The Love That Frees Us from Satan’s Power

And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise. – Luke 23: 43

Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God? He answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him? And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee. And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him. – John 9: 35-38


Nathaniel Hawthorne has been and still is, if he is read at all, condemned by the modern literary critics for his obsession with one theme – the hardened heart. In such short stories as “Dr. Heidegger’s Experiment,” “The Birthmark,” “Rappaccini’s Daughter,” and “Ethan Brand,” Hawthorne depicts the fatal consequences of a life lived according to the scientific principles of dissection rather than the passions of the human heart. And in the Scarlet Letter, Hawthorne puts an exclamation point on his ‘obsession’ by making Roger Chillingworth, the wronged husband of an adulterous wife, a man who sins mortally by looking into the human heart with the eyes of a scientist, and by so doing, detaches himself from humanity. Hawthorne was not alone in his opposition to what he saw as the scientizing of man. His 19th century counterparts, Scott, Dickens, and Dostoyevsky, also saw the essence of modernity in rationality detached from humanity. And before them was Edmund Burke, who saw, in the new world order of the French Jacobins, a soulless scientific world completely opposed to the religion of Christ, who comes to men through their hearts of flesh. In science-based cultures, hearts of flesh are proscribed, because men with hearts of flesh are opposed to the progression of man from the ‘superstition’ of faith to the world of ‘enlightened’ reason.

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 Shakespeare 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 supports of the moral world.

It certainly was not easy for the liberals to “eradicate humanity from the human breast.” Lady Macbeth tried but ultimately failed because she lacked a scientific ideology to sustain her. A modern psychiatrist would have told her that she was just realizing her human potential, by fighting against white male stereotypes about women that said women should be weak and submissive. She would have left the psychiatrist’s couch and gotten a job teaching ‘women’s studies’ at Stanford or Harvard. The point being that we have allowed the scientizers in church and state to replace the Christ-centered European culture of the heart that loves for the scientized culture of the mind that hates all things humane, noble, and beautiful. The liberals have labeled Burke and the European poets ‘obsessive’ while they have institutionalized their own obsessions, their passionate love of the noble savages of color, and their passionate, obsessive hatred of all things white and Christian. It is not obsession itself that is wrong, it is what a man is obsessed with that counts. And I maintain that Burke’s and the great European poets’ obsession with the evils of a science-based culture that views man as a glorified ape without a heart for God, was the right obsession. And if you read through the Gospels and the epistles of St. Paul, you will discover that Christ and St. Paul were also obsessed with the hardened heart.

The man of science, the psychiatrist who scientizes man, and the man of theology, the theologian who scientizes God, are one in spirit. Both see the human heart and all passions emanating from the human heart as evil. The psychiatrist sees only animality in mankind, so he declares animality to be normality and absolves mankind from sin: “I’m okay, you’re okay.” How can there be any sin if we are apes? Can apes sin? The theologian who damns the human in order to praise the divine is looking at man with the same eyes as the psychiatrist. He sees nothing worthy of redemption in the human heart, so he places that worthless entity aside and looks to his own mind, his science-trained mind, to guide the beasts called men toward the light of his vision of heaven, which is really a vision of hell, a scientized, inhuman laboratory of test tubes with the distilled essence of brain cells in them.

The scientific view of existence which says everything is of nature and nothing is of God was promulgated to make man eased with being nothing. In exchange for eternal life, if they repented of their sins, men were told that they need not repent because there was no God before whom a man could repent. But then of course this meant there was and is no loving divine presence in our lives: We can’t weep and be forgiven and share eternity with Him who died for all. Is this brave new world really superior to old Europe?

To harden one’s heart against all things humane and Christian is indeed the “unpardonable sin” that Hawthorne’s Ethan Brand discovers. It is the “unpardonable sin” because the man of the hardened heart does not think he needs pardon. The hard-hearted liberal and the hard-hearted metaphysician feel they are not in need of God’s mercy or forgiveness because, like Shylock, they are not conscious of their own sinfulness: “What judgement shall I dread, doing no wrong?” The thinking man, the theologian, can do no wrong because he has no heart, which is where he thinks wrong resides, and the liberal thinks he can do wrong because there is no wrong, there is no sin as the antique Europeans defined it; there are only sins against liberalism, the ‘racist’ and ‘sexist’ sins.

In direct contrast to the liberals and the theologians is the good thief. He is quite conscious of his sinfulness:

And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us. But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss. And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. –Luke 23: 39-42

And then our Lord, who is still going about His Father’s business even on the cross in the midst of mortal pain, says to the good thief, “Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.” What a moment! To know that a lifetime of sin and sorrow can be turned into a victory over sin and sorrow through a heart-to-heart connection to the Suffering Servant is worth more than anything that the world of science can offer us.

We know nothing of the good thief’s life apart from the moment he shared with Christ on the cross. Did he ever hear Christ speak before that moment? Perhaps he was there, possibly to pick pockets, when Christ gave His Sermon on the Mount. What we do know is that the good thief was able to recognize, in his heart, the Heart of hearts. He loved much and was forgiven. Christ does not abrogate the rites of confirmation and baptism by telling the good thief that “today shalt thou be with me in paradise.” What He does is point to Himself as the Lord of those rites; they exist to place us before Him in spirit and truth, and the good thief is already there, he has received Christ in spirit and truth.

I love the good thief. The man who feels he is without sin and needs no redeemer will never know what the good thief knew – only Christ can forgive sin and heal the heart laden with sorrow, wrong, and trouble. Outside of His grace, there is no grace. The men and women of modern Europe, the liberals, have spent the “unbought grace” of life handed down to us by the antique Europeans, which they received from Christ the Lord. The liberals will never know what it feels like to be forgiven their sins, because they, in their mind-forged religion of cruelty and impiety, know themselves to be without sin. If we follow in their train we shall never hear the blessed words of forgiveness and hope that the good thief heard.

It’s possible to get a Ph.D. in literature in our modern universities without ever having read a work of literature. All a literature major needs to know is the psychological theories of the literary critics. There is no need, if you want to succeed in academia, to actually read the great works of Western literature. After all, how can we expect Shakespeare, Scott, or Dickens to tell us anything about life that the scientized experts, the psychiatrists, can’t tell us? I would prefer a complete ban, which is now taking place, on all the literature of the West, rather than watch the great works become mere grist in the psychological mills of the experts.

The same process of desoulment that took place in the literary circles of academia also took place in the church. Just as a man can become a Ph.D. in literature without any direct contract with literature so can a man become a Christian in good standing with his local church without having any contact with God. In fact, that is what our churchmen desire. They want the laity to empty their hearts and open up their minds to their clergymen, who will cram God into their heads. That way nothing human gets in the way of the streamlined, scientific faith of the clergy. But what if the clergy’s plan is not God’s plans; what if He really does enter our lives through the human heart? (1)

Throughout the Gospel, Jesus makes the lame to walk, the blind to see, and the dead to rise again. And in the case of every miracle, the Pharisees who govern the Jewish people do not look at Christ’s miracles of compassion and love, instead they focus on Christ’s breaches of the law. They claim He has violated “The Law” by healing on the Sabbath. And they claim He casts out devils because He is in league with the devil. Let us bring the man born blind into the lists once again. If we are reading the Bible as little Arthur in Tom Brown’s School Days read the Bible, with the belief that the men and women of the Bible were real, historical persons, we encounter, in the man born blind, a heroic example of how we must respond to His divine love. After Christ gives the man born blind his sight, the Pharisees try to deny the miracle by claiming it never occurred — it is a fraud. But the parents of the man born blind confirm that their son was indeed born blind. That is all they will say; they do not make any claims about Christ “because they feared the Jews: for the Jews had agreed already, that if any man did confess that he was Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue.”

Having failed to discredit Christ’s miracle of compassion through the parents of the man born blind, the Pharisees then go after the man himself. What happens? The man born blind refuses to back down to the Pharisees.

Then said they to him again, What did he to thee? how opened he thine eyes? He answered them, I have told you already, and ye did not hear: wherefore would ye hear it again? will ye also be his disciples? Then they reviled him, and said, Thou art his disciple; but we are Moses’ disciples. We know that God spake unto Moses: as for this fellow, we know not from whence he is. The man answered and said unto them, Why herein is a marvellous thing, that ye know not from whence he is, and yet he hath opened mine eyes. Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth. Since the world began was it not heard that any man opened the eyes of one that was born blind. If this man were not of God, he could do nothing. They answered and said unto him, Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us? And they cast him out. – John 9: 26-34

There, in that confrontation between the Pharisees and the man born blind, we see where true faith resides. The man born blind has a heart of flesh; he has the courage to defy the Pharisees because he loves the man who gave him his sight. We must realize what it meant for a Jew to be cast out of the synagogue. The life of the synagogue was everything to the Jew; without that life there was no community and no comfort in this world. But still the man born blind stands tall. “Of course he stands tall,” the modern man retorts, “Christ gave him his sight.” Then why don’t we, the modern Europeans, stand tall? Haven’t we been the recipients of an even greater miracle than the man born blind? The Man of Sorrows has borne our sins; He has given us eternal life through His sacrifice on the cross. Shouldn’t that give us the courage and love to defy the modern Pharisees of Liberaldom?

Our European ancestors did defy the Pharisees of science as the man born blind defied them. But the modern Europeans are only concerned with their place in the liberals’ synagogue. They have forsaken the God-Man who gave them sight and life eternal. If, and that ‘if’ is all in all, we denounce the Pharisees of Liberaldom, the Pharisees of science and theological speculation, we shall know the living God because He shall seek us out when we are cast out of the liberals’ synagogue.

Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God? He answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him? And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee. And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him. And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind. And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also? Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth. –John 9: 36-41

The good thief, the man born blind, and the antique Europeans, were one in that which was and is essential: They had human hearts of flesh that responded to the love emanating from His divine heart. We can conquer the scientistic world of Liberaldom if we also, like the good thief, the man born blind, and the antique Europeans respond to His love with our renewed hearts of flesh. +


(1) I know it is not Christmas yet, but I want to give the reader enough time, if he or she so chooses, to read, along with their loved ones (the stories always are best read aloud amongst those we love) one or all five of the greatest Christmas stories ever written.

1.“The Shepherd Who Watched by Night” – Thomas Nelson Page
(I cannot read this story without weeping)

2. The Christmas Carol – Charles Dickens

3. The Haunted Man and the Ghost’s Bargain – Charles Dickens

4. Old Christmas – by Washington Irving

5. “What Christmas Is As We Grow Older” – Charles Dickens
This last one is not a story, it is a prose poem dedicated to Him and all the living and the dead who are connected to Him through the love that is always present, but is particularly present at Christmas time.

Posted in Charity, Faithful hearts, Pride of intellect, Rationalism, Scientism | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Forgive Us Our Trespass

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.

-Isabella, Measure for Measure

‘Now I bid thee, my loved man, to declare this vision unto men; reveal in words that it is the glorious tree on which Almighty God suffered for the many sins of mankind and the old deeds of Adam.’

The Dream of the Rood


By way of preface, I haven’t put any links up on my blog since my removal from Word Press in April, because I don’t want to bring some other blogger down who might be found guilty by his or her association with me. That is the nature of the times we live in. The European people live under the rule of the Babylonian liberals, and their rule is not a benevolent one.

At the beginning of The Christmas Carol, Dickens lays particular stress on the fact that Marley is dead. “There is no doubt that Marley was dead. This must be distinctly understood, or nothing wonderful can come of the story I am going to relate.” I must lay ‘particular stress’ on the fact that the European people are a captive people living under very cruel and merciless overlords, who have allowed the devil to fill the void in their souls created when they left Christian Europe to forge a new realm, where people were ‘free’ of the constraints of the Man-God, Jesus Christ.

It’s quite possible, even quite probable, that the European people will remain under the rule of their liberal overlords for many centuries to come. “Then why, if we are doomed to be captives of the liberals, should we bother to oppose them?” We should oppose them because men are not merely biological beings. Never let the fact that we have biological needs obscure the fact that we are of the spirit; our real need is for communion with our people and our God, in spirit and truth. And the spiritual truth of our existence here on earth is that it is better to be spiritually connected to the living God, even though we live under the rule of Babylonian liberals, then to deny our captivity and practice the same religion as the rulers of Babylon in order to appease the rulers of Babylon. Daniel was one of the Christ-bearers; it was his task to hold to the Christian faith even in the midst of Babylon. That is our task: We, as a people, must be faithful to the prophets, the apostles, and our European progenitors who kept the faith alive in spite of dungeon, fire, and sword.

It is not a good thing, the Babylonian captivity of the European people; I weep by the rivers of old Europe just as the Jews wept during their captivity by the rivers of Babylon. But we go beyond sadness to tragedy if we deny our captivity, because that denial constitutes an acceptance of all or part of the liberals’ faith, a faith which will send us to hell. What did our Lord tell us? He told us to beware of those who could kill our souls; they were far more dangerous than those who could merely kill our bodies. “And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” (Matthew 10:28) Liberalism is a soul-killing faith; we must put on the whole armor of God in order to protect ourselves against it. From whence comes the armor of God? It comes from within: “Behold the kingdom of God is within you.”

I had a friend who tried to become a priest in the Novus Ordo branch of the Catholic Church, and then, when that attempt failed, managed to get ordained in a traditionalist branch of the Catholic Church. But like David Copperfield, who tried life on his own and found he liked it no better than his former life, he found that he didn’t get along with the traditionalists any better than he got along with the Novus Ordo Catholics. What was the problem? Was my friend simply a trouble-maker, unable to get along with anybody? No, that was not the case. The friend in question was an unpretentious, mild-mannered man who wanted to serve Christ. “The problem was here,” said my friend, pointing to his heart. “They don’t have a heart for God,” was the verdict of my friend. His experience with organized Christian Jewry has been my experience with organized Christian Jewry, Protestant and Catholic: The clergy have decided that Christ didn’t know what He was doing when He appealed to the hearts of humble fishermen rather than to the brains of the ‘smart guys’ in the Sanhedrin. But Christ knew the Sanhedrin had hardened their hearts against Him; they were too smart to believe that love came down from heaven in the person of Jesus Christ.

The religious wars in Christian Europe were never wars between Christians who held to the true faith, the faith of the apostles and St. Paul. The so-called religious wars were in reality theological wars, men adhering to one mind-forged theory of God fought against other men with differing mind-forged theories of God. And when theories of God collide, the dear Christ, the Christ who enters human hearts, is left out of the picture.

Theological speculation is the root of liberalism. The devil told Adam and Eve to speculate about God. And their theorizing about God led to their betrayal of their Father who loved them in return for… what? The reason organized Christian Jewry is defenseless against the liberals is because organized Christian Jewry wants to be part of Liberaldom. The churchmen would like a more moderate liberalism than their secular counterparts, but they do not want to go back to the ‘stupid’ faith of the antique Europeans who believed in the whole Christ story. Really, how can an intelligent man believe in talking snakes and a non-evolutionary creation of man? But if we can’t trust God to tell us the truth in the beginning of the Christ story, how can we believe Him when we come to the end of the Christ story? The reason our modern churchmen have not declared war on the liberals is because they are ultimately not opposed to them; they have no heart for God, because their minds have killed their hearts. They have become like unto Uncle Silas in J. S. LeFanu’s novel:

Of my wretched uncle’s religion what am I to say? Was it utter hypocrisy, or had it at any time a vein of sincerity in it? I cannot say. I don’t believe that he had any heart left for religion, which is the highest form of affection, to take hold of. Perhaps he was a sceptic with misgivings about the future, but past the time for finding anything reliable in it. The devil approached the citadel of his heart by stealth, with many zig-zags and parallels.

Perhaps our clergymen once had a vein of sincerity in their faith, but they forgot the beginning of the Christ story. The devil always appeals to our pride of intellect. It is not ‘racism’ we need to worry about — au contraire, we need to be racist in that we need to love our own in order to conquer that greatest of all sins, the pride of intellect, which makes us think we can reorder God’s world so it is in harmony with our reason rather than His folly. What did St. Paul mean when he said that the folly of God was greater than the wisdom of men? He was telling us that the human heart connected to the Divine heart, through love, is the truth and the way.

Charity never faileth; when we forget that, we become either cannon fodder for the liberals, or worse yet, we become liberals. Jacob Marley warned Scrooge of the chains he was forging for himself because of his hardness of heart. The European people have allowed themselves to be chained, link by link, to liberalism. And they will never break the chains of liberalism until they respond to Christ’s divine condescension with the same passion that animated the prophets, the apostles, St. Paul, and the antique Europeans.

Our existence here on earth cannot be explained by science alone. How could mere biological entities create a civilization such as Christian Europe? How could mere biological entities exhibit the faith, hope, and charity of the antique Europeans? Are not such manifestations of the spirit something more than nature? Yet the liberals tell us we are not of the spirit, we are mere vegetable matter. But somehow, by a great scientific miracle, the anointed ones, the liberals who have gone beyond whiteness, beyond their God-given humanity, can build the kingdom of God on earth with the colored people of the world as their raw material. It’s an absurdity on top of an absurdity, yet that is the ‘scientific’ reasoning of the liberals. And that ‘scientific’ faith has been institutionalized throughout the European world. Each incremental link of the liberal chain that binds the European people to the liberals was forged in hell, but each link was presented to the European people in the form of a perverted Christianity. Negro worship started out as civil rights. Who could be against that? But if we exempt the black race from original sin and make that race an object of worship, savage gods devoid of mercy, who is served? There is only one who is served, and that one is Satan.

Feminism started out as an organized movement to make the white male ‘respect women.’ The astounding assumption that the antique Europeans, particularly the Victorians, did not ‘respect women’ stands as an everlasting testimony to the deranged demonism of feminism. Why is the ethos of Lady Macbeth holy while the sanctity of the life-bearing and life-nurturing women of old Europe, women such as Little Dorrit, considered to be demonic? And now, we are told that heterosexuality itself, or at least white male heterosexuality, must be condemned in the name of feminism. And our churchmen acquiesce to that condemnation because it is compatible with their mind-forged Christian faith, which condemns all passions emanating from the human heart because such passions can lead a man astray. Of course reason can never lead a man astray. Is that true? We have only to look at our very rational 20th and 21st centuries to see the wonders of a mind-forged, rational, man-made world, in which human creatures, devoid of hearts of flesh, dance like puppets on strings. And it is Satan who pulls the strings.

When I was growing up, my history teachers generally led off their classes with the old maxim about the nations who didn’t learn from history. Such nations, we were told, were doomed to repeat past mistakes. There is a certain amount of truth contained in the old maxim. But there must be a genuine desire to know the truth in history, otherwise the old maxim will do you no good. European history today is only used by the liberals as a battering ram to break down the last remnants of white resistance to liberalism. They either make up ‘historical’ events that place the European people in the worst possible light or else they put the worst possible interpretation on an isolated part of the Europeans’ history, a part that does not represent their whole history. The liberals have already come to a conclusion about the European people’s past before they look into the past. The verdict was decided on before the trial of history began: The antique Europeans are guilty.

The two fatal errors of the modern historical studies of the European people are that the studies do not look at our people’s whole history, and the studies do not go beyond factoid history. Our history starts in the garden of Eden and continues onward, not always upward, through the prophets who foretold of the coming of Christ, and then culminates in the Christian centuries in which our people wrestled with Satan in order to defend His realm of charity here on earth. Our sword was always the cross of Christ and our shield was always the heart that truly loved. When the academics, the new Sanhedrin, persuaded us to abandon our spiritual sword and forsake our heart’s first love, we became defenseless against the wickedness and snares of the devil.

The second fatal historical error we made and still make, is that we confuse factoid history, the study of dates and outward events, for the real history. Dates and historical events are only the outer crust. To know history, we must see history through the spiritual eye, not with the material eye. Our bards are the true historians: “Poets, under various denominations of Bards, Scalds, Chroniclers, and so forth, are the first historians of all nations.” (Walter Scott) The poets are the “first historians” because they tell us of the spirit behind the facts of the pedestrian, factoid historians. Our first historians, the European poets, tell us of a people who saw a great light; they saw the Word made flesh and believed in the Word made flesh. And our poets told us of a great people’s battle with the devil and his minions to preserve their faith in the Word made flesh. Now our true poets tell us of the lost people, the people who have repeated the original sin of Adam and Eve. The European nations have institutionalized the pride of intellect from which flows all the sins of our modern age; they have become the hallmarks, or to be more accurate, the hell-marks, of our Western un-civilization. Negro-worship, Christian fusionism, feminism, homosexual marriage, transgenderism, and the degradation of all things humane and charitable are the fruits of the pride of intellect which dominate the European people. Only the love that once was there, our love for our people in and through Christ, not our hatred of our people in and through Satan, will kill the ‘pride of intellect’ culture of modern Europe and set us back on the Road to Calvary which leads us to His redemptive love and His house of many mansions. +

Posted in Christ, Christian religion, Pride of intellect | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Rejecting the Liberals’ Ghostly Bargain

–Except this. That as they were assembled in the old Hall, by no other light than that of a great a fire (having dined early), the shadows once more stole out of their hiding-places, and danced about the room, showing the children marvelous shapes and faces on the walls, and gradually changing what was real and familiar there to what was wild and magical. But that there was one thing in the Hall to which the eyes of Redlaw, and of Milly and her husband, and of the old man, and of the student, and his bride that was to be, were often turned, which the shadows did not obscure or change. Deepened in its gravity by the fire-light, and gazing from the darkness of the paneled wall like life, the sedate face in the portrait, with the beard and ruff, looked down at them from under its verdant wreath of holly, as they looked up at it, and, clear and plain below, as if a voice had uttered them, were the words: ‘Lord, keep my Memory Green!’       — The Haunted Man and the Ghost’s Bargain


When I was a child there was no question which season was the best season of the year. It was summer. There was no school in summer, and you could do so many outdoor activities in summer that you could not do in winter. And my love of summer continued into my adulthood, because when I married and had children I enjoyed the summertime activities with my children. However, now that my children have grown, I find, much to my surprise, that the hated autumn, hated because it meant the end of summer, has become my favorite season. Physically and spiritually autumn now appeals to me more than summer. But I can still understand why so many people adore summer and do not welcome autumn. So I understood and sympathized with a young woman, about 30 years of age, standing next to me in line at a local amusement park this past August, when she said that she hated to see the end of summer. I said, “Yes, it is sad to see ‘the last rose of summer.’” The woman’s response surprised me.

“That is beautiful, did you just think it up?”

Now, I wasn’t quoting Proust or Joyce, or some other esoteric writer of the past, I was quoting one of Thomas Moore’s songs that used to be as widely known as the Beatles’ Let It Be. I suppose I shouldn’t have been so surprised, because I frequently encounter, in this brave new world of diversity, white people who have no knowledge of Christian Europe. Apparently a diverse education no longer extends to our spiritual progenitors, the antique Europeans. (1)

The Christian Europeans were intimately concerned with history, particularly their history, because they believed, unlike all other people, that their God had entered human history. Once you believe in the Christ story, once you have taken that story into your heart, you can no longer view history as a cyclic process; you believe human history began in the Garden of Eden and will end with the second coming of our Lord. And in between those two events the history of every single human being is of “eternal moment,” because He has created us in His image, to share all eternity with Him or to go to hell, if we choose to go to hell. So it is of no small consequence — it is of eternal consequence — that the modern Europeans have chosen hell over His kingdom come.

There are warning labels on alcohol, cigarettes, and a good deal of our food products, but there are no warning labels on our culture. We don’t see any signs in our schools – “What you learn here, if taken to heart, will send you to hell.” Nor do our churches have any warning signs as we enter – “Warning, we believe that hell is heaven and heaven is hell, abandon Christian Europe if you enter this church.” And on it goes. If the liberals were honest and forthright, they would warn people that all the major institutions of Liberaldom lead us to hell, but if the liberals were honest and forthright they wouldn’t be liberals. So the great lie, the lie that says the liberals’ hell is really heaven, goes unchallenged.

In Christian Europe the European everyman served the King because the King served Christ. Kings who forgot their rule came from Christ frequently ceased to rule. It is quite different in Liberaldom. The liberals have instituted the principles laid forth in Plato’s Republic. The state does not serve God, God serves the state. So long as your religion does not conflict with the religion of the state, you may have a religion. But is such a religion really a religion if you must make your vision of God subordinate to the state’s vision of God? If Christ is only invoked to condemn racism, but is not invoked to condemn negro worship, feminism and legalized abortion, is He really the same Christ that was worshipped by the antique Europeans, the Christ who rose from the dead on the third day? Of course, He isn’t. That Christ, the Christ of old Europe, has been banned from the liberals’ republic.

The liberals are correct, not morally correct, but tactically correct, to ban all remembrances of Christian Europe, because when a man, a European man, remembers Christian Europe, he will know what he once was, a child of God, and he will remember what he has lost, His kingdom come, by accepting a place in Liberaldom. What then? He will challenge the liberals’ right to rule, and that challenge, the challenge of a European imbued with the power of faith, faith in the living God, is something the liberals cannot abide, because such a challenge will mark the beginning of the end of Liberaldom.

There is a Christmas story by Charles Dickens called The Haunted Man and the Ghost’s Bargain, which should be placed on an equal footing with The Christmas Carol, but for some reason it is not as well known. In the story, the Haunted Man makes a bargain with a ghost. The ghost will give him peace of mind by removing his remembrance of all “sorrow, wrong and trouble.” Of course when the Haunted Man loses his remembrance of all sorrow, wrong and trouble, he loses all contact with humanity. He becomes a walking abstraction, unable to share in the happiness of others, whose happiness is woven in with sorrow, wrong and trouble, and unable to truly empathize with the suffering of others because he has left suffering behind. The story is so contemporary, because the plight of the Haunted Man is the plight of the European people. We have renounced incarnate Europe, we have not kept our memory of that sacred place and those blessed people green. Instead, we have become like unto the living dead — we walk through the valley of the shadow of death-in-life liberalism, completely immune to the suffering of others and the happiness that once was mixed in with the sorrow, wrong and trouble of the antique Europeans. The devil’s lie rules the European people – “You can be happy here on earth; you can avoid all the sorrow, wrong and trouble found in Christ’s Europe if you just follow the liberal way, which is my way.”

At first glance the modern Europeans seem one with Buddha. Didn’t he and his followers believe that an intellectual detachment from suffering humanity was the key to “inner peace”? Yes, there are great similarities between Buddhism and modern liberalism, but the white race can never be exactly like any of the colored races. When whites go wrong — and there is no wrong greater than liberalism — they forge their wrong in a perverse caricature of the faith that their ancestors once held. Thus the modern Europeans are abstracted from humanity just as Buddhists are abstracted from humanity, but the modern white liberal has added a Christian’s evangelical zeal to his Buddhistic abstraction from humanity. We must, the people of the liberal captivity, become abstract humanoids devoid of all humanity or the terrible swift sword of liberalism will cut us down. The Buddhist seeks to avoid evil by intellectually removing himself from it, and the liberal institutionalizes evil in order to avoid the source of all suffering, the people who saw beauty on the cross. Those people are an evil that cannot merely be avoided, they must be purged. The vision that reclaims the Haunted Man and brings him back from death in life to eternal life is the vision that has been banned from the liberals’ Europe:

‘O Thou,’ he said, ‘who, through the teaching of pure love, hast graciously restored me to the memory which was the memory of Christ upon the cross, and of all the good who perished in His cause, receive my thanks, and bless her!’

It is the remembrance of the vision of Christ on the cross that restores the Haunted Man. But the Haunted Man wanted to reclaim his soul; he was not content with death in life; he wanted his humanity back. Is there any indication that the European people want their memory of Christian Europe back? Do they feel the loss of their humanity as the Haunted Man did? No, they do not. They are still wallowing in the pig slime of modernity in the hope that if they consume enough pig slime they will enter the kingdom of God on earth. Because they have no remembrance of what they once were as a people, the Christ bearers, they have become what the science of the liberals tells them they are – mere beasts, fit for one thing, the liberals’ nightmarish world of death in life, stripped of all capacity to love God or man.

Let us put the European people’s tragic fall from grace in simple terms. Suppose there once was a young man, born of God-fearing parents who nurtured him, loved him, and gave him, through their love, an intimate knowledge of the living God. When he became an adult his parents died. At first he grieved and vowed, in his heart, to keep their memory green. And so long as he kept their memory green, he was able to love God and bear up under the sorrows and troubles of the world. But then tragedy ensued. The young man began to listen to the surrounding din of men called academics. From state pulpits and ecclesiastical pulpits they told him of the evil of his parents. They demonized such parents and commanded him and others like him to put the remembrance of their parents out of their minds and hearts and place all their hopes in the new world that the academics were forging, a world devoid of sorrow, wrong and trouble. What would we think of a young man who listened to the academics and let his remembrance of his parents die out? Wouldn’t we call such a man a moral pariah, a reprehensible coward? I would. And that is what I call the modern Europeans, moral pariahs who do not have the moral courage to challenge the liberals’ utopia in the name of the people who bequeathed to them a vision of the living God.

Never, never lose sight of the fact that the liberals’ attack on ‘racist’ whites is an attack on the living God who comes to us through our humanity. If we denounce white pietas, we denounce Him. The Lord has blessed me with many children, and they are indeed a blessing, because they have brought me closer to Christ. In loving them, I have learned so much more about His loving heart than I could ever have learned from theology or philosophy. But if I thought happiness consisted of the absence of sorrow, wrong and trouble, I would have taken the academics’ bargain and rejected fatherhood, because each and every child has increased my burden of sorrow and worry in this world. I love my children, hence I suffer because their sorrows and troubles are my sorrows and troubles. But would I have any happiness in this world, or hope of happiness in the next world, if I did not share the suffering of my loved ones? No, I would not; therefore, I reject the liberals’ bargain, the same bargain the ghost offered to the Haunted Man, a bargain he ultimately rejected. And we should all, we Europeans, reject the liberals’ ghostly bargain and return to His Europe where there is a multitude of sorrow, wrong and trouble, but where there is also the love of God, which passeth the understanding of the liberals, the creatures who have left His kingdom come in order to live in their mind-forged hell on earth.

Pietas, pietas, the passionate love of our own — that is our challenge to liberalism! We shall not yield, we shall not cease to love, even in the face of an avenging army of maniacal, liberal inquisitors who are determined to eradicate the Christian Europeans from the face of the earth. We will counter their hate with our love of Him in and through our people, of happy memory, who loved much and received His forgiveness and His blessing. +


(1) There are always certain gaps in every man’s or woman’s education. For instance, I was surprised to hear William F. Buckley, an educated man, confess, in his mid-sixties, that he intended to read Moby Dick for the first time. So you might think I am making too much of one woman’s ignorance of “’Tis the Last Rose of Summer.” But that was just one example of what I insist is the loss of something more significant than a lack of knowledge of certain European classics. That woman’s ignorance was representative of a severance, a severance from our people’s incomparable, irreplaceable moral heritage. That moral heritage, which connects us to Him, is much more important than our democratic heritage or our scientific knowledge. Nor is a mere academic knowledge of the great works of Western literature enough. We must have an organic connection to the spirit of the people who produced and loved those great works. “Lost, lost, lost,” says the evil dwarf in Scott’s The Lay of the Last Minstrel. And so are we if we don’t see life feelingly and reconnect with those “dear old folk from long ago.”

Posted in Charity, Faithful hearts, Liberalism, Resurrection | Leave a comment


Why, look you now, how unworthy a thing you make of me! You would play upon me, you would seem to know my stops, you would pluck out the heart of my mystery, you would sound me from my lowest note to the top of my compass; and there is much music, excellent voice, in this little organ, yet cannot you make it speak. ’Sblood, do you think I am easier to be play’d on than a pipe? Call me what instrument you will, though you can fret me, you cannot play upon me. – Hamlet


I have never had the so-called American sympathy for the underdog. I wept when the New York Yankees lost to the ‘underdog’ Pittsburgh Pirates in the 1960 World Series. The Yankees represented to me, at that point of my childhood, all that was noble and good; they were the heirs of the Lou Gehrig Yankees. I saw the Pirates as a pack of jackals picking at the entrails of a noble lion. Of course I was placing my own fantastical construction on that World Series event, a construction that had very little basis in reality. Lou Gehrig was indeed the noblest ball player of them all, but it did not follow that the 1960 Yankees inherited his mantle of nobility. But the point I want to emphasize is that I did not and do not automatically support the underdog in the battle simply because he is the underdog. Now, if the underdog is the noble one, as was the case with David in his battle against Goliath, then I do support the underdog. However, when I see nobility in the vilified favorite, I support the favorite. And doesn’t the favorite become a kind of underdog, when he is a noble lion facing an overwhelming pack of ignoble jackals? Wasn’t Maximilian the noble one in his contest against the Mexican revolutionaries? Weren’t the British the noble lions in their battle against the American revolutionaries? And certainly the Cossacks who defended the Czar against the Russian Jacobins were the noblest lions of them all.

I wrote the above as a preface to what follows, because I do not want what follows to be misconstrued as an abstract defense of the underdog. What I am defending is the human personality, in all its God-given nobility, against the scientized intellects of a committee of inhuman purveyors of abstract theories, with no connection to the realities of man’s spiritual life. The restoration of the misplaced Europeans of the 21st century, the ‘Lost Patrol,’ will take place when the European people once again side with the human personality, joined with His divine humanity, over and against the scientized committee men in church and state.

All the military men of the South, despite their noble intentions, failed to defeat the Yankees. There was one exception to that general failure — that exception was Nathan Bedford Forrest. Forrest lacked a diploma from West Point, but he had something far better than a West Point diploma, he had a genius for war as it was waged in reality rather than a theory about war that had no basis in reality. As a result Forrest never presided over a loss, and when Jefferson Davis was captured toward the end of the uncivil war, he was trying to make his way to the ranks of the man who had held the Yankees at bay for four years despite his lack of a West Point education.

Now let me move forward to the 20th century, to Reykjavík, Iceland in the year 1972. The Russian chess master and reigning World Champion, Boris Spassky, had all the advantages over Bobby Fischer. Spassky regularly played against an array of chess experts to sharpen his skills, and he played according to the book of scientific chess. Yet, the isolated genius who practiced against himself defeated Boris Spassky. It was a great victory for the human personality, the solitary genius defeating a collective body of experts. Of course it would have been an even greater victory had the United States really been a Christian nation. Then the battle would have truly been a clash between good and evil as was the case when Forrest, who was ironically called “that devil” by the demonic General Sherman, fought in defense of the Christian South against the ungodly government of the North.

The modern liberal heresy that says all that is ignoble and inhuman is good, and everything that is human and noble is evil, began, as all heresies begin, in the ranks of the Christian clergy. The clerical heretic thinks that it is easier to control men, for their own good, if you dissect them and remove all that is ungodly from their hearts. Unfortunately, or, more appropriately, tragically, the heretic soon determines that everything emanating from the human heart is ungodly, so he eliminates the human heart and commands all men to view the abstract intellect, his intellect, as their ruling principle. But when you eliminate the human heart and all the passions emanating from the human heart, you destroy man’s connection to the incarnate God. If man is totally evil, if what is inside of him is irredeemable, then why did our Lord take human flesh and dwell among us? Pope Francis the blasphemer now tells us that Christ our Lord did not take human flesh and dwell among us. That is the end result of a theology that dignifies the abstract intellect of man and demonizes the human heart.

Our bards, the European poets who were attuned to the hearts of their people, have shown us the end result of a theology that is not of God, but of men. In Dickens’ Great Expectations, Miss Havisham loves a man unworthy of love who leaves her at the altar, and as a consequence she closes her heart to all emotions and passions that reside in the human heart. She raises her adopted daughter, Estella, to despise humanity as she despises humanity. Of course tragedy ensues, and Miss Havisham dies asking Pip’s forgiveness. The Grand Inquisitor in Dostoyevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov takes the same position vis-à-vis his parishioners as Miss Havisham took toward Estella. He circumvents God’s will, who wants men to seek Him in their hearts, in order to serve them better than God does. The Inquisitor eliminates the erring human heart and gives men what they need to survive in this world. But can we survive with the certainties of science, the things of this world, without something that speaks to our heart’s desire to transcend the things of this world?

Is it not remarkable that the Jewish clergy, the men who were supposed to be the guardians of the faith, crucified the living God? Why, with the prophets before them, with the whole history of their people’s covenant with God before them, did they reject and kill Christ? They committed that unspeakable crime because the God they worshipped was a scientized God devoid of humanity. What should have been a sign unto them of Christ’s divinity, that He made the blind to see, the deaf to hear, and the lame to walk, was a sign unto them of Christ’s pact with the devil. That is and always shall be the mark of the heretic. He believes whatever is humane and compassionate is evil and whatever is inhumane and cruel is godly.  The Christian heretic and the liberal are one with the high priests of the Sanhedrin, the men who scientized God into a cruel, vengeful God made in the image of their minds.

If God can only be known when He is scientized, then men must be scientized as well so they can know God. When the church seemed to be at its strongest in the Middle Ages, it was in reality sowing the seeds of modernity throughout the nations of Europe. When God is scientized, when He becomes an object of study that can only be known through the human mind, His image in man is defaced. There are always those in the ranks of the clergy who are willing to kill the humanity in man in order to purify the church of God. But if, as St. Paul tells us, the church of Christ consists of hearts that love Him, then you attack Christ’s church when you demonize the human heart, because you have left the dear Christ without a place to “enter in.”

Hamlet would not be “played upon” by Rosencrantz and Guildenstern as if he was a recorder. And Dostoyevsky’s Underground Man said that “a man lives his whole life to prove he is not a piano key.” Whenever we side with the men of the scientized intellects who profess to ‘help’ men by scientizing them, we side with the powers of darkness, because science, in the name of enlightenment, has obscured, and in many cases obliterated, His image in man.

The 20th century has produced competing ideologies of science that all lead back to the same charnel house of death-in-life liberalism. The capitalist can ignore the 14-hour a day misery of the coal miner because the ‘scientific’ capitalist system produces the greatest economic good for the greatest number of people, people in the aggregate, not individual people, who were and are created in the image of God. And the neo-cons can eliminate the jobs of thousands of truck drivers with the same rationale that the overlords of the coal miners used – ‘It benefits mankind in the aggregate if we use machines instead of men to drive trucks.’ The communist response to capitalism came from within scientism.  The communists claim their system is the correct scientific solution to the bad science of the capitalists. Lost in the conflict is the man created in the image of God. There is nothing divine in the aggregate herd. The capitalists and the communists do not see His image in men with their statistics, so they think they can do what they will with their statistical human beings who have been divested of their souls, their God-given humanity.

Modern wars are now fought by one group of statistical entities against another group of statistical entities. The Novus ordo Catholics champion the scientized God of de Chardin while the traditionalists champion the scientized God of Aquinas, but in both cases, the divine humanity of Christ and the divinity in man is obscured by the scientific theologies of the religious experts.

The same conflict goes on in the secular arena. The conservatives want to conserve, through the good offices of scientific analysis, our ‘democratic way of life’ while the liberals want to build a new way of life based on their scientific analysis. Again, what is lost in both cases is man. Show me a conservative in the 20th or 21st century that links his conservatism to the white race. Where are the Dabneys and Fitzhughs in the ranks of the conservatives? The post-World War II conservatives simply wanted to integrate more slowly than the mad-dog liberals. And that is still the conflict today. The Republican and the Tory want to liquidate the white race at a slower rate than the mad-dogs of the various democratic parties and labor parties throughout the European nations. The scientific conservatives want a more orderly white genocide than the mad-dog liberals. That will not do. The European Christian will not consent to the sacrifice of his people on the altars of science, democracy, and diversity, because he knows that without pietas he and his people are lost: they are the people without a home in this world or the next world.

We come to God through pietas, the love of our own. If our blood ties to our kith and kin are scientized out of existence, we will lose our faith in the living God. And of course that is what has happened: the Europeans now have a scientized image of God, the natural savage, to worship instead of the living God who used to preside over our racial hearth fire. Why is it that only the white race has been ordered to give up ‘racism’ in the name of science? Why is it unscientific for the European people to love their own, yet it is not unscientific for the colored races to love their own? Is it because white pietas leads to His kingdom come and colored racism leads to hell on earth? Yes, that is the reason. White pietas revealed the image of God in man; it benefited white humanity and colored humanity because it allowed the dear Christ to enter into our lives. Now that white pietas has been scientized out of existence, we have seen the demise of all things good, noble, and true, and the triumph of all things ignoble, evil, and false. The mystery of existence is contained in the God-Man. When we comprehend that mystery with our non-scientific hearts, we will fight for our own with our whole heart, mind, and soul, and in that fight we will once again know and love the living God. +

Posted in Faithful hearts, Jacobinism, Liberalism, Rationalism | Tagged , | Leave a comment

A Place Beyond Science

But they constrained him, saying, Abide with us: for it is toward evening, and the day is far spent. And he went in to tarry with them.

And it came to pass, as he sat at the table with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them.

And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight.

And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

Luke 24: 29-32


I once read that Wilkie Collins, author of The Moonstone and The Woman in White, took laudanum to alleviate the pain of a recurring illness. Over the years he was forced to take larger and larger doses to keep the pain of his illness from overwhelming him. One day, for whatever reason — perhaps because of idle curiosity or because he had a severe headache — Collin’s manservant took less than half a dose of the laudanum that Collins took regularly. Tragically, the manservant died. That sad incident comes to my mind a lot lately, because it has a certain relevance to the spiritual sickness of the European people. The European people are still standing after taking doses of liberalism that the Europeans of 100 years ago would have been unable to absorb and still live. When liberalism, which is Satanism, comes to a civilization incrementally, the people of that civilization do not “feel the flame” — they live in hell without any perceptible knowledge of their hellish existence. The European people’s plight would not be so desperate if a foreign invader had forced them to accept the satanic principles of feminism, Islam, negro worship, and the other derivatives of liberalism as their ruling principles. If liberalism had been forced upon them, the European people could still have held onto their souls, like the Jews during the Babylonian captivity who kept the dream of their true homeland alive while suffering through their captivity. But such, unfortunately, is not the case with the European people. No enemy from without has made them accept the major tenets of liberalism. They have made all that is Satanic – feminism, the worship of the negro, and the incorporation of all faiths, save the Christian faith, into the European nations — part and parcel of their civilization. How long can such a satanic union endure? The liberals have made it their task, their exalted mission, to ensure that the union between Satan and the European people endures for all eternity. And who will say them nay? Who will refuse to be in union with the devil?

It is useless to talk about getting the proper conservative candidate to run against a left-wing candidate. There is no such thing as a conservative candidate within the context of democracy as practiced by the European people. Yet that is all the so-called conservatives talk about. “Le Pen got 35% of the vote in France, we are on our way!” Or, “The Nationalists in Britain won two seats, people are beginning to wake up!” And in our own country, it is always the next Republican candidate or some third party “populist” candidate who is going to “restore America’s greatness.” What constitutes America’s greatness? America as a nation state was never great, it was and is an abomination. But her people had greatness to the extent that they shared in the common civilization of the European people, the people who took the Word made flesh into their hearts.

A conservative must be a counter-revolutionary, or else he is merely a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Under the guise of conservatism, he perpetuates Satan’s realm, which is held together by “Give us Barabbas” democracy. There are two incorporate unions in the lives of the European people. The first incorporate union is in our past, a union formed between the European people and Christ. The second incorporate union is in our present, the incorporate union that the Europeans have made with Satan. We cannot restore anything of value by voting for candidates who remain within the liberals’ kingdom of eternal night. Something more is needed. We need to make a complete break with the liberals and the liberals’ god in order to renew our ties to His Europe and His people.

In my early twenties, for reasons I need not go into, I roamed through Europe. And during the course of my roaming, I made a very un-profound discovery: the youth of Europe were going through the same spiritual upheaval as the youth in America. They, the post-World War II generation, had left the old ‘Christ is Risen’ culture behind and were searching for something or someone to fill the void. I vividly remember a discussion I had with some young Brits who were studying at a university in London. They were all materialists in that they were either Marxists or Socialists who were not interested in anything connected to the spiritual realm of existence. In fact there was only one student, a Scot from Inverness, who was even remotely interested in something other than leftist politics. The Scot was absorbed with aliens, not aliens from other nations, but aliens from other planets. Once he made it clear that he was not Christian, the young Scotsman was tolerated by the other students. I listened to the sci-fi Scot for a while and then I stated what seemed to be obvious. Coming from the position of Shatov in Dostoyevsky’s novel The Possessed – “I shall believe in God” – I told the Scot that he was talking rot.

“You don’t believe in people from outer space?”

“No, I don’t.”

“What do you believe in then?”

“I believe there is only one question worth considering: Did Christ rise from the dead on the third day? If He didn’t, we should all blow our brains out, and if He did, then we should stop talking about Marxism and spacemen and follow Him.”

The hostile silence was palpable.

The 20th century was the century of spiritual laudanum. The European people were incrementally anesthetized against all things Christian. Had they been given a large dose of liberalism at the beginning of the century, had homosexual marriage, feminism, transgenderism, and fusionist Christianity been jammed down their throats in large, unhomogenized, and unadulterated amounts, they would have died outright. But they lived through the small doses, and their 21st century heirs, the creatures of the ‘Christ be not risen’ anti-civilization, have become the walking dead. They have a certain outward resemblance to human beings, but inwardly there is nothing; they are spiritually dead. But here is where the laudanum parable stops. Mere physical organisms die when the poison spreads. But if, as our faith tells us, we are not mere physical organisms, cannot a people who are spiritually dead return to life? Yes, it is possible, but only in and through Him. And there’s the rub – our people have left the civilization of Christ is Risen for the anti-civilization of Christ be not risen. All ‘restorations,’ all political programs, to ‘make our nation great again’ are useless if we don’t seek to go from here, Satan’s realm of death in life, to there, His realm of charity, in which there is life eternal for all who love Him.

I had a philosophy teacher in college who was an exception to the general rule of academics at the time. He did not, like his fellow academics, attack Christ indirectly by claiming Christ’s followers had misinterpreted His message. No, there was no indirection in that man of philosophy, he attacked Christ directly, claiming that His ludicrous, egotistic claim to be the Son of God had taken hold of His followers who were unable to live with His death so they invented the story of His resurrection from the dead. Wasn’t that what the Sanhedrin claimed when confronted with the empty tomb? Isn’t that the claim our modern anti-civilization is built upon? “Christ’s resurrection from the dead is a fairy story just as Jack and the Beanstalk is a fairy story.” But our people once believed that the Christ story was true. What or whom has come between them and Christ to make them leave His Europe for Satan’s Europe? The degenerate playwright George Bernard Shaw identified the source of the European people’s flight from Christ: It was science. Christ’s resurrection from the dead was incompatible with science; therefore, since science was truth and truth was science, it followed that Christ did not rise from the dead. Christ could be kept around as a facilitator of all causes that were not in conflict with science, such as the worship of the sacred negro, but He could no longer be worshipped as the font of divine love who had redeemed mankind from sin and death through His crucifixion and His resurrection from the dead.

We can’t return to a belief in Christ crucified, Christ risen, by an appeal to pragmatism. There are currently a large number of T.V. evangelists who tell their audiences that faith in Christ will bring them riches untold in this world. Is that true? Rembrandt became impoverished in his later years when he painted the Word made flesh. All the original apostles, save John, died martyrs’ deaths. It does seem that the European people thrived as a people when they believed that Christ was the Son of God, but there is nothing to indicate that individual Europeans thrived in the material realm because of their faith in Christ. And we must hold all ‘pastors’ who suggest that we shall have financial success if we trust in Him as moral pariahs.

The appeal of science is that it can deliver the material goods that Christ cannot deliver. If you trust in science and in the men who think scientifically, you will prosper in this world. What about the next world? Well, if your clergymen blend science and faith, you may obtain a measure of hope in the next world while retaining the things of this world. But such moral juggling is from the devil. Macbeth found, to his horror, that he had traded his soul for what the devil could give him in this world, and the devil double-crossed him:

And be these juggling fiends no more believ’d
That palter with us in a double sense,
That keep the word of promise to our ear,
And break it to our hope.

The devil does not love us, nor does he want our love, so he always appeals to that which is inside of us that is not of God. He seems, through the gambit of science, to have succeeded beyond his wildest dreams: he has the European people in the palm of his hand.

It’s impossible to exaggerate the extent of the European people’s thralldom to the devil. No appeal to something beyond the realm of science can reach them. What are we to make of such a people? Leave them to heaven. We know, as the antique Europeans knew, that there is a divine love beyond science, and that divine love has a local habitation and a name. His name is Jesus and He resides in hearts that love Him. After years of imbibing the soul-killing laudanum of liberalism, the European people have lost their heart to respond to Christ, but that should not deter us from seeking Him in the recesses of our heart. We are one with the men of the Titanic who went to their deaths, after placing the women and children in the lifeboats, singing “Nearer My God to Thee.” Even if it is a cross, that leadeth me? Yes, even if it is a cross.

The end of liberalism and the beginning of a new chapter in the lives of the European people can be found in the remarkable book Tom Brown’s School Days, written by Thomas Hughes in loving remembrance of his hero, Arnold of Rugby. In Part 2, Chapter 2, Tom, the hero of the book, discovers through the good offices of young Arthur that the Bible is not a thing to be studied by theologians who then dispense its contents to the great unwashed in the pews, it is the living word of God that can and should be the book that those with hearts of flesh turn to in order to know the font of love.

Tom was at first utterly astonished, and almost shocked, at the sort of way in which Arthur read the book and talked about the men and women whose lives were there told. The first night they happened to fall on the chapters about the famine in Egypt, and Arthur began talking about Joseph as if he were a living statesman—just as he might have talked about Lord Grey and the Reform Bill, only that they were much more living realities to him. The book was to him, Tom saw, the most vivid and delightful history of real people, who might do right or wrong, just like any one who was walking about in Rugby—the Doctor, or the masters, or the sixth-form boys. But the astonishment soon passed off, the scales seemed to drop from his eyes, and the book became at once and for ever to him the great human and divine book, and the men and women, whom he had looked upon as something quite different from himself, became his friends and counsellors.

We once did love Him, not without cause. If I forget thee, incarnate Europe, and if I should cease to love thee… That shall never be. There is a “land of pure delight,” where He resides with His people; that land, not Liberaldom, is our home. Let us vote with our hearts and leave Liberaldom for His house of many mansions. +

Posted in Christian Europe, Faithfulness, Resurrection | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

The Beasts of Liberaldom

Daniel spake and said, I saw in my vision by night, and, behold, the four winds of the heaven strove upon the great sea. And four great beasts came up from the sea, diverse one from another. – Daniel 7: 2-3

In the 1950s and 1960s the liberals used Trotsky’s racism gambit to help them undermine the last vestiges of the white European civilization in the Northern hemisphere. But by the 1970s the mere charge of racism against white Southerners and right-wingers had lost some of its sting, for the simple reason that it was hard to find individual whites who used the ‘N’ word and attended Ku Klux Klan rallies, so the liberals started using the term, “institutionalized racism.” No longer was it just whites who used the N word and attended Ku Klux Klan rallies that were racist, it was every single white man, woman, and child who lived and breathed in nations established by white people. By their mere existence they were racist, because racism was part of white people’s innermost being, a heinous disease of the spirit that could not be cured; it could only be eradicated by killing the patient. How then were the liberals going to escape the ‘cure’ for institutionalized racism? They would become the Elect, they would build a new civilization based on institutionalized anti-racism. And the sign of their election, which meant, in their minds, that they would not be purged along with the racist whites, was the extent of their religious fervor, the extent of their passionate hatred of all things white.

The anti-white dogma is the central dogma of the liberalism that has been institutionalized throughout the European nations. And the corollary of the anti-white dogma is the worship of the black race. We cannot effectively challenge the liberals if we do not challenge their doctrine of the sacred negro. The anti-communist conservative William Schlamm wrote that, “Communism is the final synthesis of all heretical tendencies that have pervaded western civilization for many centuries. Communism is the culminating hubris of Promethean man who reaches out for the world and means to remake creation. It is scientism gone political.” Is that accurate? Well, communism is certainly a great evil. But is it the “final synthesis” of evil? Schlamm was a former communist who looked the communist Medusa in the face, so we can understand why he thought it was the final evil, but communism is a derivative of liberalism, just as Jacobinism, Americanism, Islam and Judaism were and are derivatives of liberalism. The essence of liberalism is the worship of nature and the denial of mankind’s filial relationship with God. All heresies, modern and ancient, are derivatives of that first liberal revolt against God, which came about because of Satan’s hatred of the living God and the human beings created in His image. Once we grasp that reality we can understand why the love of the noble black savage and the hatred of the ignoble white race is essential to liberalism. The noble black savage represents all that is good, all that is natural and pure, while the ignoble whites represent all that is unnatural and impure. Of course what is ignoble and impure is whatever Satan deems to be impure and ignoble – the people who support what is humane and Christian.

If you make communism alone your synthesis of evil, you will still be under the thrall of liberalism, which is the true synthesis of evil. Whittaker Chambers, for instance, turned from communism to American democracy and negro worship. And it is the American version of liberalism that has proved to be the longer lasting version of liberalism. When the Russian communist empire fell, the European people should have said, “We have scotched the snake, not killed it,” instead of proceeding onward to a synthesis of evil that has surpassed Russian communism. Russian communism was a derivative of French Jacobinism, which was a derivative of Satan’s liberal revolt against God. That revolt has been institutionalized throughout the Western world in the form of democracy, which is incremental Jacobinism. Judaism is also part of the liberal revolt; it is not the synthesis of the derivative parts of the revolt, as the neo-pagans, who are spiritually akin to Caiaphas and his Sanhedrin gang, try to make it.

What the Jewish governing body did, institutionalizing Satan’s revolt against God in order to become gods, was what the democratic rulers of the Western democracies did during the era of liberty, fraternity, and equality. The people of the West did not heed Burke’s warning about the new religion of nature that the democratic fervor represented. It makes a difference if we are ruled by sophisters, economists, and calculators committed to Satan’s anti-Christian world of science or by men such as Alfred the Great, who had that “charity of honor,” which is in the heart of every true European Christian. We “have taken too little care of this”; our souls belong to the God above nature — we cannot hide from Him in the bowels of democracy, science, and the sacred negro without participating in a second fall of man.

The various derivative branches of the liberal leviathan – democracy, negro worship, science, Islam, and Judaism — seldom mesh together as they are supposed to mesh together; the various adherents of the derivative faiths are often at war with each other. But they are one in their hatred of the God above nature and they are one in their hatred of the people who once championed that God. Thus the women of science and democracy declare, “Better rapists than racists,” as they welcome the Moslem invaders, and the Roman Catholic Pontiff declares that the people of the rain forest, not Christ, are the gods we must look to. “It is nature that leads us on, there is our refuge and our strength,” so say all the adherents of the derivative faiths, which are part of the great liberal revolt against God.

During the Civil War Lincoln said that we were engaged in a great war which would decide whether any nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal could long endure. What liberty, and what equality? It was liberty from God and the supremacy of the noble savage that Lincoln championed. For the four years of the un-Civil war and the subsequent “Reconstruction” years, the United States shifted from incremental Jacobin-liberalism to Robespierre’s version of Jacobin liberalism. That period of American history, in which over a half-million whites were slaughtered in the name of democracy and equality, was just as bloody as Robespierre’s reign of terror, and in both cases, the French and the American reign of terror, we were told that the terror and the bloodshed were necessary so that liberalism, the revolt against God, could long endure.

That great Civil War that Lincoln spoke of, the war to ensure that Satan would rule on earth as he does in hell, raged on into the early 20th century and did not end until the latter half of the 20th century. Now, there is no war, at least there is no war between Satan’s minions and the followers of Christ. There are only internecine wars between the various branches of liberalism. It is the dream of the blaspheming liberals to bring all the warring factions together under the banner of nature and nature’s god, the noble black savage, but there will always be discord in Babylon, just as there will always be discord in hell.

There is a diversity of heresies. Satan does that to ensure that “poor, bare, unaccommodated man” shall be forever seeking refuge from one heresy to another. Daniel saw the Four Beasts that were “diverse one from another,” but yet he also saw that our Lord would triumph over the Beasts.

Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces.
And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings.
And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.
But the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end.
And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him.
Hitherto is the end of the matter. As for me Daniel, my cogitations much troubled me, and my countenance changed in me: but I kept the matter in my heart.

The Beasts of liberalism can only survive if men’s minds remain attuned to Satan’s promise, “Ye shall be as gods,” and men’s hearts remain unmoved by Christ’s love. Would hearts that love embrace the Beast called democracy, especially now that the mask has been removed and we can see the satanic evil of feminism, sexual perversion, and negro worship staring us in the face? Only people who have no heart could accept such moral ugliness. The moral rot has gone too far to be expunged by voting. Liberals openly call for the torture-murder of Trump and any other white who even hints at a sympathy for anything white and humane. What can be done with people who have embraced the beasts of democracy, science, and the sacred negro? First we must weep as Ezra wept –

And at the evening sacrifice I arose up from my heaviness; and having rent my garment and my mantle, I fell upon my knees, and spread out my hands unto the LORD my God, And said, O my God, I am ashamed and blush to lift up my face to thee, my God: for our iniquities are increased over our head, and our trespass is grown up unto the heavens. Ezra 9:5

And then we must refuse to be like unto the liberals who worship the beasts of liberalism.

When Edgar is a wretched outcast he reflects on his condition:

Yet better thus, and known to be contemn’d,
Than, still contemn’d and flatter’d, to be worst.
The lowest and most dejected thing of fortune
Stands still in esperance, lives not in fear.
The lamentable change is from the best;
The worst returns to laughter. Welcome, then,
Thou unsubstantial air that I embrace!
The wretch that thou hast blown until the worst
Owest nothing to thy blasts.

King Lear

But then he sees his father, who not only is an outcast, but also has had his eyes put out.

But who comes here?
My father, poorly led? World, world, O world!
But thy strange mutations make us hate thee,
Life would not yield to age.

Edgar then concludes he was wrong to say he was at the worst:

O gods! Who is’t can say, “I am at the worst”?
I am worse than e’er I was.

With that piece of wisdom before us, we cannot say that this is the worst of all possible worlds we live in. But we do live in a world that has become terribly biblical. Liberaldom has provided the European people with institutionalized blasphemies and cruelties that mirror the blasphemies of Sodom and Gomorrah and the cruelties of Jezebel and her ilk. Such blasphemies and cruelties turn us to Daniel and the Book of Revelation in an effort to understand a “synthesis of evil” that is unfathomable without reference to the Bible. Daniel was deeply disturbed by his dream of the four beasts.

Hitherto is the end of the matter. As for me Daniel, my cogitations much troubled me, and my countenance changed in me: but I kept the matter in my heart.

He kept the matter in his heart. That is the only way he could live in the face of that vision of evil. The living God is in Daniel’s heart, and that God will sustain Daniel in the face of a horrific synthesis of evil that will consume the man who has not taken God into his heart. We, the modern Europeans who are staring the beasts of Liberaldom in the face, will not be able to live in the face of that horror if we do not take the Suffering Servant into our hearts. There is no philosophy, no intellectual construct that can sustain us against the beasts of Liberaldom. The darkness, the horror, of liberalism has become so widespread, so pervasive, that a man is forced to take refuge in one of the derivative branches of liberalism that seem least offensive, or else he must go deeper, to the heart of Europe where the Savior dwells.

If we can’t believe that Christ was at the center of the antique Europeans’ civilization, then to whom or what do we turn? If we don’t believe that the antique Europeans’ faith and the virtues stemming from their faith were real, then what is real? Is there no such thing as Christian women, women who have a special gift for nurturing and caring for children? Is there no such thing as men who feel bound to defend the weak and helpless and fight for their kith and kin? Is there no such thing as honor, charity, and love? “No, there isn’t,” the united beasts of Liberaldom proclaim, “There is no charity, honor, or love, and there is no Savior.” The four beasts, the beasts of Liberaldom, are upon us. Listen to what the liberals say, look at what they do. Are we not, when in the presence of liberals, amongst creatures from hell with no vestiges left of the humanity that was once the mark of a European? First we weep and pray as Ezra did. Then we vow to keep the living God in our heart, as Daniel did. In the two books that tell us of the Great War with the beasts of liberalism, Daniel and the Book of Revelation, we are told of the only comfort there is on this earth:

“And behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.” +

Posted in Christ, Fear of racist label, Jacobinism, Liberalism, Negro worship, Religion of Satan, Scientism | Tagged | 1 Comment

Love’s Own Light

Whether unto grace or guilt, all must live through Him,
Live in vital joy, or live in dying woe:
Death in Adam, life in Christ; the curse hung upon the cross:
Who art thou that heedest of redemption, as narrower than the fall:
All were dead,–He died for all; that living, they might love:
If living souls withhold their love,–still, He hath died for them.
Eve stole the knowledge; Christ gave the life:
Knowledge and life are the perquisites of soul, the privilege of man:
Mercy stepped between, and stayed the double theft;
God gave; and giving, bought; and buying, asketh love:
And in such asking rendereth bliss, to all that hear and answer,
For love with life is heaven; and life unloving, hell.

-Martin Farquhar Tupper


We cannot understand the European people outside of their Christian history. Many modern conservatives have suggested we do so, that we treat the European people as a generic people who can be studied and probed in order to be cured, without ever considering their past history. But this is akin to the doctor who treats a patient for an illness without taking the patient’s medical history into account. We must take the European people’s Christian past into account if we are going to effectively eliminate the wasting disease, the disease of liberalism, which is killing them.

Satan countered God’s creation of man with a successful coup d’état in the Garden of Eden. He appealed to Adam and Eve’s pride of intellect in order to get them to renounce their filial relationship with God. They were told to forget the fairy tale about the tree with the forbidden fruit and embrace the reality of man’s intellect responding to and controlling cosmic nature. That coup d’état of Satan was countered by the incarnation of Christ, His subsequent death on the cross, and His resurrection from the dead. If you are Satan, how do you nullify Christ’s divine act of mercy? You do what you did before, you appeal to man’s pride of intellect.

The man who worships his own intellect has no room in his heart for the living God. Upon that principle, Satan has built his church, and he maintains that church by continually denigrating all human feelings that reside in the human heart. When we understand this stratagem of the devil, we can understand why the scholastic movement, the scientific study of God, is from the devil. The humane God, the living God who took flesh and dwelt among us, can only be known through the human heart. When the Catholic and the Protestant scholastics demonized the human heart in order to deify their intellects, they cut the European people off from God. We, like the Ancient Mariner, were cut adrift from the font of love:

Alone on a wide, wide sea,
So lonely ‘twas that God himself
Scarce seemed there to be.

Pope Francis the blasphemer was recently reported as saying that Jesus Christ was not the Son of God. You can dismiss Pope Francis as an isolated madman who doesn’t know what he is saying, but I do not see isolated madness in Pope Francis; I see the logical, maniacal, satanic madness of our age behind the anti-Christian ravings of Francis the blasphemer. What is the essence of our modern civilization? It is the pride of intellect, or to be more accurate, it is the pride of science. If you believe in the Christ story in its entirety – the creation of the world in seven days, the creation of man in the image of God, man’s fall from grace in the Garden of Eden, and Christ’s mission of divine mercy that was completed when He rose from the dead on the third day – you place yourself among the stupid people, the unscientific people who believe in fairy tales. Balzac summed up the essence of modernity when he remarked that, “In Paris if you tell a man he has a good heart, it is the same as telling him he is as stupid as a rhinoceros.” Yes, that expresses the issue quite succinctly. The antique Europeans, when viewed scientifically, are stupid. They believed, quite literally, in the Christ story.

The liberals’ worship of the negro is not based on a belief in the intrinsic worth of individual members of that race. In fact any time a person of color demonstrates a sympathy for the intrinsic moral value of the white people’s ancient civilization, he is condemned by the liberals. What the liberals worship when they worship the blacks is their own intellects. They are proving their superior ‘intelligence’ by worshipping that which is antithetical to the older, ‘stupid’ civilization of the white Europeans; they have made what is natural, the noble savage, their God. In their natural religion, racism, which is really white pietas, has become synonymous with stupidity. And who among us wants to be regarded as stupid? Isn’t intelligence the sign of our election? But what is the essence of our election? To what and to whom are we connected when we enter the ranks of the illuminated men of intellect who have rejected the living God? We are connected to the liberals’ world, which is without faith, hope, and charity, and we are united to him whom the liberals serve – the proud angel of science, Lucifer.

When we reject the stupid and unscientific faith of the antique Europeans, we are back with the Athenians whom St. Paul confronted. They were men who “spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell, or to hear some new thing.” They considered themselves to be the illuminati, the intelligent ones, yet St. Paul calls them ignorant:

Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars’ hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious. For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, To The Unknown God. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.

The modern Europeans have decided in favor of the ignorant Athenians; they have proclaimed their intelligence by rejecting the stupidity of St. Paul. Surely such intelligence makes the angels weep and places a sword in the heart of our Lord. But what is that to the liberals, who do not believe in the divine humanity of Jesus Christ?

A common theme in ‘Christian’ circles is to emphasize the similarities between Christianity and the other faiths such as Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. But those ‘faiths’ are non-faiths, based on a rejection of the living God. When ‘conservatives’ such as Peter Kreeft recommend that Christians unite with the Jews and Moslems against liberalism, they reveal their own non-faith. Liberalism is the synthesis of all the non-Christian faiths; what they have in common with liberalism, a hatred of the God who took human flesh, makes their devotees the kissing cousins of the liberals. They will never unite with a European Christian; it is only Christian apostates who can make common cause with the liberals and the heathen faiths. Of course they can only be called apostates from the standpoint of the antique Europeans. If they got it right, if the faith they held in their hearts was the true Gospel of Christ, then the modern Christians who seek to fuse Christ with science, democracy, Judaism, Islam, and negro worship are wrong.

St. Paul was and is the saint for all people, but he is most particularly the saint for the European people. He represents our people at their best, when they loved much and would not compromise on that which was essential – faith in Christ and Christ alone as our salvation. St. Paul was not a theologian, he was something far greater: he was a poet of the spirit. With a passion emanating from a heart on fire with the love of Christ, he preached before the Athenians, the Romans, and the Jews, that Jesus Christ was the Son of the living God. It was not St. Paul’s belief in God that made the Athenians laugh at him and the Romans and the Jews persecute him. All those pagans, even the Athenians, believed in some kind of God. It was Paul’s claim that Christ was the Son of God, which placed him at odds with the world. He found himself in the same position as Christ before the Sanhedrin, when Christ made it clear to Caiaphas that He was the Son of God. Was it madness that made Paul think he saw the risen Lord on the road to Damascus? Our people did not think so when they built a civilization based on St. Paul’s assertion that the folly of God was greater than the wisdom of men. And that really is the crux of the matter. Christ’s wisdom was not and is not the wisdom of this world. Faith in Him cannot be reconciled to any of the faiths – Judaism, Islam, or liberalism, which emanate from the natural world. Christ’s love passeth the understanding of any mind-forged system of men. But does His love passeth the understanding of the human heart? St. Paul enjoined us to search the Scriptures with our hearts because in that union, that of the Word made flesh with hearts of flesh, is the consummation devoutly to be wished, the consummation of Christ with His people.

The story of the European people is not finished. We now live in hell, but we can climb out of hell if we cease to fuse the gods of liberalism with Christ. That was the key to St. Paul’s strength of faith. He was not a fusionist. When I worked in academia, I took note of the fact that very, very few of the academicians attacked Christ directly. None, of course, believed He was the Son of God, but they left Him alone as a figure of hatred. Like Francis the blasphemer, they generally regarded Christ as a good guy. It was St. Paul who earned their wrath and their hatred. Paul did not say anything about Christ that Christ did not say of Himself, but somehow the liberal academics managed to dismiss Christ’s claim to be the Son of God as a later addition, an addition of St. Paul. Bless that unclubbable, unrelenting Apostle of Christ crucified, Christ risen! Our Apostle did not compromise with liberalism, and because he did not compromise, our people were able to know and love Christ. Why are we now too intelligent to believe in St. Paul’s vision of the risen Lord?

Four authors that I keep coming back to again and again for spiritual sustenance are William Shakespeare, Walter Scott, Charles Dickens, and Edmund Burke. I find in those authors the true Christian mysticism that St. Paul writes about in I Corinthians 13, “charity never faileth.” At the heart of our ancient civilization is that undefinable entity called charity. It was the belief of St. Paul that charity was the primary attribute of the God who took flesh and dwelt among us, and it was the belief of my people, the antique Europeans, that they were most like unto God when they practiced charity, not when they sought to rival God by out-thinking Him. The triumph of liberalism has resulted in the end of charity. Yes, we still have what are called ‘charitable institutions,’ but what the liberals call charity is not the charity that St. Paul spoke of. He spoke of Christ as the connection between human hearts and true charity. When our incarnate Lord is cast aside and what is inside the human heart is demonized, there can be no genuine charity. In fact, what is charitable becomes satanic. It is now ‘charitable’ to kill babies in the womb lest a young woman’s life becomes damaged due to an unwanted pregnancy. And it is now ‘charitable’ to stand by while the creatures of color from without and within the white nations murder, rape, and assault white people. Never mistake His reign of charity for their reign of Satan.

St. Augustine placed a wedge between Christ and his people when he declared that there was the city of God, which was the church of enlightened minds, and there was the city of man, which consisted of the barbarians from the fens and bogs of Europe. But is St. Augustine’s church the Church? Those ‘barbarous’ Europeans took Christ into their hearts and made Him the Alpha and Omega of their civilization. Throughout the Christian centuries of European history, the theologians have clung to the Augustinian view of the church. “The hearts of the faithful are sinful, but the minds of the theologians are pure. Isn’t that obvious?” No, it is not obvious to me. The theologians’ focus has been on the sins of the Europeans, which are no different than the sins of the pagans; therefore, the theologians tell us, we must look to them to escape the desolation of sin and destruction. But there is something different about the Christian Europeans which is quite obvious to those who see through, not with the eye. The Europeans had, when they were a Christian people, that which no other people before or since have possessed. They had the faith, hope, and above all, charity, that comes from touching the heart of God. You can’t acquire that faith, hope, and charity by thinking ‘correctly,’ in the mode of Aristotle and Plato. You can only come to that inner vision, that faith, by committing to the heart of God as St. Paul did and our people, the ancient Europeans, did. The theologians and the philosophers of the West, as Fitzhugh tells us, have been “so busy with the worst features of human nature (the Europeans’ human nature) that they have not even found a name for their better feature.” The managerial Christians of yesterday and today have taken it upon themselves to ‘fix’ the faithful. And when you set out to ‘fix’ people you focus on what is wrong with them. The problem with such a cold, scientific approach to human souls is that the Mr. and Mrs. Fixits often become like unto the scientist in Hawthorne’s short story “The Birthmark”:

In those days when the comparatively recent discovery of electricity and other kindred mysteries of Nature seemed to open paths into the region of miracle, it was not unusual for the love of science to rival the love of woman in its depth and absorbing energy. The higher intellect, the imagination, the spirit, and even the heart might all find their congenial aliment in pursuits which, as some of their ardent votaries believed, would ascend from one step of powerful intelligence to another, until the philosopher should lay his hand on the secret of creative force and perhaps make new worlds for himself. We know not whether Aylmer possessed the degree of faith in man’s ultimate control over Nature. He had devoted himself, however, too unreservedly to scientific studies ever to be weaned from them by any second passion. His love for his young wife might prove the stronger of the two; but it could only be by intertwining itself with his love of science, and uniting the strength of the latter to his own.

Of course we know how the story ends. Aylmer becomes obsessed with a birthmark upon his wife’s cheek, and in attempting to eradicate the birthmark he kills his wife. The antique Europeans have been placed in the position of Aylmer’s wife. They were not perfect Christians, therefore their civilization and the heirs of their civilization must be destroyed in order to produce perfect human beings fit to live in the liberals’ kingdom of heaven on hearth. The attack on whiteness will continue and intensify so long as liberals rule in the European nations, because that birthmark, the birthmark of whiteness, must be removed so that scientific mankind can progress.

I contend, against all the world if necessary, but hopefully in union with a few kindred souls, that the antique Europeans, when seen through the visionary eye, represented the ‘best feature’ of man. They were the people who saw the Word made flesh and believed in the Word made flesh. The liberals in church and state have declared war on those people and on every man, woman, and child who dares, even tangentially, to stay connected to the antique Europeans. But we will cleave to those people because our Lord dwells with them; He does not dwell in Aylmer’s laboratory of science. The greatest tragedy, the institutionalized tragedy of liberalism, is the rejection of His love in preference for the approval of Satan and his minions. +

Posted in Charity, Christian Europe, Pride of intellect, Rationalism | Tagged | 1 Comment

The People without a Heart

Oh, learn to feel from what a stock thou’rt sprung;
Cast not, for tinsel trash and idle show,
The precious jewel of thy worth away.

-Schiller, William Tell


The conservatives of the post-World War II era, men such as Richard Weaver and Russell Kirk, have been completely dismissed by the modern conservatives, who are not conservative. They are liberals who differ with their liberal cousins on certain economic issues, but in the main they agree with their cousins on that which is essential, the supremacy of the material realm over the spiritual realm, thus proving the truth of Burke’s prophecy about the new age that was upon us: “But the age of chivalry is gone. That of sophisters, economists, and calculators, has succeeded…”

It was and remains my contention that unless we, the European people, come to see that democracy is antithetical to Christ’s reign of charity, whether it comes to us in the French or American mode, we will never break free of the liberals’ kingdom of hell on earth. “He did not die but nothing of life remained,” will continue to be our destiny. The people of color can reject incarnate Europe and continue on their merry, pagan way, but the European people cannot go back to paganism without committing suicide. Their past, unlike the past of the people of color, is inextricably bound to incarnate Europe; if they seek to sever themselves from His Europe they will become the unmen, the people without souls. Like the Man in the Danish fairy tale, “The Man Without a Heart,” (1) the European people are now a mind and body without a heart. They live in a purely material realm of existence without the spiritual sustenance that once sustained them. They have given their hearts to the men of science and democracy. And the men of science and democracy have placed those European hearts in a science lab where they can be regulated and controlled by the superior minds of the liberals. The grazers are allowed access to their hearts when the liberal lab technicians call all the whites together to worship at the shrines of the colored heathens. Then, after the services, the Europeans’ hearts must be placed back in the science lab to prevent them from being aroused at the destruction of their people and the liberals’ attack on the living God who dwells in hearts of flesh.

The modern liberals, under the guidance of Satan, have accomplished what the Rousseaus and the Voltaires set out to do: They have convinced the European people that their salvation lies in a repudiation of their past. “If you embrace the future,” the liberals tell them, “You shall be as gods.” They will be purged of their whiteness and their souls, but that is no tragedy because sophisters, economists, and calculators have no need of a soul. Those creatures, the sophisters, economists, and calculators, must be providing the European people with something that I can’t see, because they have kept the European people in their power for the past century. I suppose – but I’m only guessing – that when a people have only known one reality, the reality of Satan’s hatred for humanity, particularly white humanity, they spend their lives trying to live and survive within that reality. That there could be a divine love at the heart of existence is now an alien concept to the European people. There is no personal love of God or man in the new Europe, there is only the impersonal love of cosmic nature, the type of love the psychiatrists call the “oceanic feeling,” that makes a man or woman feel at one with the natural world. Speaking only for myself, I must say that I have no love for nature or the cosmos — I don’t want to be one with cosmic nature — because that type of nature, dress it up how you will, is nothing but an impersonal dung heap.

The Kirk and Weaver conservatives missed that which was and is essential. Both men supported the idea of God and the idea of a godly people, but because of a philosophical avoidance of the human heart, they failed to name the particular God and the particular people necessary to sustain European civilization. Jesus Christ was and is the Word-made-flesh, He is not some vague, shadowy figure contained within the framework of something called our ‘Greco-Roman-Judeo Christian tradition.’ He is the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end of our existence. That is what our people believed, the people who took Him into their hearts and their civilization. When He is the unchallenged King of your civilization, it is possible to simply reference your “religious tradition” without undermining your civilization. But when Christ has been dethroned by the Utopian heralds of a new civilization based on the custom and manners of Satan, you cannot simply make reference to “our heritage,” because “our heritage” has become our democratic heritage, bequeathed to us by the Voltaires and the Rousseaus. In order to exorcise the democratic demons from our society, we need to call upon our Jesus, not our ‘Greco-Roman-Judeo Christian tradition.’ If we don’t call on Him by name, the demons will declare, “Jesus we know, but we do not know the Greco-Roman-Judeo Christian tradition.” And because they do not know or fear that abstract entity, they will stay within the body of European civilization and continue to work their will upon the European people.

Richard Weaver concluded his masterwork, Ideas Have Consequences, with a recommendation that we take our stand on the metaphysical right of private property, which was one of the few metaphysical rights left us as a holdover from old Europe. That won’t do. The right of private property became a metaphysical right because the people who made it a metaphysical right believed that Jesus Christ was the Son of God. You can’t hold onto that right, or any other right stemming from old Europe, while holding the central issue in abeyance: Did Christ rise from the dead on the third day?

We must consider the great difference between the pagan Greco-Roman culture and the Christian European culture. If we consider rightly we will not blend the two cultures, as the intellectual conservatives do, and we will not equate Western civilization with the pagan Greeks, as men such as Victor Davis Hanson do. The pagans did not reject the living God; they never knew Him. The modern Europeans have rejected the living God, and they have built a culture based on that rejection. Think on the enormity of that crime! How can we have anything to do with liberals — how can we dialogue with them or engage in polite debate with them — when they preside over a civilization grounded in the hatred of the Light of the world?

I had a sociology professor in college who kept ranting about white people who hated change and sought to go through life safe and secure in their “white bubble.” The liberals, for all their self-proclaimed originality, are all cut from the same cloth. I have heard the “white bubble” attack ad nauseum in the last forty years, and the ‘given’ in the attack is that the whites’ culture as it once existed was evil, and to resist the destruction of European civilization is to perpetuate evil and defy the good. Instead of defending their past and stating their determination to go into the future holding onto the threads of the past, the European grazers have responded to the attack on their past by agreeing to repudiate their past. And in return for their betrayal of old Europe, the grazers hope they will be allowed to continue to graze in the fields of Liberaldom, even though the grass is becoming scarcer and scarcer and is starting to taste like dirt.

The first and primary reason why we cannot repudiate our white civilization, what the liberals call our “white bubble,” is because He resides there with the people who had hearts of flesh. He does not live in modern Europe, the Europe conceived in regicide and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal as part of nature’s dung heap. But within that dung heap, by a leap of faith, we must believe that the colored races are more equal; they are the lords of the dung heap. Is this the promised end? Do we really think that the utopia of the dung heap is superior to His Kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven?

The second reason we cannot repudiate our past for a place in the liberals’ dung heap is that the liberals are liars — they will not give white people a place in their world even if they agree to leave their “white bubble.” Witness the case of Donald Trump. Has there ever been a President more vilified by the liberals than Donald Trump? No. He is hated more than Richard Nixon, who previously wore the ‘most hated’ mantle. Why the intense hatred? Is Trump unwilling to leave the “white bubble”? No, he is not. He has repeatedly, by word and deed, shown his Americanism, making ‘diversity’ one of the central tenets of his presidency. But – and herein lies the rub – Trump wants to make white people part of the liberals’ brave new utopian ‘paradise.’ And that is heresy. Whites must be destroyed, the “white bubble” must cease to exist. If you are against that religious tenet, the primary religious tenet of the liberals, you will be tied to the rock upon which Prometheus was tied, while liberal vultures peck at your liver.

An objective observer from Mars would think that a religious state dedicated to the supremacy of Satan and the eradication of European Christians would be opposed by the organized churches who profess to believe in Jesus Christ. That has not been the case. The organized Christian churches have either openly attacked Christian Europeans, which is the case with Pope Francis the blasphemer, or they have attempted to blend Christianity with Judaism in order to make it more compatible with the ethos of ‘this world only,’ which is the case with the largest branches of organized Protestant Jewry. Trump’s conversion was quite sincere, and it is natural that a man seeking water in a desert should take water from the only well he finds, but Judeo-Christianity is not the European Christianity of our European progenitors. The fusionism of Francis the blasphemer is more inclusive than the fusionism of the Judeo-Christians and the Greco-Roman-Judeo conservatives, which is why Francis the blasphemer and his cohorts have become more acceptable to the liberals than the other Christian fusionists. However, I wonder if ultimately even they, the Roman Catholic fusionists, will prove themselves to be too European for the liberals. Be that as it may, their fate is but a trifle here. What counts is the non-fusionist Europeans, the remnant band. It is hard to believe that Christ wants us to trust in Him and Him alone against all the forces of hell, but that is exactly what He does want. In life and death we have only our faith in His word to sustain us against the terror by night, the pestilence that walketh in darkness, and the destruction that wasteth at noonday. Look at all the well-planned programs of the 20th century conservatives that were designed to defeat the liberals and make the 21st century the conservatives’ century. They have all failed. The managerial conservatives of the 20th century helped to usher in the century of Satan. (2) It is Satan and his minions that now rule Europe. Why don’t we pick up the discarded sword of our non-fusionist ancestors and attack the liberals, armed only with that discarded sword? The European who forsakes all other helps save His help is the only force on earth that can defeat the liberals and their master. “When our grace we have forgot…” Do we believe that charity never faileth? If so, let us proceed to attack the liberals in His name, for charity’s sake. +


(1) When at home, this wise man was, as a rule, occupied with boiling, melting, and mixing the most remarkable things. One day he placed a small pot on a quaint-looking little oven, and was in the act of carrying out a very important experiment. The pot contained, namely: three drops of rat’s blood; forty drops of the juice of henbane and chelidonia; the finger of a thief, who had been hanged on the gallows; four slugs; the heart of a frog, and a bit of his own finger-nail. As soon as this began to boil, the wise man poured three drops of a green fluid into the pot. Instantly a white steam arose, spread itself above the stove, and assumed the shape of a ghost’s figure, surmounted by a large head with a pale, colorless countenance, large, round eyes, and a broad mouth.

The old sage was struck with astonishment, and wondered if this figure might, indeed, be Fortune itself.

“What do you wish for?” asked the figure, with its broad mouth.

“What do I wish for?” repeated the student. “Perfect happiness. Fortune herself is my desire.”

“Explain what you mean by Fortune,” pursued the spirit.

“Fortune,” began the other, “is a power of nature, and—“

“Be quick!” cried the ghost. “Do you wish for money?”

“No, no,” answered the wise man; “the greatest happiness is to have no heart. I wish that you would take mine from me.”

“Shall I take your heart?” asked the spirit again.

“Yes, take it, and hide it so well that it will never be found.”

Danish Fairy & Folk Tales

(2) It was striking to me when I would read the intellectual conservatives that although they professed to be very traditional, they were proceeding under very nontraditional premises; paramount among those premises was that a man did not need his own personal kith and kin so long as he could hold onto an idea of a universal kith and kin. That did not, from my perspective, seem to be the way God had ordered our lives. But then that is the way with great planners and great thinkers: they always assume they are smarter than God.

The Acorn and the Pumpkin

God’s works are good. To prove this truth
I need not search the world, forsooth!
I do it by the nearest Pumpkin!
“Fie! Fruit so large on vine so small!”
Exclaimed one day a wise young bumpkin! ”What could He mean who made us all?
This Pumpkin here is out of place.
If I had ordered in this case,
Upon that oak it should have hung–
A noble fruit as ever swung
To grace a tree so firm and strong.
Indeed there’s been a great mistake!
Had my opinion but been sought,
When God set out the world to make,
All things had then been as they ought!
All things had then in order come!
This Acorn for example,
No bigger than my thumb,
Had not disgraced a tree so ample.
The more I think, the more I wonder!
The Pumpkin on the oak should grow,
The Acorn on the vine below;
God surely made an awful blunder!”
With such reflections proudly fraught,
Our Sage grew tired of mighty thought,
And threw himself on Nature’s lap,
Beneath an oak, to take a nap.
It chanced that during his repose,
An Acorn fell plump on his nose!
He wakened with a mighty start;
He shrieked and seized the injured part!
“Oh! Oh! alas! I bleed! I bleed!
This acorn ‘twas that did the deed!
I see that God had reasons good,
And all His works were understood,
For truly, what had been my woes,
Had, then, a Pumpkin whacked my nose!”
Thus home he went in humbler mood!

-La Fontaine

Posted in Christian Europe, Christian religion, Democracy, Faithful hearts, Religion of Satan | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

The Fruits of Compromise

There is a courageous wisdom: there is also a false reptile prudence, the result not of caution but of fear. Under misfortunes it often happens that the nerves of the understanding are so relaxed, the pressing peril of the hour so completely confounds all the faculties, that no future danger can be properly provided for, can be justly estimated, can be so much as fully seen. The eye of the mind is dazzled and vanquished. An abject distrust of ourselves, an extravagant admiration of the enemy, present us with no hope but in a compromise with his pride, by a submission to his will. This short plan of policy is the only counsel which will obtain a hearing. We plunge into a dark gulph with all the rash precipitation of fear. The nature of courage is, without a question, to be conversant with danger; but in the palpable night of their terrors, men under consternation suppose, not that it is the danger, which, by a sure instinct, calls out the courage to resist it, but that it is the courage which produces the danger. They therefore seek for a refuge from their fears in the fears themselves, and consider a temporizing meanness as the only source of safety.

–Burke, Letters on a Regicide Peace


‘Tis still a dream, or else such stuff as madmen
Tongue and brain not; either both or nothing;
Or senseless speaking, or a speaking such
As sense cannot untie. Be what it is,
The action of my life is like it, which
I’ll keep, if but for sympathy.

–Shakespeare, Cymbeline


Let me continue last week’s thread: “All political revolutions are preceded by a moral revolution in the hearts of the people.” Burke, and then his spiritual counterpart, Dostoyevsky, faced the brave new world of the liberals and saw the “principle of evil himself” that was and is the font of liberalism. We must fully grasp that depressing fact, but none the less true, even if it is depressing, before we can respond to liberalism as Christian Europeans should respond. “Stop! This must not go on!,” Nicholas Nickleby commanded as he stepped forward and began to beat Wackford Squeers with the same cane Squeers had been beating the defenseless and crippled Smike with. I do not see, in the European people, the same righteous indignation about the evil liberals do that Nicholas Nickleby showed toward Wackford Squeers. And Wackford Squeers was a gentleman compared to the liberals; he lacked the “cold malignity” of the liberals; he could not quite descend to their level of evil.

Of course Nicholas Nickleby is a fictional character, so we can discount him and continue to capitulate to liberalism. But can we? Let us pause a moment. Nicholas Nickleby’s response to evil cannot be dismissed as a mere storybook response to evil. Dickens was describing a spiritual reality. The European people, when they were a people, believed that heroes should respond to evil with the same charity of honor that Nicholas Nickleby demonstrated when he beat Wackford Squeers. Only a few heroes lived up to that creed, but the fact that a hero in old Europe was expected to fight the devil and his minions rather than debate and dialog with them indicates why old Europe, with all her imperfections, gave us a glimpse of His kingdom come while the new, improved liberal Europe gives us a foretaste of hell.

What we now find acceptable, even laudatory, has been made acceptable and laudatory by the revolution that took place in the hearts of the European people. Negro worship, legalized abortion, gay rights, feminism, and Islamic terrorism are just some of the horrors that our ancestors would have responded to with the command, “Stop! This must not go on.” And then they would have acted on that command. The first outward manifestation of the liberals’ moral revolution, or should we say their immoral revolution, was the French Revolution. Pure evil emerged, spewing forth from the hearts of academics – lawyers, philosophers, and theologians – and the French people did not oppose that evil.

[L]ittle did I dream that I should have lived to see such disasters fallen upon her in a nation of gallant men, in a nation of men of honour, and of cavaliers. I thought ten thousand swords must have leaped from their scabbards to avenge even a look that threatened her with insult. But the age of chivalry is gone. That of sophisters, economists, and calculators, has succeeded; and the glory of Europe is extinguished for ever. Never, never more, shall we behold that generous loyalty to rank and sex, that proud submission, that dignified obedience, that subordination of the heart, which kept alive, even in servitude itself, the spirit of an exalted freedom. The unbought grace of life, the cheap defence of nations, the nurse of manly sentiment and heroic enterprise, is gone! It is gone, that sensibility of principle, that chartity of honour, which felt a stain like a wound, which inspired courage whilst it mitigated ferocity, which ennobled whatever it touched, and under which vice itself lost half its evil, by losing all its grossness.

–Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France

Is it possible to preserve the “unbought grace of life” while enjoying the fruits of a satanic revolt against God? “Yes, it is,” the incremental Jacobins of Europe proclaimed. “If you reject the extremism of Robespierre, if you grant tax-exempt status to the churches that support the liberal state, if you do everything that Robespierre did, but do it gradually and democratically, you can have the ‘freedoms’ and ‘pleasures’ Satan can give, and you can have God as well.” But such a compromise is a mirage, a trick of the devil. Where your treasure lies so lies your heart. You cannot treasure the things of Satan and still retain God in your heart. That is where intellectual Christianity comes to the fore. The immoral revolution in the hearts of the European people could not have taken place if the theologians – Roman Catholic and Protestant – had not damned the human heart as impure and unchristian. If we can only approach God through the intellects of enlightened clergymen we are ultimately left to the mercy of the evil one who has no mercy, because metaphysical speculation, detached from the human heart, is Satanism. The reason our modern clergy have joined the liberals in their condemnation of the antique Europeans is because they do not think a heart of flesh is the bedrock of faith. They are pagan philosophers who are uncomfortable with the illogic of the God who took on human flesh. Thus, our past, our Christian past, has been eradicated by the liberals and the anti-European, and therefore anti-Christian, churchmen.

If the European people were one with their progenitors, they would not be the confused, cowardly creatures they now are. They are confused because they think they can actually be part of Liberaldom if they voice their disagreement with certain aspects of liberalism in polite terms. And as the mad-dog liberals become crueler, divesting themselves of all humanity, the grazers and the ‘conservatives’ become more polite and self-effacing. But I ask you, was Robespierre gentle to the people who were civil to him? Did civility and politeness make Stalin feel warm and gushy so that he stopped killing millions? Civility should be the byword when Christians meet to discuss how best to advance His reign of charity, it should not be the byword — in fact it should have no place at all — when we confront liberals whose stated goal is the elimination of all things white and Christian.

Civility in the face of liberalism is a cowardly betrayal of Christ. Only men who are taking the hallucinogenic drug called democracy can think that liberals will stop their murderous campaign against the white race if we, the whites, will only be civil to them. Are they civil when they slaughter the innocents? Are they civil when they invite Moslems into the white nations to rape and murder whites? Are they civil to any white politician, such as Trump, who tries to include white people in the liberals’ ‘diverse’ world? Civility, kindness, mercy, and above all charity, stemmed from Christian Europe. How can you expect liberals who have made the hatred of Christian Europe their reason for being, to be civil, kind, merciful, or charitable? You can’t, unless you have become so spiritually anesthetized that you no longer are able to distinguish good from evil. We are back with Peter on the night they took Christ away to be crucified. “Do you know that man?” And of course Peter, with an instinct for self-preservation, denied our Lord thrice. But there is one instinct stronger than the instinct for self-preservation, an instinct that the liberals and the theologians do not believe in: the instinct to return the love bestowed upon us by the living God. Peter, after his denial of Christ, died on the cross because his loyalty to the font of love was greater than his fear of the liberals. The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, but the love of God is the ultimate end of wisdom. We arrive at that consummation through the human heart. Do our minds tell us to deny His Europe and embrace Jacobin Europe? If that is the case, then we have no heart, because we have denied the living God who comes to us through the human heart.

It has been the self-appointed task of the ‘Christian’ theologians to destroy the wellsprings emanating from the hearts of the faithful so they can remain on the straight and narrow, undeterred and uninfluenced by the dangerous passions emanating from the human heart. Life is not that simple. You can’t destroy the human in order to get to the divine. You must go through the labyrinth of the human heart, with all its pitfalls and temptations, in order to reach the God with the divinely human heart. Without Christ as the moral exemplar within our hearts, we are left with only our feeble minds as our moral exemplars. Which leaves us at the mercy of Satan and his minions.

I referenced Burke at the beginning of this post because what he described as the compromising spirit of his fellow Europeans toward the Jacobins – “an extravagant admiration of the enemy, present us with no hope but in a compromise with his pride, by a submission to his will” – is what has been taking place within the ranks of ‘conservatives.’ The crackdown on all websites to the right of Hillary Clinton has made the ‘conservatives’ try to be more civil and more submissive to the liberals. But such a policy is not only immoral, it is also impractical. The liberals are possessed by the devil, they are determined to go over the cliff with the swine. They will not have anything to do with anyone remotely connected to Jesus Christ. And white Europeans were once intimately connected with Jesus Christ; therefore, white people must be eliminated. You might think you will save yourself by denouncing your past, your people who loved much, but you will then be part and parcel of Liberaldom. You too will go over the cliff with the swine. We lose everything if we seek to make peace with the liberals; we lose the battle in this world, and we lose the ultimate battle, to obtain a place in His house of many mansions.

R. L. Stevenson observed that, “a man could not vary from his faith, unless he could eradicate all memory of the past.” That has happened to the European people. The liberals demonized the antique Europeans by calling white pietas ‘racism’ and the Christian patriarchal family ‘sexism.’ The churchmen went along with the liberals, jettisoning the actual flesh and blood Europeans for a new, abstract, nondescript, universalist type of Christian without the racist and sexist tendencies of the older European Christians. But such ‘perfect’ Christians are not Christians. They are liberals. They do not worship the God who enters human hearts, they worship the archangel Satan who enters human minds in order to tell the unfaithful that, “You shall be as gods.”

Robespierre discovered that his revolution based on pure reason could not sustain itself. The people needed something for their hearts. So Robespierre went from the execution of all those who were not atheists to the execution of all those who were atheists. But his state religion was not the Christian religion, it was paganism revisited. He failed because he moved too quickly and too harshly, but his method, the blending of Christianity in many of its outward forms with the spiritual substance of paganism, was accepted, over time, by the French people and the rest of the European people. The romance of liberalism, which consists of the European people’s love affair with reason, science, and the noble savage, has replaced, in the hearts of the European people, the romance of Christ crucified, Christ Risen. Why has that romance triumphed over the Christ-centered romance of old Europe? Why did Judas, who seemingly saw the same Christ as the other apostles, decide to betray Christ? Obviously there was something he failed to see. Why did Burke see “pure, unmixed, dephlegmated, defecated evil” in the Jacobin regicides, while Price, Fox, and Priestley, his contemporaries, and later men such as Belloc and Sarkozy, see the triumph of good over evil in the victory of the cannibalistic regicides over the Christian monarch of France? Who are we compromising with when we try to please the liberals? Why doesn’t the romance of His Europe inspire us to rise and ride? I do not understand the modern Europeans nor do I want to. Blessed are they that lived, loved, and mourned under the shadow of the cross, which once enveloped all of Europe. They are my people, which I’ll keep close to my heart, for sympathy’s sake. +

Posted in Christ, Classical liberalism, Liberalism, Religion of Satan | Tagged , | 2 Comments

The Liberals’ Orphanage of Horror

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. – Edmund Burke

Then assembled together the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders of the people, unto the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas, And consulted that they might take Jesus by subtilty, and kill him. – Matthew 26: 3-4


I have not seen a news story from the official establishment media for over three years. There is no need to reference such ‘news’ sources because they are simply propaganda outlets for liberalism. The alternative news sites such as Breitbart and the Conservative Coalition provide you with much more accurate information than the propaganda ‘news’ of the liberals. However, even though the alternative news sites are more accurate than the mainstream ones, there is a great danger involved if we do more than dip our toes into the world of news, even if that news is gleaned from the alternative sites. Because, whether the news comes from the formal propaganda agencies of the liberal establishment or the alternative news sites, we are still swimming, or at least attempting to swim, in the moral quicksand of liberalism. We are trying to find a spiritual homeland amongst a people, the liberals, who despise the spiritual homeland of the European people. Why did “Dixie” become the national anthem of the Southern people? It became their anthem because the song spoke to their hearts, invoking the sacred image of a spiritual homeland that they could love and defend against the invader. “I’ll take my stand to live and die in Dixie.” All political revolutions are preceded by a moral revolution in the hearts of the people. We live under a political oligarchy opposed to all things white and Christian because the European people have given up their spiritual homeland, incarnate Europe, in return for the right to live in Liberaldom. We are now spiritual orphans, dependent on the mercies of the liberal overseers of the orphanage for our every need. Have they tended to our needs? No, they have not given us anything close to what was provided for us in incarnate Europe; they have left us bereft of everything that makes life bearable – the love of kith and kin and the love of a personal Savior greater than reason, science, and the noble savage.

The mere reportage of the atrocities that have come about under the liberals’ regime of reason, science, and the noble savage does not really offer the white Everyman any hope. He must have a spiritual homeland in which he can take his stand against the liberals. In the absence of such a homeland he must make himself content in the liberals’ orphanage. Which means he must anesthetize himself against his past. He must learn to hate all things white and Christian lest he be cast out of the liberal orphanage, the only home he has. It is not a real home, it is not of the spirit, but it is the only home the liberals will permit him.

In order to make the orphanage acceptable to whites as a place where they are made ready for the slaughterhouse, it was necessary to trivialize white civilization. Deep-rooted family and racial ties were replaced by a commitment to sport teams, and faith in the God-Man was replaced by the worship of the sacred negro and the cosmic force. Can such trivialities sustain a people who once believed in the God of Handel and Rembrandt? On the surface it seems like such trivialities can sustain the European people. They don’t seem to need a spiritual homeland. But what is going on below the surface? The increased suicide rate among young white males, the increase in drug use, the increased addiction to sexual perversions all indicate that life in the liberals’ orphanage is not what the liberals purport it to be.

Still, white people cling to their tenuous place in the liberals’ orphanage. And they cling to their place in the liberals’ orphanage with their whole heart, mind, and soul precisely because their place in the orphanage is so tenuous. The atrocity stories about the torture murders of whites by blacks, the mass rapes and murders of whites by Moslems, do not make the white grazers want to fight the liberals and their colored minions, it makes them divorce themselves from ‘other’ whites, the ‘bad’ whites who have brought ruin upon themselves by being too overtly white. “The good whites, like us, will be accepted in Liberaldom,” is the belief of the white grazers. And as they go to the execution block they will still be hoping against hope that their benevolent liberal rulers will discover they are the good whites who do not deserve to be killed. They will never grasp the fact, because they have given their souls to Liberaldom, that all whites are evil by virtue of the fact that they are white. This is not an abstract principle to me, it is a horrific reality. My father, for instance, was a white grazer, a World War II veteran, who believed in racial diversity and the American flag. During his final illness he suffered through the living hell of a hospital committed to racial diversity, which translates to the torture of white patients through neglect in favor of the treatment of black and brown patients. Grazers never stop believing — like a mistreated dog they keep looking to their masters, the liberal overlords, fully confident they will be treated with compassion and kindness. But compassion and kindness are relics of another world, a world we have left behind for the great modern world of Liberaldom. Let us all hold hands and join in a psalm of praise to that brave new world of diversity, cruelty, and spiritual desolation.

The ‘get the information to the people’ alternative news sites are closing the proverbial barn door after the horses have already escaped. You must have rulers and a people with the heart to address and correct wrongs in order to get anywhere with your atrocity stories. In the Western world the rulers have created a culture in which whites are offered up for sacrifice. And they have created a culture of non-resistance to liberalism amongst the people who are being made ready for sacrifice. It will take something much more potent than alternative news sites and elections to combat the liberals’ culture of white genocide.

What is that something more potent than alternative news sites and elections? Oft this stage I have repeatedly said what that something is, much to the disgust of the enemies of Christian Europe. But it is the antique Europeans who felt connected to their people and their God, in spirit and blood, who carved out a spiritual home for the European people in the midst of heathendom. The anti-Christian enemies of the antique Europeans started out as isolated figures in the halls of academia and organized Christian Jewry, until, in the American and French Revolutions, they managed to institutionalize their mind-forged religion of hated. The rest of the European nations have followed in the footsteps of the American and French Jacobins.

The liberals institutionalize evil by damming up the channels of grace. They criminalize pietas, the love of our kith and kin, so that we cannot form an alliance with the God of mercy and love who comes to us through those ties. The better way, better than philosophy and the speaking in tongues, which St. Paul told us about, was charity. If that charity is proscribed, that charity which can only be known and then practiced by those people who have a spiritual homeland, then what becomes of the European people? They are left bereft of a homeland, they are dependent on the liberals’ state-operated orphanage.

The European culture of Christ crucified, Christ risen, is now so remote to the European people that any serious presentation of that culture as an alternative to the modern liberal orphanages is met with scorn, ridicule, disbelief, and in some cases fierce persecution. One thinks of Acts 5: 40:

And to him they agreed: and when they had called the apostles, and beaten them, they commanded that they should not speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go.

When the liberals command us not to reference the ‘racist’ and ‘sexist’ faith of the antique Europeans, haven’t we been commanded not to speak in the name of Jesus? Yes, we have been so commanded. But we shall not cease to speak of those people and their God, who is our Jesus as well as theirs.

The liberals, having forsaken the living God, have become as hard-hearted as Satan; they cannot be moved by charitable pleas to stop white genocide. Nor can the grazers be compelled to abandon their liberal orphanage. They fear the unknown world outside the orphanage walls too much. So what must be done? It appears that nothing can be done. But in this world, this liberal world of institutionalized blasphemy and cruelty, there is a narrow mountain pass in the hinterlands of Europe. That pass is guarded by griffins, dragons, and evil trolls. If a European, a third dumb brother, is willing to approach that mountain pass armed only with the charity of honor which was the distinguishing characteristic of the heroes of old Europe, he will discover that the griffins, dragons, and trolls are no match for a European knight of charity. They will fall before him. And he will then make his way through the mountain pass and destroy the dam holding back the water of pietas from flowing into the European valley. When that river once again nourishes the blighted European valleys, the liberal trolls and wizards will flee and the European people will come back to life again.

I refer to the European fairy tale of the third dumb brother, because that tale, which occurs again and again in the folklore of our people, tells us what our people learned about existence. They saw that at the heart of this world of pain and sorrow was a Heart that had overcome this world of pain and sorrow. “If the world hate thee, know that I have overcome the world.” We need to see the visions and dream the dreams of our people when they had faith. If we remain in the liberals’ orphanage where there are no visions of the Christ of old Europe and no dreams of the love which passeth all understanding, we will continue to be the ‘death in life’ people, the people without souls.

All heresies, Protestant and Catholic, stem from clergymen who seek to make the Christ of the Gospels into Caiaphas, a religious leader who set himself up in opposition to the living God of mercy and love in order to champion his own narrow, mind-forged religion of cruelty. The ideologues of liberalism, be they the American sons of liberty, French Jacobins, Russian communists, or modern liberals have made, and in the case of our modern liberals, are still making, the religion of Caiaphas their religion. Then and now the main feature of the religion of Caiaphas is the hatred of the living God. This is why the liberals must always be about the business of destroying the spiritual homeland of white people. The Europeans must never have a place from which they can take their stand, because that place, that Europe, is His Europe. But we will take our stand – Alexander Smollet is our exemplar. Wherever a European Christian lives according to His lights and defies Satan and his minions, there, on that spot of ground, is Christian Europe, our homeland.

“Now you’ll hear me. If you’ll come up one by one, unarmed, I’ll engage to clap you all in irons, and take you home to a fair trial in England. If you won’t my name is Alexander Smollett, I’ve flown my sovereign’s colours, and I’ll see you all to Davy Jones.”

We will not plead for a place in the liberals’ orphanage of horror. We will insist on an end to liberalism. There is no other alternative for the white European. The Trump and Brexit ‘victories’ are perfect examples of the futility of trying to work within the framework of the liberal orphanage in order to obtain rights for white people. The white European will never be given a place to live and work within the liberal orphanage. Let us leave that charnel house, that orphanage, and return to our spiritual homeland, which was and is, Incarnate Europe. +

Posted in Christian Europe, Democracy, Jacobinism | Tagged , | 1 Comment