The End Result of Negro Worship

In Africa, a land without love, kindness is a weakness. Because there is no charity there is no understanding of mercy, and because there is no altruism, there is no gratitude.

– Anthony Jacob

The official belief of the liberals and the non-white races, though never articulated in formal documents, is that the white man is not fully human; the only fully human being is the black man. The unarticulated belief (because it was a given) of the white man for thousands of years was that the white man was the only fully human being, and the black man was not fully human.

It is important to note that the white man’s belief in the humanity of the white and the lack of humanity in the black was a “prejudice” he held during the Christian centuries of the European people. When the European ceased to be Christian, he ceased to believe in the humanity of the white man and became a believer in the special and superior humanity of the black man.

The enormous shift, from the belief that the black man was half-man, half-beast and had to be held in check by the white man, to the worship of the black man, indicates a profound spiritual malaise in the European people; and every white nation is in the midst of their equivalent to the French Revolution. In 1789, the French cursed their past and severed all ties with the people and traditions of their past. Other European countries, such as Britain and the southern half of the United States (which was, at the time of the Uncivil War, a separate nation) kept continuity with their past. Nothing new was done in those conservative nations without invoking the “spirit of our ancestors.” The racial wars of the latter half of the 20th century destroyed the last vestiges of conservatism in the European nations, and now all the people of European descent curse their past and yearn for the extinction of the white man and the deification of the black man.

The anti-white movement has its origins in the European’s rejection of Christianity. When a man believes that the drama of existence ultimately has a happy ending, he does not need to create a utopian society in which reality is banished. But when the reality of existence is seen as unbearable -- and life without faith that Christ is risen is unbearable -- a man must create a hideaway world where reality can be avoided. Enter the natural savage. The Christian European saw the black man as he was, a savage barbarian, but the utopian white man sees the black man as a perfect man, untainted by the evils of white, Christian civilization.

The halfway-house Christians have tried to 'save' their collective churches which still preach Christ crucified, Christ risen in a non-metaphorical sense, by blending orthodox Christianity with the anti-European, utopian ideology of the mad-dog liberals. Such a compromise can never bring anything but grief. The halfway-house Christian always ends up handing a non-faith down to his children, because real faith cannot grow on utopian ground.

The liberal does not know why he must elevate the black man; he just feels compelled to do so. And he feels that way because Satan has filled the void in his heart, the heart that was once occupied by Christ. Satan knows that a man’s skin color is an essential part of a man’s body, which is an extension of a man’s soul. Deprive a man of his racial identity, and you deprive him of a vital part of his personality, which is a thing divine, being created by and connected to almighty God. And if our soul is not joined with God, but to the black man, we will be united to the god of the black man, which was, and is, Satan.

A Christian European knows where the road to utopia leads; it leads to Haiti, to Rhodesia, and to South Africa. Africa is the future for the utopian white man. Only Christian Europeans can alter the African shadows over Europe. The halfway-house Christians will ultimately side with the liberals, and the neo-pagans, too, who will first compromise by begging for equal representation within liberaldom (after all, the neo-pagan is also a utopian), will, when their plea for equal representation is denied, also capitulate.

Chesterton, in his book Orthodoxy, compared the Roman Catholic Church to a chariot riding through time, avoiding all the heresies, while always maintaining its balance. The only thing wrong with his fiery chariot image was that it was false. The Roman Catholic Church did not then, and does not now represent a balanced, accurate embodiment of Christianity. Nor do any of the Protestant churches. The church as conceived by Chesterton was a rationalist construct, springing from a utopian mind. But if we shift our focus to the European people, and view their culture as the church Chesterton was writing about, we can see the real fiery chariot that can never be forced off course. The faith derived from a connection to our people is based on what we feel inside; it’s based on love, not an abstraction. Surely that European connection is what we should seek and look to if we are ever going to come safely home.

The worship of the black man is the antithesis of Christianity. We can measure the depth of a people’s degradation by the lengths to which they will go to ensure that black predominates over white. We must never doubt for a moment that integration and race-mixing are part of a satanic agenda to eliminate Christianity from the face of the earth. No European should be fooled into thinking he can combine the worship of the black man with the worship of Christ. We can’t serve darkness and the Light. There should be no question in the European’s mind that it is to Europe and Europe alone that we must look if we want to see the face of Christ. Other cultures must look outward, away from the sacrificial fires, to the people who shunned sacrifice and believed in mercy. But the European must look inward, forsaking the godless, utopian future, which is in reality a hellish world of darkness, and find the God of his ancestors in the European mists.

Europe is faith, hope, and charity. Africa is the absence of faith, hope, and charity. What is needed are Europeans who will stand with Europe. Isn’t the preservation of the light shining in darkness infinitely more important than an integrated sports team in South Africa or a democratic government in Iraq? Where your treasure lies, there lies your heart. My heart is with Europe. There is no other dwelling place for the human soul.

Trust ye the curdled hollows—
Trust ye the neighing wind—
Trust ye the moaning groundswell—
Our herds are close behind!
To bray your foeman’s armies—
To chill and snap his sword—
Trust ye the wild White Horses,
The Horses of the Lord!

--Rudyard Kipling

The God of Europe

“Come and see.”

The inner life of the European people, chronicled in the folklore collected by men like the Brothers Grimm and in the works of the poet-historians of the white race such as Shakespeare and Walter Scott, shows such a thematic similarity to, and a spiritual sympathy with, the ancient Hebrews, that one would almost suspect the proponents of the theory that the Europeans and the ancient Hebrews were one and the same people are correct. Truth be told though, I never have been able to understand the lengthy genealogy books about the European people, so I can’t really make an assertion for or against the Hebrew-European connection. But I do find it curious that modern historians always assume the historians who are closest in time to the events they are writing about are liars. Thus, we are supposed to know nothing about Brutus, the great grandson of Aeneas, or about King Arthur despite the fact that Geoffrey of Monmouth told us about them. “He was a Christian monk and therefore a liar.” And on it goes; all the ancient history written by ancient chroniclers is supposed to be lies.

It is not essential to establish an air-tight case for the Hebrew-European link (even if you had one, the liberals wouldn’t believe it) to see that the European’s culture is, at its core, the human side of the divine-human synergy. How do we know this to be true? The same way we know we love another person: through a sympathetic bond between our heart and the heart of the beloved.

The issue of European culture, and its superiority to every other culture, is only complicated when the sneering intellectuals, the academics, get involved. They have no reason to scoff at those who place the European on a level above the other races because they themselves have created a rigid anti-European hierarchy based on far less research than the hierarchal structure of the “racist” biblical historians. The liberals simply assert; proof is unnecessary because it is self-evident that the white race is an evil race at the bottom of the evolutionary ladder. The ladder has colored people on every rung above the white man. And at the top of the ladder is the black man. Of course, the liberal’s racial hierarchal system is the exact opposite of what was the unarticulated belief of the white race for thousands of years.

The modern half-way house Christians tell us that all talk about racial superiority and Christian cultures is anti-Christian. “Racially we are all sons of Adam, and there is no such thing as a Christian culture; all have sinned and fallen short...” We need not pull out a 700-page book of Biblical research that proves the non-colored races are not the descendents of Adam in order to answer the halfway-house Christians. All we need to say to them are the words of the apostle Philip, who echoed our Lord’s words when asked, “Can there any good come out of Nazareth?”

“Come and see.”

Look at the Europe of the white man through, not with, the eyes. What do you see? If you haven’t sold your soul for a devilish pot of lentils you’ll see the Christ of Handel’s Messiah: “And He shall reign for ever and ever.”

When the “higher” form of biblical exegesis started in the mid-1800’s, Thomas Hughes, author of Tom Brown’s Schooldays, stated:

We may not wholly agree with the last position which the ablest investigators have laid down, that unless the truth of the history of our Lord – the facts of his life, death, resurrection, and ascension – can by proved by ordinary historical evidence, applied according to the most approved and latest methods, Christianity must be given up as not true. We know that our own certainty as to these facts does not rest on a critical historical investigation...

Granting then cheerfully, that if these facts on the study of which they are engaged are not facts,-- if Christ was not crucified, and did not rise from the dead, and ascend to God his father, -- there has been no revelation, and Christianity will infallibly go the way of all lies, either under their assaults or those of their successors,-- they must pardon us if even at the cost of being thought and called fools for our pains, we deliberately elect to live our lives on the contrary assumption. It is useless to tell us that we know nothing of these things, that we can know nothing until their critical
examination is over; we can only say, “Examine away; but we do know something of
this matter, whatever you may assert to the contrary, and mean to live on that
knowledge.” -- from Alfred the Great

I feel the same way about European Christianity. My love for Europe and my belief that in the European culture we see the face of Jesus Christ is not based on the researchers who support the Hebraic-European theory, nor is it diminished by those who claim European Christianity was an invention of the Germanic peoples and had nothing to do with genuine Christianity. To all the experts, my response is the same as Thomas Hughes: “I do know something of this matter,” and I see and believe because I have learned from the people of antique Europe, to see life “feelingly.”

Research has a minor place in the scheme of things because research is dependent on an objective researcher and an objective examiner of the research. But man is not an objective creature. He does not use his reason to determine what is true; he uses his reason to defend that which he wants to be true. Is there then no way out of the rationalist dilemma? Yes, there is:

“You can prove anything with figures; and reason can lead you anywhere; but if you’ve got a real strong feeling about something, deep-seated and unshakable,
it is bound to be right.”

-- P. C. Wren in Bubble Reputation

Of course, the obvious objection to such an outlandish attack on reason is, “Suppose I feel just as deeply that Europe and the white man are evil, as you feel that the old European culture is God’s culture.” Then I would assert, even though it sounds undemocratic and impolite, “that you have not reached the core of your soul. You have no depth. Remove the layers of superficiality from your heart, and assume that the void you are afraid you’ll find if you go through the labyrinth of the human heart is not a void; it is where He dwells.”

The liberal is consistent on the issue of the antique European: “He is evil.” But the liberal is schizophrenic on the issue of Christianity. He doesn’t believe that Christ is risen, but yet when you assert that the Christian Church must always have a European face the liberal tells you that you are not being Christian. You can’t claim the right to say what is Christian after you have already dogmatically denounced the major tenets of Christianity.

The neo-pagans, the older ones who even bothered to formulate an ideology, claim the Europeans changed the real Christianity, which was an anemic bloodless faith, into a manly, heroic faith. But now in the 21st century, the real Christianity has surfaced again and the Europeans should shun it. The neo-pagans are wrong. Christianity has only one face, and it is a European one. The Europeans saw, in Christ, the true Thor, the hero God above all other hero Gods. There is no dichotomy between the God that St. Paul encountered on the road to Damascus and the hero God of the Europeans.

The saddest lot of all is the halfway-house Christians. They believe, but because they seek no help for their unbelief, they will soon become non-believing liberals. The Catholic halfway-house Christian claims he needs only the Church. “Prior to Scripture there was the Church, and without Scripture we can know God, through His Church.”

The Protestant fundamentalist counters with, “Before there was a Christian Church, there was the Bible; we know God through the Holy Scriptures.”

Missing from both halfway-house churches is the human factor. Human beings must read the Holy Scriptures and the Church documents with the proper spirit if God’s revelation is to be believed. And to believe, a man must be able to “come and see.” He must see the embodiment of Christianity in the spirit and blood of a people. The image of the golden harp is still apropos. Can even a golden harp produce one single note of music without the touch of a human hand?

Some thirty years ago I had a conversation with a retired Roman Catholic priest. I was a young man and he was an old man. I asked him what he thought was the greatest obstacle to faith in Jesus Christ. He stated that the biggest obstacle was that, “There are so few signs.”

I went away from my conversation with the priest with a greater respect for his honesty, but I also left profoundly depressed. “Are there really so few signs?” Of course, our Lord’s words come to mind: “And there shall be no sign given... but the sign of the prophet Jonah.” How can we know that sign? It has always been my feeling, my deep-seated feeling, that our Lord has planted, in our blood, the means of knowing and loving Him. But we must be true to our blood in order to see our Lord. The European who has become a stranger to his own blood needs to come and see the European cottage in the woods. Then he will see with the eyes of the heart, and know that his redeemer liveth, the God of eternal Europe. +

After the Hangover

The spirit of chivalry had in it this point of excellence, that, however overstrained and fantastic many of its doctrines may appear to us, they were all founded on generosity and self-denial, of which, if the earth were deprived, it would be difficult to conceive the existence of virtue among the human race. – Walter Scott

For a recent birthday my children gave me a complete set of the old TV comedy Car 54, Where Are You? I found the episodes to be just as funny now as when I was young. And it struck me while watching those old shows that a comedy like Car 54 could not be made today. At the time Car 54 was written, European Americans, like their European counterparts, were still in the “Christian Hangover” stage of their existence; they no longer took Christianity seriously as a faith, but the vast majority still took the ethics that stemmed from Christianity seriously. In consequence the humor in shows like Car 54 occurred within a world where the sanctity of marriage and the virtue of chastity were unquestioned, male friendships were not homosexual, and the good-hearted boob always triumphed over the sneering, heartless intellectual. But Car 54 was at the end of the Christian Hangover era. Modern man was about to emerge on the stage of history, devoid of even a Christian hangover. O brave new world!

The post-Christian era, in which Satan uses the forms of the Christian faith to subvert the Christian faith, is the era of the intellectual sneer. Everything noble is sneered at, and everything base is exalted. Our comedies are so filthy and degenerate that no citizen of the original Sodom or Gomorrah could sit through them without being disgusted. Our drama’s are devoid of sense, soul, and drama. And our churches have outstripped even the heathen in their worship of the heathen. And what or who is behind this plethora of filth? Is it the Jew? No, the Jew aids and abets the filth, but he is not its source. Satan, our ancient foe, is the architect of the brave new world. He was miserable in Christian Europe and uncomfortable in the Europe of the Christian Hangover. Now he is comfortable, to the extent that such a restless spirit can be comfortable.

Walter Scott, in his introduction to Quentin Durward, gives us an excellent portrait of the sneering intellect who presides over hell and over our modern day post-Christian Europe:

Among those who were the first to ridicule and abandon the self-denying principles in which the young knight was instructed, and to which he was so carefully trained up, Louis the XIth of France was the chief. That Sovereign was of a character so purely selfish—so guiltless of entertaining any purpose unconnected with his ambition, covetousness, and desire of selfish enjoyment, that he almost seems an incarnation of the devil himself, permitted to do his utmost to corrupt our ideas of honour in its very source. Nor is it to be forgotten, that Louis possessed to a great extent that caustic wit which can turn into ridicule all that a man does for any other person’s advantage but his own, and was, therefore, peculiarly qualified to play the part of a cold-hearted and sneering fiend.

In this point of view, Goethe’s conception of the character and reasoning of Mephistopheles, the tempting spirit in the singular play of “Faust,” appears to me more happy than that which has been formed by Byron, and even than the Satan of Milton. These last great authors have given to the Evil Principle something which elevates and dignifies his wickedness; a sustained and unconquerable resistance against Omnipotence itself—a lofty scorn of suffering compared with submission, and all those points of attraction in the Author of Evil, which have induced Burns and others to consider him as the Hero of the “Paradise Lost.” The great German poet has, on the contrary, rendered his seducing spirit a being who, otherwise totally unimpassioned, seems only to have existed for the purpose of increasing, by his persuasions and temptations, the mass of moral evil, and who calls forth by his seductions those slumbering passions which otherwise might have allowed the human being who was the object of the Evil Spirit’s operations to pass the tenor of his life in tranquillity. For this purpose Mephistopheles is, like Louis XI, endowed with an acute and depreciating spirit of caustic wit, which is employed incessantly in undervaluing and vilifying all actions, the consequences of which do not lead certainly and directly to self-gratification.

Scott has shown us the way the Evil One undermines a Christian civilization. He does not attack in manly fashion, with a direct challenge. There are no devilish gauntlets thrown in the face of Christian warriors. Instead, the devil uses his “depreciating spirit and caustic wit” to undermine the Creator by destroying the image of God in man. The devil supports everything that dehumanizes man. By zigzags and parallels he attacks every aspect of man’s life on earth that makes him feel, “A personality stands here.”

The dehumanizing and depersonalizing program has proceeded at an accelerated pace since the European left Christendom for Satandom. Once the elite palace guards left their posts, there was no longer any reason why Satan and his minions had to refrain from attacking and destroying the European castle.

The demise of Christian civilization always begins with the satanic sneer. In Eden the sneering devil told Adam and Eve that they would not die. “That was just moralistic God talk.” Liberals today mimic their master; if you love your race and kin, you are sneeringly labeled a white racist; if you protest the torture-murder of your people, you are told, “to cry me a river”; if you protest the murder of the innocents in the womb, you are a sexist; if you protest democratic tyranny, you are a fascist. All the venom of the liberals is spewed out with a satanic sneer. The self-proclaimed lovers of humanity hate humanity. Their generic love for the rights of women, the black race, and democratic humanity is a subterfuge for their hatred of the human personality. Anytime there is any manifestation of the one culture that stressed the infinite value of the non-generic human personality, the liberals go berserk and seek to crush that manifestation. Because the slaughter of innocents, the worship of black people, and the implementation of a draconian, secular democracy, is so antithetical to the values of a Christian European, the liberals must be merciless in their suppression of any European opposition to their brave new world.

The hazy, lazy days of the Christian hangover, during which we shared some values if not the same faith with our fellow Europeans, are over. The conservatives, the mad-dog liberals, the halfway-house Christians, and the neo-pagans want us to fade away. And if we refuse to fade away, they will gladly, in the name of racial equality, democratic humanity, and the rights of women, have us exterminated.

When Solzhenitsyn came to the West in the 1970’s he stated that the most striking thing about the European people was their lack of courage. And of course Solzhenitsyn was not saying that there were not any Europeans left who would rush into a burning building to save a child or face a firing squad without flinching; he was talking about the courage to defend one’s people against an implacable enemy. In order to have the latter type of courage a people have to be a people. They must feel bound to their people by ties of faith and race. The problem with the Europeans is that they don’t believe they are a people and they do not have a faith.

The colored people of the world do have a faith. They believe in their race as a herd, and they worship the aggregate power of the herd. The European was never able to convert the non-European people to the faith that revered an individual’s race because it was part of a man’s personality, which was connected to a personal God. The halfway-house Christians who deny a man’s race is part of his personality have already said in their hearts there is no personal God, only an abstract God who rules an abstract utopia created by the mind of the liberal.

As Scott pointed out in his introduction to Quentin Durward, the devil destroys a man’s faith by making all the human bridges to Christ things of ridicule. When we hear halfway-house Christians such as Thomas Fleming mock white people for wanting to protect and defend their own, or when the clergy tell us to shun our blood ties to our kith and kin in the name of a universal religion, we are hearing Satan speak. There is no higher religion than the religion of the God-Man, who revealed Himself to mankind through the provincial, human things that all the modern, authoritative voices want us to abandon. The European’s answer is ‘no.’ He will not abandon the European hearth, because that is where his heart is, with his God. Outside of the European hearth there is nothing, no love, no virtue, and no charity. All is dark and deadly if we acquiesce to the liberals and consent to fade quietly away into the dark night. The heart revolts at such a surrender. And it is our hearts, filled with European prejudices that make us prefer our own to the stranger, honor to treachery, and Christ over Satan, which will take us through the dark night of Europe to a brighter day where we will see our Lord and kinsmen. +

Against the Flood

Enter Pericles, wet.

[stage direction from Shakespeare’s Pericles.]

After 1965 a good movie in line with the values held dear by antique Europeans was as statistically rare as white on black crime. The statistical rarities were usually adaptations of European literary works written before the demise of the white man. Branagh’s Henry V (his only good adaptation of a Shakespeare play), John Huston’s The Man Who Would Be King, based on Kipling’s story, and Zeffirelli’s The Taming of the Shrew were a few of the statistical exceptions. Before 1965, the movies were 90% supportive of the essential Europe and 10% against. After 1965, they were 100% against, with the occasional exception, which did not occur with sufficient frequency to constitute a percentage point.

When I say that the pre-1965 movies were supportive of the essential Europe, I do not mean to say that there were not signs of a weakening of the European walls. On the racial issue, for instance, there was a growing tendency in the 1950’s to depict the Indian as simply a pigmented white man with the same values as a white man. The horrific aspects of the Indians’ culture were often down-played. In the Western titled Yellow Tomahawk, for example, Rory Calhoun, the scout for a cavalry unit, moralistically informs a settler that, “Indians love their people just as much as you love yours.” Oh really? Then why did they kill the sickly infants and let the elderly members of their tribes starve or freeze to death? (1) But even in that Western, the hero ultimately declares that “I’ll stand by my race.” With the exception of one movie, Arrowhead, starring Charlton Heston, which actually focused on the bestial savagery of the Indians, the pre-1965 Westerns were weak on the racial issue. They were not anti-European though. The heroes in the movies were the white men who lived up to the code of chivalry that was nurtured in Europe and born in a manger in Bethlehem.

The black man was also, like the Indian, regarded as a pigmented white man in the pre-1965 movies. And such a view was false, but the white man in the older movies was still depicted in a heroic light and his civilization was presented as the only civilization. In Zulu (1960), the black savages are invested with a nobility they did not possess, but it is the white British soldiers who are the heroes. And in the movie Safari (1956), the Mau Maus are depicted as the villains and the whites as the heroes. After 1965, the reverse was true.

So in the main the popular movies from the 1930’s to 1965 were supportive of white European civilization, but they presented the erroneous view that the colored peoples could be brought into the white fold. The naive, “they are just like us under the skin” view of the colored people was the leak in the European dike.

In the mid-1960’s the leak in the dike became a flood, and the notion that there had ever been anything good or noble in white people or their civilization was washed away in an anti-European flood.

At first there was only a tiny minority of Europeans who welcomed the flood, while the vast majority denied it was a flood. “It’s just a little cleansing, necessary at times; Europe is still Europe.” Then when the flood reached epic proportions, the Europeans who had called the flood a cleansing moved to the safe, high ground (but not the morally high ground) with the anti-Europeans and claimed that Europe had to be flooded; it was evil.

A few Europeans, statistical non-entities, refused to leave the flooded Europe. They are still trying to salvage something from the flood waters that will help them maintain a link to old Europe. And then, when a patch of dry land is found, the European will emerge from the waters, wet, but determined to rebuild Europe.

To date, after forty-five years of flooding, I’ve seen no European salvage operation that has brought up, from the depths of the flood waters, anything that was part of essential Europe. The salvagers all seem to be formalists who are only concerned with those aspects of the older European culture that can be studied, catalogued, and used to help the formalist in his particular discipline. Thus the theologian wants to preserve the Greek philosophical tradition, the conservative wants to preserve 19th century capitalism, and the Christian layman is only concerned with salvaging the church buildings in which to sing the praises of the new black gods.
Something more than outward dross needs to be preserved if the European is to come into his own again. The bards of ancient Europe, who are the true historians, all bear witness to something unique about the European. (2) He was not satisfied with the perfectly formed but spiritually shallow culture of the Greeks, nor did he remain content with the Egyptian night of the savage cultures. The European had that within which passeth show; he needed to climb glass mountains and slay dragons in the name of a God above the gods.

It is utter madness to seek refuge from the anti-European flood waters on the dry shores of multi-racial universalism or in the mind-forged prisons of neo-pagan utopia. Go to the past, ride with Forrest, stand with the men at Rourke’s Drift, walk the mountain path with Tell and make the ascent of the glass mountain. We begin the ascent in Europe’s green and sacred land, thinking the land beyond the glass mountain will be something strange and wonderful. Well, it is wonderful but it is not strange. Having made the ascent in the attempt to find His land, we discover that His land is our land; it is Europe before the anti-European tidal wave.

“We who are about to die demand a miracle.” The same God who delivered the Israelites from bondage will deliver us from the anti-European flood waters if we invoke that God by staying faithful to the European essentials, those virtues that come from the European hearth: faith, and loyalty to one’s kith and kin.

Because the Europeans took Christ as their King and kinsman, Christianity is in the blood of the European. Even when he is a blaspheming Marxist, evolutionist, or race-mixer, the European couches his heresies in Christian terms. And infinitely better, when the European ceases to blaspheme and actually remembers things past, he sees in his mind’s eye a small remnant band of believers who survived a flood and rebuilt a civilization.

The Christian bards often use a near fatal drowning to symbolize the rebirth of a civilization. In Shakespeare’s Pericles, Prince of Tyre, Pericles and his wife Thaisa survive separate shipwrecks and are eventually reunited with the sure and certain hope of reestablishing their kingdom.

This, this. No more, you gods!
Your present kindness
makes my past miseries sports.
You shall do well
That on the touching of her
lips I may
Melt and no more be seen. O,
come, be buried
A second time within these arms.

To once again embrace Christian Europe? She lives in the depths. All that is needful to bring her to the surface again is Europeans who still love eternal Europe and hate liberaldom in all of its many guises. +

_____________________________

(1) Paganism comes in different guises, but it always ends with the same result: the slaughter of the innocents. Now that the liberals have rejected Christianity and returned to paganism in a technological and secular humanitarian guise, they are killing the old and the very young just like the red Indian and the black barbarian.

(2) The original purpose of poetry is either religious or historical, or, as must frequently happen, a mixture of both. To modern readers, the poems of Homer have many of the features of pure romance; but in the estimation of his contemporaries, they probably derived their chief value from their supposed historical authenticity. The same may be generally said of the poetry of all early ages. The marvels and miracles which the poet blends with his songs, do not exceed in number or extravagance the figments of the historians of the same period of society; and, indeed, the difference betwixt poetry and prose, as the vehicles of historical truth, is always of late introduction. Poets, under various denominations of Bards, Scalds, Chroniclers, and so forth, are the first historians of all nations. The intention is to relate the events they have witnessed, or the traditions that have reached them; and they clothe the relation in rhyme, merely as the means of rendering it more solemn in the narrative or more easily committed to memory.