Read More »

FROM The Return of the King: Discourses on the Latter Days, by Henry James Coleridge, 1894:

The Christian loves his country for the sake of God’s ordinance, and for the many benefits which he receives from its laws and its protection. He loves it for the sake of conscience, and therefore not more than his conscience. He knows that he must obey God rather than man. He knows that he will lose his soul if he makes his patriotism an excuse for hatred against his fellow-men, for violence, for revengefulness, and other bad passions. He knows that he is a citizen of a higher and nobler unity, the Kingdom of God in this world and in the next. He is a Christian first, and after that, and in harmony with the duties and the charity which that name implies, he is an Englishman or an Irishman or a Frenchman.

The Pagan knew none of these qualifications to his love for his country. His country or his city was to him a divinity, it was the highest unity and polity that he knew. Its interests overrode his conscience, its commands justified sin. Read More »

INDIAN author Frank Raymond wonders why all people on earth are entitled to their own countries, with the exception of whites.

“WHEN water comes down from the heavens as rain, it is always the same in itself, yet, it produces different effects – one in a flower, another in a tree, and yet a third and fourth in an animal or person. So the grace of the Holy Spirit,  like water, adapts itself to the needs of every creature that receives it. In the same way the Holy Spirit, whose nature is always the same, simple, and indivisible, gives grace to each man [or woman] as  He, [the Holy Spirit] wills.”

—  St Cyril of Jerusalem

A PERSON who trusts that he can find rest in the delights and abundance of earthly things is deceiving himself. By the frequent disorders of the world, and at last by its end, such a one is proven convincingly to have laid the foundation of his tranquility upon sand. But all those who have been breathed upon by the Holy Spirit, and have taken upon themselves the very pleasant yoke of the Lord’s love, and following his example, learned to be gentle and humble of heart, enjoy even in the present some image of the future tranquility.

— St. Bede the Venerable

“DURING the centuries of contact, the white man has looked upon the Negro either as a case of hardened degeneracy or he has gone wild in the other extreme of expecting the Negro to assume equal rank with the Caucasian. Both theories are wrong. Possibly equally so. To deny the Negro the right to develop according to natural laws is unjust; to expect him to develop as a Caucasian is a species of sentimental insanity. The one overlooks that he is human, the other ignores that he is a race. He is human and should not be denied the right to work out his own salvation. He is a fully constituted race and like other races, is possessed of ineradicable race instincts and tendencies, and may work out his salvation along race lines only. This understanding of the Negro and the Negro problem will be at the bottom of any rational dealing with the Negro and the problem he constitutes to civilization.

“In the Ideal Negro State the Negro will develop as a Negro, in accord with his race instincts and capacities; but he may need white guidance in the first stages of his independence. Heretofore the white man has made the Negro work for the white man’s advantage. In the ideal Negro State, the white man, if there be need, may direct the Negro’s work for the Negro’s welfare. Heretofore the white man has received chief profit from the Negro’s labor; under a rational system of developing the Negro the latter alone will profit from his toil.

“Transplanted to Africa, the Negro, under the temporary tuition of the United States, will be able to work out his own destiny. Our knowledge of his history shows us that his future is to be as a Negro.”

— Earnest Sevier Cox, White America, 1937 (p. 61)

“OUR part is not fitly sustained upon the earth unless the range of our intended and deliberate usefulness includes not only the companions, but the successors of our pilgrimage.

“God has lent us the earth for our life; it is a great entail. It belongs as much to those who are to come after us, and whose names are already written in the book of creation, as to us; and we have no right, by anything that we do or neglect, to involve them in unnecessary penalties, or to deprive them of benefits which it was in our power to bequeath. And this the more, because it is one of the appointed conditions of the labor of men that in proportion to the time between the seed-sowing and the harvest, is the fulness of the fruit, and that generally, therefore, the farther off we place our aim and the less we desire to be ourselves the witnesses of what we have labored for, the more wide and rich will be the measure of our success.

“Men cannot benefit those who are with them as they can benefit those who come after them; and of all the pulpits from which human voice is ever sent forth, there is none from which it reaches so far as from the grave.”

— John Ruskin

Read More »

The 1937 movie Victoria the Great is a moving portrayal of the marriage of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert. In this portrayal of the couple, the most powerful woman in the world manages to retain her husband’s love and express her tender submission to him.

It is not important if all the details of this dramatic account are accurate. The movie, which is based on Laurence Housman’s 1935 play Victoria Regina, works as an inspirational love story and is clearly accurate enough. Few women in history have so publicly expressed devotion to their husbands as Victoria and it is doubtful anyone loved her man more.

In one scene, Victoria, played by the outstanding Anna Neagle, is outraged at what appears to be Albert’s flirtation with other women at court. The truth is, he has deliberately tried to anger her because she has refused to allow him to help with matters of state. His point is that if she won’t allow him to be more than a loafer, he will express his masculinity in other ways.

Anton Walbrook is excellent as the German prince, who goes to his chambers in a huff after Victoria displays her anger at him in front of others. Victoria follows.

She bangs on his locked door.

“Who is it?” Albert asks.

“It is the queen,” she says proudly.

He refuses to let her in.

“Who is it?” he calls out when she bangs on the door again.

“It is Victoria,” she says imperiously.

There is no answer.

She is desperate and almost gives up. Finally, she gently knocks.

“Who is it?” he asks.

“It is your wife,” she says, softly.

He unlocks the door.

ALAN writes:

On a night in November 1923, an ex-con pulled an armed robbery at a confectionary in north St. Louis. Or he tried to. But he encountered a little resistance. It made the front page of next day’s newspaper.

A married couple owned the store. The wife and her mother and two boys from the neighborhood were inside the store when the bandit walked in with his revolver and ordered the women to reach. “The boys, terrified, fled from the store,” a news account reported.

Then he began shooting. Provoked to anger, the wife pulled a revolver from beneath the counter and fired three shots. Her husband was in the back of the store. He heard everything, grabbed a revolver from a dresser, and waited quietly for the bandit to enter the room.  Then he opened fire at the ex-con and nailed him with three bullets. The bandit fled. The husband chased him up the street and gave him a merciless beating about the head and ears. Read More »

“MY brethren, there is no teacher, no preacher, no doctor, no apostle, so eloquent, so mighty, so convincing as death. What should we say of a man who had the gift, by a breath, or a word of his mouth, of driving away the mental delusions and follies of all the maniacs and lunatics in the world, or of giving sight to all the blind, or of flooding with knowledge and learning the minds of all the ignorant? Certainly we should say that he had a great gift. But the gift of death is greater.

… [M]any or great, blameable or innocent, fatal or excusable, of whatever kind or of whatever degree, all delusions will go then. The sinner who has so clung to the inventions of his passions or his interest that he has persuaded himself to live a bad life in the midst of the greatest light and the highest privileges, will doubt no more then.”

— Henry James Coleridge, The Return of the King: Discourses on the Latter Days, 1894

“THE American middle class has now been liquidated, except for a few remnants that are found here and there and are tolerated because they have no vestige of political power and will soon disappear anyway. A middle class can be based only on property — on the secure possession of real property of which a man can be divested only by his own folly. A middle class cannot be formed of comparatively well-paid proletarians who may have a theoretical equity in a hundred-and-fifty-thousand-dollar house they are “buying” on a thirty-five year mortgage, and in a fifteen-thousand-dollar automobile for which they will not have paid before they “trade it in” on a more expensive and defective vehicle. Nor can it be formed of proletarians whose wives have to work — whether as “executives” or as charwomen — to “make ends meet.” With the exception of relicts who live on investments that have not yet been entirely confiscated by taxation, the economic revolution is as complete in the United States as in Soviet Russia: there are only proletarians, some of whom are hired to manage the rest. Managerial employees get more pay and ulcers than janitors and coal miners, but they are equally dependent on their wages and even more dependent on the favor of the employee above them. The nearest approximation to a middle class, both here and in Russia, is the bureaucracy, and it is their vested interest that the Birchers imagine they can destroy.”

— Revilo P. Oliver, 1981