Interview with the Young Drummer

No dream of the future, my spirit can cheer;

Interviewer: I’m afraid I’ve become the type of person who only gets in touch when I am depressed.

Young Drummer: Well, at least you keep in touch.

INT: I received a blast from the past recently in the form of a letter from an old friend in the pro-life movement. As he prattled on about new legislation and voting ‘pro-life’ I remembered why I parted company with the pro-lifers. It was not because I became indifferent to the evil of legalized abortion; it was because I saw that the pro-lifers held something more sacred than life in the womb.

YD: And what was that?

INT: Democracy.

YD: Yes, it is rather ridiculous to think mass murder can be halted with a few outraged telephone calls to your congressman and few neighborhood petitions.

INT: Some babies have been saved by pro-lifers, so I can’t say the pro-life movement has been for naught, but if we look at the goal of the pro-lifers, to make abortion illegal, we must call the pro-life movement a colossal failure. And I find it truly amazing and unconscionable that the pro-lifers are unwilling to look at their movement and ask themselves why they failed.

YD: The pro-life movement failed because the pro-lifers violated the first commandment, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”

INT: And the great god ‘Democracy’ is a jealous God.

YD: Yes, he is. The pro-lifers were never willing to go outside of the democratic box. There was something more precious to them than protecting babies in their mothers’ wombs, and that precious something was egalitarian democracy.

INT: I knew the pro-life movement was finished when one of the leaders of the movement offered a reward for information leading to the arrest and prosecution of anyone harming an abortion doctor.

YD: Yes, it was a sorry spectacle.

INT: Would it be wrong to say that the pro-life movement failed because the men and women in the movement were half-way house Christians, in that they were genuinely appalled by the ugliest manifestation of modernity, legalized abortion, but they were unwilling to attack such pillars of democracy as racial egalitarianism and feminism?

YD: You’re correct. In fact, I’d take it a step further and say that there can be no anti-abortion movement unless there is a white Christian movement which opposes, with fire and sword, racial egalitarianism and feminism. The Catholic bishops talked about the seamless garment of capital punishment, nuclear disarmament, and abortion. But that was not the seamless garment with which they should have been concerned. It was God’s seamless garment of different races fulfilling different functions within His divine plan. When racial distinctions are blurred, so is every other aspect of human life.

INT: In other words, racial Babylon is the breeding ground for legalized abortion.

YD: Yes.

INT: I don’t see any chance, at the moment, of a resurgence of white European solidarity. The white pagan nationalists hate Christian Europeans and the halfway house Christians all scream for egalitarian democracy and the worship of the black man.

YD: Start with one European and go from there. And never forget that the path to His kingdom goes through old Europe.

INT: This past week seemed to be my week for unpleasant visitors from the past. An old acquaintance brought up the Mel Gibson movie again.

YD: Which one?

INT: The one that’s supposed to be about Christ.

YD: I take it that you didn’t care for the movie?

INT: I never actually saw the whole film, I only saw some clips of it, so I’m open to the charge that my extreme distaste for Gibson’s other movies has blinded me to the value of his Christ movie. But I hated the parts of the movie I did see. Gibson seemed to be taking the Christ story and turning it into a horror film. I don’t see how a human being could watch it. And yet, millions of people went to see it.

YD: Why should that surprise you? You live in the most decadent of times in the most decadent country.

INT: True, but decadence masked as Christianity is even more repulsive than straight decadence. It wasn’t that long ago that Zeffirelli made a beautiful movie about Jesus of Nazareth. We are not numbed with horror after viewing Zeffirelli’s film, we feel uplifted.

YD: But couldn’t Gibson claim he was finally making a realistic movie about Christ, a movie that actually depicted the reality of the crucifixion?

INT: He might make that claim, but he would be in error. The object of art is to manipulate or distort material reality in order to show the spiritual reality behind the material facade. Virtually every European depiction of the crucifixion, prior to Gibson, certainly showed a suffering Christ, but at the same time the older artists turned our eyes away from gore and toward that face, whose light could never be dimmed by gore. The older artists were aware that too much “realism” is unrealistic. If you are going to be totally realistic, why not depict Christ naked as our modern historians tell us he was? How realistic do you want to be? Too much realism has a dehumanizing effect.

YD: I agree with you about the dehumanizing aspects of the Gibson film, but I don’t think everyone who went to see it went because they were decadent. With some, it was the Emperor’s new clothes syndrome. Some expert clergyman told them it was a good Christian film, so they didn’t dare say it was a disgusting blood fest lest it be said they were not good Christians. Those are the best of the people who went to see the film. I’m sure there were many hardcore sadists who went to see the film for reasons it is not necessary to dwell on.

INT: But why did so many ‘religious experts’ want the film to be seen?

YD: Because the experts have a vested interest in a non-personal Christianity. The Gibson film fit right into their world-view. When Christ is seen as just a bloody carcass, one can project whatever meaning one wants to project on Christ’s Passion. To a trad like Gibson, it means God is a tough guy who can take it and dish it out. No one but Gibson and his fellow sedis can enter the Kingdom. To the Novus Ordo, New Age bunch, it is the example of a good man suffering for social justice. And to the pagan tough guys, it means a whole host of booted Nazi-type things that again, I’d rather not dwell on.

INT: It all hinges on the person of Christ, doesn’t it?

YD: Yes, it does. The Mississippi River winds through the United States like a big snake. At certain points of the river it seems like one branch of the river is the whole river, but the branches are just that, branches of the river; they are not separate rivers. They are parts of one river with one source. So it is with Christianity. It is quite easy to take an isolated branch of it for the whole. God’s omnipotence might be one branch. His mercy might be another, His justice another, and so on... The way to avoid that type of truncated religion is to go back to the source – to the God-Man.

INT: That sounds so simple, but it isn’t, is it?

YD: No, it is not. Satan wants to depersonalize all of our existence. If he succeeds in getting us to believe that we are impersonal essences rather than personalities with a personal existence, then he can rule the roost. You should keep these words before you: “It stands on me to defend, not to debate.”

INT: I understand, but that can get awfully lonely.

YD: Yes, it can. But if you’re going to give up the fight because you’re lonely, change the name of your blog to something else.

INT: Point taken. Conceding that all topics end up being the same topic, let’s move on to another topic. I’ve noticed, to my dismay, that things are even worse than they seem.

YD: To what do you refer?

INT: The right-wing. One would like to be a member of a group, no matter how small, opposed to modernity. But the right-wing is not opposed to modernity. They are simply modernized pagans – Odins with computers – they are not the Christian men and women one wants to throw his lot in with. They don’t seem to realize that the survival of the white race is a matter of no importance if it only means the collective survival of the race. I want the faith that says individual personalities of the white race, and every race, survive after death, to be preserved. Hence I want the Christ-bearing race to survive. But if He be not risen, I could care less about race, or anything else for that matter.

YD: Yes, they are a pathetic bunch. There isn’t much difference between Odin and Gandhi in the end. One eats beef, the other eats fruit, but both are pagans.

INT: Which is why my fellow 21st century human beings simply make me feel my aloneness all the more acutely.

YD: Choose the past. You admire the 19th century Christians — stay with them. There is a Welsh poem that speaks to your problem specifically:

The ash grove, how graceful, how plainly 'tis speaking,
The harp through it playing has language for me.
Whenever the light through its branches is breaking
A host of kind faces is gazing on me.
The friends of my childhood again are before me,
Each step wakes a memory as freely I roam.
With soft whispers laden its leaves rustle o'er me,
The ash grove, the ash grove alone is my home.

My laughter is over, my step loses lightness,
Old countryside measures steal soft on my ear;
I only remember the past and its brightness,
The dear ones I mourn for again gather here.
From out of the shadows their loving looks greet me
And wistfully searching the leafy green dome,
I find other faces fond bending to greet me,
The ash grove, the ash grove alone is my home.
My lips smile no more, my heart loses its lightness
No dream of the future my spirit can cheer;
I only can brood on the past and its brightness,
The dead I have mourned are again living here.
From ev'ry dark nook they press forward to meet me;
I lift up my eyes to the broad leafy dome,
And others are there looking downward to greet me;
The ash grove, the ash grove alone is my home.

INT: Yes, that poem has a haunting beauty. But one can’t live in the past for the obvious reason that it’s past, and it no longer has a material body.

YD: That’s not true. In the spiritual realm there is no past. Everything that is of the spirit is always in the present. And the dead have bodies and personalities even if they don’t have fleshly bodies. But mere material bodies without a spiritual dimension, such as you see in modern men and women, are less real than the so- called dead are.

INT: Again, I understand, and, more than just in part, believe what you are saying. But living it is not easy.

YD: I think there is a connection between the fairy tale apprehension of the Faith and Christ’s admonition: “Except ye be converted and become as little children, ye shall not enter the Kingdom of Heaven.” If you allow the dead souls of the living to obscure the true fairy tale Faith of the dead, you will lose the Kingdom of Heaven.

INT: When seen in that light, namely that to fail to apprehend life in a fairy tale manner is to lose God, one cannot yield one inch to modernity.

YD: Yes, think of those who would deprive you of that insight as the Zulus, and in some cases they will be actual Zulus, attacking the Welshmen at York’s Drift.

INT: You seem to be on a Welsh kick today.

YD: Not by any plan. The Welsh poems seem appropriate this time.

INT: Well, are you going to quote the lines or do I have to?

YD: You do it. They are good lines to end an interview with.

INT: “Keep these fighting words before ye — Cambria will not yield.” +

The Young Drummer Returns

Many years ago a village stood in the hollow which is now filled up by the mere. But the inhabitants were a wicked race... they scorned to bend the knee, save in mockery, to the White Christ who had died to save their souls. – “Bomere Pool” from English Folk and Fairy Tales

_________________

Interviewer: There is a moment in C. S. Lewis’s novel The Silver Chair in which the two children begin to doubt the existence of Narnia. Puddleglum, however, pulls them through:

“One word, Ma’am,” he said, coming back from the fire; limping, because of the pail. "One word. All you’ve been saying is quite right, I shouldn’t wonder. I’m a chap who always liked to know the worst and then put the best face I can on it. So I won’t deny any of what you said. But there’s one thing more to be said, even so. Suppose we have only dreamed, or made up, all those things—trees and grass and sun and moon and stars and Aslan himself. Suppose we have. Then all I can say is that, in that case, the made-up things seem a good deal more important than the real ones. Suppose this black pit of a kingdom of yours is the only world. Well, it strikes me as a pretty poor one. And that’s a funny thing, when you come to think of it. We’re just babies making up a game, if you’re right. But four babies playing a game can make a play-world which licks your real world hollow. That’s why I’m going to stand by the play-world.

If two modern children were to ask you if Christian Europe ever existed, what would you tell them?

Young Drummer: I would tell them a story – actually, I would tell them many stories – of a time when the European’s heart was a flame and he blended his blood and soul with Jesus Christ. I would not read to the children from a philosophical treatise; if I did that, I would be placing them in the hands of the Gnostics, because nothing delights the Gnostic more than to turn everything into philosophical speculation.

Many white moments from the European story-telling tradition – those moments of white heat which enable us to recognize our Lord in the faces of His creatures – parallel incidents from the Gospel. What could be more natural since Western Culture was formed by Christianity?

One of my favorite Gospel stories is the account of the redemption of the good thief. What a moment! “Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.” And the good thief didn’t win his salvation on the cheap, simply catching our Lord in one of those weak, sentimental moments that the Gnostics deplore. No, there had to have been something monumental going on in Dismas’s soul that enabled him to see that Christ was something more than mere man. Dismas had pity for Jesus the man, suffering on the cross unjustly, and he had faith in Jesus the Lord: “Remember me when you shall come into your kingdom.”

It is usually pity, compassion, or love for an individual human being that awakens the soul of a sinner and inspires him to heroic efforts and to a heroic faith in Him, who enjoined us to have pity, compassion, and love for our fellow human beings. The modern liberal, the Gnostic, by attempting to bypass humanity, never really knows the God who saved and pardoned Dismas. We are saved because our humanity reaches out to respond to Christ’s humanity. That human embrace allows us to touch the divine; without it, there can be no redemption.

_________________

Sidney Carton in A Tale of Two Cities finds redemption for a sinful wasted life by voluntarily taking the place of another man destined for the guillotine. On the way to the guillotine Carton also comforts a young woman, destined, like Carton, for Madame Guillotine.

"Do you think:" the uncomplaining eyes in which there is so much endurance, fill with tears, and the lips part a little more and tremble: "that it will seem long to me, while I wait for her in the better land where I trust both you and I will be mercifully sheltered?"

"It cannot be, my child; there is no Time there, and no trouble there."

"You comfort me so much! I am so ignorant. Am I to kiss you now? Is the moment come?"

"Yes."

She kisses his lips; he kisses hers; they solemnly bless each other. The spare hand does not tremble as he releases it; nothing worse than a sweet, bright constancy is in the patient face. She goes next before him--is gone; the knitting-women count Twenty-Two.

"I am the Resurrection and the Life, saith the Lord: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: and whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die."

The murmuring of many voices, the upturning of many faces, the pressing on of many footsteps in the outskirts of the crowd, so that it swells forward in a mass, like one great heave of water, all flashes away. Twenty-Three.

_________________

Rake Windermere, in the poem of the same name, like Sidney Carton, also “steps out,” and finds redemption:

'RAKE' WINDERMERE

Disgrace he’d brought on an ancient name
A smirch on an honoured crest
He’d blotted the page of glorious fame
That his family once possessed
Eton he’d left beneath a cloud
And left in the greatest haste
He’d proceeded whilst there in revels loud
Life’s choicest hours to waste.

Sent down from Oxford next was he
The result of orgies wild
He’d filled the cup of vice with glee
And a noble stock defiled
A nickname he’d earned by his acts of shame
‘Mong comrades of many a bout
From the broken shell of his own true name
“Rake” Windermere stepped out.

As a fitting end to a family scene,
He had quitted the family home
With a tearless eye and a smile serene
He had started the world to roam
Still lower he’d sunk than ever before
And never a vice he’d shun
Till even his roystering friends of yore
Forsook him one by one.

He’d drifted at length with a tourist band
To the land of the war-like Moor
And there on the dreary desert sand
Had disaster attacked the tour
Approached by a tribe of bandit brand
The party had turned and fled
But first a shot, fired by some foolish hand
Had pierced a Moorish head.

Besieged for a week on a mound of stone
And with water getting low
The bandit chief appeared alone and said
“Thou art free to go.
If thou deliverest first up to me
Of thy number any one
So that True Believer’s blood may be
Avenged ere tomorrow’s sun.”

Each looked at each as he rode away
Grim silence reigned supreme
The sun went down, and the Moon held sway
Flooding all with silver stream
Then a muffled form crept down the mound
With a wistful glance about
Then with head erect, but without a sound
“Rake” Windermere stepped out.
by Leonard Pounds and Herbert Townsend

_________________

We must return to Charles Dickens for an incredible moment of redemption for two sinners. Pip’s “great expectations” have raised his material prospects in life but degraded his soul. He is deteriorating inwardly from overweening pride even as he learns more and more of the outward habits of a gentleman. It is only when he realizes that his great expectations come from the blood and sweat of Magwitch, an “exiled for life” convict, that he begins to understand that true gentlemanliness comes from within and works its way outward, not vice versa.

Magwitch, another sinner like the good thief, finds redemption through his love for Pip. And Pip finds redemption by overcoming his initial revulsion for Magwitch by pledging that:

‘I will never stir from your side,’ said I, ‘when I am suffered to be near you. Please God, I will be as true to you as you have been to me!’

And both sinners are permanently bound to each other in Christ when Pip commends the dying Magwitch’s soul to God:

Mindful, then, of what we had read together, I thought of the two men who went up into the Temple to pray, and I knew there were no better words that I could say beside his bed, than ‘O Lord, be merciful to him a sinner!’

Such white moments come only from a storytelling heritage steeped in the Gospel of Christ.

St. Paul tells us that the last enemy to be defeated is death. Even in Christian circles these days there is grave doubt that the “fell sergeant” will truly be defeated. But in the storytelling tradition of the West, a belief is firmly ingrained that at the last trump, in the twinkling of an eye, we shall be delivered from the clutches of death. The great fairy tales speak to this hope.

_________________

Two excellent fairy stories that end with glorious white moments of deliverance are The March of the Wooden Soldiers with Laurel and Hardy, and the 1954 “children’s” opera-musical of the Grimm’s fairy tale, Hansel and Gretel.

In The March of the Wooden Soldiers (a movie that defies classification, being part opera, part musical, part epic, and all fairy tale), the bogeymen, lead by the wicked Barnaby, are invading Toyland. The situation seems hopeless, but two inept toy makers, Laurel and Hardy, suddenly remember that because of their ineptness, 100 six-foot-tall toy soldiers are on hand. They quickly wind the soldiers up, and in a magnificent ending, the wooden soldiers drive the bogeymen into the sea.

Is this a prefiguration of the final fight between good and evil and Christ’s destruction of that last enemy called death? Yes! I also think it is entirely in keeping with divine metaphysics that two bumbling, but pure of heart, toy makers are used by God to combat evil. “What your wisdoms could not discover, these shallow fools have brought to light.”

In the 1954 production of Hansel and Gretel (adapted for the screen by Padraic Colum and composed by Engelbert Humperdinck) the father, who has been searching through the woods for his lost children, sums up the miracle of Hansel and Gretel’s triumph over the witch in his song:

And so you see that Heaven will bend
And to evil make an end
And when hope is nearly gone
God’s relief to us is surely won.

And when hope is nearly gone
God’s relief by us is won.

There is a spiritual virility represented by the words of Hansel and Gretel’s father that we have lost. And we won’t regain it by listening to the siren song of the Gnostics.

“Heaven will bend.” Everything is contained in that line. A belief that heaven will bend connotes a childlike faith in our blessed Lord. When we face our final hour we need to believe, like Hansel and Gretel’s father, that our Holy Savior will bend and make an end to that last great enemy.

Since I am a mortal man who fears death, and since I don’t possess any secret documents containing inside information about the afterlife, it is indeed a comfort to know that we need not know of hidden things on secret scrolls, we need only a childlike faith in Christ. Jesus, at the hour of my death and that of my loved ones, please bend.

_________________

Another theme that we see represented in the storytelling tradition of the West has its origins in the ‘Lord of the Sabbath’ incident in the Gospels. In it, the Pharisees rebuke Christ for disobeying the law and healing on the Sabbath.

And certain of the Pharisees said unto them, Why do ye that which is not lawful to do on the sabbath days?

And Jesus answering them said, Have ye not read so much as this, what David did, when himself was a hungered, and they which were with him;

How he went into the house of God, and did take and eat the shewbread, and gave also to them that were with him; which it is not lawful to eat but for the priests alone?

And he said unto then, That the Son of Man is Lord also of the sabbath.

(6 Luke: 2-5)

The Pharisees, like all formalists, were unimpressed.

There is an exquisite balance in all of Christ’s actions. He follows most of the older Jewish laws, even assuring his followers that He comes not to destroy the law but to fulfill it. But the laws are made for man, by God, out of love. They are His laws; He can abrogate or bend any one of them. In point of fact, when He does abrogate or bend a law, it is always out of charity. And it is our Lord Himself who tells us that charity is the essence of all true laws.

_________________

I have quoted from the story The King of the Golden River before and will continue to do so because it speaks so directly against the Gnostics, the Feeneyites, and all those who would deny that Christ is Lord even of the sabbath day.

The two cruel brothers in the story follow all of the rules; they even possess the holy water necessary to obtain the riches from the Golden River. And yet, they are turned to stone! On this earth the cruel brothers who follow the formula while violating the laws of charity usually win. But in the European fairy tales that prefigure the Kingdom of Heaven, they lose.

The King of the Golden River speaks in the language of the Gospels and St. Paul when he says, “...the water which has been refused to the cry of the weary and dying, is unholy, though it has been blessed by every saint in heaven; and the water which is found in the vessel of mercy is holy, though it had been defiled with corpses.”

God bless Gluck, the third “dumb” brother. May we all be filled with such holy dumbness.

And Gluck went out and dwelt in the valley, and the poor were never driven from his door; so that his barns became full of corn, and his house of treasure. And, for him, the river had, according to the dwarf’s promise, become a River of Gold.

_________________

In the 1954 movie Brigadoon, we also see the theme of God making a rule for the good of His people, and then bending that rule for the benefit of an individual, or (in this case) for two individual human beings.

The beautiful Scottish village of Brigadoon and its inhabitants have been preserved from corruption because of a special prayer request: Their village and its inhabitants come to life only one day in each century, thereby avoiding the special corruptions of any one century.

But what if a poor weary traveler from the 20th century happens upon the village during the one day it appears in the 20th century? And what if he falls in love with a Scottish lass from the village of Brigadoon and she with him?

Well, we know what a Gnostic would do. He would sneer at and condemn the very notion that romantic love can be a source of divine grace. But Christ, who blessed the married couple at Cana, does not disdain legitimate romantic love. When heaven bends at the foot bridge of Brigadoon, it is a glorious white moment.

_________________

Scenes of genuine forgiveness always remind us of our Lord’s divine mercy and His very human compassion, thus striking a blow against the entire Gnostic tradition and the modern hate-filled destroyers of white Christian Europe. Where will mercy be found now that Christian Europe is gone? Only in the European mists.

Genuine forgiveness doesn’t mean liberal forgiveness: “I forgive you for murdering Charlie, whom I didn’t really care for anyway because he was overweight and politically incorrect.” Genuine European, Christian forgiveness consists of Cordelia’s forgiveness of her father, King Lear.

Cordelia: O, look upon me, sir,
And hold your hands in benediction o'er me.
No, sir, you must not kneel.

Lear: Pray, do not mock me.
I am a very foolish fond old man,
Fourscore and upward, not an hour more nor less;
And, to deal plainly,
I fear I am not in my perfect mind.
Methinks I should know you, and know this man;
Yet I am doubtful; for I am mainly ignorant
What place this is; and all the skill I have
Remembers not these garments; nor I know not
Where I did lodge last night. Do not laugh at me;
For (as I am a man) I think this lady
To be my child Cordelia.

Cordelia: And so I am! I am!

Lear: Be your tears wet? Yes, faith. I pray weep not.
If you have poison for me, I will drink it.
I know you do not love me; for your sisters
Have, as I do remember, done me wrong.
You have some cause, they have not.

Cordelia: No cause, no cause.

And genuine forgiveness is also shown by Prospero in The Tempest. He renounces magic and pardons the deceiver – and prays to the God of mercy, who has taught us to render the deeds of mercy.

Now my charms are all overthrown,
And what strength I have's mine own,
Which is most faint. Now 'tis true
I must be here confined by you,
Or sent to Naples. Let me not,
Since I have my dukedom got
And pardoned the deceiver, dwell
In this bare island by your spell;
But release me from my bands
With the help of your good hands.
Gentle breath of yours my sails
Must fill, or else my project fails,
Which was to please. Now I want
Spirits to enforce, art to enchant;
And my ending is despair,
Unless I be relieved by prayer,
Which pierces so, that it assaults
Mercy itself, and frees all faults.
As you from crimes would pardoned be,
Let your indulgence set me free.

_________________

Shortly after the reconciliation scene between Prince Hal and his father Henry IV, there is another reconciliation scene between Prince Hal (now Henry V) and the Lord Chief Justice, which highlights the difference between the pagan and the Christian. The one knows noting of mercy and the other has it in his blood.

Having rebuked Prince Hal quite justly when he was a young, riotous youth, the Chief Justice now has reason to fear the new king’s wrath. But a Christian king, which Prince Hal is determined to be, knows the difference between the English and the Turkish courts. He knows he must not only forgive the Lord Chief Justice’s rebukes of his own youthful miscreant person, he must also commend his actions as befitting the Chief Justice of a Christian king:

KING. No?
How might a prince of my great hopes forget
So great indignities you laid upon me?
What, rate, rebuke, and roughly send to prison,
Th' immediate heir of England! Was this easy?
May this be wash'd in Lethe and forgotten?

CHIEF JUSTICE. I then did use the person of your father;
The image of his power lay then in me;
And in th' administration of his law,
Whiles I was busy for the commonwealth,
Your Highness pleased to forget my place,
The majesty and power of law and justice,
The image of the King whom I presented,
And struck me in my very seat of judgment;
Whereon, as an offender to your father,
I gave bold way to my authority
And did commit you. If the deed were ill,
Be you contented, wearing now the garland,
To have a son set your decrees at nought,
To pluck down justice from your awful bench,
To trip the course of law, and blunt the sword
That guards the peace and safety of your person;
Nay, more, to spurn at your most royal image,
And mock your workings in a second body.
Question your royal thoughts, make the case yours;
Be now the father, and propose a son;
Hear your own dignity so much profan'd,
See your most dreadful laws so loosely slighted,
Behold yourself so by a son disdain'd;
And then imagine me taking your part
And, in your power, soft silencing your son.
After this cold considerance, sentence me;
And, as you are a king, speak in your state
What I have done that misbecame my place,
My person, or my liege's sovereignty.

KING. You are right, Justice, and you weigh this well;
...
And I will stoop and humble my intents
To your well-practis'd wise directions.

A king that can “stoop and humble” his intents to wise direction follows the way of the cross. He is Christlike in that he willingly chooses to hide the outward shows of majesty so that the inner majesty, the real majesty of kingship, will show itself the more brightly.

_________________

Let me also point out to the children another white moment from the Chronicles of Narnia in the seventh book, The Last Battle. (Incidentally, it is in the realm of so-called children’s literature that the best writing in the 20th century has been done. When we try to write like adults, we write like rationalists, without hope or joy.)

The Narnian white moment occurs when Peter, Lucy, Edmund, and the whole Narnian cast are getting ready to embark on the ‘real’ journey. (Lewis has the metaphysical virility to hope for the giddiest of happy endings; it is more and more difficult to maintain such a hope, in the face of Gnostic modernity, but the men of the Christian West used to have it.)

“No fear of that,” said Aslan. “Have you not guessed?”

Their hearts leaped and a wild hope rose within them.

“There was a real railway accident,” said Aslan softly. “Your father and mother and all of you are—as you used to call it in the Shadow-Lands—dead. The term is over: the holidays have begun. The dream is ended: this is the morning.”

And as He spoke He no longer looked to them like a lion; but the things that began to happen after that were so great and beautiful that I cannot write them. And for us this is the end of all the stories, and we can most truly say that they all lived happily ever after. But for them it was only the beginning of the real story. All their life in this world and all their adventures in Narnia had only been the cover and the title page: now at last they were beginning Chapter One of the Great Story, which no one on earth has read: which goes on for every: in which every chapter is better than the one before.

_________________

Are white moments from the Western tradition merely false shadows? Or are they prefigurations of the Kingdom of Heaven? Dear children, I believe they are not false shadows; they emanate from the depths of human hearts connected to His Heart.

They must be real. It is the Gnostic’s promise of salvation through the intellectual knowledge of God’s divinity alone, divorced from His humanity, that is an illusion.

That, or something like it, is what I would say to modern children who have never known Christian Europe.

Interviewer: Would it do any good? Aren’t the stories from Christian Europe as alien to modern children as hieroglyphics are to the non-Egyptian?

Young Drummer: Quite probably. But that’s the only approach I know. And maybe my approach will be just foolish enough to work.

Interviewer: “What your wisdoms could not discover, these shallow fools have brought to light?”

Young Drummer: Precisely, it takes a wise man to play the fool. The European people, the Christ-bearing Europeans, were foolish, from a worldly perspective, to carry the Christ child on their shoulders, but if those modern European children could just see a glimmer of what their ancestors saw, they would be on their way to the castle of the King of Fairyland, the Knight Errant of Heaven, who, in direct contrast to Midas, turns every heart He touches into a burning flame of charity. Those foolish Europeans who saw beauty on a cross were wiser than the geniuses of Liberaldom who have no honor, no faith, and no vision. We will not perish so long as their vision of His Europe remains our vision. +

Facing the enemy

In the morning after he had said his prayers, he sat himself down to his work; when, to his great wonder, there stood the shoes all ready made, upon the table.

If you recall the old fairy tale of the shoemaker and the elves, you know that the shoemaker was not incompetent, dishonest, or lazy. He was a good man and a hard worker, but in this world goodness and hard work do not always result in financial success. This is why the elves stepped in from that other world and aided the shoemaker. The shoemaker felt he had done nothing to warrant the aid of the elves, but of course he had done something. Simply by being the good and true shoemaker, he placed himself in a position to be the recipient of divine aid. And therein lies the problem with the modern world: there are no more cobblers or cobbler’s shops; our shoes are made in factories by anonymous workers, who are legion. How can we be the recipients of divine aid if we have not ordered our lives in accord with His will, or – to put it another way – we cannot live in a soul-dead, Wal-Mart world and expect to hear the sound of that great ‘amen.’ List all the sins of the old Europeans, and they will be more numerous than the sands of the desert. However, having listed the sins of the older Europeans, let it then be said that they, and they alone, were the good cobblers who, through their labor of love, elicited a divine blessing from the God of love.

Against the world of the good shoemakers is the world of the liberals. Lincoln spoke for all the liberals throughout the world in his Gettysburg address. Could a world conceived by Satan and dedicated to the eradication of Christianity long endure? Yes, it has long endured. Much too long. It has endured because the liberals have invoked Satan as their guardian angel. And in saying that they have called on Satan, I do not mean to suggest that liberals en masse have formally called on Satan in satanic rites. But they have, in their hearts, rejected the ancient faith of the Europeans who believed that Christ, the Son of God, was at war with Satan, the fallen angel who prowls about the world seeking the ruin of souls.

The liberals’ rejection of the belief that human beings are in essence spiritual beings, not materials beings, does not change reality. This world and its inhabitants are animated by the spirit. If you reject Christ as true God and true Man, you will belong to Satan and adhere to satanic principles whether you believe in Satan or not. Satan, unlike Christ, does not want to be loved by mankind; he merely wants mankind to serve him in his war against God. Since man is a spiritual creature, if he is not animated by Christ the vacuum in his soul will be filled by Satan. In a very real sense the liberals are possessed; they are the devils of which Dostoevsky wrote.

The satanically inspired, liberal devils have used a favorite trick of the devil in order to build liberaldom over the grave of Christendom:

But ‘tis strange;
And oftentimes, to win us to our harm,
The instruments of darkness tell us truths,
Win us with honest trifles, to betray’s
In deepest consequence.

Every single satanic edifice of liberaldom begins as an honest trifle and then turns into a stone pillar of Satanism to stand in complete contrast to every principle of Christendom. Halfway-house Christians tell us that race-mixing, feminism, and equalitarian democracy all stem from the Christian belief that all men are created by God. But does that mean we should make no distinctions between barbarism and Christianity, worship black men, allow women to kill their babies, and “divert, crack, rend and deracinate” every ancient tradition of the Christian European? Of course it doesn’t. And no Christian European with any blood left in him would be deceived by Satan’s honest trifles no matter how well they were disguised. There’s the rub: when the European exchanged his blood faith for a philosophical system, he lost the ability to recognize the difference between Satan’s clever trifles and the real things of consequence that flow from a heartfelt faith in the God-Man.

The vast majority of white Europeans have gone over, body and soul, to Satan’s kingdom on earth. They belong to liberaldom and will never leave it. What is left is only a small minority, perhaps too small to be called even a minority, of blood, throne and altar Europeans who oppose the liberals. But there is a sizable minority of white Europeans who are neither fish nor fowl. They want the benefits that come from a Christ-centered culture, but they also want to be stroked, petted, and financially rewarded by the powers that be. The halfway-house Christian who deplores legalized abortion but eschews any opposition to abortion that is violent or undemocratic belongs in the no-man’s land between liberaldom and Christendom, and likewise, the Bob Jones University Christians, who want the freedom to preach the parts of the Gospel they like but are willing to tolerate race-mixing in order to appease the liberals. I personally have never known a halfway-house Christian who has joined the ranks of the ancient Europeans, but I have known many who have joined the liberals.

The European who still clings to the blood faith of his ancestors seems doomed to a very lonely existence, but is the last European really as lonely as the liberal and the halfway-house Christian? Granted, the European is lonelier as regards the day-to-day comforts which the liberals and halfway-house Christians enjoy. There are no social gatherings at which the European can talk freely. There are no organizations clamoring for his input, but man is a creature of the depths whether the liberals and the halfway-house Christians acknowledge it or not. The liberal stares at the ocean and declares all that exists is on the surface. The halfway-house Christian says there are some interesting sea creatures to be found some two feet below the surface. But it is only the European who knows that the ocean’s greatest mysteries are in its depths, the depths which the liberal says do not exist and the halfway-house Christian claims to know all about, even though he has never gone more than two feet below the surface.

Lonely? Yes, the European is lonely in those moments when, surrounded by liberals who deny the existence of a spiritual dimension to life and by halfway-house Christians devoid of vision, he wonders if there are no depths to life. Then he remembers: he has plunged the depths; below the surface of life there is someone who comforts the sick at heart and eases the pain of loneliness. The liberal who has sought comfort from the devil, and the halfway-house Christian who seeks comfort from the liberal will ultimately be betrayed in deepest consequence.

We are back with the old shoemaker. The miracle of the shoes occurred because the shoemaker didn’t regard the appearance of the shoes as something extraordinary. Hadn’t the God he believed in sent His only Son to die on the cross, in the ultimate act of charity? Why should a lesser act of charity surprise the shoemaker who believed in the greatest of all acts of charity?

The shoemaker, because he lived in Christian Europe, viewed the spiritual dimension of life as a concrete, tangible realty, just as we, in the post-Christian era, view the existence of the North American continent as a concrete, tangible reality. The shoemaker’s Europe was constructed to let the light of His world illuminate the spiritual dimensions of this world. The veil of the material world was pulled aside and the European saw his beginning and his end.

In contrast, liberaldom was built to shut out the light. With a satanic, maniacal consistency, every aspect of the older European culture has been deracinated and condemned. How is it possible for a European to believe that he can come to some amicable working arrangement with the rulers of liberaldom? “You can stay godless and liberal, but please refrain from abortion.” “You may worship the black man, but don’t force us to integrate.” Liberals will never compromise on one single point of their satanic agenda, and they will never allow one single Christian European to be left unmolested and unregulated in their satanic kingdom.

One thing is crystal clear. Liberaldom was built and is sustained by Satan. And Satan will never be defeated by any force that comes from within the system which he, Satan, created. “Conservative” think tanks and “grass roots” movements are all part of Satan’s kingdom. He not only permits but encourages everyone to participate in the democratic process, because there is nothing within that closed system that does not ultimately serve the needs of Satan.

It seems like the last post for those of us who side with the shoemakers of old Europe. But it isn’t the last post if we step outside liberaldom and attack the liberals right in the middle of their premature victory parties. “Among them but not of them.” From a strictly materialist standpoint, we can’t be in liberaldom and launch an attack from outside of liberaldom, but spiritually we do stand outside of liberaldom. And the spirit above the dust He revealed to us is the only reality. From that metaphysically solid ground we can and will launch our attack. Every war the European has ever fought was just a minor skirmish compared to the coming battle with liberaldom. Hell is indeed empty and all the devils are here to fight against the last Europeans. Sword, gun, or pen; each man will use the weapon he was born to use. The readiness is all: the Europeans still connected to the shoemaker’s Europe are ready to turn and face the enemy.

Eve's Unequal Children

by Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm

When Adam and Eve were driven from paradise, they were forced to build a house for themselves on barren ground, and eat their bread by the sweat of their brow. Adam hoed the field, and Eve spun the wool. Every year Eve brought a child into the world, but the children were unlike each other. Some were good looking, and some ugly.

After a considerable time had gone by, God sent an angel to them to announce that He himself was coming to inspect their household. Eve, delighted that the Lord should be so gracious, cleaned her house diligently, decorated it with flowers, and spread rushes on the floor. Then she brought in her children, but only the good-looking ones. She washed and bathed them, combed their hair, put freshly laundered shirts on them, and cautioned them to be polite and well-behaved in the presence of the Lord. They were to bow down before Him courteously, offer to shake hands, and to answer His questions modestly and intelligently.

The ugly children, however, were not to let themselves be seen. She hid one of them beneath the hay, another in the attic, the third in the straw, the fourth in the stove, the fifth in the cellar, the sixth under a tub, the seventh beneath the wine barrel, the eighth under an old pelt, the ninth and tenth beneath the cloth from which she made their clothes, and the eleventh and twelfth under the leather from which she cut their shoes.

She had just finished when someone knocked at the front door. Adam looked through a crack, and saw that it was the Lord. He opened the door reverently, and the Heavenly Father entered. There stood the good-looking children all in a row. They bowed before Him, offered to shake hands, and knelt down.

The Lord began to bless them. He laid his hands on the first, saying, "You shall be a powerful king," did the same thing to the second, saying, "You a prince," to the third, "You a count," to the fourth, "You a knight," to the fifth, "You a nobleman," to the sixth, "You a burgher," to the seventh, "You a merchant," to the eighth, "You a scholar." Thus He bestowed his richest blessings upon them all.

When Eve saw that the Lord was so mild and gracious, she thought, "I will bring forth my ugly children as well. Perhaps He will bestow his blessings on them too." So she ran and fetched them from the hay, the straw, the stove, and wherever else they were hidden away. In they came, the whole coarse, dirty, scabby, sooty lot of them.

The Lord smiled, looked at them all, and said, "I will bless these as well."

He laid his hands on the first and said to him, "You shall be a peasant," to the second, "You a fisherman," to the third, "You a smith," to the fourth, "You a tanner," to the fifth, "You a weaver," to the sixth, "You a shoemaker," to the seventh, "You a tailor," to the eighth, "You a potter," to the ninth, "You a teamster," to the tenth, "You a sailor," to the eleventh, "You a messenger," to the twelfth, "You a household servant, all the days of your life."

When Eve had heard all this she said, "Lord, how unequally you divide your blessings. All of them are my children, whom I have brought into the world. You should favor them all equally."
But God replied, "Eve, you do not understand. It is right and necessary that the entire world should be served by your children. If they were all princes and lords, who would plant grain, thresh it, grind and bake it? Who would forge iron, weave cloth, build houses, plant crops, dig ditches, and cut out and sew clothing? Each shall stay in his own place, so that one shall support the other, and all shall be fed like the parts of a body."

Then Eve answered, "Oh, Lord, forgive me, I spoke too quickly to you. Let your divine will be done with my children as well."

So Ancient and So New

“The water which has been refused to the cry of the weary and dying, is unholy, though it had been blessed by every saint in heaven; and the water which is found in the vessel of mercy is holy, though it had been defiled with corpses.” – The King of the Golden River

There are things we understand organically, things that are inside of us, and other things we can only comprehend from the outside, by observation. Let me use the example of homosexuality. When I was a young man, thankfully homosexual men were still in the closet. In fact, I don’t think in my teen years I could have given an accurate definition of a homosexual. By the time I entered my college years, however, homosexuals were being encouraged to come out of their closets, and I was then forced to acknowledge that, strange as it might seem to me, there were men who desired to be with men in the way I desired to be with women. But as a heterosexual I was not a minority of one, so I don’t recall being particularly upset that some men were not heterosexual.

It was a different case with my religious orientation. I lost and regained my childhood faith while in the belly of the beast called academia. My “teachers” undermined Christianity, but in the Library there were antique books that existed side by side with those of the despoilers. Men like Walter Scott, William Shakespeare, and Le Fanu told a different story than the philosophical speculators. My nihilism then gave way to the very elemental faith -- let’s call it the ‘Little Town of Bethlehem’ faith -- of my European ancestors. (1)

Man is a very social animal. Having come to believe in that faith which is “so ancient and so new,” I sought fellowship, not only in church but in society. And in both church and society I had to confront the fact that what I believed about God and the European culture, which showed me the face of Christ, was not the organic belief of any of my fellow Europeans.

The new Europeans had broken with the past that was the source of my new found faith. The Europeans of the older times looked on the Christian faith as an epic poem with Christ as the Hero. Through His incarnation, crucifixion, death, and resurrection, He revealed to men the humanity of God and the divine element of humanity. Man was the centerpiece of God’s creation, a personality of infinite value. But in the new Christianity, which cut across all denominational lines, Christ was the great Illuminator; He came not to set hearts on fire, but to enlighten men’s minds. The new Christianity was a mathematical system, and the elect were the men who could figure that system out.

I’ve never been able to understand, from inside, why mathematical, cosmic Christianity is more appealing to modern Europeans than the poetic, fairy tale Christianity of the Europeans of the past. But I have to acknowledge that it is because that is the faith they preach and practice.

Let’s place the faith of our European ancestors up against the faith of the modern Europeans. Our ancestors believed that heaven visited earth in the form of Jesus Christ, and through a divine act of charity He bound our hearts to His heart. All that we know of God and our fellow man comes from our hearts which He set on fire. This is why the folktales of the European people always stress the miraculous powers of a human heart that is connected to the divine heart: “Charity never faileth.”

In contrast to the way of charity, the way of the Third Dumb Brother of the European fairy tale, is a religion that exalts the superior intellect. God does not impart to human hearts, He enlightens human minds, or at least some human minds. “You too can become one of the illuminated” is the call to which modern Christians respond. And in such a religion there is no need to stay connected to a particular people’s past. In fact there is no such thing as a people, either as a group or as individuals; there is only illuminated minds connected to other illuminated minds. The white man is not committing suicide because he has lost his mind; he is committing suicide because he has lost his heart. It is in the coffin he built for the fairy tale faith of his European ancestors.

I found the folklorists of Europe left a trail of bread crumbs that led back to the cottage of the Son of God. Their apologetics of the hearth and the heart was the same as the one He used when He walked the earth. His apologetics consisted of a story about a hero (our Lord was the hero of His story) woven around dogmas illustrated by stories.

Why does the use of stories and parables mark a work as inferior apologetics and lacking in serious moral purpose? In illuminated circles such a work is labeled “natural” and thus inferior to the supernatural works of the Doctors of Theology, but by such a standard the Gospels would be considered inferior apologetics, and Christ a second-rate theologian.

The false assumption of the illuminated apologist is that reason alone stands unpolluted by original sin. This is false. Our reason is not meant to be separated from the rest of our being; it is only when we seek Christ with our heart, soul, and mind, that we can attain a vision (through a glass darkly) of the true God.

Genuine apologetics must be like the old apologetics of our Lord, showing us a vision of the true God through the use of parable, story, and the image of the Hero. When the central dogma of Christ incarnate, Christ crucified, Christ risen is still strongly present in the consciousness of the reader, the story of the Christ-like hero (such as Zorro or the Scarlet Pimpernel) is sufficient without the dogma. But when the central dogma of Western civilization has receded from the consciousness of men, the dogma must be more explicit. C. S. Lewis, in his Chronicles of Narnia, gives us the new-old apologetics for the 21st century. He makes explicit what writers such as Kenneth Grahame, Walter Scott, and Joseph Le Fanu were saying implicitly.

There will be many who will quarrel over the artistic merits of a work of literature that makes such an explicit case for the Christian Faith. But such individuals do not understand that all art is religious. There is no such thing as a work of art without a religious vision. The vision is the work of art. What makes a work of art didactic in the pejorative sense is the nature of the religious vision conveyed. Frances Hodgson Burnett’s novel, The Secret Garden, is not offensive because she writes about God; her novel is offensive because her god is a pantheistic, Buddha-type of God.

Many Catholics are particularly hostile to fairy tale apologetics. The reason Tolkien thought Narnia childish and vulgar was because he was raised in the “old” Catholic school (which was of course really a very modern school), which taught that art and religion were in separate categories, the one in the natural order, and the other in the supernatural order. But that is a false division. God does not just exist on the Mt. Sinai of the theologians, nor should apologetics be left to the professionals.

C. S. Lewis’s regress was a regress to fairy tale Christianity. After discovering the limitations of the more traditional apologetics, which he did quite well, he wrote the great work of Christian apologetics in Narnia. He broke through the Thomistic separation of the natural and the supernatural and told us a really true fairy tale of how we can learn to love God in this world and live happily ever after with Him in the next. He kept it simple for the peasants like myself, without compromising the dogma.

There is nothing written in stone that says apologetics must be dull, mathematical, unmetaphorical, unimaginative, and unintelligible. The use of parables and stories in one’s apologetics should not disqualify a work from the ranks of “serious” apologetics. In fact, it is my contention that a really effective apologia for the Faith should incorporate the heroic fairy tale traditions of Europe and the Gospels. And because our current anti-civilization does not consciously recognize the central dogma of our old civilization, the new apologetics will make it clear for whom the cross on the knight’s breastplate stands. It stands for the Christ, who was and is the source of the blood faith of the non-illuminated European people. +
________________________________

(1) There are two types of faith that I can honestly say entered my blood. The first was the fairy tale Christianity of my childhood and my adulthood, and the second was nihilism, which is more an absence of faith, of my late teens and early twenties. All other modes of thought and feeling I understand as an outside observer.

Rationalist Christianity does not move me in the slightest. Nor do the various nature religions. And neo-paganism? If man is merely a biological specimen as the neo-pagans maintain, then why should I care whether white or black vegetable matter predominates over the other? A person’s skin color matters only if his racial identity is part of his soul, which is a thing divine and which belongs to God. “Nearer My Genes to Me” is not a very inspiring hymn.

Thy Life’s a Miracle

Men must endure,
Their going hence
even as their coming hither;

In the great debate between the Franciscan Bonaventure and the Dominican Aquinas, I stand with the Franciscan. St. Francis’s way to God, through vision, through a heart-to-heart relationship with Christ our brother, trumps Aquinas’s system (inferring the existence of God through the contemplation of the natural world) every time. And I have noted that the British writers who came from a nation that successfully resisted the over-legalistic and overly rationalistic Roman system were the most Franciscan of all the great writers. (1) The works of Shakespeare, La Fanu, and Scott, for example, are the embodiment of the visionary, heart-to-heart response to God and to God’s world that St. Francis espoused. The tragedy of the modern European is that he has abandoned the affective, sympathetic way, or what I call the fairy tale mode of apprehension, for the intellectual, Gnostic approach to existence. Even at this late date if we shift our focus and pay attention to our forefathers, those British Franciscans, we can overcome the Gnosticism of the modern age. (2)

Every Christian century has had its Hamlets, men who were willing to risk everything in combating the Gnostic dragon of modernity. But by the twentieth century the Gnostic dragon had grown to such proportion that the combat against him seemed almost hopeless. Boris Pasternak’s character, Dr. Zhivago, is much like Shakespeare’s Hamlet, but Zhivago lacks Hamlet’s vitality. Zhivago faces a world that is in an advanced stage of Gnostic trichinosis. The people around Zhivago no longer even remember what a non-Gnostic world or a non-Gnostic person was like. And we can’t look on Soviet Russia as something separate from the rest of the democratic West. The underlying philosophy of East and West is the same: Gnosticism.
Zhivago is an unlikely hero, being an adulterer and a derelict, but Pasternak is not making a case for adultery or sloth. Zhivago is a moral hero because, despite his sins, he is still trying to hold onto a vision of humanity that holds the particular human person above the abstract principle of humanity. This makes him an unfit companion for the walking, talking, cardboard humans that inhabit his world. He tells them:

"Microscopic forms of cardiac hemorrhages have become very frequent in recent years. They are not always fatal. Some people get over them. It’s a typical modern disease. I think its causes are of a moral order. The great majority of us are required to live a life of constant, systematic duplicity. Your health is bound to be affected if, day after day, you say the opposite of what you feel, if you grovel before what you dislike and rejoice at what brings you nothing but misfortune. Our nervous system isn’t just a fiction, it’s a part of our physical body, and our soul exists in space and is inside us, like the teeth in our mouth. It can’t be forever violated with impunity. I found it painful to listen to you, Innokentii, when you told us how you were re-educated and became mature in jail. It was like listening to a circus horse describing
how it broke itself in."

"I must stand up for Dudorov," said Gordon. "You’ve got unused to simple human words, they don’t reach you any more."

"It may very well be, Misha. But in any case, you must let me go now. I can hardly breathe. I swear, I’m not exaggerating."

The modern world has institutionalized the worldview of Hamlet’s archenemy, Claudius, who thought that the mystery of man could be solved by intellectual dissection. If Claudius were alive today, he would send Hamlet to two psychiatrists called Rosencrantz and Guildenstern.
If I were to claim that Freud is psychiatry and psychiatry is Freud, most modern psychiatrists would disagree. They would cite their rejection of the Oedipus complex, penis envy, and Freud’s extreme emphasis on the early childhood years. But Freud’s essential premise, that man is a glorified ape that can be examined, probed, and analyzed like a laboratory specimen in order to be “cured,” is the same as that of all the psychiatrists and psychoanalysts that now say they reject Freud.

And because of Freud’s atheistic rationalism, I do not think it is possible to fuse incarnational Christianity and psychology. I know Isaac Stern, the psychiatrist and Roman Catholic convert, advocated such a fusion in his work, The Third Revolution: A Study of Psychiatry and Religion, but I do not think the Church’s attempt to fuse the two has produced anything beneficial to Christendom. In fact, I think the contrary has been the case. The Church has, under the influence of the psychoanalytic movement, overestimated the healing powers of reason and the conscious mind, which is why the late John Paul II consistently claimed that murderers and child molesters could be rehabilitated.

In addition, the Church’s concept that the individual is responsible for his own sin has been, under the influence of psychology, seriously undermined. Instead of blaming an individual for his sin, we now blame social pressures, and/or family influences. I don’t deny that individuals have gone to psychiatrists and been helped with some personal problem, but those individuals were helped because the psychiatrist or psychologist overcame the limitations of his discipline to reach out and help a fellow human being. But I completely reject the notion that an individual could be helped in any way, except to slide more easily down to hell, by a trained psychiatrist or psychoanalyst using the insights of his profession.

I think we must, when talking about psychiatry, go beyond the essentially evil condemnation we would hurl at the computer or the automobile, and label the science of psychology as intrinsically evil.

Nor do I think Jung is a psychologist who is “friendly” to Christianity. He was a Freudian, who studied under Freud and then broke with him. And the cause of the break was interesting. It was on the subject of religious dreams and imagery. Freud maintained that all religious belief, especially belief in the Jewish or Christian Faith, was a sickness. He developed this point brilliantly in his book Moses and Monotheism. As a story, the book makes for an incredible read, but it so obviously intentionally malicious and lacking in rationality that one stands aghast and asks, “How can a man who claims to believe in scientific objectivity have written such an emotionally charged, fictitious critique of Judaism and Christianity? This man obviously needs psychoanalysis himself.”

You know the thesis that Freud put forward to explain away Judaism and Christianity: A tribe of young men, existing in the primeval mists of time, got together, killed their father and then slept with their mother.

The Jews, Freud contends, repeated primeval man’s sin by killing their father, Moses, in the desert. Christianity was successful, again according to Freud, because it allowed for the relief of the guilt complex from which mankind suffered for the primeval killing of the father. The son died at the request of the father, thus making up for the initial murder of the father.
Of course, Freud’s whole theory falls apart when one simply asks the question, “Why the initial guilt? Why, if man is only a glorified ape, should he feel guilty about killing his father and sleeping with his mother?” When Freud projects a feeling of guilt onto primeval man, he assumes a spiritual dimension to man’s existence that is derived from the religion which he says is a sick delusion.

While still accepting most of Freud’s theories, Jung rejected the notion that religious belief was necessarily a neurosis. He found in his study of dreams that all people had dreams with religious symbols in them. Was everybody then neurotic? Yes, Freud said. No, Jung said.
On the face of it, it would seem that Jung is the friend of religious faith, and that the believer and the seeker can cozy up to him for warmth and protection. “There, there, you are not neurotic or sick like Grandpa Freud says. It is perfectly all right to believe what you believe. Just trust Papa Jung. Here is a candy bar.” And indeed, many Catholic priests and Protestant ministers have cozied up to Jung.

But I would rather have an enemy like Freud than a friend like Jung. I’ll never forget the excitement with which I read Jung’s book, Modern Man in Search of a Soul, and that by his disciple, Joseph Campbell, The Hero with a Thousand Faces. Nor will I ever forget my disappointment – actually ‘depression’ would describe it better – when I finished the books. Jungian psychology is just pantheism. “Your religion is okay, Mr. Hindu, and yours, Mr. Christian, and yours, Mr. Moslem, and everybody else’s. We are all part of the great cosmic force...” Blah, blah, blah. Just another form of atheism, but more dangerous than Freud’s because it presents itself as benign. I remember screaming at Jung, after reading Modern Man in Search of a Soul: “Are you not man like me, subject to death and decay like me? What think you of Christ and His claim, ‘I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die’?
And to Campbell: “If Christ is not the Hero, above all other heroes, the one to whom the rest of the heroes point, of what use is the hero’s journey? For what purpose does he sally forth?”
Jung and the Jungians are a pantheistic dead end.There is no personal element in their ‘cosmic force,’ and hence no real religion either; nor is there any real religion in all of the psychiatric desert.

It’s all a closed world if we allow the Claudiuses of psychiatry, of philosophy, of theology, of science to assign us a part in their kingdom of the dead. The purveyors of modern Gnosticism come in diverse colors. But they all come from the same multi-colored, seamless garment. The propositional Christian, the Jew, the neo-pagan, and the black barbarian are all united in their hatred of incarnational Christianity, which was not only the religion of St. Francis and Shakespeare, it was the religion of the ordinary European for thousands of years. I don’t see what new revelation the current bred of Gnostics are in possession of to make me or any other European reject the God who took flesh and dwelt among us. __________________________________________
(1) And, therefore, once the Roman conquerors had glutted their first rage for plunder, their main effort was to induce their Western subjects to assimilate Latin life in all its aspects. Their success with the Gauls was permanent, and became the starting point of modern European history. But in Britain, after a great initial success, they had complete ultimate failure. ‘From the Romans who once ruled Britain,’ wrote Haverfield, the great student of the archaeology of the occupation, ‘we Britons have inherited practically nothing.’

(2) I love the British Franciscans because they seem so focused on Christianity as an incarnational faith rather than as a dialectical philosophy. So many seemingly insoluble problems of dialectical philosophy, such as how God can be both universal and particular, and how He can be both God and Man, are resolved in the person of Christ. Le Fanu expresses this so well in his novel Uncle Silas:

Next day was the funeral, that appalling necessity; smuggled away in whispers, by black familiars, unresisting, the beloved one leaves home, without a farewell, to darken those doors no more; henceforward to lie outside, far away, and forsaken, through the drowsy heats of summer, through days of snow and nights of tempest, without light or warmth, without a voice near. Oh, Death, king of terrors! The body quakes and the spirit faints before thee. It is vain, with hands clasped over our eyes, to scream our reclamation; the horrible image will not be excluded. We have just the word spoken eighteen hundred years ago, and our trembling faith. And through the broken vault the gleam of the Star of Bethlehem.The psalmist reminds us that we walk through the Valley of the Shadow of Death. The saints and poets of incarnational Europe show us that He walks with us through that Valley to the Mountains beyond it.

Once Upon A Time

“Since you have a good heart, and are willing to divide what you have, I will give you good luck.” – from “The Golden Goose”

For most Europeans born before 1960, the fairy tales of the Brothers Grimm were an integral part of their lives. My mother owned a large set of children’s books and the Grimm fairy tales figured prominently in those books. When my mother died, my father asked me if there was anything I wanted among my mother’s possessions. Yes, there was. It was the books with the fairy tales of the Brother’s Grimm.

I think the story of Wilhelm and Jacob Grimm reveals to us the reason for the demise of European civilization and also shows us the way to the full and complete restoration of European civilization. Both brothers were scholars who wrote books for other scholars, on such subjects as mathematics, grammar, and law. But the younger brother, Wilhelm, had a passion for the fairy tales of the Germanic folk tradition. He saw that the tradition was dying, so he set out to make a written record of the tales. His incredible efforts on behalf of that magnificent tradition were depicted in an excellent movie, produced before the decadent age of movies, called The Wonderful World of the Brothers Grimm. At the end of the movie the two brothers both journey to the city of Berlin, where the older brother Jacob is supposed to receive an award for his various scholarly works. Upon their arrival there is a small delegation of pompous-looking pedants waiting for Jacob, while thousands upon thousands of children line the streets waiting for Wilhelm and implore him to “tell us a story!” – which he does. The passing years have proved the wisdom of the children. Who remembers the scholarly works? It is the fairy tales that have endured.

What the children who greeted Wilhelm were doing, and what subsequent Europeans who preserved the fairy tales collected by Wilhelm Grimm and ignored the scholarly tomes were doing, was choosing “that good part.” The Sons of Martha have always been dominant on a day to day basis in Western civilization, but the ethos of Mary, who loved much, was the spiritual undergirding of European culture. The Europeans were unique. At the core of their civilization was something that never existed before or since in any other civilization. There was a faith in a fairy-tale ending to life for the men and women with faithful hearts. At the last trump, in the twinkling of an eye, The Hero would step forward and defeat the forces of evil. The antique Europeans did not work on and on “waiting for the light.” They had seen the light and they kept His promise, “Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world,” in their hearts.

The hope that life is truly a fairy tale with a happy ending belongs to the European alone. Other peoples have always been welcome to share that hope, but they have never chosen en masse to incorporate the light of Europe into their cultures. And “off this stage we have shown,” (see The White Cross) that the white liberal has kept a faith in the future but has divorced it from the faith in the God-Man. Such a faith is the complete antithesis of the fairy-tale faith of the Europeans, because without The Hero there can be no fairy-tale ending to our lives or to the historical process.

The European is in such a desperate plight today because he no longer believes that the world of the Brothers Grimm is the real world and the world of the scientist is the make-believe world. He has lost the ability to see past the physical façade of the natural world to the spiritual world behind the façade. Liberalism is a disease of the soul; it is a virus that destroys vision. “I see nothing at all,” Hamlet’s mother says while in the spiritual presence of her late husband, “yet all that is, I see.” And the liberal sees no spiritual dimension in the culture of the European; he sees only racism and admires only science. The liberal and the barbarian are united in their blindness to the light and their hatred of the light. But they are different in a way that neither the barbarian nor the white liberal fully understand. The barbarian hates the white for the simple reason that he is a barbarian. He has never known any world but the natural world. He has never known a God above the nature gods. But the white liberal cannot, by simply denying the existence of spirit and blood, change the fact that His spirit and blood were woven into the fabric of the white man’s culture. Hence the liberal’s hatred of the white is more intense than that of the barbarian. The liberal’s hate is beyond a natural antipathy. His hatred is fueled by the satanic desire to eradicate that which can never be fully eradicated, the memory that the path through the European forest once led to an enchanted cottage blessed by the Son of God. The liberal’s hate is unending, and his alliance with the colored races is unbreakable, because he must keep the image of the European forest and the God-Man who shed his beneficence upon it from ever coming back into his consciousness. The liberal’s memory of his Christian antecedents must be ruthlessly and violently suppressed lest he be forced to see the God he dare not look upon.

The blood red tide that Yeats wrote about is cresting. A policeman in England is suspended for being a member of the British Nationalist Party. A teacher in Canada is fired because it is discovered that he is a Christian of the Old School. And in America, the first Western country to place a Mau Mau on the throne, when whites protest the torture-murder of white people by blacks, the U. S. government monitors the protesters. And so it goes, on and on to the Nth degree.

And yet the “practical” men of the Right urge us to petition, vote, and beg for mercy from the liberals and barbarians, in order to stop the white-hating mania of modern Satandom. “And God forbid,” they scream at us, that we should try to separate from Satandom. “That would be giving up!” (1) But who is giving up? It is the practical men, the same men who would have dismissed the Grimm’s fairy tales as mere frivolity and taken the grammar book to bed with them. The practical men suffer from the same disease as the liberals. If they were well, if they saw life in the fairy-tale mode, they would realize a religion which has no spiritual dimension cannot be defeated by democratic platforms also devoid of any spiritual dimension. They would also see that a people who have returned to the savage gods are never going to extend mercy to those who champion the God of Mercy. No, the practical right wingers of the pagan variety and the ‘get out the vote and write letters’ variety have not given up. They have never been in the fight. The fight is "against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of the world..." And it takes a man, a hero, who is wedded to sacred Christian Europe, body and soul, to do battle with and triumph over the powers of darkness.

The plight of the Christian European is worse than it seems, and it is better than it seems. It is worse because the Christian European's allies have the same ‘this world only’ philosophy that his enemies have. The right wing pagan invokes Thor and tells us that the older Christian European was either a fool, a dupe, or a coward (see "Christ or Thor"). The democratic conservative of the Middle American News variety worships the democratic process and sees no hope for the white man unless he can win liberal whites back and prevail at the ballot box. But Thor is simply a nature god; he is incapable of inspiring a counterrevolution. And since the liberals are not going to “come back,” it would appear, by the lights of the Christian European’s pagan and democratic allies, that the white man has fought his last battle. Just write ‘Finis’ on his gravestone.

Now, let us look at reality, which is always less depressing than the statistics of the materialists. The reality is that the European fairy tales, which tell us the natural world is merely a reflection of a deeper spiritual dimension to life, are true. There is a malevolent, evil, supernatural being who roams the earth seeking the ruin of souls. And there is a Hero who is God and Man who fights with us and for us, against the evil one.

It seems stunningly imbecilic to me that the modern European thinks that he is wiser to the extent that he distances himself from a fairy-tale understanding of, and a fairy-tale response to, existence. Fortunately there are still some Europeans who believe in fairy tales. Which is why things are not as dark as they seem. Numbers are not important to a hero from the Brothers Grimm stories. It wouldn’t even occur to him to count how many liberals, Negroes, and Mexicans blocked his entrance to the castle in which the fair maiden was held captive. Nor would he wait until he had a large majority of supporters. The hero sees only what must be done and he ventures forth. “Let others follow if they choose!”

If you would like to believe in the fairy tale of a European resurrection but find it all too fantastical to believe, just look at the tapestry of Christian Europe. The liberals have woven their own satanic tapestry to replace the Christian one, but they cannot unweave the tapestry of Christian Europe. And that cloth tells a story of a people who were so inspired by The Hero that they built a civilization based on the unscientific belief that man is more than nature and divine charity can raise the dead.

For the sake of their souls, we wish white liberals would forsake liberalism and return to sacred Europe. But we don’t need them in order to reconquer Europe. We need only to reject all magic talismans, whether pagan or democratic, and stay wedded to the really true fairy tale of the third dumb brother, who set out to make His fortune in the world while holding on to the rather quaint notion that charity never faileth. Against all odds He prevailed over ruin and death. And we shall also prevail if we look past the false materialist façade of the modern world and embrace the fairy-tale reality of the suffering servant who turned out to be the Crowned King of Fairyland.+
_________________________________________________
(1) If the European does not separate from mainstream liberaldom in church as well as in society, he will be swallowed up by the leviathan and his children’s children will not know there was once a non-materialist civilization consecrated to the God-Man. And we cannot merely campaign for an equal portion of the satanic pie. Satan does not permit diversity in his kingdom. The faithful whites must separate, grow strong in spirit, and then reconquer Europe for Christ the King.

An Unreasonable Proposal

Yea, ape and angel, strife and old debate --
The harps of heaven and the dreary gongs of hell;
Science the feud can only aggravate --
No umpire she betwixt the chimes and knell:
The running battle of the star and clod
Shall run for ever -- if there be no God.
...
Then keep thy heart, though yet but ill-resigned --
Clarel, thy heart, the issues there but mind;
That like the crocus budding through the snow --
That like a swimmer rising from the deep --
That like a burning secret which doth go
Even from the bosom that would hoard and keep;
Emerge thou mayst from the last whelming sea,
And prove that death but routs life into victory.

--Herman Melville

I spoke with a conservative relative recently who told me an all-too-familiar story. He had sent his daughters to college and they became mad-dog radicals. Of course, I sympathized with my cousin, but I was rather surprised at his surprise. If you give someone an injection of the typhoid virus, aren’t they going to come down with the disease?

When the AIDs epidemic hit, conservatives and right-wingers were quite properly outraged when the governments of the West refused to close down the gay theaters and bathhouses. “Isn’t it just common sense,” the conservatives argued, “to minimize the spread of a disease by destroying the breeding grounds for the disease?” But the powers that were, and are, could not bring themselves to discriminate against sodomites.

And yet the same conservative, who can look at life realistically enough to advocate the closing of the AIDs breeding grounds, would look on someone who advocated shutting down the whole educational establishment from grade school through college, including the surrogates for the academy, our churches, as mad.

I am such a madman. Originally our colleges were the churches, in that they were founded by different Christian sects to further their versions of the faith. The Lutherans had their colleges, the Baptists theirs, the Catholics theirs, and so on. But gradually, every single college founded by a Christian denomination became the ardent advocate for the religion of that guy with the horns and the tail. And the colleges extended their influence to their parent churches. So why should a parent be surprised when his children come back from college or church with academic AIDs? In most cases, the disease is fatal, although there have been some miracle cures.

For the past thirty years, I have heard the ‘Don’t give up! Keep writing those letters and voting’ conservatives say, “The hour is late, but we will win over the American electorate.” And yet they never talk about eliminating the breeding grounds of Negro-worship and radicalism. Does anyone seriously believe that white Christian Europeans can have any influence on society when the schools and churches preach a theology totally opposed to white Europeans? The English women of The English Magazine were right: nothing will change unless hearts and minds are changed. So we must eliminate the institutions that are destroying the hearts and minds of our young, and old, for that matter. (Everyone must go to church or college; don’t forget those night courses for Grandma.)

Of course you cannot, with a wave of a magic wand, disestablish the schools and churches of our land. But the beginning of their disestablishment begins with the conviction that they need to be dismantled. In the past, Europeans have done wonders when they saw what had to be done. I have every faith that if even a small minority of Europeans asked for Gods’ aid and then made a heart and soul commitment to destroy Satan’s schools and churches, they could do it. However, if there is no movement by the Europeans to destroy the schools and churches, nothing good will happen in the war against Satan and his liberal brethren.

It seems that the European has forgotten the wisdom of his race. When he believed in the story of Adam and Eve, he knew that man’s desire to attain equality with God through knowledge was the primary temptation of mankind. As his belief in original sin and his desire for a redeemer diminished, he replaced the love of God with the abstracted study of God. Then that study of God turned into the study of the natural world in which man was the superior of the fairy tale God of the Bible and a co-equal with the god called Nature.

The essential conflict between God and the devil has taken place over the Hebraic and the Greek concept of God. God wants us to look on Him as the hero of a fairy tale. Through great sacrifice and heroism, He saved us from the devil. In contrast, the devil wants us to look on God as the Greek philosophers looked on God – as an impersonal, remote force that reveals itself through nature and can be known by the study of the natural world. And throughout his history, the European has been close or distant from the Christian God to the extent that he was able to resist the Greek temptation. It all comes down to a very basic question: Do you believe in God’s fairy tale or in man’s science?

St. Augustine tells us in his Confessions that one of the biggest obstacles he had to surmount before converting to Christianity was his uneasy feeling that Christ’s Gospel was intellectually inferior to the philosophy of the Greeks and the theology of the Manicheans. This has always been the conflict inside of the European soul. The first Europeans who embraced Christ wrested Him from the clutches of those who thought they could make Christ into a rationalist. But the temptation to rationalize the living God and make Him part of the natural world, and therefore subordinate to the reasoning man who could master nature, has always lurked in the rationalist element of the European people.

Since the rationalist can see no other world but the natural world, his god must be of this world only. Which is why the French Jacobins chose a Parisian prostitute as their goddess, and the European people of today have chosen the collective black race as their god.

It seems as if the advocates of a natural, “rational” religion have won the day. And I certainly don’t expect to see the Europeans return to eternal Europe during my lifetime. But there is one factor that we shouldn’t overlook. There has been no real opposition to the rationalist, black-worshipping moderns. The only resistance to the rationalists has come from other rationalists. The ‘Write letters and vote’ conservatives have never seen existence in the Hebraic or fairy tale mode. “What rationalism has destroyed, rationalism can restore,” has been their mantra. The type of miracle that brings the dead to life does not occur in a rationalist universe. We don’t know what kind of wonders we might see if we break through the rationalist prison wall and step into the fairy land of our European forefathers.

Chesterton called Charles Dickens the last of the great men. What he meant by that was that Dickens still believed in an integral universe, where God was still God, and the ugly brothers, nihilism and rationalism, could only be seen cozying up with low lifes on the fringes of civilization.

I disagree with Chesterton. Dickens was certainly a great man, but he was not great in the sense Chesterton meant. Dickens’ faith, like Dostoyevsky’s, had to pass through the rationalist furnace of doubt before it could come out into the light of day. And like Dostoyevsky, Dickens always retained an element of the rationalist in his soul. But such is the taint of every European of the 20th century. There is no shame in it. But if we are to successfully defeat the new satanic, multiracial forces arrayed against the European, we must leave every last trace of nihilistic rationalism behind.

The term, ‘the last great man,’ could be more appropriately applied to Sir Walter Scott. He lived and wrote when the twin devils of nihilism and rationalism had infected much of the intelligentsia. But he took his case to a Christian people, who still rejected rationalism and clung to the Christ of faith. Scott provided the type of leadership a Christian people needs. He didn’t espouse a particular party platform but urged them, through his stories, to live life in the heroic vein. He single-handedly revived chivalry in the English-speaking world. And it was not a chivalry confined to one class or one profession. It was a profounder, cleaner chivalry of the heart. Jeanie Deans practiced it when she walked from Scotland to London to beg pardon for her sister, and Quentin Durward practiced it when he gave up military glory to aid a helpless matron.

That we are not called upon to study God in the abstract but to love Him by taking up our cross and following Him, is something every Scott hero and heroine has enshrined in their hearts. And the glorious cross all true Europeans carry is the cross of spirit and blood. All heathendom can live in blood orgies without the life sustaining spirit with which He infused all of Europe. And the rationalists of Christendom can live without the blood ties that make God a reality instead of an airy nothing without a local habitation and a name. But the European must and will have a civilization consecrated to Him, spirit and blood. Throw away all the charts and diagrams and polls that say the European must fade away and hand the world over to the multitudinous hordes of the devil. There is one thing missing in the charts, diagrams, and polls. No one can measure or quantify the effect of one human heart joining with the Divine Heart. That special synergy has, in the past, produced miracles that confounded the rationalist predictions of gloom and death. The men and women with the faithful hearts are the last Europeans. So long as there is one faithful heart left, Europe lives.