Kent. Alack, bareheaded?
Gracious my lord, hard by here is a hovel;
Some friendship will it lend you ‘gainst the tempest.
Repose you there, whilst I to this hard house
More harder than the stones whereof ’tis rais’d,
Which even but now, demanding after you,
Denied me to come in–return, and force
Their scanted courtesy.
Lear. My wits begin to turn.
Come on, my boy. How dost, my boy? Art cold?
I am cold myself. Where is this straw, my fellow?
The art of our necessities is strange,
That can make vile things precious. Come, your hovel.
Poor fool and knave, I have one part in my heart
That’s sorry yet for thee.
Looking at events from a ‘this-world-only’ perspective, Robert E. Lee was a loser. He blew it — instead of making the enemy waste men and resources chasing him all over the South, he decided to take it to the enemy at Gettysburg, and he lost. “For all sad words of tongue and pen, The saddest are these, ‘It might have been’.” And yet Robert E. Lee was, until quite recently, a beloved figure in the South and a respected figure in the North. Why did the southern people love a loser? The Southern people loved Lee because he had white pietas. He placed his sword at the service of his people despite the fact that his chance for worldly success was with the enemy of his people. The Southern people realized that Lee had given all a man can give to his people and they loved him for that noble sacrifice, despite the fact that he was not victorious on the battlefield. Such was the greatness of the Southern people of the Civil War era — they looked past the surface of life and saw existence from the inner eye of a Christian heart. From that perspective Lee was victorious and so were his people.
The troubling aspect of the neo-pagans’ and conservative nationalists’ reaction to the Syrian bombing is not that they objected to it. It is probably a tactical error just as Lee’s decision to take it to the enemy at Gettysburg was a tactical mistake. What is troubling is the way the neo-pagans and the conservative nationalists have voiced their objections to the Syrian bombing. They have, in no uncertain terms, demonized Trump. And that is not how you should respond to the only president since Teddy Roosevelt who has shown the slightest bit of white pietas. Trump’s pietas, like Teddy Roosevelt’s, is tainted with Americanism, but he does have a remnant of that which is and always shall be the cornerstone of a truly white nation. I don’t for one second think that Trump can mount a white counter revolution from within the confines of our satanic democratic system, but the small modicum of white pietas that Trump possesses, which has also taken hold of some of his supporters, is the spark of white humanity that needs to be turned into a unquenchable counter-revolutionary fire.
It is up to the white leadership to fan the flames of the counterrevolutionary fire, not to put it out. By accusing Trump of betrayal and other dark movies – “He is in the pocket of Israel” — the self-anointed white leaders are attacking white pietas in the name of a mind-forged formula for how to govern the neo-pagan way. You can be theoretically right and yet be wrong if you do not take the human element in all political decisions into account. For example – when Cortés had to go back to Spain to give an account of his actions he told his lieutenant Pedro de Alvarado that he did not want him to interfere with the Aztecs’ blood rites. The Spaniards were outnumbered 10,000 to 1, so it was not tactically wise to try to stop them from performing their ‘religious’ rites. But when the Aztecs performed their ‘religious’ rites right in front of the Spaniards, Cortés’ lieutenant attacked the Aztecs. It was tactically unwise, but who can condemn him? He was a man who held that the charity of honor was all in all.
Trump has stated that he bombed Syria because Bashar al-Assad was using chemical weapons on women and children. If that is so, and why should we doubt it, then Trump is following in the footsteps of Cortés’ lieutenant. There are times when a man of honor acts, not according to tactics, but according to that charity of honor. Am I in error? Have I projected an honor code onto Trump that is a mere figment of an overwrought, quixotic imagination? It’s possible, but still that is what I see. In any event there is a larger issue here. Even if I’m wrong about Trump, that doesn’t change the fact that it is white pietas, which is grounded in the Europeans’ faith in the Christ of old Europe, that will save the European people. Neither a return to classical liberalism nor a heavy dose of neo-paganism will stop the extermination of the white race by the religious Jacobins.
White pietas is grounded in love of family, love of race, and love of Christ. The non-white races do not have pietas. They do not love family, race, and Christ. They worship themselves and desire to extend the power of their family and their race, but they do not love, they do not have pietas. Nor do the liberals have pietas. In fact, they hate all Europeans who have not renounced their families, their race, and their God. The liberal wants to return to paganism, but he cannot return to paganism via his own people. The Christ of Europe always gets in the way. So the liberal must destroy all things European in order to return to the paradise of the pagans. Abstract reason, which the French Jacobins placed on a throne in the person of a prostitute (perfect symbolism), became the liberals’ means to an end – the destruction of the white race. Thus the liberal in all his guises always refers to a rational process rather than to the honor code of the European when he wants to effect change, because his mind-forged process leads him away from white pietas and toward the kingdom of Satan on earth.
When Shaw, the socialist, read Dickens’ novel Little Dorrit, one of the great Christian works of literature, he did not see Christ in the novel, he saw a defense of socialism. Likewise, when a Thomist reads Shakespeare he sees Shakespeare the Thomist, and when a liberal reads Shakespeare he sees Shakespeare the liberal humanist. All of life must be referred to the exterior eye if you belong to that class of liberal Europeans who think that love can be put into a golden bowl and wisdom in a silver rod. The distinctiveness of the European people was not their brilliance, their ability to invent mind-forged systems: their distinctiveness as a people was that they saw life through the inner eye of the heart, and because of that inner vision they became the Christ-bearing race.
I do not see an awareness of the distinctiveness of the European people or an awareness of the necessity of white pietas in any of the modern movements within liberalism. The mad dog liberals within the church and without have gone over to the unholy trinity of abstract reason, the sacred negro, and science. The more conservative Protestant sects have made an abstraction of Christ and turned to the Jews as their guiding light. And the traditionalist Roman Catholics have placed their faith in rites while eschewing the heartfelt faith of the European people. I once asked a traditionalist priest what he thought of Chateaubriand’s “I wept and I believed” defense of Christianity. He did not think it had any validity, he thought it was pure air. But is it? If their hearts were wrong, namely our European ancestors, and if St. Paul was wrong when he told us that it was the heart that mattered, then where are we, who are we, and wither do we go?
I must come back to that charity of honor, which comes from white pietas. Lee had it and so did Cortés’ lieutenant. And we must regain it if we mean to save our souls and restore our people. Throughout the world the white race is being attacked because the colored barbarians and the liberals hate the Light of the world. If we, the European people, renounce white pietas, haven’t we also renounced the Light of the world?
In Shakespeare’s Henry the Fourth, Part 1, Falstaff delivers his famous dissertation on honor:
‘Tis not due yet; I would be loath to pay him before his day. What need I be so forward with him that calls not on me? Well, ’tis no matter; honour pricks me on. Yea, but how if honour prick me off when I come on? how then? Can honour set to a leg? no: or an arm? no: or take away the grief of a wound? no. Honour hath no skill in surgery, then? no. What is honour? a word. What is in that word honour? What is that honour? air. A trim reckoning! Who hath it? he that died o’ Wednesday. Doth he feel it? no. Doth he hear it? no. ‘Tis insensible, then. Yea, to the dead. But will it not live with the living? no. Why? detraction will not suffer it. Therefore I’ll none of it. Honour is a mere scutcheon: and so ends my catechism.
Is honor, the white man’s honor, a mere word? It can be abused, it can be used as an excuse to fight over nothing, but at the heart of that mere word is Christ. We must have that charity of honor. The enemy knows that honor is white and therefore honor is racist. In a recent interview, the Jewish reporter who had publicized the ‘racist’ remarks that the baseball player John Rocker made to him in private, was asked if he felt any remorse for betraying Rocker’s confidence and ruining his career. The reporter said he felt no remorse because honor was a white man’s concept and therefore racist. By betraying Rocker the reporter felt that he was being virtuous. And so he was, from the standpoint of liberalism. But who is the founder of liberalism? It is our ancient foe. It is all so blatant now. Everything connected to old Europe, to white pietas, must be eradicated from the face of the earth. We all die in the body eventually. That is our biological destiny, but must we give up our souls and die spiritually? We can’t renounce white pietas, for therein lies our honor, our people, and our God. The race war is the war against principalities and powers, and we dare not, we must not, side with the principalities and powers of this world, which are aligned against the Light of the world.
Our spiritual home consists of our race and our faith. There is nothing for us outside of the European hearth fire. We have been told, for over a century, that if whites love their own people they are guilty of racism, which is the unpardonable sin. And that pernicious heresy has entered the souls of white people throughout the world. We must purge the fear of racism from our souls. And the purification of our souls begins when we love the people of our racial hearth fire who saw beauty on the cross. +