Middle-earth Revisited Another version....

Everyone of us hobbits had to carry a ring around our necks. It weighed us down through our lives, muddied our thoughts, weakened our bodies to death hoping that one day we were to be freed. And some of us were called to carry our personal ring up Mount Doom and throw it into its depths.

It was, indeed, a struggle to get rid of it. The ring was embedded in our hearts and souls and minds and thoughts. But we did. We threw it away.

The life-long weakness remained though. The yearning for its false comforts left traces in our hearts. But such solace we received by the elves sustained us.

We ate lembas bread through the days until our departure; we listened to and sang their songs in the glades of Lothlorien; in Rivendall, we researched and charted the paths outside the ring; we preserved the wisdom of the elves; transcribed their music; we wrote our memoirs; we honoured our Lady Elbereth Githoniel and wore her phial round our necks; and yearned for the promises of Iluvatar.

And then we finally were called to the Grey Havens and off to the West Isles we went to wait for better days to come.

The Shire did not survive. In the next Age, the world of Men destroyed Hobbiton as they destroyed everything they touched. The King did not return.

Then, after another long Age, we returned. Tom Bombadill and Roseberry met us at the dock, and escorted us to the New King.

Gone was every trace of the past. The Misty Mountains had become gentle hills. The Great Forest, now of gentle wide-spanning branches, had spread right across the earth, with glades of the gold and silver trees of Lothlorien separated with lush pastureland. As we walked, time and space seemed to slow down. Distances seemed short and yet expansive. Days seemed like hours yet timeless. We felt no tiredness, no hunger, no thirst. We seemed to fly along the ground.

The forest trees moved apart as if to welcome us. The Ents had met their wives and the thrumming of their joy echoed in the forest among the lilt of Elvish song.

We could see others in the far distance in front and behind us making their skipping way on the same journey.

At last we reached the land of Gondor, or where it used to be. And there behold was a new City: a city of golden columns and towers reaching up to the sky. Trumpets welcomed us as we hurried to the gates of the City.

And there: a huge mass of hobbits, elves and men gathered with one joyful voice of expectation.

And there he stood on the dais: the King, glowing in white and shimmering behind him the High Queen of Heaven: Elbereth-Githoniel. And above, the Valar renewed their lost song.

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.

VII – Modernity and Music

MUSIC – FROM BEAUTY AND GRACE TO THE UGLY

A. The Foundations

Western music, and by that I mean, the music of Europe, has its origins in the music of the Catholic Church.

Our heathen ancestors – the Celts, Britons, Germans, Goths, Vandals, Franks – you can be sure did not, once upon a time, dance around in joyful jigs and reels of what we know now as popular, traditional folk music. No! they danced to the same kind of shaman-like drums and pipes as all savage peoples did. The same way as African tribes still do. Melody was minimal – orgiastic chanting to a beating drum.

The barbarian tribes conquered by Roman civilisation would only have heard the music of the Greek modes in state occasions – if at all. And when the Empire fell in the West, so did most of the civilising influence of the Romans.

From 400 AD to 1000 AD the barbarian tribes became civilised through the influence of the Catholic Church. The Church set up monasteries and schools, and encouraged the kings and chieftains of Dark Ages Europe to assist in the education of the faithful throughout Europe. There is tons of evidence for this development.

But where did the people – the ordinary mums, dads, and kids hear music? in Church, every Sunday and feast days. Gregorian chant and Latin hymns dominated the musical experience of these barbarians. And especially through the years from 800 AD to 1200 AD these people copied the “feel” of the Gregorian chant and hymns into their own music – folk music became an extension of what they heard in Church.

The “feel” of the ordinary European Christian originating in Church music was for music and art which reflected the doctrines of the Church: love, gentleness, mercy, joy, and grace. The form of music also developed from the liturgies of the Church: the chorus and response, psalmody led to versification and ballads. Marian hymns and Christmas carols soon became popular folk experiences. Dancing evolved from the village “stomp” to graceful dance – the Sarabande, the Polka, the Gigue (Jig), the Sicilienne, a myriad of dance forms expressing the unity of village group or a wedding dance among nobles – and there was no difference in the music in a multi-ranked society.

There grew a felt need for art forms to exhibit grace and so the traditional dance and music forms developed into what became so popular many centuries later.

From the liturgies of the Church – the chorus and response form – harmony, polyphony, madrigals and secular opera developed. And together came instrumentation, so that by 1650 Baroque – a musical style stretching for another hundred years – became the fully-matured expression of Western and Christian civilisation. It is not contrived. There is no theoretical foundation but the organic growth of traditional forms of chant, discovered harmony, dance and song. Baroque was both the music of the people and the music of the nobility. There was a free flow of the music of the beer hall “ditty” to its scoring and performance by any one of a number of Baroque composers for a performance at the beer hall or in front of a noble in his court.

Gone is the pagan, savage “stomp” to the drums and pipe. Common to all of the development of our Western heritage in music is the ascendancy of melody over the beat. Church music had no fixed beat but was based on the natural rhythm of Latin. The orgiastic beat of non-Christian music mainly disappeared from Western music.

Grace, gentleness, decoration, the contrasting of joy and sorrow, mercy, goodness and yearning for the beautiful: all kept the base demand for orgiastic expression to a minimum.

B. Classicism

There was a very brief period of Western music called the “Classical” period, when limitations were placed on the development of music. The evolution of Renaissance Rationalism led to the Modernist Enlightenment experiment of Classicism. The intelligensia of the late 18th Century worshipped the Deistic god of “Reason” and this god demanded order, control, and structure above all. Music became deliberately artful, and simplified, as if to tell a story, to be constructed rationally with a narrative beginning, middle and end. Beauty of form and noble delicacy dominate this form. “Effete” is the word for this kind of music.

But it has lost Glory and Joy (“Glory and trumpets” as Sam Gamgee in the Lord of the Rings would say) and the graceful sadness which comes with glory and joy of salvation but the realisation of loss – in death or in love. And much of Baroque music is dance music, dance music which echoes all ranks of a society still in touch with each other – peasant to noble. The joyful play of the Baroque disappears and so does the connexion with the people.

Classical music is for an “informed” audience, for the nobles, for the rich, for concert halls. The “grace” in much of classical music is informed by hundreds of years of Christian civilisation and still present among the elite even in those who may have rejected the practise of the Faith. It will take another 100 years for that grace to gradually disappear.

By 1600, Gregorian chant had disappeared in the major churches of Europe, replaced by polyphony at best, or by Catholic or Protestant hymns, or by original compositions – none of which captured the inner beauty and grace of Gregorian music. Unless it was a hymn, music now heard in Church no longer was simple but “complicated”. However, Bach was famous to the everyday Lutheran because he captured the “feel” of the old Catholic music in his weekly Cantatas.

By 1800 the huge increasing division of Europe between the landed class and the commoner, also created a huge division in music: between the “music of the court” and traditional folk music and dance. The latter became even more isolated as the Industrial Revolution broke up village life. Remnants survived in nostalgic family occasions, in pubs, in remote country village halls.

C. The Revolution and Music

There is only one revolution – Modernism’s French Revolution. This revolution and its mutations through the next 200 years had a significant effect on music.

Firstly, the Romantic movement. Early Beethoven is still in touch with the old grace-filled world, and he is brilliant. But the Enlightenment worship of man dominates his music. He dares not only to break the rules but also to thrust his emotions on to the listener: “You will feel what I feel!” The Who and Elvis naturally follow from this. Beethoven’s “Song of Joy” became the anthem of the worship of Man, and signified the rise of strident, popular nationalism. At first, the range of these feelings were still reflective of the Christian past, but over 200 years later – without a living Christian culture – grace, purity, goodness, nobility, gentleness disappear, and have been replaced by sentimentality, or the rage of social and political commentary, or blatant sexuality.

Rebellion and Nostaglia become the dominating motifs through the 19th Century. Wagner creates a world of the dying gods. Deep, ever deep, sadness dominates. The soul lost in the greatness of the universe, alienated, hopeless. Great images of past glory. But all lost. Amazingly grand and sadly beautiful music. And why? Because Modernism has destroyed hope in glory. It is the music of sentimental atheism. It is the music of the man  heroically observing the universe, raising his fist to the non-existing God, and challenging the non-existent God that he will never surrender. A great mythical construct to justify the Great Rebellion.

Secondly, the worth of music is now to be judged according to the authenticity of the composer’s emotions. The stronger the emotions, the greater the demands on both the composer and the performer to reach the audience. Form must give way to the emotional force of rhythm. The performer and the instrument must become more strident. Gut strings give way to metal. Harpsichords give way to pianos. Singers search for volume and power. Orchestras become larger. And electronic assistance raises the level of performance and alters the relationship between the production of music and the receiver – now passive to the demands of the performer’s emotions.

If there is no control on emotions, then “raw” becomes the final step: the rage of rebellion, the screaming uncontrolled lover’s lament, the plain shouting, and finally, chaos. Plato was right: music is the most dangerous art. He wanted it banned from his ideal state. On the other hand, Aristotle wanted music included as a necessary component for the education of virtuous citizens to train their emotions and to enable citizens to be more amenable to reason. There is an urgent need for Aristotle’s advice to be heeded!

D. A Divided Culture

Thirdly, music is now divided into two main kinds: “Classical” – a total misnomer, and “pop”. So-called “Classical” music becomes totally intellectualised, abstract, and requires ideological explanations in order to attract the intelligensia. By the end of the 19th Century, atonalism ended the connexion between Nature and Music. It had to happen. Modernism destroys Nature, by divorcing the mind from nature. Modern man can create its own constructions regardless. Music is tonal – scientifically, naturally, historically. A played note contains all the tones within it. To create atonal music is to deny nature! So-called “classical” music died then. Let’s face it. Music gets ugly.

“Classical” music at present is now a non-judgmental “selection” in orchestras and radio stations around the world. A smorgasborg of “taste”. It is seen to be cool to mix “pop” dress, or culture in presentations, for young musicians to join in with “pop” groups. “Classical” music is seen as “snobbish”, of the aristocracy (not true of Baroque – but who cares?), reactionary, even obscurant.

On the other hand, the music of the people, once traditional village folk music, now becomes “urban” music, divorced from the old Christian culture. During the 19th Century, it is derived from the old “Classical” forms, but is debased by heavy sentimentality and above all, by the ever-increasing dominance of the beat – the orgiastic grows in Western “pop” music. One can see why now that Johann Strauss’ father hated his son’s popular compositions: the 3/4 Viennese waltz was the victory of dominant first beat over the grace of the 3/4 Minuet. Even the music of the Catholic church echoed modern forms. Sentimental hymns fully replaced chant, and the final anomaly of the 20th Century was the total replacement of chant in the liturgy with “hokey” folk music.

Dance music changes drastically. Urban dance bands in the first half of the 20th Century, would still include a waltz, a Maxina, a “Gay Gordons”, but the modern, snuggling, insinuatingly-smooth Fox Trot soon gave way to swing, and to the beating pulse of jazz. Eventually, Jazz itself divided into two. The urban intelligensia follow the jazz of the 1950s – the “cool” – another intellectualised form; and the folk, self-referential “blues” develops into the “raunchy” sexualised music of “rock and roll”. And the gross savage “stomp” soon reappears. Ugliness returns to the world.

Attempts at uniting the Classical forms with Pop have failed to take root in modern culture. Gershwin’s opus “Rhapsody in Blue” and his musical, “Porgy and Bess” soon became dated and died when jazz died out, and Andrew Lloyd Webber’s musicals lose their inventiveness. Some pop forms attained cult status like “Bohemian Rhapsody” and “Stairway to Heaven” because parts of them refer back to forgotten traditional forms and motifs.

Another attempts to form a “classical” fusion in pop music were the later creations of the Beatles. Much of the early Beatles music was just dance music for teenagers. The lyrics are clever, at times poetic, and music is mostly happy … almost joyful. There are little inventive touches in all their music. The second side of “Abbey Road” is an attempt to make a symphonic whole from a medley. But even when they tried to make “graceful” music, their lyrics reflected the Nihilism of the Age, or to balance “grace” with petty, sexual smuttiness. As they became famous and self-conscious of the huge effect they had on society, they became “artful”. The hubris of fame lead to them preaching the New Revolution. They create “trite” socio-political messages in brilliant music forms.

As Beethoven’s “Song of Joy” became the iconic March of the Revolution of Man against the rule of God for many generations, so has John Lennon’s “Imagine” become the iconic song for the Revolution against belief in God Himself. The older generations could appreciate the “Song of Joy” without giving up their love of God, but Lennon’s “Imagine” makes it all pretty plain where Modern Man is marching. And Lennon’s later songs become pornographic, seedy, sexually-liberated anthems to the New Age of Licentious Modernity.

E. Modern Angst and Pop

So we are left in the 21st Century with popular music reflecting the urban modern angst: alienation! alienation from lover, alienation from society, to basic violent protest at the world. Self-centred violent emotions forced on the listener. Quite horrible and a very bad influence on anyone who participates in music. The language is trite, vulgar and at times, obscene. And sometimes the intent is bestial.

There are refreshing outbursts of popularised joyful dance music from non-Western cultures and from Latin America, but they will never become a uniting force in the everyday life of the Modern world in which we live.

Music stirs the emotions at the deepest levels. Mankind yearns for goodness, wholeness, completeness, to be loved. Only virtuous behaviour – the culturing of good habits of thought, and feeling – make for wholeness. Our weakness is to allow the violence of feelings, the violence of rhythm, sheer rebelliousness, the pride of the life force (which can be turned to the most horrible acts), to dominate our lives. The more we listen to modern music the more we become less good.

F. Promising Trends

There has been over the past 50 years a revival of Baroque music, a revival scorned by the music intelligensia who prefer the Modern, the discordant, the challenging, the ugly. But, against all the trends and pressures to conform to Modernism, many musicians have identified themselves wholly with this revival to the point that they form whole Baroque orchestras and groups, playing with gentle, authentic Baroque instruments. The love of Baroque among all types of people is evident in the 150-year-old appeal of Handel’s “Messiah”, Bach’s “St Matthew’s Passion” and Vivaldi’s “Seasons”.

A good Baroque performer can make a living now from the demand by many around the world to have their hearts lifted and their souls eased by the many newly-discovered works of the old Christian world. And also becoming popular among many youth of the Western world is Gregorian chant, a development which shows that many young people are heartily sick of the decadent music of the Western world. Both these trends, will never again become universal, but at least there will be groups of people able to continue the tradition of good, graceful, beautiful music into the future.

G. My Own Music

I have fond memories of pop music, but my appreciation of them is purely nostaglic. Because music goes to the heart, one’s memories and the music of the time become inseparable. So, although I may say that I “like” a particular piece of music, it is really the memory of that time and place in my life which I like to remember. For instance, as a child, I remember a pop song “How much is that doggie in the window?” It is a cute, trite, sentimental little song. But to me it brought back fond associations of that time in my life. If one challenges me now about my musical taste: “You liked the Beatles!”, all I can say is that their music brought back fond memories. But examining their music objectively, one finds it still is “Modern” pop, admittedly inventive, and they try hard to avoid being trite. I found it hard at the time to enjoy their music and at the same time avoid the radicalisation of Lennon’s preaching; of the cynical put-downs of anything of real value. All you need is love? Free love and then post-coital angst? And now I will no longer listen to them. I prefer instead to listen to music which is pure: Bach, Handel, Corelli, Vivaldi. It is sweet and beautiful, it reaches down into the heart wholesomely and with gentleness. It is uplifting and at times beckons a universal humane sadness which echoes exactly where we all are. “Catholic” in the true meaning of the word.

H. Conclusion

If I were raising a family now, I would ban all modern music in my house, and by “modern” I mean all music after 1800! My children would be encouraged to learn the piano as well as a violin or cello or a woodwind instrument. They would attend Latin Gregorian Mass; they would learn to sing chant and the Latin hymns and they would be surrounded by Palestrina, Vittoria, Bach, Corelli, Vivaldi, etc. The guitar, bass and drums would be banned. There really is no room in a family for angst, rebellion, or violent expressions of emotions or thought. A family needs to be surrounded by virtue – virtuous music, virtuous reading and entertainment.

A family should be encouraged to play (rather than listen to canned) music and sing traditional airs around the piano. Work, pray, and play together.

VIII – Modernity and Art

PART TWO: Ugliness dressed as Beauty

Now let’s get the issue of “beauty” and “ugliness” cleared up. Yes, I know it is said time and again that “beauty is in the eye of the beholder”. This is used to justify Relativism at its core. So, it is used by Moderns to avoid any criticism of modernity.

Beauty in art and music is the recognition of the mind of the balance of forms of a made thing. The proportion of the parts to the whole, the suitability of the form to the function of a thing. A carved spoon can be judged beautiful if it performs well the function of being a spoon. It holds just the right amount of matter, it balances in the hand, it is the right weight for a person to hold. It may even have decoration which enhances the shape of the spoon. It may even have other decoration which delights the mind in its delicacy of line with the shape and direction of the use of the spoon for eating. For instance, a spoon is ugly if it cannot hold its matter, is unbalanced, is too long for a normal human being to direct the food to the mouth; or has decoration which distracts the mind from the food – draws attention away from the food, like having scenes of excreta on the handle.

I do not think most people would have any difficulty with applying non-relativistic standards to the making of a spoon. A work of art is a thing made “well done”. We can apply this all works of mankind: the teacher teaching, the surgeon operating – is the job well done? When it is done well, we can exclaim: “You beauty.”

The problem really lies in using the term “beauty” when applied to complex forms and ideas, such as in Fine Art forms of the Visual arts, but as well, in the forms of Music and Literature. The idea of “Fine” art is an invention of Post-Renaissance intellectuals. But let us continue with the idea of a thing being made well, being in proportion to its end. Before the Renaissance, most paintings were made for mainly specific religious reasons. They had a function: to glorify God or to tell a religious story, or be an icon – a holy image in itself. One would judge a painting on how well it conveyed those ends. Colour, form, space: all brought together in proportion to the end. It were craftsmen who made them: your everyday plasterer, or wall decorator. Were they made well? Of course they were. They are beautiful as only a good craftsman at his work could make.

The intellectual ideas leading to the High Renaissance in the visual arts was Humanism. Fine Art was that object of art which raised the mind of the viewer to Universal Ideals. Forms became complex in order to convey a range of theological, philosophical, or historical beliefs. The aim was to raise the mind of the viewer to the highest form, the highest idea of Man.

So the use of the term “beauty” now entailed forms which in turn in-formed a refined viewer, a viewer who could identify with the belief of the Ideal Man as seen through the beliefs of Christendom and Platonic philosophy. The artist searched for nobility of the human form based on the arithmetical and geometric principles of the Ancient Greeks as well as the virtues of Christian chivalry, gentleness, and godliness transmitted through Europe by the belief in the Incarnation of God in Man.

Fine Art then could be judged to be beautiful not only to the standards being “well made” by the tradesman artist, but also being “well made” to the standards of Christian Idealism. There is no room here for “beauty being in the eye of the beholder”. The beholder needed to live within the culture of the refined Christian Humanist. One had to be informed, to be open to being raised by the work of art. This same aesthetic applied to the development of music and literature.

Now, if one does not believe in universals, in objective reality, in the nobility of Man, then there is no standard for anything in art other than being “well made”. Hold on here. How can we judge a Modern work as being well made, of being beautiful? All we can say is that it obeys the superficial rules of construction, form and shape, of logicality. Once we investigate the aim of the artist (if we can), we must judge that aim according to the rules of morality, the rules of universality. No Universality, no Fineness, no Goodness, then no Beauty.

Beauty is in the eye of an “informed” beholder. A beholder within a culture informed of goodness and grace, of nobility, of the ideal behind nature. Without that world, there can be no Fine Art.

And as Modernity and its philosophical assumptions are now ingrained in our Modern Culture, there is no thing informing the mind in nobility, in what it is to be “refined”, in the universal ideals of form and goodness, which would have encompassed and soothed the emotions of the artist and the beholder, which uplifts and refines the mind and emotions of Man .

So-called works of art become brutal, disjointed, deliberately challenging the very beliefs which underlie art and humanity itself. Works convey either the superficial combination of shape and colour, or smash one in the face with rebellion against nature. This assessment also applies to music.

Beauty and the Academy

The Impressionist rebellion against the Academy did have a point. By the end of the 19th Century, Modernism had killed the ideals of Christian Humanism as embodied in the Renaissance and Baroque periods. And neither had the Rationalistic Enlightenment Classicism, the symbol of the secular Modern revolution, anything left to give the New Man, except a solid architectural foundation for the public buildings of the late 19th century – all symbols of the New Man and Money.

And so Art became the expression of rebellion against the very excesses of Modernism, a means to draw attention to alienation of Man to the very society Modern Man created. The Academy of Fine Art standards became a dead project. The term “beauty” is no longer used to refer to works of so-called “fine art”. “Provocative”, “explorative”, “interesting”, “futuristic”, and “progressive”, became the terms for judging works of art.

Ugliness Enthroned

The world of Modernity is ugly. Graffiti artists point this out every day. Ugly cities, ugly noisy abominable traffic, concrete monstrosities vying with blocks of glass competing with soaring dominating walls inhumanly Babel-high – the pride of Man and Money. And the people sub-divided into little isolated pockets where the word “community” is used to make them feel as if there really is a community and there is none! And the culture engages Man by ugly inhuman fashions denying any sense of Man as a dignified person of real worth: the stubble beard, the piratical piercings, the savage tattooing, the androgynous clothing: all quite diabolical. Nothing of substance, or permanence, and certainly no fine art.

And so there is no “informed” eye of the beholder, and therefore there is no beauty. Thank the heavens, that Nature still exists. At least a tree or a blade of grass or a humble sparrow, exists in our cities to remind us of what real beauty is and what we must do to imitate such noble works which Nature has put before us.

The True Story of Fatima

The Three Children of Fatima

The Lady in the Light

by the Rev Father John De Marchi, IMC

1952.

Re-published by Patrimonium Publishing, 2016

[Download Kindle version: truestoryoffatima – a ‘mobi zip file’]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction

Lucia, Francesco, Jacinta and the Marto Family

The Three Angelic Visitations

First Appearance of Our Lady

Second Appearance of Our Lady

Third Appearance of Our Lady

The Three Children Imprisoned

Fourth Appearance of Our Lady

Fifth Appearance of Our Lady

The Children Examined

Portugal Assembles for a Miracle

Sixth Appearance of Our Lady

The Miracle of the Sun

The Children Examined Again

The Cost of Heaven: Vandalism, Mockery and Persecution

The Chapel

The Cost of Heaven: Francisco’s Offering

The Cost of Heaven: Jacinta’s Offering

The Cost of Heaven: Lucia’s Offering

The First Pilgrimage Statue and Official Persecution

The Chapel Bombed

Miracles

Lucia – a Dorothean Nun

Official Recognition by the Catholic Hierarchy

APPENDIX

I – Letter of Dr Mendes, September 1917

II – Masonic Notice

III – Letter from Lucia, July 1927

IV – The Secret of Fatima

V – Papal Consecration of Russia, July 1952

VI – Analysis of Miracle of Sun

VII – Lucia’s First Communion

VIII – The Seventh Apparition

IX – Erroneous Version of Events

X – The “Unknown Light” – the Extraordinary Aurora of 1938

XI – Father Ferreira’s Defence

XII – The First and Second Secrets

XIII – The Third Secret