Of Decadence and Decay

“The love of woman and womanliness is a masculine characteristic, and the love of man and manliness is a feminine characteristic... [I]t is almost impossible for a woman to irritate a real man, and as to the woman, a man is never quite contemptible, never altogether rejectable, as long as he remains a man.” -- Isak Dinesen

That our society is decadent is self-evident. But if the question, “Is our society decadent?,” were put to the American public, you would get an assortment of answers, ranging from, “Hell, no,” to, “The polls say that 90% of all Americans believe in God,” to, “70% of the American people believe promiscuity and stealing are wrong.” In short, there would be no agreement on the subject of decadence. Which is, of course, what one would expect; no society, having achieved decadence (maybe ‘dis-achieve’ would be a better word), is able to identify decadence. To the decadent, health is sickness and sickness is health.

Climbing out of the mire of decadence is not easy for an individual. And it is even more difficult for a society, because a decadent society has lost all connection to reality. The nerve endings are dead. Faith is gone and hence all the sentiments that elevate the human soul are gone as well. An individual living in a decadent society, who has managed to take his first baby steps out of the decadent swamp, will find himself isolated, marginalized, and possibly institutionalized. He will find individuals willing to criticize symptoms of the disease, such as child porn and legalized abortion, but those same individuals will draw back in shocked dismay if he criticizes modernity itself. That we are marching ever onward toward the light, despite some unpleasant detours, is an article of faith for modern man.

Satan is a very clever fellow. He does not make societies decadent by attacking God directly; instead he attacks the connecting links God has to His creatures. And one of the primary links is the divinely ordained, differentiated sex roles. Indeed, a significant indication of a decadent society is the complete blurring of the sex roles, and one of the key signs of a civilized, Christian society is clearly defined sex roles designed to support the patriarchal family.

The patriarchal society was in fact the creator of those moral ideas which have entered so deeply into the texture of civilization that they have become a part of our thought. Not only the names of piety and chastity, honour and modesty, but the values for which they stand are derived from this source, so that even where the patriarchal family has passed away we are still dependent on the moral tradition that it created. – Christopher Dawson in The Dynamics of World History

I don’t think it’s possible to overestimate the evils that are wrought in a society when God’s benevolent ordering of the sex roles is put aside in favor of liberal utopianism. And it is halfway-house Christians who want to retain a faith in God, while destroying all of mankind’s connecting links to God, who allow the liberals to substitute Cybele for Christ.

The late John Paul II was a textbook case of the schizophrenia of half-way house Christians. The late Pope praised the feminist movement, saying it had championed “the dignity of women.” In his weekly audience of November 29, 1995, he called feminism “in great part legitimate,” and said it had added to a more “balanced vision of the question of womanhood in the contemporary world.” He further went on to say that feminism had reacted against everything that has “impeded the value and full development of the feminine personality” (from Inside the Vatican, January 1996). Gloria Steinem couldn’t have said it better.

Let me defend my critique of the halfway-house Christians, such as John Paul II, who support feminism. Who was the human conduit Satan used to transmit his evil to Adam? Eve, of course. She fell because she made a bargain with the devil, who claimed he could make her equal to God. And Adam fell because he feared the loss of Eve’s love so much that he was willing to love her outside of God’s love.

Staying true to his poetic nature, the Lord God counter-balanced Adam and Eve’s sins with the faithfulness of the Virgin Mary and Christ. Eve was a conduit for Satan, and Mary was a conduit for Christ. Mary, in contrast to Eve, who desired equality with God, desired only to be the handmaid of the Lord. Christ, in contrast to Adam, never consented to any request outside of God’s orbit. “Get thee behind me, Satan: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men.”

Who is a man imitating when he calls our attention to the “great contributions of the feminist movement”? He is imitating the old Adam. His love for the feminists is illicit; it debases him and the feminists because it separates both from God’s love. Feminism in its very essence goes back to the old Eve. The spirit behind the movement is a desire to make a deal with the devil in order to obtain equality with God. It is positively ludicrous to mildly chide the feminists for their stand on abortion and then go on to praise feminism to the skies, as if abortion is just an inconsequential part of the feminists’ agenda. Abortion is the feminist agenda! How can they obtain equality with God if they do not control life in the womb? Their soul mate is Satan, who promises them divine equality if they will do his bidding and unsex themselves. Lady Macbeth -- “Unsex me here!” -- is the patron saint of the feminists.

The triumph of feminism in society and church has left society and church without any moral authority, because there can be no authority without masculinity. And ironically, there can be no femininity either, because femininity needs masculinity to survive, just as masculinity needs femininity. All decadent societies (Sophocles, Virgil, and Shakespeare wrote eloquently on this topic) lose the ability to distinguish between a man’s and a woman’s divinely appointed sex roles. It is Satan’s wish that such divine distinctions be blurred, because once the blurring takes place, a society becomes decadent and loses all sense of God’s redemptive grace.

As with all modern innovations, we must ask who is being served by feminism? Are Christian men and women benefiting from feminism? Certainly not. Are the feminists benefiting? Of course not. Nothing, not the right to kill their children in the womb or the right to hold jobs formerly reserved for men, will appease them or make them happy. They denounced their souls when they became feminists, and only a ‘road to Damascus’ experience can release them from the feminist hell in which they live and in which they expect others to live as well.

A story from the Brothers Grimm, “The Fisherman and His Wife,” reveals the true aims of feminism, and man’s inability to ever make women happy by appeasement.

As you recall, a fisherman catches an enchanted fish. The fish begs the fisherman to put him back in the water. The fisherman, being a kind-hearted soul, throws the fish back. But upon his return home and after telling the story to his wife, the fisherman is berated by his wife for not demanding a wish from the fish. So, the fisherman returns to the sea and repeating the sin of Adam calls, “Flounder, flounder of the sea, Come, for I am calling thee! My wife, whose name is Isabel, Has a wish against my will.”

Each subsequent wish is granted, and every wish is not good enough for the fisherman’s wife. She goes from a cottage to a palace, and from being a fisherman’s wife to Queen, Emperor, and Pope. With her last wish, she demands to be God. Presto chango! She lands back in her shack and is once again just a fisherman’s wife.

Of course we all know the reason a man acquiesces to a woman, even though he knows, in his heart, that she is wrong. Chaucer’s Wife of Bath lays it right out in the open. But every Christian male knows that he can’t do the bidding of a Lady Macbeth, no matter how compelling the reward for acquiescing, and no matter how unpleasant the punishment for a refusal, because to do so places his soul and the woman’s soul into Satan’s realm. Patriarchy and Christianity are of necessity linked. Feminism and Satan are irretrievably linked as well. The former link must be restored, and the latter must be destroyed.

Feminism, like so many of the heretical –isms, had always lurked on the outskirts of Christendom. You could find its adherents in witch’s covens and the surviving underground cults of Cybele. But in the later half of the 20th century, feminism became mainstream, and patriarchal Christianity became an underground, proscribed religion. And it is significant that institutional feminism had its roots in the ‘civil rights’ movements of the late 1950s and 1960s. Radical women working in the civil rights movements saw themselves as even more disenfranchised than the black man. But because the black man was also ‘victimized’ by the white male, the feminists always reserved their criticisms for the white Christian male rather than the black male. The feminist silence during the O. J. Simpson trial was deafening.

If we just look at the stated beliefs of the feminists, their alliance with the black males seems ludicrous and inconsistent. If they are against masculinity, shouldn’t they be against every single male, no matter what the color? But when dealing with men, and even more so with women, we must, if we want to truly understand them, go beneath the surface of their stated beliefs to the spirit that motivates them. And at the spiritual level, the feminists and the blacks are united. Both groups despise femininity and worship pagan masculinity. We are back with Lady Macbeth. She asks Satan to “unsex her” and make her heart as cold and merciless as a pagan male warrior. And she will only give her husband conjugal rights if he forsakes his Christian masculinity for a perverted and savage pagan masculinity.

MACBETH: We will proceed no further in this business:
He hath honour'd me of late; and I have bought
Golden opinions from all sorts of people,
Which would be worn now in their newest gloss,
Not cast aside so soon.

LADY MACBETH: Was the hope drunk
Wherein you dress'd yourself? Hath it slept since?
And wakes it now, to look so green and pale
At what it did so freely? From this time
Such I account thy love. Art thou afeard
To be the same in thine own act and valour
As thou art in desire? Wouldst thou have that
Which thou esteem'st the ornament of life,
And live a coward in thine own esteem,
Letting 'I dare not' wait upon 'I would,
'Like the poor cat i' the adage?

MACBETH: Prithee, peace:
I dare do all that may become a man;
Who dares do more is none.

LADY MACBETH: What beast was't, then,
That made you break this enterprise to me?
When you durst do it, then you were a man;
And, to be more than what you were, you would
Be so much more the man. Nor time nor place
Did then adhere, and yet you would make both:
They have made themselves, and that their fitness now
Does unmake you. I have given suck, and know
How tender 'tis to love the babe that milks me:
I would, while it was smiling in my face,
Have pluck'd my nipple from his boneless gums,
And dash'd the brains out, had I so sworn as you
Have done to this.

So true femininity, the type of femininity that Christian European poets used to rhapsodize about, is demonized along with the masculinity of men like Alfred and Tell, who fought and killed in defense of, rather than out of blood lust or desire for material gain. Only pagan masculinity remains, in the blacks, in the feminist Lady Macbeths, and in the white males who kill in the abortuaries at the behest of the feminist Lady Macbeths.

The black and the feminist revolts are compact in their ideological roots. Both movements are anti-European and anti-reality. The black revolution runs counter to the traditional Christian European view of the black man as the descendant of Ham, the lascivious son of Noah, who needed to be held in check by his more godly brothers. And the black movements which advocate black supremacy, under the guise of racial equality, directly contradict the historical reality that whenever blacks rule, Satan reigns. The pigmentation of the black’s skin is not just an insignificant coloring. It is a warning from God; we dare not let darkness rule the light.

The contrast between the traditional European view of women as the life-bearers and life-nurturers, and the modern view of women as masculine pagans with female body parts is best exemplified by the contrast between the Virgin Mary nursing our Lord and the rock singer Madonna... well, we know what she does. It is not possible to be reconciled to, or to live with, people who prefer the later image of women to the former. And which image conforms to reality? Is Madonna the end product of the liberal’s utopian dream?

The assault on Christian Europe is diverse, but the source of the assault is not diverse. There is one, demonic personality behind each assault. Only a people connected to Him can resist the assaults of that other ‘he,’ the malevolent ‘he.’ When we refuse to sever our links to Him, by resisting the new feminist and black ideologies, we are fighting the good fight and being true to Christian Europe. +

Unto Death

I recently read a speech, given in 1995 at an American Renaissance Conference, in which the speaker disagreed strongly with those pro-white advocates who recommended that white people form separate states within the state in order to ensure the survival of a distinct white, European culture. The speaker said that this was tantamount to surrender. There were still, he maintained, enough white votes to bring about a white cultural renewal without adopting what the speaker claimed were unrealistic and drastic measures.

My answer then, and even more so now, would be that looking at a situation realistically and deciding that drastic, non-democratic measures are necessary is not the same thing as surrendering. Was Shane surrendering when he walked into Grafton’s saloon to face Stark Wilson?

Shane stopped about three quarters of the way forward, about five yards from Wilson. He cocked his head for one quick sidewise glance again at the balcony and then he was looking only at Wilson. He did not like the setup. Wilson had the front wall and he was left in the open of the room. He understood the fact, assessed it, accepted it.

The first step, before heroic action can be taken to rid the world of rotters like Stark Wilson and Fletcher, is a realistic appraisal of who the enemy is and one’s position vis-à-vis the enemy. I do not think the American Renaissance Conference speaker had a realistic idea of who the enemy was or a realistic assessment of the white man’s position in relation to his enemy. How can one take a realistic stance against the enemy if he has only nebulous notions as to his enemy’s identity?

Who is the enemy? The primary enemy is the anti-white white. The reason for the American Renaissance speaker’s inability to see that drastic measures were necessary in 1995 (and imperative in 2008) is because he counted too many white-hating whites and their dupes, the grazers, (see “The Underground Men”) as candidates for conversion. The white-hating white and the grazers are not, except for an occasional miracle of grace, going to be converted. The white-hating white has gone too far down the slippery slope, and the white grazer has spent too many years eating from the trough of oblivion to ever come back. The grazers are like the Israelites who could not pass muster. A whole generation had to die out before the tribe could enter the Promised Land.

The American Renaissance speaker overestimates the convertibility of the white-hating rationalists because he is a rationalist himself. If he had made a realistic assessment of the white man’s plight he would have seen that the white man is facing extinction because he has abandoned his heritage, the heroic, bardic heritage, for a new, magic, talismanic, rationalistic system. This is why the American Renaissance speaker cannot possibly see beyond democratic politics. So long as there are democratic parlor games, he thinks he can out-maneuver and out-wizard the white-hating rationalists. But tis not so. The white man must turn away from the game of dueling wizards and reclaim his heroic heritage. Evil wizards are not defeated by good wizards; they are defeated by the Hero who is pure of heart. The good American Renaissance rationalist and the white-hating rationalist both suffer from a surfeit of rationalism. They are impious. Our ancestors knew that “the problem of the moral world is too vast and complex for the human mind to comprehend; yet the pure heart will, safely and quietly, feel its way through the mazes that confound the head.”

The failure of the pro-life movement is very similar to the failure of the white identity movement (to the extent that you can even call it a movement), so it is helpful to look at the pro-life movement. In 1973, at least 60% of Americans, a majority, held the opinion that abortion should not be legal. But there was not a conviction among even 1% of the 60% that those people who wanted to legalize abortion were an enemy. How is it possible to believe that those who favor infanticide are within the ken of white civilization? I don’t know, but the “pro-lifers” did dialogue with the baby killers. They dialogued and they dialogued. And while they were dialoguing, the baby killers built up a moral consensus (or would it be called an immoral consensus?) that abortion was right and proper. And the greatest supporters of rational dialogue with baby killers were the “Christian” clergy.

What would have happened if pro-lifers had refused the democratic approach, if they had refused to dialogue but instead told the abortionist in the strength of their majority, “You shall not commit such atrocities because if you do we will kill you”? I think abortion would still be illegal.

The fight for white civilization has gone the same way as the anti-abortion movement. It has ended in defeat because whites preferred to dialogue rather than fight with an enemy who was beyond the ken of civilization. If a white man can countenance (not just countenance but applaud) the type of murder and mayhem perpetrated on whites by blacks (see Paul Shechan’s 1995 article in the Sydney Morning Herald) for the past fifty years, is he really someone who can be converted by rational discourse? And once again, as was the case in the pro-life movement, it was the clergy who supported the violence of the murderers while counseling the victims and defenders to dialogue and forgive.

The ‘get out the vote and write letters’ white men spend their lifetimes telling white people that they must act. But when small groups of whites try to act, by separating from the anti-white government and forming their own schools, militias, and local governments, the letter-writing advocates condemn them and accuse them of giving up.

I would submit that what the wise speaker for the American Renaissance could not discover, the simple fools who have to live in the brave new world of the technocrats, barbarians, and amazons already know: The great American experiment in democracy is over. It was ill-conceived and has produced evil fruits. But the white race is not finished so long as there are white men left who are connected to the heroic tradition of Europe rather than the democratic tradition.

In the market where I shop there is a young man in his early twenties, who works as a bagger, named Roland. After dealing with him on a ‘thank you for bagging’ basis for a couple months, I branched out. “You have a heroic name,” I said.

Of course he was puzzled at first. He thought I was making fun of him, but then I took the time to tell him the story of Roland, with which he was completely unfamiliar. The young man did not, upon hearing the story, buy a sword and swear to retake the Holy Land, but his face actually showed some animation as the story reached its conclusion. Now whenever I see the young bagger I say, “He took his stand and held it, never yielding unto death!” He always smiles. Why shouldn’t he? I’m talking about his namesake.

I don’t for one moment think I turned that young man’s life around by telling him the story of Roland. It takes an entire lifetime of stories about Roland and other white heroes to turn a young man away from modernity and toward the light of Europe. And that is the point. Why hasn’t that young man been told the story of Roland, of William Tell, of Forrest, of Arthur, etc.? I’m sure he knows who the black heroes are. Our schools make sure of that. And the young black men know who the black heroes are. So at least the modern day Roland has some heroes. But does he have a heritage? If he is only permitted heroes from another race, can the young white man lay claim to any heritage? No, he cannot. He has been branded with the mark of Cain and driven into the hinterlands of our modern civilization.

And what about the young white man’s faith? Thomas Hughes made the observation that our heroes are intimately connected to our faith. The older heroes of Europe pointed to Him. To whom do the black heroes lead us? To the other ‘him’ with the pointy tail.

If the shadows of black hero worship are not altered, there will be, with the exception of a few miracles of grace, no white Christian men. And the shadows will not be altered by letter-writing campaigns which implore the powers that be to allow white men to have a white heritage. Nor will the shadows be altered by attempting to convert the unconvertible, the white academics and the grazers. The shadows will only be altered by a tiny white minority of men, still spiritually connected to a civilization of white, Christian heroes. The counsel of the practical men who told us to plead for representation and to back Patrick Buchanan-type candidates was wrong. If we had ignored their advice thirty years ago and started the counterrevolution without their assent we would be in a much better position today than we are currently. Democratic politics is the politics of losing slow. But in a war you must, if your enemy is implacable, fight to win.

The practical men, the sons of Martha, always say that a counterrevolution is not realistic. “There is no support for it.” A counterrevolution, at its beginning, always seems unrealistic. But is it realistic to hope that the demonization of the white man and the systematic eradication of his heritage can be halted by supporting a pro-white candidate? (1) Of course not.

Let’s accept reality and start from there. Government, school, church, Wall Street, and the community at large are all against the white man. Never has one race and one sex been as ostracized by the entire world as the white male is. The white man can either continue listening to delusional friends who tell him to write letters and vote white, or he can start doing what white counterrevolutionaries do. They bind themselves to their fellow white men with hoops of steel, invoke the God who dwells in depths which the heathen and the technocrat cannot understand, and do whatever it takes to undermine every organ of the revolutionary government in power.

When Alexander Smollet tells the pirates that wherever he flies the English flag, that spot of land is England, he is articulating the heartfelt faith of all European men. Wherever European values are fought for and cherished, there lies Europe. If white men are banished to the hinterlands of civilization, the hinterlands become civilization. What we don’t want to do is to continue to give aid and comfort to a technocratic-barbarian civilization that has renounced antique Europe. Let the white technocrats and the barbarians of color try to sustain a civilization without our help. They’ll self-destruct soon enough. The white man who is in union with antique Europe never surrenders; he takes his stand, never yielding, even unto death. +
________________________________________________________
(1) The absurdity of the advice, “vote white,” became self-evident in the recent Presidential primaries in which there were no pro-white candidates.

Never the Twain Shall Meet

The Michael Vick dog-fighting scandal highlights the extreme differences between the barbarian cultures of color and the white post-Christian culture. The white post-Christians have, for the last fifty years or so, been the criminally indulgent parents of their adopted black man-child. If Blacky got in trouble for raping white women and murdering white men, the indulgent parents excused Blacky, because they understood the horrible nightmares, caused by white people, that made Blacky commit the wayward acts. So, Blacky grows up believing that whatever he does, no matter how heinous, will be, if not countenanced, then at least tolerated by his white parents.

"So why," the confused, angry Blacky asks, "Are my parents so harsh with me over this dog-fighting nonsense?" And of course Blacky cannot be expected to understand the white post-Christian; their world is not his world. Blacky does not feel any need for a humane God; he needs only a powerful God. Whether he professes Christianity, Islam, or Vodoo, the god he worships is always a god of power who can be propitiated through sacrifice. There is no God of mercy in his racial memory bank.

The white post-Christian, however, does have a God of mercy in his racial memory bank, although his mind will not accept the preposterous notion of an incarnate God. And yet the post-Christian retains an incredible longing for a merciful God, so he soothes his longing for that God by making a religion out of some of the merciful derivatives of the antique faith. Such a derivative is a respect and affection for God's creatures. It is very touching to read about how fond that most Christian of authors, Walter Scott, was of his pet cat and pet dog. He loved them in a way no barbarian could possibly understand. But Scott's love for animals was not an unacknowledged derivative of his love for the God-Man; he understood the connection. The modern post-Christian does not.

So of course Blacky is confused, hurt, and angry. His white parents are behaving, as he sees it, irrationally. And Blacky is right about that. It is irrational to hold on to the derivatives of a faith once you have rejected the main tenets of that faith. But Blacky's failure to understand his post-Christian parents' abhorrence of dog-fighting is just one more example of why blacks and whites should not mix.

The Underground Men

The most striking aspect of the Western world today is the absence of white Christian males. Where are they? They have gone underground, because Christian masculinity has been proscribed as illegal.

In olden times, the white Christian male was seen as an essential part of the social structure. He was the spiritual head of his family, loving his wife as Christ loved His church, and the guiding light of his young children. Certainly it is easy to go back through history and find many examples of the failure of the Christian patriarchal system, but you have to be a modern, satanic Christian not to concede that if Christianity is to be taken seriously then the patriarchal family is the main unit of society. But of course Christianity is not the faith of modern man, so the Christian patriarchal system has been jettisoned. What has taken its place?

The technocratic white man currently rules the Western world. But his is a curious rule; he rules a kingdom of unruly barbarians and Amazon warriors by making sacrificial offerings to the barbarians and strategic appeasements to the Amazons. He would rather deal with those two legions of Satan than face Christian men, because his reign of technology and money is directly opposed to Christ’s reign of charity. If that reign of charity were to be reinstated, the technocrats’ reign would end. And it is the Christian male who traditionally has sallied forth to defend and build His reign of charity.

The technocrat is strategically right, although certainly not morally right: he must favor the barbarians and the Amazons because they are like unto him, as he is like unto Satan. We can understand so much if we keep that central fact before us. The technocrat needs a satanic society if he is to rule.

The white technocrat hopes to keep the barbarians at bay by sacrificing a certain percent of what he hopes will be ‘inconsequential’ whites. Of course the risk he takes is that he might become a sacrificial victim himself, but still, the risk is small. He is much more worried about the Christian male, which is why he yawns in the face of the torture-murders of whites such as Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom but sends government troops at the first sign of a white protest of the torture murders.

Now the Amazon poses a different problem for the white technocratic male. He can go his entire life and keep the barbarian at bay by offering other whites up for sacrifice and keeping within the confines of his gated community. But he needs (unless he is of the other persuasion) to bring a female into his orbit. At some level of his being he might prefer a Christian woman, but in the cold light of reason he knows he must wed the Amazon, because the Christian woman would expect him to be, horror of horrors, a Christian male. And he proceeds to deal with the Amazon as Satan dealt with Eve. He poses as the Amazon’s liberator by presenting to her as rights those things which God forbade her for her own protection. The Amazon is allowed to abort, to fight in the military, and to compete in the workplace. She is allowed to be male in all things, providing she stays a biological female. But since even the technocratic male and the Amazonian female have souls, both are inwardly restless.

The Amazonian feminist who has denounced femininity claims she doesn’t want to be seen as simply a body, but of course that is the only thing of interest she has left. The technocratic male has to pretend that he is really impressed with the mind of the Amazon, but he is not. The female mind can only function properly when it is connected to a female soul, and when she denounces her soul in the attempt to be masculine she becomes the very thing she claims to detest – a brainless bimbo. One need only look at all of the pretty plastic female newscasters who pollute the airwaves. They try to look so serious and talk like men, but does any male really take them seriously for any other reason than the fact they are biologically female?

The de-feminized, de-Christianized female is the most dangerous creature on the face of the earth. She has all the power that comes with femininity but lacks any of the moral restraints that Christianity gave to her. Lady Macbeth is rightly regarded as a monster when she asks the spirits of darkness to “unsex me here” and later gives the faltering Macbeth an impromptu pep talk that makes one’s blood run cold:

I have given suck, and know
How tender ‘tis to love the babe that milks me;
I would, while it was smiling in my face,
Have pluck’d my nipple from his boneless gums
And dash’d the brains out, had I so sworn as you
Have done to this.

But when virtually every woman is a Lady Macbeth, can they still be called monsters? No, not by the men in charge of the society that has spawned the legions of Lady Macbeths. But the Christian underground man can say what she is – a fiend from hell. And who would be married to hell? The technocrat of course. And he pays a prize for his hellish union. The modern Lady Macbeths are fond of saying that a man wants only one thing of them, and that is true of the modern technocrat. Of course he only wants one thing; what else can she offer? But the modern Lady Macbeth wants only one thing from the male as well. She wants him to act aggressively in behalf of her illicit whims. In the case of Lady Macbeth, it meant that her husband had to kill Duncan; in the case of our contemporary, spiritually unsexed females, it means that the white technocrat must aggressively fight for her whims in the technocratic world of bulls, bears, and computers.

The female of the species will never know what it is like to be loved enough to be put in the female’s proper place, the Christian hearth, and the technocratic male will never know what it feels like to have “one whispering silken gown,” across his life. And that is a tragedy. But the technocratic male and the de-feminized female chose their fates. Far more tragic is the fate of the victims (the children who are murdered in the womb or who are spiritually neutered at birth), the ‘collateral’ damage, if you will, of the satanic utopia of the Bill Gates and Nancy Pelosies.

There is a group of white men who are still allowed to graze in the pastures of the upper world. They are to be found leaning over their backyard fences talking about the upcoming hunting season or about next Sunday’s football game. If you want to alienate these white grazers, just bring up some topics like the Mexican invasion, the black war against whites, or George Bush’s plan to eradicate all national boundaries. They’ll run back into their house, turn the TV on, grab a beer from the fridge, and tell their wife that the guy next door is some kind of nut.

As long as the grazers are allowed to shoot off their guns a few times a year and watch the gladiators on TV, they are content. But they don’t realize that they are the ones being fattened up as sacrificial victims for the barbarians of color. If you try to warn the grazers, they will simply burp.

And the sons and the daughters of the grazers are easily siphoned off. The daughters who have the ability are allowed to enter the world of the technocratic males, and the ones who do not are permitted to mate with the barbarians in order to escape the odium of being wedded to a white man with connections to the older, white civilizations.

The sons of the grazers usually cannot become technocrats, because there is very little room at the top of the food chain. The sons are permitted to fight for the technocrats, however. Aggressive, masculine, even warlike behavior is countenanced by the technocrats if the aggressive masculine action is done in defense of the ruling technocratic oligarchy. The Iraq war is a case in point. “Support our troops!” cry the technocrats. Of course they should support the troops: the troops are fighting for them.

Before we come to the underground men, let us pause to acknowledge a few saints. They are the Christian women. Because they are female, they are not, as the Christian men are, banished to the underworld. They are allowed to stay loyal to the crucified white males, but why should they? They have nothing to gain by remaining faithful, at least nothing in the worldly sense. They are a dying breed. If you are an underground man, and you find such a woman, cherish her.

And now we come to the men who were and are the subjects of these wars. It is easy to deprecate the white Christian, underground male of today if we compare him to men like Robert E. Lee and Nathan Bedford Forrest, but the battlefield is different today, and the enemy is much more formidable than it was in the days of Lee and Forrest. The Christian warrior of today has much more of an internal war than did the Christian warrior of old. If not completely equal, can we not at least say that the heroism of the modern underground Christian man, in his fight to keep his soul unpolluted by the satanic forces surrounding him, is close to the heroism of such men as Lee and Forrest? I think it is. I have known such men. They stand with Cyrano and tell the world that they have held “One thing without stain, Unspotted from the world, in spite of doom, Mine own! My white plume…”

The technocrat might hold the world in his hands, while the white Christian men are banished to the underground. But when the great Cavalier makes his final charge, He will look for the men with the white plumes. And we will be ready to ride with our King in the great and final conflict.