The Tragic Misalliance

I hate ingratitude more in a man
Than lying, vainness, babbling, drunkenness,
Or any taint of vice, whose strong corruption
Inhabits our frail blood.

--Wm. Shakespeare Twelfth Night

I must confess to a certain relief when the Christmas season is over, not because I share the ‘bah, humbug’ sentiments of the pre-repentant Ebenezer Scrooge, but because at Christmas time I often have to spend time with relatives outside of my immediate family. And the relatives outside of my immediate family are mad-dog liberals and halfway-house Christians. You would think that I would get along better with my halfway-house Christian relatives than my mad-dog liberal relatives would get along with them, but such is not the case. The mad-dog liberals get along better with the halfway-house Christians than they do with me. And my extended family seems to mirror the outside world; in Liberaldom the halfway-house Christians get along better with mad-dog liberals than with antique Christians of European heritage. Why is this?

I think the mad-dog liberals and the halfway house Christians are more compatible with each other than with the Christian Europeans because of their mutual belief in progress. The liberal is committed heart and soul to his belief in the perfectibility of mankind. He worships the future because that is where the cosmic act of perfection will take place. The liberal hates the past and all those who seek to maintain a bridge to the past, because in the past is imperfection, and imperfection is evil. The antique Christian hated Satan and his works. The modern liberal hates the antique European and all of his works.

The liberal’s faith in the future is consistent with his godless belief in the perfectibility of man. But what can we say about the halfway-house Christian who professes to believe in original sin and a God who redeemed mankind from the consequences of original sin? Why would a professed Christian believe as fervently as the liberal in the upward and onward perfectibility of mankind? The halfway-house Christian of the fundamentalist variety will deplore the liberal’s espousal of Darwinian evolution, yet he will join with the liberal in lauding the democratic egalitarianism of the Western democracies as the endpoint of an evolutionary process that somehow cleanses all men who participate in the process. And halfway-house Christians like John Paul II will criticize legalized abortion and then turn right around and praise the feminists for moving mankind onward and upward to a new, compassionate, better world. O brave new world that has such schizophrenic creatures in it!

The Roman Catholic has some justification for siding with the liberals. His church has always been open to an evolutionary, adaptable Christianity. The secular historian Carroll Quigley praised Roman Catholicism for being evolutionary rather than static and moribund like Protestant fundamentalism. But the fundamentalists have given the lie to Quigley and evolved beyond “mere Christianity” like their Roman Catholic brethren.

The halfway-house Christians of the Roman Catholic and the Protestant persuasions feel akin to progressive liberalism because they have fallen prey to the universalist heresy. “If Christ calls all men to salvation,” the halfway-house Christian reasons, “then the people who call for a universal faith (the liberals) have their hearts in the right place and are closer to us in spirit than the narrow-minded Europeans of the past.” What the halfway-house Christian fails to see is that the Lord who calls all men to salvation also destroyed the Tower of Babel. Christian universalism and Babylonian universalism are as different as heaven and hell. Christian universalism respects the human personality; it respects the distinctions between peoples, between persons, and between the sexes that help man to know and love his creator. The liberal, who worships Satan, is being true to his faith when he condemns the Christian European in the name of a Christ-less future. But the halfway-house Christian is betraying his god by condemning the Christ-centered, non-progressive Europe of his ancestors. There is no Christ in the Babylonian future of the liberals. The halfway-house Christian with his Bible or rosary in hand will ultimately drink from the same satanic trough as the liberal unless he gives up his dream of a universalist Christianity in which the unity of mankind is more important than the distinctiveness of Christ.

The historians of the European people such as Bill Cooper (After the Flood) and Mike Gascoigne (Forgotten History of the Western People) tell us that it was the descendants of Ham who built the Tower of Babel. The black man seems to be the cornerstone of Babylon. If Satan can mix the black with the white, then he can erase the image of God from the face of the earth.

Before destroying the Tower of Babel, the Lord destroyed the earth by flood. And we are told in Genesis 6:4 that God destroyed the earth because demons had slept with mortal women, creating a race of giants who had no knowledge of the true God. The similarities between the Tower of Babel account, the story of the flood, and the modern liberal chronicles are striking. Satan seeks to destroy by integration --the demon with the mortal, the sons of Ham with the sons of Shem and Japheth.

The liberals, who follow the father of all lies, cloak their evil with God-words such as ‘universal’ and ‘integration.’ No decent person is supposed to be against the integration of the races into one harmonious entity called ‘mankind.’ More evil has been perpetuated under the guise of the universal brotherhood and harmonious integration of all mankind than any other satanic artifice. And the halfway-house Christians have joined with the liberals to help further the cause of satanic universalism and integration. In fact the halfway-house Christians are even more zealous than the liberals in their pursuit of universal integration, because they want to prove they are not like the racist, exclusive Christians of the past. “Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa, they were racist, I am not; Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa, they excluded, I do not,” is the earnest, self-congratulatory prayer of the modern, halfway-house Christian.

There is a European response to the halfway-house Christian:

1) Nothing good comes from betraying your own people in the name of some abstract principle of universal brotherhood. If the halfway-house Christian asks me why mixing with the black constitutes a betrayal of his own people, I will tell him it is a betrayal because when whites mix with the black, the few whites who are not exterminated become heathens. From Babel to Haiti, to the New Orleans Superdome, the story is always the same when the white blends with the black.

2) Is God a democratic egalitarian? Why does segregation and a hierarchically structured society in which the black man is subordinate constitute a lack of love on God’s part or on the part of the rulers of the hierarchically structured society? Let’s suppose a father has three sons, one of whom is retarded. Let’s further suppose that the retarded son has certain violent, irresponsible tendencies that manifest themselves when he is left unattended by his two brothers. When his brothers are with him, the retarded son behaves himself and actually shows himself capable of behaving in a humane manner toward his brothers and other people. Knowing and loving his retarded son, the father, in his last will and testament, leaves the care of the retarded man-child to his older brothers. At the father’s death, the two normal brothers keep their sacred trust and maintain a benevolent but strict guardianship of their brother. Is God a democratic egalitarian? No, He is not. He loves us all differently and in the way that is most conducive to the salvation of our souls.

As I mentioned at the onset of this article, I have seen this coalition between the halfway-house Christian and the liberal at close range within my own extended family. It is not a pretty sight. The halfway-house Christian who makes the misalliance demonstrates ingratitude and moral cowardice -- two of the worst human sins -- ingratitude to his European ancestors who fought the good fight against principalities and powers, and moral cowardice in the face of the liberal threat to impoverish and ostracize all those who do not sing hosannas to the savage gods of universalism and integration. But the antique European must endure to the end because the savage gods of the liberals and the halfway-house Christians are not his gods. The European has only one God, the Man of Sorrows, who placed a wreath over the graves of our European ancestors and bid us be true to them unto death. If we don’t love and protect the people that God ordained us to love over all, we will not be a people; we will be liberals. +

Still Our Ancient Foe

There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. – Genesis 6:4

The traditional interpretation of Genesis 6:4 was that the sons of God referred to in this passage were fallen angels, often called demons or evil spirits. They were generally believed to have been sent by Satan to pollute the blood lines of the human race so that Jesus could not be born of the seed of a fully human woman and become the savior of mankind. It is necessary to dismiss the Old Testament narratives as frivolous stories, which the liberals do, or to simply ignore the implications of the stories, as the half-way Christians do, if you are going to maintain that bloodlines do not matter.

Let us assume, contra the liberals, that the story of Giants on the earth in Genesis 6:4 and the other Old Testament “fantastical” stories are not frivolous stories. And let us follow, contra the halfway-house Christians, the implications of the Genesis 6:4 story and other related stories.

You could maintain that once Christ was born of the Virgin Mary, the necessity to maintain the purity of the Christ-bearing race was no longer necessary. Christ was born, now we can all blend together in one universal race. The Tower of Babel story is not relevant; the importance which the ancient Hebrews placed on their racial purity and the distinctions God made between Noah’s good sons and his bad son are all made irrelevant by Christ’s birth. Is this the case? The official line of the Catholic Church says that all racial distinctions are washed away by the coming of Christ. The official Protestant line, to the extent they have an official line, is in union with the Catholic. And the liberals, who don’t believe in Christ, have given their blessing to the Catholic and Protestant interpretations of race mixing.

The case seems to be closed. But in the spirit of Dostoevsky’s Underground Man, let me reopen the case. I cannot cite any church document that expressly forbids race-mixing, nor can I build an airtight case against race-mixing using a dazzling array of quotes from the Holy Bible. Still, there is a compelling case against race-mixing. First, our Christian European ancestors were opposed to race-mixing. You can maintain, which the halfway-house Christians do, that our European ancestors were insufficiently Christian compared to the modern Christians, but I think a man-to-man comparison of their faith and morals reveals that the modern halfway-house Christian cannot hold a candle to his “racist” forefathers.

Secondly, there is reality to contend with. If Christians really believe that their God said, “The truth shall set you free,” doesn’t that suggest we should seek the truth about black and white? Shouldn’t we look at what blacks do when there are no white men to control them? And shouldn’t we look at the immorality of white and black in a blended society? We should if we claim to worship the Christian God.

Thirdly, while the Bible is more than a great literary work, it is also a work of literature that should be read and understood in the way we read and understand great literature. Just as Shakespeare’s play King Lear is more than a story about a king who gets mad at his youngest daughter, so is the Bible more than a travelogue about the ancient Hebrews. The Bible stories, like Shakespeare’s plays, come from the land of the spirit. At their center is the truth about man and God. The Tower of Babel story, the numerous stories of the Hebrews’ segregated society, and the hierarchal structure imposed on Noah’s sons all suggest that concerns about racial purity are not something to be dispensed with after the birth of Christ. Those who do so redefine the traditional Christian teaching on original sin. The first apostles never taught to “become new in Christ” meant that we were free of the effects of original sin. Faith in Christ did not mean that we could dissolve the earthly ties by which and through which we know the living God. The Tower of Babel experience should tell a Christian that God hates man-made unity because it separates man from God. And can there be a more blasphemous unity than a man-made unity that directly contradicts the God-made distinctiveness of the races?

There is also a Tower of Babel mentality in those who reject the lesson we learn from the story of Ham. It is not God’s desire that the less godly son should be on equal footing with the godly sons. You don’t have to believe that the black man is the descendant of Ham, Cush, and Nimrod to see that the white man is meant to keep the black man in check. Just look at the development of Christian Europe and the development of Africa. Then compare our modern blended society with the non-blended society of antique Europe. Is not the moral contained in the true story of Noah and his three sons revealed to anyone who has eyes to see and ears to hear?

Of course, that’s the dilemma. There are no Europeans left with eyes to see and ears to hear. The European no longer sees Christ riding through the woods of Europe nor does he hear the echo of His voice in the European mountains.

There are two brothers in King Lear. Edgar, the legitimate son is the soul of honor. He tells his suicidal father, “Thy life’s a miracle.” The bastard brother, Edmund, has a different view of existence. “Thou, Nature, art my goddess; to thy law, My services are bound.” The European was once committed to Edgar’s view of existence. He saw his life as a miracle of God’s grace. To know that a personal, humane God was at the heart of the universe -- a God that cared about individual human beings -- was to know that the human personality was to be treasured. A divine creation should not be rent asunder or degraded. But if nature is thy Goddess, there is no reason to treasure the distinctness of human beings. They are all simply part of nature’s compost heap.

The halfway-house Christians who want to blend the black with white always end up blending Christ with liberal saints such as Nelson Mandela. The logical result of a faith based on the universalism of a Coca-Cola commercial is a universal God who is as superficial as a Coca-Cola commercial. Such a god might be useful to you while you are riding high, employed in the secular utopia and in the prime of youth, but when you cry out from the depths, which eventually all human beings do, the Coca-Cola God will not be there for you. You will either find the one true God, the God of antique Europe, or you will perish in the vomit of superficiality.

In Genesis we learn that the whole earth was polluted in the time of Noah, not polluted by an excess of styrofoam cups or Pepsi cans, but polluted in the blood. The sons of God (Demons) had slept with mortal women and produced a race of Giants. Only Noah had kept his bloodlines pure, and only Noah and his family escaped the flood.

Are there parallels between Noah’s situation vis-à-vis the mating of the demons and mortal women and the mating of black men and European women? A tiny minority of antique Europeans maintains that the black man is not human; he is a beast of the field. If such is the case, there is a very close parallel between modern race-mixing and the race-mixing in Genesis 6:4; in both cases mortal women mix their blood with alien beings.

The vast majority of antique Christians held to the belief, rejected by modern, halfway-house Christians, that the black man was the descendant of Ham and could only be fully human as a servant in the tents of the children of Shem and Japheth. Cross-race mating would still be sinful to the adherents of the 'black as descendant of Ham' theory, but it would not be an exact parallel to Genesis 6:4, when the daughters of men mated with alien beings.

The first theory at least attempts to deal with reality. We see the black man before us; he does not seem to be fully human, and therefore he is not a human being. The liberals have no right to cry “foul” at such a seemingly inhumane theory. They have a similar theory, which is the reverse of the black beast theory. They believe that only the black man is human and that the white man is some sort of non-human animal.

In the absence of some deeply held instinct to the contrary, I think we should always go with the mainspring Christianity from the days when Europe was truly Christian. The black man can only become fully human by serving the one fully human race, the white race. Those who have eyes to see the Europe of our ancestors and those who have ears to hear the voice of our ancestors cannot come to any other conclusion about the black and the white than the one our ancestors came to: the black and the white race should never mix, lest the ungodly pollute the earth. If we see the race war for what it is, Satan’s attempt to kill Christ by distorting the image of God in man, we will be able to gird up our loins and fight for Christ and the Europe that He, not Satan, wills that we should have. +

What Makes a Man Say “Never Surrender” and Mean It?

With the cautionary tale of Haiti before their eyes, the Rhodesian whites still turned their country over to black barbarians. And with the example of Rhodesia before their eyes, the white South Africans still voted to place themselves at the mercy of a people who had no concept of mercy. Then in our own country, in the South of the 1950’s, the wall that separated the whites from the colored races was torn down. Why did they all cave in? Well, let us first look at the outside forces that turned civilized white African countries into voodoo blood orgies and the South into New Orleans.

The prime shakers and movers in the ‘Onward to Racial Babylon’ movement were the Utopian whites. These people had entered, in their minds, the La La Land of Rousseau. They saw themselves as the great white wizards who would give the noble black savages their freedom, and in return they expected to be worshipped by the people of color. They held the reins of power in the United States and throughout the Western world. Their techniques were childishly (that is, of an evil child) simple. They practiced exclusion and name-calling in order to bring racially recalcitrant nations to heel. “Nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, you are a racist, and you can’t play with us!” was the war cry of the Utopians. And it worked. A friend, who had lived in South Africa during the period leading up to the fateful vote for extinction, said that the main reason the average white South African gave for voting to end apartheid was his desire to be included in the Olympics and other Western sporting events. And if we look at the Southern states in the 1950’s, we can see the same forces at work. The Southern colleges, prior to the 1950’s, used to refuse to play Northern colleges which had blacks on their teams. And until the 1950’s, the South refused to play in the national Little League tournament because they didn’t want to integrate their baseball teams. But they wanted to be included, so they capitulated.

What makes a people give in to name-calling and ostracization when they have a noble history of resisting much stronger measures in the past? Why did the people who had defended Rorke’s Drift and the people who had resisted Reconstruction allow themselves to be led to the slaughter by limp-wristed Utopians? The answer lies in the white man’s faith.

That the white man’s Christian faith produced men and women who were morally superior to the ancient pagans and the barbarian races cannot be proven in the same way that 2 + 2 = 4 can be proved. In fact one must still be connected to the older European civilization to be able to see the value of its people. The European Utopian and the barbarian cannot see the value of the older civilization and its people because the barbarian lives in the darkness and the utopian lives in a mind-forged lunatic asylum. But objective reality, which only the European who is still European can see, is that the European people were moral giants in a world of moral eunuchs and moral pygmies. What the Utopians promised to the last of the white holdouts in Africa and to the South was that they could have their faith and the fleshpots of Sodom and Gomorrah too. The Utopians assured them that they would not become pillars of salt when they looked back. They could be part of the racially harmonious Sodom and Gomorrah to which the rest of the white world had already succumbed.

The results were dramatic in white Africa. The white man could not go back to paganism because, though no longer fully Christian, he was still too Christian to be a good pagan. He became a useless pillar of salt. And in the South? It wasn’t quite as dramatic, but the results were the same: “He did not die, but nothing of life remained.”

It is painful to go back and read all of the “never surrender” assertions of the Southern segregationists and the white Africans. They seemed to be so determined not to give in, yet they did. In hindsight, it appears there were too many George Wallaces and Strom Thurmonds in their midst, men who supported the white cause when it seemed politically expedient and abandoned it when it became inexpedient. Such men lacked the Christian thing. If we look inside the souls of the defenders of Rorke’s Drift and the men of the Reconstruction Era, we can see what makes a man say “never surrender” and mean it.

The defenders of Rorke’s Drift and the Klansmen would not have been able to articulate the reasons for their refusal to surrender to black barbarism. They simply took it as a given – “never surrender, never say die.” But the unarticulated reasons for their refusal to surrender stemmed from the Christianity that was in their blood. The antique Christian knew the sinfulness of mixing with the heathen from his belief in the inerrancy of Scripture, which condemned race mixing. And he knew the foolhardiness of surrendering to the barbarian because of his historical consciousness, which stemmed from his belief in a God who had entered history.

When belief in revealed Truth lessens, so does the historical consciousness. “Why not mix with the heathen? It hasn’t been done in the past, but the past is not relevant.” In the absence of a deeply held religious conviction against race-mixing, the seemingly fierce resistance of the George Wallace, Strom Thurmond type of individual turns from a position of ‘never surrender’ to one of ‘You scratch my white back, and I’ll kiss your black a--.’ We’ve all seen how that works.

Robert Louis Stevenson is very underrated as a writer; he has great depth. And through his character Alexander Smollett, a Christian gentleman, he shows us why the Strom Thurmond type of white man caves in, and the Christian European does not. When faced with an ultimatum from the pirates, who seem to have the upper hand, Captain Smollett, replies:

“Now you’ll hear me. If you’ll come up one by one, unarmed, I’ll engage to clap you all in irons, and take you home to a fair trial in England. If you won’t, my name is Alexander Smollett, I’ve flown my sovereign’s colours, and I’ll see you all to Davy Jones.”

There are two reasons why Alexander Smollett refused to surrender. The first reason is that it simply isn’t done. A Christian gentleman, particularly an English one, doesn’t surrender to barbarians. And the second reason is that Captain Smollett knew, because he had an historical consciousness, that those individuals outside the sphere of Christianity have no concept of mercy or of a truce with dignity. Thus surrender is a metaphysical and a practical impossibility. When the George Wallace type of white South African and the Strom Thurmond type of Dixiecrat lost their Christian metaphysic, they were open to the idea that capitulation was practical. And thus they joined the barbarians and the Utopians.

The pathology of the white surrender to barbarism cannot be understood apart from Western man’s religious struggle. It was his faith that made him separate from the other races, and it was his lack of faith that caused him to seek extinction by blending with the other races. Because they are interdependent, Western man’s rush to extinction coincided with his complete rejection of Christianity in the second half of the 20th century. Certainly churches still exist, and some individual Europeans still hold His precious image in their hearts, but the European people, as an incorporate league, have rejected Christ. And it was not Darwin or Freud or Marx that severed European man from Christianity; they were merely additional links in a chain that was started by the medieval scholastics. All of nature, for the pagan, was animated by the gods. There were gods of the bush, gods of the sky, gods of the mountain, and so on. They were gods that could be propitiated in order to gain favor. Christianity dethroned those gods, but gave mankind something greater than nature to worship – a God who loved mankind, a God who desired not sacrifice but mercy. And He was one of us. We shared in His divine essence. God was still immanent, not in nature, but in man himself! How could any pagan lament the death of the nature gods when the alternative was so much better? Certainly not the Europeans. They embraced Christ with a passion. But the scholastic rebellion was the first satanic strike at the heart of the European’s faith. God was not immanent, the scholastics said, He was a derivative by-product of reason’s contemplation of the natural world. Christ’s words, “Behold the kingdom of God is within you,” were rejected as bad theology, and the anti-immanence police became the ruling authorities in the Church.

There were many resistance movements – the Franciscans were one prime example. But every time a St. Francis emerged, his movement was codified and emptied of its divine-human element. The Protestant Reformation was also an attempt to reclaim the original divine-human link. But the Protestant theologians re-imposed the prescriptions (God is not immanent) of scholasticism on the Protestant faithful, thus maintaining the dichotomy between a Christian’s loyalty to an abstract idea of God, preached by the hierarchy of his church, and his loyalty to the living God. And when the ‘Idea God’ of the various church hierarchies triumphs, the European’s loyalty to his own people perishes. How could it be otherwise? When God is an abstraction, so is man. One cannot be loyal to an abstraction.

European man’s battle is with himself. If he conquers the dragon of scholasticism, which is the progenitor of the scientific dragon, he will see his sacred heritage again. And then he will know that his heritage is intimately connected to his faith, which will give him the passion and fire to say, “We shall never surrender,” and truly mean it.

Never the Twain Shall Meet

The Michael Vick dog-fighting scandal highlights the extreme differences between the barbarian cultures of color and the white post-Christian culture. The white post-Christians have, for the last fifty years or so, been the criminally indulgent parents of their adopted black man-child. If Blacky got in trouble for raping white women and murdering white men, the indulgent parents excused Blacky, because they understood the horrible nightmares, caused by white people, that made Blacky commit the wayward acts. So, Blacky grows up believing that whatever he does, no matter how heinous, will be, if not countenanced, then at least tolerated by his white parents.

"So why," the confused, angry Blacky asks, "Are my parents so harsh with me over this dog-fighting nonsense?" And of course Blacky cannot be expected to understand the white post-Christian; their world is not his world. Blacky does not feel any need for a humane God; he needs only a powerful God. Whether he professes Christianity, Islam, or Vodoo, the god he worships is always a god of power who can be propitiated through sacrifice. There is no God of mercy in his racial memory bank.

The white post-Christian, however, does have a God of mercy in his racial memory bank, although his mind will not accept the preposterous notion of an incarnate God. And yet the post-Christian retains an incredible longing for a merciful God, so he soothes his longing for that God by making a religion out of some of the merciful derivatives of the antique faith. Such a derivative is a respect and affection for God's creatures. It is very touching to read about how fond that most Christian of authors, Walter Scott, was of his pet cat and pet dog. He loved them in a way no barbarian could possibly understand. But Scott's love for animals was not an unacknowledged derivative of his love for the God-Man; he understood the connection. The modern post-Christian does not.

So of course Blacky is confused, hurt, and angry. His white parents are behaving, as he sees it, irrationally. And Blacky is right about that. It is irrational to hold on to the derivatives of a faith once you have rejected the main tenets of that faith. But Blacky's failure to understand his post-Christian parents' abhorrence of dog-fighting is just one more example of why blacks and whites should not mix.

Segregation: A Moral Imperative

The late Richard Weaver was a rare scholar. He was a scholar who knew the limits of scholarship and the underrated value of prejudice, intuition, and tradition. In his book, Language is Sermonic, Mr. Weaver informs us that every society has "God words," words that when invoked mean more than the literal definition of the word, words that represent what a country holds dear and worships. Weaver thought that 'democracy' and 'pluralism' were two God words in our society. Every society also has its devil words; ours include 'prejudice' and 'authoritarianism'.

The word 'integration' has also become a God word in our society. To merely invoke the word silences all opposition and places a halo on the invoker. And 'segregation' has become a devil word, the invocation of which immediately results in the demonization of the person attempting to use it in a positive sense.

We refuse to accept demonization. Segregation is the bulwark of society; without segregation, society becomes a herd of cattle, a species, without a soul.

To the liberal, 'segregation' connotes Negroes in the back of the bus, cross burnings, lynchings and bigotry. And segregation might very well entail Negroes in the back of the bus, cross burnings, and lynchings, but the motivation for such actions is not bigotry, it is love. If one loves one's faith, he wants to keep the beliefs and values that stem from that faith, pure and undefiled by other faiths. Thus he places a wall between his faith and the faith of others. And when one loves his kith and kin, he wants to keep them segregated from those who are not his kith or kin.

Although it is now regarded as a given that segregation of the races is a bad thing, it is remarkable how reality has confirmed the correctness of the original Southern segregationists. What, following the war, were the fears of Southern whites? They feared that integration would lead to --

1) The undermining of their unique civilization, which if not perfect, was at least the closest attempt on the North American continent to incorporate Christianity into a social system. Integration helped undermine that civilization.

2) They were afraid that integration would lead to intermarriage, thus threatening the survival of the white race and the civilization which the whites had built. This has happened. I cannot go to any public place anymore without seeing interracial couples.

3) They were afraid that integration would lead to a reign of black revenge and terror. This has also happened.

So why are we supposed to genuflect before the altar of integration? Segregation is not evil; it allows one to practice Christianity to its fullest extent. Albert Schweitzer, a man who is never mentioned anymore because he was a segregationist and a paternalist, did more work of Christian charity for black people than any other man or woman of any color, living or dead. But he did so because he had a belief in segregation. Because his white beliefs had been kept segregated from black values, he was able to minister to the physical and spiritual needs of blacks. He could give them the values of his civilization because he, and the men before him, had kept their values segregated.

But what about the brotherhood of man? What about unity and harmony? Well, false unity is not unity. We can all abandon what we hold dear in order to be unified under false principles that nobody really believes in. Or we can adhere to principles that we hold to be true, and segregate ourselves from those who hold contrary principles. Then unity, if it comes, will come from conversion. "I think those principles and that way of life in their city is better than mine, and I will attempt to turn my own segregated city into one like theirs." And the work goes on till every segregated city has the same principles and the same spirit. Thus, true unity comes only from segregation, not integration. Integration breeds only hatred, spiritual indifference, and intellectual dishonesty.

Reflections on the Old Testament

In many of the old westerns there is a hillbilly father with a gun-toting clan of sons and nephews behind him. This hillbilly father usually kills his hillbilly neighbors and anybody else whom he takes a dislike to without restraint or remorse, justifying his actions by quoting one of the saltier passages of the Old Testament. And indeed the Old Testament would have great appeal to a homicidal maniac. But if it is read by someone with a genuine desire to come closer to God, there is much that can be gleaned by a perusal of the Old Testament. I was somewhat surprised recently (which I know I should not have been) when I read through the Old Testament and found it to be fascinating and completely relevant. A number of issues interested me.

1) Lord, what Fools…
The story of the Israelite people seems to be just one long story of faithlessness. In my childhood, I thought the Israelites had to be the stupidest people who ever lived. How, having seen God intervene so convincingly in their behalf so many times, could they persist in returning to the idols again and again? Now I can see that it was as easy as sin. God spoke to the Israelites through His prophets. The average Israelite had to first trust that Moses or Joshua or Gideon or Samuel was a true prophet, and then he had to believe that God’s will was something that was good for him. In other words, he had to believe something far more difficult to believe in than God’s power; he had to believe God loved him. One can imagine the thought process: “Sure, He parted the Red Sea for us and saved us from the Egyptians but now He plans to let us starve out here in the desert.” And it is not every generation that gets to see a miracle as dramatic as the parting of the Red Sea. Is it that hard then to see how the traditional idols of all the Israelites’ neighbors were more appealing to them than the true God? And in many cases the Israelites did not totally reject God; they simply hedged their bets, worshipping the pagan idols and the God of Israel, much like we do today, attending some nominally Christian service on Sunday and worshipping Baal during the rest of the week. It is embarrassing to read the adventures of the ever-faithless Israelites because one gets the distinct impression that one is reading about oneself.

2) Segregation and Slavery
It isn’t hard to see why the liberals deny that the Bible is true history and declare it to be mostly tribal legends. If they took it seriously, they would have to abandon some of their most cherished beliefs. For instance, if one takes the Old Testament seriously, God does not appear to be a One-Worlder. He is less than delighted with the Tower of Babel, and throughout the Old Testament He insists that the Israelites segregate themselves from those with different views of God. And while not providing a divine sanction for every type of slavery, the Old Testament does indeed sanction the type of domestic slavery that protects the Israelites from contamination and checks the baser instincts of the servant race. It is a domestic slavery much like that of the old South of our country.

3) Prophets and Prophecies
Despite the fact that the age of prophecy was supposed to have ended with the coming of Christ, we constantly are told about new prophets and prophecies, most of which, in the Catholic Church at least, are linked to the Virgin Mary. The Old Testament prophecies are related by God to one individual, such as Moses or Elijah, but are generally meant for the entire Israelite tribe. In the Christian era, the alleged prophecies are generally related to an individual or a small group of individuals. Are they meant for the entire Christian tribe? I think one is better off disregarding them unless the revelations come to him personally.

Unlike the Kings of Israel (Samuel had warned the Israelites not to give up the old prophet / judge system) who were generally stinkers, the prophets (with a few exceptions) were the cream of the crop. My favorite prophets are Gideon, Elijah, and Jeremiah.

Gideon, a prophet judge before the Israelites had kings, I admire for his steadfast fidelity to the Lord and his Agincourt-type victory over the Midianites.

Elijah I admire for the sheer dramatic virtuosity of his entrances and exits. He pops up without warning to the wicked King Ahab and tells him that “There shall not fall upon the ground any dew or rain until I call for it.” Then he disappears as suddenly as he came. And when he departs the earth, he leaves in a chariot of fire. What an exit!

When I was growing up, the only Jeremiah we heard about was the bullfrog. But Jeremiah the prophet was one hell of a man. He is often called the “weeping prophet” because it was his unpleasant task to tell the people of Judah of the evils that were coming. One is never popular when bearing bad news, but Jeremiah spoke what the Lord told him to speak despite imprisonment, rack and rope.

4) God’s Providence
The average Israelite does not seem to have been granted extra years to his life or special individual blessings. But the kings and prophets who adhered to God’s word were. And the Israelite people were granted victory in battle when they collectively obeyed God’s word. When they returned to the idols of Baal, God allowed their enemies such as the Assyrians or the Philistines to defeat them. But does God’s providence work that way now? Was not the Israelites’ situation unique? God had a particular reason for wanting the tribe of Israel to survive and a particular reason for making sure that they did not succumb to a permanent state of idolatry. He intended to bring forth the Christ from their tribe. I know that one could make a case that the sons of Japheth (the Europeans), once the Christ was born, became, when they converted to Christianity, the new Israelites. But I don’t think that case should be made. I think the European miracle was a miracle of grace and free will while the Israelite miracle was one of God’s grace. Nor do I think, as such Christian warriors as Lee and Stonewall Jackson thought prior to the South’s defeat, that God awards victory in battle to those who are in the right. The historical record shows us too many instances of the triumph of evil over the good to believe that the Christian side will always prevail. Every nation always invokes its gods before going to war, but a Christian should, even without having read Shakespeare or Doystovesky, be able to understand that no nation, since the Christ Child was born, will ever have the same divine sanction as Israel did when going into battle.

5) Evil Women
Ahab was probably the worst King of Judea, and yet his wife Jezebel was ten times as evil. Haman was as evil as they come, and yet his wife was worse. The Bible is full of virtuous and pure women such as Ruth, but it also tells us something about women, something that coincides with what the Greek tragedians like Aeschylus and the Christian poets such as Tennyson and Shakespeare have told us: “The difference between a man and a man is the difference between heaven and earth, but the difference between a woman and a woman is the difference between heaven and hell.” The feminine principle, when separated from God, has the demonic power to engulf the earth in the flames of hell. There must be Christian patriarchal restraints placed on women lest we have an entire society based on the hellish instincts of Jezebel. And it doesn’t take a great prophet to see that Jezebelian instincts dominate our own anti-society.

6) Fairy Tale Mode
The Old Testament (and the New as well because there is no dichotomy between the two) strongly resembles the Grimm’s Fairy Tales. There are giants, evil stepmothers, good and evil wizards, talking animals and dramatic divine interventions. To many people, in fact to most, this means that the Old Testament (and the New) is false. But I think it proves the contrary. In the depths of our souls we think in the fairy tale mode, because we have a racial memory of a time when we were closer to God. We don’t go back and forth between Narnia and earth anymore because we are too degenerate. But our great poets who articulate what we have hidden in our souls give us a glimpse of a time when we used to see wonders and hear an echo of God’s voice. When we abandon the fairy tale mode of thought and replace it with theology or philosophy, we place even more layers of atheistic crust over our already over-laden souls.