Liberalism Confounded

__________________________

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 20^th and 21^st 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 20^th and 21^st 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 beings.

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. +