They never will love where they ought to love, who do not hate where they ought to hate. – Edmund Burke
Burke had great success in turning the tide of English public opinion against the French revolution, but he was not successful in convincing his fellow countrymen that the war against France should continue even after the death of Robespierre resulted in a diminution of bloodshed. The same regicides who had killed the king and broke with all the traditions of Christian Europe were still in power and still unrepentant.
The murderers of Robespierre, besides what they are entitled to by being engaged in the same tontine of Infamy, are his Representatives; have inherited all his murderous qualities, in addition to their own private stock. But it seems, we are always to be of a party with the last and victorious Assassins. I confess, I am of a different mind; and am, rather inclined, of the two, to think and speak less hardly of a dead ruffian, than to associate with the living. I could better bear the stench of the gibbeted murderer, than the society of the bloody felons who yet annoy the world. Whilst they wait the recompense due to their ancient crimes, they merit new punishment by the new offences they commit. There is a period to the offences of Robespierre. They survive in his Assassins. Better a living dog, says the old proverb, than a dead lion; not so here. Murderers and hogs never look well till they are hanged.
Burke poured his whole heart and soul into his letters against Regicide France and, by his own admission, was broken-hearted when his countrymen were willing to sup with the devil.
The same anti-Christian principles that Burke so correctly and passionately urged his countryman to fight against are the principles on which the nations of Europe have built Liberaldom. Every European nation has traveled the same road, some at slower rates than the other nations but in the end every European nation arrived at the liberal wayside inn; the inn of liberty from God, equality with the ape, and fraternity with the devil. And the Goddess of Abstract Reason was the lodestar that guided the Europeans to the wonderful utopian inn in which the negro is worshipped and adored in the chapel by the staircase and abortions are provided in the room down the hall.
There is no room for the Christian European in the inn of the Regicide liberals who have killed Christ, the crowned King of Europe. But why should we want a place in an inn reserved for Regicides? I’m sick to death of white nationalist and conservative leaders who tell white people to remain democratic, non-violent, and respectful of other races so the liberals and the colored barbarians will allow white people to live in Babylon. The problem with such advice is that it is based on three false abstractions.
1. As long as you have a democracy you will have a liberal oligarchy of men and women who know how to manipulate the masses through a system that rewards politically correct behavior, such as negro worship, and punishes anti-social behavior, such as the refusal to worship negroes. We are not permitted to vote for rulers who do not worship negroes, because no candidate is permitted to run for office who does not pay tribute to the gods of color.
Democracy is not compatible with the Christian faith of the antique European. You can’t take a vote to determine truth. There have been Christian republics and Christian monarchies, but there has never been – and there never shall be – a Christian democracy. The end result of democratic government is Babylon, which is opposed to the faith from which all our legitimate governments come: “On that religion, according to our mode, all our laws and institutions stand as upon their base.” (Burke) We need to destroy democratic, Babylon and return to our base.
2. It sounds very nice to say, “I’m against all violence,” but who is being served when white men renounce “all violence”? The blacks who murder and rape are being served, because if white people remain nonviolent blacks will not be held accountable for their crimes. And the white-hating liberals will be served because they will retain power, free to abort babies and worship the negro. It is not Christian to maintain a Quaker-like pacifism in the face of an enemy like the liberals and the colored barbarians, who are alternately the liberals’ gods and their henchmen.
The white nationalists’ call for non-violence in the face of negro atrocities could only come from white men who have abstracted themselves from existence. In the abstract non-violence sounds good, but when actual people, your own people, are the victims of terrible atrocities, perpetrated by the barbarians of color and encouraged by the liberals, a call for non-violence is not just muddle-headed, it is obscene. There are tactical considerations; when surrounded by Caesar’s assassins with their daggers still covered with Caesar’s blood, Mark Antony let them think he was going to passively accept their butchery of his friend. But such was not the case:
O, pardon me, thou bleeding piece of earth,
That I am meek and gentle with these butchers!
Thou are the ruins of the noblest man
That every lived in the tide of times…
Shall in these confines with a monarch’s voice
Cry “Havoc,” and let slip the dogs of war,
That this foul deed shall smell above the earth
With carrion men, groaning for burial.
Can such passion only come from a pagan? It was a Christian who put those words in Antony’s mouth.
And they were Christian soldiers who rode with Forrest when he assumed the leadership of the Ku Klux Klan. The only reason that the Southerners of the late 1800’s did not suffer the same fate as the French in 1798 Haiti was because Forrest and his fellow soldiers loved their own enough to eschew platitudes and to respond to violence with violence. The white Southerners only succumbed to the forces of Babylon when they became non-violent and democratic in the 1950s. The same can be said of South African whites. They avoided the wholesale extermination of white people in 1838 when Andries Pretorious avenged the massacre of Piet Retief and his followers by killing those responsible for the massacre, and they fell victim to systematic extermination in 1994 when they became democratic and non-violent. Should this really be that hard to comprehend? There is no mercy in the colored barbarian; we have ample proof of that. And the liberal? Will he try to stay the hand of his black gods? Never! The revolutionary, Mikhail Bakunin, stated the underlying ethos of the liberal:
All tender and gentle feelings of kinship, friendship, love, gratitude and even honor itself should be choked off in the revolutionary’s breast by the single cold passion of his revolutionary task. He is not a revolutionary if he has pity for anything in the world. He knows only one science – the science of destruction. He lives in the world with a single aim – its total and swift destruction.
Most liberals do not have the will to maniacally and consistently break off all human ties, but Bakunin’s ideology of hate is their ideology. The only difference between the liberals and Bakunin is that now the liberals are the establishment. Their task is to preserve Liberaldom and destroy all resistance, in contrast to Bakunin who wanted to destroy the existing order and preserve and nurture the revolutionary cabals. But in their cruelty and in their hate of Christian Europe the liberals and Bakunin are one.
How can a professed white nationalist remain a pacifist in the face of such ideological hatred against whites, particularly when that hatred is the direct cause of the murder of white people? A man cannot remain passive in the face of such ideological hatred, but a modern caricature of a man, a man who wants to jettison actual flesh and blood white people for a new world order in which white, black, yellow and brown all share equal but separate portions of Babylon, can remain passive and indifferent to the murder of white people and their culture. And therein lies the secret of the pagan, white nationalist. He has more in common with the liberal who looks to the future than he has with the white Christian European who looks to the past. He and his liberal soul-mate merely differ over the allotment of the utopian pie.
Thus far I have only talked about the white nationalist’s bizarre views on violence and the defense of the white race. But we need to look at the conservative Christian’s – or what I call the halfway-house Christian’s – views of violence in defense of the white race as well. The halfway-house Christian has no problem with violence if it is state-sponsored violence against people far away in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Palestine. Saturation bombing of innocent civilians far away is a holy and good thing in the eyes of the “conservative” Christian. But what about local killing in defense of white people? I think you know the answer to that question. How can the sacrificial killing of white people by black people be called murder? Can mere mortals judge gods?
The conservative’s love for murder if it is far away and condemnation of killing in defense if it is local is not confined to the issue of white self-defense. I once mentioned to a fellow pro-lifer of Irish extraction, who regularly sent large checks to the communists in the IRA so that they could kill innocent English civilians, that abortion doctors should be killed. The tough IRA enthusiast suddenly became a mad-dog pacifist before my very eyes. “Killing an abortion doctor would be murder,” he told me. I remember thinking of those lines from King Lear: “Tis the time’s plague, when madmen lead the blind.” The conservative who eschews violence in defense of the innocents at home and applauds violence against the innocents abroad is most assuredly mad, and those who follow him are most assuredly blind.
Most old saws are correct, but the old saw that proclaims “sticks and stones can break my bones, but names can never hurt me” is incorrect. Louis XVI, his Queen, and his son were killed because the French philosophers put the tyrant’s name upon the King. White people are being murdered and their lands pillaged because the liberals have been demonizing white people in print, pulpit, and university for the past fifty years. The barbarians of color did the murders, but the liberals provided the words that convinced the white grazers that they were not a people who had a right to self-defense.
The seemingly insurmountable obstacles preventing white self-defense, such as the extreme isolation of modern life and the negro-worshipping nature of all our major institutions, would not seem as insurmountable if white people believed themselves to be a people distinct from other races of people, with a common heritage that was worth preserving. Then they would work to stay in non-diverse communities and defend their own from governmental and barbarian encroachments. It wouldn’t be an easy task; the enemy is maniacal and implacable, but an integral (as distinct from an integrated) white populace could prevail over the liberal and the colored barbarian. It all starts, the white counter revolution, with a deep and abiding love and respect for the people of antique Europe and the heritage they bequeathed to us.
3. It’s all very high-minded I’m sure to say that we, as white people, respect all cultures and all religions, but such claims, which I hear ad nauseum from the white nationalists and the conservatives, are at best empty verbiage and at worst harmful to white people. All a white person can say about other non-white cultures is what Dickens said in his article on the “Noble Savage”:
We have no greater justification for being cruel to the miserable object, than for being cruel to a William Shakespeare or an Isaac Newton; but he passes away before an immeasurably better and higher power than ever ran wild in any earthly woods, and the world will be all the better when his place knows him no more.
We certainly have no justification for being cruel to the lesser breeds without the law. But we have every justification for protecting ourselves against liberals and militant colored barbarians who do not believe in charity or tolerance.
There are two fallacies in the modern propaganda of tolerance, “you respect my culture and I’ll respect yours.” The first fallacy is what we have just articulated: liberals and black barbarians do not want to respect any culture other than their own, especially the white European culture. And the second fallacy is linked to the first: how can people who have no concept of charity or mercy, like the liberals and the black barbarians, have any respect for a people who want to maintain their link to Christian Europe where men revered the God of charity and mercy? The principle of “you respect my culture and I’ll respect yours” can only be applied to differences between Christian European nations. – CWNY — The Heroic Temper
The triune principles of democracy, non-violence, and tolerance are not the guiding principles of the Europeans. We are not democratic; the truths of our faith and the fate of our people shall not be determined by popular vote. Nor are we committed to non-violence in the face of evil. And lastly, we are intolerant of any faith or race other than our own, and we are intolerant of aggressive, militant barbarians of color who seek to impose their faith, which is really an absence of faith, on the European people.
How should we then live? If we are anti-democratic, violent when necessary, and intolerant and disrespectful toward colored barbarians and liberals, we will be keeping faith with our people and our God. And that is all that matters. +