-Walter Scott in Guy Mannering
The avalanche of criticism that Ann Coulter received from the “conservatives” over her Dr. Brantly article was quite revealing. Conservative publications such as National Review and conservative organizations such as ISI have certainly taken a dive into liberal waters. The essential liberalism of the National Review magazine and the ISI organization was implicit from their inceptions, but their anti-communist rhetoric hid their innate liberalism and tended to make them seem more conservative than their pro-communist liberal cousins. But once the communist issue disappeared, the liberalism of the American conservatives became apparent. Abortion was a “debatable issue,” colored immigration was unopposed and often lauded, and the ongoing attack on the European people under the guise of civil rights was aided and abetted by the so-called conservatives. All that remained as a bone of contention between the conservatives and the liberals was the economic issue. The conservatives favored corporate capitalism, which they called “free enterprise,” while the liberals favored state capitalism, which they called the “Great Society,” or whatever other utopian label that suited them at the moment.
We must go back to the pre-Civil War South to find Burkean conservatives, men who were concerned with preserving their people and their customs rather than an abstract ideology: “Men are not tied to one another by papers and seals. They are led to associate by resemblances, by conformities, by sympathies… They are obligations written in the heart” (Burke). American Jacobins won out in the Civil War, and the consequence was that obligations written in the heart gave way to ideologies written on papers and seals. The men who have come to be known as conservatives are not interested in preserving the European people; they are interested in preserving democracy and what they call the free enterprise system. In their minds all that is necessary to become an American citizen or a citizen of any European nation is to affirm democracy and free enterprise. This is why the National Review types do not campaign for white immigration and white immigration only. Instead they campaign for an “educated” people of color, because it is obvious to them that intelligent people of color will see the values of National Review, free enterprise conservatism. To date, the liberal liberals are winning that war. I suppose the conservative liberals could not find any intelligent Third Worlders, men and women who were willing to eschew welfare for the free enterprise system.
While they’re waiting for the intelligent people of color to flood the country and cancel out the unintelligent people of color, the conservatives keep busy by denouncing racism in all its forms. Even when they see that every new colored wave of immigrants always prefers welfare to free enterprise, the conservatives still hold out the hope that they will convert the people of color to their color-blind version of democracy and capitalism. After every election, which the conservatives always lose, they sit down to talk about what can be done to win the Mexican vote, the black vote, the Puerto Rican vote, etc. The conservatives never ask what should be done to help white people reclaim the nation that they founded and that they alone can maintain, because the conservatives do not believe they belong to one particular racial hearth fire that is their link to the living God. Apparently St. Paul was going on a racist rant in 1Timothy 5: 8, and every European of the past and present who loves his own race above all other races is a moral pariah unfit to enter the promised land of modern conservatism. Someone go tell these new conservatives that they are not conservatives, they are traitors to their race who will be trampled into dust by the New Age Jacobins, who do believe in race: they believe in and worship the black race. Abstractions such as democracy and free enterprise cannot motivate men to fight against the liberal leviathan. Only those who warm their hands at the racial hearth fires of the European people, where “love and all love’s loving parts” dwell, can take the measure of the liberal leviathan and defeat it. We do not fight as Ahab fought the leviathan, without hope and in despair of God’s grace.
What made the French Revolution so completely different from any other revolution or any other change in government that had preceded it was the religious aspect of the revolution. The Jacobins replaced Christianity, the blood faith of the European people. All subsequent changes in European governments were judged to be good or bad, in the minds of the liberals, to the extent that the revolutions killed the traditional faith of the European people. In most of the mini-electoral revolts and revolutions, the French liberals and their European counterparts were careful not to be as overt as their Jacobin predecessors. They toned down the rhetoric and the blood (except in Russia) and advanced utopian liberalism at a slower rate than Robespierre did. But now, having no conservative opposition, because the conservatives are liberals, the liberals have begun to rule without the pretexts and subterfuges of yesteryear. The acceptance of gay marriage is an example of the New Age. Liberals used to hide their Babylonian sexual agenda, but now they glory in it and dare anyone to oppose them.
In my twenties I bought Raymond Aron’s book In Defense of Decadent Europe from the Conservative Book Club. The book made me quite angry because I thought (foolish me) that Aron’s defense of Europe would be a defense of my Europe, which was Christian Europe. But that Europe, Aron stated quite emphatically, was dead. The Europe that was not dead, according to Aron, was democratic, free enterprise Europe. That is the Europe Aron was defending. Now you might say that Aron was a Jew and therefore had no feeling for Christian Europe. But Aron’s views on what he called the European miracle were no different from the conservative gentiles then and now. They, like Karl Marx, their kissing cousin, think all of life boils down to economics. Anthony Jacob, the 20th century Edmund Burke, gives the lie to the atheistic utilitarianism of the modern conservatives and their liberal brethren:
We do not accept the Marxist – and Capitalist – belief that man is motivated primarily by economic considerations or plain greed. Like all his political ilk, Macleod does not understand that life comes before money – that not all the gold in the world can make a baby: that babies in any event are anything but economical: and that in the last analysis the difference between biology and economics is the difference between a mother’s breast and a two-and-sixpenny feeding bottle from Woolworth’s.
In Shakespeare’s Henry IV Part I and Part II, Falstaff is given every chance to become something other than what he is, a roguish jester with no inner core, but he fails his test of manhood: “What, is it time to jest and dally now?”, which leads to his ultimate rejection. At each turn of the great liberal wheel, the European Everyman has been asked, first by Burke, then by Jacob, “Will you continue to play the fool and try to conserve everything but that which is essential to conserve, your own people and their faith?” That is the key, for without faith the people perish. And a people who believe that the church of Christ consists of an organization of clergymen teaching that the blood faith of the European people, the faith that is written in the heart, is nothing compared to their mind-forged faith written on seals and paper, are a people who will perish from the lack of a God and a people. For the Europeans’ faith in Christ, the non-abstract Christ, and their faith in their people are eternally interwoven. Anyone who sees the European people from inside knows this. But the bulk of Europeans no longer dwell by their racial hearth fire, so they do not see their people or their God.
There is no such thing as a separation of Church and state. All people form their societies based on their vision of God. The colored tribesmen worship their heathen gods of blood and sex. The liberals worship the colored people of the world in union with the abstract intellect of man and the scientific holy ghost. Every public ceremony throughout the European nations is dedicated to either the direct glorification of the negro or the furtherance of the great multicultural society presided over by the negro gods. The state churches–and all our churches are state churches–do not consider themselves churches unless they reach out to the negro, not to convert him (that would imply some weakness in the negro) but to exalt him as the supreme god of the natural world, which is the only world that the men without a god and a people can ever know.
“One night I heard screams,” was a former communist’s reason for leaving the Party. Why do the Europeans not hear the screams of all the Jonathan Fosters of the once sacred lands of Europe? Ahab fought the white whale with a relentless fury that was quite admirable. Can Christian Goths not fight with greater fury than the pagan Ahab? They have in the past, so why should this moment in history be any different? The ideologues who say this is 2014, and therefore the morals of the 19th century or the 12th century or any of the other Christian centuries do not apply to the age of ‘onward and upward’ liberalism, are speaking as Satan would have them speak. There has been no moral progression, unless you truly believe that our modern, negro-worshipping Babylon is superior to Christian Europe.
The spiritual rot is deeply engrained in the European people, but the men of the Right, men who want to reclaim Christian Europe rather than conserve capitalism, have yet to enter the lists. They are the human factor that could still turn the tide against liberalism. Nothing in the spiritual realm is written, except what Handel proclaims in the Hallelujah Chorus: “He shall reign forever and ever.” +