The Great Sortition

I argued in a recent post that, because of its militant, totalitarian presumptions, Islam must sooner or later be destroyed if any other cult – including the cult of the Living God, YHWH our Lord Jesus – is to survive. Because God in Jesus assured us (Matthew 16:18) that his cult simply *cannot* be destroyed (which would only make sense, it being the cult of the Omnipotent One), we may be sure that, sooner or later, Islam certainly *will* be destroyed, or else by some mass apostasy of Muslims simply wither and vanish, as insane cults are wont eventually to do.

Insanity, after all, is autophagic. Like all error, it works its own destruction.

The post garnered more page views than any other we had published since our first few days of existence. Thanks, Western Rifle Shooters!

It also engendered a lively discussion.

Islam Delendam Esse began as my response to a comment from a friend since VFR days, Laura Wood, to a yet earlier post on The New Castellation of the Eurosphere. That post had noticed in the bollards everywhere nowadays proliferating in the West an echo of the profound change that overtook European settlements – namely, fortified towns and castles – due to the depredations of Muslim raiders once Islam had conquered North Africa and deleted the naval hegemony of Byzantium, and with it the peace and prosperity that had theretofore prevailed all around the Mare Romanum, and had then begun its campaign of piracy, looting and slave taking all around the Mediterranean littoral – and beyond it, as far afield as Reykjavik.

Islam Delendam Esse was a response to the argument that – I now paraphrase, begging pardon for overlooking any nuance in so doing – the New Castellation we must all by now have noticed is not really due to the threat of Muslim terrorist attacks, but to something else more evil and more insidious, in which those attacks find their source and succor; and that we ought not, therefore, to focus our defensive gaze and ire foremostly upon Islam.

In the comment thread of the latter post, Laura made it clear – or so it seemed to me – that she thinks we ought to focus our defensive gaze and ire rather upon the Jews, who, ex hypothesi, are the masterminds of the ancient Muslim jihad against the Christian and secular West – and indeed are the masterminds of the West itself in its seven century lurch away from Christianity and toward nominalism and nihilism. In that case, we should not too much attend to threats from the hapless Muslims, who, while they have always hated Christians and Jews with equal fury, have (under the theory that the Jews are running global history), like the Christian princes and secular bureaucrats of Europe, ever been the unwitting pawns of the Jews.

We should on this theory of history then focus on the true source of our own manifold sins and wickedness: the Jews.

It’s a tidy little theory, simple and easy to take on board. Thanks to confirmation bias, support for it is everywhere to be found, once you are on the hunt for it.

And its hedonic payoff is prodigious. For, like all scaping of goats, it proffers an easy path to ritual purity, that swiftly and neatly eliminates all our anxieties about our own culpability in the Fall of the West, exonerating us altogether. Just get rid of the Jews, and everything will then be pretty much hunky dory.

We might then get on undeterred with the elimination of the lawyers – and then the Irish, the Catholics, the Masons, and so forth.

The logic of scaping goats is inexorable: as is clear from the history of every Leftist purge, once you start with it, you can’t stop until you have ostracized, banished and bewildered everyone unlike yourself. But, notice: once you’ve bewildered everyone unlike you, you’ll find yourself alone, and beyond the pale, and bewildered.

Another orthospherean and vile sycophant of long standing, Joseph of Arimathea, demurred. He could not credit that the Jews had been running the European powers for decades; that, in essence, they had been coordinating thousands of disparate gentile minds occupying positions of European power.

Excursus: I gotta say right here: if the Jews are *that good,* then don’t they *deserve* to win? If they are that good, then the Jews are the true aristoi, and the rightful masters of humanity. If they’ve been running us like cattle for a thousand years, then *are we not manifestly no more than cattle*? What on earth, then, could make us dare to think that there was any better alternative way for us to be, than as cattle under their prods, and therefore rightfully subject to our rightful masters?

Just saying.

I presume it is obvious that, in the foregoing, I have been engaging in a reductio ad absurdum.

So much for the prolegomena. I pondered the question. This is my response.

To believe in the Jewish conspiracy, you’d have to believe that the French and American Revolutions were Jewish projects; that Jews were behind the Reformation and the Jesuits, and even the upstart dangerous Franciscans; indeed, you’d have to believe that liberalism itself was a Jewish thing back at its start with nominalism, in the 14th century. And that would mean that you’d have to believe that the Jews were running the minds of Ockham and Roscellinus, which in their terrific acuity and percipience far surpassed any minds that might ever read these words (especially that of their author).

But that dog don’t hunt. The Platonists among the Jews of those days – which is to say, the Kabbalists – were, well, Platonists, like their forebear Philo of Alexandria, and (as Philo insisted) like Moses, in whose schools Plato’s forebear Pythagoras learnt his stuff. The Aristotelian Maimonides meanwhile was in line with Aquinas. All were realists. So were Maimonides with his Kabbalist brethren of the Platonist persuasion arrayed against such as Ockham or Roscellinus, who had set themselves against the realism either of Plato or of Aristotle – which is to say, against Reality, together with their entire Christian inheritance. It was the conservative realists, both Christian and Jewish, against the nominalism that gave rise to liberalism and modernism.

Indeed, in his voluntarism Ockham is closer to Al Ghazali than to any Jewish or Christian or pagan predecessor. So much so, that it makes more sense under Ockham’s own Razor to interpret liberalism rather as a *Mohammedan* threat to Christendom than as a Jewish, that has infected Jews and Christians equally (although that doesn’t really add up, either). Not that the Mohammedans intentionally infected the mind of Doctor Subtilis Ockham, but rather that the voluntarist meme that had destroyed theirs likewise allured his.

I can see how that might happen, even to such an inveterate realist as I. Ockham was after all a professional mystic. And one of the things that is borne in upon the minds of dedicated mystics who are any good at their profession with absolutely incontrovertible force is that their creaturely categories of thought are not ultimately adequate to Ultimacy himself, and do not therefore ultimately tell, and are not therefore, in comparison to Reality himself, after all in themselves anyhow quite completely real.

Mysticism discovers only One Absolute Real. Ain sof, the Kabbalists called him: the Unlimited (in Greek, to apeiron), who is himself the Limit of all things. In this is mysticism correct.

It errs however to think that the One has not really made the Many, in the multifarity of their categories – which, as filled by reals, are then real. It errs to think that there is no real, other than the One Absolute Real. There is, obviously; or else, there could be no such thing as a concrete, actual mystic.

The mystic must unfortunately ever sooner or later descend from the Heaven of Heavens, and discover himself again clothed in flesh, embodied, pinned to the planet, pining, wounded, puny. The trick is to remember that this descent is of the Dove. It is, not essentially sordid, but numinous. It is sordid only insofar as its essential sanctity is forgotten.

You can’t despise the flesh except by despising him who made it, and in his Omniscience saw that it was good.

Of such disagreement with Being himself is the Fall.

OK: back now to Earth from the Empyrean.

It is absurd to suppose that Ockham and Roscellinus were Jewish puppets. None of Ockham’s modernism is after all special to the Jews. It predates by centuries the late wax of their influence upon gentile society, along any dimension. So are they not specially culpable for it; but, rather, have much suffered thereat, just like everyone else.

I have known lots of Jews, and lots and lots of Presbyterians and Episcopalians, and of course quite a few atheists and Catholics (Evangelicals, not so many, although they had a big impact). None of these sorts is more liberal than the others; all these days tend to be fairly liberal, many rabidly so; mostly are they full of the nicest people, at least in their intentions, their bearing, and in the quotidian idols they idolize. They are what is more all generally earnest, well-meaning, and in their private lives quite virtuous (everyone is conservative respecting what is closest to him). They are all very much alike. Good little moderns, i.e.

How not? That’s how we all of us were raised to be.

The Jews then are not especially wicked. The only problem they present, if any, is that while they are normally wicked (as their own scriptures so honestly testify), they are especially talented; so that the liberals among them are a bit better at propagating the liberal meme than their Presbyterian and Episcopalian and atheist and Catholic coreligionists tend to be.

Not that the liberal gentiles are not trying as hard as they can, the poor sods. They are.

Then the undoubted peculiarly effective propagation of liberalism in latter days by the liberal Jews who (very) lately have come to predominate in the commanding heights of our culture is readily understandable as a product of two factors: their native excellence, talent, skill, intelligence, and so forth; and their cultural loyalty to our predominantly liberal culture, that has been almost completely liberal (more or less) under its own steam since about 1800, and to which they joined themselves as (what they took to be) patriots only a little over a century ago.

Jewish liberalism is at odds with the Jews of Israel. So is it at odds with Israel as such; for as devoted especially to the Jewish people, Israel is a fundamentally illiberal state. Indeed, Jewish liberalism is at odds with Judaism per se, period full stop. It is at odds with the House of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. As a repudiation of any transcendent moral order that imposes upon all men his Law – his Torah – and so as a repudiation of the Logos himself, of Memra as he was called in Aramaic, and of GNON – liberalism is a repudiation of the very idea of Judaism. “Liberal Jew” is like “square circle.” To be a good Jew *just is* to be conservative, and traditional; it *just is* to insist that there is a Most High, whose everlasting covenants and commandments it is ontologically impossible to controvert, and also live.

I foresee therefore an eventual mutual repudiation and excommunication of the more and more conservative theist Jews of Israel and their more and more liberal atheist brethren of the Diaspora.

Excursus: It was not too different back in the first century AD, when most of the Jews lived in Egypt and Babylon, and had no Hebrew, but did all speak the lingua franca of the Levant: Greek. So that when Memra wanted to call them Home with his Gospels to the House of his Father, he addressed them in the language of their Hellenic conquerors, that they could read and understand.

As Jewish liberalism is at odds with the Jews, properly so called, so is Christian liberalism at odds with the Christians, properly so called. A similar mutual repudiation was noticed by conservative Evangelicals and Catholics over 30 years ago. That’s why there is First Things.

Padre Neuhaus, pray for us!

It is incredible that anyone other than Lucifer or YHWH could be running history. No merely terrestrial agent, whether individual, or corporate (as with the suggestion that the Jews are at the back of everything (or the Catholics, or the Protestants, or the Irish, or the Commies, or the Masons, or the Nephilim, or what have you)) – could pull off a project of that scale and complexity.

No member of any choir lesser than the Powers could have the computational or cognitive capacity to orchestrate such a thing. It is therefore absurd to suppose that any lesser sort of agent than the Powers is controlling our history. If angels of any choir are controlling history, then either they are of the Heavenly Host – so that they enact the will of YHWH – or they are of the demonic, so that they enact the will of Lucifer.

So: it’s either Lucifer, or YHWH. And, because Lucifer is as nothing in comparison to his rightful Lord, who after all is Omnipotence, it is incredible that anyone other than YHWH is running history. YHWH is Lord of all things: what else is there to say, after all?

Lucifer puts up a good fight, to be sure, especially within us cattle. He muddles things pretty goddamn well, alas. But, in the end, it’s YHWH’s game. YHWH is, after all, himself the playing field, and the rules, and the equipment, and the very reason of the game. Lucifer plays at God’s let.

Without YHWH, Lucifer is literally nothing.

There is no master mind, other than YHWH; other than Jesus, who is God, the Eternal One.

Compared to Christ, then, Satan is an idiot. He barely exists.

Sanctus, sanctus, sanctus, dominus deus Sabaoth, pleni sunt caeli et terra gloria tua; hosanna in excelsis.

Benedictus qui venit in nomine domine; hosanna in excelsis. Amen.

Compared even to Satan, let alone YHWH, whose Word endureth forever, the Jewish nation is as grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away. It barely exists in the first place. So also, a fortiori, for all other peoples. The Chosen People are but the Chosen Grass.

None of this is to demean Israel, or any other people. It is only to put things in perspective.

Within the realm of human action, then, and of merely human history, in which no one, nor any people, has any very great power or control or ability to coordinate things, here is what I see has happened, is happening, and is likely eventually to happen:

  • Every nation naturally and properly does what it can to undermine other and competitive nations – their morals, their prosperity, their morale, their understanding, their intelligence, their customs and laws, and so forth. Every nation wants other nations to be weaker, and itself to be better, so as to prevail. The Jews are no different in this than any other nation. Gentiles do the same thing. Or, they ought to, had they gone not altogether mad of their own insane idolatries.
  • Our current problems are due to the fact that, since the Peace of Westphalia, nations and their cults have been allowed to mix.
    • The Peace of Westphalia ended the European wars of religion (well – it didn’t really end them, but rather only sublimated and obscured them) by establishing tenets of toleration both internationally and intranationally:
    • All parties would recognize the Peace of Augsburg of 1555, in which each prince would have the right to determine the religion of his own state, the options being Catholicism, Lutheranism, and Calvinism (the principle of cuius regio, eius religio).
    • Christians living in principalities where their denomination was not the established church were guaranteed the right to practice their faith in public during allotted hours and in private at their will.
    • Notice that the second tenet contradicts the first; indeed, devours it. If an established religion truly tolerates others in its temenos, and does not persecute them, it cannot long remain established.
    • The Peace of Westphalia could work OK for a while, then, until, due to its internal contradictions, it couldn’t. So, the Peace of Westphalia was doomed to fail, and end. It is now, apparently, over; for,
  • The rise of identity politics indicates that we have reached the limit of amicable liberal cosmopolity – and that, therefore, liberal cosmopolity is now beginning to collapse into enmity and cultic war. Cosmopolity will meet its last comeuppance when Europeans (who alone among all men are its progenitors) realize that other peoples are naturally at war with them (how not?), so rediscover the native virtues of their own ethny and its cult, and begin to fight back against the cosmopolis, and against their national adversaries, who exploit the “liberality” of the cosmopolis as a disguise for their subterfuges. This has already begun to happen. When the Europeans awaken fully, they will unleash their peculiarly effective and lethal violence upon other ethnys. That could get … pretty ugly.
  • What will then follow is a Great Sortition of nations. Peoples will sort themselves out, and separate according to their natural nations. Most of the sortition will be voluntary, and peaceful; indeed, barely noticeable. Some will of course be violent, but I expect this only at the margins, for each little act of ethnic war will show people where they truly belong, and with whom, and so urge them to depart for their proper homelands, where they may live in peace among their own ilk. Homogeneous nations will result.
  • No one will be in charge of this. It will just happen, as after every period of international upheaval it ever has.[1]
  • The Jews will sort themselves, just like everyone else. The Jews will mostly return to Israel. Eventually – sometime in the next few thousand years – the Israelites are destined to be converted to Christianity. Because their cult is next door to Christianity, their path of conversion will be smooth even when reluctant, or prolonged. Their conversion will not make them the same as the European or African or Chinese Christians. They will remain the Jewish Christians; as, anciently, the Church of Jerusalem was distinct from those of Antioch or Alexandria.
  • The Muslims likewise will mostly return to dar al islam, or else convert to Christianity. They too, the Ishmaelim, like their cousins the Israelim, will all sooner or later convert to Christianity – the font and fulfillment of the faith of their forefather Abraham – although their apostasy will take a much shorter time than the Great Return of the Prodigal Jews (or even of the Prodigal Confucians and Taoists); for, their religion is the rejection both of the Old Testament and the New, and so of virtually all of God’s Truth. In the opening of their eyes men will recoil from Islam’s wicked nihilism. When they thus awaken, the Arabs and Persians and Indonesians will not cease to be Arabs, Persians, or Indonesians, merely because they have become Christians. On the contrary: they will be the Arab Christians, the Persian Christians, and the Indonesian Christians. Araby, Persia and Indonesia will then flourish, as never before.
  • A nation is not deleted when it becomes properly Christian, but, rather, intensified and perfected, its nature more fully and completely, more ardently and more lovingly expressed, its peculiar beauties and virtues ennobled and magnified – and its differences from other nations emphasized and sharpened. Of such sharpening comes the true and vivid diversity of peoples, tongues and rites under the True Master Cult, each in its own homeland and in its own way, that makes international travel ever interesting and joyful, and so worthwhile withal, despite the leveling latter day depredations of the globalists upon every locale and its pertinent peculiar native wonts; and that makes every homecoming an occasion of rejoicing and relief.
  • Because nations cohere in virtue of their predominant adherence to their national cults, all nations will require loyalty vows – not just for high office, but for citizenship, and even mere subjection to local laws – that are religious in nature. They will require commitments to their national cults.
  • Those national cults are bound to tend toward Christianity, which as simply True is the strange attractor of all strange attractors. But, on the one hand, that tendency could take 20,000 years to fruit comprehensively; and, on the other, even when it did, the national cults would still be distinct, peculiar, parochial, and each admirable in its way (as today are the Maronite, Roman, Ambrosian, and Anglican rites).
  • After the Great Sortition, America (whatever her remaining territorial extent at that time) will have become again a Christian nation. She will include people of many national origins, sure, but only insofar as they have pledged their allegiance to the Flag, and to the American Republic (howsoever the Americans of that day understand it), under the Christian God – i.e., the Nicene God; and that pledge of national allegiance will not be construed by any who consider themselves native Americans as altogether honest or valid or therefore true and trustworthy unless it has committed its credents also and first to the Credo. Or, at the very bitter least, to the Apostles Creed. This will mean that unless they convert, Jews and Muslims, atheists and Buddhists, and so forth, will not be allowed to be Americans at all, even of the second or third class. They will be treated as aliens, resident temporarily under temporary visas, tolerated for a time, but forced eventually to depart.

As God showed us at Babel, nations are natural to man, and proper – as proper and as basic, aye, as the mutual loyalty of man and wife, than which we cannot do without and survive as a species, and of which nations are the natural and logical extensions; and he will not do without them. The Jews never, ever forgot this lesson, and so remained loyal to their nation, as against all others – as every patriotic nation ought to do.[2] Almost everyone else in the West did forget his debts to his nation; or else, remembering what he ought to have done in honor of his patrimonial inheritance, consciously repudiated his forefathers – a Prodigal Son, sleeping with swine.

For shame! All nations ought to be at least as faithful to their patrimonies as those dilatory, unfaithful Jews have been, to theirs.

++++++++++++++++

[1] NB: Intermixion of peoples within one territory *just is* international upheaval.

[2] Was it only in this loyalty that their superiority to other nations consisted? Nah; lots of other nations have been loyal to their national angels.

46 thoughts on “The Great Sortition

  1. Pingback: The Great Sortition | @the_arv

  2. Pingback: The Great Sortition | Reaction Times

  3. Makes sense. Seems to me Jews are just like any other group – they play one off the other to advance their own. Only, they do appear to be much better at it than most. Of course, group loyalty can and does change – you have liberal Jews, Christians, etc. whose highest loyalty is not to Judaism or Christianity, but to liberalism (same goes for conservatives – or right liberalism). So with whatever a particular group identifies, it promotes that identity directly or by playing other groups off each other. Thus, LBGTQRSP has no particular love for BLM (and vice versa), but LBGTQRSP will play BLM off the Right/Alt-Right because they are a joint enemy. Globalists do the same with nationalists (what, after all is BLM if not nationalist?).

    • Exactly. Our liberal adversaries (of whatever nation or culture) are pushing sodomy, usury, moral inversion, confusion of language, and infanticide upon us. But they are not *forcing* that insanity on us. All they are doing is selling it. If we didn’t want it, we wouldn’t be buying.

      Christendom is Théoden; he is beset by Grima Wormtongue, whose foul suasions he has credited.

      • I might be wrong about this, but I don’t think anyone in this particular discussion has said that Jews (or anyone else, for that matter) are *forcing* anything on the rest of us. Supply-and-demand and all that, sure, but I’m having a bit of a hard time figuring out how some group of men or other, who occupy a disproportionate number of influential positions (disproportionate to their numbers) are not as well disproportionately influential in those areas. When we talk about the MSM, Hollywood, the porn industry, The Fed, etc., we know we’re talking about a disproportionate Jewish influence.

      • A disproportionate *liberal* influence. If Jews are characterologically liberal as a matter of genetics, or if liberalism had been a Jewish thing from the get go, then we could get rid of liberalism if we just deleted the influence of the Jews. But neither of those premises appears to be true, prima facie. And, based on my wide acquaintance with modern gentiles of all stripes, the commanding heights of our culture would these days be commanded overwhelmingly by liberals even if there were no Jews anywhere outside Israel.

        It’s Boston. It’s the Yankees. Literally all the SJW movements in American history began with the Yankees. Heck, Massachusetts was founded by SJWs.

        It’s the Yankees. I say that as a son of New England.

      • A disproportionate *liberal* influence. If Jews are characterologically liberal as a matter of genetics, or if liberalism had been a Jewish thing from the get go,…

        Well, I’m not sure what to say to that. We all know that *every* people group is more or less liberal. Indeed, you may recall that I have speculated before that *all* human beings are more or less attracted to various aspects of Communism, by which I mean liberalism in its purest form. Whether Jews are disproportionately liberal (relative to other people groups) I don’t know. In fact, I don’t “know” much of anything, but I have strong doubts that that is in fact the case. It’s not my argument anyway, but since I don’t seem to be doing a very good job making it, I should probably just let it go.

      • Yeah, like all our problems, liberalism has its first roots in Eden. Lucifer’s enticement to Eve is that the Apple will make her like God – equal. Satan’s proposal is that the natural and divine hierarchy should be flattened. Sounds familiar, right?

        Like every SJW wrecker, Eve says to herself at that point, “Sounds good! What could possibly go wrong?”

        Unlike all the wreckers who followed her exemplary pattern, Eve could credibly say afterward, when everything had gone to Hell for her and her husband, “How could I possibly have known?” She couldn’t have, in fact; she was utterly innocent of any knowledge of what evil might be like until she had inflicted it upon herself. But by then it was too late.

        Later wreckers could not honestly take advantage of that excuse, for the invisible things of God from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse. Romans 1:20. The knowledge of good and evil that men inherited from the disobedience of their First Parents ensured that they all knew the real moral score perfectly goddamn well at every moment of the game. In order to obscure their own deep inward knowledge of the true state of affairs in the created order, which is given in the very constitution of the human person and which makes its presence and valence known to us in the pricks of conscience when we rebel against our proper ends, the wreckers must first resort to one of the Seven Deadly Sins: sloth.

        They take advantage of the excuse, alright, but dishonestly, enabled by their moral and intellectual laziness.

        So, anyway, yeah, I have zero doubt that we inherited a concupiscent tendency toward egalitarianism from our First Parents. It’s the sin of envy or covetousness, another of the Seven Deadly Sins. It is ever with us, ever tempting and threatening. And it crops up again and again through history. As Plato and Polybius well knew, egalitarian democracy has always been the terminal stage of political depravation.

  4. Kristor, you wrote, “It’s the Yankees. I say that as a son of New England.” I thought that you were from the heartland — a corn-fed Hoosier who was raised in God’s country with basketball and sunrises on the fields? Or do you speak of being a son of New England in the same sense as that of a curse, wretched even unto the fourth generation?

    • Born in Connecticut – at Yale Hospital, actually – and moved to Indiana in 3rd Grade. Stayed there through college, with lots of trips to foreign parts like Arizona and California, where I now live, a stranger in a strange land. I consider myself a Hoosier who, like most of the first few waves of Hoosiers, hailed from the mountains of New England and the Mid-Atlantic. I’m one of those Yankee Hoosiers.

      And I don’t by any means intend any generic condemnation of Yankees. Most Yankees are pretty down to earth people, who with a jaundiced eye look askance on the conniptions down at Cambridge.

      To this day, I feel more at home in Vermont than anywhere else in North America. But if you want to bring a tear to my eye, sing “Back Home Again, in Indiana.”

  5. Yes, even if we start with the modern age (instead of with the introduction of nominalism), nearly all the major thinkers who laid the foundational principles for modernism and liberalism were gentiles: Descartes, Kant, Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau, Hegel, etc. The only major exception is Spinoza, and it’s not clear to me what he really contributed to the modern project (I sometimes wonder if he is just included precisely because he’s a Jew. The Jews need someone to boast about). Jews didn’t get into the Enlightenment act until about a century after it got off the ground. By the time these gentile thinkers had done their damage, liberalism and modernism had an internal logic of their own that would have developed with or without Jewish involvement, although of course Jews influenced the specific directions it would ultimately take, especially in the 19th and 20th centuries (most notably of course: Marx. But is there a Marx without a Hegel?).

    I agree with the reasons you offer for the disproportionate Jewish involvement in the propagation of liberalism. I think one major reason for greater Jewish commitment to liberalism (compared perhaps to other groups) is because Jews found liberalism particularly appealing as a vehicle for liberation in a society from which they were excluded: liberalism promised a publicly neutral standard, and this was naturally appealing to a group that found themselves living under the hegemony of the Church. (I’m currently reading The Body of Faith by the late Michael Wyschogrod: he describes this phenomenon from the Jewish, anti-liberal perspective). One could easily see how a Christian living in, say, a Muslim land might favor a secular government for the same reason.

    ***

    Not that the Mohammedans intentionally infected the mind of Doctor Subtilis…

    Doctor Subtilis: are you referring here to Ockham or to Duns Scotus?

    ***

    Every nation naturally and properly does what it can to undermine other and competitive nations – their morals, their prosperity, their morale, their understanding, their intelligence, their customs and laws, and so forth.

    What do you mean by this? It might by typical for nations to take this approach towards other competitive nations, but it is not ‘natural’ or ‘proper’ for nations to try to undermine another nation’s morals and customs and laws.

    ***

    Homogeneous nations will result.

    What do you mean by ‘nation’? If by ‘nation’, you mean an independent, self-governing sovereign authority, then it wouldn’t seem that this is inevitable: there have been plenty of long-lived multi-ethnic nations in this sense (and therefore not homogeneous), and I don’t see any reason why this couldn’t again be the case after a return to Christianity.

    If by ‘nation’ you simply mean a people, then you’re probably correct. But multiple peoples might still be united under a single central governmental authority.

    • The only major exception is Spinoza, and it’s not clear to me what he really contributed to the modern project (I sometimes wonder if he is just included precisely because he’s a Jew. The Jews need someone to boast about).

      Not only that, but the Jews excommunicated Spinoza as a heretic. So, even if we grant that he was a modernist, his modernism – so far as the Jews were concerned – disqualified him as a Jew.

      Spinoza is sui generis, I think. Neither modern nor traditional, just himself. His nonconformity to traditional Judaism certainly smells modern. But his actual thought is – well, I don’t know how I would classify it, or even that it should be classified. It doesn’t fit well into modernism.

      But is there a Marx without a Hegel?

      Probably not. Because Darwin.

      Speaking of which: how can Communists be Darwinians? How do they manage that hat trick? I’m stumped.

      Jews found liberalism particularly appealing as a vehicle for liberation in a society from which they were excluded: liberalism promised a publicly neutral standard, and this was naturally appealing to a group that found themselves living under the hegemony of the Church. … One could easily see how a Christian living in, say, a Muslim land might favor a secular government for the same reason.

      Exactly. This is why mixing up cults – or their dependant peoples or cultures (not to mention languages) – in a single territory is a recipe for eventual war. Some of the heretical Christians in Egypt welcomed the putatively more tolerant Mohammedan invaders precisely because they chafed under the oppression of the Orthodox Emperor and his bishops (and especially his monks).

      Doctor Subtilis: are you referring here to Ockham or to Duns Scotus?

      Oh, for Pete’s sake! Duh. That’s the second time in a week that I’ve misremembered something basic about an important historical personage. Thanks; will fix. Let me just refresh this nice glass of bourbon first …

      It might be typical for nations to take this approach towards other competitive nations, but it is not ‘natural’ or ‘proper’ for nations to try to undermine another nation’s morals and customs and laws.

      It is natural and proper for nations to defend their own integrity against all comers. This defense can take the form of an offense of some sort. Whether or not a particular offensive act is proper – is just – would be a matter for the canon lawyers, on a case by case basis.

      If the judgements of the canonists are to cut any ice, of course, their employer must be a supranational ecclesial authority, with real and terrific power to condemn. Another good argument for a sacerdotal hierarchy that goes all the way up, way, way beyond the level of the local patriarchate or province.

      Whether or not a given offense is just would depend also upon whether the offended nation is inimical to the offender. If not, then the offense would clearly be unjust (it would be evil, e.g., for the US to act so as to degrade the morals or economy of Britain, or vice versa; for, these two nations (if so we may dignify them) are utmost friends and allies; indeed, cousins). If so, then maybe. When Britain and France were at bitter enmity over the scourge of Bonapartism, it was probably proper for Britain to do all she could to engender confusion among the French.

      If by ‘nation’ you simply mean a people, then you’re probably correct. But multiple peoples might still be united under a single central governmental authority.

      Yeah, that’s what I meant. The great European empires – Greek, Roman, Holy Roman, Byzantine, Austro-Hungarian, Venetian, Russian, even Swedish – all governed diverse nations, each of which remained distinct. That sort of arrangement can work really well for a long time, so long as the cosmopolis does not try to mix up all its subsidiary nations (or otherwise destroy them as peoples). Terre Haute doesn’t mind being a department of Indiana; but if Indianapolis were to insist that Terre Haute had to accept 100,000 Bloomingtonians, well, the consequences don’t bear thinking about.

      • By the way, was Darwin influenced by Hegel? Not necessarily consciously I mean, but it seems that Hegel’s philosophy could have provided an intellectual paradigm conducive to Darwinism.

        Whether or not a given offense is just would depend also upon whether the offended nation is inimical to the offender. If not, then the offense would clearly be unjust (it would be evil, e.g., for the US to act so as to degrade the morals or economy of Britain, or vice versa; for, these two nations (if so we may dignify them) are utmost friends and allies; indeed, cousins). If so, then maybe. When Britain and France were at bitter enmity over the scourge of Bonapartism, it was probably proper for Britain to do all she could to engender confusion among the French.

        My concern is this: can it ever be ok to intend to degrade or undermine someone’s morals? Even if an enemy?

        That doesn’t sound right to me. It sounds like intending evil so that good may come.

        It’s one thing to wage war on your enemy and recognize that there might result more unfaithful husbands among the enemy as a result of soldiers being away from their wives. It’s another to send beautiful women into enemy territory in order to seduce their men and tempt them to sin in order to undermine social stability and sow confusion.

      • … can it ever be ok to intend to degrade or undermine someone’s morals? Even if an enemy?

        It’s a question for the canon lawyers. I note however that intending to kill enemy soldiers is intending an evil; so is intending to sabotage an enemy rail line; so even is intending to kill one of the enemy’s cats (who eats the mice that eat the enemy’s grain).

        War is throughly an evil business.

    • The culture of the religion of love is the most warlike on the planet, and its people the most competent. They conquered the whole world. You think there is a conflict between love and war? Not for the Church Militant.

      Love is the most violent thing of all. He is going to destroy the universe.

      • The refugees are not being welcomed by Christians, but by liberals. Liberalism is a different religion than Christianity. It is inimical to Christianity.

      • Right. What’s really interesting is how often they criticize Christianity for being both X and ¬X. E.g., they’ll complain that Christianity is too harsh, and then in the next breath that it is too soft; too militant and too gentle; too judgemental and too forgiving; and so forth.

      • Yes that is interesting. I was just musing over that very same dynamic at work after reading a well written comment in the latest thread over at Zippy’s. Donnie wrote that Adam was punished more severely than Eve because of the nature of his crime and greater accountability. I don’t dispute the claim, but I’ve seen lots of feminists and “white knights” dispute it on the one hand, and agree with it on the other. I.e., when it suits their purposes to agree with the proposition that God’s punishment inflicted on Adam was harsher than that inflicted on Eve, they will go along; whereas when it doesn’t suit their purposes “Adam’s punishment was harsher? Men have no idea what it is to suffer in childbirth!” – then not s’much.

        Human nature I guess.

      • My first thought: kids.

        “I didn’t do it! And I didn’t mean to do it!”

        I suppose we’d all like to have everything both ways. To have our cake and eat it too.

      • Exactly. It’s childishness, borne of a refusal to grow up. And children are just little human beings after all. Some grow out of it and some don’t, I suppose. Which is why Zippy later writes in the thread,

        IRL I find that approaching all other human beings as if they were overgrown children, until demonstrated otherwise, works pretty well.

        Quite so. Part of the growing up process involves coming to the realization that, no matter how much (s)he desires it and goes to great lengths to establish it, one can’t possibly have it both ways. It’s either A or non-A; there are no other options or possibilities.

      • Terry, you’ve touched on something truly profound. The child’s urge to have his cake and eat it too is Eve’s urge: “Why can’t I eat the apple, and know good and evil, and remain innocent and blameless too? It’s not fair!”

        Sheesh. The human problem goes deep.

  6. Regarding Hegel: He was an evolutionist only up to a point, that point being Hegel, beyond whom there is no transcendence.

    The difference between Darwin and Hegel is that Hegel was a teleological thinker (the telos being Hegel) whereas Darwin was not merely a non-teleological, but an anti-teleological thinker.

  7. I still second Mrs. Woods’ general sentiment which should not be exaggerated for the purpose of minimizing a specifically Jewish collectivist role in undermining traditional Western civilization.

    There isn’t a dimes worth of difference between Orthodox Jew and radical leftist Jew on the wS question. In fact, there isn’t a dimes worth of difference between Orthodox Jews, leftist Jews, Sunni Muslims, Shia Muslims, Catholics, Eastern Catholics or any of the denominational Christians. ALL are anti-wS, without question.

    Yet, this intra-Catholic dispute over the actual accountability of Judaism versus Islam in undermining WHITE Christianity still assumes no “equality” between the perpetraitors. In other words, this intra-Catholic dispute does not assume that Judaism and Islam EQUALLY undermine WHITE Christianity (neither can actually undermine justChristianity).

    So now, the anti-egalitarian nature of the dispute gets to MISS THE POINT so that otherwise healthy-minded whites see Christianity as being under an existential threat when the existential threat is to a white race.

    The Jews, whether Orthodox or leftist, just as the Mohammedans, are perpetuating self-annihilators. They have Fallen and do not want to get up. They all deny a path to (P)erfection which is most intimately known by faith alone.

    And there is no doubt that, collectively, the Jews qua Jews SELL “self-annihilation” to the white race to a much greater extent than the Mohammedans.

    • How do the doctrines of White Christianity differ from the doctrines of Christianity? If they don’t, then of what use is the term “White Christianity”? If they do, then how do they evade heresy?

      Thordaddy, I have pressed you repeatedly to furnish citations to Christian Scripture, Tradition, or Magisterium that would support your idiosyncratic notions of Christian doctrine. You haven’t supplied a single one. It appears therefore that your idiosyncratic notions are … well, utterly idiosyncratic. So far as I can tell from your descriptions of them – which, to be fair, is very little – no other Christians I know of have ever adhered to those notions. And that means that they are almost certainly heretical. And that means that they are almost certainly errant: wrong, false.

      … otherwise healthy-minded whites see Christianity as being under an existential threat when the existential threat is to a white race.

      Tell the Iraqi or Sudanese or Coptic Christians that they are not facing existential threat on account of their Christianity. I don’t dispute that whites are existentially threatened, of course. But if all the whites were eliminated, Islam would still be at war with all the remaining Christians.

      … collectively, the Jews qua Jews sell “self-annihilation” to the white race to a much greater extent than the Mohammedans.

      Well, of course they do. There are no Muslim liberals to speak of anywhere; and there are almost no Muslims occupying influential offices anywhere in the West. But there are lots and lots of liberal Jews, and they occupy lots of influential offices all over the West. Their religion is not Judaism, but liberalism. You pretty much have to subscribe to the Established Religion of the West – liberalism – in order to ascend to any of those influential offices. And liberalism propagates by propaganda. So naturally liberal Jews are pushing more liberal propaganda than the Mohammedans. So are the liberal Episcopalians and Presbyterians.

      Muslims do not threaten the West by means of propaganda. They threaten the West by means of terrorism, and invasion. Bollards are not erected against pornographers or bankers, but bombers.

      Out of curiosity, when you write that, “Jews sell ‘self-annihilation,’” do you mean that they don’t actually sell self-annihilation, but rather something else? That’s what your use of scare quotes would generally be taken to mean, under standard English syntax. If that’s what you mean, then what is it that the Jews are selling under the tendentious label of “self-annihilation”?

      If you mean something different, then, two questions:

      1. What the heck *do* you mean?
      2. Why do you deploy the scare quotes, rather than just saying what you mean?

      • How do the doctrines of White Christianity differ from the doctrines of Christianity? — Kristor

        The former gives no credence to anti-racist ideology. The latter assumes a deracinated conception in this time of a dominant modernism.

      • Then White Christianity as you conceive it is heretical. Nowhere in Scripture, Tradition, or the Magisterium – not just of the Catholic Church, but of *any Christian communion whatever* – is this notion even mentioned. Christianity is simply *not about race.* It is silent on the topic. That does not mean it is against races, nor does it mean that it is for races. It means only that it is silent on the topic.

        You are a heretic. Why not just admit it?

      • What I meme is that Jews as Jews sell the “right to self-annihilate” as the ultimate freedom. These “rights” are called abortion, homosexuality, miscegenation, transgenderism, euthanasia, divorce, etc.

        Of course, I don’t actually believe in the “right” to annihilate the self either as an ideal or, ultimately. as possible, and so I use quotes to signify a liberal assumption not presumptuously agreed to.

      • But Jews, properly so called – Jews as Jews – *do not* believe in the right to self annihilate. They don’t believe in abortion, homosexuality, and so forth. Judaism repudiates those notions (given wiggle room for Abrahamic divorce).

        You need to be more careful with your terms. You are talking about *liberal* Jews. I.e., Jews who, like the Episcopalians, have *utterly repudiated* their patrimony, and their religion, in favor of liberalism. These are, to be clear, Jews who have left Judaism, in favor of liberalism. They are, in other words, and no matter what they might think, *no longer Jews.* They are apostate.

      • Kristor…

        Let us not lose sight of the larger point which is that Mrs. Woods’ sees a vociferous denouncement of Islam as an attempt to minimize the role of collective Jewish subversion. And in making note of this dynamic, Mrs Woods has received backlash from former readers. I am here to write that I support her general sentiment and I can “see” what she sees.

      • Can you see what she means, or can you only “see” what she means, so that in fact you *cannot* see what she means, but rather only “see” it? In the former case, you see what she means; in the latter, you are utterly blind to her meaning. You don’t see it at all, but rather are mewed up in your own imaginations.

        From the way you write, it sure looks like you are utterly blind to normal meanings. It looks like you are indeed mewed up in your own imaginations – which is to say, mad.

        Thordaddy, for God’s sake, stop it with all these stupid scare quotes. Can’t you understand that the only thing they accomplish is to make you look like a foolish crank, who ought to be ignored? Write like a Christian, for Christ’s sake. Or else, reveal yourself an enemy of the love of God, intent on your own disobedient peculiar ways.

        But anyway, that’s not what Laura suggested, God bless and keep her. She suggested in effect that Mohammedan terrorism is no big deal, because it is not really Mohammedan to begin with, but rather Jewish. It is true that liberal “Jews” preach self-annihilation, like the liberal “Episcopalians.” But it is historically jejune to think that the Jews are behind and in control of the ancient and implacable Mohammedan jihad against Christianity and the West – and Judaism, and Buddhism, and everything else whatever than Islam.

      • There are no Muslim liberals to speak of anywhere…

        Kristor, what do you make of the survey cited in this article?

        I think Muslims are not immune to the enticements of liberalism.

      • Certainly, Muslims are not immune from temptation. No one is. I would be shocked if even the most traditional Muslims subjected for a lifetime to the unremitting propaganda of the liberal religion that suffuses the West did not tend toward liberal apostasy. But it is important to remember that, to the extent you are a liberal, you have repudiated other religions, even though you might still outwardly observe their rites and customs (this, because a fundamental premise of liberalism is that no one has privileged access to the Truth). I said above that “liberal Jew” and “liberal Christian” are like “square circle.” So are “liberal Muslim” and “liberal Confucian” and “liberal Hindu.”

        This is why the Church so strongly emphasizes that to be Catholic at all, you must believe all of Catholic dogma, without exception. Cafeteria Catholics are not Catholics anymore, but liberals; for, in picking and choosing the doctrines they are willing to credit, they have rejected the Church’s privileged access to Truth.

        You can be a liberal Gnostic, atheist or New Ager without too much contradiction, perhaps. But, no: even those religions in their strictest forms are contradicted by liberalism. For, Gnostics believe that Gnostics have privileged access to Truth; and thoroughgoing atheists believe that science gives access to Truth; and the strictest form of the New Age religion is esoteric Perennialism, which is next door to orthodox Christianity, Islam, or Judaism.

        Nevertheless I stand by my statement that there are no Muslim liberals to speak of anywhere; that, i.e., there are not very many liberals out there that continue seriously to ostend Islam. Islam involves so many radical illiberalities, that it must be horribly difficult to intend liberalism and ostend Islam at the same time. The cognitive dissonance would have to be excruciating. So, I would expect that once a Muslim accepted a single principle of liberalism in his heart, he would soon leave Islam altogether. He would stop practicing, as so many liberal Christians have done.

      • Kristor,

        It isn’t clear what exactly it means to “write like a Christian” where one’s race (his fathers) is neither here nor there as it relates to being motivated to Christianity?

        Scare quotes HAVE MORE than their traditional uses. Scare quotes need to be utilized where one is communicating with a radical liberal using a radically liberated language as most cannot communicate in Christianized proper English. Scare quotes are needed where one needs to signify that a alternate frame is being proffered and one is not necessarily in full agreement with that reframe.

        But alas,

        Neither you or I differ on the fundamentals.

        You desire (P)erfection, ie., objective (S)upremacy.

        And you are a white male (in the general scheme of things).

        Secularly-speaking, you are a white (S)upremacist.

        The only dispute is whether this disposition is racially-motivated?

        MOST Christians claim, “Not at all” AND BELIEVE this is a good thing.

        I disagree.

      • Scare quotes HAVE MORE than their traditional uses.

        This is a traditionalist site. We insist upon traditional usages. It’s right there in our comments policy.

        Again, Thordaddy, if you want readers, it behooves you to be readable. If you insist on idiosyncratic syntax, almost everyone will quickly conclude that you are a hopeless crank, and will avoid your prose.

      • So when I write that I “see” what Mrs. Woods is seeing, I was referring to her general sentiment (Jews are not being held accountable at all for the undermining of white Christianity) without necessarily seeing what YOU CLAIM to “see” as her general sentiment (Jews are totally responsible for undermining white Christianity).

      • But did you see what Mrs. Woods is seeing, or did you only “see” it? When you say, “I ‘see’ what Mrs. Woods is seeing,” readers understand you to be saying that you *don’t* see what she is seeing.

        All you are doing with your scare quotes is confusing readers, and driving them away. And, apparently, confusing yourself. After all, you only “see.”

      • Kristor…

        Lawrence Auster used to write about liberals who were able to use the vocabulary of God to propagate godlessness and the inability of intellectually challenged Christians to thwart this perversion of reality by the use of a liberated language.

        IF I said…

        “I can see what Mrs. Woods sees” then the default assumption — the assumption that coheres to a dominant equality — is that I am seeing EXACTLY what Mrs. Woods is seeing.

        That simply is not the case and so without scare quotes, the general reader is given the wrong assumption.

        Yet, “I can see what Mrs. Woods sees” can also be understood as a figure of speech AMONGST traditionalists. But again, I was not writing the above as a figure of speech because I have more than a mere sense and understanding of Mrs. Woods’ vision.

        So when I stated that I can “see” what Mrs. Woods is seeing, I am in possession of a similar vision of her sentiment WITHOUT necessarily seeing exactly what she is seeing.

      • OK, I get this. But it would have been far simpler for readers, particularly your poor moderator, if you had simply said something like: “While I don’t agree with her 100%, I see what Mrs. Woods is saying …”

        I for one would be terrifically grateful if you would stop using your idiosyncratic syntactical shorthand and just write out what you have to say at full length, like everyone else. Thordaddy, you often have valuable insights, but it’s hellish death to prise them from your characteristic prose. In your recent exchanges with John Zande, you had moments of perfect clarity and simplicity, and indeed metaphysical penetration, and then you would lapse again into your idiosyncratic usages, that left him utterly mystified as to your meaning. Then in your next comment you would be back to clarity and … *power.* It is that you should write toward.

        I have urged you to write like a Christian. What that means is, that you should write with charity toward your reader. Write to your readers where they are. Don’t write just to yourself, where you are.

        I harbor a suspicion that you have discovered some pretty important and original things, that are to the rest of us completely obscured by your prose. Dude: your idiosyncratic English is a bushel, under which you hide your light. Let out that light. Expatiate; spell it out for us, in conventional English syntax and diction, so that we can understand your mind.

        Write like a Christian.

        PS: I have to say that, as a moderator, it often kills me to delete comments from you that I can tell you have labored over mightily, on account of the fact that I simply can’t make head or tail of them. It’s not just that I worry over your hurt feelings, although I do. Your commitment to the cause is evident, and I would rather encourage than discourage you. But no; it is not only my care for you as a person and a shieldmate that so hurts me when I find I must press the “delete” button. It is that I worry I have missed something quite valuable in your thinking on account of the way that you have expressed it. This causes me real pain.

  8. Pingback: Doing good in a time of evil. | Dark Brightness

  9. Thordaddy sees Laura’s “larger point” being “a vociferous denouncement of Islam as an attempt to minimize the role of collective Jewish subversion.” This strikes me as what is most incoherent about Laura’s position.

    Assuming for argument’s sake that Jews are pulling all the strings, why should we not vociferously denounce Islam whenever there’s a jihad attack? Shouldn’t we still try to awaken the American people (who are still somnolent on this subject) to the danger that Islam poses to us and all of Western civilization? And if the Mohammedans are aided and abetted in these attacks by the Jews (the enemy of my enemy and all that), wouldn’t we be thwarting the evil designs of the Jews by resisting Islam to the fullest? From such a resistance might emerge what is most dreaded by those commanding the heights: a cultural revival where people are unafraid to use words like “mankind” or “chain migration”, or even refer to a man as “he”.

    Finally, by diminishing the culpability of Islam, she is in fact embracing and advancing the narrative of the international Left, even echoing their sentimental themes. She ends up doing the work of the “Imperium”, Judaic or otherwise.

    • Scott in PA…

      I’ve already answered this charge in a moderated response not yet published.

      I am not in one hundred percent agreement with Mrs. Woods on the subject (real race-realists have already answer the JQ), but her general sentiment is hardly without merit.

      And “false flags…”

      This ^^^ is what really throws many temperate trads for a real loop.

      • Meaning, it’s not so outrageous that a “Jewish” cabal is massively influencing reality, but that said cabal is utilizing false flags to reach its ultimate aim. An aim which itself is hardly scrutinized by the religious right.

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