The Better Part

Barton_Pensioners'_GardenThe whole drift of their institution is contrary to that of the wise Legislators of all countries, who aimed at improving instincts into morals, and at grafting the virtues on the stock of the natural affections. They, on the contrary, have omitted no pains to eradicate every benevolent and noble propensity in the mind of men. In their culture it is a rule always to graft virtues on vices. – Edmund Burke in Letters on a Regicide Peace

I was brought up by liberal parents who sent me to liberal schools and a liberal church. So naturally I grew up with a liberal world view. But slowly over time, I unburdened myself of my liberal beliefs. One of the first liberal dogmas to go was evolution. My 8th grade social studies teacher showed us all the charts and diagrams in a slide show, depicting the ape, the “missing link,” Cro-Magnon man, and then modern man. You know the progression: we all had to memorize it in school. The whole notion struck me as absurd, and I told my teacher so. She then told me that I had been brought up with – horror of horrors – “religious prejudices!” and that was why I couldn’t see the truth of evolution. I wasn’t articulate enough to tell my teacher that I had not been brought up with religious prejudices, I had been brought up to believe in evolution; before I was knee-high to a grasshopper I learned that ‘man is a monkey, therefore we should all love one another.’ While I still don’t believe in evolution, I will concede that my teacher back then, and the liberals right now, could make a strong case for evolution. It’s ironic that the fervent liberal evolutionists never use their strongest argument for their beloved doctrine: the negro. Their whole case rests on our willing suspension of disbelief in the missing link, so why not turn the disbelief of skeptics (such as me) into belief by saying, “Here he is: the negro. He is the missing link between ape and man.”

I thought of my 8th grade social studies class and evolution when I saw the pictures of the two apelike negroes who murdered a 1 ½ year old white boy. Although CNN, one of the bastions of negro worship, told us it was a robbery not a hate crime (CNN presumed that 1 ½ year olds carry over $100,000 in cash) the subhuman negroes killed for no other reason than hate, a maniacal hatred of whites and innocence. If the white remnant ever becomes inured to this type of negro butchery, then there will be no white remnant.

The first stage in every war is the ideological stage, in which the enemy makes their case for war. The liberals have done that. They established, in the minds of their fellow liberals, an unimpeachable case against white people, which amounted, in the main, to one damning charge: white people were impeding the march to utopia because of their ‘racism’, their ‘sexism’, and their Christianity. Eliminate white people and utopia would come. The liberals were the prime movers, the true believers, but they also accomplished another goal of all wartime propagandists: where they failed to completely convince they sowed doubt. The grazer might not buy every single item on the liberal agenda, but because of liberal propaganda he no longer believes that the Europeans of old had anything to pass on to future generations. And that is all the liberal needs from the grazer. Once the grazer lets go of all his lifelines to the past, he will have to (it’s inevitable) grab onto the liberals’ lifelines to the future.

Once the propaganda work has been done, the actual killing part of the war can take place. That is what is now taking place throughout the formerly European countries. The brutal murder of the 1 ½ year old boy was horrific, but it was not unusual. Such crimes, which used to occur primarily in the colored lands, are now rather commonplace in the Western world. The colored races have always hated the white. What has changed is the white race. Now the ruling liberal elites in every European nation encourage and abet the colored races’ murderous assaults on white people, which is why I maintain that what is to be done with liberals is now only a matter of tactics. We know what should be done to them – they have handed over our people to torture and death, and they have established the reign of Satan throughout the European lands. Is such evil going to disappear because we petition and vote? I’ll admit that currently there is not a moral climate within the ranks of the remnant Europeans to support the type of war necessary to defeat liberalism, but we should be developing that moral climate so our people will be able to mount a fight against a merciless foe who will not be satisfied until every last white is eliminated from the face of the earth.

The current moral climate in the European world is a completely amoral climate. Much more important than a nation’s laws, Burke observed, is a nation’s manners, because a system of manners is what constitutes the life of a nation:

When to these establishments of Regicide, of Jacobinism, and of Atheism, you add the correspondent system of manners, no doubt can be left on the mind of a thinking man concerning their determined hostility to the human race. Manners are of more importance than laws. Upon them, in a great measure, the laws depend. The law touches us but here and there, and now and then. Manners are what vex or soothe, corrupt or purify, exalt or debase, barbarize or refine us, by a constant, steady, uniform, insensible operation, like that of the air we breathe in.

The revolution in our moral sentiments, in our manners, was the deciding factor in the negroization of Europe. If the inhuman manners and amoral sentiments of the negro are the keystone of a new utopian world, should it not be our task, the Europeans, to build up European moral sentiment and European manners that contradict and stand in opposition to the negroized utopia of the liberals? What good will it avail us to elect conservative or nationalist candidates to office if the prevailing moral climate is a liberal negro-worshipping moral climate? I remember William F. Buckley Jr.’s boast that Reagan’s election represented a shift in the American people’s internal compass. That assumption was pure fantasy. The moral sentiments of the American people remained just as liberal after Reagan’s election as they had been previous to it. The American people had simply grown tired of Carter’s method of institutionalizing a negroized utopia and were willing to try another method: they had not changed their manners and moral sentiments.

The French Jacobins made a drastic change in government that highlighted their shift from a bred-in-the-bone Christian culture to an amoral, atheistic utopia, but all the nations of Europe made similar shifts in their national sentiments. A people can have a revolution without changing their government apparatus in the slightest degree. All they have to do is change the manners of their nation and use the existing governmental structures to institutionalize the change in manners. “When manners were corrupted, the laws were relaxed; as the latter always follow the former, when they are not able to regulate them, or to vanquish them.”The corruption of manners as regards race-mixing, drug use, abortion, homosexuality, and divorce all preceded the relaxing of laws against those practices. It is of no use appealing to the law to reverse an evil, such as negro worship, when the law has institutionalized negro worship in response to the changing moral sentiments, what Burke calls manners, in favor of negro worship. If we were to go back in time to a Southern church in the 1880’s, what would the attitude of the parishioners be to negro worship? And the same church in 2013? Why the tremendous shift in the moral sentiments of white people? Certainly the people had been influenced by their clergymen, but the clergymen were simply caving in to the pressure from the liberal, secular culture surrounding them, so we still need to find out why the clergy succumbed to liberalism and why the white Christians succumbed to the liberalism of the clergy. I think we need look no further than this thing called ‘science.’ The word ‘science’ connotes so much more than the study of the physical world. Science has come to mean truth. To think scientifically is to think objectively. “Scientific studies show…” “I based my findings on science.” To be progressive is scientific and therefore good; to be unprogressive is unscientific and therefore bad. This rather simple formula was never stated outright because it was considered, by the liberals, to be too obvious to need an explicit formulation. But everything that the European held sacred could not be defended in scientific terms. The major tenets of the Christian faith could not, without bastardizing the faith, be explained scientifically. Nor could the essential moral sentiments stemming from that faith be defended scientifically. It’s unscientific for a man to rise from the dead, it’s unscientific for a demonic spirit to roam the earth seeking the ruin of souls, and… The list goes on and on. If scientific thought is the highest thought then the antique Europeans are wrong, and the liberals are right. And we can’t go halfway with the liberals as the anti-evolution evangelicals do. They reject monkey-to-man evolution while ceding to the liberals moral, evolutionary superiority regarding democracy and race-mixing. “Onward and upward!” To what? To whom?

The white everyman has become a grazer, staying on the outside of himself, wondering why he is divided from himself and against himself. He is suffering from that division of self because he feels a vague longing for the bardic past of the Europeans while he marches into the future under the banner of scientific truth, which encompasses the worship of nature and nature’s god, the negro. Only the complete rejection of every single aspect of the liberals’ moral evolutionary future will enable the white man to avoid walking, zombie-like, into a future that is devoid of white people and the God of white people.
The liberals present their scientific world of democracy, sexual freedom, and negro worship as a moral progression. But is it a moral progression? From a Christian perspective it is a step backward to the basest form of idol worship and bestial sexual practices that dehumanize and debauch. It is the liberals and their conservative allies who are looking back, just as Lot’s wife looked back, at a pagan world devoid of white people, which they hope they can take into the future with them, buttressed up by a progressive and scientific rationale. It is technological heathenism, this vaunted new world of the liberals’ making, conceived in hell, just like the old heathenism. When the European turns to his Christian past, completely rejecting every aspect of the liberals’ moral evolution, he will see life feelingly again and cease to be a spiritual half-breed, with one foot in the modern world and one foot in the world of old Europe. The reason British soldiers get their heads hacked off in their own nations by Muslim barbarians, 1 ½ year olds get shot in the face by negro apes, white South Africans are exterminated by blacks while the liberal world applauds, and demonic popes give religious sanction to the extermination of white people, is because the European has no moral sentiments. He has left behind the bred-in-the-bone Christianity for a new Christianity, an abstract Christianity solely dependent on liberalism, to provide him with his moral sentiments. I know neither the day nor the hour, nor do I know if the day will ever come, but if the European steps away from every single aspect of liberalism, not, as he currently does, picking some aspects of it and rejecting others, everything that seems impossible now – the segregation of the races, the restoration of the Christian patriarchal family, the end of legalized abortion and homosexual marriage – will all seem possible, even inevitable.

The true, integral European is the natural enemy of the colored heathen and the liberals; he can’t rest easy until both groups are banished to the swamps and bogs at the edge of his beloved homeland or else driven off the face of the earth. The story of the Brothers’ Grimm is so apropos. During their lifetimes their books of mathematics, science, and grammar were thought, by intelligent men, to be the legacy of the Brothers’ Grimm. But as the years passed, it turned out that it was the collected fairy tales of Wilhelm Grimm that were the sacred legacy of the Brothers’ Grimm. So it is with the European people. The liberals claim that their synthesis of technological barbarism with colored barbarism is the enduring legacy of the European. No! That legacy will only endure in hell. The eternal legacy of the European people is their belief in a fairy tale about a young carpenter, a third dumb brother, who ventured forth and defeated all the forces of hell, armed only with an intrepid spirit and divine love that passeth all understanding. Reclaim that fairy tale faith of our ancestors, and the moral sentiments that go with that faith will follow. Apeish negroes will not be allowed to kill white children, babies will not be murdered in the womb, and no white Christian will worship at the altar of the negro. All this follows from a fairy tale? Yes, but it must be the white man’s fairy tale, the fairy tale of fairy tales which was championed and proclaimed by the one people who saw the light of the world and believed in the light of world. +

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Christian Europe, rationalism and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.