Ants of Islam Dismember Europe’s Spider Society

It’s not often I speak of an article’s importance, especially not ones that I’ve written, but not to encourage extra attention to this one. It could have been written after any of the atrocities we’ve seen, Rotherham, Cologne, Paris I, Paris II, the only difference is with each passing event the diagnosis becomes more obvious and the ignorance of it from all established sources of information and among the general public becomes more and more ugly.

Published by Social Matter, and I thank Hadley for getting it out so quickly, this article concerns the naked truth about Europe’s individualism, and how for all its perceived strengths, it is being slowly broken by a hostile collectivist group who are just naturally geared to survive in a way that Frenchmen, Englishmen, Swedes, Flems, etc. no longer are. The response to Brussels will only encourage larger attacks, more brutal attacks, more frequent attacks.

After the great European wars of religion, Liberals tasked themselves with purging from the continent everything that men would kill for. After a bumpy and bloody process, they have finally succeeded, the last obstacle being the Soviet Union. They stand at their ‘end of history’, with nothing worth fighting for.

http://www.socialmatter.net/2016/03/24/ants-of-islam-dismember-europes-spider-society/

(A side note, there was another post planned for this week, but events forced me to move it back. It will be out sometime next week, along with a very relevant discussion that I had on Reactionary Ian’s latest Christian hangout.)

Advertisements

7 thoughts on “Ants of Islam Dismember Europe’s Spider Society

  1. I find it interesting you mention the Soviet Union, even though it was a nominally communist state, I find it interesting how towards the end, it served as the late 20th century's closest thing to a “reactionary power.” This reflects very badly on the late 20th century as opposed to reflecting well on the USSR. Still, I would be interested in hearing your opinions on the USSR, Mark. I suppose I am more favorable to it than most other people in the right, considering my family immigrated to the west after the collapse, as opposed to a lot of the other Russian heritage writers whose family left during or after the revolution.

    Like

  2. This came up at the tail end of the recent Christian hangout I did with Reactionary Ian and a few others, I'll have it up linked next week since its more relevant to what I will be writing about then.

    I of course will be the first to underline the horrors of the Soviet Union, atrocities covered up by Western academic institutions while they spend months discussing the Holocaust (same for China by the way). However, in spite of all this suffering, in spite of everything material that was destroyed, the priests murdered, the cathedrals demolished, the rich tapestry of enclaved societies across the Russian Empire torn asunder, the simplicity and innocence of agrarian life wiped out, with some reservation I do think that the Soviet Union preserved something more important and deeper within the soul of not just Russians but Poles, Romanians, etc. It was the thing which the jacboot of Communism could not stamp out, but the soft-spoken Liberals extinguished in the West, the instinct for Tradition.

    I mainly put this down to Stalin's paranoid megalomania. Not only did he protect Russia from the National Socialists, but more importantly he protected it from Trotsky and other more intelligent reds who might have deployed Gramsci-esque theory in Russia. Instead, the ideology ossified, stagnated, and when the forces beneath it contracted, it cracked apart like papier mâché.

    It's hard to say what lies ahead for the east, and the damage to society wrought by Marxism is still very much evident, but I thank God that Liberlism never got its foot in the door.

    Like

  3. Mr. Citadel, as much as I admire you personally, I have to say from a Catholic point of view (regardless of what certain “Catholic” Reactionaries say), Collectivism is heresy. I of course, can't convince you on Catholic grounds, but I'd like to ask you about the Orthodox idea of Sobornost, and how much (or little?) that leads to Collectivism. The problem from the Catholic Perspective is that Man is not an ant but a PERSON with an intransferable God-given destiny or purpose. A community is not an object in and of itself that exists for itself, but a union of Individuals, who cannot justly be sacrificed against their will to a false notion of the Common Good. You reject the concept of Rights, but “the force of law consists in the imposing of obligations and the granting of rights”. Indeed Leftism is wrong not when it say that men have rights, but when it says that these rights originate in the State, rather than in God. Erik von Kuehnelt and the Popes explain this much better than I can. However, I can sadly that the Eastern negation of the individual is a poison which infects Reactionaries very easily, and that Reactionaries who subscribe to these false ideas are not following the Catholic Tradition in this regard. In fact, as I said in my own post Catholicism and Liberty, Liberty is intrinsic to any understanding of Authority and indeed one might add to any understanding of the Common Good. Please do not dismiss this comment, but respond, so that we may have a logic discussion on this important issue.

    Like

  4. Thanks for the response.

    Firstly, I'm not sure collectivism could be described accurately as 'heresy', at least not if you have understood how I am using the term correctly, though it might be appropriate in other instances. Just to re-iterate the point I was making:

    Man is not designed for solitary life, as God has designed other creatures to be. He is, like many other of God's creatures, designed for purpose in a collective body. As an observation, it seems hard to find a way this could be adequately argued against, since it is basically a universal norm not only for civilization, but for uncivilized peoples as well. My point was more anthropological than theological, that people on instinct form collectives.

    I didn't explicitly argue for sacrifice against people's will, in fact the problem of today is the lack of such will for sacrifice because there is nothing in Modernity worth sacrificing for.

    You make a confusion in your statement between civil rights and universal rights. I don't believe in the latter. The former are just undeniable facts of states. Every state grants citizens some form of civil right, typically one exclusive to them and not possessed by non-citizens.

    The concept of metaphysical 'rights' which apply universally dates only back to the late 1600s. I wrote an article on this, and why the Reactionary ought to favor the understanding of metaphysical moral relationships which preceded this, a system of obligations and duties.

    I am well aware of the balance of legitimate authority, and do not dismiss autonomy and human agency as positive and necessary, but that to live in an entirely autonomic society which is effectively what Europe has become, is maladaptive and allows things like Brussels to occur.

    It's strange that you would argue against what I have said as a Traditionalist Catholic, as those who I have dialogued with regularly share my critique of individualism. Joseph de Maistre referred to individualism as the “infinite fragmentation of all doctrines”, in fact he was one of the popularizers of the term as a pejorative.

    I use the term 'collectivism' very loosely, in recognition of the fact that it has been associated with deplorable ideologies like totalitarianism and Marxism. Thus, my use of it is in opposition to the atomized society. No man is an island. Your disagreement may be simply down to semantics rather than substance. I do not mean collectivism to say that the individual is the slave of the state (Orthodoxy has never held this), but rather than the individual is an intrinsic part of the state and has a role to play in its upkeep.

    With regard to Sobornost, I again think you might be falsely drawing links between this concept and things like the Soviet Union. Sobornost was only a descriptor, used by early Salvophiles in critique of the West's fragmentation in the wake of the Enlightenment. Kireyevsky said the following:

    “The wholeness of society, combined with the personal independence and the individual diversity of the citizens, is possible only on the condition of a free subordination of separate persons to absolute values and in their free creativeness founded on love of the whole, love of the Church, love of their nation and State, and so on.”

    So it seems very clear to me that the subjugation of the individual to his collective identity is one grounded in purpose and love of things which contain imminent value, rather than threat and coercian. Such tactics may be employed in extreme circumstances, and God knows they have been implemented in both the Catholic West as well as the Orthodox East throughout history, but ideally with persons correctly oriented in their spirit, it should come naturally to us the instinct to consider ourselves part of greater unities. If we do not, then it is clear as day what follows. Our devouring by those who do.

    Like

  5. Thank you for your response, Mr. Citadel, as you say the argument might just be semantic. I suppose I did misunderstand your use of the term Collectivism, which I took to mean the Totalitarian “hive mind” sort. In The Menace of the Herd, v. Kuehnelt-Leddihn rejects both “Collectivism” and “Individualism” in favor of “Personalism” the definition of which might well match the definition of Sobornost. By the way, thank you for explaining the concept of Sobornost, because from what I had read, I could never quite grasp what it meant. What I meant by “Eastern Poison” was not this Russian Orthodox idea* (I'm part Russian myself), but rather more of the Buddhist negation of the individual.

    The trend I see in (or am possibly reading into) the Reactionary** position is the complete rejection of Liberty as a political concept, in favor of absolute order. However, I've already explained why I'm against this from a Catholic perspective on my own site. Most “Catholic” Reactionaries attack Liberalism for the wrong reason. Liberalism is wrong not because it promotes Liberty, but because it promotes license, and license ends in Tyranny.

    As to metaphysical rights, God given rights are part of the Catholic Tradition and bound with the concept of Justice. “Man has a spiritual and immortal soul. He is a person, marvelously endowed by his Creator with gifts of body and mind. He is a true “microcosm,” as the ancients said, a world in miniature, with a value far surpassing that of the vast inanimate cosmos. God alone is his last end, in this life and the next. By sanctifying grace he is raised to the dignity of a son of God, and incorporated into the Kingdom of God in the Mystical Body of Christ. In consequence he has been endowed by God with many and varied prerogatives: the right to life, to bodily integrity, to the necessary means of existence; the right to tend toward his ultimate goal in the path marked out for him by God; the right of association and the right to possess and use property.”(1)

    God Bless you and grant you a Blessed Па́сха!

    *Indeed, in Leftism v. Kuehnelt-Leddihn warns against conflating Sobornost with the Communist idea.

    **I don't consider myself a “Reactionary” because I believe the word is inadequate. Nor would I call myself “conservative”, hence “Restorationist”.

    (1)Divini Redemptoris

    Like

  6. I don't think the Buddhist notion of the individual has made much headway in the West. It is a very peculiar doctrine and one that runs completely counter to our human perceptions of the world.

    Reactionaries reject Liberalism on the grounds that it is the negation of Tradition, that being the norms and assumptions universal to human civilization prior to the 'Enlightenment'.All other things, 'license' as you suggest, are just facets thereof, part of a broader contamination of the very soul of man.

    The Divini Redemptoris was published in the 1930s if memory serves, and so as I say is part of the Modern discourse as opposed to the pre-Modern discourse. Now, I am aware Catholics believe in an 'unpacking' of revelation, that the Church as it continues on its journey may discover new things. This concept is more alien to the Orthodox, though not in its entirety. We do not tend to change much. 'Rights' used in this fashion only emerges in the 1600s. Neither Orthodoxy nor Roman Catholicism referred to them prior to that. You'll actually find that you and I are in agreement on the outcomes, just not the metaphysical justification for why those outcomes ought to occur. It is more a quirk of metaphysical description than a point of serious contention I suppose. Here is my post on the subject:

    http://citadelfoundations.blogspot.com/2014/10/why-god-given-obligations-trump-man.html

    May you have a blessed Easter, brother.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s