ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2018 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Monday, November 10, 2014

The end of the Common Law

The British turn their backs on 900 years of legal sovereignty:
Today Parliament votes on extending the European Arrest Warrant scheme. Indefinitely.

I’m perplexed. Usually when we approach a significant milestone in this country we hold a national commemoration of sorts. But alas, thanks to David Cameron’s Three-Line-Whip, and the grim tendency of today’s MPs to fall into line by putting Party before country (and self before children/grandchildren), we seriously face the prospect of Britain falling one year short of a worthy 900th anniversary next year: of the independence of the British legal system.

How can I say this?

Because we appear to be tearing up almost a millennium of hard-won legal rights, to accommodate the free movement of (at most) several hundred European criminals – or ‘alleged’ criminals. At least, that’s how I would explain it to an alien in an elevator pitch.

As a police officer told me recently, “we wouldn’t be supporting these powers if politicians didn’t keep pushing free movement and EU expansion.” So, before this ‘wicked’ Parliament (and I don’t use this word as enthused street-slang) fires another nail into the coffin of citizenship and justice, not just for Britons, but all European residents, let’s reiterate some highlights from times before November 2014, when British generations slowly triumphed to be the masters of their own judicial system.
These cultural wars are long-wave historical events. They won't be won or lost in our lifetimes. We can, of course, ignore them and simply go along to get along. Or we can take part of them, acting in the full knowledge that while we might win, or lose, a battle here and there, we will not get the chance to see the final outcome.

But we can influence it. Don't you think Pelagius and the Asturians would look on the results of the Reconquista and feel that theirs had been lives well-lived?

Some thing that these extended timescales proves that there is no conspiracy and "progress" is a mere accident of history because no human lifespan is long enough to encompass the strategy or the consequences. The logic is correct, but then, logic also suggests an alternative, which is that there is something, or someone, that exists on a larger timescale and is capable of guiding events of these temporal proportions.

So, the question comes down to this: given what we can observe with the limited means at our disposal, which do you find more unlikely? A coin almost always flipping tails at random or some sort of unknown, long-lived being imposing its will on the coin toss?

I very much disagree with Sherlock Holmes. Vox's 4th Law of Logical Analysis states: once you have identified the improbable, look more closely at what you assume to be impossible.

Labels: ,

117 Comments:

Blogger Josh November 10, 2014 9:28 AM  

given what we can observe with the limited means at our disposal, which do you find more unlikely? A coin almost always flipping tails at random or some sort of unknown, long-lived being imposing its will on the coin toss?

For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.

Blogger Derek Danos November 10, 2014 9:28 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Anonymous jayb November 10, 2014 9:45 AM  

Magan Carta 1215 -> 2015 = 800 years, yes?
*Unless* there was a conspiracy of scribes to falsify history and create an extra century of events that never occured!

Anonymous RedJack November 10, 2014 10:00 AM  

Massive centralized churches like the current version of the Roman Catholic church will be hurt in this round. They have large amounts of real estate, power structures, and a tradition of command and control to attack.

The smaller cell based movements will be very hard to stop. Look at China. Small organizations that are not directly answerable to others but are loosely connected are very difficult to stop.

The RCC has been successful in the past at becoming decentralized. Most recently behind the old Iron Curtain. But after the opening of the East, the bishops in Rome moved quickly to destroy the underground Catholic churches. They viewed them as a threat.

In short, I expect a schism with the portion of the Catholic church that remains orthodox going underground, and a larger portion making an accommodation with the state. I also expect more decentralized synods and churches to fill the void caused by the fall of the old 2GW structures. Much like in the East and Africa, Christianity will survive, but it won't be the same traditions as the old European based model. Much like Russian Orthodoxy is different from the old Byzantine religion.

Anonymous Interrogative November 10, 2014 10:09 AM  

Why assume the individual Elite members have to see it in in their lifetime? Knowing the Western tradition is difficult to change and overcome (didn't Kissinger say something along these lines?), why believe they - not unlike most people here desiring to see their seed successful without actually seeing it in their lifetime - have a problem with their progeny seeing the furthering or the completion of their conspiring to create a return to serfdom, with its accompanying techno police state and financial model? And yes, all influenced by if not outright guided by the Father of Lies.

Anonymous Michael November 10, 2014 10:18 AM  

As nations increasingly turn away from God and towards their secular masters, the change is reflected in arbitrary, corrupt and merciless laws, the loss of human rights and privacy.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus November 10, 2014 10:25 AM  

Keep British genes, loaded in favor of justice, safe for a thousand years, and a thousand years of "random" events will show a steady drift to human betterment.

Change the genes, and words are air. Blow up the wall, and what was painted on the wall no longer matters. Parade Magna Carta or anything else you like, past a London population made minority white English, and it will do so little good you might as well not bother.

We are in the worst crisis that has gripped the white world since the rise of Man. In three hundred years or so, in all probability, our fate will have been decided for good or ill. We are like passenger pigeons: we need numbers. We're going to make it, or we won't; there's no sustainable middle state to be had.

We are outmatched, but history is a chancy game. We might win anyway. If we do, limitless glory beckons. Everything that's wrong can be put right and made better than it ever was. We can un-blemish the world.

If we lose, our future is no more than the future of whites in what was to become Haiti; our past is equally meaningless, and all the "values" and "culture" and art of all sorts associated is equally null. All-that-is-good will be lost, for lack of the right people to sustain it.

At this time, it is absolutely appropriate that we pray and seek aid, supernatural and natural, in every possible way. Now or never.

And by "now" I mean it's likely people already born will see the decisive turn of fortune that plunges us into a long but essentially hopeless endgame or turns things around.

Blogger Desiderius November 10, 2014 10:39 AM  

OUR Fathers in a wondrous age,
Ere yet the Earth was small,
Ensured to us an heritage,
And doubted not at all
That we, the children of their heart,
Which then did beat so high,
In later time should play like part
For our posterity.

A thousand years they steadfast built,
To ’vantage us and ours,
The Walls that were a world’s despair,
The sea-constraining Towers:
Yet in their midmost pride they knew,
And unto Kings made known,
Not all from these their strength they drew,
Their faith from brass or stone.

Youth’s passion, manhood’s fierce intent,
With age’s judgment wise,
They spent, and counted not they spent,
At daily sacrifice.
Not lambs alone nor purchased doves
Or tithe of trader’s gold—
Their lives most dear, their dearer loves,
They offered up of old.

Refraining e’en from lawful things,
They bowed the neck to bear
The unadornèd yoke that brings
Stark toil and sternest care.
Wherefore through them is Freedom sure;
Wherefore through them we stand,
From all but sloth and pride secure,
In a delightsome land.

Then, fretful, murmur not they gave
So great a charge to keep,
Nor dream that awestruck Time shall save
Their labour while we sleep.
Dear-bought and clear, a thousand year,
Our fathers’ title runs.
Make we likewise their sacrifice,
Defrauding not our sons.

Blogger Northern Hamlet November 10, 2014 10:46 AM  

VD,

A coin almost always flipping tails at random or some sort of unknown, long-lived being imposing its will on the coin toss?

Couldn't it merely be that humans intuitively think in certain, limited ways, responding to their problems largely the same across time?

Anonymous Porky November 10, 2014 10:47 AM  

If we lose, our future is no more than the future of whites in what was to become Haiti; our past is equally meaningless, and all the "values" and "culture" and art of all sorts associated is equally null. All-that-is-good will be lost, for lack of the right people to sustain it.

What values, culture and art are you so worried about?



Anonymous Anonymous November 10, 2014 10:49 AM  

We will win; we will defeat them.

Anonymous Michael November 10, 2014 10:52 AM  

Titus, in that regard, the English would need to replace their leadership. Entirely. However, such a change constitutes nothing in and of itself without a rekindling of Christianity, with the people working for a common goal. Considering how much Judaism and their Freemason proxy have managed to corrupt the UK with their multicultural policies and secularization of society, the people would certainly have their work cut out for them. Difficult, but possible.

Blogger Northern Hamlet November 10, 2014 10:53 AM  

Oh, almost forgot ,Vox and anyone interested...

Speaking of logic and tradition, World Chess Championship is this week.

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia November 10, 2014 10:56 AM  

What values, culture and art are you so worried about?

My guess is the the Remnant here is most concerned about what is generally termed The West/Western Christendom Values. These will continue with the Remnant, but most want more than just that. Most want a home with like minded neighbors building such a civilisation.

Anonymous The Original Hermit November 10, 2014 11:02 AM  

“Sherlock Holmes observed that once you have eliminated the impossible then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the answer. I, however, do not like to eliminate the impossible.”
― Douglas Adams, Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency

Anonymous The other skeptic November 10, 2014 11:04 AM  

They are bringing back licensing to provide opinions as well.

Nearly 350 years after us Brits abolished the licensing of the press

Ahhh. So, they had the press under control for 350 years but this new Internet thing has broken down their control so they have to go back to the old scheme.

Anonymous Stilicho November 10, 2014 11:09 AM  

God of our fathers, known of old—
Lord of our far-flung battle line—
Beneath whose awful hand we hold
Dominion over palm and pine—
Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet,
Lest we forget—lest we forget!

The tumult and the shouting dies—
The Captains and the Kings depart—
Still stands Thine ancient sacrifice,
An humble and a contrite heart.
Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet,
Lest we forget—lest we forget!

Far-called our navies melt away—
On dune and headland sinks the fire—
Lo, all our pomp of yesterday
Is one with Nineveh and Tyre!
Judge of the Nations, spare us yet,
Lest we forget—lest we forget!

If, drunk with sight of power, we loose
Wild tongues that have not Thee in awe—
Such boastings as the Gentiles use,
Or lesser breeds without the Law—
Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet,
Lest we forget—lest we forget!

For heathen heart that puts her trust
In reeking tube and iron shard—
All valiant dust that builds on dust,
And guarding calls not Thee to guard.
For frantic boast and foolish word,
Thy Mercy on Thy People, Lord!
Amen.

Anonymous Porky November 10, 2014 11:12 AM  

@Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia

What does christianity have to do with whiteness?

Anonymous Michael November 10, 2014 11:27 AM  

The other skeptic, thanks for the link. Corrupt people always try to silence and oppress truth.

The Synagogue of Satan is making preparations for its next communist takeover and mass genocide. Every land they permeate with their secularism resembles hell on earth. It happened throughout the 20th Century and it will happen again.

Blogger Feather Blade November 10, 2014 11:30 AM  

@ Porky

Christianity, having been the dominant religion in Europe for the better part of two millenia, has informed, influenced, and moulded the cultures, and values, and thought patterns of all the people therein.

It is not that Christianity is "white", it's that "whiteness" no longer has any existence apart from Christianity.

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia November 10, 2014 11:31 AM  

What does christianity have to do with whiteness?

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

Anonymous Anonymous November 10, 2014 11:36 AM  

Porky, can you possibly be that obtuse?

Anonymous CloseHauled November 10, 2014 11:37 AM  

"no human lifespan is long enough to encompass the strategy or the consequences"

The Mafia does just fine. This is one example of a criminal enterprise lasting many generations.

The theory goes that the hidden hand is a generational satanic "mafia"

Anonymous Porky November 10, 2014 11:38 AM  

@Conan

My original question was in response to Titus' "worst crisis that has gripped the white world since the rise of Man".

Is this a white problem or a Christian problem?

Blogger Northern Hamlet November 10, 2014 11:47 AM  

The Original Hermit,

Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency

Totally didn't recognize the quote. Thanks for the tip. Love that book.

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia November 10, 2014 11:48 AM  

Is this a white problem or a Christian problem?

Can it not be both?

Though the Enlightenment crowd has tried to disparage the Way, the civilisation that is/was built upon it seems to be of value. It has had a nice track record. Now the Enlightenment crowd has overcome what once was. It can be destroyed and forgotten, or it can be preserved.

As has been argued and shown on this blog many times over, many things arose out of Christianity and its influence on the West. What we have generally defined as civilisaton.

Vox has argued for the interaction of culture and genetics as to why this is so. Though this is not theory that has been proven, it does seem to sustain the eye test, if nothing else.

Is it truly worth flushing down and away?

Many here would like not to fall sway of the forces intent on this destruction.

Anonymous Philalethes November 10, 2014 11:49 AM  

They are bringing back licensing to provide opinions as well.

It's the brainchild of Theresa May, the Home Secretary in David Cameron's government. May wants to introduce "extremism disruption orders"...

I expect she'll be saving the first EDO to be served posthumously on that most extreme Brit of all...

"It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers-out of unorthodoxy." – George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four, Part 1, Chapter 1

Anonymous Porky November 10, 2014 11:49 AM  

It is not that Christianity is "white", it's that "whiteness" no longer has any existence apart from Christianity.

Sure it does. It's called post-christian western society.

Who do you think runs the military industrial complex? Who's running the Ivy League?

Where do you think techno music comes from?


Blogger Josh November 10, 2014 11:51 AM  

Who do you think runs the military industrial complex? Who's running the Ivy League?

Where do you think techno music comes from?


Monster Energy Drink.

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia November 10, 2014 11:57 AM  

My original question was in response to Titus' "worst crisis that has gripped the white world since the rise of Man".

Does the West and its white people have the right to exist as a people(s)?

If so, the seemingly purposeful (?) eating away of it from within by the post modern, relativistic, original white sin condemners should be considered.

Perhaps the only ones to be concerned are those that are Christian and that don't hate themselves and their culture/heritage.

Anonymous The Original Hermit November 10, 2014 12:02 PM  

@ Northern Hamlet
There's another paragraph in there somewhere that explains it further, but it's not nearly so succinct. I agree, great book, even if it doesn't make any sense half the time.

Anonymous Porky November 10, 2014 12:13 PM  

Does the West and its white people have the right to exist as a people(s)?

White people don't seem to think so, if the last couple of centuries' wars are any guide. White people seem to really enjoy killing other white people. Pretty good at it too.

And it's rarely over the subject of Jesus Christ.

Blogger Desiderius November 10, 2014 12:18 PM  

Conan,

"don't hate themselves and their culture/heritage"

No one hates themselves. Those who hate the culture/heritage don't consider themselves to be a part of it.

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia November 10, 2014 12:19 PM  

White people don't seem to think so

No argument over the current zeitgeist that is infecting the West.

And it's rarely over the subject of Jesus Christ.

Again no argument. Control/power/wealth as always it seems to be.

Blogger Desiderius November 10, 2014 12:27 PM  

Conan,

"My guess is the the Remnant here is most concerned about what is generally termed The West/Western Christendom Values. These will continue with the Remnant, but most want more than just that. Most want a home with like minded neighbors building such a civilisation."

The Elendili of late Númenor found such a home in Middle Earth, but only after Númenor itself, haven given itself over to Evil, was drowned beneath the waves.

Anonymous Porky November 10, 2014 12:31 PM  

No argument...

Then to answer your question, no - it cannot be both.

Blogger Desiderius November 10, 2014 12:39 PM  

"the current zeitgeist that is infecting the West"

An infection requires a flaw in the immune system of the Body to wreak havoc. In this case, the flaw is twofold:

(1) doctrine that advocates, indeed often mandates, returning good faith for bad, failing basic social dynamics and/or the loss of the capacity to identify bad faith at all (niceness Churchianity)

(2) the turning of the immune system itself against healthy parts of the Body by the infection, acting as a force multiplier. Cultural AIDS.

Anonymous Dumb founded November 10, 2014 12:47 PM  

"So, they had the press under control for 350 years but this new Internet thing has broken down their control so they have to go back to the old scheme."

Isn't it curious, though, that when the Jews abandoned Russia (the main part of the Sov Union) the media turned on Russia?

Anonymous Dumb founded November 10, 2014 12:52 PM  

White man speak with forked tongue:

"President Barack Obama urged the government to adopt tighter regulations on broadband service in an effort to preserve "a free and open Internet.""

Anonymous Krul November 10, 2014 12:55 PM  

Some thing that these extended timescales proves that there is no conspiracy and "progress" is a mere accident of history because no human lifespan is long enough to encompass the strategy or the consequences. The logic is correct, but then, logic also suggests an alternative, which is that there is something, or someone, that exists on a larger timescale and is capable of guiding events of these temporal proportions.

Ayn Rand gave her explanation for this in the title essay of "For the New Intellectual", which you can read here.

In brief, she suggests that the anti-reason trends in philosophy and politics since the end of the Rennaissance were caused by the default of the intellectual class. The intellectuals abandoned the philosophy of Aristotle and Thomas Acquinas, which they couldn't do without abandoning the concepts of reason, reality, and objective morality themselves.

I personally would add the Protestant Reformation as a cause of the trend. The RCC provided unified philosophical and moral leadership based on Thomistic philosophy for virtually all of Europe until the Reformation. After the Reformation, Europe was left with a moral and intellectual vacuum. (Whether the RCC is 100% right or not is irrelevant here. I'm Protestant myself, but this doesn't change the central role played by the RCC in Christendom before and during the Rennaissance.)

As a result, while the West advanced materially in subsequent centuries, it regressed spiritually. The best phrase to describe the intellectual world of the 19th century is "Fools rush in where angels fear to tread". Seances, alchemy, Eastern religions, and all other forms of pagan mysticism multiplied in the void left by the Aristotelian/Thomism of the RCC. As one notable example, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle who created ultra-rational characters like Sherlock Holmes and Professor Challenger, dedicated years of his life to proving the existence of fairies.

As for the SJW, they are like mindless zombies lobotomized by acceptance of various anti-reason anti-doctrines. Their campaign against the gaming industry is the same as their campaigns against capitalism, free association, free speech, discrimination, Western culture, white people, heterosexuality and anything else even vaguely associated with the effective use of human rationality. Their sort will continue to multiply like mushrooms until the default position of our intellectual culture changes from nothing to something.

Blogger Feather Blade November 10, 2014 12:57 PM  

Sure it does. It's called post-christian western society.

And what form does it take? The conscious and deliberate rejection of all Christian ethics and morality, accompanied by the deliberate adoption, at first, of the inoffensive (to Christians) aspects of pagan cultures, followed by progressively more offfensive (to Christians) aspects of pagan cultures.

They can't manage to come up with any ideas of their own. They can only do what Christians would not, and what older pagans would.

Blogger Josh November 10, 2014 1:05 PM  

I personally would add the Protestant Reformation as a cause of the trend.

And...there goes the thread.

I would counter by pointing to the Scottish enlightenment, which laid the intellectual foundation for the modern world.

Blogger njartist November 10, 2014 1:10 PM  

I personally would add the Protestant Reformation as a cause of the trend.
Yep, end of thread.

Anonymous Porky November 10, 2014 1:13 PM  

They can't manage to come up with any ideas of their own.

Christian Civilization's heritage is a barbarian one. Obviously they eventually came up with some ideas.


They can only do what Christians would not, and what older pagans would.

There are barbarians of all colors and races in our midst. You can either side with the barbarians that match your skin tone and general location, or you can side with Paul and be all things to all people so that some might be saved.

Anonymous Dumb founded November 10, 2014 1:17 PM  

"Some thing that these extended timescales proves that there is no conspiracy and "progress" is a mere accident of history because no human lifespan is long enough to encompass the strategy or the consequences. The logic is correct, but then, logic also suggests an alternative, which is that there is something, or someone, that exists on a larger timescale and is capable of guiding events of these temporal proportions."

I think that the same differential equations approach used in predator/prey relationships (foxes vs rabbits) can be used to describe the elites vs the rest of us, since the elites mostly prey on the rest of us (exploit us).

As long as the constants are such that the period of oscillation is longer than 5-8 times the generation time (about 25-30 years these days) then it is much longer than a human lifespan.

Anonymous Porky November 10, 2014 1:17 PM  

I would counter by pointing to the Scottish enlightenment, which laid the intellectual foundation for the modern world.

Is this why we're trillions of dollars in debt?

Blogger Josh November 10, 2014 1:28 PM  

Is this why we're trillions of dollars in debt?

No.

Anonymous Krul November 10, 2014 1:31 PM  

Josh - And...there goes the thread.

Thank you, it's nice to be appreciated.

Anyway like I said, it doesn't matter whether RCC doctrine is correct or not. What matters it the fact that Christendom had- and lost- the common frame of reference provided by an intellectual/moral authority.

I would counter by pointing to the Scottish enlightenment, which laid the intellectual foundation for the modern world.

I doubt the SE would have been possible, in its philosophical aspects at least, if the Protestant Reformation (PR) hadn't broken the dominance of the RCC. Similarly, the PR couldn't have broken the RCC's dominance without the RCC's well known record of abuses and scandals.

Blogger Josh November 10, 2014 1:33 PM  

I doubt the SE would have been possible, in its philosophical aspects at least, if the Protestant Reformation (PR) hadn't broken the dominance of the RCC.

My point was that the Scottish enlightenment wasn't a bad thing.

Anonymous Krul November 10, 2014 1:40 PM  

[Second attempt]

Josh - And...there goes the thread.

Thank you, it's nice to be appreciated.

Anyway like I said, it doesn't matter whether RCC doctrine is correct or not. What matters it the fact that Christendom had- and lost- the common frame of reference provided by an intellectual/moral authority.

I would counter by pointing to the Scottish enlightenment, which laid the intellectual foundation for the modern world.

I doubt the SE would have been possible, in its philosophical aspects at least, if the Protestant Reformation (PR) hadn't broken the dominance of the RCC. Similarly, the PR couldn't have broken the RCC's dominance without the RCC's well known record of abuses and scandals.

Anonymous Porky November 10, 2014 1:42 PM  

No.

Are you sure? Cuz that Woodrow Wilson sure loved him some of that Fed Reserve money...

Blogger Josh November 10, 2014 1:44 PM  

Are you sure? Cuz that Woodrow Wilson sure loved him some of that Fed Reserve money...

Except that debt has been present throughout recorded history.

It didn't just appear ex nihilo because of Adam Smith.

Anonymous Porky November 10, 2014 1:46 PM  

Anyway like I said, it doesn't matter whether RCC doctrine is correct or not. What matters it the fact that Christendom had- and lost- the common frame of reference provided by an intellectual/moral authority.

The reformation happened BECAUSE the RCC had already lost it's intellectual/moral authority.

The reformation was an attempt to restore it.

So yeah. It does matter.

Anonymous Porky November 10, 2014 1:51 PM  

Except that debt has been present throughout recorded history.

Yeah, but the Scots are legendary. Ewan McTeagle made an art of it.

Anonymous Krul November 10, 2014 2:02 PM  

Porky - The reformation happened BECAUSE the RCC had already lost it's intellectual/moral authority.

I know. That's why I wrote this:

Krul - Similarly, the PR couldn't have broken the RCC's dominance without the RCC's well known record of abuses and scandals.

Josh - My point was that the Scottish enlightenment wasn't a bad thing.

Not 100% bad. It did give us David Hume, though.

Please note that my purpose in these comments is NOT to defend the RCC, but to provide what I believe to be the best explanation for the long term trends identified by Vox. In case it wasn't clear.

Anonymous Porky November 10, 2014 2:55 PM  

Please note that my purpose in these comments is NOT to defend the RCC, but to provide what I believe to be the best explanation for the long term trends identified by Vox.

By your own admission the trend began way before the reformation. Yet you blame the reformation.

Stop. Just stop.

Anonymous Krul November 10, 2014 3:07 PM  

Your problem is failure of reading comprehension, Porky. I'm identifying the trends that led to the current situation. I'm not trying to "blame" anyone.

Looking back on it now, it was imprecise to call the PR a "cause" of the trend. It would be more accurate to say that the PR facilitated the trend, since the anti-reason philosophies did not to my knowledge have their origin in Protestant beliefs.

Anonymous Porky November 10, 2014 3:25 PM  

Looking back on it now, it was imprecise to call the PR a "cause" of the trend.

Yep, that was the word.

I'd also disagree with this:

"After the Reformation, Europe was left with a moral and intellectual vacuum."

A schism is not a "vacuum". And the RCC did not magically disappear.

Blogger James Dixon November 10, 2014 3:40 PM  

> There are barbarians of all colors and races in our midst.

As I've been forced to note before, what do you mean "our midst"? Civilization has it's good points, but I was born and will die a barbarian.

Anonymous Krul November 10, 2014 3:43 PM  

Porky - A schism is not a "vacuum". And the RCC did not magically disappear.

The RCC's absolute moral authority disappeared. I do not claim that the Reformation was a "vacuum", only that Christendom has been in a vacuum since the PR. This is because post-Rennaissance philosophers threw out the baby (Aristotelian/Thomistic philosophy) with the bathwater (Papal infallability, transubstantiation, etc), and spent the next few centuries essentially arguing what the definition of "is" is.

Anonymous Anonymous November 10, 2014 3:55 PM  

Please note that my purpose in these comments is NOT to defend the RCC, but to provide what I believe to be the best explanation for the long term trends identified by Vox. In case it wasn't clear.

It was clear; you just got too close to Porky's hobby horse.

The point is, regardless of who caused it or why, the Reformation opened up the idea that individuals were free to challenge authority -- should challenge it, even. Religious authority at first, but that religious authority was also the primary intellectual and cultural authority, so those became suspect too. Taken to an extreme, you get the person (Catholic or Protestant) who changes churches every time a pastor says something he doesn't like, and the Hollywood trope of, "Just follow your heart."

The Reformation isn't the only cause, but we couldn't have gotten here without it.

Anonymous Bran November 10, 2014 3:58 PM  

You should question authority when it is corrupt.

Anonymous Bran November 10, 2014 4:01 PM  

The RCC provided unified philosophical and moral leadership based on Thomistic philosophy for virtually all of Europe until the Reformation. (Whether the RCC is 100% right or not is irrelevant here.

Yes, it is relevant. Why should a free people use a corrupt and greedy institution as a "moral authority"? That's absurd.

Anonymous Anonymous November 10, 2014 4:07 PM  

You should question authority when it is corrupt.

Right. But the more that questioning authority becomes a habit, the more people will question non-corrupt authorities, and as Krul said, the baby goes with the bathwater.

Everyone here should be smart enough to understand that saying "A had consequences which paved the way for bad thing B" isn't the same thing as saying that A was bad or shouldn't have happened. Krul isn't saying the Reformation was bad, but it certainly did change the way people looked at many things, and some of those new ways of thinking led to negative results.

Anonymous Stilicho November 10, 2014 4:14 PM  


Right. But the more that questioning authority becomes a habit, the more people will question non-corrupt authorities, and as Krul said, the baby goes with the bathwater.


No, the result is entirely dependent upon the quality of the questioning and the conclusion reached. Even non-corrupt authorities can be wrong. God gave you a mind and, by all evidence, expects you to use it. Blind obedience and blind questioning are equally lacking in reason.

Anonymous Krul November 10, 2014 4:19 PM  

Bran - Why should a free people use a corrupt and greedy institution as a "moral authority"? That's absurd.

No one is saying they should. The PR happened because the RCC was in dire need of reform. But it doesn't matter for my purposes WHY it happened; only THAT it happened. When the RCC was out of the way, nothing took its place as philosophical/moral authority. Hence, the vacuum where pagan mystics breed like flies.

I hope that we, as a culture, can discard the current consensus of nothing and instead uphold a consensus of objective reality, reason, and Christianity.

Anonymous Porky November 10, 2014 4:21 PM  

The Reformation isn't the only cause, but we couldn't have gotten here without it.

We would have gotten here one way or another.

Eschatology and all.

Blogger Josh November 10, 2014 4:22 PM  

Hell, both Moses and Job (perhaps Abraham) questioned God.

And God is the ultimate incorruptible Authority.

The new testament actually encourages Christians to question, what do you think the passages on testing the spirits and the praise for the Bereans are for?

Blogger Josh November 10, 2014 4:24 PM  

When the RCC was out of the way, nothing took its place as philosophical/moral authority.

The Word of God?

Anonymous Krul November 10, 2014 4:36 PM  

cailcorishev, I think you're onto something, but I'm not talking about the questioning of authority in particular. I'm talking about a basic philosophical consensus.

When the RCC was in charge, Catholics from all over Christendom in a shared intellectual context. Virtually all of them accepted basic assumptions, such as the assumption that Man has free will, that his senses are valid, that his reason is valid, that objective reality and objective morality exist, that Christianity is true, etc. It's assumptions like these that were cast out by early modern philosophers, leaving us with a consensus of nothing.

I don't think that an institution is necessary to maintain such a consensus, but it does require a greater responsibility on each individual to accept rational assumptions for himself.

Blogger njartist November 10, 2014 4:40 PM  

@ Krul
"After the Reformation, Europe was left with a moral and intellectual vacuum."
Will you please explain for the audience just how a scripture based - that includes the Ten Commandments - Christianity - as though there really is any other - would create a moral vacuum.

And while you are at it, please explain for us how a Christianity that encourages a people to read the scriptures - in the process establishing the local language and creating a literate people -and encouraging them to study the scriptures, as God praised the Berians for doing - creates an intellectual vacuum.

What your ilk is really complaining about is that Christ became -as He should be - the head of every believer; and not being usurped by some local priest; nor worshiping some arrogant anti-Christ who has set himself up as God in the midst of the congregation. Are you a frustrated ex-seminarian?

BTW, if you had read the book, Charlemagne and Mohammed by Perinne, you would have discovered that before the fall of he Eastern Roman Empire, copies of the bible were wide spread throughout Europe, they were on papyrus, and the people were literate: it was when Byzantium fell and papyrus disappeared: the Romanists became dominant and controlled the creation of bibles on vellum; the papists began to order the burning of the earlier bibles.That is what caused a moral and intellectual vacuum in Europe.

Anonymous Krul November 10, 2014 4:52 PM  

njartist, the Reformation itself was a good thing. It corrected the errors of the RCC, which I have already acknowledge. The Protestants themselves were not the problem.

The problem is the elimination of the philosophical/moral consensus that accompanied the RCC's dominance. The philosophers - who, like David Hume, were often not Protestants or even Christians - rejected the Aristotelian/Thomistic assumptions of the old consensus and spent their time claiming that concepts like objective reality, objective morality, reason, and causality either don't exist or are unknowable. It's this environment that allowed nonsense like socialism - and its product, the SJW's - to run hog wild for all these years.

Anonymous Porky November 10, 2014 4:54 PM  

When the RCC was out of the way, nothing took its place as philosophical/moral authority.

Uh, the gospel?

Can you really not have moral authority without some bureaucrat who demands that you genuflect and kiss his holy ring?

Sheesh....you must think the church was a bunch of drooling snake handlers before Constantine or Aquinas came around.

Blogger njartist November 10, 2014 4:55 PM  

@ Krul...
When the RCC was in charge, Catholics from all over Christendom in a shared intellectual context. Virtually all of them accepted basic assumptions

Good grief. So sharing a knowledge of scripture somehow does not create a shared intellectual context, nor shared basic assumptions?

Do you not understand that by studying the scripture one becomes literate, begins to understand complex sentences and words, begins to reason, and acquires wisdom? And that to you is an intellectual vacuum and non-context?

I can only come to the conclusion that you and your kind take great offense at Christianity restoring its scriptural foundation and tossing out the "tradition of the elders." You are fundamentally in the same position of a Talmudic Jew is to a Karaite - the latter accepts only the Torah and rejects the tradition of the elders.

Anonymous Krul November 10, 2014 4:58 PM  

Josh - The Word of God?

Porky - Uh, the gospel?

The Scriptures maintained their authority among Christians, but Christianity did not maintain its authority in Western culture.

Blogger Josh November 10, 2014 5:00 PM  

It's assumptions like these that were cast out by early modern philosophers, leaving us with a consensus of nothing.

To aid in discussion, can you give us an idea of the early modern philosophers do that we're all clear on what those terms mean?

Anonymous Krul November 10, 2014 5:01 PM  

njartist - So sharing a knowledge of scripture somehow does not create a shared intellectual context, nor shared basic assumptions?

Once again, this context applies to Christians. The philosophers moved toward things like socialism and utilitarianism, and they the took culture along with them.

Blogger Josh November 10, 2014 5:04 PM  

The Scriptures maintained their authority among Christians, but Christianity did not maintain its authority in Western culture.

Based on what? Your feelings?

Western culture was still a Christian culture.

In fact, it's quite possible that Christianity had greater authority amongst the protestant cultures.

Look at the spread of bibles in England and Germany for example.

Blogger Josh November 10, 2014 5:06 PM  

Once again, this context applies to Christians. The philosophers moved toward things like socialism and utilitarianism, and they the took culture along with them.

And where did socialism begin? France.

What denomination of Christianity was France?

Roman Catholic.

We're done here.

Anonymous Krul November 10, 2014 5:21 PM  

Josh - Based on what? Your feelings?

Based on looking around me. The anti-Christian socialist regimes of the 20th century were the culminating application of the trends I have identified in the previous centuries.

Josh - To aid in discussion, can you give us an idea of the early modern philosophers do that we're all clear on what those terms mean?

My source on that is Edward Feser's books, which catalogue the history of philosophy - The Last Superstition is one.

As an example of the philosophers who turned against rationality, there's David Hume who questioned causation, and argued that reason should be subordinate to passion. Thomas Hobbes was an advocate of the absolute power of the state over the individual. Voltaire said ""[Christianity] is assuredly the most ridiculous, the most absurd and the most bloody religion which has ever infected this world. Your Majesty will do the human race an eternal service by extirpating this infamous superstition".

Anonymous Krul November 10, 2014 5:35 PM  

Josh - And where did socialism begin? France.

What denomination of Christianity was France?

Roman Catholic.


This is evidence in favor of my position. Socialism was born in post-Revolutionary France, which was anti-religious (hence "Thermidor"), being an application of Enlightenment ideals, which themselves became popular after the Protestant Reformation, as I have said.

Anonymous Smokey November 10, 2014 6:29 PM  

Vox why exactly can we not have a generations long conspiracy? If you take the Rothschild conspiracy theory as an example - why couldn't one of the richest families be slowly working towards an endgame, raising their children to keep the plan on track etc. Most of the work is done by useful idiots at all levels after all.

Anonymous Krul November 10, 2014 8:24 PM  

One more thing:

Krul - The Scriptures maintained their authority among Christians, but Christianity did not maintain its authority in Western culture.

Josh - Based on what? Your feelings?

I live in a country where over a million abortions are legally performed each year. This should be sufficient to prove that, at present, the authority in Western culture is neither Christianity nor reason.

Anonymous Sarcophilus November 10, 2014 9:46 PM  

Do not wonder. The peasants in different waves, from the left and right, approached the castle with torches and pitchforks. "You gotta stop the terrorists!" screamed the right - just look at WND since 9/11 - even if the IRS would destroy WND itself. "Abortion and Gay marriage is a right!" the left exclaims.

Even the police / military dichotomy is dissolving. Posse Comatatus. They demand swarms of agents to harass the people and eat out their substance.

Not to forget the Indiana Supreme Court nullified the "Castle Doctrine" which went back to the Magna Charta a few years ago.

As to the Catholic/Protestant quarrel about the "enlightenment" - the only key is Lord Acton - who is not a Saint - who said "Power corrupts". Catholics tend to be bureaucrats so have due PROCESS. But in any case, I'm with those who would scatter and disperse power as we all are corrupt to some degree, and foolish to a large extent. Assume any power you would grant any man would be exercised by someone who is literally possessed by a demon or the antichrist himself.

Anonymous ut unum sint November 10, 2014 10:10 PM  

Krul - thanks for your comments. God wants all of his saved ones to be as one - "ut Unum sint" - and he wants all of his saved ones to reach out to the unsaved, for obvious reasons. When so-called "Protestant" ( I do not believe that is a fair word to use, I prefer to use a word they would prefer, that is, Biblical) Christians arrogantly and contemptuously claim - as they so often do, from Billy Graham on down - that they have no unlimited obligations to the contracepted and aborted little sisters and brothers in whom they have insufficient interest - and who can honestly state that this is not the stated view of many widely admired "Protestants"? - (although I wish with all my heart that it were not true - but it is) - God can not be happy, to put it mildly. When Catholics (who are just as Biblical - read the Bible if you don't believe me) adopt selfish ethnic views and selfish "hey my whole working class neighborhood was Democratic because we hated the rich Republican" views, not to mention the Biblically preposterous "we are the Jews that God loved, the actual Jews God spoke to were not as good as us", I believe God is rather - to put it mildly - displeased. Of course lots of individual Catholics are jealous of you aborting and contracepting Protestants, just as lots of Protestants wish they could claim, like the Catholics, that they are the direct followers of Peter, who loved our Lord enough to die for him. Well, the ancient Jews of the Northern Kingdom and the Southern Kingdom, combined, had five real kings between them, out of dozens. We moderns have done a lot worse.

Anonymous Rome or Die November 10, 2014 10:44 PM  

"When the RCC was in charge, Catholics from all over Christendom in a shared intellectual context. Virtually all of them accepted basic assumptions"

Exactly. Today do you realize there are 90,000 different Protestant faiths, all heretical? Do you finally see the full damage of Baptist filth? Death to apostates, Rome or die.

Anonymous G.K. Chesterton November 10, 2014 11:02 PM  

They have given us into the hands of the new unhappy lords,
Lords without anger and honour, who dare not carry their swords.
They fight by shuffling papers; they have bright dead alien eyes;
They look at our labour and laughter as a tired man looks at flies.
And the load of their loveless pity is worse than the ancient wrongs,
Their doors are shut in the evenings; and they know no songs.

We hear men speaking for us of new laws strong and sweet,
Yet is there no man speaketh as we speak in the street.
It may be we shall rise the last as Frenchmen rose the first,
Our wrath come after Russia's wrath and our wrath be the worst.
It may be we are meant to mark with our riot and our rest
God's scorn for all men governing. It may be beer is best.
But we are the people of England; and we have not spoken yet.
Smile at us, pay us, pass us. But do not quite forget.

Anonymous Krul November 10, 2014 11:06 PM  

Just to reiterate:

Krul - Please note that my purpose in these comments is NOT to defend the RCC, but to provide what I believe to be the best explanation for the long term trends identified by Vox.

Krul - the Reformation itself was a good thing. It corrected the errors of the RCC, which I have already acknowledge. The Protestants themselves were not the problem.

Anonymous ut unum sint November 11, 2014 12:01 AM  

GK Chesterton - nice poetry. But God loves who he wants to love, he does not need GK Chesterton to give him advice. You see, each of us has a specific set of temptations, poor little GK thought he had an inspiration to show contempt for those who had different temptations than him. In doing so, he was wrong.
He was right about many things, but he was wrong about that.

Anonymous A. Nonymous November 11, 2014 12:29 AM  

GK Chesterton - nice poetry. But God loves who he wants to love, he does not need GK Chesterton to give him advice. You see, each of us has a specific set of temptations

Yours being to presume to speak for God and to show contempt for Chesterton, apparently.

Anonymous FrankNorman November 11, 2014 5:01 AM  

Roman Catholicism does not offer any solution to the real problems here. In fact, the RCC is part of the problem.
And has been all along.

Anonymous FrankNorman November 11, 2014 5:29 AM  

To expand on this - when William the Bastard invaded Britain to depose the lawfully appointed English king and impose French-style tyranny in place of English Common Law, he did so with the banners of the Papacy in his train.

And of course nowadays the modern RCC is blatantly on the side of the Third World.

Anonymous Porky November 11, 2014 8:11 AM  

@Krul

Just to reiterate:

I get it. I get it.

Just not buying it. I suggest a better explanation might be that before the reformation, open rejection of christian philosophy could get you thrown in jail or killed.

So perhaps the reformation signalled the rejection not of Thomist/Aristotelian philosophy, but a rejection of the church politic. We see this in the French revolution as well, which also serves to undermine your thesis since the French revolution did not abandon reason as you say but exalted it as a thing to be worshipped.

Anonymous Michael November 11, 2014 10:40 AM  

FrankNorman, "Roman Catholicism does not offer any solution to the real problems here. In fact, the RCC is part of the problem.
And has been all along."

This is sheer nonsense. You are denying the part of scripture where Jesus gave Peter the authority to lead His sheep. Jesus Himself said that the gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Church, but you are actively denying this to be true. So which is it?

Anonymous Anonymous November 11, 2014 11:04 AM  

Mr. Rome or Die:

You posted in part:

"Do you finally see the full damage of Baptist filth?"

Quite a few Baptists (a.k.a. Bible Thumpers) of my acquaintance, not only read their Bibles, but strive to obey the Ten Commandments and to obey the Great Commandment: Love God, Love Neighbor.

"Death to apostates"

IIRC an Apostate is a once self-declared Catholic who then publicly abandons the Faith. Hardly a just description for 21st Century Baptists.

"Rome or die."

I think this phrase, objectively speaking, puts you out of full communion with Rome. The Church recognizes the validity of the Sacraments of "Sister" Churches with Apostolic Succession. The Church also recognizes (in most cases) the validity of Baptism as practiced by the Protestants.

There us an old saying, attributed to St. Francis de Sales, that one can more readily win a soul for Christ with a thimble of honey rather than a hundred barrels of vinegar.

God bless

Richard W Comerford

Anonymous Anonymous November 11, 2014 11:27 AM  

Mr. FrankNorman:

You posted in part:

"he did so with the banners of the Papacy in his train."

Back in the Dark Ages if you entered the JFK Special Warfare Center on Smoke Bomb Hill at Fort Bragg one of the first things you noticed was a Papal Blessing from Pope Paul VI hanging prominently on the wall. And this at a time when many if not a slight majority of Army Special Forces soldiers were Sons of the Confederacy.

According to our family mythology an ancestor(s) escorted the banner(s) in question from Rome to Caen where they were presented to the Bastard himself. There is some argument as to whether said banner(s) were Papal or rather Ducal ones blessed by the Pontiff.

Prior to the Banner incident our ancestors fought as paid mercenaries for the Muslims (who then occupied Sicily and parts of Italy) against the Pope and the Catholic Byzantine Emperor. AFTER defeating a Papal Army, led by the Pope himself, they switched sides. (Perhaps the Holy Father paid better wages?)

The Pope in question (Alexander II) was very busy the year prior: "Pope Alexander II wrote to Béranger, Viscount of Narbonne, and to Guifred, bishop of the city, praising them for having prevented the massacre of the Jews in their district, and reminding them that God does not approve of the shedding of blood. That same year, he admonished Landulf VI of Benevento "that the conversion of Jews is not to be obtained by force."[3] Also in the same year, Alexander called for a crusade against the Moors in Spain" - Wiki

The point I am trying to so clumsily make is that the Church holds that the Successor to Peter is infallible only in very, very limited situations.

In specific he is only protected by the Holy Ghost from formally teaching error when he authoritatively teaches the faithful on matters of faith and morals.

Otherwise he is a very fallible sinner just like you and me.

God bless

Richard W Comerford

Anonymous Krul November 11, 2014 5:36 PM  

Porky - I get it. I get it.

That was for the benefit of Rome or Die and ut unum sint.

I suggest a better explanation might be that before the reformation, open rejection of christian philosophy could get you thrown in jail or killed. So perhaps the reformation signalled the rejection not of Thomist/Aristotelian philosophy, but a rejection of the church politic.

I agree that the PR was, in itself, a rejection of the "church politic", meaning the abuses and false doctrines of the RCC. The rejection of Aristotelian/Thomistic philosophy that followed was a failure of the philosophers, not the Protestants who were focused on theological rather than metaphysical or epistemological issues.

We see this in the French revolution as well, which also serves to undermine your thesis since the French revolution did not abandon reason as you say but exalted it as a thing to be worshipped.

Lip service notwithstanding, I think it is clear that the Reign of Terror was not an application of reason. The French revolutionaries enshrined "Reason" for the same motive that 20th century socialists called their movements "scientific", so that they could malign dissenters as "irrational" and "unscientific". SJW's call their old, shopworn ideals "Progressive" and skeptics "reactionary" as well; it's the same old equivocating trick, and it's never had anything to do with actual reason.

Anonymous ut unum sint November 11, 2014 9:11 PM  

Chesterton would rather be criticized than forgotten. I am sure he would be happy to hear that someone, decades after his death, believes that he deserves the former (criticism) more than the latter (oblivion). I like the little guy, but I also like quite a few of the people that he, with poetic license, sometimes claimed to hate. Many of them were better men than him. Everyone knows that.

Anonymous Anonymous November 11, 2014 9:47 PM  

Mr ut unum sint:

You posted in part:

"I like the little guy"

Little? Are we talking of G.K. Chesterson?


And in part:

"but I also like quite a few of the people that he, with poetic license, sometimes claimed to hate"

I am shocked. The last person I would imagine hating anybody is Chesterson. Who did he hate?

God bless

Richard W Comerford

Anonymous ut unum sint November 12, 2014 9:05 AM  

Mr Comerford; GKC was a very good poet, but in the Swiftian invective tradition. Invective poetry is good in places - King Lear's anguished soliloquies are the non plus ultra - but GKC was no Shakespeare. I have not read all his poetry, and much that I read was long ago, but I think I remember invective hatred against brave Turks fighting in a wrong cause, against brave Normans fighting in a wrong cause, invective hatred against intelligent and good-hearted academics with whom he disagreed on disputed points of medieval history, and against hard-working capitalists who worked harder than him and did much more for the poor than him (not counting, of course, poor tavern-keepers) but whose views on his beloved subsidiarity and socialism were different than his own. As I said in my comment, I admire many of the people in those four classes. You may come to a different conclusion on reading his poetry; you may think, as he claimed, that he was only being helpfully critical, and that he loved all mankind, and wished only to help others see where they had gone wrong; if you come to that conclusion, we will probably just have to agree to disagree.

Anonymous Anonymous November 12, 2014 11:14 AM  

Mr. ut unum sint:

Thank you for your reply wherein you posted in part:

"but I think I remember invective hatred against brave Turks fighting in a wrong cause,"

I cannot find a single expression of hate, invective or otherwise, in GW's works - anywhere.

More importantly folks who, unlike me, are not dummies cannot either.

His reputation, unlike Belloc, among professional critics is one of humor and love for his fellow man.

Even his most dedicated, contemporary opponents expressed admiration and even affection for GW.

God bless

Richard W Comerford

Anonymous FrankNorman November 12, 2014 12:33 PM  

Michael November 11, 2014 10:40 AM

FrankNorman, "Roman Catholicism does not offer any solution to the real problems here. In fact, the RCC is part of the problem.
And has been all along."

This is sheer nonsense. You are denying the part of scripture where Jesus gave Peter the authority to lead His sheep. Jesus Himself said that the gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Church, but you are actively denying this to be true. So which is it?



Obviously, I don't go along with the Papist interpretation of that passage. But that's not the topic here.
This is about the English people having a country of their own, under their own laws, not subject to any foreign power. And that is something that Roman Catholicism, with its insistence on everyone being subject to the One Pope To Rule Them All, seems to me to be incompatible with.

Anonymous Anonymous November 12, 2014 4:53 PM  

Mr. Norman
Re: Catholic Church definition of Papal Rule

"One Pope To Rule Them All" That is funny. What Rome teaches on the matter:

"882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful."402 "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."403"

See: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p4.htm

God bless

Richard W Comerford

Anonymous ut unum sint November 12, 2014 10:06 PM  

Richard W Comerford - if you are interested in the truth - and you should be, as the subject is poetry, which is one of the highest intellectual accomplishments of human civilization - I suggest you read through some of Chesterton's poetry, find a few lines where something that might, if only construed in a negative way that you disagree with, be possibly considered to be invective hatred, and ask yourself: even though I would not find this line to express hatred, why might this line lead a person to think that Chesterton felt, on occasion, hatred for his fellow men? Now, I believe you can look through Shakespeare, Keats, Emily Dickinson, Homer or Vergilius and not find a line of invective hatred; if Chesterton were as good a poet as they were, you would not find a line of invective hatred in his poems either. But, in my opinion, he wasn't a poet on that level. Even if you do eventually conclude that I am wrong, any attempt on your part to understand why I might be right would be an addition to your understanding of God's world. Chesterton was a very good poet, but not good enough to keep his hatreds out of his work. I respect your choice to feel otherwise, but I am fairly certain from your conclusory and dismissive response that your choice is, at least as of now, based neither on all the facts nor on a real intuitive understanding of poetry and poets. By the way, I have spent countless hours over many years reading and rereading Chesterton - wonderful books like TMWWT, Orthodoxy, Heretics, The Dumb Ox, the Innocence of Father Brown, the prefaces to Dickens, and the often-inspired poetry - and I feel certain that he would agree with me, not you. He was not proud of his sins, and he knew that he was a rich man who could easily hide his faults from others (hence your citation to his contemporaries would not impress him). He almost certainly admitted as much on more than one occasion. You do his memory no favors by claiming for him a level of virtue that he did not possess.

Anonymous Anonymous November 13, 2014 2:22 AM  

Mr. ut unum sint
Re: Does Chesterton Hate?

No one, absolutely no one, has been able to find a single line in G. K. Chesterton's vast body of work that proves he hated any human being.

God bless

Richard W Comerford

Anonymous Discard November 13, 2014 2:52 AM  

I suppose that the resolution to the "Chesterton's Hatreds" question would be to post at least a poem or two of his demonstrating such hatred. If "everyone knows that" he hated some people, it shouldn't be too hard.

Anonymous ut unum sint November 13, 2014 8:39 AM  

RIchard W Comerford - we cannot "prove" another person's heart. However, nothing you have said makes me think you have made even a minimal honest intellectual attempt to understand what I am trying to say. I can't prove it, but Chesterton would have been dismayed at your lack of effort. Discard - I already gave examples. Feel free to make a specific assertion that my examples are wrong -and I think at least one of them might be wrong(the one about the Normans). I am not your research assistant, and I do not wish to spend my time posting the worst poems of a poet I admire, so post your own poems if you want. Also, your clever adversarial quote of "everyone knows that" would have been more clever if you had shown an understanding of the rhetorical trope being employed. Hint - it was not a literal statement; it did not stand for the proposition that "every living human being knows that". God bless you both.

Anonymous Anonymous November 13, 2014 9:57 AM  

Mr. ut unum sint:

You posted in part:

"Discard - I already gave examples."

In this thread you have neither quoted Chesterson nor cited any line from his vast work that shows he had a hatred (invective or otherwise) of another human being.

God bless

Richard W Comerford

Anonymous Discard November 13, 2014 7:04 PM  

ut unum sint: I don't need a research assistant. I am making no attempt to show anything about Chesterton. I don't know anything about Chesterton's poetry, and I don't care. It is you who has made a claim about him, that should be easily provable, but you have not done so. Has your proof gotten stuck in a spam filter?
My objection is not that you're wrong about Chesterton, but your continued assertion that you're correct while failing to make your case in the simplest and most obvious way. I don't care about poetry, but I do care about bullshit.

BTW: I am a working class White man who has always liked to read, nothing more. I am educated enough to know how poorly educated I am. I don't know what a "trope" is, but if I ever feel the need, I'll look it up. I am less than devastated that you think I'm not clever enough. (Hint: If you want to cut me to the quick, tell me my welds look like snake shit, and that I couldn't make a straight saw cut to save my life.)
And yes, I know that "everybody knows that" is not (never?) a literal statement. It is generally an unproven assertion that people who are in the know agree with the speaker. It's not a phrase I often see on this site, I suppose because it's so rhetorically weak.

Anonymous ut unum sint November 13, 2014 9:43 PM  

Discard - I am sorry. I thought you were disrespecting me by demanding I do further work to prove my point, after I had already made the painful admission that one of my favorite poets - a fellow Christian, too - had a nasty streak - that he had hatred in his heart - and after I had specifically pointed out that Turks, capitalists, and Chesterton's academic opponents were the victims. So I figured anyone who didn't know what I was talking about, and who cared about the subject, would run a quick google search on Chesterton and turks, bankers, capitalists, factories, professors, that sort of thing. I had hoped someone who knew something about Chesterton would vigorously disagree with me, but all I got were insults and typical internet demands to "cite" to something or other - as if the analysis of a poet's heart could be a simple exercise in quoting a few lines and then lazily saying, yes, that is bad, or no, that is good. The "everyone knows that" was a reference to something all Christians know, that the heart of man is sinful above all things - it had no specific reference whatsoever to Chesterton himself. Most Christians I personally know would have picked up on that, educated or not - but then, they are familiar with my way of talking and my sense of humor. Also, please don't assume that I have not worked very hard in my life, too - there have been many years where I would have loved to have had as prestigious a job as a welder or a carpenter has. God bless.

Anonymous Discard November 14, 2014 12:51 AM  

ut unum sint: We have apparently been talking past each other. I know a lot of things, but I have large gaps between those things. My learning has been random, not at all systematic. I can say "Hello" in about a dozen languages, but actually speak only English.
I take it as my own failing, but poetry does nothing for me, except as verbal amusement. To me, Bob Dylan is fun in the same way that Dr Seuss is. Serious poetry falls on barren ground with me, but I accept that it works powerfully with others. Sort of like golf.

Anonymous Anonymous November 14, 2014 2:00 AM  

Mr. ut unum sint:

You posted in part:

"and after I had specifically pointed out that Turks, capitalists, and Chesterton's academic opponents were the victims"

No. You made no such specifications.

You also posted in part:

"and who cared about the subject, would run a quick google search on Chesterton and turks, bankers, capitalists, factories, professors, that sort of thing."

Mr. Goggle disagree's with you claims

"that sort of thing".

And Chesterton's biographers also disagree with you.

Mr. Chesterton is dead. He cannot defend himself. You, another anonymous guy on the internet, insist that the dead Chesterton wrote lines that showed he felt hate for his fellow man. Yet you refuse to either quote or cited said lines.

Death will come for us all. Like a thief in the night. Let us pray that faceless voices will not mock us as we lie defenseless in our graves.

God bless

Richard W Comerford

Anonymous ut unum sint November 14, 2014 10:23 PM  

Chesterton never denied he was a sinner. I believe his sins, whatever they were, have been forgiven, and that he is in heaven, not in a grave somewhere. God loves us all more that we can imagine. And Chesterton in heaven loves you, too.

Anonymous Discard November 15, 2014 3:53 AM  

richard w comerford, ut unum sint, we've all stated our views. We're not enemies, we pretty much understand each other, so let's let things slide.

Anonymous Anonymous November 15, 2014 11:46 AM  

Mr ut unum sint:

You posted in part:

"Chesterton never denied he was a sinner."

You, another anonymous guy on the internet, ascribed a very particular sin, teh sin of hate, to a very famous, very beloved and very dead G.K. Chesterton.

You further purport that Mr. Chesterton directed his purported hate again specific individuals in his writings. Yet you have failed to either quote or cite said writings.

Mr. Chesterton's contemporary ideological opponents never accused him of saying or writing hateful things. Quite the opposite. His opponents described Chesterton with words such as "kind", "generous", "friendly" even "innocent".

You have publicly defamed the good name of a dead man who many Christians believe to be a Saint. And you have done so while hiding behind an anonymous internet handle.

Kindly refelct on your actions.

God bless

Richard W Comerford

Anonymous Anonymous November 15, 2014 11:52 AM  

Mr. Discard:

Thank you for your reply. A surprising number of young people of my acquaintance have been inspired to Christian lives by Mr. Chesterton.

Usually they read to hear a single, intriguing reference to him; and proceeding from their to his greater works.

However a young person in search of Christ and stumbling upon Mr. ut unum sint defamatory statement about Mr. Chesterton is unlikely to be so inspired. And as a result our young searcher for Christ may miss Christ while He passes by.

God bless

Richard W Comerford

Anonymous ut unum sint November 15, 2014 8:32 PM  

Discard - thank you for your good and well spoken advice. Every word you said was true, and I will follow your advice.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts