In the Land of the Stranger

And when they agreed not among themselves, they departed, after that Paul had spoken one word, Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet unto our fathers, Saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive: For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it.  – Acts 28: 25-27

It was not the Greeks en masse who mocked Paul and called him a babbler. Many of the Greeks outside of Athens and even some Athenians (Dionysius the Areopagite, and a woman named Damaris, and others with them) also “clave unto St. Paul” and believed. But on the whole the Athenians could not accept St. Paul’s belief in Christ’s resurrection from the dead. And in the Acts of the Apostles is written the whole history of the European people, their rise and their fall.

When St. Paul went to Athens, his mortal enemies, the Jews, followed him there. Their hatred of him stemmed from his uncompromising, unremitting preaching of Christ crucified, Christ risen:

And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks. And when Silas and Timotheus were come from Macedonia, Paul was pressed in the spirit, and testified to the Jews that Jesus was Christ. And when they opposed themselves, and blasphemed, he shook his raiment, and said unto them, Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean: from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles. – Acts 18: 4-6

The Athenians who rejected St. Paul’s faith in Christ did not hate him as the Jews hated him. They, after all, were philosophers – they neither loved nor hated, they simply liked to sit around and indulge their intellectual curiosity. “For all the Athenians and strangers which were there spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell, or to hear some new thing.” Paul got nowhere with those philosophical speculators.

As we look at our people’s history we see those two forces, the Jews who hate the Savior, and the philosophical speculators who love debate, continually at work undermining the European people’s faith in Christ. When the Europeans kept those two forces in check (for you can never completely eliminate them), they were a people who bore witness to the light of the world. Now that the Jews, who hate the light, and the philosophical speculators hold sway, there is no light in Europe, and the European people have become Undines — they have lost their souls.

The philosophical speculators in the church, the theologians who wanted to make Christianity into a respectable philosophy they needn’t be ashamed of, spawned the philosophical speculators in society, the Voltaires and the Rousseaus. When that spirit of philosophical speculation takes hold, when those who believe in the resurrection of the dead are seen as babblers and purveyors of fairy tales, the people doubt Christ and start to become like unto the Jews who hate Him. This is the dramatic transformation that took place in Europe. When the scoffers, the Voltaires, the Shaws, and the Rousseaus, made Christianity a thing of ridicule, the formerly Christian people became like unto the Jews. They began to hate Christ and his followers. If Christ be not risen then the Christian religion is a sin against nature. Flying the flag of the natural savage, the Judaized European, the liberal, attacks the European people with a religious zeal that is grounded in the hatred of the living God, who is Christ the Lord. The white race will always be the object of the Judaized liberals’ hatred because the white race formed a covenant with the Suffering Servant. They can announce to the world that they have broken that covenant, they can claim that Christianity and liberalism are one, but that will avail them nothing. Nothing can change the fact that the white race saw beauty on the cross and made the Christ story their story. They simply can’t be trusted, so they must be destroyed.

The neo-pagans who have made the exterior Jew the main problem do not understand the European people’s journey from darkness to light and then back to darkness. Satan was the great scoffer, he debunked the fairy tale of God’s filial connection to Adam and Eve. He told Adam and Eve that the stupid story of the forbidden fruit was just that – a stupid story: “Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods…” But who was the liar, Satan or the Lord God? The devil will always tell us honest trifles to betray us in deepest consequence. Death came into the world when Adam and Eve took the devil’s word over God’s word. And we have reenacted that original sin by allowing the Athenians, the Voltaires, and the Rousseaus (“Mock on, Voltaire, Rousseau, Mock on!”) to place St. Paul’s vision of the risen Lord in the unscientific world of unreality, while placing the Rousseauian vision of a natural world cleansed of unnatural Christian Europeans at the center of Europe. The “naturalism” of the philosophical speculators always metamorphoses into the hatred of the light. The Christian believes that Christ restored us to our true natures; we were not born to die. But if Christ be not risen, as the philosophical speculators tell us, then He is the great destroyer, He is the one great obstacle to the Kingdom of Heaven on earth. We can’t dance around the throne of the noble black savage if Christ, not nature, is the one true God. That is the real war we are fighting, or should I say that is the war the Europeans should be fighting? We should take up the discarded sword of the European people, which is the cross of Christ, and assert the truth of His story over the mocking ridicule of the philosophers and the zealous hatred of the liberals. And let us not be deceived by the internecine warfare between various camps of liberals, whether they are neo-pagans who mock “gentle Jesus,” Christian fusionists who worship Israel, Roman Catholics who worship the natural savage, or mad-dog liberals who hate with the passion of Shylock, they are all of one accord on that which is essential: They hate the antique Europeans who placed Christ at the center of their culture. How can we be a people again if we deny our parentage? We, the European people, were born of Him. Everything else the European people did prior to their acceptance of Christ was only significant to the extent it helped prepare them to receive their King.

And they were prepared, because they, unlike the philosophers and the Jews, were able to love a God of mercy who did not come in the form of an earthly king but in the form of a suffering servant. When the judgment of nations takes place, it is the Europeans’ espousal of the God who asked for mercy rather than sacrifice that will distinguish them from all the other nations. Why do the modern Undines, the soulless Europeans, stand with the heathen gods who require sacrifice and have no place for mercy?

Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against his anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.Psalms 2: 1-3

They stand with them, because they believe the lies of the devil who tells us that the natural world, the world we can see and touch, is the whole world. We need only turn to the gods of the natural world in order to find the peace and fulfillment that we could never find with the Christ of old Europe. That is the liberals’ party line.

Christ the Lord is no longer a living reality to the people of Europe. He is no longer the God above nature who redeems us from sin and death, He is the great facilitator of the nature gods. He helps us to fight racism, which is white pietas, and enjoins us to think of Him as the God of liberalism. But is our Lord the lap dog of the liberals? No, He is not. Nor should we be the lap dogs of the liberals just because we are afraid of being called racist, sexist, or Islamophobic. So long as we are only concerned with showing the liberals that faith in Christ is compatible with liberalism, we are sounding brass and tinkling cymbals. We are nothing at all.

To live in exile estranged from your people and your homeland is a terrible thing. But it is far more terrible to make peace with the invaders who have killed your people and despoiled your homeland. And that is precisely what the modern anti-Europeans such as Pope Francis and Angela Merkel have done. They have renounced their people and made peace with the invaders. Better to live in exile within the confines of the new Babylon, than to make peace with those who have made the hatred of the white, Christ-bearing race their sole religion.

In grade school we used to sing a song that was inspired by a piece of poetry by Davey Crockett. One line in that poem has stayed with me my entire life: “In the land of the stranger, I rise or I fall.” The Europeans who conquered the Roman empire did so in the name of their gods who fought beside them in battle and presided over their racial hearth fire. When they heard the Christ story, they saw, with their hearts, the same God that St. Paul encountered on the road to Damascus. His vision became their vision. And in the land of the stranger, which consisted of all the colored races, they rose, because they had no truck with the philosophical speculators. But what of their heirs? What happened to the European people? Satan conquered the European people through philosophical speculation and made their faith a subject of ridicule. Now the European people are naked to their enemies – the colored heathens and the Judaized liberals.

I do not say it will happen, because no man can know such things, but I do say that the world of the antique Europeans, which they built in the midst of heathendom and in spite of the forces of liberalism arrayed against them, was and is the real world. It is His world. And it will only return if we reject the world of the stranger, the world of apostate church men, colored heathen, and Judaized liberals. That world is not the world for a European.

Kent enjoins Lear to “see better” so that he will know who his real daughter is, the daughter who loves him. We must see with our European hearts so that we can know the living God, the God who loves us. He does not reside in the minds of the philosophical speculators nor in the unhallowed churches of diversity and hatred; He resides with the people with hearts of flesh. White pietas will sustain us in the day of battle, because it is white pietas that allows us to see and know the savior. We shall rise if we cleave unto the vision of St. Paul and the antique Europeans. We shall remain a fallen people, under the yoke of the stranger, so long as we reject the antique Europeans’ vision and cleave unto the gods of liberalism. +

Posted in antique Christianity, Christianity is neither a theory nor a philosophy, pietas | Tagged ,

The Vision of His Europe and His People

Could great men thunder
As Jove himself does, Jove would ne’er be quiet;
For every pelting, petty officer
Would use his heaven for thunder,
Nothing but thunder. Merciful Heaven,
Thou rather with thy sharp and sulphurous bolt,
Splits the unwedgeable and gnarled oak
Than the soft myrtle. But man, proud man,
Dress’d in a little brief authority,
Most ignorant of what he’s most assur’d,
His glassy essence, like an angry ape,
Plays such fantastic tricks before high heaven
As makes the angels weep; who, with our spleens,
Would all themselves laugh mortal.

Measure for Measure

I wrote at the time of Trump’s electoral victory that his victory constituted a rearguard action. I said that white people had lost a war, and Trump’s election could forestall the massacre of the retreating whites. Nothing has happened since the election to make me change my opinion about the nature of Trump’s victory. But I seem to be in a minority of one. A whole host of ‘conservatives,’ such as Ann Coulter, expected all sorts of miracles from Trump. When, in their opinion, he didn’t deliver the miracles, they condemned him and started looking for another miracle man who would follow their advice. But there will never be an elected official in the United States who is better than Donald Trump. As was the case with Andrew Jackson and Theodore Roosevelt, Trump only partly believes in American exceptionalism. That non-American element in his soul gives Trump, as it also gave TR and Jackson, the courage to occasionally act according to the instincts of a white man rather than the theories of the experts. Such a man is the only type of man who can do any good for white people. Granted, a rearguard movement will not provide white people with victories, but to look for victories within the democratic process is to seek redemption from the devil. Who is foolish enough to seek redemption from the devil? Apparently Ann Coulter and the legions of conservative pundits are foolish enough to seek redemption from the devil.

Oliver Goldsmith is oft ridiculed for stating that everything new was bad and everything old was good, but Goldsmith was right. When he said that everything new was bad, he was not referring to indoor plumbing or something else of a material nature, he was referring to the spiritual ordering of society. Society must always, Goldsmith maintained, be grounded in the Christian faith of the European people. New systems of government which placed God off to the side in preference for manmade theories of government were to be shunned. Scott was of the same opinion as Goldsmith:

An established system is not to be tried by those tests which may with perfect correctness be applied to a new theory. A civilized nation, long in possession of a code of law, under which, with all its inconveniences, they have found means to flourish, is not to be regarded as an infant colony, on which experiments in legislation may, without much danger of presumption, be hazarded. A philosopher is not entitled to investigate such a system by those ideas which he has fixed in his own mind as the standard of possible excellence. The only unerring test of every old establishment is the effect it has actually produced, for that must be held to be good, from whence good is derived. The people have, by degrees, moulded their habits to the law they are compelled to obey; for some of its imperfections remedies have been found, to others they have reconciled themselves; till, at last, they have, from various causes, attained the object which the most sanguine visionary could promise to himself from his own perfect unembodied system.

from Scott’s “Essay on Judicial Reform” quoted in John Gibson Lockhart’s Memoirs of the Life of Scott

The American and the French Jacobin experiments in democracy were both experiments in philosophical presumption. The presumption was that Unitarians, deists, and atheists could come up with a government that could beat the tradition-laden, code-of-chivalry governments of old Europe hands-down. And what has been the result of the philosophical presumption of the great utopian theorists? To say the result has been a disaster would be a gross understatement. The American Civil War, the First World War, the Second World War, and the incredible displacement of the peoples of Europe after the Second World War were all the result of utopian theories of liberal government triumphing over the traditional, time-tested governments of old Europe. And the modern displacement of the European people in preference for the colored heathen from the swamps and bogs of heathendom is the result of the rise of an utopian elite that wants nothing to do with anything from old Europe – which means the exclusion of the white race and the Christian God from the new utopian nations of Europe.

Burke did much to dissuade Europeans from following the Jacobins, but there still followed in the wake of that revolution a whole host of liberal conservatives, men such as Macaulay, Toqueville, Weaver, and later, lesser lights such as William F. Buckley Jr., who thought democratic ideals were not incompatible with conservativism. Those ‘enlightened’ liberal conservatives did battle with the mad-dog liberals throughout most of the 20th century before they finally succumbed in the latter half of that century. There are now only pathetic remnants of liberal conservatives who play with abstract theories of government while all the forces of hell govern the country. What was missing back in the 20th century when there were two utopian camps – the mad-dog liberals and the conservative liberals – was the poor, unaccommodated, common man. Everything was done in his name, but he was a mere abstraction. The common man does not get his knowledge of life through old books and documents, he gets his knowledge of life through the traditions and prejudices of his people. If you cut the common man off from the traditions and prejudices of his ancestors you have left that common man at the mercy of the purveyors of modernity. He has no touchstone of reality, but that of an ever-changing present which tells him of the evil of his past and the bleakness of his future. So to whom can he turn? He can’t turn to God, because the liberal elite has placed God within the confines of liberalism. So the question remains – whither goes the white man?

All the liberal-conservatives in one form or another acknowledge the wisdom of Burke. And yet they reject the insight that is at the heart of all his thought. He believed, with St. Paul, that the folly of God was wiser than the wisdom of man. He did not believe in the double revelation theory of the scholastics, that there was one type of revelation for the thinking, reasoning man and another type of revelation for the unthinking, irrational, common man. We are all common; we need the wisdom that is passed on from heart to heart, because that instinctual wisdom of the blood connects us to Christ. We cannot go it alone with the powers of our intellect. Burke, whose intellect was certainly as great as any of his contemporaries, did not think he could walk away from the wisdom of his ancestors and still retain his Christian faith. He had that charity of honor which compelled him to reject the wide gate of pure reason in order to enter in the narrow gate of instinct, prejudice, and revelation. The modern liberal conservatives have taken the path of reason. They want to show the mad-dog liberals that they are the smart ones. But the mad-dog liberals will never be convinced by reason because we are not governed by reason, we use reason to support our passions.

In every doctrine which wins men over to it, the sophistry it contains is less potent than the promises it makes; its power over them is greater through their sensibility than through their intelligence; for if the heart is often the dupe of the head, the latter is much more frequently the dupe of the former. We do not accept a system because we deem it a true one, but because the truth we find in it suites us. Political or religious fanaticism, any theological or philosophical channel in which truth flows, always has its source in some ardent longing, some secret passion, some accumulation of intense, painful desire to which a theory affords an outlet…

The French Revolution by Hippolyte Taine

And what passion governs a people who have cut themselves off from instinct, prejudice, and revelation? The same passion that animated Adam and Eve – “Ye shall be as gods.” Which is the same passion as Robespierre’s passion:

Hence, far from looking upon himself as an usurper or a tyrant, he considers himself the natural mandatory of a veritable people, the authorised executor of the common will. Marching along in the procession formed for him by this imaginary crowd, sustained by millions of metaphysical wills created by himself in his own image, he has their unanimous assent, and, like a chorus of triumphant shouts, he will fill the outward world with the inward echo of his own voice.  -Taine

The common man — and I am not talking about the common man as in proletariat or some other abstract entity, I am talking about the unaccommodated common man that Lear discovers his kinship with in that stable:

Poor naked wretches, wheresoe’er you are,
That bide the pelting of this pitiless storm,
How shall your houseless heads and unfed sides,
Your loop’d and window’d raggedness, defend you
From seasons such as these? O, I have ta’en
Too little care of this! Take physic, pomp;
Expose thyself to feel what wretches feel,
That thou mayst shake the superflux to them
And show the heavens more just.

-The Tragedy of King Lear

The European Everyman, the common man, is not separated from the poets of his race. His faith is one with Shakespeare, with Burke, and with St. Paul. They see with blinding sight and articulate the vision, but the vision is not unlike the vision that is in the Everyman’s heart. But there is a great divide, an impassable divide, between the European Everyman and the Gnostics of mad-dog liberalism and conservative-liberalism. The Gnostics of both camps have built their own Towers of Babel from which they hurl thunderbolts at the other tower. Both groups of Gnostic Babylonians enjoin the people to enter their camp, but no matter which camp the European Everyman enters he gives up that which makes him a man – his blood connection to the living God in and through his kith and kin. Look at the wasteland of 20th century conservatism. Is there any room for Anthony Jacob’s heartfelt plea for the survival of his people, the Christ-bearing race? No, there is not. All we see are proposals to protect democracy and/or our Greco-Roman-Judeo Christian traditions. But our people are not a democratic abstraction, nor is our God a mathematical abstraction, He is a God of spirit and blood, He is “our Jesus.”

There is nothing that can excuse a European who goes over to Gnosticism. He cannot plead that he was not given the intellect to understand the higher things, because God does not ask us to understand with our minds. He asks us to understand with our hearts, and we all are given the heart to understand Him. If we choose to reject the wisdom of our hearts, in order to illuminate our minds, we will create our own little kingdom of hell on earth from which we can spew venom at all the other little kingdoms of hell on earth. Each man is a universe, and he is either a universe connected to the living God or he is a universe connected to Satan.

What then is the war that the white man lost? The white man lost the war against the principalities and powers of this world, because he listened to the siren call of the pride of science. “You can create God in your image, the image of the new, rational man, and then you can have the world as well as God.” But what does it take to scientize the world? It takes men who have scientized their souls. In order for the Gnostics’ rule to take hold, the white Everyman had to be Gnosticized, he had to believe that life was a problem in mathematics that could be solved by the proper mathematical authorities. He had to believe in the ‘piano key’ logic of existence and reject the blood wisdom of his European ancestors. The end result of that great Gnostic revolution is that Europe is governed by thoroughbred metaphysicians who rule in the name of the demonic angel who prowls about the world seeking the ruin of souls.

Nothing can be conceived more hard than the heart of a thoroughbred metaphysician. It comes nearer to the cold malignity of a wicked spirit than to the frailty and passion of a man. It is like that of the principle of evil himself, incorporeal, pure, unmixed, dephlegmated, defecated evil. It is no easy operation to eradicate humanity from the human breast. What Shakspeare calls “the compunctious visitings of nature” will sometimes knock at their hearts, and protest against their murderous speculations. But they have a means of compounding with their nature. Their humanity is not dissolved. They only give it a long prorogation. They are ready to declare, that they do not think two thousand years too long a period for the good that they pursue. It is remarkable, that they never see any way to their projected good but by the road of some evil. Their imagination is not fatigued with the contemplation of human suffering through the wild waste of centuries added to centuries of misery and desolation. Their humanity is at their horizon—and, like the horizon, it always flies before them. The geometricians, and the chemists, bring, the one from the dry bones of their diagrams, and the other from the soot of their furnaces, dispositions that make them worse than indifferent about those feelings and habitudes, which are the support of the moral world.

Letters to a Noble Lord by Edmund Burke

Conservative Gnostics often bring up the forms of the past such as the Latin rite or the democratic process to counter the new Gnostics who look to newer systems. But the Christian European does not worship forms. He worships the living God. And the living God can only be known through the human heart. It is human hearts, the hearts of our people who loved much, with which we must reconnect. And how can we do that when their world, the world in which He resides, has a ‘Do not enter’ sign on it and is zealously guarded by a Gnostic army of Satan’s minions? The European past is all around us, but it is treated like something that is dead and buried. If it was seen for what it was and still is, the place where our Jesus lives in the hearts of His people, the European story could once again become part of His story. We cannot get from here, which is Gnostic Europe, to there, which is Christian Europe, without a miracle. But wasn’t Christian Europe a miracle? There is a living God who can set hearts on fire. Our task is to destroy the images of the beast-in-man god of the Gnostics and place our Jesus at the center of Europe. The counterrevolution starts at our familial and racial hearth fire. “As for me and my house, we shall serve the Lord.” +

Posted in Christian counter-attack, democracy, Jacobinism, Quality of mercy | Tagged , , ,

Be Not Afraid

But he saith unto them, It is I; be not afraid. –John 6: 20

The Pope’s recent denial of the immortality of the soul and the existence of hell was not particularly shocking to anyone familiar with the present Pope’s desire to be a good liberal. Such sentiments are perfectly in keeping with liberal orthodoxy. And that is what being a good Catholic consists of — keeping on good terms with liberals. That is also what constitutes being a good Protestant. When the survival of your church organization becomes, in your mind, synonymous with the survival of the Christian faith, you will do anything – you will even sup with the devil – in order to keep your church organization afloat.

Let us be clear about the consequence of placing the survival of the organized churches above the survival of the word of God, which took flesh in the hearts of the antique Europeans. The consequence is that we are now ruled by a merciless cabal of Shylockian liberals, who hate the white race, the Christ-bearing race, with a religious zeal that is fueled by Satan. When the Duke of Venice asks Shylock to extend mercy to Antonio, the merchant, Shylock refuses: “And by our holy Sabbath have I sworn, To have the due and forfeit of my bond.” That explains liberalism: It is institutionalized hatred. The neo-pagans, who like to stay on the material surface of life, sum up the decline of the European people with one proclamation: The Jews! But the decline of the West has deeper roots. The spiritual malady of the Jewish people, in the main, was that they rejected their prophets and succumbed to an organizational vision of God that obscured their vision of the true God. But we cannot just scream ‘Jew’ and hope to reverse the decline of the European people. We cannot do that for the obvious reason that the Christian Europeans have become spiritual Jews. They have placed organizational Christianity, which is a return to pharisaical Judaism, above the faith of the antique Europeans who took Him, of whom the prophets spoke, into their hearts.

When an entire people makes hate the primary focus of their faith, they become a very dangerous people. Caiaphas and his followers hated Christ so much that they crucified Him, despite Pilate’s failure to find any fault in Christ. We must see that the secular liberal and the Pope-Francis-organizational Christian have picked up Caiaphas’s mantle of hatred. What kind of religion is it that has the hatred of the Light of the world at its source? A Christian European hates the devil and his works, and the liberals are the work of the devil, but that is not the basis of his religion. The basis of his religion is the love of Christ. As we have lost the intimacy with Christ that the European people once enjoyed, so have we lost the ability to distinguish good from evil. The liberals persecute the white race under the mantle of anti-racism, and the downtrodden whites accept that hatred as their due. Their only hope is that somehow they can expiate their racist sins and become part of Liberaldom. But that shall never be. The Shylockian liberals will have their pound of flesh. Who will say them nay?

There will be no opposition to liberalism from within the ranks of democracy because modern democracy is rooted in Jacobinism. Jacobinism was the first attempt by post-Christian Europeans to institutionalize the hatred of the Light, which was already the religion of the Jews who rejected the Savior. The death of Robespierre did not end Jacobinism. Far from it. All of the Western democracies are Jacobin states whose people have lost the intimacy with Christ that is necessary to combat the devil and his minions. If He does not dwell within, from whence comes our strength in the day of battle? The European people have no strength to resist liberalism, because they do not believe that liberalism is from the devil. How could liberalism be from the devil when liberalism preaches the great universalisms, such as racial and sexual equality? It is from the devil precisely because it preaches racial and sexual equality. The racial equality gambit is a subterfuge for a return to the worship of Baal, and the sexual equality gambit is a ruse for the destruction of the Christian patriarchal family.

The reason a liberal churchman such as Pope Francis can play fast and loose with revealed truth is because he has lost that intimacy with Christ, which can only come to a people who have made His word a part of their soul. If we read through the European bards, who are the true chroniclers of the European people, we are struck with the deep spiritual connection between the European people and Christ. The written testimony of the bards and the Gospel of Christ are so interwoven that one is often hard-pressed to see where the separation is. And that is how it should be with a truly Christian people. His word should be so engrained in the hearts of His people that they instinctively refer all questions of moment to Him who is at the center of their culture. Do you think Pope Francis would deny the existence of hell and the immortality of the soul if the Word had taken flesh in his heart? Christ, in the Gospels, is very explicit about the existence of hell and the immortality of the soul. Only a man thoroughly unconcerned with the Word which was made flesh could possibly hold opinions so much in conflict with God’s word. But that is the case with all the modern sacred cows of liberalism. There is no place for negro worship, feminism, or Jacobinism in the Gospels, but there is a place for all three in Christ-hating Liberaldom.

Modern conservatives, who are not conservative in the Burkean sense, always try to combat mad-dog liberalism by showing the liberals that such things as the Islamification of the West and/or the complete colorization of the West go against their self-interest. What the conservatives fail to grasp is the religious dynamic behind all the seemingly suicidal policies of the liberals. If you can only feel alive when you are attacking the object of your hate, then all people who hate what you hate are welcome allies. That poor young British woman, Jayda Fransen, is currently in jail in Britain because she assumed that liberals would want to know about and take action against the Moslem rapists in their midst. But instead of taking action against the Moslem rapists, the liberals took action against Jayda Fransen. How could it be otherwise? The Moslems are the liberals’ co-religionists; they both hate the white Christ-bearing race.

If you seek to co-exist with liberals, or worse yet, if you become a liberal, you will not love where you should love and hate where you should hate. You will not love the people who gave the world a vision of the living God and you will not hate all those who try to destroy His image in man. When Wackford Squeers proceeds to beat the poor disabled Smike, Nicholas Nickleby cries, “Stop! This must not go on!” Then Nicholas proceeds to beat Wackford Squeers. There is no demand of “Stop, this must not go on” from the European people, because they have no heart for the suffering servant; He no longer appeals to them. Liberalism has, in its many different guises, become not only the faith of the passionate upper echelon of Liberaldom, it has become the faith of the masses.

Yeats, who saw that Western man had lost his Christian moorings, asked,

And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

The rough beast did not turn out to be the genial Irish paganism of Yeats’ fantasies, nor did it become the happy land of multi-culturalism. The rough beast turned out to be Satan, who now rules the Western nations with a hatred that will brook no opposition. Should resistance come, it will come from Europeans who have taken the Word of God into their hearts. But at present the men and women of Europe have erected altars consecrated to the image of the beast in man. We can’t maintain those altars and our faith in Christ. So long as churchmen such as Pope Francis espouse an intellectual faith in a theoretical God while worshipping at the altars consecrated to the image of the beast in man, whether that beast takes the form of a rain forest savage or Nelson Mandela, the European people will continue to live in a Europe diametrically opposed to all things bright and beautiful. Where there was light now there is darkness, where there was Christ now there are heathen gods.

Liberaldom consists of a vast network of organizations both large and small that exist to serve and protect Liberaldom. Our schools, our universities, our churches, our military, and the various news organizations all help to maintain Liberaldom. There is no organized resistance to Liberaldom within Liberaldom. How about the unorganized resistance? That is the key. The liberals and their followers, men like Pope Francis, have decided to go it alone without the Christ who enters human hearts. And to insure that such a God will never enter human hearts again they have made war on the white hearth fire. There is nothing Christian about negro worship. It is a convenient tool of the great haters, the Shylockian liberals. Every time a white man with a heart of flesh attacks Liberaldom in the name of Christian Europe, he is branded a racist and dealt with. And it is generally the church men who are the first to cast stones because they are scared to death of standing contra mundum vis-à-vis Liberaldom. But is it really so terrible to stand alone against Liberaldom? Yes, it is terrible if we are truly alone. But if Christ dwells within us, and the testimony of our European ancestors tells us that He will come to us if we call on Him by name, then we are not alone.

Pope Francis is not some isolated monstrosity. He is modern man. One moment he might say something positive about Christ, and the next moment he’ll be back in the slime pits of liberalism uttering blasphemy. His faith is a hop-toad intellectual faith, which is no faith at all. The man’s heart belongs to liberalism. And the liberal’s heart has room only for that which feeds his hatred for all things white and Christian. When facing such a hatred, we have only one hope. I quoted John Donne on Easter because I loved the way he described the Savior as “Our Jesus.” Yes, let us make this a personal matter between those who believe that He abides with us by our racial hearth fire and those who have placed God in a cosmic box to be brought out of mothballs every other month in order to condemn racism, sexism, homophobia, and national boundaries. Our Jesus shall prevail against all the armies of the night arrayed against us. We need only remember that He does not live in the abstract intellect. He lives in hearts of flesh. +

Posted in Europe as the Christ-bearer, Jacobinism, liberals are the true haters, Propositional faith | Tagged ,

And the Trumpet Shall Sound

But if the whole space to the firmament were filled with sand, and we had before us Clavius number, how many thousands would be; If all that space were filled with water, and so joyned the waters above with the waters below the Firmament, and we had the number of all those drops of water; And then had every single sand, and every single drop multiplied by the whole number of both, we were still short of numbering the benefits of God, as God; But then, of God in Christ, infinitely, super-infinitely short. To have been once nothing, and to be now co-heire with the Son of God, is such a Circle, such a Compasse, as that no revolutions in this world, to rise from the lowest to the highest, or to fall from the highest to the lowest, can be called or thought any Segment, any Arch, any Point in respect of this Circle; To have once been nothing, and now to be co-heires with the Son of God: That Son of God, who if there had been but one soule to have been saved, would have died for that; nay, if all souls had been to be saved, but one, and that that onely had sinned, he would not have contented himselfe with all the rest, but would have died for that. And there is the goodnesse, the liberality of our King, our God, our Christ, our Jesus. –John Donne

When I went to college in the 1970’s, the study of comparative religions was all the rage. And the conclusion of the assortment of anthropologists, psychologists, philosophers, and scientists who presided over the study of religion was that all religions were the same, except for one. That one exception was Christianity. But it was not considered exceptional because it was true, it was considered exceptional because it was unnatural and sick. Every other religion was natural, and therefore healthy, but Christianity was unnatural and therefore unhealthy. Its adherents were sick. I had a professor who faced the issue head on. “Take away the empty tomb, and Christianity can be a nature religion.”

Ah, there’s the rub. We can’t take away the empty tomb because Christ did rise from the dead on the third day. How do we know this? Because the Son of God took flesh and dwelt among us. And when He left this world after rising from the dead, He left us a Comforter. That Comforter, who lives in hearts of flesh, is our blessed assurance that Christ is with us always, even unto the ending of the world.

If we look at the historical record, we can see that the European people once believed in the Christ who enters human hearts. Now, in our ‘enlightened’ age, the European people are divided between a ruling class that rejects the unnatural religion of the Suffering Servant and a clerical class that asserts (because they want to retain their jobs) that Christianity is compatible with the nature religions. They tell us that Baal and Christ are one. This is why the European churchmen welcome Moslems and colored heathen into the churches but reject the Europeans who cling to the faith of their non-diverse European ancestors. But if we reject our ancestors’ Christian faith, do we have faith? Baal cannot resurrect the dead. There are so many heathen faiths we can turn to in modern Liberaldom. And the blended Christian-Heathenism of the clerical apostates is the worst. We can’t be saved by a rain-forest god. There is only one Savior; He is the Christ of old Europe. He is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. We are one with Handel, who always, so long as there are Christian Europeans, shall be the true voice of Easter. Christ is Risen!+


Posted in Easter, resurrection | Tagged

Like Unto That of a Little Child

And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. – John 1: 5

I believe that I’ve mentioned the travelogues of James A. Fitzpatrick before. He was a reporter who traveled around the world on behalf of the MGM movie studios to film short 10-15 minute vignettes of various countries of the world, over a 20 year span between 1930 and 1950. The short films then appeared before the main feature of MGM movies. Fitzpatrick is not the best public speaker – he mispronounces many important names and places – nor is he a man who could be accused of having right-wing views, but nevertheless the films will soon be banned because they give us glimpses (‘a picture is worth a thousand words’) of European nations that were non-diverse and infinitely superior to the modern diversified European nations. I can’t watch too many of the films at one time, lest I weep because they are a reminder of that which we have lost.

What is glaringly apparent when we view the Fitzpatrick vignettes is that diversity does not work. It is unnatural to expect birds of different feather to flock together, and it is also, more importantly, un-Christian to destroy the Christ-bearing race by colorizing their civilization. There is no one with a heart that still lives who could prefer modern Europe to the Europe we see in the Fitzpatrick travelogues. And yet somebody did prefer a diverse Europe to a non-diverse Europe, because that is the Europe we now have.

The Europe that Fitzpatrick presents is a Europe about to crumble, but the accumulated Christian capital still present in those European nations is on glorious display in all of the shorts. South Africa is shown as a bastion of civilization in the Dark Continent. Australia is depicted as a shining testimonial to the white race. And the scenes of rural England, Denmark, Holland, and the rest of the European nations provide us with a wonderful view of non-diverse Europe. Is it paradise? No, of course not; only in comparison to modern, diverse Europe was old Europe paradise. But somebody, a whole lot of somebodies, decided that non-diverse Europe, a white Europe, was undesirable. Who were those somebodies? They were and are called liberals.

Liberals are Undines; outwardly they appear to be human, but they have nothing inside of them; they have no souls. And every liberal has sworn the same oath as the Red Knight who opposed King Arthur:

I have founded my Round Table in the North,
And whatsoever his own knights have sworn
My knights have sworn the counter to it…

Everything good, everything decent is now countered by the liberals with all that is evil and vile. The Christian, patriarchal family has been replaced by a cruel, feminist matriarchy; the sanctity of life in the womb has been violated by the institutionalized murder of the innocents; and the worship of the God-Man, Jesus Christ, has been replaced by the worship of the man-god, the noble black savage. The dark night of liberalism has enveloped all of the European nations, whose people once followed the way of the cross. Now, in the name of a utopian future devoid of all things white and Christian, the Europeans have returned to the worship of Baal.

Fitzgerald certainly didn’t realize it at the time, but what he was presenting in those European panoramas was a last look at Christian Europe. The unbought grace of life that had sustained the European people for centuries was spent. The liberals, armed with cruel hate, were about to replace the image-of-God-in-man culture of the European people with an image-of-the-beast-in-man culture. But the liberals’ coup could not have succeeded without the passive neutrality of the European Everyman. The liberal Undines had the passionate intensity to impose their will, which was Satan’s will, on the lukewarm Europeans who no longer had the will to defend their culture, because they no longer had the same faith as the European men and women who had built Christendom in the midst of heathendom. When I was young, I used to think the servant in the Gospel parable, who simply saved his master’s money and didn’t invest it, was treated harshly by his master. But now I can see the meaning of that parable. We need to respond to God’s grace; we must respond to His passion with our passion. “Yet what can I give Him? Give my heart.” That is what has been lost. The Europeans once loved much; when their love for Christ became a mere intellectual affirmation of the idea of God, they were unable to sustain the civilization that was grounded in the love of the living God.

The liberals sought to destroy Christian Europe because they wanted to destroy the image of God in man. They succeeded because the European leadership in church and state reacted to the assault by affirming the rationality of their theological and political abstractions over the liberals’ theological and political abstractions. The traditionalist Roman Catholic affirmed the superiority of Thomism and the Latin rite over the Novus Ordo rite and Hans Kung. The believing Protestants affirmed the superiority of their Jewish-Christian theology over the new ‘Christ as social worker’ theology of the mad-dog liberals. And the political conservatives kept asserting the superiority of our ‘democratic traditions’ over the new mobocracy. What was and is lacking in all the reactions to mad-dog liberalism is passion. Only those who love Christ, as the repentant sinner Mary Magdalen loved Christ, can stop the liberals’ reign of terror. How could it be otherwise? The liberals hate with a passionate intensity that defies logic; we can only understand it when we view existence on a level deeper than logic. The passionate hatred of the devil’s minions can only be countered by the passion of men and women who follow the God who defied logic. Was it logical to die on the cross in atonement for the sins of others? Was it logical to expect men to worship a God who suffered an ignominious death on the cross? And as a final absurdity, was it logical or rational to expect us to believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead on Easter morning? The answer to all three questions is – “No, it was not.” Yet Christ did and does ask us to look past what is logical and rational so that we can respond to His passion with a passion of our own. The conservative leadership in the 20th century, in church and state, was concerned with showing the liberals that Christianity was compatible with logic and reason. The Christian, the conservatives assert, can be part of Liberaldom. That is a falsehood. Christianity is not compatible with rationality as defined by the academics of Liberaldom. Nor should our leaders tell us to make terms with the liberals. We should be enjoined to love much and never let the sword drop from our hands. Hearts that love simply do not permit the slaughter of the innocents and the extermination of their people even if the slaughter and the extermination have been ‘voted’ on and decreed by the principalities and powers of Liberaldom. Why should the Christian European ever take lessons in morality from mad-dog liberals who have chosen to worship the beast in man while destroying the people who championed the image of God in man?

In The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe Aslan talks about the magic that is deeper than the deep magic. And in Tennyson’s Idylls of the King, Guinevere learns, after it is too late to save Camelot, that there is something more to Christian love than mere courtly love:

Ah my God,
What might I not have made of thy fair world,
Had I but loved thy highest creature here?
It was my duty to have loved the highest;
It surely was my profit had I known;
It would have been my pleasure had I seen,
We needs must love the highest when we see it,
Not Lancelot, nor another.

The bards of old Europe were more articulate, more gifted, than the rest of the European people. But they were one in faith with their people. And the bards’ vision was a vision of the God whose love passeth the understanding of logic and reason. Handel’s Messiah is a paean to the God whose magic is deeper than the deep magic of a formulaic, intellectual Christianity. Our people loved Christ because they saw, in His divine humanity, the highest form of love. And shouldn’t we love the highest when we see it? “For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.” Shouldn’t we treasure the people who gave us a vision of the Lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the world? Or should we treasure the Undines of Liberaldom, who have shown us, in diversity, a vision of hell? Just as we should keep Christmas in our hearts all the days of the year, so we should keep Easter in our hearts for 365 days of the year. Let us love the highest, the Christ of old, non-diverse Europe, who rose from the dead on the third day. And as the darkness deepens, let us return to the faith of our people when they were young, the faith that is like unto a little child facing the darkness of the night.+

When the bright lamp is carried in,
The sunless hours again begin;
O’er all without, in field and lane,
The haunted night returns again.
Now we behold the embers flee
About the firelit hearth; and see
Our faces painted as we pass,
Like pictures, on the window glass.
Must we to bed indeed? Well then,
Let us arise and go like men,
And face with an undaunted tread
The long black passage up to bed.
Farewell, O brother, sister, sire!
O pleasant party round the fire!
The songs you sing, the tales you tell,
Till far to-morrow, fare you well!

Robert Louis Stevenson

Posted in blood faith, Easter, pietas | Tagged , ,

Our Faith Is Our Destiny

The original purpose of poetry is either religious or historical, or, as most frequently happens, a mixture of both. – Sir Walter Scott

Prior to the 20th century, the European bards wrote about the trials and travails of a Christian people, but when we come to the 20th century of the European people’s history, the bards suddenly started telling a different story. It was like unto reading Tennyson’s Idylls of the King, and just as we reached the chapter called “The Holy Grail” we found ourselves reading chapters from Samuel Beckett’s Endgame. What happened to the chapters on the last tournament and the passing of Arthur?

From the 20th century on, there ceased to be Christian bards who came from the heart of Europe, for the simple reason that the European people no longer had hearts strong enough to defeat the intellectual onslaught of science, which proclaimed the death of the Christian God. Henceforth the only Christian bards were those men, such as C. S. Lewis, who rejected the new scientific faith of the 20th century Europeans in order to return to the faith of the pre-20th century Europeans. As it was with the European bards, so it was and is with the European Everyman. Only the man who makes a conscious decision to place himself in the spiritual culture of the pre-20th century Europeans can retain the Christian faith of the antique Europeans.

Certainly the scientific onslaught did not begin in the 20th century; it was an ever-present danger throughout the Christian centuries of the Europeans’ history. But it was in the 20th century that the liberals, armed with an accumulated weight of scientific knowledge, the knowledge of ‘this world only,’ succeeded in destroying the filial relationship between Christ and the European people. A second fall of man became institutionalized in church and state. And I stress in church as well as in state. We would not be reading Endgame instead of “The Passing of Arthur” if the churchmen had not tried to graft Christianity onto liberalism. That break from a filial relationship with God to a ‘hedge your bets’ compromise with liberalism was the equivalent of a marriage to the devil. Granted the churchmen got the devil to sign a pre-nuptial agreement about respecting the rights of the church, but when has the devil ever dealt honestly with the sons of Adam and the daughters of Eve? He told Adam and Eve honest trifles only to deceive them in deepest consequence. And that is what he did with the churchmen – he allowed them to hold onto their organizational, intellectual concept of the church, but he made them give up their connection to Christ. He has been so successful with the church gambit that he is now very disappointed whenever he sees church membership is decreasing. Nothing good will ever happen to the European people as a people until they become like unto the antique Europeans who made Christ the heart and soul of their civilization. And there cannot be a return to that truly European (because it was truly Christian) culture until the fusionist churches of organized Christian Jewry are seen for what they are – the bulwarks of Satan’s kingdom of hell on earth.

Instead of focusing on getting white candidates elected to office who want to slow down the extermination of white people, we need to clean the Augean Stables, the Christian churches, so that the mystery of God’s grace interacting with man’s free will can once again become part of the lay of the European minstrels. In order to do that we must see the connection between the European people’s loss of their racial identity and the loss of their Christian faith. When our racial identity is not viewed as part of our spiritual identity, if the flesh cannot be sanctified, what becomes of our belief in the incarnation of Christ? Christ’s entire life – His birth, crucifixion, and bodily resurrection – becomes a mere idea, an abstract concept that can mean all things to all people. The tyranny of biology, which Christ freed us from, once again becomes our master. And that is why the natural savage plays such an important role in the Christless Christian churches. If our pride of science tells us that nature is all, then we must look to the nature gods, the people of color, to lead us to the kingdom of heaven on earth. In that kingdom, the liberals tell us, there shall be no more pain and suffering, because pain and suffering are products of the Christian civilization of the demonic white race. Thus the liberals, who do not believe in the devil, demonize the white European hearth fire where Christ, the devil’s antagonist, resides.

The effects of the demonization of the white Christ-bearing race were not apparent in the first 60 years of the 20th century, because a Christian ethos — but not a Christian faith — still survived in the white cultures. It struck me when watching an old 1950s documentary that showed the viewer where Hans Christian Andersen lived and worked, that the Denmark of 1950 had not changed much in the 500 years preceding 1950. But in the fifty years that followed, from 1950 to the year 2000, the change in the people’s lives was a thousand times greater than any change in the their five-hundred year history prior to 1950. By the year 2000, all the constants were gone. Faith in Christ and the love of kith and kin, which had been at the core of Denmark’s civilization, were now gone. And in their place? Throughout all of the European nations, it is the same as in Denmark. There is no Christian presence, there are only post-Christian liberals, Moslems, and colored heathens battling for supremacy in a cesspool of iniquity that makes the Biblical cesspools of Babel and Sodom and Gomorrah seem tame by comparison.

If a man does not look at modern Europe and proclaim, “The Horror, the Horror,” and consciously return to old Europe, he will either become part of the horror or he will be annihilated by the horror, because having lost his faith he has no spiritual spine to resist the horror. Liberalism is an ever-evolving organism of destruction. A sixties liberal who remains a sixties liberal is now a conservative in the eyes of the modern liberals. And it will always be thus with liberals. They will consume each other in a satanic feeding frenzy: “It will come, humanity must perforce prey on itself like monsters from the deep.”

As the liberals take liberalism to its logical conclusion, which is the destruction of everything white and Christian, we can see a remarkable change in society. There was still, when the liberals of the 1960s had not completely abandoned the Christian ethos of old Europe, some possibility of interaction, on certain issues, between a European of the old school and a liberal. But now there is no such possibility. Liberalism has permeated our culture from top to bottom, making it impossible to communicate on any level with the creatures who now inhabit the land masses of the European nations. It is impossible to exaggerate the extent of the decline of the European people. I am in agreement with Gratiano who, when confronted with the merciless cruelty of Shylock, proclaimed,

Thou almost mak’st me waver in my faith,
To hold opinion with Pythagoras
That souls of animals infuse themselves
Into the trunks of men. Thy currish spirit
Govern’d a wolf who, hang’d for human slaughter,
Even from the gallows did his fell soul fleet,
And, whilst thou lay’st in thy unhallow’d dam,
Infus’d itself in thee; for thy desires
Are wolfish, bloody, starv’d and ravenous.

The Merchant of Venice

Yes, the liberals’ desires are wolfish, bloody, starved, and ravenous. Their appetite for white blood can never be satisfied because that appetite is fueled by Satan, the ravenous wolf who prowls about the world seeking the ruin of souls. There can be no compromise with the people fueled with Satan’s cruel hate. And their hatred is no longer the abstract hate of a sixties liberal, it is a very real, tangible, venomous hatred that manifests itself in daily acts of merciless cruelty against the white race in general and against white males in particular. No force on earth, except the spiritual force that comes from a Christian European, can put a stop to the cruel merciless reign of the liberals.

The 1950s and early 1960s were the final years in which a Christian ethos still survived. Television shows such as Robin Hood and William Tell still depicted the heroes of Christian Europe in a favorable light, and liberals such as Ralph Nader still had some genuine concern for the poor and disenfranchised. But now the logic of liberalism has taken us into a realm of darkness devoid of light. And as a result of the liberals’ triumph in church and state, there are no longer any Christian voices raised in opposition to the liberals’ merciless cruelty. Spiritually, the liberals have become like unto Shylock. They hate everything white and Christian; without that hate they would have nothing left to live for.

I have an acquaintance in the neo-pagan camp who still deems to talk with me because we both oppose the colorization of the European nations. But he has grown increasingly intolerant of my refusal to get off my Quixotic, romanticized view of Christian Europe. From his standpoint Christianity has been the death knell of Europe. But there are two assumptions there that should be dealt with before we can put an amen to my “romanticized” view of Christian Europe. The first assumption is that the apostles’ account of Christ’s birth, crucifixion, and resurrection from the dead is false. Certainly, if Christ be not risen I should stop perpetuating such a myth. But what if I believe, along with the pre-20th century Europeans, that Christ is risen? Then it simply doesn’t matter whether that belief is good or bad as a practical plan to preserve the white race. We must seek His Kingdom Come no matter what the cost. Dostoevsky said that the most important question was, “Can a rational, civilized European believe in the divinity of Christ?” My neo-pagan acquaintance and the modern Europeans have given their answer. They have built a new Europe based on the assumption that Christ did not rise form the dead on the third day.

The second assumption of the practical, realistic neo-pagan is that faith in Christ as the Son of the living God has been a detriment to the white race. The historical record shows that the reverse is true. The white race thrived in the European nations and in the colored nations during the historical epoch when they believed that Christ was the Son of the living God. We cannot invoke Christ, as the vagabond Jews did in Acts, Chapter 19, verses 13 through 16, for the sake of material gain, but it is important to note that our God is not as cruel as the neo-pagans make Him out. He wants us to seek Him first without a thought for the material gain, but He has not been unmindful of our material needs. “Seek ye first the kingdom of heaven and all these things I will add unto thee.” As a people, not every individual, we thrived when we believed.

In our second fall from grace, when we institutionalized the pride of science, we lost the inner harmony, our integralness, which Christ restored to us through His death on the cross. We can’t restore the European people unless we restore that which is lost, the inner harmony of a people connected to the living God through their familial and racial hearth fire. No political program from within the framework of ‘pride of science’ liberalism can save the European people. It doesn’t take a liberal village, it takes a European hearth fire and a Savior, who is Christ the Lord. +

Posted in antique Christianity, blood faith, churches as halfway houses, scientism | Tagged ,

The Tragedy of Scientized Superficiality

A man lives his whole life to prove he is not a piano key. – Fyodor Dostoyevsky

Sigmund Freud, founder of the science of psychiatry, started with the assumption that man was an ape whose problems could be solved by rational analysis. Which is a bit of a contradiction right from the start, as one does not see any apes in the real world sitting around discussing their childhood traumas, organizing community blood banks, or going on talk shows to inform a breathless audience of their fellow apes about their next appearance on screen: “You must see Toby Tyler at the Circus. I give a magnificent performance as Mr. Stubbs – it’s worth the price of admission, which I believe is two ripe bananas and one coconut.”

Ignoring the inherent contradictions in his new theory, Freud plowed ahead and created a science of man that made man a recorder to be played upon just as Rosencrantz and Guildenstern played upon Hamlet. And Freud’s failure was just as great as Rosencrantz and Guildenstern’s failure. It’s remarkable that Freud’s basic assumption, that man is a glorified ape, still holds sway throughout the Western world, despite the failure of psychiatry to cure the problems that plague men so.

Freud, as a thinker, was second rate, but he was infinitely superior to the third and fourth rate psychiatric witch doctors who followed in his train. The second wave of psychiatrists accepted Freud’s basic assumption while rejecting all his theories stemming from that assumption. After they failed, as Freud failed, to solve the problems of man by simplifying man with the silver rod of rational analysis, psychiatry descended to the practice of pill-pushing. “We can’t solve the problem of man by rational analysis, so let’s just use drugs on him to alter his behavior.” And yet, despite the colossal failure of psychiatry, the modern Europeans, with no exceptions, continue, in one form or another, to accept the validity of the scientized, simplified, psychiatric view of mankind. Even those Christian sects that have rejected Darwinian evolution still kowtow to science by using the “insights” of psychiatry as a tool in their understanding of man. But is such a simplification of man possible? If we simplify man, if we make him into a piano key or a recorder that can be played upon, won’t we then simplify God? Yes, we will. And in point of fact, we have already done it.

This simplification of man is not a little thing. It is a tragedy. In fact it is the central tragedy of the 20th and 21st century. The science of psychiatry was presented to the European as a benevolent, scientific means of treating the disorder of the mind. It was always, in reality, a tool of the devil. Under the guise of scientific benevolence Satan was able to convince the European that he was better off if he viewed himself as a creature of nature rather than as a man created in the image of God. A man that comes from nature is much easier to “help” than a man who comes from God. The biological man has only to free himself from the God above nature in order to be happy on this earth, while the non-biological man, the Christian European, must deal with all the Shakespearean complexities that plague the man of feeling and depth. Thus does the devil work his will through the superficiality of psychiatry.

The antique European culture that has been discarded by the conservatives and the liberals in church and state was a culture of Shakespearean depths; it was a culture of tragedy, comedy, and romance. The modern European culture is a culture without tragedy, comedy, or romance. How can the death of a collection of atoms be tragic? How can there be laughter when there is no animating spirit within? And how can there be romance when God is nature and man is a piano key? When superficiality is institutionalized, and it has been institutionalized throughout the European nations, the people of those nations turn to the sex and blood cults of the barbarian races in order to escape the spiritual ennui of scientific superficiality.

In my undergraduate days I saw a rather dramatic example of the transformation that takes place when a man transfers from the culture of depth to the culture of scientific superficiality. I had a teacher for English literature who actually had some feeling for the literature he taught. This is usually not the case. Most of the teachers of English literature are too immersed in literacy criticism to understand literature. Flannery O’Connor was quite serious when she told a friend that the professors of literature could not understand her stories. But this particular teacher was an exception; he actually read literature to try and understand what the author was saying. The very unmodern assumption of a man who reads literature for that purpose is that there is some meaning in life that can be discovered if we plunge below the surface of life.

I took a course in the humanities and later a course in Shakespeare from Dr. ___. I enjoyed both courses for the reason stated above: Dr. ___ was a true student of literature. I often had long conversations with him about Shakespeare and Spenser, his favorite authors, in his office, and I should emphasize that Dr. ___ was not, at that time, into the psychological study of literature. Dr. ___ was in his mid-thirties, married, with two children. Now comes the tragic decline into superficiality. During the summer of my junior year, Dr. ___ came out of the closet. I at that time had only vague notions of the existence of homosexuals. When Dr. ___ came out of the closet, I saw that such mutations were very real. He left his wife and children and plunged into a homosexual lifestyle. When he came back in the fall, his Shakespeare class was no longer about Shakespeare, it was about psychology. Every line in Shakespeare was an example of some kind of psycho-sexual principle that could only be understood by reference to psychology and/or structural anthropology. Thus Ophelia’s tragic cry of, “We know what we are, but we know not what we can be,” became the symbol of a woman who wants to be a man and/or the man who wants to be a woman. Dr. ___ had Ophelia’s quote taped to the door of his office. I was forced to apologize to a friend of mine, a science major, who was required to take only two courses in the humanities, for recommending the course. “He wasn’t like this last year,” I told him.

“With the exception of Shakespeare and Kipling, I don’t really care for literature. I didn’t have to take this course; it’s not my major. Now instead of Shakespeare, I’m getting this bull___,” was his reply.

What could I say other than, “I’m sorry”?

Late in the course my friend made a very perceptive statement about the course and Dr. ___.

“I’d like to go into his office and knock his own personal teeth out of his own personal head.” I stress the word personal because he stressed it. That was one of the most perceptive remarks about, and the most correct reaction to, the impersonal, psychological approach to life and literature that I have ever heard. Truly, the friend to whom I gave bad advice had wise blood.

After the course was over I saw Dr. ___ one more time. It was about two and a half years after my graduation. I was in a restaurant with a young woman, and he was at a table across the restaurant with a young black male. I don’t think he was discussing Shakespeare or Spenser with his adolescent companion. All this was slightly before the AIDS epidemic struck the homosexual community. But if Dr. ___ continued his descent into the superficiality of psychological debauchery, I’m sure he died of AIDS. I hope he didn’t, I hope he returned to the culture of depth, but I don’t suppose that is likely. He was on the right path when I first met him. ‘Tis more than a pity, it is a tragedy that he took the wide gate instead of the narrow gate. But from the liberals’ standpoint there is no such thing as the tragedy of a human soul choosing the devil over Christ; there is only the tragedy of racism and the tragedy of global warming.

Dr. ___’s transformation has been our people’s transformation. We have gone from the people who lived with the tragedy and hope of the cross of Christ to the people of a post-Christian culture of scientized superficiality. The men and women in such a culture, having given up their personal humanity, can only experience life secondhand through the barbarians of color and/or the people of the non-Christian faiths. Thus the scientized Evangelicals seek out the Jews and the negroes while the more syncretic Roman Catholics seek out the Moslems, the Jews, the negroes, the Indians, and on and on they go. But the one people that the modern European, be he “Christian” or secular, will not follow is the people who looked to the cross of Christ for their salvation. This scientized blending of Christ is not Christianity, it is a return to Baal.

Why do the evangelical Protestants look to the ‘this world only’ theology of an apostate Anglican clergyman from the early 1800s? And why do the Roman Catholics look to a system which blends Christ with the nature gods of the colored races? It is because they seek the comfort of scientized superficiality. Life is more manageable if the mystery of both man and God can be revealed in a simple five-point plan from a doctor of scientized theology. The self-help craze in religious circles and in secular society stems from modern man’s flight from the culture of depth, the culture of the cross of Christ. Why do bad things happen to good people? Dr. Theological-Psychological Mumbo-Jumbo will tell you. Why are there no signs from God and why are our prayers not answered? Preacher Bob will tell us that it is because we don’t give him enough money. We must plant our seed, which is money, in Preacher Bob’s hands if we expect to hear from God. All such hideous, blasphemous simplifications of our blessed Savior are inspired by the devil who can and does use false images of God to ruin the souls of men. Christ came to us through our humanity. And we must come to Him through our humanity. If we refuse to plunge to the depths of our humanity, how can we know Christ? There is no self-help book or scientized system that can save us at the hour of our death. Look to the cross of Christ and to the people who made His cross their all in all. Their way is not by the wide and simple scientized gate of the modern Europeans. They all went by the narrow-gated path, which starts in the depths of the human heart and ends with the loving embrace of our Savior. That was and is the faith of the European people. If we shun that faith and those people we will surfeit and die in the scientized superficiality of our modern Babylonian Europe. +

Posted in post-Christian rationalism, scientism | Tagged