Cambria Will Not Yield

Wednesday, January 30, 2008

Death in the Mountains

John Clark concludes an article entitled “Horror on the Border” with these words: “We can only hope that an aroused American citizenry will demand action from this year’s presidential candidates.” Is Mr. Clark serious? The republicans are about to nominate a man who has promised to turn the country over to the barbarian hordes and give us war without end in the Middle East. If you’re playing the ‘lesser of two evils’ politics, Hillary Clinton is the lesser. The aroused American citizen? John McCain couldn’t have been more obviously demonic if he sported the traditional tail and horns. And yet the Floridians voted for him. And the seniors, members of the much-touted ‘best generation,’ voted for the devil man in large numbers. Perhaps the generation that trusted good old Uncle Joe Stalin is not really the ‘best’ generation.

The colossal error in Clark’s article is the reference to American citizenry. There is no American citizenry. We are a nation of warring tribes. We have the technocratic, neo-con tribe, the Mexican tribe, the black tribe, and the Amazon tribe. But there is no white male tribe. A few white males exist, but they are statistically off the radar screen.

There will be no rear guard to protect our flight. So there will be no time to regroup, increase our numbers, and counterattack. The enemy is amongst us, and they are slaughtering the pathetic remnants of our army. We have no choice but to fight. Surrender is not only morally reprehensible, it is impractical. The enemy does not extend mercy to the vanquished. They are the devil’s own, and mercy is not an attribute of the devil.

The time for politics is over. It is now time for Rob Roy and William Tell.

Labels: , ,

Saturday, January 26, 2008

What Makes a Man Say “Never Surrender” and Mean It?

With the cautionary tale of Haiti before their eyes, the Rhodesian whites still turned their country over to black barbarians. And with the example of Rhodesia before their eyes, the white South Africans still voted to place themselves at the mercy of a people who had no concept of mercy. Then in our own country, in the South of the 1950’s, the wall that separated the whites from the colored races was torn down. Why did they all cave in? Well, let us first look at the outside forces that turned civilized white African countries into voodoo blood orgies and the South into New Orleans.

The prime shakers and movers in the ‘Onward to Racial Babylon’ movement were the Utopian whites. These people had entered, in their minds, the La La Land of Rousseau. They saw themselves as the great white wizards who would give the noble black savages their freedom, and in return they expected to be worshipped by the people of color. They held the reins of power in the United States and throughout the Western world. Their techniques were childishly (that is, of an evil child) simple. They practiced exclusion and name-calling in order to bring racially recalcitrant nations to heel. “Nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, you are a racist, and you can’t play with us!” was the war cry of the Utopians. And it worked. A friend, who had lived in South Africa during the period leading up to the fateful vote for extinction, said that the main reason the average white South African gave for voting to end apartheid was his desire to be included in the Olympics and other Western sporting events. And if we look at the Southern states in the 1950’s, we can see the same forces at work. The Southern colleges, prior to the 1950’s, used to refuse to play Northern colleges which had blacks on their teams. And until the 1950’s, the South refused to play in the national Little League tournament because they didn’t want to integrate their baseball teams. But they wanted to be included, so they capitulated.

What makes a people give in to name-calling and ostracization when they have a noble history of resisting much stronger measures in the past? Why did the people who had defended Rorke’s Drift and the people who had resisted Reconstruction allow themselves to be led to the slaughter by limp-wristed Utopians? The answer lies in the white man’s faith.

That the white man’s Christian faith produced men and women who were morally superior to the ancient pagans and the barbarian races cannot be proven in the same way that 2 + 2 = 4 can be proved. In fact one must still be connected to the older European civilization to be able to see the value of its people. The European Utopian and the barbarian cannot see the value of the older civilization and its people because the barbarian lives in the darkness and the utopian lives in a mind-forged lunatic asylum. But objective reality, which only the European who is still European can see, is that the European people were moral giants in a world of moral eunuchs and moral pygmies. What the Utopians promised to the last of the white holdouts in Africa and to the South was that they could have their faith and the fleshpots of Sodom and Gomorrah too. The Utopians assured them that they would not become pillars of salt when they looked back. They could be part of the racially harmonious Sodom and Gomorrah to which the rest of the white world had already succumbed.

The results were dramatic in white Africa. The white man could not go back to paganism because, though no longer fully Christian, he was still too Christian to be a good pagan. He became a useless pillar of salt. And in the South? It wasn’t quite as dramatic, but the results were the same: “He did not die, but nothing of life remained.”

It is painful to go back and read all of the “never surrender” assertions of the Southern segregationists and the white Africans. They seemed to be so determined not to give in, yet they did. In hindsight, it appears there were too many George Wallaces and Strom Thurmonds in their midst, men who supported the white cause when it seemed politically expedient and abandoned it when it became inexpedient. Such men lacked the Christian thing. If we look inside the souls of the defenders of Rorke’s Drift and the men of the Reconstruction Era, we can see what makes a man say “never surrender” and mean it.

The defenders of Rorke’s Drift and the Klansmen would not have been able to articulate the reasons for their refusal to surrender to black barbarism. They simply took it as a given – “never surrender, never say die.” But the unarticulated reasons for their refusal to surrender stemmed from the Christianity that was in their blood. The antique Christian knew the sinfulness of mixing with the heathen from his belief in the inerrancy of Scripture, which condemned race mixing. And he knew the foolhardiness of surrendering to the barbarian because of his historical consciousness, which stemmed from his belief in a God who had entered history.

When belief in revealed Truth lessens, so does the historical consciousness. “Why not mix with the heathen? It hasn’t been done in the past, but the past is not relevant.” In the absence of a deeply held religious conviction against race-mixing, the seemingly fierce resistance of the George Wallace, Strom Thurmond type of individual turns from a position of ‘never surrender’ to one of ‘You scratch my white back, and I’ll kiss your black a--.’ We’ve all seen how that works.

Robert Louis Stevenson is very underrated as a writer; he has great depth. And through his character Alexander Smollett, a Christian gentleman, he shows us why the Strom Thurmond type of white man caves in, and the Christian European does not. When faced with an ultimatum from the pirates, who seem to have the upper hand, Captain Smollett, replies:
“Now you’ll hear me. If you’ll come up one by one, unarmed, I’ll engage to clap you all in irons, and take you home to a fair trial in England. If you won’t, my name is Alexander Smollett, I’ve flown my sovereign’s colours, and I’ll see you all to Davy Jones.”
There are two reasons why Alexander Smollett refused to surrender. The first reason is that it simply isn’t done. A Christian gentleman, particularly an English one, doesn’t surrender to barbarians. And the second reason is that Captain Smollett knew, because he had an historical consciousness, that those individuals outside the sphere of Christianity have no concept of mercy or of a truce with dignity. Thus surrender is a metaphysical and a practical impossibility. When the George Wallace type of white South African and the Strom Thurmond type of Dixiecrat lost their Christian metaphysic, they were open to the idea that capitulation was practical. And thus they joined the barbarians and the Utopians.

The pathology of the white surrender to barbarism cannot be understood apart from Western man’s religious struggle. It was his faith that made him separate from the other races, and it was his lack of faith that caused him to seek extinction by blending with the other races. Because they are interdependent, Western man’s rush to extinction coincided with his complete rejection of Christianity in the second half of the 20th century. Certainly churches still exist, and some individual Europeans still hold His precious image in their hearts, but the European people, as an incorporate league, have rejected Christ. And it was not Darwin or Freud or Marx that severed European man from Christianity; they were merely additional links in a chain that was started by the medieval scholastics. All of nature, for the pagan, was animated by the gods. There were gods of the bush, gods of the sky, gods of the mountain, and so on. They were gods that could be propitiated in order to gain favor. Christianity dethroned those gods, but gave mankind something greater than nature to worship – a God who loved mankind, a God who desired not sacrifice but mercy. And He was one of us. We shared in His divine essence. God was still immanent, not in nature, but in man himself! How could any pagan lament the death of the nature gods when the alternative was so much better? Certainly not the Europeans. They embraced Christ with a passion. But the scholastic rebellion was the first satanic strike at the heart of the European’s faith. God was not immanent, the scholastics said, He was a derivative by-product of reason’s contemplation of the natural world. Christ’s words, “Behold the kingdom of God is within you,” were rejected as bad theology, and the anti-immanence police became the ruling authorities in the Church.

There were many resistance movements – the Franciscans were one prime example. But every time a St. Francis emerged, his movement was codified and emptied of its divine-human element. The Protestant Reformation was also an attempt to reclaim the original divine-human link. But the Protestant theologians re-imposed the prescriptions (God is not immanent) of scholasticism on the Protestant faithful, thus maintaining the dichotomy between a Christian’s loyalty to an abstract idea of God, preached by the hierarchy of his church, and his loyalty to the living God. And when the ‘Idea God’ of the various church hierarchies triumphs, the European’s loyalty to his own people perishes. How could it be otherwise? When God is an abstraction, so is man. One cannot be loyal to an abstraction.

European man’s battle is with himself. If he conquers the dragon of scholasticism, which is the progenitor of the scientific dragon, he will see his sacred heritage again. And then he will know that his heritage is intimately connected to his faith, which will give him the passion and fire to say, “We shall never surrender,” and truly mean it.

Labels: , ,

Tuesday, January 22, 2008

The Devil and John McCain

Shortly before his duel with Aaron Burr, Alexander Hamilton wrote to a friend and told him that he sensed he was dealing with a man in Aaron Burr who was possessed by the devil. He couldn't quite explain why he felt that way, but nevertheless he did. And I believe he was right. What kind of man, as it came out later, reads love letters, sent to him by his various paramours, to his daughter? A demonic man, that's who.

I don't have any hard evidence against McCain that would indicate that he is in league with the devil, but I do get an overwhelming sense, when I see him or hear him speak, that he is something more than simply a wrongheaded man. I get a very strong sense that I am in the presence of a man in league with Satan.

Although my feelings against McCain run deeper than I can articulate, there are some points that can be articulated. Two of the attributes of the devil are the satanic sneer and the ability to ape the good in order to cloak demonic intentions. McCain certainly possess those two demonic attributes. He sneered at those who opposed his amnesty bill, and he routinely wraps himself up in the flag whenever he is challenged on any issue. John McCain: 'the man of integrity' is the label he has acquired in the media from years of playing up to them, but 'the man who sold his soul to the devil' should be his real title.

A Hillary Clinton presidency would not be pleasant nor would a Barack Obama presidency, but both those individuals are merely the pathetic products of the modern world. They will do little good and much harm, but the harm they do will be done incrementally. In contrast, McCain has the Satanic pride to destroy the world. The nuclear holocaust that Goldwater never intended, except in the minds of the liberal media, under McCain will be a very definite probability.

There are no candidates who represent the interests of white people. A Ron Paul presidency would be a rear guard delaying action, not a counter-attack. In the absence of Ron Paul, is there anybody who can fight a rear guard action? Probably not. I would love to see Pat Buchanan, who is admittedly weak on the race issue, but the only man remotely connected to public life with an ounce of integrity, go to Romney and say, "Make me your vice president, and we'll pound home the free trade issue and the immigration issue and keep the devil out of the White House. But then I'm the same man who wanted Jefferson Davis to fire Bragg, resign the presidency, and turn the country and the war over to Nathan Bedford Forrest. Jefferson Davis didn't listen to me then, and I suspect no one will heed my advice this time either.

Addendum: Back in the Reagan days, I sent a $50 contribution to his campaign. In return, I got a "personal" letter asking me who I thought he should choose for his vice president. "Because you know," the letter said, "Reagan considers you one of his closest advisers." So I sent off another $50 and told him to make Pat Buchanan his vice president. And he didn't listen to me! I was shocked and devastated. "I thought I was one of your closest advisers!" I guess those other two close advisers opted for Bush.


Tuesday, January 15, 2008

The Swiss

"I had… all my life loved the mountain better than the plain; had been more pleased to walk than to ride; more proud to contend with shepherds in their sports than with nobles in the lists; and happier in the village dance than among the feasts of the German nobles."

-Walter Scott in Anne of Geierstein
I have always had a fondness for the country of Switzerland. Britain was my first love, but after Britain came Switzerland. I have never been to Switzerland nor have I ever made an extensive study of Swiss history. My fondness for Switzerland is grounded solely in my love for the story of William Tell, which might seem to be a rather superficial reason for loving a country. Possibly. But I recently read a history of Switzerland (written by a native Swiss but intended for English speaking readers) that convinced me that the William Tell story and Switzerland are one.

Every European country has had a similar history: each went from being pagan to Christian and from being Christian to post Christian. But I think, without having studied every single European nation, each nation of Europe also has a uniqueness which is exemplified by its national hero. Arthur for Britain, Roland for France, El Cid for Spain, and so on. And Tell for Switzerland.

William Tell is like all European heroes in that he fights in defense of; but he differs from other European heroes as well. Tell is not a warrior by profession. He is a humble craftsman of the mountains and the woods. He genuinely prefers the hearth to battle. Other heroes fight in defense of the hearth but are not really content unless they are in the thick of battle. Tell fights only because he has battle thrust upon him. And then he fights to the death.

A nation can only become that rare entity called a Christian commonwealth when the vast majority of the males in that nation find more romance in the practice of their craft or in the tilling of their fields than they do in battle. The Swiss had their pagan wars and their Catholic vs. Protestant wars just like every other European nation, but the Swiss, unlike every other European nation, had an intense desire to settle their differences and return to their farms and to their trades. (1) They had managed to find romance in the homely virtues of shop, farm, and hearth.

Because the Swiss cherished the homely virtues, they were able to successfully maintain their neutrality in two world wars. And it was not the neutrality of the Quakers that they maintained, it was the neutrality of Tell: "I will be left alone or else I will retreat to my mountains and launch an arrow into the heart of the invader."

The Swiss, alas, like the rest of the European peoples, have betrayed their heritage. They have replaced the spirit of Tell with the spirit of capitulation. When a Christian people no longer see the distinctiveness of their civilization which was grounded in Christianity, then the dry rot sets in: "Why not permit Muslims, voodoo priests, and third world refugees to become Switzers?" Of course, there is a remnant that still believes as Tell believed, and that remnant is Switzerland. And I hope the remnant will reconquer Switzerland just as I hope the tiny remnant in Britain and in the rest of the European nations will also reconquer their own nations.+
(1) I'm certainly not suggesting that Switzerland was the only European nation that desired peace. But I think the Swiss had a larger percentage of males who truly wanted to return to their homes and resume their peaceful occupations. And a true appreciation for one's home, as distinct from the defense of the idea of the home, is the mark of the European, because he knows who presides over the European hearth.

Labels: ,

Tell's Birth-Place

Mark this holy chapel well!
The birth-place, this, of William Tell.
Here, where stands God's altar dread,
Stood his parents' marriage bed.

Here, first, an infant to her breast,
Him his loving mother prest;
And kissed the babe, and blessed the day,
And prayed as mothers used to pray.

'Vouchsafe him health, O God! And give
The child thy servant still to live!'
But God had destined to do more
Through him than through an armed power.

God gave him reverence of laws,
Yet stirring blood in Freedom's cause—
A spirit to his rocks akin,
The eye of the hawk and the fire therein!

To Nature and to Holy Writ
Alone did God the boy commit:
Where flashed and roared the torrent, oft
His soul found wings, and soared aloft!

The straining oar and chamois chase
Had formed his limbs to strength and grace:
On wave and wind the boy would toss,
Was great, nor knew how great he was!

He knew not that his chosen hand,
Made strong by God, his native land
Would rescue from the shameful yoke
Of Slavery--the which he broke!

- S. T. Coleridge

Labels: , ,

William Tell

In that fell strife, when force with force engages,
And Wrath stirs bloodshed—Wrath with blindfold eyes—
When, midst the war which raving Faction wages,
Lost in the roar—the voice of Justice dies,
When, but for license, Sin, the shameless, rages,
Against the Holy when the Willful rise,
When lost the Anchor which makes Nations strong
Amidst the storm—there, is no theme for song.

But when a Race, tending by vale and hill
Free flocks, contented with its rude domain—
Bursts the hard bondage with its own great will,
Lets fall the sword when once it rends the chain
And, flushed with Victory, can be human still—
There blest the strife, and then inspired the strain.
Such is my theme—to thee not strange, 'tis true:
Thou in the Great canst never find the New.

- Friedrich von Schiller

Labels: , ,


"Ron Paul Scandal!" the headlines ran. And of course the "scandal" was not an illicit affair or a campaign finance misdeed, it was "racist remarks." The remarks appearing in Ron Paul's newsletter of 1992 were not racist remarks, they were simple statements of fact about the black barbarians in our midst. Ron Paul understandably, but regrettably, tried to get out from under the racist label by dissociating himself from his own publication. It won't work – it never does.

The only consolation Ron Paul can take from the accusation of racism is that it is unlikely to lose him support from his hardcore followers, who have given him about 10% of the vote. But of course his aspiration is to become the president of the United States, not just to make a good showing.

It tells you something about this fine land of ours when men and women such as McCain, Huckabee, Obama, and H. Clinton, who are united in their satanic hatred of everything decent, can actually run for public office and get votes, while a decent man like Ron Paul has to put up with slander and abuse for speaking the truth.


The Law Above the Law

Hazleton, Pennsylvania, like many small towns throughout the U. S., has a problem with illegal aliens. The illegals were only asserting their ethnic pride by committing a few rapes and murders. And the cultural bigots of Hazleton responded in a most un-American way to the rapes and murders: they made it illegal for an illegal to work in Hazleton.

A very commendable step, but a Federal court ruled that the law passed by Hazleton to protect its citizens from rape and murder is unconstitutional. And of course the Federal court and the U. S. Government are insane and immoral. But what is our recourse when our own government is insane and immoral? Write a protest letter to our local congressman? No, I don't think so, because that would be the same as seeking redemption from the devil.

When a government forbids legitimate self-defense, that government is in league with those who rape and murder. One has to look to the law above the law in such circumstances. That law is the code of chivalry: "Such things will not be permitted despite all of their laws."

Labels: ,

Friday, January 04, 2008

European Identity

"A person who feels himself deprived of his natural birthright, denounced, exposed to confiscation and death, because he avouches the rights of his king, the cause of his country, ceases on his part to be nice or precise in estimating the degree of retaliation which it is lawful for him to exercise in the requital of such injuries…"

--Sir Walter Scott
There are few spectacles in the world more disgusting than the American electoral process. Candidates parade before the American public in a horrific display of pride, avarice, and greed. It is not a case of trying to pick the least satanic candidate; it is a case, if you choose to vote, of picking which one of the seven deadly sins you prefer: the satanic pride of McCain, the blasphemy of Huckabee, or the fiendish feminism of Hillary Clinton. It really doesn’t make much difference. The only prerequisite for participation in the American electoral process is the absence of a soul.

Every European country from Denmark to Australia is in the same democratic boat as the U. S., and we are all hopelessly adrift. It is time to close the democratic chapter of the European peoples' history. No genuine European should object to closing the democratic chapter of our history, because the democratic chapter has not benefited Europeans.

Despite numerous differences, every European country has gone through the following stages of government: A system of tribes or clans, followed by a more centralized monarchy, followed by a republican form of government with either no monarch or with a constitutional monarch, followed by a democracy in which a few individuals rule in the name of the people. Only the first three systems of government, the clan, the monarchy, and the republic, are legitimate forms of government. Each has its strengths and weaknesses, and no one form can be artificially adapted to a country in the hope that the mere external form in and of itself will cure a country's ills. The sickness is organic, and so must the cure be organic.

The great advantage, from my standpoint, of the clannish system of government is the great sense of loyalty to kith and kin that such a system engenders. "Touch any one of my people and no place on this earth will be safe for you." And of course that fierce clannish loyalty is also the disadvantage of that system: "Father, do we really have to annihilate the entire Douglas clan just because Fergus Douglas stole a chicken from the farmyard of Alistair MacDonald?" "Yes, son, the honor of the clan is at stake; how can you doubt it?"

The absolute monarchy has the great advantage of a clear hierarchical line: "I serve the King, and the King serves Christ." But suppose the King is a tyrannical rotter: "I serve the King and the King serves Satan." Somehow that doesn’t sound very good.

The republican-constitutional monarchical system also has its advantages. For one thing, there are more peaceful transitions of power in that type of system. And one is less subject to the tyrannical rule of a despotic Richard III or King John. Scott, for instance, despite his Scottish sympathy for the Highlanders and his appreciation for the poetic days of Ivanhoe, thought the republican constitutional monarchy he lived under superior to the clannish or monarchial system. But he was always worried about unchecked Whiggery, which leads us to the one fault, an unredeemable one in my judgment, of the republican form of government. A system of diffused powers can lead, under pressure, to democratic egalitarianism, and democratic egalitarianism is institutionalized tyranny. Since rule "by the people" is an impossibility, a small cabal of men, less democratically representative than either a clannish government, a monarchy, or a republic, holds the reins of power in a democracy. While flying a theoretical flag called "the people," democratic leaders enjoy a despotic rule that would have put Richard III to shame.

The citadels of power in the U.S. present democratic government as the final stage on the road to Zion, because they are members of the ruling elite. But what are the fruits of democracy? Has democracy been good for white, Christian Europeans? No, it has not. In the democratic chapter of European history, we have seen total war on a scale that makes the monarchial and clannish wars look like private quarrels, and we see a democratic egalitarianism that is on the verge of eliminating the white race.

Is it so difficult to see that if white people do not divorce themselves from the ruling democratic oligarchies to form their own separate nation, separate economically, militarily, and socially, they will cease to exist as a distinct people? The democratic delusion is almost universally believed by the European people. Even those on the right wing suffer from it. But if we look the delusion in the face, we can see it for what it truly is, a deadly disease of the soul.

The "prolife" movement is a textbook example of how the democratic delusion destroys the soul. How should a Christian react to the slaughter of innocents? Should he vote for "prolife" candidates who do nothing about legalized abortion once elected or should he support those heroes who go after the murderers? We know what the democracy-loving heretic does. He worships democracy and not the living God, so he takes the democratic path through the woods and ends up entangled in the thorns and thistles of the giant liberal briar patch.

The democratic delusion is also destroying the anti-immigration movement. What needs to be done for white Europeans to survive? It is necessary that Europe and its satellites remain white. So all Europeans that are still European should seek to stop all nonwhite immigration and begin to repatriate all nonwhites. Is there a presidential candidate even suggesting that? Of course not. So if there is no candidate with a European agenda, how will the electoral process aid white people? Every election that is held simply places another nail in the coffin of the European.

I hear the democratic man saying that "It's not possible to repatriate the non-whites; there are too many of them and it would be immoral." But that is exactly the opposite of reality. It is not practical to force a utopian concept of racial egalitarianism on a nation, and it is immoral and contrary to Christianity to build a democratic, multi-racial tower of Babel that is opposed to the will of God. If the white man uses the same ingenuity in repatriation and segregation that he has used in building the Tower of Babel, the race problem could be solved in a genuine Christian fashion. (1)

The white man has stepped outside of himself and his own civilization. He looks on the colored invasion as something that is happening to a particular civilization that would be termed European and to a particular type of person who would be deemed a white man. But it is happening externally. The threat of invasion does not affect the white man inside, in his soul, because he has lost his soul. A white man, such as Charles Martel, would not be able to understand the white man of today. When his civilization was threatened by barbarians, he responded with his whole heart and soul to the threat. We certainly have declined. We now obey the democratic oligarchy's command that we refrain from even articulating the dreams and aspirations of white people. We are supposed to be a non-people, so even the articulated concept that European people can have legitimate dreams and aspirations as a particular, distinct people is an anathema to the ruling elite.

The Cyclops makes Odysseus deny his name: "My name is Nobody." And Odysseus finds that intolerable. He must, despite all dangers, reclaim his name again. "Cyclops, if ever mortal man inquire how you were put to shame and blinded, tell him Odysseus, sacker of Troy, took your eye: Laertes' son, whose home's on Ithaka!" Should not a Christian European be capable of equaling the pagan? Can we not step away from the multi-racial, democratic Cyclops and reclaim our identity? We are white, Christian Europeans, who do not bend their knee to false gods, be they democratic or barbarian. Our civilization is His civilization, and we shall not debate its right to exist nor recoil from any measure necessary to defend it.+
(1) If one is not too literal minded, he can see a model for repatriation – the South. After Reconstruction ended, the white Southerners essentially formed two separate nations within a nation. I know liberals like to point out that the Jim Crow laws did not start up immediately after Reconstruction ended and that therefore integration was working, but it was precisely because white Southerners saw that voluntary segregation was not sufficient that they sought to give segregation legal sanction. The whole point is, of course, that it is the will currently lacking which prevents white people from defending their civilization, not the impracticality of the undertaking.

Labels: ,