Death in Life

Wake ye from your sleep of death,
Minstrels and bards of other days!
For the midnight wind is on the heath,
And the midnight meteors dimly blaze:
The Spectre with his Blood Hand,
Is wandering through the wild woodland;
The owl and the raven are mute for dread,
And the time is meet to awake the dead!

-Walter Scott

There is a relatively new development in the ongoing race war which only one side, the wrong side, is fighting. Blacks are now using what I believe is called ‘social media’ to aid them in their war against white people. The blacks target a particular area, such as a mall or shopping center, and they use their cell phones to help coordinate the attack. At the opportune moment, a black horde of twitterers descend upon their white victims to rob, rape, and murder them. O brave new liberal world that has such creatures in it!

Of course the media do not report the crimes as racially motivated. When the crimes are reported at all, and they generally are not reported, they are reported as crimes committed by “youths.” Wouldn’t the liberals howl if I did a documentary on Nazi Germany and reported that the upper echelon of the Nazi party was composed of middle-aged men of unknown origin?

Let’s look at this as Shane would look at it. He didn’t like the fact that Stark Wilson had the front wall and he was left in the open part of the room. But he accepted it as the reality he had to face and deal with. And in the end Stark Wilson was dead.

The reality is that the black race hates the white race. Blacks will kill, rob, and rape white people unless white people show them, in no uncertain terms, that there will be consequences for their actions. The black hatred of the white is not the result of slavery or poverty or anything the white is supposed to have done to the black. The blacks hate the white race because it is in their nature to hate; they have been at war with the white race since the beginning of time. It is only in modern times, however, that a large minority of white people, called liberals, have joined with the blacks in their maniacal hatred of the white race. And the rest of the whites, the grazers, have consented to their own destruction, so long as they are properly fed with Superbowls, NASCAR, and porno movies on their way to the slaughterhouse.

There is also nothing to be gained by ignoring the obvious source of the white hatred of white people; the source is the Christian churches. I know that a great deal of white nationalists blame the Jews for the decline of the white man, but the European-hating Jew we have always had with us and always will have with us. Christian Europeans used to know how to protect themselves from the Jew just as they knew how to protect themselves from the Negro. We need to ask ourselves why the white European has caved in to the Jews and the Negroes. Again, the obvious answer is that the Christian churches preached the inclusion of the Jews and the worship of the blacks. And the clergy of the Christian churches preached those ungodly heresies because they had ceased to be Christian. Just as the Greeks abandoned their gods, the Europeans abandoned Christ.

The Renaissance poets and painters often brought the old pagan gods into their works, but the pagan gods were no longer real to the Europeans; they were used to symbolize some aspect of the Christian faith, which had supplanted them. It might seem like a sad fate for a god, to become merely a symbol for another religion, but the pagan gods could not satisfy the longing in the European’s heart. He needed a Hero-God who was a hero because of His humanity. Christ was like unto men, but He was more than men, not by virtue of His inhumanity but by virtue of His humanity. He was strong yet meek, and He was just yet merciful. And above all His heart was aflame with the charity that passeth all understanding, at least the understanding of the human mind; European hearts did understand and believe. - The Trumpet Shall Sound

In Liberaldom, Christ merely represents, as was the case with the Greek gods in Renaissance Europe, the virtues of the new religion that has supplanted Christianity. Christ is the civil rights worker, the man who condemns apartheid and segregation; he is the pacifist who is against violence; he is the communist who condemns private property and greed… he is the embodiment of all the liberal virtues, but he is not, to the liberal, the Son of God. The reason the liberal clergymen scream “Inclusion! Inclusion! Inclusion!” is because they hope to fill the void, created by Christ’s demotion to a virtuous liberal, with a pantheon of heathen gods such as the generic black man, Mohammed, Buddha, the unrepentant Jew, the gods of Montezuma, and every other heathen deity they can stuff into their new, inclusive pantheon of heathen gods. What about Christ’s warning that He is a jealous God? That’s the old Christ; the new Christ is a hero from an F. Scott Fitzgerald novel. He is the nicest liberal in town, and he would never be jealous of other gods.

The Christian clergy, who are not Christian, are the embodiment of Stark Wilson, the hired gun who came to town to destroy the white homesteaders. We must face them, just as Shane faced Stark Wilson. I know the objections by heart, “What about the sacraments -- how will I get valid sacraments?” “What about honoring the Sabbath -- God wants us to attend Church!” There are one thousand reasons and ten that one could list in favor of a pious, humble acceptance of clergy-worship. But in the end we must ask ourselves if Christ, the Son of the Living God, wants us to hate our own kind. And we must also ask ourselves if Christ wants to be worshipped as one god among many and have His name linked to modern liberalism. When the modern clergy blather about inclusion, we should take a page out of Cyrano and tell them, “Say this to all the world, then whisper to me, 'I no longer believe'.”

The white-hating clergy have managed to make the white man’s love of his own into something filthy and dirty. The mere mention of black on white crime or the need for segregation brings the label of “white supremacist” down on the head of the white man who dares mention the unmentionable. I’ve noticed that even “white nationalists” try to escape the white supremacist label. I recently heard a white nationalist leader deny that he was a white supremacist: “I’m for equal rights for all people.” Is that really something a white man should be for? Are black people willing to accept equal rights? The black man only understands a master-slave relationship. If you grant him equal rights, as the French revolutionists did in Haiti, he takes that as a sign of weakness and sets out to do what he does best: rape, murder, and pillage. The white and the black can only co-exist in a master-slave relationship with the white as master. If the reverse becomes the case, if black men rule, then the whites will be exterminated, and the blacks will be in constant warfare with each other. But since the modern world demands equality, the liberals (especially the clergy) should accept segregation: “Let the blacks have their equality of the dung heap, but keep them away from my people.” The disingenuousness of the liberals becomes crystal clear when we see their unwillingness to let the white man segregate himself from the Negro. If blacks are so wonderful, and whites are so evil, shouldn’t the liberals be demanding that the two races segregate? We have brought the lie of the liberals out into the open. They don’t want ‘separate but equal’ because without the white man the black man will perish. When the whites were exterminated in Haiti, did a new paradisiacal world emerge? No, of course it didn’t. And when the black man’s war against the whites of Europe and the United States ends with the extermination of the whites a new paradise will not emerge.

Of course it’s a “if these shadows are not altered” scenario. The death of the white man only seems inevitable when we look at contemporary, Negro-worshipping Liberaldom. We know that the white European once drew strength from Christ, not from democratic ideals and dreams of liberal utopias. If He could once again become the focus of the European, then there would be no attack on the innocent that would go unavenged and there would be no “inclusiveness” in the Christian churches.

In Scott’s epic poem Marmion he writes about the tangled web of a liar:

O, what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practice to deceive.

Satan ensnared Adam and Eve with his lie about a power in nature that was greater than God. And when the clergy studied nature as something separate and distinct from God, they came to believe in the lie of their own godlike powers. “If God is less than nature, and we can understand and harness nature, are we not at least co-equal if not superior to God?” The liberals have returned to a pagan concept of God, and the grazers have fallen in line with the new-old pantheon of pagan gods. The great deathlike sleep that has fallen on the people of Europe is the result of the new paganism. There are no longer Europeans with personalities; they all resemble vegetative matter. They no longer love, strive, or worship; they simply vegetate.

Can a human vegetable become a European again? He can if he sees that other Europe, the Europe of the incarnate God. But he won’t be able to see that Europe unless someone from old Europe shows it to him. That is the task of the hero. The hero is one who has not broken faith with the past and who embodies in his person the virtues of the past. The survival of a remnant, a “chosen few,” is a mystery. Why are there always some men who still see with blinding sight? It’s not given to us to know such things as we might know the answer to a mathematical equation. God’s grace and our free will are of the spirit, and such things cannot be measured, quantified, or put in a silver rod.

There is a false dichotomy that theologians addicted to the dialectic often set up. They label certain virtues ‘active virtues’ and others ‘passive virtues.’ In reality, there is no dichotomy. The inner contemplative war against invisible principalities and powers that takes place in the dark night of our soul is a necessary preparation for the outer war against visible principalities and powers. What does that mean in the modern world? It means that white people won’t fight for their own because they no longer have the spiritual depth to fight the good fight in the deepest recesses of their souls. Without the spirit to protect and defend their kith and kin, white people have lost the will to protect and defend as well. It would take a miracle, like a man rising from the dead, to put the spirit of faith and the will to fight in the white man.

Lincoln was wrong when he claimed that the fate of modern Europeans hung on the slender thread of democracy. It was Dostoevsky who was right when he asked whether it was possible for a modern European to believe in the divinity of Christ. Is our faith still so ancient and so new? If we don’t believe it is, then to whom can we turn? All the pagan world can turn to the gods of color and the god of science, but not the European who still believes that his Redeemer liveth. +

Apostate Europe

This land of such dear souls, this dear dear land,
Dear for her reputation through the world,
Is now leas’d out, I die pronouncing it,…

--Shakespeare

I’m sure I’m not telling the reader anything he doesn’t already know when I say that the life insurance business is a racket. This not-so startling fact was brought home to me recently when my insurance company told me that they were quadrupling my term insurance rates because now I was indeed a risk. When I was young and no risk, they were quite willing to give me the bargain rate, but now that I’m past mid-fifty I’m a big risk and I must pay. Yes, I must pay, but I won’t pay quadruple rates, so I contacted another insurance company who offered me less coverage at a lower rate. It’s a difficult tightrope to walk, trying to stay out of debt in the here-and-now while endeavoring to leave something for one’s children even if it’s nothing more than the money for funeral expenses.

So here I go again -- a new insurance company requires another physical examination. Why are they so depressing? Partly because no one likes to be poked and probed by a stranger, but there is also something metaphysical behind our revulsion to doctors and physicals. When in the hands of the medical community a human being becomes a body part, a person defined by his or her generic disease, a cancerous lung, prostrate, or breast, high blood pressure, a bad heart, etc. The human spirit rebels against that type of classification. Even those people who deny the soul have a tiny protesting voice inside them saying, “A personality dwells here; don’t treat me as a generic disease.” Of course, the liberal, who has chained his humanity to the dungeon of his soul where the tiny voice of a human personality is seldom heard, need only anesthetize himself with modernity in order to quell the tiny voice of his soul. And it is my belief that there has never been a time in the European’s history when he has more resembled a man devoid of all humanity than at the present time. Edmund Burke feared, when he looked at the spectacle of the French Revolution, that the men of his time were “spending the unbought grace of life.” The modern European has spent it all.

H. V. Morton once pointed out that Dickens’ characters were not exaggerated. Such people, people with personalities, used to exist in Europe. When God’s grace, the grace that makes us human beings instead of soulless, cookie-cutter automatons, was rejected Europe ceased to produce Pickwicks, Sam Wellers, and Wilson Micawbers. In his novel Ebb Tide, Robert Louis Stevenson describes his hero as one who has the “animation of the European in his eyes.” Who put that animation in the European’s eye and why has it died out?

The first apostles put forth their story of God. The European people believed that story was true and their faith was reflected in their culture. In Treasure Island, Ben Gunn, who has been marooned on Treasure Island, says that he hasn’t eaten Christian food for three years. In The Mask of Fu Manchu, the evil Fu Manchu tells the captive Englishmen that he hates the white Christians. All cultures are not the same. Ben Gunn didn’t have to say he wanted to eat European food; it was a given that ‘Christian food’ meant ‘European food.’ And Fu Manchu didn’t have to say, “I hate Englishmen,” it was a given that all Englishmen were white Christians.

Now it is a given that most Europeans are apostate Christians who worship at the shrine of a faith that blends Negro worship and the worship of science. To be racist or non-scientific are two terrible sins in modern, faithless Europe. Pope Benedict XVI is an exemplar of the new faithless faith. He recently repudiated man’s connection to a personal God, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, Jacob, and St. Paul by asserting his faith in the ‘Big Bang’ theory with the caveat that God created the Big Bang. Move over, Voltaire – you have company in your pantheon of deists. What can be expected from a man who stated, when a cardinal, that the next pope should be black? The Pope is addicted to modernity; he worships at a shrine that combines Negro worship with the worship of all things said to be ‘scientific.’

The presence of an apostate Pope in Rome is a terrible tragedy, and the presence throughout the nations of Europe of apostate Protestant religious clergy is also a terrible tragedy, because the faithless clergy have produced a faithless people, devoid of any of the traits usually associated with Europeans in the Christian era. The heirs of the people who produced real-life versions of Maud Ruthyn, Ivanoe, and Alyosha Karamazov now produce creatures devoid of humanity who have only one desire: to lose the last remnants of their humanity by blending with the black race. With the blessing of modern science, which declares everyone equally soulless and devoid of a distinct personality connected to a personal God, the modern European pursues oblivion.

In the Gospels there are people who immediately grasp that Jesus is divine. And there are many that see nothing special about Him. Pilate, for instance, looks right in Christ’s face without seeing the divine personality that animates His face. I see this drama of moral blindness unfolding in modern Europe. All around us are still the stories, the paintings, the sculptures, and the recorded histories of a people who loved Christ and believed He was the Savior of mankind. But the modern Europeans can look at the Divine Face that appears in the stories, the paintings, the sculptures, and the histories and see nothing special in what they see. They turn from the Christ of antique Europe and embrace their heathen gods of blackness and science. What a falling off!

A second Europe has been built over old Europe. Dostoevsky's short novel Notes from the Underground was aptly titled. The Christian European now lives below the surface of modern civilization, plotting -- a counter-revolution? his death? his surrender? I can’t say; I hope it is a counter-revolution, but it is best to face the worst and act on the assumption that if you act according to the code of the ancient Europeans you will be acting alone.

The term ‘humanity’ is often on the lips of the modern European, which is quite an irony since the European no longer has a human personality. He is now, having lost his soul, only part of a generic human species. Broad-based schemes to save humanity are quite common today, but do such broad-based schemes help individual human beings who still yearn for a God with a human heart?

Recently some nut-case tried to assassinate a Democratic congresswoman and in his unsuccessful attempt he shot and killed a number of innocent bystanders. Many Democrats blamed the shooting on their Republican brethren, and some Democrats called for a coming together “in our common humanity.” Isn’t such a plea like closing the proverbial barn door after the horse has already left the barn? The Republicans and most especially the Democrats, including the pro-abort, pro-illegal immigration congresswoman who was shot, have repudiated any ties to humanity when they repudiated every single value of their Christian European ancestors. What “common humanity” can there be amongst the followers of Satan? The Republicans and the Democrats can unite in their common inhumanity, but a European who still feels connected to his European ancestors and to his ancestors’ God does not want to be united to the modern liberal Europeans, “for who would be wedded to hell”?

And for all the liberal blather about compassion and humanity do you think the same people who sneer at the torture-murder of white people and the death of innocents in the abortuaries really feel one ounce of pity or compassion for the wretched congresswoman or any of the other victims of the madman’s rage? No, of course they don’t. You, dear reader, if you are an antique European feel more genuine compassion for your enemy, the congresswoman, than any of the liberals, because the antique European is still connected to an older civilization in which the people believed, heart and soul, in a God whose mercy passeth all understanding.

In Christendom men and women had personalities because they were receptive to the grace of God. In Liberaldom there are no human personalities because the citizens of Liberaldom have cut themselves off from God’s grace. What we see in Liberaldom as a substitute for genuine God-given humanity is assigned personhood. Some of the generic humans are told they are persons, as a liberal defines ‘person’. Representative Gifford, for instance, is a person because she does good liberal things. If she had been a white anti-abort senator such as Jesse Helms, or if she had been someone whom the liberals called a white racist, she would not have been deemed worthy of personhood and therefore would not have received even the fake compassion of the liberals. We must never forget, when dealing with liberals, that there will be no mercy shown to non-liberals, because liberals have denied Christ, who is the source of all mercy.

To look for humanity in Liberaldom is the same as looking for pirates’ gold in your backyard. You won’t find either. Better to stay in the underground with proscribed Europe and make small guerilla raids on Liberaldom. You might start something that others will bring to a glorious finish. At the very least, you will know that “a personality stands here!” +

Through the Blood

“God of our fathers, be the God
Of their succeeding race.”

I see nothing intrinsically wrong in helping earthquake victims, but I do see something terribly wrong in the people who are involved in the Haitian relief effort. Who do liberals and blacks routinely blame for all the ills of the world? White people, of course. And to whom do blacks and liberals appeal for aid? Let’s take a page from Frank Capra’s It’s a Wonderful Life script and imagine a world without white people. Would such a world be a happy paradise of blended brown people? Well, you wouldn’t have to worry about earthquake relief efforts any more, because there would be no concept of charitable outreach in the blended brown world. The idea of relieving someone else’s misery would be as inconceivable as self-propelled flight. Everyman’s hand would be against every other man, as in the New Orleans’ Superdome after Hurricane Katrina.

True charity, the charity that never faileth because it comes from the living God, has virtually disappeared from the face of the earth. The post-Christian European still engages in feel-good charity, the charity that stems from human pride, while the people of color continue to regard charity as an entitlement to be had on demand.

The Europeans do not stand out from the rest of mankind because they built better roads and bridges or made more money than the rest of the world. They stood apart because they were the first people, as a people, to believe that God had a human heart. What an earth shattering concept! The knight errant and the true God are one. Christ is more chivalrous than we are, more courteous, more compassionate, and more powerful, but still He is like unto us. He suffers with humanity and for humanity. But He stands above us, because He is nobler than we are, not because He is crueler. And it is not His power to which we bend our knee, but to His goodness.

Nothing good will come of the Haitian relief effort, because it is not based on Christian charity. The liberals have shown by their support of white genocide in South Africa and Europe and by their support of legalized abortions that they have not charity. They are “helping” the Haitians because the worship of blacks is all they have left. They pride themselves on their faith in, and their love of, the natural black savage. Some Catholic nuns (I’m sure other churches will follow suit) have already brought a number of Haitian orphans to the United States. This is not Christian charity, it is liberal demonism. When Europe was Christian, works of charity consisted of first subduing and then converting the savage. It was not considered charitable, in the days of the Christian European, to allow colored vipers into European nations. We have no reason to believe that the current breed of Haitians is any less bloodthirsty and satanic than were their ancestors, who massacred all the whites in Haiti. If Europeans are not willing to first conquer the barbarians of color, they should stay away from relief efforts that will not aid the colored barbarians and will do great harm to the whites.

At the heart of the liberals’ worship of the dark races is a rejection of the human personality. When the European took Christ into his heart and his hearth, he became more fully human than the non-European peoples. Pride of race became pietas. The European, because of his union with Christ, loved his kith and kin with a far greater intensity than the savage races who did not regard each and every individual soul as a personality of “eternal moment.” Ties of family and blood were doubly important to the European, because it was through those human ties of blood that Christ entered the world.

It is significant that the word ‘diversity’ has become a God-word to the liberals. The concept is diametrically opposed to Christianity. The ultimate horror for someone who has divine intuitions of the distinctness of the human personality is the notion that an individual human being can be ‘diversified,’ that his personality can be scattered into individual atoms. Why are we more horrified at the idea of being blown to bits or decapitated at our death than we are at the idea of a death with our body left intact? Because Christians have absorbed into their blood the belief that the human body contains a personality, we recoil in horror from the image of a ‘diversified,’ mutilated body. Montrose demonstrated his faith in the saving power of Christ and his contempt for his executioners, who sought to inflict the ultimate punishment on his soul by diversifying his body parts, when he declared:

There is a chamber far away
Where sleep the good and brave,
But a better place ye have named for me
Than by my fathers’ grave.
For truth and right, ‘gainst treason’s might,
This hand hath always striven,
And ye raise it up for a witness still
In the eye of earth and heaven.
Then nail my head on yonder tower—
Give every town a limb—
And God who made shall gather them:
I go from you to Him!

We love as individual personalities, and our love is directed towards other individual personalities. You can’t love with the type of love that Christ enjoins us to have for our fellow men if you only love an idea of diversity. This is so evident if we look at the liberals’ worship of the Obama. Is there anything in Obama’s personality that, if he were white, would spark one single infinitesimal impulse of love from a white liberal? No, there is not. He is worshipped because he is black. The liberals have evolved beyond the love of individual human beings, they now only worship ideas. And Obama is the embodiment of the black idea.

The liberals insist that ties of family and blood must be broken in order for mankind to evolve to a higher plane of existence. But is the new, diverse plane of existence a higher plane? Why is it that anywhere the idea that ‘every man is our kith and kin’ flourishes, as in the egalitarian United States and the former Soviet Union, there are abortuaries and Gulags? Perhaps it is because saving grace comes to us through our ties to kith and kin and not via the medium of generic, diverse humanity.

The liberals who deny the divine authorship of the Bible often cite it nevertheless when it suits their purpose. The Good Samaritan parable, for instance, is often cited as an excuse for race-mixing and Negro worship. But the Good Samaritan does not give his daughter away to the stranger, nor does he take him to his house; he takes him to an inn. And are we to presume, based on his actions toward the stranger, that the Good Samaritan goes home and sends his children to daycare (“I can’t stand the little beasts”) and then runs around the neighborhood trying to force other Samaritans to cohabit with wayside strangers? I doubt it, because a man in touch with the living God is the most clannish and most charitable person on the face of the earth -- clannish because he knows he is linked to his God through the ties of blood and kin, and charitable because his God is the true God from whom true charity flows. The oft-noted, even by Northerners, Southern hospitality before the Civil War was a result of the Southern people’s clannishness and their Christianity. Concern for the unfortunate ‘other’ and the stranger is only present in a people who are intimately connected at the family hearth with the Son of God. They have imbibed the Pauline maxim that ‘charity never faileth’ with their mother’s milk. Or to use Thomas Nelson Page’s phrase, their Christianity is ‘bred in the bone.’

Nothing of lasting benefit in this world or the next comes from ‘relief efforts’ that turn men and nations away from the bred in the bone Christianity of the European. Such relief movements will fail, neo-paganism will fail, democratic egalitarianism will fail; only His provincial people who believe in the charity preached by St. Paul will not fail. +

“Behold, I show you a mystery”

I hate it when publishers print two different endings for Dickens’ greatest novel, Great Expectations. There is only one ending. Dickens was not forced to alter the end of the book; he chose to do it. That he chose to do it after consulting a friend does not invalidate his alteration. That consultation was part of the creative process, so there is really only one ending to the book.

As you know, in what has been termed the original ending, Estella and Pip do not end up together. In the alternate ending, the one that is shown in the movies, Pip and Estella meet again and do not part. The reason the Great Expectations alteration displeases the critics is because Dickens seems (to them) to be mixing genres. In most of his other novels he followed the fairy tale motif where the hero and heroine marry at the end. In Great Expectations, he was writing what appeared (the critics claim) to be a very un-Pickwickian realistic novel and then he switched to a fairy tale ending. I do not think Dickens is guilty of switching genres. Estella, after much suffering, finds a depth to her soul that she never knew existed, which allows her to love Pip as Pip has always loved her. Such transformations are as rare as deathbed conversions, but are they completely out of the realm of reality? Life in this world is inherently tragic for we all face death at the end of it, but is it completely unrealistic to depict some moments of grace, before death comes, entering into the lives of human beings?

It is only unrealistic if you do not believe that there is such a thing as grace. Did you ever ask yourself why, since they were going to die in the end anyway, Christ healed the sick and the lame? Of course He did it because it was His nature to love, but why did He not suppress that part of His loving nature and save all His love for the crucifixion and resurrection? Because Christ knows that human beings must win before they lose. Every human being must experience some moment or moments in their life when they feel loved. They must, or they will not believe in the ultimate gift of love from the God of love.

Literary critics of the twentieth and twenty-first century should not be allowed to write about novels of the nineteenth century because the nineteenth century novelists believed in the soul, but the twentieth and twenty-first century literary critics do not. It is analogous to C. S. Lewis’s contention that someone who has an a priori belief that there are no such things as miracles should not be allowed to debate the subject of miracles. And likewise those post-Christian whites who deny there is such a thing as race are not capable of understanding a white man’s love for his race. What they can’t understand or feel themselves they simply condemn.

The great novelists, from Scott in the late eighteenth century, to A. E. W. Mason in the early twentieth century, all wrote from a Christian worldview. They believed in the soul. And one is struck, when reading through the literature of that time, with how the various writers developed the doctrine of the Incarnation. If we are truly created in the image of God, then God can be found in the hearts of His creatures. This was the implicit Faith of the major writers of the 19th century and it is what makes them so interesting to read in contrast to the writers of our own time. But the winners write history, so the 20th and 21st century intelligentsia has labeled the older writers “immature” and “unrealistic” in contrast to the more contemporary writers who write psychological novels that are more “realistic.” And by continually repeating their lie ad nauseum the general public has come to believe it. “Those old dead guys didn’t know anything.”

And every single religious leader across the board from Novus Ordo and traditionalist Catholic to Protestant has turned their flocks over to the same scientized moderns who hate any work of literature that depicts men and women with souls. None truly believe in the Incarnation. They believe, like Rosencrantz and Guilderstern, that man is as easy to understand as a flute – nay, even easier. Ask them any question and they’ll provide you with an answer from a scientized, addle-brained efficiency expert of a theologian or from a “trained” psychologist and “expert” in his field.

If one does not believe in the God-Man, he will not believe in man, which is why we should be able to see through the façade of the modern clergy. They say they believe in the Christian God, but they deny the Incarnation. When they study man they do not study him as a human being created in the image of God but as a bug or an ape. The modern clergy have mind-forged manacles on their souls that narrow their vision to the point at which they can’t see anything but the sewer that runs by the basement window.

If we are created in the image of God, the 19th century writers were right to stress the importance of what takes place in the secret and non-generic recesses of the human heart. Each heart is a kingdom, and what takes place in that kingdom touches other kingdoms and has momentous consequences that affect God’s plan for our salvation. He works through humanity. If we stifle the humanity in us, if we turn to bug theology and ape science, then we will have placed our civilization outside of His grace. And of course we have done just that. And He won’t return until “we long for the touch of a vanished hand and the sound of a voice that is still.” +

Hatred of the Past

As a general rule I do not like the science fiction genre in film or literature, but there is a powerful image that has stayed with me for many years from the movie Fahrenheit 451. The hero of the film, having lived in a society that banned all books, comes to the realization that he has been robbed of the past. And without the past, he is present-bound -- bound to the mindset of the present, the mores of the present, and the vision of the present. He sets out to correct his Prometheus-bound condition by reading old books, declaring that he must reconstruct the past. It is a wonderful moment when the hero sits down at a table and starts to read David Copperfield.

Now in the movie, the present and future are made triumphant over the past by the actual banning of books written in and about the past. But I would maintain that our current present-and-future-oriented society has succeeded in destroying man’s consciousness of the past more thoroughly, because it has been done more subtly than any futuristic totalitarian society ever spawned from the mind of a science fiction writer.

And it is not a question of right-wing or left-wing. Both wings have burned the past from modern man’s mind and heart. But they have not done it in the way the sci-fi books generally depict it. They have not suppressed all knowledge of the past and all access to the past as the futuristic sci-fi societies do. Instead they have killed the past by demonizing it, in the case of the left-wing, and de-Christianizing it, in the case of the right-wing.

Let’s start with the left-wing. The most deplorable anti-Christian way to treat history is the modern way. Our “historians” treat all those individuals who have lived before us as convenient stepping stones that lead to us, the most advanced and superior of creatures. Of course, those who come after us will be more advanced and superior than we are. And on it goes, with the last generation on earth being the supreme generation everybody else has worked and labored to bring forth. This process, supported by professed Christians, is the most un-Christian of concepts because it denies the individual personality. No human being, in the Christian scheme of things, is a stepping stone for another human being’s progress. He is a personality, supreme in his own right, and of infinite value and worth to the personal God who created him. Dickens, one of the great giants of world literature, expressed the Christian view of personality so well in The Tale of Two Cities:

“A wonderful fact to reflect upon, that every human creature is constituted to be that profound secret and mystery to every other. A solemn consideration, when I enter a great city by night, that every one of those darkly clustered houses encloses its own secret; that every room in every one of them encloses its own secret; that every beating heart in the hundreds of thousands of breasts there, is, in some of its imaginings, a secret to the heart nearest it!

Something of the awfulness, even of Death itself, is referable to this. No more can I turn the leaves of this dear book that I loved, and vainly hope in time to read it all. No more can I look into the depths of this unfathomable water, wherein, as momentary lights glanced into it, I have had glimpses of buried treasure and other things submerged. It was appointed that the book should shut with a spring, for ever and for ever, when I had read but a page. It was appointed that the water should be locked in an eternal frost, when the light was playing on its surface, and I stood in ignorance on the shore. My friend is dead, my neighbour is dead, my love, the darling of my soul is dead; it is the inexorable consolidation and perpetuation of the secret that was always in that individuality, and which I shall carry in mine to my life's end. In any of the burial-places of this city through which I pass, is there a sleeper more inscrutable than its busy inhabitants are, in their innermost personality, to me, or than I am to them?”

In the modern leftist view of history, the past is evil. Individuals from the past are only good to the extent that they were forerunners for the future. Thus in literary circles one hears this: “Mr. Old Fogey wrote in silly times but there was a suggestion of bisexuality in his works that helped pave the way for our modern writers.” In politics: “Women were mostly repressed in those days but the actress Susie Q. Slut was very promiscuous thus paving the way for the sexual liberation of women today.” In the Church: “Christians in those days were generally racists but Father O’Shea performed biracial marriages and supported integration thus paving the way…” And so on and so on...

So the past is used as a morality play for the present. You will be condemned if you are not progressive and forward-looking. Hence, the thing to be is future-oriented. One must always be looking forward to the latest perversion in religion, in politics and in science, in order that one can embrace it and not appear to be backward and unprogressive and therefore damned.

The right-wing, like the left-wing, condemns the past. But where the left-wing condemns the past as evil and the individuals from the past as sinful, the right-wing condemns the past as disordered and the individuals from it as weak. They also look to the future, but unlike the left, they look to a future that has been ordered by the mind of Aristotle and the discipline of the Romans. They, like the leftists, only praise individuals from the past whom they see as forerunners of their vision of the future. Thus right-wingers look to writers who were Christian with a small c and pagan with a capital P as their heroic forerunners.

But to live in either the left-wing’s or the right-wing’s past-hating world is to live in oblivion. St. Paul stated the Christian case for all of us when he declared, “For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself. For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord;” Hence to be cut off from the past as a living, breathing thing is to be cut off from Christ; the future-worshipping societies of the right and left are Christless. If one does not read Walter Scott or LeFanu in order to receive a breath of the wholesome Christianity of the 19th century but only to see if, on any issue, Scott or LeFanu were forerunners of the modern era, then one has entered the future world where there is no future. Christ and only Christ transcends the past, present, and future. To live outside his reign of charity is to have no past, no present, and no future. That’s where Star Wars and Aristotle put us – outside His reign of charity, without a home in this universe or any other.