“It may be tempting for the historian to arraign great men, prosecute them and convict them. It panders to his prejudices, inflates his ego and is invariably successful, since they are not present to defend themselves.” – Weyl and Marina
Let’s pretend I’m a talk show host. On my second show I have a panel of experts discussing the negro. All the experts take it as a given that integration has been a failure. In light of that fact, the experts are discussing whether it would be better to send all the blacks back to Africa or to relocate them to a few states in the United States.
The third show is dedicated to feminism. The demonic nature of feminism is taken as a given. That abortion will once again become illegal and abortion doctors will receive the death penalty is agreed upon with virtually no discussion at all. What the panel of experts is divided on is how strict the measures should be in order to insure that the laws of a Christian patriarchy are adhered to. The consensus of the panel is that the laws must be very strict at first, because so much damage has been done by matriarchal rule. But once patriarchy is reestablished, there can be a certain relaxing, but no abeyance, of some of the stricter laws.
The fourth show is about the homosexual menace that so recently threatened to destroy the last vestiges of Western civilization. Again, the sinfulness of sodomy is taken as a given by the panel. What is necessary is to determine the punishment for the public advocacy of homosexuality. Eschewing the medieval practice of punishing the private, hidden homosexuality, the panel agrees on the necessity of punishing any public advocacy of homosexual rights or any public display of homosexuality.
The fifth show is on the subject of the democratic heresy, not just as regards the American experiment in democracy, but also as regards the various European democracies. Democracy as a religion is condemned out of hand. What the panel discusses is the nature of the monarchy that is to be adopted. Shall it be an absolute monarchy, or a constitutional monarchy with a republican and popular element? But at no point in the discussions is there any talk of reviving the American and modern European satanic experiments in ‘some-are-more-equal-than-others’ democracy.
The first show is the show that determined the subject matter for all the subsequent shows. In that first show the necessity of preserving and defending the European peoples’ Christian faith was discussed. The panel agreed that freedom of religion only applied to freedom within the Christian faith. The freedom to advocate another religion other than Christianity, the freedom to build a heathen church and the freedom to oppose the laws stemming from a Christian government, such as the laws prohibiting abortion and miscegenation, would be strictly forbidden.
Of course my talk show would never be allowed. The liberals would never allow such public ‘blasphemy.’ They would never permit the public condemnation of legalized abortion, democracy, and sodomy, and the advocacy of segregation and favored religion status for Christianity. And of course the reason the liberals would not permit a television show challenging the sacred cows of Liberaldom is because the liberals fought long and hard to establish their power. Why should they give it up by allowing any type of challenge to their power? That would be rather foolish, wouldn’t it? But the liberals were not always in power in the West; there was a time when they needed – and were granted – free speech in order to advance their agenda. When they were partly inside and partly outside of the government, the liberals used the Phil-Donahue-talk-show method of coercion: “Let’s discuss sodomy,” “What really is wrong with gay marriage?,” “Why not permit race-mixing?,” “Why not permit abortion?” Once that which is sacred and must be preserved is no longer taken as a given, but is instead open for ‘discussion’, then that which is sacred will not be preserved. I remember, many years ago, cancelling my subscription to National Review when they ran an article on abortion titled, “Abortion: A Spirited Debate.” No magazine claiming to be conservative can treat abortion as a debatable issue. Conservatives are called upon to defend the Christian West, not to debate the relative merits of Christian morality and liberal morality.
And that is the big difference between the conservatives and the liberals. People will always act according to their religion. The liberals, now that they have total power, use the iron fist; they do not debate. They believe in an anti-Christian, anti-white utopia with the sacred negro at the center. They will not debate the moral rectitude of their religion; their duty is to defend it against the enemy – white Christians – by any means possible. Why, when they were in power, did not the conservatives defend their faith with the same zeal that the liberals now defend their faith? The conservatives of the early 20th century and the mid-20th century did defend their faith. The problem was that they did not believe in European Christianity. They believed in a fusion of democracy and Christianity. And such a fusion is a false religion. In the name of democracy the liberals penetrated and then consumed conservatism. What does modern conservatism consist of? Nothing. Conservatives are just an adjunct of liberalism, begging liberals to allow them to be part of Liberaldom by showing them that they too love the negro.
The case of the anti-sodomite, Christian baker of Colorado is an example of how the new ‘iron fist’ of liberalism operates. The sodomite branch of the liberal machine waited until they had complete power and then bared their fangs. Two pig-gutted sodomites had traveled from another state to the Christian Colorado bakery, and asked the owner, a professed Christian, to make them a sodomite wedding cake in 2012. You know the rest – the man refused to countenance sin by baking a “gay” cake. The sodomites went to court, and the baker lost. He appealed and the appeals court upheld the lower court’s decision. Facing the prospect of stiff fines, the baker has chosen to no longer make wedding cakes, thus losing 40% of his business. Another mom-and-pop bakery in Oregon was fined $135,000 by a state bureaucrat on July 4th for refusing to make a wedding cake for a lesbian couple three years ago. Both cases prove what we should have known when the gay rights movement started – liberalism has nothing to do with compassion for sinners, it is about the celebration of sin and the punishment of the Christian opponents of that celebration. “Don’t impede the onward march to utopia or we will trample you to death!” is the liberals’ firm resolve.
It was significant that the sodomites’ feminist lawyer had argued that the baker’s religiously based refusal to bake the cake was not valid, for the reason that white people once cited their religion in order to ban inter-racial marriage. This ‘brilliant’ argument evidently convinced the judge, who upheld the lower court’s ruling. There are two points to be made in response to the feminist lawyer and the liberal judges. First, just because the Christian religion was once cited to justify a ban on inter-racial marriage does not invalidate the Christian baker’s claim that he should not be forced to bake a cake for sodomites or lose his livelihood. Secondly, Christians should also be against inter-racial marriage, because it leads to the legalization of abortion and sodomy by defacing the image of God in man, but the Mom and Pop bakers were not guilty of such sentiments nor was the Colorado baker. Would that they were. I think the old adage, ‘in for a penny, in for a pound,’ applies here. The liberals will not let you be half-liberal, so why not go all the way and become a white Christian European who loves his own racial hearth fire above all others?
Some military man, perhaps it was MacArthur or perhaps Robert E. Lee, once said that the words which describe all failed military campaigns are “too late.” The white people of the United States have discovered too late that civil rights meant negro dominance and the extermination of white people, equal rights for women meant legalized abortion, and gay rights meant the mandated acceptance of sodomite marriages. So long as evil was put in virtuous terms, white grazers did not see evil for what it was. First, they were weakened by the Phil-Donahue-type discussion, then they were completely overwhelmed by the virtuous façade of the demon movements. “Who would be so base that they are against civil rights? Who would be so vile that they are against equal rights for women? Who would be so devoid of humanity that he would not forgive homosexuals? And who would be so tyrannical that he would be undemocratic? If any, speak – for him have I offended. None? Then none have I offended, keep on grazing in the fields of oblivion.”
Even before the feminist revolution, which preceded and led to the homosexual revolution, the liberals’ sinister purposes were crystal clear during the civil rights movement, which was really the miscegenation movement. If racial harmony was really the liberals’ goal and not the extermination of whites, the suggestions in such books as American Statesmen on Slavery and the Negro, written in 1971 by Nathaniel Weyl and William Marina, would have been followed. In that book the two authors pointed out that virtually every prominent America statesman, including Abraham Lincoln, suggested some sort of separation of the races for the sake of the white race and the black race. Weyl and Marina proposed that if the right of private association, the right to segregate in schools, housing, and civic organizations, was upheld, then a non-utopian harmony could be achieved between the races. But such moderate, well-thought out proposals were vehemently rejected by the liberals. Why? Hasn’t it become obvious? The liberals do not want racial harmony, they want the extermination of the white race, just as they want to deify Lady Macbeth and destroy Christian marriage. What will it take for white grazers to turn away in disgust and horror from the liberals’ trough?
The whole liberal agenda is bad because it harms white, Christian Europeans. That should be our primary reason for opposing liberalism. But we must also point out that the “civil rights” movement has been a disaster for blacks; they now have no one to check their savagery, which they practice on each other as well as on whites. Nor has liberalism been beneficial for women. They now have the right to be bimbo newscasters and garage mechanics, but so many have lost that uniquely feminine spirituality that is necessary to be truly female. And the homosexuals? Is it really compassionate to tell them that the sin of sodomy is something they should celebrate?
The liberals claim to be humane, compassionate human beings. In fact, the liberals would have us believe that they and they alone are humane and compassionate. We must get past “we too are humane and compassionate, we don’t hate blacks, we don’t hate women, we are not homophobic” etc. That is not true. It is not a case of “we too are humane and compassionate,” it is a case of the liberals being devoid of all humanity. They use words like compassion to push a cruel, merciless agenda down the throats of white grazers who stand befuddled and amazed before the liberal juggernaut of scientists, educators, and New Age theologians. It is only the white, prejudiced, Christian European who is humane and compassionate. I object to using the term “humanist” to describe liberals. They are not liberal humanists – there is nothing human about them – they are inhumane monstrosities. Do Christian Europeans hate? Of course we do — we hate because we love much. We don’t hate Uncle Remus, but we do hate militant black savages who prey on white people. We don’t hate Florence Nightingale, but we do hate Lady Macbeth and all those feminist harpies that have followed in her train. And we don’t hate homosexuals, we feel sorry for them, that is, until they become militant, and then we do indeed hate them. When I was growing up, I didn’t even know what a homosexual was until my late teens. And when I heard about their existence, I felt sorry for them. They would never know the feeling a man gets when that one special silken gown enters his life. Of course feminism has killed the silken-gown femininity, so maybe modern heterosexual men will never know that feeling either. But the point is I didn’t hate homosexuals. But I do hate them now, when they militantly attack the silken-gown ethos of the Christian knight and the Christian hearth fire. I feel the same about the feminists as I do about the barbarians of color and the homosexuals. Pity dies, and a fighting hatred takes over when they threaten the European hearth fire. This seems so obvious that I shouldn’t have to write it down, but it isn’t obvious to the vast majority of white people, or else they would not go so gently into the Babylonian night of liberalism. They would rage against the dying of the light of Christian Europe, and then the light will not die. +