Is It A Threat?

One of the biggest differences Ive noticed between Reactionaries and Conservatives is the question of Islam. To an extent we both agree that Islam is both undesirable and a threat to the Occident. However, the priority of that threat ranks differently between the two sides. Conservatives see Islam as the greatest threat to the Western world. While on the other hand the Reactionary sees liberalism as the greatest threat. Here is why.

Liberalism is an internal threat, while Islam is external. Islam is invasive while liberalism is subversive. Islam only poses a major threat because of the destruction wrought by leftist politics. Islam can be dealt with fairly simply. Stricter immigration policies, strong monarchial political leaders, strong commitment to the Christian faith, stop starting revolutions in the Middle East and prudent judgments on whats best for the Occidental people. Liberalism destroys all these things. It creates a multicultural, politically correct, tolerant, accommodating society that leaves it vulnerable and open to external threats. Liberalism is eating us from the inside, while Islam assaults us from the outside. Furthermore, liberalism allows for Islam to seep into the internal, creating a deeper problem.

Eradicate liberalism and its ideals and Islam can be confronted properly. The reason conservatives don’t understand this is because what they are trying to protect is everything the Reactionary is trying correct. Conservatism is trying to conserve modernity. It works within the parameters of the leftist paradigm and that is why it is a fruitless opposition to anything. It is nothing more then the shadow of leftism itself. Addressing Islam as the greatest threat is only attacking a symptom and not the disease. Restore the occident to its glory and defending against Islam becomes much more of a realistic possibility. As long as liberalism and modernity reign we won’t be able to solve shit.

Christian Perspective on Race Realism

Out of all the right wing dissident thought, Race Realism is one of the most difficult things to accept. Most of those on the dissident right accept the fact that modern government structure is lacking, society is broken, spirituality and moral disposition is off and gender roles are a reality. Race realism on the other hand makes many people uncomfortable. In all honesty its understandable but the comfortability of something doesn’t necessarily speak to its truth. Although race realism appears to be true, as seen both scientifically and socially, many times it is used by the less then intelligent members of the alt-right as strictly a form of ammunition or fuel to attack and degrade black people. Although their isn’t anything wrong with using such evidence to make a point, it becomes a problem when people use it to support the idea that black people are less then human, savage or evil. As a  Catholic, this is wrong. It may be true that black people on average have a lower IQ then that of Whites, and that Whites may have a lower IQ then Asians, however this does not support the idea that one race is less worthy of the salvation of our Lord Jesus Christ, who belief in is necessary for the salvation of all men! The fact that there are inherent differences, both positive and negative, about different ethnic groups is not a reason to justify true racism (aka. The belief one race is superior to another). If anything I think it can be beneficial in the understanding of historical developments of different civilizations and how they ended up this way or that way, or can be beneficial in the understanding of particular philosophical trends within certain groups. Example: Africa has not shown to be very advanced technologically or civilly, yet, what they have shown is a deep spiritual devotion and immunity to anti-theism, especially in regard to the preservation of orthodox Christian teaching. It is the bishops of the African continent (along with Eastern European) that are standing firm against the degeneracy and modernization of the Western Church, and for that I am grateful!

So in summery race realism should not be a tool used to degrade and hate those of different ethnicities. It should be used academically. It gives support to the argument that equality is a fabrication, and it helps us understand the development of different peoples. However, it does not change the absolute truth that Christ calls all men to salvation through him. I think it also shows the unique aspect that God endowed on each people. He made us different and it would be wrong for use to try and equalize it all, if God in his infinite wisdom found it proper make many different unique races then it should be seen as a good. (Note: I am not advocating we came from more then two parents. Adam and Eve were the first. However, one can take into account the story of the Tower of Babel and the scattering of people to the different corners of earth.)

So as a Catholic I don’t find anything inherently wrong with race realism, however the way some people use it is disordered and incorrect. Im not saying you can’t use statistical realities to confirm a point about crime levels, or IQ levels of different peoples, but don’t use it to try and make one race out to be less then human.

I’ll leave you with this excerpt from the great Catholic Nobleman Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn from his book Leftism:

Various cliches regarding equality must be dealt with at the start. One popular cliche states that all men are equal, not physically or intellectually, but “in the eyes of God.” This, of course, is by no means the case. None of the Christian faiths teach that we are all equally loved by God; on the contrary, we have it from Scripture that Christ loved some of his disciples more than others. Nor does any Christian religion maintain that grace is given in equal amounts to all men. Catholic doctrine, more optimistic than Lutheranism or Calvinism, teaches that everyone is given sufficient grace to be able to save himself. The Reformers, who were determinists, did not grant even that minimum. The Marquis de Sade and St. Jean Vianney or Paster von Bodelschwinh were obviously not “equal in the eyes of God.” Otherwise, Christianity would make no sense; the sinner would equal the saint; bad would be the same as good.

It is interesting, however, to observe the inroads that secular democratic thinking has made among theologians. Although freedom is mentioned several times in Scripture, equality does not figure at all. Yet far too many thinkers try to bride the gap between religion, i.e., their Christian faith, and current political notions. Hence they talk about adverbial equality, unaware that they are playing tricks. They begin by saying that all men have souls equally, that they are equally called upon to save their souls, that they are equally created in the image of God, and so forth. But two persons who equally have noses or banking accounts do not have equal ones or equal banking accounts.

While our physical and intellectual differences- our inferiorities and superiorities- can be fairly obvious, out spiritual status is much more difficult to determine. Since we do not know who among us is nearer to God, we should treat each other as equals. This, however, is merely procedural. We are similar to the postman who delivers two sealed letters indiscriminately, one carrying a worthless ad and the other tidings of great joy, unaware of what is inside. The comparison is admittedly far from perfect, because all human beings, having the same Father, are therefore brothers- even if on different spiritual levels with different functions in human society. (Socially, one person can be more important than another; but since everybody is unique, everybody is indispensable. To state the contrary is democratic nihilism.)

So as we see equality in nearly all aspects is erroneous. Some are closer to God, some are smarter, some are more important. Once you accept such premises as this it isn’t to far of a leap to say that races have inherent differences on average. However, it is extremely important to note the last line in the excerpt and I cannot stress this enough. “But since everyone is unique, everybody is indispensable!!” So yes, we are different. But we are all human beings and we share one thing in common; The only means of our salvation is through Christ, and because we are all sons of God, we are all indispensable.

(Please note that this is not a defense of multiculturalism. If such differences indeed do exist it gives credit to the importance of organic society and a shared culture.)

For further reading on a Christian perspective please read LeeLee’s post:

10 Thoughts on Red Pill Race Realism

Index Librorum Prohibitorum

The Index Librium Prohibitorum was a list of authors and their associated works that were banned by the Catholic Church. It first began to appear in 1529 and was abolished in 1966 by Pope Paul IV. The point of the index was to curb the production of heretical, anti-clerical or politically dangerous material from being printed, that for the most part, ran the risk of endangering the eternal destination of the human soul. In this day and age, of free information, this may be seen as an evil and oppressive use of force, however, it was necessary. Many of the authors that got added to the list included nearly all the Enlightenment Philosophers and even with the index they still ended up brining about their evil worldview and the near genocide of France. That alone should be an indication of the reason behind such a list.

Now although the list is no longer forbidden it is still advised that one be well educated in their faith before reading, or refrain all together the reading of the material. It is also recommended that theological material still be submitted to local ordinary for approval. Now, the main reason behind the lifting of the ban is because after the fall of Monarchy and the rise of freedom of press it became near impossible to keep up with the material being put out. Therefore, the ban was lifted.

As someone who earned a degree in Political Thought much of my studies involved the reading of these banned books. I find this disturbing, not for myself, but for the amount of people who accept these books a truth and have no faith in Christ or his Church. Due to the fact that our modern foundation is built on enlightenment principles, many of these authors are seen as heroes. They include…

Thomas Hobbes



John Stuart Mill

All of these authors espouse some dangerous ideology. Now the academic study of these authors alone is not what bothers me. The most bothersome thing for me was the fact that in all my years of political thought we never read people such as Joseph de Maistre, Louis Gabriel Ambroise de Bonald, Juan Donoso Cortes, or any of the opposing counter-revolutioanry thought.


But, such are the fruits of the modern world and secular liberal education. Where evil words and deceptive lies are allowed to reign free because to modern man truth is “subjective”.

Temptations of the Reactionary

I saw a tweet the other day that said, “The temptation of the reactionary is fascism. The temptation of the Neoreactionary is libertarianism.” I find this interesting, and accurate to a degree. Although I cannot comment the latter statement, I can comment on the former.

Why is the temptation of the reactionary fascism?

The reactionary is drawn to order, hierarchy, traditional values, homogeneity, and to a degree powerful leaders. Fascism somewhat, offers these. It offers a charismatic powerful leaders, homogeneity, tradition, hierarchy, and order. It also romanticizes militarism, which brings out a sense of awe. But, as a Catholic and true reactionary I cannot accept fascism. It is modern in this foundation, and a mockery or true order, and proper monarchy. Its hierarchy is populist, and lacks true nobility and aristocracy. Its order is enforced by a massive state, many times a police state. Its homogeneity is civic in nature, not ethnic, revolving around the modern state, and not a collection of culture, people and traditions. Its leaders are demagogues, not Kings. Furthermore, as hypnotic as militarism is, it is a creation of modernity growing out of Napoleonic mass conscription. It gives fuel to exterminatory warfare. All of its positive offerings are available in true Monarchy, which is ordered properly and to an extent divinely. Fascism lacks the spiritual essence and philosophical foundation that aristocratic monarchy offers. However, it is important to note that fascism did many times defend religion, and had a spiritual aspect of it due to its opposition of communism. Christian Monarchies order grows out of the authority of the divine. The police state maintains order through fear and force of the state. Not to mention the aesthetics of Monarchy are more beautiful.

Do not give into such temptations.


Latae Sententiae

Latae Sententiae is a latin term in the Catholic Church that means “sentenced passed”. It refers to excommunication. Many times we hear people ask why politicians who claim to be Catholic aren’t excommunicated by the Pope for their stances on things such as abortion or sodomy. Technically they are excommunicated. Late Sententiae was created because the Pope cannot go around excommunicating everyone publicly. It would be a difficult job, especially in these modern dark times. If you do some searching around you can find a list of criteria that will lead to excommunication.

With this being said, I believe IMO, that the Pope should publicly declare particular politicians as excommunicated. Not because they aren’t already excommunicated but because many people are unaware of this. They need to be made an example of and publicly declared against, so the faithful and outsiders know, without a doubt, that these traitors have been cast out (at least until they make reparations and seek to correct their ways).

The Code of the Iron Legion

Cycles, Cultural Entropy and Faith

The Iron Legion has posted a code of Chivalry that Knights of these dark times ought to abide by. Take a moment and read it, reflect on it and ask yourself if you are willing to carry it out.

Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam!!

Prudential Judgement

Many modern Christians, including Catholics have done away with the virtue of prudence in their judgements and have given way to judgements made solely based off emotion. This is a dangerous flaw in the thought process of man. It leads to dangerous judgements and depending on what is being judged, can bring destruction on a massive scale.

What is prudential judgement? The catechism defines it below.

1806 Prudence is the virtue that disposes practical reason to discern our true good in every circumstance and to choose the right means of achieving it; “the prudent man looks where he is going.” “Keep sane and sober for your prayers.” Prudence is “right reason in action,” writes St. Thomas Aquinas, following Aristotle. It is not to be confused with timidity or fear, nor with duplicity or dissimulation. It is called auriga virtutum (the charioteer of the virtues); it guides the other virtues by setting rule and measure. It is prudence that immediately guides the judgment of conscience. The prudent man determines and directs his conduct in accordance with this judgment. With the help of this virtue we apply moral principles to particular cases without error and overcome doubts about the good to achieve and the evil to avoid.

In short, prudential judgement is the act of applying moral principles to a situation in attempt to achieve the good. Its purpose is to avoid evil. Now, some things are not open to prudential judgement, for not everything requires moral meditation. There are things that are always wrong, known as “intrinsic evils”. Examples of these evils would be abortion, sodomy, fornication, or genocide. Now it is important to notice that I stated particular actions, which may be different then their overarching themes. The theme of abortion falls into the category or taking the life of a human being. Killing in itself is not a intrinsic evil, however unjust killing (murder) is. Killing in self defense, warfare (this can depend), or for the good of society such as capital punishment are not in themselves evil. Sodomy is another evil that is intrinsic, although homosexuality itself is not evil. It is disordered, yes, but if a homosexual refrains from acting on his disordered desires and lives a celibate life then he is not guilty of the sin. The same goes for fornication. Sex itself is not evil, but outside of the procreative and marital context it is a sin. Genocide falls under the category of killing (most of the time).

So what requires prudential judgment? Lets take a current situation and crisis that requires prudential judgment. The immigration crisis. Now many modern Christians believe that allowing thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of “refugees” into Occidental land is practicing of the virtue of charity. Perhaps, but charity many times requires prudent judgement to be applied to see if it is the correct moral decision. Example being this: Prudent charity would involve feeding the hungry, while imprudent charity would involve just giving cash to a homeless man. One act addresses the real and present problem, his starvation, while the latter isn’t prudent, because many a times he will use the money unwisely. Similarly the immigration crisis must be approached prudently. Is it prudent to allow the influx of thousands of minorities from a foreign culture into a host culture? No, it is not. Not only has this proven through history to lay waste to the host culture, and displace the ethnic majority, but as we see from recent examples such as Cologne, that it does irreversible damage. Crimes such as murder and rape have skyrocketed, billions of dollars have been spent to accommodate these people (even though natives still suffer in poverty themselves), infrastructure has been vandalized, and Christianity has been slandered and worse oppressed in an attempt not to offend the immigrants. It is NOT prudent to allow such a thing to happen. It has wrought nothing but destruction on a massive scale and is a threat not only to the common good, but the history, culture and identity of the host. Our ancestors are turning over in their graves knowing that the Mohammedans that they spilt blood to keep out are being welcomed in with no resistance or prudent thought. Worse they are being accommodated as a priority over that of the native population. Crimes are swept under the rug, opposition is silenced and laws are being changed. History will remember us as the fools who lacked any spine. Fools who traded the beauty of Christendom for the liberal humanitarian creed of universalism and brought about our own demise.

Warped concepts of virtue plague the modern man. Love is now nothing more then affection. Charity is nothing more then pandering to the demands of the sinner.

“Tolerance and apathy are the last virtues of a dying society” -Aristotle

Emotionalism will be our death….