Jesus is the Red Right Hand of God

Rubente Dextra

Paradise Lost (Book II, 170-174) : "What if the breath that kindled those grim fires, / Awaked, should blow them into sevenfold rage, / And plunge us in the flames; or from above / Should intermitted vengeance arm again / His red right hand to plague us?".

     A lot of Christians say that Jesus sits on the right hand of God, and while (as a believing Christian) I affirm this is true, it is also true that Christ IS the red, right hand of God. It was Justin Martyr's conclusion that "the angel of the Lord" was the pre-incarnate Christ. This means that Michael, leader of the hosts of angels, is the risen Lord. Hence, Jesus' words that He could call a host of angels to minister to him, for He is their captain. Christ is the stigmata of God. He is the double-oath that God will fight to save His world. Hence the sword coming out of his mouth to devour his enemies, in the book of Revelation.
     This is difficult to understand, because we tend to picture God anthropomorphically, sitting up there in the sky, remote and distant, like a Deistic watch-maker for all practical intents and purposes, lacquered over with a mask of highly emotional and personal preferences having to do with whatever we like or love. Perhaps He is a great liberal sentimentalist, or a budding Leftist SJW, or a conservative liberal old codger who likes to play golf? 
     This hollowing out of Christianity by Theism has been well documented. Whether it began with William of Ockham (thesis of Richard Weaver), Duns Scotus (thesis of Benedict XVI), or with the Reformation-Puritan strain which eviscerated Christianity of all magic, miracles, sacraments, and European cultus, what happened definitely happened.
     Modern Theism itself shares a lot of similarities with Deism, which had virtually nothing in common except for the name with authentic Christianity. Theism provided a conduit for Deism and Enlightenment to acculturate and grow and ferment within the Christian Church. So much so that now, the Yale Divinity School thinks it's more than While there is nothing inherently wrong with thinking of God in certain ways, this externalizing of God into the distant Sky-Father has tended to sweep away all its competitors, largely because He delivered the goods in the form of modern Science, and was capable of widespread acceptance among the "cultured despisers of religion". Additionally, it served a valuable purpose in locating God totally outside of man, so that man's fallen nature was rationalized and to a degree justified, in that it left all initiative and guilt for this schism in the hands of an unaccountably hidden God, Who was either sitting on His hands, or working so crazily it was hard to get on the same page with Him. The Deists leaned towards sitting on His hands, and the Theists had the huge problem of explaining the existence of radical evil, reversals in Fortune among the Christian peoples of Europe, and also the arbitrary and narrative-dependent nature of constructing a coherent "full counsel of God" out of the chaos of modern industrial civilization. The best work Voltaire ever did was on this very difficulty, in the hilarious and vulgar satire Candide. I am not despising the sophistication of either of these camps: the Gifford Lectures would not exist without a strong tradition of speculative philosophy in both of these camps.
     The problem is not that Theism or Liberalism exist (in a bare naked pragmatic sense): the problem is that people have fetishized these schools of thought as substitutes for the Kingdom of God. So much so that it is difficult to even convince the Liberals that the Left is their enemy, because, frankly, the Liberals are an alternate (American ersatz) religion, just not as up-to-date and consistent as full Monty Leftism. But they are (nonetheless) very different, and actually quite opposed. Despite all the obvious motives to understand this, people trapped within "worldview arguments" have trouble differentiating between blue-on-blue incidents and Broken Arrow scenarios. Part of what makes our Kali Yuga times so difficult is precisely that no one really knows, in the fog of metaphysical war, what the Hell is going on out there. Because this is simply reflecting the state of their inner man.
     Meanwhile, the Kingdom of God moves in the actual cosmos, not necessarily bound by what is "dreamt of in your philosophies". Western rational theology has neglected the immanent and the intuitive and the mystical side of the Divine, and subordinated this to the "enlightened and rational" pieties of the day. These Leftist Mega-Fallacies (like Mega Fauna and Flora) are so big they are hard to see; for example, the Non-Central Fallacy is constantly combined with Idolus Triba (or "rape by the Zeitgeist") gets you Antifa and the Leftist Witch Hunt we are witnessing forming up around us, everywhere, today. 
     All of this is kindergartener stuff, child's play, fighting with mud pies (at best). A colossal waste of human time and energy. And it misses what is most important about what is really going on in the Modern World - Man is running very far behind the Cosmic Time, and we need to catch up.
     Thanks to Cologero Salvo at Gornahoor, we have an interesting quote from Rudolf Steiner: 

 There is in man an inclination, a proclivity, to know what may be called in a general sense, the Divine. The second inclination in him — that is, in the man of today — is to know the Christ. The third inclination in man is to know what is usually called the Spirit or also the Holy Spirit.

     This perfectly encapsulates the challenge of modern Times, which stem from being downstream of the Incarnation.Although representing the middle term, the Incarnation actualizes and energizes (rooting and  fermenting the energies of the Divine within human history, perception, and experience. God reparsed the ancient Narrative through the living tongues of flame on Pentecost, thanks to the Incarnation. 
     We will examine more implications of this in Part II. Suffice it to note that, when one is not in synchronization with God's "deep time", or "cosmological-ecological Time", the power of the Logos operative in Creation begins to appear as The Red Right Hand of God, compelling, coercing, dictating to man with necessities and through privations. Thus, the Left is continually obsessed with rooting this out, because the spiritual experience is one of waste and acedia. And they will only make it worse. In order to have peace, leave the Left Behind. And develop these inner tendencies which Steiner talks about, operative in the deep recesses of man's being, to bring man into sync with God's good and gracious timing.When this happens, Necessity becomes Freedom: the Logos becomes, not the Red Right Hand, but the beating heart of God's numinous Love for Creation. Christianity is utterly antithetical in spiritual actuality from anything which is compromised by Leftism, even the "modern Right". Anything else will leave us as "damned devils" who believe, but tremble.
     
    

Eye of the World Shifts Towards Russia and the Old Right

According to Erich Khuenhelt-Ledhin (Baron, actually), a figure a Leftist acquaintance of mine denounced as a velveteen dandy-fop simply because of his privilege and rank (never mind the guy worked 60+ hour weeks in literary pursuits), the Right has never succeeded in providing an alternative Utopia of their own over against the proposed Utopia of the Left. If I understand this rightly, what he is proposing is actually a form of Ideology for the Right. At first hearing, this sounds horrific. Counter-intuitively, it is not, because Ideas are not simple, nor should they be. He is not prescribing a huge dose of Nazi Totalitarianism, but pointing out the Right never coherently unified their worldview during the Monarchical struggles against the "Spirit of 1848". We run into lots of counter-intuitive things in Nature, things like Countable versus Uncountable Infinity, the hypoxic versus hypercarbic drive for respiration, curved space and time, etc., etc. Why would the realm of Ideas work any differently? Because what looks like Ideology to the darkened Nous and Intellect of man is actually a stabilizing platform from which higher perceptions of Reality are possible (but not necessarily inevitable). This is the missing "ingredient" or twist that the Right keeps stumbling over - they don't want to be Nazis, so they reject "ideology" (never mind that ANY intellectual system is to some extent an ideology, a fact the Left is much more smugly aware of, and does their best to exploit ruthlessly - they push for "freedom" when the ideology is against them, and for conformity, when it is not). John Romanides addresses this extensively in his theological work (not all of which is fair to the West, but whose basic point is very well-taken): Man needs a cure, and is not "right" to begin with. This, the necessity for clearing the ground of bad ideology by laying a framework where some form of order and stability can be taken for some degree of "grantedness". In medical terms, this would be called "stabilizing" a patient - it doesn't cure them, but then, it isn't intended to cure, but to make a cure possible. And this is where the Right simply won't exercise either honesty (witness Benoist's repeated rejection of Cortes or Maurras' worldviews) or clarity (the traditional "Right" of the Lord Acton variety actually operates from liberal premises and categories). The New Right is dishonest, and wants to play fast and loose (like the enemy), the traditional Right (Pat Buchanan, Russell Kirk, etc.) won't recognize that the Anglo world desperately needs a traditional ideology to begin anything at all. Hence, the West's default slide into more and more chaos.

Russia is in much better position to understand this - they've seen what "liberalization" and "democratization" leads to, and still possess an intellectual heritage which doesn't accept dialectical and abstract Reason as the sole, supreme arbiter of Man. If the Slavic world is intelligent and devoted and firm enough, she (and she alone, at this point) can extricate herself from the downward spiral and offer an alternative to Asiatic forms and Western debauchery. This makes her the sole possible champion of Christendom, and a possible re-awakener of such in the West.

Man is not, by nature free - it is his task to become so. But it can only be done by an integral spiritual vision which is Rightist, Utopian, coherent, complete, etc. Which is the launching pad for (then) what is possible (see Guenon, R.). Gornahoor is trying to do this. Who wants to help?

It looks dangerous and scary - Good. It looks that way anyway, and any real answer would fall foul of that rhetorical charge. In any case, this has to do with Truth and clarity, not what we wish were true. We wish the West hadn't fallen afoul of Enlightenment, Democracy, etc, but this isn't true. We wish the West had retained its spiritual character, but it didn't happen. The only way out is back: the Opposite of a Revolution. Only this can consistently, coherently oppose the Eternal Revolution (Degeneration) that the Left offers in its Utopia of Lies and Illusions.

More Summation

I want to address modern probable-ism a little more. Someone (who was otherwise very intelligent) on the Spengler Forum once argued that "we now know that communism was a bad idea, thanks to the experience of Russia". It seems to me that generally and virtually all modern arguments are justifications of ad hoc experimentation in this manner. It seems to me (on the contrary) that anyone with any worldly wisdom (let alone spiritual insight) could have quite easily anticipated what orgies and disaster and despair would ensue from going Red. In fact, there are a great many literary and historical records of those who "could see" predicting just that. We now (as the master Don Colacho remarks in 2287) have three generations of reaction: 1) Warnings (Burkhardt, de Tocqueville, Burke, Vinet, etc.) 2) predictions (Dostoevsky, Melville, Henry Adams, etc.) 3) Proofs (Ledhin, Solzhenitsyn, etc.). What else would he say of this argument?

"The left does not condemn violence until it hears it pounding on its door.

Escolios a un Texto Implícito: Selección, p. 371

Nothing is easier than to blame Russian history for the sins of Marxism.
Socialism continues to be the philosophy of shifting blame onto others.

Escolios a un Texto Implícito: Selección, p. 371"

Yes, the ad hoc experimentors have a foolish argument, and it is quite (even quintessentially) modern. So very up-to-date it doesn't recognize its own supremely Satanic heritage. Another person (the same Forum) once asked rhetorically (Leftists enjoy rhetorical questions) if people (then) should just resign themselves "to a life of toil & suffering as they wind down to the twilight of death and oblivion, resigning themselves to an afterlife alone"?

This is one of those false dichotomies that dying civilizations (in which Kali Yuga has been awakened) wallow in, fogs of chaos & confusion of their own making. The afterlife (here) is conceived as "after", literal, separate, unknowable, as if there was no connection with something intangible (which of course, the Past is also). There is only the immediate, sensate Now, the tangible visceral sights and sounds and smells of the sweat of the moment. In such environments, it is next to impossible for all but the most stalwart to get any sense of where they are at vertically in the Cosmos. Individualism and empiricism (here) have wreaked havoc with spiritual values and sensibilities, which often are not even suspected of any real merit or "value" (a contemptuous word).

Progress, you see, is not just a verb, but a noun with a capital letter, a God with a destiny, an avatar with an agenda. One need only point out, here, that it is not a question of "going back" to ancient Sparta, early America, Victorian gaslight England, puritan France, or any other past time. Only a "literal minded fool" would conceive or construe the argument to be about such, condemning all concern with the past as nostalgia (for the Leftist, this is the only possible mode of apprehending the past). The real question is "what is the nature of the (obvious) link between past, present, future"? This is a metaphysical way of asking, what is our duty? What is the nature of real piety? Or, conversely, why is the Left unable to establish meaningful intercourse with the Past? And what does this tell us about their ability to usher in the Future? They are unable to parse the invisible world, which is the only (and primal) ability to differentiate man from the beasts. And this is insulting to beasts, because even they obey their destinies.

The world (as Ron in Harry Potter says) is "mental". It is not linear or fundamentalist or literal. It is complex, a circular spiral which only moves upward if people collectively liberate their nous from the fetters of sensation. The terrible, simply, false, but clear idea of Progress is that the world automatically progresses on its own, like a machine, and that we can clearly see what it is doing, no matter how idiotic or ignorant or foolish or enchained with passions which we are. First came the war against Culture/Kultur, and now comes a war against civilization itself. It will end in blood.

This has become a common religious belief in the West. One might even say that it is heresy to deny it, or even to hold doubts. There is no mental courage in the idea that whatever is, is right. It is lazy cowardice of the first order. More and more, it is implicated in its own web of lies, lies that "all evil will be overt" or that tyranny comes only in robes of darkest black.

"Leftist attitudes toward justice (i.e., the insatiable moloch of "social justice") essentially result from a deformation of this pre-existing truth, as they enforce their idea of justice in fundamentally unjust ways -- i.e., racial quotas, income redistribution, attacks on private property, class warfare, etc. All forms of modern leftism are essentially dishonest appeals to truth, unjust appeals to justice, unfair appeals to fairness, coerced appeals to generosity, etc. Again, it's the container that is so destructive, since it damages even "good" content, i.e., charitable impulses.

Please note that the omnipotence of the fantasy -- the end -- justifies the means required to attain such a beautiful thing, which always requires the coercion (and implicit violence) of the state"

This must be destroyed. Voldemort will not come as an ethnic white, Inquisitorial, masculine, brooding, dark villain. Rather, in the modern world, he-who-must-not-be-named will come as a "Temple of Tolerance", with shades of pink. Satan will take the throne in the name of Freedom, Justice, Equality for all.

The one thing which could always be said for the most autocratic and brutal hierarchies of the past was that, no matter what their content (for instance, Ivan the Terrible), the Form was preserved inviolate. The container was more important than the perverted message. The image of God had been marred, but the prime icon was unbroken. It was possible to appeal to Justice in hierarchical societies through the sacrifice of the Hero, who came to save the weak and helpless. Boris Godunov, Michael, Joan of Arc, the heroes of Lepanto - these men stood for eternity, but they were also eternal.

In the new, tolerant societies, Justice is put upon the throne, but the form is gone. When inevitable decay ensues, it is impossible to restore the body. Until terrible effusions, undramatic and purely tragic, have epurated the disease from our blood, and the West against abandons materialism to reclaim the Imperium and the Telos. Not only of politics, but of destiny and the invisible worlds, which are numberless and prime.