Edgar. Draw thy sword,
That, if my speech offend a noble heart,
Thy arm may do thee justice. Here is mine.
Behold, it is the privilege of mine honours,
My oath, and my profession. I protest-
Maugre thy strength, youth, place, and eminence,
Despite thy victor sword and fire-new fortune,
Thy valour and thy heart- thou art a traitor;
False to thy gods, thy brother, and thy father;
Conspirant ‘gainst this high illustrious prince;
And from th’ extremest upward of thy head
To the descent and dust beneath thy foot,
A most toad-spotted traitor. Say thou ‘no,’
This sword, this arm, and my best spirits are bent
To prove upon thy heart, whereto I speak,
There are two reasons why an opponent of the Islamification of Europe and/or the negroization of America might have recourse to the language of the psychiatrist. The first reason might be that he believes in the validity of psychology. The second reason might be that he thinks if he uses the language of the enemy he will be able to convince the enemy that he is right and the enemy is wrong. In both cases the opponents of the hard left, the conservatives and the neo-pagans, are deceived in deepest consequence. If they truly believe in the devil’s science, which goes by the name of psychology, they will never defeat the devil’s minions, because at heart they are in league with them. And if they think the liberals can be won over by rational arguments derived from psychology, they are deluding themselves. Men are not moved by reason, they use reason to advance their emotional agendas, not to repudiate those agendas.
The ‘death wish’ gambit of the neos and the conservatives is a perfect example of the secularized, psychology-laden mindset of the right wing. The Germans are inviting the Moslems into their nation; therefore, they have a death wish. The Americans are allowing Mexicans and Moslems into their country, and they have turned their cities over to negro barbarians; therefore, they have a death wish. No, that is not the case. Let us try to free ourselves of the bastardized mumbo-jumbo of psychology and return to the more basic language and more profound wisdom of our nonscientific European forefathers – the liberals welcome and encourage the invasion of the European nations by the colored heathens because they hate everything connected to Christian Europe. And who is more connected to Christian Europe than white people? Even if every single white repudiates Christianity, the white race will still be hated by the liberals. They will hate the Christ-bearing race from now till the ending of the world. Nothing will change that. Will not the liberals perish as well if they continue to advocate the destruction of the white race? Of course they will. But the liberals do not believe that they shall perish. That is why we cannot simply say ‘death wish’ and think we’ve solved the problem of liberal treachery. The liberals think they will live to be worshipped and adored by the colored heathen. Look at their fictional hero, Atticus Finch: “Stand up, your father is passing.” That is the liberal’s fantasy. Just as the Christian keeps Christ’s image before his eyes, the liberal keeps the image of himself as Atticus Finch, esteemed and respected for his sacrifice and support of the crucified black gods, before his eyes. The liberals never stop to ask themselves why the blacks hate the novel To Kill A Mockingbird. They just go on supporting their black gods and anathematizing the white ‘devils.’ Death wish? Not quite, there is something more than psychology at work. The liberals want me and thee to die for our racism, but they have no death wish. They have a life wish. They yearn for a paradisiacal life here on earth built on the blood of white racists and the dead bodies of infants tortured and murdered in their mothers’ wombs.
Why shouldn’t we use the weapons of psychology to fight the liberals? We dare not, because if we treat liberalism as a mental disorder that can be straightened out by reasoning with them and showing them the error of their ways, we will not get to the heart of the matter – we will not be able to stop the European people’s descent into hell. Liberalism is not a mental illness, it is a spiritual disease. Are not the two things the same? No, they are not. Christ did not reason with the demons in the Gospel, He bid them leave the possessed man, and they fled into the swine and went hurtling over a cliff. We must rebuke the liberals, in the name of Christ. We cannot reason with them with the intention of converting them with our brilliance. Men and women who are possessed by the devil are not open to reason. They use their reason to advance their satanic cause, not to learn about the error of their ways. The illuminati are incapable of error – in their mind’s eye they have seen a great vision, they have seen the kingdom of Satan on earth, and they will cling to that vision while fighting with all their heart and soul to destroy that other vision, the vision of a people who made Christ their lodestar.
When you play the psychological game, you are trying to place your opponent in a rational box in order to make him easier to deal with. St. Thomas Aquinas attempted to do the same thing with God. Hamlet rejected that assault in his defiance of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, and so did Dostoyevsky’s Underground Man. Man is not a reed instrument to be played upon, nor is he a piano key. Because they treat liberalism as a psychological problem, the conservatives and the neos have failed to see the true nature of liberalism. The liberals use psychology as a forgiveness tool for themselves and their colored heathen. There is no sexual sin in psychology, so the liberals need not worry about their varied perversions. And no black man is ever responsible for his crimes; it is the racism around him that causes him to do what he does. But psychology is thrown out the window when the liberals deal with whites. Suddenly, the liberals become religious fanatics. There is no tolerance for the white racist. Liberals do not look to psychology to find a reason to excuse the white racist. Oh no! The white racist is damned. He is summoned before the liberals’ Inquisition and the verdict is always the same – guilty. In the great liberal tribunal the white man is always guilty. He cannot reason his way out of the liberals’ death sentence by pointing out, from a psychological viewpoint, the error of the liberals’ ways. ‘Guilty as charged,’ will be the response of the liberals.
If the liberals have put on the full armor of Satan, how can we defend ourselves against their onslaught? St. Paul gives us the answer: when he advises us – no, that is too tepid – he passionately urges us to put on the full armor of Christ in our war against the devil. This is a religious war we are engaged in. It is not a friendly debate. The liberals have thrown off their masks of civility and compassion and revealed themselves in all their satanic fury, just as Maleficent threw off her outward façade of a woman in order to become a dragon, but still the conservatives and the neos debate and discuss, looking for the one magic formula that will make the liberals see reason. Never, never, never will the liberals see reason. The liberals will use reason to support what they do see — they see paradise before their eyes, a paradise diametrically opposed to Christ’s divine charity, a paradise of colored heathens and sexual perverts in which human beings become an inhuman aggregate herd presided over by the archangel Satan. Have we already reached that ‘paradise’? Not quite, but we are close to it. “It will come, humanity must perforce prey on itself like monsters from the deep!”
Let us go back some 200 years to a small town in the Southern United States. And let us say that there are two speakers scheduled to debate at the town hall. They are debating whether the town should build a new building for orphans or to simply allocate enough money for repairs to the old building. The two speakers can debate that subject, because they are meeting to debate within a moral consensus of a Christian people — orphans must be provided for. In the absence of a moral consensus there can be no debate. If one speaker comes to that debate with a predetermined belief that all orphans should be killed in order to rid society of the cost of caring for them, he would be outside the moral parameters of Christendom. A Christian could not debate with him.
When I was a young man, I had a subscription to National Review. I cancelled that subscription when National Review put out a headline that read, “Abortion: A Spirited Debate.” I sent an angry letter when I cancelled the subscription, asking the editors what they were conserving if it was not Christian civilization. And what could be more basic and fundamental to a Christian civilization than the protection of life in the womb? The reply of the editors was that I shouldn’t get upset over minor issues. Enough said.
When a Tucker Carlson-type of conservative debates a feminist, a ‘black lives matter’ advocate, or a radical Moslem, he always wins the debate. He wins the debate if debates are won by who makes the best argument, but when there is no moral consensus between the debaters, the victor is always the amoral debater who understands that debates are only subterfuges for his satanic agenda. A Christian cannot debate a man or woman who wants to destroy every white Christian on the face of the earth. That is ludicrous. The classical liberals, the conservatives, are still debating — and a protest is a form of debate — with the mad-dog liberals, because they do not worship God in spirit and truth. They, unlike the mad-dog liberals, still respect the old ethos of Christian civilization. They believe in civility, compassion, and fair-mindedness, but they do not see the whole Christian vision. If they did, they would not treat Satanists as their friendly debating partners; they would see the mad-dog liberals for what they are – moral pariahs who can only be dealt with on the battlefield.
When our Lord told us to be as wise as serpents and as gentle as doves, I think he was referring to our relationships with the possessed – the liberals. They use debates and protests as subterfuges to disguise their real agenda, which is an outright war against the white, Christ-bearing race. Not so with the classical liberals. They sincerely believe that debates and protest movements are an end in and of themselves.
Edgar is at the mercy of his demonic brother when he is “so far from doing harms that he suspects none.” But when suffering deepens his vision of existence, he comes to realize that mere goodness is not enough. One must passionately hate evil and be prepared to fight evil to the death. And that is what he does, and so shall we when we see existence with the heart of the antique Europeans rather the mind of the classical liberals. And if we don’t see with their heart? Then we will debate with the liberals until they stop all debates, and we will die without ever having spent one moment in the light.+