Cambria Will Not Yield

Sunday, January 31, 2010

Against the Gates of Hell

“Give peace in our time, O Lord, because there is none other fighteth for us but only Thou, O God.” -- Welsh prayer

The other day I heard one of the conservative liberals lamenting the fact that the mad-dog liberals did not really believe in democracy. He used their attempt to ram a health care bill down Americans' throats as one example of the non-democratic nature of the mad-dog liberals. The conservative liberal was right: the mad-dog liberals do not believe in democracy, at least not in the same way as the conservative liberals believe in it.

The mad-dog liberals use the democratic system to further their ends. If the system does not further their ends, they go outside the system. The mad-dogs, at this point in their history, have only one faith, which is the black man. If every single rule of democratic, traditional protocol and current democratic procedures has to be broken to elevate the black man, the liberal will ignore traditional protocol and violate current procedures. The faith in, and the worship of, the black man is what is essential to the liberal.

In contrast to the mad-dog liberal, the conservative liberal worships democracy in and of itself. He doesn’t see the democratic process as a means to an end; he sees it as an end in itself. When the civil rights protesters violated the law in the 1960’s, the National Review conservatives, who worshipped the democratic process, condemned them for breaking the law. They did not disapprove of the protestors’ professed goal, an integrated, colorblind society; they only disapproved of going outside the democratic process.

The conflict between the American conservatives and the liberals is a conflict within liberalism. The liberals generally defeat the conservatives because the liberals have a metaphysic. They can cite their love and concern for the black man, while the conservatives can only cite their love for the Constitution. Both loves are abstractions, but the liberals’ abstraction seems less inhumane than the conservatives’ abstracted love.

The conservatives are always hurling the “He doesn’t really love the emperor” charge at the liberals. And they are right. The liberals support democracy because it serves their purposes most of the time. But they are willing to jettison democracy when it interferes with their satanic mission to build a kingdom of Satan on earth. The conservatives are less likely to go outside of the democratic perimeters, because to do so, in their judgment, would be to go outside the faith.

What happens when a man emerges who rejects the satanic vision of the mad-dogs and the faithless faith-in-a-process, of the conservatives? He is marginalized and/or destroyed. Alexander Solzhenitsyn is a case in point. When he came to the U.S. in the 1970’s, he had a friendly debate with a fellow Russian exile named Andrei Sakharov. Sakharov believed that Western-style democracy would solve the problems of the Russian people. Solzhenitsyn disagreed. He said that the Western democracies lacked a spiritual foundation and that the political parties of the Western democracies always sought their welfare over that of their nation. The British author Brian Crozier echoed Solzhenitsyn’s second point in his book The Minimum State: Beyond Party Politics.

Solzhenitsyn’s views were nowhere near as popular as Sakharov’s. The mad-dogs demonized Solzhenitsyn, and the conservatives focused on his anti-communist writings and ignored his critique of secular democracy. When he returned to Russia late in life he was not received well by the same type of people in Russia who constituted the mad-dog liberal and the conservative liberal factions in America. He did receive a state funeral when he died, but I don’t think we can realistically claim that this means the Russian people rejected the democratic heresy.

What was it about Solzhenitsyn that was so unacceptable to the liberals in both camps? It was the fact that Solzhenitsyn was an antique European. He started life as a good Marxist and he ended his life as an integral Christian European. He loved his God and his country, so he desired that the two should be united. Was not that the desire of almost every European prior to the 20th century?

H. V. Morton once sadly noted that European Christians had done things in the name of Christ that made Christ weep, but that judgment of Morton’s comes from a Christian European. If there were no longer Christian Europeans to pass judgment on the erring Christian Europeans, who would end the bloody wars between covenanter and cavalier, and between Protestant and Catholic? Do the communists have their own equivalent of the Sermon on the Mount? And who will oppose the democratic, egalitarian abortionists if Christian Europeans are extinct?

You can’t forsake the living God because all Christians do not live up to His teachings. Cromwell and Torquemada represent only the lunatic fringe of Christian Europe. And even such monsters were lambs compared to the totalitarian tyrants of the godless 20th and 21st centuries.

The European Everyman has been set adrift by his church leaders and his political leaders. He seems destined to perish. Only the antique European, who has become a stranger to the modern European, can return the Everyman to a safe harbor. But will the modern Everyman be able to recognize the hero? Or will he, after years of living in liberaldom, be unable to see with the blinding sight necessary to distinguish between a Christian hero and a liberal charlatan?

Trevelyan said that it was the special mission of the European to reveal the heroic Christ of mercy to the heathen world. That is still the mission of the European: to show the world the face of the Hero God by imitating the Hero God.

Let us pray, let us watch, let us be prepared
For the warrior hero who saved us.
When Jesus on high came from His Kingship
The world’s five ages were in common captivity,
In the grasp, in the misery, in the depths of hell,
In the cold bog’s affliction.
Renowned God, acknowledgment of you
Do I make, Lord God, strength of every people.

--Einion Ap Gwalchmai
William Blake desired to build Jerusalem, “in England’s green and pleasant land.” The modern European’s passion is to bring the depths of hell into Europe’s green and pleasant land, and he has accomplished his desire. Post-Christian Europe is hell, and we can’t vote hell away. Satan is not a live-and-let-live type of guy. He hates with an everlasting passion. Who can stand against him? The Christian Europeans once stood against him. They weren’t physical stronger or smarter than we are today, but spiritually they were giants. They rested their heads on His sacred heart as St. John did at the last supper. And as a result they saw visions of the risen Lord and could fight the devil with a passion for good that was superior to his passion for evil. No second-hand faith for us. It is all or nothing. We can restore the Europe of the Hero God of mercy, or we can wallow in the depths of hell. +

Labels: ,

Saturday, January 23, 2010

Through the Blood

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

I see nothing intrinsically wrong in helping earthquake victims, but I do see something terribly wrong in the people who are involved in the Haitian relief effort. Who do liberals and blacks routinely blame for all the ills of the world? White people, of course. And to whom do blacks and liberals appeal for aid? Let’s take a page from Frank Capra’s It’s a Wonderful Life script and imagine a world without white people. Would such a world be a happy paradise of blended brown people? Well, you wouldn’t have to worry about earthquake relief efforts any more, because there would be no concept of charitable outreach in the blended brown world. The idea of relieving someone else’s misery would be as inconceivable as self-propelled flight. Everyman’s hand would be against every other man, as in the New Orleans’ Superdome after Hurricane Katrina.

True charity, the charity that never faileth because it comes from the living God, has virtually disappeared from the face of the earth. The post-Christian European still engages in feel-good charity, the charity that stems from human pride, while the people of color continue to regard charity as an entitlement to be had on demand.

The Europeans do not stand out from the rest of mankind because they built better roads and bridges or made more money than the rest of the world. They stood apart because they were the first people, as a people, to believe that God had a human heart. What an earth shattering concept! The knight errant and the true God are one. Christ is more chivalrous than we are, more courteous, more compassionate, and more powerful, but still He is like unto us. He suffers with humanity and for humanity. But He stands above us, because He is nobler than we are, not because He is crueler. And it is not His power to which we bend our knee, but to His goodness.

Nothing good will come of the Haitian relief effort, because it is not based on Christian charity. The liberals have shown by their support of white genocide in South Africa and Europe and by their support of legalized abortions that they have not charity. They are “helping” the Haitians because the worship of blacks is all they have left. They pride themselves on their faith in, and their love of, the natural black savage. Some Catholic nuns (I’m sure other churches will follow suit) have already brought a number of Haitian orphans to the United States. This is not Christian charity, it is liberal demonism. When Europe was Christian, works of charity consisted of first subduing and then converting the savage. It was not considered charitable, in the days of the Christian European, to allow colored vipers into European nations. We have no reason to believe that the current breed of Haitians is any less bloodthirsty and satanic than were their ancestors, who massacred all the whites in Haiti. If Europeans are not willing to first conquer the barbarians of color, they should stay away from relief efforts that will not aid the colored barbarians and will do great harm to the whites.

At the heart of the liberals’ worship of the dark races is a rejection of the human personality. When the European took Christ into his heart and his hearth, he became more fully human than the non-European peoples. Pride of race became pietas. The European, because of his union with Christ, loved his kith and kin with a far greater intensity than the savage races who did not regard each and every individual soul as a personality of “eternal moment.” Ties of family and blood were doubly important to the European, because it was through those human ties of blood that Christ entered the world.

It is significant that the word ‘diversity’ has become a God-word to the liberals. The concept is diametrically opposed to Christianity. The ultimate horror for someone who has divine intuitions of the distinctness of the human personality is the notion that an individual human being can be ‘diversified,’ that his personality can be scattered into individual atoms. Why are we more horrified at the idea of being blown to bits or decapitated at our death than we are at the idea of a death with our body left intact? Because Christians have absorbed into their blood the belief that the human body contains a personality, we recoil in horror from the image of a ‘diversified,’ mutilated body. Montrose demonstrated his faith in the saving power of Christ and his contempt for his executioners, who sought to inflict the ultimate punishment on his soul by diversifying his body parts, when he declared:
There is a chamber far away
Where sleep the good and brave,
But a better place ye have named for me
Than by my fathers’ grave.
For truth and right, ‘gainst treason’s might,
This hand hath always striven,
And ye raise it up for a witness still
In the eye of earth and heaven.
Then nail my head on yonder tower—
Give every town a limb—
And God who made shall gather them:
I go from you to Him!
We love as individual personalities, and our love is directed towards other individual personalities. You can’t love with the type of love that Christ enjoins us to have for our fellow men if you only love an idea of diversity. This is so evident if we look at the liberals’ worship of the Obama. Is there anything in Obama’s personality that, if he were white, would spark one single infinitesimal impulse of love from a white liberal? No, there is not. He is worshipped because he is black. The liberals have evolved beyond the love of individual human beings, they now only worship ideas. And Obama is the embodiment of the black idea.

The liberals insist that ties of family and blood must be broken in order for mankind to evolve to a higher plane of existence. But is the new, diverse plane of existence a higher plane? Why is it that anywhere the idea that ‘every man is our kith and kin’ flourishes, as in the egalitarian United States and the former Soviet Union, there are abortuaries and Gulags? Perhaps it is because saving grace comes to us through our ties to kith and kin and not via the medium of generic, diverse humanity.

The liberals who deny the divine authorship of the Bible often cite it nevertheless when it suits their purpose. The Good Samaritan parable, for instance, is often cited as an excuse for race-mixing and Negro worship. But the Good Samaritan does not give his daughter away to the stranger, nor does he take him to his house; he takes him to an inn. And are we to presume, based on his actions toward the stranger, that the Good Samaritan goes home and sends his children to daycare (“I can’t stand the little beasts”) and then runs around the neighborhood trying to force other Samaritans to cohabit with wayside strangers? I doubt it, because a man in touch with the living God is the most clannish and most charitable person on the face of the earth -- clannish because he knows he is linked to his God through the ties of blood and kin, and charitable because his God is the true God from whom true charity flows. The oft-noted, even by Northerners, Southern hospitality before the Civil War was a result of the Southern people’s clannishness and their Christianity. Concern for the unfortunate ‘other’ and the stranger is only present in a people who are intimately connected at the family hearth with the Son of God. They have imbibed the Pauline maxim that ‘charity never faileth’ with their mother’s milk. Or to use Thomas Nelson Page’s phrase, their Christianity is ‘bred in the bone.’

Nothing of lasting benefit in this world or the next comes from ‘relief efforts’ that turn men and nations away from the bred in the bone Christianity of the European. Such relief movements will fail, neo-paganism will fail, democratic egalitarianism will fail; only His provincial people who believe in the charity preached by St. Paul will not fail. +

Labels: , ,

Sunday, January 17, 2010

Till We Have Built Jerusalem

And they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads. – Rev. 22: 4

I recently read Charlotte Mary Yonge’s Reasons Why I Am a Catholic and Not a Roman Catholic (1901). I infinitely prefer her brand of Catholicism to Leo XIII’s brand of Catholicism, but my preferences are meaningless and Miss Yonge’s points are moot because neither Yonge’s Catholicism nor Leo XIII’s Catholicism have survived past the 1960’s.

Is this the proof that both versions of the Faith were false? Well, I don’t think the fact that a Faith has not survived is proof that it is false. Islam has retained more of its core than Christianity, but that does not, in my judgment, make Islam true and Christianity false. A religion can only be judged false when it fails the Shakespearean test: the test of reality. And in that test Christianity still stands as the one true religion. But when we are talking about Anglo-Catholicism and Roman-Catholicism, we are not talking about the Faith itself, we are talking about two organizations’ claim that they have preserved the original Faith of the Apostles. In that regard, the Anglican Church and the Roman Catholic Church have been shown to be false claimants; neither have preserved the faith of the apostles (nor for that matter have the Orthodox Church or the Protestant churches). What seems to be missing in all the churches is a desire to see Christ whole, in His divinity and His humanity. And consequently where each church goes wrong is in attempting to incorporate only a portion of Christ’s personality into their theology.

We have all had the experience, particularly in this age of pop psychology and pop theology, of being put into a category that doesn’t really suit our personality completely or that is a totally false category. Our Lord had similar problems with the apostles. St. Peter had to be rebuked: “Get thee behind me, Satan,” and none of the apostles were trusted to impart Christ’s message until after Pentecost. And St. Paul needed a personal revelation before he could understand the personality of Christ. Of course not even a personal revelation would have done him any good if he hadn’t already been struggling to live a life of the spirit.

I think the image that appears to block our encounter with the living God is the false abstracted portrait of God that original sin paints. The remedy, as I have suggested before, is to journey through that labyrinth called the human heart. Anything that impedes the Shakespearean journey turns us not toward God but toward Satan, even if it is called Roman Catholicism, Traditionalism, Orthodoxy, Anglo-Catholicism or Protestantism. (1)

When I look at the churches in the nineteenth century, I see much that is admirable, but I see none that have carried their admirable visions of Christianity into the 20th or 21st centuries. They have all renounced the integral Christ for an abstracted Christ that suits their mundane and often sinister earthly political purposes.
“Another cause inflamed the minds of the nation at large, no less than the tempting prospect of the wealth of England animated the soldiery. So much had been written and said on either side concerning the form of church government, that it had become a matter of infinitely more consequence in the eyes of the multitude than the doctrines of that gospel which both churches had embraced. The Prelatists and Presbyterians of the more violent kind became as illiberal as the Papists, and would scarcely allow the possibility of salvation beyond the pale of their respective churches. It was in vain remarked to these zealots, that had the Author of our holy religion considered any peculiar form of church government as essential to salvation, it would have been revealed with the same precision as under the Old Testament dispensation.”

– Walter Scott in A Legend of Montrose
What Scott observes in the zealots on every side of the British religious wars, a tendency to make the forms of worship the faith itself, has destroyed Christian Europe.

The forms of worship are not the faith itself. They exist only to lead us to the object of worship. You cannot worship the Latin Mass or the ‘born again’ experience without eventually becoming the leading character in a tragedy, the tragedy of a man without a vital faith. European man became, when he embraced formalism, a second-hand man, incapable of coming to grips with any aspect of existence directly.

Some years back I quoted Henri de Lubac, who said that modern man had lost his appetite for God. If that appetite returned, de Lubac claimed, then belief would return. But how can one hunger for any of the rationalized, second-hand gods presented to us by the so-called Christian churches? Their gods are Mr. Rogers and Tash. The antidote for such false faiths is the folk wisdom of the West, which says the human heart contains the secret treasure that will forever remain hidden from the academics. And therein lies the key to the de-Christianization of our churches and our culture: the Church has become academized as has our society. The Christian folk have passed out of existence. Without them there can be no genuine Christianity as it once existed in Europe. We are still reaping the bitter harvest of idea-religion, spawned by the Greeks and brought into the Church for its destruction by Aquinas.

Those who would be Christian folk cannot wait for the churches to break out of their bondage to the academy, which is a bondage to Satan. They must turn away from the academy, which is the modern church and the modern world, and start on the slow but sure journey through the human heart that our European ancestors made so long ago.

I have conservative nationalist literature dating as far back as 1979 in which the reader is urged to stop illegal and legal colored immigration by writing to his local congressmen. Why do such actions never work? Because we cannot stop an invasion by placing a form of government above the interests of our people. The cry should be, “In the name of our God and our people, this invasion must be stopped!” Fortunately Alfred the Great didn’t have a congressman to write to; if he had, he never would have become Alfred the Great.

Quentin Compson in Faulkner’s The Sound and the Fury asks his father how he knows life is meaningless. The drunken, nihilist father responds that he knew about the meaningless of existence at the moment tragedy became second-hand. Quentin’s father is a modern European. His death in life is the result of the triumph of formalism in the Christian churches. The Christian faith is a two-edged sword. If it is seen whole and taken to heart, it is our salvation. But if Christianity is dissected, decompartmentalized, and turned into a formalized system, it becomes a virulent poison.

It would be disastrous to follow the advice of the neopagans and jettison Christ in order to save the white race. Christ was, is, and always shall be our only hope. He is our only hope because He is the living God. But jettison the worship of the modern icons of modern, Christless Christianity, such as racial egalitarianism, democracy, and Tridentinism, we must.

The guardians at the gates of the various Christian churches can all present an apologia for their right to be called the true heirs of the apostles. But are they the heirs of the apostles? The apostles lived and worked with the Lord during his life on earth, and they told the Christ story after His death and resurrection. It seems that the heirs of the apostles are the Europeans who lived with Christ on a daily basis and wove the Christian story into the seamless garment of their culture. How can churches who demean and denounce that culture and its people be the heirs of the apostles? They can’t, and they are not. Was the rock, against which the gates of hell would not prevail, an institution with a rational, systemic schema of salvation? Or was the rock St. Peter’s declaration of faith? “Thou are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

Faith, the faith that moves mountain, comes from those who have seen the face of Jesus Christ. Do we see His face in the liberal, white-hating, country-club churches of the modern world, or do we see that precious Face in the lives and culture of the ancient Europeans?

Europe is being engulfed by barbarians of color because white Europeans no longer desire to see the face of Jesus Christ. Gone is the patriotic desire of William Blake:
Bring me my bow of burning gold:
Bring me my arrows of desire:
Bring me my spear: O clouds unfold!
Bring me my chariot of fire.

I will not cease from mental fight,
Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand
Till we have built Jerusalem
In England's green and pleasant land.
The end result of a second-hand faith is Satanism. The liberals are openly satanic, and the half-way house Christians are unable to resist them because they have a second-hand faith. And when life is viewed from such a standpoint, the dramatic conflict between good and evil is seen as a fairytale that mature, thinking people have left behind. But that is what I love about Ratty’s Europe. It is childlike and Christ-centered. In that Europe, Christ is real, the devil is real, and Christian Europe is a living, breathing entity as well.

The children of darkness have given up their religion of the heart for the religion of the mind. This goes against the wisdom of the race. The white man has always preferred the leaden casket over the one of gold and the one of silver; the cottage in the woods to the sumptuous palace; and the blood of the Lamb to the magic talisman. Let the sons and daughters of this ‘new age of enlightenment’ keep all their magic talismans: rationalism, science, and multiculturalism. The European will stay with the European cottage in the woods that contains the things he loves. And his childlike attachment to the things he loves will keep him bound to the Sacred Heart Who speaks to men through the little things that the clever men and women have discarded. The old fairy tales are correct: the faithful heart always triumphs over the satanic mind. +
(1) I don’t think one has to have read Shakespeare (although it helps) in order to follow the Shakespearean way to God; however, I do think it is the only way. We must strip away false layer after false layer from our hearts till we get to its center. And then – well – and then we find He has been there all along.

Labels: , ,

Friday, January 08, 2010

Let Be

Since no man has aught of what he
leaves, what is’t to leave betimes? [Let be.] – Hamlet

The conservatives place great store by the U. S. Constitution. It has been perverted, they claim. Is there any truth to the conservatives’ assertion? Possibly. Jefferson, Franklin and Madison might be slightly surprised at some of the modern interpretations of their work, but in the main I think today’s liberals are in line with the authors of the U. S. Constitution. They are all from the same liberal pea pod.

The essential question is not whether our written Constitution has been perverted; the paramount issue is whether the unwritten law of the European people, which is infinitely more important than any paper-and-ink law, has been changed. And the answer to that question is, “Yes, the unwritten law of our people, the white European people, has changed, and it has changed for the worse.”

Prior to the 20th century, the unwritten law of the white man, the law that took precedence over every written law, was that His heavenly law, the law of divine charity, was the law above all other laws. From that law the European derived his love for his own people and the civilization that his people created as a result of their incorporate union with Christ. Isaiah prophetically describes such a union between a particular people, their culture and their God:
Thou shalt no more be termed Forsaken; neither shall thy land any more be termed Desolate: but thou shalt be called Hephzibah, and thy land Beulah: for the LORD delighteth in thee, and thy land shall be married. For as a young man marrieth a virgin, so shall thy sons marry thee: and as the bridegroom rejoiceth over the bride, so shall thy God rejoice over thee. I have set watchmen upon thy walls, O Jerusalem, which shall never hold their peace day nor night: ye that make mention of the LORD, keep not silence, And give him no rest, till he establish, and till he make Jerusalem a praise in the earth.
By the 21st century, the European had a new unwritten law that ruled his heart: “The white man must hate his own people and his own culture.” That new unwritten law will be much harder to change than a written law because an unwritten law is never questioned; it has become part of the people’s soul.

How did the hatred of the white man become the unwritten law of the white man? The question is answered for us in a passage from Uncle Silas by J. S. LeFanu:
Of my wretched uncle's religion what am I to say? Was it utter hypocrisy, or had it at any time a vein of sincerity in it? I cannot say. I don't believe that he had any heart left for religion, which is the highest form of affection, to take hold of. Perhaps he was a sceptic with misgivings about the future, but past the time for finding anything reliable in it. The devil approached the citadel of his heart by stealth, with many zigzags and parallels.
By stealth, by zigzags and parallels, the devil persuaded the guardians of the Faith to present Christianity as a rational system of salvation in which one could bypass the wellspring of genuine faith, all those sentimental intuitions that come from the human heart. The Reformation was an attempt to recapture the wellspring of Faith, but the effort quickly became a rationalist carbon copy of the Catholic Church’s method of inoculating the faithful with a virulent virus which destroys the heart. I saw, in a recent pastoral letter of the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod, one of the best of the splinter branches of the Church, an example of the fatal flaw that led to the death of Christian Europe.
Another way the Gospel can be obscured is when too much emphasis is put on an emotional response to the Gospel. Some Christians believe that unless they have some sort of ecstatic, charismatic experience, or feel some sort of “spiritual high,” they are not really Christians. It is truly sad that some people look into their own hearts for the security that they are children of God, instead of putting their hope and trust in the objective work of Christ for them, and in the means God uses to come to them—His Word and Sacraments.
It is quite true that an excessively emotional response to the Gospel can be harmful, but we ultimately must look into our own hearts for the passion to respond to God’s word and for the desire to receive the sacraments. If you kill the heart, the Word of God becomes a legal document and the sacraments become magic talismans. Richard Weaver addresses this point in his book Visions of Order:
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.
Nothing but collapse. Hasn’t that happened? The liberals hate the white man because they hate Christian Europe, but why are professed Christians so eager to denounce the white European? They denounce him in the name of a false rationalization of the faith. The Christian guardians at the gate see, when they look at the labyrinth of the human heart, all sorts of dangers lying in wait for the Christian everyman. There is the dark lady of sensuality, the demon of emotional excess, and countless other goblins and succubae that can destroy the soul. “Far better,” the guardians of the dialectic tell us, “to follow our rational, safe church documents, or our sensible Biblical exegesis, all the way to heaven.” But in their blindness they have failed to take note of the greatest of all obstacles to the faith, the dragon of intellectual pride, which resides in the dialectical corners of the mind, not in the human heart. Compared to him all the dangers lurking in the labyrinth of the human heart are nothing. And it is at the center of the human heart that we can find the only means to defeat the dragon of intellectual pride: His sympathetic, divine heart.

A timid man who loves his children will fight, with a ferocity that surpasses the pagan warrior, when his children are threatened. The Christian European once fought with the strength of ten thousand pagan warriors when his Europe, which was the fruit of his marriage to Christ, was threatened. But now that the dialectic of rationalist Christianity has triumphed, the swords of Christendom have rusted in their sheaths, and the golden harp lies as mute on Europe’s walls as the Harp that once through Tara’s halls... The swords will shine brightly, and the harp shall make music when the heart of the European is once again engaged in existence. Kipling was half-right when he said, “When the Saxon begins to hate.” When the European begins to love Christ’s Europe again, instead of studying scholarly words that tell him there is no such thing as a Christian civilization. And when he hates the devil and all of his works instead of ‘white racists,’ then we shall see miracles once more. The old minstrel got it right: “The heart that truly loves never forgets.” Awake, fellow Europeans, your God and your nation are calling you to rise and ride.

The liberals delight in every outrage committed against white people and every attack on the older European culture because they are satanic. And white Christians refuse to protect and defend white people and European culture because a dialectical shroud has descended over their hearts. The European whose heart still indignant breaks at the colorization and the ruination of Europe must not only face the liberal dragon alone, but he must also be prepared to be attacked from behind by white Christians. So be it. Better to fight on alone than to fall victim to the dialectic or to allow the liberals to hold the field uncontested. “Let be.” +

Labels: ,