Friday, August 21, 2009

The End of Liberaldom

'Tis a consummation,
Devoutly to be wished.

The conservative-liberals do not like the mad-dog liberals’ health care plan. “It is socialism, pure and simple,” they say. And of course the conservative liberal critique of the Obama healthcare plan, to the extent that such a mish-mash can be called a plan, is quite justified. However, the mad-dog liberal healthcare plan is just one aspect of liberalism. The conservative-liberals might manage to stop passage of the plan, but they will not stop the liberal locomotive from hurtling forward at breakneck speed toward Suicide Pass. The conservative liberals won’t stop the locomotive because they don’t want to stop it; they simply want to replace the mad-dog liberal engineers of the democratic locomotive with engineers of their own choosing. But whether conservative-liberal engineers or mad-dog liberal engineers drive the locomotive is of little consequence. The train needs more than a change in engineers; it needs to be derailed.

At the core of every culture is a faith that sustains that culture. And it appears that every culture has a tipping point. When enough people cease to believe in the sustaining faith of their culture, that culture ceases to exist. The sustaining faith of Europeans prior to the 20th century was Christianity; the sustaining faith of the European people since the early 20th century is science. And liberal democracy is an essential part of the new faith. Monarchy, clans, blood ties, feudal oaths all seem so unscientific, so unclean to modern, scientific man. Democracy seems so much more up-to-date and independent. A man who no longer bends his knee to God certainly has no need to bend his knee to a king or a clan leader. “So, let’s all be democratic and king of ourselves.”

The synthesis of science and democracy has a name; it’s called liberalism. And Rush Limbaugh and Hillary Clinton are both enamored of it. Their quarrels are internecine quarrels. I want to see white Europeans start to attack both the Rush Limbaugh and the Hillary Clinton camp of liberals. An attack on just one group is not an attack on liberaldom, which was, is, and always shall be, the object of a Christian European’s wrath.

Let’s look at a case study. Meet the average white Joe. Joe didn’t like it when Obama and company labeled all the healthcare protestors (he was one) as “angry, racist, white people.” “I’m not racist,” Joe said with tears in his eyes; “I just don’t agree with the new healthcare plan.” Indeed, Joe is not racist; he has a picture of Jackie Robinson in his den, and he regularly watches and supports all the local sport teams with colored athletes on them. But Joe’s protests will not avail him. He would have more luck standing “upon the beach and bid the main flood bate his usual height” than he would have in convincing the liberal he is not evil because he is white. Joe, because he has not repudiated liberalism, remains confused about liberalism. He thinks he can appeal to the liberal's humanity, his sense of fair play. But humanity and fair play come from Christianity. The liberal is committed to a hatred of Christianity. And who were the people who placed Christianity at the core of their culture, the very culture that they, the liberals, have supplanted? White people, of course. The liberal must denounce and disenfranchise white people; such a denouncement and disenfranchisement is the essence of applied liberalism.

Still Joe is confused. “Why,” Joe asks, “are liberals against white people? Are they not white themselves?” Ah, that’s a good question. The answer to it can be found in Alice in Wonderland. Humpty Dumpty tells Alice that, “When I use a word, it means anything I want it to mean.” When philosophical speculation about Christianity prevailed in the Christian churches over revealed heart-and-blood Christianity, the road was made clear for the unreality of abstracted thought. Race is just an abstraction to the liberal, a “social construct.” When they want to demonize someone for having white skin, they make skin color a reality. When they contemplate their own adored faces in the mirror, skin color doesn’t exist; they are just ‘human beings,’ albeit marvelous human beings. The wheel turns again when the liberal needs to ‘help’ a poor darkie so that the darkie can worship the liberal. Then skin color comes alive again. Reality depends on the abstracted whim of the liberal. In Joe’s case, his skin color will always be a concrete evil so long as he voices any objections to one single part of the liberal’s vision of utopia.

Because the conservative-liberal has the same core faith as the mad-dog liberal, he will never get off nor seek to derail the democratic locomotive. He will continue to accept (in contrast to white, Christian Europeans) an aborting, black-worshipping, pornographic society, because he places adherence to scientific democracy as a value above all other values; it is his faith.

There are two groups of people who do not believe in scientific democracy or, to use its more common name, liberalism. The first group of non-believers is the barbarians of color. They adhere to liberalism in the countries where they are not strong enough to oppose it, but when they are in power they do not set up little wine-and-cheese party states. Missionary stew is more to their liking. Only liberals who live in an abstracted la-la land could work so hard for the enfranchisement of a people with values opposed to their own. Will the barbarians respect homosexual rights, women’s rights, or the right of white liberals to sit in upper-class suburbia and contemplate their fat navels? No, I don’t think so. But the white liberal will continue to support the colored barbarian right up to the moment that the barbarian cuts the white liberal’s throat, because the black barbarian hates the same God that the liberals hate, the white Christ.

The second group opposed to the liberals is of course the throne-and-altar-and-blood Europeans. I always call such men a ‘group’ with caution; I’m not sure there are enough of them to even call them a group. I know, from reading old novels and old history books, that there used to be millions of throne-and-altar-and-blood Europeans. But now? I don’t know. Most of the world seems to be either engulfed in the black night of barbarism or the even darker night of liberaldom. The barbarian is back where he started from before the light of Christ’s love entered the world, and the white liberal is worse than ere he was, because having rejected the light to which his blood ancestors swore fealty, he stands to reap the satanic whirlwind that comes with a rejection of Christ.

It’s difficult to fathom why the liberals hate Christian Europe and love liberaldom. I know my feelings about liberaldom are at one with the English Women. One of the women, with whom I completely identified, told of watching an old movie with some friends. During the movie she felt quite at home and comfortable. But when the movie ended and a commercial came on, she felt like she was in an alien world. I don’t think Christian Europe will ever, like Arthur, return, until Europeans feel that liberal, scientific democracy and barbarism are unwanted, alien entities that must be conquered.

In many countries where coal was once king, there are underground fires that, once started, were never put out. They just keep burning and spreading underground, making the regions above them uninhabitable. Liberalism started out as a small underground fire and has spread across the earth. It seems like a hopeless task to put such a fire out. And it is hopeless if the European of the old stock tries to do it all at once or if he tries to counter liberalism with just another hybrid form of liberalism, like countering Russian communism with American democracy. Which is more soul-killing and dangerous? Both. It always comes back to “who moved the stone?” If Christ moved the stone, as the white Europeans once believed, then nothing is impossible for Europeans who are wedded to Christ. Every faithful European heart will become a fire that will eventually, when united with other fiery hearts, engulf and destroy the satanic fires of liberaldom. But there must be that fire in the European heart.

When Pistol, Falstaff’s fellow, low-life companion thinks all of England will be his plaything because Prince Hal has become Henry V, he dreams of “Africa and golden joys.” We have seen what the liberals dream of. The embodiment of their dreams can be seen throughout Europe and the United States. Is such a nightmare world to be tolerated? Is liberalism the final act in the drama of European man? That vision thing, which George Bush Sr. despised, must be brought into play. In his mind’s eye, the European sees a small child being born in Bethlehem, and he sees that child grow up and become The Hero who slays the greatest dragon of them all, the great dragon, Death.

There is a cottage in the European woods. In that cottage is a European fire tended by a faithful woodsman. Many years ago, the woodsman’s Master told him to keep the fire burning until He returned. The woodsman was a young man then, and now he is an old man, yet still he keeps the fire going. All true Europeans have a fire to tend until the Master returns. Such fires are the hope of Europe and the scourge of liberaldom.

Labels: ,