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
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
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 “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.
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.” +
“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. +
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
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. +
“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 TheChristmas 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
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
“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 carolsand 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
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
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
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
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
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
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?
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
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.
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
Joan: Where is your spirit of adventure? We might get three
very interesting people at our table.
George: I doubt it.
Joan: Look, George!
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.
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
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
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
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
Herb: Then I’d be out of a job.
Priestess: So what?
George: [Laughing] Here comes the first course, it looks
[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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Joe: I understand, I’ll go get his papers immediately.
Priestess: And bring him out here with his papers.
Joe, Yes, your… er…
Joe: Yes, your sisterhood.
[As Joe heads for the kitchen, the priestess picks up her
Act I. Scene 4.
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
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?
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
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
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
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…
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
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
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
Herb: I think he is a goner, Father. She won’t let anyone
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
Younger priest: [35 years of age] About the changes in the
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.
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
Joan: Sister Jacqueline is sick! She won’t wake up!
Herb: Is there anyone here who can attend to Sister
[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
Herb: That is your expert medical opinion?
[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….
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
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
Assistant: I don’t personally know of anyone who won’t
welcome this news.
Pastor: I know of one man.
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
Pastor: I see you have the nativity scene out again this
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
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
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
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
[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.]
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
David Morgan: This will be your first Christmas here since
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
Morgan: I’ll see it on tape.
Taylor: You’re filming it?
Morgan: Sure, how could we not film the directorial debut of
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
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
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 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
“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
“Grey: How is your child?
“Jailer: He is a fine, healthy boy of eight years of age
“Grey: That is good news.
“Jailer: He is waiting for me at the White Table Inn with
“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
“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
“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
“BIL: Yes, I would very much like to believe that, but I
“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?
“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
“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
“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
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.
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
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
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
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
Abide with me;
fast falls the eventide;
The darkness deepens; Lord, with me
When other helpers fail and comforts
Help of the helpless, oh, abide with
Swift to its close ebbs out life’s
Earth’s joys grow dim, its glories
Change and decay in all around I see—
O Thou who changest not, abide with
I need Thy presence every passing
What but Thy grace can foil the
Who, like Thyself, my guide and stay
Through cloud and sunshine, Lord,
abide with me.
I fear no foe, with Thee at hand to
Ills have no weight, and tears no
Where is death’s sting? Where, grave,
I triumph still, if Thou abide with
Hold Thou Thy cross before my closing
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
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.
And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day
shalt thou be with me in paradise. – Luke
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
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
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.
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.
Thou rather with thy sharp and sulphurous bolt
Splits the unwedgeable and gnarled oak
Than the soft myrtle; but man, proud man,
Dress’d in a little brief authority,
Most ignorant of what he’s most assur’d,
His glassy essence, like an angry ape,
Plays such fantastic tricks before high heaven
As makes the angels weep; who, with our spleens,
Would all themselves laugh mortal.
By way of preface, I haven’t put any links up on my blog
since my removal from Word Press in April, because I don’t want to bring some
other blogger down who might be found guilty by his or her association with me.
That is the nature of the times we live in. The European people live under the
rule of the Babylonian liberals, and their rule is not a benevolent one.
At the beginning of The
Christmas Carol, Dickens lays particular stress on the fact that Marley is
dead. “There is no doubt that Marley was dead. This must be distinctly
understood, or nothing wonderful can come of the story I am going to relate.” I
must lay ‘particular stress’ on the fact that the European people are a captive
people living under very cruel and merciless overlords, who have allowed the
devil to fill the void in their souls created when they left Christian Europe
to forge a new realm, where people were ‘free’ of the constraints of the
Man-God, Jesus Christ.
It’s quite possible, even quite probable, that the European
people will remain under the rule of their liberal overlords for many centuries
to come. “Then why, if we are doomed to be captives of the liberals, should we
bother to oppose them?” We should oppose them because men are not merely
biological beings. Never let the fact that we have biological needs obscure the
fact that we are of the spirit; our real need is for communion with our people
and our God, in spirit and truth. And the spiritual truth of our existence here
on earth is that it is better to be spiritually connected to the living God,
even though we live under the rule of Babylonian liberals, then to deny our
captivity and practice the same religion as the rulers of Babylon in order to
appease the rulers of Babylon. Daniel was one of the Christ-bearers; it was his
task to hold to the Christian faith even in the midst of Babylon. That is our
task: We, as a people, must be faithful to the prophets, the apostles, and our
European progenitors who kept the faith alive in spite of dungeon, fire, and
It is not a good thing, the Babylonian captivity of the
European people; I weep by the rivers of old Europe just as the Jews wept
during their captivity by the rivers of Babylon. But we go beyond sadness to
tragedy if we deny our captivity, because that denial constitutes an acceptance
of all or part of the liberals’ faith, a faith which will send us to hell. What
did our Lord tell us? He told us to beware of those who could kill our souls;
they were far more dangerous than those who could merely kill our bodies. “And
fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but
rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” (Matthew 10:28)
Liberalism is a soul-killing faith; we must put on the whole armor of God in
order to protect ourselves against it. From whence comes the armor of God? It
comes from within: “Behold the kingdom of God is within you.”
I had a friend who tried to become a priest in the Novus
Ordo branch of the Catholic Church, and then, when that attempt failed, managed
to get ordained in a traditionalist branch of the Catholic Church. But like
David Copperfield, who tried life on his own and found he liked it no better
than his former life, he found that he didn’t get along with the
traditionalists any better than he got along with the Novus Ordo Catholics.
What was the problem? Was my friend simply a trouble-maker, unable to get along
with anybody? No, that was not the case. The friend in question was an
unpretentious, mild-mannered man who wanted to serve Christ. “The problem was
here,” said my friend, pointing to his heart. “They don’t have a heart for
God,” was the verdict of my friend. His experience with organized Christian
Jewry has been my experience with organized Christian Jewry, Protestant and
Catholic: The clergy have decided that Christ didn’t know what He was doing
when He appealed to the hearts of humble fishermen rather than to the brains of
the ‘smart guys’ in the Sanhedrin. But Christ knew the Sanhedrin had hardened
their hearts against Him; they were too smart to believe that love came down
from heaven in the person of Jesus Christ.
The religious wars in Christian Europe were never wars
between Christians who held to the true faith, the faith of the apostles and
St. Paul. The so-called religious wars were in reality theological wars, men
adhering to one mind-forged theory of God fought against other men with
differing mind-forged theories of God. And when theories of God collide, the
dear Christ, the Christ who enters human hearts, is left out of the picture.
Theological speculation is the root of liberalism. The devil told Adam and Eve to speculate about God. And their theorizing about God led to their betrayal of their Father who loved them in return for… what? The reason organized Christian Jewry is defenseless against the liberals is because organized Christian Jewry wants to be part of Liberaldom. The churchmen would like a more moderate liberalism than their secular counterparts, but they do not want to go back to the ‘stupid’ faith of the antique Europeans who believed in the whole Christ story. Really, how can an intelligent man believe in talking snakes and a non-evolutionary creation of man? But if we can’t trust God to tell us the truth in the beginning of the Christ story, how can we believe Him when we come to the end of the Christ story? The reason our modern churchmen have not declared war on the liberals is because they are ultimately not opposed to them; they have no heart for God, because their minds have killed their hearts. They have become like unto Uncle Silas in J. S. LeFanu’s novel:
Of my wretched uncle’s religion what am I to say? Was it utter hypocrisy, or had it at any time a vein of sincerity in it? I cannot say. I don’t believe that he had any heart left for religion, which is the highest form of affection, to take hold of. Perhaps he was a sceptic with misgivings about the future, but past the time for finding anything reliable in it. The devil approached the citadel of his heart by stealth, with many zig-zags and parallels.
Perhaps our clergymen once had a vein of sincerity in their faith, but they forgot the beginning of the Christ story. The devil always appeals to our pride of intellect. It is not ‘racism’ we need to worry about — au contraire, we need to be racist in that we need to love our own in order to conquer that greatest of all sins, the pride of intellect, which makes us think we can reorder God’s world so it is in harmony with our reason rather than His folly. What did St. Paul mean when he said that the folly of God was greater than the wisdom of men? He was telling us that the human heart connected to the Divine heart, through love, is the truth and the way.
Charity never faileth; when we forget that, we become either
cannon fodder for the liberals, or worse yet, we become liberals. Jacob Marley
warned Scrooge of the chains he was forging for himself because of his hardness
of heart. The European people have allowed themselves to be chained, link by
link, to liberalism. And they will never break the chains of liberalism until
they respond to Christ’s divine condescension with the same passion that
animated the prophets, the apostles, St. Paul, and the antique Europeans.
Our existence here on earth cannot be explained by science
alone. How could mere biological entities create a civilization such as
Christian Europe? How could mere biological entities exhibit the faith, hope,
and charity of the antique Europeans? Are not such manifestations of the spirit
something more than nature? Yet the liberals tell us we are not of the spirit,
we are mere vegetable matter. But somehow, by a great scientific miracle, the anointed
ones, the liberals who have gone beyond whiteness, beyond their God-given
humanity, can build the kingdom of God on earth with the colored people of the
world as their raw material. It’s an absurdity on top of an absurdity, yet that
is the ‘scientific’ reasoning of the liberals. And that ‘scientific’ faith has
been institutionalized throughout the European world. Each incremental link of
the liberal chain that binds the European people to the liberals was forged in
hell, but each link was presented to the European people in the form of a
perverted Christianity. Negro worship started out as civil rights. Who could be
against that? But if we exempt the black race from original sin and make that
race an object of worship, savage gods devoid of mercy, who is served? There is
only one who is served, and that one is Satan.
Feminism started out as an organized movement to make the
white male ‘respect women.’ The astounding assumption that the antique
Europeans, particularly the Victorians, did not ‘respect women’ stands as an
everlasting testimony to the deranged demonism of feminism. Why is the ethos of
Lady Macbeth holy while the sanctity of the life-bearing and life-nurturing
women of old Europe, women such as Little Dorrit, considered to be demonic? And
now, we are told that heterosexuality itself, or at least white male
heterosexuality, must be condemned in the name of feminism. And our churchmen
acquiesce to that condemnation because it is compatible with their mind-forged
Christian faith, which condemns all passions emanating from the human heart
because such passions can lead a man astray. Of course reason can never lead a
man astray. Is that true? We have only to look at our very rational 20th
and 21st centuries to see the wonders of a mind-forged, rational,
man-made world, in which human creatures, devoid of hearts of flesh, dance like
puppets on strings. And it is Satan who pulls the strings.
When I was growing up, my history teachers generally led off
their classes with the old maxim about the nations who didn’t learn from
history. Such nations, we were told, were doomed to repeat past mistakes. There
is a certain amount of truth contained in the old maxim. But there must be a
genuine desire to know the truth in history, otherwise the old maxim will do
you no good. European history today is only used by the liberals as a battering
ram to break down the last remnants of white resistance to liberalism. They
either make up ‘historical’ events that place the European people in the worst
possible light or else they put the worst possible interpretation on an
isolated part of the Europeans’ history, a part that does not represent their
whole history. The liberals have already come to a conclusion about the
European people’s past before they look into the past. The verdict was decided
on before the trial of history began: The antique Europeans are guilty.
The two fatal errors of the modern historical studies of the
European people are that the studies do not look at our people’s whole history,
and the studies do not go beyond factoid history. Our history starts in the
garden of Eden and continues onward, not always upward, through the prophets
who foretold of the coming of Christ, and then culminates in the Christian
centuries in which our people wrestled with Satan in order to defend His realm
of charity here on earth. Our sword was always the cross of Christ and our
shield was always the heart that truly loved. When the academics, the new
Sanhedrin, persuaded us to abandon our spiritual sword and forsake our heart’s
first love, we became defenseless against the wickedness and snares of the
The second fatal historical error we made and still make, is that we confuse factoid history, the study of dates and outward events, for the real history. Dates and historical events are only the outer crust. To know history, we must see history through the spiritual eye, not with the material eye. Our bards are the true historians: “Poets, under various denominations of Bards, Scalds, Chroniclers, and so forth, are the first historians of all nations.” (Walter Scott) The poets are the “first historians” because they tell us of the spirit behind the facts of the pedestrian, factoid historians. Our first historians, the European poets, tell us of a people who saw a great light; they saw the Word made flesh and believed in the Word made flesh. And our poets told us of a great people’s battle with the devil and his minions to preserve their faith in the Word made flesh. Now our true poets tell us of the lost people, the people who have repeated the original sin of Adam and Eve. The European nations have institutionalized the pride of intellect from which flows all the sins of our modern age; they have become the hallmarks, or to be more accurate, the hell-marks, of our Western un-civilization. Negro-worship, Christian fusionism, feminism, homosexual marriage, transgenderism, and the degradation of all things humane and charitable are the fruits of the pride of intellect which dominate the European people. Only the love that once was there, our love for our people in and through Christ, not our hatred of our people in and through Satan, will kill the ‘pride of intellect’ culture of modern Europe and set us back on the Road to Calvary which leads us to His redemptive love and His house of many mansions. +
–Except this. That as they were assembled in the old Hall,
by no other light than that of a great a fire (having dined early), the shadows
once more stole out of their hiding-places, and danced about the room, showing
the children marvelous shapes and faces on the walls, and gradually changing
what was real and familiar there to what was wild and magical. But that there
was one thing in the Hall to which the eyes of Redlaw, and of Milly and her
husband, and of the old man, and of the student, and his bride that was to be,
were often turned, which the shadows did not obscure or change. Deepened in its
gravity by the fire-light, and gazing from the darkness of the paneled wall
like life, the sedate face in the portrait, with the beard and ruff, looked
down at them from under its verdant wreath of holly, as they looked up at it,
and, clear and plain below, as if a voice had uttered them, were the words: ‘Lord, keep my Memory Green!’ — The Haunted Man and the Ghost’s
When I was a child there was no question which season was the best season of the year. It was summer. There was no school in summer, and you could do so many outdoor activities in summer that you could not do in winter. And my love of summer continued into my adulthood, because when I married and had children I enjoyed the summertime activities with my children. However, now that my children have grown, I find, much to my surprise, that the hated autumn, hated because it meant the end of summer, has become my favorite season. Physically and spiritually autumn now appeals to me more than summer. But I can still understand why so many people adore summer and do not welcome autumn. So I understood and sympathized with a young woman, about 30 years of age, standing next to me in line at a local amusement park this past August, when she said that she hated to see the end of summer. I said, “Yes, it is sad to see ‘the last rose of summer.’” The woman’s response surprised me.
“That is beautiful, did you just think it up?”
Now, I wasn’t quoting Proust or Joyce, or some other
esoteric writer of the past, I was quoting one of Thomas Moore’s songs that
used to be as widely known as the Beatles’ Let
It Be. I suppose I shouldn’t have been so surprised, because I frequently
encounter, in this brave new world of diversity, white people who have no
knowledge of Christian Europe. Apparently a diverse education no longer extends
to our spiritual progenitors, the antique Europeans. (1)
The Christian Europeans were intimately concerned with
history, particularly their history, because they believed, unlike all other
people, that their God had entered human history. Once you believe in the
Christ story, once you have taken that story into your heart, you can no longer
view history as a cyclic process; you believe human history began in the Garden
of Eden and will end with the second coming of our Lord. And in between those
two events the history of every single human being is of “eternal moment,”
because He has created us in His image, to share all eternity with Him or to go
to hell, if we choose to go to hell. So it is of no small consequence — it is
of eternal consequence — that the modern Europeans have chosen hell over His
There are warning labels on alcohol, cigarettes, and a good
deal of our food products, but there are no warning labels on our culture. We
don’t see any signs in our schools – “What you learn here, if taken to heart,
will send you to hell.” Nor do our churches have any warning signs as we enter
– “Warning, we believe that hell is heaven and heaven is hell, abandon
Christian Europe if you enter this church.” And on it goes. If the liberals
were honest and forthright, they would warn people that all the major
institutions of Liberaldom lead us to hell, but if the liberals were honest and
forthright they wouldn’t be liberals. So the great lie, the lie that says the
liberals’ hell is really heaven, goes unchallenged.
In Christian Europe the European everyman served the King
because the King served Christ. Kings who forgot their rule came from Christ
frequently ceased to rule. It is quite different in Liberaldom. The liberals
have instituted the principles laid forth in Plato’s Republic. The state does
not serve God, God serves the state. So long as your religion does not conflict
with the religion of the state, you may have a religion. But is such a religion
really a religion if you must make your vision of God subordinate to the state’s
vision of God? If Christ is only invoked to condemn racism, but is not invoked
to condemn negro worship, feminism and legalized abortion, is He really the
same Christ that was worshipped by the antique Europeans, the Christ who rose
from the dead on the third day? Of course, He isn’t. That Christ, the Christ of
old Europe, has been banned from the liberals’ republic.
The liberals are correct, not morally correct, but
tactically correct, to ban all remembrances of Christian Europe, because when a
man, a European man, remembers Christian Europe, he will know what he once was,
a child of God, and he will remember what he has lost, His kingdom come, by
accepting a place in Liberaldom. What then? He will challenge the liberals’
right to rule, and that challenge, the challenge of a European imbued with the
power of faith, faith in the living God, is something the liberals cannot
abide, because such a challenge will mark the beginning of the end of
There is a Christmas story by Charles Dickens called TheHauntedManandtheGhost’sBargain, which should be placed on an equal footing with The Christmas Carol, but for some reason
it is not as well known. In the story, the Haunted Man makes a bargain with a
ghost. The ghost will give him peace of mind by removing his remembrance of all
“sorrow, wrong and trouble.” Of course when the Haunted Man loses his
remembrance of all sorrow, wrong and trouble, he loses all contact with
humanity. He becomes a walking abstraction, unable to share in the happiness of
others, whose happiness is woven in with sorrow, wrong and trouble, and unable
to truly empathize with the suffering of others because he has left suffering
behind. The story is so contemporary, because the plight of the Haunted Man is
the plight of the European people. We have renounced incarnate Europe, we have
not kept our memory of that sacred place and those blessed people green.
Instead, we have become like unto the living dead — we walk through the valley
of the shadow of death-in-life liberalism, completely immune to the suffering
of others and the happiness that once was mixed in with the sorrow, wrong and
trouble of the antique Europeans. The devil’s lie rules the European people –
“You can be happy here on earth; you can avoid all the sorrow, wrong and trouble
found in Christ’s Europe if you just follow the liberal way, which is my way.”
At first glance the modern Europeans seem one with Buddha. Didn’t he and his followers believe that an intellectual detachment from suffering humanity was the key to “inner peace”? Yes, there are great similarities between Buddhism and modern liberalism, but the white race can never be exactly like any of the colored races. When whites go wrong — and there is no wrong greater than liberalism — they forge their wrong in a perverse caricature of the faith that their ancestors once held. Thus the modern Europeans are abstracted from humanity just as Buddhists are abstracted from humanity, but the modern white liberal has added a Christian’s evangelical zeal to his Buddhistic abstraction from humanity. We must, the people of the liberal captivity, become abstract humanoids devoid of all humanity or the terrible swift sword of liberalism will cut us down. The Buddhist seeks to avoid evil by intellectually removing himself from it, and the liberal institutionalizes evil in order to avoid the source of all suffering, the people who saw beauty on the cross. Those people are an evil that cannot merely be avoided, they must be purged. The vision that reclaims the Haunted Man and brings him back from death in life to eternal life is the vision that has been banned from the liberals’ Europe:
‘O Thou,’ he said, ‘who, through the teaching of pure love, hast graciously restored me to the memory which was the memory of Christ upon the cross, and of all the good who perished in His cause, receive my thanks, and bless her!’
It is the remembrance of the vision of Christ on the cross
that restores the Haunted Man. But the Haunted Man wanted to reclaim his soul;
he was not content with death in life; he wanted his humanity back. Is there
any indication that the European people want their memory of Christian Europe
back? Do they feel the loss of their humanity as the Haunted Man did? No, they
do not. They are still wallowing in the pig slime of modernity in the hope that
if they consume enough pig slime they will enter the kingdom of God on earth.
Because they have no remembrance of what they once were as a people, the Christ
bearers, they have become what the science of the liberals tells them they are
– mere beasts, fit for one thing, the liberals’ nightmarish world of death in
life, stripped of all capacity to love God or man.
Let us put the European people’s tragic fall from grace in
simple terms. Suppose there once was a young man, born of God-fearing parents
who nurtured him, loved him, and gave him, through their love, an intimate
knowledge of the living God. When he became an adult his parents died. At first
he grieved and vowed, in his heart, to keep their memory green. And so long as
he kept their memory green, he was able to love God and bear up under the
sorrows and troubles of the world. But then tragedy ensued. The young man began
to listen to the surrounding din of men called academics. From state pulpits
and ecclesiastical pulpits they told him of the evil of his parents. They
demonized such parents and commanded him and others like him to put the
remembrance of their parents out of their minds and hearts and place all their
hopes in the new world that the academics were forging, a world devoid of
sorrow, wrong and trouble. What would we think of a young man who listened to
the academics and let his remembrance of his parents die out? Wouldn’t we call
such a man a moral pariah, a reprehensible coward? I would. And that is what I
call the modern Europeans, moral pariahs who do not have the moral courage to
challenge the liberals’ utopia in the name of the people who bequeathed to them
a vision of the living God.
Never, never lose sight of the fact that the liberals’
attack on ‘racist’ whites is an attack on the living God who comes to us
through our humanity. If we denounce white pietas, we denounce Him. The Lord
has blessed me with many children, and they are indeed a blessing, because they
have brought me closer to Christ. In loving them, I have learned so much more
about His loving heart than I could ever have learned from theology or philosophy.
But if I thought happiness consisted of the absence of sorrow, wrong and
trouble, I would have taken the academics’ bargain and rejected fatherhood,
because each and every child has increased my burden of sorrow and worry in
this world. I love my children, hence I suffer because their sorrows and
troubles are my sorrows and troubles. But would I have any happiness in this
world, or hope of happiness in the next world, if I did not share the suffering
of my loved ones? No, I would not; therefore, I reject the liberals’ bargain,
the same bargain the ghost offered to the Haunted Man, a bargain he ultimately
rejected. And we should all, we Europeans, reject the liberals’ ghostly bargain
and return to His Europe where there is a multitude of sorrow, wrong and
trouble, but where there is also the love of God, which passeth the
understanding of the liberals, the creatures who have left His kingdom come in
order to live in their mind-forged hell on earth.
Pietas, pietas, the passionate love of our own — that is
our challenge to liberalism! We shall not yield, we shall not cease to love,
even in the face of an avenging army of maniacal, liberal inquisitors who are
determined to eradicate the Christian Europeans from the face of the earth. We
will counter their hate with our love of Him in and through our people, of
happy memory, who loved much and received His forgiveness and His blessing. +
(1) There are always certain gaps in every man’s or woman’s education. For instance, I was surprised to hear William F. Buckley, an educated man, confess, in his mid-sixties, that he intended to read Moby Dick for the first time. So you might think I am making too much of one woman’s ignorance of “’Tis the Last Rose of Summer.” But that was just one example of what I insist is the loss of something more significant than a lack of knowledge of certain European classics. That woman’s ignorance was representative of a severance, a severance from our people’s incomparable, irreplaceable moral heritage. That moral heritage, which connects us to Him, is much more important than our democratic heritage or our scientific knowledge. Nor is a mere academic knowledge of the great works of Western literature enough. We must have an organic connection to the spirit of the people who produced and loved those great works. “Lost, lost, lost,” says the evil dwarf in Scott’s The Lay of the Last Minstrel. And so are we if we don’t see life feelingly and reconnect with those “dear old folk from long ago.”
Why, look you now, how unworthy a thing you make of me! You
would play upon me, you would seem to know my stops, you would pluck out the
heart of my mystery, you would sound me from my lowest note to the top of my
compass; and there is much music, excellent voice, in this little organ, yet
cannot you make it speak. ’Sblood, do you think I am easier to be play’d on
than a pipe? Call me what instrument you will, though you can fret me, you
cannot play upon me. – Hamlet
I have never had the so-called
American sympathy for the underdog. I wept when the New York Yankees lost to
the ‘underdog’ Pittsburgh Pirates in the 1960 World Series. The Yankees
represented to me, at that point of my childhood, all that was noble and good;
they were the heirs of the Lou Gehrig Yankees. I saw the Pirates as a pack of
jackals picking at the entrails of a noble lion. Of course I was placing my own
fantastical construction on that World Series event, a construction that had
very little basis in reality. Lou Gehrig was indeed the noblest ball player of
them all, but it did not follow that the 1960 Yankees inherited his mantle of
nobility. But the point I want to emphasize is that I did not and do not
automatically support the underdog in the battle simply because he is the
underdog. Now, if the underdog is the noble one, as was the case with David in
his battle against Goliath, then I do support the underdog. However, when I see
nobility in the vilified favorite, I support the favorite. And doesn’t the
favorite become a kind of underdog, when he is a noble lion facing an
overwhelming pack of ignoble jackals? Wasn’t Maximilian the noble one in his
contest against the Mexican revolutionaries? Weren’t the British the noble lions
in their battle against the American revolutionaries? And certainly the
Cossacks who defended the Czar against the Russian Jacobins were the noblest
lions of them all.
I wrote the above as a preface to what follows, because I do
not want what follows to be misconstrued as an abstract defense of the
underdog. What I am defending is the human personality, in all its God-given
nobility, against the scientized intellects of a committee of inhuman purveyors
of abstract theories, with no connection to the realities of man’s spiritual
life. The restoration of the misplaced Europeans of the 21st
century, the ‘Lost Patrol,’ will take place when the European people once again
side with the human personality, joined with His divine humanity, over and
against the scientized committee men in church and state.
All the military men of the South, despite their noble
intentions, failed to defeat the Yankees. There was one exception to that
general failure — that exception was Nathan Bedford Forrest. Forrest lacked a
diploma from West Point, but he had something far better than a West Point
diploma, he had a genius for war as it was waged in reality rather than a theory
about war that had no basis in reality. As a result Forrest never presided over
a loss, and when Jefferson Davis was captured toward the end of the uncivil war,
he was trying to make his way to the ranks of the man who had held the Yankees
at bay for four years despite his lack of a West Point education.
Now let me move forward to the 20th century, to Reykjavík,
Iceland in the year 1972. The Russian chess master and reigning World Champion,
Boris Spassky, had all the advantages over Bobby Fischer. Spassky regularly
played against an array of chess experts to sharpen his skills, and he played
according to the book of scientific chess. Yet, the isolated genius who
practiced against himself defeated Boris Spassky. It was a great victory for
the human personality, the solitary genius defeating a collective body of
experts. Of course it would have been an even greater victory had the United
States really been a Christian nation. Then the battle would have truly been a
clash between good and evil as was the case when Forrest, who was ironically
called “that devil” by the demonic General Sherman, fought in defense of the
Christian South against the ungodly government of the North.
The modern liberal heresy that says all that is ignoble and
inhuman is good, and everything that is human and noble is evil, began, as all
heresies begin, in the ranks of the Christian clergy. The clerical heretic
thinks that it is easier to control men, for their own good, if you dissect
them and remove all that is ungodly from their hearts. Unfortunately, or, more
appropriately, tragically, the heretic soon determines that everything
emanating from the human heart is ungodly, so he eliminates the human heart and
commands all men to view the abstract intellect, his intellect, as their ruling
principle. But when you eliminate the human heart and all the passions
emanating from the human heart, you destroy man’s connection to the incarnate
God. If man is totally evil, if what is inside of him is irredeemable, then why
did our Lord take human flesh and dwell among us? Pope Francis the blasphemer
now tells us that Christ our Lord did not take human flesh and dwell among us.
That is the end result of a theology that dignifies the abstract intellect of
man and demonizes the human heart.
Our bards, the European poets who were attuned to the hearts
of their people, have shown us the end result of a theology that is not of God,
but of men. In Dickens’ Great
Expectations, Miss Havisham loves a man unworthy of love who leaves her at
the altar, and as a consequence she closes her heart to all emotions and
passions that reside in the human heart. She raises her adopted daughter,
Estella, to despise humanity as she despises humanity. Of course tragedy ensues,
and Miss Havisham dies asking Pip’s forgiveness. The Grand Inquisitor in
Dostoyevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov takes
the same position vis-à-vis his parishioners as Miss Havisham took toward
Estella. He circumvents God’s will, who wants men to seek Him in their hearts,
in order to serve them better than God does. The Inquisitor eliminates the
erring human heart and gives men what they need to survive in this world. But
can we survive with the certainties of science, the things of this world,
without something that speaks to our heart’s desire to transcend the things of
Is it not remarkable that the Jewish clergy, the men who
were supposed to be the guardians of the faith, crucified the living God? Why,
with the prophets before them, with the whole history of their people’s
covenant with God before them, did they reject and kill Christ? They committed
that unspeakable crime because the God they worshipped was a scientized God
devoid of humanity. What should have been a sign unto them of Christ’s
divinity, that He made the blind to see, the deaf to hear, and the lame to
walk, was a sign unto them of Christ’s pact with the devil. That is and always
shall be the mark of the heretic. He believes whatever is humane and
compassionate is evil and whatever is inhumane and cruel is godly. The Christian heretic and the liberal are one
with the high priests of the Sanhedrin, the men who scientized God into a
cruel, vengeful God made in the image of their minds.
If God can only be known when He is scientized, then men must
be scientized as well so they can know God. When the church seemed to be at its
strongest in the Middle Ages, it was in reality sowing the seeds of modernity
throughout the nations of Europe. When God is scientized, when He becomes an
object of study that can only be known through the human mind, His image in man
is defaced. There are always those in the ranks of the clergy who are willing
to kill the humanity in man in order to purify the church of God. But if, as
St. Paul tells us, the church of Christ consists of hearts that love Him, then you
attack Christ’s church when you demonize the human heart, because you have left
the dear Christ without a place to “enter in.”
Hamlet would not be “played upon” by Rosencrantz and
Guildenstern as if he was a recorder. And Dostoyevsky’s Underground Man said
that “a man lives his whole life to prove he is not a piano key.” Whenever we
side with the men of the scientized intellects who profess to ‘help’ men by
scientizing them, we side with the powers of darkness, because science, in the
name of enlightenment, has obscured, and in many cases obliterated, His image
The 20th century has produced competing ideologies
of science that all lead back to the same charnel house of death-in-life
liberalism. The capitalist can ignore the 14-hour a day misery of the coal
miner because the ‘scientific’ capitalist system produces the greatest economic
good for the greatest number of people, people in the aggregate, not individual
people, who were and are created in the image of God. And the neo-cons can
eliminate the jobs of thousands of truck drivers with the same rationale that
the overlords of the coal miners used – ‘It benefits mankind in the aggregate
if we use machines instead of men to drive trucks.’ The communist response to
capitalism came from within scientism. The
communists claim their system is the correct scientific solution to the bad
science of the capitalists. Lost in the conflict is the man created in the
image of God. There is nothing divine in the aggregate herd. The capitalists
and the communists do not see His image in men with their statistics, so they
think they can do what they will with their statistical human beings who have
been divested of their souls, their God-given humanity.
Modern wars are now fought by one group of statistical
entities against another group of statistical entities. The Novus ordo Catholics champion the
scientized God of de Chardin while the traditionalists champion the scientized
God of Aquinas, but in both cases, the divine humanity of Christ and the
divinity in man is obscured by the scientific theologies of the religious
The same conflict goes on in the secular arena. The
conservatives want to conserve, through the good offices of scientific
analysis, our ‘democratic way of life’ while the liberals want to build a new
way of life based on their scientific analysis. Again, what is lost in both
cases is man. Show me a conservative in the 20th or 21st
century that links his conservatism to the white race. Where are the Dabneys
and Fitzhughs in the ranks of the conservatives? The post-World War II
conservatives simply wanted to integrate more slowly than the mad-dog liberals.
And that is still the conflict today. The Republican and the Tory want to
liquidate the white race at a slower rate than the mad-dogs of the various
democratic parties and labor parties throughout the European nations. The
scientific conservatives want a more orderly white genocide than the mad-dog
liberals. That will not do. The European Christian will not consent to the sacrifice
of his people on the altars of science, democracy, and diversity, because he
knows that without pietas he and his people are lost: they are the people
without a home in this world or the next world.
We come to God through pietas, the love of our own. If our
blood ties to our kith and kin are scientized out of existence, we will lose
our faith in the living God. And of course that is what has happened: the
Europeans now have a scientized image of God, the natural savage, to worship
instead of the living God who used to preside over our racial hearth fire. Why
is it that only the white race has been ordered to give up ‘racism’ in the name
of science? Why is it unscientific for the European people to love their own,
yet it is not unscientific for the colored races to love their own? Is it
because white pietas leads to His kingdom come and colored racism leads to hell
on earth? Yes, that is the reason. White pietas revealed the image of God in
man; it benefited white humanity and colored humanity because it allowed the
dear Christ to enter into our lives. Now that white pietas has been scientized
out of existence, we have seen the demise of all things good, noble, and true,
and the triumph of all things ignoble, evil, and false. The mystery of
existence is contained in the God-Man. When we comprehend that mystery with our
non-scientific hearts, we will fight for our own with our whole heart, mind, and
soul, and in that fight we will once again know and love the living God. +