Against the Flood

Enter Pericles, wet.

[stage direction from Shakespeare’s Pericles.]

After 1965 a good movie in line with the values held dear by antique Europeans was as statistically rare as white on black crime. The statistical rarities were usually adaptations of European literary works written before the demise of the white man. Branagh’s Henry V (his only good adaptation of a Shakespeare play), John Huston’s The Man Who Would Be King, based on Kipling’s story, and Zeffirelli’s The Taming of the Shrew were a few of the statistical exceptions. Before 1965, the movies were 90% supportive of the essential Europe and 10% against. After 1965, they were 100% against, with the occasional exception, which did not occur with sufficient frequency to constitute a percentage point.

When I say that the pre-1965 movies were supportive of the essential Europe, I do not mean to say that there were not signs of a weakening of the European walls. On the racial issue, for instance, there was a growing tendency in the 1950’s to depict the Indian as simply a pigmented white man with the same values as a white man. The horrific aspects of the Indians’ culture were often down-played. In the Western titled Yellow Tomahawk, for example, Rory Calhoun, the scout for a cavalry unit, moralistically informs a settler that, “Indians love their people just as much as you love yours.” Oh really? Then why did they kill the sickly infants and let the elderly members of their tribes starve or freeze to death? (1) But even in that Western, the hero ultimately declares that “I’ll stand by my race.” With the exception of one movie, Arrowhead, starring Charlton Heston, which actually focused on the bestial savagery of the Indians, the pre-1965 Westerns were weak on the racial issue. They were not anti-European though. The heroes in the movies were the white men who lived up to the code of chivalry that was nurtured in Europe and born in a manger in Bethlehem.

The black man was also, like the Indian, regarded as a pigmented white man in the pre-1965 movies. And such a view was false, but the white man in the older movies was still depicted in a heroic light and his civilization was presented as the only civilization. In Zulu (1960), the black savages are invested with a nobility they did not possess, but it is the white British soldiers who are the heroes. And in the movie Safari (1956), the Mau Maus are depicted as the villains and the whites as the heroes. After 1965, the reverse was true.

So in the main the popular movies from the 1930’s to 1965 were supportive of white European civilization, but they presented the erroneous view that the colored peoples could be brought into the white fold. The naive, “they are just like us under the skin” view of the colored people was the leak in the European dike.

In the mid-1960’s the leak in the dike became a flood, and the notion that there had ever been anything good or noble in white people or their civilization was washed away in an anti-European flood.

At first there was only a tiny minority of Europeans who welcomed the flood, while the vast majority denied it was a flood. “It’s just a little cleansing, necessary at times; Europe is still Europe.” Then when the flood reached epic proportions, the Europeans who had called the flood a cleansing moved to the safe, high ground (but not the morally high ground) with the anti-Europeans and claimed that Europe had to be flooded; it was evil.

A few Europeans, statistical non-entities, refused to leave the flooded Europe. They are still trying to salvage something from the flood waters that will help them maintain a link to old Europe. And then, when a patch of dry land is found, the European will emerge from the waters, wet, but determined to rebuild Europe.

To date, after forty-five years of flooding, I’ve seen no European salvage operation that has brought up, from the depths of the flood waters, anything that was part of essential Europe. The salvagers all seem to be formalists who are only concerned with those aspects of the older European culture that can be studied, catalogued, and used to help the formalist in his particular discipline. Thus the theologian wants to preserve the Greek philosophical tradition, the conservative wants to preserve 19th century capitalism, and the Christian layman is only concerned with salvaging the church buildings in which to sing the praises of the new black gods.
Something more than outward dross needs to be preserved if the European is to come into his own again. The bards of ancient Europe, who are the true historians, all bear witness to something unique about the European. (2) He was not satisfied with the perfectly formed but spiritually shallow culture of the Greeks, nor did he remain content with the Egyptian night of the savage cultures. The European had that within which passeth show; he needed to climb glass mountains and slay dragons in the name of a God above the gods.

It is utter madness to seek refuge from the anti-European flood waters on the dry shores of multi-racial universalism or in the mind-forged prisons of neo-pagan utopia. Go to the past, ride with Forrest, stand with the men at Rourke’s Drift, walk the mountain path with Tell and make the ascent of the glass mountain. We begin the ascent in Europe’s green and sacred land, thinking the land beyond the glass mountain will be something strange and wonderful. Well, it is wonderful but it is not strange. Having made the ascent in the attempt to find His land, we discover that His land is our land; it is Europe before the anti-European tidal wave.

“We who are about to die demand a miracle.” The same God who delivered the Israelites from bondage will deliver us from the anti-European flood waters if we invoke that God by staying faithful to the European essentials, those virtues that come from the European hearth: faith, and loyalty to one’s kith and kin.

Because the Europeans took Christ as their King and kinsman, Christianity is in the blood of the European. Even when he is a blaspheming Marxist, evolutionist, or race-mixer, the European couches his heresies in Christian terms. And infinitely better, when the European ceases to blaspheme and actually remembers things past, he sees in his mind’s eye a small remnant band of believers who survived a flood and rebuilt a civilization.

The Christian bards often use a near fatal drowning to symbolize the rebirth of a civilization. In Shakespeare’s Pericles, Prince of Tyre, Pericles and his wife Thaisa survive separate shipwrecks and are eventually reunited with the sure and certain hope of reestablishing their kingdom.

This, this. No more, you gods!
Your present kindness
makes my past miseries sports.
You shall do well
That on the touching of her
lips I may
Melt and no more be seen. O,
come, be buried
A second time within these arms.

To once again embrace Christian Europe? She lives in the depths. All that is needful to bring her to the surface again is Europeans who still love eternal Europe and hate liberaldom in all of its many guises. +

_____________________________

(1) Paganism comes in different guises, but it always ends with the same result: the slaughter of the innocents. Now that the liberals have rejected Christianity and returned to paganism in a technological and secular humanitarian guise, they are killing the old and the very young just like the red Indian and the black barbarian.

(2) The original purpose of poetry is either religious or historical, or, as must frequently happen, a mixture of both. To modern readers, the poems of Homer have many of the features of pure romance; but in the estimation of his contemporaries, they probably derived their chief value from their supposed historical authenticity. The same may be generally said of the poetry of all early ages. The marvels and miracles which the poet blends with his songs, do not exceed in number or extravagance the figments of the historians of the same period of society; and, indeed, the difference betwixt poetry and prose, as the vehicles of historical truth, is always of late introduction. Poets, under various denominations of Bards, Scalds, Chroniclers, and so forth, are the first historians of all nations. The intention is to relate the events they have witnessed, or the traditions that have reached them; and they clothe the relation in rhyme, merely as the means of rendering it more solemn in the narrative or more easily committed to memory.

The Lifeblood of the European

“The Christ story, the Hebraic Fairy Tale, is the story that the Europeans took to their hearts. Burn every single cathedral, church, and art work that celebrates the Christ story and you still won’t eradicate the sacred remembrances of Christ that lives in the blood of the European. There will always be some Europeans that will never let go of the European past. Against all logic, against all practicality, a certain breed of men will simply not let go of the vision of the one true God, who lives and reigns in eternal Europe.” -- CWNY

In the last five years I’ve done some “reaching out” in order to ascertain whether I could work with pro-white neo-pagans despite our disagreement on the issue of Christianity. I’ve also tried to ascertain whether I could work with professed Christians despite our disagreement on the subject of race. I discovered that I could not work with either the neo-pagans or the professed Christians. Both groups seemed, for different reasons, to be against the Christianity that was the lifeblood of the European for hundreds of years prior to the 20th century.

First let’s look at the neo-pagans. The older neo-pagans such as John Tyndall and Samuel Francis were politer than the younger, more savage breed of neo-pagans, but the old guard neo-pagans were united with the new neo-pagans in their firm belief that Christ be not risen. To the old guard neo-pagan, European Christianity was a wonderful invention of the white man which had been good for a time, but which became a destructive force when it went back to its non-European origins. It was not, the old guard neo-pagans maintained, Christianity that made Europe great; it was the Europeans who had made Christianity great.

The younger neo-pagans are less articulate. Their common refrain was and is, “Jew, Jew, Jew, Jew,” which is a curious phenomenon. The young neo-pagans profess to despise the Jews, yet they are like unto the Jews. The Jews, like the neo-pagans, have a passionate hatred for Christianity. Both think Christianity has been bad for their people. And of course both groups are wrong; Christ is the only hope for their people.

Even if the modern professed Christians were correct in their assertion that Christianity and white genocide are synonymous, it would be rather penny-wise, pound-foolish to abandon the hope for personal salvation for a generic hope in the survival of the white race here on earth. To what end does mere survival lead? It leads to a universal bone yard where there is no white or black, Jew or Christian, male or female, only bones. In the Kingdom of Heaven, which the neo-pagans reject, there are distinctions between black and white, male and female, sinner and saint. Neo-paganism is a blasphemy wedded to an absurdity.

In his eschatology the modern professed Christian is linked to the neo-pagan and the Jew. All three look for the future to bring about a new millennium. The neo-pagan looks to the future in which the white Übermensch, who has gone beyond good and evil, controls the world; the Jew looks for the King who will restore the house of Israel; and the modern professed Christian looks to a future age when Christians, who have freed Christ from His European prison, will worship the true Christ.

There are subtle differences between the three groups. The neo-pagans’ savior is non-personal; they simply believe in the generic race. The Jews’ savior is yet to come. Only the modern professed Christians have a savior who has already entered historical time. But has he? The Christian faith that is professed in the modern churches is not the European Christianity which, contra the neo-pagans, was the Christianity of the Bible; it is a new, syncretistic Christianity in which Christ is one God among some equal and some greater gods. And the new Christ is not a God who entered historical time; He is a cosmic God who stands outside of time as the symbol of the divine logos or the “best that is in man.” The break with the historical Christ, with Jesus of Nazareth, took place when the lunatic fringe, the great haters such as Rousseau, Voltaire, and a rogue’s gallery of Rosicrucians, alchemists, and rationalists, convinced the Christian Europeans that faith in Jesus was crude and simplistic while faith in the cosmic Messiah was important and grandiose.

Once the mindset that the traditional European Christianity is backward and retrograde takes hold, the modern Christian, even if he professes to believe in the major tenets of Christianity, will always act in accord with the liberal Christ haters. Which is why we see the strange phenomenon of “conservative” churches screaming just as loudly for race-mixing and democracy as the liberals. To oppose either would be reactionary, and therefore un-Christian, because Christianity is about the future, the new millennium. Witness the lunatic Christian evangelicals who want Israel to start a holy war in the Mideast in order to hasten the return of the liberal Christ who will punish all racists and non-supporters of Israel.

We must make a distinction between the older European Christianity and the new Christianity. The old faith was a faith for men and women who had that within which passeth show. The cruel barbarian gods of sacrifice, the distant gods of Mt. Olympus, and the abstract god of the philosophers were not enough for the race of people who needed to know that there was someone beyond and above the pagan’s isle of the dead who cared about them on this earth and in the world beyond.

The modern churches are built on stony rocks and thorns. The seeds of faith cannot take root and grow in those churches. The older European faith was rooted in the good soil, which was love of kith and kin; from such a soil, faith in the divinely human heart of Christ was born.

There has never been, nor will there ever be, a deep Faith in the living God without the fire that can only be kindled by the bonds human beings form with their kith and kin. The conservative Christian sects that admirably profess to hold to the inerrancy of Holy Scripture are not being true to their stated faith when they seek to make the human race generic. God divided humanity into particulars in order that we might come to know the particular, personal God who came from a race of people, not from a multi-racial, ecumenical cabal or from the mind of a philosopher.

The ‘Scripture alone’ Protestants were right to rebel against the ‘Reason alone’ scholastics, but have you eliminated human reason as your guide to faith and replaced it with the Holy Scriptures if human reason is your guide to the Holy Scriptures? How can a man test the veracity of the Christ story as found in the Bible or as presented to him by the teachings of the Catholic Magisterium? There is only one sifting ground for truth – the human heart. We believe or disbelieve in a visionary revelation depending on just how deeply the vision stirs our hearts.

‘Tis still a dream, or else such stuff as madmen
Tongue and brain not; either both or nothing;
Or senseless speaking, or a speaking such
As sense cannot untie. Be what it is,
The action of my life is like it, which
I’ll keep, if but for sympathy.

Let me refer back to a community Bible class I attended as part of my outreach to find other believing Christians. In reading through the Bible with the class, I was immensely impressed by the thematic synergy between the Bible and the works of the European poets. But every time I pointed out the magnificent synergy, the Bible-believing Christians looked at me as if I were from the planet Mars. These same Bible-believing Christians were also doctrinally opposed to segregation and enthusiastic supporters of one race, one world Christianity.

There is a disconnect between the Christian European of one hundred years ago and the modern professed Christian. The antique European saw no contradiction between a God who calls all men to salvation and a God who makes and wills distinctions between particular races and particular individuals. But the modern professed Christian, who has abandoned the bardic faith of his ancestors, is not capable of understanding God, because he has lost, through willful pride of intellect, the blood wisdom of the bardic European. The modern Christian’s understanding is limited to reason alone, which is always an imperfect guide to existence. If the neo-pagan were a genuine Roman pagan, he would be closer to Christ than a modern Christian because the ancient pagan had respect for the eternal verities; he was not impious.

The Holy Scriptures and an organized church cannot sustain a vital faith in Christ if they are seen as something separate and above the traditional, communal life of a people. Our culture is in our blood. The faith must be planted in the blood if it is to take root and grow.

And therein lies the reason a Christian European of the old school finds he can’t work with the modern professed Christians or with the neo-pagans. To support either will lead to the extinction of the white race and the traditional Christian faith of the white race. Our blood faith is The Faith; if we forsake our blood we have nothing and we will return to nothingness. +

“Only My Blood Speaks”

I saw a series of articles on the Internet recently that were of great interest to me. A group of Protestants who were united on the issue of white kinship were discussing the “by what authority?” question. They came up with no answers, but they asked the right questions. They agreed that the Bible alone could not be the sole authority nor could Luther and Calvin. It has always struck me as absurd that Protestants reject Papal infallibility only to adopt Calvinistic infallibility. But these Protestants rejected that absurdity. And they also, God bless them, rejected the pretenses of Rome. I think what a sincere Protestant is rejecting when he rejects Rome is the medieval accoutrements, not the Gospel story as told by such men as St. Patrick and Geoffrey of Monmouth. A genuine renewal in the Church will come from the ranks of those white, kinship-based Protestants, for they have two things that the so-called Catholics – let’s call them institutional Catholics – lack. And those two things are a sincere desire to know Jesus Christ and a determination to stand, alone if need be, with Europe.

A simple story is not of necessity silly and superficial. A simple story can have depth. All of Shakespeare’s tragedies, for instance, are based on rather simple stories. And the deepest story of all, the Christ story, is a simple one. And yet what depths are to be found in that simple story!

It has been Satan’s task to convince mankind that the complicated golden edifice of philosophical speculation from Aristotle, Plato, Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, Freud, Darwin, Marx, and de Chardin is the real truth while the simple lead casket containing the Christ story is just dross. Some dross! It is the dross that ennobles all who come in contact with it and it is the dross that maketh the dead to rise.

The European peoples did not abandon their bardic cultures when they embraced Christianity. They simply realized that Thor and Odin were precursors of the True Hero. But their cultures remained bardic. The entire thrust of the speculators of the West has been to turn Western culture into a philosophical one instead of a bardic one. But it is only in the cultures that revere the bard that Christ can find a home. The Christian bard celebrates the hearth, the village, and the humble church. He celebrates the warrior only when the warrior goes forth in support of those sacred sanctuaries.

Faith, in the bardic cultures, is simple and concrete, as depicted by H. V. Morton in his book, In Search of England. While traveling through England in 1926, he comes upon a church where the people still believe as their bardic ancestors believed:

“It is, perhaps, difficult for you, a stranger, to understand. You see, we are, in this little hamlet, untouched by modern ideas, in spite of the wireless and the charabanc. We use words long since abandoned—why only to-day I heard a little girl use the word ‘boughten’ for ‘bought’. My parishioners believe firmly in a physical resurrection! They believe that a trumpet will herald the end of the world, and that the bones in this churchyard will join together. So you see they like to be buried on top of their fathers and grand-fathers, because they will rise together as a family. It is, to them, more friendly. Clannish in life and clannish in death. It is a very old and primitive idea. I know other country clergy who are in the same, as it were, box.”

It comes down to, for European man, the call of the blood. We should not hesitate to answer that call. The philosophical speculators will tell us that such things belong to our caveman past and that we must evolve beyond it. Not so, at least not for European man. His blood has been linked to Christ’s through the blood of his ancestors. It is not some siren or some inhuman creature that calls the European. It is the bard of bards that calls.

If you put a gun to my head and ordered me to say which Church, the Protestant or the Catholic, was the more anti-Christian, I would say the Catholic Church. But it is really not a question of either/or. The Protestants responded to the Thomistic manure heap of philosophical speculation with their own brand of Calvinistic manure. Neither church has preserved the bardic or poetic core of the Christian Faith.

Christ is the sacred harpist of Western Civilization. The European people once danced, cried, lived and died to the sounds of His sacred harp. Why can we no longer hear it? We can no longer hear it because we have left the bardic forest and settled in the philosophic city. If we leave that city of desolation and enter the forest, we will hear, ever so slightly, the sound of a harp. And if we follow that sound, with a heart emptied of all other emotions save the desire to trace that sound to its source, we will proceed through the forest and come upon a cottage by a brook. And then what visions we shall see!

A man, if he is going to be a man, will come to a crossroads in his life. At that time he will hear the din of philosophical speculation which will appeal to his pride. And he will also hear the sound of the harp which will appeal to his blood. If he follows the music of the speculators, the music of the harp will fade and become, in the mind of the man, a fantasy, a dream, something that has no basis in reality. But if the man answers the call of the blood, he will gradually become so imbued with the sound of the harp that he will be immune to any other claim upon him. He will, like Hamlet, (“It is I, Hamlet the Dane”) finally know who he is and to whom he belongs.

All peoples except the European people listen to the call of the blood. But the non-European people have not been Christianized. When they answer the call of the blood, it is a call to shed blood. And now that there are not white men of blood to oppose them, the Mexicans have returned to their Aztec roots, committing hideous barbaric murders, and the Africans have returned to their voodoo roots, committing hideous and atrocious murders. And yet the modern European approves of the blood faiths of the heathens (Aztec art is all the rage in academia), while disapproving of any manifestation of the blood faith of the Europeans. The popular play Equus, for instance, depicted the plight of a pathetic, gutted psychiatrist who wondered about the wisdom of “curing” a boy who had a pagan, religious belief in horses. “The boy felt something genuine,” the psychiatrist lamented, which was more than he had ever felt. The play was seen as quite wonderful by all the play-going white people. But what if the boy had wanted to return to the Christian faith of his fathers, the faith that was bred in the bone? Would a play with such a theme have found an audience with the post-Christian theater-goers? Of course not.

The entire mound of philosophical speculation that Western man has heaped up and his current obsession with the cultures of color are related. Philosophic speculation has brought a sickness unto death into the soul of Western man. And he thinks the barbarians have the cure, even if that cure brings about Western man’s death. The end result of philosophical speculation, whether it is done in the name of religion or in the name of atheism, is suicide. Nothing seems real, and man seems unnecessary. But when one sees the faith through the eyes of the bard, when one gets to the poetic core of Europe, one can see that man is needed. He is needed by God. Certainly God creates us and sustains us, but His humanity, especially His infant humanity, must be defended. And He does have needs. He needs our love. We are tied to Him by ties of blood. If the European could see that, and every European is capable of seeing Christ walking in the sacred woods, he could once again claim his birthright, he would once again be a European.

In a marvelous series of stories for children and the childlike, Kipling places Puck of Shakespeare’s Midsummer Night’s Dream in England. England as seen in the eyes of Puck and his young English companions is an enchanted fairy land. And so it was and is. The fairies have been driven underground and to the furthermost crags and crannies of Europe, but they are still there. Western man has been asleep, having a nightmare. In that nightmare he constantly tries to touch people and objects, but every time he reaches out to do so the people and objects turn to ideas and they fade away. If the European man awakes, he will see the fairies once again, and they will teach him what he already knows deep in his blood. They will teach him that the sacred woods of Europe come from the wood of the cross and the great King of Fairy Land is the selfsame carpenter who died on a cross at Calvary.

European culture is separate now, and was separate in the past as well, from all other cultures. She is separate now because she alone is rationalist while all other cultures are blood cultures. She was separate in the past because her blood culture was soaked in the blood of the lamb while all other cultures were soaked in the blood of their enemies. Surely a state of grace does not just consist of refraining from the more graphic mortal sins. It must also mean that one has overcome the obstacles that block the path to the living God. The rationalist culture must die and the bardic culture be restored before Christ can be seen on Blake’s English green.

I think Walter Scott demonstrates the way individual European men and women should go and the way European culture should go. He got his law degree and could have become a successful lawyer, but the fairy stories of Europe and the history of the European people were burned deeply into his soul. He answered the call of the blood and followed bardic Europe instead of rationalist Europe. And so should we all, but therein lies a great mystery. What can rekindle the fire of a love that has turned to ashes? From a strict scientific standpoint, the answer is nothing. You can’t rekindle ashes. But then the nonscientific Bard of Europe has told us all things are possible for those… But first we must see Him clearly. And then we shall love again and see ashes turned into a “chariot of fire.”

There are two European traditions, one of breadth and one of depth. The philosophical tradition is the tradition of breadth. It includes Plato’s unholy republic, Aquinas’s attempt to naturalize God, and Darwin’s attempt to turn man into an ape. The devotees of the tradition of breadth claim the glory of European man consists of his insatiable desire to expand his knowledge through the contemplation and the study of the natural world. Ever-onward means ever-upward to the man of breadth.

The bardic or poetic tradition, which I believe is the true Western tradition, is the tradition of depth. It is not knowledge of the natural world that activates the bardic tradition. It is the human heart. For those who follow the bardic tradition, the human heart, not nature, holds the secrets of the universe.

In the Aquinas-Darwinian tradition of breadth, the call of the blood must be suppressed because it is unclean and a deterrent to the pursuit of true knowledge, which always amounts to an accumulation of facts and observations about the natural world. This type of thinking is currently called ‘scientific’. In the bardic-poetic tradition of depth, man’s wisdom is viewed as imperfect but not unclean. It can be purified and perfected in the fiery furnace of the human heart. And when purified it becomes the true source of wisdom. It allows us to know God as a personality rather than as a derivative by-product of nature.

To me it seems obvious that the tradition of breadth is the golden casket that Bassania so wisely rejected:

“Thus ornament is but the guiled shore
To a most dangerous sea; the beauteous scarf
Veiling an Indian beauty; in a word
The seeming truth which cunning times put on
T’ entrap the wisest. Therefore, then thou gaudy gold,
Hard food for Midas, I will none of thee;…”

Bravo! Neither the golden tradition of the philosophers and scientists or the silver one of the hard-eyed capitalists is the European tradition. Our tradition, from which we have strayed, is the bardic tradition of the simple lead casket. In that casket are the elves, the fairies, the knights, the ladies, and the Great King of all human hearts.

: but thou, thou meager lead,
Which rather threat’nest than does promise aught,
Thy plainness moves me more than eloquence;
And here choose I. Joy be the consequence!