The Last Great Fight of All

“Deeper than speech our love, stronger than life our tether...”

I don’t follow the news on a daily basis, because it isn’t very pleasant or necessary to witness every single dying gasp of a terminally ill nation. But I did see a snippet of one of the recent ‘tea parties,’ during which Glenn Beck interviewed a white Texan who had shot two illegals that were attempting to rob his neighbor’s house. The Texan, I believe his name was Joe, seemed like a decent fellow who regretted that the housebreakers had made it necessary for him to shoot them, but he did not regret taking action against the banditos.

Beck quite rightly applauded Joe’s actions, but then he moved on to interview someone else, a conservative pundit. The pundit and Beck talked about how wonderful the ‘tea parties’ were because they were lawful and non-violent, in contrast to those protests by radicals in the 1960’s, which often were unlawful and violent. Does anyone see a problem with Beck’s and the pundit’s logic? First, did Joe defend his neighbor’s property by taking a vote among his neighbors and presenting the results to the banditos? “Hey, you fellows, 92% of the residents think it is wrong for you to break into my neighbor’s house, so will you please leave? If you don’t, my neighbors and I will have a rally, at which we will wave signs around that say ‘housebreaking is wrong’.”

I know the rejoinder to this: “Joe shot people who were breaking the law. You can’t act unlawfully or violently against a lawful government.” But is self-defense and defense of one’s kith and kin wrong if a man is defending kith and kin against the government? On his deathbed, Alfred the Great told his son to “govern himself by law.” But Alfred is referring to the law of God which he, Alfred, had made the law of the land. Is there any trace of Christianity left in the laws of the United States or the laws of the European countries? It seems to me that the formerly Christian nations of Europe and her offspring have institutionalized liberalism, which is to say they have institutionalized Satanism. Are we then obligated to meekly demure while the liberal governments systematically eradicate non-liberal, white Europeans?

And what about the Sixties’ radicals that Beck and the pundit mentioned? Did their more violent and unlawful rallies work? Yes, they did. The demands of the radical blacks, the radical feminists, and every other radical group that broke the law and used or threatened to use violence became the law of the land.

The tea parties remind me of the Contract with America during the first years of the Clinton administration, a gimmick created by a Republican liberal to gain some leverage on a democratic liberal. But the Contract with America movement was a movement within liberalism. And so are the tea parties. There might be some genuine white, non-liberal Europeans at the tea parties, but the leaders of the tea parties are part of liberaldom. The reason such leaders always fail while their more radical brethren, such as the feminists and the barbarians succeed is because of the Kerensky vs. Lenin phenomenon. When you are a radical, as Kerensky the socialist was, you have committed yourself and your followers to a vision of an ever-changing, ever-leftward and upward movement toward Utopia. But if upward and leftward is good, then even more upward and leftward is better. Lenin had the moral upper hand on Kerensky, just as the more radical liberal coalition of socialists, feminists, and black barbarians have the moral upper hand on the liberal capitalists. The Republicans want to stop at democratic capitalism while the radical liberals want to keep moving leftward and upward. The radicals always win such wars because their democratic capitalist opponents are always on the defensive. You can’t stop and get off the liberal locomotive half-way or three quarters of the way before the final destination. If you want an economic system where no one has capital except capitalists, you must keep on the train until you come to the final stop where only the government has capital. If you want a democratic egalitarian system with tolerance for all religions, you can’t stop the train from pulling into the abortuary at the end of the station. You can’t have just a little bit of liberalism.

Fitzhugh correctly pointed out that we could, “Throw our paper platforms, preambles and resolutions, guaranties and constitutions into 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. We have lost our institutions and necessities that begot them. Our institutions were Christian institutions and the necessity that begot them was our faith in Jesus Christ. The tea party protestors are not meeting to demand that we place Christ at the center of a white European nation. There was no call for the deportation of colored barbarians. There was no call for the destruction of the abortuaries and the organizations that sustain them. I heard only a plea for economic justice, which is certainly a legitimate plea. But if the restoration of white Christian Europe doesn’t take place first, how can there be any economic justice? Do you expect the minions of Satan to be just? Do you expect them to be merciful?

I spent some years of my youth involved in the pro-life movement. The movement was a failure because the leaders of the movement refused to treat the abortion issue as a war between Christ and Satan. They treated it as a misunderstanding, something that could be resolved within the framework of liberal democracy. “If we educate them about fetal life they’ll understand.” They do understand, just as the liberals understand that whites in South Africa and Rhodesia are being butchered like aborted babies in their mothers' wombs. The liberals know what they are doing; they are destroying the white race and they are taking control of the procreative process. They, not God, will decide who the chosen people are, and they, not God, will decide who dies in the womb and who sees the light of day.

And of course, the carnage in South Africa and Rhodesia has spread to all the formerly European nations. Can it be halted by any force within liberalism itself? No, of course not. Only men from the old Europe can stop the bloodletting. When white men meet, it should not be to wave protest signs and plead for inclusion into Satania; white men should meet to take oaths of fealty to a Europe that seems dead but is only sleeping:

Also, we will make promise. So long as The Blood endures,
I shall know that your good is mine: ye shall feel that my strength is yours:
In the day of Armageddon, at the last great fight of all,
That Our House stand together and the pillars do not fall.
Draw now the threefold knot firm on the ninefold bands,
And the Law that ye make shall be law after the rule of your lands.

The liberals have invoked Satan, and he has responded to their invocation. But he acts for his own ends not for theirs. What God should the white man invoke? If we throw off the false messiahs of science and democracy, we will find the same God our ancestors swore fealty to waiting to lead us against the satanic coalition of liberals and barbarians. Of course we can’t merely state His name and make the liberals disappear. Divine grace does not work that way. But the cross is also a sword. If we join our hearts to His sacred heart, we will possess the only weapon capable of penetrating to the heart of the liberal dragon.

White Hearts

...that among the sundry and manifold changes of the world,
our hearts may surely there be fixed, where as true joys are to be found...
________________________________________

Of all the wise things Edmund Burke said, I’ve always thought that his statement, “The first liberal was the devil,” was the wisest. Burke was not exaggerating to make a point; he was being quite serious when he identified the devil as the founder of liberalism. At the core of Satan’s faith and the liberal’s faith is a spirit of intellectual abstraction that abhors humanity. God loved mankind so much that He sent His only begotten Son, and Satan and the liberal hate mankind so much that they seek to make a world in opposition to God’s out of the inhuman abstractions of their minds. And the liberals, with Satan’s guidance, have done a pretty fair job of creating a world that is in complete opposition to the world our Lord would have us live in.

One can see in his mind’s eye a minor devil coming to the devil somewhere in the early Middle Ages and asking for some advice:
_______________________

Minor Devil: The Europeans are misbehaving. They are taking His incarnation quite seriously.

The Devil: I have one word for you: abstract.

MD: Could you elaborate on that?

TD: Encourage philosophical speculation.

MD: What’s that?

TD: Where do such ignoramuses come from? Do I have to spell out everything for you? Get these stupid mortals to look at the natural world. Flatter them. Tell them they’re brilliant, and their reason is the most exalted thing on earth. But never insult God directly. In fact, tell them that it is their abstracted reason alone with which they can know god.

MD: I don’t see what good that will do.

TD: I do, and that should be enough for you. But if you must know, I’ll tell you. They will soon stop looking to God for guidance, and they will look to nature and their own minds for guidance. And that’s when I’ll step in.

MD: It seems so futile.

TD: Patience, it will all work out. I see a time coming when the Europeans, who are our greatest enemies, will willingly sever all filial ties to Christ our enemy by making Christianity into an abstraction. And I see a time when the Europeans will sever all filial ties to their Christian past by blending with and worshipping the races of color.

MD: They will never do that; you’re just dreaming.

TD: Shut up and do as I command; you’re a stupid little devil who can be easily replaced.

_______________________

Butterfield had a name for the liberals who tried to make individual human beings conform to the utopian abstractions of their minds. He called them “super Gnostics.” But a liberal by any name will still stink of the sulphurous pit. The liberal has severed his mind from his heart and by doing so he has cut himself off from the heart of God. A man with a disembodied brain is a reed for every intellectual wind that Satan sends his way. But a man whose heart is joined with the Lord’s heart is more than a match for the satanic winds.

The sign of the true God is His humanity. The mark of Satan is his inhumanity. And humanity is personal not generic. In fact, it is through generic humanity that Satan attacks individual human beings. Robespierre was a humanitarian, an anti-capital capital punishment zealot. In the name of humanity, he felt compelled to kill thousands of individual men and women. And in the 20th century, it was the satanic lovers of generic humanity that set up the Gulags and the abortuaries.

When the institutions of one's society are conservative, when they support the permanent things, a man should support his society. But when a society has institutionalized the satanic hatred of all things human, a man should be a counter-revolutionary. And the most counter-revolutionary thing a man can do is to cling to the “tilled field and hedgerow, linked to the plowed furrow, the frequented pasture, the lane of evening lingerings, the cultivated garden-plot;” the little things, the human things, that are our links to the incarnate God. Our race is important because it is part of our humanity which is connected to His sacred humanity. Our culture is important because it was a result of the union of our humanity with His humanity. Satan bids us look away from the incarnational aspects of European culture in order to destroy our faith in God and our faith in our own humanity. In Satan’s world, which is the modern world, God is an idea devoid of humanity, and man is a universal without a particular race or personality.

Throughout the old and new Testaments, God talks about those who have hardened their hearts against Him. It seems to be the one sin that cannot be forgiven, because the man with the hardened heart does not feel the need for forgiveness; he only sees other sinners who impede his attempts to make the world conform to his idea of a perfect universe. The liberal will always be at war with the Christian European because his world is Satan’s world and the European’s world is Christ’s world. The merciless and the merciful will forever be in conflict.

There is no appeal to the merciless that will move them. They have hardened their hearts into finely chiseled granite. The conservative nationalist publications try to wake up liberals by showing them the results of their policies and their effect on individual human beings. That doesn’t work because the liberals do not see or care about individual human beings. They don’t care about the murder of white people. They care about the idea of the noble savage and the multi-colored society. In the face of the atrocities in the New Orleans Superdome, the liberals were not angered by the black savagery, they were only angry at the whites in the surrounding areas who armed themselves against the black barbarians. Such actions of self-defense are viewed by the liberals as heresy, because in the liberals’ satanic utopia there are no bad black men, only racist whites.

Modern liberaldom was built patiently and carefully by a satanic mind infinitely more brilliant than any mortal man. Miss Havisham in Dickens’ novel Great Expectations educates Estella in exactly the same way Satan has educated the liberals.

'I begin to think,' said Estella, in a musing way, after another moment of calm wonder, 'that I almost understand how this comes about. If you had brought up your adopted daughter wholly in the dark confinement of these rooms, and had never let her know that there was such a thing as the daylight by which she has never once seen your face - if you had done that, and then, for a purpose had wanted her to understand the daylight and know all about it, you would have been disappointed and angry?'

Miss Havisham, with her head in her hands, sat making a low moaning, and swaying herself on her chair, but gave no answer.

'Or,' said Estella, '- which is a nearer case - if you had taught her, from the dawn of her intelligence, with your utmost energy and might, that there was such a thing as daylight, but that it was made to be her enemy and destroyer, and she must always turn against it, for it had blighted you and would else blight her; - if you had done this, and then, for a purpose, had wanted her to take naturally to the daylight and she could not do it, you would have been disappointed and angry?'

Of course Miss Havisham cannot be consistent; she wants Estella to be hard toward everyone and everything but her. Satan is consistent. He doesn’t want the love of his liberal children; he only wants their obedience. And he has that.

No appeal to white self-interest will work, because liberals have no race or faith. Only a man who believes that his race is an element of his personality which is connected to his God cares about the extinction of his race. The white race did not conquer the world because individual whites were smarter, swifter, or stronger than the people of other races. They conquered because they loved their God while those of other races only propitiated their gods. The summons of the fiery cross will only be answered by men with hearts of fire. One particular, personal God, and only that God, is capable of setting hearts on fire. No matter how small the white remnant, and no matter how numerous the foe, the men with the hearts of fire will keep Satan at bay until He comes to lead the final charge.

I once, while traveling in England, attended an Anglican service in which the old Book of Common Prayer was still in use. One prayer in particular made a deep impression on me, because it expressed what I felt in my heart: the futility of philosophical speculation and the invincibility of a heart centered on Him.

Almighty God, which dost make the minds of all faithful men to be of one will: Grant unto thy people, that they may love the thing which thou commandest, and desire that which thou dost promise; that among the sundry and manifold changes of the world, our hearts may surely there be fixed, where as true joys are to be found; through Jesus Christ our Lord. +

Easter

I know that my Redeemer liveth, and that He shall stand at the latter day upon the earth; And though worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God. For now is Christ risen from the dead, the first-fruits of them that sleep.

I see that the liberals of Newsweek, with the impeccable good taste we can expect from liberals, ran a lead article on the decline of Christianity. The “conservatives” immediately responded with their rebuttals, saying that “76% of Americans were still Christians.” This is not a complex issue. Christianity is not just in decline, it no longer is the faith of more than a small percentage of Europeans. I think the confusion arises when we simply count those who attend Christian churches and then proclaim the attendees Christians. But the rationalist Christianity of the churches is not Christianity. One frequently hears from such “Christians” that they don’t believe in Christ’s resurrection from the dead, original sin, or the divinity of Christ; nevertheless, they call themselves Christians. “After all, who’s to say what constitutes a Christian?”

There is no absolute date when Christianity ceased to be the faith of the European people. I use 1914 as the date when Christianity was no longer the faith of the vast majority of the Europeans, and 1965 as the date when the Europeans abandoned the morals, such as chastity and respect for life in the womb, which stemmed from a belief in Christianity. Every evil of the modern world – legalized abortion, sexual promiscuity, the West’s suicidal surrender to the colored races, the Moslemization of Europe – all stem from the fact that Europeans no longer believe that Christ rose from the dead.

There is no simple cure for the unbelief of the modern European. It’s not a case of handing out more Bibles or writing more books such as Frank Morrison’s magnificent Who Moved the Stone. The European’s heart is stone; he is not interested in hearing the case for Christ. Why? Shouldn’t everyone be interested in Christ’s resurrection from the dead? Is it not the only event in history that should command the attention and interest of the entire human race? In the face of death, what hope have we but our faith in Him and the resurrection of the dead?

Take, he said, the belief in immortality, which, according to some men, is a matter of mild indifference. It is really a belief which affects our whole conception of the human race. Consider, he said, the carnage of war, with its pile of unnumbered corpses. It must make some matter to us whether, according to our serious belief, each man has died like a dog, and left nothing in the way of a personal existence behind him, or “whether out of every Christian-named portion of that ruinous heap there has gone forth into the air and the dead-fallen smoke of battle some astonished condition of soul unwillingly released.”

- John Ruskin quoted in W. H. Mallock’s Memoirs of Life and Literature

What has happened in the past one hundred years to make Europeans discard the faith of their ancestors? Maybe we can answer that question if we ask the reverse question: What made the Europeans believe in Christ’s resurrection from the dead? They believed because they loved Him. He set their hearts on fire with His life and death. The Europeans ceased to believe when they lost the capacity to love. And we lose the capacity to love when we detach our minds from our hearts. Unamuno put it so well -- detached reason is indeed a whore. What was Satan, who roams the world seeking the ruin of souls, trying to accomplish by tempting Adam and Eve? He was trying to destroy the filial heart-to-heart relationship they had with God. And he succeeded. He got them to think about God as a competitor. He enjoined them to fix their minds on the forbidden fruits of the natural world in order to become God’s equal. The modern European has reverted to the ethos of the old Adam, and he has institutionalized original sin. Because he no longer believes in original sin, he is incapable of seeing the consequences of seeking to be God’s equal.

The older European civilization was not utopia. It was only a pale imitation of the kingdom of heaven. But it was in line with God’s kingdom. The values that Europeans held dear were the same values He held dear. Can the modern European make the same claim for the civilization which he has built? Is God a race-mixer, an abortionist, an atheist? What is the hymn of the modern European? His hymn is, “Science has spoken: The dead shall not be raised, and we have no need to be changed, for we are perfect. The corrupt are the recalcitrant Christians and they shall be changed or slain.”

In contrast, let’s listen to the voice of the antique European:
“The trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.”

Let me close with a fragment from Andrew Lytle’s memoir, A Wake for the Living:

These men and my ancestors and their neighbors are all ghosts now. All of them await somewhere the union with their true substance. I have not in pagan fashion called their shades up to lap the blood of life and reveal secrets I would like to know. But I do ask of them a compassionate sympathy for my ignorance in recalling them to mind. I ask it in language I can never imitate but only invoke, for our inheritance in the life Everlasting.

"Bring us, O Lord God, at our last awakening into the house and gate of Heaven, to enter into that gate and dwell in that house, where there shall be no darkness nor dazzling, but one equal light, no noise nor silence but one equal music, no fears nor hopes but one equal possession, no ends nor beginning but one equal eternity, in the habitation of thy Majesty and they glory, world without end. Amen."

Beyond the Cruel Thorns

The Briar Wood by Edward Burne-Jones

After many, many years a brave young prince came into that land. An old man told him the story of the thicket of thorns, and how a beautiful palace stood behind it in which a very beautiful princess, named Rosebud, lay sleeping along with all her court. He told, too, how he had heard from his grandfather that many, many princes had come and had tried to break through the thicket, but had become entangled in the cruel thorns and perished.

But the young prince said, “I am not afraid. I will go and see this lovely sleeping beauty.”

Writing in 1944 Herbert Butterfield made the point in The Englishman and His History that whenever the English had a revolution it was to restore their “ancient Saxon liberties.” Butterfield goes on to say that no two Englishmen could agree on the exact starting date of the ancient Saxon liberties, nor could any two Englishmen agree on exactly what the ancient liberties were. Nevertheless, the English people always rebelled in the name of the ancient liberties. Butterfield thought that this uniquely English way of rebelling had been very beneficial to the English people, because by citing the ancient liberties when they revolted they always kept a bridge to the past. Dickens described the very conservative English style of change in Nicholas Nickleby:

The first act of Nicholas, when he became a rich and prosperous merchant, was to buy his father’s old house. As time crept on, and there came gradually about him a group of lovely children, it was altered and enlarged; but none of the old rooms were ever pulled down, no old tree was ever rooted up, nothing with which there was any association of bygone times was ever removed or changed.

In contrast to the English, the French, in 1789, burnt all their bridges to the past. And in every subsequent revolution they revolted in the name of the future, not the past. The French revolutionists were the forerunners of the modern liberal who asks, “Why should we maintain bridges to the past?” We should not, if we believe as the liberals do that in the past is racism, sexism, puritanism, etc. But if we believe that the past contains the social customs and codes of behavior that stemmed from Christianity, then we as Christians should want to maintain the bridges to the past.

Unfortunately what Butterfield admired in the English people, an innate conservatism that kept them connected to the past, no longer exists in the English people. They have joined the French, the Americans, and the rest of the European people who have jettisoned their pasts in the name of an utopian future. The principles of the French revolution are now the principles of every European country.

The essence of the French Revolution was its godlessness. Reason, who, as Unamuno tells us, is always a whore, was made into a goddess, and abstract humanity was triumphant over the individual men of flesh, blood, and bone.(1) Speaking for the opposition was Edmund Burke: “I hate abstractions,” and Sir Walter Scott:

An established system is not to be tried by those tests which may with perfect correctness be applied to a new theory. A civilized nation, long in possession of a code of law, under which, with all its inconveniences, they have found means to flourish, is not to be regarded as an infant colony, on which experiments in legislation may, without much danger of presumption, be hazarded. A philosopher is not entitled to investigate such a system by those ideas which he has fixed in his own mind as the standard of possible excellence. The only unerring test of every old establishment is the effect it has actually produced, for that must be held to be good, from whence good is derived. The people have, by degrees, moulded their habits to the law they are compelled to obey; for some of its imperfections, remedies have been found, to others they have reconciled themselves; till, at last, they have, from various causes, attained the object which the most sanguine visionary could promise to himself from his own perfect unembodied system. (cited in The Conservative Mind as: Lockhart, Scott, III, 305-6)

Whenever the satanic principles of the French Revolution predominate, there is race-mixing and atheism. They are inseparable, because Satan hates the incarnate, Christian culture of the European people. Faith can not exist in the abstract. It must have a local habitation. It must take root in a people. If there is no such thing as a distinct people, then there can be no distinct God. Genuine, concrete, non-abstract human beings are the conduits for God’s grace; generic humanity is without grace. The Europeans no longer see Christ as the one true God because they no longer see anything in the particular. Abstracted, desiccated liberals do not see Europeans as a unique people with a special heritage. And they do not see the Christian God as a unique God separate from all other gods. There are no distinctions! Everything and everybody has been blended into a universal melting pot. But of course “some are a little more equal.” In the absence of Christianity, the unbrave rationalists rule without mercy or pity:

The Législatif had not been long in session when tidings of the great negro rising in San Domingo began to arrive in France; tidings coupled with frantic appeals for aid which grew in intensity and volume. Blanchelande’s initial report on the situation estimated six thousand regular troops, fifteen thousand stand of arms, and an immense matériel of war as the absolute minimum required to save San Domingo from destruction. And these colonial appeals were vigorously endorsed by the Civil Commissioners recently sent from France. Their very first letter emphasized the need of large and speedy succors, and their recommendations grew more insistent with every despatch sent home. When on February 20, 1792, the Colonial Assembly drew up an appeal for twenty thousand troops, the Commissioners appended their earnest endorsement. “Twenty thousand men,” it reads, -- “this figure, we certify, is but the absolute necessity.”

But against these appeals the Jacobins and the “Amis des Noirs” set themselves like flint, and in fact succeeded in preventing the despatch of any real aid to San Domingo. They first denied the existence of the insurrection, declaring it a ruse to assure a Royalist asylum over-seas; then, when forced to admit the fact, they branded it as the work of émigrés. “The massacres,” cried Brissot triumphantly, “began on the 21st of August; -- just at the moment when the news had arrived of the King’s flight to Varennes. Evidently they were organized by the Counter-Revolutionists.” Month after month frantic letters and petitions poured by hundreds into the Hall of Assembly, and these not only from over-seas, but also from thousands of Frenchmen reduced to ruin and trembling for the lives of kindred in San Domingo. These appeals, coupled with the horrors contained in every report from the island, might well have moved hearts of stone; --but not the hearts of the Jacobin opposition. Time after time a grim tragi-comedy was enacted on the floor of the Assembly. Some fresh batch of reports and petitions on San Domingo would move moderate members to propose the sending of aid. Instantly the Jacobins would be upon their feet with a wealth of fine phrases, patriotic suspicions, and a whole armory of nullifying amendments and motions to adjourn; -- the whole backed by gallery threats to the moderate proponents. And in the end, nothing would be done.

-- The French Revolution in San Domingo by T. Lothrop Stoddard

The white liberals in America and Europe look at Obama’s ascendancy to the Presidency and say, “See, nothing bad happens when blacks rule; in fact, that good darkie is doing everything we tell him to do.” What the liberals (and I need not say ‘white liberals’ because liberalism is alien to every other race) fail to comprehend is that black people respect only power. They will go with whoever has power. And Obama realizes that white liberals are still the ruling power in the United States. So long as he goes along with what his white masters want, he will be petted and stroked, loved and worshipped by his indulgent white masters. But if you were to place the Obama in South Africa or Rhodesia, you would see exactly what the French witnessed in San Domingo and exactly what the white South Africans and white Rhodesians are witnessing now: the wholesale extermination of whites. The American and European liberals who are now over 60 years of age will probably never live to see the night of sorrows when their “good” darkies take off their masks, but their “quality” children and grandchildren will. And then, those children and grandchildren will call upon white men to save them. Will there be any left by that time? There will be if we, the white Christian remnant, have left behind sons who believe in the non-abstracted Europe of Walter Scott and Edmund Burke, and not the abstract, dystopian Europe of Liberalism.

Of course there may never be a dramatic apocalyptic extermination of the whites. There is already an incremental extermination going on now which might be sufficient. We are seeing, in this monster called the modern world, cruelty beyond anything the world has ever witnessed before. On the one hand the barbarians are loose again, after centuries of being restrained by Christian Europeans. And on the other hand, in addition to the barbarian cruelty, is the cruelty of the new white techno-barbarian. He doesn’t kill with the blood lust of the barbarian. He kills with cold, bloodless detachment. His new religion of reason is beyond love and mercy. He can consign a whole race, his own race, to death and oblivion. He can consign millions upon millions of babies to die in abortuaries. And he can calmly watch millions of ‘collateral damage’ human beings be executed in saturation bombing raids. All this the modern techo-barbarian can do because he is no longer a European; he is an inhuman man of the future. He is the Übermensch of Nietzsche’s demented dream.

Against the nightmare world of modernity stands the last European, the Christian hero. He is now a rogue male. His hand is against every man and every man’s hand is against him. Since he has not burnt his bridges to the past, he is in possession of a secret that the barbarian and the liberal and even Satan himself can never possess. The Christian hero knows that the hopeless causes are not hopeless. They only appear hopeless to those who see Christianity from the outside. The prince in the fairy tale story of "Sleeping Beauty" is undeterred by the thicket of thorns because he possesses the knowledge of all Christian heroes: his King and kinsman will never abandon him; ‘Lo, I am with you alway even unto the end of the world.”
________________________________________________

(1) “Whatever Reason may tell us—that great liar who has invented, for the consolation of failures, the doctrine of the golden mean, the aurea mediocritas, the ‘neither envied nor envying’ and other such nonsense—whatever Reason may tell us—and she is not only a liar but a great whore—in our innermost soul, which we now call the Unconscious, with a capital U, in the depths of our spirit, we know that in order to avoid becoming, sooner or later, nothing, the best course to follow is to attempt to become all."

-- Abel Sanchez by Miguel de Unamuno