Satan’s Minions

A few years before Joseph Ratzinger became Pope Benedict XVI, he announced that he thought the next pope should be black. He didn’t say he wanted a specific black cardinal to become pope because he was the best qualified man to lead the Church, he simply said he thought the next pope should be black. Implicit in Ratzinger’s endorsement of a generic black for pope was his belief in the sacredness of the black race and the evil of European Christians. Cardinal Ratzinger, now the Pope, is a very modern man; he has left traditional Christianity behind for the new faith in the black man.

One can see the same phenomenon in the nomination of Barack Obama for President. We are supposed to accept as a given that the nomination of a black man for President is a good in and of itself. Why? That is self-evident: because black is good and white is evil.

And why, you ask, is white evil and black good? Because in Satan’s kingdom, everything is reversed. Good is evil and evil is good. Satan must eradicate every last vestige of white civilization because that civilization was once connected to Him.

I once got a letter of rebuke from a white woman who was somewhat sympathetic to the cause but who complained that whatever good I did was completely ruined by the extremism of my language. “Why do you call white liberals and blacks, Satan’s minions?” My answer to her went something like this: “I call them Satan’s minions because I don’t believe that the maniacal hatred of post-Christian rationalists (PCR) for their own people, and the maniacal hatred of black barbarians for white people can be accurately described in any other way. It’s the old, ‘if it walks and talks like a duck…’ scenario. If they talk like Satan and behave satanically, then they are Satan’s minions."

Guns

The liberals are very serious about guns. We must get rid of them because, the argument goes, guns kill people. It would be much more accurate to say, “Guns don’t kill people, Negroes do.” But if we started saying things like that, we might be admitting that evil rests in the bosoms of men and women and not in inanimate objects.

The definitive statement about gun control comes from Jack Schaefer’s Shane:

“Listen, Bob. A gun is just a tool. No better and no worse than any other tool, a shovel – or an axe or a saddle or a stove or anything. Think of it always that way. A gun is as good – and as bad – as the man who carries it. Remember that.”

Misunderstood Predators

There has been for some time now a movement afoot, spearheaded by tree-huggers, to claim that predator fiends like sharks, snakes, alligators, and crocodiles have been misunderstood, and are akin to poor, cuddly, pooh bears. No, I say! They are not misunderstood, they are evil – especially the reptiles. When I went to school, it was always the creepy, future convicts that liked to bring snakes to school. Chateaubriand, in his masterwork, The Genius of Christianity, had this to say about snakes:

The present age rejects with disdain whatever savors of the marvelous; but the serpent has frequently been the subject of our observations, and, if we may venture to say it, we seem to recognize in that animal the pernicious spirit and artful malice which are ascribed to it in the Scriptures. Every thing is mysterious, secret, astonishing, in this incomprehensible reptile. His movements differ from those of all other animals. It is impossible to say where his locomotive principle lies, for he has neither fin nor wings; and yet he flits like a shadow, he vanishes as by magic, he reappears and is gone again, like a light azure vapor, or the gleams of a saber in the dark. Now he curls himself into a circle and projects a tongue of fire; now, standing erect upon the extremity of his tail, he moves along in a perpendicular attitude, as by enchantment. He rolls himself into a ball, rises and falls in a spiral line, gives to his rings the undulations of a wave, twines round the branches of trees, glides under the grass of the meadow, or skims along the surface of water. His colors are not more determinate than his movements. They change with each new point of view, and like his motions, they possess the false splendor and deceitful variety of the seducer.

Still more astonishing in other respects, he knows, like the murderer, how to throw aside his garment stained with blood, lest it should lead to his detection. By a singular faculty, the female can introduce into her body the little monsters to which she has
given birth. The serpent passes whole months in sleep. He frequents tombs, inhabits secret retreats, produces poisons which chill, burn, or checquer the body of his victim with the colors with which he is himself marked. In one place, he lifts two menacing heads; in another, he sounds a rattle. He hisses like the mountain eagle, or bellows like a bull. He naturally enters into the moral or religious ideas of men, as if in consequences of the influence which he exercised over their destiny. An object of horror or adoration, they either view him with an implacable hatred, or bow down before his genius. Falsehood appeals to him, prudence calls him to her aid, envy bears him in her bosom, and eloquence on her want. In hell he arms the scourges of the Furies…”

It is no coincidence that the snake is so popular in our modern, satanic society.

Corporate Times

It is difficult to understand the ways of God, but sometimes one gets a glimmer of understanding. For instance, I can understand why God did not pick our own time or country as the ideal time and place to enter history. The problems, while not impossible for God to surmount, would have been enormous. First, His earthly father would not have been able to make a living as a carpenter. Joseph would not have been able to make a living, selling his woodwork for a profit in competition with the cheaper woodwork made by Chinese sweatshop labor and sold at Wal-Mart. He would have had to take a job at Wal-Mart during the day and a job as night cook at Denny’s in order to keep up the payments on the humble dwelling he shared with Mary and the Christ Child. And Mary would not have been able to be a stay-at-home mom, with taxes and the cost of living being what they are. She would have had to get a job at McDonald’s. There would be no paintings of the Madonna with the Christ Child, because the Madonna would have been flipping burgers, and the Christ Child would have been getting slapped around in daycare.

And if Christ had decided, in His infinite mercy, to stick it out through daycare and public school in order to fulfill His mission, there would have been enormous difficulties in spreading the message. St. Paul would not have been able to make a living as a tent-maker because, like St. Joseph, he would have been undersold by Wal-Mart. Hence, he wouldn’t have been able to evangelize; he’d have been stuck in two or three dead-end jobs. Oh, he would have tried to get booked on the talk shows to spread the word, but they wouldn’t have taken him. Too much of a downer without any marketing skills.

But hey – the loss of the Christ Child is a small price to pay for the great deals we can get at Wal-Mart, right?

Gay Marriage

I once saw a Christian woman -- I believe it was Maggie Gallagher -- before Congress pleading against the legalization of gay marriage. I sympathized with the sentiment behind her plea, but it was and is too late for such appeals. When a society even allows such a subject to be discussed, it is over. Those who would be labeled the extremist lunatic fringe – the Christian separatist and militia groups, etc. – have the right idea. We are well past the point where a Christian can expect anything good from the American political process or from the American legal system.

More on Paul Hill and the Abortion Wars

There were no calls for us to understand Paul Hill’s rage when he was tried and executed, and there were no calls for us to have compassion, to look for mitigating circumstances. No sir, Paul Hill must die. “Two Killed at Abortion Clinic” – the irony of the headline was lost on the liberals.

Paul Hill was a great man, the first martyr for the pro-life cause, and he, like most martyrs, was spit upon by his enemies and his so-called friends. God bless him. May “flights of angels sing thee to thy rest!”

The most gut-wrenching aspect of the abortion wars, for me, is to have to listen to so-called conservatives condemn the ‘terrible’ acts of violence against the ‘kindly’ mass executioners who run the abortion clinics. Let us be clear about something, Mr. Conservative – abortion is premeditated murder. It is not the result of misunderstanding; it is the result of a satanic desire to physically dethrone God by destroying His creation. The idea of God Incarnate and the idea of legalized state-sanctioned abortions are diametrically opposed. And there has never been a time in human history when a conflict between diametrically opposed ideas was not settled by a resort to arms. The liberals have marshaled all the instruments of state coercion and state violence to insure that the murder of the innocents will continue. It is a great blessing from God that some men strike back at the infamous leviathan of death once called the United States of America.

Consider the following scenario: A state-sponsored hit squad like the ATF has been assigned to take out all the families in your neighborhood with last names beginning with the same letter as yours. The raids are announced ahead of time, so you tell your friends about it and ask them to help. Your friends say that of course they will help; after all, they are pro-life. So the day of reckoning comes. The AFT surrounds your house and starts blasting away. Your friends, who outnumber the ATF by about 500 to 1, all form a ring on the safe side of the ATF, hold hands, and begin singing “We Shall Overcome” and other such nonsense. When you scream out to the ‘pro-lifers’ that you don’t think you or your family can hold out much longer, the ‘pro-lifers’ scream back, “We are against violence of any kind, but don’t worry, we have a very good chance of passing legislation at the next Congress that will severely limit the number of families the ATF can murder.” You scream, “Thanks,” and commend your soul to God. The ATF, of course, kills you and your entire family. The pro-lifers go off into the sunset singing songs and feeling good about their non-violent protest of violence.

“Your analogy was as subtle as a sledgehammer,” you say. Well, there is nothing subtle about abortion. It is not a complex issue. If the war against the mass murderers is not just, then the Quakers were right: there never has been nor will there ever be a just war.

Women in Combat

There are a number of issues currently being debated, which demonstrate, by the mere fact that people consider them debatable, that we are a country hopelessly adrift. No sane human being would even consider using women in combat, and the reason for this is not because they are the weaker sex. Theoretically, one could breed a race of Amazons fully capable of fighting wars. No, the reason is spiritual. Women are the life-bearers and the life-nurturers. Even if a woman never has children, her function in society will be, or should be, one of nurturing. It is part of a woman’s spiritual nature. The fact that women can pervert, but not change, their essential natures is no reason to cave in and allow them to do so. All women want to be put in their place, because their place is an exalted one: home and hearth. The more women are allowed to pervert their spiritual natures, the more unhappy and enraged they will become. The cruelest thing a man can do to a woman is to give her what she asks for, rather than what she longs for.

European Babylon

Abhorred slave,
Which any print of goodness wilt not take,
Being capable of all ill! I pitied thee,
Took pains to make thee speak, taught thee each hour
One thing or other. When thou didst not, savage,
Know thine own meaning, but wouldst gabble like
A thing most brutish, I endow’d thy purposes
With words that made them known. But thy vile race,
Though thou didst learn, had that in’t which good natures
Could not abide to be with; therefore wast thou
Deservedly confin’d into this rock
Who hadst deserv’d more than a prison.

-- The Tempest

The original Olympic games were an attempt to improve Greek national unity through athletic competition. The modern Olympic Games, started by Baron de Coubertin in the late nineteenth century, were intended as a utopian panacea. It was thought that international competition among amateur athletes from all nations, who competed simply for the love of sport, would reduce wars and bring about a more peaceful and harmonious world. Of course the Baron’s utopian scheme, like all utopian schemes, failed miserably. The Olympic Games did not reduce world strife; in fact they intensified it, providing another venue for jingoistic swaggering and chicanery.

And what can be said about the current Olympic Games? They are a perversion of a perversion. The original modern games were supposed to be for amateur athletes only. And in the original modern games, there were not supposed to be any medal counts.

It is a delusion of the European, post-Christian rationalist that tragedies such as war, which are the result of human sinfulness, can be minimized or eliminated by gimmicks such as ‘free trade’ or ‘free love’ or ‘friendly athletic competition’. (1) And the post-Christian rationalist never gives up his delusion when it doesn’t stand up to reality. Oh no, not him, he keeps his comfortable delusion.

Sporting competitions are a reflection of a nation’s soul; they are not, nor can they ever be, a substitute for a national soul. And what do the current Olympic Games tell us about the nations of Europe and their satellites? They tell us that the white European nations are very, very sick. The “Dutch” soccer team consisted almost entirely of Africans. The “Belgians” had only two white players on their soccer team, and even the Russian basketball team had a Negro on their starting team.

The European nations have become like their bastard child, the United States: they are now universalist, ‘idea’ nations who deny the existence of such things as a national soul or individual souls. The post-Christian rationalist – let’s call him a PCR – does not look at life with the same eyes as an antique European. When I see a soccer team from a European country that consists almost entirely of Africans, I feel sick to the very depths of my soul. In contrast, the PCR European feels proud when Africans represent his nation because it means his nation has gone beyond race and ascended to a more ethereal plane of existence. But the delusional PCR European does not realize, in the midst of his glee over his nation’s lack of bigotry, that the barbarian does not see life the same way that he does. When the barbarian looks at a formerly all-white nation that allows Negroes to represent them in sporting events, he sees a nation that is open to conquest. He doesn’t want to be assimilated into a white nation; he wants to conquer it and impose his will on a people too weak to defend themselves. If the black barbarian were wise, he would keep some white rationalists around to sustain the technocratic civilization that the black barbarians depend upon (there is nothing to loot in an impoverished country). But wisdom is not an attribute of the black. It is more likely that another barbarian people, the Asians, who are intellectually superior to the blacks but just as cruel and anti-Christian, will take the place of the former white rulers. This is already occurring in Zimbabwe.

Which brings us to the Patrick Buchanan assertion about the cruel white man. The white man must rule first and foremost because it is good for white people. But the secondary reason that the white man must rule is because blacks are crueler to their own than the white man is, Asians are crueler to their own than the white man is, and on it goes through every non-white race. The Gunga Dins of the non-white races always support white rule.

The PCR European looks on himself as the endpoint of evolution. Everybody should be like him. And when the barbarian plays in the reindeer games of the European people, the PCR white is delighted. But the antique European sees the PCR white for what he is, a mutation, a distinctly new breed of human who is less than human and who will be washed down the sewer by a tidal wave of barbarians.

And that is a tragedy. Most of us (I know I do) have relatives who are PCR Europeans. We are facing the mystery of good and evil. Why do some prefer to rush headlong over the cliff with the swine rather than to stand in the presence of the living God?

The American Renaissance speaker (whom I mentioned in Unto Death) would have us stay in the democratic, multi-racial cultures of the PCR whites in order to win them back through letter-writing and voting. Instead of that, I would suggest we learn from the cautionary tale of Lot. He did not listen when God advised him to separate himself from the people of Sodom and Gomorrah. He thought he could win them over. It didn’t work then, and it won’t work now. But if we separate from the PCR whites, we will be strong enough to resist the tidal wave of barbarism and the Fu Manchu machinations of the Asians.

I know that the modern, anti-white white, the PCR, does not like it when you refer to the blacks as barbarians and the Asians as Fu Manchus, but what is the reality? Has the black man not proved the wisdom of the prejudiced European everyman of the 19th century who saw the African as a savage addicted to devil-worship and fiendish tortures? And has the Asian not lived up to the older European everyman’s image of him as a clever, diabolical foe of Christian Europe? Or have the utopians, such as Pope John XXIII and Rousseau, been proved correct? The wisdom of our ancestors, our Christian ancestors, bid us heed the wisdom of the blood and maintain an impregnable barrier between our race and the barbarian races of color. There is nothing more important than rebuilding that barrier and maintaining it against the world.

In the past year, I have had two experiences that were quite heartening. In the first instance, I was reading Tom Brown’s School Days with a few of my children. I would read sections of the book and then one of them would read a section. My fifteen-year-old daughter was reading the part of the book where Arthur says his prayers in the dormitory, completely unconcerned about the fact that the really ‘cool’ kids do not kneel and say their prayers. My daughter could not finish the passage because she was so moved by it that she was in tears.

The second instance was similar to the first one, only it involved my 17-year-old son reciting a passage from Shakespeare’s King Lear. In both instances my heart soared. You hope, when you have children, that the bond of the blood will become a bond of spirit and blood, but you have no guarantee. When I see my children able to respond and appreciate the depth of a poet who comes from His Europe, then I know that my children and I are bound together by an unbreakable bond that was forged on the cross at Calvary.

The heritage that binds my children and me is the same heritage that once bound millions of Europeans to each other. The mystical body of Christ was not an abstraction, but a reality. But there can be no communion of souls where there is no depth. A black Europe, an Asian Europe, is not Europe, because there is no depth of soul in the barbarism of the African or in the intellectual aridness of the Asian. The European who doesn’t mix with the barbarians, who preserves his culture of depth, can inspire, in some instances, the Asian, and in even rarer instances, the black, to realize a depth in their souls that they never dreamt of. But the European can inspire no one if he mixes with the barbarians, or worse, if he surrenders to them. Then he will not only lose his own soul, but he will also condemn the barbarians to the everlasting night they constantly seek but are only prevented from attaining by the white man.

The presence of black athletes on the sports teams of formerly all-white nations is a reminder to those Europeans who are still connected to old Europe that European civilization was not invaded by barbarians; PCR whites opened the gates of their cities and let them in.

And what has been the result? Christ's civilization has been defiled by a race of Calibans, men “capable of all ill.” St. Paul tells us that nothing shall separate us from the love of Christ. And nothing, not the PCR white-hating white or the Calibans of the Third World, will separate us from the civilization consecrated to Him. One faithful heart can inspire others -- and still others -- and then resistance to Satan and his minions will once again become the hallmark of the European. +
______________________________
(1) The Chinese pitchers threw no less than five beanballs at the American team. Someone of a waggish disposition should synchronize the soundtrack of the song “Age of Aquarius” with the video of the maniacal Chinese chucking beanballs.

Unto Death

I recently read a speech, given in 1995 at an American Renaissance Conference, in which the speaker disagreed strongly with those pro-white advocates who recommended that white people form separate states within the state in order to ensure the survival of a distinct white, European culture. The speaker said that this was tantamount to surrender. There were still, he maintained, enough white votes to bring about a white cultural renewal without adopting what the speaker claimed were unrealistic and drastic measures.

My answer then, and even more so now, would be that looking at a situation realistically and deciding that drastic, non-democratic measures are necessary is not the same thing as surrendering. Was Shane surrendering when he walked into Grafton’s saloon to face Stark Wilson?

Shane stopped about three quarters of the way forward, about five yards from Wilson. He cocked his head for one quick sidewise glance again at the balcony and then he was looking only at Wilson. He did not like the setup. Wilson had the front wall and he was left in the open of the room. He understood the fact, assessed it, accepted it.

The first step, before heroic action can be taken to rid the world of rotters like Stark Wilson and Fletcher, is a realistic appraisal of who the enemy is and one’s position vis-à-vis the enemy. I do not think the American Renaissance Conference speaker had a realistic idea of who the enemy was or a realistic assessment of the white man’s position in relation to his enemy. How can one take a realistic stance against the enemy if he has only nebulous notions as to his enemy’s identity?

Who is the enemy? The primary enemy is the anti-white white. The reason for the American Renaissance speaker’s inability to see that drastic measures were necessary in 1995 (and imperative in 2008) is because he counted too many white-hating whites and their dupes, the grazers, (see “The Underground Men”) as candidates for conversion. The white-hating white and the grazers are not, except for an occasional miracle of grace, going to be converted. The white-hating white has gone too far down the slippery slope, and the white grazer has spent too many years eating from the trough of oblivion to ever come back. The grazers are like the Israelites who could not pass muster. A whole generation had to die out before the tribe could enter the Promised Land.

The American Renaissance speaker overestimates the convertibility of the white-hating rationalists because he is a rationalist himself. If he had made a realistic assessment of the white man’s plight he would have seen that the white man is facing extinction because he has abandoned his heritage, the heroic, bardic heritage, for a new, magic, talismanic, rationalistic system. This is why the American Renaissance speaker cannot possibly see beyond democratic politics. So long as there are democratic parlor games, he thinks he can out-maneuver and out-wizard the white-hating rationalists. But tis not so. The white man must turn away from the game of dueling wizards and reclaim his heroic heritage. Evil wizards are not defeated by good wizards; they are defeated by the Hero who is pure of heart. The good American Renaissance rationalist and the white-hating rationalist both suffer from a surfeit of rationalism. They are impious. Our ancestors knew that “the problem of the moral world is too vast and complex for the human mind to comprehend; yet the pure heart will, safely and quietly, feel its way through the mazes that confound the head.”

The failure of the pro-life movement is very similar to the failure of the white identity movement (to the extent that you can even call it a movement), so it is helpful to look at the pro-life movement. In 1973, at least 60% of Americans, a majority, held the opinion that abortion should not be legal. But there was not a conviction among even 1% of the 60% that those people who wanted to legalize abortion were an enemy. How is it possible to believe that those who favor infanticide are within the ken of white civilization? I don’t know, but the “pro-lifers” did dialogue with the baby killers. They dialogued and they dialogued. And while they were dialoguing, the baby killers built up a moral consensus (or would it be called an immoral consensus?) that abortion was right and proper. And the greatest supporters of rational dialogue with baby killers were the “Christian” clergy.

What would have happened if pro-lifers had refused the democratic approach, if they had refused to dialogue but instead told the abortionist in the strength of their majority, “You shall not commit such atrocities because if you do we will kill you”? I think abortion would still be illegal.

The fight for white civilization has gone the same way as the anti-abortion movement. It has ended in defeat because whites preferred to dialogue rather than fight with an enemy who was beyond the ken of civilization. If a white man can countenance (not just countenance but applaud) the type of murder and mayhem perpetrated on whites by blacks (see Paul Shechan’s 1995 article in the Sydney Morning Herald) for the past fifty years, is he really someone who can be converted by rational discourse? And once again, as was the case in the pro-life movement, it was the clergy who supported the violence of the murderers while counseling the victims and defenders to dialogue and forgive.

The ‘get out the vote and write letters’ white men spend their lifetimes telling white people that they must act. But when small groups of whites try to act, by separating from the anti-white government and forming their own schools, militias, and local governments, the letter-writing advocates condemn them and accuse them of giving up.

I would submit that what the wise speaker for the American Renaissance could not discover, the simple fools who have to live in the brave new world of the technocrats, barbarians, and amazons already know: The great American experiment in democracy is over. It was ill-conceived and has produced evil fruits. But the white race is not finished so long as there are white men left who are connected to the heroic tradition of Europe rather than the democratic tradition.

In the market where I shop there is a young man in his early twenties, who works as a bagger, named Roland. After dealing with him on a ‘thank you for bagging’ basis for a couple months, I branched out. “You have a heroic name,” I said.

Of course he was puzzled at first. He thought I was making fun of him, but then I took the time to tell him the story of Roland, with which he was completely unfamiliar. The young man did not, upon hearing the story, buy a sword and swear to retake the Holy Land, but his face actually showed some animation as the story reached its conclusion. Now whenever I see the young bagger I say, “He took his stand and held it, never yielding unto death!” He always smiles. Why shouldn’t he? I’m talking about his namesake.

I don’t for one moment think I turned that young man’s life around by telling him the story of Roland. It takes an entire lifetime of stories about Roland and other white heroes to turn a young man away from modernity and toward the light of Europe. And that is the point. Why hasn’t that young man been told the story of Roland, of William Tell, of Forrest, of Arthur, etc.? I’m sure he knows who the black heroes are. Our schools make sure of that. And the young black men know who the black heroes are. So at least the modern day Roland has some heroes. But does he have a heritage? If he is only permitted heroes from another race, can the young white man lay claim to any heritage? No, he cannot. He has been branded with the mark of Cain and driven into the hinterlands of our modern civilization.

And what about the young white man’s faith? Thomas Hughes made the observation that our heroes are intimately connected to our faith. The older heroes of Europe pointed to Him. To whom do the black heroes lead us? To the other ‘him’ with the pointy tail.

If the shadows of black hero worship are not altered, there will be, with the exception of a few miracles of grace, no white Christian men. And the shadows will not be altered by letter-writing campaigns which implore the powers that be to allow white men to have a white heritage. Nor will the shadows be altered by attempting to convert the unconvertible, the white academics and the grazers. The shadows will only be altered by a tiny white minority of men, still spiritually connected to a civilization of white, Christian heroes. The counsel of the practical men who told us to plead for representation and to back Patrick Buchanan-type candidates was wrong. If we had ignored their advice thirty years ago and started the counterrevolution without their assent we would be in a much better position today than we are currently. Democratic politics is the politics of losing slow. But in a war you must, if your enemy is implacable, fight to win.

The practical men, the sons of Martha, always say that a counterrevolution is not realistic. “There is no support for it.” A counterrevolution, at its beginning, always seems unrealistic. But is it realistic to hope that the demonization of the white man and the systematic eradication of his heritage can be halted by supporting a pro-white candidate? (1) Of course not.

Let’s accept reality and start from there. Government, school, church, Wall Street, and the community at large are all against the white man. Never has one race and one sex been as ostracized by the entire world as the white male is. The white man can either continue listening to delusional friends who tell him to write letters and vote white, or he can start doing what white counterrevolutionaries do. They bind themselves to their fellow white men with hoops of steel, invoke the God who dwells in depths which the heathen and the technocrat cannot understand, and do whatever it takes to undermine every organ of the revolutionary government in power.

When Alexander Smollet tells the pirates that wherever he flies the English flag, that spot of land is England, he is articulating the heartfelt faith of all European men. Wherever European values are fought for and cherished, there lies Europe. If white men are banished to the hinterlands of civilization, the hinterlands become civilization. What we don’t want to do is to continue to give aid and comfort to a technocratic-barbarian civilization that has renounced antique Europe. Let the white technocrats and the barbarians of color try to sustain a civilization without our help. They’ll self-destruct soon enough. The white man who is in union with antique Europe never surrenders; he takes his stand, never yielding, even unto death. +
________________________________________________________
(1) The absurdity of the advice, “vote white,” became self-evident in the recent Presidential primaries in which there were no pro-white candidates.

Alexander Solzhenitsyn, R. I. P.

It is not possible to do justice to a moral giant like Alexander Solzhenitsyn in an obituary, so let me confine myself to simply stating his importance to me.

I loved his novels, but Dostoevsky will always, in my heart, be the Russian novelist. I admired Solzhenitsyn’s courageous criticism of Russian communism, but I can’t say his critique improved on Whittaker Chambers’ magnificent critique, Witness. The aspect of Solzhenitsyn’s life that had the most profound influence on me was his criticism of the Western democracies. Fresh from the Gulag, he told the liberals of the West that Christianity, not liberal democracy, was the answer to communism.

I don’t admire a man because he suffers in a prison camp. Plenty of evil men have suffered in prison camps – witness John McCain. I admire a man for his vision. And it was Solzhenitsyn’s insight that the Western democracies were just as anti-Christian as Russian communism that had the greatest impact on my life.

The main character in How Green Was My Valley says after the death of his father in a mining accident, “Men like my father can never die.” There are noble souls who live their lives in such a way that one must conclude that the human soul is indeed made of something that never dies. They confirm for us the hope that is in our hearts. That was Solzhenitsyn’s greatest legacy to all of us. +

The European Soul

I believe that a nation, like an individual, has a soul. Unlike an individual though, a nation’s soul has many collective parts – namely the individuals that live and act in the confines of that particular nation. Once a nation’s soul has developed, it can change and alter its essential soul only by a severe wounding of itself. I think all the nations of Europe are currently inflicting wounds upon themselves by doing that which destroys their soul. They are allowing large numbers of people who come from nations with a different soul into their countries. The mix will never work.

Let’s take Britain as an example. Britain has allowed a large number of African, Indian, and Asian people to immigrate to Britain. With what result? The very soul of Britain has been shaken, because Britain is, in its essential soul, a white Christian nation. Even if most of the native-born no longer consciously hold to the Christian faith, it is in their blood; they cannot completely rid themselves of it. It is always lurking near them and in them with the potential of returning in full force. But it is different with the African, the Indian, and the Asian. The African soul is essentially voodoo-barbaric -- it has never been Christianized; the Indian soul is Hindu; and the Asian soul is Confucian and Buddhist. If that mix should overrun Britain, the nation will have lost its soul.

France faces a similar situation with the Muslims. Incidentally, the African continent can become Muslim without altering that nation’s essential soul, for the Islamic faith is a barbaric one. But should Islam become the dominant force in France, the nation’s soul will be lost. This is why decent Frenchmen turn out to vote for Le Pen, and liberals castigate him. Le Pen wants France to reclaim its soul.

Similar wars, fought with varying degrees of success, are being waged throughout Europe. And the wars are more serious than the older wars between European nations were, because in an older war between, for example, France and Germany, the losing country would lose much that is precious but not its Christian soul. Not so in the modern wars of immigration and interbreeding. It is the soul, the Christian soul of Europe that is at stake.

And the United States? We are a unique nation, just as the apologists tell us. We started off by repudiating the soul of our nation when we decided to make Christianity the mistress we saw in private rather than the wife we honored in public and private. The Civil War was fought to decide whether the “great” anti-nationalist, universalist, Christ-hating idea should prevail over the older European vision. It isn’t necessary to say which vision prevailed. Because our nation was founded on a renunciation of the European soul, a counter-revolution in this country cannot be based on “getting back to our foundation” unless one makes it clear that our foundation is not the U. S. Constitution but the Christianity of the ancient Europeans.

The European right-wing unfortunately is not in the majority. Le Pen lost his bid for the French Presidency (in fact, those in power are always trying to throw him in jail), and the British Nationalist Party seldom gets more than 20% of the vote. But at least the European countries have a right-wing! In America we have only liberals – the socialist Democrats and the capitalist Republicans. Fringe movements started by people like Ron Paul are ineffectual because they never look back to Europe for their raison d’etre. They always cite the Constitution, refusing to listen to the shade of Joseph de Maistre who said, “No nation can subsist on mere paper and ink.”

There will be no counter-revolution in this country until men of European blood put their hands on the sacred sword of their European ancestors and say, “I swear, by the blood of my ancestors, that while I live I will not be ruled by the stranger, and where I live I shall abide by no law that contradicts the ancient faith of my ancestors.” +

“Behold, I show you a mystery”

I hate it when publishers print two different endings for Dickens’ greatest novel, Great Expectations. There is only one ending. Dickens was not forced to alter the end of the book; he chose to do it. That he chose to do it after consulting a friend does not invalidate his alteration. That consultation was part of the creative process, so there is really only one ending to the book.

As you know, in what has been termed the original ending, Estella and Pip do not end up together. In the alternate ending, the one that is shown in the movies, Pip and Estella meet again and do not part. The reason the Great Expectations alteration displeases the critics is because Dickens seems (to them) to be mixing genres. In most of his other novels he followed the fairy tale motif where the hero and heroine marry at the end. In Great Expectations, he was writing what appeared (the critics claim) to be a very un-Pickwickian realistic novel and then he switched to a fairy tale ending. I do not think Dickens is guilty of switching genres. Estella, after much suffering, finds a depth to her soul that she never knew existed, which allows her to love Pip as Pip has always loved her. Such transformations are as rare as deathbed conversions, but are they completely out of the realm of reality? Life in this world is inherently tragic for we all face death at the end of it, but is it completely unrealistic to depict some moments of grace, before death comes, entering into the lives of human beings?

It is only unrealistic if you do not believe that there is such a thing as grace. Did you ever ask yourself why, since they were going to die in the end anyway, Christ healed the sick and the lame? Of course He did it because it was His nature to love, but why did He not suppress that part of His loving nature and save all His love for the crucifixion and resurrection? Because Christ knows that human beings must win before they lose. Every human being must experience some moment or moments in their life when they feel loved. They must, or they will not believe in the ultimate gift of love from the God of love.

Literary critics of the twentieth and twenty-first century should not be allowed to write about novels of the nineteenth century because the nineteenth century novelists believed in the soul, but the twentieth and twenty-first century literary critics do not. It is analogous to C. S. Lewis’s contention that someone who has an a priori belief that there are no such things as miracles should not be allowed to debate the subject of miracles. And likewise those post-Christian whites who deny there is such a thing as race are not capable of understanding a white man’s love for his race. What they can’t understand or feel themselves they simply condemn.

The great novelists, from Scott in the late eighteenth century, to A. E. W. Mason in the early twentieth century, all wrote from a Christian worldview. They believed in the soul. And one is struck, when reading through the literature of that time, with how the various writers developed the doctrine of the Incarnation. If we are truly created in the image of God, then God can be found in the hearts of His creatures. This was the implicit Faith of the major writers of the 19th century and it is what makes them so interesting to read in contrast to the writers of our own time. But the winners write history, so the 20th and 21st century intelligentsia has labeled the older writers “immature” and “unrealistic” in contrast to the more contemporary writers who write psychological novels that are more “realistic.” And by continually repeating their lie ad nauseum the general public has come to believe it. “Those old dead guys didn’t know anything.”

And every single religious leader across the board from Novus Ordo and traditionalist Catholic to Protestant has turned their flocks over to the same scientized moderns who hate any work of literature that depicts men and women with souls. None truly believe in the Incarnation. They believe, like Rosencrantz and Guilderstern, that man is as easy to understand as a flute – nay, even easier. Ask them any question and they’ll provide you with an answer from a scientized, addle-brained efficiency expert of a theologian or from a “trained” psychologist and “expert” in his field.

If one does not believe in the God-Man, he will not believe in man, which is why we should be able to see through the façade of the modern clergy. They say they believe in the Christian God, but they deny the Incarnation. When they study man they do not study him as a human being created in the image of God but as a bug or an ape. The modern clergy have mind-forged manacles on their souls that narrow their vision to the point at which they can’t see anything but the sewer that runs by the basement window.

If we are created in the image of God, the 19th century writers were right to stress the importance of what takes place in the secret and non-generic recesses of the human heart. Each heart is a kingdom, and what takes place in that kingdom touches other kingdoms and has momentous consequences that affect God’s plan for our salvation. He works through humanity. If we stifle the humanity in us, if we turn to bug theology and ape science, then we will have placed our civilization outside of His grace. And of course we have done just that. And He won’t return until “we long for the touch of a vanished hand and the sound of a voice that is still.” +

If Ye Break Faith

In the modern world all the authors from the past have fallen into neglect. But even before the great denial of everything European, one very great author had already been thrown on to the trash heap. That author is Thomas Nelson Page. He certainly deserved a place in American letters alongside of Melville and Hawthorne and above such pygmy’s as Twain, Faulkner, and Anderson. But he was Southern and he was Christian (1), a combination that was most distasteful to the self-anointed arbiters of literary greatness.

Page’s work will endure among true Europeans because he writes about the permanent things. He was consciously archaic because he rejected the Godless wisdom of the wizards of science and progress and remained true to the values of old Europe, which he saw embodied in the institutions of the old South. In the closing chapter of his novel Red Rock, Page expresses his rejection of modernity, a rejection that he held to throughout his literary career.

In the old stories, the climax used to be considered attained when the young couple became engaged. Like the hero and heroine of the fairy tales of our youth, in that golden land of “Once-upon-a-time,” all that was to be told after they became engaged was that “they married and lived happily ever after.” In the modern stories, however, this seems to be but the beginning of new adventures. Marriage, which used to be the entrance to bliss unending, appears to be now but the “gate of the hundred sorrows;” and the hero and heroine wed only to find that they loved someone else better, and pine to be disunited. They spend the rest of their lives trying to get unmarried. Nothing is so unconventional as to love one’s own husband or wife, and nothing so tame as to live pure and true to one’s vows in spirit as well as in fact.

It must be said, at once, that this is not a story of that kind. The people described in it knew nothing of that sort of existence. Any reader who chooses to go farther in this history must do so with the full knowledge that such is the case, and that the married life of the young couples will be found as archaic and pure as that of our first parents, before modern wisdom discovered that the serpent was more than the devil, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil more than a tree of knowledge.

Page wrote poetry, novels, short stories, history and books for children. There is always something to be gleaned from an author like Page. He is one of the many giants that the late nineteenth century produced. Staring at the brave new world of the twentieth century, they bid the European go deeper rather than cosmic.

In Red Rock, Page writes about the men and women of the South immediately following the Civil War. If we compare their resistance to the forces of modernity – science, capitalism, Negro-worship, and Christ-less Christianity – to our own resistance, we can see how far we have fallen and where we need to go.

The South after the War was a European, Kinist society. Quite probably the Southern European nation was the most European nation on the face of the earth. Defeated in battle, they won, for a time, the “peace.” There were a number of components that allowed the South to defeat the forces of modernity:

• They did not regard man-made law as superior to God’s law.
  When the carpetbaggers’ law conflicted with the code of chivalry, the Southern men defied it. In Red Rock, the Southern man told their new governors that they had two rules: 1) “If you touch our women, we’ll kill you,” and 2) “We will not be ruled by Negroes.” When those two rules were violated, the Southern men went outside the law.
  
  In contrast, those opposed to black rule and race-mixing today never (except for a few samizdat-press bloggers) recommend going outside the parameters of modern democracy. (2) Such people do not really believe in the values of old Europe because they put adherence to the democratic process above loyalty to European civilization. Lindbergh was right when he claimed that the modern struggle had nothing to do with political systems; it was and is about race. If you accept the rules of your enemy, who only allows you to vote for a slow death or a quick death, you will be bereft of everything that Europeans once held dear.
  
• The women remained loyal.
  Buried somewhere in the pile of papers on my desk is an article by a Book-of-Common-Prayer, old rite, Anglican clergyman. In the article, the reverend, citing St. Paul, says that in every civilization the women are the last to go over to the devil, but when they do go, they are worse than the men. Shakespeare made the same observation in Macbeth, and Tennyson echoed the sentiment in the Idylls of the King. (3)
  
  During the Babylonian captivity, which the North called ‘Reconstruction,’ the Southern women remained loyal to the Southern white males. There was a spiritual symmetry between the Southern male and female. The male’s willingness to go forth in defense of hearth and home earned the female’s love and loyalty. And her love increased the male’s ardor to protect and defend which in turn increased the woman’s fidelity.
  
  The testimony of men like Page, as unbelievable as it seems in our modern age, cannot be doubted; the Southern women remained faithful to their men and their civilization despite facing starvation and dislocation. Only a tiny minority broke rank and went with the carpetbaggers and the Negroes. Today it is exactly the opposite. Only a tiny fragment of females, much smaller than the remnant of white males, have remained loyal to the white race.
  
  It is customary to blame the infidelity of the white female on the white male. There is some justification for that accusation; the white male has done little to inspire fidelity. But ultimately, the blame for any sin must be placed squarely on the shoulders of the sinner. White females, with some heroic exceptions, have descended to the lowest level of creation. They were wives and mothers in a civilization consecrated to Him, which is a position above the angels, and they descended from those heights to become concubines to Satan and his minions. “O Hamlet, what a falling off was there!”
  
• The white males stood tall.
  There were some Southern white men who cut deals with the usurpers and the Negroes, but in the main the whites stood together, which is why they prevailed.
  
  Today the situation is quite different. Some of the most virulent anti-white groups and anti-white white men are from the South. Witness the Southern Poverty Law Center and Thomas Fleming.
  
• Northern opposition to the Southern whites was not a monolith.
  Certainly the men who passed the Reconstruction legislation in Congress and the evangelical Christians who went over to Unitarianism and Negro worship were maniacally opposed to the Southern whites, but there was another element in the North, people who were sympathetic to the Southern white. Let me provide a short anecdote. My grandfather’s grandfather fought for the North in the Civil War. He lived well past age 90, so my grandfather had many opportunities to talk with him about the War. And I fortunately had many opportunities to talk with my grandfather about his grandfather. I believe this is called an oral tradition.
  
  What my great, great, grandfather told my grandfather is pertinent to the issue of the Northern sentiment toward the South. “They told me I was fighting for the Union. If I had known I was fighting to free the negroes, I would have joined the other side.”
  
  A committed elite always governs, but that elite is dependent on their ability to confuse and dazzle the masses. When their patter no longer confuses and dazzles, they lose ground. Reconstruction ended because the Southern whites stood firm and because the Northern Unitarians were no longer able to convince the great unwashed that the Southern whites ate Negro babies for breakfast and whipped Negro adults in the afternoon.
  
  Let’s fast-forward to the second half of the twentieth century. The Unitarian universalists retrenched and went back on the offensive. By 1950, they had succeeded in once again convincing the North, the Midwest, the West, and the rest of the European people that the Southern Europeans were devils. And even the Southern people themselves came to believe in the evils of the old South. It was no coincidence that the British ceased to believe in Britain, the Spanish in Spain, the French in France, etc., at the same time. The South was an extension of Europe; Satan would not attack one without attacking the other.
  
• The Christian religion was the source of the Southern white man’s love for his race.
  I read an article recently by a white pagan author. Although I shared his desire for the survival of the white race, I did not agree with his analysis of the race issue. He made the point that the love of their own race was embedded deeply in the souls of our European ancestors. But then he went on to state that only Christianity was embedded as deeply in the European soul. I agree that Christianity is embedded deeply in the European soul, but I do not agree with the separation that my pagan ally makes. If you read a novel like Red Rock you can’t help but be struck by the fact that Christianity and the love of their race was so intertwined in the souls of the Southern whites, that a separation of the two is impossible.
  
  I think we miss something essential if we do not see how love of race and love of Christ are interwoven in the soul of the European. When the European embraced Christ, he did not suddenly lose the virtues he already possessed. Those virtues were extended and deepened. Shame became guilt and kindness was transformed into charity. And pride of race, the desire to see one’s race perpetuated became love of race and a desire to see the individual members of one’s beloved race survive in perpetuity. (4) It is true that you should not have to prove that your race is more intelligent, more beautiful, etc., in order to desire its survival. It should be enough to say, “It is my own and I love it.” But we must see that such an appeal --“It is my own and I love it” -- will have no effect on the barbarian or the post-Christian white. They do not view race and love in the same way that the white Christian does. The barbarian does not love his race. He has pride of race; he wants it to be powerful, to be the dominant race, but he does not love it. This is why the weak, in barbarian cultures, are exterminated. They do not enhance the power of the race, so they are not valued. A barbarian will never countenance an argument from a white person which makes an appeal to their mutual love for their own race. The barbarian knows only power and dominance. Why should he agree to the survival of the white race when to him race means power? The survival of another race only diminishes his power.
  
  The post-Christian white will not respond to the appeal, “It is my own and I love it,” because he has severed his ties to Christian Europe. The new faith in science, progress, and Satan that the Northern Unitarians of the 1860s were toying with has become the fervent faith of the godless, white, post-Christians of the twenty-first century. They worship their own minds, which they have divorced from their hearts and the heart of God, and they worship the body of man divorced from his soul. Thus the colored barbarian has been accorded a throne in the godless utopia of the post-Christian white man, because he confirms the post-Christian’s belief in bodies without souls.
  
  It’s clear, from the testimony of Christian soldiers like Thomas Nelson Page, that the struggle for the Christian faith and the struggle for the white race have the same spiritual antecedents. When the battle against principalities and powers is won, so will the battle for the white race be won. +
  ____________________________
  (1) Faulkner gave Northern liberals and Southern liberals the type of Southern novel they wanted. I needn’t go into the salacious and gory details. Suffice it to say the stress was placed on the lower depths without sufficient emphasis on the higher levels of Southern culture.
  
  (2) I had a running debate for many years with a friend (regrettably, deceased) who thought my insistence that the white race was not going to make a comeback via the democratic process was “overly pessimistic.” It now appears to me that I was not too pessimistic but was instead overly optimistic in thinking that rear-guard candidates like Ron Paul had a chance, through the democratic process, to slow down the white decline.
  
  There is a great difference between someone who says that the death of the white man is inevitable and someone who says that there is no hope for the renewal of the white race through the democratic process. This doesn’t seem like a hard principle to grasp. But I must conclude that it is, because I hear the “too pessimistic” charge every time I suggest that the white man should jettison democracy.
  
  To me it is not a question of pessimism or optimism; it is a question of reality. Europeans who believe and act like Europeans once believed and acted are a tiny minority in every European country. Hordes of young (and not so young Europeans) grovel at black Obama’s feet everywhere he goes. Are such people going to vote for “white” candidates? Of course not.
  
  The reason “can-do” types get so mad at a person like me is because they think I am advising passive surrender to the enemy when I say it is over in terms of a democratic solution for the white man. But this is not the case. I am recommending that we step outside of the democratic parameters, which were parameters constructed by white, technocratic, anti-European bureaucrats, and return to the heroic mode of the antique Europeans. In that mode, political systems were a means to an end and not the end itself.
  
  (3) For men at most differ as Heaven and earth,
  But women, worst and best, as Heaven and Hell.
  -- Alfred Lord Tennyson
  
  (4) Sonnet 31:
  Thy bosom is endeared with all hearts,
  Which I by lacking have supposed dead,
  And there reigns love and all love's loving parts,
  And all those friends which I thought buried.
  How many a holy and obsequious tear
  Hath dear religious love stol'n from mine eye
  As interest of the dead, which now appear
  But things removed that hidden in thee lie!
  Thou art the grave where buried love doth live,
  Hung with the trophies of my lovers gone,
  Who all their parts of me to thee did give;
  That due of many now is thine alone:
  Their images I loved I view in thee,
  And thou, all they, hast all the all of me.
  
  -- William Shakespeare