I will forgive much if a man is sound on the race issue, and I will forgive nothing if he is not; which means I have few friends in the intelligentsia because the white intelligentsia has betrayed their race. And by the term ‘intelligentsia’ I mean those who make their living with pen and mind, not necessarily those who are intelligent.
The black intelligentsia defends blacks, the Mexican intelligentsia defends Mexicans, the Puerto Rican intelligentsia defends Puerto Ricans, etc. But only the white intelligentsia betrays its own.
The betrayal stems from a secularized Christianity perpetuated by cowardice.
It is the white man who embraced the Christian Faith, lived the Christian Faith, and held the image of the God-Man in the deepest regions of his soul. So, it is no coincidence that the most depraved, secularized versions of Christianity should also come from the soul of the white man. And the betrayal of one’s own race, the race which was the Christ-bearing race, is a base perversion of Christianity. The Good Samaritan was able to see the humanity of another because he saw the humanity of his own. He loved his own. He did not wake up in the morning and strangle his wife and children so that he could go out on the highway and help others. No, if he had done that he would not have been the type of man who would help others; he would not have been the Good Samaritan.
Of course, this is not a difficult concept to grasp. In fact, it takes a deliberate, cold-blooded dive into stupidity to so pervert the Good Samaritan parable, which is why I say the betrayal of the white race is perpetuated by cowardice. One does not get tenure if one is “racist,” one does not get published in the “higher class” publications, and one does not get the approval of one’s peers. But what about truth? What about faith, hope, and charity? How can we credit anything said by a member of the intelligentsia who bases his writing on a lie and a betrayal of his own? Of course, we can’t credit anything he says.
If one reads only respectable publications from the mainstream press – periodicals such as the New Republic and the National Review – and if one only circulates with people in academia or the clergy, one gets the impression that the hatred of whites and the worship of blacks is a universal sentiment that unites all people everywhere. But if one circulates with older white folk in the plus-45 age range who do not work in academia or in the sexier professional jobs, one gets a very different impression. Every time I meet such people (and sometimes, despite all liberal brainwashing, I meet younger ones), the same opinions surface: “We don’t have a crime problem, we have a black problem,” and, “You bet there are cultural differences – they are barbarians.”
Are these older whites simply prejudiced? Yes, they are prejudiced; they are prejudiced in the way they should be. They have a prejudice for truth rather than falsehood and a prejudice for decency over barbarism.
The reason that there must be such draconian methods used to enforce black worship is because it runs so counter to the truth. As with the enforcement of feminism, there can be no tolerance of any divergence from the party line, because the party knows that the slightest crack in the totalitarian system can bring the whole lie-infested structure down.
Very few members, almost none, of the white intelligentsia have dared to defend the white man and attack the black man. Anthony Jacob practically stands alone. He didn’t mind being called a racist, which he was not, nor a Nazi, which he also was not. He loved the older white civilization, and he defended what he loved. I honor him, and I revere him for his love for, and his passionate defense of, the civilization and the people that I love.
It is nothing short of lunacy, or Liberal unrealism, to attempt to meld civilized white men and uncivilized black men into an enduring ‘family unity’. The two cannot mix: and all attempts to make them mix will work gravely to the detriment of the Whites, upon whom civilization exclusively depends. To my mind it is self-evident that the Anglo-Saxon and the kindred peoples are absolutely irreplaceable, and that without them the civilization they engendered and represent would, with the possible exception of one or two curious deviations or malformations, soon cease to exist. Let there be no mistake about this. When we speak of civilization we are referring to that which is wholly our own. There is no other civilization whatever. At best there are one or two minor foreign cultures. At best there are one or two successful foreign copyists of our civilisation’s more material aspects. But there are absolutely no imitators of its moral and spiritual uniqueness, because there are no other people like the Westerners whose possession it is.
From White Man, Think Again!
Addendum: I think the abandonment of the white race by conservative Christians is the main indicator that Gnostics own the soul of that group as well as the soul of the liberal groups. A love of kith and kin is at the heart of Christianity as is a belief in the resurrection of the body. Both that love and that belief are eroded when the new ideas of race are adopted.
For this reason I view authors such as Joseph Pearce (one among legions) as politically correct modernists rather than as counter-culture writers. Pearce, in his latest book on Solzhenitsyn, tries to present Solzhenitsyn as a pro-democracy, anti-racist, modern Christian. He excuses Solzhenitsyn from the charge of racism with this quote from Solzhenitsyn:
Much in man is determined not so much by his physical side or by blood but by the spirit… Russia covers large territories with different people mixed together. You cannot trace the blood… He who is Russian is so by spirit, is so by heart, by the direction of his loyalties and interests. So there is a spiritual unifying of people and not a blood-based one.
Who is being disingenuous here? Does Pearce seriously believe that this applies to anyone but Russians and their kindred races? Dostoyevsky, for instance was half Lithuanian. But does Pearce really believe that Solzhenitsyn would like to see Russia overrun with be-bopping Negroes or Moslem Afghans?
“Ah,” you say, you armchair integrationist, “Solzhenitsyn wouldn’t mind if a huge influx of Orthodox Christian Negroes entered Russia.” No, he wouldn’t, but this is the point: a huge influx of Orthodox Negroes is not going to enter Russia. That fantasy is just as ridiculous as the Wilhelmsen-Bozell fantasy of a huge conversion of American blacks.
There are two different ways of abandoning the West. The first way is the way of the liberals: “The West is evil and should be abandoned.” The second way is the way of the conservative Christians: “The West has nothing to do with race.” That is tantamount to saying that the Incarnation has nothing to do with Christianity. To deny the means by which God revealed Himself to man leaves man cut off from God. And to leave the defense and the preserving of European culture to anyone but the white man is to leave the white race and all the other races bereft of the spiritual substance of that culture.
“King am I, whatsoever be their cry;
And one last act of kinghood shalt thou see
Yet, ere I pass.” And uttering this the King
Made at the man. Then Modred smote his liege
Hard on that helm which many a heathen sword
Had beaten thin; while Arthur at one blow,
Striking the last stroke with Excalibur,
Slew him, and, all but slain himself, he fell.
From Tennyson’s Idylls of the King