One Civilization

The poison of diversity kills the soul just as surely as a knife in the heart kills the body. – CWNY

In H. V. Morton’s book In Search of South Africa (1946), he tells us of waking up in a small town in South Africa on Christmas day and feeling homesick for England. But then he hears the villagers singing some English Christmas carols, and he attends a Christmas dinner “right out of Dickens.” The carols and the dinner make him feel at home. In fact Morton felt so ‘at home’ that he eventually settled in South Africa. The European people used to make foreign countries – such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the United States, and South Africa – into European countries. Now the reverse is the case. The European people invite colored tribesmen into formerly European nations and allow the colored tribesmen to turn European nations into colored, tribal nations. And the assumption behind all the suicidal surrenders to the colored barbarians is that there should be less white people in the world and more colored people. Why? Because white people are bad and colored people are good. That, in the liberals’ eyes, is a self-evident fact. It is not self-evident to me; in fact I think the reverse is true, but we’ll let that pass for the moment.

No-one except the antique Christian European has faced the present consequences of a diminished European presence in formerly all European nations. Nor has anyone, except the antique Christian European, faced what will be the final consequences of the absence of any European presence in the formerly European countries.

The mad-dog liberal sees a coffee-colored future where only black skins and brown skins exist. But in his mind he shares that coffee-colored world with the black and brown skins. The Gnostic liberal believes if he thinks black, he will be black. The mad-dog liberal also sees, in his coffee-colored world, wine and cheese parties where everyone uses biodegradable cups. He sees a world where Elizabeth Gaskell is awarded the honors over Shakespeare, and non-polluting homosexuals and feminists join together to stop global warming. Does the mad-dog liberal realize that blacks do not read the white man’s literature, whether it is feminist literature or genuine literature? Does he realize that black and brown people do not care about biodegradable coffee cups or global warming? Of course the mad-dog liberals don’t realize such things; they are too intent on their headfirst plunge off the cliff, like the swine in the Gospel.

The conservative-liberal does not hate white people as the mad-dog liberal does. He simply views white people as irrelevant. In church and state the generic person is what counts to the conservative-liberal. “If white people won’t work for slave wages in the factories then we will get non-whites to work in the factories.” “The faith is transmitted from great minds to lesser minds; it doesn’t matter what color the new neophytes are; it is the docility of their brains we are interested in, not the color of their skins or the state of their souls.” Thus the capitalist wants an influx of colored people into his nation so that he can “compete” in the “free market,” and the churchman wants an influx of colored so that he can compete with his different denominational rivals. Both variants of the conservative-liberal do not see the consequences of their betrayal of their race. The conservative-liberal might stave off economic disaster for a time, but ultimately the social unrest caused by anti-white immigration policies will kill the businesses that sought to profit by betraying the white race. And in the church the conservative-liberal who tries to transmit an anemic philosophy to the colored barbarians, while holding as naught the bred-in-the-bone faith of the ancient Europeans, will reap a whirlwind of barbarism that will kill the Christian faith by diffusing it into other faiths.

In the last week throughout my anti-nation, which none dare call a country, there was much devastation wrought by floods. Many people were left homeless, and whole towns looked more like abandoned towns than towns where people actually lived. The flood-devastated towns represent the present spiritual state of the European people. The floods of diversity have left the European people in a state of shell-shocked somnolence. Will they never wake from the hideous nightmare of diversity? If they don’t their future will be that of the people and towns who were not merely devastated, but were actually consumed by the flood waters.

We must – those of us who are not Negro-worshipping liberals of either the mad-dog or conservative camp – ask why Europeans must now be governed by a barbarian race. Is the black lifestyle, the black religion, which is really an absence of religion, something a European should adapt as his own? Of course it isn’t, but the liberal seldom deals with the black man as a black man. He casts him in the role of the noble savage as described by Rousseau, as the noble victim as described by Harper Lee, and the noble man of the future as described by the liberal legion. What kind of future is there for a people who worship a lie? The cult of the great black god is like the cult of the golden calf; it is unadulterated paganism, made all the more heinous by the shameful spectacle of the white Europeans worshipping at the altar of their black god.

During the recent floods white grazers came to life. They manned pumps and organized rescues for stranded flood victims. They were finally allowed to do something! Rescuing flood victims is still not a proscribed activity in Liberaldom, but in the floods of the future, when the white rescuers are extinct, who will rescue the flood victims? Will the great black gods step forth to rescue white people? Will they step forth to rescue black people? Anyone who has eyes to see can answer those questions.

I once served on a police force in a city that lost its power for three days. The mayor said that looters would be shot. Immediately the black organizations and the liberal press called the mayor a racist. But why did the blacks and the liberals assume the looters would be blacks? Isn’t such an assumption racist? In point of fact, all the looters were black, and the liberals put their own spin on the black looting. “It’s only natural that black people should steal things during a power outage. They are the most disenfranchised people and they don’t have the extra quantities of food and water that whites have.” But why do they never steal food and water? Why do they steal television sets and electronic devices? And why do they step up the rapes and murders during a power outage? Is that because they are poor and oppressed? Of course the liberals don’t really try to answer the last question; they just scream ‘racist’ and that, in their minds, ends all arguments. Nothing the black man does is the black man’s fault. Everything is the white man’s fault because he and he alone has the taint of original sin. The colored people were all born without original sin; they are the pure, innocent children of nature.

It’s a curious phenomenon, which could only occur in a post-Christian nation, this phenomenon of white grazers suddenly leaving their pastures to protect and serve in national emergencies. Then, when they are no longer needed, they are sent back to graze, while the blacks, who raped, murdered, and looted during the national disaster, are set right back on the altars of the white church-going grazers to be worshipped and adored. “Penance have they done, and penance shall they do,” is the liberal plan for white men.

The European countries and their offspring, such as the United States and Canada, are dying slower than countries like South Africa or the San Domingo of the 1790’s, because whites, up until the last 20 years, were the vast majority in those countries. When the blacks outnumber the whites, the rules of egalitarian democracy dictate that formerly white countries will be transformed into modern day South Africa's and modern day Haiti's. And the black majority in those newly-formed black European countries will not respect the rights of the white minorities any more than their black brethren in South Africa and Haiti respected the rights of their white minorities.

Edmund Burke almost singlehandedly turned English public opinion against the French Revolution. He appealed to the innate conservatism of the English people, and they responded. Only the utopian liberals, such as Priestly, supported the homicidal radicals of the French Revolution. One of the overlooked aspects of Burke’s criticism of the French radicals was his defense of the French aristocrats. Burke personally met with and aided many of the French nobility who managed to find asylum in Britain. Burke found the French aristocrats to be the best of the breed, whose loss France could ill afford. It’s quite possible if France had not lost such men, and many others who didn’t manage to get to England, that Europe would have been spared the militarism of Napoleon who became an inevitable consequence when the French radicals murdered their aristocracy.

France never did recover from liberty, equality, and fraternity. Appalled by the extreme violence, they decided, after Napoleon was deposed, to commit national suicide at a slower, democratic rate. And all the other nations of Europe have followed France’s lead. “Utopia Now,” if it meant violence, was not acceptable to Europeans (except to the Russians), but “Utopia Soon,” so long as the death toll was not excessive, was acceptable to Europeans.

What happens when the radical ideals of liberty, equality, and fraternity are injected into a nation with a white ruling class and a black majority underclass? The result is Haiti. The U. S. Civil War almost produced another Haiti, but white Southerners had greater solidarity than the French of San Domingo. Now white people do not have either the solidarity or the faith to stand up for white people and their civilization.

The black barbarian we will always have with us. The white men never civilized the blacks. When white men were strong and believed in their civilization, they kept the blacks in check, but that is all they did. Contrary to what the Unitarians and the other assorted sectarian sects have said, the black man was never civilized. The fuel on the fire is the Utopian white man. When the white forsakes Christianity for Utopianism the inert mass of black men are set on fire to murder, rape, and pillage.

Should there be less white men? No, there must be more white men, ready to fight for the only civilization that ever existed. Don’t tell me about the pyramids or even the Parthenon. I care only about the civilization that produced men and women who took Him into their hearts and lived by the creed articulated by the Gentle Bard:

The quality of mercy is not strain'd,
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath: it is twice blest;
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes:
'Tis mightiest in the mightiest: it becomes
The throned monarch better than his crown;
His sceptre shows the force of temporal power,
The attribute to awe and majesty,
Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings;
But mercy is above this sceptred sway;
It is enthroned in the hearts of kings,
It is an attribute to God himself;
And earthly power doth then show likest God's
When mercy seasons justice. Therefore, Jew,
Though justice be thy plea, consider this,
That, in the course of justice, none of us
Should see salvation: we do pray for mercy;
And that same prayer doth teach us all to render
The deeds of mercy.

The humanity of God! A people who once felt so close to God that they could hear His heart beat, just as the Apostle John heard it on the night of the Last Supper when he laid his head on the Sacred Heart, is a people that must not perish from the earth, lest the earth lose all connection to His Sacred Heart.+

Surviving Bablylon

Keep thy heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life. – Prov. 4:23

I feel, when watching the contest between Wisconsin’s Governor and the mad-dog liberal Democrats, like John Tyndall did during the Iraq war when reports of the torture of Iraqi prisoners by American soldiers came out. He didn’t want to talk about whether the torture was proper or improper, because he didn’t think the British or Americans should have been in the war to begin with.

I don’t believe in democracy, so I must preface all my comments on the Wisconsin debacle with the statement, “If we had a real nation with real people…” So, with that preface, if the mad-dog liberals really believed in democracy they would let the Wisconsin governor make the economic reforms he was elected to make. No country can function if its elected officials don’t respect the process through which they attained office.

During the macabre Wisconsin carnival act the essential difference between the mad-dog liberals (usually members of the Democratic Party) and the conservative-liberals (usually members of the Republican Party) became apparent. The mad-dogs believe that anything that advances their cause is holy. There are no rules of fair play, no democratic procedures that mad-dog liberals must follow; everything that promotes liberalism is lawful.

The conservative-liberal is much more likely to back off from his more moderately liberal agenda if his moderately liberal agenda is against the law. The conservative-liberal is more demure, because he senses he is not as holy as the mad-dog liberal, much like the Kerenskyites of Russia were always vulnerable to the more radical-than-thou (and therefore more holy) Bolshevists. The conservative liberal never repudiates liberalism; he just claims that Liberaldom will be better served with the policies he advocates than with the policies advocated by the mad-dog liberals.

What is going on in Wisconsin is symptomatic of the type of politics we find throughout the Western world. Having ceased to believe in original sin as something with which all human beings are tainted, the modern Europeans try to align themselves with a ‘sinless’ group of people and to invest their enemies with original sin. In Wisconsin the unions claim they represent the “working class,” which we all know is a group of people without sin. The Wisconsin Governor has pointed out that he was elected by a majority of the people of his state who voted for him because he promised to do something about Wisconsin’s fiscal woes. The Governor also has pointed out that union members represent only about 10% of the work force. But just being elected might not give the Wisconsin Governor enough clout to overcome the unions, because he is a white male and therefore tainted with original sin, while the unionists are without sin.

The only reason the unionists and their Democratic allies have not triumphed already is because the “working class” gamut has lost some of its effectiveness in the last 25 years, for the reason that the Negro has trumped the working class. If the unionists could manage to put their case in racial terms, the unionists representing the blacks, and the Wisconsin Governor representing the whites, then the battle would be over and the unionists would be victorious.

It’s always surprising to me – although by now it shouldn’t be – that professed Christians cannot see how the liberals whom they support have used Christian doctrines to preach Satanism. For instance, the liberals still believe in original sin, but they believe that only the white male is tainted with it. The liberals still believe in a savior; it is the generic black man. And they still believe in heaven and hell; heaven is the future where there will be no white people, and hell is the past when white males were in authority. Every university, every secondary school, every elementary school, every media outlet, every church, and every single official in every single European state proclaims, espouses, and adheres to the principles of the new satanic anti-Christianity.

Sanctity in the new anti-Christianity exists only in the black. White females can achieve a kind of Third Order status if they attach themselves to the black race, but such an attachment will not elicit one drop of pity from the ruling, liberal oligarchy when the women suffer the fate that all white women who embrace the black race suffer. The rape, and often the murder as well, of Third Order white girls who naively joined the Peace Corps to “help the Africans,” by African barbarians is just one example of the relentless attacks on the white race which are constantly covered up by the liberal media. But I wonder if the cover-up is necessary any more. The black savagery in the New Orleans Superdome got national attention, and there was not a ripple of protest from white Americans. I think the liberals’ work is done. White people will never blame the black man for anything. No matter what evil the black man does, it is always the white man’s fault. And the only way, if you are a white man, to mitigate the evil of your whiteness is to scream at the top of your lungs that the atrocities committed by blacks are the result of white racism.

There were dangerous forebodings in the American Civil War. For the first time in the history of the European people, a group of Europeans went to war for a utopian, universalist ideal. All the Europeans who fought for the North were fighting against the white race; they were fighting against themselves. The realization of that fact was the reason for the draft riots in New York City and the Copperhead movements in some Northern states such as Pennsylvania.

Now every white man who serves in the armed forces fights against himself. It is a terrible tragedy to see white males in the American armed forces. What are they fighting for? Sadly, they are fighting for the extinction of the white race and the preservation of an American Babylonian state.

Once a Babylonian state has been established, anything that constitutes “good citizenship” is harmful to the white man. Do you support your local schools? Do you support your local church? If you do, you are supporting Babylon and your own extinction. When Alfred wrote about obeying the law, he meant God’s law. And likewise St. Paul; he wrote about obeying God’s law. The laws of Babylon are directly opposed to God’s law. We can’t serve two masters. Why should we want to? Following God’s law allows our people to be a people; following the laws of Babylon destroys our people.

The white European is not being pushed off a cliff by 'The Jew' or 'The Negro'; the white European is jumping off a cliff of his own volition. The Jews have pushed race-mixing and championed anti-European causes since Christendom’s inception. It is only now, when the European hasn’t faith enough to see any difference between Christianity and Judaism that the Jew can do whatever evil he wills without facing any opposition. And the Negro was never a threat until white men made him a threat by elevating him to a god.

The sickness of the European lies deep in his soul. In his heart, which contains his soul, the European believes that the liberals are right: Christian Europe and the men and women who built it and loved it, particularly the men, were evil. Any white man who stands with the white men of the past stands condemned before the tribunal of Liberaldom. Rather than face that dreadful tribunal, the modern European seeks to free himself of the original sin of whiteness by attaching himself to the Jews, to the Negroes, or (as is usually the case) to both. The flight from whiteness and original sin is what drives the halfway-house Christians to genuflect before the secular state of Israel and to burn incense in their churches to the great generic Negro god.

Does knowledge of a fatal condition help one to combat that fatal condition? Herman Melville didn’t think so:

“For in tremendous extremities human souls are like drowning men; well enough they know they are in peril; well enough they know the causes of that peril; --nevertheless, the sea is the sea, and these drowning men do drown.” -- Pierre

Is it all in vain then to know that the disease of the white man is one of faith and that only a recovery of his lost faith can save him? No, it is not in vain. Melville wrote Pierre in the throes of despair; he went on to write Clarel, in which he urged Clarel to:

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.

Those two quotes from Melville represent two different planes of existence. In Pierre, Melville speaks as a modern European, a man without faith. In Clarel he speaks from the depths of his heart and articulates the hope of a European who has regained his faith. Pierre represents the European’s dark night of the soul, and Clarel represents his redemption.

Reason alone cannot restore the European’s sanity, because reason lacks vision. Faith transcends reason, because faith involves the heart, which is the spiritual organ of sight. From an empirical, rational standpoint it makes no difference if one European stands before the great liberal tribunal and declares his eternal defiance of the tribunal and his unyielding support of the ancient Europeans. The tribunal is the sea, and the drowning men still drown. But in the spiritual realm, which we see when we look through, not with, the eye, every human soul contains a world. And the world of one antique European can outweigh the principles of a legion of liberal Babylonians. Satan conquers by distorting and diverting man’s spiritual eye, his heart. So keep thy heart, thou man of Europe, and thou shalt ride triumphant over ruin and death. +

The God of Europe

“Come and see.”

The inner life of the European people, chronicled in the folklore collected by men like the Brothers Grimm and in the works of the poet-historians of the white race such as Shakespeare and Walter Scott, shows such a thematic similarity to, and a spiritual sympathy with, the ancient Hebrews, that one would almost suspect the proponents of the theory that the Europeans and the ancient Hebrews were one and the same people are correct. Truth be told though, I never have been able to understand the lengthy genealogy books about the European people, so I can’t really make an assertion for or against the Hebrew-European connection. But I do find it curious that modern historians always assume the historians who are closest in time to the events they are writing about are liars. Thus, we are supposed to know nothing about Brutus, the great grandson of Aeneas, or about King Arthur despite the fact that Geoffrey of Monmouth told us about them. “He was a Christian monk and therefore a liar.” And on it goes; all the ancient history written by ancient chroniclers is supposed to be lies.

It is not essential to establish an air-tight case for the Hebrew-European link (even if you had one, the liberals wouldn’t believe it) to see that the European’s culture is, at its core, the human side of the divine-human synergy. How do we know this to be true? The same way we know we love another person: through a sympathetic bond between our heart and the heart of the beloved.

The issue of European culture, and its superiority to every other culture, is only complicated when the sneering intellectuals, the academics, get involved. They have no reason to scoff at those who place the European on a level above the other races because they themselves have created a rigid anti-European hierarchy based on far less research than the hierarchal structure of the “racist” biblical historians. The liberals simply assert; proof is unnecessary because it is self-evident that the white race is an evil race at the bottom of the evolutionary ladder. The ladder has colored people on every rung above the white man. And at the top of the ladder is the black man. Of course, the liberal’s racial hierarchal system is the exact opposite of what was the unarticulated belief of the white race for thousands of years.

The modern half-way house Christians tell us that all talk about racial superiority and Christian cultures is anti-Christian. “Racially we are all sons of Adam, and there is no such thing as a Christian culture; all have sinned and fallen short...” We need not pull out a 700-page book of Biblical research that proves the non-colored races are not the descendents of Adam in order to answer the halfway-house Christians. All we need to say to them are the words of the apostle Philip, who echoed our Lord’s words when asked, “Can there any good come out of Nazareth?”

“Come and see.”

Look at the Europe of the white man through, not with, the eyes. What do you see? If you haven’t sold your soul for a devilish pot of lentils you’ll see the Christ of Handel’s Messiah: “And He shall reign for ever and ever.”

When the “higher” form of biblical exegesis started in the mid-1800’s, Thomas Hughes, author of Tom Brown’s Schooldays, stated:

We may not wholly agree with the last position which the ablest investigators have laid down, that unless the truth of the history of our Lord – the facts of his life, death, resurrection, and ascension – can by proved by ordinary historical evidence, applied according to the most approved and latest methods, Christianity must be given up as not true. We know that our own certainty as to these facts does not rest on a critical historical investigation...

Granting then cheerfully, that if these facts on the study of which they are engaged are not facts,-- if Christ was not crucified, and did not rise from the dead, and ascend to God his father, -- there has been no revelation, and Christianity will infallibly go the way of all lies, either under their assaults or those of their successors,-- they must pardon us if even at the cost of being thought and called fools for our pains, we deliberately elect to live our lives on the contrary assumption. It is useless to tell us that we know nothing of these things, that we can know nothing until their critical
examination is over; we can only say, “Examine away; but we do know something of
this matter, whatever you may assert to the contrary, and mean to live on that
knowledge.” -- from Alfred the Great

I feel the same way about European Christianity. My love for Europe and my belief that in the European culture we see the face of Jesus Christ is not based on the researchers who support the Hebraic-European theory, nor is it diminished by those who claim European Christianity was an invention of the Germanic peoples and had nothing to do with genuine Christianity. To all the experts, my response is the same as Thomas Hughes: “I do know something of this matter,” and I see and believe because I have learned from the people of antique Europe, to see life “feelingly.”

Research has a minor place in the scheme of things because research is dependent on an objective researcher and an objective examiner of the research. But man is not an objective creature. He does not use his reason to determine what is true; he uses his reason to defend that which he wants to be true. Is there then no way out of the rationalist dilemma? Yes, there is:

“You can prove anything with figures; and reason can lead you anywhere; but if you’ve got a real strong feeling about something, deep-seated and unshakable,
it is bound to be right.”

-- P. C. Wren in Bubble Reputation

Of course, the obvious objection to such an outlandish attack on reason is, “Suppose I feel just as deeply that Europe and the white man are evil, as you feel that the old European culture is God’s culture.” Then I would assert, even though it sounds undemocratic and impolite, “that you have not reached the core of your soul. You have no depth. Remove the layers of superficiality from your heart, and assume that the void you are afraid you’ll find if you go through the labyrinth of the human heart is not a void; it is where He dwells.”

The liberal is consistent on the issue of the antique European: “He is evil.” But the liberal is schizophrenic on the issue of Christianity. He doesn’t believe that Christ is risen, but yet when you assert that the Christian Church must always have a European face the liberal tells you that you are not being Christian. You can’t claim the right to say what is Christian after you have already dogmatically denounced the major tenets of Christianity.

The neo-pagans, the older ones who even bothered to formulate an ideology, claim the Europeans changed the real Christianity, which was an anemic bloodless faith, into a manly, heroic faith. But now in the 21st century, the real Christianity has surfaced again and the Europeans should shun it. The neo-pagans are wrong. Christianity has only one face, and it is a European one. The Europeans saw, in Christ, the true Thor, the hero God above all other hero Gods. There is no dichotomy between the God that St. Paul encountered on the road to Damascus and the hero God of the Europeans.

The saddest lot of all is the halfway-house Christians. They believe, but because they seek no help for their unbelief, they will soon become non-believing liberals. The Catholic halfway-house Christian claims he needs only the Church. “Prior to Scripture there was the Church, and without Scripture we can know God, through His Church.”

The Protestant fundamentalist counters with, “Before there was a Christian Church, there was the Bible; we know God through the Holy Scriptures.”

Missing from both halfway-house churches is the human factor. Human beings must read the Holy Scriptures and the Church documents with the proper spirit if God’s revelation is to be believed. And to believe, a man must be able to “come and see.” He must see the embodiment of Christianity in the spirit and blood of a people. The image of the golden harp is still apropos. Can even a golden harp produce one single note of music without the touch of a human hand?

Some thirty years ago I had a conversation with a retired Roman Catholic priest. I was a young man and he was an old man. I asked him what he thought was the greatest obstacle to faith in Jesus Christ. He stated that the biggest obstacle was that, “There are so few signs.”

I went away from my conversation with the priest with a greater respect for his honesty, but I also left profoundly depressed. “Are there really so few signs?” Of course, our Lord’s words come to mind: “And there shall be no sign given... but the sign of the prophet Jonah.” How can we know that sign? It has always been my feeling, my deep-seated feeling, that our Lord has planted, in our blood, the means of knowing and loving Him. But we must be true to our blood in order to see our Lord. The European who has become a stranger to his own blood needs to come and see the European cottage in the woods. Then he will see with the eyes of the heart, and know that his redeemer liveth, the God of eternal Europe. +

Till We Have Built Jerusalem

And they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads. – Rev. 22: 4

I recently read Charlotte Mary Yonge’s Reasons Why I Am a Catholic and Not a Roman Catholic (1901). I infinitely prefer her brand of Catholicism to Leo XIII’s brand of Catholicism, but my preferences are meaningless and Miss Yonge’s points are moot because neither Yonge’s Catholicism nor Leo XIII’s Catholicism have survived past the 1960’s.

Is this the proof that both versions of the Faith were false? Well, I don’t think the fact that a Faith has not survived is proof that it is false. Islam has retained more of its core than Christianity, but that does not, in my judgment, make Islam true and Christianity false. A religion can only be judged false when it fails the Shakespearean test: the test of reality. And in that test Christianity still stands as the one true religion. But when we are talking about Anglo-Catholicism and Roman-Catholicism, we are not talking about the Faith itself, we are talking about two organizations’ claim that they have preserved the original Faith of the Apostles. In that regard, the Anglican Church and the Roman Catholic Church have been shown to be false claimants; neither have preserved the faith of the apostles (nor for that matter have the Orthodox Church or the Protestant churches). What seems to be missing in all the churches is a desire to see Christ whole, in His divinity and His humanity. And consequently where each church goes wrong is in attempting to incorporate only a portion of Christ’s personality into their theology.

We have all had the experience, particularly in this age of pop psychology and pop theology, of being put into a category that doesn’t really suit our personality completely or that is a totally false category. Our Lord had similar problems with the apostles. St. Peter had to be rebuked: “Get thee behind me, Satan,” and none of the apostles were trusted to impart Christ’s message until after Pentecost. And St. Paul needed a personal revelation before he could understand the personality of Christ. Of course not even a personal revelation would have done him any good if he hadn’t already been struggling to live a life of the spirit.

I think the image that appears to block our encounter with the living God is the false abstracted portrait of God that original sin paints. The remedy, as I have suggested before, is to journey through that labyrinth called the human heart. Anything that impedes the Shakespearean journey turns us not toward God but toward Satan, even if it is called Roman Catholicism, Traditionalism, Orthodoxy, Anglo-Catholicism or Protestantism. (1)

When I look at the churches in the nineteenth century, I see much that is admirable, but I see none that have carried their admirable visions of Christianity into the 20th or 21st centuries. They have all renounced the integral Christ for an abstracted Christ that suits their mundane and often sinister earthly political purposes.

“Another cause inflamed the minds of the nation at large, no less than the tempting prospect of the wealth of England animated the soldiery. So much had been written and said on either side concerning the form of church government, that it had become a matter of infinitely more consequence in the eyes of the multitude than the doctrines of that gospel which both churches had embraced. The Prelatists and Presbyterians of the more violent kind became as illiberal as the Papists, and would scarcely allow the possibility of salvation beyond the pale of their respective churches. It was in vain remarked to these zealots, that had the Author of our holy religion considered any peculiar form of church government as essential to salvation, it would have been revealed with the same precision as under the Old Testament dispensation.”

– Walter Scott in A Legend of Montrose

What Scott observes in the zealots on every side of the British religious wars, a tendency to make the forms of worship the faith itself, has destroyed Christian Europe.

The forms of worship are not the faith itself. They exist only to lead us to the object of worship. You cannot worship the Latin Mass or the ‘born again’ experience without eventually becoming the leading character in a tragedy, the tragedy of a man without a vital faith. European man became, when he embraced formalism, a second-hand man, incapable of coming to grips with any aspect of existence directly.

Some years back I quoted Henri de Lubac, who said that modern man had lost his appetite for God. If that appetite returned, de Lubac claimed, then belief would return. But how can one hunger for any of the rationalized, second-hand gods presented to us by the so-called Christian churches? Their gods are Mr. Rogers and Tash. The antidote for such false faiths is the folk wisdom of the West, which says the human heart contains the secret treasure that will forever remain hidden from the academics. And therein lies the key to the de-Christianization of our churches and our culture: the Church has become academized as has our society. The Christian folk have passed out of existence. Without them there can be no genuine Christianity as it once existed in Europe. We are still reaping the bitter harvest of idea-religion, spawned by the Greeks and brought into the Church for its destruction by Aquinas.

Those who would be Christian folk cannot wait for the churches to break out of their bondage to the academy, which is a bondage to Satan. They must turn away from the academy, which is the modern church and the modern world, and start on the slow but sure journey through the human heart that our European ancestors made so long ago.

I have conservative nationalist literature dating as far back as 1979 in which the reader is urged to stop illegal and legal colored immigration by writing to his local congressmen. Why do such actions never work? Because we cannot stop an invasion by placing a form of government above the interests of our people. The cry should be, “In the name of our God and our people, this invasion must be stopped!” Fortunately Alfred the Great didn’t have a congressman to write to; if he had, he never would have become Alfred the Great.

Quentin Compson in Faulkner’s The Sound and the Fury asks his father how he knows life is meaningless. The drunken, nihilist father responds that he knew about the meaningless of existence at the moment tragedy became second-hand. Quentin’s father is a modern European. His death in life is the result of the triumph of formalism in the Christian churches. The Christian faith is a two-edged sword. If it is seen whole and taken to heart, it is our salvation. But if Christianity is dissected, decompartmentalized, and turned into a formalized system, it becomes a virulent poison.

It would be disastrous to follow the advice of the neopagans and jettison Christ in order to save the white race. Christ was, is, and always shall be our only hope. He is our only hope because He is the living God. But jettison the worship of the modern icons of modern, Christless Christianity, such as racial egalitarianism, democracy, and Tridentinism, we must.

The guardians at the gates of the various Christian churches can all present an apologia for their right to be called the true heirs of the apostles. But are they the heirs of the apostles? The apostles lived and worked with the Lord during his life on earth, and they told the Christ story after His death and resurrection. It seems that the heirs of the apostles are the Europeans who lived with Christ on a daily basis and wove the Christian story into the seamless garment of their culture. How can churches who demean and denounce that culture and its people be the heirs of the apostles? They can’t, and they are not. Was the rock, against which the gates of hell would not prevail, an institution with a rational, systemic schema of salvation? Or was the rock St. Peter’s declaration of faith? “Thou are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

Faith, the faith that moves mountain, comes from those who have seen the face of Jesus Christ. Do we see His face in the liberal, white-hating, country-club churches of the modern world, or do we see that precious Face in the lives and culture of the ancient Europeans?

Europe is being engulfed by barbarians of color because white Europeans no longer desire to see the face of Jesus Christ. Gone is the patriotic desire of William Blake:

Bring me my bow of burning gold:
Bring me my arrows of desire:
Bring me my spear: O clouds unfold!
Bring me my chariot of fire.

I will not cease from mental fight,
Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand
Till we have built Jerusalem
In England's green and pleasant land.

The end result of a second-hand faith is Satanism. The liberals are openly satanic, and the half-way house Christians are unable to resist them because they have a second-hand faith. And when life is viewed from such a standpoint, the dramatic conflict between good and evil is seen as a fairytale that mature, thinking people have left behind. But that is what I love about Ratty’s Europe. It is childlike and Christ-centered. In that Europe, Christ is real, the devil is real, and Christian Europe is a living, breathing entity as well.

The children of darkness have given up their religion of the heart for the religion of the mind. This goes against the wisdom of the race. The white man has always preferred the leaden casket over the one of gold and the one of silver; the cottage in the woods to the sumptuous palace; and the blood of the Lamb to the magic talisman. Let the sons and daughters of this ‘new age of enlightenment’ keep all their magic talismans: rationalism, science, and multiculturalism. The European will stay with the European cottage in the woods that contains the things he loves. And his childlike attachment to the things he loves will keep him bound to the Sacred Heart Who speaks to men through the little things that the clever men and women have discarded. The old fairy tales are correct: the faithful heart always triumphs over the satanic mind. +

______________________________
(1) I don’t think one has to have read Shakespeare (although it helps) in order to follow the Shakespearean way to God; however, I do think it is the only way. We must strip away false layer after false layer from our hearts till we get to its center. And then – well – and then we find He has been there all along.

Let Be

Since no man has aught of what he
leaves, what is’t to leave betimes? [Let be.] – Hamlet

The conservatives place great store by the U. S. Constitution. It has been perverted, they claim. Is there any truth to the conservatives’ assertion? Possibly. Jefferson, Franklin and Madison might be slightly surprised at some of the modern interpretations of their work, but in the main I think today’s liberals are in line with the authors of the U. S. Constitution. They are all from the same liberal pea pod.

The essential question is not whether our written Constitution has been perverted; the paramount issue is whether the unwritten law of the European people, which is infinitely more important than any paper-and-ink law, has been changed. And the answer to that question is, “Yes, the unwritten law of our people, the white European people, has changed, and it has changed for the worse.”

Prior to the 20th century, the unwritten law of the white man, the law that took precedence over every written law, was that His heavenly law, the law of divine charity, was the law above all other laws. From that law the European derived his love for his own people and the civilization that his people created as a result of their incorporate union with Christ. Isaiah prophetically describes such a union between a particular people, their culture and their God:

Thou shalt no more be termed Forsaken; neither shall thy land any more be termed Desolate: but thou shalt be called Hephzibah, and thy land Beulah: for the LORD delighteth in thee, and thy land shall be married. For as a young man marrieth a virgin, so shall thy sons marry thee: and as the bridegroom rejoiceth over the bride, so shall thy God rejoice over thee. I have set watchmen upon thy walls, O Jerusalem, which shall never hold their peace day nor night: ye that make mention of the LORD, keep not silence, And give him no rest, till he establish, and till he make Jerusalem a praise in the earth.

By the 21st century, the European had a new unwritten law that ruled his heart: “The white man must hate his own people and his own culture.” That new unwritten law will be much harder to change than a written law because an unwritten law is never questioned; it has become part of the people’s soul.

How did the hatred of the white man become the unwritten law of the white man? The question is answered for us in a passage from Uncle Silas by J. S. LeFanu:

Of my wretched uncle's religion what am I to say? Was it utter hypocrisy, or had it at any time a vein of sincerity in it? I cannot say. I don't believe that he had any heart left for religion, which is the highest form of affection, to take hold of. Perhaps he was a sceptic with misgivings about the future, but past the time for finding anything reliable in it. The devil approached the citadel of his heart by stealth, with many zigzags and parallels.

By stealth, by zigzags and parallels, the devil persuaded the guardians of the Faith to present Christianity as a rational system of salvation in which one could bypass the wellspring of genuine faith, all those sentimental intuitions that come from the human heart. The Reformation was an attempt to recapture the wellspring of Faith, but the effort quickly became a rationalist carbon copy of the Catholic Church’s method of inoculating the faithful with a virulent virus which destroys the heart. I saw, in a recent pastoral letter of the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod, one of the best of the splinter branches of the Church, an example of the fatal flaw that led to the death of Christian Europe.

Another way the Gospel can be obscured is when too much emphasis is put on an emotional response to the Gospel. Some Christians believe that unless they have some sort of ecstatic, charismatic experience, or feel some sort of “spiritual high,” they are not really Christians. It is truly sad that some people look into their own hearts for the security that they are children of God, instead of putting their hope and trust in the objective work of Christ for them, and in the means God uses to come to them—His Word and Sacraments.

It is quite true that an excessively emotional response to the Gospel can be harmful, but we ultimately must look into our own hearts for the passion to respond to God’s word and for the desire to receive the sacraments. If you kill the heart, the Word of God becomes a legal document and the sacraments become magic talismans. Richard Weaver addresses this point in his book Visions of Order:

This brings us to the necessity of concluding that the upholders of mere dialectic, whether they appear in this modern form or in another, are among the most subversive enemies of society and culture. They are attacking an ultimate source of cohesion in the interest of a doctrine which can issue only in nullity. It is no service to man to impugn his feeling about the world qua feeling. Feeling is the source of that healthful tension between man and what is -- both objectively and subjectively. If man could be brought to believe that all feeling about the world is wrong, there would be nothing for him but collapse.

Nothing but collapse. Hasn’t that happened? The liberals hate the white man because they hate Christian Europe, but why are professed Christians so eager to denounce the white European? They denounce him in the name of a false rationalization of the faith. The Christian guardians at the gate see, when they look at the labyrinth of the human heart, all sorts of dangers lying in wait for the Christian everyman. There is the dark lady of sensuality, the demon of emotional excess, and countless other goblins and succubae that can destroy the soul. “Far better,” the guardians of the dialectic tell us, “to follow our rational, safe church documents, or our sensible Biblical exegesis, all the way to heaven.” But in their blindness they have failed to take note of the greatest of all obstacles to the faith, the dragon of intellectual pride, which resides in the dialectical corners of the mind, not in the human heart. Compared to him all the dangers lurking in the labyrinth of the human heart are nothing. And it is at the center of the human heart that we can find the only means to defeat the dragon of intellectual pride: His sympathetic, divine heart.

A timid man who loves his children will fight, with a ferocity that surpasses the pagan warrior, when his children are threatened. The Christian European once fought with the strength of ten thousand pagan warriors when his Europe, which was the fruit of his marriage to Christ, was threatened. But now that the dialectic of rationalist Christianity has triumphed, the swords of Christendom have rusted in their sheaths, and the golden harp lies as mute on Europe’s walls as the Harp that once through Tara’s halls... The swords will shine brightly, and the harp shall make music when the heart of the European is once again engaged in existence. Kipling was half-right when he said, “When the Saxon begins to hate.” When the European begins to love Christ’s Europe again, instead of studying scholarly words that tell him there is no such thing as a Christian civilization. And when he hates the devil and all of his works instead of ‘white racists,’ then we shall see miracles once more. The old minstrel got it right: “The heart that truly loves never forgets.” Awake, fellow Europeans, your God and your nation are calling you to rise and ride.

The liberals delight in every outrage committed against white people and every attack on the older European culture because they are satanic. And white Christians refuse to protect and defend white people and European culture because a dialectical shroud has descended over their hearts. The European whose heart still indignant breaks at the colorization and the ruination of Europe must not only face the liberal dragon alone, but he must also be prepared to be attacked from behind by white Christians. So be it. Better to fight on alone than to fall victim to the dialectic or to allow the liberals to hold the field uncontested. “Let be.” +

Sir Walter Scott: Down These Mean Streets

I once heard a Catholic professor of literature explain that one needed to read classic works of literature because they built up the natural man to the point where he was ready to receive the supernatural truths of religion. And I once heard a Protestant educator explain that “we don’t read literature to learn about the truth. We read literature to hear the truth expressed well.” Both the Catholic and the Protestant were blasphemers. They were not blasphemers because they denigrated literature; they were blasphemers because they denounced the truth and the way.

Divine truth does not come to us from outside in predigested church documents. It comes to us from within. The poet – at least the true poet, as distinct from the mere wordsmith – intuits divine truth from listening to the promptings of his heart and by sympathizing with the yearnings in the hearts of his fellow men. There is more wisdom in the fourth verse of Phillip Brooks’s “O Little Town of Bethlehem” than in all the books of philosophy and theology ever written:

How silently, how silently,
The wondrous gift is given!
So God imparts to human hearts
The blessings of his heaven;

No ear may hear his coming;
But in this world of sin,
Where meek souls will receive him, still,
The dear Christ enters in.

When a religious expert denies that the heart’s promptings and not the experts’ documents lead us to God, he blasphemes. He blasphemes because he is denying the divinity in man and the humanity in God. The dear Christ cannot enter in to the sterile cold world of the supernatural element devoid of humanity nor through the prophetic element devoid of humanity.

The ancient arduous process of listening and responding to the heart’s promptings has now ceased with the modern European man. But there was a time when men went through the process. And from such “convertites there is much matter to be heard and learn’d.”

There is a reason why there are no great novels written anymore. And the reason is not because the modern world lacks men and women who can write well. No, there are numerous authors who write well. But it takes more than an ability to write well to put together a great novel. An author must believe, as Dostoyevsky believed, that “Man is a mystery; if I spend my life trying to solve that mystery, I will not have lived in vain” if he is going to write great novels. In other worlds, a man must believe that there is something in man worth exploring.

A dogmatic Catholic would not be interested in exploring the soul of man because the dogmatic Catholic would claim he already knew the truth about man. Truth comes from outside of a man, from nature; therefore, there is no need to explore man’s soul; one only has to cultivate it. And the same is true for the dogmatic Protestant who believes “we know the truth, so we only look for books that express the truth well.” The liberal is also part of the anti-humanity triumvirate: “There is no soul; there is only a psyche, so we read fiction in order to interpret the characters’ motives in the light of modern psychology.” The ultimate compliment a liberal can give a novel is to say that it is “full of psychological insights.”

When the external props of Christian civilization were crumbling in the late 18th and 19th centuries, the great authors of that time period went deeper and produced a body of literature, true literature, which has never been equaled and certainly never shall be equaled by the post-Christians of our era. The litany of the greats is too long to list; it begins with Scott and goes on through Le Fanu and Thomas Hughes. All the greats of the 19th century (and I use the term ‘19th century’ loosely because Scott slightly predates it and men such as J. M. Barrie, Kenneth Grahame, and A. E. W. Mason slightly postdate it) bear witness to the reality of the God-man because they took the mystery that was within seriously. But most of the great authors of the 19th century, such as Dostoyevsky and Dickens, who give us a vision of the God-man, do not give us an anchor to help us hold that vision down to earth. It is always in danger of flying away from us and becoming a phantom or an airy nothing. That is because most of the authors of that magnificent century were fighting modernity from within and without. They were fighting the outside forces: Darwinism, capitalism, feminism, and Marxism, and they were fighting the spirit of modernity that was within them. But the great ones, though tainted with modernity, saw the risen Lord standing above the citadels of modernity. One man, however, was not tainted by modernity, and he can supply us with a vision and an anchor for that vision. That man is Walter Scott.

Scott is generally credited with reviving chivalry, and certainly the chivalric code is seldom missing from a Scott novel, but Scott does not view knight-errantry in the same light as do such authors as Ariosto. He gives the warriors of the Middle Ages their due, but his heroes always adhere to a code that is deeper than the medieval code. Scott, following St. Paul and Shakespeare, shifts the emphasis from the pursuit of fame and honor and directs his heroes’ efforts toward charity. When driven to the wall, Scott’s heroes and heroines reveal to us the wisdom of St. Paul. Jeanie Deans prevails because her faith cannot be broken. It is not based on prophecies which can fail, nor on knowledge which can fail; it is based on that which cannot fail – charity. And Quentin Durward wins the fair maiden not because he prevails in glorious combat but because he forgoes glorious combat in order to perform an act of charity.

It’s not that other 19th century authors do not place charity at the center of their visions. They do. But where Dickens often gets sidetracked by democratic delusions and Dostoyevsky by Russian messianism, Scott never wavers from the path of St. Paul. He admires the Highlanders but he does not place his ultimate hope on their political success. There is only one reign worthy of our undivided support: His reign of charity. In Scott’s view, political systems come and go, and our support or resistance to them should depend on how closely they adhere to His reign of charity.

In his poetry and novels, Scott eschews the classical approach which consists of feeble attempts to recapture the glory of Greece, and instead embarks on a romantic quest through the human heart. There and there alone is the anchor. In our hearts is the imprint of His heart.

It was Scott’s special destiny to take up Shakespeare’s mantle and show European man that the journey through the human heart is not a passive journey but an intensely active one. There are so many dragons along the way that must be slain, the dragons of all the seven deadly sins, but above all, the dragon of intellectual pride.

Scott’s authorial voice speaks loud and clear through the actions of his heroes and heroines. It is charity alone that can anchor our hearts to His. And that charitable center of our heart can not be reached by the spiritually weak or the intellectually proud.

Scott, with characteristic modesty, once told a woman who compared him to Shakespeare that he was not fit to tie Shakespeare’s shoe laces. But there is a great similarity between the two authors. They both bid us look away from the outward pageantry of life to the romance that is within. And that is extremely rare. Few authors have the courage to embark on the inward journey because they fear that which is within. But the inner journey through the human heart is the real journey that the hero must take. Scott gives us the anchor to prevail against all the forces of hell because he himself is the hero Raymond Chandler was looking for: “But down these mean streets a man must go, who is not himself mean, who is neither tarnished nor afraid.”

To those of us tarnished with modernity and afraid (and who is not?), Walter Scott reaches out over what is really only a short span of years and bids us take heart, as Quentin Durward does. Though exiled from his native land, Quentin prevails because he knows that all the enduring graces of home and hearth he takes with him. “Behold the Kingdom of God is within you.”

What Homer Knew and Plato Didn't

The right-wing pagans who reject Christianity because it is anti-white are partially correct; the institutional churches are against white people and our culture, past and present. But when the pagans suggest a return to Greece, my question is “which Greece?” If you’re advocating a return to the Greek philosophers, you may as well stay with the anti-white Churches because they are the heirs of the Greek philosophical tradition. St. Paul had no luck with the Greek philosophers because everything was speculative to them. They believed in the idea of truth but not in the incarnation of truth. That God could become incarnate was a return to the ‘silly’ gods such as Zeus and Hera which the philosophers had already rejected. Is it true that an advanced culture never had a sillier religion than the ancient Greeks? That’s what the intellectuals, the same ones who admire Greek philosophy, say. But if their religion was so silly, why is the European literary tradition so steeped in Greek mythology? Is it because the European poets are silly too? Well, yes, they are silly to the modern intellectuals; they can be read to produce an effect, an emotion, in the eviscerated academician, but they are not, to the academician, vehicles of truth.

In the last death gasp of a society, the academicians rule. Plato’s perfect society is a soulless, lifeless society. The European poets knew this, which is why they called on Homer for inspiration rather than on Plato. And it’s ironic that there is more realistic thinking in the metaphors of Homer than in the syllogisms of Plato, just as there is more realistic thinking in the works of Shakespeare, Scott, and Dostoyevsky than there is in the tomes of St. Thomas, Descartes, and Hegel.

If the new pagans prefer Zeus to Plato and St. Thomas, I’m with them. So were the European poets. There is more humanity in the Greek myths than in Greek philosophy, but there is something else that the new pagans overlook. The old European poets deepened the poetry of the Greeks. Homer’s Odysseus and Sophocles’ Oedipus were not looking for a non-human substitute for Zeus; they were looking for a man-god more human than Zeus. And if the Greek philosophers had not regarded Homer’s stories as frivolous nonsense, they would have heard St. Paul’s story of Christ’s Homeric victory over Satan and fallen to their knees and believed, just as Homer and Sophocles did when they crossed that threshold between heaven and hell and were vouchsafed a vision of the incarnate God. They knew him at once as God, because they knew, in contrast to the philosophers, that a divine God is a human God.

It’s not that there aren’t dangers when one follows the way of Odysseus, the way of the man of flesh and blood. Of course there are. There is Circe, there is Calypso, and of course, the Cyclops. But if the heart is alive, there is a chance, a good chance, that the Greek hero will find his way to The Hero. However, the philosopher will never find or see anything; he will be hopelessly lost in a rational maze of his own construction. Yet when the Church condemns paganism, it is generally the paganism of Odysseus that is condemned, not the paganism of the philosophers, which seems to go against Christianity. In order to feel the need for a redeemer, one must still be a man with a heart who sees life “feelingly” and can be moved to passionate repentance for sins done with passion. The philosopher, the man with the disembodied brain, needs no redeemer, for he sees nothing from which he needs to be redeemed. Passion, death, and sin are just ideas that have no real life outside of the mind of the philosopher. He, or more accurately, his mind, is almighty and self-sufficient. He smugly contemplates his own self-sufficiency through all eternity.

The Odysseus type of pagan needs to be converted to a faith that is purer and greater than his own, but since he has a functioning heart there is a good chance he will respond to His sacred heart. In contrast, the philosopher is dead. He cannot respond heart to heart to God because he has willfully constructed mind-forged manacles over and around his heart. Odysseus’s paganism would be a step up for the philosopher.

And the conflict persists today. The Kevin Strom pagans are, with their respect for kin and kind, at least human beings, while the various Greek Churchmen who think they have reached the zenith of human perfection, have yet to be born.