William F. Buckley Jr., R.I.P.

I was saddened when I heard of his death. But I was saddened in an “everyman’s death diminishes me” sense. I did not feel the same sense of sorrow that I felt when Samuel Francis died. With Samuel Francis, I felt one of my own had died, which was not the case with William F. Buckley.

Mr. Buckley certainly doesn’t need my praise in passing; he will have his eulogists. It will be said that no man did more for the conservative cause. I can’t agree with that assessment. I think no man did more damage to the conservative cause. By linking the capitalist faith with conservatism, Buckley destroyed conservatism. It is the liberals who should applaud Buckley, not the genuine conservatives. But the genuine conservatives are gone, and even the liberal fusionist types like Buckley have been replaced by straight capitalists such as Rush Limbaugh.

I was somewhat surprised at the rather brief, perfunctory obituaries William F. Buckley received in the mainstream press. I suppose, at his death, he who had helped marginalize so many of the cultural conservatives, such as Samuel Francis, had become marginalized himself.

The Amazon, The Mau Mau, and the Devil

There are three tribes represented by the remaining, viable, presidential candidates: 1) John ‘The Devil Man’ McCain represents the Neocon Tribe, 2) Hillary Clinton, the Feminist-Amazon Tribe, and 3) Barack Obama, the African Tribe.

The Neocons’ first choice was Rudi Giuliani, but they will gladly settle for McCain because the continuance of the capitalist war in the Middle East is the Neocons’ top priority. One cannot appeal to the Neocons’ sense of humanity; they have none, but you would think that such learned men, who fancy themselves hard-headed realists, would be able to grasp the simple fact that every country in history that has squandered its money on foreign wars has ended up on the scrap heap of history. But the learned men are not wise men; they are mere caricatures of men who keep reality at bay by hiding on the top floor of the New Tower of Babel Hotel.

Our dear feminist candidate, Hillary, has run into a dilemma. Females, but not femininity, are good and must be supported, especially if they are running for a position that has not been held by a female before. But unfortunately for Hillary, when the liberals demonized masculinity they exempted black males. It is only white masculinity that is proscribed. Ivanhoe is evil, but Nelson Mandela is good. So feminist Hillary has to compete with a black male who is a liberal saint simply because of his color just as she is a liberal saint because of her gender.

Barack Obama is the logical consequence of years of ‘noble black savage’ propaganda. The only surprising thing about his candidacy is that he was not immediately inaugurated when he announced he was running for President. His candidacy has placed the technocratic white males of the Democratic Party in a bind. They have been extolling the goodness of black and the evil of white for eons in order to get the black vote and to demonstrate to their fellow technocratic whites just how liberal, compassionate, and wonderful they are. But they had always looked on themselves as the Father Moses figures who would lead their black foster children into the Promised Land. They didn’t envision that the blacks might prefer their own black Moses. Now technocratic whites such as John Edwards must sit back and watch others lead the faithful to the Promised Land.

Of the three candidates, John McCain is unquestionably the worst. Hillary and Obama love the devil for their own ends, not for himself. McCain genuinely loves the devil for what he is. But the prospect of any one of the three candidates becoming President is a horrific prospect.

There is nothing in the platforms of any of them that indicates they have the remotest idea of what constitutes a civilization. Which is why the tiny remnant of Europeans must not forget what constitutes a civilization: because at some point – we don’t know when – after people like McCain, Clinton, and Obama have completely obliterated every last vestige of civilization, it will be necessary for the Europeans to step in and rebuild it. For this reason, we must never become like unto them. We live among them, but we “are not of them.”

All White Men are Now Collateral Damage

Book Review: Every Knee Shall Bow: The Truth &Tragedy of Ruby Ridge & the Randy Weaver Family, 1996, by Jess Walter

The Weaver story was finally covered by the mainstream press in 1996—it had become too big to cover up—but it never received big, Rodney-King treatment because the press and the Federal government are controlled by sixties’ radicals whose motto is ‘No enemies on the left and take no prisoners on the right.’ This account of the Ruby Ridge murders, written by a journalist with no particular liking for the Weavers’ religious views, is an account of cold-blooded, bureaucratic murder.

The Weavers left Iowa because of the state’s hostility toward homeschooling families. They settled in Idaho with their three children (another was born in Idaho). Why did they run afoul of the Federal government? The Weavers did not believe that the age of prophecy ended with the death of John, the apostle. For them, the Bible, especially the Old Testament, was the means through which God spoke to them. The Weavers believed in Christ but called him Yahweh. They ate no pork and believed that the Federal government was evil and that white Christians should form their own separate state.

It was that last belief that caused the Federal government to murder Randy Weaver’s wife, Vicki, and his twelve-year-old son, Samuel. Apparently mainstream blacks, like Tony Brown, can advocate that blacks be given a separate homeland and still eat lunch with Newt Gingrich, but if a poor, uneducated yet decent man, like Randy Weaver, believes that whites should have their own homeland, then our government feels it has the right to hunt him and his family down and kill them.

The Weavers had some very good years in the mountains of Ruby Ridge, Idaho. But a spy for the ATF, looking for bigger game, Aryan Nation types, asked Randy Weaver if he would illegally alter some shotgun barrels for him. Randy, needing money to support his family, did so. The ATF then informed him that they would not prosecute him on the gun charge if he was willing to be a snitch for them. Randy Weaver refused the ATF’s offer. They, the wonderful madcaps, then proceeded to bring charges against Randy Weaver. After the preliminary hearing, Weaver’s lawyer incorrectly told him that if he lost, the government could take his home. Randy never came back to be tried; he stayed on Ruby Ridge.

When the Federal marshals and the FBI finally went in to Ruby Ridge to get Weaver, an incredible order was given. Never before in the history of the FBI, Walter says, was such an order given; the agents were told that they should shoot anyone seen with a gun. And the FBI knew that all the Weavers, including the children, carried guns.

There were two factors that made the government act in such a cruel, paranoid fashion. First, they made the mistake—and the ATF agents at Waco would make the same mistake with the Branch Davidians—of regarding the Weavers as criminals who would immediately do the streetwise thing, that is, cave in to overwhelming force. They didn’t bargain on meeting people willing to die for their beliefs. Second, the agents were able to demonize the Weavers as racist right-wingers with no humanity who could be exterminated like vermin.

The shoot-out left Vicki Weaver dead, Samuel Weaver dead, a Federal agent dead, Randy Weaver wounded, and Kevin Harris, houseguest of the Weavers, wounded. The subsequent trial found Harris not guilty of murder and conspiracy charges, but Weaver served 1½ years on the “failure to appear in court” charge.

The FBI was later fined for funding a massive cover-up during the trial. There were a few suspensions, but no member of the FBI was ever held accountable for the murders of Vicki and Samuel Weaver. (Subsequent to the writing of this book, of course, Randy Weaver sued the Federal government for the wrongful death of his wife, and the Feds settled out of court, paying Weaver $3.1 million.)

This is a gut-wrenching book to read. The liberal author in his two page introduction draws some conclusions from the whole tragedy that I would not draw, but one is free, after reading this well-written account, to draw one’s own conclusions.

My conclusion is that our materialist, democratic, capitalist government uses, in contrast to the masculine approach of the old U.S.S.R., the feminine, seductive method of coercion to get its citizens to mesh in the gears of the mechanized utopia called the U.S.A. But when an individual, or a group of individuals, resists the seductive method, the U.S. government responds with all the fury of a woman scorned and calls out her masculine pit dogs. “Now you can be men again. Destroy those vermin!” Our government cares very little about real crime in the streets but seems obsessively concerned with what is in the minds of its citizens. There must be no bad thoughts about the government or about black people in our heads, or Aunt Samantha (Uncle Sam was demoted) will be very hurt and upset. And she might send some men with helicopters, laser guns, bulldozers, and tanks to visit us.(1)
________________________________
(1) The reason the government uses repression is because it works! Without his wife, who was the heart and soul of the family, Randy Weaver adjusted to the norms of society, announcing one year ago: “I am an atheist.”

None Dare Call It Sport

While Christmas shopping this year, I saw a sports card display with a huge, gold-framed picture of Lou Gehrig. A feeling of awe came over me, quite similar to the feeling I had when I walked into the Sistine Chapel in Italy. I love Lou Gehrig. He represents to me all that sport can be but seldom is.

There were also huge, framed pictures of Michael Jordan and Pete Rose on display, which filled me with disgust. They filled me with disgust because both men, Jordan even more so than Rose, represent modern, Gnostic, capitalist sport. Mere physicality is demanded in modern sport. Whatever gladiatorial spectacle that can please the masses (and therefore make money for the capitalist owners and players) is the order of the day.

True sport is anti-Gnostic and anti-capitalist, because the good and true athlete competes as an integral man, with his body functioning in unison with his heart and soul. The good and pure athlete competes for the same reason a monk prays, so that through self-sacrifice he can save his own soul and others’ as well. True sport points to the Creator; it uplifts the spectator as well as the participant, while modern sport defiles and degrades and plunges the participant and the spectator into the depths of self-indulgence and depravity.

Refusing to Live in Babylon

What distinguishes this book, American Statesmen on Slavery and the Negro, written in 1971 by Nathaniel Weyl and William Marina, from almost every other book on the same topic is the authors’ commendable effort to avoid moralistic scolding of whites in general, and to avoid demonizing Southern whites in particular. The authors state in their introduction:

Other contemporary studies of slavery and the Negro suffer from an intense moralistic bias and from the fact that their authors seem more interested in scolding their subjects than in understanding their reasons for their action. The proper business of the historian is not to inflict his prejudices on his readers, but, in the vernacular of modern American youth, “to tell it like it was.” As the German historian of civilization, Leopold Ranke, put it, perhaps a bit more eloquently: “Ich will bloss sagen wie es eigentlich gewesen ist.” (“I shall merely state how it actually was.”) The Greek Sophist, Lucian, once observed: “Historical characters are not prisoners on trial.” It may be tempting for the historian to arraign great men, prosecute them and convict them. It panders to his prejudices, inflates his ego and is invariably successful, since they are not present to defend themselves. Nevertheless, it is none of his business.

We believe that the record of the judgments made by American political leaders on slavery and the Negro, their analyses of the underlying problems and their proposed remedies cast light on the difficulty and durability of the problem and its imperviousness to easy solutions. This record now stretches over two centuries which are almost bisected by a civil war that many thought might reduce racial strife in America to inconsequential dimensions. In presenting this record, our purpose is not to place American statesmen in pigeonholes and still less to moralize concerning their doubts and conclusions. It is simply to write down, to the best of our ability, the record of the past in the hope that it may shed light on this vexing topic for the
present and the future.

Would that all historians had the same intentions!

The views of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Franklin, Woodrow Wilson, Andrew Jackson, Teddy Roosevelt, and many others are presented by the authors. There was a consensus amongst the statesmen mentioned above and the American public that the slave trade and chattel slavery was wrong, but that miscegenation and integration were abhorrent and would mean the extinction of the white race. Jefferson and Lincoln favored re-colonization, which was made impossible after 1865; and Woodrow Wilson, Teddy Roosevelt, and others favored legal enfranchisement with the strictest segregation possible in terms of social contact. All of these statesmen perceived a danger if the Negroes were integrated into society as if they were simply pigmented white men.

The Civil War erupted, the authors claim, when two minority factions collided, forcing the men in the middle to choose sides. Robert E. Lee was not in favor of chattel slavery as were Calhoun and the radical slavers, but when forced to choose, he chose to fight for his native state. Lincoln was not in favor of full black integration into white society, but when forced to choose between the radical abolitionists who wanted full integration and the pro-slavery contingent, he went with the abolitionists.

What is depressing but true is that the abolitionists won out. Despite the warnings of every single statesman in American history, by 1960 the radical abolitionists had won.

Weyl and Marina suggest a compromise. They recommend full economic and political enfranchisement for Negroes and the right of free association in private schools, clubs, and neighborhoods for whites. And that right of association would have the complete support of the federal government.

They quote a very interesting work by William Graham Sumner called Folkways, in which Mr. Sumner maintains that federal encroachment on the folkways of the South made racial antagonism inevitable:

In our Southern states before war… whites and blacks had formed habits of action and feeling toward each other. They lived in peace and concord, and each one grew up in the ways which were traditional and customary. The Civil War abolished legal rights and left the two races to learn how to live together under other relations than before. The whites have never been converted from the old mores… The two races have not yet made new mores. Vain attempts have been made to control the new order by legislation. The only result is the proof that legislation cannot make mores. (p. 384)

The authors go on to point out another factor which no-one today will deal with when they ask the question of why the Negro has not, like other minorities, been raised to a higher level after years of efforts. White oppression is not, in the authors’ view, the reason.

These misgivings have, it would seem, been amply justified by the course of events. The United States has undertaken an historically unparalleled effort to raise the Negro by governmental action to the political, cultural, social, and economic level attained by the white man. In the pursuit of this objective, it has spent billions of dollars. It has promoted men to positions for which they are not qualified solely because they are black. It has persuaded universities to admit students who do not qualify educationally or mentally exclusively because of their color. It has filled some of the highest positions in the executive and judicial branches of government on the basis of race and without regard to merit.

The reward the United States has reaped is to be denounced across the world as a racist state and as a recrudescence of Hitlerism. By contrast, the Japanese, who continue to oppress one and a half million Etas, have been silent about their misconduct and it has passed unnoticed. The Indians, who have abolished caste more in name than in fact, remain immune from world criticism even though their untouchables are still largely pariahs. The masochistic traditions of liberal Protestantism, reformed Judaism and modern Catholicism to the contrary, those who publicly display their sores are tagged with the leper’s bell. (p. 387-8)

Their advice? Refuse to wear the leper’s bell. Instead, they suggest:

Government should continue to act to ensure that no citizen is denied his civil rights or access to public schools, public office or other governmental facility because of race.

In the private sector, individuals should have the right to associate or refuse to associate with anybody they please without interference by governmental authority.

Racial mixing of schools, neighborhoods and residential complexes according to bureaucratically prescribed formulas is an abuse of governmental power. It is the business of the state to see that people are not deprived of their rights because of their race; it is not the business of the state to decide how they should be mixed in relation to race. (p. 390)

If the suggestions of Weyl and Marina had been followed back in 1971, there would not now be any need for a white counterrevolution. But now that liberals have institutionalized forced integration and mandated the worship of blacks, more extreme measures than those suggested by Weyl and Marina will be necessary.

If we want to successfully eradicate institutionalized racial Babylon, we need to understand why such reasonable and beneficial – beneficial for both races – proposals such as those suggested by Weyl and Marina were not adopted by our government.

If, in 1971, you had had the opportunity to sit down privately with the individual congressmen in both the state and federal legislatures, I think you would have found that the great majority agreed with the analysis of Weyl and Marina. But not one of those legislators would have voiced their agreement with Weyl and Marina in public because democratic governments are not run by majorities. They are run by passionate minorities who are able to convince finger-in-the-wind pragmatists that their cause is the will of the majority or, at the very least, the will of the majority of the future.

The integrationists consisted of two groups of radicals. The first was made up of secularized Christians and secularized Jews. Having lost their faith in a transcendent God, they made a god of the noble black savage. The second group was the capitalists. They were often opposed to the secularized Christian and Jewish radicals on many issues but they were united with them on the integration issue. In fact, it was the capitalists of the late 19th century who killed the back-to-Africa movement. They needed cheap Negro labor in order to keep making exorbitant profits.

The racial secularists and the capitalists had the religious zeal that the pragmatic men lacked. Only a faith can counteract another faith. So in the absence of a Christian resistance movement, the Christless faith of the secularized Christians and Jews and the golden-calf faith of the capitalists won the day. The integrationists threw their gauntlet onto the courtroom floor and no Christian champion picked it up. The integrationist champion then entered the lists unopposed.

Of course now, some 37 years later, if you sat down privately with the members of the state and federal legislatures, 99% of them would not agree with the modest proposals of Weyl and Marina. And that is a sign of a successful revolution: what was formerly the majority opposition now gives internal assent to the enemy.

In 1971, the hour was very late, but it was still possible then to say, “If we act now we can still conserve a significant portion of European America.” But white people did not act, and European America was jettisoned. True conservatives, cultural conservatives, must now (they have no choice) become counterrevolutionaries. The revolutionaries started out as tiny minorities on the fringe of Western civilization, and now we, the European minority, must start out on the fringes and in the cellars of the new Babylonian empire, and begin the long, slow, painful reconquest.

The only sure way to get a reputation as a prophet is to never make a prophecy. Then, no matter how events turn out, you smile and nod in a Pumblechookian manner and pretend that the way everything has turned out is exactly the way you thought things would turn out. No one can say for sure that a series of cataclysmic events won’t shift the balance of power back into the hands of the Europeans, but one can say that such an occurrence would be highly unlikely. The more likely scenario is that we will have to put in a few centuries of counterrevolutionary work before we see Europe rise from the ashes. But if it be not now, then it will come. Hamlet is right: “The readiness is all.” Now, or later, Europe will rise again. It will rise again, because I and other Europeans, “We few, we happy few, we band of brothers,” will never let the image of His Europe fade from our hearts. Europe is the friend, our friend, that Thomas Moore wrote about:

It is not the tear at this moment shed,
When the cold turf has just been laid o'er him,
That can tell how beloved was the friend that's fled,
Or how deep in our hearts we deplore him.
'Tis the tear, thro’ many a long day wept,
'Tis life's whole path o'ershaded;
'Tis the one remembrance, fondly kept,
When all lighter griefs have faded.

Thus his memory, like some holy light,
Kept alive in our hearts, will improve them,
For worth shall look fairer, and truth more bright,
When we think how he liv’d but to love them.
And as fresher flowers the sod perfume
Where buried saints are lying,
So our hearts shall borrow a sweet’ning bloom
From the image he left there in dying!

Addendum: You will know the European Phoenix is about to rise from the ashes when Europeans stop writing books and citing demographics which show how outnumbered Europeans are and instead start issuing orders to tear down the heathen altars. What were the odds against Cortez? Something like 50 million to one? What were the odds against the British in India? 100 million to one, wasn’t it? Numbers only matter if you plan on living in a democratic, oligarchical, racial Babylon. And the true European refuses to live in Babylon.

“The Love That Once Was There”

I vividly recall a period in the early years of my marriage when my wife was pregnant and I was unemployed. If you’ve ever been in that situation, you know how depressing it can be. So I felt very relieved and very fortunate when I found work before the savings account hit zero.

There was a downside to the job I finally came up with. It was in Academia. Academics are generally to the left of center, and I had views that were to the right of center. But I had been raised in a liberal household and attended liberal schools, so I knew enough about liberals to avoid the types of remarks that would have placed me back in the ranks of the unemployed.

I spent four good years at that job. My children were all below the ages of ten, so their problems were easily solved with a kind word and a cookie, and my wife was quite content with our house and our lives. But the roof caved in on me in the form of a new academic dean in charge of my department. He was, of course, a liberal, but that was not the problem. I knew how to get along, for the sake of my job, with liberals. This man was insane, like Captain Queeg of “who stole the strawberries” fame. You could not adjust to his rhythms, because he had no rhythms; his internal clock was completely out of order. He was truly insane. In his first year, he fired and replaced over half of the employees in his department.

There was nothing you could do to stop the mad dean from firing you. He took a dislike to people without reason. And once you became the focus of his hatred, your days were numbered. I got a reprieve from the governor when, after his second year at the university, his personal life imploded, resulting in his dismissal. But during his two year reign of terror, my life was hell because my family’s subsistence depended on a madman.

There were approximately forty men and women who were at the mercy of that insane dean, but there will be over 400 million people at the mercy of a deranged madman if John McCain becomes President. We don’t know all the evil intentions that lurk in the fiendish soul of John McCain. But we do know some of his intentions already.

1) He plans on continuing and expanding the war in the Middle East, and he has not ruled out a nuclear strike in his expansion plans.

2) In addition, he plans on bringing back the cannon-fodder draft, democratic capitalism’s solution for unemployment and ‘overpopulation.’

3) He will reintroduce his ‘amnesty for barbarians’ legislation.

4) He will establish hostile, adversarial relations with two of the last great white countries, Serbia and Russia.

And that is only what we know he will try to do. We do not know the rest of the evil that lurks in the heart of John McCain.

Of course the presence of a devil-man such as John McCain is the long-term result of centuries of inroads, by the devil, into Western civilization. But the more immediate cause for the rise of John McCain is the moral failure of conservatism.

When William F. Buckley founded National Review in the 1950’s, he claimed the magazine’s purpose was to “stand athwart history, yelling ‘stop’…” And in the 1950’s and early 1960’s, National Review had some people writing for them such as Whittaker Chambers, Richard Weaver, Donald Davidson, and Russell Kirk, who actually saw America as an extension of Christian Europe and not a ‘grand’ experiment in democratic capitalism. There were also lunatic democratic capitalists within the magazine (Buckley was one) even in the early years, but they maintained an alliance with the cultural conservatives against the communists. But the democratic capitalists were against the communists for different reasons than the cultural conservatives; the capitalists and the communists were battling, twin brothers. Both had materialistic, Utopian visions of a people’s republic ruled by an elite few. They simply differed on the means to achieve their vision. The cultural conservatives, on the other hand, opposed communism because they saw it as a threat to Christian, European civilization.

When the threat of Russian communism died, the cultural conservatives such as Patrick Buchanan, Samuel Francis, and Russell Kirk were purged from the ranks of conservatism. Twenty-two year old economic gurus and radio talk show hosts such as Rush Limbaugh became the leaders of the ‘conservative’ movement. Those same leaders are now wringing their hands over a John McCain candidacy, but when you create a moral vacuum the devil feels quite free to step in.

The death of the Republican party, which used to provide a small space for cultural conservatives, would not be tragic if the Democratic party provided a moral alternative to the Republicans. But the Democratic party abandoned, many years in advance of the Republican party, their moral core. It was the Democratic party that had stood for the rights of the poor. But they turned their attentions away from charitable outreach to the needy in order to focus on special entitlements for politically fashionable ethnic groups.

I cannot say with an air of existential fortitude, when looking at the possibility of a McCain presidency, I “know the merriment that men know when events have ended in utter disaster.” I can’t say that, because I have children I want to see grow up “clean and straight” in a world that still has some respect for the evening lingerings of Western civilization. What is to leave betimes? A vision of a civilization connected to Him.

The obstacles the modern white man faces seem insignificant compared to those obstacles that men such as Charles Martel, Alfred the Great, and Hernando Cortes had to overcome. But those men and the men who fought with them had something the modern man lacks: faith. And that type of faith, the faith that inspires men to keep fighting when everything seems hopeless, comes from love. Nothing dies if you love it enough. Isn’t that belief at the heart of our faith: “For God so loved the world…” He loved us so much that He refused to let us die. And we don’t have a legal, judicial arrangement with Him that says we must pay Him back for His love. His love was freely given; He won’t compel us to return it.

The Christ-haters are always looking at Christian Europe -- and commanding us to do the same -- from the outside. And when viewed from the outside, Christian Europe seems no different from any other civilization. There is violence, lust, greed… the usual suspects. But if we look at European civilization from within, as Walter Scott and the European poets do, then we see that European civilization is the Little Welsh Home in which “nothing can compare with the love that once was there.”

The neocons, the barbarians, and the liberals all view Western civilization from the outside. The barbarians see it from the outside, because it is not their civilization. And the neocons and the liberals see it from the outside, because they no longer are capable of seeing anything from the inside. They have lost the capacity to love. Life has meaning to them only in the abstract. That is why they must have an impersonal system to sustain them, whether it be democracy, communism, or scholasticism.

All is cheerless, dark and deadly if we look on the democratic process as the final resting point for European man. But if we look on the democratic process as a hideous aberration which we can, and should, walk away from, there is hope. That “incomparable symmetry” of European civilization stemmed from the freely given love of the European people to their Savior. It is not impractical or unrealistic to expect that if their love returns, so will the civilization that was born of their love.

Of course, it is not written in stone that European civilization will be restored. But it is also not written in stone that our modern, racial Babylon is the final destiny for the European people. Love is a fire that can spread, maybe not as quickly as hate, but it can be more lasting. If we, the Europeans, pit our love of European civilization against the neocon, liberal, barbarian hatred of it, who’s to say that love won’t finally prevail?

Addendum: Saint Paul said, “If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.” And if our hope is only in the democratic process, aren’t we also of all men most miserable?