“The world is no doubt encroaching on our families and our
Christmas. The hatred against traditional morality is becoming so intense as to
be scarcely believable.” – Letter from a friend, December 21, 2019
But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitude that they should ask Barabbas, and destroy Jesus. – Matthew 27: 20
Let me begin the new year
with a Christmas reflection – There are no longer Christmas truces. When the
European people were still ethically Christian (ca. 1914-1965) and still in
part Christ-haunted, you could have contact with liberals without feeling you
were lying down with some kind of reptilian monster. They still, at least at Christmas
time, showed some signs of humanity. But now it is quite different. The modern
liberals, acting on the assumptions of their liberal progenitors — assumptions
that their progenitors often did not act on — have pushed onward to liberalism’s
ultimate conclusion, the worship of Satan and the hatred of Christ. When the
creatures called liberals have reached that ‘beast in man’ state of existence,
or should I say non-existence, any contact with them brings us to the sadness
beyond sadness and the anger beyond anger. And since the liberals are in power,
the celebration of Christmas can never be just a peaceful family affair; it
must be of necessity a continuance of the same war against Satan and his
minions that we wage during the other 364 days of the year.
During Christmas in my family we read TheChristmas Carol and the
other Christmas stories I have mentioned previously rather than King Lear, but in terms of our stance
vis-à-vis the surrounding liberal world, we remain just as opposed to the
liberals at Christmas time as we remain opposed to them during the rest of the
year. In fact, I find that the Christian ramparts must be even more fiercely
defended at Christmas than at any other time of the year because Satan, through
his liberal minions, intensifies his attack on Christ and his people during the
Christmas season. And there is a Satanic logic behind the liberals’ maniacal
Christmas attacks – “Don’t let them look back, don’t let them get warm and
fuzzy over the Babe in the manger. Our world, which must be all of humanity’s
world, is in the future, a future without white Europeans who worship a fairy
tale God.”
In 1959 Walt Disney produced the last of his great animated
films. It was a straight-forward retelling of Perrault’s fairy tale, Sleeping Beauty. In the finale, Prince Phillip,
having hewed through the thorns separating him from the Princess Aurora, who is
Sleeping Beauty, prepares to restore the Princess with “love’s first kiss.” But
Maleficent cannot permit such a consummation. She turns herself into a dragon
as she declares, “Now prepare to deal with me and all the powers of hell!” The
Prince does deal with her: he hurls the sword of truth into the dragon’s heart.
Maleficent disappears, and only the sword of truth, which is also a cross,
remains in the ground. Little did Disney know, nor did I know when I saw that
movie as a child, that some fifty years later another movie studio, still
bearing the name of Disney, would produce a film in which Maleficent was the
feminist heroine of the Sleeping Beauty film. There has been an immoral
revolution in our culture. We have shifted from a people who revered the custom
and manners of Christian Europe to a people who revere and venerate Satan and
all the powers of hell. What has brought about this second fall of man and what
prevents us, as a people, from climbing out of hell?
The European people fell from grace when they allowed the
devil’s sneer to replace their Lord’s loving embrace. The classic Christmas
carols of the European people all speak of a filial bond between Christ and His
people—
“Let loving hearts enthrone Him”
“Son of God, love’s pure light”
“Where meek souls will receive Him still, The dear Christ enters in”
“Love came down at Christmas”
“Born that men no more may die, Born to raise the sons of earth, Born to give them second birth”
“Yet what I can I give Him, give Him my heart”
“Lo, He abhors not the Virgin’s womb”
Are the Christmas carols that sprang from the heart of Christian Europe out of line with the message of the prophets, the Gospel of Christ, and the epistles of St. Paul? No, they are not. They are completely in accord with the prophets, the Gospels, and St. Paul. We are connected to Christ through our humanity. The God who did not abhor the Virgin’s womb cannot be known by way of the syllogism, He must be known through the human heart. The devil, after he was cast out of heaven, sought to sever mankind’s filial relationship with God by appealing to their pride of reason. He succeeded beyond his wildest dreams only to be defeated by Christ’s divine condescension on the cross. After that defeat, Satan retrenched; he began, all over again, to attack mankind using the same gambit that he had used in the Garden of Eden: “Ye shall be as Gods.”
Have the liberals become gods? Yes, in their own minds they have; they are the first part of the new trinity. They are reason undeterred by prejudice and superstition. And their pure reason, backed by the Holy Ghost of science, has discovered that the noble black savage, in the abstract, is the Savior who must be worshipped and adored. This new faith is completely and unalterably opposed to the Christian faith. There can be no middle ground between the liberals’ triune faith and the triune faith of the antique Europeans. The churchmen’s attempt to deify their abstract intellects while maintaining their faith in Christ has only resulted in their capitulation to liberalism. When they denounced the heart-to-heart connection to the Savior by demonizing all the human ties that connect us to God, particularly our love of kith and kin, they left themselves and their followers bereft of the God who enters human hearts. You cannot make up a new Christianity based on pure reason and expect your people to maintain the same passion and intensity in their faith as their European predecessors who believed in the human Christ, the Christ of the Christmas carolsand the Gospels. What you will get is soulless automatons who give an intellectual nod to God by attending church while they give their hearts to the liberals’ world and the liberals’ savior.
The European people have become like unto Sisyphus. They will never get the rock up to the top of the hill so long as they adhere to the Christianity of the Sanhedrin. Why, when Christ bid us worship in spirit and truth, have the European people given themselves over to the Sanhedrin? Why is “truth” confined to that which can be put in a golden bowl by men of reason? If our faith is always dependent on what the men of reason in the organized churches tell us, then our faith is always in the ever-changing future. We must always wait for the final results of their research before we can know and believe in the living God. The Catholic must wait for the next council and the next pope, a good pope, before he can know God, and the Protestant must wait upon new Biblical studies before he can know God. In the meantime, while the Europeans wait for the light, they have made their peace with liberalism. It is the grazers’ adherence to the anti-Christian Christian Sanhedrin that keeps the liberals’ kingdom of hell on earth in order. Liberalism is the antithesis of Christianity, it can only be defeated by Europeans who believe in the one true God, the God of the prophets, the God of the Gospels, the God of St. Paul, and the God of our people when they had hearts of flesh.
As the liberals become more blatantly Satanic, the grazers have become more bovine, completely oblivious to the evils of liberalism. Maleficent stands before them representing all the powers of hell, and the European grazers continue to chew their cuds and graze in the fields of liberalism. There is no liberal blasphemy that can stir the European grazer to the point of outrage. There is no blasphemy, no evil that can make the grazer say, “Stop! This must not go on!” What you have are mild disagreements that can be worked out through the democratic process. Let me relate, once again, something that a veteran pro-life protestor told me when I entered the anti-abortion picket lines as a young man. I asked the veteran why we didn’t, because we were many, just storm the abortuaries and burn them to the ground. The long-time protestor told me that he had lined up hundreds of men when the clinics first started, who were willing to do just that. But their parish priest got wind of it and denounced such ‘violence’ from the pulpit. That is the essence of Sanhedrin Christianity – the men of intellect will always side with the powers of hell against Christ’s reign of charity, because in their own minds they do not believe that Christ entered human hearts and established a realm of charity on this earth that must be defended against all the powers of hell. What is hell to the churchmen? Hell is the parishioner who does not accept their word as law. They believe that only one thing is needful – that they, and they alone, should tell us what God wills. In the case of legalized abortion, it was the clerical apostate’s decision that ‘God’s will’ was that any opposition to abortion should remain within the confines of democracy. But what if democracy exists to ensure that Satan can rule in perpetuity? Must we submit, must we be ruled by Maleficent and all the powers of hell?
The shadows of hell have gradually enveloped the European
people so that now they no longer believe there ever was a light in the
darkness. Dylan Thomas, a religious atheist, raged against the dying of the
light, but in the end he knew that, “darkness is right.” Is that the final word
– is the darkness of hell our destiny? Is it the ultimate reality?
If we live in Liberaldom without rejecting Liberalism in its
entirety, we will come to believe that “darkness is right.” When Gratiano, one
of the Christian Venetians trying to save Antonio from Shylock, is brought face
to face with Shylock’s unalterable determination to have his pound of flesh
despite the Christians’ appeals for mercy, he says:
O, be thou damn’d, inexecrable dog! And for thy life let justice be accus’d. Thou almost mak’st me waver in my faith To hold opinion with Pythagoras, That souls of animals infuse themselves Into the trunks of men. Thy currish spirit Govern’d a wolf who, hang’d for human slaughter, Even from the gallows did his fell soul fleet, And, whilst thou lay’st in thy unhallowed dam, Infus’d itself in thee; for thy desires Are wolfish, bloody, starv’d and ravenous.
Gratiano almost returns to intellectual paganism because he
sees that Shylock’s merciless cruelty has seemingly been given the sanction of
law. But of course Portia, acting the part of our Lord and Savior, brings true
charity into the law, and the light triumphs over darkness. Gratiano’s wavering
faith is restored, and all is right in Christian Venice.
We misread Merchant of Venice if we simply take the play as an anti-Semitic tirade. Shakespeare is not a neo-pagan — he does not think the Jews are irretrievably damned as a people. He makes that clear when he depicts the conversion of Shylock’s daughter to Christianity. But he does think that the unrepentant Jew, the Jew who has set himself against Christ’s mercy, is a “damn’d, inexecrable dog.” And so are all liberals, whether they be Jew or Gentile, inexecrable dogs, when they set themselves up as an organized Sanhedrin opposed to the Light of the world. And we will become pagans with the souls of beasts if we adhere to the blended Christianity of any or all of the modern branches of the Christian Sanhedrin.
Pride of reason and fear of being cast out of the liberals’
synagogues keep the European people in darkness. Will they ever rise up out of
the slime pits of liberalism? Only if something inside them gives them the
courage to defy the liberals’ and the clergymen’s intellectual sneer. Christ
did not abhor the virgin’s womb. We shall not abhor the Christ Child, born of
the virgin Mary. We shall love Him in spite of Maleficent and all the powers of
hell. +
While he yet spake, there cometh one from the ruler of the
synagogue’s house, saying to him, Thy daughter is dead; trouble not the Master.
But when Jesus heard it, he answered him, saying, Fear not: believe only, and
she shall be made whole. And when he came into the house, he suffered no man to
go in, save Peter, and James, and John, and the father and the mother of the
maiden. And all wept, and bewailed her: but he said, Weep not; she is not dead,
but sleepeth. And they laughed him to scorn, knowing that she was dead. And he
put them all out, and took her by the hand, and called, saying, Maid, arise. And
her spirit came again, and she arose straightway: and he commanded to give her
meat.
Inn Keeper: Are the tables set in the banquet room?
Waitress I: Not yet, your wife told us not to set the tables
too soon, because she doesn’t want the tables to get dirty before the guests
get here.
Inn Keeper: For God’s sake, it’s only a half-hour at most
before they start arriving. Set the damn tables. You can get that idiot kid to
help you. Now hurry up, I need to check on the dinner preparations.
[He exits, and the waitresses hear him yelling in the
kitchen.]
Waitress II: He’s a bear tonight.
Waitress I: Well, this is the night when he gets out of the
red – it’s Mandela-Cybele-Christmas Eve. He’ll have over one hundred people
from the ecumenical conference here.
Waitress II: He’s lucky they put up that conference center
so close. Business was bad before that came in.
Waitress I: It keeps me working.
Waitress II: This is my first Mandela-Cybele-Christmas Eve here
– do these people tip a lot?
Waitress I: It depends on how much they drink.
Waitress II: I understand.
Waitress I: Well, I suppose I should find the idiot and get
him to help us.
Waitress II: Mr. Marshal doesn’t seem to like him much, why
does he keep him around, particularly since the kid is deaf and dumb?
Waitress I: He’s not really a kid, I think he must be in his
mid-twenties, and he isn’t deaf and dumb. He can hear, but he can’t speak.
Waitress II: He gives me the creeps.
Waitress I: Well, he is a good worker. He does whatever you
tell him.
Waitress II: Is that why Joe keeps him on?
Waitress II: No, Joe thinks he is worthless. He came here 6
weeks ago, two weeks before you started. Mrs. Marshal was sick at the time,
nothing serious, but she needed extra help in the kitchen and with the errands.
The idiot was just there; I think he was trying to get a handout. Mrs. Marshal
hired him on a temporary basis and she has taken a liking to him. He is kind of
like a family pet now, at least to Mrs. Marshal. She won’t let Joe fire him.
Waitress I: There he is, Hey, over here, give us a hand.
[The ‘idiot’ proceeds to help with the tablecloths.]
___________________
Act I. Scene 2.
George Jackson, a
slight, balding man in his mid-forties, his wife, Joan, an attractive woman in
her mid-thirties, and their daughter, Louisa, aged eight, enter the restaurant.
Joan: This is a lovely view, you can see the snow falling on
the mountains.
George: I just hope it doesn’t fall on the roads below the
mountains. If it does, we’ll be stuck here. I didn’t want to drive tonight…
Joan: You’re such a gloomy Gus, why can’t you enjoy the
moment without worrying about things? We’ve just been to the most wonderful
Mandel-Cybele-Christmas Eve ceremony I’ve ever seen. And to think that all over
the civilized world people are worshipping Mandela and his people and Cybele
just as we do.
Daughter: Mommy, why do we call it Mandela-Cybele-Christmas
Eve, why don’t we just call it Mandela-Cybele Eve?
Joan: Haven’t they explained that to you in school?
Daughter: No.
Joan: Well, they should have told you about it. Jesus Christ
was a very good man who lived a long, long time ago. He went around the country
he lived in, teaching the principles of racial equality and feminism. His
message was so unpopular with the white males in his country that they killed
him. But by his death he paved the way for our true appreciation of the black
race and womankind.
Daughter: But we are not all equal mother, teacher says that
the black race is the holy race and the white race is the sick and sinful race.
Joan: That’s right, but Christ didn’t know all that in his
time, he simply prepared the way for the worship of the black race and the
liberation of women. His message was perverted by a terrible man called St.
Paul, but ultimately truth won out and Christ became what he was meant to be,
the forerunner of the sacred black race and feminism.
George: Dear, I don’t know how much theology Louisa can
understand.
Joan: She needs to hear the truths of our faith. I’m really
surprised that her teacher is not telling her about our evolution as a people
from darkness to light.
George: Just let her enjoy her meal.
Joan: I don’t like that kind of irreverence, George.
George: Sorry.
Joan: I wonder who will be seated at the other three seats
at our table.
George: I wish we could have gotten the Tuckers and their
daughter to come to the dinner, then we wouldn’t have to share our table with
strangers.
Joan: Where is your spirit of adventure? We might get three
very interesting people at our table.
George: I doubt it.
Joan: Look, George!
George: Where?
Joan: Over by the door. Those three people might be coming
to our table. It looks like one is a priestess and one a priest. I don’t k now
who the other man is.
George: Great, now you’ll talk theology all evening, and I
won’t enjoy my meal.
Joan: Shut up, they are
coming to this table.
___________________
Act I. Scene 3.
One female priestess of the new Roman Catholic African Church, Sister Jacqueline, age 26, one male priest of the Roman Catholic African Church, Father Mike, age 62. And one archivist of the Roman Catholic African Church, Herbert Broadhurst, age 46, are seated at the table with Joan and George and their daughter. They have all introduced themselves.
Joan: [Addressing the archivist, Herbert Broadhurst] What exactly does an archivist do, Father?
Herbert: I’m not a priest, you don’t have to call me father,
Herb will do.
Joan: Sorry.
Herb: Nothing to be sorry about.
Joan: What is it that you do, if you don’t mind relating it.
Herb: I don’t mind in the least, although I’m afraid what I
do is rather boring.
Joan: I’ll bet it isn’t boring at all.
Herb: Well, an archivist collects and stores documents from
the past.
Joan: Who’s past?
Herb: The Europeans’ past. I collect books, manuscripts, and
historical chronicles of Europeans from long ago.
Joan: Doesn’t that entail reading many books from the era of
racism and sexism?
Herb: Yes, it does.
Joan: But aren’t such works forbidden?
Herb: To the normal citizen they are forbidden. But I am an
archivist, I have special permission to read and catalogue the old literature
and histories.
Joan: It sounds like a pretty filthy job.
Priest: Filthy, yes, but necessary.
George: Why is it necessary, Father Mike?
Priest: Because sometimes it is necessary to reference the
past in order to understand the present.
George: For instance?
Priest: Well, let’s take our liturgy, for instance. We all,
those of us who have white skin, kneel during the Mass and strike our breasts
17 times and declare we are white and sinful. Those 17 strikes on the breast
and the accompanying declarations of white sinfulness is the result of the 17
black martyrs who were killed when the Free Republic of Banyon was dominated by
white people. If we didn’t have an archivist, we would not know why we beat our
breast 17 times.
Joan: But why do we have to know that detail?
Herb: [laughing] I don’t think you are going to convince
them that I do something useful, Father.
Priest: Well, historical research can be useful if it is
used properly.
Priestess: But what if it is not used properly? I for one
have never approved of the archives. If I had my way, we’d simply burn the
archives.
Herb: Then I’d be out of a job.
Priestess: So what?
George: [Laughing] Here comes the first course, it looks
good.
[The food is placed on the table.]
Joan: Father Mike, will you say grace?
[Father Mike looks uncomfortable]
Priestess: He is not permitted to say grace. When a female
priestess is present, no male priest is permitted to co-opt the female
priestess no matter how many years seniority he has.
Priest: She is quite right.
Joan: I’m sorry, I forgot.
Priestess: [With a scowl] Never mind. [She says grace.] Dear
Nelson Mandela, who represents all the sacred black race, and dear Mother
Cybele, who represents all the oppressed female race, bless this food which we
are about to receive and may we be ever mindful of the white male menace that
always threatens us. Amen.
Joan: Yes, thank you, Sister Jacqueline, that was quite eloquent.
George: They certainly give you big portions here.
Joan: Shut up, George.
George: Yes, dear.
Daughter: [To the priestess] Are you really and truly a
priestess?
Priestess: Yes.
Daughter: I’d like to be a priestess when I grow up.
Priestess: It takes a lot of work.
Joan: What, in your judgement, Sister Jacqueline, is the main requirement for being a priestess?
Priestess: You must hold the two great commandment in your
heart. You must love the black race and the goddess Cybele with all your heart,
mind, and soul, and you must hate the white male with all your heart, mind, and
soul. Your average person is lukewarm in their love of the black race and
Cybele and lukewarm in their hatred of the white male. A priestess can’t be
lukewarm in her love or her hatred.
Priest: Aren’t you going to make a distinction between the
white males who have renounced their whiteness and the white males, such as
those inhuman monsters in the underground, who have not renounced their
whiteness?
Priestess: Some make such distinctions, but I don’t. I do
not see why there should be any white males left alive on this earth. We have
the means of determining the sex of the child in the womb, so it should be
mandatory that all white male children should be aborted.
Herb: Most white male babies are already executed by the
state.
Priestess: Yes, but not all are executed. And look at John
Taylor, he was lawfully born and raised as a priest. And what happened? He
became a member of the white underground.
George: I thought he went to England.
Priestess: Yes, he did, for two years. But now he is back
and he works for the white underground. He is with David Morgan.
Priest: Surely because one white male, who was raised to
renounce his whiteness, returned to the slime pits of whiteness, you don’t
condemn all white males who have renounced their whiteness?
Priestess: I don’t trust any white males and I don’t think
we should allow any of them the opportunity to betray us.
[Joe Marshal comes up to the table.]
Joe: Everything all right here? How is the food?
Priest: It’s excellent as always.
George: Yes, it’s great.
Priestess: It’s adequate. But let me ask you a question.
Joe: Ask away.
Priestess: Who was that young white male I saw come out of
the kitchen a few minutes ago in order to wipe up that spill at the table near
the kitchen?
Joe: He’s just some idiot aide that we hired to help out
during the Mandela-Cybele-Christmas season.
Priestess: Does he have papers?
Joe: Of course he does, do you think I’d hire a white male
without papers?
Priestess: I want to see his papers.
Joe: What right do you have to tell me who I can hire?
Priestess: I have every right, I’m a priestess in the one
Holy Catholic Church of Mandela-Cybele.
Herb: She does have the right, but I suggest you just let it
alone and enjoy the meal.
Priestess: Yes, you would let it alone.
Herb: Can’t you just relax for one night, must you always be
on duty?
Priestess: Don’t get male with me. Perhaps you were planning
to romance me.
Herb: God forbid.
Joan: What God?
Herb: It’s just an expression.
Priestess: Watch your expressions.
Herb: I’m sorry.
Priestess: [glaring at Joe] I want to see that young man’s
papers.
Joe: I understand, I’ll go get his papers immediately.
Priestess: And bring him out here with his papers.
Joe, Yes, your… er…
Priestess: Sisterhood.
Joe: Yes, your sisterhood.
[As Joe heads for the kitchen, the priestess picks up her
cell phone.]
___________________
Act I. Scene 4.
The Kitchen.
Joe: Who let that idiot out of the kitchen?
Waitress II: I told him to go clean up the spill.
Joe: Didn’t you know that he was supposed to stay in the
kitchen when there were other people in the restaurant?
Waitress II: Nobody told me.
Joe’s wife: What is wrong, dear?
Joe: A priestess saw him and wants to see his papers.
Wife: What did you say?
Joe: I said I’d get his papers and send him out with the papers.
Wife: But he doesn’t have any papers.
Joe: I know. If you remember I wanted no part of him when he
came here. You insisted I give him a meal. Then you insisted that I should keep
him on. He is probably a member of the white underground.
Wife: Oh no, Joe, you just have to look at him to know that
he is simply a lost innocent.
Joe: Lost from where? He had to come from somewhere. And
where is he right now?
Wife: I sent him to the wine cellar for another bottle of
wine.
Joe: He’s taking a long time, maybe he knocked the shelves
down on himself and he is dead.
Wife: Don’t talk like that.
Joe: It wouldn’t do me any good if he was dead, that
priestess would still want to see his papers.
Wife: Maybe if you tell her that you couldn’t find him
she’ll forget about it.
Joe: Not her, she wants his papers and that’s that. There is
no getting around her. I wish she’d choke to death on her shrimp cocktail, but
we can’t count on that kind of luck.
Wife: What can we do then?
Joe: There is one chance. Remember that accountant that
worked on the books off and on during the last five years?
Wife: Yes.
Joe: Well, he died of heart attack a couple weeks ago.
Wife: I didn’t know.
Joe: Well, I didn’t want to upset you, seeing that you had
just been ill, so I didn’t tell you. But this is what we can do. I’ll say that
he was in charge of the paper work and that he told me that the idiot had given
him his papers. It’s a long shot, but it might work.
Wife: What do you mean it might work? They’ll imprison him –
I mean the idiot — and they’re liable to imprison Mr. Jenkin’s family as well.
Joe: Jenkins didn’t have any family. And it is better for
the idiot to go to prison than us. Besides, for all I know he is a member of
the white underground. In which case, he belongs in prison anyway.
Wife: No, I don’t want him to go to prison. You can tell the
lie about Mr. Jenkins to save us, but let’s give the young man time to escape.
I’ll tell him right now.
Joe: Are you crazy? They’ll know we helped him to escape and
we’ll go to jail. I don’t see why you’re so attached to that idiot.
Wife; I must tell you something. At first, I just felt sorry
for him. You never did, but I did. But then there was something else. Remember
when I was sick?
Joe: Sure, you had a bad case of the flu.
Wife: That’s what I thought it was at first, but that night,
when you slept in the spare room so I could get some rest, I felt the fever
burning me up and I knew I was going to die. I tried to call for you, but I
couldn’t cry out, the fever had dried my throat up. All I could do was lie
there and die. And then he came to me, that young man you call the idiot. He
had a glass of water in his hand and he lifted my head from the pillow and
helped me drink the water. Then he laid my head back on the pillow and placed
his hand on my forehead. And Joe, you must believe me, at the moment he placed
his hand on my forehead, the fever left me.
Joe: This is pure nonsense. You were delirious from the
fever and you had a dream about the idiot. That’s all it was. Fevers come and
go, there is nothing miraculous about that. The only miraculous thing is your
overwrought imagination. You really can come up with some doosies.
Wife: How can you account for the glass then?
Joe: What glass?
Wife: The water glass. When I woke up, there it was by my
bedstead. It was full of water.
Joe: So what?
Wife: You see I drained that glass of water during the
night.
Joe: How would you know, you were feverish.
Wife: I do know. I vividly remember draining that glass of
water he gave me. And furthermore, we don’t have any glasses like that glass in
the house or the restaurant.
Joe: Where is the glass now?
Wife: I don’t know, after I drank from it in the morning, I
washed it and then put it in the cupboard, but when I looked for it the next
day it was gone.
Joe: There you have it, it was all a dream.
Wife: Was it?
Joe: Of course, otherwise you would have to say that the idiot was some sort of angel or something like that – that he is right out of a fairy tale. But just look at him, he is an idiot.
Wife: Is he, Joe?
Joe: Of course, he is.
Wife: Still, we can’t give him up to that priestess.
Joe: We must. It’s him or us. [At this point the idiot comes
up the stairs with a wine bottle and he walks over to Barbara Marshal and gives
her the bottle.]
Wife: You must leave here quickly. Get your coat and see if
you can find the Nelson’s
house. It’s a mile or so away. Say that I sent you.
Joe: You’ll do no such thing. [Looking at the idiot] I’m
sorry about this, I have nothing against you, but we have to turn you in to a
crazy priestess out there. I warned you not to leave the kitchen.
Wife: No, Joe, I won’t let you turn him in.
[The priestess enters the kitchen with five policemen, four
black and one white.]
Priestess: [Pointing to the idiot] Take him. [The policemen,
having knocked the idiot down, put handcuffs and leg irons on him.] You’re not
out of this yet [Looking at Joe], but for now, he is all we care about. [The
policemen and the priestess leave the kitchen with the idiot in chains.]
Joe: Well, now you’ve done it. If they don’t believe my
story about the papers, I’ll be hauled off in chains as well. Is that what you
wanted?
Wife: Of course not, but I can’t bear to see him hurt.
Joe: Forget about him, there is nothing you can do for him
now. You just concentrate on backing up my story, that should be your only
concern.
The snow is coming down
in great blankets now. The people in the restaurant, about one hundred and
twenty, have been informed that the roads are currently impassable. The idiot
was beaten and then tied to a tree in front of the restaurant. He was tied in a
sitting position. The snow fall has already reached the level of his chest. The
people at Joan Jackson’s table are in the process of eating dessert.
George: My father used to say that no matter how much you
ate during a meal, you always had a special place in your stomach for dessert.
Joan: Shut up, George.
George: Yes, dear.
Herb: The dessert is delicious.
Priest: I agree.
Priestess: Is that all men can think of, their stomachs?
Herb: No, sometimes we think of other things.
Priestess: What do you mean by that?
Herb: Nothing at all.
Priestess: I think you are trying to play sexual games with
me. That is strictly forbidden in Article VI, section 2 of the Constitution of
the American-African Republic. I intend to have you arrested to stand trial for
sexual harassment and not only that…
Daughter: Mommy.
Joan: Don’t interrupt when the Priestess is talking.
Daughter: But, Mommy.
Joan: Be quiet, Louisa.
Daughter: But Mommy, all I wanted to say was that the man
out there is soon going to be covered with snow.
Priest: Oh, dear, the snow is getting rather high. Perhaps
we should bring him inside and chain him in the wine cellar.
Priestess: There is no need for that. Let him stay out
there.
Priest: But I really think he is either going to suffocate
or freeze to death.
Priestess: That need not concern us.
Priest: But he is entitled to a trial.
Priestess: [Raising her voice to a level slightly below a
scream, but well above a normal speaking voice] No, he is not entitled to a
trial. He is a white male without papers, he has no rights.
[The Priestess gets up to go to the bathroom, and as she
leaves the table she lets go a parting remark at Herb]
And don’t think I’ve forgotten about you. [She leaves for
the bathroom]
Herb: Well, this has been a very pleasant dinner.
George: Can she get you in trouble?
Herb: Sure, she can. She has a lot of power. But in this
case, if she really intends to pursue it, there isn’t much of a case.
Joan: What did you mean by that remark, when you said
sometimes men think of other things?
Herb: I meant what I said. I meant that sometimes men think
of other things besides their stomachs. She was the one who decided what the
other things were.
Joan: Still, I think you meant something sexual.
George: All remarks are not sexual remarks.
Joan: Shut up, George.
George: Yes, dear.
Priest: I wish we could do something for that young man out
there.
Herb: I think he is a goner, Father. She won’t let anyone
touch him.
Priest: It’s a pity.
Herb: Yes, it is.
Joan: I don’t think any white male has the right to judge
the actions of a Priestess in the Roman Catholic African Church.
George: But Joan…
Joan: Shut up, George.
George: Yes, dear.
___________________
Act II. Scene 2.
Joe Marshal comes up
to Joan Jackson’s table.
Joe: I just got word that the power is going out all over the
area. And the roads, at present, are impassable, so it looks like we could be
here for a long while without any light.
Priestess: [Having returned from the bathroom] This is gross
negligence. How can this be allowed to happen?
Herb: I think it is called nature.
Priestess: What do you mean by that?
Herb: Nothing sexual, I assure you. I simply mean that big
snow storms can defy even all our modern technology.
Priestess: You seem to love to attack everything modern.
Perhaps you prefer your old world of the archives, the world of racism and
sexism?
Herb: I didn’t say that.
Priestess: You implied it, which is the same thing. I’m
going to charge you with counterrevolutionary sentiments when I leave this
restaurant.
Herb: I suppose I’ll have a lot of charges to answer for.
Priestess: Yes, you will.
Joe: Look, be that as it may, I’m passing out candles for
every table. [Looking at Herb] Will you help me?
Herb: I’d be glad to.
[He begins to pass out candles with Joe]
Joe: I really don’t need help with the candles, my
waitresses can handle it, but I wanted to get you away from that Priestess in
order to talk with you privately.
Herb: If it’s about that young man and his papers, I’m
afraid I can’t help you, I’m under a bit of a cloud myself.
Joe: No, it’s not that, I think I can wiggle clear of those charges.
It’s about the rest of the night. I still need to keep these people happy.
Herb: That won’t be easy. People don’t like it when the
power goes out.
Joe: But that is not my fault.
Herb: I know it isn’t, it’s nature’s fault, but try to tell
that to a bitch like her royal sisterhood over there.
Joe: You take chances, I’d be afraid to use that term even
in the privacy of my home.
Herb: You know something, I don’t really think I give a damn
anymore. Maybe I have spent too much time in the archives. When a man spends 8
hours a day, sometimes 10 or 12, in a different world than his contemporaries,
he starts to think and feel about things differently than the people around
him. I’m heartily sick of women who aren’t women and men who aren’t men. And
I’m sick of trying to pretend I care about this nation we live in.
Joe: Look, that is more than I know about. I just wanted you
to do that play you did here four years ago.
Herb: [Laughing] That was just a history play about some
Christmases from long ago that I strung together. But I can’t do it tonight
because I don’t have any copies of the play with me. If you remember, I picked
volunteers from the audience who read the various parts, while I was the
narrative voice.
Joe: I remember. And you do have copies of the play to give
out. I recorded the play, had the words written down, and then made copies of
the play. You can give out the parts to volunteer readers again.
Herb: Yes, but they’ll have trouble reading their lines in
the dark.
Joe: I have eight high-powered flood lights powered by a
generator that I can shine on the stage. The audience will be at their tables
with the candle lights while the stage will be illuminated by the flood lights.
Herb: I suppose it could be done. But as of right now the power is… [The lights go out] I was going to say the power was still on.
Joe: It will be off for some time, at least that is what the
reports say. Will you do the play?
Herb: On one condition.
Joe: What?
Herb: Here is my coat. I want you to wrap that young man
outside in this coat, give him something warm to drink, and shovel some of the
snow away from him.
Joe: Are you crazy?
Herb: Possibly, but that is what I want you do to. Once the
play starts nobody will notice you. And without the outside light, it will be
too dark for anyone to see you helping him.
Joe: Why does everyone feel sorry for that idiot?
Herb: I don’t know that everybody does feel sorry for him. I
didn’t notice any outpouring of sympathy for him when they chained him out
there.
Joe: I guess there wasn’t. But my wife has been in tears
since they put him out there.
Herb: Good for your wife.
Joe: Okay, I’ll do it. I don’t know why you want to make a
big deal about it, but I’ll do it. First let me introduce you to the audience, then
you hand out the parts. Once the play starts, I’ll sneak out there and see what
I can do for the idiot.
Herb: Don’t just see what you can do for him, I’m telling
you to do something for him.
Joe: Okay, but let’s start the show.
Herb: One more thing.
Joe: What?
Herb: In the play, I speak, if you remember, of an old
Christmas before it became a Mandela-Cybele-Christmas. She, the Priestess,
wasn’t here when I did that play on this stage a few years back. She won’t
permit it to be performed, so you’ll have to slip something in her drink to put
her asleep.
Joe: Permanently?
Herb: [Laughing] That wouldn’t be a bad idea, but I think
that would get you in trouble. What I had in mind was a sleeping potion,
something that would put her out for two to three hours. Could you manage that?
Joe: If she drinks, I can manage it.
Herb: She drinks all right. She is quite old-fashioned in
that regard; she is a stone-cold alcoholic.
Joe: Okay, then, as soon as I come to your table and give
her the drink, you head up to the stage.
Herb: And then you visit that young man out there.
The play within a
play. Herb Broadhurst gives out the parts to various volunteers from the
audience, then he steps forward to introduce the play.
Herb: This is a one-act play that I wrote, mainly for a few
close friends that I knew were interested in the subject.
Member of the audience: What is the subject?
Herb: If you let me finish, I’ll tell you. The subject is
the transition from Christmas to Mandel-Cybele-Christmas. The characters in the
play are fictional, but they are based on real life people that I encountered
in my job as a European archivist.
Joan Jackson: Is the play heretical?
Herb: Certainly not. How can history be heretical? I simply
present this play as a history of a bygone era. An era that I’m sure everyone
here is glad to know is over. How can the past, which we condemn, reach out and
hurt us? It can’t. So I give you the play, which, I hope, will amuse you until
the lights go back on and the roads are clear.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Act III. Scene 2.
The study of a Roman
Catholic parish. One old priest, about 75 years of age, is seated in the study
as a younger priest, about 40 years of age, enters.
Younger priest: Isn’t it exciting, Father?
Older priest: What?
Younger: The new missal in which we finally give true homage
to Mandela and to Cybele.
Older: I don’t know that I care for it.
Younger: Surely you can’t object to it, we are simply making
explicit what has been implicit for many years.
Older: I see that, but I wonder if now is the proper time.
There are still, I think, a great deal of the laity who are attached to the old
image of Christ as the Son of God.
Younger: He is still the son of God.
Older: Yes, He is, in the sense that all of us are sons of
God, but He loses, in the new missal, His distinctive identity as the one and
only Son of God.
Younger: Surely it is better that we make what we actually
believe to be true the main focus of our worship?
Older: I suppose so.
Younger: You suppose so, Father. I’m surprised at you, do
you or do you not believe that Nelson Mandela and the black race are the hope
of mankind? And do you or do you not believe that Cybele represents the
immortal spirit of womankind.
Older; I do believe both. But I am questioning the timing of
the declaration of the Pope. Many Catholics are still attached to the old
concept of Christ.
Younger: But that old concept was false, and it came to us
from white supremacists.
Older: Yes, it did, but many people took comfort in that old
concept of Christ.
Younger; Nonsense. I think you are exaggerating the
emotional appeal of the old concept. The people love Mandela and Cybele. You’ll
see, the new missal will be a huge success.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Herb, the Narrator: And the new missal was a huge success.
There were a few members of the congregation who walked out of the church, but
they were arrested as soon as they stepped out into the street. No one ever
heard from them again.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Act III. Scene 3
Narrator: An Anglican
rectory. This time it is the younger priest who has his doubts about the
transition from Christmas to Mandela-Cybele-Christmas while the older priest
constitutes the ‘Amen Chorus’ for the Mandela-Cybele-Christmas.
Older priest: [65 years of age] Have you heard the great
news?
Younger priest: [35 years of age] About the changes in the
prayer book?
Older: Yes.
Younger: I don’t have any problems with the theology. I was brought
up to believe in Mandela and Cybele as our saviors. But my grandfather was a
great believer in the old European Christ.
Older: Didn’t he go to prison?
Younger: Yes, he was imprisoned, because he refused to
accept Mandela and Cybele as co-redemptorists with Christ. In fact he died
while in prison. I think his heart gave out on him.
Older: That is a shame, but whiteness must be purged.
Younger: I know, but I wonder if there aren’t more people
like my grandfather lurking out there. This change might set them off.
Older: How do you mean ‘set them off’?
Younger: I mean it might drive them to take up arms against
the American-African Republic of the United States.
Older: I doubt that there are that many closet European
Christians out there. I think we have done a pretty good job of weeding them
out of our nation.
Younger: Perhaps.
Older: You worry too much.
Younger; Perhaps, but I can still see that look in my
grandfather’s eyes the night they took him away. I was 10 years old at the
time. “No man cometh unto the Father except by me,” he screamed, and his eyes
were pure fire.
Older: Did you visit him in jail?
Younger: No, my parents wouldn’t permit it. But I’ll never
forget the look on his face.
Older: Well, your grandfather was an exception. The people
will love the new prayer book because they love Mandela and Cybele and they
don’t love the Christ of old Europe.
Younger: I suppose everything will be all right.
Older: Of course, it will.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
[At this point in the performance, Joan Jackson stands up and
starts screaming.]
Joan: Sister Jacqueline is sick! She won’t wake up!
Herb: Is there anyone here who can attend to Sister
Jacqueline?
[A doctor goes over to Sister Jacqueline, who is asleep,
face down, on the dinner table.]
Doctor: [After examining her] She is breathing normally and
does not appear to be in dire straits. I think she simply had too much to
drink. I suggest you place her on a bed or a couch somewhere and let her sleep
it off.
Herb: That is your expert medical opinion?
Doctor: Yes.
[Sister Jacqueline is taken to a back room.]
Herb: Now we can proceed with the play.
Joan: Wait, I don’t think the play should proceed.
Herb: Why not?
Joan: It’s offensive.
Herb: Why is it offensive?
Joan: It is blasphemous.
Herb: Why is it blasphemous?
Joan: It insults Mandela and Cybele.
Herb: I don’t see how an accurate depiction of the process
by which the European people moved from the worship of Christ to the worship of
the black race and Cybele can be seen as blasphemous.
Joan: It just is, and I won’t let it continue. And Sister
Jacqueline wouldn’t let it continue if she was…
Herb: If she was awake and sober? [The audience laughs and
Joan starts to sputter in red-faced rage and hysteria.]
Joan: Father Mike, I want you to stop the play.
Father Mike: I really haven’t the authority to stop the
performance, as Herb says, it is not blasphemous.
Joan: Then I’ll stop it, I’ll….
George: Joan.
Joan: What do you want?
George: I want you to sit down and shut up, you are making
fool of yourself. [The audience applauds George’s statement and Joan sinks to
her chair in disbelief as if her pet dog has just turned on her and bitten
her.]
Herb: All right then, let’s pick up where we left off.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Act III. Scene 4.
A Protestant parsonage, next to the church. One minister,
the pastor, is fifty years of age, and the other minister, the assistant
pastor, is in his late twenties.
Pastor: This is great news, the Ecumenical Council of
Churches has declared that Christ is no longer to be considered the Son of the
living God. He has been reduced to a minor prophet.
Assistant: That is good news. Will it be announced in all
the churches this Christmas Eve?
Pastor: Yes, all nativity scenes of Christ and Mary will be removed and replaced by nativity scenes of Nelson Mandela and Cybele.
Assistant: How will they be depicted?
Pastor: Mandela will be depicted as a child in a manger with
Mother Cybele hovering over him, surrounded by black tribesmen.
Assistant: That sounds wonderful! Will the Orthodox churches
be following suit?
Pastor: Yes, they will, but they will stick to their own
dates for the Mandela-Cybele-Christmas.
Assistant: Praise be to Mandela and Cybele.
Pastor: Amen to that.
Assistant: Do you expect any resistance from the laity?
Pastor: There is always some resistance to change, but it is
our job to help the people adjust to the changes in their faith. We must be
gentle, but we must also be firm. We can’t let them backslide into superstition
and racism.
Assistant: I don’t personally know of anyone who won’t
welcome this news.
Pastor: I know of one man.
Assistant: Who?
Pastor: My younger brother. He is forty years old, married, with
four children, three boys aged nine, seven, and five, and one daughter, aged
three. He never goes to church. He always puts up a nativity scene with the
baby Jesus, Joseph, Mary, and the three wise men every Christmas.
Assistant: That is disgusting.
Pastor: Yes, it is. I must at least try to reason with him.
I’m not looking forward to it, but I must try.
Assistant: Well, good luck, I don’t envy you the task.
Pastor: Nor do I.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Act III. Scene 5.
It is Christmas day
in the study of the offending brother. His wife and children are in the living
room.
Pastor: I see you have the nativity scene out again this
Christmas.
Brother: Of course.
Pastor: You know that the church frowns on such things.
Brother: What church?
Pastor: The Christian Church.
Brother: We’ve been all over this before. The church you
serve is just an organization, it has no soul, no life.
Pastor: There is no other church outside of what we, as
modern Christians, determine to be the church. And I must tell you that all the
organized Christian churches, including the Orthodox churches which celebrate
Christmas on a different date, have decided to dispense with the traditional
nativity scene and to go with the Mandela-Cybele nativity scene.
Brother: You do what you like, but I will stay with Christ
and His people.
Pastor: That is heresy, that is racism.
Brother: So be it then.
Pastor: I must warn you that…
~~~~~~~~~~~~
[Sister Jacqueline has staggered out of the backroom where
they laid her down.]
Sister Jacqueline: Stop this performance! [She has the five
policemen with her as she steps out onto the stage] I won’t have it, I simply
won’t have it.
Herb: But it’s just a little historical drama depicting our
transformation from the darkness of Christianity to the light of liberalism.
Sister Jacqueline: It is blasphemy, disguised as history.
You are under arrest.
[The guards handcuff the archivist and place chains on his
legs. As they are in the act of restraining Herb, Louisa goes up to Sister
Jacqueline.]
Louisa: Sister Jacqueline, Sister Jacqueline, the snow is
still coming down and I’m afraid it’s going to go over that man’s head.
Sister Jacqueline: Will someone shut that little brat up?
[One of the black policemen strikes Louisa. She goes down as if she has been
struck dead, which, in point of fact, she has been.]
Joan: [Running up to her daughter] She is dead, she is dead!
Sister Jacqueline: I’m sorry to hear that, but she should
not have interfered. That is what happens when you don’t obey your superiors.
Joan: I know she was wrong, but…
Sister Jacqueline: There are not buts, she was wrong and she
died for it.
George: You foul, loathsome witch, I’ll kill you [He rushes
at Sister Jacqueline and manages to get his hands on her throat, but he is
beaten down by the police officers.]
Sister Jacqueline: Chain him and him [pointing to Herb and
George] outside by that idiot.
Joe Marshal: I can’t believe it.
[The front door has fallen off its hinges, and the Idiot is
standing in the doorway. There is no snow and no chains on Him, only a light
that is neither moonlight nor candlelight, emanating from His face. Sister
Jacqueline, the policemen, and the rest of the people in the restaurant simply
stare at Him, too stunned to move. He goes up to Louisa and lifts her up into His
arms.]
George: They’ve killed my daughter. [The Idiot simply raises
his hand to tell George to be calm. He places his hand on Louisa’s forehead for
a full minute after which Louisa sits up as if she has just woken up from a
nap.
Joe: I’ll be damned.
Barbara: I told you, Joe, he is more than an idiot.
Herb: No, Joe is quite right. He is an Idiot. Who but an Idiot
would die on the cross, descend into hell, and rise from the dead on the third
day for the likes of me and thee?
George: What are you talking about?
Herb: Did you notice that you are no longer in chains?
George: That’s right. And neither are you. [He takes his
daughter in his arms.] But I still don’t know what you are talking about.
Herb: Isaiah told us all about that Idiot:
“Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows:
yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he
was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and
with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have
turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of
us all. He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he
is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is
dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.”
Father Mike: It can’t be. What about Mandela and Cybele?
Herb: Let’s make this the beginning of a new old Christmas.
Let us sing praises to the one and only Lamb of God who taketh away the sins of
the world.
[Herb starts to sing “God Rest You, Merry Gentlemen.” At
first he sings alone but as he starts the song for the second time, everyone
else joins in except Sister Jacqueline, the five policemen, and Joan Jackson,
who still seem too stunned to respond to anyone or anything.]
Christmas Eve day,
some six hours prior to the events just depicted. We are in the headquarters of
a white resistance organization, somewhere in the mountains of what was once
called Tennessee.
David Morgan: This will be your first Christmas here since
your conversion.
John Taylor: Yes, I was part of The Christmas Carol for two straight years in Britain, but
Christopher Grey orchestrated the whole production. I’m a little nervous about
being in charge of this production.
Morgan: You come highly recommended, Christopher Grey said
you’ll do a “wonderful” job.
Taylor: I hope so. I’m sorry that you won’t be able to see
it.
Morgan: I’ll see it on tape.
Taylor: You’re filming it?
Morgan: Sure, how could we not film the directorial debut of
John Taylor?
Taylor: Will you be back by Christmas day?
Morgan: Yes, if all goes well. We have a quick strike
planned against an official who’s been very, very aggressive in her persecution
of our people. She will be celebrating Mandela-Cybele-Christmas at an
ecumenical center and then eating supper at a nearby restaurant. We plan to
take her there.
Taylor: Will you kill her?
Morgan: Probably not. We’ll take her prisoner like we took
Father Todd prisoner three years ago in that rectory where you once resided
with him.
Taylor: He is still a prisoner, isn’t he?
Morgan: Yes, we don’t seem to be able to get through to him.
He remains in that other world.
Taylor: I pray for him regularly.
Morgan: Well, there is always some hope. As for Sister
Jacqueline, she will not, after tonight, sign any more death warrants against
our people.
Taylor: I finally heard from Britain again.
Morgan: From Christopher Grey?
Taylor: No, I heard about Christopher Grey. Father Bontini
wrote me a long letter about him.
Morgan: Please let me hear it.
Taylor: I’ll condense it somewhat and leave out some of the
parts not related to Christopher, but this is what Father Bontini wrote about
Christopher.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
“Christopher received a letter from Pope Francis II, the son
of Pope Francis the blasphemer and the same pope who presided over the trial
and condemnation of Christopher Grey a few years back, at which he received the
death penalty. As you recall, Christopher escaped from his cell because of an
earthquake and the aid of an angel of mercy.
“The pope’s letter was an urgent plea to Christopher Grey and to Christopher Grey alone. He said that he was on his death bed and desperately wanted to hear about the ‘real Jesus Christ’ that Christopher Grey spoke of. He went on to say that he didn’t expect Christopher to believe that he was at death’s door and in need of a Christian presence at his death bed, but if Christopher could forgive him his sins, and if Christopher would trust in his word, he would like him to come to his death bed.
“I told Christopher that he shouldn’t go. I told him that I
thought Pope Francis II was lying, that he just wanted to get Christopher back
in the hands of the Vatican authorities. Do you know what he said? He told me
that, ‘I suspect that he might be lying. In fact, there is a very good chance
that he is lying, but I must go to him, because he might be sincere. He could
be a fellow sinner who needs the comfort of our Lord at the hour of his death.’
“’But isn’t there someone else who can give him that
comfort?’ I asked him. He just looked at me with that look of his, the look
that says you have said something rather strange. ‘Who among his followers, the
people who have surrounded him during his pontificate, would preach Christ
crucified, Christ risen to him?’
“’No one,’ I answered at once.’
“’There you have it,’ Christopher responded, ‘I must go to
Italy and to Rome itself.’
“So Christopher went to Rome to provide comfort to the dying
pope. But Pope Francis II was not dying, he was alive and well. He had
Christopher thrown into prison and beaten unmercifully for over a week. After
seven straight days of the beatings, the Pope ordered the execution that had
been held in abeyance after Christopher’s escape two years ago. The execution
was to be on the eighth day. The night before his execution was to take place,
Christopher awoke and discovered that there was a man in his cell, who was
washing his wounds with some kind of ointment.
“Christopher: Is this to make me presentable at the
execution?
“Jailer: No, this was not ordered. I am not supposed to
provide you with any medical treatment.
“Christopher: Then, why, my son, are you doing it?
“Jailer: Don’t you remember me?
“Christopher: The light in the cell is not good, and you
have just awakened me. Perhaps if you could stand in the small light by the
door. [The guard obliges him] Yes, I do recognize you, you are the father of
that young boy that was caught in the earthquake two years ago.
“Guard: Yes, I am the father of that child, who would have
perished if you had not saved him. And I would have perished as well, because I
would not have left my son trapped in the rubble, I would have stayed and died
with him.
“Grey: How is your child?
“Jailer: He is a fine, healthy boy of eight years of age
now.
“Grey: That is good news.
“Jailer: He is waiting for me at the White Table Inn with
two friends.
“Grey: I don’t understand.
“Jailer: Much has happened inside me since that day you
saved my son. Everyone that I called to for help simply kept running away. The
earth trembled at our feet, and they all were afraid, thinking they would be
victims of the earthquake if they didn’t take refuge on what the scientists
told them was safe, solid ground, so they ignored my pleas for help. Except
you. You stopped and looked at me, you knew me as the man who had, by order of
the pope, beaten you while you were chained to the Vatican walls. ‘Don’t
worry,’ you said as you lifted the rubble off of my son, ‘There doesn’t seem to
be any broken bones.’
“Then you led us out of the center of the earthquake to
solid ground. I tried to put into words how I felt, but I was speechless before
you. I feel ashamed. You gave me a copy of Christ’s Gospel, in my native tongue,
and told me to read it with my heart. Then you blessed me and my son and left
for Britain.
“I have searched the Gospels with my heart during the last
two years, and I have discovered Christ. And I have tried to provide the
comfort of Christ, as you did for me, to the men and women imprisoned within
the Vatican dungeons.
“Grey: Bless you for that.
“Jailer: But it is time to leave this place. My son and I,
and my two friends, my late wife’s brother and cousin, are coming with us, if
you’ll give us sanctuary in Britain.
“Grey: Of course, I will. Arthur’s Britain is open to all
the European knights of the cross.
“Jailer: Then we shall leave this place and the Vatican
death chamber will lose one of its victims.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Act IV. Scene 2.
“The jailer and his son, the jailer’s brother-in-law, the
cousin of the jailer’s wife, and Christopher Grey have managed to procure a
ship to take them from what was once called Brindisi, but is now called the
port of Mandela, to Christian Britain. AS the others on board sleep, the
jailer’s brother-in-law approaches Christopher Grey, who also is not asleep,
but is standing alone on the foredeck, looking out to sea.
“Brother-in-law: I’m sorry to intrude on you.
“Grey: You are not intruding, I was just looking at the sea;
it is truly beautiful.
“BIL: You English are
all in love with the sea.
“Grey: Possibly, it is all around us. But I grew up in the
middle of England, of farming stock.
“BIL: They say you are well over a hundred years old, so I
assume that you lived in England before it became part of the Islamic Republic.
“Grey: Yes, it was before that time.
“BIL: That must have been a wonderful period of history?
“Grey: It wasn’t paradise, life was still hard, but yes,
they were better times. But, my son, you haven’t come on deck to talk about the
sea or about merry old England. You have something on your soul that is
troubling you. Why don’t you confide in me?
“BIL: I hate the present rulers of Italy. They will
countenance any cruelty, they will approve every atrocity against the white
Italian people, so long as the atrocities are done in the name of the noble
savages of color. That is why I wanted to come to Britain with you and my
sister’s husband. But I am troubled in my heart. I don’t think I belong in
Christian Britain.
“Grey: Why is that, is it because of the language barrier?
Because if that is all, I must tell you that we have many Britons who…
“BIL: No, it is not that.
“Grey: Then tell me, my son.
“BIL: I don’t believe in Jesus Christ. I don’t believe, as
my brother-in-law believes, that Christ rose from the dead. How can I hope to
belong in a country where people do believe that Christ rose from the dead?
“Grey: Let me ask you this. Do you want to believe that
Christ rose from the dead and that all those who die believing in Christ do not
really die?
“BIL: Yes, I would very much like to believe that, but I
cannot believe.
“Grey: Why can’t you believe?
“BIL: Because four years ago, I saw my sister waste away
before my eyes. She was only 22 years old. At the hour of her death, there was
no light in her eyes. And when the mortuary police came to take her body away
to be cremated, my sister ceased to exist. It was the same with my wife. How
can I say that I believe in the resurrection of the dead? It would be a colossal
lie. Yet, I want to live in a place other than this hell on earth called Italy.
So I didn’t tell you, till now, that I am not a believing Christian.
“Grey: Did you ever hear of Thomas, also called Didymus?
“BIL: No, is he someone from the Bible?
“Grey: Yes.
“BIL: The Bible is banned in Italy. My brother-in-law has a
copy that he has offered to share with me, but I was never interested.
“Grey: Thomas was one of the twelve apostles. You have heard
of the twelve apostles who were the followers of Christ?
“BIL: Yes, I’ve heard of them. And I have also heard the
Christ story. How He was supposed to have died on the cross and then rose from
the dead.
“Grey: Well, after Christ’s resurrection from the dead, He
appeared to ten of the twelve apostles. Judas, of course, was missing and so
was Thomas. When Thomas returned from wherever he had been, the others told him
Christ had just appeared to them in the flesh. Thomas did not believe them.
“But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus
came. The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But
he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and
put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I
will not believe. And after eight days again his disciples were within, and
Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst,
and said, Peace be unto you. Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger,
and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and
be not faithless, but believing. And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord
and my God. Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast
believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.”
“Most of us are in the position, vis-à-vis our Lord, of
Thomas. We love Him, but we can’t quite believe in His resurrection from the
dead.
“BIL: But some people, our people, the white Europeans, did
once believe in Christ’s resurrection from the dead, didn’t they?
“Grey: Yes, most of the European people, prior to the 20th
century, did believe that Christ rose from the dead.
“BIL: I thought so. The Vatican officials keep telling us
that the churches never said that Christ rose from the dead.
“Grey: They are lying, because they no longer believe in
Christ’s resurrection from the dead, they have rewritten the Christ story to make
it compatible with their un-faith.
“BIL: Which is?
“Grey: The worship of the abstract collective mind of the
white liberals, which is the father, the worship of the noble black savage, who
is the savior, and the worship of science, which is the holy ghost.
“BIL: Yes, they do worship those three entities.
“Grey: OF course, they do.
“BIL: But how can I have faith? I don’t believe in the noble
savage, but I’m afraid that I do believe, against what I would like to believe,
in reason and science.
“Grey: Let me tell you a story, a true story, from my
childhood. I grew up on a farm in England. My parents, as with most farmers in
those days, could not afford to leave the farm. There were too many things to
take care of. Twice a year they spent an evening away from the farm. Once on
Christmas Eve, at a big church fest, and once at Easter. Well, it was Christmas
Eve, the day before my first birthday. Yes, I was born on Christmas Day. That
evening my parents left me with my fourteen year old cousin. She was a reliable
young girl, who know how to take care of a baby.
“On that night she placed me in my crib and sat beside it,
waiting for me to go to sleep. It was unusually warm that night for a late
December evening, so the window in the bedroom was open. As my cousin went to
close the window, a hawk landed on the window sill. He flew straight for my
crib and perched on the side, apparently ready to strike. My cousin screamed –
she was, as she said later, too paralyzed with fright to move. But Smokey, our
gray and white cat, who was mainly an outside cat but was permitted inside for
his meals, was not too afraid to act. He leaped on the hawk and broke his neck.
Then he simply stood there with no more interest in the hawk than if it was a
piece of wood.
“My cousin made much of Smokey, giving him the cream that
was usually reserved for desserts, and she told the story in vivid detail when
my parents came home. From that day onward, Smokey had the run of the house.
And when I left the crib, Smokey slept with me in bed.
“Smokey was about four years old at the time he delivered me
from the hawk. I grew up hearing about his heroic deed and we became
inseparable. Then it happened, as it must happen to all those we love, humans
and pets, Smokey died when I was thirteen years old. It was the first time that
death, the death of someone I loved, had entered my life. I’m afraid I didn’t
take it very well. No one, not my parents, nor the pastor, could console me.
After my parents went to bed, I would go out to Smokey’s grave, and lay on the
grave weeping and begging God to take Smokey into His Kingdom.
“One night, about four weeks after Smokey’s death, I was
lying at his grave and weeping, as I did every night, when I felt a hand on my
shoulder. It was an angel, and the angel had Smokey in his arms. He took my
hand and placed it on Smokey’s head so that I could pet him. I felt him
purring. Then the angel spoke: “It’s all right, he is with the Lord and he will
be safe with Him until you come.” Then he was gone.
“BIL: Was it real, the vision you saw, or was it madness?
“Grey: It was real. I don’t know why I was vouchsafed that
vision. Maybe it was because Our Lord wanted me to comfort all those who mourn,
like I was comforted that night. I know I have tried to do that my entire life.
And I want to comfort you. Christ is there for us and our loved ones, we, and
they, do not die.
“BIL: I want to believe that. And I do, right now, in your
presence, feel that it is true.
“Grey: Stay with that feeling. Stay amongst people who give
you that feeling, that is what the communion of Saints entails. Will you pray
with me?
“BIL: Yes.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Taylor: I won’t read any further, because I know you have
work to do tonight.
Morgan: Yes, we do. But so do you. Good luck with the play.
Taylor: And good luck to you. May Christ be with you.
Back at the
restaurant, Sister Jacqueline has once again taken charge. The ‘Idiot’ has
disappeared, and Sister Jacqueline has ordered George and his wife, their
daughter, Joe Marshal and his wife, Herb, and Father Michael arrested.
Joan: Why am I being arrested?
Jacqueline: Because you were part of the trick.
Joan: I had nothing to do with any trick. It was those
others [pointing to Herb and her husband] who were in on the trick. They made
my daughter pretend that she was dead.
George: She was dead.
Jacqueline: Silence that man. [George is gagged]
Father Mike: I protest this treatment. I had nothing…
[At this point, David Morgan and his European dragoons
enter. The policemen go for their guns and are shot and killed.]
Morgan: [Referring to the captives] Untie those people.
Jacqueline: What is the meaning of this? I forbid…
Morgan: You shall never have the power to permit or forbid
anything again. Take her away. [Two of the European dragoons take her away.]
Joan: Who are those men?
Joe: It’s the white underground.
Joan: Then we will all be killed.
George: I’ll tell you once more and then I’ll gag you – Shut
up!
Morgan: [Turning to Herb] What went on here?
Herb: We had a visitor, if you’ll step outside with me.
[They walk to the tree, where the empty chains are still lying by the tree]
I’ll explain what happened here. [He motions to Barbara Marshal and Louisa.]
You two might want to come along with me.
___________________
Act V. Scene 2.
Outside by the tree, after Herb has told David Morgan about
the events of that night.
Morgan: You three saw and believed — what will be the
reaction of the rest of the people?
Herb: I think it will be the same as before [He quotes from
memory] “And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with
graveclothes: and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto
them, Loose him, and let him go. Then
many of the Jews which came to Mary, and had seen the things which Jesus did,
believed on him. But some of them went their ways to the Pharisees, and told
them what things Jesus had done. Then gathered the chief priests and the
Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles. If
we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come
and take away both our place and nation. And one of them, named Caiaphas, being
the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, Nor
consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people,
and that the whole nation perish not.”
Morgan: What should be done with that woman? [referring to
Joan Jackson]
Herb: I’m tempted to say leave her behind and let her be
killed by the liberals she serves, but I suppose we must take her with us.
Morgan: But as a prisoner.
Herb: Yes, of course.
Morgan: What about the others?
Herb: I think her father [pointing to Louisa] has had a
genuine conversion, and he can be part of the underground.
Morgan: [Looking at Barbara Marshal] What about your husband?
Barbara: Please take him with us, I think he believes, or at
least he will in time.
Morgan: “Lord, I believe, help my unbelief”?
Herb: I think so. Let’s take him with us. What about Father
Michael?
Morgan: He’ll have to come along too, but he’ll have to join
Father Todd in prison. The members of the Sanhedrin are the hardest ones to
convince. Okay, let’s pull out of here, we can still reach the mountains in
time for the Christmas Eve festivities.
___________________
Act V. Scene 3.
The Christmas Eve performance of The Christmas Carol has ended. The white Europeans, the counterrevolutionary remnant, are gathered together. George Jackson, Louisa, Joe Marshall and his wife, and Herb Broadhurst, the former archivist, are amongst the faithful.
Morgan: Christopher Grey has asked us to sing, in fellowship
with him and our brothers and sisters in Christ across the waters, “Abide with
Me.”
Abide with me;
fast falls the eventide;
The darkness deepens; Lord, with me
abide;
When other helpers fail and comforts
flee,
Help of the helpless, oh, abide with
me.
Swift to its close ebbs out life’s
little day;
Earth’s joys grow dim, its glories
pass away;
Change and decay in all around I see—
O Thou who changest not, abide with
me.
I need Thy presence every passing
hour;
What but Thy grace can foil the
tempter’s pow’r?
Who, like Thyself, my guide and stay
can be?
Through cloud and sunshine, Lord,
abide with me.
I fear no foe, with Thee at hand to
bless;
Ills have no weight, and tears no
bitterness;
Where is death’s sting? Where, grave,
thy victory?
I triumph still, if Thou abide with
me.
Hold Thou Thy cross before my closing
eyes;
Shine through the gloom and point me
to the skies;
Heav’n’s morning breaks, and earth’s
vain shadows flee;
In life, in death, O Lord, abide with
me.
Morgan: Merry Christmas!
The End
Posted inRemembrances|Comments Off on Remembrances IX: Those Who Mourn
When the Christ-Child to this world came down,
He left for us His throne and crown,
He lay in a manger, all pure and fair,
Of straw and hay His bed so bare.
But high in heaven the star shone bright,
And the oxen watched by the Babe that night.
Hallelujah! Child Jesus!
Oh, come, ye sinful and ye who mourn,
Forgetting all your sin and sadness,
In the city of David a Child is born,
Who doth bring us heav’nly gladness.
Then let us to the manger go,
To see the Christ who hath loved us so.
Hallelujah! Child Jesus!
-Hans Christian Andersen
_____________________
When I look at modern
Europe I feel a sadness beyond sadness and an anger beyond anger. The sadness that
goes beyond sadness stems from the knowledge of what has been lost, and the anger
that surpasses anger is centered on the liberals who have destroyed Christian
Europe. Acting with malice aforethought, the liberals have cut the European
people off from their Christian past.
The modern churchman feels no sadness at that which is lost
nor does he feel any anger toward the liberals. You can’t mourn for what is lost
if you don’t believe that what was lost was of any value. Nor can you be angry
with the people who destroyed your cultural heritage if you don’t believe that
heritage was of any worth.
If there is no sadness for our loss, if we do not weep by
the rivers of Babylon, then our anger will be misdirected. That is the great tragedy
of Neopaganism. The neo-pagans are one with the liberals in their hatred of
Christian Europe; they do not mourn its passing, but they are angry with the
liberals for not proceeding into a future designed and organized by the
neo-pagans. Despite their seeming differences, the liberals, the churchmen, and
the neo-pagans are in agreement about the central issue, “which was and is the
question of these wars.” They are united in their hatred of Christian Europe.
What I see when I look at Christian Europe, and what the
liberals, the churchmen, and the neo-pagans see, is something entirely
different. They are in the majority, and I am in the minority. Shall I then
cede the field to them? No, I shall not, because I maintain that what I see
through the eye, in contrast to what they see with the eye, is true and what
they see is false. Let us bring a beautiful actress from Hollywood’s golden age
onto the stage. Life would be a lot simpler if the soul of a beautiful woman
was in harmony with her outward beauty, but that is seldom the case. So I make
no claims for Linda Darnell’s spiritual beauty. She may have been a wonderful
woman, or possibly something less than wonderful. That is more than I know or
want to know. What I do know is that she was a radiant beauty (see The Mark of Zorro). That of
course is my subjective opinion, based on my perception of outward womanly
beauty. But someone else — I don’t know who that could be — might find Linda
Darnell singularly unattractive or even repulsive. By way of analogy, let us
say that Christian Europe is Linda Darnell. The liberals find her repulsive and
ugly, the churchmen find her too flawed according to their theory of what a
beautiful woman should look like, and the neo-pagans claim she is too
Jewish-looking to be considered beautiful. All three groups bid us look to the
future in order to find a truly beautiful woman.
The mystical entity called the ‘future’ is the linchpin of the liberals’, the modern clergy men’s, and the neo-pagans’ mind-forged world dominated by their theories of perfection. The past, filled with imperfections, must be eradicated so that the future can triumph. But what kind of future is there if we leave Christian Europe behind? “We will have a wonderful future,” the champions of a science-dominated future inform us. The “You ain’t seen nothing yet” of Ronald Reagan was and is the mantra of all the warring factions of futurists.
Keats said that truth was beauty and beauty was truth. Yes,
that is correct. But we are still left with the question, “What is truth,”
because we still must determine what is beautiful. I claim that true beauty is
moral beauty and that there is no greater beauty in heaven or earth than the
moral beauty of Christ the Lord, as seen through the hearts that loved Him, the
hearts of the antique Europeans. To look to a future based on the demonization
of our Christian past, which constitutes a rejection of the beatific vision of
Christ, is to look to a future devoid of faith, hope, and charity. But of
course we no longer need to look to such a future, that future is here now; it
is our present reality: Modern Europe is a world devoid of the faith, the hope,
and the charity that once sustained the European people when they cherished,
and did not renounce, their past.
In his magnificent speech before Confederate veterans on May
31, 1904, John Sharp Williams, a U. S. Representative, praised the Southern
people for keeping our European civilization alive during the so-called
“reconstruction” years after the war.
But there was something else, and even a greater cause than local self-government, for which we fought. Local self-government temporarily destroyed may be recovered and ultimately retained. The other thing for which we fought is so complex in its composition, so delicate in its breath, so incomparable in its symmetry, that, being once destroyed, it is forever destroyed. This other thing for which we fought was the supremacy of the white man’s civilization in the country which he proudly claimed his own.
Then he goes on to say,
Slavery is lost, and it is certainly well for us and the public – perhaps for the negro – that it has been lost. But the real cause for which our ancestors fought back of slavery, and deemed by them to be bound up in the maintenance of slavery – to wit, the supremacy of the white man’s civilization, the supremacy of the ethical culture, which has been gradually built up through countless generations – has not been lost.
William’s speech is a two-edged sword. On the one hand, it
inspires us to know that our people, white Europeans, once stood tall and
fought back against the liberal leviathan. But on the other hand is the
horrible fact that the Southern people who came after John Sharp Williams, and
the people of all the other European nations as well, caved in to the liberal
leviathan. That civilization which Williams depicted as “so complex in its
composition, so delicate in its breath, so incomparable in its symmetry,” has
been destroyed. What then? How should we then live if that civilization is no
more? We must go deeper — that is how we shall survive. If we go to the heart
of that ancient European civilization, we go to Christ the Lord.
It is certain that old Europe, championed by the Southern
people during the Civil War and the reconstruction era, is no longer in
existence as a civilization. It is of the past, a past that has been condemned
by all the various champions of a utopian future. But if we do not try to
restore that civilization by adhering to the inconsequential outer forms of
that civilization, such as the democratic process, Greek philosophy, and/or the
Roman legal system in church and state, but go instead to the Dream of the
Rood, which is the real heart of Western civilization, we will be able to
regain that which was lost. (1)
I do not say that we shall ever see old Europe as it once
existed again. I do say that so long as two or three are gathered together in
His name, in union with the antique Europeans who built a civilization
consecrated to Him, then the old South, the old Europe, still lives. Lost
causes only become lost when the ‘defeated’ people no longer believe in what
they fought for. The Southern people, like the European people throughout the
world, only lost the war with the Jacobins when they came to believe in the
same faith as the Jacobins. The resistance to Jacobinism must start from
within. Do we believe that we are created in the image of God or do we believe
we are created in the image of the beast? If we believe the latter, then we
will not restore European civilization, because the image of the beast culture
is the image of the future. What is past is the ‘image of God in Man’ culture
that our dear old folk of long ago built in defiance of the pagan gods of
nature. Have we ‘progressed’ beyond those people? Why is the demonism of
infanticide, homosexuality, feminism, and negro worship considered a
progression? We have supped full of liberalism, and that hideous, foul-tasting
repast has left us too spiritually stupefied to live as Europeans should live,
in loving remembrance of our honored dead who rest in the arms of the Lord, and
in loving remembrance of Him, the God who lives.
There is a song in the magnificent movie called The Wonderful World of the Brothers’ Grimm in
which the children sing of Christmas Land. Our Europe was
Christmas Land. There was love, honor, beauty and faith in that town. I, for
one, do not intend to leave it, not ever. Which is a good place to leave off
for this year.
For December 14th, December 21st, and December 28th I will post another remembrance of Christopher Grey. The next regular post will be in the New Year, January 4th. The remembrances were and still are intended as depictions of a dystopian future dominated by the liberals and their heathen allies. Tragically that future has come upon us at such an accelerated rate that the dystopia is no longer in the future, it is here. But the last word will not be spoken by the liberals and their allies. In the beginning was His word, and in the end His word shall prevail. I will dwell in Christmas Land again this year and every year, and it is my hope and prayer for thee, that you are able to dwell in Christmas Land this Christmas and in all the Christmases to come, on this earth and in His house of many mansions in heaven.
“Christmas is coming, the goose is getting fat,” — although I must admit I’ve never tasted goose –, “who’ll put a penny in an old beggar’s hat?” I will. God bless the old beggar and God bless the European remnant. Merry Christmas! +
___________________________________
(1) Now I bid thee, my loved man, to declare this vision unto men; reveal in words that it is the glorious tree on which Almighty God suffered for the many sins of mankind and the old deeds of Adam.
There He tasted death; yet God
rose up again with His mighty power to help men. Then He ascended to heaven;
hither again will the Lord Himself make His way to this world to seek mankind
on the day of judgment, Almighty God and
His angels with Him, when He who has power of judgement will judge each
one according as he merits in this fleeting life. No one can be without fear
there at the word the Lord says: He will ask before the multitude where the man
is who for God’s sake would taste bitter death, as He aforetime did on the
cross; but then they will be afraid, and think little of what they begin to say
to Christ. No one need be terrified there who erstwhile bears in his breast the
best of signs, but each soul which desires to dwell with the Lord must through
the cross seek the kingdom which is far from earth.
And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day
shalt thou be with me in paradise. – Luke
23: 43
Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had
found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God? He answered
and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him? And Jesus said unto
him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee. And he said,
Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him. –
John 9: 35-38
_______________________
Nathaniel Hawthorne has been and still is, if he is read at all, condemned by the modern literary critics for his obsession with one theme – the hardened heart. In such short stories as “Dr. Heidegger’s Experiment,” “The Birthmark,” “Rappaccini’s Daughter,” and “Ethan Brand,” Hawthorne depicts the fatal consequences of a life lived according to the scientific principles of dissection rather than the passions of the human heart. And in the Scarlet Letter, Hawthorne puts an exclamation point on his ‘obsession’ by making Roger Chillingworth, the wronged husband of an adulterous wife, a man who sins mortally by looking into the human heart with the eyes of a scientist, and by so doing, detaches himself from humanity. Hawthorne was not alone in his opposition to what he saw as the scientizing of man. His 19th century counterparts, Scott, Dickens, and Dostoyevsky, also saw the essence of modernity in rationality detached from humanity. And before them was Edmund Burke, who saw, in the new world order of the French Jacobins, a soulless scientific world completely opposed to the religion of Christ, who comes to men through their hearts of flesh. In science-based cultures, hearts of flesh are proscribed, because men with hearts of flesh are opposed to the progression of man from the ‘superstition’ of faith to the world of ‘enlightened’ reason.
Nothing can be conceived more hard than the heart of a thoroughbred metaphysician. It comes nearer to the cold malignity of a wicked spirit than to the frailty and passion of a man. It is like that of the principle of evil himself, incorporeal, pure, unmixed, dephlegmated, defecated evil. It is no easy operation to eradicate humanity from the human breast. What Shakespeare calls the “compunctious visitings of nature” will sometimes knock at their hearts, and protest against their murderous speculations. But they have a means of compounding with their nature. Their humanity is not dissolved. They only give it a long prorogation. They are ready to declare, that they do not think two thousand years too long a period for the good that they pursue. It is remarkable, that they never see any way to their projected good but by the road of some evil. Their imagination is not fatigued with the contemplation of human suffering through the wild waste of centuries added to centuries of misery and desolation. Their humanity is at their horizon—and, like the horizon, it always flies before them. The geometricians and the chemists bring — the one from the dry bones of their diagrams, and the other from the soot of their furnaces — dispositions that make them worse than indifferent about those feelings and habitudes which are the supports of the moral world.
It certainly was not easy for the liberals to “eradicate
humanity from the human breast.” Lady Macbeth tried but ultimately failed
because she lacked a scientific ideology to sustain her. A modern psychiatrist
would have told her that she was just realizing her human potential, by
fighting against white male stereotypes about women that said women should be
weak and submissive. She would have left the psychiatrist’s couch and gotten a
job teaching ‘women’s studies’ at Stanford or Harvard. The point being that we
have allowed the scientizers in church and state to replace the Christ-centered
European culture of the heart that loves for the scientized culture of the mind
that hates all things humane, noble, and beautiful. The liberals have labeled
Burke and the European poets ‘obsessive’ while they have institutionalized
their own obsessions, their passionate love of the noble savages of color, and
their passionate, obsessive hatred of all things white and Christian. It is not
obsession itself that is wrong, it is what a man is obsessed with that counts.
And I maintain that Burke’s and the great European poets’ obsession with the
evils of a science-based culture that views man as a glorified ape without a
heart for God, was the right obsession. And if you read through the Gospels and
the epistles of St. Paul, you will discover that Christ and St. Paul were also
obsessed with the hardened heart.
The man of science, the psychiatrist who scientizes man, and
the man of theology, the theologian who scientizes God, are one in spirit. Both
see the human heart and all passions emanating from the human heart as evil.
The psychiatrist sees only animality in mankind, so he declares animality to be
normality and absolves mankind from sin: “I’m okay, you’re okay.” How can there
be any sin if we are apes? Can apes sin? The theologian who damns the human in
order to praise the divine is looking at man with the same eyes as the
psychiatrist. He sees nothing worthy of redemption in the human heart, so he
places that worthless entity aside and looks to his own mind, his
science-trained mind, to guide the beasts called men toward the light of his
vision of heaven, which is really a vision of hell, a scientized, inhuman
laboratory of test tubes with the distilled essence of brain cells in them.
The scientific view of existence which says everything is of
nature and nothing is of God was promulgated to make man eased with being
nothing. In exchange for eternal life, if they repented of their sins, men were
told that they need not repent because there was no God before whom a man could
repent. But then of course this meant there was and is no loving divine
presence in our lives: We can’t weep and be forgiven and share eternity with
Him who died for all. Is this brave new world really superior to old Europe?
To harden one’s heart against all things humane and
Christian is indeed the “unpardonable sin” that Hawthorne’s Ethan Brand
discovers. It is the “unpardonable sin” because the man of the hardened heart
does not think he needs pardon. The hard-hearted liberal and the hard-hearted
metaphysician feel they are not in need of God’s mercy or forgiveness because,
like Shylock, they are not conscious of their own sinfulness: “What judgement
shall I dread, doing no wrong?” The thinking man, the theologian, can do no wrong
because he has no heart, which is where he thinks wrong resides, and the
liberal thinks he can do wrong because there is no wrong, there is no sin as
the antique Europeans defined it; there are only sins against liberalism, the ‘racist’
and ‘sexist’ sins.
In direct contrast to the liberals and the theologians is
the good thief. He is quite conscious of his sinfulness:
And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us. But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss. And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. –Luke 23: 39-42
And then our Lord, who is still going about His Father’s
business even on the cross in the midst of mortal pain, says to the good thief,
“Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.” What a
moment! To know that a lifetime of sin and sorrow can be turned into a victory
over sin and sorrow through a heart-to-heart connection to the Suffering Servant
is worth more than anything that the world of science can offer us.
We know nothing of the good thief’s life apart from the
moment he shared with Christ on the cross. Did he ever hear Christ speak before
that moment? Perhaps he was there, possibly to pick pockets, when Christ gave
His Sermon on the Mount. What we do know is that the good thief was able to
recognize, in his heart, the Heart of hearts. He loved much and was forgiven.
Christ does not abrogate the rites of confirmation and baptism by telling the
good thief that “today shalt thou be with me in paradise.” What He does is
point to Himself as the Lord of those rites; they exist to place us before Him
in spirit and truth, and the good thief is already there, he has received
Christ in spirit and truth.
I love the good thief. The man who feels he is without sin
and needs no redeemer will never know what the good thief knew – only Christ
can forgive sin and heal the heart laden with sorrow, wrong, and trouble.
Outside of His grace, there is no grace. The men and women of modern Europe,
the liberals, have spent the “unbought grace” of life handed down to us by the
antique Europeans, which they received from Christ the Lord. The liberals will
never know what it feels like to be forgiven their sins, because they, in their
mind-forged religion of cruelty and impiety, know themselves to be without sin.
If we follow in their train we shall never hear the blessed words of
forgiveness and hope that the good thief heard.
It’s possible to get a Ph.D. in literature in our modern
universities without ever having read a work of literature. All a literature
major needs to know is the psychological theories of the literary critics.
There is no need, if you want to succeed in academia, to actually read the
great works of Western literature. After all, how can we expect Shakespeare,
Scott, or Dickens to tell us anything about life that the scientized experts,
the psychiatrists, can’t tell us? I would prefer a complete ban, which is now
taking place, on all the literature of the West, rather than watch the great
works become mere grist in the psychological mills of the experts.
The same process of desoulment that took place in the
literary circles of academia also took place in the church. Just as a man can
become a Ph.D. in literature without any direct contract with literature so can
a man become a Christian in good standing with his local church without having
any contact with God. In fact, that is what our churchmen desire. They want the
laity to empty their hearts and open up their minds to their clergymen, who
will cram God into their heads. That way nothing human gets in the way of the
streamlined, scientific faith of the clergy. But what if the clergy’s plan is
not God’s plans; what if He really does enter our lives through the human
heart? (1)
Throughout the Gospel, Jesus makes the lame to walk, the
blind to see, and the dead to rise again. And in the case of every miracle, the
Pharisees who govern the Jewish people do not look at Christ’s miracles of
compassion and love, instead they focus on Christ’s breaches of the law. They
claim He has violated “The Law” by healing on the Sabbath. And they claim He
casts out devils because He is in league with the devil. Let us bring the man
born blind into the lists once again. If we are reading the Bible as little
Arthur in Tom Brown’s School Days
read the Bible, with the belief that the men and women of the Bible were real,
historical persons, we encounter, in the man born blind, a heroic example of
how we must respond to His divine love. After Christ gives the man born blind
his sight, the Pharisees try to deny the miracle by claiming it never occurred
— it is a fraud. But the parents of the man born blind confirm that their son
was indeed born blind. That is all they will say; they do not make any claims
about Christ “because they feared the Jews: for the Jews had agreed already,
that if any man did confess that he was Christ, he should be put out of the
synagogue.”
Having failed to discredit Christ’s miracle of compassion
through the parents of the man born blind, the Pharisees then go after the man
himself. What happens? The man born blind refuses to back down to the Pharisees.
Then said they to him again, What did he to thee? how opened he thine eyes? He answered them, I have told you already, and ye did not hear: wherefore would ye hear it again? will ye also be his disciples? Then they reviled him, and said, Thou art his disciple; but we are Moses’ disciples. We know that God spake unto Moses: as for this fellow, we know not from whence he is. The man answered and said unto them, Why herein is a marvellous thing, that ye know not from whence he is, and yet he hath opened mine eyes. Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth. Since the world began was it not heard that any man opened the eyes of one that was born blind. If this man were not of God, he could do nothing. They answered and said unto him, Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us? And they cast him out. – John 9: 26-34
There, in that confrontation between the Pharisees and the
man born blind, we see where true faith resides. The man born blind has a heart
of flesh; he has the courage to defy the Pharisees because he loves the man who
gave him his sight. We must realize what it meant for a Jew to be cast out of
the synagogue. The life of the synagogue was everything to the Jew; without
that life there was no community and no comfort in this world. But still the
man born blind stands tall. “Of course he stands tall,” the modern man retorts,
“Christ gave him his sight.” Then why don’t we, the modern Europeans, stand
tall? Haven’t we been the recipients of an even greater miracle than the man
born blind? The Man of Sorrows has borne our sins; He has given us eternal life
through His sacrifice on the cross. Shouldn’t that give us the courage and love
to defy the modern Pharisees of Liberaldom?
Our European ancestors did defy the Pharisees of science as
the man born blind defied them. But the modern Europeans are only concerned
with their place in the liberals’ synagogue. They have forsaken the God-Man who
gave them sight and life eternal. If, and that ‘if’ is all in all, we denounce
the Pharisees of Liberaldom, the Pharisees of science and theological
speculation, we shall know the living God because He shall seek us out when we
are cast out of the liberals’ synagogue.
Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God? He answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him? And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee. And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him. And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind. And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also? Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth. –John 9: 36-41
The good thief, the man born blind, and the antique
Europeans, were one in that which was and is essential: They had human hearts
of flesh that responded to the love emanating from His divine heart. We can
conquer the scientistic world of Liberaldom if we also, like the good thief,
the man born blind, and the antique Europeans respond to His love with our renewed
hearts of flesh. +
__________________________________
(1) I know it is not Christmas yet, but I want to give the reader enough time, if he or she so chooses, to read, along with their loved ones (the stories always are best read aloud amongst those we love) one or all five of the greatest Christmas stories ever written.
5. “What Christmas Is As We Grow Older” – Charles Dickens This last one is not a story, it is a prose poem dedicated to Him and all the living and the dead who are connected to Him through the love that is always present, but is particularly present at Christmas time.
Merciful Heaven,
Thou rather with thy sharp and sulphurous bolt
Splits the unwedgeable and gnarled oak
Than the soft myrtle; but man, proud man,
Dress’d in a little brief authority,
Most ignorant of what he’s most assur’d,
His glassy essence, like an angry ape,
Plays such fantastic tricks before high heaven
As makes the angels weep; who, with our spleens,
Would all themselves laugh mortal.
‘Now I bid thee, my loved man, to declare this vision unto men; reveal in words that it is the glorious tree on which Almighty God suffered for the many sins of mankind and the old deeds of Adam.’
By way of preface, I haven’t put any links up on my blog
since my removal from Word Press in April, because I don’t want to bring some
other blogger down who might be found guilty by his or her association with me.
That is the nature of the times we live in. The European people live under the
rule of the Babylonian liberals, and their rule is not a benevolent one.
At the beginning of The
Christmas Carol, Dickens lays particular stress on the fact that Marley is
dead. “There is no doubt that Marley was dead. This must be distinctly
understood, or nothing wonderful can come of the story I am going to relate.” I
must lay ‘particular stress’ on the fact that the European people are a captive
people living under very cruel and merciless overlords, who have allowed the
devil to fill the void in their souls created when they left Christian Europe
to forge a new realm, where people were ‘free’ of the constraints of the
Man-God, Jesus Christ.
It’s quite possible, even quite probable, that the European
people will remain under the rule of their liberal overlords for many centuries
to come. “Then why, if we are doomed to be captives of the liberals, should we
bother to oppose them?” We should oppose them because men are not merely
biological beings. Never let the fact that we have biological needs obscure the
fact that we are of the spirit; our real need is for communion with our people
and our God, in spirit and truth. And the spiritual truth of our existence here
on earth is that it is better to be spiritually connected to the living God,
even though we live under the rule of Babylonian liberals, then to deny our
captivity and practice the same religion as the rulers of Babylon in order to
appease the rulers of Babylon. Daniel was one of the Christ-bearers; it was his
task to hold to the Christian faith even in the midst of Babylon. That is our
task: We, as a people, must be faithful to the prophets, the apostles, and our
European progenitors who kept the faith alive in spite of dungeon, fire, and
sword.
It is not a good thing, the Babylonian captivity of the
European people; I weep by the rivers of old Europe just as the Jews wept
during their captivity by the rivers of Babylon. But we go beyond sadness to
tragedy if we deny our captivity, because that denial constitutes an acceptance
of all or part of the liberals’ faith, a faith which will send us to hell. What
did our Lord tell us? He told us to beware of those who could kill our souls;
they were far more dangerous than those who could merely kill our bodies. “And
fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but
rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” (Matthew 10:28)
Liberalism is a soul-killing faith; we must put on the whole armor of God in
order to protect ourselves against it. From whence comes the armor of God? It
comes from within: “Behold the kingdom of God is within you.”
I had a friend who tried to become a priest in the Novus
Ordo branch of the Catholic Church, and then, when that attempt failed, managed
to get ordained in a traditionalist branch of the Catholic Church. But like
David Copperfield, who tried life on his own and found he liked it no better
than his former life, he found that he didn’t get along with the
traditionalists any better than he got along with the Novus Ordo Catholics.
What was the problem? Was my friend simply a trouble-maker, unable to get along
with anybody? No, that was not the case. The friend in question was an
unpretentious, mild-mannered man who wanted to serve Christ. “The problem was
here,” said my friend, pointing to his heart. “They don’t have a heart for
God,” was the verdict of my friend. His experience with organized Christian
Jewry has been my experience with organized Christian Jewry, Protestant and
Catholic: The clergy have decided that Christ didn’t know what He was doing
when He appealed to the hearts of humble fishermen rather than to the brains of
the ‘smart guys’ in the Sanhedrin. But Christ knew the Sanhedrin had hardened
their hearts against Him; they were too smart to believe that love came down
from heaven in the person of Jesus Christ.
The religious wars in Christian Europe were never wars
between Christians who held to the true faith, the faith of the apostles and
St. Paul. The so-called religious wars were in reality theological wars, men
adhering to one mind-forged theory of God fought against other men with
differing mind-forged theories of God. And when theories of God collide, the
dear Christ, the Christ who enters human hearts, is left out of the picture.
Theological speculation is the root of liberalism. The devil told Adam and Eve to speculate about God. And their theorizing about God led to their betrayal of their Father who loved them in return for… what? The reason organized Christian Jewry is defenseless against the liberals is because organized Christian Jewry wants to be part of Liberaldom. The churchmen would like a more moderate liberalism than their secular counterparts, but they do not want to go back to the ‘stupid’ faith of the antique Europeans who believed in the whole Christ story. Really, how can an intelligent man believe in talking snakes and a non-evolutionary creation of man? But if we can’t trust God to tell us the truth in the beginning of the Christ story, how can we believe Him when we come to the end of the Christ story? The reason our modern churchmen have not declared war on the liberals is because they are ultimately not opposed to them; they have no heart for God, because their minds have killed their hearts. They have become like unto Uncle Silas in J. S. LeFanu’s novel:
Of my wretched uncle’s religion what am I to say? Was it utter hypocrisy, or had it at any time a vein of sincerity in it? I cannot say. I don’t believe that he had any heart left for religion, which is the highest form of affection, to take hold of. Perhaps he was a sceptic with misgivings about the future, but past the time for finding anything reliable in it. The devil approached the citadel of his heart by stealth, with many zig-zags and parallels.
Perhaps our clergymen once had a vein of sincerity in their faith, but they forgot the beginning of the Christ story. The devil always appeals to our pride of intellect. It is not ‘racism’ we need to worry about — au contraire, we need to be racist in that we need to love our own in order to conquer that greatest of all sins, the pride of intellect, which makes us think we can reorder God’s world so it is in harmony with our reason rather than His folly. What did St. Paul mean when he said that the folly of God was greater than the wisdom of men? He was telling us that the human heart connected to the Divine heart, through love, is the truth and the way.
Charity never faileth; when we forget that, we become either
cannon fodder for the liberals, or worse yet, we become liberals. Jacob Marley
warned Scrooge of the chains he was forging for himself because of his hardness
of heart. The European people have allowed themselves to be chained, link by
link, to liberalism. And they will never break the chains of liberalism until
they respond to Christ’s divine condescension with the same passion that
animated the prophets, the apostles, St. Paul, and the antique Europeans.
Our existence here on earth cannot be explained by science
alone. How could mere biological entities create a civilization such as
Christian Europe? How could mere biological entities exhibit the faith, hope,
and charity of the antique Europeans? Are not such manifestations of the spirit
something more than nature? Yet the liberals tell us we are not of the spirit,
we are mere vegetable matter. But somehow, by a great scientific miracle, the anointed
ones, the liberals who have gone beyond whiteness, beyond their God-given
humanity, can build the kingdom of God on earth with the colored people of the
world as their raw material. It’s an absurdity on top of an absurdity, yet that
is the ‘scientific’ reasoning of the liberals. And that ‘scientific’ faith has
been institutionalized throughout the European world. Each incremental link of
the liberal chain that binds the European people to the liberals was forged in
hell, but each link was presented to the European people in the form of a
perverted Christianity. Negro worship started out as civil rights. Who could be
against that? But if we exempt the black race from original sin and make that
race an object of worship, savage gods devoid of mercy, who is served? There is
only one who is served, and that one is Satan.
Feminism started out as an organized movement to make the
white male ‘respect women.’ The astounding assumption that the antique
Europeans, particularly the Victorians, did not ‘respect women’ stands as an
everlasting testimony to the deranged demonism of feminism. Why is the ethos of
Lady Macbeth holy while the sanctity of the life-bearing and life-nurturing
women of old Europe, women such as Little Dorrit, considered to be demonic? And
now, we are told that heterosexuality itself, or at least white male
heterosexuality, must be condemned in the name of feminism. And our churchmen
acquiesce to that condemnation because it is compatible with their mind-forged
Christian faith, which condemns all passions emanating from the human heart
because such passions can lead a man astray. Of course reason can never lead a
man astray. Is that true? We have only to look at our very rational 20th
and 21st centuries to see the wonders of a mind-forged, rational,
man-made world, in which human creatures, devoid of hearts of flesh, dance like
puppets on strings. And it is Satan who pulls the strings.
When I was growing up, my history teachers generally led off
their classes with the old maxim about the nations who didn’t learn from
history. Such nations, we were told, were doomed to repeat past mistakes. There
is a certain amount of truth contained in the old maxim. But there must be a
genuine desire to know the truth in history, otherwise the old maxim will do
you no good. European history today is only used by the liberals as a battering
ram to break down the last remnants of white resistance to liberalism. They
either make up ‘historical’ events that place the European people in the worst
possible light or else they put the worst possible interpretation on an
isolated part of the Europeans’ history, a part that does not represent their
whole history. The liberals have already come to a conclusion about the
European people’s past before they look into the past. The verdict was decided
on before the trial of history began: The antique Europeans are guilty.
The two fatal errors of the modern historical studies of the
European people are that the studies do not look at our people’s whole history,
and the studies do not go beyond factoid history. Our history starts in the
garden of Eden and continues onward, not always upward, through the prophets
who foretold of the coming of Christ, and then culminates in the Christian
centuries in which our people wrestled with Satan in order to defend His realm
of charity here on earth. Our sword was always the cross of Christ and our
shield was always the heart that truly loved. When the academics, the new
Sanhedrin, persuaded us to abandon our spiritual sword and forsake our heart’s
first love, we became defenseless against the wickedness and snares of the
devil.
The second fatal historical error we made and still make, is that we confuse factoid history, the study of dates and outward events, for the real history. Dates and historical events are only the outer crust. To know history, we must see history through the spiritual eye, not with the material eye. Our bards are the true historians: “Poets, under various denominations of Bards, Scalds, Chroniclers, and so forth, are the first historians of all nations.” (Walter Scott) The poets are the “first historians” because they tell us of the spirit behind the facts of the pedestrian, factoid historians. Our first historians, the European poets, tell us of a people who saw a great light; they saw the Word made flesh and believed in the Word made flesh. And our poets told us of a great people’s battle with the devil and his minions to preserve their faith in the Word made flesh. Now our true poets tell us of the lost people, the people who have repeated the original sin of Adam and Eve. The European nations have institutionalized the pride of intellect from which flows all the sins of our modern age; they have become the hallmarks, or to be more accurate, the hell-marks, of our Western un-civilization. Negro-worship, Christian fusionism, feminism, homosexual marriage, transgenderism, and the degradation of all things humane and charitable are the fruits of the pride of intellect which dominate the European people. Only the love that once was there, our love for our people in and through Christ, not our hatred of our people in and through Satan, will kill the ‘pride of intellect’ culture of modern Europe and set us back on the Road to Calvary which leads us to His redemptive love and His house of many mansions. +
–Except this. That as they were assembled in the old Hall,
by no other light than that of a great a fire (having dined early), the shadows
once more stole out of their hiding-places, and danced about the room, showing
the children marvelous shapes and faces on the walls, and gradually changing
what was real and familiar there to what was wild and magical. But that there
was one thing in the Hall to which the eyes of Redlaw, and of Milly and her
husband, and of the old man, and of the student, and his bride that was to be,
were often turned, which the shadows did not obscure or change. Deepened in its
gravity by the fire-light, and gazing from the darkness of the paneled wall
like life, the sedate face in the portrait, with the beard and ruff, looked
down at them from under its verdant wreath of holly, as they looked up at it,
and, clear and plain below, as if a voice had uttered them, were the words: ‘Lord, keep my Memory Green!’ — The Haunted Man and the Ghost’s
Bargain
_________________________________________
When I was a child there was no question which season was the best season of the year. It was summer. There was no school in summer, and you could do so many outdoor activities in summer that you could not do in winter. And my love of summer continued into my adulthood, because when I married and had children I enjoyed the summertime activities with my children. However, now that my children have grown, I find, much to my surprise, that the hated autumn, hated because it meant the end of summer, has become my favorite season. Physically and spiritually autumn now appeals to me more than summer. But I can still understand why so many people adore summer and do not welcome autumn. So I understood and sympathized with a young woman, about 30 years of age, standing next to me in line at a local amusement park this past August, when she said that she hated to see the end of summer. I said, “Yes, it is sad to see ‘the last rose of summer.’” The woman’s response surprised me.
“That is beautiful, did you just think it up?”
Now, I wasn’t quoting Proust or Joyce, or some other
esoteric writer of the past, I was quoting one of Thomas Moore’s songs that
used to be as widely known as the Beatles’ Let
It Be. I suppose I shouldn’t have been so surprised, because I frequently
encounter, in this brave new world of diversity, white people who have no
knowledge of Christian Europe. Apparently a diverse education no longer extends
to our spiritual progenitors, the antique Europeans. (1)
The Christian Europeans were intimately concerned with
history, particularly their history, because they believed, unlike all other
people, that their God had entered human history. Once you believe in the
Christ story, once you have taken that story into your heart, you can no longer
view history as a cyclic process; you believe human history began in the Garden
of Eden and will end with the second coming of our Lord. And in between those
two events the history of every single human being is of “eternal moment,”
because He has created us in His image, to share all eternity with Him or to go
to hell, if we choose to go to hell. So it is of no small consequence — it is
of eternal consequence — that the modern Europeans have chosen hell over His
kingdom come.
There are warning labels on alcohol, cigarettes, and a good
deal of our food products, but there are no warning labels on our culture. We
don’t see any signs in our schools – “What you learn here, if taken to heart,
will send you to hell.” Nor do our churches have any warning signs as we enter
– “Warning, we believe that hell is heaven and heaven is hell, abandon
Christian Europe if you enter this church.” And on it goes. If the liberals
were honest and forthright, they would warn people that all the major
institutions of Liberaldom lead us to hell, but if the liberals were honest and
forthright they wouldn’t be liberals. So the great lie, the lie that says the
liberals’ hell is really heaven, goes unchallenged.
In Christian Europe the European everyman served the King
because the King served Christ. Kings who forgot their rule came from Christ
frequently ceased to rule. It is quite different in Liberaldom. The liberals
have instituted the principles laid forth in Plato’s Republic. The state does
not serve God, God serves the state. So long as your religion does not conflict
with the religion of the state, you may have a religion. But is such a religion
really a religion if you must make your vision of God subordinate to the state’s
vision of God? If Christ is only invoked to condemn racism, but is not invoked
to condemn negro worship, feminism and legalized abortion, is He really the
same Christ that was worshipped by the antique Europeans, the Christ who rose
from the dead on the third day? Of course, He isn’t. That Christ, the Christ of
old Europe, has been banned from the liberals’ republic.
The liberals are correct, not morally correct, but
tactically correct, to ban all remembrances of Christian Europe, because when a
man, a European man, remembers Christian Europe, he will know what he once was,
a child of God, and he will remember what he has lost, His kingdom come, by
accepting a place in Liberaldom. What then? He will challenge the liberals’
right to rule, and that challenge, the challenge of a European imbued with the
power of faith, faith in the living God, is something the liberals cannot
abide, because such a challenge will mark the beginning of the end of
Liberaldom.
There is a Christmas story by Charles Dickens called TheHauntedManandtheGhost’sBargain, which should be placed on an equal footing with The Christmas Carol, but for some reason
it is not as well known. In the story, the Haunted Man makes a bargain with a
ghost. The ghost will give him peace of mind by removing his remembrance of all
“sorrow, wrong and trouble.” Of course when the Haunted Man loses his
remembrance of all sorrow, wrong and trouble, he loses all contact with
humanity. He becomes a walking abstraction, unable to share in the happiness of
others, whose happiness is woven in with sorrow, wrong and trouble, and unable
to truly empathize with the suffering of others because he has left suffering
behind. The story is so contemporary, because the plight of the Haunted Man is
the plight of the European people. We have renounced incarnate Europe, we have
not kept our memory of that sacred place and those blessed people green.
Instead, we have become like unto the living dead — we walk through the valley
of the shadow of death-in-life liberalism, completely immune to the suffering
of others and the happiness that once was mixed in with the sorrow, wrong and
trouble of the antique Europeans. The devil’s lie rules the European people –
“You can be happy here on earth; you can avoid all the sorrow, wrong and trouble
found in Christ’s Europe if you just follow the liberal way, which is my way.”
At first glance the modern Europeans seem one with Buddha. Didn’t he and his followers believe that an intellectual detachment from suffering humanity was the key to “inner peace”? Yes, there are great similarities between Buddhism and modern liberalism, but the white race can never be exactly like any of the colored races. When whites go wrong — and there is no wrong greater than liberalism — they forge their wrong in a perverse caricature of the faith that their ancestors once held. Thus the modern Europeans are abstracted from humanity just as Buddhists are abstracted from humanity, but the modern white liberal has added a Christian’s evangelical zeal to his Buddhistic abstraction from humanity. We must, the people of the liberal captivity, become abstract humanoids devoid of all humanity or the terrible swift sword of liberalism will cut us down. The Buddhist seeks to avoid evil by intellectually removing himself from it, and the liberal institutionalizes evil in order to avoid the source of all suffering, the people who saw beauty on the cross. Those people are an evil that cannot merely be avoided, they must be purged. The vision that reclaims the Haunted Man and brings him back from death in life to eternal life is the vision that has been banned from the liberals’ Europe:
‘O Thou,’ he said, ‘who, through the teaching of pure love, hast graciously restored me to the memory which was the memory of Christ upon the cross, and of all the good who perished in His cause, receive my thanks, and bless her!’
It is the remembrance of the vision of Christ on the cross
that restores the Haunted Man. But the Haunted Man wanted to reclaim his soul;
he was not content with death in life; he wanted his humanity back. Is there
any indication that the European people want their memory of Christian Europe
back? Do they feel the loss of their humanity as the Haunted Man did? No, they
do not. They are still wallowing in the pig slime of modernity in the hope that
if they consume enough pig slime they will enter the kingdom of God on earth.
Because they have no remembrance of what they once were as a people, the Christ
bearers, they have become what the science of the liberals tells them they are
– mere beasts, fit for one thing, the liberals’ nightmarish world of death in
life, stripped of all capacity to love God or man.
Let us put the European people’s tragic fall from grace in
simple terms. Suppose there once was a young man, born of God-fearing parents
who nurtured him, loved him, and gave him, through their love, an intimate
knowledge of the living God. When he became an adult his parents died. At first
he grieved and vowed, in his heart, to keep their memory green. And so long as
he kept their memory green, he was able to love God and bear up under the
sorrows and troubles of the world. But then tragedy ensued. The young man began
to listen to the surrounding din of men called academics. From state pulpits
and ecclesiastical pulpits they told him of the evil of his parents. They
demonized such parents and commanded him and others like him to put the
remembrance of their parents out of their minds and hearts and place all their
hopes in the new world that the academics were forging, a world devoid of
sorrow, wrong and trouble. What would we think of a young man who listened to
the academics and let his remembrance of his parents die out? Wouldn’t we call
such a man a moral pariah, a reprehensible coward? I would. And that is what I
call the modern Europeans, moral pariahs who do not have the moral courage to
challenge the liberals’ utopia in the name of the people who bequeathed to them
a vision of the living God.
Never, never lose sight of the fact that the liberals’
attack on ‘racist’ whites is an attack on the living God who comes to us
through our humanity. If we denounce white pietas, we denounce Him. The Lord
has blessed me with many children, and they are indeed a blessing, because they
have brought me closer to Christ. In loving them, I have learned so much more
about His loving heart than I could ever have learned from theology or philosophy.
But if I thought happiness consisted of the absence of sorrow, wrong and
trouble, I would have taken the academics’ bargain and rejected fatherhood,
because each and every child has increased my burden of sorrow and worry in
this world. I love my children, hence I suffer because their sorrows and
troubles are my sorrows and troubles. But would I have any happiness in this
world, or hope of happiness in the next world, if I did not share the suffering
of my loved ones? No, I would not; therefore, I reject the liberals’ bargain,
the same bargain the ghost offered to the Haunted Man, a bargain he ultimately
rejected. And we should all, we Europeans, reject the liberals’ ghostly bargain
and return to His Europe where there is a multitude of sorrow, wrong and
trouble, but where there is also the love of God, which passeth the
understanding of the liberals, the creatures who have left His kingdom come in
order to live in their mind-forged hell on earth.
Pietas, pietas, the passionate love of our own — that is
our challenge to liberalism! We shall not yield, we shall not cease to love,
even in the face of an avenging army of maniacal, liberal inquisitors who are
determined to eradicate the Christian Europeans from the face of the earth. We
will counter their hate with our love of Him in and through our people, of
happy memory, who loved much and received His forgiveness and His blessing. +
_______________________
(1) There are always certain gaps in every man’s or woman’s education. For instance, I was surprised to hear William F. Buckley, an educated man, confess, in his mid-sixties, that he intended to read Moby Dick for the first time. So you might think I am making too much of one woman’s ignorance of “’Tis the Last Rose of Summer.” But that was just one example of what I insist is the loss of something more significant than a lack of knowledge of certain European classics. That woman’s ignorance was representative of a severance, a severance from our people’s incomparable, irreplaceable moral heritage. That moral heritage, which connects us to Him, is much more important than our democratic heritage or our scientific knowledge. Nor is a mere academic knowledge of the great works of Western literature enough. We must have an organic connection to the spirit of the people who produced and loved those great works. “Lost, lost, lost,” says the evil dwarf in Scott’s The Lay of the Last Minstrel. And so are we if we don’t see life feelingly and reconnect with those “dear old folk from long ago.”
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. +
But they constrained him, saying, Abide with us: for it is toward evening, and the day is far spent. And he went in to tarry with them.
And it came to pass, as he sat at the table with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them.
And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight.
And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?
–Luke 24: 29-32
__________________________
Ionce read that Wilkie Collins, author of The Moonstone and The Woman in White, took laudanum to alleviate the pain of a recurring illness. Over the years he was forced to take larger and larger doses to keep the pain of his illness from overwhelming him. One day, for whatever reason — perhaps because of idle curiosity or because he had a severe headache — Collin’s manservant took less than half a dose of the laudanum that Collins took regularly. Tragically, the manservant died. That sad incident comes to my mind a lot lately, because it has a certain relevance to the spiritual sickness of the European people. The European people are still standing after taking doses of liberalism that the Europeans of 100 years ago would have been unable to absorb and still live. When liberalism, which is Satanism, comes to a civilization incrementally, the people of that civilization do not “feel the flame” — they live in hell without any perceptible knowledge of their hellish existence. The European people’s plight would not be so desperate if a foreign invader had forced them to accept the satanic principles of feminism, Islam, negro worship, and the other derivatives of liberalism as their ruling principles. If liberalism had been forced upon them, the European people could still have held onto their souls, like the Jews during the Babylonian captivity who kept the dream of their true homeland alive while suffering through their captivity. But such, unfortunately, is not the case with the European people. No enemy from without has made them accept the major tenets of liberalism. They have made all that is Satanic – feminism, the worship of the negro, and the incorporation of all faiths, save the Christian faith, into the European nations — part and parcel of their civilization. How long can such a satanic union endure? The liberals have made it their task, their exalted mission, to ensure that the union between Satan and the European people endures for all eternity. And who will say them nay? Who will refuse to be in union with the devil?
It is useless to talk about getting the proper conservative candidate to run against a left-wing candidate. There is no such thing as a conservative candidate within the context of democracy as practiced by the European people. Yet that is all the so-called conservatives talk about. “Le Pen got 35% of the vote in France, we are on our way!” Or, “The Nationalists in Britain won two seats, people are beginning to wake up!” And in our own country, it is always the next Republican candidate or some third party “populist” candidate who is going to “restore America’s greatness.” What constitutes America’s greatness? America as a nation state was never great, it was and is an abomination. But her people had greatness to the extent that they shared in the common civilization of the European people, the people who took the Word made flesh into their hearts.
A conservative must be a counter-revolutionary, or else he
is merely a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Under the guise of conservatism, he
perpetuates Satan’s realm, which is held together by “Give us Barabbas”
democracy. There are two incorporate unions in the lives of the European
people. The first incorporate union is in our past, a union formed between the
European people and Christ. The second incorporate union is in our present, the
incorporate union that the Europeans have made with Satan. We cannot restore
anything of value by voting for candidates who remain within the liberals’ kingdom
of eternal night. Something more is needed. We need to make a complete break
with the liberals and the liberals’ god in order to renew our ties to His
Europe and His people.
In my early twenties, for reasons I need not go into, I roamed
through Europe. And during the course of my roaming, I made a very un-profound
discovery: the youth of Europe were going through the same spiritual upheaval
as the youth in America. They, the post-World War II generation, had left the
old ‘Christ is Risen’ culture behind and were searching for something or
someone to fill the void. I vividly remember a discussion I had with some young
Brits who were studying at a university in London. They were all materialists
in that they were either Marxists or Socialists who were not interested in
anything connected to the spiritual realm of existence. In fact there was only
one student, a Scot from Inverness, who was even remotely interested in
something other than leftist politics. The Scot was absorbed with aliens, not
aliens from other nations, but aliens from other planets. Once he made it clear
that he was not Christian, the young Scotsman was tolerated by the other
students. I listened to the sci-fi Scot for a while and then I stated what
seemed to be obvious. Coming from the position of Shatov in Dostoyevsky’s novel
The Possessed – “I shall believe in
God” – I told the Scot that he was talking rot.
“You don’t believe in people from outer space?”
“No, I don’t.”
“What do you believe in then?”
“I believe there is only one question worth considering: Did Christ rise from the dead on the third day? If He didn’t, we should all blow our brains out, and if He did, then we should stop talking about Marxism and spacemen and follow Him.”
The hostile silence was palpable.
The 20th century was the century of spiritual
laudanum. The European people were incrementally anesthetized against all
things Christian. Had they been given a large dose of liberalism at the
beginning of the century, had homosexual marriage, feminism, transgenderism,
and fusionist Christianity been jammed down their throats in large, unhomogenized,
and unadulterated amounts, they would have died outright. But they lived
through the small doses, and their 21st century heirs, the creatures
of the ‘Christ be not risen’ anti-civilization, have become the walking dead.
They have a certain outward resemblance to human beings, but inwardly there is
nothing; they are spiritually dead. But here is where the laudanum parable
stops. Mere physical organisms die when the poison spreads. But if, as our
faith tells us, we are not mere physical organisms, cannot a people who are
spiritually dead return to life? Yes, it is possible, but only in and through
Him. And there’s the rub – our people have left the civilization of Christ is
Risen for the anti-civilization of Christ be not risen. All ‘restorations,’ all
political programs, to ‘make our nation great again’ are useless if we don’t
seek to go from here, Satan’s realm of death in life, to there, His realm of
charity, in which there is life eternal for all who love Him.
I had a philosophy teacher in college who was an exception
to the general rule of academics at the time. He did not, like his fellow
academics, attack Christ indirectly by claiming Christ’s followers had
misinterpreted His message. No, there was no indirection in that man of
philosophy, he attacked Christ directly, claiming that His ludicrous, egotistic
claim to be the Son of God had taken hold of His followers who were unable to
live with His death so they invented the story of His resurrection from the
dead. Wasn’t that what the Sanhedrin claimed when confronted with the empty
tomb? Isn’t that the claim our modern anti-civilization is built upon?
“Christ’s resurrection from the dead is a fairy story just as Jack and the
Beanstalk is a fairy story.” But our people once believed that the Christ story
was true. What or whom has come between them and Christ to make them leave His
Europe for Satan’s Europe? The degenerate playwright George Bernard Shaw
identified the source of the European people’s flight from Christ: It was
science. Christ’s resurrection from the dead was incompatible with science;
therefore, since science was truth and truth was science, it followed that
Christ did not rise from the dead. Christ could be kept around as a facilitator
of all causes that were not in conflict with science, such as the worship of
the sacred negro, but He could no longer be worshipped as the font of divine
love who had redeemed mankind from sin and death through His crucifixion and
His resurrection from the dead.
We can’t return to a belief in Christ crucified, Christ
risen, by an appeal to pragmatism. There are currently a large number of T.V.
evangelists who tell their audiences that faith in Christ will bring them
riches untold in this world. Is that true? Rembrandt became impoverished in his
later years when he painted the Word made flesh. All the original apostles,
save John, died martyrs’ deaths. It does seem that the European people thrived
as a people when they believed that Christ was the Son of God, but there is
nothing to indicate that individual Europeans thrived in the material realm
because of their faith in Christ. And we must hold all ‘pastors’ who suggest
that we shall have financial success if we trust in Him as moral pariahs.
The appeal of science is that it can deliver the material
goods that Christ cannot deliver. If you trust in science and in the men who
think scientifically, you will prosper in this world. What about the next
world? Well, if your clergymen blend science and faith, you may obtain a
measure of hope in the next world while retaining the things of this world. But
such moral juggling is from the devil. Macbeth found, to his horror, that he
had traded his soul for what the devil could give him in this world, and the
devil double-crossed him:
And be these juggling fiends no more believ’d That palter with us in a double sense, That keep the word of promise to our ear, And break it to our hope.
The devil does not love us, nor does he want our love, so he
always appeals to that which is inside of us that is not of God. He seems,
through the gambit of science, to have succeeded beyond his wildest dreams: he
has the European people in the palm of his hand.
It’s impossible to exaggerate the extent of the European people’s thralldom to the devil. No appeal to something beyond the realm of science can reach them. What are we to make of such a people? Leave them to heaven. We know, as the antique Europeans knew, that there is a divine love beyond science, and that divine love has a local habitation and a name. His name is Jesus and He resides in hearts that love Him. After years of imbibing the soul-killing laudanum of liberalism, the European people have lost their heart to respond to Christ, but that should not deter us from seeking Him in the recesses of our heart. We are one with the men of the Titanic who went to their deaths, after placing the women and children in the lifeboats, singing “Nearer My God to Thee.” Even if it is a cross, that leadeth me? Yes, even if it is a cross.
The end of liberalism and the beginning of a new chapter in
the lives of the European people can be found in the remarkable book Tom Brown’s
School Days, written
by Thomas Hughes in loving remembrance of his hero, Arnold of Rugby. In Part 2,
Chapter 2, Tom, the hero of the book, discovers through the good offices of
young Arthur that the Bible is not a thing to be studied by theologians who
then dispense its contents to the great unwashed in the pews, it is the living
word of God that can and should be the book that those with hearts of flesh
turn to in order to know the font of love.
Tom was at first utterly astonished, and almost shocked, at the sort of way in which Arthur read the book and talked about the men and women whose lives were there told. The first night they happened to fall on the chapters about the famine in Egypt, and Arthur began talking about Joseph as if he were a living statesman—just as he might have talked about Lord Grey and the Reform Bill, only that they were much more living realities to him. The book was to him, Tom saw, the most vivid and delightful history of real people, who might do right or wrong, just like any one who was walking about in Rugby—the Doctor, or the masters, or the sixth-form boys. But the astonishment soon passed off, the scales seemed to drop from his eyes, and the book became at once and for ever to him the great human and divine book, and the men and women, whom he had looked upon as something quite different from himself, became his friends and counsellors.
We once did love Him, not without cause. If I forget thee, incarnate Europe, and if I should cease to love thee… That shall never be. There is a “land of pure delight,” where He resides with His people; that land, not Liberaldom, is our home. Let us vote with our hearts and leave Liberaldom for His house of many mansions. +
Daniel spake and said, I saw in my vision by night, and, behold, the four winds of the heaven strove upon the great sea. And four great beasts came up from the sea, diverse one from another. – Daniel 7: 2-3
In the 1950s and 1960s the
liberals used Trotsky’s racism gambit to help them undermine the last vestiges
of the white European civilization in the Northern hemisphere. But by the 1970s
the mere charge of racism against white Southerners and right-wingers had lost
some of its sting, for the simple reason that it was hard to find individual
whites who used the ‘N’ word and attended Ku Klux Klan rallies, so the liberals
started using the term, “institutionalized racism.” No longer was it just
whites who used the N word and attended Ku Klux Klan rallies that were racist,
it was every single white man, woman, and child who lived and breathed in
nations established by white people. By their mere existence they were racist,
because racism was part of white people’s innermost being, a heinous disease of
the spirit that could not be cured; it could only be eradicated by killing the
patient. How then were the liberals going to escape the ‘cure’ for institutionalized
racism? They would become the Elect, they would build a new civilization based
on institutionalized anti-racism. And the sign of their election, which meant,
in their minds, that they would not be purged along with the racist whites, was
the extent of their religious fervor, the extent of their passionate hatred of
all things white.
The anti-white dogma is the central dogma of the liberalism
that has been institutionalized throughout the European nations. And the
corollary of the anti-white dogma is the worship of the black race. We cannot
effectively challenge the liberals if we do not challenge their doctrine of the
sacred negro. The anti-communist conservative William Schlamm wrote that, “Communism
is the final synthesis of all heretical tendencies that have pervaded western
civilization for many centuries. Communism is the culminating hubris of
Promethean man who reaches out for the world and means to remake creation. It
is scientism gone political.” Is that accurate? Well, communism is certainly a
great evil. But is it the “final synthesis” of evil? Schlamm was a former communist
who looked the communist Medusa in the face, so we can understand why he
thought it was the final evil, but communism is a derivative of liberalism,
just as Jacobinism, Americanism, Islam and Judaism were and are derivatives of
liberalism. The essence of liberalism is the worship of nature and the denial
of mankind’s filial relationship with God. All heresies, modern and ancient,
are derivatives of that first liberal revolt against God, which came about
because of Satan’s hatred of the living God and the human beings created in His
image. Once we grasp that reality we can understand why the love of the noble
black savage and the hatred of the ignoble white race is essential to
liberalism. The noble black savage represents all that is good, all that is
natural and pure, while the ignoble whites represent all that is unnatural and
impure. Of course what is ignoble and impure is whatever Satan deems to be
impure and ignoble – the people who support what is humane and Christian.
If you make communism alone your synthesis of evil, you will still be under the thrall of liberalism, which is the true synthesis of evil. Whittaker Chambers, for instance, turned from communism to American democracy and negro worship. And it is the American version of liberalism that has proved to be the longer lasting version of liberalism. When the Russian communist empire fell, the European people should have said, “We have scotched the snake, not killed it,” instead of proceeding onward to a synthesis of evil that has surpassed Russian communism. Russian communism was a derivative of French Jacobinism, which was a derivative of Satan’s liberal revolt against God. That revolt has been institutionalized throughout the Western world in the form of democracy, which is incremental Jacobinism. Judaism is also part of the liberal revolt; it is not the synthesis of the derivative parts of the revolt, as the neo-pagans, who are spiritually akin to Caiaphas and his Sanhedrin gang, try to make it.
What the Jewish governing body did, institutionalizing
Satan’s revolt against God in order to become gods, was what the democratic
rulers of the Western democracies did during the era of liberty, fraternity,
and equality. The people of the West did not heed Burke’s warning about the new
religion of nature that the democratic fervor represented. It makes a
difference if we are ruled by sophisters, economists, and calculators committed
to Satan’s anti-Christian world of science or by men such as Alfred the Great, who
had that “charity of honor,” which is in the heart of every true European
Christian. We “have taken too little care of this”; our souls belong to the God
above nature — we cannot hide from Him in the bowels of democracy, science,
and the sacred negro without participating in a second fall of man.
The various derivative branches of the liberal leviathan –
democracy, negro worship, science, Islam, and Judaism — seldom mesh together
as they are supposed to mesh together; the various adherents of the derivative
faiths are often at war with each other. But they are one in their hatred of
the God above nature and they are one in their hatred of the people who once
championed that God. Thus the women of science and democracy declare, “Better
rapists than racists,” as they welcome the Moslem invaders, and the Roman
Catholic Pontiff declares that the people of the rain forest, not Christ, are
the gods we must look to. “It is nature that leads us on, there is our refuge
and our strength,” so say all the adherents of the derivative faiths, which are
part of the great liberal revolt against God.
During the Civil War Lincoln said that we were engaged in a
great war which would decide whether any nation conceived in liberty and
dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal could long endure.
What liberty, and what equality? It was liberty from God and the supremacy of
the noble savage that Lincoln championed. For the four years of the un-Civil
war and the subsequent “Reconstruction” years, the United States shifted from
incremental Jacobin-liberalism to Robespierre’s version of Jacobin liberalism.
That period of American history, in which over a half-million whites were
slaughtered in the name of democracy and equality, was just as bloody as
Robespierre’s reign of terror, and in both cases, the French and the American
reign of terror, we were told that the terror and the bloodshed were necessary
so that liberalism, the revolt against God, could long endure.
That great Civil War that Lincoln spoke of, the war to
ensure that Satan would rule on earth as he does in hell, raged on into the
early 20th century and did not end until the latter half of the 20th
century. Now, there is no war, at least there is no war between Satan’s minions
and the followers of Christ. There are only internecine wars between the
various branches of liberalism. It is the dream of the blaspheming liberals to
bring all the warring factions together under the banner of nature and nature’s
god, the noble black savage, but there will always be discord in Babylon, just
as there will always be discord in hell.
There is a diversity of heresies. Satan does that to ensure
that “poor, bare, unaccommodated man” shall be forever seeking refuge from one
heresy to another. Daniel saw the Four Beasts that were “diverse one from
another,” but yet he also saw that our Lord would triumph over the Beasts.
Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces. And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings. And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time. But the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end. And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him. Hitherto is the end of the matter. As for me Daniel, my cogitations much troubled me, and my countenance changed in me: but I kept the matter in my heart.
The Beasts of liberalism can only survive if men’s minds remain
attuned to Satan’s promise, “Ye shall be as gods,” and men’s hearts remain
unmoved by Christ’s love. Would hearts that love embrace the Beast called
democracy, especially now that the mask has been removed and we can see the
satanic evil of feminism, sexual perversion, and negro worship staring us in
the face? Only people who have no heart could accept such moral ugliness. The
moral rot has gone too far to be expunged by voting. Liberals openly call for
the torture-murder of Trump and any other white who even hints at a sympathy
for anything white and humane. What can be done with people who have embraced
the beasts of democracy, science, and the sacred negro? First we must weep as
Ezra wept –
And at the evening sacrifice I arose up from my heaviness; and having rent my garment and my mantle, I fell upon my knees, and spread out my hands unto the LORD my God, And said, O my God, I am ashamed and blush to lift up my face to thee, my God: for our iniquities are increased over our head, and our trespass is grown up unto the heavens. –Ezra 9:5
And then we must refuse to be like unto the liberals who
worship the beasts of liberalism.
When Edgar is a wretched outcast he reflects on his
condition:
Yet better thus, and known to be contemn’d, Than, still contemn’d and flatter’d, to be worst. The lowest and most dejected thing of fortune Stands still in esperance, lives not in fear. The lamentable change is from the best; The worst returns to laughter. Welcome, then, Thou unsubstantial air that I embrace! The wretch that thou hast blown until the worst Owest nothing to thy blasts.
But then he sees his father, who not only is an outcast, but
also has had his eyes put out.
But who comes here? My father, poorly led? World, world, O world! But thy strange mutations make us hate thee, Life would not yield to age.
Edgar then concludes he was wrong to say he was at the
worst:
O gods! Who is’t can say, “I am at the worst”? I am worse than e’er I was.
With that piece of wisdom before us, we cannot say that this
is the worst of all possible worlds we live in. But we do live in a world that
has become terribly biblical. Liberaldom has provided the European people with
institutionalized blasphemies and cruelties that mirror the blasphemies of
Sodom and Gomorrah and the cruelties of Jezebel and her ilk. Such blasphemies
and cruelties turn us to Daniel and
the Book of Revelation in an effort
to understand a “synthesis of evil” that is unfathomable without reference to
the Bible. Daniel was deeply disturbed by his dream of the four beasts.
Hitherto is the end of the matter. As for me Daniel, my cogitations much troubled me, and my countenance changed in me: but I kept the matter in my heart.
He kept the matter in his heart. That is the only way he could
live in the face of that vision of evil. The living God is in Daniel’s heart,
and that God will sustain Daniel in the face of a horrific synthesis of evil
that will consume the man who has not taken God into his heart. We, the modern
Europeans who are staring the beasts of Liberaldom in the face, will not be
able to live in the face of that horror if we do not take the Suffering Servant
into our hearts. There is no philosophy, no intellectual construct that can
sustain us against the beasts of Liberaldom. The darkness, the horror, of
liberalism has become so widespread, so pervasive, that a man is forced to take
refuge in one of the derivative branches of liberalism that seem least
offensive, or else he must go deeper, to the heart of Europe where the Savior
dwells.
If we can’t believe that Christ was at the center of the antique Europeans’ civilization, then to whom or what do we turn? If we don’t believe that the antique Europeans’ faith and the virtues stemming from their faith were real, then what is real? Is there no such thing as Christian women, women who have a special gift for nurturing and caring for children? Is there no such thing as men who feel bound to defend the weak and helpless and fight for their kith and kin? Is there no such thing as honor, charity, and love? “No, there isn’t,” the united beasts of Liberaldom proclaim, “There is no charity, honor, or love, and there is no Savior.” The four beasts, the beasts of Liberaldom, are upon us. Listen to what the liberals say, look at what they do. Are we not, when in the presence of liberals, amongst creatures from hell with no vestiges left of the humanity that was once the mark of a European? First we weep and pray as Ezra did. Then we vow to keep the living God in our heart, as Daniel did. In the two books that tell us of the Great War with the beasts of liberalism, Daniel and the Book of Revelation, we are told of the only comfort there is on this earth:
“And behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to
give every man according as his work shall be. I am Alpha and Omega, the
beginning and the end, the first and the last.” +
Whether unto grace or guilt, all must live through Him,
Live in vital joy, or live in dying woe:
Death in Adam, life in Christ; the curse hung upon the cross:
Who art thou that heedest of redemption, as narrower than the fall:
All were dead,–He died for all; that living, they might love:
If living souls withhold their love,–still, He hath died for them.
Eve stole the knowledge; Christ gave the life:
Knowledge and life are the perquisites of soul, the privilege of man:
Mercy stepped between, and stayed the double theft;
God gave; and giving, bought; and buying, asketh love:
And in such asking rendereth bliss, to all that hear and answer,
For love with life is heaven; and life unloving, hell.
-Martin Farquhar Tupper
___________________________________________
We cannot understand the European people outside of their
Christian history. Many modern conservatives have suggested we do so, that we
treat the European people as a generic people who can be studied and probed in
order to be cured, without ever considering their past history. But this is
akin to the doctor who treats a patient for an illness without taking the
patient’s medical history into account. We must take the European people’s
Christian past into account if we are going to effectively eliminate the
wasting disease, the disease of liberalism, which is killing them.
Satan countered God’s creation of man with a successful coup
d’état in the Garden of Eden. He appealed to Adam and Eve’s pride of intellect
in order to get them to renounce their filial relationship with God. They were
told to forget the fairy tale about the tree with the forbidden fruit and
embrace the reality of man’s intellect responding to and controlling cosmic
nature. That coup d’état of Satan was countered
by the incarnation of Christ, His subsequent death on the cross, and His
resurrection from the dead. If you are Satan, how do you nullify Christ’s
divine act of mercy? You do what you did before, you appeal to man’s pride of
intellect.
The man who worships his own
intellect has no room in his heart for the living God. Upon that principle,
Satan has built his church, and he maintains that church by continually denigrating
all human feelings that reside in the human heart. When we understand this
stratagem of the devil, we can understand why the scholastic movement, the
scientific study of God, is from the devil. The humane God, the living God who
took flesh and dwelt among us, can only be known through the human heart. When
the Catholic and the Protestant scholastics demonized the human heart in order
to deify their intellects, they cut the European people off from God. We, like
the Ancient Mariner, were cut adrift from the font of love:
Alone on a wide, wide sea, So lonely ‘twas that God himself Scarce seemed there to be.
Pope Francis the blasphemer was recently reported as saying
that Jesus Christ was not the Son of God. You can dismiss Pope Francis as an
isolated madman who doesn’t know what he is saying, but I do not see isolated
madness in Pope Francis; I see the logical, maniacal, satanic madness of our
age behind the anti-Christian ravings of Francis the blasphemer. What is the
essence of our modern civilization? It is the pride of intellect, or to be more
accurate, it is the pride of science. If you believe in the Christ story in its
entirety – the creation of the world in seven days, the creation of man in the
image of God, man’s fall from grace in the Garden of Eden, and Christ’s mission
of divine mercy that was completed when He rose from the dead on the third day
– you place yourself among the stupid people, the unscientific people who
believe in fairy tales. Balzac summed up the essence of modernity when he
remarked that, “In Paris if you tell a man he has a good heart, it is the same
as telling him he is as stupid as a rhinoceros.” Yes, that expresses the issue
quite succinctly. The antique Europeans, when viewed scientifically, are
stupid. They believed, quite literally, in the Christ story.
The liberals’ worship of the negro is not based on a belief
in the intrinsic worth of individual members of that race. In fact any time a
person of color demonstrates a sympathy for the intrinsic moral value of the
white people’s ancient civilization, he is condemned by the liberals. What the
liberals worship when they worship the blacks is their own intellects. They are
proving their superior ‘intelligence’ by worshipping that which is antithetical
to the older, ‘stupid’ civilization of the white Europeans; they have made what
is natural, the noble savage, their God. In their natural religion, racism,
which is really white pietas, has become synonymous with stupidity. And who
among us wants to be regarded as stupid? Isn’t intelligence the sign of our
election? But what is the essence of our election? To what and to whom are we
connected when we enter the ranks of the illuminated men of intellect who have
rejected the living God? We are connected to the liberals’ world, which is
without faith, hope, and charity, and we are united to him whom the liberals
serve – the proud angel of science, Lucifer.
When we reject the stupid and unscientific faith of the
antique Europeans, we are back with the Athenians whom St. Paul confronted.
They were men who “spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell, or to
hear some new thing.” They considered themselves to be the illuminati, the
intelligent ones, yet St. Paul calls them ignorant:
Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars’ hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious. For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, To The Unknown God. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.
The modern Europeans have decided in favor of the ignorant
Athenians; they have proclaimed their intelligence by rejecting the stupidity
of St. Paul. Surely such intelligence makes the angels weep and places a sword
in the heart of our Lord. But what is that to the liberals, who do not believe
in the divine humanity of Jesus Christ?
A common theme in ‘Christian’ circles is to emphasize the
similarities between Christianity and the other faiths such as Islam, Judaism,
Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. But those ‘faiths’ are non-faiths, based on a
rejection of the living God. When ‘conservatives’ such as Peter Kreeft recommend
that Christians unite with the Jews and Moslems against liberalism, they reveal
their own non-faith. Liberalism is the synthesis of all the non-Christian
faiths; what they have in common with liberalism, a hatred of the God who took
human flesh, makes their devotees the kissing cousins of the liberals. They
will never unite with a European Christian; it is only Christian apostates who
can make common cause with the liberals and the heathen faiths. Of course they
can only be called apostates from the standpoint of the antique Europeans. If
they got it right, if the faith they held in their hearts was the true Gospel
of Christ, then the modern Christians who seek to fuse Christ with science,
democracy, Judaism, Islam, and negro worship are wrong.
St. Paul was and is the saint for all people, but he is most
particularly the saint for the European people. He represents our people at
their best, when they loved much and would not compromise on that which was
essential – faith in Christ and Christ alone as our salvation. St. Paul was not
a theologian, he was something far greater: he was a poet of the spirit. With a
passion emanating from a heart on fire with the love of Christ, he preached
before the Athenians, the Romans, and the Jews, that Jesus Christ was the Son
of the living God. It was not St. Paul’s belief in God that made the Athenians
laugh at him and the Romans and the Jews persecute him. All those pagans, even
the Athenians, believed in some kind of God. It was Paul’s claim that Christ
was the Son of God, which placed him at odds with the world. He found himself
in the same position as Christ before the Sanhedrin, when Christ made it clear
to Caiaphas that He was the Son of God. Was it madness that made Paul think he
saw the risen Lord on the road to Damascus? Our people did not think so when
they built a civilization based on St. Paul’s assertion that the folly of God
was greater than the wisdom of men. And that really is the crux of the matter.
Christ’s wisdom was not and is not the wisdom of this world. Faith in Him
cannot be reconciled to any of the faiths – Judaism, Islam, or liberalism,
which emanate from the natural world. Christ’s love passeth the understanding
of any mind-forged system of men. But does His love passeth the understanding of
the human heart? St. Paul enjoined us to search the Scriptures with our hearts
because in that union, that of the Word made flesh with hearts of flesh, is the
consummation devoutly to be wished, the consummation of Christ with His people.
The story of the European people is not finished. We now
live in hell, but we can climb out of hell if we cease to fuse the gods of
liberalism with Christ. That was the key to St. Paul’s strength of faith. He
was not a fusionist. When I worked in academia, I took note of the fact that
very, very few of the academicians attacked Christ directly. None, of course,
believed He was the Son of God, but they left Him alone as a figure of hatred.
Like Francis the blasphemer, they generally regarded Christ as a good guy. It
was St. Paul who earned their wrath and their hatred. Paul did not say anything
about Christ that Christ did not say of Himself, but somehow the liberal
academics managed to dismiss Christ’s claim to be the Son of God as a later
addition, an addition of St. Paul. Bless that unclubbable, unrelenting Apostle
of Christ crucified, Christ risen! Our Apostle did not compromise with
liberalism, and because he did not compromise, our people were able to know and
love Christ. Why are we now too intelligent to believe in St. Paul’s vision of
the risen Lord?
Four authors that I keep coming back to again and again for spiritual sustenance are William Shakespeare, Walter Scott, Charles Dickens, and Edmund Burke. I find in those authors the true Christian mysticism that St. Paul writes about in I Corinthians 13, “charity never faileth.” At the heart of our ancient civilization is that undefinable entity called charity. It was the belief of St. Paul that charity was the primary attribute of the God who took flesh and dwelt among us, and it was the belief of my people, the antique Europeans, that they were most like unto God when they practiced charity, not when they sought to rival God by out-thinking Him. The triumph of liberalism has resulted in the end of charity. Yes, we still have what are called ‘charitable institutions,’ but what the liberals call charity is not the charity that St. Paul spoke of. He spoke of Christ as the connection between human hearts and true charity. When our incarnate Lord is cast aside and what is inside the human heart is demonized, there can be no genuine charity. In fact, what is charitable becomes satanic. It is now ‘charitable’ to kill babies in the womb lest a young woman’s life becomes damaged due to an unwanted pregnancy. And it is now ‘charitable’ to stand by while the creatures of color from without and within the white nations murder, rape, and assault white people. Never mistake His reign of charity for their reign of Satan.
St. Augustine placed a wedge between Christ and his people when he declared that there was the city of God, which was the church of enlightened minds, and there was the city of man, which consisted of the barbarians from the fens and bogs of Europe. But is St. Augustine’s church the Church? Those ‘barbarous’ Europeans took Christ into their hearts and made Him the Alpha and Omega of their civilization. Throughout the Christian centuries of European history, the theologians have clung to the Augustinian view of the church. “The hearts of the faithful are sinful, but the minds of the theologians are pure. Isn’t that obvious?” No, it is not obvious to me. The theologians’ focus has been on the sins of the Europeans, which are no different than the sins of the pagans; therefore, the theologians tell us, we must look to them to escape the desolation of sin and destruction. But there is something different about the Christian Europeans which is quite obvious to those who see through, not with the eye. The Europeans had, when they were a Christian people, that which no other people before or since have possessed. They had the faith, hope, and above all, charity, that comes from touching the heart of God. You can’t acquire that faith, hope, and charity by thinking ‘correctly,’ in the mode of Aristotle and Plato. You can only come to that inner vision, that faith, by committing to the heart of God as St. Paul did and our people, the ancient Europeans, did. The theologians and the philosophers of the West, as Fitzhugh tells us, have been “so busy with the worst features of human nature (the Europeans’ human nature) that they have not even found a name for their better feature.” The managerial Christians of yesterday and today have taken it upon themselves to ‘fix’ the faithful. And when you set out to ‘fix’ people you focus on what is wrong with them. The problem with such a cold, scientific approach to human souls is that the Mr. and Mrs. Fixits often become like unto the scientist in Hawthorne’s short story “The Birthmark”:
In those days when the comparatively recent discovery of electricity and other kindred mysteries of Nature seemed to open paths into the region of miracle, it was not unusual for the love of science to rival the love of woman in its depth and absorbing energy. The higher intellect, the imagination, the spirit, and even the heart might all find their congenial aliment in pursuits which, as some of their ardent votaries believed, would ascend from one step of powerful intelligence to another, until the philosopher should lay his hand on the secret of creative force and perhaps make new worlds for himself. We know not whether Aylmer possessed the degree of faith in man’s ultimate control over Nature. He had devoted himself, however, too unreservedly to scientific studies ever to be weaned from them by any second passion. His love for his young wife might prove the stronger of the two; but it could only be by intertwining itself with his love of science, and uniting the strength of the latter to his own.
Of course we know how the story ends. Aylmer becomes
obsessed with a birthmark upon his wife’s cheek, and in attempting to eradicate
the birthmark he kills his wife. The antique Europeans have been placed in the
position of Aylmer’s wife. They were not perfect Christians, therefore their
civilization and the heirs of their civilization must be destroyed in order to
produce perfect human beings fit to live in the liberals’ kingdom of heaven on
hearth. The attack on whiteness will continue and intensify so long as liberals
rule in the European nations, because that birthmark, the birthmark of
whiteness, must be removed so that scientific mankind can progress.
I contend, against all the world if necessary, but hopefully
in union with a few kindred souls, that the antique Europeans, when seen
through the visionary eye, represented the ‘best feature’ of man. They were the
people who saw the Word made flesh and believed in the Word made flesh. The liberals
in church and state have declared war on those people and on every man, woman,
and child who dares, even tangentially, to stay connected to the antique
Europeans. But we will cleave to those people because our Lord dwells with
them; He does not dwell in Aylmer’s laboratory of science. The greatest tragedy,
the institutionalized tragedy of liberalism, is the rejection of His love in
preference for the approval of Satan and his minions. +
CONTENT UPDATE 7/10/23: All of CWNY’s works have been saved in 7 volumes (PDFs) on the Preservation page. They represent the most complete and accurate versions of his writing so far; they contain no images, just the text.
On August 1, 2021, CWNY ceased writing and passed to be with our Lord Jesus Christ; his family chronicles his passing on the page The Minstrel Sleeps (8/7/21). All his posts from 3/3/12 through 7/31/21 are on this site, via the Home page. All posts from CWNY’s older blog from 2006 – 2012 are also still available online here.
You may recall the deplatforming of CWNY’s first wordpress blog in March of 2019 (see the page On Being Deplatformed (4/21/19). When CWNY returned the next month with his new domain, unfortunately many posts from 3/3/2012 – 3/23/2019 remained inaccessible. Following his death, all of these ‘lost’ posts have been incorporated into this site by his family; see the Preservation of CWNY’s work page for more detail.
On the Preservation of CWNY’s work page, you may download pdfs of both this blog and the original blog, in their entirety. All posts are available in 7 complete volumes in PDF format, with no images, and in 2 incomplete PDFs containing most of the images and text. In addition, a download of CWNY’s Christmas Remembrances is also available on the Preservation page.
The Remembrances by CWNY page includes his final, albeit unfinished, Christmas story, accompanied with links to his previous Christmas stories. In addition, as noted above, all 11 Remembrances‘ chapters may be downloaded in one PDF from the Preservation of CWNY’s work page.
We would love to hear from those of you whose hearts have been touched by CWNY in some way. The How to contact CWNY’s family page explains how to do this.
May God bless you, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We take comfort in His words, “In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.” –John 16:33
