Tribal Christianity: the legitimacy of loyalty in the life of faith

At my own blog, I’ve been arguing that the Catholic Church (and, I would expect, many others) suffers grievously from a lack among the baptized of basic “tribal” identification with the Church and with Catholics throughout the ages.  They fail to identify attacks on the Church and on prior generations of Christians as attacks on themselves and upon their people, and they fail to apply to their attackers the category of enemy.  In this, they are encouraged by theologians, apologists, and prelates who dismiss “tribalism”–including the whole moral consideration of loyalty, or any application of the friend-enemy distinction–as an intellectual or moral failing.

I think this issue is ready for wider discussion.  Of course, the fate of the Roman Catholic Church is a matter of interest to most readers here, but I don’t think this weakness is unique to my Church.  Since the point is particularist loyalty, I can be clearer if I continue to write below about this one ecclesial body, with the applications to Orthodox and Protestant bodies being direct and obvious analogies.  My key points are

  • It is licit to love the people and culture of Christian civilization, not only Christ Himself and the doctrines of the Church.  There is nothing admirable in apologizing for or berating one’s ancestors in an attempt to win credibility with a hostile world.
  • This is the main reason we’re loosing most of our young people.  America and the mystical body of Christ are at war.  If our children are given a strong visceral identification with the former but not the latter, we can expect them to apostatize.  Teaching children rigorous arguments for all the doctrines of the faith is impossible (they leave home before they’re ready for it).  Teaching them to identify as Catholic and see religious disputes through a friend-enemy lens is much easier.
  • Grace builds upon nature.  We should not scorn natural attachment to the Christian people out of a misguided preference for a purely supernatural attachment to the Triune God.  Natural loyalty is a help, not a hinderance to the growth of charity.  One who looks on past generations of Christians with affection is better prepared to love the Faith than one who looks on them with politically correct scorn.
  • Following Carl Schmitt, we should recognize the distinctness of the friend-enemy categorization.  Groups outside the true Church are to some extent in error and morally deficient, but the ascription of enemy status to a group is not directly a statement of its heterodoxy or of the personal sinfulness of its members.  The enemy is the group that is a threat to our corporate existence, the group that is attacking us.  Conversely, we can recognize other conservative Christian groups as allies without minimizing our theological differences.

Excerpts from and links to my own posts on this subject follow.  In addition, Beefy Levinson, Mark Citadel, and Bruce Charlton have written on some related points.

On being a tribal Christian

Christianity is certainly a thing distinct from the traditional civilization of Europe.  While Christianity was integral to our now dead civilization, it is meant for the entire human race.  Our faith is ultimately in Christ, not in Christians, not even those Christians who are our ancestors and who built Christendom.  And yet I do find it unseemly how our modern Christians try to prove our faith in Christ through our faithlessness to each other.

Hence the constant apologies.  Apologies to the Muslims.  Apologies to the Third World heathen.  Endless abject groveling before the Jews.  One should, I suppose, admire the faith of a man like Pope John Paul II who, in order to carry the Gospel unto all nations unencumbered by the sins of past faithful, was so thoroughly merciless in throwing his fellow Catholics under the proverbial bus

Nowadays, “tribalism” is a term of abuse.  Loyalty is seen as an emotional defect that interferes with justice.  Our ideal would be man who would judge a case between his father and an enemy of the family with complete impartiality, a man who would weigh criticism from an enemy exactly the same as if it had come from a proven friend and ally, a man who esteems his people and other peoples according to an impartial standard of merit.  Such a man is indeed admirable in a way, but who would want him for a friend, a brother, or a son?

Love shines forth more clearly when claims of objective superiority aren’t even made.  When I think of Western civilization, I don’t think about any particular grand principle, scientific theory, technology, artistic masterpiece, or organizational form we’ve given the world.  To the extent these really have objective merit, they don’t really belong to us, but to all peoples.  When I think of Western civilization, I’m thinking of the charming quirks of our cultural landscape:  brides in white dresses, haunted cemeteries, golden-haired princesses in need of rescue, that sort of thing.  There’s nothing better about our dress, our folklore, or the beauty of our women that others should copy; that’s what makes these things ours.

What the Church needs / How to keep your child Catholic

Here’s what it comes down to.  If the Kasperites, the MSM, the “Founding Fathers”, and the sodomites are right, then the priest-killing Jacobins and Bolsheviks were basically right.  That proposition should be psychologically intolerable to anyone who truly identifies with Catholicism.  The idea of siding with the Church’s persecutors, to admit that Voltaire, Garibaldi, and Lenin were actually right all along, should be so hateful to a Catholic that he dismisses arguments for it out of hand.

But isn’t tribalism inferior to holiness?  Isn’t loving a people inferior to loving the Triune God?  To this, I say that grace perfects nature rather than overriding it.  Human attachment to the corporate body of Christ is a more fertile ground for supernatural attachment to that body than human alienation from it.  To the liberals going on about “We are Church”, I say, if that were really true, you would respond to attacks on Catholicism as attacks on yourselves, and you would recognize the Church’s enemies as your own.  If any liberal thinks that he’s just above tribal attachments of any kind, try gently criticizing the Democratic Party or the civil rights movement, and see how he responds.

Another worry one might have about us-versus-them is that it’s dangerous, because you miss out on valid criticism from outsiders.  People have gone so far with this that openness to criticism is now considered a strength.  Poppycock.  Natural selection proves it.  There are many associations in the world.  Would you say that openness to demotivational criticism from outsiders is common or uncommon among them?  Clearly such openness is maladaptive (something so obvious to me I have trouble arguing it), and the groups that survive and prosper teach their members not to give credence to enemies.  Again, if a liberal argues against this, try suggesting that an organization he truly cares about follow this advice.  No, once again it is only the Catholic Church that is expected to follow policies that guarantee her own destruction…

The best part:  us-versus-them is easy to learn.  You’re never too young!  A mere choice of pronouns can make a world of difference.  When speaking of Americans, do you ever call them “we” or “us”?  Stop this immediately.  Abortion and sodomy are in the Constitution; its official interpreters say so.  Its elected officials insist there is “no place” in their realm for beliefs like ours.  Believe them.  Anyone who feels himself an American will feel psychologically compelled to follow the American herd like Jody Bottum.  We are not Americans.  Americans are Other.  Love them as your enemies, but recognize them as your enemies.

Ecumenism and Vatican II for the tribal Catholic

The accursed council, Vatican II, was not a dogmatic council or a pastoral council (it’s documents are pedagogically useless, i.e. far less easy to understand than the Baltimore Catechism) but a political council.  Its purpose was to designate friends and enemies.  Before the council, Protestantism and liberalism were regarded as enemies.  Vatican II decided that they were to be regarded as friends.  Because Vatican II could not change dogma, it could do nothing to reduce our disagreements with the world, but it could declare these to be friendly disagreements.  No dogma is involved in such decisions, but no infallibility attaches to it either.  Any Catholic may disagree, and tribal Catholics do strongly disagree with the decision to psychologically disarm before liberalism–a one-sided disarmament, because liberals continue to treat us as an enemy.  We condemn the council fathers according to our own particular category.  We don’t question their morals or their orthodoxy (although the influential periti were certainly heretics).  WE QUESTION THEIR LOYALTY.

…Ecumenism is pointless….But there can be an alliance…

106 thoughts on “Tribal Christianity: the legitimacy of loyalty in the life of faith

  1. I think that there might be a silver lining in the recent persecution and ethno-religious cleansing of Christians in the Middle East. While such persecution is horrid, it has seemed to awaken the tribal consciousness of Western Christians (or it has begun the process, which will surely evolve as Western nations themselves become more heathenish and intolerant of Christians). I have been surprised to witness words and actions of solidarity with Christians in the Middle East and Africa on the part of mainstream Protestants, for instance. I think that it is obvious that the Orthodox have kept this religio-tribal sense, and it is customary to hear Orthodox people identify with Christians (even non-Orthodox and non-Chalcedonian) in those areas of persecution, but I did not expect ever to see Presbyterians or Methodists organize politically for the sake of Christians persecuted in Mohammedan lands. It is almost as if the sight of persecuted brethren has shaken them from their typical Us-Bad, Them-Good leftist programming. And that, as sad as the atrocities are, is a good thing. Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints.

    • I’ve even heard Donald Trump mention several times in interviews the beheading of Christians in the Middle East as a phenomena unto itself and something — given it going unchecked and unremarked upon by our government — which demonstrates the unseriousness of our foreign policy.

    • This tribalism could work also in the opposite direction. If the West is post-Christian because of abortion clinics, was the West pre-Christian before c.a. 1850 because of slavery?

  2. Thanks for this post, Bonald. I have been trying to keep to the church but the sheer weakness of the Pope and the effeminate limp outs of many millienial Catholic males (conservative ones mind you) has enraged me. Going off of Joseph A’s comment, I couldnt believe my ears when I heard these so called conservative Catholics white knight for those g*ddamned Saracens. Especially considering what those savages are doing to our brethren. Even worse, many Catholics are like Evangelicals, Baptists and Protestants when it comes to the Jews, who are probably the greatest threat to the West and thr second greatest threat to the Church after Satan himself. There is a reason why Jesus referred to the Jews as the children of the Devil.

    • We must wrest this nation away from the Satanic power controlling it, Judaism. We have been reduced to nothing more than a Jewish golem.

  3. Pingback: Tribal Christianity: the legitimacy of loyalty in the life of faith | Reaction Times

  4. This is why Cardinal Dolan’s scorn of ‘nativism’ on the part of Donald Trump supporters is endlessly frustrating. Ethnic solidarity is analogous to religious solidarity. Both recognize a truth that people do and should prefer their own, people who are as analogous to themselves as possible. And both do not entail a total isolationism. Just as the Russian can fight for the Serb in the knowledge that they are both Slavs, the Catholic can fight for the Copt in the knowledge that they are both in allegiance to the Triune God.

    “Teaching them to identify as Catholic and see religious disputes through a friend-enemy lens is much easier.”

    As I point out in the article you link to, this is what Muslims do, and they do it to tremendous success. In-group, out-group dynamics are naturally appealing to people. It is why the Liberal on one hand has to work tirelessly to destroy them and fight against their ‘division’, all the while very easily setting up new variants of this dynamic to divide nations against themselves through political affiliations and other such artificial categories.
    But I stress, there HAS to be a supporting parallel structure for this to actually work. Children will be swallowed up by groupthink in a Liberal society. You can teach your kid to hate the outside world and still, given only a week among them he will be won over in order to be popular and accepted. To reject the popularity and acceptance that comes with submission, they MUST be able to attain this elsewhere. For instance, though Muslims will find many areas of Western Europe to be hostile to them (mainly due to pushback from secular authorities or private citizens), they can find among their own enclaves a system in which they fit, a system that works in unity with itself against the dominating culture.

    It is not enough that Christianity become rebellious rather than established. There are PLENTY of trends that are rebellious, but are never picked up by teenagers with any kind of conviction, racism being a good example. This is because there exists no supporting structure for these trends. Those who follow them don’t have a home. Dispossessed now of our former home (that is as a majority political force with control over major institutions), we need to make a new one. Dreher thinks it should be a passive and solemn refuge that just wants to be left alone. I do not think something like this could survive. It has to be more.

    • I agree Mark. Dreher is especially a bad case of weird hipster conservativism. The man can’t even stand up to his faggy commenters who he doesn’t regulate as nearly as much as his right wing commenters.

      People like Dreher, Cardinal Dolan, and Pope Francis are weak and they’re holding us back. Ultimately, weak friends are worse than strong enemies and any serious movement that will take us out of this situation will have to be anti-clerical to mitigate the pernicious influence the modern RCC has on politics. I turned away when Pope Francis browbeated Italians into accepting more Saracens into their country. I mean, how Christian! Allowing hostile non-Christians in Christian lands.

  5. Bonald
    Does this make one particularly susceptible to Orthodox sympathies?
    This is a question of curiosity mostly. I don’t think there is any causal relationship. Just that the spirit of ultramontanism seems in tension with loyalty and diversity.

  6. One of the problems with being thrown under the bus is that, if you have any sense, you are unlikely to trust. So, your post sounds good, right up until the reality sets in that I’ll probably have to deal with the same daft people who threw me under the bus the last time. This is one of the reasons I am not particularly down with the white identity crowd- last time I checked, it was white people disenfranchising me, not the other races.
    It is other Christians who have remade Christianity into something essentially progressive- downright fools who speak of Christ as revolutionary. Blasphemers, regardless of how much they ‘love.’ What am I to do with that?

      • Look at the two links I posted toward the bottom.

        As for women, they are responsive and reactive not proactive. Blaming them is as ridiculous as blaming children.

        Put the blame where it belongs

      • Guys, there’s no need to argue here about liberal demographics. Nearly all Jews are liberals, but most liberals aren’t Jews. Differentiating subgroups within the enemy is not psychologically useful when they’re acting together (and have no exploitable differences). Whether it’s the ADL, ACT-UP, the BBC, or whatever other liberal operation attacking, it’s best to think of it as the same group, because they work together and attack us over the same things. The real question is how to build identity on our side.

      • Bonald, the issue with the Jews is that they have been able to grip key-positions and have in the past, used these positions in the media and the state to suppress all dissent as well as commit the economic rape of this nation.

        “differentiating subgroups within the enemy is not psychologically useful when they’re acting together (and have no exploitable differences). Whether it’s the ADL, ACT-UP, the BBC, or whatever other liberal operation attacking, it’s best to think of it as the same group, because they work together and attack us over the same things. The real question is how to build identity on our side.”

        Bonald, I think that due to the extreme atomization of America, the best way out of this will be through politics. There are three main elements in a successful politic attack against those holding us back: 1. Encourage a multisided civil war in the Democratic Party. This is almost already happening since the Left is full of groups that hate one another greatly 2. Cause the GOP Establishment and the Tea Party to both lose credibility (ongoing and in progress with the “cuckservative” meme and the ascendancy of the Don) in the eyes of the base.

        3. Provide a practical platform that will appeal to the vast majority of the base as well as the long-neglected labor elements of the Left: nationalism, protectionism, nativism, Free Speech, anti-usury, both left and right wing populism, conservationism, gun rights, and neo-isolationism.

        Get power, consolidate power, use power to go after opposition/political and civilizational enemies.

        We are basically living in Weimar America now. This is all just the beginning.

    • Here are some links from the Jewish Daily Forward of the Jews bragging about infiltrating and ruining the Church (this is for your comment about progressive Christians) : http://forward.com/opinion/159955/converts-who-changed-the-church/

      http://forward.com/opinion/160550/converts-permanent-revolution/

      I don’t see how any conservative Christian can read this and still not see the Jews for what they really are: termite-like scum who ruin the foundation of society and who are in league with the Devil.

      Some recent Jewish converts have been great like Florian Abrahamowitz but most Jews in general are not to be trusted under any circumstances

      • As we can see with the daughter of Trump, the Jewish tribal identity is de facto PATRILINEAR. That is why Jews have peculiar surnames, but look more or less white. As infiltration is their main strength, it is white-looking Jews that should be watched the most.

      • Mischlinge are either the worst of the worst like Tim Wise or the best of the best like Arco von Valley or Florian Abrahamowitz. Though that goes for the Jews in general, they are either these evil infiltrators or they are like the Blessed Father Torquemada.

        Jews are some of the most zealous people on the planet and like Voltaire said, in the same way that the Germans and Britons have blonde hair, the Jews have fanaticism burning in their hearts. So if the Jews are not radically for you like Arco von Valley, Torquemada, or Florian Abrahamowitz, than they are against you. Any show of their “moderateness” is mostly like a sign that they are not converts but infiltrators.

  7. There is something EXTREMELY Catholic about a deracinated Christianity being “tribal.” To me, this signals a radical autonomy as reaction to the American Protestant’s idea of God-ordained free will. I’m not sure how one “consumes” Catholicism in a truly deracinated state? To take a very particular particular illuminated against a backdrop of the total ideological state and render it degenerately trivial is radical liberalism par excellence.

    The only metric now is God-ordained free will and its total expression. It is clearly contracting. Does this presage an explosion?

  8. Yikes! I don’t at all like the way this thread has gone. It seems to subvert the post on an important topic and is a hostage to fortune. This is typical of why I believe the Orthosphere must have comment moderation, in advance of publication, and why I am so reluctant to publish on this blog.

    (Correct me if I have misunderstood, but…)

    Bonald is talking about *the enemy* being the Left/Liberal *ideology*, not any specific group of people – but those in power who subscribe to that ideology.

    He is calling for loyalty among those churches (and perhaps among Christian in general) in opposition to an enemy who has waged war upon Christians, strategically, systematically, by multiple means.

    The general idea is that we are in a war, in which we should recognize Left Liberalism as the enemy, the so-far victorious enemy; and the existential urgency of the situation, and threat they pose to Christians, should unite those who are having war waged upon them.

    Probably the least helpful response to this, is for Christians to fall out over who the ‘real’ enemy is, in terms of which specific persons or groups are most to blame. When the problem is ideology, it doesn’t matter who – all who subscribe to Liberal/Leftism and use it to attack Christianity are against Christians, and will need to be resisted.

    The importance is this is we are up against a Left/ Liberal war of destruction – not of conquest. So who among Progressives wages the war makes little difference to the outcome from a Christian perspective.

    • Dr. Charlton…

      “We” are not limited to fighting the whole in lieu of its empirical tentacles. “We” can proceed at both levels. And although there is the thread of radical sexual autonomy and anti-white Supremacy that runs through ALL ENEMIES of Western Christianity, each enemy has its own origin, motivation and rewards for destroying white Christianity, ie., white Supremacy. So the fundamental pathology is in reality two sides of same coin: radical sexual autonomy for “them” and deracination for “us.” A symbiotic regression rooted in the idea that our “whiteness” has neither anything to do with “their” liberalism nor “our” Christianity. Our collective whiteness is a particular particular of no particular significance. This is a pathological belief. Self-evidently. Western white man is a head divided.

    • Dr. Charlton, first off, as a Christian the main enemy is not liberalism. It’s Satan and his minions and according to Jesus the Jews are the Children of the Devil. If that offends you and the philosemites so much, why don’t you chew out Christ for saying it?

      Second off, aren’t you a Mormon now? Mormonism is a religion more akin to Scientology and UFO cults than it is to Mere Christianity.

  9. The fundamental pathology is a false divide (all are anti-white Supremacy) and a ruthlessly denied alliance (all are anti-white Supremacy). Who will deny this fundamental affliction besetting the intellectually traditional Christian?

    One cannot fight without first a mind right.

  10. It seems to me that there is a certain race of Christians that have taken the notion of Perfection to its logical extremes like no other race of men. In fact, this race of men, although nearly extinct in a physical sense, nonetheless, still operate as both the prime mover of and ubiquitous backdrop to ALL radical liberationists. At that next level are those radical autonomists that use “white supremacy” to “justifiably homicide” LESSER autonomists and liberationists. The role of modern white Christian is purely passive observer and fatalistic spectator. Infected with the “equality” doctrine, he conceives a self-annihilating “Christianity” for himself. But dang it if he doesn’t always use that “unprincipled exception” to never pull the trigger. Instead, he kills “us” with his public despair.

    • Thordaddy, Semites are still a very real race including the Jewish Semites. What happened was that, according to most historians, the vast majority of the Jewish people felt moved by the Gospel of Christ like the Apostles or the Great Father Torquemada, Grand Inquisitor of Spain throughout the late Roman era and the Middle Ages. Of the Jews that still rejected Christ, many were killed in pogroms. By the time the Modern era started (1600s), a new Jewish population, born of a bottleneck of those Jews hateful enough to still reject Christ and those Jewish elements smart enough and criminal enough to escape the pogroms. Due to this bottleneck, they have higher IQs but use that intelligence to cheat, they are very inbred and more prone to diseases like Tay Sachs, Crohn’s, and homosexuality (the Jewish population is more prone, 7-12% of Jews are homosexuality while the regular population only has 1.6%). Also there is probably a change in appearance for the worse amongst the Ashkenazim due to such extensive inbreeding, Jesus and his cohort most likely looked like Leb, Palestinian, Sephardi Jew, or some other sort of Levantine/Mediterranean. Christ definitely didn’t look like Joe Hildebrand and the Blessed Mother definitely did not look like Sarah Silverman. Beyond the physiological level and on the psychological one, modern Jews have a very low level of sexual dimorphism, the men are fey and effeminate and the women are very masculine (explains the homosexuality rates) and they tend to have a large amount of neuroses.

      • Svar…

        I define the Jew qua as archetype anti-Supremacist and premier perpetuating self-annihilate…

        But…

        The “white man’s” imitation of the Jewish “act” just cannot be the of the Jew himself UNLESS white man is devoid of God-ordained free will.

      • ^^^ I define the Jew qua [Jew] as archetype anti-Supremacist and premier perpetuating self-annihilate…

      • Thordaddy no offense but you have non-standard definitions for lots of words. A Jew is a member of a type of Semitic ethnicity and you can be a Jew and a Christian at the same time the same way you can be Irish and Christian, German and Christian, Lebanese and Christian or Asian and Christian.

      • Svar…

        A Jewish convert to Christianity would be a (ethnic Jewish) Supremacist. The Jew AS Jew (as orthodox, as Chosen One, as Marxist/leftist), denier of The Perfect Jewish Son, is an anti-Supremacist. But IMITATING the anti-Supremacy of the Jewish self-annihilator IS FIRST AND FOREMOST a defect in the imitator.

      • Again, using the word “race” hides the patrilinear nature of this population group. Even Gulf Arab oil sheiks are largely white by race. And women don’t have Y-chromosome. If someone like me would have children with an upper class Emirati or Qatari lady, they’d likely inherit their dark eyes, dark hair, and stocky build from their FATHER.

      • “What happened was that, according to most historians, the vast majority of the Jewish people felt moved by the Gospel of Christ like the Apostles or the Great Father Torquemada, Grand Inquisitor of Spain throughout the late Roman era and the Middle Ages.”

        Where did you get all this information from Svar? Both that the Jews by and large converted to the Faith, and that they are inbreed. I’ve never heard of either before, I thought most Jews stayed Jewish, and as for the inbreeding, I’ve heard the French Canadians were, but nothing about modern Jews, but then again I don’t really keep up on who is or is not inbreed, lol.
        If all true, this stuff is very interesting (especially the bit about the conversion of the Jews) and I’d like to explore it more, do you have any suggestions for me?
        (BTW, I don’t mean to be a pain, I know that I don’t have a link or resource to reference for every statement I make, and usually just pick things up over time, from here or there, so I understand if you don’t have anything for me.)

      • More on inbreeding, look at the difference between Muslim Arabs who are fine with cousin marriage and the Christian ones who were banned from cousin marriage by the Church. There is a stark difference in appearance and psychology.

        As for conversion, I am having a hard time finding historical accounts on the matter, but it is a belief of many historians.

  11. “Tribalism” is provocative, and that makes it a good word to get the discussion started, but it doesn’t quite seem right because it’s mindless. There’s nothing wrong with that in itself, if we didn’t have impulses as well as principles we’d never do anything, but it doesn’t tell you what to do with it, and it seems to put the Catholic tribe on a par with every other tribe.

    It’s not. The Catholic Church is the representative on earth of the universal order of things. The universal order of things isn’t tribal–it isn’t contentious, it’s slow to anger, and it prefers laissez faire and “let a hundred flowers bloom” when those things are possible. Since it’s already won in principle, why be touchy? But it also demands our highest and most complete loyalty. And when it becomes clear that something really is an enemy then it denies it ultimate legitimacy and yes it treats it as an enemy.

    The problem with the Vatican II thing was that secular society replaced Catholicism as the universal order of things by reference to which legitimacy is determined. So the Church has to justify herself in her own eyes by reference to secular causes–social welfare, saving the planet, fighting prejudice, whatever. Respectable Catholics accept that, and in fact display “tribalism”–intolerant ultimate loyalty–in defense of the secular liberal order. They don’t hate proponents of gay marriage and abortion, just racists, nativists, and the intolerant.

    So it seems to me that saying the problem is a lack of tribalism misplaces the focus a little. It suggests Catholics are basically pointed in the right direction but lack an impulse needed to make them move forward effectively. To my mind the question is more which way they’re really pointing and what ultimately they think is most real.

    • I don’t think that Bonald is proposing a “system,” understood as a beginning and end in tribalistic loyalty to Catholicism. I think he is proposing an evaluative step down a path, a reorientation of ethical viewpoint. To take religion seriously (that is, sanely), is to first assume a position not unlike the French Catholics and Huguenots did in the 16h Century, hopefully with less immediate sanguinary results. There is an “US” and a “NOT US.” Or an us and a them.
      The point is well taken ultimately. The Catholic Church, for an unblinkered Catholic, is the representative of the high point of human reality. Not a “thing,” as a community, or a family, or any other Earthly cause can be a thing. Thus, loyalty is probably not even the right expression; disloyalty would actually be a departure from sanity.
      The ultimate political (in abstract sense) problems, vis-à-vis the Church are metaphysical and epistemological. Paradoxically the Liberal order has embraced radical inclusion, and negation, as the pillars of its political order; and, with the attempt to meet the World in the last fifty or so years, the Church hierarchy has largely assumed these pillars, rather than simply adopting the language under the dome.
      Such discussions are appropriate for this board.
      They are obviously not appropriate for average Catholics necessarily. Like the devout Catholic peasants of centuries past, they have a right to be led. If assuming a position of leadership may require an appeal to tribalism, then so be it. The one eyed man in the land of the blind has a duty to serve.

      • Exactly Rob, I have too many so-called conservative Christian friends that think that being nice to Saracens is a Christian value to the point of letting them immigrate into Christian lands.

      • Oh, I don’t at all object to what Bonald’s done. He’s started an important discussion. Also, I agree that the everyday guy’s Catholicism is going to have a contentious rooting-for-our team streak. I’d hope that’s somewhat mitigated by a few of the universalistic aspects, concern with fairness and whatnot, with hierarchs intervening now and then to keep things from going too far one way or another.

      • To expand on this, rooting-for-our-team is not something that one should outgrow. Friend-enemy is an irreducible category. To be loyal to Catholics as a group is not to deny (or affirm) that the dispute between Catholicism and modernity is, by epistemic categories, one of truth vs. error. One should not say that liberals are not the enemy because really (in the epistemic order), they are people in error. That would be like saying that the ball is not red because it weighs ten pounds. Of course, the truth of its dogmas and the validity of its sacraments are at the heart of Catholics’ group identity. However once constituted as a group, the Church is one contingent social order among many, on an equal footing with the others in terms of the struggle for survival and propagation.

      • The Catholic must do more than perpetuate if he is in fact perpetuating a “Catholic” self-annihilator. This is the “equality” that the enemy seeks.

      • I agree that the Church is permanently particular as well as universal, that’s part of what it means to talk about Incarnation, so our duties and proper feelings toward her include those we normally have to other particular things we’re part of–our families, countries, whatnot. Christianity is a universality that justifies particularity. That also applies in its own case.

        My other point is that almost nobody actually rejects the friend/enemy distinction in practice. Catholics who won’t say harsh things about heretics etc., because they’re so understanding and believe so much in outreach and meeting people where they are, are usually quite ready to say harsh things about people who believe e.g. that racial differences exist and have practical significance. It’s more a question of what for them is a heresy and an intrinsic attack on what they hold most dear.

      • I am wondering whether or not this is a tall order though, to seek a tribalistic character to Catholicism in se. Tribalism to me, suggests a defensiveness, defending one’s own. Catholicism has certainly served as an attribute of in or out of tribe. E.g., to be English is to be Protestant; to be French is to be Catholic. But how sincerely does one feel that this attribute is really of the essence of the “in”?
        Catholicism in itself seems to me to be purely an “offensive,” rather than a “defensive” spirit?

      • > Tribalism to me, suggests a defensiveness, defending one’s own.

        A very good point. “Tribal” categories only come to the fore when the group is imperiled. To me, the destruction of the Catholic Church in one generation is a live possibility, while a successful offensive against the world is fantasy. Of course, the truths Catholicism teaches can’t be destroyed, but it can become the case that no one will believe them, and no one will positively identify with the people whom history calls “Catholic”.

      • Seems unlikely, even as a purely human matter, that the Church will disappear. She presents in principle the most functional form of living and understanding, and in an age of insanity and dysfunction that has certain advantages. There are six billion people in the world. How many does it take to form a remnant to carry the Church through Peak Weirdness?

      • “Friend-enemy is an irreducible category. ”
        says the Nazi ‘philosopher’ Carl Schmitt. Well Orthosphere is pretty far gone when it has to take political advice from a philosophy of “might makes right”.

      • Mr. Kalb…

        If or when the Church = anti-Church then “it” will have effectively disappeared for all those truly seeking.

        White Christian worships The Perfect Man because such action is entirely coherent, rational and right. Such action can seemingly generate the experience of genuine free will and grace.

        ^^^ This synopsis is the object of annihilation for those seeking to LIMIT our free will to a strictly material paradigm.

        The Church is deracinated. The Church says, “race doesn’t matter unless we are talking the nonwhite races and then we have to make sure they are equal to the white race.” This just doesn’t work. It cannot work. It won’t work. It’s radical liberation in a nutshell. It’s Church = anti-Church. It’s the naive belief that saving black, or brown, or Asian or Arab Catholics has to come at the expense of saving your fellow white Catholics WHO ARE BEING ANNIHILATED for their Catholicism AND their WHITENESS! And never has a nonwhite Catholic utter a public complaint that I am aware of??? Do “we” have enemies both within and without?

      • Vishmer24…

        Might does make Right… As in, the Mightiest Thing makes Order. This is the absolutely perfect understanding of this eternally-binding axiomatic meme. So then it was the job of the radical liberationist to stunt the absolute understanding in favor of a relative one in the minds of the masses. So now, the “best” example of “might makes right” is abortion. And in the radical liberationist’s interpretation is the justification and rationale behind “greater” liberationist annihilating lesser liberationist. This is the “proper order” of things in a radically autonomous society (a deracinated, dispirited, homosexualized and bureaucratized mass). The phrase, in relative form, can then be translated into “the weak make wrong.” This is the perversion and inversion that a Dr. Charlton often talks about. This is the destructive “equality” sought between the Absolute and the relative where a relativist interpretation wins by definition as such relational interpretation always applies to the masses.

        I think the “friend-enemy” category would be better served up as “white Supremacist/anti-white Supremacist” because the absolute denial of that particular divide is much harder to maintain as true.

      • Vishmehr, Carl Schmidt is as Nazi as Oswald Spengler, Heiddeger, or Ernst Junger, i.e. barely if at all. They were not like Alfred Rosenberg and plus when a person is right, he’s right. I mean, really, you’re going to pull out the whole immature and intellectually weak “b-b-but, he’s a Nazi” thing?

        Plus it’s very whiny and shitlibby and that sort of argument (argumentum ad Nazism) doesn’t hold water outside of the National Review or the current Unz-Dreher era of AmConMag. Perhaps that is more to your suiting?

      • TD, saving Middle Eastern Christians from those filthy rape-happy Saracens is a traditionally European Christian thing to do, just look at the Crusades.

      • European Christians willing to die and kill for other Christians is not the problem and Middle Eastern Christians are probably the only Third World people worth bringing into this country (other than those conservative Catholics down in South America who are of mostly European descent anyway), so Middle Eastern Christians are not a problem at all unlike many other groups who just happen to be Christian.

        The main issue is when Euro Christians want to help Muslims and Jews (who are the third and second worst enemies of Christendom respectively after Satan) or wanting to help those weird, creepy Santeria/voodoo/Santa Muerte worshipping Caribbeans and Mesoamericans (natural conservatives!) over actual Christians.

      • “Friend/enemy” doesn’t mean “might makes right.” It means there’s something in human life that’s not rational and can’t be made so. There are people who don’t like us and what we’re up to and would like to get rid of us. So it doesn’t make sense to live as if everyone’s embarked on a common enterprise of searching for the good and trying to live it out.

        The issue’s related to all sorts of questions: pacifism, universalism, the nature of evil, the legitimacy of property ownership by the Church, the relation between the Old and New Testaments, etc. I don’t think there’s a really slick answer to them, but tradition, orthodoxy, and common sense oppose purism except as an unusual individual observance.

      • James Kalb,
        But Schmitt applies “friend/enemy” distinction to politics and that is destructive of the entire Western political tradition. Politics, Aristotle teaches, is free persons deliberating the question, How ought we to order our life together?

        For Schmitt, there is no difference between normal politics and war. I call it false.,

      • Vishmehr: Political societies have armed forces. When one head of state visits another he gets an honor guard, a 21-gun salute, reviews the other’s soldiers, etc. Politics implies the possibility of war. Free persons deliberating how we ought to order our life together brings with it the possibility that the discussion will break down and give rise to fundamental conflict.

        Present day liberal society aspires to eliminate fundamental conflict by turning all human relations into markets and bureaucratic administration, with the system legitimated by democratic rituals. To do that they eliminate politics as the attempt of free persons to determine and pursue the common good. Unfortunately it turns out that to maintain their sense of who they are and their right to rule they have to conjure up enemies anyway, in the form of people who aren’t totally with the program and therefore constitute an existential threat to the one rational and justifiable political system. So their project is both destructive and futile.

        To say that the possibility of existential conflict is a defining feature of politics is not to say that it is the whole of politics. But it’s a necessary point to make against the liberals, just as it was necessary in antiquity to argue against the sophists that the rational search for the common good is a defining feature of any politics worthy of the name.

      • Other sites consider him to be a German Revolutionary Right and Catholic philosopher who the Nazis were fond of like Spengler. But even if he was a Nazi, so what? If you are right, you’re right. Even Commies get it right every now and then like when Stalin iceaxed Trotsky or when Mao turned Mosques into pigsties (something we should really do to both the mosques that keep popping up here as well as those damned synagogues) or the beautiful homophobia of Castro, Guevara, and Lenin. When someone is right they are right no matter who they are.

      • Svar,
        I have criticized Schmitt’s definition of politics as well. Politics is not basically about friend-enemy distinction. It is when politics breaks down, we get enemies.

      • James Kalb,

        I entirely agree with you. But is this what Schmitt says?
        From Bonald’s review of The Concept of the Political:
        “Just as ethics distinguishes good from evil and economics distinguishes profitable from unprofitable, politics distinguishes friend from enemy.”

        To me, it does not sound as a “the possibility of existential conflict is a defining feature of politics.”

        Schmitt says politics is existential conflict per se. It is not the breakdown in rational conversation that makes enemies but that there is and can be no rational conversation in politics.

        You will notice that the word “neighbor” does not appear. It is a charcateristic of Orthosphere writers to ignore this key term.

      • It’s been a while since I read Schmitt, and I haven’t read the review. I did look at what the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says before writing my response, to make sure my memory hadn’t wandered off, and the account you give doesn’t sound like Schmitt. He doesn’t say politics is wholly friend/enemy, or wholly a state of exception, only that those things are essential to politics, and distinguish politics from other human involvements.

    • That is why the Catholic Church is a dead institution. She allowed her enemies to infiltrate her, to prey upon her little ones, and to corrupt her laity. The purpose of the shepherd is to keep the wolves away and exterminate them as they try to harm the flock. The Church has failed and worse, it seems that her leadership has purposefully failed. For this they must pay.

      Traditional institutions must be swept away in favor of a national rebirth and then rebuilt.

      • Nationality strikes me as more historical, contingent, and relative in nature than religion. To a greater extent, it’s what it is because a bunch of things happened rather than because of some inner impetus that can pull things back together that have been deeply disrupted. So national rebirth seems less likely as the starting place for a renewal of civilization than religious rebirth.

      • Your vision of nation is Spenglerian and Spengler is a man I deeply admire. Nations do change over time and are the mutable products of history.

        I will say that I once believed that religious revival will save civilization, however, the RCC is on the same level of the Mainline Protestantism Church in how both were infiltrated and the conservative leadership of both were basically asleep at the wheel. Religious rebirth will not happen with the current leadership, both civil and religious, that we have. The masses in general have a feminine nature in that they are responsive and reactive and both the laity of the Church and folk in a nation have this quality. They respond well to a strong leader and that’s why I feel that nationalism and national rebirth need to precede religious revival. After we have that in line, we can force the Church to clean up its act or if it refuses, destroy it and replace it with another orthodox Christian Church.

        The reason why I am so blase about wrecking the Church is because of this: http://mpcdot.com/forums/topic/7870-confessions-of-an-ex-seminarian/

        This is a site that is picking apart an article of an ex-seminarian who talks about the depravity of the seminary. A Catholic Church that spits upon the SSPX and ignores the Eastern Orthodox/Copts/Maronites in favor of pandering to Jews, Muslims, liberal wreckers in and out of the Church, the Lavender Mafia (if you read the article, you see that they make Jerry Sandusky look like far less of a subhuman) and lesbian bulldyke nuns deserves to be burned to the ground.

      • The advantage of the Catholic Church is that scripture, doctrine, and the Fathers, which provide the DNA and most basic functional form of the system, remain unchanged. That has practical significance when the way things are actually done is falling apart and people look for ways to pull things together. Things are more loosely organized within the Church than appears from outside, and it doesn’t take a lot of people if what they’re doing actually works. It takes time, of course, and there are many hard knocks on the way.

        I should add: I looked at the linked piece. I’m told seminaries have improved greatly since the horrors of the 70s and 80s, and Pilarczyk was a particularly bad guy. Which is not to say of course that things are close to OK now. That’s why I used the term “rebirth.”

      • Kalb, there is still something odd about this current Pope. He rubs me the wrong way.

        Either way, I feel the phrase Jesus used about how you can’t pour new wine into old wineskins to be a valid metaphor for the situation we have in the Church.

        If we are to save the RCC, the vast majority of the clergy will have to be removed and purged even though we are out of the 70’s and 80’s.

      • Trust in Darwin. What doesn’t work vanishes, what does eventually takes over. And you don’t have to purge the majority because the majority follows whatever is ascendent.

      • JK wrote: “Pilarczyk was a particularly bad guy.” The Archdiocese of Cincinnati went from having Bernardin as archbishop to Pilarczyk. And 37 years of apostate leadership really shows, in stone and in the heart (foul bastard iconoclasts and willing wardens of demons, the both of them). Though Orthodox, I have blood ties to the Roman Church, and the perfidy of these overseers has led to thousands of lost souls. I would ask God to have mercy on them, but I’m a particularly bad Christian. And so I won’t. You can do that if you wish.

      • Oh I never said that the majority needs to be purged, remember what I said about the feminine nature of the masses? The Church hierarchy and clergy are not apart of the masses however and the way they have been leading the flock astray.

        I trust in Darwin but remember Richard Weaver, ideas have consequences. We can’t wait for the liberal elites to die off, especially when they are changing the dynamics of this country with unrelenting mass immigration and their indoctrination of the younger generations with their spiritual syphilis. It’s time to wait for the right opportunity and then summon the will to power and take the helm of this country.

      • Svar…

        On the contrary, the masses are very anti-femininity/de facto homodyke and a toxic brew of radical sexual aggressiveness and an inexplicable self-annihilating sexual passivity. The masses are entirely deracinated to the point of radical sexual autonomy as their “highest principle.” The nexus between the masses and modern Christianity is then set around the idea of a “right” to love whomever one pleases (miscegenation/deracination/radical sexual autonomy). It is in the modern Church and liberal Christianity where the idea of our God being “all-loving” that the radical liberationist takes his queue. ALL SIDES BELIEVE in the “right” to “love” whom one pleases. This is clearly an anti-Christian belief. “We” only have the right to love the right things. Loving the wrong thing is deadly. Indifference to one’s race so as to detach “it” from even the consideration of being righteously loved OR righteously rejected appears, through a great amount of empirical evidence, to be another very deadly sin. It appears pathological. A deracinated Church is heading towards annihilation and the “white” Christian intellectual SILENTLY clings to the fantastical notion that a remnant of the Church shall remain and be rebuilt by those up and coming nonwhite Catholics anxiously swinging their “clubs” in the batter’s box.

  12. It’s the bureaucrats. And as I read about the development of bureaucracy, it sheds a dim light on Vatican I as well. Bureaucrats were how the monarchs weakened the nobility, but then the kings found themselves mere signatories in these impersonal modern states. Of course, the revolutionary movements allowed them throw off their putative lord- now, in serving the people, they serve no one.
    This no doubt happened in the Church as well. Vatican I is likely a bureaucratic caricature of what was. Over the top, and as such, setting the stage for Vatican II. When I was younger I actually thought the Pope could just change a commandment or two, just because he was Pope. This was no doubt a child’s overreaction to the doctrine of infallibility, but it is also informative as to how the propaganda of the right tends to serve the left.

    • It’s so hard to untangle these things! Loss of a transcendent reference point, loss of tradition, and the rise of bureaucracy all coordinate with each other. So you can tell the story different ways depending on whether you approach it from the standpoint of ontology (transcendence vs. immanence), epistemology (tradition vs. modern expertise), or institutions (successors of the apostles vs. ecclesiastical bureaucrats). You need the whole picture though to figure out what to do about it.

  13. James Kalb,
    I excerpt from Bonald’s review that show that for Schmitt, there is no rational conversation in politics.
    “Political consciousness is at its highest in identifying an enemy”
    “Enmity is a relation between two rival groups of people.”
    “The enemy needn’t be identified as immoral, ugly, or unprofitable as a trade partner.”
    ———————————————————————————————————
    So, there is no question of a rival concept of the Good. It is purely a a-rational enmity between two groups.
    —————————————————————————————————————
    “Political discourse can be recognized from the fact that its key concepts are purely polemical, i.e. are vacuous aside from the context in which they are being used to attack some other group”
    Identification of an enemy–and, hence, politics itself–requires the possibility of armed conflict.
    —————————————————————————————————————

    I simply do not see how this could be harmonised with the tradition of Western political thought.
    This is THE ‘political philosophy’ of Nazism and can not be baptized.

  14. James Kalb,
    You say
    ” But it’s a necessary point to make against the liberals,”

    The necessary point can be made (and has been made) without the baggage and false philosophy that Schmitt beings. The point that politics has limits is implicit in the very defintion itself.
    Arguments can only proceed to conclusion if premises are shared. If they are not, then arguments are futile and only brute force remains to settle the issue. I can even give examples
    1) Frontier between two states.
    2) That there should be slavery
    3) That unborn could be killed.
    4) That there should be private property
    5) That man should be able to marry man.

    • Some of what we’re arguing about is just definitions. I agree (and said so in my review) that Schmitt’s “concept” is inadequate as a description of politics as we usually use that word. I still do think that there’s value in what he did, though. He identified friend-enemy categorization as a distinct kind of discourse. He perhaps should have called it something other than “politics”, but we shouldn’t be detained over that. The point is that a disagreement is not the same thing as an attack. We rightly disapprove of people who are so thin-skinned that they interpret every disagreement as an attack, but it’s also an error to interpret an attack as being just a disagreement.

      • I don’t understand the resistance to the idea that the Nazi party had genuinely insightful political philosophers among its ranks. After all, only a fool would deny that there have been genuinely formidable Marxist social theorists.

      • Social Theory? There’s a rabbit hole we should perhaps avoid like grim death. Might I suggest the essay Wittgenstein’s Later Philosophy as Prophylaxis Against Theory in Allen’s Wittgenstein, Theory and the Arts as a way to begin to recognize language on holiday.

      • If there is dispute over the friend/enemy substance of politics then said dispute is in its lack of particularity. As it pertains to the white Christian, white Supremacists are your friends and anti-white Supremacists are your enemy. This is the politics of OUR time. Failure to “see” this clearcut divide cannot be advantageous. The Litmus Test is coming. It will be a truly deadening feel IF made to publicity deny WITH no apparent upside to any affirmation that is still clearly the absolute truth.

        The anti-white Supremacist IS THE ENEMY of ALL Christianity. And he is the enemy BECAUSE *you* are truly a white Supremacist.

        It is with this detail that “we” can dispense with any debates over friend/enemy politics.

      • Thordaddy, please pardon my seeming a little daft, but would you please define in layman’s terms what you mean by “white supremacist?”

        Bonald, I don’t understand that either, never have. It seems rather knee-jerk to think of Nazism as being so bad it couldn’t possibly have contained a single element of truth.

      • ‘Thordaddy, please pardon my seeming a little daft, but would you please define in layman’s terms what you mean by “white supremacist?”’

        This comes up every thread.

      • And every time I’m asked, I give the same answer…

        A white Supremacist is a white man who believes in and therefore strives towards objective Supremacy, ie., Perfection… The solution to the “infinite regress.” The Perfect Man as answer to Man’s fall and descent.

        White Christians are white Supremacists AND WHEN YOU DENY being a white Supremacist in the absolute sense (by submitting to the relativist perversion in the “absolute” sense) then you are EXPLICITLY DENYING being a Christian. In the game against high IQ “leftists,” this is their bloodless “victory.”

      • Mr. Morris…

        Tribal Christianity cannot be deracinated Christianity. Attempting to apply Christianity outside the racial scope is neither mandated or encouraged for there is no reason to submit any created particular to ideological pretext.

        White Christian = white Supremacist…

        This is a self-evident truth that I pointed out first BUT BY NO MEANS made true through public pronouncement of the equation. It is the Litmus Test coming soon to all white males and white male Christians… They will be FORCED TO disavow their Christianity and/or confirm their anti-white Supremacy OR affirm to the “charge” of being a white Supremacist.

      • My readers know I don’t object to white tribalism, but here I’m talking about a different kind of tribalism. There are hispanic, oriental, and negro Catholics, and a properly tribal Catholic should think of them as part of his “us”. He should feel comfortable saying “we are being oppressed by the Chinese government” or “we are being attacked in Africa by the Muslims”.

        A white Catholic’s affection for his race is connected to his love for the Church (and the Church always has his highest loyalty). By “Whites” he means “descendants of Europeans”, and by “Europeans” he means “the gentiles who accepted the Faith.” Hence our felt connection to pagan Hellenistic, Roman, and Norse cultures. Even though salvation came from the Jews, “we” were then living in darkness. The Jews were correct, but they were not us. The fact that plenty of Jews converted doesn’t affect our collective memory.

        This sort of racial-religious identity is easiest for whites, because the history of the Church and the history of Europe were co-extensive for so long. I don’t know what it feels like to be a Ugandan Catholic or a Japanese Catholic, whose racial history is mostly non-Christian.

      • Thordaddy, what of the white supremacist who is merely posing as a Christian? I realize that by your definition he can’t *really be* a white supremacist since he fails to meet the basic criteria of Christian, but in practical terms how is he to be discovered and properly dealt with?

      • Mr. Morris…

        If you studied the various wn movements over the decades and its intellectual leaders, you will find that these leaders NEVER referred to themselves as “white Supremacists,” and were nearly always CALLED “white supremacist” by the liberated media. Most leaders of wn past were national socialists and anti-Christian… In other words, they were anti-white Supremacists IN THE ABSOLUTE SENSE (they reject a hierarchy of white man). Of course, this made for a tough situation since from a NS perspective, white Christians MUST BE *your* convert class. So many wns of the past accepted the label without dispute so as to avoid a real examination and never appropriated the name for themselves because they were too intellectually honest and understood that inherent to “socialism” is a rejection of The Perfect Man and an anti-Supremacist “metaphysics” beneath it all.

      • Mr. Morris…

        And there is of course the Hollywood “white supremacist” that is to equal a white degenerate. But many of “us” already know the inherent and LIBERATIONIST pitfall that is strict racial reductionism… Which DOES NOT then preclude a race of men seeking and achieving racial superiority of they so desire.

      • Is it not necessary to first dis-establish Kantian ethics as THE ethics, before politics in the Schmittian sense–either in ordinary terms or in the “state of exception”–is possible? That is, rather than a political appeal, is not good tribalism an ethical appeal?
        Maybe that is what has been stated, and I skimmed past it?

        I think Mr. Kalb wants to make his point, regardless of lack of consensus in meaning and value with Liberals, because Liberalism ultimately fails on its own lights. That is, for a system founded upon, premised sine qua non upon, openness and tolerance; it is paradoxical to promote (which is being done openly today), “tolerance for everyone… except the intolerant.” Like a Dali painting, it is pathological, and reveals a psychological problem (take that, Prof. Adorno!).

        A Nazi complains of persecution. The Liberal retorts that he has no standing, because he the Nazi is himself a persecutor.
        Yes, but the Nazi does not justify his system upon non-persecution, as does the Liberal.

    • “I don’t know what it feels like to be a Ugandan Catholic,” etc.

      I have a number of extended family members who are “true believing” ultra-charismatics, whereas my own Christianity places a lot more emphasis on Scripture and sound doctrine than on so called “gifts of the spirit” whereby I’m supposed to be able to look at someone and see, as if on a canvas, all the rape and incest, physical abuse and general misery (s)he has been subjected to all of his life. Obviously there is a real kind of a disconnect between myself and these family members, though they be blood relatives and of the same race and same general background. In a number of important ways, I identify more with the Catholic tribe than I do with them. Ugandan Catholics must experience something like that, albeit it must be more profound. We only have one self-described atheist in our group – a distant relative – I have virtually nothing in common with him.

  15. “America” is a blood-nation. The United States is a legal fiction, a creation of the American people – our trade association, if you will.

    There is no such thing as a citizen of America although many people use the misnomer “American citizen”. There are U.S. citizens and there are Americans and they are distinctively separate dimensions.

    However, it is not surprising that foreign Roman Catholics and their bigotry that alienates them from fellow Christians and Whites because of their unquestioned loyalty to self-appointed bishops instead of their own aristocracy.

    My fathers — the Founding Fathers — came here to be rid of the Sheople and their endless conniving. They followed us!

    Pity.

    It was nice while it lasted.

  16. “But they shall proceed no farther; for their folly shall be manifest to all men, as theirs also was”. 2 Timothy 3:9
    This is not the first time that the Catholic Church has been dominated by heresy with similar detrimental results for the Church and civilization.
    10.] So also when the Arian poison had infected not an insignificant portion of the Church but almost the whole world, so that a sort of blindness had fallen upon almost all the bishops of the Latin tongue, circumvented partly by force partly by fraud, and was preventing them from seeing what was most expedient to be done in the midst of so much confusion, then whoever was a true lover and worshipper of Christ, preferring the ancient belief to the novel misbelief, escaped the pestilent infection.

    [11.] By the peril of which time was abundantly shown how great a calamity the introduction of a novel doctrine causes. For then truly not only interests of small account, but others of the very gravest importance, were subverted. For not only affinities, relationships, friendships, families, but moreover, cities, peoples, provinces, nations, at last the whole Roman Empire, were shaken to their foundation and ruined. For when this same profane Arian novelty, like a Bellona or a Fury, had first taken captive the Emperor, and had then subjected all the principal persons of the palace to new laws, from that time it never ceased to involve everything in confusion, disturbing all things, public and private, sacred and profane, paying no regard to what was good and true, but, as though holding a position of authority, smiting whomsoever it pleased. Then wives were violated, widows ravished, virgins profaned, monasteries demolished, clergymen ejected, the inferior clergy scourged, priests driven into exile, jails, prisons, mines, filled with saints, of whom the greater part, forbidden to enter into cities, thrust forth from their homes to wander in deserts and caves, among rocks and the haunts of wild beasts, exposed to nakedness, hunger, thirst, were worn out and consumed. Of all of which was there any other cause than that, while human superstitions are being brought in to supplant heavenly doctrine, while well established antiquity is being subverted by wicked novelty, while the institutions of former ages are being set at naught, while the decrees of our fathers are being rescinded, while the determinations of our ancestors are being torn in pieces, the lust of profane and novel curiosity refuses to restrict itself within the most chaste limits of hallowed and uncorrupt antiquity?http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3506.htm
    What we are seeing now is the final working out of the consequences of the abandonment of the Catholic Faith by the European peoples for the Protestant heresy. It is Protestantism that is responsible for the destruction of the European races, peoples and culture, not Catholicism.
    I am a pre-Vatican II Catholic and, although I didn’t realize it at the time because I was a child, the Catholic Faith had already been seriously undermined before Vatican II by Liberalism and Puritanism (both offshoots of the Protestant heresy) and had been replaced by an almost superstitious human faith in private revelations, the devotions to the Sacred Heart, Fatima etc.
    And that is why the reaction to Vatican II on the part of both the clergy and the faithful was so supine.
    I am a racialist in the sense that of all the races it was the white European races that accepted Catholicism so readily to produce the greatest civilization the world has ever known. For example, St. Thomas had tried to evangelize the Indian sub-continent as early as AD 50 but made little inroad, although the history of the ‘Thomas Christians’ is very interesting.
    The English have been under jewish domination for a very long time and I should imagine they are the most materialistic,secular, atheistic people in the whole of Europe and must represent very little threat to jews and their interests. I was puzzled therefore as to why the jews were determined to obliterate their race, nation and culture through the destruction of their families and communities by socialism and Muslim immigration. I came to the conclusion that the jews are determined to destroy the European races firstly, as a punishment for once having embraced the Catholic faith and secondly, out of fear that they might embrace it again.

    • But this is the first time that the primary vessels of Catholicism in particular and Christianity in general face existential crisis BOTH within (self-annihilating) and without (genocidal). “We” don’t have to save the Faith. But “we” do need to save those most likely to carry it on with fidelity.

      • I think you have put the cart before the horse. Without the Faith, the people most likely to carry it on, will not survive. The only people who are likely to be willing to die to save their people and the Catholic Faith, like the martyrs at Otranto, are those who have a strong Catholic faith. Do you think that a protestant, atheist, Vatican II Catholic, secular liberal or paganist when it comes to a choice between converting to Islam say, or being beheaded, will willingly give up their lives? I sincerely doubt it.
        Why did Islam dominate the Eastern Orthodox countries so quickly after the schism, wasn’t it because their faith had been corrupted?
        I have to laugh at those white racialist sites who think that their evolutionary superiority is responsible for the superiority of western civilisation. A people who permits the abortion of babies and the harvesting and selling of baby parts are no better than the worst of savages . They pretend to hate the jews but they hate Catholicism more.They blame Catholicism for the demise of western civilisation but do you really think that one of them will lay down their lives so that Darwinism can be taught in schools; for freedom of religion; for the right to a secular state; for the right to be an atheist, agnostic or puritan? I do not think so. And why do you think peoples and nations who permit abortion and the selling of baby parts have any right to exist? Why do you think we deserve a better fate than the people of Carthage who so disgusted the Romans with their sacrifice of their own children that, after defeating them, the Romans salted the earth so that they could never return.

      • “And why do you think people who permit abortion and the selling of baby parts have any right to exist?”

        Most of us here recognize that our day of reckoning is coming, Janet. But in answer to your question, evidently God hasn’t seen fit to destroy us yet. I imagine we’re like the Amorites of old; God allows us to continue to exist because the iniquity of the Americans is not yet full.

  17. Who will kill for the faith? Catholics are only allowed to carry out defensive wars.
    Look at the reaction of the people of the European nations in the face of the latest Muslim invasions. They are too scared and cowed to even go to prison for the freedom to express their disgust at the treachery of their governments in allowing the invasion. They are too lazy and uninterested to discover the reasons behind this invasion.They do not even know their own history or why their civilisation was once superior to that of Islam. Most support the introduction of euthanasia and I can see that in a few years time they will quite happily volunteer to be killed by the government rather than suffer physical pain or material poverty.
    If you try and enlighten them as I have done, they look at you as if you are reincarnation of Hitler himself, change the subject and treat you as a pariah. They prefer to believe the lies about the 2nd World war ( the good war) ; they prefer to believe the official story about 9/11; Charlie Hebdo; global warming etc. They prefer to believe the lies rather than face uncomfortable truths.

    • You’re not telling us anything we don’t already know, Janet. But, yes, we’re getting a good taste of what it must have felt like to be Noah in his day.

      • The point I’m trying to make which seems to be denied by many people on the blog is that unless we return to the true Catholic Faith, the Faith not contaminated by Liberalism, Protestantism, Puritanism, private revelations etc. and intolerant of error the fate of the European races is extinction.

      • I know. But people will only accept what they are prepared to accept. Twenty years ago I rejected Catholicism basically out of hand. There were several reasons for this, not the least of which was that I was taught certain things about Catholicism that aren’t exactly true, and also the visible Church – the post Vatican II Church – was more or less all I had to go on in terms of what Catholicism actually is in practice. Later on in life I was drawn to and began reading sites like this. Don’t knock it; were it not for sites like this where a variety of opinions, including Traditionalist Catholic opinion, are offered up, I would still be where I was twenty years ago, ten years ago, five years ago. At each of those intervals conversion to Catholicism was simply out of the question. It no longer is.

      • @Terry Morris…

        At the same time, there is the epiphany. A few days ago, *you* wouldn’t dare call yourself a white Supremacist. Three days later, *you* have no choice in the matter. You are one or you are an anti-Christian. This goes for the entire Orthosphere and ALL white Christians. The entire liberationist paradigm RELIES on the traditional white Christian NOT SEEING HIMSELF ABSOLUTELY, ie., as a Supremacist, white or otherwise. The entire liberationist paradigm relies on the traditional white Christian to see himself in relativist fashion. The entire liberationist paradigm stays afloat not due the delusions of the liberated masses, but due the ABSOLUTE denial of traditional white Christians.

      • “A few days ago you wouldn’t dare call yourself a white Supremacist.”

        Actually, that’s not exactly the case. It all depends on who’s asking, and more importantly what (s)he means by white supremacist.

        Some years ago I was in a discussion with a self-described “moderate Muslim” who asked whether I considered my religion (Christianity) to be superior to his religion (Islam). My answer was an emphatic YES, of course I believe Christianity is superior to Islam! To which he answered that this then makes me a bigot. My answer to that charge was simply to own it. And why not? If to his mind I or anyone else who believes Christianity is superior to other religions is, by virtue thereof, a bigot, then who am I to say otherwise? I’m certainly never going to deny Christianity is the superior religion, thus he’s never going to believe I’m anything other than a bigot. So what? The real question is does he think his form of bigotry is superior to my form of bigotry. Apparently he does or he wouldn’t embrace it.

        All of this applies as well to what you’re saying about white supremacy; if someone tries to get me to deny the superiority of Christianity on the basis that it makes me a white supremacist, then I’m simply going to own the label and that’ll be that.

    • @Janet Rocha…

      From one who came from a place of radical autonomy to an explicit white Supremacy, the critique of modern Catholicism as a self-annihilating institution is empirically “in your face.” The game of the anti-(white) Supremacists… Those *you* euphemistically call “liberals desirous of equality…” Is to fashion a self-annihilating Christianity (so as to be equal to the self-annihilating liberationIst). This looks very much like Christians willing to die for the Faith, but unwilling to kill for the Faith. And if there is one “thing” about Christianity that sets “it” apart from all other religions and ideologies it is The Perfect Man who requires no inkling of self-annihilation amongst those who have faith in His Perfection.

  18. Pingback: This Week in Reaction (2015/08/16) | The Reactivity Place

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