Unyielding

"There are many other ways in which men sin against the Holy Ghost, but this is the worst – to destroy deliberately, for the sake of any kind of gain, that which Christ bought so dearly. How can a man ask for mercy, or how can mercy help him, who would wickedly and willfully extinguish mercy?"

-- William Langland

The difference between the European civilization prior to the 20th century and every other civilization is the difference between heaven and hell. There is an impassable chasm between European culture and all other cultures. And the new European-hating Europeans and the people from cultures of color recognize the distinctiveness of European culture, but they view European distinctiveness quite differently than me. The white-hating whites and their colored minions see the older European culture as distinctively evil. Indeed, they view it as the fount of all evil. And if you believe in a worldwide system of democracy, in which all peoples of every nation and every color vote, then Europe does stand condemned. But in a higher court than world opinion, European culture stands alone in the light, while all the other civilizations (which can't really be called civilizations) stand shrouded in hellish night.

The distinctiveness of pre-20th century European culture does not consist of its material achievements – its science, its exploration, etc. European culture is distinct because of its spiritual depth. During the years I taught English literature, I had many opportunities with my students to view staged productions of Shakespeare's King Lear. The students' varied reactions to the play were amazing. Some slept, some made jokes, some were artificially attentive because they thought I'd punish them if they weren't, and some wept and understood. Well, the Europeans wept and understood Christ's passion play, while those of other cultures were either indifferent, hostile, or artificially attentive (like the defeated Aztecs) because of the Europeans' power.

There are numerous theories as to why the Europeans embraced Christ. Some historians point out that the pagan gods of the central and northern Europeans were more humane than the pagan gods of Asia Minor and Rome. Thus, according to this theory, the Europeans were more open to the concept of a loving God than were those of other cultures. And some assert it was simply God's choice: the Europeans were predestined to be the Christ-bearers. But whatever reason, the central fact is this: the Europeans rejected the cruel gods of sacrifice and embraced the God of love and mercy. European civilization was a response to God's love. Certainly, it was imperfect in comparison to God's love for us, but when compared to all the other civilizations… well, there is no comparison.

We are now engaged in a war quite different from the one Stoddard depicts in his book about Haiti. Then, the war was still largely one of white civilization vs. the barbarians of color. Since then, white folk have been engaged in a civil war with a new breed of Gnostic whites, and they have lost the civil war and become a conquered people.

Shelby Foote once stated that the two great geniuses of America's civil war were Abraham Lincoln and Nathan Bedford Forrest. I concur. And the difference between those two geniuses was the difference between the new utopian world and the antique Christian world. Lincoln articulated, as only a genius could articulate, the utopian theory at the heart of the American experiment in democracy, which "brought forth on this continent a new nation, dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal." And if all men are not equal, then equality will be forced on the unequal.

In contrast, Forrest represented those early adventurers and Southern cavaliers of whom Thomas Nelson Page wrote. Forrest's wisdom was in his blood, and his wise blood told him that the white man and his culture was inherently unequal to all other men and to every other culture.

Forrest's genius, a genius of the blood, was grounded in the particular. Lincoln's genius was grounded in the universal. And the universal won. Despite Lincoln's personal abhorrence for race-mixing, it became an inevitable necessity in a world of universals. There can be no black or white, no man or woman, no child or father in the universal world of brotherhood-without-kinship, sexuality-without-masculinity-or-femininity, and families-without-patriarchal-authority.

Lincoln was a mild lamb compared to the white-hating whites who were to follow him. Each successive generation has become more demonic. And why do so many white men hate their own? Because in the new faith, there is no such concept as "these are my people" or "this is my own, my native land"; everything is a walking universal in the new faith. There is an idea about what constitutes the human, but there is no humanity. Therefore, the white-hating heirs of Lincoln must destroy anything that stinks of humanity. And who is more human than the Incarnate God? The new white man must destroy flesh-and-blood white men, because they are the last conduits of a culture that saw salvation in the God-Man who saved particular men and women from sin and death. Flesh-and-blood white men do not accept the culture that worships a satanic messiah promising to free men's minds from the prison of their own humanity and God's incarnate humanity.

The white-hating whites and their colored lackeys will not defeat us unless we cease to maintain our distinctiveness. We are the men of the enchanted forest not the barbarian jungle, the men of the sacred hearth not the cannibal's stewpot, and the men of bardic Europe not scientific Europe. Ah, there's the rub. Being the conduits of God's grace has placed us closer to God but also closer to satanic lightning. If we see our distinctiveness in our intellects instead of our European hearts, we will be completely ineffectual in the great battle against the white-hating whites and their barbarian armies of the night, for we will be like unto them.

To stay distinct, white men must stay true to incarnational, non-abstract Europe. We must be true to the civilization of mercy. What Robert Frederick said of Shakespeare, the most European of poets, is equally true of Europe:

"What the world owes to other poets can be estimated. What it owes to Shakespeare can no more be measured than what it owes to the light of heaven. The withdrawal of the one from the material, or of the other from the world, would alone enable us to understand our obligations to either."

It is not possible to take white, incarnational European culture out of the world and still have a civilization – and by civilization, we mean that which enshrines such things as faith, love, honor, and beauty. The past and the future of mankind on this earth, without old Europe, would be and will be nothing less than a city without light, without hope, and without mercy.

Although I have Welsh ancestors, they are not the main reason I chose to use "Cambria Will Not Yield" as the title for my blog. The lines, "Keep these fighting words before you, Cambria will not yield," speak directly to the European condition. We must keep the vision of Europe, His Europe, before our eyes, and never yield. His Europe is sacred Europe. His Europe is the only Europe for men who have a tragic sense of life, men who realize that mere sacrifice is not enough.

Our civilization, at its heart, is one great prayer for mercy. When the white satanists bid us drink the multi-racial, anti-European brew, they bid us join them in the ultimate sin against the Holy Ghost, for they ask us – no, they demand it of us – to destroy the civilization of mercy. There can be only one answer to such a demand: Cambria Will Not Yield!

Betrayal

I will forgive much if a man is sound on the race issue, and I will forgive nothing if he is not; which means I have few friends in the intelligentsia because the white intelligentsia has betrayed their race. And by the term ‘intelligentsia’ I mean those who make their living with pen and mind, not necessarily those who are intelligent.

The black intelligentsia defends blacks, the Mexican intelligentsia defends Mexicans, the Puerto Rican intelligentsia defends Puerto Ricans, etc. But only the white intelligentsia betrays its own.

The betrayal stems from a secularized Christianity perpetuated by cowardice.

It is the white man who embraced the Christian Faith, lived the Christian Faith, and held the image of the God-Man in the deepest regions of his soul. So, it is no coincidence that the most depraved, secularized versions of Christianity should also come from the soul of the white man. And the betrayal of one’s own race, the race which was the Christ-bearing race, is a base perversion of Christianity. The Good Samaritan was able to see the humanity of another because he saw the humanity of his own. He loved his own. He did not wake up in the morning and strangle his wife and children so that he could go out on the highway and help others. No, if he had done that he would not have been the type of man who would help others; he would not have been the Good Samaritan.

Of course, this is not a difficult concept to grasp. In fact, it takes a deliberate, cold-blooded dive into stupidity to so pervert the Good Samaritan parable, which is why I say the betrayal of the white race is perpetuated by cowardice. One does not get tenure if one is “racist,” one does not get published in the “higher class” publications, and one does not get the approval of one’s peers. But what about truth? What about faith, hope, and charity? How can we credit anything said by a member of the intelligentsia who bases his writing on a lie and a betrayal of his own? Of course, we can’t credit anything he says.

If one reads only respectable publications from the mainstream press – periodicals such as the New Republic and the National Review – and if one only circulates with people in academia or the clergy, one gets the impression that the hatred of whites and the worship of blacks is a universal sentiment that unites all people everywhere. But if one circulates with older white folk in the plus-45 age range who do not work in academia or in the sexier professional jobs, one gets a very different impression. Every time I meet such people (and sometimes, despite all liberal brainwashing, I meet younger ones), the same opinions surface: “We don’t have a crime problem, we have a black problem,” and, “You bet there are cultural differences – they are barbarians.”

Are these older whites simply prejudiced? Yes, they are prejudiced; they are prejudiced in the way they should be. They have a prejudice for truth rather than falsehood and a prejudice for decency over barbarism.

The reason that there must be such draconian methods used to enforce black worship is because it runs so counter to the truth. As with the enforcement of feminism, there can be no tolerance of any divergence from the party line, because the party knows that the slightest crack in the totalitarian system can bring the whole lie-infested structure down.

Very few members, almost none, of the white intelligentsia have dared to defend the white man and attack the black man. Anthony Jacob practically stands alone. He didn’t mind being called a racist, which he was not, nor a Nazi, which he also was not. He loved the older white civilization, and he defended what he loved. I honor him, and I revere him for his love for, and his passionate defense of, the civilization and the people that I love.

It is nothing short of lunacy, or Liberal unrealism, to attempt to meld civilized white men and uncivilized black men into an enduring ‘family unity’. The two cannot mix: and all attempts to make them mix will work gravely to the detriment of the Whites, upon whom civilization exclusively depends. To my mind it is self-evident that the Anglo-Saxon and the kindred peoples are absolutely irreplaceable, and that without them the civilization they engendered and represent would, with the possible exception of one or two curious deviations or malformations, soon cease to exist. Let there be no mistake about this. When we speak of civilization we are referring to that which is wholly our own. There is no other civilization whatever. At best there are one or two minor foreign cultures. At best there are one or two successful foreign copyists of our civilisation’s more material aspects. But there are absolutely no imitators of its moral and spiritual uniqueness, because there are no other people like the Westerners whose possession it is.

From White Man, Think Again!

Addendum: I think the abandonment of the white race by conservative Christians is the main indicator that Gnostics own the soul of that group as well as the soul of the liberal groups. A love of kith and kin is at the heart of Christianity as is a belief in the resurrection of the body. Both that love and that belief are eroded when the new ideas of race are adopted.

For this reason I view authors such as Joseph Pearce (one among legions) as politically correct modernists rather than as counter-culture writers. Pearce, in his latest book on Solzhenitsyn, tries to present Solzhenitsyn as a pro-democracy, anti-racist, modern Christian. He excuses Solzhenitsyn from the charge of racism with this quote from Solzhenitsyn:

Much in man is determined not so much by his physical side or by blood but by the spirit… Russia covers large territories with different people mixed together. You cannot trace the blood… He who is Russian is so by spirit, is so by heart, by the direction of his loyalties and interests. So there is a spiritual unifying of people and not a blood-based one.

Who is being disingenuous here? Does Pearce seriously believe that this applies to anyone but Russians and their kindred races? Dostoyevsky, for instance was half Lithuanian. But does Pearce really believe that Solzhenitsyn would like to see Russia overrun with be-bopping Negroes or Moslem Afghans?

“Ah,” you say, you armchair integrationist, “Solzhenitsyn wouldn’t mind if a huge influx of Orthodox Christian Negroes entered Russia.” No, he wouldn’t, but this is the point: a huge influx of Orthodox Negroes is not going to enter Russia. That fantasy is just as ridiculous as the Wilhelmsen-Bozell fantasy of a huge conversion of American blacks.

There are two different ways of abandoning the West. The first way is the way of the liberals: “The West is evil and should be abandoned.” The second way is the way of the conservative Christians: “The West has nothing to do with race.” That is tantamount to saying that the Incarnation has nothing to do with Christianity. To deny the means by which God revealed Himself to man leaves man cut off from God. And to leave the defense and the preserving of European culture to anyone but the white man is to leave the white race and all the other races bereft of the spiritual substance of that culture.

“King am I, whatsoever be their cry;
And one last act of kinghood shalt thou see
Yet, ere I pass.” And uttering this the King
Made at the man. Then Modred smote his liege
Hard on that helm which many a heathen sword
Had beaten thin; while Arthur at one blow,
Striking the last stroke with Excalibur,
Slew him, and, all but slain himself, he fell.

From Tennyson’s Idylls of the King

Some Thoughts on *Who Are We?*

Samuel Huntington has created a minor stir in academia by arguing in his book, Who Are We?, that the core culture of America is Anglo-Protestant. But he has created only a minor stir because he tells everyone in the introduction to his book that the preservation of the Anglo-Protestant culture, which he admires, does not depend on the survival of the Anglo-Protestant people who created it.

Huntington’s view, that the white man is not essential to the maintenance of the white man’s civilization, is common among conservatives, Catholics, and neocons. When the late Frederick Wilhelmsen said Western culture had nothing to do with race, he was expressing the common opinion of those who admired the West but did not think the white race was necessary for the survival of the West. It’s a seductive theory. I once believed in it myself. But it is false. It is false because the Incarnation is true.

Divinity comes through humanity. It cannot be manufactured in a test tube utilizing the rarefied vapors of the idiot savants of theology and science. A particular people created Western civilization in response to the love of a particular God. To claim that another people can carry the burden of that civilization and defend that civilization is the same as saying that all children should be placed, at birth, in a giant supermarket where they can be distributed at random to anybody who comes into the store. Christianity does not destroy ties of kinship and ties of blood. It deepens them. A curse on all those who would sever those ties which are the ties that bind us to Him.

The White Deer Returns

From “Sanctuary” by Donald Davidson

…you may lie
On sweet grass by a mountain stream, to watch
The last wild eagle soar or the last raven
Cherish his brood within their rocky nest,
Or see, when mountain shadows first grow long,
The last enchanted white deer come to drink.

I think one of the reasons that liberals hate Hitler so much is because he revealed their big secret of mass hypnosis: if you tell a lie big enough and often enough, most people will come to believe it. For quite some time now all the institutions of our country—the press, the churches, the government, and the civic organizations—have been propagating the lie that the white man and the culture he created is evil. In contrast to the white man, the great liars tell us, stands the black man: pure, noble, and oppressed.

White children are taught to hate their ancestors and to prepare to live a life of reparation for the wrongs done by their ancestors. Black children are taught that everything beautiful is black and that no act of vengeance against ‘whitey’ is too vile or wrong. After all, is not ‘whitey’ the fount of all evil?

How did it come about that the descendants of the creators of Christendom should curse and excoriate their ancestors and refuse to lift one finger in combat against the despoilers or lift one voice in anger against them?

It is very difficult to find an articulation of why the white man is the ‘fount of all evil.’ The ‘fact’ is just supposed to be quite self-evident. If one challenges the unreasoned assumption, one is immediately either marginalized, excommunicated, imprisoned, or killed. But amidst all the noxious anti-white gas, there does seem to emerge some fuzzy apologias for the white man’s guilt.

The blacks hate whites, because they hate all those outside their tribe, but the white-hating whites base their hatred on Christianity. Let’s examine the various briefs against white people by white “Christians.”

1. Liberal Catholics. On the subject of race, the Vatican stands with the liberals. The liberals claim that the whites have despoiled Africa and violated the Christian principle of brotherhood by enslaving blacks. Is there any truth to this charge?

I’m sure that every white who entered Africa did not do so with the intent of helping Africans, but Europe at the time of the African colonization was still largely Christian in its ethos, and the record of Europeans in Africa is astonishing. Wherever they went, tribal warfare was held in check and the corporal works of mercy flourished in areas mercy had never been before. The life of Edmund Hodgson is one among thousands of examples of the truly heroic efforts of whites in Africa:

Northern Katanga was also the territory of a renowned English Missionary, Edmund Hodgson of the Congo Evangelistic Mission, who had been in the Congo for forty years before he was murdered by the Baluba. He was a surgeon, builder and teacher. He founded 157 churches in the Congo, roofing many of them himself. His pay, if it may be mentioned, eventually reached the grand equivalent of £17 a month in Belgian currency, which in the Congo is enough to buy you a good meal and a haircut. He built schools, where for the first time the tribal language was set down in writing. He built a motor launch, which he used as an ambulance; and as the years went by he built several more, giving each one away to the Natives as a new one was finished. He was also a crack shot, ridding the villages of a rogue elephant and marauding lion. On one occasion he was called out to deal with a pride of six lions that were stalking a village, and shot all six of them the same day. His biggest enemies in the early years - as in the later – were the witchdoctors and secret societies, who of course ruled by terror. Hodgson wrote to the C.E.M. headquarters in England: “The witchdoctors are like banks and bookies. They win every time. To denounce a witchdoctor is the worse sin known.” But, traveling on a battered old bicycle through hundreds of miles of swampland for months at a time, he set out to break them. A fellow missionary said of him: “Often he would walk into the middle of a secret society meeting to rescue the young girls they used for their orgies. He was a mild man, but he would risk any danger to prevent these children being tortured, wading in with his fists if necessary.”

In 1952 Hodgson’s wife died; and he toiled on alone, taking his leave every five years but still having to work to make ends meet. But, following Independence, he saw his life’s work literally going up in flames. He wrote: “This last six months has seen the bottom drop out of this fast-created world. Now there is no Belgian or African authority in this district. The sad part of it all is that it is the innocent ones who suffer...”

Shortly after Hodgson wrote this report he visited the ‘parish’ of the New Zealander, Elton Knauf. He was at something of a loose end now, as his churches had been burned down and he had been forced to leave his own parish by the tribesmen he had spent his whole life slaving for. He and Knauf went on a mercy mission, taking food and medical supplies and even money to distressed villagers. It was in an area where, like his own, nearly all the mission posts had been plundered and burned down. Soon their truck was stopped by Balubas, and the two men were dragged out. The tribesmen offered to let Knauf go. But he refused to leave Hodgson, and so both men were put to death. According to a Christian tribesman it was a slow death, and both men died praying. Unlike the witchdoctors who ruled the people by terror and had survived through the ages, the white men had tried to inspire the people by self-sacrificing example, and had succeeded only in making the supreme one.

Of white men like these, tribute seems inadequate. Silence seems more fitting. But normally, while they are alive, they receive the sort of silence of which Kipling wrote: “The reports are silent here, because heroism, failure, doubt, despair, and self-abnegation on the part of a mere cultured white man are things of no weight as compared to the saving of one half-human soul from a fantastic faith in wood-spirits, goblins of the rock, and river-fiends.”

--from White Man Think Again! by Anthony Jacob

And what happens in Africa when the kindly restraining hands of the whites are taken off the Africans? What happens when whites tell Africans that they, the Africans, have been right all the time, and when whites rush to condemn other whites as racist and sexually repressed? Does African then return to a Golden Age? History says otherwise:

It turned that in Kongolo nineteen missionary priests had been massacred by the Congolese troops, and that African student priests had been commanded to throw the bodies into the river. One of the student priests related that the bodies had been stripped and their hands cut off, eyes stabbed, and other unmentionable mutilations as well as arrows planted in the bodies.” On hearing of this massacre the late Pope John said his heart was full of grief but that he had “no feeling of hatred—only loving charity and forgiveness.” No doubt he felt the same way about the outrages inflicted on the nuns, forced to dance naked and sing hymns in praise of the Messiah Lumumba before being taken and ravished and subjected to bestial tortures. It appears that nothing, absolutely nothing the black man does will ever open the eyes of the people in Europe. They are determined not to see because if they do see it will mean that they will have to discard their ‘humanism’ and find another philosophy. To deprive them of their liberalism will be like cutting off their hands and feet.

Northern Katanaga is where the cannibal Balubas live. According to a missionary, Mr Burton, of the Congo Evangelistic Mission, cannibalism, which had always been practiced in secret among the Balubas, is now quite openly practiced. In extenuation of African cannibalism, a newspaper article explained that it had a purely “religious” significance. But Mr Burton stated that there were two types of cannibalism: the ritual type, for ceremonial sacrifice; and the other, which was simply a craving for human flesh. “It is like alcohol—the more they get, the more they want,” he said.

--White Man Think Again!

Did you take note of Pope John’s new interpretation of Christianity that was to become the standard for all subsequent popes? We no longer have to forgive our own personal enemies; we have only to forgive other people’s enemies. And we get to call the victims (and the defenders of the victims) names—names like uncharitable, insensitive, unforgiving, racist, and reactionary.

The record of whites in North America is supposed to be as vile, if not more so, than the record of whites in Africa. But let’s take the whole record. Did the Southern whites take free, happy blacks from the heart of Africa and bring them to a life of torture and barbarism on this continent? No, they did not. They took black slaves, enslaved by other blacks, and made them serfs, under working conditions far superior to that of the Northern factory workers and the serfs of Russia. After fighting and losing a civil war, did the Southern whites continue to segregate whites from blacks and to enforce that segregation with violence if necessary? Yes, the Southerners did. And they should be lauded for their efforts, not vilified. The Southerners had something sacred to protect.

The liberals love to show us pictures of lynched black men, but those pictures don’t tell the whole story. What was the crime of the lynched black man? And if the lynching is unjustified, the lynching record of the Southern whites must be measured against the records of other dominant races and civilizations. How well did the blacks do in Haiti or the Arabs in Arabia? What emerges in the South is an incredible record of Christian forbearance and charity toward a foe who himself would have no mercy were he in power.

And why are the atrocity stories so one-sided? Why do we never see pictures of the victims of black atrocities? Indeed, to bring that up is uncharitable and racist.

And the civil war continues. Who will speak and fight for all the silent victims of black barbarism? Do we care? They seldom die quickly because their murderers have no concept of mercy, which is after all only a central tenet of the evil white man’s religion.

2. Conservative Catholics. There is no difference between liberal and conservative Catholics regarding the present. Conservatives, like liberals, view blacks as wronged and therefore sacred. William F. Buckley, Jr., and countless conservatives like him are a living testament to the two-step process of self-deception. First, one accepts a lie because one is afraid to speak the truth. Then one begins to believe the lie rather than accept the fact that one is a coward.

Conservative Catholics do differ somewhat from the liberals in their view of the European past; they are unwilling to label all white culture as evil, and a few of them will even say some good things about the South. But they all parrot the notion that a defense of European values has nothing to do with a defense of the white man. “The white man has betrayed the faith,” they chortle, “so he must be supplanted by the black man.” Yes, the majority of whites have betrayed the Faith, but are blacks a noble race of savages prepared to take up the white man’s mantle and restore the Christian faith to its former glory? Where is the evidence for this?

It is Islam, not Christianity, which is gaining in Africa; and when African blacks become Christian, their Christianity is a different faith from that of the old European Faith. It is a syncretistic combination of voodoo, animism, and tribalism, which is why those conservatives who push for the immigration of black Christians miss the mark. Black Christianity is not Christianity; the rare black who practices real Christianity is shunned by his fellow blacks as a tool of the white man. Where genuine Christianity still lives among whites, blacks oppose it.

The problem of lapsed, white Christians will not be solved by turning, with false utopian dreams, to the black race. It will be solved by appealing to whites to pick up the mantle of their sacred, Christ-bearing ancestors and to renew the struggle for Christendom.

I have not included Catholic traditionalists in the discussion because traditionalists are outside the human sphere. While there are some human beings in their ranks who just stumbled into traditionalism while trying to escape clown masses, the traditionalist hierarchy cares nothing about race or any issue that “stinks of humanity.” Michael Davies, the chief lay spokesman for Catholic traditionalism in the English-speaking world, revealed all we need to know about traditionalists when he played the race card against an Italian cardinal who argued against selecting a black pope.

3. Liberal Protestants. The liberal Protestants are much like the liberal Catholics; they are fascinated by the black man as a harbinger of death while at the same time they need to believe he is an oppressed noble savage in need of their beneficence. Neither the liberal Catholic nor the liberal Protestant has ever done a thing to improve the black man’s lot or to convert him to Christianity. They merely use the black man as a trump card against fellow whites.

4. Conservative Protestants. The conservative Protestants such as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson have completely capitulated to the blacks, as have the conservative Catholics.

5. Fundamentalist Protestants. Some fringe Christian fundamentalist groups have held the line on issues such as immigration and mixed marriages. But unfortunately they are a dying breed. Bob Jones of Bob Jones University caved in awfully quick.

6. Conclusion. The white surrender to black savagery was orchestrated by white Christians, but the surrender was not mandated by Christianity.

Such great counterrevolutionary thinkers as Plinio Correa de Oliveira and Thomas Molnar have told us that revolutions succeed when those in authority begin to doubt their own legitimacy. Thus, those in authority fail to avail themselves of the means of supporting their regimes. Similarly, white Christians began to doubt Christianity. They began to doubt its uniqueness, and began to doubt whether there was really anything so extra special about Jesus. Would not Gandhi or Nelson Mandela or Martin Luther King, Jr. serve as well? So Christianity became a major force for egalitarian notions of the universal brotherhood of all men of all faiths.

But when Christian principles are adhered to, Christians should discriminate against those values that are non-Christian, and they should segregate themselves from those who are non-Christian. Richard Weaver makes such a case in The Southern Tradition at Bay: “Civilization is measured by its power to create and enforce distinctions. Consequently there must be some source of discrimination, from which we bring ideas of order to bear on a fortuitous world.”

White Europeans have more than a right; they have a duty to preserve white European culture. They cannot do this while teaching their children the evils of the only culture that placed mercy rather than sacrifice at its center.

The White Deer

You may lie
On sweet grass by a mountain stream to watch
The last wild eagle soar or the last raven
Cherish his brood within their rocky nest,
Or see, when mountain shadows first grow long,
The last enchanted white deer come to drink

--Donald Davidson

There is nothing a writer can do to explain what he has written to someone who deliberately wants to misconstrue what he has written. But sometimes, very rarely, people ask for explanations because they genuinely want an explanation. For those people I offer the following.

First, I have never claimed that the Christian Faith is only a white man’s religion. But I have claimed, and will continue to claim, that I do not believe that the Christian Faith has ever penetrated as deeply into the souls of other races as it has penetrated into the soul of the white race. The white Europeans were the only race of people who adopted Christianity as conquerors. They alone saw Christ as worthy of worship because He was gentle, meek, and kind as well as powerful. All the other races adopted Christianity after they had been conquered. They saw Him only as a God of power, not a God of love.

Secondly, I do not believe that because whites have abandoned their cultural heritage it would be a good thing if whites were supplanted by other more “vital races.” I want to see a renewal of the white race, not an extermination.

Thirdly, I take issue with “Christians” who adopt, with glee, the false formula that says, as the white race falls, other races shall rise. In reality, I think the equation reads: as the white race falls, so fall all other races. The idea that white Christian churches can export a new, pure, nonwhite Christianity to other cultures is ludicrous. The Church has not stopped exporting white Christianity to other non-white nations; it has simply stopped exporting healthy, integral Christianity and is instead exporting decadent, liberal Christianity under the guise of a purer, non-racist brand of Christianity.

The myth of the black, noble savage does an injustice to white folk because it implies that the extermination of the white race is a consummation devoutly to be wished. But we must reject that false myth and the much-anticipated (by liberal and conservative whites) invasion of the black Übermenschen. For Western culture is irreplaceable, and it provides the only link to a world that is not of this world. As Christopher Dawson writes:

“And the importance of these centuries of which I have been writing is not to be found in the external order they created or attempted to create, but in the internal change they brought about in the soul of Western man – a change which can never be entirely undone except by the total negation or destruction of Western man himself.”

And the worship of the black Übermenschen will result in the complete negation and destruction of Western man.

Are we, as Christians, obligated to prefer polyglot societies to white societies? The modern Christian says we are, and Brazil is often held up as a model country. But is there some divine intent behind the separation of the races? The fact that the races were separated by God and the fact of the Tower of Babel story seem to indicate to me that God did intend the races to be separate. But of course liberals reject the reality of the Tower of Babel. They must needs reject almost the entire Bible if they are to hold to their view of polyglot universalism because there is no biblical sanction for their hellish vision.

What the racial universalist misses is one of the most essential elements of Christianity. A key building block for the Faith is a love for kith and kin. One can only love the stranger when one has learned to love one’s own kith and kin. To short circuit the kith-and-kin system, which has worked well for thousands of years (why has the Faith diminished as more “enlightened” views of race have gained ascendancy in the churches?), and to replace it with a bloodless racial universalism will ultimately lead to the extinction of the Christian Faith. And we are almost to the point where one could say racial universalism has led to the extinction of the Faith. In the end if the racial universalists get their way, the Christian Faith will be like a preserved corpse: it will still retain its outward form, but there will be no blood in it.

The character of Ratty in The Wind and the Willows is able to appreciate Mole’s love for his home because he himself has such a love for his own river. There is much to be learned from Rat’s devotion to his river. In fact, my own devotion to European culture and to my own race has never been expressed better than by Ratty:

“I beg your pardon,” said the Mole, pulling himself together with an effort. “You must think me very rude; but all this is so new to me. So-this-is-a River!”
“The River,” corrected the Rat.
“And you really live by the river? What a jolly life!”
“By it and with it and on it and in it,” said the Rat. “It’s brother and sister to me, and aunts, and company and food and drink, and (naturally) washing. It’s my world, and I don’t want any other. What it hasn’t got is not worth having, and what it doesn’t know is not worth knowing.”

A hopeless provincialism? No, it is a provincialism that leads to something much greater and more universal than the bloodless utopian universalism that is advocated by the Christian race mixers.

Addendum
Samuel Johnson was supposed to have claimed that patriotism was the last refuge of a scoundrel. I have often thought that mysticism is actually the last refuge of a scoundrel; after losing the debate, just get mystical with your opponent and tell him your argument defies rational constructions.

And yet although often the refuge of a scoundrel, there are mystical arguments that are valid and are not made because one is afraid of being challenged for one’s lack of empirical evidence and one’s lack of rationality. This is the reason many quite decent white “racists” often bring in false evolutionary theories to buttress up their case for the white race. They want something solid and empirical.

But the most compelling argument to me for the preservation of the white race, undiluted by other racial strains, lies not in the realm of evolutionary theory, which I do not believe in, but in the mystical realm.

In making my case for the white man, I am going to relate one example from what is a legion of examples. (And if you think a case for the white man need not be articulated, just listen to what is being said about him in all the citadels of ‘learned opinion’ throughout the world.)

When I worked as a police officer, there was another officer in a neighboring, urbanized borough whom we shall call Dave Mills (not his real name). Dave was a short, stocky, chain-smoking, overweight, fifty-one year-old veteran with over twenty-five years experience in police work. Dave was a white man. To the best of my knowledge, he never attended any church. Dave also, like the other white officers (and the black ones, too, for that matter) called black people ‘niggers.’ Dave was particularly anti-Negro, having been longer on the force than the rest of us.

Now, to the incident. Dave had finished his four p.m.-to-midnight shift and was heading back to his station. He was late because he had to finish up with a fender bender accident. On his way back to the station, he saw a congregation (not a religious one) of young black people. Two blacks in particular caught Dave’s attention, a boyfriend/girlfriend pair in their early twenties. The young black male was screaming at the young black woman, who appeared to be pregnant and was screaming back at the male. The screaming match was taking place on a bridge over a large stream. The stream was shallow enough and the bridge high enough to render someone quite dead if that someone were thrown off the bridge.

Dave’s first thought was to keep on driving – “Why get involved in some domestic dispute when I’m not even on duty? I’ll just tell the guys on the next shift to look into it.”

But Dave’s second thought, when he had driven about two blocks past the bridge, was “There might not be time for me to tell somebody else; that argument could turn violent.”

Dave returned to the bridge. When he got there he saw the same group of black youths as before, but the couple had gone beyond verbal confrontation; the black male had a knife to the woman’s throat and seemed to be trying to throw her off the bridge and/or slice her up.

Dave immediately called for assistance. And then he did something that is certainly not standard procedure but was something Dave often did because of his many years of experience. He unloaded his gun before getting out of the car. Why? Because Dave saw that he couldn’t shoot the assailant (the bullet might go through him and into the woman) and he also saw that he was going to have to grapple with a man decidedly younger and larger than he. If he lost the wrestling match, Dave knew he would be shot with his own gun. Yes, he could still be stabbed to death, but that, he reasoned, would take longer, and help (he hoped) was on the way.

I, being on the midnight-to-eight a.m. shift in a neighboring borough, and two other officers from Dave’s borough responded to Dave’s call for assistance. When we arrived, this fat, chain-smoking, politically incorrect, white male had the black male on his stomach (a black male with whom Dave could not have lasted one round in a boxing match) and was attempting to put handcuffs on him.

With help from the other officers and myself, Dave got the male cuffed. Dave was bleeding from knife wounds on his hands and arms. The woman was bleeding from wounds to the face, arms, and hands.

Dave called the ambulance for the woman and held her head in his arms till the ambulance came.

She recovered from her wounds and delivered her baby a few months later. Dave, whose wounds were minor, did not need to be hospitalized. He had undoubtedly saved the lives of the woman and her baby.

I have often pondered about that incident. Why did Dave bother going back to the bridge? He did not have to go back. No one would have faulted him for not looking into a non-incident. So why did he do it? There was a whole host of black youth who didn’t get involved, and who, in fact, were cheering for the assailant when I and the other officers arrived. So, again, why?

Well, I’m open to charges of mysticism at this point, but I must insist that the answer lies in the mystical realms. Dave, despite the fact that he was not a member of any Christian church and despite the fact that he probably had a rather hazy, nebulous idea about the Deity, was a blood Christian. Because he was a white man, he had the Faith which had been planted and nurtured in the blood of the white man some 1,500 years ago. That Faith can never be totally eradicated from the blood of the white man, and should never be diluted or supplanted by the blood of other races, even if they are actually Christian, or, as is more likely, if they merely call themselves Christian. The white blood is an essential support for Christianity. Without it there would still be Christian churches, but there would be no Faith left on earth.