The Ancient Faith

Racial segregation does not imply racial oppression or genocide or anything Communist like that, but means purely what it says. It means that the white race and the black race, the one advanced and the other primitive and polygamous, instead of mixing retain their widely disparate customs and identities. Basically it means only this: That the white race is determined to stay white. This, aside from the sheer impossibility of two such widely disparate races living on mixed, equal terms, is absolutely all that racial segregation means.

– White Man, Think Again! by Anthony Jacob

The Obama’s recent apology tour around the world is reminiscent of the late John Paul II’s famous apology tour. Like the late Pope, Obama is unapologetic for his own sins – indeed from his perspective he is without sin – but he is very apologetic for the sins that the American government and the American people have committed in the past.

Of course the sin that Obama and the liberals think America is guilty of is racism. It is the only sin that liberals believe in, and it is an unpardonable sin. Ethan Brand thought that he had found the unpardonable sin in the man of intellect who hardened his heart against all humanity. (1) But the liberals, being guilty of Ethan Brand’s unpardonable sin, have redefined the unpardonable sin. If “conservative” politicians such as Trent Lott could grasp the fact that racism is the unpardonable sin, they could save themselves a lot of groveling after their “racist” gaffes. No amount of groveling can atone for the unpardonable sin.

Americans are guilty of many sins, the paramount one being the spread of the democratic heresy throughout the world, but the white European Americans are not guilty of racism as it is currently defined by the liberals. When the liberals label someone as a racist they are saying that such a person is a moral pariah outside the ken of humanity, who manically and irrationally hates people with a different skin color than his own. But what is at the heart of the white European American and the white European’s "racism"? A love of his own kind and a love of Christ is at the heart of the European’s alleged racism. The European sought to protect his own Christian people from heathendom so he built walls around his culture and placed sentries on the ramparts to guard that culture. His Lord enjoined him to “go ye forth into all the world and preach the Gospel to every living creature.” And that he did. Works of mercy were seen by people who didn’t even have a word for mercy in their language and the light of Christ’s Gospel shone in the darkest regions of the earth. Of what then is the European guilty? Of not being perfect? Granted, he was not perfect, but has the Indian ever been helped by the Indian? The Negro by the Negro? The Asian by the Asian? No, every small step toward the light, not the false light of science and progress but the true light of Christ’s love, which the colored tribes have made, was because of white Europeans. So, again I ask, why is the European pronounced guilty of racism? He is held to be guilty because he did not, when he was Christian, admit the colored races into a position of full equality with the white. But that would have been suicide for the white race as well as for the colored races. Should Satan be accorded a position above Christ? Where is mercy to be found, where is the light of Christ’s love to be seen if the heathens are allowed to extinguish the light of white Europe? Thomas Nelson Page sums it up so well. Just substitute "Europe" for the word "South":

It has appeared to some that the South has not done its full duty by the negro. Perfection is, without doubt, a standard above humanity; but, at least, we of the South can say that we have done much for him; if we have not admitted him to social equality, it has been under an instinct stronger than reason, and in obedience to a law higher than is on the statute books: the law of self-preservation. Slavery, whatever its demerits, was not in its time the unmitigated evil it is fancied to have been. Its time has passed. No power could compel the South to have it back. But to the negro it was salvation. It found him a savage and a cannibal and in two hundred years gave seven millions of his race a civilization, the only civilization it has had since the dawn of history.

We have educated him; we have aided him; we have sustained him in all right directions. We are ready to continue our aid; but we will not be dominated by him. When we shall be, it is our settled conviction that we shall deserve the degradation into which we shall have sunk.” – The Old South

“...[W]e will not be dominated by him.” Ah, that is what is at the crux of this thing called racism. The colored savage, particularly the black, is the liberal’s new God. When a liberal calls a white man a racist he is calling him a blasphemer. And as a blasphemer, the white man is damned. But what is damnable in liberaldom is salvation in Christendom. The white racist is the last knight of Europe. He is Galahad, he is Robin Hood, he is William Tell. What they call racism is European Christianity, the only hope for the white and the colored races.

There is a racism that is every bit as ugly as the racism the liberals claim they see in the culture of the white man. That is the racism of the colored races. The colored barbarians want their race to be powerful so they can be powerful. They have a very elemental, animalistic view of existence. With the white, Christian European it was different. The Europeans saw the continuance of their racial dominance as a sacred duty. They had to be dominant to protect their own from the merciless barbarians of color, and they had to be powerful to keep the stronger barbarians from destroying the weaker barbarians. In Mexico, in India, in Africa, and in North America it was the white European who saved the colored races by keeping tribal warfare in check. I know you can always find the white low-life who has the same view of race as the barbarian of color, but is such a person representative of white Europe? Let’s look at the European’s culture through glasses untainted with liberalism. When we do that we must conclude that outside of the old European culture, which the liberals and the barbarians have destroyed, there is no honor, no mercy, and no love. We see before us an endless night of barbarism.

Liberaldom was not built in a day. It took years and years of preparation. Satan started small. He sought out men and women who hated humanity and the humane God as much as he did. He seemed to have had a sixth sense that told him who was a kindred spirit and could be openly courted and who was weak in spirit and could be easily seduced. Now he has reached the summit of his power; he has built liberaldom over the ruins of Christendom. But uneasy lies the head that wears a crown. Satan still worries about those who will not serve in liberaldom. He worries about the white European. “Are there any left?” he asks his minions every day. “Yes,” is the reply, “There are a few.”

“Then hunt them down.”

You see Satan is a racial profiler. He knows who can destroy his kingdom: the European who stands outside of liberaldom and calls on Christ to save. The conservative white columnist who pleads for equal rights within liberaldom, or the neo-pagan who demands to be part of liberaldom, do not worry Satan. The man who stands with old Europe, that man worries Satan. So he cries, “For darkness, for liberaldom and Satan,” While we Europeans cry, “For England, Harry, and St. George.”

The great historians are few and far between: Homer, Shakespeare, Scott, and Butterfield. They don’t look for isolated historical facts to prove a pet theory of theirs. Instead they make a visionary journey back in time in order to understand the past and form a sympathetic bond with the men and women of another time. The modern European who makes the visionary journey to the European past and truly feels with the heart of the ancient Europeans will find that nothing can sever him from the ancient Europeans or from their God.

All white men are called to be Knights of the White Cross. They are called to seek that ancient scroll of Europe that holds the secret to the destruction of liberaldom and the restoration of Christian Europe. But the European must believe in ancient scrolls more than in liberalism, liberal conservatism, or neo-paganism. When he leaves those fiendish ideologies behind, he will be strong enough to face the ordeal. He’ll go through the valley of the shadow of death, he’ll face dragons, sirens, and sorcerers, but in the end he’ll find the ancient parchment. “Saved through the Cross, redeemed by the Blood, through the Blood and the Cross you shall conquer.” +
_______________________
(1) The Idea that possessed his life had operated as a means of education; it had gone on cultivating his powers to the highest point of which they were susceptible; it had raised him from the level of an unlettered laborer to stand on a starlit eminence, whither the philosophers of the earth, laden with the lore of universities, might vainly strive to clamber after him. So much for the intellect! But where was the heart? That, indeed, had withered—had contracted—had hardened—had perished! It had ceased to partake of the universal throb. He had lost his hold of the magnetic chain of humanity. He was no longer a brother man, opening the chambers or the dungeons of our common nature by the key of holy sympathy, which give him a right to share in all its secrets; he was now a cold observer, looking on mankind as the subject of his experiment, and, at length, converting man and woman to be his puppets, and pulling the wires that moved them to such degrees of crime as were demanded for his study.

Thus Ethan Brand became a fiend. He began to be so from the moment that his moral nature had ceased to keep the pace of improvement with his intellect. And now, as his highest effort and inevitable development—as the bright and gorgeous flower, and rich, delicious fruit of his life’s labor—he had produced the Unpardonable Sin!

-- Nathaniel Hawthorne’s “Ethan Brand”

One Vision, One Faith, One Europe

There is hope in the blood. Christianity is in our blood, and a fierce, warlike defiance of heathenism is also in our blood. If we answer that call, there is no one who can predict with certainty that white Europe will die. That which comes from the spiritual dimension in man is not subject to the inexorable laws of math. -- CWNY

I grew up in a town that was all white. The town was not white because of a conscious attempt by the whites to keep blacks out; the town at that point in time was white because the black hordes hadn’t spread that far away from their urban bases. But by the time I had grown up and had children of my own, the white town I knew was gone. The old swimming hole, the nearby amusement park, the ball field, and the local basketball court (right next to an old-fashioned barber shop) had become colorized. Of course a liberal would applaud the colorization of my home town. He would call it progress. Why? The amusement park is defunct; nobody found it amusing to go to the park and be mugged by blacks. It is now too dangerous to swim at the old swimming hole, because black marauders, who don’t swim, hang around the area in order to rob and/or murder whites who are foolish enough to try and swim there. The ball fields and the basketball court feature an occasional game between drug deals, and the barber shop closed down after the owner was shot and killed by a “black youth.” The “progress” of my hometown is a microcosm of the progress of thousands upon thousands of small towns, boroughs, and cities throughout the United States.

Nowadays liberals don’t even try to answer someone like myself, who points out that blacks and violent crime go together. The liberals simply scream racist and have you fired or jailed. But in the 1960’s and 1970’s, liberals used to cite poverty as the reason for violent black crime -- the blacks didn’t really mean to murder and steal, it was poverty that made them do it. That argument fell by the wayside when racist whites pointed to Depression era white towns (my father grew up in one) where no one ever locked their doors at night and yet no one was ever robbed or murdered.

Let’s stop listening to liberal gas about blacks. They murder, rob and rape because it is in their nature to do so. And they will always rape, rob, and murder unless they are controlled by white people. Look at their history; look at countries that are ruled by blacks and cities that are populated by blacks.

The unbought grace of life, which was the patrimony of Europeans, has been foolishly thrown away in order to accommodate the liberals’ dystopian dream of a multi-racial world. Although liberals claim that they want to live in a world without boundaries, in reality they have set up a very definite boundary, the boundary of wealth. Liberals do not live with blacks. They actively seek the company of a few, select, wealthy blacks, who ape white liberalism (Obama is their ideal), but the natural black savage, whom the liberals claim to adore, is not permitted in their gated communities. It is lower-class whites, those without wealth, who must deal with the black savage. Having spent my adult life in the lower- to upper-levels of the lower class, I can relate from personal experience how whites at the lower stratum of society deal with the black problem. They either practice a guarded series of tactical retreats or else they blend with the black. Let me give one example from hundreds that I could give of what I mean by the ‘guarded tactical retreat’ approach to the black problem.

About 10 years ago, when my children ranged in age from 15 to 5, I took them to a local lake. It was not the lake of my childhood – white people had left that area, but a different lake where black people seldom came. My family and I used to get to the lake by 7:30 a.m. and leave by 11:30 a.m. in order to avoid the crowds. But on this particular day we left early. At about 9:30 a.m. a busload of summer campers arrived. Actually, the word ‘campers’ is inappropriate. It was a busload of about 35 “black youths” ranging in age from 8 to 16. The bus trip was part of a liberal campaign to expose blacks to the beauty of nature. But blacks don’t like nature nor do they like to swim. The black youths spent less than five minutes in the water. When they came out of the water, they picked up sticks and ran around the beach hitting each other. When one of the wonderful black savages got too close to my family, I took the stick from him and gave him a lecture on proper behavior. I knew it was futile, but whites are supposed to at least attempt to civilize blacks, are we not? The nun who was evidently in charge of the group hustled over and proceeded to give me a lecture about mistreating high-spirited black youths. I said a few words to the nun (I did not curse at her) about allowing her charges to run wild, and then I gathered up my family and left the beach. “Hardly an earth-shattering experience,” you say. Well, no, it wasn’t. But as I said earlier, it was only one of several hundred incidents I could cite. All of those incidents in their totality represent my attempt to give my children something of the European heritage that was bequeathed to me. Family reunions at public parks, walks in the woods on hiking trails, and swimming in the nearby lake, without fear of molestation by black youths, were something I wanted to give to my children. And hopefully they were blissfully unaware that daddy had a snub-nosed .38 under his shirt while they went swimming. Philip Marlow once remarked that every time a client told him he didn’t need a gun, he knew he needed a gun. Likewise with the liberals. Whenever they tell you that you needn’t arm yourself to protect your family in the new, multi-racial world they are building, you know sure as the sun rises that you need guns, knives, swords, and every other weapon you can lay hands on.

Every decent lower-class white I meet has had similar experiences with blacks. But then there are the indecent lower-class whites who have taken another path. They have decided to become black. I believe the term used to describe them is ‘wigger’. The white women wiggers have children by black men and become part of the black sub-culture. Or would it be more correct to say that the wiggers break from the white subculture and become part of the mainstream American culture? Yes, that would be more accurate.

I’ve only mentioned, in talking about the parks, playgrounds, and swimming holes, one thread in the seamless garment of European culture. The European garment has been torn to shreds by the storm troopers of liberaldom. The entire cultural heritage of the European, his literature, his art, his history, and his religion has been destroyed in order to pave the way for a new Godless, racially egalitarian world.

In America and Western European, in contrast to the former Soviet Union, the destruction of Christendom was achieved through the seductive feminine method of coercion (see The Gingerbread House). The mailed fist was used when someone remained un-seduced, but in the main Europeans of the West willingly surrendered their heritage for the promise of a guilt-free, sexier existence in the new liberal utopia. But there has been a shift in recent years, in America particularly, but also throughout all of the formerly white Western European countries, from the seductive method of coercion to the mailed fist. I think this shift is a result of the complete ascendancy of the liberals. They no longer feel a need to seduce; their opposition is now so weak they feel they can crush it without resorting to their old seductive tricks. And they seem to enjoy the unadulterated thrill that the use of the mailed fist gives them.

The racial issue and the religious issue are one and the same. If Europeans believed in the risen Christ, they would not allow the culture based on that belief to be torn down by black savages working for satanic liberals. Blake was correct when he said that “Man must & will have Some Religion: if he has not the Religion of Jesus, he will have the Religion of Satan.” It is unwise and futile to think we can appeal to the devil to eradicate the evils perpetuated by the devil. But this is what we do every time we ask liberals to be just and accord whites the same rights in utopia as blacks have. Whites who still believe they are white are an anathema to liberals; they are not going to accord them any rights. Nor should the European desire to be part of liberaldom. The European will settle for nothing less than the destruction of liberaldom and the restoration of Christendom. I think the European, vis-à-vis his government, is more in the position of Bonnie Prince Charlie than of William Jennings Bryant. We don’t want to reform liberalism from within, we want to destroy it from without and then supplant it.

The utopian, one-race, no-God world of the liberals could only be spawned by a people who have turned their eyes away from the cross. I love the lines from “Men of Harlech”: “Keep these fighting words before you: Cambria Will Not Yield.” The European must keep the vision of His Europe before him and never yield to liberaldom. Nobody can even predict with any certainty how a horse race or a local sporting contest will turn out, so why should we, the last Europeans, look on the ascendancy of the liberals as something permanent? Nothing is impossible if we are faithful to the European Christ. And nothing is possible if we break faith with Europe’s Christ. Let me close with a quote from an old post called “Conversion by Spanish Cannon”:

The Europeans are the only race of people who accepted Christ when they were powerful. They truly had a personal relationship with Him. He was the Savior, true God and true Man, the fulfillment of their dream of a Hero-God who was good as well as powerful. All other races saw only Christ’s power, not his goodness. And yet every major academic institution and media center throughout Europe and America bid us look at life as the non-white nations do. Why should we look at life through their eyes? God is not there, at least not the God of love and mercy that Europeans have bent their knees to for almost the last two thousand years.

March or Die

“Shadow,” said he,
“Where can it be
This land called El Dorado?”

Dostoevsky stated in his novel, The Devils, that the problem of faith was “whether a man, as a civilized being, as a European, can believe at all, believe that is, in the divinity of the son of god, Jesus Christ, for therein rests, strictly speaking, the whole faith.” Dostoevsky was half right. It was necessary for Karl Adam, in his book The Son of God, to point out that modern man had also lost faith in Christ’s humanity as well as faith in His divinity. (1)

Karl Adam thought as a Roman Catholic priest that Catholicism, if rightly interpreted and practiced, would provide a faith in Christ as true God and true man. Dostoevsky thought a renewal of Russian Orthodoxy and Russian mysticism would restore Christ to His proper place as true God and true man. Both men, although correct in their belief in Christ as true God and true man, were incorrect about the source of an incorporate renewal of that Faith. Neither Roman Catholicism nor Russian Orthodoxy proved to be the answer.

It was no shock to me that Russian Orthodoxy did not incorporate the whole vision of Christ, since Russian Orthodoxy had no claim to universality. However, it was a shock to me, and remains a shock, that the Roman Catholic Church in its Novus Ordo guise denies the divinity of Christ, and in its Traditionalist guise denies the humanity of Christ. But a man can only remain staring at a dry oasis, where he expected to get life-sustaining water, for so long. Eventually he realizes that it is time to “march or die.”

And it is certainly no time for lies. I’ll have none of that nonsense: “Look, it says right here in the new catechism: ‘Christ is true God and true man,’” or: “The traditionalists say Christ is true God and true man.” The Novus Ordo liberals and the humanity-hating trads are Greeks. They will talk endlessly about God and invoke him for their pet policies, but in the end one is left with the depressing conclusion that “Here there is no faith.”

So finally one marches on. To the fundamentalists? No, they are not fundamental enough. They have forsaken the European cultural inheritance. And by doing so they have substituted a mode of thought for a blood faith. Perhaps then there is no oasis, no El Dorado. But if there is no El Dorado, why do I have such a longing for it?

If El Dorado exists, it is not to be found in the narrow confines of one particular Christian denomination. European Christianity as a whole – Protestant and Catholic – is Christianity, and all other cultures are Christian to the extent that they have Europeanized their own cultures. Latin and Central America Europeanized more than China, and China Europeanized more than Africa, but none have approached the deep levels of Christianity that the Europeans achieved. But it’s all gone. Why did it disappear?

If we distill the reason for the disappearance of the Faith, we see before us, in blazing technicolor, a film called "The Triumph of the Greeks". In the film, we see Athena, the goddess of wisdom, springing newborn from the head of Zeus. We see poets, such as Sophocles, rejecting the wisdom of the isolated mind and following the way of the Cross. But the Greek mind prevails. Then we see the coming of the God-Man that Sophocles yearned for. The God-Man’s birth from the womb of a mortal woman reveals to us that wisdom resides not in the head but in the blood. Wisdom is not something that springs from pure mind but is instead something born through suffering and travail.

Then the assault begins: Satan tries to get Christ to abandon the way of the Cross, first on the mountaintop and then through St. Peter, but to no avail. Christ, the hero, is not to be deterred. No hero – and Christ is the hero – sits on the sidelines and plays mind-games while other poor saps fight the dragons and face the three challenges. It would be like Zorro delegating the final dueling scene to his servant while he, Zorro, gives directions from behind a bullet-proof and sword-proof screen. Likewise, picture the Scarlet Pimpernel sitting in a tailor shop in London directing rescue operations in France through the use of his cell phone: “Chauvelin got another agent. Oh well, I’ll have to come up with a better plan next time.” No, the way of the hero is not the way of the abstracted mind. But let us move on and keep viewing "The Triumph of the Greeks".

We next see a large, rotund Dominican monk (with all the good intentions that the road to hell is paved with) devise a system which separates reason from revelation and elevates reason above the wisdom of the blood. Henceforth, in his system, God will be known only as a derivative product of reason, not as the personal God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and St. Paul.

We fast-forward the picture and see rivers of blood being shed in the great Protestant revolt, and all for naught. The issue is never settled. It is not – or at least it should not be – a question of Protestant vs. Catholic. It is a battle between the blood Faith of the European and the Greek mind. For if we apprehend God by the Greek way, the way of the Scholastics, the way of the Bible exegetes, it simply doesn’t matter whether we go to Mass or go to Bible study; we will be Christian atheists either way.

Need we continue with the film? From the rotund monk, to the hard-eyed man of Geneva, to Ebenezer Scrooge as the embodiment of capitalism, it all ends with the white-coated scientist expertly dissecting and analyzing all of mankind and mankind’s God.

“Oh, for ten toes,” Long John Silver cried. At least he knew he needed five more toes, but the modern atheist Christian doesn’t even know he is without his faith. A man can smile and smile and be an errant knave, and man can go to Mass or go to church, and still be an ardent atheist. Indeed, the Catholic Church today is the leading purveyor of atheism, followed closely by the mainstream Protestant churches, which place second to the Catholic Church only because they lack Catholicism’s formidable organization.

What then? “Where can it be, this land called El Dorado?” Perhaps it always existed and still exists for those who see "with blinding sight". Maybe the ordeal of fire is the inner struggle to strip away the external facade of a speculative faith in order to embrace a living faith. And it was the “racist” Europeans of the old stock who preserved a living faith for us to embrace. They did not leave Christ in the documents and the catechisms, they placed Him at the center of their culture. “For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.”

The techo-barbarians of church and state have set us down in a huge desert, the Sahara of Philosophical Speculation. They have told us this desert is the Faith; there is nothing else. But our European ancestors tell us something different. “Beyond that desert is life, a land called El Dorado.” In whom do we place our faith? I choose the Europeans of the old stock, because they and I are of the same blood. I do not speak the same language as the techno-barbarians, nor do I identify with their bloodless, soulless, impersonal vision of God.

The antique European has been tried and convicted at a trial he never attended. He has been convicted of racism, sexism, and obstructionism. The hunt is on in Liberaldom for unrepentant, unreformed Europeans. The techno-barbarians with their colored lackies are beating the bushes to find the last of them. They won’t succeed. The European’s heart was set on fire by His heart. Every time the techno-barbarian thinks he has killed the European fire, it flares up again in the heart of a European connected to white Europe. El Dorado is not a city of gold, it is something far more valuable. It is eternal Europe, a land where hearts of fire still keep their vows of fealty to their King and their God. And if our loyalty to eternal Europe makes us outlaws, then so be it. When Satan rules, the European must be an outlaw, the sign of contradiction to a world stewing in its own satanic juices. +
__________________
(1) "The Christian gospel announces primarily not an ascent of humanity to the heights of the divine in a transfiguration, an apotheosis, a deification of human nature, but a descent of the Godhead, of the divine Word, to the state of bondage of the purely human. This is the kernel of the primitive Christian message. 'The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us'; he 'emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of man, and in habit found as a man' (Phil. ii. 7) Hence it is just as important to establish that Christ is full and complete man, that for all the hypostatic union with the Godhead, he possessed not only a human body but also a purely human soul, a purely human will, a purely human consciousness, a purely human emotional life, that in the full and true sense he became as one of us, as it is to establish the other proposition, namely, that this man is God. Indeed, the doctrine of the divinity of Christ first acquires from the other doctrine—Christ is full and perfect man—its specifically Christian imprint and its specifically Christian form; its essential difference from all pagan apotheoses and savior gods." – Karl Adam in The Son of God

Full of Sound and Fury, Signifying Nothing

Nothing routs us but
The villainy of our fears.

The 4th of July holiday is a depressing one for me because I don’t think a last-place team should be celebrating. And the U.S. is a last-place team. The European countries had many glory years before they hit decadence; the U. S. went straight to decadence. For the first time in history, a group of men decided to found a country without benefit of tradition and the wisdom of the ages. Solely through the power of enlightened minds, they were going to chart a new and better course for mankind.

The problem of the old world, the enlightened minds decided, was the throne-and-altar. By eliminating those two old pillars of society they thought something new and improved would emerge. Well, something new did emerge. But the enlightened minds did not solve the age-old problem of authority. They were still faced with the dilemma that Shakespeare’s Coriolanus warned the Romans about:

They choose their magistrate;
And such a one as he, who puts his 'shall,'
His popular 'shall,' against a graver bench
Than ever frown'd in Greece. By Jove himself,
It makes the consuls base; and my soul aches
To know, when two authorities are up,
Neither supreme, how soon confusion
May enter 'twixt the gap of both and take
The one by th' other.

Andrew Lytle summed up our system of government quite well when he called it the “cynical balancing of powers.” The history of the English kings, and all of the kings of Europe for that matter, is a very depressing spectacle of chicanery and bloodshed. But one can always hope for a better King. There is no hope in a system where you are permanently locked into an endless cycle of sound and fury signifying nothing.

John Paul II’s biographer, George Weigel, claimed the Pope’s blessing for our democracy, and evangelical Protestants are always cranking out books equating American democracy and godliness. I could quote pre-Vatican II popes who say the reverse of Weigel and Wojtyla, and I could quote, against the evangelical Protestant, authors such as Fitzhugh who do not view the American Constitution as a sacred document. But there is no need to engage in a ‘dueling documents’ war. Instead, let’s simply look at the fruits of American democracy. On whose watch did Christianity thrive? Under the blood, throne, and altar Europeans or under the egalitarian, democratic Americans? Case closed.

A spiritually healthy people will always crave a monarchy despite the many problems associated with it. There is no poetry in our democratic system. And where there is no poetry, there is no God.

I often fantasize about what would have happened if Jefferson Davis had had enough sense to tear up the Constitution, appoint Nathan Bedford Forrest the Warrior King of the South, and then resign. For the Southland was our only hope for a different form of government in this hemisphere. It had the peasantry, the yeomanry, and the princes. All it lacked was a King. King Forrest would have retreated to the Deep South and told the Yankees, “We do not seek a battle as we are, but as we are, we will not shun one.”

All right, it wouldn’t have been that Shakespearean, but it would have amounted to the same thing. Forrest would not have made Brutus’s mistake at Philippi. He would have made the Yankees come and get him. And after the South’s victory? Industrial workers from the North, soon to be small farm owners, would have flocked to the South to become part of the Southern kingdom, and black serfs would have been sent back to Africa, a more humane fate than sending them North to work in the factories.

Well, it didn’t happen like that. But if this anti-nation of ours ever does become a nation, it will be one with a Christian king ruling over a Christian people who can say with pride, “I serve the King, and the King serves Christ.” But in the meantime our democratic system creeps in this petty pace from day to day.

When we talk about American democracy and the modern European democracies, we are not talking about a band of stalwart Saxons gathering together to vote for their King, we are talking about a messianic faith. The modern liberal believes the democratic process, in and of itself, is something holy. Participation in the democratic process is seen as a purification, and non-participation is seen as ungodly.

Modern democracy is a death knell for the white man. He must not consent to be part of the democratic process or to allow the democratic plague to remain in the nations of the West. Democratic countries have no borders. Nor do democratic countries respect the distinctiveness of the white race and the Christian faith. The world is one, big, democratic, melting pot in the minds of the modern purveyors of democracy. On this 4th of July, let us make some very undemocratic vows. We will not blend with the great colored hordes nor will we bend our knee to the democratic process. We worship a different God.