There shall be the song of angels, the delight of the blessed; there shall be the dear face of the Lord brighter than the sun for all the happy ones; there shall be the love of friends; life without death; a glad multitude of men; youth without age; the glory of the heavenly hosts; salvation without sorrow; rest without strife for those who did right; the glory of the blessed; day without darkness, radiant, full of splendor; gladness without griefs; peace henceforth without dissension between friends happy in heaven; love without enmity among the saints. There shall be neither hunger nor thirst there, sleep nor grievous sickness, nor the heat of the sun, nor cold nor care; but the band of the blessed, the most glorious of hosts, with the Lord of heaven shall ever enjoy there the grace of the King.
– from “Christ,” an old Anglo –Saxon poem
I understand the mad-dog liberals. Their hatred for Jesus Christ and the people who once loved Him has placed them with Shylock, outside the ken of humanity:
I am sorry for thee, thou art come to answer
A stony adversary, an inhuman wretch,
Uncapable of pity, void and empty
From any dram of mercy.
But I do not understand the News Max conservatives and the Breitbart conservatives. These people seem to have retained some “dram of mercy” in their souls, and yet they try to dialog with liberals who have no “dram of mercy.” Portia sees past Shylock’s formal protestations of “justice, justice,” to what is in his heart, the hatred of Jesus Christ and His people. And she, because she has become a stand-in for our Lord, does what is needful. She offers him a chance for mercy:
Though justice be thy plea, consider this,
That, in the course of justice, none of us
Should see salvation. We do pray for mercy,
And that same prayer doth teach us all to render
The deeds of mercy.
Shylock does not repent, and he is forced to pay the consequences of his satanic opposition to Christ’s reign of charity:
It is enacted in the laws of Venice,
If it be prov’d against an alien
That by direct or indirect attempts
He seek the life of any citizen,
The party ’gainst the which he doth contrive
Shall seize one half his goods; the other half
Comes to the privy coffer of the state;
And the offender’s life lies in the mercy
Of the Duke only, ’gainst all other voice:
In which predicament, I say, thou stand’st;
For it appears, by manifest proceeding,
That indirectly, and directly too,
Thou hast contrived against the very life
Of the defendant; and thou hast incurr’d
The danger formerly by me rehears’d.
Down, therefore, and beg mercy of the Duke.
It is not wrong to point out the history of the Jews’ opposition to Christ’s reign of charity. But we must see that the European liberals have become like unto the Shylockian Jews: they have become Christian apostates, who have no mercy or charitable impulses, not a dram; they have only a maniacal hatred for Jesus Christ and the people who once championed Him. Can we dialog with such creatures? Of course we can’t. And yet the conservatives bid us dialog with them. So, I repeat, I do not understand the conservatives.
Let me make a distinction between the unmen such as Romney and Pence and men like Trump. Romney and Pence said things that theoretically placed them in the moderate liberal-conservative camp, but then when they felt the political winds were shifting, they moved over to the mad-dog liberal camp. Their ilk we shall always have with us:
Is like a villain with a smiling cheek,
A goodly apple rotten at the heart.
O, what a goodly outside falsehood hath!
Trump, to his credit, actually believed in a fusion of Christianity and liberalism. And when he obtained office, he remained true to his stated faith. Trump’s faith is the same faith as the News Maxers’ and the Breitbarters’ faith; it is not wholly incompatible with Christianity nor is it wholly incompatible with liberalism. And that is the rub. Our God is a jealous God. You can’t be part Christian and part liberal. And the liberals’ God, the sacred negro, is a jealous god; you can’t retain even the fumes of a Christian culture if you want to have a place in Liberaldom. It seems as if the liberals and the moderate liberals should not be at odds. Don’t they both support civil rights, economic prosperity, and the four freedoms? No, they do not. The mad-dog liberals do not want civil rights for the negro, they do not want equality. They want the negro as a God: all whites must worship the sacred negro. The conservatives are always trying to show the mad-dog liberals that they love Martin Luther King Jr. and that they are for the full enfranchisement of blacks. They are not 19th century Southerners nor are they 1950 segregationists. But that is not enough. The liberals and their black minions have even developed a new doublespeak for the worship of the sacred negro; that doublespeak is “equity.” It is supposed to mean that when blacks have been suppressed for over one thousand years, it is not enough to make them equal, they must be more equal. That is right and fair, isn’t it? “No, it isn’t right and fair,” the moderate liberals say. They stick to equality. But they fail to see the religious zeal behind the liberals’ “equity.” Equity means the worship of the sacred negro. You must reject equality and the enfranchisement of the negro if you really want to put an end to equity, which is the worship of the sacred negro and all the perversions that follow in the wake of that satanic religion. But it would be undemocratic to oppose the enfranchisement of the black race. It would place a man back with the evil empire, the land of Forrest and the pre-Civil War white Europeans of the South. Yes, it would. The old South was not an aberration that sprang from hell in the midst of Liberaldom, it was a land connected to His Europe. To be Southern, in the best sense of the word, was to be a Walter Scott European. The South was the last bastion of the code of the white men in North America. Equality and equity are one and the same; the mad-dog liberals have grasped that fact, the moderate liberals have not. Hence the moderate liberals blather on about their love for Jackie Robinson and Martin Luther King Jr. and do not understand why the liberals continue to hate them.
The result of a conservative leadership that does not understand the evil of liberalism, that wants to dialog with the devil, has been the massacre of the innocents. All the babies murdered in the womb had to die because the conservatives refused to see that you cannot dialog with liberals. The whites who are murdered in the streets by black barbarians, the whites who stormed the Capital unarmed on January 6th and are now being tortured in prison are all victims of a conservative leadership that bids their followers be non-violent and democratic in the face of a satanic enemy that is violent and totalitarian. The mixture of a messianic belief in the democratic process and a disbelief in the demonic origins of liberalism is a recipe for disaster we should no longer follow.
My efforts to understand the moderate liberals is still a work in process. During the days preceding the 2020 Presidential election and after the military coup that subverted the election, I went out of my way to speak to Trump supporters. Was there one common denominator among them that distinguished them from the mad-dog liberals and the antique Europeans? Yes, there was. The Trumpers, who are called conservatives by the mad-dog liberals, did not and do not believe that whites cannot be part of Liberaldom because they are irredeemably racist as the mad-dog liberals maintain. They do not use the n-word, they support civil rights, they honor Martin Luther King Jr., and they repudiate the racist Europeans of the past, so why do the liberals condemn them? They feel they are being treated unfairly by the liberals. And of course they are being treated unfairly, but the liberals are not committed to anything remotely resembling fairness. They are committed to their mystery religion which must have a savior, which is the sacred negro, and which must have a devil, which is the unenlightened white, most particularly the unenlightened white male. The Trumpers are forever on the defensive, trying to prove they are not racist, while the liberals are always on the offensive, asserting the impossibility of redemption for the unenlightened white. And ‘enlightenment’ is always defined as the complete acceptance of the evil of everything the antique Europeans considered to be virtuous – chivalry, charity, and pietas. And that is where the Trumpers break with the antique Europeans. The antique European wants to rise and ride in defense of Derek Chauvin, who is being crucified because he did what was chivalrous and honorable — he fought for the right against black barbarianism, while the Trumpers seek to distance themselves from his ‘racism.’ When the antique European hears of a woman in Greece who was raped by an Afghan and then raped by three Pakistanis to whom she went for aid, he does not want to vote against the rape of white Greek women, he wants to kill the perpetrators of the crime and drive the rest of their tribe out of Greece and off the face of the earth. The white grazers, the conservatives, are the only people on the face of the earth who will not act instinctively, according to their hearts, when their people are brutalized, tortured, and murdered by colored barbarians within and without their nation. Their “elective affections” are not with their own people because they do not believe they are a people. That is regrettably and tragically what separates the white grazers, the News Max conservatives and the Breitbarters, from their Christian ancestors. And that separation is what keeps all those who follow the “conservatives” in the liberals’ hell on earth. “And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us that would come from thence.” – Luke 16: 26
Two authors, one English, one Southern, who were still writing in the early part of the 20th century but who personally adhered to and ‘romanticized’ the 19th century code of the white man, which was under attack in the 20th century, show us the transition from the whiteness of “bred in the bone Christianity” to the darkness of an intellectual affirmation of the Christian God, which is blended with an elective sympathy with the heathen gods of liberalism. Just as Solomon affirmed his faith in the God of Israel while paying homage to the heathen gods of his wives, so do the modern conservatives give lip service to the Savior while they give their hearts to the heathen gods of color. Page writes of a Christian gentleman who deliberately loses a horse race rather than risk injuring a man who has fallen off his horse during the race. A witness to the scene says that he couldn’t have planned such a chivalrous act, it must have been by accident. “No,” a wise observer replies, “It was no happy accident, his action was ‘bred in the bone.’” And Thomas Nelson Page’s European counterpart, P. C. Wren, concurs; he depicts the living faith, that charity of honor, which is bred in the bone of the white man, in his novel Beggar’s Horses. The hero, “the bravest of the brave,” who has killed in the name of “that charity of honor,” is given the highest tribute that a Christian gentleman can give another man: “I’ll take your word on it, Ganesh. For you’re the best and whitest man God ever made.” Yes, there is the gulf between our modern world, which the conservatives bid us accept, and the old world, Christian Europe, which we must cling to and champion. Whiteness is not evil in that old world, it is our earthly connection to His kingdom come, because it is through pietas, which is our whiteness, coupled with the charity of honor, that we remain connected to the heart of our Savior.
When our people bent their knees to Christ, they did so, not as the conquered but as the conquerors. They remain the only people, as an entire people, who adopted the religion of the people they conquered. Why? Because they saw that Odin and other hero gods were forerunners of the one true Hero God. The Savior did not ask them to renounce the code of heroes such as Gunnar:
He that lavished rings in largesse,
When the fight’s red rain-drops fell,
Bright of face, with heart-strings hardy,
Hogni’s father met his fate;
Then his brow with helmet shrouding,
Bearing battle-shield, he spake,
‘I will die the prop of battle,
Sooner die than yield an inch,
Yes, sooner die than yield an inch.’
-from the Icelandic story in Burnt Njal, retold in Trevelyan’s History of England, Volume 1
Christ called upon them to take the warriors’ code to a higher level, to that charity of honor which He and He alone can impart to human hearts. The unyielding battle hymn of Hogni’s father, Gunnar, became, once it was purified by Christ the Lord, the Dream of the Rood. And the defense of all the values stemming from the Dream of the Rood, faith, hope, and charity, constitutes the code of the white man that sustained our people in all the Christian centuries preceding the 20th and 21st centuries. The democratic ethos, the American way, call it what you will, is no substitute for the code of the white man.
The Europeans’ belief in fighting hero gods prepared them for their eventual faith in the one true Hero God:
The Nordic religion was not a religion of dread, or of magic formularies to propitiate hostile powers. Instead of covering its temples with frescoes of the tortures of the damned, it taught people not be afraid of death. Its ideal was the fellowship of the hero with the gods, not merely in feasting and victory, but in danger and defeat. For the gods, too, are in the hands of fate, and the Scandinavian vision of the twilight of the gods that was to end the world showed the heroes dying valiantly in the last hopeless fight against the forces of chaos—loyal and fearless to the last. It is an incomplete but not an ignoble religion. It contains those elements of character which it was the special mission of the Nordic peoples to add to modern civilization and to Christianity itself. –History of England
But something happened to the people who saw Christ as the Hero of heroes and the King of kings. That something was the rationalist dragon. When I was in Crete, I went through the cave that was supposed to have been the labyrinth that Theseus went through when he encountered the Minotaur. And since I believed that the myth was grounded in fact, I was thrilled, even though it was just in my imagination, to relive Theseus’ heroic encounter with the Minotaur. What the great scholastics did — quite possibly they were well intentioned – was to eliminate that journey through the labyrinth of the human heart because they wanted to spare us the encounter with the Minotaur. But what if the Christian must encounter the Minotaur in order to get past the Minotaur to that other door, the door where buried love doth live? St. Thomas set barriers up, where reason and science were not supposed to go, lest those two entities should destroy faith. But what if reason and science will not stop, what if they will break the barrier behind which faith dwells and start to dissect faith until there is no faith left? What force on earth shall stop the dissection of God and man in the name of reason and science? The Christian hero will stop them, the man who, like St. Paul, has a heart connected to His divine heart. If we must eschew the labyrinth of the human heart because we might be killed by the Minotaur of evil passions, how will we have the good passion, how will we have the heart to defeat the liberals who are the great dissectors of man and God?
Without the hero who is not afraid of the labyrinth of the human heart, we have only mad-dog liberals intent on destroying all things white and Christian through the unholy trinity of reason, the sacred negro, and science, and moderate liberals, the white grazers, who want to keep reason and science as the first and third part of the modern trinity while keeping Christ and the sacred negro as co-redemptorists. That can never be; we are not men of reason or science, we are men possessed with an interior poetic vision which sees the God above reason and science. And such men do not do homage to the sacred negro, they see only one God, the heart of hearts, and the one True Hero God. When white men believe in their whiteness, in that charity of honor which connects them to the Savior, the liberals’ day will end. Until that re-ensoulment of the white man occurs, Satan, through negro-worshipping liberalism, will rule what was once the green and pleasant land called Christian Europe. +