Soulless, Godless Diversity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Returning Home

“Once beyond the village, where the cottages ceased abruptly, on either side of the road they could smell through the darkness the friendly fields again; and they braced themselves for the last long stretch, the home stretch, the stretch that we know is bound to end, some time, in the rattle of the door latch, the sudden firelight, and the sight of the familiar things greeting us as long-absent travelers from far oversea.”

Two sad events, sad from my perspective at any rate, both occurred within the last seven days. The first event was the royal wedding. I did not find the wedding sad because I am in love with pure democracy and think that all the money spent on the royal family should be absorbed by the working class. Far from it. White people thrived under monarchies, and they committed suicide in the democratic era, so I have no desire to see a democracy anywhere in the European world. What was sad about the spectacle of the royal wedding was that all the symbols of Christian Britain were dug out of moth balls to serve the new secular Britain. If the royal wedding was the occasion for the abdication of Britain’s mad-dog liberal Queen and the ascension to the throne of a fighting King, determined to wrest Britain from the Muslims, the colored barbarians, and the liberals, it would indeed be a wedding to celebrate. But that was not the case; the wedding was merely a celebration of the British peoples’ desire to leave traditional Christian Britain behind, while maintaining their right to have a big dress-up party once in a while. The modern Brits are like King Lear who wanted to retain all the privileges of kingship while abdicating the responsibilities of kingship. And if the Brits do not stop the colored invasion, they will soon discover that their colored “friends” will no longer allow them to have their little dress-up parties, just as Regan and Goneril did not permit Lear to maintain his one-hundred knights.

The second sad event was the death of Bin Laden. It was not a tragedy that he was killed – he was a murdering, Islamic jihadist, just as George Bush II was a murdering, democratic jihadist, but it was tragic that he was not killed for the right reason, which makes all the difference. Bin Laden was killed because he attacked Liberaldom. He was not killed because he was a militant Muslim who killed white Christians. The rulers of Liberaldom would not have tried to kill Bin Laden had he confined his killings to white Christians; it was his attack on Liberaldom that earned him the ire of the liberals and the grazers. A Christian is not permitted to choose the lesser of two evils, but if one was forced to choose between the evil of Bin Laden’s Muslim faith, and the evil of the liberals’ black-worshipping, Israel-worshipping faith, who’s to say which is worse? It’s the Cyclops vs. the Dragon.

On a certain level, it’s understandable that Americans should applaud the death of Bin Laden. He murdered people, and he finally paid for it, but when the applause becomes applause for America, the foremost nation of Liberaldom, it should sicken and anger every white European. As soon as Bin Laden was dead and buried, The Obama was proclaiming America’s undying love and respect for Islam. Is religious indifferentism something we should applaud? Is the death of Osama Bin Laden going to stop Negro worship and the massacre of whites? Is the death of Osama Bin Laden going to stop the ruling elites in Europe and America from allowing Muslims to overrun their nations? Is the death of Bin Laden going to stop Pakistani Muslims living in Britain from raping white British girls? Is the death of Bin Laden going to stop black barbarians from raping white women who join the Peace Corps to “help Africans”? Is anything good going to happen to white people as the result of Osama Bin Laden’s death? No, nothing good will come from Bin Laden's death because “once our grace we have forgot, Nothing goes right.” Our nation is not a traditional European nation. We are not a nation that treasures the evening lingering of Europe. Our people, like the European people throughout the world, look to a Utopian, Babylonian future, not to the Europeans’ Christian past.

A neighbor told me he was delighted with the Bin Laden killing because it showed that the “United States still had guts,” but that is hardly something to be so proud of. Every nation in the world can find men willing to fight for that nation’s government, but every nation cannot always produce men with the vision to see the good and the moral courage to fight only for that good. Even if the killing of Bin Laden ended terrorism, which of course it won’t, his death would not be a victory for white Europeans. The white European would be, and is, in the position of Tennyson’s King Arthur, in the chapter titled, “The Last Tournament.” Arthur’s knights win the last tournament, but in winning they break every rule of chivalry, “So all the ways were safe from shore to shore, But in the heart of Arthur, pain was lord.” When young white men are sent overseas to kill Arabs on behalf of Israel and Israel’s satanic partner, the United States, their success brings me no joy; in my heart, pain is lord.

If we could see with the eyes of an antique European knight of the cross, we would see something quite different than the modern European, who sees with not through the eye. The antique European does not see the Muslims, the Jews, and the liberals as separate and opposed religious groups; he looks upon them all as part of one religious body that is opposed to the mystical body of Christ. The Jews, the Muslims, and the liberals are all competing to fill the void left when Christian Europeans decided to abandon their God and their respective European nations. What we are witnessing are turf wars between religious atheists with denominational differences. Who will prevail? Will it be the Muslim, the liberal, or the Jew?

The white liberal tries to conquer by assimilating the other atheistic religious denominations into his own denomination. This is the reason the leaders of the Western world always insist that they are not against Muslims; they are just against fanatical Muslims like Bin Laden. The anti-Christian, anti-white rulers of the Western world are of the opinion that Muslims can be made conformable to Babylonian liberalism. Their plan doesn’t seem to be working, but viewing life realistically was never a favorite pastime of the liberal. The Jews seem to be more conformable to modern liberalism than the Muslims, but that could be because the white post-Christian liberal never opposes the Jews. It is not given to us to know who will conquer, the liberal, the Jew, or the Muslim. We only know that there is no place for the white Christian with the Jews, the Muslims, or the liberals, but then why should we want a place with any of the blasphemers?

The common thread of the religious atheists is their hatred of the incarnate God. They do not believe that the spirit can take flesh. Christian Europe stands as a monumental contradiction to the religious atheism of the Jew, the liberal, and the Muslim, so all three work to remove that monumental contradiction by demonizing the European past and destroying any remnants of that past. This is what makes the racial issue so important. God took flesh and dwelt among us, and the European people, as a people, took God’s loving embrace and made it the lifeblood of their culture. A home was no longer just a dwelling place to the European; it was an altar to the incarnate God. If the people who became a sign of contradiction to heathendom because of their faith in Christ can be eliminated, there will no longer be a sign of contradiction to the heathens. Without a human dwelling, Christ will become merely an idea for the philosophers to play with and discard as it suits their fancy. You cannot defend a king without defending his Kingdom. The halfway-house Christians who claim we can keep Christ while jettisoning the European people are either fools, cowards, or a combination of both. They would give a hungry man the bare bones of a carcass and tell him it was meat enough for him.

The European needs the incarnate God, not the black God of the liberals, or the cruel remote God of the Muslims and the Jews. (1) He is now a pawn of the Muslims, the liberals, and the Jews because he has accepted Gnostic Christianity as the true Christianity. Conservative politicians tell us that it doesn’t matter if all formerly white European nations become colored nations. What matters is that the idea of the conservative party, or the Republican Party, survives. And the way to survive is to “win the coloreds over to our party.” The coloreds are sacred to the white conservatives, and to the liberals as well, because they bring numbers, and in a democratic world numbers rule.

It’s the same in the churches. The churchmen tell us to let the sacred coloreds come to the Lord: “Christ’s church does not need Europeans to survive; so long as we have our church documents and pure, natural savages, we will survive and thrive.” Will they? The soul needs a body, a local habitation and a name. If the true faith that was embodied by the European is set “free” and forced to float through the airy halls of academia, how will men of flesh and blood, because the Gnostic’s denial of flesh and blood does not change the reality of flesh and blood, know God?

The royal wedding celebration and the celebrations of Bin Laden’s death were spiritually linked. In both cases the European people were celebrating the demise of the European people. At the royal wedding the Brits were celebrating a puppet monarch pledged to support the liquidation of white Britain. And at the celebrations of Bin Laden’s death we saw Europeans celebrating a victory for an anti-European government that is determined to turn the United States into a colored nation.

The experts tell us that human beings do not have a homing instinct as animals do. ‘Tis not so, at least it is not so for the European. The European does have a homing instinct. Liberaldom was built to kill that instinct, but there are certain men who refuse to let go of their homing instinct. They will make their way back through shipwreck, fire, and storm. And once back they will cleanse their home of heathens, be they liberals, Muslims, or Jews; they must do this because every European hearth fire needs to be kept pure and undefiled for the day when Europe’s King of King returns. +

________________________________________________________

(1) When Christianity was supreme in Europe the Jews and the Muslim often came together to undermine the European status quo. They are natural allies really, as both worship only God the father and reject the Son who was the Light of Europe and is still and always shall be the Light of the world.

What Men Fight For

Let England be imperilled, and Englishmen will fight; in such extremity there is no choice. But what a dreary change must come upon our islanders if, without instant danger, they bend beneath the curse of universal soldiering! I like to think that they will guard the liberty of their manhood even beyond the point of prudence. – George Gissing

In the wake of the Fort Hood murders I don’t think it is amiss to ask, “Why was a Muslim in the United States Army, and why was he not only in the Army but also promoted to the rank of major?” And if you answer my first question with the usual nonsense about how the United States respects all faiths and all colors then I must ask a second question: “Why are there any white males in the Unites States Armed Forces?”

The mark of a man is not how willingly he fights or even how well he fights. The mark of a man is what he fights for. The profession of soldier is not intrinsically evil as the Quakers would have it, but it is not intrinsically good as patriotic scoundrels of last refuge fame would have it. A soldier is as good or as bad as the cause he gives his allegiance to. And the American soldier swears allegiance to liberaldom. He belongs to the liberals heart and soul. He has sworn to spread the benefits of liberal democracy (abortion, pornography, feminism, race mixing) to every corner of the earth. (1) What man who guards his manhood would fight for such a country? There should be no white males in the United States military. The fact that there are white males and what is worse, white females, in the U. S. military indicates just how satanic the white European culture has become. We send our boys and girls to the great liberal Moloch to use them as he pleases.

The liberal party line is that democracy is ecumenical; all religions are equally excluded from participation in the democratic circus. But this is not the case. All religions accept the Christian one are welcome in the brave new democratic world of the liberals. The official liberal party line also asserts that the U. S. Government is color-blind; all races are equal before the law. But this is not the case. The white race is an outlawed race and the black race is a deified race. Does the accusation of black racism ever result in punitive action by the government? Of course not. But alleged white racism? The list is endless. Every day whites are punished for the sin of racism by the law’s indifference to the murder of whites and through the punitive damages exacted from whites who make ‘racist’ comments.

Prayer and fighting are intimately linked. What we fight for will be determined by who or what we pray to. When white people abandoned Jesus of Nazareth, the God of the hearth fire, the God of nations, for a philosophical abstraction they ceased to fight for hearth and nation. They now fight for the democratic, utopian state of tomorrow in which there is one mixed race and one cosmic mixture of every god save the one true God.

The late John Watson, pen name Ian Maclaren, wrote eloquently of Christ’s desire to ease our fears about the next world by enveloping that world in images of our homes in this world.

Jesus, who had stated many of the deep things of the spiritual world in the terms of our common life, now declares Heaven to be another name for home, and so makes a winsome appeal to the heart. This world is indeed like unto an alabaster box of ointment very precious, whose fragrance fills the life. Into it has been gathered our most sacred memories, our tenderest associations, our brightest hopes. It matters little whether the home of one’s childhood has been a cottage on a hillside or a house in some city street, round it is woven a romance of interest that grows with the years, to it travels back the heart places alike of work and thought with wistful regret. As the years come and go we see our home through a golden mist, wherein all things are beautiful and perfect, and so there is no home that is not a prophecy. As Jesus himself was the Son of Man, that perfect Antitype after which in all ages men’s minds have gone forth, so must that place from which He came be—above all we have dreamed—Home.

Our homes – that is what the Christian fights for, not for democracy or liberty or equality. I think it is significant that as our theology became more impersonal and abstract (and by ‘our’ I mean white people), so did our wars. It is easier to kill large numbers of people when they are called collateral damage. And it is easier to use terms like collateral damage when God is a philosophical concept rather than a personal savior.

I think the most cruelly frivolous lines of poetry I ever read were Chesterton’s lines about the Irish:

All their wars were merry
And all their songs were sad.

There are no merry wars, but are there wars in which we can see, amidst the bloodshed and carnage, God’s grace at work? If Christianity really was, as I maintain, the heart and blood of old Europeans, shouldn’t we be able to observe a difference between European warfare and non-European warfare? At first glance it appears that there is no difference between the pagan and the Christian warrior. But if we take a second, deeper look something called chivalry emerges in the European mists -- often more honored in the breach than the observance, but still a very palpable, living creed. Civilian populations were not routinely put to the sword, and while the killing never ceased, there was, during the Christian era of the European people, a recognition that one’s enemy was also spiritually one’s brother and entitled to Christian quarter when captured and “all holy rites” when killed.

The techno-barbarism of our bombing raids on Iraq and the presence of white Europeans in the ranks of the Great Multi-Racial Army of Liberaldom are indications of the death of Christianity. A Christian people distinguishes between non-combatants and combatants, and Christian men do not serve in Satan’s army. When the European ceased to view Christianity as a religion distinct from all other religions he also became blind to the distinctions between the European people and the people of color. In his blindness he now fights only for abstractions, such as democracy and equality, which promise him, should he emerge victorious, a place in a Christless utopia of the future. And while the New Age soldier fights for the new satanic order, Christian Europe is left without any defenders.

The United States with its mixture of white and colored races presents us with a hellish vision of Babylon. The Europeans, the Christ-bearing people, have forsaken their God and become one with the people of Babylon. The reason our military is in such disarray is because America’s conflict with Iraq and Afghanistan is an internecine conflict. Two competing factions within Bablyon are fighting for supremacy. Neither The Obama or The Bush before him could articulate a real difference between the United States and the Arab nations they were attacking, because the United States is part of Babylon.

Writing in 1965, Anthony Jacob warned Europe about the emerging Babylonian state that was coming to fruition in the anti-nationalist land mass called the United States. Instead of arming themselves, spiritually and materially, the European nations turned their nations into American-styled Babylons. There is now, for instance, no difference between a street in Harlem, Amsterdam, or Nairobi. Babylon rules!

There is one hope, and it is a genuine hope, for the European. If he takes up the discarded cross and faces the white techno-barbarians and the barbarians of color who inhabit the new Babylon, he will discover, as Gideon did, that a few hundred faithful are more than a match for a host of barbarians. But the few hundred must be faithful.

And the three hundred blew the trumpets, and the Lord set every man’s sword against his fellow, even throughout all the host; and the host fled to Bethshittah in Zererath, and to the border of Abelmeholah, unto Tabbath. – Judges 7: 22

____________________________________________________________
(1) James V of Scotland died, Scott tells us, of a broken heart because he couldn’t persuade enough of his countrymen to do battle with the English. Such was often the case in the days of what our tyrannical democratic dictators often term the age of monarchical tyranny. In the Christian past, in contrast to the democratic present, men thought that the causes they killed for and the causes they risked their lives for should be causes that they, and not their government, chose.

To Win or Die with Europe

Although underreported, it is now clear that the United States has shown far too little concern for the civilian casualties of Iraq. Should this surprise us? How can a nation that has so little respect for its own peoples’ desire for a secure homeland have any respect for another peoples’ homeland.

Every American of European ancestry is told from the first hour of his birth that he has been born into a unique nation. His is a proud inheritance. Is it really? It doesn’t seem that way to me. I’m proud of the Christian inheritance my ancestors brought over from Europe, but I’m not proud of an anti-nation that respects creed over blood, religious diversity over Christianity, freedom over virtue, and the power of government over the hearth.

Despite the fact that we are told we don’t need a homeland founded on a common faith and common ties of blood, many American Europeans still long for one. It is not possible to completely kill the yearnings in a European heart. I know I have always longed for a homeland, which is why I suspect I have always been in sympathy with the Southern side in the Conflict between the States. There was a real sense of the homeland in the Old South. Thomas Nelson Page suggests a reason for this:

The difference between the Southern civilization and the Northern was the result of the difference between their origins and subsequent surroundings.

The Northern colonies of Great Britain in America were the asylums of religious zealots and revolutionists who at their first coming were bent less on the enlargement of their fortunes than on the freedom to exercise their religious convictions, however much the sudden transition from dependence and restriction to freedom and license may in a brief time have tempered their views of liberty and changed them into proscriptors of the most tyrannical type…

The Southern, on the other hand, came with all the ceremonial of an elaborate civil government—with an executive, a council deputed by authorities at home, and formal and minute instructions and regulations.

The crown hoped to annex the unknown land lying between the El Dorado, which Spain had obtained amid the summer seas, and the unbounded claims of its hereditary enemy, France, to the North and West.

The Church, which viewed the independence of the Northern refugees as schism, if not heresy, gave to this enterprise its benison in the belief that “the adventurers for the plantations of Virginia were the most noble and worthy advancers of the standard of Christ among the Gentiles.” The company organized and equipped successive expeditions in the hope of gain; and soldiers of fortune, and gentlemen in misfortune, threw in their lot in the certainty of adventure and the probability that they might better their condition.

Under such auspices the Southern colonies necessarily were rooted in the faith of the England from which they came – political, religious, and civil. Thus from the very beginning the spirit of the two sections was absolutely different, and their surrounding conditions were for a long time such as to keep them diverse.

--The Old South

So, in Page’s view the North was settled by Europeans with utopian notions and a willingness to impose those notions on others, and the South was settled by adventurous (but less discontented and quarrelsome) Europeans more in tune with the ancient rhythms and evening lingerings of Europe. Certainly that generalization doesn’t apply to every individual (Washington Irving, born in New York City, for instance, was not a utopian), but I think Page’s assessment is essentially correct.

And our current American oligarchy, instead of encouraging white American school children to feel connected to the land of their ancestors and to their ancestors’ faith, teaches them to despise their European inheritance. It’s small wonder that white adolescents grow up without any sense of racial pride and see nothing wrong with mixing their blood with that of blacks. In fact they see it as a positive good because in doing so they are killing their European blood ties.

I’ve written about H. V. Morton on several occasions because I love his books. During a time (1920 – 1950) when other European intellectuals were traveling to the Far East or Africa looking for something novel and exciting, Morton traveled through Europe and wrote about his travels because he correctly saw that the history and the people of His continent were the only really interesting history and people to write about. And that history has been suppressed by the Gingerbread House technique. “The great satanic wisdom of American totalitarianism is this: if you ban the old books and the old traditions, the people might still love them enough to fight for their restoration. But if you give them a gingerbread house to munch on and coat the older books and traditions in monkey vomit, the people will joyfully let the old books remain unread and the old traditions die.”

In the works of the great novelists of the late eighteenth century and the entire nineteenth century, the villain is often an Uncle Silas type. He can ape the Christian forms because he has a superior intelligence, but his heart belongs to Satan. But so long as Christian principles rule society, the Uncle Silases have to keep their hatred of Christ and Christians a secret. Now, however, Uncle Silas no longer needs the mask; his type now rules. And they are not going to permit a bred-in-the-bone Christianity to surface again. They will permit Church-on-Sunday/Mass-on-Sunday Christianity to exist because that type of Christianity generally supports Uncle Silas-demonism. And when it doesn’t, it is ineffectual because it is not integral. A true bred-in-the-bone Christianity is rooted in European history, European traditions, and European blood. If white European Americans were actually exposed to that type of Christianity, the Uncle Silases would once again be on the periphery of society instead of at its center. It’s not a spirit of our “democratic humanity” that we need. White people need a spirit of clannishness. When the fiery cross appears high on the mountain top, we must rally to it. And then, man to man and “in the van,” we’ll win or die with Europe.