The young man reiterated what I mentioned in a recent post - we have to endure suffering & no matter how much we push back before things will change. This could take generations. It is on God’s schedule - not our timeline. I would not be shocked if folks in USA just consented to a form of tyranny via technology. We are already seeing this in the AI debate. The irony is that the more security we seek the more fragile we become & the more compliant we become. Again this is a recipe for oppression. Caio from Amalfi.
What strikes me here is d’Anselme’s optimism. Not naive optimism, but one that shines in the midst of a hard-edged realism.
“Western civilization as we know it today is going to collapse—and that’s good news.” Etc.
From the evidence, France’s young Catholics seem to be downright … joyful. Which is an interesting conundrum. France has been the very Mecca of smug cynicism for most of modernity, and is now clearly choking on its own sophisticated libertine bile. Yet these French Catholics, unlike many of us in the Anglosphere, radiate confidence and joy.
Surely it’s due mainly to grace. But I’m thinking it also might be cultural. In a negative sense. It might be due to a lesson they’ve learned from their compatriots. Watching their elders scoff and smirk and pout postmodernly, they’ve realized: “No, that’s not the way.”
Compare this to us. Our national culture tends to be upbeat and sunny, often in dumb ways. Meanwhile many American Christians (I’ll speak for myself) lean cynical—not the same kind of cynical that defines the French, but still certainly not *joyful*. Pessimistic, say.
Probably we could learn something from the young French Catholics. “Yeah, it’s gonna unwind. It’ll be ugly. But praised be the Lord.”
I am struck though, about how tough the French are underneath all the Frenchy stuff. I think of the Jesuit Martyrs.
There's a great book, "The Unredeemed Captive" by John Demos which tells the true story of the Deerfield Massacre which happened in 1704. It goes into the differences between the English settlers and their French counterparts in Canada. Comparatively speaking, the French were badass.
Well, the Jesuit martyrs are not what you will find in Paris in the present. Perhaps if they are tested, we shall see some badass come out. But I suspect Houellebecq’s is the accurate portrait. Enervated cynics cannot be badass. They negotiate and negotiate until they are nothing. Then they shrug.
Eric, I'm still waiting for your follow up takes on your ax-wielding heroine up in Scotland now that we have more information on the situation. Still chomping at the bit to hang people from lampposts? I for one am moved by the Christian witness of the keyboard-warrior vigilantes. We need you on that wall, Col. Mader!
Re: With a few more people, we made a circle around him to trap him
This is a really big point: if people can be prodded out of passivity a small crowd can stop things like this attack. Which "fortunately" involved just a knife, not a gun. To take down a shooter you;d need a larger crowd, all willing to risk death. That's happened and it;s worked, but it's a bigger ask.
I recently watched a video where beach goers (I think Spain, but it might have been Italy) have started running and tackling migrants that come ashore, holding them down until the local police arrive. So changes are starting to happen at the local level, which is encouraging.
As per the 2nd paragraph - noticing that Emmanual Macron granted this guy the Legion d'Honneur. But Rod has told me that every single European leader to the left of Meloni was a deranged ultra-liberal who wants to annihilate European culture out of a completely irrational blind hatred and love for violent immigrants. Kind of strange for one of those guys to hand a Legion d'Honneur to Mr. d'Anselme, a brave patriotic Christian who saved a bunch of people from a violent non-European criminal.
It's almost as if real life is nuanced and not filled with monochromatic bad guys and good guys that fit into convenient polemical categories. And to think, even in *Europe* that is the case!
Also credit to Mr. d'Anselme here. The views he expresses clearly have strong conradictions with those of Macron and yet Mr. d'Anselme chivalrously praises him for having kept his word on Notre Dame. It is clear to me that even as Mr. d'Anselme is in almost full agreement with Rod, he is also a grounded Frenchman who mostly lives in the physical world and not on Twitter. Hence he can get past infantile polemics and credit a political opponent when he acts honorably.
I can only hope Rod follows the example of Mr. d'Anselme and learns that he can keep his radical and passionate political views and yet recognize that his opponents are not monochromatic bad guys. Maybe he can learn that his political opponents are complicated and that even they, despite their misguidedness, can act morally and be truthful in a way that a morally honest person could credit.
I am not getting my hopes up, but since Rod is on good terms with God, I can only hope that with His help (and with the help of his many good and virtuous friends) even the impossible is possible.
"As per the 2nd paragraph - noticing that Emmanual Macron granted this guy the Legion D'Honneur. But Rod has told me that every single European leader to the left of Meloni was a deranged ultra-liberal who wants to annihilate European culture out of a completely irrational blind hatred and love for violent immigrants."
Something to remember Macron s also a Very Smart Politician. Doing this (for him a meaningless gesture) gives him some good PR.
I just have to break out of the Rod cycle. He keeps roping me back in with good articles but then always like clock-work returns to the lowbrow racist outrage-baiting within two, max three articles. Smarmy criticism is how I cope with it, but there's not much point to what I'm doing.
The thing is, the entire political spectrum from far left to far right is so toxic that there's just nowhere else to go. Rod resisted going along with the toxicity of the modern day Zeitgeist up until his divorce, so he was a refuge for a while. But now he, along with a bunch of other formerly offbeat columnists are all waist-deep in intellectual nuclear waste, going along with the purity spiral, either for clout or to maintain their political connections. It's just the most tiring thing ever.
I don't do anything for "clout" or "political connections." I believe what I write, even if I'm wrong. Why do you still read me if you find me "the most tiring thing ever"?
Because I liked what you were writing for years and still like much of what you write. In fact, on some topics you are still better than anyone else. On deep and intellectual topics related to cultural decline your opinions are better developed than almost anything else out there.
In contrast the immigration takes are so inane and cliched. I get that these takes are still censored on mainstream media, but I was seeing versions of your immigration takes 10 years ago on Breitbart (it was already tiring then). There's nothing that stimulates the intellect in them, the anti-immigrant takes are just some communal "time for the 20 minutes of cathartic outrage" ritual that my brain can't even begin to compute.
I am not sure what metaphor suffices to get across how it feels to read your blog these days. Suppose you were watching your favorite Tarkovsky movie and at minute 45, there's a 20 minute unskippable ad on diarrhea medication (with "visual aids" of course). And then on minute 65, it goes back to being a Tarkovsky movie. That's what your content is like, for me.
Since neither you nor the Zeitgist will change any time soon though, that is my problem. I have to find a different way. Nothing will be getting better here.
I mean I personally find the Dante stuff tedious. He’s a late medieval Italian poet who inspired the ghost train at wildwood as far as I am concerned. But I’m not so uncultured as too post a complaint every time he brings up the damned Italian . As for the immigration I think it’s pretty obvious that the wealthy west can not keep out ambitious immoral young men from the third world who , shocker, behave like men in logging camps and gold fields tend to do. Violently. I agree there’s no solution but Dreher is so prolific you expect repetition. But it’s the internet, there’s always RT if you want a nuanced take on global issues.
Rod's take on the immigration question is such an absurdly simplistic caricature of reality that it is almost as inaccurate as the absurdly simplistic caricature produced by the left.
Surprise surprise, the true story is not "the rainbow village living in peace" nor "civil war in The West". Reality is more complicated, but it is also boring, so if you are getting lost in self-righteous moral crusades, you tend to just ignore reality and make up something that satisfies you emotionally.
There’s literally no way to stop motivated men with nothing to lose from crossing borders that enforce human rights. I’ve lived in China. They don’t have immigration. North Korean sex slaves yes. Refugees in hotels at government expense no. Watch bald and bankrupt do the Darian gap on YouTube and see for yourself.
Are you suggesting that the PRC is a model for The West to follow? No offense to your position, but I would take the West with immigrants over China with no immigrants. If you don't agree with this take, please explain why a lot more Chinese want to move to the West than the other way around. If China with its zero immigration is so great, how do you explain this trend?
Rod Dreher is many things but he is not a "racist." Just noticing the moral decline of millions of young blacks doesn't make you a "racist." Noticing that Muslims in Britain, France and Germany haven't fit in to society doesn't make you a "racist."
I didn't make that claim lightly. I've read Rod for a few years and I didn't want to believe that about him either, because I've found him tremendously insightful (and uniquely so across pundits) on several key topics of interest. But the step-by-step moral deterioration that he has undergone over the years on the immigration question makes me wonder. It is one thing for him to claim that right-wing identitarians have the right to feel angry. It's another thing to shamelessly and uncritically cheerlead for extremist anti-immigration positions like he has been doing repeatedly, recently.
I mean his "Sophie of Dundee" outrage-bait article had literal AI slop produced by Twitter grifters as the leading image. When I dug into the story it was clear that Rod's reaction to the incident matched the emotivist and criticism-free reaction that leftists had to Trayvon Martin or George Floyd - you take a very complicated incident shaded in gray and turn it into something black and white.
I actually really hope that that doesn't prove Rod is racist. I want to hope that the insightful and compelling guy who could write so many interesting articles is not a racist and what is driving him is something else, like his desire to feel self-righteous. But how can I be sure? He doesn't bother to take the slightest caution when delving into these topics. If he wants to play footsie with racists and cheerlead them when it helps his side win, then at some point people might just confuse him for a racist as well.
I agree that he is factually careless with incidents like the Dundee girl, going for outrage porn.
I wouldn’t describe him as racist, but it seems to be so ill-defined as to be a meaningless slur. I get called antisemitic all the time, and I’ve stopped caring, or arguing against the allegation.
"The fight now is mainly a spiritual fight, and that’s why the demon is so powerful in France. He wants to destroy religion and spirituality in France, because he cannot destroy politics in the country without destroying religion.
RD: But France is an atheist country.
HD: No. I don’t think so. People may say that, but as you have said, the main danger for my generation is not atheism, but occultism."
(I..Could..Be..Wrong But) I think he is correct Atheism Has shot its bolt. We (Humans) are hard wired for religion, Atheism doesn't work. A return to Paganism/Nature Worship of one kind or another? THE ENEMY remains the same.
A Protestant friend of mine lived and worked in Paris as a journalist in the early years of this century. I visited him in 2002 and he told me that France was far more Catholic than he expected, or than he had believed--not in practice, necessarily, but in spirit. (He also attended midnight Mass in Burgundy on Christmas Eve and said the sermon was straight-up liberation theology, pre-Francis.) I haven't spent enough time there to say one way or another, but I will say that I have been astonished when in France to see people--men--blessing themselves when passing the door of a Church, a custom I was taught as a kid and that has simply disappeared here in the States.
"men--blessing themselves when passing the door of a Church, a custom I was taught as a kid and that has simply disappeared here in the States."....For Now.
There's something going on. I hesitate to use the word Revival, But I'm seeing things happen, with The Church (all branches).
But then I'm an optimistic pessimist. ie want something to happen, but am not surprised when it doesn't.
Last month Mrs Alcuin and I were in Paris for a week. Visiting the 10 PM Mass at Sacre Coeur I was pleasantly surprised to discover that Perpetual Adoration has been held there since 1885, even as bombs fell in 1944 and during Covid. Attendance for the late Mass was better than I expected, but nonetheless outnumbered by the impromptu concert on the long stairs down Montmarte thrown by some street entertainers.
Seems there's a bit of a 'race condition' to a new yet unknown equilibrium going in France. There are the Chartes pilgrims and young men like Henri and the fact that a church closes every two weeks in the land called 'the oldest daughter of the Church'.
I've told this story before. Before retiring I used to go to Paris on business, and often left Saturday nights to detox the next day. I used to attend 5 p.m. Mass at St. Severin, which is on the Left Bank just behind "Shakespeare & Co." (it's not the real one). It was always full, and there was obviously a big youth contingent, kids say 15-18, including the servers and a nice choir. Again, I can't say anything more than that but it was encouraging.
Nice. I can't say much more than what I already have aside from I found it a good sign that near my Luxembourg Gardens hotel was a non-touristy church dedicated to some saint I'd never heard of where the doors stood open (not locked!) during the day, no security. Thus beckoned, I entered and found a few people praying inside between errands. Joined 'em for a bit and was on my way.
In 1910, the Azusa Street Revival led to an explosion of growth of the Pentecostal church around the United States, as members of the Silent Generation forever changed the religious landscape in America. In the 1970s, baby boomers had a similar experience as the Jesus Revolution swept across the country. Now, in 2025, Generation Z seems to be reversing the trend as many choose more traditional churches over contemporary ones.
The Catholic, Reformed, and Orthodox churches are some of the fastest-growing in the U.S. Membership in the Presbyterian Church of America between the ages of 18 and 29 has increased by 8.9% since 2018. The overall percentage of Gen Z Christians has increased from around 45% in 2023 to 51% in the current year. Catholic converts steadily climbed from around 50,000 in 2021 to 160,000 in 2025. Pew Research Center found that around 14% of all Catholics in the country are between the ages of 18 and 29. By contrast, a much smaller number of all Baptist or Pentecostal denomination members are within the same age range.
“They’re craving a solid rock of truth and tradition and morality,” Richard Ackerman, host of the popular YouTube channel Redeemed Zoomer, told the Washington Examiner. “And traditional forms of Christianity seem to provide that, whether it’s Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, or Reformed Christianity.”
It’s not just Gen Z choosing more historic or traditional denominations. Millennials like Vice President JD Vance are as well. “There were a couple of things that really appealed to me [about Christianity],” Vance told the New York Times. “I was thinking about the big questions.… I just kept coming back for very personal reasons.”
I just read the long testimony of a new Christian woman about her many visits to Burning Man. Just as you said: pagan, nature worship, occult, and full-on satanic in many ways. THAT and not dry, detached atheism, is the default mode of humanity.
Rod: You say the Syrian was Muslim. Do you have any basis for that? From the description d’Anselme gives, it sounds like the Syrian was psychotic but probably from a Christian background. In any case, it doesn’t sound like he had Islamist motivations.
Thank you. I obviously don’t have time to do my own research about every case like this, and I never know who to believe, as there is disinformation from all sides.
As to the girl in Dundee the other day, my first impulse was to agree with you and the right-wing media, because of the Pakistani rape gangs. Then I thought that this narrative was fabricated, and she was a delinquent threatening a Bulgarian who was in the country legally; he was on TV news saying that he had no contact with the girl before the incident. That seemed settled, but then his name was quoted as Fatos Ali Dumana, a Muslim name. Are there really Bulgarians with that name? Something doesn’t sit right?
I just looked this up. Muslims are 7.8% of the population in Bulgaria. They're often called "Turks" but they aren't necessarily ethnic Turks; they may be descended from people who converted to Islam under the Ottomans, and some may be Roma. There's also the Gagauz people who speak a Turkic language but those tend to be Orthodox Christians when religious.
Not unlike in Bosnia, where there are Croats and Serbs and Bosniaks, i.e., Bosnian Muslims.
Strangely, non-Muslim Americans tend to view Judaism as just another religious denomination, while viewing Muslims as a separate set of nationalities, and less as confessional categories.
Fatos is Slavic, Ali is Muslim, and Dumana is actually a very common Roma name. So, there’s quite a bit of uncertainty there.
He did an interview with the Daily Mail in which he played the victim, but consequently people found his Instagram account and he doesn’t seem like the mild mannered family man the Mail made him out to be. More like a wannabe gangster.
Roma are known to kidnap young women -- even within their own community. But clearly, this guy wasn't a neat stereotype for anyone's narrative about Them. I still lean toward thinking the young lady was doing the right thing.
Who did you ask, and how did they know? That's important in a world where all kinds of things are presented to us very authoritatively, and much of it is lies. I was having a conversation about whether the city I grew up in was a "sundown town." I said, there is no record of any ordinance about black people being in city limits between sunset and sunrise. Some doofus responded "It was a sundown town. I looked it up." You would, I think, agree in that debate that it is essential to know, where did you look it up, and how did the author of that source establish the truth of what they said. Same here.
There was a guide for black travelers called The Green Book, basis of an Oscar-winning film of the same name. "Sundown towns" were listed there. I lived in one once upon a time. No, there was no ordinance but black people driving on Rt 66 knew never to even stop for gas there.
"The Green Book" is one of my favorite movies, including at Christmas, but the book makes only a cameo appearance. Its mostly about the friendship that developed between an Italian night club bouncer and musician Don Shirley. If the town did not have an ordinance, it was not a sundown town. If black people driving route 66 knew NEVER to stop for gas there, it was a 24-hour hostile environment. "Sundown town" is not a general term for "there was some racism going on there." Sundown town is a town that DOES have an ordinance, where it is literally a crime to be within city limits between sunset and sunrise (exceptions made for live-in domestic who were expected to be in their employers' homes by sunset). This is usually announced by signs at city limits. Some ominously display a setting sun, or add the single word "Sundown." (A friend of mine told me about seeing that in southern Oregon in her childhood). Some say more clearly and with modest courtesy "All Negroes must be out of city limits by sunset." Some blatantly said "Nigger, don't let the sun set on you in city limits." There was a pullover and arrest in the movie where a cop explicitly told the Italian driver "He can't be here after sunset."
Yes, I liked The Green Book, too. I didn't realize there was a distinction about having a local ordinance and just being hateful. In the dreadful town I mentioned, the underclass was Appalachian--very, very under.
One of Fred Hampton's signature accomplishments -- and one reason J. Edgar Hoover wanted him dead -- is that he was making common cause between the Black Panthers and the Young Patriots, a similarly motivated organization of young transplanted Appalachians.
"Western civilization as we know it today is going to collapse- and that's good news."
Henri d'Anselme is wise beyond his years. My only disagreement with him is that women do offer much to Christianity. Yes, men are to be the heroes, the Ivanhoes. But all heroes need a woman to sacrifice for. Further, any family needs the heart of a woman. The husband should be the head of the household but the wife needs to be the heart.
I agree with everything you wrote. I interpreted his statement more along the lines of men being the leaders whom the women will follow. If the men of France embrace their Christian heritage again, then so will the women. If Muslims rule France, then the women will become Muslim.
This is not an indictment of women. We all know the many women and girl Christian martyrs and saints. And let's not forget that the greatest Christian of all time is a woman, Holy Mary whom Henri invokes again and again. I think it is simply a social and historical truth that women, being the physically weaker sex, will for survival and childbearing purposes, submit to the dominant culture and religion of the men. And though modern feminist "girl boss" types won't admit it, women naturally desire male strength and leadership. If Christian men provide it, the women will follow.
Historically the common pattern of conversion was that a wife or mother who was Christian would help convert her husband and/or children. Also, it was women who went to the Tomb on Pascha morning and first cried out the Resurrection to the skeptical and rather fearful Apostles.
Well, we have a fair number of women martyrs and even some women missionaries on our calendars. It's not the case that women sat around "praying, paying and obeying". In many parishes it's still the women who keep things going at the practical level. Women seem to be easier to organize than men for group efforts, something I'm finding as head of our revived men's group.
Scripture is full of female heroes of faith, both old and new, some called to leader and prophet positions. Yes, they are less common than the males, but they are part of the story. But they are not exemplified by those "mainstream" churches dominated by women, and whose witness is not actually gospel, but chasing the latest trends in decadent Western culture and seeking to rationalize it as something Christ would want. Which, of course, is clearly not true, and shown by women with weak faith at best, let more by their emotions and seeking approval than what faith and Scripture demands. It is the nature of the female, most especially those with weak or non-faith, to seek the approval of a percieved dominant viewpoint.
A lovely story, Rod. Thanks. I was especially pleased by d’Anselme’s recognition of John Paul II’s belief that the two lungs of the Church must breathe together, i.e., the Catholic and Christian West and the Orthodox East. (Or at least keep the faith until our brothers and sisters from the South and the East come to re-evangelize us.) And Mr. d’Anselme is right about one thing, today’s enemy is tomorrow’s friend. History is odd that way.
If I recall correctly, Marcus Aurelius’s Meditations contained praise of his father, another emperor. Words to the effect that when his father possessed the trappings of power in Rome he enjoyed them without ostentation and when he did not possess them (in the field with his legions I guess) he did not miss them.
But this is a clumsy, early morning effort to say thank you. What I am trying to say is best expressed by the citizens of Whoville and how they reacted when all their pomp and finery were taken away. Their lesson turned the Grinch. May it be so again.
Monsieur d'Anselme gives me hope. He may, in my opinion, be limited in the scope of his perceptions -- if every civilization is a Christian civilization, the vast majority of the world will be unwelcome to them unless their spirituality has been conquered -- but as reader Eric Mader says, he does have a balanced and nuanced perception.
All Gods and Goddesses are one. Humans have never been unified in our spiritual perceptions. The panoply of deities is both understandable and inevitable. We struggle to put symbols and words to those perceptions, we find established religions deeply compatible with our struggles, or we take the most difficult path of personal discovery. If all Gods are one God, the only thing that divides us is our egos demanding that our way is the only way.
There is always more than one destination. That is why, however much I would prefer different semantics, I agree on principle with Rod's usage of the term demonic. We all embody the dualism of good and evil, Light and Dark. We are humans.
This guy is awesome. I've been praying to St. Joan, St. Genevieve, and St. Louis for a revival of faith in France. Like you Rod I found my faith on a high school trip to Paris and Normandy. I was raised in an eighties tepid Catholicism; when I saw those churches - those blessed monuments - I knew I was on the right team. Thanks for the uplifting post.
"HD: The civil war is already here. What happened to me in Annecy is a testimony of civil war. A migrant stabbing children is an act of war. "
Wow. In light of what happened in the US during Mass to innocent children-- this hit hard.
Thank God for this man. I was in Annecy last week. I wish I had known about this event before I went, because then I would have known there was holy ground.
He describes himself, his parents and grandparents as 'fighting' for Traditional Catholicism, so he's not just an outlier in society, but also among Catholics. One can write off those persisting in an unpopular stance as simply stubborn or foolish. It's also possible he's weighed the matter and decided he'll defend what he finds has greater value. Henri seems to be the latter.
I have asked hundreds of Catholics why they are a Catholic and no one had a logical reason. Most, over 80% say I was born a Catholic while others say for family reasons or other emotional reasons.
I am a Catholic and find the Church is not interested in the reasons for decline. Nearly all of their homilys are on how to be a better Catholic and almost none on why one should be a Catholic. So people have drifted away.
An ironic phenomenon is that atheism is vapid and has zero evidence and logic supporting it yet it is made to seem reasonable when it is anything but.
I will repeat what has been said elsewhere. The modern world grew out of Christianity and no where else. It greatly accelerated when human freedom was allowed to grow mainly in England and its colonies.The result was the Industrial Revolution and a constant stream of new technology.
Now Christianity and human freedom are being restricted everywhere so will the modern world last? Unlikely! The technology will last but be controlled by a small group in power. Look at Europe.
Old proverb - when a clown moves into a palace, he doesn't become a king. The palace becomes a circus.
This is what is happening with the non-European invasion of Europe. The non-Europeans think they will inherit the wealth but what will happen is they will impoverish Europe. Some source of power will emerge but so will poverty. It will be like most of the world always was till Christianity emerged and the poverty gradually diminished where it was practiced.
Aside: when elites criticize something because it isn’t perfect, they never point to anything better. That is what is happening now with the United States. No one can find even a remote instance of a better society.
What is wrong with having both? The essence of the Mass is the consecration which is only about 5 minutes long and pretty much the same in any language.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with having both! Though I am very glad we Orthodox have just the one Liturgy with some seasonal variations (e.g., St. Basil's Liturgy during Lent) and minor differences between the national traditions.
The Novus Ordo Mass is valid because every pope since Archbishop Bugnini created the Novus Ordo in 1969 has said so. But the Novus Ordo is a radically different Mass and it isn't just because the priest and altarboys say some prayers in Latin. Don't get me going about the half-Mass handshake. Just like the beginning of a football game.
The problem with passions/emotions is that they are susceptible to counteractions by other emotions. Logic and evidence are not susceptible to counteractions by anything if applied early especially false evidence and bad logic. They actually inoculate an individual from false emotions. Something most don’t understand.
And yet Scripture valorizes Love (agape) and does not much bother with Reason-- the latter, IMO, is something we owe to the infusion of Greek philosophy in our faith at an early date.
Ask yourself what does it mean to love God? God is no way affected by anything we do as opposed to our family and neighbors which are greatly affected by our love.
So what does it mean to love God when He is in no way affected?
"And yet Scripture valorizes Love (agape) and does not much bother with Reason"
This is an extremely long reply so I offer it for what it is worth. What does the Gospels say? What does reason say? Reason, given to us by God, says different things"
"The concept of love is inherently ambiguous, often leading to confusion due to its multiple meanings. When someone engages in a lengthy discussion about "love," they are likely using the term in various contexts. It is essential to recognize that we frequently intertwine gratitude with love; in some cases, this may be the only sensible interpretation or reason given to us by God is working.
So I will define love as the "attractive power of the other" in other words we are attracted to others for various reasons.
Most people agree that love is fundamentally an emotional experience; however, there are interpretations that suggest love transcends purely emotional aspects, even if these are not immediately apparent.
When someone declares their love for another person, it typically signifies one of the following meanings, although other interpretations can exist:
1. **Romantic Love**: When the person is of the opposite sex and considered a potential marriage partner, the nature of this love becomes unique. This type of love cannot be directed towards more than one individual at a time and includes a genuine concern for the other person's well-being on multiple levels. This critical aspect is often overlooked, as the overwhelming focus tends to be on how the other person makes the loving individual feel. One significant issue with romantic love is its potential for self-centeredness, where the emphasis shifts to the benefits one gains from the other person. Nevertheless, it is important to acknowledge that this feeling almost always includes a genuine desire for the other person's happiness alongside one's own feelings.
Unreciprocated love, or unrequited love, is a common theme in songs and stories. Feelings can evolve or diminish, especially after experiencing rejection. It is also possible to cultivate a similar emotional connection with a new person, which often intensifies over time.
Debates around the causes of love often focus on how one individual elicits emotional responses in another, typically based on superficial characteristics rather than intrinsic qualities. For instance, I had a high school sweetheart with whom I discussed marriage. However, our feelings deteriorated over time as we realized we were not compatible, and we soon parted ways. She ultimately married someone else while I continued dating. Years later, I met a wonderful and attractive young woman. We dated and soon married, and after 55 years, I still feel as in love with her today as I did on our wedding day. I am still attracted to her.
2. **Familial Love**: Many people experience a strong emotional attachment to others, especially when they are physically present. This attachment can be intense, particularly with family members, like a child, but it can also extend equally to siblings or other relatives. This emotional response resembles the first case, where being near the person enhances one's well-being. You may wish the person well, but this feeling is distinct from romantic love. But often the well being of the other is paramount.
Consider this example: As a small child, my father worked in another city. Every Friday night, I would eagerly stare out the living room window, anticipating the headlights of his car when he arrived. When I recognized his car, a wave of joy would envelop me, knowing I would see him soon. Although I had deep feelings for my mother, they differed significantly from those I had for my father, largely due to his job's separation. Nevertheless, my gratitude towards them for their contributions to my life was genuine. Notice that I used the term gratitude, which we nearly always associate with our parents.
Another example is my wife and I, who have three children. From the moment they were born, we felt an intense emotional bond with each of them. While we may not directly associate gratitude with them, our happiness stems from their lives as our children. We have a powerful desire for their success and well-being, with aspirations for their happiness and achievements, reflecting a different type of emotional investment than in the first case.
3. We typically reserve the term "love" for those who are closest to us, such as family or potential partners. However, we can still experience genuine happiness for the success or joy of others, often using the word "like" instead of "love" to express these feelings. Additionally, we often feel a deep sense of gratitude towards others for what they have done for us.
4. There is another profound context in which the word "love" is frequently employed: our relationship with God, the creator of the universe. In this realm, the meaning of love shifts dramatically from our usual interpretation, a distinction many individuals fail to grasp. When we say God loves us, we must ask ourselves what that truly signifies. According to Christianity, God has granted us the gift of existence and opened the door to everlasting life in His presence. This incredible gift of everlasting existence is not just a fleeting moment; it offers something far more magnificent than anything we could create.
When we profess our love for God, we must understand that we cannot offer Him anything in return. He is complete and perfect, lacking nothing. Thus, loving God is distinct from our love for our wife, children, parents, or siblings, where our desires center on their happiness and well-being and how we can help them. It is also different from the love reciprocated to us by others.
God provides us not merely temporary existence but the profound opportunity for eternal existence. Recognizing this, when we express love and adoration for God, we are, in essence, expressing gratitude for our very being and the bountiful opportunities that accompany it. Therefore, love and adoration for God can best be understood as a heartfelt thanksgiving.
This perspective carries a vital implication: every person is created by God for eternity. As part of His divine creation, we are called to ensure that our lives reflect this truth. While we may not fully comprehend each individual's unique path, we should avoid anything that interferes with their ultimate purpose: to exist with Him eternally.
Aside: Recently, I met someone who admired some of the incredible benefits of just existing. We sat and discussed the beauty and remarkable nature of the world. We were witness to many of the splendors of creations and exult in witnessing them. This is true, but it is fleeting, so we have to wonder just what eternal existence will bring. But God is offering it to us."
Love is not just an emotion, in the Biblical/Scriptural/Biblical sense. It is spiritual. It is a decision, as much, or even more than anything else. For the Christian man or woman, to do something, to make a decision, to make a vow in love is not subject to the whims, waxing and waning of "feelings." A Christian man or woman married does not seek to end the bonds of the relationship just because they have hit a rut. They made a spiritual pact in the eyes of the Lord, something that has eternal ramifications, and they will decide to do the work needed to maintain the vow and the bond.
And that involves Reason. And even more, something that transcends both Reason and Emotion.
What makes us human? We are not like a Spok or Data from Star Trek? Please enlighten us on how to overcome the problem of passions/emotions? Are you a BOT? 🤖 Forgive me if I’m coming off Snarky, I really want to understand.
No definitely not a BOT! I live in a small state in New England. And it’s early in the morning on Labor Day in US.
I believe in truth, always have but wasn’t aware of it per se. Right now I look at the world and it does not believe in truth. It will pay lip service with the physical world because it cannot deny it. The material world runs on physical laws which don’t change. But anything that is not the physical world it will deny truth or that it is possible to know it.
There are two major areas besides the physical world which the current world denies, the origin of the physical world and human behavior.
I’m definitely not an expert on either but have been investigating the evidence and logic for the physical world’s origins and what I have found out is interesting in terms of human behavior. People deny the obvious for origins because they have emotional attachments to a belief. Even people who believe in God. But essentially people who don’t believe in God.
Aside: I won an argument with a major AI program on origins.
Here’s a book I started that might help answer your question on what makes us human
——-
Who Are You, Really?: A Philosopher's Inquiry into the Nature and Origin of Persons
by Joshua Rasmussen (Author) Format: Kindle Edition
4.9 4.9 out of 5 stars (17) 4.6 on Goodreads 28 ratings
See all formats and editions
What does it mean to be human? What is a person? Where did we come from?
Many answers have been offered throughout history in response to these perennial questions, including those from biological, anthropological, sociological, political, and theological approaches. And yet the questions remain.
Philosopher Joshua Rasmussen offers his own step-by-step examination into the fundamental nature and ultimate origin of persons. Using accessible language and clear logic, he argues that the answer to the question of what it means to be a person sheds light not only on our own nature but also on the existence of the one who gave us life.
————-
Also I am in the midst of Michael Egnor and Denyse O’Leary’s book, The Immortal Mind. It’s about the neuroscience of the mind or consciousness.
The young man reiterated what I mentioned in a recent post - we have to endure suffering & no matter how much we push back before things will change. This could take generations. It is on God’s schedule - not our timeline. I would not be shocked if folks in USA just consented to a form of tyranny via technology. We are already seeing this in the AI debate. The irony is that the more security we seek the more fragile we become & the more compliant we become. Again this is a recipe for oppression. Caio from Amalfi.
What strikes me here is d’Anselme’s optimism. Not naive optimism, but one that shines in the midst of a hard-edged realism.
“Western civilization as we know it today is going to collapse—and that’s good news.” Etc.
From the evidence, France’s young Catholics seem to be downright … joyful. Which is an interesting conundrum. France has been the very Mecca of smug cynicism for most of modernity, and is now clearly choking on its own sophisticated libertine bile. Yet these French Catholics, unlike many of us in the Anglosphere, radiate confidence and joy.
Surely it’s due mainly to grace. But I’m thinking it also might be cultural. In a negative sense. It might be due to a lesson they’ve learned from their compatriots. Watching their elders scoff and smirk and pout postmodernly, they’ve realized: “No, that’s not the way.”
Compare this to us. Our national culture tends to be upbeat and sunny, often in dumb ways. Meanwhile many American Christians (I’ll speak for myself) lean cynical—not the same kind of cynical that defines the French, but still certainly not *joyful*. Pessimistic, say.
Probably we could learn something from the young French Catholics. “Yeah, it’s gonna unwind. It’ll be ugly. But praised be the Lord.”
You speak for me, brother. I loved talking to Henri because of it.
I am struck though, about how tough the French are underneath all the Frenchy stuff. I think of the Jesuit Martyrs.
There's a great book, "The Unredeemed Captive" by John Demos which tells the true story of the Deerfield Massacre which happened in 1704. It goes into the differences between the English settlers and their French counterparts in Canada. Comparatively speaking, the French were badass.
Well, the Jesuit martyrs are not what you will find in Paris in the present. Perhaps if they are tested, we shall see some badass come out. But I suspect Houellebecq’s is the accurate portrait. Enervated cynics cannot be badass. They negotiate and negotiate until they are nothing. Then they shrug.
"Enervated cynics cannot be badass. They negotiate and negotiate until they are nothing. Then they shrug"
Ouch, I view that that as a call to change my own outlook on the current situation.
Eric, I'm still waiting for your follow up takes on your ax-wielding heroine up in Scotland now that we have more information on the situation. Still chomping at the bit to hang people from lampposts? I for one am moved by the Christian witness of the keyboard-warrior vigilantes. We need you on that wall, Col. Mader!
With people like Henri, there is hope!
Viva Henri!!!
Re: With a few more people, we made a circle around him to trap him
This is a really big point: if people can be prodded out of passivity a small crowd can stop things like this attack. Which "fortunately" involved just a knife, not a gun. To take down a shooter you;d need a larger crowd, all willing to risk death. That's happened and it;s worked, but it's a bigger ask.
Indeed it is a bigger ask.
I recently watched a video where beach goers (I think Spain, but it might have been Italy) have started running and tackling migrants that come ashore, holding them down until the local police arrive. So changes are starting to happen at the local level, which is encouraging.
Finding this in my Inbox on a Saturday was a nice surprise - thank you! A very interesting young man. I wish him well.
As per the 2nd paragraph - noticing that Emmanual Macron granted this guy the Legion d'Honneur. But Rod has told me that every single European leader to the left of Meloni was a deranged ultra-liberal who wants to annihilate European culture out of a completely irrational blind hatred and love for violent immigrants. Kind of strange for one of those guys to hand a Legion d'Honneur to Mr. d'Anselme, a brave patriotic Christian who saved a bunch of people from a violent non-European criminal.
It's almost as if real life is nuanced and not filled with monochromatic bad guys and good guys that fit into convenient polemical categories. And to think, even in *Europe* that is the case!
Also credit to Mr. d'Anselme here. The views he expresses clearly have strong conradictions with those of Macron and yet Mr. d'Anselme chivalrously praises him for having kept his word on Notre Dame. It is clear to me that even as Mr. d'Anselme is in almost full agreement with Rod, he is also a grounded Frenchman who mostly lives in the physical world and not on Twitter. Hence he can get past infantile polemics and credit a political opponent when he acts honorably.
I can only hope Rod follows the example of Mr. d'Anselme and learns that he can keep his radical and passionate political views and yet recognize that his opponents are not monochromatic bad guys. Maybe he can learn that his political opponents are complicated and that even they, despite their misguidedness, can act morally and be truthful in a way that a morally honest person could credit.
I am not getting my hopes up, but since Rod is on good terms with God, I can only hope that with His help (and with the help of his many good and virtuous friends) even the impossible is possible.
"As per the 2nd paragraph - noticing that Emmanual Macron granted this guy the Legion D'Honneur. But Rod has told me that every single European leader to the left of Meloni was a deranged ultra-liberal who wants to annihilate European culture out of a completely irrational blind hatred and love for violent immigrants."
Something to remember Macron s also a Very Smart Politician. Doing this (for him a meaningless gesture) gives him some good PR.
You know, you've got a lead foot on the irony pedal. Ease up, friend. It's tiresome.
I just have to break out of the Rod cycle. He keeps roping me back in with good articles but then always like clock-work returns to the lowbrow racist outrage-baiting within two, max three articles. Smarmy criticism is how I cope with it, but there's not much point to what I'm doing.
The thing is, the entire political spectrum from far left to far right is so toxic that there's just nowhere else to go. Rod resisted going along with the toxicity of the modern day Zeitgeist up until his divorce, so he was a refuge for a while. But now he, along with a bunch of other formerly offbeat columnists are all waist-deep in intellectual nuclear waste, going along with the purity spiral, either for clout or to maintain their political connections. It's just the most tiring thing ever.
I don't do anything for "clout" or "political connections." I believe what I write, even if I'm wrong. Why do you still read me if you find me "the most tiring thing ever"?
Because I liked what you were writing for years and still like much of what you write. In fact, on some topics you are still better than anyone else. On deep and intellectual topics related to cultural decline your opinions are better developed than almost anything else out there.
In contrast the immigration takes are so inane and cliched. I get that these takes are still censored on mainstream media, but I was seeing versions of your immigration takes 10 years ago on Breitbart (it was already tiring then). There's nothing that stimulates the intellect in them, the anti-immigrant takes are just some communal "time for the 20 minutes of cathartic outrage" ritual that my brain can't even begin to compute.
I am not sure what metaphor suffices to get across how it feels to read your blog these days. Suppose you were watching your favorite Tarkovsky movie and at minute 45, there's a 20 minute unskippable ad on diarrhea medication (with "visual aids" of course). And then on minute 65, it goes back to being a Tarkovsky movie. That's what your content is like, for me.
Since neither you nor the Zeitgist will change any time soon though, that is my problem. I have to find a different way. Nothing will be getting better here.
I mean I personally find the Dante stuff tedious. He’s a late medieval Italian poet who inspired the ghost train at wildwood as far as I am concerned. But I’m not so uncultured as too post a complaint every time he brings up the damned Italian . As for the immigration I think it’s pretty obvious that the wealthy west can not keep out ambitious immoral young men from the third world who , shocker, behave like men in logging camps and gold fields tend to do. Violently. I agree there’s no solution but Dreher is so prolific you expect repetition. But it’s the internet, there’s always RT if you want a nuanced take on global issues.
Rod's take on the immigration question is such an absurdly simplistic caricature of reality that it is almost as inaccurate as the absurdly simplistic caricature produced by the left.
Surprise surprise, the true story is not "the rainbow village living in peace" nor "civil war in The West". Reality is more complicated, but it is also boring, so if you are getting lost in self-righteous moral crusades, you tend to just ignore reality and make up something that satisfies you emotionally.
There’s literally no way to stop motivated men with nothing to lose from crossing borders that enforce human rights. I’ve lived in China. They don’t have immigration. North Korean sex slaves yes. Refugees in hotels at government expense no. Watch bald and bankrupt do the Darian gap on YouTube and see for yourself.
Are you suggesting that the PRC is a model for The West to follow? No offense to your position, but I would take the West with immigrants over China with no immigrants. If you don't agree with this take, please explain why a lot more Chinese want to move to the West than the other way around. If China with its zero immigration is so great, how do you explain this trend?
Rod Dreher is many things but he is not a "racist." Just noticing the moral decline of millions of young blacks doesn't make you a "racist." Noticing that Muslims in Britain, France and Germany haven't fit in to society doesn't make you a "racist."
I didn't make that claim lightly. I've read Rod for a few years and I didn't want to believe that about him either, because I've found him tremendously insightful (and uniquely so across pundits) on several key topics of interest. But the step-by-step moral deterioration that he has undergone over the years on the immigration question makes me wonder. It is one thing for him to claim that right-wing identitarians have the right to feel angry. It's another thing to shamelessly and uncritically cheerlead for extremist anti-immigration positions like he has been doing repeatedly, recently.
I mean his "Sophie of Dundee" outrage-bait article had literal AI slop produced by Twitter grifters as the leading image. When I dug into the story it was clear that Rod's reaction to the incident matched the emotivist and criticism-free reaction that leftists had to Trayvon Martin or George Floyd - you take a very complicated incident shaded in gray and turn it into something black and white.
I actually really hope that that doesn't prove Rod is racist. I want to hope that the insightful and compelling guy who could write so many interesting articles is not a racist and what is driving him is something else, like his desire to feel self-righteous. But how can I be sure? He doesn't bother to take the slightest caution when delving into these topics. If he wants to play footsie with racists and cheerlead them when it helps his side win, then at some point people might just confuse him for a racist as well.
I agree that he is factually careless with incidents like the Dundee girl, going for outrage porn.
I wouldn’t describe him as racist, but it seems to be so ill-defined as to be a meaningless slur. I get called antisemitic all the time, and I’ve stopped caring, or arguing against the allegation.
I don't know too much about Fatos Ali Dumana. Can you educate me some about him?
He's a Bulgarian of Muslim origin, who like the Dundee girl, is a loud street person who can't shut up or de-escalate a situation?
How predictable.
"The fight now is mainly a spiritual fight, and that’s why the demon is so powerful in France. He wants to destroy religion and spirituality in France, because he cannot destroy politics in the country without destroying religion.
RD: But France is an atheist country.
HD: No. I don’t think so. People may say that, but as you have said, the main danger for my generation is not atheism, but occultism."
(I..Could..Be..Wrong But) I think he is correct Atheism Has shot its bolt. We (Humans) are hard wired for religion, Atheism doesn't work. A return to Paganism/Nature Worship of one kind or another? THE ENEMY remains the same.
A Protestant friend of mine lived and worked in Paris as a journalist in the early years of this century. I visited him in 2002 and he told me that France was far more Catholic than he expected, or than he had believed--not in practice, necessarily, but in spirit. (He also attended midnight Mass in Burgundy on Christmas Eve and said the sermon was straight-up liberation theology, pre-Francis.) I haven't spent enough time there to say one way or another, but I will say that I have been astonished when in France to see people--men--blessing themselves when passing the door of a Church, a custom I was taught as a kid and that has simply disappeared here in the States.
"men--blessing themselves when passing the door of a Church, a custom I was taught as a kid and that has simply disappeared here in the States."....For Now.
There's something going on. I hesitate to use the word Revival, But I'm seeing things happen, with The Church (all branches).
But then I'm an optimistic pessimist. ie want something to happen, but am not surprised when it doesn't.
Aslan's On The Move! :-)
Last month Mrs Alcuin and I were in Paris for a week. Visiting the 10 PM Mass at Sacre Coeur I was pleasantly surprised to discover that Perpetual Adoration has been held there since 1885, even as bombs fell in 1944 and during Covid. Attendance for the late Mass was better than I expected, but nonetheless outnumbered by the impromptu concert on the long stairs down Montmarte thrown by some street entertainers.
Seems there's a bit of a 'race condition' to a new yet unknown equilibrium going in France. There are the Chartes pilgrims and young men like Henri and the fact that a church closes every two weeks in the land called 'the oldest daughter of the Church'.
I've told this story before. Before retiring I used to go to Paris on business, and often left Saturday nights to detox the next day. I used to attend 5 p.m. Mass at St. Severin, which is on the Left Bank just behind "Shakespeare & Co." (it's not the real one). It was always full, and there was obviously a big youth contingent, kids say 15-18, including the servers and a nice choir. Again, I can't say anything more than that but it was encouraging.
Nice. I can't say much more than what I already have aside from I found it a good sign that near my Luxembourg Gardens hotel was a non-touristy church dedicated to some saint I'd never heard of where the doors stood open (not locked!) during the day, no security. Thus beckoned, I entered and found a few people praying inside between errands. Joined 'em for a bit and was on my way.
Why Gen Z has swung back toward traditional Christianity
Katherine R. Larson
August 30, 2025
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/3763344/why-gen-z-swung-back-toward-traditional-christianity/
In 1910, the Azusa Street Revival led to an explosion of growth of the Pentecostal church around the United States, as members of the Silent Generation forever changed the religious landscape in America. In the 1970s, baby boomers had a similar experience as the Jesus Revolution swept across the country. Now, in 2025, Generation Z seems to be reversing the trend as many choose more traditional churches over contemporary ones.
The Catholic, Reformed, and Orthodox churches are some of the fastest-growing in the U.S. Membership in the Presbyterian Church of America between the ages of 18 and 29 has increased by 8.9% since 2018. The overall percentage of Gen Z Christians has increased from around 45% in 2023 to 51% in the current year. Catholic converts steadily climbed from around 50,000 in 2021 to 160,000 in 2025. Pew Research Center found that around 14% of all Catholics in the country are between the ages of 18 and 29. By contrast, a much smaller number of all Baptist or Pentecostal denomination members are within the same age range.
“They’re craving a solid rock of truth and tradition and morality,” Richard Ackerman, host of the popular YouTube channel Redeemed Zoomer, told the Washington Examiner. “And traditional forms of Christianity seem to provide that, whether it’s Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, or Reformed Christianity.”
It’s not just Gen Z choosing more historic or traditional denominations. Millennials like Vice President JD Vance are as well. “There were a couple of things that really appealed to me [about Christianity],” Vance told the New York Times. “I was thinking about the big questions.… I just kept coming back for very personal reasons.”
(Snip)
I just read the long testimony of a new Christian woman about her many visits to Burning Man. Just as you said: pagan, nature worship, occult, and full-on satanic in many ways. THAT and not dry, detached atheism, is the default mode of humanity.
Rod: You say the Syrian was Muslim. Do you have any basis for that? From the description d’Anselme gives, it sounds like the Syrian was psychotic but probably from a Christian background. In any case, it doesn’t sound like he had Islamist motivations.
No, he was Muslim. I asked.
Thank you. I obviously don’t have time to do my own research about every case like this, and I never know who to believe, as there is disinformation from all sides.
As to the girl in Dundee the other day, my first impulse was to agree with you and the right-wing media, because of the Pakistani rape gangs. Then I thought that this narrative was fabricated, and she was a delinquent threatening a Bulgarian who was in the country legally; he was on TV news saying that he had no contact with the girl before the incident. That seemed settled, but then his name was quoted as Fatos Ali Dumana, a Muslim name. Are there really Bulgarians with that name? Something doesn’t sit right?
I believe there is a longstanding Muslim minority in Bulgaria, dating from the days of Turkish rule.
I just looked this up. Muslims are 7.8% of the population in Bulgaria. They're often called "Turks" but they aren't necessarily ethnic Turks; they may be descended from people who converted to Islam under the Ottomans, and some may be Roma. There's also the Gagauz people who speak a Turkic language but those tend to be Orthodox Christians when religious.
Teasing out who’s who and why could drive a person batty.
Not unlike in Bosnia, where there are Croats and Serbs and Bosniaks, i.e., Bosnian Muslims.
Strangely, non-Muslim Americans tend to view Judaism as just another religious denomination, while viewing Muslims as a separate set of nationalities, and less as confessional categories.
Well, there are a lot more Muslims in the world, and they span continents and language families, much as Christians also do.
He could be a Bulgarian in the sense of being born in Bulgaria, but one of many ethnities other than Bulgarian.
I guess he could be Muslim, but I've never encountered a Muslim with a cross (!!!) tattoo on his neck.
A cross? In the picture I saw it was an AK-47…
Well, the pic in the Daily Mail article seems to be a cross on his neck. Maybe he has other ink that wasn't viewable from their array of pictures.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15040815/The-truth-migrant-Dundee-schoolgirl-brandished-knife-wrong-rabble-rousers-Elon-Musk-Tommy-Robinson-were.html
There were both. There was also some script under the AK-47. Anyone know what it is? What it says?
Fatos is Slavic, Ali is Muslim, and Dumana is actually a very common Roma name. So, there’s quite a bit of uncertainty there.
He did an interview with the Daily Mail in which he played the victim, but consequently people found his Instagram account and he doesn’t seem like the mild mannered family man the Mail made him out to be. More like a wannabe gangster.
Roma are known to kidnap young women -- even within their own community. But clearly, this guy wasn't a neat stereotype for anyone's narrative about Them. I still lean toward thinking the young lady was doing the right thing.
What doesn't sit right in all these claims is why he just didn't walk away from her immediately.
Who did you ask, and how did they know? That's important in a world where all kinds of things are presented to us very authoritatively, and much of it is lies. I was having a conversation about whether the city I grew up in was a "sundown town." I said, there is no record of any ordinance about black people being in city limits between sunset and sunrise. Some doofus responded "It was a sundown town. I looked it up." You would, I think, agree in that debate that it is essential to know, where did you look it up, and how did the author of that source establish the truth of what they said. Same here.
There was a guide for black travelers called The Green Book, basis of an Oscar-winning film of the same name. "Sundown towns" were listed there. I lived in one once upon a time. No, there was no ordinance but black people driving on Rt 66 knew never to even stop for gas there.
"The Green Book" is one of my favorite movies, including at Christmas, but the book makes only a cameo appearance. Its mostly about the friendship that developed between an Italian night club bouncer and musician Don Shirley. If the town did not have an ordinance, it was not a sundown town. If black people driving route 66 knew NEVER to stop for gas there, it was a 24-hour hostile environment. "Sundown town" is not a general term for "there was some racism going on there." Sundown town is a town that DOES have an ordinance, where it is literally a crime to be within city limits between sunset and sunrise (exceptions made for live-in domestic who were expected to be in their employers' homes by sunset). This is usually announced by signs at city limits. Some ominously display a setting sun, or add the single word "Sundown." (A friend of mine told me about seeing that in southern Oregon in her childhood). Some say more clearly and with modest courtesy "All Negroes must be out of city limits by sunset." Some blatantly said "Nigger, don't let the sun set on you in city limits." There was a pullover and arrest in the movie where a cop explicitly told the Italian driver "He can't be here after sunset."
Yes, I liked The Green Book, too. I didn't realize there was a distinction about having a local ordinance and just being hateful. In the dreadful town I mentioned, the underclass was Appalachian--very, very under.
One of Fred Hampton's signature accomplishments -- and one reason J. Edgar Hoover wanted him dead -- is that he was making common cause between the Black Panthers and the Young Patriots, a similarly motivated organization of young transplanted Appalachians.
"Western civilization as we know it today is going to collapse- and that's good news."
Henri d'Anselme is wise beyond his years. My only disagreement with him is that women do offer much to Christianity. Yes, men are to be the heroes, the Ivanhoes. But all heroes need a woman to sacrifice for. Further, any family needs the heart of a woman. The husband should be the head of the household but the wife needs to be the heart.
I agree with everything you wrote. I interpreted his statement more along the lines of men being the leaders whom the women will follow. If the men of France embrace their Christian heritage again, then so will the women. If Muslims rule France, then the women will become Muslim.
This is not an indictment of women. We all know the many women and girl Christian martyrs and saints. And let's not forget that the greatest Christian of all time is a woman, Holy Mary whom Henri invokes again and again. I think it is simply a social and historical truth that women, being the physically weaker sex, will for survival and childbearing purposes, submit to the dominant culture and religion of the men. And though modern feminist "girl boss" types won't admit it, women naturally desire male strength and leadership. If Christian men provide it, the women will follow.
Historically the common pattern of conversion was that a wife or mother who was Christian would help convert her husband and/or children. Also, it was women who went to the Tomb on Pascha morning and first cried out the Resurrection to the skeptical and rather fearful Apostles.
Well, we have a fair number of women martyrs and even some women missionaries on our calendars. It's not the case that women sat around "praying, paying and obeying". In many parishes it's still the women who keep things going at the practical level. Women seem to be easier to organize than men for group efforts, something I'm finding as head of our revived men's group.
My wife's Saint name is Saint Perpetua. I know there are many brave female saints.
Scripture is full of female heroes of faith, both old and new, some called to leader and prophet positions. Yes, they are less common than the males, but they are part of the story. But they are not exemplified by those "mainstream" churches dominated by women, and whose witness is not actually gospel, but chasing the latest trends in decadent Western culture and seeking to rationalize it as something Christ would want. Which, of course, is clearly not true, and shown by women with weak faith at best, let more by their emotions and seeking approval than what faith and Scripture demands. It is the nature of the female, most especially those with weak or non-faith, to seek the approval of a percieved dominant viewpoint.
Men and women come equipped with their own unique weaknesses. Women are more easily influenced ( beginning in Eden).
Yep. And the sin of Adam was abdicating the Godly leadership role and going along with this urging to sin.
A lovely story, Rod. Thanks. I was especially pleased by d’Anselme’s recognition of John Paul II’s belief that the two lungs of the Church must breathe together, i.e., the Catholic and Christian West and the Orthodox East. (Or at least keep the faith until our brothers and sisters from the South and the East come to re-evangelize us.) And Mr. d’Anselme is right about one thing, today’s enemy is tomorrow’s friend. History is odd that way.
If I recall correctly, Marcus Aurelius’s Meditations contained praise of his father, another emperor. Words to the effect that when his father possessed the trappings of power in Rome he enjoyed them without ostentation and when he did not possess them (in the field with his legions I guess) he did not miss them.
But this is a clumsy, early morning effort to say thank you. What I am trying to say is best expressed by the citizens of Whoville and how they reacted when all their pomp and finery were taken away. Their lesson turned the Grinch. May it be so again.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqOOUJFv1n0
you had me at the reference to Whoville
Monsieur d'Anselme gives me hope. He may, in my opinion, be limited in the scope of his perceptions -- if every civilization is a Christian civilization, the vast majority of the world will be unwelcome to them unless their spirituality has been conquered -- but as reader Eric Mader says, he does have a balanced and nuanced perception.
All Gods and Goddesses are one. Humans have never been unified in our spiritual perceptions. The panoply of deities is both understandable and inevitable. We struggle to put symbols and words to those perceptions, we find established religions deeply compatible with our struggles, or we take the most difficult path of personal discovery. If all Gods are one God, the only thing that divides us is our egos demanding that our way is the only way.
There is always more than one destination. That is why, however much I would prefer different semantics, I agree on principle with Rod's usage of the term demonic. We all embody the dualism of good and evil, Light and Dark. We are humans.
Ben Domenech Hugh Hewitt
https://youtu.be/x0uWpw68GVo?t=800
Aug. 29 2025
This guy is awesome. I've been praying to St. Joan, St. Genevieve, and St. Louis for a revival of faith in France. Like you Rod I found my faith on a high school trip to Paris and Normandy. I was raised in an eighties tepid Catholicism; when I saw those churches - those blessed monuments - I knew I was on the right team. Thanks for the uplifting post.
Pray to St. Francis de Sales, too, for that revival. That revival is what he is known for.
"HD: The civil war is already here. What happened to me in Annecy is a testimony of civil war. A migrant stabbing children is an act of war. "
Wow. In light of what happened in the US during Mass to innocent children-- this hit hard.
Thank God for this man. I was in Annecy last week. I wish I had known about this event before I went, because then I would have known there was holy ground.
"In light of what happened in the US during Mass to innocent children-- this hit hard."
Infandum, Regina, iubes renovare dolorem.
“Unspeakable, O Queen, you bid me renew grief”
~Aeneas
I had to google translate that and BAM! Virgil
I thought it was for me when I saw my name—but he’s talking to Queen Dido.
Thanks William. Beautiful quote. I’m stealing it now
A great story but does the young man know why he is defending his Catholicism other than history and emotions?
“Give Truth a Chance”
He describes himself, his parents and grandparents as 'fighting' for Traditional Catholicism, so he's not just an outlier in society, but also among Catholics. One can write off those persisting in an unpopular stance as simply stubborn or foolish. It's also possible he's weighed the matter and decided he'll defend what he finds has greater value. Henri seems to be the latter.
I have asked hundreds of Catholics why they are a Catholic and no one had a logical reason. Most, over 80% say I was born a Catholic while others say for family reasons or other emotional reasons.
I am a Catholic and find the Church is not interested in the reasons for decline. Nearly all of their homilys are on how to be a better Catholic and almost none on why one should be a Catholic. So people have drifted away.
An ironic phenomenon is that atheism is vapid and has zero evidence and logic supporting it yet it is made to seem reasonable when it is anything but.
I will repeat what has been said elsewhere. The modern world grew out of Christianity and no where else. It greatly accelerated when human freedom was allowed to grow mainly in England and its colonies.The result was the Industrial Revolution and a constant stream of new technology.
Now Christianity and human freedom are being restricted everywhere so will the modern world last? Unlikely! The technology will last but be controlled by a small group in power. Look at Europe.
Old proverb - when a clown moves into a palace, he doesn't become a king. The palace becomes a circus.
This is what is happening with the non-European invasion of Europe. The non-Europeans think they will inherit the wealth but what will happen is they will impoverish Europe. Some source of power will emerge but so will poverty. It will be like most of the world always was till Christianity emerged and the poverty gradually diminished where it was practiced.
Aside: when elites criticize something because it isn’t perfect, they never point to anything better. That is what is happening now with the United States. No one can find even a remote instance of a better society.
He says he prefers the Latin Mass, but he doesn't bash the Novus Ordo mass.
What is wrong with having both? The essence of the Mass is the consecration which is only about 5 minutes long and pretty much the same in any language.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with having both! Though I am very glad we Orthodox have just the one Liturgy with some seasonal variations (e.g., St. Basil's Liturgy during Lent) and minor differences between the national traditions.
That's what he believes: he prefers the Latin Mass, but is fine with the Novus Ordo, because he believes it is valid.
The Novus Ordo Mass is valid because every pope since Archbishop Bugnini created the Novus Ordo in 1969 has said so. But the Novus Ordo is a radically different Mass and it isn't just because the priest and altarboys say some prayers in Latin. Don't get me going about the half-Mass handshake. Just like the beginning of a football game.
Do we need anything beyond our passions to justify loving our homes and traditions?
"How better can a man die than facing fearful odds for the ashes of his fathers and the temples of his gods"
The problem with passions/emotions is that they are susceptible to counteractions by other emotions. Logic and evidence are not susceptible to counteractions by anything if applied early especially false evidence and bad logic. They actually inoculate an individual from false emotions. Something most don’t understand.
And yet Scripture valorizes Love (agape) and does not much bother with Reason-- the latter, IMO, is something we owe to the infusion of Greek philosophy in our faith at an early date.
What is love?
Ask yourself what does it mean to love God? God is no way affected by anything we do as opposed to our family and neighbors which are greatly affected by our love.
So what does it mean to love God when He is in no way affected?
Sorry, I'll take the Gospel's word on this.
"And yet Scripture valorizes Love (agape) and does not much bother with Reason"
This is an extremely long reply so I offer it for what it is worth. What does the Gospels say? What does reason say? Reason, given to us by God, says different things"
"The concept of love is inherently ambiguous, often leading to confusion due to its multiple meanings. When someone engages in a lengthy discussion about "love," they are likely using the term in various contexts. It is essential to recognize that we frequently intertwine gratitude with love; in some cases, this may be the only sensible interpretation or reason given to us by God is working.
So I will define love as the "attractive power of the other" in other words we are attracted to others for various reasons.
Most people agree that love is fundamentally an emotional experience; however, there are interpretations that suggest love transcends purely emotional aspects, even if these are not immediately apparent.
When someone declares their love for another person, it typically signifies one of the following meanings, although other interpretations can exist:
1. **Romantic Love**: When the person is of the opposite sex and considered a potential marriage partner, the nature of this love becomes unique. This type of love cannot be directed towards more than one individual at a time and includes a genuine concern for the other person's well-being on multiple levels. This critical aspect is often overlooked, as the overwhelming focus tends to be on how the other person makes the loving individual feel. One significant issue with romantic love is its potential for self-centeredness, where the emphasis shifts to the benefits one gains from the other person. Nevertheless, it is important to acknowledge that this feeling almost always includes a genuine desire for the other person's happiness alongside one's own feelings.
Unreciprocated love, or unrequited love, is a common theme in songs and stories. Feelings can evolve or diminish, especially after experiencing rejection. It is also possible to cultivate a similar emotional connection with a new person, which often intensifies over time.
Debates around the causes of love often focus on how one individual elicits emotional responses in another, typically based on superficial characteristics rather than intrinsic qualities. For instance, I had a high school sweetheart with whom I discussed marriage. However, our feelings deteriorated over time as we realized we were not compatible, and we soon parted ways. She ultimately married someone else while I continued dating. Years later, I met a wonderful and attractive young woman. We dated and soon married, and after 55 years, I still feel as in love with her today as I did on our wedding day. I am still attracted to her.
2. **Familial Love**: Many people experience a strong emotional attachment to others, especially when they are physically present. This attachment can be intense, particularly with family members, like a child, but it can also extend equally to siblings or other relatives. This emotional response resembles the first case, where being near the person enhances one's well-being. You may wish the person well, but this feeling is distinct from romantic love. But often the well being of the other is paramount.
Consider this example: As a small child, my father worked in another city. Every Friday night, I would eagerly stare out the living room window, anticipating the headlights of his car when he arrived. When I recognized his car, a wave of joy would envelop me, knowing I would see him soon. Although I had deep feelings for my mother, they differed significantly from those I had for my father, largely due to his job's separation. Nevertheless, my gratitude towards them for their contributions to my life was genuine. Notice that I used the term gratitude, which we nearly always associate with our parents.
Another example is my wife and I, who have three children. From the moment they were born, we felt an intense emotional bond with each of them. While we may not directly associate gratitude with them, our happiness stems from their lives as our children. We have a powerful desire for their success and well-being, with aspirations for their happiness and achievements, reflecting a different type of emotional investment than in the first case.
3. We typically reserve the term "love" for those who are closest to us, such as family or potential partners. However, we can still experience genuine happiness for the success or joy of others, often using the word "like" instead of "love" to express these feelings. Additionally, we often feel a deep sense of gratitude towards others for what they have done for us.
4. There is another profound context in which the word "love" is frequently employed: our relationship with God, the creator of the universe. In this realm, the meaning of love shifts dramatically from our usual interpretation, a distinction many individuals fail to grasp. When we say God loves us, we must ask ourselves what that truly signifies. According to Christianity, God has granted us the gift of existence and opened the door to everlasting life in His presence. This incredible gift of everlasting existence is not just a fleeting moment; it offers something far more magnificent than anything we could create.
When we profess our love for God, we must understand that we cannot offer Him anything in return. He is complete and perfect, lacking nothing. Thus, loving God is distinct from our love for our wife, children, parents, or siblings, where our desires center on their happiness and well-being and how we can help them. It is also different from the love reciprocated to us by others.
God provides us not merely temporary existence but the profound opportunity for eternal existence. Recognizing this, when we express love and adoration for God, we are, in essence, expressing gratitude for our very being and the bountiful opportunities that accompany it. Therefore, love and adoration for God can best be understood as a heartfelt thanksgiving.
This perspective carries a vital implication: every person is created by God for eternity. As part of His divine creation, we are called to ensure that our lives reflect this truth. While we may not fully comprehend each individual's unique path, we should avoid anything that interferes with their ultimate purpose: to exist with Him eternally.
Aside: Recently, I met someone who admired some of the incredible benefits of just existing. We sat and discussed the beauty and remarkable nature of the world. We were witness to many of the splendors of creations and exult in witnessing them. This is true, but it is fleeting, so we have to wonder just what eternal existence will bring. But God is offering it to us."
Love is not just an emotion, in the Biblical/Scriptural/Biblical sense. It is spiritual. It is a decision, as much, or even more than anything else. For the Christian man or woman, to do something, to make a decision, to make a vow in love is not subject to the whims, waxing and waning of "feelings." A Christian man or woman married does not seek to end the bonds of the relationship just because they have hit a rut. They made a spiritual pact in the eyes of the Lord, something that has eternal ramifications, and they will decide to do the work needed to maintain the vow and the bond.
And that involves Reason. And even more, something that transcends both Reason and Emotion.
What makes us human? We are not like a Spok or Data from Star Trek? Please enlighten us on how to overcome the problem of passions/emotions? Are you a BOT? 🤖 Forgive me if I’m coming off Snarky, I really want to understand.
No definitely not a BOT! I live in a small state in New England. And it’s early in the morning on Labor Day in US.
I believe in truth, always have but wasn’t aware of it per se. Right now I look at the world and it does not believe in truth. It will pay lip service with the physical world because it cannot deny it. The material world runs on physical laws which don’t change. But anything that is not the physical world it will deny truth or that it is possible to know it.
There are two major areas besides the physical world which the current world denies, the origin of the physical world and human behavior.
I’m definitely not an expert on either but have been investigating the evidence and logic for the physical world’s origins and what I have found out is interesting in terms of human behavior. People deny the obvious for origins because they have emotional attachments to a belief. Even people who believe in God. But essentially people who don’t believe in God.
Aside: I won an argument with a major AI program on origins.
I’m in the States too. Yes, Labor Day today. I live around Washington DC. Prayers for people to find the truth in Jesus Christ Lord and Savior.
Here’s a book I started that might help answer your question on what makes us human
——-
Who Are You, Really?: A Philosopher's Inquiry into the Nature and Origin of Persons
by Joshua Rasmussen (Author) Format: Kindle Edition
4.9 4.9 out of 5 stars (17) 4.6 on Goodreads 28 ratings
See all formats and editions
What does it mean to be human? What is a person? Where did we come from?
Many answers have been offered throughout history in response to these perennial questions, including those from biological, anthropological, sociological, political, and theological approaches. And yet the questions remain.
Philosopher Joshua Rasmussen offers his own step-by-step examination into the fundamental nature and ultimate origin of persons. Using accessible language and clear logic, he argues that the answer to the question of what it means to be a person sheds light not only on our own nature but also on the existence of the one who gave us life.
————-
Also I am in the midst of Michael Egnor and Denyse O’Leary’s book, The Immortal Mind. It’s about the neuroscience of the mind or consciousness.
I am French, and I had barely heard about Henri d'Anselme, I had just understood that a courageous guy had stopped a migrant's stabbing attack
Thank you for this interview, this is really enlightening!