Returning to Our Home

Shepard_MrBadger_chapterPausing there a moment and looking back, they saw the whole mass of the Wild Wood, dense, menacing, compact, grimly set in vast white surroundings; simultaneously they turned and made swiftly for home, for firelight and the familiar things it played on, for the voice, sounding cheerily outside their window, of the river that they knew and trusted in all its moods, that never made them afraid with any amazement.

As he hurried along, eagerly anticipating the moment when he would be at home again among the things he knew and liked, the Mole saw clearly that he was an animal of tilled field and hedgerow, linked to the ploughed furrow, the frequented pasture, the lane of evening lingerings, the cultivated garden-plot.

The Wind in the Willows


There is an infinitude of atrocity stories on the Internet, every one of them featuring a colored barbarian tribesman beating, raping, or murdering a white. And all these atrocities fall under the label of “good violence.” If a white person ever responds with violence against the barbaric colored tribesmen, it is called “bad violence,” and it must be punished. We get that helpful distinction from the Swedish police, but it applies to all whites throughout the European nations. For instance, the recent self-defense killing of a black barbarian by a white police officer was labeled “bad violence,” and the usual collection of communists, black barbarian witch doctors, and liberal clergymen are demanding the head of the “offending” police officer, who would have been awarded a medal for valor in another and better time. One atrocity among the infinitude of atrocities caught my attention last week. The incident involved a white Dutch woman and three Muslim barbarians. The video, filmed and posted on the Internet by one of the barbarians, showed one Muslim punching the woman until she was knocked to the pavement, and then a second Muslim kicking her in the face while she lay on the pavement. There were also some white males standing by who did not come to the aid of the woman. I would like to use that incident, which was quite typical of what is taking place throughout the European world, as a mirror into the soul of the modern European.

If we take that incident back in time and place to Victorian England, in the mid 1800s, for instance, we see something different unfold. Of course we’re assuming, for the sake of comparison, that the Victorians would have let three Muslim barbarians walk the streets in broad daylight. What happens when they strike an English woman and start to kick her after knocking her down? All three barbarians would be killed with either sword canes or pistols. And then there would be a hue and cry, not against the men who killed the colored barbarians, but against the civil authorities for allowing such men to walk the street amongst decent women.

On the face of it, the modern European males seem very cowardly compared to their 19th century counterparts. And they are rather cowardly, but there are some mitigating circumstances. There no longer is, as there was in Victorian England, any institutional support for violent action against colored barbarians. In point of fact, the white man who acts on his own authority to prevent and/or punish the evil that colored barbarians do will face imprisonment. I think this, the fear of reprisals from his own government, more than fear of the colored barbarians, keeps the white everyman from responding as he should when colored barbarians strike. Of course the government’s disarmament plan is part and parcel of their anti-European pogrom. White men are not supposed to carry arms, because they might use them against colored barbarians in an effort to defend their people. But the greatest disarmament of the whites has been, and continues to be, their moral disarmament. From cradle to grave the white man is taught he must never act with violence against colored barbarians no matter how evil their deeds appear. The alleged evil deeds of the colored barbarians are not really evil, the liberals insist, because there is only one source of evil in the world and that is the white man. This absolute law of the liberals’ Godless faith has entered the bloodstream of the white man. Just as the Victorian Englishman would instinctively strike home when colored barbarians attacked an Englishwoman, so does the modern European cringe and retreat when white women, white children, or any white, is attacked by colored barbarians. It is now in his blood; he cannot make himself fight to protect his own people, because he has been taught that the defense of the white race is evil.

One thing is certain: neither the liberals nor the colored hordes will be eliminated managerially. We can’t work out a deal with them, a kind of ‘live and let live’ policy of mutual respect. Liberalism is Satanism, and Satan does not compromise; his colored minions and his liberal stewards have but one goal: to destroy the white race.

This new faith of the white man, which has entered his blood and made him a nonhuman, does not stop him from using violence. On the contrary, the white liberals and the white grazers are quite willing to use violence so long as the violence is not in defense of home and race. The U.S. and Britain will bomb Moslems over there, because that is in defense of Israel, democracy, and multi-culturalism, but they will not defend their borders, because that would be a defense of home and race, which is immoral. And throughout the European nations the same anti-white theology of liberalism is in the ascendency. Smaller European countries that lack the capacity to bomb them ‘over there’ still open up their homelands to the colored invaders. A small town in Switzerland (1,000 people) recently allowed a black African women with seven children to come into their town and be “taken care of.” Every single Switzer in the town has had to pay an extra five percent in taxes in order to sustain the African’s seven children’s medical, recreational, and educational needs. Why is it the right of colored barbarians’ children to displace white children? Is there no one in the West who will tell the colored barbarians to care for their own, in their own nations? No, there isn’t. When the European nations are no longer inhabited by Europeans there will be nothing left for the colored barbarians to feed off. They will have killed the European milch cow. If the liberals really loved the colored savages as much as they say they do, they would make more of an effort to keep the European milch cows alive. But their hatred has no bounds, and they will destroy the whites with the aid of the colored barbarians, who will then turn on the liberals themselves. The true-to-life To Kill a Mockingbird story is different from the Harper Lee story. The real story does not show us a bunch of grateful darkies idolizing Atticus Finch, it reveals a band of negroes, led by the rapist Tom Robinson, murdering Atticus Finch and his family after he invited them in for a post-trial victory celebration.

At the heart of the liberals’ story is a lie. Their story tells us that the evil Europeans enslaved the perfect, innocent, colored people of the world in the name of a perverse, fanatical religion. The liberals place themselves in the role of liberator. They will free the colored people and share the pleasures of a new world of endless wine and cheese parties and sexual license.

The liberals’ paradise on earth is here, and it is a living hell. The sacred colored people, those pure, innocent children of nature, turned out to be (when white Europeans ceased to keep them in check) fiends from hell. Had the Europeans kept their prejudices about the lesser breeds without the law, they would never have invited colored barbarians into Europe to torture, rape, murder, and destroy the European people. The blood faith of the ancient Europeans is the only faith that can purge the new blood faith, the faith of negro worship and the hatred of whites, from the blood of the European people. How will such a miracle occur? We really don’t know how, because God’s grace cannot be put in a test tube and studied. But we have seen it work before: the European story is true. Christ once lived by our racial hearth fires. Has He ever really left those fires? No, He hasn’t; we have left Him. He waits for us there. The liberals have placed sentries to guard our racial hearth fire so that we will be unable to return, but no liberal, no colored barbarian, can stop the white man whose heart longs to return to his people and his God.

The European grazers currently assuage their loneliness with their devotions to their sport teams, but such devotions are devoid of any connection to their people and their God. No grace flows through the blood of a man who worships at the shrine of multiculturalism. Sport, the greatest influence on the male, and the auxiliaries of sport, church and state, all support multiculturalism, because they are part and parcel of Satan’s brave new world. He doesn’t want the blood faith of the white man to resurface again. It is in his interest that the Christ-bearing people shall never again stand upright. His nightmare is the William Tell European, one man standing athwart the mountain pass through Liberaldom with his crossbow, ready and willing to kill the multicultural Gesslers who threaten his people.

St. Paul in I Corinthians 13 tells us of a better way than prophecy and speaking in tongues.

Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.

And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,

Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;

Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;

Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.

For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.

But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

Only the European took that advice to heart and placed that charity of honor at the heart of his culture. Burke asked why there were no longer any French cavaliers ready to defend their queen. Then he supplied the answer. Where there is no blood faith, there can be no honor. An intellectual affirmation of God is a reed for every ill wind that blows, while a heartfelt affirmation of faith – “My Lord and my God”— from a man who has seen the living God in and through his people, is the faith that cleanses and purifies. Such a faith was our ancient faith: the man who has it possesses the only broadsword capable of defeating Satan, his liberal lieutenants, and their colored minions. The tragedy of the Dutch girl lying unconscious on the pavement while Muslims kick her in the head is a tragedy of faith. So long as Europeans remain in multicultural hell, separated from their God and the people of their own house and their own race, Satan shall reign in the European nations. +

Posted in blood faith, Christian Europe | Tagged

Why Europe Must Die So Liberalism Can Live

rackham_giant3 “Here’s a good world the while! Who is so gross
That cannot see this palpable device?”

Richard III

___________________________________

The late John Tyndall of the BNP once stated that he didn’t want to comment on the specifics of the American waterboarding torture of Iraqi prisoners because he was against the war to begin with. I’m not a white nationalist, I’m an antique Christian, but I often find myself, like Tyndall, so outside the mainstream (Burnham placed fascists and racists on the lunatic fringe), that I can’t enter any modern debate on a major issue without completely redefining the debate in order to put it into what I feel is its proper context. How could it be otherwise? If we truly believe, based on our Christian faith, that our modern European culture is demonic, how can we possibly expect to be at one with the people who frame and debate the important issues of our time?

One of the devil’s favorite ploys is to present us with two evils in the hope we will embrace one of them in order to combat the other. He does not want Christian men to say, “A plague on both your houses,” and then branch out on their own to form a third army opposed to the devil’s twin evils. World War II would be a perfect example of the twin-evils ploy of the devil – Hitler’s new world paganism or Stalin’s communist utopia, which will it be? The Western powers chose to side with communism, which was probably the greater evil, but that is not the point: we were not supposed to choose Hitler over Stalin because he was the lesser evil, we were supposed to – if we truly were knights of Christendom – steer our own separate course opposed to Nazism and communism. Of course when the ranks of white Christians have dwindled to a tiny minority, it is tempting to say evil is good and join a more powerful army than the Christian European one. Thus the evangelicals join the ‘Rapture of Israel’ army, the Roman Catholics join the ‘Ecumenical Liberal’ army, and on it goes: the good cause, the cause of Christian Europe, is left without a people to champion it, and the European people languish in the darkness of Babylon.

All the modern issues are debated today without taking the Christian perspective into account. The modern feminists, for example, have suddenly discovered that black football players like to beat their significant others. So the entire football establishment jumps on the anti-domestic abuse bandwagon and promises a no-tolerance program for any football player who physically abuses a woman. What is wrong with the pro football league tightening its rules on domestic violence? Everything is wrong with the policy, because it is driven by the feminist hell-hounds. I once read a neo-pagan’s column in which he said we should not refuse to join with feminists when our interests coincided. I disagree, because our interests, at the deepest level, a level the managerial neo-pagans never go to, will never coincide. The feminists want to use the domestic abuse issue to further the cause of feminism; they want women to have unconditional power over men so they can abort babies and use men as milch cows in support of whatever career they choose. I keep hearing from the suddenly outraged male football establishment, who are simply saying what the feminists tell them to say, that it is wrong to hit a woman. Is it? I think we need to make a distinction. A chivalrous Englishman from the Victorian era would not hit a lady; that would be the act of a cad. But the feminists have repudiated Christian Europe. They hate chivalry, all the males who once practiced it, and the contemporary males who still practice it. You can’t have things both ways, at least you shouldn’t be allowed to have things both ways. The feminists want the rights that should only be given to those Christian women to whom the European poets wrote sonnets and the Victorians placed on domestic pedestals. Is it wrong to hit a woman? No, it is wrong to hit a lady. There is a huge difference between the two. A man of the old school might defend a feminist virago from an equally ferocious black barbarian, but he would do so because of noblesse oblige (another ethos that the modern world can’t stand) and not because of some law that compels him to do so. In terms of the law, a feminist should have no rights, because like Lady Macbeth she has placed herself outside the only law that counts: God’s law. Why should we care about the domestic abuse of feminists when white ladies, white men, and white children of both sexes are being slaughtered throughout the European world by the barbarians of color? Let the feminists who have asked the devil to unsex them face the consequences of their demonic rejection of the Christian, patriarchal society.

Masculinity is not evil in and of itself as the feminists have been screaming for the past fifty years. Masculinity can be a source of grace if it is consecrated to the King of Kings. In old Europe, the true Europe, it was Christian males who took care of rogue males. They took care of them in the same way Shane took care of Stark Wilson. There is no escaping that very basic and very fundamental law of civilization. There must be good men and true to confront the rogue males who believe that what good people call civilization is simply a supply camp they can use to fulfill their predatory needs.

What is the alternative to Christian patriarchy? We are living with the alternative, it is called liberalism. This is how liberalism works – white males are subject to the rules of a fierce matriarchy. If they impregnate a woman, be she girlfriend or spouse, they have no right to stop said girlfriend or spouse from aborting that baby. Any manifestation of masculinity, be it the pagan kind or the chivalrous Christian kind, will be severely punished by the matriarchal powers of Liberaldom. But there is a devilish twist in our modern matriarchal system. When it comes to males of color, the matriarchal rules that apply to white males no longer apply. Males of color have free rein to murder and rape so long as they confine their murders and rapes to white women. To murder or rape a woman of color is bad, but to murder and or rape a white woman is good. So this utopian admixture of negro worship and matriarchy benefits the barbarians of color, but it does not ultimately benefit the white feminists who helped to create it. The feminists have outdone the fisherman’s wife: they didn’t know what they wanted, but they wanted it very badly. And now they have got it. They have a society in which there are no chivalrous white males, because white males have been trained since birth to never contradict a feminist and to never regard any form of black or colored behavior as wrong, no matter how barbaric or evil that behavior might be. The evil that blacks do is all in the racist minds of whites. There can be no evil blacks, unless they practice their evil on women of color. Wow, that seems like a difficult catechism to learn. It is, but that is what our educational system exists for, to teach white males there is no God of charity and mercy who bids us fight for His reign of charity, there are only the savage negro gods and the cruel matriarchal goddesses of feminism who must be worshipped and obeyed.

The neo-pagans seek to restore the white male to manhood by getting him to take pride in his genes, in his superior intellect. But the pride of intellect is what brought the white man down. The intellectual separation from all things decent and honorable in the name of a Nietzschean future is not the restorative we need. The white man needs to feel at one with William Tell, who was moved to fight when innocence was threatened. Pietas: that is the mark of the European male, that is the spirit Burke fought to keep alive in his beloved Britain, and that is what separates the Christian hero from the pagan hero. Blood lust is the mark of the pagan warrior; that charity of honor, which comes from pietas, is the mark of the Christian warrior.

Bill Bradley gave the keynote speech when Bill Clinton was first nominated by the Democratic Party for President. In that speech he outlined the essence of liberalism. He said that all true Americans (and all European liberals are like unto American liberals) refuse to accept the existence of tragedy. They believe that tragedy can be overcome by the proper (that is, liberal) management of peoples’ lives. Think about the stunning hubris of the liberals. Bradley, who spoke for all liberals, did not claim the tragedies of life could be mitigated, he said they could be eliminated. It is that promise, the elimination of the tragedies of life, which keeps the modern European grazers from becoming men again. They have sold their souls to the liberal managerial experts with the sure and certain hope that the managerial experts will eliminate the tragedies of life. Even if the liberals could actually win the fight against cancer, defeat heart disease, and AIDs, would such triumphs spare men from the ultimate tragedy? No, of course they wouldn’t. There is still death itself, the last enemy. But the liberals have an answer for death. If they destroy the image of God in man by pouring monkey vomit on the European people’s past, they will have successfully destroyed the Christian European’s belief that every personality is a universe, a universe deserving of eternal life, because He has made us, He has infused us with His divine spirit. Once that Christian belief fades away and is succeeded by naturalist universalism – which says that we are not individual personalities connected to a personal God but are instead isolated atoms connected to impersonal nature, the tragedy of death is eliminated. A part of nature returns to nature, why should that be tragic?

There was a romantic comedy called Houseboat made in 1958, starring Cary Grant, the king of romantic comedies, and Sophia Loren, a queen by virtue of her beauty. Most movies of that era reflected a Christian ethos while avoiding the question of, ‘who created that ethos?’ This movie couldn’t avoid the question, however, because Grant played a widower who has moved his young family to a houseboat after the death of his wife. His youngest son broods over the death of his mother. Grant’s character does not try to comfort his son by telling him of Christ’s promise, “I am the resurrection and the life, he that believeth in me though he were dead yet shall he live.” He can’t tell him that because he is a modern man and doesn’t believe such impossible things. Instead he takes a glass of water and throws it into the river. “That glass of water still exists,” he tells his son, ”but has just become part of the greater river.” Would such a “natural” explanation of death satisfy a son who truly loved his mother? What kind of people have we become who settle for such a casual dismissal of our honored dead? It must be all or nothing. Either Christ rose from the dead on the third day as He will one day raise us up from the dead, or else we plunge to the depths of despair, but to accept such naturalistic mush… Almighty God, forbid it.

This unceasing campaign of the liberals to laud masculine women, to demonize masculine white males, and to destroy all vestiges of whiteness is consistent with their new religion of nature. Anything that stinks of humanity, that distinguishes the human personality from the great compost heap of nature, must be eliminated, because human beings reflect the image of a personal God. We have left personality behind so that the ultimate tragedy of life can be defeated, not by a redeemer, but by absorption into a beneficent, impersonal universal called ‘nature.’ In the older European culture that contained white-skinned people who were white, pure white inside, there were masculine white men who were committed to the code of chivalry, and there were feminine white women who deplored feminism. The liberals will never allow such a spirit-infused world to come into being again, because such a world stands in direct contradiction to their soulless world of universal nature. This is the real War of the Worlds, a war between death in life liberalism and life after death European Christianity. +

Posted in antique Christianity, Muscular Christianity | Tagged

They Serve Us Still

Fleming_Loch_Oich_&_Invergarry_Castle_(Inverness-shire)-Looking_WestDeeper than speech our love, stronger than life our tether… –Kipling

I am dreaming of the mountains of my home,
Of the mountains where in childhood I would roam.
I have dwelt ‘neath summer skies,
Where the summer never dies,
But my heart is in the mountains of my home.

I can see the little homestead on the hill;
I can hear the magic music of the rill;
There is nothing to compare,
With the love that once was there,
In that lonely little homestead on the hill.

I can see the quiet churchyard down below,
Where the mountain breezes wander to and fro,
And when God my soul will keep,
It is there I want to sleep,
With those dear old folks that loved me long ago.

– W S Gwynne Williams


After my father’s death in the late spring, most of the family historical documents were given to me. I spent this last weekend going through old photograph albums, family records, keepsakes such as old Boy Scout caps, and other memorabilia that would only be of interest to me and my children. The word ‘bittersweet’ probably best describes my weekend immersion in my family’s history. It was very pleasant to see pictures and personal records of my parents, my grandparents, and my great-grandparents. Most of the pictures were taken on special occasions – birthdays, holidays, marriages, and vacations – all occasions where the clan was assembled and having fun. Funerals are not generally a time for family photo opps.

I also felt a great deal of sadness when looking at the old photos and family records, because all the subjects of the photos and the records have passed away. My hope is that my loved ones have not passed away, that death “will prove unreal at last,” but my faith eases the pain, it does not eliminate it. Possibly there are people of firmer faith who do not feel a sense of loss when they think of their honored dead, but I can’t count myself among their number.

When I look through my family records on both the maternal and paternal sides, I do not see anyone who won great honors and distinctions in this world. On the Welsh side, they were coal miners and on the German side they were craftsmen and farmers, not one member of the royalty or aristocracy in their ranks. And though many served in the military, none won medals for astounding feats of bravery. But they seemed to be, from my perspective as family historian, very great men and women because they were all white people. I’m not talking about just the outside: they were “white, pure white inside.” They lived and died close to their racial hearth fire and the God of their ascending race; the spiritual treasure that they passed on, a bred-in-the-bone faith in the living God, was of infinitely more value than any material treasure.

I still go to some of the same parks where my ancestors held family reunions. But I no longer see white people who are white, pure white inside, having family get-togethers there. Instead I see blended families of white, black, yellow, and every other color having a type of anti-white family reunion. They are celebrating their diversity, which translates to a celebration of everything that is not traditionally white and Christian. The mad-dog liberals say such new family gatherings are wonderful because the old, all-white families were evil. The propositional Christians say that there is no reason why an interracial family can’t be just as Christian and just as traditionally European as an all-white family. “Nothing has changed except the pigmentation of the skin, which is of no significance.” Is that true? — can a racially blended family still be Christian as our European ancestors were Christian? I say most emphatically that they cannot, because the Christian faith is passed on through the blood, not the head. The propositional Christian says that blended families can be wonderful Christian families, because pure mind, from which we receive our knowledge of the true God, has no color; therefore, there is no need for a familial, racial hearth fire.

The propositional view of faith and race is taken as a given by modern Christians, despite the fact that the Christian faith has virtually disappeared since the new non-“racist” version of Christianity has become the norm. Of course if you change the definition of Christianity to ‘How diverse are your families and your churches?’ then you are in line with modern liberalism and you can declare the modern age to be the most Christian age in history. You can ignore legalized abortion, the breakup of the patriarchal Christian family, and the ongoing assault on the white race, because such things pale in significance to the one essential sign of the true faith: “Do you worship at the shrine of the colored gods and do all homage and honor to them by offering your children up to them in loving sacrifice for the sins of the white race?”

This is why there is such consternation in the churches when there is not enough “diversity.” They must be diverse, because where there is no diversity there is no faith. The racist Europeans of the past believed, as St. Paul believed, that there could be no faith without charity, but that article of faith has been replaced by diversity, which is the supreme article of faith in the churches and in Liberaldom at large which encompasses, and its ethos rules, the Christian churches.

In Shakespeare’s Henry IV Part I, the mystic Owen Glendower claims he can conjure spirits from the deep: “I can call spirits from the vasty deep.” Hotspur will have none of that: “Why, so can I, or so can any man; But will they come when you do call for them?” We are ordered to believe that the new faith, which has not charity and has no place for our people, is the true faith. We are asked to make this mystic leap, against the dear-bought wisdom of our ancestors and against our hearts, which tell us to cling to one non-diverse people and one non-blended God.

There is a continuity in my family’s bloodline that ends with my parents. Until the time of the World II generation there were no liberals in my family tree. They were working class people who lived by their prejudices. Their faith was Kiplingesque: “This was my father’s belief, And this is also mine.” But both my father and my mother were the first of their line to go to college. They learned what they believed to be the better way, the way of enlightenment. They became progressive Christians. My own spiritual journey entailed, of necessity, what my parents considered a regression to prejudice and superstition. I think most children of modern parents must make a similar regression if they want to establish contact with the living God, who can only be known in and through our people. By rejecting my parents’ liberalism in order to reconnect with my grandsires, I became spiritually older than my parents. I viewed them as my beloved, but wayward children. Both became much closer to God by the time of their deaths, because of a lingering nostalgia for their people and an inability to accept the homosexual agenda of the modern churches. The strings of the past can often pull a lost soul back into the fold, which is why the liberals, at Satan’s command, seek to sever every single string connecting the Europeans to their past.

In H. V. Morton’s book In Search of Wales, he writes with amazement about the amount of good reading done by ordinary Welsh coal miners. They were poor, but they were not uneducated. This was the case with my ancestors, many of whom came from the Welsh coal regions that H. W. Morton wrote about. I saw many of what we now call the “classics,” which remain unread in our modern, more ‘sophisticated’ times, in the trunks and boxes of my grandsires – Dickens, Defoe, Scott, Cooper, the Brothers’ Grimm, etc. And the most important thing about their reading was that it was not done for a ‘class,’ the bardic European authors were not put through the academic ringer and found to be irrelevant fools. They were read for enjoyment and for enlightenment, but not the type of enlightenment that comes from intellectual speculation. The bards of Europe point us to the light of Europe, not to the light of a new utopian age.

The Greek system of education is a flawed system for the simple reason that it is a system conceived by abstract minds. The idea that a select band of men, isolated from the community, can sit around and think great thoughts, which they will then share with the world is nonsense. Look to the other side of Greek culture, where Homer sits by the hearth fire and tells stories of the Greek heroes and heroines. We, the “educated” Europeans, have lost contact with our bardic culture. The Christian European minstrels have been silenced, and all we hear at the European hearth fires are stories of liberals, which always amount to some type of Atticus Finch/Tom Robinson tale of the prejudiced whites, the sacred black man, and the unprejudiced, enlightened white man. We must reconnect with our older bardic culture and divest ourselves of our university educations before we can see the light that shineth in darkness.

The Europeans’ divorce from their bardic ancestors took place incrementally, but once the change took place, it became deeply rooted in the Europeans’ collective soul. It will take the spiritual equivalent of a blazing inferno to burn the intellectual speculation virus from the European people. It will take Christian Goths, loving and hating with all their hearts. It doesn’t seem possible to purge Europe of the liberals and their colored henchmen, but large fires are often started with very tiny sparks. The liberals still worry about their own demise, hence they squelch all opposition to their reign of terror. All negro atrocities are permitted, because such atrocities serve Liberaldom, but let one white man resist any part of the liberal agenda, and all the powers of Liberaldom are brought to bear against such an individual. Nevertheless, we can summon strength from our past and overcome our liberal overlords if we are willing to embrace the prejudices of our provincial, European ancestors, those “dear old folk from long ago.” +

Posted in blood faith, Christianity is neither a theory nor a philosophy, defense of the white race | Tagged

Parasitical Ideologues

Fisher_The Pass of LenyNothing 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. -Edmund Burke

 


A man with an ideology can commit all sorts of bloody deeds and countenance all sorts of atrocities without succumbing, as Lady Macbeth finally succumbed, to pangs of conscience. Robespierre did not prowl around his chambers at night trying to wash the blood off his hands, because Robespierre had on the armor of ideology. The blood on his hands was sanctified blood, shed in the name of his ideology, which was “The People.”

The modern liberals, the heirs of Robespierre, feel no pangs of conscience for their part in the ongoing torture, murder, and rape of the European people, because they, like Robespierre, serve ‘The People.’ They glory in the blood on their hands, because it is the blood of white people, the enemies of the people. The definition of ‘The People’ has been narrowed since Robespierre’s day until they now consist only of the colored people of the earth, but the ideology of ‘The People’ remains. All white people, who are not really ‘people’ at all, must be exterminated.

An ideology is a parasite that feeds off of a living faith. Once Christianity became an ideological system rather than a living faith, parasitical liberalism was born. The reason there is no difference between modern organized Christianity and secular liberalism is because they are both parasitical sects that are the diseased offshoots of Christianity. They have grown to such enormity, like the Ebola disease, that they have completely taken over the healthy organism, which was a faith in Jesus Christ, true God and true Man.

Liberalism is a parasitical disease of the soul that dries up all the humanity in the infected person. We often see different branches of parasitical liberalism fighting it out, such as the modern conservatives and the liberals, but they are both infected with the same disease, which they think is health. The diseased liberal mutants will continue to feed of the remnants of old Europe until there is no healthy remnant left, unless the living remnant of Europeans, who have resisted the parasite, cry ‘halt’ and purge parasitical liberalism from Church and state with fire and sword.

The grazers who have the parasitical disease, but not in its advanced stages, are the unknown factor. Would they respond to the leadership of men who have fought off the disease and want to purge the European nations of spiritual Ebola? It doesn’t seem like they are capable of knowing and following the good. But we’ll never know if we don’t proceed against the liberals. The devil, who was the first liberal, is their master. The devil uses the liberals as his officers and the colored barbarians as his shock troops. Has there ever been an army with a more demonic purpose? — the eradication of everything white and Christian. Only a diseased soul, a soul infected with parasitical liberalism, could fail to see what is occurring.

We see before us wave upon wave of colored barbarians motivated by pure hate. They will continue to torture, murder, and rape whites until they are stopped by white people who have overcome the internal parasite that makes them deaf to the cries of innocence violated and to the cries of burning white children whose only crimes are that they are white. Only those who have purged their soul by joining with the Man of Sorrows, who abides by the European hearth, will hear the cries of His suffering people.

The merciless cruelty of the liberals and the colored barbarians is much more open now. They have squelched all opposition, so they see no need to put on a false front. The newspapers and the television news shows still refuse to report negro atrocities, but that is by an institutionalized policy that has been in place since the 1960s when the liberals still feared white backlash. Today they no longer fear white backlash – in fact one gets the impression that they would actually like to find a white bogeyman somewhere so they could have something to write and pontificate about. Look at the liberal hysteria over the self-defense killing by a white police officer of the black barbarian gang member, whom the liberals call “The Gentle Giant.” The evil intent of the liberals is always glaringly apparent after such incidents. One black gang member gets killed, and the liberals pour out their sympathy for him and demand vengeance. Contrast that with their reaction to the horrific atrocities committed against their own people. Can there be any doubt about whom the liberals serve? Can there be any doubt that the self-professed Christians who serve the liberals are not Christians?

The difficulty that we encounter with an ideologue is this: the ideologue has adopted his ideology to escape from the truth. So it is of no use to appeal to him as a fellow human being who desires to know the truth. In fact, your ideologue will strike out against anyone who comes anywhere near to the truth of existence. His parasitical ideology must be defended at all costs. This is why white people will never be accepted in Liberaldom. They, as a people, built a culture that was centered on the truth. The New Age Christians seek to retain the benefits of living in a truth-based culture while supporting and living in a lying, parasitical culture. You can’t have it both ways. The sign of a Satanic parasitical sect is fusionism. You can’t mix faith in Christ, which is spiritual health, with negro worship, Jewish rapture, Islam or any other modern or ancient parasitical ideology. The purity of St. John’s Revelation cries out against such demonic blending: “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.”

In times of plague one sees nothing but sickness and wonders if there ever was something called health. This parasitical, ideological disease called liberalism is so widespread that the European people no longer believe that genuine faith, hope, and charity once existed. The modern faith of the parasitical Europeans is in the sacred negro; their hope is in a future devoid of white people. And their charity consists of work done in the name of the sacred negro and for the sake of a future where colored people dwell in blissful contentment, after the white race has been purged from the earth.

“Jesus saves” can be seen on thousands of billboards and bumper stickers, but if we trace such sloganeering to its source we usually discover that some parasitical sect is responsible for the slogan. It is the incarnational Christ of the European people who saves, not the Christ of the parasitical Christians. The Christ of the European hearth fire comes to us through the blood of our people. He was in the bardic side of the ancient Greek culture just as sure as He was in the blood of the Hebrew people. When Homer’s Odysseus refuses Calypso’s offer of immortality in order to stay true to the people of his own house and race, he was maintaining the bloodline that could be traced all the way back to the beginning of the world when men talked and walked with the living God, and he was looking forward in time to the coming of Christ, who would give men an immortality beyond the power of Calypso’s immortality. And when Sophocles’ Hercules looks to a God above the gods, a Hero God, he is looking for The Messiah who will redeem the world. These racial memories point us to the truth. How can we, the heirs of the bardic Greeks and the bardic Christians of Europe, accept a parasitical ideology that celebrates the science lab, the unrepentant Jew, and the negro, when we have seen, through our people, the face of the living God?

The parasitical Christian always dismisses the European Christian, who wants no other Christ than the Christ of the European hearth fire, as a “cultural Christian.” Such a Christian is supposed to be bound to something excessively anthropomorphic, which translates to something too human, too bound to one culture and one people. But Christ used the human way to bring the divine presence into this world. He lived and died true to His house and His people. A parasitical ideology about Christ is not an improvement on the real thing – faith in the Christ who comes to us in and through the European people.

Underground news sites that tell us what the savage hordes of color are doing perform a valuable service, but such sites only tell us the symptoms of a disease. They don’t tell us the source of the disease or the cure. The source of the disease is ideological, parasitical Christianity, and its modern name is liberalism. And the cure is the pure unadulterated faith of the racist, prejudiced Europeans. “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.” The antique Europeans who believed in Christ, the Christ who entered human hearts, stand in direct contrast to the parasitical ideologues such as Pope John, the pope of “loving forgiveness” for the torture murderers of his own people. Such “Christians” and their liberal allies have flown their colors and we should all stand against such hideous, diseased souls just as Stevenson’s Alexander Smollet stood against the pirates:

“Now you’ll hear me. If you come up one by one, unarmed, I’ll engage to clap you all in irons, and take you home to a fair trial in England. If you won’t, my name is Alexander Smollett, I’ve flown my sovereign’s colours, and I’ll see you all to Davy Jones.”

In what is an excellent book in many ways, Suicide of the West, James Burnham, the author, ends a discussion of conservatives and liberals with this rather telling remark: “At the extreme wings there are small sects of communists, anarchists, fascists, racists, and crackpots outside both liberal and conservative boundaries.” He is wrong about communists and anarchists: they are not outside the boundaries of liberalism. Witness the communist Southern Poverty Law Center and the anarchist Black Panther sects. Both groups are respected members of the liberal pantheon. However, Burnham is right about fascists and racists being outside the conservative boundaries. But should they be out of bounds? I don’t care about the fascists, but the ‘racists’ that Burnham places outside the pale of conservatism are the European people as they existed for over two thousand years. They were ‘racists’ in that they loved their own people, not a universal idea of humanity.

The racial door is the door we must reopen if we are ever going to live in a nation where parasitical sickness does not pass for glowing health. All the managerial conservatives who place our racial hearth fire beyond the boundaries of our nation must ask themselves why they have no concern for the ongoing slaughter of the white race and the ongoing attack on Christian Europe. What is there to conserve if not our people and our faith? They, not the ‘Union,’ are one and inseparable. +

Posted in Europe as the Christ-bearer, post-Christian rationalism

Who Shall Restore Europe?

Caerlaverock_CAstle“Under favour, most learned and honoured sir,” said the Dominie, “I trust He who hath restored little Harry Bertram to his friends, will not leave his own work imperfect.”

-Walter Scott in Guy Mannering

________________________

The avalanche of criticism that Ann Coulter received from the “conservatives” over her Dr. Brantly article was quite revealing. Conservative publications such as National Review and conservative organizations such as ISI have certainly taken a dive into liberal waters. The essential liberalism of the National Review magazine and the ISI organization was implicit from their inceptions, but their anti-communist rhetoric hid their innate liberalism and tended to make them seem more conservative than their pro-communist liberal cousins. But once the communist issue disappeared, the liberalism of the American conservatives became apparent. Abortion was a “debatable issue,” colored immigration was unopposed and often lauded, and the ongoing attack on the European people under the guise of civil rights was aided and abetted by the so-called conservatives. All that remained as a bone of contention between the conservatives and the liberals was the economic issue. The conservatives favored corporate capitalism, which they called “free enterprise,” while the liberals favored state capitalism, which they called the “Great Society,” or whatever other utopian label that suited them at the moment.

We must go back to the pre-Civil War South to find Burkean conservatives, men who were concerned with preserving their people and their customs rather than an abstract ideology: “Men are not tied to one another by papers and seals. They are led to associate by resemblances, by conformities, by sympathies… They are obligations written in the heart” (Burke). American Jacobins won out in the Civil War, and the consequence was that obligations written in the heart gave way to ideologies written on papers and seals. The men who have come to be known as conservatives are not interested in preserving the European people; they are interested in preserving democracy and what they call the free enterprise system. In their minds all that is necessary to become an American citizen or a citizen of any European nation is to affirm democracy and free enterprise. This is why the National Review types do not campaign for white immigration and white immigration only. Instead they campaign for an “educated” people of color, because it is obvious to them that intelligent people of color will see the values of National Review, free enterprise conservatism. To date, the liberal liberals are winning that war. I suppose the conservative liberals could not find any intelligent Third Worlders, men and women who were willing to eschew welfare for the free enterprise system.

While they’re waiting for the intelligent people of color to flood the country and cancel out the unintelligent people of color, the conservatives keep busy by denouncing racism in all its forms. Even when they see that every new colored wave of immigrants always prefers welfare to free enterprise, the conservatives still hold out the hope that they will convert the people of color to their color-blind version of democracy and capitalism. After every election, which the conservatives always lose, they sit down to talk about what can be done to win the Mexican vote, the black vote, the Puerto Rican vote, etc. The conservatives never ask what should be done to help white people reclaim the nation that they founded and that they alone can maintain, because the conservatives do not believe they belong to one particular racial hearth fire that is their link to the living God. Apparently St. Paul was going on a racist rant in 1Timothy 5: 8, and every European of the past and present who loves his own race above all other races is a moral pariah unfit to enter the promised land of modern conservatism. Someone go tell these new conservatives that they are not conservatives, they are traitors to their race who will be trampled into dust by the New Age Jacobins, who do believe in race: they believe in and worship the black race. Abstractions such as democracy and free enterprise cannot motivate men to fight against the liberal leviathan. Only those who warm their hands at the racial hearth fires of the European people, where “love and all love’s loving parts” dwell, can take the measure of the liberal leviathan and defeat it. We do not fight as Ahab fought the leviathan, without hope and in despair of God’s grace.

What made the French Revolution so completely different from any other revolution or any other change in government that had preceded it was the religious aspect of the revolution. The Jacobins replaced Christianity, the blood faith of the European people. All subsequent changes in European governments were judged to be good or bad, in the minds of the liberals, to the extent that the revolutions killed the traditional faith of the European people. In most of the mini-electoral revolts and revolutions, the French liberals and their European counterparts were careful not to be as overt as their Jacobin predecessors. They toned down the rhetoric and the blood (except in Russia) and advanced utopian liberalism at a slower rate than Robespierre did. But now, having no conservative opposition, because the conservatives are liberals, the liberals have begun to rule without the pretexts and subterfuges of yesteryear. The acceptance of gay marriage is an example of the New Age. Liberals used to hide their Babylonian sexual agenda, but now they glory in it and dare anyone to oppose them.

In my twenties I bought Raymond Aron’s book In Defense of Decadent Europe from the Conservative Book Club. The book made me quite angry because I thought (foolish me) that Aron’s defense of Europe would be a defense of my Europe, which was Christian Europe. But that Europe, Aron stated quite emphatically, was dead. The Europe that was not dead, according to Aron, was democratic, free enterprise Europe. That is the Europe Aron was defending. Now you might say that Aron was a Jew and therefore had no feeling for Christian Europe. But Aron’s views on what he called the European miracle were no different from the conservative gentiles then and now. They, like Karl Marx, their kissing cousin, think all of life boils down to economics. Anthony Jacob, the 20th century Edmund Burke, gives the lie to the atheistic utilitarianism of the modern conservatives and their liberal brethren:

We do not accept the Marxist – and Capitalist – belief that man is motivated primarily by economic considerations or plain greed. Like all his political ilk, Macleod does not understand that life comes before money – that not all the gold in the world can make a baby: that babies in any event are anything but economical: and that in the last analysis the difference between biology and economics is the difference between a mother’s breast and a two-and-sixpenny feeding bottle from Woolworth’s.

In Shakespeare’s Henry IV Part I and Part II, Falstaff is given every chance to become something other than what he is, a roguish jester with no inner core, but he fails his test of manhood: “What, is it time to jest and dally now?”, which leads to his ultimate rejection. At each turn of the great liberal wheel, the European Everyman has been asked, first by Burke, then by Jacob, “Will you continue to play the fool and try to conserve everything but that which is essential to conserve, your own people and their faith?” That is the key, for without faith the people perish. And a people who believe that the church of Christ consists of an organization of clergymen teaching that the blood faith of the European people, the faith that is written in the heart, is nothing compared to their mind-forged faith written on seals and paper, are a people who will perish from the lack of a God and a people. For the Europeans’ faith in Christ, the non-abstract Christ, and their faith in their people are eternally interwoven. Anyone who sees the European people from inside knows this. But the bulk of Europeans no longer dwell by their racial hearth fire, so they do not see their people or their God.

There is no such thing as a separation of Church and state. All people form their societies based on their vision of God. The colored tribesmen worship their heathen gods of blood and sex. The liberals worship the colored people of the world in union with the abstract intellect of man and the scientific holy ghost. Every public ceremony throughout the European nations is dedicated to either the direct glorification of the negro or the furtherance of the great multicultural society presided over by the negro gods. The state churches–and all our churches are state churches–do not consider themselves churches unless they reach out to the negro, not to convert him (that would imply some weakness in the negro) but to exalt him as the supreme god of the natural world, which is the only world that the men without a god and a people can ever know.

“One night I heard screams,” was a former communist’s reason for leaving the Party. Why do the Europeans not hear the screams of all the Jonathan Fosters of the once sacred lands of Europe? Ahab fought the white whale with a relentless fury that was quite admirable. Can Christian Goths not fight with greater fury than the pagan Ahab? They have in the past, so why should this moment in history be any different? The ideologues who say this is 2014, and therefore the morals of the 19th century or the 12th century or any of the other Christian centuries do not apply to the age of ‘onward and upward’ liberalism, are speaking as Satan would have them speak. There has been no moral progression, unless you truly believe that our modern, negro-worshipping Babylon is superior to Christian Europe.

The spiritual rot is deeply engrained in the European people, but the men of the Right, men who want to reclaim Christian Europe rather than conserve capitalism, have yet to enter the lists. They are the human factor that could still turn the tide against liberalism. Nothing in the spiritual realm is written, except what Handel proclaims in the Hallelujah Chorus: “He shall reign forever and ever.” +

Posted in Conservatism, restoration of European civilization | Tagged ,

The Return

William_Tell_and_sonThou know’st the marksman—I, and I alone.
Now are our homesteads free, and innocence
From thee is safe: thou’lt be our curse no more.

-Schiller

___________________________

Whenever the liberals rejoice, we know something horrendous is taking place, because liberals only rejoice when Satan’s kingdom of hell on earth is advanced. So let us take a look at the most recent cause of the liberals’ rejoicing. Behold, it is a 13-year-old girl, pitching successfully for a championship Little League team. Now there really is nothing unusual about a girl pitching well against boys. My sister’s girls’ softball team had a girl on their team who could have done quite well pitching against a boys’ team. As we know – or used to know before the age of ideological stupidity –girls develop sooner than boys and can, before boys hit puberty, often perform on the same or higher athletic level than boys. And even after boys become men, the female of the species can perform equally as well or better than the male at sports where physical strength is not important. But our ancestors, the ones who believed the Battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton, knew that boys, if they were to become manly, Christian men, needed to compete against other boys and other boys only so they could learn to be stout-hearted and chivalrous. But that is precisely the point.  The liberals do not want young men to grow up and become virtuous, strong, Christian males; they want them to become weak, feminized, liberal, unisex creatures devoid of all masculinity. Nowadays if a male shows any masculine traits, he is evil: only women are supposed to be masculine, and men must be feminine. This is why the liberals rejoice when a young girl excels at a young boys’ game. (And you thought the liberals had suddenly taken an interest in Little League baseball.) Of course, as in all utopias – and our modern feminist utopia of masculine women and emasculated men is not an exception – some are more equal than others. Boys are still generally better at sports than girls, even prepubescent boys, so boys are not allowed to play on girls’ softball teams, but girls are allowed to play on boys’ Little League teams. Isn’t it wonderful the way equality works?

If you think this is just a little, cute, feel-good story about an exceptional little girl athlete you couldn’t be more wrong. This story is about women in combat, legalized abortion, and the destruction of the Christian patriarchal family, which is the primary channel, along with the racial channel, of God’s grace. Liberals use whatever they can to further their satanic agendas. The 13-year-old girl’s success in Little League furthers the liberals’ myth of equality – there is no male or female, no black or white. But of course there is such a thing as a male when it is necessary to demonize masculinity, just as there is such a thing as a white man when it becomes necessary to demonize whiteness.

The entire liberal agenda is based on redefining what is natural. A Christian European would use the term ‘natural’ to describe the ties between a mother and her child, the protectiveness a man feels toward the woman he loves, and the ties between brothers and people of the same race. However, all those natural ties are called unnatural by the liberals. What is ‘natural’ is whatever reduces men and women to mere biological entities. There can be no spiritual significance to masculinity or femininity because there is no such thing as a spiritual realm of existence. This Little League debacle is simply another propaganda campaign of the liberals to convince themselves and the world there is no God over and above nature who has infused His divine spirit into His creation.

The feminists and the feminized liberal males seem to run into a contradiction when they confront the black male. On the one hand, masculinity is supposed to be evil, but on the other hand the black male is supposed to be divine. How do we reconcile the two? This is what the liberals have done: they condemn all masculine behavior exhibited by white males, whether it be the spiritualized masculinity of the Christian Europeans, the Havelocks and Walter Scotts of Europe, or the more pagan variety exhibited by modern white athletes. Either is white masculinity; therefore, both are evil. But black masculinity, better described as bestiality, is never condemned (the feminists were silent during the O.J. Simpson trial) and is usually lauded because it is anti-white. So everything evil always comes back to whiteness. There can be no white males in the world, because they are the Christ-bearers. And if there are no white males in the world, there will soon be no white females as well, because they will breed with the colored races and produce demon children. Such is the liberal agenda, but it is not written: white men can forsake liberalism and forge a different, non-liberal world. In fact, they must do so, because this modern world of Liberaldom is the synthesis of all things blasphemous, cruel, unnatural, and inhuman.

What was called the “civil rights” movement was in reality the negro-worshipping movement. And from that movement came the “sexual revolution” which spawned feminism and “gay rights.” And the most sickening aspect of the Europeans’ return to Babylon was the churches’ non-resistance to – and often their support of – the new Babylonian world of the liberals. The shocking non-resistance to evil came because church men were peddling formulaic, philosophical Christianity for so long they had lost the European people. If Christianity is whatever the church men say it is, and the church men are devoid of a blood faith, then Christianity is nothing at all. The European people became a coalition of liberals and grazers with the liberals at the top giving edicts and mandates to the docile grazers.

The white male lives in a state of constant fear and trembling lest he offend one of the gods of Liberaldom, whether it be Isis or the great black god who presides over all the other gods of Liberaldom. The recent police shooting in St. Louis is an example of the craven state to which the white male has been reduced in the European nations. Instead of awarding a medal to the white police officer who took a stand against black barbarism, the white liberals and the white grazers are rushing to denounce the white police officer and appease the black barbarians by allowing them to riot in the streets of St. Louis. By some twisted logic of self-hatred, the whites accept the fact that all black atrocities against whites, which are as infinite as the sands of the desert, must be countenanced because “after all, blacks are only responding to years of oppression… blah, blah, blah,” and all resistance to black barbarism must be treated as “racism.” But if whites are not permitted to respond to black barbarism in kind there will soon be no white people. It’s now time to give blacks their own state where they can prey on each other like monsters of the deep and leave white people alone.

Of course I know that the liberals will never consent to a separation from their black gods, which is why Christian Europeans should be at war with liberals. Didn’t our Lord say something about the evil of serving two masters? When will the craven-souled modern European walk away from his negro-worshipping liberal masters and become a European again?

The celebration of a female Little League pitcher and the negro riots in St. Louis are interrelated, because in order for the negro to reign supreme the white male must be feminized. He must never resist black barbarism in any form, because the negro is the god of the new natural world of the liberals. The Christian Europeans felt it was unnatural for Christian men to allow colored barbarians to murder, rape, and pillage their own people, while the liberals rejoice at such acts of barbarism and hurl anathemas at any whites who protest. There can be no “coming together,” no compromise between two such divergent peoples as the Christian Europeans and the liberals. The liberals know this, which is why they fight a war of extermination against the white race. The ‘neither fish nor fowl’ European grazers do not know there is war going on, which is why they are being exterminated.

The old hymn asks, “Who with me my burden shares? None but Thee, dear Lord, none but Thee.” And Burke asked why there were no Frenchmen left to defend their Christian Queen. In this age of the feminized male, we know the answer to both questions. There is no one but the Man of Sorrows who can give men the grace to fight Satan and his minions, and without that grace the modern European is like the cravens of France who would not fight to defend their Queen. Eschew the intellectuals of church, state, and academy and cling to your racial hearth fire, where the grace of God will come to you, and you will be a European again. Is moral cowardice a sin? Yes, it is. There is no greater rejoicing in heaven than when a sinner returns to the fold. Let us put an end to the liberals’ rejoicing over the ongoing ‘evolution’ toward Babylon and make them lament the return of the Christian male. +

Posted in defense of the white race, Muscular Christianity | Tagged

It Begins at Home

O'Connor_Moonlit_landscape_with_figures_on_a_pathIt is surely not wise for the Church to pander to this idolatry. Even if Christianity were to be the religion only of a select few, it would be none the worse for that. Has it ever been anything else but the religion of a select few, and can it ever be anything else? Christianity is the religion of the White and not the non-White peoples, who debase it even when they accept it. They might pay lip-service to it where the white man is strong and his institutions accordingly respected, or where it has obtained a form of superstitious hold over them. But they can no more accept and comprehend essential Christianity than the white man can accept Shamanism. This, above all, makes it all the more reprehensible that the Church, instead of recognizing this, should swing round viciously upon the white man and hold him to blame for it – that white man upon whose unadulterated identity Christianity exclusively depends.   -Anthony Jacob


The print media, which is dwindling fast, and the electronic media throw the word ‘conservative’ around a lot, but they never bother telling their audiences, perhaps because they are completely ahistorical creatures of the present, that the modern ‘conservatives’ are not conservative. A true conservative is in the Burkean tradition: he does not look on his government as a means of eradicating evil from the face of the earth and ushering in a new golden age. The Burkean looks on government as a means to an end, the preservation of a particular people and their particular culture. The government that works for one people might not work for another. And whether a European government works or doesn’t work is determined by how well it protects the people’s Christian faith. A government that works against God’s channels of grace – the familial and racial hearth fires – is not a government for a conservative, Christian people. That it was self-evident the Jacobin government was hostile to the Christian traditions and to the Christian people of France was the central argument in Burke’s case against the Jacobins. It was then and it is now impossible to reconcile a belief in Jacobin democracy, which includes its Russian communist and liberal American offshoots, with traditional, Burkean conservatism. Some modern conservatives will quote Burke while supporting American Jacobinism, but such conservatives are like the man who claimed he loved his wife’s cooking but then threw his food in the trash bin when she wasn’t looking.

Modern conservatives, because they are not Burkean conservatives, generally only argue with their liberal cousins over procedural issues within the confines of liberalism; they do not disagree about the sacredness of democracy. For instance, a small minority of conservatives will protest the government’s refusal to do anything to stop the flow of illegal immigrants, but they will not protest against the legal colorization of a white nation. This is because they believe in a democratic theory of government, and doing illegal things goes against that theory, rather than a conservative government constituted to protect its own people, a people of one race and one faith.

Since the modern conservative is loyal to a theory of democratic government rather than his kith and kin, he seldom does anything that attacks liberalism at its negro-worshipping center. When a modern conservative ventures over the line separating modern liberal conservatism from genuine conservatism, it always causes an uproar among the liberals and the liberal-conservatives. A case in point: the modern conservative columnist Ann Coulter recently wrote a column in which she criticized the evangelical missionary Dr. Kent Brantly for rushing over to Africa to “save” all of the Africans suffering from the hideous Ebola disease, which is almost always fatal. The doctor quickly contracted the disease and had to be transported out of Africa to a hospital in Atlanta. Coulter placed a toe over the line that separates the liberal conservative from the Burkean conservative when she criticized the doctor for going on a self-indulgent ego trip to Africa, while ignoring the work he could have been doing at home. Are there not souls to be saved in the United States? While avoiding the issue of negro worship, Coulter did take a step over the modern conservative line by criticizing the egotism of Dr. Brantly and his failure to practice the type of charity that begins at home. But then an egotist is incapable of loving anyone close to him and can only love abstractions of people who are far away: on such people the egotistic liberals can project their fantasies. They imagine admiring hordes of adoring negroes playing Tom Robinson to their Atticus Finch.

The Atlanta hospital where Dr. Brantly is receiving treatment has assured the public that the doctor’s presence in the hospital’s isolation unit will not endanger the lives of other people in the hospital and surrounding area. I hope that is true, but the hospital’s reassurances remind me of the reassurances of my supervisors on the police force. They told me that I didn’t have to worry about getting AIDs from incidental contact with prisoners who had AIDs. Yet I noticed that they themselves never went near the AIDs-infected prisoners.

Coulter’s mild criticisms of Dr. Brantly were roundly condemned by the liberals, who would have condemned him themselves if he had been an actual Christian missionary condemning abortion or homosexual marriage. And most of the conservative liberals, who share the mad-dog liberals’ love of the noble black savage, condemned Coulter’s criticism of Dr. Brantly as well. Which is what we would expect because it is the religion of the liberal-conservative coalition that is at stake here. Brantly went to Africa as a Muslim goes to Mecca and a Catholic goes to Rome: he went there to worship. If you criticize Brantly, you criticize the faith of the liberals and the modern conservatives. It is a faith that must be challenged and defeated before white people can rise from the ash heap of diversity and become a people with a local habitation and a name. I long for the day that a man can say “the European people,” and everyone that hears those words will visualize white people and white people only, preserving their own people and their cultures in every country throughout Europe.

My desire that European nations and their European colonies should be white and only white is now considered a heresy. Tony Blair’s opinion that Britain “must become multi-cultural,” has become the law throughout the European nations. But it is not a multi-cultural state that Tony Blair liberals are striving for. They are striving for a one-culture state, a Babylonian state devoid of white people. And in order to have that state, white people must be tortured, murdered, and raped out of existence. Is this the vaunted brave new world that liberals have promised us for the last 200 years? Yes, it is.

“Missionaries” like Dr. Brantly must be seen for what they are: they are heretics who have abandoned the Christian God to go whoring after the great negro gods of Liberaldom. Brantly had a ‘people,’ a people who needed to be reminded of who they were and who they still must be: the Christ bearers. Instead, Brantly, like so many other white, negro-worshipping Roman Catholics, Protestant evangelicals, and liberals, betrayed his own people to fulfill his dream of becoming a world-renowned Atticus Finch. Is he simply a little misguided? No, a man who sides with the torturers and murderers of his own people cannot act with good intentions toward any race of people; he can only act according to the dictates of his own exalted egotism.

In the late ‘60s a play called Little Murders was written, and in the 70s it became a movie. The play-movie was a kind of absurdist dark comedy which highlighted the escalating violence in American cities. The play was considered to be “brutally honest,” but it was not brutally honest, because violent crime was depicted as something that had just grown out of control for no understandable reason. It just happened. The rhinoceros in the bedroom, which the author of Little Murders ignored, was the black man. Violent crime did not become out of control in American and European cities until negroes were allowed to roam free in white cities. In seeking to build a utopia where violent crime was non-existent, the liberals turned our cities into places where murder, rape, and mayhem against whites became the norm, and what was considered normal, everyday life became an aberration. Is the negrophile world of the liberal and the modern conservative a paradise that we should work with might and main to perpetuate, or is it a monstrous empire of cruelty that we should destroy? I think we should pursue the later course of action. Can men with any humanity left choose any other option?

No white man wants Dr. Brantly or anyone else to contract Ebola, but who is being helped by whites abandoning whites in order to serve the negro? Ostensibly the negro is being served. If that is true, then why is Africa ready to sink into the abyss now that whites have become multi-cultural? Marauding blacks in the American and European cities prey not only on whites but also on themselves like monsters from the deep since whites have become “tolerant” of multi-culturalism. And whites? The new multi-culturalism has destroyed them; they have lost their faith in the Christian God and His people. So no one is being helped by the liberals’ egotistic march to the tom toms of multi-culturalism.

The liberals have spent centuries indoctrinating the white man. He now believes that a universal love of the colored stranger is the purest, finest love on earth. To love one’s own is mere selfishness, a selfishness that marked the European in the bad old days of Christian Europe. A man can only believe such satanic filth when he has no heart. Ah, there’s the rub. Appeal to a man’s pride of intellect and he will abandon his people and his God. Balzac saw the blood red tide upon the horizon: “In Paris to tell a man he has a good heart is the same as telling him he’s stupid as a rhinoceros.” And who wants to be as stupid as a rhinoceros? I do. I want to stay with the third dumb brothers of Christian Europe who slew dragons and defied Satan and his minions, because they loved their own people in imitation of their Lord, who was and is the embodiment of that charity of honor, the mark of the true European.

The new post-Christian morality is manifested in every aspect of the Europeans’ lives. We don’t protect our borders because the stranger is purer and better than our own people. And since the colored alien is better than the white citizens, he is allowed to murder, rape, and steal when he enters his new country. In my own anti-nation called the United States of America (it should be called the United States of Satan) elderly white people, I meet them all the time, cannot afford to pay for their health care unless they increase their incomes by applying for the welfare benefits that the colored aliens receive. But the older whites won’t apply for welfare because they don’t want to be a drain on their nation’s resources. The liberal Jacobins depend on the innate honor of the white people that they have sworn to exterminate. There is no reasoning with such monsters of the deep, who hate their own with the passionate hatred of their satanic master. From out of the depths, the depths of a European heart, we respond to the liberals’ satanic universalism of hate with a love of our own people, the people of our racial hearth fire. And surely that love will teach us to hate where we ought to hate and fight without ceasing against the liberals who hate their own in the name of a universalist theology forged in hell. Our short mortal lives will count for nothing if we don’t practice the charity that begins at home. +

Posted in churches as halfway houses, Conservatism, Negro worship | Tagged