What’s Wrong with the World

"The time will come when men will go mad, and they will look at those who are not mad and say, 'You are mad. You are not like us.'"

St Anthony the Great of Egypt

Liberalism views itself as just being universal neutral rationality applied to politics; so any claims that a problem exists which cannot be resolved by liberal means are by definition irrational, divisive and insane.

Zippy,

It should be acknowledged that some liberals, or at least those thinkers and writers who think of themselves as classical liberals are quite willing to think about the use of force or other police action to defend what they consider important liberal values (e.g. freedom of speech). I'm thinking here of folks like Hitchens or those who defended Rushdie over the Satanic Verses affair.

Lydia,

This is only tangentially related to this post, but I've been itching to share it with the gang at W4 since I started reading Henry IV a couple of days ago. Here is King Henry, happy that civil war seems to have come to an end in England so he and his men can focus on the real problem facing the West:

Therefore, friends,
As far as to the sepulcher of Christ --
Whose soldier now, under the blessed cross
We are impressed and engaged to fight --
Forthwith a power of English shall we levy,
Whose arms were molded in their mothers' womb
To chase these pagans in those holy fields
Over whose acres walked those blessed feet
Which fourteen hundred years ago were nailed
For our advantage on the bitter cross.
But this our purpose now is twelve month old,
And bootless 'tis to tell you we will go.

Sadly, internal strife distracts good King Henry from the crusades once again and therefore provides Shakespeare the material for his two part play.

With respect to Britain, one could now say their "purpose" is over 7,200 month old, but who's counting...

On liberalism and Islam, etc., I notice two strands that are not always compatible. On the one hand, it seems that people of a leftward inclination see threats in exact inverse to their actual dangerousness. I don't know if anyone else remembers (and it'll probably happen again and remind us), but during the Clinton administration, liberals were seeing pro-life terrorists under every rock. The tiny pro-life group I belonged to in Washington State had all its records demanded by the FBI, as did the group across the border in Idaho. The Clintons and Janet Reno genuinely believed that any time some nut opened fire at an abortion clinic he was part of some grand network of scheming pro-lifers. Now, there is something almost _purely_ suicidal in this inversion of threat--seeing "Christian fundamentalists" or pro-lifers as more dangerous than Muslim groups, for example.

On the other hand, the liberals do seem to have a substantive bias as well. That is to say, I don't think they would _stop_ seeing Christian fundamentalists as a threat in the highly unlikely event that an actual Christian underground group began to pose a credible terrorist threat to the nation. But when Muslim groups do so, as Philips points out, it is downplayed. I can only conclude that the liberal establishment is just substantively determined to see some groups as victims regardless of the evidence.

Good quote, Jeff. One children's history writer I've read says that WWI could be regarded as the last crusade, since the English finally controlled the Holy Land thereafter. But as it turned out, they were glad enough to get rid of it again, understandably enough.

The Clintons and Janet Reno genuinely believed that any time some nut opened fire at an abortion clinic he was part of some grand network of scheming pro-lifers.

If abortion clinics are half the things pro-lifers say they are, why would you call an attacker a nut?

Liberals cannot admit the existence of real evil, of an enemy beyond the reach of reason, of an unappeasable Other.

There exists real evil, an enemy that is beyond the reach of reason.

*Fitna* is a so/so amateur production, about on the level that I could produce in a day or two with Windows Movie-Maker. (Except that my version would be much, much nastier!)

I would have thought that, if the British powers-that-be had any sense, they would simply have ignored it.

Instead, they chose this occasion to advertise to the whole world their ever-increasing contempt for freedom of speech.

Now *that* is remarkable.

BTW, Lydia - I wonder whether your final paragraph was an intentional, or a merely fortuitous echo of The Wasteland:

"I have heard the key
Turn in the door once and turn once only..."

Well, Step2, maybe in part because the people who open fire at abortion clinics are *in fact* nuts. But I refuse to be led into a side-thread on the liberal trope of "Why don't pro-lifers think it's okay to blow up abortion clinics if they really think abortion is murder?" Suffice it to say that I _don't_ think it's okay to open fire at an abortion clinic or to blow one up, and I _do_ think abortion really is murder. You can make what you like of that for the nonce.

Y'know, Steve, it was fortuitous. But that was actually what I said when I heard that about Holland and "Thou shalt not kill"--said out loud, in fact.

I'm beginning to think that in Britain nothing that offends Muslims can be ignored, provided it becomes widely known. There's a kind of frightening desperation about the powers that be in that country to prove how crazy they are. It's like Western civilization can't die fast enough for them.

Great, Step2--Who is it?

Now, there is something almost _purely_ suicidal in this inversion of threat--seeing "Christian fundamentalists" or pro-lifers as more dangerous than Muslim groups, for example.

Better to go down with their liberal principles intact? What a thought. But I'm not sure how principled it looks to be protecting a group that looks so _exactly_ like their own caricatures of Christians--women barefoot, pregnant, and chained in the kitchen, so to speak. In a burkha.

This insight is characteristic of one who has eyes that see and ears that hear. [IMO]

"The latter can only kill the body. The former can kill the soullessness."

When a people are led by those who call evil good, and good evil, judgement is upon them.

Lydia:

Here's my theory on your query. It seems to me that there are two strands of liberalism that come out of the Enlightenment: Rousseauean and Kantian. The Kantian version is highly principled and thus contingent matters such as one's ethnicity, race, origin, etc. has no bearing on how the principles of justice are administered. Christopher Hitchens is that sort of liberal. This is why he considers the British monarchy just as racist as Jim Crow laws, each provides benefits and liabilities to citizens merely based on one's family roots. This is why he also despises all religion equally: Muslims and Christians are just irrational fanatics that just differ in degree not kind.

The Rousseauean remains firmly committed to the archetype of the nobel savage, the pristine soul uncorrupted by the modern world. Thus, the Islam world's tendency to produce a disproportionate number of terrorists wanting to destroy the West is a visceral, though understandable, reaction to a certain truth: the West and its culture has corrupted and harmed the Muslim world. So, we are simply getting what we deserve. On the other hand, Christian fundamentalists are part of the West that corrupted and harmed the Muslim World, through crusades, missionary work, and so forth. Moreover, Christian fundamentalists also want to ensure that lifestyle liberalism in the West is suppressed and not given equal status. Thus, the Rousseauean has two reasons to despise Christian fundamentalists. This is why the modern liberal is more afraid of James Dobson than he is of Osama Bin Laden.

That's my take. I could be totally wrong. But that's the way I see it.

Lydia:

Better to go down with their liberal principles intact?

Didn't Someone somewhere say that "This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil, and then, "For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed, and again, "But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God."

Francis said: "This is why the modern liberal is more afraid of James Dobson than he is of Osama Bin Laden."

I go back to Zippy's insight and ask: Is it because they'd rather see the death of bodies than the death of the soullessness? I think that in their darkened thinking--yes

Brad,
This "judgement is upon them" bit appears in every thread, no matter the issue under discussion.

A triumphant Islam, a devastating economic cataclysm, demographic wiinter, or the technological system culminating in a a post-human hell are all possible outcomes to the doomed 400 year old attempt to build a civilization without God. Such knowledge should not lead to a "God is mad and ready to do some serious smiting" posture. There is a Gnostic overhang to such thinking. Neither the New or Old Testaments (the latter is quoted frequnently) are political treatises, predictors of either geo-political events, or of specific grand, cosmic punishments. While a mass, collective chastisement is possible, more certain is the fact that we will each have to answer for the evil we have personally performed. My own inevitable Armageddon is the only one I know is coming. Faith is not dogma, but a Person. And we should take care not to pretend He is orchestrating an epic payback. Suffering, evil and the role of Providence in human affairs, are all Mysteries. You may not mean to convey the impression, but to me anyways, there seems to be the hint that you have succesfully read the Signs.

Hi Kevin, if I understand your comments [thanks by the way], what do you make of this scripture?

Hbr 12:5 and you have forgotten the exhortation which is addressed to you as sons, "MY SON, DO NOT REGARD LIGHTLY THE DISCIPLINE OF THE LORD, NOR FAINT WHEN YOU ARE REPROVED BY HIM; Hbr 12:6 FOR THOSE WHOM THE LORD LOVES HE DISCIPLINES, AND HE SCOURGES EVERY SON WHOM HE RECEIVES." Hbr 12:7 It is for discipline that you endure; God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom {his} father does not discipline? Hbr 12:8 But if you are without discipline, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate children and not sons.

When I use the term judgement, it is more rightly meant to convey discipline, and it is directed at God's people from Him, not directed at the wicked or any of the rest. I'm surely not meaning it to imply that the people as a nation or political group are being targeted.

"I'm surely not meaning it to imply that the people as a nation or political group are being targeted."

Brad, but I hope you can see where one might get that impression. Gladdeend by your reply and grateful you didn't take offense, or unleash an especially stern pasaage my way. (Kidding on the last part)

Brad: I think you should reconsider citing Scripture as your support for the opinions you hold.

The one you just cited above not only does not concur with its traditional meaning but contradicts almost every one I've heard thus far, both from Protestant ministers I've known as well as priests.

Frank, I think your Rousseauian-Kantian distinction is an interesting one, but wouldn't you have to admit that there are very few "Kantian" liberals around in this sense? They may say they are, but when it comes actually to evaluating concrete situations, most of them end up acting like Rousseauians.

In a sane society Wilders would be an overreaching simpleton rousing little interest or passion. Instead, in the kingdom of the cowering, he emerges as a serious thinker bravely defending a civilization he hardly understands against one he doesn't know. What an unspeakable tragedy!

Jeff Singer - *I Henry IV* is among the greatest things that anybody ever wrote, so it's always a pleasure to be reminded of it...

That said, I'm not sure that I'd go along with your characterization of the lines you quote: "King Henry, happy that civil war seems to have come to an end in England so he and his men can focus on the real problem facing the West..."

I think a strong case can be made that to "focus on the real problem facing the West" is the very last thing on the King's mind in this speech. For him, the suggestion of a new crusade is merely an attempt to distract everyone's attention from the fact that his claim to the throne is essentially fraudulent.

Remember that this is the man whose deeply cynical (albeit canny) deathbed advice to his son is "to busy giddy minds with foreign quarrels." (II Henry IV, IV.v.) Which advice the future Henry V takes very much to heart.

By the way - there's an absolutely wonderful old book, *The Meaning of Shakespeare*, by Harold C. Goddard, which has absolutely revelatory discussions of all the major plays. If your local library has a copy, check it out: it's guaranteed to change forever the way you think about Henry IV, and Hal, and Falstaff - not to mention Hamlet & Lear & all the rest. I found out about him thanks to Joseph Sobran:

http://www.sobran.com/falstaff.shtml

an overreaching simpleton

If Wilders is "overreaching," I wonder what that makes Spencer, much less Auster. And if what he's "defending" against is triumphant Islamic civilization, thanks but no thanks--I don't think "knowing" it--as in, knowledge by acquaintance--is what we need more of in the West. The knowledge by acquaintance we have already is more than enough.

Great, Step2--Who is it?

I would reiterate the same groups that I earlier wrote should not be negotiated with, namely drug cartels and affiliates of Al-Qaeda.

Although I don't want to give the Rousseauian-Kantian theory too much credence, there is something to it as a distinction between postmodern liberalism and liberalism as heir of the Enlightenment.

I would reiterate the same groups that I earlier wrote should not be negotiated with, namely drug cartels and affiliates of Al-Qaeda.

A good start. :-)

Kevin writes:

"In a sane society Wilders would be an overreaching simpleton rousing little interest or passion. Instead, in the kingdom of the cowering, he emerges as a serious thinker bravely defending a civilization he hardly understands against one he doesn't know. What an unspeakable tragedy!"

I wonder if anyone, including Kevin, can make any sense of Kevin's comment. The only meaning I derive from it is that Kevin is very, very superior to Geert Wilders.

The only meaning I derive from it is that Kevin is very, very superior to Geert Wilders.

Well Lawrence, I must admit, my concerns for Western civilization extend beyond life without disco and my ideas for dealing with Islam call for something more sober than cartoons and street theater. Frankly, if the West wants to rally around the likes of Wilders, Van Gogh and Fortuyn and set-up a war to the death between Nihilism and Islam, I'll be heading to a Third World enclave where the Blessed Sacrament is still revered.

As for feelings of superiority, let me know when I ahem, start lecturing the Pope.

If you peruse Catholic prophecy, as I have, you'll find that the prophets state that England will have it worse than the Continental Europeans.

At the time I read that, it didn't make any sense to me. But after Londonistan, --------- one can't feign an ignorance of what is to come.

When I read about Catholic prophecy, it was the '80s, and I was interested in seeing if there was anything in there about the Soviets. But what I found was that it was all about the muslims, about islam, about their takeover of Europe. Well in the '80s that was just nonsense, idiocy, bizarre.

But it's not bizarre or idiocy anymore.

Read Mark Steyn.

IT'S REAL.

And it's coming.

Prophecies refer to "throat cutting," "throat slitting," prophecies relate that "the old" will be the only ones defending Europe.

Now why would that be?

From what I read, I can tell you how it all turns out, at least regarding Europe. The Europeans will be on the ropes, the muslims euphoric, riding a string of victories and riding a demographic surge that has placed Europe at their feet.

Cathedrals and art works utterly destroyed.

Cities rendered a wasteland.

Refugees, and a remnant few willing to fight it out to the end.

And then the Europeans get their act together, and begin driving the muslims out, and driving them into the sea, driving them off the Continent. And because of their anger, because of their blood lust, the Europeans don't stop, they don't halt after they've reclaimed Europe.

They move in strength all the way into the Arabian peninsula, and pulverize unto dust the Kaaba, Mecca and Medina.

It will be the Europeans who culminate the 1,000 year plus war between islam and the West, and end it be the ultimate act of iconoclasm, when they utterly destroy the Kaaba.

At which time, the destruction of the Kaaba, the resurrection of the Europeans from the tomb, will trigger a vast existential crisis throughout the length and breadth of islam, resulting in their complete repudiation of the mohammedan cult, and their embrace of the Cross, their embrace of him, before whom all knees will surely bend.

But between then, and now, there will be destruction and blood unlike anything we've seen in our lifetime. And the rapes, the gang rapes, the slaughters, the throat slitting, the obliteration of priceless works of art, the erasure of cathedrals of great note, between then and now what will occur will stagger the mind of man.

But islam is going to be put down. And it will be put down by Western arms.

Zippy: "The latter can only kill the body. The former can kill the soullessness."

"Liberals" (and 'atheists') *do* seem to follow an upside version of Matt 10:28, don't they?

Dan, I doubt your prophecies very much. For many reasons. Please, can it.

Lydia,

I came across a book of prophecies at Villanova Library.

The book only contained prophecies from Catholic Saints. If you weren't a Saint, or someone who had been rendered "blessed," you didn't get in the book. The book wasn't new, as I mentioned, I saw it way back in the early '80s.

Now you can make of it what you will. I really don't give a damn. But I read what I read. I didn't make it up, I didn't hype it, I related what I recalled.

When you compare those prophecies to what we're ALL seeing in Europe, --------------------- those prophecies don't seem outlandish, in fact, those prophecies seem the predictable outcomes to the immigration policies embraced by the EU.

So as for "[canning] it," go take your attitude up with them, not with me. Go take it up with Aquinas, with Hildegard, Vincent Ferrier, Marie Agreda, Margaret Mary, and a host of other Saints, take it up with them.

Or go take it up with Mark Steyn.

Y'know, I seriously, seriously doubt that Mark Steyn is expecting, much less thirsting for, the conquest and forcible Christianization of the entire world.