Modernity Claims Another Victim

Update: https://www.rt.com/news/354430-sainte-rita-church-demolition-paris/
Its 4AM so I am going to keep this short. Honestly, I don’t have much to say.
A Catholic Church in France, for the past year, has been officially closed. Want to know what will go in its place once it is destroyed? A. Fucking. Parking. Lot.

The Sainte Rita Church was sold by its owner because he was unable to afford the payment.  The cost to recover it is €3 million. It was officially closed last year, however it has continued to be used to hold mass and has been operational for quite some time.

Recently, as of August 3, 2016, riot police have shown up to disperse “protester” who are attempting to fight the demolition of yet another holy building. Even worse yet, they forcefully removed the Priest who was in the middle of celebrating a mass. Article here.

13891801_1206190136109959_8547373944640254014_n

I haven’t been able to find a whole lot of information on the happening in English. Any updates I will attempt to post about.

Where are these riot police when Islamists barge into a mass and behead holy men? Where are they when saracens shoot civilians?

The modern nation-state will not protect you.

All I will say is France is sealing its own fate. A once glorious and holy nation falls yet again to the relentless onslaught of liberalism and modernity. What it deserves is death. However, what it needs is a divine restoration. I ask you to pray for not only France, but all of Christendom.

The storm will only get worse my friends. Holdfast.

Turning Inward

Good post by Testis Gratus over at his blog Ad Calvariam

Ad Calvariam

monk-at-prayer

[First posted at WCR: 1 July 2016]

In the West, proper meditation and contemplation have generally been forgotten. The modern is usually much too concerned with the external to care about real introspection. The idea of inner reflection is often seen as passé. Anyone who would think of doing such a thing is merely engaging in the act of navel-gazing like those ridiculous idealists with their heads in the clouds. Leave it for the oriental monks high up in their mountains. Of what use is rumination and these other pursuits to modern man? If we want to be virtuous, we must be men of change and action! If you’re not out in the streets signalling your holiness, then what’s the point?

Even those who seek what’s been lost are looking in the wrong places. Most of the present forms of inward prayer in our society are poor copies imported from the far East, which are paraded around as…

View original post 1,197 more words

00028340 copy

Thoughts On Imperialism and Nationalism

Imperialism is an interesting topic. For a lot of reactionaries imperialism may be viewed in a negative light due to the imperialistic nature of the Cathedral. Between American Imperialism in places such as the Middle East, and the leftist Imperialism of the EU over Europe, it is understandable why many on the right dislike Imperialism. However, is it really imperialism itself that is a problem? I would have to say no, it is not.

Among other things, imperialism is something that isn’t bad in a specific framework. The issue really boils down to who the imperialists are. In the modern world the main imperialist nation is the United States. Although it is still a concept dominated by Occidental man, the ideology behind it has shifted drastically. Modern imperialism differs greatly from classical examples of it due to the manner it is employed. This modern form of imperialism revolves around the leftist narrative of democracy. Spreading the democratic ideal no matter the cost. We see examples of this with Americas wars in the Middle East, and prior to that we see it take place throughout modern and post-modern history. WW1, WW2, and the Cold War all show us American Imperialism. The westernization of nations such as Japan, South Korea, and the attempts on Iraq and now Syria are all American Imperialism. So what makes it so different from that of classical imperialism we saw under the Roman Empire, Heiliges Römisches Reich, Russian Imperium and to a further extent the period of colonization by France, Britain and other European powers? Simply put we see a change in both ideological disposition and end goals. Pre-American Imperialism did seek ideological goals to some extend. We see this most glaringly in the example of the Holy Roman Empire. Its ideological goal was the unification of a Christen Empire under a similar model to that of the classical Roman Empire. Similarly the American style imperialism is fueled by the ideological goal of spreading the liberal-democratic principles on a global scale. However, one of the biggest differences isn’t so much the ideological mechanisms that propel imperialist motives but the end means of achieving this. Classic examples of imperialism didn’t just sit back and subvert other nations in a vague attempt to bend them to their will, but conquered them. In the example of the Heiliges Römisches Reich (Holy Roman Empire for those of you who don’t know how to use google) various nations and peoples of Europe were conquered and defeated in battles that eventually gave rise to the collective Imperium (by far the most simplistic and roughest summary I can give). This form of imperialism was able to create a large Empire while at the same time allowing for individual kingdoms to maintain, to some degree, their own culture. This allowed for Christendom to unite itself under the golden banner, yet at the same time preserve the identity of all the different peoples. These different peoples for the most part maintained their own King or Sovereign, who in turn bent his knee to the Emperor. It was able to maintain a multi-cultural empire within the framework of a single common bond, that of Christianity. If you care to read about the structure of the proper imperial system I refer you to the Hapsburg Restorationist’s page.

Later in the early modern period we see the rise of the imperialist Europe that set its sights on areas outside that of the Occident. Countries such as France and Britain began to colonize and control large swaths of land in the continents of Africa and Asia. This is more similar to the modern/postmodern imperialism we see today, except with one notable difference, control. During the era of imperialism these countries would fully assume control of their target nation. Due to this they were able to maintain order much easier then the kind we see today. Ultimately it failed when the enlightenment ideology began to spread its revolutionary ideals, however, during the era of imperialism in places such as Africa the infrastructure and economies of such countries skyrocketed. This was due to the fact that the Occidental man excelled at statecraft and brought his understanding of civilization to these more undeveloped regions. Even more then that he stayed around and actually ruled. Which is what separates this form from that of todays imperialism. We see a lot of failure in todays imperialism due the the fact that instead of invading, conquering and controlling foreign lands, we seek to subvert. We play a much more deceptive game by arming opposing factions in attempts to destabilize countries all while spreading democratic propaganda, which all falls in line with the current idea of Democratic Peace Theory. Every now and then we actually send our own military to do the job, like we saw in Iraq, but in the end we don’t follow through with the job. We leave the country in shambles, creating a power vacuum that gives rise to groups such as ISIS. You can’t just go into a foreign country, topple its government, set up elections and then say “good luck”. Most of the people in these countries have no concept governance, let alone the ability to govern themselves (Occidental man struggles to govern himself and its his brainchild, so who thought it would be a good thing to export?!?).

The main points I’m trying to get across here is the fundamental change in the nature that imperialism is carried out and its underlying ideology. Imperialism in itself is not an issue, but who controls it can be an issue, and how it is ultimately utilized. Currently, however we are seeing a revitalization of nationalism and a withdrawal from the imperialist mindset. Brexit is an example of this along with groups such as Front National, and Golden Dawn. One could point to the cyclical nature of civilizations to try and explain this. The empires of the Occident peaked and now decline. In an attempt to stop the current leftist imperialistic ideology, countries are beginning to retreat within themselves (or try to). In the current state of the world I think this has the potential to be a good thing. Although I consider myself an Imperialist in the true sense, modeled after Holy Roman Empire, I also believe that to revitalize such a Sacrum Imperium we must first restore the individual strength of Occidental nations. The leftist-democratic ideology must first be destroyed and caste out. European nations must work to safeguard and restore the traditions that flourished under Christendom. Once they regain their strength and true culture, then a new Sacrum Imperium can be created. It is like I’ve said many times in past posts, we must cultivate first. If we ever hope for the restoration of Occidental glory then we must begin by setting the foundations. So get to work.

So in a sense I am a Nationalist (Thedism is more accurate) and an imperialist. The unique Christian cultures of the occident must be restored before a new imperium can rise. This is why I support the imperialism of empires such as HRE, because it allows for a thedistic local structure in many places, while maintaining a multiethnic imperium. In this aspect one can take pride in his heritage and traditions, honor his King, his Empire and his God. It provides the unity of peoples, while preserving the local (granted this is within an Occidental framework. What modern imperialism seeks is globalism, which destroys the local)

In the end what is boils down to is ultimately who is the prime sovereign of the Imperium. In the proper sense it would be Christ, in the modern sense it is liberalism, equality, and other vague concepts. Those are my thoughts on the matter, at least for now. Its been a while, hope my readers are still out there.

-Cato

 

The Perfectly Effete, Nu-Male.

Before we get to the post let me inform you that I have decided to stay in the Latin Rite. I was raised in it, it is my culture and the faith of my ancestors and Catholicism is deeply engrained within me as the truth. I cannot abandon it. However, I do wish to explore eastern style of prayer. Most notably the Jesus Prayer, but I must seek guidance from my spiritual director before I go any further. I thank everyone who kept me in their prayers.

Todays post will be short and simple. I am pressed for time.

Now lets discuss a recent happening in the ever growing madness of leftist journalism. A writer for the New York Daily News recently published an article describing his experience of shooting an AR15. I’m unsure whether to be angry, saddened or just bewildered. I guess its a bit of all three. The pure effeminate disposition of this “man” is absolutely horrifying and speaks to the dire state of masculinity in the west. What follows is a link to a tweet of his, along with an excerpt from his article.

13417705_259307991100577_7111117615946888187_n

Lets break it all down. He claims that the recoil bruised his shoulder. It bruised his shoulder…. I don’t know about you but I own an AR15 and one of the reasons its such a fun gun to take to the range is because the very fact that it has extremely low recoil. Hell, I have seen very young girls shoot this weapon without any complaint. The only explanation for bruising from firing such a small round must be a sign that this “man” has liver disease. Or he’s just a typical weak modern man. I’ll go with the latter.

“The Smell of Sulfur and destruction made me sick.” First off, that’s not sulfur, its cordite and gunpowder and as a left handed shooter who shoots a right handed gun I can tell you its really not that bad. The ejection port of my rifle blasts the smell right into my face, I seem to be doing fine. Frankly, I enjoy the smell. It cant smell any worse then the trashy  streets of New York.

By far the most ridiculous and ignorant statement that this Nu-Male made was the claim that the firing of rounds “like a bomb” gave him “a temporary case of PTSD. Not only is the descriptor of “loud like a bomb” grossly overstated but it is a dishonor to real men with actual PTSD. If firing a low recoil rifle such as an AR15 gives you PTSD then you sir, are nothing more then a bitch. Plain and simple. You are a weak minded, weak bodied disgrace of a man.

This my friends is a perfect example of an effete, Nu-Male. Mentally castrated, low-T, modern man. If the Alpha/Beta theory holds any weight what so ever this “man” is at the lowest of it. In the coming collapse people like this will be the first to die off. They don’t have near the strength to survive anything without the comforts and luxuries of modernity.

But alas, this article is most likely a sham. In the end it is nothing more then leftist propaganda to shift the lens from the Islamic threat to that of the gun. It is 150% agenda based, ideologically fueled garbage. Nothing more. Just another iteration of the Cathedral narrative.

13434949_259840777713965_5953673923527610745_n

The full article: Here

He also wrote a follow up article after receiving a lot of ridicule. In this article he claims that the gun debate is also a gender debate, while he desperately tries to defend his “manhood”. Once again, typical push of the garbage narrative.

 

 

Update 

Once again I apologize to my readers for the lack of posts. I’m currently going through some discernment on if I am going to stay in the Latin Rite. Whether that be a move to the Eastern Catholic Rite or a full conversion to Orthodoxy is yet to be seen. I am doing a lot of reading, praying and seeking guidance from both fellow Catholics and Orthodox brethren to try and understand more fully. I ask that you keep me in your prayers during this period in my life. It is not an easy time, nor is this a light choice for it could contribute to salvation or damnation. I ask that you pray for me that God shows me the path of truth. 

Posting shall resume next week at the latest. 

The Very Best of Last Week in Reaction (2016/05/22)

Honored to make the list along with some other fantastic posts and bloggers.

The Reactivity Place

"Ça ira" is an emblematic song of the French Revolution, first heard in May 1790. “Ça ira” is an emblematic song of the French Revolution, first heard in May 1790.

Last week’s TWiR is up at Social Matter. A record-setting week in number of words I think (~6900) and a record-setting number of honorees. The “Official” Honor Roll is as follows:

View original post 456 more words

Jan_Wynants_-_Parable_of_the_Good_Samaritan_-_WGA25921

Progressive Corruption: Altruism

Progressivism, leftism, liberalism, or whatever you may call it has a veritable uniqueness to how it impinges upon particle goods or truths. Leftism is the ideological embodiment of cancer. Like cancer, which is a disordered mutation of a cell, leftism is the disordering of, among many things, goodness or virtue. Betwixt the things it disorders lies altruism. This, also known as charity, is a virtue. Not only did our Lord God teach charity,

One who is gracious to a poor man lends to the LORD, And He will repay him for his good deed. – Proverbs 19:17

but it was also understood by the virtues pagans such as the Stoics.

Every mans life is sufficient. But thine is nearly finished, though thy soul reverences not itself, but places thy felicity in the souls of others. -Marcus Aurelius

To be altruistic and charitable, when done within the parameters of prudence is indeed a noble virtue to hold. However, like any virtue it must be properly ordered and contained within a framework, lest it be corrupted into something less then desirable.

This is precisely what leftism has done to such a virtue. It not only removes the prudential judgment required to maintain altruistic acts, but also removes the moral guidance containing it. It degrades into a holiness spiral of virtue signaling and a vicious propagation of so called “rights”. As far as imprudence goes, altruism becomes degraded once sound judgment is removed. Let us put this into a real life example.

A homeless man stands at the street corner. You could, 

A. Give him money in the form of cash. 

B. Buy him a meal or give him a jacket. 

The latter example, option B, would be the prudent decision. The first option is imprudent because money, although containing the possibility of helping him, runs a very high risk of being spent unwisely by the homeless man. While the latter option is prudent because it addresses his immediate needs.

Imprudent decisions however, are not exclusive to leftists. What is exclusive to leftism is the moral derailment of altruism. We see this in moments such as “gay rights” or “feminism”. Due to the loose moral parameters of liberalism it has characterized such movements as being altruistic or charitable. “We must selflessly fight for these peoples “rights”. Between the imprudent judgments and the destruction of the moral order it creates what we see today. To further top this all off, leftists seem to do things not out of a true sense of altruism, that being out of selflessness, but out of a desire to signal their statues of “virtue”. It becomes nothing more then a charade.

The truly noble exercise altruistic deeds with prudence and a true desire to help another, without expecting a reward or recognition. Those who are charitable with sound morals and good judgement, never speak of it. Selflessness requires one to be selfless, which includes the negation of an earthly reward. In a room full of people, the one that speaks the loudest of his altruistic acts, is most certainly doing it for the wrong reasons. While the man you least expect may be the most charitable.

Note: I intend to do a little series on Progressive Corruption and to clear away the deformity that the left brings to particular goods. To once more restore these goods to the proper order they belong. A reactionary understanding of things, if you will.

Update

I apologize to my readers for not getting material out as often as I did a few months ago. I’ve been busy with things in my personal life and job. Eventually things should settle down allowing me more time. Till then I will post when I can. 

Thanks for the patience. 

Cultivating Internal Order Among The Chaos

A huge factor the differentiates the reactionary from the modern man is his internal disposition. In my time in college, and now the working world one of the most notable features of modern man is his spite and joylessness. One of the angriest, must unsatisfied people I work with is a gender studies major and feminist. Its interesting to see how people such as the feminists, the homosexuals, and all the revolutionaries are never joyful no matter how many cultural and political victories they win. They consistently are in a state of hatred. This is interesting to me due to the fact that as a reactionary my entire worldview, principles and beliefs are in radical opposition to almost every aspect of modern culture and society. Yet, I am still able to find joy, smile and make others laugh. Am I tempted by despair at times? Of course. But my internal disposition, or at least the disposition I work toward (I am by no means where I intend to be yet), is much different from that of the revolutionary.

The reactionary man attempts to harness the spirit of tradition. He seeks to build within himself discipline and duty. His goal is to cultivate a life of nobility, honor, and virtue. Because the reactionary rightfully understands that these things are necessary not only to transcend the darkness around him but also to lay a foundation for those who come after him. The biggest difference between the traditional man and the revolutionary man is “creation opposed to destruction”. The revolutionary destroys, he tears all things down in an ever growing hunger to consume all around him. This is what makes him so joyless. His disposition is not about seeking out virtue or devotion to the divine. He laughs at notions of discipline and duty, instead only seeking pleasure and vain attempts to eliminate what he sees as chains that bind him to higher authority. The revolutionary is consistently at war with not only his own nature, but that nature of divinity and reality. He must destroy, because there is always something that is holding him back from becoming completely free, in his mind. On the other hand the reactionary is able to find joy because he lives for meaning outside of himself. He understand his nature is fallen, he understands the notion of hierarchy and most importantly he understand that he must answer to a power far greater then his own will. He seeks to create within himself the proper order in an attempt to align himself on the correct path. Instead of destroying his chains he embraces them. He embraces the chains of morality, duty and discipline which consequently frees him from the truest from of slavery, that of self. He is able to find joy knowing that even if the world falls further into destruction, victory will be had in the end.

Although the life of the reactionary in this modern world is difficult it is important to live. I’ve said it many times before and I will continue to drill it into your head. You must cultivate within yourself the virtues, truths and discipline that you want to see flourish. Unlike the revolutionary who destroys to get his way, the reactionary must cultivate. He is a gardner. He does not seek to destroy tradition but seeks to live it. And in a time where it is absent, he seeks to rejuvenate it.

“A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in.” -Greek Proverb

This is not to say he cannot, when necessary, take up the sword and fight when he must. But what the reactionary seeks to destroy is not truth, but the cancer that grows on the truth. However, before one seeks to change the culture around him, one must first cultivate the proper order within himself. Restoration must be placed on a sound foundation.

“Acta non verba” my friends. Deeds not words.

 

I shall leave you with this…

“The ones who truly love their traditions don’t take them too seriously. They march to get their heads shot off with a joke on their lips. And the reason is that they know they’re going to die for something intangible, something sprung from their fancy, half humor, half humbug. Or perhaps it’s a little more subtle. Perhaps hidden away in their fancy is that pride of the blueblood, who refuses to look foolish by fighting for an idea, and so he cloaks it with bugle calls that tug at the heart, with empty mottoes and useless gold trim, and allows himself the supreme delight of giving his life for an utter masquerade. That’s something the Left has never understood, and that’s why its contempt is so heavy with hate. When it spits on the flag, or tries to piss out the eternal flame, when it hoots at the old farts loping by in their berets, or yells “Women’s Lib!” outside the church, at an old-fashioned wedding (to cite just some basic examples), it does so in such a grim, serious manner — like such “pompous assholes,” as the Left would put it, if only it could judge. The true Right is never so grim. That’s why the Left hates its guts, the way a hangman must hate the victim who laughs and jokes on his way to the gallows. The Left is a conflagration. It devours and consumes in deadly dull earnest. (Even its revels, appearances notwithstanding, are as grisly an affair as one of those puppet parades out of Peking or Nuremberg.)The Right is different. It’s a flickering flame, a will-o’-the-wisp in the petrified forest, flitting through the darkness…”
The Camp of the Saints, Jean Raspail (1925–)