The Right Religion

“We will kill in ourselves a world in order to build another, a higher one reaching to the heavens.”

— Corneliu Zelea Codreanu

Reaction has a problem with religion. We are now several years into the reactionary renaissance, and by this time, it is near-universally recognized that religion is a positive social force, with a near-unparalleled ability to coordinate societies and encourage virtue. You will find few reactionary writers who don’t speak warmly of some religious views, and a substantial number piously practice some religion or another. At the same time, there is no such consensus about which religious traditions should be given pride of place. Reaction contains Catholic and Orthodox Christians, Pagans and Protestants, a handful of Mormons, and even the occasional Jew—and of course, we cannot forget the actual atheists, quite numerous in reactionary circles, who may harbor some positive thoughts about religion but do not actually practice.

Given this immense diversity, when the official Church of the Restoration is consecrated (or its permanent absence is announced), a lot of people are going to be very disappointed. However, there is a silver lining. While we don’t agree on which religious tradition to support, we do agree that some religions are awful and should be limited or suppressed in a Western context. Islam is the first example that comes to mind, but I consider it of far less importance to the other, native example of a destructive anti-religion: progressivism. Progressivism has been analyzed as a mutant offspring of protestant Christianity even before Moldbug, and that analysis has become part of the core background knowledge with which all reactionaries are familiar.

Yet, this observation itself should give us pause. Progressivism is tremendously useful for social organization. It has effectively taken over the world, but it orients that organization to destructive and anti-civilizational ends. Every positive observation we might make about religion can be recast in a negative light in the case of progressivism.

For example, progressivism encourages people to give up short-term worldly success in favor of higher forms of virtue by becoming childless, genderqueer activists. Progressivism creates a socially validating myth about progress and the future which enables people to orient their lives and feel like they are participating in something larger than themselves. Progressivism describes a higher, moral law which supersedes human-authored statutes, providing the stance to critique the corrupt elements of the current world order. Progressivism gives us a vision of the world as it could be, a Paradise to which we can ascend.

This observation is core to the critique of religion which is offered by atheist reactionaries. The connection of progressivism to Christianity is especially well-known to those pagans who take this cladistic relationship as a reason to discredit Christianity. Even those who are Christians of some kind or another have to recognize that it is not sufficient to have “a religion, any religion”. It matters that we have the right religion. Moldbug treats revealing the religious nature of progressivism as synonymous with discrediting it, but since we’ve decided to take religion a little more seriously, this swift dismissal will no longer suffice. It behooves us to notice the ways in which the religious nature of progressivism actually works to its favor, before we turn to considering how the reactionary is to use this knowledge.

The first thing we notice is a paradox: Progress does not believe itself to be a religion. In general, progressives will turn their nose up at the idea that their beliefs have anything in common with religion, which they generally regard as a reactionary force. It has become more and more widespread to notice the religious quality to progressivism, but so, too, have the denials become more strident. How is it that the most successful religious movement of the 19th and 20th centuries denies that it has anything to do with religion?

The resolution to this paradox lies in the unwilling assist that Progress gets from liberalism, its slightly older sister. One of the core tenets of classical liberalism is that of religious tolerance. The principle of tolerance renders any kind of official, political recognition of religion suspect, enshrining in its place the notion that the state must be strictly neutral with regards to the exercise of religion, which is suffered to exist only as a private, non-political observance. This hampers the ability of religious groups to make explicit religious arguments in the public square, and as the logic of liberalism works itself out, religiosity is gradually marginalized as a significant public force.

At the same time, Progress grows perpetually in influence, precisely because it is not overtly religious. The loss of explicit theism and historic Christian doctrinal content in progressivism is not accidental. It is precisely because Progress maintains the sociological dimension of religion without its doctrinal trappings that it was able to essentially take over most public institutions: it provides the same advantages of coordination and motivation that traditional religions have, but it isn’t barred by liberalism from attempting to take over the state.

Furthermore, by preventing its main rivals attempting to compete with it, progressivism is able to seize control of the state with barely any resistance. This is why liberalism and progressivism are consistently found together, and why there is barely any such thing as a liberal movement that is not also progressive—at least at first. The only reason why we even want to distinguish liberal and progressive ideologies is because there are two peculiar species in which the instincts are divided, and which provide an important counterpoint for this analysis. The first is the non-progressive liberal, who in the U.S. goes by the name of the “mainstream conservative.” In Europe, the equivalent parties are often called “Liberal”, which is at least a more honest name.

This species of liberal is horrified by the apocalyptic and utopian vision of the progressive, but he thinks that the solution to this problem is simply to double down on liberalism. These are the sorts of conservatives who recoil in horror from the notion of a state church or any kind of illiberal policy for combating progressives, the conservatives who consider Vladimir Putin the greatest threat to liberty today. They apply the pesticide which eliminates the natural competitors of progressivism, and then they watch aghast as their fields are filled with progressive weeds. At the other end of the spectrum is the illiberal progressive. This fellow deserves at least the compliment of being clear-thinking and realistic, though not honest. The attitude of the illiberal progressive was described by Moldbug in a well-known essay quoting from the ACLU founder Roger Baldwin, writing in the 1930’s:

In Soviet Russia, despite the rigid controls and suppression of opposition, the regime is dominated by the economic needs of workers and peasants. Their economic power, even when unorganized, is the force behind it. Their liberties won by the Revolution are the ultimate dictators of Soviet policy. In this lies the chief justification for the hope that, with the increasing share by the masses in all activities of life, the rigors of centralized dictatorship will be lessened and the creative forces given free rein. Peasants and workers are keenly aware of their new liberties won by the Revolution. Anywhere you can hear voiced their belief that, whatever their criticism and discontent, that they are “free.” And they constitute over ninety percent of the Russian people. Such an attitude as I express toward the relation of economic to civil liberty may easily be construed as condoning in Russia repressions which I condemn in capitalist countries. It is true that I feel differently about them, because I regard them as unlike. Repressions in western democracies are weapons of struggle in a transition period to socialism. The society the Communists seek to create will be freed of class struggle — if achieved — and therefore of repression.

The purpose of civil liberties is to enable communism, you see, and once we have communism, we no longer require civil liberties. Very clear, wouldn’t you say, comrade? In the contemporary world, this attitude finds its clearest presentation in the social justice movement, which openly assaults the liberal notions of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of association. In their place, the SJWs present their speech codes and purity rituals as public obligations, demanding that state and corporate power be used to enforce their ideals and oppress their enemies. These are the students who rioted in Berkely, Middlebury, Yale and Missouri.

We can take some comfort in the fact that their movement seems to have crested, and public opinion seems to be somewhat turning against them. But only a little: what is reasserting itself is merely liberalism in the face of an illiberal progressive movement that overplayed its hand. Liberalism is only ever a holding pattern. Under liberal assumptions, crypto-religious progressives can continue to consolidate power and gain adherents, until they have enough power to attempt to abolish liberalism again.

So, this is where the reactionary movement finds itself: impressed by religious power but unable to agree upon an actual religion and at war with a crypto-religious system that gains enormous power from offering religious zeal without traditional religious forms. There does not seem to be a solution to this problem. Even if you could get all reactionaries to agree to a particular religious tradition, we would only be making the progressives’ job easier, as they would then appeal to the existing liberal tradition and declare the reactionary religion illegitimate as a basis for state power.

Then someone said something to me the other day in a private reactionary forum: could you do progressivism, but from the Right?

To summarize where we’re at so far: I’ve discussed the way the problem of religion within reactionary circles. We have diverse religious commitments and no clear way to resolve the differences between them. Furthermore, under the prevailing ideology of liberalism, any explicitly religious movement which aims to capture the state is considered ipso facto illegitimate, so resolving this tension would weaken reaction rather than strengthening it.

Progressivism exploits this feature of liberalism by marrying religious zeal to a form which is not conventionally religious, allowing it to gain control of the state without activating liberal antibodies—at least, not until it’s too late. With this in mind, it has been suggestion that to fight progressivism we may need a way to “do progressivism from the Right.” What we mean by this is offering an ideology capable of reaping many of the benefits of religion, but which is not a religion on its face and therefore cannot be prohibited on liberal grounds. And yet, this ideology provides the organizing principle for a takeover of the state.

Such a creature, if it were to exist, would need to have several characteristics. The ideology should be non-religious enough that one could argue for it in any forum where explicit religious argument would be poorly received. The crypto-religion should be expressible in terms which limit the instincts of crimestop and sound like practical common sense, rather than arbitrary dogma. This meta-religious ideology should not conflict with the existing religious commitments of reactionaries, whatever they are, but should rather strengthen them. Finally, the ideology should have a “poison pill” aspect: once its initial precepts are accepted, logical consistency should drive one in the direction of full reaction, in much the same way that apparently innocent progressive measures tend to drive their hosts towards full-blown progressivism over time.

This is a heady thing to contemplate, especially because it smacks of the execrable universalist canard that there is some set of non-specific religious principles which underlies all religions and can be found and practiced without the accretions of dogma. Let us begin, then, by disavowing this notion. What I am about to describe is not a religion. It is, at best, the bones of a religion, the seeds from which a religion might grow, or a test by which true religion can be recognized. We lack rituals, communities, and metaphysics. What we do have are the Laws of Gnon: genuine reactionary insights into the nature of the world which accord with every religious tradition and can counteract the beautiful lies of progressivism. If we have rightly discerned nature of Gnon, then every one of these is a truth which will empower us insofar as we embrace it and condemn us if we ignore it.

Dominus Vobiscum

The first Law of Gnon is the law of hierarchy. Rectitude comes from submission to the proper authorities. It is not earned by mere individual excellence or private holiness. A man finds his true worth by putting his efforts into the service of those above him, and an organization proves its worthiness insofar as it creates an effective hierarchy internally and identifies the men who are fit to hold each rank. Hierarchy is the principle by which Gnon runs the universe. Progressives proclaim the opposite. They proclaim equality, which is a myth except at the lowest levels of the hierarchy. Equality is a mob, a mass, an undirected blob which commands no one and achieves nothing.

Furthermore, the progressives themselves reveal this in their preferences. Every progressive organization that actually accomplishes anything does so because it organizes itself internally on hierarchical lines, and this provides an outlet to undermine them. Progressive organizations should be castigated for their refusal to actual implement equality internally, while reactionary organizations quietly and effectively form themselves into ranks. Let the progressives have their equality. It will be the means by which we defeat them.

The reactionary man, first off, submits himself to the duly constituted authorities around him. In his church, he obeys his priest; on the street, the police. In his home, the reactionary man is a master, and he doesn’t for a moment consider that his family relationships ought to be egalitarian. Where he has authority, he executes it with judgement. Where chaos exists, he look for ways to bring it into order. Great strides have been made in the reactionary movement by taking the inchoate, disorganized early forms of the movement—the uncoordinated blogs and perpetual, cacophonous argument—and forged them into actual societies.

Hierarchy creates strength. Hierarchy is the law of Gnon.

Estote Ergo Vos Perfecti

The second law of Gnon is greatness. Greatness is that towards which we strive. We do not console ourselves with sufficient mediocrity, or minor accomplishments which merely serve to salve our egos. In everything, we strive for greatness, for majesty, for mastery, for the divine. We do not often reach those heights. But in every case, we point towards them, because the struggle to attain those goals makes us who we are and gradually forms us into the image of who we ought to be. This principle stands in stark contrast to the progressive, who is engaged in perpetual apologetics for people as they “naturally” are. The progressive finds people who have failed to reach greatness and expends tremendous energy trying to excuse them or even valorize their failure as a secret success. Thus, the progressive ennobles the gluttonous, the lustful, the slothful, the cowardly and claims that these are true virtues.

Alongside progressivism, there is a widespread strain of American Christianity which likewise prides itself for its glorification of failure, forgetting the call to “make disciples” in its rush to proclaim the forgiveness of sins. The reactionary man will have none of this. We will take in the gluttonous, lustful, lazy, cowards of this age, of course. Sins will be forgiven. But we take these people in in order to challenge them to become strong, and self-controlled, and industrious, and brave. We valorize the physical discipline required for the sculpted physique, the mental discipline required by the learned scholar, and the spiritual discipline required of the true ascetic. Greatness makes us worthy.

Greatness is the law of Gnon.

In Saecula Saeculorum

The third law of Gnon is eternity. Eternity is the yardstick by which we measure our efforts. Ideally, whatever we build, whatever we make, whatever we seek to become, we do it in the hope of it lasting forever. Sometimes we recognize the limits of human frailty, and we console ourselves with accomplishments which may last a mere millenium or so. But the goal is always true permanence: the achievement of forever. And for that reason, we don’t do anything merely temporarily convenient if its convenience interferes with our long-term goals. We plan for our children and our children’s children. We want to be here for the long haul.

The progressive does not think about forever. The progressive often assumes that the future will take care of itself, due to the law of Progress, and so while he may devote himself to playing a part in pushing the world towards the arc of moral progress, he is immediately focused on immediate benefits in his personal life, namely by spending profligately, undermining social norms, destroying institutions, and wrecking societies. All of these things are done for immediate benefits, and what other kind of benefit is there? The gross utilitarian is the worst member of this species, for the utilitarians have constructed an axiom specifically for this scenario, declaring the preferences of unborn people (which is to say, nearly all people) to be meaningless in favor of the pleasures of the currently alive.

The reactionary does not forget his children or his grandchildren. He hopes to bequeath something to future generations. He knows that the only true judge of accomplishment is the judge of eternity, and that pleasures which are transitory will always pale next to those which last forever. We build “to the ages of ages”. We may not win tomorrow. But we who build for the future will be the only ones who arrive to see it.

Deus Vult

The final observation is not one of the laws of Gnon, but an observation of their consequences. The black pill states that we will lose without honor. This is a lie. The black pill is really nothing more than the blue pill, because it asserts that pretty lies defeat hard truths. The red pill, meanwhile, the bracing and uncomfortable truths which disturb the things that we wish were true, must ultimately be the white pill. Those who live according to the laws of Gnon will prosper—perhaps not immediately, perhaps not even in the next century. But what is a century to someone who lives with the vision of eternity? Those who align themselves with the laws of Gnon, with hierarchy, with greatness, and with eternity–they will ultimately inherit the world to come. We will win, because the nature of the world is to reward those who understand the nature of the world and act accordingly. We will win, because it is the will of Gnon.

So spread the good news of reaction. In every organization you join, advocate for hierarchy and against democracy. Push for greatness over mediocrity. Prefer long-term gain over short-term pleasures.

Deus vult.

Liked it? Take a second to support Social Matter on Patreon!
View All

41 Comments

  1. ConantheContrarian April 27, 2017 at 10:58 am

    I find these ideals intertwined, and each ideal gives the other ideals positive feedback. Why should I submit to an egalitarian authority when that authority glorifies mediocrity or depravity, when it strives for nothing but the next welfare check or renewal of the EBT card.
    Good job, Iulian.

  2. It is indeed humiliating to have to submit to the egalitarian pigsty-State, but bear in mind an ancient principle of Reaction: it’s better that men be governed badly than not at all.

  3. “Progress does not believe itself to be a religion.”

    Nor, in fact, do many (most?) low-church sects in Christianity. It’s the subject of many sermons in such sects: How could Christianity be a religion, when it is… “a personal relationship with Jesus/God/both”, truth and goodness itself, inner enlightenment, etc ?

    The nominalism runs deep. Progress doesn’t see itself as a religion for the exact same reasons that personal relationships with Jesus are not conceived as religion. They are rooted in the same error.

  4. “Reaction contains Catholic and Orthodox Christians, Pagans and Protestants, a handful of Mormons, and even the occasional Jew”

    Wait…Protestants? Who let *those* people in??

    1. William Walthall April 27, 2017 at 9:43 pm

      Patriactionary is Reformed.

  5. I think the real overarching thread that connects all reaction and all progressive ideologies is the difference between iconodules and iconoclasts. Islam and Radical Protestantism have iconoclasm as a key part of their faith and it is why the alliance seems sustainable long term. Our various faiths, groups and cultures arrayed against them are the iconodules; the worshipers of civilization. The iconoclasts have been beaten before and although we have been staring down the barrel of the largest iconoclastic wave of all recorded human history, I think this is a good place to start.

  6. Great article, not having a unified religious tradition is a huge problem for those of us in America. That being said, while I sympathize with the direction your taking here i.e. attempting to set the stage for a non-religious “religion of gnon.” I don’t think it’s the way to go.

    What’s going to happen is that you’re going to basically end up recreating Enlightenment “Natural Law” theorizing, this was a disaster. I realize I’m in the minority in believing this, but it also happens to be factually correct. The problem is that factually speaking, as Hume taught us, there is no ought from is. Thus, while one can observe how nature operates there is simply no way to transmute these observations into meaningful “oughts” which can be objectively known.

    The only solution is to ground your system upon a “Revelation” which cannot be verified rationally. There simply is no other way that works.

    1. Speaking practically, the problem then becomes which strain of Christianity would we propose to become the unifying religious tradition in a country as religiously diverse as the USA or any spinoff successor states (excluding the obvious, i.e. any non-Christian denomination)? Personally, I’d stump for making Baptists the established church, while extending toleration to other groups that are at least trinitarian. I’m sure others would differ, of course.

      Ultimately, what is most needed is to accept that Christianity needs to seriously consider getting back to its actual apostolic roots based in many of the spiritual virile traditions observed by Evola in big-T Tradition, but which are, of course, only dimly represented in the pagan settings which he surveys. These apostolic roots are obviously not going to be Evangelicalism – which is far too influenced by a combination of Muh Constitutionalism, Muh Niceness, Muh Israel, and Muh Sentimentalism. BUT…it will also not be represented by Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, which are far too “demetrian” (to use Evola’s term) in their doctrines and practice, introducing many effeminacies such as a celibate priesthood (RC only for that one), Marianism, the view of the church as “mother,” and so forth, which represent grossly “lunar” (again, using Evola’s terminology) and feminising tendencies.

      Such a return won’t be anything “new,” but it might *seem* so because it hasn’t been seen – or a least not in its fullness – for over 1800 years.

      1. The Baptist Church could not be an Official Religion because The Baptist Church literally does not exist. A State Religion must have sovereignty over itself and requires hierarchy, high church polity, to do that—the existence of which is proscribed (AFAIK) by Baptist theology.

        Of course, since there is no Official Baptist Theology (see above), I suppose you could find (or invent) some High Church Baptists who trace the credentials of their “Bishop” all the way back to St. Peter, and install them.

    2. There is a difference between “deriving ought from is” and “grounding and laundering ought from is.”

      The Humean strawman is that anyone actually does the former. The Humean dupe is the one who won’t do the latter, for fear of doing the former.

      1. This is nonsense, people attempt to do this all the time see: any system from objectivism to Enlightenment Deism which attempts to derive moral laws from the from natural conditions (what they would call nature’s laws.)

  7. Arguably the problem with Enlightenment Natural-law theorizing was that they did it wrong, starting from wholly isolated individual atoms in the “state of Nature” for whom self-preservation is the overwhelming end with respect to which everything else is secondary. There are other ways of thinking about it. The problem with relying on Revelation is that Scripture doesn’t offer a complete set of rules for living or come close (e.g. unlike Judaism or Islam, it is totally silent about civil law). Man has to discover the rest of Divine law for himself through use of his faculty of Reason; hence Natural law.

  8. I see the great merits of this article, particularly its succinct description of how Liberalism manages to pwn everybody, but I agree with P.T. that it misses one of Maistre’s key points undergirding the success of Reactionary societies: the intangible and irrational, unquestionable, dark and mysterious core at their heart.

    You describe the offering as the ‘bones’ of a religion, and while I understand this is just symbolic language, bones are very different from seeds. Things don’t grow from bones, bones grow from things. You have correctly outlined much of the positive societal trapping provided by religion, but it can’t actually exist without it as an adrift concept. This is one of the lessons of the liberal experience.

    To address two of your points specifically: greatness and eternity, these things are important, but it is hard to get people to actually consider them to be important outside of a religious framework, and this is precisely why Reactionaries tend to (though as you point out, not always) gravitate into some kind of dogmatic tradition if they are not there already.

    It’s easy to think that Liberalism, malevolent as we know it to be, is inculcating in people all of these sinister values and making them behave in the way that makes Modern living so disdain worthy, but a huge unmistakable part of this is not active but passive. It is Liberalism quite literally sitting back and letting men do what men do once inhibitions are no longer enforced with an iron fist.

    It is interesting you begin what is clearly a very intuitive and thoughtful piece with a quote from Căpitanul, as he was the one leader from that period who I would say cannot really be considered outside of the tradition he emerged from, and that was part of what made his movement so awe-inspiring. It did not have either the cold indifference to religion of Fascism, the somewhat exhausted acknowledgement of Falangism, nor the cynical misrepresentation and search for a new tradition of Nazism. The Iron Guard incontestably suffered the worst and most brutal persecution of any movements akin to it, and I seriously question whether other movements of the time would have endured such an onslaught. The scores of dead Legionaries make Hitler’s 16 “blood martyrs” look like bruised knees.

    I understand this was written for an American audience, so is certainly addressing a problem concerning the American religiosity which I have mentioned before, but like P.T. I am sceptical of an attempt to replicate what Progressivism does “for the right”. To me, this seems something like a contradiction in terms, and may fall into the trap of “we can do leftism, but manage it better than these guys”, which was essentially what communism’s multiple iterations did, with no reward at the end.

    1. Iulian Bretonescu April 28, 2017 at 12:04 am

      Mark, you are absolutely correct that it’s hard to get people to care about many of these values outside of a religious framework. No one except no one should be converting to “NRx Religion” or attempting to actually practice it as such—that would defeat the entire point. What I attempted to outline were points of commonality between all acceptable reactionary religions, and a kind of meta-religious framework which can be used to ground reaction moving forward given the existing diversity of religious views.

      1. In that sense then, this is totally fine in outlining the common sociopolitical markers of positive social religion (i.e – the Traditional religions). This it does well, though I would have added an extra virtue in the ‘organic collectivization’ of religion, that positive religions bind people together, help them trust one another, and negate part of the need for state-imposed collectivism, which is almost always negative. In short, religion being a necessity for the development of ‘communities’, not just because they make us value the future (as you rightly stated), but because they help us to feel a familiarity and kinship with those around us.

  9. The answer to our problems is already happening; Jacobinism from the Right. It’s happening and it suits us, it’s natural.
    For what are we but the enraged and wronged peasants, the sans coulettes ruled by rapacious criminals? We’ve had enough.

    As far as religion my chief objection to a new one is work with what you have…Christianity …and just restore it to it’s normal traditional bounds.

    As far as starting fresh here is the most likely outcome: Nazism but with an American Face. You will likely soon find this is your chief competitor.

    Neither is ideal but too bad philosophers the world is moving faster than your debates. For while not meeting with your tastes the world is not waiting on you. Neither Trad Christianity nor Nazism is ideal but both works. That’s all practical people care about – what is working.

  10. Tremendous post. Best thing I’ve read in terms of neoreaction in years.

  11. By the way I agree with everything in the essay but starting fresh. I agree with what is good and great.
    I caution you about submitting to hierarchy that does not yet exist and it has not fallen out by struggle who to submit to.

    Too late for starting fresh and no this isn’t a generational struggle. You want it to be-too bad.

    It’s over for us if we don’t win fast and in next 4+ years.
    And once it begins full court storm press. We don’t have staying power. We don’t endure. The Left wins that war.

    The Right wins very fast in storm offensive and takes it all or not at all. That’s our war, that’s America’s winning way of war, that’s how the Right wins. The Right has no staying power without victory, the Left is very good at enduring. They are after all weeds.

  12. I can’t see any reason why a westerner would convert to Orthodox Christians besides pandering to the russians. The russian church is hollow and overcommercialized. Maybee not to the grades of “help the lords work by sending a check today brothers and sisters!”, but still.
    I think the fitting religion for the right would be Pantheism.
    Paganism is just self worship that turns into ugly nihilism if it gets disapointed.

  13. Ioannes Barbarus April 28, 2017 at 8:50 am

    Sounds like a bunch of LARPing. Neoreaction needs religion. So let’s have them fight it out. The one that wins, wins, and expels dissenters. If it’s not traditional integral Catholicism, then I’ll know you’re enemies and not friends.

    You claim to seek the higher spiritual things, to save yourselves and us from modernity? Then do it! Pacing around like this has gone on for too long and begins to prove no one here is a natural leader or believes what he says he believes.

    1. “If it’s not traditional integral Catholicism, then I’ll know you’re enemies and not friends.”

      If that’s your take on things, you’re not really welcome here.

    2. “So let’s have them fight it out. The one that wins, wins, and expels dissenters.”

      I sincerely doubt Aquinas would agree with this standpoint. Good ideas can come from a plurality of disparate source, and lack of input from disparate sources creates intellectual stagnation.

    3. There is a difference between an organized militancy and mere rioting for sake of burning flames.

    4. “If it’s not traditional integral Catholicism, then I’ll know you’re enemies and not friends.”

      Did you tell Pope Bergoglio? I think you will find him unsympathetic.

      This points out one of the problems with this discussion. No existing religious body would want anything to do with a Reactionary regime. Except Islam.

  14. I’ve pondered this for awhile, being an agnostic who sees the necessity of religion myself. Monotheism clearly has an organizational advantage over polytheism.

    So what what new religion could simultaneously be based on the laws of Gnon (Truth and Hierarchy) and yet dispense with the vulnerabilities of the Judeo-Christian dogma?

    I think one is particularly obvious and has been done before. That would be Sun worship. Not only is worshipping the Sun in accordance with Gnon (all life on the surface of this planet is from sunlight) but Sun worship puts man in his place by worshipping an extra-terrestrial icon that is indisputably above and beyond our conceited notions turning men into Gods. The notion that man was created in God’s image is an invitation to hubris and folly. Man needs to know his place, which is not on par with God.

    When man knows he can never be on the level of God, the poison of humility is no longer necessary and we can be a people who strive to reach our potential.

    There is even a founding myth already made for us in the tale of Icarus.

    1. Samuel Skinner May 2, 2017 at 1:01 pm

      “Monotheism clearly has an organizational advantage over polytheism.”

      The problem is that insisting there is a single god gets universal law gets you universal ways to organize everything which turns into progressivism. You can either have seperate gods for each tribe (polytheism) or an overarching religious tradition that has different ethnic traditions (Catholicism). The latter looks like it has a limit though, the former insures conflict; this isn’t a solvable problem.

      “That would be Sun worship.”

      Bad idea. The reason Jesus dies for our sins isn’t because there is some sort of magical framework God can’t overcome; Jesus suffers and dies so that all the need for human sacrifice is taken care of by himself.

      “God has taken care of human sacrifice and God is so much above humanity that you can’t possibly contribute with human sacrifice” is an important part of Christianity. Now, I’m not going to claim all religions need it, but it looks like without something like that you get people willing to sacrifice individuals for whatever is highest status in society. For us moderns that appears to be diversity (peace be upon it).

      1. Religion appears to exist not because it is true but because those without religion are outbred by the religious. It is social technology for boosting female fecundity.

        The purpose of the crucifixation of Jesus Christ seems to be a subsoncious hotfix attempting to ameliorate the need for scapegoating and human sacrifice. I don’t think Christianity has done that very well, or if it used to; never had the requisite tools for preserving that trait in its original form. Either way, Christianity seems to have failed and is not being replaced by its secular offspring known as Humanism.

        2,000 years is nothing. Christianity hasn’t been around that long and does not have a monopoly on Europeans, as much as many Christians would like to claim. I see our reality as an explosion we are merely suspended within. Our sun is what anchors us in that explosion. This is also why the universe is accelerating in expansion. Time doesn’t exist and whatever caused the original cosmic inflation just happened.

        1. Phileas Frogg May 6, 2017 at 10:09 am

          “Religion appears to exist not because it is true but because those without religion are outbred by the religious.”

          Which would seem to imply some degree of truth inherent to religion. Those who have views closer to the truth will make choices more in keeping with reality, and as such they will be better equipped to survive, thrive and dominate; the alternative being that belief in falsehood is somehow beneficial for survival, in which case you open the door to quite a few interesting questions about rationality and how it relates to knowing reality, or how knowledge of reality relates to survival.

          Overall I’d say you’re a bit turned around. Religion is a prerequisite for man, not the other way around; Man as a myth, as the myth believer. Myth is nothing but symbolic thinking applied in time into larger macro-symbols, and symbol thinking is the essential way Man engages with reality, religion is merely the organized and coherent expression of the symbol-thinking impulse. The more in line with reality the myth is, the better it’s adherents will understand and engage with reality, and the better cultural,technological and social systems they’ll develop, and this will result in better survivability.

          If you believe you can consciously design and craft a functional religion as one designs a house or a system of government, you don’t understand religion (or good government for that matter).

  15. So, you combat clandestine lies with clandestine truth, is that the gist of it then?

    Reminds me of the Church driven underground following the Burning of Rome, honest but hidden, hidden but open to all.

  16. Nationalism essentially functions as an un-churched religion, eternal life is not granted to the individual man, but to a people if its members are sufficiently virtuous. Faith in the nation also sidesteps the dangerous relativism present in most religion, those who really must evangelise would, in the national faith, form an exceptionally loyal core for the military. Separation of church and state becomes not merely irrelevant, but impossible. You can see a previous attempt at a revival of the imperial cult form of religion in ”The Apotheosis of Washington”.

  17. I definitely see many strains of Medieval Catholicism in your work, as well as pre-Socratic reasoning on the importance of time in Eternity. (Chronos/Kairos).

    If one is to live each day of his life, Eternity and Time must be at the forefront of his mind. You are an inheritor to a glorious past and you should seek to create a glorious future for your children.

    If one is to take the view that all points in time exist conterminously (from God’s point of view of time (Eternity)), Traditionalism becomes the sole logical human reaction towards maintaining a transcendent, metaphysical link between all of these points.

  18. There’s a saying in Japan, for every Japanese that becomes Christian, there is one less Japanese. One of the themes of Endo’s Silence. Hence why the Catholic Church, respectfully, has always had to use violence in converting non-European peoples. However Orthodoxy doesn’t deracinate in its evangelizing.

    The Eskimos converted to Orthodoxy while keeping their language, customs, history, and ethnicity.

    My point is that there is no American Orthodoxy, there are only missionary churches that borrow from their mothers culture, Greek and Roman and Carpathian, but in a few generations, God-willing, there will organically arise an American Orthodoxy, not an American christianity, but something rooted in actual tradition while expressed in this particular peoples way of life.

    As such, I would think Orthodoxy, which is still masculine and authoritative, would objectively have the greatest chance of nourishing and inspiring a new people.

    1. Phileas Frogg May 6, 2017 at 3:42 pm

      “Hence why the Catholic Church, respectfully, has always had to use violence in converting non-European peoples.”

      May I inquire as to what you are referring to here?

      1. Mexico….

  19. The notion of eternity is helped by the discarded idea of ancestors. Using Catholicism as one specific example, a Catholic today can connect to his spiritual ancestors through prayers to Saints. This idea of the individual being a physical and metaphysical continuation of something greater than himself is one of those things I see progressives always destroying, a continual burning of bridges to preserve the young, the new, the shiny from the old, the ancient, and the dusty.

  20. Царь Обезьян May 1, 2017 at 3:32 pm

    From an outside perspective, this is a rather contradictory set of ideals. There is no greatness without conflict, and if there’s conflict, nothing can be forever. Desiring “forever” is quite… progressive.

  21. Samuel Skinner May 2, 2017 at 12:48 pm

    The most workable ‘religion that is not a religion’ on the right is the Nazis.

    The problem is that when you have a supernatural element, people immediately recognize and declare that it is a religion. However without a supernatural element, you have to have your ‘religion’ do that to something in the physical world.

    Ex: for the Nazis, the Holocaust is the greatest thing Hitler never did.

    Trying to do this arbitrarily doesn’t work; what usually happens is the system breaks down until it morphs into progressivism or nationalism. There isn’t really any alternative secular religions.

  22. I’m unconvinced of Reaction, I haven’t yet drunk from your wells, so I can’t say what I will be. However, I am an enemy of socialism thanks to Shofaravich, and I attend an RPCNA church. Point being, I happen to be a Reformed Presbyterian who adores liturgy, but I can’t turn myself to Rome as long as the Cult of Mary thrives, the Popes reign above the councils, nor while Francis’ heart bleeds pink. If, on the other hand, I threw in with Reaction, joining the worthy discussion of what to do to eviscerate and replace socialism, and I still remained a Reformed Presbyterian of North America, I may accept a state-religion of mathematics as in Zamyatin’s WE.

    If this is of no use to the discussion, I’m sorry.

    1. Phileas Frogg May 6, 2017 at 3:56 pm

      I’ve found most opposition to Marianism, Papism and the Orthodox conception of the Communion of the Saints stems from a misunderstanding of the theology.

      That, and 99% of Protestant denominations are historically untenable.

      1. Our, my church’s, eschatology is different in that we contend Christ is currently King of Heaven, and most, almost all, of Revelation is past. As you can see, that doesn’t leave room for a regent-mother, actually it saves us from engaging with the question of the Last Times most American denominations swirl around.

        As far as tenability, I agree. For what its worth, I’m friends with three families who are direct descendants of my denomination’s founders, back when they were still Scots. These families are surprisingly healthy, and with members in Australia, Japan, and Kansas of all places. They seem well placed, and not so integral their absence would be a death knell.

        1. Phileas Frogg May 8, 2017 at 1:36 pm

          My understanding of Catholic Eschatology is similar in that many parts of Revelation have come and gone, though the Church prefers not to make definite claims as, “…about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.”- Matthew 24:36. Many parts of the Book of Revelation blur past, present and future and provide a sort of “total view” of the entire battlefield, which can make the reading difficult. John was gifted with a vision of Time from Eternity, probably impossible to explain in a way people would clearly understand.

          Catholic Mariology hold’s that Mary’s role isn’t as “regent”, but as Queen Mother. She has authority because of her Son, not before her Son or in place of her Son as a regent would, but through Him. In the same way that a King delegates to his ministers, so too does Christ the King delegate to his subjects, and so too even His own mother. Mary as Queen of Heaven and Earth does not diminish Christ’s role as King, but fulfills the Old Testament understanding of the Queen Mother and the important role she played in the Kingdom. Catholic theology teaches that Christ is King as well, we even have a feast day for it.

Comments are closed.