Soulless, Godless Diversity

“Breathes there the man, with soul so dead…” – Sir Walter Scott

Every so often I’ll read a conservative writer’s expose of the public schools. He tells us of the gender-mixing classes: “Gender identity is a spectrum where people can be girls and feel like girls, or feel like boys, or feel like both, or feel like neither.” Or he’ll tell us about some hideous sex ed class in which the only sexual option that is never considered a viable option is the Christian option. The assumption in all the expose-type articles is that the public, especially the parents of public-schooled children, would be “scandalized” if they knew what was being taught in the public schools. It’s as if the conservative writers are frozen in time and think there is a generic American public out there from the 1950’s who are shocked by the sexual depravity taught in the classrooms of America. The public does know, and the ones who do not completely approve, a small minority, are indifferent. The indifferent ones don’t really care what the curriculum is; they just want their children to have a “good education.” Why does the conservative hold on to the belief that there is a “moral majority” out there who do not want the sexual ethics of Liberaldom taught in our public schools? For the same reason pro-lifers back in the 1970’s and 1980’s kept insisting that the majority of the American people did not want legalized abortion. If you believe in the democratic heresy, and the majority of your countrymen want to live where sexual degeneracy is taught in the classrooms and practiced in society, you must acquiesce to degeneracy. After all, “majority rules”!

In the beginning of all radical movements there is not a majority in favor of radicalism, but once the radicals come to power and institutionalize their beliefs they manage to get the approval of the vast majority of people because they control the educational establishments, the churches, and the media outlets. Conservatives keep referring to a moral majority on their side long after there has ceased to be a moral majority on their side. They fail to realize that once a revolution is successful and revolutionary ideals become part of the establishment, a conservative can’t continue to merely conserve, because he will simply be conserving radicalism; he must become a counter-revolutionary. And saying that the conservative “fails to realize” is being charitable. I suspect in most cases the conservative doesn’t want to look too closely at the sins of Liberaldom, because he doesn’t want to be part of a counter-revolution trying to destroy Liberaldom; he wants Liberaldom to survive because he dreams of ruling Liberaldom. Again, the pro-lifers are a classic case. They persisted, despite all evidence to the contrary, in viewing legalized abortion as a misunderstanding, because if it was not a misunderstanding, if liberals were really killing babies because they wanted to kill babies, then that would necessitate a counterrevolution, which would take the conservative outside the parameters of liberal democracy. And of course outside the parameters of liberal democracy is, according to the conservative and the liberal, nothing but darkness. But by failing to let go of liberal democracy, which celebrates racial, religious, and sexual diversity, the conservative has ensured that he and his mad-dog liberal brethren will live in a world without light.

The conservative who deplores the teaching of degeneracy I and II in our classrooms is not a reliable ally in the war against Babylon. Such “conservatives” think it is possible to pick and chose what parts of Babylon they desire while discarding the Babylonian elements they don’t desire. That is impossible; once you have accepted the democratic principle of diversity you must then accept racial diversity, religious diversity, and sexual diversity. The conservative’s protest against the teaching of sexual depravity is never that strong because he has accepted the principle of diversity. John Paul II, for instance, once issued a mild protest against the feminist love of infanticide, but then in the next breath, he called feminism a great boon to mankind. Such will always be the schizophrenia of the diversity-loving conservative.

Sadly the greatest purveyors of diversity are the Christian churches. It is an unquestioned belief of the Christian churches that racial diversity and religious diversity are the main tenets of the Christian faith. It’s not possible, if you listen to the Christian clergy, to deny that “diversity” is the sum total of their faith. What is difficult to comprehend is the reason diversity became synonymous with Christianity when the Bible, a book Europeans used to respect, and the traditions of the European people, traditions Europeans used to respect, expressly forbid sexual, racial and religious diversity. The answer can be found in Shakespeare: Human beings, the bard told us time and time again, have an incredible capacity to lie to themselves. The European intelligentsia wanted passionately to jettison the traditional faith of Europe, but they still wanted to use the organizational strength of the Christian churches, especially the Roman Catholic Church, so they kept the churches and banished Christ. The Son of God now wanders throughout the European nations, looking for a non-diverse, antique European hearth fire at which to warm His bleeding hands. He can’t find any because the great lie of the modern Christian churchmen is that they still believe in the Son of God, but they do not believe and they cloak their unbelief in diversity. They tell us that Jesus wants the sons of Shem and Japheth to mix with the sons of Ham, and that Jesus wants to make Mohammed, Nelson Mandela, Gandhi, and Buddha equal – even more equal in some cases – with Himself. Liars! You hate the Man of Sorrows because He bids you take up your cross and follow Him. How gauche. You want the diversity of the pleasure dome, where there is no sin, except the sin of opposing religious and racial diversity, and you tell us there is no God who is King of Kings and Lord of Lords; there is only a pantheon of heathen gods. One yearns for the days of honest atheists like Nietzsche and Freud. They said it outright: they hated Christ.

Home and church are linked in the spiritual imagery of the European people. In the past if you wanted to describe a good city, you would call it a city of homes and churches. Satan knew that and he used that imagery to destroy the spiritual home, which is the European people, of the Christian faith. Destroy the Christ-bearing people and you destroy faith in Christ.

A diverse home is not a home. When the Christian churches pushed diversity down the throats of the European people, the European people ceased to be a people! At the local park I frequently see families having reunions. Recently I saw a family reunion consisting of approximately fifty white people and one dreadlocked, vacant-eyed, black creature in their midst, who was attached to a white girl at the reunion. What is the future of those families? Will they adhere to the faith of their ancestors – they were obviously already undermining it – or will they become part of the new Babylonian world of the future/ One doesn’t have to be a prophet to answer that question. The white grazers will become part of Babylon and instead of munching on charcoal-broiled hamburgers and mumbling nominal prayers of thanks to an ecumenical Christ; they will become charcoal-broiled treats for black savages who will mumble some non-ecumenical prayers to their heathen deities before they dine on the white grazers.

Racial diversity has always been the battering ram of the liberals, because it opens the Christian churches up to all the other diversities. If the white race is evil and the colored races are good, how can the religion of the white man be good and the religion of the colored people be bad? The white people must give way to the fusionism condemned in the Book of Revelation. Christianity must be blended with black voodoo, Islam, Judaism, and every non-Christian faith of the colored tribes. And how can the sexual perversity of the heathens be condemned? They are non-white and therefore without sin. We all remember the horrible image of Pope John Paul II celebrating a Mass with bare-breasted African women. “Once our grace we have forgot,” by accepting racial diversity as a consummation devoutly to be wished rather than an abomination to be condemned, all the other faiths and sexual orientations come streaming through the church door and make themselves at home with the good “Christian” people of Europe.

The home, not the church, is the citadel of faith. Every antique European, no matter how poor, no matter how disenfranchised, can say, “Where I live there shall be no diversity.” The first Christian counter-revolution was started in a manger, by a poor, outcast infant wrapped in swaddling clothes.

There is an evil intelligence behind diversity. He instructs his white minions, even though they deny his existence, that there shall be no diversity in the colored tribes because diversity weakens a people, and he wants the colored people to be strong in their demonic pride of race. He wants diversity only for the white race, because a diverse race is not a race of people, it is nothing at all. Without the white people’s love of race there can be no personalities, no human beings capable of knowing the human in the divine and the divine in the human. The earth will truly be a house of desolation when the white race becomes as diverse as Satan desires.

A people with no identity as a race will soon cede their religious and sexual identities as well. They will be diverse, which means they will be spiritually dead. “Breathes there a man with soul so dead, Who never to himself hath said, This is my own, my native land!” The diverse white man is such a man. How can he love his homeland when he doesn’t believe in the home? He doesn’t believe that the love given and received at the hearth fires of a particular people with a particular faith in a personal God spreads from home to home until those homes constitute a homeland. “Nothing can compare to the love that once was there.” A diverse man cannot love because he has no connection to the source of all love, Who can only be known through an intimate connection to a particular race and one particular hearth fire. The poison of diversity kills the soul just as surely as a knife in the heart kills the body. The overwhelming majority of Europeans are whoring after diversity; they no longer see with the blinding sight of the antique Europeans nor do they feel with the passionate intensity of the antique Europeans. The few, the remnant, must stay wedded to our European home because there must be a counterpoise to diversity, a sign of contradiction to Liberaldom. “Where I live,” the antique European asserts, “there shall be no diversity.” +

Sacred Ground

“You are one who knows what our Father has promised to the friend of the widow and the fatherless. May He deal with you as you have dealt with me and mine.” – Tom Brown’s School Days

In Thomas Molnar’s book, The Counter-Revolution, he pointed out that revolutions succeed first in the hearts and minds of the rulers. When the powers that be begin to doubt their right to rule, they don’t take the necessary steps to maintain their rule. The French Revolution was a textbook case. Louis XVI didn’t lose his head because he was a bad king like his father; he lost his head because he had come to believe some of the ‘rights of man’ rhetoric of the revolutionary pamphleteers. And when the palace was stormed he didn’t let his troops fire because there were women and children in the crowds. But were not the lives of women and children at stake in the battle for the French monarchy? Shouldn’t a Christian king have been able to read the signs of the times? If they talk like amoral atheists and act like amoral atheists, shouldn’t you conclude that you must protect and defend your royal authority, which is the only thing standing between your people and the reign of Satan’s minions?

I can guess what might have been going on in Louis XVI’s soul. Have you ever seen the palace of Versailles, built for Louis XVI’s grandfather, Louis XIV? It is a sickening sight. It was built on a grander scale than a cathedral, but it wasn’t built to glorify God, it was built to glorify the Sun King, Louis XIV. It is Asian in its opulent decadence, completely out of sync with the spirit of Christian Europe. Such excess, and further excesses by his father, Louis (“After me the deluge”) XV, must have caused Louis XVI to question his own right to wear the crown. And when you couple that sense of guilt with the incessant droning of the ‘rights of man’ ideologues you get a vacillating, uncertain King who is afraid to do what is necessary to protect his kingdom.

In a variety of forms, but from the same cause -- doubt of their legitimacy -- all the older Christian regimes, republican and monarchial, fell to the forces of the revolution. And I say ‘revolution’ rather than ‘revolutions’ because there is only one revolution, whether it is French, American, Russian, Haitian, Chinese, Mexican, etc. The driving force behind them all is Satan. And the goal of every satanically inspired revolutionary was to destroy Christian Europe. Now that Satan’s minions have accomplished that mission, the destruction of Christian Europe, their goal is to aggressively defend their satanic nations by killing the Christian, European remnant.

It is not correct to say, “If we don’t do such and such, Europe will disappear”; Europe has already disappeared. The remaining whites in Europe the continent and in the countries settled by Europeans are no longer Christian in any meaningful way. They have abandoned their European identity by abandoning their God and trying to blend with the barbarian races in an effort to bury their Christian past. They seem much like Adam and Eve after the fall. They have sinned against their God, and they want to hide from Him. Is there any better place to hide from God than in the tents of the barbarians? That is the last place you would expect to find a European.

Patrick Buchanan recently published a column called “Tribalism Returns to Europe.” In the column he cites the usual statistics about Europe’s declining birthrate and then concludes with these words: “Old Europe is dying, and the populist and nationalist parties, in the poet’s phrase, are simply raging ‘against the dying of the light.’” First, Patrick Buchanan’s statistical predictions are not holy writ. I remember a McLaughlin Group show he was on during the ’08 Democratic primaries. He insisted that Obama couldn’t beat Hilary Clinton for the Presidential nomination because his polls said it was impossible.

Secondly, ‘Old Europe’ is not dying; it is dead. That is why we shouldn’t talk about saving Old Europe; we should talk about restoring it. When there is nothing left to conserve, the conservative must become a counter-revolutionary.

Thirdly, Buchanan’s statistics are projections, not facts. He should couch his predictions in the language of the Ghost of the Christmas Future in Dickens’ Christmas Carol: “If these shadows are not altered…” Europeans no longer reproduce themselves because they don’t believe in Jesus Christ, the King of Europe. Nothing is written; if faith returns to the European then Europe will return despite Buchanan’s statistics.

Fourth, Buchanan misreads Dylan Thomas’s poem. To “rage against the dying of the light” is not an act of futility as Buchanan suggests with his use of the word “simply.” It is an impassioned cry from the depths of the human heart to the Creator of the light. Such prayers are always answered, not in ways immediately apparent, but they are answered. There is nothing more practical, more useful, and more necessary to the welfare of the European people than their heartfelt “rage against the dying of the light.”

And last, it makes no difference whether Buchanan’s projections are true or false. Our task is the same: to stay true to our race, our faith, and our traditions. If we are destined to fight a Thermopylae-type of last stand, or if we are destined to drive the heathens from our land, the battle is always for Christian Europe, which is something eternal, not subject to the mind-forged statistics of this world only.

Buchanan is just one isolated pundit, but he speaks the same language as the entire post-Christian, post-European establishment. The establishment consists of the ‘love in a golden bowl and wisdom in a silver rod’ type of men. They can only love that which is successful and golden, so armed with their silver rod they look into the future in order to determine what and who they should love in the ‘golden bowl’ present. And they have determined that the colored are the wave of the future. “Let us seek them out, elevate them to exalted heights, and worship them.” In the rhetoric of the liberal and the conservative, who is now working for Liberaldom because he wants only to conserve liberalism not to restore Europe, we hear, ad nauseum, a hymn of praise to the non-European future and a sneering condemnation of the European past. We are enjoined to sing and sneer with the multitudinous horde in order to have a place in the brave, new world. Of course we must leave our souls behind to enter the new world. Didn’t Someone once caution us about gaining the world and losing our soul?

The notion that numbers determine the outcome of battlefield wars or cultural wars is the product of a materialist mindset. The Southern states continued to fight the Civil War after the North won a temporary victory in 1864. They still fought, and fought successfully, to maintain their culture until the 1950’s. Then, when they finally believed the enemy was right, they succumbed. But they did not succumb to numbers; they committed suicide because they ceased to believe in their civilization.

All successful revolutions take place first in the hearts of men. Revolutionaries always try to present the revolution as inevitable, as part of the inexorable laws of nature, and a revolution might seem inevitable after it succeeds, but revolutions are not inevitable. They succeed because men have forsaken the Son of God for Satan. A successful counter-revolution can only be mounted by men who are unapologetically European and unapologetically Christian. A fusionist race and a fusionist faith will never overthrow, or even bother, the rulers of Liberaldom.

As Moses approached the burning bush, God told him to take off his shoes because “Whereon thou standest is holy ground.” If the modern European could see the extent to which Jesus Christ permeated the older European culture, he would feel that he too was on sacred ground, but the modern European sees nothing because he has hardened his heart against Christ’s Europe and turned to the Babylonian night of the colored races.

Conservative pundits and halfway-house clerics either try to minimize the need for a European counter-revolution, or else they rejoice in the demise of European culture, citing its demise as proof of the continuing advance of the human race toward one world, one faith. The reality, however, is quite different from the utopian fantasies of the pundits and the clerics. The Christian European has not converted the barbarians by mixing with them, quite the contrary, the European has become a heathen because he has mixed with the colored races. A perfect example of the new European faith can be seen in the spectacle of a largely European U. S. Congress approving of Obama’s plan to award billions of dollars in reparations to American Indians and blacks. The European no longer comprehends the religion of mercy, so he gives to the gods that require sacrifice. But to whom will the widow and orphan appeal when there is no mercy on earth? And to whom will the spiritually bereft appeal in the dark night of the soul if the God of mercy has become a subordinate God in a pantheon of heathen deities who require sacrifice, not mercy? The European has not sought the counter-revolution; it has been thrust upon him. We must all prepare to meet with Caliban. +

The Battle Lines Are Drawn

“We are in God’s hands, brother, not in theirs.”

Seldom does a day pass that I do not think of Alan Breck Stewart. Surely you know the man – he is Robert Louis Stevenson’s fictional hero, who, as he never tires of telling us, “bears a king’s name.” You see, he is a descendant of that ill-fated line of Scottish kings defeated once and for all, in terms of any earthly standing, at the Battle of Culloden. But Alan refuses to acknowledge defeat. He lives the life of an outlaw, swearing allegiance only to the old Scottish clans and refusing to recognize King George as a legitimate king. He completely steals the book from the rather priggish and much too Whiggish David Balfour. And at the book’s end, David, now a wealthy laird, yearns for the days when he lived the outlaw life with Alan Breck Stewart.

Why should anyone care about a mere figment of Robert Louis Stevenson’s imagination? Because Stevenson, quite probably without realizing it, gives us an excellent portrayal of the glory and difficulties that await all those who would take up a counter-revolutionary cause.

The glory springs from the fact that one is fighting for the old ways – for the hearth over the school, the peasant over the merchant, the warrior-bard over the banker, the act of charity over the syllogism, and the wise man from the village over the academic in the big city.

The difficulty stems from the fact that a counter-revolutionary’s life is a lonely one. Can one realistically expect his countrymen to keep the image of the old ways before their eyes and in their memory, when a man must live and it is the new ways that rule the roost? And what about one’s children? Suppose Alan Breck Stewart meets a bonnie lass behind the heather, and then suppose he marries that lass and their union bears fruit? Can he expect his wife and children to live the outlaw’s life? Will not the very natural desire to see his children successful and prosperous cause the counter-revolutionary to make his accommodation with the ruling Whigs of the world?

Most of us with counter-revolutionary sentiments make our accommodation with the world. Those with intellectual integrity continue to affirm the correctness of the old ways while admitting that they do not have the stomach to fight for them, while those with less integrity manage to convince themselves that the new order isn’t really so revolutionary and that it can be changed from within. Those who seek to change the new order from within always fail. They fail to understand the true dynamic of the revolution, and consequently over-estimate their own abilities to make any kind of dent in the new order. But they make a living, while the Alan Brecks of the movement die in poverty and exile.

The compromisers and the accommodators do cause a problem though. As the revolution marches onward, it becomes more and more difficult to compromise and remain a human being with a soul. For example, a Christian living in the newly formed United States of the 1790’s could clearly see that the U. S. Constitution was a devil’s document, designed to foster a new godless leviathan and to destroy the older incorporate league which Western man had formed with Christ. Lacking the will to fight, the 1790’s Christian unfortunately decided to make his peace and to remain thankful that the revolutionary forces permitted him a breathing and living space in the new order. But what about the 21st century descendant of that first compromiser? The descendant now has no room to maneuver. It is not a case, as it was with the 1790’s Christian, of conceding a few points to the secularists and then sneaking off to church. The secularists have taken over the Christian churches and have imposed their new religion on the formerly Christian world. Continual compromise by his ancestors has left the 21st century Christian with no options: It is fight or join the secularists. It is not possible to cooperate with race mixers or murderers of babies. When Satan’s end game is the only game permitted, the Christian must fight or cease to be Christian.

I make the assertion that the present times are intelligible. Any knight of the old stock can clearly see that there is nothing left us but counter-revolution. This should not be a subject for debate; the only debate should involve the tactics to be used.

The revolution has been with us for centuries. It has come against us in the form of Scholasticism, capitalism, communism, neo-paganism, Freemasonry, and numerous other Satanisms, but the key to the revolutionaries’ success has been their ability to sever nature from grace. Primitive man was connected to nature; his natural world was filled with spiritual meaning. There were gods of the field, gods of the forest, and ghosts of the dead. The gods could be malevolent or benevolent, depending on what was done to appease or to anger them. Most works by Christopher Dawson and all of Mircea Eliade’s works describe this connection primitive man had to nature.

However, there is, as every Christian knows, and as every tree-hugging liberal does not know, a downside to primitive religious belief. There is no ethical dimension to be found in the nature gods; they are capricious and unloving. The natural world is pregnant with meaning under their rule, but it is not a pregnancy that will give birth to a God that loves man enough to rescue him from the endless cycle of birth and decay.

The more ethical religious traditions that supplanted the more primitive ones, like Platonism, Buddhism, Confucianism, and Taoism, added an ethical dimension to religion, but denuded the natural religion that gave primitive man a link to the gods. Man needs more than an intellectual or mystical comprehension of the Logos; he needs to be connected to God in every fiber of his being.

Enter Christ, the God-Man. Christianity correctly practiced and preached combines the primitive religions’ sacred cosmos with the more ethical religious traditions. Nature is not destroyed, it is transformed. God’s grace has entered the world in the form of the Christ, the living God. Natural man now understands that all those gods of the field and the hunt were precursors of the one true God, and ethical contemplative man now knows that the source of his contemplation has a local habitation and a name, thus adding a personal, human element to his religion that was not there before.

In primitive societies the hero is the man who can climb the cosmic tree and be connected to the earth and to the heavens. The counter-revolutionary hero also is connected to earth and heaven; he has not lost his sacramental view of the world, nor has he ceased to experience in the deepest recesses of his soul a connection to a spiritual realm rooted in heaven but also firmly planted on earth. There is no false dichotomy in the counter-revolutionary’s vision. “Heaven has visited earth.”

All revolutionary societies and movements in some form deny the spiritual link between heaven and earth. The scholastics and the Protestant theologians who followed in their train insisted that the God of sorrows was not to be found in the human heart, but in the human mind. This over-rationalization of God narrowed the focus of European man, who kept staring into the golden bowl of his intellect and worshipping the God he placed there.

Of course, the necessity of counter-revolution now is much greater than in the days of Alan Breck Stewart. The Scottish Highlander’s fight was still a fight within Christendom. The modern European knight errant fights from within the bowels of satanic liberaldom. He can be inspired by the spirit of his ancestors, but his situation is much more desperate than that of his ancestors for the simple reason that his ancestors had Christendom and he does not. I think we are all still in a state of shock, hardly realizing all of the horrific implications from the death of Christendom. G. K. Chesterton, for instance, could not even conceive of a time when Christendom would not exist:

“What Mahomet and Calvin and all those breaking away from the dying civilization did not realize, is the curious fact that it is a dying civilization that never dies. It does decline, and has done so any number of times; it does decay; it is always at it. But it does not disappear; and, at the end of more or less debased periods, has a way of managing to reappear, when its enemies have in their turn decayed. The moral is, I will venture to think, that it is unwise to desert this perpetually sinking ship, or betray this everlastingly dying creed and culture. It has had another period of final extinction at the end of the Middle Ages. It has suffered eclipse in the enlightenment of the Age of Reason and Revolution; which in their turn begin to look as if they had seen better days...

“The moral is that no man should desert that civilization. It can cure itself; but those who leave it cannot cure it. Not Nestorious nor Mahomet nor Calvin nor Lenin have cured, nor will cure, the real evils of Christendom; for the severed hand does not heal the whole body.” (1)

We are motivated by the same love for Christendom that motivated our ancestors, but we are proceeding from an entirely different point. Polite debates and agreements to agree to disagree are things that take place between people with a common faith and a common cultural heritage. We share neither of these with the liberals of the neo-pagan variety or the mad-dog variety. When Satan’s clergymen talk about the evils of “familism” and the neo-pagans talk about the creation of a new neo-pagan god, we know that Satan is truly present at the heart of what was once Christendom.

I received a letter recently from a former student who had grasped, organically, that Christendom had given way to the new Satandom. His question was, 'What am I to do?' My first reaction was to tell him what Charles Peguy said about Christian fathers. He said that a Christian father was the true counter-revolutionary. But of course my young friend could not go out and make some woman become a Jeanie Deans or a Maud Ruthyn so that she would be fit to wed a Christian knight. But a young man, or an old man for that matter, can cling to what he loves. If he loves the old Europe, he can cling to it. The one true God, whom the neo-pagans mock and scorn and the liberals deny, reigns in that Europe. And if one is faithful to old Europe and its people, the right bride and the right sword to fight for that bride and His Europe will come to the faithful knight, or, to use my favorite image, to the faithful woodcutter.

I once, in my mid-twenties, got to visit with one of the major writers in the European Christian conservative camp. In the middle of my compliments on a book he had written about the dangers posed to the faith by false science, he said, “If I were writing that book today I would not make a distinction between false science and science. All science is false.” I have had many years to reflect on that comment, and I believe it to be true. The old sage wasn’t claiming that there weren’t such things as biology, physics, and chemistry; what he was asserting was that science, as practiced by Western man, had always been used to destroy Christian Europe.

So long as the European remains a prisoner of any part of the scientific world, he will be incapable of launching an effective attack on liberaldom. The triumph of the scientific view of man means the triumph of dumb nature. The neo-pagan, forsaking his pagan and his Christian ancestors, sits at his computer and dreams of a new, scientific, faithless faith that he will create for the white man. But when the neo-pagan talks about “creating” a new faith, he has already told us what he worships: his own mind.

The mad-dog liberal looks at the world scientifically as well. He has made an a priori decision that he sees all that there is to see and that ‘all’ is the natural world and only the natural world. So he fantasizes about the natural black savage and makes him the Crown King of the natural world.

Richard Weaver called science a false messiah, and Melville said that science was incapable of providing man with any answer to the riddle of existence. Yet modern man still believes that the men in the white lab coats hold the secrets of life and death. Modern scientific man is not a non-believer, he believes in everything except reality. He believes in the natural goodness of the black man, the perfectibility of mankind after the elimination of recalcitrant whites, and the life everlasting on this earth after the men in the white lab coats have completed their research.

The European of the ancient stock seems, to the liberals of the mad-dog and neo-pagan variety, to be an obstacle blocking the creation of the new world order. But the ancient European must remain undaunted in the face of every liberal attempt to destroy him, because the antique European and only the antique European knows there is only one world order and that is His world order, which He, because of a love that passeth all understanding, invites us to share with Him.

The debates are now over. The battle lines have been drawn. The liberals are standing on the left bank of the river Science, and they are led by our ancient foe. We, the last Europeans, stand on the far shore with the dismal swamp behind us. One step back and we perish in despair. Surrounding us, unseen, are a legion of archangels ready to assist us in battle, or so our blood tells us. Yet we hesitate – after all we live in Liberaldom, and is not fear, doubt, and hesitation the mark of an ancient European living in Liberaldom? – But then there is Galahad and the legions of Europeans who followed him. They believed in the unseen God who spoke through the blood. Our blood calls us then. And soon we are amongst the enemy. They fall like wheat before the scythe. Faith was all. Once the internal battle was won, victory on the actual battlefield was assured. Let there be sung “Non nobis” and “Te Deum.”

_____________________________________
(1) What writers such as Chesterton could not envision was a Europe where Europeans would be a tiny minority. In the past, European renewals occurred because Christendom was still European. In the 21st century, Europeans need to do more than renew; they must rebuild Christendom.

An Integrated Sewer

Long before a people develop a constitution and written laws, they develop traditions and codes of behavior based on their religion. These traditions and codes of behavior are infinitely more important than the paper and ink that comes later in the form of constitutions and codified laws. Since a nation’s tradition stems from the people’s faith, any subsequent written law must conform to that sacred tradition if it is to be a valid law. Laws are not sacred because they are laws; they are sacred when they codify some aspect of a sacred tradition.

The problem that arises in nations with a long history of codified laws is that the people often retain a respect for the law when the laws of that nation no longer support the religious tradition that formed the nation. Worldly wise revolutionaries in the Western European countries have learned that it is far better to destroy a traditional culture through legal, lawful means than to throw bombs into government buildings. Through trial and error, the revolutionaries have learned that a revolution wrought by law takes longer but is more long-lasting because there is never any counter-revolutionary reaction. In fact, the most passive element of the populace will be the very people who would have opposed the revolution had the revolution been an old-fashioned, violent one. But having made a whited sepulchre of the law, divorced from any religious tradition, the ‘conservative’ element of the populace simply acquiesces to every hideous aspect of the new, radical, lawful regime. It is no coincidence that the United States, whose people pride themselves on their Constitution and their respect for law, now has the most radical, anti-Christian government on the face of the earth.

Satan does not require a majority or even a large minority to complete a successful revolution in a traditionally Christian nation. All Satan requires is a small minority completely dedicated to him and a lukewarm moral majority on the other side. We are told that the Lord vomits out the lukewarm. And if we look at the history of the Christian West, particularly the United States, we can see why. Satan’s minions are the “worst” who are full of the “passionate intensity” that Yeats wrote about. And the “best” are the lukewarm ones who “lack all conviction.” Satan’s minions cannot be stopped by a middle-of-the-road, lukewarm faith. The devil can always make that type of faith work to his advantage. The abortion wars were a perfect example.

In the early 1970’s there was a moral consensus against abortion. But the moral consensus came from a majority who were not intensely against the slaughter of innocents. They thought it was wrong but not all that wrong: “there are special circumstances under which...” We’ve all heard that song before. What Satan plays on so adroitly is the half-truth. He takes one part of Christianity and makes it the whole. In the case of legalized abortion, he focused on the chivalrous instincts of the European male. It is right to cede to the wishes of a Christian woman on all matters pertaining to the cradle, hearth, and kitchen. But when a woman steps away from the Christian hearth in defiance of God’s law and becomes a Lady Macbeth, is it still Christian to acquiesce to her wishes? Of course not. And only a lukewarm Christian would step back and allow a Lady Macbeth to have her will.

Satandom, like Christendom, was not built overnight. The devil has chipped away at Christian Europe and gradually dismantled it. Having established his rule, he now needs to consolidate it. He is following the same procedure that the Christian Europeans followed. After establishing traditions and codes of behavior based on their religious principles, they then sought to codify those principles into law. Satan has been codifying, through his minions, his religion into law for the past fifty years. Abortion, sodomy, and race-mixing have all been enshrined in law in the Western world in direct contradiction to the sacred traditions and the laws based on those traditions of Christian Europe. (1)

If the virtuous majority had had the passionate intensity of the satanic minority, Satan would not now be the king of Western civilization. But now that he is king, it will take a passionate Christian minority to begin the long, arduous process of unseating Satan from his throne. “We few, we happy few, we band of brothers” are no longer fighting in defense of Christendom -- Christendom is dead -- we are now fighting an offensive war against Satandom.

The recent election of Barack Obama to the Presidency of the United States has enormous significance for people of European blood. The election represents a new stage in Satan’s great consolidation effort. By giving sacred status to a mixed-blood Negro, the people of the United States have made a religion of race-mixing. If that new religion is followed to its ultimate conclusion, there will be no Europeans left to maintain a Christian counter-revolution.

There is another element in this ongoing satanic revolution that we must take note of. The worst, having achieved their satanic society without bloodshed because they thought the shedding of blood tactically unwise, will not be squeamish about shedding blood now that they have power. They will continue to preach nonviolence to the lukewarm in the increasingly unlikely probability that a few of the lukewarm might become intense; however, they, with the full weight of the government behind them, will become increasingly violent. And although we few, the last remnant of Europe, can occasionally adopt nonviolent means to counter the devil’s consolidation plans, we cannot be dogmatically nonviolent as the leftists were in their revolutionary takeover, for the reason that the lefties knew Christian Europeans would not use violence against them so long as they invoked the word “law.” But we know that quite the contrary is true for us. They will use violence against Europeans no matter what magic word we invoke. Anything that serves Satan is lawful to the liberal. We are at a disadvantage in that regard. But within the limits of Christian warfare, we should be violent when necessary. It is another trick of the devil to encourage, through our “Christian pastors,” the belief that pacifism and a Buddhistic indifference in the face of evil are virtues.

There is one great advantage that a modern man of European blood has over a European of the 1950’s. Now there is clarity. The European of the 1950’s could walk out into the streets of his city and see movies that by and large still supported indirectly, and sometimes directly, the faith on which his nation’s traditions and code of behavior were based. And whatever Christian church he entered would have still supported, at least in word, the faith that made Europe. But at the same time there was a disturbing undercurrent. The European man, in tune with the evening lingerings of European culture, could sense the dike was about to break and release a century’s worth of satanic refuse on his beloved nation.

And now, when everything Europeans held sacred has been defiled, the battle lines are clearly drawn. The European knows what has to be done. He doesn’t have to ask himself whether it is necessary to draw his sword. There is work enough for ten lifetimes before him. He can draw the sword and throw the sheath away.

I have read most of the ‘Death of the West’ books beginning with Spengler’s, who first started the genre in the early 1900’s. But there is only one author who correctly diagnosed the problem of the European. In his book, White Man Think Again, Anthony Jacob points out that the white man has not been defeated by an outside force, he has not been overwhelmed by the barbarians; he is in decline because of white liberalism. His destiny is in his own hands, or to be more precise, in his own soul. If he returns, in his heart, to the faith that transcends all constitutions and the historical process, he will once again be what he was meant to be, the Christ-Bearer. And then his children and his children’s children will know what it means to live in a segregated culture consecrated to God, instead of in an integrated sewer that empties into hell. +
____________________
(1) The Fundamentalists from Bob Jones University recently issued an apology for their former strictures against integration and interracial dating. Their capitulation indicates to me the insufficiency of the Scripture-alone approach to Christianity. The devil can cite Scripture for his own purpose if he is allowed to quote Scripture independent of the tradition and culture of the people who made Christ their King and Kinsman.

To whom can we appeal if there are different interpretations of the Scriptures? To the Pope? That solution has its problems as well. The Novus Ordo Catholics and the Traditionalist Catholics are constantly fighting it out over the “which pope?” question. So while the Scripture-alone Protestants and the “Scripture and documents as interpreted by the Pope” Catholics are arguing, the Christian everyman needs a guide.

What seems like an insoluble dilemma when posed as a problem in theology is not so great a problem when we see it through the eyes of faith. It is not possible to look at segregated Christian Europe and our modern integrated Babylon and say that integration and Negro-worship is God’s will. Is there one ounce of faith in the Protestant or the Catholic who makes such a blasphemous claim?

Well, they’ve flown their flag of Babylon. We will fly the colors of old Europe and “see them all to Davy Jones.”

The Eyes of Faith

After the French Jacobins swept away the monarchy, Christianity, and the French nobility, they placed a Parisian prostitute on a pedestal and made her the goddess of reason. The symbolism of that act is perfect. When reason is divorced from revelation, reason becomes a whore.

It came home to me when I saw pictures of the Obama presidential celebrations on the college campuses and the streets of America that Americans are celebrating their own French revolution. They have divorced reason from revelation and gone a-whoring after the savage god. Nothing good can come from a people who celebrate the triumph of heathenism.

Thomas Molnar pointed out in his book Counter-Revolution that revolutions first succeed in the minds of the ruling but soon-to-be deposed governors. Years of propaganda from the revolutionaries make the rulers doubt their own legitimacy, and when the moment of crisis comes there is no one left to defend the regime. The triumph of the barbarian hordes took place because there was no one even remotely connected to the Republican Party who equated civilization with Christian Europe. The Republicans never once said they opposed Obama because it was blasphemous for a black barbarian to be president. They opposed him because they claimed they could provide more goods and services to black people with their free market policies than the Democrats could with their socialist policies.

But the Democratic Party was able to find a revolutionary god to go with their economic policy, thus providing their followers with a faith. The Republican Party will go into the dustbin of history because it never found a god. They will make all sorts of excuses for why they lost, and the Limbaugh crowd will plan their new strategies, but it will all come to naught, because they have no faith.

I can hear the liberal-conservative protest: “We go to church. How dare you say we have no faith.” I’m sure most of the liberal-conservatives do go to church, as do most of the Obamba-worshipping Democrats. But our churches are not Christian churches. They do not worship the living God in the Christian churches. They worship the civic-virtue god. The liberal-conservatives look on Christ as a hard-charging entrepreneur, very skilled but inferior in power and majesty to the market itself. And the Democrats look on Christ as the Great Gatsby – a nice guy who supports the liberal causes, but certainly inferior in power and majesty to the black man.

The Republicans will be planning their strategies to stage a comeback in 2012. And the Democrats will try to consolidate and extend their power, but both parties have the same goal: to establish a multi-racial, godless utopia. We know that such a utopia is not possible, and even if they were to succeed, the result would be a 1984-type of dystopia. But the white liberal will not be around to see the future, because where he envisions a utopia that includes his enlightened self, the black man envisions a future with a white man in every stew pot. Of course the black man will lose his sacred status when the white man disappears, because the white man has always sustained the black man. Without the whites, blacks will return to the jungle and become the slaves of the Orientals.

If we follow only the Spenglerian logic of history, the European has very little time left. His day is done. He has only a few evening hours left before he must say goodbye, not only to the world stage but to life itself. That is according to Spenglerian logic. But Spengler represents the decadent part of the European’s personality. He represents the analytical, speculative man. For such a man there is a discernible logic to the historical process that, once grasped, can be used as a crystal ball to see the future. And the Spenglerian European has been mesmerized by the historical process as a cobra is mesmerized by the snake-charmer’s pipe. He sees the death of European man in his crystal ball, and he is incapable of doing anything to oppose what he thinks is the inevitability of history. They only thing he can do is to hasten his extinction by merging his identity with the historical process. Having lost his faith in a personal resurrection, he can at least be part of the historical process. The post-Christian rationalist is always moving onward – toward what?

The Spenglerian or Greek part of European man’s soul has been so dominant for the past century that it is often difficult to believe that he has another side. But the European did not always hold speculative philosophy and mumbo-jumbo speculations about the historical process as the penultimate of Western man’s achievement. The Hebraic European man who sees history through the eyes of faith is the true European. The words of a Welsh poem keep coming back to me: “Nothing can compare to the love that once was there.” The European loved Christ. It was that simple. Picture the strong Germanic warrior, stronger than the Roman legionaries whom he had just defeated, listening to a monk tell the Christ story. He heard, he believed, and he loved. Clovis reportedly said, when he first hear the story of the Crucifixion, “Oh, if I had only been there with my Franks.”

We are here, at the crucifixion of Christian civilization. The dancing in the streets over Obama’s election is a celebration of the death of Christian Europe. It took a long time to die, too long in the opinion of the PCR whites and the colored races, but now that it is officially dead, Satan’s minions think they are in for one huge satanic bacchanalia.

But suppose there are a few Europeans left who do not see history with the eyes of the Greeks, or with one eye of faith and one eye of reason. Suppose they see with both eyes, and both eyes are fixed on the Man of Sorrows? A different world can be seen with those eyes. In that world, nothing is written. There is no Kismet and no inexorable historical process that grinds to an inevitable conclusion. “Lazarus, come forth!” What a moment! The same God that raised Lazarus from the dead is perfectly capable of raising European civilization from the dead, provided we love like the men and women of eternal Europe once loved. Shakespeare’s Henry V put it in good Anglo-Saxon terms when he declared that he and his men were ready for battle because, “our hearts are in the trim...”

Revolutions and counter-revolutions are won and lost in the human heart. Western civilization, the white man’s civilization, was built because the European took Christ into his heart. The colored races have never heard the still, small voice that inspired the European. They only saw the outward prosperity of European civilization and sought to make that prosperity their own. This is why the blacks are celebrating the victory of Obama. They think the wealth of the West will be theirs if one of their own is the ruler of the West. Of course it is a delusion. If they truly achieve complete power without any liberal whites to help them, they will be impoverished, as the blacks in South Africa and Rhodesia have become impoverished.

And what are the whites celebrating? They also are celebrating the death of European civilization, but they are not celebrating because they will now become prosperous; most of them are prosperous enough. They want to kill, once and for all, that still, small voice that inspired the antique Europeans. If only that voice, which calls them to a higher destiny than the races of color, would cease, they could be happy. Christ haunts them. Every time they hear His voice, they remember the look He gave St. Peter after the third denial. That look of infinite compassion and love. And that look is something the PCR white wants to banish from the world. “I shall not serve,” was Satan’s proud boast, and “I don’t need your love or compassion,” is the white liberal’s boast. Far better, the liberal thinks, to turn to a black god who promises deliverance from Christian Europe.

Why does the white liberal want to be delivered from Christian Europe? Because Christian Europe stinks of humanity. The white liberal, for all of his talk about loving mankind, really hates humanity. He believes, with Sarte, that hell is other people. That is why the liberal’s utopia is devoid of those cradles of humanity so cherished by Christian Europeans. Babies are murdered in the womb, and patriarchal families are forbidden in the liberal utopia. The reason the liberals want to interject the black man into the classic stories and the traditional cultures of the European people is because Negroization destroys the humanity of a culture. Black integration always leads to the disintegration of a culture. If the liberal is to avoid the pain associated with humanity and be free to build his sterile, anesthetized utopia, he must kill everything European by blending the European with the black. “Who would be wedded to hell?” The white liberal would, and is, wedded to hell in the form of the black man.

Writing in 1949, Helmut Kuhn said that “Modern man sees with one eye of faith and one eye of reason.” I think since that time the second eye, the eye of faith, has closed. Modern man now sees only with the eyes of reason. And it seems rational to avoid pain. But the eyes of faith, the eyes of those first Europeans who wept when they heard the Christ story, can see that the pain and suffering of existence is lessened when we embrace our humanity, not when we seek to escape from it, because in the depths of our suffering humanity, He is there, and He is the only one of us who has truly triumphed over suffering and death. Through Him and in Him, we conquer those two impostors as well.

It is the mission of the remaining Europeans to keep both eyes focused on the Hero–God of our European ancestors. The black gods are devil gods and will take the white man down to an integrated hell. We can only defeat the devil’s integration plan by re-segregating Europe and re-consecrating it to Him. A Europe so segregated and so consecrated is the only Europe we should seek, because it is the only Europe worthy of our ancestors who rest in the arms of the Lord. +

The Whiteman at Bay

I do not subscribe to the traditionalist Catholic viewpoint of history which claims that the 13th century was the apogee of Christian civilization, followed by a steady decline in every subsequent century. Nor do I agree with the Protestants who view all of European history prior to the Reformation as the age of darkness, in contrast to the post-Reformation age of light. I have a personal preference (for reasons I have stated in an earlier article) for the 19th century, but I see all of European man’s history, prior to the 20th century, as a successful effort, the only successful effort in the history of mankind, to keep Satan at bay. And by saying that, I do not mean to suggest that Satan has not had his individual successes within European civilization. What I am affirming is that Europeans, despite the onslaughts of Satan, had maintained a civilization that acknowledged the light of the world and were aware of their obligations to stay focused on that light.

All dates on a matter such as the decline of the West are arbitrary, but I think 1914 is a fairly accurate date to use when we are talking about the point in history when Satan was no longer being kept at bay. He was loose. And by the mid-1960’s he had institutionalized his values throughout all of Christian Europe. So now the white Christian male is being kept at bay by Satan.

As one who is opposed to the reign of Satan, I am concerned about the failure in the last fifty years of every European counterattack. It would seem, judging by the recent European failures to uproot him, that Satan is very difficult to uproot once he has taken up residence in a civilization. But is he invincible? Our ancestors’ success against him indicates that he is not.

What then do we lack that our ancestors had? We lack the heroic, integral way of responding to adversity. We no longer see an evil and say, “this must not go on,” (1) and strike out at the evil. Instead, we form “think tanks” and study groups. We spend years of fruitless effort in trying to get someone elected who will address the particular evil we are trying to combat. In short, we are Hamlet prior to his conversion from confused graduate student to the lawful King of Denmark. We are “crawling around between heaven and earth.”

Satan wants European man to see life as an intelligence test in which the person with the highest score wins. But when we perceive life as Satan does, we always lose. We lose because we are not angelic beings. When we abstract our minds from our blood, we become like unto Satan, because when we abstract, we “believe a lie.”

To abstracted reason, evil appears good because it seems pleasurable, while virtue appears evil because it seems painful. In order to discover that the reverse is true, mankind must resist the pleasures in which their abstracted minds encourage them to indulge and perform the virtuous deeds that their blood, animated by His spirit, calls on them to perform. I have known women who rejected motherhood because they could not stand the idea of pain. And yet what mother does not rejoice when she gives birth? In Shakespeare’s poem, “The Rape of Lucrece,” Sextus Tarquinius cannot resist his idée fixe; he must have the fair Lucrece. With what result?

Even in this thought through the dark night he stealeth,
A captive victor that hath lost in gain;
Bearing away the wound that nothing healeth,
The scar that will, despite of cure, remain;
Leaving his spoil perplex'd in greater pain.
She bears the load of lust he left behind,
And he the burden of a guilty mind.
He like a thievish dog creeps sadly thence;
She like a wearied lamb lies panting there;
He scowls and hates himself for his offence;
She, desperate, with her nails her flesh doth tear;
He faintly flies, sneaking with guilty fear;
She stays, exclaiming on the direful night;
He runs, and chides his vanish'd, loath’d delight.

Our ancestors who built Christian Europe lived life in the heroic mode. They did not feel called upon to match wits with the devil. They felt called upon to defend their souls and their civilization from the onslaughts of the devil. The Christian hero cares only about one thing: Is his cause God’s cause? And if it is, he sallies forth and leaves the rest to God.

There's a special Providence in the fall of a sparrow.
If it be now, 'tis not to come: if it be not to
come, it will be now: if it be not now,
yet it will come; the readiness is all.
Since no man has ought of what he
leaves. What is't to leave betimes?

Every society has men of courage. But it takes more than courage to maintain a Christian civilization or to mount a counterattack against a satanic civilization. It takes courage and vision. And the “vision thing” of which George Bush senior was so dismissive is what has been lacking and is still lacking in the ranks of the far right.

Twenty-five years ago I would have called the abortion issue the central issue of our times. But now I see that legalized abortion is the result of the anti-European ethos of the modern world. Anti-European whites legalized it and anti-European whites and barbarians of color constitute the unholy alliance that maintains legalized infanticide. Thus, the central issue is the restoration of Christian Europe. From that restoration will come the restoration of laws protecting babies in their mother’s wombs and other laws necessary for the welfare of a Christian people. But first there must be a restoration. And that is why the Sons of Martha should never and can never lead a counterrevolutionary movement. The Sons of Martha always get lost in the household details of the movement and lose sight of the real issue of the war. The restoration of white civilization, for instance, cannot be divorced from the issue of the restoration of Christian civilization. But the Sons of Martha divorce the two. They see that there are professed white Christians maniacally opposed to white Europeans and that there are professed white Christians who are in favor of segregation and white sovereignty in white countries. So instead of trying to ascertain who are the true Christians, they treat Christianity as a washout and look for a more practical way to bring people to the banner of White Europe. But in doing so, they leave their movement without a metaphysic.

This fact was made abundantly clear to me a few years back when I read an article by an American Son of Martha in a right-wing British magazine called The Spearhead. The author maintained that white people needed a religion of their own to replace Christianity if they were going to combat the anti-European forces arrayed against them. In his Son of Martha logic, religion was something one could simply pick up for pragmatic purposes. “We need a religion to beat the barbarians – let’s buy one at the religion store.” It doesn’t work that way, of course. European man has a religion, he has the religion, and it has always been his religion. When the barbarian truly converts to the white man’s religion, he supports the white hierarchy. In Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn’s encyclopedic work on Europe, he tells in the chapter on Britain of an old Indian (the real India) who wistfully yearns for the return of the British Rajah. That old man is the British equivalent of Uncle Remus.

The good news for white folk is that the Sons of Mary have not yet begun to fight. The liberals and the barbarians have only beaten the Sons of Martha. But the bad news is that the Sons of Martha show no signs of stepping down and recognizing that the “impractical” Sons of Mary are the only men who have the vision to lead a successful counterrevolution. The Sons of Martha do not believe that “without vision the people perish.” They believe that what rationalism has destroyed, namely Western civilization, rationalism can restore. ‘Tis not so, it never has been, and it never will be. Only a faith that holds the purely rational, the purely empirical, and the purely scientific in contempt can hope to breach the walls and eventually capture and destroy Castle Babylon. +
____________

(1) Squeers caught the boy firmly in his grip; one desperate cut had fallen on his body--he was wincing from the lash and uttering a scream of pain--it was raised again, and again about to fall--when Nicholas Nickleby, suddenly starting up, cried 'Stop!' in a voice that made the rafters ring.

'Who cried stop?' said Squeers, turning savagely round.

'I,' said Nicholas, stepping forward. 'This must not go on.'

'Must not go on!' cried Squeers, almost in a shriek.

'No!' thundered Nicholas.

Aghast and stupefied by the boldness of the interference, Squeers released his hold of Smike, and, falling back a pace or two, gazed upon Nicholas with looks that were positively frightful.

'I say must not,' repeated Nicholas, nothing daunted; 'shall not. I will prevent it.'

Squeers continued to gaze upon him, with his eyes starting out of his head; but astonishment had actually, for the moment, bereft him of speech.

'You have disregarded all my quiet interference in the miserable lad's behalf,' said Nicholas; 'you have returned no answer to the letter in which I begged forgiveness for him, and offered to be responsible that he would remain quietly here. Don't blame me for this public interference. You have brought it upon yourself; not I.'

'Sit down, beggar!' screamed Squeers, almost beside himself with rage, and seizing Smike as he spoke.

'Wretch,' rejoined Nicholas, fiercely, 'touch him at your peril! I will not stand by, and see it done. My blood is up, and I have the strength of ten such men as you. Look to yourself, for by Heaven I will not spare you, if you drive me on!'

'Stand back,' cried Squeers, brandishing his weapon.

'I have a long series of insults to avenge,' said Nicholas, flushed with passion; 'and my indignation is aggravated by the dastardly cruelties practised on helpless infancy in this foul den. Have a care; for if you do raise the devil within me, the consequences shall fall heavily upon your own head!'

He had scarcely spoken, when Squeers, in a violent outbreak of wrath, and with a cry like the howl of a wild beast, spat upon him, and struck him a blow across the face with his instrument of torture, which raised up a bar of livid flesh as it was inflicted. Smarting with the agony of the blow, and concentrating into that one moment all his feelings of rage, scorn, and indignation, Nicholas sprang upon him, wrested the weapon from his hand, and pinning him by the throat, beat the ruffian till he roared for mercy.

--Nicholas Nickleby by Charles Dickens