The superior man is distressed by the limitations of his ability; he is not distressed by the fact that men do not recognize the ability that he has.
Confucius was not a whiner, nor did he encourage or approve of a society built upon a false sense of entitlement, or the clinging to past wounds, or the excessive nurturing of a broken self-image. He understood human nature and the human condition and distilled it in the simplest terms; for example: “In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of. In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of.”
Confucianism clearly is not a religion; it is but a dedication to the sayings of a wise man, a wisdom rooted primarily in natural law. And yet, it was perceived as a threat by the Red Guard, who saw all culture as a threat to the new culture, that is, the teachings of Chairman Mao. They desecrated the tomb of Confucius and burned his books. And now, with its Confucius Institutes creeping into all the right places, the Chinese Communist Party would have us believe that they seek only a renewal of Chinese culture. But the world’s greatest purveyors of monoculture are less than convincing.
Orthodox. Faithful. Free.
Sign up to get Crisis articles delivered to your inbox daily
The first dictionary definition of monoculture is that of the cultivation of a single crop on a farm or in a region or country, and the second is that of a single, homogeneous culture without diversity or dissension. In regard to the second, one is soon led to admit the absolute brilliance of the demonic, for only they would or could lead an assault on diversity in the name of diversity.
Everywhere we turn we see this phenomenon at work. Women weightlifters make the roster of weightlifters more diverse, while laying waste to the natural diversity of maleness and femaleness. Extreme exercise makes men more virile, while the same makes women stop ovulating and lays waste to that lovely subcutaneous fat layer that softens their curves. Simply put, extreme exercise makes women more virile. How is that more diverse?
In my career as a manufacturing engineer, I watched as the corporation that employed me set off down the path of “best practices.” These were supposedly a set of industry guidelines that, if followed, had been shown to give the best results. While not of any interest from a moral or religious perspective, I mention them because they quickly became somewhat dogmatic, which assured that they would remain the best practices for us long after nonsubscribers—our competitors—had moved beyond them and were potentially eating our lunch.
And that, from both a religious and secular perspective, is the nature of monoculture: it is the dogma of the present. Only a single crop is allowed: conformity. It is the poison that currently reigns supreme among many of the Church hierarchy. Monoculture is, by definition, reductive. Pastoral inclusivity—the Francis Papacy monoculture of choice—trumps everything from child endangerment to legitimate concerns over scandalous conduct; the salvation of souls doesn’t even get the second burner; it’s not even on the stove. The social concern soup du jour is the only other thing allowed on the stove, and, of course, is the sole contributor to the inclusivity index.
That index is an unofficial, fluctuating list of the haves and the have-nots. If you’re a fan of the traditional Latin Mass, you’re a have-not; if you’re a Catholic priest of India’s Syro-Malabar rite who appreciates the rich diversity within his liturgical heritage, you’re also a have-not; if you’re a worshipper of Pachamama, you’re a have; if you join the state-approved Church in China, you’re a have; but if you cleave to China’s true, underground Catholic Church, you’re a have-not. In the words of Cardinal Zen, “The underground [is] discouraged because they don’t receive any help [or] support from the Holy See.” The Chinese Communist Party has long meddled in the selection of Catholic bishops and, as alluded to in the words of Cardinal Zen, has been ceded the official right to be involved in that process via the secretive 2018 China-Vatican accord.
The inclusivity index is an exclusive index, an index that often honors the profane, diminishes the sacred, and pays little heed to orthodoxy. We could put our heads together and make an extensive list of the included and the excluded—the haves and the have-nots—and we could do it for both the bishop’s cabal and for the secular tyranny, but such an exercise is beyond the scope of this article. Suffice it to say that, if you’re reading this, you’re probably not one of the chosen few who has been put in charge of compiling this index, for such is a patently satanic exercise.
The Church has long been perceived by some as the mother of all monoculture—the most dogmatic of institutions. But the dogmas of the Church are solely the product of an anciently established organic process, inclusive of all culture, but inclusive only in a cultured way. Yes, in a cultured way. There really is no such thing as monoculture because fad and fancy can never really make the claim of being anything resembling actual culture and are often the antithesis of culture.
The purveyors of globalism hate nationalism in no small part because they hate culture, and culture is all but impossible without nations, without patriarchy, without traditions—without a fondness for one’s roots. Globalism seeks to uproot us. A people without roots is a malleable throng, and a people without a nation, patriarchy, or culture is a people without roots.
Exclusive inclusivity is not culture; it is an imposter, a sinister caricature of culture. In our current environment of inclusivity, all dissention is labeled misinformation, and all blatant, fawning sycophancy becomes high culture.
But it is a joyless enterprise, attractive only to the angry and cowards, like those in the lying Communist Party. And that is why its purveyors constantly seek to incite anger by playing the inclusivity card and conformity by playing the shame card. If you can’t be shamed, cowered, or angered, you are of no use to them. Their joyless enterprise has no room for humor. Chesterton tells us that angels can fly because they take themselves lightly. St. John Paul II took his role as a teacher very seriously, but he took himself very lightly. Those who served him through the years tell us of his jovial nature, how he took things in stride and laughed often and easily.
Can the same be said of the current occupant and his cabal of sycophants? I think not; they take themselves too seriously to respond to constructive criticism. He is an uninspiring aficionado of monoculture and an unlikely pilot for the ark that has, for two millennia, saved culture from the deluge of demonic monotony.
That spreading monotony sees little resistance from a Vatican that makes secretive deals with the powers that be. And that monotony kills. China has one of the highest suicide rates in the world, with two million attempts per year and 287,000 successes. Uncle Xi’s monotony monopoly wants you!
A nation without culture is not a nation. A life without roots is a life with nothing to which to cling, and Rome under Francis has played its part in that void.
The Chinese Communists are demonically wise to follow Mao’s warning to fear the teachings of Confucius. Just as it is said that all roads lead to Rome, so it is that all true wisdom, regardless of source, finds its foundation in The Word, The Logos, and will inevitably lead the seeker to its source. Confucius says, “The object of the superior man is truth,” and “The superior man thinks always of virtue; the common man thinks of comfort,” and “Study the past if you would define the future,” and “An oppressive government is more to be feared than a tiger.” I could, of course, go on and on with such quotes. Today’s so-called Confucius Institutes are but a front; should they become true devotees to culture, it will be the beginning of the end for the murderous legacy of Mao.
The Catholic Church is the vessel that has been the conservator of culture for 2000 years. Do not expect it to capsize in the immediate future, but be aware and deeply concerned about the cargo that is being jettisoned. Evil loves a void, an empty vessel. In the words of our Lord, “When the unclean spirit comes out of a person, it passes through waterless places seeking rest, and not finding any, it then says, ‘I will return to my house from which I came.’ And when it comes, it finds it swept and put in order. Then it goes and brings along seven other spirits more evil than itself, and they come in and live there; and the last condition of that person becomes worse than the first.”
Nature abhors a void; evil seeks one. Beware the void. In the words of Confucius, “Real knowledge is to know the extent of one’s ignorance.” Knowing the extent of one’s own ignorance is the first step toward the appreciation of culture, which is the first step toward filling the void. By the grace of God, I hope to meet Confucius in the next life. Like angels who take themselves lightly, I expect him to be a jolly, nimble, humble soul. The unplayful—the Puritans of any creed—cannot be trusted. For that reason, I give Confucius the last word: “Never give a sword to a man who can’t dance.”
[Photo Credit: Unsplash]