The Gift of Sight

Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God? He answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him? And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee. And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him. And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind. And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also? Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth. – John 9: 35-41

The liberal couple who went on a bike trip through the Middle East to show us that “evil is a make-believe concept” were the product of one hundred years of liberal indoctrination. Their liberalism got them killed. That is sad, but not tragic. The real tragedy is when non-liberal whites are killed as a result of liberalism. At least the two bike-riding liberals got to die for their faith. But why should the non-liberal whites have to die for the liberals’ faith?

Andre Gide, the French novelist who championed decadence and nihilism, once said that he didn’t believe in the devil but that was precisely what the devil wanted, for him to deny his existence. The liberals of the Western world are in thralldom to the devil, even though they do not believe in the devil. The devil manipulates them through the colored races. The liberals’ worship of the colored savages is devil worship. Just as the antique Europeans worshipped Christ in and through their people, so do the liberals worship Satan in and through the colored races. All things evil, such as rape and murder, can be sanctioned if they are done by the colored minions of Satan. It is virtually illegal now to arrest a black man in America or a Moslem in Europe, because they are the godded men, whom the liberals revere and worship.

Satan prefers to let the liberals worship him through the colored races, because if the liberals were to openly profess a belief in the biblical devil, they would be vulnerable to a belief in the devil’s biblical antagonist. But of course the liberals who reject a personal devil do believe that the white race is demonic. Always excepting their exalted selves, the liberals maintain that the evil white race must be purged so that the good, the colored races, can endure while the evil whites perish.

Unfortunately for the liberal bike riders, the Moslems and the other heathens of color do not always distinguish the good whites, the Atticus Finch whites who have gone beyond whiteness, from the run of the mill whites who are responsible for all the evils on earth. But even if some liberal bike riders die, the liberals will hold to their faith. They will trust in their gods to the end, because the colored heathens provide the liberals with an alternative faith, a faith that keeps the Son of God away from them. Liberals talk and write about love more than their non-liberal, European ancestors, but they have an incredible fear of the Divine Love that engenders all human love. Outside of His love there is no love. The liberals, despite their rhetoric, have created a world without love, because they have cut all ties to the God of love. “Nearer my God to me” has become, “Nearer the colored races to me.”

Shakespeare got to the heart of the matter when he told us that Christ was the grave where “buried love doth live.” The liberals do not believe that, so they have placed a ‘do not enter’ sign on the European hearth fire in an effort to dam up the channels of grace that lead us to the Divine Love. At the heart of the liberals’ worship of the colored heathen is a desire to avoid the crucifixion that accompanies all true love, because all those who truly love suffer with their loved ones in life and death. If our love of Christ brings only a crucifixion without the resurrection it is unbearable. “Let us put Christ in a nursing home and euthanize Him,” is the liberals’ demand. “He is no longer serviceable.” And His people must follow Him to that great liberal nursing home where they, because they once knew His name, must be euthanized as well.

We will always believe a lie when we use the liberals’ own terminology to combat liberalism. Liberals such as the two freeze-dried hippie bike riders murdered by Moslems do not have a death wish. They have a Utopian fantasy of the noble non-white savages and an egotistical desire to pontificate to the world about their heightened consciousness, which allows them to see beyond white pietas to a universalist vision of mankind. Their exalted intellects see the world as a Coke commercial. Such thinking is suicidal, but it does not spring from a death wish as defined by psychology. There is nothing in the realm of psychology that can explain liberalism. We need to turn to the Gospels if we are going to understand the evil of liberalism.

The Gospels as a whole tell us a remarkable, strange, and fantastical fairy tale. But it is a fairy tale that our people, when they were young at heart, believed in. Let me turn to a small segment of that marvelous fairy tale, which deals with a man’s blindness, the restoration of his sight, and his subsequent defense of Christ against the scribes and Pharisees. In John 9, Christ passed by and “saw a man which was blind from his birth.” His disciples ask Him whether the man was blind because of his own sins or the sins of his parents. Jesus replies,

Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him. I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work. As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.

Christ bids the blind man wash in the pool of Siloam, and he is cured of his blindness. He can see! That is the first great miracle. But there are two more miracles to come. The second miracle is that this man born blind, this Jewish Everyman – his modern equivalent would be a white grazer – has the courage to defend Christ against the scribes and Pharisees. The formerly blind man’s parents refuse to give a name to the man who restored their son’s sight:

And they asked them, saying, Is this your son, who ye say was born blind? how then doth he now see? His parents answered them and said, We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind: But by what means he now seeth, we know not; or who hath opened his eyes, we know not: he is of age; ask him: he shall speak for himself. These words spake his parents, because they feared the Jews: for the Jews had agreed already, that if any man did confess that he was Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue. Therefore said his parents, He is of age; ask him.

Sound familiar? Our modern churchmen will not name the European Christ for fear that they will be called racist and be put out of the liberals’ synagogue.
Then the scribes and Pharisees try to browbeat and intimidate the man born blind. But he will not back down.

Then again called they the man that was blind, and said unto him, Give God the praise: we know that this man is a sinner. He answered and said, Whether he be a sinner or no, I know not: one thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see. Then said they to him again, What did he to thee? how opened he thine eyes? He answered them, I have told you already, and ye did not hear: wherefore would ye hear it again? will ye also be his disciples? Then they reviled him, and said, Thou art his disciple; but we are Moses’ disciples. We know that God spake unto Moses: as for this fellow, we know not from whence he is. The man answered and said unto them, Why herein is a marvellous thing, that ye know not from whence he is, and yet he hath opened mine eyes. Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth. Since the world began was it not heard that any man opened the eyes of one that was born blind. If this man were not of God, he could do nothing. They answered and said unto him, Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us? And they cast him out.

Then comes the third miracle, the greatest one of all. The man born blind believes in the fairy tale of the Son of God.

Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God? He answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him? And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee. And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him. And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind. And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also? Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.

The European people when they were a Christian people were the blind man. Christ gave them sight. In the midst of darkness, He came into the world in order that the blind might see. And when our people saw the light, they responded to Him. They defended Him against the scribes and the Pharisees who claimed He was a blasphemer and a charlatan. They clung to the fairy tale throughout all the Christian centuries of Europe. Now, it is the scribes and Pharisees, the men of reason, science, and negro worship who have won out. Is there not one man left, a man crying in the wilderness, who will proclaim his belief in the Son of God, the crowned King of Old Europe?

Let us go back to the modern hippie on the bike: “Evil is a make-believe concept.” Yes, the concept of evil, as defined by Western man, is contained in the fairy tale of Christ. It was the fairy tale that formed the white man’s civilization. And the liberals’ new anti-European fairy tale, in which the virtuous liberals fight the evil white racists in the name of their colored gods is presented to us as the true fairy tale, which we should cling to with all our heart, mind, and soul. Can we blend the two fairy tales as the moderate Christians urge us to do? They take a strong dose of negro worship, science, and reason, mix it with the Christ story, and presto-chango, you have… What do you have? You have nothing at all. Or can we create an entirely new fairy tale, a neo-pagan fairy tale that rejects European Christianity and modern liberalism?

Neither moderate Christianity nor neo-paganism is an option for the European. The moderate Christian, the classical liberal, will be absorbed by the mad-dog liberal because the mad-dog liberal has all the power of hell to aid him while the moderate Christian has only his own abstracted mind to aid him. Why doesn’t he call on his God? Because rational, moderate Christians do not tilt at windmills and climb glass mountains, they form think tanks and dialogue with mad-dog liberals. That is the rational way to reconcile Christ and the devil.

The neo-pagans cannot be taken seriously because they do not take the white man’s history seriously. You can’t create a new religion for the white man that is neither Christian nor liberal. For almost two thousand years, white people lived and died in the name of Jesus Christ. You can hold fast to that belief, or you can create a hybrid religion in complete opposition to Christianity. But the hybrid religion will feed off the spiritual capital of Christianity. There will still be a savior, but he will be the Noble Savage; there will still be original sin, but it will be invested in the white race. Everything Christian will survive, but in a twisted and perverted form. The neo-pagan who tries to create something apart from the Europeans’ Christian history will find himself overwhelmed by the mad-dog liberals and the moderate Christians, who always unite with the mad-dog liberals. The reason the neo-pagans are so fond of Hitler is because he tried to create a new option for the European people that was neither liberal nor Christian. His plight will be the same plight as any European who ignores the Europeans’ Christian past.

Whether the liberal goes biking through the Mideast in order to prove that “evil is a make-believe concept” or whether he stays home and supports negro worship and the Moslem invasion of Europe, it all amounts to the same thing. The liberal has decided that the white Christian fairy tale is a lie, so he must flee from whiteness. Aided by his reason and his science, the liberal must find salvation in the people of color. Needless to say, he will not find salvation in the people of color. He will, in some instances, find physical death, as the hippie bikers did, but in every instance he will find spiritual death. There is no avoiding our destiny. We can’t escape to Crete. Either the Christian European fairy tale is true or it is not. The liberals are acting according to their unbelief. They are fighting for their un-faith. We can’t be moderate and rational in defense of The Faith. Was He moderate and rational when He bore our griefs and carried our sorrows?

I love the man born blind who defied the scribes and Pharisees of Jewry and then fell to his knees and worshipped Christ as the Son of God. The fairy tale is true – we must reject the scribes and Pharisees of Liberaldom and kneel beside the man born blind. That is what it means to be a European. +

Posted in blood faith, fairy tale of European civilization, rationalism | Tagged

Who Follows in Their Train?

Home I return across the sea,
And go to bed with backward looks
At my dear land of story-books.

-Robert Louis Stevenson

The late John Tyndall of Britain and the late Samuel Francis of the American South, the one the founder of a political party, and the other a journalist for a Washington-based paper, were two of the last pundits with some kind of official status who defended white people’s right to maintain their own culture separate and distinct from the people of color. That doesn’t seem like too much to ask for, but it was too much for the liberals. Tyndall was jailed for an offhand remark about Moslems, and Samuel Francis was fired from his job at the Washington Times for writing that there was no evidence the white man’s culture could be maintained by the blacks. Tyndall and Francis were condemned and punished even though they were always democratic – they never advocated fighting liberalism outside the parameters of democracy. But should white people start looking outside the parameters of democracy? Of course they should, but at present they won’t.

There is a tragic flaw in the democratic populism of Tyndall and Francis. Let me state it bluntly: Both Tyndall and Francis treated the issue of the empty tomb as a side issue, when in fact it is the main issue. When Dostoyevsky said that the whole issue facing the European was, “Can an intelligent man, a European, believe in the divinity of Christ?,” he was placing the European peoples’ dilemma squarely before our eyes. People act according to their religious vision. The liberals believe in the unholy trinity of the abstracted intellect, the negro, and science. The blacks believe in the power and might of black barbarism, the Moslems believe in Allah, and on it goes through the entire pantheon of heathen gods and their colored devotees.

What all the colored races have in common is that their religious faith determines their actions. And since every heathen faith is opposed to the Christian faith, every colored heathen hates the white man. The liberals’ post-Christian heathenism is in one accord with the colored heathens’ faith on that one central issue – the hatred of the white Christ-bearing race. Even when a white man wins an election in that milieu (the Trump victory is cited as a victory for Samuel Francis-populism), the victory is quickly turned into a defeat, because it is only a delaying action and does not significantly alter the ongoing liberal attack on the white race.

Whites cannot go up against liberals and colored heathens, who have a religion, without a religion beyond some vague belief in democracy and the rule of law. Democracy is an anti-Christian heresy, and the rule of law is liberal law, which is codified hatred of the white race and the Christian God. The liberals’ reign has never been opposed by the European people, because the European people no longer take their strength and inspiration from the Europeans who firmly believed that Christ rose from the dead.

In my freshman year in college, I repeatedly sought out a teacher who shared my interest in English literature. The teacher’s particular favorite author was Herman Melville, who, as even a casual reader of Melville can grasp, was obsessed with the Dostoyevskian issue, “Can an intelligent man, a European, believe in the divinity of Christ?” Since that was my obsession as well as Melville’s obsession, and since my teacher was a great devotee of Melville, I thought that he would share my obsession. He did not. He was completely indifferent to something that was mine and Melville’s primary concern. How can you be a Melville scholar and be indifferent to Billy Budd’s question, “Sentry, are you there?” and Clarel’s quest?

Then keep thy heart, though yet but ill-resigned–
Clarel, thy heart, the issues there but mind;
That like the crocus budding through the snow–
That like a swimmer rising from the deep–
That like a burning secret which doth go
Even from the bosom that would hoard and keep;
Emerge thou mayst from the last whelming sea,
And prove that death but routs life into victory.

And how can you be a white populist and treat the antique Europeans’ belief in Christ’s resurrection from the dead as a ‘side issue’?

Granted, that quarrels between Christian denominations have caused wars, granted, that Christians fought Christians during the Christian era of Europe, which has led many theologians to deny that there ever was a Christian Europe, but total war came in the post-Christian era of the Europeans’ history. Before that, when Christians fought Christians, there were some limits placed on the ravages of war. The better men on both sides had some feeling for their foe, who was, despite their differences in political alliances, their brother. When his Indian allies violated the terms of the surrender and massacred British prisoners during the French and Indian Wars, the French general told the British commander that he would have sooner lost the battle than have been responsible, through his Indian allies, for that breach of honor. It’s easy to sneer at such contradictions – trying to kill your enemy on the battlefield and then showing mercy when they have surrendered – but such contradictions bore witness to a people who were still trying to respond to the Light. Now the struggle is over. There is no honor, no chivalry, there is only an ignoble surrender to death-in-life liberalism. We are no longer involved in wars, we are engaged in a surrender that is worse than a war. The European people have declared themselves a non-people who can only exist through the life-blood of the colored heathens: “You live to serve the colored heathens — serve them well, and you shall live,” is the dictate of the liberal tribunal.

It is good to kneel in prayer to the living God, but it is a terrible thing, a blasphemy, to kneel before the liberals and their colored gods. Is this the promised end for the white man? Must he live a monk-like existence in prayer and penance for the sin of whiteness? “Through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault, I have sinned against the colored races. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.” Mere populism is an insufficient response to liberalism, because it doesn’t fill the void in the white man’s soul. In the absence of faith, a real faith as distinct from an intellectual faith, the white Everyman will always be defeated by the liberals, who do have faith; they believe in the unholy trinity.

When Christ tells Nicodemus that he must be born again in order to obtain eternal life, Nicodemus is confused:

Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?

We, the European people, must be born again. We must return to our European childhood in much the same way that Nicodemus returned to his childhood of prophecies and miracles and as Robert Louis Stevenson returned to his childhood in his A Child’s Garden of Verses. Stevenson knew that he was falling victim to the spiritual ennui that comes upon a man who has lost faith in the God who bids us believe “like unto a little child.” He restored his faith by reconnecting with his European hearth fire.

It is not an easy thing to do, to believe as a little child, but it is the only way for the European people to regain their souls. We are not like the other races. We cannot believe in our race if we don’t believe that our race and our faith are one. If we are not the Christ-bearing race, what are we? We can’t be like unto the colored heathens, because we are white. We can be post-Christian liberals who worship Satan in and through the colored races, we can be un-men who graze in the liberals’ pastures while waiting for our turn to be slaughtered, or we can be Europeans again and live according to the Word who was made flesh. That really is what is at the heart of the cultural wars. The antique Europeans made the Son of God their touchstone of reality. What was perfect, what was good, came from Him. And what was wrong and what was evil was opposed to His word. We cannot make common cause with post-Christian liberals who believe that everything opposed to the faith of the antique Europeans is good and everything connected to our ancient faith is evil.

I frequently hear classical liberals expressing their astonishment at the mad-dog liberals of the European nations. “Can’t they see that massive immigration is killing their nations?” No, they do not see. They are religious zealots who see everything through the eyes of their faith. They believe in their triune god — the abstract intellect, the sacred negro, and science – that will deliver them from the unholy night of Christian Europe and usher them into a new and glorious world freed from the bonds of whiteness and Christianity. It all sounds quite fantastical, doesn’t it? But that is what liberals believe and that is the faith they will fight to defend.

On the surface it seems like the new faith of liberalism that replaced Christianity started in the mid-1960s, but that is not the case. The 1960s marked the beginning of the final stage of the liberals’ revolt against Christ and the Christ-bearing race. In the final stage, the liberals institutionalized the satanic values they had been preaching in the universities and the churches for the past 50 years. Now, in the 21st century, there are no traces left of old Europe and the people who saw a great Light. St. John tells us that Christ “came unto His own, and His own received Him not.” What must have been Christ’s reaction when the modern Europeans whose ancestors made Christ their own, rejected Him? His sorrow and pain is infinitely greater than ours, the rejected and despised Europeans, because His humanity is infinitely greater than ours.

When I went to college, every course in the humanities, no matter whether it was literature, religion, or history, always turned out to be a course about the evils of Western culture and the glories of the non-white cultures. In comparative religion courses, for instance, the heathen religions of the colored races were always presented as infinitely superior to European Christianity. This was the mind and soul dirtying of the white race that Anthony Jacob wrote about in White Man, Think Again. And it is an effective tactic. The response of the church men to the attack on European Christianity was to denounce European Christianity and blend Christianity with the natural religions of the colored heathens. Pope Francis the blasphemer’s adulation of the people of the Amazon rain forest is the end result of the synthesis of Christianity and the nature religions of the pure and noble savages of color.

There is something satanically clever in the liberals’ incorporation of the noble savage into their trinity. Satan, who hates humanity, knows that man needs human conduits to his gods. So he has induced the men of reason and science to bring the heathens of color into his unholy trinity as the saviors, who will act as conduits to Satan and his kingdom of everlasting night. The clear-thinking classical liberals, the conservatives, always lose in their contests with the mad-dog liberals because the mad-dog liberals have a human conduit to their god, who is Satan, while the conservatives have only reason and science. They have the father and the holy ghost, but they do not have the savior. I recently heard Tucker Carlson asking why liberals, who are supposed to believe in reason and science, do not see that Third World immigration is destroying the West. They do not see that reality because they have a different religious vision from Tucker Carlson. They believe in the noble savage. The colored races are their messiah. You can’t counter that belief with abstract reason and science. You can only defeat that faith with a belief in the Christ of old Europe. The tragic flaw of the conservative populists is that they do not believe in the divinity of Christ so they cannot go into battle with the armor of Christ as their European ancestors did.

In my own case, the mind and soul dirtying tactics of the liberals did not work. The study of the heathen faiths filled me with disgust and gave me a greater appreciation for the faith of my European ancestors. I still do not understand, from within, the appeal of the noble savage and the religions of nature. I can only conclude that the spiritual ennui caused by reason and science has made the European people susceptible to any religion with blood in it, even if it is heathen blood.

But a man must go with his own vision. I must assert, against the mad-dog liberals, that there is no love, no honor, no charity, and no truth in their noble savage religion. And I must assert, against the classical liberals, that abstract reason is a whore and science is a poor substitute for the real Holy Ghost who proceeds from the Father and the Son. I refuse to believe that my people are irredeemable. If we, the white remnant, stand by the antique Europeans, others will follow in our train. +

Posted in Christian Europe, defense of the white race, Europe as the Christ-bearer, fairy tale of European civilization, restoration of European civilization, Uncategorized | Tagged , ,

Democracy – The White Man’s Covenant with Death


So we are still at a loss to explain the White retreat, and always will be at a loss to explain it if we look for the explanation among the non-Whites. No, only too obviously we are being defeated from within; by the High Finance which with the help of its running dogs, the Liberals, organises the systematic brain-dirtying of the Western voting masses and university students, and either appoints its own puppet politicians or exerts enormous pressure against the ‘unappointed’ ones. It is a vast power of hatred, destructiveness and megalomaniac ambition spreading among us, its victims, the seeds of despair, futility, disorientation and even acceptance. It is a new ‘religion’ (or perhaps a very ancient one); and the majority of us cannot fight it because we are weak in love and, owing to the censorship of other than Leftist views, even weaker in understanding. The result is that those few among us who can fight it and do fight it are instantly attacked, not even so much by the ‘Liberals’ themselves as by those of us who cannot and dare not fight it — by the Empty Men, the men of parrot mind and parrot conviction.

-A. Jacob in White Man, Think Again!

And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth.

Revelations 6: 8

In Witness, Whittaker Chambers noted that the courts in the Soviet Union were filled with reams and reams of paperwork for every single court case that came up. He concluded that the more illegitimate a government was, the more paper work they put out in order to cover up the fact that their government was illegitimate. This is certainly the case in all the nations of the West. They attempt to cover up for their totalitarian regimes by a mountain of legalese. The Tommy Robinson case in Britain is an example. His crime was a non-crime, an invented crime by an illegitimate, totalitarian government. Tommy Robinson wanted, in the true spirit of a British patriot, to prevent the Islamization of his nation. He followed all the democratic rules of peaceful protest, and he made the obligatory condemnation of racism — “Most of my friends are black” – but still the British government sent him to prison where he was tortured and deprived of uncontaminated food and water. He is currently out on bail, but he is not out of the woods by any means. He has become a person of interest to the state; the smallest infraction against the totalitarian British state will send Tommy Robinson back to jail.

What happened to Tommie Robinson was horrific, but not unusual; it was not an aberration of a normally humane British government. His case is the norm in liberal Britain. This is what Britons and all the European people must come to terms with. The liberals are devoid of all humanity. They have only one desire, they must destroy all white resistance to their totalitarian regimes. They will not be deterred by votes, petitions, protest marches, or public appeals to their humanity. They have no humanity. The European people cannot comprehend that the liberals want their blood, because they have not thrown off the mind-forged shackles of liberalism. The whites who are appalled by the cruel treatment of Tommy Robinson and others like him are classical liberals. They believe in rationality, equality under the law, and the democratic process. Some of those classical liberals, such as Tucker Carlson, are very courageous in their outspoken defense of classic liberalism. But classical liberals, who are now called conservatives, do not understand the liberal dynamic. It is a continually evolving ideology. Evolving toward what? The liberals claim they are moving toward heaven on earth, but it is quite apparent, from a Christian perspective, that the liberals are heading for the deepest pit of hell. Will they be satisfied when they get there? Of course not, but they will have reached their final destination.

The question that every white man should ask himself is, “Do I want to follow the liberals’ democratic process all the way to hell or do I want to fight back?” Currently the European people have steadfastly refused to step away from liberalism. No matter what the mad-dog liberals do, the conservatives respond with, “We must have faith in the democratic process, we must keep up the pressure on our elected officials, and slowly but surely we will win out.” When has faith in the democratic process ever resulted in anything good for white people?

In the democratic era of our history we have seen total war, the war “to make the world safe for democracy,” and now, under the mantle of the democratic ideals of liberty, equality, and fraternity, we are witnessing the extermination of the white race. What has been the conservatives’ response to the attack on the white race? They tell us that we need more democracy! Instead of rejecting the devil and all his works, the conservatives bid us seek redemption from the devil. In the book of Revelations, Christ warns us, through St. John, that faith in Him cannot be blended with paganism, Judaism, or any other –ism. He, and He alone, is the beginning and the end. The blending of Christianity and democracy produces leaders such as Angela Merkel and Pope Francis the blasphemer, who are determined to attack God by destroying His image in man. When those two monsters of immorality meet to discuss “the problem of populism,” they are meeting to discuss how they can kill the last remaining remnants of white pietas, which is our only link to the living God.

The devil wins when we accept his either/or: “Either you must be a mad-dog liberal or a classical liberal.” That is no choice at all, because either way we will be in the clutches of the devil. The classical liberals are quite different from true conservatives such as Edmund Burke and Anthony Jacob. Burke and Jacob wanted to conserve a particular people and their particular faith in a personal God. Burke and Jacob hated universals such as “the people” because they realized that such abstractions were used to destroy their own kith and kin in the name of an aggregate herd called “the people.” But the conservatives of the 20th century were quite willing to give up on their kith and kin and transfer their allegiance to a universal idea of mankind. They did this because they were and are Gnostics. All of life is an abstraction to the classical liberals. So long as you support the idea of Christianity, the idea of the family, and the idea of humanity, you will be on the right track. But a disembodied idea is nothing at all. It is mere air. The modern conservative thinks that once you vote or protest against an atrocity of the mad-dog liberals you have done your Gnostic duty. But it is not abstract ideas that are being tortured, raped, and murdered, it is individual white people, people who used to be called, in the non-Gnostic age of Europe, the conservatives’ kith and kin. There is something terribly wrong when we respond to the horrors inflicted on our people with democratic rationality. Men who love their own in Him and through Him do not – I repeat – they do not respond to the rape, torture, and murder of their people with a Thomistic-Buddhistic pacifism. They become Goths.

Mad-dog liberals such as Angela Merkel and the German councilwoman openly tell their own people they will be replaced by colored heathens. They taunt white people, fully confident that white people will not act against them in retaliation. Some whites might protest Gnostically, through marches or petitions, but Gnostic protests can be dealt with quite easily. Would Angela Merkel or any of the mad-dog liberals throughout the West ever tell any non-white race of people they were planning to exterminate them? Of course not, they would be in fear of their lives. But white people have been carefully trained to consent to their own extermination. Why must they consent? That is the given, it is supposed to be self-evident: “We hold this truth to be self-evident, that all whites are evil — except those liberals who have transcended whiteness — and must be eradicated from the face of the earth.”

The neo-pagans who blame Christianity for the decline of the white race are correct. But they are wrong when they fail to distinguish faith in Christ from the intellectual system called Christianity. The apostles’ hearts did not burn within them on the road to Emmaus because they encountered a Jewish Socrates who unfolded to them a philosophical system. Their hearts burned within them because they had encountered the living God. Our people, as a people, also encountered our Lord on the European road to Emmaus. We became one with the apostles, St. Paul, and Him.

The classical liberals want to Socratize Christ: “He left us a good system.” But Christianity as a philosophy is no defense against mad-dog liberalism. The mad-dog liberals hate Christ and the white race. How can a tepid belief in rationality and fair play counter the demonic fury of the liberals? It can’t. The moderate philosophical Christianity of the classical liberals ultimately becomes the enabling system that keeps mad-dog liberalism alive and well, because it encourages white people to stay within the confines of liberalism. They are told ad nauseum that good, polite Europeans submit to the rule of law, even though their leaders have told them they are going to be lawfully exterminated. And they are told ad nauseum by their church men that Christianity and democracy are one and the same. Where does that leave white people? It leaves them in the lions’ den. But instead of placing their faith in the living God to keep them safe, the modern Europeans look to the liberals who threw them into the lions’ den, to somehow, if they petition, vote, march, and plead, let them out of the lions’ den.

There are no white people left alive who have not grown up under the shadow of liberalism. Some of the oldest have known a few decades of classical liberalism, but every single white person alive today has been brought up to honor and respect the liberal faith. In church that means all whites must accept the blending of Christianity with the heathen faiths. Christ is not, we are told, the beginning and the end. He is the God who must give way to the heathen gods of color who are greater than Him. And in society adherence to the liberal faith means that the white race must give way to the black race, because the white race is evil. All revolutions succeed when the powers that be doubt their right to rule. The people who had seen a great light, the people who walked on water because they believed in the Son of God, lost their faith in Him and fled to the heathen gods of color and to rational, science-based systems for comfort. Now the liberals rule.

The Europeans will come to their own again when they believe in their ancestral God, the God who enters human hearts, more than the liberals believe in their satanic faith. It is truly horrific to see what is happening to white people in what used to be called Christendom. And it is doubly sad and horrific to see white people respond to the liberals’ jihad with the Gnostic verbiage of liberalism. The Christian Europeans, our honored dead, speak to us from across the great divide and bid us fight. “We can’t fight,” is the modern Europeans’ response, “We can’t fight, because there is a huge chasm between our Europe and your Europe.” But then we hear our Savior’s voice: “The things which are impossible with men are possible with God.”

Men who believe as the ancient European people believed do not permit their nations to become white slaughterhouses. Something within them, something called “that charity of honor” makes them rebel against the rule of the liberals. Until that something within becomes a burning passion in the hearts of the European people, the Tommy Robinsons, the Jonathan Fosters, and the entire white race will be offered up on the sacrificial alters of the liberals. The democratic process is, in all its essentials, the liberals’ satanic religious rite. We must break away from that covenant with Satan and renew our covenant with the Son of God. +

Posted in defense of the white race, democracy, rationalism | Tagged , ,

As You Would Oppose the Devil


Beware of the scribes, which desire to walk in long robes, and love greetings in the markets, and the highest seats in the synagogues, and the chief rooms at feasts; Which devour widows’ houses, and for a shew make long prayers: the same shall receive greater damnation. – Luke 20: 46-47

Liberalism is a religion. It has its own set of rituals and rules that must be adhered to if one is to remain in good standing and free from persecution by the liberals. But like the Jewish Pharisees who preceded them, the liberals are hypocrites. They do not really believe what they profess. And the root cause of the liberals’ hypocrisy is the same as the Pharisees of Judaism. They cannot bear the light of truth, because that light would destroy their Christ-denying, satanic world that they have set up to satisfy their own illicit desire to be as God. A list of all the liberal hypocrisies would fill an encyclopedia from A to Z. Let me list a few that are particularly blatant and striking.

(1) The Russian Hypocrisy

I remember, in my elementary school days, the atom bomb drills that we would go through. The school principal would sound an alarm, and our teacher would then instruct us to get our coats, go into the hallway, and sit up against the wall with our coats over our heads. I never asked my teacher what was the use of putting our coats over our heads, because like most children of that era I trusted adults. They knew what they were doing. As we age we begin to doubt that adults really know what they are doing. And then when we become adults we know that adults do not know what they are doing, because we are now adults and we don’t know what we are doing.

During the Cold War when Russia was Communist, the liberals told us we had to get along with Russians for two reasons. The first reason was a utilitarian reason: “If we don’t get along with them, everything will go ka-boom!” Movies such as Dr. Strangelove and Fail Safe pounded home that theme. And the second reason we were supposed to get along with the Russians was that Russian communists and the Americans were all alike. Movies like The Russians Are Coming emphasized that theme. And unfortunately that was true: American democracy and Russian communism have the same anti-Christian Jacobin roots.

Let’s fast forward to the 21st century where now we are not supposed to get along with the Russians. Why is that? Because (we are told) they have committed human rights violations and they try to influence our elections. Really? Whatever human rights violations might be occurring in modern Russia, they pale in comparison to the human rights violations that took place under the communists. But wait – we were supposed to love the communists, because they were just like us. And they were just like the liberals. They were Jacobins.
There are more human rights violations in the United States and Canada today than in Russia. But of course the liberals of North America do not look on the extermination of the white race and legalized infanticide as human rights violations. The real reason the liberals hate Putin and the Russians is because Russia is still a sovereign state that has not made the commitment to exterminate its white citizens and replace them with colored heathens. They very well could do that in the future if they stay on the democratic path, but they have not yet made that commitment. The Russians still cling to certain aspects of Christianity, such as an abhorrence of sodomy and a respect for the family unit. Liberals of the West find such views offensive. So the great hypocrites who used to tell us to get along with the Russians to prevent nuclear war now tell us we should go to war with them in the name of human rights, which translates to liberalism.

2) The Feminist Hypocrisy

Tennyson was correct when he described the differences between men and women in Idylls of the King:

For men at most differ as heaven and earth,
But women, worst and best, as heaven and hell.

Once a society has gone to the devil, it is the demonic women who rule, because they have the sustained demonic energy that evil men can only muster up in dribs and drabs. This is why the most epic hypocrisy in all of Liberaldom is the feminist hypocrisy. Only one man, William Shakespeare in his play Macbeth, ever depicted the depth of evil to which a woman, totally given over to her own will, could descend.

The feminists started out saying they didn’t mean to diminish motherhood: “That’s all right for some women.” They just didn’t want a woman to be relegated to being “just a wife and mother.” Of course, that was a lie. Motherhood was demeaned, and our whole society was turned upside down (Miss Julie style (1)) in order to accommodate Lady Macbeths such as Betty Friedan and Susan Brownmiller who hated God and all mankind, including female mankind. How can you claim to be for women while you treat femininity as something to be cured by pills, diaphragms, and abortions? “But the feminists have taught us not to abuse women!” Have they? Haven’t the feminists welcomed the Moslem invaders? Have the feminists ever condemned the blacks who rape white women at will? And what society is condemned by the feminists? The pre-20th century white, Christian, patriarchal society, which condemned the rape and abuse of women. Of all the liberal hypocrisies, the feminist hypocrisy is the worst — it stinks to high heaven and plunges the nations who promote it into the deepest pit of hell.

(3) The Equality Hypocrisy

The liberals profess to believe in the equality of all races, yet under the banner of racial equality they have elevated the black race to the status of a deity. Race is not supposed to matter because we are all equal, yet everything a liberal does is determined by race. The white race must be exterminated so the black race can thrive. Anthony Jacobs wrote White Man, Think Again! before the fall of South Africa, so it was to Kenya he turned to as a warning to the European people:

Kenya, we must understand, is a microcosm of the entire West. Therefore let us ask ourselves, What would have been our general White position today if the world had consisted only of Kenya, with no other place for us to go to and no other form of government for us to live under? What then? We, the White race, would already have been obliterated or reduced to everlasting serfdom, would we not? Yet however fanciful it might still seem to the white peoples of the northern American states and occupied Europe, the world today does in the most vital sense consist only of Kenya, for we cannot keep on being racially overruled and uprooted and moved on. Wherever we are now we are in effect in Kenya; for certainly the operations of the anti-White conspiracies, the techniques of the Communists, Liberals and One-Worlders, remain significantly identical whether they be applied in Kenya or Alabama. 

Those words can and should be applied to modern South Africa. All whites of the West are in the same position as the whites in South Africa. The colored barbarians seek our blood. And with the aid of liberal cabals throughout the West they will get their wish, unless the white man repudiates the “all are equal but some are more equal” hypocrisy of the liberals. It’s difficult to know to what extent the white South Africans are fighting back, because news of the white genocide and of white resistance in South Africa is suppressed, but I hope and pray that the rumors of white resistance are true. They are us, they are our people.

(4) The Humane-Compassionate Hypocrisy

I grew up hearing, in school and church, that liberals were compassionate. Their hearts bled for all humanity. ‘Tis not so. I discovered, during a lifetime among them, but hopefully not of them, that the liberals have no compassion for any human being on the face of the earth. You cannot harden yourself against the Light of the World and still retain the humanity that comes from the Light of the World. Individual human beings mean nothing to the liberals because like their mentor, Satan, they hate everything that stinks of humanity. They hate procreative love, they hate the natural ties between parent and child, and they hate all ties a man feels toward his kith and kin, because such ties are human links to the humane God.

Under the guise of compassion for the negro, the liberals have set out to destroy the white race, because mercy and compassion, the divine mercy and compassion, became incarnate in the culture of the white race. The negro must be championed, not because the liberals have any compassion or love for the negro, but because the black race, as an aggregate herd, can be utilized to destroy the white race, which once bore witness to the God whose love and compassion for humanity is a sign of contradiction to the liberals’ hatred of humanity. The compassionate liberals have the same relationship to humanity as the wolf has to the lamb. He needs the lamb in order to feed on him, but he does not have any compassion for the lamb as he devours him.

(5) The Non-Violent Hypocrisy

The liberals abhor violence, yet they are mass murderers. Their model is Robespierre. Before taking office as Le Suprême of France, he was a passionate advocate for the abolition of capital punishment. He remained a passionate opponent of capital punishment after he became head of France. How could he justify such hypocrisy? It was easy. Before there could be a world where capital punishment was unnecessary, evil had to be purged form the world. Robespierre was not allowed to complete his purge before he was purged, but the liberals are still trying to complete his work. “The world must be made safe for democracy,” Woodrow Wilson declared as he plunged his nation into war on the side of the assassins. The Russian communists were always our allies because they believed in purging millions upon millions of people for the sake of an egalitarian ideal, just as we believe in purges for the sake of an egalitarian ideal. All unwanted babies must be killed so we can have a world where all babies are wanted and cared for. All white people must be purged so that the liberals who have transcended whiteness and the natural and noble savages of color can live in peace and harmony on the earth. And that peace and harmony is always in the future; in the here and now there must be bloodletting – a whole lot of bloodletting:

Nothing can be conceived more hard than the heart of a thorough-bred metaphysician. It comes nearer to the cold malignity of a wicked spirit than to the frailty and passion of a man. It is like that of the Principle of Evil himself, incorporeal, pure, unmixed, dephlegmated, defecated evil. It is no easy operation to eradicate humanity from the human breast. What Shakespeare calls the “compunctious visitings of nature” will sometimes knock at their hearts, and protest against their murderous speculations. But they have a means of compounding with their nature. Their humanity is not dissolved : they only give it a long prorogation. They are ready to declare that they do not think two thousand years too long a period for the good that they pursue. It is remarkable that they never see any way to their projected good but by the road of some evil. Their imagination is not fatigued with the contemplation of human suffering through the wild waste of centuries added to centuries of misery and desolation. Their humanity is at their horizon, and, like the horizon, it always flies before them. The geometricians and the chemists bring — the one from the dry bones of their diagrams, and the other from the soot of their furnaces — dispositions that make them worse than indifferent about those feelings and habitudes which are the supports of the moral worldLetters to a Noble Lord by Edmund Burke

The only violence the liberals oppose is violence against their bloodletting reign of terror. The rules of Liberaldom state that violence against the people — and the people are the liberals and their colored minions — is morally reprehensible. Such violence will be met with violence. The reason black murderers go free and Paul Hill was executed is because blacks are the people, while Paul Hill was a non-person striking back against “the people” who were engaged in the business of purging Liberaldom of its unwanted scum. That is the essence of the liberals’ nonviolent heresy. The unclean, the unwanted must be violently dealt with in the name of liberal purity. When the liberals don’t do the purging directly, they do it indirectly like Pope Francis the blasphemer. He, like Robespierre, is against capital punishment for criminals who rape and murder, but he is not against the capital punishment of the European people at the hands of the Moslems and the colored heathen. Nor was the “good” Pope John against the torture, rape and murder of white nuns and priests at the hands of colored barbarians. He was against any violent retaliation against the black barbarians. That is the modified Christian version of the nonviolent, liberal hypocrisy. Which brings us to the sixth liberal hypocrisy.

(6) The Christian Hypocrisy

The liberals use Christianity to serve their needs. When they want to condemn capital punishment for black murderers, they tell us that Christ is against taking human life. When they want to slaughter millions of babies in their mothers’ wombs, they tell us Christ is compassionate and does not want women to suffer through the pangs of an unwanted pregnancy. When they want to support massive colored immigration in the white nations, they cite the parable of the Good Samaritan, but when dealing with the sin of sodomy they shift gears and tell us that St. Paul’s strictures against the sin are no longer valid in an evolving world. No one ever challenges the liberals’ right to invoke Christianity whenever it suits their purpose. But they must be challenged. By what right do the liberals, who do not believe in the Son of God, invoke Christ’s name in support of their satanic blasphemies? And that is the key to all the liberals’ hypocrisies: Their hypocrisies are cloaks for their Pharisaical hatred of the Light of the World. We should not be deceived by the liberal scribes and Pharisees, we should oppose them with our whole heart, mind, and soul. +

(1) “You only talk like that – and besides, my secrets are known to everybody. You see, my mother was not of noble birth, but came of quite plain people. She was brought up in the ideas of her time about equality and woman’s independence, and that kind of thing. And she had a decided aversion to marriage. Therefore, when my father proposed to her, she said she wouldn’t marry him—and then she did it just the same. I came into the world — against my mother’s wish, I have come to think. Then my mother wanted to bring me up in a perfectly natural state, and at the same time I was to learn everything that a boy is taught, so that I might prove that a woman is just as good as a man. I was dressed as a boy, and was taught how to handle a horse, but could have nothing to do with the cows. I had to groom and harness and go hunting on horseback. I was even forced to learn something about agriculture. And all over the estate men were set to do women’s work, and women to do men’s—with the result that everything went to pieces and we became the laughing stock of the whole neighbourhood. “ – Miss Julie by August Strindberg

Posted in black faith, blood faith, democracy, Europeans and Christ, feminism, Jacobinism, Negro worship, Utopianism, White genocide | Tagged , , , ,

In His Name

As to Mr. Mounier and Mr. Lally, I have always wished to do justice to their parts, and their eloquence, and the general purity of their motives. Indeed I saw very well from the beginning, the mischiefs which, with all these talents and good intentions, they would do to their country, through their confidence in systems. – Edmund Burke, A Letter to a Member of the National Assembly

Because he hath set his love upon me, therefore will I deliver him: I will set him on high, because he hath known my name. – Psalm 91: 14

The historian Norman Cantor claimed in his book The Meaning of the Middle Ages that the much maligned Middle Ages gave birth to the modern age. On the face of it, Cantor’s assertion seems preposterous. How can the Middle Ages, the age of monarchy, superstition, and irrationality be compared to our modern age of democracy, science, and reason? But Cantor’s point is a valid one. It was the Middle Ages that gave birth to scholasticism, which is the poison that killed the European people. Men cannot live by reason alone. When they try, they end up putting their faith in a manmade system, and they sever their connection to the living God who is the source of all true knowledge.

The devil is a coward; he refused to meet the European people in open combat. Instead he went through the back door of the church and placed a wedge between God and mankind by telling men that they could only know God through mind-forged systems. The great appeal of this approach to religious truth is that it eliminated the irrational and problematic intricacies of the human heart. To put it bluntly – human beings are messy. They have all sorts of illicit passions that can foul up the perfect systems of the rationalists. In his novel The Underground Man Dostoyevsky’s protagonist asks his liberal audience what would happen if they built their perfect glass palace and he decides to smash it just because he wants to smash it. Precisely. And then there is the excellent point made by Owl in (the real) Walt Disney’s Winnie the Pooh. The gopher thinks he can solve the problem of Winnie the Pooh, stuck in the doorway of Rabbit’s house, if someone will just remove the bear. “Got to get rid of the bear, he is gumming up the whole works!” Owl replies, “Dash it all, the bear is the problem!” When we look to systems, even when those systems are systems about God, we lose God and we lose man.

Richard Weaver, in his Visions of Order, defends the state in the trial of Socrates, who was charged with undermining the Athenian society through his attacks on the gods. This defense of the state goes against the modern belief that Socrates was a martyr for the truth. Who was closer to the truth? The pagan Greeks did not know the one true God, but their reverence for Zeus and other divine-human gods indicated a racial memory of the one true God. What could Socrates offer as a replacement? He offered abstract reason, which leaves a man alone with himself contemplating the nothingness of existence. Melville tells us, in The Confidence Man, that the love of God and the love of man are co-ordinate:

“I do not jumble them; they are co-ordinates. For misanthropy, springing from the same root with disbelief of religion, is twin with that. It springs from the same root, I say; for, set aside materialism and what is an atheist, but one who does not, or will not, see in the universe a ruling principle of love; and what a misanthrope, but one who does not, or will not, see in man a ruling principle of kindness?”

“Yes, all that may be true,” the reasoning man replies, “A lack of faith in Divine Providence leads to a lack of faith in man, but if our reason tells us that we cannot know with certainty that there is a loving God at the center of existence, hadn’t we better rely on some rational system instead of the irrational faith of men who believe in a mythic God?” We can’t respond to the rationalist with the five scholastic proofs for the existence of God, because those proofs are only valid for false gods. They are not valid proofs for the existence of the one true God. But we can tell the rationalist there is a way we can know God. We can eschew the purely rational ‘two plus two equals four’ logic and proceed on a journey through the labyrinth of the human heart. The scholastics placed a ‘do not enter’ sign at the entrance way of the human heart, which read, like Dante’s sign at the beginning of hell, “Abandon all hope ye who enter here.” But isn’t that our only hope? If Christ is truly the Son of God, where can He be found if not in the human heart? This is what the race war is all about. The liberals have decreed that the Europeans must have no hearts, they must be committed to a scientific, utopian world based on abstract reason. That world can only stand so long as the Europeans remain outside of themselves, outside of their own history and their own hearth fire. They must be devoid of all humanity lest they fall prey, from the liberals’ satanic viewpoint, to the siren call of the God who comes to human hearts.

Every institution throughout the European nations has been set up to encourage the colored heathens to heed the call of the blood and to encourage the Europeans to repudiate the call of the blood. And isn’t it obvious why the liberals have institutionalized the deblooding of the European people? Left to reason alone, they are only partially human. The worst of the whites have become rationalized beasts of prey; they have become liberals. And the best have become moderate Christians, who cannot be used in defense of the right, because they have no heartfelt passions, but who can be used as an undergirding for the wickedness of the liberals. Satan can use moderate, rational Christians for whatever purpose he wants, because moderate Christians, the Christians without a racial hearth fire where a love for their kith and kin is nurtured, have only one issue – the one issue they are permitted – they must sing continual hymns and anthems to diversity and diversity’s god, the sacred negro. The man of passion loves once and forever. The moderate Christian loves moderately so long as it is reasonable to do so. It is no longer reasonable to love the God-Man in and through our own people, because such a love sets a man against the principalities and powers of the world. So now we are enjoined to love first the negro, and all other things of the liberal world will be added unto us.

The things of this world are carrots on the stick the liberals hold out to us. We have only to declare, like Caiaphas, that the Lord God is a product of a man-made system designed to keep order in a rationalized pagan world. But will whites ever be allowed to be part of that system? No, they won’t. Burke, in his Further Reflections on the Revolution in France, makes reference to two French statesmen, Mounier and Lally, who thought there could be a kinder, gentler system of Jacobinism. Both men ended up fleeing France. The white Europeans will not be so lucky. There is no longer any place to run to. The great utopia has arrived, but there is no place for whites in the brave new world. Why should we desire a place in that world? We can hear our Lord asking, “What good does it do to gain the whole world if a man loseth his soul?”

In the novels of Joseph Conrad we can see the beginning of the European people’s transfer from a culture founded on the love of the God-Man to a utopian-based culture in which the white man lives on a few platitudes based on the theories of God. Such a man has lost himself and must wander about the world trying to lap up the blood of the pagans of color in order to feel alive again. The nobler whites in Conrad’s novels still try to be white. They try to live up to the European honor code, despite the fact that they can no longer trace the code back to its source. Tom Lingard, in Conrad’s The Rescue, is such a man. “I am a white man inside and out; I won’t let inoffensive people – and a woman, too – come to harm if I can help it.” Lingard has that which we have lost, “that charity of honor,” which was the sole possession of the people who made the ethos of 1st Corinthians 13 their raison d’être. The transition-stage novels of Conrad make for very painful reading. When I read them in my youth I was drawn to the Tom Lingard and Lord Jim type heroes, but I longed for just one of those heroes to trace the white man’s honor code to its source. They never did, and therein lies the tragedy of Western man. Without a human connection to the God-Man, our honor has faded away into the dark night of liberalism where there is no honor, no love, and no light. We have returned, through the good offices of the scholastics who deified reason divorced from the human heart, to heathenism.

The result of Hardy’s management was that Tom made a clean breast of it, telling everything, down to his night at the ragged school, and what an effect his chance opening of the Apology had had on him. Here for the first time Hardy came in with his usual dry, keen voice, “You needn’t have gone so far back as Plato for that lesson.”

“I don’t understand,” said Tom.

“Well, there’s something about an indwelling spirit which guideth every man, in St. Paul, isn’t there?”

“Yes, a great deal,” Tom answered, after a pause; “but it isn’t the same thing.”

“Why not the same thing?”

“Oh, surely, you must feel it. It would be almost blasphemy in us now to talk as St. Paul talked. It is much easier to face the notion, or the fact, of a demon or spirit such as Socrates felt to be in him, than to face what St. Paul seems to be meaning.”

“Yes, much easier. The only question is whether we will be heathen or not.”

“How do you mean?” said Tom.

“Why, a spirit was speaking to Socrates, and guiding him. He obeyed the guidance, but knew not whence it came. A spirit is striving with us too, and trying to guide us–we feel that just as much as he did. Do we know what spirit it is? Whence it comes? Will we obey it? If we can’t name it–we are in no better position than he–in fact, heathens.”

Tom Brown at Oxford

The only question left in the minds of the Europeans is whether they will become Socratic heathens, like the conservative liberals, or whether they will become negro-worshipping heathens, like the mad-dog liberals. The mad-dog liberals currently have the upper hand, and they are not likely to lose it, because liberalism is an ever-evolving, all-devouring succubus; it will not stop and reverse its forward progress. Trump is a small pebble in the path of the liberal succubus that the liberals eventually will rid themselves of. But even if we could return to Socratic liberalism, the liberalism of reasonable debate and discussions, would that be desirable? It certainly would be preferable to mad-dog liberalism, but that type of liberalism is still poison to the European’s soul. We were not born to discuss and debate God’s existence, we were born to champion the Savior against all the heathen world.

After our Lord healed the ten lepers and bid them go tell the priests, one leper returned to give thanks. Christ praises the man for returning to give thanks. Then the Pharisees demand to know when the kingdom of God will come. Christ tells them, “The Kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! Or, lo there! for, behold, the Kingdom of God is within you.” If God has not placed something of Himself within us, why does Christ tell us that the Kingdom of God is within us? The liberals have taken one aspect of Aquinas, his deification of human reason, and one aspect of John Calvin, his insistence on the total depravity of man, and forged a soulless heathenism out of those two perversions of Christianity. In Liberaldom, all white men are totally depraved except the godded white men, the liberals who have used their exalted reason to transcend their whiteness. So long as they stay elevated, above the totally depraved racist whites, they will find salvation through their mind-forged vision of the sacred negro.

Chandler was right about the hero: “Down these mean streets a man must go, who is not himself mean, who is neither tarnished nor afraid.” But in whose name does the hero go forth? The mean streets are the streets of Liberaldom. And we go forth in His name to restore His reign of charity in a world that has no place for charity. Liberalism has not reduced human suffering, it has increased it one-thousand fold, because now the Europeans suffer without the comfort of the Savior. The old fairy tales are right: We can only venture forth, like the Third Dumb Brother, and trust that a passionate love for our people and our Savior can defeat the satanic liberals’ system that holds our people in bondage. +

Posted in blood faith, Charity, fairy tale of European civilization, post-Christian rationalism, rationalism | Tagged , , ,

Most Barbarous, Most Degenerate Liberalism!

It will come
Humanity must perforce prey on itself
Like monsters of the deep.

-King Lear

We state the obvious when we say that the liberals’ feigned outrage over Trump’s meeting with Putin is simply another manifestation of their hatred of Trump. But this clash between Trump and the liberals is not a clash of opposing ideologies, it is internecine warfare. Mad-dog liberalism is the malevolent offspring of classical liberalism. The mad-dog liberals view Trump, the classical liberal, as the parent who is trying to take them back to the bad old days when they had to ask for the car keys and return home by a specified time. Such restraints are unbearable, — they must have no restraints. And since they are malevolent offspring, they will stop at nothing, not even murder, in order to avoid any restraints on their appetites.

The reason Trump feels closer to leaders such as Putin and Orbán is that those leaders represent nations much higher up on the slippery slope of liberalism. Those nations will descend into mad-dog liberalism if they do not reject democracy, but they are currently at the first stage of the democratic cancer, the stage when the inner ugliness cannot be seen by the outward eye. Our society, which is in the final stage, can be seen in all its inner ugliness; there is no longer a healthy looking outward veneer.

It must be said of Trump that he is a better man than all his Republican predecessors. He has kept his word on the abortion issue, and he is trying to keep his word on open borders. But the liberals needn’t worry – you can’t return to classical liberalism once you have made the descent into mad-dog liberalism. Our entire culture is one vast indoctrination network for mad-dog liberalism. The mad-dog liberals control the schools, the churches, and the media. How can anything good, by which I mean Christian, come to fruition in such a culture? Nothing good will come out of any culture conceived and born of liberalism. It is not only mad-dog liberalism that we must oppose, we must also reject classical liberalism despite the fact that classical liberalism seems benign, just as cancer in its early stages seems benign, because classical liberalism leads to mad-dog liberalism.

The people of Europe have never come to terms with liberalism, which was revealed in its purest form during the French Revolution. The mad-dog liberals such as Priestly, Price, and later, men like Belloc, accepted and lauded the French Revolution in its most horrific manifestation under Robespierre. The classical liberals rejected Robespierres’ Jacobinism for a modified Jacobinism, a liberal mixture of the old world and the new utopian world. But there can be no compromise with liberalism. It is a devouring, reptilian monster that must prey on humanity like a monster from the deep. And it will devour even its own children. Robespierre devoured his fellow Jacobins, just as the modern European Jacobins are devouring each other.

Even great Christ-haters like Voltaire and Shaw understood that you could not discuss any important issue having to do with the European people without reference to Christianity. Albeit the likes of Shaw and Voltaire knew Christianity had to be discussed in order to purge it from the face of the earth, but they did know it had to be dealt with. Tis not so with the modern Europeans. Even professed Christians act like everything of importance can be handled without reference to Christianity. This cannot be – we are all born of Christian Europe. All the good that is left in modern Europe, and there is very little good left, comes from Christian Europe. And all that is bad in modern Europe, which is practically everything, stems from the European peoples’ acceptance of a false Christianity opposed to European Christianity.

In Miracle on 34th Street, Fred Gailey, the intrepid, kind-hearted defender of Kris Kringle, states that he intends to prove that Kris Kringle is the one and only Santa Claus. He succeeds against all odds, because it turns out that Kris Kringle is indeed the one and only Santa Claus. It is my contention, and shall always be my contention, that at the poetical core of the European people is the one, true God, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. I cannot present mathematical proof of my contention, but I do not regard mathematical proof as genuine proof in spiritual matters. I ask you to look through, not with, the eye and see life as the physically blind, but not morally blind Gloucester sees life: “I see it feelingly.” All great hearts can see the European silken thread that leads to the Savior. But we must have the desire to follow that thread to its source, rejecting all other false threads that lead us astray.

I would use the term ‘mystical’ to describe the European thread that leads to Christ, but the term ‘mystical’ has been mightily abused. It has been and still is used to describe rational systems of thought stemming from the minds of Buddhist monks and Christian theologians. So let me substitute the term ‘poetic’ for ‘mystical’. Once having cleared that hurdle, we can proceed with the defense of European Christianity.

The demise of the European people has come about because theological Christianity, which always was a fierce rival of poetical Christianity, has completely routed poetical Christianity. Martha, who “was careful and troubled about many things,” was not gently rebuked because she was doing kitchen work, she was rebuked because she had lost sight of what all work, including kitchen work, was for. The theological man, the man tinctured with the pride of science, puts God in a box, ‘out there’ – He is a geometrical given – and then proceeds to get down to business. But if God is not in human hearts, if we cannot know Him through that organ, which St. Paul and the European poets insist is the organ of sight, then how can we know our business? How can we know the living God? Suppose a child is brought up in a home in which the mother and father separated at the child’s birth, and the mother has custody of the child while the father has no visitation rights. What will be the child’s conception of the father? It might be a good one if the mother chooses to portray the father in a good light, but it is more than likely the mother will portray the father in a bad light. But good or bad, the child’s conception of the father will be only an intellectual construct. He will not have any intimate, heart-to-heart contact with his father. That is what we get when we embrace theological Christianity. We have no contact with the heart of God, we only know Him through an intellectual process, which may lead us to think kindly of God, as the classical liberals do, or it may lead us to hate God, as the mad-dog liberals do, but in both forms of liberalism there is no contact with the living God, the God who enters human hearts.

The first liberal was the devil; he successfully got Adam and Eve to break their ties to a loving, personal God in order to establish a business relationship with an impersonal, natural force that was above and beyond God. They believed in Albert Einstein’s cosmic religion billions of years before the great Einstein ‘discovered’ it. Christ delivered us from the bondage of the devil’s cosmic religion through His death on the cross, but the price of our deliverance was and is that we take up our cross and follow Christ. St. Paul stresses that we must share in Christ’s crucifixion if we are to share in His resurrection. And that Pauline assertion, that the fruits of Christ’s resurrection can only be gained by sharing in His crucifixion, was the weapon Satan used to bring the Europeans back to a cosmic nature religion, which places them in the devil’s fold.

Through the medium of theology, the devil got the European people back to nature and to nature’s gods. He used the medium of theology at the beginning of his attack, because he saw that a frontal attack was hopeless. If we look at the work of St. Thomas Aquinas, for instance, we do not see a denial of the Christian God. Far from it, we see an intellectual affirmation of the triune God. But is that God the same God the apostles encountered on the road to Emmaus, the God who made their hearts burn within them? Is it the same God that St. Paul encountered on the road to Damascus? No, it is not. Aquinas placed God outside of man; He was to be found by reason’s contemplation of the natural world. Aquinas is generally considered the optimist and Calvin the pessimist, because Calvin insisted on the doctrine of total depravity while Aquinas claimed that our reason was untainted by original sin. But what both theologians have in common is that they rejected the poetic core of the Christian faith. St. Paul insisted that there was an indwelling spirit in the human heart through which a man could develop an intimacy with Christ. And that intimacy was not an ecstatic union with a pagan deity, it was a moral union of hearts. The European people followed St. Paul’s injunction to circumcise their hearts, and by doing so they joined their hearts to His sacred heart. This was the miracle of European culture, that the European people responded to God’s grace. Only a Christian who thinks dogmatic theology and religious faith are one and the same would allow the external history of the European people – their wars, their lusts, and their quests for the treasures of this world only – to blind him to the incredible moral beauty of Christian Europe. Why is Christian Europe and her people judged by her trash bins and not by her poetic essence?

The European bards such as Shakespeare, Scott, and Dickens, are one with the apostles in their vision of the European inn at Emmaus. It is there that our hearts burn within us in the presence of the risen Lord. And even the atheist poets, the Byrons and the Shelleys, knew who the enemy of their beloved cosmic religion was. It was the men and women with hearts of flesh who rejected the gods of nature for the God above nature.

The wheel has come full circle; the European people have returned to nature and nature’s gods. They could not live with a rational God who disdained to enter human hearts, the God of the rationalist theologians and the classical liberals. It is not possible to defeat the mad-dog liberals by referring to classical liberalism: “Let me show you how irrational your policies are.” That doesn’t work. The mad-dog liberals are being rational – they use their reason to destroy what they hate, white Christian Europe. The Tucker Carlsons and the Paul Joseph Watsons, the classical liberals, can point out the hypocrisy and irrationality of the liberals from now to doomsday, but they will never deflect the mad-dog liberals from their maniacal assault on the white race. Nor will the white grazers ever pick up the mantle of white Christian Europe and fight for England, Harry, and St. George. They will continue to appease the mad-dog liberals by declaring, from under their beds, that they are not racist. Is that the sum total of the white man’s existence in the 21st century? Yes, it is. Does it have to be? No, it doesn’t. There is that poetical-mystical connection to God that St. Paul writes about in 1 Corinthians 13. If our apostle, St. Paul, was right then we can reconnect with the living God through white pietas. And once that reconnection is made, Europe will become Europe again and her people will no longer plead for a small corner in Liberaldom. They will demand that Christ be reinstated as the King of the European people. Certainly, it is not written that the European people will return to the poetic-mystic faith of St. Paul. But it is not written that they won’t. Christian Europe was a miracle of God’s grace; it serves as a sign of contradiction to those who tell us that God does not enter human hearts. He can and He will come to us, if we come to Him with hearts of flesh warmed and nurtured at our racial hearth fire. +

Posted in democracy, liberals are the true haters, post-Christian rationalism, rationalism | Tagged

The Young Drummer and the Good Samaritan

Yet this in no wise alters the fact that those who form no more than a part of a universal mish-mash, of a homeless multitude of faceless ‘un-men’, will never have any pride of place or sense of belonging, nor will ever know the Christian virtues of charity and love. Love like charity not only begins at home but perishes without one. 

-Anthony Jacob in White Man, Think Again!

On the instant stood revealed, as though he had blown down the ages, a pure Goth, unchanged in any essential since his fathers had left their forests, and through all obstacles, even through ranks of Roman legionaries, sword in hand, had hewn their way straight to the goal of their desires. He was a Goth in all his appetites and habits, a Goth unchanged, unfettered. True to his instincts, true to his traditions, fearing nothing, loving only his own, loving and hating with all his heart—a Goth.

-Thomas Nelson Page in Under the Crust

Pope Francis the blasphemer has been up to his usual hijinks again. This time he has blasphemed by invoking the parable of the Good Samaritan in order to attack white pietas. He tells us that the Good Samaritan “did not ask for documents” before helping the man who had been beaten by thieves. Of course he is placing the Moslems and colored invaders in the position of the “certain man” who was beaten and robbed on the way to Jerusalem. And he is placing white people in the position of the priest and the Levite who “passed by on the other side.”

I think it is best, from a prudential standpoint, to confine your intense hatreds to men and/or women who are already dead. That way you stay out of jail, because it’s not illegal to strangle, in your imagination, an enemy who is already dead. And for many years I have hated dead men more than any living man. At the top of my list is George Bernard Shaw. He will probably always be at the top of my list, but in recent years two rivals for the top spot have appeared. One is Angela Merkel and the other is Pope Francis the blasphemer. I’m sure there are others, a legion of others, who share the same views as the Merkel Monster and Francis the blasphemer, but those two have used their positions of authority to attack the living God by destroying His image in man. And I hate them for it, with all my heart, mind, and soul. Let me now turn these blog pages over to the Young Drummer from Grimm’s fairy tales. What follows is an interview he did this week with the Good Samaritan.


Young Drummer: Your name has been invoked a lot lately, invoked as a justification for what I consider to be vicious attacks on the body of Christ. What do you think of the people who have invoked your name for liberal causes?

Good Samaritan: I hate them. Attacks on the dead, and these people who willfully distort my story for their own selfish ends are attacking me, are usually successful because the dead are not there to defend themselves.

YD: I’m here to allow you to defend yourself.

GS: I thank you. When our Lord told my story, He was responding to a lawyer who “tempted Him.” The lawyer wanted to know what he had to do to inherit eternal life. Of course we realize that the lawyer really didn’t think Christ could teach him, a lawyer, anything. After all, Christ was merely a carpenter’s son, and the lawyer was a doctor of the law. But Christ responded to the lawyer for the sake of others who were listening. Let me quote the whole sequence of events:

And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live. But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbor?

What ensues next is my story. I needn’t quote it again; I’m sure all your readers are familiar with it.

YD: That’s not always true in this, the 21st century. So let me tell your story:

And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side. But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him, And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee. Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves? And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.

GS: Now that the stage is set, let me quote from the great Bard of Avon:

Mark you this, Bassanio,
The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.
An evil soul producing holy witness
Is like a villain with a smiling cheek,
A goodly apple rotten at the heart.
O, what a goodly outside falsehood hath!

In my judgement Francis the blasphemer is quoting Holy Scripture in order to facilitate the reign of Satan and destroy Christ’s reign of charity. Let me explain. First, our Lord was telling us, through my story, that our neighbor is our fellow man. We are not to extend charity exclusively to those who live next door to us or exclusively to our kin. But where in the parable does our Lord tell us to invite strangers into our homes and our nations, strangers who have demonstrated murderous and licentious appetites, in order to prey upon our wives, our children, and our people?

Secondly, I did not take the stranger who was beaten on the road into my home. I took him to an inn. I had no reason to believe that the stranger on the road was a rapist or a murder. Had I thought he was, I would have turned him over to the law, I would not have taken him to an inn. The so-called men of God who give sanctuary to Moslem, Mexican, and black criminals are defending the robbers who assaulted the traveler on the road, which is the complete opposite of what I did. The white people being beaten, raped, and murdered by Merkel’s and Pope Francis’s noble savages are the travelers on the road who need someone to show charity toward them. Merkel the Levite and Francis the Priest “have passed by on the other side” in order to cozy up to the Prince of Darkness by helping his minions destroy the white race.

YD: The devil’s assault on our Lord has centered on the destruction of the European hearth fire, because it was there that the European people came to love Him in and through their own people.

GS: Precisely. “Love, like charity, begins at home, but perishes without one.” I only extended charity to the traveler on the road because I learned charity at home, amongst my kith and kin. If I had no kith and kin, if my heart were dead to all feelings of filial devotion and love of my own people, then I would have killed the stranger on the road.

YD: Amen to that. This constant assault on white pietas can only lead all mankind to the fiery pit.

GS: That’s right. But there is another reality that neither Angela Merkel nor Pope Francis know of. There is the reality of the Christian European hearth fire. It is there that hearts of flesh encounter the same Lord and Savior that the apostles encountered on the Road to Emmaus. Christ will always be with us so long as we stay by our European hearth fire.

YD: God keep you, my Good Samaritan friend.

GS: And God keep you.

Post Script from the Young Drummer:

I do not look on modern Europe from an Olympian height, because I am not an Olympian. I am born of Europe; when Europe bleeds, I bleed. And Europe is bleeding now, because the European people have lost their prophetic vision that came to them when they made Christ Jesus the sovereign King of Europe. Now, when Christ has been placed in a Gnostic box outside of Europe, when He no longer occupies a place at the Europeans’ hearth fire, the European people have become mere recorders that can be played upon by Satan. The European people desperately need to reclaim their souls by reconnecting with my Europe, which is the Europe of faith, hope, and charity. It is not given to me to know the day and hour of His return. But He has given me a vision of a love that passeth the understanding of the rational mind. That vision is the sacred heritage of the European people. They have forsaken that heritage. Why? “Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more” until Liberaldom is dust.


The two entities, the eternal Europe of the Young Drummer, and the Gospel of Christ in which we learn of the Good Samaritan, became one incorporate union during the Christian era of the European people’s history. It was the task of the secular utopians, such as Robespierre, Marx, Trotsky, and Jefferson, to destroy that incorporate union in the name of a glorious new future for mankind, devoid of the evils and imperfections of Christian Europe. And it was the task of Christian utopians such as Hilaire Belloc, Teilhard de Chardin, and Pope Francis to join with the liberals in the destruction of Christian Europe. And what does the new Europe, purged of the imperfections of the antique Europeans, look like? It looks like hell. We no longer see men and women trying to unite their passion to His passion. Instead we see men and women who have nothing inside them but a passionate hatred for their own people and a passionate hatred for the Christ of old Europe.

If Christ be not risen then we most certainly should not make Him the cornerstone of our civilization. But if Christ rose from the dead on the third day, shouldn’t we, in all the essentials, want to follow Him in the footsteps of the people who believed in the risen Lord? The liberals have built Liberaldom on the premise that Christ did not rise from the dead, that He was a fraud. We are facing a spiritual Rubicon. Either we stay on the European side of the river with the Europeans from long ago, or we must cross over to the liberals’ side of the river with Angela Merkel and Pope Francis and denounce our ‘racist’ ancestors, while doing penance for our irredeemable whiteness.

The great majority of Europeans are trying to survive the liberals’ onslaught on the white race by denouncing the antique Europeans and agreeing to do penance for the sin of whiteness. Witness all the ‘white privilege’ courses that are being taught at the European and American universities. But if the passion of men united to Christ through white pietas is replaced by the ‘wisdom’ of philosophers determined to build a utopian world based on the doctrine that everything from white Christian Europe was evil and everything opposed to white Christian Europe is good, then the European people will cease to exist, because we cannot live without the vision that they, the condemned and despised antique Europeans, bequeathed to us. Noble hearts do not forget their dead, especially when their honored dead left them with a memory more precious than gold. “If I forget thee, O Jerusalem” is how we must feel about Christian Europe. We shall keep the memory alive because He lives there, He does not dwell in Liberaldom.

For me, the whole conflict between the Young Drummer-Good Samaritan world and the Angela Merkel-Pope Francis world is summed up in Luke:

While he yet spake, there cometh one from the ruler of the synagogue’s house, saying to him, Thy daughter is dead; trouble not the Master. But when Jesus heard it, he answered him, saying, Fear not: believe only, and she shall be made whole. And when he came into the house, he suffered no man to go in, save Peter, and James, and John, and the father and the mother of the maiden. And all wept, and bewailed her: but he said, Weep not; she is not dead, but sleepeth. And they laughed him to scorn, knowing that she was dead. And he put them all out, and took her by the hand, and called, saying, Maid, arise. And her spirit came again, and she arose straightway: and he commanded to give her meat. And her parents were astonished: but he charged them that they should tell no man what was done.

The key passage is, “And they laughed him to scorn, knowing that she was dead.” The Rousseaus, the Voltaires, the Shaws, the Einsteins, and all the anti-European legion of European intellectuals who worship science and the noble savage treat Christ with scorn. “The dead do not rise,” is their constant refrain. And the Merkels and the Pope Francises have joined the mockers rather than take a stand with the ‘racist’ Europeans. As for me and my house, we will stand with the antique Europeans who did not mock Christ. They believed that Christ delivered Jairus’s daughter from the bonds of death just as He will deliver us from death at the appointed time. How can any European ever, having been vouchsafed a vision of the living God, settle for the liberals’ ‘potage-of-lentils’ culture of diversity? We can’t and we won’t. +

Posted in antique Christianity, Europeans and Christ, pietas | Tagged , ,