Cambria Will Not Yield

Saturday, October 31, 2009

"When I was a child, I spake as a child..."

“Keep the imagination sane,-- that is one of the truest conditions of communion with heaven.” – Nathaniel Hawthorne

When still young and new to the right-wing European movement, I formed a rather uncritical admiration for the old guard intellectuals of that movement. The poets of Europe had brought me to the foot of the cross, but it was to the old guardsmen I turned for an articulation of the Christian faith. When I explained the faith to others, I parroted the old guard. This is quite natural for a young whippersnapper, but as one becomes a man one must make sure he believes what he parrots. In my case, I realized I differed with the old guard on two important points, both relating to Europe.

1. I differed with them on the issue of race. The old guardsmen were fond of saying that a defense of Western culture had nothing to do with a defense of the white race. (Only men who spent their lives in academia could every say anything so stupid.)

A defense of the West cannot be done without a defense of the white race. Whites are not superior because the evolutionary process made them so (as the neo-pagans maintain), but because they made the one true religion their own. And just as original sin was passed on through the blood, so the European peoples’ free will choice of Christ over Satan was passed on through the blood. Just as one can counter the bad effects of original sin by clinging to Christ, so can one counter the good effects of the white man’s acceptance of Christ by rejecting Him. And the vast majority of whites have rejected Christ. That makes it all the more urgent that we support the faithful white remnant. To praise European culture without praising and defending the white man is Gnostic nonsense.

2. The old guard failed to appreciate how distinct the European tradition was from the classical tradition. Chaucer, Shakespeare, Botticelli, and countless other European writers and artists choose Greco-Roman themes for their works, but what they did with them was something very different from the Greco-Romans’ renditions. Everything is deeper when the Christian poets and artists deal with the pagan themes. In Midsummer’s Night’s Dream, Theseus becomes a Christian king, highlighting charity as the greatest virtue:

I will hear that play;
For never anything can be amiss,
When simpleness and duty tender it.
Go, bring them in; and take your places, ladies.
In Chaucer’s The Knight’s Tale, Jove becomes a symbol for the Christian God. And in Botticelli’s painting of The Birth of Venus, the goddess of illicit love becomes a virginal Christian maiden.

The excessive reliance on the classical tradition was, in my judgment, the major reason for the collapse of the Protestant and Catholic churches. And the traditionalists think we need a classical revival! We need a European revival, not a classical one. The classical temptation, which would make Christianity into a philosophical system, is potentially more dangerous than the atheistic temptation. I have noticed there has been a score of books published in the last 10 years, such as Who Killed Homer? by Hanson and Heath, This Will Hurt: The Restoration of Virtue by Digby Anderson, and Plagues of the Mind by Bruce Thornton, in which the authors suggest we rebuild civilization on the classical tradition and bypass the European Christian tradition. This might appeal to those who like the simplicity of the classical era, but there is no going back. The choice is either 'be Christian, or perish.'

The old guard did not understand Europe. If they had, they would not have abandoned the white man’s burden or slept so contently with Aristotle and Plato.

When I reflect on the weaknesses of the old guard (those men of the World War II generation) I realize that they were the last of the Christian rationalists, who still believed that the dying flame of the European fire could be reignited by the cool waters of rationalism. They were doctors who completely misdiagnosed their patient. The patient needed more warmth, and they sat him out on the veranda in sub-zero weather.

Christ set Europe on fire with a poetic drama which He authored and starred in, a passion play meant to appeal to the heart and the head. He did not intend that His life, death, and resurrection should be treated as the literary critics treat a Shakespearean drama, poking, probing, and dissecting the play with only their minds, leaving their hearts outside. But if the poet writes with his heart and mind, how can the literary critic understand him if he doesn’t respond to the play with the same fire that the author used to write the play? And how can we respond to Christ’s passion play if we have no passion?

Plato banned poets from his Republic because he thought the passionate, poetic side of man was dangerous. The old guard followed the wisdom of Plato, but the passionate, imaginative, poetic heart of man, when joined with the heart of the Divine Poet, is the only force capable of reigniting the European fire.

I once read a book by one of the conservative education ‘experts’; he felt that the problem with modern liberal education was that it was not value-free. He recommended a ‘just the facts’ program of education that sounded much like the program recommended by Thomas Gradgrind in Dicken’s Hard Times:

Now, what I want is, Facts. Teach these boys and girls nothing but Facts. Facts alone are wanted in life. Plant nothing else, and root out everything else. You can only form the minds of reasoning animals upon Facts: nothing else will ever be of any service to them. This is the principle on which I bring up my own children, and this is the principle on which I bring up these children. Stick to Facts, sir!
The conservative education expert was wrong. The problem with liberals is not that they teach values in school -- values should be taught in school -- the problem is that they teach liberal values. And likewise the old guard; the problem is not with the poetic and imaginative side of the European’s nature; the problem is that the European has ceased to view Christianity as a faith that inspires and stirs the imagination. The European has come to believe what the old guard told him about Christianity: “It is charts, diagrams, syllogisms, and not much else.” But man will have the poetic. If he is denied a Christian poetic, he will adopt a satanic one. Obama is the new Messiah, because the old guard thought a remote, bloodless, philosophical God was good enough for the rational, modern man of Europe. Such a God is not good enough. The real Hero-God (He was not invented), who inspired the ancient Europeans is more than good enough, and it is to Him that we should look if we want to see Christendom restored and liberaldom destroyed.

Labels: , ,

Sunday, October 25, 2009

God’s Fairy Land

“Before the railway came to Cornwall and killed the fairies...” – H. V. Morton In Search of England

Writing during the last days of Christendom, C. S. Lewis gave us, in the marvelous image of the wardrobe, a last glimpse of what it was like to live in Christian Europe. The ancient European did not see life on this earth as a life separate and remote from God’s kingdom of heaven. “Behold the kingdom of God is within you,” was a reality, not just a theory, to the pre-modern European. Like the Old Testament Hebrews and the children in C. S. Lewis’s novel, the ancient Europeans felt that the wall between God’s Fairy Land and this earth had a door through which the intrepid Christian and the pure of heart could go.

This traffic back and forth between Fairy Land and Europe was quite irritating to Satan, because Old Scratch works best with men and women who cannot see the door or climb over the wall between God’s Fairy Land and Europe. Satan’s task then was to fortify the wall and bolt the door between heaven and Earth. And to give the devil his due, he has done an excellent job of it.

While not discounting every single story in which Christian men and women have claimed to have seen Christ, the blessed Virgin Mary, an angel, or some particular saint, I must state that I am not talking about such revelations when I say that the ancient Europeans felt themselves to be intimately connected to God in a way that the modern European, even if he is an avowed Christian, is not. The pre-modern European was connected to God in the way the old prayer books suggest: “In Him, with Him, and through Him”; through our common humanity and through our common blood, the Europeans who believed gained access to the door that linked His realm to our world. And whenever the European let the image of His divine humanity become obscured, the European found himself groping in the dark, unable to find the door to His world.

It was an article of faith to the Enlightenment philosophers that there was no door between the wall of God’s Fairy Land and man’s earthly realm. And the modern European takes his blasphemies a step further. He declares there is no Fairy Land beyond the wall, nor anything else. The liberal says (speaking only figuratively, you see, because he knows there is no anthropomorphic-type god), “God bless the wall without a door and without anything beyond it.” He even writes sacred words on the wall: “There is only the wall of Nature, and we are all governed by the laws of Nature; glory be to Nature, which has always been and always shall be, Nature without end, (speaking metaphorically, of course) amen.”

The restoration – I don’t say ‘renewal’ because we have long passed the stage of a renewal – will not come from the Christian churches. The building of Christendom was done by the European Everyman who tried in his own humble way to live the Gospel. The rebuilding of Christendom will also be accomplished by the Christian, European Everyman. The faith that moves mountains will not come from the clergy because their faith is a constricted faith. They have settled for an anemic, technocratic faith instead of a faith in the God of Fairy Land.

Because the technocratic faith, the faith in systems and syllogisms rather than Christ, is the reigning faith of the modern European, I have been forced to ponder the question of ‘why’. Why does the modern European prefer the technocratic faith to a faith in Jesus Christ? There seems to be two reasons:

1) The St. Augustine dilemma. Augustine tells us in his Confessions that he had great difficulty in accepting the truth of the Gospels because they seemed intellectually inferior to the Gnostic philosophers he was studying. The idea that the Christ story is stupid and inferior to the philosophical systems of the Greeks and other assorted “experts” is a golden oldie of a heresy, but the modern European has bought more copies of the old album than any of his heretical progenitors. The Catholic theologians and their Protestant rivals never could get rid of the uncomfortable feeling that the pagans were smarter than Christians. For that reason their faith in Christ was always couched in the language of the Greek experts. Only the Christian poets and the Christian peasants looked at Christ without the Greek ‘extras,’ which is why the poets and the peasants were perceived as being too dumb to be taken seriously. In modern classrooms and seminaries, the faith of the poet and the peasant is seen as relevant only because of what such a faith tells us about "the unconscious and man’s need for a faith that is something greater, and greater always means impersonal, than the narrow, sectarian faith of the Gospels."

2) Technological wizardry holds out the promise of a God without the Cross. Christ promised us eternal life in Fairy Land with the proviso that we take up our Cross and follow Him. “A cross can be a beautiful thing.” “Not so,” say the modern purveyors of wizardry; “We can show you the way to Paradise on this earth without the Cross.” “It’s a deal!” cry the Brave, New World Europeans. But there is always a cross, and the wizards’ promise of a cross-free existence is a lie. Tragically, the modern European believes the lie and seeks to construct a world where faith in the Cross of Christ is always deconstructed and syllogized into nothingness.

Against the new wizardry stands the Christian poets, with Shakespeare leading the vanguard. "The cross of Christ is greater than the syllogisms of the philosophers. Only those who pick up their cross and follow Him will dream dreams and see visions of God's Fairy Land beyond the wall."

One of my favorite movies is called The Luck of the Irish, which stars Tyrone Power. The main character (Power, of course) very early in the movie does a favor for a leprechaun. Throughout the rest of the movie the leprechaun tries to repay the favor by showing Tyrone Power that the modern Amazonian woman he is engaged to is not the woman he should marry. The leprechaun tries to get Power to see that a particular Irish village girl, very feminine and very old-fashioned, is the girl he should wed. When it appears that the leprechaun has failed in his efforts, he says, “I offered you gold [meaning the Irish lass of course]. I cannot help it if you preferred a pebble.” That Irish parable sums up the modern European tragedy. Christ was the gold the modern European was offered, but instead the modern European preferred the pebble of technological wizardry. There is no love, no honor, no life in the new European religion. And there will be no such thing as a European unless the European opens the door to the thatched cottage that leads to God’s Fairy Land. +

Labels: ,


How little fades from earth when sink to rest
The hours and cares that move a great man’s breast!
Though naught of all we saw the grave may spare,
His life pervades the world’s impregnate air;
Though Shakespeare’s dust beneath our footsteps lies,
His spirit breathes amid his native skies;
With meaning won from him forever glows
Each air that England feels, and star it knows;
His whispered words from many a mother’s voice
Can make her sleeping child in dreams rejoice,
And gleams from spheres he first conjoined to earth
Are blent with rays of each new morning’s birth.
Amid the sights and tales of common things,
Leaf, flower, and bird, and wars, and deaths of kings,--
Of shore, and sea, and nature’s daily round,
Of life that tills, and tombs that load the ground,
His visions mingle, swell, command, pace by,
And haunt with living presence heart and eye;
And tones from him by other bosoms caught
Awaken flush and stir of mounting thought,
And the long sigh, and deep impassioned thrill,
Rouse custom’s trance, and spur the faltering will.
Above the goodly land, more his than ours
He sits supreme enthroned in skyey towers,
And sees the heroic brood of his creation
Teach larger life to his ennobled nation.
O shaping brain! O flashing fancy’s hues!
O boundless heart kept fresh by pity’s dews!
O wit humane and blithe! O sense sublime!
For each dim oracle of mantled time!
Transcendant form of man! in whom we read
Mankind’s whole tale of impulse, thought, and deed!
Amid the expanse of years, beholding thee,
We know how vast our world of life may be;
Wherein, perchance, with aims as pure as thine,
Small tasks and strength may be no less divine.

by John Sterling

Labels: , ,

Saturday, October 17, 2009

The Battle Lines Are Drawn

“We are in God’s hands, brother, not in theirs.”

Seldom does a day pass that I do not think of Alan Breck Stewart. Surely you know the man – he is Robert Louis Stevenson’s fictional hero, who, as he never tires of telling us, “bears a king’s name.” You see, he is a descendant of that ill-fated line of Scottish kings defeated once and for all, in terms of any earthly standing, at the Battle of Culloden. But Alan refuses to acknowledge defeat. He lives the life of an outlaw, swearing allegiance only to the old Scottish clans and refusing to recognize King George as a legitimate king. He completely steals the book from the rather priggish and much too Whiggish David Balfour. And at the book’s end, David, now a wealthy laird, yearns for the days when he lived the outlaw life with Alan Breck Stewart.

Why should anyone care about a mere figment of Robert Louis Stevenson’s imagination? Because Stevenson, quite probably without realizing it, gives us an excellent portrayal of the glory and difficulties that await all those who would take up a counter-revolutionary cause.

The glory springs from the fact that one is fighting for the old ways – for the hearth over the school, the peasant over the merchant, the warrior-bard over the banker, the act of charity over the syllogism, and the wise man from the village over the academic in the big city.

The difficulty stems from the fact that a counter-revolutionary’s life is a lonely one. Can one realistically expect his countrymen to keep the image of the old ways before their eyes and in their memory, when a man must live and it is the new ways that rule the roost? And what about one’s children? Suppose Alan Breck Stewart meets a bonnie lass behind the heather, and then suppose he marries that lass and their union bears fruit? Can he expect his wife and children to live the outlaw’s life? Will not the very natural desire to see his children successful and prosperous cause the counter-revolutionary to make his accommodation with the ruling Whigs of the world?

Most of us with counter-revolutionary sentiments make our accommodation with the world. Those with intellectual integrity continue to affirm the correctness of the old ways while admitting that they do not have the stomach to fight for them, while those with less integrity manage to convince themselves that the new order isn’t really so revolutionary and that it can be changed from within. Those who seek to change the new order from within always fail. They fail to understand the true dynamic of the revolution, and consequently over-estimate their own abilities to make any kind of dent in the new order. But they make a living, while the Alan Brecks of the movement die in poverty and exile.

The compromisers and the accommodators do cause a problem though. As the revolution marches onward, it becomes more and more difficult to compromise and remain a human being with a soul. For example, a Christian living in the newly formed United States of the 1790’s could clearly see that the U. S. Constitution was a devil’s document, designed to foster a new godless leviathan and to destroy the older incorporate league which Western man had formed with Christ. Lacking the will to fight, the 1790’s Christian unfortunately decided to make his peace and to remain thankful that the revolutionary forces permitted him a breathing and living space in the new order. But what about the 21st century descendant of that first compromiser? The descendant now has no room to maneuver. It is not a case, as it was with the 1790’s Christian, of conceding a few points to the secularists and then sneaking off to church. The secularists have taken over the Christian churches and have imposed their new religion on the formerly Christian world. Continual compromise by his ancestors has left the 21st century Christian with no options: It is fight or join the secularists. It is not possible to cooperate with race mixers or murderers of babies. When Satan’s end game is the only game permitted, the Christian must fight or cease to be Christian.

I make the assertion that the present times are intelligible. Any knight of the old stock can clearly see that there is nothing left us but counter-revolution. This should not be a subject for debate; the only debate should involve the tactics to be used.

The revolution has been with us for centuries. It has come against us in the form of Scholasticism, capitalism, communism, neo-paganism, Freemasonry, and numerous other Satanisms, but the key to the revolutionaries’ success has been their ability to sever nature from grace. Primitive man was connected to nature; his natural world was filled with spiritual meaning. There were gods of the field, gods of the forest, and ghosts of the dead. The gods could be malevolent or benevolent, depending on what was done to appease or to anger them. Most works by Christopher Dawson and all of Mircea Eliade’s works describe this connection primitive man had to nature.

However, there is, as every Christian knows, and as every tree-hugging liberal does not know, a downside to primitive religious belief. There is no ethical dimension to be found in the nature gods; they are capricious and unloving. The natural world is pregnant with meaning under their rule, but it is not a pregnancy that will give birth to a God that loves man enough to rescue him from the endless cycle of birth and decay.

The more ethical religious traditions that supplanted the more primitive ones, like Platonism, Buddhism, Confucianism, and Taoism, added an ethical dimension to religion, but denuded the natural religion that gave primitive man a link to the gods. Man needs more than an intellectual or mystical comprehension of the Logos; he needs to be connected to God in every fiber of his being.

Enter Christ, the God-Man. Christianity correctly practiced and preached combines the primitive religions’ sacred cosmos with the more ethical religious traditions. Nature is not destroyed, it is transformed. God’s grace has entered the world in the form of the Christ, the living God. Natural man now understands that all those gods of the field and the hunt were precursors of the one true God, and ethical contemplative man now knows that the source of his contemplation has a local habitation and a name, thus adding a personal, human element to his religion that was not there before.

In primitive societies the hero is the man who can climb the cosmic tree and be connected to the earth and to the heavens. The counter-revolutionary hero also is connected to earth and heaven; he has not lost his sacramental view of the world, nor has he ceased to experience in the deepest recesses of his soul a connection to a spiritual realm rooted in heaven but also firmly planted on earth. There is no false dichotomy in the counter-revolutionary’s vision. “Heaven has visited earth.”

All revolutionary societies and movements in some form deny the spiritual link between heaven and earth. The scholastics and the Protestant theologians who followed in their train insisted that the God of sorrows was not to be found in the human heart, but in the human mind. This over-rationalization of God narrowed the focus of European man, who kept staring into the golden bowl of his intellect and worshipping the God he placed there.

Of course, the necessity of counter-revolution now is much greater than in the days of Alan Breck Stewart. The Scottish Highlander’s fight was still a fight within Christendom. The modern European knight errant fights from within the bowels of satanic liberaldom. He can be inspired by the spirit of his ancestors, but his situation is much more desperate than that of his ancestors for the simple reason that his ancestors had Christendom and he does not. I think we are all still in a state of shock, hardly realizing all of the horrific implications from the death of Christendom. G. K. Chesterton, for instance, could not even conceive of a time when Christendom would not exist:
“What Mahomet and Calvin and all those breaking away from the dying civilization did not realize, is the curious fact that it is a dying civilization that never dies. It does decline, and has done so any number of times; it does decay; it is always at it. But it does not disappear; and, at the end of more or less debased periods, has a way of managing to reappear, when its enemies have in their turn decayed. The moral is, I will venture to think, that it is unwise to desert this perpetually sinking ship, or betray this everlastingly dying creed and culture. It has had another period of final extinction at the end of the Middle Ages. It has suffered eclipse in the enlightenment of the Age of Reason and Revolution; which in their turn begin to look as if they had seen better days...

“The moral is that no man should desert that civilization. It can cure itself; but those who leave it cannot cure it. Not Nestorious nor Mahomet nor Calvin nor Lenin have cured, nor will cure, the real evils of Christendom; for the severed hand does not heal the whole body.” (1)
We are motivated by the same love for Christendom that motivated our ancestors, but we are proceeding from an entirely different point. Polite debates and agreements to agree to disagree are things that take place between people with a common faith and a common cultural heritage. We share neither of these with the liberals of the neo-pagan variety or the mad-dog variety. When Satan’s clergymen talk about the evils of “familism” and the neo-pagans talk about the creation of a new neo-pagan god, we know that Satan is truly present at the heart of what was once Christendom.

I received a letter recently from a former student who had grasped, organically, that Christendom had given way to the new Satandom. His question was, 'What am I to do?' My first reaction was to tell him what Charles Peguy said about Christian fathers. He said that a Christian father was the true counter-revolutionary. But of course my young friend could not go out and make some woman become a Jeanie Deans or a Maud Ruthyn so that she would be fit to wed a Christian knight. But a young man, or an old man for that matter, can cling to what he loves. If he loves the old Europe, he can cling to it. The one true God, whom the neo-pagans mock and scorn and the liberals deny, reigns in that Europe. And if one is faithful to old Europe and its people, the right bride and the right sword to fight for that bride and His Europe will come to the faithful knight, or, to use my favorite image, to the faithful woodcutter.

I once, in my mid-twenties, got to visit with one of the major writers in the European Christian conservative camp. In the middle of my compliments on a book he had written about the dangers posed to the faith by false science, he said, “If I were writing that book today I would not make a distinction between false science and science. All science is false.” I have had many years to reflect on that comment, and I believe it to be true. The old sage wasn’t claiming that there weren’t such things as biology, physics, and chemistry; what he was asserting was that science, as practiced by Western man, had always been used to destroy Christian Europe.

So long as the European remains a prisoner of any part of the scientific world, he will be incapable of launching an effective attack on liberaldom. The triumph of the scientific view of man means the triumph of dumb nature. The neo-pagan, forsaking his pagan and his Christian ancestors, sits at his computer and dreams of a new, scientific, faithless faith that he will create for the white man. But when the neo-pagan talks about “creating” a new faith, he has already told us what he worships: his own mind.

The mad-dog liberal looks at the world scientifically as well. He has made an a priori decision that he sees all that there is to see and that ‘all’ is the natural world and only the natural world. So he fantasizes about the natural black savage and makes him the Crown King of the natural world.

Richard Weaver called science a false messiah, and Melville said that science was incapable of providing man with any answer to the riddle of existence. Yet modern man still believes that the men in the white lab coats hold the secrets of life and death. Modern scientific man is not a non-believer, he believes in everything except reality. He believes in the natural goodness of the black man, the perfectibility of mankind after the elimination of recalcitrant whites, and the life everlasting on this earth after the men in the white lab coats have completed their research.

The European of the ancient stock seems, to the liberals of the mad-dog and neo-pagan variety, to be an obstacle blocking the creation of the new world order. But the ancient European must remain undaunted in the face of every liberal attempt to destroy him, because the antique European and only the antique European knows there is only one world order and that is His world order, which He, because of a love that passeth all understanding, invites us to share with Him.

The debates are now over. The battle lines have been drawn. The liberals are standing on the left bank of the river Science, and they are led by our ancient foe. We, the last Europeans, stand on the far shore with the dismal swamp behind us. One step back and we perish in despair. Surrounding us, unseen, are a legion of archangels ready to assist us in battle, or so our blood tells us. Yet we hesitate – after all we live in Liberaldom, and is not fear, doubt, and hesitation the mark of an ancient European living in Liberaldom? – But then there is Galahad and the legions of Europeans who followed him. They believed in the unseen God who spoke through the blood. Our blood calls us then. And soon we are amongst the enemy. They fall like wheat before the scythe. Faith was all. Once the internal battle was won, victory on the actual battlefield was assured. Let there be sung “Non nobis” and “Te Deum.”

(1) What writers such as Chesterton could not envision was a Europe where Europeans would be a tiny minority. In the past, European renewals occurred because Christendom was still European. In the 21st century, Europeans need to do more than renew; they must rebuild Christendom.

Labels: ,

Sunday, October 11, 2009

A Christian Hero

Ere I own a usurper
I’ll crouch with the fox
So tremble false whigs,
In the midst o’ your glee,
Ye have not seen the last
O’ my bonnets and me.

- Scott

The Life of Daniel Boone by Lyman C. Draper

To certain child-like men like myself (or juvenile men, if you are of a more cynical nature), who grew up with a taste for adventure tales both fiction and non-, Daniel Boone has a semi-deified status. He is the real life embodiment of Cooper’s Hawkeye (in fact, Cooper’s hero was inspired by Boone). He is chivalrous, in a rough hewn fashion, always brave and fearless in the face of danger, always calm when lesser men panic, and always in command of every situation the untamed wilderness threw at him.

The great merit of Draper’s book (written in the 1860s) is that he confirms with careful research the myth we all want to believe. Daniel Boone is everything the legends say, which makes this book a much-needed antidote to the cynical hero-debunking that takes place in virtually every ‘historical’ book that comes out today. Even Belue, who in his annoying editorial comments attempts to teach us not to condemn Indians for massacring whites, can’t really find any major errors in Draper’s biography.

Draper’s biography was never completed; it takes us up to the battle to defend Boonesborough, but there is much additional information supplied in appendices by Draper and Belue. In the opening pages of the book we also get a complete summary of the major events in Daniel Boone’s life.

Boone was born into the Quaker faith, but his Christianity was an unchurched, elemental Christianity more in tune with Alfred the Great than William Penn. Boone’s manly Christian virtues came from a deeper source than sectarian Quakerism.

Belue tells us in his introduction that Draper was no historian. He was an encyclopedist – a great collector of information. For that reason the book doesn’t read as smoothly as a modern reader might wish. One has to take one’s time, as when reading a Victorian novel. But a reader’s patience is rewarded by the many fine and splendid scenes of Daniel Boone’s life that come across to us very vividly in these pages that are only some 40 to 50 years removed from the incidents depicted.

Particularly riveting is Draper’s account of Daniel Boone’s rescue of his daughter and two other girls who had been kidnapped by Indians:
Boone and Floyd, who had now got within shooting distance, hurriedly discharged their rifles as the Indians were moving off, each mortally wounding his man. One other gun was fired a long shot probably by John McMillen, but without effect. The Indians were kindling their fire; one had been posted on the elevated grounds a little distance behind to act as a sentinel, and as the smoke ascended from the camp-fire, he left his gun and ran down to the fire to light his pipe and procure the necessary articles for mending his moccasins and was busily engaged in overhauling his budget. At the moment the whites fired upon the camp, one of the Indians was picking up wood, another preparing the meat for cooking, a third was in a reclining posture near the captives, apparently as a guard over them, while the old Cherokee chief Hanging Maw had just gone to the branch with a kettle for some water. It was the sentinel examining his budget near the fire whom Floyd wounded; he tumbled into the fire but, instantly recovering, ran off. Another, as he ran, sent his tomahawk flying at the head of Betsey Callaway, which barely missed its aim, and then, with the others, dashed into the cane and disappeared.

The girls had ventured as far back on their trail as they dared, which was but a short distance from the fire, still faintly hoping that deliverance might come, but they had become quite dispirited that day. They were sitting down on a log, Fanny Callaway on one side of her sister and Jemima Boone on the other, and both reclining their heads in her lap for rest. At the crack of the guns, the men rushed toward the camp with a loud yell, which gave the Indians no time either to kill their captives or save scarce an article of their baggage – “we sent them off,” says Floyd dryly, “almost naked.” The girls jumped instantly to their feet, Jemima Boone wildly exclaiming, “That’s daddy!”…
Jemima Boone’s cry of “That’s daddy!” brought tears to my eyes. So few captives are ever recovered from the Indians. Can you picture the anxiety of their fathers? Can you picture the fear and anxiety of the girls who were captured? “That’s daddy!” – what a wonderful moment!

And yes, Daniel Boone did indeed successfully run the gauntlet.
Running the gauntlet oftentimes resulted fatally, and particularly if the poor prisoner happened to evince a timid disposition or endeavored piteously to beg to be excused, as was frequently the case. The two lines were formed five or six feet apart on either side of the path; and once at the end, the runner was safe. The Indians were variously armed with tomahawks, clubs, sticks, and switches, and Boone stripped to his breech-cloth, leggings, and moccasins. The race commenced, when the Indians made very violent gestures as if they would knock his brains out but, after all, really appeared to show him favor, for he received only a few slight strokes from the switches. But his own shrewd management had something to do with the result, for he purposely ran in a very zig-zag manner, first making a dash so close to one side of the line as to cause the Indians suddenly to give way, and then as unexpectedly to dart in the same way to the opposite side, giving but few of them an opportunity to inflict a blow. Seeing Boone in a fair way to pass the ordeal comparatively unscathed, one fellow nearly at the farther end of the line threw himself partly within the race-path, with a view the better to give the prisoner a home thrust, but Boone appeared not to observe this maneuver and, just before reaching him, bending his head forward and increasing his speed, struck the Indian full in the breast, prostrating him instantly and running over him unharmed. This incident gave the coup de grace to the exciting ceremony and caused a perfect shout of laughter along the lines at the poor Indian’s expense, when all came up to shake hands with Boone and congratulate him on his success, complimenting him as a “vel-ly good so-jer” – and at the same time pointing to their discomfited fellow and denouncing him as a “squaw,” with a degrading prefix intended to give increased force to the epithet.
Charity never faileth, and sometimes it’s dangerous:
Near Boone’s, in the Sugar Creek Settlement, lived a noted old hunter named Tate, who spent much of his time in the woods. Boone once, returning from a hunting tour, went to his father-in-law’s, Joseph Bryan’s, to thrash out rye for his own use, and learning the wants of Tate’s family in consequence of his protracted absence, obtained permission of Mr. Bryan also to thrash out some grain for them. Such acts of charity were so common among the pioneers as scarcely to excite notice; and though they were not blazoned abroad by the adulatious newspaper puffs, they were nevertheless observed by that Good Being who assures us that while he loves a cheerful and ungrudging giver, we should never let our right hand know what our left hand doeth. On his way home with his own grain, Boone left at Tate’s what he had designed for that needy family. Returning from the wilderness, Take expressed displeasure at Boone’s generosity; and this coming to Boone’s ears and soon after meeting Tate, he gave him a severe flogging and said he would do it again should he ever throw out any more jealous intentions; that he would be grateful to any person, who under similar circumstances, would befriend his family as he had attempted to befriend Tate’s; but he could not brook the idea of real kindness being misconstrued in a manner so provokingly unkind. In his old age, Boone would sometimes allude to this instance of man’s ingratitude.
A book such as Draper’s reveals to us that the modern churchmen are lying on two essential points of European history:

1) The Europeans did not, if we look at the historical record as a whole, mistreat the indigenous
races. Quite the contrary, they acted with great forbearance and kindness toward the Indian whenever it was humanly possible. When they fought and killed Indians, it was only in order to protect their loved ones from the brutalities of a savage race of people.

2) Christianity and pacifism are not compatible. When one loves, one fights to protect the beloved. “That’s daddy!”

So long as there is one European left who still believes that Christianity is a fighting faith because the Christian god is a god of love, liberaldom will have an implacable enemy.

Labels: ,

Sunday, October 04, 2009

Reclaiming Our Home

Once beyond the village, where the cottages ceased abruptly, on either side of the road they could smell through the darkness the friendly fields again and they braced themselves for the last long stretch, the home stretch, the stretch that we know is bound to end, some time, in the rattle of the door latch, the sudden firelight, and the sight of familiar things greeting us as long-absent travelers from far overseas.

-- The Wind in the Willows by Kenneth Grahame

The last Christian king was Charles of Austria, who ruled the Austrian-Hungarian Empire for only two years during World War I. He died much too young and in exile in 1922. The great democracies, America, France, and Britain (great in the sense that Satan is great) all decided that such things as Christian kings and Christian empires were obsolete. Democracies which promised freedom and enfranchisement were the wave of the future. But the future led to Gulags and legalized abortion, because abstractions in politics as well as in religion are code words for tyranny and bloodshed.

Charles knew, in contrast to the tyrants of the modern democracies, that ‘the people’ can never be sovereign. Only God is sovereign, and a Christian king rules as God’s caretaker. Charles viewed his kingship as a consecration to God. Implicit in his vow of fealty to the crown was a pledge to maintain the ancient Christian traditions of the Austrian-Hungarian people.

I know there are a few figure-head kings and queens floating around in Europe today, but do they take seriously the oath that Charles took seriously? Do they want to preserve and defend a Christian people’s ancient traditions? Of course not. In fact, I think the modern rulers of the European countries want to do the exact opposite. They are doing everything in their power to destroy the ancient traditions of their respective nations. What is more traditional to a nation than its people and its faith? And what are Britain and the other European countries destroying when they allow colored invaders into their nation? They are destroying their people and their people’s faith.

The essential flaw of the American experiment in democracy, which has been slavishly copied by all the other European nations, is this: there cannot be a government where the will of the people is sovereign. Where is the check on the people’s authority? What happens when the will of the people conflicts, as in the case of legalized abortion and so many other modern perversions, with the will of God? What happens is that the will of God is set aside. And you cannot protest against a government “by the people and for the people,” because the people are sovereign. A tyrannical king can be deposed when he violates his oath to protect and defend his nation’s people and sacred traditions, but a tyrannical, anti-Christian democracy is an unending nightmare because the people can never be deposed. The right to vote is a satanic joke; what does it avail a man to be able to vote if he is only voting to determine which democratic devil shall rule?

It is unconscionable that Christians, with the daily murder of infants before our eyes, should seek to perpetuate the ungodly myth that our nation was founded on sound religious principles. The history of our nation’s founding is not lost in the obscure mists of time. It took place a relatively short time ago: a coalition of 18th century rationalists, represented by Jefferson, John Adams, Franklin, and Madison, got together with some evangelical Christians, such as Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams, and tried to come up with a government. The religious input came from the Protestant evangelicals, who very much wanted a government that acknowledged itself as Christian. However, they also were dead-set against a state religion. They had a great fear of a state-supported Anglicanism or a throne-and-altar Catholic state. In addition, the Baptists were worried about a Presbyterian state, the Presbyterians were worried about a Baptist state, the Methodists were worried about the Congregationalists, and so on.

The rationalist deists used the evangelicals’ fear of a state religion to place ambiguous phrases in the Declaration of Independence and in our Constitution that could be interpreted in a religious sense or in a non-religious sense. (1) The primary example of this double-speak was the phrase “nature and nature’s God” that was placed in the Declaration of Independence. An evangelical would interpret those words in a Christian way. Nature’s God is Christ, of course. But a deist believes nature is God, and Christ is just an ordinary man subject to nature’s God. The deist would then interpret the phrase, “nature and nature’s God,” in a non-religious sense. The same thing occurred in the oft-quoted ‘separation of Church and State’ clause of the Constitution. The evangelicals interpreted the clause as excluding a state religion, not as excluding Christianity from public life. The deists themselves did not necessarily anticipate a situation in which all religions except the Christian religion could be taught in our schools, but the 1963 Supreme Court decision (Murray vs. Curlett) banning school prayer is in keeping with the spirit of 18th century rationalism. When the conservatives claim that the Founding Fathers never intended to ban Christianity from our public life, they are only partly right; one must ask: which Founding Father?

You have, from our nation’s beginning, a federal government poised, python-like, to slowly squeeze the religious life out of its own people. The Southern states rebelled against that federal government, and they were defeated. Indeed, every group and every person who has gone against the federal government has, in the earthly sense, lost.

Today, isolated attacks on the federal government from the outside by such individuals as Timothy McVeigh are ineffectual because the McVeigh types only invoke pagan gods. Their attacks are used by the government as excuses to further tighten its coils. And attacks from the inside always fail, because the secular principles of pluralism planted in our Constitution serve to render Christians impotent, as illustrated by the betrayal some years back of Pat Robertson and the so-called Christian Coalition. When Newt Gingrich informed them that welfare reform, reverse discrimination, crime, and taxes, could be included in the Contract with America but that abortion could not be, the “Christians” acquiesced. Why? Because there is no consensus among the American people on the issue of abortion as there is on the other issues. And in a democratic society, don’t you know, we must have a consensus, because the people are sovereign.

What is needed among White Europeans is a spirit of separatism. Christians should separate from the federal government. Of course, the federal government will not allow us to separate from them. The Leviathan, aptly named by Donald Davison, needs victims to squeeze in its coils.

I hear quite frequently from practical conservatives that separation is 1) immoral and 2) impractical. But quite the contrary is true. American democracy is immoral, and to stay wedded to an experiment in Satanism is immoral. Americans and the Europeans who have followed them down the democratic path are being disloyal to their European homelands. They have replaced home, hearth, and nation with an abstract notion of an abstract people. They have become men without a country:

Breathes there the man with soul so dead,
Who never to himself hath said,
This is my own, my native land?
Whose heart hath ne'er within him burned,
As home his footsteps he hath turned,
From wandering on a foreign strand?
If such there breathe, go, mark him well;
For him no minstrel raptures swell;
High though his titles, proud his name,
Boundless his wealth as wish can claim,--
Despite those titles, power, and pelf,
The wretch, concentred all in self,
Living, shall forfeit fair renown,
And, doubly dying, shall go down
To the vile dust from whence he sprung,
Unwept, unhonored, and unsung.

--Sir Walter Scott - The Lay of the Last Minstrel
The second point, that separation is impractical, could only be advanced by a modern, democratic blasphemer. If American democracy is evil, then we must separate from it and attack it whether it is “practical” or not. And who’s to say that an attack on the Leviathan is not practical? In the fairy tales of the European people, the hero is always the man who seems impractical. He takes no heed of the dragon guarding the castle in which the fair maiden is imprisoned. All he sees is a maiden in distress, and it stands upon him to act and not to vacillate and count the cost.

When a King such as Charles of Austria views his coronation as a pledge to serve his people in a nation where God is sovereign, every act of that King which serves his nation is recorded in heaven. And so are the actions of the humblest citizen recorded in heaven if they serve a nation which acknowledges God as sovereign. But where are the actions recorded of a people who serve a democratic government dedicated to the rule of the people? I believe it’s called ‘Hell.’

Every white European serves a nation within a nation. There is an eternal Britain, an eternal France, and so on, that exists within the multi-racial entities that have supplanted the old European nations. But the European nations still exist beneath the surface of the new Tower of Babel nations. I view the European’s position vis-à-vis his nation as being similar to the situation of Mr. Toad, Ratty, Badger, and the Mole. They, the legitimate rulers, have been ousted by Third-World stoats and weasels, through the suicidal folly of one of their own. They must reconquer what the animals call “Toad Hall” and what we of course call Europe. The only difference is that the heroic reconquest in The Wind in the Willows takes place in a compressed period of time. It will take the European much longer to reclaim his home than it did the heroes of The Wind in the Willows, but since it is our home that we are fighting for we will carry on the fight to the tenth generation and beyond until every single stoat and weasel has been driven back to the Wild Wood.
(1) Every year the conservatives publish books telling us how conservative the American Constitution was and is. “If we could just get back to it,” they cry. The conservatives always ignore the liberal rhinoceros in the living room. How has the Constitution been interpreted? It has always been interpreted in a radical, anti-European light. The Constitution won’t save us; the European faith will.

Labels: , ,