What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

Ten Years of What's Wrong with the World

Ten years ago, when I was a much younger man, What’s Wrong with the World appealed to me as an editor because it was ecumenical. That is to say, we all agreed on the core doctrines of Christianity (let us say, for simplicity, the Apostles Creed) while preserving without apology our differences in detail. Meanwhile, the keystone of our firm unity lay in our opposition: to the liberal spirit of the age, which among other outrages exposes our most vulnerable people to extra-legal execution, and denies the clear facts of mammalian biology; and to the marching might of the Islamic religion, with its endorsement of assassination, treachery and terror in the service of God.

Of those ten years it is difficult to compose a summary. Things have changed.

We are conservatives who kind of miss the dignity that Barack Obama displayed in the White House; we are Catholics who look askance at the Pope; we are Americans who wonder just what all the fuss over the “war on terror” was about, when simply stating the details of Islamic doctrine on war and subjugation is borderline illegal.

But I state this emphatically: it is not our hatred that animates us, though we do hate the devil and all his works. No: It’s our gratitude.

We are grateful for our country, for the liberty of our churches, for our friendships, our cities and towns and companies, our prosperity and legal right to the capital we earn by the sweat of our brows; more broadly we are grateful for our solidarity in these trying times with Americans of all walks across this wide land. We stand for the National Anthem but have some sympathy with men who, in good conscience, cannot.

We are a corporation of writers, grateful that we may write freely, and by our words fight against pernicious and servile ideas; we fight against certain things, precisely because we love and want to preserve certain other things.

We have gained a lot of enemies and lost a few friends. We grieve the loss of friends but will have no truck with the bizarre simulacrums of conservatism that have risen in recent years. We do not believe that Jews are responsible for any particular wickedness in the world. We do not believe that husbands should game their wives. We do not believe that vulgarity can stand in for effective polemics. We do not believe that non-whites are anything less than human, or, when American, anything less than American through and through. We reject the “science” of human differentiation by denigration.

The President who left office in January was, by comparison in personal life, twice the man of the current occupant of the White House. None of us voted for either of them.

The old verities still stand: the United States Constitution is a very fine document, eminently worthy of our admiration and obedience. The Preamble is a particularly brilliant summary. The First Amendment to that Constitution should govern our relations, civilly. The Second Amendment should govern our relations when civility fails. The Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments protect our liberties, and have been grievously violated by police and prosecutors across the country. The Tenth Amendment is a dead letter but nevertheless a superb statement on self-government to which we should all subscribe.

Private enterprise is a legitimate activity. It is the duty of government to secure property rights and only deprive men of the same by fair prosecution at law (even if you mouthed off to the cops.) Health is a gift not at right. Married couples should not be separated absent grievous and extraordinary circumstances. Only a man and a woman may marry.

St. Paul’s views on sexual ethics are sound. That people who affirm this have had their businesses and livelihood destroyed is a stain on our nation. Nevertheless, we Christians are to live peaceably with all. All sin should be renounced and repented of, in sincerity and contrition.

What we stood by in 2007 we stand by today, though the constellation of forces has changed. As Bob Dylan put it, we’re standing on the gallows with our head in the noose, but any minute now we’re expecting all hell to break loose.

—Paul Cella, for the Editors

Comments (13)

Appropriate song for the current global situation, in my opinion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJpfK7l404I

Thank you, Paul. I'm honored to be standing with you now as ten years ago.

I was impressed with the quality of the writing and of the thinking here 8 years ago when I first stumbled across this site. (Excluding my own posts), I am still impressed with it, and I think it compares favorably with just about ANY purveyor of religious and social commentary over the same period. Thank you, Paul and Lydia, thank you to all the contributors, and to our friends the commenters who have joined us in this extended conversation.

"We grieve the loss of friends but will have no truck with the bizarre simulacrums of conservatism that have risen in recent years. We do not believe that Jews are responsible for any particular wickedness in the world. We do not believe that husbands should game their wives. We do not believe that vulgarity can stand in for effective polemics. We do not believe that non-whites are anything less than human, or, when American, anything less than American through and through. We reject the “science” of human differentiation by denigration."

A concise statement perfectly calibrated to make the right people angry. Keep up the good work!

Wonderfully written.

I still think about the late Lawrence Auster from time to time. He was prescient about the maladies that affected Spencer and his ilk and would undoubtedly be grateful that he didn't live to see the rise of Trump's America.

Still I do get the feeling that cooler heads like ours will be forced to choose a side (both of whom are enemies). This reminds me of the struggles of the Ukrainian nationalists in the 40's; they hated Stalin because he tried to starve them all to death and they (eventually) hated Hitler because he also wanted to kill them. To the extent they are remembered at all, they are demonized by the Russians.

But I do not forget, and neither does God.

Still I do get the feeling that cooler heads like ours will be forced to choose a side (both of whom are enemies).

I won't do that.

We are conservatives who kind of miss the dignity that Barack Obama displayed in the White House

Is that a serious statement? Because dignity is not what comes to my mind when considering Barack Obama or am I missing the definition of the term as the author intended?

Lauran, I am not sure what you mean.

Let's take presidential lying. Surely a president giving his own Oval Office the dignity of gussying up his lies with a measure of plausibility - and a pretense that he himself believes what he is saying - is more dignified than a president who inflicts buffoonery on that Office with claims that are ridiculous on their face, and which nobody imagines even he believes. Isn't it?

Tony, I’ll explain what I mean.

Let’s take presidential actions. Where one president halts taxpayer funding of abortion procedures overseas, begins the process of restoring individual states rights, bolsters a much needed balance to the Supreme by nominating and confirming a stellar Justice, and works to mend long-standing relationships with allies, another president imposes every perversion known to man upon adults and children, both at home and worldwide, attempts to bully allies into submission to a leftist/communist agenda, and reigns laughably impotent among threats to national security.

While the current president is certainly no polished statesman, or refined and decent gentleman, much less an honorable squire--by any stretch of the imagination--he can at least recognize and appreciate those qualities. The former president was nothing more than a clever puppet with a cheap veneer of stature and decency while affecting just as much appreciation for them.

If a choice must be made, moral “buffoonery” should be far more preferable to “dignified” degeneracy.

To be sure, I’m no fan of Mr. Trump, but Mr. Obama remains an affront to civilized humanity. And, frankly, I was surprised to read a description of him as “dignified" here.

Well, at least we didn't have to worry about Obama's grabbing the body parts of attractive female members of the staff. Nor bragging about it.

(I gotta always love the way that people always say, "I'm no fan of Trump" when they are *precisely* getting grumpy and up in arms because of an implied criticism of Trump and are hastening to tell us how much worser-worse someone else was, preferably in some way unrelated to the implied criticism of Trump. But not a fan. No, definitely not.)

Lauran, thanks for the clarification.

I think it fair to say that Paul's comment was specifically about the outward appearance that comes across as dignified. What you mention as

with a cheap veneer of stature and decency

It is, of course, a better thing to have the substance of good than to have the appearance of it without the substance. I don't think anyone here disputes that.

But it is better still to have BOTH the substance and the appearance. We can indeed WISH that, while Trump was going about doing the good things he has already done (like getting us a good SC justice), he also exhibited outwardly dignified behavior. We might not get it, but we can wish for it. Goodness knows it is not necessary to be a Twit in order to be a good president.

I’ve met people whose accusations against Obama are far more vile than Trump’s behavior, but as with most of Obama’s past, they’re well hidden and will continue to be--for the time being.

My reason for commenting at all was over what I understood as a defense of Obama, actually. I wasn’t “hastening” to tell anyone anything, either, any more than my post was aimed at all of you. I thought I was only responding to Tony M's comment. I don’t recall ever replying to a post of yours I disagreed with so sarcastically (nor would I want to) but I can’t help noticing some grumpiness on your part over an implied defense of Trump. Clearly, “grabbing body parts” of his female staff is what you abhor most about him.

Trump left his first wife and his children after 20+ years of marriage to fornicate with younger, more attractive, glossier and racier women. To add insult to injury he then offered his soon to be ex-wife a larger settlement if she vacated their home sooner--that he groped staff members and bragged about privately is a small matter compared to what he did to his own flesh and blood for the world to witness.

In truth, Trump's type of crude beast is an ironic but deserved counter to the self-righteous, murderous, lascivious Left and yes, I believe Obama’s crimes against women are far worse whether you agree or not. And defending Trump’s job performance isn’t defending his entire person, nor am I obligated to disregard any good he has accomplished or may accomplish because he displayed vulgar behavior toward staff members some years ago.

No, Lydia, I’m definitely no fan of Trump, but, as uncouth as he is, considering Obama’s behavior and referring to him as “dignified” in comparison is ludicrous.


But it is better still to have BOTH the substance and the appearance.

Of course (though unlikely, short of an act of God, in this Oval Office).

Post a comment


Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.