The Lost Faith

Oh, well for the world when the White Men join

To prove their faith again!

- Rudyard Kipling

Writing in the later half of the 19th century, Dostoevsky asked “whether a man, as a civilised 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.” The 20th century European answered Dostoevsky with a resounding ‘No.’

The key phrase in Dostoevsky’s question is “civilised being.” The 20th century European felt too civilized to believe in Christ’s resurrection from the dead. Such things happen in fairy tales, and civilized men and women do not believe in fairy tales. Two perceptive writers from the 20th century, the mad-dog liberal George Bernard Shaw and the Christian writer Herbert Butterfield, both pointed out that the Christian faith survived the pagan assault, the Renaissance, and the Catholic and Protestant religious wars, but the faith did not survive the scientific revolution.

Of course Shaw was delighted with the demise of Christianity, because it gave him a chance to suggest that the European world adopt a new religion as constructed by George Bernard Shaw. “It must be metascientific,” he intoned, “because only a religion that takes scientific facts seriously will be accepted by the modern European.” Butterfield, unlike Shaw, was not delighted with the demise of Christianity. He pointed out that the final result of the liberal’s utopian world of science would be oblivion.

The 21st century European has followed along the road of his scientific mentors of the 20th century. “Some are born great, some achieve greatness...” The 21st century European has achieved oblivion. When he shifted from the reality-based fairy tale mode of comprehension to a utopian-based scientific mode of comprehension, he lost all sense of reality and became a reed for every new wind-blown ideology that called itself ‘scientific.’

Science means much more to modern man than just the study of the material world. Science has come to mean truth in its totality. Behavioral “sciences” such as sociology and psychology tell us the truth about man, in contrast to Christianity, which tells us fairy tales about God. I saw this phenomenon at work in my college literature classes. No matter what work we studied, we studied psychology. The insights into the human soul that the great authors of Europe revealed were translated into psychological jargon because it was a given that no antique author who took the Christian revelation seriously could have anything to say to a modern scientific audience. Scientific thought fits right in with egotism. Since knowledge is cumulative, the mere piling up of facts, the present is always superior to the past. Shakespeare might have been brilliant in his day, but he could never be as intelligent as a modern literary critic because the literary critic knows the accumulated facts of man’s existence that Shakespeare did not know. Of course, the modern scientific man must give way to the man of the future because he will know more than the marvelous man of the present. And on it goes. The present is always superior to the less scientific past and inferior to the more scientific future.

Because scientific thought is evolutionary and because scientific thought is presented as truth, the Christian faith has suffered greatly during the scientific 20th and 21st centuries. It survives only as an anemic subsidiary to science. Even fundamentalists who reject the theory of evolution as it pertains to man’s origins still attempt to fuse their Christianity with an evolving concept of man, democratic man being at the highest point of their evolutionary ladder. And even in self-styled traditionalist Catholic sects, they send their seminarians and priests to psychologists when they have emotional problems. Isaac Stern’s book, Pillar of Fire, was an attempt to fuse Roman Catholicism and psychology. Hence, even the surviving remnants of Christians in fundamental Protestant sects and traditionalist Catholic sects attempt to share the stage, so to speak, with science. The Catholic has an easier time of it because he can point to the scholastic tradition, which was a precursor of the scientific revolution, and claim that his church was never really opposed to an evolving, scientific faith. But the Catholic and the Protestant have both ignored the Shakespearean caution, “When you sup with the devil you need a long spoon.”

It is ironic that modern man looks on scientific thought as true and the poetical vision of the Christian Europeans as false, when scientific thought encompasses the magic of the genies and alchemists, the witch doctors, and the quack doctors. Nature is the god of the modern Europeans, because they think they can harness the power of nature to achieve their heart’s desire, which always turns out to be a desire to supplant God.

Negro worship is necessary in the scientific utopia of the modern white man for two reasons. 1) There must be a noble savage, some creature untainted by the sins of the fairy tale past of the European. The black man is perfect for the part. 2) Racial diversity is the precursor of sexual diversity. If racial distinctiveness is not a product of the benevolent, guiding hand of a creator, then racial Babylon is permissible and as a corollary so is sexual Babylon.

We were told and are still being told that if the white man would only divest himself of his whiteness, his prejudices, a great new scientific, utopian age would be upon us. But we can see the stink of a dystopia all around us. There is death in the abortuaries, savagery in our streets, and Negro worship in state and church. Is this the end result of the age of science? Yes, it is.

There are only two paths in the woods for the white European, the path of racial diversity, which he is presently on, and the path of racial preservation, which he once took but left when science beckoned him over to the path of racial diversity. Everything depends on the white man returning to the path of racial preservation. There will be no pro-life movements without white people, there will be no conversions to the light by people of color because there will be nothing left to convert to, and there will not be any churches because there will be no faith in Christ. An eternal night will envelop Europe, and only some kind of hybrid, creeping, crawling creatures will be seen upon the face of the earth.

Such a scenario is likely but not inevitable. In the fairy tales a hero always comes forth to defeat the powers of darkness. In an age when scientific thought was scorned and the thought that sprang from the heart was sacred, Europe abounded with heroes who went forth in imitation of the Hero. Once a hole in the scientific wall is breached and European men start to once again protect and defend their race, there is more than just a little hope that a new Europe, which is a very old Europe, will emerge. There is indeed power in the blood of the lamb and power in the non-blended blood of the European united to Christ, the warrior-bard of Europe.

We will be Christian Europeans again when we come to regard the world of the Brothers Grimm as the real world and the scientific world of Darwin, Freud, Marx, and Adam Smith as the false fantastical world of pygmy men with pygmy souls. The world of giants, dragons, knights, and fair maidens is the European’s world. The sacred woods, the sacred sword, the sacred cross -- such images are in our racial memory; they are true images of a time when every European felt his life was part of an epic poem that began in a manger and ended in the New Jerusalem. In England’s green and pleasant land? Yes, in Europe’s white and pleasant land, once again. +

Still Our Ancient Foe

There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. – Genesis 6:4

The traditional interpretation of Genesis 6:4 was that the sons of God referred to in this passage were fallen angels, often called demons or evil spirits. They were generally believed to have been sent by Satan to pollute the blood lines of the human race so that Jesus could not be born of the seed of a fully human woman and become the savior of mankind. It is necessary to dismiss the Old Testament narratives as frivolous stories, which the liberals do, or to simply ignore the implications of the stories, as the half-way Christians do, if you are going to maintain that bloodlines do not matter.

Let us assume, contra the liberals, that the story of Giants on the earth in Genesis 6:4 and the other Old Testament “fantastical” stories are not frivolous stories. And let us follow, contra the halfway-house Christians, the implications of the Genesis 6:4 story and other related stories.

You could maintain that once Christ was born of the Virgin Mary, the necessity to maintain the purity of the Christ-bearing race was no longer necessary. Christ was born, now we can all blend together in one universal race. The Tower of Babel story is not relevant; the importance which the ancient Hebrews placed on their racial purity and the distinctions God made between Noah’s good sons and his bad son are all made irrelevant by Christ’s birth. Is this the case? The official line of the Catholic Church says that all racial distinctions are washed away by the coming of Christ. The official Protestant line, to the extent they have an official line, is in union with the Catholic. And the liberals, who don’t believe in Christ, have given their blessing to the Catholic and Protestant interpretations of race mixing.

The case seems to be closed. But in the spirit of Dostoevsky’s Underground Man, let me reopen the case. I cannot cite any church document that expressly forbids race-mixing, nor can I build an airtight case against race-mixing using a dazzling array of quotes from the Holy Bible. Still, there is a compelling case against race-mixing. First, our Christian European ancestors were opposed to race-mixing. You can maintain, which the halfway-house Christians do, that our European ancestors were insufficiently Christian compared to the modern Christians, but I think a man-to-man comparison of their faith and morals reveals that the modern halfway-house Christian cannot hold a candle to his “racist” forefathers.

Secondly, there is reality to contend with. If Christians really believe that their God said, “The truth shall set you free,” doesn’t that suggest we should seek the truth about black and white? Shouldn’t we look at what blacks do when there are no white men to control them? And shouldn’t we look at the immorality of white and black in a blended society? We should if we claim to worship the Christian God.

Thirdly, while the Bible is more than a great literary work, it is also a work of literature that should be read and understood in the way we read and understand great literature. Just as Shakespeare’s play King Lear is more than a story about a king who gets mad at his youngest daughter, so is the Bible more than a travelogue about the ancient Hebrews. The Bible stories, like Shakespeare’s plays, come from the land of the spirit. At their center is the truth about man and God. The Tower of Babel story, the numerous stories of the Hebrews’ segregated society, and the hierarchal structure imposed on Noah’s sons all suggest that concerns about racial purity are not something to be dispensed with after the birth of Christ. Those who do so redefine the traditional Christian teaching on original sin. The first apostles never taught to “become new in Christ” meant that we were free of the effects of original sin. Faith in Christ did not mean that we could dissolve the earthly ties by which and through which we know the living God. The Tower of Babel experience should tell a Christian that God hates man-made unity because it separates man from God. And can there be a more blasphemous unity than a man-made unity that directly contradicts the God-made distinctiveness of the races?

There is also a Tower of Babel mentality in those who reject the lesson we learn from the story of Ham. It is not God’s desire that the less godly son should be on equal footing with the godly sons. You don’t have to believe that the black man is the descendant of Ham, Cush, and Nimrod to see that the white man is meant to keep the black man in check. Just look at the development of Christian Europe and the development of Africa. Then compare our modern blended society with the non-blended society of antique Europe. Is not the moral contained in the true story of Noah and his three sons revealed to anyone who has eyes to see and ears to hear?

Of course, that’s the dilemma. There are no Europeans left with eyes to see and ears to hear. The European no longer sees Christ riding through the woods of Europe nor does he hear the echo of His voice in the European mountains.

There are two brothers in King Lear. Edgar, the legitimate son is the soul of honor. He tells his suicidal father, “Thy life’s a miracle.” The bastard brother, Edmund, has a different view of existence. “Thou, Nature, art my goddess; to thy law, My services are bound.” The European was once committed to Edgar’s view of existence. He saw his life as a miracle of God’s grace. To know that a personal, humane God was at the heart of the universe -- a God that cared about individual human beings -- was to know that the human personality was to be treasured. A divine creation should not be rent asunder or degraded. But if nature is thy Goddess, there is no reason to treasure the distinctness of human beings. They are all simply part of nature’s compost heap.

The halfway-house Christians who want to blend the black with white always end up blending Christ with liberal saints such as Nelson Mandela. The logical result of a faith based on the universalism of a Coca-Cola commercial is a universal God who is as superficial as a Coca-Cola commercial. Such a god might be useful to you while you are riding high, employed in the secular utopia and in the prime of youth, but when you cry out from the depths, which eventually all human beings do, the Coca-Cola God will not be there for you. You will either find the one true God, the God of antique Europe, or you will perish in the vomit of superficiality.

In Genesis we learn that the whole earth was polluted in the time of Noah, not polluted by an excess of styrofoam cups or Pepsi cans, but polluted in the blood. The sons of God (Demons) had slept with mortal women and produced a race of Giants. Only Noah had kept his bloodlines pure, and only Noah and his family escaped the flood.

Are there parallels between Noah’s situation vis-à-vis the mating of the demons and mortal women and the mating of black men and European women? A tiny minority of antique Europeans maintains that the black man is not human; he is a beast of the field. If such is the case, there is a very close parallel between modern race-mixing and the race-mixing in Genesis 6:4; in both cases mortal women mix their blood with alien beings.

The vast majority of antique Christians held to the belief, rejected by modern, halfway-house Christians, that the black man was the descendant of Ham and could only be fully human as a servant in the tents of the children of Shem and Japheth. Cross-race mating would still be sinful to the adherents of the 'black as descendant of Ham' theory, but it would not be an exact parallel to Genesis 6:4, when the daughters of men mated with alien beings.

The first theory at least attempts to deal with reality. We see the black man before us; he does not seem to be fully human, and therefore he is not a human being. The liberals have no right to cry “foul” at such a seemingly inhumane theory. They have a similar theory, which is the reverse of the black beast theory. They believe that only the black man is human and that the white man is some sort of non-human animal.

In the absence of some deeply held instinct to the contrary, I think we should always go with the mainspring Christianity from the days when Europe was truly Christian. The black man can only become fully human by serving the one fully human race, the white race. Those who have eyes to see the Europe of our ancestors and those who have ears to hear the voice of our ancestors cannot come to any other conclusion about the black and the white than the one our ancestors came to: the black and the white race should never mix, lest the ungodly pollute the earth. If we see the race war for what it is, Satan’s attempt to kill Christ by distorting the image of God in man, we will be able to gird up our loins and fight for Christ and the Europe that He, not Satan, wills that we should have. +

Guarding the Past

“There is a hollow ring in the work of some of the systems makers, who so often assume that we can catch up with History, collect all the factors into our hands – nothing relevant escaping us – and so become monarchs and masters of the course of things.” – Herbert Butterfield

It seems that only the white man invents utopian schemes and tries to implement them. The Roman Catholic Church systematized that which should never – and can never – be systematized: the living God. And the Protestants diligently followed in the Catholic train and systematized God. The liberals, following along the same lines of the systematizing Christians, created their own utopian system which is a synthesis of the Catholic and Protestant systems; it is called psychology. And so it goes with the white man. He is forever trying to “catch up with History” and become the master of a world of his own creation.

Our little utopian systems have their day, and then they go into the dust bin of history, usually leaving rivers of blood and mountains of despair behind them. Capitalism and socialism have occupied the European stage for the last two centuries, but in the last fifty years a very old (just read Dryden, Addison, and Rousseau) utopian fantasy has re-emerged. The capitalists and the socialists are currently trying to combine the myth of the noble black savage with their capitalist-socialist utopias. Thus the capitalist tells us that we should all be capitalists because it will help the black man get off welfare, and the socialist tells us that socialism is good because it will help the black man stay on welfare. But the key element in the capitalist, black utopia and in the socialist, black utopia is the worship of the black. The Negro is a god in both utopian schemes; the two opposing sides merely differ on the best way to serve the new god.

All utopian fantasies of the European liberal are grounded in a denial of the doctrine of original sin and a hatred of the Europeans and their history. The liberal does not believe in original sin because such a belief would make him disbelieve in the perfectibility of mankind under his beneficent leadership. While denying original sin, the liberal must hate his ancestors and believe in their sinfulness, because they are the reason, in his mind, there is no heaven on earth.

Let us dwell for a moment on the hatred of the liberal. The utopian liberal is generally given a free pass from the world so long as his utopian schemes are universalist, utopian schemes. The neo-pagans and the Fuhrer are and were unpopular because their utopian schemes are not universalist schemes. The worst thing that is said about the liberal utopian is that he is “somewhat naive, but his heart is in the right place.” 'Tis not so. The utopian liberal is a great hater. Unhumbled by any sense of his own sinfulness, he is unwilling to tolerate the slightest opposition to his humanitarian plans to save all mankind. Dostoevsky, in his masterpiece, The Devils, depicts a Bolshevist revolutionary who sits in his house, writing plans for the earthly salvation of mankind, while on the everyday plane of reality he hates every human being he meets. It will always be thus with the utopian liberal (and there are no non-utopian liberals); he will always be a great lover of abstract humanity and a great hater of individual human beings.

Against the utopian liberal stands the European conservative, not to be confused with the liberal capitalist. Since he believes in original sin, he doesn’t think that the future will be better than the past. In fact the conservative knows that the future will be worse than the past if the past is not woven into the garment of the future.

Walter Scott exemplified the romanticism of conservatism. He did not ignore the evils of the past, but he saw that any evil his ancestors committed stemmed from a sinful nature that he shared with them. And he had the humility to acknowledge the virtues of his ancestors and try to preserve those virtues in the present. Conservatism is romantic because it is human. Unadulterated man has passions, he loves, he hates, he descends to the depths of hell, and he rises to the heights of heaven. The utopian has no humanity because he thinks what passed for humanity in the past was evil and must be obliterated. Only a future humanity, which has no connection to the European past, and the black man, who has no connection to the European past, are sacred and worthy of inheriting the kingdom of liberaldom.

There is no ascent in the liberal utopia; there is only the darkness of hell. It was God’s plan to create mankind which triggered Satan’s revolt. The great hater is only comfortable where there is no humanity. His cry is, “The world must be purged of all traces of humanity.” And that is what utopians do; they purge the world of all genuine human beings, replacing them with colored barbarians and disembodied white intellectuals who worship the intellect but cannot think because all true thought stems from the human heart which the liberals have banished from utopia.

All utopian states, because they are based on a false view of man, must maintain themselves by force or by an extensive and subtle seduction of the masses. Most utopian-totalitarian regimes use a combination of the two methods. The old U.S.S.R. was primarily a naked-force utopia while the U.S.A. was primarily a seductive utopia. In recent years there has been a slight shift in emphasis. The U.S.A. and her European counterparts are relying more on naked force than they ever did before, which is a tribute to their successful seduction. There are so few men of flesh and blood left that it has become unnecessary to seduce; naked force will crush the last of the non-utopian Europeans.

Utopian thinking stems from the European because the European was once Christian. It was the European who prayed, ‘Thy Kingdom come.’ But when ‘His Kingdom come’ becomes our utopian kingdom of the godless future, Christian Europe becomes Satania.

Since utopia never comes, the liberal must be able to point to some reason why the elusive utopia never materializes. In the U.S.S.R., it was the remnant band of the bourgeoisie who were ‘blocking’ paradise on earth. They needed to be exterminated so the peoples’ paradise could flourish. In Europe and the United States, it is white racists who stand in the way of a Babylonian paradise. They will also be exterminated. At least that is the plan. The liberals no longer make a secret of it. Members of the new Black Panther Party, for instance, have recently called for the extermination of whites. No outrage, not even a blip on the radar screen. But liberals do not have a death wish. Because they have no connection to reality, they really believe that so long as they denounce their whiteness they will not be considered white by the wonderful black demigods whom they worship.

If a cancer is not reversed, it spreads. The hatred of the white and the love of the black has gone into the blood of the white liberal, the halfway-house Christian, and the white grazer (see The Underground Men). The late Samuel Francis and John Tyndall spent most of their adult lives trying to explain, in rational terms, that the black man wanted the white man to disappear from the face of the earth, but there is a limit to pure reason. When a mania such as the worship of the black man and the hatred of the white man enters the bloodstream, mere reason is hopeless against it. The evil of the black man and his hatred of the white man is apparent throughout America, Europe, and Africa. What the black man says and what the black man does should be enough to convince every single white man to take up arms to defend himself and his family against the black man. Instead, the white man does just the opposite. He throws himself at the feet of the black man, as the black man raises his knife to kill the white man and his family, and begs for forgiveness for his sins of commission and omission against the black race. “Almighty Negro, I have sinned against thee, by what I have done and what I have failed to do. I firmly resolve, if you let me live, to avoid all sins of racism in the future, and all near occasions of racism”

However, the new black god of the white man is not a merciful god like Christ; he is a murderous savage god, so he slays the white penitent. And the whites looking on cry with one voice: “The black man giveth, and the black man taketh away; blessed be the name of the black man forever.”

If the bloodbath is to be halted we must look beyond reason. Those white men who have never forsaken their white blood and those white men who have returned to their blood because they saw the risen Lord on their own personal roads to Damascus will hold the pass until the black-worshipping passion is purged from the white race, or till their Lord returns to lead the final charge. We are in the fiery furnace, but miracles occur when a faithful few refuse to worship the savage gods. +

Resisting Caliban

“We must prepare to meet with Caliban.” – The Tempest

I’ve been married long enough to know that when my wife starts talking about “rearranging a few things” I had better go through the papers and books on my desk and on the floor surrounding my desk in order to save what needs saving before the rearranging nightmare commences. And of course the process takes longer than anticipated because I start to read the old articles and papers in order to decide what to discard and what to save.

This time through I noticed an old obituary of a favorite baseball player of mine from the golden era of baseball, the era of all white players. That obituary was much more important to me than the tons of articles I threw out about the Latin Mass and the crisis in the church. It might appear since I threw out the articles pertaining to the internecine wars in the Catholic Church and kept the obituary about a favorite baseball player (Walter Johnson) from the golden era, that I was no longer interested in Christianity but was still interested in the trivial pursuits of my childhood.

The old saw warns us that appearances can be deceiving. I kept the Walter Johnson obit because Mr. Johnson was a baseball hero from an era when the European people of America were at least, if not integrally Christian, then Christian in ethos. Such relics of the past must be treasured, because it is no longer possible in the modern, post-Christian-ethos era, to see even a trace of old Europe embodied in any European American or European institution.

The history of baseball in this country is a history in miniature of the white European people. Baseball has its roots in the agrarian tradition of Europe. The terms ‘infield’ and ‘outfield’ for instance are used by Sir Walter Scott in his descriptions of Scottish farming:

The residence of these church vassals was usually in a small village or hamlet, where, for the sake of mutual aid and protection, some thirty or forty families dwelt together. This was called the Town, and the land belonging to the various families by whom the Town was inhabited, was called the Township. They usually possessed the land in common, though in various proportions, according to their several grants. The part of the Township properly arable, and kept as such continually under the plough, was called in-field. Here the use of quantities of manure supplied in some degree the exhaustion of the soil, and the feuars raised tolerable oats and bear, [Footnote: or bigg, a kind of coarse barley] usually sowed on alternate ridges, on which the labour of the whole community was bestowed without distinction, the produce being divided after harvest, agreeably to their respective interests.

There was, besides, out-field land, from which it was thought possible to extract a crop now and then, after which it was abandoned to the "skiey influences," until the exhausted powers of vegetation were restored. These out-field spots were selected by any feuar at his own choice, amongst the sheep-walks and hills which were always annexed to the Township, to serve as pasturage to the community. The trouble of cultivating these patches of out-field, and the precarious chance that the crop would pay the labour, were considered as giving a right to any feuar, who chose to undertake the adventure, to the produce which might result from it.

The very concept of a professional baseball team is a bastardization of the sporting ideals of the European people, immortalized forever in Tom Brown’s Schooldays. In that work, Thomas Hughes enfleshes the Christian doctrine of the interconnectedness of body and soul. Sport, to a Christian of the old stock, is a spiritual exercise; how we conduct ourselves in sport and the type of sport we participate in can elevate or debase the soul.

The original professional baseball organizations, because they were created by people with a Christian hangover, mixed the Christian sporting ethos with a secular ethos. The Christian impulse was seen in the teams’ attempts to make heroism local and particular. Even though most players did not play for their home city, they were treated like native sons by the local baseball enthusiasts. But the serpent was in the baseball garden. A small little serpent called money was seen in the out-field.

Sport in America lost its remaining Christian ethos when baseball integrated in 1947. Though owners such as Branch Rickey and Bill Veeck, who brought the first Negroes into baseball, presented themselves as pioneers in the civil rights movement, they were in reality worshippers of the golden calf. It was simple economics. A bigger gene pool meant a better team, and a better team meant more money. The unsung heroes were the white players, such as Dixie Walker of the Dodgers, who said that it didn’t matter if you could win more games and make more money by integrating your team, it was wrong. The heroes of baseball were not the Jackie Robinsons and Branch Rickeys or the vast majority of white players who dared not place their financial futures in jeopardy by protesting integrated baseball. The real heroes were men like Dixie Walker who spoke out against the forces of money and Negro worship. In Cleveland, the small handful of white players who refused to shake hands with the Negro Larry Doby were traded off the team. (1) Such protestors were heroes of the blood. Their instincts allowed them to see the truth: the presence of the Negro within white culture is the beginning of the end of white culture.
One wonders what happened to all the old opponents of integration. The baseball players of the late 40’s are mostly gone by now. But what about the athletes from the mid-1960's? I remember reading about a Southern college football team in the early 1960’s. The white players on that team refused to play against teams that played Negroes. What happened to those men? Did they all ‘see the light’ and become Negro worshippers? Most likely they became part of the white underground. They grumble among themselves about the apelike negroization of their sport but dare not make any public criticism of integration.

The coalition that destroyed white baseball was the same type of coalition that destroyed the European people. A group of money men joined forces with Christians who needed a social gospel to buttress up their faltering faith in the Gospel.

The cynical money men were careful to present the negroization of baseball, and other aspects of white culture, in Christian terms. The pastor of my parents’ church, who regularly extolled the black man but had very little to say about Christ, was fond of saying that Branch Rickey was the greatest civil rights advocate of them all, ‘them all’ being liberals like the pastor, who ended up divorcing his first wife, second wife, third wife, and then the church.

There was an episode in the old Leave It To Beaver television show in which the moral eunuch, Eddie Haskell, during a camping trip falls off a cliff onto a ledge slightly below. A park ranger (played by the same actor who played Jack Armstrong, the All American Boy in the movie serial) has to come and rescue Eddie. When Eddie tries to mouth off to the park ranger, he is told, “Things like this don’t happen to boys who are careful in the woods.” Precisely. And things like the negroization of baseball don’t happen to a people unless they have taken little care to keep faith with their past. The capitalist, because he worships the golden calf, must break faith with his ancestors who worshipped Christ. But why did the Christians, the people I call the halfway-house Christians, break faith with their Christian ancestors? A traditional Christian people seeks to remain close to their past because by doing so, they are staying close to their God. A serious Christian does not jettison the customs and traditions of a Christian people in favor of the new customs and traditions of a Godless, utopian people, but confused halfway-house Christians do jettison the traditions of antique, Christian Europeans.

The European walls between the races were in place for good reasons, for Christian, European reasons. 1) God saves particular people and persons; He does not save en masse. It is His will that people retain their racial identities. 2) The second reason is like unto the first; if the Christ-bearing race becomes a non-race, will there be faith on earth?

The negroization of the world is a holistic movement. The liberals have left no part of the European world free from the presence of the Negro. And as Midas turned everything he touched to gold, so does the Negro turn every aspect of white culture into a savage, tribal, barbarous rite. Who is served by the interjection of the Negro into white culture? Is the white man served? Maybe the rich capitalist is served in a material sense, but is the real white man, the Christian, served by an integrated society? No, he is debauched and degraded. He losses his identity as a white European, and by that loss he becomes worse than a man without a country; he becomes a man without a soul.

Is the Negro served? Again, some are served in a material sense. But the black man is dependent on the white man to keep him from descending to the level of the apes (I mean that in a behavioral sense, not an evolutionary sense). The white man’s burden and duty is to control and civilize the black savage, as the pre-civil war, Southern whites did so admirably, and not to make him a deity in a Godless, golden-calf-worshipping society.

The whole purpose of a Christian culture is to create opportunities for white moments. Somewhere between our birth and death, we need to see the face of Christ, at the hearth, in pure sport, in our art, or in our work. The liberal wants to eliminate the white moments of existence. He demands that we give up the white moments of life, in which we get a glimpse of heaven, in order to live in a future heaven on earth that he, the liberal, is building for us. But it is always in the future, this heaven on earth, and it always entails the sacrifice of our faith in the God whose kingdom is not of this world. Negroization is the liberal’s road to earthly bliss, but the European of the old stock sees it for what it is – the road to hell. We shall never give up on the culture of white moments and we will never accept negroization. +

________________________
(1) Bill Veeck is lauded for bringing the second Negro into baseball a few months after the first one. What type of man are the liberals lauding? They are lauding a man who put money above every decent human sentiment. He once, when he was owner of the Chicago White Sox, brought a midget up to bat. His only worry was that the midget might attempt to gain some self-respect by actually swinging at the baseball and getting a hit. In order to put a halt to that, he told the midget that he had a man with a high-powered rifle ready to shoot him if he swung at the ball. The midget walked on four pitches, and Bill Veeck got what he wanted, celebrity and money. What of the midget? He suffered scorn and ridicule the rest of his life, which lasted ten years longer. He died from injuries resulting from a beating he received from men who still wanted to mock and ridicule him for his infamous at bat in the major leagues. Did the great civil rights champion, the great humanitarian, attend his funeral? No, he did not. The only man from major league baseball that attended the funeral was the pitcher who gave up the walk. “I felt I owed him that much.”

Now, Bill Veeck didn’t force the midget to prostitute himself for money. But a pimp is even more loathsome than a prostitute. Veeck and the liberals call negroization ‘civil rights.’ The correct term for it is pimping.

The Night Riders of Europe

“They come against us in much pride and iniquity to destroy us, and our wives and children, and to spoil us: But we fight for our lives and our laws.”

In my young halcyon days as a Roman Catholic convert, I was always attending lectures. On one occasion I attended a lecture by a Roman Catholic traditionalist who maintained that the conquest of Mexico, in which the Spaniards mixed their blood with the native population, and the settlement of North America, in which the British did not mix their blood with the native population, proved the superiority of Roman Catholicism over Protestantism, because the Catholics were able to put aside their parochial prejudices and adhere to a universal principle.

The speaker’s assertion troubled me because I did not think that willingness to forsake your own blood was a sign of the “true Christianity.” I’ve had many years now to reflect on the speaker’s assertion, and I’ve come to the conclusion that the Spaniards’ failure to protect and cherish their blood lines indicated a fatal flaw in the Roman Catholic Church, a fatal flaw that has spread to all the Christian churches, resulting in the demise of the Christian faith throughout the European nations.

The fatal flaw was the churchmen’s failure to de-Romanize the Christian church. In pagan Rome, differences of race and religion were tolerated if an individual was willing to submit to Roman universalism. It was the idea of universal Rome that counted, not individual human beings. In Christianity the individual matters. His personal salvation and the salvation of his people are paramount. Race is important to the Christian because his race is part of his personality, part of his soul, and a universalism that places a man in an impersonal generic box called ‘mankind’ is an abomination to the genuine European. Hamlet reacts against the tyranny of the universal over the particular. When Rosencrantz and Guildenstern violate the bond of friendship in the name of an abstract principle of service to the state, Hamlet knows his friends are no longer his friends.

Ham. I do not well understand that. Will you play upon this pipe?

Guil. My lord, I cannot.

Ham. I pray you.

Guil. Believe me, I cannot.

Ham. I do beseech you.

Guil. I know no touch of it, my lord.

Ham. ‘Tis as easy as lying. Govern these ventages with your finger and thumb, give it breath with your mouth, and it will discourse most excellent music. Look you, these are the stops.

Guil. But these cannot I command to any utterance of harmony. I have not the skill.

Ham. Why, look you now, how unworthy a thing you make of me! You would play upon me, you would seem to know my stops, you would pluck out the heart of my mystery, you would sound me from my lowest note to the top of my compass; and there is much music, excellent voice, in this little organ, yet cannot you make it speak. ‘Sblood, do you think that I am easier to be play’d on than a pipe? Call me what instrument you will, though you can fret me, you cannot play upon me.

A man is more complicated than a pipe. To treat him other than a divine mystery, with infinite possibilities, as a personality who has that within which passeth show, is to defame the Creator by trivializing His creation.

In Romanization, breadth of thought is substituted for depth of feeling. St. Augustine delayed his conversion to Christianity because he was afraid the personal fairy tale narratives of the Gospel were not as intellectually sophisticated as pagan universalism. Why does universalism always seem so intelligent? Because we are fallen creatures, and appeals to our pride of intellect often have a hypnotic effect on us. Throughout the Christian European’s history, the struggle to believe in the unsophisticated tale of the suffering servant instead of the organized universalism of Rome or liberalism has always been a fight to the death. The attempt by the liberals to impose a universal belief in the sacred black man is just one more phase in the continuing war of the Christian European vs. the universalist, utopian European.

The trivialization that comes with rationalist, Roman universalism is death to faith because a man needs to see life with his heart not with his head. Romanization reduces the faith to a simple program of mental gymnastics that a handful of select men can teach to their devotees. The resistance to such an inhumane and trivial system, a system that starves the soul because it deprives a man of contact with the living God who lives in the depths of the human heart, has always come from the men of feeling, the Europeans from the deep woods. They were the men who saw that Thor was a pale reflection of Christ; men who bent their knee to Christ as conquerors, not as the conquered.

I no longer see the Protestant Reformation as the unhallowed disaster that Catholics maintain it was. Nor do I see the Reformation as the Protestants see it, “the movement that set things right.” I see the initial Protestant revolt as an attempt by the European people to reclaim their Lord and kinsman from the hard-hearted company men of Rome. It was a necessary revolt, but Europeans needed to see that the battle against Roman universalism had to be an ongoing battle. The Protestants, after their initial revolt which was from the heart, formed their own little, rationalist mini-Romes. Modern liberalism is the fusion of all the Christian rationalist, universalist mini-Romes into one anti-Christian Rome. In the mini-Romes, the individual halfway-house Christians are allowed to pay lip-service to the Christian God so long as they adhere to the state-sponsored worship of the Negro.

It was the Europeans of depth who defied insolent Greece and haughty Rome in order to raise the standard of the Man of Sorrows above the banner of universal Rome. It will be the task of the remnant band of 21st century Europeans to once again defy liberal, universal Rome, and make every European hearth a kingdom where the God of the little, particular things, such as loyalty, faith, love, honor, and charity, makes His home.

It is possible to trace the heretical line from the Tower of Babel through pagan Rome, Catholic Rome, the Protestant Romes, and finally the modern liberal Rome. Central to all the universalist heresies is race-mixing and religious atheism. The races are blended in the name of a universal god, but contact with the one true God is rendered impossible because the people who constitute a blended society lack the depth to understand or relate to the non-blended, distinctive personality of the Christian God, Jesus Christ.

The liberal’s new demand for one universal race and one godless faith is an old demand. We need not – in fact, we should not – respond to their program with a plan or program of our own. The European has no plan; he has only his instincts. Long buried perhaps, rusty from lack of use, but still the only broadsword God has given him; in the blood of the European is the answer to the universal, racially blended, godless world of the liberals.

When the Europeans were young, they believed in a fairy story about a warrior bard whose name was Jesus. Jesus was strong enough to conquer death, yet he was full of love, charity, and mercy. Then, the Europeans became more sophisticated, more intelligent, and very universal in their faith. They started to worship the Negro, who had not conquered death, and was not loving, charitable, or merciful. The new Europeans said they were very happy with their new faith, and because they were so happy with their new faith they decided to pass many, many laws to make everyone part of the new religion, so everyone would be as happy as the intelligent, sophisticated, universally-minded, new Europeans. But fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on your point of view), some rather angry-looking Europeans were seen at night, riding out of the European woods and attacking some of the holy places of liberaldom. Schools, churches, and abortuaries were burnt. Men of all colors and races were killed for alleged crimes against the fairy tale God of old and His people.

The night riders were only a small remnant, but the liberals were worried that the angry men, if left unchecked, could inspire other angry men. “We should destroy the woods where they dwell,” was the general consensus of the liberals.

The woods would not burn, and the angry white men on white chargers seemed to be led by an angelic white man on an angelic white horse. “There is something more than nature here,” said one liberal commentator.

“We’ll simply order more explosives and chemicals,” said another.

But the liberal fires died out, and their chemicals and explosives were of no account against the men on white chargers with the angelic leader. “Till liberaldom is dust, and Europe is restored,” was the cry of the night riders. Tis a consummation devoutly to be wished, and fought for. +