It is beyond obvious now that the contemporary visible “Conservative” church in America has been co-opted by what we are calling, “The post-war consensus.” As I argued yesterday, Christianity has been reinterpreted through the post-war consensus filter with the result that “conservative” Christianity is no longer particularly conservative nor especially Christian.
This brings us to the realization that regardless of how exacting people in general and clergy in particular are in their formal theology proper that does not necessarily translate as those people practicing Biblical Christianity. Clearly, we are seeing that people and clergy can speak in erudite tones about soteriology, hamartiology, pneumatology, eschatology, ecclesiology, Christology and still be absolutely clueless about what Christianity looks like in concrete, rubber meets the road, kind of ways. Anybody who can praise, for example, a Winston Churchill, or a Martin Luther King, or a Abraham Lincoln at the very least has not learned a fundamental basic of Christianity which is to “hate that which is evil and to cling that which is good.” How can one be thought of as “Christian” when they call good “evil” and evil “good?” I don’t care how much exegetical work you can do on Scripture if you can’t distinguish the overtly obvious goats from the overtly obvious sheep.
We have discovered that there is huge disconnect between Christianity in the abstract and Christianity in the concrete and along the way we have discovered that there are legions of those, within Evangelicalism currently who are reputed to be pillars in the Church yet have nigh unto zero ability to think Christianly in a concrete fashion.
This in turn reveals the necessity to once again to teach Christianity as a world and life view and not merely as a set of abstract concepts that allow one to “be on their way to heaven” regardless of the horrendous views they hold on any number of other subjects. This is not adding anything to fact that Christ alone saves. It is merely an argument that when Jesus Christ saves the sanctification process includes incrementally learning to think in ways that do not praise the sons of Belial (for example Churchill) while condemning the works of the righteous (for example Godfrey of Bouillon). It’s hard to take someone’s Christianity seriously if they are praising as “great” a man who proposed dropping anthrax cakes across Germany in order to murder millions of Germans or who eventually approved of the Morgenthau plan which proposed the same kind of death and mayhem. Yet, over the last few days we’ve seen numerous of those reputed to be pillars in the Church step up to the mic and do just that.
Obviously, then, we have to say that there is such a thing as a Biblical view of history and while it certainly would be possible to be overly punctilious as to what the Christian view of history may or may not be in every instance clearly history done from a Christian world and life view does not allow us to sing the praises of the wicked. Can we not agree that anybody in the Church that praises mass murderers as great men ought to be set aside, if not formally by excommunication, then at least informally by marking out such a man as one to warn people against?
Given the trajectory we are on, I want to go on record as saying I will never praise Robespierre, or Mao, or Stalin, or Castro, Lincoln, or Genghis Khan as great men. (This is me trying to get ahead of where this curve is going.) Neither will I praise the French Revolution, nor the “Great Leap Forward,” nor “The Killing Fields” in Cambodia as Great Christian enterprises.
We should end with a plea that the church would be released from its post-war consensus captivity. We should pray that people would realize that just as one cannot say they love God while hating their brother, neither can they say they love God while praising those who hate God and His people. We should realize that Christianity is a totalistic religion that is inclusive of owning a Worldview that understands that history can be either “Christian” or “Anti-Christ,” and we can resolve that any “Christian” who is teaching history through an anti-Christ prism should be marked out and avoided.
Postscript — All of this points in the direction of needing to train those going into the ministry in history and historiography. Because that hasn’t been happening I would counsel all parishioners to completely ignore your Pastor when he starts talking about history or historical events. He has zero training on the inter-relationship between history and what effects a Christian worldview has on understanding history. If you are going to listen to him I would encourage you especially to be like the Bereans when your Pastor talks about history and go check the primary sources yourself or go to Biblical Christians who have written on whatever history you’re seeking to be informed.
“Anybody who can praise, for example, a Winston Churchill, or a Martin Luther King, or a Abraham Lincoln at the very least has not learned a fundamental basic of Christianity which is to “hate that which is evil and to cling that which is good.””
This is a very fair and just point. Only, the one making this argument (I am speaking in abstract here, not making any accusations) then better not indulge in sentimental hero-worship towards Adolf Hitler, seeing him as misunderstood and maligned genius and martyr. This is where many revisionists fail – even while (justifiably) tilting at the PC idols they still hold onto an idol of their own.
It seems so obvious, in retrospect, that in 1939 Hitler should have allied himself with the Poles against the Soviets, and not vice versa. And in order to do so, he should have practised some Christian virtue of humble patience and even turning the other cheek, if necessary. (To make any kind of deal with Poland possible, he should have also refrained from marching into Prague, and thus breaking the word he had given at Munich.)
1.) Hitler’s programs for German euthanasia of the “unfit” and aged is by itself enough to understand that Hitler was no misguided genius and so should be reviled.
2.) From a nationalist perspective I can understand why Hitler rolled into Poland given Poland’s persecution of ethnic Germans who lived in Poland. Then there was the whole issue of Danzig. However, from a strategic consideration Hitler pushed the envelope too far by invading Poland along with the USSR (2 weeks later in a prearranged understanding). The Sudetenland was also majority populated by Germans.
All of this demonstrates how the Versailles treaty was the real reason for WW II.
But again, just to be clear …. I revile Hitler as much as FDR, Churchill, De Gaulle and especially Stalin.
I agree with Herbert Hoover who wrote that we should have stayed out of the conflict only seeking to pit the Marxist Communists against the Fascists Marxists.
“But again, just to be clear …. I revile Hitler as much as FDR, Churchill, De Gaulle and especially Stalin.”
I had hoped maybe you were coming around a little, along with Winston McCuen and myself.
The T4 program was not unlike many less transparent programs in the Allied nations, AND, most importantly, was discontinued under public outcry. This demonstrates that the Reich was much more responsive to the will of the people than the Western democracies. Ironic, huh? I don’t excuse it, but I think we should recognize differing degrees of accountability, morality, hardness and depravity per Romans 2:14.
Anybody who thinks I am “going to come around on Hitler” is going to die before I come around.
There were no heroes in the miasma that was WW II.
“I agree with Herbert Hoover who wrote that we should have stayed out of the conflict only seeking to pit the Marxist Communists against the Fascists Marxists.”
“Fascists Marxists?” Now there’s an oxymoron! Sounds like Herbert, Harry S. Truman, and yourself are committed to making (no, keeping) the world safe for the speculative capitalist plutocrats.
Heard it all before Ron on how the Fascists were not Marxist.
Of course that is Baloney.
I’m no more interested in speculative capitalist plutocrats (read Corporatists … read Bagels) than I am in Marxism of any stripe. Including the Fascists who were the NATIONAL SOCIALISTS (did you catch that word “socialists there?”)
And by the way … Hitler had no problem working cheek by jowl with your speculative Capitalist Plutocrats. See Antony Sutton’s book, “Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler.”
I am not interested in any poltio-economic system that is defined as “Everything inside the state, everything for the state, nothing outside the state.”
Christians see the state serving as just one sphere of life along with the church and family.
Hitler’s Germany desired the State to be all in all. The State was to be God walking on the earth.
Being a Christian … I’ll pass on that.
I’ve done my homework on this and you’ll not find me saluting Marxist Communism, Marxist Fascism, or Marxist Corporatism.
Not Stalin, not FDR, Not Mussolini, not Hitler, not Bill Gates or Zuck … but Christ.
“Christians see the state serving as just one sphere of life along with the church and family.”
The Reich had no problem with that statement. Read Richard Stiegmann-Gall’s “The Holy Reich”
“Hitler’s Germany desired the State to be all in all. The State was to be God walking on the earth.”
The Fuhrer says the exact opposite:
“The authority of the State can never be an end in itself. … If a government uses the instruments of power in its hands for the purpose of leading a people to ruin, then rebellion is not only the right, but also the duty, of every individual citizen. … Generally speaking, we must not forget that the highest aim of human existence is not the preservation of a State or government, but rather the preservation of the race.” p. 75.
Adolf Hitler, ‘Mein Kampf’, Murphy translation
(Anthony Sutton says some quotable things about Wall Street and Bolshevism, but he’s all wet in saying that Hitler was funded by the plutocrats).
I’ll grant that Hitler was not personally a Christian, but he promoted many Christian values and believed in honor, and loved his people. (ex. read what he said about gender roles). The same can’t be said for any of the other major players in WW2.
Hitler said a lot of things about the State.
By educating the young generation along the right lines, the People’s State will have to see to it that a generation of mankind is formed which will be adequate to this supreme combat that will decide the destinies of the world.
Adolf Hitler
The State here is revealed by Hitler as unto its Godlike ambitions since the family is the institution ordained by God to educate children.
And again;
The folkish state must not adjust its entire educational work primarily to the inoculation of mere knowledge, but to the breeding of absolutely healthy bodies. The training of mental abilities is only secondary. And here again, first place must be taken by the development of character, especially the promotion of will-power and determination, combined with the training of joy in responsibility, and only in last place comes scientific schooling.
Adolf Hitler
More grasping at absolute power for the state so that it may be God walking on the earth.
And again,
I wish to give officials greater discretion. The State’s authority will be increased thereby. I wish to transform the non-political criminal police into a political instrument of the highest State authority.
Sorry Ron … I ain’t buying what you’re selling.
And isn’t it odd that Sutton could be so right on Wall Street and the Bolsheviks but so wrong on Wall Street and the National Socialists (Marxists).
The post war consensus. The open society where truth is discarded and replaced with the search for meaning leaving a culture of isolated individuals disconnected from everything doing whatever is right in their own eyes. What is imagined to be freedom ends invariably in slavery and tyranny.
Every single time.
How did that post-war consensus work out for the millions who died behind both the Iron Curtain and the Bamboo Curtain?
For Ron: when you defend Hitler, you defend sentiments like this:
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler#Hitler's_Table_Talk_(1941-1944)_(published_1953)
6 August 1942.
“As for the ridiculous hundred million Slavs, we will mould the best of them as we see fit, and we will isolate the rest of them in their own pig-styes; and anyone who talks about cherishing the local inhabitants and civilising them, goes straight off into a concentration camp!”
And here Hitler sounds like a modern shitlib – contempt for historical Christian civilization is where anti-Christian Far Right and Far Left types can sound most similar:
1 August 1942.
“In the Spanish people there is a mixture of Gothic, Frankish and Moorish blood. One can speak of the Spaniard as one would speak of a brave anarchist. The Arabian epoch—the Arabs look down on the Turks as they do on dogs—was the most cultured, the most intellectual and in every way best and happiest epoch in Spanish history. It was followed by the period of the persecutions with its unceasing atrocities.”
At the end of the day, Hitler was by birth (his father was a typical 19th century anti-clerical patriarchal type who insisted that his WIFE would fulfill all the proper religious rites, but was not himself interested in religion) and education pretty much like those “Victorian” types that G.K. Chesterton described, who wanted to venerate the hearth without venerating the altar – that is, worshipping the fatherland (or race) while dropping the worship of God:
https://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks13/1301201h.html#ch1
“Above all, so far from being stiff with orthodox religion, it was almost the first irreligious home in all human history. Theirs was the first generation that ever asked its children to worship the hearth without the altar.”
Many so-called quotes attributed to Hitler come from spurious sources. Hermann Rauschning and adulterated editions of Table Talk come to mind. It’s the task of the honest historian to try to separate the facts from the deliberate distortions, using original and credible source materials. David Irving has done some very fine work in this vein, but even he ‘made a deal’ to pay some credence to the holocaust as a condition of early release from prison in Austria.
I’d again encourage you to listen to the Tom Hingest podcast on Tribal Theocrat:
Tom Hingest at Tribal Theocrat on National Socialism
https://tribaltheocrat.com/2012/12/tt-live-episode-11-first-word/
In conclusion, though not a regenerate man, Hitler had admirable qualities. He was honorable in his dealings with other heads of state (even many of his enemies said so) and always had the people in the forefront of his mind in decision making. Can you say the same of any other head of state in the Western Democracies then or now?
This is quite a long video, but the 24-29 min. section critiques Anthony Sutton’s allegations about the Reich. It may stimulate some re-thinking of cherished supposed truths:
The Myth of Big Business Funding Hitler
https://www.bitchute.com/video/nNqjSbqnx1F8/
See my “Christian Society and the Failure of Capitalism and Communism.”
Can you link it here?
https: //www.timesexaminer.com/guest-columns/???
Christian Society and the Failure of Capitalism and Communism
By Winston McCuen
Published: 28 April 2023
The great error underlying all modern social and economic thought and practice is the assumption that capitalism and communism, as supposed opposites, are the only options.
Since the appearance of Adam Smith’s Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776) and of the Communist Manifesto (1848) of Marx and Engels, humanity has been locked in a false dichotomy of thought and practice — wrongly viewing capitalism and communism as thesis and antithesis, and as mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive theoretical and policy options. The truth, however, is that these two doctrines — at the most fundamental level — are kindred creeds that, for kindred reasons, operate in ways contrary both to human flourishing and to Divine favor.
Capitalism and communism — despite appearances, despite propaganda, and despite certain functional differences that prove ultimately superficial — agree on a deeper level by viewing men in the abstract as deracinated, calculating agents. Both capitalism and communism view people as little more than producers and consumers, devoid, for example, of real and created individual uniqueness, Providential value, and Divine vocation. Under both systems, life without deeper meaning and deeper connection to God and to others is suffered and spent in a cold, grubbing, faceless and profoundly anti-social “society” within a Godless, egalitarian, techno-materialist world.
The capitalist creed of selfishness and self-interest says at bottom: “Every man for himself, and Devil take the hindmost.” And this is true, despite all Austrian School economic rationalizations of self-interest, and despite all tendentious Ayn-Randian moral encomiums to the “virtue of selfishness.” Marxist communism says at bottom: “Christianity is a mere superstition and opiate of the masses, capitalists are expropriators who should themselves be expropriated for justice’s sake — and don’t fret the totalitarian state used therefor.” But beneath these ultimately kindred agendas of selfishness and expropriation lies the deep and shared problem of both systems. Neither capitalism nor communism view man as he actually is — as a concrete social being with a rational soul and a divine vocation. It is true, orthodox (pre-Enlightenment) Christianity alone that views man as he actually is.
True Christianity, as the (one and only true) religion established by God the Creator, views men as, at minimum, Divinely wrought vessels of common -grace gifts, recipients in unequal measure of physical and mental powers and attributes unique to each individual. And scattered among humanity at large are the minority elect of God, recipients of saving and sanctifying grace superadded to common grace. So humanity at large consists of vessels of Divine wrath and vessels of Divine mercy.
Human societies, at any given time, are majority unbelieving, and majority reprobate. Establishing and maintaining Christian society — characterized by selfless love of God and neighbor, ordered liberty, and limits on State power — is therefore a statistical improbability and Herculean challenge in any age. In modernity, the capitalist appeal to selfishness and material prosperity — followed closely and hotly by the communist appeal to “distributive justice”, envy and power-lust — have proved compelling, unstoppable, and impossible to resist for weak — and highly suggestible and corruptible — fallen mankind. This is especially so since these doctrines came dressed in clever and subtle intellectual rationalizations of their great and characteristic sins.
In little over two centuries, industrial capitalism transformed humanity and the globe by its enormous and unprecedented material productive forces and achievements. Since 1750, and especially since 1800, human populations and aggregate wealth have exploded exponentially. Amidst the enormous den and bustle of capitalism, combined with the loud clamor of socialist-communist critics, materially-occupied humanity, despite much suffering, has been little disposed to fathom the moral effects and spiritual costs of modern economies, whether capitalist or communist.
Institutions — including family and church and other local associations — that historically have prioritized and cultivated individual character and the virtues have fared poorly in materialist modernity. The moral-institutional destruction wrought by modern capitalism and communism has been staggering and unmatched since the Flood, and has entailed vast (and as yet unreckoned) concomitant human suffering. In short, the wealth and population and technological explosions wrought by industrial capitalism, combined with Marxist atheism, have pushed humanity further than ever from the Lord.
But, however seductive and chimerical, capitalism and communism, as doctrines purporting the human good, are proven failures. They fail, at bottom, because they focus on a part and not on the whole of man’s nature. They fail because they view some chosen and favored part of man as the whole of man. They fail because, as doctrines conceived by carnal and unregenerate minds, they don’t clearly see and acknowledge man’s fallen nature, and don’t love man enough to grasp his whole nature and to take his good more seriously.
Though capitalism and communism acknowledge in somewise unequal ability and unequal needs, neither attends — in a prudential and tailored and loving way — to the needs of persons for more or for less externally-imposed personal supervision or government, or for more or for less protection from predations by others. Neither system acknowledges the fundamental political truth that those who cannot govern themselves from within must be governed from without, both for their own sakes and for the good of society. As Burke famously said: “Men of intemperate minds cannot be free; their passions forge their fetters.” And neither system acknowledges how, due to unequally distributed gifts and opportunities, some may sinfully dominate others in the wars of wits that characterize competition for power, position and wealth in markets and in governments. But Christian society, in contrast, with its emphasis on love of God and of neighbor as of self, involves personally tailored government — the ideal being government at all levels — from family to State — in proper measure. Christians call this the principle of subsidiary, whereby as much decision-making and governing as possible is done at the more local levels, starting with the family — the foundational and most fundamental political unit.
Though capitalism and communism recognize, in their own ways, that the political wits and market acumen of men are far from equal, neither fathom — or counter by endemic doctrinal provisions — the inevitable resultant exploitation, plunder and tyranny that violate the Biblical commands to love God and neighbor. Unequally distributed grace — manifested as self-control or its absence — necessitates tailored and unequal government between individuals. Mental and physical weakness and vulnerability invoke the Christian duty of the mentally and physically strong to protect the weak. But protection, to be effectual, requires that the protector control the protected as needed. In return for this protection and personal government, the overseeing person or master receives as a right due payment in the form of the labor of the protected servant or slave.
Neither the capitalist nor the communist understand or value true freedom or liberty. But in Christian society, liberty is rightly understood as a Providential reward for actualized moral and intellectual virtue, while slavery is recognized and honored both as necessary and loving personal government for the vicious and as loving protection for the weak. Scripture makes clear the rights and duties of both master and slave in the Old and New Testaments. And this system of Christian domestic slavery, for which there is historical precedent, when properly organized and maintained in accord with Old and New Testament commands from God, benefits all.
But of course, in modernity, all forms of personal slavery, Christian and otherwise, are anathema. As George Fitzhugh (1806-1881), the great Southern social philosopher, observed: “The ancients took it for granted that slavery was right, and never attempted to justify it. The moderns assume that it is wrong, and forthwith proceed to denounce it.”
In modernity, capitalist and communist propaganda FOR capitalism and communism has included propaganda AGAINST Christian society in general and Christian slavery in particular.
The proponents and beneficiaries of both the capitalist and communist systems have done much propagandizing, not only against each other, but against, most of all, their shared enemy, traditional Christian society. Espousing so-called “free society”, capitalists and communists have joined in denouncing all social and economic arrangements involving hierarchy and subordination in accord with evolved custom and with inevitable individual moral-intellectual differences found in real society. The result of this modernist propaganda was the destruction of traditional, feudalistic Christian political order across Europe and in the American South.
Few have noticed that many abolitionists — in America, Britain and elsewhere — were both advocates and direct monetary beneficiaries of emerging “free labor” industrial capitalism. The capitalist saves capital when laborers — free to work and free to starve — underbid one another in competition for jobs. He saves again by paying a wage only, and not for support of the worker during illness, age or other incapacity. After all, workers are more easily exploited by the
capitalist when torn away from and unprotected by Christian slave-masters. Workers are more easily commanded, indoctrinated, used up and cast aside by capitalists or by the Marxist Total State when they are first atomistically severed from master and family. And the capitalist and commissar, unlike the Christian slave-master, have no incentive in personal property to care for the expendable and easily-replaced “free” worker. But the master had cared for his slave, in large part, precisely because the slave was HIS; and Christian States further implemented provisions to ensure the masters’ or lords’ proper care, provision and treatment of their people. What historic tragedy then, when the tyranny and poverty of “free-labor” wage slavery replaced the cradle-to-grave affection and care of Christian domestic slavery. Family destruction, penury, beggary and crime rates, for example, exploded across the land.
Modern capitalism bulldozed Christian feudalism; and it is no accident or mere coincidence then that the authors of the Communist Manifesto heap high praise on modern capitalism for that demolition. The selfish individualism of capitalism has indeed generated enormous and unprecedented wealth and paved the way for atheistic, totalitarian state communism. And, per the Marxist narrative, after the final overthrow of capitalism — somehow — the state would wither away and “society” as a whole would JUSTLY command the means of production, assign duties and distribute proceeds to all. In 1848, Marx and Engels promised: “… the public power (i.e., the State) will lose its political character. … In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.”
The withering away of the State is the great unexplained and unexplainable of Marxism — the great counter-intuitive, counter-factual and counter-historical promise — a fantastical article of faith, and a promissory note impossible of fulfilment. The wily authors, one suspects, banked on gullible readers. But then, as Malcolm Muggeridge put it: “People do not believe lies because they have to, but because they want to.”
In the Manifesto, the authors contemptuously state that Christian replies to “enlightenment” critiques of the faith are unworthy of response: “The charges against Communism made from a religious, a philosophical, and, generally, from an ideological standpoint, are not deserving of serious examination.” And all ideas and claims to objective truth, except pro-Communist ideas and claims, are mere subjective products of changing material conditions. And significantly, for Marx, capitalism is worthy of criticism but Christianity is not: “When Christian ideas succumbed in the 18th Century to rationalist ideas, feudal society fought its death battle with the then revolutionary bourgeoisie.” And this, in part, is because the sins of capitalism — with its grasping materialism and abuses of labor — were plainer to Marx and followers, making it the easier and preferred target.
But again, contrary to popular belief, the main enemy of Marx and the main target of Marxism was never capitalism. It was and is, instead, true, orthodox, pre-Enlightenment Christianity and traditional, conservative, ‘feudalistic’ Christian society.
But the atheistic materialism of capitalism and communism — whatever their supposed progressivism and inevitability -have not redounded to human happiness and human flourishing. Believing himself enlightened and free and progressive and superior to all that came before, benighted, deracinated modern man — whether capitalist or communist — understands neither himself nor the world around him. Isolated, appetitive, animalistic, alienated and spiritually impoverished, modern man has, by degrees, become depressed, violent and suicidal. These fundament social realities -in which we tiny and finite men now swim — prompt deep questions about the roles of capitalism and communism in our infinite God’s wider Providence.
God allows men, both individually and politically, to stray, but only to a point, and never without consequences. Underscoring this truth, the Roman poet Horace (65-8 BC) said: “You may drive nature out with a pitchfork, but she will nevertheless come back.” In modern times, certain political movements — reactive against and contrary to capitalism and communism — evince created nature’s less and more forceful attempts to return. And we perceive this as we thoughtfully review modern political doctrines and practice.
Capitalism is an economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state. Communism is a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class warfare and leading toward an increasingly internationalist society in which all property is “publicly” owned, and each person
works and is paid according to the principle: from each to his abilities to each according to his needs. Socialism is commonly viewed as a softer form of communism, or as a transition stage to it. Meanwhile, the return of nature in modernity can be seen in the phenomena of conservatism and fascism.
Conservatism dreams of seceding from or of decentralizing and minimizing the modern consolidated communist or state-capitalist Leviathan. Nationalistic or fascistic socialism aims to preserve private property and nationhood and Das Volk — against internationalist laissez-faire and communist predations and threats — while harnessing large capitalistic enterprise in behalf of general, national society.
At root, the conservative responses to the French Revolution and the fascist responses to Bolshevism were rebellions by hierarchical, created nature against the deracinating egalitarianism, atheism, atomism and hyper-abstract anthropologies of anarchistic capitalism and statist-totalitarian communism. Conservatism and fascism are, at bottom, naturalistic and religious counter-rebellions against prior anti-Christian metaphysical rebellions by capitalism and communism.
Put another way, conservatism is a traditionalist response to liberalism; and fascism is a defiant and forceful response, in behalf of conservative values, to violent, revolutionary communism. So communism is the militant form of liberalism, while fascism is the militant form of conservatism. And these essential but unpopular truths — dear reader — are hard to descry in part because conservative movements and policy typically sport market mechanics and rhetoric while their fascist counterparts sport socialistic state mechanics and rhetoric. As deep spiritual responses to modern anti-spiritual, atheistic materialism, conservatism and fascist — while often found bound up in the market and state mechanics of modern capitalism and communism respectively — are, at root, essentially pre-modern voices in defense of tradition, church and nation.
Conservatism and fascism are defined by the fact that they strive, in their overlapping and disparate ways, in behalf of pre-modern values. They reject both the abstract individualism of modern capitalism and the abstract collectivism of modern communism. Conservatism and fascism are rebellions by created nature against the prior atheistic metaphysical rebellions by capitalism and communism against pre-modern, feudalistic, traditional Christian society.
Rightly understood, the centralized Caesarism and fasces of Spanish, Italian and German fascism were natural, prudential and necessary martial responses — in defense of the West and of European Christendom — to the dual existential threat posed by the demoralizing and piratical imperialist-internationalist capitalism of the United States and Britain, and by murderous, atheistic, carnal-Jew Soviet Bolshevism. So in modernity, conservatism and fascism point backward to Christian feudalism, forward to possible earthly Christian renaissance, and then finally, to the Lord’s direct and perfect rule, in the After, of the elect in Heaven, and of the reprobate in Hell.
—————————–
Winston McCuen is a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of Furman University, holds a Ph.D. in philosophy from Emory University and is a John C. Calhoun scholar. A former Latin teacher, he also holds multiple welding certifications and is a certified and senior nuclear metallurgical welding engineer.