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.