The Homing Instinct

I am dreaming of the mountains of my home,
Of the mountains where in childhood I would roam.
I have dwelt ‘neath summer skies,
Where the summer never dies,
But my heart is in the mountains of my home.

I can see the little homestead on the hill;
I can hear the magic music of the rill;
There is nothing to compare,
With the love that once was there,
In that lonely little homestead on the hill.

I can see the quiet churchyard down below,
Where the mountain breezes wander to and fro,
And when God my soul will keep,
It is there I want to sleep,
With those dear old folks that loved me long ago.

-- W S Gwynne Williams
_______________

As a confused undergraduate, desperately concerned about the existence or nonexistence of God, I sought out a Roman Catholic priest who taught courses at the university. I went to him because I had read one of his books in which he indicated he believed in the Christian God in a non-modern sense as defined in the Apostle’s Creed. During a lengthy conversation we touched on many aspects of this thing called faith. He shared his thoughts with me, and I told him of my perplexities. I still, after forty years, remember his response when I asked him what he found to be the biggest obstacle to faith. With a look of intense pain on his face he said, “There are so few signs.” The New Testament passage about an evil and adulterous generation which seeketh a sign did not occur to me then, and if it had I would not have applied it to that man, because he was kind to me.

After that first lengthy meeting I only saw my priestly friend in passing. After I graduated I didn’t see him again for ten years. He was still teaching at the university, and I was on campus to participate in a kind of religious roundtable discussion in which my friend was also a participant. He greeted me warmly, and I told him what I had been doing, placing particular emphasis on my conversion to Christianity and my membership in his church. He said he was delighted and that he too had taken a spiritual journey in the last ten years. I didn’t quite know what he meant and before I could ask for clarification the roundtable discussion began.

I knew before the discussion started that I would be facing a sneering group of former clerics and intellectual something-or-others who would be united in their sneering ridicule of the simple faith that set Europe ablaze in times past. But I knew I would have one ally, the friend of 10 years ago. I pictured us fighting back to back, like Will Starrett and Shane, against an army of sneering academics. It didn’t turn out as I expected. My believing friend had become a member of the sneering intelligentsia. I had to shift scenarios; instead of Shane and Will Starrett fighting against difficult odds I was the disinherited knight fighting against impossible odds. I didn’t acquit myself very well, frequently losing my train of thought and stumbling with my responses to the panel of sneering atheists.

Much to my surprise, my “good friend” came up to me afterwards and acted like we were ever the best of friends. It was all just a fun, scintillating discussion to him. Not so with me. I come from Welsh coal miners and German farmers who believed that a man who insults your faith is not your friend. I did not hit the man as my ancestors would have, but I did walk out without shaking hands or pretending we were all educated men who could forget our differences over something as silly as the Resurrection of Christ and still get along just swimmingly.

I’ve had many years to think about the old priest’s apostasy and I’ve formed some definite opinions on the subject. I think the old priest’s statement, “There are so few signs,” was an indication of a man teetering on the brink. Man is a social animal. He tends to conform to the values of his peers. The old priest had spent most of his life in academic circles, which is probably why he yearned for a sign; he needed something to buttress up a faith that was beginning to erode. I spent three hours with the academics he saw every day, and my faith was reeling after contact with such people. I needed to go home and reconnect with Walter Scott’s Europe before I felt cleansed of the academic disease. Little wonder then that the once firm-in-his-faith priest succumbed to sneering liberalism.

“Thy honourable metal may be wrought
From that it is dispos’d; therefore it is meet
That noble minds keep ever with their likes:
For who so firm that cannot be seduc’d?”

Who so firm? No one is. Over the years I’ve seen such a falling off of friends. There was the Southern segregationist who, once removed from his native land, ended up marrying a black girl. A fire-brand of a fundamentalist who went to California and became a free love advocate. Then there was the “good” Italian Catholic girl who left her husband, my friend, for another woman. In my mind’s eye I can still see them all, and it’s not a pretty sight.

The liberals and the halfway house Christians are fond of telling people like me, who write about the moral gulf between old Europe and modern Europe, that every sin known to man existed in old Europe just as it does now. And that is true; but we must make two distinctions. First, the antique Europeans did not deny that they were sinners. When they committed adultery they called it sin; when a woman killed her child, she was called a murderess. And the second distinction is like unto the first. When a man or woman sinned they were not supported by their peers; they were shunned. For instance, in antique Europe if a man was addicted to sodomy he had no support system. He knew if he couldn’t control his sinful desires then he must confine them to secret places where the outcast men dwelt. And repentance was possible, because if a man persisted in his sin he knew he lost the fellowship of his fellow men, just as Scrooge cast himself into greed-forged isolation by his illicit love of money. The sinner could be reclaimed, because there was a world beckoning to him in which people believed there was a such a thing as sin. Not so today. I remember a congressman in the not-too-distant past who was, in addition to being a congressman, a columnist for a conservative Catholic magazine. He got caught in a homosexual tryst. Not something unusual, such things happened in Old Europe as well. But what followed was completely modern. The congressmen, after first expressing contrition, ended up becoming a member of a Catholic homosexual organization (I believe it was called Dignity) which claimed homosexual acts were sanctioned by God. And therein is the great difference between our current Western society and antique Europe. Miscegenation, infanticide, sodomy, and academic atheism all existed in old Europe, but such things were not sanctioned by society. Virtue was encouraged and sin was discouraged in old Europe by labeling sin as sin and by socially ostracizing the unrepentant sinner and the advocates of sin. Today a sinner is lauded and told he is virtuous. He has a support system for his sin. Miscegenation becomes “striking a blow against prejudice,” infanticide becomes “a woman’s choice,” sexual promiscuity becomes “free love,” and institutionalized blasphemy becomes “liberalism.” Who is so firm that cannot be seduced in such a society? Only the prejudiced, intransigent Europeans will survive, those who cling to an older segregated Europe with the ferocity of Ratty in The Wind in the Willows:

“The River,” corrected the Rat.

“And you really live by the river? What a jolly life!”

“By it and with it and on it and in it,” said the Rat. “It’s brother and sister to me, and aunts, and company, and food and drink, and (naturally) washing. It’s my world, and I don’t want any other. What it hasn’t got is not worth having, and what it doesn’t know is not worth knowing.”

And even he was almost seduced away from his European river by the siren call of exotic foreign climes.

"Why, where are you off to, Ratty?” asked the Mole in great surprise, grasping him by the arm.

“Going South, with the rest of them,” murmured the Rat in a dreamy monotone, never looking at him.

“Seawards first and then on shipboard, and so to the shores that are calling me!”
He pressed resolutely forward, still without haste, but with dogged fixity of purpose; but the Mole, now thoroughly alarmed, placed himself in front of him, and looking into his eyes saw that they were glazed and set and turned a streaked and sifting grey—not his friend’s eyes, but the eyes of some other animal! Grappling with him strongly he dragged him inside, threw him down, and held him.

The Rat struggled desperately for a few moments, and then his strength seemed suddenly to leave him, and he lay still and exhausted, with closed eyes, trembling. Presently the Mole assisted him to rise and placed him in a chair, where he sat collapsed and shrunken into himself, his body shaken by a violent shivering, passing in time into an hysterical fit of dry sobbing. Mole made the door fast, threw the satchel into a drawer and locked it, and sat down quietly on the table by his friend, waiting for the strange seizure to pass. Gradually the Rat sank into a troubled doze, broken by starts and confused murmurings of things strange and wild and foreign to the unenlightened Mole; and from that he passed into a deep slumber.

He was brought back to his senses, to his instinctual love of his home and his people by the “unenlightened” Mole. And he in turn, along with the Badger and the Mole, brought the Toad back to an appreciation of his ancestral home. So long as something of the homing instinct is alive in a white man, he can be reclaimed by the fidelity of other whites. If he can’t be reclaimed it’s because propositional Christianity and the lure of the exotic peoples and exotic lands have killed his homing instincts. A friend once told me about a white nationalist rally he attended. A white male sat up front and held hands with a black girl while the main speaker talked about the necessity of segregation and the preservation of the white race. As it became obvious that the interracial couple were there to make a statement, the speaker stopped his talk and addressed them. He asked them if they thought there was anything wrong with race-mixing. Of course the couple replied that there wasn’t anything wrong with it. It was sanctioned by love, and what could be wrong with love? Now the speaker could have responded as Princess Flavia responded to Rudolf Rassendyll in Prisoner of Zenda:

“Is love the only thing?” she asked, in low, sweet tones that seemed to bring a calm even to my wrung heart. “If love were the only thing I could follow you—in rags, if need be—to the world’s end; for you hold my heart in the hollow of your hand! But is love the only thing?”

I made her no answer. It gives me shame now to think that I would not help her.

She came near me and laid her hand on my shoulder. I put my hand up and held hers.

“I know people write and talk as if it were. Perhaps, for some, Fate lets it be. Ah, if I were one of them! But if love had been the only thing you would have let the king die in his cell.”

I kissed her hand.

“Honor binds a woman, too, Rudolf. My honor lies in being true to my country and my House.”

But that would have given a European dignity to the couple that they did not deserve. What the speaker did say was that there was nothing to be said to the young couple. They had no instinctive horror about what they were doing, so there was nothing that any white man could say to convince the degenerate couple nothing good stems from a betrayal of kith and kin.

Race-mixing is an abortion of the white race. Liberals have decided that the white race deserves to perish because it was sexist, racist, and Christian. No matter how far the modern white moves away from his ancestors, the liberal still wants him destroyed because of his past history. The white grazer might be spared for a time if he complies with the dictates of the liberals, but in the end the grazer will be killed with the last Europeans. Or so the liberals purpose. Their triumph is not mathematically certain, because the grace of God exists. European civilization was the result of a marriage between the European people and Christ. Liberaldom was built when the Europeans divorced Christ and married Satan. The second marriage can be annulled, and if it is annulled it will be because the European’s homing instinct became stronger than the siren call of Babylon. But there must be a home for the prodigal European to return home to. It is the task of the hero to stay wedded to the European hearth fire and never yield his place or waver in his devotion until His God calls him home.

How can the remnant band of Europeans remain faithful unto death when they have no support system? How can they avoid the fate of that apostate priest who made a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde transformation from a Christian to a sneering academic? They can remain faithful by staying close to their kith and kin who have left this world but live in His eternal Europe. The death-in-life existence of the modern Europeans is not life. Their life, the ancient Europeans of Christian Europe, is the genuine life; it is life eternal. The communion of the saints is not mumbo-jumbo. Where two or three are gathered together in His name… There is a legion of Europeans gathered in His name who are willing to sustain us in our day of battle against the liberals and their colored gods. If God and His legions of saints are for us who can be against us? I don’t want to minimize the feeling of God-forsakenness that envelops a man when he tries to adhere to the code of the ancient Europeans without the support of his peers. But at the same time I must emphasize that the bond of love and affection that can exist, if a man stays connected to the antique Europeans and their God, is something that can sustain a man as he walks through the valley of the shadow of Babylon.

Le Fanu is right. The devil approaches the citadel of a man’s heart by stealth, “with many zigzags and parallels.” Satan did not, at first, ask the European to give up his faith. He walked right in the church door preaching a new, a purer Christianity, devoid of racism and superstition. And once the initial betrayal is made, the betrayal of kith and kin, a man is primed for the next betrayal and the next, until a man becomes, as my old friend the apostate priest became, a sneering academic, one of Satan’s own.

We live amongst an evil and adulterous generation of men who laugh in derision at the old faith, asking us, “Why, if your God is the true God is there no sign? Why does He not come down off the cross and punish us and save you?” But we have been given a sign, the sign of the cross.

In a black Mass, I am told, the satanic devotees worship an inverted cross. Isn’t that the essence of liberalism? Christianity is still preached, but it is an inverted Christianity. Pope John XXIII forgives non-repentant, black, torture-murderers for the sins they committed, not against him, but against others. The liberals offer up other whites as an atonement, not for the sins of liberals, but for the sins of the racist, white people of the past. And the definition of sin itself has been inverted. Only one race and one sex within that race has the taint of original sin. Is such a faith the Christian faith? To be young again is not permitted in the natural world, but in the realm of the spirit we can become young again. We can rescind the first betrayal and return to our ancestral European home and clean out the stoats and the weasels that have overrun it.

“God of our fathers, be the God
Of their succeeding race!” +

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 Heroic Temper

[He] loved chivalry, truth and honour, freedom and courtesy" but was head-strong, stubborn, romantical and most unwise. – Soldiers of Misfortune by P. C. Wren

In Baroness Orczy’s magnificent novel The Scarlet Pimpernel, an English nobleman frequently risks his life to rescue members of the French nobility who have been condemned to die on the guillotine in the name of liberty, equality, and fraternity. In subsequent novels, the Scarlet Pimpernel (Sir Percy Blakeney) brings down Robespierre and the entire revolutionary government.

I think of the Scarlet Pimpernel whenever I read some underground newspaper report from Rhodesia or South Africa. The people in those nations are desperately in need of Sir Percy Blakeney. But would he be of any use to them? The French aristocrats were given refugee status in England while the beleaguered whites in Rhodesia and South Africa are denied refugee status in every nation of the world. Where then could the Scarlet Pimpernel take the Rhodesian and South African whites? It is against the rules of Liberaldom to flee paradise, and don’t you realize that Rhodesia and South Africa are paradises now that black men are running the show? No matter how trivial the reason, a black African can be granted refugee status in the white countries, but a white Rhodesian or South African is denied refugee status in the face (at least it would be 'in the face' of the liberals if they hadn’t turned all their faces away) of an unrelenting campaign to murder every single white person in Rhodesia and South Africa.

You would be incorrect if you claimed that the Scarlet Pimpernel only existed in the imagination of Baroness Orczy. He exists in the spirit of every European who refuses to allow colored barbarians to torture and kill other Europeans. Christian chivalry was embodied in Nathan Bedford Forrest, the first Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan; in Henry Havelock, the British avenger of Cawnpore and liberator of Lucknow; and in Andries Pretorious, the hero of Blood River, who led the punitive expedition against the Zulus after they massacred Piet Retief and his followers. The Scarlet Pimpernel is a true myth; he is the embodiment of the antique European’s vision of the proper response to bloody tyranny and the murder of the innocents. The response must be non-democratic -- no petitions against murder and torture to a people addicted to murder and torture -- and it must be violent if violence has been used against one’s people. We react according to how hard the enemy is attacking. In the case of the modern liberal and the black barbarian attack on white people, there is no question that the white man must fight back, certainly using different tactics than men like Forrest and Pretorius, but never doctrinally renouncing violence, claiming it is unChristian or impractical. What could be more unChristian than standing idly by while your white countrymen and kinsmen are slain, and what could be more impractical than declaring your Quaker-like pacifism in the face of savage, bloodthirsty barbarians?

Of course any plea for white people to start defending white people falls on deaf or hostile ears. Satan has destroyed the spiritual resolve of the European by poisoning his love for his kith and kin. Without that spiritual resolve the European is cut off from his source of strength – the God who comes to man through His love of kith and kin. If a man does not love his own, he cannot know God, which is why the godless liberals have joined with the black barbarians in a bloodbath that equals in horrific intensity and surpasses in numbers the massacre of Piet Retief and his followers.

The Boers died fighting hopelessly to the last. Retief was made to witness the death of his son and his followers. The young boys were killed with the others. The bodies were piled upon the hill of death, and over them were the bodies of the grooms and attendants. The heart and liver of Retief were removed and taken to Dingaan so that he might look upon them. Over sixty Boers, one Englishman, and numerous attendants lay dead in the sunlight of that morning in February, and the vultures of Hlomo Amabuta came down from the sky. – In Search of South Africa

The Zulu chief Dingaan always feasted and celebrated after the torture and murder of white people, much like The Obama who recently partied at the White House with rapper Lonnie Rashid Lynn Jr., who sang a song of rapture about Assata Shakur, convicted murderer of the white New Jersey State Trooper Werner Foester. It’s an ongoing race war with only one side fighting, the liberals and the black barbarians. And let no white man hope to vote the war away. Every Republican candidate renounces white people before he runs for office. Witness Ron Paul, one of the better candidates, who recently decided that the deportation of illegal aliens was “too harsh”! Is this the promised end? The white Democrats campaign under the banner of an immediate extermination of the white race while the Republicans campaign under the banner of a gradual extermination of the white race. The promised end of the white man that both parties yearn for is not the promised end that a European, who still remains a European, longs for or supports.

In 1971, two men, Nathaniel Weyl and William Marina, published a book called American Statesmen on Slavery and the Negro. In the book Weyl and Marina made a modest proposal that they thought would end much of the racial conflict in the United States. They suggested that white people should have the right of private association, in other words, the right to segregate themselves from blacks in sport, in housing, and in schooling. Such a practical measure, the authors felt, would eliminate the racial tension which was sweeping the country. The authors of American Statesmen on Slavery and the Negro were right, and they were wrong. They were right in saying that their proposals would eliminate much of the racial unrest in the nation, but they were wrong to think that white liberals want to live in a diverse society where black and white get along by respecting their neighbors’ segregated fences. Liberals don’t want the blacks to have their culture and the whites theirs; liberals want to eliminate the white European culture altogether and replace it with the black Babylonian culture. And now, some 40 years since Weyl and Marina penned their modest proposal, the liberals have created their own version of a “diverse” culture. It is a culture dominated by anti-European liberals and black barbarians.

Weyl and Marina were well-meaning, practical sons of Martha who lacked a deep understanding of good and evil. The liberals do not want to co-exist with antique Europeans; they want to eradicate them. The false assumption behind every practical, well-meaning proposal to prevent bloodshed between the black and white is the assumption that the liberals want to prevent bloodshed. Quite the contrary is true. The liberals want to see rivers of blood flowing from white victims who have been offered up on sacrificial altars built to appease the black gods of the liberals.

If you doubt that the liberals want blood, the white man’s blood, just look at the evidence. What happened when blacks ran amuck in the New Orleans Superdome and the surrounding areas where white people were especially vulnerable, because of the flood, to black marauders? Were the liberals outraged? Yes, they were outraged. They were outraged that some white people armed themselves with shotguns in order to save their families from being sacrificed to the black gods. Recently the columnist Matt Drudge reported that which is not supposed to be reported: black on white crime. Again, are the liberals outraged? Yes, they are, but not with the black atrocities; they are outraged with Drudge for reporting the atrocities. And such is always the case, from the “cry me a river” black columnist exulting in the torture murders of Channon Christian and Christian Newsom, to the satanic “loving forgiveness” of Pope John XXIII after black savages tortured and murdered his own priests and nuns. The message is clear: our ancient foe is using his minions, the liberals and the black barbarians, to destroy the Christ-bearing race. He hopes to strike the Creator by attacking His Creatures.

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. The non-European does not respect other cultures; he wants to destroy them. The Christian European was the only man who could be trusted to treat “the lesser breeds without the law” with paternal charity instead of merciless cruelty. Now that there is no Christian European presence of any significance in the formerly European countries, there is no charity or mercy to be found there. We live in Babylon, where a green-haired, white girl can walk into any abortuary and destroy her child or, if she so desires, cohabit with one of the black gods. In either case the green-haired girl with the ring through her nose is a citizen of Babylon, a nation ruled by merciless, techno-barbarian liberals and black, barbarian demigods. The European hero is a hero because he still has his spiritual resolve, his love for kith and kin. “Mock my people and my God, and I’ll strike you. Strike my kith and kin, and I’ll kill you.” That is the vow of the hero: William Tell, Alfred the Great, Robert Bruce, Henry Havelock, Charles Martel, Nathan Bedford Forrest, Andries Pretorius, and every European who love their own so much that they see His blood upon the rose.

While wandering through Britain in the early 1970s I saw an old English newsreel in an old, small town movie theater that proudly proclaimed Piccadilly, the center of London, to be the center of the civilized world. The newsreel went on to praise such stalwart Brits as Lord Wellington, Lord Nelson, and Alfred the Great. There was even great praise lavished on Andries Pretorious and Robert E. Lee as men of the heroic temper, and therefore spiritual brethren of the Brits. Such respect for the heroes of our race has completely died out. The mere mention of the fact that your heroes are antique Europeans is enough to label a man an imbecile and/or a racist. But we are a race of Scarlet Pimpernels. In fact we are the only race of people who hold the heroes of charity, the defenders and not the conquerors, to be the greatest of heroes, because they follow Him, the King and Lord of Heroes. In that hideous plastic song of the sixties, “The Age of Aquarius,” the lyrics speak of the wonders that will ensue when the stars are in alignment. The European does not care about the stars; he cares about the things of the heart. When the European’s heart is aligned with His heart, the age of the hero will return; it will be “The Age of the Man on the European White Horse,” who rides in defense of the European things, faith, hope and charity; above all charity.

I like the sagas from the Christian era that the liberals call the Dark Ages. (Of course the age when the Europeans saw the light of Christ’s love would be considered the Dark Age to liberals.) I recall one such saga from my childhood. An Icelandic warrior, newly Christianized, was in constant strife with his still pagan neighbors. The Christian Icelander called the heathen world the “twilight world” and his new-found Christian world he called the “world of light.” Every time the twilight world infringed on the Christian warrior’s world of light, he felt compelled to defend his world by driving the heathen back to their world of darkness. The task of the modern European Christian is the same as that of the Icelandic warrior. We are called upon to drive the heathen back to their world of darkness. Blackness is sacred to the liberal and the black, but it is virulent poison to the antique European, and the people who peddle it are the European’s enemies. But the psalmist assures us that He will not fail us in the day of battle.

He that dwelleth in the secret place of the most High shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty.
I will say of the LORD, He is my refuge and my fortress: my God; in him will I trust.
Surely he shall deliver thee from the snare of the fowler, and from the noisome pestilence.
He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust: his truth shall be thy shield and buckler.
Thou shalt not be afraid for the terror by night; nor for the arrow that flieth by day;
Nor for the pestilence that walketh in darkness; nor for the destruction that wasteth at noonday.
A thousand shall fall at thy side, and ten thousand at thy right hand; but it shall not come nigh thee. -- Psalm 91: 1-7

The hero believes that God’s word applies to him. How can we doubt it? He set His love upon our ancestors, and He will set it upon us if only we listen to and heed the wisdom of our European hearts. +