Monday, June 26, 2017

Reaction and Tradition

The fight against modernity is a war against an army of vipers: liberalism, nihilism, materialism, corrupt social-betters, and a multitude of institutions stand in our way. With this in mind; how are we meant to return to the old social order? The most common error is simply to react, rather than return.



Many see modern ideas as a given and aren't able to successfully defend against the progressive swarms -- the defender has resigned to fight on the attacker's territory. This is certainly the trouble with libertarianism and the ideological struggle with progressives: they still share the core belief that truth is relatively subjective. But to fully conquer the evils of the modern world, one must refuse it and take the correct path to salvation. A path of objective truth.

In contrast, modernity is built upon relativism. If truth is not objective, it is far easier to promote ideas through emotional argument. Rather than God and His Church, the media instead becomes our overlords. Thus the will of people is put above what is truly righteous and good, and general consensus becomes the moral code.


Perhaps the greatest example of this is 21st-century view of fascism. I can honestly admit, after studying Mussolini, Dollfuss, Franco, and Degrelle - I have a much harder time defining fascism than I did before. For the sake of clarity, I can no longer use "fascism" to describe any specific set of ideas, as you can have everything from the atheist Mussolini with a Jewish mistress to the clerical Austrofascists. Nevertheless; The ideology is used the ultimate insult by the Western left, being used so often that actual fascists often escape a great deal of persecution.

The many people instead called "fascists" are mainline "conservatives". Usually this term means someone who is nominally conservative, mildly libertarian, and a fairly strong supporter of the Republican party. They have made no attempts to refine their political philosophy, and their most dedicated act of praxis is sharing a meme from Uncle Sam's Misguided Children to start a Facebook debate with their liberal aunt.

A step beyond this is the basic libertarian, most commonly a fan of Ron and Rand Paul. These individuals read a few books on politics and finds that the state is almost certainly a source of most ills, regardless of how the state is applied. This is a very prevalent and temporary phase, as this group feeds into neo-reactionary politics through Hoppe, minarchism and anarcho-capitalism through Rothbard, or God-forbid a young man slips back into common conservatism with a focus on Keynesian economics. Another common transition is to adopt an idealistic classical liberalism, with a love of the Founding Fathers and the greater use of aesthetics. It serves as an ideological purgatory, where the enemy is rarely defined unless it is a road or an involuntary action. 

All adopt tradition to some degree, but it is not capital-t Tradition. Some take on an Anglosphere individualist sort, some a set of ideas used to justify authoritarian government; and most often just defending their father's brand of Baby-Boomer worship of American corruption and the cult of Ronald Reagan. While this is certainly an individual tradition, it is not a sacred Tradition that we possess in the West.

True Tradition is built upon natural law, and a set of primal truths which was imbued from the first moment of Creation. The Apostle John that all was created through the Word, the Logos, and evidence of this is found from the earliest days. There were elements of truth to even the pagan philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle, and the fullness of Truth was brought to the temporal world with the Sacrifice of Our Lord Jesus Christ. This Truth is known through the teachings and Tradition of His Church. 


To be line with Tradition, one must recognize the need for a single leader. A figure for a nation to look up to, whose legitimacy comes from God, this is the only successful guide for the state and people. As pawns to political parties, special interests, and the desire of the mob, presidents and prime ministers consistently fail to implement meaningful -- much less positive -- change within their terms. In fact, it is often said a benign dictator is always the ideal ruler; a this sentiment echoed from Plato, to Aristotle, to St. Thomas Aquinas. 

How this ruler comes to power is a question which causes the Falangists to bicker with the Carlists. One side cites the shortcomings of individual monarchs, while the other has a strong rebuttal in the lifespan of authoritarian regimes. Regardless; without the stability of monarchy, the regime likely collapses after the first generation and initial leader fall out of power. With monarchy, due to its hereditary nature, these movements could go further. Old blood and clerical backing is a boon to any political movement.

The religious element of reaction cannot be ignored. It is the ultimate source of unity and morality, the foundation of European Tradition, and the source of all legitimacy. Having the support of the Bishop of Rome or a Patriarch is the greatest possible endorsement. A devout Christian leader is one certain to act in great virtue, and this monarchs reign will only serve to better his population. A pious monarch will breed great piety in the population.

The eternal truth of the Faith will survive regardless, but nonetheless thrives in this king, tsar, and so on.

Thus the only living force which supports truth above all is Tradition. Ardent defense of truth and morality is rarely found outside the Church, much less independent of its teachings. Beauty is hardly found outside of Cathedrals and artwork of the past, and support for a good state last found in the coronation rites of the Mass and Divine Liturgy. We must accept the truth as a whole, such is Tradition, as any error or diversion from it will send back down the path to disorder. 

We cannot assemble our own form of "truth" based on what delights us. We must relentlessly study, pray, and act with virtue to find the truth. We must consume all the writings of Church Fathers and Doctors, read of the great heroes, and most importantly, emulate them. There is no cafeteria for the Truth, it must be taken wholly or be completely abandoned. Using modern ideas to fight modernity will not reap any meaningful fruit.



Because of this, we cannot adopt any aspect of the Enlightenment. At its core, it is the ultimate expression of relativism and rebellion. We cannot assert the state is the sole cause of woe or the only salvation of man; we cannot assert that capital must be fully enslaved or free. A philosophy must form organically, from the lives of good people worthy of living out their goals. Order can only exist in a righteous society, as good philosophy can only come from a man with his passions and vices trampled by his own desire for morality, service, and salvation. We must begin reforming on our own lives before we can successfully lead the world to looking to past for a better future. 

Recite the prayers of your fathers and patriarchs, read their words, and imitate their acts of heroism. We cannot find salvation in anyone but Christ, and we're without any help without Him and His Saints. The ultimate revolt against the modern world is to make goodness, prayer, study, and service an ideology above any -ist or -ism. To organize, we must leave the screens and form the righteous mannerbund, and build up our fellow right-wingers into men by crushing their vices as well as our own. We must lead each other towards wisdom and action rather than apathy. All ideology and aesthetics are slaves to truth, and we must run towards the objective of holiness above all.

We must fight and restore the virtue and the systems which retain the goodness, and it starts with turning fully from modernity and any part of it, finding redemption in Christ through the Sacraments and pious living. We must first support the Social Kingship of Christ, before we can rebuild our own Kingdoms.

Thursday, June 15, 2017

Comedy Central and The Law of Diminishing Returns

In recent years, the decline of viewership among major television networks has become readily apparent. The biggest ones, ABC, NBC, CBS and FOX, have seen a major shift in their demographics. Viewers for their shows are older, while younger viewers are absent.

Among the hardest hit, but least mentioned, is Comedy Central.

One look at their recent programming and it looks like they’re trying to reclaim their Golden Era.

Between 1999 and 2007, Comedy Central was at the height of its Cable TV powers. “South Park” won several Emmys and was critically acclaimed across the board. Other programs, including “Reno 911!” and “Chappelle Show” had strong ratings and a devoted following. Famously “The Daily Show,” under the tenure of Jon Stewart, was the “criterion” of late-night. Several cited the leftist fever dream of a program as a major impact on the 2004 American Presidential Election.

Fast forward a decade later and Stewart’s successor, Trevor Noah, can barely get half of his predecessor’s audience. Despite some recent “booms,” if it weren’t for the current President, he’d be circling cancellation.

It looks as if the network misses the period where their shows were winning awards and steering political ciphers in a democratic election.

In recent months, “That 70′s Show” and “Scrubs,” heavily syndicated parts of their Golden Era, made a return to the network. Meanwhile attempts to duplicate “The Daily Show” in the form of “The Nightly Show,” “Problematic” and “The Jim Jefferies Show,” are doomed to failure.

No one wants to hear leftoid comedians lecture us about what’s “offensive” to a bunch of totalitarian humanists. The younger viewers, who grew up without “The Daily Show,” look at these recent attempts as an embarrassment. Those who are pushing it are either older executives, unwilling to change, and younger managerial types who believe doubling down works and were the primary viewers ten years ago.

Eventually Comedy Central, along with Hollywood and other major television networks, will have to realize what is the inevitable for the rest of us. They’re becoming hopelessly obsolete and out of sync with their potential viewers.

In Comedy Central’s case, the “progressive” comedians they promote are the same as the “Church Ladies,” of our parents childhood.

A bunch of old whiny hypocrites.


Saturday, June 10, 2017

The History of the Jacobites

The English Monarchy is more complex than one might imagine. Most Englishman themselves probably don’t know just how intricate the centuries of marriages, claimants, intrigue, assassinations, bastards, and laws have affected the line of English monarchs. They probably don’t even realize the current ruling family is illegitimate. Well, illegitimate to some.

Enter the Jacobites. You may have heard them mentioned in your European history classes before, perhaps heard about the multiple uprisings they started. They weren’t just ordinary rebels, however. They didn’t want lowered taxes or more freedom for the peasantry or anything like that. No, the Jacobites fought for much more than that. To truly understand the Jacobite cause and its roots, allow me to take you back to the end of the reign of Charles II.

Charles II of England

Charles II was heirless, as he had no living non-bastard children to succeed him on the throne. His heir was by default his younger brother, James. During the reign of Charles II, the Anglican Protestant majority of England was extremely anti-Roman Catholic. The sentiment was so hostile towards followers of the True faith that a false convert and habitual liar named Titus Oates fabricated an anti-Catholic rumor that came to be known as the Popish Plot. In this lengthy manuscript, Oates alleged that the Roman Catholic clergy in Great Britain of plotting the murder of Charles II. A Catholic sympathizer himself (and eventual convert), Charles II dismissed the rumor but allowed Oates to approach one of his ministers with it. This minister, named Thomas Osborne, was more than eager to listen to Oates’ allegations. Eventually, the two of them managed to have at least 22 British Roman Catholic killed for alleged participation in the plot to assassinate Charles II. This plot helped to fuel the anti-Catholic fire that had been brewing in England since the Reformation had begun.

Titus "The Liar" Oates

When it was discovered that Charles’ heir, James, was a Roman Catholic convert himself, the people were furious, particularly Anthony Ashley Cooper, 1st Earl of Shaftesbury. Shaftesbury found his position strengthened by the proposition of the “Exclusion Bill”, which was drafted specifically to block James from the line of succession. Some of the anti-Catholics went so far as to sponsor Charles II’s illegitimate Protestant son for the throne. There were many who stuck up for James and his rightful claim. They were known as the “Tories” or “the Abhorrers” in reference to their abhorrence of the Exclusion Bill. The anti-Catholics came to be known as “Whigs” or “the Petitioners” in reference to their support for the Bill. King Charles II, with his personal pro-Catholic sentiment and desire for his younger brother to succeed him, dissolved parliament repeatedly in an attempt to make the bill unpopular, which eventually worked. The Earl of Shaftesbury was tried for treason and fled to the Netherlands, where he would later die.

The 1st Earl of Shaftesbury

Not long after preventing the Exclusion Bill, King Charles II fell ill and died the same day he was received into the Catholic Church himself. His younger Catholic brother James was successfully crowned King James the Second, by the Grace of God, King of England, Scotland, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, as per the Late King Charles II’s wishes. During the first months of King James II’s reign over the Isles, there was little opposition to him, and he ruled with moderate popularity. He was granted a sizable income by parliament, and he was known for working much harder at his kingship than many of his predecessors. He was noted, however, for his refusal to compromise with his advisors.

King James II of England

After the first few months of relative stability and popularity, the rightful King James II faced not one, but two pretender rebellions at once. One was led by his nephew the Duke of Monmouth, in southern England, and the other by the Earl of Argyll in Scotland. Both had initially prepared their revolts in the Netherlands, where the Stadtholder had conveniently neglected to stop them from building up their forces as per King James’ request. Argyll’s revolt was quickly suppressed and he was captured and executed in Edinburgh

Monmouth’s revolt had been in tandem with Argyll’s, however, Monmouth’s was far more threatening to King James II’s claim to the throne. Due to his unpreparedness, overconfidence, and the quick defeat of his ally, he was defeated by James’ standing army and executed at the tower of London. While Monmouth’s revolt had been easily suppressed, the manner in which it had been done made the British people more suspicious of King James II and the Stadtholder of The Dutch Republic began to distance himself from the English despite his marriage to James II’s daughter.

These Revolts made King James increasingly nervous about his personal safety and as a result he had the size of the British army increased, and significantly enlarged his personal standing army. This enraged the Protestants, as they saw it unreasonable to keep an army during peacetime, despite the obvious threats to King James’s life. Protestants became even more furious when King James assigned fellow Roman Catholics to command his personal standing army, This began the eventual resentment of parliament towards King James that would culminate in the so-called “Glorious Revolution”.

In late 1685, James disbanded parliament for the last time during his reign; he refused to allow them to meet again. They had attempted to discriminate against the Catholics he had employed too many times. While going through his Elder Brother Charles II’s writings, he discovered a detailed refutation of the Protestant heresy written by him. He quickly had the writings published and challenged the English Clergy to dismiss Charles II’s claims, stating himself: "Let me have a solid answer, and in a gentlemanlike style; and it may have the effect which you so much desire of bringing me over to your church." Despite this offer of debate by King James, the Archbishops of the Anglican Church collectively refused, saying that it would be rude to the late King to refute his writings. However, it is far more likely that they were simply unable.

James II continued to increase liberties for British Catholics and curb privileges for the Protestants. He attempted to repeal the Test Act and penal laws against Catholics in all three British Kingdoms. One of his goals as King was to grant the same civil liberties to the Catholic Church that were afforded to the Anglican Communion. King James II granted Catholics some of the highest offices in the kingdom, allowed the Apostolic Nuncio to return to England, and granted his confessor, Edward Petre, particular influence in the court. The Protestant Anglican nobles believed this to be a threat that could potentially remove them from their positions of power and return the Catholic Church to the British Isles, something they refused to let happen. Slowly but surely, one by one, King James’ former Anglican allies and friends unjustly turned against him to dismount the Catholic Church from its rightful place in Britain.

The straw that finally broke the camel’s back came twofold. The first was when King James issued a second Declaration of Indulgence to be read by the Anglican clergy. Although many rightfully accepted, the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury along with seven others, protested the King’s decree and demanded he reconsider. For this offense, they were arrested and tried by the English court for seditious libel. The second, which began the “Glorious Revolution” was the birth of King James’ new Catholic son and heir, James Francis Edward. William, Prince of Orange and Stadtholder of the Dutch Republic, was married to King James’ Protestant daughter Mary, and outrageously claimed that Mary was the legitimate heir. The Anglican Nobles petitioned the Prince of Orange to invade due to their burning hatred for the Catholic Church, and invade the Prince did. King James was captured in Kent by his demonic son-in-law and was nearly executed. However, Prince William knew that killing his father-in-law would not only make him look terrible to the other lords of Europe, but would also make King James into a Catholic Martyr for the English, so he reluctantly allowed him to flee with his wife and son. King James II fled the land of his birth, the land which he had dedicated himself to fixing, the land which he had worked so hard to turn back to God. James was received warmly into Paris, under the protection of his close friend, King Louis XIV.

"Queen" Mary II of England

This is the beginning of the Jacobite cause. With King Louis’ assistance, King James sailed to Ireland, which was still loyal to the One, True Faith. The Irish parliament went against the Scottish and English parliaments and declared that James II was still king and that all British who had supported his removal must be punished for their disloyalty. The Irish even went so far as to write a list of every single nobleman who plotted against King James and demand they come to Ireland to receive their just punishment for their betrayal. James II then proclaimed religious freedom for both Protestants and Catholics of Ireland in order to regain favor with the other two kingdoms. King James II then began building an army but was still unprepared when his son-in-law came across the Irish sea to expel him. The rightful king was defeated yet again at the Battle of the Boyne, and was forced to flee once again back to Paris, never again to return.

King James’ successors would try again on multiple occasions to take back their God-given birthright, but none would succeed. The Jacobite mandate would pass from James II to his son, James III, then to “Bonnie Prince” Charles, to the final Stuart Jacobite claimant, Henry Cardinal Stuart. After the death of Henry in 1807, the Jacobite claims passed to those excluded by the Act of Settlement: initially to the House of Savoy (1807–1840), then to the Modenese branch of the House of Habsburg-Lorraine (1840–1919), and finally to the House of Wittelsbach (1919–present). Franz, Duke of Bavaria is the current Jacobite heir. Neither he nor any of his predecessors since 1807 have pursued their claim. Thus, the Jacobite claim has remained active, but untouched. It still remains with the House of Wittelsbach, but they seem to have no interest in pursuing it. Nonetheless, the Jacobite’s have stood as a symbol of English Catholicism, Divine Right, Absolutism, and Monarchism, and it continues to inspire us to this day.

Friday, June 2, 2017

Opinions

It is a common problem in democracy that since people believe that their opinion matters in government, it matters in all things, and this is a core problem within democratic communities for several reasons, which shall be discussed below. It is a symptom of the larger illness, of course, but that does not mean that it should not be discussed. As the Age of Democracy end, it is vital that we shed a light on its shortcomings and failures so that people may be better prepared for the future.

1. A person who feels as though everything in your life is their business allows for the complete destruction of the private life, which man has held sacred for thousands of years. Time was, a human could be facing a problem and work through it with the help of God and no one else, but those days are gone. These days, everyone with the slightest opinion feels the need to impart this opinion on another, seemingly for the sake of their own sanity. A private moment has its dignity destroyed and its full gravity robbed by the swarm of people who must try and create a solution from their own, very different experiences. To this end, it is also a very selfish trait within democracies. The desire for democratic societies to try and place their opinions on each other shows a complete lack of respect for the unique situation and individual is in and seeks only vainglorious praise if, by chance, the intruder’s opinion is accepted and works. A human who sees another in distress and wants to find a way to make sure their opinion is the first to be considered is rarely doing so out of charity, but is rather desirous that their names be praised.


2. Since people feel not only the want, but the need to share their opinions, with many people having the misguided belief that it is their right, it allows for some people to place importance on those who should be shunned. C.S. Lewis spoke on this topic, saying that when people lose their monarchies, they will seek to worship whores, athletes, and actors. That this has happened is indisputable and is encouraged and strengthened by this sort of opinion sharing. During the Age of Monarchy, we gave honour to those who deserved it by the rank of their virtue, and for a very short time in democracy, it went to those who earned it through merit, but that quickly dissolved like all other things of worth that came from democracy. Now, several people who agree that a particular actor, singer, athlete, TV show, movie, book, or, yes, even whore is worth the acclaim and admiration of humanity, it becomes so. In this age, we call it a ‘fandom’ or attach some other improvised word to it (‘Bronie’ ‘Whovian’ ‘Potterhead’). These people not only feel that it is their right to interfere with these media tragedies, but that, vice versa, the fictional worlds built by their idols can and should influence our current lives. Recognizing an allegory is one thing, but that line has long since been crossed by people who would label us ‘Deatheaters’ or ‘Discord’ by people who can no longer separate fiction from reality. Their intermixed ideals and morals leak out and infect our world through the free sharing of their opinions, which they require us to respect.


3. In line with the second point, we have all seen what happens when someone’s opinions aren’t respected. We live in a world where every opinion must be respected, lest the slurs begin to fly. These false idols, created by the ignorance that comes from mass opinion, are held to be untouchable by the cultists who worship them. An actor becomes a god who may not be ridiculed, a book becomes a gospel that may not be argued against, a movie becomes a beacon that must be watched and loved, or else one becomes a bigot, homophobe, sizist, weighist, sexist, racist, or whatever else they choose to call those who appreciate that which is good.


4.  Time was, the slurs that I mentioned in the last paragraph wouldn’t have been considered real words, because they aren’t. Things have changed, though, and it is all the result of misguided opinions which people feel they have a right to share. Subjective truth has become objective, an imperative that must be followed and heeded. Opinions are lifted to the heights of religious or scientific truths regardless of their basis in fact. While this is nothing new (Martin Luther), it has recently reached dangerous levels. This is evident in the levels of self-expression that people display and demand respect for.




Wednesday, May 31, 2017

Crowning the World Again | Part II - Symphonia, Integralism, and the Family

Separation of Church and State is a principle of Enlightenment thought -- the gravest of errors and a severe detriment to the nation as a whole. This is a especially true in America, which lacked a unified culture before becoming the United States. The state did not evolve organically from the nation, leading to Americanism being synonymous with statism. Hatred is normally directed at one's opposing party, but any critique of the government itself is normally viewed as an attack on the nation as a whole. The United States is bereft a unifying Church, culture, or ethnicity - leading to unity achieved only through external threat and flimsy ideology. Its major unifying force is a vaguely moral "Christianity", where God only exists to promote the will of the American government. The logical conclusion of this "faith" is an immoral and materialistic society, one divided between those who think Jesus was a gun-toting capitalist or a Palestinian socialist. Objective morality is made subservient to economics, again showing religion in American is not valued for theology - but for promoting a political party's agenda. 

Loss of unified morality and culture is the price paid for the Enlightenment holding state higher than the Church. Western Europe, without the Catholic Church, has surrendered to an unreasonable form of progressive philosophy. The state has come to value preserving its liberal appearance over protecting her own citizens, regardless of their suffering. As the West falls to political correctness and emotional manipulation, plagues such as Islam, nihilism, and Marxism are spreading in almost all urban areas. We must recognize the importance of a national religion to return righteousness, peace, and order to the world.

Crowning of Charlemagne by Pope Leo III

The religion is the foundation of a nation, informing its culture and morality more than any other force. Especially in Eastern Europe, being Orthodox is as important as your father being a Russian or Serbian. The Enlightenment, despite it preaching freedom, ultimately puts the state as the end goal of the nation. 

Realizing this importance is key to reactionary thought. Even the agnostic Charles Maurras, the leader of Action Francaise, knew the importance of the Catholic Church and Catholic identity for France. He was the organizer and philosopher for the organization, and his ideas caused them to fully embrace Catholicism and integralism. 

Integralism is traditionally viewed as organic unity between the classes of a nation. The modern classes originate from the state, with the political and usurer classes manipulating the working class. The abuses classes have dictated the occupations of the working class, most apparent through the selling-out of American manufacturing overseas. Rather than occupations being rooted in family tradition or necessity, these post-Enlightenment states sell unemployment under the guise of free trade, and the robbery of tradition under the guise of modernization.

The rise of nationalism in Europe led to the state focusing on the natural and global rather than local, violating the idea of subsidiarity and choking local identity. A society in order is tranquil, prosperous, and lacks the need for a secular state to restrict daily life. A society in order begins with the family and by extension the village. Peace can only be found when the lowest level is ordered. A nation can only flourish and be truly ordered when the family is promoted, protected, and its property and status kept from outside interference. 

This order can only be achieved by the state arising organically from the nation, rather than the state asserting itself over divided groups. A republic always asserts power through emotional manipulation, the buying of votes, or bribery to increase political status. Property, leadership, and nobility should stem from tradition and righteous action, rather than bribery and appointment.

The state is not a given. It is a means to an end, and a righteous society gives birth to a righteous and ordered state. Enlightenment thought wrongly preaches the state is the end itself, with the democratic process as an essential institution. This leads to the state being held above the culture and citizens, with rights put above duties and progressive ideology held above all else. The right to vote is held higher than doing what is right, and the fate of the nation and people made more important than the people. Secular and liberal ideas are accepted without argument, and the entire nation may burn to the ground so politicians can avoid being called illiberal or racist.


A rebirth of religious identity is essential to the re-ordering of the world. The family unit may only be saved by a common system of morals, which defends Sacramental marriage and promotes raising children to become righteous. Subsidiarity is an essential tenet of Catholic social teaching - shifting the goal of the state as protector of the local culture is essential. Modern states value global economics above all else, and adopting a confusing and illogical mix of foreign values is a consequence of global capitalism and mass immigration. When the state is too focused on usury and foreign currency manipulation rather than public schools teaching morals are subjective, marriage is malleable, and gender is fluid - there is something entirely disordered.

The rise of secularism has given rise to immorality, with divorce, adultery, pornography, and drug use becoming widely accepted. All of these vices directly attack the family, and cause sloth and moral laxity. Children perpetuate the cycle of lustful marriage and divorce on top of accepting degeneracy as "fun". The Church must serve as the protector of the family, and the ordered family unit is key for a morally-righteous state.

Family as the foundation of a righteous people can only be maintained by a moral state. Integrating the moral and social values of the Church allows the family to function, and the breeding of righteous citizens avoids the need for a unnecessarily inflated state. When society is in order, local communities provide for themselves, Church attendance is high, and the classes can be arbitrated by the local noble, and at the highest level, the King. The social reign of Christ the King is the foundation for both the family unit through morality, which extends upwards to the institution of monarchy. At the lowest level, the Father and Lord of family and property must be worthy of being ruled by righteous government. The monarch himself must subject himself to the Kingship of Christ, obeying His Church and teachings, to be worthy of ruling. In order to keep society peaceful and ordered, we see the need for the Church.

Despite the Enlightenment's rejection of symphonia between Church and State, we must fully embrace the purpose of the Church with regards to temporal kingdoms. The state exists to protect her citizens and private property, their way of life, and to keep peace. On top of that, the state must also protect the Church from any external foe, and provide support when needed. This support is necessary if a nation is to remain moral, as morality and faith can only be passed from Christ through His Church. The Church must teach and keep check on the state, and must shepherd Christ's flock in matters of morality and theology. The Church may also stand with the people as a means of preventing the state from falling into vice, decadence, and tyranny, by overseeing the education and character of the monarch's and noble's heirs. As we descend the social latter, the Church provides priests to minister to citizen's spiritual well-being, keeping them from sin and on the path to salvation.

Family From Antiquity - Oil By William Adolphe Bouguereau

When the state decides morality, we end up with inflated law-books focusing on finances and economic regulations. This separates the state from the nation, leading to tremendous disorder. The purpose of the state is to be an extension of the people and culture, and to maintain order and retain cultural values. If the Church is allowed to take Her place as moral guide, and to exist alongside the state and to be moral guidance, a nation will fall back into tranquility.

The Church has argued for protection of the local over the global, the human over capital, and the organic unity of the nation rather than a state promoting a false and never-ending march of progress. The disorder of the modern state must be ended, and brought under the needs of the nation itself rather than the will of globalist, nihilistic oligarchs. The heavenly institution of monarchy is modeled after God's own heavenly and eternal Kingdom, and the family unit is a miniature form of the state. The social Kingship of Christ can only be maintained by submission to the Church, and Church can only be protected by the institution of an anointed monarch. This monarch must submit himself to morality, and take up prayer and defense of his nation through Christ as his duty. This is the only way to achieve order - Righteous Lordship from the foundation to the highest level, through the safety of the family and property, and the re-awakening of morality through the Church.


Sunday, May 14, 2017

The Crucifixion of the Old Order and the True Counter-Revolution



Over the last 300 years, the world has been witness to the slow decline of the old order of throne and altar. The rise of enlightenment thinking and the cult of logic had come to challenge monarchy and the Church. A revolutionary spirit was born that was antithetical to God and his servants on earth, concentrated against His main representative, and protector of the Church, the monarch.

When the great Russian author Dostoevsky was involved in revolutionary circles in his youth, his former mentor had noted "as a socialist, he had to destroy Christianity in the first place. He knew that the revolution must necessarily begin with atheism.".  One of the most terrible examples of this revolutionary spirit is its embodiment in the French Revolution in 1789. Precipitated by the Freemasonic lodges, under the disguise of the motto Liberté, égalité, fraternité, they liquidated the monarchy and established a secular, liberal democracy. What was the result of this modernist ideology? What did it bring to the people?

It brought them misfortune, rape, and mass executions done not under the cover of night, where criminals usually conduct their business, but during the day in the full view of all. As Solzhenitsyn declared at the dedication of the Memorial de la Vendée in Les Lucs-sur-Boulogne, France, on September 25, 1993, “…in the life of society, liberty, and equality are mutually exclusive, even hostile concepts.

Liberty, by its very nature, undermines social equality, and equality suppresses liberty- for how else could it be attained?”. The French Revolution, and the masonic cause to destroy throne and altar, is the example and inspiration of all other political revolutions, and modernist cultural revolutions, from Bolshevism to feminism.


What are the fruits of this? Is man, now that he has obtained “the vote” and does not live under a “theocracy”, free? Is the individual happy and fulfilled in the march of “equality and progress”? Or has something been lost?

“For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul?” – Mark 8:36.

Humanity’s problems are not a lack of equality, or lack of equal pay, or anything material or political. The ills of the modern age have come from the separation of civilization from God. The problems that have befallen us in the modern age have occurred for the same reason the Bolshevik revolution occurred, in the words of Alexander Solzhenitsyn “Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened.”.

The communist holocaust was the most terrible, in pure numbers, example of the revolutionary spirit. 100 million (conservative estimate) have fallen to communism in the 20th century. In Russia, the Church was persecuted to no end and many new martyrs were born out of the Russian Revolution, one of the biggest examples of this is the martyrdom of the Royal Family, who were made saints in Orthodox Church, they are a leading example of The Counter-Revolution. Not only the Tsar but the entire White movement is an example of the spirit of The Counter-Revolution and what is needed for the ultimate victory. Russian philosopher Ivan Ilyin, dubbed Putin’s philosopher by Western media, has characterized the Revolution as a religious trial, “No one in Russia escaped this trial; this test overtook every man: from the Tsar to the soldier, from the Most Holy Patriarch to the last atheist, from the rich to the destitute. And each was put to an unprecedented test- to stand before the face of God and testify: either by the word, which became equivalent to the deed, or by the deed, which became equivalent to death.”.

A man can either have the material world and become a servant of the devil, or he can choose to remain loyal the God. Loyalty in God will result in loss of all material gains and bring upon physical death, but just as Christ was victorious over death with the resurrection so are all that choose to be true servants of God. Ilyin proclaims that “If we can take everything from this victory that was laid into it, then Russia will soon be reborn in power and glory and evince still unseen greatness. And this greatness will be a living edification and support for the rebirth of other nations.

This is the primary meaning of our “White” existence and suffering.”. Victory lies not in decimating your political rivals and holding power for some decades until you die and once again the revolutionaries take power. It is not with doing the same evil revolutionaries do in order to maintain power either, but “the victor is he who rose against: rose against seduction, not falling to it, and rose against terror, not taking fright. … He triumphs who agrees to lose everything to save something of God’s.”. Through the lessons of the French and Russian revolutions one sees not just the crucifixion of the old order, but it serves as an example of the evil that the heresies of the modern age have caused, and the need for us all to take up a great spiritual struggle against them, and to become slaves of Christ. Only through Christ can man achieve true freedom from all evil.


The True Counter-Revolution must take place in the heart of every man. As Saint Nikolai Velimirovic said, “Help me, my God, to conquer the world within myself.”. A spiritual struggle must take place for the heart of civilization. The people must make themselves worthy for the return of the Holy Dynasties that ruled Old Europe. The nation, the Church, and the state must be unified by their ultimate service and loyalty to God. This can only be done through a rejection of all modern heresies, and a return to Christian civilization. Elder Thaddeus of Vitovnica remarked that to him the world looked as if it was something out of Hades. Over the years all of us have seen a greater decline still.

We must work to first to restore the insoluble bonds of marriage between man and woman, and the unity of the family, the primary social unit, to begin to restore the Old Order. For a people must make themselves worthy to be once again ruled by a great king. There must be a rejection of all non-Christian principles and foreign influences in society and return to the sacred foundations of Christendom!


Saturday, May 13, 2017

Was Islamic Spain An Example of Mutual Tolerance?


Spain today was once the Christian Visigoth kingdom before the Islamic conquest in the eighth century. Many people today often assume that the Islamic conquest brought a golden period of mutual toleration among the three Abrahamic faiths under Islamic rule. However, this is not historically correct, as according to some historians, it is wrong to assume that mutual toleration of religious minorities was improved under Islamic rule. The Islamic conquest of Hispania was filled with atrocities, created a state of constant warfare in the region, and life for Christians under Islamic rule was not of tolerance, but rather of fear.
Islamic Spain became a result of a violent conquest by the Umayyad Caliphate. They conquered the Iberian Peninsula in the 7th century by taking advantage of the internal dissension among the Visigoths in 711 A.D. These Jihadists, which are those that strive for Jihad against the infidels (non-Muslims), entered into the Christian Visigoth Kingdom of Hispania, slaughtered the Visigothic king Roderick and conquered the land. These Muslim fighters were a mixture of North African Berbers, or "Moors," who made up the majority and Syrians, who were all then led by a small number of Arabs from the Arabian peninsula. To understand why the Umayyad caliphate wanted to conquer Hispania, we must first understand what was the goal of this caliphate. The Caliphate was launching jihad, which is a holy war against Dar al-Harb, which literally means house of war. Dar al-Harb refers to the part of the world that is ruled by non-Muslims, or infidels. The Caliphate is part of Dar al-Islam, which means house of submission, which is the part of the world that submits to Islam. The purpose of jihad was for Dar al-Islam to conquer Dar al-Harb and annex it to Dar al-Islam. The Caliphate as such, launched jihad against the then Christian Middle East in 634, which was years before the conquest of Hispania. For this reason, jihad was launched against Christian Hispania. The conquest of Hispania in the 8th century was not without atrocities and without terror into the hearts of the Iberian inhabitants. Musa ibn-Nusayr, a ruler from North Africa under the Umayyad Caliphate, led the subjugation of Hispania under Islamic rule. According to the Latin Chronicle of 754, which is a primary source written by a Christian who witnessed the Arab conquest, states: "Musa himself, approaching this wretched land across the straits of Cadiz and pressing on to the pillars of Hercules...entered the long plundered and godlessly invaded Spain to destroy it. After forcing his way to Toledo, the royal city, he imposed on the adjacent regions an evil and fraudulent peace. He decapitated on a scaffold those noble lords who had remained, arresting them in their flight from Toledo...Thus he devastated not only Hispania Ulterior, but Hispania Citerior up to and beyond the ancient and once flourishing city of Zaragoza, now by the judgment of God, openly exposed to sword, famine, and captivity. He ruined beautiful cities, burning them with fire; condemned lords and powerful men to the cross; and butchered youths and infants with the sword" (Constable, 30-31). So, this invasion of Spain lead to widespread atrocities where there was burning of cities, mass decapitation of the nobles, enslavement, famine, and the murder of children. These children even included infants, and so even the children did not escape the brutality of Jihad. Also, another excerpt of the chronicle also states: "While he [Musa] terrorized everyone in this way, some of the cities that remained sued for peace under duress and, after persuading and mocking them with a certain craftiness, the Saracens [Muslims] granted their requests without delay. When the citizens subsequently rejected what they had accepted out of fear and terror, they tried to flee to the mountains where they risked hunger and various forms of death. The Saracens set up their savage kingdom of Spain, specifically in Córdoba" (Constable, 31). So in other words, many of the native Christians in Hispania were so terrified of the Muslim conquests that they rather risked death rather than being enslaved by them. The chronicle also refers to the kingdom as “savage,” which debunks the false notion that they set up a wonderful kingdom where people were not terrified and all lived happily ever after.
The Moors would also subjugate the women of Hispania through rape and forced marriages. Abd al-Aziz, the first governor of the newly established al-Andalus (Islamic Spain) and the son of Musa ibn-Nusayr, participated in the conquests. After Visigoth king Roderick was murdered in battle, Abd al-Aziz sexually abused and raped the wives of murdered Christian nobles. The medieval Islamic historian Ibn 'Abd al-Hakam, who died in 871, stated: "He [Abd al-Aziz] had taken all the riches and positions of honor in Seville, as well as the queen of Spain, whom he joined in marriage, and the daughters of kings and princes, whom he treated as concubines..." (Constable, 31-32). Abd al-Aziz raped many of the women of the royal family and even forcefully married Queen Egilona, who was the wife of King Roderick that he killed. The Queen was practically forced to be married to the murderer of her husband. Also, a well-known Spanish historian points out how the Moors had a deep preference for the women of Europe. He states: "Everyone knows that the Moslems arrived in Spain [and Portugal] without women, and that their preference for beautiful and blonde Gallegas [women of Galicia] led to the occupation of the throne of Cordoba by caliphs with blue eyes and fair hair" (Crow, 149). Since the Muslims arrived without women to conquer Hispania, they raped many of the women as they conquered without arriving with their own women. They lusted after these Christian women, due to their fair complexion and blonde hair. As a result of this miscegenation, many of the Islamic elite look whiter than their Moorish counterparts.
The Islamic conquests of Hispania would also create chaos in the Iberian Peninsula. Rather than establishing an ordered, unified society, these conquests actually set into motion what would be later be battles after battles into a seemingly unending warfare. The historian Roger Collins writes in the introduction of his book, Caliphs and Kings: Spain, 796-1031, the following: “The Arab conquest created the conditions for a state of almost permanent warfare in the Iberian Peninsula that put special emphasis upon destruction and the display of dead enemies, with a lively slave trade as an additional incentive" (Collins, 1). So, the Arab conquest actually brought a lot of destruction into the region, and the Muslims established a slave trade that would give them many profits. Of course, the slaves were the infidels, as it is prohibited for a Muslim to enslave their fellow Muslims, and under Islam, a non-Muslim will never have equal social status as a Muslim. The Muslims also had a inhumane method of displaying the bodies of their enemies, which in turn showed their savagery. Such a conquest established the Umayyad al-Andalus, and the Christian states in the north of the peninsula, which caused friction among themelves. Even Islamic Spain was much more violent than Western Europe in the same time period due to this constant warfare. Also, the reason why the Moors never fully conquered the whole of Hispania, which would include the North, is because there was even infighting among the Muslims themselves, thus allowing the Christians to launch their reconquista, or reconquest to expel Muslim rule from the Iberian Peninsula. Roger Collins also stated in the same book: "Even in Córdoba at its cultural apogee it will have been hard to escape the reek of decomposing flesh from the decapitated heads displayed on the gates and the bodies of those publically crucified, left to rot in front of the palace" (Collins, 2). The Moors seemed to have a practice of decapitation and crucifixion of their enemies, which are the infidels, and then displayed their bodies in public as a way to intimidate the general public to not rebel against their Moorish overlords. The number of infidels that they killed in battle were sent for display on the gates and the wall of Córdoba. Such a conquest definitely showed the brutality of the Moors against the Christian inhabitants, and the conditions that were caused as a result of their holy war. The conquest largely destabilized the Iberian Peninsula for many years to come.
According to the article, “The Myth of the Andalusian Paradise," by Darío Fernández-Morera, the author states: "The fascinating cultural achievements of Islamic Spain cannot obscure the fact that it was never an example of peaceful convivencia [Spanish for co-existence]" (Fernández-Morera, 23). While in Islamic Spain, both the Jews and the Christians lived under Muslim rule, they lived in the status of Dhimmitude, which is a status where religious minorities are severely restricted due to their faith. Dhimmitude, according to Islamic law, is an option available only for Christians and Jews. For pagans, Dhimmitude was an option not available, and pagans had the choice of either converting to Islam or be killed. During the reign of Abd al-Rahman I (734?-788), who was the founder of the Emirate of Córdoba, and during the reign of Abd al-Rahman II (822-852), who was the conqueror of Barcelona, the Christians were grossly persecuted. Abd al-Rahman I demolished the ancient Catholic church of Córdoba in order to establish a mosque, which is a Muslim place of worship. Catholics under both reigns suffered confiscations of their private property, enslavement, and an increase in the tribute that they must pay for protection, which in turn generated more profits for their Moorish overlords. Also, under Abd al-Rahman II and Muhammad I (822-886), a number of Catholics were killed in Córdoba for preaching against Islam, while others were expelled from the city. Saint Eulogio, along with other martyrs such as Saint Roderick and many others who are recognized by the Church today as martyrs due to their martyrdom, were beheaded by the Muslims since they either insulted Islam, converted to Christianity, or announced their faith publicly. Many of the martyrs were former Muslims who converted to Christianity, and were killed since the punishment for apostasy in Islam is death as according to the hadith, which is part of total Islamic doctrine and second to the Koran in Islam. There was practically no freedom of religion in Islamic Spain, and people who were already Christians must submit to the authority of the Islamic authorities and live a restrictive, humiliating life. Even Muhammad I ordered that “newly constructed churches be destroyed as well as anything in the way of refinements that might adorn the old churches added since the Arab conquest" (Fernández-Morera, 24). This emir (Muslim prince) practically destroyed many of the Christian places of worship in order to make the religion of Islam dominant in the land. This is how Christians lived under Islamic rule, and suffered a lot due to their faith. While Christians lived under Islamic rule, they lived restrictive lives and it was not a society of mutual tolerance and co-existence, but rather a society that was very totalitarian due to the precepts of the Islamic religion.
So next time you hear of the myth of the peaceful co-existence between the Moors and Christians, remind them of how the conquest occurred, how Christian women became sex slaves and victims of rape, how many Christians were butchered, how Christian churches were destroyed and the martyrs of Córdoba. Islamic Spain brought instability to the Iberian peninsula that lasted for many centuries as there was constant warfare. It is time to lay this myth of Islamic Spain to rest forever as it it is constantly used by those who hate Christian civilization and so tries to discredit it with outright lies. Many Spaniards today should not feel shame of the Reconquista, as the Spaniards had the right to defend their civilization from invaders that sought to destroy Christian rule in the region. Spaniards today should be proud of their ancestors rather than feel guilt.
Sources:
• Roger Collins, Caliphs and Kings: Spain, 796-1031, Wiley Blackwell, 2014. Print.
• Olivia Remie Constable. Medieval Iberia: Readings from Christian, Muslim, and Jewish Sources. University of Pennsylvania Press, 1997. Print.
• Kenneth Baxter Wolf. Christian Martyrs in Muslim Spain. Cambridge University Press. 1988. Print.
• Joseph O' Callaghan, A History of Medieval Spain. Cornell University Press, 1983. Print.
• John Glubb, Empire of the Arabs. Prentice-Hall, 1965. Print.
• John A. Crow, The Epic of Latin America. University of California Press, 1992. Print.
• Darío Fernández-Morera. The Myth of the Andalusian Paradise. The Intercollegiate Review. Fall 2006: 23-31. Print.