Friday, October 10, 2008

The Faith and the Race Are One

I’ve had over 10 years now to adjust to the fact that I need glasses to read, but I still forget to take them with me when I go out. So if I need to read a label at a supermarket (to see how much food, if any, I’m getting with the chemical preservatives) or if I need to read the small print of a book at the bookstore, I have to ask for help from a person who did not forget to bring his glasses. But I’m lucky, considering that every other member of my family needed glasses from junior high school on. My older sister hated to wear her glasses. She believed the old adage that men don’t make passes at girls who wear glasses. That little adage almost cost us both our lives the night my sister drove me to basketball practice.

My high school basketball coach thought that we should practice at the same time that we played our games, and we played our games at night. So one night when she needed the car, my sister drove me to practice. On the way, I noticed a car pulling out of a driveway approximately 25 yards ahead of us. I did not, like most people, appreciate back-seat drivers, whether in the front seat or the back seat, so I didn’t say anything about the car to my sister. After all, it was a car, not a mouse; how could my sister not see it? Well, my sister was not wearing her glasses, and it seemed, by the rate of speed we were traveling, we were going to collide with the other car. I finally decided, at the risk of being called a back seat driver, that I should mention this fact. “Do you see that car in front of us?” No, she had not seen it. She slammed on the brakes, our car spun around, and we avoided a head-on collision by a hair’s breadth.

Now, at this point, the reader, who has better things to do than read boring reminiscences of my high school days (wait till I tell you how I made the winning basket in the big game) is probably wondering what the point of this story is. “Does this lead up to anything?” Why, yes, it does. It is a preface to a reluctant criticism of the leadership of the white, right wing. I hope this criticism will be taken in the spirit in which it is given. We are members of the same family, in the same vehicle, and I would like to prevent the wreck I see coming. Although it is a recent article that has provoked this response, my comments are based on thirty years of observing the white, right wing movement in action.

The white, right wingers’ fatal flaw is their lack of a religious vision. Now, I know the white, right wingers talk about our Germanic, Celtic, Greco-Roman, Christian heritage, but that kind of combo-sandwiching of traditions indicates the problem. The Europeans have only one tradition and one faith. When we make that faith and that tradition a side issue, or only one small component among other, more important components, like our genes, we are not responding to existence as the white Europeans of old responded to existence, and we cannot then claim any link to the white Europeans of the past.

It is ahistorical to ignore the white man’s Christianity. The New Age white leaders act as though they woke up one morning and discovered they were white. Hence, they prefer the white to the colored race, but they have no appreciation of the white man’s heritage, because they don’t place any great emphasis on the only thing that ever mattered to the white man, his faith.
The lack of a religious vision has paralyzed the right wing. The reason they always prophesy that “white people are beginning to wake up,” and always are sadly mistaken in their prophetic utterances, is because they have been seduced by one of the most seductive of all the sirens of modernity, the democratic siren. White Christians cannot campaign merely for equal rights within a secular, Godless utopia; they must rule in a Christian society.

If you try to micro-manage history for a purely secular result, history will always knock you flat on your back. The antique European, the Christian European, who took seriously our Lord’s injunction to “Seek ye first the kingdom of God... and all these things shall be added unto you,” was able to build Western civilization because his hope was not in this world only. That is the paradox. If you see only this world and act according to that vision, you will fail in this world, but if you act in accordance with Christ’s injunction to “seek ye first,” you will succeed in the things that really matter, to a far greater degree than the ‘this world only’ devotees. In this world only there is nothing but despair. Grim statistics are final and unalterable in such a world, barbarian hordes are invincible in such a world, and white and black, good and evil, are meaningless abstractions in such a world.

The right wingers need to step out of that world. But of course they cannot do so for merely pragmatic reasons. They must see what their European forefathers saw; they must see “their Master in the sky and call on Him to save.” Vision cannot be forced; if they do not see, we cannot follow them, for “if the blind leadeth the blind, shall they not both fall in a ditch?”

The sad truth is that the right wing leaders are not sufficiently anti-modern. They differ from the white liberals, because they feel, correctly, that the white technocrat wants to exclude them from the brave new technocratic world of the future. Hence their leadership consists of programs to reawaken whites so they will fight (democratically of course) for their rights in a multi-racial culture.

But by so urging, the right wingers are asking the Christian European to walk away from his heritage. This he cannot do. The reason there is such a disconnect between the white leaders and the white Christian remnant is because the remnant senses the right wing leaders are just as lost in the slough of modernity as the liberals are.

Sometimes two groups can be united in their opposition to a particular group or –ism, but still be in complete disagreement regarding what they are for. Such is the case, for instance, with the Southern agrarian and the communist. Both oppose capitalism, but they differ greatly on the reasons for opposing capitalism, and they differ greatly in what they favor as an alternative to capitalism. Such is also the case with the white, New Age, right wing leadership and the antique Christian. In fact, the contrasts are quite striking.

1) Democratic Government – Christian Europeans adopted republican forms of government when they felt, quite possibly wrongly, that their rulers were insufficiently Christian. They did not view the bastardized corruption of republican government, secular democracy, as a magic talisman that was self-evidently the end of man’s search for a perfect government. Far from it. The antique Christian knew that where God was not sovereign, there could be no true government.

2) Other Races. At first glance, the right wing leaders and the older Christian seem to be in agreement. The right wing opposes multi-culturalism and so does the Christian. So they are in agreement, right? No, they are not. The right wingers properly point out that multi-culturalism does not mean, “I’ll respect your culture, and in return you respect mine”; it means that the white man must have no culture and must worship the colored cultures. On that there is agreement between the Christian and the right winger. But the right wing whites go on to claim that they believe that the colored has a right to his culture just as the white man has a right to his. All the right wingers are asking for, they tell us, is a niche for the white man in the great pyramid of cultures.

This is not what the Antique European is looking for. He knows that such a thing is impossible. The colored barbarians do not believe in respecting other cultures; they believe in conquering other cultures. If a white plays the ‘respect other cultures’ game, he will always be the only one playing. And he won’t be playing for long.

There is another aspect of the ‘respect other cultures’ issue. In the modern, decadent social sciences, such as anthropology, we are informed it is wrong to say that someone or some group has no culture. “Everyone has a culture,” we are told. But in the non-anthropological sense, there is only one culture. Only the Europeans made the attempt to weave faith, hope, and charity into their culture. From a Christian standpoint, it would be morally wrong to respect the “cultures” of the colored races. Did the Spanish respect the Aztec culture? Did the Brits respect the Hindu culture? No, they respected their God, who called all men to abandon heathen idols and come to Him, and they respected Him too much to leave individual heathens in perpetual darkness. To subdue and convert, to the extent that such a conversion was possible, was the way of the non-democratic, pre-20th century European. And he would rather fight to the last man than be part of a multi-colored, many-tiered pyramid of nations.

3) Democratic Quakers. I recently saw an article by one of the right-wing leaders in which he warned against the dangers of assassinating Barack Obama. I completely agree with the author on that issue. It would not aid white people if Obama were assassinated. Tyrannicide is not outside the ken of the white European tradition, but Obama is not a tyrant whose death would bring great benefits to the white race. He is a small, little cog in the great liberal machine. Killing him would be harmful to whites.

However, the author in question goes on to condemn all violence under any circumstances. That type of thinking goes against our European Christian heritage. There are things so hideous, such as the murder of a baby in his mother’s womb, the rape of our women, the torture-murder of innocent young people like Channon Christian and Christopher Newsome, that they cry out to heaven for redress. You cannot claim to respect the white European heritage and then tell white people to dogmatically renounce all violence. That type of advice is irresponsible at a time when our “laws,” passed by white technocrats, have left white people almost defenseless against the barbarians in our midst. I recall a scene in Walter Scott’s novel The Black Dwarf in which some border raiders have abducted a Scottish lady and taken her across the border. An old man advises the young men not to break the law and be violent. A member of the rescue party replies angrily to him, “Don’t talk to us about our heroic ancestors and then tell us to do nothing.”

Certainly there are prudential concerns, but violence in defense of Christian men and women and Christian principles should never be routinely condemned. And we should always keep in mind that the white man is in Hamlet’s position. They have murdered our King and our Father (1); if we don’t set things right, who will?

There is something called a Euro-Conference scheduled for early November. If just one lonely white man meets a lonely white woman there and they subsequently marry and have children as a result, the conference will not have been wasted. But I hope some European leader at the conference will dare to link Europe and Christ and denounce anyone who tries to tear them asunder in either word or deed.
(1) Grant me some poetic license here. They have murdered Christian civilization and are murdering His people and His little children. “Let them come unto me.” Does not Christ our King and Father suffer when such murders take place?

Labels: , ,