Whatever is left in this world of God’s grace comes from human hearts which are not completely closed to St. Paul’s vision of that lonely figure, the son of the living God, standing before the religious atheists and the outright atheists of the Sanhedrin. –CWNY
The conflict between the demonic little dwarf Tony Fauci, who insists there is no clinical evidence to support the claim that the coronavirus is the Wuhan virus, and the conservatives, who assert that the Chinese plague came from the war laboratories in Wuhan, is a microcosm of the tragedy of Western man ever since the beginning of the 20th century. There are the forces of evil, represented by Fauci, the liberals, and the Chinese communists, but there are no corresponding forces of good to counter the forces of evil. And we cannot have a happy conclusion to the fairy tale of European civilization without the forces of good.
Are not the conservatives the forces of good? No, you cannot represent an opposing force to evil when you are a shadow, to once again borrow Dabney’s term, of the evil force which you oppose. The liberal openly disposes of the Christian God in order to adhere to his triune God of the abstract intellect, the noble savage, and science. The conservative wants to keep Christ in the framework of the abstract intellect – he wants Christ the philosopher rather than Christ the savior – while maintaining the noble savage as his savior and science as his holy ghost. It is only when we return to a fairytale vision of life, the vision bequeathed to us by Christ, St. Paul, and the antique Europeans, that we can respond to the forces of evil as Christ would have us respond. What then is missing in the conservative’s response to the evil dwarf and his liberal cohorts? The prophetic fire is missing, the prophetic fire of Isaiah and St. Paul, which is grounded in the charity that never faileth:
It is now sixteen or seventeen years since I saw the queen of France, then the dauphiness, at Versailles; and surely never lighted on this orb, which she hardly seemed to touch, a more delightful vision. I saw her just above the horizon, decorating and cheering the elevated sphere she just began to move in; glittering like the morning star, full of life, and splendor, and joy. Oh! what a revolution! and what an heart must I have, to contemplate without emotion that elevation and that fall! Little did I dream when she added titles of veneration to those of enthusiastic, distant, respectful love, that she should ever be obliged to carry the sharp antidote against disgrace concealed in that bosom; little 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 charity 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.
Can “that charity of honour” be seen? Can we bring charity and honor into the duel of statistics between the liberals and the conservatives? No, we cannot, because charity is not so nominated in the democratic bond we have forged with the devil. We can only bring ‘clinical facts’ that can be seen with the eye of science into the arena, we cannot bring that which can only be seen through the eye into battle. That is the democratic rule. But the liberals’ ‘facts’ come from Satan – they are satanic lies he uses to attack the living God. We cannot counter those lies and the people who live by those lies by referencing the rationality of conservatism and the irrationality of liberalism, because that false definition of good and evil – “We, the conservatives, are good because we are rational, and the liberals are bad because they are irrational” – is part of the great lie, that abstract reason, divorced from the grace of God, can arrive at the truth.
Must we always find some abstract theory of God, must God be put in a golden bowl so that He can be validated by man’s abstract reason? “Yes,” the conservatives tell us. So God resides out there somewhere while the conservatives enter the lists, armed with good solid statistics, but without the full armor of Christ, which can only be worn by those men and women who have allowed the fairytale God into their hearts. In contrast, the liberals enter the lists armed with statistics and the full armor of Satan, because they have allowed the demonic angel of darkness into their hearts. The mad-dog liberals always defeat the classical liberals because they follow that which is within, while the classical liberals, the conservatives, follow that which is without, an abstract God who cannot sustain a man in the day of battle. If liberals demand statistical data to decide whether a nation that has never been Christian and is committed to the ideals of Jacobin France and Stalinist Russia is good or evil, then they have already told you they are beyond the ken of all things human. Why then do the conservatives try to deal with them? You can’t expect to convert the devil, you can only oppose him as our Lord did when he was tempted by him in the desert.
Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.
And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred.
And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.
But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple,
And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.
Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.
Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.
Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him.
The conservatives caved in to the temptation of the devil. Our Lord refused to give the devil empirical evidence of His divinity by casting Himself down from the pinnacle of the temple. So they, the conservatives, have taken it upon themselves to present their own miracle to Satan’s minions. They present their marvelous theories to the liberals, which are designed to dazzle them by their rational brilliance. But the liberals are never dazzled by the rational brilliance of the conservatives. They remain unmoved by the prolifers’ scientific proofs that the child in the womb is a living, breathing personality, and they remain adamantly opposed to the slightest suggestion that the Chinese communists created the Wuhan virus with malice aforethought, despite all the conservatives’ empirical evidence of the malice aforethought. Perhaps something besides an appeal to the liberals’ reason is necessary to defeat liberals. Where your treasure lies, so lies your heart. The liberals treasure their triune faith, which is diametrically opposed to Christ’s reign of charity. They will make common cause with any individual or group that attacks Christ through His people – the Chinese communists, the Moslems, the Jews, the colored savages – all are a treasured part of Liberaldom. You can’t, Mr. Conservative, defeat the liberals by showing them how irrational they are. The liberals are rational: they have made a rational decision to defend the faith that is within them — the hatred of Christ and His people – with the cold, rational malignity of the devil. You can’t deal with creatures who hate with that intensity by reasoning with them or appealing to their compassionate nature; those who worship Satan have left compassion behind. You must have something inside, you must have Christ inside, in order to fight the devil and his minions.
The liberals, with an unerring instinct to destroy even the symbolic remains of Christian Europe, have dug up Nathan Bedford Forrest’s and his wife’s remains in order to remove them from hallowed ground. Lee and Stonewall Jackson were great heroes and should always be honored by white Europeans, but Forrest was a hero who stood above them all. I doubt if he ever read Burke, but he was the one man who understood, as Burke understood, that the enemy, the Jacobin liberals, could not be dealt with as if they were Europeans who still remained within the fold of Christ, the Good Shepherd. They were a new breed of unmen who scorned that charity of honor which once was the distinguishing mark of the European. The European civilization of I Corinthians 1:13, the civilization that the theologians tell us never existed, only existed as a civilization in the North American hemisphere in the nation that Nathan Bedford Forrest defended. He was the last fairytale knight of old Europe. It is quite fitting, from Satan’s viewpoint, that he and his wife should be posthumously tried and condemned by the liberal Sanhedrin who hate all those men and women who loved Christ in and through their people.
The liberals and their allies in the organized churches (Pope Francis the blasphemer recently issued a happy Ramadan to the Moslems) have decreed that white people are the major source of evil in the world. And in a certain sense they are right – they, the liberals who have repudiated their European heritage, are the major source of evil in the world. But those other whites, the white people of old Europe who loved Christ, were they evil? That is what the illuminati tell us, but I don’t see my people with the mind of an illuminati; I see my people through the interior eye of the heart. And there I see faith, hope, and charity. Christ entered human history so that we could be part of His story, which is the story of, “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son.” We cannot separate ourselves from the people who took Christ into their hearts, who became part of His story, without losing our souls. The white race is the Christ-bearing race. Even the white grazers who have lost a clear vision of our Lord still show us every time there is a crisis such as a plague, flood, or famine that it is only white people who know what charity is. It is only the liberals, who make war with their heathen allies against the white race, that have not charity because they have repudiated their people, the people who saw a great light.
In Shakespeare’s The Taming of the Shrew, the shrew, Katherina, has taken herself out of our Lord’s loving embrace. She will not serve Him through the channels of grace He has provided. She wants autonomy from all divine-human restraints. But she gradually becomes aware of how His grace works through human channels. And in her submission to her husband, she submits to our Lord:
Such duty as the subject owes the prince,
Even such a woman oweth to her husband;
And when she is froward, peevish, sullen, sour,
And not obedient to his honest will,
What is she but a foul contending rebel
And graceless traitor to her loving lord?—
I am asham’d that women are so simple
To offer war where they should kneel for peace,
Or seek for rule, supremacy, and sway,
When they are bound to serve, love, and obey.
Why are our bodies soft and weak and smooth,
Unapt to toil and trouble in the world,
But that our soft conditions and our hearts
Should well agree with our external parts?
Come, come, you froward and unable worms!
My mind hath been as big as one of yours,
My heart as great, my reason haply more,
To bandy word for word and frown for frown;
But now I see our lances are but straws,
Our strength as weak, our weakness past compare,
That seeming to be most which we indeed least are.
The modern conservative needs to see that his reason is not what our Lord wants: He wants our hearts. If we love much we will know how to deal with evil dwarfs and their liberal minions.
The insufficiency of abstract reason to combat liberalism was brought home to me recently when I saw an exchange between a conservative and a liberal, who were discussing the Chinese method of dealing with the coronavirus. The liberal defended the Chinese purging of the virus by the murder of the victims of the virus. The classical liberal was appalled. But why was he appalled? If abstract reason is our touchstone of reality, isn’t it rational to kill the sick so that the healthy can live? The classical liberal, the modern conservative, is Ivan Karamazov. He makes abstract reason his God and then reserves the right to be appalled when Smerdyakov, acting on that premise, commits murder. If Christ be not risen, there is no reason why we should not commit murder for the greater good, the greater good being the biological survival of the herd. Let us step back into the divine narrative of His redemptive love. Our story must be, once again, interwoven with His story. There is indeed, “A Land of Pure Delight,” but we cannot get there except through Him, the Christ of old Europe, whom the liberals mock and the men of reason regard as a poetical triviality, fit for fireside tales at Christmas time but not suited for the serious business of life. Let us shun that rationalism, which is the true plague, and embrace His realm of charity, which passeth the understanding of abstract reason.+