The Hobbes-Lockean Foundations of Modernity

This will be a multi-part essay on the philosophical foundations for the modern world with regards to Hobbes and Locke. Much of the material will be drawn from Christoper Ferrara’s book Liberty: The God That Failed. This essay can be said to be a brief summary of his work. I also highly recommend the book if such topics interest you and you wish to dive into them deeper.

For us to comprehend the modern ideology so ingrained in the thought of today we must first understand the foundations that it is laid upon. Although we could carry this analysis back to the rise of Mechanical Philosophy of  Descartes and the Cartesian Revolution we will begin at a later point in history that built upon these streams of thought. All we will say about Descartes is that he opened the door to the absurd concept of certainty in radical uncertainty.

Where we will begin is with the ushering in of the concept of modern Liberty which was built upon the philosophy of both Hobbes and Locke. In the prior age, the foundations of understanding were built upon the orderly hierarchical cosmos of divinely appointed natures or substances ordered to a living God, which had its pinnacle in the summum bonum (highest good) of man. This worldview requires a society to be founded under the Christian Commonwealth (or Kingdom) whose entirety of laws and ordering are set for the purpose of directing man to his revealed eternal destiny. All of this having its bedrock in the Greco-Catholic synthesis with its understanding revolving around Aristotelian hylomorphism of the unity of body and soul in one human person whose indivisible whole was the very basis of both political and ethical life in the above mentioned system. The Aristotelian understanding of substance and its incorporation into the Christian theology via Thomistic thought.

The dawn of Liberty in its modern application obviously could not be built upon such a worldview. Both Hobbes and Locke, who ushered in the new system of Liberty, did nothing short of carry out a full scale attack on Substance Theory and the Greco-Catholic synthesis. They rejected the concept that man was able to apprehend the world as it really is through the senses, and even went so far as to assault human identity as it was previously understood.  They carried out this assault using the “mechanical philosophy” of Descartes. At its core being nothing more then a Cartesian division of man into material and spiritual parts, which removed the spiritual from the realm of politics and ethics.

Hobbes, in his book Leviathan lashes out against the Aristotelian-Thomistic system. He claims that the only thing man can come to know is the names he gives to the ideas that arise in his mechanical brain upon receiving sensory input from the world. Furthermore, he claims that man cannot confirm that these ideas stem from a fixed or universal reality, not even to what he calls man. He states, “Reason, in this sense, is nothing but Reckoning of the consequences of general names agreed upon, for the marking and signifying of our thoughts…”. Hobbes also attacks the concept of an immaterial soul and denied the existence of a spiritual realm.

…mocking “the Latins” who defined God as a “Spirit Incorporeal, and then confess their definition to be unintelligible: or if they give him such a title, it is not dogmatically, with intention to make the Divine Nature understood; but Piously, to honour him with attributes, of significations, as remote as they can from the grossness of Bodies visible.”

-Liberty: The God That Failed

Hobbes even makes the assertion that the Holy Spirit is not a spirit, claiming it is nothing more then “the voice of God in a dream.” Utter heresy.

Locke’s Essay Concerning Human Understanding continues this assault on the existence of universal substances and the reality of the spiritual realm. Unlike Hobbes, however, Locke does not carry out his assault so directly but does so through skepticism. This skepticism aligns with the Cartesian method of the only certainty being radical uncertainty. As Ferrara puts it,

Skeptical of everything but his own skepticism.

Locke was not willing to conceive that questioning the authority of our senses leads to the undermined belief in the existence of God. Classical Philosophy “supposes, without examining it, the validity of Knowledge,” (Epistemology, Catholic Encyclopedia) which begets the theological claim that a loving God would not create man in His image only to give him senses that deceive him. This can be witnessed in the Greek philosophies and how they came to such fundamental understandings through reason alone, by their senses.

The seeds Locke planted lead to the undermining of Church Authority and created the modern notion that their is no absolute truth, which ironically is claimed absolutely. Locke’s philosophy claims that man’s mind is a blank slate when he is born and can only collect ideas about the world through the use of his senses. Therefore, knowledge for Locke (and Hobbes) as he states in his Essay, “hath no other immediate object but its own ideas…. and is only conversant about them.”  Locke claimed that one cannot even postulate a human nature or substance with any certainty. We can see the reverberating effects of such an ideology in the modern world with the rise of such things as transgenderism. Furthermore, Locke even denies that the “self” is body-soul unity. Claiming that, “consciousness alone unites actions into the same person… Self depends on consciousness, not on substance.” For Locke a person is nothing more then a stream of consciousness, not the soul of Christian teaching. Ferrara in his book Liberty: The God That Failed, drawing from Fabro’s, God in Exile states,

Locke’s confused “conservative” application of the mechanical philosophy, which maintained “verbal assertions of the distinction between the material world and the spiritual,” was nonetheless “in face eliminating any such distinction in theoretical order and drawing the logical conclusion from his basic principle that certainty consists in the perception of the agreement or disagreement of ideas.”

As Fabro concludes: “The importance of Locke’s influence on the molding of modern materialism and atheism by now are surely quite clear, despite his most outspoken declarations in favor of spiritualism and Christianity….”

This notion of reality espoused by Locke and Hobbes becomes the new epistemological foundation for Liberty. In summary it states that man is only the name assigned to a collection of perceptible attributes. It rejects that man is a substance of divinely created unity of body and soul with a fixed nature and his end in the summum bonum. 


I will continue this essay with posts later down the road diving deeper into these topics.





The Greco-Catholic Synthesis

To lately I have been trudging my way though a book entitled Liberty: The God That Failed by Christopher A. Ferrara. I highly recommend this book. As of now it is one of the best books I have ever picked up.

Within the first chapter of the book Ferrara goes into detail about the foundations of the Christian Commonwealth in Greek Philosophy. Its a fantastic and detailed account of how this Greco-Catholic Synthesis gave rise to Christendom and the proper ordering of man in regards to the State (referring to the Civitas, not the modern concept of the nation-state.)

What follows is a brief summary of Ferrara’s explanation of the Greco-Catholic Synthesis,

There arose a synthesis of the two great elements of the Western theologico-political tradition that began in Athens after its fall in the 4th century BC. It began when Socrates claimed to men that they must “care for their souls”. This turned the mind of Greece toward a higher ideal of state and society which led to a search for a new God. The Platonic-Aristotelian system developed for the time a philosophical realism. Ethics and politics based on the view of man as a creature possessed of a rational and immortal soul who inhabits an orderly universe which has a fixed and knowable essence. For Plato it was the Forms. For Aristotle, his “hylomorphism”, which became the Christian philosophical doctrine of matter and form. Every being in this universe is a substance, a unity of matter and the form that determines its nature. With the soul, as Christianity would teach, being the form of man. The Greeks viewed that the rational soul is ordered by nature to the practice of virtues (this was later assimilated into the Christian view in light of revelation). Mans happiness consists of an activity of the soul in accordance to virtue. The highest state of such virtue for Plato was the communion with God, and for Aristotle it was the contemplation of God for those who are capable. For the Greeks this was the summum bonum (Highest Good) through which the Greeks sought with unaided reason prior to the revelation of the New Testament.

This leads us into the political thought that began to develop under the Greeks and was later assimilated into the Christian Commonwealth. Man, being an ensouled creature whose purpose is a life of virtue and an encounter with God, led both Plato and Aristotle to teach that mans perfection requires life in the “State” which originates with the family. Aristotle claims the State is “a creation of nature” and “man by nature is a political animal.” So for the Greeks, along with the Christian leaders that followed them, a good State is one whose laws and institutions take care of the soul by promoting and protecting both virtue and religion over and above mere security of temporal things such as property. For the Greeks, along with the Catholics that followed, religion was not simply a private thing but a public honoring of the divine. The bedrock of the State from the view of the Greeks which was further defended under Christendom is summarized in Aristotle’s Politics:

But a state exists for the sake of the good life; and not for the sake of life only… It is clear then that the state is not a mere society, having a common place, established for the prevention of mutual crime, and for the sake of exchange. These are conditions without which a state cannot exist; but all of them together do not constitute a state, which is a community of families and aggregations of families in well-being for the sake of a perfect and self-sufficing life… by which we mean a happy and Honorable life…. Political society exists for the sake of noble actions, and not of living together.

The Greeks viewed man and the State as the politics of the soul. Greek philosophy produced a new order of values which helped pave the way for the universal religion of Christianity. Copleston in his book A History of Philosophy stated, “It would be difficult to exaggerate the importance of Plato in the intellectual preparatio evangelica of the pagan world” and “the natural theology of Aristotle was a preparation for the acceptance of Christianity.”

The Greek foundations of natural theology, ethics and political philosophy along with the structure of the philosophy and theology of Christianity created the “synthesis with Hellenism achieved in the early Church” (As Benedict XVI puts it). This reached its pinnacle under Thomistic philosophy. Which all comes together under the Greco-Catholic Sythesis: Which is summed up nicely by Ferrara in his book Liberty: The God That Failed,

-reveals the God for which the Greeks were seeking;

-explains man’s tendency to commit evil, and the fact of evil in the world, as consequences of the Fall of man on account of the original sin of our first parents;

-offers fallen man redemption through the grace won by the Redeemer, which repairs the defects of the rational soul clouded by Original Sin;

-completes (in the Aristotelian-Thomistic system of Thomas Aquinas and other medieval scholastics) the Greek picture of philosophical realism- a hierarchically ordered universe of divinely created and fixed natures of substances, with man and his rational soul at its visible summit and God at its highest good;

-adds the theological virtues (faith, hope and charity) to the cardinal virtues explored by Plato and Aristotle (prudence, justice, temperance and fortitude), and the concept of punishable transgressions against divine law- sin – to offenses against the natural order, concerning which there had been no explicit divine “ought” or divine prohibition in Greek philosophy.

This Greco-Catholic synthesis creates an understanding of human freedom as not only the practice of virtue, but liberation of the soul from the effects of sin.

So there you have it, a basic summary of the Greco-Catholic Synthesis. As I work my way though this wonderful book I plan on further summarizing topics of interest for my readers. I also highly recommend the purchase of this book. It is a great addition to the book collection of Catholics and Reactionaries.

God Bless.

A Brief Note on Religion and Civilization

The bedrock of a stable Civilization is that of religion. Without such a bedrock it dies. Many of those in the reactosphere recognize this truth. We witness the downfall of civilization quite glaringly in the modern times and it no doubt correlates with the diminished piety toward Religions tradition. Many in this modern tragedy see only darkness in our future. The decay of all we know. As Juan Donoso Cortes points out

In proportion to the diminution of faith, truths diminish in the world; and why the society which turns its back on God, beholds all its horizons suddenly obscured by terrifying darkness.

Even the men who ushered in the ideology of chaos and death recognized this reality. In the Social Contract, Rousseau writes, “That there never was a state formed without religion serving as the foundation”. Even the disgraceful and abdominal Voltaire in his Treatise on Intolerance states, “That wherever there is a society, religion is absolutely necessary.”  One could assume however, that this is why the ideology of liberalism is near dogmatic in its disposition, a new religion if you will. But that is a topic for another time.

Religion is a requirement. Not a suggestion. This is even more so the case in a free state. A state that lacks political repression must have religious repression. Polybius states that holy fear is more necessary in free states than in others. This is simply because man is fallen in nature and requires some form of restraint upon his will. Or as Maistre puts it, “Man when reduced to himself, is too wicked to be free.” Without such restraint passions will consume him. No other remedy is better then that of religion. Political repression may restrict his will in some capacity, but only a reverent fear of the divine can truly place the proper chain on man and order him to the proper disposition.

We are all attached to the throne of the Supreme Being by a supple chain that restrains us without enslaving us. Nothing is more admirable in the universal order of things than the action of free beings under the divine hand. – Joseph De Maistre

Without a revitalization of reverence toward the divine and the traditions of Religion, all shall perish.


Of Kings And Demagogues

Recently, the nation of Poland proposed an outright ban on the heinous and evil crime of abortion. Shortly following said proposal massive amounts of women took to the street to protest. Not only did they protest in the streets but many women (and a few men) walked out of a Catholic Mass after the priest called for a ban on it as well. Shortly after the protest,  “Lawmakers with Poland’s ruling right-wing party voted in a tumultuous parliamentary commission session to reject a proposal for a total ban on abortion.” With the minister of science and higher education, Jaroslaw Gowin stating that the protest, “caused us to think and taught us humility” and that “there will not be a total abortion ban.”

To those of us on the dissident right, this is terrible news. Which brings me to the topic of this article. The duties of a King, verses the failures of the politician.

For those of you on facebook, there is a page called The Patriarchy (I recommend following it). The founder and editor of the site recently had this to say,

A king was fist born the son of a king, born of a lineage of rulers. From his earliest years, he was schooled intensively in history, geography, languages, diplomacy, the sciences of theology and the arts.

He trained with his father’s soldiers in the making of war, and knew that earning their respect was paramount to his success. He was tried and tested every day of his life, and if he was found wanting, the throne was passed to another. If he became king, he would seek to preserve and enhance his realm, carefully husbanding both the land and its people so as to pass them intact to his offspring.

A politician comes to power only by being the most skillful liar, con-artist and teleprompter-reader. His power entirely dependent upon the whim of the people, he must tell them what they want to hear the vast majority of the time. Lacking substantial means of his own, he will be prey to greed; and this, combined with is limited term of office, will induce him to tax and loot and pillage and avail himself of every kind of corruption. Once out of office, he no longer has any care for the people, aside from continuing to draw money from them to pay his handsome pension.

The king is to the politician what a homeowner is to the squatter.

-Micheal MacConnell

For any of you who have read my page on Monarchy, I have spoken of this. Hans-Herman Hoppe makes this very clear in his book Democracy: The God that Failed speaking of how the it is in the best interest of a King to not over exploit his peoples because it will reduce the amount of money in his estate which in turn will create problems for his lineage.

Besides the economic interest a Sovereign has by not exploiting his people too heavily he also has an interest, nay, a duty to safeguard his realm and people. He, although listens to the pleas of his people, is not owned by them. They do not control him. And when the masses cry out for the “freedom” to do evil he has an obligation to dismiss their whims and reprimand them for their inclination to evil.

A monarch plays the role of a father. Similar to that of the household structure, the King is a father of his nation. His first, and primary duty is protector of his “family”. Just as a father take the hard stances and tell his children “no” when they seek to do things that may cause harm to themselves or their family, so does the King stand firm in his resolve and tells the masses “no” when they seek similar ends. Monarchy stems from the Greek orgins of mono, meaning single, and arche, which is a word that means leadership. Therefore, a Monarchy is the fatherly rule of one man.

To allow the shifting whims of the masses to determine that an evil is a good is a failure of duty and an offense to God. Not only is this a temporal danger to the physical well being of a populace, but also a danger to the souls of men. To allow men to fall into the very pits of hell in the name of “freedom” is a crime so heinous it cries out to the heavens. Those nations that fight for the freedoms of evil will reap what they sow. God, although wishing all men to be saved, respects our will and shall deliver us to our desires if that is what we choose. This is why the journey into hell is a choice we make. If we choose evil over good and end up suffering for our actions, it is no ones fault except our own.

My dear brothers and sisters, now, more then ever is the time to fight for truth, beauty and goodness. Fight with all your might and strength. Do not be waylaid by demons and wicked men. Do not give into despair and anguish. Trust in the Lord your God. If you fight for the truth, if you fight for the Lord he will surly fight for you. All of these unholy empires and usurpers will soon face the justice of God. For the Lord will NOT be mocked. Tremble before his might. Revere him, glorify him and fight for him. For if you do, when God pours his vengeance out on mankind you shall find favor among his court and you will attain Glory for his holy name and kingdom.

Out of ruins we shall rise.

To reclaim the Glory lost.

To restore the eternal order.

We are the Soldier of Christ.

The Church Militant.

Soldiers of Truth.

Rising like a phoenix out of the ashes.

Unstoppable in our resolve.

Unflinching in our mission.

 Gloria in excelsis Deo 




Modernity Claims Another Victim

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.


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.

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.



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.

We Do Not Belong

*Note: Not Yet Edited for Grammar and Spelling*

As Christians it is said we do not belong to this world. We have one foot here and another in the next life. Our focus and gaze should be ever fixed on reaching the next life and following our God. Some Christian groups  may use this as an excuse or a reason that a Christian should refrain from being involved in governmental rule or temporal power. However, I see it as a reason for a good Christian government.

The modern world, in its broken and empty vastness, lacks fundamental principles of order and truth. It is a vacuum of deception. The reason that we feel so deeply alienated in this world is due to its order. This world is ordered based on an anthropocentric disposition.  For those of you not familiar with the term, it means to hold mankind as the center and most essential element of existence. This world is ordered in a way that only lives for the “hear and now”, it lacks anything transcendent, any spirit of tradition or divinity. It is just a void of the “self”. The secular world has ripped God out and replaced it with nothing more then the petty will of wicked man. The ever changing tides. This leads to a sense of emptiness, loss, despair and angst. We know, at our core something is wrong, but many cannot grasp what.

Contrast this with the old order. Under the Holy Reich of the Roman Empire, and other such Holy Kingdoms the order mimicked that of the divine realm. It was a top down hierarchy in union with the Church and the divine. Obviously, it was not without sin or hardship but the dispositon of the old order was that of a Theocentric understanding. It placed the divine as the pinnacle of existence and society ordered itself based of this understanding. Even the pagans of old understood this. In the Christian context this aided man in his journey to God. It was not an end in itself, like many believe it to be, but a guide that assisted man in his union with God. In this proper order the faith was abundant and practiced, community was organic, authority was proper and all this put man in a position to seek God more readily.

It is important to understand this. Christian Monarchy is not the end goal, nonetheless it is arranged in such a way that it aides mankind on the narrow path. It attempts to mirror the heavenly realm as closely as fallen mankind is able to do. It offers man purpose beyond that of himself, provides him with a community of faith and puts into context the reverence and honor due unto those who hold a higher place then him. In the modern egalitarian culture how can we ever preceive the honor due unto God when we cannot even grasp the concept of hierarchy. In the modern degenerate culture based on mere feelings mankind loses the aid of a pious community. And in a world that puts the will of man first, how can one ever truly understand the importance of doing Gods will.

This my friends is why we as Christians must seek a restoration of the proper order. Not as an end, not for our own glory, but for that of Gods glory, which will aid us in our journey to him.

Via a post I read on Facebook,

“Death to the Republicans and Democrats. Death to the Bonapartes and their Infernal Legions. Death to the Communists. Death to the Fascists. Death to all False Emperors and Usurper Kings; may their False Imperiums and Unholy Kingdoms come to not. Glory to the Holy Reich and may the men who fought ‘neath the Golden Flag merit Eternal Rest with Our Lord in mansions made from the gilded skulls of his foes.” -Anonymous


Modernity: The Manifestation of Lucifer

Recently I tweeted a series of tweets about sinfulness. This was brought about by a observation Ive made about many on the “alt right”. There seems to be a “holier then thou” attitude among many of its proclaimed members. They consistently bash people for being sinners and talk as if they themselves are perfect in holiness itself. This is a fatal error if approached wrongly.

First it is important to recognize sin for what it is. There is nothing wrong with condemning sin itself and speaking the truth. Examples of this would be condemning things such as pornography and sexual license. Where we must tread carefully is when it comes to condemning a particular person. We are all sinners, it is in our fallen nature. One of the counter-reationary understandings is that wickedness does not come from institutions but from man itself. If someone struggles with a particular sinful habit or addiction and is ashamed of such acts, feels guilt, yet desire to change, then it is important to help that person. Condemning them outright can drive someone further into sin, and even into more sins such as despair. If we are serious about reducing the degeneracy of the time then it is important to assist those who are calling for help.

On the other hand, the biggest problem with the modern world is not sin itself, but the disposition that most of mankind holds toward it. There appears to be a immense amount of pride taken in sinful behavior in this age. This attitude is what should be condemned. The lack of guilt is a dark and decpicable thing. Guilt is the souls call to action, it is what motivates us to seek reconciliation. That guilt is the ingrained goodness of God deep within our soul that tells us that we have done wrong. That we have not only offended our creator but also our fellow brothers and sisters. Feeling no guilt shows not only a deep disorder in our nature, but disconnect with the divine. Those who boast of their sin and actively take pride in their degeneracy deserve to be shamed.

This is what is so dangerous about the modern world, many have been led to believe that particular degenerate acts are indeed completely normal and okay. The biggest issue that arises is not sin itself but the affirmation, normalization and even push toward sinful behavior. The modern world shows a glaring manifestation of the demonic. It consistently is whispering temptations into the ears of men. Driving them deeper and deeper into the pits of hell until all is lost. Darkness begins to consume all the world at an ever increasing rate. It is even many times State sponsored, which itself is a gross perversion of the duty of our leaders. To counter this it is important to lead noble lives. To be men of good will, strong conviction and virtue. We must lead with an example, not only for our own sake but for the sake of others. Many, I believe, will follow. Those that struggle yet know what they do is wrong will find hope and renewal in the strength of the noble man. Im afraid, however, that those who are deeply proud of their sins can only be healed by the divine. But those who struggle and sit on the edge of despair can be helped. In personal experience it has helped me to see others lead virtues lives. To witness men turn away from the depravity of modernity gives hope to those who feel lost in a sea of darkness and can give them the hand needed to help pull them out of it.


So my friends. Be sober of mind. Be wise. Be virtues. Have courage, conviction and strength. The tide will only rise further. Be weary that you don’t drown. And remember, if you can help a sinner do so. The restoration begins with the revival of the soul, and within ourselves. If we are wicked and depraved we cannot fix the exoteric. If the soul flourishes it shall radiate outward like a light that will show others the way.

To live as one likes is plebeian; the noble man aspires to order and law.” -Johann Wolfgang von Goethe


Mild Christian Hermeticism

Many of the most intelligent reactionaries I interact with are of a school of philosophy called perennialism.  Most of them are of Catholic or Orthodox religion. This may sound strange given the nature of the philosophy. Many of them, from my understanding choose such a religion due to the fact that it is the faith of their ancestors. I can not speak to it too heavily for I do not want to give false information. But, this post is not so much about parennialism, it is about something else.

As a Catholic, I cannot accept such a philosophy because it claims to much. It claims that a religion such as Catholicism may be true, but there is salvation outside it. Of course, my lord has commanded otherwise so I cannot in good conscious accept it. However what I can accept is something that Mark Citadel coins as “Mild Christian Hermeticism.” Mark puts it as such,

What we can accept however is what I have coined ‘Mild Christian Hermeticism’, a reference to the great Pagan prophet, Hermes Trismegistus. In this, we can affirm that the sacrifice of the incarnate God on the cross is the only source of salvation and is the final great revelation before man. However, it also allows us to say that knowledge of the divine realm can come from sources outside of the Christian Tradition. Just to illustrate, I can confirm the mystical nature of the Hindu Vedic Scriptures, but deny that they are entirely accurate in their description of reality, or that they offer any kind of redemptive or salvific hope in the complete sense to the Hindu.
Far from a contrived justification, this is actually how notable early church fathers viewed religious matters. Perennialism simply claims too much, though I can attest that its scholars were very well-versed and articulate, and indeed should be studied.

Knowledge of the divine realm, or that beyond the veil may not be exclusive to Christianity alone. It is important to note that we believe that Catholicism (or in Marks case Orthodoxy) is in deed absolute truth, therefore all it teaches is true, however it does not teach everything that is truth. It teaches what is necessary to be saved, and to bring man back into union with the Lord. This of course is all that is necessary, there is no need for most people to peruse knowledge outside of such structure, and in my opinion I recommend against it because it can, especially for those not well versed in their faith, cause error. However, there are a few intelligent enough people who may dabble in esoteric things, and if you do such a thing I highly recommend you be careful and stop if it ever becomes a threat to your faith.

To continue we see that the truth of scripture and the Church are the absolute truth, but they do not reveal to us all the information of the divine realm, mainly because it is unnecessary for its purpose, which is the salvation of fallen man. To further explain how “Mild Christian Hermeticism” works I am going to show a series of graphs to help conceptualize it that were given to me by a fellow Catholic Monarchist I interact with named Alex Forrest (you can find him on twitter if you would like to follow him, he’s a very intelligent man.)

This first graph shows how during the fall of man from grace we lost a portion of the “good” as truth.


This second graph shows how the amount of truth is limited to our capacity to understand it, with regards to our fallible and fallen nature. This graph also fixes the graphical error in the first graph.


The third graph illustrates the importance of the Catholic faith, and its importance to both existence and salvation.


In essence the Catholic Church is a creation by God for us. Its prime goal is to draw mankind back to the divine so that it can reascend to the Kingdom of Heaven. The Beatific Vision is the pinnacle and summation of all truth and is only accessible in this state, aka. Salvation. However, although what the Church teaches is all true, it does not teach all truth, because one, we cannot know all truth this side of heaven and two, it only teaches the truth required to attained the former. It teaches the truth that is necessary for the salvation of souls. This leads to the concept of “Mild Christian Hermeticism”, which in summary is the possibility of attaining some truths outside of the Church, although not necessary for salvation. This can also be seen in the Christianization of particular pagan aspects during the early period of the Church. In essence the Church baptizes any good or truth that comes from a particular pagan philosophy. We can see this most notably in the writings of Aristotle and the other great Greek thinkers.

Therefore, because the perennial philosophy claims that salvation can come from other means it contradicts the truth that we hold, because part of that truth is that Christ’s death and resurrection was necessary for our salvation and the Church is the Lords creation for brining us back into union with him. To claim that salvation may come from outside means claims to much.

This fourth graph shows the relations of different religions.


And finally the fifth graph shows the dangers of higher levels of intellect.




In conclusion we can draw several things from this. Firstly, we see that the Catholic faith teaches only truth, but not all the truth. It only teaches the truth necessary for salvation, which if attained reveals ALL truth. Secondly we see that other truths can be obtained from outside sources, although NOT necessary for salvation. Thirdly, we see that in good conscious a Catholic or Orthodox cannot accept perennial philosophy due to its contradiction of the revealed truth of salvation by the Lord God. And finally, we see that the greater the intellect the greater the risk of error.

Once again I do not recommend nor is it required of you to pursue any outside knowledge of truth, besides that within the Church. It is better to play it safe and stay within the structure of the Church and its revealed truth, then to run the risk of falling into error. If you do pursue outside knowledge be weary and sober of mind and always discard anything that may contradict the truth of the true faith. If it does not contradict then it may be true, but do not take it as an absolute.

Hope this helps. Stay vigilant.