Cambria Will Not Yield

Sunday, March 25, 2007


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

Labels: , , , ,


My mother used to give me t-shirts she had bought at various rummage sales. They come with various logos, some of sports teams, whiskey distillers, etc. It would be a mistake then for someone to assume I am a devotee of the sports team or the distillery whose logo I wear on my back; I simply can’t afford to turn down a free t-shirt.

One can sometimes place too much significance on symbols. But I do think there is a great deal of significance in the comparison of the Confederate flag, the U.S. flag, and the British flag. The British flag (called the Union flag or the Union Jack) is a combination of the crosses of the patron saints of England (St. George’s cross, red on a white field), Scotland (St. Andrew’s cross, white saltire on a blue field), and Ireland (St. Patrick’s cross, red saltire on a white field). So in Britain one can be in complete opposition to the current British government but remain a proud, flag-waving Briton because the flag still symbolizes ancient Christian Britain.

Now over to America. Our flag went through various arrangements: the stars were initially set in a circle, and then, by order of President Monroe, they were set in parallel lines. We adopted the colors of the Union Jack but not the crosses. Significant? Or is it of no more significance than my whisky distiller t-shirt? I think Alfred B. Street has described with insightful accuracy the significance of our flag:

The stars were disposed in a circle, symbolizing the perpetuity of the Union; the ring, like the circling serpent of the Egyptians, signifying eternity. The thirteen stripes showed with the stars the number of the United Colonies, and denoted the subordination of the States to the Union, as well as equality among themselves.
Yes, the new flag symbolized an alien, non-European idea that was to pollute North American and then the world.

The Confederate flag, or more accurately the flag of the Confederate Navy and the battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia, is a modification of St. Andrew’s cross. That symbol is in keeping with the ethos of the South. Their war was a war of a non-revolutionary, Christian society against a non-Christian, revolutionary one.

Labels: , ,

‘Tis the Time’s Plague

I am against the Bill Kristol-George Bush war for reasons I have stated often enough. And call me irresponsible, I do not subscribe to the “It was wrong to start with, but now we must not leave,” philosophy. Shedding more Iraqi blood and sacrificing more American blood will not magically make wrong right. Besides, we have a real enemy on our border that has declared war on the United States. Why not, if you’re going to ask soldiers to risk their lives, ask them to risk their lives in defense of their homeland, instead of corporate American’s bragging rights in the Middle East?

Although against the current war, I am not, like the late John Paul II and the Quakers, a pacifist. I do believe there are times when a Christian must kill. But I am in disagreement with the modern, post-Christian justifications for the shedding of blood. The moderns, such as George Bush, believe as Robespierre believed, that if blood is shed in the name of democracy and liberty, the men who shed that blood are absolved from all guilt. I’ll go further. They believe that they have performed a holy act and are beyond the ken of mortal men who do not have the courage or vision to perform such sanctified massacres.

Well, ‘tis the time’s plague when madmen lead the blind. There is currently no Christian organization in existence that wants to give genuine guidance on the important question: When should a Christian kill? The Catholics are Quakers, the Protestants are all over the board, and Catholic traditionalists take the Muslim view of war – kill them all.

Nor are the old Catholic catechisms any help in deciding the difficult question of when a Christian should kill, because they all assume conditions which no longer exist – a sound Church and a moral government – and hence, prohibit an individual taking arms against the state or involving himself in acts of private retribution. But in the absence of Christian government, following the old catechisms, which are based on Aquinas, means there can be no counter-revolutions and no justice against those who prey on the innocent, such as state-sanctioned abortion doctors and black murderers.

As always, it is the Christian poets to whom we can turn for guidance. Hamlet is faced with a situation analogous to that facing a modern European and the modern European America. Hamlet has only an abstracted faith with which to face a situation that calls for a real faith. He must face what Miguel de Unamuno called the agony of Christianity: he must either become human by following the way of the cross or forever remain in the rank of the Gnostics, who would play upon man as if he were a musical instrument.

Hamlet. Why, look you now, how unworthy a thing you make of me! You would play upon me, you would seem to know my stops, you would pluck out the heart of my mystery, you would sound me from my lowest note to the top of my compass; and
there is much music, excellent voice, in this little organ, yet cannot you make it speak. ‘Sblood, do you think that I am easier to be play’d on that a pipe? Call me what instrument you will, though you can fret me, you cannot play upon me.
And later, Hamlet, having made his declaration to the world, “This is I, Hamlet, the Dane,” shows us that it doesn’t matter whether the augurers are right in their predictions. A Christian doesn’t heed them. His duty is determined by what’s in his blood and his heart, and he must do his duty in spite of dungeon, fire, sword, and augury. Therein lies the great Christianity of Hamlet. And as a Christian, Hamlet fights and kills because the treacherous sword of the Gnostics is “unbated and evenom’d” with that which kills not only the body but the soul as well.

We should note that Shakespeare presents the conflict as it is really played out in modern life. Claudius has the Catholic Faith, if mere adherence to outward forms counts as having the Faith. But the Christian hero, having stripped the false layers of Gnostic skin from his own soul, recognizes the evil beneath Claudius’ pious exterior. The Poloniuses of the world who have settled for a false view of existence do not have the ability to recognize evil; hence, they side with men who are evil but who have achieved success in the Darwinian jungle, for that is the only objective standard they have. And when there is no longer a hero who can recognize evil and fight it, we have a situation analogous to present day America and Europe.

The English author P. C. Wren is anti-modern because he takes the concept of the hero seriously. His heroes are not anti-heroes. Wren often places his heroes in situations where an evil person is able to wreak havoc because conventional society has lost the ability to identify evil. In Beggars’ Horses, Captain Bartholomew Hazelrigg is faced with a dilemma that would force the computer-trained brains of modern, moral theologians to combust. A thoroughly evil woman has murdered, maimed and destroyed a great number of men who have gotten in the way of her evil designs. Yet conventional society regards the woman as the paragon of virtue. Only Hazelrigg knows what she is and what she is still capable of doing if she is not stopped. He arranges to meet the woman on the moor one day and quickly ends her career in crime.

In The Man the Devil Didn’t Want, also by Wren, the hero of the novel is faced, like Hazelrigg, with a villainous antagonist whose villainy has not been recognized by conventional society. He is a murderer and a blackmailer. The hero of the novel forces the villain into the Foreign Legion and then takes him into the desert.

“Yrotavál,” said I, you attempted to murder me yesterday. Silence! You are doing something worse than murder to my brother. You have driven him to insanity, perhaps suicide. You actually did murder Corporal Bjelavitch and Sergeant Paggallini, and by your own account you have murdered other men. Any Court of Law before which you were tried would convict you and sentence you to death. I am now going to take the Law into my own hands. I sentence you to death.”

“It is murder!” shouted Yrotavál, as I drew my revolver from its holster.

“Silence! Stand back!” And I leveled my revolver at his face. “Murder or not, I’m going to kill you—as you tried to kill me.”

“You can’t prove…” began Yrotavál, his voice high and hoarse.

“No, I can’t. Though I know it; and you know it. But I am not killing you for that. I…”

“It is murder! Murder…” screamed Yrotavál. “You talk about me being a murderer and…”

“Murder or execution, Yrotavál, I’m going to kill you now… Even if it brings me down to your level. I have warned you. I have tried to stop you. You’ve been blackmailing my brother again…”

“It’s a lie. It’s a lie. I haven’t written a word since…”

“That’s enough. I know that you have. It was you who persuaded him to sham blindness and you’ve blackmailed him ever since.”

“It’s a lie. He began it. He asked me to sham deaf and dumb and…”

“You yourself admitted that it was your idea. You yourself admitted blackmailing him and…”

“I stopped. I stopped when you…”

“About turn!” I roared, and, so strong was the habit of years, the force of mechanical instinct, that Yrotavál almost instantly obeyed.

Should I bid him kneel? Should I bid him pray?

Yrotavál kneel! Yrotavál pray! I thought of Luke. I thought of Rosanne—and pulled the trigger.

With a convulsive jerk and jump he fell forward. Placing the muzzle of my revolver to his ear, I shot him again.

With the entrenching tools I made a shallow grave, thrust his body into it, shoveled the earth and gravel back into the hole, and covered the place with large loose stones.

I was cool, nay cold, collected in mind and calm in spirit.

Having finished my task, I marched back to the poste, taking with me the light pick and shovel.

On the way, I visited the sentry-groups posted to guard the passage of the water-fatigue party to the stream.

“Did you hear a shot?” I asked Corporal Mallen, the American tough guy and Bad Man, for whom I had much admiration and a high regard.

“Sure, Sergeant,” he said. “Two.”

“Legionaire Yrotavál has been shot,” I informed him.

Corporal Mallen appeared to bear the bad news bravely.

“Isn’t that just too bad!” he said.

As I
turned away and he saluted, a smile flickered for an instant across his grim

--from The Man the Devil Didn’t Want by P. C. Wren
In reading both accounts of the killing of a human being, my heart soared. Why? The obvious answer would be that I am a heartless, bloodthirsty brut. Well, the reader is entitled to his opinion, but that is not really the reason. My heart soared within me because Wren depicts so well the type of Christianity I believe in. I believe that charity demands sometimes that we must kill. And we cannot hide behind catechisms or social conventions to excuse us from our duty. It sickens me to see the old fairy tales being written without the traditional destruction of the villain at the end. This robs the tale of its Christian content. Evil is real, the devil is the source of it, and human beings, of their own free will, do his bidding. Such individuals must be confronted and in some cases, killed. Charity demands it. Such, I believe, is the express command of our Christian Faith. I will have no part of a Christianity that denies that central charitable tenet.

Labels: , , , ,

Friday, March 23, 2007

Dead on Arrival

“What your wisdoms could not discover, these shallow fools have brought to light.” --from William Shakespeare’s Much Ado About Nothing

“Since you have a good heart, and are willing to divide what you have, I will give you good luck. There stands an old tree; cut it down, and you will find something at the roots.” – from the Grimm Brothers' tale “The Golden Goose”
In the classic film noir, D.O.A., Edmund O’Brien plays a man who has been fatally poisoned and has only 48 hours to live. In those 48 hours, he attempts to find the “who, what, where and how” of the poisoning.

The existential moral is obvious. We are all D.O.A. from the moment we are born. And, according to the existentialists, all we can do is struggle nobly until we succumb. Well, at least the existentialists spare us the sentimental slop: “Dying is perfectly natural; there is nothing to it.” Or how about the Blood, Sweat and Tears line? “There’ll be one child born in this world to carry on.” It’s all sheep-dip. The existentialists are preferable to the false comforters.

However, there used to be a religious Faith that didn’t seek to ignore the existential view of life. Quite the contrary, this faith absorbed it, made it its own, and then transcended it. Camus’ Sisyphus was transformed into Christ carrying his cross to Calvary.

What the Christian churches have succeeded in doing over the centuries is to take a mystery religion in which the Hero conquered death through divine charity and make it into a Coca-Cola commercial. The existential view of life is not confronted and transcended in modern Christianity; it is simply covered over with artificial Log Cabin syrup.

I have given various names to the artificial ‘syruping’ process over the years: the ‘dislocated intellect’, the over-intellectualization of the Faith, Gnosticism, and the Triumph of the Greeks. Since the last is most recent, let’s go back to the Greeks.

The existential view of life, which sees man as worth something but doomed to die and sink into nothingness, was presented by Aeschylus and Sophocles. The more cynical view that man was worth little and doomed to die and sink into nothingness was presented by Euripides. Camus is in the Aeschylus/Sophocles line, while Beckett (Waiting for Godot, etc.) is in the Euripides line. I side with Aeschylus and Sophocles; I think their view of existence, sans Christ, is the more correct one, and I think they represent ancient Greek culture at its best.

Now we come to the intellectuals, the self-proclaimed “the best and the brightest.” Plato and Aristotle stand at the front of a long line of intellectual giants who have offered us solutions to the existential dilemma, “I am a man, and I must die.” Plato is at his best when he breaks his own injunction against the poets and waxes poetic about the cave, intuiting a divine force. And for this reason he was considered by the early Church Fathers and Christian intellectuals to be compatible with Christianity. Aristotle, on the other hand, was not considered to be compatible by the early Church Fathers: there was no mystical element in Aristotle; he was a straight materialist, the first great cataloguer, an entomologist, a systems analyst man, the man with a white lab coat. Aquinas, at first opposed fiercely by the Platonists, managed to get Aristotle into the Catholic pantheon by showing that the real and the particular were the nuts and bolts of Christianity and not the nebulous mysticism of Platonic philosophy. But both Plato and Aristotle are harmful. And the Church, by attempting to pour Christianity into the faithful using classical cups, over time gradually poisoned the faithful. The salvation process was reversed: we once were saved but now are lost. Or, to use the existential parlance, we are again D.O.A.

To see why the classical-Christian mix has been so damaging to Christianity, let us look back to the Roman Empire shortly before the coming of Christ. What type of religion prevailed? Was it the borrowed Greek religion of Zeus, Hera, Apollo, etc.? No, that religion was given mere lip service. Was it the religion of the philosophers? No, there were some Platonists, Aristotelians, Epicureans, and Stoics among the intelligentsia, but those faiths did not move the masses. The great mass of people were attracted to the oriental mystery religions emerging everywhere throughout the Roman Empire. And what did these mystery religions provide that the philosophic systems did not? Personal contact with the deity.

Even the gods, with whom the believers thought they were uniting themselves in their mystic outbursts, were more human and sometimes more sensual than those of the Occident. The latter had that quietude of soul in which the philosophic morality of the Greeks saw a privilege of the sage; in the serenity of Olympus they enjoyed perpetual youth; they were Immortals. The divinities of the Orient, on the contrary, suffered and died, but only to revive again. Osiris, Attis and Adonis were mourned like mortals by wife or mistress, Isis, Cybele or Astarte. With them the mystics moaned for their deceased god and later, after he had revived, celebrated with exultation his birth to a new life. Or else they joined in the passion of Mithra, condemned to create the world in suffering. This common grief and joy were often expressed with savage violence, by bloody mutilations, long wails of despair, and extravagant acclamations. The manifestations of the extreme fanaticism of those barbarian races that had not been touched by Greek skepticism and the very ardor of their faith inflamed the souls of the multitudes attracted by the exotic gods. – Franz Cumont in Oriental Religions in Roman Paganism < >

The Greco-Roman gods and the Greco-Roman philosophies failed to reach the deeper regions of the soul; hence, they were abandoned; but the Oriental religions, while allowing for a more personal contact with a human deity, did not fulfill man’s need for a humane deity. However, the masses were ready, much more so than the intellectuals, for a personal savior, because of their involvement in the mystery religions. They needed Mithra with humanity. And this is the great insight of Europe’s most Christian of writers:

To arouse the hope that there may be a god with a heart like our own is more for the humanity in us than to produce the absolute conviction that there is a being who nade the heaven and the earth and the sea and the fountains of waters. Jesus is the express image of God’s substance, and in Him we know the heart of God. –

George MacDonald in The Miracles of Our Lord

What the Roman masses needed – a humane God who took a personal interest in their salvation – is what we all need, even intellectuals who don’t know they need such a God and who would have us accept a different type of God. I see the entire history of the Church as an attempt by the faithful to cling to the personal over the impersonal and to the incarnate God over the Olympian God. In the Catholic Church this struggle manifests itself in devotions to the Sacred Heart, the cult of the saints, and the cult of the Virgin. Unfortunately, the intelligentsia of the Church often intellectualizes the various devotions until the devotions have little of the original spirit left. In Protestantism, the struggle for the personal savior is seen in the fight for the Gospels as the intimate story of the Christ vs. the Biblical exegetical Gnostics who analyze away the religious content of God’s word.

Christopher Dawson once said that the Catholic-Protestant wars ended with Europe divided and seemingly estranged forever. But he then went on to say that there was a unity that still existed. That unity consisted of the devotion to classical culture shared by both the Protestant and Catholic intellectuals. Dawson suggested that this was a good thing. I disagree, and I would suggest that the conflict is not between Protestant laymen who believe in the Christ of the Gospels and Catholic laymen who say the Rosary, but between Protestant-Catholic peasants and the Greek intellectuals of the Catholic and Protestant worlds.

The reason I claim that Fundamentalism has outlasted Catholicism is because Fundamentalism has preserved more of its peasant faith than has Catholicism. Because of clerical dominance, the former faithful of the Catholic Church have been more thoroughly Gnosticized than remnant Fundamentalists. More ideological peasantry is needed in the Catholic ranks. Whereas Protestantism has its peasant fundamentalist remnant, Catholics instead have only the Platonic Novus Ordo and Aristotelian traditionalism. The former tends to impersonal, Jungian ecumenism and the latter tends to impersonal man-as-insect theology; in both, the personal savior, the God-Man, is lost in Greek vapor.

The old apologists can be forgiven for their over-reliance on the Greek forms. Before Vatican II, the rotting Greek foundations of the Church still seemed strong. But now that the rot is visible, it is not permissible to continue to fuse Christianity with classical philosophy. To do so overlooks the fact that Christ came to deliver us not only from the barbarism of Isis, Cybele, and Mithra, but also from the tyranny of the academy from which devotees of the mystery religions had sought relief. And in fact, there are devotees of Cybele in the Novus Ordo seeking refuge from academic Platonism as well as devotees of Mithra in the traditionalist ranks seeking refuge from academic Aristotelianism. Both groups should seek Christ, and they might still find Him if the Church ever lifts the Greek shroud from His face.

We need, if we are to conquer Greek Gnosticism, to recapture the tragic sense of life. We must turn off the Coca-Cola commercials of the Platonists and Aristotelians and sit with Lear in the hovel and expose ourselves to “feel what wretches feel.” It is a mystery, but it is always in stables and hovels, on our knees, that we see the living God. Tragedy is turned into a triumphant fairy tale ending, but only when we have rejected the Greek way and taken the humbler route through the stables.

Labels: , , , , ,

Away in a Manger

Away in a manger, no crib for a bed,
The little Lord Jesus laid down His sweet head.
The stars in the sky looked down where He lay,
The little Lord Jesus, asleep on the hay.

The cattle are lowing, the Baby awakes,
But little Lord Jesus, no crying He makes;
I love Thee, Lord Jesus, look down from the sky
And stay by my cradle till morning is nigh.

Be near me, Lord Jesus, I ask Thee to stay
Close by me forever, and love me, I pray;
Bless all the dear children in Thy tender care,
And fit us for Heaven to live with Thee there.


Labels: ,

Sunday, March 18, 2007

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.

Labels: , ,

Saturday, March 17, 2007

John Tyndall: Lest We Forget

In the fall of '05 I wrote a brief R.I.P. for that brave heart of Britain, Mr. John Tyndall. I never met the man personally, but I miss him a great deal. Like Samuel Francis, Mr. Tyndall fought the good fight and suffered much at the hands of liberal and "conservative" one-world globalists. Here, I would like to discuss three different issues that he discussed in his publication, The Spearhead, shortly before his death.

1) The issue of repatriation: should the British National Party hold to its policy of expelling all non-whites from Britain?

It was Mr. Tyndall’s position, which I agree with, that the BNP should stick to its ‘no compromise’ position and continue to campaign for the expulsion of all non-whites from Britain. Some young upstarts in the party thought the party should accept the non-whites already in Britain, even allowing them into the BNP, and then campaign on the new policy that no more non-whites be permitted in Britain. They advanced this policy because they thought it was more practical and not because they thought Tyndall’s goals were not desirable.

Tyndall’s response was that you always should campaign for what you deem as right, being fully aware of its impossibility for the present, because a victory in which you do not achieve your goal is not a victory. I would add that if the British people were brought to a mindset where they could see the wisdom of allowing only whites to come into Britain then they could be just as easily persuaded to gradually relocate all the non-whites. (An exchange with South Africa: their whites for the British blacks would be one possibility.)

2) It is not because of a lack of moderation on the part of its advocates that the white cause is losing in Britain and America.

Mr. Tyndall made this point in a speech he gave during his last visit to the United States. In thousands of talks throughout Britain he found that white Britons were in sympathy with his cause. But they would not support his party. Why? Because, Mr. Tyndall pointed out, his party had no power. People were afraid of losing jobs or being imprisoned for support of the white cause. This is why, Mr. Tyndall concluded, it was necessary for white nationalists to achieve power, and it is why he continued to support the BNP. Unfortunately Mr. Tyndall is right about that. Human beings in the aggregate, but not in every particular, will always go with the powerful rather than the principled. Which brings us to the third issue.

3) Mr. Tyndall had a running debate with an older, counterrevolutionary gentleman. The counterrevolutionary thought parliamentary democracy was over and that white Britons should develop an elite band of white counterrevolutionaries and take over Britain.

Tyndall’s response was that there was no support for such a movement and that British nationalists should continue to work for electoral victories. Both the counterrevolutionary gentleman and Mr. Tyndall agreed on the desirability of a white Britain, they just disagreed on the means of achieving it. And I should also note that Mr. Tyndall did not oppose a counterrevolution, like so many American conservatives do, because he thought democracy was sacred or that violent counter-revolution was bad. He opposed it because he thought a white Britain could be brought about electorally and that it could not be brought about by counterrevolution.

On this issue, I both agree and disagree with Mr. Tyndall. On the one hand, it is true that there is no support for a counterrevolution in Britain, but it is equally true that the BNP has had very little success. They win a local election every once in awhile and the liberals and the conservatives get upset, but they never make the sweeping gains necessary to actually have an impact on national policy. And as the country goes increasingly nonwhite, the chances for white victories in elections have become even more remote. I think white British nationalists should continue to run for office, but they should also start developing a counterrevolutionary movement. There is a time for extreme measures. And if the existing British government does not halt the tide of color, and it certainly appears they will not, then white Britons should prepare extreme measures to deal with the tide of color. It is the most serious invasion they will ever face. When the Saxons supplanted the Welsh, it was a tragedy because the Welsh culture was Christian and the Saxon culture was not. But over time, the Saxons adopted Christianity and formed a Christian culture. They were the superior culture when the largely pagan, partly Christian Normans invaded. And over time the Saxon culture Christianized the Normans. But it will not be thus when the people of color complete their invasion. Only the white European adopts, if he sees it as superior to his own, the religion of the conquered. The nations of color have never adopted the religion of a conquered people. They respect only strength, and a conquered people’s religion is seen as weak.

There is such strength in the British people; maybe at the last trump, when the invasion seems almost complete, they will fight for God, kith and kin, and country.

I think the same principles that apply to Britain also apply to the United States. We, after all, are an extension of white Britain. It’s difficult to say which country is in a more deplorable state. The similarities are striking. Both countries face a tide of color that their white governments are unwilling to stop. There seem to be greater pockets of resistance in Britain than in the U. S., but neither country seems to have much of a resistance movement. There also seems to be more of an absolute, unshakable, messianic belief in democracy in this country than in Britain. One wishes that the warning of T. S. Eliot would have been heeded – "The term, democracy, as I have said again and again, does not contain enough positive content to stand alone against the forces you dislike – it can easily be transformed by them. If you will not have God (and he is a jealous God), you should pay your respects to Hitler and Stalin."

When the colored tide becomes overwhelming, there will probably be an upsurge of white nationalism in the European people. It will be too late at that point to save America or Europe, but it could be the start of a reclamation effort and a discovery of the roots of the only true civilization the world has ever known.

England's Answer
Truly ye come of The Blood; slower to bless than to ban,
Little used to lie down at the bidding of any man.
Flesh of the flesh that I bred, bone of the bone that I bare;
Stark as your sons shall be – stern as your fathers were.
Deeper than speech our love, stronger than life our tether,
But we do not fall on the neck nor kiss when we come together.
My arm is nothing weak, my strength is not gone by;
Sons, I have borne many sons, but my dugs are not dry.
Look, I have made ye a place and opened wide the doors,
That ye may talk together, your Barons and Councillors –
Wards of the Outer March, Lords of the Lower Seas,
Ay, talk to your gray mother that bore you on her knees! –
That ye may talk together, brother to brother's face –
Thus for the good of your peoples – thus for the Pride of the Race.
Also, we will make promise. So long as The Blood endures,
I shall know that your good is mine: ye shall feel that my strength is yours:
In the day of Armageddon, at the last great fight of all,
That Our House stand together and the pillars do not fall.
Draw now the threefold knot firm on the ninefold bands,
And the Law that ye make shall be law after the rule of your lands.
This for the waxen Heath, and that for the Wattle-bloom,
This for the Maple-leaf, and that for the Southern Broom.
The Law that ye make shall be law and I do not press my will,
Because ye are Sons of The Blood and call me Mother still.
Now must ye speak to your kinsmen and they must speak to you,
After the use of the English, in straight-flung words and few.
Go to your work and be strong, halting not in your ways,
Balking the end half-won for an instant dole of praise.
Stand to your work and be wise – certain of sword and pen,
Who are neither children nor Gods, but men in a world of men!

--Rudyard Kipling

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, March 11, 2007

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.

Labels: , ,

Sunday, March 04, 2007

The Young Drummer At Bay

“Why do the Old and New Testaments read like fairy tale books and why does our
Lord speak in parables if we were meant to theorize about God in the manner and
style of the heathen Greeks?”
The late Victor Herman subtitled his autobiography, An Unexpected Life. And indeed to go from an American home to the Russian Gulag is certainly unexpected, but I think most of us would probably tack on Herman’s subtitle to the book of our own lives. I know I would.

The most unexpected aspect of my life involves the Catholic Church. I never, having once entered the Church, would have thought that I could feel such an intense loathing for it some thirty years later. A day never passes in which I fail to ponder the difference between what I imagined the Catholic Church to be and what it turned out to be in reality. The imponderables and the perplexities of the dichotomy whirl through my head day and night. And unfortunately (or fortunately?), I cannot take refuge in the traditional refuge from Catholicism, namely fundamentalist Protestantism.

I once said that Catholicism and Protestantism needed each other because neither was complete without the other. Well, yes, they do need each other because neither is complete without the other, but even if fused together, they still would lack something. Both lack a poetic vision; both have adopted different systems to block out the poetic vision, but both lack that essential element. Let me define what I mean by poetic vision.

The poetic vision is the integral way human beings see reality, a kitchen sink full of passions, intuitions, sentiments, and ratiocinations. It is messy; it seems unnecessary, arduous, and imprecise compared to pure reason, but it is the way we human beings perceive reality.

When organized religion circumvents the poetic process in order (we are told) to clear a path that leads directly to God, we end up losing God. We lose God because we can no longer see Him.

Human beings are wedded to the poetic. We cannot see reality through abstractions. We can see a distorted reality through abstractions, but we cannot see true reality. It is no tragedy when non-Christian religions adopt distorted, abstracted versions of reality and worship their inhuman and debauched abstractions, but it is a tragedy when the true religion of the God-Man becomes an abstracted false religion of debauchery and inhumanity.

The Catholic Church keeps the poetic or the fairy tale mode of perception at bay by encircling its parishioners with Greco/Roman/Babylonian walls. Theoretically there are gates in the walls leading to the God-Man, but at each gate there is a sentinel. The parishioner wishing to pass through the gate is ‘searched’ before he is allowed to pass through the gate. If anything that suggests the poetic is found, it is confiscated. Without the poetic vision, the pilgrim parishioner is blind and unable to see God.

The fundamentalist Protestant seems, at first glance, to have solved the Greco/ Roman/Babylonian problem. He has eliminated the Catholic-Pagan walls and sentinels, but there is still a wall and there are still sentinels that keep the poetic vision at bay.

The new wall is the mystical ‘Born-Again’ wall. Unless one can show evidence of having had a ‘blessed assurance’ experience with the living God, one is not allowed through the gates by the new sentinels. This is certainly a bit of a contradiction because if one has had the ‘Blessed Assurance’ experience, why is it necessary to pass through the gates? Nevertheless, those who wish to pass through the gates are still, as in the Catholic-Pagan system, searched for evidence of the poetic. The pilgrim found with poetic contraband is not allowed through the gate. By insisting on the direct infusion of divine grace, the Protestant eliminates the myriad human encounters that authors like Thomas Hughes[i] have written about, which constitute the real divine grace that allows us to be born again. Even St. Paul, who had a genuine born again experience of the kind fundamentalists tell us we all must have to be saved, had other preparatory moments of grace before his road-to-Damascus experience. How do I know that? I know that because St. Paul tells us so in his letter to the Corinthians. Implicit in his “and have not charity” letter is an understanding of the divine-human connection. He reveals in 2nd Corinthians that he understands how the love of one human being for another can lead to a moment of grace in which the lover “can see His blood upon the rose.”

If there are good Christians in the Catholic Church, which most certainly there are, and if there are good Christians in the Protestant churches, which most certainly there are, why make all this fuss about their respective systems? I make the fuss because both systems seem designed to eliminate Christianity. While theoretically holding to the Christian creed, they encourage one to abandon one’s humanity, one’s vision, and thus one’s faith. Without a poetic understanding of the creed, faith becomes a problem in geometry instead of a living, vital faith. Some Catholics manage to smuggle contraband bits and pieces of the poetic past the sentinels and thus manage to get a glimpse of the living God. And an even greater number of Protestants, because their system is not as efficient as the Catholic system, manage to smuggle elements of the poetic past the sentinels. But the systems are designed (and the Catholic one maniacally so) to kill the poetic vision of man and hence, kill his faith in the God-Man.

In the stories of her poets and in the faces of her people, the old Europe reflects the true Christianity. Heart responds to heart and vision to vision. How does a Catholic Christian know that a Feeneyite’s doctrine is straight from hell even though he can back it up with quotes from 17 different church councils? Because the Catholic Christian’s heart rebels against it. He has seen the face of Christ in Christians outside the Church, and no narrow sectarian Catholic heathen can convince him otherwise. And how does a Christian know that he is born again despite the fact that he has not had the proscribed formulaic born-again experience? Because he has had his white moments when he sees, in the many facets of the human experience, the face of Jesus Christ.

The cultural back door is the front door. The European cultural heritage represents the attempt of the faithful to wrest Christ from the sentinels and to hold His pure image aloft for all the world to see. The image of Christ has not disappeared from the world because the Christian churches have failed; it has disappeared because the churches have succeeded: they have succeeded in killing the poetic vision of European man.

The fight for the old Europe is the fight for the faith. Anthony Burgess advised college students to forget relevance and find out who Nausikaa[ii] was. That’s not good enough. We must forget relevance and find out who Maud Ruthyn[iii] was.

[i] Tom Brown’s Schooldays (Puffin: UK, 1984), p. 288: “And let us not be hard on him, if at that moment his soul is fuller of the tomb and him who lies there, than of the altar and Him of whom it speaks. Such stages have to be gone through, I believe, by all young and brave souls, who must win their way through hero-worship, to the worship of Him who is the King and Lord of heroes. For it is only through our mysterious human relationships, through the love and tenderness and purity of mothers, and sisters, and wives, through the strength and courage and wisdom of fathers, and brothers, and teachers, that we can come to the knowledge of Him, in whom alone the love, and the tenderness, and the purity, and the strength, and the courage, and the wisdom of all these dwell for ever and ever in perfect fulness.”

[ii] Nausikaa: a Greek maiden who aids Odysseus in his travels

[iii] The Christian heroine of J. S. LeFanu’s novel, Uncle Silas

Labels: , ,

Blundering Along

An Angel of Death has been abroad throughout the land: you may almost hear the
beating of his wings…

--John Bright
I recently spent some time reading about the Crimean War, frequently and quite accurately referred to as the Crimean Blunder. In the essentials there are some striking parallels between the Crimean Blunder and the current Iraq Blunder.

(1) The pretences for the wars were lies.
In the case of the Crimean War, the British claimed that a victory by Russia over the Turks would upset the balance of power in Europe; and if you didn’t like that reason, the British warhawks countered with the humanitarian reason: “We are helping the hapless and helpless Turks.”

Russia was a third-rate power at best, which their defeat forty years later in the Russo-Japanese war revealed, and incapable of “upsetting” the balance of power in Europe. And as regards the second claim, it was not Britain’s business to go to war for anything other than national interest. And the additional kicker, which was not the case in the Iraq war, was that Russia’s cause was the humanitarian cause.

The stated reason for our involvement in the Iraq war was to eliminate the weapons of mass destruction. The secondary reason, which became the only reason, was to bring the blessings of democracy (whether they wanted them or not) and megatons of bombs to the Iraqi people.

(2) "God wants this war."
It was a bit of a stretch to make the claim that the Crimean War was a Christian crusade, but the British did it, although Russia, a Christian nation, was fighting for the right to protect Orthodox pilgrims in Turkey, while Turkey was fighting for the right to deny Orthodox pilgrims any rights at all in the Holy Land. In order to make the stretch, Russia was demonized. The British war faction claimed that Russia’s Christianity was only on the surface (there was some justification for that allegation, but Turkey had not even a surface Christianity) and that the Russians were in reality a barbarous people much worse than the humble, peace-loving Turks. It seems like a ludicrous argument, but that is what Lord Langford and others advanced.

In our own Iraq war (in the eyes of the Christian evangelicals), we are fighting a Christian Crusade because the enemy is Muslim. But a genuine Christian knows that killing Muslims just for the sake of killing Muslims is not Christianity, it is murder. And secondly, we are not a Christian nation fighting for Christian principles.

It is easier for us to demonize Saddam Hussein than it was for the British to demonize Russia, but even if it is proved that Saddam Hussein was a demon, does it follow that we have a moral right or a national interest in removing him?

(3) The Press supported the war and those who opposed it were deemed unpatriotic and cowardly.
There were many newspapermen in Britain who had misgivings about the war, but when public opinion seemed to be in favor of the war, they joined the cry for war. The British Quakers opposed the war, but they were largely ignored because they opposed all wars. Two public men, John Bright and Richard Cobden, opposed the war. Cobden believed in a non-interventionist policy in all foreign disputes, but once the fighting had begun, like our own Patrick Buchanan, he thought all criticism of the war should stop.

John Bright’s criticism of the war did not cease with the war, for he, quite rightly, did not think support for an impolitic and an immoral war was patriotic. Although Bright was a Quaker, he did not base his opposition to the war on Quaker doctrine; he based his opposition on the conviction that the war served no particular national interest and that to go to war for any other reason than that of national interest was immoral.

Although no one, some twenty years after the war, would have disputed the fact that Bright was correct, he was, at the time, vilified as unpatriotic and cowardly. He was burned in effigy and deprived of his Manchester seat in the general election.

The hard left, represented by such people as the late John Paul II and the Quakers again, were our irrelevant critics of the war. The late Samuel Francis was the patriotic voice of reason that was vilified and called unpatriotic by the liberal and neo-con press.

(4) All citizens were enjoined to support the troops’ bravery no matter what they thought of the war.
Tennyson wrote his famous poem, “The Charge of the Light Brigade” in praise of the famous disastrous charge of the same regiment. What are we to make of it? I think courage should always be given a certain respect, but courage in a cause that is wrong is not the type of courage that makes us think of the higher things. William Tell, standing in the mountain pass and firing the arrow that kills Gessler, and the men of the original Ku Klux Klan, standing between the helpless men and women of the South and the Haitianization of the South, demonstrate the type of courage that takes us to a transcendent realm.

Like the Crimean War, the Iraq war does not elevate the participants beyond a certain degree of respect when they perform their duties with courage. The participants are mainly tragic figures, the victims of someone else’s blunder.


This is war, -- every crime which human nature can commit or imagine, every horror it can perpetrate or suffer; and this it is which our Christian Government recklessly plunges into, and which so many of our countrymen at this moment think it patriotic to applaud!

You must excuse me if I cannot go with you. I will have no part in this terrible crime. My hands shall be unstained with the blood which is being shed. The necessity of maintaining themselves in office may influence an administration; delusions may mislead a people; Vattel may afford you a law and a defence; but no respect for men who form a Government, no regard I have for “going with the stream,” and no fear of being deemed wanting in patriotism, shall influence me in favour of a policy which, in my conscience, I believe to be as criminal before God as it is destructive of the true interest of my country.

-- John Bright


The Code

During the murder-torture of Teresa Schiavo, the odious phrase, “We are a nation of law,” kept coming up. Both Bushes, Jeb and George, used it to avoid doing what any honorable man in a position to do so would have done, namely, stopped the murder-torture of Terry Schiavo.

One could make a case, and I would agree with it, that our forefathers, while maintaining Christian customs, severed, by means of the U. S. Constitution, the connection between Christianity and law. Now in the 21st century, without the benefit of Christian behavior and customs, our law stands alone, secular and supreme.

But in the Christian era of Europe and its satellites, there was an honor code that stood above the law. When the law didn’t serve a Christian end, men of honor defied it. If one reads through the novels of Scott or the works of the older historians, one can see that the law often depended on who was in and who was out. Men of honor needed a code that was much less changeable. And it was not the code of the pagan, it was the code of the Christian, exemplified in Nicholas Nickleby’s “Stop! This shall not go on,” and in the Christian knights of the original Ku Klux Klan who also declared, “Stop! This shall not go on.”

If I don’t see the honor code, I don’t see Christianity. Bush can blab about his ‘born again’ status all year long, but I know he is not a Christian because he has no honor. He has nothing but the secularized law, and the law, divorced from Christianity, is a whore.

When, in some distant, future time if you are young enough now, you see men of honor riding to do battle against those who would use the law for evil ends, then you will know that Christianity is once again the Faith of Western man.

Labels: ,

Christian Warriors

I have very little sympathy with big wars to “make the world safe for democracy” or to “liberate foreign nations from tyranny.” It is the little wars for family and clan that engage my sympathy, which is why my favorite warriors are men who fought reluctantly and only when family and clan were attacked.

My two favorite Christian warriors are Rob Roy and William Tell. Rob Roy was a simple drover, minding his own business, when the English sought to divest his family of not only their home and property but also of their very lives. This was not to be borne. And Rob Roy made the English wish that they had left him alone. He brought them fire and sword. And, thank God, Rob did not end up like so many other Christian warriors, on the gallows or imprisoned. He died peacefully in the Highlands.

We all know of William Tell, the reluctant counterrevolutionary. “Place a hand on my kith and kin and I’ll find you and kill you though all the forces of hell stand in my way,” was the sentiment of William Tell. Gessler was doomed from the moment he acted with malice toward Tell’s son.

There is an incredible nobility in such heroes as Rob Roy and William Tell, and it is because of what they fought for. The modern wars for democracy and humanity will never produce heroes such as them because the modern wars are not for home and clan; they are for unspeakably foul causes such as democracy and capitalism. There is not one pure breath of mountain air in such causes.

Labels: ,

Another Interview with the Young Drummer

Interviewer: I’ve stored up a lot of questions for you, so if you don’t mind I’ll skip the preliminaries and just start firing away.

Young Drummer: Go ahead.

Int: I had a conversation with a relative the other day that mirrored hundreds of similar conversations I’ve had throughout my life. They always trouble me. My kinsman is a member of the Methodist Church. He has a woman pastor who believes that homosexual marriage is completely compatible with Christianity. But that is not what I find disturbing. I’m used to lunatic clergy; what I find disturbing is my kinsman’s reaction to the minister. He himself doesn’t think homosexual marriage is sanctioned by Christianity, but he is glad that he and his minister agree on the essentials, namely, that Christ is Lord. A Catholic priest once said a similar thing to me in regard to a debate he had with a pro-choice Lutheran. He said he wasn’t pro-choice himself, but he didn’t view the Lutheran’s pro-choice stance as an obstacle to their concelebrating the Mass. (I might add, by the by, that the same Catholic priest thought I was not a Christian because of my views on segregation.)

YD: What is your question?

Int: My question is this: Is everyone who cries, “Lord, Lord” a Christian? Can someone really say – well, of course, they can say it – but can someone really be a Christian and be pro-choice or in favor of gay rights? And what can you say about the faith of someone who can disregard such “minor” differences and still agree on the “essentials”?

YD: There is no exact line separating the Christian from the pagan and the post-Christian, but one can still discern the different sects. There is an instinctive sympathy that exists between Christians, and an antipathy that exists between Christians and non-Christians. Your kinsman is, at heart, with the post-Christians because he does not want the Christian creed to have any connection to reality. If the creed is true, certain principles flow from it. If you deny those principles, you deny Christianity. It is one thing to fail to live up to the principles of one’s faith – we all do that – but it is another thing to deny the principles altogether.

Int: To paraphrase Long John Silver, “Those are mighty harsh words, Captain.”

YD: You did ask for my opinion.

Int. But are there issues that are too muddled in which we cannot discern a clear Christian cause?

YD: Of course there are, although it is often the case that the issues are more muddled in theory than they are in practice. But, yes, there are such issues. Let’s take two examples, very similar in many respects.

First, let’s consider the war for the restoration of James III as King of England, Scotland, and Wales. Now, there are circumstances when a King steps beyond the pale of Christian civilization. In such circumstances he should be removed; Richard II and Richard III both fall into that category. But James II was not lawfully deposed. He did nothing as egregious as Richard II and Richard III. Hence, the attempt, by Bonnie Prince Charles, to restore James II’s son to the throne was a just cause. But there was room for doubt. Some time had elapsed and stability had been restored. Was it worth the bloodshed to restore the Stuart monarchy? My heart belongs to the Stuart cause, but I can certainly see that there could be Christians, real Christians, on the other side of the issue.

Your own un-Civil War is another example. My heart is with the South – they were in the right – and the North’s leaders were most certainly post-Christians, but I think it was entirely possible for a Northerner to participate in the war, fully believing he was doing his duty as a Christian.

Int: So far you’ve only used examples from wars between Europeans during the Christian era. What about the modern era and wars between Europeans and non-Europeans?

YD: For instance?

Int: The current immigration war. All the Christian churches support immigration. As a matter of fact, they equate a pro-immigration stance with Christianity. It is only the pagan groups who oppose immigration.

YD: I think one can say with certainty that the Christian Churches supporting immigration have entered into the post-Christian stage of Christianity. They have abstracted Christ out of existence. Nothing exists for them outside of their own narrow minds. They’ve killed the wellsprings of humanity from which genuine religious feelings come. There are no longer human beings in their world; there is only humanity in the abstract.

Int: What about the professed Christians supporting the war in Iraq?

YD: They are a different breed from the post-Christians; they are pagans whose hearts belong to Thor.

Int: But it is the outright pagans who, along with the left, oppose the war.

YD: Yes, which is why one is better off being an outright pagan than a man with a pagan heart who cloaks his pagan desires in Christian phrases.

Int: Let me shift topics and ask about the ‘born again’ experience. There is a fundamentalist Baptist preacher who has been making the rounds of my neighborhood. Every time he comes to the neighborhood, I invite him in. I’m afraid, however, that I’m a big disappointment to him. I listen to him, I ask him questions, but I do not tell him that I have been born again and that I am assured of my salvation. We are at an impasse when it comes to the born again experience. It boils down to this: I think he definitely has had a very real conversion from heathenism to Christianity, but I do not believe it happened in one blinding moment as he, obviously, feels it has. But I do not question the reality of his conversion as I would question the reality of the conversion of someone like George Bush, for instance. But the Baptist minister does not accord me the same courtesy. He does not accept the validity of my conversion to Christianity in my mid-twenties because I did not have the necessary ‘born again’ experience. I am still among the unredeemed, which quite possibly is true, although not because I have not had the born again experience.

YD: I think the Protestant born-againers, such as the minister that came to your house, err; but they err by an excess of emotion which, although an error, is a better error than that of over-intellectualism, the error of the Catholic heathens.

Int: If the born-againers could turn down the ‘born again’ experience a few notches, I would be in agreement with them. I know there are what I would call ‘white moments’ in one’s life where one feels connected to Him and sees “His blood upon the rose,” but these moments do not seem enough for the born-again types. But maybe it is just a question of semantics. I was a long distance runner long before it became fashionable. When it became fashionable, I started hearing something about a “runner’s high.” “Strange,” I said to myself, “I’ve never experienced a runner’s high.” I had often felt a certain buoyancy or effervescence after a long run but never something as dramatic as a “high.” What do you think?

YD: I think that’s part of it. They have added an enthusiastic element to what you would call a “white moment” and elevated the white moment to the status of an ecstatic vision. But there is a very definite religious difference there that cannot be brushed away by saying it is only a difference in semantics. They bypass the human element. Your white moments occur when you see, in the hearts of His creatures, a vision of Him. Their born again moment comes direct from God, sometimes via a human conduit, but still direct from God. That experience is nothing like the experience you are talking about when you talk about white moments.

Int: You’re right; I want desperately to have something in common with a group professing to be Christian, but I guess one can’t force something like that.

YD: No, you can’t.

Int: But you don’t completely negate the Protestant’s ‘born again’ experiences?

YD: The word, “Protestant,” takes in a large group of people. No, certainly I don’t negate every single ‘born again’ experience. I negate those that seem to produce slimy individuals (for how can contact with the living God produce slime?) such as George Bush and Billy Graham. But I do think the process is more as St. Paul describes it, and he had a truly born again experience, when he says we see through a glass darkly. We have communion with the living God, but it is imperfect. And I think we go from an imperfect, but nevertheless genuine communion, to a non-existent relationship when we try to comprehend God with our minds alone. Then the abstraction game that the Catholic theologians are so fond of comes into play and we have lost God entirely.

Labels: , ,

Saturday, March 03, 2007

In Defense

Recalling two past events has stirred me to make yet another defense of the old South, which was, after all, the most important European culture on the North American continent.

I recall reading several years ago an interview with a Southern flag enthusiast who stated that he didn’t support what the Confederates had fought for but honored the flag because it was part of his Southern heritage. What rot! Symbols have value because of what they symbolize, and if you can’t respect what your ancestors fought for, it’s best to abandon the banner they fought under. Why continue to go to church when you’re an atheist?

In the same vein, I recall a lynching museum in Georgia being opened several years ago. It was announced that the museum would present a detailed history of all the lynchings perpetrated on Southern blacks by Southern whites. Pardon me if I don’t rush down to Georgia to visit the museum. I presume the museum curators claim they are merely presenting the truth about white injustice to blacks. But are they presenting the truth? I say no. What they are presenting is a maniacally, demonically inspired attack on a culture (the European culture) to which white liberals and their black cohorts are indebted beyond any possible hope of repaying.

What you will not be told in the lynching museum is the reason for the lynchings. I’m sure because the South was still Christian during that period most of the lynchings were in response to barbaric crimes. Harper Lee would have us believe that all Negroes accused of crimes were innocent victims of white liars, but she herself is a liar. What about lynchings which stemmed from pure hatred of the Negro? Well, I’m sure some lynchings did stem from pure hatred of the Negroe, and those individual acts are to be condemned, but not the Southern culture in its totality nor every single lynching. And it should also be pointed out that there was no hatred of the Negro before the Civil War. During that time, while the North imposed wage slavery on fellow whites the South imposed a more benign, chattel slavery on the Negro. The black man enjoyed better health care and a better family life than the white factory workers in the North.

The hatred for the Negro came after the Civil War, when the whites suffered untold barbarities at the hands of now-ascendant Negro barbarians. Negro virtues, nurtured by whites under chattel slavery, were suppressed, and their vices, enflamed by white carpetbaggers, were given full reign. Another San Domingo was in progress when the Klan stepped in and stopped it. This is one of the most glorious pages in the history of the European peoples, and it is presented – and believed to be by Southern and Northern white liberals – as an infamous period of white history.

The memory of barbarities committed during the black ascendance and the continual efforts of Northern Utopians and Southern liberals to force Negro equality on the whites led to a hatred that had never existed before on the part of many whites toward the Negro.

And of course the South, which represented the European half of our country, was right about the issue of Negro equality. There never has been, nor can there ever be, a nation with two races on terms of equality. One race always predominates over the other. When Negroes have been in the majority, such as in Haiti, they have slaughtered whites. When they are in the minority, they seek to conquer by interbreeding, which they have done in Brazil and are doing in the U.S. And when Negro-ization occurs and the white man is no more, there is only an equality of the dung heap, a hellish nightmare of a dung heap from which there is no hope of redemption.


From The Leopard’s Spots by Thomas Dixon Jr:

The origin of this Law and Order League, which sprang up like magic in a night and nullified the programme of Congress, though backed by an army of a million veteran soldiers, is yet a mystery.

The simple truth is, it was a spontaneous and resistless racial uprising of clansmen of highland origin living along the Appalachian Mountains and foothills of the South, and it appeared almost simultaneously in every Southern state, produced by the same terrible conditions.

It was the answer to their foes of a proud and indomitable race of men driven to the wall. In the hour of their defeat they laid down their arms and accepted in good faith the results of the war. And then, when unarmed and defenseless, a group of pothouse politicians for political ends renewed the war and attempted to wipe out the civilization of the South.

This Invisible Empire of White Robed Anglo-Saxon Knights was simply the old answer of organised manhood to organised crime. Its purpose was to bring order out of chaos, protect the weak and defenseless, the widows and orphans of brave men who had died for their country, to drive from power the thieves who were robbing the people, redeem the commonwealth from infamy, and reestablish civilization.

Within one week from its appearance, life and property were as safe as in any Northern community.

When the Negroes came home from their League meeting one night they ran terror-stricken past long rows of white horsemen. Not a word was spoken, but that was the last meeting the “Union League of America” ever held in Hambright.

Every Negro found guilty of a misdemeanor was promptly thrashed and warned against its recurrence. The sudden appearance of this host of white cavalry grasping at their throats with the grip of cold steel struck the heart of Legree and his followers with the chill of a deadly fear.

And the capitalist carbetbagger’s part in the drama?

“You know Simon Legree, who owns these mills. If a disturbance occurred here now the old devil wouldn’t hesitate to close every mill next day and beggar fifty thousand people.”

“Why would he do such a stupid thing?”

“Just to show the brute power of his fifty millions of dollars over the human body. The awful power in that brute’s hands, represented in that money, is something appalling. Before the war he cracked a blacksnake whip over the backs of a handful of Negroes. Now look at him, in his black silk hat and faultless dress. With his millions he can commit any and every crime from theft to murder with impunity. His power is greater than a monarch’s. He controls fleets of ships, mines and mills, and has under his employ many thousands of men. Their families and associates make a vast population. He buys Judges, Juries, Legislatures, and Governors, and with one stroke of his pen to-day can beggar thousands of people. He can equip an army of hirelings, make peace or war on his own account, or force the governments to do it for him. He has neither faith in God nor fear of the devil. He regards all men as his enemies and all women his game.”

Labels: , ,