The Red Lives from the Faith

The Red Lives from the Faith

by Carlos Esteban RD

Taken  from https://elperroflautareaccionario.wordpress.com/

Translated from the Spanish by Roberto Hope

The left is a Christian heresy but doesn't know it, this is why it attacks the Father with Freudian fury.

Allow me an unforgivably frivolous unburdening: sometimes I wished that no more than a small handful of Christians were left in the West, something like it was two thousand years ago, and that for the world it were a memory not more alive or more recent than the gods of the Olympus or of Asgard. After a Christianized society — as that which built our civilization —  what is best is a society that completely refuses to recognize Christ, and the absolute worst, a post-Christian one, like the one we have to suffer.

Let me explain myself. The Church, in all it has of mystic, represents the defense of sanity, and the historical man has an evident tendency to permit the nonsensical, the irrational, to enter his social discourse, falling now in this madness and then on the opposite one from one age to the next. And on each occasion, the Church has reminded the World of the truth that had become out of fashion or that the world did not wish to hear.

And, by the Church defending it, it is magically turned into a "religious matter" and, consequently, subject to disdain, with no need for arguments: If relativism were to lead to question arithmetic, that two plus two is four would be turned into a "religious matter", I can imagine the banners "Get your religion off of our accounting!"

What's funnier — and more irritating — about all this question is that, those who resort to this despicable anti-argument are those on the left, a Christian heresy if there ever was one, an ideology so entirely incomprehensible without the Christian humus which in no other civilization has taken root but as part of a westernization process.

It turns out to be equally curious that, just as the left rejects questions of absolute common sense, or logic, or even of daily experience, as matters for priests, without allowing themselves to give them any serious reflection; they accept as incontrovertible premises and perfectly rational consequences of Christianity, those which no philosopher, no wise man. no thinker before Christ ever thought of sustaining. They are like an arsonist setting fire to the enemy's house without noticing that it is also his house.

That all men are equal, that there is a kind of dignity in suffering, that man and woman are entitled to the same natural rights, that individual liberty is a universal value, all these premises are as mystical, because of it not being possible to demonstrate them, as is the mystery of the Holy Trinity. Neither Plato nor Aristotle saw anything wrong with slavery, and Socrates was not exactly alone in thanking the gods for having been born a male.

In contrast, the fact that the individual is genetically identical to himself and that he does nothing other than grow with no continuity solutions from the union of the gametes is science. As it is that exclusive homosexuality is a statistical anomaly and an undesirable evolutionarily characteristic.

Get your dirty paws off my Christmas

Get your dirty paws off my Christmas

Posted by Carlos Esteban RD

Taken from elperroflautareaccionario.wordpress.com

Translated from the Spanish by Roberto Hope

Of all the falsified debates of public discourse — and I am speaking of an unending list — perhaps the one most impregnated with misunderstandings and white lies is that of secularism. There has never been, nor will there be, nor can there be a secular regime in the sense given to the word by the owners of the discourse; that is, of a ruling class which is perfectly neutral in face of the different visions of the world, of the destiny of man, of moral dogmas. Not even can they escape the development of an unofficial liturgy.

When the West was called Christendom, Christianity was the state religion, not because the kings should have imposed it upon their subjects, but exactly the opposite: the community first made the beliefs of the Church its own. gave them life and gave color to its feasts, in joyful collective anonymity, designed forms of celebrating each indicated occasion, with its proper songs, its precise staging, its gastronomy, and even its own time pattern.

Christmas, not in the sense of a strictly religious feast but of a popular public feast all over the West is not a celebration designed in a study, commissioned by the government in power, with a timetable published in the Official Gazette. Public powers or large stores can solemnize Christmas but not create it, just as in marriage. They receive it already made and full of associated traditions and rituals which sometimes vary from region to region, because that is the way it is born, from the people who understand what it means that God, the Creator of everything, absolute omnipotence, should have made Himself one of us, as a general who infiltrates alone the enemy lines. An imagination which Is not touched by the scene of the Almighty turned into a newborn who depends upon his parents for everything, will never understand a word of poetry.

It is not for this, that I defend the position of the sour English puritans which prohibited Christmas, or that I may quibble about something so evidently democratic as a ruler putting himself at the service of a universal project of the people, no. It is simply that the cult, the official religion, although tacit and nameless, is now another, not merely different, but unashamedly hostile to the faith that saw Christmas born. In the Manger scene of our political life, Herod's Palace is at the center and on the first plane.

Christmas is Christian, and we Christians, who have created it even as a popular feast, have shared it delightedly with peoples of all creeds and conditions. But when the world has turned itself resolutely against everything symbolized by Christmas, it is high time to claim the 'copyright'. I don´t make this a liberal matter, that is, I not only demand that the public authorities get their dirty paws off our feast. I repudiate, just the same, its private commercialization, I curse its vague, diffused use, disconnected from its origin, to sell perfumes or mortgages.

To be saved, Christmas should go back to where it was born, family, home, and hearth. Chesterton was happy that the Church should have decided to solemnize the birth of Christ when it's the coldest part of the year and is least appealing to go out to the street. The home is the most desolate station of modernity, the fortress which we have massively deserted. Modern man is a lame creature, of the leg representing private life, while it displays an atrocious hypertrophy of the other, representing the public life. Perhaps it may not be very practical to ask for a radical turnaround, away from this unbalance, but at least at Christmas, we could go back home and build it, and live it there, and let it get back renewing everything from there.. 

Brussels and the last days of the West

Brussels and the last days of the West

Monday March 28, 2016

by Carlos Esteban rd

Taken from:

https://elperroflautareaccionario.wordpress.com/2016/03/28/bruselas-y-los-ultimos-dias-de-occidente/

Translated from the Spanish by Roberto Hope

Our civilization will die of stupidity. The massacre in Brussels is a good moment to remind ourselves that the enemy of the West lies not in the sands of the Middle East, but among ourselves.

A new carnage has struck Europe; this time in the very capital of that globalist and 'goodist' conspiracy known as the European Union, Brussels. One more of the successive bloodbaths which have absolutely nothing to do with Islam, and to which the first reaction among our self-righteous masses is not the logical one of indignation and defense, but the fear of an outbreak of 'Islamophobia.' May no one in any situation use this to frustrate the lovely fantasy of the #WelcomeRefugees. Even though the Eurostat will make it clear that less than a third of those who arrive do so running away from the IS; despite the Islamic State boasting that it has taken advantage of the border chaos to infiltrate operators, and the Interpol itself estimates them to have reached the number of some 5,000 men.

But fear not, it is not the novel 'Islamophobia' — which can already be defined as the rejection to submit to Islam — the illness of which our civilization will die. Our civilization will die of stupidity.

A people whose first reaction upon being attacked is to excuse the group from which its attackers come is calling, at the top of its lungs, for its extinction, and after reading in the social networks and in other publications, tens of ramblings along the lines of 'not all Muslims ...' and/or “... because of the Crusades...”,  I have not the least doubt that we are in the terminal phase.

We already experienced this after the atrocious killing at the Bataclan in Paris. Françoise Hollande's immediate determination to launch an attack against the IS positions in Iraq was very much applauded, at least by the right. And that is the proof of our supreme cowardice and supreme stupidity. Because it is not in the sands of Mesopotamia where the peril for our civilization lies, but in our perpetual compromise, in our cultural masochism. And no measure is taken in connection with that. On the opposite, faced with the avalanche of supposed refugees from the Middle East, the most powerful European leader, Angela Merkel, reacted with a universal and open invitation, to which masses of progressivists adhered at the cry of 'Welcome Refugees!', creating — among other things — a security crisis which one would have to be blind not to see.

Furthermore, the military intervention of the United States and its allies in the Islamic world, from Iraq and Afghanistan to Libya and Syria, have produced, if not the cause, at least the perfect occasion for the drama now developing in our borders.

The American neocon establishment and its Spanish allies maintain that the primary objective is to finish Assad, ahead of the victory over the IS. Producing, we imagine, a result equally promising as that of Sadam´s overthrow in Irak. Because the West cannot stand the vision of a tyrant, this is the directive, to democratize the Globe.

Well, part of the Globe. Through no one's imagination passes the idea of snubbing China for the minute detail of it being a tyranny that has crushed all kinds of dissidence.

Or, closer to the case under discussion, Saudi Arabia, an archaic and cruel theocracy, in comparison to which the reviled Iranian regime is a libertarian paradise. But the Saudis are untouchable, no matter that the Islamic faction behind the modern Jihad, behind all of the massive attacks that have occurred since September 11, has its cradle there, and it is the only official one permitted in the kingdom; no matter that it is financing mosques and madrassas all over the West, which transmit the same radical message against the infidel. Arabia is the wellspring of all that, along with other tyrannies of the Gulf, such as Qatar and the Arab Emirates, shirts of which are worn by the players of both of our principal soccer teams. Business, I suppose, is business, and just like emperor Vespasian reminded his son Titus, that money does not smell, apparently, it also does not retain bloodstains.

Of course, I sympathize with all of the victims and their families, but I hope not to be judged too callous if I say that these brutal attacks, as Europe had not suffered in decades, are just the most dramatic aspect of our gradual extinction. In the long run, these attacks are also unnecessary, even counterproductive for our defeat. Even more, not even is Islam — Jihadist or not, if you' are prone to split threads and make a distinction which even they do not make — the problem of the West.

Islam is still very fragile. The west is still very powerful. A modest dose of common sense, of the conservation instinct which is normal to expect of any people on earth, would suffice for the danger to be immediately exorcised. No, the real enemy, the implacable, dangerous, powerful enemy is not the one which climbs the walls, but the traitor who opens the gates to the enemy. It is our elites, our rulers, our communications groups, our cultural mandarins, our educational system, our financiers. The globalist establishment, in short, who has decided that the best way to rule us is, in the old style, dividing us, stripping away our national identities as much as our old European identity, so that, turned into atoms, without personal loyalties, we will have to depend upon our masters to resolve our quarrels.

Towards the end of the preceding century, a progressivist sociology professor at Harvard, Robert Putnam, proposed himself to make a profound study to prove the benefits of cultural diversity and chose the multicultural city of Los Angeles as his test field. But the results were so opposite to what was expected that his work Bowling Alone, received very little publicity.

Putnam proved that cultural and ethnic diversity drastically reduces social cohesion, participation in community activities and mutual trust, and promotes solitude and disinterest in public affairs. Such a community has only the political power as arbiter among the various tribes in dispute; the wet dream of the powerful. And this is the plan which, with no need to resort to any conspiracy. Is being imposed on the West, and very specially in Europe under the auspices of Brussels.

The West lives in a bubble of unprecedented prosperity, peace, and liberty which makes it believe that its values are universal values; that we are not one more tribe, but the entire humankind, and that our arrival in the world scene has made disappear the secular incentives and mechanisms which have moved all peoples throughout history.

The world is much greater, demographically ever more in relation to the waning West, and knows what this means. It knows that ignoring the enemy does not make it disappear, on the contrary. It knows that weakness is not a signal to protect the other but to attack him.

In a twisted and sinister way, the West is ill with a deformed and masochist priggishness which always asks who is right and always responds it is any other, that we are the worst and most evil of cultures. But history does not move like that. In real history, not in the politically correct one,  if a people, without too much effort, can get the territory, the wealth, and the women of another for itself, it will do it.

Sooner or later, the West will have to wake up to this fact, or resign itself to perish, and not precisely to dissolve itself into a Utopian progressivism. Because the day is not far when the question will no longer be what is your opinion, but which is your people.