The Fear of the Devil and his Minions

Hell is empty and all the devils are here. –The Tempest by Shakespeare

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. –Letters on a Regicide Peace by Edmund Burke


Herman Melville once wrote that, “No utter surprise can come to him who reaches Shakespeare’s core – All that we seek and shun is there – Man’s final lore.” But apparently the conservative-liberals see no need to look to the Bard of Avon when they need to come to some understanding of their mad-dog liberal cousins. Recently I saw one of those pretty, female newscasters on the Fox News Network ask her audience why mad-dog liberals such as Nancy Pelosi and her cohorts were being so historically uncivil to the President of the United States. Is she serious? Has she no understanding of the nature of evil? When you make the break from God, the one true God, there is no going back. You must push that break to its ultimate conclusion: the worship of Satan and the annihilation of all things human. Shakespeare, in Macbeth, shows us the end result of the liberals’ break with God, and he shows us the only way we can deal with liberals who have made that break with God. Macbeth loves his wife, who has made Satan her soulmate, outside of God’s love, and as a result he becomes a bloody tyrant who is wedded, through his wife, to Satan. Ultimately Lady Macbeth self-destructs, and Macbeth is slain on the field of battle by a man who doesn’t believe that evil can be vanquished by civility.

The mad-dog liberals understand that there is a war going on between the liberals, the unmen and unwomen committed to the rule of Satan, and the European remnant who still remain connected to Christ’s Europe and the values stemming from that Europe. The conservative-liberals of Fox News and the alternative news sites do not understand that there is a war going on. They refuse to understand that obvious reality because they do not want to give up their faith in democracy as a panacea for all the problems of life. You can’t vote evil out of existence; that is what the conservative-liberals refuse to come to terms with. They keep calling for more civility and more democracy when what is necessary, what is imperative, is that we respond to the liberals’ attack on all things humane and Christian with the same will and passion in defense of Him and His people as the liberals have shown in defense of their satanic faith. The violent and passionate shall bear it away. Why do we meet the liberals’ incivility with the imbecilic fudge of democratic civility? And why do we greet their calls for a war of extermination with Emersonian platitudes about toleration and democracy?

If there are no Shakespearean depths to life, if Ralph Waldo was right that superficiality is truth, then we needn’t take the liberals’ assault on God through their assault on the white race as a serious matter, because if there is no depth to life, then there is no God who dwells in the depths of the human heart. (1) If the human heart is as superficial as the liberals tell us, then good and evil are mere artificial constructs that can be manipulated according to the whims of Emersonian minds. But if Shakespeare is right, if there is good and evil, if a man can choose between heaven or hell, then it is not prudent to respond to the passionate hatred of the minions of Satan with a tepid faith in superficial platitudes about democracy and civility.

If we leave aside the scholastics’ disputes over God’s grace and man’s free will and simply state that everything good stems from the grace of God and man’s free will response to God’s grace, we can proceed with the defense of the entity which the theologians tell us was an impossibility, namely, Christian Europe. That entity was a magnificent tapestry woven by the hand of God, using His people as the strands in the tapestry. It has been and remains Satan’s task to unweave the tapestry of Christian Europe one strand at a time until there is nothing left of Christian Europe. The conservative-liberals, represented by the previously mentioned newscaster who wanted to know why liberals were so uncivil, are people who want some of the strands of the Christian European tapestry to stay in place, strands such as civility, but they no longer want many of the other Christian strands, such as the patriarchal family, to remain in the tapestry. That cannot be. It is a case of all or nothing. If you don’t defend the entire European tapestry, which is held together by a non-fusionist faith in the God-Man, Jesus Christ, you will eventually witness the destruction of every single strand of the European tapestry.

Bernie Sanders, the freeze-dried hippie, was right when he held up Denmark as a model for all nations, but only if he was talking about the Denmark of the 1950s. The Danes at that time were a white, ethnically homogeneous people who had not yet taken their Christian tapestry completely apart. But now, some 70 years later, they have nothing left. Where there once was a beautiful tapestry, there now is a liberal-Islamic hellhole. The true conservative must be a counter-revolutionary: he must commit to the arduous task of reasserting the truth of Christ crucified, Christ risen, and then he must re-strand the fabric of his nation in accordance with that new-old faith. A vague belief in an ecumenical God, civility, and diversity will not suffice. Quite the contrary – we must believe in the Christ, who is the beginning and the end, the first and the last, not in an ecumenical Mr. Softie, and we must not treat Satan’s minions with civility nor should we abandon white pietas in order to become racially diverse. We should be a non-diverse people with a diversity of gifts which we place at the service of the one true God.

From a Christian perspective, it is quite apparent – transparently apparent – that the liberals have totally given themselves over to the devil. Yet the ‘conservatives’ fail to see that the liberals are possessed by the devil. And in point of fact nothing will get you dismissed from the public debate quicker than an assertion that in dealing with liberals we are dealing with Satan. Ionesco’s rhinoceros in the bedroom can only be seen by those who are ‘stupid’ enough to believe, quite literally, in the devil and the devil’s Divine Antagonist. And that really is the key. Intellectual pride was slyly woven into the Christian European tapestry under the guise of ‘knowledge of God.’ That strand became the pretext for the removal of every single Christian strand of the tapestry. And once those Christian strands were replaced, once the patriarchal family was replaced by the worship of Cybele, once the code of chivalry was replaced by the law of the survival of the cruelest, and once that “charity of honor” was replaced by the merciless cruelty of democratic Jacobinism, then the ‘pride of intellect’ strand, disguised as the ‘knowledge of God’ strand, stood out in all its satanic splendor, surrounded by all the other supporting strands of a new satanic tapestry. The new tapestry is now complete. That other tapestry is only a memory, a memory that the liberals must attack whenever anyone dares to bring it up by advocating the restoration of even just one strand of that old European tapestry.

The reason Trump is hated by the liberals more than any Republican president has ever been hated before is because he is serious about removing the ‘legalized abortion’ strand from the liberals’ tapestry. He won’t succeed because it is necessary to first remove the ‘pride of intellect’ strand before any of the Christian strands can be rewoven back into the European tapestry, but the liberals still must oppose, with satanic fury, any and all attempts to regress to any of the customs, manners, and laws stemming from Christian Europe. Trump’s dilemma is the dilemma of all the democratically elected officials who do not accept all of the premises of liberalism. They will be crucified because the liberals will have all or nothing: they will not rest from satanic strife until they have made Satan’s law the only law on the face of the earth. They want war, a war without mercy, a war that will end with the victory of liberalism and the defeat of incarnate Europe. That is what liberalism is all about. We can’t be civil with warmongering liberals nor can we look to the democratic process, a process created by Satan, to save us from the slings and arrows of the liberals who want our blood, just as Dracula wants the blood of his victims. The pestilence that has enveloped Europe is the pestilence of liberalism unchecked and unchallenged by white Christians.

In his Letters on a Regicide Peace, Burke observes that as the evil of the Jacobins became more apparent, the Europeans’ reaction to that evil became less intense. Familiarity brought acceptance. That is the great danger of mistaking tolerance of evil with forbearance and charity. It is Christian to forbear and forgive those who trespass against us, but is cowardly and unchristian – it goes against that charity of honor – to be tolerant of merciless inhuman cruelty and blasphemy. The people of Europe do not see liberalism for what it is because their spiritual nerve endings are dead. First they tolerated liberalism, then they accepted it as the truth and the way. We have institutionalized the hatred of the white race, sodomy, abortion, and negro worship all in the name of tolerance and democratic civility. There are many people, perhaps a majority, who do not like one or more of the institutionalized evils of liberalism. My parents, for instance, were 1950s liberals who were uncomfortable with the legalization of homosexual marriage. But they had to accept it because it had become part of the liberals’ democratic imperative. Their rejection of homosexual marriage would have necessitated the rejection of democracy and the rights of man. And where would we be without the rights of man? We would be right back with the Dream of the Rood and that would be wrong… Why would it be wrong? When the Moslems went on a rape fest on New Year’s Eve in Cologne, Germany three years ago, a Danish female journalist asked, after the riot, “Where were the men, why didn’t they do something?” Then she went on to say, however, that she didn’t want to go back to the bad old days when women were confined, horrors of horrors, to the kitchen and the hearth fire, but she did want males to act like males when Moslems assaulted women. Life doesn’t work that way. “Life is earnest, life is real,” you can’t breed men who will fight for the values of Christian Europe when you have institutionalized all the values opposed to His reign of charity.

In the end it all comes back to the words of St. Paul: “Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.” It is the knights of charity who can see the true God above the hell of liberalism. If we have no such knights left to us, we are indeed lost. The vision of His love only seems lost because we are afraid to rip that satanic strand, the strand of intellectual pride, from the tapestry of liberalism. Once we conquer that fear, we will have conquered, through the grace of God, Satan and his minions. ‘Tis a consummation most devoutly to be wished. We can tear the liberals’ tapestry asunder. +


(1) For, in the mysteries of Mercy, the one fore-knowing Spirit
Outstrippeth reason’s halting choice, and winneth men to Him
Who shall sound the depths? Who shall reach the heights?

-Martin Farquhar Tupper

Posted in Charity, Democracy, Pride of intellect | Tagged , | Leave a comment

The Liberals’ Utopian Hell

The rebels to God perfectly abhor the Author of their being. They hate him “with all their heart, with all their mind, with all their soul, and with all their strength.” He never presents himself to their thoughts but to menace and alarm them. They cannot strike the Sun out of Heaven, but they are able to raise a smouldering smoke that obscures him from their own eyes. Not being able to revenge themselves on God, they have a delight in vicariously defacing, degrading, torturing, and tearing in pieces his image in man. –Letters on a Regicide Peace by Edmund Burke


All of the nations of Europe have been under the thrall of utopian ‘ideals’ since the original utopian state, the United States of America, reared its reptilian head in 1788. Most of the European nations prior to the 21st century, with the exception of Russia, rejected Robespierre’s ‘Utopia Now’ model of massive bloody purges, in favor of the American utopian model of a gradual purging of the non-illuminated white people who were not fit for utopia. (1) In an ironic twist we have seen, in the 21st century, a shift toward Robespierre’s model of utopia in the Western European nations while the Russians and many of the other formerly communist nations have shifted to the old American model of utopia. But the dominant theme in the European nations in the 20th and 21st centuries (in France and the U.S. it was the dominant theme since the 1700s) has been utopia.

The one essential in utopia is the illuminated mind, free from the prejudices and superstitions of the past. The ‘myth’ of the golden age in which the past is idealized is a pre-Christian ideal of the pagans. Plato is the one exception to the pagans, because the pagan Greek philosopher was ‘advanced’ in his philosophy: he was imbued with a pride of science that scorned the past before the Christian theologians made it their raison d’être .

The secular, totalitarian utopias of the modern era were made possible by the utopian thinking of the Christian theologians in the ranks of the clergy and the illuminated members of the laity. What seems obvious to the non-enlightened laymen such as I — namely that utopian states which always exclude the Christian God and institute laws violating the values stemming from a faith in Jesus Christ are not the type of incorporate unions that I or any other Christian should support — is not obvious to the ‘enlightened’ Christians, both clerical and lay. Let Hilaire Belloc speak for the entire pack of Christian utopians. He maintained to his dying day that the French Revolution was a necessary purging of the insufficiently Christian monarchy of France. He justified his monstrous, blasphemous credo by pointing out the imperfections of the Christian Frenchman of the 1700s. That is the great advantage the utopians have over every non-utopian regime: There are always major imperfections in a reality-based government, because human beings are imperfect. But a utopian government, which is always in the future, has no imperfections since a utopian nation does not consist of actual human beings; it consists of fantasy human beings who are born, as Athena was born from the brain of Zeus, from the illuminated brains of the utopian thinkers. The utopians have a perfect record, because their utopia is always in the future where the imperfections of the past will be eliminated.

What happens when the utopians come to power? Why are they not held accountable for the imperfections of their utopias when the imperfections become apparent? Why, for instance, did Belloc support Robespierre’s purges despite the fact that he killed good Christians as well as ‘bad’ Christians? Why wasn’t Robespierre’s regime of terror and the regimes of the utopian regicides that followed in his utopian train condemned for their sins as the Christian aristocrats who went to the guillotine were condemned? The answer lies in the illuminated minds of the utopians. They have no humanity themselves, so they do not think that the elimination of imperfect, non-illuminated human beings is wrong. Everything is lawful if it contributes to the construction of the perfect world of the future. But the perfect worlds are always built on the slaughtered bodies of actual flesh and blood human beings, in the name of an abstract ‘humanity’ of the future. How can the inhumane, the men without human hearts, build a perfect, humane world? They can’t. They can only build Satan’s kingdom of hell on earth. (2)

The ‘sins’ of the non-utopian people of the past and the idea of the ‘transition period’ keep the utopians’ kingdoms of hell on earth in order. Robespierre was an anti-capital punishment zealot before he came to power, and he remained an anti-capital punishment zealot when he was in power. But it was necessary to purge the impure, the French aristocrats, before the perfect France, a France where capital punishment was unnecessary, could be built. So it goes with all the utopias of the European nations – the liberals told us that abortion had to be legal until we had a nation where abortion was unnecessary, because enlightened human beings, human beings devoid of the prejudices of their Christian past, would use the proper birth control. And every atrocity that is possible to be visited upon a people can and should be permitted in South Africa if the atrocities are committed against the sinful, ‘racist’ whites. No matter that their ‘sinful’ world was a heaven for black and whites compared to modern South Africa. No, they were racists and impure, therefore we must allow the new black rulers their transition period. But such transition periods are not temporary, they represent the incarnation of Satan into the body politic of formerly Christian nations. Utopian states will not become something other than what they are until white Christians repudiate utopian thinking and return to their Christian past with a determination to take that past into the future.

All utopian thinking, with the exception of Plato, has its origins, whether the utopians are aware of it or not, in Christ’s injunction to, “Be ye perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.” (Matthew 5:48) But there is a very big difference, the difference between heaven and hell, in looking at your own sins with the eyes of the heart in order to live the life that our Savior wants us to live, and looking at the sins of others with an illuminated mind in order to condemn those others, the original sinners of the past, so that you can proceed to build a future devoid of all non-illuminated humans. The ‘illuminated’ thinking is the product of the inhumane minds of post-Christian liberals. John Paul II was fond of apologizing, not for his own sins, but for the sins of the European Christians of the past. His apologies dovetailed with the secular liberals’ condemnations of all things European and Christian. How can a Christian leader support the purveyors of a ‘utopian’ hell on earth? It’s easy, if you make the Christ story into an illuminated philosophy. Then you can be one with the secular Illuminati of Liberaldom while still holding a position in organized Christian Jewry.

When the European people took Christ into their hearts and placed Him at the center of their culture, it almost seemed, if you looked at their culture through and not with the eye, that they were a race of people completely distinct and separate from the heathens of color. And now? The European people seem to be a race of people completely separate and distinct from the Christian Europeans, and they also still seem to be a race of people completely separate and distinct from the heathens of color, but no longer separate and distinct for the same reason as the Christian Europeans.

The modern Europeans have taken utopian thinking, which is nothing less than a denial of the sovereignty of God, into their souls, and as a consequence they do not have, for all practical purposes, any soul left to call their own. They have only their illuminated minds to rely upon. And their illuminated minds are at the mercy of Satan, who cannot defeat the heart connected to our Lord but who can easily defeat men and women who have traded their hearts of flesh for illuminated minds. The ‘purge’ mentality of the modern liberals is the result of utopian thinking that has no room for individual human beings. The slaughter of the white people will continue so long as there is no Christian reaction against the utopian thinking of the liberals, the conservatives, and the neo-pagans.

Must we then become unenlightened? Must we become prejudiced reactionaries? Yes, we must. We must become so reactionary and so prejudiced that we come to believe that charity is greater than illumination. “But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.” (Matthew 12:7) The utopian illuminati must sacrifice millions on the altars of their utopian states while the knights of charity, the antique Europeans, fought to extend His reign of charity over the entire world. To whom shall we give our allegiance and our love?

In the confrontation between Alyosha and Ivan in Dostoyevsky’s Brothers Karamazov, we see the contrast between the utopian and the Christian. Ivan asks Alyosha if he would consent to the torture of one innocent child if a perfect world without suffering could be built upon the suffering of that one innocent child. Alyosha’s reply always makes my heart soar: “No, I would not.” The modern Europeans have repudiated Alyosha’s Christian response to the utopian mandate of the liberals: “Yes, we do consent to the slaughter of the unborn, the enfeebled, and the non-illuminated whites if it will lead to the kingdom of God on earth.” But even if such a kingdom could be built, how can it be a kingdom of God on earth? Does our God sanction the ethos of the Grand Inquisitors of Liberaldom? Does He sanction the slaughter of the innocent in the name of a utopian multitude of the future?

The utopians, who are legion, whether they are ‘Christian’ utopians or secularized utopians, are joined in one incorporate union of hatred for the God who took flesh and dwelt among us and for the people with hearts of flesh who still feel connected to that God. Even the elect – there is always an elect – whom the utopians claim they are striving to serve, have no real value in the cold, merciless eyes of the utopian metaphysicians. Look at our modern American utopians. Trump, a man with some humanity, a man not completely tainted with utopian ideals, has done much to improve the economic welfare of the blacks whom utopian liberals such as Nancy Pelosi claim they serve. But what has been her reaction to Trump? “Better that every single black starve to death rather than one single non-utopian note be struck on the celestial harp of liberalism.”

An abstract love is not love. The liberals hate the white race, but they also hate the colored races to the extent that the colored races exhibit any humanity, because in the end game of liberalism all that is human must be destroyed so that a perfect inhuman world can be built over the ruins of humanity. The Word made flesh gives the lie to the liberals’ world. Is this the final battle? We know neither the day nor the hour, but we do know that the liberals and all their works come from Satan. That is all we need to know in order to rise and ride against the utopians of Liberaldom. +


(1) From 1860 to 1874, the liberals in the United States government shifted from a gradual utopian state to a Robespierre-utopian state in their attempt to eliminate the undesirable, non-utopian element in their nation, namely the white people of the South. After 1874, the liberals shifted back to a gradual, incremental attack on the white Europeans in their midst. Should there ever be an anti-utopian uprising again, the liberals stand ready to out-Robespierre Robespierre as they did once before during the Civil War and the “Reconstruction Era.”

(2) The shedding of innocent blood never bothers the utopians —

From this sleep the queen was first startled by the voice of the sentinel at her door, who cried out to her, to save herself by flight—that this was the last proof of fidelity he could give—that they were upon him, and he was dead. Instantly he was cut down. A band of cruel ruffians and assassins, reeking with his blood, rushed into the chamber of the queen, and pierced with an hundred strokes of bayonets and poniards the bed, from whence this persecuted woman had but just had time to fly almost naked, and through ways unknown to the murderers had escaped to seek refuge at the feet of a king and husband, not secure of his own life for a moment.

This king, to say no more of him, and this queen, and their infant children (who once would have been the pride and hope of a great and generous people) were then forced to abandon the sanctuary of the most splendid palace in the world, which they left swimming in blood, polluted by massacre, and strewed with scattered limbs and mutilated carcases. Thence they were conducted into the capital of their kingdom.

Two had been selected from the unprovoked, unresisted, promiscuous slaughter, which was made of the gentlemen of birth and family who composed the king’s body guard. These two gentlemen, with all the parade of an execution of justice, were cruelly and publicly dragged to the block, and beheaded in the great court of the palace. Their heads were stuck upon spears, and led the procession; whilst the royal captives who followed in the train were slowly moved along, amidst the horrid yells, and shrilling screams, and frantic dances, and infamous contumelies, and all the unutterable abominations of the furies of hell, in the abused shape of the vilest of women. –Reflections on the Revolution in France by Edmund Burke

One cannot help but think of women such as Nancy Pelosi and the legions of feminist harpies that now dominate the American political scene when we read Burke’s description of “the vilest of women.” History does indeed repeat itself. Men and women, and the women even more so than the men, become in the absence of any Christian restraints the most cruel, bloody, and inhuman creatures on the face of the earth. They rival Satan in their demonism. And in that equality, they have “become as gods” – they have become like unto the demigod of evil, the archangel Satan.

Posted in Charity, Christ, Classical liberalism, Democracy, Pride of intellect, Utopia | Tagged | Leave a comment

Our Common Hope Is Not the Noble Savage

May the Lord, who here on earth suffered aforetime on the cross for the sins of men, be a friend unto me; He has redeemed us and has given us life, a heavenly home.   

The Dream of the Rood


Our hearts are small and so are our affections – we cannot mourn deeply for all humanity. Only Christ can and does mourn deeply for us all. Outside my small circle of family and friends, I have mourned for those whom I felt drawn to because they in some small way, and in some cases in a large way, have supported His reign of charity here on earth. Hence I mourned for the singer Glen Campbell, who in later life became a Christian and sang many great hymns in honor of our Lord and Savior. And I mourned for Samuel Francis, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, and Andrew Lytle, because they were Europeans of the old stock. (I know Samuel Francis was not wholly in the Christian camp, but he was not hostile to Christianity as so many of the neo-pagans are.)

The people we mourn for when they pass who are outside our small circle of friends and family, define us as a people. The incredible outpouring of sympathy and ‘love’ for the basketball star Kobe Bryant by white people is a very sad commentary on the spiritual state of the European people. Obviously, you don’t dance on the grave of your enemy, but to mourn the passing of a man who opposed His reign of charity and supported the liberals’ reign of Satan is the act of a people who have nothing left inside of them that compels them to love what is true, noble, and beautiful, namely Jesus Christ and the people who followed in His train. That void in their souls has been filled with the love of all that is ignoble, false, and morally reprehensible – the gods of Liberaldom.

Men must have a religion; it is a great tragedy that our people, who once were the Christ-bearers, have now made it their raison d’etre to elevate the sacred negro to the pinnacle of their new pantheon of gods. Do they really love the negroes? No, they don’t. Love cannot be an abstraction, it must be rooted in our love of Christ. Outside of that reality, there is no love, there is only intellectual posturing. Who is served when a black athlete is elevated to the status of a beloved god? Are white people served? No, because they debase themselves and lose the vision of Him who saves. Are the individual black athletes who are worshipped being served? No, they are not, because they too need the God who saves; they cannot, by virtue of being black, save themselves or white people from sin and death. When will all this end? When will the European people return to their God and reject the false gods of Liberaldom? Satan gives us his answer to that question. Like the Raven in Poe’s poem, he sits above the chamber door of the European people and says, “Nevermore.” Is Satan’s word the last word?

Poe’s dark vision is infinitely superior to the non-vision of the modern Europeans who worship nature and nature’s gods, the noble savages of color. Poe faces life without the Redeemer, and he despairs, because he knows that without His love all those we loved on this earth are lost to us forever.

“Prophet!” said I, “thing of evil!—prophet still, if bird or devil!—
Whether Tempter sent, or whether tempest tossed thee here ashore,
Desolate, yet all undaunted, on this desert land enchanted—
On this home by Horror haunted—tell me truly, I implore—
Is there,—is there balm in Gilead?—tell me—tell me, I implore!”
Quoth the Raven, “Nevermore.”

“Prophet!” said I, “thing of evil!—prophet still, if bird or devil!—
By that Heaven that bends above us—By that God we both adore—
Tell this soul with sorrow laden if, within the distant Aidenn,
It shall clasp a sainted maiden whom the angels name Lenore—
Clasp a rare and radiant maiden whom the angels name Lenore.”
Quoth the Raven, “Nevermore.”

“Be that word our sign of parting, bird or fiend!” I shrieked, upstarting–
“Get thee back into the tempest and the Night’s Plutonian shore!
Leave no black plume as a token of that lie thy soul hath spoken!
Leave my loneliness unbroken!—quit the bust above my door!
Take thy beak from out my heart, and take thy form from off my door!”
Quoth the Raven, “Nevermore.”

And the Raven, never flitting, still is sitting, still is sitting
On the pallid bust of Pallas just above my chamber door;
And his eyes have all the seeming of a demon’s that is dreaming,
And the lamplight o’er him streaming throws his shadow on the floor;
And my soul from out that shadow that lies floating on the floor
Shall be lifted—nevermore!

“The Raven”

Why is Poe’s vision of despair superior to the modern Europeans’ vision of celestial liberalism? Because Poe’s vision faces the tragedy of death. From the depths of despair we can find the Redeemer. We can, in the depths of our soul, find the God who is the “grave where buried love doth live.” But if we embrace superficiality, the superficiality of a naturalized vision of death, which tells us that man is a piece of vegetable matter who returns to nature, then we will indeed be lost. Satan’s “Nevermore” will remain enshrined on our chamber door, and we will just yawn and continue to worship at the altars provided for us by our liberal overlords, the purveyors of a superficial faith in this world only.

In a speech at one of the Democratic Party presidential conventions several elections ago, Senator Bill Bradley said that the essence of America was that the American people refused to accept the tragedy of life. Americans believed, Bradley claimed, that tragedy could be overcome by democracy. Is that so? Can the ultimate tragedy, the tragedy of death, be overcome by legislation? No, of course such a tragedy cannot be overcome by legislation, but liberals of all stripes, white Americans and white Europeans, believe that they can build a world that is devoid of tragedy. How can such a belief be reconciled with the fact that we must die? Blissful happiness on this earth can’t be reconciled with a soul that yearns for immortality. But the two irreconcilables, utopia and death, can be reconciled if we cease to look on man as a creature worthy of redemption and eternal life. If man is simply a by-product of nature, then it is no tragedy if he returns to the nothingness from which he came. In liberalism, the only tragedy is the tragedy of racism, sexism, and a lack of faith in the liberals’ utopia. When the last opponents of the liberals and the liberals’ nature gods are eliminated, there will be no more tragedy, no more pain and suffering, there will only be natural creatures bent in reverence and homage to nature and nature’s gods.

You cannot change the reality of the existence of Jesus Christ as true God and true man by denying His existence. But you can change the lives of the men and women of Europe by altering their vision of the one true God. The European people’s belief in Christ crucified, Christ risen, has been destroyed by a philosophical blending process. Christ went from the status of the one true God above the natural world to that of a God who was the sum of the parts of the natural world. Then He was demoted to the status of a lesser God among the nature gods. That is why it is now possible for white Europeans to intellectually affirm their faith in Jesus Christ while giving their hearts to the greater gods, the noble savages of color. “What I can, I give Him, give Him my heart,” has become, “What I can, I give them (the gods of color), give them my heart.” But of course the heart must be dehumanized in order to become attuned to the gods of color. The cauterized heart, the heart that is a slave to superficiality of liberalism, is the building block for Satan’s kingdom of hell on earth.

If we place the ‘Dream of the Rood’ Europeans, who are my people, up against the modern Europeans, we can see why modern Europe has been plunged into darkness while old Europe contained the Light that shineth in darkness. The ‘Dream of the Rood’ people followed St. Paul’s injunction to circumcise their hearts: “Now with zeal we must search our breasts shrewdly, the vices within, with the eyes of the heart. With the other eyes, the jewels of the head, we cannot at all see through the spirit of the thought, whether good or evil dwells beneath, so that it may be pleasing unto God at the dread time.” The theologians who believed that the wisdom of men was wiser than the folly of God cauterized the hearts of the European people so that their minds could be more receptive to God. But God comes to human hearts, hearts that have been circumcised; He cannot enter the heart that has been sealed by the surgeons of liberalism. The cauterized heart cannot see — it has lost its depth, and as a consequence it only sees the abstract superficialities of the godded men of reason. When the godded men say the negro is sacred and must be worshipped, the white grazers, the men and women whose hearts are dead, say, “Amen, blessed be the sacred negro.”

Liberal-conservatives in the 1960s started referring to their mad-dog liberal cousins as ‘bleeding heart’ liberals. Nothing could be further from the truth. The essence of liberalism is represented by the heart that does not bleed. The liberals have taken the circumcised heart that is open to Christ and His people and closed it in order to infuse all mankind with their inhuman ideology of a perfect world of inhuman vegetables. The heart that truly loves responds to Christ’s divine love by loving Him in and through other human hearts of flesh. The liberal heart, which no longer bleeds because its blood has congealed, only responds to abstract theories of life because it is governed by the superficialities of the men of ideology. The false sentimentality of the hallmark greeting cards is all that the liberal world can provide for the white grazers. When they mourn, they mourn for whomever the liberal Jacobins tell them is worthy. And when they rejoice, they rejoice for whatever cause or holiday the liberals deem worthy to celebrate. The absence of a genuine inner life, a life of the spirit, is the distinguishing mark of the modern Europeans; they have no genuine feelings that they can call their own, their sorrow and their joy is second-hand.

Poe, like the author of the Dream of the Rood, faces the black despair of death. But unlike the author of the Dream of the Rood, Poe does not see past death to the Beatific Vision. What prevented Poe from seeing that the God whom he professed was the “God we both adore” could turn the defeat of death into victory? I would suggest it was the non-poetical side of Poe’s nature that prevented him from seeing through the eye to the Savior rather than with the eye to a vision of hell. Poe was a mathematical genius as well as a poetical genius. And the weakness of his poetry is that it was too mathematical. If existence is nothing but math, as the Raven above the chamber door tells us, then we must embrace the superficiality of the ‘cauterized heart’ culture of the modern Europeans or else we must commit suicide. Those are the two alternatives open to us in modern Europe. It is my contention, and it is a contention that did not originate with me, that there is a third alternative. There is the Dream of the Rood that our European progenitors adhered to just as Posthumus Leonatus, the hero of Shakespeare’s Cymbeline adheres to the heavenly dream that he sees with the inner eye of the circumcised heart:

‘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.

The constant mathematical refrain of “Nevermore” did not originate with Poe. It originated with Shakespeare. King Lear, in the face of the death of his beloved daughter Cordelia, says:

And my poor fool is hang’d! No, no, no life!
Why should a dog, a horse, a rat, have life,
And thou no breath at all? Thou’lt come no more,
Never, never, never, never, never!
Pray you, undo this button. Thank you, sir.
Do you see this? Look on her, look, her lips,
Look there, look there!

But at the end of King Lear, unlike at the end of “The Raven,” we do not despair, because in Shakespeare’s King Lear we get an overwhelming sense of a spiritual presence, a divinely human person who died on a cross, who has redeemed us from sin and death. It was not a misreading of Lear when Ernest Hemingway said that whenever he wanted to be cheered up, he read King Lear. We come to the beatific vision through the cross of Christ. If we recapture a true tragic sense of life, we will come to believe in the God-Man who is “the grave where buried love doth live.” That is the European vision, the vision of the people who circumcised their hearts and let the dear Christ enter in. +

Posted in Christian Europe, Negro worship, Resurrection | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

The False Gods of Liberaldom

For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect. But take ye heed: behold, I have foretold you all things. – Mark 13: 22-23


Another Martin Luther King Jr. day has come and gone, but the liberals have vowed, and they always keep their vow, to keep Martin Luther King Jr. in their hearts all 365 days of the year. Since that special day comes almost right after Christmas, we can get a very good idea of how the God-Man, Jesus Christ, fares in Liberaldom. The most noticeable difference between the MLK holiday and Christmas is that the liberals, who are not comfortable with the term ‘Christmas’ because they do not want Christ mentioned by name, are very comfortable mentioning the name of Martin Luther King Jr. on his special day. In fact, they revel in the sacred name of Martin Luther King Jr. What should we think of a people who exalt a person such as Martin Luther King Jr. to a god-like status far above the status of Jesus Christ? And what should we think of the church-going whites who theoretically claim to believe that Christ was the Son of God, who accept the deification of Martin Luther King Jr.? I know what I think of them. I think the liberals are desouled unmen devoid of all humanity, and the church-going grazers are Ganelons who court the favor of the wicked, because they are too cowardly to stand with the few against the many.

There is no doubt that some of the Christian missionaries in Africa, men such as Edmund Hodgson, who was tortured and slaughtered by the Baluba for daring to preach Christ crucified, Christ risen to black Africans, were well-intentioned. But there is also no doubt that the missionaries, such as Dr. Livingstone, who went to Africa suffering from an Atticus Finch syndrome, turned from Christian missionaries into the devotees of the noble black savage. Their spiritual descent into darkness represented the spiritual descent of the European people.

The worship of the noble black savage is the main pillar of the liberals’ new religion. By elevating noble black savages such as Martin Luther King Jr. to divine status, the liberals are able to give a religious sanction to their brave new world, devoid of all things white and Christian. The European people could not go back to the paganism of the colored races or the paganism of their own people before the Christian era; something had happened to the European people that made a return to pure paganism impossible. That something was, of course, their conversion, as a people, to a faith in Jesus Christ as true God and true man. There is no going back once that acceptance has been made. What can be done, however, has been done. The Europeans have become pagans of the future; they have made for themselves a new paganism that has an unholy trinity, which is the new religion in the celestial, pagan future of the liberals. The new savior in the new trinity, the sacred negro, must be upheld against all the forces of hell, consisting of white Christians, in order to maintain the thrones and altars of Liberaldom. Legalized abortion, feminism, and all the other institutionalized evils of our modern world are maintained by the people’s faith in the noble black savage.

A people without faith perishes. That is why the liberals’ have absorbed the grazers in the formerly Christian churches. They gave the grazers a new unholy trinity – reason, the noble black savage, and science. That is the liberals’ satanic equivalent of the Holy Trinity. The new Christless faith could not have triumphed over the old faith without the ‘good offices’ of the godded men in the ranks of the Christian intelligentsia. They condemned the human ties that connect us to the Savior and told us that we could only find God through their illuminated minds. But their illumination left us without the heart that loves. In the absence of that affective organ of sight, the European people made a descent into darkness. Chateaubriand’s description of man’s first fall describes the Europeans’ second fall from grace:

Observe, too, what is very important : man had it in his power to destroy the harmony of his being in two ways, either by wanting to love too much, or to know too much. He transgressed in the second way; for we are, in fact, far more deeply tinctured with the pride of science than with the pride of love; the latter would have deserved pity rather than punishment, and if Adam had been guilty of desiring to feel rather than to know too much, man himself might, perhaps, have been able to expiate his transgression, and the Son of God would not have been obliged to under take so painful a sacrifice. But the case was different. Adam sought to embrace the universe, not with the sentiments of his heart, but with the power of thought, and, advancing to the tree of knowledge, he admitted into his mind a ray of light that over powered it. The equilibrium was instantaneously destroyed, and confusion took possession of man. Instead of that illumination which he had promised himself, a thick darkness overcast his sight, and his guilt, like a veil, spread out between him and the universe. His whole soul was agitated and in commotion; the passions rose up against the judgment, the judgment strove to annihilate the passions, and in this terrible storm the rock of death witnessed with joy the first of shipwrecks.

The Genius of Christianity: or, The Spirit and Beauty of the Christian Religion

The “ray of light” that overpowers us comes from Satan, who bids us illuminate our minds so that we can be as God. That other light, the Light that shineth in darkness, comes from the God who enters human hearts. Why do we study God instead of seeking Him by searching the scriptures with our heart as St. Paul enjoined us to do? I saw this destruction by illumination applied to the European poets when I studied literature in college. You must read an author’s works with your heart if you want to see his vision. If you want to put him in a laboratory and study him, you approach his work with an illuminated mind. Neither man nor God can be known by way of the mind divorced from the heart. There was too little care taken in our church-based universities, which all became secularized citadels of the devil, of the sin of pride. By seeking illuminated knowledge rather than affective knowledge, the European people became like unto the demonic angel Satan, and they lost their connection to the Son of God.

If a man wants to be one with the liberals and keep one foot in the Christless Christian church of his choice, he can do so by embracing cosmic Christianity, which allows for a vague, nondescript God who serves as a prop for the liberals’ gods. But such a man can never go to the depths of his own soul for comfort, because there is nothing there; he has given his soul to the devil through the mediation of the liberals, who have built Satan’s kingdom of hell on earth through the unholy trinity that is maintained and perpetuated by such festivals as the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday.

It is clear that the European grazers have placed their hopes in the new paganized utopia of the liberals, which is sustained by the new savior, the sacred negro. Why have they given their assent to the “cold malignity” of the liberal metaphysicians? What did they have to lose? Old Europe was built on the European people’s Dream of the Rood. They were the people who took the living God into their hearts. If that heartfelt vision, that Dream of the Rood, is condemned by the great ‘Christian’ theologians, then the Christian people will seek new gods. Look to our universities if you wish to see the new paganization embodied. They have become so imbued with the spirit of Satan that it is no longer possible for Satan to distinguish between the universities and his kingdom of hell in hell. As he prowls about the world seeking the ruin of souls, he often does a double-take when he visits the local colleges – “Wait a minute, am I in my hell below, or in the new hell on earth? I can’t see any difference!”

Education is the key; we all must be educated. First the clergy told us that we must be educated before we could know God. Then the universities, founded by clergymen, told us we must be educated so that we wouldn’t fall prey to prejudice and superstition – the prejudice of love for our kith and kin, and the superstition of faith, faith in the Christ of old Europe. So long as we worship education, we will worship the liberals’ unholy trinity. I vividly remember a committed pro-lifer complaining to me while we were on the picket lines that his nephew was going to work at a blue collar job and get married rather than go to college. “Why is that bad?” I asked him. “Because you must get an education,” was his reply. Yes, we all must be educated. We must be educated to hate everything white and Christian. Every poll ever taken indicates that the ‘educated’ people are liberals. Why then do professed Christians continue to support education? Was Christ wrong when he chose non-educated men to be His disciples? Was St. Paul just being whimsical when he said that the folly of God was wiser than the wisdom of men? Was Christ Himself an idiot? Yes, He was, at least according to the dictates of liberalism, the liberalism that the European people have embraced.

The sign of contradiction to the liberals, and the man who puts the coward’s name on the modern Europeans, is the man born blind who was healed by that ‘idiot,’ our divine Lord and Savior. The man born blind defies the educated ones, the scribes and Pharisees, because he loves the man who gave him his sight. And when Christ tells him who He is, the man born blind falls to his knees and worships Him. We have come a long way from, “Yes, we’ll gather at the river… that flows by the throne of God,” to its opposite: “Yes, we’ll gather at the university… that encompasses the center of hell.”

The liberals have, in the name of education, extended their control over the Europeans so that they now have no real opposition left. Their hysteria over Trump is the hysteria of a fanatical cleaning freak who finds one tiny spot on her kitchen floor. All the roads in the modern European nations lead to Liberaldom, because all the major roads of Europe have been constructed according to the theories of the educated men in church and state. No matter what road the wandering European takes, he ends up in Liberaldom.

The liberals are Shylock: they cannot be converted:

You may as well go stand upon the beach
And bid the main flood bate his usual height;
You may as well use question with the wolf,
Why he hath made the ewe bleat for the lamb;
You may as well forbid the mountain pines
To wag their high tops and to make no noise
When they are fretten with the gusts of heaven;
You may as well do any thing most hard
As seek to soften that—than which what’s harder?—
His Jewish heart.

-The Merchant of Venice

And the white grazers are the parents of the man born blind; they will not stand with the Christian Europeans, because they are afraid of being cast out of the liberals’ synagogue, which provides them with all the ‘comforts’ of life: a personal savior, who is the sacred negro, a promise of economic prosperity, and wonderful diversions such as Stupor Bowls and Twitter.

Is this the promised end or image of that horror? The liberals have had over one hundred years of dominance, yet, they still tell us that they need more time in order to build their kingdom of heaven on hearth. No, they have had enough time. This is their world. They have built the kingdom of hell on earth. Is this, our modern Europe, the apex of civilization? If this un-civilization is our final destiny, then we are of all men most to be pitied, because the men and women of modern Europe have no humanity; they have become formless, soulless pieces of inert matter. We need all of our faith to believe that there once was a European Narnia. The dead are not dead, they speak to us from across that seemingly impassable divide. They speak to us of a land of pure delight, presided over by the Man of Sorrows who gave the man born blind his sight and who will, if we see with our hearts, give us the faith, hope, and charity to transcend this world of un-men and see the God of our people: “Lord, I believe. And he worshipped Him.” +

Posted in Negro worship, Neo-paganism, Pride of intellect, Religion of Satan | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Our History is a Fairy Tale

Gustave Dore – Christ Feeding the Multitude

Will you wear the armour that I bring you, for unless you do you will never succeed in the enterprise, nor kill the horrible monster of Evil? The armour is not new, it is scratched and dinted with many a hard-fought battle, but if you wear it rightly no armour that ever was made will serve you so well.”

-Lady Una’s appeal to the Red Cross Knight, from The Faerie Queene by Edmund Spenser


I do not think, although I could not swear to it, that a week has ever gone by in the United States, and quite possibly in Europe as well, in which there has not been some sort of televised documentary on the life of Adolph Hitler. And in addition to the television documentaries there are enough biographies of Adolph Hitler to fill a huge wing of a vast library. We grant that Hitler was a significant historical figure during the 1930s and 1940s; however, this still doesn’t explain the extraordinary amount of attention he continues to receive from the liberals. So we must ask the question – why are the liberals, after all these years since his death, still so obsessed with Hitler? Let us first dismiss the oft-stated liberal assertion that Hitler was some sort of supernaturally evil being, the likes of which the world had never seen before. Certainly, he was a vicious tyrant and a mass murderer, but the world had seen mass murderers and vicious tyrants before the advent of Adolph Hitler. And Hitler was not the worst of the mass murderers and vicious tyrants of the 20th century. He did not come anywhere close to Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, or the abortion doctors of the European nations. So the question remains: Why has Hitler been demonized by the liberals? The liberals have shunned and demonized Hitler for the same reason that Ivan Karamazov shunned and demonized Smerdyakov. Smerdyakov was the intellectual demon child of Ivan, who was acting on the intellectual premise of Ivan Karamazov’s atheism: Everything is lawful if there be no God. And Hitler was the demon child of the liberals. He believed, as all liberals believe, that man is part of nature, nature as defined by science.

The meaning of the word ‘natural’ changed as the European people became more and more enamored and enslaved by the scientific view of life. In Walter Scott’s Europe, what was natural to man were his spiritual connections to his fellow men and his God. Man’s biological nature was merely the outer garment of his true spiritual substance underneath. But in modern Europe the outer biological garment became all in all. And if mere biological nature is all in all, then whatever is natural, as defined by science, is justifiable and meritorious. Hitler justified his cruelties by referring to the cruelty of nature, just as our modern liberals justify their ‘family planning’ by way of abortion by referencing nature as defined by science. Isn’t motherhood more natural than the violent termination of the natural process? No, not if nature is devoid of the spirit of God, who created the natural world. Motherhood is of the spirit – that is what the Christian asserts. If there is no animating spirit in nature, then what is natural is what is cruel and merciless: We are all laboratory rats subject to the whims of the men and women in the white laboratory coats. That child must die, that child can live. That race, the white race, must die out, and that other race, the black race, must be perpetuated. Why? Because science, the abstract science of the liberals, must be all in all. So it is written, so it shall be.

Internecine wars between liberals are the most deadly wars of all, because neither side sees human beings as anything more than biological collectives. And biological collectives have no real value. It is only the Christian who sees God in history rather than God in nature, who values individual human beings. We have gotten so far away from the God who entered human history that we cannot even imagine a time when the European people saw themselves as God’s people, separate from the world of the natural sciences.

When Hamlet rebuked Rosencrantz and Guildenstern for trying to play upon him like a pipe, and when Dostoyevsky’s Underground Man said that, “A man lives his whole life to prove he is not a piano key,” they were asserting the European vision of existence, asserting their place in the Christ story. Our Lord took great pains to establish that His world was not the natural, mathematical world of 2 + 2 = 4. Do you recall what He said in Mark chapter eight? After He warns His disciples to “beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the leaven of Herod,” and they think that He is talking about eating bread, He asks them why they still do not understand Him.

And when Jesus knew it, he saith unto them, Why reason ye, because ye have no bread? perceive ye not yet, neither understand? have ye your heart yet hardened? Having eyes, see ye not? and having ears, hear ye not? and do ye not remember? When I brake the five loaves among five thousand, how many baskets full of fragments took ye up? They say unto him, Twelve. And when the seven among four thousand, how many baskets full of fragments took ye up? And they said, Seven. And he said unto them, How is it that ye do not understand?

There is something in existence that is more than math. Christ was and is that something.

If I could paint like Gustave Dore I would paint a picture of liberalism as the kingdom of hell. And within that kingdom, the worshippers of Baal, the men and women of science, would be fighting eternally for supremacy in hell. The most depressing thing about the alternative news sites on the internet is that they offer us no Christian alternative to the hell of liberalism. The followers of Mithra, the neo-pagans, are forever attacking the followers of Cybele, who most certainly have the upper hand at present, but within that internecine warfare, there is no Christian presence. Mussolini, who started out as a communist and then shifted to fascism because, “Communism has no virility,” embodied the two different sides, feminine and masculine, of the same pagan coin.

Time flies even when you’re not having fun. It seems like yesterday, but when I count the years it was about thirty years ago that I had a series of conversations with a “hard science” conservative. “The whole problem in modern America,” the hard science man maintained, “Is that there is too much emphasis on liberal arts and not enough emphasis on the hard sciences.” The hard science man then went on an anti-liberal arts tirade, reminiscent of Thomas Gradgrind’s apologia for “facts” in Charles Dickens’ Hard Times.

Since the hard science man was my elder, I was respectful to him, but I made it clear that I was not in agreement with him. “The problem is not that we have too much of liberal arts and not enough of hard science, the problem is that science has encroached upon the liberal arts to the extent that we no longer have liberal arts in any of our universities. Our liberal arts, especially our literature, has become part of the science departments. Our poets are only read, when they are read at all, through the prism of the ‘sciences’ of psychology, sociology, and anthropology.”

“What subject do you teach?”


“Ah ha, no wonder you hate the hard sciences.”

“I don’t hate the hard sciences, I just think they should stay where they belong. If we take science with us when we commune with God or with our fellow men, then we will destroy our God and our fellow men.”

It was all to no avail; the hard science man went off into the night railing against the humanities and extolling the beauty and wonder of the “hard sciences.” AS he wandered off, I thought not only of Thomas Gradgrind, I also remembered that Russell Kirk had written a letter during World War II to a hard science man who had recommended we dispense with the humanities for the duration of the war. Kirk wrote that if we did that we might as well join the enemy rather than fight them. I think Kirk was a little too late with his warning; the major reason for World War II was that science had already absorbed the humanities.

The pride of science, which is the original sin, was and is part of our fallen nature. But that sin, that original sin, gained an institutionalized position in the European world when Scholasticism, the scientific study of God, became the truth and the way in the Catholic and Protestant churches. Our modern European hell on earth is the final outcome of the internecine quarrels between the Platonists and the Aristotelians, the Thomists and the Calvinists, and the Jungians and the Freudians. The devil smiles and bids us choose one of the combatants over the other. But all scientized theologies lead to hell, because studies of God always become studies of the God-in-nature rather than God in our history. Our God is the fairy tale God, who came to us in the flesh in order to assure us that we are “more than nature,” we belong in the fairy tale of God, which is the fairy tale of Christ’s birth, crucifixion and resurrection from the dead.

In Shakespeare’s The Tempest, an assortment of sinners are set upon a seemingly deserted island. Unbeknownst to them, they have been placed there by Prospero, a man who possesses, through the power of prayer “which pierces so that it assaults Mercy itself and frees all faults,” the ability to bend the natural world to the spiritual realities of charity and mercy. In the face of one miracle after another, one of the sinners proclaims, “And there is in this business more than nature was ever conduct of.” Yes, that is what the historical drama of the European people is all about. Our people, as distinct from all other peoples and cultures, once saw that there was something in our lives here on earth more than nature. Through the gradual scientizing of God, we have lost that connection to Christ and substituted a vague, universalist pantheism for our historical consciousness of the living God.

During the era of the medieval scholastics, who were the architects of modern liberalism, the great thinkers first lined up behind Plato because his philosophy allowed for some unknown spiritual force, whereas Aristotle, the realist, was an atheist. After Aquinas, Aristotle rather than Plato became the Christian philosophers’ light bearer, and Plato was deemed, by scholars such as Ronald Knox, to be the source of all heresies. In subsequent years, the Plato vs. Aristotle debate was continued by Jung and Freud. Jung saw a cosmic force in existence while Freud adhered to the strict atheistic line. But such controversies were all within the confines of scientific naturalism, which has no room for the God above nature. Once our minds, abstracted from the heart that loves, are focused on nature and nature’s God, the true God and true Man becomes lost in the cosmic mists. When our moral imaginations are centered on Christianity as a cosmic melting pot of religions, we come up with a superficial God unable to sustain hearts of flesh, much like the God depicted by so many of the Renaissance painters. Rembrandt was one of those superficial painters in his early years, but he became something quite different in his later years. He became a man with a deep consciousness of the Christ who entered human history, the God that can only be seen by men and women who have given Him their hearts.

The sickness unto death of the European people has come upon them because they no longer see with their hearts. Like the dwarves in C. S. Lewis’s book The Last Battle, the modern Europeans are not going to be taken in by a fairy story. But what if that fairy story is true? It is truly astonishing that the European people no longer care to know about the Christ of old Europe. They have moved on to a new Christianity more compatible with the natural world. Dickens’ Haunted Man was desolate when he lost his connection to his fellow men and his God through his desire to remove all sorrow and trouble from his life. That is not the case with the modern Europeans. They do not feel the loss of their humanity when they embrace the liberals and their promise of an earthly utopia, devoid of all sorrow and trouble and all humanity, because they have left the Christ of history, our human history, and replaced Him with the gods of inhumanity, the gods of science. Everything cruel and unnatural, unnatural from a Christian viewpoint, has the divine sanction of science in our modern un-civilization of desolation.

The devil can create a tempest — he has done just that – but he doesn’t know what the extent of its damage will be, because he doesn’t know if there are any Europeans left on earth who will be willing to stand in the face of the tempest. When we take His love personally, when our hearts comprehend His sacrifice, we will take the attack on His Europe personally, and we will stand firm and resist the fierce tempestuous storms of liberalism, set in motion by the devil. We shall not return to paganism in any of its modern forms, not by way of Hitler, Stalin, or cosmic Christianity. We must dwell in His world, the world of the Word made flesh, and defend that world with our whole heart, mind, and soul. +

Posted in Charity, Fairy tale mode of understanding, Scientism | Tagged | Leave a comment

Liberalism Confounded


Let us say you are a parent of an adult child who has either mothered or fathered a child out of wedlock. You do not approve of having children out of wedlock, but the child now exists, so you must try and help your adult child deal with his or her child as a Christian should. This is the way I feel about so many of the wars within our democratic, liberal culture. I don’t approve of democracy – it is anti-Christian – but it exists, so I can’t help but sympathize with the men and women who are struggling within the confines of democracy, however misguidedly, to support some values that are not wholly liberal values. I am referring to President Trump’s current battle with the democratic jackals over the Iranian bombing. I do not believe that we should have troops in Iran — I do not believe we should have troops anywhere in the Mideast — yet all of the American presidents in the 20th and 21st centuries, Democrat and Republican, have chosen to place American troops in Iran. So, with that as a given, just as the child out of wedlock is a given, I want to see those American troops protected as a Christian leader should protect his own soldiers. Within that context what Trump did was right and proper. Pelosi and her legions from hell place themselves in the position of the Scribes and the Pharisees who had no concern for the blind, the sick, and the lame that Christ healed; they were only concerned with attacking Christ, so they used His miracles of healing that He performed on the Sabbath as an excuse to denigrate Him. So it shall always be with the mad-dog liberals. Any Christian act of a public official will be condemned because the liberals will always oppose that which is Christian; and it is Christian to defend one’s own.

Trump’s religion, which is a fusion of Christianity and Judaism, is not my religion. Nor do I believe, as Trump does, in America and the democratic way. But Trump is at least a man with some convictions not wholly incompatible with old Europe. He has actually tried, in contrast to Bush and Reagan, to do something about legalized abortion. And he has actually tried, in contrast to all the other presidents of the 20th and 21st centuries, to base his economic policies on the needs of individual Americans rather than on abstract utopian theories.

Trump is a rarity in public office, just as Andrew Jackson and Teddy Roosevelt were rarities: he is a man. And a man, in contrast to a self-serving politician, will fight for what he believes in. Trump’s willingness to fight for a set of values that are not in complete harmony with the liberals’ values has made him the most hated man in Liberaldom. Even Pope Francis the blasphemer has joined his liberal compatriots in their attack on Trump. Why should a leader of a white nation who is not a white nationalist, but who does not want to eliminate the white race, earn the hatred of the liberals and the pope? We know the answer to that question. There must be nothing left of old Europe in the new world of liberty, equality, and fraternity. Trump’s moderate liberalism, which allows for a remnant of European civilization, is not acceptable. Everything that stinks of Christian Europe must be eliminated from the brave, new, utopian Europe. Hence Trump, the 1950s liberal who has retained a man’s courage and a heart of flesh, must be opposed by all liberals, religious and lay.

I find it incredible that conservative-liberals such as Ann Coulter do not realize that we will never see another Republican president even remotely as good as Trump. It is quite obvious, if you take off your democratic blinders, that our vaunted democracy does not produce men with the courage to defy the liberals, it produces unmen who grovel before the liberals in the hopes that they will allow them a place in Liberaldom. Trump represents the last dying gasp of the white man’s participation in American politics, just as Hendrik Verwoerd was the last genuine white man to govern South Africa.

Tragically, the white grazers who voted for Trump did not see his election as a rearguard defense, giving them a little breathing room to get ready for the liberals’ final assault on the white race. Instead they viewed his election as a victory for the onward and upward movement of the American people. To proceed upon the assumption that progressive, democratic ideals can replace white pietas is not a progression, it is a descent into hell. The modern European democracies are grounded in the satanic ethos of the French Revolution. You can’t restore that which has been lost, white pietas, by clinging to a slightly higher elevation on the slippery slope leading to hell. You must climb out of the slippery slope and put an iron-clad Christian roadblock in front of that slippery slope.

The Christian barrier to our descent into hell consists of our love for our kith and kin in and through the Savior, who is Christ the Lord. The conservative-liberals who want to live on a higher elevation on the slippery slope are constantly looking for white leaders and white protest movements that are within the framework of democracy. Such leaders are not leaders, they are men with a remnant of pietas, which they have retained because they have something within them that is undemocratic, something ancient and Christian. So it is with the protest movements. Can we build on such leaders and such protest movements? No, we cannot, because such leaders and such protest movements act on the assumption that we can compromise with Satan. You can’t maneuver from within the devil’s kingdom. There are no safe sanctuaries in Satan’s house, which is a kingdom diametrically opposed to our Lord’ house of many mansions.

Let me return, once again, to that courtroom in Act IV of Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice. Shakespeare poses the question: What if the devil’s will, that charity and mercy should perish from the earth, becomes the law? Then every Christian will be at the mercy of the devil’s Sanhedrin of liberals. The European people, over time, have buried Shakespeare’s warning in the verbiage of democracy, pluralism, and diversity. As a consequence, we now live according to the ethical code of Shylock: “I hate him because he is a Christian.” The love that once was there has been replaced by the liberals’ hatred of everything stemming from old Europe, everything that is charitable, merciful, and morally beautiful.

Once the devil has institutionalized his will, once he has made white pietas and Christian charity illegal, then every lifeline that the white grazer clings to plunges him all the deeper into the pit of hell. But how is it possible for a drowning man to refuse the lifelines that are offered to him? If he refuses the devil’s lifelines, how can he be sure that another lifeline will ever come his way? “You said you would come back, but you did not,” is the accusation that the Grand Inquisitor hurls at Christ. Satan has taken advantage of Christ’s absence to impose his will on the European people: “He is not coming back, which means He never really existed. Trust in me and what I can give you.” The European people have accepted that Faustian bargain.

This a most singular tragedy, this tragedy of the European people. We see before us a people incapable of responding to the Ghost of Christmas Past, who bids Scrooge place his hand on the angelic ghost’s heart in order to be sustained in his journey backward in time, a time when he still had a heart of flesh. Scrooge was an easy reclamation compared to the modern Europeans, because Scrooge could be moved by the little human things, namely his sentimental attachments to a Christian woman and a charitable employer. The modern Europeans possess something that Scrooge did not possess, which has allowed them to keep Christ out of Liberaldom. They possess an ideology that has banished the past from their lives, except as a thing of ridicule and disgust. They have utopian ideologies that ‘free’ them from any connection to old Europe. The feminist looks to the new woman who has left the nurture of children behind, the mad-dog liberal looks to a future without whites and their God, the Christian clergyman looks to a future in which the European Christ has been replaced by the cosmic Christ, and the neo-pagan looks to a future of brilliant neo-pagan minds purged of the sentimental prejudices and superstitions of the past. The strength of ideology has given the European people hearts that cannot be touched by anything humane or Christian. Can such people even be called a people? No, they cannot be called a people. They are an aggregate herd of subhuman creatures filled with the pride of their pathetic, imbecilic minds and the fear of being cast out of the aggregate herd of ideologically-minded monkeys, who are devoid of all the attributes of human beings.

Yeats saw that Christ was no longer the lodestar of Western civilization, but he didn’t see it as a tragedy, because he thought that a new savior, a “rough beast,” could be fashioned by great occult thinkers such as William Butler Yeats. Has the “rough beast” culture of the modern Europeans produced a savior? Yes, it has. It has produced the noble black savage. But the new savior is devoid of faith, hope, and charity. Can we live without those relics from old Europe? I can’t and I won’t. If a stubborn, unyielding defiance is all that is left to us, let us maintain that stubborn, unyielding defiance until the ending of the world. That is little enough to do for Him who has redeemed us with His blood. Christ has woven us into His story, which ends in His Kingdom come. At the poetic core of the European civilization that now stands condemned is that heavenly vision vouchsafed to all those who have kept their hearts alive, untainted and unsullied by the stink of the modern ideologies of liberalism. He has not left us alone, He has sent us a Comforter, and that Comforter resides in hearts of flesh.

It is very unscientific to rely on something that cannot be seen by the material eye. But that unseen something, that gentle voice of the Holy Ghost, enjoins us to look to Him who saves. In the midst of Liberaldom, which is a charnel house, we must look back and embrace the Suffering Servant who was the poetic center of old Europe. He can and must remain, as the old hymns proclaim, our strength and our refuge, even if the ideologues of modernity tell us we must look to a new future without the Christ of our dear, dear land of storybooks. Like unto a child, that is our faith; we are still and always shall be His children. +

Posted in Christian religion, Democracy, Liberalism, Pietas, Religion of Satan | 1 Comment

O Holy Child of Bethlehem

“The world is no doubt encroaching on our families and our Christmas. The hatred against traditional morality is becoming so intense as to be scarcely believable.” – Letter from a friend, December 21, 2019

But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitude that they should ask Barabbas, and destroy Jesus. – Matthew 27: 20


Let me begin the new year with a Christmas reflection – There are no longer Christmas truces. When the European people were still ethically Christian (ca. 1914-1965) and still in part Christ-haunted, you could have contact with liberals without feeling you were lying down with some kind of reptilian monster. They still, at least at Christmas time, showed some signs of humanity. But now it is quite different. The modern liberals, acting on the assumptions of their liberal progenitors — assumptions that their progenitors often did not act on — have pushed onward to liberalism’s ultimate conclusion, the worship of Satan and the hatred of Christ. When the creatures called liberals have reached that ‘beast in man’ state of existence, or should I say non-existence, any contact with them brings us to the sadness beyond sadness and the anger beyond anger. And since the liberals are in power, the celebration of Christmas can never be just a peaceful family affair; it must be of necessity a continuance of the same war against Satan and his minions that we wage during the other 364 days of the year.

During Christmas in my family we read The Christmas Carol and the other Christmas stories I have mentioned previously rather than King Lear, but in terms of our stance vis-à-vis the surrounding liberal world, we remain just as opposed to the liberals at Christmas time as we remain opposed to them during the rest of the year. In fact, I find that the Christian ramparts must be even more fiercely defended at Christmas than at any other time of the year because Satan, through his liberal minions, intensifies his attack on Christ and his people during the Christmas season. And there is a Satanic logic behind the liberals’ maniacal Christmas attacks – “Don’t let them look back, don’t let them get warm and fuzzy over the Babe in the manger. Our world, which must be all of humanity’s world, is in the future, a future without white Europeans who worship a fairy tale God.”

In 1959 Walt Disney produced the last of his great animated films. It was a straight-forward retelling of Perrault’s fairy tale, Sleeping Beauty. In the finale, Prince Phillip, having hewed through the thorns separating him from the Princess Aurora, who is Sleeping Beauty, prepares to restore the Princess with “love’s first kiss.” But Maleficent cannot permit such a consummation. She turns herself into a dragon as she declares, “Now prepare to deal with me and all the powers of hell!” The Prince does deal with her: he hurls the sword of truth into the dragon’s heart. Maleficent disappears, and only the sword of truth, which is also a cross, remains in the ground. Little did Disney know, nor did I know when I saw that movie as a child, that some fifty years later another movie studio, still bearing the name of Disney, would produce a film in which Maleficent was the feminist heroine of the Sleeping Beauty film. There has been an immoral revolution in our culture. We have shifted from a people who revered the custom and manners of Christian Europe to a people who revere and venerate Satan and all the powers of hell. What has brought about this second fall of man and what prevents us, as a people, from climbing out of hell?

The European people fell from grace when they allowed the devil’s sneer to replace their Lord’s loving embrace. The classic Christmas carols of the European people all speak of a filial bond between Christ and His people—

  • “Let loving hearts enthrone Him”
  • “Son of God, love’s pure light”
  • “Where meek souls will receive Him still, The dear Christ enters in”
  • “Love came down at Christmas”
  • “Born that men no more may die, Born to raise the sons of earth, Born to give them second birth”
  • “Yet what I can I give Him, give Him my heart”
  • “Lo, He abhors not the Virgin’s womb”

Are the Christmas carols that sprang from the heart of Christian Europe out of line with the message of the prophets, the Gospel of Christ, and the epistles of St. Paul? No, they are not. They are completely in accord with the prophets, the Gospels, and St. Paul. We are connected to Christ through our humanity. The God who did not abhor the Virgin’s womb cannot be known by way of the syllogism, He must be known through the human heart. The devil, after he was cast out of heaven, sought to sever mankind’s filial relationship with God by appealing to their pride of reason. He succeeded beyond his wildest dreams only to be defeated by Christ’s divine condescension on the cross. After that defeat, Satan retrenched; he began, all over again, to attack mankind using the same gambit that he had used in the Garden of Eden: “Ye shall be as Gods.”

Have the liberals become gods? Yes, in their own minds they have; they are the first part of the new trinity. They are reason undeterred by prejudice and superstition. And their pure reason, backed by the Holy Ghost of science, has discovered that the noble black savage, in the abstract, is the Savior who must be worshipped and adored. This new faith is completely and unalterably opposed to the Christian faith. There can be no middle ground between the liberals’ triune faith and the triune faith of the antique Europeans. The churchmen’s attempt to deify their abstract intellects while maintaining their faith in Christ has only resulted in their capitulation to liberalism. When they denounced the heart-to-heart connection to the Savior by demonizing all the human ties that connect us to God, particularly our love of kith and kin, they left themselves and their followers bereft of the God who enters human hearts. You cannot make up a new Christianity based on pure reason and expect your people to maintain the same passion and intensity in their faith as their European predecessors who believed in the human Christ, the Christ of the Christmas carols and the Gospels. What you will get is soulless automatons who give an intellectual nod to God by attending church while they give their hearts to the liberals’ world and the liberals’ savior.

The European people have become like unto Sisyphus. They will never get the rock up to the top of the hill so long as they adhere to the Christianity of the Sanhedrin. Why, when Christ bid us worship in spirit and truth, have the European people given themselves over to the Sanhedrin? Why is “truth” confined to that which can be put in a golden bowl by men of reason? If our faith is always dependent on what the men of reason in the organized churches tell us, then our faith is always in the ever-changing future. We must always wait for the final results of their research before we can know and believe in the living God. The Catholic must wait for the next council and the next pope, a good pope, before he can know God, and the Protestant must wait upon new Biblical studies before he can know God. In the meantime, while the Europeans wait for the light, they have made their peace with liberalism. It is the grazers’ adherence to the anti-Christian Christian Sanhedrin that keeps the liberals’ kingdom of hell on earth in order. Liberalism is the antithesis of Christianity, it can only be defeated by Europeans who believe in the one true God, the God of the prophets, the God of the Gospels, the God of St. Paul, and the God of our people when they had hearts of flesh.

As the liberals become more blatantly Satanic, the grazers have become more bovine, completely oblivious to the evils of liberalism. Maleficent stands before them representing all the powers of hell, and the European grazers continue to chew their cuds and graze in the fields of liberalism. There is no liberal blasphemy that can stir the European grazer to the point of outrage. There is no blasphemy, no evil that can make the grazer say, “Stop! This must not go on!” What you have are mild disagreements that can be worked out through the democratic process. Let me relate, once again, something that a veteran pro-life protestor told me when I entered the anti-abortion picket lines as a young man. I asked the veteran why we didn’t, because we were many, just storm the abortuaries and burn them to the ground. The long-time protestor told me that he had lined up hundreds of men when the clinics first started, who were willing to do just that. But their parish priest got wind of it and denounced such ‘violence’ from the pulpit. That is the essence of Sanhedrin Christianity – the men of intellect will always side with the powers of hell against Christ’s reign of charity, because in their own minds they do not believe that Christ entered human hearts and established a realm of charity on this earth that must be defended against all the powers of hell. What is hell to the churchmen? Hell is the parishioner who does not accept their word as law. They believe that only one thing is needful – that they, and they alone, should tell us what God wills. In the case of legalized abortion, it was the clerical apostate’s decision that ‘God’s will’ was that any opposition to abortion should remain within the confines of democracy. But what if democracy exists to ensure that Satan can rule in perpetuity? Must we submit, must we be ruled by Maleficent and all the powers of hell?

The shadows of hell have gradually enveloped the European people so that now they no longer believe there ever was a light in the darkness. Dylan Thomas, a religious atheist, raged against the dying of the light, but in the end he knew that, “darkness is right.” Is that the final word – is the darkness of hell our destiny? Is it the ultimate reality?

If we live in Liberaldom without rejecting Liberalism in its entirety, we will come to believe that “darkness is right.” When Gratiano, one of the Christian Venetians trying to save Antonio from Shylock, is brought face to face with Shylock’s unalterable determination to have his pound of flesh despite the Christians’ appeals for mercy, he says:

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

Gratiano almost returns to intellectual paganism because he sees that Shylock’s merciless cruelty has seemingly been given the sanction of law. But of course Portia, acting the part of our Lord and Savior, brings true charity into the law, and the light triumphs over darkness. Gratiano’s wavering faith is restored, and all is right in Christian Venice.

We misread Merchant of Venice if we simply take the play as an anti-Semitic tirade. Shakespeare is not a neo-pagan — he does not think the Jews are irretrievably damned as a people. He makes that clear when he depicts the conversion of Shylock’s daughter to Christianity. But he does think that the unrepentant Jew, the Jew who has set himself against Christ’s mercy, is a “damn’d, inexecrable dog.” And so are all liberals, whether they be Jew or Gentile, inexecrable dogs, when they set themselves up as an organized Sanhedrin opposed to the Light of the world. And we will become pagans with the souls of beasts if we adhere to the blended Christianity of any or all of the modern branches of the Christian Sanhedrin.

Pride of reason and fear of being cast out of the liberals’ synagogues keep the European people in darkness. Will they ever rise up out of the slime pits of liberalism? Only if something inside them gives them the courage to defy the liberals’ and the clergymen’s intellectual sneer. Christ did not abhor the virgin’s womb. We shall not abhor the Christ Child, born of the virgin Mary. We shall love Him in spite of Maleficent and all the powers of hell. +

Posted in Christmas, Liberalism, Sanhedrin Christianity | Tagged , | 1 Comment

Remembrances: Those Who Mourn

While he yet spake, there cometh one from the ruler of the synagogue’s house, saying to him, Thy daughter is dead; trouble not the Master. But when Jesus heard it, he answered him, saying, Fear not: believe only, and she shall be made whole. And when he came into the house, he suffered no man to go in, save Peter, and James, and John, and the father and the mother of the maiden. And all wept, and bewailed her: but he said, Weep not; she is not dead, but sleepeth. And they laughed him to scorn, knowing that she was dead. And he put them all out, and took her by the hand, and called, saying, Maid, arise. And her spirit came again, and she arose straightway: and he commanded to give her meat.

Luke 8: 49-55


Act I. Scene 1.

Inn Keeper: Are the tables set in the banquet room?

Waitress I: Not yet, your wife told us not to set the tables too soon, because she doesn’t want the tables to get dirty before the guests get here.

Inn Keeper: For God’s sake, it’s only a half-hour at most before they start arriving. Set the damn tables. You can get that idiot kid to help you. Now hurry up, I need to check on the dinner preparations.

[He exits, and the waitresses hear him yelling in the kitchen.]

Waitress II: He’s a bear tonight.

Waitress I: Well, this is the night when he gets out of the red – it’s Mandela-Cybele-Christmas Eve. He’ll have over one hundred people from the ecumenical conference here.

Waitress II: He’s lucky they put up that conference center so close. Business was bad before that came in.

Waitress I: It keeps me working.

Waitress II: This is my first Mandela-Cybele-Christmas Eve here – do these people tip a lot?

Waitress I: It depends on how much they drink.

Waitress II: I understand.

Waitress I: Well, I suppose I should find the idiot and get him to help us.

Waitress II: Mr. Marshal doesn’t seem to like him much, why does he keep him around, particularly since the kid is deaf and dumb?

Waitress I: He’s not really a kid, I think he must be in his mid-twenties, and he isn’t deaf and dumb. He can hear, but he can’t speak.

Waitress II: He gives me the creeps.

Waitress I: Well, he is a good worker. He does whatever you tell him.

Waitress II: Is that why Joe keeps him on?

Waitress II: No, Joe thinks he is worthless. He came here 6 weeks ago, two weeks before you started. Mrs. Marshal was sick at the time, nothing serious, but she needed extra help in the kitchen and with the errands. The idiot was just there; I think he was trying to get a handout. Mrs. Marshal hired him on a temporary basis and she has taken a liking to him. He is kind of like a family pet now, at least to Mrs. Marshal. She won’t let Joe fire him.

Waitress I: There he is, Hey, over here, give us a hand.

[The ‘idiot’ proceeds to help with the tablecloths.]


Act I. Scene 2.

George Jackson, a slight, balding man in his mid-forties, his wife, Joan, an attractive woman in her mid-thirties, and their daughter, Louisa, aged eight, enter the restaurant.

Joan: This is a lovely view, you can see the snow falling on the mountains.

George: I just hope it doesn’t fall on the roads below the mountains. If it does, we’ll be stuck here. I didn’t want to drive tonight…

Joan: You’re such a gloomy Gus, why can’t you enjoy the moment without worrying about things? We’ve just been to the most wonderful Mandel-Cybele-Christmas Eve ceremony I’ve ever seen. And to think that all over the civilized world people are worshipping Mandela and his people and Cybele just as we do.

Daughter: Mommy, why do we call it Mandela-Cybele-Christmas Eve, why don’t we just call it Mandela-Cybele Eve?

Joan: Haven’t they explained that to you in school?

Daughter: No.

Joan: Well, they should have told you about it. Jesus Christ was a very good man who lived a long, long time ago. He went around the country he lived in, teaching the principles of racial equality and feminism. His message was so unpopular with the white males in his country that they killed him. But by his death he paved the way for our true appreciation of the black race and womankind.

Daughter: But we are not all equal mother, teacher says that the black race is the holy race and the white race is the sick and sinful race.

Joan: That’s right, but Christ didn’t know all that in his time, he simply prepared the way for the worship of the black race and the liberation of women. His message was perverted by a terrible man called St. Paul, but ultimately truth won out and Christ became what he was meant to be, the forerunner of the sacred black race and feminism.

George: Dear, I don’t know how much theology Louisa can understand.

Joan: She needs to hear the truths of our faith. I’m really surprised that her teacher is not telling her about our evolution as a people from darkness to light.

George: Just let her enjoy her meal.

Joan: I don’t like that kind of irreverence, George.

George: Sorry.

Joan: I wonder who will be seated at the other three seats at our table.

George: I wish we could have gotten the Tuckers and their daughter to come to the dinner, then we wouldn’t have to share our table with strangers.

Joan: Where is your spirit of adventure? We might get three very interesting people at our table.

George: I doubt it.

Joan: Look, George!

George: Where?

Joan: Over by the door. Those three people might be coming to our table. It looks like one is a priestess and one a priest. I don’t k now who the other man is.

George: Great, now you’ll talk theology all evening, and I won’t enjoy my meal.

Joan: Shut up, they are coming to this table.


Act I. Scene 3.

One female priestess of the new Roman Catholic African Church, Sister Jacqueline, age 26, one male priest of the Roman Catholic African Church, Father Mike, age 62. And one archivist of the Roman Catholic African Church, Herbert Broadhurst, age 46, are seated at the table with Joan and George and their daughter. They have all introduced themselves.

Joan: [Addressing the archivist, Herbert Broadhurst] What exactly does an archivist do, Father?

Herbert: I’m not a priest, you don’t have to call me father, Herb will do.

Joan: Sorry.

Herb: Nothing to be sorry about.

Joan: What is it that you do, if you don’t mind relating it.

Herb: I don’t mind in the least, although I’m afraid what I do is rather boring.

Joan: I’ll bet it isn’t boring at all.

Herb: Well, an archivist collects and stores documents from the past.

Joan: Who’s past?

Herb: The Europeans’ past. I collect books, manuscripts, and historical chronicles of Europeans from long ago.

Joan: Doesn’t that entail reading many books from the era of racism and sexism?

Herb: Yes, it does.

Joan: But aren’t such works forbidden?

Herb: To the normal citizen they are forbidden. But I am an archivist, I have special permission to read and catalogue the old literature and histories.

Joan: It sounds like a pretty filthy job.

Priest: Filthy, yes, but necessary.

George: Why is it necessary, Father Mike?

Priest: Because sometimes it is necessary to reference the past in order to understand the present.

George: For instance?

Priest: Well, let’s take our liturgy, for instance. We all, those of us who have white skin, kneel during the Mass and strike our breasts 17 times and declare we are white and sinful. Those 17 strikes on the breast and the accompanying declarations of white sinfulness is the result of the 17 black martyrs who were killed when the Free Republic of Banyon was dominated by white people. If we didn’t have an archivist, we would not know why we beat our breast 17 times.

Joan: But why do we have to know that detail?

Herb: [laughing] I don’t think you are going to convince them that I do something useful, Father.

Priest: Well, historical research can be useful if it is used properly.

Priestess: But what if it is not used properly? I for one have never approved of the archives. If I had my way, we’d simply burn the archives.

Herb: Then I’d be out of a job.

Priestess: So what?

George: [Laughing] Here comes the first course, it looks good.

[The food is placed on the table.]

Joan: Father Mike, will you say grace?

[Father Mike looks uncomfortable]

Priestess: He is not permitted to say grace. When a female priestess is present, no male priest is permitted to co-opt the female priestess no matter how many years seniority he has.

Priest: She is quite right.

Joan: I’m sorry, I forgot.

Priestess: [With a scowl] Never mind. [She says grace.] Dear Nelson Mandela, who represents all the sacred black race, and dear Mother Cybele, who represents all the oppressed female race, bless this food which we are about to receive and may we be ever mindful of the white male menace that always threatens us. Amen.

Joan: Yes, thank you, Sister Jacqueline, that was quite eloquent.

George: They certainly give you big portions here.

Joan: Shut up, George.

George: Yes, dear.

Daughter: [To the priestess] Are you really and truly a priestess?

Priestess: Yes.

Daughter: I’d like to be a priestess when I grow up.

Priestess: It takes a lot of work.

Joan: What, in your judgement, Sister Jacqueline, is the main requirement for being a priestess?

Priestess: You must hold the two great commandment in your heart. You must love the black race and the goddess Cybele with all your heart, mind, and soul, and you must hate the white male with all your heart, mind, and soul. Your average person is lukewarm in their love of the black race and Cybele and lukewarm in their hatred of the white male. A priestess can’t be lukewarm in her love or her hatred.

Priest: Aren’t you going to make a distinction between the white males who have renounced their whiteness and the white males, such as those inhuman monsters in the underground, who have not renounced their whiteness?

Priestess: Some make such distinctions, but I don’t. I do not see why there should be any white males left alive on this earth. We have the means of determining the sex of the child in the womb, so it should be mandatory that all white male children should be aborted.

Herb: Most white male babies are already executed by the state.

Priestess: Yes, but not all are executed. And look at John Taylor, he was lawfully born and raised as a priest. And what happened? He became a member of the white underground.

George: I thought he went to England.

Priestess: Yes, he did, for two years. But now he is back and he works for the white underground. He is with David Morgan.

Priest: Surely because one white male, who was raised to renounce his whiteness, returned to the slime pits of whiteness, you don’t condemn all white males who have renounced their whiteness?

Priestess: I don’t trust any white males and I don’t think we should allow any of them the opportunity to betray us.

[Joe Marshal comes up to the table.]

Joe: Everything all right here? How is the food?

Priest: It’s excellent as always.

George: Yes, it’s great.

Priestess: It’s adequate. But let me ask you a question.

Joe: Ask away.

Priestess: Who was that young white male I saw come out of the kitchen a few minutes ago in order to wipe up that spill at the table near the kitchen?

Joe: He’s just some idiot aide that we hired to help out during the Mandela-Cybele-Christmas season.

Priestess: Does he have papers?

Joe: Of course he does, do you think I’d hire a white male without papers?

Priestess: I want to see his papers.

Joe: What right do you have to tell me who I can hire?

Priestess: I have every right, I’m a priestess in the one Holy Catholic Church of Mandela-Cybele.

Herb: She does have the right, but I suggest you just let it alone and enjoy the meal.

Priestess: Yes, you would let it alone.

Herb: Can’t you just relax for one night, must you always be on duty?

Priestess: Don’t get male with me. Perhaps you were planning to romance me.

Herb: God forbid.

Joan: What God?

Herb: It’s just an expression.

Priestess: Watch your expressions.

Herb: I’m sorry.

Priestess: [glaring at Joe] I want to see that young man’s papers.

Joe: I understand, I’ll go get his papers immediately.

Priestess: And bring him out here with his papers.

Joe, Yes, your… er…

Priestess: Sisterhood.

Joe: Yes, your sisterhood.

[As Joe heads for the kitchen, the priestess picks up her cell phone.]


Act I. Scene 4.

The Kitchen.

Joe: Who let that idiot out of the kitchen?

Waitress II: I told him to go clean up the spill.

Joe: Didn’t you know that he was supposed to stay in the kitchen when there were other people in the restaurant?

Waitress II: Nobody told me.

Joe’s wife: What is wrong, dear?

Joe: A priestess saw him and wants to see his papers.

Wife: What did you say?

Joe: I said I’d get his papers and send him out with the papers.

Wife: But he doesn’t have any papers.

Joe: I know. If you remember I wanted no part of him when he came here. You insisted I give him a meal. Then you insisted that I should keep him on. He is probably a member of the white underground.

Wife: Oh no, Joe, you just have to look at him to know that he is simply a lost innocent.

Joe: Lost from where? He had to come from somewhere. And where is he right now?

Wife: I sent him to the wine cellar for another bottle of wine.

Joe: He’s taking a long time, maybe he knocked the shelves down on himself and he is dead.

Wife: Don’t talk like that.

Joe: It wouldn’t do me any good if he was dead, that priestess would still want to see his papers.

Wife: Maybe if you tell her that you couldn’t find him she’ll forget about it.

Joe: Not her, she wants his papers and that’s that. There is no getting around her. I wish she’d choke to death on her shrimp cocktail, but we can’t count on that kind of luck.

Wife: What can we do then?

Joe: There is one chance. Remember that accountant that worked on the books off and on during the last five years?

Wife: Yes.

Joe: Well, he died of heart attack a couple weeks ago.

Wife: I didn’t know.

Joe: Well, I didn’t want to upset you, seeing that you had just been ill, so I didn’t tell you. But this is what we can do. I’ll say that he was in charge of the paper work and that he told me that the idiot had given him his papers. It’s a long shot, but it might work.

Wife: What do you mean it might work? They’ll imprison him – I mean the idiot — and they’re liable to imprison Mr. Jenkin’s family as well.

Joe: Jenkins didn’t have any family. And it is better for the idiot to go to prison than us. Besides, for all I know he is a member of the white underground. In which case, he belongs in prison anyway.

Wife: No, I don’t want him to go to prison. You can tell the lie about Mr. Jenkins to save us, but let’s give the young man time to escape. I’ll tell him right now.

Joe: Are you crazy? They’ll know we helped him to escape and we’ll go to jail. I don’t see why you’re so attached to that idiot.

Wife; I must tell you something. At first, I just felt sorry for him. You never did, but I did. But then there was something else. Remember when I was sick?

Joe: Sure, you had a bad case of the flu.

Wife: That’s what I thought it was at first, but that night, when you slept in the spare room so I could get some rest, I felt the fever burning me up and I knew I was going to die. I tried to call for you, but I couldn’t cry out, the fever had dried my throat up. All I could do was lie there and die. And then he came to me, that young man you call the idiot. He had a glass of water in his hand and he lifted my head from the pillow and helped me drink the water. Then he laid my head back on the pillow and placed his hand on my forehead. And Joe, you must believe me, at the moment he placed his hand on my forehead, the fever left me.

Joe: This is pure nonsense. You were delirious from the fever and you had a dream about the idiot. That’s all it was. Fevers come and go, there is nothing miraculous about that. The only miraculous thing is your overwrought imagination. You really can come up with some doosies.

Wife: How can you account for the glass then?

Joe: What glass?

Wife: The water glass. When I woke up, there it was by my bedstead. It was full of water.

Joe: So what?

Wife: You see I drained that glass of water during the night.

Joe: How would you know, you were feverish.

Wife: I do know. I vividly remember draining that glass of water he gave me. And furthermore, we don’t have any glasses like that glass in the house or the restaurant.

Joe: Where is the glass now?

Wife: I don’t know, after I drank from it in the morning, I washed it and then put it in the cupboard, but when I looked for it the next day it was gone.

Joe: There you have it, it was all a dream.

Wife: Was it?

Joe: Of course, otherwise you would have to say that the idiot was some sort of angel or something like that – that he is right out of a fairy tale. But just look at him, he is an idiot.

Wife: Is he, Joe?

Joe: Of course, he is.

Wife: Still, we can’t give him up to that priestess.

Joe: We must. It’s him or us. [At this point the idiot comes up the stairs with a wine bottle and he walks over to Barbara Marshal and gives her the bottle.]

Wife: You must leave here quickly. Get your coat and see if you can find the Nelson’s house. It’s a mile or so away. Say that I sent you.

Joe: You’ll do no such thing. [Looking at the idiot] I’m sorry about this, I have nothing against you, but we have to turn you in to a crazy priestess out there. I warned you not to leave the kitchen.

Wife: No, Joe, I won’t let you turn him in.

[The priestess enters the kitchen with five policemen, four black and one white.]

Priestess: [Pointing to the idiot] Take him. [The policemen, having knocked the idiot down, put handcuffs and leg irons on him.] You’re not out of this yet [Looking at Joe], but for now, he is all we care about. [The policemen and the priestess leave the kitchen with the idiot in chains.]

Joe: Well, now you’ve done it. If they don’t believe my story about the papers, I’ll be hauled off in chains as well. Is that what you wanted?

Wife: Of course not, but I can’t bear to see him hurt.

Joe: Forget about him, there is nothing you can do for him now. You just concentrate on backing up my story, that should be your only concern.


Act II. Scene 1.

The snow is coming down in great blankets now. The people in the restaurant, about one hundred and twenty, have been informed that the roads are currently impassable. The idiot was beaten and then tied to a tree in front of the restaurant. He was tied in a sitting position. The snow fall has already reached the level of his chest. The people at Joan Jackson’s table are in the process of eating dessert.

George: My father used to say that no matter how much you ate during a meal, you always had a special place in your stomach for dessert.

Joan: Shut up, George.

George: Yes, dear.

Herb: The dessert is delicious.

Priest: I agree.

Priestess: Is that all men can think of, their stomachs?

Herb: No, sometimes we think of other things.

Priestess: What do you mean by that?

Herb: Nothing at all.

Priestess: I think you are trying to play sexual games with me. That is strictly forbidden in Article VI, section 2 of the Constitution of the American-African Republic. I intend to have you arrested to stand trial for sexual harassment and not only that…

Daughter: Mommy.

Joan: Don’t interrupt when the Priestess is talking.

Daughter: But, Mommy.

Joan: Be quiet, Louisa.

Daughter: But Mommy, all I wanted to say was that the man out there is soon going to be covered with snow.

Priest: Oh, dear, the snow is getting rather high. Perhaps we should bring him inside and chain him in the wine cellar.

Priestess: There is no need for that. Let him stay out there.

Priest: But I really think he is either going to suffocate or freeze to death.

Priestess: That need not concern us.

Priest: But he is entitled to a trial.

Priestess: [Raising her voice to a level slightly below a scream, but well above a normal speaking voice] No, he is not entitled to a trial. He is a white male without papers, he has no rights.

[The Priestess gets up to go to the bathroom, and as she leaves the table she lets go a parting remark at Herb]

And don’t think I’ve forgotten about you. [She leaves for the bathroom]

Herb: Well, this has been a very pleasant dinner.

George: Can she get you in trouble?

Herb: Sure, she can. She has a lot of power. But in this case, if she really intends to pursue it, there isn’t much of a case.

Joan: What did you mean by that remark, when you said sometimes men think of other things?

Herb: I meant what I said. I meant that sometimes men think of other things besides their stomachs. She was the one who decided what the other things were.

Joan: Still, I think you meant something sexual.

George: All remarks are not sexual remarks.

Joan: Shut up, George.

George: Yes, dear.

Priest: I wish we could do something for that young man out there.

Herb: I think he is a goner, Father. She won’t let anyone touch him.

Priest: It’s a pity.

Herb: Yes, it is.

Joan: I don’t think any white male has the right to judge the actions of a Priestess in the Roman Catholic African Church.

George: But Joan…

Joan: Shut up, George.

George: Yes, dear.


Act II. Scene 2.

Joe Marshal comes up to Joan Jackson’s table.

Joe: I just got word that the power is going out all over the area. And the roads, at present, are impassable, so it looks like we could be here for a long while without any light.

Priestess: [Having returned from the bathroom] This is gross negligence. How can this be allowed to happen?

Herb: I think it is called nature.

Priestess: What do you mean by that?

Herb: Nothing sexual, I assure you. I simply mean that big snow storms can defy even all our modern technology.

Priestess: You seem to love to attack everything modern. Perhaps you prefer your old world of the archives, the world of racism and sexism?

Herb: I didn’t say that.

Priestess: You implied it, which is the same thing. I’m going to charge you with counterrevolutionary sentiments when I leave this restaurant.

Herb: I suppose I’ll have a lot of charges to answer for.

Priestess: Yes, you will.

Joe: Look, be that as it may, I’m passing out candles for every table. [Looking at Herb] Will you help me?

Herb: I’d be glad to.

[He begins to pass out candles with Joe]

Joe: I really don’t need help with the candles, my waitresses can handle it, but I wanted to get you away from that Priestess in order to talk with you privately.

Herb: If it’s about that young man and his papers, I’m afraid I can’t help you, I’m under a bit of a cloud myself.

Joe: No, it’s not that, I think I can wiggle clear of those charges. It’s about the rest of the night. I still need to keep these people happy.

Herb: That won’t be easy. People don’t like it when the power goes out.

Joe: But that is not my fault.

Herb: I know it isn’t, it’s nature’s fault, but try to tell that to a bitch like her royal sisterhood over there.

Joe: You take chances, I’d be afraid to use that term even in the privacy of my home.

Herb: You know something, I don’t really think I give a damn anymore. Maybe I have spent too much time in the archives. When a man spends 8 hours a day, sometimes 10 or 12, in a different world than his contemporaries, he starts to think and feel about things differently than the people around him. I’m heartily sick of women who aren’t women and men who aren’t men. And I’m sick of trying to pretend I care about this nation we live in.

Joe: Look, that is more than I know about. I just wanted you to do that play you did here four years ago.

Herb: [Laughing] That was just a history play about some Christmases from long ago that I strung together. But I can’t do it tonight because I don’t have any copies of the play with me. If you remember, I picked volunteers from the audience who read the various parts, while I was the narrative voice.

Joe: I remember. And you do have copies of the play to give out. I recorded the play, had the words written down, and then made copies of the play. You can give out the parts to volunteer readers again.

Herb: Yes, but they’ll have trouble reading their lines in the dark.

Joe: I have eight high-powered flood lights powered by a generator that I can shine on the stage. The audience will be at their tables with the candle lights while the stage will be illuminated by the flood lights.

Herb: I suppose it could be done. But as of right now the power is… [The lights go out] I was going to say the power was still on.

Joe: It will be off for some time, at least that is what the reports say. Will you do the play?

Herb: On one condition.

Joe: What?

Herb: Here is my coat. I want you to wrap that young man outside in this coat, give him something warm to drink, and shovel some of the snow away from him.

Joe: Are you crazy?

Herb: Possibly, but that is what I want you do to. Once the play starts nobody will notice you. And without the outside light, it will be too dark for anyone to see you helping him.

Joe: Why does everyone feel sorry for that idiot?

Herb: I don’t know that everybody does feel sorry for him. I didn’t notice any outpouring of sympathy for him when they chained him out there.

Joe: I guess there wasn’t. But my wife has been in tears since they put him out there.

Herb: Good for your wife.

Joe: Okay, I’ll do it. I don’t know why you want to make a big deal about it, but I’ll do it. First let me introduce you to the audience, then you hand out the parts. Once the play starts, I’ll sneak out there and see what I can do for the idiot.

Herb: Don’t just see what you can do for him, I’m telling you to do something for him.

Joe: Okay, but let’s start the show.

Herb: One more thing.

Joe: What?

Herb: In the play, I speak, if you remember, of an old Christmas before it became a Mandela-Cybele-Christmas. She, the Priestess, wasn’t here when I did that play on this stage a few years back. She won’t permit it to be performed, so you’ll have to slip something in her drink to put her asleep.

Joe: Permanently?

Herb: [Laughing] That wouldn’t be a bad idea, but I think that would get you in trouble. What I had in mind was a sleeping potion, something that would put her out for two to three hours. Could you manage that?

Joe: If she drinks, I can manage it.

Herb: She drinks all right. She is quite old-fashioned in that regard; she is a stone-cold alcoholic.

Joe: Okay, then, as soon as I come to your table and give her the drink, you head up to the stage.

Herb: And then you visit that young man out there.

Joe: Agreed.


Act III. Scene 1.

The play within a play. Herb Broadhurst gives out the parts to various volunteers from the audience, then he steps forward to introduce the play.

Herb: This is a one-act play that I wrote, mainly for a few close friends that I knew were interested in the subject.

Member of the audience: What is the subject?

Herb: If you let me finish, I’ll tell you. The subject is the transition from Christmas to Mandel-Cybele-Christmas. The characters in the play are fictional, but they are based on real life people that I encountered in my job as a European archivist.

Joan Jackson: Is the play heretical?

Herb: Certainly not. How can history be heretical? I simply present this play as a history of a bygone era. An era that I’m sure everyone here is glad to know is over. How can the past, which we condemn, reach out and hurt us? It can’t. So I give you the play, which, I hope, will amuse you until the lights go back on and the roads are clear.


Act III. Scene 2.

The study of a Roman Catholic parish. One old priest, about 75 years of age, is seated in the study as a younger priest, about 40 years of age, enters.

Younger priest: Isn’t it exciting, Father?

Older priest: What?

Younger: The new missal in which we finally give true homage to Mandela and to Cybele.

Older: I don’t know that I care for it.

Younger: Surely you can’t object to it, we are simply making explicit what has been implicit for many years.

Older: I see that, but I wonder if now is the proper time. There are still, I think, a great deal of the laity who are attached to the old image of Christ as the Son of God.

Younger: He is still the son of God.

Older: Yes, He is, in the sense that all of us are sons of God, but He loses, in the new missal, His distinctive identity as the one and only Son of God.

Younger: Surely it is better that we make what we actually believe to be true the main focus of our worship?

Older: I suppose so.

Younger: You suppose so, Father. I’m surprised at you, do you or do you not believe that Nelson Mandela and the black race are the hope of mankind? And do you or do you not believe that Cybele represents the immortal spirit of womankind.

Older; I do believe both. But I am questioning the timing of the declaration of the Pope. Many Catholics are still attached to the old concept of Christ.

Younger: But that old concept was false, and it came to us from white supremacists.

Older: Yes, it did, but many people took comfort in that old concept of Christ.

Younger; Nonsense. I think you are exaggerating the emotional appeal of the old concept. The people love Mandela and Cybele. You’ll see, the new missal will be a huge success.


Herb, the Narrator: And the new missal was a huge success. There were a few members of the congregation who walked out of the church, but they were arrested as soon as they stepped out into the street. No one ever heard from them again.


Act III. Scene 3

Narrator: An Anglican rectory. This time it is the younger priest who has his doubts about the transition from Christmas to Mandela-Cybele-Christmas while the older priest constitutes the ‘Amen Chorus’ for the Mandela-Cybele-Christmas.

Older priest: [65 years of age] Have you heard the great news?

Younger priest: [35 years of age] About the changes in the prayer book?

Older: Yes.

Younger: I don’t have any problems with the theology. I was brought up to believe in Mandela and Cybele as our saviors. But my grandfather was a great believer in the old European Christ.

Older: Didn’t he go to prison?

Younger: Yes, he was imprisoned, because he refused to accept Mandela and Cybele as co-redemptorists with Christ. In fact he died while in prison. I think his heart gave out on him.

Older: That is a shame, but whiteness must be purged.

Younger: I know, but I wonder if there aren’t more people like my grandfather lurking out there. This change might set them off.

Older: How do you mean ‘set them off’?

Younger: I mean it might drive them to take up arms against the American-African Republic of the United States.

Older: I doubt that there are that many closet European Christians out there. I think we have done a pretty good job of weeding them out of our nation.

Younger: Perhaps.

Older: You worry too much.

Younger; Perhaps, but I can still see that look in my grandfather’s eyes the night they took him away. I was 10 years old at the time. “No man cometh unto the Father except by me,” he screamed, and his eyes were pure fire.

Older: Did you visit him in jail?

Younger: No, my parents wouldn’t permit it. But I’ll never forget the look on his face.

Older: Well, your grandfather was an exception. The people will love the new prayer book because they love Mandela and Cybele and they don’t love the Christ of old Europe.

Younger: I suppose everything will be all right.

Older: Of course, it will.


[At this point in the performance, Joan Jackson stands up and starts screaming.]

Joan: Sister Jacqueline is sick! She won’t wake up!

Herb: Is there anyone here who can attend to Sister Jacqueline?

[A doctor goes over to Sister Jacqueline, who is asleep, face down, on the dinner table.]

Doctor: [After examining her] She is breathing normally and does not appear to be in dire straits. I think she simply had too much to drink. I suggest you place her on a bed or a couch somewhere and let her sleep it off.

Herb: That is your expert medical opinion?

Doctor: Yes.

[Sister Jacqueline is taken to a back room.]

Herb: Now we can proceed with the play.

Joan: Wait, I don’t think the play should proceed.

Herb: Why not?

Joan: It’s offensive.

Herb: Why is it offensive?

Joan: It is blasphemous.

Herb: Why is it blasphemous?

Joan: It insults Mandela and Cybele.

Herb: I don’t see how an accurate depiction of the process by which the European people moved from the worship of Christ to the worship of the black race and Cybele can be seen as blasphemous.

Joan: It just is, and I won’t let it continue. And Sister Jacqueline wouldn’t let it continue if she was…

Herb: If she was awake and sober? [The audience laughs and Joan starts to sputter in red-faced rage and hysteria.]

Joan: Father Mike, I want you to stop the play.

Father Mike: I really haven’t the authority to stop the performance, as Herb says, it is not blasphemous.

Joan: Then I’ll stop it, I’ll….

George: Joan.

Joan: What do you want?

George: I want you to sit down and shut up, you are making fool of yourself. [The audience applauds George’s statement and Joan sinks to her chair in disbelief as if her pet dog has just turned on her and bitten her.]

Herb: All right then, let’s pick up where we left off.


Act III. Scene 4.

A Protestant parsonage, next to the church. One minister, the pastor, is fifty years of age, and the other minister, the assistant pastor, is in his late twenties.

Pastor: This is great news, the Ecumenical Council of Churches has declared that Christ is no longer to be considered the Son of the living God. He has been reduced to a minor prophet.

Assistant: That is good news. Will it be announced in all the churches this Christmas Eve?

Pastor: Yes, all nativity scenes of Christ and Mary will be removed and replaced by nativity scenes of Nelson Mandela and Cybele.

Assistant: How will they be depicted?

Pastor: Mandela will be depicted as a child in a manger with Mother Cybele hovering over him, surrounded by black tribesmen.

Assistant: That sounds wonderful! Will the Orthodox churches be following suit?

Pastor: Yes, they will, but they will stick to their own dates for the Mandela-Cybele-Christmas.

Assistant: Praise be to Mandela and Cybele.

Pastor: Amen to that.

Assistant: Do you expect any resistance from the laity?

Pastor: There is always some resistance to change, but it is our job to help the people adjust to the changes in their faith. We must be gentle, but we must also be firm. We can’t let them backslide into superstition and racism.

Assistant: I don’t personally know of anyone who won’t welcome this news.

Pastor: I know of one man.

Assistant: Who?

Pastor: My younger brother. He is forty years old, married, with four children, three boys aged nine, seven, and five, and one daughter, aged three. He never goes to church. He always puts up a nativity scene with the baby Jesus, Joseph, Mary, and the three wise men every Christmas.

Assistant: That is disgusting.

Pastor: Yes, it is. I must at least try to reason with him. I’m not looking forward to it, but I must try.

Assistant: Well, good luck, I don’t envy you the task.

Pastor: Nor do I.


Act III. Scene 5.

It is Christmas day in the study of the offending brother. His wife and children are in the living room.

Pastor: I see you have the nativity scene out again this Christmas.

Brother: Of course.

Pastor: You know that the church frowns on such things.

Brother: What church?

Pastor: The Christian Church.

Brother: We’ve been all over this before. The church you serve is just an organization, it has no soul, no life.

Pastor: There is no other church outside of what we, as modern Christians, determine to be the church. And I must tell you that all the organized Christian churches, including the Orthodox churches which celebrate Christmas on a different date, have decided to dispense with the traditional nativity scene and to go with the Mandela-Cybele nativity scene.

Brother: You do what you like, but I will stay with Christ and His people.

Pastor: That is heresy, that is racism.

Brother: So be it then.

Pastor: I must warn you that…


[Sister Jacqueline has staggered out of the backroom where they laid her down.]

Sister Jacqueline: Stop this performance! [She has the five policemen with her as she steps out onto the stage] I won’t have it, I simply won’t have it.

Herb: But it’s just a little historical drama depicting our transformation from the darkness of Christianity to the light of liberalism.

Sister Jacqueline: It is blasphemy, disguised as history. You are under arrest.

[The guards handcuff the archivist and place chains on his legs. As they are in the act of restraining Herb, Louisa goes up to Sister Jacqueline.]

Louisa: Sister Jacqueline, Sister Jacqueline, the snow is still coming down and I’m afraid it’s going to go over that man’s head.

Sister Jacqueline: Will someone shut that little brat up? [One of the black policemen strikes Louisa. She goes down as if she has been struck dead, which, in point of fact, she has been.]

Joan: [Running up to her daughter] She is dead, she is dead!

Sister Jacqueline: I’m sorry to hear that, but she should not have interfered. That is what happens when you don’t obey your superiors.

Joan: I know she was wrong, but…

Sister Jacqueline: There are not buts, she was wrong and she died for it.

George: You foul, loathsome witch, I’ll kill you [He rushes at Sister Jacqueline and manages to get his hands on her throat, but he is beaten down by the police officers.]

Sister Jacqueline: Chain him and him [pointing to Herb and George] outside by that idiot.

Joe Marshal: I can’t believe it.

[The front door has fallen off its hinges, and the Idiot is standing in the doorway. There is no snow and no chains on Him, only a light that is neither moonlight nor candlelight, emanating from His face. Sister Jacqueline, the policemen, and the rest of the people in the restaurant simply stare at Him, too stunned to move. He goes up to Louisa and lifts her up into His arms.]

George: They’ve killed my daughter. [The Idiot simply raises his hand to tell George to be calm. He places his hand on Louisa’s forehead for a full minute after which Louisa sits up as if she has just woken up from a nap.

Joe: I’ll be damned.

Barbara: I told you, Joe, he is more than an idiot.

Herb: No, Joe is quite right. He is an Idiot. Who but an Idiot would die on the cross, descend into hell, and rise from the dead on the third day for the likes of me and thee?

George: What are you talking about?

Herb: Did you notice that you are no longer in chains?

George: That’s right. And neither are you. [He takes his daughter in his arms.] But I still don’t know what you are talking about.

Herb: Isaiah told us all about that Idiot:

“Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.  But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.”

Father Mike: It can’t be. What about Mandela and Cybele?

Herb: Let’s make this the beginning of a new old Christmas. Let us sing praises to the one and only Lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the world.

[Herb starts to sing “God Rest You, Merry Gentlemen.” At first he sings alone but as he starts the song for the second time, everyone else joins in except Sister Jacqueline, the five policemen, and Joan Jackson, who still seem too stunned to respond to anyone or anything.]


Act IV. Scene 1.

Christmas Eve day, some six hours prior to the events just depicted. We are in the headquarters of a white resistance organization, somewhere in the mountains of what was once called Tennessee.

David Morgan: This will be your first Christmas here since your conversion.

John Taylor: Yes, I was part of The Christmas Carol for two straight years in Britain, but Christopher Grey orchestrated the whole production. I’m a little nervous about being in charge of this production.

Morgan: You come highly recommended, Christopher Grey said you’ll do a “wonderful” job.

Taylor: I hope so. I’m sorry that you won’t be able to see it.

Morgan: I’ll see it on tape.

Taylor: You’re filming it?

Morgan: Sure, how could we not film the directorial debut of John Taylor?

Taylor: Will you be back by Christmas day?

Morgan: Yes, if all goes well. We have a quick strike planned against an official who’s been very, very aggressive in her persecution of our people. She will be celebrating Mandela-Cybele-Christmas at an ecumenical center and then eating supper at a nearby restaurant. We plan to take her there.

Taylor: Will you kill her?

Morgan: Probably not. We’ll take her prisoner like we took Father Todd prisoner three years ago in that rectory where you once resided with him.

Taylor: He is still a prisoner, isn’t he?

Morgan: Yes, we don’t seem to be able to get through to him. He remains in that other world.

Taylor: I pray for him regularly.

Morgan: Well, there is always some hope. As for Sister Jacqueline, she will not, after tonight, sign any more death warrants against our people.

Taylor: I finally heard from Britain again.

Morgan: From Christopher Grey?

Taylor: No, I heard about Christopher Grey. Father Bontini wrote me a long letter about him.

Morgan: Please let me hear it.

Taylor: I’ll condense it somewhat and leave out some of the parts not related to Christopher, but this is what Father Bontini wrote about Christopher.


“Christopher received a letter from Pope Francis II, the son of Pope Francis the blasphemer and the same pope who presided over the trial and condemnation of Christopher Grey a few years back, at which he received the death penalty. As you recall, Christopher escaped from his cell because of an earthquake and the aid of an angel of mercy.

“The pope’s letter was an urgent plea to Christopher Grey and to Christopher Grey alone. He said that he was on his death bed and desperately wanted to hear about the ‘real Jesus Christ’ that Christopher Grey spoke of. He went on to say that he didn’t expect Christopher to believe that he was at death’s door and in need of a Christian presence at his death bed, but if Christopher could forgive him his sins, and if Christopher would trust in his word, he would like him to come to his death bed.

“I told Christopher that he shouldn’t go. I told him that I thought Pope Francis II was lying, that he just wanted to get Christopher back in the hands of the Vatican authorities. Do you know what he said? He told me that, ‘I suspect that he might be lying. In fact, there is a very good chance that he is lying, but I must go to him, because he might be sincere. He could be a fellow sinner who needs the comfort of our Lord at the hour of his death.’

“’But isn’t there someone else who can give him that comfort?’ I asked him. He just looked at me with that look of his, the look that says you have said something rather strange. ‘Who among his followers, the people who have surrounded him during his pontificate, would preach Christ crucified, Christ risen to him?’

“’No one,’ I answered at once.’

“’There you have it,’ Christopher responded, ‘I must go to Italy and to Rome itself.’

“So Christopher went to Rome to provide comfort to the dying pope. But Pope Francis II was not dying, he was alive and well. He had Christopher thrown into prison and beaten unmercifully for over a week. After seven straight days of the beatings, the Pope ordered the execution that had been held in abeyance after Christopher’s escape two years ago. The execution was to be on the eighth day. The night before his execution was to take place, Christopher awoke and discovered that there was a man in his cell, who was washing his wounds with some kind of ointment.

“Christopher: Is this to make me presentable at the execution?

“Jailer: No, this was not ordered. I am not supposed to provide you with any medical treatment.

“Christopher: Then, why, my son, are you doing it?

“Jailer: Don’t you remember me?

“Christopher: The light in the cell is not good, and you have just awakened me. Perhaps if you could stand in the small light by the door. [The guard obliges him] Yes, I do recognize you, you are the father of that young boy that was caught in the earthquake two years ago.

“Guard: Yes, I am the father of that child, who would have perished if you had not saved him. And I would have perished as well, because I would not have left my son trapped in the rubble, I would have stayed and died with him.

“Grey: How is your child?

“Jailer: He is a fine, healthy boy of eight years of age now.

“Grey: That is good news.

“Jailer: He is waiting for me at the White Table Inn with two friends.

“Grey: I don’t understand.

“Jailer: Much has happened inside me since that day you saved my son. Everyone that I called to for help simply kept running away. The earth trembled at our feet, and they all were afraid, thinking they would be victims of the earthquake if they didn’t take refuge on what the scientists told them was safe, solid ground, so they ignored my pleas for help. Except you. You stopped and looked at me, you knew me as the man who had, by order of the pope, beaten you while you were chained to the Vatican walls. ‘Don’t worry,’ you said as you lifted the rubble off of my son, ‘There doesn’t seem to be any broken bones.’

“Then you led us out of the center of the earthquake to solid ground. I tried to put into words how I felt, but I was speechless before you. I feel ashamed. You gave me a copy of Christ’s Gospel, in my native tongue, and told me to read it with my heart. Then you blessed me and my son and left for Britain.

“I have searched the Gospels with my heart during the last two years, and I have discovered Christ. And I have tried to provide the comfort of Christ, as you did for me, to the men and women imprisoned within the Vatican dungeons.

“Grey: Bless you for that.

“Jailer: But it is time to leave this place. My son and I, and my two friends, my late wife’s brother and cousin, are coming with us, if you’ll give us sanctuary in Britain.

“Grey: Of course, I will. Arthur’s Britain is open to all the European knights of the cross.

“Jailer: Then we shall leave this place and the Vatican death chamber will lose one of its victims.


Act IV. Scene 2.

“The jailer and his son, the jailer’s brother-in-law, the cousin of the jailer’s wife, and Christopher Grey have managed to procure a ship to take them from what was once called Brindisi, but is now called the port of Mandela, to Christian Britain. AS the others on board sleep, the jailer’s brother-in-law approaches Christopher Grey, who also is not asleep, but is standing alone on the foredeck, looking out to sea.

“Brother-in-law: I’m sorry to intrude on you.

“Grey: You are not intruding, I was just looking at the sea; it is truly beautiful.

“BIL:  You English are all in love with the sea.

“Grey: Possibly, it is all around us. But I grew up in the middle of England, of farming stock.

“BIL: They say you are well over a hundred years old, so I assume that you lived in England before it became part of the Islamic Republic.

“Grey: Yes, it was before that time.

“BIL: That must have been a wonderful period of history?

“Grey: It wasn’t paradise, life was still hard, but yes, they were better times. But, my son, you haven’t come on deck to talk about the sea or about merry old England. You have something on your soul that is troubling you. Why don’t you confide in me?

“BIL: I hate the present rulers of Italy. They will countenance any cruelty, they will approve every atrocity against the white Italian people, so long as the atrocities are done in the name of the noble savages of color. That is why I wanted to come to Britain with you and my sister’s husband. But I am troubled in my heart. I don’t think I belong in Christian Britain.

“Grey: Why is that, is it because of the language barrier? Because if that is all, I must tell you that we have many Britons who…

“BIL: No, it is not that.

“Grey: Then tell me, my son.

“BIL: I don’t believe in Jesus Christ. I don’t believe, as my brother-in-law believes, that Christ rose from the dead. How can I hope to belong in a country where people do believe that Christ rose from the dead?

“Grey: Let me ask you this. Do you want to believe that Christ rose from the dead and that all those who die believing in Christ do not really die?

“BIL: Yes, I would very much like to believe that, but I cannot believe.

“Grey: Why can’t you believe?

“BIL: Because four years ago, I saw my sister waste away before my eyes. She was only 22 years old. At the hour of her death, there was no light in her eyes. And when the mortuary police came to take her body away to be cremated, my sister ceased to exist. It was the same with my wife. How can I say that I believe in the resurrection of the dead? It would be a colossal lie. Yet, I want to live in a place other than this hell on earth called Italy. So I didn’t tell you, till now, that I am not a believing Christian.

“Grey: Did you ever hear of Thomas, also called Didymus?

“BIL: No, is he someone from the Bible?

“Grey: Yes.

“BIL: The Bible is banned in Italy. My brother-in-law has a copy that he has offered to share with me, but I was never interested.

“Grey: Thomas was one of the twelve apostles. You have heard of the twelve apostles who were the followers of Christ?

“BIL: Yes, I’ve heard of them. And I have also heard the Christ story. How He was supposed to have died on the cross and then rose from the dead.

“Grey: Well, after Christ’s resurrection from the dead, He appeared to ten of the twelve apostles. Judas, of course, was missing and so was Thomas. When Thomas returned from wherever he had been, the others told him Christ had just appeared to them in the flesh. Thomas did not believe them. “But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe. And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you. Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.”

“Most of us are in the position, vis-à-vis our Lord, of Thomas. We love Him, but we can’t quite believe in His resurrection from the dead.

“BIL: But some people, our people, the white Europeans, did once believe in Christ’s resurrection from the dead, didn’t they?

“Grey: Yes, most of the European people, prior to the 20th century, did believe that Christ rose from the dead.

“BIL: I thought so. The Vatican officials keep telling us that the churches never said that Christ rose from the dead.

“Grey: They are lying, because they no longer believe in Christ’s resurrection from the dead, they have rewritten the Christ story to make it compatible with their un-faith.

“BIL: Which is?

“Grey: The worship of the abstract collective mind of the white liberals, which is the father, the worship of the noble black savage, who is the savior, and the worship of science, which is the holy ghost.

“BIL: Yes, they do worship those three entities.

“Grey: OF course, they do.

“BIL: But how can I have faith? I don’t believe in the noble savage, but I’m afraid that I do believe, against what I would like to believe, in reason and science.

“Grey: Let me tell you a story, a true story, from my childhood. I grew up on a farm in England. My parents, as with most farmers in those days, could not afford to leave the farm. There were too many things to take care of. Twice a year they spent an evening away from the farm. Once on Christmas Eve, at a big church fest, and once at Easter. Well, it was Christmas Eve, the day before my first birthday. Yes, I was born on Christmas Day. That evening my parents left me with my fourteen year old cousin. She was a reliable young girl, who know how to take care of a baby.

“On that night she placed me in my crib and sat beside it, waiting for me to go to sleep. It was unusually warm that night for a late December evening, so the window in the bedroom was open. As my cousin went to close the window, a hawk landed on the window sill. He flew straight for my crib and perched on the side, apparently ready to strike. My cousin screamed – she was, as she said later, too paralyzed with fright to move. But Smokey, our gray and white cat, who was mainly an outside cat but was permitted inside for his meals, was not too afraid to act. He leaped on the hawk and broke his neck. Then he simply stood there with no more interest in the hawk than if it was a piece of wood.

“My cousin made much of Smokey, giving him the cream that was usually reserved for desserts, and she told the story in vivid detail when my parents came home. From that day onward, Smokey had the run of the house. And when I left the crib, Smokey slept with me in bed.

“Smokey was about four years old at the time he delivered me from the hawk. I grew up hearing about his heroic deed and we became inseparable. Then it happened, as it must happen to all those we love, humans and pets, Smokey died when I was thirteen years old. It was the first time that death, the death of someone I loved, had entered my life. I’m afraid I didn’t take it very well. No one, not my parents, nor the pastor, could console me. After my parents went to bed, I would go out to Smokey’s grave, and lay on the grave weeping and begging God to take Smokey into His Kingdom.

“One night, about four weeks after Smokey’s death, I was lying at his grave and weeping, as I did every night, when I felt a hand on my shoulder. It was an angel, and the angel had Smokey in his arms. He took my hand and placed it on Smokey’s head so that I could pet him. I felt him purring. Then the angel spoke: “It’s all right, he is with the Lord and he will be safe with Him until you come.” Then he was gone.

“BIL: Was it real, the vision you saw, or was it madness?

“Grey: It was real. I don’t know why I was vouchsafed that vision. Maybe it was because Our Lord wanted me to comfort all those who mourn, like I was comforted that night. I know I have tried to do that my entire life. And I want to comfort you. Christ is there for us and our loved ones, we, and they, do not die.

“BIL: I want to believe that. And I do, right now, in your presence, feel that it is true.

“Grey: Stay with that feeling. Stay amongst people who give you that feeling, that is what the communion of Saints entails. Will you pray with me?

“BIL: Yes.


Taylor: I won’t read any further, because I know you have work to do tonight.

Morgan: Yes, we do. But so do you. Good luck with the play.

Taylor: And good luck to you. May Christ be with you.


Act V. Scene 1.

Back at the restaurant, Sister Jacqueline has once again taken charge. The ‘Idiot’ has disappeared, and Sister Jacqueline has ordered George and his wife, their daughter, Joe Marshal and his wife, Herb, and Father Michael arrested.

Joan: Why am I being arrested?

Jacqueline: Because you were part of the trick.

Joan: I had nothing to do with any trick. It was those others [pointing to Herb and her husband] who were in on the trick. They made my daughter pretend that she was dead.

George: She was dead.

Jacqueline: Silence that man. [George is gagged]

Father Mike: I protest this treatment. I had nothing…

[At this point, David Morgan and his European dragoons enter. The policemen go for their guns and are shot and killed.]

Morgan: [Referring to the captives] Untie those people.

Jacqueline: What is the meaning of this? I forbid…

Morgan: You shall never have the power to permit or forbid anything again. Take her away. [Two of the European dragoons take her away.]

Joan: Who are those men?

Joe: It’s the white underground.

Joan: Then we will all be killed.

George: I’ll tell you once more and then I’ll gag you – Shut up!

Morgan: [Turning to Herb] What went on here?

Herb: We had a visitor, if you’ll step outside with me. [They walk to the tree, where the empty chains are still lying by the tree] I’ll explain what happened here. [He motions to Barbara Marshal and Louisa.] You two might want to come along with me.


Act V. Scene 2.

Outside by the tree, after Herb has told David Morgan about the events of that night.

Morgan: You three saw and believed — what will be the reaction of the rest of the people?

Herb: I think it will be the same as before [He quotes from memory] “And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with graveclothes: and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let him go.  Then many of the Jews which came to Mary, and had seen the things which Jesus did, believed on him. But some of them went their ways to the Pharisees, and told them what things Jesus had done. Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles. If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation. And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.”

Morgan: What should be done with that woman? [referring to Joan Jackson]

Herb: I’m tempted to say leave her behind and let her be killed by the liberals she serves, but I suppose we must take her with us.

Morgan: But as a prisoner.

Herb: Yes, of course.

Morgan: What about the others?

Herb: I think her father [pointing to Louisa] has had a genuine conversion, and he can be part of the underground.

Morgan: [Looking at Barbara Marshal] What about your husband?

Barbara: Please take him with us, I think he believes, or at least he will in time.

Morgan: “Lord, I believe, help my unbelief”?

Herb: I think so. Let’s take him with us. What about Father Michael?

Morgan: He’ll have to come along too, but he’ll have to join Father Todd in prison. The members of the Sanhedrin are the hardest ones to convince. Okay, let’s pull out of here, we can still reach the mountains in time for the Christmas Eve festivities.


Act V. Scene 3.

The Christmas Eve performance of The Christmas Carol has ended. The white Europeans, the counterrevolutionary remnant, are gathered together. George Jackson, Louisa, Joe Marshall and his wife, and Herb Broadhurst, the former archivist, are amongst the faithful.

Morgan: Christopher Grey has asked us to sing, in fellowship with him and our brothers and sisters in Christ across the waters, “Abide with Me.”

    Abide with me; fast falls the eventide;
    The darkness deepens; Lord, with me abide;
    When other helpers fail and comforts flee,
    Help of the helpless, oh, abide with me.
    Swift to its close ebbs out life’s little day;
    Earth’s joys grow dim, its glories pass away;
    Change and decay in all around I see—
    O Thou who changest not, abide with me.
    I need Thy presence every passing hour;
    What but Thy grace can foil the tempter’s pow’r?
    Who, like Thyself, my guide and stay can be?
    Through cloud and sunshine, Lord, abide with me.
    I fear no foe, with Thee at hand to bless;
    Ills have no weight, and tears no bitterness;
    Where is death’s sting? Where, grave, thy victory?
    I triumph still, if Thou abide with me.
    Hold Thou Thy cross before my closing eyes;
    Shine through the gloom and point me to the skies;
    Heav’n’s morning breaks, and earth’s vain shadows flee;
    In life, in death, O Lord, abide with me.

Morgan: Merry Christmas!

The End

Posted in Remembrances | 1 Comment

For Unto You Is Born

When the Christ-Child to this world came down,
He left for us His throne and crown,
He lay in a manger, all pure and fair,
Of straw and hay His bed so bare.
But high in heaven the star shone bright,
And the oxen watched by the Babe that night.
Hallelujah! Child Jesus!

Oh, come, ye sinful and ye who mourn,
Forgetting all your sin and sadness,
In the city of David a Child is born,
Who doth bring us heav’nly gladness.
Then let us to the manger go,
To see the Christ who hath loved us so.
Hallelujah! Child Jesus!

-Hans Christian Andersen


When I look at modern Europe I feel a sadness beyond sadness and an anger beyond anger. The sadness that goes beyond sadness stems from the knowledge of what has been lost, and the anger that surpasses anger is centered on the liberals who have destroyed Christian Europe. Acting with malice aforethought, the liberals have cut the European people off from their Christian past.

The modern churchman feels no sadness at that which is lost nor does he feel any anger toward the liberals. You can’t mourn for what is lost if you don’t believe that what was lost was of any value. Nor can you be angry with the people who destroyed your cultural heritage if you don’t believe that heritage was of any worth.

If there is no sadness for our loss, if we do not weep by the rivers of Babylon, then our anger will be misdirected. That is the great tragedy of Neopaganism. The neo-pagans are one with the liberals in their hatred of Christian Europe; they do not mourn its passing, but they are angry with the liberals for not proceeding into a future designed and organized by the neo-pagans. Despite their seeming differences, the liberals, the churchmen, and the neo-pagans are in agreement about the central issue, “which was and is the question of these wars.” They are united in their hatred of Christian Europe.

What I see when I look at Christian Europe, and what the liberals, the churchmen, and the neo-pagans see, is something entirely different. They are in the majority, and I am in the minority. Shall I then cede the field to them? No, I shall not, because I maintain that what I see through the eye, in contrast to what they see with the eye, is true and what they see is false. Let us bring a beautiful actress from Hollywood’s golden age onto the stage. Life would be a lot simpler if the soul of a beautiful woman was in harmony with her outward beauty, but that is seldom the case. So I make no claims for Linda Darnell’s spiritual beauty. She may have been a wonderful woman, or possibly something less than wonderful. That is more than I know or want to know. What I do know is that she was a radiant beauty (see The Mark of Zorro). That of course is my subjective opinion, based on my perception of outward womanly beauty. But someone else — I don’t know who that could be — might find Linda Darnell singularly unattractive or even repulsive. By way of analogy, let us say that Christian Europe is Linda Darnell. The liberals find her repulsive and ugly, the churchmen find her too flawed according to their theory of what a beautiful woman should look like, and the neo-pagans claim she is too Jewish-looking to be considered beautiful. All three groups bid us look to the future in order to find a truly beautiful woman.  

The mystical entity called the ‘future’ is the linchpin of the liberals’, the modern clergy men’s, and the neo-pagans’ mind-forged world dominated by their theories of perfection. The past, filled with imperfections, must be eradicated so that the future can triumph. But what kind of future is there if we leave Christian Europe behind? “We will have a wonderful future,” the champions of a science-dominated future inform us. The “You ain’t seen nothing yet” of Ronald Reagan was and is the mantra of all the warring factions of futurists.

Keats said that truth was beauty and beauty was truth. Yes, that is correct. But we are still left with the question, “What is truth,” because we still must determine what is beautiful. I claim that true beauty is moral beauty and that there is no greater beauty in heaven or earth than the moral beauty of Christ the Lord, as seen through the hearts that loved Him, the hearts of the antique Europeans. To look to a future based on the demonization of our Christian past, which constitutes a rejection of the beatific vision of Christ, is to look to a future devoid of faith, hope, and charity. But of course we no longer need to look to such a future, that future is here now; it is our present reality: Modern Europe is a world devoid of the faith, the hope, and the charity that once sustained the European people when they cherished, and did not renounce, their past.

In his magnificent speech before Confederate veterans on May 31, 1904, John Sharp Williams, a U. S. Representative, praised the Southern people for keeping our European civilization alive during the so-called “reconstruction” years after the war.

But there was something else, and even a greater cause than local self-government, for which we fought. Local self-government temporarily destroyed may be recovered and ultimately retained. The other thing for which we fought is so complex in its composition, so delicate in its breath, so incomparable in its symmetry, that, being once destroyed, it is forever destroyed. This other thing for which we fought was the supremacy of the white man’s civilization in the country which he proudly claimed his own.

Then he goes on to say,

Slavery is lost, and it is certainly well for us and the public – perhaps for the negro – that it has been lost. But the real cause for which our ancestors fought back of slavery, and deemed by them to be bound up in the maintenance of slavery – to wit, the supremacy of the white man’s civilization, the supremacy of the ethical culture, which has been gradually built up through countless generations – has not been lost.

William’s speech is a two-edged sword. On the one hand, it inspires us to know that our people, white Europeans, once stood tall and fought back against the liberal leviathan. But on the other hand is the horrible fact that the Southern people who came after John Sharp Williams, and the people of all the other European nations as well, caved in to the liberal leviathan. That civilization which Williams depicted as “so complex in its composition, so delicate in its breath, so incomparable in its symmetry,” has been destroyed. What then? How should we then live if that civilization is no more? We must go deeper — that is how we shall survive. If we go to the heart of that ancient European civilization, we go to Christ the Lord.

It is certain that old Europe, championed by the Southern people during the Civil War and the reconstruction era, is no longer in existence as a civilization. It is of the past, a past that has been condemned by all the various champions of a utopian future. But if we do not try to restore that civilization by adhering to the inconsequential outer forms of that civilization, such as the democratic process, Greek philosophy, and/or the Roman legal system in church and state, but go instead to the Dream of the Rood, which is the real heart of Western civilization, we will be able to regain that which was lost. (1)

I do not say that we shall ever see old Europe as it once existed again. I do say that so long as two or three are gathered together in His name, in union with the antique Europeans who built a civilization consecrated to Him, then the old South, the old Europe, still lives. Lost causes only become lost when the ‘defeated’ people no longer believe in what they fought for. The Southern people, like the European people throughout the world, only lost the war with the Jacobins when they came to believe in the same faith as the Jacobins. The resistance to Jacobinism must start from within. Do we believe that we are created in the image of God or do we believe we are created in the image of the beast? If we believe the latter, then we will not restore European civilization, because the image of the beast culture is the image of the future. What is past is the ‘image of God in Man’ culture that our dear old folk of long ago built in defiance of the pagan gods of nature. Have we ‘progressed’ beyond those people? Why is the demonism of infanticide, homosexuality, feminism, and negro worship considered a progression? We have supped full of liberalism, and that hideous, foul-tasting repast has left us too spiritually stupefied to live as Europeans should live, in loving remembrance of our honored dead who rest in the arms of the Lord, and in loving remembrance of Him, the God who lives.

There is a song in the magnificent movie called The Wonderful World of the Brothers’ Grimm in which the children sing of Christmas Land. Our Europe was Christmas Land. There was love, honor, beauty and faith in that town. I, for one, do not intend to leave it, not ever. Which is a good place to leave off for this year.

For December 14th, December 21st, and December 28th I will post another remembrance of Christopher Grey. The next regular post will be in the New Year, January 4th. The remembrances were and still are intended as depictions of a dystopian future dominated by the liberals and their heathen allies. Tragically that future has come upon us at such an accelerated rate that the dystopia is no longer in the future, it is here. But the last word will not be spoken by the liberals and their allies. In the beginning was His word, and in the end His word shall prevail. I will dwell in Christmas Land again this year and every year, and it is my hope and prayer for thee, that you are able to dwell in Christmas Land this Christmas and in all the Christmases to come, on this earth and in His house of many mansions in heaven.

“Christmas is coming, the goose is getting fat,” — although I must admit I’ve never tasted goose –, “who’ll put a penny in an old beggar’s hat?” I will. God bless the old beggar and God bless the European remnant. Merry Christmas! +


(1) 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.

There He tasted death; yet God rose up again with His mighty power to help men. Then He ascended to heaven; hither again will the Lord Himself make His way to this world to seek mankind on the day of judgment, Almighty God and  His angels with Him, when He who has power of judgement will judge each one according as he merits in this fleeting life. No one can be without fear there at the word the Lord says: He will ask before the multitude where the man is who for God’s sake would taste bitter death, as He aforetime did on the cross; but then they will be afraid, and think little of what they begin to say to Christ. No one need be terrified there who erstwhile bears in his breast the best of signs, but each soul which desires to dwell with the Lord must through the cross seek the kingdom which is far from earth.

The Dream of the Rood

Posted in Charity, Christian Europe, Faithful hearts | Tagged , | 1 Comment

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