The Darkness of Liberalism

“You can’t have just a little bit of liberalism...” CWNY

That their enemies are “hate-filled” is a favorite axiom of the liberals, but in reality the essence of liberalism is hatred. No white Christian can hate like a liberal. And Herbert Butterfield tells us why this is so in his book, The Englishman and His History:

When he has failed, or when he is in difficulties, the liberal of the continental type too often has only one thing left—his moral indignation. At this point he does indeed pick up the doctrine of sin, but it is important to note that he wears it with a difference; for, as we have seen he does not commence with it, as the Christian tradition had always done—he drags it from under his sleeve at a later point in the argument. Concerning the sin, of course, he is (as somebody wisely said) “against it”: indeed he hates it, with the added frenzy of the partisan who has discovered here the totally unexpected obstacle. On this view of life the sinners are indeed fewer in number, but how much wickeder to make up for it! 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.

I think Butterfield has described the inner dynamic of liberalism. Liberals always hate those who oppose them, because if you oppose them you are standing in the way of the perfection of mankind. (1) They don’t believe that all men are tainted with original sin; they only see sin in those who oppose liberalism. And there is no self-control in the liberal’s makeup; being without sin he needs no self-discipline. Like a spoiled devil child he can indulge his every whim. And his whim is that his enemies must be eliminated at all costs.

We know who the liberal’s enemies are. They are white Christians who believe in original sin and the rest of the Christian story. The escalating hatred of white people throughout the world is a direct consequence of the triumph of liberalism. Any white counter-attack, if it is to be successful, must be fought with an uncompromising faith in the whole Christian, European tradition and a clear understanding that liberals will never allow white Christians to live in liberaldom, hence a Christian European’s only defense is to destroy liberalism. But that is never seen as an option among the European people. Some group will emerge that doesn’t like one aspect of liberalism, and they will try to change that one thing, but they will retain the essence of liberalism, which is a hatred of the white, European, Christian tradition. The groups that just want a little bit of liberalism, the liberalism that suits their fancy, are in many ways more dangerous than the total liberal, because the half-way house liberals are more deceptive. You think they can be your allies, but in the end their hatred of the white European Christian is just as intense as their liberal cousins. Let’s look at two of the half-way house liberals.

1) The neo-pagans.
The neo-pagans are not the pagans of the stream, the field, and the hunt; they are not the pagans of old. If they were, a Christian could work with them. The old European pagans were willing to bend their knees to a God above the pagan gods, but the neo-pagans have no God. Most don’t seem to feel the need for one. Others write articles about the need for a new religion for the white man. That type of thinking typifies the neo-pagans, who have no ties to the white European tradition and no ties to reality. Can you make any claim of solidarity with white people if you reject Christianity? And can you be taken seriously as a man if you think religious faith can simply be manufactured to serve as a motivational tool for the advancement of the white gene pool? Reading the writings of the neo-pagans is similar to looking at a surreal painting; there is no trace in either of beauty or truth. I recently read a self-promotional ad in one of the neo-pagan’s publications; the author quoted Dostoyevsky’s assertion that only “beauty could save us.” But the neo-pagan neglected to say what Dostoyevsky considered beautiful. The Great Russian had one true love who combined, in His person, perfect beauty and complete truth: “... he passed through all the circles of human hell, one more terrible than the medieval hell of the Divine Comedy, and was not consumed in hell’s flame: his duca e maestro was not Virgil, but ‘the radiant image’ of the Christ, love for whom was the greatest love of his whole life.”

The more subtle of the neo-pagans include Christianity in the white man’s history. They use phrases like, “Our Celtic, Saxon, Germanic, Greco-Roman, Christian heritage.” But when you get past the clever phrasing you realize that the neo-pagan who talks about that kind of encyclopedic heritage thinks the European invented Christianity. To such a neo-pagan, Christianity is a reflection of the brilliant creativity of the European, but it is not true. The neo-pagan has already made the determination that the natural world is the only reality.

What does the neo-pagan look to as a substitute for God? He, like his liberal cousins whom he despises, looks to the future. In that world there will be no individuals, just an intellectually, biologically superior herd of white technocrats. The neo-pagan’s dream is the same dream as the liberals: they too look to a future where the herd has triumphed over the individual. The two groups simply differ over the preferred color of the herd, but they are united in their common hatred of the white, Christian European.

2) The half-way house Christian Rationalists.
The neo-pagan wants to sever Christianity from the white European in order to save the white European, and the half-way house Christian rationalist wants to sever the white European from Christianity in order to save Christianity. But the half-way house Christian, in his rejection of “European Christianity,” is really rejecting Christ. Let’s look at this rejection more closely.

St. Paul tells us that neither the Greeks nor the Jews rejected the idea of God. They simply rejected the notion that Christ was God. To the Greeks the idea of an incarnate God was foolish, and to the Jews the idea of a suffering servant who came to them via the humble things and the meek and mild people of the earth was blasphemous. And we see this twofold rejection of the incarnate God in the half-way house Christians’ rejection of white European culture. Do we need a historian from Mars to render an objective account of the European’s history? Why is the obvious fact that pre-20th century Europe was a result of a particular peoples’ love affair with Christ so difficult to see? And can the Christian faith be severed from those people and remain the Christian faith? I say no. A philosophical system can be passed from one mind to another mind. A scientific formula can be passed on from one scientist to another. But a faith? A faith is held in the heart and is passed on through the blood. Sever the white men from Christianity, and you have struck a blow at the heart of Christianity. It can survive as a bloodless philosophy or as a utopian, feel-good universalism, but it will no longer be the faith that men wrote hymns about and martyrs died for.

Again I refer to St. Paul. “Who shall separate us from the love of Jesus Christ?” he asked. The liberals say, “We shall!” And they mean it, because they hate with a hate that is inspired by Satan. Satan knows that if he kills the connecting link to God, the white man’s culture, he will separate mankind form God. The radical democrat, the neo-pagan, the half-way house Christian are in their liberalism all compact. They hate the white, Christian European, and will continue to hate him until they are converted or defeated.

Theoretically we all have homes, but the true, spiritual reality is that only a Christian European has a home he loves. The liberal, in his many guises, looks to the future when he will have his perfect home; then, he will love it. And the barbarian sees a home as something of merely external value, that one robs and plunders when it belongs to someone else and that a man uses until it becomes despoiled if it is his own. But here again he does not love his home. The Christian loves his home because He is there, and He has consecrated it with His love. The European home is the source of our strength and our faith. As the liberals’ hate intensifies around us, we will cling to our European home, and surely the love that we have for our home will prevail over the liberals’ hatred. +
____________________________
(1) Robespierre was the quintessential liberal. He was an anti-capital punishment zealot who nevertheless ordered thousands of executions in order to build a perfect world where capital punishment was unnecessary.

At the Last Trump

All torment, trouble, wonder, and amazement,
Inhabits here. Some heavenly power guide us
Out of this fearful country!

“We are enow yet living in the field, To smother up the English in our throngs, if any order might be thought upon.” Thus spoke the Duke of Orleans at the battle of Agincourt, but of course no order was thought upon, and the French suffered one of the biggest ‘upset’ losses in military history.

The cry of the conservative, nationalists for the past thirty years has been the same as that of the Duke of Orleans: “There are still enough white people left to turn back the colored tide if whites will only band together as a racial unit and vote white.” And if wishes were horses, then beggars would ride. White people are not going to band together and act as a racial unit, because they are a unique race of people; they, and they alone, built a Christian civilization, and they, and they alone, have built a post-Christian civilization. No white solidarity movement can be successful that does not take the white man’s religion into account. You can’t simply condemn it, as the neo-pagans do, nor can you leave it aside and put your faith in the democratic process, as the ‘Founding Father’ type conservatives do. Christ is our Promethean fire; without Him there is no hearth for the European.

The difference between a pagan’s love for his own race and a Christian’s love for his own race is a difference in intensity. Just as shame turns to guilt and kindness to charity in a Christian culture, so does pride of race turn to love of race in a Christian culture. What is missing in the pagans’ pride of race is a fully developed appreciation for the human personality. Only the Christian can be fully aware of the divinity within man, because only the Christian is linked to the divine personality.

Even though there are great differences in degree between the white pagan gods and the black barbarian gods, they all, in the end, are of the same kind: they are nature gods. Pagan man is ultimately alone in the jungle. He has the sun in the morning and moon at night, but he has no personal God who cares whether he lives or dies. Love for one’s race under such a canopy is a futile, desperate, despairing love. “I can’t survive death, but my race will survive and keep my name alive.” Who cares about such a survival? Only the incredibly superficial. The men of depth, such as Sophocles, say, “It is better never to have been born than to suffer such a fate.”

The white man could not rest content with paganism. He stepped away from the heathen gods and went looking for the God above the gods. The blind Oedipus called his brethren to see beyond Mt. Olympus, beyond Aristotle, beyond Plato, to the God who set the apostles’ hearts on fire on the road to Emmaus. The traditional faith of the European, and still the faith of the traditional European, was that He and He alone is waiting for us at the crossroad of life and death. As Le Fanu so eloquently says, we have only His promise and no other. The nature gods, seemingly so full of life and vitality when we are full of life and vitality, are lifeless and mute when our life’s blood has ebbed and we are in our death agony. Then it is only His life and His vitality that sustains us and His voice that we hear, which brings us to the great divide. The Thomistic revolt, as the great Russian Vladimir Solovyov pointed out, is a return to nature; the revolt constitutes a denial of the link between God and man. God is no longer in man; He is in nature. And man is once again alone with only nature as his comforter. Of course man still has the idea of God, but he no longer possesses God. God still imparts to human hearts, but if men’s hearts are closed because their minds are bound by nature, He cannot enter in.

The modern anti-white, anti-Christian Christian is simply carrying the logic of scholasticism to its ultimate conclusion. One doesn’t have to reject God in order to be a modern Christian atheist. One merely has to reserve the right to make God anything which the individual, autonomous man wants Him to be. And man also becomes whatever the modern scholastic wants him to be. I was forced to confront this type of post-Christian Christianity when I was involved in the pro-life movement. If one took a Christian peasant’s view of the matter, the abortion issue was quite simple: abortion was murder. “I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother’s belly.” But to a Thomist who has no touchstone of reality, no blood relationship with God, but has only his unaided, rational contemplation of the natural world, it is not simple. Let’s listen to a “conservative” Thomist, Will Lester S. J., using Aquinas to justify legalized abortion:

The traditional, philosophical argument for man’s life beginning at the moment of fertilization centers around the theory that the “form” of the material being, which gives the body life and guides it through development, must be one and the same throughout the beings’ existence. But since the “form” of the developed man is demonstrably the intellectual soul, that soul must be present from the moment of fertilization and that moment must mark the beginning of man’s life as a human with all his rights. However, I am inclined to deny the need for a material being having one and the same soul throughout its existence. Rather I think Aquinas was correct in saying, “At first the embryo has a soul which is merely sensitive (capable of sense perception) and when this is taken away, it is supplanted by a more perfect soul which is both sensitive and intellectual.” (Summa, I, q. 76, a.3, ad 3...)

It is certain of course, that an intellectual soul is immaterial and subsistent and therefore cannot be generated; it can only be created. A sensitive soul, though, can be generated. Now, it seems to me that a sensitive soul, generated by humans, should suffice for human bodily development; then, after the brain developed sufficiently, the sensitive soul would be supplanted by an intellectual one bringing human life.
For one thing, it seems unreasonable that an intellectual soul which needs a material brain for its peculiar activity would be present before the brain would be usable even for the most rudimentary tasks. But without an activity peculiar to itself, the soul would have no sufficient reason for existence and therefore could not exist. The fact, too, that identical twins are formed by the splitting of what was once a one-cell, fertilized ovum argues against the one-cell zygote having intellectual soul. After all, an intellectual soul can neither co-inform the same body with another intellectual soul nor be split into two.

Also, the supplanting of a less perfect soul for the more perfect is consonant with the theory, which seems to be definitely true, that brain death constitutes the death of man. Except the process is in reverse. When the body can no longer be useful to the intellectual soul, that soul leaves; yet the body still accommodates a less perfect soul capable, at least, of nourishment.

Supplanting also appears to be accepted on principle by traditional theologians who rather unanimously allow for a limited evolution. They work on the supposition that if evolution were a fact and man evolved from an animal, the souls of a male and female near-human animal were finally supplanted by two intellectual souls and the resulting two persons became the parents of us all.

Furthermore, scientists Arthur Hertig and John Rock tell us, and their statements seem to be scientifically accurate, that 58% of all fertilized human eggs are lost within the first two weeks. They simply do not make it down the fallopian tubes or are not properly implanted on the wall of the uterus. (Later some 11% more are lost. Only 31% actually come to birth.) Now it seems unbecoming God’s providence that all those one-cell and few-celled beings which are lost should be immortal humans.

If my conclusions are correct, then direct, intentional abortion at the earliest stages of development would not be the moral evil of murder but of illicit birth control.

--from Morality Anyone? by William Lester, S. J., Arlington House, 1975

Contained in Lester’s convoluted justification of abortion is the reason why the white race is committing suicide. The mind of man, when detached from the Promethean heat of Christ’s loving heart, can and does make itself an artificial fantasy world. Reality is what the mind of man says it is. If autonomous man declares a baby is not a baby, then it is not a baby. And conversely, if autonomous man says there is no such thing as race, then there is no such thing as race. Babies and white people can be summoned or eliminated at a whim. When a baby is chosen, then it exists. When it is not chosen, it is a fetus. White people are a race when liberals want a race to blame the ills of mankind on; white people are not a race when liberals want to integrate schools and intermarry. Then, of course, there is no such thing as race. It’s all quite neat, if you’re a modern, post-Christian rationalist. Your fantasy world is the world.

Where does all this leave the European, incarnational Christian who knows that babies are babies no matter how un-intellectual they are; and that race does matter just as Christ’s incarnation matters? It leaves him on the outside fringes of the civilization built by his ancestors, who believed as he did about race and about God. And nothing will make the incarnational Christian an insider again. White Christian Europe is no more. It is no longer the eleventh hour; the clock has struck midnight. Antique Europeans are now a minority in a new Babylon.

To say I bleed and weep for the death of Christian Europe would be a gross understatement. I have no words to describe my feelings on the subject. But no amount of bleeding or weeping on my part will bring Europe back. Or will it? Is there really a distinction between the poetic realm and the practical realm? In the poetic realm, His realm, nothing that is eternal dies. So Europe still lives just as Professor Kirk’s old home in the country still lives:

“Why!” exclaimed Peter. “It’s England. And that’s the house itself—Professor Kirk’s old home in the country where all our adventures began!”

“I thought that house had been destroyed,” said Edmund.

“So it was,” said the Faun. “But you are now looking at the England within England, the real England just as this is the real Narnia. And in that inner England no good thing is destroyed.”

By declaring that eternal Europe still lives I am not in anyway trying to diminish the tragedy of the emergence of a new Babylon where Europe once was. But I am pointing out that there is no conflict between the practical measures a white European should pursue in order to cleanse his nation of liberals and barbarians and the poetic connection he should maintain to eternal Europe. The European must see the conflict in its entirety, as a war against principalities and powers. While doing everything he can in the temporal realm, he must realize that no matter how outwardly unsuccessful his efforts may seem it is of eternal significance that he remain faithful in his heart and soul to eternal Europe. Never abandon the white plume, because it is through the white plume of Europe that we stay connected to Christ. (1)

The neo-pagan, the conservative nationalist, and the liberal have all returned to the worship of Baal. The two former groups want to dispute turf rights with the barbarians of color while the later group wants to blend with them. But all three groups have left Christian Europe behind. The good Christian Duke and his loyal followers have been banished to the Forest of Arden, where they are beginning to learn that "Sweet are the uses of adversity..." It is better to stand with a few kindred spirits, or even to stand alone, than to worship the merciless gods of nature.

Love cannot be forced, and the sad fact is that the modern European detests the God whom his ancestors loved. One can try to excuse them by saying the churches misrepresented Christ and it is only the misrepresentation which the modern European hates. But the true face of Christ is present in the culture of the older white Europeans, and modern Europeans hate that culture. So we are faced with a tragedy. The Europeans were the true Jews, the faithful remnant who saw Christ and believed. Now they have become the pharisaical Jews who have hardened their hearts against Him. What chance does an incarnational Christian have against such implacable foes? Well, what chance did He have against the same foes? And are we not His people? Surely if we are as faithful to His Europe as Ratty is to the European river we will not be forsaken. (2) There is no ultimate conflict between practical truth and poetic truth; the two seemingly contradictory modes of existence are blended together in the beautiful poetry of the Christian faith, which begins in a lowly manger and ends in His heavenly Kingdom. +
___________________________
(1)

CYRANO. I can see him there -- he grins --
He is looking at my nose -- that skeleton--
What's that you say? Hopeless? -- Why, very well!
--But a man does not fight merely to win!
No -- no -- better to know one fights in vain!
...You there -- Who are you?
A hundred against one --I know them now, my ancient enemies--

[He lunges at the empty air.]
Falsehood! ... There! There! Prejudice -–
Compromise --Cowardice -- [Thrusting]

What's that? No! Surrender?

No! Never -- never!
... Ah, you too, Vanity!
I knew you would overthrow me in the end --
No! I fight on! I fight on! I fight on!
[He swings the blade in great circles, then pauses, gasping.
When he speaks again, it is in another tone.]
Yes, all my laurels you have riven away
And all my roses; yet in spite of you,
There is one crown I bear away with me,
And to-night, when I enter before God,
My salute shall sweep all the stars away
From the blue threshold! One thing without stain,
Unspotted from the world, in spite of doom
Mine own!—-
[He springs forward, his sword aloft.]

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

ROXANE. [Bends over him and kisses him on the forehead.] --That is...

CYRANO. [Opens his eyes and smiles up at her.]
My white plume...

(2)

“I beg your pardon,” said the Mole, pulling himself together with an effort. “You must think me very rude; but all this is so new to me. So—this—is—a—River!”
“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.”

Polytheistic Hell

And he said unto them, Go. And when they were come out, they went into the herd of swine: and, behold, the whole herd of swine ran violently down a steep place into the sea, and perished in the waters. -- Matthew 8: 32

If we just look at the surface of organizational Christianity, the Christian faith seems to be alive, and if not prospering at least holding its own. But if we go just a little below the surfaces of the various Christian churches, we can see that the Christian faith is very far from thriving or holding its own. There has been an incredible shift in emphasis in the Christian churches. Every Christian church was originally founded on the belief that Jesus Christ’s entrance onto the historical stage (birth, life, death and resurrection) was the colossal event of human history. All of mankind’s existence hinged, Christians believed, on that earth-shattering event. But the new emphasis of the religious intelligentsia is on what Christianity has in common with other religions and what Jesus Christ has in common with other religious leaders. How often have we heard Christ lumped in with Gandhi, Socrates, or -- in the ultimate insult – coupled with Nelson Mandela or Barack Obama? Christ’s importance as a religious leader is not denied, but Christ’s special identity as the Son of God, the Lord of history, is being denied. What has taken place in the latter half of the 20th century and in the beginning of the 21st century is a world-wide apostasy. The Europeans have returned to polytheistic atheism. They don’t deny Christ; they simply place Him on an equal or subordinate level with other gods. And of course that type of non-denial is really the deepest, the most blasphemous denial of all. Christ is the one true God. He is not a religious leader or a great prophet.

The hierarchies of the Christian churches almost never say it explicitly, but what they imply by the causes they support and the people, such as Obama, whom they worship, is that the Christ story in its unadulterated form is too irrational and fantastical for a rational person to believe. They will place the man called Jesus in a place next to Gandhi and slightly below Obama, but they will not grant Him divine status. “The original, un-amended Christ story, you must know by now,” they tell us, “is ridiculous; it’s against nature.” And that is really what is at the crux of the race issue. The white liberals want to return to nature and the polytheistic gods of the colored races.

When the white man believed his God was the true God, he was a racial segregationist. He sought to preserve the integrity of his race because in doing so he was preserving the integrity of his faith. When he ceased to believe that his God was the one true god, he sought to blend with the colored races in order to be part of a natural religion that appeared so much easier than Christianity.

It will not be tragic if the white man discovers that he can never really be happy in the natural, polytheistic world of the non-white races. The real tragedy would be if he was comfortable in their world, because if that becomes the case the white man will have lost his soul.

Right now the white liberals, who are legion, are imitating the swine that St. Matthew describes. They are rushing headlong for the cliff and an ocean perishing. And there is a dynamic energy to their insane rush that can only be resisted by a faith that is just as dynamic as their faith. Halfway-house Christians like the Bob Jones University potentates and the late John Paul II, who think they can run with the swine right to the edge of the precipice and then turn back, will go over the cliff with the swine.

I don’t think white people can ever be comfortable in the polytheistic religions of the “natural races.” I think, for the white man, there is only Christ or the abyss. And it certainly seems like the white European has chosen the abyss. Maybe ‘chosen’ is not quite the proper word for it implies more of a conscious choice on the part of the white man. It would be more accurate to say that the white man feels compelled to plunge headlong into the abyss. Satan is obviously the one who is doing the compelling, but the post-Christian does not believe such stuff and nonsense. One thinks of the French writer André Gide, who remarked, ‘I don’t believe in the existence of the devil, but of course that is what the devil wants me to believe.’

I spent a number of years in the pro-life movement before I realized that abortion would remain legal until the white man repudiated the abortion which spawned legalized abortion. When the white man aborted Jesus Christ from the womb of European civilization, it made every womb a potential death chamber for God’s children. Without a safe dwelling place in a culture that honors mercy and not sacrifice, the Son of Man cannot enter in. In the barbarian cultures He is relegated to the status of a minor deity.

For my entire adult life I have listened to the church men, conservative and liberal, tell us that it is no great tragedy that Europeans have abandoned the Christian faith. Asia and Africa will pick up where the Europeans left off. Is this the case? Organizational Christianity might have gained some converts in those continents, but can an honest man really claim that Asia or Africa have become Christian continents like Europe was once a Christian continent? No, an honest man cannot make such a claim. But a clergyman who has traded in his belief in Christ as the Son of God for a belief in Christ as a religious leader can and does make such a ridiculous claim. What the modern clergymen are telling us is that it is better that the whole world should be enveloped in a polytheistic hell than that they should be forced to give up their belief in a harmonious, one-world-one-race-and-many-gods faith. The post-Christian rationalists (PCR) talk about diversity, but the only type of diversity they support is a diversity of gods. Muhammad, Buddha, Obama, and Gandhi – we know the litany. Christ usually comes in somewhere in the lower tier because after many years of association with white Europeans, His reputation has been soiled in the eyes of the barbarians and the post-Christian rationalists.

Let us be clear about old Europe and the brave new world we are facing. The central event that created and sustained the European for centuries was the incarnation of Jesus Christ. The central event that sustains the new world order is the abortion of Jesus Christ from the womb of European civilization. We have not evolved to a higher form of Christianity. We have de-evolved. There is not and never shall be on this earth a purer, truer vision of Christ than the vision articulated by the hearts of Europeans who saw and believed. And I’m not referring to any one theologian or religious sect; I’m talking about the Europeans who saw through, not with the eye. To the barbarian and the PCR white, the Athenian woods are merely woods. To the European they are an enchanted forest containing fairies and spirits that come to life on a midsummer’s night and carry out His command that charity and mercy shall hold sway in His civilization.

In the polytheistic world of the barbarians and the new age whites, individual men and women do not, once dead, come back to life. Nor do the natural gods of the heathens and PCR whites. They come back in different forms like the seasons but then they die again to be replaced by other gods. But in the Christian faith, the Christ, the God of the European, has broken the bonds of the natural cycle of birth, maturity, death and decay. He can once again become the center of European civilization because He is the only God who cannot die. Yes, the white man aborted Him, but He waits only for the faithful hearts to invite Him back. And He will come because He always responds to the cry from the depths of the human heart. He is one of us; He is our brother and our God.

We don’t need great numbers to restore European civilization. God always works from the particular to the general. Adam stood in for all humanity. One small tribe of people was chosen to bring forth the Christ. And one God-Man was the redeemer of all mankind. It is fidelity to the faith that is needed, not a Mongol horde or a democratic majority.

Our race is the outward symbol of an inner spiritual dimension. It is not a mere pigmentation of the skin or an insignificant accident of nature: “...the child shall be a Nazarite unto God from the womb.” The European has a destiny. He is the Christ-bearer. If he stays close to the incarnational things of Europe, his home, his race, and the non-polytheistic Christ of faith, he will emerge from the seemingly overwhelming tidal wave of color, tattered and scarred, but victorious.

Every modern heresy, such as race-mixing, abortion, and sodomy, has been sanctioned under the umbrella of an evolving democratic system that is supposed to be self-evidently the process by which mankind, minus the recalcitrant white Europeans, will enter into the secular kingdom of the god who is not a god. Even those evangelicals who reject ape-to-man evolution have accepted the premises of democratic evolution. It is the task of the European to repudiate every single link in the evolutionary, democratic chain. You can’t take even one step with the swine. And why should we even consider it? Where is the evidence that the purveyors of democratic evolution have evolved to a higher stage of existence than our European ancestors? Are the PCR whites and the races of color the end product of the evolutionary process? In any other aspect of life besides the accumulation of scientific facts has liberal democracy brought forth the promised demi-gods of the earth? Is the Obama superior to Gordon, Hillary Clinton to Florence Nightingale, Jackson Pollack to Michelangelo, the Beatles to Beethoven, and J. K. Rowling to Shakespeare? And on and on we could go. Our modern Babylon gives the lie to all those who would justify such blasphemies as race mixing under the guise of the evolving democratic process.

The polytheistic gods and their followers are like the swine. They are legion and they have no humanity. In contrast, the European’s God is one God and He has a human heart. He is the soul of humanity. Certainly the antique European is recalcitrant; he refuses to run with the swine. And if he remains steadfast in that refusal, he will eventually see the triumph of His sacred humanity over the swinish herds of a polytheistic hell.

The White Cross

Woe to the clansman who shall view
This symbol of sepulchral yew,
Forgetful that its branches grew
Where weep the heavens their holiest dew
On Alpine’s dwelling low.

The hope and expectation that the end of the historical process will have a happy ending is a uniquely Christian concept. It is in complete contrast to the cyclic world view of classical paganism. The post-Christian rationalist (PCR) who has jettisoned his belief in Jesus Christ as true God and true Man still holds to a view of history that could only come from a Christian culture. However, the post-Christian rationalist’s faith in progress and the future is very different from the hope and expectation of a European Christian. The Christian hopes for the second coming of Christ in which individual persons will be saved or damned. The PCR white hopes for the perfection of mankind on this earth and the earthly damnation of all those who would impede mankind’s progress toward a secular utopia.

The PCR white man has looked at the Christian faith and declared it null and void. And the Christian concedes that the Christian faith is beyond the purely rational. But is the liberal’s faith in the perfection of mankind on this earth a rational belief? No, it is not. The consistent rationalist is Dostoyevsky’s Stavrogin, who hangs himself, fully rational to the end. Unfortunately, or fortunately depending on what you think of liberals, most PCR whites do not follow their rationalist faith to its logical conclusion. They settle for a rationalist, fantasy faith in the progress of mankind, always moving onward. Toward what? “Toward the perfection of mankind,” the liberals tell us.

When Christian eschatology becomes divorced from faith in Christ, the original inspiration for Christian eschatology, there is no limit to the evils that can spring from such a secularized process. It’s not just communism that owes its inspiration to a secularized, historical schema. The democracy-worshipping, one-world, one-race liberals of the Western world also are inspired by the eschatology of a faith they have abandoned.

And it is important that European Christians see that the worship of the black man is part of the new Christ-less eschatology of the modern post-Christians. If mankind is to progress in the aggregate, everything that is personal and individual must be eradicated. In the liberal utopia, mankind has a soul but individuals do not. And what is more personal, more individual, than a man’s ties to his own kith and kin? The destruction of the racial ties that bind human beings together is an essential part of the depersonalizing process of PCR whites. They must depersonalize every aspect of the white man’s existence in order to form an impersonal, homogenized, multiracial utopia.

The worship of the soulless barbarian races is an essential part of the PCR’s faith, because the barbarians are the shock troops for the new religion. Obama was not elected President because liberals were drawn to his personality, he was elected because of what he represented: the soulless, depersonalized face of the new world order.

In Shakespeare’s play Henry IV Part II, the character Morton informs the Lord Northumberland that a second rebellion against the King has a better chance of success than the first because it has the support of a Bishop, who “turns insurrection to religion.” This is what we should never forget about the PCR whites. They have turned insurrection against Christ into a religion, using the same eschatology and symbols of Christianity but for a wholly different and evil purpose.

The new Christ-less Christianity has been around long enough to have become the unspoken, instinctive faith of the liberal. Young liberals, who don’t even know the meaning of the word eschatology, act according to the Christ-less eschatology of their satanic progenitors, such as Comte, Hegel, and Marx. Comte more than Marx or Hegel has been the model for the modern liberal. Comte thought the Catholic Church’s organization and hopeful message of a happy ending to the historical process was something that was worthy of emulation. (He didn’t like the Protestant version of Christianity because of its “evangelical anarchy.”) But what he liked about Catholicism was its “system,” not its “Christianity.” Comte’s new faith is the faith of the modern liberal. The liberal believes in an organized social and political structure that promises present comfort and future earthly bliss for those who purge themselves of the unruly Christian aspects of Christianity. Although there are elements of the new faith that some churchmen are not fond of, they have never sought to be the dust in the gears of the new, mechanized church of Christ-without-Christ. They have accepted the basic secular premise of liberalism (“There is no God”) while remaining uneasy about some of its manifestations such as legalized abortion and legalized sodomy. But ultimately the churchmen are moving with the liberals to a secular Zion.

There is only one force on earth capable of defeating liberal zealots fueled with the enthusiasm of the ancient crusaders, without the faith of the ancient crusaders. That force is the man of Europe, the Christ-centered man. The pre-Christian Viking hero of the new age right-wingers is not the man to “set things right.” The pagan’s sword is sheathed when the pagan’s appetite for rapine and plunder is sated. The Christian hero’s sword is never sheathed until he has “built Jerusalem, In England’s green and pleasant land.”

My own views on the Scottish Jacobites are the same as Sir Walter Scott’s views. I admire their courage and their loyalty to their Chieftain, but ultimately it would not have been good for Britain to have had another Stuart monarch. The Stuarts did not have a gift for governing. But the Scottish cavaliers did leave the European with something of lasting value; they are a sterling example of fidelity. And now that the ranks of faithful Europeans have dwindled to numbers resembling a clan rather than a nation, we should support our clan with the same ferocious loyalty and courage with which the Scottish cavaliers supported their clan.

The Southern cavaliers of America took the Scottish Highlanders’ rallying symbol of the burning cross and made it their symbol. But it became more than just a rallying sign for one group of Scottish clansmen, it became a call for all faithful white men to stand and fight for the faith and the race. It was the Frenchmen in Haiti that first felt the brunt of the white rationalist and barbarian hatred of the white. They perished to the last man, woman, and child. Then the Southern men faced the hatred of the same satanic coalition of PCR whites and black barbarians. They prevailed against that coalition because they rallied to the cross of fire.

It is striking that no matter what European nation you look at, the problems are the same. White-hating white rationalists are uniting with the barbarians to destroy white European civilization. (Although it is probably more accurate to say the PCR whites and the barbarians are uniting to destroy the remaining Europeans. They have already destroyed European civilization.) Which indicates to me that no matter how far flung he is, by land or sea, the white European who still adheres to the faith of old Europe is a member of a clan. And if he is faithful to that clan, he will prevail over the forces of ruin and death. But he will not prevail if he leaves the European clan to become a Viking warrior, like the new age right-wingers, or to become a halfway-house Christian, like the Bob Jones University men. It must be all or nothing. The European must respond to the fiery cross if Europeans and Europe’s faith are to survive. The great Swedish playwright August Strindberg, who went through his own personal battle with the demon of rationalism, shows us the way. He had the words, “O Cross, Be Greeted, Our Only Hope” inscribed on his tombstone. The White man’s cross is his racial heritage. The PCR white, having abandoned that cross, insists that every white man do likewise. And our answer to that demand is, “Never.”

A Different World

It is really impossible to tell whether McCain, the white-hating, liberal, technocratic egomaniac, or Obama, the radical, white-hating Mau Mau, will do the most damage to white people. The one certain thing is that the anti-white agendas of the previous Republican and Democratic Presidents will be continued and broadened.

I do not believe that an Obama presidency will “mobilize white people.” Why should it? From where will the pro-white, anti-Obamba white people come? The churches? They were the first to succumb to the white-hating virus. From our public schools? That idea is laughable. Or possibly from the ranks of the average American Joe? The average American Joe has slid too far down the slippery slope. How are you going to mobilize a man, who regularly worships black people on the television set, into opposing the anti-white policies of a member of the same race that the average American Joe worships? No, counterrevolutions are not brought about by fat, contented hogs. They are brought about by a remnant band of lean and hungry lions. Only those men who have rejected it all, American pie, rock and roll, and Amway, will be able to mount a charge against the liberal leviathan.

In the 1950’s Herbert Butterfield correctly identified the problem with liberals. By cutting away the traditions and sentiments that came from Christianity, they were not, as they thought, moving mankind toward a brighter, purer world, but were in reality
moving mankind toward a world in which only the devil, and those possessed by the devil, could feel at home.

The cutting and pruning has been going on continuously for the past fifty years and it is difficult for the liberals to find anything left to cut. But they must claim there is still some European, Christian ‘undergrowth’ left to be cut down, because if all the undergrowth is already gone, why is utopia not here?

St. Paul tells us that the last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. The Europeans made that Pauline belief the center of their culture. At the “last trump” at the “twinkling of an eye,” the Hero will step in and defeat the last enemy: “And Death once dead, there’s no more dying then.” (1) The Europeans used to believe that.

In a satanic civilization everything is inverted. The antique Europeans celebrated the death of death at Easter, while the modern post-Christians celebrate the death of Christian culture by honoring the birthdays of satanic figures such as Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King Jr. And every day is a macabre celebration of death in the satanic abortuaries throughout the Western world.

The liberals always react with glee every time they cut down another piece of Christian ‘undergrowth’ because they think, to the extent that they think at all, that doing so will bring mankind closer to a magnificent future. But it is not in the future that we can see the realization of the liberals’ dream. It is in the past, the past of the non-European cultures. The non-European cultures had, and have, no faith, no hope, and no charity. One lives one’s life in such cultures in a world without forgiveness, because there is no concept of sin, and without mercy, because there is no concept of a divine link between humanity and a merciful God. This is the end the liberals have promised us. And every Presidential election takes us closer to that end.

The liberal future, a world without mercy that worships death, is already here, with one exception. In the future there will be no white technocrats at the top of the food chain, because the white technocrat has made a crucial mistake. He thinks that by denying the existence of race he can remain in Satan’s utopia. But the other races do not deny the existence of race, and the white technocrat will be replaced by the Asian. The orthodoxy of the Orient, the idea of the sovereignty of detached reason, was always the heterodoxy of the West. When that heterodoxy became the European’s orthodoxy, the West became an intellectual counterpart of the Orient.

It is far from a certainty that the European will embrace Christian orthodoxy and rebuild Christian civilization. But it is a certainty that there will be no civilization, in the non-anthropological sense of the word, if the European does not rebuild Christian Europe.

In the current presidential election we are being asked which one of Satan’s minions we want to rule us. We are not being asked, as both the Republican and Democratic parties would have us believe, to chose between good and evil. And we can never hope to run a white Christian European for elective office because no white male can run for office unless he denounces his Christianity, his maleness, and his race. (Soon even a white’s denunciation of his whiteness will not avail him.)

I grew up in a post-Christian rationalist (PCR) household and went to a PCR school and a PCR church. But I was lucky. The ‘Gingerbread House’ technique did not work with me. I became exposed, through the works of authors, such as Shakespeare and Scott, to a world diametrically opposed to the PCR world in which I grew up. Once exposed to that different world, I could never go back to the post-Christian rationalist world. I don’t know what percentage of the post-Christian rationalists live in Satania because they prefer it to that other Christian world and what percentage live in Satania because they don’t know there is any other world. For that reason, I think the Christian soldier’s fight is on two fronts. He must see that the other world, the Christian European world, is represented to the inhabitants of Satania, in order that those who might see and then believe can be converted. And he must fight those who have seen and prefer the darkness to the light.

The central fact, from the standpoint of an antique European, about the upcoming Presidential election (and every election in the Western world) is that the election is a celebration of the great satanic void. All the non-European tribes -- the liberal technocratic tribe, the black barbarian tribe, the Oriental tribe, etc. -- are meeting to celebrate the triumph of darkness over light. Christ’s apostle, John, put it best when he said: “And the light shineth in darkness and the darkness comprehended it not.” Men of our blood once did comprehend the light. That is why we must try to see with their eyes and feel with their hearts, for that same beloved apostle John tells us that those who are united to His civilization in spirit and blood, “shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it.” +
__________________________
(1) Sonnet 146
Poor soul, the centre of my sinful earth,
[...] these rebel powers that thee array;
Why dost thou pine within and suffer dearth,
Painting thy outward walls so costly gay?
Why so large cost, having so short a lease,
Dost thou upon thy fading mansion spend?
Shall worms, inheritors of this excess,
Eat up thy charge? is this thy body's end?
Then soul, live thou upon thy servant's loss,
And let that pine to aggravate thy store;
Buy terms divine in selling hours of dross;
Within be fed, without be rich no more:
So shalt thou feed on Death, that feeds on men,
And Death once dead, there's no more dying then.

- Shakespeare

Guarding the Bridge

“The liberals of the continent, on the other hand, first forsook Christianity, and then set out to cut away the traditions, sentiments, prejudices which they seemed to regard as a mere undergrowth. They did not know that what they were exorcising was their guardian angel…”

– Herbert Butterfield

In the eyes of the Jews, Christianity started out as a small, heretical movement within Judaism. And much to the horror of the Jews, it became the Faith of an entire continent in which the Jews were a tiny minority. But the wheel turns. The Jews are still a minority, albeit an influential one, but Christianity no longer enjoys majority status in European countries. The post-Christian rationalists (PCR) have held the reins of power in Europe and her satellites for the past one hundred years. If one were to make a chart of the Christian and post-Christian centuries of the European, it would look something like this:

400 – 800 Christian with pagan remnants
800 – 1900 Christian
1900 – 1950 Post-Christian Rationalist with Christian remnants
1950 – 2008 Post-Christian Rationalist

And who rules by proxy when the PCR Europeans rule? Satan does. He rules every branch of society, including (or, to be more accurate, especially) our churches.

The so-called fundamentalist movements of the 20th century were a response to the Christless faith of the mainstream Protestant churches. And the Catholic traditionalist movements of the 1960’s were a response to the Christless Christianity of Vatican II Catholicism. The Protestant fundamentalist movements were somewhat more effective than the traditionalist Catholic movements, because the fundamentalists tried to return to the Bible, which is a very solid basis on which to base a Christian counter-revolution, while the Catholic traditionalists only hearkened back to Thomism, which was the primary impetus for the original modernist revolt. But both groups failed to remain Christian because they abandoned the cultural heritage of Europe, which was the inspired creation of a people who were wedded to the God-Man.

The Catholic looks to the documents of the Church, as interpreted by the reigning pontiff, as his touchstone of reality, and the Protestant looks to the Holy Bible, as interpreted by the individual, as his touchstone of reality. But both have gone awry, because they have left out what George Fitzhugh called the only infallible authority in Christendom -- the Christian folk. The Gospel of Christ will be only an abstraction, an idea, which can be anything and everything to all men, if it is not given a concrete home in a culture. When we see Christianity embodied in a people, we have a touchstone of reality. We can say, “This is the Faith, and this is not the Faith.” The modern, technocratic man has a vested interest in an abstracted faith that is elastic enough to fit any set of values he creates in his perverted mind. His Christianity is a nebulous Christianity without substance. In contrast, the Christianity of the pre-20th century European was a concrete faith with a clearly delineated core. And one of the most striking contrasts between the older Europeans and the modern technocrats can be observed in their views on race. The pre-20th century European doesn’t really have a theory of race, and he doesn’t have a theory of race, because his racial identity and his Christianity are inseparable parts of his personality. He could no more separate them than he could separate his mind from his body, which, come to think of it, the modern technocrat does. The older European viewed his body as a spiritual entity. His skin color was part of his body, which contained his immortal soul. Mere corruptible flesh would not inherit eternal life, but his whiteness was part of his personality, which was a thing immortal. Hence the antique white man knew that racial diversity was spiritual suicide. Diversity destroys harmony in society and in the soul. Who wants to be scattered into a thousand diverse particles of dust?

The technocratic, modern man yearns for diversity. His satanic soul needs pandemonium. He wants the whole world to be one, unholy Babylon which he controls with his intellect; an intellect divorced from his race, his sex, and his God.

In the old private eye films, the police always fail to catch the murderer because they label two connecting events, such as the sudden "accidental" death of wealthy, old Joseph Finsbury and the financial insolvency of his heir and nearest relation, his nephew William Finsbury, as mere coincidence. And we play the part of the dense policemen when we fail to see that the PCR white man’s desire for diversity of race stems from his desire to separate himself from his God.

The Christianity our European forefathers embraced was diametrically opposed to diversity. In their pagan days, they were devoted to their hero-gods because they saw them as personalities committed to the struggle to defend the personalities of their devotees in the great battle against the forces of chaos and diversity. Christ did not destroy the hope and faith of those pagan Europeans. He revealed to them, in the fullness of His personality, that He was the fulfillment of their desire for a Hero-God who would sustain them in their battles to maintain their unique and undiversified manhood against all the forces of hell.

The modern, white pagan and the modern, anti-white, white liberal are united in their belief that the Christianity of the pre-20th century European was an interlude, a 1,500-year detour away from the true Christianity. Is that so? How can there be a 1,500-year interlude? No, the Christian poets, who articulate the faith of the Christian folk, and the Gospels themselves tell us a different story of the people of God, the Europeans, and their fight to maintain their faith in the Hero-God. At every juncture of European man’s history, Satan was there, trying to get European man to adopt a diverse Christianity, a synergistic Christianity, a faith with room for the Rosicrucian and the barbarian. In the 1500’s the people’s revolt against the synergistic Christianity took the form of the Protestant Reformation. And when that movement was corrupted by the devil, counter movements, such as the fundamentalist movement, were begun. Satan, however, has countered every Christian counterattack with a master stroke of his own. At present the Christian churches are synergistic Temples of Satan. And the key element of Satanism is racial diversity. There can be no faithful hearts to receive Him still if the people of God, the Europeans, the ones with the faithful hearts, no longer exist because they have become diversified.

History, common sense, and revelation all support the “racist,” Euro-centered Christianity of the pre-20th century Europeans. That is why the technocrat must be utopian rather than historical; nonsensical rather than sensible; unbiblical rather than biblical. But the technocratic white man’s flight from reality cannot change it. And the reality is that there never has been nor ever can be a black civilization. Blacks can only live and thrive in a civilization governed by whites. What has Africa become since the white man has left? We don’t need a crystal ball to know what will happen to a Negroized Europe and a Negroized U.S.A.

In his novel, Melmoth the Wanderer, Charles Maturin makes the point that before the devil can lay claim to a man’s soul, he must destroy his sanity and his memory. And such is the plight of the post-Christian European. A man who believes only in his own mind is insane. And a man who has abandoned the past in favor of a utopian future is a man without a memory. This is why a Christian European cannot reach the post-Christian rationalist. The PCR European no longer has a soul to call his own; he belongs to Satan.

What will emerge in the formerly European countries that are bereft of white Christian Europeans? Well, there will be no black civilization. Blacks can destroy civilizations, and when they are controlled they can be useful servants in a civilization. But since the PCR whites will not control them, they will destroy the technocratic civilization of the PCR whites. And then the Asians will step in. They are capable of building and maintaining a civilization, but they are incapable of building a Christian civilization. Every fiendish torture ever used by the white man on his fellow whites was first used by the Asian. They have a genius for cruelty. I know this all sounds so terribly impolite to say, but what has happened in the 20th century to make the European view the oriental as a kindly friend of Christian Europe? It seems to me that what would now be called hideous racist caricatures of Orientals, such as the depictions of Asians in the Fu Manchu novels of Sax Rohmer, paint a ridiculously benign portrait of the Oriental compared to the actual reality of his true nature. But then the PCR whites are not concerned with reality.

Herbert Butterfield once observed that the English people always left bridges to the rear whenever they went forward. They might alter a political structure, but they always maintained their ties to the past throughout the transitions in government. Butterfield approved of that instinct. And in that approval he echoes George Fitzhugh, who maintained, “Throw our paper platforms, preambles and resolutions, guaranties and constitutions, in the fire, and we should be none the worse off, provided we retained our institutions –and the necessities that begot, and have, so far, continued them.” Ah, there’s the rub. The PCR white man, by embracing racial diversity, has burnt the bridges to the past. The Western Christian tradition was spawned by white Europeans. It cannot be continued by simply preserving a document, or a philosophical treatise, or a political system, from the past. The heritage and the race are one.

The white Christian remnant is almost too small to be called a remnant; let’s call it a mustard- seed remnant. The challenge for that mustard-seed remnant is to maintain the bridge to His civilization against all odds. Shakespeare’s Agincourt has become every European’s battle. “We few, we happy few, we band of brothers” will hold until relieved by the Hero who has taught us that no cause is lost when it is consecrated to Him.+

Satan’s Minions

A few years before Joseph Ratzinger became Pope Benedict XVI, he announced that he thought the next pope should be black. He didn’t say he wanted a specific black cardinal to become pope because he was the best qualified man to lead the Church, he simply said he thought the next pope should be black. Implicit in Ratzinger’s endorsement of a generic black for pope was his belief in the sacredness of the black race and the evil of European Christians. Cardinal Ratzinger, now the Pope, is a very modern man; he has left traditional Christianity behind for the new faith in the black man.

One can see the same phenomenon in the nomination of Barack Obama for President. We are supposed to accept as a given that the nomination of a black man for President is a good in and of itself. Why? That is self-evident: because black is good and white is evil.

And why, you ask, is white evil and black good? Because in Satan’s kingdom, everything is reversed. Good is evil and evil is good. Satan must eradicate every last vestige of white civilization because that civilization was once connected to Him.

I once got a letter of rebuke from a white woman who was somewhat sympathetic to the cause but who complained that whatever good I did was completely ruined by the extremism of my language. “Why do you call white liberals and blacks, Satan’s minions?” My answer to her went something like this: “I call them Satan’s minions because I don’t believe that the maniacal hatred of post-Christian rationalists (PCR) for their own people, and the maniacal hatred of black barbarians for white people can be accurately described in any other way. It’s the old, ‘if it walks and talks like a duck…’ scenario. If they talk like Satan and behave satanically, then they are Satan’s minions."

European Babylon

Abhorred slave,
Which any print of goodness wilt not take,
Being capable of all ill! I pitied thee,
Took pains to make thee speak, taught thee each hour
One thing or other. When thou didst not, savage,
Know thine own meaning, but wouldst gabble like
A thing most brutish, I endow’d thy purposes
With words that made them known. But thy vile race,
Though thou didst learn, had that in’t which good natures
Could not abide to be with; therefore wast thou
Deservedly confin’d into this rock
Who hadst deserv’d more than a prison.

-- The Tempest

The original Olympic games were an attempt to improve Greek national unity through athletic competition. The modern Olympic Games, started by Baron de Coubertin in the late nineteenth century, were intended as a utopian panacea. It was thought that international competition among amateur athletes from all nations, who competed simply for the love of sport, would reduce wars and bring about a more peaceful and harmonious world. Of course the Baron’s utopian scheme, like all utopian schemes, failed miserably. The Olympic Games did not reduce world strife; in fact they intensified it, providing another venue for jingoistic swaggering and chicanery.

And what can be said about the current Olympic Games? They are a perversion of a perversion. The original modern games were supposed to be for amateur athletes only. And in the original modern games, there were not supposed to be any medal counts.

It is a delusion of the European, post-Christian rationalist that tragedies such as war, which are the result of human sinfulness, can be minimized or eliminated by gimmicks such as ‘free trade’ or ‘free love’ or ‘friendly athletic competition’. (1) And the post-Christian rationalist never gives up his delusion when it doesn’t stand up to reality. Oh no, not him, he keeps his comfortable delusion.

Sporting competitions are a reflection of a nation’s soul; they are not, nor can they ever be, a substitute for a national soul. And what do the current Olympic Games tell us about the nations of Europe and their satellites? They tell us that the white European nations are very, very sick. The “Dutch” soccer team consisted almost entirely of Africans. The “Belgians” had only two white players on their soccer team, and even the Russian basketball team had a Negro on their starting team.

The European nations have become like their bastard child, the United States: they are now universalist, ‘idea’ nations who deny the existence of such things as a national soul or individual souls. The post-Christian rationalist – let’s call him a PCR – does not look at life with the same eyes as an antique European. When I see a soccer team from a European country that consists almost entirely of Africans, I feel sick to the very depths of my soul. In contrast, the PCR European feels proud when Africans represent his nation because it means his nation has gone beyond race and ascended to a more ethereal plane of existence. But the delusional PCR European does not realize, in the midst of his glee over his nation’s lack of bigotry, that the barbarian does not see life the same way that he does. When the barbarian looks at a formerly all-white nation that allows Negroes to represent them in sporting events, he sees a nation that is open to conquest. He doesn’t want to be assimilated into a white nation; he wants to conquer it and impose his will on a people too weak to defend themselves. If the black barbarian were wise, he would keep some white rationalists around to sustain the technocratic civilization that the black barbarians depend upon (there is nothing to loot in an impoverished country). But wisdom is not an attribute of the black. It is more likely that another barbarian people, the Asians, who are intellectually superior to the blacks but just as cruel and anti-Christian, will take the place of the former white rulers. This is already occurring in Zimbabwe.

Which brings us to the Patrick Buchanan assertion about the cruel white man. The white man must rule first and foremost because it is good for white people. But the secondary reason that the white man must rule is because blacks are crueler to their own than the white man is, Asians are crueler to their own than the white man is, and on it goes through every non-white race. The Gunga Dins of the non-white races always support white rule.

The PCR European looks on himself as the endpoint of evolution. Everybody should be like him. And when the barbarian plays in the reindeer games of the European people, the PCR white is delighted. But the antique European sees the PCR white for what he is, a mutation, a distinctly new breed of human who is less than human and who will be washed down the sewer by a tidal wave of barbarians.

And that is a tragedy. Most of us (I know I do) have relatives who are PCR Europeans. We are facing the mystery of good and evil. Why do some prefer to rush headlong over the cliff with the swine rather than to stand in the presence of the living God?

The American Renaissance speaker (whom I mentioned in Unto Death) would have us stay in the democratic, multi-racial cultures of the PCR whites in order to win them back through letter-writing and voting. Instead of that, I would suggest we learn from the cautionary tale of Lot. He did not listen when God advised him to separate himself from the people of Sodom and Gomorrah. He thought he could win them over. It didn’t work then, and it won’t work now. But if we separate from the PCR whites, we will be strong enough to resist the tidal wave of barbarism and the Fu Manchu machinations of the Asians.

I know that the modern, anti-white white, the PCR, does not like it when you refer to the blacks as barbarians and the Asians as Fu Manchus, but what is the reality? Has the black man not proved the wisdom of the prejudiced European everyman of the 19th century who saw the African as a savage addicted to devil-worship and fiendish tortures? And has the Asian not lived up to the older European everyman’s image of him as a clever, diabolical foe of Christian Europe? Or have the utopians, such as Pope John XXIII and Rousseau, been proved correct? The wisdom of our ancestors, our Christian ancestors, bid us heed the wisdom of the blood and maintain an impregnable barrier between our race and the barbarian races of color. There is nothing more important than rebuilding that barrier and maintaining it against the world.

In the past year, I have had two experiences that were quite heartening. In the first instance, I was reading Tom Brown’s School Days with a few of my children. I would read sections of the book and then one of them would read a section. My fifteen-year-old daughter was reading the part of the book where Arthur says his prayers in the dormitory, completely unconcerned about the fact that the really ‘cool’ kids do not kneel and say their prayers. My daughter could not finish the passage because she was so moved by it that she was in tears.

The second instance was similar to the first one, only it involved my 17-year-old son reciting a passage from Shakespeare’s King Lear. In both instances my heart soared. You hope, when you have children, that the bond of the blood will become a bond of spirit and blood, but you have no guarantee. When I see my children able to respond and appreciate the depth of a poet who comes from His Europe, then I know that my children and I are bound together by an unbreakable bond that was forged on the cross at Calvary.

The heritage that binds my children and me is the same heritage that once bound millions of Europeans to each other. The mystical body of Christ was not an abstraction, but a reality. But there can be no communion of souls where there is no depth. A black Europe, an Asian Europe, is not Europe, because there is no depth of soul in the barbarism of the African or in the intellectual aridness of the Asian. The European who doesn’t mix with the barbarians, who preserves his culture of depth, can inspire, in some instances, the Asian, and in even rarer instances, the black, to realize a depth in their souls that they never dreamt of. But the European can inspire no one if he mixes with the barbarians, or worse, if he surrenders to them. Then he will not only lose his own soul, but he will also condemn the barbarians to the everlasting night they constantly seek but are only prevented from attaining by the white man.

The presence of black athletes on the sports teams of formerly all-white nations is a reminder to those Europeans who are still connected to old Europe that European civilization was not invaded by barbarians; PCR whites opened the gates of their cities and let them in.

And what has been the result? Christ's civilization has been defiled by a race of Calibans, men “capable of all ill.” St. Paul tells us that nothing shall separate us from the love of Christ. And nothing, not the PCR white-hating white or the Calibans of the Third World, will separate us from the civilization consecrated to Him. One faithful heart can inspire others -- and still others -- and then resistance to Satan and his minions will once again become the hallmark of the European. +
______________________________
(1) The Chinese pitchers threw no less than five beanballs at the American team. Someone of a waggish disposition should synchronize the soundtrack of the song “Age of Aquarius” with the video of the maniacal Chinese chucking beanballs.

Black Hell Continued…

Let's contrast two recent events: After the torture murders of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom, we saw a few whites protest the torture-murders, and we saw a much larger group of blacks and whites protest the protest of the torture-murders. "Cry me a river," was the black response," and "We must understand black rage" was the white, post-Christian response. I even think the Pope and Billy Graham immediately called for the pardon of the black torture-murderers. (They didn't? How did they miss that one?)

Now let's segue to the conviction of one (of seven, not six) black "youth" for the attempted murder of a white boy. The rough-tough black boys picked the smallest white boy in the school, knocked him unconscious (from behind, of course), and kicked and beat him in an attempt to kill him.

When an all-white jury convicted one of the angelic blacks of attempted murder, the barbarians of color were outraged, so of course a higher court overturned the conviction. But that cowardly, immoral capitulation was not enough for the black barbarians. They still marched because the black "youth" was still in custody (the only one not out on bail) and also because they wanted to "send a message." And they marched in the thousands while white commentators spewed yellow spinal fluid all over the streets of Jena and the newsrooms of America in their rush to present, with professional acumen and sterling integrity, the heartfelt anger of the black barbarians. One crowning moment of white cowardice came when someone who appeared to be a white clergyman (who else?) screamed, "Please send this boy home to his family."

No, that can never happen, because spawn of Satan do not have 'family.' Only the race of people whom the post-Christian whites have betrayed have a sense of family. All other races have tribal members.

This Haitian-style darkness descending (not so slowly) over Europe and America makes all the blood-splattering horror pictures look tame. White people should drive a stake through the heart of the collective legions of Satan. However, in order to do that, white people would have to believe in good and evil, and unfortunately they have gone 'beyond' good and evil; they have entered that land of pure mind, devoid of spirit and blood.

But what if evil is an objective reality? Will their denial of it make evil non-existent? The white post-Christians' flight from reality has created a virtual kingdom of Satan on earth. It appears that nothing will make the anti-white white see that he lives in Hell. And those "friends" of his, greedily encircling him with cannibalistic glee, are not little black angels, but Satan's minions.

Why the White Man Can Go Home Again

It is clear that white Europeans no longer believe what white European pagans once believed, nor what white European Christians once believed. This is why they are helpless in the face of the "passionate intensity" of the barbarians of color. The barbarians still believe in barbarism.

The white man's history includes three cultures: the pagan Greco-Roman culture, the Christian culture, and the post-Christian culture. If he were totally pagan or totally Christian, the white man could easily resist the colored hordes. But the post-Christian has taken parts of paganism and parts of Christianity and welded them into a faithless faith inferior to paganism and infinitely inferior to Christianity. Let us look at the three faiths.

Neither the pagan nor the Christian share the post-Christian's notion of progress. The post-Christian, having jettisoned his belief in the Second Coming, looks forward to a secular, earthly, democratic kingdom of God without God. Each successive generation progresses until the final generation achieves… What do they achieve? They have progressed. Isn't that enough?

In contrast, the Greek pagan looks not to the future but to the past. In the past is the Golden Age, which will come again because of the natural cycle of history: birth, youth, maturity, and death. Spengler, despite his encyclopedic knowledge (or maybe because of it), shares the pagan view of history with the Greeks.

The Christian, like the post-Christian, also looks to the future, but the Christian does not believe in the generic perfectibility of mankind. He believes in the personal sanctification of individuals acting within history, but his faith in the future is based on his belief in the Second Coming of the Lord of History.

The Greek-pagan view of history requires the least amount of faith, which is probably why it appealed so much to Spengler. The elements of birth, youth, maturity, and death can be seen in every civilization, while the idea that mankind is becoming perfect is ludicrous to anyone with the slightest touch of objectivity, and the Second Coming of Christ has not yet occurred. I stand with the Christians, but there is no sense in denying that from a purely Spenglerian, Greek perspective, the Christian view of history is nonsense.

As we might suspect, cultures that differ so widely in their views of history also differ on the subject of God. The Greek pagan gods are cruel (and Prometheus defies them in the name of humanity), but the Greeks found an escape valve in philosophy. If the human mind can systematize and categorize the entire natural world, from which, according to the Greek mind, God emanates, has not the mind of man become God, since that mind can encompass God?

It is this aspect of paganism, which limits God to the confines of the natural world and deifies the mind of man, that the post-Christian has adopted as his own philosophy. And he has grafted that philosophy onto a secularized, eschatological system which measures man's progress by the amount of knowledge he has accumulated about the natural world. This is why scientific thinking is considered the only real thinking in our post-Christian society.

Of course, the profound difference between the Greek and the Christian is their view of God's humanity. The incarnate Christian God is Promethean in that He loves mankind. But instead of stealing fire from the cruel nature gods, He frees us from the nature gods by triumphing over them. Through His birth, death, and resurrection, He defeats the cyclic nature of the pagan system.

So why, we need to ask, do we need the Greek philosophical escape valve if Christ has defeated the cruel gods of nature? The answer is that post-Christians do not believe Christ has defeated the nature gods. They find it too difficult to believe that all human history could hinge on something that cannot be known with certainty by any empirical, scientific test.

The entire European philosophical and theological system is, in my judgment, an attempt to give mankind the scientific certainty that Christ is the Promethean conqueror of the cruel nature gods. That effort reaches its zenith with St. Thomas's historic separation of nature from grace, which paved the way for Teilhard de Chardin and the post-Christian epoch of the white man's history.

The attempt to scientize God, to make Him subservient to a naturalized system that can be controlled by man, is the original temptation to which Adam and Eve succumbed. And the Europeans' descent from Christianity to a pagan-Christian mix was equivalent to a second fall. European civilization was not paradise in the literal sense, but it was paradise in that the incarnate God made Himself available to every European willing to abandon the search for the magic, scientific talisman and walk through the mystic wardrobe door.

The second fall, the Europeans' fall, seems to be irrevocable. But it is only irrevocable if we look at history through the eyes of the Greek, and if we look at God through the eyes of the post-Christian. If we look at history and at God with the eyes of a Christian, we will know there is no distinction between the practical world of nature and the world of grace. There is only His realm of charity and the realm of Satan. Every act that supports His reign of charity, no matter how quixotic it seems, is of vital importance. Europeans used to believe this. That is why they were able to defeat barbarians time and time again, and why they are so helpless before them now. It is not science, that false messiah, which will save European man, it is the suffering servant who cannot be seen, heard, or comprehended by the scientific, theological, or philosophical mind.

There are no white men, no women, no children and no nations in the hybrid, pagan-Christian world of pure mind. But that world does not have to be our world. We can reject it.

Let me speak now with the privilege of anger that Kent claimed in King Lear. Why should we countenance and even revere those who have offered us a magic Greek talisman instead of Christ? By what right does Augustine, Aquinas, or any of those deceivers speak to a man of flesh and blood, a man who must die? Revelation ends with Christ and theology with St. Paul. St. Paul's way, the way of charity, the way of sympathetic communion with the God who speaks to the hearts of men, is the European way, the only way to God.

European man was distinct because he was foolish. He believed a fairy tale about a heroic God Man rather than the meditations of the great philosophers. And every Christian heretic since that glorious rejection has been trying to convince European man that the fairy tale is simply too foolish to be believed. But in many fairy tales there is some kind of magic cloak which the hero places over himself that confers invisibility or invincibility or something else that is beneficial to him yet baffling to his enemies. So let us put on Christ's burial shroud with the sure and certain hope that it will not stink of death and decay but smell like the flowers growing in the Kingdom of Heaven.

Oh, to be young and foolish again. To believe, not as the pagans believed, nor as the post-Christians now believe, but as St. John believed, as St. Paul believed, and the European Everyman believed. 'Tis a consummation devoutly to be wished.

Never the Twain Shall Meet

The Michael Vick dog-fighting scandal highlights the extreme differences between the barbarian cultures of color and the white post-Christian culture. The white post-Christians have, for the last fifty years or so, been the criminally indulgent parents of their adopted black man-child. If Blacky got in trouble for raping white women and murdering white men, the indulgent parents excused Blacky, because they understood the horrible nightmares, caused by white people, that made Blacky commit the wayward acts. So, Blacky grows up believing that whatever he does, no matter how heinous, will be, if not countenanced, then at least tolerated by his white parents.

"So why," the confused, angry Blacky asks, "Are my parents so harsh with me over this dog-fighting nonsense?" And of course Blacky cannot be expected to understand the white post-Christian; their world is not his world. Blacky does not feel any need for a humane God; he needs only a powerful God. Whether he professes Christianity, Islam, or Vodoo, the god he worships is always a god of power who can be propitiated through sacrifice. There is no God of mercy in his racial memory bank.

The white post-Christian, however, does have a God of mercy in his racial memory bank, although his mind will not accept the preposterous notion of an incarnate God. And yet the post-Christian retains an incredible longing for a merciful God, so he soothes his longing for that God by making a religion out of some of the merciful derivatives of the antique faith. Such a derivative is a respect and affection for God's creatures. It is very touching to read about how fond that most Christian of authors, Walter Scott, was of his pet cat and pet dog. He loved them in a way no barbarian could possibly understand. But Scott's love for animals was not an unacknowledged derivative of his love for the God-Man; he understood the connection. The modern post-Christian does not.

So of course Blacky is confused, hurt, and angry. His white parents are behaving, as he sees it, irrationally. And Blacky is right about that. It is irrational to hold on to the derivatives of a faith once you have rejected the main tenets of that faith. But Blacky's failure to understand his post-Christian parents' abhorrence of dog-fighting is just one more example of why blacks and whites should not mix.

Hitler Revisited

If made-for-T.V. movies and documentaries are any indication of the public's interest and fascination with a subject, then Adolph Hitler is the subject liberals are most fascinated with. Seldom does a week go by without some special on the Führer. Yet for all their fascination with Hitler, the liberals have no understanding of his life or of what he represents.

It used to strike me as strange that the liberals had so little understanding of Hitler, but then I realized that in order for the liberals to understand him and the Nazi phenomenon, they would have to examine their own metaphysic. This they dare not do, because their metaphysic, although diverging at a fork in the road, emanates from the same city as Hitler's metaphysic.

Hitler was not some alien monster from outer space, nor was he a gangster like Stalin or a barbarian like Idi Amin. Hitler was a pagan, as Julian the Apostate was a pagan. Hitler was raised by a devout Catholic mother and an indifferent Catholic father. His childhood was not an unhappy one, but the Christian vision did not inspire him. In this he was not unlike other Austrian and German youths of the early 1900s – Christianity did not inspire them either.

"If men will not have a religion of Christ," William Blake told us, "they will have a religion of Satan." Hitler chose one of Satan's religions for his own, much like his fellow apostate countrymen. The only difference between the apostate Hitler and his apostate countrymen was that he was totally devoted to his new religion, while most of them were indifferent apostates. Hitler chose, like Nietzsche and Wagner (whom he adored), the religion of the ancient Greeks. Of course I don't mean he literally adopted the entire Greek pantheon of gods as his own, but that he adopted pagan naturalism as his own. He sought a return to the gods of the hunt, the field, and the stream. Hitler believed that Christianity had emasculated the German people, and that he, Adolph Hitler, could bring them back to their former glory. This is a very old heresy; the previously-mentioned Julian the Apostate wanted to do the same thing for the Roman empire, namely, restore the empire to its pre-Christian, glory days.

Is this, then, the reason the liberals hate Hitler? Because he wanted to destroy Christianity? Of course not. The liberals also want to destroy Christianity. Do they hate him because he killed a great number of people? No, they do not hate him for that reason either. Stalin and Mao Tse-tung killed more people than Hitler, and the liberals do not hate them. In addition, the liberals have killed more people than Stalin and Mao by way of legalized abortion. So, a little blood for a great cause does not appall the liberals. What does appall them is an anti-Christian ideology that opposes their own anti-Christian ideology. Hitler and the liberals are fighting cousins. What the liberals object to in Hitler is his preference for the racial myth over the liberals' egalitarian, universalist myth.

I think Hitler failed because he did not understand the European people. You can sway most, if not all, non-white cultures by simply appealing to their lust for power. "Follow me and I'll make our race the dominant race in the world," says the non-white demagogue. But white people need something more to inspire them. The pagan Europeans who conquered Rome had power; they had the world in their hands and they found it lacking in substance. They needed something more. And they found something more in the God-Man.

Hitler couldn’t mobilize enough European support because he failed to frame his heresy in the form that Europeans were used to. The democratic heresy and the Marxist heresy, because they were post-Christian heresies, were more appealing to the bulk of the European people. So the post-Christian democracies joined with the post-Christian communists to defeat Hitler.

Personally, I prefer the manliness of Hitler's victory-or-death paganism to Stalin's and Roosevelt's slimy universalism, but that, for a Christian, is not really the point. A Christian is not permitted to choose the lesser of two evils. The proper Christian response during World War II should have consisted of a two-front war, against Russian communism (and its twin sister, American democracy) on the one front, and against Hitler's paganism on the other front. But two-front wars are difficult; only a resolute Christian warrior can maintain such a war. We all tend to pick the lesser of two evils and join in with the more congenial devil. But Christians should know better. In the pre-war days of Hitler's era, the historical record shows that the upper ranks of the pro-monarchy, Austrian-German nobility did know better. They opposed Hitler and the Marxists. (It seems there is some advantage to having a European cultural education that includes more than the catechism. After all, Hitler knew his catechism.)

It is something that gives one pause, this very human tendency to make a pact with the lesser devil. I've never seen it work. The Christian Democratic parties in Latin America and Europe are a disgrace, and I needn't mention the slimy, now largely defunct Christian Coalition in our own country. It is much better to go down fighting a large group of anti-Christian enemies arrayed against you than to be stabbed in the back by a coalition member who suddenly, on the day of battle, decides he hates you more than his other enemy. Or better yet, when one's prayers are pure, because they are not soiled by the desire to please unbelievers, perhaps God will give the victory to the few. Who knows? It's happened before.

Are we now too far afield from the late Führer of the Third Reich? I think not. Hitler is a man we dare not make common cause with, but let us not be deceived into thinking his enemies are creatures of light. They reside in the same city as Hitler – the City of Man-without-God. The Marxist and the Americanist are moving toward a secularized Zion; their eschatology is similar to Christianity except (and the exception is everything) for the absence of Christ. And Hitler bids us return to the Sturm und Drang of paganism.

Hitler seems like the lesser of two evils because, after all, at least in paganism there is a reverence for nature and for something outside of man. Yes, but we must realize that Hitler's paganism, was a post-Christian paganism. The ancient pagan was stuck with paganism until the God-Man came to destroy the pagan gods. Hitler chose the pagan gods over Christ. That is a crucial distinction which we should always have before us. Hitler, if he truly knew Christianity, would not have rejected Christ. In addition, if he truly knew paganism, he would have embraced Christ. Why? Because the two greatest lights of pagan culture – Sophocles and Virgil – both told anyone who bothered to read them that life was meaningless without a God that stood above nature, who guaranteed the spiritual continuance of every creature doomed to go the way of pure nature. Sophocles and Virgil bore witness to the eternal qualities of the human personality. If there was no Christ, then there was nothing but the hell of dumb nature without the life-giving spirit.

In both Oedipus at Colonus and The Aenid there are indications that Sophocles and Virgil intuited the coming of the Messiah. If Hitler had really understood pagan antiquity, he would have rejoiced to have lived to see the coming of the Lord, and he would have wielded the sword on behalf of Christian Germany instead of Nietzsche's Übermensch.

Unlike the liberals, I have not had a life-long fascination with Hitler, but a good biography of him by Marlis Steinert (Hitler, W. W. Norton, 1997) has set me thinking about the man, or actually I should say, about the boy. It is the young Hitler, not the Führer, who interests me. He had depth of soul; he was not as far gone (and I mean this sincerely) as many students I have had. Hitler had a great thirst for beauty and for the transcendent. He was neither a sadist nor a sensualist. And a boy with Hitler's thirst for beauty is easier to reach than a modern student who has no such thirst.

The question is, why did Hitler find his vision of the Third Reich more beautiful than the Christian faith? Well, there is free will, and Hitler ultimately bears the responsibility for his rejection of Christianity, but he was not alone in his rejection. Europeans have for the most part followed Hitler in this rejection of Christianity. They have not all followed Hitler's way, but most have pursued their own godless courses. In Hitler's case, I wonder if the case for Christianity was ever presented to him; was he ever exposed to Chateaubriand's "The Faith is true because it is beautiful" form of apologetics? Was he ever taught that what was good in German culture, including the half-pagan, half-Christian Wagner, was a product of Christian culture? I doubt it.

The sad fact is that when the Christian faith is presented in only a catechistical way, it does seem to be a great polluter of life. Many Christians seem to feel that just as poetry had no place in Plato's Republic, it has no place in the Christian churches. But that is throwing the baby out with the bath water, as the saying goes. The poetic of Christianity is the soul of Christianity. If we take out the beautiful and true story of Christ's death and resurrection in favor of a stripped-down, streamlined version more compatible with the bureaucratic-structured man of today, what will be left of Christianity?

Again, Hitler must answer for his own soul as we all must some day, but I, at the risk of being completely misunderstood, must claim that what I see in Hitler's soul, as evil as it was, is not half as frightening as what I see in the souls of so many of our modern "educated" young people. How can it be otherwise – their gods are even more fearsome than Hitler's pagan gods.

The Hitler movies will keep coming. The liberals need him. They need him to continually prove to the world that they, the liberals, are necessary. Without them, the liberals tell us, we will all either become Nazis or be killed by Nazis.

But the dirty little secret that the liberals hide even from themselves is that Hitler is their child. He does not live in the sanctuaries of the right-wing Christians; he lives with the liberals. And they remain fascinated and appalled by Hitler because he is their own wayward child. They are like the free-love advocate who is appalled when his daughter actually practices what he teaches. "Christ is not risen," scream the liberals.

"Then I will resurrect the old German gods," Hitler replies.

"Why wasn't he able to settle for wine-and-cheese parties?" the liberals lament.

The legions of Satan are diverse; once you have rejected Christ, there is no rule that you must choose the politically-correct version of Satanism. Hitler's great sin was that he chose Apollo over Christ, and his minor virtue was that he was not politically correct.