Draw thy sword.
That, if my speech offend a noble heart,
Thy arm may do thee justice; here is mine.
Behold, it is the privilege of mine honours,
My oath, and my profession. I protest,
Maugre thy strength, place, youth, and eminence,
Despite thy victor-sword and fire-new fortune,
Thy valour, and thy heart thou art a traitor;
False to thy gods, thy brother, and thy father;
Conspirant ‘gainst this high illustrious prince;
And, from th’ extremest upward of thy head
To the descent and dust below thy foot,
A most toad-spotted traitor. Say thou “No,”
This sword, this arm, and my best spirits are bent
To prove upon thy heart, whereto I speak,
– King Lear
Edgar’s statement at the end of King Lear, “Speak what we feel, not what we ought to say,” could be interpreted as a simple moral from Aesop, “Don’t lie or you’ll get in trouble.” But if we’ve read through the play and seen the suffering Edgar has endured, and the suffering Edgar has witnessed, we know that he means something more profound than an Aesop fable when he enjoins the survivors of the British holocaust to, “Speak what we feel, not what we ought to say.”
Edgar has seen a kingdom come to ruin because a king who “hath ever but slenderly known himself,” believed the lies he told himself about his “good daughters” who were evil, and his “bad daughter” who was good, and because a father (Edgar’s) believed the lies a fiendish bastard son told of Edgar, the good son. In the wake of such misery, the usual lying that men do cannot be tolerated. A healthy body politic that has been built on truth can absorb a certain amount of lies without crumbling, but a society that has fallen because of a preponderance of lies that men regarded as the truth, can only be rebuilt by men who speak what they feel, not what they ought to say.
It is obvious to all who have eyes to see that the modern Europeans have gone through a holocaust much like the one that Edgar endured. With the great difference being that the modern Europeans still feel no need to speak the truth. The truth about European civilization is still buried under an avalanche of lies which are bound together, like a bundle of twigs, by the one great lie. The one great lie is this: The spirit cannot take flesh. To the Greeks, our incarnate Lord was foolishness, and to the Jews he was a stumbling block. And so it remains today. The liberals (the Greeks) think it is their right and duty to demonize the antique Europeans who claimed the incarnate Lord was at the center of their civilization, because the notion that God took flesh and dwelt amongst us is, to the liberals, foolishness. And the modern “conservative” Christians (the Jews) feel perfectly justified in jettisoning the Christ-bearing race and becoming spiritual Jews because they do not believe in the reality of the incarnate God. If God did not really become incarnate in Jesus Christ, then there is no reason for the defense of the European people whose past is inextricably bound to Christ incarnate. In the absence of that ancient faith, mankind is simply a mathematical equation and individual men and women are merely numbers within that equation.
Behind the liberals’ lie that their worship of the black man has to do with “civil rights” is the maniacal hatred of Christ and the Christ-bearing people. And behind the conservatives lie that they now support massive colored immigration because it is the Christian thing to do is the conservatives’ desire to please the liberal powers that be, which will enable the conservative churches to survive in Liberaldom. In point of fact the liberals won’t let the conservatives’ churches survive, but that is the conservatives’ hope.
What is happening in the ranks of the conservatives, both Christian and secular, is a gradual liberalization. And the liberalization is taking place because the conservatives do not regard the defense of their race as essential. This morally indefensible disregard of their own people is the direct result of the triumph of universalist Christianity in the once Christian churches. Every modern Christian church cares nothing for Christ as savior and everything for Christ as a figurehead for their systems. In that type of Christianity vast numbers of nameless, soulless people are necessary to keep the system afloat, so people of all races are wanted no matter whether they believe in the same God as the antique Europeans believed in or not.
Universalist Christianity was always present in the Christian academies, which never quite separated themselves from the Greek philosophical tradition. And there is no doubt that Thomist universalism shifted the focus away from the human heart as the source of our knowledge of God and turned men’s minds toward the rational contemplation of nature. But the European people had staying power; neither fire, dungeon, sword, or Aquinas could drive them away from their provincial hearth fires where they understood life “feelingly.” Through the 19th century and the early 20th century the European peasant was still European. When the collapse came, when the European everyman became an intellectual, it was total. Considering the forces arrayed against him, Church and state undergirded by science, it was a wonder the European peasant endured so long.
Now the man of Europe is an outcast man who must feign madness, like Edgar, until the hour is ripe. At such a time the trumpet will sound and a champion will appear who will re-establish the Europeans’ blood rights. It all sounds quite fairy tale-ish, but life is a fairy tale: when hope is nearly gone the hero will step forth, with Christ as his inspiration, and defeat the forces of darkness.
If the Christian church does not consist of the people who took Christ into their hearts, but instead consists of those corporate entities that are organized around some vague quasi-divine figure who cedes all power and glory to the negro, then we are not living in an age of darkness, we are living in an age of faith. All a man has to do, if this is the age of light, is worship the negro with his whole heart and soul, and he will inherit life eternal in the kingdom of Liberaldom.
In the liberal’s eye, all mankind, except for a few recalcitrant white males, seem to be heading for a brave new world where men and women of color will live as nature intended in a kind of interracial Woodstock: “We are stardust, we are golden…” But the European who knows not seems sees a different world. He sees a world where Satanism – the antique European still believes in God and the devil – reigns supreme under the guise of negro worship. He sees “conservative” churches and liberal churches joining with their secular counterparts to form one unified secular Church consecrated to one end, the perpetual worship of nature and nature’s God, the negro. Need I remind the reader that Ratzinger, before he became Benedict XVI, said that the next pope should be a black man? Now, for the first time in 700 years a pope has resigned. For what reason? To make straight the way of the negro god? Papalotry will take on a new intensity should a black man formally ascend to the rank he already holds informally. And every Protestant denomination is following the Catholic lead. They will not rest till they have made explicit what they have already implicitly stated: “The black man is our god.” (1)
In the latter half of the 20th century two men, Russell Kirk and Anthony Jacob, wrote books in which they presented their conservative visions. Kirk’s book The Conservative Mind was published in 1953 and Anthony Jacob’s book White Man Think Again was published in 1965. Kirk’s book was received favorably in mainstream publications such as Time magazine, was lauded by conservatives, and given a respectful hearing by liberals. Jacob’s book received no reviews in any mainstream publications and was condemned by the few conservatives and liberals who did read the book. Why the different reactions to the two conservative authors? Kirk’s book was more scholarly, but Jacob’s book was more profound and poetic. Kirk quoted many great conservative authors, such as Burke and Scott, but he failed to understand what was at the heart of such great men’s works. Quite possibly he failed to understand them because in order to understand great hearts it is necessary to have more than a great intellect; one must have a great heart. The Conservative Mind was heralded in later years by conservative publisher Henry Regnery as the book that began the postwar conservative movement. He should have added that the book also ended the postwar conservative movement because it advocated an intellectual conservatism, devoid of passion, that was the complete antithesis of the passionate conservatism of many of the men mentioned in The Conservative Mind. Kirk’s book on conservatism reads like an encyclopedia, and in that encyclopedia we never read about the necessity of conserving the European people, without whom there would be no books about the necessity of conserving Western civilization, because there would be no Western civilization. It is in Jacob’s book that we ascend to the heights. His conservatism, which is grounded in a passionate love for his people, is the conservatism of Burke, of Scott, and William Shakespeare. Conservatism must be based on a passionate love for our kith and kin. Any other form of conservatism does not conserve, it becomes part of liberalism.
No man ever was attached by a sense of pride, partiality, or real affection, to a description of square measurement. He never will glory in belonging to the Chequer No. 71, or to any other badge-ticket. We begin our public affections in our families. No cold relation is a zealous citizen. We pass on to our neighbourhoods, and our habitual provincial connexions. These are inns and resting-places. Such divisions of our country as have been formed by habit, and not by a sudden jerk of authority, were so many little images of the great country in which the heart found something which it could fill. The love to the whole is not extinguished by this subordinate partiality.
The day of reckoning is upon us. The conservatives are blending with the liberals in order to kill every last remnant of Christian Europe. The old philosophical systems will survive as museum pieces, but the liberal-conservative coalition has no intention of allowing the Europeans’ Christian past to interfere with the Babylonian present. If we respond to the Babylonians with the usual conservative responses – “Let’s discuss the definition of a ‘people’” and “Let’s come up with a plan to develop think-tanks dedicated to the universality of the human mind” – we will fail to preserve that which is necessary to preserve: the European people and their ancient culture. The liberals, with the aid of the conservatives, hope to liquidate God by eliminating all the human conduits to God.
For the sake of the God whom the liberals hate, let us not be too rational in our response to this newly formed alliance between the conservatives and the liberals. Let us hate, with all our hearts, all those who threaten — and they are legion — our God and our people. The passionate hatred of the devil and his works can only come from a heart that loves. I don’t believe that a man with a European heart can ever be defeated by liberalism. Such a belief is irrational, but I’ve seen the miracle of Christian Europe, which was built by the union of European hearts with His Sacred Heart. So why shouldn’t I believe in Europe’s resurrection? Through Him and in Him, our ties to Christ were formed at the European hearth fire. As long as we stay at that hearth fire, we will stay connected to the living God.
In utopian literature all children become the responsibility of everybody else; there are no parents. There are no wives or husbands either, but somehow despite the fact that all the small, provincial channels of God’s grace are destroyed, there is universal peace and harmony. From Plato through Thomas More, the Jesuits in Latin America, the Jacobins, the Marxists, and the modern democratic utopians, the refrain is always the same: “We the people shall build a new and better world over the ruins of provincial, racist Europe.” But all that we love and care for is in that older Europe. Our kith and kin are there and so is our God. And what is this new world that the liberals and the new age conservatives have prepared for us? Is it really stardust and golden? No, it is darkness and blasphemy. We are not meant to live in Babylon and we shall not. Let the trumpet sound, and the European who knows not seems will rise and ride in defense of his people and his God. “Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” +
(1) It’s significant that Ratzinger, the “conservative” pope, did not wish for any particular black pope, he just wanted a black pope. It is blackness in the abstract that the liberals and the conservatives worship. What does such worship have to do with Christianity? Whether Ratzinger gets his wish or not, the fact that this supposedly conservative pope so desperately yearns for a black god speaks volumes about the state of organized, conservative Christianity.