The Forge of Struggle

Passion is a word that has its root in the Greek verb πασχω, meaning to suffer. It is, by definition, a near uncontrollable emotion or desire for something. We all struggle to become masters over our emotions (passions), allowing our emotions to run rampant is not only a danger to the destination of our immortal soul, but it is also a danger to our physical well being, along with a danger to the community. We can see examples of this in movements such as BLM, Nazism and Nihilistic Black Pillers. BLM and Nazism are both fueled by anger (rage) and hate. Black Pill takers are overcome with despair. It is important as reactionaries and men of virtue that we control our emotional response to things in a prudent manner.

I tweeted today about my struggle with such things. Life, it seems at times, can be a rollercoaster of uncontrollable emotions. There are times I feel angry, deeply saddened and even apathetic. Now, it is okay to have righteous anger, or to experience sadness if they don’t control you. However, apathy is never okay. It is demonic in its origins. Adam Wallace of West Coast Reactionaries responded to my tweet with a wonderful statement.

A reactionary should be stable and intense like [the] Sun, not shifting and emphased like the Moon. -Adam Wallace

We must all strive to achieve mastery over are emotions. For us Catholics and Orthodox it is important to pray to God that he gives you the strength to not be overcome by emotions. Due to our fallen nature, our life is a constant struggle. This is not news to the reactionary nor is it an impenetrable wall. It is a mountain, something that is big, yet can be overcome with perseverance, faith and courage. The struggle of life is a challenge that all of us should be willing to meet. Just as fire tempers steal, so too does struggle temper our resolve. Struggle is our forge. Suffering is our fire. By overcoming such things, by meeting them head on with courage, man can remake himself. It is not a easy journey, and the path to nobility is full of perils and false paths. There is a reason that Jesus told us the path is narrow and many are lead astray. The righteous path is dark and rough, but at the end glory awaits.

So my friends, I say to thee. Fight. Struggle. Suffer. Overcome. Rome was not built in a day, and neither is the noble man. Temper your soul in the fires of struggle and emerge victorious, ever stronger.

Man cannot remake himself without suffering, for he is both the marble and the sculptor. -Alexis Carrel

 

Advertisements

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.

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–)

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.

12969445_10154146886102922_1283431648_n.jpg

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.

12939597_10154146887672922_858904205_n.jpg

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

12966391_10154146888432922_120932563_n.jpg

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.

12966842_10154146916892922_1071370885_n

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

12966165_10154146917417922_717400085_n.jpg

 

 

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.

 

 

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

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).

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….

Ethics: Deontological, Virtue, Consequentialism

Ethical theory plays an important role in how we carry out our lives, and to some extent it is one aspect of the foundational bedrock to how a society is built. There seem to be three main ethical theories, deontology ethics, virtue ethics, and consequential ethics. Each theory is concerned with a unique approach to ethical questions. Both deontological and virtue ethics stand in stark opposition of consequential ethics. Although the former two are different from each other, they contain the ability to overlap to some degree. But only slightly.

Consequentialist Ethics 

This form of ethics is many times employed by the utilitarian and can be found extensively written about by John Stuart Mill. Consequentialists approach ethics by determining the outcome of a choice. In other words, they base the criteria of a particular action or intention based solely on the consequence of such a choice. For someone who adheres to this form of ethical theory it is grounded in the overall good of a choice, meaning that a choice or action is morally acceptable if it leads to an increase in the overall good. The “good”, however, is determined differently among consequentialists. For the utilitarian, the good is defined in context of happiness, pleasure, desire and to an extent the welfare of the human person. On the other side you have pluralists, who take into consideration how such goods are distributed among beings.

In summary it is based of two principles.

  • Whether an act is right or wrong depends only on the results of that act
  • The more good consequences an act produces, the better or more right that act

This form of ethics is the basis for hedonism.

Deontological Ethics 

The ethics of deontology are not based on consequences, they revolve more around what is absolute, regardless of outcome. It assumes that a choice is either right or wrong, and cannot be salvaged be a potential outcome of a good. Example, it is always wrong to lie, regardless of if such a lie may produce a greater good. What makes a choice “right” is based off its conformity to moral norms, or rules. Deontological ethics are duty based, and focus on the rightness or wrongness of an action themselves, instead of there consequences (consequentialist) or the character of the actor (virtue). To a degree it is a form of moral absolutism. Immanuel Kant was know for the argument that it is always wrong to lie, even if it means lying to a murderer about the location of his victim.

Virtue Ethics 

Virtue ethics approaches moral questions in a different way then that of deontology and consequential ethics. Instead of concerning itself with right action, virtue ethics seeks to cultivate a good life, or seeks to answer “what kind of person should I be?” The first two ethical theories deals with specific ethical issues, while virtue ethics deals with the entire life of a person, and how to go about making the right choices all the time. Deontological ethics attempts to give us a rule book of what to do and not to do, while the question, How should I live?, is answered by Virtue ethics by saying, live virtuously or have a virtuous character. One of the important aspects of virtue ethics are the character traits of an individual. If one has the virtue of courage strongly apart of their character, then we would expect that individual to always act courageously in any situation, regardless of difficulty. As Aristotle says, “We are what we repeatedly do, excellence then is not an act but a habit.” This is important to understand with Virtue ethics. It may take many years to cultivate the proper virtue, but when done correctly it becomes habitual. One can look at sin this way. When we consitently commit mortal sin, and it becomes habitual sin we don’t only separate ourselves from God, but we lose the sense of justice due unto that evil act, therefore it becomes easier to commit. By ordering our character to cultivate the proper virtue it allows us to make the correct choice in a variety of situations. It leads us to a holy life in the Christian context because it bases morality off of ones character instead of just robotically following a rule, for the sake of following a rule. This is not to say rules are bad, because they can aid us in determining virtue. One could also say that obeying such rules, commands and laws is done because that itself is virtuous. There is a particular order of things in the world, cultivating the proper virtues allows one to order their soul to the divine.

Think about it this way, it is wrong to fornicate. For the consequentialist the action of fornication depends on the outcome, if it increases happiness and pleasure for both parties then it is morally acceptable. For the deontologist, it is wrong to fornicate because the rule says it is wrong to fornicate. To the virtue ethicist, fornication is not virtuous, therefore even if the moral norm would change to say fornication is okay, the virtue ethicist wouldn’t engage in it.

But what about commands by God? Isn’t commandments by God a form of deontological ethics? I assume to a degree they are. But I think one must look at them in a different way then that of a simple rule. God commands things, not simply to determine things, but because their is a particular ordering of the universe that grows out of himself. By seeking virtue ethics in the Christian context, we seek to properly order ourselves toward sanctity and holiness. It appears that deontology ethics follows a law solely for the sake of following a law, what it lacks is the character, and as we are taught the Lord judges us based off what is in our heart. By cultivating virtue we become a properly ordered person, therefore, all the actions we choose are based of the virtue of our character, and not purely a checklist of what is right and wrong. One can only achieve holiness if they order their character to the divine through the cultivation of virtue. Not to mention that in a situation where the moral choice is not clearly defined, the person with the properly ordered virtue will more then likely make the proper choice.

Then again I am not trained in ethics, but It seems to me virtue ethics is more accurate at exploring the deeper complexity of the human person and divine ordering of things. Either that or its my typical Catholic bias toward Aristotle and Aquinas, as opposed to Kant, Ockham or Mill.

Honor: Chivalry, Bushido, Omerta

 

I would like to take a moment and talk about “honor”. A concept and a virtue lost upon modern man. Throughout history and various societies we see different codes of honor manifest, but mainly carrying a similar theme. These codes are most notably exemplified in warrior cultures such as the Samurai, Vikings, Spartans, and to a further extent Knighthood during Christendom.

There are two main types of honor; vertical and horizontal.

Horizontal honor pertains to respect between individuals and is usually defined by various codes such as the Samurai code of Bushido, Knight code of Chivalry and even among criminals the code of Omertà. It also requires such groups to adhere to the code.

Vertical honor entails giving respect, esteem or reverence to someone who is above you. In antiquity vertical honor would be that given to a King, because by the virtue of his position it is required. The same kind of Honor is given unto God. “Take heed diligently lest thou forget the Lord, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and shalt serve him only, and thou shalt swear by his name.” -Deuteronomy 6:13. That is what is meant by fear of the Lord.

Let us go into the different codes shall we.

Omerta:

Whoever appeals to the law against his fellow man is either a fool
Or a coward
Whoever cannot take care of himself without that law is both
For a wounded man will shall say to his assailant
“If I live, I will kill you. If I die, you are forgiven”
Such is the rule of honor

Omerta is the code of honor developed and employed by various Italian crime families. Yes, even criminals once had honor… if that is any indication of how far post-modern man has fallen. It is a code of silence, that one does not talk to the authorities or sell out member of the family. The penalty of such a violation is death.

Bushido:

  1. Rectitude
    • Morally correct behavior in thought and action. (Righteousness)
  2.  Courage
    • Doing what is right and adhering to correct path, regardless of fear. Quality of character.
  3. Benevolence/Mercy
    • Knowing when to spare a life, or engage in combat within the context of rectitude. The disposition to do good.
  4. Respect
    • the attitude of consideration or high regard.
  5. Honor
    • An objectification of praiseworthiness. Similar to respect
  6. Honesty
    • being truthful
  7. Loyalty
    • allegiance or faithfulness to ones superiors, brothers or sovereign.

As we can see its very similar to the Western Knight concept of Chivalry. The code of Chivalry I have already written about… It can be found Here.

 

Honor has been lost to modern man. I think it is time to cultivate it once more. It is paramount to living a noble and masculine life. But it must be understood in the Christian context. When honor is disordered it can be a sin and become pride. Such as when the Samurai commit Seppuku which is the taking of ones own life when dishonored. That is a mortal sin. I advice you visit the post on Chivalry for more information on the Christian context. However, honor is a virtue when ordered correctly. Exemplify it. Let us remember that Judas is an example of forsaking honor.