Against the Gates of Hell
“Give peace in our time, O Lord, because there is none other fighteth for us but only Thou, O God.” -- Welsh prayer
The other day I heard one of the conservative liberals lamenting the fact that the mad-dog liberals did not really believe in democracy. He used their attempt to ram a health care bill down Americans' throats as one example of the non-democratic nature of the mad-dog liberals. The conservative liberal was right: the mad-dog liberals do not believe in democracy, at least not in the same way as the conservative liberals believe in it.
The mad-dog liberals use the democratic system to further their ends. If the system does not further their ends, they go outside the system. The mad-dogs, at this point in their history, have only one faith, which is the black man. If every single rule of democratic, traditional protocol and current democratic procedures has to be broken to elevate the black man, the liberal will ignore traditional protocol and violate current procedures. The faith in, and the worship of, the black man is what is essential to the liberal.
In contrast to the mad-dog liberal, the conservative liberal worships democracy in and of itself. He doesn’t see the democratic process as a means to an end; he sees it as an end in itself. When the civil rights protesters violated the law in the 1960’s, the National Review conservatives, who worshipped the democratic process, condemned them for breaking the law. They did not disapprove of the protestors’ professed goal, an integrated, colorblind society; they only disapproved of going outside the democratic process.
The conflict between the American conservatives and the liberals is a conflict within liberalism. The liberals generally defeat the conservatives because the liberals have a metaphysic. They can cite their love and concern for the black man, while the conservatives can only cite their love for the Constitution. Both loves are abstractions, but the liberals’ abstraction seems less inhumane than the conservatives’ abstracted love.
The conservatives are always hurling the “He doesn’t really love the emperor” charge at the liberals. And they are right. The liberals support democracy because it serves their purposes most of the time. But they are willing to jettison democracy when it interferes with their satanic mission to build a kingdom of Satan on earth. The conservatives are less likely to go outside of the democratic perimeters, because to do so, in their judgment, would be to go outside the faith.
What happens when a man emerges who rejects the satanic vision of the mad-dogs and the faithless faith-in-a-process, of the conservatives? He is marginalized and/or destroyed. Alexander Solzhenitsyn is a case in point. When he came to the U.S. in the 1970’s, he had a friendly debate with a fellow Russian exile named Andrei Sakharov. Sakharov believed that Western-style democracy would solve the problems of the Russian people. Solzhenitsyn disagreed. He said that the Western democracies lacked a spiritual foundation and that the political parties of the Western democracies always sought their welfare over that of their nation. The British author Brian Crozier echoed Solzhenitsyn’s second point in his book The Minimum State: Beyond Party Politics.
Solzhenitsyn’s views were nowhere near as popular as Sakharov’s. The mad-dogs demonized Solzhenitsyn, and the conservatives focused on his anti-communist writings and ignored his critique of secular democracy. When he returned to Russia late in life he was not received well by the same type of people in Russia who constituted the mad-dog liberal and the conservative liberal factions in America. He did receive a state funeral when he died, but I don’t think we can realistically claim that this means the Russian people rejected the democratic heresy.
What was it about Solzhenitsyn that was so unacceptable to the liberals in both camps? It was the fact that Solzhenitsyn was an antique European. He started life as a good Marxist and he ended his life as an integral Christian European. He loved his God and his country, so he desired that the two should be united. Was not that the desire of almost every European prior to the 20th century?
H. V. Morton once sadly noted that European Christians had done things in the name of Christ that made Christ weep, but that judgment of Morton’s comes from a Christian European. If there were no longer Christian Europeans to pass judgment on the erring Christian Europeans, who would end the bloody wars between covenanter and cavalier, and between Protestant and Catholic? Do the communists have their own equivalent of the Sermon on the Mount? And who will oppose the democratic, egalitarian abortionists if Christian Europeans are extinct?
You can’t forsake the living God because all Christians do not live up to His teachings. Cromwell and Torquemada represent only the lunatic fringe of Christian Europe. And even such monsters were lambs compared to the totalitarian tyrants of the godless 20th and 21st centuries.
The European Everyman has been set adrift by his church leaders and his political leaders. He seems destined to perish. Only the antique European, who has become a stranger to the modern European, can return the Everyman to a safe harbor. But will the modern Everyman be able to recognize the hero? Or will he, after years of living in liberaldom, be unable to see with the blinding sight necessary to distinguish between a Christian hero and a liberal charlatan?
Trevelyan said that it was the special mission of the European to reveal the heroic Christ of mercy to the heathen world. That is still the mission of the European: to show the world the face of the Hero God by imitating the Hero God.
The other day I heard one of the conservative liberals lamenting the fact that the mad-dog liberals did not really believe in democracy. He used their attempt to ram a health care bill down Americans' throats as one example of the non-democratic nature of the mad-dog liberals. The conservative liberal was right: the mad-dog liberals do not believe in democracy, at least not in the same way as the conservative liberals believe in it.
The mad-dog liberals use the democratic system to further their ends. If the system does not further their ends, they go outside the system. The mad-dogs, at this point in their history, have only one faith, which is the black man. If every single rule of democratic, traditional protocol and current democratic procedures has to be broken to elevate the black man, the liberal will ignore traditional protocol and violate current procedures. The faith in, and the worship of, the black man is what is essential to the liberal.
In contrast to the mad-dog liberal, the conservative liberal worships democracy in and of itself. He doesn’t see the democratic process as a means to an end; he sees it as an end in itself. When the civil rights protesters violated the law in the 1960’s, the National Review conservatives, who worshipped the democratic process, condemned them for breaking the law. They did not disapprove of the protestors’ professed goal, an integrated, colorblind society; they only disapproved of going outside the democratic process.
The conflict between the American conservatives and the liberals is a conflict within liberalism. The liberals generally defeat the conservatives because the liberals have a metaphysic. They can cite their love and concern for the black man, while the conservatives can only cite their love for the Constitution. Both loves are abstractions, but the liberals’ abstraction seems less inhumane than the conservatives’ abstracted love.
The conservatives are always hurling the “He doesn’t really love the emperor” charge at the liberals. And they are right. The liberals support democracy because it serves their purposes most of the time. But they are willing to jettison democracy when it interferes with their satanic mission to build a kingdom of Satan on earth. The conservatives are less likely to go outside of the democratic perimeters, because to do so, in their judgment, would be to go outside the faith.
What happens when a man emerges who rejects the satanic vision of the mad-dogs and the faithless faith-in-a-process, of the conservatives? He is marginalized and/or destroyed. Alexander Solzhenitsyn is a case in point. When he came to the U.S. in the 1970’s, he had a friendly debate with a fellow Russian exile named Andrei Sakharov. Sakharov believed that Western-style democracy would solve the problems of the Russian people. Solzhenitsyn disagreed. He said that the Western democracies lacked a spiritual foundation and that the political parties of the Western democracies always sought their welfare over that of their nation. The British author Brian Crozier echoed Solzhenitsyn’s second point in his book The Minimum State: Beyond Party Politics.
Solzhenitsyn’s views were nowhere near as popular as Sakharov’s. The mad-dogs demonized Solzhenitsyn, and the conservatives focused on his anti-communist writings and ignored his critique of secular democracy. When he returned to Russia late in life he was not received well by the same type of people in Russia who constituted the mad-dog liberal and the conservative liberal factions in America. He did receive a state funeral when he died, but I don’t think we can realistically claim that this means the Russian people rejected the democratic heresy.
What was it about Solzhenitsyn that was so unacceptable to the liberals in both camps? It was the fact that Solzhenitsyn was an antique European. He started life as a good Marxist and he ended his life as an integral Christian European. He loved his God and his country, so he desired that the two should be united. Was not that the desire of almost every European prior to the 20th century?
H. V. Morton once sadly noted that European Christians had done things in the name of Christ that made Christ weep, but that judgment of Morton’s comes from a Christian European. If there were no longer Christian Europeans to pass judgment on the erring Christian Europeans, who would end the bloody wars between covenanter and cavalier, and between Protestant and Catholic? Do the communists have their own equivalent of the Sermon on the Mount? And who will oppose the democratic, egalitarian abortionists if Christian Europeans are extinct?
You can’t forsake the living God because all Christians do not live up to His teachings. Cromwell and Torquemada represent only the lunatic fringe of Christian Europe. And even such monsters were lambs compared to the totalitarian tyrants of the godless 20th and 21st centuries.
The European Everyman has been set adrift by his church leaders and his political leaders. He seems destined to perish. Only the antique European, who has become a stranger to the modern European, can return the Everyman to a safe harbor. But will the modern Everyman be able to recognize the hero? Or will he, after years of living in liberaldom, be unable to see with the blinding sight necessary to distinguish between a Christian hero and a liberal charlatan?
Trevelyan said that it was the special mission of the European to reveal the heroic Christ of mercy to the heathen world. That is still the mission of the European: to show the world the face of the Hero God by imitating the Hero God.
Let us pray, let us watch, let us be preparedWilliam Blake desired to build Jerusalem, “in England’s green and pleasant land.” The modern European’s passion is to bring the depths of hell into Europe’s green and pleasant land, and he has accomplished his desire. Post-Christian Europe is hell, and we can’t vote hell away. Satan is not a live-and-let-live type of guy. He hates with an everlasting passion. Who can stand against him? The Christian Europeans once stood against him. They weren’t physical stronger or smarter than we are today, but spiritually they were giants. They rested their heads on His sacred heart as St. John did at the last supper. And as a result they saw visions of the risen Lord and could fight the devil with a passion for good that was superior to his passion for evil. No second-hand faith for us. It is all or nothing. We can restore the Europe of the Hero God of mercy, or we can wallow in the depths of hell. +
For the warrior hero who saved us.
When Jesus on high came from His Kingship
The world’s five ages were in common captivity,
In the grasp, in the misery, in the depths of hell,
In the cold bog’s affliction.
Renowned God, acknowledgment of you
Do I make, Lord God, strength of every people.
--Einion Ap Gwalchmai
posted by CWNY | 6:42 AM
<< Home