The European Vision: Sources of Hostility

“It is sufficient,” said the Disinherited Knight. “Half the sum my present necessities compel me to accept; of the remaining half, distribute one moiety among yourselves, sir squires, and divide the other half betwixt the heralds and the pursuivants, and minstrels, and attendants.”

The squires, with cap in hand, and low reverences, expressed their deep sense of a courtesy and generosity not often practiced, at least upon a scale so extensive. The Disinherited Knight then addressed his discourse to Baldwin, the squire of Brian de Bois-Gilbert. “From your master,” said he, “I will accept neither arms nor ransom. Say to him in my name, that with lances, as well on foot as on horseback. To this mortal quarrel he has himself defied me, and I shall not forget the challenge. Meantime, let him be assured that I hold him not as one of his companions, with whom I can with pleasure exchange courtesies; but rather as one with whom I stand upon terms of mortal defiance.”

-Ivanhoe by Walter Scott

"The time has come," the Walrus said, "To talk of many things: Of shoes--and ships--and sealing-wax-- Of cabbages--and kings-- And why the sea is boiling hot-- And whether pigs have wings." A friend whose advice I respect recently advised me to open up my column to comments. By doing so, my friend argued, I could have a greater influence and I could deal with all my detractors. “Do you know what they are saying about you?” With all due respect I don’t intend to follow my friend’s advice. On the question of influencing more people: if you haven’t been able to “influence” a person with a heartfelt, carefully written article, why should you be able to influence them with a shorter, less carefully written letter? Comments written by way of email tend to be sloppy and snippy, and being full of original sin I’m sure my replies would tend to be sloppy and snippy. So right away I would be involved in a sloppy and snippy quarrel. Hardly in keeping with the code of my exemplars, such as Walter Scott.

And what about those detractors? For the brief space of time that I received comments the detractors outnumbered the supporters by ten to one. Who has the time or energy to deal with that many detractors? Despite being time and energy-consuming, I still might debate my detractors if I genuinely believed that I could convince one living soul among them that I was right and they were wrong by the use of rational, dialectical argument. But I’ve lived long enough to see the futility of such arguments. Human beings form their opinions based on passions. They use their reason to defend their passions. No rational argument can change a man’s passions. He has to come to a belief that his passions are misplaced by an internal process that defies rational exposition. For instance, I converted to Christianity in my mid-twenties thanks to the good offices of the European poets. Their vision of Christianity was my vision. After converting to Christianity I was determined to find a church that shared my vision of Christ. My passion to worship led me to the Roman Catholic Church. At the time of my entry into the Roman Catholic Church there was no argument on the face of the earth that could have convinced me that the Roman Catholic Church was not the one and only Christian church just as Edmund Gwen in Miracle on 34^th Street was the one and only Santa Claus. After a short purgatory in the Novus Ordo Church and a longer stay with the traditionalists, I came to the conclusion that my vision of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church’s vision were incompatible. I had to choose between two passions, my vision of Christ or my desire to belong to a church. I chose to stay with the vision. At that point I was open to all the rational arguments against the Roman Catholic Church’s claim to be the one true church, because an internal non-rational process had made me receptive to reason. You can only reach people who are going through an internal process much like your own. When they see their inmost passion embodied in words they respond, and a rare thing happens: two kindred souls meet.

“Do you know what they are saying about you?” Of course I know. I’ve lived in Liberaldom my entire life. I don’t have to listen to every single liberal rant in order to know the enemy. Their rants are not that original. And what could I do to stop the rants if I did listen to them all?

No might nor greatness in mortality
Can censure scape; back-wounding calumny
The whitest virtue strikes. What king so strong
Can tie the gall up in the slanderous tongue?

If even a king cannot stop back-wounding calumny, how can we lesser mortals stop it?

The antique Europeans did not put forward any theories of race. They had a prejudice that whites should stay with their own and coloreds should stay with their own. Conquistadores, pirates, and mountain men often violated the white man’s code, but it was a definite code that existed in the heart of the Christian European Everyman of the Catholic and Protestant persuasions up till the latter half of the 20^th century. (1) Then it seemed that almost overnight all the old prejudices were thrown away and a new Christianity was posited. In the name of the universal brotherhood of man race-mixing was not only permitted, it was encouraged as the Christian thing to do. What caused this colossal change?

The liberal will tell us that a new enlightened philosophy caused the change. The cobwebs of superstition and prejudice were washed away and light and progress came into the old, dilapidated European house. But when we see the bitter fruits of the new enlightened Christianity we must reject the liberals’ assessment.

One spring I took a walk around a nearby lake on two successive days. On the first day the lake was covered with ice. On the second day the ice was entirely gone. It appeared that the ice had melted overnight. But of course this was not the case. The melting process had taken place over a longer period of time. The final deicing only appeared as a sudden overnight phenomenon.

Such is the case with the new Christian universalism. It took centuries for Christianity to become a propositional philosophy in which the nature and the personal attributes of God could only be known by studying things outside of man, such as nature and abstract philosophy. Nothing inside man was of any consequence; He, the rational, godded men told us, was to be found in the vaporous mists of their cogitations. All the humanity was extracted from the Christian faith, leaving a hollow shell of a church, dedicated to abstractions such as ‘humanity’ and ‘brotherhood’, and opposed to actual flesh and blood human beings, who held to very basic notions of fidelity to kith and kin. If we replace the God of the hearth fire, the God whom we know through the human things, with a propositional God who can be known only through the intersession of experts on the subject of God, we will become slaves to the new fusionist faith of the Christ-less Christian churches.

The hostility toward the antique, European Christianity that does not equate Christianity with propositional, philosophical liberalism comes from four sources: the liberals, the Roman Catholics, the Protestants, and the neo-pagans. The Roman Catholic is wedded to the doctrine of papal infallibility even though no two Catholics agree on the definition of it; some Catholics invoke it for almost every Papal encyclical, and other Catholics in the traditionalist ranks, for the obvious reason that they want the leeway to disregard what the Vatican II popes say, claim there was only ever one or two infallible Papal statements. Not all traditionalist priests are as cynical as Father ____, who when asked what Papal encyclicals were infallible, said, “Whatever one I agree with is infallible.” Actually such cynicism is preferable to the papolatry of the conservatives. I was once given the boot from my parish when I asked my priest, who taught that John Paul II’s strictures against capital punishment were infallible, “How can Peter contradict Peter? The popes prior to Vatican II supported capital punishment.”

“Those popes didn’t speak infallibly, but John Paul II is speaking infallibly,” was the rather confusing answer.

It was inevitable that papal infallibility would become part of the modern church, because the new doctrine makes the layman completely dependent on the religious expert to tell him what the Christian faith is. If the experts tell him that to love God means to hate one’s own and love the colored races, the poor Catholic layman feels he must do as the experts say. The reason the Catholic grazer can watch his daughter walk down the aisle and marry a black man is because outside of his church he has no faith to cling to. It is to no avail to tell the Roman Catholic layman that there is another Catholic church besides the modern Roman Catholic Church and there is another faith: the heartfelt faith of the people of old Europe. Their secret was discovered by George Fitzhugh, the Southern cavalier and man of letters:

The prevalent philosophy of the day takes cognizance of but half of human nature – and that the worst half. Our happiness is so involved in the happiness and well-being of everything around us that a mere selfish philosophy, like political economy, is a very unsafe and delusive guide.

We employ the term Benevolence to express our outward affections, sympathies, tastes, and feelings, but it is inadequate to express our meaning; it is not the opposite of selfishness, and unselfishness would be too negative for our purpose. Philosophy has been so busy with the worst feature of human nature that it has not even found a name for this, its better feature. We must fall back on Christianity, which embraces man’s whole nature, and though not a code of philosophy, is something better; for its proposes to lead us through the trials and intricacies of life, not by the mere cool calculations of the head, but by the unerring instincts of a pure and regenerate heart. The problem of the Moral World is too vast and complex for the human mind to comprehend; yet the pure heart will, safely and quietly, feel its way through the mazes that confound the head.

Why belabor the point by going through the mini-Romes of the Protestant churches? They have their own denominational popes and their inflexible belief in the propositional faith of the experts, who condemn the blood faith of the antique Europeans in the name of the universal faith of Babylonian Christianity. You will never convince such Christians, Roman Catholic or Protestant, that they are wrong, and the antique, racist Europeans are a more certain touchstone of reality than their “infallible” experts. Such “Christians” produce sadness more than anger. No matter how beautiful, in my eyes, the culture of old Europe seems to be, in comparison to the filth of modern Babylon, the condemnations still come. “We must support the Pope and love our black brothers.” “You seem to be suggesting that Europeans did something special when it was nothing but the grace of God; you are a free-willer.” Modern anti-Christian Christian theology is designed to support the outward forms of the faith to the detriment of the substance of the faith, which is a belief in Christ crucified, Christ risen. What is wrong with modern man? Dostoyevsky told us, “He has lost Jesus Christ.” He still lives though in the European past, which is past, present, and future.

The liberal is a product of the propositional faiths of the Roman Catholic and Protestant churches. If human reason has the final say about the nature of God, what stands in the way of human reason becoming God? Liberals have created a Humpty Dumpty world: “When I use a word, it means anything I want it to mean,” in which they invent abstractions, such as the Noble Savage, and then worship the abstraction. Burke, the supreme anti-liberal of Europe, cut right to the heart of the liberals’ madness when he wrote, “I hate abstractions.” Like their mentors, Voltaire, Rousseau, and Satan, the liberals will mock on. Our task is to hold to the vision that is not dependent on the research of the rationalists.

“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 assent to the contrary, and mean to live on that knowledge.’” We cannot find God in nature or in the abstractions of the rationalists; He is incarnate. We live in Him and through Him; at least that is what the ancient Europeans bore witness to. They wept and believed.

The final chapter in this tragic history is the neo-pagan revolt. Neo-pagans are in rebellion against Christ because, they claim, He has killed the white race with His talk of love and universal brotherhood. To believe such an enormous lie the neo-pagan must join with the liberals and the Christian rationalists in proclaiming the new Christianity of the abstract Christ to be the true Christianity. The Europeans who walked in the garden of Gethsemane with Christ knew differently. And so would the neo-pagans if they truly loved their people.

The collective voice of the antique Europeans says, “We know that Man, and you do not know Him; that is the sum and substance of your tragedy.” Is there one voice that can speak for all those voices? Yes, there is. Writing towards the end of the Christian era of Europe, John Watson (pen name Ian Maclaren) wrote two novels which stand together as one work, titled Beside the Bonnie Brier Bush and The Days of Auld Lang Syne. He speaks for the European people in those works. Such a people, with such a vision of God, must be our guide through this vale of tears. (2)

“Ye’re right, Saunders, and a bonnie stack it makes;” and then Charlie Grant went in with Drumsheugh to the warmth and the kindly light, while the darkness fell upon the empty harvest field, from which the last sheaf had been safely garnered. +

___________________________

(1) Inclusiveness is all the rage in the Roman Catholic and Protestant churches. Yet there is no room for Europeans who believe, as Langland the Catholic, Bunyan the Puritan, and every European Christian prior to the 20^th century believed – that a man should cling to his own people and love them over all.

(2) The psalmist reminds us that we walk through the Valley of the Shadow of Death. The saints and poets of incarnational Europe show us that He walks with us through that Valley to the Mountains beyond it. If the Scottish dialect in Watson’s books is too much for you then let Sheridan LeFanu have the last European word:

It is not easy to recall in calm and happy hours the sensations of an acute sorrow that is past. Nothing, by the merciful ordinance of God, is more difficult to remember than pain. One or two great agonies of that time I do remember, and they remain to testify of the rest, and convince me, though I can see it no more, how terrible all that period was.

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

More Than Nature

Those who look for God only in nature, or judge the universe from what they see in the jungle, are liable to debase even religion, as we have already noted, and are themselves in danger of coming to grievous harm.

-Herbert Butterfield in Christianity and History

I live in two distinct and separate worlds. In one world, the modern post-Christian, anti-European world, I struggle for the necessities of life and must come in contact with the creatures of modernity, who are much scarier than the Creature from the Black Lagoon. In the other world, the world which constitutes my home life, I come into contact with Europeans such as Walter Scott and Kenneth Grahame. I infinitely prefer the second world, the antique European world, to the modern world.

I’ve noted, while wandering through the wasteland of modernity, that the modern European regards the Europeans who lived prior to the 20^th century as evil. This modern practice of regarding your ancestors as evil was not the common practice of Europeans prior to the 20^th century. There were always a few intellectuals, such as Mark Twain, Voltaire, and Rousseau, who condemned the Europeans of the past for their inability to achieve utopia, but the main body of Europeans looked on their ancestors as men and women deserving of respect and emulation. I take more than just an academic interest in the reasons for the modern Europeans’ condemnation of their ancestors, because I identify with the older Europeans and therefore stand with them as a man condemned.

The antique European was put on trial in the 20^th century for the crimes of racism, sexism, and anti-Semitism. On all three counts he was found guilty. He was found guilty of racism because he did not give the black man equal status with the white man. He was found guilty of sexism because he placed the female of the species by the hearth fire with her children and endeavored to keep her out of the workplace. And he was found guilty of anti-Semitism because he thought the unrepentant, unconverted Jew was an enemy of Christian Europe who needed to be carefully watched. In all three cases, racism, sexism, and anti-Semitism, the antique European is only in the wrong if Christ is not the son of God, because a hierarchical structure of the races, a patriarchal ordering of society, and a healthy suspicion of the Jew, is entirely in keeping with the Christian faith. But in modern, Humpty-Dumpty Europe, non-Christian liberals label the antique Europeans as “unchristian” for condoning racism, sexism and anti-Semitism. But why should non-believing liberals be allowed to define the Christian faith? And why is it considered unchristian to keep the savage races in check for their own good as well as the good of the white man; to keep the life-bearers and life-nurturers out of the workplace; and to keep the unrepentant Jew at bay? There is no reason to consider these exemplary acts of “racism,” “sexism,” and “anti-Semitism” to be unchristian other than the obvious reason: the liberals are not Christian and they want to see the safeguards of a Christian society – racial segregation, patriarchy, and protective measures against the Jews – eliminated so that Satan, not Christ, can live and thrive in Europe’s “pleasant pastures.” And they have got their wish; Satan reigns where Christ once reigned.

If we look at the European people’s history we can see that racial integration is at the top of the slippery slope that leads to feminism and religious indifferentism. Why? Because our hearts are designed to love the particular, not the generic. When you deny your own particular race, you will not become a great lover of mankind, even though you might profess to be such; you will be an abstracted human being incapable of loving anyone or anything. If you don’t care enough about your own people as a distinct race of people, why then should you care about distinct and separate sexes and distinct and separate faiths? You won’t care. A man who blends races also blends the sexes and religious faiths.

In Ben Jonson’s eulogy for Shakespeare he makes reference to “insolent Greece and haughty Rome.” Even though the Greeks and the Romans had much to be proud of their insolence and haughtiness strikes a discordant note with the Christian European. But the Greco-Roman pagans had an excuse; they did not know the God-Man who showed His people the strength of humility and the weakness of pride.

What can we say in defense of the modern European, who has surpassed the ancient Greeks in insolence and exceeded the ancient Romans in haughtiness? Nothing can be said in his defense. The modern European is drunk with the sneering, insolent, haughty pride of science. The infamous atheist George Bernard Shaw, in his essay entitled “Back to Methuselah,” tells his readers how the Christian faith withstood the onslaughts of all the secular pagan religions until it ran into the scientific onslaught. Science put the atheistic sneer – and no one could sneer like Shaw – on the face of the European. Prior to the Age of Science, the history of the Christian, European people was much like the history of the ancient Hebrews. When they went bad, they slid back into the nature religions. And when they responded to the God above nature, they pulled themselves out of the mire of nature worship. Once the scientific view of man is institutionalized there is no exit for the European; nature is his permanent god. In the 20^th century, natural apologetics, which showed that Christianity was not in contradiction to the physical sciences, were all the rage in Catholic and Protestant seminaries. But Christianity is against nature. It is not natural to rise from the dead! “We who are about to die demand a miracle.”

Modern civilization stinks of the laboratory, the test tube, and the microscope. Since nature is all, there is no spiritual significance to skin color, sexual orientation, or religious faith. They are all part of nature and therefore subject to nature’s laws. The pagan temptation was always an ever-present threat to European civilization, but paganism, the worship of nature, did not become the permanent faith of the European until he became, “under the influence of the scientific outlook,” more insolent than the Greeks and more haughty than Rome.

There is no room in the new scientific Babylon for the antique European because the antique European carries that within which would destroy Babylon. In his heart the ancient European carried the ability to distinguish between good and evil. Having never succumbed to the natural law of science, he does not worship the black man, kill babies in the name of sexual equality, or worship the same God as the Jews. It is not primarily a lack of courage that makes white males in Britain stand by while white women are raped and murdered, nor is it primarily a lack of courage that makes halfway-house Christians turn their backs on black atrocities, worship at the shrine of the black gods, and turn to the unrepentant Jews as the Chosen People of God. It is a lack of moral vision that makes the white man a prisoner of Babylon. If he could only see. But he doesn’t see, and it seems to be the last post for the European.

Something that the mad-dog liberal Senator Bill Bradley said in a speech at a Democratic convention highlighted the difference between the Europeans of modern scientific Babylon and the Europeans of Scott’s and Shakespeare’s Europe. He stated that real Americans did not accept the existence of tragedy. Bradley did it! He put into words the hitherto unspoken faith of the European liberal. The liberal does not accept the existence of tragedy. All illnesses, wars, accidents, and natural disasters can be prevented by a proper ordering of society, which usually entails the removal of all Europeans who still have a tragic sense of life. It would seem, from the perspective of an antique European, that the liberal must succumb to a tragic sense of life when he faces death, or is death itself preventable by a proper manipulation of our natural environment? No, it is not preventable; most liberals will concede. But death is not tragic to the liberal because he doesn’t care for particular human beings (that is a Christian concept); he cares about the generic human race, which is why Earth Day has replaced Good Friday on the liberal’s calendar. In the liberal view, pain and suffering are tragic, but they will cease when we find the right drugs; the destruction of the earth would be tragic, but that will be prevented when all those who do not believe in global warming are eliminated. In the absence of a belief in a God who created human beings in His image, the tragic sense of life, which is the lifeblood of the European people, disappears and the people perish.

There is nothing natural in the new, scientific naturalism of the modern liberal. Prior to the scientific age, Europeans used to talk about the natural bonds between parent and child and between members of the same race. When talking about the natural ties of kinship and blood, the antique European was referring to spiritual ties. A natural tie was formed in heaven and all Christians felt bound to uphold those ties of the heart.

When the liberal uses the term ‘natural’ he uses it in a different sense than the antique European. The liberal does not believe in natural ties of affection, he believes in nature as defined by science, the nature that consists of raw matter. The liberal sees no animating spirit within a man’s nature; he is simply a biological specimen. The most perfect man, in the eyes of the liberal, is the natural man who is seemingly devoid of any animating spiritual life. The liberal has seized on the black man as the supreme natural man.

The “natural world” of the liberal was built by the reasoners. It is no accident that the villains in the novels of Scott and La Fanu and the plays of Shakespeare are all great reasoners. They have abstracted themselves from real nature, where bonds of kinship and ties of blood and race are sacred, and immersed themselves in the natural world as defined by Darwin. In that world the spirit is subject to the worm, and the cunning mimic the good in order to perpetuate evil. Natural theology becomes Negro worship and natural affections are bestowed on generic mankind while genuine natural ties of blood are demonized and proscribed.

The great reasoners started out by chiseling out pockets of infamy within the walls of Christendom until those small pockets of infamy coalesced and became a Satanic replacement for Christendom. The Christian counter-attack will come from Europeans who have formed pockets of resistance within Satandom. And the spiritual ground upon which the counter-revolutionary European will take his stand is the ground all Europeans were born to defend – the land where ties of blood, to our kin, our kind, and our God are sacred ties, natural ties of the spirit. No force in biological nature is as strong as those natural ties of the spirit which were forged by God so that through those ties we might be linked to Him, the God of mercy. When we look at the sick, twisted, degenerate world of darkness that the reasoners have prepared for us as an alternative to His world of the spirit, we recoil. How can fears of being called white supremacists or stupid deter us from defending His world, in which there are genuine natural ties of love and affection, against their world in which the cruelty of biological nature reigns supreme? Every form of paganism produces a few men who turn from paganism to Christ. The modern, syncretistic, scientific paganism is paganism with a different twist, but it is still paganism. What is needed is a few men to turn away from modern paganism. And from those few will come many, just as the fidelity of Christ inspired millions of Europeans to reject the darkness of paganism for the light of the Gospel. All the blather about diversity and the accusations of white supremacy boil down to this: the liberals do not want the people that walked in darkness and saw a great light to believe in the reality of that light. They want the light extinguished, but that shall never come about for we, the last of the old guard and the first of the new faithful, will “break their bonds asunder, and cast away their yokes from us.”+

Modernity: The White Man’s Albatross

“The self-same moment I could pray;
And from my neck so free
The Albatross fell off, and sank
Like lead into the sea.”

-- Coleridge

Halloween has come and gone. And I’m not talking about the Halloween where little kiddies dress up as goblins and witches and ask for candy. I’m talking about something a lot scarier. I’m referring to the macabre spectacle called ‘elections,’ in which infantile adults dress up in costumes and tell a lot of lies about themselves and their opponents. Of course not every politician involved in Tuesday’s elections was an outright liar. But at the very least, the ones who were not blatant liars were participating in the great lie, the great lie of American Gnosticism: “Government for the people, by the people, and of the people.”

There is no ‘we, the people,’ in the United States or in the European nations. White people deny that their skin color makes them a ‘people.’ It makes no difference whether the pundit is Buchanan, Kristol, or Clinton; the refrain is the same: “We are a nation founded on an idea.” If we probe further we might be treated to a dissertation about the idea upon which our nation was founded. The answer will vary from pundit to pundit, but in the main it will boil down to the triune principles of the French Revolution: liberty, equality, and fraternity.

The United States did not completely crumble at its inception because it took time for the white people of the United States to actually put their abstracted principles to the test. Our un-Civil War was a battle between non-utopian Europeans and abstracted, utopian Europeans, who wanted, quite in keeping with our marvelous Constitution, to extend the ideals of liberty, equality, and fraternity to the black race. The utopians won a partial victory in the War, but the white men, as oft this stage we have shown, fought a successful rearguard action until their surrender in the 1950’s.

When a people who do not believe they are a people attempt to apply the abstract principles of liberty, equality and fraternity to a savage race of people who do see themselves as a ‘people,’ the extermination of the utopian people is the inevitable consequence. The Europeans are currently suffering through the extermination process.

Of course the racial identity of a people is only half of the equation. There is also the religious component. Race and faith merge to produce a people. Without a racial identity, a people are without a local habitation and a name; they are airy nothings. And without a religious faith, they are an aggregate herd without the animating, transcendent, spiritual life that comes from a connection to the living God. The colored tribes are races without faith, and the whites are non-entities without a racial or a religious aspect to their lives.

I saw nothing in any platform of the white candidates that indicated they were seeking to represent white Christians as a distinct people, separate from the multitudinous, aggregate herds of the colored tribes. Indeed, you would be immediately ushered into a mental asylum or a prison if you treated white people as a people apart from the colored people, and if you spoke favorably of white people or Christianity. Let’s do a little practical test. Observe what happens when a white television commentator even suggests that black people are not godlike creatures deserving all honor and praise. The white commentator immediately becomes a former white commentator. But when the reverse happens, when a black commentator derides the white race as the source of all evil in the world, what happens? The black commentator is petted and adored by whites and blacks. And what happens when Islam or any other non-Christian religion is attacked? The outraged liberals and the colored tribes strike back. When Christianity is attacked? The chorus for toleration and moderation reaches a sickening crescendo.

Behind the white man’s flight from his race is a flight from the living God. Christ came to us through the blood; He became part of us, body and soul. A European can only deny God by forsaking his blood. This is the reason Christianity only survives as an intellectual system, not an incarnational faith. You can pick or choose when you are dealing with a mind-forged system, agreeing with some tenets and disagreeing with others. But a blood faith is different. It is all or nothing. You must either trust your instincts and plunge headfirst into the raging river, trusting that the current will take you to a safe harbor, or you must stay on the dry land and create abstract theories about rivers and currents and cabbages and kings.

I do not like the mind-forged utopia of the liberals and the neo-pagans. It is a world devoid of the stuff that dreams are made on, the affections and sentiments that come from the human heart. The Europeans longed for the coming of the hero. Who was Thor, who was Odin, if not the European’s waking dream of a hero that would come and save his people from the forces of the underground world of evil, sin and death? Christ was Thor, He was Odin, He was Siegfried, He was all the gods and all the heroes, and He was more than the gods: He was blood brother, Savior, and King.

I’ve often wondered why it is the white, halfway-house Christian conservatives who are the most vehemently opposed to any suggestion that faith comes through the blood, not the head. Possibly it is because such an admission would mean that the clergy, who are the intellectuals, would not be the final arbiters of divine revelation. And there is also the ecumenical problem. It seems very anti-democratic and unecumenical to claim that your ancestors were something special because they, and they alone, made the living God part of the fabric of their culture. Our modern academics reject such antiquated notions. Aztec poetry and voodoo charm bracelets are rated higher as works of art than Michelangelo’s Pieta or Shakespeare’s King Lear.

Satan never attacks head on. He comes at a person through “zigs and zags.” He didn’t tell the European to give up the Christian faith, he told him to give up the silly notion that the faith could be passed on through the blood. He claimed, and the intellectuals believed him, that the incarnation of our Lord was a metaphor and not an historical fact. The faithful heart will always reject the bloodless Christianity of Satan. William Blake’s poem, in which he makes reference to Christ’s trip to Glastonbury, England when He was a child, is an example of how seriously the Europeans took the incarnational aspects of their culture: (1)

And did those feet, in ancient time,
Walk upon England’s mountains green?
And was the holy Lamb of God,
On England’s pleasant pastures seen?
And did the countenance divine,
Shine forth upon our clouded hills?
And was Jerusalem builded here,
Among those dark satanic mills?
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 overriding tendency of the moderns, a tendency that the resurgence of Europeans of blood will countermand, is to sever all ties of blood between the European and his God. A conservative Gnostic, recently deceased, used to prattle on about the absurd notion that a common, middle-class Englishman named William Shakespeare could have written Shakespeare’s plays. He claimed, as his Gnostic progenitors claimed, that only an intellectual, an academic, could have written Shakespeare’s plays. But that is precisely what could never happen. Shakespeare’s plays show us the intimate connection between man and God; could such a connection be felt and depicted by an academic? Fitzhugh didn’t think so:

“Had Shakespeare been as learned as Ben Jonson, he would have written no better than Ben Jonson .”

Anthony Jacob also saw through the Western intellectuals' attempt to destroy the European’s heritage by attacking the heroes and poets who are the pride of his race:

“Of course it may be objected that slavery, however beneficent, was scarcely a suitable medium for improvement. Or it may be protested that until recently the Negro lived in circumstances of neglect and illiteracy making advancement impossible. But if we were to accept these popular objections as valid, we would be at a complete loss to explain why similar adversities never for a moment succeeded in suppressing the energy and genius of our own kind. We would be at a complete loss to explain why such circumstances failed to hold back the inventions of the English weavers, the illiterate founders of the industrial revolution. Certainly the egalitarians would hardly care to ascribe their inventiveness to the fact that they were uneducated work-slaves living on an island and entirely cut off from intercourse with other peoples and ideas. Unlike the vast majority of other nations, when it comes to reckoning our Anglo-Saxon geniuses and men of great talent we do not know where to begin or end, there have been so many. Yet many among them were only part-educated or self-educated – aside from those who were totally uneducated – and as boys had to struggle to acquire their book-learning while slaving away at work-benches. Men such as these still surprise even ourselves; so that many cannot believe that Shakespeare was Shakespeare, and have discovered that he was somebody else.”

It’s all connected. The attack on the heroes of our blood and on The Hero of our blood, in the name of a higher, more intellectual Christianity, is meant to destroy the Christian faith and the European people who championed the Faith. (2) My reason says it’s the end for the European, but my blood tells me something quite different. “So long as the blood endures” is a fitting war cry for the European.+

_____________________________

(1) The pious legend is that Christ visited Glastonbury when He was a child, in the company of Joseph of Arimathea, a relative of Christ who was involved in the tin trade. I don’t know if the story is true, but I tend to think it is because the old legends are usually more reliable than the modern histories.

What difference does it make? Well, our faith in Christ certainly does not depend on whether or not He walked upon England’s mountains green, but I think the fact that the English wanted to believe that Christ had set foot on their soil speaks volumes about their desire to weave love of country and love of Christ into one seamless garment. And the fact that the modern anti-European whites want to separate Christ from their nations and their blood speaks volumes about them.

(2) The pernicious, arrogant assumption that the Europeans of the good, old times were all liars about their own history should never go unchallenged. It’s not just Shakespeare who is supposed to have been the beneficiary of a massive cover-up, there is also Davey Crockett: “He didn’t really fight to the death at the Alamo; he surrendered and begged for his life”! Wyatt Earp? The modern movies change his courageous and victorious bare-knuckles fight against two vicious outlaws into an ignominious defeat. The list is endless. Conservatives and liberals alike play the ‘Debunk the European Heroes’ game. “To hell with Europe and to hell with Europe’s heroes” is their war cry. “To the knife” is the European’s response to the liberals and their conservative lackeys.

Interview with the Young Drummer

No dream of the future, my spirit can cheer;

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

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

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

YD: And what was that?

INT: Democracy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

YD: Yes, it was a sorry spectacle.

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

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

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

YD: Yes.

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

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

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

YD: Which one?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

YD: To what do you refer?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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