For a guy who doesn’t believe in anything much (never keeps kosher, says no prayers, is hardly ever seen inside a synagogue, whose father was a devout atheist, etc.), the Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, certainly has been busy thumbing through a friend’s Bible. Can an atheist be a Jew? Asking for a friend. But let’s not digress.
On October 25, 2023, in a speech, he waxed scriptural: “We are the people of the light, they are the people of darkness, and light shall triumph over darkness… We shall realize the prophecy of Isaiah. There will no longer be stealing at your borders and your gates will be of glory. Together we will fight, together we will win.”
Who knew that Isaiah was actually a speech-writer for Bibi and way back whenever had sat down to write his prophecies as instructions for Bibi on how to go about annihilating the Palestinians in 2023.
In case you’re confused, the “we” refers to the CUFI faithful and their ilk, who are eternally joined at the hip with the great Zionist cause of killing the Arab, like there’s no tomorrow, though that tomorrow may not be all that pretty.
In the words of the oracular Nikki Haley: “I say this to Prime Minister Netanyahu: Finish them. Finish them. Hamas did this. You know Iran is behind it. Finish them.”
What Nikki means by “Finish them” is that so far 3.324 Palestinian children have been killed by Israel so far, 7000 children have been injured, and 1000 are missing beneath all the rubble. These numbers change daily and will skyrocket when the bombs finally stop falling and the sane people move in to help. But it’s a good thing that Nikki identifies as a chrisschun. This is what it means to be a “friend of Israel.”
No doubt, in the various cultish prayer and meeting halls of America, many a Scofield Bible was gleefully riffled, as the CUFI faithful sped-read the book of Isaiah, trying to piece it to all together in that great jigsaw puzzle they call “Bible Prophecy,” and which they work at every Sunday and during “Bible study” so they can guess what God really means, since He just wasn’t clear enough with Jesus. They know that God wrote the Bible just for America and being “chrisschun” means being an End-Tme dissectologist, where each verse in the Good Book is an entirely separate piece of the divine puzzle, and your job as a “chrisschun” is to take it all apart and spend a lifetime trying to piece it together again so you can come up with a god that suits your lifestyle.
For those who have no patience for dissectology, one of Bibi’s religious backers likely gave him this verse to quote, knowing that it would go over really well with CUFI: “Violence shall no more be heard in your land, devastation or destruction within your borders; you shall call your walls Salvation, and your gates Praise” (Isaiah 60:18).
Bibi is more than happy to lend a hand and throw out another piece of the End-Time puzzle. In this verse, the Hebrew word for “violence” just happens to be “hamas,” which will send the CUFI multitude into an apoplexy of glee—imagine, God wrote down the name “Hamas” right in the Good Book! What a find for the puzzle! Never mind that Israel created, funded and promoted Hamas, until things went south, and now they have no clue how to deal with the monster they created. Actually, Bibi might also want to double-check his own status in “the people of light.” You never know…
The “world’s first AI-generated news and views” on Twitter (X), Terror Alarm, just did a survey, in which they asked which side people wanted to be on… the “forces of light,” represented by the flag of Israel, or the “forces of darkness,” showing a devil emoji. It was supposed to rally the masses to the cause of Israel (as had been done, successfully, in the recent Ukraine project). But things went somewhere else. It was no-contest: 90.4 percent would rather be with the “forces of darkness;” only 10.4 percent agreed to march under the Israeli flag. No doubt, Nikki Haley and Mike Pence (both deep friends of CUFI) worked like the dickens to get the vote out from all the people that said would vote for them to be president of the USofA.
But Bibi was not done yet.
On October 28, 2023, he gave another speech. This time he picked up the gauntlet thrown down by Haley and recruited the prophet Samuel into the IDF. If you were vaguely wondering what exactly the “people of light” like to do to the “people of darkness”… Well, here you go…
“You must remember what Amalek has done to you, says our Holy Bible… ‘Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey’” (1 Samuel 15:3).
Bibi is channeling Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik who said that anyone against Israel is “Amalek” and so fair game for mass slaughter. But let’s not get too technical.
Joe Biden immediately got busy looking up “Amalek” in the International Ice Cream Register (the latest 1960 edition, mind you), even though Doctor Jill told him that “Amalek” is the same as “Neapolitan,” a flavor that he has never fully understood since he knows no one who actually eats the strawberry part; it just sits there in the container, in the freezer, with the chocolate and vanilla long gone (though chocolate always goes first). He has long been planning on signing an Executive Order banning strawberry ice cream to solve this problem, to cut down on wasteful spending.
Kamala Harris could not be reached, as she was binge-watching the 10-part series by David Attenborough on laughing hyenas of the Serengeti.
And lest he be left out of the limelight, especially with Bibi hogging it all, Donald Trump vowed to ban Muslims and bar all and sundry Gazans from entering the USA, because all Gazans are Hamas. Ever the pragmatist, Trump knows that he won’t have to actually do any barring, as he’s hoping that Bibi will do a good job following Samuel’s orders. Since the same CUFI types are also behind Trump, as he tries to make the come back of the century, the real criminals can only be the Palestinians, because that’s how things roll in Bibi’s holy scheme of things, which Trump fully supports because Ivanka said so. Wonder what would happen if Trump said that he was going to ban Jews and everyone from Israel from entering America? His son-in-law would have to double-down on getting his messiah to resurrect his Abraham Accordion, so he can play that lovely hymn: “No never, Palestine, just Israel alone.”
Finally, the West has found someone who can define those terms that we have all scratched our heads over for so long, and which we have heard repeated again and again by our valiant rulers. You know: “our values,” “freedom” and “democracy.” This is why Bibi has unconditional support and no one will utter a peep, no matter how many Amalekite babies and children he bombs into oblivion. These are “our values.” That’s why “democracy is messy.” “Freedom” is never free. Hey, hey, ho, ho, Amalek has got to go. You see, when Hamas paraglides in and shoots civilians, it’s “Terrorism.” When Bibi drops thousands of bombs a day on civilians trapped in their homes, it’s the work of Yahweh (the cash-bound demiurge worshipped by CUFI), and which is also the Eleventh Commandment given to Mises: “the right to self-defense.” This is why the same people will do their darndest to take away the guns of every nation on the planet, except America, and everyone’s personal guns inside America. It’s Yahweh’s plan to make America the great policeman of the world again. Should you disagree, you’re an Amalekite.
And this is why there is such huge support for Bibi among the well-heeled Western monocrats, because he is such a thought-leader—even the brainiac Annalena Baerbock had to break down into tears and admit, “These days, we are all Israelis.” On other days, not so much—especially since a year has 560 days, and when she changes her mind it’s always 360 degrees for her.
Now, next time you hear our wise and humanitarian leaders speak of “our values”—remember the poor Amalekites!
Aristarch lives in splendid isolation and writes whenever something catches his eye and the Muse grabs him by the throat.
To mark International Women’s Day, one of the leading lights of progressive thought, Justin Trudeau, issued a writ in which he let loose all manner of simpering on the subject of “woman,” before claiming some moral high ground about fighting “hate.” This Cloaca Minima of the New World Order also drew to full height to declare: “We reiterate today that trans women are women.”
We will leave aside the fake custom dedicating days to all sorts of “moral” causes—this assumes that the remaining 364 days of the year will have nothing whatsoever to do with said cause, for example, here, women.
To “mark” a day dedicated to women, Canada’s foremost pansophist informed us that men too are women. All men have to do is invest in some feminine clothing, smear on lipstick, and be instantly transformed into a “woman.” In other words, a woman is no more than the slight of a man’s hand.
To be a woman, you just need to wear “Woman-face,” just as Trudeau is fond of wearing blackface, and so to use his logic, he can also declare: “We reiterate today that white men are black men.”
To disagree with government declarations is to “hate,” and politicians like Trudeau have handy “hate-laws” to make sure the police show up and haul you off to face the full penalty of the law. You must admire the naked emperor’s new clothes. There can be choice. Repeat: “Trans woman are women!”
As is now too obvious, the West is defined by its ongoing war against reality, because it innately believes that reality is an invention of the “white man” and thus must be destroyed, so that a new “reality” may be established in its place. These various “white” sins are said to be entrenched in the entire system of the West, which is why the general political attitude is that of destruction of all that exists. The world must be built back better—without the white man.
The greatest of such white sins is viewing humanity as “men” and “women,” because in doing so, there are received (traditional) expectations of how a man and a woman must live, and what a man and woman must do. Therein lies the danger for the Western political class, in that received wisdom denies their authority, because tradition is a way to live beyond the hold and reach of politics. The more people value and share tradition, the less they need politics. For Trudeau and his ilk, this is truly dangerous as it fully invalidates them, for politics alone must be the be-all and end-all of life in all its totality.
This is why the trans movement is the final culmination of the great cycle of self-destruction that the West has engaged in: the sexual revolution of the 1960s and 1970s (which included feminism), then gay rights of the 1980s and 1990s, and now the elimination of all notion of sexuality with transgenderism. From unhindered pursuit of pleasure to chemical and surgical castration. The point of it all? To sequester life itself into the narrow confines of politics, where life becomes impossible without politics—for the castrated creature needs full government support (emotional, social, and financial). In effect, the transgendered freak is the perfect face of Western politics.
It bears veering into a little more detail.
The prefix “trans-” is Latin in origin, where it means, “beyond.” But in our time, the prefix has transitioned into an adjective and at times even a noun and replaces the earlier terms “transexual” and “transgender.” Note as well another term that has now fallen out of favor—”transvestite” or a crossdresser, which had long been part of literary culture, since in theater all female parts were played by men (from the time of the ancient Greeks), and in drama crossdressing thus became a device to conceal identity and gain access to that which was otherwise forbidden (for example, in Euripides’ Bacchae or Hippolytus). More often, however, crossdressing was simply comedic. Culture carries deep influence, and transvestitism, through the theater (and later the screen), seeped into society as a strategy to win through deception. Thus, a rhetorical, literary ruse became social activism.
Because, in theater, men and women crossdressed, at times, to gain sexual access (marriage) or even prurience, this too became part of a sub-culture, much promoted, for example, in the 1920s, especially in Weimar Germany. Thus, in the underbelly of society, transvestitism was a trick to get sexual reward, with costumes and role-playing.
Over the past few years, crossdressing has been turned inwards to affect the reality of the human person, where costume becomes a permanent self-transformation. This has been classified as “gender dysphoria,” but mental disorders are always a tricky mode of explanation, since people have all kinds of motivations for their behavior. Rather, what has happened is that crossdressing has been given a political dimension—where men in female attire and make-up (woman-face) are declared to be “women” by political decree. The advantages therefore of crossdressing are great. And this decree is then internalized by crossdressers, who sense a chance at power, and who then agree to mutilate their bodies in order to gain advantage. The body is sacrificed in order to establish a better self, in a ”better world” that will replace the old, traditional one, in which men and women lived within the demands of their biological reality. In the “better world,” biological reality must be “fluid,” because the indeterminate self is ever-ready to assume any new political advantage. This “fluidity” is actively promoted by the education-media-entertainment complex. This “better world” demands neutered creatures, forever “celebrating” their castration—and there exists many a doctor who will happily assist. And people have a hard time understanding Dr. Mengele?
But, here, the “better world” runs into a problem. As is obvious, a neutered creature cannot reproduce. This is where schools become essential, where there is always a supply of new recruits for the trans flock. In other words, schools are places where the children of others are groomed, a process in which teachers (especially women) are now adept, to become “better.”
An Excursus into History
In history, castration was practiced to enforce control and ensure compliance in ancient times. The most famous example being the Gallus priests of the Cybele cult, who castrated themselves, then wore make-up and dressed like women, when they assumed office. Larger Roman society took a dim view of this fringe cult and much proscribed it, though it was never banned outright (perhaps because it was fringe). Then, there were the eunuchs of the Byzantine and Ottoman courts, who were employed as guards of the women’s quarters and harems. The purpose, obviously, was to ensure they could not be attracted to those they were guarding. Later in the 18th century, boys were castrated to preserve their pristine singing voices, which were much in demand in theaters and courts of the time.
What links these various examples from history is that sexual mutilation has always served the purposes of power. The trans creature is deeply, innately handicapped because it can no longer function in traditional human society—it must have recourse to a support system. And, yes, this creature is an “it,” because it has fundamentally destroyed the very essence of humanity that it was born with, in order to become the imaginary. It has sacrificed itself to ensure that politicians can justify their claims and their conspiracy theories. And in the process, notice what has happened—the dignity and value of the human body has evaporated, so that the “better” human body is one that perfectly embodies the happy-talk of politicians.
What to make of all this? Simplicity is always the best. The West is now gripped by evil; and evil must always hurl itself into extremes. Such is the logic of Satan: the vile in the human imagination must replace the good. This is the real reason why the rest of the world is now rejecting the West, for to seek to go beyond the human is suicide. Thankfully, the world will not be jumping off that cliff.
Aristarch lives in splendid isolation and writes whenever something catches his eye and the Muse grabs him by the throat.
In the current times of confusion, there are many words that are often heard but little understood and therefore frequently misused. “Fascist,” “communist,” “racist” fall easily from lips, while the meaning of these words is as varied as the opinions that need to use them. Words are indeed power, because they are extensions of ideas. In other words, the confusion is with ideas, not with dictionary definitions.
But then confusion is the paradigm of our age, in that everyone is looking for “solutions,” for all manner of problems. But these solutions are, in turn, answers to stupid questions—and this has led to the great evil of our age—relentless social engineering by “experts” who claim to have all the answers, so that science is always “settled,” so that the minds of people are governed by “facts” affirmed by the media and their “fact-checkers.” In other words, Googling has created a very peculiar manner of subservience: deference to figures of authority (“look it up” is the catch-phrase of the day). And this is also the great error of the right today, which consistently fails to distinguish the true role and nature of power and therefore it can get no further than protest, as proven yet again by the events in Brazil (and previously the January 6th events). Protests without an understanding of how to actually wield power leads to the full entrenchment of tyranny, where the protestors are cast in the role of chaos which must be defeated.
The use of the term, “the elite” is also a case in point. Whenever this word is used, out come photos of Klaus Schwab, Bill Gates, George Soros, and the various tech billionaires, along with the obligatory mention of “the Bilderberg Group,” “the Club of Rome,” “the Rothschilds,” “Davos,” or “the Tavistock Institute,” and the like. Of course, no one bothers to explain why all these constitute the “elite.” If it is all about money and political influence, then, sure, these people and organizations can be called the “elite.” But if we go that route, how do we then differentiate between “the elite” and “the plutocrats?” If we are asked to loathe “the elite,” we march right along with the Marxists who say the same thing. But then we are also asked to hate Marxism and fight the creep of communism that is taking over western society. So, is populism and or nationalism Marxist, or is it something else? No one really explains what this “else” could be. And there is no point in mentioning “capitalism,” where there is even more confusion, since Bill Gates and the like are real capitalists, as is China. If we are asked to be “for” capitalism, suddenly we are in league with those that we are also supposed to hate.
In all this murk, there is little clarity. But perhaps we can move towards the light by realizing a few basic things.
First, all political ideas must have a grounding in morality. Without morality there is only tyranny. And more politics cannot substitute for morality (that is what the Left is good at). In other words, society cannot sustain itself for centuries on end without knowing what it actually believes in. Here, words such as “democracy” and “freedom” are eagerly tossed about as substitutes for belief and therefore morality. The fact is Western society is failing-apart because it has nothing it truly believes in, since freedom, and its correlate democracy, does not mean more LGBTQ+ rights. Freedom can only come with morality. Immorality and amorality are methods of disruption, expressions of personal devastation; they cannot be universalized as structures for society, let alone civilization. The moral ground of the West was once Christianity. But now in the largely atheistic West, freedom is suddenly in short supply. Why? Many naively still think that the right government in power will bring more freedom. But what if in a morals-free society, governments can only rubber-stamp chaos?
Second, disgruntlement is not populism or even nationalism; it is simply a demand for more bread-and-circuses; the looking-after needs. The vox populi means the “voice of the people”—it does not mean the many voices of the people. Nor does “freedom” mean the expression of disgruntlement, which in fact is a process of psycho-therapy; to get something off your chest to feel better—and social media is excellent for that, in that it is the virtual shrink’s couch, where you can say what you “feel,” find others who will give you affirmation, and you’re good to go. The question that the right needs to answer is—what does it seek to build? Rather, what can it actually build? Notice here the success of the other side, which is merrily moving along with all that “build back better” stuff. In other words, what world can the right offer that can actually counter the world being imposed by Schwab and Co?
Third, there is endless confusion about the terms, “the elite” and “the plutocrats.” Let’s be clear—Soros and his ilk are not the elite. They are plutocrats; that is, a eugenicist faction of the rich, which has successfully taken charge of the West. (To be clear, not all of the rich are eugenicists and against us, which again dismantles the Marxist struggle against all “the elite”). Our struggle is against this eugenicist plutocracy. But to be successful in defeating it—and defeat it we must if we are to remain human—we must clearly define who and what we are. It cannot all boil down to some class struggle, wherein workers/people of the world unite to throw off Schwab’s chains. We all know where all that led. And besides, the plutocrats will always have more resources than us, which means that we shall never get beyond confrontation-mode, however emotionally satisfying that may be.
Fourth, it isn’t about the money. Too many people get sidetracked with explanations that seek to convince us that Bill Gates does what he does because he needs the money. Let’s not be naive; when you reach the financial echelon of Gates and all the rest, money itself becomes meaningless, because it is no longer about acquiring more of it. These plutocrats already control all the money of the West; that is a given. They hardly need money. Rather, their motivations are mythic—and that is the true allure for these plutocrats. They are in it to be gods—and all that that status implies—immortality via technology. That is a heady, age-old quest, as old as Gilgamesh. Can we actually stop people wanting to be gods with political means?
The Elite
Historically and traditionally, the elite were the best that humanity produced, people who sought to bring beauty, the good and truth into the world—and in the process they created culture. You know, the cathedrals, the symphonies, the Mona Lisa, the Divine Comedy—all that demiurgic devising which gave a glimpse of the transcendent to the world. In fact, the elite were closely attuned to the transcendent, hence the necessity of royal blood-lines, and all those tales of knights errant and heroes of yore.
We must finally understand that our struggle is not about a new political order, for that is the folly of revolution, which only legitimizes tyranny (as Americans are slowly finding out with the final outcome of their revolution of 1776—Wokism); for all revolutions lead to a dead-end. Rather, our struggle is about preserving those structures that yield the good, the beautiful, and the true. Where does the right, then, belong? With revolution or with its opposite, which is heroism? The outcomes of both are very different.
The knights of old fought against the wicked, the false and the ugly (and now the West worships this anti-trinity as the new Golden Calf). The valiant feats of heroes defeated disorder and routed evil, and always at the cost of great personal sacrifice, even self-immolation. This was known as heroism, the purpose of which was not personal glory (that was a consequence of individual action)—but the pursuit of an ideal—the defeat of chaos. This is kleos in Homer, this is tir for Beowulf, this is tirr for the Vikings—a high ideal, the transcendent—which determined the course of valor, fueled by courage and virtue.
All this is to say is that we need the real elite, the valor of heroes, to counter the dystopias being dreamt-up by the plutocrats. We need people of means and wealth who value the good, the beautiful and the true and who pursue the transcendent. Otherwise, we are simply being revolutionaries, and we will therefore succeed only in replacing one tyranny with another.
Ask yourself this important question: why is it that all cultural institutions belong to those we call the left? Why is the right missing in action when it comes to high culture (museums, art galleries, concert halls, orchestras, film and even literature)? Everyone complains about Wikipedia, for example, but where is the rightwing repository of images of art, buildings and historical and cultural artifacts? Why is the cultural memory of the West held by the left? (A few exceptions here and there are rather pointless in the vast abandonment of high culture by the right).
So, let’s start, at least, by not mislabeling plutocrats as the elite, for they can never be heroes, as they are incapable of creating beauty, let alone bringing the good and the true into the world. And we truly need the elite, latter-day knights errant, to defeat them. Without such an elite, we will always be misled onto the roller-coaster of revolution, or the never-ending entertainment of bread-and-circuses.
Aristarch writes whenever something catches his eye and the Muse grabs him by the throat.
Featured: “Beowulf’s Final Fight with the Dragon,” illustration by Lynd Ward, published in 1939.
Isabel Vaughan-Spruce was arrested in the UK city of Birmingham, on December 6, 2022. Her crime? She was standing quietly near an abortion clinic, where she “might” have been praying. A fear of Christian prayer and what it might accomplish? Regardless, three state stalwarts showed up to put an end to it all, and did what they are paid to do—arrest the praying. Here is the video:
WATCH: British Police Officers arrest a woman for praying outside an abortion clinic. pic.twitter.com/JlozDcICX5
Various Western countries now have such laws in place, which seek to “protect” pregnant women, lest they be prayed upon as they make their way into “clinics” to have their babies killed (one may insert any euphemistic and state-approved wordage for abortion, to feel better). The UK is hardly alone in such “enforcement.”
The message, however, is obvious—Christians are unhinged, dangerous terrorists, who need to be reined in, because their beliefs have no place in today’s progressive society. They are a hangover from an ignorant, medieval superstitious age. The sooner they and their religion disappear, the better the world will be.
Many have already examined the tortuous road that brought the collective West to this place, where a woman standing and “perhaps” praying at the “wrong” place is arrested. Such historical meanderings certainly point out what has gone wrong, but they do little to suggest what might be done about it.
Indeed, many may feel “uncomfortable” about the arrest; that this is just not right, and all that. But what is to be done with this “feeling?” Are we merely supposed to “feel” a certain way, and live with that feeling, in our various comfort zones? We all intuitively understand that something is severely off kilter within the nations of the West, especially among their ruling elite.
This intuition has led to massive disinterest in representative “democracy,” where voting is nothing more than ballot harvesting to justify a preordained outcome. And what the ruling elite calls “democracy” is simply a system designed to fully disenfranchise us, where we must do the bidding of overlords that we did not choose, who force us to comply with their laws that we did not create, where we have limited means of self-expression—and no way to enforce what we want. We who inhabit the West are not citizens, merely voters, who must live with political outcomes that we did not choose, as Etienne Chouard points out. Such is the true face of Western democracy, which our overlords have further defined as a society of LGBTQ+, transgendered, pedophilic, green, cashless drones, who are “free” to slake whatever lusts they may have, and who are utterly powerless to affect any real change in their own lives. They must live as and where they are told to live.
A Monumental Task
Where do we belong? That is the question that each of us in the west will soon have to answer, whether we want to or not. Isabel Vaughan-Spruce is one more emblem of that question. Do we belong with her? Or do we belong with the officers “protecting” the abortion clinic? The third option, being indifferent, is hardly somewhere to belong. Because a major part of being human is belonging. We cannot be rootless, free-floating, self-centered consumers.
Over the years, there was much talk about a “clash of civilizations,” of Islam battling the West for world supremacy, and so on. What a diversion! The real enemy of the West are the elite/politicians who rule over it.
Thus, the clash is right inside the West, happening between neighbor and neighbor, between family members, between friends—each struggling to answer where he or she belongs. You see, the West is no longer “home.” It is an agenda. And we are all continually being told to choose where we fit into it—because the agenda is now the West’s true identity, which some call “globalism,” “one world order,” or what have you. You know, all those things that are scoffed at as being “conspiracy theories” (the most nebulous phrase ever invented—but perfect for our age of mass confusion; confusion because we do not know where we actually belong).
Some might cleverly argue that Christianity, and any religion for that matter, is also an “agenda.” Fair enough. Sure, faith can be an agenda. But there is an important difference. And that difference depends upon how we answer the far more important question—“Why be good?” Political agendas and Christianity have markedly different understanding of what constitutes the good, and therefore both markedly build different types of human beings. The New Man of the political elite is the homo globalis, the Global Man who roams about the planet living where he is most needed: “I own nothing, have no privacy and life has never been better.”
But first we have to define what “good” is. For Christianity (leaving aside other religions for now because they have had zero impact upon the West), the “good” meant securing eternal life by first caring for the life of the soul, by bringing Jesus into one’s heart and loving Him. To some, this may seem an imaginary fiction, or even deluded nonsense; but Christianity’s greatest strength is the reality of this experience of God living in our hearts. When Christ dwells in the heart, the world we then build around us is a consequence of this intense love and leads to values such as virtue and civilization. Such was the care which built those great cathedrals. Such was the “engine” of the West once, an engine now mostly shut off, with few wanting to even restart it, let along knowing how to go about caring for it once it might actually start. In other words, the root of the West, the place of its belonging, was Christianity.
The question of love has also led to much confusion, where all manner of buffoonery, blasphemy, sin and “just being nice” is packaged as “love” and sold by various hucksters/politicians. Thus, sodomy, genital mutilation, killing of unborn children, and euthanasia are all sold to society at large as “love,” and said society more or less agrees to accept this fraud. But how can it be fraud, if people agree to it?
Let us now make an important distinction. Christian love is not compassion, although the latter is often confused as the former. In fact, compassion has been the “engine” of all the dystopias in history, from the French Revolution down to the World Economic Forum and the New Green Deal. And what we call “Wokism” is nothing other than the latest version of compassion, which is an inversion of Christian love. And what is compassion? Trying to do good without knowing anything about goodness, which means that politics and the state become dispensers of compassion. The outcomes such state undertakings, or worldly love, produce are limited, because they are not spiritual. The world cannot be “fixed” by more money, or more laws, or more NGOs, or more charities. It can only be fixed by first fixing the soul; by first knowing why be good.
Consider this. What do we prefer—quality of life, or sanctity of life? Worldly love would have us focus on “quality”—which then leads to the arrest of a woman who “might” have been praying, because she is impinging upon the quality of life that women heading off to an abortion demand, need or require. After all, is it not for the “quality of life” of the pregnant woman that her abortion is protected by such police action in the first place? And various western countries now also openly push euthanasia, for the same “quality of life.” Is such “quality” love? Or is it compassion? It was Flannery O’Connor who said, “When tenderness is detached from the source of tenderness, its logical outcome is terror.”
For the Christian, “tenderness” means Jesus, who is God, who is Love, and the personal relationship that the individual believer encounters and experiences, which then leads to the entire theology and philosophy of virtue, the very cement of civilization. For the esoteric and secular West, “tenderness” means the “compassionate” government, which seeks to bind society with the glue of “rights” protected by laws, where the focus is privileged groups (deemed by government policy to be “marginal” and therefore in need of “compassion”) and not individuals. Thus, western governments can no longer build upon what is the good, but only upon compliance (hence, agendas), which in turn is seen as “the good.”
And what is love? Turn to any parable told by Jesus; or here is a good summary of them all, by Saint Francis of Assisi:
Lord, make me an instrument of Your peace. Where there is hatred, let me sow love; Where there is injury, pardon; Where there is doubt, faith; Where there is despair, hope; Where there is darkness, light; And where there is sadness, joy. O divine Master, grant that I may seek not so much to be consoled as to console; To be understood, as to understand; To be loved, as to love. For it is in giving that we receive; It is in pardoning that we are pardoned; And it is in dying that we are born to eternal life.
And, therefore, Christian love needs no agenda, no program. It is simple in its directness—the law of life (here and eternal) is love. But wielding such love in a lifetime is a monumental task, as any Christian realizes. Hence the necessity of virtue, which is the structure that enables us to manage the vastness of this love, for in that wielding emerges a world, in the here-and-now—a civilization.
Therefore, Christianity is not an agenda, for it demands nothing, as all agendas do. Nor does Christianity enforce anything, as all agendas do. Nor does Christianity need laws to sustain itself, as all agendas do. For once you are in love, you are ready to do everything to be more in love, in order to show that love—even sacrifice yourself. But it is love itself which must come first; and therefore God is love. God it not law. There are no first and last in love, as in the law. Love knows no hierarchy.
On the other hand, state-mandated compassion is the denial of love, because it vaunts a hierarchy of privilege; for privileged groups are entitled by law to all the rights; while the unprivileged are pariahs who must be controlled by various agencies of enforcement possessed by the state. Such is the compassionate West today—the real terror state.
Why Be Good?
For Christians the answer to this crucial question is simple—because we love, because God is love. The good is the structure of such love. For the post-Christian, secular West, the answer to this question is also easy enough—because they want to be compassionate. But then they run into a problem, because compassion without any source, without any root, without God becomes terror. Or to put it more bluntly, in the words of Percy Walker, “compassion led to the death camps.” You cannot build a good world with compassion. You will only build nightmares. This too is very simple. Why? Because loveless compassion must be selective—when you show compassion to one, you must push away the other who you think does not deserve any compassion. And how do you judge? You refer to the government’s agenda, namely, the law, the array of rights.
Thus, there has now begun, in the West, the real “clash of civilizations,” in which the post-Christian nations are trying very hard to fabricate a civilization that will be “better” than the one created by Christians, whose benefits they still enjoy, but one which they have decided was the cause of all the problems that they must now “correct.” This is what is commonly called, Wokism, which is, in the end, rootless compassion. Thus, will the West be Christian (a premise which many westerners reject in various ways)? Or will be it be compassionate (which most westerners seem to want, in its various avatars: “rights,” environmentalism, limitless pursuit of pleasure, more government, and so on)?
The arrest of Isabel Vaughan-Spruce is an example of this clash: “The road to Hell is paved with good intentions (aka, compassion),” goes the saying.
So, why be good? To keep showing more and more compassion, with police enforcement, if need be? Or to guide the soul to seek perfection through love, which once was the overall concern of the West. But love also hurts because it is tough, because it requires endless and self-less sacrifice. And how can compassion be self-less? How can compassion sacrifice?
As well, the Christian call to love—especially, to love our enemies because God first loved us, and thus all life is sacred because all men have souls—can be devastating, for it must first destroy what exists and begin to fashion something true and real. Or, far better, in the words of Christ: “Seek ye therefore first the kingdom of God, and his justice, and all these things shall be added unto you (Matthew 6:33). And what are “these things?” Simply what we once called “civilization.” In other words, love is humanity’s true home. Which civilization, then? One built on compassion? Or one built on love?
And now, the hardest question of all. Where do you belong?
The West’s got religion—and its hell-bent on spreading it all over the planet. And it won’t quit pulpiteering, with bombs and simoleons if need be, until every knee shall bow.
There was a telling document penned by Jamie Raskin (member of Congress), which received notoriety by being rather accurately summarized by Tucker Carlson: “Russia is an orthodox Christian country with traditional social values and for that reason it must be destroyed no matter what the cost to us. So, this is not a conventional war, this is a Jihad. Jamie Raskin said that out loud but many in Washington agree with him.”
To be clear, these are Mr. Carlson’s words, not Mr. Raskin’s—but what Mr. Raskin actually writes is far worse, for it is the blueprint of the new “Wars of Religion” that the West is now engaged in. What is happening in the Ukraine is merely the “holy ire” of the “united West” which cannot abide resistance to its new faith, a faith which Mr. Raskin clearly outlines. In fact, Mr. Raskin’s “blueprint,” penned October 25, 2022, is also a good description of the fight now raging inside the West itself, between those that identify as “progressive” and those who refuse to accept this new faith, which is ultimately anti-human at its core.
First, Mr. Raskin draws upon his vast reserve of historical knowledge, to give us the “rationale” for the war in the Ukraine (i.e., its necessity), which is just one theater (among many) in the larger “wars of religion”:
“In the eight months since Russia began its atrocity-filled and illegal war of aggression against the people of Ukraine, the Ukrainian people have given Americans not just the chance to defend the values of national sovereignty, democracy and pluralism but also great hope for the world’s future. Had Ukrainians been quickly defeated by Putin’s army, as so many people expected, had Volodymyr Zelensky fled the country, as so many people expected, then a dangerous tyranny would have destroyed a nascent democracy, and prospects for democratic causes everywhere in the world would have darkened. Large countries would have felt emboldened to attack small countries everywhere.”
Truth, like water, always finds a way out: “Large countries would have felt emboldened to attack small countries everywhere”—says a congressman of a country which has long been “emboldened” to destroy various “small countries” in the noble effort to spread “democratic causes,” and euphemistically known as “United States Military Operations”—or USMOs. Remember, Iraq, where the US deemed killing 500,000 children a good price to pay for “democracy?” And let’s not forget that Mr. Raskin’s country is the only one that has actually used atomic weapons—twice. Self-awareness is always in short supply, it would seem. But look over there, in the Ukraine, “a dangerous tyranny” would have “destroyed a nascent democracy” were it not for the indignation of the self-righteous. We’ll not bother reminding Mr. Raskin of the bloody catalogue of crimes committed by this “nascent democracy,” and it’s Banderites in charge, and their “heroic” army.
Then, things really get interesting, as Mr. Raskin discovers his talent for writing purple prose:
“But today there is hope because of the strength of President Zelensky and the Ukrainian people, and the cause of democracy and freedom in Ukraine is the cause of the democratic world. We should unite around this just struggle and stay focused on it.”
“Democracy” and “freedom” are such delightful words—because you can fling them about to your heart’s content, with nary a worry about having to explain what they actually mean. They also have such a “ring” of “morality” to them, so important in a West entirely emptied of any notion of right and wrong. It is really a curious thing—everyone loves talking moral, without actually having to be moral—it’s enough just to declare that we all need to belong to the “democratic world,” in which if you say the wrong things, you will be destroyed (just ask the January Sixers, or the Trucker Protestors in Canada, those opposing the Covid tyranny, or those expressing “alternative” views on social media, labeled as “disinformation,” or “hate-speech”). In Mr. Raskin’s democracy, only his side “owns” the truth, and “love.”
Leaving aside the various egregious assumptions passed off as “facts” by Mr. Raskin, let us instead observe him in full flight:
“It is a bad colonial habit to suppose that ultimately peace depends upon the wishes of the great powers and the great powers alone, and even progressive and liberal people can fall into this colonialist reflex.”
Without dragging in irony, we can safely assume that Mr. Raskin is a confirmed and dedicated American isolationist who champions neutrality and non-interventionism, and strongly fights any and all “colonialist reflex,” especially of the US of A. And here we all thought “peace” meant keeping America happy, or you’ll get the crap bombed out of you, courtesy of “shock and awe,” and then have your population that survives starve to death via endless sanctions. Yes, “a bad colonial habit” can be terrible “reflex.”
But not so fast. What Mr. Raskin really wants to say is that the “democratic” world order needs constant vigilance, where arms and billions can be shipped off wherever “democracy” is in utter peril (of course, this does not include places like Saudi Arabia—only places that Mr. Raskin says are in “peril,” are in fact in peril. That’s just progressive “commonsense”).
And there’s always more:
“Ukraine’s struggle embodies a democratic future. Its civilian and military leadership is young and diverse, representing a post-Soviet generation that has learned to treasure freedom and value democracy. Its president, who is Jewish and thus belongs to a small national minority, was elected with 73% of the population, and now has even higher levels of support, thanks to his extraordinary wartime leadership. Thousands of Ukrainian women are fighting on the front, and a woman serves as deputy minister of defense. Sexual minorities are represented within the Ukrainian armed forces. Ukrainians soldiers routinely speak two languages. Ukraine has displayed a striking degree of toleration and decency during a war.
“The Ukrainians also inspire democratic forces all over the world with their example of civil society. This war is fought and won on the Ukrainian side with the help of countless civilians, organized informally into small horizontal groups, who fill the gaps in logistics. An emblematic image of this war is of the vans driven to the front by civilians to supply soldiers. Where conscripted Russians destroy Ukrainian homes, neighbors come to help. Another common image of this war is the partially repaired house: in the regions from which Russia has been forced to retreat, Ukrainians do what they can to rebuild their neighbors’ homes.”
I guess no one bothered to tell Mr. Raskin about the Maidan coup that his country micromanaged—to defeat a duly elected (democratically, but never mind) president, and bring in a reign of neo-Nazis. Cue the Banderites, as “freedom fighters.” This can all be put down as the usual blather about “democracy” and “freedom” and how we have to help Ukraine (and no one else. Sorry, Yemen. Apologies, Armenia. Only Ukraine can now mean “democracy,” and no place else). Come to the Dark Side.
As for the current Ukrainian leader, one Mr. Zelensky, whose native language is Russian and who had to learn Ukrainian for the job, and who was always seen as “pro-Russian” earlier, there is the easy assumption that he’s “Jewish,” even though he and his wife have had their children baptized in the Orthodox Church, and he is assumed by many in the know to have converted a long time ago. He did give a rather Christian cri dec coeur at Easter:
But facts should never get in the way of a narrative, especially when “democracy” is at stake. How else can you spread “democracy” if not by the fear of some “weapon of mass destruction.” Quick question, Mr. Raskin—name one country that is now better off for having American “democracy” spread all over it, courtesy of a USMO? The old adage of leaving a place better than when you found it somehow doesn’t trip off the tongue.
But what Mr. Raskin writes next reveals the real reason why Russia is hated so much by the West, and why everything must be done to destroy it, lest it become an example of hope to those in the West who happen to disagree with Mr. Raskin’s vision of a “brave new world”:
“Moscow right now is a hub of corrupt tyranny, censorship, authoritarian repression, police violence, propaganda, government lies and disinformation, and planning for war crimes.”
Let’s unpack this a little more closely.
First, Mr. Raskin lays out the litany of “sins” that are unforgiveable in a “democratic” and “peace-loving” place like the US of A. And here you thought he was actually talking about Washington. Shame on you! Pay attention. It’s “Moscow,” that “hub” of evil, with its Orcs threating to swallow up the world, one “Ukraine” at a time. WMD redux.
But who exactly is “planning for war crimes?” Moscow? That would be interesting, given what the Banderites of the Ukraine have accomplished quite a lot in that department. But it’s more likely that grammar has gotten the better of Mr. Raskin and he means that the US of A is planning to hold Nuremberg 2.0, or 3.0, with Russia now in the role of the “Nazis.” So much for analogy.
And what is the nature of these Orcs? What makes them so, so evil? These words should give everyone pause: “[Moscow] is a world center of antifeminist, antigay, anti-trans hatred, as well as the homeland of replacement theory for export. In supporting Ukraine, we are opposing these fascist views, and supporting the urgent principles of democratic pluralism.”
In the West, being “antifeminist, antigay, anti-trans” is now a casus belli. Denial is the worst crime imaginable in “democratic pluralism.” No war can be juster than that fought by the utterly self-righteous against such “hate=mongers.” Mr. Raskin is happy to unloose the floodgates of his country’s vast cash reserves to win—and no matter how many Ukrainians have to die. It will all be worth it. Just ask Iraq, Libya, Somalia where death and misery is worth the promise of “democracy.”
If you didn’t notice, there is also a serious problem with logic here, which Mr. Raskin, like his grammar, cannot seem to manage. If he is for “feminism” then this means that he has a very clear and precise understanding of what a “woman” is. But at the same time, he is pro-trans, which means that he cannot clearly define what a woman is. Being pro-trans means that he therefore a misogynist because he believes that men make better women, and women cannot really be “women,” because men can also be “women.” And therefore there are no “women,” and hence “feminism,” because that would mean that men would have to be told that they are not “women.” And that is pure “evil,” to have to tell a man that. The crucial tenet of this new religion is to pretend that fantasy is reality, and mollycoddle everyone along, and throw the full weight of the state at anyone who disagrees. And now the US of A will also go to war to make sure you take its fantasy du jour as reality.
But things get worse. To be trans also means that it is very difficult to be “gay,” having deleted “unsuitable anatomical parts.” Which means that by advocating the trans, Mr. Raskin is by necessity also homophobic, because he is denying that “man” exists. If there are no “men,” then there cannot be gayness. And for the gay to become trans would require serious surgery. Suddenly, Mr. Raskin is trapped by his own “democracy.” Hence the bombs… which Hollywood film worth its salt does not solve problems with a gun—that is why guns must be banned. But more guns for the Ukrainians.
And just like “democracy” and “freedom”—“fascism” is such a handy shibboleth, tactically mentioned to rouse maximum outrage. What, “Moscow” is “fascist!?” Bombs and billions of greenbacks! Never mind that it was the Soviets who actually defeated the real Nazis, while America has been happily subsidizing real Nazis.
But, wait, what the heck is “democratic pluralism?” And what exactly are it’s “urgent principles?” More grammar difficulties, one would have to imagine, since democracy is not about plurality, but about a people united as one. The vox populi. Not a cacophony of misfits (mob-rule). So, does this mean that Mr. Raskin does not like democracy because he wants “pluralism.” Does this mean that he is therefore also a “fascist?” Good thing his party wants to ban guns.
And a word about that strange accusation that “Moscow” is the “homeland of replacement theory for export.” But wait, didn’t Mr. Schumer, just endorse this “theory?” Does this mean that Mr. Schumer is actually part of Moscow’s “hub” since he endorses the “replacement theory?” Having to go and fight Russia via Ukraine suddenly got complicated, especially since one of the reasons for the war, outlined by Mr. Raskin, is also now being espoused by a fellow American who just happens to belong to the same political party as Mr. Raskin. Talk about a Fifth Column!
But back to “Moscow.” People like Mr. Raskin have assumed the mantle of the self-righteous, which is typical of the unrighteous:
“Ukrainians today give the democratic world a chance for a critical and historic victory, and we must rally to their side. It is important to be on the right side of a just war, and it is even more important to be on the right side and win.”
“A critical and historic victory”—because “Moscow” stands in the way of a trans-world? Of a world filled with pride parades? Of a world ruled by the rage of childless harridans? Of a commodified humanity that needs to be shipped around wherever there is a drop in the birth-rate? How curious that these are the only “reasons” that Mr. Raskin can firmly grasp as “facts” to orchestrate the US of A “to be on the right side of a just war.” But a just war for whom? It’s fine and dandy to flick off rhetoric with one’s finger—but exactly which people will have to die in order to make sure that the new religion of the self-righteous wins the world?
The fact is, in the West itself, there are huge segments of the population who defy this “democratic pluralism,” whom Mr. Raskin calls “fascists,” whom his party seeks to silence with endless lawfare, and whom it wants to silence. “Democratic pluralism” to succeed cannot have dissent and disagreement. That is what the West is now showing to the rest of the world.
In other words, there are millions who feel they now have more in common with the human values embodied by Russia than the inhuman (trans-human) “values” that Mr. Raskin is trying to sell as “democracy” and “freedom.”
The veil has lifted, and we will not be joining Mr. Raskin and his various self-righteous cronies in this fight. If he wants to see the world as foe-and friend, then we the people will first have to decide who is really our friend and who really our foe. Only then will we enter into what he calls “a just war.” Our allegiance is no longer a given. That is what true freedom and democracy is all about. We will not be fighting his “wars of religion.” People of his ilk, the political class, have not yet gotten this message. But get it they will. It’s only a matter of time. Realty always wins over fantasy.
Untold millions of us in the West are Christian. We hold traditional values. We do not want our children neutered, sexualized, or brutalized for the sake of your ideologies. We defy all your many anti-human agendas constructed around warped sex and pleasure. We want more family. We love the innocent laughter of little kids, the delight of happy wives. We want more community. We want more roots. We want nations and borders. We will never become rootless, lonely, “useless eaters,” inhabiting your “democracy,” your “pluralism,” your “world order.”
We will indeed fight a just war if and when it comes—and while the political elite are busy spreading “democratic pluralism,” via Pronoun Seminars backed up by bombs and big bucks. We’ll see who wins in the end. And here’s a question—when was the last time that the US of A actually won a war?
But it is true that with their billions, “rulers,” the political elite have the capacity to do great harm. That will be what we the people will have to suffer through until we are free of the deadly fantasies of politicians.
Aristarch writes whenever something catches his eye and the Muse grabs him by the throat.
Featured: “Stupid War,” by Agim Sulaj; painted in 2019.
