Don’t Wait on the Church

the Church is waiting on you

For a long time, I have said that a Reactionary power play would need the backing of the religious authority. This is part of the problem that exists for Christianity, particularly Roman Catholicism. There is a fear that transition to sound governance will be opposed by the Church, and thus one comes to an impasse. They fight for an institution that opposes them. The same problem exists for Eastern Orthodoxy, but less so because regimes like those currently in Russia have not allowed the Church to be infiltrated by Liberal elements (mainly due to the security risk they represent). Yes, the Church has many bad people in its hierarchy, but few Liberals, at least in the east.

When I wrote my Open Letter to Pope Francis, the issue of the true nature of the Roman Catholic Church was raised when I said that in theory it transcended a single Pope and even a single group of cardinals. It was an institution with a metaphysical character which could not be confined to the will of priests. I didn’t realize the significance of this until James of Casual Histrionics made the following point in response to my call for a more masculine religion:

“Therefore, while your polemics make good points, they should be aimed not at the woman who is being constantly pulled here and there by the ideologies of the world, but the impotence of the so called “traditional” men who have yet to resurrect the Empire who adored the Church like a man loves his wife. Real men do not let their wives and mothers fight their battles for them! Real men do not complain when their wives and mothers are not “muscular” enough to fight foreign invaders. If you consider yourself to be a man, then protect the Church rather than complain about her.”

I had a long time to think about this, considering as well my own understanding of esotericism. I think I was misled in my previous approach, and must reconsider it. I still do believe the Church should forcefully resist Modernity, not kowtow to it, but James’ point goes beyond that. I think he too would like the Pope to stop mincing words on moral issues, playing to Liberal clergy and laity. But many look to the Church (whatever that may be) as this vestigial institution of Tradition, weakened as it is, and rally to it with banner and passion. They might be making a mistake. This isn’t to say we should not be faithful Christians, involved with the Church, and certainly is not to dissuade anyone from entering the Church hierarchy themselves: we need more of that. What I am saying is that we may have been putting the cart before the horse here when discussing political power.

In the past, there have been glorious warriors of the Church, and I talked about some of them in this article, but they are a rare breed who are born from times of struggle and greatness. Typically, the Church outsources its defense. The sovereign is the hand that holds the sword, he is the wing of protection folded over the sacred engineering. When the enemies of true religion struck with their revolutions, who were their primary targets? The Bolsheviks executed the tsar and his family, not Saint Tikhon, the Patriarch. Why? They despised both, but the tsar held the force. Removing him, the country was put at the mercy of the revolutionaries. Churches were demolished, aristocrats were robbed, dissenting civilians were driven out as the reds mopped up the military insurgency against them, the last hurrah of the old guard. Similar narratives can be found in the French Revolution.

the monarchy is the male guardian of the Church
her rape begins when his reign ends

We really must disabuse ourself of the notion that the Church is immune to the destructive whims of bad men. When the Lord tells us that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church, we must understand ‘prevail’ to mean a final victory. Temporary victories can easily be won against the Church, we see them throughout history. Is an internal coup some special form of defeat that the Church is immune to? Not in the slightest. As I said, the Church transcends its priesthood and bestows favor upon those who follow it in righteousness. We are believers in the degeneration of society, and for many of us, this has a metaphysical quality, a corrosion of a deeper plane of existence, inevitable in history and limited in duration. Just as laborers and merchants and even ‘monarchs’ are subject to this corrosion, so is the priesthood.

the so-called priests and intellectuals will be devotees of their bellies and genitals”

– Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam

No priest could have a legitimate reason for opposing Reaction. That is a natural outworking of our core principles. If a priest be opposed to Reaction, he serves another God, and is false, just as if a monarch opposes Reaction, he is most certainly not a true monarch, but a puppet figurehead, a bauble. We know that priests have been shut out of the Church for all sorts of horrible moral crimes: sodomy, misappropriation, doctrinal heresy, and so forth. These are absolute betrayals of the priestly function, just as any hint of Liberalism is. Thus, we consider any priestly opposition to our agenda to be illegitimate.

So we now face a conflict wherein illegitimate priests still sanctioned by the Church body itself condemn us, for one reason or another. We can see the potential for this, even if we do not know exactly how it plays out. Are we crestfallen? Yes. When Miron Cristea, the patriarch made prime minister in Romania, heaped scorn upon the imprisoned Corneliu Codreanu, the captain wrote:

“The Orthodox Church has taken an attitude openly hostile to Romania’s youth. It is painful, very painful… The Church of our fathers, the Church of our ancestors strikes us down. The Patriarch is also Prime Minister and everything that causes us so much pain is done in his name. God! Oh, God! What a tragedy! How tortured are our souls!”

the king and the patriarch

This was of course, a dramatic exaggeration. The Legion of the Archangel Michael had either tacit or active support from most of the Orthodox clergy. Cristea was a puppet put in place by the usurper king Carol II, who feared for his own power in light of the Legion’s popularity. The message rings clear however, the despair we might feel when those who ought to know better, these self-described Brahmins, aid our enemies. But this is not entirely rational. Where is our outrage at the merchants who lobby for open borders, and thus our destruction? (No, not (((merchants))), I mean businesspeople of our kin). We do not agonize nearly as much over this treachery. It is because the Church is a holy institution for its followers, and we have for the longest time conflated it with this priest or that priest, so their own bad conduct weighs heavy on our hearts. Such is natural for us. Men are flesh and blood, we can speak to them, and they can hear us. The ‘Church’ itself is more abstract, but it is precisely this abstraction which we serve, for it is the true representative of God on earth, the house upon the rock.

I have made my disdain for the wretched monarchies of the West very clear. ‘Kings’ and ‘queens’ who have long since whored their power to a satanic political class of previously untouchables, in exchange for the peaceful and quiet life of ceremony, media adoration, and taxpayer funded luxury; these are not monarchs. Whatever legitimacy they once had, they sacrificed it. That doesn’t mean monarchy is bad, it means that these people are not representative of its greatness. The same applies to the priesthood. A monarch has no authority to halt a restoration of the monarchical institution itself. Similarly, a pope/patriarch/cleric has no authority to halt a restoration of the Church to its proper station. Opposing these things is like opposing gravity, more severe in fact because it is in opposition to the will of God made clear through organic Tradition, rather than just an elemental force.

My consternation is not absorbed by the Orthodox clergy. I don’t think, given the trajectory that Russia is on, they will oppose the Reactionary agenda. But, Roman Catholic Traditionalists should not feel such consternation about their own clergy, as dire a state as much of it is in. God knows His own. A priest is only worth as much as he commits to sacred truth. His power ebbs away into nothing when he violates this, and his role is reduced to kabuki theater, the same as a monarch.

Do not expect the Church body to risk itself when she has no protection. They should, ideally, but men are weak and fearful. If the eagle holds no sword in its right claw, then the Church will sit in memory of its brutalization at the hands of its enemies, and rightly ask you, “where is your sword, oh, defender of Christendom?” Don’t count on the Church to fix the state. You need to fix the state. How laughable to want the clergy to ascend the steps of the Progressive throne room, put a knife to the throat of our enemies, and demand abdication. That is the job of a legion, not a sacramental institution.

If any ‘priest’ of any station condemn what we do in the coming decades which promise ever greater ambiguity, uncertainty, and unexpected games of power, then pray God that He forgives them for that is all you can do. There is no analogy to Protestant defiance here. We fumigate a once great house of roaches and termites, not lay C4 to demolish it in our zeal to see God more clearly (or so we think) on the other side of the rubble. If the priesthood of ages past could speak to us now from their graves across the Occident, the voice of the Church as a transhistorical institution rather than a contemporary curiosity, and they were to advise us on what we could do to serve God, they would have only one command:

Put a sword back in the right claw of the eagle, stained with the blood of traitors.

(This article got some great responses, from Jim, Aurelius Moner, and Bonald. Check these out for some extra thoughts. And yet more responses from Testis Gratis, James, and Reactionary Future. I’m glad this caused a ‘scuffle’ because dialogue on this issue is very enlightening and necessary. I will address some of the responses hopefully soon)

40 thoughts on “Don’t Wait on the Church

  1. Chesterton once wrote a novel entitled, “The Return of Don Quixote”, which describes the return of England to a sort of cultural and societal New Middle Ages, similar to what Reactionaries hope for. A war breaks out between certain nobles and revolutionaries, ending with the revolutionaries defeated and brought before the King for his judgment. The King having examined all the old laws, declared the cause of the revolutionaries (who wished to own their own property and their own tools of trade) essentially a just cause, according to ancient Medieval Law, and the nobles guilty of stealing their titles. At this point the entire movement collapses, the Reactionary dream is shattered, the King is overthrown, and this is really the point of the novel, “Why have all our toppling fancies about kings and knights come with a crash; why is all our Round Table ruined? Because we never began at the beginning. Because we never went back to the Thing itself.”

    It's all very well to say “No priest could have a legitimate reason for opposing Reaction. Thus, we consider any priestly opposition to our agenda to be illegitimate.” Did Christ establish Reaction? Did He hand the Keys of the Kingdom to leading reactionaries? No, He said “Tu es Petrus et super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam…” He granted authority unto Peter, his successors, and the Priests, and you have not the authority to make such proclamations regarding the Sacerdotal office. If Reaction does not align with the Authoritative teaching of the Church, it is not the Church that is wrong. In fact this kind of pride rooted in a false Authority, warned against by Saint Gelasius, will lead Reactionaries far down the path of error. The Byzantines rejected St. Gelasius' warning, and thus the defense of the vineyard was given to another, his house given the Imperium by the Auctoritas Sacrata,and this is both a sign of wonder and of warning for us in these days. “For with truth as our witness, it belongs to spiritual power to establish the terrestrial power and to pass judgment.”


  2. Blessed Pope Urban II was also a Pope, and so has at least as much authority as the temporally current holder of the See of Rome. More, even, because he has roughly nine hundred years of agreement with his policies, whereas the current Pope has maybe three, from lesser men.

    We can argue that he's blessed where as St John Paul II is a saint, but frankly, I don't trust JPII's canonization. It smells of politics and loose standards to me.


  3. “Did Christ establish Reaction?”

    No. Reaction is, as its name suggests, a movement in response to an event. Its inception long post-dates Christ. We could say that Christ established Tradition, but not during His earthly appearance. It predates that, to the the creation of the world itself. There was no need of Reaction in the time of Christ's ministry because Liberalism didn't exist.

    As I said in the article, at least from what Traditionalist Catholics have relayed to me, the Church itself supersedes a particular pontiff or priest. Let's consider a proposition, that the Pope declared abortion a woman's right. It would be incumbent upon Roman Catholics to ignore this declaration, not because it would be in contradiction to Scripture (that would veer too close to Protestantism), but because it would be in gross contradiction of all Church teaching up to that point. This is of course an extreme example, but I consider statements against monarchy for instance, to be as severe as the legitimization of abortion in their break with past tradition. This makes the current Pope's recent statements on the separation between church and state incredibly alarming.


  4. You don't seem to understand, the Pope cannot by virtue of his office, declare Abortion a right, and never will one at any time, it is a matter of Divine Providence. Nor has Tradition declared Monarchy infallible, rather as Pope Leo XIII has taught, “There is no question here respecting forms of government, for there is no reason why the Church should not approve of the chief power being held by one man or by more, provided only it be just, and that it tend to the common advantage. Wherefore, so long as justice be respected, the people are not hindered from choosing for themselves that form of government which suits best either their own disposition, or the institutions and customs of their ancestors.” That is true Tradition. The current Pontiff (if one reads the original and not the faulty translation) has said nothing that was not in St. Gelasius' Duo Sunt, that the Clerical office and the Temporal offices are distinct, and that neither should usurp the authority of the other, nevertheless, the Clerical office has the higher authority.

    The problem you fail to see (and please don't take this as you personally, but in general), is that there are ideologies quite as dangerous as Liberalism, Totalitarianism and Absolutism being such, which Reaction could essentially become. You focus so much on Liberalism that it blinds you to the other forms of Leftism, which include the false pride of thinking oneself the arbiter of Tradition, when that authority was not given to you. (Again, this is not personal, personally I admire you very much.)


  5. Monarchy is not infallible, but it is the divine form of government. Why do we speak of the Kingdom of God, and not the democracy of God? Kingship, inside and outside Christianity, speaks to man's recognition of hierarchy, of superior and inferior powers. It is the antithesis of sameness in a given order. We emulate that which is above, here on earth. After all, the Pope is a monarch himself, of his own city state.

    The people did not 'choose' their kings in the past, and Popes crowned Holy Roman Emperors who were not chosen by 'the people', and similar if less grandiose functions applied throughout the world. Autocracy has served the religion purpose, and religion has served the autocratic purpose. They are intertwined.

    If his recent comments are another mistranslation, then your point is valid. I don't speak Spanish, presumably you do, so I will defer to you on that point. It is still the case that 'secularism' is uncompromisingly anti-Christian, and in fact anti-every other religion on earth. That word 'secularism' is stealth satanism.

    No ideology is as dangerous as Liberalism, at least none that have been encountered so far Let us take for example the ideology responsible for the most per capita deaths, communism. Communism, horrific as it was, was a temporal evil with moderate lasting cultural impact. The rebound of religion in areas formerly under its aegis since the collapse of the USSR is evidence of this. Liberalism has proven far more toxic when it comes to the heart of a people themselves, their culture, their soul. The devil's velvet glove is more deadly than his iron gauntlet.

    I don't consider myself the arbiter of Tradition, since I am a mere novice. I would have thought by now that it was clear, I draw my influence from a huge cast of historical experts in these matters. What I have said has only been 'refined' from raw material I picked up elsewhere. I certainly do not want to be credited with determining Tradition, nor does any single individual have the ability to make that claim.


  6. One cannot separate Communism from Liberalism, they are both Leftism, as is the Socialism which is quickly replacing Liberalism. In the end, the worst evil is not Liberalism at all, but the Corruption of what you term Reaction, if it occurs, which I'm not saying it will, but if you take authority into your own hands, even if you are following the example of persuasive writers and philosophers before you, you are already losing the war. This is extremely hard to explain to a non-Catholic, but Catholicism has always rejected autocracy, for the simple reason that legitimate power does not derive from the self (αὐτός), but must be a power received (imperium), for God alone has the Auctoritas. Thus Kingship and rule by Council, justice and the Common Good respected, are both valid forms of governance, under the Empire and the Pope. If one looks at Evola and De Maistre and seeks to fine how their thought can be traced back to the height of Christendom, the traditionalist Sacred Ages, the connection is simply not there in most cases (with a few exceptions). The Reaction of these writers is as modern and as novel as the trends which they are reacting against, indeed an outgrowth of perennial corruptions such as Absolutism and Nationalism, and thus are not traditional at all. Authentic tradition is indeed to be found most readily in the writings of Pope Leo XIII, especially in regards to the Political. From this basis, we must start to restore firstly the soul, and thence the world. But I'm afraid I can not convince you of this, as you are not Catholic. Keep fighting well.

    Respectfully yours,



  7. I must say, with a heavy heart, that even in the terms of saving souls, the Catholic Church is failing.
    When you have churches like this one:,
    When you have feminist nuns
    When you have priests who believe that abortion is right
    When you have priests who are closet socialists
    When you have priests who would support homosexual marriage
    Then you know that, the Church has ceased to function as it should be. My solution would be, Catholic Reactionaries need to take up the task of saving souls, i.e. converting them to the Faith and to Reactionary politics. I even made a link to the nun who as a child witnessed the Fatima apparition of our Holy Mother to show people that my message is not something I thought up myself, but perhaps came straight up from Heaven above!

    As a side note, I even suspect that the Church's failure to convert and preserve the Faith among the Occidental people is deliberate, and orchestrated. Why all the missionary works in Africa, but none in Germany and Sweden? Again, this is why I call upon Reactionaries to do it. Millions of people in Europe and America are functioning like mindless robots, and I bet many of them long for something higher than this material plane, and yet cannot find it, all because the Church does not even bother. This is the place when people like me must step in and do the tasks the Church is supposed to do.


  8. “One cannot separate Communism from Liberalism, they are both Leftism, as is the Socialism which is quickly replacing Liberalism.”

    There is a very obvious difference between communism and Liberalism which I have outlined before. Communism is a bastard stepchild with a big divergence. Its goals were very clear, they were not obscured, they did not change with time. They were solid. Thus, when they turned out to be unbearable, the system collapsed. Liberalism's endpoint is entirely theoretical, vague, and always changing. This is how it maintained ideological supremacy of the communist model, which has now virtually disappeared.

    If Reaction was corrupted, it would cease to be Reaction, and would most likely become something akin to Fascism. I don't think the ideas I espouse are particularly akin to Mussolini's Italy.

    “legitimate power does not derive from the self (αὐτός), but must be a power received (imperium), for God alone has the Auctoritas”

    I agree with this in principle, and I think God bestows legitimacy upon kings in the mandate of heaven.

    Rule by council may be perfectly peaceable, usually best applied to city states in my estimation, but this is authoritarian in character as a monarchy is. The council is a merit-gifted group, an effective aristocracy.

    Neither Evola nor Maistre were nationalists. Nationalism implies egalitarian ideology within the nation itself, even if not between nations. Neither men supported what Mazzini described as nationalism. I believe Tradition predates Christianity, and predates indeed what came before Christianity. It is presumptive in every nation on earth, and was evident in the success of Christian societies.

    If you want to wait for the Roman Catholic Church to do the heavy lifting, then this is admirable, but many seem to be questioning this strategy due to the current situation especially. It may indeed be down to men of great conviction rather than official priests. All the best as always.


  9. THR, I have this pet peeve with this line here:

    Pope Leo XIII has taught, “There is no question here respecting forms of government, for there is no reason why the Church should not approve of the chief power being held by one man or by more, provided only it be just, and that it tend to the common advantage. Wherefore, so long as justice be respected, the people are not hindered from choosing for themselves that form of government which suits best either their own disposition, or the institutions and customs of their ancestors.”

    Does this mean that America should be a democratic republic, since that was how it was made?


  10. Well, unlike the “French Republic,” America was not originally a “democratic” Republic, as it is today. However, as to the question whether or not America should become again a Republic, ruled by a council (Congress), or should become a Monarchy, ruled by a King, is best left to the organic development of the American country. To try to force either of those two options would most likely prove disastrous. So if America remains a Republic*, I would say that's not necessarily wrong, but if the country develops into a monarchy, so much the better.

    *On the word Republic: it simply means commonwealth, hence the phrase Respublica de Sacri Imperii Romani. I suppose the best definition of the word in modern English is “rule by council”. This sort of “democratic” rule by council with a noble head presiding has proven very effective as local government, and in very small nations or city-states.


  11. Yes, this is something that I have been thinking about all along. This is why I have doubts on whether America would be able to remain a federation of fifty states as now. I think it will probably just become fifty, or perhaps even more, like one hundred states, each with a different monarch, and variations between nations on how the government should be organised. Even if America was full 100% white, it would still be divided into different nations.


  12. Mr. Citadel…

    Do you read what THR is claiming?

    You raise the sword in defense of The Church and do so not as a true Cstholic… Not as a true Christian.

    Dare I say what option this leaves you so that to question your faith is to put the Catholic questioner under instant suspicion.

    Does THR assert that no one may righteously raise the sword in defense of the Church? Is this then the authoritative claim of The Church? No man, ESPECIALLY a Catholic Christian, may righteously raise the sword in defense of The Church?


  13. I don't think that is what THR is asserting. He is saying that to do so, one would have to have express permission and command from the Pope himself, if I understand correctly. I dispute this on the grounds that the Church is not synonymous with the Pontiff, and in extreme scenarios, the defense of the Church itself overrides the dithering of any particular bishop, even the most senior. I suppose this does come from my Orthodoxy, because the Patriarchs are not considered to be divinely guided in such a way as the Pope claims to be.

    I suppose a comparative situation would be, if the Muslims had come to the gates of Constantinople and the Patriarch suddenly ordered the gates be opened. Conscientious Orthodox would be fully entitled to ignore that order. In fact, they would be entitled to ignore such an order from the emperor himself. Part of this comes from my assertion that Traditional authorities do not have the power to relinquish their authority, and that is what such an act would entail, the destruction of the patriarch/emperor themselves. It's sort of like an anti-suicide failsafe.


  14. A great contribution, Herr Citadel; I wanted to comment on your post when it first came up, as it touches upon so many of my own thoughts. I actually responded to it, and to some of the thoughts that showed up in the comments, especially as regards the Magisterium and priestly opposition. My thoughts got too long for a simple reply, so I put it up over at my blog:


  15. It is the duty of Catholics to defend the Faith, that is not in dispute. Yet it is also our duty to Holy Obedience:
    “This consideration too clarifies the great error of those others as well who boldly venture to explain and interpret the words of God by their own judgment, misusing their reason and holding the opinion that these words are like a human work. God Himself has set up a living authority to establish and teach the true and legitimate meaning of His heavenly revelation. This authority judges infallibly all disputes which concern matters of faith and morals, lest the faithful be swirled around by every wind of doctrine which springs from the evilness of men in encompassing error. And this living infallible authority is active only in that Church which was built by Christ the Lord upon Peter, the head of the entire Church, leader and shepherd, whose faith He promised would never fail. This Church has had an unbroken line of succession from Peter himself; these legitimate pontiffs are the heirs and defenders of the same teaching, rank, office and power. And the Church is where Peter is, and Peter speaks in the Roman Pontiff, living at all times in his successors and making judgment, providing the truth of the faith to those who seek it. The Divine words therefore mean what this Roman See of the most blessed Peter holds and has held.

    For this mother and teacher of all the churches has always preserved entire and unharmed the faith entrusted to it by Christ the Lord. Furthermore, it has taught it to the faithful, showing all men truth and the path of salvation. Since all priesthood originates in this church, the entire substance of the Christian religion resides there also. The leadership of the Apostolic See has always been active,and therefore because of its preeminent authority, the whole Church must agree with it. The faithful who live in every place constitute the whole Church. Whoever does not gather with this Church scatters.” (Qui Pluribus, Pius IX)

    We are obliged to follow the “Divine will set forth through the Pontifical ministry,” not implying that the Pope himself is impeccable, but the Church is indestructible, and the Papal office indefectible. This is Revealed Truth, set forth in Tradition, and we have not the authority to judge it wrong.


  16. THR…

    So, in fact, what you are claiming is the erroneous futility of raising a sword in defense of an indestructible Church. That those who would raise the sword in defense of The Church have no real reason to do so… The Church cannot be destroyed? And to raise that sword in convicted defense is to do a grave sin? To render one not Catholic… Not Christian?


  17. Thanks Mark! This came out just when I needed it. The issue of Church support has been bothering me quite a lot lately. Especially with the attitudes of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew and many others. Thank God for Patriarch Kyril of Russia! I'd love to toss around ideas for local organization when you have time.


  18. Thordaddy,

    The indestructibly of the Church simply means that God's Providence will not allow it to be destroyed. Christ does not make promises in vain. However, this does not excuse any Catholic from his duty to defend the Church, on the contrary the duty becomes more imperative, because in ordinary cases, God's Providence works through human instruments. “To raise that sword in convicted defense” is certainly not a sin, it is a duty, but one must be certain what one is defending. In Auctor Auctoritas, that is, the Church is the Authority, and this Authority subsists primarily in the Papal Office, and so one must defend the Pontiff, the source through which God grants authority.


  19. Look I had a 60s Irish Catholic NYC upbringing I remember fondly obviously I love western civilization and the Churchs centrality, My Dad was in the seminary for a while and I attended primary and secondary catholic schools my church experience was a somewhat intellectual one decades after ceasing to believe i still subscribed to first things etc.The thing is the church is fundamentally a cuck religion and no matter how thoroughly you reactify it any budding Martin Luther an come by and simply quote the new testament and take over.I get how cleverly the Church is at saying black means white but that doesnt wash in crowd control. Youre never putting the scripture back in the latin box.Its worth thinking about whether the Church has actually feminized western men certainly HBD chick thinks so in a round about way.Its a Jewish herisy and not a native european religion. And its irational look I spent most of my life learning how to defend the Church rationally but as anselm admits it really comes down to a leap of faith.Reaction is about facing hard truths rationally having one of its legs be a religion is madness. Its tempting because of the Churches connection to western civilization and the power of religion to organize and because so many Christians seem open to conservatism.It hamstrings the GOP and is the moral authority Alynskites hold west civ to.its a a liberal irrational friend we knew from way back when and must let go. I know telling a believer this is pointless particularly if you come to reaction through religion


  20. Yes, that largely was pointless. HBD chick has very limited value outside of HBD, hence the name. Regardless of what Anselm admitted, the arguments for Christianity's absolute truth are more plausible than their antitheses. I don't know what your experience was of Catholicism, I've never had such experiences as I am Orthodox, so criticisms of Roman Catholicism in particular are ineffectual against me.

    If Christianity was inherently cucked, then the most cucked nation, Sweden, would look something like the American Bible belt or perhaps Poland, but it doesn't. It's chock full of people who believe exactly as you do about the Christian faith.

    The big problem with 'white' people, and I find it is in most cases Americans who use this very broad brush to describe themselves, is they are in constant flight from their own problems, trying to blame them on something external. White men are cucked. That's the problem. No Traditional religion could make you cucked, that is absurd. Even Buddhism which is the height of pacifism, does not cuck a population (see Burma). What cucks a population is their violent rejection of Tradition and its attendant edifices including Church, Nation, Family, and sovereign authority.

    There is a popular video online from a Chinese documentary, which is about the Chinese trying to build a railway in Kenya or somewhere, and nothing gets done because the native workers are all lazy bums. A great part of this documentary sees a Chinese guy sit the foreman down and ask him why the hell, even though both their countries were under Colonialism, China used what it gained, and the people in Kenya destroyed it, let it rot, all the infrastructure the British left behind. The foreman complains that they were 'oppressed by the British'. Sorry, but this is just the kind of pathetic argument used by many whites today to excuse things like Sweden “It was ALL the Jews! It was our cucked religion! It was the Muslims!”

    No, your ancestors dealt with the same things just fine. You need to accept that Europeans, particularly Western Europeans, made a conscious decision to rebel against the monarchy, against their own identity, and ultimately against God. They are suffering for that decision, and unfortunately the blinded masses which includes many on the so-called 'altright' are dragging we dissenters along with them to the abyss.

    The brute fact that the rise of Modernity and all of its degeneracies with it, correlates DIRECTLY to the decline in Christianity, is enough to refute this trite proposition, as is the unadulterated hatred with which ardent Progressives treat the religion.

    “hamstrings the GOP”

    Someone who wants the GOP to succeed in any way, is not a Reactionary.


  21. I am Jewish, however to discount Aquinas, Augustine, and Anselm's arguments for a rigorous connection and tie between faith and reason seems to me to be unthinking. They wrote some pretty deep defenses of Christianity. And they were arguable among the smartest people in the last 2000 years. I would think that these are not people to be discounted so readily. You may have gone to Catholic schools but did you actually read these authors?


  22. I find that people on the 'right' who dismiss the applicability of apologetics to religious understanding are often, but not always, unwilling to even consider the arguments put forth. This isn't an apologetics outlet, but to dismiss the religion by just saying “Anselm put Christianity to a leap of faith” is bogus.


  23. THR…

    I think we are back where we started which is to the idea that a reactionary Orthodox who raises the sword in convicted defense of The Church does a grave sin. And this sin is related to the erroneous futility of such action. For raising the sword in true defense of The Church is for Catholics and Catholics alone. Mere Christians, and certainly reactionary Christians are not actually defending The Church when they raise the sword as non-Catholics, but otherwise a professed Christian of some manner. This also speaks to their sin?


  24. Ok since I used the term cuck you are assuming im coming from the Alt Reich, and since I am criticizing christianity you asume im a rabid athiest I tried to signal neither were true.
    I do happen to think the alt Reich are correct about a lot but for reactionary and rational reasons. I wish you were correct and would support you if I thought it would work. I do root for the Russians and orthodoxy I dont know a lot about how we differ but I do know a lot about Catholicism and Catholics know a lot about Protestantism. If you think the east can continue using orthodoxy to advantage great but you must have a different scripture because the one i spent decades with is really really leftist and universalist and irrational.Since you are writing in english Im pretty sure you know what Im tallking about. I woont reiterate here I made some comments at Jims that get to the specifics.
    But I would like to answer a few points you raise. this DENRX alt right feud is not helpful sure they have issues so does DENRX. You are correct americans use white dont you understand why we are not one race of whites, so while i think ethno nationalism within reason is a good basis for a patch and in europe that ought to mean french basque german catalonian irish etc in the US it must mean “white”> Land also like to pretend that whites is meaningless as if the differences between the components are as much as between other races and whites thats patently absurd,The USA is pretty good proof what “whites” can accomplish.I am not happy about the cultural loss this engendered here or in Europe after we conquered it and one of the reasons I support both white and Scottish croation etc nationalism is I think they will help restore some of that lost culture. If by some miracle certain forms of Christianity were to reemerge that would be great in one sense but I would be very suspicious it might again become morbid. Some in the alt reich particularly the really loathsome ones promote socialism I think the last decade or two has pointed out some tendencies of capitalism that need addressing but socialism like Christianity are very problematic A traditional case could be made for it but I would never trust it.
    Your sweeden analogy kind of flies in the face of reactionary thought no or are you not “neo” reactionary. Sweedes are devout Christians, They judge not turn the other cheek,believe we are all brothers,They just think the whole god thing was getting in the way of gods work.They are not relativists their morals are absolute and christian, see my comments at jims.
    Your Idea and I hear it a lot of whites vying for victim status is valid im with you the neo nazi whining about the jews is pathetic but im whining about christianity im saying it teaches this world is unreal and to the extent we pay it any mind it should be by transcending it by putting others before ourselves. As you admit yourselvf and people like Dalrock get into the nuts and bolts of christians are often the ones adopting chimps and and catering to feminism etc, No doubt you fault this to heresy and sure a case can be made and moldbug draws that line for you at Cromwell i just think he doesnt see the inevitability of Cromwell orthodoxy no doubt sees itself as a special case v Protestantism at least we catholics consider you non heretical and part of The Church its still a house divided. So yeah i do think a religion like christianity can make you cucked when it goes from an empire religion to a remnant religion.And I really really wish this were not so.more at Jims.


  25. Rebelling against the Monarchy ughhhsrgh Look no doubt Jefferson was a lefty rebel [as was christ] and yeah that revolution led to many others and yeah MM is correct that you could take it back to the glorious revolution, but this all sounds like my dad blaming it all on the 60s. you can always go farther back why not the greeks the romans tribalism even. Sure democracy is problematic but like democracy the problems arise when the world gets smaller, a case could be made euro man is evolved for democracy but when other races and genders are added it falls apart HBD chick or rather HBD is very relevant to any reaction its the foundation along with reason. And no I dont go as far as Land and want to pimp mankind out to robots but you cant put reason back in the bottle.What you seem to suggest is a islamic style Christianity well good luck with that. No I dont support the GOP i just point out the fell for the temptation of incorporating christians as “natural conservatives” which is ludicrous and left them open to alynskyite tactics and being held hostage to religious platforms like not aborting niggers.and not giving birth control to africa. If it makes you feel better i was supporting a tridentine cag to orthodoxy i dont say it isnt helping in those instances just that fundamentally its a leftist creed that only seems rightest in isolation and in periods of non reform


  26. @Avy
    I certainly dont discount Aquinas Augustine or Maimonides for that matter and yes I read them and many others I still recommend them and point out if you dont know what judeao christianity actually teaches then your atheism is sophistry which most of it is. I dont want to try and argue one out of their faith and certainly would not pretend as atheists do that the greatest minds in the history of their world were believers Catholic and Jewish theology and philosophy are brilliant in themselves and in the rationalizations they bring to religion I have spent most of my life using what Ive read by these men and the utter stupidity and illiteracy of the left and atheists to defend the faiths. But All the while I had to admit that what bugged me in second grade bugged me still and that in the end these great arguments begin with faith.Its true science has no explanation for the existence of the world and god is as good an answer as any maybe better when you have to explain either something from nothing or something that has always been. But thats not really saying a lot except i think i am therefore i must be. Religion is a whole other matter and it always begins with a revealed scripture, The intellectual tapestry the great theologians have made weaving these ancient pre reason scriptures into current understanding is one of the great works of human art as are the scriptures themselves it is no coincidence they so resonate they literally co evolved with them. The layers of understanding we are instructed to interpret them as both theology and metaphor etc is brilliant but the fact remains enough of it is so deeply troubling that its not really internally consistent and even it it were its not consistent with the other religions which means gods a racist and theres a lot of false religions or scripture is just an outline and not revelation so why not secularize it. And all thats before you get to the problem of evil and free will the problem of morality v evolution, the problem of mind body,the problem of free will and evolution and mind body, and so on.
    Theres not a lot of aquinases and augustines that believe I find if i try to actually discuss these problems I get defensive or the usual refutation. Or I get the answer that implies I must have faith to concede. Or the no true Scottsman.


  27. “leftist and universalist and irrational”

    Leftism didn't exist 2000 years ago. Try again. Universalist, in some ways, but the vast majority of human religions are in some way universalist. Irrational, a way to conveniently cover up blunt truths behind sophistry. Read some Maistre, he spoke quite eloquently on the perils of so-called 'rationalism'. Remember, the French Revolutionaries called themselves the Cult of Reason. Think on that for a few moments.Rational thinking has its place, but it is a place, not a universe.

    If you think Swedes are Christians you haven't actually looked at religious demography. Sweden is one of the most disbelieving countries in Europe. It has a morality, but this is far from a Christian morality, even if it is some weird heretical and puritanical offshoot, and your cherry-picking of Scriptural verses is painfully reminiscent of what Liberals have done over the past few decades (hence why laymen really shouldn't spout off about Scripture). I could just as easily cite for you “Fags wont inherit the kingdom of God” or the myriad verses about adultery and a woman's proper place.

    You cannot say Swedes are devout Christians, and then a couple of lines down call Christianity a remnant religion. These two things are COMPLETELY contradictory. Christianity is indeed a remnant religion in the West, and you are reaping the fruits of that reality. I reiterate what others have made clear. The West will either be re-Christianized or it will die, and disappear like so many other geopolitical entities have disappeared throughout recorded history. Sorry, I don't see prospects for a Neo-Pagan revival by Varg Vikerness any time ever, but if that is what you want to pin your hopes on, be my guest. Nor will atheism solve any problems, it is an abject failure and ought to be eradicated. So what are your options? Please, I'm ready to hear your wonderful solution, and until I do, I'm quite content to give Westerners the dichotomy: return to truth, or die. Russia had to learn the hard way, perhaps you will too.

    “Jefferson was a lefty rebel [as was christ]”

    Again, idiocy, you need to look up where 'leftist' comes from, and then you'll understand that to apply it to the political context of 2000 years ago is absurd.

    “why not the greeks the romans tribalism even.”

    Because they weren't leftists

    “euro man is evolved for democracy but when other races and genders are added it falls apart”

    By this point I am really questioning how much you have read. Democracy has been part and parcel of why the migrants are here. You cannot separate the two. It is as retarded as Conservatives thinking they can get rid of abortion and not feminism.

    “islamic style Christianity”

    Sort of thing a liberal would say, and as with most of your other points, makes approximately zero sense. Like saying “Jewish style Hinduism”. What does this even mean? If you mean, should Christians actually believe in their religion, as Muslims do in theirs, then that isn't bad advice to follow. Consider, you are in danger of going extinct, they aren't. Perhaps they know a little something about social Darwinism that has eluded you.


  28. I see Anonymous replied. I have had wine on Friday night so it is hard to collect my thoughts. But I see Anonymous is asking about faith. This point I had not understood before. Belief in God is rational.
    Everything has a cause. So unless there is a first cause, then you would have an infinite regress. And then nothing could exist. Therefore there must be a first cause. Therefore God, the first cause, exists. QED. (You could prove the first step a priori that everything has a cause by noting that nothing can come from nothing. This makes it a priori, not just an empirical observation).

    I went on in another entry to mention the main idea here is not cause and effect but rather the infinite regress. There is also Anslem and Godel.


Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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