unsung.

--Sir Walter Scott - The Lay of the Last Minstrel

The second point, that separation is impractical, could only be advanced by a modern, democratic blasphemer. If American democracy is evil, then we must separate from it and attack it whether it is “practical” or not. And who’s to say that an attack on the Leviathan is not practical? In the fairy tales of the European people, the hero is always the man who seems impractical. He takes no heed of the dragon guarding the castle in which the fair maiden is imprisoned. All he sees is a maiden in distress, and it stands upon him to act and not to vacillate and count the cost.

When a King such as Charles of Austria views his coronation as a pledge to serve his people in a nation where God is sovereign, every act of that King which serves his nation is recorded in heaven. And so are the actions of the humblest citizen recorded in heaven if they serve a nation which acknowledges God as sovereign. But where are the actions recorded of a people who serve a democratic government dedicated to the rule of the people? I believe it’s called ‘Hell.’

Every white European serves a nation within a nation. There is an eternal Britain, an eternal France, and so on, that exists within the multi-racial entities that have supplanted the old European nations. But the European nations still exist beneath the surface of the new Tower of Babel nations. I view the European’s position vis-à-vis his nation as being similar to the situation of Mr. Toad, Ratty, Badger, and the Mole. They, the legitimate rulers, have been ousted by Third-World stoats and weasels, through the suicidal folly of one of their own. They must reconquer what the animals call “Toad Hall” and what we of course call Europe. The only difference is that the heroic reconquest in The Wind in the Willows takes place in a compressed period of time. It will take the European much longer to reclaim his home than it did the heroes of The Wind in the Willows, but since it is our home that we are fighting for we will carry on the fight to the tenth generation and beyond until every single stoat and weasel has been driven back to the Wild Wood.
_______________________________
(1) Every year the conservatives publish books telling us how conservative the American Constitution was and is. “If we could just get back to it,” they cry. The conservatives always ignore the liberal rhinoceros in the living room. How has the Constitution been interpreted? It has always been interpreted in a radical, anti-European light. The Constitution won’t save us; the European faith will.

Democratic Bloodbaths

Then fell on Merlin a great melancholy;
He walk’d with dreams and darkness, and he found
A doom that ever poised itself to fall,
An ever-moaning battle in the mist,
World-war of dying flesh against the life,
Death in all life and lying in all love,
The meanest having power upon the highest,
And the high purpose broken by the worm.

I believe it was Metternich who said, “Whenever I hear the word, democracy, I know a bloodbath is coming.” The truth of Metternich’s words was brought home to me while reading The Last Days of Innocence by Meirion and Susie Harries. The book is about World War I, the war we fought to make the world “safe for democracy.”

It is the authors’ contention that World War I is largely ignored by most Americans because we have blocked out an unpleasant memory. We lost our innocence in that war, and no one likes to think about such a loss. What emerges from the book is a portrait of a nation that desperately wanted to stay out of World War I. Indeed, Wilson, the pacifist, won reelection because “he kept us out of war.” But, as the Harries tell it, the money men wanted the war, and they usually get what they want.

Once America was in the war, the German people had to be demonized. It is an article of the Puritan creed that a righteous nation doesn’t go to war except in a righteous cause. Wilson’s P.R. people did a splendid job in demonizing Germany. The Harries even suggest that Prohibition was passed to punish German beer makers and to stop German-Americans from meeting in beer halls. But the anti-German propaganda back-fired on Wilson. When the war ended and Wilson tried to get American support for his “peace without victory” plan, the American people were in no mood to forgive the baby-eating Huns. Nor were the French and English in any mood to forgive. The Germans were forced to accept complete blame for the war. An Austrian corporal was later able to set Europe on fire by harnessing German rage at the “stab in the back” treaty.

When reading of the battles, I was reminded of All Quiet on the Western Front. It is indeed a sad paradox that the democratization of Europe, which made every man his own king and killed the idea of a limited war between knights, brought about a democratic blood-bath to make the world safe for democracy. Chivalry suffered a severe blow in our own Civil War, and it received its death blow in World War I.

At the book’s end, Wilson dies a broken man, feminism rears its ugly head (women who took men’s jobs during the war did not give them up at the war’s end), and returning veterans tried to tell American citizens about “the horror, the horror,” but no one wanted to listen to them. So America be-bopped into the twenties, as the money men who brought about the war were preparing the way for the Great Depression.

To the Harries’ credit, they end their book on a sad note:

Saddest of all, perhaps, was the fate of Major Charles Whittlesey. The agony of his ‘Lost Battalion’ stayed with him; he was decorated for his astonishing bravery and endurance, but the burden of suffering he had imposed on his men was too much for him to bear. In 1926, eight years after leading the pathetic remnants of his unit out of their death-trap in the Argonne Forest, he put his affairs in order and boarded a boat for Cuba; in mid-ocean he disappeared from the vessel – one more victim of this most terrible of wars.

And one more victim, I might add, of the democratization of Europe and the death of Christendom. But let me come back to the link between the American Civil War and World War I. Both wars were fought in defense of egalitarian democracy, and in both wars white European males were killed in larger percentages and numbers than in any previous war between Europeans. Did this end the European American’s and the European’s love affair with egalitarian democracy? No, it did not. The carnage of those two wars, fought in the name of democracy, only intensified the Europeans’ love for democracy. Why? Because having lost his faith in Christianity, the European had to cling to his new-found faith no matter what the cost in human lives. “Better that millions perish than I should give up my faith in egalitarian democracy,” became the implicit credo of the post-Christian European.

It was inevitable that the black man would become the god of the democracy-loving Europeans, because the satanic logic of the democratic heresy says that if a black man can attain equality with the European, the new faith works. We can all dance around the bonfire of Western culture and sing praises to the new faith. The Obama coronation in this country was a religious ceremony in which liberals throughout America and Europe saw their god in the flesh.

Of course, it could have been any black man who was crowned, because the liberals’ faith celebrates the generic over the individual. Remember when Pope Benedict XVI, then Cardinal Ratzinger, said that the next pope should be a black man? He did not mention a particular black man, he just wanted a black man, any black man.

Egalitarian democracy, like communism, is an impossibility. A hierarchal structure exists in every society, even if that society denies its existence. And post-Christian Europeans have retained the elements of a Christian society in a bastardized, demonic form. For instance, original sin still exists, but it resides only in white males. And their original sin was that they did not admit blacks into full equality with whites. Hence, it is necessary that white males perform their mea culpas on a daily basis and take their punishment in a humble and contrite manner. Likewise, the liberals still believe in saints. However, sainthood does not come as a result of an individual person cooperating with God’s grace; sainthood is conferred on every member of the black race and by proxy to those members of the white race who support the sainted black race.

The halfway-house Christians tell us that egalitarian, black-worshipping democracy stems from the Christian belief that all men are created and loved by God. But why, if egalitarian democracy follows from Christianity, didn’t the Europeans, when they were Christian, practice egalitarian democracy? No unbiased, sane human being could claim our current aborting, porno-crazed society is superior to the older European societies. Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say that a Christian people segregates in order to protect their own from contamination, and they make distinctions between peoples in order to ensure that truth has a protected hearth in which to dwell? When the white race ceased to segregate and when they allowed truth to be trampled by barbarian hordes, they ceased to be Christian.

The “Lost Battalion” is the European people who have forsaken Christian Europe for egalitarian, black-worshipping democracy. And every single European who adheres to the egalitarian creed will suffer the same fate as Major Charles Whittlesey. When the battle is not fought in the name of the God who’s love passeth all understanding, the battle and life itself seem futile. Does the struggle availeth, is the race worth running? It is, but only if He awards the laurel wreath.

Full of Sound and Fury, Signifying Nothing

Nothing routs us but
The villainy of our fears.

The 4th of July holiday is a depressing one for me because I don’t think a last-place team should be celebrating. And the U.S. is a last-place team. The European countries had many glory years before they hit decadence; the U. S. went straight to decadence. For the first time in history, a group of men decided to found a country without benefit of tradition and the wisdom of the ages. Solely through the power of enlightened minds, they were going to chart a new and better course for mankind.

The problem of the old world, the enlightened minds decided, was the throne-and-altar. By eliminating those two old pillars of society they thought something new and improved would emerge. Well, something new did emerge. But the enlightened minds did not solve the age-old problem of authority. They were still faced with the dilemma that Shakespeare’s Coriolanus warned the Romans about:

They choose their magistrate;
And such a one as he, who puts his 'shall,'
His popular 'shall,' against a graver bench
Than ever frown'd in Greece. By Jove himself,
It makes the consuls base; and my soul aches
To know, when two authorities are up,
Neither supreme, how soon confusion
May enter 'twixt the gap of both and take
The one by th' other.

Andrew Lytle summed up our system of government quite well when he called it the “cynical balancing of powers.” The history of the English kings, and all of the kings of Europe for that matter, is a very depressing spectacle of chicanery and bloodshed. But one can always hope for a better King. There is no hope in a system where you are permanently locked into an endless cycle of sound and fury signifying nothing.

John Paul II’s biographer, George Weigel, claimed the Pope’s blessing for our democracy, and evangelical Protestants are always cranking out books equating American democracy and godliness. I could quote pre-Vatican II popes who say the reverse of Weigel and Wojtyla, and I could quote, against the evangelical Protestant, authors such as Fitzhugh who do not view the American Constitution as a sacred document. But there is no need to engage in a ‘dueling documents’ war. Instead, let’s simply look at the fruits of American democracy. On whose watch did Christianity thrive? Under the blood, throne, and altar Europeans or under the egalitarian, democratic Americans? Case closed.

A spiritually healthy people will always crave a monarchy despite the many problems associated with it. There is no poetry in our democratic system. And where there is no poetry, there is no God.

I often fantasize about what would have happened if Jefferson Davis had had enough sense to tear up the Constitution, appoint Nathan Bedford Forrest the Warrior King of the South, and then resign. For the Southland was our only hope for a different form of government in this hemisphere. It had the peasantry, the yeomanry, and the princes. All it lacked was a King. King Forrest would have retreated to the Deep South and told the Yankees, “We do not seek a battle as we are, but as we are, we will not shun one.”

All right, it wouldn’t have been that Shakespearean, but it would have amounted to the same thing. Forrest would not have made Brutus’s mistake at Philippi. He would have made the Yankees come and get him. And after the South’s victory? Industrial workers from the North, soon to be small farm owners, would have flocked to the South to become part of the Southern kingdom, and black serfs would have been sent back to Africa, a more humane fate than sending them North to work in the factories.

Well, it didn’t happen like that. But if this anti-nation of ours ever does become a nation, it will be one with a Christian king ruling over a Christian people who can say with pride, “I serve the King, and the King serves Christ.” But in the meantime our democratic system creeps in this petty pace from day to day.

When we talk about American democracy and the modern European democracies, we are not talking about a band of stalwart Saxons gathering together to vote for their King, we are talking about a messianic faith. The modern liberal believes the democratic process, in and of itself, is something holy. Participation in the democratic process is seen as a purification, and non-participation is seen as ungodly.

Modern democracy is a death knell for the white man. He must not consent to be part of the democratic process or to allow the democratic plague to remain in the nations of the West. Democratic countries have no borders. Nor do democratic countries respect the distinctiveness of the white race and the Christian faith. The world is one, big, democratic, melting pot in the minds of the modern purveyors of democracy. On this 4th of July, let us make some very undemocratic vows. We will not blend with the great colored hordes nor will we bend our knee to the democratic process. We worship a different God.

The Return of the Whiteman

I saw just a few snippets of the Democratic and Republican conventions – any more would have been too painful. The two parties make me think of C. S. Lewis’s observation that the devil often invests two seemingly opposite groups with his evil designs in order to fool the struggling mortal into making a choice between two similar evils in different guises. Then, no matter what decision the mortal makes, the devil wins. What were the words of that old song? “Anyway you look at it, you lose.”

In viewing both conventions one can’t help but feel he is getting a glimpse of what hell must be like. We see a bunch of little devils running around celebrating pandemonium. And is there any unifying principle underlying the pandemonium? Yes, there is. The unifying principle of both demonic parties is hatred, hatred for the older, white, Christian civilization of the European people.

The United States is not a nation. The people of the U. S. are not bound by a common religion, a common heritage, or a common race. In the absence of authentic ties that bind, the satanic tribes within the U. S. prey on each other and unite only when the common enemy, the white European, seems to threaten the continuance of their tribal celebrations and rituals.

In reality there really is no group of Europeans threatening the demonic tribes. But the demonic tribes always bring up the possibility of the return of the white man in order to scare other tribes into supporting their tribe. And we should take note of that. The white technocrat, the Amazon, and the colored barbarian have a deep-rooted fear of an organized, committed body of white Europeans. They take their cue from their master.

And at some point, when the white man finally abandons the satanic notions of equality, fraternity, and democracy, he will have to reclaim his civilization. At present, the small remnant of white men who support white people frame their defense of the white man in terms of rights: “The white man has a right to his own culture just as the black, or the Asian, etc. has the right to his culture.” But doesn’t that assume modern democracy is a valid form of government rather than a creation of the devil? What is the reality of the white man’s contact with non-white cultures? The reality is that when the white man acts democratically, trying to incorporate non-white cultures into white culture, the barbarians of color, who do not think in utopian terms, view the white man’s attempt to include them in his culture as surrender. They view themselves as conquerors and proceed to act as they think barbarian conquerors should act. The white technocrat keeps playing the part (and believing it for the most part) of the benevolent Atticus Finch, extending a helping hand to all mankind, while the barbarians of color look on him with contempt and step up their arrogance and brutality at every new “benevolent” gesture of the technocratic white man.

“I’ll respect your culture if you respect mine,” only works when the cultural differences are nuanced differences within a higher, common, religious culture. For instance, an Englishman might prefer the paintings of John Constable, and a Scotsman might prefer the paintings of Horatio McCulloch, but both still share a common race and a common faith from which their cultural heritage is derived. (1) There can be no shared cultural experience between the colored and the white because they do not have a common bond. The only way a white can mix with non-white is if the white gives up his heritage. And of course that is exactly what is happening today. (2)

It is impossible for a genuine white man to have a “you-respect-my-culture-and-I’ll-respect- your-culture” relationship with the colored races. The barbarian of color does not have any intention of respecting other cultures. The very idea of respect for another culture comes from the Christian white man. And from the white man’s side: do we really want to respect the colored culture? Do they have a right to their culture? No, they don’t. No one has a right to be a barbarian. The white man might have to allow the barbarians of color to maintain their bestial civilizations in their own nations, because the cost to white people would be too great in trying to convert them, but no white man should ever permit one single barbarian of color to exist in a white nation. And please don’t tell me it is impossible to remove them. It is quite possible, once the will to protect and defend His civilization becomes firmly re-established in the bosom of the white man.

The white Sons of Martha magazines all tell us that white people will be a minority in the U.S. by 2045. The European Sons of Martha magazines make similar projections for their own nations. And then they urge us to vote the nightmarish vision of pandemonium away. How, pray tell, can we “vote white” when voting white is not an option? Was there a candidate in any national or local election who ran on a segregation platform? Was there a candidate who ran on a “send the blacks back to Africa, the Chinese to China, and the Mexicans to Mexico” platform? Of course not. But the non-whites do run on such platforms. They don’t espouse equality and fraternity; they espouse death to 'whitey'.

The American Civil War should have served as a warning, just as Haiti should have served as a warning, to all white people that diversity does not mean harmony and understanding between the races, it means the extinction of white Christians and the triumph of the colored minions of Satan.

Prior to the Civil War there were hundreds of anti-slavery societies in the South. But when the Civil War commenced, the anti-slavery societies disappeared. Why? Because the North did not want to send the blacks back to Africa, they wanted to place the black man on an equal basis with the white man. Every Southern anti-slavery plan called for repatriation of the blacks. The Southerners knew that black freedom without repatriation meant miscegenation and the destruction of European civilization on the North American continent. Why then, when the worst nightmares of the white Southerners have become enshrined into law, do white conservatives still prop up the illicit government of the United States?

During World War II there was an official French government that was largely a puppet of the Germans. And then there was an unofficial government in exile led by Charles de Gaulle. As the French did in World War II, so now should the white European-Americans establish their own government in exile. It need not be (in fact, it should not be) a parallel carbon copy of the satanic American system. Circumstances will dictate the structures of the government in exile. The important thing is to establish a European government that stands in opposition to the United Diverse Government of America.

Most men by the time they reach their mid-fifties, as I have, have buried one or both of their parents and lost some close friends. One sees, if he has just a slight touch of the poet in his soul, that life is fragile and quite unpredictable. There are few things one can really control. But there is the discovery of Hamlet. One’s soul is one’s own. You can claim your one moment in the sun when a man is called “to say one,” or you can let that brief moment pass. The magnificent grandeur of ordinary (ordinary in the sense that they weren’t famous) white Europeans of the past was that they did "say one." They consecrated their brief mortal lives to Him and became part, not of some universalist melting pot, but of His Kingdom. Life will always be fragile and unpredictable, but it won’t seem meaningless if we dedicate it to the rebuilding of His Europe.

If it is true that Abraham Lincoln just dashed off his Gettysburg Address on the back of an envelope on the train en route to Gettysburg, then he truly was a great genius; it is a magnificent speech. However, despite its brilliance, it is a false speech. Did our forefathers really intend to bring forth on this continent a new nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal? Quite possibly some of the framers of the Constitution had some such utopian notions in mind. But did the great mass of European immigrants have such notions in their heads or their hearts? No, they did not. They came to this country for a variety of reasons, some secular and some religious, but they all came with the central tenet of European civilization burned into their souls. That tenet was that no man goeth unto the Father except through Him. And their second conviction was related to their first basic tenet. That second conviction was that European culture had to prevail over the non-European cultures, because in the absence of European rule there would be nothing but pandemonium.

When I look at the Republican and Democratic party conventions, it seems that hell is empty and all the devils are at the conventions. But I know that pandemonium will not ultimately prevail. It is the ordinary Europeans who quietly dedicate themselves to rebuilding His civilization that will triumph. They will triumph because they have that within them that is the antithesis of pandemonium. They have the charity that never faileth. +

__________________________________________________
(1) The European landscape painters I admire, such as Constable and McCulloch, all adhere instinctively to Blake’s dictum, “Where man is not, nature is barren.” They humanize the natural world and remind us who visited this earth and shed his light on nature.






Horatio McCulloch, Evening View from the Bluff

(2) The reason why the capitalist is so gung ho for diversity is that he wants the white man to abandon his cultural heritage for capitalism. He wants to see the colored and the white unite under one glorious capitalist banner. The infamous Coke commercial expresses the capitalist’s deepest yearning.