The Faith and the Race Are One

I’ve had over 10 years now to adjust to the fact that I need glasses to read, but I still forget to take them with me when I go out. So if I need to read a label at a supermarket (to see how much food, if any, I’m getting with the chemical preservatives) or if I need to read the small print of a book at the bookstore, I have to ask for help from a person who did not forget to bring his glasses. But I’m lucky, considering that every other member of my family needed glasses from junior high school on. My older sister hated to wear her glasses. She believed the old adage that men don’t make passes at girls who wear glasses. That little adage almost cost us both our lives the night my sister drove me to basketball practice.

My high school basketball coach thought that we should practice at the same time that we played our games, and we played our games at night. So one night when she needed the car, my sister drove me to practice. On the way, I noticed a car pulling out of a driveway approximately 25 yards ahead of us. I did not, like most people, appreciate back-seat drivers, whether in the front seat or the back seat, so I didn’t say anything about the car to my sister. After all, it was a car, not a mouse; how could my sister not see it? Well, my sister was not wearing her glasses, and it seemed, by the rate of speed we were traveling, we were going to collide with the other car. I finally decided, at the risk of being called a back seat driver, that I should mention this fact. “Do you see that car in front of us?” No, she had not seen it. She slammed on the brakes, our car spun around, and we avoided a head-on collision by a hair’s breadth.

Now, at this point, the reader, who has better things to do than read boring reminiscences of my high school days (wait till I tell you how I made the winning basket in the big game) is probably wondering what the point of this story is. “Does this lead up to anything?” Why, yes, it does. It is a preface to a reluctant criticism of the leadership of the white, right wing. I hope this criticism will be taken in the spirit in which it is given. We are members of the same family, in the same vehicle, and I would like to prevent the wreck I see coming. Although it is a recent article that has provoked this response, my comments are based on thirty years of observing the white, right wing movement in action.

The white, right wingers’ fatal flaw is their lack of a religious vision. Now, I know the white, right wingers talk about our Germanic, Celtic, Greco-Roman, Christian heritage, but that kind of combo-sandwiching of traditions indicates the problem. The Europeans have only one tradition and one faith. When we make that faith and that tradition a side issue, or only one small component among other, more important components, like our genes, we are not responding to existence as the white Europeans of old responded to existence, and we cannot then claim any link to the white Europeans of the past.

It is ahistorical to ignore the white man’s Christianity. The New Age white leaders act as though they woke up one morning and discovered they were white. Hence, they prefer the white to the colored race, but they have no appreciation of the white man’s heritage, because they don’t place any great emphasis on the only thing that ever mattered to the white man, his faith.
The lack of a religious vision has paralyzed the right wing. The reason they always prophesy that “white people are beginning to wake up,” and always are sadly mistaken in their prophetic utterances, is because they have been seduced by one of the most seductive of all the sirens of modernity, the democratic siren. White Christians cannot campaign merely for equal rights within a secular, Godless utopia; they must rule in a Christian society.

If you try to micro-manage history for a purely secular result, history will always knock you flat on your back. The antique European, the Christian European, who took seriously our Lord’s injunction to “Seek ye first the kingdom of God... and all these things shall be added unto you,” was able to build Western civilization because his hope was not in this world only. That is the paradox. If you see only this world and act according to that vision, you will fail in this world, but if you act in accordance with Christ’s injunction to “seek ye first,” you will succeed in the things that really matter, to a far greater degree than the ‘this world only’ devotees. In this world only there is nothing but despair. Grim statistics are final and unalterable in such a world, barbarian hordes are invincible in such a world, and white and black, good and evil, are meaningless abstractions in such a world.

The right wingers need to step out of that world. But of course they cannot do so for merely pragmatic reasons. They must see what their European forefathers saw; they must see “their Master in the sky and call on Him to save.” Vision cannot be forced; if they do not see, we cannot follow them, for “if the blind leadeth the blind, shall they not both fall in a ditch?”

The sad truth is that the right wing leaders are not sufficiently anti-modern. They differ from the white liberals, because they feel, correctly, that the white technocrat wants to exclude them from the brave new technocratic world of the future. Hence their leadership consists of programs to reawaken whites so they will fight (democratically of course) for their rights in a multi-racial culture.

But by so urging, the right wingers are asking the Christian European to walk away from his heritage. This he cannot do. The reason there is such a disconnect between the white leaders and the white Christian remnant is because the remnant senses the right wing leaders are just as lost in the slough of modernity as the liberals are.

Sometimes two groups can be united in their opposition to a particular group or –ism, but still be in complete disagreement regarding what they are for. Such is the case, for instance, with the Southern agrarian and the communist. Both oppose capitalism, but they differ greatly on the reasons for opposing capitalism, and they differ greatly in what they favor as an alternative to capitalism. Such is also the case with the white, New Age, right wing leadership and the antique Christian. In fact, the contrasts are quite striking.

1) Democratic Government – Christian Europeans adopted republican forms of government when they felt, quite possibly wrongly, that their rulers were insufficiently Christian. They did not view the bastardized corruption of republican government, secular democracy, as a magic talisman that was self-evidently the end of man’s search for a perfect government. Far from it. The antique Christian knew that where God was not sovereign, there could be no true government.

2) Other Races. At first glance, the right wing leaders and the older Christian seem to be in agreement. The right wing opposes multi-culturalism and so does the Christian. So they are in agreement, right? No, they are not. The right wingers properly point out that multi-culturalism does not mean, “I’ll respect your culture, and in return you respect mine”; it means that the white man must have no culture and must worship the colored cultures. On that there is agreement between the Christian and the right winger. But the right wing whites go on to claim that they believe that the colored has a right to his culture just as the white man has a right to his. All the right wingers are asking for, they tell us, is a niche for the white man in the great pyramid of cultures.

This is not what the Antique European is looking for. He knows that such a thing is impossible. The colored barbarians do not believe in respecting other cultures; they believe in conquering other cultures. If a white plays the ‘respect other cultures’ game, he will always be the only one playing. And he won’t be playing for long.

There is another aspect of the ‘respect other cultures’ issue. In the modern, decadent social sciences, such as anthropology, we are informed it is wrong to say that someone or some group has no culture. “Everyone has a culture,” we are told. But in the non-anthropological sense, there is only one culture. Only the Europeans made the attempt to weave faith, hope, and charity into their culture. From a Christian standpoint, it would be morally wrong to respect the “cultures” of the colored races. Did the Spanish respect the Aztec culture? Did the Brits respect the Hindu culture? No, they respected their God, who called all men to abandon heathen idols and come to Him, and they respected Him too much to leave individual heathens in perpetual darkness. To subdue and convert, to the extent that such a conversion was possible, was the way of the non-democratic, pre-20th century European. And he would rather fight to the last man than be part of a multi-colored, many-tiered pyramid of nations.

3) Democratic Quakers. I recently saw an article by one of the right-wing leaders in which he warned against the dangers of assassinating Barack Obama. I completely agree with the author on that issue. It would not aid white people if Obama were assassinated. Tyrannicide is not outside the ken of the white European tradition, but Obama is not a tyrant whose death would bring great benefits to the white race. He is a small, little cog in the great liberal machine. Killing him would be harmful to whites.

However, the author in question goes on to condemn all violence under any circumstances. That type of thinking goes against our European Christian heritage. There are things so hideous, such as the murder of a baby in his mother’s womb, the rape of our women, the torture-murder of innocent young people like Channon Christian and Christopher Newsome, that they cry out to heaven for redress. You cannot claim to respect the white European heritage and then tell white people to dogmatically renounce all violence. That type of advice is irresponsible at a time when our “laws,” passed by white technocrats, have left white people almost defenseless against the barbarians in our midst. I recall a scene in Walter Scott’s novel The Black Dwarf in which some border raiders have abducted a Scottish lady and taken her across the border. An old man advises the young men not to break the law and be violent. A member of the rescue party replies angrily to him, “Don’t talk to us about our heroic ancestors and then tell us to do nothing.”

Certainly there are prudential concerns, but violence in defense of Christian men and women and Christian principles should never be routinely condemned. And we should always keep in mind that the white man is in Hamlet’s position. They have murdered our King and our Father (1); if we don’t set things right, who will?

There is something called a Euro-Conference scheduled for early November. If just one lonely white man meets a lonely white woman there and they subsequently marry and have children as a result, the conference will not have been wasted. But I hope some European leader at the conference will dare to link Europe and Christ and denounce anyone who tries to tear them asunder in either word or deed.
_______________________
(1) Grant me some poetic license here. They have murdered Christian civilization and are murdering His people and His little children. “Let them come unto me.” Does not Christ our King and Father suffer when such murders take place?

The Whiteman at Bay

I do not subscribe to the traditionalist Catholic viewpoint of history which claims that the 13th century was the apogee of Christian civilization, followed by a steady decline in every subsequent century. Nor do I agree with the Protestants who view all of European history prior to the Reformation as the age of darkness, in contrast to the post-Reformation age of light. I have a personal preference (for reasons I have stated in an earlier article) for the 19th century, but I see all of European man’s history, prior to the 20th century, as a successful effort, the only successful effort in the history of mankind, to keep Satan at bay. And by saying that, I do not mean to suggest that Satan has not had his individual successes within European civilization. What I am affirming is that Europeans, despite the onslaughts of Satan, had maintained a civilization that acknowledged the light of the world and were aware of their obligations to stay focused on that light.

All dates on a matter such as the decline of the West are arbitrary, but I think 1914 is a fairly accurate date to use when we are talking about the point in history when Satan was no longer being kept at bay. He was loose. And by the mid-1960’s he had institutionalized his values throughout all of Christian Europe. So now the white Christian male is being kept at bay by Satan.

As one who is opposed to the reign of Satan, I am concerned about the failure in the last fifty years of every European counterattack. It would seem, judging by the recent European failures to uproot him, that Satan is very difficult to uproot once he has taken up residence in a civilization. But is he invincible? Our ancestors’ success against him indicates that he is not.

What then do we lack that our ancestors had? We lack the heroic, integral way of responding to adversity. We no longer see an evil and say, “this must not go on,” (1) and strike out at the evil. Instead, we form “think tanks” and study groups. We spend years of fruitless effort in trying to get someone elected who will address the particular evil we are trying to combat. In short, we are Hamlet prior to his conversion from confused graduate student to the lawful King of Denmark. We are “crawling around between heaven and earth.”

Satan wants European man to see life as an intelligence test in which the person with the highest score wins. But when we perceive life as Satan does, we always lose. We lose because we are not angelic beings. When we abstract our minds from our blood, we become like unto Satan, because when we abstract, we “believe a lie.”

To abstracted reason, evil appears good because it seems pleasurable, while virtue appears evil because it seems painful. In order to discover that the reverse is true, mankind must resist the pleasures in which their abstracted minds encourage them to indulge and perform the virtuous deeds that their blood, animated by His spirit, calls on them to perform. I have known women who rejected motherhood because they could not stand the idea of pain. And yet what mother does not rejoice when she gives birth? In Shakespeare’s poem, “The Rape of Lucrece,” Sextus Tarquinius cannot resist his idée fixe; he must have the fair Lucrece. With what result?

Even in this thought through the dark night he stealeth,
A captive victor that hath lost in gain;
Bearing away the wound that nothing healeth,
The scar that will, despite of cure, remain;
Leaving his spoil perplex'd in greater pain.
She bears the load of lust he left behind,
And he the burden of a guilty mind.
He like a thievish dog creeps sadly thence;
She like a wearied lamb lies panting there;
He scowls and hates himself for his offence;
She, desperate, with her nails her flesh doth tear;
He faintly flies, sneaking with guilty fear;
She stays, exclaiming on the direful night;
He runs, and chides his vanish'd, loath’d delight.

Our ancestors who built Christian Europe lived life in the heroic mode. They did not feel called upon to match wits with the devil. They felt called upon to defend their souls and their civilization from the onslaughts of the devil. The Christian hero cares only about one thing: Is his cause God’s cause? And if it is, he sallies forth and leaves the rest to God.

There's a special Providence in the fall of a sparrow.
If it be now, 'tis not to come: if it be not to
come, it will be now: if it be not now,
yet it will come; the readiness is all.
Since no man has ought of what he
leaves. What is't to leave betimes?

Every society has men of courage. But it takes more than courage to maintain a Christian civilization or to mount a counterattack against a satanic civilization. It takes courage and vision. And the “vision thing” of which George Bush senior was so dismissive is what has been lacking and is still lacking in the ranks of the far right.

Twenty-five years ago I would have called the abortion issue the central issue of our times. But now I see that legalized abortion is the result of the anti-European ethos of the modern world. Anti-European whites legalized it and anti-European whites and barbarians of color constitute the unholy alliance that maintains legalized infanticide. Thus, the central issue is the restoration of Christian Europe. From that restoration will come the restoration of laws protecting babies in their mother’s wombs and other laws necessary for the welfare of a Christian people. But first there must be a restoration. And that is why the Sons of Martha should never and can never lead a counterrevolutionary movement. The Sons of Martha always get lost in the household details of the movement and lose sight of the real issue of the war. The restoration of white civilization, for instance, cannot be divorced from the issue of the restoration of Christian civilization. But the Sons of Martha divorce the two. They see that there are professed white Christians maniacally opposed to white Europeans and that there are professed white Christians who are in favor of segregation and white sovereignty in white countries. So instead of trying to ascertain who are the true Christians, they treat Christianity as a washout and look for a more practical way to bring people to the banner of White Europe. But in doing so, they leave their movement without a metaphysic.

This fact was made abundantly clear to me a few years back when I read an article by an American Son of Martha in a right-wing British magazine called The Spearhead. The author maintained that white people needed a religion of their own to replace Christianity if they were going to combat the anti-European forces arrayed against them. In his Son of Martha logic, religion was something one could simply pick up for pragmatic purposes. “We need a religion to beat the barbarians – let’s buy one at the religion store.” It doesn’t work that way, of course. European man has a religion, he has the religion, and it has always been his religion. When the barbarian truly converts to the white man’s religion, he supports the white hierarchy. In Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn’s encyclopedic work on Europe, he tells in the chapter on Britain of an old Indian (the real India) who wistfully yearns for the return of the British Rajah. That old man is the British equivalent of Uncle Remus.

The good news for white folk is that the Sons of Mary have not yet begun to fight. The liberals and the barbarians have only beaten the Sons of Martha. But the bad news is that the Sons of Martha show no signs of stepping down and recognizing that the “impractical” Sons of Mary are the only men who have the vision to lead a successful counterrevolution. The Sons of Martha do not believe that “without vision the people perish.” They believe that what rationalism has destroyed, namely Western civilization, rationalism can restore. ‘Tis not so, it never has been, and it never will be. Only a faith that holds the purely rational, the purely empirical, and the purely scientific in contempt can hope to breach the walls and eventually capture and destroy Castle Babylon. +
____________

(1) Squeers caught the boy firmly in his grip; one desperate cut had fallen on his body--he was wincing from the lash and uttering a scream of pain--it was raised again, and again about to fall--when Nicholas Nickleby, suddenly starting up, cried 'Stop!' in a voice that made the rafters ring.

'Who cried stop?' said Squeers, turning savagely round.

'I,' said Nicholas, stepping forward. 'This must not go on.'

'Must not go on!' cried Squeers, almost in a shriek.

'No!' thundered Nicholas.

Aghast and stupefied by the boldness of the interference, Squeers released his hold of Smike, and, falling back a pace or two, gazed upon Nicholas with looks that were positively frightful.

'I say must not,' repeated Nicholas, nothing daunted; 'shall not. I will prevent it.'

Squeers continued to gaze upon him, with his eyes starting out of his head; but astonishment had actually, for the moment, bereft him of speech.

'You have disregarded all my quiet interference in the miserable lad's behalf,' said Nicholas; 'you have returned no answer to the letter in which I begged forgiveness for him, and offered to be responsible that he would remain quietly here. Don't blame me for this public interference. You have brought it upon yourself; not I.'

'Sit down, beggar!' screamed Squeers, almost beside himself with rage, and seizing Smike as he spoke.

'Wretch,' rejoined Nicholas, fiercely, 'touch him at your peril! I will not stand by, and see it done. My blood is up, and I have the strength of ten such men as you. Look to yourself, for by Heaven I will not spare you, if you drive me on!'

'Stand back,' cried Squeers, brandishing his weapon.

'I have a long series of insults to avenge,' said Nicholas, flushed with passion; 'and my indignation is aggravated by the dastardly cruelties practised on helpless infancy in this foul den. Have a care; for if you do raise the devil within me, the consequences shall fall heavily upon your own head!'

He had scarcely spoken, when Squeers, in a violent outbreak of wrath, and with a cry like the howl of a wild beast, spat upon him, and struck him a blow across the face with his instrument of torture, which raised up a bar of livid flesh as it was inflicted. Smarting with the agony of the blow, and concentrating into that one moment all his feelings of rage, scorn, and indignation, Nicholas sprang upon him, wrested the weapon from his hand, and pinning him by the throat, beat the ruffian till he roared for mercy.

--Nicholas Nickleby by Charles Dickens

The Sons of Martha

I reject the modern Catholic-Quaker notion that Christianity is a pacifistic religion. Christianity is a fighting faith. However, we Christians fight in "defense of" rather than to "stomp on." And I think a Christian must always put himself at that part of the fort at which the enemy has chosen to launch the main body of his troops. It does no good to defend the south wall when the north wall is being besieged.

Currently, it is the white European wall of the fort that is being attacked. Everywhere, the idea that white Europeans, cooperating with God's grace, created a civilization that is worth emulating is under attack, which is why I subscribe to so-called 'racist' publications. The men behind the magazines have good instincts, and they sense where the good lies. But they are Sons of Martha. They need a leader from the ranks of the Sons of Mary who can show them that the bastardized Christianity which has destroyed all that is good and noble in the West can only be defeated by a true, noble, heroic Christianity. Neo-Darwinism and fascism are not sufficient to defeat post-Christian satanism.

Unchurched

I have been told, at different times in my life, that I was not a Catholic by official representatives of all three major branches of the Catholic Church, the Novus Ordo branch, the traditionalist branch, and the Eastern Rite branch. It angered me each time it happened, but it angers me no more. I’ll gladly give them the title of Catholic and call myself an unchurched Christian.

What the churchmen and their lackeys fail to realize is that faith takes precedence over incorporation into the Church. I needed to believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of God before I had an interest in joining their church. I had a vision, not a blinding, pure vision like St. Paul’s, but a misty one that gave me hope for an even clearer vision in the future. And the process of belief is not radically different for a cradle Catholic. At some point the “vision thing” must come into play. Mere mechanical reception of the sacraments will not sustain a person who has not moved, through his own free will, toward the light.

I entered the Catholic Church because I thought my vision of the faith was in line with the professed doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. When I discovered, over the course of twenty-seven years, that my faith and Catholic doctrine were incompatible, it was not hard to decide what to jettison. Faith in Him is much more precious to me than the right to be called a Roman Catholic.

If I wanted, I could twist the documents as the traditionalists do to show how in theory I am really a Roman Catholic and those other guys are not. But the Church’s faith is more than its stated faith as expressed in various church documents. It is revealed in how the Church interprets and how the Church practices what is stated in the documents. And in that regard if I stated my main objection to the Catholic Church since the Middle Ages, it would be this: I object to the Church’s consistent and methodical de-emphasis of the importance of belief in Christ in favor of incorporation into the Roman Catholic system. The system, in Roman Catholicism, is more important than the person of God, and as an inevitable consequence, more important than the person in the pew. The impersonal faith of the Roman Catholic Church is diametrically opposed to the personal faith of St. Paul whom the Catholic Church claims to revere as a saint. Dostoyevsky, who had much in common with St. Paul, points out the extreme dichotomy between Christianity and Roman Catholicism in the Grand Inquisitor section of The Brothers Karamazov.

The Church de-emphasizes Christ and extols pagan philosophy in defiance of the hungry everyman who desires mercy and not sacrifice. It’s true that worldly success is more readily obtained within an organization such as the Catholic Church, but what is worldly success? Was not the whole world, before the coming of Christ, sickened unto death with a hope that was in this world only?

Protestantism as a reaction to Christless Catholicism was a necessary one. To be freed from the tyranny of pagan philosophy was a great blessing. But the desire for worldly success subverted much of the reaction. Calvinism, hatched by an organizational mind and adhered to by those with faith in this world only, gave Protestantism an anti-Christian taint that has still not been removed. It is certain, however, that there is a Christian undercurrent to Protestantism that has blessed the world. The sincere Protestants, pejoratively called ‘Christers,’ have kept alive an appreciation for the personal Savior that St. Paul saw and heard on the road to Damascus. It’s easy to sneer at the born-again types who talk about a personal relationship with Christ because they are so often the victims of mere enthusiasm rather than the recipients of divine grace. But their theology is correct: Christianity is about a personal relationship with Christ; it is simply harder to achieve than the born-again types understand.

The Master’s words about Faith and the child go to the heart of the issue. Before we are polluted with some organization’s explanation of the story, we hear the Christ story and we fall in love with the hero of that story. I know it was like that with me. And when I heard the Presbyterian Church’s explanation of the Christ story, I never quite believed what they were saying about my hero. When I returned to the Christian faith, having lost it when assaulted by the scientific world, it was to the Faith of my childhood that I returned, not to the Presbyterian Church. Catholicism only entered the picture because I thought, erroneously, that the faith of my childhood and Catholicism were compatible.

When C. S. Lewis wrote Pilgrim’s Regress, an allegorical tale of his return to Christianity, Tolkien told him that he hadn’t really converted at all, that he had simply returned to puritanical Irish Protestantism. But Tolkien, being a paganized Catholic, did not understand Christianity. Lewis had not returned to Irish Protestantism, he had returned to that first, pure, clean vision of Jesus Christ that was vouchsafed to him as a child. And he held to that vision the rest of his life, despite onslaughts from Tolkien, academia, and the brave new scientized world that surrounded him.

It certainly has been a master stroke of the devil to use the machinery of the Catholic Church to lead men and women away from Christ. But that’s what comes from aligning one’s church with the two smarter, but crueler older brothers and jettisoning the third dumb brother. It seems we never will believe that “the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God.” But some Christians once believed it, and lived and died with contempt for the wisdom of the world. Like the forty just men in the old Jewish tale, they were and are the leaven of the church, and they don’t reside exclusively in one denomination.

There will always be some heroes of the Faith who will wade through the swamp of Catholic paganism and climb the mountain that leads to Christ. And they will do this because they hear a personal God of love calling them and not because a clerical salesman has invited them to join a religious country club for V.I.P.s.

The Sons of Martha have grown cruel. They have forgotten the gentle rebuke of the Savior and have made practical, worldly wisdom the whole sum of the Faith. Now, when the Church and the world it worships is more maniacally aligned than ever before against all things spiritual, is the time to assert one’s belief in the Fairy Prince to whom the Sons of Mary as well as the practical Sons of Martha owe their existence.