One Civilization

The poison of diversity kills the soul just as surely as a knife in the heart kills the body. – CWNY

In H. V. Morton’s book In Search of South Africa (1946), he tells us of waking up in a small town in South Africa on Christmas day and feeling homesick for England. But then he hears the villagers singing some English Christmas carols, and he attends a Christmas dinner “right out of Dickens.” The carols and the dinner make him feel at home. In fact Morton felt so ‘at home’ that he eventually settled in South Africa. The European people used to make foreign countries – such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the United States, and South Africa – into European countries. Now the reverse is the case. The European people invite colored tribesmen into formerly European nations and allow the colored tribesmen to turn European nations into colored, tribal nations. And the assumption behind all the suicidal surrenders to the colored barbarians is that there should be less white people in the world and more colored people. Why? Because white people are bad and colored people are good. That, in the liberals’ eyes, is a self-evident fact. It is not self-evident to me; in fact I think the reverse is true, but we’ll let that pass for the moment.

No-one except the antique Christian European has faced the present consequences of a diminished European presence in formerly all European nations. Nor has anyone, except the antique Christian European, faced what will be the final consequences of the absence of any European presence in the formerly European countries.

The mad-dog liberal sees a coffee-colored future where only black skins and brown skins exist. But in his mind he shares that coffee-colored world with the black and brown skins. The Gnostic liberal believes if he thinks black, he will be black. The mad-dog liberal also sees, in his coffee-colored world, wine and cheese parties where everyone uses biodegradable cups. He sees a world where Elizabeth Gaskell is awarded the honors over Shakespeare, and non-polluting homosexuals and feminists join together to stop global warming. Does the mad-dog liberal realize that blacks do not read the white man’s literature, whether it is feminist literature or genuine literature? Does he realize that black and brown people do not care about biodegradable coffee cups or global warming? Of course the mad-dog liberals don’t realize such things; they are too intent on their headfirst plunge off the cliff, like the swine in the Gospel.

The conservative-liberal does not hate white people as the mad-dog liberal does. He simply views white people as irrelevant. In church and state the generic person is what counts to the conservative-liberal. “If white people won’t work for slave wages in the factories then we will get non-whites to work in the factories.” “The faith is transmitted from great minds to lesser minds; it doesn’t matter what color the new neophytes are; it is the docility of their brains we are interested in, not the color of their skins or the state of their souls.” Thus the capitalist wants an influx of colored people into his nation so that he can “compete” in the “free market,” and the churchman wants an influx of colored so that he can compete with his different denominational rivals. Both variants of the conservative-liberal do not see the consequences of their betrayal of their race. The conservative-liberal might stave off economic disaster for a time, but ultimately the social unrest caused by anti-white immigration policies will kill the businesses that sought to profit by betraying the white race. And in the church the conservative-liberal who tries to transmit an anemic philosophy to the colored barbarians, while holding as naught the bred-in-the-bone faith of the ancient Europeans, will reap a whirlwind of barbarism that will kill the Christian faith by diffusing it into other faiths.

In the last week throughout my anti-nation, which none dare call a country, there was much devastation wrought by floods. Many people were left homeless, and whole towns looked more like abandoned towns than towns where people actually lived. The flood-devastated towns represent the present spiritual state of the European people. The floods of diversity have left the European people in a state of shell-shocked somnolence. Will they never wake from the hideous nightmare of diversity? If they don’t their future will be that of the people and towns who were not merely devastated, but were actually consumed by the flood waters.

We must – those of us who are not Negro-worshipping liberals of either the mad-dog or conservative camp – ask why Europeans must now be governed by a barbarian race. Is the black lifestyle, the black religion, which is really an absence of religion, something a European should adapt as his own? Of course it isn’t, but the liberal seldom deals with the black man as a black man. He casts him in the role of the noble savage as described by Rousseau, as the noble victim as described by Harper Lee, and the noble man of the future as described by the liberal legion. What kind of future is there for a people who worship a lie? The cult of the great black god is like the cult of the golden calf; it is unadulterated paganism, made all the more heinous by the shameful spectacle of the white Europeans worshipping at the altar of their black god.

During the recent floods white grazers came to life. They manned pumps and organized rescues for stranded flood victims. They were finally allowed to do something! Rescuing flood victims is still not a proscribed activity in Liberaldom, but in the floods of the future, when the white rescuers are extinct, who will rescue the flood victims? Will the great black gods step forth to rescue white people? Will they step forth to rescue black people? Anyone who has eyes to see can answer those questions.

I once served on a police force in a city that lost its power for three days. The mayor said that looters would be shot. Immediately the black organizations and the liberal press called the mayor a racist. But why did the blacks and the liberals assume the looters would be blacks? Isn’t such an assumption racist? In point of fact, all the looters were black, and the liberals put their own spin on the black looting. “It’s only natural that black people should steal things during a power outage. They are the most disenfranchised people and they don’t have the extra quantities of food and water that whites have.” But why do they never steal food and water? Why do they steal television sets and electronic devices? And why do they step up the rapes and murders during a power outage? Is that because they are poor and oppressed? Of course the liberals don’t really try to answer the last question; they just scream ‘racist’ and that, in their minds, ends all arguments. Nothing the black man does is the black man’s fault. Everything is the white man’s fault because he and he alone has the taint of original sin. The colored people were all born without original sin; they are the pure, innocent children of nature.

It’s a curious phenomenon, which could only occur in a post-Christian nation, this phenomenon of white grazers suddenly leaving their pastures to protect and serve in national emergencies. Then, when they are no longer needed, they are sent back to graze, while the blacks, who raped, murdered, and looted during the national disaster, are set right back on the altars of the white church-going grazers to be worshipped and adored. “Penance have they done, and penance shall they do,” is the liberal plan for white men.

The European countries and their offspring, such as the United States and Canada, are dying slower than countries like South Africa or the San Domingo of the 1790’s, because whites, up until the last 20 years, were the vast majority in those countries. When the blacks outnumber the whites, the rules of egalitarian democracy dictate that formerly white countries will be transformed into modern day South Africa's and modern day Haiti's. And the black majority in those newly-formed black European countries will not respect the rights of the white minorities any more than their black brethren in South Africa and Haiti respected the rights of their white minorities.

Edmund Burke almost singlehandedly turned English public opinion against the French Revolution. He appealed to the innate conservatism of the English people, and they responded. Only the utopian liberals, such as Priestly, supported the homicidal radicals of the French Revolution. One of the overlooked aspects of Burke’s criticism of the French radicals was his defense of the French aristocrats. Burke personally met with and aided many of the French nobility who managed to find asylum in Britain. Burke found the French aristocrats to be the best of the breed, whose loss France could ill afford. It’s quite possible if France had not lost such men, and many others who didn’t manage to get to England, that Europe would have been spared the militarism of Napoleon who became an inevitable consequence when the French radicals murdered their aristocracy.

France never did recover from liberty, equality, and fraternity. Appalled by the extreme violence, they decided, after Napoleon was deposed, to commit national suicide at a slower, democratic rate. And all the other nations of Europe have followed France’s lead. “Utopia Now,” if it meant violence, was not acceptable to Europeans (except to the Russians), but “Utopia Soon,” so long as the death toll was not excessive, was acceptable to Europeans.

What happens when the radical ideals of liberty, equality, and fraternity are injected into a nation with a white ruling class and a black majority underclass? The result is Haiti. The U. S. Civil War almost produced another Haiti, but white Southerners had greater solidarity than the French of San Domingo. Now white people do not have either the solidarity or the faith to stand up for white people and their civilization.

The black barbarian we will always have with us. The white men never civilized the blacks. When white men were strong and believed in their civilization, they kept the blacks in check, but that is all they did. Contrary to what the Unitarians and the other assorted sectarian sects have said, the black man was never civilized. The fuel on the fire is the Utopian white man. When the white forsakes Christianity for Utopianism the inert mass of black men are set on fire to murder, rape, and pillage.

Should there be less white men? No, there must be more white men, ready to fight for the only civilization that ever existed. Don’t tell me about the pyramids or even the Parthenon. I care only about the civilization that produced men and women who took Him into their hearts and lived by the creed articulated by the Gentle Bard:

The quality of mercy is not strain'd,
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath: it is twice blest;
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes:
'Tis mightiest in the mightiest: it becomes
The throned monarch better than his crown;
His sceptre shows the force of temporal power,
The attribute to awe and majesty,
Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings;
But mercy is above this sceptred sway;
It is enthroned in the hearts of kings,
It is an attribute to God himself;
And earthly power doth then show likest God's
When mercy seasons justice. Therefore, Jew,
Though justice be thy plea, consider this,
That, in the course of justice, none of us
Should see salvation: we do pray for mercy;
And that same prayer doth teach us all to render
The deeds of mercy.

The humanity of God! A people who once felt so close to God that they could hear His heart beat, just as the Apostle John heard it on the night of the Last Supper when he laid his head on the Sacred Heart, is a people that must not perish from the earth, lest the earth lose all connection to His Sacred Heart.+

The Hollow Oak of Liberaldom

Then, in one moment, she put forth the charm
Of woven paces and of waving hands,
And in the hollow oak he lay as dead,
And lost to life and use and name and fame.

--Idylls of the King

I have an older cousin I view as the embodiment of the diseased white man. He is a farmer who no longer can make a living from his farm and who supplements his income by driving a truck. His sons do not work on the farm; they work at various manufacturing jobs, all dependent on the U.S. government continuing to renew its contract with the manufacturing firms.

My cousin is a halfway-house Christian of the fundamentalist variety; he still believes that Christ died and rose again on the third day, but he also believes that the white European has no right to love his own people and culture over all other peoples and cultures. During the last Presidential election, for instance, my cousin told me how much he despised Hillary Clinton, but he liked and respected the Obama. The beginning of a disconnect? In the same vein, my cousin frequently has complained of the trailer trash living on the borders of his farm. When I've pointed out that the trailer trash are Mexicans, my cousin immediately chimes in that he has nothing against Mexicans, he loves them as his brothers; he just wishes they would stop coming on his land and littering, defecating, and stealing.

My cousin is just one of the millions of halfway-house Christians who is willingly self-destructing in the name of some abstract principle, invented by liberals, which neither my cousin nor his halfway-house companions, remotely understand. And the pity of it all is that my cousin is a decent man. My nation, and the world’s nations, would be better off if such men as he filled up the ranks of their citizenry rather than the colored individuals that all white people are called to worship. Let me rephrase that – if my cousin would divest himself of his anti-European prejudice, then he would have the innards to make a good citizen. No nation needs a man who will not stand up for his own people, whether they be living or dead.

It’s easy to find excuses for the halfway-house Christian, particularly if the halfway-house Christian is a blood relation: “He is confused, the liberals are very clever” – “He has been sold a multi-racial bill of goods by his pastors”. All those reasons are true, but ultimately I can’t excuse my cousin’s betrayal of his race. A man’s heart should be able to counter-balance the weakness of his head. “You make what sounds like a good case, but I can’t go against my heart, and my heart tells me that what you’re saying is wrong.” That, or something like that, is what the European men and women should have said to the liberal utopians and their halfway-house Christian pastors. It’s a mystery to me why more Europeans do not “just say no” to Liberaldom.

There is a song of John McDermott’s in which he tells of a crippled soldier returning home. When he exits the ship, he sees his countrymen waiting on the shore: “They just stood there and stared, And turned all their faces away.” Those lines describe my own feelings about my “fellow white countrymen.”

Once, at an adult Bible class, I was so moved by the similarities between the spiritual journey of the Hebrew people and the spiritual odyssey of the European people I let myself go and spoke of my love and reverence for La Fanu, Dostoevsky, Walter Scott, and the gentle Bard. “They, like St. Paul, like Jeremiah, like Isaiah, pointed to Him.” All that I said, and more, and they looked at me and “turned all their faces away.” “Can ye drink of the cup I will drink of?” No, I cannot. Only He could bear the loneliness that engulfs a man who has been rejected by his own people.

The European people are suffering through their own Babylonian captivity, but unlike the ancient Hebrews the Europeans do not know they are in captivity. They go to liberal churches, fusionist churches, and Super Bowl parties, and they profess themselves to be a free people: free to worship God, whoever and whatever God may be, free to send their children to state-run public or state-supporting private schools, and free to work for the advancement of the new, liberal Babylon, which as a state entity is much more inimical to Christianity than the old Babylonian state was to Judaism.

Can we say that the European people are suffering under their Babylonian captivity? On the surface the answer might seem to be, “No, they are not suffering,” but look closer. An anesthetized man is different from an integral, full-blooded man who can stand up to existence and say, “come what may, I’m in God’s hands”; anesthetics simply push suffering deeper into the soul; they do not enable a man to stand up to existence. The European currently is seeking the oblivion that comes with racial melding, because he finds existence unbearable.

Man cannot live without a connection to God. And God can only be reached through the human things: love of kith, love of kin, and love of a place above all other places. All those human things are denied the white man. The liberals have decreed that the white man must die, so he must be denied the essentials of life. And halfway-house Christians, in an effort to please the liberals, have 'discovered' that human things are unnecessary – in fact they are evil; men don’t need human conduits to an incarnate God, they can fly to heaven in a cosmic, universalist rocket ship.

Yet some people are more equal than others. The colored peoples are allowed -- not just allowed, they are encouraged -- to keep the human things: love of kin, kith, and place. Ah, there’s the rub. The colored peoples were never Christianized. They have pride of kin, pride of race, and pride of place, which is diametrically opposed to the antique Europeans’ love of kith, kin, and place. The only permitted human things then are the subhuman rites of the colored people. Virtually every day there is some kind of celebration of the Noble Savage: Martin Luther King Jr. Day, Jackie Robinson Day, Black History Month, Rosa Parks’ Day, Hispanic Heritage Month – the list is endless. Whites celebrate those holidays with more fervor than the colored people because whites have a longing to have some contact with the human things, even if they are the subhuman things that degrade and debauch. It’s an insane, satanic world when whites hate their own and love only the colored races.

I've spent a lot of time at public parks in the last twenty years. When my children were younger, I had to be ready to prevent the thousand and one potential falls that can occur on playgrounds. For at least the last eight years now my services as a catcher have not been needed. So I’ve had a chance to observe other families. And what have I observed? White boys wear the sport jerseys of black athletes, but no black boys wear the sport jerseys of white athletes. An insignificant phenomenon? No, it isn’t. From birth to their graves white people are told their life has meaning only to the extent they can blend with the colored races. Even when a white boy wears the jersey of a white athlete, he is blending with a sports organization, a microcosm of the state, which is a universalist, race-mixing organization. And white girls are encouraged to adore the black athletes as well so that they can mate with the black when they come of age. Indeed it is a small miracle when a white girl marries a white male, considering how the white male is portrayed in print, film, and television. A friend told me recently of a made-for-television movie he had started watching. A Negro was accused of a violent crime. Of course he was innocent, and a white female detective discovered his innocence. The guilty parties? You know the answer – a white, blonde, blue-eyed teenager and his white, Bible-toting father. It would be hysterically funny if it wasn’t for the fact that young white people have come to believe such bilge. In Liberaldom there is nothing more evil than the white male. And because that gospel of Liberaldom is so untrue the liberals must keep up an unrelenting propaganda campaign in order to maintain their maniacal, obscene lie about the white male.

The colored tribesmen are at least given a chance at life. Without a white man to point them to the light it is not very likely they will escape the blood and sex cults that are the usual fare of the colored tribes. But the white European has been consigned to Merlin’s oblivion, betrayed by the whores of Liberaldom, he lies “as dead, And lost to life and use and name and fame.” The halfway-house Christian and the liberal have joined together to deprive the white European of his soul. He lives, but nothing of life remains. If he is denied the human things, denied his one eternal moment to live and die as God ordained, it’s as if he never existed. The hate of the system that consigns one’s fellow men to such a fate, and the love of the people who are being damned to such a fate, should put steel and fire into the heart of the European. Even if all the halfway-house Christians turn their faces away and join with the mad dogs of Liberaldom, still the European defies them: “My name is Alexander Smollet. I’ve flown my sovereign’s colors, and I’ll see you all to Davy Jones.”

A man who wrote so eloquently about the human things, the blood ties that make a man a man, was Rudyard Kipling. The liberals speak disparagingly of him, and the halfway-house Christians generally undervalue him by accepting the liberals’ assessment of him: “He was a reactionary and a pagan; he had no religion other than British imperialism.” Of course nothing could be further from the truth. Kipling saw God through the human things, and consequently his faith was forged in the furnace of reality where the first European Christians’ faith was forged. If you read nothing else of Kipling’s, read his short story called “The Gardener,” in an anthology called Debits and Credits. At the end of the story you will see why there is no other way to the Son of God than through the human ties that the colored tribes pervert and the liberals deny to the white man. If we keep faith with our ancestors, such as Rudyard Kipling, and cling to the human things, we will defy the liberals and see the living God, Jesus Christ.

One grave to me was given
One watch till Judgement Day;
And God looked down from Heaven
And rolled the stone away.

One day in all the years,
One hour in that one day,
His Angel saw my tears,
And rolled the stone away!

--Rudyard Kipling

The God of Children

“There’s none can save you now, missy,” Mullins hissed jeeringly.
“There’s one,” replied the figure.
“Who’s that?”
“Peter Pan the avenger!” came the terrible answer; and as he spoke Peter flung off his cloak. Then they all knew who ‘twas that had been undoing them in the cabin, and twice Hook essayed to speak and twice he failed. In that frightful moment I think his fierce heart broke.
_______________________

I saw the interview which mad-dog, liberal Rachel Maddow did with Frank Schaeffer, the son of the late Francis Schaeffer. Frank Schaeffer, formerly a fundamentalist, then a member of the Orthodox Church, and now a mad-dog liberal himself, condemned his father for equating abortionists with Hitler and asserted his support for The Obama and pro-choice mad-dogs of liberaldom. Despite his detestation of Christian values, Schaeffer still asserted his fervent belief in all the tenets of Christianity. Is it possible that a man could hold the views expressed by Frank Schaeffer and still be a Christian? No, it is not. We can say with absolute certainty that Frank Schaeffer is not a Christian. We can say that Frank Schaeffer has faith in an intellectual construct that he calls Christianity, but this is different from a faith in Christ.

P. C. Wren can help us understand the difference between faith in an intellectual construct and faith in a person. In his novel Beau Geste, the three Geste brothers all join the foreign legion to cover up what appears to be a theft by one of the brothers of the ‘Blue Water’ diamond from the family estate. At no time, despite compelling evidence to the contrary, do any of the brothers suspect the other brothers of any wrongdoing. They all think that either the other two brothers are guiltless of the theft or that the brother who took the Blue Water did so for noble reasons. And of course the brothers Geste are right. (1)

The Geste brothers have a faith that is deeper than an intellectual construct. Their faith is grounded in spirit and blood. When brothers are bound by those ties there is no need for a philosophy of brotherhood; the silken thread of sympathy is stronger than an ironclad syllogism.

The ancient Europeans knew Christ as the Geste brothers knew each other. Sin the European might, drift away from his brotherly father he might, but once having seen and felt the divine tenderness no European could fail to know His will and what He would have him do when facing life’s complexities. It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a man to know God through the abstracted intellect. Let us stop debating with the likes of Frank Schaeffer, Billy Graham, and all professed Christians who claim that satanic liberalism comes from Christ. Such “Christians” have a faith, but it is not a faith derived from a spirit and blood connection to Jesus of Nazareth.

It is important to know that professed Christians who support liberalism are not Christian, because liberals have one passion, the desire to eradicate Christian Europeans. When we see the Frank Schaeffers standing with liberals, we know that we must protect our people and our faith against him just as we would against a Stalin or a Hitler.

St. Paul tells us that even if an angel from heaven were to come down and tell us something in contradiction to the teaching of the men connected to Christ in spirit and blood, we are not to believe them. (Gal. 1:6 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.) How can we call a pope like John XXIII, who forgave the barbarous torture and murder of his own people before the blood on the barbarians’ knives was dry, a Christian? How can we call Pope John Paul II, who regularly begged clemency for child-molesters and child-torturers, a Christian? And how can we call the black-worshipping pro-choice Frank Schaeffer a Christian?

Professed atheists such as Madeline Murray O'Hare are very rare, but intellectual atheists, those who worship their own abstraction of God, are legion. In fact, abstracted atheism is the religion of the modern European. And at the root of modern, abstracted atheism is intellectual pride. European man is suffering from the effect of a second fall. He is unable to accept that a true God would reveal His divinity through His humanity. Satan has once again appealed to man’s intellect (and the European Christian man was the only man Satan needed to worry about) in order to get the European to renounce Jesus of Nazareth. Satan got the European to believe that a human God was a lesser God.

A few years back I came across a book, written by one of Satan’s legion, which expressed in a nutshell modern man’s quest for an intellectual system as a substitute for God. The book was called Denial of the Soul and the author was M. Scott Peck. I read some reviews of the book, and I wondered if the reviewers and I had read the same book. The Publishers Weekly reviewer claimed Peck “camps firmly on Biblical grounds.” What Bible? It is true that Peck came out quite tentatively against euthanasia and in favor of the soul, but he concedes that he might change his views on euthanasia should he get a terminal, painful illness. And his belief in the soul is a type of Jungian belief in the over-soul. He refers to God as a “She” and rates traditionally religious people as lower on the evolutionary scale than liberal humanists. Peck, of course, places his own beliefs (a pastiche of Greek pantheism mixed with psychological Zen) at the top of the evolutionary ladder.

Pecks’s four stages of religious or spiritual development are these:

· Stage 1 - Chaotic, Antisocial. In this most primitive stage, people may appear either religious or secular, but either way, their belief system is profoundly superficial. It may be thought of as a stage of lawlessness.
· Stage 2 - Formal, Institutional. This is a stage of the ‘letter of the law’ in which religious fundamentalists (meaning most religious people) are to be found.
· Stage 3 – Skeptic, Individual. Here is where the majority of secularists are situated. People in this stage are usually scientific-minded, rational, moral, and humane. Their outlook is predominantly materialistic. They tend to be not only skeptical of the spiritual but uninterested in anything that cannot be proven.
· Stage 4 – Mystical, Communal. In this most mature stage of religious evelopment, which may be thought of as one of ‘the spirit of the law’, women and men are rational but do not make a fetish of rationalism. They have begun to doubt their own doubts. They feel deeply connected to an unseen order of things, although they cannot fully define it. They are comfortable with the mystery of the sacred.

Although Peck does use terms like ‘soul’ and ‘God’, he is, in Christian terms, an atheist. To quote:

“Although I consider myself a middle-of-the-road Christian, I do not believe in the doctrine of the resurrection of the body. It seems to me to confuse bodies and souls. They are not the same thing at all.”

There are some practical points in the book – for example, how to cope with illness and what painkilling drugs to use – that seem sound, but the underlying philosophy of this book is blasphemous and philosophically unsound. There is no real comfort in the face of our own sufferings and death outside of the traditional Christian faith, which Dr. Peck derides in the name of his new Dr. M. Scott Peck religion.

And outside of Christianity, there is no reason to be against euthanasia. In fact, if one believed what Peck believed, I would think one would be so depressed one would commit suicide.

If you are impressed by Karl Jung and Ralph Waldo Emerson – two men who tried to maintain Christian ethics while denying the transcendental truths of the Christian faith – you will be in tune with Dr. M. Scott Peck’s new interpretation of Christianity. But there is nothing really new under the sun, as the Preacher says. Mr. Peck’s beliefs are very close to those of the ancient Gnostics. The modern liberal thinks he is forging a brave new world, when in reality he is just a pygmy heretic spouting the cosmic blasphemies of his heretic progenitors.

It is always to a cosmic, impersonal force or an abstract, cosmic Christ that the liberal appeals. And this is why the New Age Christians are always allied with the barbarians of color. The barbarians also reject the God-Man and worship the impersonal gods of nature and the cosmos. The liberals frequently talk about compassion, but the most striking thing about their new world is the absence of compassion. We see this in the wholesale slaughter of the weakest members of the brave new world, the very young and the very old. Is this not the old paganism in a new, technocratic guise? Shall there be mercy for the destroyers of mercy? That will be up to the God of Mercy.

Leaving the ultimate disposition of souls to God we can and must make a judgment on the words and actions of the anti-Christian Christians like Frank Schaeffer. He has chosen to fly under Satan’s banner, and he should be dealt with as Peter Pan dealt with Captain Hook: “Hook or me this time!”

I vividly recall a time in my earlier twenties when I was chided by a professor for having a ‘Peter Pan complex’ because I refused to ‘grow up’ and adopt a ‘realistic, grown-up religion’ instead of the religion of Christ. My inarticulate answer was that if I had to abandon Christ in order to grow up, I preferred to remain a child. But then every European I admire, Shakespeare, Scott, Le Fanu, had the faith of a child. I’ll stay with them and their God, come dungeon, fire, and sword.+
______________________________
(1)
My most dear and admired Aunt Patricia,

When you get this, I shall be dead, and when you have read it I shall be forgiven, I hope, for I did what I thought was best, and what would, in a small measure, repay you for some of your great goodness to me and my brothers.

My dear Aunt, I knew you had sold the ‘Blue Water’ to the Maharajah (for the benefit of the tenants and the estate), and I knew you must dread the return of Sir Hector, and his discovery of the fact, sooner or later.
I was inside one of the suits of armour when you handed the ‘Blue Water’ over to the vizier or agent of the Maharajah. I heard everything, and when once you had said what you said and I had heard it—it was pointless for me to confess that I knew—but when I found that you had a duplicate made, I thought what a splendid thing it would be if only we had a burglary and the ‘blue Water’ substitute were stolen! The thieves would be nicely done in the eye, and your sale of the stone would never be discovered by Sir Hector.

Had I known how to get into the Priests’ Hole and open the safe, I would have burgled it for you.

Then Sir Hector’s letter came, announcing his return, and I knew that things were desperate and the matter urgent. So I spirited away that clever piece of glass or quartz or whatever it is, and I herewith return it (with apologies). I nearly put it back after all, the same night, but I’m glad I didn’t (Tell John this.)

Now I do beg and pray you to let Sir Hector go on thinking that I am a common thief and stole the ‘Blue Water’ –or all this bother that everybody has had will be all for nothing, and I shall have failed to shield you from trouble and annoyance.

If it is not impertinent, may I say that I think you were absolutely right to sell it, and that the value is a jolly sight better applied to the health and happiness of the tenants and villagers and to the productiveness of the arms, than locked up in a safe in a the form of a shinning stone that is of no earthly benefit to anyone.

It nearly made me regret what I had done, when those asses, Digby and John, had the cheek to bolt too. Honestly, it never occurred to me that they would do anything so silly. But I suppose it is selfish of me to want all the blame and all the fun and pleasure of doing a little job for you.

I do so hope that all has gone well and turned out as I planned. I bet Uncle Hector was sick!

Well, my dear Aunt, I can only pray that I have helped you a little.

With sincerest gratitude for all you have done for us,

Your loving and admiring nephew,

‘Beau’ Geste

“A beau geste, indeed,” said Aunt Patricia, and for the only time in my life, I saw her put a handkerchief to her eyes.

The Racial Link to God

In J. J. Pollitt’s book, Art and Experience in Classical Greece, he points out that after Greece’s Golden Age, which was terminated by a plague and the Peloponnesian War, Greek art did not reflect the tragedies that had befallen Greece as a whole nor individual members of their nation. Instead, their art reflected a new obsession with detailed vase painting and ornate, flowery and superficial sculpture. The message was clear: “Humanity equals pain; let us seek refuge in technique and superficiality and block out the horrors associated with humanity.”

I definitely see this escape from humanity taking place in the Christian churches of today. We have supped full of horrors, but instead of responding to the horror, churchmen give us formulaic solutions to life’s problems that have been worked out in committee by scientists, psychologists, and the Hallmark Greeting Card Company. The church leaders have fled from the man of flesh, blood, and bone, the man who must die, and have taken refuge in an abstracted, utopian vision of man. But their dream man has no concrete existence. He exists only in their abstracted minds.

It is impossible to overstate the negative effect of the shift in the Christian churches from a reality-based faith to a utopian-based one. All the proofs of God’s existence hatched from the great minds of the West and all the sacramental rites have their basis in our trust in His humanity. If that vital link to His humanity is severed, we will be men without hope, desperately and pathetically clinging to technique and technology to save us from the void.

I see only one remaining link to the older Christians who believed in a non-abstract, a non-utopian Christianity. That link is race. Yes, I know. To even suggest that there is a racial component to Christianity is to invite comparisons to Mussolini and Hitler. But I would ask those inclined to shout “racism” to look at the bloodless faith of the modern Christian universalists and then ask themselves if such a desiccated faith can really be the true faith. Maybe it is time to examine the claims of those who advocate a blood faith.

At face value, it seems like those who shout racism every time the words white and Christian are coupled are correct. Is not the Faith universal? Are we not ultimately spiritual beings whose bodies shall return to the dust while our immortal souls go to heaven or hell?

Yes, we are spiritual beings, but how has God chosen to reveal that truth to us? He took flesh and became man. He revealed himself to us through the blood. Those who believed in Christ became united to Him spiritually, but the incarnation also taught us that God does not disdain to pass spiritual gifts through the blood.

The European peoples, the white race, accepted Christ en masse and in depth. They built a civilization based on their belief in the incarnation, birth, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, true God and true man. Other peoples of other races have believed the same thing, but no other race has built a civilization centered on that belief. There is a racial wisdom in the blood of the white man that must remain untainted and untouched by the blood of other races lest that blood wisdom disappear from the earth. And when white men do not respond to the call of the blood and they seek other gods, they are traitors to their blood.

What about the other races? What about our mutual descent from Adam? Doesn’t that mean we are all brothers and that skin color doesn’t matter? Well, that sounds nice, but it seems to me that we always end up with a blasphemy if we start with a universal and work our way down to the particular. If we start with the particular and the provincial, and then move to the universal, we are more likely to arrive at the truth. And the truth is that Christ started His earthly work with a particular woman, a particular family, and a provincial people. And yes, He extended His message to all peoples, but He did not denounce the prophets or the true and the good among His own people in order to advance the Faith. He denounced the Pharisees who had hardened their hearts against the true spirit of their own faith, but He did not denounce His heritage, divine or human. That is the key difference between what Christ did and what the Christian universalists are doing today. They are not denouncing the modern scribes and Pharisees, the academics of church and school; they are denouncing the good and true Christians of old Europe. And of course one wouldn’t expect them to denounce the modern Pharisees because, behold, they are the modern Pharisees.

Let me speak frankly because there is no time left to temporize on this most important point. Anyone that truly knows Christ knows only a European Christ. That is because the essential Christ, the real Christ, is revealed only in the European tradition. In the past, the convertite, whether he was an African, a Chinaman, or a Red Indian, saw a European Christ when he converted. But this has all changed. The convertite is just as likely now to see a black Christ or an Indian Christ or a Chinese Christ (usually presented through a liberal European prism), which means that the convertite has converted to some religion other than Christianity. And this is because only the European formed a culture that was intimately connected to Christ.

Paradoxically if Christianity loses its provincial character, it will lose its universal character. In point of fact, this has already happened. One is more likely to find a man with some of the antique Christian virtues intact in a “racist” organization than in any of the Christian churches. And how could it be otherwise? Without pieta there can be no Christianity.

I don’t think one should need any other reason to support the white race than the reason that it is one’s own race. But in truth our Lord is not a cruel practitioner of liberal “either-or” politics. The liberal white-hating whites tell us that white Christians must self-destruct in order to advance the black man. But if we are stubbornly provincial and racist and support our race, we will be supporting a universal church that offers a vision of a personal god to all races. But if we turn away from our European heritage, which of course we have, and participate in the mongrelization of the white race, then we will witness the creation of a Christ-less Kingdom of Babel.

And all of this stems from a desire, like the one of the vase-painting Greeks of the post-classical period, to flee from the harshness of reality. The Greeks, however, had no comforter. They can be forgiven for seeking to flee from the dark, sinister woods. But the European woods are different. Why did we ever listen to those false prophets who told us to leave the woods? The European woods are sacred because they bring us in contact with hearth, home, and kin, all of which bring us closer to Him. It is a consummation devoutly to be wished.

The Nineteenth Century Way to God

I do not hold the traditional Catholic view of Western civilization, which looks on the 13th century as the epoch of Christian civilization followed by a steady decline in each ensuing century. I look on Christendom somewhat differently. I see it as one, whole entity from the 700's until 1917, with each century having some very negative anti-Christian heresies, and each century having some important Christian elements which other centuries lacked. But all the centuries preceding the 20th century in Europe and its satellites, such as America, New Zealand, and Australia, were Christian centuries. My favorite century is the 19th, and I think there is contained in that century the foundations of a future restoration of Christian culture.

What I call the separatist heresy, that which separates man's physical nature from his spiritual nature and his reason from his other senses, has been with us since the Greeks, but it was codified in the "great Catholic century": the 13th. In each subsequent century, that heresy ate away at the vitals of the Faith, and in each century until the 20th century, there has been a Christian counter-attack. These counter-attacks were not planned, reasoned attacks; they sprang up organically from the mystical body of the Christian Church.

In the 19th century, the attack was fiercer than in any of the preceding centuries, but the counter-attack was also greater than in any other century. The attack came in the form of Darwinism, capitalism, and communism, which were logical outgrowths of the Catholic separatist heresy. The Christian counter-attack came in the form of a greater interiorization of the Christian Faith. The Pauline Christianity of "if you have not charity" was developed more fully in the 19th century than it had been in any previous century. It was as if the European Christians were saying, "You have driven us to the wall, so we will cling to the most essential element of our Faith." That precious element was of course Christ's sacred humanity. God is human, God is humane, and hence our link to God is through the human.

My assertion of the greater interiorization and humanizing of the Christian Faith in the 19th century is not based on the number of people who attended church but on the testimony of that century's great authors, because I believe the great authors reflect not only their own personal vision but also the soul of their age. The one exception to this is Shakespeare, who, as Ben Jonson correctly stated, did not belong to any age. In fact, to the extent that he does belong to an age, it is the 19th century.

I do not see the Pauline Christianity in the British writers alone; I find it in Dostoyevsky, Spyri, and Schiller as well, but I will limit this discussion to the British authors. A partial list includes the following: Sir Walter Scott, Jane Porter, Charlotte M. Yonge, John Ruskin, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Alfred Lord Tennyson, Charles Dickens, Charles Reade, George MacDonald, Thomas Hughes, William Edmoundstoune Aytoun, Kenneth Grahame, John Buchan, P. C. Wren, and C. S. Lewis. The last four did their work in the 20th century, but they were very much men of the 19th century.

The Greek Heresy. It is not intrinsically evil to study the Greek and Latin languages. Nor is it evil to study classical cultures. In fact, both intellectual pursuits can be a great good. The danger lies in the adaptation of the Greek mindset. If one goes down that dark alley, he will be at the mercy of every self-proclaimed Socrates and will be hopelessly cut off from the personal, revealed God of Christianity. Thomas Hughes, author of Tom Brown's School Days and Tom Brown at Oxford, is aware of the difference between Plato and St. Paul. He realizes there is more than a slight difference in the shifting of emphasis between an impersonal force, even if it is called a spiritual force, and a personal God with a name.

The result of Hardy's management was that Tom made a clean breast of it, telling everything, down to his night at the ragged school, and what an effect his chance opening of the Apology had had on him. Here for the first time Hardy came in with his usual dry, keen voice, "You needn't have gone so far back as Plato for that lesson."

"I don't understand," said Tom.

"Well, there's something about an indwelling spirit which guideth every man, in St. Paul, isn't there?"

"Yes, a great deal," Tom answered, after a pause; "but it isn't the same thing."

"Why not the same thing?"

"Oh, surely, you must feel it. It would be almost blasphemy in us now to talk as St. Paul talked. It is much easier to face the notion, or the fact, of a demon or spirit such as Socrates felt to be in him, than to face what St. Paul seems to be meaning."

"Yes, much easier. The only question is whether we will be heathen or not."

"How do you mean?" said Tom.

"Why, a spirit was speaking to Socrates, and guiding him. He obeyed the guidance, but knew not whence it came. A spirit is striving with us too, and trying to guide us--we feel that just as much as he did. Do we know what spirit it is? Whence it comes? Will we obey it? If we can't name it--we are in no better position than he--in fact, heathens."

That quote illustrates the great 19th century Christian counter-attack. The Greek philosophers can be read but only with a critical eye, not with the eyes of a devotee seeking guidance. The way of the Cross and the way of Platonic thought are two separate things. The one weakness in C. S. Lewis's masterpiece, The Last Battle, is when the Professor says, "It's all in Plato, all in Plato." Well, it's not all in Plato.

The 19th century Christians did not defeat the Greek heresy, which outlasted them into the 20th century, but there were the beginnings, in the 19th century, of a necessary rebellion against the Greek mindset. The rebellion was and is necessary because when faith becomes philosophy or pure mind, the heart and soul of that faith is eliminated. The Faith becomes a myth, which can be studied and examined and found to be necessary for the psychic health (Jung, Campbell) of the individual, but it cannot be acted upon as if it were literally true. What the Greeks and their Catholic followers fail to grasp is that pure mind will always fail to find God because God can only be found through the fairy tale mode -- the Christianized version of the myth -- of apprehension.

Chivalry. What had its tentative and rather formalistic beginnings in the medieval ages was deepened and enlarged upon in the 19th century. Tennyson's Arthur is a saint while Mallory's Arthur is a pagan with a few Christian trappings. Mere fighting skill is not sufficient; the knight must be fighting for those causes that support His reign of charity. Again, this is expressed well by Thomas Hughes:

Here all likeness ends, for the muscleman seems to have no belief whatever as to the purposes for which his body has been given him, except some hazy idea that it is to go up and down the world with him, belaboring men and captivating women for his benefit or pleasure, at once the servant and fermenter of those fierce and brutal passions which he seems to think it a necessity, and rather fine thing than otherwise, to indulge and obey. Whereas, so far as I know, the least of the muscular Christians has hold of the old chivalrous and Christian belief that a man's body is given him to be trained and brought into subjection, and then used for the protection of the weak, and advancement of all righteous causes and the subduing of the earth, which God has given to the children of men. He does not hold that mere strength or activity are in themselves worth of any respect or worship, or that one man is a bit better than another because he can knock him down, or carry a bigger sack of potatoes than he.

And what are the works of Walter Scott if not an attempt to bridge the scholastic-created gap between God and men by way of chivalry? The fair damsel was imprisoned in the Darwinian tower and guarded by a capitalist dragon. (Yes, I know Scott wrote before Darwin's thesis was published, but the scientistic worldview that spawned Darwin was present when Scott wrote.) It was left to the knight with "But the greatest of these is charity," engraved on his shield to rescue the maiden from the dragon.

The Hero. There is a false apologetics which for many years was the unofficial official apologetics of the Catholic Church: Thomas Aquinas's infamous five proofs for the existence of God (five proofs which never convinced anyone of God's existence but did in fact make millions of potential believers believe that there was no God). And then there is the real apologetics that has led countless unbelievers to the foot of the cross. The real apologetics consists of the apprehension of something Godlike in one particular human being. It may be a parent, a friend, or a sibling, but we see in that person more than a mere collection of molecules.

That apprehension is not necessarily limited to one individual; we may see that quickening spirit in other individuals as well. And that vision of something more than nature in another human being enables us to see and believe in the God-man. Through humanity and through humanity only can we come to Him. If we only cogitate God, we will forever go around and around in a philosophic gyroscope, getting an occasional blast from some cosmic force as we whiz by, but we will not see the living God.

In contrast, the sympathetic bond we form with the hero is our true link to God. Let us look in on Tom Brown as he comes to do homage to his deceased hero, Arnold of Rugby, in Tom Brown's School Days:

He raised himself up and looked round, and after a minute rose and walked humbly down to the lowest bench, and sat down on the very seat which he had occupied on his first Sunday at Rugby. And then the old memories rushed back again, but softened and subdued, and soothing him as he let himself be carried away by them. And he looked up at the great painted window above the altar, and remembered how, when a little boy, he used to try not to look through it at the elm-trees and the rooks, before the painted glass came; and the subscription for the painted glass, and the letter he wrote home for money to give to it. And there, down below, was the very name of the boy who sat on his right hand on that first day, scratched rudely in the oak panelling.

And then came the thought of all his old school-fellows; and form after form of boys nobler, and braver, and purer than he rose up and seemed to rebuke him. Could he not think of them, and what they had felt and were feeling--they who had honoured and loved from the first the man whom he had taken years to know and love? Could he not think of those yet dearer to him who was gone, who bore his name and shared his blood, and were now without a husband or a father? Then the grief which he began to share with others became gentle and holy, and he rose up once more, and walked up the steps to the altar, and while the tears flowed freely down his cheeks, knelt down humbly and hopefully, to lay down there his share of a burden which had proved itself too heavy for him to bear in his own strength.

Here let us leave him. Where better could we leave him than at the altar before which he had first caught a glimpse of the glory of his birthright, and felt the drawing of the bond which links all living souls together in one brotherhood--at the grave beneath the altar of him who had opened his eyes to see that glory, and softened his heart till it could feel that bond?

And let us not be hard on him, if at that moment his soul is fuller of the tomb and him who lies there than of the altar and Him of whom it speaks. Such stages have to be gone through, I believe, by all young and brave souls, who must win their way through hero-worship to the worship of Him who is the King and Lord of heroes. For it is only through our mysterious human relationships--through the love and tenderness and purity of mothers and sisters and wives, through the strength and courage and wisdom of fathers and brothers and teachers--that we can come to the knowledge of Him in whom alone the love, and the tenderness, and the purity, and the strength, and the courage, and the wisdom of all these dwell for ever and ever in perfect fullness.

The 20th and the 21st century movements that purport to be Christian all seek to copy the technique of former times but care nothing for the spirit of those days. They seem to want Christian ethical behavior for utilitarian purposes, but they do not want a Christian spirit. But it is the spirit that we should seek to recapture:

Our little systems have their day;
They have their day and cease to be;
They are but broken lights of thee,
And thou, O Lord, are more than they.

Ah, what a perception! Does not Tennyson echo St. Paul? "Our little systems have their day" -- "And though I have the give of prophecy and understand all mysteries..."

They sinned much in the 19th century by placing a Darwinian monkey beside His altar. But the 19th century Christians did not respond to scientific wizardry with a wizardry of their own. They saw their Redeemer in the faces of His creatures and faced modernity with only St. Paul's assurance that charity never faileth. They followed the path of the Ancient Mariner:

He prayeth best, who loveth best
All things both great and small;
For the dear God who loveth us,
He made and loveth all.

We of the 20th and 21st centuries have chosen a different path from the ancient mariners of the 19th century. We have chose wizardry over the God-man. We have killed the albatross, but we have not repented. Instead we have gone on to shoot down robin redbreasts, sparrows, doves, and every other bird that is the harbinger of fair weather. Why? I suppose it is because we do not want fair weather. We have become so used to foul weather that we think it is beautiful and fair weather. To us, "fair is foul and foul is fair."

It is useless to posit a faith in God as a response to modernity if that Faith is only a faith in a computerized caricature of the true God. We need first to join Lear in the hovel and learn the difference between mercy and sacrifice. Then, and then only, will we be in union with the 19th century Christians and with Him.

Addendum:
I do not see the deeper, more developed Christianity reflected in just the great authors of the 19th century. Its artists reflect the same vision. Gustave Dore is the prime example; his illustrations for The Rime of the Ancient Mariner, The Bible, Idylls of the King, and other works are also examples of the great Pauline Christianity of the 19th century.