A Christmas Carol

'I am mortal,' Scrooge remonstrated, 'and liable to fall.'

'Bear but a touch of my hand there,' said the Spirit, laying it upon his heart, 'and you shall be upheld in more than this!'

It’s the time of year when I read A Christmas Carol, Dickens’ marvelous Christmas gift to the people of Europe, with my family. There is always something new that comes across to you when re-reading a great work of literature such as A Christmas Carol. On this reading I was struck by the relative ease with which Scrooge was brought to repentance by Jacob Marley and the three spirits of Christmas. Scrooge was in desperate spiritual straits, which is why the spirits visited him, but he was a mere traditional sinner addicted to greed and avarice. The spirits of Christmas touched his heart by showing him scenes from his childhood, former loves lost because of his avarice, and his eventual lonely demise if he remained obdurate. And Scrooge did repent, but what if he had been a liberal (which is something infinitely worse than a miser)? Would the spirits have had such an easy time of it? Could the Spirit of Christmas Past touch a liberal’s heart as he touched Scrooge’s and transform the liberal into something other than a liberal? No, the triune spirits of Christmas could not melt a liberal’s heart; we have seen the liberals reject the spirits’ overtures time and time again. What enables the liberal to remain steadfast against the light that caused Scrooge to repent? Solzhenitsyn wondered about the phenomenon of the liberals’ stubborn resistance to the light in the second book of his Gulag memoirs. He concluded that it was ideology that gave the liberal such an advantage over the regular sinners like Scrooge and the Macbeths. The Macbeths had guilty consciences after their blood-letting, Solzhenitsyn opined, because they lacked a utopian ideology that could kill all the “compunctious visitings of nature” in the human breast. Burke made the same point as Solzhenitsyn centuries earlier when he wrote about the radical French revolutionaries, the progenitors of the Russian communists and the European liberals:

Nothing can be conceived more hard than the heart of a thoroughbred metaphysician. It comes nearer to the cold malignity of a wicked spirit than to the frailty and passion of a man. It is like that of the principle of evil himself, incorporeal, pure, unmixed, dephlegmated, defecated evil.

To completely divest oneself of all humanity is no easy task, but the liberal, for all practical purposes, has done it. He has built a world where every good and noble sentiment stemming from the human heart is condemned by law, or else, if not proscribed by law, covered with scorn and ridicule. The liberal has succeeded where Scrooge failed, because he has made his rebellion against the light into religious orthodoxy. He has become a Jew by hardening his heart just like the Jew:

You may as well do anything most hard,
As seek to soften (than which what’s harder?)
His Jewish heart.

The spirits of Christmas had to convince Scrooge that his contra mundum stance had alienated him from his fellow men by killing the ties, such as our attachments to kith and kin, that make us human. The spirits of Christmas have quite a different task ahead of them, a much more difficult task, when they face off against the modern liberal. Unlike Scrooge, the liberal is not, at least at the superficial level, an outcast from his fellow men. Nor is the liberal contra mundum; quite the contrary, he is completely in sync with the modern world. It’s ironic – the repentant Scrooge, were he to be transported to modern Liberaldom, would have to be contra mundum if he wanted to hold onto his new faith in the God who “made lame beggars walk and blind men see.” The repentant Scrooge living in modern Babylon would face different visitations than the unrepentant Scrooge living in Christendom faced. The satanic Spirit of Earth Days Past would show him the girl he could have married had he been willing to abandon his sexist, patriarchal notions of marriage. He would also show him scenes of his childhood in which the other children shunned him because he didn’t worship negroes or blaspheme the living God. Then the demonic Spirit of Liberaldom Present would show Scrooge all the jobs he had lost because he would not bend his knee to Babylon. And finally the Spirit of Liberaldom Future would show Scrooge his lonely demise, shunned by his fellow men for his refusal to worship the gods of Liberaldom. But of course the satanic spirits would not show Scrooge what awaits him beyond the grave, a crown of glory, for having fought the good fight. Nor will any of the demonic spirits of Liberaldom past, present, or future, show their adherents what awaits them when they cross the bar.

A direct attack on God Himself is beyond Satan’s capabilities. But he can attack His people. Following the same procedure that a farmer might follow to eliminate vermin (and that is how Satan views human beings) Satan works to destroy the breeding grounds for God’s grace. He seeks to separate a man from his ties to kith and kin that enable him to feel there is a human heart at the center of the universe. “From my hearth fire,” the antique European asserts, “to His heavenly kingdom is not such a great leap, because my God has taken flesh and dwelt amongst us.” The desire to keep the vision of a loving God revealed to us at the European hearth remains the same. But the struggle has changed. The arch enemy of mankind has shifted the scene of battle. Satan used to fight contra mundum; he was against Christian Europe, but in the Babylonian present he fights in defense of Liberaldom. The antique European now must be contra mundum; he is against the Babylonian state, against the negro-worshipping church, and against the new family structure of the liberals which consists of inter-racial couples gathered around one universal bonfire dedicated to the gods of Babylon.

The antique Europeans’ situation is far from hopeless. We are no worse off, as regards the numbers arrayed against us, than Alexander Smollett was when he flew his sovereign’s colors in defiance of a seemingly invincible horde of pirates. But we must respond to the liberal-barbarian coalition as Smollet responded to the pirates. He was confident in the rightness of his cause, and he knew that his enemies had an implacable hatred for him and his fellow Englishmen. The fight had to be to the death; pirates do not give quarter. Nor do the liberals and their barbarian colored allies give quarter to white Europeans. Babylonians can never unite in love, because there is no love in Babylon, but they can unite in hate. And they hate with the satanic fury of a people wedded to darkness. If the remnant band of whites were to be eliminated the dark races and the liberals would dry up and die, because the sum total of their lives is the hatred of the white, and they feed off that hatred like vultures feed on carrion.

You can’t reason with the liberals or the colored tribesmen. Their hatred is deeply ingrained in their souls, and they will not abandon it because it is wrong -- they have declared that wrong is right – or because it is un-Christian – they are at war with Christ. Jean de La Fontaine wrote a fable called “The Wolf and the Lamb” that the European who wishes to remain European should take note of.

Might has a conquering logic of its own,
As will immediately be shown.

A Lamb one morning to the brink
Of a clear stream went down to drink.
A Wolf adventuring in quest of food
Came to the spot, and flew into a passion,
Saying: ‘I like your hardihood,
To foul my drink in this disgusting fashion.
Now for the chastisement I owe you!’
‘Nay,’ said the Lamb, ‘so please Your Grace,
Your Lordship’s wrath is out of place.
A moment’s thought will clearly show you
I’m drinking twenty yards below you,
And therefore cannot possibly
Befoul your beverage in the least degree.’
‘You do,’ he snarled; ‘moreover, I’ll be sworn
‘Twas you maligned me last July.’
‘How could I, when I wasn’t born?
I’m not yet weaned,’ was the reply.
‘Well, if it wasn’t you, it was your brother.’
‘I have none.’ ‘Then it was some other
Of your insufferable crew--
‘Tis common talk on every side.
I’m sick of being vilified
By sheep, lambs, dogs, and shepherds too:
‘Tis time I made my vengeance good.’
Thereon he haled him to the wood,
And ate him in a righteous fury
Without recourse to judge or jury.

The antique European has been found guilty, “without recourse to judge or jury,” of crimes against the colored races. And for his crimes he, and all those who refuse to renounce him, are to be destroyed as the Lamb in La Fontaine’s fable was destroyed. If you feel angry at the unjust condemnation of the ancient Europeans, and if you are enraged at the liberals’ efforts, in tandem with the colored barbarians, to destroy the European remnant, you will face the liberal and colored coalition with the resolve of the European heroes of old. We are told to hate the devil and his works. The techno barbaric-colored barbaric world of Liberaldom is the work of Satan. The passionate love of our people, the remnant Europeans, will enkindle a hate for Liberaldom that will ultimately break down the walls of Liberaldom. What is needful is that the European should hate and love with all his heart.

It’s quite telling that Scrooge’s journey toward redemption starts when the Spirit of Christmas Past touches his heart. That is our starting point for a European counter-revolution: a heart connected to our European past. Christ loved so much that He refused to let those He loved die. We, who love His people and the Little European Town of Bethlehem that they built and consecrated to Him, should love enough to keep the European Bethlehem alive.

The modern liberal professes to be very wise, much wiser than the Europeans of the past. But if the liberal is so wise, why does he worship the ignoble black savage? And the churchmen who ape the beliefs of the liberals? Why does their new faith of the illuminated elect boil down, in practice, to the worship of the negro? Because the modern liberal and the modern cleric have forsaken the incarnate God of the Christmas Carol for a mind-forged, esoteric system that bids its devotees kill the heart so that the mind can be ‘illuminated.’

And we see before us the results of their wonderful cogitations. We must reject their world, in which the Light of the world is replaced by darkness, and stay connected to the non-esoteric world of Dickens’ Christmas Carol. That is our world, a world where a repentant sinner can become a man with a heart connected to His Sacred Heart:

…and it was always said of him that he knew how to keep Christmas well, if any man alive possessed the knowledge. May that be truly said of us, and all of us! And so, as Tiny Tim observed, God bless Us, Every One!

+++

In Remembrance

“Why, it’s old Fezziwig! Bless his heart; it’s Fezziwig alive again!” – from A Christmas Carol

I’ve now become old enough (how did it happen?) to bore my children with “when I was young” or “when I was your age” stories. So let me proceed with a “when I was young” story.

When I was young there was a television show called Tombstone Territory. The Theme song (most Westerns had to have a theme song) went something like this:

Whistle me back a memory
Whistle me back where I wanna be,
Whistle a tune that will carry me
To Tombstone Territory.

When your past has gone afoul of the law
It’s a handy place to be
Because your future’s just as good as your draw
In Tombstone Territory.

It’s been 45 years since the show aired, so I might be a bit sketchy about the words, but I think I’ve captured the sentiment. As the theme song indicated, Tombstone Territory was not yet part of the United States; bad men went there to escape from their crimes. The show featured a different good guy every week that would go into Tombstone in order to put “paid” to the account of a bad guy, who found out, too late, that he couldn’t escape from the knights without armor who dealt out justice without regard to legalistic technicalities.

After that mini-introduction you would be entitled to anticipate an article about Westerns. Well, even though I’m due for another article on Westerns, this article is not going to be about Westerns. It’s going to be about whistling back a memory, a memory of Dickens’ London.

Do you recall old Fezziwig, who employed Ebenezer Scrooge when he was a young man? If you do then you will know that Fezziwig was a wonderful employer and a man who kept Christmas as it should be kept. But there is another aspect of the Fezziwig story that should be told.

__________________

A young orphan boy, about the same age as Oliver Twist when he roamed the streets of London, found himself alone and homeless and desperately trying to avoid the Fagins of the world who prey on the innocent. When hope seemed nearly gone the young orphan was rescued from the streets by the self-same Fezziwig of the Christmas Carol. Fezziwig, who was about 35 at the time, took the young orphan into his family home and he and his wife raised him as their own. He taught Johnathan, for so he was named, that God was love, and he made Johnathan feel loved by God by loving him in the name of God. And when the time came for Jonathan to enter the world, Fezziwig started him in a business of his own. Such men are rare indeed.

A few years after Fezziwig’s Christmas party, depicted in A Christmas Carol, Fezziwig was put on trial for fraud, embezzlement, counterfeiting, and numerous other charges including that of sorcery. In point of fact all the charges were false. They were put forward by a cabal of sophisters, economists, and calculators who sought to ruin Fezziwig. Some sought his ruin because they hoped to profit financially by his demise, and others sought his ruin because they hated any man who refused to descend to their level of inhumanity. The fiendish cabal succeeded! Fezziwig was ruined and sent to prison, where he died in the first month of a 20-year sentence.

During the trial only Johnathan Fezziwig spoke in defense of Fezziwig. But he had no hard evidence of Fezziwig’s innocence to speak of. All he could speak of was Fezziwig’s kindness to a poor orphan boy, and of his kindness to the poor and to his employees.

Johnathan also told the court that Fezziwig’s voice always trembled with emotion when he read certain passages from the Bible, especially those passages which described Christ’s miracles of charity, such as the raising of Jairus’s daughter and the raising of Lazarus from the dead.

“Objection. Such anecdotes are hardly relevant,” the prosecuting attorney asserted.

“Objection sustained,” the judge replied. “You will confine your remarks to hard evidence.”

But Johnathan had no “hard evidence,” only a deep and abiding love for a man he knew, with a certainty deeper and more profound than mathematical certainty, to be the finest, noblest man that ever lived.

The trial and the subsequent death of Fezziwig did not change Johnathan’s desire to restore Fezziwig’s reputation and to reclaim Fezziwig’s business from the sophisters, economists, and calculators. Johnathan wanted to restore Fezziwig’s reputation because he loved him, and regarding the business: Johnathan didn’t want to reclaim it because he needed money; he wanted to reclaim Fezziwig’s business because he knew the new owners (the sophisters, economists, and calculators) had not charity. Under their reign, the beast in man would rule instead of the divinity in man.

What happened to all of Fezziwig’s friends? Johnathan went to them after Fezziwig’s death and asked them to help him restore Fezziwig’s reputation and reclaim his business. Joseph Gage, an Alderman, told him, “I liked old Fezziwig; I never thought the serious charges against him were true. But he was a man who had 'a taste'. At some of those Christmas parties he gave I’m sure he was intoxicated. Yes, he had his faults, old Fezziwig did, and you’d best forget about trying to restore his reputation and reclaim his business. Things will get along nicely without him.”

William Taylor, city clerk: “Fezziwig seemed to be a good man, but obviously he wasn’t since the courts found him guilty of so many terrible crimes. It just goes to show you that you really can’t know a man properly until he goes to court or dies. That way you have access to all his secret papers.”

Richard Allen, neighbor: “Nothing surprises me about that man. He was enamored of works. He thought all of the charity work he did would be pleasing to God. But our works are rags; we are saved by grace. I’m sorry for you, Johnathan, but you should not have made a whited sepulcher of Fezziwig.”

Johnathan: “He never sought to buy his way into heaven, Mr. Allen. He gave because he felt sorry for people; it was that simple.”

Allen (with an insufferable, more-pious-than-thou look on his face): “I think you see Fezziwig with rose-tinted glasses. I see him for what he was: a sinner who thought he could get to heaven through works alone.”

And so it went. Johnathan soon gave up trying to enlist the support of Fezziwig’s “friends.” He had one last hope; he sought out the man who had been Fezziwig’s pastor for the last thirty years of his life, the Rev. George Grey.

Johnathan: “Do you believe the charges against him?”

Rev. Grey: “I don’t know what to believe. I didn’t attend the trial, and they wouldn’t let me see him in prison.”

Johnathan: “But you worked with him on so many charitable projects. You were a guest at his house. Surely you must have known the man?”

Grey: “He seemed to be a good man, but what am I to think about all the testimony against him?”

Johnathan: “But Reverend, look at the men who testified against him. They are the scum of the earth not fit to tie his shoelaces, let alone supplant him in his business. What will happen to all your charitable enterprises without Fezziwig? He was the heart and soul of the charitable outreach in this church for the past 45 years.”

Grey: “I see no reason why Fezziwig’s successors can’t carry on the same charitable activities that Fezziwig maintained. In fact their business should do better because they have brought in Chinese and African labor.”

Johnathan: “Are they maintaining the charities?”

Grey: “Well, no, not at present, but I have every hope that they will in the future.”

Johnathan: “It’s always in the future, isn’t it, Reverend?”

Grey: “I think we all must look to the future, Johnathan. And I must say, at the risk of giving offence, that you have an overly romanticized view of Fezziwig. He is in the past; you should look to the future.”

Johnathan: “I don’t think I’ll take your advice, Reverend. I’ll stay with Fezziwig and Fezziwig’s God."

Grey: “You’re taking a very narrow view of things.”

Johnathan: “Yes, I am. Didn’t someone once say something about a narrow gate?”

Grey: “I fear…”

Johnathan: “That I’m going to wrong those honorable men? I’m not going to wrong them. I’m going to see justice done. You won’t see me at church anymore, but when you read about the untimely deaths of a few sophisters, economists, and calculators, you’ll know that a narrow-minded, overly romantical, Fezziwig-partisan is still in the vicinity.”

__________________

There is a moral gulf between the pre-20^th century European and the modern European that makes one believe the pre-modern European is a different species from the modern European. An even wider moral gulf exists between the colored peoples and the pre-modern European. The contrast seems to be the greatest between the pre-modern white and the black, but the moral gulf is an infinity of cubits wide between the pre-modern European and all the colored races, Asians, brown, etc.

The reason for the moral gulf is Jesus Christ. The pre-modern Europeans took Him into their hearts and hearths and became the Christ-bearers to the heathen nations. In contrast the modern Europeans of the 20^th and 21^st centuries rejected Christ and became the vanguard of Satan, destroying everything European and Christian in order to create a kingdom of Satan on earth.

In the satanic phase of his history the European sought out the colored tribes, not to convert them as he attempted to do during the Christian stage of his history, but to mix his blood with theirs in order to eradicate the European from the face of the earth. Modern anti-Christian Christians who mix their blood with the colored in order to “Christianize” them must answer the question, “Why, when Christianity was the faith of the European people, didn’t the Europeans mix their blood with that of the colored people?” It seemed clear to the antique Europeans that in order to convert the heathen it was necessary to stay European. A mixed colored and European race soon becomes a thoroughly colored monster race. The New Age Christian, who wants Christianity and race-mixing, is always forced by the logic of his new Christ-less faith to deny the European Christianity of his ancestors and replace it with a propositional faith that can be all things to all people. In the new Babylonian Christianity, Christ is part Buddha, part witch doctor, and part guru, but he is not the Son of God whom the Europeans of old worshipped in spirit and in truth.

That the antique European’s vision of Christ is the true vision we should not question for one moment. There will always be the Twains, the Shaws, and the Voltaires who want to treat the European miracle as a debatable hypothesis or even as an outright falsehood. Such creatures are not seeking the truth. They, like Satan, their mentor, cannot stand to look upon a God who loves according to what is in the heart, not the head. Nor can they abide a people who prefer to be ruled by the Man of Sorrows rather than by satanic theories from the pygmy brains of the anti-European intellectuals. It is the task of the remnant Europeans – there will always be a remnant – to stay bound in spirit and blood to their ancestors and their God so that the prodigals can return to the fold and the heathen can see The Light of the nations.

In England radical “educators” are trying to ban the use of white paper in the schools because they feel the use of white paper gives black children the idea that white is good and black is bad. There is a demonic wisdom in the educators’ new gambit. They have comprehended there is a mystical element to race, but because they are satanic liberals they have inverted the racial hierarchy. In reality, the white represents the extreme good and the black the extreme evil with the other races in between. Farfetched? No, it is not. Good and evil exist in every race, but the potentialities for evil and good are not the same in every race. We are more appalled at the evil white men do because of what we know they can be, and we are less appalled – or should we say less surprised – at the evil colored people do because we don’t expect as much from them as we do from the white man. Such sentiments stem from prejudice, a prejudice derived from looking through the eye at the differences between modern Europeans, the colored peoples, and the antique Europeans. The liberals have an opposing view; they see a black race of people who should be worshipped above all other people by a supporting cast of Asians, Indians, and liberals. It falls to us, the remnant Europeans, to defend Europe against the modern Babylonians, not to debate with them, for if we debate with the liberals we concede that the absolute necessity of the survival of the Christ-bearing race is a debatable point. Such a concession is blasphemy. Better to be against the world than against our God. +

That Which We Hold Dear

And Memory, Use, and Love make live
Us and our fields alike—

--Rudyard Kipling

In Arthur Koestler’s autobiography he told of a woman who had spent years as a devoted communist and then one day became an ardent anti-communist. Koestler, now a former communist himself, asked her why she had left the Party. She replied, “One night I heard screams.” Of course there had been nights and nights of screams, but one night the screams of one tortured soul penetrated the soul of a communist who thought there was no such thing as a soul. Such conversions were rare, Koestler went on to say, but they did occur.

Because “one night I heard screams” conversions sometimes occur, we should never stop trying to report the atrocities of the black barbarians. There is always the chance that an atrocity story will penetrate the soul of a liberal and he will be converted, but we cannot make the reporting of atrocity stories our only hope. In the main, the liberals have formed a protective shell around their hearts that makes them immune to an appeal for charity and mercy. Augustine once said that there was one deathbed conversion in Scripture, lest you despair; but there was only one lest you presume. We cannot hope for the equivalent of mass deathbed conversions from liberals as a result of getting the information out about black atrocities. What can we hope for then, in lieu of the conversion of the liberals? We can hope and work for the destruction of Negro worshipping Liberaldom.

In a centralized state such as the United States only a small minority of people are really committed to the preservation of the state. The vast majority of people are merely grazers; they go along with the powers that be, but if a different group took over the grazers would go along with them. The late John Tyndale, a British Nationalist, was well aware of the grazers. He once wrote an article explaining that more often than not he found that the British grazers agreed with him on the necessity of a white Britain, but they wouldn’t support him because they feared the loss of their jobs and the stigma of “racist.” Seize electoral power, Tyndale argued, and the grazers would go along with the new powers that be, the BNP. I agree with Tyndale about the grazers, but I don’t think you can defeat democratic, utopian liberalism from within utopia. You must destroy utopia and rebuild Christian Europe.

Behind Negro worshipping diversity is the desire to eliminate all that elevates a man to a spiritual plane above the nature-worshipping societies of antiquity. And the return to nature, which results in the worship of the savage, occurred in the European world when religious faith became a philosophy. When a man looks at religious faith philosophically he has already started the divorce proceedings between his heart and his head that will lead to the betrayal of his God and his people. He is a man fit for treasons, stratagems, and spoils. Stanley Weyman, in his novel The Long Night, depicts a staunch and principled Switzer who betrays his people during their wars with Savoy because he succumbs to the philosophical temptation.

After all, a live dog is better than a dead lion – only you will not see it. We are ruled, the most of us, by our feelings, and die for our side without asking ourselves whether a single person would be a ducat the worse if the other side won. It is not philosophical, with another shrug. “That is all.”

Therein lies the key to the demise of the European. The devil bids us divorce ourselves from our people and our God in the name of a higher philosophical principle. In reality, an egotistical adherence to a “higher” philosophical principle, higher than “mere feelings,” leaves a man in a morally ambivalent state in which he can be easily manipulated by the devil.

This brings us to the necessity of concluding that the upholders of mere dialectic, whether they appear in this modern form or in another, are among the most subversive enemies of society and culture. They are attacking an ultimate source of cohesion in the interest of a doctrine which can issue only in nullity. It is no service to man to impugn his feeling about the world qua feeling. Feeling is the source of that healthful tension between man and what is – both objectively and subjectively. If man could be brought to believe that all feeling about the world is wrong, there would be nothing for him but collapse. -- Richard Weaver

The European has been brought to believe that all his feeling about the world is wrong, and he has indeed collapsed. The abstract philosophical poison, the European’s inheritance from Greece, killed the Roman Empire, and then in turn killed Christian Europe. It’s not hard to see why the Greek poison is so deadly, nor is it hard to see why men drink it so readily. The Greek philosophical poison consists of the “you shall be as God” liquid. If existence can be put in the silver rod of the philosopher, the philosopher can become God. It’s ironic that Plato, the most anti-European of the Greek philosophers, has been carried in the humanities curriculums of European universities for century after century. Plato’s cruel utopia, where the patriarchal family is outlawed, abortion is legal, and all ties of kith and kin are obliterated for the sake of the common good of an abstract humanity, was to become a shining light to anti-European intellectuals throughout the long history of Christian Europe.

Every utopia is antithetical to Christianity, even though many utopian schemes, in fact most utopian schemes, come from heretical Christians. Christianity celebrates the living God who saved individual human beings from sin and death. The utopian celebrates humanity in the abstract, which he plans to deliver from the pain of existence by virtue of the power of his mind. Such egomania always ends in oblivion, because individual human beings cannot live in the prison of the abstracted mind, abstracted from God and from man. The Roman Catholic priest, Jean Meslier, who rejected Christianity for his own abstract theology of utopia, at least had the decency to follow his abstract theory to its logical conclusion: After stating “I myself am not more than nothing…,” he committed suicide. The same fate has befallen the modern European people; believing they are nothing, a people without kith or kin, they are committing suicide.

All my life I’ve heard of the Greco-Roman heritage of Europe. And the unchallenged assumption is that the Greco-Roman heritage is good. But the type of heritage that liberals and conservatives are referring to, the Greek philosophical tradition and the Roman organization, have not been good for Europe. The discarded poetical heritage of Homer, Sophocles, and Virgil, the men who felt that there was a God beyond the gods, would have been a heritage for the Europeans to build upon, but it was not that heritage that became “our Greco-Roman heritage.”

Our Greco-Roman heritage is the heritage of the utopian Greek philosophers and the race-mixing Romans who put loyalty to the idea of Rome above loyalty to one’s blood. The startling fact that comes to the forefront when we look at the European’s history is that the classicists have always regarded the European as a barbarian because the European regarded the purity of his race as something sacred. I remember being shocked, because I had always been told the Europeans who invaded Rome were barbarians, when I first read about the real Europeans, such as Dietrich of Berne and Alaric the Goth, men of great heart and of a great civilization. They kept what was good in the Roman empire, the Christian faith, and discarded what was evil, the Roman policy of mongrelization in the name of Roman unity. It was the task of the European hero then, as it is his task now, to keep the Greco-Roman hell-hound at bay.

Right from the beginning then, there was a Greco-roman dagger aimed at the heart of European civilization. So long as the Europeans’ maintained their bloodlines, they were shielded from the Greco-Roman dagger. But when the shield of race was lowered the dagger of the Greek philosophic tradition and mongrelizing Rome was able to penetrate to the heart of the European civilization. In the purely material world a dagger to the heart is fatal, but in the real world, the world of the European fairy tales, a man and his people can survive a dagger to the heart; they can rise again, and ride triumphant over ruin and death.

Of course all talk of the European riding triumphant over anything is futile if he doesn’t recover his identity as a European. He is the Christ-bearer who preserved the faith by preserving the purity of his race. Whenever he wavered toward a Greco-Roman-philosophical utopia, his faith in the living God diminished. How could it be otherwise? Love, charity, and mercy stem from a living God, a God who is man and God; they cannot exist as philosophical abstractions or the “ethical ideals” of an organization dedicated to one-world, one-family, one-multicolored race.

The first European Christians viewed fidelity to their race as they viewed fidelity to their wife and fidelity to their God. The liberals accept that European vision of race and faith as the true Christianity, and then damn Christianity. The halfway-house Christians condemn the “racist” faith of the antique Europeans and point to a new Christianity where Christ appears, blesses Babylon, and then leaves the stage.

Can there be any faith in Christ outside the hearth fires of the condemned Europeans? The answer to that question is obvious to anyone who has a heart that still lives. The path through the European woods takes us to Him; the path through the new improved woods of the liberals leads to Babylon, and beyond that, hell. I have no desire to be wiser than my ancestors. They knew and loved God because of His divine humanity. They saw the human in the divine, because they were faithful to a particular race of people, not a philosophical utopia or a multi-racial organization. The European cottage in the woods, when inhabited by men and women of our own race, is infinitely more beautiful than the gaudy palaces of Babylon peopled by an indeterminate race of subhuman monstrosities. In the former dwelling we see the face of Christ reflected in his people; in the latter we see only darkness. We’ve truly lost our way if we prefer the Babylonian palace to the European cottage. +

Blood Shall Bring It Down

Your country is desolate, your cities are burned with fire; your land, strangers devour it in your presence, and it is desolate, as overthrown by strangers. Isaiah 1:7

I’ll always be grateful to Walt Disney, the Hans Christian Andersen of America, for keeping the European storytelling tradition alive in his wonderful movies. My parents were math-and-science people who didn’t have much use for stories, so my first exposure to the European storyland came to me from the films of Mr. Disney.

I saw most of the Disney films in one of those big old plush theaters that no longer exist. A quarter bought you an enormous box of popcorn, which I’m sure was meant to make us thirsty for the theater’s over-priced soft drinks. But my mother gave us enough money (a child could go to the movies in those days without an armed escort) to pay for the movie and one box of popcorn. No soda. I get thirsty now just thinking about eating all that popcorn without any liquid, but I don’t recall feeling thirsty during the movie. Perhaps our eat-popcorn-without-getting-thirsty gene deteriorates with age like our eat-enormous-quantities-of-chocolate-chip-cookies-without-getting-sick gene.

I saw most of Walt Disney’s films, animated and live action, when I was a child; and when I was an adult, before the day of VCR and DVD, I tried to see the re-releases of the old classics such as Snow White and Pinocchio.

In my early twenties, about thirty years ago, I went to see a re-release of the Disney classic, The Song of the South. At that time in my life I was not unaware of the growing insanity about the Negroes and their newly sainted status, but I was not yet aware of the extent of the mass Negro-worshipping insanity that had taken hold of the country. Outside the theater was a huge protest group, consisting of white liberals and blacks. The protestors formed a ring around the theater, and they were doing the usual ranting and raving while carrying placards denouncing racism and Walt Disney. All the signs and the protestors struck me as offensive, but one sign and one protestor struck me as particularly offensive. A fat, mad-dog liberal was carrying a sign that depicted a pornographic image of Minnie Mouse and Walt Disney. Liberals always use pornography when they protest any aspect of the older, white, European culture. And that makes sense, because the Babylon that they bid us return to is nothing more than the institutionalization of an endless cycle of pornography.

The holder of the particularly loathsome placard was offended when I destroyed his poster, but fortunately for me the policemen presiding over the protest weren’t too fond of the protestors. I was told to go into the movie theater and to refrain from hitting anyone, but I was not arrested for destroying the liberal’s sign. I was fortunate; I don’t think our modern police would have been as sympathetic to an outraged white man.

I doubt that many of the protestors, black or white, had seen the movie the Song of the South, but let’s assume that some of the protestors had seen the movie. Why the protest? Why was this the last theatrical re-release of the movie? Why must you now get a pirated copy from Europe if you want to see the movie on DVD or VHS? The reason is quite simple. The hero of the movie is Uncle Remus, a kindly old black man, who loves his white master, and especially loves his white master’s young son. I have my doubts that such loyal darkies ever existed, but there is a spate of old novels by Dixon, Caroline Gordon, and Margaret Mitchell that claim there once really were some good darkies. Thomas Nelson Page, in his short story “MAM’ LYDDY’S Recognition,” probably came closest to the truth. He depicts a good, darkie, ‘house servant’ who becomes corrupted when the family moves up North, where she is exposed to “free niggers.” She returns to sanity when one of the free niggers tries to make free with her life savings, and her good, kind, white master saves her from the clutches of the free nigger. Happy day! But Uncle Remus never falls from grace. Through his fidelity to the traditions of his white masters, he inspires the white people to live up to their traditions. The message is clear: white people and the civilization they created are good; black people can only be good by being faithful and loyal to their white masters within a hierarchal structure in which they are subordinate but loved. That image of white and black brought out the black barbarian protestors and the mad-dog liberal protestors. There were only three black people in the theater, among a sea of white people, at the time I saw Song of the South -- a black mother with her two children. Apparently that unenlightened black woman thought Uncle Remus was a better role model for her children than Superfly or Shaft. Are there no limits to the foolishness of the un-illuminated?

Thirty years ago the concrete supporting the Negro-worshipping edifice of Liberaldom was in the process of hardening. Now it has solidified. Every aspect of European culture that reminded men they were born for something more than eternal Babylon has been eliminated. The word ‘European’ has become a devil word, and Europeans who still revere the memory of antique Europe have dwindled down to a precious few. It would be very comforting if the faithful Europeans were more than a precious few, but a few good men were enough for our Lord.

The coalition at the movie theater of black barbarians, anti-Christian clergymen, Jewish Marxists, and mad-dog liberals was a cross-sample of the satanic coalition that is always present when the Christian European tradition is attacked. And the battering ram of the liberal coalition is Negro worship. A war should not be so one-sided. The heirs of the Christ bearers should not leave the field without having ever unsheathed their swords. If every white European falls in line with Negro worship, the Babylonian liberals will reign unchallenged. They will make their sacrifices to the black gods while saturating themselves and the people they rule in the soullessness of pornographic Babylon.

It is the fusionist faith of the Christian churches that has placed the European at the mercy of the Babylonian Inquisition. When Christianity is joined to black barbarianism it becomes satanic, just as it does when it is fused with Islam, Judaism, paganism or any other faith. Nor can the Christ-bearing race be fused with the colored races and continue to be the Christ-bearing race. Such a race of people becomes a non-race of people and is absorbed into the multi-colored soulless world of Babylon. The antique European is not any worse off, in terms of his numerical disadvantages, than was Alfred and his small band of Englishmen when they met in one tiny corner of Christian England and vowed to retake England from the heathen Danes. Nor is the modern European any more outnumbered than the stalwart Spaniards of 770 A.D. who met in a cave and vowed to fight to the knife against their Muslim overlords. What is lacking in the modern European is a clear vision of the God he is fighting for and the enemy he is fighting against. It is always Satan, with his angelic intelligence divorced from the divine humanity of God, that we fight against.

Once we know the primary attribute of Satan, intelligence divorced from divine humanity, we can always recognize Satan and his minions, no matter how they try to disguise their work. If the modern clergymen denounce the faith of old Europe in the name of a new, more intelligent, fusionist faith of black barbarism and Christianity, and if they renounce the people of old Europe for the new, black man-gods of Negro-worshipping Christianity, we will know them for what they are despite their clerical garments and their adherence to the outward forms of Christian worship. They are Satan’s own, and they should be dealt with as Satan’s own.

Twelve hundred and nineteen times Jennet Clouston (Kidnapped) hurled her curse at the house of Shaws: “Blood built it; blood stopped the building of it; blood shall bring it down.” The blood of our Savior built Christian Europe; the betrayal of His blood brought it down; and the renewal of our blood ties to Him and His Europe can restore Christian Europe and bring down Liberaldom. Satan knows that a restoration is possible, which is why he is ever-vigilant. He intends to wash away even the memory of Christian Europe by keeping the European immersed in the filth of a Negro-worshipping Babylon. Every time a human personality, a European, attempts to attack Babylon, Satan will loose his hell-hounds on the offending European. But I have great faith in the remnant band of Europeans that hate and love, like Jennet Clouston and Thomas Nelson Page’s Goth, with all their heart.

Walt Disney also made a movie called So Dear to My Heart. It was a simple tale of a young boy’s life on a Missouri farm, much like the one where Mr. Disney spent the happiest years of his childhood. The Europe proscribed by the liberals is dear to my heart. I feel a sorrow too deep for tears at its destruction; a hate beyond all passion for those who have destroyed Christian Europe and continue to calumniate it; and a love beyond all power of expression for the memory of Christian Europe and the people whose fidelity to Christ created Christian Europe. There must be other Europeans who feel as I do. Such love and hate, felt deep in the blood, will restore Europe and bring Liberaldom down. +

“Because he hath set his love upon me, therefore will I deliver him: I will set him on high, because he hath known my name.” – Psalm 91:14