Segregation: A Moral Imperative

The late Richard Weaver was a rare scholar. He was a scholar who knew the limits of scholarship and the underrated value of prejudice, intuition, and tradition. In his book, Language is Sermonic, Mr. Weaver informs us that every society has "God words," words that when invoked mean more than the literal definition of the word, words that represent what a country holds dear and worships. Weaver thought that 'democracy' and 'pluralism' were two God words in our society. Every society also has its devil words; ours include 'prejudice' and 'authoritarianism'.

The word 'integration' has also become a God word in our society. To merely invoke the word silences all opposition and places a halo on the invoker. And 'segregation' has become a devil word, the invocation of which immediately results in the demonization of the person attempting to use it in a positive sense.

We refuse to accept demonization. Segregation is the bulwark of society; without segregation, society becomes a herd of cattle, a species, without a soul.

To the liberal, 'segregation' connotes Negroes in the back of the bus, cross burnings, lynchings and bigotry. And segregation might very well entail Negroes in the back of the bus, cross burnings, and lynchings, but the motivation for such actions is not bigotry, it is love. If one loves one's faith, he wants to keep the beliefs and values that stem from that faith, pure and undefiled by other faiths. Thus he places a wall between his faith and the faith of others. And when one loves his kith and kin, he wants to keep them segregated from those who are not his kith or kin.

Although it is now regarded as a given that segregation of the races is a bad thing, it is remarkable how reality has confirmed the correctness of the original Southern segregationists. What, following the war, were the fears of Southern whites? They feared that integration would lead to --

1) The undermining of their unique civilization, which if not perfect, was at least the closest attempt on the North American continent to incorporate Christianity into a social system. Integration helped undermine that civilization.

2) They were afraid that integration would lead to intermarriage, thus threatening the survival of the white race and the civilization which the whites had built. This has happened. I cannot go to any public place anymore without seeing interracial couples.

3) They were afraid that integration would lead to a reign of black revenge and terror. This has also happened.

So why are we supposed to genuflect before the altar of integration? Segregation is not evil; it allows one to practice Christianity to its fullest extent. Albert Schweitzer, a man who is never mentioned anymore because he was a segregationist and a paternalist, did more work of Christian charity for black people than any other man or woman of any color, living or dead. But he did so because he had a belief in segregation. Because his white beliefs had been kept segregated from black values, he was able to minister to the physical and spiritual needs of blacks. He could give them the values of his civilization because he, and the men before him, had kept their values segregated.

But what about the brotherhood of man? What about unity and harmony? Well, false unity is not unity. We can all abandon what we hold dear in order to be unified under false principles that nobody really believes in. Or we can adhere to principles that we hold to be true, and segregate ourselves from those who hold contrary principles. Then unity, if it comes, will come from conversion. "I think those principles and that way of life in their city is better than mine, and I will attempt to turn my own segregated city into one like theirs." And the work goes on till every segregated city has the same principles and the same spirit. Thus, true unity comes only from segregation, not integration. Integration breeds only hatred, spiritual indifference, and intellectual dishonesty.

That Within Which Passeth Show

Suspend for the duration all your preconceived notions about Shakespeare received from literary critics and journalists. To understand a real poet, you must strip away all the layers of sludge from around your heart and let it respond to the poet. If we truly have souls, then we have a genuine heart, perhaps unknown to us, that can hear the poetic muse.

Let us meet the poet: he sees, not in a purely rational or clairvoyant sense, but in an intuitive poetic sense, that he stands on the threshold of a new world. This new world is not a better world. It is a world split apart by the Aristotleian-Thomistic separation of reason from grace. And the Protestant reaction to the break has not put the splintered wreck of the faith back together again. Henceforward, that pernicious heresy of the intellect divorced from the heart, the Gnostic heresy, would be a force to be reckoned with.

The poet saw the new force corrupting all of Europe. He saw a new Christianity, crafted onto the old Christianity. This new Christianity, spawned from the isolated intellect, was of necessity a dialectical faith. It set husband against wife, brother against brother, reason against grace, clergy against layman, and the heart against the intellect. In short, the poet saw the complete dislocation of man from the life of God. God would henceforth exist only as an intellectual construct. Man was on his own, left to intellectually conjugate God, but doomed never to know Him again.

But the Bard knew God. Giving his hero the name of his dead son, who was living (he firmly believed) in the arms of his Lord, the Bard launched Hamlet into the world to attack the Gnosticism of the new religion. But he wanted his hero to be a real hero. He wanted his hero to face the heresy of the age and of the future and to defeat that heresy.

Hamlet comes from the University, where students regularly have their heads severed from their hearts and souls. He suffers from the Gnostic disease himself and seems to be at a loss as to how to deal with the ill tidings he has received from his father's ghost. He is scared, confused, and angry. He is out of joint and not capable, as he acknowledges – "Oh cursed spite" – of setting things right.

But by the end of the play he does set things right. How? Because Hamlet loves. If one looks only at external events, Hamlet is a murderer, a usurper, and a cad who drives a young woman to suicide. But we who have followed Hamlet through the maze know differently. Hamlet loved his noble father; those pseudo-theologians who tell us that Hamlet is damned for following the vengeful dictates of his father fail to see how the Ghost's injunctions differ from mere pagan blood-letting ("Leave her to heaven") just as they fail to see how nature and grace blend together in a Christian soul.

Likewise Hamlet loves his mother in more than just the Freudian sense. And Ophelia? Is it possible to doubt that he loved her? No! It is at Ophelia's grave that Hamlet finally puts his own fragmented soul together: "This is I, Hamlet the Dane."

And when Hamlet walks out alone to fight a duel that he knows will mean death, he does so because he accepts that --

[T]there's a special providence in the fall of a sparrow. If it be now, 'tis not to come; if it be not to come, it will be now, yet it will come: the readiness is all: since no man knows aught of what he leaves, what is't to leave betimes? Let be.

The reason Hamlet has held such fascination over the years for the general audience and for the literary critic is that he is the first stage hero to confront modernity. Thus the literary critic will delight in dissecting the 'sicko' who defies modernity, and the base, common populace will champion or condemn Hamlet depending on how far down the modern slope they have traveled.
But let us not have any doubt that it is modernity which Hamlet confronts in the person of Claudius. Claudius is the post-Christian man, the precursor of the anti-Christ. He knows the ways of God, he can ape the good well enough to fool even the elect, but his heart and soul are at the service of the devil.

It is significant that Hamlet, who is a genius, cannot move successfully against Claudius until he ceases to try to combat him with only his own genius. When he gives himself up to Divine Providence and acts in the fullness of his personality as King and son, he defeats Claudius. And between his discovery of his uncles' treachery and his death, Hamlet gives us the definitive refutation of modernity. Remember when Rosencrantz and Guildendstern, acting for Claudius, try to exploit their former friendship with Hamlet in order to "pluck out the heart of his mystery"? Hamlet finds them out with ease and speaks not only to them, but to Claudius and all psychotherapists, neoclassicists, formalist theologians, and Gnostics of the modern world when he enjoins them to "play upon the pipe."

Hamlet. Will you play upon this Pipe?

Guildenstern. My Lord, I cannot.

Ham. I pray you.

Guild. Believe me, I cannot.

Ham. I do beseech you.

Guild. I know no touch of it, my Lord.

Ham. 'Tis as easy as lying: govern these ventages with your finger and thumb, give it breath with your mouth, and it will discourse most excellent Music. Look you, these are the stops.

Guild. But these cannot I command to any utterance of harmony, I have not the skill.

Ham. Why look you now, how unworthy a thing you make of me: you would play upon me; you would seem to know my stops: you would pluck out the heart of my
Mystery; you would sound me from my lowest Note, to the top of my Compass: and
there is much Music, excellent Voice, in this little Organ, yet cannot you make it. Why do you think, that I am easier to be play'd on than a Pipe? Call me what
Instrument you will, though you can fret me, you cannot play upon me.

Yes, only the heart can know the mystery of another heart. To the intellect alone, the heart remains an enigma. Horatio, whose philosophy is inadequate, still has enough heart to pronounce the correct benediction for his friend and King.

Now cracks a noble heart. –good night, sweet prince;And flights of angels sing thee to thy rest!—

Shakespeare sets the stage for us. The Gnostics will always be at war with the God-Man. They hate, like Satan, anything that is tainted with humanity. So above all, they hate the Incarnation and the civilization that placed the Incarnate God at its center. What Shakespeare tells us in the conflict between Claudius and Hamlet is that we cannot defeat the Claudiuses of the world if we are like unto them. It cannot be brain against brain, Moriarity against Holmes. It must be the integral, heroic man of heart and blood against the disembodied, heartless, bloodless villain – it must be Hamlet vs. Claudius, Tell vs. Gessler, Bulldog Drummond vs. Peterson, and the Scarlet Pimpernel vs. Chauvelin.

The bloodless, chestless men will always be with us. They are the waste products of a Christian civilization; but they should not be at the center of our culture. It is the duty of white Europeans to push them back to the dark fringes of civilization.

Hamlet curses the day that he was "born to set it right." But he ultimately accepts his destiny and he does set it right. The white European hero culture is Hamlet's culture. It is our culture, and it is His culture. We are called to defend it against the white technocrat, the colored hordes, and against all the forces of hell.

Tintagel vs. Haiti

Samuel Francis was one of the few men who pointed out the ugly lie at the heart of the cultural diversity agenda of our government, our schools, and our churches. When the people in these institutions say "cultural diversity," they claim to mean, "You respect my culture and I'll respect yours." But in reality they mean, "All white culture is evil and must be eradicated from the face of the earth."

And in fact there has never been a nation with multiple races in which one race was not dominant over the other. I think it is better for the white race and for the black race if the white race is the dominant race. I base that politically incorrect sentiment on the historical record. When white folk dominate, if you look at the totality of their actions, an amazing record of noblesse oblige and Christian charity emerges. When the black race dominates, there is unspeakable barbarism and darkness. Read T. Lothrop Stoddard's book, The French Revolution in San Domingo, to see the prototype for all black states.

Stoddard begins the book, written in 1914, with his reason for presenting us with an historical account of the revolution in San Domingo:

The world-wide struggle between the primary races of mankind – the "conflict of color," as it has been happily termed – bids fair to be the fundamental problem of the twentieth century, and great communities like the United States of America, the South African Confederation, and Australasia regard the "color question" as perhaps the gravest problem of the future. To our age, therefore the French Revolution in San Domingo – the first great shock between the ideals of white supremacy and race equality, which erased the finest of European colonies from the map of the white world and initiated that most noted attempt at Negro self-government, the black republic of Haiti – cannot but be of peculiar interest.

Yes, it should be of peculiar interest. But it isn't. White people just ignore the warning sign.

When the white citizens of San Domingo foolishly linked their government to that of the French, they suffered through the chaos of the French Revolution in their own country. But the reign of terror in France was a Sunday picnic compared to what happened in San Domingo:

The time was now ripe for the final blow. When the French troops had left the country in November, 1803, Dessalines had promised protection to all white civilians who chose to remain, and shortly afterwards a proclamation had invited all white exiles to return. The favorable treatment accorded those who remained after the departure of Rochambeau induced a considerable number of colonial whites to return to San Domingo. But no sooner was the black leader firmly seated on his imperial throne than those unfortunates discovered their mistake in trusting the word of Dessalines. Scarcely had the new year begun when orders went forth to massacre the white population, and on April 25, 1805, a ferocious proclamation set the seal on this awful proscription and laid down that doctrine of white exclusion ever since retained as the cardinal point of Haitian policy.

The nature of these events is well shown by the letter of a French officer secretly in Port-au-Prince at the time, who himself escaped by a miracle to the lesser evil of an English prison in Jamaica. "The murder of the whites in detail," he writes, "began at Port-au-Prince in the first days of January, but on the 17th and 18th March they were finished off en masse. All, without exception, have been massacred, down to the very women and children. Madame de Boynes was killed in a peculiarly horrible manner. A young mulatto named Fifi Pariset ranged the town like a madman searching the houses to kill the little children. Many of the men and women were hewn down by sappers, who hacked off their arms and smashed in their chests. Some were poniarded, others mutilated, others 'passed on the bayonet,' others disemboweled with knives or sabers, still others stuck like pigs. At the beginning, a great number were drowned. The same general massacre has taken place all over the colony, and as I write you these lines I believe that there are not twenty whites still alive – and these not for long."

This estimate was, indeed, scarcely exaggerated. The white race had perished utterly out of the land, French San Domingo had vanished forever, and the black State of Haiti had begun its troubled history.

And what happened after Stoddard published his account of the first black attempt at self-government? Did white people take note and take the precautionary measures necessary to ensure the survival of the white race? Of course not. Rhodesia went the way of Haiti, and then South Africa followed suit largely because of outside pressure from Britain and the United States.

And what about Britain and the United States? They are both endeavoring to transform themselves into larger versions of Haiti, which, to put it mildly, seems rather self-destructive, doesn't it?

And it seems there is always some Christian clergyman who can be seen, torch in hand, running around setting fire to every European virtue. Look! There goes 'chivalry' up in flames. And over there I see 'love of kin' going up in flames. And now I see Father Spirit-of-the-Times setting fire to 'charity' while the whore called Ms. Modern Times looks on and applauds.

And then from the shadows steps an old man, with the eyes of a prophet.

"Think about what you do this day. As Judas betrayed Christ, so do you betray Him when you burn all the fruits of His glorious life and death."

But the crazed clergyman does not heed the old man, and in fact it appears he sees but does not hear him. The applause of the whore is all he hears. So the fire rages and eventually envelops the clergyman and the whore. Before the flames completely engulf them we can see them embracing each other, still enjoying the sight of the old European virtues in flames, but not realizing that they embrace for the last time.

In the morning the old man with the prophetic eyes walks through the rubble and ashes. He weeps. In the distance he sees, through his tears, a tall figure walking toward him. The figure is hooded and wearing the garb of some ancient religious order. He walks right up to the old man.

"Why do you weep?"

"Because I once ruled this very kingdom, or at least one like it. We were one race, one faith, and our swords and our hearts served Him. But we were defeated from within. My own queen and my most trusted knight betrayed me. That was long ago. But I returned, hoping to stop the destruction of this kingdom and these people. But it was too late and they did not heed me. And so I weep, for I have seen it all turn to ashes a second time."

"But you mustn't weep, my king."

"You know me?"

"Yes, I know you. You are Arthur Pendragon. And I have come to tell you that you shall be a king once more. Across the sea, in your own Tintagel, there is a small band of Europeans. They are eating roots and berries and have no knowledge of the true faith. But they are Europeans and they need you. They have that special fire in their hearts. They long to serve a true king, a king who can tell them about the King of Kings, a king who will show them why a sword is shaped like a cross. You must go to those people and be a king once more."

And then a strange thing happened. The old man was an old man no more. He was young again. He was Arthur in his prime.

The monkish stranger walks with Arthur to the shore where a ship waits for him. The ship is manned by an angelic crew. Arthur turns to the stranger.

"I think I know your voice, but I dare not believe what I hope. Are you not my own true knight, the bravest of the brave and the purest of the pure? Are you not Sir Galahad?"

The stranger steps out of his monkish attire revealing a knight in light armour.

"Yes, my king, I am Sir Galahad. And together we will build a nation of one race, one faith, one king, and one Lord."

And so they sailed for Tintagel, to build a new Europe, which was a very old Europe, and to worship a new God, who was a very old God.

--CWNY

William Tell

Of the great counterrevolutionary heroes of literature and legend, William Tell is one of my favorites. Despite Carlyle's attempt to make a revolutionary hero of him, Tell will forever be in the vanguard of the counterrevolutionaries.

Why is Tell a counterrevolutionary? Because of what he fights for and who he fights against. He fights first for his family, secondly for his countrymen, and thirdly for the holy Roman Emperor. His quarrel is not with the right ordering of Christendom with a Christian emperor as the overseer of numerous independent Christian states. Tell's quarrel is with a petty tyrant named Gessler. Gessler tramples on the sacred hearth rights of the Swiss people, and by doing so, violates his oath to the Emperor to rule as Christ the King would rule.

Tell, with no political aspirations whatever, does not seek a quarrel with Gessler. He lives the simple life of the mountain folk. But his life is not that of the incomplete woodsman hero of American folklore: Tell is an integral family man. He roams the mountains with his sons during the day, and nightfall finds him sleeping, not Natty Bumpo-style under the stars with an Indian, but under a humble roof with his wife and sons.

Gessler, however, is the type of man who must impose his pettiness of soul on those with largesse of soul. Hence the tyranny of the hat. We all know the result. Gessler begins the quarrel, but Tell finishes it. Because he has a heart on flame with love for his son and for his beloved mountain country, Tell knows it cannot end with the challenge of the apple. It has to end with an arrow in Gessler's heart, or else his children, his wife, and his country will be forever in danger. After the deed is done, Tell, as Schiller describes the scene, appears above the mountain rocks and issues his apologia for the execution of Gessler:

Tell: Thou know's the marksman—I, and I alone
Now are our homesteads free, and innocence
From thee is safe: thou'lt be our curse no more.

Yes, innocence is safe. Tell reaches the pinnacle of heroism. The true hero fights for innocence, for the hearth, for the babe at his mother's breast, and for the babe unborn in his mother's womb. We need William Tell in the 21^st century.

Of Peccaries and Wal-Mart

A friend of mine moved to Arizona about 10 years ago. At that time, the apartment complex where she moved was inhabited by predominantly white, English-speaking people. Now the apartment complex is inhabited predominantly by non-English-speaking Mexicans and Middle Eastern Arabs.

Besides the daily fear of robbery and assault, my friend must also live with the different customs of those Aztecs from south of the border, one of which is to allow peccaries, a breed of wild pig, to roam the apartment complex.

Nor are those not directly located on the borders immune from the Aztec invasion. (I use the term 'Aztec' because the illegal and legal Mexican immigrant is seldom of the white Spanish breed.) My cousin, who owns a small farm, has told me about a long row of trailers near his land which house the Mexicans who work at the local Wal-Mart. In this particular Wal-Mart, my cousin reported, the workers were not permitted to sit at any time during the working day. They even eat their lunches standing up, and they probably are not even allowed to sit down to die.

No pot-bellied, country club Republican should be allowed to claim he is a capitalist and a conservative. There is nothing conservative about capitalism. The capitalist wants open borders, which destroy nationhood; he wants a low minimum wage, which destroys home and hearth; and he wants an ever-expanding, ever-changing economy, which destroys home, hearth, and nation.

The big-wig capitalists at the turn of the century were called robber barons. Their descendants are even worse. We are entirely too gentle with them considering they have robbed us of something more valuable than money: our European heritage.

Ere I own a usurper
I'll crouch with the fox
So tremble false whigs,
In the midst o' your glee,
Ye have not seen the last
O' my bonnets and me.

--Sir Walter Scott

What Do Bin Laden, Star Wars, and Harry Potter Have in Common?

I must forcefully disagree with those American conservatives who have presented the "war on terror" as a war of the good forces of democracy and freedom vs. the evil forces of Bin Laden and his legions. I see the war as a battle between two evil forces, both diametrically opposed to Christianity, and both heretical perversions of Christianity.

Let's deal with the American heresy first: in the apocryphal gospels, written about the same time as the genuine ones (the alleged gospel of St. Thomas is an example), Christ is depicted as a great magician who goes around zapping things and people. Tricks and gimmicks figure prominently in the bogus gospels. In contrast, the Christ depicted in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John is reluctant to perform miracles. Satan tries to get Him to do miracles just for miracles' sake, and Christ rebukes him. When Christ does perform miracles, it is out of an overwhelming sense of compassion for some individual human being, the daughter of Jairus, Lazarus, the blind man, the paralytic, and so on. His miracles are consistent with the truth that He came to reveal through the miracle, namely that God has a human heart with a love that passeth all understanding. The loving image of Christ was held to be the true one by the majority of Europeans throughout the Christian centuries. But there was always that other view on the fringes of Christendom: the view of Christ as magician and conjurer. The adherents to the magical version of Christianity seek to emulate Christ the magician, not to worship Christ the God-Man.

And it is the modern technocrats who are the heirs of the early magicians. The reason capitalists love Harry Potter and Star Wars is because both celebrate the triumph of magic and technology over Christianity. Who needs a God when one has magical powers and the technology such powers give?

The magician-technocrat is always a utopian. From Robespierre's reign of terror to eliminate terror, to the Yankee's war on "inequality," to the modern American unending war on terrorism, the goal is always a utopian one. Robespierre wanted to purge France of all evil doers, and the North wanted to purge the world of backward, bigoted, reactionary agrarians. The modern American terrorists want to bomb every country that doesn't agree to be a free market democracy. And please, in regard to my last assertion, don't try to tell me the reason we are adding nation after nation to our bombing list is because we are concerned about terrorist attacks in our country. If the technocrats were really concerned about terrorist attacks, they would move to restrict immigration. But that they will not do, since to do so would violate the technocratic creed of "markets without end, amen."

Of course, the technocratic, utopian magicians are no longer on the fringes of Western civilization, they are Western civilization. They dominate even the Christian church. No organized group of Christians opposes them. Some isolated resistance does exist in the ranks of some fundamentalists and in the hearts of some poets, but such resistance is very marginal. Christianity has returned to a minor cult status in the world.

The temptation, if one is opposed to the new dominant, technocratic religion, is to support any movement in opposition to it. Enter the Moslem heresy. But Islam does not hate the West because of its technology; it hates the West because it still believes the West to be Christian. Moslems envy the West's technological power, but they do not oppose the West as liberals claim because of our materialism. Islam followed Christianity, and, like all heresies, took just one aspect of Christianity and made that its 'all' while condemning every other aspect of the Faith. The all-powerful, transcendent God became the Moslems' Allah, while the incarnate God of love became a blasphemy. Watching the Islamic world and the technocratic world clash is like watching a dragon fight a Cyclops. Whichever one wins, it will go bad for the Christian bystander.

The situation of the Christian today is not directly analogous to the Christian of the Roman catacombs. The modern Christian, like the catacomb Christian, is a member of a disdained and persecuted minority religion, but he is unlike the catacomb Christian in a very profound way. The modern Christian is a member of a religion that once was a dominant religion.

Most of the signs and symbols of the old Christian Faith still exist in bastardized forms, making it much harder for a Christian now to know who his enemies and his friends are. It is also much harder to evangelize, because Christianity is not a new religion as it was in the time of the catacombs but a religion that has been tried and rejected.

Although in the minority, antique Christians could make a very sizeable breach in the enemies' wall if they would stop being fooled by post-Christians who still use the old Christian words and forms to cloak very anti-Christian deeds. Leaving it up to God to judge the disposition of souls, Christians should judge the actions of post-Christian deceivers. When George Bush proclaims he is a Christian and then pursues a "one World" democratic, capitalist faith, he is not a Christian. When the Catholic popes pursue a policy of ecumenism that leads to joint worship with Muslims, they are not believing Christians by any yardstick of any Christian living prior to the 20th century. And when Catholic and Protestant clergy tell us that black voodoo and Christianity are compatible, they reveal to us that they are not Christian and are in league with the enemy.

The first step in any war is to know whom one is fighting. It is possible to defeat Muslims and post-Christian technocrats if one puts them both in the ranks of the enemy, where they belong.

The Whiteman Unchained, Part II

I read R. Jamison's recent post in which he quoted a black columnist's reaction to the white protests of the torture-murders of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom. The columnist's reaction? "Cry me a river."

To say I felt rage would be a gross understatement. I felt something burn within me that went beyond rage. And yet I did not go down to Knoxville, kill the murderers, and beat the columnist to within an inch of his despicable life. Why didn't I? For the obvious reason that I don't possess the superhuman courage to offer myself up for martyrdom. Antique Christians make a mistake when they depict liberals as weak. Liberals often seem weak to those on the right because they will not fight in defense of the things for which old style Christians used to fight. But liberals will fight, and kill, for causes they hold dear. The murder of Paul Hill by liberals is a case in point.

I want to emphasize, however, that I would kill those inhuman murderers and beat the liberal columnist senseless if the liberal state did not stand ready to execute me for such actions. However, I do not refrain because I think my Christian faith forbids it. Indeed, I would claim that my desire to kill the murderers and punish the columnist stems from my Christian faith. So either I or our contemporary Christians are in error, because they certainly would not support my view of Christianity and killing.

I could, if I desired, cite chapter and verse from Catholic and Protestant moral theologians on the subject of a 'just' war, and the prohibitions on an individual taking up arms against the state. But I will not cite from those weighty tomes. And I will not, because, just as our initial intuitions of life are anterior to our rationalizations about life, so are our heartfelt passions, to kill in defense of and to punish home when innocent blood is shed, anterior to the theological commentaries on the subject of when a Christian should kill. The theologians are no more capable of giving us sound advice on killing than a eunuch is capable of fathering a child.

How did men, real Christian men, of the past respond to atrocities committed against their own? They came upon the perpetrators of such deeds and killed them. Sometimes, when Christian men were in power, they punished home with the full weight of the state behind them. But when they were out of power and ruled by satanic forces (as was the South during the "Reconstruction" era), they still found a way to punish home.

There is no escaping it. Either our American European and European ancestors were wrong about Christianity and killing, or our contemporary "Christians" are wrong.

The truth of the matter is that democracy, as Richard Weaver has pointed out, means something much more than a form of government to modern Christians. It is Zion. Read through the rhetoric of one of the first, "new breed" Democratic war mongers, Abraham Lincoln. Though he objected to the excessive zeal of the radical abolitionists, he threw his lot in with them, because both "were moving toward Zion." There is no difference between the secular Zion of the democracy advocates and the worker's paradise of communism. The utopian theory behind both systems states that the people rule. And in both systems, a tiny oligarchy actually rules.

Institutional Christianity is satanic because the churches have bedded down with the whore called democracy. Our satanic democratic government has nothing in common with the town meeting styled democracy of the rural farmers and tradesmen of the 1700s. It is a capitalist oligarchy without room for anything that touches or deals with the spiritual dimension of man.

And the only opposition to the democratic oligarchy seems to come from the ranks of the white pagan groups. White Christians are deterred from action because, despite their grumblings about them, they have an inordinate respect for their clergymen. But the clergymen have placed their hopes in a philosophical system that consists of pseudoscientific meanderings and psychological hocus pocus. They still call it Christianity, but it is not. If we look at the past with a sincere attempt to understand the spirit behind the traditions of our ancestors, we will be able to judge our contemporaries who claim they support murder and torture because they are democratic and Christian. Understanding tradition is an act of the imagination and the heart. One has to have a desire to see things as the men and women of the past saw things. You cannot simply copy an external ceremony or rite and be united with the past, and what we find when we unite with the past is that Christian men fought and killed in defense of kith and kin.

If we clear away all the cant about "sacred democracy" and break free from clerical domination, we will see that defending our own and punishing those who attack our own is a tactical problem, not a moral one. We have a duty to protect and defend. The only question should be, how do we do so in the face of the most thoroughly satanic governmental power structure ever conceived.

We are in a much more desperate situation than the Scottish people were in after their defeat at Culloden in 1745, and than the South was in during the era of Reconstruction. In both cases in point there was a clannish solidarity among the disenfranchised. The Scottish Highlanders paid double rents, one to the English under compulsion, and a second to their exiled chieftains out of loyalty. And in the South, the Klan was able to rise and ride because there was overwhelming support for their efforts. In the contemporary U.S. and Europe, there is no spirit of clannishness, which is the reason that the white Christian remnant writes anonymous blogs in cyberspace. Such blogging is a step up from hiding in the basement, but our ultimate goal should be the restoration of Christian Europe and the defeat of democratic capitalism and racial babelism.

The modern white man believes that democracy, whether it be democratic socialism or democratic capitalism, is the end of human history. The colored tribes, because they can be ruled by sacrificial offerings of "worthless, non-productive whites," are an essential part of the post Christian's democratic vision. Whether it be McCain's vision of grateful Mexican peons licking his presidential feet or Pope John Paul II's vision of happy, vital Africans kissing his pontifical ring, it is the same fantasy: A high, mucky-muck white liberal presides over large tribal hordes of colored men and women who have enough sense, unlike his fellow whites, to accord him the dignity and honor he deserves. That is their delusional vision. And it should be noted that even fundamentalist Christians, who profess to be against evolution as it pertains to the origin of man, believe in an evolutionary, mystical concept of American democracy; they believe that it is God's preferred system of government and that any previous or contrary system of government is backward and unChristian. But such is not the case. The first European Christian form of government was the clan. And as we move from the clan to monarchy to democracy, we make a descent, not an ascent. The hearth, the village and the field, those are the components of a Christian commonwealth, not the factory, the city, and asphalt. This ludicrous notion that without democratic capitalism we would all live in huts without indoor plumbing is nonsense. We would not have condos or skyscrapers, but we would have houses that were homes with Christian hearths.

The difference between a tribe and a clan is the hearth. In a tribe, fire is necessary to cook with, and both human and animal meats are cooked on the tribal fires. But the hearth fire in a clan is the place where two or three gather together in His name. It has been sanctified because He is welcome there. When many such hearths are banded together, they constitute a clan, which is why it would be an ascent to a higher plane of existence, not a descent, if white people could become clansmen again.

One thing should be fixed in our mind before we proceed against the satanic whites and their barbarian minions. There will be no mercy in them. They have rejected the religion of mercy. In their value system there is no punishment too severe for the undemocratic, unredeemed white Christians. So maybe in the beginning, the fight will have to be with blogs. But when the time is ripe, it is Christian to fight and to kill in defense of, and to punish home.

It is important as well that we not let young white men who have a desire to fight with something besides words be siphoned off by satanic, Christ-hating Christians. When society only permits warlike behavior in defense of satanic causes, it is difficult to stop young men from serving those causes. "It's easy for you to say," the young man says. "Your blood has cooled with age." But I do know what the young white male feels, because my blood has not cooled with age and because I have vivid memories.

I think every police officer, at least those with white blood, has a very basic, rather romantic, notion of his job. He believes that he is Wyatt Earp or some such figure, and that he stands between the bad guys and civilized society. I know I had such notions when I was a young police officer. But the reality was quite different. I was only allowed to act against lower class, drunk and disorderly whites. I was not allowed to act against the more dangerous black criminals. To do so, we were informed (not directly, but implicitly) would bring a host of civil rights organizations against us and could result in our own incarceration. Now in my district there was a black section that we were periodically told to go through and show a police presence. But we were not to respond in any way to what was thrown at us – bottles or words – as we proceeded down the mean streets. On some hot summer nights things got so bad in the district that our sergeant took an entire squad of police officers through the black district. On one such night, a homemade bomb was thrown from one of the houses bordering the street. It hit one of the officers. I felt a rage run through me similar to the rage I feel now toward the black torturer-murderers. Apparently I was not the only officer who felt that rage because that night we didn't crawl. It was a very instructive experience for me. Sneering, smug barbarians became cringing, cowering creatures. The barbarians do not know what to do when enraged white men show a united front.

Although nothing was done that night that was morally wrong, much was done that was politically incorrect. There were repercussions, from white liberals of course, and many officers were made to regret the one night when they responded to what was in their hearts and blood instead of the dictates of white liberaldom.

It might seem that I've muddied the waters. I started with a plea for Christians to break the chains of democracy and to start thinking about fighting and killing in defense of kith and kin, and I ended with a plea to young white men to shun warlike behavior. But of course there is no contradiction. My plea is not for killing for the sake of killing. The barbarians do that. It is a plea for a sense of clannishness among white Christians and a realization of what actions might be necessary to defend the clan. Sometimes defense of the clan will require violent action, and sometimes it will require a loss of a career because that career would require a young man to act with violence against the interests of his clan. If Christian males, for instance, ever get past the blogging stage and really start to show a united front against black and Mexican barbarians, do you think a president such as George Bush would hesitate for one second to send federal troops against them?

What seems like a hopelessly complicated problem in moral theology is not all that complicated. Show me a man with a truly European heart, a heart in tune with His Heart, and he'll know the difference between fighting for the leviathan and fighting for kith and kin. And when white men break free from the mind-forged manacles of democracy, such men will rise and ride when they see the fiery cross.