Love, Hate & Europe for the Europeans

For the West to survive and thrive, we must have a profound, ethnical and 'loving' vision of the future, one that by its very nature challenges liberal orthodoxy

---

One of the key reasons I started the Richard The Fourth Channel was because I was tired of seeing figures on both the left and right characterising my views as being rooted in some unconscious, atavistic hatred.

We all know the line from the left: ‘The reason you’re anti-immigration is because you’re a racist!’

Yet many—but far from all—on the right would play right into the hands of such accusations by being overtly crass, dropping ethnic slurs, and even making claims of innate superiority to ‘own the libs’.

While some do this to be ‘edgelords’, in my view, this hugely backfires as it’s all too easy for manipulative mainstream media to present the views of those outside of its bubble as ‘hateful’ denizens of a toxic, bygone worldview. The knock-on effect is that many reasonable and rational people who’d otherwise agree with non-liberal perspectives get spooked and return to the illusions of right-on Toryism.

Stating this on the main channel occasionally gets me some heat in the comments. I dare say this is because commenters are cautious that I’m engaging in ‘civic-nationalist containment’. However, having made my views on nationalism clear before, I don’t tend to think in these terms. Instead, I’m working to understand a just model of the world outside of the frame of globalist liberalism.

What is Hate?

I am, admittedly, far from a mainstream Christian (my views tend to be more esoteric). Yet—and this is probably due to instances of spiritual experience—I genuinely bear no innate animosity toward differing human populations. If I did I would see it as an utmost spiritual duty to deal with immediately, as any animosity or resentment tends to be nourishment for the ego to feast on. If I’m acting from this state of consciousness, I’ll get lost in dark emotions, fall for untruths, and most worryingly, pour gasoline onto the fire of worldly enmity. All of this leads to a path of hatred that’ll see nothing but the world (and yourself) burn.

This is why I’m promoting the 7 Steps—to deal with the challenges of today, we must be cleansed within and deeply rooted, if we’re not we’ll just do more damage.

This language isn’t popular with the more militant-minded, it speaks to ‘weakness’. On the contrary, I believe it to be the key to a better tomorrow, and I hope to explain how so in this very piece.

What is Love?

Many on the ‘right’ don’t feel comfortable with the word love, and I understand why. We think of love in modernist, material terms.

Generally, we use the term to describe a romantic or sexual relationship. While there can be dimensions of love in such relationships, what most folks are referring to is lust, which is more addiction than transcendent experience, and tends to leave ‘lovers’ in tears rather than bliss.

We may also hear about love through a leftist frame: ‘tolerance, inclusion, love’, that sort of thing. This is one step closer, yet as tends to be the way these days, this is aligning love with compassion—the yin, feminine dimension of love—and divorcing it from its yang, masculine pole of justice.

If you split love up in this manner and deny the masculine, you’ll disturb the fine precarious balance that keeps society stable and suffer an overflow of yin. This is what we’ve experienced with the excesses of progressivism and ‘woke’ as the West has turned towards what I term ‘toxic empathy’, but is more commonly known as suicidal empathy, or pathological altruism.

So, love, properly understood, speaks to balance, order, justice, compassion, beauty, freedom and truth all rolled into one. But where do we access such transcendence? The religious answer is in God. But what does that mean for the modern mind?

In modern language, it means the reality beyond the ego, the bias of the human mind, and the ties to the world (of matter). In the mystical understanding, this is the Kingdom of Heaven we hear of in the New Testament, or what the Buddhists refer to as ‘Nirvana’. An absolute state of pure experience freed from the limitations of form, at one with all that is.

Why Does This Matter?

While it may seem I’m going off on a woo-woo tangent, this understanding is vital in grasping how our modern world is structured. It is an implicit view of many on the left that those of us who wish for Europe to remain European, who are wary of mass immigration and all manner of alien cultures, are trapped in an ego state, an underdeveloped form of consciousness that renders us incapable of seeing the ‘other’ as our ‘brother’.

This is the real driving force behind the dominance of liberalism. Westerners are afraid that challenging liberalism amounts to some form of vicious and unenlightened ‘hatred’. This, in my view, is felt more on an instinctive than an intellectual level, and given we’ve lost our spiritual tradition, we have no fortitude to counter it.

Yet if we can break free of this conditioning, we can see quite quickly that we can embrace a loving, peaceful worldview that’s essential for the well-being of your soul while opposing the excesses of liberalism. You can see this in practice here as the Dalai Lama tells a British-Indian BBC journalist that ‘Europe belongs to the Europeans’, that Europe has ‘taken too many refugees’ and that ‘they [the refugees] are better off in their land’ (my emphasis).

The journalist, with her mind imbued with the ideology of Western liberalism, is stunned by the Dalai Lama’s remarks. ‘How could a spiritual man say such things?’ we can almost hear her thinking.

What we’re seeing here is very simple. A spiritual master who’s not been indoctrinated by Western liberal idealism thinking about the world logically. No hate. No madness. No violence. Just logic.

Our feminine conception of love in the West means that we must always seek to be welcoming, tolerant, passive. However, ironically enough, because this is rooted in a deep imbalance of the Yin and Yang, it will create huge enmity until the balance is restored.

I saw a case of this recently in the US, while Donald Trump’s striving to restore order in his beleaguered nation, a ‘human rights’ lawyer is complaining that illegal migrants (who are predominantly violent gang members) are not being remigrated without ‘due course’. This is perfect symbology of why the West is in massive decline. Even kicking out illegals causes a stir with the feminine ‘love’ that’s running riot.

Correct Order

Now, this is all part of the decline side of the cycle we’re in. An inevitability that must be endured so rationality can be reborn. But what would the correct order look like hypothetically? To my mind, it involves a hierarchical structure and a shift in how we understand ourselves.

At root, we are one in the Spirit, sons of God. We are all equal in this regard, no matter our ethnic and cultural background, because it is in God whom we have our being. This provides the foundation for peaceful, wise decision-making, yet also acts as a safety valve against the identifications the ego revels in.

Next, we realise that differing groups manifest in unique ways. While every group and culture has sacred foundations, we express and experience this uniquely due to our differing histories, traits and social norms.

I first noticed such realities when travelling to France for the first time post-university. At this time in my life, I didn’t fit in with mainstream British culture and was reading the French existentialists in a bid to find direction. This led me to assume I had an affinity with France, even that I could be more French than English. However, upon arriving in Paris, I quickly realised I was not French. They were all nice enough, but they were loud, loquacious, Latin. There were clear distinctions between them and me and I could not hide from them.

Now, if this is my experience with a neighbouring country that shares the same religion (at least sort of) and even ethnic biomarkers, what happens when you extrapolate this to the modern mass migration and multicultural societies we have today? To my mind, this is why modern society feels more unsafe and more uncertain. People of a shared background, with a shared historic culture, tend to create more orderly societies. This is something even black progressives are happy to acknowledge when the defences are down.

Conclusion

What this points to is that the differing groups of the world each have unique cultures and ways of being that are unique to them. Ergo, it is in the interest of global stability and order that each group has the right to pursue its destiny.

Of course, this doesn’t mean that cultural and economic exchange should not be welcomed, nor does it mean a country needs to maintain a 100% ethnic purity policy. Migration, new influences and new cultural vitality are all part of the development of civilisations—yet this happens slowly over time. We must allow people and societies to build together in mutually beneficial ways without upsetting the fine balance of a pre-existing culture. We’ve seen this happen in practice throughout English history with the mixing of Anglo-Saxons, Normans and even the Irish into a shared modern identity.

What we have today with massive movements of people will only serve to undermine host cultures and this will eventually fall into enmity. Most are blocked from seeing this because of the propaganda (which is a blend of leftist ideology and the wants of the global market) and the aforementioned detachment from the vital spiritual principles that would offer them the moral confidence to challenge liberalist dogma. So, in essence, we can be ‘of love’ and maintain a worldview that promotes (imperfect) homogeneity. We can learn from, respect and trade with all manner of people, yet understand that cultural exclusivity is what keeps balance, peace, and ironically enough, diversity, in the world.