Most Barbarous, Most Degenerate Liberalism!

It will come
Humanity must perforce prey on itself
Like monsters of the deep.

-King Lear


We state the obvious when we say that the liberals’ feigned outrage over Trump’s meeting with Putin is simply another manifestation of their hatred of Trump. But this clash between Trump and the liberals is not a clash of opposing ideologies, it is internecine warfare. Mad-dog liberalism is the malevolent offspring of classical liberalism. The mad-dog liberals view Trump, the classical liberal, as the parent who is trying to take them back to the bad old days when they had to ask for the car keys and return home by a specified time. Such restraints are unbearable, — they must have no restraints. And since they are malevolent offspring, they will stop at nothing, not even murder, in order to avoid any restraints on their appetites.

The reason Trump feels closer to leaders such as Putin and Orbán is that those leaders represent nations much higher up on the slippery slope of liberalism. Those nations will descend into mad-dog liberalism if they do not reject democracy, but they are currently at the first stage of the democratic cancer, the stage when the inner ugliness cannot be seen by the outward eye. Our society, which is in the final stage, can be seen in all its inner ugliness; there is no longer a healthy looking outward veneer.

It must be said of Trump that he is a better man than all his Republican predecessors. He has kept his word on the abortion issue, and he is trying to keep his word on open borders. But the liberals needn’t worry – you can’t return to classical liberalism once you have made the descent into mad-dog liberalism. Our entire culture is one vast indoctrination network for mad-dog liberalism. The mad-dog liberals control the schools, the churches, and the media. How can anything good, by which I mean Christian, come to fruition in such a culture? Nothing good will come out of any culture conceived and born of liberalism. It is not only mad-dog liberalism that we must oppose, we must also reject classical liberalism despite the fact that classical liberalism seems benign, just as cancer in its early stages seems benign, because classical liberalism leads to mad-dog liberalism.

The people of Europe have never come to terms with liberalism, which was revealed in its purest form during the French Revolution. The mad-dog liberals such as Priestly, Price, and later, men like Belloc, accepted and lauded the French Revolution in its most horrific manifestation under Robespierre. The classical liberals rejected Robespierres’ Jacobinism for a modified Jacobinism, a liberal mixture of the old world and the new utopian world. But there can be no compromise with liberalism. It is a devouring, reptilian monster that must prey on humanity like a monster from the deep. And it will devour even its own children. Robespierre devoured his fellow Jacobins, just as the modern European Jacobins are devouring each other.

Even great Christ-haters like Voltaire and Shaw understood that you could not discuss any important issue having to do with the European people without reference to Christianity. Albeit the likes of Shaw and Voltaire knew Christianity had to be discussed in order to purge it from the face of the earth, but they did know it had to be dealt with. Tis not so with the modern Europeans. Even professed Christians act like everything of importance can be handled without reference to Christianity. This cannot be – we are all born of Christian Europe. All the good that is left in modern Europe, and there is very little good left, comes from Christian Europe. And all that is bad in modern Europe, which is practically everything, stems from the European peoples’ acceptance of a false Christianity opposed to European Christianity.

In Miracle on 34th Street, Fred Gailey, the intrepid, kind-hearted defender of Kris Kringle, states that he intends to prove that Kris Kringle is the one and only Santa Claus. He succeeds against all odds, because it turns out that Kris Kringle is indeed the one and only Santa Claus. It is my contention, and shall always be my contention, that at the poetical core of the European people is the one, true God, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. I cannot present mathematical proof of my contention, but I do not regard mathematical proof as genuine proof in spiritual matters. I ask you to look through, not with, the eye and see life as the physically blind, but not morally blind Gloucester sees life: “I see it feelingly.” All great hearts can see the European silken thread that leads to the Savior. But we must have the desire to follow that thread to its source, rejecting all other false threads that lead us astray.

I would use the term ‘mystical’ to describe the European thread that leads to Christ, but the term ‘mystical’ has been mightily abused. It has been and still is used to describe rational systems of thought stemming from the minds of Buddhist monks and Christian theologians. So let me substitute the term ‘poetic’ for ‘mystical’. Once having cleared that hurdle, we can proceed with the defense of European Christianity.

The demise of the European people has come about because theological Christianity, which always was a fierce rival of poetical Christianity, has completely routed poetical Christianity. Martha, who “was careful and troubled about many things,” was not gently rebuked because she was doing kitchen work, she was rebuked because she had lost sight of what all work, including kitchen work, was for. The theological man, the man tinctured with the pride of science, puts God in a box, ‘out there’ – He is a geometrical given – and then proceeds to get down to business. But if God is not in human hearts, if we cannot know Him through that organ, which St. Paul and the European poets insist is the organ of sight, then how can we know our business? How can we know the living God? Suppose a child is brought up in a home in which the mother and father separated at the child’s birth, and the mother has custody of the child while the father has no visitation rights. What will be the child’s conception of the father? It might be a good one if the mother chooses to portray the father in a good light, but it is more than likely the mother will portray the father in a bad light. But good or bad, the child’s conception of the father will be only an intellectual construct. He will not have any intimate, heart-to-heart contact with his father. That is what we get when we embrace theological Christianity. We have no contact with the heart of God, we only know Him through an intellectual process, which may lead us to think kindly of God, as the classical liberals do, or it may lead us to hate God, as the mad-dog liberals do, but in both forms of liberalism there is no contact with the living God, the God who enters human hearts.

The first liberal was the devil; he successfully got Adam and Eve to break their ties to a loving, personal God in order to establish a business relationship with an impersonal, natural force that was above and beyond God. They believed in Albert Einstein’s cosmic religion billions of years before the great Einstein ‘discovered’ it. Christ delivered us from the bondage of the devil’s cosmic religion through His death on the cross, but the price of our deliverance was and is that we take up our cross and follow Christ. St. Paul stresses that we must share in Christ’s crucifixion if we are to share in His resurrection. And that Pauline assertion, that the fruits of Christ’s resurrection can only be gained by sharing in His crucifixion, was the weapon Satan used to bring the Europeans back to a cosmic nature religion, which places them in the devil’s fold.

Through the medium of theology, the devil got the European people back to nature and to nature’s gods. He used the medium of theology at the beginning of his attack, because he saw that a frontal attack was hopeless. If we look at the work of St. Thomas Aquinas, for instance, we do not see a denial of the Christian God. Far from it, we see an intellectual affirmation of the triune God. But is that God the same God the apostles encountered on the road to Emmaus, the God who made their hearts burn within them? Is it the same God that St. Paul encountered on the road to Damascus? No, it is not. Aquinas placed God outside of man; He was to be found by reason’s contemplation of the natural world. Aquinas is generally considered the optimist and Calvin the pessimist, because Calvin insisted on the doctrine of total depravity while Aquinas claimed that our reason was untainted by original sin. But what both theologians have in common is that they rejected the poetic core of the Christian faith. St. Paul insisted that there was an indwelling spirit in the human heart through which a man could develop an intimacy with Christ. And that intimacy was not an ecstatic union with a pagan deity, it was a moral union of hearts. The European people followed St. Paul’s injunction to circumcise their hearts, and by doing so they joined their hearts to His sacred heart. This was the miracle of European culture, that the European people responded to God’s grace. Only a Christian who thinks dogmatic theology and religious faith are one and the same would allow the external history of the European people – their wars, their lusts, and their quests for the treasures of this world only – to blind him to the incredible moral beauty of Christian Europe. Why is Christian Europe and her people judged by her trash bins and not by her poetic essence?

The European bards such as Shakespeare, Scott, and Dickens, are one with the apostles in their vision of the European inn at Emmaus. It is there that our hearts burn within us in the presence of the risen Lord. And even the atheist poets, the Byrons and the Shelleys, knew who the enemy of their beloved cosmic religion was. It was the men and women with hearts of flesh who rejected the gods of nature for the God above nature.

The wheel has come full circle; the European people have returned to nature and nature’s gods. They could not live with a rational God who disdained to enter human hearts, the God of the rationalist theologians and the classical liberals. It is not possible to defeat the mad-dog liberals by referring to classical liberalism: “Let me show you how irrational your policies are.” That doesn’t work. The mad-dog liberals are being rational – they use their reason to destroy what they hate, white Christian Europe. The Tucker Carlsons and the Paul Joseph Watsons, the classical liberals, can point out the hypocrisy and irrationality of the liberals from now to doomsday, but they will never deflect the mad-dog liberals from their maniacal assault on the white race. Nor will the white grazers ever pick up the mantle of white Christian Europe and fight for England, Harry, and St. George. They will continue to appease the mad-dog liberals by declaring, from under their beds, that they are not racist. Is that the sum total of the white man’s existence in the 21st century? Yes, it is. Does it have to be? No, it doesn’t. There is that poetical-mystical connection to God that St. Paul writes about in 1 Corinthians 13. If our apostle, St. Paul, was right then we can reconnect with the living God through white pietas. And once that reconnection is made, Europe will become Europe again and her people will no longer plead for a small corner in Liberaldom. They will demand that Christ be reinstated as the King of the European people. Certainly, it is not written that the European people will return to the poetic-mystic faith of St. Paul. But it is not written that they won’t. Christian Europe was a miracle of God’s grace; it serves as a sign of contradiction to those who tell us that God does not enter human hearts. He can and He will come to us, if we come to Him with hearts of flesh warmed and nurtured at our racial hearth fire. +

Advertisements
This entry was posted in democracy, liberals are the true haters, post-Christian rationalism, rationalism and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.