Setting Things Right

I hope this essay proves useful in the future, to erase the common misconceptions about what it means to be ‘right’, among other things. In a world where language has lost its meaning we can easily become confused as to what political terminology truly denotes, more-so when appropriators seek to brand themselves under labels that might benefit their own agendas. This will cover all-too-familiar ground for those within the Reactosphere, but should be helpful to initiates with questions on our politics.

the French political landscape, circa 1789

In case you were unaware of where the left/right spectrum comes from, it has its origins in the French National Assembly, where the increasingly worried aristocratic allies of the Ancien Régime sat on the right-hand side (Côté Droit) of the president, and revolutionaries of the rising merchant class sat on his left-hand side (Côté Gauche). As the revolutionary ideas of this era that came to be known as the ‘Enlightenment’ began to spread, the right vs. left paradigm became a general term for the battle between those supporting the monarchical and hierarchical orders of Europe’s kingdoms, and those seeking their overthrow in favor of a more republican form of government.

The rightists of this era were then Conservatives, in that they sought to ‘conserve’ the status quo. This term however did not enter usage until 1818 during the Bourbon Restoration, another chapter in the chaotic French ideological tug-of-war. A more common early epithet used against such counter-Enlightenment figures as Joseph De Maistre was ‘Réactionnaire’ (translated into Reactionary). On the radical right, Reactionary is not synonymous with Conservative. The Conservative opposes radical change based upon his own place in history. The Soviets who orchestrated the August Coup in Russia were the Conservatives in their own socio-historical context. Credit where credit is due, this is not a blind revulsion to change, but rather an intellectual acknowledgement that rapid change often leads to chaos and disintegration. It is why Edmund Burke could denounce the French Revolution yet support its far more pacific cousin, the American Revolution.

By contrast to this, the Reactionary opposes radical change based upon history as a whole. His politics is not local, it is cosmic, in the sense that he reacts to a change in epoch rather than a change in individual governmental structure or leadership. A la Guénon and Evola, the world in the eyes of he who is gifted with sight represents a cleaved reality, broken in two by the ravages of the ‘Enlightenment’. If the Fall is symbolic of man’s disconnection from the innocence of God, then the Enlightenment is symbolic of man’s disconnection from the wisdom of God, and the reverence He is owed. The system that has come to be known as the World of Tradition, representing the largely unchanged underlying assumptions of human life prior to the end of the last epoch, has moved beyond view over the horizon line in the rear view mirror.



The Reactionary is then the Traditionalist in motion. As others act against all he loves and knows to be true, he is compelled to react. In today’s world, where the fires of the original Revolution have been laid to rest and the monarchs of at least the Occident have been cast into the dust, the only person left seated on the right of the king’s corpse is the Reactionary. The Conservative has moved on with the times. He cannot conserve what he doesn’t remember, nor ever experienced,

It follows from this then that the contemporary Conservative is a leftist, just not one who is driven by dogma, but instead adheres to the constraining principle: ‘don’t run near swimming pools’. What is the left proper? All that stands against Tradition, a phenomena in which politics has become the master of all things as if instead of mediating through a church, God now mediated through an intangible manifesto to be bellowed to supporters as its tenets appear in their minds.


Judas Iscariot before the Sanhedrin


Through the French Revolution, we see something new emerge that I like to call the theosification of politics. Anyone familiar with Scripture will know the terms ‘Sadducee’ and ‘Pharisee’. Under the political dominion of the Roman Empire, the peace in 1st Century BC Judea was kept by a council known as the Sanhedrin, divided along the faultline of a religious disagreement. The Sadducees denied God’s involvement with everyday affairs, denied the afterlife, denied resurrection of the dead as a possibility, and also disbelieved in any supernatural orders such as angelic beings. The Pharisees on the other hand believe in all those aforementioned things. Along with this, the Sadducees believed Scripture was the only source of heavenly knowledge, whereas the Pharisees also stressed the importance and veracity of Jewish oral tradition. The divide between the two groups was quarrelsome going back prior to the occupation, and after this it quickly became political, owing to their position above that of mere priests, as overseers of almost five million Jews. The Sadducees were publicly unpopular and were the most accommodating faction for the Romans. The Pharisees meanwhile were well respected and resisted Rome more often. It’s peculiar that these stances regarding Rome don’t seem related to the theological disputes, but more to the classes, occupations, and interests that each faction represented.

Of course, we know that the two groups put aside their differences for one event, the conspiracy to execute Christ, but this is not their only significance. They represent in an all-too-familiar manner the leaking over of a religious partisanship into a political one, something of an oddity in history, until the French Revolution, where the characteristics of a religious conflict infused politics and animated it like a spell. For some, it is the birth of ‘political ideology’ itself.

Julius Evola wrote the following:

“We are in opposition to a certain mythos: the one that wants to turn spirituality and culture into a realm that is dependent on politics. We, on the other hand, claim that it is politics that must be dependent on spirituality and culture.”

In a pre-Enlightenment context, this is in fact the muting of politics to nothing. Politics is never a subject of disagreement in the World of Tradition, not on a revolutionary scale at least, not in matters of any grave importance. In the hands of autocrats, there is no room for interest, let alone disagreement. Politics is the subject of will by the chosen few, and this will is informed by the life laws of the nation, and these life laws are informed always by a transcendent reality. Stratified as such into a hierarchy of causal agents, politics in any nation should never take on the climate of division such as that between Christians over where the Holy Spirit proceeds from. If it does, then politics has taken on a theological-esque importance and we are witnessing its degeneration. You might say politics becomes the religion of the usurper deity who daren’t not reveal himself in a religious manner.


The Reactionary who sits to the right of the monarch is a witness not only to an emergent political conflict, but in truth what that emergence entails: an epoch coming to an end and giving way to something new, something with earth-shattering ramifications. All those party to this neoteric development in the foundations of human civilization, not religious politics, but politics as religion, are defined as the dogmatic left. They have their own partisanship of course, bloody and peaceful, nationalist and internationalist, socialist and capitalist, however all identifiable by their messianic worship not of divinity, but of their own future, that which they are galloping towards with such glee.That future will be the product of their political struggle. The losers die off and the winners claim the ‘end of history’. We have a different idea of what that end will eventually look like for them, but this has been covered in previous essays.

to the pretty orb in the sky
on wings of wax

My wish is for you to have come away from this possessing a clearer understanding what being ‘right’ means. It is much more than the sum of its positions: autocracy, caste, theonomy, race realism, etc. People may hold these typically right wing beliefs, and may in fact be useful to our ends, without themselves being right. It is, if you like, a spiritual disposition which by tragedy has become a political stance in need of constant defense. Many claim to be of the right for the their own selfish reasons, all too often to try and distinguish themselves from some other leftist faction. It serves all sides really, heaping upon the masses the delusion that they have meaningful choice in this age of democracy.

Etymologically, the label belongs to us, not pretenders to the legacy of its valiant warriors.

(For more on the personal characteristics of the Reactionary, see Nicolás Gómez Dávila on The Authentic Reactionary, with commentary by yours truly [Parts III]. Also, short and sweet, see Svein Sellanraa on The Difference Between “Conservatives” and Reactionaries. Finally, something to think about from Gornahoor.)

Advertisements

31 thoughts on “Setting Things Right

  1. Mr. Citadel…

    I can sense the convergence… And so your last step is recognizing two facts. First, to be truly reactionary IS TO STATE UNAPOLOGETICALLY the existence of objective Supremacy, ie., Perfectiom. And secondly, to MERELY state such a claim FAITHFULLY necessitates the whole of Mark Citadel. In other words, Mark Citadel MUST reject all attempts at deracination and self-annihilation. In short, the true Reactionary of our Epoch is the genuine white Supremacist… The very “entity” none of “us” are supposed to emulate… A white man who wholeheartedly believes in Perfection and thoroughly rejects General Entropy.

    Like

  2. Well, you have the first step. I affirm the existence of objective supremacy, as existing only in the triune God. As for the other stuff, you will have to state it in more, shall we say 'layman' terminology, because I'm not sure I can untangle what you are saying. Maybe break it into easily understandable parts.

    Like

  3. Mr. Citadel…

    There is no such thing as a deracinated Reaction even if one takes the cosmic perspective. As far as anyone can know, you react AS A WHITE MAN… There is ample evidence to suggest that if you were not such a white man then reaction may be as foreign to you as radical liberation is to you now. So to be a Christian is not to be more than a white Christian. Likewise, to be a white Supremacist is to be more particular than a mere Supremacist. Deracination is a pathological affliction that no Reactionary can suffer and still be truly reactive.

    Like

  4. Mr. Citadel…

    Here is a good litmus test..

    Do you believe:

    Christian > white Christian

    Supremacist > white Supremacist…

    I'd conclude that if you agreed with the above that you suffered from pathological deracination and were in fact a self-annihilator.

    Like

  5. “As far as anyone can know, you react AS A WHITE MAN”

    Obviously

    “There is ample evidence to suggest that if you were not such a white man then reaction may be as foreign to you as radical liberation is to you now.”

    Yes, but only due to the historical fact that Modernity emerged from the Occident, and thus so did the reaction to it. Occidental Reaction would appear foreign to a non-Occidental, but there is nothing to say that Oriental Reaction does not exist or could not exist, since Modernity is now a global phenomena (https://theorientalneoreactionary.wordpress.com/author/theorientalneoreactionary/)

    “So to be a Christian is not to be more than a white Christian.”

    In the sense of a more complete picture of the individual involved it is more, just as white, right-handed Christian is even more. Being Occidental does not have any affects on theological destiny in the primary sense, at least not according to Scripture.

    “Likewise, to be a white Supremacist is to be more particular than a mere Supremacist.”

    You use supremacist in a weird way, so I am unsure. In terms of how you use the word, it seems not to be more particular. 'White' in your white supremacy is a superfluous prefix, since your usage of the term, neither stands in effective relation to the other. From what I gather, you believe supremacist just means someone who believes in objective supremacy. Being white while believing this would not add particularism to the belief in supremacy.

    Like

  6. There is also the perspective that on one side were those who believe in The Perfect King and on the other side those who believed no perfect King could possibly exist. Neither side is self-evidently right or wrong, rather, both sides claim an axiomatic assumption and then proceed from that assumption as it were real. “We” are now I the position of evaluating long-terms results from such antithetical belief THAT GOES BEYOND the inevitable chaos of antithetical mindsets within one environment. Ours is 99% perpetuating self-annihilator and 1% genuine white Supremacist. No ideological spectrum whatsoever. A “game” of “justifiable” cutthroat amongst radical liberationists ALWAYS reduced to the all-encompassing machinations of “white supremacy.”

    Like

  7. The perfection of the king is an interesting observation. I would say that the right generally believes that fallen as we are, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. We try to stray from old habits and ways of doing things pursuing some greatness, failing to recognize the only attainable greatness is in the organic ways of man, the way things naturally occur. So, we supported the dynasties of kings because trying to find 'the best king' was a fool's errand, and we'd end up with somebody unfit for purpose.

    An apple fallen from the tree of God, the grass sustains us just fine, though we may look longingly up at where we once were. The key is not to roll off into the desolate wasteland looking for a new tree to take us in. There is only one tree, and that is God, and He will decide when to receive us again.

    Like

  8. Mr. Citadel…

    I use “white” in white Supremacy to designate one's Origin IN relation to an absolute destination. Clearly, no one can be truly forbidden by other men from seeking objective Supremacy… So I don't object to an Asian supremacist… I only object to the idea that the Asian supremacist is a real entity with influential motives… I, like you, know all about the force of “white supremacy.” And surely, if there were some genuine black Supremacists, “we” should, in theory, exist in a mutually frictionless state in relation to each other. So I use white Supremacist in the ABSOLUTE SENSE… Origin + destination = white Supremacist… White man who seeks objective Supremacy… Does this ethos REALLY EXIST outside the white race? White MEN seeking objective Supremacy and parallel paths of frictionless relations…. Does this ethos exist outside the white race? Perhaps it could… Does it? Does it even matter? Shouldn't it be the white Reactionary's ethos regardless?

    Like

  9. What's most interesting Mr. Citadel is that I have nearly the exact same photo of a sunset only using the driver's side side view mirror on this very phone… Hmmm… I wish I could send it to you?

    Like

  10. “And surely, if there were some genuine black Supremacists, “we” should, in theory, exist in a mutually frictionless state in relation to each other.”

    Not the case, for two reasons.

    A) We are fallen, so in striving for objective supremacy (I assume you mean, being Christ-like), we will fail, perhaps in radically different ways, causing friction.

    B) Just because we are heading for the same destination does not mean the paths are the same. The paths may cross, wind, and conflict. After all, no two white men pursue the Christian life in exactly the same way, so how could we expect people of different character dispositions to?

    Like

  11. Mr. Citadel…

    Point A is radically provocative and I wholeheartedly disagree. Because even at a fallen state there is no presumption that I MUST CONTINUE to fall… This take of yours is awfully close to asserting General Entropy as absolute truth.

    Your point B has only bolstered my original claim which is the distinct variants of Supremacist rooted in unique Origin. In other words, it makes absolute sense to distinguish between a white and a black Supremacist FOR THE REASON of the distinct white/black origins. The goal of white Supremacy are sought parallel paths amongst those white men with very similar origin ROOTED in desire for Perfection. That, IN THEORY, those of different origin (note: EMPIRICALLY-speaking, there is NO redundant.human origin and so the “white” origin is part biological, part social construction) can eventually find parallel paths on the way to a singular destination is nothing more than an effortless nod to a simple, if not completely remote, physical possibility.

    In truth, I care not one wit about anyone outside myself, my children and the unknown white men dispersed around the globe desirous of objective Supremacy and that violent, global mob existing to attack their very existence. Black Supremacists COULD exist, but simply do not and “we” have ample niggers and angry “black” females to prove it. And yet, “we” have no genuine white Supremacists either… “We” have violent dykes, dramatic homos and “man”-boys running the show along with their deracinated “Christians” ready and willing to self-annihilate for “salvation.”

    Like

  12. Mr. Citadel…

    The fallen state is not an insurmountable obstacle to a will to Perfection. Do not help the radical liberal create that imaginary insurmountable obstacle. It does not exist.

    The war waged by Modernity is against those seeking to bring Perfection “alive” to the senses. Those individuals are called white Supremacists and if your first REACTION is “what about black people” then you are a radical liberal in reactionary disguise.

    Like

  13. If you think you can attain objective supremacy through your works on this earth, you commit the sin of pride.

    “There is none righteous, no, not one!”

    These are the words of God. In terms of general entropy, you may not experience it, but the world does, and the world moves on without you, without me. Things over time collapse and degrade and are wiped from this earth. It is the Modernist who asserts that they get better. This is a cyclical process, but an inescapable one barring its dissolution. It does not apply to all men, but to the vast majority who adhere to the ways of the world. They choose the world over God, and so degenerate with it.

    To strive for perfection would only entail living the Christian life, which in its true form is a Traditional life, according to ones own origins (extending further back than Hyperborea, to the Tower of Babel). So, the Oriental and the Occidental for example have different origins. They both still may strive for perfection, but this will manifest itself in different ways . Oriental society is not the same as Occidental society because of racial difference. You say that this is okay in theory, but cannot occur in practice on a society-wide scale, but I disagree. I point to the Ethiopian Christian communities during the early centuries of Christianity, going back even further I would look to Ancient Chinese civilization which was organized under a mysterious monotheism with similarities to the Christian faith.

    The complete Book of God is open to all willing to read it.The fact that Occidental man was the one who opened it first is a factor of destiny, but not a destiny which says nobody else can open it in the future, just as it has not precluded our society's fall away from the Christian life. Pointing out the maladaptive tendencies of blacks when placed in an environment completely antithetical to their racial characteristics goes no way to showing this as false.

    Like

  14. Mr. Citadel…

    With all due respect, my premise is that in avoiding to self-identify as a genuine white Supremacist that the modern “white” “Christian” IS PUBLICLY DECONVERTING…

    Your response of above, being evidence of radical autonomy, is your deconversion from Christianity.

    First Law of Perfection is nonduplication as the only solution to “infinite regress” and General Entropy…

    The REAL BATTLE of the Reactionary is possessing “all the right” reactions. Ergo, they've conceded to fighting half the battle really well. In secular parlance, one dominates the “game” by executing “all the right” moves…. This is the de facto path to “victory.” For the white Supremacist, Perfection is the operating paradigm and THE WILL to Perfection IS WHAT IS UNDER VIOLENT, murderous attack… PRETENDING as though you possess no such will and become Eloi to the hordes… In other words, the white man seeking to take “all the right” steps towards Perfection is target number one for mass annihilation as a LOGICAL FALSIFICATION of “equality dogma.”

    Again, black Supremacy COULD EXIST, but does not NOW…

    Oriental Supremacy COULD EXIST, but it is entirely invisible to me…

    White Supremacy HAS BEEN A REAL THING to me my entire conscious American life… From Christopher Columbus to Charles Manson to the Hell's Angels to Rush Limbaugh to GW Bush Jr. to Lawrence Auster to thordaddy…

    So “white supremacy” exists BUT ONLY as a Liberal creation myth that the most intelligent “white Christians” still dutifully submit to…

    The white Supremacist is SIMPLY THE LABEL RESERVED for the greatest of white man… Anti-Equalist, anti-zeitgeist, anti-radical liberation… That's it… That a RECONVERSION and real start to a commitment to Western Christianity's resurgence.

    Like

  15. Mark,

    Question- do you regard the religion of Islam, or should I say the Islamic civilization, as an authentic manifestation of Tradition? Surely, figures such as Guenon, Schuon, and Burckhardt would have answered in the affirmative. If so, should the true Muslim traditionalist, who wishes to conform to the Supremely Real, be scandalized by jihadism?

    Like

  16. This is a really good question, Chris. I do not have the scholarly wisdom of either of those three men you mentioned with regards to what constitutes the Traditional strain, though I have legitimate disagreements with them on many minor points.

    The kind of Islam these men praised, as far as I'm ware, was not what we know today as 'Islamic Fundamentalism', sometimes referred to by its more official names, Wahhabism and Salafism, though that was in existence by this period. They were particularly fascinated by Sufism.

    Make no mistake, Jihad is a core concept of Islam, unique among religions in its sheer breadth of command. However its ruthless application seen today, and the internal application of the Sharia in a rather merciless fashion, is indicative of what we call a 'holiness spiral', something Sunni Islam in particular is vulnerable to since it inherently lacks a priestly caste (unlike Shiite Islam). During this, there is a drive for an unattainable perfection, but in a religious rather than secular sense. All those who even slightly break the mold must be purged.We see in its wake a vortex of opportunistic sadism, intense literalism, economic activity, and exploitation by external forces.If this continues, Shiite Islam will be on stable ground to win the schismatic battle that has been raging for hundreds of years.Though Sunnis have great numbers, this will not stand up forever against constant holiness purging.

    I would say that a Traditional form of Islam would not look like the Islamic State at all. If I were to point to a state where I think there is perhaps a good model, Oman wouldn't be a bad place to start. Absolute monarchy, minimal strife, and it doesn't foster the same degenerative tendencies that its Gulf neighbors do.

    Like

  17. Hi Mark,

    I appreciate your thoughtful and measured response. (In fact, I find that all of your writings have a “measured” quality which I find very pleasing) There is no doubt that the founding figures of the Perennialist School were centered on Islam's mystical tradition. As I understand it, Guenon ultimately left Catholic Christianity behind because he concluded that the Roman Church had “petrified”- no longer being fed by its internal spring of saving gnosis. Hence, he (and apparently many Perennialists) came to the view that jnanic Islam, Sufism, represented the closest “living and valid” esoterism available to those who wished to cleave to a path of knowledge from within the framework of Tradition. I must confess that I have always found it frustrating to understand how the Perennialist determines which religions are authentic “Divine deployments”- the status of Islam being part of that confusion. After all, according to the tenets of the Traditionalist point of view, there cannot be a valid initiatory path that is not itself the inner dimension of a formal structure instituted by Heaven. Therefore, (on this pov) if Islam is false then so is Sufism.

    I am fascinated by the expression that you presented in your response, “holiness spiral”. That seems like a most apt way of putting it. At the end of the day, it seems to me that it all comes down what constitutes “just war”. There a whole lot of folk out there who are of the mind that authentic spirituality and violence are totally incompatible. But, clearly that can't be true. So, how does the genuine traditionalist determine when and under what circumstances violence is spiritually sanctioned. Also, what kind of violence? Can the targeting of civilians ever by squared with the one who seeks union with God? If the answer is yes, who makes that determination and what is the criteria?

    And how can faithful observance of dogma (of any Tradition) be immunized from the baneful effects of the ever present threat of “holiness spiral”- especially in these days of the Kali Yuga?

    Like

  18. Why vex ourselves with this “problem?”

    The “thread” that runs through the entirety of Islam is 72 virgins upon self-annihilating martyrdom. Ergo, jihad IS Islam… A self-annihilating mass murder of “infidels” IS THE CONVERSION ACT, indisputably and the “reward” of radical sexual autonomy all wrapped up in a religious meme BOUND TO ATTRACT a certain segment of society due Law of Big Numbers and near instantaneous communication…

    To speak of a millienal long cycle of perpetuating self-annihilation within the frame of a World of Tradition is a deconstruction of that world to rival any modernist deconstruction.

    Like

  19. I'm glad you enjoy my writing, Chris.

    With regards to Perennialism, I am writing a book on Reactionary theory currently, and devote a small section to Perennialism and eternal Tradition. While I must reject a strict Perennialism of the kind Schuon in particular advocated, I call myself a 'Mild Christian Hermeticist' – meaning that as per my own Orthodox tradition, I do not believe in salvation beyond death except that given by Christ's sacrifice, however I do not deny sacred knowledge/revelation in other Traditional religions, whatever the source of that knowledge is.

    As an aside, I was quite happy to know that Rene Guenon was largely uninformed about the esoteric tradition in Eastern Orthodoxy. He never really engaged with it, likely due to geopolitical realities at the time. I think had he done so, he may have reconsidered his Sufi turn

    'Holiness Spiral' is a term that has emerged from the NeoReactionary school of thought, credit where credit is due, though I am not sure who its originator was. I first heard it from Nick B. Steves.

    Just War is a whole 'nother can of worms on which I am probably not well-read enough. Obviously there is an exceedingly rich library of Christian scholarship on it, Thomas Aquinas often being the go-to intellect on the subject.

    Violence is sanctioned under different circumstances depending on the particular religion. Tradition itself, as it refers to a common thread linking Traditional religions, just doesn't have a discernible, uniform response to the question. In Christianity, it has typically been considered only just to war in circumstances of self-defense, or in the defense of others who have been attacked first. This is an extrapolation of the moral scenario as applied to individuals. However, self-defense does not just constitute a physical assault in my view. This would be too materialistic. I think it is just to war in defense of honor for example. Targeting civilians is a hard question, especially in light of WWII, where effectively civilians became combatants through their industrial application. I err on the side of 'no'. I think good Christian practice is not to target civilians intentionally, unless there is an extremely compelling reason to do so.

    As to your last question, “holiness spirals” are more often than not guided by some institutional apparatus. Islamic Fundamentalism doesn't feature a priestly caste, but Al Qaeda and IS are real organization with real capabilities. They can organize, propagate, indoctrinate, and inspire for their desired goals. This actually makes holiness spirals easier to detect sometimes. Many would say the Protestant Reformation was a holiness spiral, and the subsequent Evangelical boom was yet another one, and these had their own organizations to grease the skids. The only solution is to be aware, be mindful. My own tradition has a priestly caste (of sorts) so I defer to them on judgments about which groups are truly Orthodox and which are taking doctrine to the brink of heresy (note: Orthodoxy has had its own heretical sects, particularly in the last two centuries, who had elements of holiness spiraling). A good gauge to use is…

    “Is this idea diverging from centuries of established practice and understanding of a certain tradition, with the promise of being 'more authentic' to the original message?”

    Like

  20. What constitutes “just war” is only REALLY a debate amongst white Christians with the explicit understanding that “just war” is a fact of pervasive Evil. Pervasive Evil acknowledged is equal to the right to pre-emptive strike. The value of which is righteous existence over Evil. On the other hand, having denied extant Evil and thus rejecting the right to pre-emptive strike, self-annihilation is the hard reality and “just war” possesses no conceivable attraction… “Just war to what,” asks the radical liberationist?

    Like

  21. Mr. Citadel…

    “Holiness spiral” is just the kind of liberated lexicon employed by the high IQ “white” male that then becomes the equivocating bridge between the perpetuating self-annihilation of Islan and a Protestant Reformation that really appears as a pre-emptive reaction to the onslaught of Modernity and radical autonomy… The ethos of “There is no perfect king… I am the perfect King…” And perceiving a Church corrupted throughout… Only man, his totally functional sense of reality and Scripture can UNDOUBTEDLY lead one towards objective Supremacy. This is the Protestamt Assertion and with 20/20 hindsight, a pre-reaction to the known course of the future.

    Like

  22. When we use words to describe ourselves, we embrace the mental frame and assumptions behind those words.

    “Left” and “right” are relative terms and I don't see them as useful to describe my political philosophy. I would be lumped on the right, but I'm not for preserving the status quo, nor do I embrace Hegelianism (thesis + reaction = synthesis). I don't subscribe to a progressive view of history.

    I favor absolutes in my political philosophy (e.g., the husband/wife family is the basic unit of society).

    Like

  23. Then you should embrace the Christian's most fundamental absolute… Perfection… Objective Supremacy. The Modernist project is all about anti-objective Supremacy as universally operating paradigm. In other words, the Modernist project is to impose “universal equality” by every means necessary with an axiomatic belief that said Modernism has already slain God.

    Like

  24. Terms are only relative because the left wishes them to be relative, and thus they are able to manipulate them as and when they choose to serve whichever stage of the agenda they are currently working on, 'marriage' being a good example.

    Like

  25. Mr. Citadel…

    But terms are relative and the real hijinks of the radical autonomist is simply the result of “equality dogma.”

    So Supremacy is relative to supremacy in the absolute sense…

    The trick of the Modernist is to equate supremacy to degeneracy and wipe Supremacy from existence. This is the liberationist frame that works out as the First Law of Liberation:

    Supremacy = degeneracy such that the degenerate life is “god.”

    It also renders the following practical formula of “white supremacy” equals white degeneracy equals the life of the white Christian…

    As you can “see” the next radical step for the radical “white” liberationist is actually white Supremacy.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s