The Old Romance

GottschalkThe next day, Gottschalk, his shepherd’s staff pointed with iron on his shoulder, set forth at noon on his lonely way, knowing that the monster was seeking prey in distant meadows. He knew his path again by the stones and branches he had dropped the day before as he went along. The mountains looked more and more wild, the passes grew more and more narrow, till even the slender youth could hardly pass through them. The streams murmured mournfully, and the fir-trees groaned as before a coming storm; all nature seemed to say, “Return, return, poor shepherd-boy, or all is over with thee! Thou wilt perish on the bleak mountains, and not even find a grave.” Gottschalk’s heart had almost failed him, but he still drew forth cheerful sounds from his pipe, and sang this song at intervals: —

“When other shepherds sleep
In the quiet noontide shade,
Gottschalk leaves his sheep,
And seeks a distant glade.

Whither away, rash youth?
Slumberers, ye may not know;
My distant haunts, in sooth,
Are much too high for you.”

And the notes of his pipe fell softly, as if breathing forth a sweet secret. A light seemed to spring up in his heart, and he darted on. But may he trust to this light? He stopped, and knelt down reverently, as if at the altar of his village-church, and poured forth this prayer: — “O Lord God, Who knowest that I go forth at my prince’s command to destroy the wicked brood, and to deliver my countrymen from danger; if it be a sin that I cherish yet another and glorious hope, root it out of my heart, or deny me the sweet prize, and give it to a better Christian; but yet grant me now victory, in Thy strength, for the good of my country; or, if this may not be, grant me a joyful death.”

He seemed to hear within the words, “Go on, good servant.”

The Shepherd of the Giant Mountains


It’s surprising how few men saw the French Revolution for what it was. It was not a mere palace revolution, a change from one ruler to another; the French Revolution marked the end of the Europeans’ Christian romance. Christianity would survive for centuries after the French Revolution, but it would survive only as an intellectual faith, not as a poetic vision which set souls on fire. Burke saw this clearly:

But the age of chivalry is gone. That of sophisters, economists, and calculators, has succeeded; and the glory of Europe is extinguished for ever. Never, never more shall we behold that generous loyalty to rank and sex, that proud submission, that dignified obedience, that subordination of the heart, which kept alive, even in servitude itself, the spirit of an exalted freedom. The unbought grace of life, the cheap defence of nations, the nurse of manly sentiment and heroic enterprise, is gone! It is gone, that sensibility of principle, that charity of honor, which felt a stain like a wound, which inspired courage whilst it mitigated ferocity, which ennobled whatever it touched, and under which vice itself lost half its evil, by losing all its grossness. – Reflections on the French Revolution

There is a direct link between Burke’s vision of European Christianity and St. Paul’s vision: Both men were romantics. St. Paul told us not to rely on “miracles, healings, helps, governments,” or “diversities of tongues.” Instead we were to rely on that charity of honor that never faileth. The modern Europeans are wandering blindly over the face of what used to be Christian Europe because they have lost the Pauline-Burkean vision of Christ, the vision of that perfect Knight of charity and honor who enters human hearts. Negro worship flourishes because the Christ-bearing people have lost the vision of Christ as the divine Knight Errant.

The devil’s own know that people need more than an abstraction to fuel their faith. They need to see their faith enfleshed. This is why Trotsky, the Jacobin-Marxist, advised his fellow revolutionaries to look to the negro as the focal point of the anti-European revolution. As the complete antithesis of white men, negroes could serve as the living symbols of pure creatures of nature, and they could serve as the revolutionary shock troops that could be counted upon, when given free rein, to kill the whites without pity or remorse. In the old horror films we tremble for the fate of innocent victims at the mercy of subhuman brutes that are under the influence of satanic, mad scientists. But aren’t the real life enactments of those horror films so much worse than the fantasies? The mad-scientists, the Jacobin utopians, have unleashed the bloodthirsty negroes on the white race, and the whites will not defend themselves, because they have no vision. The liberals see the sacred negro presiding over a new world order in which the white man’s vineyard, filled with the grapes of wrath, have been trampled underfoot and destroyed by a crusading army of white utopians and noble black savages. That vision has carried the day throughout all of the once white, European nations. The Christian churches succumbed to that new vision of a Christless utopia as quickly as the French succumbed in World War II, because their Maginot line was guarded by Christian intellects without Christian hearts.

In Moby Dick Ahab’s first mate confronts Ahab and denounces his mad attempt to risk all their lives in the pursuit of Moby Dick. But Starbuck cannot maintain his opposition to Ahab: His soul is “overmanned.” Ahab has a vision, albeit a demonic vision, in which he passionately believes. Starbuck is an intellectual Christian, and as such he has no vision with which he can oppose Ahab. So all save one perish.

The conservatives of the 20th century were utilitarian Starbucks. They thought they could build Liberaldom more efficiently by their methods than their liberal cousins could. Twentieth century conservatism was never about destroying liberalism, it was about who could better manage the new, democratic, racially egalitarian society. Our European forefathers had an entirely different vision, an undemocratic, racially prejudiced vision of one people with one faith, who were loyal to their own racial hearth fire and rejected all others. That is the essence of the European romance: Fidelity to one particular people and one particular God. When that visionary romance makes way for the romance of the sacred negro, no think-tank, no army, no democratic sleight-of-hand, can bring the European people back to life.

No doubt the false portrayal of Aslan in the churches contributed greatly to the death of the Christian romance. I once read one of those religious pamphlets in which Calvin debated a Thomist. I did not finish the pamphlet with a rousing cheer for either theologian; I experienced a vague feeling of disgust for the whole business. Was this what Christianity was all about? Some men need to reduce that which is poetical to a more mundane theory that their button-down, bureaucratic minds can understand, but should we then let them drive their theoretical chaise carts over our faith? St. Paul never defined charity, but we know what charity is, by virtue of what St. Paul said about it. Nor did St. John define the light, but we know who the Light is, because of St. John’s description of the light.

Even if we grant the terrible effects that the presentation of a false image of Aslan has had on the European people, that still does not completely explain why the Europeans came to believe in the sacred negro romance over the Christian romance. Maybe it was the advent of the liberals’ holy ghost, Science, which completed the unholy trinity (Abstract Reason, the father; The Negro, the son; and Science, the holy ghost) that finally turned the Europeans to the new romance of negro-worshipping liberalism. But whatever the path the Europeans took to negro worship, the terrible reality is that the European people are surrounded by the walls of Liberaldom, and they cannot see any other world beyond that world. They need vision, but the type of vision they need cannot simply be purchased at the local drugstore or supermarket.

The liberals are now involved in what resembles a mop-up campaign after a victory in a major war. They are looking for small pockets of resistance from enemy soldiers who do not know that the war is over or who have refused to obey their commanders’ orders to surrender. The liberals also seek to tear down all statues and monuments of the enemy. This is why the Southern war memorials are being torn down. They are part of ‘racist’ Europe, and as such they must be destroyed. All symbols of the old romance must be eliminated so the new romance can shine all the more brightly in its radiant glory. But once the cultural remnants of old Europe are destroyed, won’t there still be living remnants, won’t there still be white people? Yes, there will, and they will be destroyed as well. The satanically logical brain that rules Liberaldom will demand it.

The white conservatives, who do not want to conserve white people, are forever telling liberals that they are the good, non-racist whites. But their white skins make them part of the old romance, whether they denounce the old romance or not. Even the liberals will perish in their own anti-white stew that they have prepared for thee and me. There is more wisdom in the Gordon Scott movie called Tarzan and the Lost Safari than in the thousands upon thousands of books written by liberals on the ‘race issue.’ A great white hunter who has delivered up his own people to be tortured and murdered by the black natives, is falsely accused of burning the natives’ village. His protests are in vain: “You betray your own people, you betray me,” is the assessment of the native chief. The liberals will be the last whites in the stew pots, but the liberals will go there despite their dreams of To Kill a Mockingbird darkies, bowing down in humble reverence and awe to their Atticus Finch imitations.

The French Revolution, so heralded by the radical poets such as Keats, Shelley, and Byron, was the embodiment of a new romance that was destined to supplant the old Christian romance. Reason, unfettered by God, was triumphant. But the revolution was a work in progress. It was left to radicals such as Trotsky to add the negro and science into the Jacobin mix. The history of the West since the French Revolution has been a history of compromise with the forces of evil. ‘How much can we concede without losing everything to the devil?’ was the unspoken strategy of the European people in the post-French Revolution era. Compromise, not victory, was the goal. But the devil does not compromise, nor does he give quarter. He demands unconditional surrender. Modern Europe, which is best described as Liberaldom, is the result of the Europeans’ attempt to compromise with the devil. We can hear the white grazers asking why they are hated so. They mean no one harm.

‘Whither should I fly?
I have done no harm. But I remember now
I am in this earthly world, where to do harm
Is often laudable, to do good sometime
Accounted dangerous folly.’

Will the devil cease to prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls because white people say nice things about negroes? The exact opposite is true. The more the white man worships the negro, the further the white man slides into the pit of hell. Part of the old romance, an essential part, was the knight who harmed those who harmed his people. The great German writer de la Motte Fouqué, in his Christian romance, The Shepherd of the Giant Mountains, shows us why a truly gentle and loving heart must kill for mercy’s sake:

At length he reached the spot whence he could see into the nest of the hateful monster; and as he listened to the angry sounds of the young griffins, and saw their fiery eyes and their sharp beaks he thought to himself that old Hans was right, and that in time they would devour even men. He determined to make an end at once; he was glad they were so hideous and so fierce, for it made the task of destroying them less painful.

The great compromise has failed, because there is a devil. The modern Europeans’ disbelief in the devil did not make him disappear, it simply allowed him to expand his influence unopposed. Enter the Christian knight. With or without armor and sword, he is the man who sees evil for what it is, and he sees the good, he sees the one, pure and perfect Knight, weeping for His lost sheep who have left their white, Christian hearth fire in order to live in Liberaldom. The Knight must bring that other forgotten world, the world of Christian romance, into Liberaldom. Then that one, tiny spark of romantic fire will take hold, and the one true romance, the romance between Christ and the European people, will begin anew. +

Posted in Europe as the Christ-bearer, Negro worship | Tagged ,

Fighting in the Dark

Dore_Ancient_marinerTo come to the point at once, I beg to say that I have not the least belief in the Noble Savage… he is a savage – cruel, false, thievish, murderous…

-Charles Dickens

Dryden first coined the phrase ‘noble savage,’ and Rousseau developed it into a religion. Since that time there have been two forms of ‘noble savage’ worship. The intellectual Christians such as Wesley, Wilberforce, and the Quakers revered the negro, because he was ‘pure’ and ‘noble’ and much more receptive, in their minds’ eye, to the Gospel of Christ as expounded by Wesley, Wilberforce, and the usual array of anti-Christian Christian zealots. How black savages, who are subject to all the effects of original sin — just as the white man is — can be more noble and pure than the white man is not something the anti-European Christians took the time to dwell on. They were annoyed with white Christians for being less than perfect, and they sought to beat out their rivals by filling their own particular churches with humble, obedient ‘noble savages.’ The anti-European bias of the Christian churches has not abated since the days of Wesley and company; in fact, it has intensified. And the intensity has reached such a fever pitch that the sacred negro has supplanted Christ as the center of Christian worship. In my younger days I vividly recall being denied access to a chapel, because an ecstatic nun told me they were “bringing blacks up from the city to worship with them.” It was obvious that the nun should have said, “to worship them,” rather than “to worship with them.”

The aforementioned Christian ‘inclusion’ has blended with the straight secular ‘noble savage’ worship of men like Dryden, Addison, Bentham, and Rousseau – the forerunners of the modern liberals and their cult of negro worship. But in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries there was strong opposition to the new ‘noble savage’ faith. Dickens’ essay on “The Noble Savage” in The Uncommercial Traveller and Reprinted Pieces is a classic. And Samuel Johnson (“Don’t cant to me of savages”) was not a believer in the ‘noble savage.’ Nor was Burke, who saw the connection between Jacobinism and negro worship:

“How must we feel, if the pride and flower of the English Nobility and Gentry, who might escape the pestilential clime, and the devouring sword, should, if taken prisoners, be delivered over as rebel subjects, to be condemned as rebels, as traitors, as the vilest of all criminals, by tribunals formed of Maroon negro slaves, covered over with the blood of their masters, who were made free and organized into judges, for their robberies and murders?”

That was not only the plight of the French in Saint-Domingue, it was the plight of the Southern people during the northern Jacobins’ reign of terror that lasted through the “reconstruction” period of the South’s history. The anti-‘noble savage’ sentiments of Fitzhugh, Dabney, and Page reflected the beliefs of the entire Southern nation, which did not completely yield to negro worship until the second half of the 20th century. And in the main, European sentiment, until the 20th century, was against negro worship. The tide shifted toward negro worship in the 20th century, not just in the liberal camps of historians such as Toynbee, but also in the deluded minds of many conservatives. Whittaker Chambers, for instance, might have divested himself of his communist faith, but he still maintained his faith in ‘the people,’ albeit they were no longer the white proletariat, they were the pure and simple negroes. (See “In Egypt Land,” 1946) Conrad, in The Heart of Darkness, also expressed a belief in the ‘noble savage.’ It seems that once a European abstracts himself from his people and the Christian faith, he is open to the worship of the colored stranger, which is usually the negro, but Mexicans, Chinese, and Indians have also served as the pure and noble gods of color.

The only Christian doctrine that is harder for intellectuals to accept than the resurrection of the dead is the doctrine of original sin. Pelagius eliminated it, and Aquinas freed reason from its effects, but I think that the Christian’s belief in original sin is one of the few doctrines that has a mountain of evidence to support it. Just look at the evil that men do; are we not all in the position of the Ancient Mariner? We have shot the albatross. But the intellectual Christian and the secularized liberal refuse to admit that they share the guilt of the Ancient Mariner. Guilt is pain, and they want no pain. So they cast all original sin on the white man. He is original sin incarnate. From time immemorial he has sinned against the colored races and stopped them from living and loving in their black, brown, red, and yellow paradises. But how can the intellectual Christians and the liberals escape from their own original sin? They can take refuge in reason. Reason has no skin color, if you are one of the elect, a man of reason, you can worship the negro and remain free of the taint of original sin. The reasoning men and their negro gods will smite the white man who prowls about the world, seeking the ruin of the good and pure negroes. Why is it supposed to be a tragedy when murderous scum like Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown are killed in the midst of an assault? It is a tragedy, because they are the pure and noble, they are without sin.

The worship of the negro and the other savages of color started out as the embittered attempt of white intellectuals to strike out at God by effacing His image in the collective face of the European people. If they are evil, then God must be evil, and He can be rejected in favor of other gods. But this belief is no longer just the belief of a few dissident intellectuals, it has entered the blood stream of the European people. They instinctively feel that black crime is their fault, that the white man must never defend himself against the black barbarians, and that Tony Blair’s command that they “must be multicultural” is the will of God. Can such a spiritual virus ever be cured? Not be ordinary means. Some power greater than reason and science must be invoked. There is power in the blood of Christ, just as the old hymn says, but that power, the power that makes a spiritual weakling into a hero, comes to us through the human channels of grace that the liberals have damned up. If we don’t love our own, we will never feel anything in the blood, we will be the walking dead, blindly serving the gods of color.

The consciousness that we are all tainted with original sin was what made the European wars, prior to the 20th century, limited wars. As grisly as the wars were, there was a modicum of chivalry in such wars, because Christian men knew that sin was not the exclusive property of the enemy. The one exception to that old concept of war was the American Civil War. The leadership in the North did not believe that all men were tainted with original sin; they believed that only the white southerners had that taint. Their belief has become the belief of the white race. Original sin exists, but it only exists in white racists. This is why the main concern of white people is to show they are not racist. When conservatives criticize a black leader, they always make sure to find some other black leader to praise. When a grazer shows outrage at rock-throwing black thugs, he is always careful to say that he is against thuggery, not blacks. The English Defense League spoke for all the grazers of the European world when they called on blacks, Muslims, Indians, and Martians to take a stand against hooliganism. Such a stand is not a stand at all, it is an admission of defeat. If you won’t fight for your own racial hearth fire, you won’t have the spiritual spine to fight for anything else. The liberals know this, which is why they condemn white racism. So long as whites remain in fear and trembling of being called racists they will be helpless and hopeless in the face of the liberal and colored barbarian onslaught.

The frameworks for negro worship and white genocide were in place in the European nations in the 1950’s. But the work of slaughter was just beginning, there were still white communities. I recently saw a short travelogue filmed in Holland in 1951. There were no blacks or Muslims in town or country. What a blessed sight! Many of the small children depicted in that film would still be alive today. What do they think of their nation now? Have they become true believers? Do they love multicultural Holland? At least those Europeans had a childhood. What do white children have today? They are told by every authoritative body in their respective European nations that they are evil, because they are white. The females are told that they can escape whiteness by repudiating the white male and cohabiting with the negro. And the white males are told that they will only be allowed to live out their pathetic existence if they serve as milch cows for the sacred negroes. “Black lives matter, white lives don’t,” is the liberals’ and the blacks’ mantra.

Rationalism and its child, negro worship, seem to be permanently ensconced as the religion of the European people. It is, of course, a suicidal faith, because the sacred negro is a god of sacrifice not mercy. But the historians of our race, the poets such as Scott, Shakespeare, and Dostoevsky tell us of a different type of European than the modern negro-worshipping Europeans. They tell of men and women who had something in their blood that was worthy of redemption. They were not rationalist piano keys and recorders to be played upon by the men of the satanic intellects. The Europeans once loved and hated first hand. Now they love through the negro, trying to love what he loves, which is murder, rape, and pillage, and striving to hate what he hates, the white man.

When the Athenians were trying to decide whether or not to fight, the Spartan leader Leonidas said that, “Sparta will fight whether the others fight or not.” And when the Persians told Leonidas and the 300 that the Persian arrows would darken the sky, Leonidas replied, “Then we will fight in the dark.” Leonidas and the 300 represent the pinnacle of Greek culture. They were not rationalists; they did not believe in the dialectic approach to existence. Nor did the Christian Europeans, who, through the Christian ages, fought their own battles of Thermopylae. Now it is time, past time, for Christian Europeans to stand in front of the pass and face the negro-worshipping liberals and their colored minions. Not likely? No, it is not likely, but then again there was nothing likely about the miracle of Europe. That is something to hold on to, something that bids us look inward to the spirit above the dust of negro-worshipping liberalism. +

Posted in antique Christianity, Negro worship | Tagged

The Counter-Revolution: The Time of Our Peace Is Past

St-George-Hero-of-EnglandNow we can only wait till the day, wait and apportion our shame.
These are the dykes our fathers left, but we would not look to the same.
Time and again were we warned of the dykes, time and again we delayed.
Now, it may fall, we have slain our sons, as our fathers we have betrayed.

-Kipling

“We must understand why the blacks are rioting and then address their grievances,” the liberal newscaster intoned. I do understand why the blacks are rioting; it is the liberal media and their clerical allies who do not understand why the blacks are rioting. Blacks are rioting because they hate white people, not because of a “legacy of racism,” or because Freddie Gray died during his ride to jail. The guilty verdict won’t “bring peace to the community,” because blacks are not looking for peace. They want power. And every time they stage a successful riot, which was the case in Baltimore, they get closer to complete power. Of course complete black power would mean the end of the white race, just as it did in Haiti, but it would also send the black race back to the Stone Age. Without the whites to sustain them, blacks will be forced to live in a modern jungle where every man’s hand is against them and their hands are against every man. Why would they act against their own self-interest? Why did the swine plunge over the cliff? Both are possessed by the devil. The black savage is completely incapable of looking ahead to the consequences of his actions. He sees an opportunity to riot and he takes it; he sees a woman and he takes her; he sees that whites won’t take any action against him, no matter what he does, so he attacks ‘Whitey’ whenever and wherever the opportunity arises. Last week it was Baltimore, next week it could be New York or some other city or town. The black violence won’t stop when whites become less “racist,” it will stop when whites become racist enough to love their own while hating the liberals and their black gods as they hate the devil, whom the liberals and the blacks serve.

I don’t see the proper hatred in the European people, the hatred that stems from love and causes a man to cry, “Stop, this must not go on,” when he sees those he loves attacked by a cruel, merciless foe. It is from such a heartfelt determined hatred of the cruel and merciless that counter-revolutions are born.

Is there anything remotely resembling a counter-revolutionary spirit developing in white people? It seems almost impossible to believe that negro worship has consumed the souls of every last white. But then again, you never hear even a whisper against the black gods of Liberaldom. Perhaps that is Satan’s intent. He wants every white person with a heart that still lives, to feel he is the last white man on the face of the earth. “Despair and die,” the devil tells that last white man. But let’s assume that there are some white men left on earth whose hearts still indignant break when they see the black hell that enslaves their people. What are the obstacles such people face?

The first obstacle is the liberals. They are in power in church, state, academy and the military. In some nations, such as Chile in the 1970’s and Spain in the 1930’s, counter-revolutions were launched from the military, but in the modern European nations there are no counter-revolutionary movements; the democratic virus has sunk deep into the souls of the men who chose to enter the military in the modern European nations. It’s far more likely that the military will be used against white counter-revolutionaries than the alternative – that the military would turn on the liberals. Nor will there be any counter-revolutionary encouragement from the organized churches. They have made peace with the liberals. So long as both worship the negro neither will forsake the other. So any counter-revolutionary effort must proceed without help from any institution in Liberaldom. Nor can a counter-revolutionary hope to win the liberals over by exposing the inhumanity of negro-worshipping liberalism, or by proving the suicidal nature of negro-worshipping liberalism. The liberals’ hearts are as hard as Pharaoh’s, and they must believe in the negro come hell or high water, because without him they have no religious life at all. Whenever liberals gather for serious business, in Church or State, they discuss the negro and how to help him by “fighting racism.” And of course it is always the “good” racism, namely white racism, which unfortunately is in very short supply, that the liberals are fighting. The black racism, which comes from the devil is never a concern of the liberals.

If we overlook the obduracy of the liberals and waste all our efforts in trying to “win them over,” we will be forever bound to Lear’s wheel of fire. Ever since the 1970’s men such as Samuel Francis and John Tyndall have been telling us that we could still reverse the blood red tide of color by voting, because whites are still in the majority. But whites were not in the majority then, and they are even less in the majority now, because the liberals with the black hearts will never side with the whites. A majority coalition of liberals and colored tribesmen will always win the “one man, one vote” plebiscites. There are a great many white grazers who privately favor the views of white men like Samuel Francis and John Tyndall, but they will never publicly state such views themselves or defend white people in public. Why? They will not do so, because they fear the consequence of the slightest deviation from liberal orthodoxy. And their fears are not unfounded; the liberals have set up a vast infrastructure designed to ferret out and punish all those who are not enthusiastic supporters of negro-worshipping liberalism.

The second obstacle that a counter-revolutionary European encounters is the “make a living” obstacle. A counter-revolutionary must spiritually separate himself from all things liberal. This is difficult to do when one must make a living, for the reason that it is hard to “be among them but not of them.” It takes great spiritual discipline to hold fast to counter-revolutionary convictions while working amongst liberals and grazers. And it gets harder still when you see your children suffer financially when your lack of enthusiasm for liberalism is detected and you lose your job. But the counter-revolutionary vocation is not something chosen, unlike the revolutionary’s vocation. The revolutionary, in a Christian society, has chosen to rebel against God, because he worships darkness and not the light. The counter-revolutionary in a satanic society, to use the Shakespearean term, has had the counter-revolutionary vocation thrust upon him, because his heart will not permit him to forget or denounce that which was lost, namely Christian Europe.

The counter-revolutionary spirit stems from a love of the past while the revolutionary spirit comes from a hatred of the past. Hence, the counter-revolutionary’s desire to bring the spiritual values of the past into the present and the ruling revolutionary governments’ desire to bury the past in favor of the glorious present and an even more glorious future. What Fitzhugh said about governments is apropos here:

All government proceeds ab extra. Neither individuals nor societies can govern themselves, any more than the mouse can live in the exhausted receiver, or the clown lift himself by the lapel of his pantaloons. The South is governed by the necessity of keeping its negroes in order, which preserves a healthy conservative public opinion. Had the negroes votes, the necessity would be removed, because the interest of the governing class would cease to be conservative.

Fitzhugh makes the same point that Burke made when he stated that a nation is much more than a geographical spot on a map, it is a moral essence. When revolutionaries take over a government, whether they have done it by bullet or ballot, they change the moral essence of a nation. That change should turn all conservatives into counter-revolutionaries. Burke maintained that the real French men were the throne-and-altar aristocrats in exile. And in Europe today, the only true Brits, Danes, Dutch, etc., are the men who want to destroy the democratic, revolutionary governments of their respective nations.

A conservative ought not to be concerned with preserving the democratic process. That is only a means to an end. If it is a means to an evil end, the conservative should oppose it; he should not — as is the case in the European nations today — defend a revolutionary, tribunal government just because white people are allowed to vote for their executioners. Voting is not a sign of liberty or of Christianity. In fact, Christianity always declines in thoroughly democratic nations, because everyone but Christians are given the liberty to practice their faith: Religious liberty for Muslims, Jews, tree-huggers, and voodoo priests and priestesses, but no liberty for Christians. The “some are more equal” doctrine is in effect in all the European nations. The only Christianity that is permitted in Liberaldom is state Christianity, which is the complete antithesis of European Christianity.
The liberals have authoritatively decreed that the 21st century will mark the end of the European. Like the demon possessed swine in the Gospel, the liberals must flee from the God-Man whom they hate with an unremitting passion. And their flight has taken the form of institutionalized negro worship. They think that such a system is their best refuge from the God-Man. For this reason the Christ-bearing European will always be an anathema in Liberaldom.

The European counter-revolutionary does not see the 21st century as the end of the European. He sees only one vision: It is the same vision that his European ancestors saw when Odin pointed them to Christ, the true God and true kinsmen of the European people. The racist gamut is designed by the liberals to keep the European away from the source of his strength, his racial and familial hearth fire. If there are no European hearth fires there will be no William Tells and the Gesslers of the world will reign unchallenged. The European grazers are kept in line by fear, the fear of being perceived as racist. They won’t lose that fear until they see what they have not seen in this generation of white men – a man who is not afraid of being called a racist. Europeans are not primarily motivated by economic considerations. That is a fiction created by the Marxists and the capitalists. They are primarily motivated by a desire for the approval of their peers. And since their peers live in Liberaldom and have liberal values one must adhere to liberal values in order to win the approval of one’s peers. “How well do you serve the negro?” is the credo of the white every man living in the modern European nations. Hence the declaration, “I will not serve the negro,” is the most counter-revolutionary statement a man can make. Through the narrow racial gate a counter-revolutionary must go, “for there reigns love and all love’s loving parts.” For all their talk of love, the liberals’ heaven on earth has no love. That is the dark secret of their utopia: Where there is no racial hearth fire, there can be no love; thus, the liberals must feed off the remnants of a civilization that was built by a people who loved much. Consistent liberalism is pure negation, so the liberals have institutionalized the hatred of all things Christian and European while reserving the hypocritical right to visit relatives on Christian holidays and raise their chosen children in houses rather than jungle huts, away from the savage barbarians of color who they are supposed to worship and adore. (1) But the liberals cannot feed off the remnants of Christian Europe forever. Men and women need to love and be loved. That need can never be fulfilled in a world consecrated to the loveless, barbaric gods of color.

The counter-revolutionary European, by some miracle of God’s grace, has not lost his capacity to love and hate with his whole heart and soul. He can match the passion of the liberals’ hatred of the light with his passionate love of the light. Charity is not weak; it is fierce in defense of all that is good and pure and noble. Dickens, like all the great poets of Christian Europe, knew the strength and fierceness needed for a loving, charitable defense of one’s own:

Madame Defarge looked coldly at her, and said, “The wife of Evremonde; where is she?”

It flashed upon Miss Pross’s mind that the doors were all standing open, and would suggest the flight. Her first act was to shut them. There were four in the room, and she shut them all. She then placed herself before the door of the chamber which Lucie had occupied.

Madame Defarge’s dark eyes followed her through this rapid movement, and rested on her when it was finished. Miss Pross had nothing beautiful about her; years had not tamed the wildness, or softened the grimness, of her appearance; but, she too was a determined woman in her different way, and she measured Madame Defarge with her eyes, every inch.

“You might, from your appearance, be the wife of Lucifer,” said Miss Pross, in her breathing. “Nevertheless, you shall not get the better of me. I am an Englishwoman.”

Madame Defarge looked at her scornfully, but still with something of Miss Pross’s own perception that they two were at bay. She saw a tight, hard, wiry woman before her, as Mr. Lorry had seen in the same figure a woman with a strong hand, in the years gone by. She knew full well that Miss Pross was the family’s devoted friend; Miss Pross knew full well that Madame Defarge was the family’s malevolent enemy.

“On my way yonder,” said Madame Defarge, with a slight movement of her hand towards the fatal spot, “where they reserve my chair and my knitting for me, I am come to make my compliments to her in passing. I wish to see her.”

“I know that your intentions are evil,” said Miss Pross, “and you may depend upon it, I’ll hold my own against them.”

Each spoke in her own language; neither understood the other’s words; both were very watchful, and intent to deduce from look and manner, what the unintelligible words meant.

“It will do her no good to keep herself concealed from me at this moment,” said Madame Defarge. “Good patriots will know what that means. Let me see her. Go tell her that I wish to see her. Do you hear?”

“If those eyes of yours were bed-winches,” returned Miss Pross, “and I was an English four-poster, they shouldn’t loose a splinter of me. No, you wicked foreign woman; I am your match.”

Madame Defarge was not likely to follow these idiomatic remarks in detail; but, she so far understood them as to perceive that she was set at naught.

“Woman imbecile and pig-like!” said Madame Defarge, frowning. “I take no answer from you. I demand to see her. Either tell her that I demand to see her, or stand out of the way of the door and let me go to her!” This, with an angry explanatory wave of her right arm.

“I little thought,” said Miss Pross, “that I should ever want to understand your nonsensical language; but I would give all I have, except the clothes I wear, to know whether you suspect the truth, or any part of it.”

Neither of them for a single moment released the other’s eyes. Madame Defarge had not moved from the spot where she stood when Miss Pross first became aware of her; but, she now advanced one step.

“I am a Briton,” said Miss Pross, “I am desperate. I don’t care an English Twopence for myself. I know that the longer I keep you here, the greater hope there is for my Ladybird. I’ll not leave a handful of that dark hair upon your head, if you lay a finger on me!”

Thus Miss Pross, with a shake of her head and a flash of her eyes between every rapid sentence, and every rapid sentence a whole breath. Thus Miss Pross, who had never struck a blow in her life.

But, her courage was of that emotional nature that it brought the irrepressible tears into her eyes. This was a courage that Madame Defarge so little comprehended as to mistake for weakness. “Ha, ha!” she laughed, “you poor wretch! What are you worth! I address myself to that Doctor.” Then she raised her voice and called out, “Citizen Doctor! Wife of Evremonde! Child of Evremonde! Any person but this miserable fool, answer theCitizeness Defarge!”

Perhaps the following silence, perhaps some latent disclosure in the expression of Miss Pross’s face, perhaps a sudden misgiving apart from either suggestion, whispered to Madame Defarge that they were gone. Three of the doors she opened swiftly, and looked in.

“Those rooms are all in disorder, there has been hurried packing, there are odds and ends upon the ground. There is no one in that room behind you! Let me look.”

“Never!” said Miss Pross, who understood the request as perfectly as Madame Defarge understood the answer.

“If they are not in that room, they are gone, and can be pursued and brought back,” said Madame Defarge to herself.

“As long as you don’t know whether they are in that room or not, you are uncertain what to do,” said Miss Pross to herself; “and you shall not know that, if I can prevent your knowing it; and know that, or not know that, you shall not leave here while I can hold you.”

“I have been in the streets from the first, nothing has stopped me, I will tear you to pieces, but I will have you from that door,” said Madame Defarge.

“We are alone at the top of a high house in a solitary courtyard, we are not likely to be heard, and I pray for bodily strength to keep you here, while every minute you are here is worth a hundred thousand guineas to my darling,” said Miss Pross.

Madame Defarge made at the door. Miss Pross, on the instinct of the moment, seized her round the waist in both her arms, and held her tight. It was in vain for Madame Defarge to struggle and to strike; Miss Pross, with the vigorous tenacity of love, always so much stronger than hate, clasped her tight, and even lifted her from the floor in the struggle that they had. The two hands of Madame Defarge buffeted and tore her face; but, Miss Pross, with her head down, held her round the waist, and clung to her with more than the hold of a drowning woman.

Soon, Madame Defarge’s hands ceased to strike, and felt at her encircled waist. “It is under my arm,” said Miss Pross, in smothered tones, “you shall not draw it. I am stronger than you, I bless Heaven for it. I hold you till one or other of us faints or dies!”

Madame Defarge’s hands were at her bosom. Miss Pross looked up, saw what it was, struck at it, struck out a flash and a crash, and stood alone—blinded with smoke.

All this was in a second. As the smoke cleared, leaving an awful stillness, it passed out on the air, like the soul of the furious woman whose body lay lifeless on the ground.

Ah, that’s what the counter-revolution is all about, Charlie Brown. The ability to recognize evil and to fight to the death to protect our own from that evil. Miss Pross, William Tell, and all the men and women of Europe who love much are the stuff that counter-revolutions are made on. +

______________________________________

(1) My mad-dog liberal sister sent her daughter to an all-white private school, thus avoiding the negroes whom she professed to worship.

Posted in Christian counter-attack, counterrevolution, restoration of European civilization | Tagged ,

Christ is Greater Than the Negro (Up from the Pigsties of Negro Worship)

Dore-The-Vision-of-the-Valley-of-Dry-BonesAnd ye shall know that I am the Lord, when I have opened your graves, O my people, and brought you up out of your graves – Ezekiel 37: 13

And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. – Revelations 21: 4

____________________________________

In olden days when I was a schoolboy “creeping like snail unwillingly to school,” we read the Greek and Norse myths from Bullfinch’s Mythology. I don’t think modern students read Bullfinch anymore, but I found his retelling of the Greek and Norse myths quite fascinating. As an undergraduate I read the myths again in literature and religion courses, but they were not as fascinating to me as objects of study as they were when they were just stories. There’s a moral there somewhere, but that is not what I want to write about on this occasion. What I want to focus on is the Greeks’ and the Nordic Europeans’ transfers from pagan believers to Christian believers, and then move on to the modern cult of negro worship.

The Greeks of antiquity have been studied and probed more than any other people, with the possible exception of the Hebrews. What I find the most interesting in the Greeks’ religion is the effect that rationalism had on their faith. As we know, their assembly of gods went from primitive nature gods to the pantheon of gods depicted by Homer in The Odyssey and The Iliad. But already in Homer we can see the beginning of the rationalism that was destined to kill the Greek gods, because if the gods cannot provide mortals with immortality, then of what use are the gods? The belief that the whole living man survived after death due to the beneficence of the gods was the belief of the pre-Homeric Greeks, who worshipped at their racial and familial hearth fires. But Homer’s heroes no longer had that comfort; in his works mortal men only survived after death as lifeless shades of their former selves:

“O strange! Then even in
Hades homes – and I knew not this
They have spirit and shape,
but in these no life there is.”

Achilles in The Illiad

And then this:

“Rather would I be a hireling
to drudge in the fields all day
With a landless master, who
squarely would feed me
and niggardly pay,
Than over the hosts of the
dead which have perished a
scepter to sway.”

Achilles in The Odyssey

That less than joyous vision of the afterlife came from a poet who was passing from faith to rationalism. It was left to Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle to put ‘paid’ to the account of the Greek gods. When Christ came onto the scene, the old Greek gods were merely State gods; the people had embraced the various mystery religions, and the intellectuals were stoics, epicureans, Platonists, etc. The Greeks came to believe that their more miraculous faith in a full-bodied resurrection was irrational and therefore false, so they sought other gods and eventually bent their knees to the Christian God.

The Nordic Europeans took a slightly different path to Christ than the Greeks. They never rationalized Odin and Thor; they were pagan believers when they encountered Christ. They left a full-blooded, vital pagan faith for a full-blooded, vital faith in Christ. Much is written about what the Roman Christians brought to the followers of Odin. They brought the Christian faith, but they also brought Greek rationalism, the same rationalism that destroyed the Greek gods. Could Christ withstand the rationalist attack that killed Zeus and his pantheon of gods? It was the mission of the Europeans, the only people who accepted Christ as conquerors rather than as the conquered, to stay close to their own hearth fires, to love Christ in and through their own people, and by doing so, keep the rationalist serpent from strangling the European faithful. It was a glorious battle over the Christian centuries: Every time Satan, the great rationalist, launched a new attack, the Lord God made a counterattack through His people, the Europeans. But in the 20th century, the battle became too one-sided; there was no European counterattack and it seemed like Satan had triumphed. It’s like trying to figure out why a perfectly healthy man contracts a hideous wasting disease. We can see that he’s sick, we know the name of his sickness, but why did he succumb to it? Western man is sick and dying from a surfeit of rationalism, but why wasn’t he able, as his ancestors were, to fight off the disease?

The fiendish rationalist, the man of the detached intellect and the satanic, caustic wit, George Bernard Shaw, spelled it out for us in Back to Methuselah. The belief in Christ gave way to rationalism, because the Europeans could not maintain their belief in Christ’s resurrection from the dead and the truths of science. Shaw also realized that men could not live without a mythic faith that they believed to be true, so he suggested that his myth should be substituted for Christianity, the myth of creative evolution. But Shaw’s new myth was too much like Homer’s myth; it was mystic rationalism; there was no flesh and blood God in Shaw’s new faith, so his new faith faded away before it ever came to be. I only know of one Shavian devotee who ever tried to adapt it, and he quickly fell into despair.

Shaw’s new myth did not take hold of Western man, but he did pinpoint Western man’s weakness: Western man couldn’t answer Dostoyevsky’s question in the affirmative, ‘whether a man, as a civilized being, as a European, can believe at all, believe that is, in the divinity of the Son of God, Jesus Christ, for therein rests, strictly speaking, the whole faith?’ If the ‘civilized’ European can only believe in Christ’s humanity, but not in His divine humanity, then Christ is not God, He is just an earthly demigod, and the resurrection of the dead goes back to Homer: We are only shades of ourselves when we die. Nothing is sadder in all of literature than the scene in The Odyssey when the still mortal Odysseus tries to embrace the shade of his deceased mother in Hades. Three times he tries to embrace her and three times he fails. Is this the promised end? About twenty years ago I read a book by a supposedly ‘conservative’ Catholic theologian on the subject of the resurrection of the dead. His description of the resurrection seemed to come right out of Homer. We survived as ethereal shades, not as integral, body and soul human beings. The great theologian ridiculed the Victorian notion of a heaven in which all one’s loved ones were gathered together, in the flesh, around the same hearth fire they had shared on earth. Isn’t that a childish notion? Yes, it is, and I believe in that childish notion. Doesn’t the Bible tell us to believe in such childish notions?

Thus saith the Lord God unto these bones; Behold, I will cause breath to enter into you, and ye shall live; And I will lay sinews upon you, and will bring up flesh upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and ye shall live; and ye shall know that I am the Lord.

The belief in the resurrection of the dead is intimately connected to our attachment to our racial and familial hearth fire. If we never love our own with an intensity that makes us feel that death cannot be final, if we don’t yearn to embrace our loved one’s after death as we embraced them on this earth, then all we need is the Homeric life after death of the intellectual Christians, or, worse yet, the worship of the negro in this world and eternal oblivion in the next.

What is going on in Baltimore, where mobs of rock-throwing blacks force armed police officers to retreat, because the police are afraid to fire at and kill a sacred black, is going on throughout the Western world in one form or another. (1) The white men are in retreat, because they no longer believe in the bred-in-the-bone Christianity of the antique Europeans. Men must have a mythic faith, a faith that they believe to be true in their blood, the source of all true wisdom. Rational, intellectual Christianity is not faith, it is a caricature of a faith. The police officers in Baltimore cannot shoot the black rioters, the Brits and French cannot halt the Muslim invasion, because they have nothing to fight for, they have no attachment to their own racial hearth fires or to the God of their ascending race. The suicidal retreat from the hordes of color will not cease until white men believe, heart, mind, and soul, in the one true myth of the incarnate Lord, Jesus Christ.

In fleeing from the irrationality of a faith that posits the resurrection of the dead, the liberals of the Western world have adopted a faith that is irrational as well as morally reprehensible. It is not rational or moral to provide free food, housing, and education to a criminal race of people who have declared war on the white Christian race. The sacrificial altars for the black gods are everywhere. In church, at work, and at play, the white man offers tribute to the black gods, because he does not believe there is any other god beyond this world.

The myth of the noble black savage has one great advantage over the Christian myth. The black savage is not a god who can raise the dead, hence he does not insult the ‘intelligence’ of the liberals. He demands tribute and homage in this world only. But what does he give in return for tribute and homage? It doesn’t seem like he gives us anything but hatred, murder, and rapine. He is indeed the savage god who comes to us in a tide of blood. It’s useless to argue, or plead with the liberals who worship the savage black god; they are much farther beyond reason than the most zealous of the Christian mystics, and they are completely immune to pleas of mercy, because they are without mercy. Can anything be done with such creatures? No, there is no chance of any rapprochement between a white man and a liberal.

The whole history of the modern Europeans’ descent into hell was delineated for us by Walter Scott in the preface to Quentin Durward. We can become like unto Louis XI and view the caustic wit of the devil as the penultimate of human existence, in which case we will worship the devil through the sacred black man, or we can forsake the cleverness of this world for the foolishness of the vision of Christ crucified, Christ risen.

There is no love, no charity, no honor in the pigsties of negro worship, yet the white man continues to wallow in them. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy: If the Europeans look at the world through the prism of science and reason they will only see pigsties, and the negro will be their Lord and Master for all eternity. But should they look at existence through the spiritual eye of the heart, they will see visions and dream dreams, and they will forsake their negro gods for the one true God. Our people now resemble the ancient Hebrews cavorting around the golden calf. The return to grace starts with a refusal to worship the heathen gods. From that refusal comes divine aid, which is surely something the European people need. We have lived so long without miracles, because we have been too long in the pigsties of negro worship. +

___________________________

(1) It should be noted that the FBI gave orders to shoot to kill in the case of Randy Weaver’s wife, who was standing in her own doorway with her baby in her arms. Yet the police in Baltimore refused to shoot any of the black rioters, who had rocks, not babies, in their hands.

The riot wasn’t about Freddie Gray; the negroes couldn’t care less about Freddie Gray. Had he lived a few months longer he would have met his death at the hands of one of the ‘sainted’ rock-throwing black thugs. The Baltimore riots are the Western world in miniature. Whites retreat before black barbarism, because they don’t believe they have a moral right to defend themselves. In fact they don’t believe they have a moral right to exist.

Posted in blood faith, rationalism | Tagged ,

One Man, One Vote is the Path to Hell

Andries_PretoriusIn considering South Africa, it needs to be repeated that the campaign against her is nothing more or less than a campaign against the White Christian race itself. It is actually a misnomer to call it an anti-South African campaign. It is an antiWhite campaign. It is a war against all of us. – Anthony Jacob

___________________________________

I first read Anthony Jacob’s book White Man Think Again in the early 1980s, before South Africa’s De Klerkian capitulation to the snarling wolf pack called the Western world. When the Afrikaners did surrender to the forces of ‘liberty, equality, and fraternity’ it was impossible not to compare the Afrikaners before the fall and after the fall, without feeling an incredible sadness. Before:

South African is the only country in all Africa which has a future as a major world power. Moreover as a major world power it will be ideologically what it always has been – a power unreservedly on the side of the traditional West. If the desired revolution comes along (the revolution as desired, not merely by the East and the rest of Africa but by our brave white brothers in the United States, Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Germany, Holland, Scandinavia, etc.) and the white race in South Africa is reduced, at best, to Black servitude, all hope of South Africa developing into a major power and major bastion of the West will be gone. The question then will be: What will have been proved or gained? In what way will our cherished Evolution have been served?

Though it is democratic for the sheep to lead the shepherds, the outcome is always Confusion. The rule of shepherds is minority rule, like South Africa’s. The white man has a genius for civilization which the black man, to put it mildly, does not have. In South Africa this White minority rule is firm but benevolent, efficient but humane. But above all it is White rule, which is all that should matter to us. For are we not White?

So proud and so noble! And after the fall? So much innocent white blood has been shed. Even the guilty were not spared: the Judas, De Klerk, lost his first wife to the new South Africa: she was brutally murdered by a black security guard in the building where she lived alone. “And thus the whirligig of time brings in its revenges.” But did the rest of the white South Africans deserve their fates? No, they did not. They deserved the support and homage of the entire Western world for serving as a European light in the dark night of liberalism, for so many years. And there are now reports that the Boers might still show the world how white men with white hearts can fight and win against the white-skinned men with black hearts and the black-hearted men with black skins. Some Afrikaners have organized training camps for a white paramilitary force designed to fight the liberal-black coalition that is systematically murdering the whites in South Africa. The movement shows more promise than the Orania experiment, because this new paramilitary organization is not trying to cooperate with the existing South African government; they mean to violently oppose it, which is the only way to deal with a Jacobin government proposing the death of all white people. The white liberals are quite angry and upset that some white South Africans are not willing to accept their own extermination: ‘Why can’t they march quietly to the executioner’s block? Why make such a fuss? Don’t they realize that all whites, especially white Afrikaners and white Southerners must die to atone for their racist past?’

Should the white Afrikaners who are resisting white genocide actually start to mount a serious threat to the black Marxist state of South Africa, the anti-white forces throughout the Western world, with the United States leading the charge, will go against the Afrikaners, first with military aid for the South African government and then with combat troops if it is deemed necessary. But it will not be foreign aid or foreign troops that will stop the Afrikaner counter-revolution. If the counter-revolution runs aground — and such an outcome is not written — it will be the result of a loss of faith within the counter-revolutionary forces; the Afrikaner youth will be co-opted by the liberals and will start doing T.V. interviews about their unenlightened days within the ranks of – Horror of Horrors! – racists.

A determined few can never be defeated by overwhelming numbers unless they lose faith. On the surface it may appear that history contradicts that assertion, but it doesn’t contradict it, history confirms it. The South did not lose the Civil War in the 1860’s. They fought to avoid the Haitization of the South. That process was aided by their loss of the battle called the Civil War, but the war itself wasn’t lost until the Southern people lost faith, in the 1950’s, and caved in to integration. It was the same in South Africa. When the people lost their faith in the essential rightness of apartheid, the end was nigh. I remember white South Afrikaner athletes just prior to the 1993 debacle, talking about the evils of apartheid and the goodness of integration. That is how white worlds end, from the inside, when white men develop black hearts.

The white man can’t proceed against the liberals and the colored heathens with any faith other than the ancient faith of his people. If he places his faith in democracy or science he will be like unto the liberals and will never stay the course of racial integrity long enough to help his people; he will abandon them in midstream.

There is a direct connection between a belief in Christ as the Son of God and a hostility to the scientific method as applied to human beings. Because we have stomachs that need food and bodies that need sleep does not mean we are mere products of the natural world that can be played upon by the scientistic, ‘liberty, equality, and fraternity’ crowd. Our greatest need is God, the God who revealed to us that our white skins are part of our spiritual essence, without which we are wanderers in the desert of modernity. Our church men have no faith, because they have attempted to blend scientistic thinking, which is really a type of non-thinking, with the Christian faith. Such thinking, isolated from the heart and blood, produces Christian atheists who will always fight with the ‘liberty, equality, and fraternity’ utopians against their own people. Better to have leaders like Paul Kruger, president of the South African Republic from 1883 to 1900, who believed that the earth was flat and was not ashamed of his Christian faith. You might ask what kind of leader a man like that can be who ignores such an obvious fact of science. Such a man makes an excellent leader, because he recognizes the irrelevancy of such trivial facts of science compared to the fact of Christ’s resurrection from the dead and His love for His people, in and through their racial hearth fire. The further we get away from the scientific rationalists in Church and state the closer we will come to counter-revolutionary success. If a man does not believe he has a spiritual homeland within his own race, he will not fight for a geographical homeland. A few weeks ago I said the South African whites were the most persecuted whites in the world, but maybe they are more spiritually prepared to fight than the rest of the European people, who seem to believe that retreat, compromise, and capitulation is the Christian way to handle black barbarism.

The race war in South Africa, Kenya, and the rest of Africa has been extended into Europe. It is the final stage of the French Revolution. The people must rule, and the only true people are the people of color. Haiti was the model for all modern revolutionaries: ‘The whites must die.’

Liberalism and the type of conservatism that does not conserve white people are ideologies of death. Under the guise of democracy and Christianity, liberalism and modern conservatism are killing the Christ-bearing people. They are madmen, those modern Jacobins with black hearts, and we must treat them as madmen should be treated: “As to a change of mind in these men, who consider infamy as honour, degradation as preferment, bondage to low tyrants as liberty, and the practical scorn and contumely of their upstart masters, as marks of respect and homage. I look upon it as absolutely impracticable. These madmen, to be cured, must first, like other madmen, be subdued.” Burke is telling us what Shakespeare told us centuries before: You cannot reason with men who have hardened their hearts against Christian Europeans:

You may as well go stand upon the beach,
And bid the main flood bate his usual height.

The emergence of 2,000 Christian Spartans in South Africa and the non-emergence of any Christian Spartans in the rest of the European countries undoubtedly has much to do with the desperateness of the white South Africans’ plight. It is fight or die. Whites of the West are a few hours away from the same plight, but they do not believe that they have anything in common with South African whites. ‘They are the bad whites who segregated — that is why they are being punished now.’ But there is also something else at work here. The white South African remnant is closer to the proper vision of existence than the whites of Europe. The Afrikaner is not that far removed from one nation, one race, and one faith. That is the type of faith that produces heroes. In contrast the faith of the men of the West was a milk-toast compromise faith of abstractions and democratic platitudes for many years prior to their final apostasy from everything Christian and humane. And the mark of the milk-toast faith that leads to the worship of everything inhuman and perverse is the failure to recognize evil. The Western rationalist makes an abstraction of evil and then moderates it into ‘something slightly off the balance beam, but nothing that can’t be corrected.’ The collective wisdom of the West on the subject of the French Revolution is a perfect example of the moderate Europeans’ response to evil prior to the West’s complete capitulation to evil. All the rationalists conceded Burke’s critique had ‘some’ validity, because Robespierre ‘excesses’ were bad, but the men of moderation failed to see the satanic nature of Jacobinism. Let two of the prominent, moderate historians stand in for the entire herd, who are and were legion: “Burke himself was by now showing feelings of hatred for the French Revolution which at times seemed like an obsession.” (Andre Maurois, The Miracle of England). Case closed on Burke – he had an obsession, which implies that he was sick. And he was sick, if there is no ongoing struggle between God and the devil with the souls of mortal men and women hanging in the balance.

What type of universe do the rational moderate men live in? They live in a rational, closed-in universe where there may be some kind of cosmic mind that sets the universe in motion, just as the old watchmaker God of Voltaire and the deists did, but there is certainly no divinely human Savior who cares about His people, or a devil who roams about the world seeking the ruin of souls, in the rationalists’ universe. The moderate men believe that what the conservative Burke thought was a war between good and evil was really just a harmful dichotomy between two extremes, both of which were wrong by virtue of the fact that they were extreme: “Perhaps it was all inevitable, but the extremism of Burke’s thoughts on the French Revolution and Paine’s Rights of Man certainly did not make for mutual understanding.” (G. M. Trevelyan, The History of England, vol. III) And mutual understanding is good, isn’t it? The assumption in Trevelyan’s Emersonian mind is that understanding produces harmony, because there is no such thing as good or evil; there is only disharmony, which is caused by extremism. But Burke did understand Paine’s philosophy, which is why he went to extremes to oppose it; Paine’s philosophy was from the devil. And just as Burke understood the Jacobins, so do we understand the modern Jacobins with white skins and black hearts: they love the negro and hate white people, because they worship darkness and not the light.

I’m not close enough to the situation in South Africa to know the likelihood of a successful Afrikaner counter-revolution. In the West it is not yet possible, because the white Europeans of the West are still addicted to science, democracy, and Christless, intellectual Christianity. It is certain that they will not prevail against the colored heathen unless they return to their European hearth fire where the God of charity and mercy resides. It is not written that we have to retreat before the hordes of color in atonement for our ‘racist’ past. That ‘racist’ past bore witness to the living God. When Europeans in Africa and the Western nations love their own people enough to be ‘racist’, in defiance of the death in life liberals with the black hearts, the enemies who seemed invincible will no longer be invincible. It’s hard to believe that liberalism can be defeated, but that is because the whites of the West still play by the liberals’ rules. The Afrikaners fell, because they abandoned one race, one nation, one faith for one man, one vote. We too are under the same death sentence. Democratic nations have no moral essence, because they only value human beings in the aggregate. True nations are aristocracies of the spirit where men and women are valued according to how well they live up to the spiritual ethos of their nation. One man, one vote is not a spiritual ethos; it is a doctrinal declaration of a satanic people determined to make war on everything white and Christian.

Some heroic Afrikaners have decided to denounce Satan and all his works by denouncing the South African ‘rainbow’ government. We should follow in their heroic footsteps and denounce our rainbow governments as well. Is negro worship, which is what one man, one vote means, to be the moral essence of the Western nations for all eternity? Satan would not serve our Lord. Then shouldn’t we refuse to serve Satan? +

Posted in Uncategorized

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 ,