One of the most notable of personalities, and one that by most accounts,

was the most successful in the spiritual and physical interdiction of Life’s

rhythmic cycles was he who died on a cross. This was his value, extending

through the millennia to our present day. No one person, who claims to be

a practicing Christian, can keep this claim until he ‘practices what he

preaches’. His cross has yet to be crafted.

This act, that of dying on a cross, is not a ‘faith’, but a doing which

requires a conscious perception of right and wrong; and if one cannot do a

‘right’, he will die for the continuation of those who may follow his

example. Each in turn, the teacher. This is, and has always been, the mark

of the Noble man.

This act did not presuppose equality with those persons who surrounded

him, this first Evangel; he was in constant struggle and conflict [nature’s

eternal imperative] with those around him, those individuals which, ever

and anon, sought to silence him. To the modern however, as Christian, his

vision of mental, physical, and spiritual equality is ever present. In nature

however, we see time after time, and time again, each [man’s] perception is

unique; even intuition can belie logic when both should be in harmony for

a natural balance. The articles of the modern Christian consists of faith,

but not of a doing. When the christian ‘does’ a thing, it is usually hot on

the heels of some inevitable emotional response conceived by those whose

agenda is in the forefront, and lacking in those noble tenets of intellectual

compassion and restraint. Yes, it is in their undoing that the modern

Christian shows his lack of self-discipline; they show that lack of authority

which defines a responsibility, or lack of responsibility to themselves and

their own survival – that is to say, the survival of their own kind; their own

race-culture.

In societies of the West, the modern has led the pack in his example which

he teaches every weekend; he teaches meekness, he teaches charity; he

expounds the doctrines of individual faiths to those persons (i.e. spirits)

that neither comprehend, in a Western sense, nor are naturally inclined or

drawn to those thoughts and feelings of the West. Certain it is that any one

individual or group may emulate to the point of expertise, but never

really fathom it, that is, in the conceptual way that its creators would

except, perhaps, in an abstract sense by these persons [spirits]. When there

is a response, such as the rudimentary mimicry of Pavlov, the modern

Christian pounds his chest with songs of platitudes and self accolades; they

bless themselves and their doctrines for the divine chance at ‘saving a

new soul’. As if any group or individual can in some way create the

umbilical tie between Divine Spirit and human acceptance of that divine

spirit: these same moderns, who are meek to the point of cowardice; the

rules of manly courage having been set aside for the possibility of ‘heaven’

and protection from their own weaknesses.

As with all values and perceptions there is, for the modern, that

penultimate doctrine of self – of Faith. The one value that determines the

modern’s attitude toward these issues is a priori of the modern Christian –

Redemption. This ambiguous reference of things to be, is their overriding

compulsion; it is their will-to-power. It is to the exclusion of all other

aspects of Life that the modern strives ever to ‘spread the word of God’ to

all and sundry who have ears hoping, in fact depending on, for their very

existence, that this compulsion will assure their reward in a heavenly

kingdom [for an erstwhile job well done!]. The Race, the Culture, or

present day mental state of their people, their blood, means nothing

compared to that great reward. To think otherwise would put the

unfortunate ‘unbeliever’ in the category of infidel or heretic; this dynamic

then, becomes the classic ‘inner’ and ‘outer’ man concept held in such

disrepute by the liberal and his minions of ‘modern christianity’. But there

is more.

It is, therefore, in the shadow of such as ‘redemption’ that this spirit, or

lack of same, in their potential proselyte, even when contrary to all that is

Western, is then in fulfillment of their cataclysm. Their mission on earth,

for they have no other ambition on earth, is to have nothing whatsoever to

do with the earth, since their life would, and will ever be, in Heaven. But is

this really the Christian’s outstanding motive and authority?

The deep instinct for how one must live, is a human element, that deep

wellspring of life’s rhythm, which one must follow or die, is Eternal. To

experience a thing, to enjoin oneself with a feeling, to be born again,

that presence of one who is already [living in a mental state] in ‘heaven’,

this ‘feeling’ of being eternal, is an act of desire – of wishing for a new

‘reality’. At the same time, that spirit which is man, his human duality, is

inexorably striving to ‘become’, and is drawn downward, to its roots, to the

earth itself; to Life. He then feels, somehow, withdrawn, small, incapable of

reaching a higher state of being because of ‘sin’ – his mark; that which will

always be with him, a slave to himself and his fears. He lives with these

two realities: one natural, one artificial. He wants to embrace both, but

cannot master either. He is then put adrift on an Ocean of indecision and

inaction. He is afraid.

The Modern can never truly separate himself from this earth. He sees what

he sees because he needs to see a ‘reality’ which allows him to fail – and

then be redeemed – to follow the same course again, and again, knowing

full well that as long as ‘redemption’ awaits, he may carry on. The Modern

has no relative concept of a man’s duality, that living a full life [here on

earth] is simply a part of a larger balance; that there is something after

death, an abyss which must, of necessity, have something to offer other

than blackness. As spirit and inquiry are a natural outgrowth of our

evolution, these concepts, while arising through the culture of the West are,

nevertheless, alien to the Modern; concepts of an ‘after-life’, ‘cyclic’

change, and the like are intrinsic racial beliefs/concepts, which belong to

those of the West only, being a part of his particular path through his racial

evolution. The Modern can then, in his wild aspirations of social change,

‘equality’, and financial control [for without money he cannot control]

work against his own ‘instincts’ and common sense, for an aim which

baffles the common folk – but no matter – it is, after all, for their own good;

who really cares, after all, if ‘mistakes’ are made along the way, as long as

it works out in the end: one can be redeemed.

Redemption, as a concept, can also share and occupy the reality of an

individual in his present life. As an objective, as a goal, it then becomes a

‘value of perception’, but only as a prerequisite for a doing, and must, of

necessity, be tempered with the reality of the needs, feelings, and future life

of the race and culture – his race-culture. If it happens that one’s instinct for

one’s own survival is negated by such a perception as ‘redemption’ then, it

is unhealthy, it is alien in both thought and concept, and will kill the host. If

this view of ‘redemption’ or its perception however, is consonant with

one’s own life, that is to say, that he understands its intrinsic meaning to

himself, to free himself from the abyss of human guilt, and that his race-culture

may thereby be freed with him, then it is healthy. The Redeemer,

himself, knew this. He knew the difference. He chose the Cross, his cross,

not to usher in redemption as only a ‘spiritual’ reality, but to show one how

to live. Through his personal discipline, his personal antagonism against

those that would deny his innermost morality, he gave his Life – which we

might gain thereby, by his example.