Your Email:

Subject:

Message:
Entry: A New Humanism in Europe Link: http://www.takimag.com/site/article/a_new_humanism_in_europe#6173 Post contents: For the first time, I’m giving a standing ovation to a printed page. One for the files. Makes me wish to move to Europe. Makes me more resolved than ever to fight both racialist-nationalism and Cultural Marxism. Makes me glad to return to this website daily. As the best thinking in the Lincolnlands is coming from Paleolibertarians and Dixie Patriots, so in Europe from Christian Democrats. The union of Real Conservativism purged of the “far right” and of Christian Democracy purged of both clerical Fascism (Dollfuß, Tiso) and the Liberation Theologians is the way forward. (see the Wiki q.v. “clerical fascism”. I fear that “clerical fascism” – not so much of clerics as of certain laymen – is gaining ground in Lincolnlands. “Grace-ful-ly” Europe is spared this.) <i>after that meeting, the German philosopher was even more persuaded that modern notions of equality and justice are secular distillations of Jewish and Christian religion principles.</i> And racialism and nationalism, emerging first in the later 19th C., the movements Bede sees as “interesting”, are <i>anti</i>-Jewish, <i>anti</i>-Christian, and are thus neopagan and blasphemous. (The French New Right have identified themselves as neopagan.) Obviously, far from Real Conservatism. Or Real Catholicism, as Pius XI made explicit. John Lukacs is right: nationalism is the once and future enemy. Bede, surely you must hate everything Danilo Breschi has written here? <i>Larry Siedentop (Keble College, Oxford) started from a different question: “Why do Europeans feel happier referring to the role of ancient Greece and Rome than to the role of the Church in the formation of their culture?” The answer can be found in the way that secularism has come to be understood—and misunderstood—in Europe. Attitudes towards secularism were shaped by anti-clericalism in the 18th and 19th century. The French Revolution, in particular, had a decisive effect on attitudes. It created two hostile camps. On the one hand, the followers of Voltaire sought to “ecraser l’infame,” as they described the Church. On the other hand, their opponents considered the separation of church and state as an insurrection against God </i> Burke was the first to see this, the reason Christian Democracy needs a Burkean element. Siedentop also suggests that the idea that there would be only “Right” and “Left” is another moronic idea from the French Revolution. The early Christian Democrats took a step in the correct direction by calling their parties “Centrum”. We need the next step: get rid of the axis “Left/Right” altogether. <i>Even the individualistic societies of modernity, which believe they have emancipated themselves from tradition, cannot escape the force of tradition.</i>. Note: tradition, not race. Traditions can be shared. The “Mediterranean Basin Mass”, for example. I would remind the very wise Paul Gottfried of this. Forget for a moment that stressing "settled communities" and and an "ethnic core" gave us two world wars and the attempted genocide of serveral good folk, Jews among them. And was the Orange Netherlands of the 17th Century, England of the 18th, America in the 19th, or Venice earlier "settled communites"? <i>In Kaufmann’s opinion, we will probably have in Europe many traditionalist parties as well. Tradition could be a link between different religious groups. </i> For traditionalist parties read the confluence of Real Conservatism with Christian Democracy. The choice, Taki Top Drawer friends, is twofold: (1)to embrace this fusion. (2) OR pay our respects to Fascism, Naziism, racialist-nationalism, and neopagans – all spittle in the face of Christ. Finally, my beliefs are getting coverage, and my program points. Just who is Danilo Breschi? I like him. My day’s reading program he’s served, on a golden platter. Sent at: 2008 11 22