Interview with the Young Drummer
No dream of the future, my spirit can cheer;
Interviewer: I’m afraid I’ve become the type of person who only gets in touch when I am depressed.
Young Drummer: Well, at least you keep in touch.
INT: I received a blast from the past recently in the form of a letter from an old friend in the pro-life movement. As he prattled on about new legislation and voting ‘pro-life’ I remembered why I parted company with the pro-lifers. It was not because I became indifferent to the evil of legalized abortion; it was because I saw that the pro-lifers held something more sacred than life in the womb.
YD: And what was that?
INT: Democracy.
YD: Yes, it is rather ridiculous to think mass murder can be halted with a few outraged telephone calls to your congressman and few neighborhood petitions.
INT: Some babies have been saved by pro-lifers, so I can’t say the pro-life movement has been for naught, but if we look at the goal of the pro-lifers, to make abortion illegal, we must call the pro-life movement a colossal failure. And I find it truly amazing and unconscionable that the pro-lifers are unwilling to look at their movement and ask themselves why they failed.
YD: The pro-life movement failed because the pro-lifers violated the first commandment, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”
INT: And the great god ‘Democracy’ is a jealous God.
YD: Yes, he is. The pro-lifers were never willing to go outside of the democratic box. There was something more precious to them than protecting babies in their mothers’ wombs, and that precious something was egalitarian democracy.
INT: I knew the pro-life movement was finished when one of the leaders of the movement offered a reward for information leading to the arrest and prosecution of anyone harming an abortion doctor.
YD: Yes, it was a sorry spectacle.
INT: Would it be wrong to say that the pro-life movement failed because the men and women in the movement were half-way house Christians, in that they were genuinely appalled by the ugliest manifestation of modernity, legalized abortion, but they were unwilling to attack such pillars of democracy as racial egalitarianism and feminism?
YD: You’re correct. In fact, I’d take it a step further and say that there can be no anti-abortion movement unless there is a white Christian movement which opposes, with fire and sword, racial egalitarianism and feminism. The Catholic bishops talked about the seamless garment of capital punishment, nuclear disarmament, and abortion. But that was not the seamless garment with which they should have been concerned. It was God’s seamless garment of different races fulfilling different functions within His divine plan. When racial distinctions are blurred, so is every other aspect of human life.
INT: In other words, racial Babylon is the breeding ground for legalized abortion.
YD: Yes.
INT: I don’t see any chance, at the moment, of a resurgence of white European solidarity. The white pagan nationalists hate Christian Europeans and the halfway house Christians all scream for egalitarian democracy and the worship of the black man.
YD: Start with one European and go from there. And never forget that the path to His kingdom goes through old Europe.
INT: This past week seemed to be my week for unpleasant visitors from the past. An old acquaintance brought up the Mel Gibson movie again.
YD: Which one?
INT: The one that’s supposed to be about Christ.
YD: I take it that you didn’t care for the movie?
INT: I never actually saw the whole film, I only saw some clips of it, so I’m open to the charge that my extreme distaste for Gibson’s other movies has blinded me to the value of his Christ movie. But I hated the parts of the movie I did see. Gibson seemed to be taking the Christ story and turning it into a horror film. I don’t see how a human being could watch it. And yet, millions of people went to see it.
YD: Why should that surprise you? You live in the most decadent of times in the most decadent country.
INT: True, but decadence masked as Christianity is even more repulsive than straight decadence. It wasn’t that long ago that Zeffirelli made a beautiful movie about Jesus of Nazareth. We are not numbed with horror after viewing Zeffirelli’s film, we feel uplifted.
YD: But couldn’t Gibson claim he was finally making a realistic movie about Christ, a movie that actually depicted the reality of the crucifixion?
INT: He might make that claim, but he would be in error. The object of art is to manipulate or distort material reality in order to show the spiritual reality behind the material facade. Virtually every European depiction of the crucifixion, prior to Gibson, certainly showed a suffering Christ, but at the same time the older artists turned our eyes away from gore and toward that face, whose light could never be dimmed by gore. The older artists were aware that too much “realism” is unrealistic. If you are going to be totally realistic, why not depict Christ naked as our modern historians tell us he was? How realistic do you want to be? Too much realism has a dehumanizing effect.
YD: I agree with you about the dehumanizing aspects of the Gibson film, but I don’t think everyone who went to see it went because they were decadent. With some, it was the Emperor’s new clothes syndrome. Some expert clergyman told them it was a good Christian film, so they didn’t dare say it was a disgusting blood fest lest it be said they were not good Christians. Those are the best of the people who went to see the film. I’m sure there were many hardcore sadists who went to see the film for reasons it is not necessary to dwell on.
INT: But why did so many ‘religious experts’ want the film to be seen?
YD: Because the experts have a vested interest in a non-personal Christianity. The Gibson film fit right into their world-view. When Christ is seen as just a bloody carcass, one can project whatever meaning one wants to project on Christ’s Passion. To a trad like Gibson, it means God is a tough guy who can take it and dish it out. No one but Gibson and his fellow sedis can enter the Kingdom. To the Novus Ordo, New Age bunch, it is the example of a good man suffering for social justice. And to the pagan tough guys, it means a whole host of booted Nazi-type things that again, I’d rather not dwell on.
INT: It all hinges on the person of Christ, doesn’t it?
YD: Yes, it does. The Mississippi River winds through the United States like a big snake. At certain points of the river it seems like one branch of the river is the whole river, but the branches are just that, branches of the river; they are not separate rivers. They are parts of one river with one source. So it is with Christianity. It is quite easy to take an isolated branch of it for the whole. God’s omnipotence might be one branch. His mercy might be another, His justice another, and so on... The way to avoid that type of truncated religion is to go back to the source – to the God-Man.
INT: That sounds so simple, but it isn’t, is it?
YD: No, it is not. Satan wants to depersonalize all of our existence. If he succeeds in getting us to believe that we are impersonal essences rather than personalities with a personal existence, then he can rule the roost. You should keep these words before you: “It stands on me to defend, not to debate.”
INT: I understand, but that can get awfully lonely.
YD: Yes, it can. But if you’re going to give up the fight because you’re lonely, change the name of your blog to something else.
INT: Point taken. Conceding that all topics end up being the same topic, let’s move on to another topic. I’ve noticed, to my dismay, that things are even worse than they seem.
YD: To what do you refer?
INT: The right-wing. One would like to be a member of a group, no matter how small, opposed to modernity. But the right-wing is not opposed to modernity. They are simply modernized pagans – Odins with computers – they are not the Christian men and women one wants to throw his lot in with. They don’t seem to realize that the survival of the white race is a matter of no importance if it only means the collective survival of the race. I want the faith that says individual personalities of the white race, and every race, survive after death, to be preserved. Hence I want the Christ-bearing race to survive. But if He be not risen, I could care less about race, or anything else for that matter.
YD: Yes, they are a pathetic bunch. There isn’t much difference between Odin and Gandhi in the end. One eats beef, the other eats fruit, but both are pagans.
INT: Which is why my fellow 21st century human beings simply make me feel my aloneness all the more acutely.
YD: Choose the past. You admire the 19th century Christians — stay with them. There is a Welsh poem that speaks to your problem specifically:
YD: That’s not true. In the spiritual realm there is no past. Everything that is of the spirit is always in the present. And the dead have bodies and personalities even if they don’t have fleshly bodies. But mere material bodies without a spiritual dimension, such as you see in modern men and women, are less real than the so- called dead are.
INT: Again, I understand, and, more than just in part, believe what you are saying. But living it is not easy.
YD: I think there is a connection between the fairy tale apprehension of the Faith and Christ’s admonition: “Except ye be converted and become as little children, ye shall not enter the Kingdom of Heaven.” If you allow the dead souls of the living to obscure the true fairy tale Faith of the dead, you will lose the Kingdom of Heaven.
INT: When seen in that light, namely that to fail to apprehend life in a fairy tale manner is to lose God, one cannot yield one inch to modernity.
YD: Yes, think of those who would deprive you of that insight as the Zulus, and in some cases they will be actual Zulus, attacking the Welshmen at York’s Drift.
INT: You seem to be on a Welsh kick today.
YD: Not by any plan. The Welsh poems seem appropriate this time.
INT: Well, are you going to quote the lines or do I have to?
YD: You do it. They are good lines to end an interview with.
INT: “Keep these fighting words before ye — Cambria will not yield.” +
Interviewer: I’m afraid I’ve become the type of person who only gets in touch when I am depressed.
Young Drummer: Well, at least you keep in touch.
INT: I received a blast from the past recently in the form of a letter from an old friend in the pro-life movement. As he prattled on about new legislation and voting ‘pro-life’ I remembered why I parted company with the pro-lifers. It was not because I became indifferent to the evil of legalized abortion; it was because I saw that the pro-lifers held something more sacred than life in the womb.
YD: And what was that?
INT: Democracy.
YD: Yes, it is rather ridiculous to think mass murder can be halted with a few outraged telephone calls to your congressman and few neighborhood petitions.
INT: Some babies have been saved by pro-lifers, so I can’t say the pro-life movement has been for naught, but if we look at the goal of the pro-lifers, to make abortion illegal, we must call the pro-life movement a colossal failure. And I find it truly amazing and unconscionable that the pro-lifers are unwilling to look at their movement and ask themselves why they failed.
YD: The pro-life movement failed because the pro-lifers violated the first commandment, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”
INT: And the great god ‘Democracy’ is a jealous God.
YD: Yes, he is. The pro-lifers were never willing to go outside of the democratic box. There was something more precious to them than protecting babies in their mothers’ wombs, and that precious something was egalitarian democracy.
INT: I knew the pro-life movement was finished when one of the leaders of the movement offered a reward for information leading to the arrest and prosecution of anyone harming an abortion doctor.
YD: Yes, it was a sorry spectacle.
INT: Would it be wrong to say that the pro-life movement failed because the men and women in the movement were half-way house Christians, in that they were genuinely appalled by the ugliest manifestation of modernity, legalized abortion, but they were unwilling to attack such pillars of democracy as racial egalitarianism and feminism?
YD: You’re correct. In fact, I’d take it a step further and say that there can be no anti-abortion movement unless there is a white Christian movement which opposes, with fire and sword, racial egalitarianism and feminism. The Catholic bishops talked about the seamless garment of capital punishment, nuclear disarmament, and abortion. But that was not the seamless garment with which they should have been concerned. It was God’s seamless garment of different races fulfilling different functions within His divine plan. When racial distinctions are blurred, so is every other aspect of human life.
INT: In other words, racial Babylon is the breeding ground for legalized abortion.
YD: Yes.
INT: I don’t see any chance, at the moment, of a resurgence of white European solidarity. The white pagan nationalists hate Christian Europeans and the halfway house Christians all scream for egalitarian democracy and the worship of the black man.
YD: Start with one European and go from there. And never forget that the path to His kingdom goes through old Europe.
INT: This past week seemed to be my week for unpleasant visitors from the past. An old acquaintance brought up the Mel Gibson movie again.
YD: Which one?
INT: The one that’s supposed to be about Christ.
YD: I take it that you didn’t care for the movie?
INT: I never actually saw the whole film, I only saw some clips of it, so I’m open to the charge that my extreme distaste for Gibson’s other movies has blinded me to the value of his Christ movie. But I hated the parts of the movie I did see. Gibson seemed to be taking the Christ story and turning it into a horror film. I don’t see how a human being could watch it. And yet, millions of people went to see it.
YD: Why should that surprise you? You live in the most decadent of times in the most decadent country.
INT: True, but decadence masked as Christianity is even more repulsive than straight decadence. It wasn’t that long ago that Zeffirelli made a beautiful movie about Jesus of Nazareth. We are not numbed with horror after viewing Zeffirelli’s film, we feel uplifted.
YD: But couldn’t Gibson claim he was finally making a realistic movie about Christ, a movie that actually depicted the reality of the crucifixion?
INT: He might make that claim, but he would be in error. The object of art is to manipulate or distort material reality in order to show the spiritual reality behind the material facade. Virtually every European depiction of the crucifixion, prior to Gibson, certainly showed a suffering Christ, but at the same time the older artists turned our eyes away from gore and toward that face, whose light could never be dimmed by gore. The older artists were aware that too much “realism” is unrealistic. If you are going to be totally realistic, why not depict Christ naked as our modern historians tell us he was? How realistic do you want to be? Too much realism has a dehumanizing effect.
YD: I agree with you about the dehumanizing aspects of the Gibson film, but I don’t think everyone who went to see it went because they were decadent. With some, it was the Emperor’s new clothes syndrome. Some expert clergyman told them it was a good Christian film, so they didn’t dare say it was a disgusting blood fest lest it be said they were not good Christians. Those are the best of the people who went to see the film. I’m sure there were many hardcore sadists who went to see the film for reasons it is not necessary to dwell on.
INT: But why did so many ‘religious experts’ want the film to be seen?
YD: Because the experts have a vested interest in a non-personal Christianity. The Gibson film fit right into their world-view. When Christ is seen as just a bloody carcass, one can project whatever meaning one wants to project on Christ’s Passion. To a trad like Gibson, it means God is a tough guy who can take it and dish it out. No one but Gibson and his fellow sedis can enter the Kingdom. To the Novus Ordo, New Age bunch, it is the example of a good man suffering for social justice. And to the pagan tough guys, it means a whole host of booted Nazi-type things that again, I’d rather not dwell on.
INT: It all hinges on the person of Christ, doesn’t it?
YD: Yes, it does. The Mississippi River winds through the United States like a big snake. At certain points of the river it seems like one branch of the river is the whole river, but the branches are just that, branches of the river; they are not separate rivers. They are parts of one river with one source. So it is with Christianity. It is quite easy to take an isolated branch of it for the whole. God’s omnipotence might be one branch. His mercy might be another, His justice another, and so on... The way to avoid that type of truncated religion is to go back to the source – to the God-Man.
INT: That sounds so simple, but it isn’t, is it?
YD: No, it is not. Satan wants to depersonalize all of our existence. If he succeeds in getting us to believe that we are impersonal essences rather than personalities with a personal existence, then he can rule the roost. You should keep these words before you: “It stands on me to defend, not to debate.”
INT: I understand, but that can get awfully lonely.
YD: Yes, it can. But if you’re going to give up the fight because you’re lonely, change the name of your blog to something else.
INT: Point taken. Conceding that all topics end up being the same topic, let’s move on to another topic. I’ve noticed, to my dismay, that things are even worse than they seem.
YD: To what do you refer?
INT: The right-wing. One would like to be a member of a group, no matter how small, opposed to modernity. But the right-wing is not opposed to modernity. They are simply modernized pagans – Odins with computers – they are not the Christian men and women one wants to throw his lot in with. They don’t seem to realize that the survival of the white race is a matter of no importance if it only means the collective survival of the race. I want the faith that says individual personalities of the white race, and every race, survive after death, to be preserved. Hence I want the Christ-bearing race to survive. But if He be not risen, I could care less about race, or anything else for that matter.
YD: Yes, they are a pathetic bunch. There isn’t much difference between Odin and Gandhi in the end. One eats beef, the other eats fruit, but both are pagans.
INT: Which is why my fellow 21st century human beings simply make me feel my aloneness all the more acutely.
YD: Choose the past. You admire the 19th century Christians — stay with them. There is a Welsh poem that speaks to your problem specifically:
INT: Yes, that poem has a haunting beauty. But one can’t live in the past for the obvious reason that it’s past, and it no longer has a material body.The ash grove, how graceful, how plainly 'tis speaking,
The harp through it playing has language for me.
Whenever the light through its branches is breaking
A host of kind faces is gazing on me.
The friends of my childhood again are before me,
Each step wakes a memory as freely I roam.
With soft whispers laden its leaves rustle o'er me,
The ash grove, the ash grove alone is my home.My laughter is over, my step loses lightness,
Old countryside measures steal soft on my ear;
I only remember the past and its brightness,
The dear ones I mourn for again gather here.
From out of the shadows their loving looks greet me
And wistfully searching the leafy green dome,
I find other faces fond bending to greet me,
The ash grove, the ash grove alone is my home.
My lips smile no more, my heart loses its lightness
No dream of the future my spirit can cheer;
I only can brood on the past and its brightness,
The dead I have mourned are again living here.
From ev'ry dark nook they press forward to meet me;
I lift up my eyes to the broad leafy dome,
And others are there looking downward to greet me;
The ash grove, the ash grove alone is my home.
YD: That’s not true. In the spiritual realm there is no past. Everything that is of the spirit is always in the present. And the dead have bodies and personalities even if they don’t have fleshly bodies. But mere material bodies without a spiritual dimension, such as you see in modern men and women, are less real than the so- called dead are.
INT: Again, I understand, and, more than just in part, believe what you are saying. But living it is not easy.
YD: I think there is a connection between the fairy tale apprehension of the Faith and Christ’s admonition: “Except ye be converted and become as little children, ye shall not enter the Kingdom of Heaven.” If you allow the dead souls of the living to obscure the true fairy tale Faith of the dead, you will lose the Kingdom of Heaven.
INT: When seen in that light, namely that to fail to apprehend life in a fairy tale manner is to lose God, one cannot yield one inch to modernity.
YD: Yes, think of those who would deprive you of that insight as the Zulus, and in some cases they will be actual Zulus, attacking the Welshmen at York’s Drift.
INT: You seem to be on a Welsh kick today.
YD: Not by any plan. The Welsh poems seem appropriate this time.
INT: Well, are you going to quote the lines or do I have to?
YD: You do it. They are good lines to end an interview with.
INT: “Keep these fighting words before ye — Cambria will not yield.” +
Labels: fairy tale mode of perception, modernity
posted by CWNY | 1:45 PM
<< Home