In Spite of Liberaldom

That nature which contemns its origins
Cannot be bordered certain in itself

-Shakespeare

The billboards in Duluth, Minnesota on which white people are depicted as loathsome reptiles not fit to live were put up by the mad-dog, liberal Directory of Duluth. The usual suspects make up the Directory:

Central Labor Body
CHUM (Churches United in Ministry)
City of Duluth (the white, effeminate Mayor, Don Ness – no relation to Eliot – from the Mayor’s Office, the Human Rights Commission, and the American Indian Commission)
Community Action Duluth
Domestic Abuse Intervention
Lake Superior College
NAACP
St. Louis County Public Health and Human Services
University of Minnesota Duluth
University of Minnesota Superior
YMCA

It’s not often that white-hating liberals surprise me by the extent of their white-hating programs, but I must admit to being somewhat surprised by the billboards. It’s so blatant. If I were a mad-dog liberal on Ness’s advisory committee, I would have advised them not to be so blatantly anti-white, lest they arouse some whites, who had, prior to now, been too stupefied to act in their own behalf. Then again, jackals and vultures have an instinct for carrion, so maybe Ness and the Directory knew the white grazers were soul-dead and would not tear down the posters and launch a punitive expedition against Don Ness and company. Kipling warned the world that the English “were not easily moved,” but when they were they were dangerous:

It was not suddenly bred,
It will not swiftly abate,
Through the chill years ahead.
When Time shall count from the date
That the English began to hate.

Would that such a chilling prophecy was true today, not just of Englishmen but of all white men.

What has happened to the white man? Why does he permit his race to be vilified? Does he really believe what the liberals say about the white man? Unfortunately, to a large extent the white grazer does believe what the liberals say about the white race. He accepts the liberals’ interpretation of the white man’s history, which is, according to the liberals, a history of white exploitation of the colored races. Where the grazer differs from the liberal is on the subject of racism present. The white grazer does not believe he is racist, and he resents being told he is. For a time the “institutionalized racism” charge, that is, “you’re not necessarily racist but all your institutions are” kept the white man’s resentment at bay. Not anymore. Every major institution is stocked full of colored barbarians. So the resentment smolders: “Why am I accused of racism and labeled a pariah?” The white grazer doesn’t do anything with his resentment, because he doesn’t know what to do with it. Instead he tries harder to prove he is not racist and grumbles in private to his fellow grazers about being called a racist.

The white grazers lack two things that are needed to make them into white men again: they lack leadership and they lack faith. And the two components, leadership and faith, are interrelated. When the European intelligentsia, which consisted of the clergy, the academics, the politicians, and the journalists, succumbed to rationalism, they inevitably – over time – infected the European people with their faithless faith. The emergence of negro worship within the ranks of the white intelligentsia signified the failure of rationalistic materialism. Something more, something with blood in it, was needed. Enter the black Übermensch. Not exactly what Nietzsche envisioned, but negro worship is the logical outcome of a fusion of rationalism and vitalism. It’s the bloodless rationalist’s attempt to renew his blood by losing himself in the sacred blood of the black man. The once-Christian liberal will always keep elements of Christianity, in twisted, perverted forms, in his new Christless faith. Christians once believed that they were saved by Christ’s redeeming blood. Now the liberal believes that he will be freed from his rationalist prison by fusing his lifeless blood with the “vital, earthy, sexy” blood of the black man. It sounds insane, this new religion of the white intelligentsia, but it is their religion. They are attempting to become pagans again, not realizing there is no vitalism in blood without the spirit; there is only death. The antique Europeans were vital because their blood was infused with the spirit of God. That infusion of spirit and blood is quite different from the satanic fusion of white and black blood that the modern Europeans seek.

The great English historian, Herbert Butterfield, stressed that most of the important changes in the Europeans’ history came quietly, almost imperceptibly, while the noisier, seemingly more important events, but in reality less significant, got all the attention. He cites the Protestant-Catholic divide of the 1500s as an example of one of the less significant developments that got all the attention while a more significant revolution occurred that quietly changed the European people forever. That revolution was the scientific revolution of the late 1600s and early 1700s. The Protestant revolt was not an atheistic revolt against God; it was, in its essence, the revolt of a Christian people against a clerical elite that valued an abstract, rational system more than Christ. In contrast the scientific revolt was a revolt of positivist materialism, even though the original advocates of it were professed Christians. If that philosophy prevailed in Europe, the European would be worse than ere he ever was, because prior to his embrace of the Christian faith the European had ‘eat, drink, and be merry’ paganism to comfort him. Unable to return to paganism and unable to believe in Christ, the European would be lost. And of course that is what has happened. Positivist materialism, which sailed into Europe on the good ship Abstract Theology, has triumphed in Europe. There will be no revival of European culture or the European people until the positivist, materialist dragon is faced and overcome. But in order to face the dragon we must be connected to our past and believe what our ancestors believed. In the absence of that connection and belief we are dead souls whose spiritless faces appear on billboards that proclaim the evil of white people.

The liberal does not forbid the white grazers to invoke their past because the whites of the past were racist; that’s just a subterfuge. The liberal has closed the door on the Europeans’ past because he can’t bear to look at life as the antique Europeans did. Only the European of the old stock looked positivist materialism in the face without caving into despair. He didn’t need the soul-deadening escapism of negro worship because he had a faith in the God who lived. Life is indeed unbearable without faith, but the white cannot return to paganism. If he won’t have the faith of his ancestors, he will have oblivion.

The great enemy of the white man are those whites who jettison the Europeans’ Christian past in order to lead mankind to a new and brighter future in which the white man becomes one with inanimate nature, rather than transcending dumb nature through faith in Jesus Christ. Tolstoy was one of those false prophets of the future. He rejected St. Paul’s Christianity and replaced it with a type of Jungian, Emersonian, over-soul religion in which a man’s personality is extinguished by death, but he survives as an essence. The reluctant atheist, Anton Chekhov, rejected Tolstoy’s brave new faith.

He recognizes immortality in its Kantian form, assuming that all of us (men and animals) will live on in some principle (such as reason or love), the essence of which is a mystery. But I can only imagine such a principle or force as a shapeless, gelatinous mass; my I, my individuality, my consciousness, would merge with this mass – and I feel no need for this kind of immortality.

Nor do I. Chekhov gives us life without a commercial. The men and women he writes about are personalities of infinite worth, but because of some horrendous cruel trick of the universe they are condemned to die and fade into nothingness. But is that the promised end? Even Chekhov the atheist saw hope in the European past:

Now the student was thinking about Vasilisa: if she wept, it meant that everything that had happened with Peter on that dreadful night had some relation to her…

He looked back. The solitary fire flickered peacefully in the darkness, and the people around it could no longer be seen. The student thought again that if Vasilisa wept and her daughter was troubled, then obviously what he had just told them, something that had taken place nineteen centuries ago, had a relation to the present—to both women, and probably to this desolate village, to himself, to all people. If the old woman wept, it was not because he was able to tell it movingly, but because Peter was close to her and she was interested with her whole being in what had happened in Peter’s soul.

And joy suddenly stirred in his soul, and he even stopped for a moment to catch his breath. The past, he thought, is connected with the present in an unbroken chain of events flowing one out of the other. And it seemed to him that he had just seen both ends of that chain: he touched one end, and the other moved.

Maybe Chekhov was not the atheist he purported to be. For one moment when he wrote of the event that took place nineteen centuries ago, Chekhov stood in the presence of the redeemer who defeated dumb nature and will stand between us and extinction at the hour of our death. Would that Chekhov had been able hold to that vision for more than one shining moment.

It was Chekhov’s countryman, Dostoyevsky, the prophet with blinding sight, who diagnosed Chekhov’s dilemma and the dilemma of the modern European. “Can an intelligent man, a European, believe in the divinity of Christ?” The intelligentsia of Europe answered Dostoyevsky’s question with a definitive ‘no.’ But why should the answer to that question, the only question that matters, be no? Why should the advent of science make Christianity false?

In my father’s hometown the town character had an answer for anyone who wanted to talk about rocket ships and space. “Space is no place,” he told the townspeople. And likewise, “science is nothing.” It is not wise, because wisdom comes from the heart, and science has no heart. Chekhov was right to weep in the face of death. But he was wrong to separate his heart, which wept, from his head, which saw only dumb nature claiming its own when a human soul passed from this world to the next. Shouldn’t our tears in the face of death remind us of the Man of Sorrows who wept in the face of Lazarus’s death? And shouldn’t the heart that truly loves remember what occurred on that day long ago? “Lazurus – come forth!” I have much more sympathy for Europeans like Chekhov, who want to believe but cannot see past the façade of the material world to the spiritual world, than I have for the liberals who rejoice at the demise of Christianity and place their hopes in the fusion of science and negro worship. But ultimately, whether it is the heartfelt hopelessness of Chekhov, or the triumphant, satanic glee of the liberals, I don’t understand them. Nor do I want to understand them. A European who is connected to His Europe and His people will know, in his blood, that his redeemer liveth. The strength of the European people was always their faith in Christ. In the midst of paganism they cried out from the depths, “In life, in death, O Lord, abide with us.”

A false conservatism seeks to preserve the forms of things past even if those forms no longer conserve the spiritual values of one’s ancestors but are in fact used to further the destruction of the older civilization’s spiritual reserves. There is no need to preserve our democratic process, our established churches, our universities, or our “free” press. What needs to be preserved are our ties to the past, our ties to a people who placed their kith and kin above all others.

The grazers will return to their blood when the remnant band produces leaders who see with blinding sight because they see life with the heart of an antique European. Nationalist leaders who reject the Europeans’ Christian past are no more fit to lead white people away from the darkness of negro worship than a chimpanzee is fit to command a battleship. The European hero is a Christ-bearer, a warrior. His weapons are vision and memory, the vision of the Risen Lord and the memory of a Europe that was consecrated to Him.

The liberal Directory of Duluth did white people a favor. They made it crystal clear. Church and state consider themselves in a holy war against all things European. Since mercy only abides in old Europe we can expect no mercy from the rulers of Liberaldom. And to expect mercy from the barbarians of color is the height of absurdity. We have no choice but to call on Him who saves and ask Him to abide with us in the day of battle. +

The Lost Faith

Oh, well for the world when the White Men join

To prove their faith again!

- Rudyard Kipling

Writing in the later half of the 19th century, Dostoevsky asked “whether a man, as a civilised being, as a European, can believe at all, believe that is, in the divinity of the Son of God, Jesus Christ, for therein rests, strictly speaking, the whole faith.” The 20th century European answered Dostoevsky with a resounding ‘No.’

The key phrase in Dostoevsky’s question is “civilised being.” The 20th century European felt too civilized to believe in Christ’s resurrection from the dead. Such things happen in fairy tales, and civilized men and women do not believe in fairy tales. Two perceptive writers from the 20th century, the mad-dog liberal George Bernard Shaw and the Christian writer Herbert Butterfield, both pointed out that the Christian faith survived the pagan assault, the Renaissance, and the Catholic and Protestant religious wars, but the faith did not survive the scientific revolution.

Of course Shaw was delighted with the demise of Christianity, because it gave him a chance to suggest that the European world adopt a new religion as constructed by George Bernard Shaw. “It must be metascientific,” he intoned, “because only a religion that takes scientific facts seriously will be accepted by the modern European.” Butterfield, unlike Shaw, was not delighted with the demise of Christianity. He pointed out that the final result of the liberal’s utopian world of science would be oblivion.

The 21st century European has followed along the road of his scientific mentors of the 20th century. “Some are born great, some achieve greatness...” The 21st century European has achieved oblivion. When he shifted from the reality-based fairy tale mode of comprehension to a utopian-based scientific mode of comprehension, he lost all sense of reality and became a reed for every new wind-blown ideology that called itself ‘scientific.’

Science means much more to modern man than just the study of the material world. Science has come to mean truth in its totality. Behavioral “sciences” such as sociology and psychology tell us the truth about man, in contrast to Christianity, which tells us fairy tales about God. I saw this phenomenon at work in my college literature classes. No matter what work we studied, we studied psychology. The insights into the human soul that the great authors of Europe revealed were translated into psychological jargon because it was a given that no antique author who took the Christian revelation seriously could have anything to say to a modern scientific audience. Scientific thought fits right in with egotism. Since knowledge is cumulative, the mere piling up of facts, the present is always superior to the past. Shakespeare might have been brilliant in his day, but he could never be as intelligent as a modern literary critic because the literary critic knows the accumulated facts of man’s existence that Shakespeare did not know. Of course, the modern scientific man must give way to the man of the future because he will know more than the marvelous man of the present. And on it goes. The present is always superior to the less scientific past and inferior to the more scientific future.

Because scientific thought is evolutionary and because scientific thought is presented as truth, the Christian faith has suffered greatly during the scientific 20th and 21st centuries. It survives only as an anemic subsidiary to science. Even fundamentalists who reject the theory of evolution as it pertains to man’s origins still attempt to fuse their Christianity with an evolving concept of man, democratic man being at the highest point of their evolutionary ladder. And even in self-styled traditionalist Catholic sects, they send their seminarians and priests to psychologists when they have emotional problems. Isaac Stern’s book, Pillar of Fire, was an attempt to fuse Roman Catholicism and psychology. Hence, even the surviving remnants of Christians in fundamental Protestant sects and traditionalist Catholic sects attempt to share the stage, so to speak, with science. The Catholic has an easier time of it because he can point to the scholastic tradition, which was a precursor of the scientific revolution, and claim that his church was never really opposed to an evolving, scientific faith. But the Catholic and the Protestant have both ignored the Shakespearean caution, “When you sup with the devil you need a long spoon.”

It is ironic that modern man looks on scientific thought as true and the poetical vision of the Christian Europeans as false, when scientific thought encompasses the magic of the genies and alchemists, the witch doctors, and the quack doctors. Nature is the god of the modern Europeans, because they think they can harness the power of nature to achieve their heart’s desire, which always turns out to be a desire to supplant God.

Negro worship is necessary in the scientific utopia of the modern white man for two reasons. 1) There must be a noble savage, some creature untainted by the sins of the fairy tale past of the European. The black man is perfect for the part. 2) Racial diversity is the precursor of sexual diversity. If racial distinctiveness is not a product of the benevolent, guiding hand of a creator, then racial Babylon is permissible and as a corollary so is sexual Babylon.

We were told and are still being told that if the white man would only divest himself of his whiteness, his prejudices, a great new scientific, utopian age would be upon us. But we can see the stink of a dystopia all around us. There is death in the abortuaries, savagery in our streets, and Negro worship in state and church. Is this the end result of the age of science? Yes, it is.

There are only two paths in the woods for the white European, the path of racial diversity, which he is presently on, and the path of racial preservation, which he once took but left when science beckoned him over to the path of racial diversity. Everything depends on the white man returning to the path of racial preservation. There will be no pro-life movements without white people, there will be no conversions to the light by people of color because there will be nothing left to convert to, and there will not be any churches because there will be no faith in Christ. An eternal night will envelop Europe, and only some kind of hybrid, creeping, crawling creatures will be seen upon the face of the earth.

Such a scenario is likely but not inevitable. In the fairy tales a hero always comes forth to defeat the powers of darkness. In an age when scientific thought was scorned and the thought that sprang from the heart was sacred, Europe abounded with heroes who went forth in imitation of the Hero. Once a hole in the scientific wall is breached and European men start to once again protect and defend their race, there is more than just a little hope that a new Europe, which is a very old Europe, will emerge. There is indeed power in the blood of the lamb and power in the non-blended blood of the European united to Christ, the warrior-bard of Europe.

We will be Christian Europeans again when we come to regard the world of the Brothers Grimm as the real world and the scientific world of Darwin, Freud, Marx, and Adam Smith as the false fantastical world of pygmy men with pygmy souls. The world of giants, dragons, knights, and fair maidens is the European’s world. The sacred woods, the sacred sword, the sacred cross -- such images are in our racial memory; they are true images of a time when every European felt his life was part of an epic poem that began in a manger and ended in the New Jerusalem. In England’s green and pleasant land? Yes, in Europe’s white and pleasant land, once again. +

The Knight and the Miller

“Those who look for God only in nature, or judge the universe from what they see in the jungle, are liable to debase even religion, as we have already noted, and are themselves in danger of coming to grievous harm.”

–Herbert Butterfield

As the pilgrims in Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales journey to Canterbury, “the Holy Blissful martyr there to seek,” the Knight tells a tale of courtly love and chivalry in which two knights vie for the hand of a fair lady. When the Knight finishes his tale, the coarse Miller tells a vulgar tale of uncourtly lust, and having told the tale, thinks he has soundly refuted the Knight’s excessively ethereal view of life and love. But where the Knight erred slightly while being essentially correct in his idealization of the young lovers, the Miller erred grievously by completely submerging his characters in the world of gross animal nature.

I see in the conflict between the Knight and the Miller the conflict between Christianity and science. Yes, I know there have been scientists who were Christians and that the Church has stoutly maintained throughout the centuries there is no ultimate conflict between science and religion, but one can’t help noting it is the scientific view of life that leaves man submerged in the Miller’s world of gross animal nature. Every scientific “advance” seems to have done damage to the faith. Newton’s Principia in 1687 was more damaging than the Reformation or the Renaissance, just as Darwin’s theory of evolution was the real driving force of Marxism.

I grew up in a world that accepted the scientific worldview as a given. Christianity’s place in the scientific world was a minor one. It was conceded by a large part of the psychological branch of the scientific community that some type of religious orientation, if not too unscientific and too anti-social, was helpful in maintaining one’s emotional well-being, but as a way of explaining man’s place in the universe, religion – and Christianity in particular – was seen as irrelevant and, in some instances, as harmful.

The Christian has a great disadvantage when facing the scientist, because the empirical is always what is most visible. “Show me the soul in a dead body or show me something other than animals copulating in the marriage bond,” the scientist proclaims. And the modern Christian’s answer, if he answers at all, always sounds so timid and frightened.

I would suggest that the scientific worldview, the Miller’s worldview, has prevailed because Christians, following their leaders, have ceased to look on God as a personal, historical God. That archfiend Bernard Shaw, when writing about the new religion he was handing down to the great unwashed in Back to Methuselah: A Metabiological Pentateuch, insisted that it had to be metabiological rather than metahistorical, because modern man would not accept a personal God who had entered historical time as their God. So he created a mythical figure, Lilith, as the new Goddess. Yes, it’s back to the Greeks, for whom God is outside of historical time and is impersonal: “May the Force be with you.” This modern obsession with studying man as if he were an animal only (and I hold with George MacDonald that no animal is animal only) is rooted in Aristotelian dissection-philosophy, and it is false. Man should not be studied as a specimen, as a product of nature, he must be viewed as a personality.

The scientific worldview prevails only because we have let it prevail. It is not the final word. One white moment in any of our lives when stored in the heart rather than studied in the classroom, or one honest reading of any Christian writer of the 19th century is enough to shatter the false science of the Millers of the 20th and 21st centuries.

Our lives are true stories told by a personal God who has placed himself at the center of each story. When we close the storybook and seek to find ourselves and God in the science lab, we become biological specimens instead of individual personalities linked to a personal God.