In His Name

As to Mr. Mounier and Mr. Lally, I have always wished to do justice to their parts, and their eloquence, and the general purity of their motives. Indeed I saw very well from the beginning, the mischiefs which, with all these talents and good intentions, they would do to their country, through their confidence in systems. – Edmund Burke, A Letter to a Member of the National Assembly

Because he hath set his love upon me, therefore will I deliver him: I will set him on high, because he hath known my name. – Psalm 91: 14


The historian Norman Cantor claimed in his book The Meaning of the Middle Ages that the much maligned Middle Ages gave birth to the modern age. On the face of it, Cantor’s assertion seems preposterous. How can the Middle Ages, the age of monarchy, superstition, and irrationality be compared to our modern age of democracy, science, and reason? But Cantor’s point is a valid one. It was the Middle Ages that gave birth to scholasticism, which is the poison that killed the European people. Men cannot live by reason alone. When they try, they end up putting their faith in a manmade system, and they sever their connection to the living God who is the source of all true knowledge.

The devil is a coward; he refused to meet the European people in open combat. Instead he went through the back door of the church and placed a wedge between God and mankind by telling men that they could only know God through mind-forged systems. The great appeal of this approach to religious truth is that it eliminated the irrational and problematic intricacies of the human heart. To put it bluntly – human beings are messy. They have all sorts of illicit passions that can foul up the perfect systems of the rationalists. In his novel The Underground Man Dostoyevsky’s protagonist asks his liberal audience what would happen if they built their perfect glass palace and he decides to smash it just because he wants to smash it. Precisely. And then there is the excellent point made by Owl in (the real) Walt Disney’s Winnie the Pooh. The gopher thinks he can solve the problem of Winnie the Pooh, stuck in the doorway of Rabbit’s house, if someone will just remove the bear. “Got to get rid of the bear, he is gumming up the whole works!” Owl replies, “Dash it all, the bear is the problem!” When we look to systems, even when those systems are systems about God, we lose God and we lose man.

Richard Weaver, in his Visions of Order, defends the state in the trial of Socrates, who was charged with undermining the Athenian society through his attacks on the gods. This defense of the state goes against the modern belief that Socrates was a martyr for the truth. Who was closer to the truth? The pagan Greeks did not know the one true God, but their reverence for Zeus and other divine-human gods indicated a racial memory of the one true God. What could Socrates offer as a replacement? He offered abstract reason, which leaves a man alone with himself contemplating the nothingness of existence. Melville tells us, in The Confidence Man, that the love of God and the love of man are co-ordinate:

“I do not jumble them; they are co-ordinates. For misanthropy, springing from the same root with disbelief of religion, is twin with that. It springs from the same root, I say; for, set aside materialism and what is an atheist, but one who does not, or will not, see in the universe a ruling principle of love; and what a misanthrope, but one who does not, or will not, see in man a ruling principle of kindness?”

“Yes, all that may be true,” the reasoning man replies, “A lack of faith in Divine Providence leads to a lack of faith in man, but if our reason tells us that we cannot know with certainty that there is a loving God at the center of existence, hadn’t we better rely on some rational system instead of the irrational faith of men who believe in a mythic God?” We can’t respond to the rationalist with the five scholastic proofs for the existence of God, because those proofs are only valid for false gods. They are not valid proofs for the existence of the one true God. But we can tell the rationalist there is a way we can know God. We can eschew the purely rational ‘two plus two equals four’ logic and proceed on a journey through the labyrinth of the human heart. The scholastics placed a ‘do not enter’ sign at the entrance way of the human heart, which read, like Dante’s sign at the beginning of hell, “Abandon all hope ye who enter here.” But isn’t that our only hope? If Christ is truly the Son of God, where can He be found if not in the human heart? This is what the race war is all about. The liberals have decreed that the Europeans must have no hearts, they must be committed to a scientific, utopian world based on abstract reason. That world can only stand so long as the Europeans remain outside of themselves, outside of their own history and their own hearth fire. They must be devoid of all humanity lest they fall prey, from the liberals’ satanic viewpoint, to the siren call of the God who comes to human hearts.

Every institution throughout the European nations has been set up to encourage the colored heathens to heed the call of the blood and to encourage the Europeans to repudiate the call of the blood. And isn’t it obvious why the liberals have institutionalized the deblooding of the European people? Left to reason alone, they are only partially human. The worst of the whites have become rationalized beasts of prey; they have become liberals. And the best have become moderate Christians, who cannot be used in defense of the right, because they have no heartfelt passions, but who can be used as an undergirding for the wickedness of the liberals. Satan can use moderate, rational Christians for whatever purpose he wants, because moderate Christians, the Christians without a racial hearth fire where a love for their kith and kin is nurtured, have only one issue – the one issue they are permitted – they must sing continual hymns and anthems to diversity and diversity’s god, the sacred negro. The man of passion loves once and forever. The moderate Christian loves moderately so long as it is reasonable to do so. It is no longer reasonable to love the God-Man in and through our own people, because such a love sets a man against the principalities and powers of the world. So now we are enjoined to love first the negro, and all other things of the liberal world will be added unto us.

The things of this world are carrots on the stick the liberals hold out to us. We have only to declare, like Caiaphas, that the Lord God is a product of a man-made system designed to keep order in a rationalized pagan world. But will whites ever be allowed to be part of that system? No, they won’t. Burke, in his Further Reflections on the Revolution in France, makes reference to two French statesmen, Mounier and Lally, who thought there could be a kinder, gentler system of Jacobinism. Both men ended up fleeing France. The white Europeans will not be so lucky. There is no longer any place to run to. The great utopia has arrived, but there is no place for whites in the brave new world. Why should we desire a place in that world? We can hear our Lord asking, “What good does it do to gain the whole world if a man loseth his soul?”

In the novels of Joseph Conrad we can see the beginning of the European people’s transfer from a culture founded on the love of the God-Man to a utopian-based culture in which the white man lives on a few platitudes based on the theories of God. Such a man has lost himself and must wander about the world trying to lap up the blood of the pagans of color in order to feel alive again. The nobler whites in Conrad’s novels still try to be white. They try to live up to the European honor code, despite the fact that they can no longer trace the code back to its source. Tom Lingard, in Conrad’s The Rescue, is such a man. “I am a white man inside and out; I won’t let inoffensive people – and a woman, too – come to harm if I can help it.” Lingard has that which we have lost, “that charity of honor,” which was the sole possession of the people who made the ethos of 1st Corinthians 13 their raison d’être. The transition-stage novels of Conrad make for very painful reading. When I read them in my youth I was drawn to the Tom Lingard and Lord Jim type heroes, but I longed for just one of those heroes to trace the white man’s honor code to its source. They never did, and therein lies the tragedy of Western man. Without a human connection to the God-Man, our honor has faded away into the dark night of liberalism where there is no honor, no love, and no light. We have returned, through the good offices of the scholastics who deified reason divorced from the human heart, to heathenism.

The result of Hardy’s management was that Tom made a clean breast of it, telling everything, down to his night at the ragged school, and what an effect his chance opening of the Apology had had on him. Here for the first time Hardy came in with his usual dry, keen voice, “You needn’t have gone so far back as Plato for that lesson.”

“I don’t understand,” said Tom.

“Well, there’s something about an indwelling spirit which guideth every man, in St. Paul, isn’t there?”

“Yes, a great deal,” Tom answered, after a pause; “but it isn’t the same thing.”

“Why not the same thing?”

“Oh, surely, you must feel it. It would be almost blasphemy in us now to talk as St. Paul talked. It is much easier to face the notion, or the fact, of a demon or spirit such as Socrates felt to be in him, than to face what St. Paul seems to be meaning.”

“Yes, much easier. The only question is whether we will be heathen or not.”

“How do you mean?” said Tom.

“Why, a spirit was speaking to Socrates, and guiding him. He obeyed the guidance, but knew not whence it came. A spirit is striving with us too, and trying to guide us–we feel that just as much as he did. Do we know what spirit it is? Whence it comes? Will we obey it? If we can’t name it–we are in no better position than he–in fact, heathens.”

Tom Brown at Oxford

The only question left in the minds of the Europeans is whether they will become Socratic heathens, like the conservative liberals, or whether they will become negro-worshipping heathens, like the mad-dog liberals. The mad-dog liberals currently have the upper hand, and they are not likely to lose it, because liberalism is an ever-evolving, all-devouring succubus; it will not stop and reverse its forward progress. Trump is a small pebble in the path of the liberal succubus that the liberals eventually will rid themselves of. But even if we could return to Socratic liberalism, the liberalism of reasonable debate and discussions, would that be desirable? It certainly would be preferable to mad-dog liberalism, but that type of liberalism is still poison to the European’s soul. We were not born to discuss and debate God’s existence, we were born to champion the Savior against all the heathen world.

After our Lord healed the ten lepers and bid them go tell the priests, one leper returned to give thanks. Christ praises the man for returning to give thanks. Then the Pharisees demand to know when the kingdom of God will come. Christ tells them, “The Kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! Or, lo there! for, behold, the Kingdom of God is within you.” If God has not placed something of Himself within us, why does Christ tell us that the Kingdom of God is within us? The liberals have taken one aspect of Aquinas, his deification of human reason, and one aspect of John Calvin, his insistence on the total depravity of man, and forged a soulless heathenism out of those two perversions of Christianity. In Liberaldom, all white men are totally depraved except the godded white men, the liberals who have used their exalted reason to transcend their whiteness. So long as they stay elevated, above the totally depraved racist whites, they will find salvation through their mind-forged vision of the sacred negro.

Chandler was right about the hero: “Down these mean streets a man must go, who is not himself mean, who is neither tarnished nor afraid.” But in whose name does the hero go forth? The mean streets are the streets of Liberaldom. And we go forth in His name to restore His reign of charity in a world that has no place for charity. Liberalism has not reduced human suffering, it has increased it one-thousand fold, because now the Europeans suffer without the comfort of the Savior. The old fairy tales are right: We can only venture forth, like the Third Dumb Brother, and trust that a passionate love for our people and our Savior can defeat the satanic liberals’ system that holds our people in bondage. +

Advertisements
This entry was posted in blood faith, Charity, fairy tale of European civilization, post-Christian rationalism, rationalism and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.