The Verdict of Paris

I’d been thinking I ought to post something about the massacre in Paris last weekend but without knowing quite what. Then today I realized that I had already posted on the subject, *before it even happened.* In On the Delicacy of Civilization, I distinguished in passing between crimes *within* a civilization and attacks upon it from without. Like market failure, crime is a vice and weakness of civilization. It may redound to civil death, but such deaths are endogenous, analogous therefore to kidney failure, cancer, or heart disease. In a sense, such deaths are processes of civilization.

An attack from without is more like … well, like an attack on a person, than it is like a disease. Diseases make attacks more likely, insofar as they are evident in outward weakness, as is usually the case with disease. But they don’t cause the attack; they rather only reduce its apparent cost to the attacker, thus inclining him more to attack.

As I pointed out in that post, any high civilization organized on the basis of a supposition that its denizens will not try to destroy it is quite vulnerable to sabotage at the hands of a fifth column of alien aggressors from another, antithetical civilization.

Among the galaxy of confusions evident in our leaders, the confusion between crime and attack is among the most important and often manifest. We hear always about “bringing terrorists to justice,” when justice ain’t in it. Such talk is confused, and confusing. One cannot but think that, the confusion being so very obtuse, it must be intentional, and tendentious.

Among all the things I might say about Paris, this only has not (so far as I know) been said already a thousand times: the attack in Paris. as being directed against the Power of the West, was directed *against the liberal order.* It is the liberal order that suffers from the attack. To the extent that it succeeded in jarring the liberal elite away from liberalism and toward a police state (Francois Hollande has already proposed some changes to the French Constitution), *it undermined liberalism.*

No doubt ISIS thinks of itself as fighting Christianity, and the West that crushed Islam from the Siege of Vienna onward. But it is not! It is fighting the vicious disease of the West that took root at World War I, and blossomed after World War II. Granted, to be sure, ISIS has damaged us. But only collaterally. Its main attack is aimed at the Establishment of the West, and that Establishment hates the West.

So, to the extent that Muslim terror sabotages the West, it is sabotaging that salient within the West that is interested to sabotage the West. One enemy of the West is at war with another.

Let a tyranny be established then. Let the Left establish its contradiction as its own apotheosis. Some sort of war for control of it shall soon break out. It will be a war of one sort of illiberal idea of order – that of what once was the Left, but has become merely tyrannical – against another – ours, presumably. In that contest, the last thing we’ll need to worry about is the Muslims. They’ll all have fled at our berserker rage, whom we have not already wiped out. No; as is usual when our dander is up, the illiberal men of the West will need to worry mostly about each other.

God send we of the True Right may remember that in this fight, as with our last Crusades, we fight (and ought to fight) not against each other, but against our common enemies.

 

56 thoughts on “The Verdict of Paris

  1. Pingback: The Verdict of Paris | Neoreactive

  2. This post has prompted some questions that have troubled me for some time……

    Are the Moslem terrorists fighting the West/Christendom or are they fighting the heresy of modernity which is dominant in the West?

    Does it matter?

    Does traditionalist conservatism represent, in some sense, the project of retaining some aspects of modernity (for example classical liberalism) without having to renounce the whole thing?

    If so, can that really be done?

    My apologies for drifting away from the subject of the post.

    • Their words and deeds indicate that the Muslims are fighting everyone. It’s just that in fighting the Western Establishment of today, they are not fighting a Christian cultural order, but rather a liberal cultural order that, as it has worked its way through its own inherent logic, has revealed itself as anti-Christian (and anti-liberal, too; this is why the apotheosis of liberalism is totalitarian tyranny). They are fighting the enemy of the Traditional West that had so recently held them in subjection.

      Traditional conservatism seeks to retain the good bits of modernity. There’s nothing wrong, e.g., with science, high technology, markets, or free speech per se. Perhaps even much of classical liberalism could be retained, provided the franchise were restricted enough, and properly. Classical liberalism with tight constraints on the franchise is just aristocracy.

      • Liberalism and Islam are contemporary rivals for global dominion. Everyone else is caught in the middle. The questions are: How big is that middle; and how swiftly and how effectively can it recognize its situation and organize its self-defense? It will get much, much worse before it gets better. Rivals become doubles. Liberalism already strongly resembles Islam – and that resemblance will grow.

      • It does seem as though the antagonism of the Liberal elite toward his Western patrimony and peoples has at last begun to dawn on the mind of European man. Nothing like being mugged by reality.

      • Liberalism and Islam are not rivals. They are allies. Liberalism regards them as useful proxies, like the way the British government in the 1700s regarded Native American tribes as useful barbarians that could be sent against the French colonists (and of course the French armed and directed native tribes against the British colonists). If some individual liberals get hurt by Islam, liberalism writ large regards this as an acceptable price to pay in exchange for the damage Islam inflicts on the things liberalism detests: Christianity, tradition, conservatism, the West, the white race, etc. etc.

      • That Islam and Liberalism are allies does not mean they are not also rivals; the two relations are not mutually exclusive.

        I think you are correct in saying that Liberalism views Islam as a useful proxy in its war on the West. But it is not correct in so thinking, because the Establishment of the West as now constituted *just is* Liberal: every institution of the West is now Liberal (even, sad to say, most orthodox churches); so that Islam cannot attack the West except by attacking a Liberal institution. Outside their heartland, all the ISIS attacks so far have been on Liberal assets and Liberal persons (granting that many of the military men it has killed have not themselves been Liberals – they were killed as assets of the Liberal Establishment).

        If Islam were intent on attacking only and especially Christianity in the West, it would be attacking packed churches on Easter morning rather than soccer matches, subways, rock concerts, US consulates and soldiers, and the offices of liberal rags. This it could begin to do at any time. But it is the sort of thing it so far does only within dar al Islam, where it has mostly eliminated liberalism and is ready to turn and extirpate other religions.

        It would be interesting to see how the men of the West reacted to that sort of attack. My hunch is that the response would be different.

      • I don’t read the newspaper or watch the news. Does anybody know a good source for finding out who these ISIS people actually are, who is in charge, how they are organized, who pays them, where they came from, that sort of thing?

      • @josh,

        If you want the official story, it’s hard to do better than the RAND Corp for stuff like this. Here are some links to get you started:

        One
        Two
        Three
        Four

        Also, there is this Bloomberg piece which contains helpful citations and links.

        The official story is not particularly plausible, of course. You get variants on “ISIS sprung up out of the rocks” from official sources. It seems very likely that ISIS, to the extent it exists at all, is being run by some wealthy, sophisticated intelligence service. Until the histories are written two centuries hence, you are going to have to guess at which one(s).

        If you want “crazy conspiracy theories,” those are not hard to find:

        One
        Two
        Three

        Also Glen Greenwald and Paul Crag Roberts have several articles spinning out the “crazy conspiracy theory” views of the origins, structure, and finances of ISIS.

        Also indispensable is watching some of ISIS’s videos. Unfortunately, these get taken down by video hosting services as fast as they get posted, so I don’t know where you can go to see them. I don’t really understand why ISIS makes their videos. Who is their target audience? Everybody in the post-West who sees them has to react by saying “these don’t look right.” And, man, do they ever not look right. So, what are they? What are they for?

  3. Pingback: The Verdict of Paris | Reaction Times

  4. I read something recently at a left leaning blog that claimed that radical Islam is simply the natural working out of religious reaction in lands where the liberal order is weak or absent- that the Moslem terrorists are fear aggressive based on the fact that Christianity has been absolutely clobbered in the West and that they see Islam as next on the hit list of the modern juggernaut. Moreover, it was claimed that “classical liberalism” was merely the first stage of modernity and that contemporary conservatism cannot grasp the fact that progressivism is basically the consistent working out of Liberalism (capital L) itself.

    It seems to me that Liberalism can be true to itself only if it is embedded in a non-liberal order, otherwise it will just “digest itself”.

    • Is radical Islam simply the natural working out of religious reaction in illiberal lands? Not quite; radical Islam is Islam in lands (and minds) that have shed whatever veneer of Liberalism they once bore on account of our recent conquest of their whole ambit. I.e., radical Islam *just is* Islam. It is the Islam of the 18th century within its own lands and at its borders. It was then that the American and Royal navies swept the Med of the Barbary pirates and pounded their emirs into submission, and made it again for the first time in a thousand years the Mare Romanum. This was the tipping point in the immense Reconquista of the whole of dar al Islam, complete but for Turkey by 1945, and then abandoned in the name of Liberalism. Once the Anglicans controlled the Med, it was game over for Islam, with nothing left but for the European juggernaut to get around to the project of rolling over it unstoppably.

      It still today boils down to control of the Med. We still have it. We just won’t exert it. The Italian navy could all by itself stop the current Muslim invasion of Europe. It does not, because its Liberal overseers do not want it to. The same goes for the Greek navy.

      It sounds as though the leftist author of the piece you read has begun to work his way toward orthogony. No political ideology is separated from it by more than a thin membrane of confusion; for orthogony is True, while all other political orientations have mixed in with the Truths they still espouse some errors or misprisions of their own. Once he has cleared up such confusions, and reckoned the Truth about Reality, any sort of errant ideologue will find himself returning home and becoming a tradent. I bet that almost all the tradents and traditionalists alive today came to orthogony from one or another strain of liberalism.

      It seems to me that Liberalism can be true to itself only if it is embedded in a non-liberal order, otherwise it will just “digest itself”.

      Exactly. Classical liberalism can work only as a rule of order and polite deportment for the discourse of a landed educated aristocracy, and as a guide to the policies they may prudently deploy to secure the welfare of their lands and wards. It can work, i.e., as constrained by an illiberal order.

      All polities incline toward some sort of illiberalism, because Liberalism is at war with Reality. Reality is the strange attractor of history, and the scythe of her selection against errant ideas is their death in their adherents.

      • Kristor,

        Your post and replies are excellent! Thank you.

        “Radical Islam just is Islam” When I suggested the same, the reply I got was interesting- the leftist author (he identified himself as an arch-postmodernist) put forward the notion that this particularly virulent form of Islam is not “just Islam”, but an Islam infected with a different strain of modernism– fascism. The claim he made was that the jihadists are pulling from the well of 20th century western authoritarian ideologies just as much, if not more, than traditional Islam.

      • It’s a reasonable hypothesis. But then, if so, where did the authoritarian polities of early Islam – aped explicitly by latter day jihadim – get their totalitarianism? Not from Hitler or Stalin! The modern jihadim do *not* cite Mein Kampf or The Communist Manifesto in their arguments. They cite the Koran.

      • Relevant:

        It must be incredibly frustrating as an Islamic terrorist not to have your views and motives taken seriously by the societies you terrorize, even after you have explicitly and repeatedly stated them. Even worse, those on the regressive left, in their endless capacity for masochism and self-loathing, have attempted to shift blame inwardly on themselves, denying the terrorists even the satisfaction of claiming responsibility.

        It’s like a bad Monty Python sketch:

        “We did this because our holy texts exhort us to to do it.”

        “No you didn’t.”

        “Wait, what? Yes we did…”

        “No, this has nothing to do with religion. You guys are just using religion as a front for social and geopolitical reasons.”

        “WHAT!? Did you even read our official statement? We give explicit Quranic justification. This is jihad, a holy crusade against pagans, blasphemers, and disbelievers.”

        “No, this is definitely not a Muslim thing. You guys are not true Muslims, and you defame a great religion by saying so.”

        “Huh!? Who are you to tell us we’re not true Muslims!? Islam is literally at the core of everything we do, and we have implemented the truest most literal and honest interpretation of its founding texts. It is our very reason for being.”

        “Nope. We created you. We installed a social and economic system that alienates and disenfranchises you, and that’s why you did this. We’re sorry.”

        “What? Why are you apologizing? We just slaughtered you mercilessly in the streets. We targeted unwitting civilians – disenfranchisement doesn’t even enter into it!”

        “Listen, it’s our fault. We don’t blame you for feeling unwelcome and lashing out.”

        “Seriously, stop taking credit for this! We worked really hard to pull this off, and we’re not going to let you take it away from us.”

        “No, we nourished your extremism. We accept full blame.”

        “OMG, how many people do we have to kill around here to finally get our message across?”

        H/T: profitmaximiser

      • Is there any sense in the Muslim world that Mohammed was really a communist or a community organizer? Which aspects of modern Islam is considered a western interpolation.

        Besides what I learned in High school about succession, what are the differences between the Sunni and the Shiites. The latter seem much saner. Are they?

  5. Another solid analysis, and it is amazing how prescient your previous article was. The Lord guides our hands in mysterious ways for sure.

    My take on the question of Islam declaring victory over the ‘crusaders’ is that it is necessary propaganda for their warriors. They need to conjure up images of the mighty knights of Ancient Christendom because actually declaring the nature of those they are really fighting against (the ones who actually control the West) would be a description of something that doesn’t seem worth the effort, a sad shriveled maggot glued to an iPhone declaring “Black lives matter!” with a shrill feminazi voice.

    For my entire commentary on these events, the link is below:

    http://citadelfoundations.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/an-open-letter-to-france.html

    • Mr. Citadel’s essay is spot on, and I recommend that you read it. A particularly trenchant quote:

      Will you, the people of France, learn your lesson? I doubt it. The left will demand more tolerance, diversity, and groupthink, while the neoconservative ‘right’ will demand IS be “bombed into the stone age!” so that leftism can be protected and preserved. A rather grotesque piece of theater, but by now we are all too familiar with the script.

      Go ahead, put your technology to good use and level Syria and Iraq. It will change nothing. Your nation will still be faced with oncoming demographics, the perils of overvalued fiat money, a bankrupt culture, and feckless leaders. You could eliminate every Sunni male of military age and within a decade you’d be fighting the same war all over again.

    • They need to conjure up images of the mighty knights of Ancient Christendom because actually declaring the nature of those they are really fighting against

      I don’t think they need this. The Iranians manage to see themselves as fighting us. And their diagnosis of the situation is quite good. We are the Great Satan. Fighting Satan, that sad, shriveled maggot, is worthwhile, for us, because we, too, are lowly. More lowly than Satan, in a sense, since he is an angel.

  6. Cassiodorus quotes a third party to the effect that contemporary Muslim mass-murderers represent “not just Islam, but… Islam infected with a different strain of modernism – fascism.”

    The record of Islam is abundantly clear: The norm of Islam is aggression and slaughter. Between the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the rise of the PLO, Islam went through a period of chastened quiescence. That quiescence was the deviation from the norm; the current homicidal agitation is the reversion to the norm. Remember the Bani Quraya. Islam never needed fascism to tell it what to do.

    How relentlessly destructive is Islam? Has anyone ever heard of the Khorasan Kingdom? It was a successor-kingdom to the Greco-Indian Buddhist kingdom of Bactria, more or less where Pakistan and Afghanistan merge together today. The jihad so obliterated it that it is barely a footnote in the history books, yet it was a prosperous concern, dominating the silk-trade, in its day.

    Incidentally, there seems to have been an aggressive Arab-Monophysite Empire, centered on Petra, for two centuries before there was a Muslim Empire. The Monophysite heresy seems to have morphed into Islam.

    PS: It is true that the West is no longer Christian and that its institutions, hijacked by Liberalism, are, in effect, anti-Christian; it is also true that Muslims think that they are attacking Christendom, when in fact they are attacking the post-Christian societies of the West. Muslims make no distinction, however, between actual Christians and post-Christian Liberals. We all look the same to them. I would guess that among the dead in France few were meaningfully Christian and most were liberals. Muslims, by themselves, will never grasp the difference because their epistemology is too crude. Supposing that the difference between Christianity and Liberalism could be explained to Muslims, they would hate Liberalism as much as they hate Christianity. Liberals will never embrace Christianity. How long, then, before Liberals, in order to unpaint the targets on their bellies, begin converting to Islam, whether sincerely or not? I predict that this will happen (and I am simply following the novelist Monsieur Houellebecque); that it will happen first in France, and that women will place themselves in the vanguard by marrying Muslims. It will become enormously chic for Western women to marry Muslims.

    PPS: Spain could not resist Muslim aggression, possibly because it was full of Monophysite and Arian Christians with cousins on the other side of the Straits of Gibraltar, and the Mob of cousins on the Moroccan side as also a mess of Monophysite Proto-Muslims and Arians. I leave out many details, but I mention the incident because it strikes me that Christian heresies – and Liberalism is a Christian heresy – have historically opened the way for Islam. Egypt, for example, was heavily Monophysite before the Muslim takeover, which might well have been an Arabian-Monophysite takeover, as it is not clear that Islam, as such, existed until 150 or 200 years after the reputed lifetime of Mohamed. Thus there is a continuum of something, which seems to be a Christian heresy latterly calling itself Islam, that has been on a nihilistic rampage since the Fourth Century AD.

    • Tom Holland’s In the Shadow of the Sword argues that Islam arose in the vicinity of ancient Edom, among the Arab foederati of the Romans who fought for centuries against other Arab tribes in the service of the Persian Empire. A mercantile crossroads, it was a stew of Christian, Hebrew and pagan cults, including monophysitism. He argues also that the Mohammedan conquest of Persia was not so much a military defeat as a coup: the Arab foederati of Rome and Persia stopped fighting each other, instead turning to plunder the riches of their former employers, both exhausted from long warfare with each other.

      • And Persia itself had been in a long process of sectarian strife (it was nominally Christian for a few years!), wracked by Manichaeism, splinter-cults of Zoroastrianism, whose enmity foreshadow the Sunni-Shiite conflict, and ethnic intrusions from the area around the Caspian Sea, which only exacerbated the situation. Late-Antique Persia was an early victim of involuntary multiculturalism. Modern dissenters are victims of the voluntary multiculturalism of their deluded fellow citizens.

        Associatively, the situation is Syria is fascinating. Obama, whose sympathies lie with Islam, wants to “off” Bashir Assad, an Alawite. The Alawites are hold-out descendants of the Syrian Monophysites. The Alawites have made various chameleon changes over the centuries to placate Islam, but to Sunnis and Shiites they remain “Infidels.” The Assad dynasty has been a protector of Syriac and Maronite Christians in Syria. But Obama wants to bomb Assad into oblivion while accepting Syrian “refugees” into the USA!

      • TFB, you are right on. Saddam Hussein was the great protector of Iraqi Christians (and he wasn’t Muslim, nationalism was his faith, he believed he was the reincarnation of Nebuchadnezzar) like Assad is of our Christian brethren in Syria.

        ISIS wouldn’t be around if it weren’t for scumbags like Bush and Obama and Obama is especially egregrious. I hear he barred Syrian Christians while ushering in future Terrorist Americans. It’s like he sees a high quality population and a low quality one and just decides to choose the latter for the hell of it.

        And this is where I agree with Kristor and contend that Muslims are NOT the primary enemy. Our enemy are the traitors in our midst and they’re everywhere. In our colleges, in our government, and even sitting in the pew next you (and extremely likely in the pulpit as well).

        These Muslims would be vulture-feed or shark-feed if it weren’t for those treacherous swine who let them in and who brow-beated Western countries to let them in (including Bergoglio).

      • And this is where I agree with Kristor and contend that Muslims are NOT the primary enemy.

        Indeed. Not only can Islam not be our primary enemy, it cannot even be ranked among our important enemies. Listing Islam, blacks, or mean five-year-old girls among your important enemies indicates some kind of defect in understanding the world. Utter, pathetic, helplessness implies not being an important enemy.

        It may be, of course, that Islam inherits the wasteland that remains after the remnants of the post-West finish themselves off. But they will not have been an important player in the finishing off. Maybe a trivial player as cannon fodder.

      • Dr Bill,

        Some ululating, boy-loving Grand Imam is not the main enemy as much as the Anti-Pope Bergoglio. He is the true enemy. He, his empty-headed fangirls, other “Christians” who seem to believe that compassion for the wolves can also be compassion for the lambs, and Cultural Bolshevik swine are our real enemies.

        We must not underestimate Muslims since they took OUR Christian lands in North Africa, Egypt, Iberia, Anatolia, the Levant, and parts of the Balkans (call me an overly optimistic idiot but after we take back Europe, I wish to take back those lands as well and drive Saracen scum we don’t wipe out deep in the heart of the Arabian peninsula) back when Christians weren’t morally weak, spineless, gutless, and sackless simpering idiots.

        However, now we have such supreme and unyielding firepower that could easily destroy the Muslims, the only thing holding us back is our spiritual degeneration and depravity. I feel Christ is telling us via these horrible attacks that our only choices from now one are either strength (spiritual, moral, and physical) or death. We must either nut up or die. I choose the former. If we do die, let the history show that we died in honor, fighting and fighting until nothing remains except for our mangled, bloody corpses and may Christ forever know that we fought and died for Him and His Promise. I’m willing to believe in a cosmology where the Good Guys lose to Evil like in Norse Mythos but I am not willing to believe in this pozzed up, cucked “Christian” cosmology where we just hold our ankles and beg our enemies to be gentle. That is dishonorable and it disgusts me to the very core of my being. I doubt if we were to seriously fight we will lose but I don’t care if we lose as long as we FIGHT.

        Indeed. Not only can Islam not be our primary enemy, it cannot even be ranked among our important enemies. Listing Islam, blacks, or mean five-year-old girls among your important enemies indicates some kind of defect in understanding the world. Utter, pathetic, helplessness implies not being an important enemy.

        It may be, of course, that Islam inherits the wasteland that remains after the remnants of the post-West finish themselves off. But they will not have been an important player in the finishing off. Maybe a trivial player as cannon fodder.

        I wouldn’t go as far as to place Muslims on the same level as blacks and mean five year old girls. I would rather compare them to a dangerous poisonous snake. I’m not even that angry at Muslims because Muslims are gonna Muslim. I didn’t expect any less from them. My rage is directly and fully at the traitors in our midst, who should know or do know what Muslims are like and yet still placed them in our countries. When someone puts a cobra in your home and the cobra bites you, the cobra is less at fault than the idiot who put it in your house and refuses to let you crush its head with your heel after biting you. Cobras gonna cobra.

    • Elite white women never really took to marrying black men when they were the vanguard of the revolution.

      Islam is not a race; it’s an ideology. (TFB)

    • “Spain could not resist Muslim aggression, possibly because it was full of Monophysite and Arian Christians with cousins on the other side of Straits of Gibraltar”

      And Jews.

      The Spanish Jews, who had good relations with their Gothic overlords, were put between a rock and a hard place. Muslim governors put knives to their throats and ordered, “You will be a tax-collector and collect the jizyia from the Christians, or we will rape your daughters and bugger your sons and then kill them.” What would you have done?

      Judaism was never a Christian heresy. (TFB)

      • Spain could not resist Muslim aggression, possibly because it was full of Monophysite and Arian Christians with cousins on the other side of Straits of Gibraltar.

        And Jews.

        Except, the Spanish did kick out the Muslims and the Jews with the advent of the great Fr. Torquemada (who was of full Jewish converso descent which shows his absolute dedication to Christ and Spain) and King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella.

        My view on the Jews is that they too are like Muslims in that they only have power and influence due to Western decadence and weakness. Look at how morally strong Iberia kicked all them out. No sane nation would deal with them and their BS.

        And of course, they are the loudest voices when it comes to Islamic immigration to the West and for social depravity. And it irks me to no end that they have the Holy Land. The Holy Land is OUR land. Not Jewish land, not Muslim land, but Christian land. The Jews are the UnChosen people, they were once chosen and no longer are. I support the creation of a modern-day Kingdom of Jerusalem. The Jews have as much right to Jerusalem and the birth town of Christ as the Muslims do to Europe, Britain, North Africa, Egypt, Mesopotamia, the Levant, Anatolia, and Kosovo and the Balkans. Neither of them deserve a single inch of that land nor a single speck of that soil.

        As an aside, I think I am a bit of a heretic of the Monophysite variety. I believe solely in the Divine nature of Christ, don’t understand how He can be both Human and God at the same time. It’s a kink I’ll have to work out over time.

      • Stephen-Are you aware of what a “concern troll” is? Because you seem an awful lot like one to me.

        Mr. Prescott is a discerning intellect. He is a Christian gentleman. He is not a “troll.” (TFB).

      • Svar-How did you arrive at monophysitism? And where do you go to church? I can’t think of a single group that espoused this belief in the last 1200 years!

        Svar did not introduce the topic of Monophysitism – I did. Those of us who study Islam are profoundly aware of the prototypical relation of that heresy to Islam. (TFB)

      • Professor Bertonneau, thank you.

        Jim, I am a Protestant Christian. I came here primarily to learn about Eric Voegelin from Professor Bertonneau and I would describe my political views as reactionary — or perhaps what you guys might call traditionalism. But I am really at a loss over all of this wild stuff. I don’t want to offend and yet some of these terrible statements cry out for a response.

      • Jim, I go to a Catholic Church and the parish, from what I see, is quite orthodox on doctrine while unbelievably and disgustingly liberal on civilizational and social issues. Though I say “quite” and not “completely” because I don’t know how true the Church’s portrayal of Christ is since it doesn’t seem similar to the God in the NT. From church, I get that Christ is supposed to be my snuggly, cuddly BFF/BF whereas from the Bible I see a heroic, fiery and righteous God who is the Savior of Mankind, Our Protector, and Our Lord. Christ is Roaring Thunder in the midst of the storm not what the modern church says He is. I read the Bible completely awed by Him and yet Church Jesus is completely underwhelming.

        I, on the other hand, am the exact opposite. I’m rather heterodox on doctrine while conservative on social and civilizational issues.

        I guess I’ve always had this sort of belief of Christ being just divine and it’s difficult for me to buy the fact that He’s both Man and God. I would say I am heterodox and not a heretic because I am not willing to break up the Church regarding my belief and I think one day I will start to believe the orthodox view. It’s just my logical brain can’t fathom a being both God and Man. It’s like something being both lemur (Man) and chimp (God). Lemurs and chimps are both primates (as are Men) but one (chimps) are a higher version of the other (lemur). I just don’t see how Christ can be both a Higher and Lower being at the same time. And even if He was, it makes sense to me that the Higher Aspect (Divinity) would overtake the Lower Aspect (Humanity).

        Regardless, I believe Christ is God and my Lord and Savior and I believe that I must live my life by His Ideals, believe in His Promise, and show an utmost loyalty to Him as my Master. Hopefully, my heterodoxy will be smoothed out into a pure orthodoxy after more and more years as a Christian.

      • “I came here primarily to learn about Eric Voegelin from Professor Bertonneau and I would describe my political views as reactionary — or perhaps what you guys might call traditionalism. But I am really at a loss over all of this wild stuff. I don’t want to offend and yet some of these terrible statements cry out for a response.”

        I may have been too harsh on you but I take offense to being libeled.

        That being said, if you consider yourself a reactionary/traditionalist and yet at the same time consider my views on the Jews to be “wild stuff” or “terrible statements” how exactly do you square that with the views of men like Hillaire Belloc, G.K. Chesterton, Fr. Torquemada, King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella, Joseph de Maistre, your very own Martin Luther, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, St. Aquinas, St. Augustine.Charles Maurras, the men of Action Francaise, Franco, Salazar, every Tsar, Joseph Sobran, E. Michael Jones, the men of the SSPX, Cicero, Seneca, Fr. Bernardino of Fetrau, Pope Clement VIII, St, Justin, St. John, Count Helmuth von Moltke, Kaiser Wilhem II, Henry Ford, Charles Lindbergh, Father Charles Coughlin, Fr. Denis Fahey, Popes Clement VIII and atleast 14 other Popes, Jose Primo de Rivera, Jesus Christ Himself and untold numbers of great men including men of all sorts of ethnicities, religious views (Pagan, Christian and Secular) and all sorts of ideological views, and known saints and those of unknown sainthood/non-saints. The ones I listed are the ones that reactionaries look up to and admire.

        Ask yourself, why would a group get kicked out of a 109 different countries? Then ask yourself why has this group been difficult to tolerate throughout history in even very tiny numbers?

        Once again, if you want to go after anti-Semites, you’ll have to go after Martin Luther, several saints and priests, several Popes and Christ Himself.

        So who exactly is in the wrong here? You or all of the men I’ve mentioned above? My view aligns with theirs and so my conscience is clean.

      • Mr. Prescott, here is an excerpt from the Catholic Encyclopedia on Fr Tomas Torquemada’s expulsion of Jews and Muslims:

        At that time the purity of the Catholic Faith in Spain was in great danger from the numerous Marranos and Moriscos, who, for material considerations, became sham converts from Judaism and Mohammedanism to Christianity. The Marranos committed serious outrages against Christianity and endeavoured to judaize the whole of Spain. The Inquisition, which the Catholic sovereigns had been empowered to establish by Sixtus IV in 1478, had, despite unjustifiable cruelties, failed of its purpose, chiefly for want of centralisation. In 1483 the pope appointed Torquemada, who had been an assistant inquisitor since 11 February 1482, Grand Inquisitor of Castile, and on 17 October extended his jurisdiction over Aragon.

        As papal representative and the highest official of the inquisitorial court, Torquemada directed the entire business of the Inquisition in Spain, was empowered to delegate his inquisitorial faculties to other Inquisitors of his own choosing, who remained accountable to him, and settled the appeals made to the Holy See. He immediately established tribunals at Valladolid, Seville, Jaén, Avila, Cordova, and Villa-real, and, in 1484, at Saragossa for the Kingdom of Aragon. He also instituted a High Council, consisting of five members, whose chief duty was to assist him in the hearing of appeals (see INQUISITION — The Inquisition in Spain). He convened a general assembly of Spanish inquisitors at Seville, 29 November, 1484, and presented an outline of twenty-eight articles for their guidance. To these he added several new statutes in 1485, 1488, and 1498 (Reuss, “Sammlungen der Instructionen des spanischen Inquisitionsgerichts”, Hanover, 1788). The Marranos found a powerful means of evading the tribunals in the Jews of Spain, whose riches had made them very influential and over whom the Inquisition had no jurisdiction. On this account Torquemada urged the sovereigns to compel all the Jews either to become Christians or to leave Spain. To frustrate his designs the Jews agreed to pay the Spanish government 30,000 ducats if left unmolested. There is a tradition that when Ferdinand was about to yield to the enticing offer, Torquemada appeared before him, bearing a crucifix aloft, and exclaiming: “Judas Iscariot sold Christ for 30 pieces of silver; Your Highness is about to sell him for 30,000 ducats. Here He is; take Him and sell Him.” Leaving the crucifix on the table he left the room. Chiefly through his instrumentality the Jews were expelled from Spain in 1492.

        I mean that is the traditional view. What is wrong with criticizing the Jews and not liking them? It fits with Church tradition and like I’ve mentioned even your very own Martin Luther was not much of a fan.

      • The traditional view is also that Judaism is perhaps the first Christian heresy in that Judaism, by the end of the Gospel of John, comes to be identified specifically with the those who reject Christ. As Christians are the true Israel, Rabbinical Jews are a splinter group, a new religion created after the destruction of the temple.

        By the way, I don’t dislike Jews. My father is one. I also don’t know much about Iberia before the reconquest. However, there seems to be an essence to Talmudic Judaism just as there is an essence to Islam which has been there from the beginning. The third council of Toledo seems to be addressing some kind of problem and doesn’t seem indicative of a “good relationship”. Maybe I’m wrong, though. As I say, I don’t know much about it.

      • Josh, I dislike Jews as a group but not individuals like you. I think I’ve mentioned numerous times my love for Fr. Torquemada and Fr, Floriano Abrahamowicz

      • Although my words don’t exactly read that way, I didn’t really mean to rebuke the anti-semites, if there really are any; my rebuke was intended for whoever it was who endorsed the Norway massacre and it is well-deserved and then some. I will say that I understand anti-semitism, as it is found here — and if it is found here — as a thing of error not sin, which is to say that nobody here really hates people they’ve never met. I hope that doesn’t sound condescending, it isn’t meant that way. I’m a new guy here (I wrote ‘goy’ at first!) and I think I know my proper place.

        Anyway, my apologies. My plan is to stick with the subject matter and away from the commentary battlefield from here on. But just in case, if I do encounter a particularly offensive comment, is it OK if, in the interests of comity, I just put a hex on whoever it is and let it go at that? 😉 If you say something nasty and then wake up the next morning with a toothache, you’ll know. 😉

      • “Thanks, I guess, but I’m not a Jew.”

        What I meant is that you have Jewish descent just like Fr. Torquemada and Fr. Floriano Abrahamowicz but that it doesn’t color your worldview. But you are right, you are not a Jew.

      • “I will say that I understand anti-semitism, as it is found here — and if it is found here — as a thing of error not sin, which is to say that nobody here really hates people they’ve never met. ”

        It’s not an error if it’s the correct view. From the historical account it seems to be a completely justified sentiment and it’s apart of the Church tradition as well starting from none other than the First Christian Himself. Let’s face it, Jews cause way too many problems for any person trying to achieve the Good to have warm, fuzzy feelings towards them.

        Then again I don’t know what you mean by “anti-semitism”. In the words of Joseph Sobran, “anti-semitism used to mean someone who hates the Jews but now it means someone who the Jews hate”.

        “I hope that doesn’t sound condescending, it isn’t meant that way. I’m a new guy here (I wrote ‘goy’ at first!) and I think I know my proper place.”

        I wouldn’t claim any seniority over you. I may be a regular here but I am young.

        “Although my words don’t exactly read that way, I didn’t really mean to rebuke the anti-semites, if there really are any; my rebuke was intended for whoever it was who endorsed the Norway massacre and it is well-deserved and then some.”

        “Anyway, my apologies. My plan is to stick with the subject matter and away from the commentary battlefield from here on. But just in case, if I do encounter a particularly offensive comment, is it OK if, in the interests of comity, I just put a hex on whoever it is and let it go at that? 😉 If you say something nasty and then wake up the next morning with a toothache, you’ll know. ;)”

        Look, there is nothing wrong with rebuking people. And I would like to apologize, my unmoderated comment towards you was pretty vitriolic mainly because I do not support Breivik or applaud his actions, it was a conflation by another commenter between my comments (which did not mention Breivik at all) and another comment supporting Breivik.

        You could say that I am quite angered by the situation in Paris after months of brow-beating by treacherous liberals and treacherous “Christians” like the “Pope” to take in the filth that did this and so I’m already on edge.

        What makes me even angrier is that Bertoglio never showed as much “compassion” to our Christian brethren in the Middle East as he did to their persecutors.

        Through that lens I perceived you as a troll who was trying to purposefully riling me up.

  7. “In that contest, the last thing we’ll need to worry about is the Muslims. They’ll all have fled at our berserker rage, whom we have not already wiped out. No; as is usual when our dander is up, the illiberal men of the West will need to worry mostly about each other.”

    I don’t know about the rest of the people here, but my body is burning with rage at the Muslims and their enablers and that is clouding my judgement. But I am certain that the Right will in fight if we win the same way how the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks did on the Left in Russia and the way the monarchists and other traditionalists, fascists, revolutionary rightists, left-wing nationalists and Nazis fought in Germany.

    • “but my body is burning with rage at the Muslims and their enablers and that is clouding my judgement”

      Clouding my judgement in that I am not worried about a ten-sided right wing civil war, just in case Aethelfrith wishes to libel me further by comparing me to Breivik.

      Svar, no one has libeled you. Participants in the thread have answered you, that is all. (TFB)

      • “Svar, no one has libeled you. Participants in the thread have answered you, that is all. (TFB)”

        I was referring to the accusation of my (non-existent) support for Breivik and his murderous actions. I don’t mind people arguing with me or answering me (I prefer a healthy debate) but I’m not a fan of my views on a certain matter being conflated with that of another commenter’s just because our others views are similar.

  8. Dr. Bertonneau-I’m beginning to suspect you’re taking sides and are not reading my comments. Svar did, in fact, mention that he leaned toward monophysitism.

    I said Stephen sounded an awful lot like one, not that he was one. And I stand by that. He hasn’t offered arguments only attempts at shaming and feigned (I think) shock, and has totally (along with you) misrepresented what people have said.

    And, be honest, is anything we said contrary to what Kristor wrote above? If you don’t want us to say anything “extreme,” (what the left calls racist, ant-semitic, fascist, far-right, religious fundamentalist etc.) just let us know. I’ll go by whatever the policy is.

    I like your articles. I’m trying to be polite, but like Cui said, what is this website for if you’re just going to have the exact same assumptions and taboos as the establishment?

    Stephen-Then give an actual reasoned response rather than acting like a Victorian woman getting the vapors. Responding to Svar’s comment with “oh now you want to kill the Jews?” tells me you probably aren’t as discerning as Dr. Bertonneau claims you are.

    Svar-I can sympathize with your view of Christ as “roaring thunder,” (I like to think of Him as a King) but I really can’t square monophysitism with the New Testament. At least you don’t think of him as an invisible buddy you tell your problems to, so that’s good.

  9. Re whether Judaism is a Christian heresy: the Essenes of Qumran regarded both the Temple priesthood – the Sadducees – and the Pharisees as corrupt apostates from their own True Old Time Religion, the Religion of Adam, Noah, Abraham, and Moses, of which they themselves were the only Remnant. Indeed, they regarded some other (more liberal) parties of Essenes in the same way! They considered the Sadducees corrupted by their collaboration with the Seleucids, and then with Rome; the Pharisees were apostate because they neither had priests – so that they had severed what today is called the Apostolic Succession, and operated outside proper priestly authority – nor did they worship in temples (except on holy days of obligation, when they went down to Jerusalem) – so that they were what today we would call iconoclasts, reliant only on Scripture.

    The Essenes suddenly and completely disappeared from mention in history by 70 AD, just as the Christians suddenly and massively appeared. Some scholars surmise therefore that the Christians *just were* the Essenes (with, of course, many converts from among the Sadducees (such as Joseph of Arimathea), the Pharisees (such as Paul), and the Gentile God-Fearers (such as Luke)). Apart from the Christian insistence that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah and YHWH the Logos, the intersection of Essene and Christian doctrines is complete. Likewise also with organization and praxis. And the Essenes and Christians both referred to themselves using the same terms. So it’s a plausible notion. It would account for the explosive growth of Christianity in Egypt, where there were many Essenes (known thereabouts as Therapeutae for their expertise as healers).

    [In this connection, it is intriguing to recall that immediately after his conversion, Paul left Damascus and spent three years of study – normal for both Essene and Christian catechumens and seminarians at the time (as it had been for the Apostles under the tutelage of Jesus) – *in Arabia* (as Elijah and Moses before him had likewise done). There were then, apparently, Essene or Christian monastic establishments in Arabia, and indeed there had been for centuries on that peninsula many Hebrew polities. “Arabia” in those days included the Sinai, so it might be that Paul retreated to what is today Saint Catherine’s for study and instruction.]

    If Christianity is Essene, and if the Essenes were right about the apostasy of the Pharisees and the Sadducees, then Rabbinic Judaism – which is a development of the Pharisaical tradition – is indeed, as a heresy from the True Old Time Essene Religion of which Christianity is the fulfillment and restoration, ipso facto a Christian heresy.

    Nevertheless it is a stretch to call it that, for the Pharisees had split off from the Essenes long before the latter would have become known as Christians.

    • That is very interesting.

      In any case, as Christians we know that we are the continuation, restoration, and fulfillment of the old time religion. Abraham is our father because we do as Abraham did. Even if the very interesting speculations about the Essenes turn out to be false, the Jews are in fact the heretics, not us.

      The referring to Judaism as a Christian heresy may even have some rhetorical value in dispelling this “older brother in the faith” nonsense. The people who wrote the catechism almost declared that this ethnic group had an eternal covenant with God which is separate from and is not fulfilled by Christ. This is presumably based on their magic dna, in spite of the fact that Talmudic Judaism is clearly a false religion which explicitly rejects Christ.

      • Talmudic Judaism was created in reaction to Christianity and a harsh, hateful reaction at that. This is the form of Judaism that all modern Judaisms are based in, not Biblical Judaism, hence, all modern Jews are heretics.

        “the people who wrote the catechism almost declared that this ethnic group had an eternal covenant with God which is separate from and is not fulfilled by Christ. This is presumably based on their magic dna, in spite of the fact that Talmudic Judaism is clearly a false religion which explicitly rejects Christ.”

        This reminds me of G.K. Chesterton’s criticism of Nazism as being a mirror of Talmudic Judaism and basically the Judaification of the German people

  10. Pingback: The Revolution Devours Her Young | The Orthosphere

  11. Pingback: This Week in Reaction (2015/11/22) | The Reactivity Place

  12. Pingback: Whither Leftism? - Social Matter

  13. Pingback: Whither Leftism? | Neoreactive

Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s