According to Thine Own Heart

O worthy Duke,
You bid me seek redemption of the devil.
Hear me yourself; for that which I must speak
Must either punish me, not being believ’d,
Or wring redress from you. Hear me, O hear me, hear!

–Measure for Measure

_____________

For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. –2 Corinthians 4: 6

______________________________________________

I do not trust Paul Craig Roberts because he writes in economic hieroglyphics and once called abortion a trivial side issue. But I am very suspicious of the Washington DC establishment and of doctors in general, so when Roberts said that Trump was being sent to Walter Reed Hospital so the doctors there could murder him, I was very concerned. Why should I be concerned about Trump since he believes in the great American experiment in demon-cracy and I do not? I care about Trump in much the same way that Sir Walter Scott cared about Bonnie Prince Charles. Scott was an ardent supporter of the counterrevolution which put an end to the Stuarts’ attempt to replace a throne-and-altar European monarchy with a divine-right-of-kings, Asian style monarchy. And yet he admired the cavalier prince because of his courage and his panache. I admire Trump for his courage and because he has a small remnant of white pietas, which all his Republican predecessors lacked.

Because of my concern for Trump’s safety, which was made all the greater because of Paul Craig Roberts’ assertion, I watched more of the news on Monday than I usually watch in a whole month. That was a mistake on my part, because I listened to the liberals’ questioning of Trump’s doctors at the press conference outside Walter Reed. The press had no concern for Trump as a human being or Trump as the President. Their desire was that he should die, and if he failed to die, their next best hope was that he could be declared mentally incompetent. My reaction to the nest of vipers was an incredible rage that could only be satisfied if I were personally able to strangle each and every one of those creatures from hell. How does the devil get the time to make such creatures? And how does he make them appear to be, at least outwardly, so lifelike? You would almost think they were human. But then of course they open their mouths and instead of human speech, inhuman venom proceeds from their mouths and shows them to be creatures conceived in hell. My youngest daughter who watched the venom conference with me – it was not a press conference – had to leave the room in order to weep. I suppose that is the difference between the male and the female; I wanted to kill in the presence of such unmitigated evil and my daughter had to go and weep.

In 1959 Walt Disney made that magnificent retelling of Perrault’s fairytale Sleeping Beauty. In the film, Maleficent finally confronts the hero in her true form, that of a reptilian dragon. The liberals are now confronting the white race in their true form of a reptilian dragon, but no one has emerged to throw the sword of truth into the dragon’s heart. Why is that? Why are the liberals not seen for what they are, namely creatures from hell, and why are there no leaders who can see that we must do to the liberals what Prince Phillip did to Maleficent? There is no opposition to the liberals because the conservatives are one with the liberals on that which is essential for the liberals’ rule: Reason, detached from the revelatory faith of the antique Europeans, must be the guiding light of men in the new religion of Satan. The conservatives, who are the shadows of the liberals, only oppose the liberals within the confines of the new, blasphemous trinity of reason, the sacred negro, and science. Such an ‘opposition’ is not an opposition, it is an affirmation of demonism as the ruling principle of our nation.

Let us look at how the symbiotic relationship between the conservatives and the liberals plays out. If we look at legalized abortion as one of the most glaring examples, but certainly not the only one, of the liberal and conservative dynamic at work, we can see the devil’s handiwork close up. Abortion was made legal forever more in the land of liberty on January 22, 1973, the exact date that President Nixon agreed to a peace accord with the Viet Cong without requiring an accounting of our prisoners of war. Is there a parallel there? I think there is. A government that won’t protect babies in the womb is not a government that will protect the soldiers who go to war (even if it is not an official war) for that government.

We are approaching the fiftieth anniversary of Roe vs. Wade, and there is still no hope of procuring protection for the infants in the womb. That is because the conservatives who claim to be prolife are also believers in the democratic way, a system of government designed by rationalists, which makes the Christian God subordinate to the U. S. Constitution. I remember, when I was a young man filled with “challenge and desire,” asking a veteran prolifer who had been picketing at one of the local abortuaries since the liberals started the murder factories, why we didn’t just storm the abortuary, kill the abortion doctor and his staff, and burn the abortuary to the ground. His response was quite telling: “I once had about one hundred men lined up to do just that when Father _____ got wind of it. He denounced such actions from the pulpit, and that pretty much ended any real resistance. Since then I carry this sign around on Saturdays, and I vote prolife.” The devil always wins when decent men place a rational system above that “charity of honor.” The democratic process that resulted in “Give us Barabbas!” also resulted in legalized abortion. We will never make abortion illegal so long as we remain democratic. “What if we get prolife judges?” A prolife majority on the Supreme Court would only return abortion to the states, and after nearly fifty years of permitting abortions how many states will then make it illegal? Legalized abortion continues to exist as the result of schools which preach abortion as a sacred right and church men who regard abortion as a lesser issue than civil rights, climate change, and open borders. We cannot seek redemption from the devil. And the democratic process is a creation of the devil, in that it places a man-made system above God’s revelation to man.

Let me stay with the abortion example, because it tells us so much about the demise of the European people. I used to sit at tables in various malls with anti-abortion literature on display. The purpose of my interaction with the public was to convince them that the child in the womb was a human being who deserved to live. The assumption behind my efforts was that I could appeal to people’s reason, and once they saw that the child was a child they would no longer be pro-abortion. What an absurdity! Of course, the pro-aborts knew the child was a child – that is why they needed to take violent action against the child in order to ensure that he or she would not invade their privacy, their right to live unencumbered by a child. I had not taken into account Taine’s wise observation about the real place of reason in human affairs:

In every doctrine which wins men over to it, the sophistry it contains is less potent than the promises it makes; its power over them is greater through their sensibility than through their intelligences; for, if the heart is often the dupe of the head, the latter is much more frequently the dupe of the former. We do not accept a system because we deem it a true one, but because the truth we find in it suits us. Political or religious fanaticism, any theological or philosophical channel in which truth flows, always has its source in some ardent longing, some secret passion, some accumulation of intense, painful desire to which a theory affords an outlet.  –The French Revolution

It is significant that the ‘Christian’ apology for abortion came from the monk who separated the heart from the head and revelation from reason. Aquinas never said we could abort, he said that which would one day be a child should be treated as a child, but his reasonable heirs, men and women who believed in the sovereignty of reason, decided that the delayed ensoulment theory suited the ardent longing of their hearts, their longing to destroy a child who did not suit their life style. Reason is not the moral element in man; we cannot appeal to it as the final arbiter of what is right and wrong. That is the theological error of the great scholastic and that is the error of our modern conservatives who try to reason with Maleficent. Our Lord needs reason illuminated by a heart that loves, He does not need or want illuminated reason divorced from the heart.

The poet-pastor of Denmark, N. F. S. Grundtvig, was a remarkable clergyman in that he condemned any clergyman, Catholic, Lutheran, Calvinist, etc., who said that which was within the human heart was unredeemable. There had to be something, the good pastor insisted, within us that was capable of responding to God’s grace. If there wasn’t, then how could we know God? Of course the Catholic and the Protestant scholastics told us we could know God through their illuminated minds. But doesn’t that contradict St. Paul who told us to search the Scriptures with our hearts? And doesn’t it contradict St. Paul’s assertion that charity never faileth? Did he tell us that reason never faileth? Did he tell us to study the Scriptures with our illuminated minds until there was nothing left of the Holy Scriptures? Why do the conservatives always cite Jefferson, the man who rewrote the Gospels in order to purge all the irrational events, such as the virgin birth and Christ’s resurrection from the dead, as their ‘conservative’ progenitor?

The Polish existentialist Jan Kott once wrote a book called Shakespeare Our Contemporary. In that book, Kott highlighted the dark, existentialist elements in Shakespeare’s plays that made him, in Kott’s mind, a contemporary with the likes of Samuel Beckett and the modern, ‘let’s all commit suicide’ playwrights. But Kott neglected to point out that Shakespeare, who saw into the darkest recesses of the human heart, also saw redemption in the human heart. There was Edgar as a counterweight to Edmund, and Cordelia as a counterweight to Goneril and Regan. The great temptation that the scholastic churchmen and the conservatives succumbed to was the temptation to flee from the “horror, the horror,” the evil present in the human heart, to embrace pure reason. That flight serves the devil, because when we take refuge in reason detached from the heart, we are naked before our enemy who prowls about the world seeking the ruin of souls. There is great evil in the human heart, witness the liberals, but there is redemption there as well, witness our people when they were a people. Ah, there’s the rub. The conservatives and the churchmen will not credit the people with the ancient hearts because they were racist, they had pietas. The conservatives are now illuminated Christians without pietas. But the illuminated Christians will always lose to the liberals; they will be their shadows. They will champion a rationalist Christianity devoid of the blood faith of St. Paul and the antique Europeans. The end result of such a faith is that the conservatives dialogue with Maleficent instead of putting a sword through her heart. Liberalism will live and thrive so long as we reason with the devil while condemning the Christ-centered faith of the antique Europeans.

St. Paul said that his vision of Christ crucified, Christ risen was a stumbling block to the Jews and foolishness to the Greeks. The modern liberal is like unto the Jews that St. Paul spoke of. They condemn the blood faith of the European people because such a faith is antithetical to everything they believe in – sexual Babylon, legalized abortion, and the worship of the sacred negro. The modern conservatives condemn the blood faith of the European people because it is also antithetical to what they believe in. They believe in a Socratic Christ who is confined within a rational system. But when we study God in order to dissect Him, making Him the sum of the dissected parts, we lose the second person of the holy Trinity, we lose our Savior. The conservatives leave Christ in church with the rational men and embrace the negro for their real life savior. They never defend the culture and the people of old Europe because those people were racist. They defend the modern adherents of the democratic way because they are not racist. We must be ‘racist,’ we must have white pietas in order to see the living God and act on that vision.

The Europeans’ vision of the Rood was not rational, it was uniquely European and therefore racist; it was also unscientific. But was it true? Did that European vision lead us to “something of great constancy”? Did those dear old folk of long ago give a local habitation and a name to the living God? I say they did. His name was and is Jesus. The liberals tell us that there is no room for hate in Liberaldom. Then why do they have nothing inside them but hate for the living God and the people who championed the living God?

Is it time to jest and dally now? Is it a time to dialogue with the devil? No, it is never such a time, and it is most especially not such a time when the devil has drawn his terrible swift sword. Armed with cruel hate, he is now, under the mantel of the sacred negro, attacking the Christ-bearing race with unparalleled fury. Whether this is the end time or an image of that horror, is not for us to know. But we do know that the liberals and their colored minions are the devil’s own who cannot be voted or dialogued out of existence. +