Against Modernism

“It is incomprehensible to me that any thinker can calmly call himself a modernist. He might as well call himself a Thursdayite.”

– G. K. Chesterton, The Case for the Ephemeral, 1908

“[The Catholic Church] is the only thing that frees a man from the degrading slavery of being a child of his age.”

– G. K. Chesterton, Why I Am a Catholic, 1926

✟

Modernism shall fail precisely because it is modern. Either it shall endlessly adapt to the current fancy and fad, which would please the Evolutionists on account of its constant change, or it shall remain as it is, unchanged by all subsequent evolutions, which would please the archaeologists, who love to search for fossils beneath the sands of time.

To define itself by the spirit of any age is to become as fluid as water. To define itself by the spirit of this age is to become as hard as ice. Either way, it shall be destroyed by the fire of the Faith or the flames of Hell.

The mass of men do not live by principles but by punctuation; that is, by periods. They are beholden more to the times in which they live than the philosophies that have made them, or the philosophers that have dreamt them. For us, they are nightmares.

Now, all that is modern in the modern political system is based solely on meanness, lies, and deceptions; the chief lie being the authority of the opinions of the masses, or, as it is known by its supporters, democracy. There is not here enough room to discuss this modern monstrosity; suffice it here, in good Catholic fashion, to examine our political consciences, or should I say, consciousness.

Now, to be of an opinion quite obviously does not mean that the opinion is of you. You belong to it, not it to you. Our opinions make us who we are — and we do not make our opinions. They are given us by philosophers and the propaganda of the schools. Thus Charles Péguy has rightly said that “all begins in mysticism and ends in politics.” For our politics do not create our thoughts; rather, our thoughts create our politics, even as our minds animate our bodies.

Thus, that which is called the spirit of the age is nothing other than the sum of our thoughts, which often result in a mere atmosphere of thought. Indeed, once a thought proliferates and forms part of this zeitgeist, it ceases to be a specific and rational thought, and begins to be a mere general feeling.

When anything goes from being accepted without reason to being defended, however vigorously, with reason, then it is only one step away from being decried without reason. That is, when a thing is now being rationally asserted, it is one step away from being irrationally rejected.

Thus, the spirit of the age is our mind, and politics our body. The zeitgeist, or poltergeist, since in our times always from the pit of hell, is to our politics what our minds are to our bodies. The former animates, the latter reacts. Thus the human body is mirrored – “ah, bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh!” Politics are indeed a suitable helper — and like Eve, are the cause our fall and cursed forevermore.

Indeed, the beloved democracy of the modern world is the only thing they really love. No longer do we think as united Christendom, or as Western civilization, but as a loose collection of democracies. It is thus that they say, for instance, that an Islamist has attacked our democracy. This is, of course, only partly true. In reality, it would be truer to say that he has attacked us because of our democracy, and I mean this in two ways. First, it is our democracy that has led to the policy of ‘cultural enrichment’ (though, of course, this policy has been anything but democratic). Second, the Islamist hates democracy because it is not his Caliphate. Of course, he has also attacked what used to be for us, and perhaps still symbolizes to him, Christendom, but the media does not permit us to speak of this. He has thus attacked us, as people, and not our abstract (and absurd) mechanism of government.

In actual fact, the real attacks on democracy itself come from the Left, its formerly liberal champions. Thus, they deny that the Islamist really meant it when he yelled ‘Allahu Akbar.’ Of course, they know better; he has been disenfranchised, and marginalized, victimized by ‘phobia,’ ‘othered,’ &c.

Now, this is an exceedingly dangerous game for any proponent of our so-called democracy to play. If we cannot trust a man that he means it when he yells Allahu Akbar, why should we believe that he supports a man just because he voted for him? If we cannot publicly debate Islam lest we radicalize its adherents, how can we debate politics without destabilizing our democracy?

Being a monarchist, this poses no problem for me. I do not doubt a man’s sincerity, only his competency. The democrats, however, having blindly affirmed the equal competency of man, are now questioning his sincerity. And this is, of course, because they are not democrats but oligarchs. Hence they call it populism when the people decide against the elites. Hence the election is called “hacked” because it was the defeat of the political hacks.

Thus the progressives continue to regress, and the modern world dooms itself to die. And this, my friends, is no mere political opinion. Bless us, Father, for we have sinned.