The Gingerbread House

I would dispute those liberals who claim fascism is from the Right; it really has nothing in common, as Nicolai Tolstoy points out in his book, Stalin’s Secret War, with the Christian right. It is, however, to the right of socialist liberalism. Fascism incorporates some old pagan elements (Mussolini changed his allegiance from communism to fascism, for instance, because he claimed communism lacked virility) that the socialists eschew; therefore, to the modern mind, fascism is to the right and communism is to the left.

Most of ‘apocalyptic’ literature, warning us of the dangers of totalitarianism, such as Huxley’s Brave New World, Orwell’s 1984, and Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451, warn us of a fascist government (Orwell’s Animal Farm of course warns us of socialist totalitarianism). But whether the authors warn us of a communist or fascist dictatorship, they all perceive totalitarian societies as based on non-subtle (overt?), masculine force. They all have failed to envision a totalitarian society that was subtle, seductive, and feminine. The most successful totalitarian government in history has been the United States. Using feminine coercion rather than masculine, the U.S. has accomplished much more than Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini or any other 2-bit dictator ever hoped to accomplish.

In Fahrenheit 451, my favorite of the apocalyptic novels, Bradbury correctly notes that a totalitarian government must, if it is to maintain itself, kill history. There must be no historical consciousness; there must only be the reigning government, which has always been, and always will be, world without end. In Bradbury’s novel, the government kills history by burning all books from the past.

But a colony of rebels keeps the past alive by having each member of their rebel band memorize a book. In the novel, naked force is effective to a certain extent, but it is not all-powerful because there is a resistance movement that could eventually destroy the existing regime.

The U.S. has conquered by using the ‘Gingerbread House’ technique used by the witch in the story “Hansel and Gretel.” Books about the past are not banned, they are simply packaged in scorn and printed with ridicule, while modernism comes in a gingerbread house. And in the modern American gingerbread house, no one has enough sense to realize that the feminine force responsible for the gingerbread house is demonic. In the corner of the house, little Joey Brill is munching on democracy cookies; Joe Average American is eating blood-and-circus candied apples, while Mr. Good Solid Citizen eats constitutional brownies and capitalist donuts. And who is that on the roof? Why, it’s the ever-evolving and revolving Sally Cupcake eating the gingerbread house chimney made of progressive dough and feminist icing. Munching on the cinnamon door is race-mixing Lou, and over by the stove is… Well, you get the picture.

The great satanic wisdom of American totalitarianism is this: if you ban the old books and the old traditions, the people might still love them enough to fight for their restoration. But if you give them a gingerbread house to munch on and coat the older books and traditions in monkey vomit, the people will joyfully let the old books remain unread and the old traditions die.

We are in a much more sorry plight than the doomsday prophets predicted. Traditions cannot be simply dug up to settle a contemporary score with an opponent. They can only come to life if they are loved. Pinocchio will always be more relevant than Darwin.

To Win or Die with Europe

Although underreported, it is now clear that the United States has shown far too little concern for the civilian casualties of Iraq. Should this surprise us? How can a nation that has so little respect for its own peoples’ desire for a secure homeland have any respect for another peoples’ homeland.

Every American of European ancestry is told from the first hour of his birth that he has been born into a unique nation. His is a proud inheritance. Is it really? It doesn’t seem that way to me. I’m proud of the Christian inheritance my ancestors brought over from Europe, but I’m not proud of an anti-nation that respects creed over blood, religious diversity over Christianity, freedom over virtue, and the power of government over the hearth.

Despite the fact that we are told we don’t need a homeland founded on a common faith and common ties of blood, many American Europeans still long for one. It is not possible to completely kill the yearnings in a European heart. I know I have always longed for a homeland, which is why I suspect I have always been in sympathy with the Southern side in the Conflict between the States. There was a real sense of the homeland in the Old South. Thomas Nelson Page suggests a reason for this:

The difference between the Southern civilization and the Northern was the result of the difference between their origins and subsequent surroundings.

The Northern colonies of Great Britain in America were the asylums of religious zealots and revolutionists who at their first coming were bent less on the enlargement of their fortunes than on the freedom to exercise their religious convictions, however much the sudden transition from dependence and restriction to freedom and license may in a brief time have tempered their views of liberty and changed them into proscriptors of the most tyrannical type…

The Southern, on the other hand, came with all the ceremonial of an elaborate civil government—with an executive, a council deputed by authorities at home, and formal and minute instructions and regulations.

The crown hoped to annex the unknown land lying between the El Dorado, which Spain had obtained amid the summer seas, and the unbounded claims of its hereditary enemy, France, to the North and West.

The Church, which viewed the independence of the Northern refugees as schism, if not heresy, gave to this enterprise its benison in the belief that “the adventurers for the plantations of Virginia were the most noble and worthy advancers of the standard of Christ among the Gentiles.” The company organized and equipped successive expeditions in the hope of gain; and soldiers of fortune, and gentlemen in misfortune, threw in their lot in the certainty of adventure and the probability that they might better their condition.

Under such auspices the Southern colonies necessarily were rooted in the faith of the England from which they came – political, religious, and civil. Thus from the very beginning the spirit of the two sections was absolutely different, and their surrounding conditions were for a long time such as to keep them diverse.

--The Old South

So, in Page’s view the North was settled by Europeans with utopian notions and a willingness to impose those notions on others, and the South was settled by adventurous (but less discontented and quarrelsome) Europeans more in tune with the ancient rhythms and evening lingerings of Europe. Certainly that generalization doesn’t apply to every individual (Washington Irving, born in New York City, for instance, was not a utopian), but I think Page’s assessment is essentially correct.

And our current American oligarchy, instead of encouraging white American school children to feel connected to the land of their ancestors and to their ancestors’ faith, teaches them to despise their European inheritance. It’s small wonder that white adolescents grow up without any sense of racial pride and see nothing wrong with mixing their blood with that of blacks. In fact they see it as a positive good because in doing so they are killing their European blood ties.

I’ve written about H. V. Morton on several occasions because I love his books. During a time (1920 – 1950) when other European intellectuals were traveling to the Far East or Africa looking for something novel and exciting, Morton traveled through Europe and wrote about his travels because he correctly saw that the history and the people of His continent were the only really interesting history and people to write about. And that history has been suppressed by the Gingerbread House technique. “The great satanic wisdom of American totalitarianism is this: if you ban the old books and the old traditions, the people might still love them enough to fight for their restoration. But if you give them a gingerbread house to munch on and coat the older books and traditions in monkey vomit, the people will joyfully let the old books remain unread and the old traditions die.”

In the works of the great novelists of the late eighteenth century and the entire nineteenth century, the villain is often an Uncle Silas type. He can ape the Christian forms because he has a superior intelligence, but his heart belongs to Satan. But so long as Christian principles rule society, the Uncle Silases have to keep their hatred of Christ and Christians a secret. Now, however, Uncle Silas no longer needs the mask; his type now rules. And they are not going to permit a bred-in-the-bone Christianity to surface again. They will permit Church-on-Sunday/Mass-on-Sunday Christianity to exist because that type of Christianity generally supports Uncle Silas-demonism. And when it doesn’t, it is ineffectual because it is not integral. A true bred-in-the-bone Christianity is rooted in European history, European traditions, and European blood. If white European Americans were actually exposed to that type of Christianity, the Uncle Silases would once again be on the periphery of society instead of at its center. It’s not a spirit of our “democratic humanity” that we need. White people need a spirit of clannishness. When the fiery cross appears high on the mountain top, we must rally to it. And then, man to man and “in the van,” we’ll win or die with Europe.

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

Europe Regained

Expose thyself to feel what wretches feel,
That thou mayst shake the superflux to them,
And show the heavens more just.

-King Lear

About ten years ago, when my mother was still alive, she sent me the obituary of the man who had been my Little League manager. He was the type of man who would make a good subject for the old Reader’s Digest feature called “My Most Unforgettable Character.” Mr. Gulf was the only manager who didn’t have children on a team. His kids were all grown, but he stayed on as a volunteer umpire and a manager. When he died at 88, he had only been retired from Little League baseball for six years. Mr. Gulf was a tall, barrel-chested man with a gravel voice, but he was very patient with his charges and seemed to have grasped the fact, unlike some of the other adults involved with the Little League, that Little League baseball was supposed to help boys become men, in the ‘Battle of Waterloo and the playing fields of Eton’ sense. The Little League was not designed, in Mr. Gulf’s eyes, to help grown men become little boys again. To many of the parents and other managers Mr. Gulf was a figure of ridicule because he regularly sat on the edge of the dugout and spouted sport clichés. But he wasn’t comical to us, because Mr. Gulf actually believed in the clichés and his belief made us believe.

One of Mr. Gulf’s favorite axioms, which he delivered to every boy before he stepped up to the plate, was, “Son, you’ve got to believe that you can hit that ball. If you don’t believe in yourself, you’ll never get a hit.” A cliché? Not to Mr. Gulf and not to us. More often than not, we did hit the ball because Mr. Gulf made us believe we could hit. And it seems to me that the problem with the modern European man is that he no longer believes in himself. I don’t mean this in the blasphemous sense, in that a man should believe only in himself and in nothing outside himself; I mean it as an extension of Mr. Gulf’s ‘Battle of Waterloo and the playing fields of Eton’ metaphysic. The European used to believe that his culture was superior to every other culture, and that superiority, which came to him by the grace of God, entailed certain responsibilities, chiefly the responsibility of defending his race and his people against the onslaught of lesser breeds who were outside the law and did not know or respect the God of charity and mercy. Strength, vigilance, and unflinching loyalty to white culture was thought to be necessary because the European considered his race as the Christ-bearing race.

The modern European, to the extent that he has any strength, vigilance, or loyalty, expends it all in attacking the white race and the religion that was championed by the white race. There is no escaping that fact. Halfway house Christians will claim that they are just removing the bad European cultural baggage from Christianity and restoring the Christian faith to its original purity, but it is not difficult to see the disingenuousness of their claim. Every single “improvement” on the European-centered Christianity is in line with liberalism; not the gospel of Jesus Christ, the God of the antique Europeans. The new spirit of inclusion is not an improvement; it is a dethronement of Christ. The new cult of Negro worship is not an advance; it is a blasphemous capitulation to the lowest form of paganism. And where in Scripture did Christ say that it was permissible to make Him subordinate to the democratic process?

The new Christianity is not Christianity. Those who equate Christianity with an organized, philosophical system or a social club will follow the new anti-Christian Christianity to its logical conclusion, which is hell. But the Europeans who yearn for a God of charity and mercy above the nature gods will still seek the Son of God. The problem facing the drug-soaked, sex-crazed, nihilistic European, who still feels a void in his soul, is that the Christ he sees before his eyes is a liberal Christ. He needs to seek out the same hovel that Lear took refuge in. And there, in the hovel of spiritual desolation, he will see the Christ, not the Christ of the liberals, but The Christ, The Son of the Living God.

In one post I wrote, titled “The Gingerbread House,” I mentioned that the United States and the western European countries used the seductive form of the egalitarian heresy. They covered the books about the European past with monkey-vomit and told the lost souls of modernity that they were welcome to read that filth if they could stand the stench. By and large the confused modern turned from a past covered with monkey vomit. But some pilgrims were so desperate or possibly so cynical that they had to see the monkey vomit books for themselves. I was such an individual. And in those books whose covers were sprayed with the liberal monkey vomit of scorn, derision, and accusations of racism and infantilism, there was a compelling image of a God whom the European people used to worship. He was not the God of the modern, organized churches; He was not the God of the philosophers or the Negro-worshippers; He was Jesus of Nazareth, the Man of Sorrows, who took flesh and dwelt among us. This the antique European believed.

The antique European also believed in his eternal moment. He believed that what he did on this earth made a difference, because his blood was connected to a loving Savior who had forged a connection to His people more mystical and mysterious than the most devout devotee of the ancient mystery religions could conceive, and more intrinsically humane than any philosopher or moral theologian could possibly imagine. The liberal has convinced the European that he has no eternal moment, that there is no link between mortal man and a loving God. We are all, we Europeans of the old stock, in Hamlet’s position. We are born to set it right. We will not be played upon by liberals who are determined to pluck out our mystery by denying our blood connection to the living God:

Ham. I do not well understand that. Will you play upon this pipe?

Guil. My lord, I cannot.

Ham. I pray you.

Guil. Believe me, I cannot.

Ham. I do beseech you.

Guil. I know no touch of it, my lord.

Ham. ‘Tis as easy as lying. Govern these ventages with your finger and thumb, give it breath with your mouth, and it will discourse most excellent music. Look you, these are the stops.

Guil. But these cannot I command to any utterance of harmony. I have not the skill.

Ham. Why, look you now, how unworthy a thing you make of me! You would play upon me, you would seem to know my stops, you would pluck out the heart of my mystery, you would sound me from my lowest note to the top of my compass; and there is much music, excellent voice, in this little organ, yet cannot you make it speak. ‘Sblood, do you think that I am easier to be play’d on than a pipe? Call me what instrument you will, though you can fret me, you cannot play upon me.

There is a world in those words, “Call me what instrument you will, though you can fret me, you cannot play upon me.”

Just as Claudius sought to impose his world, based on adultery and fratricide, on Hamlet, so do the liberals seek to impose their world of Negro worship, infanticide, and Christ-less Christianity on the European. The grazers have accepted the legitimacy of the liberals’ world, but we few, we Europeans, will not accept their world. In our blood, which we have not forsaken, we have seen another and better world than Liberaldom.

The majority of the French people at the time of the French Revolution did not support the radicals who murdered the King, but the majority of French people had become grazers. They were indifferent to the ancient ideal of “I serve the King and the King serves Christ.” And no doubt the indifference of Louis XIV and Louis XV, not Louis XVI, to that ideal did much to breed the indifference. A small minority with conviction will always triumph over a majority of indolent grazers. This is why the polls constantly fool the conservatives. They take a poll among the grazers and find out that a majority favor older traditional values. “Behold!” the conservative exclaims, “We are turning the corner.” But the grazer is indifferent traditional. He would prefer his neighbor to be white, but he isn’t going to get upset if he is a Somalian; he doesn’t like the idea of homosexual marriage, but he isn’t going to lose any sleep over it so long as the network keeps showing football games. And on and on it goes. Has the white man really become such a creature of indolence that he can be played upon so easily by the liberals? Yes, he has become such a creature.

Virtually all white Europeans are liberals by what they acquiesce to. But liberalism still has only a minority of adherents who have given their hearts and souls to liberalism. If a European Hamlet emerges, he who has that within which passeth show, who is willing to attack liberalism, he will find that the walls of Liberaldom are not as impregnable as the liberals want us to believe. They are vulnerable to a passion for His Europe that is greater than their passion for Satan’s mind-forged walls of Liberaldom.

One of the many admirable aspects of Hamlet’s counter revolution was his complete unconcern as to whether the people, the grazers, were for or against him. He knew what his duty was and he did what his high calling demanded of him. We don’t know if any of the grazers will follow in our train if we attack Liberaldom, but by the same token we will never know if we don’t attack Liberaldom without any expectation of help from the grazers. There might be genuine heroes among the ranks of the grazers who are just in need of a heroic example. If the last Europeans do not act as Europeans they will truly be the last Europeans.

Last week I took my youngest children to an amusement park to enjoy the last rose of summer. While they were enjoying themselves on the rides, I ordered our hamburgers at the food stand. Ordering food at the same time were some liberal ‘care providers’ (liberals can always be identified) for a large group of retarded young adults and older adults. As the retarded people sat waiting for their food, they started yelling the f-word at each other. The care providers didn’t ask them to stop; in fact they seemed quite amused. I went up to the care providers and told them I wanted them to tell their charges to stop screaming the f-word as my children would soon be coming to eat their lunch at a nearby table. The care providers told me what was obvious, that their charges were retarded. Then they went on to explain that we all had to understand that retarded people had to be treated differently than other people; “we must make allowances” etc. But who teaches retarded people to yell the f-word across a crowded room? The liberal care providers do, by their smiling acquiescence. It is just as uncompassionate to allow retarded adults to wallow in moral filth as it is to allow them to sit in soiled diapers. I never remember retarded people screaming obscenities when I was growing up. They take their cue from their leaders.

The white grazers that I see every day remind me of those retarded people. They take their cue from the liberals and say and do horrendous things. But what if some Europeans would emerge and present a different example for the grazers to follow? Would miracles occur? We don’t know. But we do know that truth needs to be embodied in a person. He taught us that. The hero, not the solecism or the platitude, is the European bridge to His Kingdom come. +

Betraying the Code

There was much hoopla over the anniversary of Jackie Robinson’s infiltration of the previously all-white sport of baseball. And of course the liberals are right – it was an epoch shattering event. But the liberals are wrong when they view it as a good thing. Robinson’s enfranchisement accelerated the Negroization of American sports. And that development resulted in the end of sportsmanship. Sportsmanship, as practiced by Americans, had its roots in the British sporting tradition, which took its inspiration from the principles of Christian chivalry. Winning, in the British tradition, was not as important as adhering to the code. A loser who lived up to the code was more honored than someone who won, but who broke the code.

Jackie Robinson brought his own code, the barbarians’ code, into the game of baseball. He took bench jockeying to a new low. Statements about the opposing players’ sisters and mothers, which had previously been considered beyond the pale, were part of Jackie Robinson’s repertoire.

And of course those black athletes who followed Jackie Robinson were even worse. But the larger the pool of players to choose from, the better your chance of winning and making money. So the marriage between the capitalist and the Negro was consummated with Jackie Robinsons’ entry into baseball. And what a happy marriage it has been for them.

But what about the white folk? Should we give our blessing to that marriage by watching and attending sporting events where black athletes and white commentators degrade all the virtues of the heart and the soul that white people used to hold dear? When capitalism, the Negro, and sport are combined, the watching of sporting events becomes a vulgar indulgence akin to pornography. Presumably one would refuse to watch a film which approvingly depicted black cannibals cooking and eating white missionaries; why then should we watch all the values of our civilization being undermined in pagan rituals called sporting events?

In Walter Scott’s novel, Old Mortality, he depicts a period of Scottish history when the Covenanters felt that Charles II was not keeping his promise to grant them religious liberty. They regarded themselves as disenfranchised. The Crown sought to force them to feel enfranchised by requiring them to participate in state sanctioned sporting events. The Crown’s effort failed because it only strengthened the Covenanters’ resolve not to participate in the sporting events.

Two things emerge from Scott’s description of the mandatory participation edict of Charles II:

1) Sports are an integral part of a nation’s soul. They reflect the very essence of what the nation stands for. If you are at odds with your nation you must divorce yourself from that nation’s sporting life.

2) The seductive feminine approach (the Gingerbread House technique) is more likely to make converts than the straightforward masculine approach. Instead of forcing the Covenanters to participate in the sporting events, Charles II should have hired a marketing guru to put the proper spin on the events. Maybe a little Scripture reading at the beginning of the events and a few comely maidens, not too indecorous, to give out the prizes… You get the picture.

In point of fact, the Covenanters had nowhere near the cause that we have for divorcing ourselves from our nation’s (or more accurately our non-nation’s) civic sporting life. But we have eaten the soul-numbing honey of the locusts for so long that we are completely anesthetized. We truly love ‘Big Brother.’

Recently a “conservative” military man published a book equating God, the war in Iraq, and football. How telling. Sport is linked to our Faith. What, if we look at American sports, do Americans revere? They revere capitalism and Negroes.

How did we get from the sporting life exemplified in Tom Brown’s School Days and The Chariots of Fire to the pagan spectacles of today? We got there by the same process a man follows when, lured by the prospect of gold, he places a ladder into a mineshaft and climbs down, rung by rung. But surely by now we should see that the gold mine is a pit, and it stinks of sulphur.

One Vision, One Faith, One Europe

There is hope in the blood. Christianity is in our blood, and a fierce, warlike defiance of heathenism is also in our blood. If we answer that call, there is no one who can predict with certainty that white Europe will die. That which comes from the spiritual dimension in man is not subject to the inexorable laws of math. -- CWNY

I grew up in a town that was all white. The town was not white because of a conscious attempt by the whites to keep blacks out; the town at that point in time was white because the black hordes hadn’t spread that far away from their urban bases. But by the time I had grown up and had children of my own, the white town I knew was gone. The old swimming hole, the nearby amusement park, the ball field, and the local basketball court (right next to an old-fashioned barber shop) had become colorized. Of course a liberal would applaud the colorization of my home town. He would call it progress. Why? The amusement park is defunct; nobody found it amusing to go to the park and be mugged by blacks. It is now too dangerous to swim at the old swimming hole, because black marauders, who don’t swim, hang around the area in order to rob and/or murder whites who are foolish enough to try and swim there. The ball fields and the basketball court feature an occasional game between drug deals, and the barber shop closed down after the owner was shot and killed by a “black youth.” The “progress” of my hometown is a microcosm of the progress of thousands upon thousands of small towns, boroughs, and cities throughout the United States.

Nowadays liberals don’t even try to answer someone like myself, who points out that blacks and violent crime go together. The liberals simply scream racist and have you fired or jailed. But in the 1960’s and 1970’s, liberals used to cite poverty as the reason for violent black crime -- the blacks didn’t really mean to murder and steal, it was poverty that made them do it. That argument fell by the wayside when racist whites pointed to Depression era white towns (my father grew up in one) where no one ever locked their doors at night and yet no one was ever robbed or murdered.

Let’s stop listening to liberal gas about blacks. They murder, rob and rape because it is in their nature to do so. And they will always rape, rob, and murder unless they are controlled by white people. Look at their history; look at countries that are ruled by blacks and cities that are populated by blacks.

The unbought grace of life, which was the patrimony of Europeans, has been foolishly thrown away in order to accommodate the liberals’ dystopian dream of a multi-racial world. Although liberals claim that they want to live in a world without boundaries, in reality they have set up a very definite boundary, the boundary of wealth. Liberals do not live with blacks. They actively seek the company of a few, select, wealthy blacks, who ape white liberalism (Obama is their ideal), but the natural black savage, whom the liberals claim to adore, is not permitted in their gated communities. It is lower-class whites, those without wealth, who must deal with the black savage. Having spent my adult life in the lower- to upper-levels of the lower class, I can relate from personal experience how whites at the lower stratum of society deal with the black problem. They either practice a guarded series of tactical retreats or else they blend with the black. Let me give one example from hundreds that I could give of what I mean by the ‘guarded tactical retreat’ approach to the black problem.

About 10 years ago, when my children ranged in age from 15 to 5, I took them to a local lake. It was not the lake of my childhood – white people had left that area, but a different lake where black people seldom came. My family and I used to get to the lake by 7:30 a.m. and leave by 11:30 a.m. in order to avoid the crowds. But on this particular day we left early. At about 9:30 a.m. a busload of summer campers arrived. Actually, the word ‘campers’ is inappropriate. It was a busload of about 35 “black youths” ranging in age from 8 to 16. The bus trip was part of a liberal campaign to expose blacks to the beauty of nature. But blacks don’t like nature nor do they like to swim. The black youths spent less than five minutes in the water. When they came out of the water, they picked up sticks and ran around the beach hitting each other. When one of the wonderful black savages got too close to my family, I took the stick from him and gave him a lecture on proper behavior. I knew it was futile, but whites are supposed to at least attempt to civilize blacks, are we not? The nun who was evidently in charge of the group hustled over and proceeded to give me a lecture about mistreating high-spirited black youths. I said a few words to the nun (I did not curse at her) about allowing her charges to run wild, and then I gathered up my family and left the beach. “Hardly an earth-shattering experience,” you say. Well, no, it wasn’t. But as I said earlier, it was only one of several hundred incidents I could cite. All of those incidents in their totality represent my attempt to give my children something of the European heritage that was bequeathed to me. Family reunions at public parks, walks in the woods on hiking trails, and swimming in the nearby lake, without fear of molestation by black youths, were something I wanted to give to my children. And hopefully they were blissfully unaware that daddy had a snub-nosed .38 under his shirt while they went swimming. Philip Marlow once remarked that every time a client told him he didn’t need a gun, he knew he needed a gun. Likewise with the liberals. Whenever they tell you that you needn’t arm yourself to protect your family in the new, multi-racial world they are building, you know sure as the sun rises that you need guns, knives, swords, and every other weapon you can lay hands on.

Every decent lower-class white I meet has had similar experiences with blacks. But then there are the indecent lower-class whites who have taken another path. They have decided to become black. I believe the term used to describe them is ‘wigger’. The white women wiggers have children by black men and become part of the black sub-culture. Or would it be more correct to say that the wiggers break from the white subculture and become part of the mainstream American culture? Yes, that would be more accurate.

I’ve only mentioned, in talking about the parks, playgrounds, and swimming holes, one thread in the seamless garment of European culture. The European garment has been torn to shreds by the storm troopers of liberaldom. The entire cultural heritage of the European, his literature, his art, his history, and his religion has been destroyed in order to pave the way for a new Godless, racially egalitarian world.

In America and Western European, in contrast to the former Soviet Union, the destruction of Christendom was achieved through the seductive feminine method of coercion (see The Gingerbread House). The mailed fist was used when someone remained un-seduced, but in the main Europeans of the West willingly surrendered their heritage for the promise of a guilt-free, sexier existence in the new liberal utopia. But there has been a shift in recent years, in America particularly, but also throughout all of the formerly white Western European countries, from the seductive method of coercion to the mailed fist. I think this shift is a result of the complete ascendancy of the liberals. They no longer feel a need to seduce; their opposition is now so weak they feel they can crush it without resorting to their old seductive tricks. And they seem to enjoy the unadulterated thrill that the use of the mailed fist gives them.

The racial issue and the religious issue are one and the same. If Europeans believed in the risen Christ, they would not allow the culture based on that belief to be torn down by black savages working for satanic liberals. Blake was correct when he said that “Man must & will have Some Religion: if he has not the Religion of Jesus, he will have the Religion of Satan.” It is unwise and futile to think we can appeal to the devil to eradicate the evils perpetuated by the devil. But this is what we do every time we ask liberals to be just and accord whites the same rights in utopia as blacks have. Whites who still believe they are white are an anathema to liberals; they are not going to accord them any rights. Nor should the European desire to be part of liberaldom. The European will settle for nothing less than the destruction of liberaldom and the restoration of Christendom. I think the European, vis-à-vis his government, is more in the position of Bonnie Prince Charlie than of William Jennings Bryant. We don’t want to reform liberalism from within, we want to destroy it from without and then supplant it.

The utopian, one-race, no-God world of the liberals could only be spawned by a people who have turned their eyes away from the cross. I love the lines from “Men of Harlech”: “Keep these fighting words before you: Cambria Will Not Yield.” The European must keep the vision of His Europe before him and never yield to liberaldom. Nobody can even predict with any certainty how a horse race or a local sporting contest will turn out, so why should we, the last Europeans, look on the ascendancy of the liberals as something permanent? Nothing is impossible if we are faithful to the European Christ. And nothing is possible if we break faith with Europe’s Christ. Let me close with a quote from an old post called “Conversion by Spanish Cannon”:

The Europeans are the only race of people who accepted Christ when they were powerful. They truly had a personal relationship with Him. He was the Savior, true God and true Man, the fulfillment of their dream of a Hero-God who was good as well as powerful. All other races saw only Christ’s power, not his goodness. And yet every major academic institution and media center throughout Europe and America bid us look at life as the non-white nations do. Why should we look at life through their eyes? God is not there, at least not the God of love and mercy that Europeans have bent their knees to for almost the last two thousand years.