I recently read about the white bus driver in Kansas City who was sucker punched by a black ‘youth’ for no other reason than the fact that he was white. And the liberals’ reaction? The bus driver’s whiteness was a provocation to the black youth whose people had been “brought over to this country in chains.” The story brought back memories of a similar incident some 35 years ago. I was taking a class at the local university with a very liberal professor (aren’t they all) who had never actually known any blacks ‘up close and personal.’ His had been a sheltered life in that regard. This sheltered liberal decided that he was going to get in touch with ‘the people,’ so he sold his car and began to take public transportation to and from the University. One day, while using public transportation, a large negro punched the mild-mannered professor in the stomach while screaming, “My people were brought over here in chains!” And much to the liberal professor’s horror, none of his liberal colleagues at the University were outraged at what he thought was an outrage. “You must understand their rage,” and “You shouldn’t condemn a whole race” – he hadn’t condemned a whole race – “for one bad apple.” Now, the liberal professor did not become a born-again white man in the twinkling of an eye, but that incident, along with his close-up observances of negroes at work and play, did turn a very liberal professor into a white man who believed in segregation and white self-defense. Unfortunately, such conversions are rare. Most liberals cling to their faith in their negro gods no matter what the cost. Chris “The Tingler” Matthews is always a useful example. After the negro-instituted hell in the New Orleans Superdome, the Tingler was outraged, but not by the black murderers and rapists. He was outraged by whites in the neighboring towns who defended their lives and property with loaded shotguns. From the Tingler’s standpoint the whites who defended themselves against the black savages were blasphemers; they dared to defy the Tingler’s black gods.
Of course the professor punched in the stomach, the bus driver sucker-punched in the face, and the bloody black atrocities in the New Orleans Superdome can all be excused, and they are excused, with the usual liberal blather: “They are just isolated incidents,” or, “You must understand their rage.” But the non-liberal white knows the incidents are not isolated incidents; they are small samples of the ongoing war, aided and abetted by the liberals, of the black against the white. It’s a particularly gruesome war because whites seem unwilling to defend themselves; hence, the war is more a series of massacres than a series of battles. But why won’t the white man defend himself against the onslaught of the colored barbarians? Why does the white man lack the self-preservation instinct that all other races seem to possess? The neo-pagans tell us it is because Christianity destroys a man’s instinct to defend his race. But if that was so, the Christians of the South during the 1800’s would have simply surrendered to the North. Instead we saw in those Christians, before and after the war, an unprecedented example of a people determined to preserve their race:
It is charged that the written law is not always fully and freely observed at the South in matters relating to the exercise of the elective franchise. The defence is not so much a denial of the charge as it is a confession and avoidance. To the accusation it is replied that the written law, when subverted at all, is so subverted only in obedience to a higher law founded on the instinct of self-protection and self-preservation.
Those sentiments, expressed by America’s most Southern and most Christian writer, Thomas Nelson Page, were the sentiments of the white Christian people of the south. So the preservation of one’s race is absolutely in keeping with the highest tenets of the Christian faith. We must look elsewhere to find the reason for the white man’s suicidal rush for the abyss.
The ‘elsewhere’ lies in the great temptation that Satan offered to Adam and Eve. He made fun of their provincialism and tempted them to renounce their ties to a personal God for an abstract knowledge of the workings of impersonal nature. Throughout the white man’s history, which is the only history that need concern us, the conflict has been one of provincialism vs. universalism. When universalism holds sway the people lose contact with the living God and go whoring after nature gods of their own devising. The Sophoclean, provincial element of the Greek culture was reaching out to a personal God above the gods, but the natural, cosmic, universal faith of Socrates and Plato defeated the movement toward a personal God above nature. Likewise the ancient Hebrews. When they returned to Baal and the other universalist gods of nature, they lost contact with the true God.
The first European Christians were devotees of the hero-gods of the North such as Woden and Thor. Their heroes were racial heroes, men like Siegfried and Beowulf. Their conversion to Christianity was not forced on them at sword point; they saw, in Christ, a God who was superior to their gods by virtue of His divine charity, and they saw in Christ’s humanity a hero God who was more humane than their heroes.
The Nordic religion was not a religion of dread, or of magic formularies to propitiate hostile powers. Instead of covering its temples with frescoes of the tortures of the damned, it taught people not to be afraid of death. Its ideal was the fellowship of the hero with the gods, not merely in feasting and victory, but in danger and defeat. For the gods, too, are in the hands of fate, and the Scandinavian vision of the twilight of the gods that was to end the world showed the heroes dying valiantly in the last hopeless fight against the forces of chaos—loyal and fearless to the last. It is an incomplete but not an ignoble religion. It contains those elements of character which it was the special mission of the Nordic peoples to add to modern civilization and to Christianity itself.
–G. M. Trevelyan in History of England, Volume One
Of course, the heroic, bardic Christianity was bound to come into conflict with Roman universalism. It was the Welsh Christians who first felt the sting of Roman universalism. They told Rome that they were going to maintain their provincialism:
“Be it known to you, that we consider it our duty to obey and submit to the church of God, to the pope of Rome, and to every good Christian—to love them in every situation and in all circumstances, and to assist all both by word and deed, in becoming children of the Lord. We know of no other obedience to him you call pope, or father, and this we are prepared to render to him and to every Christian for ever. Beyond this, we are subject to the archbishop of Caerlean, who is a guide and an overseer, under God, to direct and keep us on in the spiritual path.”
The result of the Welsh Christians’ stubborn provincialism was the massacre of the Welsh Monks of Bangor:
Bangor! O’er the murder wail!
Long thy ruins told the tale,
Shatter’d towers and broken arch
Long recall’d the woeful march:
On thy shrine no tapers burn,
Never shall thy priests retun:
The pilgrim sighs, and sings for thee,
O miserere, Domine!
What does the massacre of Welsh monks by Saxon pagans have to do with the negro worship of 2012? It has everything to do with it. The universalist Roman “Christians,” despite the fact that the Welsh were their fellow Christians, encouraged and countenanced the massacre in order to punish the Welsh Christians’ refusal to recognize the universalist faith of Rome. (1) The Saxons, many years later, when they were Christian, suffered the same fate as the Welsh Monks of Bangor. Universalist Rome sanctioned the Norman invasion of the provincial Saxons. And on it goes throughout the Christian centuries of Europe. Luther rebelled against a universalist system that had no room for the babe in the manager and the man of sorrows, but that initial revolt simply resulted in more universalist systems designed to eradicate every vestige of provincial Christianity.
Burke spoke of the same forces at work in the French Revolution. The universalists were willing to shed rivers of blood for the good of mankind, but is it ever for the good of mankind when an elite hierarchy, dedicated to an abstract concept of the good, a concept of their own creation, destroy their own people? The modern liberals are following the same path of all universalist lovers of mankind; they are trying to extinguish the light that emanates from a provincial people with faith in the living God so that their perfect, utopian system can survive and save mankind. And, as is always the case with the universalists, mankind consists only of those they deem worthy of living in utopia. Translated to the contemporary European countries, that means that negroes are sacred, for they are the most natural, and therefore the most fully human, of all the creatures that walk the earth. When the liberals “help” the negroes, they are serving a universal mankind of their own creation. The extent to which a white European buys into a universal, propositional faith will determine the extent to which he is willing to go to in order to defend his people against the onslaught of the devil and his minions. If he embraces universalism, he will consider the negro his god, and he will not defend his race. If he rejects universalism for the provincial hearth fires of the European people, he will defend his race against all the world.
Since universal, utopian systems, whether they profess to serve God or profess to serve mankind, are not connected to the living God, Jesus Christ, there is no faith, no hope and no charity in the cultures emanating from such systems. So what possesses people to create such inhumane systems devoid of God’s grace? The enemy of mankind possesses them. He seduces them with the old temptation “Ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.” The great lie still corrupts and corrodes man’s eternal jewel, his soul.
Nothing that is of the spirit can live in the soul-dead world of diversified, universal Babylon. Only in the provincial, what the liberals would call racist, Europe of the antique Europeans is there a place for that charity of honor and the love that passeth all understanding. Burke was bold enough to “cherish” his prejudices because they stemmed from a blood faith in a provincial God born in a stable in Bethlehem. And Ratty loved his European river for the same reason: “By it and with it and on it and in it.”
For many years the universalists have been feeding off the remnants of provincial Europe, because there is no human sustenance in utopian Europe. But as they consume what is left of the provincial, Christian, European harvest they will come face to face with a world of their own making, a world devoid of all mercy, all charity, all hope, and all faith, except for a desperate faith in nature and nature’s god, the negro. The ethos of this new world, a fusion of utopian liberalism and paganism, was articulated many years ago by the Russian revolutionary and “lover of humanity,” Bakunin: “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.” And what is the revolutionary’s task? To destroy God by destroying every last remnant of His people. We too, the Europeans, have a task: to be true to our instincts, our people, and our God. +
(1) I don’t care whether someone is called venerable, saintly, or devout; if he betrays his own people to the barbarian hordes, because he is loyal to an abstract savage god of his own creation, he is not Christian. He is Satan’s own! This was the “venerable” Bede’s retrospective on the massacre at Bangor:
It is said that of the monks who had come to pray about twelve hundred perished in this battle, and only fifty escaped by flight. Brocmail and his men took to their heels at the first assault, leaving those whom they should have protected unarmed and exposed to the sword-strokes of the enemy. Thus, long after his death, was fulfilled Bishop Augustine’s prophecy that the faithless Britons, who had rejected the offer of eternal salvation, would incur the punishment of temporal destruction.
The Jacobins who consigned all the French aristocrats in Haiti to the less-than-tender mercies of black savages, and our modern liberals who excuse every black atrocity with, “You must understand their rage,” are cut from the same cold, heartless, universalist cloth as Bede. I’ve had my fill of such creatures.
Only the provincial Christian is a man to be admired and emulated. Thomas Nelson Page describes such a man much better than I can: “He was a Goth in all his appetites and habits, a Goth unchanged and unfettered. True to his instincts, true to his traditions, fearing nothing, loving only his own, loving and hating with all his heart – a Goth.” The most noticeable thing about the un-Goth-like modern white man is his absence of heart.