How to Become an American Traditionalist, Part Four: Revelation and Repentance

[Part OnePart TwoPart Three.]

Recall from the previous parts that traditionalism reconnects man with the true order of being and the wisdom of his ancestors, and that the most important item of wisdom is to acknowledge the God of the Bible. Recall also that intuition, despite not being infallible, is the foundation of wisdom.

But intuition, although necessary, is not sufficient. Man also needs revelation in order to be wise, for his intuition is not always dependable and because he has a natural tendency to rebel even against the true and the good.

“Revelation” includes Scripture as its most important example, but it also includes any instance when man is not able to know as a result of his own efforts, and must rely on the testimony of those who do know. “Believing revelation” is not the customary way to refer, for example, to a man believing the testimony of a scientist or other specialist about his field of expertise, but it is the same type of act as when a man believes what God has said in the Bible. In both cases, a man trusts the testimony of someone with greater knowledge. Most of what we know, in fact, is knowledge we cannot verify ourselves, and so believing revelation (perhaps under another name) is a necessary part of wisdom.

[Much of this knowledge we could verify ourselves, if we had the necessary time, talent, and training. But some of it, and especially the truths about God found in the Bible, man cannot come to know on his own. He must trust others if he is to become wise.]

*

Intuition and revelation are the two foundations of wisdom, and through them we can begin to understand the order of being. But how exactly can this education be had? It requires one thing that is easy to describe but hard to do, and another that is hard to describe but relatively easier to do, once one is in the right frame of mind.

The hard thing is to repent. This is to acknowledge that you have been on the wrong path; that you have been willingly participating in falsehood and sometimes evil. To begin knowing the truth, you must first repent of your participation in the liberal system.

Repentance is literally a change of mind. Not on a specific topic, but in one’s basic orientation. To repent of your participation in the system of the modern world is not instantaneously to reject all of the false modernist/progressive/liberal notions you hold, for such an immediate U-turn is not within your ability. Instead, repentance is an acknowledgement that you are on the wrong path, and a decision to begin seeking the right path.

.*

If you have repented, you are ready to seek those who can teach you about the true order of the world. This is the step that is not easy to describe, and we will discuss it in the next part of this series.

[Part Five is here.]

32 thoughts on “How to Become an American Traditionalist, Part Four: Revelation and Repentance

  1. Pingback: How to Become an American—or Non-American—Traditionalist, Part Three: Wisdom Through Intuition | The Orthosphere

  2. There is what we might call our personal repentance to God for the sins we have committed through life by giving into our fallen nature and gorging ourselves upon sin (particularly those of us who have come to the altar and throne of the Lord later in our lives).

    Then there is what might be deemed a political repentance, that has far more to do with attitude than action, that we have lazily slumbered, content with the delusions provided by the modern world, whether they be secularism, equality, modern democratic systems, being a ‘citizen of the world’, etc.

    God seeks connection with man, not only in the personal sense, but the political sense. He wishes to have His laws obeyed and codified and be revered as the central axis of the state and society, through which the connection is established between the Divine Realm and outer spheres of the physical world. This is the natural and divinely ordained order.

    As the Kali Yuga has taken root and settled in as the age of our contemporary experience, there have always been those who were reverent to the divine and steadfast in their loyalty to the Traditional World, whether it be Joseph De Maistre in the Early Period, or Julius Evola in what I like to call the ‘Period of High Disintegration’. Now we stand in the Dark Period where the wicked forces of Modernity are more desperate and shrill than ever, more openly evil in their designs, and unfortunately for them, where their age will come to an end in its eventual cataclysmic destruction.

    Standing in this Dark Period, we like those before us have absolute duty to the Sovereign God, to struggle and oppose these traitors to the species (who are traitors biologically, but also much more importantly, spiritually). We are to do it with all the cunning that was given into the mind of Adam, and the glory of divinely ordained justice. If we have wavered from this duty, and there is no question we all have to some degree, we must repent of our waywardness, pray for the salvation of our brothers and sisters in this world, and carry out our duty with diligence and reverence for the Almighty.

    • God seeks connection with man, not only in the personal sense, but the political sense. He wishes to have His laws obeyed and codified and be revered as the central axis of the state and society, through which the connection is established between the Divine Realm and outer spheres of the physical world. This is the natural and divinely ordained order.

      Absolutely. Before becoming an Anglican, I ran in Presbyterian/Reformed circles (I’m still a Calvinist), where there is now a movement called the “Two Kingdoms Doctrine” which seeks to deny that God would have us expressly honor him in politics. Having read Psalm 2, the Great Commission (how many gloss over that we disciple and baptize the nations, not a bunch of random individuals!), and numerous other passages of Scripture where the political powers are exhorted to honor and obey God. How does one get any clearer than Psalm 2?

      Psalm 2:8-12, KJV

      Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance,
      and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.
      Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron;
      thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.
      Be wise now therefore, O ye kings:
      be instructed, ye judges of the earth.
      Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling.
      Kiss the Son, lest he be angry,
      and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little.
      Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.

      Surely, God will not renege on his promise to smash those nations which rebel against him. Or do moderns believe we have gotten around this by driving our kings from their thrones? In any case, as Paul assures us, “And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent…” The West cannot profess ignorance anymore. Once, the Church and the Scriptures were the heart and soul of our nations. Now, they are openly mocked and derided. Surely, I hope God would bring us to penitence for these wicked crimes, but only He knows what punishment He has in store for us in the meantime.

      • That Psalm is actually one of my personal favorites, and very pertinent to the issues at hand. The separation of politics and religion is a modern concept, sadly parroted by churches who no doubt pine for their precious ‘tax-exempt’ status, a system which has effectively enslaved the church to the secular federal leviathan.

        The modern nations of the West at least, do not spend time wondering how to get around Scripture. They view all of it as a lie, bolstered in their hubris by the unsupported claims of the atheistic intelligentsia. In time, their eyes will be opened. Either that or burned from their sockets.

      • I was not necessarily talking about the unbelieving world, but those who profess strong faith. I’m not really convinced it is mere tax exemption that drives these people, as that is easy enough to get around if one knows the tax code. I think it is a desire for approval from the world. To be a social conservative these days is to subject oneself to derision from the academic elites of our world. Many of our pastors seek approval from these folks, especially those pastors who are in denominations most likely to provide the strongest resistance to the modernist agenda.

        Anglicans, Presbyterians, Lutherans, and Roman Catholics all have incredibly strong intellectual traditions, which means at the same they provide the most lucid and cutting critiques of modernity, yet are most tempted by the academic and intellectual respectability that is supposedly on offer if only they give in to the modernist heresy. Then, they turn on the traditional faith, deriding those of us who are still militant for it as “fundamentalists” as if we were the same as some ignorant West Virginian snake handling Landmark Baptist. This is the case even amongst those who are supposedly conservatives. This is also the time when the biggest problem most Protestants now have with Roman Catholicism comes not from the finer points of Transubstantiation, but rather that Roman Catholics oppose birth control and divorce.

    • Mark Citadel, I am curious as to what time periods you would ascribe the Golden Age, the Silver Age, the Bronze Age, and the Dark Age. I would consider de Maistre to be in the Dark Age. We wouldn’t know his name otherwise.

      • My categories outlined would only apply within this Kali Yuga period itself, which is interesting to break down into little subsets that can be delineated from each other

        As to the larger arc, and the ages that precede the Kali Yuga, (Golden Age, Silver Age, and Bronze Age) it is very hard to tell which time periods one would ascribe to these ages. I am not a scholar of this very ancient Hindu tradition, so am not at full liberty to say. I’m not even entirely sure that this is ’round 1′ of the cycle. Perhaps it has all happened before, but in a form that is unrecognizable because of where we are in time.

        Yes, De Maistre was right there at the Early Period of the Dark Age (which is a common synonym for the Kali Yuga, of course no relation to what laymen refer to as the ‘Dark Ages’)
        When I talked about this period we are in (the years since perhaps the 1960s or 1970s) as a ‘Dark Period’ I don’t mean that this is the Dark Age, the Kali Yuga has been going on for 50 years… obviously it is much older, going back to De Maistre’s time and the Enlightenment.

        My point was that this time we are in now, is what we might call the ‘pitch black’ of the Dark Age, where the earlier periods of the Kali Yuga look practically sunny by comparison. It may make more sense to call this the ‘Pitch Black Period’ in which even the illusion of logical argument ceases to exist for the Modernist, his destructive antics accelerate rapidly, and finally his world ends.

        So in short, we might say this.

        1) Golden Age

        2) Silver Age

        3) Bronze Age

        4) Dark Age (Also, Iron Age or Kali Yuga)

        a) Early Period
        b) Period of High Disintegration
        c) Pitch Black Period

        De Maistre was a reactionary during the Early Period (now passed) of the greater Dark Age, which we are now in the last stage of. At least one hopes we are. This is highly theoretical.

      • This isn’t just a Hindu tradition, it’s an old Aryan tradition and most likely a Perennial Tradition. The Greeks went by the same scheme(this is where Golden Dawn gets it’s name from) and the Norse had the Sword Age, Axe Age, Wind Age, and Wolf Age.

        According to the Hindu tradition the cycles have happened numerous times throughout history and each cycle lasts thousands of years. I personally think that this is not accurate.

  3. Pingback: How to Become an American Traditionalist, Part Four: Revelation and Repentance | Reaction Times

  4. “Revelation” includes Scripture as its most important example, but it also includes any instance when man is not able to know as a result of his own efforts, and must rely on the testimony of those who do know.

    The problem post-Reformation is that we are now left with a series of mutually exclusive, intractable truth-claims with no real mechanism to resolve them. This directly correlates to the moral relativism endemic to post-modernity. It is all well and a good to talk about the need for revelation, but without an authoritative hierarchy, such calls make little sense.

      • It wouldn’t be so bad if his singular focus on the Protestant bogeyman didn’t lead him into all sorts of libelous slander about us. Apparently, we are as unorthodox as Mormons despite whole oodles of doctrine that we and Roman Catholics share much closer views on, while Mormonism is pretty much an entire different religious system. Also, apparently every reporting of what some nutcase pastor says is attributable to the whole Evangelical Protestant movement. Never mind I’m not supposed to judge Roman Catholicism by the actions and words of the Pope, he is free to judge and malign Evangelicalism on the words of loud-mouth activists. All the while he totally discounts that Evangelicals are much more united on the keystone issues of abortion and same sex marriage than Roman Catholics even thought of being.

        It also distracts from major issues of authority that sprouted up later. Say whatever he will about Protestants, but we maintained fairly traditional societies for upwards of 300 years before attacks on the authority, divine origin, and factual accuracy of the Holy Writ undermined the entire edifice of Christendom, in no way excepting the Roman Church. Quite frankly, as far as much of this is concerned, we are in this boat together. Both of our religions stand or fall on the divine origins of Scripture. He might wish to claim that it was Protestants who opened that can of worms. Whatever the case may be on that front, it is clear that Roman Doctrine hasn’t prevented their Church from being undermined at a fundamental level either.

        Forgive my ranting, but the antics of some of the Roman Catholic Reactionaries are quite frankly annoying.

    • Agreed. I know that you and I are both Catholics and I know you don’t have much faith in Evangelicals becoming reactionary(something I definitely agree with) but I don’t have much hope for conservative lay-Catholics becoming reactionary either. Most of the orthodox Christians in the Roman church have become Francisized and John Paulized.

      • Makes me rather glad I am somewhat loosely affiliated with the Eastern Orthodox. Few real liberal voices 😉

        But look at it this way, the crowd is thinning in both protestant and Catholic circles (with some exceptions of course). This thinning is largely fairweather Catholics who decide to cease their affiliation, and as a result the church in the west at least should actually begin to shift back rightward and you will likely end up with a clergy that is more liberal than their congregation. This may allow hard right Catholics to get more of a hearing with moderate right Catholics, and start the mainstreaming of Traditionalist philosophy in the Catholic Church.

        I do believe that persecution galvanizes and radicalizes. With Western society becoming fundamentally anti-Christian, resistance to this kind of ideology may be weaker in the years to come. Always look to the positives.

      • “I do believe that persecution galvanizes and radicalizes. ”

        Definitely. Look at the old Irish boy, Bobby Sands. He tried so hard to peacefully coexist with the Protestants in his country but they treated him like garbage, threatened his life, and even damaged his parent’s house. No wonder he joined the IRA.

        But we are not facing anywhere near the same sort of persecution that the Catholic Irish did or that of the Christians of the Middle East. That being said, I am personally thankful for the homosexual agenda. It was this movement that finally opened my eyes and drove me out of the Republican intellectual ghetto.

      • The homosexual agenda will be the vehicle for the legal employment persecution and driving out from public life suffered by Christians in the years to come. The anger will only build as the perverts continue to expose themselves for what they are. Currently, London is seeing an STD explosion, mainly spread by sodomy.

        Christians will begin to lose their jobs, be mocked roundly on television much more-so than they already are, and Christianity will be targeted in public education similar to how the Jews were characterized in Third Reich schools, but in a much more subtle way.

        Having gone partially through the American school system, I can already attest to it. A psychology teacher of mine one day decided that to make her cause for ‘human rights’ known, she would show a video of a preacher speaking on the sin of sodomy, and encouraging the class to laugh and mock.

        This is going to become very commonplace. Physical violence will follow, and I doubt it will take long.

      • Well we need to start making allies now. In the word of Carl Schmidt we need to find out who are enemies are. The same goes for our friends/allies. Who can we trust that will ally with us? Someone with infrastructure and men? I do not want to be in the position of the Jews in the Third Reich or the Christians in the Middle East. I want to be in the position of the Irish Separatists or the various European and Japanese nationalists in the interwar period.

        I have found that most conservatives try to outliberal the liberals. I don’t know how to take someone out of that mindset because I don’t know exactly how I got out of it.

      • I am actually extremely grateful for the homosexual agenda and all reactionaries should be. It has opened my eyes to many things. First off, I started to move further and further to the Right, I became anti-Capitalist, anti-divorce, anti-fornication, anti-contraception, conservationist, isolationist, nationalist, Distributist, Archaeofuturist, Traditionalist, orthodox Christian, and reactionary.

      • “Apparently, we are as unorthodox as Mormons despite whole oodles of doctrine that we and Roman Catholics share much closer views on, while Mormonism is pretty much an entire different religious system.”

        –nathanjevans

        As for what Latter-day Saints (aka Mormons) believe, please read the Book of Mormon and visit official websites such at LDS.org and Mormon.org. Of course, Latter-day Saints do have a distinctive faith tradition, but you my find we also share oodles.

        When I visit the largest Episcopal Cathedral in my city I find the finest organ in our city, an excellent choir, and services where the traditional Anglican creeds are recited. But it is a very liberal church on many things that matter to the Orthosphere.

        “Well we need to start making allies now. In the word of Carl Schmidt we need to find out who are enemies are. The same goes for our friends/allies.”

        –Svar

        True.

      • As for what Latter-day Saints (aka Mormons) believe, please read the Book of Mormon and visit official websites such at LDS.org and Mormon.org. Of course, Latter-day Saints do have a distinctive faith tradition, but you my find we also share oodles.

        I am well-informed about Mormonism and what Mormons believe. I stand by my comment that Mormonism is an entirely different religious system. If were to compare this to a language, Catholics and Protestants speak different dialects of English, while Mormons speak Russian. Indo-European perhaps, but it’s an entirely different language to English.

        When I visit the largest Episcopal Cathedral in my city I find the finest organ in our city, an excellent choir, and services where the traditional Anglican creeds are recited. But it is a very liberal church on many things that matter to the Orthosphere.

        Liberalism is also an entirely different religion, albeit one that is remarkably good at changing its camouflage for whatever religion it wants to infiltrate. You will even find liberal Mormons. In the end, though, it is an entirely different religion and liberal Mormons, Episcopalians, Muslims, and whatever other religion share much more with each other than they do with the conservative/traditional wings of their religions.

      • Replying to nathanjevans, 9/28 4:42 am, in case the thread gets mixed up.

        The Reformation was surely a great event. Was the Reformation a great advance or a great mistake? The Orthosphere does not seem to be of one mind on this. Given what close linguistic cousins Catholics and Protestants are, the amount of blood shed between them during, say, the Thirty Years War, seems am inexplicable mistake on the part of one or both of the parties. See 1 Cor. 1:10, Eph. 4:11-13, Ps. 133:1. I am, of course, glad that those wars are over, and have no wish to see them return, but the history does need an explanation in the light of the Gospel.

        My liberal friends can recite the orthodox creeds with perfectly accented and sonorous voices, but would you not agree with Matt. 7:16?

        I agree that the great religious split of our times is what might be called a liberal-conservative split. It affects all faith traditions. But the Latter-day Saints and Catholics both have a recognized central teaching authority, what Catholics call their magisterium, that is able to set limits as to what is authentic and acceptable doctrine and behavior and what is not. A religion that cannot define its boundaries will have trouble defining its center.

        The modern problem for conservatives is what to do when the central teaching authority (for those that have one) is no longer conservative. See, for example, http://www.scandhouse.org/s/fogelqvist or the tenure of Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori in The Episcopal Church (TEC).

      • @ Leo

        This is a problem I think Catholic reactionaries have been grappling with as it applies to the new Pope, who obviously comes from the Argentine political system, quite estranged from what has been seen before in the Vatican. As such, Francis does appear to carry the same assumptions politically as the left wing crypto-Peronist elite class and regime there. Although its hard to pin the man down as he has also been accused of aiding the “right wing” junta that ruled the country until the Falklands War.

        I am under the impression that Catholic reactionaries would like to see much of the priestly class overhauled along with the political class, so similar principles apply. Cardinal Dolan in the US is one that many Catholics would like to see kicked out.

        I highly recommend ‘http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com’ for anti-liberal commentary on the current state of Catholic ecclesiastic politics.

    • [In response to Id’s comment @ 2:10 am]

      This essay is addressed to the non-traditionalist, who is not currently under an authority. All he sees are a bunch of alleged authorities making contradictory claims. Not being omniscient, he therefore has no choice but to test these authorities. Sure, he might attach himself to the wrong authority. But there’s nothing you or I can do about that.

  5. “I became anti-Capitalist, anti-divorce, anti-fornication, anti-contraception, conservationist, isolationist, nationalist, Distributist, Archaeofuturist, Traditionalist, orthodox Christian, and reactionary.”

    What pleasant company we enjoy here!

  6. Mr. Roebeck, I find it heartening to read a Calvinist make points that the Dumb Ox would approve. The Orthosphere is like Touchstone without the compromises. 🙂

    “Makes me rather glad I am somewhat loosely affiliated with the Eastern Orthodox.”

    What does that mean, Mark?

    Iuxta Ecclesiam figmentum salutis . . .

    What would Cyprian say?

    • That is to say, I have not yet received baptism and have not stood in an Orthodox Church as a Christian at this point. I would align myself with this tradition, but due to various factors in my life that are hopefully temporary, I have not yet entered the routine. As you can imagine, in the West, these churches are spread out thinly.

    • Thanks, Joseph.

      Orthosphere readers are an erudite bunch, but for those who might not know, the “Dumb Ox” is St. Thomas Aquinas.

  7. Pingback: How to Become an American Traditionalist, Part Five: Knowing About God | The Orthosphere

  8. Pingback: How to Become an American Traditionalist, Part Six: Other Authorities | The Orthosphere

Comment

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s