El arzobispo de Valencia dijo que su “deber como obispo” es “advertir a los fieles del peligro que conlleva” la ideología de género “para la paz mundial”

La ideología de género y la Unión Soviética: por qué el cardenal Cañizares tenía razón

por Javier Lozano

El cardenal Cañizares está experimentando lo que le ocurre a todo aquel que se enfrenta a la ideología de género pero lejos de achantarse comparó esta ideología con la URSS, donde la familia fue destruida. Los datos avalan las palabras del arzobispo de Valencia

El cardenal Antonio Cañizares quiere aplicar aquella cita del Evangelio de San Juan que dice que “la verdad os hará libres”. Y lo está haciendo a pesar de las dificultades, críticas, insultos e incluso denuncias, como la que va a presentar este viernes el colectivo LGTB Lambda contra él. Todo ello por alertar sobre la imposición de la ideología de género, “la ideología más insidiosa y destructora de la humanidad de toda la historia”, tal y como la definió el mismo.

Conocedor de los efectos de esta nueva dictadura, el arzobispo de Valencia no para de alertar de cómo el “imperio gay” quiere imponer sus postulados en España destruyendo la familia mediante “organismos e ideologías como la de género que están uniéndose para destruirla”. Por ello, el cardenal valenciano ha llamado incluso a los católicos a “no obedecer” las leyes basadas en la ideología de género, lo que ha desatado la ira de la izquierda y de estos lobbies tan poderosos.

Lejos de achantarse ante la lluvia de insultos y amenazas, Cañizares volvió a hacer frente a esta ideología durante una conferencia e hizo una comparación muy realista que volvió a dejar en evidencia a sus enemigos. “Se ha querido destruir la familia como en la URSS marxista” y mandando un mensaje a fuerzas políticas españolas como Podemos o el PSOE afirmó que “otros, en ideologías próximas a éstos, están empeñados en repetir este fracaso”.

Y es que volviendo la mirada al pasado se observa que los efectos del comunismo son comparables a los de la ideología de género, cuya esencia es el marxismo y que sustituye la lucha de clases por una lucha de sexos donde el sometimiento del enemigo es parte clave.

La Unión Soviética fue el primer país en implantar el divorcio sin causa en 1918, el aborto libre hasta el tercer mes de gestación en 1920

Ya Friedich Engels escribió el guion con su obra El origen de la familia, la propiedad privada y el Estado en la que se identifica a la familia como el germen de la desigualdad. Por ello, no extraña que luego en la URSS tanto con Lenin como con Stalin la familia y el individuo fueran sustituidos por el partido. Lo importante era controlar todo y la familia era un enemigo a batir.

..............

Leer más aquí: www.actuall.com

La France n'est pas multiculturelle, fort heureusement ...

Multiculturalisme : lettre ouverte de Charles Beigbeder à Benoist Apparu

Par Charles Beigbeder


Monsieur le ministre,

En marge du dîner auquel vous avait convié hier soir Alain Juppé à la salle Wagram, aux côtés de nombreux maires de communes de France, vous avez, par un tweet aussi dangereux que contradictoire, exprimé votre foi dans une France multiculturelle. Je vous cite: «Oui au multiculturalisme, non au communautarisme, c'est ça l'identité heureuse!»

Propos extrêmement dangereux car, en prônant le multiculturalisme, c'est l'identité même de la France que vous contribueriez à dissoudre! Que signifierait en effet une France multiculturelle? Ce serait une nation où chaque immigré pourrait revendiquer sa langue, sa culture, ses mœurs, son histoire et ses traditions d'origine, à parité avec la langue et la culture historiques du pays d'accueil. En fait, ce ne serait plus une nation au sens où l'entend traditionnellement Renan quand il évoque «la volonté de continuer à faire valoir l'héritage que l'on a reçu indivis». Car, dans votre système, il n'y a plus ni langue officielle ni culture commune, rien qu'un supermarché des cultures qui vivent juxtaposées les unes aux autres dans une sorte de magma informe où le poids démographique d'une communauté serait le seul critère de légitimation d'une culture.

Le multiculturalisme procède en fait d'un grave renoncement qui découle lui-même d'un désamour originel: le rejet par de nombreux Français de leur propre culture. On a tellement réécrit l'histoire de France en la chargeant de tous les maux de l'humanité que ses héritiers veulent aujourd'hui se défaire du «fardeau de l'homme blanc», vouant aux gémonies une nation éternellement coupable d'un colonialisme qui lui serait consubstantiel et nous renvoyant, par une surenchère de déclarations vindicatives, dans la posture expiatoire du pénitent invétéré. Dès l'instant que nous n'aimons plus notre passé, nous renonçons à le transmettre aux générations suivantes et à exiger des immigrés nouvellement arrivés qu'ils en soient pétris intérieurement: c'est la fin du modèle français d'assimilation qui avait pourtant écrit ses lettres de noblesse jusque dans les années 70.

..........


Lire la suite: www.lefigaro.fr

Dostoevsky esteemed art as a higher way of knowing

Beauty and the Enlivening of the Russian Literary Imagination

by Glenn Davis

Like Dostoevsky and Solzhenitsyn, conservatives must come up from politics and recognize that the roots of a truer just order are watered with the permanent ideals of truth, goodness, and beauty.


Today’s offering in our Timeless Essay series affords readers the opportunity to join Glenn Davis as he discusses Fyodor Dostoevsky and the concept that “beauty will save the world.” —W. Winston Elliott III, Publisher


Readers of The Imaginative Conservative know well the phrase “beauty will save the world.” Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn borrowed it from Fyodor Dostoevsky to set the theme of his Nobel Lecture in 1970. British conservative writer Roger Scruton has written extensively about how aesthetics—and beauty in particular—enlarges our vision of humanity, helps us find meaning in our lives, and provides knowledge of our world’s intrinsic values. And Gregory Wolfe used the phrase for the title of his recent book, Beauty Will Save the World: Recovering the Human in an Ideological Age, the theme of which is the importance of an aesthetic understanding for sustaining a civilized culture. Wolfe’s approach is especially appropriate for readers of this site in that he addresses the decline of an aesthetic appreciation in the conservative movement over the previous thirty years which has resulted in a highly politicized conservatism without vision and without deep cultural roots.

As a long time student of Russian culture, I find it inspiring that imaginative conservatives are attaching to a concept (“beauty will save the world”) articulated by Fyodor Dostoevsky one hundred fifty years ago in reference to his own battles against a severe ideological movement bent on politicizing the culture of nineteenth-century Russia. The contentious aesthetic rivalries that defined the last half of that century ultimately resulted by the 1920s in the devastation of imaginative literature in Russia. The roots of this nightmare of aesthetic dispute were watered by the political upheavals in the 1850s and 1860s and Dostoevsky wrote indefatigably to defend Russian art, enliven the Russian imagination, and nurture the human soul. It is a period in history which, I believe, given the arguments of Wolfe and others, imaginative conservatives will find interesting and fertile for thought.

The battle for the Russian imagination and for humane letters in the middle decades of the nineteenth-century was dominated by two literary movements: writers who supported and nurtured an aesthetic approach and the writers who favored a social/political approach based on utilitarian and materialist beliefs. Dostoevsky was one of the great representative figures of the aesthetic movement for he conceived of imaginative literature as the form best able to plumb the depths of the human soul. The radicals, on the other hand, led by Nikolai Chernyshevsky, Nikolai Dobrolyubov, and Dmitry Pisarev, who largely denied the soul and stated that art is inferior to reality, kept mostly to philosophical writings and literary and social criticism as means to argue for political and social change. The central issue of the time, which demanded the attention of the cultural elites and defined the intellectual milieu, was, of course, the issue of servitude. For Russians in the nineteenth-century, just as for Americans, the issue of servitude overwhelmingly infused Russian literary culture with powerful, and at times brilliant, political, social, and literary polemics. But as the United States had a cathartic purging of the issue through the national tragedy of civil war, the emancipation of the serfs in Russia in 1861 only seemed to aggravate the political situation. Because of the historically oppressive nature of the Russian system, political issues could not be addressed openly in the public square; instead, they had to be addressed indirectly, often through humane letters. Consequently, literature and literary criticism became the means whereby the great political and social issues of the day were discussed. The culture favored politicized literature and, as the radical Pisarev exclaimed, “aesthetics [was] my nightmare.”

The radical critics were best represented by Pisarev and Cherynyshevsky. They advocated a politicized literature and were strongly suspicious of the imaginative arts. Chernyshevsky argued that “art is inferior to reality,” and that a materialist and utilitarian worldview should inform not simply social and political policy but literary works as well. Pisarev went one further in his damning of beauty:

Be it noted in praise of human nature in general and of the human mind in particular that up to now, apparently, hardly anyone has ever gone to his death for the sake of something he considered beautiful, while on the other hand there are infinite numbers of people who have given their lives for that which they considered true and socially useful… Art never has had and never can have any martyrs.

This radical worldview was a powerful and vocal force in the latter half of the nineteenth-century, influencing many of the cultural and political elite.

................

Readmore: www.theimaginativeconservative.org

It seems that most traditional conservatives will end up supporting Mr. Trump as the lesser of two evils

Neoconservatives, #Nevertrump, & the Death of Conservatism

by Bruce Frohnen


Neoconservatives have garnered a fair amount of media coverage in recent weeks for their determination to keep on with the #nevertrump fight. 

Bill Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standardand son of neoconservative founder Irving Kristol, has been especially vocal in his determination to launch a third party challenge to Donald Trump and the eventual Democratic nominee. A number of Republican figures have made similar noises, including other neoconservatives like Linda Chavez and Robert Zoellick, as well as the seemingly more conservative Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska and the more openly-liberal former Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney.

There are genuine reasons behind the ill feelings toward the presumptive Republican nominee. Mr. Trump’s rude comments have garnered well-deserved hostility across the political spectrum. Perhaps most understandable, if least noted, is Texas Senator Ted Cruz’s avoidance of a Trump endorsement in the aftermath of Mr. Trump’s improper comments about his wife and his calculated broadcasting of scandalous rumors published only in The National Enquirer—a supermarket rag that gets its stories straight about as often as The New York Times highlights conservative achievements. More curious is the #nevertrump movement leadership’s claim that it is opposing Trump in the name of conservative principles.

Ted Cruz opposed Donald Trump in the name and service of traditional conservative principles. There are genuine conservatives who are extremely unhappy with Mr. Trump. After all, Mr. Trump quite recently supported many leftist policies and candidates, and continues to eschew any serious discussion regarding issues of Presidential overreach or the size and intrusiveness of the federal government. Conservatives are not pining for Romney redux. It seems likely, in fact, that most traditional conservatives will end up supporting Mr. Trump as the lesser of two evils. Traditional conservatives quite rightly fear the possibility of a Clinton Presidency that would carry on the Obama Administration’s bathroom wars, its aggression against free speech and religious self-government, its use of the Education Department to brand all young men as presumptive rapists, and its continuation of a policy of de-facto open borders and never-ending war. Compared to these policies, a Trump presidency looks positively benign in its ignorance of cultural issues and its insistence on the reality of borders.

There remain, of course, very real questions regarding Mr. Trump’s commitment to constitutional restraint, as well as the ability of our other institutions to check and balance an overreaching President. This is especially worrying given the abject failure of the courts in particular to keep President Obama within even the vaguest limits of even the broadest laws. Then again, Americans know Hillary Clinton’s contempt for the law and seem, sadly, to have decided that their interests are more likely to be served by the person who most vocally rejects the current ruling class than by anyone committed to historical institutions, beliefs, and practices of limited constitutional government.

I have my own doubts about how a Trump presidency will work out for America. I have no doubts, however, about Mr. Kristol’s goals in continuing his #nevertrump machinations. Those machinations are rooted in the same ideology that undermined the conservative movement for more than thirty years and led to the rise of Mr. Trump.

......................

Read more: www.theimaginativeconservative.org

There are only a very few authors whose works bear the power of changing the way the whole world is perceived by people.

Dostoevsky and the Glory of Guilt

By Sean Fitzpatrick



There are only a very few authors whose works bear the power of changing the way the whole world is perceived by people. Fyodor Dostoevsky is one of those authors; and one of the ways that Dostoevsky has made his mark on human souls is his presentation of guilt. Not the feverish guilt of Raskolnikov associated with crime and punishment, but rather the guilt that is not necessarily condemnable because it is necessarily commonplace. Dostoevsky’s stories challenge people to accept this guilt that is the lot of humanity, and to accept that all are their brothers’ keepers. Everyone is guilty for everyone else, and in this guilt lays the restoration of innocence in a brotherhood that cannot be broken.

The concept of mankind as a family drives deep in Russian tradition. This principle is called sobornost, meaning a spiritual community of many conjointly living people.Sobornost was a cultural doctrine to promote unity and cooperation as opposed to individualism, and was eventually taken up as an illustration of the Mystical Body of Christ. The attitude of sobornost embraces all who are guilty of wickedness in open acknowledgement of personal guilt and personal wickedness. All are Adam, if not Cain. All are the Grand Inquisitor. All are guilty.

There was a practice in old Russian towns that illustrates sobornost and the mentality that moved people to live out its love. When a condemned criminal was carried off in a cart to execution, the people would follow behind, weeping for the doomed felon. They would cry out to him, begging him to pray for them when he reached the other side; even exclaiming that he went to die in their place—all being worthy of a death in one way or another; all being guilty. Is such compassion misplaced, even towards a grave offender? It is difficult, to say the least. The only thing to cling to in times of depravity is that hate is not a solution. Hate only makes more monsters. As Fyodor Dostoevsky famously said, “To love someone means to see them as God intended them.”

Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov made the idea of sobornost, of all people being equally guilty, eternal in the history of human thought. “There is only one way to salvation,” Dostoevsky writes in the voice of the Elder Zossima, “and that is to make yourself responsible for all men’s sins. As soon as you make yourself responsible in all sincerity for everything and for everyone, you will see at once that this is really so, and that you are in fact to blame for everyone and for all things.” The notion of common responsibility arising from common culpability gives a powerful and staggering impetus to this holy and humanitarian philosophy. Given that all men are bound together on this earth, it is therefore true that everything that everyone does has some bearing, some effect, some influence, on others, whether known or unknown. “In sinning,” Dostoevsky wrote again in Demons, “each man sins against all, and each man is at least partly guilt for another’s sin. There is no isolated sin.” Every man and woman is constantly sowing seeds of themselves, wherever they go, whatever they do; and with that, comes the responsibility to put down good seeds, as the mystical sense of the universal human condition and community unfolds.

In what way we are all responsible for the sins of all is impossible to say precisely—but it rings true, jarring though it is, if it is true that all men are obliged to love one another and be the presence of Christ to one another. The failure in this latter regard only fosters the failures in following Christ. It is, without doubt, the responsibility of all Christians to provide that example, that care, and that love. The crimes of the wayward reflect on all who have been baptized into Christ. That is a harsh saying—but it may very well be so. It is for mankind to take responsibility for his fellow men, that no one might be lost to the wolves.

Flannery O’Connor was a Catholic author who presented moments of violence and grace so commingled they are difficult to prize apart, and that is her point. It is a point O’Connor shared with Dostoevsky, whom she revered and referred to often. In her celebrated and controversial 1953 story “A Good Man Is Hard to Find,” an old woman, a grandmother, finds herself staring down the gun barrel of a serial killer as his henchmen execute her family. There is a strange and almost sublime moment in this horror when, facing death at the hands of a psychotic villain, she murmurs, “Why you’re one of my babies. You’re one of my own children!” Living in her mortality, the grandmother utters something profoundly tender and profoundly true, seeing her murderer as her child—her responsibility. She is shot three times through the chest upon this utterance, but the victory is hers. She sees the truth of things for the first time in the shadow of death, and it is a vision of personal responsibility as a parent to a child. Dostoevsky draws this parallel as well in The Brothers Karamazov as Dmitri exclaims, “we are all responsible for all. For all the babes, for there are big children as well as little children. All are babes.”

Dostoevsky is a prophet. Not a prophet of politics or psychology, but rather a prophet of humanity, portraying and predicting the eternal struggle of man and the eternal salvation that suffering presages. His novels present a world teeming with people groping through guilt for a purpose they do not fully understand, often trading defiance for either despair or determination as the inescapable truth becomes clear: there is, on earth, no alleviation of the human condition. This is the conflict whose significance is just beyond the comprehension of his protagonists, though they fight tooth and nail towards its realization. Dostoevsky’s position that redemption lays in trial, love, and mutual responsibility is prophetic only because it was prophesied long before he put pen to paper. The prophetic power of this prince of the Russian writers lies not in his ability to resolve the metaphysical torments of humanity, but in his ability to represent the torments that lie in the attempt to resolve them humanly. All are guilty and must suffer; and all must learn to bear it, if they are to find deliverance.

.....

Read more: www.crisismagazine.com

Il est certain que le succès de Poutine doit beaucoup au fait qu'il représente une sorte d'animal politique disparu en Europe

Mathieu Slama : «Il y a du Soljenitsyne dans le discours de Poutine»

Par Eléonore de Vulpillières

Né en 1986, Mathieu Slama intervient de façon régulière dans les médias, notamment dans le FigaroVox sur les questions de politique internationale. Un des premiers en France à avoir décrypté la propagande de l'Etat islamique, il a publié plusieurs articles sur la stratégie de Poutine vis-à-vis de l'Europe et de l'Occident. Son premier livre , La guerre des mondes, réflexion sur la croisade de Poutine contre l'Ocident vient de sortir aux éditions de Fallois.

LE FIGARO. - Pour quelle raison l'affrontement entre Vladimir Poutine et l'Occident est-il essentiellement idéologique?

Mathieu SLAMA. - Ma thèse est que dans le conflit politique qui oppose l'Europe et les Etats-Unis à la Russie de Poutine, il y a un arrière-plan idéologique fondamental qui met en jeu deux grammaires du monde qui s'opposent en tout point. A cet égard, ce qui se joue dans cet affrontement est bien plus décisif qu'un simple conflit d'intérêts.

Mais il suffit d'écouter Poutine pour comprendre qu'il se situe lui-même sur le terrain idéologique. Ce fut particulièrement frappant à partir de 2013, lorsque les crises ukrainiennes et syriennes ont réellement marqué une rupture entre les Russes et les Occidentaux.

Dans plusieurs discours, Poutine s'en est pris à la «destruction des valeurs traditionnelles» et à «l'effacement des traditions nationales et des frontières entre les différentes ethnies et cultures», visant implicitement les pays occidentaux. A plusieurs reprises il a exalté «les valeurs spirituelles de l'humanité et de la diversité du monde», «les valeurs de la famille traditionnelle, de la vie humaine authentique, y compris de la vie religieuse des individus», faisant appel au grand philosophe conservateur russe Nicolas Berdiaev. Il y a aussi, dans le discours de Poutine, des attaques directes adressées aux pays occidentaux et notamment aux pays européens. «Les pays euro-atlantiques rejettent leur racine», a-t-il expliqué dans un discours, «dont les valeurs chrétiennes qui constituent la base de la civilisation occidentale». Utilisant des termes très violents comme «primitivisme», s'en prenant ouvertement aux légalisations en faveur du mariage homosexuel, Poutine accuse aussi régulièrement les pays occidentaux de vouloir exporter leur modèle libéral au monde entier, au mépris des particularités nationales.


Poutine est donc porteur d'une vraie vision du monde. Il se fait le défenseur des particularités nationales et des valeurs traditionnelles face à un Occident libéral, amnésique de ses fondements spirituels.

Poutine est donc porteur d'une vraie vision du monde. Il se fait le défenseur des particularités nationales et des valeurs traditionnelles face à un Occident libéral, amnésique de ses fondements spirituels. Et surtout, et c'est peut-être la plus grande force de son discours, il s'en prend à l'universalisme occidental, à cette prétention qu'a une partie du monde de modeler à son image l'autre partie de l'humanité. C'est une manière pour lui de s'en prendre aux ingérences occidentales, que ce soit en Ukraine ou au Moyen-Orient.

Poutine dit ici quelque chose d'essentiel. L'Occident est persuadé que son modèle, la démocratie libérale, est le devenir inéluctable de l'humanité toute entière. Mais il y a dans le monde des nations qui tiennent à leur traditions culturelles et qui n'ont absolument pas envie de s' «occidentaliser»! Il y a là un enjeu majeur, que l'un des plus grands penseurs du XXème siècle, Claude Lévi-Strauss, avait vu avant tout le monde: comment préserver les particularités culturelles dans un contexte de mondialisation politique, culturelle et economique croissante? «Les grandes déclarations des droits de l'homme», expliquait Lévi-Strauss, énoncent «un idéal trop souvent oublieux du fait que l'homme ne se réalise pas sa nature dans une humanité abstraite, mais dans des cultures traditionnelles». Les démocraties occidentales n'ont de cesse d'exalter «l'Autre», mais ce n'est en réalité que pour annihiler son altérité et l'envisager comme un parfait semblable, c'est-à-dire un individu émancipé de tous ses déterminismes. L'Occident libéral est devenu incapable de penser et comprendre la différence culturelle. On le voit au Moyen-Orient aujourd'hui: nous ne célébrons l'Iran que parce qu'il s'occidentalise ; tout ce qui relève du traditionnel est perçu comme une barbarie amenée à disparaître. Il y a dans cette approche un mélange d'incompréhension et de mépris.

Soljenitsyne est l'un des fil rouge de votre livre. En quoi est-il représentatif d'une partie de l'âme russe?

La figure d'Alexandre Soljenitsyne est intéressante à plusieurs égards. D'abord parce qu'il est étonnamment - et injustement - oublié aujourd'hui, alors qu'il est l'une des rares figures intellectuelles du XXème siècle à ne s'être jamais trompé dans ses combats politiques, ce qui est suffisamment rare pour le souligner.

Ensuite parce qu'il a fait, en effet, l'objet d'un grand malentendu en Occident. Ses œuvres «Une journée d'Ivan Denissovitch» (1962), «Le Premier cercle» (1968) et surtout «L'Archipel du Goulag» (1973), révélant au monde entier les atrocités commises par les soviétiques dans les camps, ont fait de lui la principale figure de l'opposition intellectuelle et politique au régime soviétique. Accusé de trahison dans son propre pays, il est parti en exil en Suisse puis aux Etats-Unis. Mais voilà, et c'est le cœur du malentendu dont je parle dans mon livre: Soljenitsyne ne s'opposait pas au régime soviétique au nom des droits de l'homme ou au nom du «monde libre». Il n'avait pas choisi le camp occidental contre le camp soviétique. Il s'opposait à l'URSS parce qu'il s'agissait pour lui d'un régime corrompu, matérialiste, violent, niant la dimension spirituelle propre à chaque homme. Il s'y opposait au nom de sa foi orthodoxe et au nom de la grande histoire nationale russe.


Et c'est justement ce même attachement aux racines et à la dimension spirituelle de l'existence qui l'amena à s'opposer violemment au modèle libéral occidental à plusieurs occasions, notamment dans un célèbre discours devant les étudiants de Harvard en 1978 où il dénonça la dérive matérialiste de l'Occident, les ravages de son modèle capitaliste et surtout son obsession pour les droits individuels au détriment des valeurs traditionnelles comme l'honneur, la noblesse ou encore le sens du sacrifice. Soljenitsyne croyait à la possibilité d'une troisième voie entre le libéralisme occidental et les totalitarismes soviétiques ou fascistes, une troisième voie fondée sur l'enracinement et l'auto-restriction des hommes comme des nations. Il me semble qu'aujourd'hui, peut-être plus que jamais, ce message mérite d'être entendu.

..............


Lire la suite: www.lefigaro.fr

9-10 juin au Carré de Saint-Cloud : représentations de la Divine Comédie de Dante