No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the Lord, and their righteousness is of me, saith the Lord. – Isaiah 54: 17
I saw O’Reilly’s interview with Bernie Goldberg in which Goldberg speaks of the media’s refusal to cover the beatings by “black Youths” of a white male reporter and a white female reporter. I believe the beatings took place in Virginia, but the location isn’t important since the same type of crimes are commonplace throughout the United States and Europe. Two things struck me in Goldberg’s comments. First, there has been a thirty-year blackout on the reporting of black atrocities. And crimes far worse than the beatings in Virginia are taking place on a daily basis, so why was this particular atrocity singled out for attention? It was probably because the female victim “made a fuss” and because of the fact that the white victims were reporters, which aroused the sympathy of the reporter who appeared on O’Reilly’s show.
Second, I noted that O’Reilly and Goldberg criticized black thuggery using language that followed the strict anti-racist rules of the liberal-conservatives. Goldberg deplored the lack of outrage over the beatings, and he deplored the lack of media coverage, but he also “understood” why the liberals did not want to publicize black atrocity stories. They don’t want to publicize such stories, Goldberg said, because bigots would use the stories to further bigotry. Both O’Reilly and Goldberg tsked tsked at the mention of bigots, and both men emphasized their complete and unconditional hatred of bigotry. Who are the bigots that make the liberals’ cover up black atrocities and make O’Reilly, the Irish Catholic, and Goldberg, the Jew, speak of “bigots” as if they were the great bogeymen of the Western world? The bigots are me and thee; non-propositional white men who do not look on their racial identity as grist for the great universalist melting pot. Such white men are the only ones who care that white people are beaten, raped, and murdered by black barbarians on a daily basis throughout the formerly European countries.
A liberal-conservative such as O’Reilly will never draw the proper conclusion from, or advocate the proper response to, black atrocities, because O’Reilly is committed to a universalist, democratic vision of God and man. O’Reilly’s generic God created a generic mankind and then turned the earth and all its inhabitants over to intelligent men like O’Reilly, to rule over a propositional mankind with democratic fairness and balance. The O’Reilly/Goldberg mention of a black atrocity is the equivalent of a Christmas card from a father you haven’t seen for twenty years. It’s better than nothing, but it’s hardly something to base your hopes on.
Every time, which is seldom, a black atrocity story makes it to a major news outlet, I hear a chorus of “maybe this will wake white people up” from white people who would prefer not to be exterminated. But there have been enough atrocity stories reported to wake up those who were capable of being awakened. And why were white people asleep in the first place?
No, my fair cousin.
If we are mark’d to die, we are enow
To do our country loss; and if to live,…
Report all the atrocity stories you can, but do not look for one man more. The liberals know and approve of the black atrocities. They take their orders from him who is without mercy. They are just as devoid of humanity as their black henchmen, “When our grace we have forgot.” If we as white people do not believe we are a distinct people, created as a distinct people by a personal God, then we may as well join the universalists and tiptoe quietly through Babylon in the hope of avoiding the general slaughter of whites. But if we believe we are a people, ordained by God to carry His banner, we should respond to the liberals and their colored henchmen with fire and sword.
Our Lord tells us, through his prophet Isaiah, that “… even to your old age I am he; and even to hoar hairs will I carry you: I have made, and I will bear; even will I carry, and will deliver you.” The Europeans’ Christian history has shown that God looks after His people. As a tiny minority amongst the world’s colored hordes, whites always have managed to rule in their own nations and in the colored nations they saw fit to colonize. But now the whites have given their colonial possessions back to the colored barbarians while simultaneously giving their own countries to the colored hordes.
The whites’ insane, maniacal zeal to liquidate the white race can only be understood in a religious context. Off this stage we have shown that the whites’ denial of Christ has led to their affirmation of the negro and his supporting cast of colored deities. All the rituals and ceremonies that were used to support the Christ story are now used to support and propagate the story of the negro god. The church men tell us of his birth in Africa, his tragic plight as a suffering servant at the hands of the evil white people, and then his triumphant resurrection from a life in slavery to a life eternal as the god of the Western world.
There is a recurring type of maniac who appears again and again throughout the literature of the European, and he is the pharisaical Christian who justifies his anti-Christian cruelty by citing his own cruel man-made image of God. Hawthorne’s The Scarlet Letter and François Mauriac’s The Woman of the Pharisees are works that offer us two of the best depictions of the religious fanatic who presents his anti-Christian cruelty as the true faith. The Christian authors who condemn, through their works, the Christian Pharisees, perform a great service because they help us to keep our faith pure and undefiled by Phariseeism. How ironic then that the modern Pharisees, the liberals and their halfway-house Christian allies, have instituted a cruel Pharisaical religion that makes all the Torquemadas and witch-burning Puritans look like mild peace-loving lambs. For what could be crueler than a god who demands the extermination of an entire race of people in order to satisfy his bloodlust? If this negro god, whom the liberals have substituted for Christ, is allowed to continue in his position as the god of the Europeans, surely goodness and mercy will disappear from the face of the earth. And let’s be blunt: goodness and mercy have disappeared where the black god reigns. The Kansas City, Missouri incident, in which “black youths” set a 13 year-old white boy on fire as they screamed, “This is what you deserve, white boy!,” is a typical religious ritual of the modern Babylonian state. Only a heretic, a blasphemer, would question the black man’s right to kill the white infidels. Are there any whites left who are willing to dissent from liberal orthodoxy and be called heretics? We shall see. My hope is that God will raise up a few who will eventually defeat the many. He has done so in the past, so I have faith that He will do so in the present.
I once, while traveling through Britain in my early twenties, was given a ride by an Englishman who had fought in the Battle of Britain as an R.A.F. pilot. If you recall your English history, you’ll remember that those British pilots were the men of whom Churchill spoke when he said, “Never in the course of human events was so much owed by so many to so few.” In the course of a ride of approximately one hour and a subsequent two-hour stop at a local pub, I got to talk quite extensively with that former R.A.F. pilot. I particularly remember his response to my question, “How did you feel before the battle?” He told me that he was quite naturally afraid of dying, but that was not his main fear. He was mainly afraid of “letting down his people.” Ah, to have a people. Everything we are, and everything we do of value, comes from our consciousness of being connected to a particular people. Men who believe in universals will fight, but they will fight ignobly against their own people. It is only the man who has a genuine people of his own race and his own God that will fight nobly against impossible odds. Kipling said it best: “The people, Lord, thy people are good enough for me!”
The racial consciousness by which a man comes to terms with his own humanity and through which the white man comes to know God has been carefully bred out of the European by a system of rewards and punishments fit for dogs, not men. Whenever a white man behaves in a manner that suggests he thinks there is a distinct group of people called Europeans, who are worth preserving as a distinct people, separate from the colored savages, that white man is punished. Whenever a white man supports the extermination of the white race, that white man is rewarded, in the short term of course; in the long run the trained white spaniel will also be eliminated, but he doesn’t see the long run, having been reduced to a groveling, inhuman creature, devoid of vision and humanity.
In Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice, which is no longer allowed to be read in our schools, Shakespeare lays bare the soul of the Jew. Shylock hates Antonio for two reasons: because Antonio is a professed Christian, and because Antonio practices Christianity.
I hate him for he is a Christian.
But more for that in low simplicity
He lends out money gratis, and brings down
The rate of usance here with us in Venice.
If I can catch him once upon the hip,
I will feed fat the ancient grudge I bear him.
And of course Shylock gets his chance for revenge. Wouldn’t a Christian do the same thing if he had the Jew on the hip?
If you prick us, do we not bleed?
if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison
us, do we not die? and if you wrong us, shall we not
revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will
resemble you in that. If a Jew wrong a Christian,
what is his humility? Revenge. If a Christian
wrong a Jew, what should his sufferance be by
Christian example? Why, revenge. The villany you
teach me, I will execute, and it shall go hard but I
will better the instruction.
But there is a difference between the Christian and the Jew. Would that the modern Christians who are Christians on the outside and Jews on the inside still knew of that difference. What does the Duke of Venice do when he has Shylock on the hip? Does he want his pound of flesh? No, he forgives as only a European who has the true faith, the faith bred in the bone, can forgive.
That thou shalt see the difference of our spirit,
I pardon thee thy life before thou ask it.
We shall be governed either by the spirit that governed the Duke of Venice or by the spirit that governed Shylock. We are currently being governed by the satanic spirit that motivated Shylock, because Christians have turned Jewish. The European liberal has a Jewish heart; he hates Christianity and those who seek to practice Christianity. This is why an antique European cannot just focus on the external Jews, some of whom are more Christian in ethos than the European liberals; he must direct his attack against all those who have Jewish hearts, be they Jew or European.
In the latter half of the 20th century, Satan fused the hate-filled faith of the faithless Jew with the worship of the negro. Now Satan has the antique European on the hip. Will he extend mercy? Of course not. He is our ancient foe.
The Jews, the Jewish-hearted liberals, and the colored barbarian hordes are all arrayed against the antique Europeans, who are numerically insignificant compared to Satan’s legions. Should we tremble before such odds? No, we should not. And we shall not. It matters not at all whether we are 12 percent of the world’s population, 6 percent of the world’s population, or ½ of a percent of the world’s population. If we are Europeans, true to our blood and to our God, we are enough to destroy the liberals and their colored gods. The Christ-centered European is unconquerable; so it always has been and so it always shall be. We are the people of the Word, who have seen the risen Lord, and so long as we are faithful to Him, no force on earth shall prevail against us. +