I – Modernity and one’s Children

This is a letter to my children in the World of Modernism. Yes, my children, you are deep within Modernism, as the whole world is. And I am trying to contact you and trying to relate with you, as the noticeable conversational gap grows wider. There are just so many things which occur in “polite” family conversation now which just cannot be said, so many little alley ways, little entrances of talk which introduce concepts which are “no-no”s between us all. Just so sad. Normal areas of family talk become narrower, the range of common areas of family up-bringing, of anything which impinges on “values” just cannot be spoken.

I – Moderns and non-Moderns

The world has now passed into a stage now that all social and political debate involves huge impassible assumptions between Moderns and us non-Moderns, or “Traditionalists” (though I hate that term). I would call us “traddies” just old-fashioned common-sensibles.

But even “common sense” is capable of mutation by Modernity that it just becomes last season’s brand of Modernity, last year’s fashion.

I detect an underlying scepticism about anything solid, foundational, God-forbid “fundamental”, in your thoughts, yet a deep longing for justice, for goodness, for security, for abiding family solidarity, for peace, for gentleness. But if I took the trouble to inquire about where those longings have foundation, I would run into trouble with you.

And why? because Modernity has made Scepticism and Relativism almost universal. And I also detect an avoidance of anything to do with religion. Yes, I know that lapsed Catholics identify religion with guilt, but Modernity is opposed to all religious belief and is opposed to Nature itself. And that is where the main thrust of this letter is: in upholding non-religious truths, truths that confirm where you yourselves are coming from, the kind of truths you imply by your very passions about family, political and social issues. Not everything fundamental is religious …. hmm…. maybe it is? But then there is a real problem if even this is true for then you would become divorced from Nature itself – floating in a stormy sea, compass-less, and thrown about by the winds of “preference” social and political issues – one day supporting one thing and finding out that the next day that support undermined where you were yesterday.

Modernity has made politics a passion. Left versus Right, Liberal versus Conservative, Socialism versus Capitalism: all grist for the mill of seemingly endless debate in Modern society.

But there are truths which underlie reality, truths which defy Modernity to its face.

So let’s start at the beginning.

Modernity was born during the Enlightenment and gained its foothold in the success of the Revolutions of the 19th Century, and has now matured in the 21st Century.

Modernity, is where man makes his own universe, his own reality, remodels nature in his own image, and makes good and evil according to his own preferences. Modernity is where Man stands apart from Nature, and reasons for himself outside of Nature. All is rationalisation. All is made from ideal abstractions. Nothing is objective: all is subjective. And the beginning of of what Marx described as “Alienation”.

Once one enters into political debate, one is forced to argue any position from the point of view of Modernity, and the huge, deep assumptions of the Ideologies encompassing Modernity: the philosophical foundations in the rationalism of Descartes, the sceptical empiricism of Hume, and the idealism of Kant; the political and sociological foundations of Hobbes, Rousseau, and Locke; and the atheistic scientism of the Philosophes. All these foundations were laid in the 18th Century and led to the world-wide success of the French Revolutionary ideas. Everything else are ramifications of the foregoing; variations on an over-arching theme.

So, if one does not believe in the very foundational beliefs of Modernity, it is very difficult, even impossible, to enter into contemporary social and political debate, except in a very pragmatic way. But even pragmatic politics demands some over-arching end to which man is disposed. One either accepts the Ideological ends proposed by Modernity or is left wandering in a political wilderness.

Let’s look at each of the assumptions on which our society is based.

II – Modernism: The Philosophical Assumptions

Yes, I know, philosophy is a bore. One did philosophy at Uni to find truth and all one got were a whole lot of endless sceptical examinations and putting-down of one system after another. But this is a result of Modernism itself. To deny truth and refuse to examine its own assumptions.

I am aware that many discount the importance of reflecting deeply at the philosophic level. After all, scepticism is universal among our intelligentsia. The Modern does not re-examine his own philosophical roots. The famous statement of Descartes – “I think therefore I am.” – cuts man off from reality. The assumption here is that my thinking of myself makes reality, as if Man is separate from Nature – from the very things which provide contact with the conscious mind. So, Rationalism is borne.

This is quite revolutionary. Totally opposed to all philosophical thought from the beginning of mankind. It runs against common sense, against all religious belief, all cultures, all normal human responses to reality. A common sense person before Descartes would have seen himself to be part of reality, part of Nature, his own conscious existence as a given in the very act of thinking, dependent on the holistic act of thinking, not separating the person from his own nature. It is a fundamental act of faith in reality each person makes. Otherwise we are all mad. And that is Modernism. Mad, seemingly reasonable, very clever.

Hume built on this: the only reality beyond my thoughts are sense data. Again, there is no fundamental reality of things, nothing but the ephemera of sense data: there is no apple, just roundness and redness! The person is divorced from objects themselves: no objects, no objective goodness, no truth, no beauty, no fundamental ground of anything – just sceptical opinion, and endless “subjective experiences” without roots.

Kant then built a huge apparatus of ideas in answer to both Descartes and Hume to justify some kind of objective reality. The result was Rationalistic Idealism. For the next 200 years, men were fascinated by the different structures one could invent from the variety of worlds of Ideas. And from which sprang the Ideologies of the 19th and 20th Centuries. Religions are not Ideologies. Ideologies are constructs of Rationalism, supposedly “free” thinkers thinking up total systems of ideas to envelop man and society. Ideologies are man-made.

So then, what we have now is a rejection of the wisdom of the Western Medieval and Ancient worlds, of the Greeks, of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, and the sustaining developments of traditional philosophy through the Middle Ages and Renaissance.

Without the underlying sustaining Christian culture and moral framework of Western society, Nietzsche told us what Modernism means, taken to its cold, logical conclusions: we are beyond good and evil, and the only thing left to us is the will to power – and those who become aware of the logical conclusions become the Superman free from all moral constraints.

And Nihilism is with us everywhere in the modern world. The best analysis of Nihilism is Fr Seraphim’s essay: Nihilism: the Root of the modern Age.

Here is a very short and inadequate summary of the presence of Nihilism in everyday people’s lives today:

Liberalism: the first step to Nihilism
First is the Liberal and Humanist world-view. This is the world-view on which our whole modern world is based upon: its technology, its markets, its legislation, its urban life-style, its preoccupations. The Liberal Humanist is at base worldly in his theology, his ethics, his politics, and in other areas truth has been weakened, softened, compromised; in all realms truth that was once absolute has become less certain, if not entirely “relative.”
…. The Liberal is undisturbed even by fundamental deficiencies and contradictions in his own philosophy because his primary interest is elsewhere. He is indifferent to the reality of Heaven and Hell, if he conceives of God as a mere idea of a vague impersonal power, it is because he is more immediately interested in worldly ends, and because everything else is vague or abstract to him. The Liberal may be interested in culture, in learning, in business, or merely in comfort; but in every one of his pursuits the dimension of the absolute is simply absent. He is unable, or unwilling, to think in terms of ends, of ultimate things. The thirst for absolute truth has vanished; it has been swallowed up in worldliness.
….Liberalism is the first stage of the Nihilist dialectic. The Liberal proclaims his love of Truth, Culture, etc., but it is empty of any end to which they lead. This emptiness calls into being Nihilist reaction. The Nihilist will assert that the Liberal’s love of Truth and aspects of the Old Order is superficial: and so it is. The Liberal world-view is sentimental, it has no depth and so the intellectual Nihilist draws out the logical consequences of the weak-kneed Liberal world-view.

Realism: the development to Nihilism
The “Nihilist” is the man who respects nothing, bows before no authority, accepts nothing on faith, judges all in the light of a science taken as absolute and exclusive truth, rejects all idealism and abstraction in favor of the concrete and factual. He is the believer, in a word, in the “nothing” – but, in the reduction of everything men have considered “higher,” the things of the mind and spirit, to the lower or “basic”: matter, sensation, the physical.
The Realist questions everything, but only to be able to abolish all suggestion of or aspiration to anything higher, and to reduce and simplify it into the terms of the most obvious and “basic” explanation. The Realist sees only “race” or “sex” or the “mode of production.”
Nihilist “simplification” may be seen in the universal prestige today accorded the lowest order of knowledge, the scientific, as well as the simplistic ideas of men like Marx, Freud, and Darwin, which underlie virtually the whole of contemporary thought and life.
This Realist Nihilism dominates the upper and lower echelons of those who control our thoughts and decisions at all levels of society. Scientific analysis of the discrete particles of human existence dominate: no truth other than statistics, measuring, reports, the purely physical world and its needs. Decisions are made at the base level of the market, of preference choices, of freedom from any so-called “moral” restraints.

Vitalism: the consequence of Nihilism
Vitalism is a more advanced kind of Realism; sharing the latter’s narrow view of reality and its concern to reduce everything higher to the lowest possible terms, Vitalism carries the Realist intention one step further. Where Realism tries to reestablish an absolute truth from below, Vitalism expresses the failure of this project in the face of the more “realistic” awareness that there is no absolute here below, that the only unchanging principle in this world is change itself. Realism reduces the supernatural to the natural, the Revealed to the rational, truth to objectivity; Vitalism goes further and reduces everything to subjective experience and sensation. The world that seemed so solid, the truth that seemed so secure to the Realist, dissolve in the Vitalist view of things; the mind has no more place to rest, everything is swallowed up in movement and action.
For men weary of truth it is enough that a thing “is,” and that it is “new” and “exciting.”
The appeal of Vitalism is psychological. Only the dullest and least perceptive of men can remain satisfied for long with the dead faith of Liberalism and Realism. Extreme elements first – artists, revolutionaries, the uprooted multitudes, and then, one by one, the humanist guardians of “civilization,” and eventually even the most respectable and conservative elements of society, become possessed of an inner disquiet that leads them into the pursuit of something “new” and “exciting,” no one knows exactly what – a hunger that the varieties of Vitalism can only tease, but never satisfy.
Everywhere men feverishly pursue the work of “progress” – for what reason they do not know, or only very dimly sense. In the free world it is perhaps a horror vacui that chiefly impels men into feverish activity that promises forgetfulness of the spiritual emptiness that attends all worldliness. The sterile “purity” and “functionalism” of contemporary architecture are a typical expression of such a world; the same spirit is present in the disease of total planning. Some of the apologies for such schemes approach perilously near a strange kind of lucid insanity, wherein precision of detail and technique are united to an appalling insensitivity to the inhuman end these schemes serve.

Nihilism: the force of Destruction
“Who wishes to be creative,” said Nietzsche, “Must first destroy and smash accepted values.”
Bakunin appealed: “Let us put our trust in the eternal spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unsearchable and eternally creative source of all life. The passion for destruction is also a creative passion!” Here Vitalism mingles with the will to destroy: but it is destruction that triumphs in the end. [The Nazis] exulted, that “we may be destroyed, but if we are, we shall drag a world with us – a world in flames.”
Since there is nothing real, modern man feels great unease, alienation. One way to assuage this feeling is to take action: any action. Violence is one solution: any violence, any release of passion, fighting, sex, sport, violent physical activity. Sport becomes a means to express such feelings of alienation and passion: either watching violence or participating in it. It is a Spirit of the Age, the Spirit of the Gang, or the Team.
The Nihilist “revelation” thus declares, most immediately, the annihilation of authority. Some apologists are fond of citing “corruptions,” “abuses,” and “injustices” in the Old Order as justification for rebellion against it; but such things – the existence of which no one will deny – have been often the pretext, but never the cause, of Nihilist outbursts. It is authority itself that the Nihilist attacks. In the political and social order, Nihilism manifests itself as a Revolution that intends, not a mere change of government or a more or less widespread reform of the existing order, but the establishment of an entirely new conception of the end and means of government. In the religious order Nihilism seeks, not a mere reform of the Church and not even the foundation of a new “church” or “religion,” but a complete refashioning of the idea of religion and of spiritual experience. In art and literature the Nihilist is not concerned with the modification of old aesthetic canons regarding subject-matter or style, nor with the development of new genres or traditions, but with a whole new approach to the question of artistic “creation” and a new definition of “art.”

Nihilism: the New Man
The New Nihilist Man is rootless; discontinuous with a past that Nihilism has destroyed, the raw material of every demagogue’s dream; the “free-thinker” and skeptic, closed only to the truth but “open” to each new intellectual fashion because he himself has no intellectual foundation; the “seeker” after some “new revelation,” ready to believe anything new because true faith has been annihilated in him; the planner and experimenter, worshipping “fact” because he has abandoned truth, seeing the world as a vast laboratory in which he is free to determine what is “possible”; the autonomous man, pretending to the humility of only asking his “rights,” yet full of the pride that expects everything to be given him in a world where nothing is authoritatively forbidden; the man of the moment, without conscience or values and thus at the mercy of the strongest “stimulus”; the “rebel,” hating all restraint and authority because he himself is his own and only god; the “mass man,” this new barbarian, thoroughly “reduced and “simplified” and capable of only the most elementary ideas, yet scornful of anyone who presumes to point out the higher things or the real complexity of life.
[And the people under these Watchdogs of Nihilism become immersed in Market Consumerism and Alienated from anything which defines a person: aliented from family, community, church, culture – all transformed into a muddy greyness, becoming darker with each decade].

III – The Modernist Philosophical Effect on Society

It took a couple of centuries these philosophical ideological systems to become popular. Revolutionary ideas need the support of social, economic and political change to gain a foothold, “to catch on”. After all, the above philosophies would else remain just ideas.

Firstly, the ties which bound people together in the traditional Western society of the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries were gradually destroyed. The legal and social ties which bound the higher ranks of society to care for the lower ranks were slowly cut, one by one: the Church and Tradition, the binder of those ties, the protector of the poor and lowly, lost almost all power by the end of the 17th century. Although the very deeply-entrenched traditional Western Culture slowed the implementation of scepticism and relativism and their implications in their personal lives, scepticism and relativism certainly entered into the economic and political life.

Now freed from the authority of the Church, Parliaments now dominated by the moneyed men and no-longer-bound-to-custom nobility joined to force the peasants from their land and livelihood. The population of the countryside decreased,  and the urban working class were now exploited through the demands of the Industrial Revolution. The sheer acceleration of wealth in Western Europe through the late 18th and early 19th Century, focussed the minds of the intelligentsia.

The ties that bind had to be destroyed, one by one. Why? because wealth and economic power and Progress needed the freedom to run through Custom and Tradition. The great restrictions placed on the growth of economic power by the forces of Custom and Tradition had to go. In the depths of Western Culture and Tradition was intertwined Natural Law: the binding traditions of family life, the extended family, the trading and craftsmen guild’s binding of employer to employee and apprentice, the laws against usury, the binding of family with the land, the binding of the local lord to his tenants, the “democracy of the little man” in his locality against the faraway State.

Secondly, the intelligentsia relied on the revolutionary beliefs of the new philosophies to undermine Tradition and the binding power of Nature. Nature now was open to the forces of Rationalism: Progress demanded the freedom to treat Nature as a physical phenomenon to be studied and catalogued, to be uncovered by Man Outside of Nature. The independent “Free-thinker”, and the physical scientist, whose main fruits were the growth of technology and industry, the heroes of Progress. And so, also, the application of reason to politics and economics: the new invention – Political Ideology.

From Rationalism was borne Political Ideology – the “isms”: Liberalism, Socialism, Communism, Nazism, Progressivism, the Left and the Right, Environmentalism, Multiculturalism. From the old Christian culture, one abstracted the belief in Rousseau’s “goodness of man”, and the brotherhood of man, the idea of the dignity of man and his freedom. From the remaining old Christian cultural milieu of 18th Century French nobility we abstracted the cultured “polite” society, the good manners, the assumed standards of morality. We mixed it all up into a very popular set of Ideological slogans: freedom, brotherhood and equality. Liberty became the watchword to defend Progress against the forces of “obscurantism” and “superstition”; and most of all to fight privilege – the very enemy of equality.

So why were these ideas so successful and so popular?

Freedom gave people material prosperity. The powers of the State released by Modern ideas were extended way beyond the powers of even the most so-called “absolute” monarch of the 17th and 18th centuries. The Absolute Monarch was limited by the universal respect for tradition and custom. The Modern State is now able to organise any personal, social and political unit at any time, in any way – totally – as long as the voting public see an economic advantage.

Each “person” – I put this word in italics because the Modern does not really believe in persons – is but an economic unit, a tax number, a voter, a Social Security number. Government is by numbers, and units making up the greatest number. To be a person just means having political “rights”, rights being defined by and for the State.

Of course, at present, there are still cultural and traditional pressures to place limitations on what the Modern State may not do: personhood and rights may be manipulated according to the demands of Modernity.

So, you say. Look! Look at the vast world of happiness that the Moderns have brought us. People are free to “shop till they drop”, to swim, to travel in comfort where they will, to holiday on luscious beaches. People live longer, and more productive lives. The death rate is much lower, people live longer. Modernity has brought us great health. We look after the sick and elderly, and the dispossessed. We live comfortably.

And look at our hopes: that the Modern world will find a way to spread Modernity to all around the globe; the ups and downs of economic life will be levelled out; and those who now are suffering will one day suffer no more. All we have to do is to find solutions for the poor and dispossessed. Inequalities will disappear. Once we rid the world of the greedy, the religious fundamentalist, the tribal loyalist, the remnants of traditional morality, and rid ourselves of political strictures, raw capitalists, their cronies, and any propaganda from capitalist media, all will be well.

And what will be left after one ideological structure is destroyed, but another! Another ideology, another political form of Modernism. Greed and the will to power are endemic in human nature. Once all those cultural restraints of our past disappear, hell will break loose. A “nice” hell. A hell of being ruled by moral and social guardians unbound by any considerations other than polite “niceness” which changes according to the dictates of the powerful.

At present, the hearts of love, of compassion, which guide our beliefs about how we should care for each other, have been deeply engraved in our laws and institutions from non-Modern ages past. The aim of Modernism is to imitate the cultural remains of Christianity without the dogma. The French and Russian Revolutions tried to simulate those traditions, but without success – contrived and at base, heartless.

IV – Modernity: the rage of “isms”

Liberalism is the dominating ideology of the Western World. From the French Revolution, two strands developed: Economic Liberalism and Social Liberalism. Economic Liberalism – free trade, free markets – opposed the old, traditional belief in protecting local businesses, local farmers, local workers. It opposed the traditional monopolies granted to privileged individuals and social groups. The ideas of Liberalism necessitate Capitalism.

Economic Liberalism is the enemy of Nationalism (Nationalism closes markets – the economic liberal prefers Global Markets), yet Nationalism also is a child of the French Revolution as well. Getting rid of the King, a personal ruler, meant creating the idea of a Nation – an identifiable group around a common flag – another contrived idea to replace the natural local affections of people. Another Modern ideology. Unfortunately for the world, Nationalism caused two of the greatest wars in history.

Social Liberalism stems from the other French Revolutionary idea – equality for all. Social Liberals demand that the State makes laws to ensure all are equal. At first, revolutionaries demanded equality before the law, and now it is a demand for total fundamental equality for all – no discrimination between people at all.

Both these Ideologies dominate political debate. Those who are economic liberals – the “Right” – form political parties such as Conservative, Republican, National, or Liberal Democrat. Those who are Social Liberals – the “Left” – Labour, Democrat, Social Democrat. There is no room in either of these ideologies for those who oppose the Modernist Agendas of both Liberalisms.

“Conservatives”, who might be described as opposers to the Revolution, are mostly Economic Liberals who have shifted their position over the years from opposing the old “Left” issues and now find themselves on the Right of any current debate. But they are Modernists, just the same. Even, the old Labour “Left” find themselves forced to shift ground to the current “Left” – the Progressives, or be accused of being of the “Right”.  Our present Progressive Liberalism is victorious and has been over the past 250 years.

So, the Modern is imbued with constant rage at the injustices of the present in the hope for Progress – a debate which will never end.

Globalist Utopian Zombies
Below is an article by a Frenchman, Dominique Venner, on Nihilism and “The Religion of Humanity”. He also makes references to a very cogent book by a Frenchwoman, Flora Montcorbier, from her book: : “Market communism – From the Marxist Utopia to the Globalist Utopia.”

The Manufacture of Zombies
No one has yet undertaken fully to comprehend the curious outcome of the Cold War, that capital phase of a great upheaval. Who was the victor in this false war? It was the United States, of course, and with it the market economy. But it was also the religion of humanity, uniform and universal. It was a religion common to both opponents of yesterday. Nor was it their only affinity.

What did the communists of yesteryear want? They wanted to appropriate the wealth of all humanity under a supposed rational management, thereby ensuring all abundance and peace. They also wanted to create a new man, capable of desiring these benefits, a rational and universal man, freed from all the obstacles constituted root-like by nature and culture. They wanted finally to revenge their hatred of actual men, those embodiments of actual difference, and their hatred also of the old Europe, so diverse and tragic.

And the American West, what did it want? Well, the same thing. Rejecting central planning through coercion, however, the American system saw the market as the main determiner of economic rationality and of change. – Hence the name “market communism” assigned to it by Flora Montcorbier.

Market communism, which is simply another name for globalism, shares with its ex-Soviet enemy-brother not only the radiant vision of the ultimate goal. But, in order to change the world, it too must change man; it must manufacture the Homo Economicus of the future, the zombie, the man born of nihilism, emptied of content, and possessed by the spirit of the market and universal humanity. The zombie proliferates under our eyes. He is happy because “the spirit of market whispers to him that happiness consists in the satisfaction of all his desires.” And the only desires are designated for him by the market.

There is some resistance to zombification nevertheless. As the design is grandiose, one must not skimp in fashioning the means to break resistance. Whoever stubbornly refuses to recognize the benefits of the system can expect the fate of Iraq in 1991 and Serbia, in 1999. The world is full of stubborn dictators whom it is necessary to reeducate.

In order better to zombify Europeans, so persistently rebellious, immigration proved itself a beneficial innovation. The results were excellent. The permanent installation of immigrant communities accelerates the proletarianization of immigrants themselves, but also of the indigenous working class, the “little whites.” Without the protection of a coherent nation, treated as suspects by the public authorities, and denounced by legal authorities, the natives lost the last of their social immunities. Still recusant they become “naked proletarians” loathed by the zombies in power.

To overcome such recalcitrance, the radicals resorted one might say ingeniously to the teachings of the Old Guard of communist intellectuals, ever their traveling companions and familiars. The Old Communists provided the Communists of the Market with all-important inquisitorial clergy of the Religion of Humanity, that new opium of the people, in which sport functions as the High Mass. The Religion of Humanity is a religion that bases its notion of law in the so-called rights of man, i.e., the Rights of the Zombie, which are in fact onerous duties. The Religion of Humanity has its dogmas, its secular arm, the American military, its European auxiliaries, and various international or national courts.

One of the main instruments of the Religion of Humanity is its simultaneous manipulation of the collective guilt of the Europeans and their addiction to a false compassion. “Victimology” became the litmus of legitimacy for the new self-legitimating elites. In order to bring about the obliteration of all questionable thoughts, the “victimological” dogma has had to establish itself in a permanent criminal tribunal. Indeed, “Victimology” perpetually doubles-down. She denounces the “crimes” of the past or those of various exotic dictatorships and she attributes to herself the highest of moral patents. “Victimology” suggests that in comparison to her, despite her corruption and flaws, she is nonetheless the ethical paragon, the best justice of all. Of course even the best-designed systems are subject to contingencies. Occasionally “Victimology” bites back against her users.

The thought policemen meanwhile never cease to chase down evil, the evil that is to say, of being different, being individuated, loving life, nature, the past, cultivating critical thinking and refusing to sacrifice to the universal deity. Evil: That also signifies to the liberal regime any refusal to be duped by the system, or, in the words Flora Montcorbier, to demur in respect of any “appeal to the liberal credo, to moralistic humanism, or to a false environmentalist redistribution of wealth for the purpose of masking the inevitable and essential character of liberalism’s destruction of man, nature, and social life.”

Note: The term victimology translates the French victimologie. A more accurate translation might be victimocracy. Victimology would be the ideology of victimocracy, or rule by the (self-nominating) representatives of (self-alleging) victims.

V – Non-Modern View

Your sense of injustice is well founded. It comes from the very nature of Man: his objective weighing of that in-built understanding of his nature, of what is right and what is wrong. But Modernism destroys the weighing of merits of one kind of injustice from another and destroys one’s ability to see the whole picture; it is fundamentally “imprudent” because it forbids understanding of the whole ethical picture, especially since all morality is deemed relative. One is forbidden to place moral decisions into some kind of hierarchy (yet everyone, naturally does this). So, one is left with no basis to judge one injustice from another. One is left chasing one endless social and political “issue” after another. Politics and the points of view of the media become the centre of all discussion.

The answer is to look at the fundamentals of Law and government.

Firstly, recognition of your being a person and others being persons. You did not bring yourself into existence and you owe your family and all of the rest the debt to look after yourself and other persons. You do not own yourself – it is a given. Whatever so-called “rights” come with being a person. Those rights do not come from society or from government. They are self-evident in being a person. Other persons also have been given their self-awareness. Also given.

And a person has a natural end, a first function – to be and for the Good and whatever makes a person’s end as Good. Health, work, education, family life, etc., all are for the person to grow into the Good. A person needs to possess the truth about things, even the simplest thing, in order to grow. A person desires the good in all things but above all the highest goodness that a person can possess. A person cannot but thirst for truth and yearn for unity with the highest things. A person cannot but help but to make judgments over which is best, which is right, in order to grow towards the Good.

Nature has given us the powers of reasoning to attain those goods and a rich tradition of family and cultural life to help attain those goods.

All natural laws descend from being a person among other persons. Persons cannot live without a family, without all the extensions going right back through families, culture, traditions and society. Governments are called into being for the common good of persons and families, and all the fundamental social groups which help persons to grow towards the Good.

A government cannot be true unless it has some understanding of what are the fundamental goods. It cannot trash culture and tradition because these organically hold the Goods to which we are born to attain. It cannot ignore the Common Good for the sake of relativism or scepticism, or multiculturalism or individualism, for the sake of Ideology.

So, our good depends on our family first, then our clan, our tribe, our patria, our gods, and all the traditions and cultures which potentially contain the Good.

VI – Confront Modernity with Natural Law

Whenever a political or social issue arises I must follow Natural Law. Is it best for the Good of my immediate family, my extended family, my clan, my patria, my “gods” – remembering that religion defines culture? My “patria” is Australia, New Zealand, as colonists, from Great Britain, within Western Europe, fundamentally Catholic but shared with Protestants. I glory in Western Civilisation, in the music, art, and culture of learning from the Middles Ages extending to the various times and places where Modernism has not destroyed!

So, I demand to be prejudiced and give privilege to all the above hierarchy of my family: to give preference as an employer to family, then religion, then patria. The government of Australia then should give preference to its own Patria – British ancestry, heritage and culture; to Christianity and its culture, and to the family – family being the physical, sexual coupling of men and women which fundamentally generates the foundations of the State.

No ideologies should be allowed to stand in the way of these prejudices. There is no natural “equality”, but government should make laws which protect our cultural and traditional institutions, our families, our common religious beliefs grow. Laws to protect the family come first: the livelihood of the family, its economic survival, its need for time to grow as a family, a trade, a modest living wage, its need for a variety of educational, cultural, social and religious pursuits in order to grow within its extended clan and the community of one’s clan.

Modernism has made such ugliness and a hash of the family world and its structures are largely in place. So, then make laws to ameliorate the awful situation families are placed in. Sacrifice all other social, environmental and economic considerations for families! Make a 6-hour working week compulsory as well as two-day weekends. Enforce holidays. All so that families may be able to be together longer. Allow families to choose their own child carers and subsidise them, especially if they are family members! Tax joint family income. Reward stay-at-home mothers as child-carers and educators. Petrol and working-time subsidies for those who must travel more to work away from their families. Subsidise local industries, local trades, local monopolies, force decentralisation on all government and large businesses to assist families to work near where families live. Open up the land for families and make housing structures and allowances for extended families to live near or together.

Where there is a clash between different traditions, then Western Civilisation’s cultural traditions prevail. One tolerates “evil” only if, by not tolerating an evil, a worse evil develops. Toleration of itself is not a good thing. There are deep-seated traditions in our culture which must not be destroyed by multiculturalism. Respect for our traditions of chivalry – the poor and weak are to be protected, gentleness, politeness, of respect for women as physically weaker and possibly child-bearing, respect for our Christian roots in the holidays of Easter, Christmas and Sundays publicly and at schools. We have no duty to place other religious traditions on a par with our “Patria” – our European Motherland. We celebrate Armitice Day and Anzac Day, we do not celebrate the Fall of Constantinople nor Hanukkah!

Citizens do not need to be Christians, but to respect that those Christian traditions contain the very values which make us the kind of civilised life-style which we and others of the world enjoy. Remember, the separation of State and Church is not part of our constitution: it is an American tradition and even then it means the separation of the State from any one Christian denomination, not the general beliefs of Christian culture itself!!!

We should also respect the great line of thought stretching back to Greece and Rome. Christianity, the Roman Imperial idea of a Universal Law overarching particular cultures and the unique belief in reason emanating from Greece, are the fundamentals on which the good things of the Modern World are made. We must not relativise these connections. Children and young adults should be schooled in that Western heritage of learning, even if some of those ideas are bad, because when taken altogether, goodness and truth lie. For instance, all our technology and science developed from the belief that truth can be found in nature. Discoveries are made on those assumptions. Those assumptions are from the Ancient Greeks – we must not be sceptical about reality itself.

Part of Western  tradition is respect for those who protect us all – MPs, the army, the police, the judiciary. We should bring back the formality of these officials, and the full honorific titles for each of these officials in public. And on the other hand, those who work for the good of all, should work as if they worked for charity. Some of their recompense should be the honour which they are regarded by the community rather than financial reward. Rudeness to any one of these is an attack on the safety of the State and eventually the family.

We should protect, honour and respect those and their institutions who work for the common good without reward: charitable organisations and churches. And those who work in health and education, social care, etc., should be encouraged to work as if they were working for charity.

To do all of this, the media should censor anything which might bring disrespect to the office of those who govern, who care for, and who protect us: the media should protect the office of everyone!

And defy Globalisation, root and branch.

Finally, Modern Humanitarianism is based at root in the Christian idea of loving one’s neighbour. The French Revolution used this idea and invented the idea of the Brotherhood of Man. And stemming from that belief, wonderful, good actions have followed all over the world. But, without a true heart, humanitarianism easily becomes a love for “humanity” but not the individual person right in front of one. And it is the weakness of men’s hearts – deep down – that causes all the trouble in the world – not weakness in failing to act from one’s ideological beliefs.

Modernism, on its own, will fail, and is failing, because it cannot ever heal men’s hearts.

IX – Modernity and Literature

PART THREE: Literature – Enlightenment Propaganda

Before the lofty idealism of the Humanism of the Renaissance, European literature was eminently practical.

A. Poetry and Drama

Lyric poetry honoured God or one’s chivalrous lover, epic poetry recounted the exploits of heroes such as Charlemagne or Roland. Prose reached its heights in clear, logical treatises of philosophy and theology. Or was used as ribald commentary on society. The origin of drama was in the liturgy of the Mass and the cycle of the Catholic year: the very popular miracle and moral plays of Medieval Europe.

There was no school of intellectuals judging literature as works of art. Medieval society and its art was unselfconscious. Moderns would say, naive.

The Medievals lived close to Nature. Everything was seen and felt to be connected. This meant that in the arts, the writer’s imagination knew no bounds. Anything and everything could be put together to show connections. Up to and including the Metaphysicals, Poetry was able to connect thought and feeling through the metaphors of a nature lived among men. Nature and word were joined. Shakespeare’s muse is full of the connexion of life, nature, meaning, men, and a commonality of unity of man with nature.

With the beginnings of Modernism in the late 17th, Classicism heralded the break between man and nature, even though Pope and Dryden invoke Nature as their goddess, it is a goddess undressed by their own rationalism. The Classicist is emotionally removed and examines his art, his forms, as a Newton or a Descartes. All cleverly effete.

Drama divided into the Comedy of Manners and the more serious French imitations of Ancient Greek and Roman tragedies.

The Romantic poets of the 19th Century contrived a unity of man with nature, but the horse has bolted. Nature is now remote and lost. It is a nostalgic discovery of the daffodils. A nostaglia matching the Romanticism of a Wolf or Schubert Lieder.

By the 20th Century, poetry and drama become the tools of social commentary. Ideology dominates. Or it weeps at the destruction wrought by Modernity. The Poet is alienated, as is the Dramatist and Painter, the Artiste. And as Modernity creates a universal ugliness of implemented ideologies into life, the artist paints ugliness to challenge and to reflect the ugliness of Modern Society.

B. The Literary Novel – a Modernist Invention

The Literary Novel is a Modernist invention. The Modern novel is about man, his thoughts, his feelings, his interactions with others in his world. A novel is judged on how it is “true to life” – a life centred on man. The novel is judged to be good if it simulates the reality of character, plot, life, psychology, the interactions of human relationships.

It is no coincidence that the first novelists were from the late 17th Century – the beginnings of Deism and Modernism. The world no longer wanted to hear about God – so “divisive”. Reality excluded God and Man’s relationship with God. The Novel became the new vehicle for exploring the Modernist’s world, ostensibly more real. But how real is the exploration of reality if a person’s life is centred on God. The life of many people is religious: people pray, address their God all through the day, are aware of themselves as part of a religious story which takes place daily. Yet, this huge aspect of life is ignored in the novel. Let us also consider the very real conflict some people every day one has with “conscience” at its very depths – the fight with God. You will not find that in “realistic” novels.

The most realistic personal writings in the past were by the saints: such as St Augustine’s “Confessions”, Dante’s trilogy, St Catherine’s “Dialogue of Divine Providence”, and St Teresa of Avila’s “Autobiography”. These works reveal very deep reflections of the relationship of the soul and God in dealing with the challenges of life, stream-of-consciousness narration, totally honest, humane, and almost “modern” in their understanding of what it is to be a human being – a normal, everyday person in their struggles in life.

It is not until the end of the 19th Century, that the novel, especially the historical novel, becomes of age: popular, universal, and the main means of Modernist Liberal propaganda. And this trend extends right into the 21st Century. Novel after novel explores social, political and religious injustices. First, the villains are the aristocracy, the Tories, Catholics and the higher Anglican clergy – the enemies of the Liberal Revolution. The villains then become the rich, the capitalist, the bourgoisie. And then, in the late 20th and early 21st century, the villain is anyone who dresses well, has taste, who has manners, or who is a “fundamentalist”, a bigot – but must be a religious bigot.

It is interesting to watch films adapted from older stories. The heroes, who once were virtuous chivalrous nobles, are reinvented as rebel teenagers, or “cool” and slovenly – the new virtue: being true to the freedom of one’s emotions, a real “dude”. Any control over one’s behaviour is seen as aristocratic pretence!

C. History Literature
The writing of History by academics is an Enlightenment Project – interpreting events in the past in the Spirit of Progress and Humanism, with the over-arching theme of showing just how evil the Catholic Church and its impact on delaying Progress and Civilisation.

Edward Gibbon’s mighty work – The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire – gives free rein for the author to interpret every event involving the Church in the poorest of light. The Enlightenment interpretation of History becomes the main theme of 19th Century English historians and continues right through the 20th Century.

D. Contemporary Novels
There is little of value in reading present day novels. Many portray the dull, grey lives of people caught in the hopelessness of Modernity: broken marriages, lonely women and abandoned children. Many rely on including immodest sexuality and general acceptance of immorality to identify with the reader. Many portray the challenge of people from multicultural backgrounds adjusting to modern life – with the approval of the author on the side of the modern rather than the traditional.
Novels for men rely heavily on violence, sex, war, and heroes whose heroism omits any other virtues than courage and manly skills. There are no manly heroes in modern novels full of gentleness, kindness, grace, modesty, charity, etc. It would seem inconceivable now that a hero could be manly and courageous and virtuous!! So much for Gawain, Percival, Lancelot and Galahad!

E. The Catholic Novel
Intellectual Catholics in the 20th Century tried to employ the literary novel as a means of portraying Catholic life: Mauriac, Bernanos, Greene and Waugh being the most famous. But they had bought into the Modern agenda. The Catholic novelist had become too aware of modernistic criticism of their novels based on “bringing God” into everyday life. So Catholic novelists based their plots on the main character experiencing some moral dilemma which would be solved in the end by some act of moral heroism generated by Catholic belief. The characters are portrayed as anti-heroes, extreme personalities, ignoble, or self-righteous: all it seems with one eye on the modern critic, who would insist on so-called “realism”.

But one would be then led to believe that Catholicism is nothing but morality – hardly a religion which moves and directs one’s emotions, thoughts, perceptions, interactions with others … totally opposite of the writings of Catholics in the Catholic world who are totally unselfconscious of Catholicism affecting their life.

F. Conclusion
The contemporary media of novels, film and TV dramas are devoid of life. Predominant is the sensational: extreme blatant in-your-face violence and sex, end-of-world scenarios, fantastic super-heroes, or dark portrayals of the everyday life of broken families, abuse, rape, angry men and women. Or progressive propaganda stories which take pleasure in cynically reducing any seemingly “good” or traditional life-style as basically hypocritical and corrupt.

Moral and cultural and subjective Relativism and Reductionism reigns supreme. There is no real substance of beauty, truth or goodness about contemporary culture. No real end nor resolution to life’s problems. Nihilism underpins it all. Concepts of “being nice” and “being tolerant” are pulled out of a hat to save the plot and redeem the hero. No storyline is allowed to really examine where in the “hat” these values come from or why they are there in first place.

“The Game of Thrones” and the “Middle Ages”

Game of Thrones is just another of those seemingly endless entertainments appropriating a thoroughly twisted view of the Middle Ages: an interpretation of a period of our history distorted by 500 years of prejudice, an interpretation reinforced by repetitious tropes, to the point when it is almost useless to try to get people to understand any aspect of the Middle Ages.

And yet, the Middle Ages is the very foundation of our Modern World. One could then say then that the Child, our modern world, hates its mother, to the extent of Matricide!!

The very terms, “Middle Ages”, and “Medieval” were invented by 15th Century Renaissance scholars to describe the period between the “good”, noble, arty, literate Classical era of Ancient Rome, and their own proud age of the rediscovered beauty of the Classical era. Everything between, from the Fall of Rome to c.1450 was dross, written off as in the Middle. They longed for the return of ancient Roman civilisation and its culture, art, music, literature, and laws. They wrote off 1000 years of our history, the very history which formed the foundations of his – Renaissance man’s – own ability to stand outside of himself and analyse the past.

What a travesty of history! Somehow Renaissance man just miraculously was able to think and analyse the past, to evaluate art and beauty, to explore ancient texts, texts of course, which just sprang out of the blue. European scholarship just sprang out of 1000 years of barbarism and artistic misery? One mustn’t mention where those universities of Europe began from which these Renaissance scholars received their doctorates.

And then the “Middle Ages” received its double whammy – the Protestant Reformation. From 1500 onwards much of Northern Europe as it turned Protestant, denied the traditions borne out through 1500 years of Christianity. For some Protestants, Christianity became corrupted right after the Apostles died, for others during Constantine’s reign c. 320 when the Church became established as Roman. And so, the Middle Ages was seen as the reign of the “Whore of Babylon” – the Pope. “Superstition” prevailed, and the doctrines of Catholicism – the enemy – darkened the mind of mankind.

And then the intellectuals – a new breed of men – sprung out of the Wars of Religion: the “Enlightened” ones who invented the new philosophies of idealism and empiricism – the foundations of our modern ideologies. The Enlightenment intellectuals cast the Middle Ages as a period of intellectual torpitude devoid of reason. The Middle Ages received this “triple whammy” – an age dominated by religious dogmatism, and at the heart of this was the Catholic Church – the enemy.

So, in order to celebrate the victories of Renaissance Humanism, the Protestant Reformation, the Enlightenment, and the great Liberal Revolution, intellectuals have, over and over, and over and over, through 500 years now made the Middle Ages a monster to kill with every weapon. One could run through an enormous list of history and philosophy books, novels, plays, films, cultural motifs, etc., all of which have as their fundamental basis the willing distortion of the Middle Ages!

Let us examine this Monster.

This Monster founded the universities of Europe from c 1100 to 1300. There were reportedly 20,000 students at the University of Paris about the late 1100s – about the same number as now. Oxford and Cambridge, Bologna, Padua, et al., all rose about this time. The medieval medical school in Naples was famous in the known world.

As early as 800 AD (in the Dark Ages), Charlesmagne, insisted that every parish church in his vast empire have a school to teach all the children to read and write. He was so determined in this that much of his vast horde from his conquests was used to fund this project. Furthermore he had inspectors ensure that this dying wish of his was carried out. Parish schools and scholarships developed throughout Europe and grew through the next 500 years.

Representative parliaments all developed across Europe during this time of the 1100s: the rule in each kingdom was that a king may not issue a new tax without the consent of a meeting of nobles, clergy and commoners and this was not just in England! Cities, merchants and free-holders voted and became more powerful as the economy of Europe grew.

Welfare? Hospitals, aged care homes, orphanages, pensioner systems, homeless care, soup kitchens, were in place, mostly in the charge of large numbers of religious, but some funded by the nobility.

But, let us get to the heart. All very well assembling a list of wonderful Medieval inventions, discoveries, structures, cathedrals, etc. What were these Medieval people like? Where were their hearts?

Words and new connotations of words are invented in each age to express new thoughts and feelings which are demanded by new experiences.

And what new words and new connotations of words were invented in England in the Middle Ages to express these new experiences? Words such as pity, gentle, mercy, beauty, bounty, charity, delicate, devotion, grace, honour, humble, passion, patience, peace, purity, tender, loving-kindness, long-suffering. Many of these words were taken out of the religious context and placed in the relationship, not between God and men, but between everyday people, to express these new relationships. Other new words came about to express the loving relationship between men and women: dalliance, dainty, debonair, delight, pleasure, love-longlingly.

Here we have a new world of developing tenderness and solicitude between people and especially between men and women and children.

Even the word “lady”: a curt Germanic word meaning “load-kneader” in 400 AD had come to mean someone gracious and tender by 1200AD.

How can we then place a world of these new affectionate expressions beside the world of the Game of Thrones and the many other Medieval-based inventions of modern times?

What brought about a change in human relationships of such depth? About 1100 AD we have minstrels roaming the lands of Europe singing of untouchable ladies whose beauty enchants noble men, who are inspired to live a life of purity and gentleness; who are inspired to defend the down-trodden, the weak, the defenceless; and for some to sacrifice their noble warrior lives for the poor and sick. For instance, the cult of St Francis was the most popular in Europe for a hundred years – young men and women from noble families who give their lives up for humble poverty for the sake of a Crucified God who identifies with the poor and lowly.

Of course, I know the answer. It were the doctrines and traditions and “superstitions” of the Catholic Church – the enemy of the Modern world, which brought about the Middle Ages.

The Middle Ages started to come to an end by the mid 1300s: by then the Commercial and Population Explosions of the Middle Ages had ended. Kings started to become independent from their nobles and from the Church; and by 1600 – the Age of Absolute Monarchy. The Age of Ideologies took their place, and now the underlying Medieval culture of Europe in dying. Soon we will look back in sadness at those affectionate words of Medieval England and wonder what basis there should be for them? Just superficial sentiment?