Guarding the Bridge

“The liberals of the continent, on the other hand, first forsook Christianity, and then set out to cut away the traditions, sentiments, prejudices which they seemed to regard as a mere undergrowth. They did not know that what they were exorcising was their guardian angel…”

– Herbert Butterfield

In the eyes of the Jews, Christianity started out as a small, heretical movement within Judaism. And much to the horror of the Jews, it became the Faith of an entire continent in which the Jews were a tiny minority. But the wheel turns. The Jews are still a minority, albeit an influential one, but Christianity no longer enjoys majority status in European countries. The post-Christian rationalists (PCR) have held the reins of power in Europe and her satellites for the past one hundred years. If one were to make a chart of the Christian and post-Christian centuries of the European, it would look something like this:

400 – 800 Christian with pagan remnants
800 – 1900 Christian
1900 – 1950 Post-Christian Rationalist with Christian remnants
1950 – 2008 Post-Christian Rationalist

And who rules by proxy when the PCR Europeans rule? Satan does. He rules every branch of society, including (or, to be more accurate, especially) our churches.

The so-called fundamentalist movements of the 20th century were a response to the Christless faith of the mainstream Protestant churches. And the Catholic traditionalist movements of the 1960’s were a response to the Christless Christianity of Vatican II Catholicism. The Protestant fundamentalist movements were somewhat more effective than the traditionalist Catholic movements, because the fundamentalists tried to return to the Bible, which is a very solid basis on which to base a Christian counter-revolution, while the Catholic traditionalists only hearkened back to Thomism, which was the primary impetus for the original modernist revolt. But both groups failed to remain Christian because they abandoned the cultural heritage of Europe, which was the inspired creation of a people who were wedded to the God-Man.

The Catholic looks to the documents of the Church, as interpreted by the reigning pontiff, as his touchstone of reality, and the Protestant looks to the Holy Bible, as interpreted by the individual, as his touchstone of reality. But both have gone awry, because they have left out what George Fitzhugh called the only infallible authority in Christendom -- the Christian folk. The Gospel of Christ will be only an abstraction, an idea, which can be anything and everything to all men, if it is not given a concrete home in a culture. When we see Christianity embodied in a people, we have a touchstone of reality. We can say, “This is the Faith, and this is not the Faith.” The modern, technocratic man has a vested interest in an abstracted faith that is elastic enough to fit any set of values he creates in his perverted mind. His Christianity is a nebulous Christianity without substance. In contrast, the Christianity of the pre-20th century European was a concrete faith with a clearly delineated core. And one of the most striking contrasts between the older Europeans and the modern technocrats can be observed in their views on race. The pre-20th century European doesn’t really have a theory of race, and he doesn’t have a theory of race, because his racial identity and his Christianity are inseparable parts of his personality. He could no more separate them than he could separate his mind from his body, which, come to think of it, the modern technocrat does. The older European viewed his body as a spiritual entity. His skin color was part of his body, which contained his immortal soul. Mere corruptible flesh would not inherit eternal life, but his whiteness was part of his personality, which was a thing immortal. Hence the antique white man knew that racial diversity was spiritual suicide. Diversity destroys harmony in society and in the soul. Who wants to be scattered into a thousand diverse particles of dust?

The technocratic, modern man yearns for diversity. His satanic soul needs pandemonium. He wants the whole world to be one, unholy Babylon which he controls with his intellect; an intellect divorced from his race, his sex, and his God.

In the old private eye films, the police always fail to catch the murderer because they label two connecting events, such as the sudden "accidental" death of wealthy, old Joseph Finsbury and the financial insolvency of his heir and nearest relation, his nephew William Finsbury, as mere coincidence. And we play the part of the dense policemen when we fail to see that the PCR white man’s desire for diversity of race stems from his desire to separate himself from his God.

The Christianity our European forefathers embraced was diametrically opposed to diversity. In their pagan days, they were devoted to their hero-gods because they saw them as personalities committed to the struggle to defend the personalities of their devotees in the great battle against the forces of chaos and diversity. Christ did not destroy the hope and faith of those pagan Europeans. He revealed to them, in the fullness of His personality, that He was the fulfillment of their desire for a Hero-God who would sustain them in their battles to maintain their unique and undiversified manhood against all the forces of hell.

The modern, white pagan and the modern, anti-white, white liberal are united in their belief that the Christianity of the pre-20th century European was an interlude, a 1,500-year detour away from the true Christianity. Is that so? How can there be a 1,500-year interlude? No, the Christian poets, who articulate the faith of the Christian folk, and the Gospels themselves tell us a different story of the people of God, the Europeans, and their fight to maintain their faith in the Hero-God. At every juncture of European man’s history, Satan was there, trying to get European man to adopt a diverse Christianity, a synergistic Christianity, a faith with room for the Rosicrucian and the barbarian. In the 1500’s the people’s revolt against the synergistic Christianity took the form of the Protestant Reformation. And when that movement was corrupted by the devil, counter movements, such as the fundamentalist movement, were begun. Satan, however, has countered every Christian counterattack with a master stroke of his own. At present the Christian churches are synergistic Temples of Satan. And the key element of Satanism is racial diversity. There can be no faithful hearts to receive Him still if the people of God, the Europeans, the ones with the faithful hearts, no longer exist because they have become diversified.

History, common sense, and revelation all support the “racist,” Euro-centered Christianity of the pre-20th century Europeans. That is why the technocrat must be utopian rather than historical; nonsensical rather than sensible; unbiblical rather than biblical. But the technocratic white man’s flight from reality cannot change it. And the reality is that there never has been nor ever can be a black civilization. Blacks can only live and thrive in a civilization governed by whites. What has Africa become since the white man has left? We don’t need a crystal ball to know what will happen to a Negroized Europe and a Negroized U.S.A.

In his novel, Melmoth the Wanderer, Charles Maturin makes the point that before the devil can lay claim to a man’s soul, he must destroy his sanity and his memory. And such is the plight of the post-Christian European. A man who believes only in his own mind is insane. And a man who has abandoned the past in favor of a utopian future is a man without a memory. This is why a Christian European cannot reach the post-Christian rationalist. The PCR European no longer has a soul to call his own; he belongs to Satan.

What will emerge in the formerly European countries that are bereft of white Christian Europeans? Well, there will be no black civilization. Blacks can destroy civilizations, and when they are controlled they can be useful servants in a civilization. But since the PCR whites will not control them, they will destroy the technocratic civilization of the PCR whites. And then the Asians will step in. They are capable of building and maintaining a civilization, but they are incapable of building a Christian civilization. Every fiendish torture ever used by the white man on his fellow whites was first used by the Asian. They have a genius for cruelty. I know this all sounds so terribly impolite to say, but what has happened in the 20th century to make the European view the oriental as a kindly friend of Christian Europe? It seems to me that what would now be called hideous racist caricatures of Orientals, such as the depictions of Asians in the Fu Manchu novels of Sax Rohmer, paint a ridiculously benign portrait of the Oriental compared to the actual reality of his true nature. But then the PCR whites are not concerned with reality.

Herbert Butterfield once observed that the English people always left bridges to the rear whenever they went forward. They might alter a political structure, but they always maintained their ties to the past throughout the transitions in government. Butterfield approved of that instinct. And in that approval he echoes George Fitzhugh, who maintained, “Throw our paper platforms, preambles and resolutions, guaranties and constitutions, in the fire, and we should be none the worse off, provided we retained our institutions –and the necessities that begot, and have, so far, continued them.” Ah, there’s the rub. The PCR white man, by embracing racial diversity, has burnt the bridges to the past. The Western Christian tradition was spawned by white Europeans. It cannot be continued by simply preserving a document, or a philosophical treatise, or a political system, from the past. The heritage and the race are one.

The white Christian remnant is almost too small to be called a remnant; let’s call it a mustard- seed remnant. The challenge for that mustard-seed remnant is to maintain the bridge to His civilization against all odds. Shakespeare’s Agincourt has become every European’s battle. “We few, we happy few, we band of brothers” will hold until relieved by the Hero who has taught us that no cause is lost when it is consecrated to Him.+

Love’s Labour’s Lost

The liberals have never liked Shakespeare. Oh, I know they give lip service to his virtuosity with words. But they are always uncomfortable with the themes of his plays. They have very little understanding of them, but from the little they do understand they get a vague sense that they are being insulted. They are right.

In Love’s Labour’s Lost, Shakespeare attacks a liberal icon – Academia. As the play opens, the King of Navarre and three young lords have taken an oath:

You three, Berowne, Dumaine, and Longaville,
Have sworn for three years’ term to live with me
My fellow-scholars, and to keep those statutes
That are recorded in this schedule here:
Your oaths are pass’d; and now subscribe your names,
That his own hand may strike his honour down
That violates the smallest branch herein:
If you are arm’d to do as sworn to do,
Subscribe to your deep oaths, and keep it too.

Part of the oath includes a vow “not to see a woman in that term,” and “one day in a week to touch no food,” and “to sleep but three hours in the night.” All three lords sign the King’s contract, although Berowne signs it with the belief that “Necessity will make us all forsworn.”

It is not my intent to give a step by step exegesis of what ensues after the young men take their oaths. Let it suffice to say that all three men break their oaths, and the cause of the breaking of the oaths is, of course, four young women.

Berowne eloquently defends the breaking of the oaths:

Never durst poet touch a pen to write
Until his ink were tempr’d with Love's sighs;
O, then his lines would ravish savage ears
And plant in tyrants mild humility.
From women's eyes this doctrine I derive:
They sparkle still the right Promethean fire;
They are the books, the arts, the academes,
That show, contain, and nourish all the world;
Else none at all in aught proves excellent.
Then fools you were these women to forswear,
Or, keeping what is sworn, you will prove fools.
For wisdom's sake, a word that all men love,
Or for love's sake, a word that loves all men,
Or for men's sake, the authors of these women,
Or women's sake, by whom we men are men,
Let us once lose our oaths to find ourselves,
Or else we lose ourselves to keep our oaths.
It is religion to be thus forsworn,
For charity itself fulfils the law,
And who can sever love from charity?

Having broken their oaths, the young men become ardent lovers and attempt to woo the objects of their hearts’ desire. But things do not work out the way they do in the usual comedy; there is no marriage feast at the end of the play. As Berowne comments:

Our wooing doth not end like an old play;
Jack hath not Jill: these ladies’ courtesy
Might well have made our sport a comedy.

Why is there no marriage at the end of the play? Because the women, seeing how easily the men have broken their first vow, do not take the men’s new vow of love seriously. They think the gentlemen are merely playing with them, and they respond accordingly. It is only when the death of one of the women’s fathers makes it imperative for all four women to leave Navarre that the four suitors manage to convince the young women that they are in earnest. The women, however, do not accept the men’s offers of marriage without conditions. Each man is assigned, by his respective beloved, a penance. They each must renounce the world for one year and do such works of charity and penance as to “visit the speechless sick,” and “…go with speed, To some forlorn and naked hermitage…”

“Ah,” the reader says, “it serves them right; they are being punished for breaking their vow to study for three years.” No, they are being punished for making satanic vows by being forced to take Christian vows. What was satanic about the first vow? They desired knowledge for self-aggrandizement. For them, knowledge meant power and fame. “Navarre shall be the wonder of the world; Our court shall be a little Academe…” A Christian renounces the world for the sake of the world; an academic is abstracted from the world for the sake of himself. It is quite fitting that the men, to atone for a satanic renunciation, must show they are capable of a Christian renunciation.

The women in the play are not Lady Macbeths; they are good Christian women who, like Mary, inspire by fidelity and not by attempting to become men. Such women are “the books, the arts, the academes, That show, contain and nourish all the world.”

There is a wonderful symmetry in the male-female relationship when it is working properly. Men need the inspiration that comes from a woman who, in imitation of Mary, is planted firmly at the foot of the Cross. And a woman needs a man to take that inspiration, give it flesh, and reinspire her. A Christian academic, or a Christian monk might renounce the company of women, but he would not do it because he was abstracted from humanity but because he had been inspired by the God-Man to give himself spiritually to all women and to all men.

I am sure the four men of Navarre kept their second vow. How do I know this? The wisdom of the West supports me. The Florence Nightingales of the world always inspire men more completely than the proud abstracted goddesses of wisdom. (1) Because like Mary, their fidelity at the foot of the Cross shows us the pure image of Christ.+
______________________________________
(1) It is a hideous perversion of Christianity to make the mother of God a goddess of wisdom.

Balzac – On New York

Alas! The colonel no longer loved anyone in the world except for one person and that person was himself. His misfortunes in Texas, his stay in New York, a place where speculation and individualism are carried to the very highest level, where the brutality of self-interest reaches the point of cynicism, and where a man, fundamentally isolated from the rest of mankind, finds himself compelled to rely upon his own strength and at every instant to be the self-appointed judge of his own actions, a city in which politeness does not exist; in other words, the whole voyage, down to its very slightest details, had developed in Philippe the pernicious inclinations of the hardened trooper. He had started to smoke and drink; he had become brutal, impertinent and rude; he had been depraved by hardship and physical suffering. Moreover, the colonel considered himself as having been persecuted. The consequence of such a view is to make unintelligent people hostile and intolerant themselves. In Philippe’s eyes, the whole universe began at his head and ended at his feet, and the sun shone only for him. Finally, life in New York – as seen and interpreted by this man of action – had removed all his remaining scruples in matters of morality.

from The Black Sheep by Honore de Balzac

Sage Advice from Don Quixote to Sancho Panza

“Do not make many statutes, but if you make them, try to make good ones and, particularly, see that they are kept and fulfilled; for if statutes are not kept they might as well not exist. Besides, they show that though the prince had the wisdom and authority to make them, he had not the courage to see that they were observed. And laws which threaten but are not carried out come to be like that log which was king of the frogs. He frightened them at first; but in time they despised him and climbed upon his back.”

--Miguel de Cervantes

Excerpt from *Chronicles of the Crusades*

…King Louis also spoke to me of a great assembly of clergy and Jews which had taken place at the monastery of Cluny. There was a poor knight there at the time to whom the abbot had often given bread for the love of God. This knight asked the abbot if he could speak first, and his request was granted, though somewhat grudgingly. So he rose to his feet, and leaning on his crutch, asked to have the most important and most learned rabbi among the Jews brought before Him. As soon as the Jew had come, the knight asked him a question. “May I know, sir,” he said, “if you believe that the Virgin Mary, who bore our Lord in her body and cradled Him in her arms, was a virgin at the time of His birth, and is in truth the Mother of God?”

The Jew replied that he had no belief in any of those things. Thereupon the knight told the Jew that he acted like a fool when – neither believing in the Virgin, nor loving her – he had set foot in that monastery which was her house. “And by heaven” exclaimed the knight, “I’ll make you pay for it” So he lifted his crutch and struck the Jew such a blow with it near the ear that he knocked him down. Then all the Jews took to flight, and carried their sorely wounded rabbi away with them. Thus the conference ended.

The abbot went up to the knight and told him he had acted most unwisely. The knight retorted that the abbot had been guilty of even greater folly in calling people together for such a conference, because there were many good Christians there who, before the discussion ended, would have gone away with doubts about their own religion through not fully understanding the Jews. “So I tell you,” said the king, “that no one, unless he is an expert theologian, should venture to argue with these people. But a layman, whenever he hears the Christian religion abused, should not attempt to defend its tenets, except with his sword, and that he should thrust into the scoundrel’s belly, and as far as it will enter.”

-- Joinville & Villehardouin’s Chronicles of the Crusades

On Being Progressive

“… it will never be know what acts of cowardice have been motivated by the fear of not looking sufficiently progressive.”

--Péguy

Melville on Reason’s Capacity to Comfort a Soul in Distress

“For in tremendous extremities human souls are like drowning men; well enough they know they are in peril; well enough they know the causes of that peril; nevertheless, the sea is the sea, and these drowning men do drown.”

--from Pierre or, the Ambiguities

The Return of the Whiteman

I saw just a few snippets of the Democratic and Republican conventions – any more would have been too painful. The two parties make me think of C. S. Lewis’s observation that the devil often invests two seemingly opposite groups with his evil designs in order to fool the struggling mortal into making a choice between two similar evils in different guises. Then, no matter what decision the mortal makes, the devil wins. What were the words of that old song? “Anyway you look at it, you lose.”

In viewing both conventions one can’t help but feel he is getting a glimpse of what hell must be like. We see a bunch of little devils running around celebrating pandemonium. And is there any unifying principle underlying the pandemonium? Yes, there is. The unifying principle of both demonic parties is hatred, hatred for the older, white, Christian civilization of the European people.

The United States is not a nation. The people of the U. S. are not bound by a common religion, a common heritage, or a common race. In the absence of authentic ties that bind, the satanic tribes within the U. S. prey on each other and unite only when the common enemy, the white European, seems to threaten the continuance of their tribal celebrations and rituals.

In reality there really is no group of Europeans threatening the demonic tribes. But the demonic tribes always bring up the possibility of the return of the white man in order to scare other tribes into supporting their tribe. And we should take note of that. The white technocrat, the Amazon, and the colored barbarian have a deep-rooted fear of an organized, committed body of white Europeans. They take their cue from their master.

And at some point, when the white man finally abandons the satanic notions of equality, fraternity, and democracy, he will have to reclaim his civilization. At present, the small remnant of white men who support white people frame their defense of the white man in terms of rights: “The white man has a right to his own culture just as the black, or the Asian, etc. has the right to his culture.” But doesn’t that assume modern democracy is a valid form of government rather than a creation of the devil? What is the reality of the white man’s contact with non-white cultures? The reality is that when the white man acts democratically, trying to incorporate non-white cultures into white culture, the barbarians of color, who do not think in utopian terms, view the white man’s attempt to include them in his culture as surrender. They view themselves as conquerors and proceed to act as they think barbarian conquerors should act. The white technocrat keeps playing the part (and believing it for the most part) of the benevolent Atticus Finch, extending a helping hand to all mankind, while the barbarians of color look on him with contempt and step up their arrogance and brutality at every new “benevolent” gesture of the technocratic white man.

“I’ll respect your culture if you respect mine,” only works when the cultural differences are nuanced differences within a higher, common, religious culture. For instance, an Englishman might prefer the paintings of John Constable, and a Scotsman might prefer the paintings of Horatio McCulloch, but both still share a common race and a common faith from which their cultural heritage is derived. (1) There can be no shared cultural experience between the colored and the white because they do not have a common bond. The only way a white can mix with non-white is if the white gives up his heritage. And of course that is exactly what is happening today. (2)

It is impossible for a genuine white man to have a “you-respect-my-culture-and-I’ll-respect- your-culture” relationship with the colored races. The barbarian of color does not have any intention of respecting other cultures. The very idea of respect for another culture comes from the Christian white man. And from the white man’s side: do we really want to respect the colored culture? Do they have a right to their culture? No, they don’t. No one has a right to be a barbarian. The white man might have to allow the barbarians of color to maintain their bestial civilizations in their own nations, because the cost to white people would be too great in trying to convert them, but no white man should ever permit one single barbarian of color to exist in a white nation. And please don’t tell me it is impossible to remove them. It is quite possible, once the will to protect and defend His civilization becomes firmly re-established in the bosom of the white man.

The white Sons of Martha magazines all tell us that white people will be a minority in the U.S. by 2045. The European Sons of Martha magazines make similar projections for their own nations. And then they urge us to vote the nightmarish vision of pandemonium away. How, pray tell, can we “vote white” when voting white is not an option? Was there a candidate in any national or local election who ran on a segregation platform? Was there a candidate who ran on a “send the blacks back to Africa, the Chinese to China, and the Mexicans to Mexico” platform? Of course not. But the non-whites do run on such platforms. They don’t espouse equality and fraternity; they espouse death to 'whitey'.

The American Civil War should have served as a warning, just as Haiti should have served as a warning, to all white people that diversity does not mean harmony and understanding between the races, it means the extinction of white Christians and the triumph of the colored minions of Satan.

Prior to the Civil War there were hundreds of anti-slavery societies in the South. But when the Civil War commenced, the anti-slavery societies disappeared. Why? Because the North did not want to send the blacks back to Africa, they wanted to place the black man on an equal basis with the white man. Every Southern anti-slavery plan called for repatriation of the blacks. The Southerners knew that black freedom without repatriation meant miscegenation and the destruction of European civilization on the North American continent. Why then, when the worst nightmares of the white Southerners have become enshrined into law, do white conservatives still prop up the illicit government of the United States?

During World War II there was an official French government that was largely a puppet of the Germans. And then there was an unofficial government in exile led by Charles de Gaulle. As the French did in World War II, so now should the white European-Americans establish their own government in exile. It need not be (in fact, it should not be) a parallel carbon copy of the satanic American system. Circumstances will dictate the structures of the government in exile. The important thing is to establish a European government that stands in opposition to the United Diverse Government of America.

Most men by the time they reach their mid-fifties, as I have, have buried one or both of their parents and lost some close friends. One sees, if he has just a slight touch of the poet in his soul, that life is fragile and quite unpredictable. There are few things one can really control. But there is the discovery of Hamlet. One’s soul is one’s own. You can claim your one moment in the sun when a man is called “to say one,” or you can let that brief moment pass. The magnificent grandeur of ordinary (ordinary in the sense that they weren’t famous) white Europeans of the past was that they did "say one." They consecrated their brief mortal lives to Him and became part, not of some universalist melting pot, but of His Kingdom. Life will always be fragile and unpredictable, but it won’t seem meaningless if we dedicate it to the rebuilding of His Europe.

If it is true that Abraham Lincoln just dashed off his Gettysburg Address on the back of an envelope on the train en route to Gettysburg, then he truly was a great genius; it is a magnificent speech. However, despite its brilliance, it is a false speech. Did our forefathers really intend to bring forth on this continent a new nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal? Quite possibly some of the framers of the Constitution had some such utopian notions in mind. But did the great mass of European immigrants have such notions in their heads or their hearts? No, they did not. They came to this country for a variety of reasons, some secular and some religious, but they all came with the central tenet of European civilization burned into their souls. That tenet was that no man goeth unto the Father except through Him. And their second conviction was related to their first basic tenet. That second conviction was that European culture had to prevail over the non-European cultures, because in the absence of European rule there would be nothing but pandemonium.

When I look at the Republican and Democratic party conventions, it seems that hell is empty and all the devils are at the conventions. But I know that pandemonium will not ultimately prevail. It is the ordinary Europeans who quietly dedicate themselves to rebuilding His civilization that will triumph. They will triumph because they have that within them that is the antithesis of pandemonium. They have the charity that never faileth. +

__________________________________________________
(1) The European landscape painters I admire, such as Constable and McCulloch, all adhere instinctively to Blake’s dictum, “Where man is not, nature is barren.” They humanize the natural world and remind us who visited this earth and shed his light on nature.






Horatio McCulloch, Evening View from the Bluff

(2) The reason why the capitalist is so gung ho for diversity is that he wants the white man to abandon his cultural heritage for capitalism. He wants to see the colored and the white unite under one glorious capitalist banner. The infamous Coke commercial expresses the capitalist’s deepest yearning.

The Whiteman at Bay

I do not subscribe to the traditionalist Catholic viewpoint of history which claims that the 13th century was the apogee of Christian civilization, followed by a steady decline in every subsequent century. Nor do I agree with the Protestants who view all of European history prior to the Reformation as the age of darkness, in contrast to the post-Reformation age of light. I have a personal preference (for reasons I have stated in an earlier article) for the 19th century, but I see all of European man’s history, prior to the 20th century, as a successful effort, the only successful effort in the history of mankind, to keep Satan at bay. And by saying that, I do not mean to suggest that Satan has not had his individual successes within European civilization. What I am affirming is that Europeans, despite the onslaughts of Satan, had maintained a civilization that acknowledged the light of the world and were aware of their obligations to stay focused on that light.

All dates on a matter such as the decline of the West are arbitrary, but I think 1914 is a fairly accurate date to use when we are talking about the point in history when Satan was no longer being kept at bay. He was loose. And by the mid-1960’s he had institutionalized his values throughout all of Christian Europe. So now the white Christian male is being kept at bay by Satan.

As one who is opposed to the reign of Satan, I am concerned about the failure in the last fifty years of every European counterattack. It would seem, judging by the recent European failures to uproot him, that Satan is very difficult to uproot once he has taken up residence in a civilization. But is he invincible? Our ancestors’ success against him indicates that he is not.

What then do we lack that our ancestors had? We lack the heroic, integral way of responding to adversity. We no longer see an evil and say, “this must not go on,” (1) and strike out at the evil. Instead, we form “think tanks” and study groups. We spend years of fruitless effort in trying to get someone elected who will address the particular evil we are trying to combat. In short, we are Hamlet prior to his conversion from confused graduate student to the lawful King of Denmark. We are “crawling around between heaven and earth.”

Satan wants European man to see life as an intelligence test in which the person with the highest score wins. But when we perceive life as Satan does, we always lose. We lose because we are not angelic beings. When we abstract our minds from our blood, we become like unto Satan, because when we abstract, we “believe a lie.”

To abstracted reason, evil appears good because it seems pleasurable, while virtue appears evil because it seems painful. In order to discover that the reverse is true, mankind must resist the pleasures in which their abstracted minds encourage them to indulge and perform the virtuous deeds that their blood, animated by His spirit, calls on them to perform. I have known women who rejected motherhood because they could not stand the idea of pain. And yet what mother does not rejoice when she gives birth? In Shakespeare’s poem, “The Rape of Lucrece,” Sextus Tarquinius cannot resist his idée fixe; he must have the fair Lucrece. With what result?

Even in this thought through the dark night he stealeth,
A captive victor that hath lost in gain;
Bearing away the wound that nothing healeth,
The scar that will, despite of cure, remain;
Leaving his spoil perplex'd in greater pain.
She bears the load of lust he left behind,
And he the burden of a guilty mind.
He like a thievish dog creeps sadly thence;
She like a wearied lamb lies panting there;
He scowls and hates himself for his offence;
She, desperate, with her nails her flesh doth tear;
He faintly flies, sneaking with guilty fear;
She stays, exclaiming on the direful night;
He runs, and chides his vanish'd, loath’d delight.

Our ancestors who built Christian Europe lived life in the heroic mode. They did not feel called upon to match wits with the devil. They felt called upon to defend their souls and their civilization from the onslaughts of the devil. The Christian hero cares only about one thing: Is his cause God’s cause? And if it is, he sallies forth and leaves the rest to God.

There's a special Providence in the fall of a sparrow.
If it be now, 'tis not to come: if it be not to
come, it will be now: if it be not now,
yet it will come; the readiness is all.
Since no man has ought of what he
leaves. What is't to leave betimes?

Every society has men of courage. But it takes more than courage to maintain a Christian civilization or to mount a counterattack against a satanic civilization. It takes courage and vision. And the “vision thing” of which George Bush senior was so dismissive is what has been lacking and is still lacking in the ranks of the far right.

Twenty-five years ago I would have called the abortion issue the central issue of our times. But now I see that legalized abortion is the result of the anti-European ethos of the modern world. Anti-European whites legalized it and anti-European whites and barbarians of color constitute the unholy alliance that maintains legalized infanticide. Thus, the central issue is the restoration of Christian Europe. From that restoration will come the restoration of laws protecting babies in their mother’s wombs and other laws necessary for the welfare of a Christian people. But first there must be a restoration. And that is why the Sons of Martha should never and can never lead a counterrevolutionary movement. The Sons of Martha always get lost in the household details of the movement and lose sight of the real issue of the war. The restoration of white civilization, for instance, cannot be divorced from the issue of the restoration of Christian civilization. But the Sons of Martha divorce the two. They see that there are professed white Christians maniacally opposed to white Europeans and that there are professed white Christians who are in favor of segregation and white sovereignty in white countries. So instead of trying to ascertain who are the true Christians, they treat Christianity as a washout and look for a more practical way to bring people to the banner of White Europe. But in doing so, they leave their movement without a metaphysic.

This fact was made abundantly clear to me a few years back when I read an article by an American Son of Martha in a right-wing British magazine called The Spearhead. The author maintained that white people needed a religion of their own to replace Christianity if they were going to combat the anti-European forces arrayed against them. In his Son of Martha logic, religion was something one could simply pick up for pragmatic purposes. “We need a religion to beat the barbarians – let’s buy one at the religion store.” It doesn’t work that way, of course. European man has a religion, he has the religion, and it has always been his religion. When the barbarian truly converts to the white man’s religion, he supports the white hierarchy. In Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn’s encyclopedic work on Europe, he tells in the chapter on Britain of an old Indian (the real India) who wistfully yearns for the return of the British Rajah. That old man is the British equivalent of Uncle Remus.

The good news for white folk is that the Sons of Mary have not yet begun to fight. The liberals and the barbarians have only beaten the Sons of Martha. But the bad news is that the Sons of Martha show no signs of stepping down and recognizing that the “impractical” Sons of Mary are the only men who have the vision to lead a successful counterrevolution. The Sons of Martha do not believe that “without vision the people perish.” They believe that what rationalism has destroyed, namely Western civilization, rationalism can restore. ‘Tis not so, it never has been, and it never will be. Only a faith that holds the purely rational, the purely empirical, and the purely scientific in contempt can hope to breach the walls and eventually capture and destroy Castle Babylon. +
____________

(1) Squeers caught the boy firmly in his grip; one desperate cut had fallen on his body--he was wincing from the lash and uttering a scream of pain--it was raised again, and again about to fall--when Nicholas Nickleby, suddenly starting up, cried 'Stop!' in a voice that made the rafters ring.

'Who cried stop?' said Squeers, turning savagely round.

'I,' said Nicholas, stepping forward. 'This must not go on.'

'Must not go on!' cried Squeers, almost in a shriek.

'No!' thundered Nicholas.

Aghast and stupefied by the boldness of the interference, Squeers released his hold of Smike, and, falling back a pace or two, gazed upon Nicholas with looks that were positively frightful.

'I say must not,' repeated Nicholas, nothing daunted; 'shall not. I will prevent it.'

Squeers continued to gaze upon him, with his eyes starting out of his head; but astonishment had actually, for the moment, bereft him of speech.

'You have disregarded all my quiet interference in the miserable lad's behalf,' said Nicholas; 'you have returned no answer to the letter in which I begged forgiveness for him, and offered to be responsible that he would remain quietly here. Don't blame me for this public interference. You have brought it upon yourself; not I.'

'Sit down, beggar!' screamed Squeers, almost beside himself with rage, and seizing Smike as he spoke.

'Wretch,' rejoined Nicholas, fiercely, 'touch him at your peril! I will not stand by, and see it done. My blood is up, and I have the strength of ten such men as you. Look to yourself, for by Heaven I will not spare you, if you drive me on!'

'Stand back,' cried Squeers, brandishing his weapon.

'I have a long series of insults to avenge,' said Nicholas, flushed with passion; 'and my indignation is aggravated by the dastardly cruelties practised on helpless infancy in this foul den. Have a care; for if you do raise the devil within me, the consequences shall fall heavily upon your own head!'

He had scarcely spoken, when Squeers, in a violent outbreak of wrath, and with a cry like the howl of a wild beast, spat upon him, and struck him a blow across the face with his instrument of torture, which raised up a bar of livid flesh as it was inflicted. Smarting with the agony of the blow, and concentrating into that one moment all his feelings of rage, scorn, and indignation, Nicholas sprang upon him, wrested the weapon from his hand, and pinning him by the throat, beat the ruffian till he roared for mercy.

--Nicholas Nickleby by Charles Dickens