Why do the heathen rage and the people imagine a vain thing? –Psalm 2: 1
The liberals have been in power in the countries of European origin for approximately one hundred years. And even now, when they have completely consolidated their power and squashed virtually all opposition, they refuse to accept responsibility when something goes terribly wrong in their world. They refuse to accept responsibility, because by liberal logic nothing can go wrong in utopia, and if something does go wrong, it is because utopia has not yet arrived and some bad people are impeding progress toward perfect peace and harmony. The liberals’ reaction to the recent grade school massacre is a case in point. We know, from their ardent support of infanticide, that liberals have no sympathy for the children that were murdered in Connecticut. The slaughter of innocents does not appall liberals in the slightest. So why the wringing of hands and the phony tears? The liberals must feign concern when public school children are murdered because they want to maintain their power base. The public must believe that schools are safe because that is where children learn to be good liberals. If parents stop sending their children to public schools then the liberals will lose their primary indoctrination centers. Hence the feigned concern must be maintained, and the liberals need to deflect the focus away from the glaring flaws in utopia and focus on the bad men who are standing in the way of heaven on earth. In the case of the school killings, it is the opponents of gun control who are responsible for the murder of school children, the liberals tell us, because they refuse to allow the liberals to have a gun-free society. It is of absolutely no use to tell the liberals that
(1) they are responsible for creating a climate where school killings are commonplace because they have undermined the Christian, patriarchal family, and
(2) that once having undermined the traditional family structure, they then refuse to protect school children from the consequences of the destruction of the patriarchal family by refusing to place armed guards in every classroom.
There will always be violent madmen even in the best of all cultures, but in the worst of all cultures, which is a liberal culture, violent madmen are the norm. A modern day homicidal maniac, Charles Manson, said, “Of course I’m crazy, but being crazy doesn’t mean much anymore because everybody is crazy.” In a Christian society truth comes from out of the mouth of babes, because a pure undefiled child is the most likely person to grasp what is at the heart of a Christian culture. In direct contrast, a homicidal maniac like Charles Manson is a well-suited person to grasp the central ethos of a liberal society. Liberalism is based on the murder of God and the homicidal desire to kill every last vestige of His image in men. Innocence, which is closely allied to faith, must be murdered in the womb, and the Christ-bearing people that have survived the womb must be eradicated by whatever means necessary. How else can utopia be maintained?
Manson, McVeigh, and the grade school murderer are all the liberals’ children, yet the liberals refuse to acknowledge them because the official liberal party line states that “there can never be bad children in utopia”; there can only be good, happy children who love liberals for creating heaven on earth. So all bad children must be the product of the bad, old, non-utopian, white civilization. Of course what the liberals, having abandoned the Christian faith, will never come to terms with is reality: evil is in the hearts of men, not in one isolated group of men (white men) nor in inanimate objects such as guns. Dostoyevsky’s Underground Man took the liberals to task on this very point. “What if you build the perfect new world in a perfect crystal palace and someone comes along and smashes it, just because he wants to smash it?” The liberals always tell us that no one will want to smash their crystal palace. The school killings shove that lie back in the liberals’ face. Liberal utopians never envision that their geometrically perfect world, devoid of God’s grace, can produce madmen who want to smash their world.
Of course any decent European does want to smash the liberals’ world. But because the antique European is not of the liberals’ world he does not want to destroy liberalism by the slaughter of the innocents. The bloody sacrifice of the innocent is a sacrificial rite of the liberals, not the antique European. More school children will die – they must die – because liberals have decreed that individual human beings are merely cogs in the great liberal machine that will ultimately (the liberals constantly assure us) produce the kingdom of God on earth. Again, we refer to Dostoyevsky:
‘…Tell me yourself—I challenge you: let’s assume that you were called upon to build the edifice of human destiny so that men would finally be happy and would find peace and tranquility. If you knew that, in order to attain this, you would have to torture just one single creature, let’s say the little girl who beat her chest so desperately in the outhouse, and that on her unavenged tears you could build that edifice, would you agree to do it? Tell me and don’t lie!’
‘No, I would not,’ Alyosha said softly.
Alyosha’s answer to the liberals’ utopian inhumanity is our answer.
It is impossible to dialogue with the liberals and come to a mutual understanding because the utopian mindset is a totalitarian mindset that will brook no opposition. Absolute power is necessary to ensure that “the people” can enter paradise. And those people are always in the future:
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. Ambition is come upon them suddenly; they are intoxicated with it, and it has rendered them fearless of the danger which may from thence arise to others or to themselves. These philosophers consider men, in their experiments, no more than they do mice in an air pump, or in a recipient of mephitic gas.
All those who wish to oppose liberalism must grasp that essential point about the liberal. He has hardened his heart against humanity. Nothing matters to him but his ideal of an abstract humanity. The slaughter of millions in the womb and the continual slaughter of hundreds in the classrooms is of no consequence to the liberal. Nothing will force the liberal to face reality. His mind-forged world of unreality is all that he sees. And he will defend that world, showing no mercy to those who oppose him. The liberal Robespierres have no concept of mercy because they have left such outmoded things in the hated European past.
The liberal is not just an utopian on one issue, such as the school killings. He looks at every issue through his utopian tinged glasses. When the AIDs epidemic hit the Western countries, a few non-utopian conservatives recommended that gay bath houses in cities should be closed. After all, that is what people serious about limiting a plague usually did. They tried to eliminate the breeding grounds for the plague. But in the case of AIDs there was a utopian principle involved. To admit that homosexual activity was harmful would be a tacit admission there was something wrong with utopia. So what became ‘wrong’ were the people who equated AIDs and homosexuality. They were just as ‘wrong’ then as the people who want to use guns to defend school children from men with guns are ‘wrong’ now. I recall the diligent efforts of the utopians at a university where I worked to find a heterosexual with AIDs for their AIDs Awareness program. They spent six months searching for a heterosexual with the disease because they didn’t want to imply there was any link between homosexuality and AIDs. There is no limit to the lengths a liberal will go to in order to protect his utopian vision of the world.
The lynch pin of utopia is the noble savage. Without him utopia crumbles, because he is “the people,” the natural, unadulterated, uncontaminated man of nature. “Forget your prejudices against the cruel, merciless savage,” the liberal tells us, “Embrace the future, embrace and worship the noble savage.” And the enlightened men of the brave new world have done just that. When the late John Paul II went to Africa, he told a howling mob of colored savages that when the black man finally threw off the last vestiges of colonialism he would produce a Christian culture that would astound the world. But wait, your reverence, we have already seen what happens when noble black savages throw off the last vestiges of colonialism. Utopia has a local habitation and a name. It is called Haiti, a place where murder, rape, and rapine have been institutionalized and not even a remnant of Christianity remains. But let’s not disturb the utopians, especially the “Christian” utopians. After all, their hearts are in the right place, aren’t they? Only if you deny the obvious. A utopian has killed all the humane instincts that reside in the human heart, such as the love of one’s kith and kin, and replaced them with an abstract love for abstract men of color who live in an abstract world in the utopian’s mind. Is such a man humane? Is such a man Christian?
There was a period of my life when I worked two jobs, one in academia and one in law enforcement. I couldn’t stand my colleagues in academia; the mere thought of seeing them every morning made me nauseous, but I got along tolerably well with the men on the police force. Looking back on the experience I can see why I found the academics so loathsome and the police officers bearable and in some cases congenial. The academics were 100% Jacobin. They hated everything human but loved humanity in the abstract. On the other hand, the police officers were not yet card-carrying, inhuman, Jacobin liberals and still had some vestiges of humanity left in them. Despite the liberals’ relentless work to draw more and more of the police into the liberal orbit by making them attend all sorts of ‘sensitivity’ seminars, there were still some recalcitrant officers left that made police work more bearable than work in academia. That was 25 years ago, and no doubt the liberals have thoroughly Gnosticized our police forces by now.
The liberals’ sole aim in life is to make the world into academia. In academia everything that is perverse and evil is celebrated, and everything pure and good is demonized. The truth is an anathema to academics, because the truth would turn men away from the abstract negro god of the liberals and toward the living God. The liberals must squeeze, as a boa constrictor squeezes his victims, every last ounce of humanity from the white European, because it is through his humanity that the white European reaches out to God. This is why the European is constantly told that his ties to his kith and kin are evil. Such human ties can lead to God, and the liberals do not want men to reach out to a God beyond Liberaldom. There is no need to squeeze the humanity out of the colored races; what little humanity they have can easily be destroyed by worshipping them in all their heathen perversity instead of refusing to sanction their heathen perversity. The heathen will rage if the white men allow them to rage, and in modern Babylon the European does not raise a Christian arm against the liberals and their colored gods. But this will not always be so. The European will strike back when he sees the liberals for what they are and he sees Christ as the antique Europeans saw Him. A European counterattack against the liberals and the coloreds is not a mathematical certainty. It is something more certain than math; it is a spiritual certainty. God does not abandon His people. He will sustain the Europeans who call on Him by name. We need only shift our focus from the managerial, geometric abstractions of the utopian liberals and return to reality, to the dear, dear land of storybook Europe. Behind utopian liberalism in all its guises is the ancient foe. And there is only one God who can sustain us in the day of battle against that ancient foe, the God of our ascending race, Jesus Christ. +