If Ye Break Faith

In the modern world all the authors from the past have fallen into neglect. But even before the great denial of everything European, one very great author had already been thrown on to the trash heap. That author is Thomas Nelson Page. He certainly deserved a place in American letters alongside of Melville and Hawthorne and above such pygmy’s as Twain, Faulkner, and Anderson. But he was Southern and he was Christian (1), a combination that was most distasteful to the self-anointed arbiters of literary greatness.

Page’s work will endure among true Europeans because he writes about the permanent things. He was consciously archaic because he rejected the Godless wisdom of the wizards of science and progress and remained true to the values of old Europe, which he saw embodied in the institutions of the old South. In the closing chapter of his novel Red Rock, Page expresses his rejection of modernity, a rejection that he held to throughout his literary career.

In the old stories, the climax used to be considered attained when the young couple became engaged. Like the hero and heroine of the fairy tales of our youth, in that golden land of “Once-upon-a-time,” all that was to be told after they became engaged was that “they married and lived happily ever after.” In the modern stories, however, this seems to be but the beginning of new adventures. Marriage, which used to be the entrance to bliss unending, appears to be now but the “gate of the hundred sorrows;” and the hero and heroine wed only to find that they loved someone else better, and pine to be disunited. They spend the rest of their lives trying to get unmarried. Nothing is so unconventional as to love one’s own husband or wife, and nothing so tame as to live pure and true to one’s vows in spirit as well as in fact.

It must be said, at once, that this is not a story of that kind. The people described in it knew nothing of that sort of existence. Any reader who chooses to go farther in this history must do so with the full knowledge that such is the case, and that the married life of the young couples will be found as archaic and pure as that of our first parents, before modern wisdom discovered that the serpent was more than the devil, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil more than a tree of knowledge.

Page wrote poetry, novels, short stories, history and books for children. There is always something to be gleaned from an author like Page. He is one of the many giants that the late nineteenth century produced. Staring at the brave new world of the twentieth century, they bid the European go deeper rather than cosmic.

In Red Rock, Page writes about the men and women of the South immediately following the Civil War. If we compare their resistance to the forces of modernity – science, capitalism, Negro-worship, and Christ-less Christianity – to our own resistance, we can see how far we have fallen and where we need to go.

The South after the War was a European, Kinist society. Quite probably the Southern European nation was the most European nation on the face of the earth. Defeated in battle, they won, for a time, the “peace.” There were a number of components that allowed the South to defeat the forces of modernity:

• They did not regard man-made law as superior to God’s law.
  When the carpetbaggers’ law conflicted with the code of chivalry, the Southern men defied it. In Red Rock, the Southern man told their new governors that they had two rules: 1) “If you touch our women, we’ll kill you,” and 2) “We will not be ruled by Negroes.” When those two rules were violated, the Southern men went outside the law.
  
  In contrast, those opposed to black rule and race-mixing today never (except for a few samizdat-press bloggers) recommend going outside the parameters of modern democracy. (2) Such people do not really believe in the values of old Europe because they put adherence to the democratic process above loyalty to European civilization. Lindbergh was right when he claimed that the modern struggle had nothing to do with political systems; it was and is about race. If you accept the rules of your enemy, who only allows you to vote for a slow death or a quick death, you will be bereft of everything that Europeans once held dear.
  
• The women remained loyal.
  Buried somewhere in the pile of papers on my desk is an article by a Book-of-Common-Prayer, old rite, Anglican clergyman. In the article, the reverend, citing St. Paul, says that in every civilization the women are the last to go over to the devil, but when they do go, they are worse than the men. Shakespeare made the same observation in Macbeth, and Tennyson echoed the sentiment in the Idylls of the King. (3)
  
  During the Babylonian captivity, which the North called ‘Reconstruction,’ the Southern women remained loyal to the Southern white males. There was a spiritual symmetry between the Southern male and female. The male’s willingness to go forth in defense of hearth and home earned the female’s love and loyalty. And her love increased the male’s ardor to protect and defend which in turn increased the woman’s fidelity.
  
  The testimony of men like Page, as unbelievable as it seems in our modern age, cannot be doubted; the Southern women remained faithful to their men and their civilization despite facing starvation and dislocation. Only a tiny minority broke rank and went with the carpetbaggers and the Negroes. Today it is exactly the opposite. Only a tiny fragment of females, much smaller than the remnant of white males, have remained loyal to the white race.
  
  It is customary to blame the infidelity of the white female on the white male. There is some justification for that accusation; the white male has done little to inspire fidelity. But ultimately, the blame for any sin must be placed squarely on the shoulders of the sinner. White females, with some heroic exceptions, have descended to the lowest level of creation. They were wives and mothers in a civilization consecrated to Him, which is a position above the angels, and they descended from those heights to become concubines to Satan and his minions. “O Hamlet, what a falling off was there!”
  
• The white males stood tall.
  There were some Southern white men who cut deals with the usurpers and the Negroes, but in the main the whites stood together, which is why they prevailed.
  
  Today the situation is quite different. Some of the most virulent anti-white groups and anti-white white men are from the South. Witness the Southern Poverty Law Center and Thomas Fleming.
  
• Northern opposition to the Southern whites was not a monolith.
  Certainly the men who passed the Reconstruction legislation in Congress and the evangelical Christians who went over to Unitarianism and Negro worship were maniacally opposed to the Southern whites, but there was another element in the North, people who were sympathetic to the Southern white. Let me provide a short anecdote. My grandfather’s grandfather fought for the North in the Civil War. He lived well past age 90, so my grandfather had many opportunities to talk with him about the War. And I fortunately had many opportunities to talk with my grandfather about his grandfather. I believe this is called an oral tradition.
  
  What my great, great, grandfather told my grandfather is pertinent to the issue of the Northern sentiment toward the South. “They told me I was fighting for the Union. If I had known I was fighting to free the negroes, I would have joined the other side.”
  
  A committed elite always governs, but that elite is dependent on their ability to confuse and dazzle the masses. When their patter no longer confuses and dazzles, they lose ground. Reconstruction ended because the Southern whites stood firm and because the Northern Unitarians were no longer able to convince the great unwashed that the Southern whites ate Negro babies for breakfast and whipped Negro adults in the afternoon.
  
  Let’s fast-forward to the second half of the twentieth century. The Unitarian universalists retrenched and went back on the offensive. By 1950, they had succeeded in once again convincing the North, the Midwest, the West, and the rest of the European people that the Southern Europeans were devils. And even the Southern people themselves came to believe in the evils of the old South. It was no coincidence that the British ceased to believe in Britain, the Spanish in Spain, the French in France, etc., at the same time. The South was an extension of Europe; Satan would not attack one without attacking the other.
  
• The Christian religion was the source of the Southern white man’s love for his race.
  I read an article recently by a white pagan author. Although I shared his desire for the survival of the white race, I did not agree with his analysis of the race issue. He made the point that the love of their own race was embedded deeply in the souls of our European ancestors. But then he went on to state that only Christianity was embedded as deeply in the European soul. I agree that Christianity is embedded deeply in the European soul, but I do not agree with the separation that my pagan ally makes. If you read a novel like Red Rock you can’t help but be struck by the fact that Christianity and the love of their race was so intertwined in the souls of the Southern whites, that a separation of the two is impossible.
  
  I think we miss something essential if we do not see how love of race and love of Christ are interwoven in the soul of the European. When the European embraced Christ, he did not suddenly lose the virtues he already possessed. Those virtues were extended and deepened. Shame became guilt and kindness was transformed into charity. And pride of race, the desire to see one’s race perpetuated became love of race and a desire to see the individual members of one’s beloved race survive in perpetuity. (4) It is true that you should not have to prove that your race is more intelligent, more beautiful, etc., in order to desire its survival. It should be enough to say, “It is my own and I love it.” But we must see that such an appeal --“It is my own and I love it” -- will have no effect on the barbarian or the post-Christian white. They do not view race and love in the same way that the white Christian does. The barbarian does not love his race. He has pride of race; he wants it to be powerful, to be the dominant race, but he does not love it. This is why the weak, in barbarian cultures, are exterminated. They do not enhance the power of the race, so they are not valued. A barbarian will never countenance an argument from a white person which makes an appeal to their mutual love for their own race. The barbarian knows only power and dominance. Why should he agree to the survival of the white race when to him race means power? The survival of another race only diminishes his power.
  
  The post-Christian white will not respond to the appeal, “It is my own and I love it,” because he has severed his ties to Christian Europe. The new faith in science, progress, and Satan that the Northern Unitarians of the 1860s were toying with has become the fervent faith of the godless, white, post-Christians of the twenty-first century. They worship their own minds, which they have divorced from their hearts and the heart of God, and they worship the body of man divorced from his soul. Thus the colored barbarian has been accorded a throne in the godless utopia of the post-Christian white man, because he confirms the post-Christian’s belief in bodies without souls.
  
  It’s clear, from the testimony of Christian soldiers like Thomas Nelson Page, that the struggle for the Christian faith and the struggle for the white race have the same spiritual antecedents. When the battle against principalities and powers is won, so will the battle for the white race be won. +
  ____________________________
  (1) Faulkner gave Northern liberals and Southern liberals the type of Southern novel they wanted. I needn’t go into the salacious and gory details. Suffice it to say the stress was placed on the lower depths without sufficient emphasis on the higher levels of Southern culture.
  
  (2) I had a running debate for many years with a friend (regrettably, deceased) who thought my insistence that the white race was not going to make a comeback via the democratic process was “overly pessimistic.” It now appears to me that I was not too pessimistic but was instead overly optimistic in thinking that rear-guard candidates like Ron Paul had a chance, through the democratic process, to slow down the white decline.
  
  There is a great difference between someone who says that the death of the white man is inevitable and someone who says that there is no hope for the renewal of the white race through the democratic process. This doesn’t seem like a hard principle to grasp. But I must conclude that it is, because I hear the “too pessimistic” charge every time I suggest that the white man should jettison democracy.
  
  To me it is not a question of pessimism or optimism; it is a question of reality. Europeans who believe and act like Europeans once believed and acted are a tiny minority in every European country. Hordes of young (and not so young Europeans) grovel at black Obama’s feet everywhere he goes. Are such people going to vote for “white” candidates? Of course not.
  
  The reason “can-do” types get so mad at a person like me is because they think I am advising passive surrender to the enemy when I say it is over in terms of a democratic solution for the white man. But this is not the case. I am recommending that we step outside of the democratic parameters, which were parameters constructed by white, technocratic, anti-European bureaucrats, and return to the heroic mode of the antique Europeans. In that mode, political systems were a means to an end and not the end itself.
  
  (3) For men at most differ as Heaven and earth,
  But women, worst and best, as Heaven and Hell.
  -- Alfred Lord Tennyson
  
  (4) Sonnet 31:
  Thy bosom is endeared with all hearts,
  Which I by lacking have supposed dead,
  And there reigns love and all love's loving parts,
  And all those friends which I thought buried.
  How many a holy and obsequious tear
  Hath dear religious love stol'n from mine eye
  As interest of the dead, which now appear
  But things removed that hidden in thee lie!
  Thou art the grave where buried love doth live,
  Hung with the trophies of my lovers gone,
  Who all their parts of me to thee did give;
  That due of many now is thine alone:
  Their images I loved I view in thee,
  And thou, all they, hast all the all of me.
  
  -- William Shakespeare

To Win or Die with Europe

Although underreported, it is now clear that the United States has shown far too little concern for the civilian casualties of Iraq. Should this surprise us? How can a nation that has so little respect for its own peoples’ desire for a secure homeland have any respect for another peoples’ homeland.

Every American of European ancestry is told from the first hour of his birth that he has been born into a unique nation. His is a proud inheritance. Is it really? It doesn’t seem that way to me. I’m proud of the Christian inheritance my ancestors brought over from Europe, but I’m not proud of an anti-nation that respects creed over blood, religious diversity over Christianity, freedom over virtue, and the power of government over the hearth.

Despite the fact that we are told we don’t need a homeland founded on a common faith and common ties of blood, many American Europeans still long for one. It is not possible to completely kill the yearnings in a European heart. I know I have always longed for a homeland, which is why I suspect I have always been in sympathy with the Southern side in the Conflict between the States. There was a real sense of the homeland in the Old South. Thomas Nelson Page suggests a reason for this:

The difference between the Southern civilization and the Northern was the result of the difference between their origins and subsequent surroundings.

The Northern colonies of Great Britain in America were the asylums of religious zealots and revolutionists who at their first coming were bent less on the enlargement of their fortunes than on the freedom to exercise their religious convictions, however much the sudden transition from dependence and restriction to freedom and license may in a brief time have tempered their views of liberty and changed them into proscriptors of the most tyrannical type…

The Southern, on the other hand, came with all the ceremonial of an elaborate civil government—with an executive, a council deputed by authorities at home, and formal and minute instructions and regulations.

The crown hoped to annex the unknown land lying between the El Dorado, which Spain had obtained amid the summer seas, and the unbounded claims of its hereditary enemy, France, to the North and West.

The Church, which viewed the independence of the Northern refugees as schism, if not heresy, gave to this enterprise its benison in the belief that “the adventurers for the plantations of Virginia were the most noble and worthy advancers of the standard of Christ among the Gentiles.” The company organized and equipped successive expeditions in the hope of gain; and soldiers of fortune, and gentlemen in misfortune, threw in their lot in the certainty of adventure and the probability that they might better their condition.

Under such auspices the Southern colonies necessarily were rooted in the faith of the England from which they came – political, religious, and civil. Thus from the very beginning the spirit of the two sections was absolutely different, and their surrounding conditions were for a long time such as to keep them diverse.

--The Old South

So, in Page’s view the North was settled by Europeans with utopian notions and a willingness to impose those notions on others, and the South was settled by adventurous (but less discontented and quarrelsome) Europeans more in tune with the ancient rhythms and evening lingerings of Europe. Certainly that generalization doesn’t apply to every individual (Washington Irving, born in New York City, for instance, was not a utopian), but I think Page’s assessment is essentially correct.

And our current American oligarchy, instead of encouraging white American school children to feel connected to the land of their ancestors and to their ancestors’ faith, teaches them to despise their European inheritance. It’s small wonder that white adolescents grow up without any sense of racial pride and see nothing wrong with mixing their blood with that of blacks. In fact they see it as a positive good because in doing so they are killing their European blood ties.

I’ve written about H. V. Morton on several occasions because I love his books. During a time (1920 – 1950) when other European intellectuals were traveling to the Far East or Africa looking for something novel and exciting, Morton traveled through Europe and wrote about his travels because he correctly saw that the history and the people of His continent were the only really interesting history and people to write about. And that history has been suppressed by the Gingerbread House technique. “The great satanic wisdom of American totalitarianism is this: if you ban the old books and the old traditions, the people might still love them enough to fight for their restoration. But if you give them a gingerbread house to munch on and coat the older books and traditions in monkey vomit, the people will joyfully let the old books remain unread and the old traditions die.”

In the works of the great novelists of the late eighteenth century and the entire nineteenth century, the villain is often an Uncle Silas type. He can ape the Christian forms because he has a superior intelligence, but his heart belongs to Satan. But so long as Christian principles rule society, the Uncle Silases have to keep their hatred of Christ and Christians a secret. Now, however, Uncle Silas no longer needs the mask; his type now rules. And they are not going to permit a bred-in-the-bone Christianity to surface again. They will permit Church-on-Sunday/Mass-on-Sunday Christianity to exist because that type of Christianity generally supports Uncle Silas-demonism. And when it doesn’t, it is ineffectual because it is not integral. A true bred-in-the-bone Christianity is rooted in European history, European traditions, and European blood. If white European Americans were actually exposed to that type of Christianity, the Uncle Silases would once again be on the periphery of society instead of at its center. It’s not a spirit of our “democratic humanity” that we need. White people need a spirit of clannishness. When the fiery cross appears high on the mountain top, we must rally to it. And then, man to man and “in the van,” we’ll win or die with Europe.