There is a courageous wisdom: there is also a false reptile
prudence, the result not of caution but of fear. Under misfortunes it often
happens that the nerves of the understanding are so relaxed, the pressing peril
of the hour so completely confounds all the faculties, that no future danger
can be properly provided for, can be justly estimated, can be so much as fully
seen. The eye of the mind is dazzled and vanquished. An abject distrust of
ourselves, an extravagant admiration of the enemy, present us with no hope but
in a compromise with his pride, by a submission to his will. This short plan of
policy is the only counsel which will obtain a hearing. We plunge into a dark
gulph with all the rash precipitation of fear. The nature of courage is,
without a question, to be conversant with danger; but in the palpable night of
their terrors, men under consternation suppose, not that it is the danger,
which, by a sure instinct, calls out the courage to resist it, but that it is
the courage which produces the danger. They therefore seek for a refuge from
their fears in the fears themselves, and consider a temporizing meanness as the
only source of safety.
–Burke, Letters on a Regicide Peace
‘Tis still a dream, or else such stuff as madmen
Tongue and brain not; either both or nothing;
Or senseless speaking, or a speaking such
As sense cannot untie. Be what it is,
The action of my life is like it, which
I’ll keep, if but for sympathy.
Let me continue last week’s thread: “All political revolutions are preceded by a moral revolution in the hearts of the people.” Burke, and then his spiritual counterpart, Dostoyevsky, faced the brave new world of the liberals and saw the “principle of evil himself” that was and is the font of liberalism. We must fully grasp that depressing fact, but none the less true, even if it is depressing, before we can respond to liberalism as Christian Europeans should respond. “Stop! This must not go on!,” Nicholas Nickleby commanded as he stepped forward and began to beat Wackford Squeers with the same cane Squeers had been beating the defenseless and crippled Smike with. I do not see, in the European people, the same righteous indignation about the evil liberals do that Nicholas Nickleby showed toward Wackford Squeers. And Wackford Squeers was a gentleman compared to the liberals; he lacked the “cold malignity” of the liberals; he could not quite descend to their level of evil.
Of course Nicholas Nickleby is a fictional character, so we can discount him and continue to capitulate to liberalism. But can we? Let us pause a moment. Nicholas Nickleby’s response to evil cannot be dismissed as a mere storybook response to evil. Dickens was describing a spiritual reality. The European people, when they were a people, believed that heroes should respond to evil with the same charity of honor that Nicholas Nickleby demonstrated when he beat Wackford Squeers. Only a few heroes lived up to that creed, but the fact that a hero in old Europe was expected to fight the devil and his minions rather than debate and dialog with them indicates why old Europe, with all her imperfections, gave us a glimpse of His kingdom come while the new, improved liberal Europe gives us a foretaste of hell.
What we now find acceptable, even laudatory, has been made acceptable and laudatory by the revolution that took place in the hearts of the European people. Negro worship, legalized abortion, gay rights, feminism, and Islamic terrorism are just some of the horrors that our ancestors would have responded to with the command, “Stop! This must not go on.” And then they would have acted on that command. The first outward manifestation of the liberals’ moral revolution, or should we say their immoral revolution, was the French Revolution. Pure evil emerged, spewing forth from the hearts of academics – lawyers, philosophers, and theologians – and the French people did not oppose that evil.
[L]ittle did I dream that I should have lived to see such disasters fallen upon her in a nation of gallant men, in a nation of men of honour, and of cavaliers. I thought ten thousand swords must have leaped from their scabbards to avenge even a look that threatened her with insult. But the age of chivalry is gone. That of sophisters, economists, and calculators, has succeeded; and the glory of Europe is extinguished for ever. Never, never more, shall we behold that generous loyalty to rank and sex, that proud submission, that dignified obedience, that subordination of the heart, which kept alive, even in servitude itself, the spirit of an exalted freedom. The unbought grace of life, the cheap defence of nations, the nurse of manly sentiment and heroic enterprise, is gone! It is gone, that sensibility of principle, that chartity of honour, which felt a stain like a wound, which inspired courage whilst it mitigated ferocity, which ennobled whatever it touched, and under which vice itself lost half its evil, by losing all its grossness.
Is it possible to preserve the “unbought grace of life” while enjoying the fruits of a satanic revolt against God? “Yes, it is,” the incremental Jacobins of Europe proclaimed. “If you reject the extremism of Robespierre, if you grant tax-exempt status to the churches that support the liberal state, if you do everything that Robespierre did, but do it gradually and democratically, you can have the ‘freedoms’ and ‘pleasures’ Satan can give, and you can have God as well.” But such a compromise is a mirage, a trick of the devil. Where your treasure lies so lies your heart. You cannot treasure the things of Satan and still retain God in your heart. That is where intellectual Christianity comes to the fore. The immoral revolution in the hearts of the European people could not have taken place if the theologians – Roman Catholic and Protestant – had not damned the human heart as impure and unchristian. If we can only approach God through the intellects of enlightened clergymen we are ultimately left to the mercy of the evil one who has no mercy, because metaphysical speculation, detached from the human heart, is Satanism. The reason our modern clergy have joined the liberals in their condemnation of the antique Europeans is because they do not think a heart of flesh is the bedrock of faith. They are pagan philosophers who are uncomfortable with the illogic of the God who took on human flesh. Thus, our past, our Christian past, has been eradicated by the liberals and the anti-European, and therefore anti-Christian, churchmen.
If the European people were one with their progenitors, they would not be the confused, cowardly creatures they now are. They are confused because they think they can actually be part of Liberaldom if they voice their disagreement with certain aspects of liberalism in polite terms. And as the mad-dog liberals become crueler, divesting themselves of all humanity, the grazers and the ‘conservatives’ become more polite and self-effacing. But I ask you, was Robespierre gentle to the people who were civil to him? Did civility and politeness make Stalin feel warm and gushy so that he stopped killing millions? Civility should be the byword when Christians meet to discuss how best to advance His reign of charity, it should not be the byword — in fact it should have no place at all — when we confront liberals whose stated goal is the elimination of all things white and Christian.
Civility in the face of liberalism is a cowardly betrayal of Christ. Only men who are taking the hallucinogenic drug called democracy can think that liberals will stop their murderous campaign against the white race if we, the whites, will only be civil to them. Are they civil when they slaughter the innocents? Are they civil when they invite Moslems into the white nations to rape and murder whites? Are they civil to any white politician, such as Trump, who tries to include white people in the liberals’ ‘diverse’ world? Civility, kindness, mercy, and above all charity, stemmed from Christian Europe. How can you expect liberals who have made the hatred of Christian Europe their reason for being, to be civil, kind, merciful, or charitable? You can’t, unless you have become so spiritually anesthetized that you no longer are able to distinguish good from evil. We are back with Peter on the night they took Christ away to be crucified. “Do you know that man?” And of course Peter, with an instinct for self-preservation, denied our Lord thrice. But there is one instinct stronger than the instinct for self-preservation, an instinct that the liberals and the theologians do not believe in: the instinct to return the love bestowed upon us by the living God. Peter, after his denial of Christ, died on the cross because his loyalty to the font of love was greater than his fear of the liberals. The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, but the love of God is the ultimate end of wisdom. We arrive at that consummation through the human heart. Do our minds tell us to deny His Europe and embrace Jacobin Europe? If that is the case, then we have no heart, because we have denied the living God who comes to us through the human heart.
It has been the self-appointed task of the ‘Christian’ theologians to destroy the wellsprings emanating from the hearts of the faithful so they can remain on the straight and narrow, undeterred and uninfluenced by the dangerous passions emanating from the human heart. Life is not that simple. You can’t destroy the human in order to get to the divine. You must go through the labyrinth of the human heart, with all its pitfalls and temptations, in order to reach the God with the divinely human heart. Without Christ as the moral exemplar within our hearts, we are left with only our feeble minds as our moral exemplars. Which leaves us at the mercy of Satan and his minions.
I referenced Burke at the beginning of this post because what he described as the compromising spirit of his fellow Europeans toward the Jacobins – “an extravagant admiration of the enemy, present us with no hope but in a compromise with his pride, by a submission to his will” – is what has been taking place within the ranks of ‘conservatives.’ The crackdown on all websites to the right of Hillary Clinton has made the ‘conservatives’ try to be more civil and more submissive to the liberals. But such a policy is not only immoral, it is also impractical. The liberals are possessed by the devil, they are determined to go over the cliff with the swine. They will not have anything to do with anyone remotely connected to Jesus Christ. And white Europeans were once intimately connected with Jesus Christ; therefore, white people must be eliminated. You might think you will save yourself by denouncing your past, your people who loved much, but you will then be part and parcel of Liberaldom. You too will go over the cliff with the swine. We lose everything if we seek to make peace with the liberals; we lose the battle in this world, and we lose the ultimate battle, to obtain a place in His house of many mansions.
R. L. Stevenson observed that, “a man could not vary from his faith, unless he could eradicate all memory of the past.” That has happened to the European people. The liberals demonized the antique Europeans by calling white pietas ‘racism’ and the Christian patriarchal family ‘sexism.’ The churchmen went along with the liberals, jettisoning the actual flesh and blood Europeans for a new, abstract, nondescript, universalist type of Christian without the racist and sexist tendencies of the older European Christians. But such ‘perfect’ Christians are not Christians. They are liberals. They do not worship the God who enters human hearts, they worship the archangel Satan who enters human minds in order to tell the unfaithful that, “You shall be as gods.”
Robespierre discovered that his revolution based on pure reason could not sustain itself. The people needed something for their hearts. So Robespierre went from the execution of all those who were not atheists to the execution of all those who were atheists. But his state religion was not the Christian religion, it was paganism revisited. He failed because he moved too quickly and too harshly, but his method, the blending of Christianity in many of its outward forms with the spiritual substance of paganism, was accepted, over time, by the French people and the rest of the European people. The romance of liberalism, which consists of the European people’s love affair with reason, science, and the noble savage, has replaced, in the hearts of the European people, the romance of Christ crucified, Christ Risen. Why has that romance triumphed over the Christ-centered romance of old Europe? Why did Judas, who seemingly saw the same Christ as the other apostles, decide to betray Christ? Obviously there was something he failed to see. Why did Burke see “pure, unmixed, dephlegmated, defecated evil” in the Jacobin regicides, while Price, Fox, and Priestley, his contemporaries, and later men such as Belloc and Sarkozy, see the triumph of good over evil in the victory of the cannibalistic regicides over the Christian monarch of France? Who are we compromising with when we try to please the liberals? Why doesn’t the romance of His Europe inspire us to rise and ride? I do not understand the modern Europeans nor do I want to. Blessed are they that lived, loved, and mourned under the shadow of the cross, which once enveloped all of Europe. They are my people, which I’ll keep close to my heart, for sympathy’s sake. +