Against the World

“This happy breed of men, this little world...”

I don’t think it will surprise anyone who reads ‘right-wing’ blogs and newsletters to learn that even if all non-white legal and illegal immigration were to be halted immediately, the white race will still be a minority in the United States within the next ten to twenty years. And I think we can say the same thing about Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and all the nations of Europe. White mad-dog liberals and white conservative Christians both think the emerging racial Babylon will be a good thing, but they think so for different reasons.

The mad-dog liberal feels (to the extent that such a creature feels at all) that the white race has brought evil into the world. By embracing the God-Man and enshrining Him as the King of Europe, the white man despoiled the continent of Europe and then proceeded to despoil all of the paradisiacal continents of the non-white races. Such is the mad-dog liberal’s assertion. That neither Europe nor the dwelling places of the people of color were paradises before the reign of white, Christian Europeans seems to be obvious to anyone who has eyes to see or ears to hear. But the mad-dog liberal does not have eyes that see or ears that hear. His heart and mind belong to Satan. He thinks what Satan tells him to think, and he feels what Satan tells him to feel. After centuries of distorted theologians denigrating the notion that the heart is a man’s touchstone of reality, the Christian layman became the Satanic layman. Gone was the innocence of “anger and surprise,” to be replaced by a cynical sneer. God cannot enter a heart that has been imprisoned by mind-forged manacles, but Satan can and does enter the minds of men and women who haven’t the heart to denounce the works of the devil. Lady Macbeth asks the devil to “unsex me here”; the mad-dog liberals have made a similar plea: “Dehumanize me here, kill my heart.”

The conservative Christians also hate the white race. Yet they profess to love European culture. Their attitude towards white people was summed up by Buchanan’s priest: “What makes you think Western culture is worth saving?” Their logic runs as follows: “Europeans have abandoned Christianity, so let us look to Africa and China. There the faith is alive and striving.” What is the fallacy in the "let’s substitute Africans and Chinese for Europeans" program?

The modern day Europeans are so decadent that we need a word beyond decadent to describe them. But are the Africans, the Chinese, and the other colored tribes Christian? Have they assumed the mantle of Christian Europe? No, they haven’t. Those among the colored cultures who actually were making baby steps toward the light during the ascendancy of the Christian European, have returned to barbarism. And the rest have continued to practice their barbaric rites with the addition of Western technology. Bin Laden uses a laptop computer, and the African tribesmen carry cell phones but still spill the blood and eat the flesh of the white Christians.

The conservative Christians do not understand the incarnation. God reveals Himself to us through men. The Summa Theologica and the documents of the Church needed a culture to transmit them. And likewise Holy Scripture. If a golden harp lacks a human hand to play its strings, can there be any music? There is no skirting the issue. If there is to be faith on earth, the white man must be faithful. If the numbers indicate a wholesale apostasy, then the white remnant must take strength from their ancestors who were faithful unto death. They are our kinsmen, not the decadent, white majority, and not the barbarian hordes.

It often occurs to me that I am very lucky to have found a wife who can tolerate a rather dull fellow. If I were to run a personal ad in one of those lonely hearts services, I would have to list my hobbies as: “Likes to read old books and watch old movies.” But my hobbies are now tinged with sadness. For instance, when I read a book such as H. V. Morton’s In Search of England, I fall in love with the England Morton describes, but then an incredible sadness sets in when I realize that the loved one is no longer living. And so it is with an old movie with wonderful European settings and real Europeans acting out stories from the European past. It’s like going through a photo album with pictures in the album of a parent, a spouse, or a friend who is deceased. The joy is bittersweet. But would it have been better if the loved one had never existed? No, certainly not. There is that sacred remembrance of things past. No, I am not quoting the decadent Proust; he copied his title from the Gentle Bard:

Sonnet 30

When to the sessions of sweet silent thought
I summon up remembrance of things past,
I sigh the lack of many a thing I sought,
And with old woes new wail my dear times’ waste.
Then can I drown an eye, unus’d to flow,
For precious friends hid in death’s dateless night,
And weep afresh love’s long since cancell’d woe,
And moan the expense of many a vanish’d sight:
Then can I grieve at grievances foregone,
And heavily from woe to woe tell o’er
The sad account of fore-bemoaned moan,
Which I new pay as if not paid before.
But if the while I think on thee, dear friend,
All losses are restor’d and sorrows end.

And who is the ‘dear friend’? The Bard makes it clear in Sonnet 31:

Thy bosom is endeared with all hearts
Which I by lacking have supposed dead;
And there reigns Love, and all Love’s loving parts,
And all those friends which I thought buried.
How many a holy and obsequious tear
Hath dear religious love stol’n from mine eye,
As interest of the dead, which now appear
But things remov’d that hidden in thee lie!
Thou art the grave where buried love doth live,
Hung with the trophies of my lovers gone,
Who all their parts of me to thee did give,
That due of many now is thine alone:
Their images I lov’d I view in thee,
And thou, all they, hast all the all of me.

Christ and Europe are one. The mad-dog liberal and the neo-pagan will be forever inventing new gods to rule in a satanic kingdom of the future. And the bloodless conservative who loves an abstracted European past filled with philosophical treatises and Church documents, but hates individual Europeans past and present, will be forever adrift in the seas of racial Babylon. Only the European who takes the past into the present will live in a world that has its roots in heaven.

Sadly, the conservative who rejects the European past will ultimately blend with the mad-dog liberal. I have seen the Schaeffer family phenomenon repeated over and over. The father is a conservative Christian, but he looks to the colored races to bring about a Christian utopia. On that one issue, he is at one with the mad-dog liberals. They too look to the colored races to usher in a utopian state; albeit in the case of the mad-dogs, it is a Godless utopian state for which they yearn. But still the conservative Christian and the mad-dog liberals are united in their faith that salvation will come from the colored races. The son of the conservative rejects the Christian aspects of his father’s faith and accepts the mad-dog liberal’s faith in its entirety.

The conservative Christians often hurl the ‘whited sepulchre’ accusation at the recalcitrant, kinist Europeans, claiming they have made a whited sepulchre of the European past. All right, let’s look that accusation in the face. The kinist European hopes to maintain his faith and restore the faith of his countrymen by keeping faith with a people and a civilization that believed that Jesus Christ suffered, died, and was buried, only to rise again on the third day. The conservatives want us to reject that European past and place our faith in the hope, not the reality, that the clever and oh so spiritual yellow people, or the vital and earthy black people will show us how to be truly Christian and build a Christian society. The whited sepulchre image is a false one, an illusion. Who has created for themselves a whited sepulchre? (1)

We come once again to the painful truth that the right-wing pagan magazines and blogs, who print the death-of-the-white-European statistics, are doing great harm to the European remnant. By describing the disease in all of its gruesomeness without suggesting any remedies they are inculcating despair. “Why,” Scrooge asks the Ghost of Christmas Future, “should you show me all of this if I am beyond hope?”

That is the rub. The white pagans are without hope in the King of old Europe. Those who don’t believe in a personal resurrection cannot believe in the resurrection of a civilization. But this the man of Europe knows: Wherever there are white Europeans gathered together in His name, there, and only there, is civilization. When the mad-dog liberals, the neo-pagans, and the conservative liberals are outnumbered by the colored hordes, they will be exterminated. But the white Christian remnant will survive, because Europeans, real Europeans united to Him, will always -- come plague, famine, death, barbarian hordes, and hell itself – protect and preserve Europe with a will and a love that passeth the understanding of the barbarian, the liberal, the conservative, and the neo-pagan. It all has to do with the blood of our ancestors and the blood of the Lamb. +
__________________________________________
(1) I have an acquaintance who converted to Christianity after many years of wandering in the modern desert. He is very conservative and fundamental in his beliefs, but unfortunately he is an enthusiastic apologist for the black and yellow renewal theory.

What he doesn’t realize is that his conversion to Christianity would not have been a complete conversion if Europeans of the past had not given the God-Man a local habitation and a name. When a man from Tibet gets divine intuitions, he becomes a Buddhist or some other type of Dalai Lama enthusiast. And likewise the European, if there had been no Christian Europe, would not know who God was. The personal savior, “Jesus Christ, whom thou persecutest;” becomes an airy nothing if men of faith have not created a spiritual culture in which the one true God can be known by His name.

Unto Death

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Underground Men

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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