Pages

Friday, October 25, 2019

William Barr’s Speech

Lots of folks are making a big to do over AG William Barr’s speech at the University of Notre Dame about religion in the [u]nited States, some of which is actually pretty good:


But, as Mr Barr is a long-time, hard-crusted operative of the deep state, we have our doubts about just how much of this speech he actually subscribes to:


So why give it?  Dr Joseph Farrell offers an important clue in a quote from Alastair Crooke of The Financial Times.  Mr Crooke says that one of the factions of the Elite in the States wants to proceed with a ‘moral rearmament’ of the masses to keep the worldwide American Supremacist Project trucking along:


However, their methods of going about that, by championing religious pluralism or ‘religious freedom’, though very congenial to Evangelical Protestant ears, will not have the desired effect.  To put it bluntly, religious freedom is the gateway to moral relativism, to the ‘post-truth’ society.  Alexander Solzhenitsyn says it this way:

In an article entitled "The Pluralists", Solzhenitsyn wrote: "They [the pluralists] seem to regard pluralism as somehow the supreme attainment of history, the supreme intellectual good, the supreme value of modern Western life. This principle is often formulated as follows: 'the more different opinions, the better' - the important thing being that no one should seriously insist on the truth of his own.

"But can pluralism claim to be a principle valuable in itself, and indeed one of the loftiest? It is strange that mere plurality should be elevated to such a high status... The Washington Post once published a letter from an American, responding to my Harvard speech. 'It is difficult to believe,' he wrote, 'that diversity for its own sake is the highest aim of mankind. Respect for diversity makes no sense unless diversity helps us attain some higher goal.'

"Of course, variety adds colour to life. We yearn for it. We cannot imagine life without it. But if diversity becomes the highest principle, then there can be no universal human values, and making one's own values the yardstick of another person's opinions is ignorant and brutal. If there is no right and wrong, what restraints remain? If there is no universal basis for it there can be no morality. 'Pluralism' as a principle degenerates into indifference, superficiality, it spills over into relativism, into tolerance of the absurd, into a pluralism of errors and lies. You may show off your ideas, but must say nothing with conviction. To be too sure that you are right is indecent. So people wander like babes in the wood. That is why the Western world today is defenceless; paralysed by its inability any longer to distinguish between true and false positions, between manifest Good and manifest Evil, by the centrifugal chaos of ideas, by the entropy of thought. 'Let's have as many views as possible - just as long as they're all different!' But if a hundred mules all pull different ways the result is no movement at all.

"In the whole universal flux there is one truth - God's truth, and, consciously or not, we all long to draw near to this truth and touch it. A great diversity of opinions has some sense if we make it our first concern to compare them so as to discover and renounce our mistakes. To discover the true way of looking at things, come as close as we can to God's truth, and not just collect as many 'different' views as we can..."

--Quoted in Dr Vladimir Moss, A Monarchist Theology of Politics, pgs. 69-70, http://www.orthodoxchristianbooks.com/downloads/740_A_MONARCHIST_THEOLOGY_OF_POLITICS.pdf

When various sects with their conflicting doctrines - Methodists, Roman Catholics, Christian Scientologists, Southern Baptists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, and a host of others - all dwell in the same land, with each claiming that it is the sole repository of Truth, then, as Mr Solzhenitsyn says, you get spiritual confusion, then indifference, and ultimately death (and sometimes religious wars during the stage of confusion, as happened between the States of the South and the States of the North from 1861-5, or between the various countries of Europe during the Thirty Years War, 1618-48).  The history of the States and of Western Europe have given many proofs of what Mr Solzhenitsyn describes.

Religious freedom/pluralism does not lead to a Christian culture but undermines it.  If a people wishes to live in a certain way, it must protect and nurture those specific customs and the faith that gives rise to them.  A religious free-for-all is a death knell to an identifiable, inheritable Christian culture, one that remains what it is from generation to generation.  The Old Testament Church did not put up with the ‘free exercise of religion’ in Israel by various ‘denominations’ (Korah with his followers (Numbers 16) and so on).  Nor did the New Testament Church.  There were many sects that rose up (Judaizers, Arians, Nestorians, Eutychians, Monothelites, Iconoclasts, Barlaamites, etc.), but the Orthodox Church anathematized them all in order to safeguard the purity of the Holy Gospel, and with it the possibility of mankind’s salvation.  It is only after the Great Schism in the West, with the falling away from the Orthodox Faith and the rise of Roman Catholicism and Protestantism, that the proliferation of sects and denominations has been pronounced a blessing rather than a curse.

Healthy societies share a common religion; unhealthy societies are cursed with a multiplication of faiths.  For the sake of the well-being of the peoples of the States, for the sake of peace and concord amongst them, until all come to unity in the Orthodox Faith, we ought to seriously consider establishing one religion (whether Presbyterian, Episcopalian, etc.) in each town and/or county (or parish in Louisiana).  Hold an election and let the highest vote-getter become the established faith.  This could be revisited every 20 years or so with a new vote.  Spilling the blood of those outside the established faith should not be allowed (although we would fully expect it in some places where ‘progressives’ or Muslims have the numerical advantage over Christians), but some level of coercion must be in order to protect it.  Adherents of the other faiths can either move to a place where their beliefs are established, or they can stay with the understanding that they would have to live their religious life behind closed doors and be barred from proselytizing.  Violations would be met with warnings and then expulsion.

At the State level, John C. Calhoun’s idea of the concurrent majority could be employed to give each denomination an equal voice in political matters.  A new assembly could be set up, consisting of one representative from each of the established religions that existed in the towns and/or counties of that State.  Each sect would choose one layman (the canons of the Church have always barred clergy from direct political service) to serve in the new body.  All proposed State legislation would have to receive a unanimous vote from the representatives of this body before it could become law (or perhaps a supermajority would do (3/4?  4/5?) so that Christian legislation wouldn’t be stymied by a Wiccan or some other non-Christian representative).

It has been to the States’ dishonor that they have spread the dangerous innovation of religious pluralism/freedom around the world (sometimes deliberately for the express purpose of destabilizing targeted countries).  But soon enough, they will themselves collapse because of the moral rot it has caused in the souls of their peoples unless they repent.

--

Holy Ælfred the Great, King of England, South Patron, pray for us sinners at the Souð, unworthy though we are!

Anathema to the Union!

No comments:

Post a Comment