Good Blood

Tirian had never dreamed that one of the results of an Ape’s setting up a false Aslan would be to stop people from believing in the real one.

-- C. S. Lewis in *The Last Battle*

It was the fate of the Hebrews to watch what had started out as a small heretical cult from within their nation become a worldwide religion that left them marginalized. How did this happen? The Hebrews forgot what the essence of their faith was: the fact of a personal God. While the Roman civilization was self-destructing from its refusal to accept a personal God, the Jewish faith became marginalized by the same type of refusal. Christ was the fulfillment of the Jews’ very personal faith. His rejection was like the rejection of a fiancée, to whom one became engaged after a long exchange of letters and phone calls but, when he showed up at the doorstep, was turned away.

It would seem that there is within man a great desire for a personal God as well as a contradictory desire for an impersonal, less human, and more abstracted God. We desire this, I think, because we sense that to be fully human, as Christ is, is too painful. No other poet has ever come close to Shakespeare in describing the pain and suffering involved in the process of becoming human. And Shakespeare shows us that few make it. We stop somewhere along in the humanizing process, create a false, abstracted image of God, the image closest to the point we have gotten to, and declare that image to be the authentic one.

How then can we ever become fully human if we worship at the altar of a false god? If we are forever playing Julian the Apostate by putting classical wings on Christ’s outstretched arms, it would seem that we are doomed to wander forever, like the flying Dutchman, unblessed, unforgiven, and unhallowed. I think the answer lies in the works of P. C. Wren and in the declaration of William Blake:

This Life’s dim Windows of the Soul
Distorts the Heavens from Pole to Pole
And leads you to Believe a lie
When you see with not thro the Eye.

Yes, we must have a vision, a beau ideal. And we must not accept our actions and thoughts that run counter to the beau ideal as reality because they outnumber our thoughts and actions directed toward the ideal. It is when the white heat is in our hearts that we see the beau ideal and behave like Beau Geste. That is reality; that is the vision that needs to be protected by the entire bureaucratic structure of society and the sacramental structure of the church.

The Catholic Church and the modern Protestant churches have followed the way of the Pharisees and the ancient Romans. The betrothed came to the door and was rejected because of his humanity. And the rejection stems from intellectual pride. We always insist that the voices of the prophets and the reality of the incarnate God be forced to fit our intellectual constructs. And our intellectual constructs are always wrong, because they come from disembodied brains and not the blood. Mary Augustus Evans, the Southern authoress, put it quite well when she said, “Good blood doesn’t lie.” When we are connected to God by a blood tie, whatever comes from the blood will be pure and true.

Adam and Eve had a filial, blood relationship with God. He was their Father, their progenitor. He certainly loved them, but did they love him? Well, obviously not enough. Satan tempted them, and they severed their blood tie to their father in order to study Him in the abstract. “Does God really mean that we should not eat the apple because it will harm us, or is He secretly afraid it will empower us?” That type of “studying” led to the loss of Eden. And the same type of study led to the loss of the new Eden.

European civilization was the second Eden. And it was a better Eden than the first, because in the second Eden God revealed Himself in His entirety through Jesus Christ. Of course the European Eden was not the literal Eden of the Bible. There was sin and death in the second Eden, but there was a presence, His presence, in the second Eden that held out the hope that death, the final enemy, would be defeated.

In our modern, anti-European civilization there is no hope that death will be defeated. There is only the hope that science will render death painless. And His presence has been replaced by the presence of Satan.

Herbert Butterfield, in his masterpiece, Christianity and History, said,

It may be true that nature and history are not separable in the last resort, but at the level at which we do most of our ordinary thinking it is important to separate them, important not to synthesise them too easily and too soon, important above all not thoughtlessly to assume that nature, instead of being the substructure, is the whole edifice or the crown. The thing which we have come to regard as history would disappear if students of the past ceased to regard the world of men as a thing against nature and the animal kingdom. In such circumstances the high valuation that has long been set upon human personality would speedily decline.

I think we should regard the blood and the heart in the same way. For ordinary purposes there is no such thing as a merely physical concept of human blood and the human heart. Heart and blood are mystical, spiritual entities. You have to overturn all of God’s revelation to man if you deny that heart and blood contain the soul of man and are his connecting links to God.

For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

To paraphrase Linus in Charlie Brown’s Christmas, “That’s what Christianity is all about, Mr. White-hating Technocrat.” And all the products of the scientific, rational, modern man have been created to detach man from his heart, which is where the true light of knowledge shines.

To use Butterfield’s term, for ordinary purposes there has only been one civilization of the heart, and that was the European civilization. Liberal-liberals say that civilization was evil. Conservative-liberals say we only need to preserve the intellectual processes and procedures of the old European civilization and not the heart and blood heritage of its people. (1) But the heart and blood of the white man is the soul of European civilization. Without it there is no civilization.

The democratic process, multiculturalism, universal brotherhood, and on and on… are all code words for the rule of Satan. When the white man once again looks to the light of knowledge in his own heart and blood, he will be equipped to fight the only war worth fighting, the war for sacred Europe.
_____________________________
(1) Patrick Buchanan is an example of the liberal-conservative. In a recent book he writes about the unnecessary war, the Second World War, but it was only unnecessary if you are a kinist, someone who believes that race and faith bind a nation together. If you believe, as Buchanan and his ilk do, that a nation is based on an idea, then World War II was necessary to defend the idea of the universality of democracy.

The Rational Lodger

“You have got a rational lodger, who knows how to attend upon himself.” – LeFanu

In the trial scene in Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice, the Jewish merchant expresses his delight with the judge’s verdict, which grants him his pound of flesh, with these words: “A Daniel come to judgment! Yea, a Daniel! O wise young judge, how I do honour thee!”

But when the “upright” judge pushes Shylock’s plea for justice to its logical conclusion and condemns Shylock, it is Antonio’s friend Gratiano who has the last word.

Gratiano: A Daniel, still say I, a second Daniel! I thank thee, Jew, for teaching me that word.

In the same spirit that Gratiano thanked Shylock, I must thank Thomas Fleming for using the words “infantile ravings’ to describe those who were concerned about the survival of the white race. With those words Thomas Fleming summed up liberaldom’s brief against Christianity. Please note that I do not say a ‘brief against Kinists’ or a ‘brief against Europeans’ but a ‘brief against Christianity,’ because Christianity is synonymous with those who adhere to the Kinist, European vision of Christ.

I have heard this liberal case against Christianity all my life, so let me translate Fleming’s words for the reader: “There is a higher, purer religion than Christianity as it is presented in the Gospels. The mature, thinking man knows that there is a force beyond the tribal, clannish God of the Bible, and that force can be comprehended by human reason. To interpret the Gospels too literally on subjects like the resurrection of the dead and the divinity of Christ is foolish and childish. A grownup doesn’t do such things.”

This was the first liberal’s argument. He told Adam and Eve it was infantile and foolish to adhere to an arbitrary commandment of a primitive, archaic God when they could use their rational powers to tap into a higher, purer power than God. The Athenians told St. Paul the same thing. It has always been thus. Satan attacks us by appealing to our intellectual pride. “By God, I’m no dummy. I’m not a stupid baby – I’ll adopt the higher religion.” Of course, Satan never uses the same disguise twice. He might appear in a lab coat, a priest’s cassock, or the cashmere sweater of a conservative columnist. But he always uses the same method. He appeals to man’s rational faculties divorced from his heart and blood.

In a magnificent short story called “The Mysterious Lodger” Joseph Sheridan LeFanu presents us with a portrait of the devil that is in keeping with Scripture and the great Christian poets. (1) The devil, when he wants to destroy a family or a community, always takes up lodgings disguised as a rationalist.

A few days after, on my return, I found my poor little wife agitated and dispirited. Mr. Smith had paid her a visit, and brought with him a book, which he stated he had been reading, and which contained some references to the Bible which he begged of her to explain in that profounder and less obvious sense in which they had been cited. This she had endeavoured to do; and affecting to be much gratified by her satisfactory exposition, he had requested her to reconcile some discrepancies which he said had often troubled him when reading the Scriptures. Some of them were quite new to my good little wife; they startled and even horrified her. He pursued this theme, still pretending only to seek for information to quiet his own doubts, while in reality he was sowing in her mind the seeds of the first perturbations that had ever troubled the sources of her peace.

At the heart of the Reformation was a desire to hold on to a basic, elemental faith in the divinity and humanity of the man called Jesus. The rationalist pretensions of the scholastics had sown doubts in the minds of the faithful, which they sought to assuage by returning to their apostolic and European roots. They were only temporarily successful in their efforts because, as Fitzhugh has described for us (2), the philosophical speculators stepped in and rationalized the Protestant protest against rationalism.

It is not, as the rationalist critics of bred-in-the-bone Christianity maintain, that there is no rational component in the bardic or kinist Christianity. There is. But ultimately Christianity is beyond reason. Whenever we try to limit its parameters to what is rational, we destroy that which makes Christianity wholly true and wholly unique.

Our chroniclers, the European poets, have shown us that in every age the devil, disguised as a rationalist, is always present. He claimed the European “intellectuals” first, and then in the 20th century, he claimed the European folk or ‘volk.’ In centuries prior to the 20th, the Christian warrior always rallied the folk against the rationalist elite. However, now that there are no folk, the Christian braveheart stands alone. But then again, not quite alone. He stands in line with noble antique hearts, living still, in the arms of our Lord. What kind of advantage, if any, does that give the modern Christian knight over his liberal antagonists? A great advantage, if he doesn’t break faith with the blood of his ancestors. But if he steps away from his ties of blood and decides to be clever, as Toad does when he motors away from Toad Hall, he will place the devil in a “can’t lose’ situation. If the conservative is a rationalist and the liberal is a rationalist, both are in the devil’s camp. The devil wants all of man’s existence to be confined by the rules and parameters of academic study, because he knows that if a man studies the thing he loves on a purely rational basis, he will soon cease to love the object of his study. This is why literary critics know less about literature than anybody else and the reason why modern clerics know nothing about God. Being rationalists they have lost the wisdom of the heart that is necessary for a proper understanding of existence.

In Great Expectations, Mr. Wopsle is not taken seriously when he disputes the pompous Pumblechook, who has a theory about the robbery. He is not taken seriously because “he has no theory.” But Wopsle is correct. The bardic Christian is in the position of Mr. Wopsle. He is correct: race and blood are the building blocks of religious faith. But in a rationalist age, or to be more accurate, a satanic age, only the theoretical is real; concrete reality is considered false. The temptation for the Christian is to come up with a theory to combat the liberals’ theories. But if we succumb to that temptation, we will no longer be among them but not of them; we will be of them. When the Flemings of liberaldom tell us that it is unChristian, infantile, and irrational to concern ourselves with the survival of the white race, we will not run and find a theory to justify our existence. We will hold to our ancestors’ faith, the faith that transcends theory, and become even more recalcitrant and unyielding in defense of our race and our faith.

The liberals think they have reached the final, higher stage of faith. They have gone beyond race, beyond the ties of kith and kin that used to bind ‘unenlightened’ Europeans to each other. But the fruits of their higher faith are hideous. You have to be a soulless mutant to live in our modern rationalist anti-culture and actually view that anti-culture as the summit of man’s achievements on this earth. Only a sick, demented rationalist who has concluded, after much research and careful study, that hell is heaven and heaven is hell could possibly rest content with our unholy present.

The gentle bard is right: a man can never say with certainty that he is at the worst. He is worse than ere he was. But the extent of the de-evolution of European man from Christian to rationalist cannot be measured on any human scale. The fall was from heaven to hell. The European had Christ in his heart and blood. He possessed heaven. When he forsook his blood, he lost heaven and gained hell.

Thomas Nelson Page described the white man’s instinct to preserve his race as an instinct “beyond reason.” To the modern liberal that is heresy. But the liberal is married to hell, and there is no instinct beyond reason in hell, because there is no love in hell. The rational lodger is terrified of that loving instinct of God which compelled Him to reach out to man. And he is also afraid that man will respond to God’s overture with a loving instinct that is beyond reason. When the Europeans did in fact respond to God’s love, Satan became the mortal enemy of the European people. He has no desire to destroy the non-white races because they have steadfastly refused to believe that spirit and blood, God and Man, can be joined. They have always preferred religions of sacrifice to the religion of mercy.

The rational lodger can never rest until the white man ceases to exist, because the white man’s blood was animated by His spirit. This is why he lodges in the formerly Christian churches of the white man. He wants them all to be rational so that they will slavishly worship the colored races and destroy the white race, all in the name of God. And that is the key. If man’s reason alone is the final arbiter, then reason is God. That is the way liberals think. Reason meant something quite different to the apostles. They were not Thomists! To the apostles, reason was subordinate to the heart. It was used as an aid in articulating the faith, not as a substitute for it. “But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear.” (I Peter 3:15).

Yes, something must be in you. There must be an instinct in your heart and blood that is beyond reason which enables you to resist the seductive heresies of the rational lodger and to champion the God born in a manger. The third dumb brother in the fairy tales always in the end triumphs over the rational, clever brothers, because the third dumb brother has that within him which transcends reason: a heart connected to His heart.

In common, everyday English when we say a person is acting “irrationally” we mean to say that he is acting in a way that is not right. “You can’t deal with a person who is not rational.” And when we say a person is acting rationally we usually mean that he is acting in a proper way. But in the metaphysical realm, it is quite a different story. Stavrogin, in Dostoevsky’s The Possessed, is perfectly rational when he commits suicide. The Negro savages who tortured and murdered the Catholic nuns in the Congo were acting rationally; it was in their self-interest to murder the whites. And Pope John XXIII was acting rationally when he forgave the murderers; it was in his best interest, the interest of his rational, satanic, faithless faith, to support the colored race and jettison the white.

In the incredibly prophetic Greek myth, Prometheus, because he loves mankind, steals fire from the gods and gives it to man. And he is punished for his act of charity. In the Christian myth, the true myth, God Himself gives fire to man. He descends to earth and sets hearts on fire. And like Prometheus, He suffers because of His act of charity, but unlike Prometheus, He suffers because He wills it, not because the gods decree it.

The Greeks replaced their cruel gods with a rational philosophy. But then, from whence comes the Promethean fire? There is no fire in rationalism. The Christian hearth contains the fire that lights the world. If you kill the white man’s love for that hearth, the world will be plunged into darkness. And if the rationalist were not blinded by his reason, he could see that the only patches of light left on earth are in those places where ancient European hearth fires are still burning. The fires are kept alive by the love of our race, the Christ-bearing race. If we hearken to the new religion of rationalism and vitalism, we will separate ourselves from God. But if we stay close to the European hearth we will be able to counter the assault of the rationalists and the barbarians. We will counter their assault with fire, the fire from the center of the European hearth. +
_______________________________________

(1) On the basis of two works, the short story “The Mysterious Lodger” and his novel Uncle Silas, LeFanu deserves to be placed in the top rank of Christian poets.

(2) “A Washington, a Peel, or a Wellington, never ‘writes himself down an ass’ by appealing to abstract principles to justify measures which are rendered necessary by a thousand minute and peculiar circumstances of the hour, which common sense and experience instinctively appreciate, but which philosophy in vain attempts to detect or to generalize. Common sense never attempts ‘to expel’ nature,’ but suggests and carries through a thousand useful reforms by recurrence to and comparison with the past, and by cautious experimentation. Common sense sometimes errs by excess of conservation; but it is better to err with Pope, who thought ‘Whatever is, is right,’ than with Jefferson, whose every act and words proves that he held that ‘Whatever is, is wrong.’ The Reformation was not the thought and the act of Luther, Calvin, Cranmer, and Erasmus; but the thought and the act of society—the vox Populi, vox Dei. Popes and cardinals are not infallible, but society is. Its harmony is its health; and to differ with it is heresy or treason, because social discord inflicts individual misery; and what disturbs and disarranges society, impairs the happiness and well-being of its members.” – Cannibals All! Or Slaves Without Masters by George Fitzhugh

White-Hating Whites

Humanity must perforce prey on itself,
Like monsters of the deep.

--King Lear

In the older westerns and jungle pictures of the 1930’s, 1940’s, and 1950’s, the white men who sold guns to the Indians or betrayed the whites to the black cannibals were portrayed as morally reprehensible individuals. But in the 1960’s the movies started depicting whites who betrayed their fellow whites as moral giants, far beyond the ken of ordinary, sinful whites. The treacherous, evil gunrunner became the dedicated social worker, and the traitorous white hunter (see Tarzan and the Lost Safari) became the self-righteous cleric damning all whites who opposed integration.

The Hollywood movie moguls are always slightly in advance of the average American, but not by much, because they want to make money. If they were too far away from the mainstream, they wouldn’t make money. The new movies of the late 1960’s reflected the change in the way white people viewed themselves and other cultures. Movies of the ‘30’s, ‘40’s and ‘50’s, by and large, show us a people who were tolerant of the “lesser breeds” but still holding on to the belief that white civilization and the whites who created it were the right sort of people who deserved to be emulated, not demonized.

Of course from the late 1960’s on, the constant, unrelenting theme of our popular movies has been the evil of whites and the goodness of the non-white. Given the enormity of the propaganda against the white race, it is surprising that a black wasn’t nominated for President even sooner. Maybe the forty years from 1968 to 2008 were needed in order for the old “racist” whites to die out.

I don’t know if it’s true that rats flee a sinking ship, but humans certainly do. From the late 1960’s on we have been treated to the disgusting spectacle of whites trying to disassociate themselves from white culture by pinning the racist label on other whites or by claiming victim status for their white ethnic group. Thus, the editors of Southern Partisan magazine spent all their time writing about the evils of segregation and the hypocrisy of those damn Yankees who were, after all, “a lot more prejudiced than we are.” Take for another example my parish priest who regularly told his black parishioners that being Irish he considered black people to be his people and not those hideous white WASPs.

With all the white backstabbing going on, one gets the impression he is in a Grade B horror film. One minute, you are standing next to a normal-looking white person and in the next moment, that normal-looking white person has a mouth full of fangs and is trying to bite you in the neck. Just the other day, for instance, I was having a perfectly normal conversation with a man named Patrick Buchanan, when suddenly, without warning, he sprouted fangs and tried to bite me. I quickly got out of range of his fangs and ran home to try and find a suitable wooden stake. Must it be a wooden stake? There simply is no telling who will turn next!

Using the colored races to defeat a white enemy is not something new. The French used Indians against the British in the French and Indian War; Franco used Moorish troops against the communists; and the North used black troops against the Southern whites. But with the exception of our own Civil War, the use of non-European people against Europeans was not an admission, on the part of the European country using colored troops, that the European and the colored were equals. It was simply a breach in the honor code. “I’ll use any tactic to defeat my enemy!”

In the later half of the 20th century, something quite different than a breach in the honor code was taking place. The issue of the colored races became a religious one. It was not a case of “The colored can be used to give us victory over our white enemies.” It was not a case of “We must convert the heathen.” Nor was it a case of “We must grant the colored races the same rights and privileges which we accord to the whites.” None of those cases express the late 20th and 21st century reality. The reality is that it is now required that the colored races, particularly the black race, the race most antithetical to the white race, be worshipped and the white race be demonized. That is the reigning orthodoxy. If a white man wants to remain viable in politics, religion or society in general, he must demonize his own race. Patrick Buchanan is a classic example. It is sad to see a man so desperate for media air time and publishers that he rushes to join in with the demonizers of the white race.

The deifying of the colored and the demonizing of the white was codified in the late 20th century, but it has been a lurking little devil of an idea, waiting to come to fruition, for many centuries. The root of it is to be found in Satan’s intellectual temptation of Adam and Eve. And its formal entry into the heart of the church came with the advent of scholasticism, which reduces Christianity to a propositional, dialectical faith, in which the personality of God and the personality of man are rendered subservient to the idea of faith. Thus, with genuine sincerity and zeal for his faith, James II of England, Scotland, and Wales, could elevate a black man to a status above all the white Protestants of his realm:

Indeed the King’s rage for making converts was driven to such a height by his obsequious ministers, that an ignorant negro, the servant or slave of one Reid, a mountebank, was publicly baptized after the Catholic ritual upon a stage in the High Street of Edinburgh, and christened James, in honour, it was said, of the Lord Chancellor James Earl of Perth, King James himself, and the Apostle James.

-- from Walter Scott's Tales of a Grandfather

Is faith that simple? Does it only entail the acceptance of a few intellectual propositions and a subsequent ritual purification to make one a Christian? Or is there something else that is necessary? A tradition that predates the scholastics, the tradition of the Gospels and the first European converts, stresses the need for a deeper, more intense involvement with the deity than can be obtained by mere acceptance of whatever official party line is ruling Christendom at the particular moment. Theology changes with the weather, but a deep-seated, heart-felt faith, based on a spirit and blood relationship with one’s kith and kin and one’s God does not change. It endures.

I view the Protestant Reformation, at its deepest level, as a longing to hold on to an unchanging faith. The faithful felt that the Hero God, whom the apostles saw on the way to Emmaus, whom St. Paul saw on the road to Damascus, and whom their Germanic ancestors saw and rescued from the maze of Greco-Roman theology, was in danger of becoming a vague theory about God rather than the living God. Of course, the Protestant theologians quickly returned to theory and away from faith. That is the curse of Adam: we are indeed, as Chateaubriand points out, “more deeply tinctured with the pride of science than with the pride of love.”

I think the phrase, “pride of science,” is very apt. It conjures up images of a man in a lab coat, studying his fellow men, and God as well, as if they and He were insects in a jar. It is in Satan’s best interest to keep Western man focused on the things he can quantify, calculate, and collect rather than on the things he intuits when the poetic flame is blazing.

And since that poetic flame only blazed in the European hearth, Satan’s main task is to keep that hearth fire extinguished. Satan knows what the European once knew when the hearth fire was ablaze: The spirit of God comes to man through the blood. Without that conduit, all white men become soulless, bloodless zombies, worshipping the blood of the coloreds in an attempt to reclaim their lost vitality. But the attempt is always futile because the blood of the barbarian has no animating spirit in it. Yet the swinish white men rush headlong over the cliff in their frenzy to worship at the altars of the colored races.

American, pride-of-science whites are not alone in their frenzied rush for the abyss; the European whites have joined them, but it is in America that we can see two very striking examples of the coalition that has destroyed European civilization. In Presidential candidate McCain, we see the white-hating white who has embraced the soulless, bloodless faith of the pride-of-science men. In Presidential candidate Obama, we see the personification of the soulless faith of blood. Blacks love him because his faith is their faith, and whites worship him because he has the blood that they have denounced.

Liberaldom does not just consist of those who are pro-choice and in favor of immigration ‘reform,’ it also includes all those whites who see no animating spiritual presence in the blood faith of the antique Europeans. When they tell us that we must renounce those “infantile” ties of blood which bind us to a higher civilization than the modern liberal could possibly know, we must renounce them and realize that we are involved in a religious war, not a minor disagreement.

Christians who spout race-mixing propaganda and hurl jeremiads at Kinists are not Christians. They have become Jews, a people hardened against Christ’s reign of charity. You cannot argue or debate with such people; you can only war with them.

I pray you, think you question with the Jew:
You may as well go stand upon the beach
And bid the main flood bate his usual height;
You may as well use question with the wolf
Why he hath made the ewe bleat for the lamb;
You may as well forbid the mountain pines
To wag their high tops and to make no noise,
When they are fretten with the gusts of heaven;
You may as well do anything most hard,
As seek to soften that--than which what's harder?--
His Jewish heart:

--The Merchant of Venice

We can expect more defections from white people who either give up fighting because of cowardice or give up fighting because the white liberals have converted them with their unrelenting propaganda. But the white European of the old stock will never betray his own blood, because he is still connected, through his blood, to the older Europe whose people were united in spirit and in blood to Him. And in that Europe He still is the only King with rights of memory.

“Of the Same Blood”

“A Man should, whatever happens, keep his own caste, race and breed”

– Rudyard Kipling

Have you ever had an experience in your life that affected you profoundly but that you couldn’t write about because you felt you just couldn’t do justice to the experience? That has been my feeling about a certain visit I made to Britain some thirty years ago when I was a young man. I still don’t feel I can adequately describe it, but I’m now old enough to realize that I’ll never be able to do the theme justice, so let me at least stammer at what cannot be adequately articulated.

It was the mid-1970’s. I had been in Italy, Greece, and France and found those countries to be beautiful. The Parthenon was fascinating, the Pieta and the Sistine Chapel were moving, and the Louvre in Paris was magnificent. But nothing in Southern Europe affected me as much as the mere act of stepping on British soil did. I felt like Mole in The Wind in the Willows (Chapter 5, Dulce Domum): I was home. I was in the country of Shakespeare, Kipling, Scott, Grahame, Dickens, and others, men of my own tongue, of my own flesh and blood, who were wedded in spirit and blood to the same heritage that I was wedded to. The day I was married and the individual births of my six children have been the only moments in my life that can compare with the day I set foot on British soil.

I wasn’t born and raised in a cave, so I didn’t expect every Brit I met to quote Shakespeare or to say, ‘Pip, pip, cheerio,’ but I did hope to meet some real Brits. I don’t know if the ghosts of Britain alone could have kept my enthusiasm at a fever pitch if I hadn’t met some living representatives of the great ghosts of Britain. I was fortunate. The young men and women of my own age were burnt-out cases without personal identities, citizens of a new international community of soulless automatons. But I was able to meet some older Britons who did indeed live up to the finest traditions of the nation of Shakespeare, Kipling, and Scott. One couple in particular made a lasting impression.

I was wandering through the Lake District of England, quite lost but not particularly nervous about it because I had water, cheese, and bread and it was summertime. If worse came to worse, I could sleep out in the woods. Toward evening though, I came upon an elderly woman tending a garden in front of a modest cottage. A cottage in the woods! I asked for directions to the nearest youth hostel. She asked her husband to come out of the house; “He gives much better directions than I do.” The husband was just as cordial as his wife. After exchanging a few pleasantries, he informed me that the nearest youth hostel was much too far away to reach before dark and that I should spend the night at their house.

I first I declined, for the usual reasons: “I just couldn’t impose on you like that. And besides, I’m a stranger.”

The husband’s reply still makes me feel like Ratty on the river. “You’re no stranger, you Yanks are the same blood as us.” Ah, the “same blood.” Thomas Fleming would not approve. This ‘infantile’ old man was talking about ties of blood! But that old Brit was correct. We were of the same blood. I slept in his study that night, surrounded by our common heritage: Treasure Island, King Lear, Hamlet, The Christmas Carol – you know the list. That encounter with a true-born Englishman has stayed with me all my life. It affected me much like the reading of The Wind and the Willows had. I felt that I knew why God chose to reveal Himself to man through the blood.

The philosopher, the scientist, and the barbarian all separate the life of the spirit from the life of the blood. The philosopher and the scientist see the true life of the spirit in the mind, while the barbarian sees no spiritual dimension in his life, only the blood. But a Christian knows that spirit and blood are not meant to be separated. Christ is our spiritual father and our blood brother. When a man ceases to care about ‘little things’ like home, blood, and race, he ceases to be Christian, because it is through those little things that God reveals Himself to man.

Suppose a black man had approached my British friend and asked for directions. And let’s say the black man was a naturalized British citizen and a professed Christian. I can say with certainty the black man would have been offered food, he would have been given directions to the youth hostel, but he would not have been asked to stay under the same roof as the English couple. Why? Because the old Brit’s Christianity was bred in the bone. He knew that a Christian renders aid as the Good Samaritan did, caring for the stranger but not admitting the stranger to his dwelling.

So much hinges on this question of the stranger. A few years back I read a “conservative” Catholic journal that zealously proclaimed that the sign of the true Christian was the amount of respect which he accorded the stranger. I don’t believe that respect for the stranger is the penultimate of Christianity. But let’s assume it is. Does respect for the stranger include respect for his heathen religion? Were the Spanish wrong to tear down the altars of the Aztecs? Were the British missionaries wrong to try and convert the African headhunters? And were the British wrong to forbid the Suttee and other colorful customs of the Hindus?

Let’s take this argument to the next step. What happens when the African , the Indian, or the Aztec converts to Christianity? Aren’t we then obligated to treat them as equals? The Northern European Protestants did not think so. They did not think that the mere affirmation of Christianity made a non-European any less of a stranger. Their Christian faith did not countenance race-mixing. The Spanish and Portuguese Catholics did mix bloodlines with the stranger, but they did so more from a weakness of the flesh than from a belief in the principle of racial egalitarianism. And when they mixed with the stranger, the mulatto was not put on the same level as the white. Until the later half of the 20th century, with more exceptions in the Catholic countries, the general consensus of the European people was that an espousal of Christianity did not mean an African or an Indian could become a European. And certainly not a Muslim or Hindu. What has changed? How did we get from Thomas Nelson Page’s declaration that preserving the integrity of the white race was our primary duty to Thomas Fleming’s assertion that those who raved about the survival of the white race were infantile?

We came to this pass because the intellectual elite of Europe abandoned the wisdom of their race and persuaded enough of the peasants (obviously when I use the term, peasant, I am not referring only to those who till the soil) to follow in their train. The liberal liberal and the conservative liberal all prostrate themselves before ancient Greece, but they fail to learn from the Greeks. They look on the rationalist tradition of the Greeks as a sure foundation from which to launch their utopian schemes and plans. They completely disregard the moral of the Greek experience because they disregard the wisest of the Greeks, Sophocles. In Oedipus Rex, Sophocles depicts a man intelligent enough to solve the riddle of the Sphinx, but whose intelligence is insufficient to ward off fate. It is only the old blind Oedipus who sees, at Colonus, what the rationalists could not and cannot see. Like the blinded Gloster in King Lear, he sees the world feelingly. He sees a God beyond the gods, a God connected to the human heart. It has always been Satan’s mission to obscure the divine intimations in the human heart and beckon man to look at God and the world with his mind. That was the original temptation that the first man and woman succumbed to.

Observe, too, what is very important: man had it in his power to destroy the harmony of his being in two ways, either by wanting to love too much, or to know too much. He transgressed in the second way; for we are, in fact, far more deeply tinctured with the pride of science than with the pride of love; the latter would have deserved pity rather than punishment, and if Adam had been guilty of desiring to feel rather than to know too much, man himself might, perhaps, have been able to expiate his transgression, and the Son of God would not have been obliged to undertake so painful a sacrifice. But the case was different. Adam sought to embrace the universe, not with the sentiments of his heart, but with the power of thought, and, advancing to the tree of knowledge, he admitted into his mind a ray of light that overpowered it. The equilibrium was instantaneously destroyed, and confusion took possession of man. Instead of that illumination which he had promised himself, a thick darkness overcast his sight, and his guilt, like a veil, spread out between him and the universe. His whole soul was agitated and in commotion; the passions rose up against the judgment, the judgment strove to annihilate the passions, and in this terrible storm the rock of death witnessed with joy the first of shipwrecks.

- from The Genius of Christianity by François R. de Chateaubriand

This has ever been the conflict. Christ restores the harmony of man’s being by turning him back to the sentiments of his heart, and Satan seeks to tempt man away from his heart back to his ‘illuminated mind.’ Christ vs. the Pharisees, St. Paul vs. the Greeks, the Europeans vs. the Scholastics, the poet vs. the scientist, the Kinist vs. the universalist. The rationalistic façade is always different but always rational. The devil is the great mocker, the supreme sophist. He sneers at everything human:

These last great authors have given to the Evil Principle something which elevates and dignifies his wickedness; a sustained and unconquerable resistance against Omnipotence itself—a lofty scorn of suffering compared with submission, and all those points of attraction in the Author of Evil, which have induced Burns and others to consider him as the Hero of the “Paradise Lost.” The great German poet has, on the contrary, rendered his seducing spirit a being who, otherwise totally unimpassioned, seems only to have existed for the purpose of increasing, by his persuasions and temptations, the mass of moral evil, and who calls forth by his seductions those slumbering passions which otherwise might have allowed the human being who was the object of the Evil Spirit’s operations to pass the tenor of his life in tranquility. For this purpose Mephistopheles is, like Louis XI, endowed with an acute and depreciating spirit of caustic wit, which is employed incessantly in undervaluing and vilifying all actions, the consequences of which do not lead certainly and directly to self-gratification.

--Introduction to Quentin Durward by Walter Scott

I once read a book, written for children (like a number of those books written for children, I think it moved me more than it did my children) that told the story of a country boy in Elizabethan England who somehow ended up working at the royal court. When he refused, despite the scorn and ridicule of the city-bred boys and girls, to give up his country songs, one of the nobles of the court applauds him and says, “Quite right, my lad; you should never be ashamed of your home and the things you love.”

Thomas Fleming is almost right; it is not infantile, but it is childlike for a white man to care about the survival of the white race. But didn’t someone once enjoin us to become like little children? All the things we love – home, kith, and kin – are interwoven into the fabric of the white man’s culture. Only a man who has severed his mind from his heart and turned to the worship of his own mind could suggest that we give those things up for lost.

But therein lies the conflict. The children of darkness have given up their religion of the heart for the religion of the mind. This goes against the wisdom of the race. The white man has always preferred the leaden casket over the one of gold and the one of silver; the cottage in the woods to the sumptuous palace; and the blood of the Lamb to the magic talisman. Let the sons and daughters of this ‘new age of enlightenment’ keep all their magic talismans: rationalism, science, and multiculturalism. The European will stay with the European cottage in the woods that contains the things he loves. And his childlike attachment to the things he loves will keep him bound to the Sacred Heart Who speaks to men through the little things that the clever men and women have discarded. The old fairy tales are correct: the faithful heart always triumphs over the satanic mind.

“I Know Not Seems”

There is an old, kind of folksy story that tells of a city slicker driving up to a farm and asking the farmer, “How do I get to Centerville from here?” The farmer replies, “Well, if I was going to Centerville, I wouldn’t start from here.” Of course, the point is that one must always start from here; our modern civilization is not a good starting point for a counterrevolution, but we are here.

The Europeans were the only race of people that had a “bred in the bone” Christianity. Other races adapted Christianity at certain points in their history and then abandoned it, like a used coat, when it became expedient to abandon it. And the ones that didn’t abandon Christianity officially, such as the Mexicans, simply blended it with their native barbaric religion. The point is that Christianity never reached the blood of the non-Europeans. So when a non-European people stops professing Christianity it doesn’t affect their essential being, as individuals, or as a culture. It is different with the European. If he denies Christianity, he denies his blood. The result of such a denial is racial suicide.

The modern European is currently in the position of Jonah. He desperately wants to escape from his God. He doesn’t want the white man’s burden. But God is in his blood. How do you escape from your blood? You escape by creating a world where the living God, the God of spirit and blood, cannot enter. You create a world of pure mind. In that world, God is whoever you say he is, and his (or her) attributes are whatever attributes you assign to your mind-forged deity. Since the mind-forged deity of the post-Christian was created so that the post-Christian could escape from the living God, every vestige of European culture must be eradicated – in the name of god, of course. This is why race-mixing is encouraged and lauded throughout the Western world. The more the races mix, the further removed mankind gets from the blood of the white man and the living God. The modern clergy will never cease their efforts to mongrelize the world because in their church, the mind-forged church of Satan, race mixing represents the triumph of their god.

If they do not dilute the blood of the white man, there is always the chance that they will have to answer the call of the blood. They will be called upon to do what their ancestors did: to die to self everyday and to take up their cross and follow Him.

It would not be completely accurate to place the white liberal’s hatred of everything white under the “death wish” umbrella. It is a death wish, but it is not a personal death wish. The white post-Christian wishes for the death of European culture, for the death of “racist” white people, and for the death of the very idea of race. But he, the man of the mind, the walking, talking example of a man untainted by ties of blood, wishes abundant life for himself.

One cannot prophesy anything with the certainty of the prophets of the Old Testament. They had a special link to God. But one can prophesy in the Dostoevskian sense. Dostoevsky stated, after being among them but not of them, that the revolutionary element of the Russian Bolsheviks would kill millions upon millions of people, in the name of humanity, if they ever came to power. He also expressed, in the Brothers Karamazov, his fervent belief that the Russian people would not accept an atheist government. So he was not a prophet in the old Hebrew sense of the word in that he knew what the future would be. He was a prophet in the “If these shadows are not altered” vein. He knew what the Bolsheviks would do if they got to power.

In that sense, if these shadows be not altered, it is not difficult to prophesy the future. If the anti-white Athenians have their way and the white race disappears as a distinct race, Christianity will also disappear. “When the Son of Man returns, will he find faith on earth?” will be answered with a definitive ‘no’. We need merely to look at actual history, as distinct from liberal utopian theory, to see what will happen. We know that Christianity only penetrated deeply into the culture of one particular people. We know that the other races, with of course some individual exceptions, only adhered to the externals of Christianity because it appeared to be a magic talisman of the Europeans. But in the secret recesses of their souls, the non-Europeans remained loyal to their heathen deities. So if there are no longer any white men of faith in the world, there will be no Christianity. The heathen will return to unadulterated heathenism and the remaining white hating whites, who had hoped to live forever in an anti-white utopia, will be exterminated. Before the final cleansing takes place, all the governments in the Western world will mandate mixed marriages and outlaw marriages between two whites. (White homosexuals will be excused from the proscription against white marriage.) Let me amend that: in America, it probably won’t be necessary to make mixed marriages mandatory, Americans have already started complying voluntarily. They get the message: the white race must cease to exist.

I think we, the remnant, can all agree that we are talking about a counter-revolution and not a conservative movement or a new political party that needs to be formed. Every successful revolution – and the post-Christian whites have engineered a successful revolution – starts by undermining the spiritual foundations of the existing regime. The spiritual foundation of Christian Europe was the incarnate God. The supporting pillars of that foundation were the bonds forged by kinship, race and culture. When those bonds were severed the spiritual foundation was destroyed. And the bonds were severed when white Christians began to believe the propaganda of the Christian philosophers. “Maybe Christ did intend one multi-colored, universalist world church.” This is the Roman temptation. “Become part of the Roman system, and merge with the great universal.”

The Roman system dehumanizes; one’s personality is absorbed by the system. And race-mixing dehumanizes; it forces a man to sever his connections to his own kith and kin, which are essential to his identity, and to dissolve himself in the cauldron of the stranger. So a mind-forged system of philosophy and race-mixing go hand in hand. Christian Europe is always the loser when those two satanic forces coalesce.

The Spanish experience in Mexico provides us with a cautionary tale about the dangers of abstract, philosophical Christianity and race-mixing. Cortez and his men were men of blood and spirit; they had the faith. And their successful attempt to destroy the satanic altars of the Aztecs was a magnificent achievement, but the Spanish were also members of a church that placed undue emphasis on the philosophical defense of the faith rather than on the faith itself. In the philosophical realm, incorporation into the system is more important than an internal spiritual conversion. So once the Aztecs expressed external consent to the Roman system, the door was open for mixed marriages and the nullification of all the good the Spanish did by their conquest. Let me hasten to add that I realize the temptations a young Spanish male faced, in the absence of white women; it is only natural to look for whatever women are available. Perhaps it would have been better then, if the Spanish conquistadors had taken our Lord’s injunction, “and lead us not into temptation,” seriously and stayed in Spain. For many years I’ve resisted the thought that the Spaniards should have stayed in Spain, but it is now my firm conviction that the Spanish conquistadors who listened to the call of adventure and went to Mexico were not as great as the Spanish men who stayed in Spain, fathered children by white Spanish women, and consecrated those children to God. (1) And I don’t say that for the liberal reason that “the bad Spanish were mean to the Indians.” The conquest was not bad for the Indians; it was bad for white people, just as slavery in our country was not bad because it harmed black people. It didn’t harm them; slavery was bad because it harmed white people.

There are those who claim the conquest was necessary because it brought Christianity to the New World. But is it necessary to sleep with native women in order to convert natives? I would think the reverse is true. When the Spaniards mixed their blood with the Aztecs, the end result was a religion that was neither fish nor fowl. It was Aztec at the core with some of the Christian Externals. And it will always be thus when the European mixes his blood with the colored races. He spawns a hybrid religion.

So we are here, facing an unholy alliance of white, Athenian intellectuals and the colored races. They seem like an invincible army. But the antique European “knows not seems.” The ties of kith and kin bind us to our Lord. Who shall separate us from Him? Certainly not the impious alliance which tells us we must deny our European blood in order to become part of the New World Order.

The true European refuses to be part of the New World Order. He knows that he must remain faithful to his blood because if he, the keeper of the flame that was lit in Bethlehem some 2,000 years ago, joins the new Christ-less Tower of Babel Church, the God who loves with a love “that passeth all understanding” will not be able to find a place to rest His head on this earth. I know the rejoinder: “Christ doesn’t need us; he will find a place for Himself.” But doesn’t that overlook the Incarnation? Didn’t He need a woman of faith to be His handmaiden? Didn’t He need a foster father? Many a parent has found strength they never knew they had when their child was threatened. Well, haven’t we, the Europeans, taken the Christ Child as our own? And is He not being threatened? When they, the satanic legions in the impious alliance, demand that we deny our blood, which is connected to His sacred heart, they threaten Him. If we don’t abandon Him, in the incarnate, dependent stage of His humanity, he will not leave us defenseless before our enemies even though they be legion. Such is my belief and such was the belief of the antique Europeans.
_____________________________
(1)A nation can only become that rare entity called a Christian commonwealth when the vast majority of the males in that nation find more romance in the practice of their craft or in the tilling of their fields than they do in battle. The Swiss had their pagan wars and their Catholic vs. Protestant wars just like every other European nation, but the Swiss, unlike every other European nation, had an intense desire to settle their differences and return to their farms and to their trades. They had managed to find romance in the homely virtues of shop, farm, and hearth. -- from "The Swiss"

The River vs. the Open Road

…the innate conservatism of youth asks neither poverty nor riches, but only immunity from change. – The Golden Age by Kenneth Grahame

If we can judge by the literature of that century, and we can, the 19th century was the century of war between principalities and powers. God and the devil were going at it hammer and tongs. Melville put it quite well: “The light is greater hence the shadow more.”

European man entered the 20th century spiritually exhausted and very much under the spell of satanic ‘isms. The first world war was one of the most startling proofs of Satan’s new dominance over the hearts and minds of the European people. In sheer number of adherents and societal influence, Satan had triumphed over our Lord. The old Faith still had an influence; it had not been thoroughly eradicated, but it would no longer be the centerpiece of Western Civilization. It would now be an underground faith, hidden in the subterranean vault of the European heart.

In every Christian century preceding the 20th century, there were the Athenian intellectuals who treated the Christian faith as foolish or childish, but the sneer of the intellectuals did not affect the Christian faith of the great mass of European people. In the era of the Enlightenment, for example, despite the deism of the philosophers, the faith of the common people remained intact. It is in the 20th century that we see, for the first time in European man’s history, the great mass of people adopting the faithless faith of the intellectuals.

What does it mean when we say a man has a faithless faith? It does not mean that he flat out denies Christ. What it means is that he hedges on all the crucial doctrines of Christianity. Nikos Kazantzakis, in The Last Temptation of Christ, gives us an example of Western man’s faithless faith. In the novel (I didn’t see the movie, but I suspect it was quite different from the novel), Kazantzakis, who revered the person of Christ, presents us with a Christ who is something more than man but also something less than God. Christ does bring Lazarus back to life, for instance, but as a scarecrow Lazarus, not completely alive, and not quite dead. Such is the faith of the modern European.

One doesn’t need an encyclopedic knowledge of ancient civilizations, just a little commonsense will do, to see that when a particular people loses their faith their civilization declines. European civilization retained its vitality when Athenian skepticism was confined to a few intellectuals, but when that skepticism became part of the common culture, the civilization that was once an all-consuming fire became a dying ember.

Of course we can’t artificially recreate the old European faith in order to restore European civilization. That’s not how things work. First comes faith, after which all those things are “added unto” us. But if the European were to embrace Christianity, full and free without let or hindrance, it would not entail the acceptance of a way of life or mode of being that was completely alien to him. It would merely entail the opening of the subterranean vault of his heart and letting his childlike faith in Christ back into the light of day.

It is painfully clear, however, that European man does not want to bring Christianity back into the light. He wants it to remain in the cellar. Yes, occasionally he’ll refer to Christianity when it supports his liberalism, but it is not his guiding light; reason is. And he persists in the belief in his own reason, despite the fact that the evidence is in. Man cannot live a moral life, or any kind of life, when reason alone is his guide.

If, in modern times, they who own the restraint of philosophical discipline alone have not given way to such grossness of conduct, it is because those principles of religion, which they affect to despise, have impressed on the public mind a system of moral feeling unknown till the general prevalence of the Christian faith; but which, since its predominance, has so generally pervaded European society, that no pretender to innovation can directly disavow its influence, though he endeavours to show that the same results which are recommended from the Christian pulpit, and practised by the Christian community, might be reached by the unassisted efforts of that human reason, to which he counsels us to resign the sole regulation of our morals.

In short, to oppose one authority in the same department to another, the reader is requested to compare the character of the philosophic Squire in Tom Jones, with that of Bage’s philosophical heroes; and to consider seriously whether a system of ethics, founding an exclusive and paramount court in a man’s own bosom for the regulation of his own conduct, is likely to form a noble, enlightened, and generous character, influencing others by superior energy and faultless example; or whether it is not more likely, as in the observer of the rule of right, to regulate morals according to temptation and to convenience, and to form a selfish, sophistical hypocrite, who, with morality always in his mouth, finds a perpetual apology for evading the practice of abstinence, when either passion or interest solicit him to indulgence.

--from The Lives of the Novelists by Walter Scott

The delusion that reasoning man can function quite well without Christianity was always the delusion of a segment of European intellectuals. And they never were forced to see it for what it was: a delusion. But now that European man en masse has fallen prey to the same delusion, we must look at it. Why, if reason is sufficient, does European man want to prostrate himself before the gods of color? What is missing in his rational self-sufficiency that makes him go whoring after the savage races? He misses a vital faith and he thinks that the blood orgies of the heathen can provide him with the vitality that he lacks. He thinks this because he has cut himself off from the wisdom of his race. The white man rejected the pagans’ faith because they saw God only in nature. In contrast, the white man saw that God was the animating force behind nature and His motivating principle was mercy and not sacrifice. When Christianity becomes a philosophy, the neopagan is right: it lacks vitality. But when it is a faith, it has the vitality to renew lives and the world. Let the neopagan who doubts the vitality of Christianity ask himself this question: Who fights the more fiercely for the fair maiden – the Christian knight who loves her or the pagan warrior who wants to possess her for a night?

What the European liberal finds out when he goes a whoring with the “vital natural races” is that “where man is not, nature is barren.” He needs the Christian fairy land, not heathendom. Take a walk through the forests of Arden or share the oars with Ratty on his river. In those worlds, blood is sacred because it is animated by His spirit. And nature is revered because it houses His Kith and Kin.

It is sad that with our Lord’s words before us, “Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter the kingdom of heaven,” we still turn to “adult” theologians and philosophers for guidance. It would be much better for our souls if we turned to those poets of the West who retained, in the face of the emerging atheism of the 20th century, their childlike faith.

In The Wind in the Willows (1908), Kenneth Grahame writes a poetic defense of Christian Europe. The white Europeans in The Wind and the Willows are Ratty, Mole, Badger, Mr. Toad, and all those animals who adhere to the same code as the four heroes. In the outer wood are the weasels and the stoats, the savage hordes of color, who do not see, when they view the ancient dwellings of the Europeans, home and hearth. They see only something to be plundered. And they get their chance when Mr. Toad, obsessed with his “cleverness,” decides that “the plowed furrow, the frequented pasture, the lane of evening lingerings,” cannot compare to the open road. And what Toad abandons, the weasels and stoats take. But they can do nothing but destroy, like the blacks in Rhodesia and South Africa; they can’t maintain or restore an ancient European dwelling. It is Ratty, Mr. Badger, and the Mole, who help Toad regain his ancestral dwelling. They face the barbarians of color and defeat them. They are greatly outnumbered, but they prevail because they fight for the homely virtues which only the European knows and treasures as his source of strength. The antique European has no magic talisman. He possesses something of infinitely greater value: a faithful heart. When Ratty declares his love for his river, he describes my love for antique Europe:

“I beg your pardon,” said the Mole, pulling himself together with an effort. “You must think me very rude; but all this is so new to me. So—this—is—a—River!”

“The River,” corrected the Rat.

“And you really live by the river? What a jolly life!”

“By it and with it and on it and in it,” said the Rat. “It’s brother and sister to me, and aunts, and company, and food and drink, and (naturally) washing. It’s my world, and I don’t want any other. What it hasn’t got is not worth having, and what it doesn’t know is not worth knowing.”

Toad’s open-road philosophy leads us to the savage horde barbarism of the stoats and weasels. Ratty’s river leads us back to His Europe.

The Racial Link to God

In J. J. Pollitt’s book, Art and Experience in Classical Greece, he points out that after Greece’s Golden Age, which was terminated by a plague and the Peloponnesian War, Greek art did not reflect the tragedies that had befallen Greece as a whole nor individual members of their nation. Instead, their art reflected a new obsession with detailed vase painting and ornate, flowery and superficial sculpture. The message was clear: “Humanity equals pain; let us seek refuge in technique and superficiality and block out the horrors associated with humanity.”

I definitely see this escape from humanity taking place in the Christian churches of today. We have supped full of horrors, but instead of responding to the horror, churchmen give us formulaic solutions to life’s problems that have been worked out in committee by scientists, psychologists, and the Hallmark Greeting Card Company. The church leaders have fled from the man of flesh, blood, and bone, the man who must die, and have taken refuge in an abstracted, utopian vision of man. But their dream man has no concrete existence. He exists only in their abstracted minds.

It is impossible to overstate the negative effect of the shift in the Christian churches from a reality-based faith to a utopian-based one. All the proofs of God’s existence hatched from the great minds of the West and all the sacramental rites have their basis in our trust in His humanity. If that vital link to His humanity is severed, we will be men without hope, desperately and pathetically clinging to technique and technology to save us from the void.

I see only one remaining link to the older Christians who believed in a non-abstract, a non-utopian Christianity. That link is race. Yes, I know. To even suggest that there is a racial component to Christianity is to invite comparisons to Mussolini and Hitler. But I would ask those inclined to shout “racism” to look at the bloodless faith of the modern Christian universalists and then ask themselves if such a desiccated faith can really be the true faith. Maybe it is time to examine the claims of those who advocate a blood faith.

At face value, it seems like those who shout racism every time the words white and Christian are coupled are correct. Is not the Faith universal? Are we not ultimately spiritual beings whose bodies shall return to the dust while our immortal souls go to heaven or hell?

Yes, we are spiritual beings, but how has God chosen to reveal that truth to us? He took flesh and became man. He revealed himself to us through the blood. Those who believed in Christ became united to Him spiritually, but the incarnation also taught us that God does not disdain to pass spiritual gifts through the blood.

The European peoples, the white race, accepted Christ en masse and in depth. They built a civilization based on their belief in the incarnation, birth, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, true God and true man. Other peoples of other races have believed the same thing, but no other race has built a civilization centered on that belief. There is a racial wisdom in the blood of the white man that must remain untainted and untouched by the blood of other races lest that blood wisdom disappear from the earth. And when white men do not respond to the call of the blood and they seek other gods, they are traitors to their blood.

What about the other races? What about our mutual descent from Adam? Doesn’t that mean we are all brothers and that skin color doesn’t matter? Well, that sounds nice, but it seems to me that we always end up with a blasphemy if we start with a universal and work our way down to the particular. If we start with the particular and the provincial, and then move to the universal, we are more likely to arrive at the truth. And the truth is that Christ started His earthly work with a particular woman, a particular family, and a provincial people. And yes, He extended His message to all peoples, but He did not denounce the prophets or the true and the good among His own people in order to advance the Faith. He denounced the Pharisees who had hardened their hearts against the true spirit of their own faith, but He did not denounce His heritage, divine or human. That is the key difference between what Christ did and what the Christian universalists are doing today. They are not denouncing the modern scribes and Pharisees, the academics of church and school; they are denouncing the good and true Christians of old Europe. And of course one wouldn’t expect them to denounce the modern Pharisees because, behold, they are the modern Pharisees.

Let me speak frankly because there is no time left to temporize on this most important point. Anyone that truly knows Christ knows only a European Christ. That is because the essential Christ, the real Christ, is revealed only in the European tradition. In the past, the convertite, whether he was an African, a Chinaman, or a Red Indian, saw a European Christ when he converted. But this has all changed. The convertite is just as likely now to see a black Christ or an Indian Christ or a Chinese Christ (usually presented through a liberal European prism), which means that the convertite has converted to some religion other than Christianity. And this is because only the European formed a culture that was intimately connected to Christ.

Paradoxically if Christianity loses its provincial character, it will lose its universal character. In point of fact, this has already happened. One is more likely to find a man with some of the antique Christian virtues intact in a “racist” organization than in any of the Christian churches. And how could it be otherwise? Without pieta there can be no Christianity.

I don’t think one should need any other reason to support the white race than the reason that it is one’s own race. But in truth our Lord is not a cruel practitioner of liberal “either-or” politics. The liberal white-hating whites tell us that white Christians must self-destruct in order to advance the black man. But if we are stubbornly provincial and racist and support our race, we will be supporting a universal church that offers a vision of a personal god to all races. But if we turn away from our European heritage, which of course we have, and participate in the mongrelization of the white race, then we will witness the creation of a Christ-less Kingdom of Babel.

And all of this stems from a desire, like the one of the vase-painting Greeks of the post-classical period, to flee from the harshness of reality. The Greeks, however, had no comforter. They can be forgiven for seeking to flee from the dark, sinister woods. But the European woods are different. Why did we ever listen to those false prophets who told us to leave the woods? The European woods are sacred because they bring us in contact with hearth, home, and kin, all of which bring us closer to Him. It is a consummation devoutly to be wished.

“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!