The Failed Utopia

The ties of Nature were knit by God himself. Cursed be the stoic pride that would rend them asunder, and call it virtue! – Scott

I recently heard a conservative television commentator use the term “God given” to describe the American experiment in democracy. And of course he followed that blasphemous statement with the usual blather about how we Americans had to restore the democratic principles of our founding fathers or else be prepared to live in a left-wing totalitarian state.

I disagree with the conservative commentator. We already live in a left-wing totalitarian state, and we live in a left-wing totalitarian state because our founding fathers decided to break with the Christian traditions of the European countries. Prior to the American experiment in democracy, the European nations all attempted to unite the respective governments of their countries with Christianity. Even when countries, such as Britain, shifted to a more republican, democratic type of government, it was because some splinter group, such as the Scottish Presbyterians, wanted the freedom to have their own state religion. And in America, prior to the Constitution, every individual state had its own state religion.

The radical break with the European tradition came when the authors of the American Constitution introduced religious indifference as the governing principle of the American people. What at first seemed to be a strength to foreign observers such as Toqueville proved to be a virulent poison that was to spread across the ocean and destroy the European nations as well. The harmfulness of a religiously indifferent state was not detected initially because the American people were still largely a Christian people. The fact that the state was committed to religious skepticism didn’t seem to be a serious matter. It even seemed to be a good thing. Were not the wars of religion now over? And the second factor that made the secular state seem benign was the lack of contact the average citizen had with the government. When the bulk of a man’s life is spent working his farm and worshipping in his local church, he does not feel threatened by a secular government. But what if that government expands to such an extent that no aspect of the American’s life is independent of the government? And when the church he attends adopts the religious indifference of the government, and when his children adopt the religious indifference of the government schools they attend, will the American everyman still be proud to be an American? Not if he is still a Christian.

During my lifetime every “conservative” attempt to put a halt to the liberal express train has failed. And the attempts have failed because the conservatives never wanted to attack the religious skepticism that lies at the root of the American experiment in democracy. The antique Europeans looked at every aspect of their lives through the prism of Christianity. They often saw a distorted vision of Christianity because of their imperfect human nature, but they attempted to see life and live their lives according to their Christian faith. When Christianity is no longer seen as the guiding, governing light of a nation, the end result will be... -- well, the end result is the United States of America, a subsidiary of Satan’s kingdom.

It is futile to appeal to the “principles of the founding fathers” to rid our nation of the problems caused by liberalism, for the simple reason that the principles of our founding fathers are liberal. All the radical ‘isms’ that conservatives claim to currently deplore hold sway because America’s founding fathers thought mature, enlightened men could govern a nation without taking note of the Christian faith.

If we look at some of the evils of our time that conservatives have tried to combat by getting back to the principles of our founding fathers, we can get a clearer picture of the futility of appealing to liberal principles to eradicate the evils.

1) Legalized abortion – A Christian people does not abort babies. (1) If the United States was Christian, abortion would be illegal and doctors who performed abortions would be criminally prosecuted. But in a state governed under the principle that religion is a private matter and should not influence public policy, one is free to kill babies, because despite claiming religious neutrality the state cannot be neutral. Mankind will have a religion, as Blake tells us: “If man will not have a religion of Jesus Christ, he will have a religion of Satan.” Is he not correct? Abortion is more than just a right to modern women; it is a sacred right, guaranteed to them by our sacred, secular Constitution.

Carefully trained conservative opponents of legalized abortion always present their case against abortion in secular terms. “It is unconstitutional.” “The majority of Americans are against it.” It is useless to seek redemption from the devil. Isn’t that obvious? Apparently not. If you have sold your Christian birthright for a pot of secular lentils, you will be unable to see life in anything other than secular terms.

2) Kith and kin – Many conservatives often lament that the American family is not what it used to be. And other conservatives, such as the late Samuel Francis, are concerned about the lack of racial solidarity among white folk. Both declines are the result of a secular ethos that, under the new government of our founding fathers, replaced the Christian ethos of the European people.

When Christianity is the reigning faith, ties of nature have spiritual significance. A woman does not simply have a child and turn him over to the tribe; she becomes – when she gives birth – a part of God’s plan for the redemption of the world. She cooperates with God’s grace and brings forth a child to be consecrated to God. That natural tie between mother and child is a divine tie. And need I add that the father’s tie to his children is also ordained by God? But under liberalism, which is paganism revisited with a technological twist, biological entities such as children can be raised by the state, and their most important ties are to the state. It was and is inevitable that all family ties, ties of nature, will be extinguished before the American experiment in democracy comes to an end.

What we have said about the ties to our kindred can also be said about our ties to our race. They too are natural ties that God has ordained. He felt so strongly about the racial ties that bind us to one another that He came down to earth in person to destroy the Tower of Babel. (2) We come to know God through our common humanity. When the natural ties that keep us human are obscured or obliterated, we lose touch with God. If we seek to end legal or illegal colored immigration by appeal to the democratic principles of our founding fathers we will surely fail, because there is no secular solution to a spiritual malaise.

3) Feminism – The white male’s capitulation to the unsexed Lady Macbeths of the modern world is no less than a repeat of Adam’s original sin. He sought to love his wife outside of God’s love, but outside of God’s orbit there can be no love; there is only the reign of Satan. Nothing is more harmful to Christianity and more beneficial to Satan than the unsexing of women. When women no longer believe as the repentant Katherina believed –

Why are our bodies soft and weak and smooth,
Unapt to toil and trouble in the world,
But that our soft conditions and our hearts
Should well agree with our external parts?

-- then they become unsexed monsters. And the men who let them rule serve Satan.

It is the American ethos, those fine principles of our founding fathers, which has caused the elimination of any Christian influence in the body politic. The Christian vision is vital because the Christian vision is based on reality. Legalized abortion, racial Babylon and feminism are all utopian fantasies of men and women who want to make the real world, God’s world, conform to their perverted warped minds. When the American conservative -- and the European conservative who has followed the American example -- revert to the abstracted, distorted ideas of the Enlightenment in order to counter the newer enlightened ideas of their fellow dystopians, they are merely perpetrating a circular process within Satandom.

A true European response to liberalism will not consist of appeals to the electorate, or ‘get out the vote’ campaigns, or public rallies. What the European response to liberalism will entail is a steadfast commitment to maintain the natural ties of blood that bind us to our fellow Europeans and to our God. The godless Universalism of the American founding fathers is just as demonic as the totalitarianism of the former Soviet Union. There is only one God, and He presides over the hearth fires of men and women connected to Him through the natural ties of kith and kin that He wills us to maintain in order to stay united to Him. It seems ridiculous to have to defend kinship, racial solidarity, and a Christian patriarchy, but the fact that it is necessary speaks volumes about the plight of the European man. He has lost his faith, and as a result he has lost his identity and his will to survive. Restore his faith, which is no easy matter, and the will to survive will follow. So long as one European still sees Europe as His sacred Kingdom there is always the possibility that other Europeans will answer the call of the blood and become like unto the Europeans who honored kith, kin, and Him. +

__________________________
(1) I know that St. Thomas is often cited to make the Christian case for abortion. But he is outside of the mainstream of the Christianity found in the Gospels and the letters of St. Paul. And even St. Thomas, after writing his obscene theories on ensoulment, said that which shall be a child should be treated as a child.

(2) A minister once told me that when God came to earth, as He did in the case of the Tower of Babel, He came to earth as the incarnate Christ. God appeared as Christ appeared when He walked the earth prior to his transfiguration. I love that interpretation. And it makes sense. The human face of God is Christ, past, present, and forever.

The Twin Towers of Atheism

There are two separate stories in David Satter’s excellent book, Age of Delirium: The Decline and Fall of the Soviet Union (Knopf, 1996). There is the story of how the Soviet Union maintained its system of terror against its own citizens; this story is told by the victims, many of whom Satter knew personally. He does an excellent job in presenting the victims’ stories, stories that bear repeating. Solzhenitsyn, of course, has already done yeoman’s work in depicting the plight of the millions upon millions who were victims of the Communist regime.

The second story that Satter reports is one that has not received as much attention, and it concerns the citizens who remained loyal to the Soviet Union while their friends and family members were sent to the Gulag and psychiatric hospitals. What did they think? Why did they finally cease to believe in the Soviet system? This makes for a very interesting story. Satter went throughout Russia in both the pre-glasnost days and the post-glasnost days. Besides talking to victims of Soviet terrorism, he talked to the average Russian ‘Joes,’ the ones who had never been sent to prison or to psychiatric hospitals.

What Satter reports is, at first reading, unbelievable; but after reflection, it squares with what one knows about history and human nature. What Satter found was that the average Russian Joe supported the Soviet regime; he believed the official lie. Russians were willing to put up with bread lines and cramped housing because their government told them conditions were worse everywhere else. They believed the Afghans had invited the Russians into their country to protect them, and they believed that Lenin was a saintly, heroic man.

It was glasnost that changed everything. Gorbachev had no intention of unleashing the forces that would topple the Soviet Union. He was a typical Communist party hack. He thought he could use glasnost as a policy to defeat his enemies within the party, but when the information flow started, when devoted teachers discovered that everything they had been teaching for years was a lie, when citizens learned that Lenin was not a saint but a man with the blood of millions on his hands, when Soviet citizens actually started to visit Western countries – well, then the sacrifices the citizens had made during the years of communism seemed to be worthless. If they were not building the socialist utopia, what were they doing? Where was their metaphysic? Glasnost destroyed the Soviet Union. And the man who ushered it in for his own political reasons, Gorbachev, went down with it.

Echoing what Dostoyevsky and Berdayev have said about the Russian people, Satter maintains that the Russian people need a messianic religion. Russian Orthodoxy was replaced by messianic communism. When the belief in communism was taken away from them with glasnost, the Russian people went looking for a new god:

“In this context, glasnost could not but destroy the Soviet system. It was not that any one revelation proved critical for the regime. It was rather that the very idea of truthful information could only shatter the system of collective delusion that treated the regime as the ultimate arbiter of truth and the Soviet system as the realization of mankind’s historical destiny, in which each citizen was privileged to take part. In creating the Soviet Union, the Bolsheviks accepted all three temptations rejected by Christ in the wilderness. But they gained the loyalty of the Soviet people by hiding the fact that they did so in the interests of Satan. The Soviet Union fell because when the long-deceived Soviet people realized, as a result of glasnost, who they had been serving in reality, they threw off their mental bondage to an evil system and began seeking other gods.” (p. 418)

Satter makes no predictions as to what new gods the Russian people might seek. There are anti-Western, Russian nationalist factions that talk about building their own ‘Star Wars’ missiles and conquering Alaska. There are the Western-style materialists, the former Communists, and a tiny minority of Solzhenitsyn-style, Orthodox Christians.

And that last point is the significant one. The majority of Russians did not reject communism in order to return to Christianity, they rejected communism for American jeans and Big Macs. A patriotic Russian Christian now faces, in the seductive American heresy, a more subtle and potentially more dangerous adversary than communism; the American democratic heresy is more dangerous than Russian communism because the American heresy destroys the will to resist. The Russian communists assert, “There is no God,” and send those who contradict them to prison. And in prison many break, but those who don’t become like steel.

In contrast, the rulers of our American democratic oligarchy do not deny the existence of God. Instead they co-opt Him (1): God exists and he is a democratic, racially egalitarian, universalist god. The seductive logic of that assertion tends to produce hapless jellyfish, who flop around and proclaim their contentment. And in order to assure their government and themselves of their “Christianity,” the democratic jellyfish spout racial egalitarian and universalist cant whenever they are asked to speak.

So, we have our own “delirium” in this country. And we need to resist it just a fiercely as the Christian remnant in Russia resisted communism. If we view books such as Satter’s merely as cautionary tales about the evils of communism, we miss the point. The moral of the Russian communist story is that man cannot live without God. And the addendum to the American democratic story is that man needs the living God, not a phony, democratic, multi-racial caricature of God.
___________________
(1) One gets a picture of two devils sent out from hell to try and corrupt the souls of men. One devil is sent to Russia and one to the United States. The Russian devil goes head-on against God and introduces Marxist atheism. He gets C- results. Satan is not very pleased with him. On the other hand, the American devil does not tackle God head-on. He uses the name of God to sell all his Satanic ‘isms’ – like capitalism and racial universalism. When he reports back to hell, he receives an A+ and is given a promotion.

All White Men are Now Collateral Damage

Book Review: Every Knee Shall Bow: The Truth &Tragedy of Ruby Ridge & the Randy Weaver Family, 1996, by Jess Walter

The Weaver story was finally covered by the mainstream press in 1996—it had become too big to cover up—but it never received big, Rodney-King treatment because the press and the Federal government are controlled by sixties’ radicals whose motto is ‘No enemies on the left and take no prisoners on the right.’ This account of the Ruby Ridge murders, written by a journalist with no particular liking for the Weavers’ religious views, is an account of cold-blooded, bureaucratic murder.

The Weavers left Iowa because of the state’s hostility toward homeschooling families. They settled in Idaho with their three children (another was born in Idaho). Why did they run afoul of the Federal government? The Weavers did not believe that the age of prophecy ended with the death of John, the apostle. For them, the Bible, especially the Old Testament, was the means through which God spoke to them. The Weavers believed in Christ but called him Yahweh. They ate no pork and believed that the Federal government was evil and that white Christians should form their own separate state.

It was that last belief that caused the Federal government to murder Randy Weaver’s wife, Vicki, and his twelve-year-old son, Samuel. Apparently mainstream blacks, like Tony Brown, can advocate that blacks be given a separate homeland and still eat lunch with Newt Gingrich, but if a poor, uneducated yet decent man, like Randy Weaver, believes that whites should have their own homeland, then our government feels it has the right to hunt him and his family down and kill them.

The Weavers had some very good years in the mountains of Ruby Ridge, Idaho. But a spy for the ATF, looking for bigger game, Aryan Nation types, asked Randy Weaver if he would illegally alter some shotgun barrels for him. Randy, needing money to support his family, did so. The ATF then informed him that they would not prosecute him on the gun charge if he was willing to be a snitch for them. Randy Weaver refused the ATF’s offer. They, the wonderful madcaps, then proceeded to bring charges against Randy Weaver. After the preliminary hearing, Weaver’s lawyer incorrectly told him that if he lost, the government could take his home. Randy never came back to be tried; he stayed on Ruby Ridge.

When the Federal marshals and the FBI finally went in to Ruby Ridge to get Weaver, an incredible order was given. Never before in the history of the FBI, Walter says, was such an order given; the agents were told that they should shoot anyone seen with a gun. And the FBI knew that all the Weavers, including the children, carried guns.

There were two factors that made the government act in such a cruel, paranoid fashion. First, they made the mistake—and the ATF agents at Waco would make the same mistake with the Branch Davidians—of regarding the Weavers as criminals who would immediately do the streetwise thing, that is, cave in to overwhelming force. They didn’t bargain on meeting people willing to die for their beliefs. Second, the agents were able to demonize the Weavers as racist right-wingers with no humanity who could be exterminated like vermin.

The shoot-out left Vicki Weaver dead, Samuel Weaver dead, a Federal agent dead, Randy Weaver wounded, and Kevin Harris, houseguest of the Weavers, wounded. The subsequent trial found Harris not guilty of murder and conspiracy charges, but Weaver served 1½ years on the “failure to appear in court” charge.

The FBI was later fined for funding a massive cover-up during the trial. There were a few suspensions, but no member of the FBI was ever held accountable for the murders of Vicki and Samuel Weaver. (Subsequent to the writing of this book, of course, Randy Weaver sued the Federal government for the wrongful death of his wife, and the Feds settled out of court, paying Weaver $3.1 million.)

This is a gut-wrenching book to read. The liberal author in his two page introduction draws some conclusions from the whole tragedy that I would not draw, but one is free, after reading this well-written account, to draw one’s own conclusions.

My conclusion is that our materialist, democratic, capitalist government uses, in contrast to the masculine approach of the old U.S.S.R., the feminine, seductive method of coercion to get its citizens to mesh in the gears of the mechanized utopia called the U.S.A. But when an individual, or a group of individuals, resists the seductive method, the U.S. government responds with all the fury of a woman scorned and calls out her masculine pit dogs. “Now you can be men again. Destroy those vermin!” Our government cares very little about real crime in the streets but seems obsessively concerned with what is in the minds of its citizens. There must be no bad thoughts about the government or about black people in our heads, or Aunt Samantha (Uncle Sam was demoted) will be very hurt and upset. And she might send some men with helicopters, laser guns, bulldozers, and tanks to visit us.(1)
________________________________
(1) The reason the government uses repression is because it works! Without his wife, who was the heart and soul of the family, Randy Weaver adjusted to the norms of society, announcing one year ago: “I am an atheist.”

The Gingerbread House

I would dispute those liberals who claim fascism is from the Right; it really has nothing in common, as Nicolai Tolstoy points out in his book, Stalin’s Secret War, with the Christian right. It is, however, to the right of socialist liberalism. Fascism incorporates some old pagan elements (Mussolini changed his allegiance from communism to fascism, for instance, because he claimed communism lacked virility) that the socialists eschew; therefore, to the modern mind, fascism is to the right and communism is to the left.

Most of ‘apocalyptic’ literature, warning us of the dangers of totalitarianism, such as Huxley’s Brave New World, Orwell’s 1984, and Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451, warn us of a fascist government (Orwell’s Animal Farm of course warns us of socialist totalitarianism). But whether the authors warn us of a communist or fascist dictatorship, they all perceive totalitarian societies as based on non-subtle (overt?), masculine force. They all have failed to envision a totalitarian society that was subtle, seductive, and feminine. The most successful totalitarian government in history has been the United States. Using feminine coercion rather than masculine, the U.S. has accomplished much more than Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini or any other 2-bit dictator ever hoped to accomplish.

In Fahrenheit 451, my favorite of the apocalyptic novels, Bradbury correctly notes that a totalitarian government must, if it is to maintain itself, kill history. There must be no historical consciousness; there must only be the reigning government, which has always been, and always will be, world without end. In Bradbury’s novel, the government kills history by burning all books from the past.

But a colony of rebels keeps the past alive by having each member of their rebel band memorize a book. In the novel, naked force is effective to a certain extent, but it is not all-powerful because there is a resistance movement that could eventually destroy the existing regime.

The U.S. has conquered by using the ‘Gingerbread House’ technique used by the witch in the story “Hansel and Gretel.” Books about the past are not banned, they are simply packaged in scorn and printed with ridicule, while modernism comes in a gingerbread house. And in the modern American gingerbread house, no one has enough sense to realize that the feminine force responsible for the gingerbread house is demonic. In the corner of the house, little Joey Brill is munching on democracy cookies; Joe Average American is eating blood-and-circus candied apples, while Mr. Good Solid Citizen eats constitutional brownies and capitalist donuts. And who is that on the roof? Why, it’s the ever-evolving and revolving Sally Cupcake eating the gingerbread house chimney made of progressive dough and feminist icing. Munching on the cinnamon door is race-mixing Lou, and over by the stove is… Well, you get the picture.

The great satanic wisdom of American totalitarianism is this: if you ban the old books and the old traditions, the people might still love them enough to fight for their restoration. But if you give them a gingerbread house to munch on and coat the older books and traditions in monkey vomit, the people will joyfully let the old books remain unread and the old traditions die.

We are in a much more sorry plight than the doomsday prophets predicted. Traditions cannot be simply dug up to settle a contemporary score with an opponent. They can only come to life if they are loved. Pinocchio will always be more relevant than Darwin.