As of late the idea of “the post-war consensus” has been getting a good deal of air time. This has been a handy phrase but it really failed what it was trying to describe. Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy makes it clear in his book “Out of Revolution” that we are now calling the “Post war consensus” should properly be termed as the “post Enlightenment consensus” or, the “post-French Revolution consensus.” All that we are fighting now in our labeling of the “Post war consensus” was present in and after the French Revolution. This is due to the fact that it’s all the same consensus and that consensus is based on the idea of Revolutionary thinking. It really has been the case that at least since the French Revolution the West has been Trotskyite, inasmuch as we have been living in perpetual Revolution. All of this is what Rosenstock-Huessy labels, “The Autobiography of Western Man.” What we have now with what we label the “Post-war consensus” is merely the Revolution inaugurated in France all growing up into adult maturity.
And the sad news here, is that unless this is reversed the French Revolution consensus will continue to expand its monstrous nature so that 50 years from now we will be calling it the “Post new century consensus,” or something like that. This consensus thing is never going to quit growing until the life is choked out of it.
And the only way that happens is by a return to Biblical Christianity. What we call “the Post War Consensus” might be more properly called “The Anti-Christ consensus.” The French Revolution was all about overthrowing God, King and Church — the Ancien Regime that was based on that. Remember the motto of the French Revolution was “We will not be satisfied until the last King is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.” Their rally cry was “No God … No King.” All that we see now is just the working out of that principle as subsequent to the latest great leap forward in this Revolution — what we call WW II.
The cure to all this is what Kinism is all about. People think Kinism is merely about marriage, adoption, and the proper order of natural love. Kinism is about that but it is about much more than that. Kinism is and always has been about overturning what we call the post-war consensus, and inasmuch as one can’t have consistent Kinism without theonomy so it is the case also that theonomy has always been primarily a counter-revolutionary movement against the post-war consensus and its greater Father, “the post French Revolution consensus.”
This is why the work done against Doug Wilson is so important. Wilson, White, Boot, Sandlin, etc. all would drag us back to continue to live under this Revolutionary autobiography of man. Oh, sure, they would sanctify it and make it “more tolerable” but at the end of the day these chaps want to smoke a peace pipe with the age of Revolution. The work being done by Kinists and others who have not yet the consistency of the Kinist movement is instrumental in overthrowing this 200 plus march of Trotskyite social order revolution. This is not primarily about marriage, nations, Natural law vs. God’s law, etc. This is about whether we will have civilization as defined theocentrically or whether we will have civilization as defined anthropocentrically. The question reduces down to whether we will be governed by our Christian confessions or will we be governed by the Humanist Manifestos.
There are good men out there right now who are being mowed down by other men that people want to think are good. Keep in mind that not all that glitters is gold. Many Christian men atop many Christian organization are pulling an Esau on us and are selling our birthrights as White Anglo Saxon Christians.
This is a time of dividing. As for me and my house, we shall serve the Lord.
The Jewish thinker Heinrich Heine famously observed that the philosopher Immanuel Kant supplemented the work of the French Revolution intellectually, helping to turn the Western worldview from theocentric to anthropocentric with his philosophical “Copernican revolution”:
https://archive.org/details/heine-on-the-history-of-religion-and-philosophy-in-germany/page/79/mode/2up?view=theater
“Immanuel Kant’s life story is difficult to describe, because he had neither a life nor a story. He lived a mechanically ordered, almost abstract bachelor existence in a quiet isolated lane in Königsberg, an old city on the north-eastern border of Germany. In my opinion, not even the great cathedral clock there went about its daily labor with less passion and more regularity than its compatriot Immanuel Kant. Getting up, drinking coffee, writing, giving lectures, eating, walking: everything had its set time, and the neighbors knew that it was exactly half past three when Immanuel Kant, in his grey frock-coat, rattan cane in hand, emerged from his front door and strolled in the direction of small Lindenallee, which is still called “Philosopher’s Way” on his account. He walked there eight times back and forth in every season, and when the weather was dismal or grey clouds indicated rain, one would see his servant, old Lampe, walking with anxious concern behind him, a long umbrella under his arm, like an image of Providence.
What a remarkable contrast between the external life of this man and his destructive, world-crushing thought! Indeed, had the citizens of Königsberg sensed the true meaning of this thought, they would have been in much greater dread of him than of the executioner — the executioner, namely, who only kills people. But the good citizens saw in him only a professor of philosophy, and when he walked by at the proper time, they gave him friendly greetings, and set their watches.
If, however, Immanuel Kant, the great destroyer in the realm of thought, far surpassed Maximilian Robespierre in terrorism, the two, on the other hand, had certain similarities, which invite us to compare them.”
And insofar the facts of mere “noumenal” life go, this lifeless nerd indeed came up with almost perfect intellectual justification for modern atomized-individualistic, deracinated bugman lifestyle:
http://www.christianciv.com/ChristCivEssay_Pt2.htm#Ethics
“Kant cannot justify his rule of equal treatment for all humans on the basis of his philosophy because he cannot even know if other people exist. According to him, all universals are a projection of the individual, autonomous human mind. To know that other people exist would be to know things-in-themselves, the noumenal world, which is impossible on his view. And even in his isolated, solipsistic world, Kant cannot account for the integration of universals with particulars because his universal begins as a pure blank, excluding all particularity.”
If I may use a racial stereotype, Immanuel Kant was an “insufferably White guy.” For he as if personified, in the extreme form, the kind of intellectual abstraction that I have noticed many non-Whites dislike about Whites. The colored folks want to have “soul,” and not to be lifeless cold fishes like Kant – and who can blame them. But all too many White intellectual types are somehow mesmerized by Kantian thought and its “mind-forged manacles,” to use an expression of Kant’s contemporary William Blake.
“What we have now with what we label the “Post-war consensus” is merely the Revolution inaugurated in France all growing up into adult maturity.”
Continuing this analogy, we might say that the revolutionary Enlightenment ethos that “was born” in 1789 had already been on a long gestation period of more than a century, at least from Spinoza onwards, before it entered the world from “the womb” of subversive thinkers’ brains.
The late 18th and early 19th century were like its “golden childhood,” when its ideas seemed so sparklingly new and inspiring, and drew fervent enthusiasm from countless progressive-minded Europeans, like Beethoven for example.
The rest of the 19th century was like its adolescent and teenaged years, when it was quickly growing, but was still quite inexperienced, clumsy and unsure of itself, and thus could not yet really make its mark on the world, which was still largely run by the traditional ethos of Christendom.
The Communist revolution of 1917 was like it becoming a brazen, fully grown young man, with violent tendencies. And by the end of the WW II, this man had become firmly settled, financially and institutionally secure adult, who was ready to dominate the world.
And now, it is finally starting to become senile and decrepit, entering its “second childhood” with degenerate nonsense like the tranny rights and stuff like that.
Viiaus,
I agree here but I would back it up even further. One could go back to the Renaissance to find it in its gestation period and behind the Renaissance is the classical ancient period and behind that is the fall. Indeed one could give a whole world history tracing the theme of Revolution against God. I’ve told my wife that if I had this life to do all over again that is what I would have tried to do.