Jefferson starts the Declaration of Independence by telling us about truths that he holds to be “self-evident.” But then he lists some alleged truths that are far from self-evident. I hold the following truth of Edmund Burke to be far more self-evident than Thomas Jefferson’s truths:
The writers on public law have often called this aggregate of nations a Commonwealth. They had reason. It is virtually one great state having the same basis of general law; with some diversity of provincial customs and local establishments. The nations of Europe have had the very same Christian religion, agreeing in the fundamental parts, varying a little in the ceremonies and in the subordinate doctrines. The whole of the polity and economy of every country in Europe has been derived from the same sources.
Anyone who writes about the European people without taking into account the effect that the Christian faith had upon them will never have any understanding of the European people. Even now, when the European people have ceased to be Christian, you must have an understanding of their Christian past in order to understand their post-Christian present.
The post-Christian European has taken the eschatology of Christianity and secularized it. To the Christian, past events are significant to the extent that they contribute to salvation history, which is why the history of the Europeans is relevant to Europeans as well as non-Europeans, whereas the history of the non-European people has relevance only when their history intersects with the Europeans’ history. The obvious reason for the antique Europeans’ ethnocentrism was because the Christian faith became part of European civilization. A European who is not ethnocentric is not a Christian. And of course now that the Europeans are not Christian, the ethnocentrism of the European has reversed itself. The European people currently regard all European history that is unconnected to black history as irrelevant history.
The European Christian looks to the future in the expectation of the second coming of Christ, but he does not deify the future. In fact the genuine Christian, the European, is more likely to revere the past because in the past are the people who took Christ into their homes.
In contrast to the Christian European, the new age liberal European looks to a future where mankind lives together in an earthly paradise. The dreams of the Woodstock hippies will be realized in the future, mankind will advance to a new Garden of Eden. But is such a future an advance? What are the features of the liberals’ future utopia? The first thing one notes is that there is death in the liberals’ paradise. In Christian Europe death was swallowed up in Christ’s victory on the cross: “And Death once dead, there’s no more dying then.” The liberals’ utopian vision of death is opposed to the Christian vision. There is a huge difference between, “there’s no more dying then,” because Christ has conquered death and, “there’s no tragedy in death because the species lives on.” The second thing we notice is connected to our first observation. There is no Christ in the future. He is ominously absent from the futuristic fantasies of the liberals. The force is with us in the future, the Übermensch is with us, a whole assortment of Asian and African gods are also with us in the future, but the Son of Man is gone. And why not? If there is no sin, and death is only natural, why does mankind need redemption from sin and liberation from death? What mankind needs, the utopians tell us, is liberation from oppressive barriers of race, sex, and family. All utopias are biracial, sexually liberated, and opposed to the patriarchal family.
If we put the war between the utopian Europeans and the antique Europeans in the form of a fable, it would run something like this:
Farmer Brown had a farm with the usual farmyard animals. He ran the farm with benevolence, but he did run it as a farm; the animals all had their duties and they were expected to perform their duties for the good of the barnyard community. In the woods lived a fox who had always been at enmity with Farmer Brown. Secretly and late at night the fox started to talk to the various animals on the farm. He talked to them about nature and about repression. It was unnatural for animals to live on a farm. They were meant to live free in the woods. And it was unnatural for animals to confine their sexual activity to only their own kind. Why shouldn’t the rooster mate with a dog, a cow with a goat, the lamb with the bull? Weren’t all animals part of nature? And wasn’t nature good? All this and more the fox poured into the ears of Farmer Brown’s animals, and in the end the animals, save one, left the farm for the promised revels in the woods.
The clever fox knew that it was not enough to get the animals into the woods. He had to keep them in the woods. And how could he keep them in the woods? The woods were miserable. The fox had learned just how miserable they were from years and years of exile from the farm where he had once lived as a special favorite of Farmer Brown. So again, how to keep them in the woods once they realized that endless sex with an assortment of other animals was not all that the fox had told them it would be?
First, the fox instilled in the animals a pathological fear of Farmer Brown. “Do you remember what it was like under Farmer Brown? Do you want to return to those days when Farmer Brown didn’t allow you to have unbridled sex with every species of animal?”
“I don’t actually recall life under Farmer Brown being that bad,” said one of the cows. “And I don’t really enjoy having relations with a pig.”
The pigs all snorted at the reactionary cow, and later that day the cow disappeared. After that the clever fox kept a whole contingent of weasels on his payroll. Their sole job was to keep their ears open and report any animal who spoke about returning to the farm. The animals that did speak about returning to the farm all disappeared like the disagreeable cow. Soon no animal spoke favorably about the farm, and most of the animals forgot there had ever been a Farmer Brown or a farm.
The third phase of the fox’s plan was “the appeal to their intellectual pride” plan. “No intelligent animal believes in farms or Farmer Brown. We are building here in the woods a new world that is constantly getting better and better. I have no doubt that we will soon have a perfect world here if only we eliminate reactionary animals who talk rot about a mythical farm and a mythical man who runs the farm. My research staff, consisting of some wise old owls and a super intelligent German shepherd, are constantly studying and doing research in order to make your world the most perfect of worlds.” The animals were very impressed.
Still, despite all his efforts, the fox saw that all was not well. Something was missing in utopia. Because he had not forgotten Farmer Brown and the farm, he knew what was missing – a flesh and blood symbol of the new utopian regime of the animals. The new order stood for pleasure, unity, and peace, but who could be the flesh and blood symbol of pleasure, unity, and peace? The wolf, of course. The barnyard animals had always been taught to fear the wolf, but this was a prejudice, the fox told them. Wolves were natural, wolves were vital, wolves were untainted with the selfishness and petty bourgeois values of the farmyard. So the wolf became the sign and symbol of the new utopia. At every gathering the animals sang hymns to the sacred wolf. In work and play wolves were the centerpiece of the new society. At the campfires at night, the scholarly owls would read long tomes telling how the wolves had been mistreated and discriminated against in the bad old days of the farms. Now in the golden age, in the age of the new, enlightened farmyard animals, the wolf was honored as the sacred god of the farmyard animals. But of course a wolf is still a wolf, despite what the owlish scholars say to the contrary. What happened when the wolves behaved like wolves and killed three pigs, two cows, and five little lambs? The owls condemned the goat who reported the slaughter — “You reactionary old goat” – and threw the goat into prison for five years. Then, for good measure, they burned down the goat’s modest dwelling and sent his wife and their kids to a retraining center where the kids were taught the evil of their father and the goodness of wolves.
So all seemed well for the fox; his kingdom was in order. But the fox was not happy. There were rumors of an old farm cat named George, who had remained loyal to Farmer Brown. George held meetings in the forest at which he told some of the new age animals about the real Farmer Brown and life on a real farm. The former farm animals seemed interested, but they never committed themselves to George and the old farm. “All quite amusing, those stories about the old farm, but you can’t build a life on fairy tales,” the old donkey declared. “How would I make a living if I followed the cat? I’d be marginalized,” the ram asserted. “Stuff and nonsense,” the wise old owl declared.
“Why haven’t you killed the cat?” the fox asked his weasels.
“Because he never meets in the same place twice and he can still run faster than any of the other animals. Besides that, he is a crafty old fellow.”
“I don’t want excuses. Find that Farmer Brown loyalist and kill him! That’s an order!”
And there we leave the new age farmyard animals, in the woods with the fox. But George still lives, and it seems, if the weasels can be believed, that George is growing younger, larger, and stronger. Soon, the fox fears, George will descend upon the forest, destroy the Fox’s minions, and lead the rest of the farmyard animals back to the farm. ‘Tis a consummation devoutly to be wished.
Modern Liberaldom is supposed to be heaven on earth; haven’t the liberals told us that is what we could expect once they were in power? So why haven’t we become stardust and golden? Because of me and thee. The reactionaries, the recalcitrants, are impeding the final implementation of paradise. And so it will go on until Liberaldom is destroyed. Paradise will always be just around the corner once the last racists, the last sexists, are finally eliminated from the face of the earth. We can never be at peace with the liberals because the liberals must destroy the white race in order to ensure the survival of their utopia. The liberals’ assertion that skin color has nothing to do with the spiritual identity of a man turns into a lie as soon as the liberals place the black man at the center of their altars. If skin color has nothing to do with a man’s essential soul, then why do the liberals worship the black man? Shouldn’t they be color blind? Why is all good ascribed to blacks simply on the basis of their color if skin color is of no consequence? In point of fact, our skin color is a thing eternal; it is part of our soul. And white souls, of a bygone era, consecrated their hearts and minds to Christ. The liberal must condemn that by-gone era and condemn the people of that era in order to build Satandom on the ruins of Christendom.
From a utopian viewpoint, antique Europeans are always in the wrong because they were not perfect. But why are liberals, who condemn antique Europeans for the mites in their eyes, never condemned for the logs in their own eyes? The liberals stand condemned not only by their own standards, in that they have failed to usher in utopia, but also by Christian standards. They have instituted Satanic values throughout the European countries by placing the black man on the altars of the formerly Christian churches. We cannot vote such a blasphemy away because all of the democratic governments of the European people only allow the European people to vote for the person that is to be in charge of the ongoing liquidation of the European people. There are no elections being held where one can vote for the survival of the white race. That issue was never put on the ballot because utopians are tyrannical. The predetermined condition for the building of utopia is the destruction of the Christ-bearing people. So why would the tyrants of Liberaldom treat the necessity of the extermination of the white race as a debatable issue? It is not a debatable issue to them. Whites must perish if Liberaldom is to survive. Liberaldom won’t survive if Europeans behave like white men who are fully conscious that their whiteness is part of their soul, which belongs to God and is not meant to perish in a racially mixed Babylonian stewpot or in the cosmic wastes of Liberaldom. “Still our ancient foe does seek to work us woe,” but Christ not Satan is the God of our race, and He wills that we should fight for our kith and kin with a passion and a love that passeth the understanding of the liberal and the barbarian. They who have not faith, who have not hope, who have not charity, will never impose their utopia of death on we few, the Europeans who refuse to abandon His Europe and His people. +