The One-Sided War

Kent_King-LearWhen false opinion, whose wrong thought defiles thee,
In thy just proof repeals and reconciles thee.

-King Lear

______________________________________

If a homosexual dies of AIDs, most white Christians feel sorry for him. It is truly a hideous way to die. But do we feel as sorry for the homosexual who has contracted AIDs as a result of his own behavior as we do for a man or woman who has contracted AIDs after a blood transfusion? Of course we don’t. The homosexual’s death from AIDs is unfortunate while the death of the man or woman who contracted AIDs from a blood transfusion is a tragedy.

The negro who was shot and killed by Michael Slager brought about his own death, because he fought with the officer and then attempted to run from the officer to avoid arrest. Despite all ‘paper’ laws, every criminal should know that when a man’s blood is up, a man who is charged with catching bad guys, death could be the price for resisting and fleeing from that officer. If criminals do not believe that, and most American criminals do not, the law will lose most of its force. You could make a case that considering who makes the laws, namely liberals, it might be a good thing if they were not enforced, but that is a discussion best left for another time. The main point I want to stress is that Michael Slager is the tragic victim in this case, not the negro called… I can’t bear to put that blessed name on a negro, so I’ll simply refer to him as W.S.

Slager was the victim of two modern mythologies, both of which stem from a secularization process that started long before he was born. The first mythology is the psychological mythology. In the late 19th and early 20th century, secularized Jews such as Freud and secularized Christians such as Jung gave us a new, non-Christian way of looking at life. That new view of existence is so entrenched in our society now that even the Christian churches, who should be the main opponents of psychology, refer all really difficult problems to the psychologists. The psychological myth, which says that men and women are not responsible for what they do because they are a hopeless bundle of biological impulses they really can’t control or understand, has replaced the Christian belief of our European ancestors who believed that a man was responsible for his own sinful behavior. Under the new psychological mythology, society is much more responsible for crime than criminals, because society creates the conditions that make criminals commit crimes. This is why we have “wars on poverty” and liberals such as Obama suggesting we stop terrorism by getting terrorists jobs. There is evil in the new world, but we’ll come to that anon.

The 1985 case of Tennessee v. Garner was merely a reflection of how the psychological myth has changed American society. Similar court cases have changed the other European nations as well, because the psychological myth is a product of post-Christian nations, and all of the European nations are post-Christian. The bare facts of the 1985 case are as follows: A black police officer shot and killed a young black teenager while he was fleeting from the scene of a burglary he had just committed. Under the existing laws, the police officer was doing his duty: He shot a fleeing felon. The family of the young criminal sued all the way to the Supreme Court. The majority of the judges on the Court – there were three dissenting judges – ruled that the shooting was justified under the existing law, but went on to state that the existing law, which permitted the use of deadly force against a fleeing felon, was unconstitutional. They argued that since our nation had evolved beyond the point where we used capital punishment for most felonies, police officers should not be permitted to use deadly force against fleeing felons. Under the new law, a police officer could only use force when his own life or another person’s life was in danger or when he thought that a fleeing murderer or rapist constituted a threat to others.

In between jobs in academia, I spent some time working as a police officer after the 1985 law went into effect, and it was not as clear cut as the TV lawyers say it is. Different officers had different interpretations. This should not be the case for such a serious life and death issue that a police officer has only seconds to decide on. For instance, I once had a man who was resisting arrest attempt to grab my gun. He didn’t succeed, and I managed to take him to the lock up, but afterwards I asked a number of my fellow officers what would have happened if, after trying to wrest my gun from me and failing, the prisoner had knocked me down and fled. The attempt to get my gun constituted attempted murder, because presumably the prisoner was not trying to get my gun in order to crack walnuts with it, so would I have been justified in shooting the man who had shown himself ready to murder in order to avoid arrest? There was no agreement among the officers. The consensus opinion was that I should hope such a scenario did not occur.

That exact scenario did not occur for Officer Slager, at least from what I’ve been told, because the prisoner was only reaching for the officer’s Taser, or perhaps even managed to discharge the Taser, but still, once disabled by the Taser, wouldn’t the officer’s life have been in jeopardy? That is quite a stretch, I know. I’m not trying to justify Officer Slager’s actions under our existing laws; I think by a strict interpretation of the 1985 law, Officer Slager is guilty of voluntary manslaughter (certainly not premeditated murder as the conservatives and liberal pundits are calling for), but I do not think Officer Slager is morally guilty of any crime at all, because the 1985 Court decision was an immoral one. The decision was immoral because the majority judges assumed that a police officer, who represents society, is just as guilty as the perpetrator of a crime and therefore has no right to violently deter the criminal. The Court did not take into account the fact that a police officer is bound to protect society and not the criminal who has chosen to commit the crime and to flee in order to avoid the proper punishment for his crime. The police officer is not exacting the death penalty for such crimes as theft, burglary, and aggravated assault — the criminal has exacted the death penalty on himself by fleeing. The Court also did not take into account the dangers of escalating felonious crimes, which are undeterred. No one can say that a thief who has no fear of being shot while fleeing from his crime will not become emboldened to commit more crimes, and then during the course of one of those crimes he might be forced, by some cruel home owner, to use deadly force: “I didn’t mean to kill him, but he came upon me suddenly.” And in point of fact, black crime has become so out of control in our major cities because of court decisions like Tennessee v. Gardner that most of our cities should be put in a state of martial law: “Looters will be shot on sight.” (1) But because liberals rule our nation and blacks are sacred to the liberals, we have a perverted form of martial law: “No violent action must ever be taken against black criminals; failure to follow this rule will result in immediate prosecution.”

This brings us to the second myth of modern Liberaldom, the myth of the Noble, Black Savage, or the Black Messiah. If the psychological view of existence liberals profess to believe in was followed consistently, then a white police officer or a white homeowner who shot a black felon would be completely exonerated: “We must understand his rage,” or “We must understand his environment,” etc. But such is not the case. In any confrontation between a black and a white, the white is always assumed to be guilty, despite the fact that we are all, from the liberals’ psychological point of view, supposed to be without sin. “Ah, there’s the rub.” The white man is not without sin: The white man is Sin Incarnate. No matter what crime the black commits, it is never his fault, it is always the white man’s fault. Are black police officers prosecuted for killing white felons? And why are blacks who murder whites seldom prosecuted, and when they do get convicted why do they receive pardons after only a few months of incarceration? It is because the liberals are post-Christians, and post-Christians must cling to an inverted Christianity. Sin exists; it resides in all white people, and there is a living God; he is the Noble, Black Savage. This case of the unjustly persecuted white police officer, who could be any of us, will be used by the liberals to further their agenda: The destruction of the sinful white race. Ironically, the all-black police state the liberals are striving for will be the most violent police state in the world, because black police officers will kill without the slightest regard for human life. And the remaining white police officers will know on which side their bread is buttered, so they will only use deadly force against whites. We can already see this in Britain where the police crack down on white nationalists and leave the Moslems and colored barbarians alone. And in the United States we are more likely to see police violence against anti-abortion protesters than against black felons. How could it be otherwise when such a hue and cry is raised by whites and blacks whenever a black man dies as a result of an altercation with a white police officer?

Some white nationalists have told us we must not support the white police officer, because it will make white nationalists ‘look bad.’ Do you really think a white nationalist can ever look good to a liberal who believes that the white race is intrinsically evil? And since when does a white man base his beliefs and actions on how they’ll be viewed by the liberals? If the facts are not as they appear to be, if Officer Slager simply stopped W.S.’s car, pulled him out of the car, and shot him, then Officer Slager is guilty of murder. But if W.S. fled after an altercation with Officer Slager, then we should support Slager no matter what the liberals say or think about us.

There is a harmful dichotomy in whites who still profess to be Christian. On the one hand, they claim to believe in the same God who the antique Europeans believed in, but on the other hand they act according to the dictates of the liberals’ two great myths, the psychological myth and the sacred negro myth. Wouldn’t it be more Christian to base one’s actions on the traditional Christian faith of the European people than on the new age faith of the liberals? How society defends itself against criminals is best left in the hands of bred-in-the-bone Christians. Until white Christians grasp that fact and wrest control from the liberals, the Haitization of the European nations will continue. +
_________________________

(1) I think that the new “youthful sport” of negroes called ‘flash mob’ robberies and beatings has become so commonplace that all violent flash mobbers should be shot on sight. But of course that would mean we would actually have to admit that there are racial differences, that white criminals are going against their blood while black criminals are acting according to their blood.

Posted in Uncategorized

Against a Peace with the Rationalist Regicides

Dore_The_Vision_of_DeathMy heart as great, my reason haply more,
To bandy word for word and frown for frown;
But now I see our lances are but straws,
Our strength as weak, our weakness past compare,
That seeming to be most which we indeed least are.

The Taming of the Shrew

____________________________________

In his sonnets, Shakespeare often expressed frustration at his inability to express himself:
“Alack, what poverty my Muse brings forth…”
Is that possible? Could such a poet really feel as verbally inadequate as the rest of us? Yes, of course it is possible. In fact, Shakespeare probably felt more verbally impaired than we do. A true poet of the human heart, a man like Shakespeare who saw life “feelingly,” could not help but feel the sharp contrast between a man’s intuitions about the nature of existence and his ability to articulate those heartfelt intuitions. The poetic divers, the men who go down to the depths of the human heart, see that which they can only express in stammering lines. The lesser poets and the theologians, who stay on the surface of life, have no problems of articulation. They spew out banal inanities that defile the human soul, because they violate the mystery of the human heart by turning its complexities into platitudes and syllogisms. It is better to stammer, in the face of the awesome mystery of the human heart, then to defile the mystery by making it conformable to a philosophical premise. The poet who remains faithful to his heartfelt intuitions will bring us to the foot of the cross. The theologians and the theological poets who refuse to go deep will leave us in the first circle of hell, where philosophers endlessly analyze existence without understanding it.

The greatest counter-revolutionary that ever lived, Edmund Burke, felt as Shakespeare did about his heartfelt intuitions concerning the nature of existence. He confessed his despair at what he felt was his failure to adequately convey to his countrymen the satanic nature of Jacobinism:

“I have frequently sunk into a degree of despondency and dejection hardly to be described: yet out of the profoundest depths of this despair, an impulse which I have in vain endeavored to resist has urged me to raise one feeble cry against this unfortunate coalition which is formed at home, in order to make a coalition with France, subversive of the ancient order of the world.”

One feeble cry? Burke did fail, after the death of Robespierre, to convince his countrymen that they had only scotched the Jacobin snake, not killed it. The snake grew in strength and size until it enveloped and consumed, just as Burke had said it would, all of Europe and all of the nations that sprang from Europe. Then was all Burke’s striving in vain? No, it wasn’t. He may have failed to kill the snake, but he gave his countrymen an extra 150 years before they started to feel the effects of the snake’s grasp. Were it not for Burke, Britain would have turned to Jacobinism in the 18th century instead of in the mid-20th century. It is not a little thing to give one’s countrymen a 150 year period of grace. The effect that Burke’s lonely and unparalleled struggle with the incarnation of Satan within the body politic of Europe had on the British people cannot be over emphasized. He not only turned such poets as Coleridge, Southey, and Wordsworth from rabid Jacobin enthusiasts into rabid anti-Jacobins, he also turned many mad dog Jacobin supporters, who wanted desperately to be wholehearted supporters of liberty, equality, and fraternity, into tepid, ineffectual moderates, because after Burke only the criminally insane, such as Fox, Price, and Priestly, could still support the Jacobins.

A quick aside on Priestly: He was so unpopular in England, because of his radicalism, that the English people burned down his house. It’s a pity he escaped the fire, at least that temporal fire, because he fled to America and became a radical sage. His great-granddaughter was Hilaire Belloc’s mother, the same Hilaire Belloc who became the great Catholic defender of the anti-Christian Jacobins. Belloc’s influence was enormous with English Catholics. He was a Catholic Pumblechook who rode his chaise cart over all the lesser carts. He wasn’t able to make English Catholics wholehearted supporters of Jacobinism, but he lessened their opposition to it, just as Burke had managed to lessen the moderate liberals’ support of Jacobinism. Who knows — had Belloc not supported Jacobinism, it might have come to Britain even later than it did. Such is the power that one man can have for good or evil. Burke, the bred-in-the-bone Christian, wanted to kill Jacobinism in order to save his people. He didn’t kill it, but his passion and his faith kept Jacobinism at bay for many years. Belloc, the intellectual Christian, hastened the end of Christendom through his support for Jacobinism. It will always be thus: a mere intellectual affirmation of faith can never replace a heartfelt love of Christ in and through the people of our racial hearth fire. The former path leads to hell, and the latter path leads to His kingdom come. (1)

What separated Burke from the rest of the conservatives of his century and the 20th century was his rejection of rationalism. He resisted Satan’s great temptation to try to out-reason God. Burke, whose reason was greater than the prideful men of reason, chose,  like Shakespeare before him, to stay with the intuitive wisdom of his people over the wisdom of the philosophers. Truth be told, such reason, separate from revelation and the intuitive life of the people, is incapable of resisting the wickedness and snares of the devil. The modern whites are alone and helpless against the devil and his minions, because they haven’t the humility to place their reason at the service of the bred-in-the-bone wisdom of their ancestors, instead of trying to forge a rationalist path into the future that is unconnected to their European past.

The intellectual Christians first made the satanic break with the blood faith of the European people, but during the course of the 20th century the European peasantry became intellectualized as well, which left the European people without any connection to God or their own people. What is needed is men of reason who reject reason as the penultimate of human existence. Like the hero in Shakespeare’s Cymbeline we must conquer by remaining true to our blood.

“Tis a dream, or else such stuff as madmen
Tongue and brain not; either both or nothing;
Or senseless speaking, or a speaking such
As sense cannot untie. Be what it is,
The action of my life is like it, which
I’ll keep, if but for sympathy.”

The Scriptures tell us that where our treasure lies, so lies our heart. Do we really treasure science and the negro more than the dear, dear land of story books? It certainly appears so. To be scientific is to be smart, and that is a highly valued commodity in the land of reason. And the worship of the negro affirms one’s solidarity with the world of science where there is only a natural, noble savage savior who stands diametrically opposed to the fairy tale Savior of the old world. Burke’s heart, like Shakespeare’s, was with the old world and the Savior of that world. As in all fairy tales you can only get to that old world through charity. You must love your people and God enough to set the wisdom of ‘this world only’ aside as just so much accumulated satanic filth. The narrow gate through our racial home, where the wisdom of the heart lives, is the gate to His Kingdom come.

Shakespeare and Burke have always posed problems for academics and rationalists, be they theologians or philosophers. Both men were and are considered too passionate, too provincial, and too extreme. They can’t be fit into neat little rationalist boxes that the academics, the theologians, and the philosophers love to put men into. But if the intuitions of such poets as Shakespeare and Burke are superior to the ratiocinations of the rationalists, then we need to dive to the poets’ depths if we want to know the truth. But of course modern man does not want to know the truth; he prefers to live in hell.

The most telling evidence of the modern Europeans’ flight from reality is the reception (or should I say non-reception) of the work of Anthony Jacob. Shakespeare always was under-appreciated by the rationalists, and Burke was often hated by the criminally insane men of the left, but neither Shakespeare nor Burke were so completely disregarded as Anthony Jacob has been. This neglect indicates a deep sickness, a sickness unto death, at the heart of our modern European civilization, which, by the way, is no longer a civilization.

The greatest conservative in the 20th century was not Richard Weaver, Russell Kirk, or Thomas Molnar; it was Anthony Jacob. He and he alone wanted to conserve the white race and the white Christian faith rather than an abstract faith and a generic people. Jacob’s reason was as great as any of the conservatives, but unlike the intellectual conservatives Jacob put his reason at the service of his heart. He was one who loved much, like the men and women of antique Europe.

In modern Europe we have men of heart, men who love their people with a deep and abiding love. And we have men of reason, who hate their own people or who are indifferent to their own people. What we need are men like Anthony Jacob; he was a man with a heart of flesh, and he was a man of reason, but he did not make reason his God. He stayed with his heart’s treasure: his people and their God.

Jacob, like the gentle Bard and Edmund Burke, was a poet of the Christian hearth fire: “Charity not only begins at home, it perishes without one.” Is that not the tragedy of modern Europe? Haven’t we lost what Shakespeare called the “quality of mercy” and what Burke called “that charity of honor,” because we have left our racial hearth fire? At that hearth fire “reigns love and all love’s loving parts…” The Christ of old Europe will still, if we return home, abide with us. +

__________________________

(1) Belloc’s assertion that the French royalty and clergy deserved to die because they were insufficiently Catholic is a prime example of the dangers of an intellectual Christianity devoid of a heartfelt attachment to one’s people. Such a utopian “Christian” faith is just as cruel and un-Christian as the secular utopianism of the Jacobins. It was only the faithful clergymen, the men who refused to take the Jacobin oath, who were executed. And the French nobility, who had the usual canon of sins common to fallen humanity, were not banana-republic tyrants who fed off the blood of their people.

The real tyrants, then and now, are the Jacobins and the intellectual Christians who support them. Those tyrants of reason-gone-mad judge everything by how well it serves their abstract utopias. Thus thousands of aristocrats of the old, non-utopian France could be slaughtered with impunity. And in our modern anti-civilization the death of one black criminal, who is sacred because he is one of “the people,” weighs more in the balance than thousands upon thousands of whites that are slaughtered by the black gods of Liberaldom.

Posted in Christianity is neither a theory nor a philosophy, rationalism | Tagged ,

Christ Is Risen!

resurrection-of-jesus-gustave-dore“Bring us, O Lord God, at our last awakening into the house and gate of Heaven, to enter that gate and dwell in that house, where there shall be no darkness nor dazzling, but one equal light, no noise nor silence but one equal music, no fears nor hopes but one equal possession, no ends nor beginning but one equal eternity, in the habitation of thy Majesty and thy glory, world without end. Amen.”   –   John Donne

___________________________________

Easter is upon us again, and we must put on our spiritual armor to resist the usual onslaught of “history” shows, movies, and books that tell us, quite authoritatively, that Christ did not rise from the dead. That is what the race war is all about, Charlie Brown. The antique Europeans believed that Christ rose from the dead. They made that belief the cornerstone of their civilization. Remove that cornerstone, and the European people cease to be. Europe has been conquered by Moslems, and European Americans worship negroes, because the European people no longer believe that, “The trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised.”

The organized churches think that by jettisoning the European people, their different versions of intellectual Christianity can survive in a multicultural world. But you can’t surgically remove the European people from the Christian faith without killing the heart of the faith. There is only one true faith: It is the Christian European faith that is celebrated so gloriously in Handel’s Messiah. How can anything produced by the unholy union of intellectual Christianity and all the pagan faiths possibly compare to the crystal clear message of Handel’s Messiah: “He shall reign forever and ever.”

On the morning of the third day Christ rose again from the dead. That was the testimony of the first apostles and that was the testimony of the antique Europeans who did not see the resurrection with their material eyes but who did see it with their circumcised hearts. “Christ has risen!” they said with one voice. And we, their heirs in spirit, in blood, and in faith, reply, “Indeed He has!” At the last trump, when we face that last great enemy, only Christ, the Christ of our European hearth fire, can take us home. +

Posted in Easter

Where We Ought to Hate

Gilbert_Kent_striking_OswaldBut I trust that our Countrymen will not be softened to that kind of crimes and criminals; for if we should our hearts will be hardened to every thing which has a claim on our benevolence. A kind Providence has placed in our breasts a hatred of the unjust and cruel, in order that we may preserve ourselves from cruelty and injustice. They who bear cruelty, are accomplices in it. The pretended gentleness which excludes that charitable rancour, produces an indifference which is half an approbation. They never will love where they ought to love, who do not hate where they ought to hate.

-Edmund Burke, Letters on a Regicide Peace


The liberals have buried Christian Europe and the people who dwelt therein. Nor was it enough to just bury the antique Europeans and leave their graves untended and forgotten. Oh no! The liberals had to heap mountains of posthumous abuse upon the heads of the dishonored dead. And the abuse never ceases. Day after day, year after year, with an unrelenting monotony, the liberals tell one and all about the evil that white men did, and would do again if the liberals were not there to stop them. White children now grow up hearing the evil white man story as white children used to grow up hearing stories of Jack and the Beanstalk, Goldilocks and the Three Bears, and the Gallant Tailor. Since this new story, the story of the evil white man, is at the center of our modern civilization — it is in fact the moral essence of our civilization — we should study this new story and try to discover why liberals consider this new story so much more important than the old story from the Bible.

In a rare moment of moral clarity the decadent French novelist Andre Gide said —

“I don’t believe in the Devil; except that–and here’s what bothers me–whereas you can serve God only if you believe in Him, the Devil does not require you to believe in him before you can serve him. On the contrary, he is never so well served as when he is unperceived. It’s always to his interest not to let himself be recognized; and there, as I said, is what bothers me: to think that the less I believe in him, the more I strengthen him…”

The liberals do not believe in the devil, which makes it quite easy for the devil to make them do his will. You can’t resist someone when you don’t acknowledge his existence. The devil imposes his will on the liberals, taking advantage of the fact that their intellectual pride will not allow them to admit they slavishly obey an intellect superior to their own. And that is the important fact about the new story of the European people: It is a story confined within the parameters of analytic reason, because the devil is a philosophy major. He excels in the dialectic, but he has no poetical gifts.

Once upon a time this old hag is said to have crossed the moor, driving before her a flock of geese, which she proposed to sell to advantage at a neighbouring fair; –for it is well known that the fiend, however liberal in imparting his powers of doing mischief, ungenerously leaves his allies under the necessity of performing the meanest rustic labours for subsistence. The day was far advanced, and her chance of obtaining a good price depended on her being first at the market. But the geese, which had hitherto preceded her in a pretty orderly manner, when they came to this wide common, interspersed with marshes and pools of water, scattered in every direction, to plunge into the element in which they delighted. Incensed at the obstinacy with which they defied all her efforts to collect them, and not remembering the precise terms of the contract by which the fiend was bound to obey her commands for a certain space, the sorceress exclaimed, “Deevil, that neither I nor they ever stir from his spot more!” The words were hardly uttered, when, by a metamorphosis as sudden as any in Ovid, the hag and her refractory flock were converted into stone, the angel whom she served, being a strict formalist, grasping eagerly at an opportunity of completing the ruin of her body and soul by a literal obedience to her orders. – Walter Scott, The Black Dwarf

Nothing of an analytical nature upsets the devil. He laughs at the modern churches, because they are citadels of rationalism, perfect dwelling places for satanic liberalism. It is incarnational Europe that Satan fears and hates, the Europe created by human hearts connected to Christ’s divinely human heart. The poetry of that union is diametrically opposed to the rationalism of Satan. Which is why the new story of Western civilization, the satanic narrative, must continually harp on one note: The incarnational Europe of the white man was evil. As we listen to that narrative over and over again we realize something else about Satan that he would prefer to be kept secret – he is a bore, and the world he has set up through his liberal adherents is a dull, flat, insipid world in which the banality of Satan’s new world order stands in sharp contrast to the old world of Christian Europe where the poetic of the cross of Christ took men to the heights of heaven, far from and opposed to Satan’s kingdom of evil.

Macbeth discovered, too late, the banality of evil:

Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day
To the last syllable of recorded time,
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

How could it be otherwise? Satan’s rational world has no soul, no poetic; he is like the authors of the modern novels. Their characters wallow in the pigsties of racial and sexual Babylon while proudly proclaiming that they have discovered something new and wonderful. But Satan’s world is not new and wonderful, it is as old as original sin: “Ye shall be as gods,” was Satan’s promise. Do the modern Europeans wallowing in their Babylonian pigsties resemble gods?

If we stay focused on that essential fact about the devil, his hatred for the incarnation, we can understand why there is such unremitting hatred for the European people in the ranks of the Christ-hating liberals and the colored barbarians. In the past Christ was incarnate in the Europeans’ civilization, and in the present there is always the danger of a white resurgence. The people who once were the Christ bearers could become the Christ bearers once again. Hence, eternal hatred of the white is the moral essence of Liberaldom.

The church men have renounced the old incarnational Europe and the men and women who championed it. And they have renounced, for good measure, the white people of this generation and the white people of every future generation. This is called saving Christianity by eliminating the cultural baggage of a racist past. But white people cannot be dismissed as collateral damage in the great battle to save propositional Christianity. By denouncing incarnational Europe in order to save their speculative theologies, the church men have handed organized Christianity over to Satan. He can make the church men jump through any Babylonian hoop he wants them to jump through if the faith belongs to the men of reason. One of the devil’s favorite gambits is the hatred gambit. He knows that a man who does not hate where he should hate cannot love where he should love; therefore, he tells the white man, through his liberal adherents in church and state, that it is wrong to hate, thus cutting the white man off from any spirited attack on the devil and his minions, because, after all, it is wrong to hate. But at the same time that white men are being bored to death with platitudes about the evils of hating, the colored races are being given special dispensations to hate white people. Every true European hates the devil and his minions and loves his people. If he ceases to hate the former he will also cease to love the latter, and he will become a man of shadows, easily manipulated by the Devil. We do not have a less hate-filled world now that the white man no longer hates. We have a world filled with hate, the wrong kind of hate. The antique Europeans hated all those who opposed His reign of charity; their hatred stemmed from love. The modern liberals and the colored savages hate everything that stinks of the incarnate God. Where do we find charity and mercy now that the Christian European has left the world stage?

In the absence of the Son of Man and the people who made him part of their racial hearth fire, charity and mercy have become abstract concepts without a local habitation in a flesh and blood people. And abstract charity is not charity at all – it is the tool the rationalists use to kill genuine charity. Abstract charity kills unborn babies for the “good” of the mother and permits black savages and Moslem jihadists to kill white people under the guise of charitable and compassionate inclusion. Real charity, the charity of St. Paul, is as a sword unto the wicked and an outstretched hand of relief to the meek, who, in a world without charity, are at the mercy of those who have no mercy: The liberals and the colored heathens.

The liberals have followed Satan by making things that are evil in the poetical realm of existence (which is reality) into virtues in the abstract, philosophical realm of unreality. Thus multiculturalism, which entails the worship of the black savage and the injection of Moslems, Hindus, and every other anti-Christian sect into the European nations, is taken as a self-evident good, while the worship of the Christian God in and through the people of our racial hearth fire is looked on as an unmitigated evil. Such is the perverted ethos of a world based on philosophical speculation and pure logic. We have rationally and logically speculated our people and our God out of existence.

It is my unalterable belief that no white man who has a heart that still lives can tolerate the multicultural kingdom of Satan on earth. He will instinctively hate the liberals and the colored heathens. But we must go farther; hating the devil and his minions is only the beginning. Where can the white man find the God of love? Most men are ahistorical; they depend on church and state to preserve all the history they need in order to live. But church and state are against the incarnate Christ of European history. The white everyman is told, ad nauseum, that the Christ of old Europe never existed; he was an evil projection of an evil people. The new Christ is a multicultural, multi-religious Christ, who is much more comfortable amongst colored heathens and Christian atheists than he ever was with European racists. Julia Ward Howe’s dream has become a reality. The liberal Christ only appears to Europeans in the guise of a Unitarian, white-hating multi-culturalist. So the question remains: How can the European everyman come into contact with the living God, the God of old Europe? It’s up to those few who have not lost contact with old Europe to bridge the gap between Christian Europe and the lost white men of modern Europe. It seems hopeless to bridge the gap when church and state are opposed to incarnational Europe, but charitable rancor, the charitable rancor of the Christian European, is a powerful force. It is a rancor rooted in the love of Christ and the hatred of Satan. If we refuse to let that force be siphoned off into little rivulets of philosophy or Emersonian platitudes, there is more than a slight chance that the liberals’ pleasure dome will start to crack. Despite all his advantages — he is a materialist in a materialist age — Satan has that one great disadvantage: He is a boring fellow and his adherents are boring. Do we really prefer Claudius to Hamlet? Chauvelin to the Scarlet Pimpernel? The poetic of the European people, the story of the incarnate God, is now and always shall be the antidote for the liberals’ poisonous narrative of the ‘evil white man.’ +

Posted in defense of the white race, Europeans and Christ | Tagged

Hallowed Be Thy Name

Dore_JesusAndTheDisciplesGoingToEmmausAbide with us, for it is toward evening and the day is far spent. –Luke 24: 29

 ___________________________________

The white people of Europe, if these shadows are not altered, are going to be exterminated by the Muslims they have allowed into their nations. I recently saw on the internet several black Muslims at some kind of Islamic demonstration in Britain who are indicative of the plague enveloping Europe. They were holding up signs that read, “Your sons and daughters shall be Muslim.” And so they shall be if the Europeans refuse to fight back as a people. In South Africa, “Kill the Boers” has become a national mandate. And in the U.S.A., the most maniacally anti-white country in the world, negro worship has become a criminal absurdity. White students that chant anti-negro songs in private are punished with rigor and merciless swiftness while the rape and murder of whites not only goes unpunished, it is covered up by the liberals with malice aforethought.

When you look at all the satanic forces arrayed against white people, samizdat publications such as mine seem more futile than Don Quixote’s legendary tilting at windmills, but I liken such windmill-tilting to prayer: It often seems futile and hopeless, but something inside of us tells us that it is not.

A YouTube video I saw the other day made me think of a passage from a John Buchan book that I read many years ago, called Huntingtower. Here is the passage:

Dickson groaned. What had become of his dream of idylls, his gentle bookish romance? Vanished before a reality which smacked horribly of crude melodrama and possibly of sordid crime. His gorge rose at the picture, but a thought troubled him. Perhaps all romance in its hour of happening was rough and ugly like this, and only shone rosy in retrospect. Was he being false to his deepest faith.

The video was called Angry, White, and Proud, and despite the cynical commentator’s snide remarks and the crude language of the angry, white, and proud British nationalists depicted in the video, it was the stuff of romance. The men depicted had the makings of that within which is Christian and white, the stuff that European counter-revolutions are made on. They had three attributes that all of the other British nationalist groups such as the BNP and the EDL lack: They love and hate with all their hearts, they are not committed to non-violence, and they are Christian not neo-pagan (there was some skirmishing when neo-Nazis tried to join one of their demonstrations). Granted, they are hopelessly outnumbered, they are confused and leaderless, but they are the last men left in Britain. If anything good ever happens in Britain it will come from these men and others like them. When the largely white police force arrested the white nationalist protestors and not the Muslim jihadists during one of the white nationalists’ protest marches, it was worse than scandalous, it was criminal. The British police are the scum of the earth, committed to defending a liberal state hell bent on exterminating every white man, woman, and child in Britain. Claiming “I’m just doing my job” doesn’t excuse the crime. The white British policemen should join the white nationalists. But in order to do that, they would have to be heroes, willing to stand with the righteous few against the multitudinous legions of the wicked.

They are slaves who will not choose,
Hatred, scoffing, and abuse
Rather than in silence shrink
From the truth they needs must think:
They are slaves who dare not be
In the right with two or three.

When the government of a nation is not committed to conserving its people but is instead committed to exterminating them and replacing them with colored, heathen savages, all those who support such a government should be considered enemies. And they needs must be fought just as the colored heathens must be fought. Elections are useless when they are just elections to determine which liberal party shall preside over the extermination process. The white Britons depicted in the video have grasped that essential fact. Democratic governments are not the friends of white people.

Neither the Mau Maus nor the Muslims, who are often the same, are invincible. They see that white people of Europe are weak, so they do what colored heathens do to the weak: They rape and murder them. They are not going to stop raping and murdering whites until whites respond with force. This seems so obvious that it should not have to be stated, but until I saw that video, I had never heard of any white people who believed that whites had a right to defend themselves, in the full meaning of the word ‘defend,’ against the onslaught of the colored heathens. My daughter, who is passionately in love with old Europe and partial to her people, asked me if anything could really come of a small band of disenfranchised, outnumbered British patriots. I told her I didn’t expect to see immediate results, but I do think such white nationalist groups are tiny sparks of a romance that could eventually reconquer Britain for Christ and His people.

The obstacles to the reconquest of Europe are only insurmountable if we refuse to identify them as obstacles, thus leaving them forever blocking our path. The major obstacle in front of white, Christian Europeans is organized, Christless Christianity. The Christless Christian churches are against white people, because they are not true Christian churches. The church of Christ has never consisted of an organization of men with a theory about God. The true church consists of those who believe in and love the Son of God in and through their people. St. Paul sent his epistles to small groups of men and women who loved Christ; such groups have always constituted the Christian church. Those people who hate their brothers (the anti-white clergymen of organized Christianity) and say they love God are liars.

White Christians who love much, who want to fight for the people of their racial hearth fire, should expect to be condemned and hated by the white, post-Christian heathens who run the organized churches. This was all foretold to us by our Lord, who said that we would be hated by the world that first hated Him. It is passion the anti-European clerics are afraid of, the passion of European men and women who love and hate with all their hearts, because they are the one force on earth that can defeat organized Christian Jewry, negro-worshipping liberalism, and colored heathenism. When our passion is connected to His passion, miracles occur.

When I was a boy there was a white shop owner in my neighborhood who had been robbed repeatedly by black thugs. One day a black thug came in and gave the usual command: “Give me the money or I’ll blow your ——- head off!” The owner seemed to comply, but instead of taking money from the cash register he took out a gun and shot and killed the black thug. That incident took place before the day when white self-defense was illegal, so the shop owner was not tried. And I should mention that no one ever attempted to rob that shop owner again. Every European is now in that shop owner’s position prior to the self-defense shooting. The liberals, the Muslims, and the colored barbarians have told us by word and deed what they intend to do to us. White self-defense is not only permissible in such circumstances, it is laudable and necessary. We can’t be as open about self-defense as the shop owner was, because the white race is now an outlawed race of people, but the first step in this battle, which only the heathens are fighting, is spiritual preparedness. We must realize that white people have a moral right and duty to defend themselves against the forces of evil that are arrayed against them. We don’t want to see young white men, such as those British counter-revolutionaries, running out into the streets and gunning down Muslim murderers and liberal enablers. Such acts would be morally right, but they would be tactically unwise. Christian white men who are in the midst of the fray will pick their own time and find their own way to retaliate against the liberals and the colored heathens. The thing to remember is that the liberals and the colored heathens want to isolate white men from each other and their God and make white people feel the inevitability of the victory of liberalism (what the liberals hope for) or the victory of Islam (what the Muslims hope for), but neither victory is inevitable. A few whites with passion, acting in accord with each other and in union with Christ, can turn the tide of battle in favor of the European people.

In his Gulag books, Solzhenitsyn asks himself and his readers what would have happened if those Russians who were arrested by the KGB had not waited for the communist inquisitors to come for them one by one, but instead had joined together, armed themselves with whatever weapons they could lay their hands on, and fought back. He was not suggesting open warfare – the commies had the tanks and the army – but he was talking about violent resistance, midnight raids on communist officials, and sabotage. We are outlawed men, marked for death; it is right and necessary that we should fight for our survival.

Europeans should be practical and plan strategies that have some chance of success, but ultimately it is not for practical material gain that we fight. We fight to purge our souls of the accumulated filth of modernity. The theology of Christian atheism, allied with colored heathenism, has ruled the Western nations for too long. It is a sickness unto death. When we fight that theology from hell, we will reclaim our souls and quite possibly we will reclaim our European nations as well. But whether we win or lose in the material realm, we will be men with souls again. That is a victory that cannot be taken away from us. Who was the real victor in the conflict in the Sudan – Gordon or the Mahdi? And who ultimately triumphed in the American Civil War – Lee or Grant?

I have used the British nationalists as exemplars of a fighting European remnant, because I know of them and because I have a special love for “this earth, this realm, this England,” and for the Britain of “Hail, Britannia,” Walter Scott, and “Cambria Will Not Yield.” But all white Europeans are in the same boat as the white British nationalists. We are a tiny white minority up against a majority coalition of liberals (post-Christian whites) and colored heathens (Muslims, blacks, Aztecs, Chinese, etc.) who, left to their own devices, will cannibalize each other but are united in their hatred of Christ and the white race.

Of all the white minorities it is the white South Africans who are suffering the most. They were the last whites to lose faith in their God and their people, but when their leaders lost faith the white South Africans were the first to feel the brunt of colored savagery since they had started out as a minority: The colored heathens did not have to slowly build up a majority coalition before moving against them. By all accounts it is over for the white South Africans, as it soon will be for the rest of us, if there is no divine intervention. Which brings us to Shakespeare’s Prospero:

And my ending is despair,
Unless I be relieved by prayer,
Which pierces so that it assaults
Mercy itself and frees all faults.

Is it true that every prayer offered “in Christ’s name” will be answered? Our faith tells us that such is the case, but only once in my life did I receive a dramatic answer to my prayers. That does not mean my prayers have not been answered. With the eyes of faith, I know that He has heard and answered my prayers, but the temporal eyes have not seen His answers. Is that the sign of a faith that is weak? Certainly, my faith is a trembling faith. I imagine that is the case with most of us: We feel, more frequently than we want to, the God-forsakenness of this world. But then there is the vision. I have seen the living God amongst the people of my racial hearth fire and only amongst those people. Perhaps that vision is the answer to all those prayers made in Jesus’ name, a vision that is given only to those who have circumcised their hearts and consecrated them to the God who comes to us in and through our people. Pray for South African whites, pray for all the white Europeans in their battle against all the powers of hell, pray in Christ’s name, Amen. +

Posted in counterrevolution, Europeans and Christ | Tagged

The European Fairy Tale

Gag_Snow_White“Who is that boy?” asked Mr. Newby, as the horse was led away.

“A green country boy with a pedigree,” said a low voice at his shoulder.

“Where does he come from?”

“Virginia,” said Colonel Ashland. “And his name is Theodoric Johnston. It’s bred in the bone.”

–Thomas Nelson Page


The Netanyahu visit brought out all the contending factions of Liberaldom. The Evangelicals praised him because they believe in a strange new faith that is a mixture of Christianity, Judaism, and Nostradamus-like prophecies. The liberal conservatives love Netanyahu because they believe that he, like Superman, supports truth, justice, and the democratic way. The mad-dog liberals have a problem with Netanyahu: On the one hand they must support the Jews, who are part of the liberal coalition and still fill many of the top posts in Liberaldom, but on the other hand the liberals know they must also support the Moslems, because all anti-Christian, and therefore anti-white, religious sects must be upheld. But American Jews are not all that concerned about Israel; the zealous support for Israel comes from the “conservatives” and the Evangelicals, which is a sure indication that the Evangelicals are not Christian and the conservatives are not conservative. The more perceptive, consistently radical liberals support the Moslem cause in Palestine, because they see the Moslems as the real anti-Western underdog. Likewise the neo-pagans and the right-wing Catholics support the Moslems over Israel, but for different reasons than the radicals.

The whole Netanyahu spectacle, like all modern, liberal extravaganzas, was hard to take, because one realizes when viewing such events that there will be no Christian European voice in the proceedings. Scott’s Ivanhoe, whose Christian faith was bred in the bone, knew how to protect his people from a militant, anti-Christian faith while still extending mercy and charity to those Jews who respected the ethos of the Christian faith, even if they didn’t believe in its tenets. Such a delicate balance is impossible in an either/or intellectual Christianity, but it is possible for those who believe, as St. Paul believed, that charity never faileth. From a practical standpoint, it seems that the Christian warrior who is obliged to fight under the constraints of Christian charity is at a disadvantage when fighting the Jew, the Moslem, and the colored tribesman, who do not practice charity and mercy. But our ancestors fought under such a disadvantage with more than moderate success. Of course, the Europeans have no choice in the matter. Win or lose, the Christ-bearing people must fight according to the code.

In right-wing circles, it is considered blasphemy to suggest that all problems cannot be resolved by the eradication of the Jews. But such a view is unhistorical. The Jews aided the Jacobins in the French Revolution, but it was lapsed Catholics, not the Jews, who led the charge against everything Christian and European. So it remains today: Almost every radical organization has Jews at the forefront, but such organizations also contain lapsed Christians who would continue the anti-European work of those organizations if the Jews suddenly disappeared from the scene. Although most Jews are secularized (they no longer believe in the first five books of the Bible), they still retain an inbred abhorrence for all things stemming from incarnational, Christian Europe. For what is the essence of Judaism? It is a hatred for our incarnate Lord, which makes it particularly ironic that the most vehement enemies of the Jews are the neo-pagans, who deny the reality of the Incarnation, and the Roman Catholic traditionalists, who are uncomfortable with the main implication of the Incarnation, namely that our Lord has a human heart. Such a God makes it difficult for those who like to hurl ‘too much human respect’ anathemas at their flocks.

The secularized Jew is the more consistent Jew: He sees that having broken his covenant with God by rejecting Christ there is no need to retain Moses and the prophets because they existed for one purpose, that is, to prepare the Jewish people for the coming of the Messiah. Why are there no more prophets? The Christian says there are no more prophets because He whom the prophets said would come has come. Reject Him and you have no faith; you have nothing except an instinctive hatred for those who do have faith.

The Orthodox Jew is a more subtle danger than the secularized Jew, because the intellectual Christians such as Peter Kreeft take all those who affirm God, such as Orthodox Jews and Moslems, and put them in the same ecumenical stew, neglecting the essential fact of our existence here on earth: We are all doomed to die and only one God can raise us up on the last day. All other faiths, save the one, will leave us in the dust. The Christian European is not helping his own people nor any of the heathen peoples by allowing the Christian faith and the Christ-bearing people to be blended with other faiths and other peoples.

Most of us in the Western world, with the exception of the neo-pagan and Catholic right, are tempted to side with the Jews over the Moslems. This is only natural, because many of us went to public schools with Jews, lived in the same neighborhoods as the Jews, and mixed with the Jews socially. This was not a good thing, but it was the reality for most of us. In contrast – obviously this is now changing – the Moslems were a people that someone of my generation only saw in desert movies. (1) If I had to choose between the Jews and the Moslems, I would certainly, because of my upbringing, choose the Jews, but we are not supposed to choose between two evils. The Christian European should cling to his own with hoops of steel and forsake the heathen faiths and the tribes of color. But now that the Christian faith is a philosophy and Christ no longer has a local habitation by the Europeans’ racial hearth fire, the European people have gone whoring after new abstract faiths. The Evangelicals have created the aforementioned Judaic-Christian-Nostradamic faith, the conservatives have chosen democracy (“We must support Israel because it is a democracy”), the liberals have chosen negro worship… and on it goes. Our incarnational faith, our European hearth fire faith, has been left behind in the age of fairy tales and fables.

Judaism in its secularized and Orthodox form has remained the same over the years. So has Islam and the various tribal faiths of the colored peoples. It is the European peoples’ Christian faith that has changed. The Europeans were the only people who stood in the presence of the living God. But they couldn’t stand the light, so they sought to distance themselves from the living God by abstracting the Christian faith and blending it with the heathen faiths. The modern clergymen’s obsession with racial blending is the result of their desire to escape from God’s light and return to the Egyptian night of the heathens. They won’t be welcome there. Is it really so terrible to follow in His train? Haven’t we, the Europeans, by rejecting the burden of race and faith, a burden that becomes a source of grace when it is accepted, brought down every evil under the sun upon our heads? The one common denominator between all the European factions now choosing up sides in the Moslem and Jewish debacle is their rejection of their European heritage. And why have they done this? Is it because the old fairy tale seems too hard to believe? “Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another?”

There is no other. There is one Christ, and He is to be found in the midst of His people. Walter Scott was a rare poet, a poet who lived up to his vision of what a man should be. And what was his vision? He believed that the only true mystic vision came from the charity that never faileth, the charity learned at home, at our racial hearth fire. Likewise Scott’s American heir, Thomas Nelson Page, the greatest writer on the American side of Europe: His happy endings did not stem from a man who couldn’t see reality, they came from a man who could see reality. He saw the reality of a spiritual realm presided over by our Lord and kinsmen.

In the old stories, the climax used to be considered attained when the young couple became engaged. Like the hero and heroine of the fairy tales of our youth, in that golden land of “Once-upon-a-time,” all that was to be told after they became engaged was that “they married and lived happily ever after.” In the modern stories, however, this seems to be but the beginning of new adventures. Marriage, which used to be the entrance to bliss unending, appears to be now but the “gate of the hundred sorrows;” and the hero and heroine wed only to find that they loved someone else better, and pine to be disunited. They spend the rest of their lives trying to get unmarried. Nothing is so unconventional as to love one’s own husband or wife, and nothing so tame as to live pure and true to one’s vows in spirit as well as in fact.

It must be said, at once, that this is not a story of that kind. The people described in it knew nothing of that sort of existence. Any reader who chooses to go farther in this history must do so with the full knowledge that such is the case, and that the married life of the young couples will be found as archaic and pure as that of our first parents, before modern wisdom discovered that the serpent was more than the devil, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil more than a tree of knowledge. Still, when we have come so far together, it is necessary to go a little farther.

Red Rock by Thomas Nelson Page

All of us need go no farther than our visionary ancestors, men like Walter Scott and Thomas Nelson Page, who believed that the highest wisdom was contained in the ever-ancient and ever-new fairy tale faith of the European people. What good is an intellectual faith if our hearts wither and die? White women abort and white men let them abort, because of the clerical abortion of the white race from the Christian faith. ‘Save the mother and abort the child’ is a devilish ploy of the liberals. You save both mother and child, because the mother’s heart will die without the child. So it is with the Europeans: Separate the European people from bred-in-the-bone Christianity, and a living faith becomes the dead philosophy of a soulless people.

When I was a young man, I used to go to the local mall with some prolife groups to pass out anti-abortion literature. We had good intentions, but I came to realize that we, the prolifers, were operating under a false premise when we passed out information designed to show that the baby in the womb was a human baby; we assumed that the abortion plague was just a result of a lack of knowledge, and we thought that once we got the information out all would be well. But legalized abortion is the result of a deficiency of the heart. People know the baby in the womb is a human being, but they have hardened their hearts against God and His Creation, and they are willing to kill in order to defy God.

Islam, Judaism, negro-worshipping liberalism, and all the other satanic faiths that are resurfacing to fill the spiritual void in the formerly Christian lands of Europe will lose their power if the European people regain their heartfelt faith in their people and their God. The first Christian Europeans bent their knees to Christ and rose up free men, willing and able to conquer the world for Christ. The shriveled up men and women of modern Europe are cringing, crawling creatures, afraid of offending the heathen gods of multiculturalism. Let us kiss the hilt of our swords, bend our knees to Christ, and once again rise up as free men, loving and hating with all our hearts. +

______________________________________

(1) The old mantra used to be: It doesn’t matter whether you are black or white, Jew or Christian, so long as you are an American. The new mantra is: It doesn’t matter if you are black or white, Christian, Jew, or Moslem, so long as you are an American. But what is the moral essence of such a melting pot? There is no moral essence; hence, there is no nation. Our anti-nation, like the multicultural anti-nations of Europe, is a collection of warring tribes united in one thing: their hatred of the white race.

Posted in antique Christianity, Europe as the Christ-bearer, fairy tale of European civilization | Tagged

Thus Is Our Faith Tested

Lady_Butler_Defense_of_Rorkes_DriftWe must fall back on Christianity, which embraces man’s whole nature, and though not a code of philosophy, is something better; for it proposes to lead us through the trials and intricacies of life, not by the mere cool calculations of the head, but by the unerring instincts of a pure and regenerate heart. The problem of the Moral World is too vast and complex for the human mind to comprehend; yet the pure heart will, safely and quietly, feel its way through the mazes that confound the head…

Sure we are that a fire that would consume all the theological and other philosophical speculations of the last two centuries would be a happy Godsend.

–George Fitzhugh Cannibals All! Or Slaves Without Masters


Al Sharpton – we’ll dispense with his title – has been handed a bully pulpit on a major news station and direct access to the President. And every time a white public figure makes what is deemed a racial slur, that public figure must go and genuflect before Al Sharpton. So it would not be an exaggeration to conclude that the moral essence of the anti-nation called the United States of America is Al Sharpton. And what has our nation’s Moral Essence been pontificating about this week? Sharpton wants the Federal government to rescind the right of self-defense when the perpetrator of a crime is black and the victim is white. That a white man has no right of self-defense against colored savages is currently the unwritten law of the United States, but occasionally, as was the case in Ferguson, Missouri, a potential white victim fights back, and a jury, following the antiquated law of self-defense, acquits the white defendant. This won’t do. White people must never defend themselves against black savages. White self-defense is a sin that cries out to the Federal government (the liberals’ equivalent of heaven) for vengeance. The white man must submit to the will of his gods. Even if they slay him, still must he trust in them.

I would prefer that the unwritten rule not become a written law, because a few whites have escaped liberal “justice” under the unwritten “no white must defend himself” law, but whether the Al Sharpton law is adopted or not will not change the ruling ethos of our land: The white man must do nothing to stop black aggression against whites. The codicil to that law is that the white man must not defend himself against any non-white race or any non-Christian religious sect.

All anti-white and anti-Christian laws are adhered to in Europe as well as in the United States. There is no white nation that is not committed to the extermination of all things white and Christian. This liberal commitment to Satanism results in criminal absurdities. For instance, white liberals claim to have discovered the fact that rape is a terrible crime. We are harangued with all sorts of educational programs that are designed to “sensitize” males to the problem of rape. And the definition of rape has become so broad that no male is innocent; we are all rapists now. But wait – that statement must be modified – all white males are guilty of rape. As the Scandinavian countries become rape havens for Third World savages, and the United States follows in their train, the liberals stay focused on white kindergarten boys who pull girls’ hair on the playground, while they ignore the Muslim, Hindu, Oriental and negroid tribesmen who look on the rape of white women as their right. The same principle is applied to street crime. It is bad when whites shoot black thugs, but it is “no big deal” when black Mau Maus torture, rape, and murder white people. One need not have the acumen of Sherlock Holmes to see the pattern that emerges. Every act of violence that serves the savage hordes of color and the anti-Christian faiths is a good act of violence, and any effort of white people to prevent the murder and rape of white people, or to punish those who murder and rape white people, is a reprehensible act.

Should white people submit to their own extermination? Should they go quietly into the Babylonian night or should they rage against the dying of the light? We know the answer to that question. On every front, the answer is yes, the white man should go quietly into the Babylonian night. The liberals tell us we must self-destruct, because the white race is evil and not fit to live in the brave, new Babylonian world. The conservatives in church and state, the great intellects, tell us that the whole notion of white people with white souls distinct from other people of color is nonsense; there is no such thing as race. There are just generic, interchangeable people who are cogs in the mechanistic systems of the philosophical speculators: “My philosophy and existence are one. There are no racial hearth fires in my philosophy, ergo, there is no such thing as white people.” And by extension: “Since there is no such thing as white people, there is no such thing as white genocide.” Isn’t that comforting? And you thought white genocide was a real problem. The next time you feel that way, take two strong doses of philosophical speculation and call your local clergyman in the morning.

Whites have been fed the doctrine of passivity in the face of colored savagery with their mother’s milk. On the one hand, white people are evil; therefore, they must do penance and serve the negro, but when the colored races do evil, it is not really evil, because there is no evil in the colored races; that is a mirage, a white racist mirage. And the ribbon that ties the neat little anti-white box together is the doctrine of white non-existence. Whites can’t fight white genocide, because there is no such thing, in the spiritual realm, as white people. It always comes back to the separation of nature from spirit. Are we quickening spirits or are we the walking dead, mere creatures of nature? Race and faith are interrelated, just as spirit and nature are interrelated. As we lose our consciousness of the distinctness of the Christian faith, how it differs from all of the other nature religions, we also lose our consciousness of the distinctness of the white race. Philosophy demands that we stay on the natural plane, on the surface of existence. But what if truth exists below the surface of existence? “There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in our philosophies.” So long as the white man resists that essential truth, he will remain a passive recipient of the evil that blacks do.

Herbert Butterfield, one of the few great historians, tells us that a true historian must really want to discover the truth about the historical period and/or person he is studying. That type of historian uses primary sources, secondary sources, and his reason, and then he binds all those factors together with intuition and comes up with what he feels is an accurate history. The bad historian proceeds on a different path than Butterfield. He starts out with an a priori assumption about a particular historical subject, and then he only looks for evidence that supports his a priori assumption. The modern, anti-white, anti-Christian liberal has taken the bad historian’s approach. He looks at Christian Europe with just the eye of reason, or else he only looks at secondary sources from outside of Europe that do not tell an accurate, integral story of the Europeans’ history. The end result of the acceptance of the liberals’ bad history is the isolation of the modern European from his past and the God that resided there.

The liberal rejects Christianity because he claims European Christianity was evil. The conservative accepts the liberals’ view of antique Europe, but his response is different. He rejects the European people, but he keeps Christianity by maintaining that the Christian faith is not an incarnate faith passed on from one generation to the next by the people who loved Christ. Instead, the faith is a philosophy that great thinkers have passed on from one generation of great thinkers to another. It is easier to defend one or two theologians than an entire people. But if Christ cannot be known through a sympathetic attachment to and love for the people who loved Him, how can He be known? That other way, the way of philosophical speculation, seems simpler, but it leads to the house of desolation, not to His Kingdom come.

The common ground of all the organized churches, conservative and liberal, is their faith in intellectual Christianity. Each sect believes they can win in the open market of speculative theology. They all are emperors without any clothes, and they have left their adherents naked to their enemies, who are the liberals and the savage hordes of color. The Pauline Christianity of the antique Europeans has been thrown into the dustbins of organized Christianity, but that faith is the only restorative for white people. St. Paul did not try to define Christ, he bore witness to Him. St. Paul’s charity that never faileth and Burke’s charity of honor point us to one faith and one people that must be defended. If 300 pagan Spartans could hold the pass until the Athenians stopped debating and speculating, can’t we, the remnant band of Christian Europeans who have rejected intellectual Christianity, hold the pass until our modern white Athenians finally decide to fight?

Al Sharpton’s speech marks a new stage in the war against the white race. What was implicit is now explicit. The white race must be destroyed. The liberals will never oppose any force on earth that is anti-white and anti-Christian. They only hesitate when two anti-European forces collide, as in the case of Islam and Judaism. It’s significant that in such cases white Europeans are merely cast in the role of supporters. The conservative liberals and the moderate liberals support Israel while the more radical liberals and the neo-pagans support the Muslims. But the significant factor is that the white Europeans have no cause of their own, because they do not exist as a people. They have become what the church men wanted them to become: disembodied minds without souls.

Anthony Jacob correctly diagnosed the fatal weakness of the good Europeans in his book White Man, Think Again!:

It was the very trustfulness of the Kenyans which was employed as the means of betraying them: their Anglo-Saxon fair-mindedness which was employed as the means of overthrowing them. Above all, they consented to their own execution because their minds had been focussed on the Blacks instead of on their own White standing. The White tribe in Kenya could not have been dispossessed and expelled if it had not first been persuaded to surrender ‘some’ of its power, and to work for the benefit of the Black tribes instead of for its own benefit. The Blacks had to ‘evolve’, they were told; and they did not realise that all this meant was that the racial tables had to be turned and the Whites had to retrogress. Did they not think it morally imperative, they were asked, that they should do their utmost to help their black charges advance? And of course they agreed it was; for had they not since early childhood donated pennies and knitted garments for the poor naked peoples of benighted Africa? But if the question had been framed differently, and properly; if the question had been: ‘Are you going to make a sacrifice of yourselves and your children for the sake of the myth of Black advancement?’, then their reaction would have been quite different as well.

I saw this process at work in my own family. My grandfather was staunchly white in faith and ethos. He duly gave money to feed starving Africans, because his clergyman told him to do so and because he was a charitable man. But my grandfather never thought darkies should be placed on an equal footing with whites. He told me, approvingly, of his grandfather (I repeat myself with this story, but I claim an old man’s privilege to tell the same story over and over again) who was a veteran of the Civil War on the Union side. The grizzled veteran, who lived into his mid-nineties, told my grandfather that he would never have gone to war had he known it was a war to put blacks on an equal footing with whites. “They told me it was to save the Union.” The French Revolution in Haiti was the beginning, on a large scale, of the white liberal’s betrayal of his own people, and our un-Civil War was the next stage in that process. The deification of the negro in the 20th century was the beginning of the final stage. My father was part of the familiar pattern of white decline. He loved his father, but he denounced his prejudice. Why did my father denounce his father’s prejudice? Because my father trusted church and state. And all the King’s horses, and all the King’s men in church and state put their moral stamp of approval on the new intellectual Christianity that had no place for white souls with a thirst for the living God. I hope that family decline, the decline of white prejudice in favor of one’s own people over the colored barbarian, stops with me. Then my children will have something to pass on to their children besides a second-hand faith in the sacred negro.

When a black god can openly declare that all white resistance to the torture, rape, and murder of white people must come to an end, we know that we are in a new, bloodier, more desperate stage of the extermination process. No white who has crossed the line from a first-hand faith in his people and their God to a second-hand faith in intellectual Christianity will be able to resist the extermination of the white race, for the simple reason that the second-hand white man does not believe there is such a thing as the white race. The defense of the white race will depend on the few — all great defenses depend on just a few – white men who have not crossed over the line from His eternal Europe to Babylonian Europe. Wherever that line is drawn, no matter how few defend it, that battle line is Europe. In the old Welsh battle hymn, I hear our Savior’s command: “Stand and never yield.” +

Posted in defense of the white race, White genocide | Tagged