The Liberal and the Colored -– United in Hate

The crimes that the White community of Southern Rhodesia had committed were obvious. In the first place they are White, and in the second place they are guilty of having brought civilization to a land of black Stone-Age savages. – Anthony Jacob

The hostility in the liberal and black community toward that young football player, Tim Tebow, is another sign of the times. What has the young man done to elicit such hatred from the liberal-colored coalition? He prays before, during, and after his games to the God of the Christians. And during last year’s Stupor Bowl, which is sometimes called the Super Bowl, he and his mother did an anti-abortion commercial. For that the liberals and the blacks want him eliminated. I’m told that Saturday Night Live, the sacred theater of the liberals, did a sneering satire of Tebow’s Christian faith. So what else is new? Don’t liberals usually attack and mock the good and defend and praise evil? Yes, they do, but the noose is tightening around white Europeans. Just 10 years ago the appearance on the scene of a mild-mannered white sports figure who claimed to be Christian would not have evoked such blatant and open hostility. And forty years ago the liberals would have kept their hostility to themselves, but we live in the era of liberalism triumphant; the liberals feel that they no longer have to tolerate even the slightest deviation from liberal orthodoxy. Why should they? Does the wolf tolerate the lamb? And we should note that Tim Tebow has not said one “racist” thing. In fact, I’m sure he has all the correct views on race, but that doesn’t matter to the liberals and the colored barbarians. He is white, and he has become a hero to many young white people. That is bad. Why is it bad? Because whites, particularly young whites, are not allowed to have heroes who are Christian and white. That could lead to white youths thinking they are entitled to regard themselves as a particular people with a special destiny as a people. Such a departure from liberal orthodoxy is forbidden.

From Tim Tebow to Patrick Buchanan – a liberal-black organization has called for his dismissal from television because of his “racism.” But mild-mannered Pat has never said anything “racist.” He merely pointed out in his last book that multicultural America is not working because the new wave of non-European immigrants do not want to be absorbed into American culture; they want to impose their culture on white Americans. For such views he is supposed to be a dangerous racist. Pat receives the liberals’ seal of disapproval despite the fact that when he ran for President the last time he choose a black running mate and despite the fact that he has never advocated segregation or the deportation of colored people. Buchanan’s moderation counts for nothing with the liberals and the coloreds. They still consider him a racist and therefore damned. Unless you are a rabid, blaspheming negro-worshipper, you will be linked with the racists anyway, so why not, if you fashion yourself a conservative, go all the way over to the side of the kinist, Christian, European remnant? The adage, “one might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb,” applies here.

If we cross the ocean we come to the once proud nation of Ireland. The left-wing administration of Trinity College in Dublin cancelled a scheduled talk by British National Party (BNP) Chairman Nick Griffin, on the subject of immigration, claiming that the cancellation was a “victory” for multiculturalism. I view the cancellation of Griffin’s talk as vindication of the late John Tyndall, who was the founder of the BNP. Griffin ungraciously purged Tyndall from the BNP because he was supposedly too extreme. Griffin thought his conciliatory approach of asking that whites be looked on as a legitimate part of multicultural Britain was more practical than Tyndall’s “whites only” advocacy. When will the “practical” white men learn that nothing but the annihilation of the white race will satisfy the liberal-colored coalition?

The condemnation of whites for being white never ends. Geert Wilders asks for restrictions on immigration, and the Muslims sue him in court. Arizona’s Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio tries to enforce the state immigration laws, and Obama’s communist Justice Department accuses him of discrimination against Hispanics. And in every case I’ve mentioned, from the football player to the sheriff, the white in question is simply hated for being white. They have not attacked, either verbally or physically, anyone of the colored races. And that is the pity of it. The colored races are fighting a war against the white race, and whites are not fighting back.

Every conflict between faiths ends up as a conflict on the battlefield. The whining lawsuits of the liberal-backed Hispanic, black, and Asian organizations are to the colored hordes and the liberals what the Communist Manifesto was to the Bolsheviks. The whining lawsuits are their declarations of war. From the liberal and colored standpoint the murders, rapes, and other assorted atrocities perpetuated against white people by the colored savages are the sanctified acts of a people fighting a holy war in defense of Babylon. No white conservative will ever be able to convince the colored people to allow the whites to be part of a multicultural state, because the essence of a multicultural state is the hatred of the white. In fact the only shared value of the yellow, the black, and the brown is their hatred of the white man.

The colored hordes know only about the bloody sacrifice of other races to the needs of their own race. They have no concept of mercy. Mercy is a white man’s word, and to the colored tribes a sign of weakness. They do not see that the sight of innocence under attack, of decency under attack, of one’s people under attack, can stir up feelings of mercy in a man’s heart that makes him want to do battle in defense of innocence, decency, and his people for mercy’s sake. The colored races do not see this because they fight for bloodlust and gain, never for mercy’s sake. “This is all too extreme and harsh,” the white halfway-house Christian tells me. But is it harsh? Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say that it is too truthful for the halfway-house Christian to accept? First and foremost, the Christian European loves and extends mercy to his own. But did the European’s mercy end with his own race? No! The only mercy that the colored races, particularly the beloved black race of the halfway-house Christians, ever knew came from the hated and persecuted white race. And I will repeat what has become a refrain with me, a necessary counterpoise to the liberals’ white-hating refrain: If the white race disappears, absorbed into a Babylonian, mixed race, mercy will disappear from the face of the earth. An old Christian hymn warns the sinner to “Look down, look down, that lonesome road before you travel on.” The halfway house Christians need to look down the negro-worshipping road and see where it ends. It ends in a hellish, nightmare world of lost souls.

I recently read a conservative columnist’s careful analysis of the upcoming Presidential election. He concluded that despite The Obama’s terrible record as President he was going to be re-elected. He professed to be clueless as to the reason for this: “How can the American people re-elect such a terrible President?” I find it hard to believe that the conservative columnist did not know the answer to that question. I suspect he was being prudently disingenuous. But then again, white people who genuinely believe that all of life consists of propositional faiths, and propositional people, might not be able to understand that the colored races do not believe in the propositional theory of existence. The reason, Mr. Conservative, Obama is still the favored darling of the American electorate is because black people always support their own, and white liberals have replaced their Christian faith with negro worship.

The conservative who draws back from the obvious conclusion to be drawn from the coloreds’ rhetoric and their actions, that there is a race war in progress, does so because he is still laboring under the false impression that the liberals and the coloreds are just as reasonable and willing to participate in the give and take of a republican form of government as 19^th century Englishmen. Such is not the case. The 19^th century Englishman was still operating under the assumption that his political opponent was a human being created in the image of God. And men on both sides of the political aisle believed in the humbling doctrine of original sin.

“And none is so unforgiving to the transgressors as the person who does not believe in original sin. Here is a system which releases us from self-discipline, authorizing us to treat the political enemy as subhuman, irredeemable. In consequence the good are engaged against the wicked in a more irretrievable warfare, where the makeshift of the ballot-box may itself become intolerable, and nothing is left but the resort to force.”-- Herbert Butterfield

Prophetic words indeed! Now we have come to a state of “irretrievable warfare.” The liberal has transformed the Christian belief that all men are tainted with original sin into the belief that only the white male is tainted with original sin. Eliminate the white male and the rest of mankind will live happily ever after in a white-free paradise. Such is the liberal agenda. By a special form of Gnostic denial the liberal has convinced himself that he is not white, so he doesn’t apply the jeremiads against whites to himself. Nor does he envision himself in the black stew pots into which he is consigning all non-liberal, and therefore subhuman and irredeemable, whites.

The transference of all sin to the white male and all virtue to the colored people is the reason we never hear any criticism of the black race. No crime committed by a black is ever the fault of the offending black. The explanation for the crime is always twisted around and becomes the fault of the white man. If you doubt that liberals have made a god of the black man, simply observe them at work and play. Do they blaspheme Christ in their theaters and ban Him from the work place? Yes, they do. Do they permit one single critical statement to be made about the black man on stage or screen? Of course, they do not. Do they ban the black man from the workplace? Far from it, the liberals grant blacks privileged status in the workplace and regularly pay homage to the greatness and the magnificence of the black god who condescends to preside over white devotees, providing they pay him proper homage.

The current battle between the liberal-colored coalition and the white European is not a one-sided war because the colored barbarians outnumber the white Europeans; it is a one-sided war because the liberal and the colored barbarian have made the hatred of the white the central tenet of their religious faith, while the white man has no faith to set in opposition to the liberal-colored faith. On whom can the European call in the day of battle? He doesn’t have a clue. He is back with the god-with-no-name championed by the pagan Greek philosophers.

I once, while traveling in England, viewed an old historic English church that had been built, the guide told me, over the ruins of a pagan temple. It occurred to me then, and it seems even more certain today, that we are witnessing the reverse of the Christian church being built over the ruins of a pagan place of worship. The current liberal, negro-worshipping churches have replaced, not physically but spiritually, the old Christian churches. Europeans need to break their attachments to the church structures and the church organizations so that they can reconnect with the substance of the Christian faith, The Man of Sorrows. From such a connection comes the will to fight for mercy’s sake.

The only sure thing about the historical process is that it cannot be used as a magic talisman to predict the future. Human beings make human events, and they are too complicated to be played upon by the Rosencrantzes and Guildensterns of the world. We know nothing for certain about the future of the Europeans. At present they don’t seem to have a future. But there is the grace of God and there are still Europeans who believe that one man of faith can move mountains. We fight without yielding because we only know Him through His people; we are all called, those of us who still belong to His Europe, to keep the European light shining in the darkness of Babylon. +

The Seat of the Scornful

“Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful. – Psalm 1:1

Walter Scott in the introduction to Quentin Durward and again in Kenilworth states that the mark of the devil is a sneering, mocking, scornful countenance. My own observations of liberals leads me to concur with Scott; the scornful derisive, sneer is truly the mark of the devil. Scott lamented that in his own time the contemptuous sneer was used to attack the Christian faith:

There has never been an hour or an age, in which this formidable weapon has been more actively employed against the Christian faith than our own day. Wit and ridicule have formed the poignant sauce with which infidels have seasoned their abstract reasoning, and voluptuaries the swinish messes of pollution, which they have spread unblushingly before the public. It is a weapon suited to the character of the Apostate Spirit himself, such as we conceive him to be—loving nothing, honouring nothing, feeling neither the enthusiasm of religion nor of praise, but striving to debase all that is excellent, and degrade all that is noble and praiseworthy, by cold irony and contemptuous sneering.

What would Scott say about modern liberals, who have mocked and sneered at the Christian faith to an extent that makes the 18^th century mocker look like a good Joe in comparison? He would say what Macduff said: “Fit to govern? Not fit to live!” We are governed by an elite band of mockers and scorners who in healthy times would have been imprisoned for their poisonous, hate-filled ideology.

I think Scott was correct in calling our attention to an inordinate fear of ridicule that puts the antique Christian in a state of terror before those who mock and ridicule his Christian faith. Dickens makes a similar point in Great Expectations when he shows Pip to be obsessed with gaining the good opinion of those people whom he most despises.

The Rousseauian liberal – and all liberals are Rousseauian – used two very basic tactics to undermine the antique European's faith in his people’s vision of God and the culture they created based on that vision. First, the liberal mocked the intelligence of the antique European, claiming he was unscientific and childish. And secondly, he accused the antique European of being hypocritical because he fought wars in the name of the Prince of Peace, and he failed to treat all men, particularly the colored man, as his brother. In the first instance, the liberal’s assumption of superior intelligence does not stand up to the test of reality. Is Freud smarter than Shakespeare because he wore a lab coat, smoked a pipe, and had a doctorate? And was Darwin wiser than St. Paul because he was “scientific” and objective while St. Paul was unscientific and subjective? This is nonsense; the liberals’ heroes are intellectual pygmies because they can’t think with their hearts, the true source of knowledge. Shakespeare and St. Paul knew that; Darwin, Freud, and their liberal descendants never knew it and never will.

In the second instance, we are faced with another liberal hypocrisy. They deny the truth of the Europeans’ vision of Christ, that He was indeed the Son of God, yet they demand the right to tell Christian Europeans how they should live the Christian faith. What right does a liberal, who is a past and present advocate of mass murder (Stalin, Mao Tse-Tung, legalized abortion) have to condemn the Christian European for his failure to end war? Better to ask if the European’s Christian faith has made a difference in the way war is viewed and the way wars are fought? The man who looks through not with the eye can see a difference. And the brotherhood of man? No European of the Christian era ever equated the Christian belief in the universal brotherhood of all men and women in Christ, with a democratic, egalitarian society where there was no recognition of the spiritual difference between the races. Spiritual gifts are aristocratic, not democratic. The attempt to democratize things of the spirit is liberal uptopian, not Christian European.

The liberal rejects the older culture of the white man because the incarnate Lord can be found in that culture, and he hates the incarnate God just as much as the Jews and the Muslims hate the incarnate God. With the colored barbarians it is a different story. They don’t hate the Christian God as the liberals do; they are completely indifferent to Him. He doesn’t reach them at a deep level; they are more attracted to a God who promises them wealth and power than a suffering servant God who promises them a cross. This is why the “Christian” T. V. pastors who preach an Islamic Christianity always have an audience that is almost entirely black. And it is also why black Africa is becoming Islamic. If the Europeans were strong in their Christian faith they could at least compel the colored people to comply with the ethical standards of the Christian faith, even if interior assent to the faith itself was withheld. The blacks can always be kept in check if the white man is strong in his faith.

But of course the white man is not strong in his ancient faith, which is the Christian faith; he is zealous in behalf of his new mind-forged utopian faith. This new, bastard faith of the white man is based on a maniacal hatred of the incarnate Christ of Europe and an obsessive love of the generic black man, the noble savage. And the essential paper edifice of the liberal’s new faith is the abstraction. The Sadducees and the Pharisees were unable to recognize the true God when He came amongst them because they made the minutiae of the law the entirety of the law. They worshipped their own abstractions and neglected the true object of God’s law, which is justice, mercy and faith. Directly parallel in their mind set to the legalistic Jews were the French revolutionaries of 1789. Burke reports that the majority of French legislators had law degrees. Forgetting that all change in a Christian society should be change that conserves what is Christian, the French assembly of lawyers killed Christian France with a lawyers’ brief against their Christian King. All the governments of Europe and the European nations have followed the lead of the ancient Jews and the French revolutionaries, and have built a new world based on their own abstractions and a hatred of Jesus Christ. Why the hatred? Because the modern European, like the pharisaical Jew, cannot abide a God who bids us take up our cross and follow Him. What was once the hope and the symbol of Europe, the cross of Christ, has become a scandal to the European, just as it was and is a scandal to the Jews.

When the old “anti-semitic” Europeans warned about organized Jewry, what were they talking about? They were talking about a people who had hardened their hearts against all things Christian. Their legal system was set up to shield them from Christ’s love. This is why Antonio realizes the futility of looking for mercy from the hardened Jewish heart:

I pray you, think, you question with the Jew:
You may as well go stand upon the beach
And bid the main flood bate his usual height;
You may as well use question with the wolf
Why he hath made the ewe bleat for the lamb;
You may as well forbid the mountain pines
To wag their high tops and to make no noise,
When they are fretten with the gusts of heaven;
You may as well do anything most hard,
As seek to soften that--than which what's harder?--
His Jewish heart: therefore, I do beseech you,
Make no more offers, use no farther means,
But with all brief and plain conveniency
Let me have judgment and the Jew his will.

Of course Shylock didn’t get his will, because in that instance Christians refused to allow Europe to be run by the laws of Jewry. But now Europeans have become like unto the Jews in the hardness of their hearts toward all things Christian and in their use of the minutiae of the law to kill the spirit of God’s law, the law of justice, mercy and faith.

In his anti-communist manifesto entitled Witness, Whittaker Chambers told us of the communist leaders’ obsession with official documents. Every government department had mountains and mountains of official documents. In reflecting on that phenomenon Chambers came to the conclusion that the Communists inundated Russia with official documents because their regime had no moral legitimacy. They sought to replace moral legitimacy with an artificial legitimacy of official documents which were the moral equivalent of the deaf shouting warnings to the deaf.

America has achieved, or should we say has deteriorated to the same moral illegitimacy as the Russian communists. Justice, mercy, and faith count for nothing in America and Europe; the upward and onward push to a democratic, interracial, godless world counts for everything. But is equality ever really the goal of the utopian? No, it isn’t. Some will always be more equal than others. Remember the seven commandments of Animal Farm?

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.

And then the seven commandments became one:

All Animals Are Equal
But Some Animals Are More
Equal Than Others

When “our grace we have forgot,” when we abandon our faith in a spiritual aristocracy we will have an aristocracy of the cruel and degenerate (the liberals) who will elevate the base (the negroes) to the status of gods.

In the fairy tales of the Brothers Grimm, the third dumb brother who is pure of heart often wins the hand of the King’s daughter despite his lowly origins. In the older European regimes there was seldom such a direct correlation between spiritual gifts and high office. The best man, as the character Sapp in Prisoner of Zenda tells us, does not always become King. Nevertheless the older Europeans tried to structure their societies in such a way that the principle of noblesse oblige took precedence over the rights of man. The former principle, though not utopian, is more conducive to fostering Christian faith and Christian charity than the latter principle, which, despite sounding quite humane, always produces a world where “humanity must perforce prey on itself, like monsters from the deep.”

Orwell, having fought his way through the process, saw the devil’s horns protruding from every utopian scheme. The liberals’ utopia started with a few high-minded edicts about racial equality, but in the end the liberals have only one commandment: “The white is evil, and the black is sacred.” And missing from the liberal’s “utopia” is the God who the racist Europeans held aloft as the Savior of all mankind. The only equality shared by all men is their dependence on His mercy. What kind of society is it that holds His mercy, and the people who sought His mercy, as something to be sneered at and held up to ridicule? It is a satanic society where black-worshipping liberals sit in the seats of the scornful. They think their reign will be forever, but the men of Europe who still see the Cross of Christ through a glass darkly will live to see the end of the men of scorn and the triumph of the Man of Sorrows. +

The Walls of Utopia

“Hope for the future has been transferred to the peoples of the developing countries, to disaffected national minorities, for example the blacks in the U.S.A….” -- Igor Shafarevich (1975)

Utopian visions of society existed in pre-Christian Europe (witness Plato’s Republic) but the virtual explosion of utopian literature did not occur until the Christian era in Europe. It was an easy leap, in the minds of the utopians, to go from a belief in the second coming of Christ that would usher in the end of history, to a belief in a paradise on earth that signified a new era of equality, liberty, and fraternity. The utopian schemes usually came from clergymen, and those that were actually instituted were maintained by violence and eventually suppressed by violence. The utopian “visionaries” were amazingly consistent in their insistence on the abolition of private property, the abolition of the family, the abolition of traditional Christianity, and the enforced equality of all mankind. In almost all of the utopian fantasies of the Christian era Christ was part of the utopia, but it was not an incarnate Christ who had a local habitation in the hearts of the European people. He was an abstract Christ who was invoked to give men like Thomas Muntzer permission to sleep with any woman past sixteen years of age or to bless the bloody rampages -- in the name of utopia, of course -- of men like Dolcino and Robespierre. The common theme was always a denial of the Christ of the Gospels in favor of a pantheistic figurehead Christ who gave his blessing to insane visions of an earthly paradise founded on sex and blood. In the modern, post-Christian era many of the utopian liberals dispense with Christ altogether, but there are still some who keep Christ somewhere in the background of their plans for heaven on earth.

The noble savage has always been a central figure in utopian literature. He was prominent enough in 18^th century and 19^th century utopian literature to invoke critical reactions from Samuel Johnson and Charles Dickens, but there is a big difference between the popularity of the negro in certain academic and clerical circles and the institutionalization of negro worship throughout the European world. That doubtful blessing did not occur until the latter half of the 20^th century and the first eleven years of the 21^st century. In fact we should probably change our dating system to acknowledge our new god. Under the new era, which began in 1965, 2011 A. D. becomes 46 A.N. (After the Negro), the Year of our New Lord.

It is depressing to read white nationalists literature from the 1970’s and the 1980’s, because their literature reads the same now as it did then: “White people are starting to wake up.” But they are not starting to wake up. What is the use of lying to ourselves?

The reason for the failure of the white nationalists, such as William Tyndale and Samuel Francis, to 'wake up' white people is similar to the reason a tree cannot be felled by merely chopping its limbs. You need to cut the tree down at its roots. And the root of negro worship is the utopian mindset of the European liberal. So long as the European views existence through a distorted utopian prism he will worship the negro and attack the four pillars of antique Europe: faith in Christ, the patriarchal family, private property, and a hierarchical, non-egalitarian society.

I remember seeing a Hercules movie starring Steve Reeves when I was young. At the beginning of the picture a beautiful maiden had lost control of the horses pulling her chariot and was about to plunge headlong over a cliff. Suddenly Hercules appears, tears a tree from out of the ground, and hurls it in front of the runaway chariot in time to stop the horses and the maiden from plunging over the cliff. That type of Herculean effort is needed from the antique European. Liberal, bloodless, utopianism has been planted in the soil of Europe. There needs to be an uprooting, because utopian ideals, when they become part of the fabric of a nation, kill the soul.

That the European people in mass have turned from Christ to a sci-fi world in which the black man is worshipped and adored is self-evident. The reason for the great apostasy is not self-evident. It involves a mystery, the mystery of iniquity. Why do some people fall in love with a vision of the true God and others fall in love with their satanic, abstracted, mind-forged gods? We seldom view intellectual dishonesty as a sin, but is it not the greatest of sins, having its origin in the pride of the intellect? Isn’t a utopian using his reason to create his own world separate from God’s world? And isn’t that the height of blasphemy?

In his notes in the margins of his copy of Shakespeare’s King Lear, Herman Melville made a comment next to an impassioned speech of Edmund, the evil, illegitimate son of Gloucester, that demonism often has an energy that mere virtue lacks. The poetic whaler was right. The vast majority of modern Europeans are not card-carrying members of an utopian organization, but they do not have a passionate faith in the non-utopian Man of Sorrows who stirred the hearts of their European forefathers. And in the absence of such a faith the grazers and the halfway-house Christians have been swept along on the current of the passionate faith of the utopian liberals. Rather than stand athwart the liberal current and try to stop it, the barely virtuous grazer and the merely virtuous halfway-house Christian swim with the worst who are full of passionate intensity.

The lack of passionate intensity is the most significant factor in the decline of the white European. The communist revolutionaries in Tsarist Russia did not try to get the Russian Everyman to convert to communism; they merely tried to weaken the Russian people’s passionate attachment to their Tsar by constantly pointing out just how far the Tsar’s regime fell short of utopia. It was the same in Louis XVI’s France. The radical utopians didn’t have to make a large number of converts to their cause; they just had to turn passion into tepid virtue. C. S. Lewis makes a profound point when he emphasizes in The Chronicles of Narnia that Aslan is not a tame lion. The lukewarm are grist for Satan’s mills.

When the utopian is out of power he tries to kill the passionate love a man has for race, family, and faith by pointing out the deficiencies of a man’s people, his family, and his faith. And when the utopian obtains power, he continues to attack the moral pillars of the older, non-utopian regimes in order to keep the passion levels of the grazers and the halfway-house Christians as low as possible. When egalitarian democracy produces a sexual and racial Babylon, the liberal keeps the placid, white people in the fold by pointing out the excesses of the European monarchs. When the new Babylonian churches preach a blended Christian faith, the liberals stifle all opposition by pointing out the racism of the antique Europeans, the religious wars of the antique Europeans, and the antique Europeans’ unscientific notions about the origins of man and the cause of lightning. The criticisms of old Europe and its inhabitants are unremitting. There is no evil, past or present, which is not attributed to the European people of the pre-modern era. And by and large the modern European has accepted that liberal condemnation and forfeited his right to be passionately opposed to anything that is detrimental to the European people. Do whites ever criticize black murderers without prefacing their criticism with a litany of all the truly “good black people” who are just too wonderful for words? Do they dutifully turn their faces away when whites in South Africa and Rhodesia are routinely murdered by state-sponsored terrorists? Of course they do. They do so because their Christ is a blended Christ subordinate to the black gods of utopia. When was the last time a white man refused to be understanding about the slaughter of his own people and the denigration of his white forefathers? Such an event, and it would indeed be an event, has not occurred in my lifetime.

It is the white man’s Christian conscience that has been used against him. In C. S. Lewis’s book Reflections on the Psalms he points out that the Jew looks on himself as a plaintiff in a court case in which he expects God to award him damages, while the Christian looks on himself as a defendant in a court case who is hoping for mercy from the judge. But the consciousness of our own shortcomings and our people’s shortcomings, when compared to God’s perfection, should not blind us to the infinite value of a civilization and the people of that civilization, who built a Europe consecrated to Him. The utopian liberals should not be allowed to continually attack white people and their Christian heritage. Who will stand up for antique Europe? I loved Burke’s feelings of horror at the lack of French cavaliers ready to rise and ride in defense of God and country: “I thought ten thousand swords must avenge even a look that threatened her with insult.”

There is only one sin in Liberaldom, and it is not any of the seven deadly sins, which are approved and lauded by liberals. The one sin is a white man’s love for his own people and His non-blended god. That love compels him to defy the idolatrous black gods which form the metaphysical basis of Liberaldom. The satanic intelligence behind the new utopia is correct. The white man who loves and hates with all his heart is his greatest foe. If the European ever comes to love his own again, the walls of utopia will come tumbling down. +

The Blood Red Tide of Liberalism

Turn, hell hound, turn!

(Macduff’s challenge to Macbeth)

Spirit, Water, Blood recently ran some excerpts from Charles Dickens’ essay on “The Noble Savage.” Dickens got it right: the savage is savage, but he is far from noble. From Samuel Johnson (“Don’t cant to me of savages”), to Dickens, to Thomas Nelson Page, the consensus opinion of the white poets was in line with the Bible. The sons of Ham were meant to be subordinate to and kept in check by the sons of Shem and Japheth, because left to their own devices they would inevitably become predatory animals. Nothing happened in the 20^th century, in regards to the Negro, to refute what would now be called the racist rants of poets such as Johnson, Dickens, and Page. In fact, everything that happened in the 20^th century in Africa and the United States (read Anthony Jacob’s White Man Think Again! and the U. S. crime reports) make the white poets’ comments on the Negro seem much too mild. And the activities of the 21^st century Negro has only confirmed the warnings contained in White Man Think Again!, just as Jacob’s book confirmed the insightful writings on the Negro of the 18^th and 19^th century white poets.

At the time Johnson was telling Boswell “don’t cant to me of savages,” and even later, when Dickens wrote his attack on the noble savage heresy and Page wrote about the Negro problem, the majority of the European intellectuals and the bulk of the European people did not believe in the Noble Savage; they believed, with the white poets, that the black man and the other colored races were the “lesser breeds without the law.” But there were a few atheists such as Rousseau and Voltaire who needed a substitute for the Christian God whom they had forsaken. So they created, in their sick, demented minds, abstract, paradisiacal states inhabited by pure, sensuous, earthy, noble savages (see Till the End of Time.) And the utopian fantasies of a few white intellectuals have become the faith of the modern Europeans.

The worship of the black man is a uniquely European phenomenon. Other colored races see the black man for what he is, a savage predator, who is a danger to any stable society. I remember asking a Korean shop owner in my home city, why, during a spate of black riots, was his business the only business in five blocks of businesses that was not touched by rioters. His answer was quite simple: “I don’t taken any b___ from niggers. They know I’ll shoot them.” The Korean shop owner did not believe in the Noble Savage.

Of course the time is fast approaching – in Britain it has already come – when no one will be allowed access to firearms with which to defend themselves against the barbarian hordes. The NRA has never grasped the fact that gun control and Negro worship are woven together. To own a gun for self-defense is to openly declare that you do not believe in the sanctity and goodness of the Negro. But if the will to defend one’s own is in a man, he will fight with whatever weapon he can lay his hands on.

In his excellent book Counter Revolution Thomas Molnar pointed out that revolutions first succeed in the hearts and minds of men before they succeed on the battlefield. The seeds of Christian atheism, which substitutes the Negro for Christ, were sown by philosophers such as Voltaire and Rousseau. “Mock on, Mock on, Voltaire, Rousseau, Mock on!” was the impassioned defiance that William Blake hurled at the utopian atheists, but the Europeans preferred the promise of a Negro-infested future to the green and pleasant pastures of Christian Europe.

Utopian atheism and Negro worship are eternally bound together. The unspeakable atrocities in Haiti that occurred in 1789 (see Tintagel vs Haiti) came about as a result of a fusion of utopian atheism and Negro worship. In the utopians’ minds, the old Christian regime was evil; therefore, the antithesis of white French Christians, namely voodoo-worshipping Negroes, had the right – nay, not just the right, the duty – to exterminate the white, Christian French. And they did, to the last man.

In the United States during the infamous “reconstruction” period in the South, the Negro worshipping, democratic egalitarian, atheists turned the white Southerners over to the tender mercies of the Negro barbarians. The Southerners were saved, but only temporarily because the extermination process was resumed in the latter half of the 20^th century, from the fate of the French in Haiti by the emergence of Nathan Bedford Forrest and the Ku Klux Klan.

The English everyman of the 19^th century reading Dickens’ “The Noble Savage” might even have said to his wife, “Why does anyone have to write this down. It’s just common sense.” But now? Just common sense is uncommon. We live in a cruel dystopian oligarchy where good common sense about the sacred things, such as the love a man has for his own and the hatred he has for those who would destroy his own, has been outlawed, and the practitioners of good common sense have been forced to go underground.

I once read a neo-pagan blog in which the author tried to maintain that the European people had never really taken Christianity seriously; they had just had it foisted on them by their leaders. Such an argument undercuts the neo-pagan’s professed love for white people. How can you respect a people who practiced, for over 1500 years, a religion that was merely “foisted” upon them? I couldn’t accept the ‘foisted upon them’ theory of the neo-pagan, nor can I accept the ‘foisted upon them’ theory when it is used to explain the reason for the Europeans rejection of Christianity for utopian Negro worship. Granted, the utopians were quite clever. At first (and some still do) they fused Christianity and utopianism in order to slowly wean the European from his Christian faith. And utopianism was always posited as a cure for some genuine evil. But ultimately a man doesn’t change gods because he was tricked; he changes gods because he believes in the truth of the new god and not in the truth of his old god. It was inevitable once the forces of rationalism and science undermined the European’s faith in Christ that the European would embrace Negro worship. Seen through the eyes of faith Christianity is the natural faith for a man, because it is a faith that encompasses all of reality; it tells a man what he is and where he is going. But if a man foreshortens his vision and looks at the natural world as a self-contained world devoid of a personal God sustaining it, he will be doomed to worship at the satanic altar of the natural savage forever. Nature divorced from God is a Medusa’s head; to look upon it in such a distorted fashion -- and science bids us to do just that -- is death.

The road to Negro worship was built brick by brick by theologians and philosophers who told the European to look to nature in order to find God. He wasn’t there, so the European assumed He didn’t exist. Now he has nature and nature’s god, the black man. Is he content with that god? He says he is, but behind the façade of Liberaldom is suicidal despair. We are a society addicted to every form of anesthetic: drugs, sex, blood sports, the list is endless. Why, if the Negro god is all sufficient, do Europeans need to anesthetize themselves?

We need to take the European’s anesthetics away from him and make him look at the “utopia” in which he lives. What is the essence of this brave new world? All utopian states are built on cruelty; without cruelty the utopian state crumbles because the utopian must destroy the old order where truth, honor, and Jesus Christ reigned:

“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.” (Mikhail Bakunin)

Yes, destruction and cruelty is the inner law of all utopias. Christ’s law of charity, which was the inner law of Christian Europe, became the proscribed law in utopian Europe because utopias are built with the blood of the innocents of the present in order to ensure the security of the chosen ones in the future. 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 – the Christian European is committed to the destruction of Liberaldom because the liberals are committed to the destruction of everything a European holds sacred.

When we see the essence of utopian liberalism, which is cruelty, we can see why two seemingly disparate groups of individuals are united. The rationalistic, scientific liberal seems to be miles apart from the Negro barbarians. But they are united in their cruelty. Having renounced the source of divine charity they can only live by hatred; they hate the Christian European.

The liberal hates because he must destroy Christ’s people, and the black hates because it is in his nature to hate the white. Needless to say there is no love in the alliance between the liberal and the Negro; both are incapable of love, which belongs to a higher order of existence that the liberal has renounced and the Negro only knew when he served in the tents of the white man.

There is a litmus test for entrance into Liberaldom. You must be willing to stand by and applaud the murder and destruction of your own people in the here and now, and you must applaud the condemnation of the Europeans of the past. Certainly the clergy of the anti-Christian Christian churches, particularly the Catholic popes, have passed the test with flying colors. And the European laity has followed the lead of their blaspheming priests and pastors. But there will be those who refuse to pass the litmus test. God bless them.

When I was young I read a number of the Bulldog Drummond novels by H. C. McNeile. Mr. McNeile always made light of his own intelligence and his hero’s intelligence. But Bulldog Drummond had wise blood. He was always up against some criminal mastermind who was trying to manipulate the various utopian radicals into a coalition that would bring Christian Britain down. Drummond was always in defense of, and he was always up to the mark. Two white moments from the novel Bulldog Drummond Strikes Back stand out in my mind. While convalescing in a hospital from wounds inflicted by the evil mastermind, Bulldog Drummond is informed that the evil mastermind has destroyed a trainload of innocent people in order to further his own devilish schemes.

“He listened in silence whilst Darrell told him everything that had happened: then without a word he got out of bed and rang the bell. He was still shaky on his legs, but on his face was the look of grim determination that Darrell know well of old.”

And then later:

“This thing is going to be finished one way or the other, Peter,” he said after they had turned the car. “This globe isn’t big enough for Demonico and me. And he and I will have a final settlement tonight.”

His law of charity demands that we refuse to accept the liberals’ law of cruelty. From Marxist Russia to the black-worshipping nations of America and modern Europe, the force behind the utopian movements is the same: it is our ancient foe. It’s not all that complex; either we serve Satan or Christ, Babylon or Christian Europe. +