Monday, 29 January 2018



Bunny Sheffield:

12 years ago. I remember swimming in the sea at dusk. Off slipped the band on my left hand, into the soft endless sand below that sucked it up greedily. I employed a small party at the beach to look for it and when we finally gave up they told me that it didn't mean anything. But I knew it did. Everything means something, there is nothing that means nothing. A friend said yesterday that she stopped asking for signs, because they always told her something she didn't want to hear, she couldn't see it and then unsee it. I know, I said, how it feels to ask for a sign and then not like the answer, when it's hard or uncomfortable or doesn't match your plans. I also know how it feels to try to ignore the signs, like driving through red lights with your eyes closed, bracing for a crash.

Kimberly Coulter (@coulterculture):

"You hurt my feelings," doesn't change cold hard facts, and you will be put in a position that will call your intelligence into question. I don't need to be a republican to get angry with the left about this.

Oswald Spengler:

A race has roots. Race and landscape belong together. Where a plant takes root, there it dies also. There is certainly a sense in which we can... work backwards from a race to its 'home'... . If in that home the race cannot now be found, this means that the race has ceased to exist. A race does not migrate. Men migrate, and their successive generations are born in ever-changing landscapes; but the landscape exercises a secret force upon the plant-nature in them, and eventually the race-expression is completely transformed by the extinction of the old and the appearance of a new one. Englishmen and Germans did not migrate to America, but human beings migrated thither as Englishmen and Germans, and their descendants are there as Americans. It has long been obvious that the soil of the Indians has made its mark upon them- generation by generation they become more and more like the people they

Dan Fleisher:

Let's clarify a few things.

I believe in God. Specifically, I believe in the God of the Torah - the God of Avraham, Yitzhok, and Yaakov - the God who took us out of Egypt and delivered to us the Land of Israel.

I believe that everything in the cosmos, from how one washes one's hands after using the restroom, to the cataclysmic merger of supermassive black holes, is closely scrutinized and orchestrated by God. This is hashgocha protis and is essential to any sort of Jewish faith which is comprehensible to me.

Rebbe Nachman - among others - tells us that not only is God omnibenevolent, but that if we are able to see that all that happens in our lives, both the "bad" and the "good" is really for the ultimate good and that, furthermore, God's goodness is the supreme goodness, we have a taste of the World to Come, of Gan Eden, of Heaven.

That said, this fits in perfectly with the dictum of Joseph de Maistre: "All pain is a punishment, and every punishment is inflicted for love as much as for justice." Every tragedy that befalls a man or mankind comes by the hand of Heaven, as incomprehensible as it may seem to be at the time.

You do not, but any means, have to agree with me, but this is my faith. It's the *traditional* understanding of good, evil, fate, and the course of human events. All this mucking about with theodicy modern minds have engaged in is ultimately fruitless. Our ancestors had it right - this probably comes as something of a surprise and the fact that it does is deeply depressing to me.


  1. Somebody at some point has to mention, in any discussion of British politics, snobbery and class. I remember travelling and reporting on the ‘Wind of Change’ speech. We went to stay on the last bit, just before going on to Salisbury, was it the Sardauna of Sokoto who was he the premier of the Northern Nigerian region. Macmillan talked to us after he had seen him, he was flying on to Welensky the next day.

    Macmillan used to have a sundowner with the correspondents covering his trip, and over whisky and sodas he told us how much more at home he felt with the Sardauna, who reminded him of the Duke of Argyll – ‘a kind of black highland chieftain’ – than he would feel in Salisbury as the guest of a former railwayman, Sir Roy Welensky. Snobbery, pure snobbery.

    Perry Worsthorne

    The British metropole was always ready to make racial distinctions and discriminate accordingly, yet it still tended to look upon outright racism with an air of disdain, as something slightly unsporting (or worse: foreign).

    In the imperial periphery, racial attitudes amongst whites often differed greatly from Britain. This was most obviously so in South Africa, which for all intents and purposes embarked upon a radical revolutionary rejection of the British model of governance from 1948 with the implementation of apartheid. Rhodesia, needless to say, was another exception, if arguably more mild. “How different it would all have been,” Worsthorne somewhat patronisingly wondered, “if Ian Smith had been a gentleman.”

    Meanwhile Nigeria’s Sir Ahmadu Bello — the Sarduana of Sokoto — was a statesman of cautious action, and his refusal to become Nigerian prime minister upon independence (he preferred sticking to his existing role as the powerful premier of the northern province) sadly deprived the federal state of the wisdom and experience which may have prevented its later descent into disarray. He was murdered by Major Nzeogwu during the 1966 coup d’état.

  2. Very typical remark by Harold Macmillan. He was himself the grandson of a crofter and his family were in trade, which I think might explain his harping on about class so much. He was a highly sensitive, very clever cuckold who was a slight outsider in his wife's family, the Cavendishes. He was considered a bore in the 1930s and when he rose to speak the House emptied. I think Lady Dorothy's infidelity may have made iron enter his soul.

    He said of Margaret Thatcher's almost one third Jewish cabinet 'There seem to be more Estonians than Etonians in the cabinet these days'.

  3. He also said that the first rule of politics is: never invade Afghanistan.

  4. More here.

  5. There is a lot for conservatives to admire and appreciate about Jordan Peterson. Not least his ability to winsomely engage with a largely leftist and hostile media. Peterson is especially good at critiquing postmodernism and identifying its flaws.

    But his approach to religion raises some serious reservations and concerns to be put to Christians in regard to the mediatorial work of Christ and the doctrines of grace. In keeping with the current zeitgeist, the spirituality he is presenting is that of ‘therapeutic moral deism’ rather than Biblical Christianity.

    Jordan Peterson’s psycho-religious heresy
    Mark Powell
    Also: Am I Christian? | Timothy Lott and Jordan B Peterson
    And: Noel Weeks, The Hermeneutical Problem of Genesis 1-11

  6. He is not a theist though, like Sir Roger Scruton, Douglas Murray and many millions of others, he would like be one. Still less is he a Christian. I dont think he is even a conservative. He just thinks like a (very clever) human being.

    It seems accidental that he has become controversial but as a journalist said of him, 'Sweet are the uses of adversity'.

    I thought that article you posted was a sermon and worse a Presbytarian sermon
    and dull at that. I am sorry I wasted a free article on it though actually I have a subscription, if I remember to find it. Did you think it good?

  7. There is nothing in it beside that quote and the two links. I'm reading the pdf now... Sorry you lost a free article but I had to give the source of the quote...
    Until you find your subscription I suggest you open two accounts, one for .uk and another for .au...

  8. The real problem is that we as Christians have in a double sense lost our historical perspective.
    We have forgotten that the church has always been under pressure to allegorize Genesis so that it may conform with Plotinus or Aristotle or some other human philosophy. We have treated the problem as though it were a modern one, as though we alone have had to face the onerous task of holding to a view of
    cosmic and human origins which is out of sympathy with the philosophical premises of our
    culture. The second sense in which we have lost our historical perspective is that we have
    forgotten that until our Lord returns we face strife and conflict in this world. We have sought
    to avoid that conflict in the intellectual realms. We have accepted the claim of humanistic
    thought that its scholarship is religiously neutral when the Bible teaches us that no man is
    religiously neutral. Man either seeks to suppress the truth in unrighteousness or to live all his
    life to the glory of God. In that total warfare scholarship is no mutually declared truce.

    Noel Weeks, “The Hermeneutical Problem of Genesis 1-11”