Wednesday 15 November 2017

Do Jews Hate Narnia? Some Do


I know a part of Paris, in which a Jewish lady (speaking presumably for her Jewish neighbours) told me, there, the parents did not allow their children to go and see the Narnia films - because they are "strict".

Now, I see another presumable Jew who attacks C. S. Lewis:

Earlier I claimed that it’s no longer controversial to think that civil liberties don’t depend on race, gender, or religion. Unfortunately, a clear-eyed assessment of the evidence shows that many people would likely embrace a return to the (not so) good old days. In this country, a congressman can publically express ethno-nationalism—“We can’t restore our civilization with somebody else’s babies”—and be praised by colleagues for it. The longtime best-selling book of Christian apologetics—C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity—calls for religious nationalism (“all economists and statesmen should be Christians”) and argues that God wants men to be the head of the household. These are popular ideals, but they are poisonous and deserve fierce resistance, not complacent tolerance.


It was published by Slate:

In Praise of Intolerance
March 20 2017 1:09 PM By Alan Levinovitz
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2017/03/tolerance_isn_t_the_goal_truth_is.html


And, written, as you see, by one Levinovitz. Like St Matthew and like St John the Baptist, descended from Levi, son of Jacob, but unlike them, not of Christian faith.

The fierce resistance Levinovitz is willing to put to a word like "all statesmen and economists should be Christians" is fairly like its inverse, he wants all of them to be Anti-Christians.

However, the point is, Levinovitz actually on purpose or by mistake misses the context of the words in C.S.Lewis' book; here it is:

People say, ‘The Church ought to give us a lead.’ That is true if they mean it in the right way, but false if they mean it in the wrong way. By the Church they ought to mean the whole body of practising Christians. And when they say that the Church should give us a lead, they ought to mean that some Christians–those who happen to have the right talents–should be economists and statesmen, and that all economists and statesmen should be Christians and that their whole efforts in politics and economics should be directed to putting ‘Do as you would be done by’ into action. If that happened, and if we others were really ready to take it, then we should find the Christian solution for our own social problems pretty quickly. But, of course, when they ask for a lead from the Church most people mean they want the clergy to put out a political program. That is silly. The clergy are those particular people within the whole Church who have been specially trained and set aside to look after what concerns us as creatures who are going to live for ever: and we are asking them to do a quite different job for which they have not been trained. The job is really on us, on the laymen. The application of Christian principles, say, to trade unionism or education, must come from Christian trade unionists and Christian schoolmasters: just as Christian literature comes from Christian novelists and dramatists -not from the bench of bishops getting together and trying to write plays and novels in their spare time.


Mere Christianity, ch 13, Social Morality
http://pdbooks.ca/pdbooks/english/L/Lewis-C-S--Mere-Christianity/yudbwx_files/OEBPS/Text/Section0019.html


Or perhaps, Levinovitz is not so much missing the context as treating it like a smokescreen. To Levinovitz, the proposition of a society in which a Jew is not welcome as an economist was, verbally at least, made by C. S. Lewis, and all the rest, him wanting it to put "do as thou would be done by" into action, him not speaking about confessional divides per se, but about Christians vs Technocrats (the guys who want to progress beyond Christianity in the name of technological, scientific and related progress) and Christians vs people with no moral compass at all (recent English history had shown a certain lack of moral consideration previous to an in the Boer War, and one could look to certain top Nazis at the time) is to a man ridden by fears of everything Christian in politics, from Black Hundreds and Denikin to Francisco Franco, probably inserting the word pogroms with priority emphasis even when they were regretted exceptions (as with the former) or not there at all (the latter helped Jews flee from German occupied territory, if they were Shepharad, leaving Ashkenasim to Raul Wallenberg) perhaps simply a smokescreen, or just dreaming.

At the same time, Judaism seems to have traditionally a very exaggerated opinion of what wife submitting to husband actually means, and so of course CSL's upholding of traditional gender roles is seen as a "Christian equivalent" of the kind of fellow Jews he likes least.

A man like that getting hysterics about C. S. Lewis is not really surprising.

My problem is not that such people exist, God has created everyone, them too, my problem is that people with such attitudes seem to be meddling into my affairs, putting up a "fierce opposition" against my blogs being read, since, clearly, they do share the ideals of C. S. Lewis. Some seem to have gotten into their heads, and not saying all of them are Jews, like Levinovitz, but some are, and many in Paris seem to take that stance, that my blogs should be as little as possible read (except by their representatives, checking what is wrong with them), and not printed and sold, and not be a big part of my life - but that would normally be for me to decide, not for them.

However, one other part of Paris, also having a good library and also having quite a few Jews, regularly makes me wait longer for alms when I have same day in the library written sth which can upset Jews of the Levinovitz type. A third part of Paris, where the library includes the collection of Judaica, I was to a conference on Nicolas II and the Revolution, some squirmed when I brought up Denikin, and I gave the blog Φιλολoγικά/Philologica to the conferencier and his journalist friend, also held it on a cardboard while begging, when the last article on it was Corrigeant Jean Sévillia sur quelques points - where my general agreement with Jean Sévillia must have been a horror to people like Levinovitz, and the evening it took me an hour or more before I could buy some food, which is much for me when begging, especially in a winter day.

Such people are making the world worse than it need be.

And yet, I think their goal is to make me of all people share their hysterics and antics and reluctance against Christianity and against the Inklings. They might very well consider me educated the day I agree with the leftists in some library boards who banned Tolkien's books from their libraries, or when I no longer find men like Reimarus, Bultmann, and, more recently, William P. Lazarus, ridiculous as scholars or erudition journalists, and the day when I welcome reduced nativity as "progress" and do not fear anything for the day when importing people instead of making babies will have brought the West as we know it, the West which Levinovitz wants to dominate, which I try to defend from Levinovitz' domination, to a weaker position, where African or Oriental or Chinese traditions can decide more for us, over the heads of us Occidentals.

If ever they succeed, I will be a worse hell hound than they:

"Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you go round about the sea and the land to make one proselyte; and when he is made, you make him the child of hell twofold more than yourselves."
[Matthew 23:15]

God preserve me!

And while they are trying, they of course do not want their own harrassment to be diluted by any success for me, they are likely to try to stamp me as childish and to try to stamp contents of my blogs as vicious, and to pretend to reconcile this by claiming I don't understand what I am really saying. Just to prevent me from escaping being twice more a child of hell than they. And obviously, any complaint about Jewish behaviour to me is likely to be stamped as me being a Nazi. So is of course any sympathy for non-Nazi fascisms.

The irony with C. S. Lewis is, he did not directly express any liking of Denikin, and he did not like Franco (one letter by Tolkien to his son relates how CSL reacted to Roy Campbell). And he is (here publically, by Levinovitz) treated about as as vicious as I (in private or semi-public when begging), who am both for Denikin and for Franco.

Jean Sévillia noted, if 75 or so percent of the teachers in public schools actually voted for left wing parties, one cannot of course forbid them to so vote, but one needs to suspect this is somehow reflected in the things they teach, including obviously in history. It would seem, the corps of medicine, including psychology and psychiatry and alcoholism and dependance medicine, would probably also be prone to abuse their positions, and if I am stamped behind my back as an alcoholic or schizophreniac, it would have to do with that.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Albert the Great
15.XI.2017

No comments:

Post a Comment