Faithless Is He That Says Farewell When The Road Darkens

With the recent strike against Syria by the Trump administration and the furthering pursuit of the aggressive NeoCon policy, many of the former “Trump Train” riders began to jump ship… or…er…train. After the strike against Syria I watched the Rectosphere, Twittersphere and Facebook blow up with backlash from all those who considered Trump “our guy”. This is understandable. After all, those who voted for Trump did so under the pretense that he would stop with this silly foreign policy and focus on “Making America Great Again.” Atlas, he has failed in that…. so far.

Now that the initial rage of this event has subsided, I’m going to make a claim that may ruffle some feathers. This is a good thing. Not in the sense that what he is doing is good or right… but it is good because this whole situation, whether it be Trump, Le Pen or another “rightest” leader, has bolstered a false hope among those of us who claim to be Traditionalists, Reactionaries, Monarchists, Counter- Revolutionaries, ect. It has lulled us back into a comfortable slumber. It has fooled some of us into the idea that democracy may just work, after we spent months, if not years railing against the failure of democratic and republican systems of governance. And even if we didn’t completely fall off into a slumber, what was it that we expected? Did we truly expect a hyper-capitalist to “save” a nation that only a return to Christ could foster? Did we so naively believe that Trump could march face first against a power so ingrained into the governments of the West and win from the top down?

Let us not find despair in this turn of events. Let this be a rattling of our cage and arise us from the comfort that we took in Trump and similar leaders. Brothers, we are counter-revolutionaries. Let us hold true to the principles and conviction that we have been espousing. Let us continue to fight against modernity and let us not forget why. Our war will not be won with votes, nor will it be won with arms. Nay, this is a culture war. It will be won in the family, in the community, in the pews. To truly “Make America Great Again” we must make it great for the first time. Let this nation be converted and let us crown Christ as the King. Let Europa be reclaimed by the sovereignty of our Lord. Let us not put false hope in charlatans and demagogues. Our war is a war of the spirit and what is won there will manifest itself here. We my brothers are the torchbearers and it is up to us to live and cultivate the life we wish to see flourish. We will only forge anew through suffering, penance, piety and faith. Be strong. Be courageous. Do not be deceived. Do not despair. We have a choice upon awakening from the lies of modernity. We either chose despair and nihilism like the weak, or we become ever stronger. We must become guardians. We must becomes those that reflect the light of truth, beauty and goodness.

All that is gold does not glitter, Not all those who wander are lost; The old that is strong does not wither, Deep roots are not reached by the frost. From the ashes a fire shall be woken, A light from the shadows shall spring; Renewed shall be blade that was broken, The crownless again shall be king.” -Tolkien

tumblr_oo2f7eJ6iN1uaxri9o1_1280.jpg

 

 

 

 

Side note: Back in December of 2015 Mark Citadel wrote a prediction that Trump would come close to winning and lose. In turn this would cause more people to turn their gaze from democratic modernity and toward a Monarchist or Reactionary stance. As we know now Mark’s predication was incorrect. But it may have only been incorrect on the timing. I think if Trump continues to take the same path most politicians have been taking we may see more people awaken. I believe we have an opportunity in this to bring more people onto our side. Let us see the light in all things and continue our fight of restoring Europe and its offspring’s to the light of Christ, and in turn the world.

 

 

Deo duce, ferro comitante!

 

Advertisements

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.

Thoughts On Imperialism and Nationalism

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

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

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

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

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

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

-Cato

 

The Perfectly Effete, Nu-Male.

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

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

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

13417705_259307991100577_7111117615946888187_n

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

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

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

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

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

13434949_259840777713965_5953673923527610745_n

The full article: Here

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

 

 

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–)

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

 

Modernity & Its Parasitic Nature

The narrative we are told in these dark times is that we built a new, and better civilization when the last of the Kings were thrown out or killed. That the rise of democracy, republicanism and its materialistic economic systems are part of the linear progression of history. Men today believe that we only improve as we go on. It is a fatal flaw to hold the belief that history is linear, for it is not. It is cyclical. Ages cycle from low points, to high points and then decline back down. We are currently living in a decline, drawing ever closer to the collapse. The good news is that once such a collapse takes place the regeneration of a cycle begins. That bad news is the destruction that may be wrought in such a storm. Furthermore, most of us will  not live to see the rise of the new. Which is why it is important to build for the future of our people.

Modernity itself is parasitic. It is a vulture that only survives by living off the corpse of a dead civilization, masked by advancements in technology alone. We chug along because we live in a world that feeds off what our ancestors built. The wisdom, statecraft, tactics, inventions, etc, all were created before our time. We have slowly been killing the aspects that made the Occident great. We can only survive so long by living off what we once had, it will eventually run out off fuel. Many people refuse to believe this, they see advancements in technology and medical science. People can live longer and more comfortable so why would anyone believe its all falling apart. It is a mask, that is all.

It is important to realize this. The sooner we realize such things the easier it will be to set our minds on what is important. We must build families, communities, devotion to religion and cultivate the culture that we want to see returned. We must build a legacy. That is the only way. Trying to solve our problems with a vote, or a protest won’t save us. Only battering down the hatches and building will secure a future. In the storm that comes only the prepared will survive. Only those who have worked for what comes after. Take the “live in the moment” philosophy that modernity has taught you and burn it. Burn everything that does not make you a better man, or women. Put your effort into what comes after. Think about your peoples future, and not just your own. What you leave behind in this life is what shapes its future, not what you acquire for yourself, but what you build for you lineage.

Think about it.