Beyond Tears

The city was full of negroes at this time. These seemed to represent mainly the two extremes of prosperity and poverty. The gentlemen could not walk on the street without being applied to by some old man or woman who was in want, and who, as long as the visitors had anything to give, needed only to ask to be assisted.

“We are like lost souls on the banks of the Styx,” said Dr. Cary. “I feel as much a stranger as if I were on another planet. And to think that our grandfathers helped to make this nation!”

“To think that we ever surrendered!” exclaimed General Legaie, with a flash in his eye.
– Red Rock by Thomas Nelson Page

I recently saw my mad-dog liberal sister after a hiatus of about 12 years. I was surprised how much she had aged. I don’t think I would have recognized her if I passed her on the street.

I’m not making the case that liberalism ages someone more than conservatism; I’m sure I looked just as aged to my sister as she did to me. We see ourselves everyday, so we aren’t as shocked at our own transformation as we are at that of others we haven’t seen for many years, although sometimes via an old photograph we do see a glimpse of the stranger we once were.

It’s not a pleasant shock to see living proof that you are not “ague proof.” But it is much more unpleasant (in fact, unpleasant is putting it mildly) to see a deep spiritual chasm between the European culture that once was and the European culture that is now. I see the contrast every day, because everyday I leave my European home, where Walter Scott’s Europe is honored and revered, to go to and fro in the modern world to obtain the necessities of life that keep a man living and breathing. The contrast is enough to make a man weep, but I seldom weep because there is a sorrow too deep for tears. Such a sorrow belongs to the antique European who lives in modern Europe.

Incredible as it seems to me, the soul-dead liberals really believe we have progressed. Just the other day for instance I heard some liberal commentator prattling on about the greatness of the ground-breaking 1960’s and the wonderful changes wrought during that decade. Oh really?

Obviously the great haters, the liberals, were preparing the changes wrought in the 1960’s for many years prior to that time. It was just a case of the scum-laden pot finally boiling over in the 1960’s.

When the liberals rhapsodize about the 1960’s they usually list the civil rights movement and the sexual revolution as the great accomplishments of the sixties’ radicals. Christians of a more conservative bent usually applaud the civil rights movement and deplore the sexual revolution. Neo-pagans usually deplore the civil rights movement while enjoying and celebrating the sexual revolution. Seldom do we see a Christian condemning the civil rights movement or a neo-pagan condemning the sexual revolution, but the two movements were part of one, united, satanic attack on the mystical body of Christ. Christian Europeans should oppose both.

The mixed-race movement (which is what the civil rights movement was) and the sexual revolution were both grounded in the utopian thinking of European intellectuals, exemplified by Rousseau’s The Social Contract and Voltaire’s Candide respectively.

The mixed-race movement was the precursor of the sexual revolution. When a European embraces race-mixing, he must not only reject the authenticity of the Bible, he must also reject the traditional wisdom of the European people. He must believe that the strictures against interracial marriage and the desire to live with one’s own kind were the prejudices of a sick and demented people. Henceforth the new European will emerge, free of prejudice and free from any ties to kith or kin. His is a universal tie to all mankind.

The tie that binds the new European to all mankind is an intellectual abstraction. He loves a theory of unity, but he has no flesh and blood connection to a particular race of people. But the utopian’s intellectual denial of his blood cannot change reality; a man needs something to stir his blood. If he refuses to be inspired by the traditional sentiments that fired the blood of the antique European -- attachments to kith and kin – he will need something else to stir his blood. That something else is sex. It is sex unconnected to love. Blood will out; if the European renounces the ties of blood that enoble and elevate a man, he will end up a slave to the urges of the blood that debase and debauch a man. Interracial coupling is a necessity to a man who has no blood connection to a particular people or a particular God. And who becomes the utopian’s God? The people who can stir his blood.

Racial Babylon and Sexual Babylon are fraternal twins. The one precedes the other but only by an infinitesimal fraction of a hair. They both come from the same parent. Satan loves and wills racial and sexual diversity because it kills the image of God in man.

The hue and cry of the liberals and the halfway house Christian is “God loves everyone; we are all children of God.” Yes, God loves everyone, but everyone does not love God. We can only get to God through the God-Man. And if our human ties that bind are severed or debauched, we cannot know God. Let’s put the two contrasting visions, Babylonian univeralism and Christian provincialism side by side by comparing Harper Lee’s novel To Kill a Mockingbird and Thomas Nelson Page’s novel Red Rock.

In Lee’s novel, the Southern Christian Europeans are depicted as bigoted individuals who have irrational prejudices against blacks. The bad whites believe that any break in the color line will lead to miscegenation, black rape of white women, and the plunder of white civilization. The kind liberal, Atticus Finch, knows such beliefs are hogwash. Tom Robinson is a pure, upright negro (there are no evil negroes in the liberal’s fantasy religion), who has been falsely accused of rape by a pathetic, mentally unstable white girl. Evil then does not abide in the black man; it abides in the evil hearts and minds of bigoted white people. Lee’s book is treated as Holy Writ in American schools despite the fact that the ‘bigoted’ Southern whites were right – when you break the color line, miscegenation, black rape of white women, and the plunder of white civilization will ensue.

Thomas Nelson Page’s classic novel Red Rock is not a popular book in American schools, despite the fact that Page’s view of the black man is the realistic one. But of course reality and public school curriculums have never been compatible.

In Red Rock Page tells us that the European civilization of the Southern whites was Christian, and that the Southern war for independence was a war to stave off the totalitarian dark night of the Northern egalitarians. The men and women of the South who fought the carpetbaggers and their negro allies are depicted as heroes who prevailed against the evils of black barbarism and capitalism. Page tells us the truth about Christian Europeans and shows us that virtue and truth are to be found in men and women connected to the living God, through the blood lines of their kith and kin.

Little pious tracts by hypocritical liars such as Harper Lee, in which the white Christian horror of race-mixing is depicted as a sick prejudice, paved the way for the great barbarian blood and sex orgy of today. Rape and murder by colored barbarians is so familiar now in every European country that we no longer even raise our eyebrows in response. The only action that ever elicits a response from the white liberals is when a white man actually condemns black savagery. That shocks the liberals, and they punish home.

Having divorced his mind from his body and from his heart, the liberal must experience life vicariously through the barbarian of color. What was an abomination to the white European of the 19th century, miscegenation, is a consummation devoutly to be wished in the mind of the white liberal of the 21st century. How else will he know he is alive? He needs to feel something in the blood, and having severed his blood ties to the European people he must look to the colored races to give him the blood transfusion that he so desperately needs.

The old hymn tells us there is “power in the Blood of the Lamb.” Having rejected the Lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the world, the liberal will end his days in suicidal despair and bitterness, wondering why his black god failed him. The halfway house Christians will go over the cliffs of despair with the liberals rather than be subjected to cries of “racist” from the liberals as they fall from the cliffs. It’s a tragedy of Shakespearean proportions.

There is no hope of averting the tragedy because we are living in the midst of it. We have only the vision, bequeathed to us by our European ancestors, of a Hero-God whose love passeth the understanding of the intellect but penetrates deeply into the hearts of the Europeans who still have hearts to “receive Him still.” At the heart of Shakespearean drama is the single declarative statement of St. Paul – “Charity never faileth.” If we refuse to become diverse or enlightened we will stay connected to the God whose divine charity never has failed us and never will fail us. +

George Fitzhugh – Taking the trouble to write the truth

George Fitzhugh is, in my opinion, the greatest of the native-born American thinkers. R. L. Dabney and Richard Weaver certainly deserve honorable mention, but George Fitzhugh is my hero. On a wide range of topics, including slavery, the Reformation, Shakespeare, and the French Revolution, George Fitzhugh speaks with wisdom.

His defense of the segregated, slave-holding South of the 1850’s is particularly inspired and irrefutable. And yet Fitzhugh’s defense of the South did the South no good. Those without wisdom and without the correct arguments won. Why? I don’t know why truth never wins. Maybe our Lord meant it to be that way. After all, he was the Truth Incarnate and he was crucified.

It is difficult not to just give up any attempt to articulate a coherent true refutation of modernity. “If they didn’t listen to someone like George Fitzhugh, why should I, lacking his eloquence, bother to try to convince the inconvincible?” In other words, why should a man write to mere oblivion? I think a man writes in the hope that in the metaphysical realm his voice is heard. It is a form of prayer, which, as Shakespeare says, “pierces so that it assaults Mercy itself and frees all faults.”

From Fitzhugh:

Our Revolution, so wise in its conception and so glorious in its execution, was the mere assertion by adults of the rights of adults, and had nothing more to do with philosophy than the weaning of a calf. It was the act of a people seeking national independence, not the Utopian scheme of speculative philosophers, seeking to establish human equality and social perfection.

But the philosophers seized upon it, as they had upon the Reformation, and made it the unwilling and unnatural parent of the largest and most hideous brood of ills that had ever appeared at one birth, since the opening of the box of Pandora. Bills of Rights, Acts of Religious Freedom and Constitutions, besprinkled with doctrines directly at war with all stable government, seem to be the basis on which our institutions rest. But only seem to be; for, in truth, our laws and government are either old Anglo-Saxon prescriptive arrange-ments, or else the gradual accretions of time, circumstance and necessity. Throw our paper platforms, preambles and resolutions, guaran-ties and constitutions, into the fire, and we should be none the worse off, provided we retained our institutions - and the necessities that begat, and have, so far, continued them.

And:

We may be doing Mr. Jefferson injustice, in assuming that his "fundamental principles" and Mr. Seward's "higher law," mean the same thing; but the injustice can be very little, as they both mean just nothing at all, unless it be a determination to inaugurate anarchy, and to do all sorts of mischief. We refer the reader to the chapter on the Declaration of Independence," &c., in our Sociology, for a further dissertation on the fundamental powdercask abstractions, on which our glorious institutions affect to repose. We say affect, because we are sure neither their repose nor their permanence would be disturbed by the removal of the counterfeit foundation.

The true greatness of Mr. Jefferson was his fitness for revolution. He was the genius of innovation, the architect of ruin, the inaugurator of anarchy. His mission was to pull down, not to build up. He thought everything false as well in the physical, as in the moral world. He fed his horses on potatoes, and defended harbors with gun-boats, because it was contrary to human experience and human opinion. He proposed to govern boys without the authority of masters or the control of religion, supplying their places with Laissez-faire philosophy, and morality from the pages of Lawrence Sterne. His character, like his philosophy, is exceptional - invaluable in urging on revolution, but useless, if not dangerous, in quiet times.