Saturday, December 24, 2016

May you have a merry, safe, and blessed Christmas

Litany of the Saints

Kyrie, eleison.
Christe, eleison.
Kyrie, eleison.
Christe, audi nos.
Christe, exaudi nos.
Pater de caelis, Deus, miserere nobis.
Fili Redemptor mundi, Deus, miserere nobis.
Spiritus Sancte, Deus, miserere nobis.
Sancta Trinitas, unus Deus, miserere nobis.
Sancta Maria, ora pro nobis.
Sancta Dei Genitrix, ora pro nobis.
Sancta Virgo virginum, ora pro nobis.
Sancte Raphael, ora pro nobis.
Omnes sancti Angeli et Archangeli, orate pro nobis.
Omnes sancti beatorum Spirituum ordines, orate pro nobis.
Sancte Joannes Baptista, ora pro nobis.
Sancte Joseph, ora pro nobis.
Omnes sancti Patriarchae et Prophetae, orate pro nobis.
Sancte Petre, ora pro nobis.
Sancte Paule, ora pro nobis.
Sancte Andrea, ora pro nobis.
Sancte Jacobe, ora pro nobis.
Sancte Joannes, ora pro nobis.
Sancte Thoma, ora pro nobis.
Sancte Jacobe, ora pro nobis.
Sancte Philippe, ora pro nobis.
Sancte Bartholomaee, ora pro nobis.
Sancte Matthaee, ora pro nobis.
Sancte Simon, ora pro nobis.
Sancte Thaddaee, ora pro nobis.
Sancte Matthia, ora pro nobis.
Sancte Barnaba, ora pro nobis.
Sancte Luca, ora pro nobis.
Sancte Marce, ora pro nobis.
Omnes sancti Apostoli et Evangelistae, orate pro nobis.
Omnes sancti Discipuli Domini, orate pro nobis.
Omnes sancti Innocentes, orate pro nobis.
Sancta Stephane, ora pro nobis.
Sancte Laurenti, ora pro nobis.
Sancte Vincenti, ora pro nobis.
Sancti Fabiane et Sebastiane, orate pro nobis.
Sancti Joannes et Paule, orate pro nobis.
Sancti Cosma et Damiante, orate pro nobis.
Sancti Gervasi et Protasi, orate pro nobis.
Omnes sancti Martyres, orate pro nobis.
Sancte Silvester, ora pro nobis.
Sancte Gregori, ora pro nobis.
Sancte Ambrosi, ora pro nobis.
Sancte Augustine, ora pro nobis.
Sancte Hieronyme, ora pro nobis.
Sancte Martine, ora pro nobis.
Sancta Nicolae, ora pro nobis.
Omnes sancti Pontifices et Confessores, orate pro nobis.
Omnes sancti Doctores, orate pro nobis.
Sancte Antoni, ora pro nobis.
Sancte Benedicte, ora pro nobis.
Sancte Bernarde, ora pro nobis.
Sancte Dominice, ora pro nobis.
Sancte Francisce, ora pro nobis.
Omnes sancti Sacerdotes et Levitae, orate pro nobis.
Omnes sancti Monachi et Eremitae, orate pro nobis.
Sancta Maria Magdalena, ora pro nobis.
Sancta Agatha, ora pro nobis.
Sancta Agnes, ora pro nobis.
Sancta Caecilia, ora pro nobis.
Sancta Catharina, ora pro nobis.
Sancta Anastasia, ora pro nobis.
Omnes sanctae Virgines et Virduae, orate pro nobis.
Omnes Sancti et Sanctae Dei, intercedite pro nobis.
Propitius esto, parce nobis, Domine.
Propitius esto, exaudi nos, Domine.
Ab omni malo, libera nos, Domine.
Ab omni peccato, libera nos, Domine.
Ab ira tua, libera nos, Domine.
A subitanea et improvisa morte, libera nos, Domine.
.Ab insidiis diaboli, libera nos, Domine.
Ab ira, et odio, et omni mala voluntate, libera nos, Domine.
A spiritu fornicatonis, libera nos, Domine.
A fulgure et tempestate, libera nos, Domine.
A flagello terraemotus, libera nos, Domine.
A peste, fame, et bello, libera nos, Domine.
A morte perpetua, libera nos, Domine.
Per mysterium sanctae, libera nos, Domine.
Per Aventum tuum, libera nos, Domine.
Per Nativitatem tuam, libera nos, Domine.
Per Baptismum et sanctum Jejunium tuum, libera nos, Domine.
Per Crucem et Passionem tuam, libera nos, Domine.
Per Mortem et sepulturam tuam, libera nos, Domine.
Per sanctam Resurrectionem tuam, libera nos, Domine.
Per admirabilem Ascensionem tuam, libera nos, Domine.
Per adventum Spiritus Sancti Paracliti, libera nos, Domine.
In die judicii, libera nos, Domine.
Peccatores, te rogamus, audi nos.
Ut nobis parcas, te rogamus, audi nos.
Ut nobis indulgeas, te rogamus, audi nos.
Ut ad veram poenitentiam nos perducere digneris, te rogamus, audi nos.
Ut Ecclesiam tuam sanctam regere, et conservare digneris, te rogamus, audi nos.
Ut Domnum Apostolicum, et omnes ecclesiasticos ordines in sancta religione conservare digneris, te rogamus, audi nos.
Ut inimicos sanctae Ecclesiae humiliare digneris, te rogamus, audi nos.
Ut regibus et principibus christianis pacem et veram concordiam donare digneris, te rogamus, audi nos.
Ut cuncto populo christiano pacem et unitatem largiri digneris, te rogamus, audi nos.
Ut animas nostras, fratrum, propinquorum, et benefactorum nostrorum ab aeterna damnatione eripias, te rogamus, audi nos.
Ut fructus terrae dare, et conservare digneris, te rogamus, audi nos.
Ut omnibus fidelibus defunctis requiem aeternam donare digneris, te rogamus, audi nos.
Ut nos exaudire digneris, te rogamus, audi nos.
Fili Dei, te rogamus, audi nos.
Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi, parce nobis, Domine.
Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi, exaudi nos, Domine.
Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi, miserere nobis.
Christe, audi nos. Christe, exaudi nos. Kyrie, eleison.
Christe, eleison. Kyrie, eleison.
Et ne nos inducas in tentationem.
Sed libera nos a malo.

Psalm 69

Be pleased, O God, to set me free; make haste, O Lord, to help me.
Let them be confounded and ashamed that seek my life.
Let them be turned back and covered with dishonor that delight in my misfortune.
Let them be turned back abashed that say to me: "Aha, aha!"
Let all that seek thee exult and be glad in thee.
And let them that seek thy help say continually: "God be magnified."
But I am poor and destitute; O God, succor me!
Thou art my helper and my deliverer, O Lord, tarry not.
Glory be to the Father.


Deus, cui proprium est misereri semper et parcere: suscipe deprecationem nostram; ut nos, et omnes famulos tuos, quos delictorum catena constringit, miseratio tuae pietatis clementer absolvat.

Exaudi, quaesumus, Domine, supplicum preces, et confitentium tibi parce peccatis: ut pariter nobis indulgentiam tribuas benignus, et pacem.
Ineffabilem nobis, Domine, misericordiam tuam clementer ostende: ut simul nos et a peccatis omnibus exuas, et a poenis, quas pro his meremur eripias.
Deus, qui culpa offenderis, poenitentia placaris, preces populi tui supplicantis propitius respice: et flagella tuae iracundiae, quae pro peccatis nostris meremur averte.

Deus, a quo sancta desideria, recta consilia, et justa sunt opera, da servis tuis illam, quam mundus dare non potest, pacem: ut et corda nostra mandatis tuis dedita, et hostium sublata formidine, tempora sint tua protectione tranquilla.

Ure igne Sancti Spiritus renes nostros, et cor nostrum, Domine: ut tibi casto corpore serviamus, et mundo corde placeamus.

Fidelium, Deus, omnium conditor et redemptor, animabus famulorum, famularumque tuarum remissionem cunctorum tribue peccatorum: ut indulgentiam, quam semper optaverunt, piis supplicationibus consequantur.

Actiones nostras, quaesumus, Domine, aspirando praeveni, et adjuvando prosequere: ut cuncta nostra oratio, et operatio a te semper incipiat, et per te coepta finiatur.

Omnipotens sempiterne Deus, qui vivorum dominaris simul et mortuorum, omniumque misereris, quos tuos fide et opere futuros esse praenoscis: te supplices exormus; ut, pro quibus effundere preces decrevimus, quosque vel praesens saeculum adhuc in carne retinet, vel futuram jam exutos corpore suscepit, intercedentibus omnibus Sanctis tuis, pietatis tuae clementia, omnium delictorum suorum veniam consequantur. Per Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum Filium tuum: Qui tecum vivit et regnat in unitate Spiritus Sancti Deus, per omnia saecula saculorum.


Pax vobis.
Exaudiat nos omnipotens et misericors Dominus.
Et fidelium animae per misericodiam Dei requiescant in pace.


Ave Maria, gratia plena, Dominus tecum.
Benedicta tu in mulierius,
Et benedictus fructus ventris tui, Iesus.
Sancta Maria, Mater Dei,
Ora pro nobis peccatoribus,
Nunc et in hora mortis nostrae.


Act of Consecration of the Human Race to the Sacred Heart of Jesus
(partial indulgence)

Most sweet Jesus, Redeemer of the human race, look down upon us, humbly prostrate before Thine altar.
We are Thine and Thine we wish to be; but to be more surely united with Thee, behold each one of us freely consecrates himself today to Thy most Sacred Heart.
Many, indeed, have never known Thee; many, too, despising Thy precepts, have rejected Thee.
Have mercy on them all, most merciful Jesus, and draw them to Thy sacred Heart.
Be Thou King, O Lord, not only of the faithful who have never forsaken Thee, but also of the prodigal children who have abandoned Thee; grant that they may quickly return to their Father's house, lest they die of wretchedness and hunger.
Be Thou King of those who are deceived by erroneous opinions, or whom discord keeps aloof, and call them back to the harbour of truth and unity of faith, so that soon there may be but one flock and one shepherd.
Grant, O Lord, to Thy Church, assurance of freedom and immunity from harm; give peace and order to all nations, and make the earth resound from pole to pole with one cry: Praise to the Divine Heart that wrought our salvation: to It be glory and honor for ever.


Sunday, December 11, 2016

Excerpts from the Rules of the Society of Jesus (1894)

In continuing from last week, let's now look to the Rules of the Society of Jesus. The Societas Jesu can be traced back to a meeting of seven students from the University of Paris in 1534, which included three future saints—Ignatius of Loyola, Francis Xavier, and Peter Faber. Those seven were ordained as priests in 1537 with papal approval, and the new Society of Jesus was officially confirmed by Pope Paul III in 1540. The new order was limited to just 60 members until Pope Julius III lifted that restriction in 1550, which allowed the Jesuits to become an army for the faith. Importantly, the same Papal bull that allowed the Jesuits to expand also tasked them with combating Protestantism, which would come to define the order during the Counter-Reformation. Indeed, Jesuits are still at the heart of many Protestants' anti-Catholic conspiracy theories.

The Form of the Simple Vows

"Almighty everlasting God, I, N.N., though altogether most unworthy of Thy Divine sight, yet trusting in Thy Goodness and Infinite Mercy, and moved with a desire of serving Thee, vow before the most sacred Virgin Mary, and the whole court of Heaven, to Thy Divine Majesty, perpetual poverty, chastity, and obedience, in the Society of Jesus, and promise that I will enter into the same Society, for ever to lead my life therein, understanding all things according to the Constitutions of the same Society. Therefore I most humbly beseech Thee, by Thy Infinite Goodness and Mercy, by the Blood of Jesus Christ, that Thou wilt vouchsafe to admit this holocaust in an odour of sweetness, and that as Thou hast already given me grace to desire and offer it, so Thou wilt also bestow plentiful grace on my to fulfil it. Amen."

The Common Rules
1. Let every one, with all diligence in our Lord, spend the time prescribed him in examining his conscience twice every day, in prayer, meditation, and reading.

28. Let all talk in a low voice as becomes Religious men; and let no one contend with another; but if there by any difference of opinion, and it seem good to let it appear, let the reasons by put forward with modesty and charity, with intent to establish the truth, and not that they may seem to have the upper hand.

30. Let all beware of the feeling which commonly leads those of one nation to think or speak unfavourably of others; rather, they must both think well of, and cherish in our Lord peculiar affection for those of other countries; and therefore, let no one introduce into conversation wars or strifes between Christian princes.

34. To the end that such gravity and modesty as beseems Religious men may be kept, let no one touch another, even in jest, except when they embrace in token of charity, upon going from home or returning.

42. Let all, according to their degree when they find suitable opportunity, endeavour by pious conversation to draw their neighbour to a better life, and to stir him up by counsel and exhortation to good works...

The Rules of Modesty

2. The head should not be turned this way and that way lightly, but with gravity, when there is need; and, if there be no need, it should be kept straight, with a little inclination forward, without leaning on either side.

3. For the most part, they should keep their eyes down, neither immoderately lifting them up, nor looking about in every direction.

4. During conversation, especially with men of authority, they should not stare them in the face, but rather look a little below the eyes.

5. Wrinkles on the forehead, and still more on the nose, are to be avoided; that that outward calmness may be seen which is a token of interior peace.

7. The whole countenance should show cheerfulness rather than sadness or any other less moderate affection.

13. When they have to speak, they must be mindful of modesty and edification, as well in their words, as in the style and manner of speaking.


What these excerpts make clear is that the Jesuits are meant to be obedient servants who carry the one truth faith to others. They are to be modest and humble in all things. From the beginning, the mission of the Society of Jesus included building schools and providing teachers, and Pope Julius III saw the value in the Jesuits teaching proper theology to counter the Protestants.

Why then has the Society of Jesus rather become known as a bastion of progressivism? Why is the term "Jesuit" not associated with Catholic orthodoxy but rather heterodoxy? Why has a Jesuit institution like Marquette University defended "gay rights" against any debate (Source)? Why would the Jesuits allow an open homosexual to enter the order en route to the priesthood (Source) when they know that he encourages acceptance of unrepentant homosexuals as just being "who they are" (Source)?

The lesson here is not that the Society of Jesus is inherently wicked or wrong, but it is rather that even the most holy of institutions can easily be led astray. It is commonly held that Jesuits are liberal progressives pushing modern political ideology over tradition and values, which is largely true today in much of the world, but that has not always been the case. The Jesuits were founded to carry the one true faith to people, and, in the past, they were seen as the Vatican's elite soldiers on the front lines of the spiritual war against heresy. Pray that the Holy Spirit moves the Society, as a whole, back to its roots and away from espousing modern hedonism and degeneracy. May conservative Jesuits find the strength and authority to remove the "gay Jesuits," the "urban activist Jesuits," the "feminist Jesuits," and all others who have tainted the name of Jesus.

Sunday, December 4, 2016

Excerpts from the Rule of the Order of Santiago

Being a traditionalist in the modern world can be exceedingly difficult as we are pushed and pulled in every direction, pressured to conform to progressive ideals. In the absence of traditional safe havens such as churches and social clubs, traditionalists are left to do the best they can in their day-to-day lives. To this end, here are excerpts from the Rule of the Order of Santiago, which was formed in the 12th century to protect pilgrims and hospices en route to the shrine of St. James in the modern city of Santiago de Compostela. The knights were recognized as religious by Pope Alexander III in 1175, and, uniquely, the order was allowed to admit married members from the beginning whereas other such orders took standard monastic vows. By looking to how those men lived their devotion to the Lord and to the defense of Christendom, traditionalists can perhaps gain insight into how they can live their own lives.

I. On the Reverence that Should be Observed for All the Faithful of Christ

They will revere and honor the bishops and the prelates of the Church, and all the faithful of Christ, monks and canons of whatever order they may be... and they will also protect with all their strength all those under any order of holy religion, and succor them in their need according to their means.

III. On the Poor

Likewise the poor of Christ should be received fraternally every day... and be given what they need with all reverence and according to the means of the house.

IV. On Universal Prayer

Three paternosters should be said each day for the Lord Pope and for the Roman Church... one paternoster for all the faithful dead; one paternoster for peace in the Holy Church; one paternoster for his king; one paternoster for the bishop; one paternoster for the patriarch and the [Christian] defenders of Jerusalem; one paternoster for all those in holy religion, whatever their order may be, dedicated to God; one paternoster for benefactors and malefactors so that the benefactors may be rewarded by God; one paternoster for the fruits of the land.

IX. They Do Not Leave off Defending their Christian Brethren because of Fasting

Because it is everyone's intention to defend the faith of Christ and His faithful, and all of them will have promised that, and because obedience more than sacrifice pleases God, if some of the brethren want to abstain from food or to observe abstinences other than those mentioned previously, let them perform them according to the Master's dispositions, for they should not, on that account, abandon the defense and service of Christianity. For, just as our Redeemer Jesus Christ advised us and taught with His example when He had to lay down His life for his brethren, saying to them: "Greater love than this no one has, that one lay down his life for his friends," it is more difficult to expose oneself to great and many dangers than to remain at home idle and tormenting oneself in tranquility.

X. Exhortation to Encourage the Brethren to Overcome the Infidels

Therefore, Knights of Christ, awake and "lay aside the works of darkness, and put on the armor of light," that the enemy, your old foe, might not lead you astray, he who "goes about seeking someone to devour" and strives by all means to divert you from the road of justice and from the path of truth and uprightness. Indeed, never cease defending your brothers, your neighbors, and the Catholic Mother Church. For there is nothing more glorious and more pleasing to God that to choose to end one's life in the defense and preservation of the law of God by means of the word, fire or water, captivity, and other numerous and indescribable dangers, which neither the tongue can name, nor the heart of man can think of... For it is better to defend than to fast. It follows that if anyone weakens his body by frugality or by a continuous fasting, and his strength fails in the defense of the law of God and his brethren, let him know that he has done wrong and made himself guilty before God... For the defender performs all works of mercy.

A brother is he who arises as a defender and tries to accomplish all things that the Lord will tell the just at the time of the fateful judgment. He will say to them: "For I was hungry and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and... etc. When the defender frees someone from the captivity of the pagans, or by defending him prevents him from being taken into captivity, is he not feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, covering the naked, and visiting the sick and the imprisoned? For who can be hungrier or thirstier, more naked or more ill or who can suffer more cruel imprisonment than he who is a captive of the Saracens?

XI. On the Pusillanimous and the Fearful

If someone is so timorous as not to be fit for war, let him keep busy with other labors... that he may not be idle... as the Blessed Jerome says: "Do something so that the Devil may find you always busy."

XII. How they Should Behave with Their Wives

The brethren should not approach their wives when they are feasting, nor on the feast days of St. Mary, St. John the Baptist, and the Apostles, nor on the major holy days and their eves, for an impetuous lover of his own wife is an adulterer.

XVIII. Everyone Must Strive for the Growth of the Order and of His House

Let every one of the brethren care faithfully for everything that belongs to the house so as not to cause in any manner any damage in it, and what is more let all strive honestly for the growth of the house.

XX. On how Gossip Must Be Avoided

Let none of the brethren dare to gossip in any way among themselves... Let the one who sees or might know in some way something that should be corrected... not gossip on that account with another... but rather let him reprimand the one he believes to be guilty, and let him try to bring back to the right path by any means he can according to God, even with the intervention of others if their help is needed for his improvement.

XXI. On how Insult Must be Avoided

Let no one of the brethren dare to dishonor or insult his brother; let everyone of the brethren honor each other with all diligence and good will.

XXII. They Should not Give an Uncivil Response

Let them not give a bad or offensive answer to any man, nor to their brother, nor to anyone else, even if it is deserve; on the contrary, let them answer to all men with humility and mildness. Let them guard themselves against lying.

XXIV. On Life and Honesty

Let them show moderation in the way they talk and walk, in their every action and in every movement of their bodies.

XXV. On Chastity

Let those who have wives observe conjugal chastity; let those with no wives live in chastity.

XXX. The Intention of the Brethren Should Be One: Defense of Christians, and not Cruelty and Pillage

Though the special intention of all is one: to defend the Church of God with all their strength, lay down their lives for the exaltation of the Name of Christ, and prevent continuously the cruelty of the Saracens, they, however, should not plunder their land for the sake of robbery and cruelty, but whatever they do, let them do it for the exaltation of the Name of Christ, or to defend Christians against their attacks, or in order to be able to attract them to the knowledge of the Christian faith.

Sunday, November 20, 2016

The Traditionalists' Idealism: A Substantive Sword, or A Meaningless Huff?

The United Kingdom has voted to leave the European Union, the United States has elected Donald J. Trump, and a number of nationalist parties are poised to continue this positive trend throughout Europe. The global Marxist forces are reeling, which is demonstrated by the American media's panicked barrage of silly attacks against the Trump transition team and everyone he has nominated for a position in his administration. The international political right has achieved some stunning victories in 2016, but the question now is how the traditionalist right can harness this momentum to bring about something real and tangible. The Marxists have foisted immense social change upon Christendom in the last few decades, and traditionalists cannot rely on politics alone to correct all the evil that has been done. After all, the United States will see congressional mid-term elections in 2018, and President Trump will face reelection in 2020. If the liberal justices on the Supreme Court can last until 2021, we may not see the drastic change for which the political right longs. Battles have been won, but the war continues with an enemy that is still very dangerous.

For traditionalist Christians, there needs to be far more than temporary political change, and even controlling the Supreme Court for a generation cannot somehow guarantee that broader society will abandon the progressivism that they have been fooled into endorsing. For example, according to Pew Research polling, 73% of Democrats and 39% of Republicans support "gay marriage" (Source). Similarly, 74% of Democrats and 39% of Republicans think that "abortion should be legal in all or most cases." To put these numbers in context, in 2001, 57% of Americans generally opposed "gay marriage" while only 35% supported it, but those numbers have since entirely reversed themselves (Source). If we are truly to make America great again, it is not enough to hopefully reverse some of the laws and judicial rulings. The way in which we think has to be restored so traditional values are promoted while degeneracy is confronted with extreme prejudice.

This is easier said than done, however, as the very institutions that should be providing the moral compass for the nation have also been subverted. For example, the General Convention of the Episcopal Church first allowed women to join the House of Deputies in 1970, and those women then immediately moved to push two resolutions: namely, one allowing female deacons, and the other going further to allow female priests and bishops. The first resolution passed while the second failed then and again in 1973. By the next General Convention in 1976, however, more than a dozen women had already been ordained as priests by four retired bishops, and the battle was lost with both houses of the convention voting in favor of the resolution. Still, the first female bishop—Barbara Harris, a black civil rights activist—would not be consecrated until 1989. The Episcopal Church would continue down this heretical path with the first openly gay bishop consecrated in 2003, and the first female presiding bishop elected in 2006. As a consequence of continued liberalization, from 2006-2014, the Episcopal Church lost 15.7% of the active membership with a total loss of 542 dioceses.

While the Catholic Church has better resisted the urge to liberalize, we must recognize that the trend has been against traditionalism since at least Vatican II (1962-1965) with recent events being rather disconcerting. For example, Pope Benedict XVI issued Summorum Pontificum in 2007 to encourage traditional Latin Mass, but Pope Francis has instead opposed the traditional rite, going so far as to target the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate for being too attached to Latin Mass (Source). This and other liberal positions have led to what some call "The Francis Effect" as dioceses liberalize to fit with the Vatican (Source). Thankfully, some efforts by Pope Francis to liberalize or ignore doctrine have resulted in conflicts with the clergy (Source). A handful of cardinals have gone so far as to openly challenge a recent exhortation by Francis, Amoris Laetitia (Source). It is certainly a positive sign that Francis's liberal agenda is being challenged from within the Church hierarchy, and his most likely future replacement—Christoph Cardinal Schönborn—has openly warned of the Islamic conquest of Europe despite Francis encouraging nations to take in "refugees" (Source). Excitement over Schönborn's possible ascendancy have been somewhat dampened, however, as he has advocated for unrepentant homosexuals living in civil unions to have a role in local church life (Source).

History shows us that the Church can weather a great storm before eventually righting the proverbial ship, but traditionalists must recognize that the Church is unlikely to correct the error of liberalization any time soon, at least not from a top-down approach. Western societies have become increasingly liberal as have most Protestant denominations, and the Church has fallen down the same trap as liberals have infiltrated the pews and priesthood. The sheer vastness of the Church and the apostolic priesthood has prevented the mass liberalization as seen elsewhere, but there are movements pushing female ordination, embracing gays, and on, and on. Will the traditionalists right the ship, or will the Church eventually succumb to the same evil forces which have claimed so many? The answer to this question likely hinges on the future of our culture.

The political left has achieved many great victories in the West during the last few decades because they worked to infiltrate and dominate news and entertainment media, academia, and such. They are able to exert immense influence over the general population by controlling what people are allowed to say, do, and even think through social pressure in all aspects of our daily lives. The question then for traditionalists is, how can we bring about substantive, tangible results moving forward? Should new institutions be formed to cater to traditionalists, or are there any that could be turned to such purposes? Can new religious and/or secular organizations implement change in the Church by changing social norms as the leftists have done?

Sunday, November 13, 2016

No Rest for the Wicked or the Righteous

"Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well." - 1 Peter 2:13-14
This week saw the election of Donald J. Trump as the 45th President of the United States of America. Naturally, the tens of millions of Americans who voted for him, as well as the millions more who agree with him yet did not vote, have celebrated every day since. After all, Trump has pledged to secure the border, to deal with illegal aliens, to rebuild the military, to support Christians, to secure the Supreme Court for the right, and on, and on. In essence, Trump has pledged to do the opposite of everything Hillary Clinton had pledged to inflict upon white, Christian America. Our people, culture, and civilization were literally hanging in the balance, and the satanic left was finally defeated and resoundingly so. President-elect Trump is by no means perfect, but he is the only one in decades to have had the courage to put a name to our problems and pledge to stand with us rather than bending the knee before satanic globalist interests.

As expected, however, not everyone has been celebrating his election. Feminists, homosexuals, black liberationists, and every other flavor of anti-white cultural Marxist have lost their minds. As it turns out, they actually believe the propagandistic nonsense they spew, and there has been no shortage of leftists foaming at the mouth, trembling with fear and rage, while screaming to the heavens, "How could they have voted for this monster?!" In their minds, Trump is Adolf Hitler without the mustache and with even better marketing skills. Hispanics are saying he will deport them all, which is true for all of the illegals, but there are also blacks claiming he will reinstate slavery, gays claiming that he will put them into concentration camps, and Jews claiming all of the above. There are certainly many on the far-right who would be fine with that and more, but Donald Trump is neither a racist nor a fascist. He is infinitely better than any other candidate, but he is not the fiery avatar of the far-right that the leftists have built up in their minds.

To turn a quote from The Dark Knight on its ear, Trump is not the hero that traditionalists deserve, but he is the one we need right now. The simple truth is that a traditionalist hardliner could not have succeeded in the current political climate because the Left has had such a stranglehold on the media, academia, Hollywood, and the like. Donald J. Trump has the right combination of attributes so that he could unite the far-right and blue collar democrats into a winning coalition. In the process, millions of people have been exposed to the far-right in the guise of the Alt-Right with Trump and his sons even acknowledging the far-right on social media, albeit perhaps indirectly or even accidentally. Still, that exposure has allowed the movement to grow. To quote from another Batman film, "the fire rises." This puts the far-right in a position to succeed in the future.

Now, look at what 1 Peter 2:13-14 tells us. In the first line, we can see that we are to submit ourselves to the valid authority of government and obey the law. In the second, importantly, we are told that God will send governors to facilitate the "punishment of evildoers" and "praise of them that do well." Donald Trump may not be everything that a traditionalist would want in a leader, but he is precisely what was needed for the far-right to succeed in this moment of history. And that includes the leftists who have subverted Christendom being punished within the very system they themselves have elevated and deified. The border will be secured, illegals will be deported, and those who aid and abet illegal aliens will be punished as well. Law and order will be restored with thugs and criminals being punished rather than being held up as victims. The Supreme Court will restore traditional values rather than reading their own desires into the Constitution. We stand poised to undo in 4-8 years what the satanists took decades to achieve.

The satanic hordes of orcs know what is at stake, or at least the slightly more intelligent ones do. They couch their fear in language of "combating bigotry," "defending the helpless," and so on, but the truth is that they have spent decades trying to destroy Christendom and yet now see the possibility of its glorious restoration. And, in that realization, many of them have let the mask slip. The defenders of tolerance and love have turned to violence and vitriol. Take, for example, Mr. Charles Walz who wishes rape and death upon anyone who voted for Donald Trump, or even those still living in a red state come January. Do you have a wife? He wants her to be raped before she is killed. Do you have children, grandchildren? He wants them to die as well. He does not seem too concerned with how everyone dies, but he is clear that he wants Trump supporters dead. Fascinatingly, he says that Trump is Lucifer, but it is Mr. Walz who sounds Luciferian.

In fairness to Mr. Walz, he is not the only leftist to have exposed the satanic orc hiding beneath the surface of every rabid leftist. Dozens have been arrested in Portland, Oregon, after "protests" turned into a riot, or rather after a riot was officially acknowledged as such (Source). Similar scenes have occurred in a variety of cities across the nation with many others arrested, though they are largely confined to Democrat-held strongholds (Source). This has included protesters outside of the new Trump International Hotel in Washington, DC, which has witnessed at least one sign calling for the rape of Donald Trump's wife, Melania. These supposedly peaceful, loving, enlightened feminists and anti-racists are openly calling for the rape of women who did not vote "the right way," but they are also actively engaged in violence, which suggests that these threats should not be taken lightly. Imagine these mobs storming a location where President-elect Trump and his family are staying. We can only pray his security is ready for such an event.

As we can see, there is no rest for the wicked. They claw and crawl their way through the shadows, through the muck, and never cease their activities. In times of relative peace and tranquility, the orcs have not gone away. They are still there, working their evil deeds away from prying eyes. This has been shown by Wikileaks exposing the corruption and criminality of Hillary Clinton and Clinton, Inc. They may attempt to put on a friendly face so long as you at least pay lip service their degeneracy and satanic beliefs, but the creature is always there beneath the surface, writhing and snarling, waiting for the opportunity to sink its gnarled fangs into the throat of a righteous person. Look to these savages wailing and beating their chests as victims while they call for the rape and murder of the innocent. Know that they do not rest and that we cannot rest either. Take up the sword and the cross and stand ready to confront these monstrosities wherever they are found.

"Blessed be the Lord my strength which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight."
 Psalm 144:1

Monday, November 7, 2016

No, Mit Brennender Sorge was not "anti-racist"

Mit Brennender Sorge
8. Whoever exalts race, or the people, or the State, or a particular form of State, or the depositories of power, or any other fundamental value of the human community - however necessary and honorable be their function in worldly things - whoever raises these notions above their standard value and divinizes them to an idolatrous level, distorts and perverts an order of the world planned and created by God; he is far from the true faith in God and from the concept of life which that faith upholds.

11. None but superficial minds could stumble into concepts of a national God, of a national religion; or attempt to lock within the frontiers of a single people, within the narrow limits of a single race, God, the Creator of the universe, King and Legislator of all nations before whose immensity they are "as a drop of a bucket."
Seeing a supposed Catholic reactionary decry Donald Trump's alleged racism and misogyny is odd on its face. After all, any true traditionalist should want to defend their own people and culture and also embrace virtuous patriarchy as being necessary for an orderly society, which would be dismissed as "racism and misogyny" by progressives who wish to subvert traditional values. The fact that this particular supposed Catholic reactionary then holds up the Encyclical of Pope Pius XI on the Church and the German Reich, also known as Mit Brennender Sorge, as anti-racist speaks to the fact that even those claiming to be a traditionalist can be just as guilty as espousing modern ideals as the most dyed-in-the-wool progressive.

Look at the passages above from Mit Brennender Sorge. In the first, Pius XI clearly includes "race" and "the people" in his list of "fundamental value[s] of the human community" that are "necessary and honorable." The distinction he draws is that "worldly things" should not be exalted "above their standard value" or deified "to an idolatrous level." In the second passage, the Pope's point was made abundantly clear as the "Creator of the universe" cannot be limited to being just a "national God" within a "national religion" of a "single people." This does not negate the importance of race, people, or nation, but it rather shows that all are under God. The encyclical must also be placed within the proper historical context to understand why it was issued.

After coming to power in Germany, the Nazis signed the Reichskonkordat with the Holy See in 1933, which was meant to protect the religious freedom of Catholics in Germany, but the treaty did nothing to stop anti-Christian sentiments among much of the Nazi leadership. To reconcile the fact that most Germans were Christian yet many Nazi officials were anti-Christian, the state developed so-called "Positive Christianity," which Hanns Kerrl, Reichsminister of Church Affairs, described in 1937:
Positive Christianity is National Socialism ... National Socialism is the doing of God's will ... God's will reveals itself in German blood ... Dr. Zoellner and [the Catholic bishop of Muenster] have tried to make clear to me that Christianity consists in faith in Christ as the Son of God. That makes me laugh ... No, Christianity is not dependent upon the Apostle's Creed ... True Christianity is represented by the party, and the German people are now called by the party and especially by the Fuehrer to a real Christianity ... The Fuehrer is the herald of a new revelation (Source).
It was the persecution of Catholic clergy and the violations of the Reichskonkordat that Pope Pius XI was writing against in Mit Brennender Sorge. He was not espousing progressive ideologies of "anti-racism" or "anti-misogyny," but he was rather saying that the Church should not be subservient to or manipulated by the government. Race, people, and the state are "fundamental value[s] of the human community," but they should not become idols to be worshiped above all else. One can preserve their own people, race, and state without espousing heresy, and Pope Pius XI was calling out the "superficial minds" who thought otherwise.

Sunday, November 6, 2016

God's Will: Christian Militancy or Passivity?

Traditionalist Christians are often criticized for their militant opposition to infidels and heretics. We are told that "true Christians" are called to "love their enemies" and to "turn the other cheek," and no allowance is ever made for defending one's nation, people, or even one's own self. This passivity has become a hallmark of the West with Christianity largely taking the blame among the far-right of the political spectrum. With the rise of so-called "Churchianity," it is certainly true that many who claim to be Christian are pacifists more concerned with signaling their obeisance to secular progressivism than living the faith, but is Christianity to be blamed? Are Christians truly called to be pacifists who will not defend themselves or others?

It is certainly true that Christians are called to "turn the other cheek" in Matthew 5:39, and it is also true that Jesus said to "love your enemies" in Matthew 5:44. From the Old Testament, Exodus 20:13 and Deuteronomy 5:17 both command, "Thou shalt not kill." If one was so inclined, they could use these verses to paint a rather clear picture, and that is precisely what Churchians, secularists, and atheists have done to subvert the faith. But would such a picture actually be representative of Christianity as traditionally understood?

First, let's be clear that pacifism was indeed once espoused by some early leaders within the Church. For example, as summarized by St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430) maintained that to kill in defense of one's own life was unlawful, albeit he did allow for public officials and soldiers to kill for the sake of others (Source). Pope Nicholas I (800-867) said that he gave no permission for clerics to kill another human being for any reason including self-defense (Source). It should be noted, however, that St. Thomas addressed these objections and instead came to the conclusion that self-defense was lawful so long as the intention was defense rather than to kill and there was no malice underpinning one's actions.

Second, let's address the passages above used to claim that Christians must be pacifists. For example, in Matthew 5:38-39, Jesus said, "Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." The context here is important. The word used for "evil" is ponero/πονηρῷ, related to poneros/πονηρός. This can be understood as "wicked" or "malicious," from ponos/πόνος (pain). This "evil" could be in the grander sense of our understanding, but it can also mean someone toiling to cause us problems. The proper meaning is clarified when we consider that the word for "smite" is rhapizei/ῥαπίζει, a simple strike or slap, and Jesus says to "turn the other cheek." Slapping a person on the right cheek was understood to be a personal insult, and Jesus is telling his followers that they should not retaliate within that narrow context. Previously in Matthew 5:17, however, Jesus says, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." We can thus see that Jesus is not undermining "tooth for a tooth, eye for an eye" as a matter of law, and the examples of what you should not retaliate against are personal in nature and are not deadly. Similarly, the word for "enemy" in Matthew 5:43-44 is derived from echthros/ἐχθρὸς (someone or something hated or hostile). Compare this to polemios/πολέμιος, which was derived from polemeo/πολεμέω (to make war). Again, Jesus was clearly speaking of one not holding personal hatred in their lives, not commanding us to accept criminal or foreign violence.

Now, we can see that some within the early Church suggested to one extent or another that Christians should not take the life of another, and perhaps the most preeminent thinker of that time was St. Augustine, who made allowance for public officials and soldiers to kill as needed. By the 13th century, St. Thomas Aquinas was justifying Christians defending themselves and the innocent so long as their intent was to defend themselves and not to purposely kill the attacker. This change makes sense against the backdrop of the Crusades. Indeed, the Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth Crusades were all conducted within the lifetime of St. Thomas, and other important churchmen such as St. Bernard of Clairvaux had openly preached the crusade. It is not sufficient for us to rest our hat on the notion that "attitudes change," however, because those who subvert Christendom readily use the argument that anyone who defends the faith is actually violating God's commandments. We must instead show that the militant Christianity of the Middle Ages was not at odds with God's will and that traditionalist Christians are right to take up the cross and sword once again.

To demonstrate God's will on the subject, let's first begin with the fact that the Old Testament does not directly address the issue of self-defense in a clear-cut fashion, but that does not mean that it is not addressed. For example, in Exodus 22:2-3, it is said that you would not face punishment for killing a thief who was breaking into your home at night, but you would be held liable if you killed him in daylight. Both scenarios involve the same homeowner facing the same thief, so why is it only permissible to kill the thief at night? Simply put, you cannot be expected to discern the thief's intentions at night, and it was naturally assumed that the homeowner could defend himself when facing a possible threat. During the day, however, the homeowner could see that the thief was simply stealing rather than being a threat, and he should then be captured and forced to pay restitution for anything he was attempting to steal. This passage does not directly address self-defense, but it does make it clear that killing another was permissible if it was reasonable for you to assume that they were a threat. Why else would it make a distinction justifying the killing?

If a homeowner can kill so as to defend himself and his family, why then would we assume that Jesus expected his followers to submit to similar criminal violence? After all, God the Son did not come so as to subvert God the Father, so we should never assume that the former is contradicting the latter when the two can be easily understood and reconciled. Furthermore, we can see from the Old Testament that righteous warfare can not only be justified but was often commanded by God, and such warfare was certainly not weak or passive. For example, Hosea 13:16 says, "Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up." In 1 Samuel 15:3, we see something similar: "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." And in Numbers 31:17-18: "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." Clearly, God expected the righteous to engage in warfare, which included commandments to brutally deal with certain enemies to the point of committing outright genocide to end any future threat.

In light of this background, let us now consider Luke 22:35-36: "And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing. Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." Indeed, in John 18:10-11, we see that Peter was armed as the Pharisees came to arrest Jesus, and, when he attacked the high priest's servant, Jesus merely said that what was happening had to occur according to God's will. Jesus did not condemn Peter for being armed, which makes sense considering He had commanded it, but He also did not condemn him for using the sword in and of itself. This is extremely important because there would be absolutely no reason for pacifists to carry swords, and, likewise, we should expect Jesus to have chastised Peter if somehow the swords were never meant to be used for any reason.

Those who espouse the notion that Christendom must be weak and that Christians must be pacifists would claim that Luke 22 is at odds with Matthew 5, but is it really that difficult to reconcile the two? Jesus commanded his followers to arm themselves even if they had to sell their cloaks to do so, but He also called on them to not bear hatred for people who wronged them in their day-to-day lives. Exodus 22 shows us that killing in self-defense can be justified, and numerous passages throughout the Old Testament highlight that war can also be justified, even righteous. None of this is contradictory because whether or not one's actions are justified depends on the specific context in which one is acting. If you hate a person and kill them, that is clearly murder. If you bear them no ill will yet have to defend yourself or others, then you bear no guilt for slaying them. Again, God the Son cannot contradict God the Father, and the latter commanded righteous warfare while the former commanded his most loyal followers to arm themselves. Crusaders were not following bad theology or exposing themselves as hypocrites when they took up the cross and sword, but they were rather doing exactly what they were called to do in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Sunday, October 30, 2016

Progressive Multiculturalism and the Tower of Babel

Few are more confident in their beliefs regarding Christianity than unbelievers, and that is especially true for those modern progressives who refer to themselves as "Christian" yet substitute their political ideology for actual theology. Such people are often referred to as "Churchians" because they attend church yet are most assuredly not Christians in any substantive way. They are often found espousing progressive policies such as abortion, gay marriage, female promiscuity, and the like while claiming all the while that their positions are biblical. Traditionalist Christians may be used to hearing atheists and pagans claim that Jesus was a Marxist hippy, but progressive Churchians gleefully make the same claim to subvert Christianity for their own ends.

A good example of Churchian theology can be found on the website of Dr. Camille Lewis, the former chair for the Department of Rhetoric and Public Address at Bob Jones University. Now, it may seem odd at first to think a department chair at a fundamentalist evangelical university would be classified as a liberal, but any doubts can be put to rest by the fact that she discusses how she is "triggered" by her time working at BJU (Source). Of particular interest, however, is her post discussing a 1960 sermon by Bob Jones, Sr., in which he argued that segregation of the races is necessary because God divided mankind and such divisions should remain (Source). The theology of this is sound as has been discussed here previously, albeit Jones relies entirely on Acts 17:26 when the point could have been expounded upon, but the sermon is prefaced with Dr. Lewis's own anti-racism as an attack more on her former employer than anything. This in and of itself speaks volumes as she makes no effort to refute either Acts 17:26 as written or as understood by Jones. She simply takes it for granted that he is incorrect because she believes that anything "racist" is inherently wrong.

Still, since Dr. Lewis makes no direct effort to counter the sermon, we must instead look to the comments under her post in which her similarly liberal followers discuss it further. One going by the name of "George" said, "At the Tower of Babel God confused the languages. So anyone who has mixed heritage such as the English and Scottish or Scot Irish contravenes the tenet laid out," and he followed with, "The problem is these white bigots have changed the Bible to suit their needs. At the Tower of Babel God confused the languages. Now, if you look at the formation of white America, they violated this tenet." He was not done either, and he further asserted that race "was never an issue" and that "white American settlers" had "violated God's law by inter-marrying," so "the existence of white America ... was a mistake." Another user going by "Jon" claimed that following the Bible "would mandate that Whites leave the American continent, that we cease usage of the internet (and other boundary jumpers), and stop world language studies (post-Tower of Babel condition)."

In essence, "George" and "Jon" are both using the same argument: namely, multiculturalism is fine and racism is silly because the existence of whites alone violates God's will regarding the Tower of Babel. They also make claims about the meaninglessness of race, but their argument inherently concedes that Jones may have had a point with his sermon yet dismiss it. If whites violate God's will by "mixing" despite having different ethnic languages, they assume then that all other divisions created by God are also null and void. This is actually a fairly common argument put forth by Churchians to justify their overlooking all of the verses in the Bible that make it clear that God divided mankind on purpose. If our ancestors broke God's law as set forth at the Tower of Babel, then all subsequent sins on the same topic are irrelevant because our very existence is a sin in and of itself, or so their convoluted thinking goes. As expected, this "liberal theology" is flawed at best.

First, let's consider what the story of the Tower of Babel actually says. Genesis 11:1-9 tells us that the whole of mankind possessed a single language, which allowed them to work together, and, in their hubris, they attempted to build a tower to Heaven. When God saw what they were attempting, He divided mankind into languages and spread them across the face of the Earth. Following the liberals' reasoning, Europe is home to different languages, and that must mean that God intended for Europeans to remain entirely divided. Of course, liberals do not actually believe that, but the attempt is rather to take the true theological argument and oversimplify it to the point of ridiculousness. If you deny their premise, they will simply declare that you have negated your own argument regarding other races. In truth, they are demonstrating their own ignorance at best, or their own dishonesty at worst, and this is made obvious by the field of linguistics.

These "theologians" apparently do not realize that modern languages are not representative of languages even a few centuries ago. For example, the vast majority of languages spoken by white people today are part of the Indo-European language family as they all share a common ancestor. European branches of this family include Albanian, Baltic, Celtic, Germanic, Hellenic, Italic, and Slavic. Branches of the family outside of Europe include Armenian and Indo-Iranian. Let's look to the Germanic branch to understand what this means. Today, a person who speaks English may not understand a person who speaks German, but both languages are Germanic and can be traced back to Proto-Germanic. In the case of English, the modern language began to develop in the 17th century from Early Modern English, which itself had developed in the 15th century from Middle English, which developed in the 12th century from the Old English of the Anglo-Saxons. For its part, modern German can ultimately be traced back to Old High German.

Now, let's consider the Tower of Babel within this context. Obviously, white Americans are not "a mistake," and an Englishman with a Scotsman in his family tree is not somehow a walking embodiment of sin because both the English and Scots share common Indo-European ancestry. Similarly, the Niger-Congo language family covers virtually every language spoken by Negroids in Sub-Saharan Africa, so two black people would not violate the "Babel tenet" even if they are from different tribes, nations, or what have you. There are, however, some cases where a difference could be claimed despite the people otherwise being related. For example, the Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans are all related as East Asian Mongoloids, but they belong to Sino-Tibetan, Japonic, and Koreanic language families, respectively. Of course, that is not particularly relevant since the liberals' point hinges on the claim that whites violate God's will, which is patently false.

It is also important to highlight the fact that the reason that God confounded the language of mankind was because the men had decided they could reach Heaven on their own. In other words, they believed they were on par with God. A person learning another language, using the internet, or even traveling abroad is obviously not an example of trying to actively subvert God's will, which is what "Jon" had implied. Traditionalists are not the ones attempting to place themselves above God, but it is rather the progressive "Churchians" who believe their modern political ideology is more sound than the Lord's will. They clearly embrace sin while claiming that Jesus would never punish them because He loves them unconditionally, and the Lord would have never made them the way they are if they were supposed to be different. This just further demonstrates their fundamental misunderstanding of the faith, their willful dishonesty, or both.

Deuteronomy 32:8 tells us that the Lord "separated the sons of Adam, [and] he set the bounds of the people." Acts 17:26 tells us that God "made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth," and it reiterates that He "determined ... the bounds of their habitation." Now, if God made the nations of men, set the bounds of their habitation, and confounded their languages, how can the Bible be read to justify the multiculturalism and multiracialism espoused by these liberal Churchians when their ultimate desire is a single, brown race speaking a single, muddled language while declaring that sins are righteous? In short, progressivism is wicked at its core, and they seek to subvert God's will and construct their own Tower.

Thursday, October 27, 2016

What's in a Name?: The Case for #FrankishTwitter

"O! be some other name:
What’s in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet."
Romeo and Juliet, Act II. Scene II.

What's in a name? What is the value in a label? Among the growing far-right in American politics, the most common term bandied about these days is "Alt-Right," but most people do not realize that the movement is actually comprised of multiple factions including some who may or may not believe themselves to truly be Alt-Right. For example, there are "1488ers" who espouse the 14 words—"We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children"—as well as support for the views of Adolf Hitler. This group includes some who self-identify as Nazis, others who see "Nazi" as offensive and prefer NatSoc, and yet others who simply refer to themselves as fascists. Then there are reactionaries (Rx), neoreactionaries (NRx), and counter-revolutionaries (CRx); each largely believing they possess the true claim to all reactionary thinking. One can also find people self-identifying with orcs, frogs, Space Normans, and such. Some factions have strict policies regarding out-groups while others are at least somewhat inclusive of Jews, Muslims, homosexuals, and so on. For example, the "manosphere" is a loose assortment of anti-feminists who are largely associated with Daryush Valizadeh, an Iranian-American pickup artist and anti-feminist. In some cases, there can be overlap between some of these various labels, and that only serves to confuse what each faction believes.

Labels can be a convenient way of conveying a complex set of ideals in only a word or two as well as linking oneself to others who share those ideals. They can also be exceedingly frustrating when you do not fit neatly into one of the commonly understood boxes. This can leave you feeling isolated even as you intermingle with the various factions. For example, one could accept the premise of the "14 words" without believing that national socialism or fascism are the preferred methods for achieving that goal. Another example would be that certain factions are largely populated by pagans and atheists who are hostile to Christianity, which is less than appealing for a traditionalist Christian. As the Alt-Right develops and matures as a movement, each faction naturally pushes for what they see as the major issues confronting traditionalists, however that is defined, and those who do not identify with any particular group may feel that they have no voice. This may be especially true for traditionalist Christians as already mentioned, and, to that end, let it here be proposed the formation of #FrankishTwitter encompassing the ideals of unabashedly traditionalist Christians.

Why Frankish? The Franks were a group of Germanic tribes that came to be located in northern France, western Germany, and parts of the Low Countries, but far more important than their origins is the fact that they became a dominant force in Latin Christendom. Indeed, the Franks would help to define what it meant to be a Latin Christian, and they would come to be so intrinsically linked with the faith and its defense that those who took up the cross and went on crusade would bear the name "Franks" for centuries. There is no better representation of what a Latin Christian should be than the Franks of the Middle Ages.

Who is a Frank?

In the image of those milites Dei, modern Franks should militantly defend Christendom against paynims as Charles Martel did in 732 when he led the Franks in the Battle of Tours, which stopped the Islamic invasion of France. His son, Pepin the Short, would expel Muslims from their last stronghold in France in 759.

And modern Franks should defend the Church and embrace Christian kingship as Pepin's son, known to history as Charlemagne, did when he took in and protected Pope Leo III after he had been assaulted by armed men in Rome who had tried to remove his eyes and tongue. Charlemagne was rewarded when the Pope crowned him as Emperor of the Romans during Mass on Christmas Day 799 in Saint Peter's Basilica.

And modern Franks should be willing to carry the fight to the enemies of Christendom when they defile our peoples and lands as Charlemagne did in 772 when Saxon pagans burned a church at Deventer in the modern Netherlands. The Franks defeated the pagans and burned their sacred tree in return, and Charlemagne returned each time that the Saxons broke their oaths of loyalty. A decade after the initial invasion, loyal Saxons surrendered a few thousand who had been responsible for the continued violence, and Charlemagne had them executed as was the custom. In 1096 when Godfrey of Bouillon set out at the head of an army to take the fight to Islam as part of the First Crusade, Pope Urban II referred to the road to Jerusalem as "Charlemagne's road." Indeed, Franks were synonymous with the crusades with French being the common tongue of the Crusader States, and Muslims would come to fear the "Franks," as the crusaders were known.

And modern Franks should recognize that the State should draw strength from the Church rather than vice versa, and that includes the fundamental notion that the code of chivalry underpinning kingship and knighthood is religious in nature. As the Benedictio novi militis says, a Christian knight is called in the name of Christ to be a defender of the Church, widows, orphans, and servants of God against pagans and heretics. It was accepted fact that Catholic bishops could create knights, and it is right that they should do so. Milites Dei should defend the faith, justice, and those who cannot defend themselves while ensuring that they do not harm the innocent. Chivalry is Christian at its core, and the only righteous State is one which draws on the Church and the milites Dei for the authority it exercises rather than on the wants and desires of men.

And modern Franks should place the utmost value in the sacrament of marriage and raising a family so as to carry the faith to the next generation. As Mark 10:6-9 tells us, God made man and woman in the beginning, and they shall become one flesh through holy matrimony. Still, the woman shall not usurp authority over the man (1 Timothy 2:12) because the head of the woman is the man, as the head of the man is Christ, and the head of Christ is God (1 Corinthians 11:3), but a husband must also treat his wife with honor as they are both heirs of the grace of life (1 Peter 3:7). Men were given authority over women by God as the stronger vessel of the faith, but that is a responsibility to be shouldered with all seriousness and not to be abused.

A modern Frank is unabashedly a traditionalist Christian willing to defend his people and Christendom. He is not a milksop who curries favor with paynims, heretics, or the godless by acting as though his own faith is unworthy of defense, but he also is not a Hun seeking unnecessary violence with those who could be allies. He respects and defends women as the weaker vessel of the faith, but he will not entertain the many and varied delusions of feminism. These are the values of the modern Frank and #FrankishTwitter.

"Blessed be the Lord my strength which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight."
Psalm 144:1

Sunday, October 23, 2016

The Need for a Return to Virtuous Patriarchy

One of the great sociopolitical battlefields of the 20th century has involved the role of women in society and government, and that has especially been true since the rise of radical feminism in the 1960's. As the feminists put it, excluding women from anything demonstrates misogyny, or a literal hatred of women, and they extend this to the political, economic, and behavioral. This has resulted in fundamental changes to our society, which the feminists themselves see as beneficial, albeit they still believe there is much left to do. Rarely is an important question asked, however—have these changes been good for society or even women?

In terms of the political, women could not vote in federal elections until ratification of the 19th Amendment in 1920, but that was four years after Jeannette Rankin (R-MT) became the first woman to ever be elected to the US House of Representatives. It was also more than two decades after Martha Hughes Cannon (D) became the first female State Senator in Utah after she defeated her own husband, who had run as a Republican. Today, nearly 1 in 5 serving members of the US Congress is female, and progressives are attempting to elect Hillary Clinton almost entirely based on the fact that she is a woman. Feminists will not be content until they have a woman in the White House with at least half of the Congress also being female, but we can already see that they exert a disproportionate amount of control over policies.

For example, the educational system is largely dedicated to the promotion of females and feminine behavior despite men largely controlling the seats of federal power. Indeed, women are 11% more likely to graduate high school than men (Source), and 57% of students enrolled in college in 2013 were female (Source). Women also account for more than half of first-time enrollments in graduate programs, albeit women dominate certain fields such as public administration and health sciences while being a minority in more traditional fields (Source). Despite the overall picture, feminists still say that sexism is alive and well because women are not dominating fields such as engineering. What has all of this supposed progress translated into for society?

In 2015, the National Center for Health Statistics reported that women aged 25-44 had a median of 4.3 opposite-sex partners in their lifetime with 10.6% of women aged 15-44 having 15 or more sexual partners (Source). The average age for an American woman to lose her virginity is just 17.2 years. In 2012, women aged 15-24 had the highest observed rates of gonorrhea (Source). This promiscuity has resulted in the fact that 1 in 3 women will have an abortion in her lifetime, and women aged 15-24 account for nearly half of abortions each year (Source). Furthermore, 40.2% of babies are born out of wedlock (Source). Men have not fared better under this "enlightened" system with them reporting more sexual partners and losing their virginity earlier.

This has all been the byproduct of the feminization of society. Indeed, popular magazines published by women for women bombard them with messages such as no "person is ever normal" nor "needs to be" and that the number of sexual partners one has "should be based on your free will, luck, and desire—and nothing more" (Source). It should be noted that feminism does not merely promote hedonism amongst women, but the movement also encourages the normalization of homosexuality. In point of fact, the most extreme feminists have promoted "political lesbianism," or a complete rejection of men, since the 1970's (Source). Feminism has undermined society in other ways as well including the mass importation of the Third World into the West. For example, the National Organization for Women has declared that "immigration is a feminist issue" including embracing illegal aliens (Source). Swedish feminists, who support the importation of Muslims, have attacked white men for wanting to protect them from being raped by the migrants (Source).

The common theme in all of this is that personal feelings and desires are said to be what should guide one's behavior. This makes sense in terms of biology when we consider that studies have shown that "women are far more affected by emotional images" (Source), and they "tend to focus more on the feelings generated by [negative emotions]" while men "have a more analytical than emotional approach when dealing with [the same]" (Source). This explains why women tend to support things such as gay marriage, open borders, gun control, and so on more than men. In short, they are far more easily manipulated when bombarded with images and stories that stimulate negative emotions. Groups such as GLAAD have understood this, which is why they stress "representation" in media. Women have been bombarded with positive depictions of homosexuals, and that has ensured they identify with gays as "victims" when confronting issues such as gay marriage. We find the same thing with the United States being depicted as a "nation of immigrants" where "innocent Muslims" are being targeted by "evil racists," or when "gun control" is presented as an effort to "prevent toddlers from accidentally killing themselves." Whether engaging in degenerate behavior or tolerating such behavior in others, it is all guided by self-indulgence, making oneself feel good.

We can clearly see that the feminization of Western civilization has not been the universal good that feminists claim it to be, and the reason why should be obvious to traditionalist Christians. After all, we can see parallels between modern society and the story of Adam and Eve. It was the woman who was easily deceived by Satan, but she also led Adam astray in the process. This is not unlike modern women losing their way with men also suffering the consequences of hedonism. In Genesis 3:16, God says to Eve, "I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." God recognizes that Adam and Eve both sinned, but it was her weakness that provoked their sinful behavior. The natural counterbalance to that weakness was to place Adam as the head of the relationship. Indeed, 1 Corinthians 11:3 tells us that "the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God," and 1 Timothy 2:12 says, "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." The modern Eves have succumbed to Satan's seduction yet again, but men have failed to live up to what God called us to do.

It would be simple enough to blame feminists for subverting traditional values, but the truth is that it was men who voted to give women the right to vote. Indeed, every great victory of feminism was not due to the efforts of a minority of women themselves but were rather the result of men surrendering their natural authority. Brown v. Board of Education, Loving v. Virginia, and Roe v. Wade are all seen as landmark cases for the female-dominated political left, but each of those cases was decided by a Supreme Court entirely occupied by men. It was men who desegregated schools, it was men who legalized race-mixing, and it was men who fabricated a "right to abortion" out of whole cloth. While women should certainly be held accountable for the sins they have committed, we must also accept that it was weak men who made it possible by surrendering the authority that God granted us. Feminists like to demonize patriarchy as oppressive and wicked, but God placed that heavy burden upon man's shoulders as a call to righteousness in and of itself. Men sinned by shirking their duties, and we have all suffered the consequences as God warned would happen.

And herein lies the problem for both men and women in today's degenerate society. It is all too easy for traditionally-minded men to see women as the enemy. After all, the Republican Party would never lose a national election if only men were allowed to vote, and many social ills could be easily solved if that were the case. This misses the point, however, as these problems only exist because men lost their way and gave the keys to the women despite ample reason to suspect what would happen. For their part, women must also be blamed for the fact that their own nature prevents most of them from even recognizing that their matriarchy of sorts has not produced anything worthy of being called civilization. Academia is in tatters, the Church has been subverted at every turn, grown men can now use women's facilities with little girls, homosexuals can prance around nude down Main Street in full view of small children, and on, and on, and on. This is all the byproduct of female tolerance, and that Pandora's Box of easily manipulated emotion was opened by men.

The answer to what plagues us is a return to a virtuous patriarchy in which men gladly shoulder the burden of maintaining society while women acknowledge and accept this natural order. As Jesus said in Mark 10:6-9, "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." The natural order for men and women is to form two halves of the same whole. This does not mean that men and women are equals in an egalitarian sense. The feminine nature helps to make families cohesive and loving, and the family unit is the basic building block of civilization. The male nature then must prevent the female from extending its umbrella of feelings in such a way that leads to moral rot and social decay by embracing every degenerate and infidel as though they were simply children in need of a hug. The woman makes the family possible, and the man makes society possible. They simultaneously complement and counteract each other.

To this end, we must all remember the words of 1 Peter 3:5-9: "For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands: Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement. Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered. Finally, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another, love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous: Not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing: but contrariwise blessing; knowing that ye are thereunto called, that ye should inherit a blessing."

In short, men should be gentlemen, and women should be ladies. Neither should make demands of the other when they themselves are not worthy of honor or respect. A man who denigrates and abuses women is not worthy of a holy woman, and a woman who thinks she belongs on a pedestal while demanding she be sought after like a prize is not worthy of a holy man. Healthy relationships must be based on the two becoming one flesh—recognizing their roles and working to complement one another while also preventing each other from becoming unbalanced. Men and women who cannot do this are a product of this modern, hedonistic society, and they will be doomed to repeating the mistakes thereof even as they see themselves in a righteous light. Man or woman, strive to be something better than you are, name wickedness whenever you see it, defend innocence wherever it is found, and, above all, take heed of the natural order set forth by the Lord.

Saturday, October 15, 2016

What Does the Nature of God and Heaven Reveal About the Natural Order?

There is a cancer that has been eating away at Western civilization for some time, but it is only in the last few decades that the symptoms have become obvious. The fact that this disease has escaped the attention of most is not an accident, but it is rather all part of an insidious plan to subvert Christendom and destroy Western civilization as we know it. Indeed, people are constantly bombarded with messages of radical individualism along the lines of, "If it feels good, do it," or, "It's bad to be normal." Even people who otherwise see themselves as diametrically opposed along political lines nonetheless espouse the idea that freedom and liberty are synonymous with hedonism. While most of society has remained blind to these signs even as they become ever more blatant, many Christians have sensed that something wicked this way comes. They can feel it in their very souls that the current order is not right, that society is out of sorts. Christians are at war with modern society even if some do not realize it, and the only way to win this war is to restore the natural order.

Now, a hedonist might hear "natural order" and think of returning to animalistic behaviors, but we are instead talking about the natural order of existence that God intended for us. Today, traditionalist Christians may feel like they are alone in the wilderness surrounded by packs of slavering wolves, but it is possible to find our way through the dark forest in which we currently find ourselves. The key cannot be found in modernity, however, which is born entirely from the minds of men, and we must instead look to what has been revealed to us as God's plan for Creation and our role within it. Thankfully, we do not have to speculate as to the nature of God, the order of His kingdom, or our relationship with Him. After all, the Lord's Prayer tells us that God's kingdom come, His will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven (Matthew 6:10, Luke 11:2). What then is God's will regarding the order of His kingdom in the heavens above and the earth below?

First, we must understand that God does indeed reign over His kingdom, sitting upon His throne in Heaven (1 Kings 22:19). Jesus stands at the right hand of the Father as the Prince of Princes (Acts 7:55, Daniel 8:25). This title as applied to Jesus is important as there are other princes in Heaven with St. Michael the Archangel himself counted as one of the chief princes of the heavenly host (Daniel 10:13). This speaks to the hierarchy of the angels who serve God, which typically includes nine Choirs according to Christian tradition. Chief among these are the seraphim, fiery angels with six wings who attend to God upon His throne (Isaiah 6:2-3). The cherubim are below the seraphim around the foot of the throne (Isaiah 37:16). Other Choirs mentioned include Thrones, Dominions, Powers, and Principalities (Colossians 1:16) in addition to the Virtues as well as the more commonly known archangels and angels. It is important to note that the archangels fill a role in the service of God, but they may be from other Choirs as St. Michael is considered to be a prince of the seraphim. Thus, we can see that Heaven is truly a divine kingdom with God upon His throne, Jesus at his right hand, and the heavenly host arrayed before them in a hierarchy including attendants, messengers, and warriors.

Below God, Jesus, and the heavenly host, we find the saints—people who have entered Heaven—as well as those of us still on this earth. To find our place within this divine system, we need to look to the nature of God, or rather the Trinity—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—and what our relationship to the divine is meant to be. This is important because God is distant and greater than Creation yet also deeply personal and involved in our lives. Unlike pagan deities who are seen as individual beings who are only in one place at a time, God is both here and everywhere. To understand this, we have to see that God acts in different capacities simultaneously. For example, God the Father is the Creator that we generally think of as "God," and that aspect of the divine is truly beyond our comprehension. To help us find our way, the Son has existed from the beginning as the Word (John 1:1), and He was sent by the Father (John 12:44). God the Son is at once one with God the Father yet also separate and with a more personal relationship to humanity. Whereas God the Son was sent amongst us as flesh, God the Holy Spirit is sent amongst us in spirit as a Comforter who helps us know the right path (John 14:26, 15:26). In this sense, the Holy Spirit can be seen as "God in action." For example, the Holy Spirit came upon the virgin Mary so that she would give birth to God the Son who would be known as the Son of God (Luke 1:35), and the Holy Spirit would later descend upon Jesus's baptism in the form of a dove to declare him as the beloved Son (Luke 3:22). The Holy Spirit surrounds us, speaks to us, and can fill us, which makes Him the most personal aspect of the divine, but He can also seem distant as we may not always realize when the Holy Spirit is at work around us, in others, or even in ourselves.

What does this tell us about God's kingdom and our place within it? We can see the Father as the beloved King who reigns from His heavenly throne, and the Son stands at the right hand of the Father as the Prince of Princes. The Son paved the way for us to be saved both through His own sacrifice but also through bringing the Word to men, and we feel a deep connection to Him as the most visible aspect of the divine in our lives. The Holy Spirit shows us that we are simultaneously distant from the throne yet part and parcel of the kingdom as He surrounds and moves through us. By living our faith, we are part of something much greater than ourselves, but we are also shown that God loves us even if we cannot fully comprehend it.

Now, compare this heavenly kingdom to the modern world. Western societies have replaced Christian kings with secular democracy, lordships with egalitarianism, and traditional values with feminism, homosexuality, transgenderism, and the like. The Bible tells us that women should not usurp authority over men (1 Timothy 2:12), that homosexual acts are unnatural (Romans 1:26-27), and that dressing as the opposite sex is an abomination (Deuteronomy 22:5), but Christians are told that traditional values are outdated and backwards. The secularists assure us that homosexuality and transgenderism are not sins, but they are rather just as natural as anything else. God said that Adam shall rule over Eve (Genesis 3:16) and that "the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God" (1 Corinthians 11:3), but feminists scream to the heavens that they are the same as any man. And they are as degenerate as they imagine the wicked men to be so as to prove their "equality." The secularization of society is damning in and of itself, but the truly nefarious part is that many Christians have been fooled into aiding the enemy. Many denominations now openly embrace LGBT without preaching that their behavior is sinful, and many more allow women to be ordained despite the Bible expressly forbidding it. Supposed Christian leaders are even preaching that Christendom must open its doors to foreign foes despite the fact mankind was purposely spread over the Earth and divided into nations with set boundaries (Acts 17:26). A multiracial, transgender homosexual wallowing in sin would be more welcome in many "churches" today than a traditionalist.

There is no simple solution to this problem because most of Christendom has forgotten what being Christian meant to those who came before us. Crusaders have been replaced by morally relativistic pacifists, religious men and women living under Rules by anarchists, and righteous clerics by Zionist shysters peddling a myriad of false teachings as the one, true revelation. Christendom is in disarray because Christians have allowed our own faith and societies to be subverted and stolen by the enemy. The only way to recover is for us to look to the examples given us by the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. We must restore the natural order in our lives, in our relationships with others, and in our churches. We must take up the cross once again and fight.

Ephesians 6:10-17—Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might. Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness; And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace; Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.