The Deserted Village

One Christmas time I was in a bookstore where the proprietoress felt the need to editorialize to her patrons. Being the only patron at the time, I was treated to her opinions, including a tirade on the insanity and immorality of the capitalist crusade in Iraq. I was certainly able to agree with her on that topic. Thinking she had a soul mate, she then launched into some editorials in favor of all the radical ‘isms’.

The woman was evidently in the midst of chemotherapy, so I refrained, at first, from disagreeing with her. But when she persisted, I did, as gently as possible, let her know that we were not on the same page, nor were we soul mates. She was surprised and confused because she thought that since I was anti-capitalist, I must be a radical.

This is a common mistake that Americans make, equating capitalism with conservatism, but it is an especially egregious error when made by a proprietor of a book store where one can find the works of all the great poets of Europe. If she had read less commentary on the poets and more of the poets, she would know 1) that all of the great poets are conservative – they are the defenders of the permanent things – and 2) there are very few poetic defenses of capitalism (Carl Sandburg’s work is an exception) because capitalism destroys the permanent things – and in fact the mantra of capitalism is that there are no permanent things and that everything is malleable and changeable.

The law of the jungle is the law of capitalism. The strong devour the weak, and the many overwhelm the few. There is no divine law above free market jungle law in the capitalist world, which is why the Christian poets have always shown that ‘ism’ so little mercy.

Dickens was the supreme critic of capitalism, but there were others before him. Oliver Goldsmith, author of The Vicar of Wakefield, was an intensely conservative writer who loved the village church and the small farm. During a five-year period of his life when he made excursions from London to the country, he observed that the large landholders were squeezing out the small farmers, creating a landless, laboring class, setting up an agrarian version of Wal-Mart.

He begins his poem “The Deserted Village” with an apologia for the permanent things as embodied in the simpler rural life (idealized, yes, but an ideal with a basis in reality), and then proceeds to depict the brave new world of free market capitalism that has replaced the old world.

Sweet Auburn!
Loveliest village of the plain,
Where health and plenty cheered the laboring swain,
Where smiling spring its earliest visit paid,
And parting summer’s lingering blooms delayed;
Dear lovely bowers of innocence and ease,
Seats of my youth, when every sport could please,
How often have I loitered o’er thy green,
Where humble happiness endeared each scene!
How often have I paused on every charm,
The sheltered cot, the cultivated farm,
The never-failing brook, the busy mill,
The decent church that topped the neighboring hill,
The hawthorn bush with seats beneath the shade,
…
Sweet smiling village, loveliest of the lawn!
Thy sports are fled, and all thy charms withdrawn.
Amidst thy bowers the tyrant’s hand is seen,
And desolation saddens all thy green.
One only master grasps the whole domain,
And half a tillage stints thy smiling plain.
No more thy glassy brook reflects the day,
But choked with sedges works its weedy way;
Along thy glades, a solitary guest,
The hollow-sounding bittern guards its nest;
Amidst thy desert-walks the lapwing flies,
And tires their echoes with unvaried cries.
Sunk are thy bowers in shapeless ruin all,
And the long grass o’ertops the moldering wall;
And trembling, shrinking from the spoiler’s hand,
Far, far away thy children leave the land.
Ill fares the land, to hastening ills a prey,
Where wealth accumulates, and men decay;
Princes and lords may flourish, or may fade—
A breath can make them, as a breath has made—
But a bold peasantry, their country’s pride,
When once destroyed, can never be supplied.
…
Even now, methinks, as pondering here I stand,
I see the rural virtues leave the land.
Down where yon anchoring vessel spreads the sail
That, idly waiting, flaps with every gale,
Downward they move, a melancholy band,
Pass from the shore, and darken all the strand.
Contented Toil, and hospitable Care,
And kind, connubial Tenderness are there;
And Piety with wishes placed above,
And steady Loyalty and faithful Love.
And thou, sweet Poetry, thou loveliest maid,
Still first to fly where sensual joys invade;
Unfit, in these degenerate times of shame,
To catch the heart, or strike for honest fame;
Dear charming nymph, neglected and decried,
My shame in crowds, my solitary pride;
Thou source of all my bliss and all my woe,
That found’st me poor at first, and keep’st me so’
Thou guide, by which the nobler arts excel,
Thou nurse of every virtue, fare thee well!
Farewell! And oh! where’er thy voice be tried,
On Torno’s cliffs, or Pambamarca’s side,
Whether where equinoctial fervors glow,
Or winter wraps the polar world in snow,
Still let thy voice, prevailing over time,
Redress the rigors of the inclement clime;
Aid slighted truth with thy persuasive strain;
Teach erring man to spurn the rage of gain;
Teach him that states of native strength possessed,
Though very poor, may still be very blest;
That trade’s proud empire hastes to swift decay,
As ocean sweeps the labored mole away;
While self-dependent power can time defy,
As rocks resist the billows and the sky.

That capitalism was a radical serpent in the European garden was ever the opinion of the European poets. Capitalism became associated with conservatism in this country largely through the influence of National Review. In the early years of that publication there were some writers such as Richard Weaver and Russell Kirk who held genuinely conservative views, but their voices were not the dominant ones. The soul of National Review was a capitalist one. And as the magazine acquired influential converts like Ronald Reagan, the magazine became less tolerant of anti-capitalist dissenters and more dogmatically capitalist.

Capitalists always label their critics socialists, but the only way to rid the world of socialism is to rid the world of capitalism because capitalism spawns socialism. Gross inequalities in wealth create a demand for an excessive equality in wealth. The only effective antidote to capitalism is the Christian society depicted by Goldsmith.

Book Review: Swift and Sure

Swift and Sure: Bringing Certainty and Finality to Criminal Punishment by Judge William J. Cornelius, Bridge Street Books, 1997, O.P.

There is a myth about our country circulating mainly in conservative circles that we are a good, solid, can-do type of nation. We see a problem, and by-gum, we fix it. Well, our crime problem has been spiraling out of control for years, and by-gum, we haven’t done a thing to fix it.

Judge Cornelius starts his excellent book by citing the terrible crime statistics that show the United States to be the most violent, crime-ridden nation in the world. And we are, so the good Judge says, because American justice is neither swift nor sure. If justice were swift and sure, we would not have the crime rates we have.

The Judge tells us why abolishing parole, probation, and early release programs could serve as a vital deterrent to crime. He also is against concurrent sentences, the exclusionary law, and Miranda rights. His case for repealing the exclusionary rule is excellent. I wish more Americans knew just how damaging the exclusionary law is. It has no constitutional or moral basis. In fact it is completely immoral. The law punishes the victim of a crime for the alleged procedural errors of police officers. No other nation has such a ridiculous law, which is no doubt one of the major reasons why no other nation has such high crime rates as we do.

Cornelius also shows us how ridiculous the insanity plea has become. If someone was ever upset in their past, they can claim that the recollection of that past made them “temporarily insane.” And if the jury doesn’t like the victim (as in the Bobbit case), the guilty party will go free. Cornelius recommends we go back to the old English common law of insanity, which would result in a virtual elimination of the temporary insanity plea.

There is chapter after chapter of sound advice in this book. The chapter on revamping our juvenile system, for instance, is quite good. We currently live under a system where juveniles can kill with impunity, and unfortunately, they know it and are killing at growing rates.

Judge Cornelius’ positions are, in my judgment, unassailable. His is right. His advice is sound. The only weakness in the book lies in the question Judge Cornelius doesn’t ask: If he and any person with a modicum of common sense can see that the Judge’s reforms are necessary, why then can’t the reforms be implemented? The answer takes one into the religious realm where practical men do not want to go. Doesn’t there have to be some metaphysical belief that justice and truth are important in order for high-salaried bureaucrats to be inspired to change a system that is making them rich? In other words, in the absence of a Christian conscience, why should defense attorneys, who make their living getting hoodlums off the hook by catching police in procedural errors, give a particular damn about the fact that child molesters and murderers go unpunished? And likewise, why should policemen, in the absence of a Christian conscience, go after violent black criminals when to do so means loss of employment and at least five years in jail?

Respect for the law is a virtue when a nation’s laws have a Christian basis. But when the law is used to serve the Prince of Darkness, Christian men should defy it. On every issue – legalized abortion, the barbarian invasion, black crime, the state takes a position in favor of Satan and against the Europeans of the old stock.

Regimes that have instituted the law of Satan are not toppled overnight. But Christian men committed to counterrevolution have wrought wonders in the past. Our ancestors, such as William Tell and Nathan Bedford Forrest, are quite rightly revered. But shouldn’t we also seek to emulate them?

‘Away to the hills, to the caves, to the rocks—
Ere I own an usurper, I’ll couch with the fox,
And tremble, false Whigs, in the midst of your glee,
You have not seen the last of my bonnet and me!’

Whatever happened to the European?

If you are familiar with the movie Duck Soup, you will remember that Groucho Marx portrays Rufus T. Firefly, the ruler of Freedonia. Chico is Chicolini, a spy for another country and one of Firefly’s cabinet ministers. There is a scene in which Chicolini answers the phone for Firefly.

Chicolini: Hello! No. No. No, he’s not in. All right, I’ll tell him. Goodbye… That was for you.
Firefly: I’m sorry I’m not in. I wanted to have a long talk with you. Now, listen here. You give up that silly peanut stand and I’ll get you a soft government job. Now, let’s see, what have I got in my Cabinet besides mice? How would you like a job in the mint?
Chicolini: Mint? No, no, I no like-a mint. Uh—what other flavor you got? [Phone rings again.]
Chicolini: Hello, hello. No, not yet. All right, I tell him. Goodbye, thank you. That was
for you again.
Firefly: I wonder what became of me? I should have been back here a long time ago.

The Marx brothers have captured in this scene modern man’s alienation from himself better than Beckett, Ionesco, and all the modern Theatre of the Absurd playwrights. Reason detached from the heart and from revelation can only be a commentator on existence; it cannot be a participant. If the heart is not engaged, a man will remain isolated. And it makes no difference whether the disengaged man is an atheist or a Roman Catholic. His atheism will be only secondhand if he is an atheist, and his Roman Catholicism will be only secondhand if he is a Roman Catholic. His real faith will be in detached, analytical reason. The doctrinal Thomist and the strict atheist are both, in their essential view of existence, compact.

I once watched, astonished, while a conservative Catholic announced to a panel of conservative Catholics meeting to discuss some recent study that stated fathers should spend time with their children, that he intended to spend more time with his children. He needed research to tell him that! What happens if another study comes out and tells him that fathers don’t need to spend time with their children? Has the man no affections, no feelings that might give him a clue as to how to behave as a father? No, because the man has been carefully trained to have no feelings. His life depends on the latest research. Albeit since he is a Catholic, he only trusts Catholic researchers, but still, his life is a secondhand one.

I don’t mean to single out the conservative Catholic as the only disengaged man. The liberal Protestants have also disengaged themselves from existence. Along with the Catholics, they think that having an expertise in religion or following one who is an expert in religion is a substitute for religious faith. This is not so. In order for a genuine faith to develop, those well-springs of feelings and emotions that engender love must be brought into play, because without love there can be no faith. When faith is solely a mathematical proposition that engages only the mind, it is not a real faith. It can disappear completely with one adjustment of the calculator.

Dostoyevsky was aware of the dangers of detached, analytical reason: Stavrogin and Ivan Karamazov are intensely and maniacally logical. And they are men without faith. Does anything really separate them from the intensely logical, modern, Christian intellectual who can find no place for a sentimental God-man in his documents?

It is not, of course, that reason and faith are incompatible. It is the Humpty Dumpty question: “Who shall be master?” Reason cannot be detached from the rest of man’s being; it cannot be the final arbiter. Vladimir Solovyov, in his book The Crisis of Western Philosophy and in his lectures On God-Manhood, brought this forcefully to the fore.

Western man is like a woman trying to become a man. One looks at her and says, “Doesn’t she realize that it is her heart that makes her distinct? Her pathetic attempts to argue philosophy with men makes her a witch.” And Western man’s pathetic attempts to explain the ways of God to men has left him asking, “Whatever became of me?”

Our Lord is not a theologian or a philosopher; He is a poet. And the Faith must be passed on from one generation to the next with all the subtlety and care one takes (or should take) in reading a poem. One should not dissect it, one should respond to it with one’s whole heart, mind, and soul.

We cannot go back to the pagans to get that much needed sense of the sacred in our lives. And who wants to? There is no personal God within the pagans’ cosmos. But we can go back to the European woods. Why did we ever listen to those who called our attachment to those woods sentimental? The woods are sacred and will bring us in contact with heart, home, and Him, which is a consummation devoutly to be wished, because theories about the faith are a very poor substitute for Him.

Let us give George MacDonald the last word:

To arouse the hope that there may be a God with heart like our own is more for the humanity in us than to produce the absolute conviction that there is a being who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and the fountains of waters. Jesus is the express image of God’s substance, and in Him we know the heart of God.

Counter-Revolution

Pionochet’s achievement in throwing off Allende’s Marxist government in Chile has been compared to Franco’s achievement in Spain’s civil war. Both men certainly belong in the counterrevolutionary hall of fame, but because of one very important reason Pinochet’s achievement seems even greater than Franco’s. Pinochet accomplished his counterrevolution without the support of the Catholic Church. I can’t think of any other successful counterrevolution in this century since the Church has joined the forces of democracy, progress, and enlightenment. (Which of course translates to the forces of bloodshed and darkness. What was it that Metternich said? “Every time I hear the word ‘democracy,’ I know a bloodbath is coming.”)

The liberals’ extraordinarily intense hatred of Pinochet was because of his success. They would certainly hate me as much if I had any chance of mounting a charge like Pinochet, but since I don’t they leave me alone.

One could point out, as regards Franco and Pinochet, that they were not very successful counterrevolutionaries because their counterrevolutions did not survive them. Well, that is true, but at least they sallied forth and achieved a modicum of counterrevolutionary glory.

The problem that counterrevolutionaries like Pinochet and Franco have when they try to pass on their counterrevolutionary gains to posterity is that there is no institutional support for their counterrevolutionary ideals. The situation is analogous to a teacher who manages, against the ideals of the educational institution in which he is working, to make a genuine impression on a student. The teacher sees that a student is interested and inspired, but he must watch the inspired student go out of the classroom into a world that is hostile to the ideals he was teaching. The student, after continually butting his head up against the brick walls of individuals and institutions hostile to the ideals of his former teacher, soon concludes that his teacher was crazy and/or impractical.

Both Franco and Pinochet pointed out to their countrymen the dangers of egalitarian democracy. It made their countries vulnerable to communist usurpation. Both men tried to move their countries to a more hierarchical and a more Christian form of government, but where was the reinforcement for their values? In the absence of a church that would support Christianity, both counterrevolutions failed to survive their authors.

The late Jesse Helms was cast from the same mold as Pinochet and Franco. He was intensely loyal to an older, more European vision of his nation, and he didn’t mind being unpopular for trying to stem the modernist tide. But he was one senator against a horde of modernist ones. Quite predictably his noble efforts of resistance came to naught.

In his magnificent history of England, the French author André Mauris points out that the English, unlike the people of France and Spain, never knew an absolute ruler. They always had some kind of multi-tiered system of powers. I would suggest that now, some 70 years since André Mauris published A History of England, the English nation as well as its offshoot, the United States, does have an absolute ruler. It is Satan. Once Satan conquered the Christian churches, he was able to penetrate every single tier of the multi-tiered system of the English-speaking people’s nation. At every turn we see Satan supporting Satan. School, church, press, and government all form one steel curtain around Satandom. And the most convincing proof of the satanic nature of Western civilization consists of the respect and adulation that European man gives to the black man. When Europe was Christian, the black savage was held in check, just as Satan was held in check. In point of fact, Satan and the black man are coordinate; when Satan is loosed, the black savage is loosed. They are the boogie men who strive when Christ’s day becomes Satan’s night.

Suppose there was a war and only one side was fighting?

In the bad old days when South Africa was ruled by whites, if a Negro was even jostled by a white policeman someone in the West would make a movie about that injustice. But now that blacks rule South Africa, it is fine to rape, murder, and torture white people at a rate which makes all the old barbarians like Genghis Khan and Attila the Hun seem like gentle lambs.

If you read a book like H. V. Morton’s In Search of South Africa, you can’t help but be struck by the incredible difference between white-ruled South Africa and black-ruled South Africa. The whites brought European values to a country that knew only bloodshed and horror.

In many ways, South Africa was more European than Europe because the Dutch and English that settled South Africa were more conscious of their European identity, being separated from Europe, than the whites living in Europe. That is why Europeans like H. V. Morton settled in South Africa. Only a demonic maniac could prefer the current South Africa to the older South Africa under apartheid.

Unfortunately, our own nation, which had more than just a little bit to do with the death of white South Africa, is very quickly becoming another South Africa. We celebrate black murderers like Rubin Carter in our movies, while we permit the murder, rape, and torture of white people throughout our nation. Wait -- I err when I use the term ‘nation’ to describe this geographical area called the USA. A nation possesses a folk with a common religion and race. Whites currently have no nation. That hideous, blasphemous pervert, Ben Franklin, once said, “Where liberty dwells, there is my nation.” Well, where white people dwell who believe in Europe, there is my nation.

Good Blood

Tirian had never dreamed that one of the results of an Ape’s setting up a false Aslan would be to stop people from believing in the real one.

-- C. S. Lewis in *The Last Battle*

It was the fate of the Hebrews to watch what had started out as a small heretical cult from within their nation become a worldwide religion that left them marginalized. How did this happen? The Hebrews forgot what the essence of their faith was: the fact of a personal God. While the Roman civilization was self-destructing from its refusal to accept a personal God, the Jewish faith became marginalized by the same type of refusal. Christ was the fulfillment of the Jews’ very personal faith. His rejection was like the rejection of a fiancée, to whom one became engaged after a long exchange of letters and phone calls but, when he showed up at the doorstep, was turned away.

It would seem that there is within man a great desire for a personal God as well as a contradictory desire for an impersonal, less human, and more abstracted God. We desire this, I think, because we sense that to be fully human, as Christ is, is too painful. No other poet has ever come close to Shakespeare in describing the pain and suffering involved in the process of becoming human. And Shakespeare shows us that few make it. We stop somewhere along in the humanizing process, create a false, abstracted image of God, the image closest to the point we have gotten to, and declare that image to be the authentic one.

How then can we ever become fully human if we worship at the altar of a false god? If we are forever playing Julian the Apostate by putting classical wings on Christ’s outstretched arms, it would seem that we are doomed to wander forever, like the flying Dutchman, unblessed, unforgiven, and unhallowed. I think the answer lies in the works of P. C. Wren and in the declaration of William Blake:

This Life’s dim Windows of the Soul
Distorts the Heavens from Pole to Pole
And leads you to Believe a lie
When you see with not thro the Eye.

Yes, we must have a vision, a beau ideal. And we must not accept our actions and thoughts that run counter to the beau ideal as reality because they outnumber our thoughts and actions directed toward the ideal. It is when the white heat is in our hearts that we see the beau ideal and behave like Beau Geste. That is reality; that is the vision that needs to be protected by the entire bureaucratic structure of society and the sacramental structure of the church.

The Catholic Church and the modern Protestant churches have followed the way of the Pharisees and the ancient Romans. The betrothed came to the door and was rejected because of his humanity. And the rejection stems from intellectual pride. We always insist that the voices of the prophets and the reality of the incarnate God be forced to fit our intellectual constructs. And our intellectual constructs are always wrong, because they come from disembodied brains and not the blood. Mary Augustus Evans, the Southern authoress, put it quite well when she said, “Good blood doesn’t lie.” When we are connected to God by a blood tie, whatever comes from the blood will be pure and true.

Adam and Eve had a filial, blood relationship with God. He was their Father, their progenitor. He certainly loved them, but did they love him? Well, obviously not enough. Satan tempted them, and they severed their blood tie to their father in order to study Him in the abstract. “Does God really mean that we should not eat the apple because it will harm us, or is He secretly afraid it will empower us?” That type of “studying” led to the loss of Eden. And the same type of study led to the loss of the new Eden.

European civilization was the second Eden. And it was a better Eden than the first, because in the second Eden God revealed Himself in His entirety through Jesus Christ. Of course the European Eden was not the literal Eden of the Bible. There was sin and death in the second Eden, but there was a presence, His presence, in the second Eden that held out the hope that death, the final enemy, would be defeated.

In our modern, anti-European civilization there is no hope that death will be defeated. There is only the hope that science will render death painless. And His presence has been replaced by the presence of Satan.

Herbert Butterfield, in his masterpiece, Christianity and History, said,

It may be true that nature and history are not separable in the last resort, but at the level at which we do most of our ordinary thinking it is important to separate them, important not to synthesise them too easily and too soon, important above all not thoughtlessly to assume that nature, instead of being the substructure, is the whole edifice or the crown. The thing which we have come to regard as history would disappear if students of the past ceased to regard the world of men as a thing against nature and the animal kingdom. In such circumstances the high valuation that has long been set upon human personality would speedily decline.

I think we should regard the blood and the heart in the same way. For ordinary purposes there is no such thing as a merely physical concept of human blood and the human heart. Heart and blood are mystical, spiritual entities. You have to overturn all of God’s revelation to man if you deny that heart and blood contain the soul of man and are his connecting links to God.

For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

To paraphrase Linus in Charlie Brown’s Christmas, “That’s what Christianity is all about, Mr. White-hating Technocrat.” And all the products of the scientific, rational, modern man have been created to detach man from his heart, which is where the true light of knowledge shines.

To use Butterfield’s term, for ordinary purposes there has only been one civilization of the heart, and that was the European civilization. Liberal-liberals say that civilization was evil. Conservative-liberals say we only need to preserve the intellectual processes and procedures of the old European civilization and not the heart and blood heritage of its people. (1) But the heart and blood of the white man is the soul of European civilization. Without it there is no civilization.

The democratic process, multiculturalism, universal brotherhood, and on and on… are all code words for the rule of Satan. When the white man once again looks to the light of knowledge in his own heart and blood, he will be equipped to fight the only war worth fighting, the war for sacred Europe.
_____________________________
(1) Patrick Buchanan is an example of the liberal-conservative. In a recent book he writes about the unnecessary war, the Second World War, but it was only unnecessary if you are a kinist, someone who believes that race and faith bind a nation together. If you believe, as Buchanan and his ilk do, that a nation is based on an idea, then World War II was necessary to defend the idea of the universality of democracy.

Eternal Europe

The fairy tales that were collected and recorded by the Brothers Grimm are such an important part of our European heritage. It is no more possible to separate the fairy tales from the European people than it is for a leopard to change its spots.

I often interview the Young Drummer, whose deeds are recorded in the Grimms’ tale called “The Drummer.” In that story, he travels through the forest of Giants and ascends a glass mountain in order to rescue a fair princess. I have always been impressed by the fact that he embarked on his rescue mission in spite of the fact that it is impossible to climb a glass mountain. Integral men of Europe do not live their lives according to the rules of science.

_______________________________________

Interviewer: Thank you for consenting to the interview.

Young Drummer: It’s no problem. I enjoy our discussions.

Interviewer: I don’t feel particularly connected to my country on any given date, but I always feel particularly unconnected on the fourth of July.

Young Drummer: It seems to be a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing.

Interviewer: Yes, that’s it exactly. I don’t think that a white man should be celebrating the demise of the white man, do you?

Young Drummer: Of course not. But the white-hating liberals are not celebrating their demise. They believe that they have transcended the barriers of race, sex, and family. What they celebrate when they celebrate cultural diversity on state-sanctioned holidays such as the 4th of July is your demise. They celebrate the death of the old Europe and the men and women who are loyal to it.

Interviewer: Is there any hope of winning the white-hating whites back to the fold?

Young Drummer: No, there isn’t. Their hearts are stone. They are wedded to Satan and the colored races.

Interviewer: Is the final conflict about to begin then?

Young Drummer: That’s more than I know. Many of the signs are there, but it would be presumptuous of me, or anyone, to claim they know the day or the hour.

Interviewer: Europe will never come back then?

Young Drummer: The real Europe, His Europe, is still there, it simply is no longer visible to most Europeans.

Interviewer: It’s almost as if Satan has imposed his vision of Europe over the old Europe.

Young Drummer: That is correct. From my standpoint, the standpoint of eternal Europe, you live in Satandom.

Interviewer: I don’t dispute that. And we must, while residing in Satandom, keep the vision of the old Europe before our eyes. But aren’t we ultimately supposed to turn Satandom back into Christendom? Isn’t having a vision of the old Europe only a first step?

Young Drummer: I wouldn’t put it that way. You are thinking too much like a modern man when you talk about first and second steps. That implies that vision is something passive and separate from the man. Vision is the man. When European man saw Christ, true-God and true-man, he acted on that belief and built a civilization of “incomparable symmetry.” Vision and love are inseparable. We see with the heart, and we act according to what the heart sees.

Interviewer: I don’t quite follow you.

Young Drummer: Let me put it this way – when you first met your wife-to-be, you fell in love because of what you saw in her heart. From that love flowed all those masculine impulses that the liberals sneer at: the desire to protect your love, to raise a family with your love, and to grow old (the best is yet to be) with your love.

It was the same way with the Europeans and Christ. They saw something in Christ that they loved. From that love came Christendom. Imperfect by divine standards, just as our love is imperfect compared to His love, nevertheless it was a love and a civilization as different from your modern Satandom, and every other civilization on the face of the earth, as heaven is from hell.

Interviewer: The modern European has issued divorce papers to Christ?

Young Drummer: Yes, he has ceased to love Him.

Interviewer: Is there someone else?

Young Drummer: Yes, modern man has returned to the second oldest faith, faith in man.

Interviewer: Is there any difference then between the barbarians of color and the post-Christian whites?

Young Drummer: There is a difference in degree, not in kind. The difference in degree consists of the different aspects of the religion of man. The colored races worship the blood. Their deities reflect “virtues” that the barbarians see in themselves. What an antique Christian would call savagery the barbarian calls faith.

The post-Christian white also worships himself. But the post-Christian does not worship his blood, he worships his mind. The reason white liberals get so upset when the people you call Kinists mention things like race, blood, and hearth is that such notions challenge the liberal’s faith. He believes all wisdom comes from the mind of man and not from the blood of European man united to the Spirit of God.

Interviewer: So the white techno-barbarian and the colored barbarian are united in their hatred of the incarnate God but not united in their reasons for the hatred.

Young Drummer: Yes. The white techno-barbarian, as you call him, worships rationality, which of course becomes the worst type of rationality when it is divorced from His spirit and blood. And the colored barbarian worships only the vital power of his blood, which of course becomes inhuman barbarism without the humanizing influence of His spirit and blood.

Interviewer: What is the result of the union of the technocratic white with the barbarians of color?

Young Drummer: Death for one’s civilization and death for the individual souls that adhere to the Christless religions of deified man.

Interviewer: You seldom mention the Jews or the Jewish conspiracy. Is that because you don’t believe the Jews are the main threat to Christian civilization?

Young Drummer: First of all, there is no longer any Christian civilization. So I take it that you mean to ask, “Are the Jews the major reason for the demise of Christendom, and are they the main obstacle to the rebuilding of Christendom?”

To both questions, I answer, no. The Jews represent an organized body of people who were and are opposed to Christ’s reign of charity. As such they will always be a danger to Christ’s church and His followers. But the Jews could not have undermined Christian civilization nor could they stop the rebuilding of it if it were not for an organized body of post-Christians who have steeled themselves to resist the light even more fiercely and maniacally than the Jews.

Interviewer: The Roman Catholics?

Young Drummer: Not just the Catholics. The Catholic Church is the worst of the anti-Christian churches because it has the most formidable organization, but all the Protestant churches, like the Catholic Church, have institutionalized the idea that God lives only in the mind of man.

Interviewer: He exists or doesn’t exist according to the whims of man?

Young Drummer: Yes, that is their idea.

Interviewer: I grant that there is no reclaiming the techno-barbarians, but isn’t there a small segment of white people who could, if they saw the Christ you see, be brought back to the European fold?

Young Drummer: There are. Although I don’t see how they will get a chance to see Christ. He exists in the European past as chronicled by the European poets. But the poets are not allowed to go directly to the potential converts. Literary critics and psychologists filter out their contents.

And the Gospels suffer the same fate as the poetic chroniclers of the soul. The content of the Gospels is distilled into a faithless vapor by Roman Catholic theologians and Protestant Biblical exegetes.

Interviewer: You don’t paint a very encouraging picture. There seems to be no hope.

Young Drummer: That’s not what I’m saying. Christianity is the religion of “when hope seems nearly gone, God’s relief by us is surely won.” Look to the European forest. Fight your way through the barbarians. And ignore the white rationalists who tell you that you are childish and racist to look for God in a forest. Then venture into the dark woods. You will meet witches and dragons there, but you’ll also find Him, and He will sustain you in all your battles.

Interviewer: You come from the forests of Bavaria and the world of the Brothers Grimm. Aren’t you just a little bit prejudiced in favor of forests?

Young Drummer: Yes, I am prejudiced. And I intend to stay prejudiced in favor of the European forest, in the sure and certain hope that my ‘prejudice’ will lead me to the King, who sanctified that forest with His blood.

Interviewer: Your faith is my faith and your blood is my blood.

Interviewer and Young Drummer (holding up their swords and crossing them): To eternal Europe, and death to Satandom.

Jesse Helms, R. I. P.

Like Roland and Augustus Pinochet, he took his stand and held it, never yielding unto death.