Guarding the Bridge

“The liberals of the continent, on the other hand, first forsook Christianity, and then set out to cut away the traditions, sentiments, prejudices which they seemed to regard as a mere undergrowth. They did not know that what they were exorcising was their guardian angel…”

– Herbert Butterfield

In the eyes of the Jews, Christianity started out as a small, heretical movement within Judaism. And much to the horror of the Jews, it became the Faith of an entire continent in which the Jews were a tiny minority. But the wheel turns. The Jews are still a minority, albeit an influential one, but Christianity no longer enjoys majority status in European countries. The post-Christian rationalists (PCR) have held the reins of power in Europe and her satellites for the past one hundred years. If one were to make a chart of the Christian and post-Christian centuries of the European, it would look something like this:

400 – 800 Christian with pagan remnants
800 – 1900 Christian
1900 – 1950 Post-Christian Rationalist with Christian remnants
1950 – 2008 Post-Christian Rationalist

And who rules by proxy when the PCR Europeans rule? Satan does. He rules every branch of society, including (or, to be more accurate, especially) our churches.

The so-called fundamentalist movements of the 20th century were a response to the Christless faith of the mainstream Protestant churches. And the Catholic traditionalist movements of the 1960’s were a response to the Christless Christianity of Vatican II Catholicism. The Protestant fundamentalist movements were somewhat more effective than the traditionalist Catholic movements, because the fundamentalists tried to return to the Bible, which is a very solid basis on which to base a Christian counter-revolution, while the Catholic traditionalists only hearkened back to Thomism, which was the primary impetus for the original modernist revolt. But both groups failed to remain Christian because they abandoned the cultural heritage of Europe, which was the inspired creation of a people who were wedded to the God-Man.

The Catholic looks to the documents of the Church, as interpreted by the reigning pontiff, as his touchstone of reality, and the Protestant looks to the Holy Bible, as interpreted by the individual, as his touchstone of reality. But both have gone awry, because they have left out what George Fitzhugh called the only infallible authority in Christendom -- the Christian folk. The Gospel of Christ will be only an abstraction, an idea, which can be anything and everything to all men, if it is not given a concrete home in a culture. When we see Christianity embodied in a people, we have a touchstone of reality. We can say, “This is the Faith, and this is not the Faith.” The modern, technocratic man has a vested interest in an abstracted faith that is elastic enough to fit any set of values he creates in his perverted mind. His Christianity is a nebulous Christianity without substance. In contrast, the Christianity of the pre-20th century European was a concrete faith with a clearly delineated core. And one of the most striking contrasts between the older Europeans and the modern technocrats can be observed in their views on race. The pre-20th century European doesn’t really have a theory of race, and he doesn’t have a theory of race, because his racial identity and his Christianity are inseparable parts of his personality. He could no more separate them than he could separate his mind from his body, which, come to think of it, the modern technocrat does. The older European viewed his body as a spiritual entity. His skin color was part of his body, which contained his immortal soul. Mere corruptible flesh would not inherit eternal life, but his whiteness was part of his personality, which was a thing immortal. Hence the antique white man knew that racial diversity was spiritual suicide. Diversity destroys harmony in society and in the soul. Who wants to be scattered into a thousand diverse particles of dust?

The technocratic, modern man yearns for diversity. His satanic soul needs pandemonium. He wants the whole world to be one, unholy Babylon which he controls with his intellect; an intellect divorced from his race, his sex, and his God.

In the old private eye films, the police always fail to catch the murderer because they label two connecting events, such as the sudden "accidental" death of wealthy, old Joseph Finsbury and the financial insolvency of his heir and nearest relation, his nephew William Finsbury, as mere coincidence. And we play the part of the dense policemen when we fail to see that the PCR white man’s desire for diversity of race stems from his desire to separate himself from his God.

The Christianity our European forefathers embraced was diametrically opposed to diversity. In their pagan days, they were devoted to their hero-gods because they saw them as personalities committed to the struggle to defend the personalities of their devotees in the great battle against the forces of chaos and diversity. Christ did not destroy the hope and faith of those pagan Europeans. He revealed to them, in the fullness of His personality, that He was the fulfillment of their desire for a Hero-God who would sustain them in their battles to maintain their unique and undiversified manhood against all the forces of hell.

The modern, white pagan and the modern, anti-white, white liberal are united in their belief that the Christianity of the pre-20th century European was an interlude, a 1,500-year detour away from the true Christianity. Is that so? How can there be a 1,500-year interlude? No, the Christian poets, who articulate the faith of the Christian folk, and the Gospels themselves tell us a different story of the people of God, the Europeans, and their fight to maintain their faith in the Hero-God. At every juncture of European man’s history, Satan was there, trying to get European man to adopt a diverse Christianity, a synergistic Christianity, a faith with room for the Rosicrucian and the barbarian. In the 1500’s the people’s revolt against the synergistic Christianity took the form of the Protestant Reformation. And when that movement was corrupted by the devil, counter movements, such as the fundamentalist movement, were begun. Satan, however, has countered every Christian counterattack with a master stroke of his own. At present the Christian churches are synergistic Temples of Satan. And the key element of Satanism is racial diversity. There can be no faithful hearts to receive Him still if the people of God, the Europeans, the ones with the faithful hearts, no longer exist because they have become diversified.

History, common sense, and revelation all support the “racist,” Euro-centered Christianity of the pre-20th century Europeans. That is why the technocrat must be utopian rather than historical; nonsensical rather than sensible; unbiblical rather than biblical. But the technocratic white man’s flight from reality cannot change it. And the reality is that there never has been nor ever can be a black civilization. Blacks can only live and thrive in a civilization governed by whites. What has Africa become since the white man has left? We don’t need a crystal ball to know what will happen to a Negroized Europe and a Negroized U.S.A.

In his novel, Melmoth the Wanderer, Charles Maturin makes the point that before the devil can lay claim to a man’s soul, he must destroy his sanity and his memory. And such is the plight of the post-Christian European. A man who believes only in his own mind is insane. And a man who has abandoned the past in favor of a utopian future is a man without a memory. This is why a Christian European cannot reach the post-Christian rationalist. The PCR European no longer has a soul to call his own; he belongs to Satan.

What will emerge in the formerly European countries that are bereft of white Christian Europeans? Well, there will be no black civilization. Blacks can destroy civilizations, and when they are controlled they can be useful servants in a civilization. But since the PCR whites will not control them, they will destroy the technocratic civilization of the PCR whites. And then the Asians will step in. They are capable of building and maintaining a civilization, but they are incapable of building a Christian civilization. Every fiendish torture ever used by the white man on his fellow whites was first used by the Asian. They have a genius for cruelty. I know this all sounds so terribly impolite to say, but what has happened in the 20th century to make the European view the oriental as a kindly friend of Christian Europe? It seems to me that what would now be called hideous racist caricatures of Orientals, such as the depictions of Asians in the Fu Manchu novels of Sax Rohmer, paint a ridiculously benign portrait of the Oriental compared to the actual reality of his true nature. But then the PCR whites are not concerned with reality.

Herbert Butterfield once observed that the English people always left bridges to the rear whenever they went forward. They might alter a political structure, but they always maintained their ties to the past throughout the transitions in government. Butterfield approved of that instinct. And in that approval he echoes George Fitzhugh, who maintained, “Throw our paper platforms, preambles and resolutions, guaranties and constitutions, in the fire, and we should be none the worse off, provided we retained our institutions –and the necessities that begot, and have, so far, continued them.” Ah, there’s the rub. The PCR white man, by embracing racial diversity, has burnt the bridges to the past. The Western Christian tradition was spawned by white Europeans. It cannot be continued by simply preserving a document, or a philosophical treatise, or a political system, from the past. The heritage and the race are one.

The white Christian remnant is almost too small to be called a remnant; let’s call it a mustard- seed remnant. The challenge for that mustard-seed remnant is to maintain the bridge to His civilization against all odds. Shakespeare’s Agincourt has become every European’s battle. “We few, we happy few, we band of brothers” will hold until relieved by the Hero who has taught us that no cause is lost when it is consecrated to Him.+

Good Blood

Tirian had never dreamed that one of the results of an Ape’s setting up a false Aslan would be to stop people from believing in the real one.

-- C. S. Lewis in *The Last Battle*

It was the fate of the Hebrews to watch what had started out as a small heretical cult from within their nation become a worldwide religion that left them marginalized. How did this happen? The Hebrews forgot what the essence of their faith was: the fact of a personal God. While the Roman civilization was self-destructing from its refusal to accept a personal God, the Jewish faith became marginalized by the same type of refusal. Christ was the fulfillment of the Jews’ very personal faith. His rejection was like the rejection of a fiancée, to whom one became engaged after a long exchange of letters and phone calls but, when he showed up at the doorstep, was turned away.

It would seem that there is within man a great desire for a personal God as well as a contradictory desire for an impersonal, less human, and more abstracted God. We desire this, I think, because we sense that to be fully human, as Christ is, is too painful. No other poet has ever come close to Shakespeare in describing the pain and suffering involved in the process of becoming human. And Shakespeare shows us that few make it. We stop somewhere along in the humanizing process, create a false, abstracted image of God, the image closest to the point we have gotten to, and declare that image to be the authentic one.

How then can we ever become fully human if we worship at the altar of a false god? If we are forever playing Julian the Apostate by putting classical wings on Christ’s outstretched arms, it would seem that we are doomed to wander forever, like the flying Dutchman, unblessed, unforgiven, and unhallowed. I think the answer lies in the works of P. C. Wren and in the declaration of William Blake:

This Life’s dim Windows of the Soul
Distorts the Heavens from Pole to Pole
And leads you to Believe a lie
When you see with not thro the Eye.

Yes, we must have a vision, a beau ideal. And we must not accept our actions and thoughts that run counter to the beau ideal as reality because they outnumber our thoughts and actions directed toward the ideal. It is when the white heat is in our hearts that we see the beau ideal and behave like Beau Geste. That is reality; that is the vision that needs to be protected by the entire bureaucratic structure of society and the sacramental structure of the church.

The Catholic Church and the modern Protestant churches have followed the way of the Pharisees and the ancient Romans. The betrothed came to the door and was rejected because of his humanity. And the rejection stems from intellectual pride. We always insist that the voices of the prophets and the reality of the incarnate God be forced to fit our intellectual constructs. And our intellectual constructs are always wrong, because they come from disembodied brains and not the blood. Mary Augustus Evans, the Southern authoress, put it quite well when she said, “Good blood doesn’t lie.” When we are connected to God by a blood tie, whatever comes from the blood will be pure and true.

Adam and Eve had a filial, blood relationship with God. He was their Father, their progenitor. He certainly loved them, but did they love him? Well, obviously not enough. Satan tempted them, and they severed their blood tie to their father in order to study Him in the abstract. “Does God really mean that we should not eat the apple because it will harm us, or is He secretly afraid it will empower us?” That type of “studying” led to the loss of Eden. And the same type of study led to the loss of the new Eden.

European civilization was the second Eden. And it was a better Eden than the first, because in the second Eden God revealed Himself in His entirety through Jesus Christ. Of course the European Eden was not the literal Eden of the Bible. There was sin and death in the second Eden, but there was a presence, His presence, in the second Eden that held out the hope that death, the final enemy, would be defeated.

In our modern, anti-European civilization there is no hope that death will be defeated. There is only the hope that science will render death painless. And His presence has been replaced by the presence of Satan.

Herbert Butterfield, in his masterpiece, Christianity and History, said,

It may be true that nature and history are not separable in the last resort, but at the level at which we do most of our ordinary thinking it is important to separate them, important not to synthesise them too easily and too soon, important above all not thoughtlessly to assume that nature, instead of being the substructure, is the whole edifice or the crown. The thing which we have come to regard as history would disappear if students of the past ceased to regard the world of men as a thing against nature and the animal kingdom. In such circumstances the high valuation that has long been set upon human personality would speedily decline.

I think we should regard the blood and the heart in the same way. For ordinary purposes there is no such thing as a merely physical concept of human blood and the human heart. Heart and blood are mystical, spiritual entities. You have to overturn all of God’s revelation to man if you deny that heart and blood contain the soul of man and are his connecting links to God.

For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

To paraphrase Linus in Charlie Brown’s Christmas, “That’s what Christianity is all about, Mr. White-hating Technocrat.” And all the products of the scientific, rational, modern man have been created to detach man from his heart, which is where the true light of knowledge shines.

To use Butterfield’s term, for ordinary purposes there has only been one civilization of the heart, and that was the European civilization. Liberal-liberals say that civilization was evil. Conservative-liberals say we only need to preserve the intellectual processes and procedures of the old European civilization and not the heart and blood heritage of its people. (1) But the heart and blood of the white man is the soul of European civilization. Without it there is no civilization.

The democratic process, multiculturalism, universal brotherhood, and on and on… are all code words for the rule of Satan. When the white man once again looks to the light of knowledge in his own heart and blood, he will be equipped to fight the only war worth fighting, the war for sacred Europe.
_____________________________
(1) Patrick Buchanan is an example of the liberal-conservative. In a recent book he writes about the unnecessary war, the Second World War, but it was only unnecessary if you are a kinist, someone who believes that race and faith bind a nation together. If you believe, as Buchanan and his ilk do, that a nation is based on an idea, then World War II was necessary to defend the idea of the universality of democracy.

All the King’s Horses and All the King’s Men

It is difficult to say on what exact date institutional Christianity died, but it is not difficult to see that by the later half of the 20th century institutional Christianity, Protestant and Catholic, was dead. A wandering pilgrim stumbling through the rubble of institutional Christianity is forced to play detective. Why did this beautiful building crumble? There are fringe groups in both the Protestant and Catholic camps that will give you ready answers. “The building crumbled when we gave up on the Bible,” or “The building crumbled when we abandoned the Tridentine Mass.”

My own investigations turned me in a different direction from the fringe groups. I think the fringe groups’ views were tainted by party-line, vested interests.

I found that putting the rubble together again in order to ascertain how the building crumbled was a futile endeavor. Instead, I looked at the ideologies of the people who had been in charge of the building. Was there one common denominator among them, a common denominator powerful enough to destroy a strong edifice, to which I could point? I found there was. The leadership of the Protestants and the Catholics believed in a force more powerful than God. This belief was in stark contrast to that of Christians living before the 20th century. That new force, more powerful than God, was called science. Now, every word has multiple meanings; science can mean the study of nature, but science as a force, as a substitute religion, means ‘reality’. According to the leadership of Protestants and Catholics of our age, if one is thinking scientifically, one is thinking properly or realistically. In contrast, if one is thinking poetically, one is thinking in fantastical and unrealistic terms.

Scientific thinking, as we can see in Genesis, started with Satan. He wanted Adam and Eve to think realistically about the apple. “It won’t kill you; it will empower you.” And of course St. Thomas, that most realistic and scientific man, wanted us to know God by looking realistically at the natural world. Which leads us to the great rebellion: was a reformation necessary? Yes. The church needed to be redirected. It was heading for the swamp of desolation on the scientific express. But the Protestants did not divert the scientific express, they merely formed another express line. Did St. Paul deny the real presence? No, he did not. So why was it necessary for the Protestants to do so? But did St. Paul make the taking of the sacraments, in the prescribed form, the hallmark of the faith? And did he believe, in contrast to the Thomists, in a personal God above nature whom we could know without reference to nature or canon law?

The key point that a wandering pilgrim detective must keep before him is that Calvinism and Thomism are only explanations of the Christian Faith; they are not the Faith itself. Great saints have come out of both the Protestant and Catholic churches, but they have done so because they have drawn from a well-spring much deeper and purer than the well-spring recommended by their church. Conservatives in the Catholic Church, when they talk of getting back to their roots, go back to the very modern medievals. And conservatives in the Protestant church go back to Mr. Depravity, John Calvin. Why not go back to the original architect who said, “And lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.”

The wisest words of the 20th century were written by Herbert Butterfield:

It may be that nature and history are not separable in the last resort, but at the level at which we do most of our ordinary thinking it is important to separate them, important not to synthesize them too easily and too soon, important above all not thoughtlessly to assume that nature, instead of being the substructure, is the whole edifice or the crown. The thing which we have come to regard as history would disappear if students of the past ceased to regard the world of men as a thing apart – ceased to envisage a world of human relations set up against nature and the animal kingdom. In such circumstances the high valuation that has long been set upon human personality would speedily decline.

At the midpoint of the 20th century Butterfield faces the modern dilemma. Man has ceased to look on himself as a creature of God. He now looks on himself as a creature of the natural world in which the Christian God has a part only to the extent that He conforms to nature. This type of thinking completely alters every aspect of traditional Christianity. For instance, I once reviewed a book, by a supposedly conservative Catholic theologian, in which the theologian agonized over the meaning of the resurrection of the body. He rejected out of hand the “Victorian notion” that we met our loved ones, family and pets, in the flesh in the next world. Instead he settled for a combination of Buddhistic life-force concepts and Shamanistic incantations. Why? Because in his polluted brain that sounded more natural. But if one has never ceased to look on God as separate and above the natural process, and one stills looks upon man as a creature of God, then the resurrection of the body seems to be a very simple concept. It means what the simple-minded Victorians and all the simple-minded Christians, such as St. Paul, always thought it meant.

A reformation is needed in both the Protestant and Catholic churches. But it must come from out of the depths. It must come from poor, bare, unaccommodated man seeking his maker, and not from the contemplation of the natural world.

The Speedy Decline

“It may be that nature and history are not separable in the last resort, but at the level at which we do most of our ordinary thinking it is important to separate them, important not to synthesize them too easily and too soon, important above all not thoughtlessly to assume that nature, instead of being the substructure, is the whole edifice or the crown. The thing which we have come to regard as history would disappear if students of the past ceased to regard the world of men as a thing apart – ceased to envisage a world of human relations set up against nature and the animal kingdom. In such circumstances the high valuation that has long been set upon human personality would speedily decline.” -- Herbert Butterfield

Of course what Butterfield feared was coming in 1949 has come. Nature has become the whole edifice, and the old valuation of human personality has not just declined, it has disappeared. And let’s be clear what the discipline of viewing nature as the whole edifice is called; it is called ‘science.’

The Roman Catholic Church has been running scared for centuries as well as the Protestant churches. The Monkey Trial was a great indicator of this. The Roman Catholics stood on the sidelines in that battle, not wanting to appear unenlightened, while the mainstream liberal Protestants battled it out with the Fundamentalists. Of course the whole world has decided that the Fundamentalists were in the wrong. But were they? If one is wrong in one’s basic assumption, most everything that follows from that assumption will be incorrect. For instance, if I start with the assumption that sand is the best foundation for a house, every attempt to add on to the foundation will prove the folly of my initial assumption. In contrast, if I start with the assumption that concrete is the best stuff for a foundation, and later decide that cheap balsa wood is best for the window frames, then I will have flimsy windows, but I will still have a sturdy foundation.

The Fundamentalists’ assumption was correct: Man is separate from nature, at least separate from the nature defined by modern science, and that really is the issue. The Roman Catholic Church was content to stay in the theoretical realm: theoretically nature and man are one. Yes, if one defines nature in the Shakespearean way, holding a mirror up to nature, the nature of the human personality, which should be the object of all true studies of nature. But that is not what modern science does. It holds man up to a microscope and studies him as a biological specimen, as a product of nature, not as a personality with a living soul. The Fundamentalists saw this, or to be more accurate, felt it in their bones. The liberal Protestants, on the opposite side of the Fundamentalists, also saw much more clearly than the Roman Catholics what was at stake. And without the support of any organized church, the Fundamentalists lost the battle. The court victory meant nothing. The Fundamentalists lost.

The modern clergy are so enamoured of the scientific view of man that they really should replace their current clerical garb with white lab coats. What kind of future is there for us when nature alone is the edifice? One thinks of Captain Ahab standing up to Moby Dick, the symbol of dumb, impersonal nature, and asserting that a “personality stands here.” Can we do less than Ahab who had to do battle without the Lord?

It seems to be a trick of Satan to use the generic human to destroy the human. Humanity the abstraction is a slave of brute nature. But the human personality is a freeman, a child of God. To assert that, in the face of a nature worshipping clergy and a bio-technocratic modern world, is the primary duty and glory of a 21st century Christian.