The Argument From the Enmity of Our Enemies

My heart is of course broken at the disaster inflicted yesterday upon Notre Dame de Paris. All that must be said about the cultural and religious meaning of this catastrophe has already been well said by many commentators of the Right, so I shall not here repeat them. Everyone knows that this was an attack of the Enemy upon the Body of Christ, and upon Christendom, such as she still is. The chorus of the Right has now, rightly, begun to ask why this obvious fact may not be mentioned. And everyone knows the answer to that question, too: Islam, modernism and Liberalism are all bound and determined to destroy Christianity, and Christendom.

One thing only, of the obvious, necessary things that must be said, have I not yet seen anywhere said: Saint Denis, Our Lady, and all the saints, pray for France, for the West, and for her Church.

There is a yet deeper question: why is it, exactly, that Liberalism, modernism, Islam, et alia, are so determined to destroy Christianity?

Why is it, for that matter, that Satanism can characterize itself, and enact its rituals, only by means of its opposition to Christianity, and especially to the Church?

Each of them would I suppose answer that they oppose Christianity because they believe it to be false, and their own religion to be true. But that answer begs another: if their own religions are true, and the others are all false, why do they so seldom level their ire or their fire at each other? To some extent they do, of course; e.g., the more consistent and rational among the feminists and the Mohammedans decry each other. Nevertheless, for all its competitors, Christianity is first among enemies.

Why?

The answer to this question, too, is I think obvious: all other cults hate Christianity above each other because deep down they intuit that Christianity alone, and unlike them, is simply true.

I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; and shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

Exodus 20:1-6

Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you. Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.

Matthew 5:11-13

33 thoughts on “The Argument From the Enmity of Our Enemies

  1. It is hard not to see symbolism in that the Cathedral of Our Lady goes up in flames on the first day of Holy Week.

    I pray that it is more a message that new construction built on the Church is ill-fitting, reminding us to focus on preservation over reconstruction.

    The alternative, to me, is that it is a message that the Church is in flames and the faithful are like the relics trapped within it, waiting for someone to deliver them to safety.

    I am no cynic of Church matters, and I certainly recognize that my over-active imagination may be the only thing amiss about this perfectly ordinary tragedy of a building catching fire. Mostly I just pray that I will live to see tomorrow and I will have the strength to be as faithful then as I am now, if not moreso, and that the trials of Christianity in a world set against it will fall on the shoulders of more capable men than I.

    I echo your prayers as well, Amen.

  2. Everyone knows that this was an attack of the Enemy upon the Body of Christ, and upon Christendom, such as she still is.

    Has there been any actual evidence to indicate that this was something other than an accident? Or do you mean it was ipso facto an act of Satan (whether or not any human agency was involved)?

    As far as I know only the rankest purveyors of bullshit (eg Infowars) have made charges like that and I’m a bit surprised to find you joining them.

    Even among radical leftists who hate the authoritarianism that Notre Dame represents, I can find almost nobody cheering its destruction, because everyone recognizes that it represents other things as well.

    • Apart from a photograph of a man wearing what looks like a keffiyeh on a balcony of one of the towers of the Cathedral as the roof was burning behind it, I have not seen any evidence one way or another. Neither had the French authorities when, about 20 minutes into the fire, they declared it certainly accidental. It is premature to announce the cause of the fire, either way. The obviously specious character of the pronouncement of the French authorities therefore indicates that they fear there is something that they might need to hide.

      But my point was, yes, that whatever the proximal source of the fire – whether or not, e.g., an Algerian construction worker in the scaffolds flicked his lit cigarette onto a bucket of sealant with ill intent either conscious or unconscious – its original source was man’s First Enemy, Satan.

      All evils – all illness, ill fortune, disaster, death, loss, error, disharmony, sin, disobedience, vice, violence, madness, defect, wickedness, schism, falsehood, and heresy – including the heresy of Islam – have that same original source and inspiration. But no one is permitted to mention that source, or any of his agents or instruments – such as Islam – in connection with the immolation of Notre Dame, or with any of the other evils that Mohammedans nowadays manifestly inflict every day upon the West.

      The networks have already begun to turn off the microphones of experts who dare to mention the thousands of incidents of church vandalism in France over the past two years. No one will be permitted to notice any trends or correlations of trends, or to draw any causal inferences, or therefore to respond appropriately. And the President of France, that quisling toad, has already declared that she will rebuild Notre Dame in accord with today’s cult of diversity and multiculturalism – which is to say, in effect, not as a church, but as, effectually, a house of Muslim prayer and atheist imprecation.

      You won’t find many leftists openly cheering the destruction of Notre Dame, because in what remains of Christendom it is still somewhat indecorous and politically disadvantageous to announce forthrightly and honestly and publicly – or even to yourself – that you are at mortal enmity with Christ. So Europeans of Christian heritage have to make their allegiance to his Enemy known to others of that ilk – and so, obtain great social credit among them – by cautioning us all against noticing that Mohammedans are behind the church vandalism, the rapes, the no-go zones, the car burnings, and so forth, and insisting that if we do notice, we must certainly not blame Islam or Mohammedans for what Mohammedans do in the name of Islam. Likewise they would never say that they think that Christ and his Church are evil, for to do so would thwart their purpose of destroying his Body; rather, they say such things as that Jesus was a great moral teacher, damning with faint praise.

      The Mohammedans among us suffer no such scruples; they were observed responding to the fire at the Cathedral with laughter and rejoicing, and with cries of “allahu akbar!”

  3. The writer John C. Wright answered this question in his brilliant Restless Heart of Darkness series of blogposts at http://www.scifiwright.com/2014/01/the-restless-heart-of-darkness-part-one/

    “The worldly man says Christ established not one church, but many, and He meant religion to be a matter of private conscience only. He likes and will keep the teaching of Imago Dei, that all men are created equal. He will not keep the teaching that life on Earth is vanity, merely preparation for life in heaven, and that wealth is vain. The Ideologue like the teaching of common property as seen among the Apostles, and like compassion for the poor, will not keep the teaching that Christ is divine; the Spiritualist will not keep the teaching that there is but one Christ.

    All parties are agreed on the one point. They are for the spirit of Antichrist.”

  4. Kristor ,

    I think there is an important point that you might be missing . Radical Islam hates Christianity for the same reason many Christians oppose Islam – because they believe it is a false religion . They believe this because what they see as the heresy of all heresies -modernism / liberalism came forth from within Christendom . They conclude that this is not a coincidence . My comment is not an endorsement of radical Islam .

    • Islam is correct to hate modernism and liberalism. But that’s sort of like saying that Communism is correct to hate spoiled milk and rotten meat (at least in principle, if not in practice – in practice, Communists insist that rotten meat and spoiled milk are perfectly OK). Of course they do! Like spoiled milk and rotten meat, modernism and liberalism are noxious poisons! It would be idiotic for Islam to like them. Islam is not totally idiotic, as modernism is; so she rightly hates modernism.

      But then, Islam hated Christianity a thousand years before there were any such things as modernism or liberalism. Islam hated Christianity – and all other cults – from its very beginnings. The reason for that hatred is that Islam believed, and believes, that Christianity – like all other cults – is false, and so therefore evil.

      Christianity returns the favor to Islam, albeit not quite so vehemently, or so violently.

      Notwithstanding all that, it is of course true that the errors of modernism and liberalism proceeded in their latest recrudescence from Christian culture, and not (as of yet; given the radical temptation of all men to radical autonomy (HT: Thordaddy and Moses, the author of Genesis), time shall perhaps tell) from Muslim culture. The Mohammedans are correct to scold us for that.

      They are however quite absolutely wrong to infer from our Fall that the doctrine we failed was itself wrong. On the contrary. If anything, the simple incontrovertible fact that Western culture is far and away the best that Earth has ever produced, by any measure, should suffice to the notion that the Christian cult that informed and ennobled the West has been the best we have as a species yet discovered. Christianity has fallen from heights that Islam has never approached, let alone scaled. Where, e.g., is there anything like a Notre Dame de Paris in dar al islam? Nowhere. Nowhere outside Christendom is there anything that even approaches her majesty and sublimity.

      Let Islam produce something that approaches Notre Dame de Paris, or Saint Peter’s in Rome, or Saint Paul’s in London, or the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople, or Saint Basil’s in Moscow, or Saint Vitus’s in Prague, or any other of thousands upon thousands of such cathedrals, chapels, churches, and basilicas. Islam has produced *nothing* of the like. Its productions are stupid and vacuous, by comparison; mere warehouses for the indoctrination of souls, for the most part. By its fruits, shall ye know it. It is a stupid religion, evidently; a religion for morons and incapables, who cannot ascertain how to manufacture even a gun, let alone a Gothic cathedral; who never read, or can.

      I do not at all in the foregoing mean to impugn the surpassing heights of intellection and worship attained by the Mohammedan elites among the Sufi, the Druze, the Alawites, and so forth – or, even, and perhaps most especially, those of the “main line” Muslim orthodox. Every discipline that truly and rightly disciplines must inexorably tend toward righteousness and truth. You can’t obtain a discipline, properly so called, that tends elsewhere.

      That said, again: where, e.g., is the Sufi counterpart to the Notre Dame de Paris? Where is she? What, in the absence of any such counterpart, what, pray tell, has Sufism to show for itself, concretely?

      • Did I write that the Mohammedans had produced no majestic religious art? No; I did not. Of course they have.

        I wrote that they had produced nothing to equal the Christian churches, cathedrals, and chapels that litter Europe by the thousand.

        I did not even mention Christian music. But, riddle me this: what Muslim composer can compare with Ockeghem, Bach, Dunstable, Haydn, Mozart, Purcell, Byrd, de Prez, Gibbons, Gesualdo, Monteverdi, Vivaldi, Handel, on and on and on? Is there even a single Muslim composer who comes close to any one of them? Is there a one of them who is equal to, say, Salieri? No; there is not.

      • I would say too, the beautiful artistic features do not redeem heresy. I appreciate, even admire, certain cultural elements of the Muslim world. I do not imagine that those things make the brutality of those cultures OK; I do not imagine that their art will be their ticket to eternal salvation.

      • Technical afterthought in the “Ackshually” school of corrections: The Hagia Sophia started life as a Byzantine Cathedral. After Constantinople became Istanbul (for reasons which are none of my business), they loved the architecture so much it became the model for all future Mosques. So Christianity ought to get a little credit for Muslim architecture!

      • Oh come on. You wrote:

        Islam has produced *nothing* of the like. Its productions are stupid and vacuous, by comparison; mere warehouses for the indoctrination of souls, for the most part…where, e.g., is the Sufi counterpart to the Notre Dame de Paris?

        And I replied with some examples of Islamic art that rival Notre Dame (opinions can vary of course, but in any case I don’t think anyone can call them “mere warehouses”).

        Really, why should your first response to the fire in Notre Dame is to (a) blame Islam and (b) denigrate Islamic culture. That’s messed up. Islamic culture has produced some supremely beautiful and spiritual creations (Rumi and Qawwali music from the Sufis come to mind). Do they measure up to Notre Dame or Bach? Who cares? It’s not really a contest, unless you make it one.

      • It’s not a contest unless I make it one? Sorry, my friend: Islam is at war with Christianity and the West, on every side (it is at war with you, too). It is Islam that has made relations with Christendom a clash of civilizations, since the seventh century. It is they who have made it a contest. It is a contest whether we like it or not, and whether or not we want it to be. There is a war on. That is why my first response to the fire at Notre Dame is to assimilate it to the thousands of incidents of church vandalism in France in each of the last few years. There is no doubt in any sane mind that Muslims are to blame for these crimes, just as they are to blame for the surge in the last few years of rape, anti-Semitism, acid and knife attacks, and so forth all over Europe. Only a fool could think there might be some other source of these things.

  5. Disagree. The Notre-Dame is not only about Christianity, it is also a symbol of the West. Yes, you can say that Christianity is the soul of the West and that would be true. But that is only a historic accident, not an essential connection. Christianity wanted to be the soul of the whole world, but history didn’t work out that way. Because Islam happened. Which meant not only a strong barrier to prevent Christianity spreading south and east, they in fact conquered the southern half of Christendom permanently and Spain and the Balkans temporarily. Christianity is associated with the West because only the West happened to be strong enough to resist it. Basically it was decided at Tours. Then Christianity could survive in the West, but could only spread among “brown people” once the West had good enough ships to sail around Islamic countries and make landings in Sub-Saharan Africa or India. It is all historic accidents and nothing essential.

    Which means it is hard to tell if those who rejoice now do so because they are Anti-Christian or Anti-Western. Perhaps a good rule of thumb: were they also rejoicing at 9/11?

    • If the West were still pagan rather than Christian, then yes, the Mohammedans would be waging war against the West. Islam is at war with everything. In the absence of their single greatest competitor – Christianity – Mohammedans would focus their ire and fire first and foremost on whatever their single greatest competitor would then be. Probably it would be Buddhism. If the West had never been Christian, the Age of Exploration, the Scientific Revolution, the Industrial Revolution, the Information Revolution, finance capitalism, and Marxism would not have happened. China would then be their most formidable enemy.

      The simple fact today however is that Christianity is the only competitor to Islam that might actually beat it into deletion from the stage of history going forward. Christianity is the most important obstacle to a completely Muslim world. It is bigger than Islam, growing faster, and it tends to generate much stronger nations – stronger intellectually, scientifically, industrially, economically, and therefore militarily. And European Christians have repeatedly beaten Islamic invaders, and what is more in the 20th Century established political and military dominance over all of dar al Islam. We gave them back their independence after WWII; we could take it away again if we wanted to.

      They know this.

      • @Kristor
        I have heard that Islam is growing faster than Christianity but you say the opposite. Do you have a link or some data for me to know more? I’m not questioning you: I just want to know

      • Sorry, no. I read a pretty good article on the topic a couple years ago, which I felt rather credibly disabused me of the notion that Islam is growing fastest. But I didn’t keep any links to it. The crux of it was that conversions to Christianity are exploding in China and sub-Saharan Africa, even as the fertility rate among Muslims has plummeted almost as far as that of the Europeans.

  6. Aren’t a lot of the cultural achievements of Islam actually the achievements of the people the Muslims conquered so Greek, Persian and the like? And didn’t they fail to do much with them thereafter?

    • The one set of exceptions I can think of are the mosques and schools in Central Asia – Samarkand, Bokhara, Khiva, etc. Those are beautiful and, so far as I am aware, built by Moslem hands.

      Though I could be mistaken. And it is certainly true that they cannibalized a lot of capital to get there.

  7. Kristor,

    I agree with much of what you said.
    But, I also agree with those that claim that it is not a coincidence that the modernist heresy and the cult of man arose from within the Christian spiritual universe. Not as a result of some intrinsic error, but perhaps because corruptio optimi pessima.

  8. It is inevitable that the worst will derive from rejection of the best. This is why modernism/liberalism is a product of Christianity, rather than of Islam. To be provided the grace of knowing the Good and then to reject this is bound to propel one to the deepest circle of Hell.

  9. It’s a bit unfair to go away for so long and then one-two punch you like this, but I think these religions are less at war with each other than with us is twofold:

    1) Christianity is still (rightly) perceived as the foundation of the most wildly successful civilization ever, and any civilization is necessarily rival to any other civilization that would set up shop in the same location. This is the less interesting but still true answer.

    2) All those other religions intuit themselves and each other as existing on a field of violence and cooperation through the basal nature of violence. Christianity, meanwhile, is truly a religion of peace: the Christian conception of the world involves basal peace. (I almost say ‘is’.) Thus Christianity is a threat to all on a deeper level than they are to each other. This also explains why they despise Catholicism and Orthodoxy especially; the foundation of Protestantism is essentially the reconception of Christianity through basal violence.

    • The notion that the world is basically peaceful, harmonious, cooperative, and orderly is indeed a fundamental Christian idea. But it is also a game theoretical and historical truth. No obedience to the rules of the game, and no fair play, makes for no game. And if most social organs mostly failed to work properly – i.e., peacefully, harmoniously, and so forth – then most social organs would not survive, and the human system as a whole would tend inexorably to their elimination. We find, on the contrary, that man is an *essentially* social animal. This can have happened only insofar as man has mostly succeeded in making society work properly.

      History and game theory are full of discussion of human defect. And certainly there is plenty of it to go around. But you can’t defect from something that is not first in pretty good shape. There’s no economic margin in so doing, for one thing. And if exchange (for example) has entirely broken down due to widespread distrust due to widespread defection, then the opportunity for profit by defection from exchange will have disappeared.

      • We’re having the same conversation in two separate places, but I’ll just condense: claiming that non-violent co-existence or game-theoretical-optimal cooperation exist is not the same as to say that peace is the default, violence the exception.

      • Yes; I’m not saying merely that they exist; I’m saying, with you (and under various terms) that they are the default. There are lots of ways to say it: goodness is basic; evil is a defect of basic goodness. It’s all in Augustine.

    • The internet has begun to murmur of suppressed signs of islam and/or foul play. Anecdotal evidence I have heard: 1) It was declared “not arson” within like 20 minutes of being reported, before the blaze had been put out even. That may be hyperbolic after a few re-tellings, but at a minimum it was declared not-arson the same day and before, seemingly, any investigation could take place. 2) I was sent by a far more conspiratorial friend a screenshot of a facebook post that was circulating, which said “Notre dame will go up in flames in 3 days time” or something to that effect. I haven’t been able to find a reputable source verifying that post. 3) I’m told of eyewitness reports of someone standing on the roof with something akin to ‘sparks’ flashing.

      None of these have been independently verified by myself, these are all only rumors. The only thing in them that points to islam is the screenshot of the facebook post, but that is not enough to hang my hat on. At a minimum, it was declared accidental very quickly, and I think it is reasonable to ask why. Given the state of France, and what they intend to do with the Cathedral following repair, I think it is reasonable to say we will never know exactly what happened and that any investigation has an incentive (given the french political and cultural climate) to not reveal anything ‘incendiary’ if you’ll pardon the pun.

      That leaves me praying that this was a mundane tragedy. I would not be comfortable blaming islam, but the sad truth is, it wouldn’t be a stretch to imagine.

      I find it hard to believe Satanists would do such a thing, as they require the full glory of our spiritual and physical presence to fuel their seething, inert rage. Satanists mimic, but don’t destroy, Catholic things, with an almost equal-but-opposite reverence.

      • I read also that there were no construction workers on site at the time of the fire, that the last worker to leave for the day turned off the power supply to the project’s circuits as he did (precisely so as to prevent an electrical fire), and logged his having done so; and that a French expert on structure fires has stated that 800 year old timbers will not ignite unless accelerant is used (you can see the logic there if you think about trying to start a fire in your fireplace using no tinder or kindling or accelerant, but only big fat very dense oak logs).

        The French authorities have good reason to prevent suspicion of arson by Muslims: they’ve already got thousands of enraged legacy Frenchmen on the street protesting violently every weekend, all over the country. If the story got out that it was the Muslims, things could get very ugly, very quickly – for the Muslims.

      • This may be tangential to the whole issue, but I think the question might be germane given the circumstances: Is suppression of the story enough to keep the peace? I believe in the “When the Saxons Turn to Hate” thesis, but I have a friend who believes europe is too fargone to fish out their old spine and stretch it across their backs. The French are outraged, but is it active outrage (Something must change and we have some ideas as to what) or passive outrage (I’m unhappy and I want everyone to know it)? Possibly i’m betraying my ignorance of the goings-on in France by asking.

        At any rate, I had not heard of the evidence you noted. There is enough to raise suspicions. I hope Justice is done, in this life or the next.

      • It is very easy to fall into wrong conclusions. People who are not aware of the political landscape can fall for the islam trap easily. The truth is, and this has been confessed by former freemasons, that french is under ruling of freemasonry (democracy is a facade). Men such as Serge Abad Gallardo have given credit to the reports of the “fraternel parlamentaire”, a group of freemasons operating in all the political parties and interfering with the proper functioning of the democratic government.

        Satanism has been on the rise in the country also, and this is no secret at all.

        This is why pointing fingers at islam is not prudent. There are other forces at large in the country right now.

        PS: i am not french, I live in Belgium since february 2015.

  10. Pingback: Cantandum in Ezkhaton 04/21/19 | Liberae Sunt Nostrae Cogitatiores

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.