Cambria Will Not Yield

Saturday, November 27, 2010

The Light of Europe

“It’s my world, and I don’t want any other.” – Ratty in The Wind in the Willows

Reading the literature of two halfway-house Christian churches, which both present themselves as “the” Christian church, I saw that one church damned “white supremacists,” consigning them to the deepest pit of hell, and the other church urged the European remnant of their church to embrace their fellow black Christians in Africa.

Let’s take on the anti-white supremacist church first. What is the halfway-house Christians’ definition of a ‘white supremacist’? They don’t really give us a definition, but if it is such a serious sin shouldn’t we be told in very explicit terms what the sin of white supremacy is? In lieu of a definition we’ll have to infer one from the totality of the halfway-house Christians’ ravings about the sin of white supremacy.

The first thing we notice is that only a belief in white supremacy is a mortal sin. Belief in black supremacy is not a sin; it is a virtue, whether the belief is held by a black or a white. The second thing we notice is that a white man is considered a “white supremacist” if he believes his race should be separate from the colored races because it is superior to the colored races; and he is also viewed as a white supremacist if he makes no value judgment whatsoever about the races, but simply prefers to cling to his own people and forsake the stranger. There are no distinctions. If a white man wants to segregate the races for any reason whatsoever; he is a white supremacist and therefore damned. One doesn’t need a doctorate -- although you do need a Christian conscience – to see the un-Christian nature of the anti-segregationist Christians. In the case of the white man who believes his race is superior to the colored races, we witness a man who respects humanity enough to make distinctions of value between peoples and cultures. What could be more Christian? And in the case of the white man who prefers his own because they are his own, we have a man who knows that the love of God is closely allied to the love of hearth. Again, what could be more Christian?

The second halfway-house theologian, who urged that all white Christians should embrace their African brothers, tells us what is more Christian than segregation: it is the universal brotherhood of all Christians.We are constantly being urged to replenish the ranks of believing Christians by turning to the African church which has the numbers that the European churches lack. And did not Our Lord enjoin us to spread the Gospel of Christ throughout the world? Yes, He did tell us to spread the Gospel. But can the Gospel be spread by Babylonians? If Europeans do not remain distinctly white and distinctly Christian, how can they spread the Gospel? Where is the beacon light if the European light is extinguished? The blacks who actually became Christians did so because they saw white people acting as Christians within a distinctly white, segregated culture. The pre-Civil War Southern whites evangelized by keeping their churches separate from the black churches. They knew that the black churches would never be without a barbaric African taint, and without a counterbalance in the white churches the African influence would completely eradicate the Christian influence. Is it Christian, is it charitable, to paganize Christianity in order to buttress up the numbers of your flagging denomination? Christ was concerned with winning souls, not numbers. If we just count numbers, the Christian churches are doing great in Africa. But is that really the case? Does spreading the Gospel mean you should betray your own people? It seems to me that Judas Iscariot would approve of the new missionary efforts of the modern halfway-house Christians. Didn’t he betray his own under the guise of an abstract love for humanity?

Missing from the halfway-house Christians’ agenda is a respect for the faith of their fathers. They believe they have a computerized printout from God that can be used like a magic wand to change heathens into Christians. Why didn’t our ancestors see how easy it was? For centuries they tried to convert the African, to no avail, but now the modern halfway-house Christian has done it. He has converted the heathen. Wonderful!

Something more than an adherence to outward forms is necessary to make a Christian. The halfway-house Christian who condemns past and present Europeans as white supremacists, and the halfway-house Christian who thinks a little ecumenical pixie dust makes a Christian would be better advised to find out what Christ meant when he said he required mercy and not sacrifice. Salvation comes to us through the blood; it would indeed be suicidal to forsake our blood simply to avoid being called ‘white supremacists.’ Rather penny-wise, pound foolish, don’t you think?

The halfway-house Christian polygamist needs to preach a new colored Christianity for two reasons. He wants numbers because they increase the power of his denomination and his own power (let’s face it, we are always talking about a clergyman) within the denomination. It is more prestigious to rule over a congregation of millions than to be a pastor for a remnant band.

The second reason is much more sinister than the first. The halfway-house Christian wants to be in step with the secular world, and in the secular world decent white people worship Negroes and despise all non-liberal Europeans, living and dead. To be completely in step with the new Christianity the halfway-house Christian must hate the recalcitrant "racist" European. The neo-pagan has correctly identified the greatest enemy of the European people – the Christian clergy – but the neo-pagan errs when he blames Christ for the crimes of the apostate clergymen. Christ is our source of strength in the struggle against the white-hating Babylonians. It is supposed to be bad to hate, but that is just liberal and halfway-house Christian doublespeak. When the halfway-house Christians say the ‘old school’ Europeans are great 'haters' they mean to say that white Europeans love their own people. And when they say they love their black brothers, they mean that they hate whites with all their heart and soul and love the false image of the black man they have created in their own minds. But it is only an image that halfway-house Christians love; they are incapable of loving one particular people, one particular individual human being, and one particular God. Behind the ecumenical doublespeak of the halfway-house Christians is a lifeless skeleton.

The war against the white Christian Europeans has reached a new phase. Neither the liberal nor the halfway-house Christian debate with the antique European. They simply anathematize: “You are a white supremacist -- I damn you.” While differing on a wide variety of topics pertaining to sexual mores, the halfway-house Christian and the liberal are a united front in the ongoing war against white, Christian Europeans. Pope John XXIII spoke for all halfway-house Christians when he forgave the torture murder, by blacks, of his own people, and he implicitly, by his “loving forgiveness,” encouraged blacks to continue their outrages and whites to remain passive in the face of black barbarism. The good darkies in the Thomas Nelson Page novels are good because whites punish them when they do evil. That is true Christian charity. Isn’t this new found concern for the darky among “Christians” simply a shirking of the white man’s burden? In a marvelous short story called “The Old Planters,” Thomas Nelson Page depicts an old Southern colonel who goes unarmed against a crazed Negro with a revolver. He feels it is his responsibility to do so because the crazed black is the son of one of his servants. The halfway-house Christian can call such parentalism ‘white supremacy’ from now till doomsday, but I’ll always call it by its true name: Christian.

Christmas in Liberaldom is a very different affair than Christmas in old Europe. There is no truce between warring factions in Liberaldom as there once was in Christendom. Liberals do not see the need to be charitable to men who are sinners like themselves because they do not see themselves as sinners. There is only one sin in the liberal’s catechism and that sin is racism, of which he, the liberal, is free. Since he is sinless, the liberal can hurl stones at the sinful white supremacist. And when I read the literature of halfway-house Christians who call white supremacy a “damnable sin,” I am confirmed in my belief that the halfway-house Christian is only one hairs’-breadth from embracing the entire liberal agenda.

In 1980 the Royal Shakespeare Company staged a nine-hour adaptation of Charles Dickens’ novel Nicholas Nickleby. The play featured 42 actors playing 250 roles. The play, which was made available on tape a few years after its opening in London, never deviates from the text of the book. We get to see flesh and blood descendants of the 19th century British acting out the thoughts and feelings of the 19th century British. I have no doubt that the actors are as far removed spiritually from their 19th century countrymen as Hamlet’s uncle was removed from Hamlet’s father, but because they were trained in the Shakespearean theater and because they were of the same blood as the 19th century British, the actors and actresses were able to recreate, on stage, a world where Christianity mattered. Every time I view the play, I feel transported to a different plane of existence, a world where the light shineth in darkness.

I feel like the stammering Billy Budd whenever I attempt to write, but never more so then when I attempt to write about His Europe. The Nickleby production is just one small piece of the Europeans’ witness to the light. To suggest that the textbook wisdom of academics and clerics can be put in a silver rod, exported to the colored races, and then serve as a replacement for the blood faith of the antique Europeans, is a blasphemy of tidal wave proportions.

Europe is our home, it provides all the warmth and light we will ever need in this world and the world to come. If other people want to use the warmth that comes from our hearth and the light that emanates from our home to heat and light their hearths and homes, they are welcome. But we will not put out our hearth fires and extinguish the European light in order to worship in the dark by a hearth that provides no warmth. Let it never be said that Europe cannot produce at least a remnant band of men who comprehend that the light of Europe is the Light of the World. +


Saturday, November 20, 2010

Until Liberaldom Is Ashes

“And the LORD was angry with Solomon, because his heart was turned from the LORD God of Israel, which had appeared unto him twice, And had commanded him concerning this thing, that he should not go after other gods: but he kept not that which the LORD commanded.” – I Kings 11: 9-10

Recently while doing my monthly check of the news, I saw a panel of experts discussing the economy. All agreed that the national debt had reached crisis proportions and all agreed that no one in the Republican or Democratic parties was really addressing the problem of the national debt. The experts went on to explain that if really intelligent people (like themselves) were consulted, and if peripheral issues such as illegal immigration and abortion were not allowed to distract the nation from the one big economic issue, all might yet be well.

Let’s give the panel members the benefit of the doubt and assume that when they said intelligence was needed they really meant what was needed was wisdom, which is greater than mere intelligence. Is wisdom enough? Solomon was the wisest of all the kings of Israel, yet he destroyed Israel by marrying heathen princesses and placing images of Ba-al, Ashtoreth, Chemosh and Molech in full view of the Temple of the Lord. All this the wise Solomon did to please his wives. And in order to maintain his wives and himself in luxury he taxed his people beyond their ability to pay. So it seems that even if the wise panelists could be put in charge, we would not reduce our national debt by one dollar. Something besides mere wisdom is needed to rule a country.

Let’s go back to Solomon. What was that wise man's fatal flaw? He did not love God as his father David did. David’s sins were scarlet, but he never ceased loving the Lord and trying to do His will. If we permit legalized murder in the form of abortion, and if we permit national genocide in the form of legal and illegal colored immigration, are we doing the will of God? And if we are not doing the will of God, how can we expect to “turn the economy around”? Solomon was left one tribe out of the twelve for “the sake of your father David.” Will the Europeans even be allowed to rule their own tribe? Do they even want to?

It’s insane to talk about reducing the national debt in our modern Babylonian state. Concern about leaving one’s children with enormous debts is a Christian concern. The post-Christian debauchee views existence much like Louis XV of France: “After me, the deluge.”

The deluge has come, and we would be fools indeed to look to the people who caused it to rescue us from the deluge. Conservative and liberal alike have bid us view issues of sound economics and knowing the will of God as distinct and separate issues. But they are one issue. And in saying that, I do not mean to imply, as some preachers do, that we can get stock tips from the Bible or that faith breeds wealth. What I do maintain is that the right type of economy comes from a people who are concerned with knowing and doing the will of God. Life is a vale of tears no matter what the economic system, but human suffering can be eased by the proper, the Christian, ordering of society. Goldsmith makes this point in his poem “The Deserted Village”:
In all my wanderings through this world of care,
In all my griefs -- and God has given my share --
I still had hopes, my latest hours to crown,
Amidst these humble bowers to lay me down;
To husband out life's taper at the close,
And keep the flame from wasting, by repose:
I still had hopes, for pride attends us still,
Amidst the swains to show my book-learn'd skill,
Around my fire an evening group to draw,
And tell of all I felt, and all I saw;
And, as a hare, whom hounds and horns pursue,
Pants to the place from whence at first she flew,
I still had hopes, my long vexations past,
Here to return -- and die at home at last.

O blest retirement, friend to life's decline,
Retreats from care, that never must be mine,
How blest is he who crowns, in shades like these,
A youth of labour with an age of ease;
Who quits a world where strong temptations try,
And, since 'tis hard to combat, learns to fly!
For him no wretches, born to work and weep,
Explore the mine, or tempt the dangerous deep;
No surly porter stands, in guilty state,
To spurn imploring famine from the gate;
But on he moves to meet his latter end,
Angels around befriending virtue's friend;
Sinks to the grave with unperceived decay,
While resignation gently slopes the way;
And, all his prospects brightening to the last,
His heaven commences ere the world be past!
Let’s suppose a European such as myself got to sit on that panel of experts. And let’s further suppose I tell the panel of experts that, “We can never wipe out our national debt so long as we ban the master of the revels, Jesus Christ, from the body politic.”

What would be the panelists’ reaction? The reactions would vary from condescending smirks to indignant scowls, but none of the panelists would say, “By George, you’re right! We have left out the Son of God – what an oversight!”

I know that the case will be made that religious faith must be kept separate from economics because men fight over religion. Yes, men do fight over religion, but then they fight over economics as well. A man is dead without a poetic vision of life that stems from his faith. How can he make good decisions about anything important if he deliberately narrows his vision in order to exclude the silken, poetic thread of life, faith.

In the one great religious poem of the 20th century, C. S. Lewis’s Chronicles of Narnia, Lewis emphasizes that Aslan, the Christ figure, is not a tame Lion. The religious impulse is pure fire and desire; it can lead a man to heaven or, if diverted from its true source, to hell. Rev. Dimmesdale in Hawthorne’s Scarlet Letter allows his passion for God to become a passion for another man’s wife, but ultimately his passion finds its true home, at the foot of the Cross.

The poetic impulse, our passionate desire for something more than nature, for the transcendent, has always been considered dangerous by the managerial philosophers and theologians. Plato wanted to ban the poets from his Republic, Martha wanted Mary to stop her dreaming and help with the dishes, Aquinas wanted to keep God within the confines of his syllogisms, the born-againers want to confine religious passion to their single-room apartment, and on it goes; religious formalism has always been at war with religious faith. There were and are good reasons for leaving Christ out of the pictures; He is, after all, not a tame lion, and men who follow Him tend to be rather unpredictable and hard to handle. But what is the alternative? The alternative is the soul-dead ant heap of humanity called 'modern Europeans'.

The Europeans died when, like Solomon, they separated religious passion from wisdom. Solomon was the wisest of the wise, but he became a fool because his passion was for heathen women and heathen gods. The Europeans’ love for the Negro and the gods of the colored people made Christendom into Satandom, and no economic policy can succeed that does not confront this blasphemy.

The Christian Platos who so thoroughly banished passion from their Christian republics did not know what they were spawning. Man needs to be passionate about his faith. If he can’t be passionate about Christianity because the Christian Platos forbid it, then he will become passionate about some other god, or many other gods. The modern Christians bring blacks into their churches because they can’t be passionate about the Son of God, but they can be passionate about the black man. We should not seek to end Negro worship by abandoning Christ, as the neo-pagans so aggressively demand; we should abandon the abstract, passionless Christianity of the dried-up religious experts of the Western world.

In my freshman year at college, my assigned roommate was a chess enthusiast. He subscribed to several chess magazines and belonged to the college chess club. I had never played chess before in my life, yet when I played the chess enthusiast in a game, I won. I didn’t win because I was a natural-born chess genius, I won because my unorthodox play confused my very logical roommate who was used to a more traditional, logical game. My victory, quite understandably, irritated my roommate. I hadn’t technically violated any of the rules, but I didn’t, in his judgment, “play the game correctly.” I think the managerial-type theologians have, over the Christian centuries, been irritated with Christ. “You’re not playing the game correctly,” they tell Him, but then they had no reason to expect Him to be a tame Lion. And they have no right to demand that His followers be tame lions either.

Dostoyevsky wrote so eloquently in “The Grand Inquisitor” chapter of The Brothers Karamazov about the conflict between the clerical formalists who can’t abide what, in their eyes, is the whimsical and irresponsible behavior of Christ who plays the part of the passionate Pied Piper, imploring His people to respond in kind to His passionate love song:
“'So that, in truth, Thou didst Thyself lay the foundation for the destruction of Thy kingdom, and no one is more to blame for it. Yet what was offered Thee? There are three powers, three powers alone, able to conquer and to hold captive for ever the conscience of these impotent rebels for their happiness--those forces are miracle, mystery and authority. Thou hast rejected all three and hast set the example for doing so. When the wise and dread spirit set Thee on the pinnacle of the temple and said to Thee, "If Thou wouldst know whether Thou art the Son of God then cast Thyself down, for it is written: the angels shall hold him up lest he fall and bruise himself, and Thou shalt know then whether Thou art the Son of God and shalt prove then how great is Thy faith in Thy Father." But Thou didst refuse and wouldst not cast Thyself down. Oh, of course, Thou didst proudly and well, like God; but the weak, unruly race of men, are they gods? Oh, Thou didst know then that in taking one step, in making one movement to cast Thyself down, Thou wouldst be tempting God and have lost all Thy faith in Him, and wouldst have been dashed to pieces against that earth which Thou didst come to save. And the wise spirit that tempted Thee would have rejoiced. But I ask again, are there many like Thee? And couldst Thou believe for one moment that men, too, could face such a temptation? Is the nature of men such, that they can reject miracle, and at the great moments of their life, the moments of their deepest, most agonising spiritual difficulties, cling only to the free verdict of the heart?”
Yes, “the free verdict of the heart” is what is missing from modern Christianity. When the European of the old stock, the European with a heart that still loves, returns from exile, the liberal world will hear the sound of the same hosannas that made Satan tremble and gave life to the European people. It is useless to proscribe passion; it will out. In the counter-revolution, we will oppose the liberals’ passion for their heathen gods of color with our passion for the Son of God. The passionate European, the European who loves and hates with all his heart, is the Trojan horse within the walls of Liberaldom, and he will not sheath his sword until Liberaldom is ashes. +

Labels: ,

Saturday, November 13, 2010

Faith and Hearth

“I told you I should retake my fireside. It’s done.”

-The Kentuckian by John Fox Jr.

In Marlis Steinert’s biography of Hitler he lists all of Hitler’s hates and then poses the question, “What did he love?” Steinert concludes that Hitler loved the folk, the German Everyman. I disagree. Does a man who procures an abortion for the woman he professes to love truly love her? I say no, the man in question is seeking to destroy that which makes the female uniquely female, her God-given power to bring forth new life.

And so it was with Hitler. He tried to extract from the German people, for his own sinister purposes, that which made them a folk and not a herd of cattle, their Christian faith. What image does the word ‘folk’ conjure up? Do we think of jackbooted storm troopers saluting their Führer? I certainly don’t. I think of Hansel and Gretel, the Elves and the Shoemaker, Sleeping Beauty, and all the folk tales that came from the heart of the Germanic, Christian people. Hitler, like Nietzsche, hated the traditional faith of the European people; he envisioned a future that was a negation of everything European.

Of course Hitler’s Christ-less vision of the future was not unique. The 20th century was a century overloaded with utopian visions of a future devoid of Christianity. And in every instance – Communism, Nazism, Americanism – the utopians all cite “the people,” as their authority for steering their nation, or the nations, away from the Christian faith and toward a glorious, Christ-free future. But in reality the people were not consulted when the utopians launched their assaults on the traditional faith of the Europeans. There were no Russian peasants clamoring for a new, Godless state. There were no American farmers or workers that demanded a Jeffersonian democracy in which the Christian God was reduced to a meaningless irrelevancy. Nor did the German folk yearn to goose-step into Hitler’s dark night rather than sing Hosannas to the risen Lord. In every revolution in Christendom it is always the people who are most definitely not consulted.

The National Socialists, the Communists, and the Americanists were only following the tactics that the churchmen had been using for years. Can you name one major heresy that has ever come from the ranks of the people? There seems to be a direct correlation between the desire to systematize God, (often with the stated reason that systematizing makes it easier for “the people” to understand) and heresy. All the Christian clergyman through the centuries have claimed to respect tradition, which always turns out to mean the traditional documents of their own denomination, but they have never respected the traditional faith of the Christian folk. The assault of the philosophers and the intellectual something-or-others, over the Christian centuries, has been relentless. It was always the Christian, European people who resisted the intellectuals. The folk stood with Athanasius against Liberius and with Christ against Mohamet. It was only in the 20th century when the folk became intellectualized that all resistance to satanic, godless universalism ceased.

Nathaniel Hawthorne once wrote that he only became fully alive when he married. Likewise, the Europeans only became fully alive when they became wedded to Christ. Everything else in their history was only significant because it prepared them for their union with Christ. The European people and Christ combined their “hearts in one” and their realms in one.

We must cast aside St. Augustine’s characterization of the City of God (the Church) and the City of Man (the folk) as two opposing forces, the Church representing the good and the people representing evil, because we know that the marriage between Christ and the European people was genuine. We see the evidence in the history of the European people. What we need to know is the reason for the divorce. What came between the European and his God?

The obvious answer and the correct answer to the question is that Satan came between the European and God. But what was his methodology? He used the same method to come between God and the European as he used to come between God and Adam and Eve; he pointed to a systematic scheme of the universe that was greater than God. Adam and Eve had only to heed Satan, who claimed he knew the system better than God -- “Ye shall not surely die” -- in order to obtain equality with God. For the European it was always the Roman system that Satan dangled before his eyes. And only the church men who felt themselves to be connected, even though they were clergymen, to the lifeblood of their people, were able to resist Roman universalism. When St. Augustine (not the ‘City of God’ Augustine, but the other one) in 597 demanded that the British bishops conform to the Roman system, they resisted, saying:

"Be it known unto you beyond a doubt, that we are all and each one of us obedient and subject to the Church of God, and the Pope of Rome, and to every other true and pious Christian to the extent of loving each of them in word and deed, as the sons of God; but other obedience than this I do not know to be justly claimed and proved to be due to him whom you call the 'Father of Fathers,' and this obedience we are willing to give and perform to him and to every other Christian continually. But for anything further, we are under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Caerleon upon the Uske, who is, under God, to take the oversight of us and make us pursue a spiritual life."

And what was the rift between the British Catholics and the Roman Catholics all about? It was about the fight for the heroic Christ instead of a satanic system, in which God’s will is subordinate to man’s satanic desire to prove himself the equal of God. The system makers don’t deny God, they simply make Him a servant of the system. In that respect, the American experiment in democracy is the most seductive and demonic system of them all.

The British revolt against Roman universalism was not the last of its kind. Luther revolted against it only to witness his own people create their own Roman systems in which Christ was a subsidiary of the systems. Communism, Nazism, and Americanism are all religiously based systems that stem from the initial conflict between Satan and God.

In the first half of the 20th century, there was a clash of the satanic systems. And by the end of the 20th century, the warring systems merged into one unholy democratic system. The American Republic and the Roman Catholic Church of Assisi I and II, etc., represented the triumph of Satanism. The deification of the Negro and the sainted status of the unrepentant Jew are manifestations of the absence of any link between the European and the Christian God. In the absence of a connection to Christ the Europeans have become a people without honor, without love, and without charity.

The system makers always put up a wall between God and man. It has always been the task of the hero, who comes from the folk, to destroy the wall and restore the link between his people and God. It seems as though this time no heroes of the blood have come forth. But the hero knows not seems, and in God’s time, not ours, he will emerge. And it will always be His Sacred Heart that sustains him against the foe.

When the hero emerges who refuses to be part of the system he will turn everyone’s eyes toward the source of his strength, the Son of Man. The hero’s vision will be Pauline because he will be focused on the humanity of God, and it will be Shakespearean because he will be focused on the divinity within man. Like the good thief, the hero will see that the love of Christ trumps all systems and their makers. Divine Charity is not a system, it is a person whose name is Jesus.

I once infuriated a Roman Catholic Traditionalist priest by stating that I would much rather see a student truly understand Shakespeare’s plays than learn his catechism. From the priest’s standpoint, I was a blasphemer because I was placing Shakespeare above God. And of course the priest was right if, as he asserted, the catechism was an accurate portrait of God. But to me the catechism represented the system of one particular branch of Roman universalism that had no connection whatsoever with the living god. Whereas Shakespeare’s plays laid bare the heart of man which pointed the way to His Sacred Heart.

The good news for the European who feels helpless and hopeless in the face of the cold, heartless rule of the system makers is that he doesn’t need to find or invent a system of his own before his soul can be reclaimed. The European clan, the folk, and the heroes of the folk have shown us the way. They heard and believed, rejecting all systems and relying on the divine charity of Christ, the Son of God.

I’m certainly aware that there is virtually nothing left of the European people who once believed in the true Fairy Tale of the Son of Man. But the modern man’s unbelief in the communion of saints does not change the reality of the communion of saints. Our people once believed in the Midsummer’s Night’s dream called the Christian Faith. When the church men abandoned the hearth fire, when they saw the faith as something to be found only on church scrolls, they lost the folk, who need to see the faith as part of their home. It is never too late to reclaim our home; we need only listen to our blood. +

Labels: ,

Saturday, November 06, 2010

Modernity: The White Man’s Albatross

“The self-same moment I could pray;
And from my neck so free
The Albatross fell off, and sank
Like lead into the sea.”

-- Coleridge

Halloween has come and gone. And I’m not talking about the Halloween where little kiddies dress up as goblins and witches and ask for candy. I’m talking about something a lot scarier. I’m referring to the macabre spectacle called ‘elections,’ in which infantile adults dress up in costumes and tell a lot of lies about themselves and their opponents. Of course not every politician involved in Tuesday’s elections was an outright liar. But at the very least, the ones who were not blatant liars were participating in the great lie, the great lie of American Gnosticism: “Government for the people, by the people, and of the people.”

There is no ‘we, the people,’ in the United States or in the European nations. White people deny that their skin color makes them a ‘people.’ It makes no difference whether the pundit is Buchanan, Kristol, or Clinton; the refrain is the same: “We are a nation founded on an idea.” If we probe further we might be treated to a dissertation about the idea upon which our nation was founded. The answer will vary from pundit to pundit, but in the main it will boil down to the triune principles of the French Revolution: liberty, equality, and fraternity.

The United States did not completely crumble at its inception because it took time for the white people of the United States to actually put their abstracted principles to the test. Our un-Civil War was a battle between non-utopian Europeans and abstracted, utopian Europeans, who wanted, quite in keeping with our marvelous Constitution, to extend the ideals of liberty, equality, and fraternity to the black race. The utopians won a partial victory in the War, but the white men, as oft this stage we have shown, fought a successful rearguard action until their surrender in the 1950’s.

When a people who do not believe they are a people attempt to apply the abstract principles of liberty, equality and fraternity to a savage race of people who do see themselves as a ‘people,’ the extermination of the utopian people is the inevitable consequence. The Europeans are currently suffering through the extermination process.

Of course the racial identity of a people is only half of the equation. There is also the religious component. Race and faith merge to produce a people. Without a racial identity, a people are without a local habitation and a name; they are airy nothings. And without a religious faith, they are an aggregate herd without the animating, transcendent, spiritual life that comes from a connection to the living God. The colored tribes are races without faith, and the whites are non-entities without a racial or a religious aspect to their lives.

I saw nothing in any platform of the white candidates that indicated they were seeking to represent white Christians as a distinct people, separate from the multitudinous, aggregate herds of the colored tribes. Indeed, you would be immediately ushered into a mental asylum or a prison if you treated white people as a people apart from the colored people, and if you spoke favorably of white people or Christianity. Let’s do a little practical test. Observe what happens when a white television commentator even suggests that black people are not godlike creatures deserving all honor and praise. The white commentator immediately becomes a former white commentator. But when the reverse happens, when a black commentator derides the white race as the source of all evil in the world, what happens? The black commentator is petted and adored by whites and blacks. And what happens when Islam or any other non-Christian religion is attacked? The outraged liberals and the colored tribes strike back. When Christianity is attacked? The chorus for toleration and moderation reaches a sickening crescendo.

Behind the white man’s flight from his race is a flight from the living God. Christ came to us through the blood; He became part of us, body and soul. A European can only deny God by forsaking his blood. This is the reason Christianity only survives as an intellectual system, not an incarnational faith. You can pick or choose when you are dealing with a mind-forged system, agreeing with some tenets and disagreeing with others. But a blood faith is different. It is all or nothing. You must either trust your instincts and plunge headfirst into the raging river, trusting that the current will take you to a safe harbor, or you must stay on the dry land and create abstract theories about rivers and currents and cabbages and kings.

I do not like the mind-forged utopia of the liberals and the neo-pagans. It is a world devoid of the stuff that dreams are made on, the affections and sentiments that come from the human heart. The Europeans longed for the coming of the hero. Who was Thor, who was Odin, if not the European’s waking dream of a hero that would come and save his people from the forces of the underground world of evil, sin and death? Christ was Thor, He was Odin, He was Siegfried, He was all the gods and all the heroes, and He was more than the gods: He was blood brother, Savior, and King.

I’ve often wondered why it is the white, halfway-house Christian conservatives who are the most vehemently opposed to any suggestion that faith comes through the blood, not the head. Possibly it is because such an admission would mean that the clergy, who are the intellectuals, would not be the final arbiters of divine revelation. And there is also the ecumenical problem. It seems very anti-democratic and unecumenical to claim that your ancestors were something special because they, and they alone, made the living God part of the fabric of their culture. Our modern academics reject such antiquated notions. Aztec poetry and voodoo charm bracelets are rated higher as works of art than Michelangelo’s Pieta or Shakespeare’s King Lear.

Satan never attacks head on. He comes at a person through “zigs and zags.” He didn’t tell the European to give up the Christian faith, he told him to give up the silly notion that the faith could be passed on through the blood. He claimed, and the intellectuals believed him, that the incarnation of our Lord was a metaphor and not an historical fact. The faithful heart will always reject the bloodless Christianity of Satan. William Blake’s poem, in which he makes reference to Christ’s trip to Glastonbury, England when He was a child, is an example of how seriously the Europeans took the incarnational aspects of their culture: (1)

And did those feet, in ancient time,
Walk upon England’s mountains green?
And was the holy Lamb of God,
On England’s pleasant pastures seen?
And did the countenance divine,
Shine forth upon our clouded hills?
And was Jerusalem builded here,
Among those dark satanic mills?
Bring me my bow of burning gold!
Bring me my arrows of desire!
Bring me my spear! O clouds unfold!
Bring me my chariot of fire!
I will not cease from mental fight,
Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand,
Till we have built Jerusalem
In England’s green and pleasant land.

The overriding tendency of the moderns, a tendency that the resurgence of Europeans of blood will countermand, is to sever all ties of blood between the European and his God. A conservative Gnostic, recently deceased, used to prattle on about the absurd notion that a common, middle-class Englishman named William Shakespeare could have written Shakespeare’s plays. He claimed, as his Gnostic progenitors claimed, that only an intellectual, an academic, could have written Shakespeare’s plays. But that is precisely what could never happen. Shakespeare’s plays show us the intimate connection between man and God; could such a connection be felt and depicted by an academic? Fitzhugh didn’t think so:

“Had Shakespeare been as learned as Ben Jonson, he would have written no better than Ben Jonson .”

Anthony Jacob also saw through the Western intellectuals' attempt to destroy the European’s heritage by attacking the heroes and poets who are the pride of his race:

“Of course it may be objected that slavery, however beneficent, was scarcely a suitable medium for improvement. Or it may be protested that until recently the Negro lived in circumstances of neglect and illiteracy making advancement impossible. But if we were to accept these popular objections as valid, we would be at a complete loss to explain why similar adversities never for a moment succeeded in suppressing the energy and genius of our own kind. We would be at a complete loss to explain why such circumstances failed to hold back the inventions of the English weavers, the illiterate founders of the industrial revolution. Certainly the egalitarians would hardly care to ascribe their inventiveness to the fact that they were uneducated work-slaves living on an island and entirely cut off from intercourse with other peoples and ideas. Unlike the vast majority of other nations, when it comes to reckoning our Anglo-Saxon geniuses and men of great talent we do not know where to begin or end, there have been so many. Yet many among them were only part-educated or self-educated – aside from those who were totally uneducated – and as boys had to struggle to acquire their book-learning while slaving away at work-benches. Men such as these still surprise even ourselves; so that many cannot believe that Shakespeare was Shakespeare, and have discovered that he was somebody else.”

It’s all connected. The attack on the heroes of our blood and on The Hero of our blood, in the name of a higher, more intellectual Christianity, is meant to destroy the Christian faith and the European people who championed the Faith. (2) My reason says it’s the end for the European, but my blood tells me something quite different. “So long as the blood endures” is a fitting war cry for the European.+


(1) The pious legend is that Christ visited Glastonbury when He was a child, in the company of Joseph of Arimathea, a relative of Christ who was involved in the tin trade. I don’t know if the story is true, but I tend to think it is because the old legends are usually more reliable than the modern histories.

What difference does it make? Well, our faith in Christ certainly does not depend on whether or not He walked upon England’s mountains green, but I think the fact that the English wanted to believe that Christ had set foot on their soil speaks volumes about their desire to weave love of country and love of Christ into one seamless garment. And the fact that the modern anti-European whites want to separate Christ from their nations and their blood speaks volumes about them.

(2) The pernicious, arrogant assumption that the Europeans of the good, old times were all liars about their own history should never go unchallenged. It’s not just Shakespeare who is supposed to have been the beneficiary of a massive cover-up, there is also Davey Crockett: “He didn’t really fight to the death at the Alamo; he surrendered and begged for his life”! Wyatt Earp? The modern movies change his courageous and victorious bare-knuckles fight against two vicious outlaws into an ignominious defeat. The list is endless. Conservatives and liberals alike play the ‘Debunk the European Heroes’ game. “To hell with Europe and to hell with Europe’s heroes” is their war cry. “To the knife” is the European’s response to the liberals and their conservative lackeys.

Labels: ,