Surrendering to the communists and teaching white children to hate themselves: more stuff we mustn’t be discouraged by

Two news items, unrelated except in being “signs of the times”.  Yes, the Vatican is not only surrendering to the Chinese Communists but actually praising godless communist tyranny as the embodiment of Catholics social teaching.  And a public school in Minnesota has replaced academics as its priority with communist indoctrination and the demonization of whites.  It’s easy to get upset and angry over these things.  Yes, the Chinese martyrs have been betrayed, shown up as fools for their loyalty.  Yes, I know sometimes the Church must acquiesce to unsatisfactory arrangements, but heaping praise on these enemies of Christ is just gratuitous.  As for the “All for All” school social justice plan to break the spirits of white children, to teach them to hate themselves and their parents, to emotionally cripple them if possible for life, while it isn’t the greatest atrocity in history, there is a purity of evil intent in it that is hard to match.  (Compare:  when Herod murdered the Holy Innocents, it was a means to the end of preserving his power, not sheer hatred for innocent children.)

It would be understandable to be bothered by these things, but we should resist it.  All the powerful institutions are in the hands of the Enemy.  This is what they do.  It’s what we should expect, and hoping for better grants them too much moral legitimacy.  Just as in those more scientific times of my youth no one got angry about hurricanes, we also must learn to conserve our emotional energies for areas where there is still a contest.  After all, the Vatican’s surrender to the communists was a done deal when John Paul II apologized to them for us being a bunch of capitalist imperialist oppressors, which basically conceded the entire issue.  Even before then, the upshot of the Second Vatican Council was that the Church’s persecutors were right after all, and the martyrs had it coming for being insufficiently ecumenical or socially conscious.  Similarly, negro moral superiority and white moral illegitimacy have been the reigning social consensus for a long time.  No one was allowed to question it; we were just allowed to be somewhat lax about taking it to heart.  Perhaps it’s best that the consequences of this doctrine be brought home to everyone.  For that matter, sin and death are real calamities, but they don’t bother us because we know we’re stuck with them.

Last time I explained why this sort of thing doesn’t bother me anymore, I sensed some suspicion from some readers that I was engaging in self-deluding rationalization.  Indeed, to the extent that we tell ourselves that these things are actually, ultimately for the best, we are lying to ourselves for the purpose of psychological comfort.  No, the fact that communism and freemasonry have basically won is a bad thing.  Vatican II was a bad thing.  The American Revolution was a bad thing.  Adam and Eve’s sin was a very, very bad thing.  To the extent that I’ve failed to acknowledge that, I’ve failed to be honest.  However, it’s perfectly honest and reasonable to save one’s emotional investment for the battles whose outcomes are still in doubt.  That’s the reason for bringing up these past misfortunes.  It’s unfortunate that England was lost to Catholicism and unfortunate that America embraced an anti-Western official ideology, but there’s no sense in getting worked up about either of these facts, because they both happened before I was born.  This is what Larry Auster meant, I think, in his last year when he kept saying about America “It’s their country now.”  That America had become “theirs” was never considered a good thing, but at a certain point, one must acknowledge unchangeable realities and shift one’s focus to those realities that can be changed.  There’s a certain relief in acknowledging defeat and moving on to the next battle.

11 Responses

  1. For those interested, Catholic historian Charles Coulombe provided some interesting and relevant thoughts on both these topics during a recent YouTube Q&A:

  2. Apologies, relevant portion doesn’t begin until 54:14 (corrected below)

  3. This is the wisdom of an older man, and it does not sit well with me, a twentysomethingmillenial.

    You may be right, and the battles may be lost, but my instincts scream to fight all the same. If these battles have been lost, what possible “next battle” is there to move on to?

  4. > If these battles have been lost, what possible “next battle” is there to move on to?

    That is, indeed, the biggest question. Next to it is the question of the proper way of giving up. Since the second question is easier, I’ll consider it first. The proper way to give up never means conceding that the Left was right or that the issue wasn’t important. The proper way to give up is to refuse to recognize the legitimacy of the current regime. If the Church drops the issues of abortion and gay marriage but then keeps petitioning the government on things like the death penalty, this is an admission that the issues we’re not pushing aren’t really important, meaning that Catholic morality is false. No, one must say to the state–“Well, if abortion and sodomy are core commitments for you, then we have nothing to say about how you should govern. We are not interested in advising you on how to live by moral principles we do not hold. We will deal with you regarding our own business when we must, but we do not recognize you as a partner in pursuing the common good.” The Jews should always be our inspiration. For centuries, they lived in countries governed by principles they didn’t believe.

    Since the Church has largely been captured,
    there’s no point in addressing this advice to the bishops. The people I’m really talking to are the tiny remnant who still believe that the Church is right and modernity is wrong. And they largely are coming around to this perspective. There’s a lot less of “America is the greatest country on Earth, but there’s this tiny detail that its committed to killing preborn babies” than there was a generation ago. Decades of defeat are finally convincing the conservative remnant that there is something fundamentally wrong with this country.

    So, back to the first question, the hard one: what is there left to fight for? For a while, I had hoped that we might be able to negotiate with the Left or push for concessions so modest that even they wouldn’t be able to resist them. For example, I’d floated the idea of a law allowing government employees to be silent about their beliefs. Freedom to contradict liberalism is probably unachievable at this point, but maybe they would abstain from demanding active agreement. Or I’d suggested allowing white neighborhoods to persist in exchange for wealth transfers to the emerging non-white majority. These were silly ideas, because the Left has no reason to negotiate or grant concessions, no matter how modest. They’ve got the power–or will soon, if they just allow their ranks to swell–and we have no way to compel them to accommodate us.

    So, what can we do? Well, what would the Jews do? In the social sphere, they would make their own informal networks. In the intellectual and cultural sphere, they would go on the attack. The establishment’s sacred formulae of “freedom”, “equality”, “democracy”, “human rights”, “conscience”, “intersectionality”, etc. are calling out for deconstruction and ridicule. At this point, just about any sort of disruption in the intellectual sphere would work in our favor.

    This is going to be a small scale operation, both because of how little capital, talent, and ability to attract interest we possess and because it’s only a tiny part of the population that is capably of breaking with liberalism anyway. Blogs with less than a thousand hits per day may be about the extent of our capacities right now. But it’s notable that the established order doesn’t seem able to or interested in dealing with small-scale hostile actors like this. For example, in all of my time writing at Throne and Altar, no one has tried to shut me down. I’ve never been reported for hate speech. No one has troubled to expose me, although I’ve been told it’s easy to do. As far as I know, no one at the Orthosphere has been profiled by the SPLC, even though we promote what they wold certainly call hate speech.

    It would certainly be good if more reactionaries could meet each other and collaborate in person. Given the dangers of exposure, and the fact that we may be little more than about one per city anyway, this is a very difficult problem. Once again, though, the Cathedral, or whatever people are calling it nowadays, is not set up to break up such small cells of private hate speech. If they could be formed, they would be difficult to eradicate.

  5. There’s nothing in the article about Communism. It is mentioned en passant as the Weekly Standard has some shill among the parents bitching about Muh Freedumbs. “Ohmigosh, it’s just like those nasty Sandanistas, tweeted Mrs Flores.”

    Cultural Marxism is a Capitalist movement, through and through. That’s why it’s called Cultural Marxism.

  6. The Jews should always be our inspiration. For centuries, they lived in countries governed by principles they didn’t believe./blockquote>

    So, what can we do? Well, what would the Jews do? In the social sphere, they would make their own informal networks. In the intellectual and cultural sphere, they would go on the attack.

    The medieval Jews might be a good inspiration.

    But modern Jews have for the most part rejected their religion too, so I don’t regard them as a good model. I mean, our problems would go away too if we just decided to reject Christianity and become liberal.

    Maybe we can look to the remaining Orthodox Jews for inspiration. They certainly have created their own informal networks. Although do either they or did the medieval Jews go on the attack in the intellectual and cultural spheres? (Not that I disagree with this suggestion).

    Perhaps another model could be the Christian communities in the Middle East who have persevered for centuries under the thumb of Islam.

    But Islam is much more tolerant than the ideology of tolerance.

  7. Communism is there:
    “A course description of an 11th-grade U.S. Literature and Composition course puts it this way: “By the end of the year, you will have . . . learned how to apply marxist [sic], feminist, post-colonial [and] psychoanalytical . . .lenses to literature.”

    Although I probably wouldn’t have made much of the Marxist indoctrination in particular if my other news item had not also been about surrender to communists.

    We lost the Cold War.

  8. The whole Chinese situation smells like usury in that we’ve separated the pastoral and the doctrinal, and it all happened well before we were born: Father John Carroll became the first bishop and archbishop of the United States on the unilateral recommendation of Benjamin Franklin, that upstanding pillar of Catholic morality.

  9. We lost the Cold War.

    We didn’t fight in the Cold War.

  10. Communism is there:
    “A course description of an 11th-grade U.S. Literature and Composition course puts it this way: “By the end of the year, you will have . . . learned how to apply marxist [sic], feminist, post-colonial [and] psychoanalytical . . .lenses to literature.”

    Oh, come on. That’s a clear reference to Cultural Marxism. You think the course teaches about surplus value and ownership of the means of production by the working class?

  11. this was a long way of you saying “keep going to latin mass”

Leave a Reply

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

%d bloggers like this: