One grave to me was given–
To guard till Judgment Day–
But God looked down from Heaven
And rolled the Stone away!
One day of all my years–
One hour of that one day–
His Angel saw my tears
And rolled the stone away!
In the past year I’ve read several liberal attacks on my hero, Walt Disney, and on the film director, Alfred Hitchcock. And it struck me, when reading the attackers, that it is indeed true that, “The children of this world, are in their generation wiser than the children of light.” The liberals seem to have an unerring instinct that helps them to know their enemies. And their enemies are the men and women whose view of existence conflicts with liberalism. In Disney’s case — he is the Hans Christian Anderson of the 20th century – it is his moral imagination, rooted in the life blood of the antique Europeans that fuels the liberals’ attacks on him. Disney’s Christian view of existence is incompatible with liberalism; therefore, Disney is racist and sexist. So it is written in Liberaldom and so it shall be.
Hitchcock’s films have a darker tint than Disney’s; he dwells much more in the dungeons of the human heart than Disney. But what the liberals hate about Hitchcock (they camouflage their hatred with accusations of sexism, which makes it completely legitimate to demonize him) is his belief in original sin. In picture after picture, Hitchcock tells us that men and women are terribly, sinfully flawed, and their sinfulness has nothing to do with social conditions; hence, they can’t be redeemed by denouncing racism and becoming liberals. They need redemption from some power that is more than nature. In his best films, Hitchcock makes it clear who that power is. His films are an antidote to the Marxist, liberal, Grapes-of-Wrath view of existence. Which is why Hitchcock, along with Walt Disney and the older Westerns, were hated by the communists. The children of this world are wiser than the children of light; they know who they must demonize.
Why are the children of this world wiser than the children of light? If we look to the dramatic arts, we can extract a clue to that puzzle. Actors always tell us that it is much easier to play a villainous character than a virtuous one, because villains, who might be subtle in their villainy, are not complex in character. They pursue their evil intentions with a single-minded intensity, while the man of virtue is often confused and uncertain, like Edgar in King Lear, “who is so far from doing harms that he suspects none.” Is that not the merely virtuous man’s great flaw, that he cannot recognize evil?
The children of this world, the liberals, the Moslems, the Jews, and the colored tribesmen, are in the ascendancy, while the white Europeans are in suspended animation, because the evil that men do requires only a sick, distorted mind connected to Satan, while the good that men should do requires a heart connected to the Son of God. Satan has always sought to block those channels of grace that flow from God to the hearts of men, so that men will hear only Satan’s voice in their distorted minds. God’s grace is more complex than Satan’s persistent urging, but Europeans once prevailed over Satan, not through thinking, but through vision, the vision of men and women with hearts of flesh connected to His sacred Heart.
In the Garden of Eden, Satan got Adam and Eve to look on God as the end product of a syllogism. To eat or not to eat the apple became a problem in philosophy rather than a commandment from a loving, benevolent God. When man seeks to know God with the mind alone, he will always end up doing Satan’s will, not God’s. “Yet what can I give Him, give Him my heart,” shall always be the bred-in-the-bone wisdom that defeats the mind-forged, satanically-inspired ideologies of the children of this world.
It seems unfair, from a purely intellectual viewpoint, that God should allow a demonic being, vastly superior in intelligence to humans, to prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls. The Grand Inquisitor in Dostoyevsky’s novel The Brothers Karamazov certainly thought God was unfair (“He thought too much of men”), so he decided to eliminate Christ and replace Him with a man-made Church of Christ without Christ. Did the Grand Inquisitor and all his heirs, the managerial conservatives in church and state, get it right? Are think tanks and systems that come from the minds of the best and the brightest more efficient and practical than a circumcised heart? It seems to me that the Inquisitors are wrong. Mere virtue, derived from an intellectual commitment to the good, will always finish second best to Satan and his minions, who are armed with one truth: “We must destroy what we hate, and what we hate is Christian Europeans.” The virtuous conservatives are focused on affirming an abstract good, which they are always in the process of defining and are never totally sure what it is. So while the men of “virtue” debate the truth, the liberals and the colored hordes act on their truth: “White Christians and their culture must be destroyed.”
The “unfair” battle that the white man seems destined to lose does not have to be lost. It is only lost so long as the white man believes that all of life is lived second-hand through the intellect. The antique Europeans did not believe in a second-hand life:
Life is real! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.
The tragedy of the Cross was first-hand: our Savior died for His people so that our personal tragedies could be redeemed and turned into personal triumphs. Melville cried out from the depths of despair, “Is all this striving in vain?” No, it is not if we stay true to the bardic Europeans who lived life first-hand. In storybook Europe, which is the real Europe, white people loved and hated with all their hearts. They loved God and hated Satan and his minions. “What can I give him, give Him my heart,” is the bardic European’s clarion call from out of the dark night of Europe. It will, if acted upon, be the equivalent of Gideon’s trumpet that shall bring down Liberaldom and turn back the blood red tide of the colored barbarians.
The European is currently acted upon by the liberals and the colored heathens. He does not take action against the liberals and the colored heathens, because he has only a second-hand faith. He can’t see a vision of Christ in his heart, and say, “This is truth.” Instead he turns the vision into a Socratic dialogue and in doing so turns himself into a second-hand human being. He will remain so until he stops believing Satan’s lie that disembodied thought, not Christ, is the Alpha and Omega of human existence.
The intellectual Christian tries to attach himself to virtue, but it is a virtue incapable of seeing evil and of passionately defending the good, whereas the liberal attaches himself to an inverted Christianity that is the complete antithesis of Christianity. Both faiths are second-hand, but the liberal’s intellectual faith is connected to Satan so he has the support of the angelic demon, while the intellectual Christian has only the support of his own intellect. Hence the liberal has the clarity of satanic hate and will never renounce an anti-Christian religion such as Islam, while the intellectual Christian has a mish-mosh, muddled faith that makes him unable to identify evil and support the good. He sees no evil in Islam as Islam; there are only bad Moslems. And conversely he sees nothing good in the white race as a race; white people are road blocks in the way of his abstract Christian utopia.
The moment the white man realizes that tragedy is first-hand, that he has a people whose lives matter, the reconquest of Europe will begin. Yeats was right when he said that the best lacked all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity. But he knew this because he was one of those who lacked all conviction. He sought to return to pagan Ireland in order to escape from a second-hand life of the intellect. Can a European still be a man if he is not a Christian? I do not think he can; the European can never return to paganism without destroying something within that makes him an integral man. But a European becomes something worse than a pagan if he is only an intellectual Christian. What is an intellectual Christian? An intellectual Christian is Pope John tendering his “loving forgiveness” to the black savages who raped, tortured, and murdered his people. It is John Paul II condemning abortion with one breath and then praising feminism with the next breath. It is all the white “Christians” who talk about “ecumenical jihads” and the dangers of a white, Euro-centered Christianity. If intellectual Christianity is the only Christianity, then Christ be not risen, because intellectual Christianity is a false, man-made faith.
Off this modern stage, which belongs to Satan, our people lived life first-hand. They saw life as a tragedy that was redeemed by a God who did not conquer by virtue of a Gnostic philosophy or by a detached oriental mysticism, but by the strength of His love, a divinely human love that brought Him to the Cross. What a vision our people bequeathed to us, to live, love, and die in the benevolent shadow of the Cross! But as time passed, the shadow of the Cross became something sinister to the European people. They fled from it and took refuge in an intellectual Christianity that left them defenseless against the wickedness and snares of the devil. We cannot make such people our visionary companions. They would have us blend Christ with other faiths such as Judaism, Islam, negro-worshipping liberalism. Europeans with hearts of fire do not need such false pagan faiths. They seek the God of the European hearth fire. Our people wait for us there. Their faith is our faith; it is a faith that gives us the strength and the wisdom to defeat the children of this world.
I don’t know that the modern Europeans will avail themselves of the vision of their ancestors, but if they do, things that now seem impossible, such as a white Christian Europe, will become a reality. The pride of intellect, which kills the vision of the heart, is the hurdle that the European must overcome. But if he does overcome it then – “Ah, what larks!” If you tell me that such marvelous transformations only occur in storybooks, I will agree with you. But old Europe was storybook Europe, not because it was utopia, but because He was truly incarnate in old Europe. The antique Europeans saw Christ through a glass darkly. The liberal has joined with the intellectual Christian to heap burning coals on storybook Europe, but what is their vision compared to the antique Europeans vision? All I see in Liberaldom is darkness. Abortion is legal, Islam is on the march, and the black savage has been deified. Intellectual Christianity has only aided Satan’s merciless onslaught; it has done nothing to stop it, because there is no heart, no soul, no vision in intellectual Christianity. At the hour of our death and at the hour of our civilization’s death, we need a miracle. Neither liberalism, intellectual Christianity, nor the nature religions can provide one. Our visionary companions, the antique Europeans, bore witness to the God of miracles. Storybook Europe is rooted in His Kingdom come. If we remain faithful unto death to that Europe, we will see miracles occur once again – “And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: that the love wherewith thou has loved me may be in them, and I in them.” +