Discover more from Hennessy's View
Modern Liberalism is Satanic
The recent attacks on Michelle Malkin are mere evidence of the theologically unassailable fact that Satan is to modern liberalism what the KGB was to SANE/Freeze. Of course, liberals don’t believe in Satan or God or Hell or Heaven. (If the road to hell be paved with good intentions, then hell’s bowels gurgle and belch with the dyspeptic cosmic waste of those who disbelieved in eternal punishment.)
And while those calling themselves “conservatives” or “of the right” resort to base name-calling and mudslinging, it is far worse, far more self-damning, when a liberal does it. Liberals, after all, go to great lengths to point out that liberalism is of, by, and for the thinking man, the educated man, the intellectual man, the man who has evolved beyond historical human nature to assume a superior nature that rivals the power and wisdom of the ignorant (conservative) man’s imaginary God.
In “Courting the Abyss: Free Speech and the Liberal Tradition,” John Durham Peters writes:
Bertrand Russell, who never tired of playing up his reputation for wickedness, flattering himself with the deliciously tormenting thought that he was Satan in the suburbs, was never less original than when, in his essay “A Free Man’s Worship,” he deployed the old tactic of inversion to build his faith on the foundation of despair. That vigorous self-creation beats blissfully obedient submission is a theme with almost endless variations repeated by sundry modern figures: romantics riding the demonic, modernists exploring the juxtaposition of the organs of generation and excretion, avant-gardists. Such figures often confound profanity and profundity, and consider themselves the beacons of liberty and free play, pushing the envelope “to none accountable.” Thus “hard liberty” (or hard bondage) is the cuisine of choice for a line of sexual heresiarchs—the Marquis de Sade, Charles Baudelaire, Georges Bataille, Luis Buñuel, Jean Genêt, Michel Foucault—all French or Francophiles, a culture known for producing fine things from putrefaction (cheese, wine, poetry).
Before I go any further, I must point out that my position on liberalism’s relationship to Satanism is purely theological. Atheists–those who claim to be and those who merely act the part–cannot engage in the debate, being incapable of understanding theology. (Yes, I am playing the smug theist, here, trying to sound like the smug atheist liberal.) So if you are a liberal atheist reading this entry, resist, O Man, resist the temptation to respond, for the temptation comes from him who is not.
See, God has revealed everything to us. We cannot discern it all, but all is there for us to see, to read. All there is to know became flesh and dwelt among us. And while He wore a man’s body, He spoke in no uncertain terms: to be anything but completely for Him is to be completely against Him, “for I am the Way and the Truth and the Life.” But liberalism opposes Christ and the Father, and not subtly as they want us to think. They do so blatantly, boldly, and proudly. Instead of The Truth, liberals dredge the cesspool of human misery and depravity to find mere fact disguised as truth. Again, from Peters,
Liberal openness, since it recognizes no zones of sanctity, endorses a form of consciousness full of compassings of abstract ill. The civilized take pride in their ability to entertain abominations. The world is too much with us. Pigheaded ignorance is stupid, but it is something very different from a conscious decision not to subject certain parts of life to the inspections of reason. (Note how I have already lapsed into a liberal vocabulary with the mention of “conscious decision.” There is no neutral standpoint.)
“The civilized take pride in their ability to entertain abominations.” How I wish I’d coined that thought. Peters gives an illuminating example.
Consider the exhortation of The New Republic to watch the video of the American journalist Daniel Pearl being decapitated by his kidnappers, which in June 2002 was, inevitably, put on the internet. “The images are, to put it mildly, tasteless; but surely there are times when truth is more important than taste,” opined The New Republic. Surely? Hmm: anyone got a counterargument that taste is more important than truth? (Where is Oscar Wilde when you need him?) The editors have already won a monopoly on rectitude. Those who would prevent the video’s distribution, the editorial continues, are motivated by “a more generalized squeamishness about the reality of the universe that the video shows: the facticity of evil. This fear must be fiercely resisted, if we are to have clarity about the struggle in which we now find ourselves. For this reason, a viewing of this hideous video is as instructive an experience as it is a shattering one.” Anyone with reasons to resist watching a murder—scruples about the feelings of Pearl’s family, the certain self-knowledge that one would not be able to watch without grossly riveted fascination or some hardening of the heart—is treated as a scaredy-cat not ready to confront the abyss of how vile terrorism is. For the New Republic the only legitimate post-Holocaust consciousness is one that is constantly being seared afresh by knowledge of genocidal crimes against humanity. One understands this stance to images of mayhem as a reflection of the journal’s politics of defending the state of Israel at all costs, but it does not work as a general moral recipe. The writers find in abyss-avoidance a kind of head-in-the-sand irresponsibility. Such arguments make me tired. There are perhaps better resources for convincing us of the facticity of evil than watching a pirate video. We might start with a mirror, invite some reflection on the dark night of the soul, and end with a study of history up to the present moment. In this sense we never avoid the abyss; we just choose the forms we take it in.
And the devil relishes the depravity, the logic, the wit, the openness of TNR’s writers. Like liberals, Satan knows that the best way to destroy the truth is to masquerade lies as truth.
In Michelle Malkin’s defense, she cites many of the liberal attacks: she is a whore, a dupe, a yellow agent. Black conservatives, she notes, are Uncle Toms, House Niggas, and Sambos. Does anyone else notice that when a redneck calls Jesse Jackson a nigger, he’s decried as a stupid white racist, but anyone who voted for John Kerry wins accolades of “courage” and “open-mindedness” for calling Condie Rice a “House Nigga?”
Satan turns the truth upside down. Satanists turn the Crucifix upside down. Liberals praise sickos who drop the Crucifix into a jar of human urine. Liberalism is to Satanism what the peace movement was to communism: its tool in the Western world.
We pray for the conversion of liberals. We pray for God’s mercy. We trust in His justice. We pity their souls.
Others commenting on this story: