Alexander Solzhenitsyn, R. I. P.

It is not possible to do justice to a moral giant like Alexander Solzhenitsyn in an obituary, so let me confine myself to simply stating his importance to me.

I loved his novels, but Dostoevsky will always, in my heart, be the Russian novelist. I admired Solzhenitsyn’s courageous criticism of Russian communism, but I can’t say his critique improved on Whittaker Chambers’ magnificent critique, Witness. The aspect of Solzhenitsyn’s life that had the most profound influence on me was his criticism of the Western democracies. Fresh from the Gulag, he told the liberals of the West that Christianity, not liberal democracy, was the answer to communism.

I don’t admire a man because he suffers in a prison camp. Plenty of evil men have suffered in prison camps – witness John McCain. I admire a man for his vision. And it was Solzhenitsyn’s insight that the Western democracies were just as anti-Christian as Russian communism that had the greatest impact on my life.

The main character in How Green Was My Valley says after the death of his father in a mining accident, “Men like my father can never die.” There are noble souls who live their lives in such a way that one must conclude that the human soul is indeed made of something that never dies. They confirm for us the hope that is in our hearts. That was Solzhenitsyn’s greatest legacy to all of us. +

Jesse Helms, R. I. P.

Like Roland and Augustus Pinochet, he took his stand and held it, never yielding unto death.

William F. Buckley Jr., R.I.P.

I was saddened when I heard of his death. But I was saddened in an “everyman’s death diminishes me” sense. I did not feel the same sense of sorrow that I felt when Samuel Francis died. With Samuel Francis, I felt one of my own had died, which was not the case with William F. Buckley.

Mr. Buckley certainly doesn’t need my praise in passing; he will have his eulogists. It will be said that no man did more for the conservative cause. I can’t agree with that assessment. I think no man did more damage to the conservative cause. By linking the capitalist faith with conservatism, Buckley destroyed conservatism. It is the liberals who should applaud Buckley, not the genuine conservatives. But the genuine conservatives are gone, and even the liberal fusionist types like Buckley have been replaced by straight capitalists such as Rush Limbaugh.

I was somewhat surprised at the rather brief, perfunctory obituaries William F. Buckley received in the mainstream press. I suppose, at his death, he who had helped marginalize so many of the cultural conservatives, such as Samuel Francis, had become marginalized himself.

John Tyndall: Lest We Forget

In the fall of '05 I wrote a brief R.I.P. for that brave heart of Britain, Mr. John Tyndall. I never met the man personally, but I miss him a great deal. Like Samuel Francis, Mr. Tyndall fought the good fight and suffered much at the hands of liberal and "conservative" one-world globalists. Here, I would like to discuss three different issues that he discussed in his publication, The Spearhead, shortly before his death.

1) The issue of repatriation: should the British National Party hold to its policy of expelling all non-whites from Britain?

It was Mr. Tyndall’s position, which I agree with, that the BNP should stick to its ‘no compromise’ position and continue to campaign for the expulsion of all non-whites from Britain. Some young upstarts in the party thought the party should accept the non-whites already in Britain, even allowing them into the BNP, and then campaign on the new policy that no more non-whites be permitted in Britain. They advanced this policy because they thought it was more practical and not because they thought Tyndall’s goals were not desirable.

Tyndall’s response was that you always should campaign for what you deem as right, being fully aware of its impossibility for the present, because a victory in which you do not achieve your goal is not a victory. I would add that if the British people were brought to a mindset where they could see the wisdom of allowing only whites to come into Britain then they could be just as easily persuaded to gradually relocate all the non-whites. (An exchange with South Africa: their whites for the British blacks would be one possibility.)

2) It is not because of a lack of moderation on the part of its advocates that the white cause is losing in Britain and America.

Mr. Tyndall made this point in a speech he gave during his last visit to the United States. In thousands of talks throughout Britain he found that white Britons were in sympathy with his cause. But they would not support his party. Why? Because, Mr. Tyndall pointed out, his party had no power. People were afraid of losing jobs or being imprisoned for support of the white cause. This is why, Mr. Tyndall concluded, it was necessary for white nationalists to achieve power, and it is why he continued to support the BNP. Unfortunately Mr. Tyndall is right about that. Human beings in the aggregate, but not in every particular, will always go with the powerful rather than the principled. Which brings us to the third issue.

3) Mr. Tyndall had a running debate with an older, counterrevolutionary gentleman. The counterrevolutionary thought parliamentary democracy was over and that white Britons should develop an elite band of white counterrevolutionaries and take over Britain.

Tyndall’s response was that there was no support for such a movement and that British nationalists should continue to work for electoral victories. Both the counterrevolutionary gentleman and Mr. Tyndall agreed on the desirability of a white Britain, they just disagreed on the means of achieving it. And I should also note that Mr. Tyndall did not oppose a counterrevolution, like so many American conservatives do, because he thought democracy was sacred or that violent counter-revolution was bad. He opposed it because he thought a white Britain could be brought about electorally and that it could not be brought about by counterrevolution.

On this issue, I both agree and disagree with Mr. Tyndall. On the one hand, it is true that there is no support for a counterrevolution in Britain, but it is equally true that the BNP has had very little success. They win a local election every once in awhile and the liberals and the conservatives get upset, but they never make the sweeping gains necessary to actually have an impact on national policy. And as the country goes increasingly nonwhite, the chances for white victories in elections have become even more remote. I think white British nationalists should continue to run for office, but they should also start developing a counterrevolutionary movement. There is a time for extreme measures. And if the existing British government does not halt the tide of color, and it certainly appears they will not, then white Britons should prepare extreme measures to deal with the tide of color. It is the most serious invasion they will ever face. When the Saxons supplanted the Welsh, it was a tragedy because the Welsh culture was Christian and the Saxon culture was not. But over time, the Saxons adopted Christianity and formed a Christian culture. They were the superior culture when the largely pagan, partly Christian Normans invaded. And over time the Saxon culture Christianized the Normans. But it will not be thus when the people of color complete their invasion. Only the white European adopts, if he sees it as superior to his own, the religion of the conquered. The nations of color have never adopted the religion of a conquered people. They respect only strength, and a conquered people’s religion is seen as weak.

There is such strength in the British people; maybe at the last trump, when the invasion seems almost complete, they will fight for God, kith and kin, and country.

I think the same principles that apply to Britain also apply to the United States. We, after all, are an extension of white Britain. It’s difficult to say which country is in a more deplorable state. The similarities are striking. Both countries face a tide of color that their white governments are unwilling to stop. There seem to be greater pockets of resistance in Britain than in the U. S., but neither country seems to have much of a resistance movement. There also seems to be more of an absolute, unshakable, messianic belief in democracy in this country than in Britain. One wishes that the warning of T. S. Eliot would have been heeded – "The term, democracy, as I have said again and again, does not contain enough positive content to stand alone against the forces you dislike – it can easily be transformed by them. If you will not have God (and he is a jealous God), you should pay your respects to Hitler and Stalin."

When the colored tide becomes overwhelming, there will probably be an upsurge of white nationalism in the European people. It will be too late at that point to save America or Europe, but it could be the start of a reclamation effort and a discovery of the roots of the only true civilization the world has ever known.

England's Answer
Truly ye come of The Blood; slower to bless than to ban,
Little used to lie down at the bidding of any man.
Flesh of the flesh that I bred, bone of the bone that I bare;
Stark as your sons shall be – stern as your fathers were.
Deeper than speech our love, stronger than life our tether,
But we do not fall on the neck nor kiss when we come together.
My arm is nothing weak, my strength is not gone by;
Sons, I have borne many sons, but my dugs are not dry.
Look, I have made ye a place and opened wide the doors,
That ye may talk together, your Barons and Councillors –
Wards of the Outer March, Lords of the Lower Seas,
Ay, talk to your gray mother that bore you on her knees! –
That ye may talk together, brother to brother's face –
Thus for the good of your peoples – thus for the Pride of the Race.
Also, we will make promise. So long as The Blood endures,
I shall know that your good is mine: ye shall feel that my strength is yours:
In the day of Armageddon, at the last great fight of all,
That Our House stand together and the pillars do not fall.
Draw now the threefold knot firm on the ninefold bands,
And the Law that ye make shall be law after the rule of your lands.
This for the waxen Heath, and that for the Wattle-bloom,
This for the Maple-leaf, and that for the Southern Broom.
The Law that ye make shall be law and I do not press my will,
Because ye are Sons of The Blood and call me Mother still.
Now must ye speak to your kinsmen and they must speak to you,
After the use of the English, in straight-flung words and few.
Go to your work and be strong, halting not in your ways,
Balking the end half-won for an instant dole of praise.
Stand to your work and be wise – certain of sword and pen,
Who are neither children nor Gods, but men in a world of men!

--Rudyard Kipling

Augustus Pinochet, R.I.P.

He took his stand and held it, never yielding unto death.

Samuel Francis, R.I.P.

‘They are slaves who will not choose
Hatred, scoffing, and abuse,
Rather than in silence shrink
From the truth they needs must think:
They are slaves who dare not be
In the right with two or three.’

There is no one who can fill the void left by Samuel Francis’s death. He was the last white intellectual with moral courage. I once saw a white commentator defend Muhammad Ali’s Black Muslim faith by saying, “He doesn’t hate white people; he just loves black people.” Well, of course the major tenet of Black Islam is the hatred of white people, and what the black-worshipping white commentator said of Ali could be more justifiably be said of Samuel Francis: He didn’t hate black people; he simply loved his own people.

But of course anyone who wants to preserve European values and who esteems the European people is considered evil by black and white. Alone – and I want to stress that word ‘alone’ – Mr. Samuel Francis pointed out that multiculturalism was not, ‘You respect my culture and I’ll respect yours’; it was in reality, ‘The white man must worship the black culture and hate anything white.’

Hounded off the ‘conservative’ Washington Times staff for his refusal to go with the pro-immigration flow, Mr. Francis continued to write columns published in Middle American News and his own newsletter.

Nearly every two-bit commentator on the conservative side of the ledger likes to present himself as a courageous voice of truth crying out in the wilderness, but in reality these conservative commentators are sycophants, moral eunuchs, spouting the same cowardly litany of conformity as their liberal counterparts. Only Samuel Francis had the courage to speak the truth, ‘though the whole world stood against him.'