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. +

The Land of Evening Lingerings

Be as thou was wont to be;
See as thou was wont to see:

-- A Midsummer-Night’s Dream

The white man needs a romanticized ideal in order to live. The colored races can get by with sex and blood cults, but the white man needs something more. For 1600 years prior to the 20th century, the Christian faith was the ‘something more’ for the European. A great hero full of infinite compassion and mercy came down from heaven to wrestle with the dragon of death. And He prevailed!

The poet-historians of our race, Scott, Shakespeare, Hughes, Dickens, Le Fanu, and Maclaren, all bear witness to the reality of a culture where even the great sinners took Christianity seriously enough to be aware that they were sinners. The cad in Scott’s The Heart of Midlothian at least marries the girl he impregnates. Nowadays, the cad would give his girlfriend the money for an abortion and proclaim himself beneficent.

In that excellent movie Miracle on 34th Street, the young lawyer defending Kris Kringle cuts to the chase by saying, “All these complicated tests come down to this: you say Kris is insane because he says he is Santa Claus.” And all the complicated and intricate analyses of the demise of the European come down to this: “The European no longer sees any romance in Christianity. He has ‘moved on.’”

And where has the European moved to? What is his new romance? The modern European has fallen in love with the idea of diversity. Go to any of the universities (which are still religious institutions; they have just changed their religious orientation), and read their manifestos. Diversity is their credo, diversity as defined by the liberal to mean the worship of generic mankind and the denial of a personal God. And there is a hierarchy within generic mankind. The topmost place is reserved for the generic black male, and next comes the generic female of any color, followed by the other races of color. The white male has no place in this diverse society; in fact, the major goal of such diverse societies is the elimination of the white male.

The obsessive hatred of the white male in our modern society stems from the fact that the European male is seen as the harbinger of death. He represents the things of the past, the worship of Christ and the hatred of diversity. Two such evils cannot be tolerated by the diversity-loving modern European. The only surviving white males within the new hierarchy are white technocrats who savagely condemn all other white males while simultaneously denying there is any such thing as a white male. It remains to be seen how long the technocratic male can survive. He is a necessary prop for the feminist and the black; in fact, they are helpless without him, but swine possessed by demons seldom act in their own self-interest. The technocratic white male will be the last of the whites to go, but he will go; diverse societies have no place for the white man.

I once read a story to my children about a farm boy who somehow or other got a position in the court of Queen Elizabeth. All the city boys and girls made fun of the country boy and his ways. When given a chance to perform before the Queen, the country boy sang a song he had learned while growing up on the farm. He sang the song in spite of the ridicule and scorn of the city boys and girls. An old courtier applauded the country boy and told him, “Never be ashamed of the things you love.” The point is we can’t make the liberals love Christian Europe nor can we stop the halfway-house Christians from trying to combine the love of diversity with the love of Christ; we can only be faithful to our own true love.

Before the European fell in love with diversity, he was in love with Christ. From that love came everything good in European civilization. The diversity-loving liberals think they can eliminate the good things which they regard as evil, such as the respect for the child in the womb, the assumption of the superiority of European culture over all other cultures, the respect for patriarchy, and so on, and can just retain the things they still have a need for, such as wine and cheese parties, the right to travel through Europe, and marvel at the sight of the monuments to the faith they deplore, and so on, and so forth, ad nauseam, and on it goes. Every European liberal and halfway-house European think because they live near a police station (which of course they theoretically deplore), lions no longer need cages.

Of course I have no idea when, if ever, this hatred of the white man and of Christian Europe will end. I do know that miracles occur when Europeans are faithful to their one true love. We seldom see what is happening in the mystical body, but the collective voice of our European ancestors assures us that the battle for Christian Europe is worth fighting.

We are in a war and we should follow the advice of Nathan Bedford Forrest: “War means fighting, and fighting means killing.” Not that killing is the only aspect of a war; it is most certainly not. The most important aspect is spiritual: “All things are ready if our hearts be in the trim.” But to acknowledge that killing is a necessary part of any attack on liberaldom is to make the final break with liberal democracy. We can’t destroy liberaldom through the channels set up by liberals to preserve liberaldom. Witness the recent attempt by besieged white people in Arizona to put some small limits on the number of murdering Mexicans flooding into their state. The two major provisions in the anti-illegal alien bill were struck down by the courts. It will always be thus in every formerly European country. The colored man is part of the new romance. His right to murder individual white people and to destroy the few remaining remnants of white culture will always be supported as an inalienable right by the white-hating technocrats of European descent.

Dostoyevsky used the example of the swine from the Gospel to illustrate the modern European liberal. They are so afraid of Him that they will willingly run off a cliff to avoid Him. One can make all sorts of excuses for the liberals: “They never heard any Christ story but a perverted, sectarian, hate-filled version,” or, “They want to believe but their hearts have been hardened against the truth,” or, “They find it impossible to reconcile reason and faith.” The list is endless. But the fact remains that the European has a new love that inspires him more than his old one. It is my contention that we should not aid or abet the new diversity-worshipping European any more than we should aid or abet a husband in abandoning his wife and children for a young girl; which means, let the liberals fight their own wars against the Iraqis and the Afghans with a feminist and black army. We will fight the battle at our doorstep against the aliens the liberal has loosed upon us with the express purpose of exterminating every man, woman, and child of our white race.

The race war is a war to preserve the divine presence on earth. Blake’s dictum, “Where man is not, nature is barren,” should be extended to “Where God is not, man is barren.” In Dore’s paintings of mankind prior to the flood, we see a diversity of bodies fit for nothing but oblivion. We do not see distinct personalities who reflect the image of God. Our modern, anti-European world resembles the world before the flood. Christian Europe stands in direct contrast to the modern, racially blended Europe. There were personalities then. H. V. Morton once commented that Dicken’s characters were not exaggerated. Such personalities as Wilkins Macawber, Samuel Pickwick, and Joe Gargery really existed in Europe’s halcyon days. To emerge from modern Europe and return to antique Europe is like awakening from a hellish nightmare and discovering all over again the enchanted fairy land called home.

Kenneth Grahame calls antique Europe the land of evening lingerings. And we linger there because it is our home; it is where we find the master of the house holding out his arms to greet us and usher us in to sit beside the warm hearth. The brave new, diverse world the liberals have prepared for us is nothing like our European home. There is no light, no warmth, no God in the liberals’ diverse world. There are only hideously inhuman creatures trying desperately to deny that God once visited earth. Their world is perishing, but the old Europe survives. Beyond liberaldom we hear the European chorus: “And He shall reign forever and ever.” +

Guarding the Past

“There is a hollow ring in the work of some of the systems makers, who so often assume that we can catch up with History, collect all the factors into our hands – nothing relevant escaping us – and so become monarchs and masters of the course of things.” – Herbert Butterfield

It seems that only the white man invents utopian schemes and tries to implement them. The Roman Catholic Church systematized that which should never – and can never – be systematized: the living God. And the Protestants diligently followed in the Catholic train and systematized God. The liberals, following along the same lines of the systematizing Christians, created their own utopian system which is a synthesis of the Catholic and Protestant systems; it is called psychology. And so it goes with the white man. He is forever trying to “catch up with History” and become the master of a world of his own creation.

Our little utopian systems have their day, and then they go into the dust bin of history, usually leaving rivers of blood and mountains of despair behind them. Capitalism and socialism have occupied the European stage for the last two centuries, but in the last fifty years a very old (just read Dryden, Addison, and Rousseau) utopian fantasy has re-emerged. The capitalists and the socialists are currently trying to combine the myth of the noble black savage with their capitalist-socialist utopias. Thus the capitalist tells us that we should all be capitalists because it will help the black man get off welfare, and the socialist tells us that socialism is good because it will help the black man stay on welfare. But the key element in the capitalist, black utopia and in the socialist, black utopia is the worship of the black. The Negro is a god in both utopian schemes; the two opposing sides merely differ on the best way to serve the new god.

All utopian fantasies of the European liberal are grounded in a denial of the doctrine of original sin and a hatred of the Europeans and their history. The liberal does not believe in original sin because such a belief would make him disbelieve in the perfectibility of mankind under his beneficent leadership. While denying original sin, the liberal must hate his ancestors and believe in their sinfulness, because they are the reason, in his mind, there is no heaven on earth.

Let us dwell for a moment on the hatred of the liberal. The utopian liberal is generally given a free pass from the world so long as his utopian schemes are universalist, utopian schemes. The neo-pagans and the Fuhrer are and were unpopular because their utopian schemes are not universalist schemes. The worst thing that is said about the liberal utopian is that he is “somewhat naive, but his heart is in the right place.” 'Tis not so. The utopian liberal is a great hater. Unhumbled by any sense of his own sinfulness, he is unwilling to tolerate the slightest opposition to his humanitarian plans to save all mankind. Dostoevsky, in his masterpiece, The Devils, depicts a Bolshevist revolutionary who sits in his house, writing plans for the earthly salvation of mankind, while on the everyday plane of reality he hates every human being he meets. It will always be thus with the utopian liberal (and there are no non-utopian liberals); he will always be a great lover of abstract humanity and a great hater of individual human beings.

Against the utopian liberal stands the European conservative, not to be confused with the liberal capitalist. Since he believes in original sin, he doesn’t think that the future will be better than the past. In fact the conservative knows that the future will be worse than the past if the past is not woven into the garment of the future.

Walter Scott exemplified the romanticism of conservatism. He did not ignore the evils of the past, but he saw that any evil his ancestors committed stemmed from a sinful nature that he shared with them. And he had the humility to acknowledge the virtues of his ancestors and try to preserve those virtues in the present. Conservatism is romantic because it is human. Unadulterated man has passions, he loves, he hates, he descends to the depths of hell, and he rises to the heights of heaven. The utopian has no humanity because he thinks what passed for humanity in the past was evil and must be obliterated. Only a future humanity, which has no connection to the European past, and the black man, who has no connection to the European past, are sacred and worthy of inheriting the kingdom of liberaldom.

There is no ascent in the liberal utopia; there is only the darkness of hell. It was God’s plan to create mankind which triggered Satan’s revolt. The great hater is only comfortable where there is no humanity. His cry is, “The world must be purged of all traces of humanity.” And that is what utopians do; they purge the world of all genuine human beings, replacing them with colored barbarians and disembodied white intellectuals who worship the intellect but cannot think because all true thought stems from the human heart which the liberals have banished from utopia.

All utopian states, because they are based on a false view of man, must maintain themselves by force or by an extensive and subtle seduction of the masses. Most utopian-totalitarian regimes use a combination of the two methods. The old U.S.S.R. was primarily a naked-force utopia while the U.S.A. was primarily a seductive utopia. In recent years there has been a slight shift in emphasis. The U.S.A. and her European counterparts are relying more on naked force than they ever did before, which is a tribute to their successful seduction. There are so few men of flesh and blood left that it has become unnecessary to seduce; naked force will crush the last of the non-utopian Europeans.

Utopian thinking stems from the European because the European was once Christian. It was the European who prayed, ‘Thy Kingdom come.’ But when ‘His Kingdom come’ becomes our utopian kingdom of the godless future, Christian Europe becomes Satania.

Since utopia never comes, the liberal must be able to point to some reason why the elusive utopia never materializes. In the U.S.S.R., it was the remnant band of the bourgeoisie who were ‘blocking’ paradise on earth. They needed to be exterminated so the peoples’ paradise could flourish. In Europe and the United States, it is white racists who stand in the way of a Babylonian paradise. They will also be exterminated. At least that is the plan. The liberals no longer make a secret of it. Members of the new Black Panther Party, for instance, have recently called for the extermination of whites. No outrage, not even a blip on the radar screen. But liberals do not have a death wish. Because they have no connection to reality, they really believe that so long as they denounce their whiteness they will not be considered white by the wonderful black demigods whom they worship.

If a cancer is not reversed, it spreads. The hatred of the white and the love of the black has gone into the blood of the white liberal, the halfway-house Christian, and the white grazer (see The Underground Men). The late Samuel Francis and John Tyndall spent most of their adult lives trying to explain, in rational terms, that the black man wanted the white man to disappear from the face of the earth, but there is a limit to pure reason. When a mania such as the worship of the black man and the hatred of the white man enters the bloodstream, mere reason is hopeless against it. The evil of the black man and his hatred of the white man is apparent throughout America, Europe, and Africa. What the black man says and what the black man does should be enough to convince every single white man to take up arms to defend himself and his family against the black man. Instead, the white man does just the opposite. He throws himself at the feet of the black man, as the black man raises his knife to kill the white man and his family, and begs for forgiveness for his sins of commission and omission against the black race. “Almighty Negro, I have sinned against thee, by what I have done and what I have failed to do. I firmly resolve, if you let me live, to avoid all sins of racism in the future, and all near occasions of racism”

However, the new black god of the white man is not a merciful god like Christ; he is a murderous savage god, so he slays the white penitent. And the whites looking on cry with one voice: “The black man giveth, and the black man taketh away; blessed be the name of the black man forever.”

If the bloodbath is to be halted we must look beyond reason. Those white men who have never forsaken their white blood and those white men who have returned to their blood because they saw the risen Lord on their own personal roads to Damascus will hold the pass until the black-worshipping passion is purged from the white race, or till their Lord returns to lead the final charge. We are in the fiery furnace, but miracles occur when a faithful few refuse to worship the savage gods. +

Prisoners of the Dialectic

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. -- Psalm 14:1

I made the mistake the other day of turning on the car radio. I must have turned on some “religious” station because there was a Catholic priest on the show talking about salvation outside the Catholic Church. His unsweet song was that in the bad old days, before the Second Vatican Council, the Church hated Jews and Protestants and claimed they were all going to hell. Now, the great man intoned, the Church saw there were many roads to God and we were all beautiful in our own way.

The priest was somewhat in error by saying that before the Council the no-salvation-outside-the-Church belief was the teaching of the Church. After all, it was Pius XII who excommunicated Father Feeney. But the radio priest was essentially correct, for if not absolute in theory, the Church was absolute in practice – meaning that the great unwashed thought, and were encouraged by the clergy to think, that there was no salvation outside the Catholic Church. So I don’t want to quarrel with the radio priest over his analysis, which was essentially correct.

The dialectic that the Feeneyite cannot overcome is this: “The Church was set up by Christ for our salvation; therefore, ipso facto, no one outside the Church can be saved.” But the dialectic is a false mode of thinking invented by Satan to deceive intellectual pygmies like us, pygmies at least in comparison to Satan.

The poetic mode, whether we ever write poetry or not, is the mode in which humans are called to respond to existence. Vatican II did not bring about the proper doctrine on “No salvation outside the Church.” Those Christians who operated in the non-dialectic sphere of existence always knew it. Take a novel like Ivanhoe for instance, written long before Vatican II. In the novel, Scott draws a perfectly believable portrait of a saintly Jewish woman, while at the same time making it clear that she is in error. Ivanhoe, being a true knight and therefore possessing a poetic sense of life, is able to fight valiantly for Rebecca without compromising his own Christian faith. In fact he fights valiantly for her because of his Christian Faith. This is impossible to understand if one views life as a dialectic, but quite understandable if one sees life in a poetic light. And I must stress that the poetic, or the mystical, if you prefer, response to existence has nothing to do with one’s ability to write poetry, it has to do with the state of one’s soul. A person could have a great gift to write poetry but have a very cold, dialectically oriented soul. Dante is a case in point. Few, possibly only Shakespeare, had greater power of expression than Dante, but Dante lacked a poetic appreciation of life. In his hands, God becomes a pagan God who requires sacrifice and not mercy. I loved it when Unamuno, in his classic work on Don Quixote, had Quixote ride into hell and take down Dante’s sign, “Abandon all hope ye who enter here.”

Edgar, with great sadness, comments that the dark and vicious place where his father begot the bastard Edmund cost him his eyes. By the same token the dark and vicious place where the clergy embraced the dialectic cost Father Feeney and countless millions their faith. So much was said in so few words by the anti-dialectical poet, William Blake – “We will forever believe a lie when we see with, not through, the eye.”

The radio priest and Father Feeney represent the North and South poles of religious atheism. The religious atheist doesn’t renounce Christ directly; instead, he refashions Christianity to fit his idea of what a god should be. In the case of the radio priest, he thinks God should be a benign being with no definite personality or attributes, who gives one generic blessing to all mankind. And at the other pole of religious atheism, Father Feeney worships the idea of an organized Church with exclusive rights to the Kingdom of Heaven, but he has no feeling for the Son of God who came to redeem mankind. Scott describes the Feeney mentality in his novel A Legend of Montrose:

Another cause inflamed the minds of the nation at large, no less than the tempting prospect of the wealth of England animated the soldiery. So much had been written and said on either side concerning the form of church government, that it had become a matter of infinitely more consequence in the eyes of the multitude than the doctrines of that gospel which both churches had embraced. The Prelatists and Presbyterians of the more violent kind became as illiberal as the Papists, and would scarcely allow the possibility of salvation beyond the pale of their respective churches. It was in vain remarked to these zealots, that had the Author of our holy religion considered any peculiar form of church government as essential to salvation, it would have been revealed with the same precision as under the Old Testament dispensation. – Walter Scott

The religious atheist is much more common than the professed atheist, but our modern age, which has produced a record number of religious atheists, is also producing a significant number of outright atheists. And that is not a coincidence. Religious atheism begets secularized atheism. As C. S. Lewis points out in The Last Battle, the end result of years of false teaching about Aslan was that a great number of people had ceased to believe in the real Aslan.

And we must make one more distinction. The militant atheism so prevalent in the neo-pagan ranks is not the type of atheism which Stavrogin displays in Dostoyevsky’s The Possessed. There is a certain nobility in Stavrogin’s atheism; he has come to believe there is no God, and he takes the tragedy of a Godless universe seriously enough to commit suicide.

In contrast, the neo-pagans' professed atheism is mere pouting, the pouting of petulant children mad at their parents for not handing them the world on a silver platter, a world as they would have it. Christianity has turned to the worship of Baal in the form of the black man, so the neo-pagans think this gives them the right to imitate the Jews and form an organized opposition to Jesus of Nazareth. One hears, once again, from their camp the cries of “crucify Him!”

As it was in the past so is it now. It is up to the white Christian European to stand against the Christ-haters and for incarnational Europe. The religious atheists, the neo-pagan atheists, and the barbarians seem to be such different entities, but they are one in their hatred of the Europeans and their God. It stands on us to defend His Europe against such enemies, not to appease them or to compromise with them.

Atheism is a European phenomenon and only a European phenomenon, because the colored peoples never worshipped a personal God. To them, God is a force or a philosophy; how do you personally reject such a God? But Christ? He can be rejected because He is our personal savior. The religious atheist could not have fashioned his atheistic, new, improved Christ if there had been no Christ. The serious atheist would not feel the God-forsakenness of the world if he had not come from a people who believed that Christ had redeemed the world. And finally, the petulant-child atheist would not have a personal God to blame for the ills of the modern world if the European people had not nurtured and championed the belief that there was a personal God who cared about individual human beings. The European is not naked before his enemies because God has forsaken him; he is naked before his enemies because he has forsaken his God. Having tried and failed to win battles under the atheistic banners of democracy and egalitarianism, it is now time for the European to fight under the only banner worth fighting for. +