Saturday, October 04, 2008

Monsters of the Deep

A friend sent me a news item from Canada written by Paul Fromm, director of an organization called Canada First Immigration Reform Committee. Apparently some Tory MP had slipped up and blurted out the truth about third world immigration and crime to the media. And what was so horrendous, but all too typical, about the liberals’ reaction to the Tory MP’s statement was that no one cared to discuss whether his statements were true or not. The liberals simply said he was racist and called for his resignation. Fromm pointed out that the MP’s statement was correct and concluded that truth no longer mattered to the white liberals. “In this super constipated country minorities are so protected from criticism by human rights commissions that even truth is no defence.”

It has been thus for quite some time in the Western world. I recall a similar incident I was privy to about 20 years ago. I was working at a university (no need to mention the name because such universities are legion, with cookie-cutter sameness). The powers that be found it necessary to discuss a ‘problem student.’ I was invited to sit on a panel that was to decide his fate. And what, pray tell, was the student’s crime? Did he break into the Dean’s office and urinate on his papers? Did he set fire to the R.O.T.C. office on campus? No. Fifteen years earlier students had done such things at colleges and were not expelled. So, what was the young man accused of? He was accused of having made ‘racist’ remarks in class, critical of blacks. The question in the minds of the liberal panel was not, “Should we expel Student X?” No, the question was, “How can we do it and still seem like liberal, fair-minded, due-process type liberals?” Since I was going to be asked to vote on the fate of this particular student, whom I did not know, I asked if the statements he had made were true. There was an embarrassed silence before one member of the panel confessed that yes, the statements were true. And yet the student was expelled. The official reason was that he had used tacks instead of tape to place a poster on his dorm room wall, but of course that was not the real reason for his expulsion. He blasphemed against the liberals’ god, so he had to be cast into outer darkness. I was the only member of the panel to vote against the expulsion, which was quite ironic as every single member of that panel was theoretically more committed to the principle of free speech than I was.

Of course such incidents of white liberal chicanery and dishonesty have become the norm, not the exception now. Big Brother and Big Sister rule with a merciless consistency that makes Orwell’s 1984 world seem like a pleasant place to live.

It seems that something momentous has taken place in the last twenty-five years in the Western world as Satan has consolidated his power. Liberals have always loved their own abstractions more than the truth, but in the first half of the twentieth century, they tried to claim their abstractions were true. They delighted in debate and felt quite confident their theories would prevail in the battlefield of ideas. But false ideas are always easier to defend when they have never been embodied in a culture. It was easier for the liberals to claim the black man was just a pigmented white man when his criminal tendencies were kept in check by a white hierarchy. However, when the black man actually was given a chance to show himself to be the wonderful, worshipful human being the liberals claimed he was, the reality, the truth, was quite devastating for the liberal. The white liberal then had two choices. He could give up his abstract, utopian faith in the black man, or he could give up debating the truth and simply punish the people who spoke the truth. Of course the liberal chose the latter. This is the same policy the communists and every other anti-European group have followed: when you have not yet succeeded in making a particular part of your agenda, like racial diversity or legalized abortion, the law of the land, you debate. But when you have achieved your goal and made that which was once forbidden the law of the land, then you forbid, with the full weight of the law, all debate, and punish those who speak the truth about the perversion that has become the law.

The 21st century liberal, therefore, is a lot meaner and less willing to engage in debate than his 1950’s counterpart. He is meaner because his ideas have become embodied and are self-evidently wrong, thus forcing him to stay mad-dog delusional every single second of his life. And he is unwilling to debate because he has consolidated his power and doesn’t have to debate.

This ugly state of affairs is the result of the de-Christianization of the European man. Butterfield put it quite well when he said that liberals had destroyed their guardian angel when they cut away the traditions and sentiments that came from Christianity.

Edmund Burke was correct when he said the first liberal was the devil. It is sometimes difficult to see just how satanic liberalism is because we do not see its full embodiment in the past. But in our own day, it is crystal clear. We can see Satanism in all its hellish glory. And the primary mark of a satanic society is the abstraction of everything human. Christ humanized every aspect of European culture, and Satan has systematically undermined His civilization by encouraging a spirit of abstraction. When that abstracting spirit takes hold, human beings can be squashed like bugs in the great, abstracted cesspool of life. Babies become ‘fetal tissue,’ civilians become ‘collateral damage,’ white men become ‘generic men,’ men and women become ‘generic humans,’ and on it goes.

It is a given that our current society is satanic. Since surrender to such a culture is unthinkable, we need to strike back. And the satanic liberals have shown us the place where Satan is most vulnerable. What issue are the liberals concerned with more than any other? It is this issue of diversity. While even “conservative” church men blab on about the irrelevance of race on the one hand and the evils of the white race on the other hand, the liberals, who are legion, are ever-vigilant in putting down every attempt, in word or deed, by the white man, to re-establish his ties to his racial forefathers. (1) The pre-20th century Europeans had a Hebraic relationship with their God which was based on ties of blood. Christ was their King and their kin. When those ties of blood are broken, it makes no difference whether one gives intellectual assent to the idea of Christianity or if one intellectually affirms the meaninglessness of existence, since both affirmations belong to Satan. By what authority do we live? By the word of God, embodied in a particular people and culture. When faith no longer has “a local habitation” in a race, faith becomes a meaningless abstraction, and then “humanity must perforce prey on itself like monsters of the deep.”

Richard Weaver made the point in his book Visions of Order that Socrates was guilty of undermining the faith of the Athenians. By abstracting the Greek gods and making them part of a dialectical debate, he helped destroy traditional faith in the gods. Philosophy eventually replaced faith. This has always been the essential conflict in the Christian Church. The theologians place God in a philosophical prison and then claim they and they alone possess the key to unlock Him. The European with blood ties to the past, however, knows that God is not to be found in the Gnostic prisons of the theologians and the philosophers. He is to be found at the marriage feast of the antique European in the person of Christ.

The ‘idea Christ’ of the philosophers is not a concrete personality. He exists only in the minds of the liberals. He is a phantom God who comes to life only when the liberals need him to condemn racism. In contrast, the real Christ, the Hero-God of the Europeans, is always present where genuine humanity is present. He is the enemy of generic humanity and the passionate champion of the human personality. In fact, He can only be known through the human personality. When the white man gives up the most essential part of his personality, his white identity, he loses his soul and his God.

The revolution has been successful. There is no room in the great liberal Utopia for the human personality. Walking, talking caricatures of human beings now inhabit the white countries that used to contain human beings. But in the secret recesses of European hearts who still see with “blinding sight” and still feel connected to His Europe, the counterrevolution has begun. And in a non-utopian future, a future wedded to the European past, we shall see the triumph of our Lord.
(1) The white church men constantly tell us there is no such thing as race, but there is such a thing when they demonize the white race, and when they fall on their knees to worship the black race.

These same church men no longer believe in original sin which all mankind inherited from Adam. Instead, they believe that original sin exists only in the white race. In a perverse way, they affirm the humanity of the white race and the inhumanity of the black, when they claim that the white man alone can trace his lineage back to Adam. Scott tells us about the tangled web we weave when we deceive. Let the white, black-worshipping clergyman beware of the tangled web of deceit he weaves when he demonizes the white race and worships the black.

Labels: , ,