How to Become an American Traditionalist, Part Nine: The Content of Traditionalism Briefly Discussed

[Part One.  Part TwoPart Three.  Part FourPart Five.  Part SixPart SevenPart Eight.]

Here is the final part (too long delayed) of this series.

When discussing how to become a traditionalist, it is appropriate also to speak briefly of the content of traditionalism. In harmony with the order of being, traditionalism seeks a social order that, among other things,

  • is based on Christianity, in the sense that it affirms the basic Christian views of God, man and society but does not necessarily support only one view of exactly how man must worship or be saved from the wrath of God.
  • publicly honors Christianity, and holds that theology and God-honoring philosophy, not science, are the highest forms of knowledge.
  • acknowledges that some men naturally have authority over others: magistrates over citizens, clergymen over parishioners, teachers over students, husbands over wives and children, mothers over children, and so on.
  • acknowledges not only that authority exists, but that male authority is of fundamental importance for the proper functioning of society at every level, from the family to the national government. Without strong male authority, exercised with competence and love, things naturally fall apart. With this authority, men, women and children can live as they ought.
  • promotes what is commonly called the traditional view of male-female relations: premarital chastity, male headship of the household, female emphasis on childrearing and maintenance of the household, and the importance of bearing and properly raising children.
  • holds that we ought to honor our parents and, more generally, the ways of our people.
  • does not suicidally demand that the people be tolerant and inclusive of a disruptive influx of foreigners, but instead looks on the nation as a people and an order that are good and are therefore to be preserved.
  • is intolerant of, and seeks to control, crime, vice, perversion, ugliness and the like.
  • recognizes that part of our Western heritage is freedom, provided that it is an ordered freedom under God and the civil law.
  • limits government, out of an understanding that government officials have a natural tendency to gain and abuse power, and that since government has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force, the growth of government is a fundamental threat against which we must guard. This view does not contradict the legitimacy of authority, because all legitimate authority has limits, beyond which it becomes tyrannical and therefore invalid.
  • uses the law to punish criminals, with the death penalty when appropriate, rather than to satisfy procedural and bureaucratic regulations, or to promote liberalism.
  • regards the nation and its history as fundamentally good, and does not seek radical change. Change is for the purpose of incremental improvement, not the radical overturning of imaginary fundamental injustices.
  • holds that freedom and equality are not (contra liberalism) the primary social goods, and that they become destructive forces when not subordinated to other, more fundamental goods, such as honoring God.

*

Traditionalism is also what we do. What we do is determined primarily by what we know, so it is right to focus first on the knowledge that sets you free. But what should you do to be an American traditionalist?

No list could possibly be exhaustive, but here are some important points:

The most important act is to stop knowingly participating in that which is wrong. And if you are forced to participate (we have in mind, e.g., “sensitivity training”), do so minimally, and without giving your approval. Maintain your dignity.

Believe the truth about God, namely that He is as described in the Bible. Trust Jesus Christ to forgive your sins.

Live as though you are connected to your ancestors, your family, and your descendants.

Affirm traditional morality. That is, know that it is true, support it, and seek to live in accord with it. Understand that it gives you life even as it sometimes vexes you with its demands, especially the demand of self-restraint. By restraining yourself you are honoring God and your people and building up yourself and your family.

Respect authorities. Even if you believe an authority to be wrong, or even wicked, respect the office he holds.

53 thoughts on “How to Become an American Traditionalist, Part Nine: The Content of Traditionalism Briefly Discussed

  1. Pingback: How to Become an American Traditionalist, Part Nine: The Content of Traditionalism Briefly Discussed | Reaction Times

  2. regards the nation and its history as fundamentally good, and does not seek radical change.

    I wonder a bit about this one. America does not seem fundamentally good to me, and I seek (seek? wish for) radical change. This is a species of the recurring problem with traditionalism, though. Since the thing I’d like to be traditionally attached to doesn’t actually exist, I’m stuck with either honoring the traditions of the society I have (Mick Jagger, race riots, endless war, and porn) or with being reactionary rather than traditionalist.

    The America whose traditions American Traditionalism calls us to has been gone for quite some time now, certainly since the 70s and probably since WWII. Spurred by the Charlie Hebdo thing, I was looking into blasphemy laws in the US. The Supreme Court found blasphemy laws unconstitutional in 1952.

    I’m simultaneously amazed at how recent 1952 is—in 1951 blasphemy laws were constitutional in the US—and how long ago 1952 is—an America in which you could go to jail for producing the Piss Christ seems so remote.

    • Dr. Bill, Do you think that a healthy American Catholicism could exist in the conditions of pre-1950’s America? My guess is that it could because my great-grandparents were able to practice devout Catholicism within an ethnically German community.

      • Yes. I think Catholicism would do fine (did do fine) in an America dominated by a muscular, assertive Protestantism. When my kids tell me stories about how their classmates react to their Catholicism, I much prefer the Protestant kids asking them if they worship Mary or believe they are working their way into Heaven than the secular kids who say “whatever” or “I like to sleep in on Sunday.”

        It wasn’t really the Protestants who smashed Catholic culture in the US. It was nominally Christian Episcopalian types and their Jewish lackeys. Well, and the American bishops.

      • Have you considered homeschooling or private school? I’m planning on looking into a very small, quasi-sedevacantist (I haven’t initiated contact with them yet so I don’t know exactly what they are) school near us that has large discounts for big families. We’ve lived at our current location for eight years and I didn’t even know they were here.

      • Catholicism in America really only flourished in the city ghettos because Catholics basically transported many aspects of the old world with them. The Catholicism that was here before the great migrations was already thoroughly corrupt at least in the Anglo colonies. Before there were the Kennedys there were first Americanists- the Carrolltons of Maryland. Before there were the Sotomayors and Scalias there was Taney.

        Also when do we think “muscular, assertive Protestantism” failed here? I say it was the failure to pass the National Reform Amendment in the mid to late 19th century.

      • @ISE

        Maybe you are right. America at the turn of the twentieth century was not ruled by Christians, really. It was ruled by Yankee Episcopalians. The rulers were constrained in what they could do because so many of their subjects were Christians. So perhaps I should retract America as an example of healthy Catholicism coexisting with Protestant rule (“dominated” was too strong a word). It’s an example of healthy Catholicism coexisting in a majority Protestant culture, though.

    • In general, the traditionalist sees his nation as good. And even when the reins of power have been seized by a revolutionary elite, the traditionalist still sees his people as good. He can distinguish between the nation as it has existed through time and an aberration.

      It’s true that current America is mostly ruled by a revolutionary elite which ought to be opposed. In this respect America is in a historically unusual situation. But an exception does not invalidate a general principle.

    • DrBill – This is more I think a model for a Traditional society, not any kind of guideline for the society we live in now, which is fundamentally anti-Traditional, anti-Christian etc. This current state, the Modern World, at least in my opinion is not party to any protections from us nor does it contract our obedience. We are to do what is within our power to see its demise and the rise of a new nation, a Christian Reactionary Traditionalist state.

      To put a fine point on it, and I frame this with the language of ‘legitimacy’ which I and Mr. Roebuck have sparred on in the past.

      Modern states are illegitimate, my criteria being the big three…

      1 – they have no moral legitimacy
      2 – they have no theological legitimacy
      3 – they have no political legitimacy

      Since the Modern state almost by definition is void of the second and third, and by result, the first, I think it is fair to apply our principles of governance and how we should act under such governance only to Traditional states, which are of course the things we seek to found and create in the future. By contrast, states that are Modern are the declared enemies of Tradition and Reaction, and so occupy a different class, a class that needs to be eradicated. Beyond practicality, and of course restrained by the Moral Law, there is no compulsion to have any positive relation or cooperation with Modern governments.

  3. “is based on Christianity, in the sense that it affirms the basic Christian views of God, man and society [b]but does not necessarily support only one view of exactly how man must worship or be saved from the wrath of God[/b].”

    Then it’s going to go to pot, without any doubt at all. Any society which does not profess belief in a specific religion as true, will inevitably go into full liberalism. When, not if, and all of that.

    Moreover, while even established Protestantism would be practically better than established neutralism, Protestantism in itself tends to liberalism, due to its doctrines on sola scriptura, sola fide, and total depravity.

    “[b]recognizes that part of our Western heritage is freedom[/b], provided that it is an ordered freedom under God and the civil law.”

    And it’s dead before it begins.

    “limits government, out of an understanding that government officials have a natural tendency to gain and abuse power, and that since government has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force, the growth of government is a fundamental threat against which we must guard. This view does not contradict the legitimacy of authority, because all legitimate authority has limits, beyond which it becomes tyrannical and therefore invalid.”

    And how is this limitation to be effected?

    • This comment is basically mindless hostility, even if it occasionally stumbles on a valid (but limited) point. You appear to be a frustrated idealist, raging against a world that fails to be perfect.

      In your response to my observation of how a traditionalist society “does not necessarily support only one view” of religion, you apparently missed the significance of my qualification “not necessarily.” Also, America functioned rather well for roughly the first 150 years of its existence with an approach like the one I asserted.

      And your “it’s dead before it begins” is pure nihilistic cynicism. America once had it, therefore it was not dead at the start.

      “And how is this limitation to be effected?” I couldn’t tell you the exact mechanism, but America had it once, therefore it is possible.

      • This comment is basically mindless hostility, even if it occasionally stumbles on a valid (but limited) point. You appear to be a frustrated idealist, raging against a world that fails to be perfect.

        I’m “raging” against the idea that the purpose of conservatism is to conserve liberalism.

        America functioned rather well for roughly the first 150 years of its existence with an approach like the one I asserted.

        America has been liberal since her inception. And really, once it’s established that people have a right to whatever religious practice they prefer, social and economic liberalism are right around the corner.

        America once had it, therefore it was not dead at the start.

        I’m not sure what “it” is, but “it” certainly isn’t traditionalist. America was founded as a liberal republic, after it’s leaders revolted against their king. If that’s not anti-traditional, then I don’t know what is.

      • I’m “raging” against the idea that the purpose of conservatism is to conserve liberalism.

        Nobody said that. You seem to think that anything short of a Catholic Monarchical society is surrender to Satan. But a good society need not be a monarchy.

        America has been liberal since her inception.

        Only on your definition of “liberal.” Compared to medieval Europe, America was liberal. Compared to today, America was a theocracy for most of its existence. Again, if only a Catholic Monarchy is valid, then America has always been invalid. But that’s not a standard I agree with.

        And really, once it’s established that people have a right to whatever religious practice they prefer, social and economic liberalism are right around the corner.

        Depends on what you mean by “a right to whatever religious practice they prefer.” For most of America’s history, non-Christians were regarded as outsiders.

        And, for that matter, when you identify the original sin as being the American Revolution, or even the Reformation, you’re thinking too small. The original sin was the Garden of Eden, and we’ve been going downhill since.

        America was founded as a liberal republic, after it’s leaders revolted against their king. If that’s not anti-traditional, then I don’t know what is.

        OK, that was anti-traditional. But it does not mean that America is fundamentally invalid. “Traditionalism” is wider than Catholic Monarchy. It is living in the light of the eternal truths.

      • “Nobody said that. You seem to think that anything short of a Catholic Monarchical society is surrender to Satan. But a good society need not be a monarchy.”

        Any society without a specific religion is on the path to liberalism.

        While I suppose it’s not strictly necessary that a good society have a monarchy, it is necessary that a good society (assuming we’re speaking of something larger than a city-state) have a noble class. And monarchy is the logical conclusion of a noble class.

        And you said that traditionalists should be concerned with supporting freedom. I assume this includes freedom to propagate all manner of religious practice?

        “Only on your definition of “liberal.” Compared to medieval Europe, America was liberal. Compared to today, America was a theocracy for most of its existence. Again, if only a Catholic Monarchy is valid, then America has always been invalid. But that’s not a standard I agree with.”

        As long as conservative means “person who isn’t quite as liberal as the next guy”, it will never win.

        But that’s not how the words work. Liberalism refers roughly to the idea that the purpose of government is to promote freedom.

        “Depends on what you mean by “a right to whatever religious practice they prefer.” For most of America’s history, non-Christians were regarded as outsiders.”

        I mean that all religions will be legal.

        “And, for that matter, when you identify the original sin as being the American Revolution, or even the Reformation, you’re thinking too small. The original sin was the Garden of Eden, and we’ve been going downhill since.”

        Yes, the original sin happened in the Garden of Eden, but it is not correct to say that we’ve been downhill ever since. There have been events in history that were good. And isn’t it more relevant to discuss the specific series of events that led to the present state of catastrophe, rather than evil generally.

        “OK, that was anti-traditional. But it does not mean that America is fundamentally invalid. “Traditionalism” is wider than Catholic Monarchy. It is living in the light of the eternal truths.”

        What it means is that America has never been traditionalist, so some previous time in American history is not a valid ideal for traditionalism.

      • The general problem is that your definition of traditionalism is too narrow. I define it to be knowing and participating to as great a degree as possible in the true order of being. Therefore one can be a traditionalist even in contemporary America, although contemporary America, having defined itself in opposition to the true order of being, is a great impediment to man living well.

        Any society without a specific religion is on the path to liberalism.

        America used to have a specific religion: generic Protestantism.

        And you said that traditionalists should be concerned with supporting freedom. I assume this includes freedom to propagate all manner of religious practice?

        American traditionalists should support the type of freedom that America had for roughly the first 150 years. (Defining it with precision would be too lengthy for a blog comment; I assume that as an American, you understand what I mean. The system worked well until it was abolished by the left.) As for “all manner of religious practice,” some religions, especially Islam, are a threat to the public order, and should be controlled. And the old America took steps to preserve its generically Protestant character generally without the imposition of formal laws.

        …America has never been traditionalist, so some previous time in American history is not a valid ideal for traditionalism.

        America has never been a monarchy or a theocracy. But in light of my definition of “traditionalism,” America was traditionalist at one time in the sense that knowledge of and participation in the true order of being was generally respected and supported.

      • I couldn’t tell you the exact mechanism, but America had it once, therefore it is possible.

        We should stop thinking of government as a “mechanism.” Thinking of the state as some kind of giant machine originated with Hobbes the godfather of liberal modernity. It seems to me the best way to limit the size of government is to return the human and personal element in place of the machine. This mechanistic conception of the state paved the way for the techno-consumerist dystopia we are now forced to live under.

      • I used the word “mechanism” in a philosophical sense, meaning whatever it is that causes something. And the mechanism I had in mind was mostly the one that would take us from the present troubles into a more sane and just society. I agree with you about “returning to the human and personal elements in place of the machine.”

      • You are correct, Mr. Roebuck, and I too after hiccuping on that line went back and re-read that you had put ‘necessarily’. I do however think in the future, when we see the rise of city states hopefully, there will be enough resources and land to go around that each religious group (same as with each ethnic group) will be able to have its own state. This of course does not prohibit common unions of these states for military purposes, which can be seen throughout history.

      • Again, if your position is that only Catholic theocracy is a valid social system, then you will see liberalism everywhere. You will write off every society that ever existed except a tiny handful.

      • I never promoted freedom as the primary social good, and no society ever did until roughly the 1960’s.

    • Read everything that Lawrence Auster wrote on traditionalism, America (including its faults), and authority, and you’ll have the start of an answer, AR React.

      Auster recognized that Christianity can be made into a “suicidally liberal” entity through “ideological, reductivist reading of biblical passages.” However, he equally recognized that such an interpretation was not biblical Christianity but a perversion of it. A long but germane quote:

      This is an absolutely fundamental point that Christians must understand. The original teaching of Christianity as presented in the New Testament is about how to live in what Jesus called the kingdom of heaven. It is about the individual soul’s relation with God through Christ. It is not about the political organization of society. The New Testament simply assumes the existence of political society and goes on from there. Because Christianity is not, like orthodox Judaism and Islam, a complete recipe for this-worldly existence, Christians must “render unto Caesar,” i.e., render unto a non-Christian basis of authority. Christian society is thus more complex—more differentiated, to use Eric Voegelin’s term—than any other. It is multileveled, mediating between the pole of the Christian, spiritual realm and the pole of political and cultural existence in this world, which does not come from Christianity itself. If the society loses its this-worldly pole it will go out of existence. This is the reason why Christian society is the riskiest and most dangerous type of society, the most open to catastrophic derailment, such as the derailment brought by modern liberalism. Yet Christianity’s this-worldly “lack,” which makes Christian society so vulnerable in comparison to the religiously structured society of traditional Judaism and Islam, is also the thing that, by requiring Christian society to be multileveled in order to function in this world, makes it the fullest and truest articulation of the human soul, extending downward to the apeirontic depths (the many) and upward to transcendent spiritual truth (the One).

      The risk is inherent in Christianity, not Protestantism, unless you believe that the Roman church as it currently stands is without liberal rot.

      • If the risk were inherent in Christianity, then why did it only happen when Protestantism came around?

        The answer of course lies in that the Christian belief that man is called to a supernatural end, does not derogate from the good of natural institutions and systems, such as society and the state, as long as it is understood that natural goods are still good.

        But once you conclude that nature is evil, and only God is good, well it follows that there’s no reason to stop natural institutions from being ruined.

      • If the risk were inherent in Christianity, then why did it only happen when Protestantism came around?

        It didn’t. Catholic nations are just as saturated with liberalism as Protestant ones.

        But once you conclude that nature is evil, and only God is good, well it follows that there’s no reason to stop natural institutions from being ruined.

        Protestantism does not say that nature is evil. It is liberalism that launched the assault on natural institutions.

        You’re burning a lot of straw men here. I hope the livestock don’t run short of feed this winter.

      • If the risk were inherent in Christianity, then why did it only happen when Protestantism came around?

        The Reformers identified numerous errors in the practices of the Roman Church. More to the point, individual liberty—the cornerstone of liberalism—was something the Athenians came up with in the Fifth and Fourth Centuries B.C., so maintaining that Protestantism is the fount of liberalism is a gross error.

        Also, if it were the case that the Roman Church were immune to liberalism, then we would expect to see few, if any, liberals amongst priests, bishops, cardinals, and popes; in contrast, we see more liberals than not in those positions.

        once you conclude that nature is evil

        Doesn’t sound like a Protestant position to me. Sin has entered our fallen world, and so there is evil in it, but nature is not inherently evil.

        and only God is good

        “And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.”
        —Mark 10:18
        “All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.”
        —Romans 3:12
        “Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”
        —2 Corinthians 5:20-21

        Maybe only God is good.

      • “It didn’t. Catholic nations are just as saturated with liberalism as Protestant ones.”

        Today. After Protestantism gave birth to liberalism.

        “Protestantism does not say that nature is evil. It is liberalism that launched the assault on natural institutions.”

        Total depravity.

        “The Reformers identified numerous errors in the practices of the Roman Church.”

        Such as?

        “More to the point, individual liberty—the cornerstone of liberalism—was something the Athenians came up with in the Fifth and Fourth Centuries B.C., so maintaining that Protestantism is the fount of liberalism is a gross error.,

        My understanding is that when they spoke of liberty, they meant what we would now call the rule of law. In any case, Athens was not liberal in the practical “tolerate as much evil as can be done without triggering social collapse” sense.

        “if it were the case that the Roman Church were immune to liberalism”

        That’s not what I said.

        “Doesn’t sound like a Protestant position to me. Sin has entered our fallen world, and so there is evil in it, but nature is not inherently evil.”

        You deny that this is your position then express it later in the same post. Perhaps if I said “not good” thus would clear up the confusion.

      • Today. After Protestantism gave birth to liberalism.

        Even if true (it isn’t), this accusation does nothing to support your contention that Catholicism is the true defense against liberalism, for it shows that Catholicism has no defense against liberalism.

        Total depravity. [Said in response to the assertion that Protestantism does not say nature is evil]

        Then you don’t understand what the biblical doctrine of total depravity means. It does not mean that everything is depraved. It means that all man’s faculties are corrupted, and that man without the intervention of God is totally incapable of accepting the Gospel of Jesus Christ. [See, e.g., Ephesians 2:1–5.] And although man’s faculties are corrupted, they are capable of grasping many truths and holding on to many goods.

      • The Catholic Church is infected with liberalism, as is everything else today. Your “no defense” argument could just as well be used against Christianity generally.

        “A good work done very well is a venial sin.”

        It’s fairly straight forward how this sort of thinking would lead to the conclusion that natural foods are not really good.

        And for goodness sake, how is “sin boldly” not an invitation for liberalism to crop up?

      • “A good work done very well is a venial sin.”

        Something that Luther said, but not Protestant (i.e., biblical) doctrine. It is invalid to judge a system (including Rome) by the erroneous statements of its partisans.

        “Sin boldly,…”

        See above.

      • Sedevacantism seems to be a position that would square with Traditional Catholics how the modern church has seen liberal influence rise (see Kasper) and how that can be opposed in an active way without disregarding genuine papal authority. Admittedly though, I don’t know much of the reasoning behind why Sedevacantists cease to recognize the post-1958 papacy

      • Alan,

        That’s a no true scotsman fallacy. You see, when the founder of a religion makes a doctrinal or pastoral statement, that can be taken as the doctrine of the religion. The same also goes for Catholicism, if Jesus had said something wrong (which he didn’t, but hypothetically), that could be held against Catholicism.

        And yes, I’m sure one could come up with some alternative Protestanitsm that could have arose and not given rise to liberalism. But I’m not talking about some hypothetical Protestantism, I’m talking about the actual Protestantism that actually arose.

      • …when the founder of a religion makes a doctrinal or pastoral statement, that can be taken as the doctrine of the religion.

        But that’s exactly where you’re wrong. The authority for Lutheranism is not Martin Luther. The authority is the Bible, with the creeds and confessions having a secondary authority by virtue of faithfully summarizing Scripture. And ditto for the other Protestant sects.

        Also, your entire approach is predicated on current-day Roman Catholicism being the true expression of Christianity. I deny that.

        There is also the problem that Catholicism, in actual practice, where the rubber meets the road, is at least as diverse and disorganized and contradictory and heretical as Protestantism. Pointing to heretics and schismatics and general-purpose goofballs proves precisely zero.

      • But Protestantism was founded by one of those general-purpose goofballs.

        Now you can claim that Protestantism really refers to “authentic” Christianity, and not to the historical movement known as Protestantism, but that’s really beside the point. I’m speaking of the historical movement.

      • You’re not speaking accurately of Protestantism, let alone making a convincing case that its general principles are wrong. You’re just engaging in vague griping.

  4. There is another dimension to this discussion that arises as soon as you cross the Vistula or the Danube.

    The beleaguered Eastern Church has its own vision of Traditionalism, and has been guardedly successful in preserving it. To us, the Papal Reformation of the 10th and 11th century are kind of the Urquell of all subsequent transformations and liberalisms. The Clunaic reforms made the Protestant Reformation inevitable, which then made anticlericalism possible in the Catholic countries, usw

    It is odd. The Orthodox concept of a just commonwealth is tied up with the ideal of the multinational Christian Empire, headed by a single Autocrat free under God, with a multiplicity of ecclesiastical authorities more or less independent in their own sphere; rather than a single ecclesiastical authority and multiple loci of secular authority more or less subject to him in an ill defined manner. Symphony, the Byzantine ideal of the Church and the State working together to effect the salvation and safety of its constituents, had always been the goal of Empire.

    It appears to us that it would be a small thing for Rome to take us back, but we are afraid that the Gospel as the Orthodox understand it – that is to say the Gospel of the Gospels – would then become just another entry on the smorgasbord of modern Catholicism.

    • Asinus, your summary is eye-catchingly accurate. It sounds like you have done some series study on Orthodoxy’s history. I consider myself to be in alignment with the Eastern Orthodox, and so this does interest me.

      It’s necessary to note that Eastern Europe and Russia also didn’t have to contend with the technological advancements that were going on in the West during the tumultuous period of the Reformation, even simple things like greater communication between peoples in different areas. In fact, according to many historians, Russia really almost remained an archaic civilization right up until WWI, never abandoning an old feudal system.
      Of course then you had a Western idea, Communism, which came and destroyed everything, decimating centuries of Tradition. It is surprising the Church fared as well as it has, with a growing place in today’s Russian society, exerting a greater influence every year.

      Eastern Orthodox countries like Russia, I think, will be indispensable to our agenda going forward. Few places are more susceptible to our message.

  5. I’m general, while I may be socially conservative, I don’t think I can call myself a traditionalist. Atleast not anymore. I guess I have been influenced more by Continental, Russian and Japanese thinkers as opposed to Anglo ones. I believe in a strong right-wing authoritarian state and in a tripartite society of Church, State, and Nation. More controversially, I believe in right-wing revolutionaryism and in hastening the inevitable collapse of liberalism. I don’t understand why traditionalists want to slow down the death of what they hate. I believe in provoking more Muslims against all liberal media, I believe in provoking race riots in New York City and D.C. A pure anarchy is far more tolerable than an anarcho-tyranny and that the answer is order through chaos. Scales need to start falling off eyes and I am tired of the Left being able to have everything on their terms.

    • Svar, your statement here is no reason to give up Traditionalism and Reaction (a word that may be closer to your thinking). I do not think Roebuck is calling for the slowing down of the rot, but is talking about what our attitude should be in an ideal Traditional state (to not seek revolutionary change against the Traditional ways).

      I am of exactly the same mindset as you. Our duty is to welcome in the Next Age, and the rise of a Christian Traditionalist state, with the trappings you suggest (autocracy, church and state, etc)

      In fact in my year-review of 2014 on my own blog, I talked about the race riots being a very positive development for our cause!

      Be well, brother. May God guide you. Your beliefs are righteous.

      • I do not think Roebuck is calling for the slowing down of the rot, but is talking about what our attitude should be in an ideal Traditional state (to not seek revolutionary change against the Traditional ways).

        That’s right.

        …race riots being a very positive development for our cause!

        Maybe they reveal the sickness more clearly, so that those who are slow to notice things will be more likely to understand, but other than that they are nothing to root for. Symptoms may be useful for revealing a sickness, but that’s the end of their value.

      • “The worse, the better” comes from the Russian revolutionary utopian socialist Nikolai Chernyshevsky—not the kind of person we want to find agreement with. When things get worse, they are actually getting worse.

        I fear what will happen when the current liberal order collapses. No doubt Plato will be shown right again, and our democracy will be followed by tyranny, perhaps with a spell of anarchy in between (we are already well on our way to that tyranny). I will welcome the restoration of proper order that might follow, but there will be great suffering to get there, suffering that might have been avoided.

      • Wm. Lewis – unfortunately, I cannot see any way to avoid mass suffering, and it is not as if we are going to be the cause, this was inevitable. The Age of Kali is destined to end, the Modern World will collapse and we will build a new civilization on its ashes.

        And do not think we don’t live in a tyranny. The Modern World is tyranny, dressed up in the robes of ‘freedom’ and ‘equality’ It is a lie, straight from the pit of hell. You need not search far to find how tyrannical and anti-Christian western society is.

        So what is the difference in seeking the collapse of North Korea and seeking the collapse of the Western World? I see both as wholly evil and worthy of the destruction they will eventually face.

        Chernyshevsky makes a statement here (and it has been made before him I believe) that has little to do with ideology, it is simply a sentiment shared universally by those groups who are under the heel of an authority they despise and seek to end.

        The longer we support and prop up the doomed West, the longer it will take to realize Traditional society, and ultimately, the more suffering there will be. As Svar states, it is folly for us to prolong the life of that which we hate. It would be like the Russian Orthodox Church trying desperately to prevent the disintegration of the Soviet Union. Whether anyone likes it or not, the Modern World is going to implode, the question is do we have the will to capitalize on it and finally end this curse forever, giving it no oxygen to ever metastasize again.

      • “The worse, the better” comes from the Russian revolutionary utopian socialist Nikolai Chernyshevsky—not the kind of person we want to find agreement with. When things get worse, they are actually getting worse.

        Well . . .

        The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church

        Tertullian, Apologeticus, 197 AD.

        Tertullian was trying to convince the Romans to knock it off with the killing his fellow Christians thing, so, in a way, he agrees with Wm Lewis. But, on the other hand, they didn’t, and he was right. Worse was better.

        On the other other hand (on the gripping hand if you are a pathetic geek like me), it’s hard to tell with documents like Apologeticus or with St Justin Martyr’s famous letter whether they were really trying to convince the Romans to knock it off or if they were trying to reinforce for their fellow Christians the rightness of their cause. It’s hard not to suspect the latter, not to suspect that the former was just a rhetorical device.

      • Dr. Bill – you present a thoughtful conundrum on that period of martyrdom. It should always be noted that Christian martyrdom helped cause the faith to explode in that era. As such, if the Lord guided the hands of those influential ones He was of course aware of this fact and intended its result.

  6. As a Catholic, I always find it amusing when my co-religionists rehash the Reformation-Counterreformation drama. Most Catholics, especially the young ones my age are just like Evangelicals in mindset and temperament if not doctrine and belief.

  7. Pingback: How to Become an American Traditionalist, Part Nine: The Content of Traditionalism Briefly Discussed | Neoreactive

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