Is the Orthosphere Conservative?

No.

An irate commenter recently asked why we call this site the Orthosphere, when we don’t seem particularly concerned about conserving European culture. It’s a fair question. We aren’t particularly concerned with conserving European culture – not, at least, for the sake of European culture.

We are Christian Reactionaries. As a proposal about the concrete rescue of human souls from the grip of the evil, suffering and death that pervades creation – human society being no exception – Christianity is always ipso facto a profound reproach to any and every such fallen social order as may be found in any time or clime. There is no human culture that a Christian, properly so-called, would not react against. “Christian Reactionary” is redundant.  

We call ourselves the Orthosphere in part because, as Christians, we understand our fundamental orientation as transcending and, ergo, orthogonal to all worldly orders. The Kingdom to which we aspire is not from this world. It is as perpendicular to our whole cultural and political landscape, and to every other, as a bolt of lightning from on high – or a ray of sunlight at noon. The mundane political lexicon comprehends us only as men of the Right. So be it; but we are men of the Logos, that orders all things and sets them right, so that there is such a thing as order or righteousness in the first place. Such at least is our hope, and prayer.

What is the true good for man, that will promote his virtuous flourishing in his progress toward salvation? What social order is best formed to support and encourage that flower of virtue? These are the questions we would answer.

Certainly there is much in the West that is good; this is surely one of the several reasons that the West conquered the globe. There is no true good in man or his works that a Christian would not support. Insofar as the West has been Good, we support it; and I think it fair to say that we generally feel that the West is of all societies among the best.

But European culture is after all radically defective. This is not a recent development; only its recently developed defects are recent; and they are characteristically European defects, no? They are developments of a defective culture, as it works its way logically, methodically, relentlessly, toward its last absurd reduction. Liberalism is an invention of the West, and an expression of some of its deepest convictions about reality, powerfully motivated by our characteristic nisus toward our noblest, highest moral aspirations. But errors at the roots have misdirected our intense urge toward the Good, and toward God, and turned them toward evil and futility and death. The West has been perverted, and is therefore dying; indeed, much of it is committing suicide. As Bruce has pointed out, “A group which chooses to stop reproducing, and even celebrates the fact, is a group that knows it is deeply wrong in its basic worldview.”

So, European culture probably ought not to be conserved. If anything, it ought to die, so that it may be resurrected.

There are to be sure many aspects of our European patrimony that would perdure and thrive in that organic society, or natural society, or Good society, or orthological society, or whatever we decide to call it. They include our own people, and the hale elements of our goodly heritage. Those good things? We love them. A synecdoche of the transformation we seek: cathedrals, yes; strip malls, no. Another: Bach, yes; rap, no.

We need a new wineskin. If we are canny and bold enough to earn it, and fortunate, we will recognize it when we buy it as just the sort of wineskin our fathers would have loved to own. But it will be new, so that the new vintage will not burst it.

But nor will it ever be good enough. Farther up and farther in!

 +++++++++++++++++++++

I hope it goes without saying that I welcome correction and emendation of what I have here said – especially from my fellow Orthosphereans, for whom I have greatly presumed to speak.    

   

About these ads

57 thoughts on “Is the Orthosphere Conservative?

  1. I think Christianity will receive a traitor’s reward if European Man goes under, which is what is happening.

    The prestige of Christianity rose with Christendom, which we now call Europe. The appeal of Christianity increased as it was a way in for those who would have been excluded by normally ethnocentric systems. Christianity now appeals to and is mostly comprised of vast non-White hordes that can see its total lack of loyalty to the people whose moral goods it disposes of and who are now shriveling and perishing because Christianity did not get the job done.

    Do you really think the prestige of Christianity in the third world will survive the genocide of its former bearers, with the warm consent of its priests? The pride of Communism was cracked by the fall of the Soviet Union, and that was with Red China still standing. That is nothing to this, the wholesale ruin of the entire race that imprudently entrusted itself to the Galilean God.

    It is good to be the possessor of the gates of a wealthy people for whom you feel little but contemptuous disloyalty, because you can win yourself hordes of quick friends by opening the gates to invaders. But after the once-bright cities are polluted ruins, and the people that once made them bright are crushed and withered and mingled into unrecognizable remnants, what are you master of then? And why should practical people continue to long for an embrace so clearly poisonous, when they can return to their own tribal gods, that love them as the White Christ clearly never loved the Europeans, or else move on to new and more profitable gods that may have arisen?

    Yes I know you have an answer: Christ has assured you of your victory, so everything is bound to work out for the best, even genocide. But for eyes not “improved” by faith, inevitability hasn’t worked out well in North Africa or say Christian Iraq and Syria. I don’t think it would work out very well in the post-White world either. Christianity will have proven itself unprofitable and of interest only to idealists, and the race most prone to idealism will be gone.

    • A historical response: by the time it fell, Rome had been Christian for some time. Yet the conversion of the western barbarians doesn’t seem to have been significantly slowed by the fall of Christian civilization. The rise of Islam *was* a blow, but plenty of peoples have continued to come to Christ since then, even when Islam appeared more successful than Christendom.

      An anthopological response: if you think that tribal gods _love_ their worshippers, you are seeing things in tribal religions that I don’t see at all.

      A biblical response: have you noticed what happens to God’s people when they choose to betray him? The suffering of apsotates is not surprising even to unsophisticated Christian believers, not to mention fitting in with common human intuitions about how things are suppoed to work. (The sufferings of the devout requires a more specifically Christian undertanding, though I hesitate to call it more “advanced” because it’s pretty much crucial to the gospel.)

      Also, if you think that the Christian reactionaries of this site (I am at best a fellow-traveler, myself) are in any sense “possessors of the gates of a wealthy people,” you are seriously confused about where power resides in contemporary society.

  2. This strikes me as a little unnecessary. I don’t disagree with anything written, exactly, it’s just an explicit statement of priority along with an acknowledgment of the self-destructive tendencies of the West which are clearly inherent. But I think there is some needless insouciance towards things that people care about, and should care about. I’m reading Chesterton’s “Varied Types”, and this piece put me in mind of his characterization of Tolstoy and his disciples.

    Of course it must be acknowledged that people can make an idol of their culture, as shown above. But as long as the Master is acknowledged, I have trouble seeing your detached attitude as much of an improvement, or even a possibility for most people with a healthy understanding of their place.

    • Amen. I have a special duty to my family because it is my family, to my city because it is my city, to my country because it is my country, to my ethny because it is my ethny, to my culture because it is my culture. That our internal feelings largely align with these external duties is a gift from God to lighten our burden. Deo Gratias.

  3. @Daybreaker – As I understand, you are a non-Christian Nationalist who hopes to *use* Christianity to attain Nationalist goals.

    It won’t happen, nor should it.

    Europe and the UK must *first* repent and become Christian, because Christianity is Good and True, and not because we think it might lead to desired political outcomes; *then* see what happens to politics.

    • Europe and the UK already converted to Christianity long ago. The problem is not that they did not marry your God, the problem is that he is proving a Bluebeard.

      With this difference: a Bluebeard needs to keep secret what happened to his previous wives. I do not think Christianity will have much luck in keeping hidden what happened to that brilliant quarter of the world’s population that embraced it.

      That’s no consolation to me. Genocide makes “payback” meaningless.

      So instead of this tragedy playing out to the limit, I would prefer that Christianity repented of the radically disloyal course it is on, and that the European descended peoples return to and profit from the numerous good parts of a religion for which they have shown profound affection and from which they have drawn great cultural and artistic inspiration.

      In that sense I would indeed like “to *use* Christianity to attain Nationalist goals”. (Actually internationalist goals.) And I see nothing wrong with that.

  4. “Is the Orthosphere conservative?”

    I would say “yes”, but only because I have a different preferred meaning of the word than the one Kristor uses, not because I have any fundamentally different set of loyalties. One could say that one is “conservative” to the extent one approves of the current order, in which case we’re not very conservative at all. This point is worth making because is highlights the absurdity of the liberals’ pose as bold challengers of the status quo. On the other hand, this isn’t the normal meaning of the word “conservative” or the related word “Right”. These words are given a precise meaning by the context of the French Revolution, a conflict that is still going on and still the dominant event in world history. In this conflict, there were and are two sides: the Left (atheist, anticlerical, libertine, egalitarian, universalist, impious) and the Right (defenders of a sacralized social order, of established Churches, thrones, and human groupings). Since I use the standard meanings, it’s a no-brainer that the Orthosphere is conservative and Rightist.

    The real question is whether these French revolutionary categories still adequately describe the current conflict. I would say they do, because as I see it nothing fundamental has changed since the 1790s. It seems clear to me that we’re on the same side as Maistre and Burke, and the opposite side as Marat and Robespierre. It wouldn’t be possible to peg us in the context of earlier debates: the Orthosphere belongs to neither the party of Sulla nor of Marius; it is neither Guelph nor Ghibelline, neither Catholic nor Protestant.

    • “defenders of a sacralized social order, of established Churches, thrones, and human groupings”…

      I’m curious about how Orthosphereans who favor monarchy would imagine it being introduced or restored. Would the United States ideally be ruled by a descendant of the Stuarts and Russia by a descendant of the Romanovs? Would the Church of England become the state church here? Given the state of the Church of England today, I am not sure Orthosphereans would welcome that, so… ? What would be the status of, say, Missouri Synod Lutherans? Would the state forbid “mixed-race” marriages?

      • @Dale – my general answer would be, first the nation must become Christian, then we shall see what happens.

        With providence, and luck, a Christian monarch will sooner or later emerge (if wanted), like Constantine. (who was acclaimed Emperor in York – I was standing on the very spot just two weeks ago!)

        As for the Church of England as the state church, I mused on that topic recently:

        http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/england-and-church-of-england-as-latent.html

        It makes for a more-than-usually cheerful bit of futurology to imagine that the English King (or Queen) would step forward in a crisis and save the nation!

      • Monarchy must grow organically from a people’s existing (usually unwritten) constitution. In America, I would see it as the natural culmination of judicial supremacism. The progression would work like this:

        1) People come to see the Supreme Court as the ultimate authority in the State, because of its power to override the other two.
        2) The Court’s apologists come to see the reason for judicial supremacy in its unique calling to safeguard the nation’s fundamental laws and political structures. The more democratic branches of the federal government are seen as unsuited to this purpose, enthralled as they are to the caprices of the mob.
        3) This belief is generalized, so that our judicial masters see themselves as guardians of American customs, social structures, and fundamental beliefs more generally. At this point, the Court would be consciously assuming its role as the repository branch of government, which I in my defence of monarchy identify as the essence of the monarchical office.
        4) The influence of the barbarous populace on this highest level of the State being accepted as bad, the Court removes from the executive the right to appoint new justices. Rather, it is obvious that the Court can do a better job ensuring the preservation of American law and custom if judges are free to pick their own heirs.
        5) Obviously, suitable new judges are made rather than born. Each judge will eventually pick an apprentice who he will spend years grooming as his replacement.
        6) The master-apprentice relationship is a very close, personal, almost familial one. In many cases, it will naturally be passed down from father to son. Suitable new judges are born after all.
        7) To appear fully intelligible and not a mere mess of compromise, the voice of the repository must be unitary. When addressing their subjects, one voice must speak for the whole repository branch. This would naturally be the Chief Justice.
        8) The Chief Justice is now a hereditary monarch ruling by the grace of God.

      • I have to say, Bonald, that there’s something utterly implausible about any supposed path putting the SC Chief Justice onto some eventual American throne. It is true that the SC has the final say on whatever to chooses to, and it is (recently) true that in some corner cases the SC legislates. But the SC does not exercise any executive power and in fact is only supreme because executive power bows (up til now) to its will. But there is nothing natural in man, or particularized American man, to see the Chief Justice as a prototype of king.

        The President is, for better or worse, our king. He who sends in the guns (or sends the one who sends) to collect the protection money you won’t pay is, by definition, sovereign. That this sovereign willingly submits, by condenscension to our local customs, every four years to the “will of the people”, or (occasionally) the will of the people as intepreted by a 5-4 vote on the SC, on the subject of his or her sovereignty is irrelevant. He is, as in actually, today, sovereign. If a sitting president declared a state of constitutional emergency, ordered the SC and House to go home, compelled (with military threat if necessary) the Senate (as aristocrats) to legitimize his legislative agenda, and ruled by personal fiat, it would not only work, but very few drops of blood would be spilled implementing it. Now such a ruler would be quite far from a monarch, but if he were popular enough (and able to suitably sway the principle organs of public opinion to his side) it would be a plausible step toward it.

  5. Grace completes nature, charity starts at home (1 Timothy 5:8), and the Gospel speaks of converting nations rather than abolishing them (that’s something Muslims do). So it seems to me our connection to the West is more essential than the discussion seems to suggest.

    I’d add that the sickest man is mostly healthy, since if his vital processes down to the cellular level weren’t mostly working properly he’d drop dead instantly. I’d make the same pitch about the culture of the West, and say that what it needs is to return to type—its best and most Christian type, which includes an impetus toward further transformation, but its type nonetheless.

    Very likely what I call “returning to type” is quite similar to Kristor’s “death and resurrection,” but it’s important I think to be able to speak both ways.

  6. In answer to the question, “Is the Orthosphere Conservative?” I wanted to share an interesting quote from a controversial figure.

    He wrote, “The mass of a people in need of a revolution is incapable of making a revolution. [In fact] It is not so much when a people is corrupt that revolution becomes a necessity, but when its institutions, its ideas, its tastes have become sterile or are about to do so. That is the moment of historical degeneracy. Not death by disaster, but rather stagnation in a graceless and hopeless existence. All collective attitudes are feeble from the outset, bred of all but exhausted stock. The life of the community becomes blunted, stultified and submerged in bad taste and mediocrity. This cannot be remedied except by a clean cut and a new start. The furrows cry out for new seed, historical seed, because the old has come to the end of its fertility.”

    I got this from Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera’s essay, “On Revolution” (written in 1935). I personally hate revolutionaries, and Jose Antonio wanted a revolution; but alas, I don’t hate Jose Antonio. I love the guy, may he Rest in Peace. Do his words seem to apply to our situation here in the west? Yes they do.

    There is really nothing left of the Christian west for us to conserve. We “react” to the degeneracy of today and desire a return to the days when Christendom was a real, substantial, instantiated thing. You could point to it on a map.

    Perhaps the difference between a reactionary and a revolutionary is in some sense a semantical one; we desire such root-and-branch change that we sound like revolutionaries, but may instead be the only true conservatives.

    We want a return rather than a leap forward. Is that a good way of saying it?

  7. Since the dawn of civilization, human societies have more or less flourished on the basis of a few civilizing factors: hard work, public morality, intelligence, future time orientation, industriousness, etc. I therefore continue to disagree with Dr. Charleton on the topic of re-Christianization. While I don’t doubt that it would be a good thing and I wouldn’t refuse to even welcome such it, I see it as neither necessary nor sufficient. Non-Christian nations have at times succeeded in civilization. Christian ones have at times failed.

    Evil men have always been with us, sowing their dis-civilizational influence. Civilization, with or without Divine Revelation, is an adaptive system, specifically designed to mitigate just such effects of sin. As long as evil is not too much rewarded, and good not too much punished, civilizations will advance and the people will live in approximate peace with approximate justice.

    What seems to me to be unique to the present era (and by “present era” I mean about 17th century to present) is that the civilizational system itself has ceased to be adaptive to actual realities. At first this is almost imperceptible. These anti-civilizational and destabilizing disorders arise (not at all accidentally) in the best adjusted, best ordered societies (e.g., Holland, England). There these forces take centuries to finally bear their natural fruit. Yet the disorder is not counted as a disorder at all, but instead a great Moral Good, an ideology (aka. Great Truth) to be imposed by persistent force (as if by fervent prayer if not by arms) on the rest of the world, where anarchy unleashes misery much more quickly, often in the space of less than a generation.

    Now if Nature were allowed to take her course, anarchy would be quickly swept away, the guilty hanged, and normal people would be allowed to get back to the business of preserving and advancing a civilization for their children and grandchildren, instead of fearing for their lives or becoming helpless slaves to the servile state. But the persistence of the Egalitarian Ideology, this fundamentally maladaptive force, gets itself in the way of mere Nature. A government founded explicitly on this Große Lüge is no longer merely indifferent to evil, or incapable of maintaining justice and peace, but is instead actively and increasingly abetting evil. The more evil things get, the more egalitarian “salve” (i.e., poison) is poured onto the wound, pursuant to the regnant (and fundamentally false) ideology.

  8. I am very dismayed at Kristor’s take on what is meant by Orthosphere. Wow.

    Let me just begin to point out thesis right out the gate on what is at stake here.

    Kill European culture—and you kill Christianity!

    Why? Christianity is a Greek/Doric religion. It is NOT Jewish.

    And what is basis of fact that underlies this, to you, outrageous claim.

    I take it from the Horse’s mouth

    Matthew, Ch. 21
    “Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it.”

    What is this “Nation bearing the fruits of it”?

    As Antonio Gramsci, the Marxist theorist discovered, “Culture defines politics”.

    Well, Culture also defines religion. Kill the culture—you kill the religion.

    It is that simple folks. Race matters. Race has values.

    • “Race matters.”

      Yes. Blacks can handle the sun more easily. They can also resist malaria. This means they can create settled and stable communities in areas a purely white population could not handle as well.

      “Race has values.”

      Debatable. Why are swedes so degenerate nowadays, if their race has such great virtues encoded within it? It is material conditions and religion which affect values much more in my estimation.

    • Perhaps you wish now that you hadn’t referred to the Savior as a horse.

      Given the large numbers of courageous Africans who right now are in danger from Muslim savages on account of their Christian faith, e.g. in Nigeria, your apparent limitation of Christianity to European culture and your hangup about race are regrettable. See also brave Asian Christians threatened by Hindu mobs, Muslims, and Communists (India, Philippines, China).

      All these world Christians would probably find remarks such as those I am responding to funny at best, but certainly unreal.

      Perhaps the kingdom of God is indeed being taken from the joyless hedonists of a morally and financially bankrupt Europe and given to nations that are bearing fruit of it. If folks could bring themselves to dip into C. Keener’s new 2-volume book Miracles, they might ask themselves about fruitful Christians today and where they live, and what color their skins are.

      Me, I feel like I wouldn’t be worthy to take the shoes off the feet of a lot of these Christians, except they maybe don’t have shoes.

      • “and what color their skins are.”

        God, I hate this spastic retort. Is a family only some people who live in the same house?

  9. Kristor’s post is all well and good, but the salient issue is what sort of Christianity is necessary? I of course contend that Catholicism is the only meaningful choice. Protestantism is really just one step away from liberalism. I this is why I think any “Ecumenical movement” is doomed to failure.

  10. Well, Culture also defines religion. Kill the culture—you kill the religion.

    You’ve got it backwards. Religion defines the culture. That’s why there is “Catholic Culture,” “Anglican Culture,” etc. even though the people are not practicing the religion. People can adhere to something on a cultural basis because the religion provided the groundwork for it to exist.

    Not to mention faith transcends cultural, racial, and ethnic lines. What you are proposing is for culture to define the religion, or should I say redefine the religion. We’ve already done that where the “ways of the world” has sullied Christianity, so no need to go there again.

  11. This is where Laceagate and Kristor are wrong.

    I was educated by Archimandrite Boniface Lukyx, formerly a Norbertine, who was a polyglot, a liturgical expert, with a photographic memory. (He became part of the Ukranian Eastern Catholic Church.) He was extremely brilliant with all sorts of knowledge. All of his studies were conducted in their original languages and he accomplished a lot of his studies at the Vatican library. Furthermore, he was a very holy man, orthodox and patristic.

    It was his teaching that it was Hellenism that formed much of Christianity. In that regard, he was constantly quoting Georges Dumezil. Georges Dumezil discovered a particlar European trait he called “Trifunctionality”. It is inherent in Indo-European peoples! Fr. Boniface pointed out how this Trifunctionality of the European people formed the concepts and liturgy of the Christian church! He was constantly talking of culture and Dumezil.

    Have anybody here at Orthosphere heard of Georges Dumezil? Trifunctionality infuses much of Christian teaching, actions and prayer.

    Culture defines religion. As Socrates taught, “Concept precedes knowledge” and the concepts inherent within Indo-Europeans connected with what Jesus taught.

    For instance, when Jesus implied that he was God, the Jews not only were infuriated but rejected him outright. But when the Greeks heard this—they believed, for they had the concept of God/man mixtures, such as Hercules and Achilles. This “cominatorial thought” is prevalent amongst Europeans. The teaching of Christ is BOTH God and man is from the Europeans–it certainly isn’t Semitic. In Judaism, there is a gulf between God and man and there is no bridge. Semitic thought goes to the extremes.

    This is not my opinion but what I was taught. I didn’t make this up. Race matters and Races have instrinsic characteristics within them that are specific to themselves. Trifunctionality is part of the European mindset.

    Destroy this European mindset, and the defense of core Christian dogma, can very well be lost!

  12. In order to understand that Christianity is a European religion one must understand the differences between the East and the West. The West is fundamentally different from the East. The ancient Greeks saw this. Self-government only existed in the West. Why is there a difference between the East and the West? Race.

    There is not the time nor the space nor do I have my books with me at this moment but for those interested, you have to read Edith Hamilton’s The Greek Way where in the first chapter she discusses the difference between East and West. A further witness to this is the Catholic thinker, Jacques Maritain, in his book Introduction to Philosophy. He also talks of the division between the East and the West, between the Greek and the Semitic mind. Both of these writers, Edith Hamilton and Jacques Maritain, are necessary for understanding this fact of reality.

    The West is Masculine. The East is more feminine in spirit. Christianity, which deals in black-n-white, must have the masculine thought pattern. This idea is ensconced in Paramenides principle of non-contradiction. The principle of non-contradiction is the product of the Western binary mind which is caused by a deep masculinity buried in the racial spirit of the Indo-Europeans. Without that the orthodoxy, the correct beliefs, of Christianity cannot be defended or upheld.

    How many of you have been exposed to Hindu’s? Well, a Hindu thinks that he can both be a good Hindu and a good Christian at the same time. There is no squemishness about contradictions.

    Christianity is a Western religion; it is Greek in essence.

  13. Fr. Boniface Lukyx was constantly using this word “enculturation” to talk about how Christianity was formed by Hellenism and the European racial characteristic of Trifunctionality.

    Let me ask a question–Who are you people? Have you studied the ancient languages? Read Dumezil in the original French? Know much about Early Christianity? Did indepth studies of the matter?

    On top of this, Prof. Jerry Dell Ehrlich has written a book called Plato’s Gift to Christianity. In there his research correlates with what Fr. Boniface was getting at. Plato and his writings formed the culture of Hellenism. And Hellenism in turn formed Christianity.

    So just like Edith Hamilton and Jacques Maritain are two witnesses to the East/West divide, so Fr. Boniface and Prof. Ehrlich are two witnesses to the Christian enculturation of Hellenism.

    We all know that Christianity is the New Covenant. Judaism is the Old Covenant.

    The second proof of this Christ’s parable of the Wine Skin. Christ in this parable says “You can’t pour New Wine into Old Wine Skins”. Judaism is the Old Wine Skin. Christianity is the New Wine. What is “skin” that Jesus is referring to?

    Why it is C-U-L-T-U-R-E! As culture defines politics, culture defines religion. Christianity is NOT a culture but a religion. Culture is culture and religion is religion. They do influence each other but in essence they are different things. Religion is not culture and culture is not religion.

    Christianity as a New Wine must be poured into New Wine Skin. The New Wine Skin is Hellenism. Christianity only works in Hellenism. The proof is in the pudding. Victorian England and its high civilization is this product of the combination of Hellenism and Christianity.

    I have now posited a bunch of references of concepts that you need to understand Western Culture. No Western Culture, no Christianity. The basis of all culture is Race. Race defines Culture. And in turn Culture defines politics and religion and vice-a-versa.

    It is amazing how that Parable of the Wine skins go right over the heads of some people. Kristor really doesn’t know what he is talking about.

    • Hello wlindsaywheeler,

      Thank you for telling me about Dumezil; he sounds like a very interesting fellow. I think you are right that Hellenistic philosophy is a core part of Christianity, not something that can be shed in the name of “inculturation”. However, I think that’s true because Greek philosophy (i.e. Platonic/Aristotelian essentialism) is true and therefore not distinctly Greek at all, although they have the glory of having discovered it. After all, if something like hylemorphic composition is true, it must be true for people of all races.

      • Thanks, bonald, I’ve been meaning to interject that argument here. If Jesus is God, then Jesus is God for Martians, too, and they ought therefore to worship him.

      • After all, if something like hylemorphic composition is true, it must be true for people of all races.

        But some races can not see that. Monomanicalism, (always thinking to the extreme of things) is very common to the Semitic races. As Kristor says, “If Jesus is God, then Jesus is God for Martians, too, and they ought therefore to worship him. Then it only stands to conclude as well “If Jesus is God, then Jesus is God for Jews, too, and ought therefore to worship him!

        But the Jews won’t! Jesus Christ is this “hylemorphic composition” but they won’t recognize this truth because they think in a monomanicalistic way! Will a Hindu stop believing in his gods and be an exclusivist Christian believer? Hard to tell.

        Race matters. Race has intrinsic values.

  14. St. Paul, a higher authority than Dumezil, and certainly higher than wlindsey here, says,

    For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

    For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

    Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

    For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence. But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.”

    Christianity neither originates from Indo-European racial qualitiies nor depends on Hellenistic culture. Rather, it is essentailly a community of people drawn from every nation and gathered by faith around a crucified king. Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but faith working through love.

    Leaving aside the Jews, I note that St. Paul identifies the Greeks’ fundamental problem as a reliance on natural reason. Revealed truth is higher than the truths of reason obtained through nature. To natural eyes, Jesus’ crucifixion was contemptible, at best, pitiable.

    Through the revelation of the Gospel we see that Jesus was exalted above all natural power and wisdom by the will of God. Wlindsey’s racial-cultural ideology obscures, if not outright denies, Jesus’ true significance.

    • I must be living in lulu land. I can’t believe the cognitive disonance that I read at this blogsite. Mr. Matthews doesn’t care about all sorts of things and thinks we all just need to follow St. Paul and that “Christianity neither originates from Indo-European racial qualitiies nor depends on Hellenistic culture. Rather, it is essentailly a community of people drawn from every nation and gathered by faith around a crucified king.”

      I don’t know about you but I’ve had plenty of discussions with Protestants and read Protestant blogs and other Protestant materials.

      Does not Protestantism attack Roman Catholicism? What is one of the major charges leveled by Jews and Protestants upon Roman Catholicism?

      It’s “”””Paganness””””. It’s pagan character! That Roman Catholicism is full of pagan things and that Roman Catholicism needs to strip itself of its pagan accoutrements.

      Haven’t we heard that all before, Catholics? Here Mr. Andrews says that all that needs to be done is believe in Christ but I bet, he turns around and attacks the “pagan” character of Roman Catholicism. It is full of pagan holidays, pagan this and pagan that.

      I ask you have you read up on the history of the Puritans? Even the Anglicans of their day called the Puritans “demi-jews” because of their iconoclastic ways. Protestantism seems to read more literally from the Old Testament.

      What Protestants attack is the “New Wine Skin” character that Roman Catholicism displays.

      I ask you, change out the word ‘pagan’ in their writings and insert the word ‘European’ and you will discover that their writings make sense. You will be accepted by Protestants if you what? If you —- abandon the European (pagan) style, values and actions that infuse Roman Catholicism.

      This is what they are asking you to do in their attacks when they accuse Roman Catholicism of “paganism”. Is not Christmas with its trees and Easter with its eggs “pagan” things? Change that out and insert “European”.

      Do you notice the cognitive dissonance of people like Mr. Andrews. Race is of no matter. But then Protestantism attacks the very nature of Roman Catholicism which is based on European culture and values.

      This is what Calvinism and Puritainism sought to do.

      How many readers and contributors at this blog have read the entireity of the Canons of the Ecumenical Councils? Those canons are the dogma of the whole Church. They are all still in effect.

      Several of the canons Anathemitize people who “Judaize the Faith”. What is Judaizing the Faith? It is those who seek to take Christianity and put it back into the Old Wine Skin of Judaism. For instance, Images.

      What is the similarity between Muslim mosques, Jewish synagogues and Protestant Houses of Worship?

      White Walls.

      Protestantism is a Judaized form of Christianity. Does not Protestantism attack Roman Catholicism with its pagan use of statues and imagery?

      More Cognitive Dissonance? Why do Protestant Houses of Worship, Jewish Synagogues and Muslim Mosques have similar interior look and feel to them? Jews and Muslims are Semitic. The Semitic mindset is iconoclastic. Protestantism was formed by heavy Jewish influence which started to use the Old Testament in a new untraditional way.

      Does Race matter? It sure does. If the Canons condemn anybody who ‘Judaizes the Faith’, how does one stay faithful if someone doesn’t know anything about race? and the importance of things like Trifunctionality. The Jews accuse the Trinitarian formulation as just more Paganness. They are right. Because Christianity is an European, a Greek religion.

  15. Mr. Wheeler (I presume): I am not a Protestant and neither was St. Paul. The Church is neither Jew nor Gentile it is a new race (“one new man”) reconciled to God through Christ’s cross (cf. Eph. 2:14-18).

    Of course, Christianity contains elements from both the Hebrew and “Greek” traditions. But these elements have been retrieved, renewed, and transformed into a new synthesis.

    If the Judaizers were condemned for insisting on the exclusive Jewish character of Christianity, so there is an opposite error of Hellenizing Christianity. The Hellenizers should likewise be condemned for excluding the “Jewish” elements of the faith.

    If the old wineskin of Judaism had to be discarded, so had the old wineskin of Gentile paganism.

    Finally, you greatly err by equating pagan idol worship with the Christian veneration of images. They aren’t the same thing.

  16. “you greatly err by equating pagan idol worship with the Christian veneration of images. They aren’t the same thing.” Wow, Mr. Andrews, you think I’m that dumb.

    And I can’t believe all the grief I’m receiving for my stand. Haven’t any of you here at the Orthosphere heard of Hillaire Belloc? It was Hillaire Belloc, a tradtional Catholic, who said, “The Faith is Europe, and Europe is the Faith”. Let me repeat that:

    “The Faith is Europe and Europe is the Faith”.

    It is amazing that the supposedly conservatives that are on this site did not even think of posting this quote in defense of what I said. Many of the commentators are raking me over the coals but all I am doing is taking this statement from Belloc and running with it because it is not only a kernel of Truth but it is very much a FOUNDATIONAL Truth of Christianity. Most have attacked me, but have any of them attack Belloc?

    How many of the supposed “conservatives” on this website know of this quote?

    At the beginning I posted my thesis. My thesis, “Destroy Europe and you destroy the Faith” is a corallary to this statement by Belloc–“The Faith is Europe and Europe is the Faith”. And since Europe is the Faith, destroy Europe, and you destroy the Faith. Belloc and I are true conservatives. I don’t know what you guys are thinking. The saying is “Thief knows thief” or “Nail drives out nail”. Like is to like. If you find this “The Faith is Europe and the Europe is the Faith” grating–maybe you should conduct a gut test and figure out you are truly not a conservative after all. That is what is so important.

    • Mr. Wheeler, my name is Andrew Matthews and I have little familiarity with your views.

      I’m aware of the Belloc quotation; it’s very famous. What’s more, I affirm it in the sense Belloc intended: the Catholic Church created Europe. And for a time, Europe was Christendom. But now, Christendom exists only in a couple of places: Vatican City and perhaps Hungary. I doubt Britain qualifies, but am open to the idea.

      You say race and culture matter, Mr. Wheeler. This I don’t deny. It’s the reckless way you “run away with” Belloc’s idea I object to. Our religion doesn’t spring from some supposed trifunctional principle inherent in Indo-European genes; it springs from the Divine Trinity.

      Place matters too, Mr. Wheeler. As I mentioned, Christendom has been contracted into a few local holdouts.

      • Whoops, didn’t mean to post my comment yet…

        Furthermore, there exists a place far above this terrestrial plane. In this place there is a Throne; a King sits upon it and justice and equity proceed from it.

        That place is where my ultimate loyalty lies, and all my other loyalties are subordinate to it and ordered toward it.

        I question whether you share the same priorities.

  17. Mr. Andrews, Concept precedes knowledge. The concept comes from Plato which was spread throughout the Hellenistic world and when Jesus came, it found fertile ground.

    Mr. Andrews, does a farmer step onto a piece of ground and just throw seed out? Why do you think that many of the parables of Christ are agrarian for? It is a principle of the Natural Law, that of preparation. Does not the ground need to be plowed before the seed can be sown? So in the case of theological seeds. The ground had to be plowed, Hellenism, for the seed of Christianity to take a hold of.

  18. There are two points here that need to be considered. Christianity is based on “Orthodoxa” meaning “right belief. Judaism is based on “Orthopraxis”, meaning “right practice or action.”

    In order to accomplish Right belief, in the creation of dogma requires several things. It requires a masculine mind in order to see in black and white. It is interesting that Thomas Bertonneau post on Spengler elaborates this very thing. He implies the masculine character that once characterized Europe (The utopist, according to The Hour, finds society “too masculine, too healthy, too sober.” These virile qualities offend) and that Europe now has a Democratic man in Spengler’s view is “feminine and weak”; he is sentimental, the subject indeed of an “evil sentimentality,”.
    Where did this feminine and weak spirit come from? The Greeks naturally saw a difference between the East and the West. The East they considered Feminine! That’s right. The East has the feminine spirit. The ancient Greeks labeled Asiatics effeminate because they never developed self-government! The feminine spirit in Europe is an introduction from a race that is Eastern! Louis I Newman in his book Jewish Influence in Christian Reform Movements (1925) points out the tremendous influence Jews have had in European Culture and amongst Catholics. And Eric Nelson has concluded this in his book The Hebrew Republic, Jewish Sources and the Transformation of European Political Thought. He wrote “The Hebrew revival transformed European literature and criticism, medicine and science, theology and ecclesiology and philosophy and law”.

    So I ask you where did this feminine, democratic spirit come from?

    It came from the huge Jewish influence in European life!

    There is also another consideration to take into account:

    Christian leaders prided themselves on knowing precisely what constituted correct belief. Quite unlike Christianity, rabbinical Judaism after 70 A.D. evolved a systemic agreement to disagree about interpretations of law. In a discussion about whether ritually pure foods stored in one corner of a basket were polluted by a dead snake found in another corner of the basket.

    Hezekiah stated that the foods which were previously clean remain clean. Rabbi Yohanan stated that the foods which were previously clean were now regarded retrospectively as unclean. But Shammai and Hillel agree that in the case of a basket, the foods which were previously considered clean are now retrospectively deemed unclean. But Shammai and Hillel concur only the the case of a basket without a bottom. But if the basket has no bottom, what could R. Yohanan’s reason be?

    The World is Full of Gods, The Strange Triumph of Christianity, Keith Hopkins, a Plume book, 1999, pg 81, Plume printing 2001.

    No European would think like that. (I find that Jewish example, personally, as abhorrent.) What is described above is totally opposite of European thought. Keith Hopkins praised this sort of Jewish thought because it didn’t cause wars. He has all sorts of approbation for Christianity because it insists on this “CORRECT BELIEF”. That is at the core of “Orthodoxa”.

    This is what I mean that Christianity is a European religion because of its need of Orthodoxa it must have a Masculine spirit coupled with Paramenides principle of non-contradiction. As you can see by that Jewish example, Parmenides would find no home.

    • I don’t understand you, Mr. Wheeler. You say concept precedes knowledge, but then you denigrate orthopraxy.

      My position reduces to “Seek ye first the kingdom of God.” This is orthopraxy rooted in the orthodox interpretation of an historical event: the Ascension of the Son of God.

      Where does the Ascension fit in your theopolitical paradigm?

      • I don’t understand your “Where does the Ascension fit in your theopolitical paradigm”? What does “orthopraxy” have to do with the Ascension? Clue me in. Give me concrete examples of what you mean.

        “Orthopraxy” originally meant the idea in the Hebrew religion of the CORRECT PRACTICE of ritual religious actions. Like eating kosher, what to eat and what not to eat, how lepers are treating the and exhaustive detail in the cleansing ritual, etc etc. The Hebrew religion was concerned more with Human actions than in belief. It was more materialistically oriented matching a people who are materialistic.

        On the other hand, the Greeks were a very Transcendent people who developed philosophy, who were more concerned with the mental thought than in materialistic endeavors. So naturally, Christianity took on the Greek mentality, that of “orthodoxa” as in contradistinction of the Hebrew fixation on “orthopraxy”.

        What this has to do with the Ascension of Christ, I have no clue. I’m talking about the historical use of the term “orthodoxa” and “orthopraxis”.

  19. What you are suggesting here is Christianity is a “white” religion reserved for Europeans. It’s also blasphemy to imply the belief of Jesus being fully man and fully divine was later “inserted” by a different culture, rather than being a pre-existing belief. You’re also ignoring the fact Christianity is able to thrive in Eastern, non-Caucasian cultures. Christianity’s existence doesn’t “Europeanize” these cultures as much as the existence of feminism and liberalism.

    You do realize Western civilization is going downhill, right? It doesn’t make any sense to think preserving the culture as it is will be a benefit for Christianity, considering it has lead to the feminization of the Church, leading to a host of other problems. Here’s a fact– Christians cannot allow the culture to infiltrate the Church because we have been instructed to NOT take on the ways of the world; we’re only supposed to figure out a way to live in it.

    • I see that it is beginning to dawn on you Laceagate. You are getting the picture. I do not use the word “white” but I do use the term “European” and “Greek”.

      How else to defend against the Jewish and Protestant charges of “paganness” in Roman Catholic belief, practices, and institutions? How do you rebut that? If Protestant is a form of Judaized Christianity and so because it has become Judaized, it then demands the removal of all images from within a church—What is the answer? How did this come about? Why the discrepancy?

      Because One culture demands that! Well, to protect and defend the images within Christian use and praxy, one must revert to the European character of Original Christianity.

      Another thing this eruption of this phrase “Judeo-Christianity” with countless of Protestant preachers push in order to prove their form of Christianity in counterdistinction to Roman Catholic practices. 200 years ago NO Christian would use that term “Judeo-Christianity”. The correct term is “Hellenic Christianity”. Christianity is Hellenic.

      YOU CAN NOT SQUARE THE CIRCLE. Laceagate, you are attempting to square the circle—it can’t be done!

      When Roman Catholic missionaries transport the faith to India, to Japan to the Philippines, they are transporting a European religion to those parts.

      Most of the heresies of Early Christianity erupted in the East. The trifunctionality is inherent in Christianity.

      I do recognize the Western Culture is going downhill but you all don’t realize that it was Jewish and Atheist influence that brought that about. The Darkening was a confluence between Jews, Atheists, Deists and Protestants for the destruction of Christendom. The phrase “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” is the operative principle of the so-called “enlightennemt”, i.e. The Darkening. The so-called “Enlightenment” was a CULTURAL REVOLUTION bent on destroying European culture and replacing it with an Atheist/Jewish concoction called “Judeo-Masonic-Boshevism”. I have read Masonic stuff and it is chock full of the Kabala and OT references. Socialism is also very Jewish. What we live in now is NOT Western culture but in a Judeo-Masonic-Bolshevist culture.

  20. Not to mention you’re taking the Belloc quote out of context. He was speaking about the Catholic conscience of history, not literally saying Europe is equivalent to the faith.

  21. See this source, section five, first paragraph:

    My object in writing it is to show that the Roman Empire never perished but was only transformed; that the Catholic Church, which, in its maturity, it accepted, caused it to survive and was, in that origin of Europe, and has since remained, the soul of one Western civilization.

    Note Belloc says European culture accepted Christianity and it is the “soul” of Western civilization. In this meaning, Christianity must exist in order for Western culture to exist. Not the other way around.

    • Thanks for the Belloc’s book online. That is a treasure.

      I don’t think at all that I’m taking his phrase “The Faith is Europe and Europe is the Faith” out of context whatsoever! Sir Belloc writes, “A Catholic as he reads that story does not grope at it from without, he understands it from within.”

      That is the key, “he understands it FROM WITHIN”. The saying is “Thief knows Thief”. Like to like. Earlier, Belloc writes, “There is a Protestant aspect, a Jewish aspect, a Mohammedan aspect, a Japanese aspect, and so forth. For all of these look on Europe from without. The Catholic sees Europe from within.” Yes, all these groups look at it from WITHOUT. A Catholic sees it from WITHIN. Christendom is a carryover of the Roman Empire. It is on purpose that this is so. Culture is a two way street. At the very beginning, Hellenism formed Christianity and the Christian religion affected the Roman Empire.

      Western Culture started with the Doric Greeks. The first stage of Western Culture is Hellenism, which became the “Graeco-Roman Civilization”. Then the second stage was Christianity, another layer was added. Christianity is not Western Culture. Christianity is a Religion, not a Culture! Christianity adopted Roman vestments and symbols of authority. That is a sign of how culture defines religion. Roman Catholicism’s many symbols are adopted from the Roman Empire! Church Canon Law is an adoption of the same paradigm from Roman law.

    • You know Belloc repeats that phrase twice! He means it. If you read the bio of Belloc, you’ll notice that he WALKED thru Europe! He met the peasants and he knows Europe. He met the nitty-gritty. I also did a lot of walking in Europe and lived at its lowest levels. How many commentators here have walked on Europe and lived there for a time?

      I lived in the Catholic Italian Swiss Alps for two summers with its trailside and roadside shrines and chapels. Experienced the daily ringing of the bells and experienced the Old Europe.

      Only a person who has intimate knowledge of Europe like Hiliare can say something like that. He is most certainly right.

  22. You all are not going to understand what I write now. I’ve been learning this stuff and the importance of Culture over my whole lifetime. You are not going to get this with two days of posts on an internet thread. What I’ve done is broached concepts—which you have not heard before. In time, you will be able to connect the dots.

  23. Belloc meant what he said more from a cultural context if you read his writing, rather than conflating culture with religion. Not to mention, it’s a far stretch to presume one man’s writings speaks for the entire construct of Europe.

    Oh yeah, I’ll be able to connect the dots that Christianity is a purely European-centered faith. Uh-huh, sure.

  24. Now, I’m going to critique and demolish Kristor’s argument now that the groundwork of the importance of culture has been laid out.
    Christianity is always ipso facto a profound reproach to any and every such fallen social order as may be found in any time or clime.

    Wrong. Christianity is a religion. Here Kristor is using Christianity as an ideological club to beat down any social order it wanted.

    I ask all here did not Christianity support and uphold Monarchy under Christendom? Christianity did NOT seek and it is NOT its job to reproach social order. The family is a “social order”. The Catholic Church staunchly defends the social order of the family. If it defends the family what is Kristor talking about? Christianity in the Medieval Age lived in harmony with the social order of the day.

    Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, a staunch Catholic, along with a lot of traditional Catholics defend the Old Order of Monarchy. Far from reproaching it, Von Kuenhelt-Leddihn sees Monarchy and Christianity as bosom brothers.

    I don’t know where Kristor gets this thing about Christianity reproaches for the Christian Church existed in harmony with the Late Roman Empire and survived in the Byzantine Empire for over 1000 years. It supported the Byzantine Empire. Kristor does not know Christian history very well. The observation of Catholic Medieval Europe and the Byzantine Empire proves his contention false!

    • wlindsay, please relax a bit, OK old son? Think of St. Thomas a Becket’s reproach to Henry II, or St. Thomas More’s reproach to Henry VIII, and you’ll see what I was getting at. The Church is committed to goodness and righteousness, and urges us all relentlessly to repent and mend our wicked ways. She’ll keep doing this no matter how lovely and good our social order might be. And no matter how good and right our social order, it will always be true that it cannot be as good as it ought to be, because it will be forced to operate through sinners. Ergo, it is foolish to put our hopes in princes. Ditto for all other social organs whatever.

  25. What about Eastern Catholics? They are doing their best, and were never particularly inflluenced by rome. And the Latin rite is doing well in Africa.

  26. Where is Kristor? Why isn’t he participating in his own thread? This is called the “Orthosphere” but why does he write this sentence:’

    We call ourselves the Orthosphere in part because, as Christians, we understand our fundamental orientation as transcending and, ergo, orthogonal to all worldly orders. The Kingdom to which we aspire is not from this world.

    I have read a lot of traditional Catholic writings and books and yet I have never run across such a bizarre sentence and gibberish. What is “orthogonal to all wordly orders”?

    Who is “Kristor”? What is his training, education, bio, papers he has written? What is his ethnicity? Who is this guy? From what I read, nothing in this article is traditional, European, conservative or orthodox Christian. Why is this man writing for the Orthosphere?

    • Orthogonal = ortho + gonal = right + angle = at right angles (essentially, perpendicular). In statistical terms, orthogonal factors are ones whose correlation is set to 0.

    • Hi wlindsaywheeler. Sorry I haven’t participated in this thread till now. I’ve been away from my machine all day on family business. But more than that, it has seemed to me that the thread has been cooking along nicely, with first one person and then another saying more or less what I had been thinking I should say. Also, I find myself agreeing a bit with almost every comment, and ruminating about whether I should respond here in a series of bullet points to specific comments, or instead in a new post, in more summary fashion.

      I am an American of Swedish extraction, a high church Anglican with strong sympathies for the Roman and Orthodox communions. I haven’t written any papers, unless you want to count the often unbearably long essays that Laura Wood and Lawrence Auster have seen fit to post at Thinking Housewife and View from the Right. Bruce Charlton, one of my fellow Orthosphereans, has also published a number of longish essays of mine over at his Miscellany.

      As for my qualifications for posting here: no idea; can’t help you with that. So far as I can tell, I don’t have any such qualifications. The other guys invited me, based on what I’ve written around the web. Ask them. Perhaps the fact that I coined “orthosphere” had something to do with it.

      I’m actually extremely conservative, in the sense of the word that bonald emphasizes above. I’m all over that Burkeo-Maistrean Throne & Altar stuff. In this post, I was simply making the point that the ultimate and primary commitment of the Christian – or, as it seems to me, any sensible person – must be to the truth, which so far as I can tell means, to Christ. That ultimate commitment does not at all displace or diminish the love of the Christian for “my family, my fatherland, etc.,” as Bill has so succinctly put it above. Indeed, rather the opposite. A commitment to the ultimate value of things, and to the ultimate truth, would it seems to me rather entail a far *deeper* and more charitable commitment to one’s own, than could have been achieved by an orientation toward a good lesser than the Good himself, or informed by any truth lesser than the Truth himself.

      And, I think also that a commitment to Truth himself ends up involving a commitment to a traditionalist, Burkeo-Maistrean social order as both the natural and, therefore, the ideal constitution of human society. It seems to me that the more Christian you become, the more you end up wanting to recognize authority where it properly operates.

      Thus while our fundamental orientation as Christians must be to an order that is not from this world, that order does have implications for the order proper to this world. So, our political school is orthogonal to the whole mundane political spectrum; but because it intersects that spectrum at its far right end, the world apprehends us as “extreme right-wingers.”

      Because the political order that we believe is natural and sane to humanity is largely coterminous with the traditional order of the West, as it existed through most of its history up to the French Revolution, so Christian Reactionaries end up wishing to conserve or renew that traditional order, and with it all the traditions appurtenant thereto – including the solidarity of the European races and nations (and peoples, villages, towns, families, etc.).

      There’s a lot more to say. Thanks to all in this thread.

      • Wow, that was an awesome post Kristor. It is far different from the OP. Wow, On top of that a conservative Swede. How does that happen. After reading this post by Kristor, I have no objections.

        You must watch out for Burke; he was a Mason.

        All conservatives who are interested in upholding Tradition and European culture, the person to read is Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn and his book Liberty or Equality. It has over 900 footnotes. It is written by an Austrian aristocrat. He is European upholding the Old Order. I highly suggest that all people here that contribute and comment on this website should be highly familiar with his works.

        I should caution Kristor and others to not take Christianity to the extreme. All Good exists in the Golden Mean. All things have their place. To take something to an extreme means something else is destroyed. All Good, Beauty, Truth exist in the Golden Mean. It was carved on the Temple of Delphi some 2800 years ago, “Nothing too much”. things taken to an extreme destroy. I have a saying “Even Good, taken to the wrong proportions, does evil”. There has to be proportion in all things. Christianity taken to an extreme can destroy.

  27. Fr. Seraphim Rose in his book Nihilism, the Root of Revolution in the Modern Age, remarks that Nihilism seeks to destroy ALL ASPECTS of the Old Order.

    The Old Order is important for it is a natural growth of the Natural Order. The Greeks saw nature and called it the “Cosmos”. Cosmos means “ordered beauty”. This “ordered beauty” is the product of the Logos, Jesus Christ. All things, I repeat, All things were created thru Jesus Christ. The Natural Order was created by Jesus Christ. And the Natural Order produced the Old Order of king, aristocracy and so forth. Hierarchy is part and parcel of the Natural Order.

    Nihilism attacks not only Christianity in its beliefs, practices, institutions, and morals but also attacks the natural order of hierarchy and race. As it says, All things were created THRU Christ! All things. And that includes Race. Race matters. Race has value. Race has meaning. To disregard that, to attack race, to deconstruct race is to be a nihilist. You are destroying the handiwork of Christ and God the Father who ordered all such.

    Nature is an Order. There is Order in the Cosmos. Order is a product of Reason. The ancient Greeks labeled the reason that created the Order, The Logos. This is what St. John was using in his gospel. Christ is the Logos. And everything in Nature is Ordered. From the individual, to the Family to the Race. Our God is the God of Order.

    The first part of the Nihilist program of deracination was the getting rid of kings. Modern republicanism, it’s definition: any government without a king, was about getting rid of kings in order to bring about deracination and the destruction of race.

    The Logos is also called the Natural Law or Laws of Nature. The Laws of physics such as gravity and the Law of Thermodynamics, is not the Laws of Nature. The Laws of Nature are the metaphysical laws undergirding the cosmos. One of the laws of nature is “The rule of One is Best”. The Family is a product of the Logos. And just as a Family has one head, so the race has one head called the Royal Family.

    If this blog is the Orthosphere, we can not exhibit any nihilism in anything we say. We must assent to all things that God has commanded. Plutarch records the sentiment of the Doric Greeks, i.e. the Spartans:

    We are NOT in this world to give the laws….but in order to obey the commands of the gods.

    That IS Western Culture. That is Western civilization. That is at the root of the Indo-European. All things matter. Attention to detail. All things matter. And Race matters. Without European Culture, there is NO European. Culture is what forms the man. At the basis of Culture is Race. Religion also contributes to Culture but at its base, Race forms culture. Everything matters. And Everything has its place, time and proper share.

    • wlindsaywheeler: “Without European Culture, there is NO European.”

      This I agree with. A people that can in no way recognize itself can in no way preserve itself. And what is this recognition but culture?

      The idea that culture can be burned down to the ground and then built again pure leaves out the bit where, between the tearing down and the new building, the people are destroyed.

      Due to the tremendous pressure exerted by Judaism and Islam, there is no option to remain unharmed simply by default. Inadequate resistance means cultural, material and genetic destruction.

      • The Natural Law is “Life is War”. Christendom was built around a warrior culture. The Monarch is the War Lord and the Aristocracy are the War Captains.

        The so-called “Enlightenment” destroyed all that and gave people another ideal, that of “Liberte, Equalite, Fraternite”. “Liberte” is a pipe dream. Liberty, Freedom is what the Atheists and the Jews proposed in order to give themselves liberty and a free run in society. Christendom suppressed atheists and the Jews. These two groups helped each other to dismantle and deconstruct Christendom in order to bring them liberty. They fooled and decieved all. This idea of Freedom has led to our destruction.

        God constructed the Cosmos a certain way. It is the perfect of all worlds. But also God so constructed the Cosmos to take out fools. God does not suffer fools. Yes, we are all to work and seek the Kingdom of God, but we must also care for our own. North Africa had 500 bishoprics. They are all lost except a minority of Coptic Churches in Egypt. There were over 20,000 monks in the Thebaid region of Egypt. They were all massacred. There were over 250 monasteries in and around Jerusalem. 95% lost. The Crusaders, thru foolishness lost the Holy Land.

        “Life is War”. That is the Natural Law (or law of nature{both phrases in the Greek mean the same thing}). Christians and the Christian Church are NOT above the Natural Law. The Church has absolutely NO power over the Natural Law. The Natural Law is the Logos. The Natural Law is the product of Jesus Christ. The Church can not countermand, abrogate, disregard the Laws of Nature—-Or Nature will kill. Nature obeys the Logos. “Sola Scriptura” is an error. So is “Sola Gospel”. The Gospel is only part. The Gospel and the Natural Law have One Source—Jesus Christ. To better understand that please see this small article: Christ the font of Greek philosophy.

        “Life is War”. You can’t change that. Disregard that—and Nature will kill you. Islam understands that. Jews understand that. But Christians? They are lost in space.

    • “Western civilization”, the thing you fawn over so much, has only itself to blame for its downfall. “Western man” has acted like an ultimate Judas towards himself and others for centuries, it’s useless now to bring up so many examples which we all know. Blaming this downfall on external factors like Judaism is also a sign of ignorance. Did Jews pour their religious influences down helpless victims’ throats, or did the “victims” accept those influences as if they were their own traditions?

      Also, it’s of ultimate hypocrisy for “cultural conservatives” to think of themselves as the “saviours” of “Western civilization” when they offer only wisecracks and loose connections to a dead religion.

      The only real salvation is a return to Christianity, not the hodge-podge some propose.

      If “Western civilization” was meant to fall, then I don’t care if it falls. Its time has come, time to hit the bones road. It’s not taking my faith with it.

  28. You are not conservative if your idea of a good collective strategy goes like this: someone else builds the state; you subvert it, convert the population, take the spine out of them, and smile as they shrivel and their enemies move in, because; you subvert those newly conquering peoples and convert them, take the spine out of them and smile as they shrivel and their enemies move in, because (etc.). That’s not a consevative ideal strategy.

    It’s also not one that’s going to keep working for Christianity.

Comments are closed.