Prisoners of the Dialectic

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. -- Psalm 14:1

I made the mistake the other day of turning on the car radio. I must have turned on some “religious” station because there was a Catholic priest on the show talking about salvation outside the Catholic Church. His unsweet song was that in the bad old days, before the Second Vatican Council, the Church hated Jews and Protestants and claimed they were all going to hell. Now, the great man intoned, the Church saw there were many roads to God and we were all beautiful in our own way.

The priest was somewhat in error by saying that before the Council the no-salvation-outside-the-Church belief was the teaching of the Church. After all, it was Pius XII who excommunicated Father Feeney. But the radio priest was essentially correct, for if not absolute in theory, the Church was absolute in practice – meaning that the great unwashed thought, and were encouraged by the clergy to think, that there was no salvation outside the Catholic Church. So I don’t want to quarrel with the radio priest over his analysis, which was essentially correct.

The dialectic that the Feeneyite cannot overcome is this: “The Church was set up by Christ for our salvation; therefore, ipso facto, no one outside the Church can be saved.” But the dialectic is a false mode of thinking invented by Satan to deceive intellectual pygmies like us, pygmies at least in comparison to Satan.

The poetic mode, whether we ever write poetry or not, is the mode in which humans are called to respond to existence. Vatican II did not bring about the proper doctrine on “No salvation outside the Church.” Those Christians who operated in the non-dialectic sphere of existence always knew it. Take a novel like Ivanhoe for instance, written long before Vatican II. In the novel, Scott draws a perfectly believable portrait of a saintly Jewish woman, while at the same time making it clear that she is in error. Ivanhoe, being a true knight and therefore possessing a poetic sense of life, is able to fight valiantly for Rebecca without compromising his own Christian faith. In fact he fights valiantly for her because of his Christian Faith. This is impossible to understand if one views life as a dialectic, but quite understandable if one sees life in a poetic light. And I must stress that the poetic, or the mystical, if you prefer, response to existence has nothing to do with one’s ability to write poetry, it has to do with the state of one’s soul. A person could have a great gift to write poetry but have a very cold, dialectically oriented soul. Dante is a case in point. Few, possibly only Shakespeare, had greater power of expression than Dante, but Dante lacked a poetic appreciation of life. In his hands, God becomes a pagan God who requires sacrifice and not mercy. I loved it when Unamuno, in his classic work on Don Quixote, had Quixote ride into hell and take down Dante’s sign, “Abandon all hope ye who enter here.”

Edgar, with great sadness, comments that the dark and vicious place where his father begot the bastard Edmund cost him his eyes. By the same token the dark and vicious place where the clergy embraced the dialectic cost Father Feeney and countless millions their faith. So much was said in so few words by the anti-dialectical poet, William Blake – “We will forever believe a lie when we see with, not through, the eye.”

The radio priest and Father Feeney represent the North and South poles of religious atheism. The religious atheist doesn’t renounce Christ directly; instead, he refashions Christianity to fit his idea of what a god should be. In the case of the radio priest, he thinks God should be a benign being with no definite personality or attributes, who gives one generic blessing to all mankind. And at the other pole of religious atheism, Father Feeney worships the idea of an organized Church with exclusive rights to the Kingdom of Heaven, but he has no feeling for the Son of God who came to redeem mankind. Scott describes the Feeney mentality in his novel A Legend of Montrose:

Another cause inflamed the minds of the nation at large, no less than the tempting prospect of the wealth of England animated the soldiery. So much had been written and said on either side concerning the form of church government, that it had become a matter of infinitely more consequence in the eyes of the multitude than the doctrines of that gospel which both churches had embraced. The Prelatists and Presbyterians of the more violent kind became as illiberal as the Papists, and would scarcely allow the possibility of salvation beyond the pale of their respective churches. It was in vain remarked to these zealots, that had the Author of our holy religion considered any peculiar form of church government as essential to salvation, it would have been revealed with the same precision as under the Old Testament dispensation. – Walter Scott

The religious atheist is much more common than the professed atheist, but our modern age, which has produced a record number of religious atheists, is also producing a significant number of outright atheists. And that is not a coincidence. Religious atheism begets secularized atheism. As C. S. Lewis points out in The Last Battle, the end result of years of false teaching about Aslan was that a great number of people had ceased to believe in the real Aslan.

And we must make one more distinction. The militant atheism so prevalent in the neo-pagan ranks is not the type of atheism which Stavrogin displays in Dostoyevsky’s The Possessed. There is a certain nobility in Stavrogin’s atheism; he has come to believe there is no God, and he takes the tragedy of a Godless universe seriously enough to commit suicide.

In contrast, the neo-pagans' professed atheism is mere pouting, the pouting of petulant children mad at their parents for not handing them the world on a silver platter, a world as they would have it. Christianity has turned to the worship of Baal in the form of the black man, so the neo-pagans think this gives them the right to imitate the Jews and form an organized opposition to Jesus of Nazareth. One hears, once again, from their camp the cries of “crucify Him!”

As it was in the past so is it now. It is up to the white Christian European to stand against the Christ-haters and for incarnational Europe. The religious atheists, the neo-pagan atheists, and the barbarians seem to be such different entities, but they are one in their hatred of the Europeans and their God. It stands on us to defend His Europe against such enemies, not to appease them or to compromise with them.

Atheism is a European phenomenon and only a European phenomenon, because the colored peoples never worshipped a personal God. To them, God is a force or a philosophy; how do you personally reject such a God? But Christ? He can be rejected because He is our personal savior. The religious atheist could not have fashioned his atheistic, new, improved Christ if there had been no Christ. The serious atheist would not feel the God-forsakenness of the world if he had not come from a people who believed that Christ had redeemed the world. And finally, the petulant-child atheist would not have a personal God to blame for the ills of the modern world if the European people had not nurtured and championed the belief that there was a personal God who cared about individual human beings. The European is not naked before his enemies because God has forsaken him; he is naked before his enemies because he has forsaken his God. Having tried and failed to win battles under the atheistic banners of democracy and egalitarianism, it is now time for the European to fight under the only banner worth fighting for. +

Vision

We were all one heart and one race

When the Abbey trumpets blew.

--Kipling

Thornton Wilder, author of Our Town, The Skin of Our Teeth, The Bridge of San Luis Rey, and others, has been labeled an optimist by the literary critics. But I always found his works depressing because his “optimism” is grounded in this world only. His religion is Platonic; he believes in love and a divine force but not in a personal God behind that divine force. One must concede however, that his criticism of Catholicism, expressed in The Bridge of San Luis Rey, is well-thought out. And the Catholic Church has not been able to refute Wilder’s critique with traditional apologetics, which is why the Catholic Church and the Protestant churches which have followed in the Catholic train stand in such a pathetic state today.

In The Bridge of San Luis Rey, Brother Juniper sets himself the task of explaining the ways of God to men: “On Friday noon, July the twentieth, 1714, the finest bridge in all Peru broke and precipitated five travellers into the gulf below.”

Having witnessed the tragedy, Brother Juniper decides to answer the question, “Why did this happen to those five?” He fails to come up with an answer and is eventually burned at the stake by the Church, not so much for anything he said, but because he, a lowly monk, presumed to do what the high mucky-mucks of the Church liked to do. Before his burning, Brother Juniper also
attempts an explanation of why the pestilence strikes some individuals and not others:

It was by dint of hearing a great many such sneers at faith that Brother Juniper became convinced that the world’s time had come for proof, tabulated proof, of the conviction that was so bright and exciting within him. When the pestilence visited his dear village of Puerto and carried off a large number of peasants, he secretly drew up a diagram of the characteristics of fifteen victims and fifteen survivors, the statistics of their value sub specie aeternitatis. Each soul was rated upon a basis of ten as regards its goodness, its diligence in religious observance, and its importance to its
family group. Here is a fragment of this ambitious chart:



The thing was more difficult than he had foreseen. Almost every soul in a difficult frontier community turned out to be indispensable economically, and the third column was all but useless. The examiner was driven to the use of minus terms when he confronted the personal character of Alfonso V., who was not, like Vera N., merely bad; he was a propagandist for badness and not merely avoided church but led others to avoid it. Vera N. was indeed bad, but she was a model worshipper and the
mainstay of a full hut. From all this saddening data Brother Juniper contrived an index for each peasant. He added up the total for victims and compared it with the total for survivors, to discover that the dead were five times more worth saving. It almost looked as though the pestilence had been directed against the really valuable people in the village of Puerto. And on that afternoon Brother Juniper took a walk along the edge of the Pacific. He tore up his findings and cast them into the waves; he gazed for an hour upon the great clouds of pearl that hang forever upon the horizon of that sea, and extracted from their beauty a resignation that he did not permit his reason to examine. The discrepancy between faith and the facts is greater than is
generally assumed.

It would be easy to just dismiss Thornton Wilder as the village atheist. But his critique of Catholicism is completely correct. Brother Juniper’s ill-advised attempt to present a rational defense of suffering is the embodiment of pre-Vatican II Catholicism. The reason the “sound apologetics” of the pre-Vatican II era were abandoned was because they were false. No one believed them. But the old Brother Juniper apologetics were not replaced by sound apologetics, they were replaced by Wilder’s faithless faith. He had faith that humanity would survive but not individual human beings. He believed in love but not the God of love. In short, Brother Juniper’s Aristotelian apologetics was replaced at the Council by Wilder’s Platonic apologetics. The Church is still in need of a defense of the Faith that is not made of Greek vapor.

I think of Thomas Campbell’s assertion that the faith is not a theory or a philosophy. He is right; it is a vision. I ask the question, what would be wrong if the Church actually started to preach about a man who was both God and man, who came down from heaven, was crucified, died and was buried, and on the third day rose from the dead? That would indeed be something. And I think that something is what the first missionaries from Rome told our European ancestors: a simple straight forward story about the King of Kings. Our ancestors listened to that story and they believed!

Men have done deeds in the name of God which would have made Christ weep, but the story of the conversion of England to Christianity, with which Durham is so marvellously linked, is, I believe, one of the loveliest stories since the New Testament. Look back to a time long before the Council of Whitby, and you see the pilgrim monks tramping the weed-grown Roman roads to speak to men and women under an oak tree in a wood. These simple, holy men trudged the heather, traversed the mighty woods, and crossed the lonely hills to baptize the heathen Saxon beside wells and at the edge of streams. They were uplifted by a magnificent single-mindedness, inspired with a Christ-like humility, strengthened by a superb sincerity. How real a thing in those rough days was the brotherhood of the holy men. (1)

The simple story made England become England and Europe become Europe.

Some twenty years ago I saw the Protestant Reformation as a very regrettable attack on Christ’s church. But now I see the Reformation, in its essence, as an attempt by the Christian faithful to reclaim the Christ that had been wrested from them and replaced by an abstract philosophy. The great tragedy was not that there was a Protestant revolt; the great tragedy was that the revolt failed when the philosophical speculators took over.

The philosophers seized upon it... and made it the unwilling and unnatural parent of the largest and most hideous brood of ills that had ever appeared at one birth since the opening of the box of Pandora. (2)

The speculating European has reached the end of the line. He has speculated himself out of existence. He rejected the light, and as a consequence he is now lost in the darkness. The Hebraic parallel is apropos. When a people forsake their God they cease to be a people; they become a loose collection of blasphemers huddled around the golden calf. (3)

The Christ story, the Hebraic Fairy Tale, is the story that the Europeans took to their hearts. Burn every single cathedral, church, and art work that celebrates the Christ story, and you still won’t eradicate the sacred remembrance of Christ that lives in the blood of the European. There will always be some Europeans that will never let go of the European past. Against all logic, against all practicality, a certain breed of men will simply not let go of the vision of the one true God, who lives and reigns in eternal Europe.

It seems, when you look at Europe and the world today, that darkness has conquered the Light. And one could say that this is no time to talk about fairy tales. But I think it is precisely the time to talk about fairy tales. Christ’s resurrection from the dead was The Fairy Tale of all fairy tales, the truest and the most magnificent fairy tale of all. Beyond the graveyard of European civilization is the Kingdom of Europe where He reigns. It can be seen only by men who have hearts that burn inside them like the apostles’ hearts burned within them on the road to Emmaus. Brother Juniper got it wrong. The Sacred Heart only reveals Himself through the narrows of the human heart. The wide-gated community of intellectual pride will never know the Man of Sorrows. The true European knows this in his blood. The European’s task then is to never forsake his blood. +
_________________________________
(1) In Search of England by H. V. Morton
(2) Cannibals All! or Slaves Without Masters by George Fitzhugh
(3) I think that it was the issue of suffering that brought the Christian churches down. The question of human suffering cannot be solved by a syllogism; it can only be understood at the foot of the cross. We need King Lear, not the Summa or the Institutes.

What Men Fight For

Let England be imperilled, and Englishmen will fight; in such extremity there is no choice. But what a dreary change must come upon our islanders if, without instant danger, they bend beneath the curse of universal soldiering! I like to think that they will guard the liberty of their manhood even beyond the point of prudence. – George Gissing

In the wake of the Fort Hood murders I don’t think it is amiss to ask, “Why was a Muslim in the United States Army, and why was he not only in the Army but also promoted to the rank of major?” And if you answer my first question with the usual nonsense about how the United States respects all faiths and all colors then I must ask a second question: “Why are there any white males in the Unites States Armed Forces?”

The mark of a man is not how willingly he fights or even how well he fights. The mark of a man is what he fights for. The profession of soldier is not intrinsically evil as the Quakers would have it, but it is not intrinsically good as patriotic scoundrels of last refuge fame would have it. A soldier is as good or as bad as the cause he gives his allegiance to. And the American soldier swears allegiance to liberaldom. He belongs to the liberals heart and soul. He has sworn to spread the benefits of liberal democracy (abortion, pornography, feminism, race mixing) to every corner of the earth. (1) What man who guards his manhood would fight for such a country? There should be no white males in the United States military. The fact that there are white males and what is worse, white females, in the U. S. military indicates just how satanic the white European culture has become. We send our boys and girls to the great liberal Moloch to use them as he pleases.

The liberal party line is that democracy is ecumenical; all religions are equally excluded from participation in the democratic circus. But this is not the case. All religions accept the Christian one are welcome in the brave new democratic world of the liberals. The official liberal party line also asserts that the U. S. Government is color-blind; all races are equal before the law. But this is not the case. The white race is an outlawed race and the black race is a deified race. Does the accusation of black racism ever result in punitive action by the government? Of course not. But alleged white racism? The list is endless. Every day whites are punished for the sin of racism by the law’s indifference to the murder of whites and through the punitive damages exacted from whites who make ‘racist’ comments.

Prayer and fighting are intimately linked. What we fight for will be determined by who or what we pray to. When white people abandoned Jesus of Nazareth, the God of the hearth fire, the God of nations, for a philosophical abstraction they ceased to fight for hearth and nation. They now fight for the democratic, utopian state of tomorrow in which there is one mixed race and one cosmic mixture of every god save the one true God.

The late John Watson, pen name Ian Maclaren, wrote eloquently of Christ’s desire to ease our fears about the next world by enveloping that world in images of our homes in this world.

Jesus, who had stated many of the deep things of the spiritual world in the terms of our common life, now declares Heaven to be another name for home, and so makes a winsome appeal to the heart. This world is indeed like unto an alabaster box of ointment very precious, whose fragrance fills the life. Into it has been gathered our most sacred memories, our tenderest associations, our brightest hopes. It matters little whether the home of one’s childhood has been a cottage on a hillside or a house in some city street, round it is woven a romance of interest that grows with the years, to it travels back the heart places alike of work and thought with wistful regret. As the years come and go we see our home through a golden mist, wherein all things are beautiful and perfect, and so there is no home that is not a prophecy. As Jesus himself was the Son of Man, that perfect Antitype after which in all ages men’s minds have gone forth, so must that place from which He came be—above all we have dreamed—Home.

Our homes – that is what the Christian fights for, not for democracy or liberty or equality. I think it is significant that as our theology became more impersonal and abstract (and by ‘our’ I mean white people), so did our wars. It is easier to kill large numbers of people when they are called collateral damage. And it is easier to use terms like collateral damage when God is a philosophical concept rather than a personal savior.

I think the most cruelly frivolous lines of poetry I ever read were Chesterton’s lines about the Irish:

All their wars were merry
And all their songs were sad.

There are no merry wars, but are there wars in which we can see, amidst the bloodshed and carnage, God’s grace at work? If Christianity really was, as I maintain, the heart and blood of old Europeans, shouldn’t we be able to observe a difference between European warfare and non-European warfare? At first glance it appears that there is no difference between the pagan and the Christian warrior. But if we take a second, deeper look something called chivalry emerges in the European mists -- often more honored in the breach than the observance, but still a very palpable, living creed. Civilian populations were not routinely put to the sword, and while the killing never ceased, there was, during the Christian era of the European people, a recognition that one’s enemy was also spiritually one’s brother and entitled to Christian quarter when captured and “all holy rites” when killed.

The techno-barbarism of our bombing raids on Iraq and the presence of white Europeans in the ranks of the Great Multi-Racial Army of Liberaldom are indications of the death of Christianity. A Christian people distinguishes between non-combatants and combatants, and Christian men do not serve in Satan’s army. When the European ceased to view Christianity as a religion distinct from all other religions he also became blind to the distinctions between the European people and the people of color. In his blindness he now fights only for abstractions, such as democracy and equality, which promise him, should he emerge victorious, a place in a Christless utopia of the future. And while the New Age soldier fights for the new satanic order, Christian Europe is left without any defenders.

The United States with its mixture of white and colored races presents us with a hellish vision of Babylon. The Europeans, the Christ-bearing people, have forsaken their God and become one with the people of Babylon. The reason our military is in such disarray is because America’s conflict with Iraq and Afghanistan is an internecine conflict. Two competing factions within Bablyon are fighting for supremacy. Neither The Obama or The Bush before him could articulate a real difference between the United States and the Arab nations they were attacking, because the United States is part of Babylon.

Writing in 1965, Anthony Jacob warned Europe about the emerging Babylonian state that was coming to fruition in the anti-nationalist land mass called the United States. Instead of arming themselves, spiritually and materially, the European nations turned their nations into American-styled Babylons. There is now, for instance, no difference between a street in Harlem, Amsterdam, or Nairobi. Babylon rules!

There is one hope, and it is a genuine hope, for the European. If he takes up the discarded cross and faces the white techno-barbarians and the barbarians of color who inhabit the new Babylon, he will discover, as Gideon did, that a few hundred faithful are more than a match for a host of barbarians. But the few hundred must be faithful.

And the three hundred blew the trumpets, and the Lord set every man’s sword against his fellow, even throughout all the host; and the host fled to Bethshittah in Zererath, and to the border of Abelmeholah, unto Tabbath. – Judges 7: 22

____________________________________________________________
(1) James V of Scotland died, Scott tells us, of a broken heart because he couldn’t persuade enough of his countrymen to do battle with the English. Such was often the case in the days of what our tyrannical democratic dictators often term the age of monarchical tyranny. In the Christian past, in contrast to the democratic present, men thought that the causes they killed for and the causes they risked their lives for should be causes that they, and not their government, chose.

Against the World

“This happy breed of men, this little world...”

I don’t think it will surprise anyone who reads ‘right-wing’ blogs and newsletters to learn that even if all non-white legal and illegal immigration were to be halted immediately, the white race will still be a minority in the United States within the next ten to twenty years. And I think we can say the same thing about Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and all the nations of Europe. White mad-dog liberals and white conservative Christians both think the emerging racial Babylon will be a good thing, but they think so for different reasons.

The mad-dog liberal feels (to the extent that such a creature feels at all) that the white race has brought evil into the world. By embracing the God-Man and enshrining Him as the King of Europe, the white man despoiled the continent of Europe and then proceeded to despoil all of the paradisiacal continents of the non-white races. Such is the mad-dog liberal’s assertion. That neither Europe nor the dwelling places of the people of color were paradises before the reign of white, Christian Europeans seems to be obvious to anyone who has eyes to see or ears to hear. But the mad-dog liberal does not have eyes that see or ears that hear. His heart and mind belong to Satan. He thinks what Satan tells him to think, and he feels what Satan tells him to feel. After centuries of distorted theologians denigrating the notion that the heart is a man’s touchstone of reality, the Christian layman became the Satanic layman. Gone was the innocence of “anger and surprise,” to be replaced by a cynical sneer. God cannot enter a heart that has been imprisoned by mind-forged manacles, but Satan can and does enter the minds of men and women who haven’t the heart to denounce the works of the devil. Lady Macbeth asks the devil to “unsex me here”; the mad-dog liberals have made a similar plea: “Dehumanize me here, kill my heart.”

The conservative Christians also hate the white race. Yet they profess to love European culture. Their attitude towards white people was summed up by Buchanan’s priest: “What makes you think Western culture is worth saving?” Their logic runs as follows: “Europeans have abandoned Christianity, so let us look to Africa and China. There the faith is alive and striving.” What is the fallacy in the "let’s substitute Africans and Chinese for Europeans" program?

The modern day Europeans are so decadent that we need a word beyond decadent to describe them. But are the Africans, the Chinese, and the other colored tribes Christian? Have they assumed the mantle of Christian Europe? No, they haven’t. Those among the colored cultures who actually were making baby steps toward the light during the ascendancy of the Christian European, have returned to barbarism. And the rest have continued to practice their barbaric rites with the addition of Western technology. Bin Laden uses a laptop computer, and the African tribesmen carry cell phones but still spill the blood and eat the flesh of the white Christians.

The conservative Christians do not understand the incarnation. God reveals Himself to us through men. The Summa Theologica and the documents of the Church needed a culture to transmit them. And likewise Holy Scripture. If a golden harp lacks a human hand to play its strings, can there be any music? There is no skirting the issue. If there is to be faith on earth, the white man must be faithful. If the numbers indicate a wholesale apostasy, then the white remnant must take strength from their ancestors who were faithful unto death. They are our kinsmen, not the decadent, white majority, and not the barbarian hordes.

It often occurs to me that I am very lucky to have found a wife who can tolerate a rather dull fellow. If I were to run a personal ad in one of those lonely hearts services, I would have to list my hobbies as: “Likes to read old books and watch old movies.” But my hobbies are now tinged with sadness. For instance, when I read a book such as H. V. Morton’s In Search of England, I fall in love with the England Morton describes, but then an incredible sadness sets in when I realize that the loved one is no longer living. And so it is with an old movie with wonderful European settings and real Europeans acting out stories from the European past. It’s like going through a photo album with pictures in the album of a parent, a spouse, or a friend who is deceased. The joy is bittersweet. But would it have been better if the loved one had never existed? No, certainly not. There is that sacred remembrance of things past. No, I am not quoting the decadent Proust; he copied his title from the Gentle Bard:

Sonnet 30

When to the sessions of sweet silent thought
I summon up remembrance of things past,
I sigh the lack of many a thing I sought,
And with old woes new wail my dear times’ waste.
Then can I drown an eye, unus’d to flow,
For precious friends hid in death’s dateless night,
And weep afresh love’s long since cancell’d woe,
And moan the expense of many a vanish’d sight:
Then can I grieve at grievances foregone,
And heavily from woe to woe tell o’er
The sad account of fore-bemoaned moan,
Which I new pay as if not paid before.
But if the while I think on thee, dear friend,
All losses are restor’d and sorrows end.

And who is the ‘dear friend’? The Bard makes it clear in Sonnet 31:

Thy bosom is endeared with all hearts
Which I by lacking have supposed dead;
And there reigns Love, and all Love’s loving parts,
And all those friends which I thought buried.
How many a holy and obsequious tear
Hath dear religious love stol’n from mine eye,
As interest of the dead, which now appear
But things remov’d that hidden in thee lie!
Thou art the grave where buried love doth live,
Hung with the trophies of my lovers gone,
Who all their parts of me to thee did give,
That due of many now is thine alone:
Their images I lov’d I view in thee,
And thou, all they, hast all the all of me.

Christ and Europe are one. The mad-dog liberal and the neo-pagan will be forever inventing new gods to rule in a satanic kingdom of the future. And the bloodless conservative who loves an abstracted European past filled with philosophical treatises and Church documents, but hates individual Europeans past and present, will be forever adrift in the seas of racial Babylon. Only the European who takes the past into the present will live in a world that has its roots in heaven.

Sadly, the conservative who rejects the European past will ultimately blend with the mad-dog liberal. I have seen the Schaeffer family phenomenon repeated over and over. The father is a conservative Christian, but he looks to the colored races to bring about a Christian utopia. On that one issue, he is at one with the mad-dog liberals. They too look to the colored races to usher in a utopian state; albeit in the case of the mad-dogs, it is a Godless utopian state for which they yearn. But still the conservative Christian and the mad-dog liberals are united in their faith that salvation will come from the colored races. The son of the conservative rejects the Christian aspects of his father’s faith and accepts the mad-dog liberal’s faith in its entirety.

The conservative Christians often hurl the ‘whited sepulchre’ accusation at the recalcitrant, kinist Europeans, claiming they have made a whited sepulchre of the European past. All right, let’s look that accusation in the face. The kinist European hopes to maintain his faith and restore the faith of his countrymen by keeping faith with a people and a civilization that believed that Jesus Christ suffered, died, and was buried, only to rise again on the third day. The conservatives want us to reject that European past and place our faith in the hope, not the reality, that the clever and oh so spiritual yellow people, or the vital and earthy black people will show us how to be truly Christian and build a Christian society. The whited sepulchre image is a false one, an illusion. Who has created for themselves a whited sepulchre? (1)

We come once again to the painful truth that the right-wing pagan magazines and blogs, who print the death-of-the-white-European statistics, are doing great harm to the European remnant. By describing the disease in all of its gruesomeness without suggesting any remedies they are inculcating despair. “Why,” Scrooge asks the Ghost of Christmas Future, “should you show me all of this if I am beyond hope?”

That is the rub. The white pagans are without hope in the King of old Europe. Those who don’t believe in a personal resurrection cannot believe in the resurrection of a civilization. But this the man of Europe knows: Wherever there are white Europeans gathered together in His name, there, and only there, is civilization. When the mad-dog liberals, the neo-pagans, and the conservative liberals are outnumbered by the colored hordes, they will be exterminated. But the white Christian remnant will survive, because Europeans, real Europeans united to Him, will always -- come plague, famine, death, barbarian hordes, and hell itself – protect and preserve Europe with a will and a love that passeth the understanding of the barbarian, the liberal, the conservative, and the neo-pagan. It all has to do with the blood of our ancestors and the blood of the Lamb. +
__________________________________________
(1) I have an acquaintance who converted to Christianity after many years of wandering in the modern desert. He is very conservative and fundamental in his beliefs, but unfortunately he is an enthusiastic apologist for the black and yellow renewal theory.

What he doesn’t realize is that his conversion to Christianity would not have been a complete conversion if Europeans of the past had not given the God-Man a local habitation and a name. When a man from Tibet gets divine intuitions, he becomes a Buddhist or some other type of Dalai Lama enthusiast. And likewise the European, if there had been no Christian Europe, would not know who God was. The personal savior, “Jesus Christ, whom thou persecutest;” becomes an airy nothing if men of faith have not created a spiritual culture in which the one true God can be known by His name.

"When I was a child, I spake as a child..."

“Keep the imagination sane,-- that is one of the truest conditions of communion with heaven.” – Nathaniel Hawthorne

When still young and new to the right-wing European movement, I formed a rather uncritical admiration for the old guard intellectuals of that movement. The poets of Europe had brought me to the foot of the cross, but it was to the old guardsmen I turned for an articulation of the Christian faith. When I explained the faith to others, I parroted the old guard. This is quite natural for a young whippersnapper, but as one becomes a man one must make sure he believes what he parrots. In my case, I realized I differed with the old guard on two important points, both relating to Europe.

1. I differed with them on the issue of race. The old guardsmen were fond of saying that a defense of Western culture had nothing to do with a defense of the white race. (Only men who spent their lives in academia could every say anything so stupid.)

A defense of the West cannot be done without a defense of the white race. Whites are not superior because the evolutionary process made them so (as the neo-pagans maintain), but because they made the one true religion their own. And just as original sin was passed on through the blood, so the European peoples’ free will choice of Christ over Satan was passed on through the blood. Just as one can counter the bad effects of original sin by clinging to Christ, so can one counter the good effects of the white man’s acceptance of Christ by rejecting Him. And the vast majority of whites have rejected Christ. That makes it all the more urgent that we support the faithful white remnant. To praise European culture without praising and defending the white man is Gnostic nonsense.

2. The old guard failed to appreciate how distinct the European tradition was from the classical tradition. Chaucer, Shakespeare, Botticelli, and countless other European writers and artists choose Greco-Roman themes for their works, but what they did with them was something very different from the Greco-Romans’ renditions. Everything is deeper when the Christian poets and artists deal with the pagan themes. In Midsummer’s Night’s Dream, Theseus becomes a Christian king, highlighting charity as the greatest virtue:

I will hear that play;
For never anything can be amiss,
When simpleness and duty tender it.
Go, bring them in; and take your places, ladies.

In Chaucer’s The Knight’s Tale, Jove becomes a symbol for the Christian God. And in Botticelli’s painting of The Birth of Venus, the goddess of illicit love becomes a virginal Christian maiden.

The excessive reliance on the classical tradition was, in my judgment, the major reason for the collapse of the Protestant and Catholic churches. And the traditionalists think we need a classical revival! We need a European revival, not a classical one. The classical temptation, which would make Christianity into a philosophical system, is potentially more dangerous than the atheistic temptation. I have noticed there has been a score of books published in the last 10 years, such as Who Killed Homer? by Hanson and Heath, This Will Hurt: The Restoration of Virtue by Digby Anderson, and Plagues of the Mind by Bruce Thornton, in which the authors suggest we rebuild civilization on the classical tradition and bypass the European Christian tradition. This might appeal to those who like the simplicity of the classical era, but there is no going back. The choice is either 'be Christian, or perish.'

The old guard did not understand Europe. If they had, they would not have abandoned the white man’s burden or slept so contently with Aristotle and Plato.

When I reflect on the weaknesses of the old guard (those men of the World War II generation) I realize that they were the last of the Christian rationalists, who still believed that the dying flame of the European fire could be reignited by the cool waters of rationalism. They were doctors who completely misdiagnosed their patient. The patient needed more warmth, and they sat him out on the veranda in sub-zero weather.

Christ set Europe on fire with a poetic drama which He authored and starred in, a passion play meant to appeal to the heart and the head. He did not intend that His life, death, and resurrection should be treated as the literary critics treat a Shakespearean drama, poking, probing, and dissecting the play with only their minds, leaving their hearts outside. But if the poet writes with his heart and mind, how can the literary critic understand him if he doesn’t respond to the play with the same fire that the author used to write the play? And how can we respond to Christ’s passion play if we have no passion?

Plato banned poets from his Republic because he thought the passionate, poetic side of man was dangerous. The old guard followed the wisdom of Plato, but the passionate, imaginative, poetic heart of man, when joined with the heart of the Divine Poet, is the only force capable of reigniting the European fire.

I once read a book by one of the conservative education ‘experts’; he felt that the problem with modern liberal education was that it was not value-free. He recommended a ‘just the facts’ program of education that sounded much like the program recommended by Thomas Gradgrind in Dicken’s Hard Times:

Now, what I want is, Facts. Teach these boys and girls nothing but Facts. Facts alone are wanted in life. Plant nothing else, and root out everything else. You can only form the minds of reasoning animals upon Facts: nothing else will ever be of any service to them. This is the principle on which I bring up my own children, and this is the principle on which I bring up these children. Stick to Facts, sir!

The conservative education expert was wrong. The problem with liberals is not that they teach values in school -- values should be taught in school -- the problem is that they teach liberal values. And likewise the old guard; the problem is not with the poetic and imaginative side of the European’s nature; the problem is that the European has ceased to view Christianity as a faith that inspires and stirs the imagination. The European has come to believe what the old guard told him about Christianity: “It is charts, diagrams, syllogisms, and not much else.” But man will have the poetic. If he is denied a Christian poetic, he will adopt a satanic one. Obama is the new Messiah, because the old guard thought a remote, bloodless, philosophical God was good enough for the rational, modern man of Europe. Such a God is not good enough. The real Hero-God (He was not invented), who inspired the ancient Europeans is more than good enough, and it is to Him that we should look if we want to see Christendom restored and liberaldom destroyed.

God’s Fairy Land

“Before the railway came to Cornwall and killed the fairies...” – H. V. Morton In Search of England

Writing during the last days of Christendom, C. S. Lewis gave us, in the marvelous image of the wardrobe, a last glimpse of what it was like to live in Christian Europe. The ancient European did not see life on this earth as a life separate and remote from God’s kingdom of heaven. “Behold the kingdom of God is within you,” was a reality, not just a theory, to the pre-modern European. Like the Old Testament Hebrews and the children in C. S. Lewis’s novel, the ancient Europeans felt that the wall between God’s Fairy Land and this earth had a door through which the intrepid Christian and the pure of heart could go.

This traffic back and forth between Fairy Land and Europe was quite irritating to Satan, because Old Scratch works best with men and women who cannot see the door or climb over the wall between God’s Fairy Land and Europe. Satan’s task then was to fortify the wall and bolt the door between heaven and Earth. And to give the devil his due, he has done an excellent job of it.

While not discounting every single story in which Christian men and women have claimed to have seen Christ, the blessed Virgin Mary, an angel, or some particular saint, I must state that I am not talking about such revelations when I say that the ancient Europeans felt themselves to be intimately connected to God in a way that the modern European, even if he is an avowed Christian, is not. The pre-modern European was connected to God in the way the old prayer books suggest: “In Him, with Him, and through Him”; through our common humanity and through our common blood, the Europeans who believed gained access to the door that linked His realm to our world. And whenever the European let the image of His divine humanity become obscured, the European found himself groping in the dark, unable to find the door to His world.

It was an article of faith to the Enlightenment philosophers that there was no door between the wall of God’s Fairy Land and man’s earthly realm. And the modern European takes his blasphemies a step further. He declares there is no Fairy Land beyond the wall, nor anything else. The liberal says (speaking only figuratively, you see, because he knows there is no anthropomorphic-type god), “God bless the wall without a door and without anything beyond it.” He even writes sacred words on the wall: “There is only the wall of Nature, and we are all governed by the laws of Nature; glory be to Nature, which has always been and always shall be, Nature without end, (speaking metaphorically, of course) amen.”

The restoration – I don’t say ‘renewal’ because we have long passed the stage of a renewal – will not come from the Christian churches. The building of Christendom was done by the European Everyman who tried in his own humble way to live the Gospel. The rebuilding of Christendom will also be accomplished by the Christian, European Everyman. The faith that moves mountains will not come from the clergy because their faith is a constricted faith. They have settled for an anemic, technocratic faith instead of a faith in the God of Fairy Land.

Because the technocratic faith, the faith in systems and syllogisms rather than Christ, is the reigning faith of the modern European, I have been forced to ponder the question of ‘why’. Why does the modern European prefer the technocratic faith to a faith in Jesus Christ? There seems to be two reasons:

1) The St. Augustine dilemma. Augustine tells us in his Confessions that he had great difficulty in accepting the truth of the Gospels because they seemed intellectually inferior to the Gnostic philosophers he was studying. The idea that the Christ story is stupid and inferior to the philosophical systems of the Greeks and other assorted “experts” is a golden oldie of a heresy, but the modern European has bought more copies of the old album than any of his heretical progenitors. The Catholic theologians and their Protestant rivals never could get rid of the uncomfortable feeling that the pagans were smarter than Christians. For that reason their faith in Christ was always couched in the language of the Greek experts. Only the Christian poets and the Christian peasants looked at Christ without the Greek ‘extras,’ which is why the poets and the peasants were perceived as being too dumb to be taken seriously. In modern classrooms and seminaries, the faith of the poet and the peasant is seen as relevant only because of what such a faith tells us about "the unconscious and man’s need for a faith that is something greater, and greater always means impersonal, than the narrow, sectarian faith of the Gospels."

2) Technological wizardry holds out the promise of a God without the Cross. Christ promised us eternal life in Fairy Land with the proviso that we take up our Cross and follow Him. “A cross can be a beautiful thing.” “Not so,” say the modern purveyors of wizardry; “We can show you the way to Paradise on this earth without the Cross.” “It’s a deal!” cry the Brave, New World Europeans. But there is always a cross, and the wizards’ promise of a cross-free existence is a lie. Tragically, the modern European believes the lie and seeks to construct a world where faith in the Cross of Christ is always deconstructed and syllogized into nothingness.

Against the new wizardry stands the Christian poets, with Shakespeare leading the vanguard. "The cross of Christ is greater than the syllogisms of the philosophers. Only those who pick up their cross and follow Him will dream dreams and see visions of God's Fairy Land beyond the wall."

One of my favorite movies is called The Luck of the Irish, which stars Tyrone Power. The main character (Power, of course) very early in the movie does a favor for a leprechaun. Throughout the rest of the movie the leprechaun tries to repay the favor by showing Tyrone Power that the modern Amazonian woman he is engaged to is not the woman he should marry. The leprechaun tries to get Power to see that a particular Irish village girl, very feminine and very old-fashioned, is the girl he should wed. When it appears that the leprechaun has failed in his efforts, he says, “I offered you gold [meaning the Irish lass of course]. I cannot help it if you preferred a pebble.” That Irish parable sums up the modern European tragedy. Christ was the gold the modern European was offered, but instead the modern European preferred the pebble of technological wizardry. There is no love, no honor, no life in the new European religion. And there will be no such thing as a European unless the European opens the door to the thatched cottage that leads to God’s Fairy Land. +

Shakespeare

How little fades from earth when sink to rest
The hours and cares that move a great man’s breast!
Though naught of all we saw the grave may spare,
His life pervades the world’s impregnate air;
Though Shakespeare’s dust beneath our footsteps lies,
His spirit breathes amid his native skies;
With meaning won from him forever glows
Each air that England feels, and star it knows;
His whispered words from many a mother’s voice
Can make her sleeping child in dreams rejoice,
And gleams from spheres he first conjoined to earth
Are blent with rays of each new morning’s birth.
Amid the sights and tales of common things,
Leaf, flower, and bird, and wars, and deaths of kings,--
Of shore, and sea, and nature’s daily round,
Of life that tills, and tombs that load the ground,
His visions mingle, swell, command, pace by,
And haunt with living presence heart and eye;
And tones from him by other bosoms caught
Awaken flush and stir of mounting thought,
And the long sigh, and deep impassioned thrill,
Rouse custom’s trance, and spur the faltering will.
Above the goodly land, more his than ours
He sits supreme enthroned in skyey towers,
And sees the heroic brood of his creation
Teach larger life to his ennobled nation.
O shaping brain! O flashing fancy’s hues!
O boundless heart kept fresh by pity’s dews!
O wit humane and blithe! O sense sublime!
For each dim oracle of mantled time!
Transcendant form of man! in whom we read
Mankind’s whole tale of impulse, thought, and deed!
Amid the expanse of years, beholding thee,
We know how vast our world of life may be;
Wherein, perchance, with aims as pure as thine,
Small tasks and strength may be no less divine.

by John Sterling

The Battle Lines Are Drawn

“We are in God’s hands, brother, not in theirs.”

Seldom does a day pass that I do not think of Alan Breck Stewart. Surely you know the man – he is Robert Louis Stevenson’s fictional hero, who, as he never tires of telling us, “bears a king’s name.” You see, he is a descendant of that ill-fated line of Scottish kings defeated once and for all, in terms of any earthly standing, at the Battle of Culloden. But Alan refuses to acknowledge defeat. He lives the life of an outlaw, swearing allegiance only to the old Scottish clans and refusing to recognize King George as a legitimate king. He completely steals the book from the rather priggish and much too Whiggish David Balfour. And at the book’s end, David, now a wealthy laird, yearns for the days when he lived the outlaw life with Alan Breck Stewart.

Why should anyone care about a mere figment of Robert Louis Stevenson’s imagination? Because Stevenson, quite probably without realizing it, gives us an excellent portrayal of the glory and difficulties that await all those who would take up a counter-revolutionary cause.

The glory springs from the fact that one is fighting for the old ways – for the hearth over the school, the peasant over the merchant, the warrior-bard over the banker, the act of charity over the syllogism, and the wise man from the village over the academic in the big city.

The difficulty stems from the fact that a counter-revolutionary’s life is a lonely one. Can one realistically expect his countrymen to keep the image of the old ways before their eyes and in their memory, when a man must live and it is the new ways that rule the roost? And what about one’s children? Suppose Alan Breck Stewart meets a bonnie lass behind the heather, and then suppose he marries that lass and their union bears fruit? Can he expect his wife and children to live the outlaw’s life? Will not the very natural desire to see his children successful and prosperous cause the counter-revolutionary to make his accommodation with the ruling Whigs of the world?

Most of us with counter-revolutionary sentiments make our accommodation with the world. Those with intellectual integrity continue to affirm the correctness of the old ways while admitting that they do not have the stomach to fight for them, while those with less integrity manage to convince themselves that the new order isn’t really so revolutionary and that it can be changed from within. Those who seek to change the new order from within always fail. They fail to understand the true dynamic of the revolution, and consequently over-estimate their own abilities to make any kind of dent in the new order. But they make a living, while the Alan Brecks of the movement die in poverty and exile.

The compromisers and the accommodators do cause a problem though. As the revolution marches onward, it becomes more and more difficult to compromise and remain a human being with a soul. For example, a Christian living in the newly formed United States of the 1790’s could clearly see that the U. S. Constitution was a devil’s document, designed to foster a new godless leviathan and to destroy the older incorporate league which Western man had formed with Christ. Lacking the will to fight, the 1790’s Christian unfortunately decided to make his peace and to remain thankful that the revolutionary forces permitted him a breathing and living space in the new order. But what about the 21st century descendant of that first compromiser? The descendant now has no room to maneuver. It is not a case, as it was with the 1790’s Christian, of conceding a few points to the secularists and then sneaking off to church. The secularists have taken over the Christian churches and have imposed their new religion on the formerly Christian world. Continual compromise by his ancestors has left the 21st century Christian with no options: It is fight or join the secularists. It is not possible to cooperate with race mixers or murderers of babies. When Satan’s end game is the only game permitted, the Christian must fight or cease to be Christian.

I make the assertion that the present times are intelligible. Any knight of the old stock can clearly see that there is nothing left us but counter-revolution. This should not be a subject for debate; the only debate should involve the tactics to be used.

The revolution has been with us for centuries. It has come against us in the form of Scholasticism, capitalism, communism, neo-paganism, Freemasonry, and numerous other Satanisms, but the key to the revolutionaries’ success has been their ability to sever nature from grace. Primitive man was connected to nature; his natural world was filled with spiritual meaning. There were gods of the field, gods of the forest, and ghosts of the dead. The gods could be malevolent or benevolent, depending on what was done to appease or to anger them. Most works by Christopher Dawson and all of Mircea Eliade’s works describe this connection primitive man had to nature.

However, there is, as every Christian knows, and as every tree-hugging liberal does not know, a downside to primitive religious belief. There is no ethical dimension to be found in the nature gods; they are capricious and unloving. The natural world is pregnant with meaning under their rule, but it is not a pregnancy that will give birth to a God that loves man enough to rescue him from the endless cycle of birth and decay.

The more ethical religious traditions that supplanted the more primitive ones, like Platonism, Buddhism, Confucianism, and Taoism, added an ethical dimension to religion, but denuded the natural religion that gave primitive man a link to the gods. Man needs more than an intellectual or mystical comprehension of the Logos; he needs to be connected to God in every fiber of his being.

Enter Christ, the God-Man. Christianity correctly practiced and preached combines the primitive religions’ sacred cosmos with the more ethical religious traditions. Nature is not destroyed, it is transformed. God’s grace has entered the world in the form of the Christ, the living God. Natural man now understands that all those gods of the field and the hunt were precursors of the one true God, and ethical contemplative man now knows that the source of his contemplation has a local habitation and a name, thus adding a personal, human element to his religion that was not there before.

In primitive societies the hero is the man who can climb the cosmic tree and be connected to the earth and to the heavens. The counter-revolutionary hero also is connected to earth and heaven; he has not lost his sacramental view of the world, nor has he ceased to experience in the deepest recesses of his soul a connection to a spiritual realm rooted in heaven but also firmly planted on earth. There is no false dichotomy in the counter-revolutionary’s vision. “Heaven has visited earth.”

All revolutionary societies and movements in some form deny the spiritual link between heaven and earth. The scholastics and the Protestant theologians who followed in their train insisted that the God of sorrows was not to be found in the human heart, but in the human mind. This over-rationalization of God narrowed the focus of European man, who kept staring into the golden bowl of his intellect and worshipping the God he placed there.

Of course, the necessity of counter-revolution now is much greater than in the days of Alan Breck Stewart. The Scottish Highlander’s fight was still a fight within Christendom. The modern European knight errant fights from within the bowels of satanic liberaldom. He can be inspired by the spirit of his ancestors, but his situation is much more desperate than that of his ancestors for the simple reason that his ancestors had Christendom and he does not. I think we are all still in a state of shock, hardly realizing all of the horrific implications from the death of Christendom. G. K. Chesterton, for instance, could not even conceive of a time when Christendom would not exist:

“What Mahomet and Calvin and all those breaking away from the dying civilization did not realize, is the curious fact that it is a dying civilization that never dies. It does decline, and has done so any number of times; it does decay; it is always at it. But it does not disappear; and, at the end of more or less debased periods, has a way of managing to reappear, when its enemies have in their turn decayed. The moral is, I will venture to think, that it is unwise to desert this perpetually sinking ship, or betray this everlastingly dying creed and culture. It has had another period of final extinction at the end of the Middle Ages. It has suffered eclipse in the enlightenment of the Age of Reason and Revolution; which in their turn begin to look as if they had seen better days...

“The moral is that no man should desert that civilization. It can cure itself; but those who leave it cannot cure it. Not Nestorious nor Mahomet nor Calvin nor Lenin have cured, nor will cure, the real evils of Christendom; for the severed hand does not heal the whole body.” (1)

We are motivated by the same love for Christendom that motivated our ancestors, but we are proceeding from an entirely different point. Polite debates and agreements to agree to disagree are things that take place between people with a common faith and a common cultural heritage. We share neither of these with the liberals of the neo-pagan variety or the mad-dog variety. When Satan’s clergymen talk about the evils of “familism” and the neo-pagans talk about the creation of a new neo-pagan god, we know that Satan is truly present at the heart of what was once Christendom.

I received a letter recently from a former student who had grasped, organically, that Christendom had given way to the new Satandom. His question was, 'What am I to do?' My first reaction was to tell him what Charles Peguy said about Christian fathers. He said that a Christian father was the true counter-revolutionary. But of course my young friend could not go out and make some woman become a Jeanie Deans or a Maud Ruthyn so that she would be fit to wed a Christian knight. But a young man, or an old man for that matter, can cling to what he loves. If he loves the old Europe, he can cling to it. The one true God, whom the neo-pagans mock and scorn and the liberals deny, reigns in that Europe. And if one is faithful to old Europe and its people, the right bride and the right sword to fight for that bride and His Europe will come to the faithful knight, or, to use my favorite image, to the faithful woodcutter.

I once, in my mid-twenties, got to visit with one of the major writers in the European Christian conservative camp. In the middle of my compliments on a book he had written about the dangers posed to the faith by false science, he said, “If I were writing that book today I would not make a distinction between false science and science. All science is false.” I have had many years to reflect on that comment, and I believe it to be true. The old sage wasn’t claiming that there weren’t such things as biology, physics, and chemistry; what he was asserting was that science, as practiced by Western man, had always been used to destroy Christian Europe.

So long as the European remains a prisoner of any part of the scientific world, he will be incapable of launching an effective attack on liberaldom. The triumph of the scientific view of man means the triumph of dumb nature. The neo-pagan, forsaking his pagan and his Christian ancestors, sits at his computer and dreams of a new, scientific, faithless faith that he will create for the white man. But when the neo-pagan talks about “creating” a new faith, he has already told us what he worships: his own mind.

The mad-dog liberal looks at the world scientifically as well. He has made an a priori decision that he sees all that there is to see and that ‘all’ is the natural world and only the natural world. So he fantasizes about the natural black savage and makes him the Crown King of the natural world.

Richard Weaver called science a false messiah, and Melville said that science was incapable of providing man with any answer to the riddle of existence. Yet modern man still believes that the men in the white lab coats hold the secrets of life and death. Modern scientific man is not a non-believer, he believes in everything except reality. He believes in the natural goodness of the black man, the perfectibility of mankind after the elimination of recalcitrant whites, and the life everlasting on this earth after the men in the white lab coats have completed their research.

The European of the ancient stock seems, to the liberals of the mad-dog and neo-pagan variety, to be an obstacle blocking the creation of the new world order. But the ancient European must remain undaunted in the face of every liberal attempt to destroy him, because the antique European and only the antique European knows there is only one world order and that is His world order, which He, because of a love that passeth all understanding, invites us to share with Him.

The debates are now over. The battle lines have been drawn. The liberals are standing on the left bank of the river Science, and they are led by our ancient foe. We, the last Europeans, stand on the far shore with the dismal swamp behind us. One step back and we perish in despair. Surrounding us, unseen, are a legion of archangels ready to assist us in battle, or so our blood tells us. Yet we hesitate – after all we live in Liberaldom, and is not fear, doubt, and hesitation the mark of an ancient European living in Liberaldom? – But then there is Galahad and the legions of Europeans who followed him. They believed in the unseen God who spoke through the blood. Our blood calls us then. And soon we are amongst the enemy. They fall like wheat before the scythe. Faith was all. Once the internal battle was won, victory on the actual battlefield was assured. Let there be sung “Non nobis” and “Te Deum.”

_____________________________________
(1) What writers such as Chesterton could not envision was a Europe where Europeans would be a tiny minority. In the past, European renewals occurred because Christendom was still European. In the 21st century, Europeans need to do more than renew; they must rebuild Christendom.