Endeavoring to persuade the people that they are no better than beasts, the whole body of their institution tends to make them beasts of prey, furious and savage. – Burke
I don’t like science fiction movies, and with very few exceptions I don’t like any movie made after 1965, so I didn’t see the movie Close Encounters of the Third Kind, but I imagine from the title that the movie was about the encounters of earthmen with extra terrestrial beings. I have encounters (albeit not close encounters) with non-human aliens on a daily basis, because the liberals and the grazers seem like creatures from another planet. And if they are creatures from another planet, our planet has been invaded, because the liberals and the grazers outnumber the earth men to such an extent that I seldom have encounters with fellow earthmen. When I do, I treasure the encounter. Yesterday I met a fellow earthman – or in plain English, a white man. We were both stuck in a long grocery line due to a shortage of checkout clerks because of a huge flu outbreak. I could tell this mid-seventy-ish man was not a liberal because liberals have an unmistakable smugness about them that allows one to identify them immediately. And I could tell the gentleman was not a grazer because there was a still a discernible light in his eyes. He had in his cart, among other food items, a bottle of Aunt Jemima pancake syrup. I made the comment, “I’m surprised they still allow that to be sold,” and from that point on we were off and running down Memory Lane. He told me of growing up in a rural area where there were no blacks and no one locked their doors at night, and I told him about growing up in a city where, when my grandmother took me to the park, blacks stayed in their half of the park and whites in their half. On we talked (the line was still not moving) about the demise of decency and (obviously he didn’t use these exact words) the profligate spending of the “unbought grace of life.” My checkout line friend pointed to the sixties as the decade when “everything went to hell.” Of course liberalism began to take root in Western culture long before the sixties, but this wise-blooded peasant had accurately pinpointed the time period when the disease that had been festering within the body of Western civilization became manifest on the outside of the body. The liberals had gathered enough power, by the sixties, to make explicit the heretofore implicit values of liberalism: infanticide, miscegenation, negro worship, and the maniacal hatred of everything white and Christian.
Certainly there were many politicians and rock groups who could serve as a representative sample of sixties liberalism, which is essentially the triumphant liberalism we see before us today. But what is the primary attribute of Satan? The Christian poets such as Walter Scott have answered that question:
Among those who were the first to ridicule and abandon the self-denying principles in which the young knight was instructed, and to which he was so carefully trained up, Louis the Eleventh of France was the chief. That sovereign was of a character so purely selfish—so guiltless of entertaining any purpose unconnected with his ambition, covetousness, and desire of selfish enjoyment, that he almost seems an incarnation of the devil himself, permitted to do his utmost to corrupt our ideas of honour in its very source. Nor is it to be forgotten that Louis possessed to a great extent that caustic wit which can turn into ridicule all that a man does for any other person’s advantage but his own, and was, therefore, peculiarly qualified to play the part of a cold-hearted and sneering fiend.
In this point of view, Goethe’s conception of the character and reasoning of Mephistophiles, the tempting spirit in the singular play of Faust, appears to me more happy than that which has been formed by Byron, and even than the Satan of Milton. These last great authors have given to the Evil Principle something which elevates and dignifies his wickedness-a sustained and unconquerable resistance against Omnipotence itself, a lofty scorn of suffering compared with submission, and all those points of attraction in the Author of Evil which have induced Burns and others to consider him as the hero of the Paradise Lost. The great German poet has, on the contrary, rendered his seducing spirit a being who, otherwise totally unimpassioned, seems only to have existed for the purpose of increasing, by his persuasions and temptations, the mass of moral evil, and who calls forth by his seductions those slumbering passions which otherwise might have allowed the human being who was the object of the evil spirit’s operations to pass the tenor of his life in tranquility. For this purpose Mephistophiles is, like Louis XI., endowed with an acute and depreciating spirit of caustic wit, which is employed incessantly in undervaluing and vilifying all actions the consequences of which do not lead certainly and directly to self-gratification.
Yes, I think Scott describes the satanic intellect quite well. It consists of the type of “caustic wit” which ridicules every decent impulse emanating from the human heart. For this reason I think the British “comedy” ensemble called Monty Python’s Flying Circus is the best representative of the satanic liberalism of the sixties, which became the institutionalized liberalism of the 21st century. Their humor was not the humor of pathos, the humor that elevates, that invites us to laugh at the human condition while rooting for the Third Dumb Brothers, the intrepid pure of heart, such as Laurel and Hardy, who remind us all of our common humanity. Instead, the Python humor dehumanizes, like liberalism itself. It sets up one group of people, white people with traditional beliefs in human decency, honor, and the God whose love passeth all understanding, and invites liberals and colored barbarians to a veritable celebration of sneering, mocking ridicule, all directed at white people. On the Python “comedy” show everything ancient and good in the British and European tradition was dragged through the mud. In their films they blasphemed against Christ and his people, with the puerile delight of a sadistic, public school bully shoving a younger classmate’s head in the toilet. And they did this while maintaining, as is always the case with liberals, that they were heroic underdogs taking on “the establishment.” What establishment? The established church was rife with liberalism; it didn’t oppose them. The royal family was as liberal, if not quite as vulgar, as they were. And the great unwashed whites of the middle and lower classes were too disenfranchised to oppose the middle and upper class homosexual mockers who made up the ranks of the Python comedy team. Extreme cruelty, sexual perversion, the love of the colored alien, and the hatred of white people and their culture was the essence of the Python comedy team, and it is the essence of modern liberalism.
Is it possible for a man with an ancient European heart to live with liberals and colored barbarians who are devoid of all traces of humanity? They exult in cruelty, relish all forms of sexual perversion, and mock and ridicule all that the Europeans once held sacred. One thinks of Macduff’s reply to Malcolm:
Malcolm: If such an one be fit to govern, speak. I am as I have spoken.
Macduff: Fit to govern!
No, not to live. O nation
Of course Malcolm only listed his self-fabricated sins to test Macduff; what should we say about the liberals’ genuine sins against humanity, and the humane God? Macduff’s answer to Malcolm is our answer to the liberals: “Fit to govern! No, not to live.”
Unfortunately liberals do live and they govern us. But we must guard against the fatalistic assumption that we can’t ever throw off the yoke of liberals. Such would be the case if men were only biological specimens with no animating spirit within. Then men’s lives would be as predicable as the ocean tides or the turning of the earth. But Europeans, more than any other people, should know that history is as complex as the human soul. The spiritual tide of human events can be turned by men who live in the spiritual realm. Nothing is written, except the character of the enemy. We must fight them even to the edge of doom because of whom and what we fight for and because of whom and what they fight for. There can be no peaceful accord with liberals:
The rules and definitions of prudence can rarely be exact ; never universal. I do not deny that in small truckling states a timely compromise with power has often been the means, and the only means, of drawling out their puny existence. But a great state is too much envied, too much dreaded, to find safety in humiliation. To be secure, it must be respected. Power, and eminence, and consideration, are things not to be begged. They must be commanded : and they who supplicate for mercy from others can never hope for justice thro’ themselves. What justice they are to obtain, as the alms of an enemy depends upon his character; and that they ought well to know before they implicitly confide.
Haven’t the Europeans been trying to survive in Liberaldom by timely compromises with the liberals? They have agreed to abandon their God, accept legalized infanticide, and stand by while their racial identity is obliterated by miscegenation. All this the Europeans have done in order to survive in Liberaldom. But the liberals and the colored barbarians have viewed every compromise as a sign of weakness, which gives them free license to step up their persecution of white people. It is the image of God in man that the liberals want to destroy. And the European people, like a formerly great state, were too much envied, too much dreaded, and too much identified with Christ, to find safety in abject capitulation to the liberals and the colored tribesmen.
The Python ensemble of vulgar, degenerate wits presented their vulgarity as “groundbreaking” and “original” just as Voltaire, Shaw, Twain and a cast of thousands of liberals prior to M. Python presented themselves as groundbreaking and original. But such caustic wits were not groundbreaking and original. They were as old as paganism.
When the post-Christian white man returns to paganism he brings a cold mathematical cruelty to all the old pagan rites. Where the pagan killed when his blood was up, the white liberal will set up laboratories of slaughter where he will coldly and efficiently out-slaughter the pagans. And there will be no check on the cruelty of the colored savages because their traditional masters, the white men, want no part of the white man’s burden. They seek blended oblivion in a tidal wave of color.
It all seems quite hopeless from a materialist viewpoint. If you believe, with Spengler, that civilizations are born, decline, and die according to the laws of biology, then it is time for the Europeans to say goodbye and fade into oblivion. But what about the spiritual dimension of life? How can we project the death of the European people from a purely materialist crystal ball when the European people, above all other people, have shown themselves to be a people infused with a spirit that is something more than mere nature? In the realm of the spirit, the natural realm of the European, tidal waves are turned back by determined men of spirit and blood, and liberals, who are monsters of cruelty, are not permitted to govern.
Modern critics label any work of literature from the past that depicts men and women with souls as a distorted, unrealistic work. But why should such a work be called unrealistic? Haven’t we all felt, at some point in our lives, a quickening spirit within that calls us to a better and nobler life than that envisioned by the liberal vulgarians? Are Scott’s heroes and heroines really unrealistic? If they are then why do we feel drawn to them and not the liberal scoffers and caustic wits? Virtue might be rarer than vice, but it exists, especially in the hearts and souls of our European ancestors. Where the liberals see nothing but evil in our European ancestors, I see a roll of honor, a charity of honor. In the collective face of the European people of the days gone by, I see faith, hope, charity, and our Lord Jesus Christ. If we let “our ancient hearts” unite with theirs, we can be as they were, staunch in defense of our people and our God and unrelenting in our hatred of the liberals, who have loosed the dogs of color upon us and institutionalized blasphemy. It would be morally reprehensible to attempt to compromise with such creatures. Nor would it be realistic. Those people who have turned their hearts from the God of mercy will not be merciful to His people.
All seems cheerless, dark, and deadly on the European front. A sneering, satanic liberalism pervades what was once called Christendom. Living in Liberaldom is like living with the death of a loved one: there is an agony in the heart that can only be eased by a contemplation of Him and His promise that nothing eternal dies. That is our hope. If ancient European hearts unite with Christ through His people, then the liberals will not prevail. Ancient Europe will triumph over modern Babylon, even more surely as the turning of the earth. +