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 this world?

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 in man.

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 experts.

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. +

This entry was posted in Faithful hearts, Jacobinism, Liberalism, Rationalism and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.