Into the Hand of God

I said to the man who stood at the gate of the year,
‘Give me a light that I may tread safely into the unknown.’
And he replied: ‘Go into the darkness and put your hand into the hand of God.
That shall be to you better than light and safer than a known way.’
So I went forth, and finding the Hand of God, trod gladly into the night.
And He led me towards the hills and the breaking of day in the lone East.

In Solzhenitsyn’s novel The First Circle, the hero of the novel tries to explain to his friend why he is going to attempt to do something honorable. He tells his friend that he would like to be able to say that at least once in his life he didn’t behave like a complete scoundrel. The hero’s sentiments were my own when I first read the novel in my early twenties, and they are still my own now that I’m in my late fifties. There have been many dishonorable moments in my life, but I like to think that there were a few moments in my life when I didn’t behave as a complete scoundrel. One such moment occurred when I was twelve-years-old; I had occasion to stand between an eight-year-old boy and some teenage boys who were pelting him with snowballs. The snowballs weren’t the soft, fluffy kind either; they were the hard, icy type of snowballs. I didn’t know the boy well – twelve-year-olds don’t go around with eight-year-olds – but he was one of those boys, like Arthur in Tom Brown’s School Days, who brought out the protective instinct in anyone with a modicum of Christianity in their soul. I stood in front of the boy and screamed out something like, “Throw snowballs at somebody your own size if you want to throw snowballs.” Though big for my age, I actually wasn’t as large as the teenagers, but I thought that was what you said to bullies, because I had seen heroic boys in the movies say that in similar situations. The bullies took me at my word and pummeled me with snowballs, while young Arthur (I’ll call him by that name) stood behind me. I stood there until the school bus came and Arthur got on it. Then I got on the bus as slowly as possible to show the bullies that their snowballs had not hurt me at all. I think my strategy in the incident of Arthur and the bullies was rather questionable, because I never, in subsequent years, received such painful blows to the head in either boxing or football. But on the whole I think that was one time in my life when I did not behave as a complete scoundrel.

I bring the school boy incident up for this reason: my heart was aflame with righteous indignation that day because I saw what I perceived to be goodness personified, young Arthur, assailed by evil personified, the teenage bullies. Maybe I exaggerated Arthur’s goodness, but I don’t think so, and maybe I exaggerated the evil of the bullies, but again, I don’t think so, but that nightmare, the nightmare of evil relentlessly attacking the good, set my heart aflame and made me want to defend goodness.

I have felt for many years, and still feel, the same way toward the antique Europeans and their culture as I did toward young Arthur. They are being attacked by evil personified, and they are incapable of defending themselves. “Will no one step into the breach and defend them?” “Yes,” I answer, “I will.” How could a man with even a modicum of Christianity in his soul not want to defend the antique Europeans against the unrelenting attack of the satanic liberals and their colored henchmen? (1) Well, it’s apparent that very few people want to defend the antique Europeans, but I don’t know why so few want to defend them. Is it because there isn’t any of the “good Christianity,” the fighting Christianity, left in the Europeans? Or is it because the liberals have “done it awfully well,” meaning they have cleverly kept the focus on the motes in the eyes of the antique Europeans and ignored the logs in their own eyes? Whatever the reason, the antique Europeans and those Europeans who refuse to break faith with them are under the relentless attack of satanic liberals and colored barbarians. And the white grazers who do not understand the evil that menaces them, and hate those who try to tell them about it, are being attacked along with the recalcitrant remnant of the European faithful.

The actual physical attack on white Europeans, the murders, the robberies, the rapes, and the beatings, have been going on for the last forty to fifty years with increased ferocity and intensity every year. But it was the non-violent attack of the scientists and philosophers that laid the foundations for the actual physical attack on the European people. This is the vital point we must understand. The colored races have always hated the white race because the coloreds worship darkness and not the light, but it was only when white people lost their faith, because they succumbed to liberalism, that they became incapable of defending themselves against the colored barbarians. If faith returns to the white man his will to resist the savage colored hordes will return.

There is, of course, no magic wand we can use to make liberalism disappear from modern Europe. Nor can we go back in time and kill liberalism before it kills Christian Europe. Liberalism, which is the antithesis of Christianity, is now a part of every European's heritage, just as Christianity is part of a European's heritage. The modern European whose heart belongs to old Europe can exorcise liberalism from his heart, but he can’t ignore it because liberalism is part of his people’s history. Nor can the liberal ignore the antique Europeans’ heartfelt faith in Jesus of Nazareth, because that too is part of the white man’s history. He must exorcise it from his heart and kill the Christian hearts of other white Europeans.

The liberal thinks that the Christless European, with faith in nothing except the Babylonian night of Liberaldom, is the new, improved European who is here to stay, living and loving in a Godless world of scientific wonders and sensual, earthy people of color who do not have to kill the Christianity in their hearts because they never had any heartfelt faith in the Christian God. Which is why the liberal so desperately wants to merge with the colored races. He knows mankind can never be truly happy till the European’s racial memory of his past is completely eradicated by the extinction, through miscegenation, of the white race. In the Jimmie Stewart movie It’s a Wonderful Life, the teacher tells Jimmie Stewart’s daughter that every time a bell rings an angel gets his wings. The modern liberal tells his children that every time a white marries a person of color mankind moves closer to paradise. It’s as if a sorceress has placed white Europeans under a spell, a spell of science, sex, and futurity that renders him incapable of seeing who he once was, and whom he once believed in. It is the task of those of us who still see His Europe, as Puddleglum still saw Narnia, to destroy Liberaldom so that the Europeans grazing in the pastures of Liberaldom can look up from their seemingly green pastures, that “lead but to the grave,” and see their true Master and their true destiny.

The valley of the shadow of Liberaldom should not, and it shall not, be the final destination of the Europeans. We are, despite the fact that most Europeans can no longer see it, the Christ-bearing people. God will not abandon us if we call on Him by name. The main thrust of an attack against Liberaldom should focus on the ideological undergirding of the liberals, because without an ideological foundation Liberaldom will crumble, and the white man who once was blind will be able to see what his ancestors saw. With that vision before him, the vision of the Living God, the white man will reclaim his own again.

It is very easy to fall into despair when we look at the numbers arrayed against white Christian Europeans. But the numbers are deceiving. The vast majority of whites follow their leaders, who are in a minority but are full of passionate hatred against the European people. If you destroy the liberal elite you can destroy liberalism. The liberal elite are like the men who saw Jesus raise Lazarus from the dead; and seeing that miracle their only concern was to hide it from the people lest those people might see and believe. “But some of them went their ways to the Pharisees, and told them what things Jesus had done. Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, ‘What do we? For this man doeth many miracles.’” In those two verses from John 11: 46-47, we see the essence of liberalism.

A small cabal of intransigent liberals and their devout followers have banded together to hide the light that was Christian Europe from the eyes of the white people who are not liberal at heart but are grazing in the locust fields, deprived of the memory of what they once were and could be again. I have been accused, by the type of friends of which you say, “with such friends I don’t need enemies,” of being too easy on the white grazers. To those “friends” I reply that being called a grazer is hardly complimentary, so I’m not that “easy” on the grazers. But I do see more than just a little bit of the “spirit above the dust” in the grazers. Those football, NASCAR-stupefied men are the same ones who come to life when flood waters threaten to engulf such cities as New Orleans. And I still have the image of a white grazer of a policeman on our force coming to life long enough to go unarmed against a knife-wielding negro (see “The White Deer”). Unfortunately such outbursts of whiteness are few and far between and often misdirected toward liberal causes, but it is to our own people we should look for a revival of Christendom, not to the dark races that never have supported, and never will, the cause of Christian Europe. The devil knows this, which is why he has placed race-mixing at the very top of his agenda. No matter how stupefied the grazers seem they are still white, and the devil fears the white man. Why risk a revival of that hated Christ-bearing race when they can so easily be eradicated? It is our task, the remnant band of Europeans, to foil the devil’s plan by continuing to hold the banner of Christian Europe aloft, even in the midst of and in spite of Liberaldom.

Men in battle need clarity. They need to know their enemy. It’s clear that the colored races are the enemy of the European. But what is the ideological underpinning of liberalism that sustains the liberal and makes the white grazers hopelessly acquiescent to the assault of the colored hordes? We need not drag in all the philosophers, Greek, secular, and “Christian” who had a hand in trying to make the spiritual world subject to laws of the natural world. Suffice it to say that the edifice of Liberaldom is built on the idea that the natural, material world is the world. Men so deluded seek to scientize that which cannot be scientized, the soul of man. Anything that stinks of the spiritual is “dealt with” in a liberal state, sometimes with brute force, sometimes through ostracism or economic disenfranchisement, but whatever method is used the objective is the same, to kill all things of the spirit by scientizing existence.

There has only ever been two non-materialist civilizations in the history of the world, the ancient Hebrew civilization and the ancient European civilization. If you tell me that they are one and the same, I won’t dispute you, but whether the Europeans are the ancient Hebrews or whether their adherence to dictates of the living God made them seem like unto the ancient Hebrews does not have to be decided definitely before we can act on the sure and certain faith that the European people are the Christ-bearers, born to champion Christ against the satanic liberals and the colored barbarians. The European knows that over and above the natural world of the liberals and the colored tribes is His world, the world of storybook heroes and heroines, whose hearts are set aflame every time they see His Europe and His people attacked by the relentless forces of evil. Those forces of evil, and the personality behind them, shall not prevail because there are always a few Europeans who will respond to Christ’s call to arms. A handful of Cyranos are more than a match for a magnitude of liberals and their colored allies. +

_______________________

(1) The most striking thing about the apostasy of the Europeans from European Christianity is the apostasy of the white clergymen. They truly seem to rejoice in not only the destruction of European culture, but they also condone, by their silence, the violent physical assaults on white people by colored barbarians. “If you have not charity.” There is no Christianity left in the Christian churches because the “Christian” clergymen have not charity toward their own people.

Europe Regained

Expose thyself to feel what wretches feel,
That thou mayst shake the superflux to them,
And show the heavens more just.

-King Lear

About ten years ago, when my mother was still alive, she sent me the obituary of the man who had been my Little League manager. He was the type of man who would make a good subject for the old Reader’s Digest feature called “My Most Unforgettable Character.” Mr. Gulf was the only manager who didn’t have children on a team. His kids were all grown, but he stayed on as a volunteer umpire and a manager. When he died at 88, he had only been retired from Little League baseball for six years. Mr. Gulf was a tall, barrel-chested man with a gravel voice, but he was very patient with his charges and seemed to have grasped the fact, unlike some of the other adults involved with the Little League, that Little League baseball was supposed to help boys become men, in the ‘Battle of Waterloo and the playing fields of Eton’ sense. The Little League was not designed, in Mr. Gulf’s eyes, to help grown men become little boys again. To many of the parents and other managers Mr. Gulf was a figure of ridicule because he regularly sat on the edge of the dugout and spouted sport clichés. But he wasn’t comical to us, because Mr. Gulf actually believed in the clichés and his belief made us believe.

One of Mr. Gulf’s favorite axioms, which he delivered to every boy before he stepped up to the plate, was, “Son, you’ve got to believe that you can hit that ball. If you don’t believe in yourself, you’ll never get a hit.” A cliché? Not to Mr. Gulf and not to us. More often than not, we did hit the ball because Mr. Gulf made us believe we could hit. And it seems to me that the problem with the modern European man is that he no longer believes in himself. I don’t mean this in the blasphemous sense, in that a man should believe only in himself and in nothing outside himself; I mean it as an extension of Mr. Gulf’s ‘Battle of Waterloo and the playing fields of Eton’ metaphysic. The European used to believe that his culture was superior to every other culture, and that superiority, which came to him by the grace of God, entailed certain responsibilities, chiefly the responsibility of defending his race and his people against the onslaught of lesser breeds who were outside the law and did not know or respect the God of charity and mercy. Strength, vigilance, and unflinching loyalty to white culture was thought to be necessary because the European considered his race as the Christ-bearing race.

The modern European, to the extent that he has any strength, vigilance, or loyalty, expends it all in attacking the white race and the religion that was championed by the white race. There is no escaping that fact. Halfway house Christians will claim that they are just removing the bad European cultural baggage from Christianity and restoring the Christian faith to its original purity, but it is not difficult to see the disingenuousness of their claim. Every single “improvement” on the European-centered Christianity is in line with liberalism; not the gospel of Jesus Christ, the God of the antique Europeans. The new spirit of inclusion is not an improvement; it is a dethronement of Christ. The new cult of Negro worship is not an advance; it is a blasphemous capitulation to the lowest form of paganism. And where in Scripture did Christ say that it was permissible to make Him subordinate to the democratic process?

The new Christianity is not Christianity. Those who equate Christianity with an organized, philosophical system or a social club will follow the new anti-Christian Christianity to its logical conclusion, which is hell. But the Europeans who yearn for a God of charity and mercy above the nature gods will still seek the Son of God. The problem facing the drug-soaked, sex-crazed, nihilistic European, who still feels a void in his soul, is that the Christ he sees before his eyes is a liberal Christ. He needs to seek out the same hovel that Lear took refuge in. And there, in the hovel of spiritual desolation, he will see the Christ, not the Christ of the liberals, but The Christ, The Son of the Living God.

In one post I wrote, titled “The Gingerbread House,” I mentioned that the United States and the western European countries used the seductive form of the egalitarian heresy. They covered the books about the European past with monkey-vomit and told the lost souls of modernity that they were welcome to read that filth if they could stand the stench. By and large the confused modern turned from a past covered with monkey vomit. But some pilgrims were so desperate or possibly so cynical that they had to see the monkey vomit books for themselves. I was such an individual. And in those books whose covers were sprayed with the liberal monkey vomit of scorn, derision, and accusations of racism and infantilism, there was a compelling image of a God whom the European people used to worship. He was not the God of the modern, organized churches; He was not the God of the philosophers or the Negro-worshippers; He was Jesus of Nazareth, the Man of Sorrows, who took flesh and dwelt among us. This the antique European believed.

The antique European also believed in his eternal moment. He believed that what he did on this earth made a difference, because his blood was connected to a loving Savior who had forged a connection to His people more mystical and mysterious than the most devout devotee of the ancient mystery religions could conceive, and more intrinsically humane than any philosopher or moral theologian could possibly imagine. The liberal has convinced the European that he has no eternal moment, that there is no link between mortal man and a loving God. We are all, we Europeans of the old stock, in Hamlet’s position. We are born to set it right. We will not be played upon by liberals who are determined to pluck out our mystery by denying our blood connection to the living God:

Ham. I do not well understand that. Will you play upon this pipe?

Guil. My lord, I cannot.

Ham. I pray you.

Guil. Believe me, I cannot.

Ham. I do beseech you.

Guil. I know no touch of it, my lord.

Ham. ‘Tis as easy as lying. Govern these ventages with your finger and thumb, give it breath with your mouth, and it will discourse most excellent music. Look you, these are the stops.

Guil. But these cannot I command to any utterance of harmony. I have not the skill.

Ham. Why, look you now, how unworthy a thing you make of me! You would play upon me, you would seem to know my stops, you would pluck out the heart of my mystery, you would sound me from my lowest note to the top of my compass; and there is much music, excellent voice, in this little organ, yet cannot you make it speak. ‘Sblood, do you think that I am easier to be play’d on than a pipe? Call me what instrument you will, though you can fret me, you cannot play upon me.

There is a world in those words, “Call me what instrument you will, though you can fret me, you cannot play upon me.”

Just as Claudius sought to impose his world, based on adultery and fratricide, on Hamlet, so do the liberals seek to impose their world of Negro worship, infanticide, and Christ-less Christianity on the European. The grazers have accepted the legitimacy of the liberals’ world, but we few, we Europeans, will not accept their world. In our blood, which we have not forsaken, we have seen another and better world than Liberaldom.

The majority of the French people at the time of the French Revolution did not support the radicals who murdered the King, but the majority of French people had become grazers. They were indifferent to the ancient ideal of “I serve the King and the King serves Christ.” And no doubt the indifference of Louis XIV and Louis XV, not Louis XVI, to that ideal did much to breed the indifference. A small minority with conviction will always triumph over a majority of indolent grazers. This is why the polls constantly fool the conservatives. They take a poll among the grazers and find out that a majority favor older traditional values. “Behold!” the conservative exclaims, “We are turning the corner.” But the grazer is indifferent traditional. He would prefer his neighbor to be white, but he isn’t going to get upset if he is a Somalian; he doesn’t like the idea of homosexual marriage, but he isn’t going to lose any sleep over it so long as the network keeps showing football games. And on and on it goes. Has the white man really become such a creature of indolence that he can be played upon so easily by the liberals? Yes, he has become such a creature.

Virtually all white Europeans are liberals by what they acquiesce to. But liberalism still has only a minority of adherents who have given their hearts and souls to liberalism. If a European Hamlet emerges, he who has that within which passeth show, who is willing to attack liberalism, he will find that the walls of Liberaldom are not as impregnable as the liberals want us to believe. They are vulnerable to a passion for His Europe that is greater than their passion for Satan’s mind-forged walls of Liberaldom.

One of the many admirable aspects of Hamlet’s counter revolution was his complete unconcern as to whether the people, the grazers, were for or against him. He knew what his duty was and he did what his high calling demanded of him. We don’t know if any of the grazers will follow in our train if we attack Liberaldom, but by the same token we will never know if we don’t attack Liberaldom without any expectation of help from the grazers. There might be genuine heroes among the ranks of the grazers who are just in need of a heroic example. If the last Europeans do not act as Europeans they will truly be the last Europeans.

Last week I took my youngest children to an amusement park to enjoy the last rose of summer. While they were enjoying themselves on the rides, I ordered our hamburgers at the food stand. Ordering food at the same time were some liberal ‘care providers’ (liberals can always be identified) for a large group of retarded young adults and older adults. As the retarded people sat waiting for their food, they started yelling the f-word at each other. The care providers didn’t ask them to stop; in fact they seemed quite amused. I went up to the care providers and told them I wanted them to tell their charges to stop screaming the f-word as my children would soon be coming to eat their lunch at a nearby table. The care providers told me what was obvious, that their charges were retarded. Then they went on to explain that we all had to understand that retarded people had to be treated differently than other people; “we must make allowances” etc. But who teaches retarded people to yell the f-word across a crowded room? The liberal care providers do, by their smiling acquiescence. It is just as uncompassionate to allow retarded adults to wallow in moral filth as it is to allow them to sit in soiled diapers. I never remember retarded people screaming obscenities when I was growing up. They take their cue from their leaders.

The white grazers that I see every day remind me of those retarded people. They take their cue from the liberals and say and do horrendous things. But what if some Europeans would emerge and present a different example for the grazers to follow? Would miracles occur? We don’t know. But we do know that truth needs to be embodied in a person. He taught us that. The hero, not the solecism or the platitude, is the European bridge to His Kingdom come. +

Unto Death

I recently read a speech, given in 1995 at an American Renaissance Conference, in which the speaker disagreed strongly with those pro-white advocates who recommended that white people form separate states within the state in order to ensure the survival of a distinct white, European culture. The speaker said that this was tantamount to surrender. There were still, he maintained, enough white votes to bring about a white cultural renewal without adopting what the speaker claimed were unrealistic and drastic measures.

My answer then, and even more so now, would be that looking at a situation realistically and deciding that drastic, non-democratic measures are necessary is not the same thing as surrendering. Was Shane surrendering when he walked into Grafton’s saloon to face Stark Wilson?

Shane stopped about three quarters of the way forward, about five yards from Wilson. He cocked his head for one quick sidewise glance again at the balcony and then he was looking only at Wilson. He did not like the setup. Wilson had the front wall and he was left in the open of the room. He understood the fact, assessed it, accepted it.

The first step, before heroic action can be taken to rid the world of rotters like Stark Wilson and Fletcher, is a realistic appraisal of who the enemy is and one’s position vis-à-vis the enemy. I do not think the American Renaissance Conference speaker had a realistic idea of who the enemy was or a realistic assessment of the white man’s position in relation to his enemy. How can one take a realistic stance against the enemy if he has only nebulous notions as to his enemy’s identity?

Who is the enemy? The primary enemy is the anti-white white. The reason for the American Renaissance speaker’s inability to see that drastic measures were necessary in 1995 (and imperative in 2008) is because he counted too many white-hating whites and their dupes, the grazers, (see “The Underground Men”) as candidates for conversion. The white-hating white and the grazers are not, except for an occasional miracle of grace, going to be converted. The white-hating white has gone too far down the slippery slope, and the white grazer has spent too many years eating from the trough of oblivion to ever come back. The grazers are like the Israelites who could not pass muster. A whole generation had to die out before the tribe could enter the Promised Land.

The American Renaissance speaker overestimates the convertibility of the white-hating rationalists because he is a rationalist himself. If he had made a realistic assessment of the white man’s plight he would have seen that the white man is facing extinction because he has abandoned his heritage, the heroic, bardic heritage, for a new, magic, talismanic, rationalistic system. This is why the American Renaissance speaker cannot possibly see beyond democratic politics. So long as there are democratic parlor games, he thinks he can out-maneuver and out-wizard the white-hating rationalists. But tis not so. The white man must turn away from the game of dueling wizards and reclaim his heroic heritage. Evil wizards are not defeated by good wizards; they are defeated by the Hero who is pure of heart. The good American Renaissance rationalist and the white-hating rationalist both suffer from a surfeit of rationalism. They are impious. Our ancestors knew that “the problem of the moral world is too vast and complex for the human mind to comprehend; yet the pure heart will, safely and quietly, feel its way through the mazes that confound the head.”

The failure of the pro-life movement is very similar to the failure of the white identity movement (to the extent that you can even call it a movement), so it is helpful to look at the pro-life movement. In 1973, at least 60% of Americans, a majority, held the opinion that abortion should not be legal. But there was not a conviction among even 1% of the 60% that those people who wanted to legalize abortion were an enemy. How is it possible to believe that those who favor infanticide are within the ken of white civilization? I don’t know, but the “pro-lifers” did dialogue with the baby killers. They dialogued and they dialogued. And while they were dialoguing, the baby killers built up a moral consensus (or would it be called an immoral consensus?) that abortion was right and proper. And the greatest supporters of rational dialogue with baby killers were the “Christian” clergy.

What would have happened if pro-lifers had refused the democratic approach, if they had refused to dialogue but instead told the abortionist in the strength of their majority, “You shall not commit such atrocities because if you do we will kill you”? I think abortion would still be illegal.

The fight for white civilization has gone the same way as the anti-abortion movement. It has ended in defeat because whites preferred to dialogue rather than fight with an enemy who was beyond the ken of civilization. If a white man can countenance (not just countenance but applaud) the type of murder and mayhem perpetrated on whites by blacks (see Paul Shechan’s 1995 article in the Sydney Morning Herald) for the past fifty years, is he really someone who can be converted by rational discourse? And once again, as was the case in the pro-life movement, it was the clergy who supported the violence of the murderers while counseling the victims and defenders to dialogue and forgive.

The ‘get out the vote and write letters’ white men spend their lifetimes telling white people that they must act. But when small groups of whites try to act, by separating from the anti-white government and forming their own schools, militias, and local governments, the letter-writing advocates condemn them and accuse them of giving up.

I would submit that what the wise speaker for the American Renaissance could not discover, the simple fools who have to live in the brave new world of the technocrats, barbarians, and amazons already know: The great American experiment in democracy is over. It was ill-conceived and has produced evil fruits. But the white race is not finished so long as there are white men left who are connected to the heroic tradition of Europe rather than the democratic tradition.

In the market where I shop there is a young man in his early twenties, who works as a bagger, named Roland. After dealing with him on a ‘thank you for bagging’ basis for a couple months, I branched out. “You have a heroic name,” I said.

Of course he was puzzled at first. He thought I was making fun of him, but then I took the time to tell him the story of Roland, with which he was completely unfamiliar. The young man did not, upon hearing the story, buy a sword and swear to retake the Holy Land, but his face actually showed some animation as the story reached its conclusion. Now whenever I see the young bagger I say, “He took his stand and held it, never yielding unto death!” He always smiles. Why shouldn’t he? I’m talking about his namesake.

I don’t for one moment think I turned that young man’s life around by telling him the story of Roland. It takes an entire lifetime of stories about Roland and other white heroes to turn a young man away from modernity and toward the light of Europe. And that is the point. Why hasn’t that young man been told the story of Roland, of William Tell, of Forrest, of Arthur, etc.? I’m sure he knows who the black heroes are. Our schools make sure of that. And the young black men know who the black heroes are. So at least the modern day Roland has some heroes. But does he have a heritage? If he is only permitted heroes from another race, can the young white man lay claim to any heritage? No, he cannot. He has been branded with the mark of Cain and driven into the hinterlands of our modern civilization.

And what about the young white man’s faith? Thomas Hughes made the observation that our heroes are intimately connected to our faith. The older heroes of Europe pointed to Him. To whom do the black heroes lead us? To the other ‘him’ with the pointy tail.

If the shadows of black hero worship are not altered, there will be, with the exception of a few miracles of grace, no white Christian men. And the shadows will not be altered by letter-writing campaigns which implore the powers that be to allow white men to have a white heritage. Nor will the shadows be altered by attempting to convert the unconvertible, the white academics and the grazers. The shadows will only be altered by a tiny white minority of men, still spiritually connected to a civilization of white, Christian heroes. The counsel of the practical men who told us to plead for representation and to back Patrick Buchanan-type candidates was wrong. If we had ignored their advice thirty years ago and started the counterrevolution without their assent we would be in a much better position today than we are currently. Democratic politics is the politics of losing slow. But in a war you must, if your enemy is implacable, fight to win.

The practical men, the sons of Martha, always say that a counterrevolution is not realistic. “There is no support for it.” A counterrevolution, at its beginning, always seems unrealistic. But is it realistic to hope that the demonization of the white man and the systematic eradication of his heritage can be halted by supporting a pro-white candidate? (1) Of course not.

Let’s accept reality and start from there. Government, school, church, Wall Street, and the community at large are all against the white man. Never has one race and one sex been as ostracized by the entire world as the white male is. The white man can either continue listening to delusional friends who tell him to write letters and vote white, or he can start doing what white counterrevolutionaries do. They bind themselves to their fellow white men with hoops of steel, invoke the God who dwells in depths which the heathen and the technocrat cannot understand, and do whatever it takes to undermine every organ of the revolutionary government in power.

When Alexander Smollet tells the pirates that wherever he flies the English flag, that spot of land is England, he is articulating the heartfelt faith of all European men. Wherever European values are fought for and cherished, there lies Europe. If white men are banished to the hinterlands of civilization, the hinterlands become civilization. What we don’t want to do is to continue to give aid and comfort to a technocratic-barbarian civilization that has renounced antique Europe. Let the white technocrats and the barbarians of color try to sustain a civilization without our help. They’ll self-destruct soon enough. The white man who is in union with antique Europe never surrenders; he takes his stand, never yielding, even unto death. +
________________________________________________________
(1) The absurdity of the advice, “vote white,” became self-evident in the recent Presidential primaries in which there were no pro-white candidates.

The Underground Men

The most striking aspect of the Western world today is the absence of white Christian males. Where are they? They have gone underground, because Christian masculinity has been proscribed as illegal.

In olden times, the white Christian male was seen as an essential part of the social structure. He was the spiritual head of his family, loving his wife as Christ loved His church, and the guiding light of his young children. Certainly it is easy to go back through history and find many examples of the failure of the Christian patriarchal system, but you have to be a modern, satanic Christian not to concede that if Christianity is to be taken seriously then the patriarchal family is the main unit of society. But of course Christianity is not the faith of modern man, so the Christian patriarchal system has been jettisoned. What has taken its place?

The technocratic white man currently rules the Western world. But his is a curious rule; he rules a kingdom of unruly barbarians and Amazon warriors by making sacrificial offerings to the barbarians and strategic appeasements to the Amazons. He would rather deal with those two legions of Satan than face Christian men, because his reign of technology and money is directly opposed to Christ’s reign of charity. If that reign of charity were to be reinstated, the technocrats’ reign would end. And it is the Christian male who traditionally has sallied forth to defend and build His reign of charity.

The technocrat is strategically right, although certainly not morally right: he must favor the barbarians and the Amazons because they are like unto him, as he is like unto Satan. We can understand so much if we keep that central fact before us. The technocrat needs a satanic society if he is to rule.

The white technocrat hopes to keep the barbarians at bay by sacrificing a certain percent of what he hopes will be ‘inconsequential’ whites. Of course the risk he takes is that he might become a sacrificial victim himself, but still, the risk is small. He is much more worried about the Christian male, which is why he yawns in the face of the torture-murders of whites such as Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom but sends government troops at the first sign of a white protest of the torture murders.

Now the Amazon poses a different problem for the white technocratic male. He can go his entire life and keep the barbarian at bay by offering other whites up for sacrifice and keeping within the confines of his gated community. But he needs (unless he is of the other persuasion) to bring a female into his orbit. At some level of his being he might prefer a Christian woman, but in the cold light of reason he knows he must wed the Amazon, because the Christian woman would expect him to be, horror of horrors, a Christian male. And he proceeds to deal with the Amazon as Satan dealt with Eve. He poses as the Amazon’s liberator by presenting to her as rights those things which God forbade her for her own protection. The Amazon is allowed to abort, to fight in the military, and to compete in the workplace. She is allowed to be male in all things, providing she stays a biological female. But since even the technocratic male and the Amazonian female have souls, both are inwardly restless.

The Amazonian feminist who has denounced femininity claims she doesn’t want to be seen as simply a body, but of course that is the only thing of interest she has left. The technocratic male has to pretend that he is really impressed with the mind of the Amazon, but he is not. The female mind can only function properly when it is connected to a female soul, and when she denounces her soul in the attempt to be masculine she becomes the very thing she claims to detest – a brainless bimbo. One need only look at all of the pretty plastic female newscasters who pollute the airwaves. They try to look so serious and talk like men, but does any male really take them seriously for any other reason than the fact they are biologically female?

The de-feminized, de-Christianized female is the most dangerous creature on the face of the earth. She has all the power that comes with femininity but lacks any of the moral restraints that Christianity gave to her. Lady Macbeth is rightly regarded as a monster when she asks the spirits of darkness to “unsex me here” and later gives the faltering Macbeth an impromptu pep talk that makes one’s blood run cold:

I have given suck, and know
How tender ‘tis to love the babe that milks me;
I would, while it was smiling in my face,
Have pluck’d my nipple from his boneless gums
And dash’d the brains out, had I so sworn as you
Have done to this.

But when virtually every woman is a Lady Macbeth, can they still be called monsters? No, not by the men in charge of the society that has spawned the legions of Lady Macbeths. But the Christian underground man can say what she is – a fiend from hell. And who would be married to hell? The technocrat of course. And he pays a prize for his hellish union. The modern Lady Macbeths are fond of saying that a man wants only one thing of them, and that is true of the modern technocrat. Of course he only wants one thing; what else can she offer? But the modern Lady Macbeth wants only one thing from the male as well. She wants him to act aggressively in behalf of her illicit whims. In the case of Lady Macbeth, it meant that her husband had to kill Duncan; in the case of our contemporary, spiritually unsexed females, it means that the white technocrat must aggressively fight for her whims in the technocratic world of bulls, bears, and computers.

The female of the species will never know what it is like to be loved enough to be put in the female’s proper place, the Christian hearth, and the technocratic male will never know what it feels like to have “one whispering silken gown,” across his life. And that is a tragedy. But the technocratic male and the de-feminized female chose their fates. Far more tragic is the fate of the victims (the children who are murdered in the womb or who are spiritually neutered at birth), the ‘collateral’ damage, if you will, of the satanic utopia of the Bill Gates and Nancy Pelosies.

There is a group of white men who are still allowed to graze in the pastures of the upper world. They are to be found leaning over their backyard fences talking about the upcoming hunting season or about next Sunday’s football game. If you want to alienate these white grazers, just bring up some topics like the Mexican invasion, the black war against whites, or George Bush’s plan to eradicate all national boundaries. They’ll run back into their house, turn the TV on, grab a beer from the fridge, and tell their wife that the guy next door is some kind of nut.

As long as the grazers are allowed to shoot off their guns a few times a year and watch the gladiators on TV, they are content. But they don’t realize that they are the ones being fattened up as sacrificial victims for the barbarians of color. If you try to warn the grazers, they will simply burp.

And the sons and the daughters of the grazers are easily siphoned off. The daughters who have the ability are allowed to enter the world of the technocratic males, and the ones who do not are permitted to mate with the barbarians in order to escape the odium of being wedded to a white man with connections to the older, white civilizations.

The sons of the grazers usually cannot become technocrats, because there is very little room at the top of the food chain. The sons are permitted to fight for the technocrats, however. Aggressive, masculine, even warlike behavior is countenanced by the technocrats if the aggressive masculine action is done in defense of the ruling technocratic oligarchy. The Iraq war is a case in point. “Support our troops!” cry the technocrats. Of course they should support the troops: the troops are fighting for them.

Before we come to the underground men, let us pause to acknowledge a few saints. They are the Christian women. Because they are female, they are not, as the Christian men are, banished to the underworld. They are allowed to stay loyal to the crucified white males, but why should they? They have nothing to gain by remaining faithful, at least nothing in the worldly sense. They are a dying breed. If you are an underground man, and you find such a woman, cherish her.

And now we come to the men who were and are the subjects of these wars. It is easy to deprecate the white Christian, underground male of today if we compare him to men like Robert E. Lee and Nathan Bedford Forrest, but the battlefield is different today, and the enemy is much more formidable than it was in the days of Lee and Forrest. The Christian warrior of today has much more of an internal war than did the Christian warrior of old. If not completely equal, can we not at least say that the heroism of the modern underground Christian man, in his fight to keep his soul unpolluted by the satanic forces surrounding him, is close to the heroism of such men as Lee and Forrest? I think it is. I have known such men. They stand with Cyrano and tell the world that they have held “One thing without stain, Unspotted from the world, in spite of doom, Mine own! My white plume…”

The technocrat might hold the world in his hands, while the white Christian men are banished to the underground. But when the great Cavalier makes his final charge, He will look for the men with the white plumes. And we will be ready to ride with our King in the great and final conflict.