Introducing the American Traditionalist Society

The American Traditionalist Society does not exist. Not yet. But it is in the serious planning stages.

The Society’s purpose, in brief, is to help foster a more properly ordered American nation through the spiritual, intellectual, and moral renewal of Americans, both individually and collectively. This renewal will be a vast undertaking, and any organization can only help this process, not control or direct it. Nevertheless, concrete organizations large and small devoted to this purpose will be needed.

Here, by way of further introduction, are three brief statements:

.

Brief Description of the American Traditionalist Society

The American Traditionalist Society is dedicated to spreading proper—that is, traditionalist—conservatism. We call all people to understand and repent of liberalism, and we seek the renewal of American society.

.

Traditionalism Briefly Defined

Whereas liberalism denies man all that sustains his spirit, traditionalism restores the life-giving ties between a man and his people, their past, and his God. It restores wisdom and common sense by reconnecting man to the eternal order of being, a multifaceted order that is spiritual, moral, intellectual, religious, social and physical. Whereas contemporary thinking is fundamentally unwise outside of the procedures of the natural sciences and technology, traditionalism seeks to fill this void and strives for justice, truth, beauty, and the proper ordering of society.

Our traditionalism is therefore not simply a longing for the past. Since the present is radically defective, we naturally look to the past for a model of a more properly-ordered society, but we do not aim to recreate the conditions of the past. As Lawrence Auster has said,

“Traditition” is but one dimension of traditionalism. Traditionalism is, first, an orientation toward the transcendent structure of the universe–the natural, social (including historical and traditional”), and spiritual orders that make us possible.  Each society orders itself uniquely according to those orders. So traditionalism is not just the past tradition, it’s our active relationship and tension with the order of the world, but always grasped and expressed uniquely and newly in each time and society according to the particularities of that society.

.

The American Traditionalist Society: Our Raison D’être

Since roughly the 1960s, America has pursued a determined course of self-destruction in the name of liberalism. Our nation is now in a state of undeniable crisis. The federal government, close to insolvency, openly defies the Constitution and asserts its increasingly unaccountable and tyrannical power over the states and over the life of every individual. Our borders have been effectively erased, our language weakened, and our cultural foundations overturned. Our major institutions have been undermined from within. The media and popular culture have marginalized decency and virtue and made filth, transgression, and every kind of nastiness the new norm—a norm unquestioned by anyone in the mainstream culture, including conservatives. Our leaders pontificate that we must be tolerant above all else, and so many draw the natural conclusion that life is absurd. With the official-in-all-but-name denial of the God of the Bible and of any transcendent truth, many young men and women have become demoralized, leading lives that are amoral, selfish, and dissipated.

.

The response of institutionalized conservatism to this catastrophe has been wholly inadequate, for it has assumed that our nation is fundamentally sound and that we need only oppose the latest liberal initiatives. Failing effectively to challenge the false and evil premises of liberalism or even to acknowledge that these premises now hold effective control over all aspects of American society, the organized conservatism of our day has, at best, only slowed the rate of destruction. It is therefore time for a new, a traditionalist, conservatism which recognizes the dominance and falsehood of liberalism and the need to restore the traditional American way of life, yet updated to suit the times. It is time for men and women of good will to stand together before God, repent of their liberalism, and turn their hearts and minds toward the formation of a new social and political order, an order based on God, the wisdom of the ages, and that which is enduringly true in the American and Western tradition. We seek to foster a better order through the spiritual, moral and intellectual renewal of individuals, families, churches, and other fundamental units of society, leading naturally to an organic renewal of American society.

.

To this end, ever in debt to our forebears and beholden to posterity, the American Traditionalist Society is devoted.

.

[End of statement.]

Stay tuned for further details.

Note:  Since this is an occasion for, if not exactly celebration, then at least optimism and dedication, comments that are primarily or entirely hostile will be deleted / blocked. Disagreement that is respectful and at least somewhat rational will, of course, be allowed.

About these ads

89 thoughts on “Introducing the American Traditionalist Society

  1. Whereas contemporary thinking is fundamentally unwise outside of the procedures of the natural sciences and technology, traditionalism seeks to fill this void and strives for justice, truth, beauty, and the proper ordering of society.

    I understand that this passage does not say that contemporary thinking is wise inside science and technology. Rather it is silent on the question of contemporary thinking inside science and technology. Should it be silent, though? One of your contributors, Bruce Charlton, has spent a lot of time arguing that contemporary thinking inside science and technology is, well, fundamentally unwise.

    • I thought of what Charlton has said when drafting the statement, which is why it says “outside the procedures of the natural sciences and technology.” I wanted to add a nuance to indicate that all is not well even in these fields.

      But more fundamentally, I was trying to make the statement that whereas we are relatively wise physically, we are spiritually and intellectually unwise. I was making a sweeping general statement that will have to be clarified later.

  2. Make it explicitly Christian, not just implicitly, and I’m on board. Any institution in the West today that is not explicitly Christian–being monotheist isn’t enough–will eventually become anti-Christian.

    • Make it explicitly ChristianCatholic, not just implicitly, and I’m on board. Any institution in the West today that is not explicitly ChristianCatholic–being monotheist isn’t enough–will eventually become anti-ChristianCatholic.

      There. Fixed that for ya.

      • Yeah. While true, that’s not gonna fly.

        Although you’re free to go off and found your own country somewhere… maybe in the aftermath of the breakup of the USA, there will be several new countries, not just two, and you can found the Catholic American… Republic? Monarchy? I don’t know what form of government you might prefer.

        Wait a sec. Isn’t there another thread about this? ;-)

      • This thing hasn’t even gotten off the ground, and already someone is making a subtle attempt to divide Catholics and Protestants. Bravo.

      • Heheh! :)
        Funny, and probably true. Which lends a rather sad element to the joke. Hmm. :(

        You know I think that’s the thing that will get us in the end. The Catholic/Protestant divide goes deep, and the only true way of healing that would be the one folding to the other. And I’m pretty sure the millenia old Church isn’t going anywhere.
        I mean, while we’re all friends today, might we not all be enemies tomorrow? It’s not a pleasant thought, but hey, there is a reason our ancestors duked it out so much. There are some pretty large gaps between the two. And that’s not even considering the societies they create. The two created very different societies. How do we reconcile them with what we are trying to do with this renewal?
        The revolutionary spirit that has maimed western civ so, was, after all, a consequence of, and child of, protestantism.
        Sorry guys, I guess I was just thinking out loud.

        Oh, and this is for Bill Lewis and his comment/question @ Feb 22 8:51pm :
        Monarchy. All.The.Way.
        To Hell with republics, I’ve seen enough. :)

      • Ah, a healthy dose of good-ol’-fashioned omni-antagonistic Catholic intolerance is just the thing to give relativism a sound kick in the parts.

      • We might as well have it out right up front. There is no sense in waiting until we have a well-ordered, well-functioning society to wreck to have a good scrap.

      • Oberon wrote: “To hell with Republics, I’ve seen enough.”

        I’m curious as to how you can be so sure you prefer a Monarchy over a Republic, and particularly over the Republic that the framers envisioned and established in the (original) Constitution?

        Whatever you and I, and everyone else in this conversation has “seen,” actually seen, it isn’t anything remotely close to the Republiic the founding generation established. Yet I should imagine we’d (Traditionalists) all tend to agree that we’d fit better in the Republic of fifty years ago, and perhaps better still in that which existed a century ago now. Or can we at least agree that before the Supremes read incorporation into the fourteenth amendment, the U.S.A. still largely and fundamentally operated under a truly Republican form of government?

      • Terry,

        I believe it was Auster who noted that for America to have gotten this way it must have been fundamentally flawed in the first place. Saying, basically, that ‘this is not what was intended’ does no good. America’s foundations are, and have always been, devoid of grace, because grace in authority can only stem from above, not from below. Sure, “the people” being represented began with the elites, but the result of modern America (the extension) was inevitable.

        We ought not look at ‘intentions’ but, rather, what underlying principle the events of life reflect.

        Here, Evola does justice to what I cannot.

        John,

        Intolerance is a necessity.

      • Yes, caseydeann, but he also wrote Fixing the Founding, in which he addressed those flaws. The problem is that the Constitution deals in abstractions, and does not touch upon the substance of the American people at the founding: the ethnic, religious, moral, and cultural content. This is why the new American Federal Republic must make these things clear, and why, for example, Mexicans and Moslems can never be a true part of our nation.

        Oh, dear. I keep posting things that belong on Jeffersonian’s proposal here. Funny how that happens.

      • In the case of Moslems, you are correct. But persons of Mexican heritage can be part of our nation, and it is a mistake to overreact to Mexican irredentism.

        The current problem is that the United States of America refuses to protect herself against any threat to her integrity except the most crude physical threats, and this naturally causes foreigners and Americans of foreign heritage to despise America. If the AFR made it clear that it would jail or deport any individual who worked for Reconquista (or Sharia), and especially if she successfully pressured the government of Mexico formally to renounce her official-in-all-but-name campaign to retake the Southwest, then Americans and Mexicans could live in peace. If you stand up to a bully, he will eventually back down, and often respect you. In this case, most Mexicans would respect the AFR, and persons of Mexican heritage within the AFR would have no reason to be disloyal.

        Of course, nonwhite Mexicans have a different way of life from us, and that naturally leads to friction. So the AFR would have to be majority-white in order to function well. But I was reacting to your apparent assertion that no Mexicans could be true citizens of the AFR.

      • In that case, what do you propose to do with us mudbloods who identify with traditionalist Western (Catholic) Christianity? I mean, racial mixing has already taken quite a toll (I was just writing with a half Indian traditionalist about this who identifies similarly). I don’t really understand how we’re to go about restoring this order in the racial, practical sense.

        (I imagine everyone would prefer to shy away from the issue.)

      • I think the answer to CaseyDean’s question is the traditional one. Traditionalism need not mean homogeneity. In fact, lots of traditional societies have dealt with heterogeneity. Significant heterogeneity is probably incompatible with functioning democracy, but not with functioning Traditionalism.

        Minority communities have two choices. Either they can form ghettos, behave “their way” inside, behave in the larger society’s way outside, and negotiate what needs to be negotiated at the boundaries with the relevant elites or they can assimilate, drop their separate identity, and merge with the larger population. For the latter to occur, obviously the larger population must consent. Ghettoization is how the US dealt with Catholic ethnics from the beginning of their migration up through some fuzzy point around WWII. This system worked very well up until the point where the East Coast Establishment consciously decided to destroy it—effectively to go back on the settlement they had previously agreed to with ethnics. After destroying Catholic ghettos and demanding and receiving the reforms of Vatican II, the Establishment then accepted ethnic’s assimilation, culminating in the phenomenon of Reagan Democrats: Catholics voting for the Establishment which had overturned the ghetto settlement.

        In another example I know a little about, Hungary, this is also roughly how it worked. Jews and most(?) Germans chose ghettoization. A few Jews and some Germans chose assimilation, so there are a number of Hungarian-identifying people with German names and/or Jewish ethnic background. That particular country has done this particular thing a couple of times in its history.

        Mixture is a bad idea, and people should be strongly encouraged not to do it. For example, no church should marry a member to a non-member, ever. The general rule, which general rule must apply with particular strength to those unfortunate enough to be mixed, is: choose (outwardly at least). Of course, this choice could even include mixed people choosing to ghettoize as mixed people: that is, forming a new minority identity. This latter is likely to be more a choice in theory than a choice in practice.

        I further think that all this applies to both Jews and Muslims. If they are going to stay as Jews and as Muslims, they must live in ghettos and generally stay separate. What to do with Catholic whites now is a good question, though. Almost all of them identify generically as American Christian whites, so ghettoizing seems pointless. Traditionalist Catholics should ghettoize, since the way they want to live is not compatible with what the larger society wants. “Regular” Catholics aren’t noticeably different from Episcopalians, so there is no need to separate them: they already done assimilated. Poles still identify primarily as Poles, so presumably they should remain/become ghettoized. Similarly with Mexicans.

      • I basically agree with Bill’s comment. A healthy nation must have a majority who defend their identity and their way, and minorities must either band together to live as they wish or else emulate the ways of the majority. This is the only way to avoid the evils of Balkanization.

        In the current America, minorities have what might be called “ghettoization with benefits.” They get to think of themselves as separate from white America, but they continue to receive the benefits of living in a relatively prosperous and well-run country that affords them extravagant formal rights.

      • That Evola quotation was notable for two reasons:

        – it indicates a fundamental hatred for not only America but for the basic foundations on which it lies. That is not all that surprising, given that America was an Enlightenment project. But there seems to be a tendency not to acknowledge that here, even as you make plans to secede you claim to be hewing to some truer notion of Americanism than the actual one.

        – it is almost indistinguishable from a certain kind of leftist critique of America, the kind that was popular among intellectuals 50 years ago and still is to some extent. America is full of crass, materialistic conformists, deaf to the higher callings of the spirit and intellect.

        Free advice: that attitude hasn’t done the left any good, and we’ve been trying to disentangle ourselves from that sort of snobbery and engage with the American reality.

      • I agree with onecertain that the Evola quotation was not useful, although it contains an element of truth. As a foreigner, Evola had a limited understanding of America.

        A better way to think here is supplied by Auster’s VFR post “Fixing the Founding.” His insight is that the official founding documents only made explicit reference to liberal principles such as citizens’ rights and the procedures of government, while remaining silent on the nature of American society, for example, its Christianity. Over time, the explicitly liberal principles have come to dominate the implicit non-liberal principles.

        Liberalism can be non-destructive only if it is clearly and officially subordinated to non-liberal principles of social order.

      • onecertain is repeating the familiar fact that reactionary/traditionalist is a relative term. Different ones of us locate the time when things went off the rails differently. If you locate that time before the American Revolution, you are going to dislike “America: the Idea,” as, for example, I do.

        This is no barrier to being a patriot, of course. America is exceptional because it is the place I, my wife, my children, many of my co-ethnics and co-believers, my friends, and my colleagues were born, live, and will likely die. Furthermore, it represents a great triumph of Western culture, even if it basically denies the source of its greatness. It’s sort of like an obnoxious adolescent, that way. But, *my* obnoxious adolescent.

      • To Prof. Roebuck,

        I’m sorry my thoughts came out so crudely. What I meant by “Mexican” was “irredentist Mestizos.” If any traditionalist society is going to survive, it is going to need a clear ethnic majority whose norms shall be the norms of the society at large; i.e., what obtained in the US until the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s. I believe we agree on this point of racial conservatism (Larry Auster posted about this recently).

        Yes, white Mexicans could be good citizens of the AFR, as could “mudbloods,” as CaseyDean so HarryPotterly put it. Having said that, I still agree with Jeffersonian’s citizenship restrictions regarding Mexicans. Besides, Mexicans already have their own country. We have lost ours, and if we are to re-establish one, we should ordain and establish it for ourselves and our posterity.

    • It will be [explicitly Christian], in the sense that it will be pro-Christian. Most members will be Christian, but sympathetic non-Christians can be a part of it too.

    • Shoot, now that I’ve refreshed myself on my Harry Potter knowledge, I realize I misused the term “mudblood” and meant “half-blood,” as they are not interchangeable. And yes, I agree that mixing should not take place.

  3. Traditionalism Briefly Defined

    Traditionalism restores the life-giving ties between a man and his people, their past, and his God. It restores wisdom and common sense. Whereas contemporary thinking is fundamentally unwise outside of the procedures of the natural sciences and technology, traditionalism seeks to fill this void and strives for justice, truth, beauty, and the proper ordering of society.

    You shouldn’t define a word by using it. Maybe there is no consensus definition; or maybe the real definition is a more at odds with pre-“1960s” America than some are comfortable admitting.

    There is no culture without a cult. America has for nearly 400 years been singularly dedicated to eliminating that cult, nay the very possibility of cult at all. She has done a splendid job.

    • The meaning of the word “tradition” is fairly clear: what we receive (or should receive but are trying to deny) from our ancestors. The point of the above brief definition is to show that traditionalism is not just mindlessly following the ways of the past, but is instead a life-giving connection with just what liberals are trying to destroy or deny.

  4. Isn’t liberalism the quintessential American (or at least Anglo) tradition? I am definitely behind this but I would prefer the name to be the Traditionalist Society of America or better yet the Christian Traditionalist Society of America to emphasize that is more than just American traditions that we honor.

    • You have a point, but I think “American Traditionalist Society” is more euphonious than your proposal. And liberalism, though dominant, is only one of the strains within the traditions of America. Also, liberalism is arguably an anti-tradition, because it denies real tradition in the sense of what we receive from our ancestors.

      • And never cede ground to the devil! It may be true that the republic was born in iniquity; it may be true that our founding was mixed with “enlightenment” (sic) foolishness. But error has no territorial claims that we should respect. And the problems inherent in the American tradition doesn’t make this land any less the land of our birth and of our identity.

    • The Society will be an organization, with members, meetings, and an agenda of refuting liberalism and urging people to repent, that is, to recognize their participation in liberalism and consciously decide to turn from it. It will organize and coordinate the production and dissemination of anti-liberal and pro-traditionalist literature. It will involve ordinary people in the business of building a traditionalist movement.

      And I see the Society as apolitical in the sense that it will not seek to counter liberalism using ordinary political means. Instead, it will be “political” in the more fundamental sense of arguing for a certain vision of the good society.

      • Ah: Doing it “meat space”–a quite offensive term if one’s Irony Detector is malfunctioning.

        Most of the heavy lifting is being done in the homeschool movement already. Homeschooling has been and will likely long remain the single most important key to fighting the deracinating acid which is modernity.

        As those who know anything about the “movement” will tell you, you will of course find VERY strange bedfellows there. They will be united in their love of diverse particular traditions and their hatred of USG and a plurality of its actions. But quite likely not much else.

        Please don’t take this as any sort of slam, Alan. I am a regular participant in the Meatspace Orthosphere meetups in NYC. And we are quite convivial and share many things in common. It can and should work, but my only caution is that many of us on the front lines are… errrmmm… already on the front lines (eking by on one income, raising and homeschooling kids). I think we need to enlist some concerned (and relatively affluent) grandparents. Of course, semi-retired Dot-com zillionaires are a big help too. ;-)

      • I am dead serious that one of the best things this society could do to fight liberalism is provide childcare and cleaning services to homeschooling Christian mothers and Christian mothers with toddlers and infants. Dumping the entire burden of home care, education and maintenance on women without making provision for them to do the work in groups, along with social time in between and intermittently as was the traditional norm has been a big reason women run off to the relative ease and social interaction with adults of paid work outside the home.

        I refer to Christian women in these situations because the number is small, and thus feasible.

  5. Sounds good, but with a few glaring mistakes, I think.
    For one I’m pretty sure that the problem in America goes back much, much further than the 1960s. The Revolution would be a good start I think, but even then it’s older. The beginning of the liberal order was where things went bad. There are some good books on the subject, one of my favorites is “Liberty the God that Failed” by Christopher A. Ferrara. It was a Christmas present, started reading it that day, and I couldn’t put it down until I had finished it. Which is saying something, given that it’s around 700 pages long! I knew some of what was in it, but much of it was eye opening. There are other good, and recent, books as well, like “The Unintended Reformation” by Brad S. Gregory. I think they should be required reading for traditionalists.
    But that brings it right to it, doesn’t it? What tradition does America offer other than Liberalism? How can we renew a country that was broken the moment it formed it’s identity? Above, Steve N. And Kevin Nowell make good, similiar points as well.
    I think the idea is great, and that we should have something like a traditionalist society, but it has to be bigger than just America, or perhaps that should just be dropped from the title altogether. How about instead of the revolutionary america as our symbol, we use colonial america, as in the european colony, i.e. part of the european tradition. The Western tradition is what I mean. I know you said that, but I think the “american” addition just detracts from the whole, and our detractors will point that out. “America, traditionalism? Ha! They’ll quip.
    Perhaps it should be a traditionalist society with a particular focus on America because that’s the land it happens to be located in.

    • Liberalism is actually a fruit of voluntarism (i.e. erroneously seeing the will as prior to the intellect, contra Aquinas), whose first notable proponent (if I’m not mistaken) is William of Ockham (yes, the Occam’s razor William of Ockham) in the 6th century. So our troubles really go far further back than that.

      • Yes, I know about voluntarism, and William, and yes your right. The difference is that I’d say it was a major element of the stew, rather than the thing in it’s entirety. Liberalism itself had many elements to it, I would not say it was soley the fruit of voluntarism, but yes, the seeds were already being planted, sadly they were aloud to grow.

    • Lawrence Auster addressed some of these concerns in his brief article Fixing the Founding.

      In brief, one of the problems that was inherent in the Founding was that it addressed only the procedural content and not the particulars of who the Founding Fathers and their people were.

      Oops—am I wandering back to Jeffersonian’s post again? ;-)

  6. All this discussion of a name is worrying. It seems like, at the beginning, the name is the least important thing. The focus should be more on what and how things will be done.

    Also, something about a rose…

  7. I wish there were a traditionalist forum for discussing topics like this. Discussing this in blog comments is insufficient.

    I am seeing a lot of exclusionary ideas on the Orthosphere recently that exclude people who would be sympathetic to traditional values. This includes excluding non-Christians and, from Jeffersonian’s proposal, excluding Mexicans. I am not Christian. I run a Act Biblically meetup to promote traditional values. Half the members are Mexican. Do you really want to exclude us from your movement? Liberals do not make this mistake. They accept anyone who shares liberal values.

    I have been thinking recently about where society went wrong. I now think that the roots of the problem come from the Christian Revivalism movement as described in the book Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy. This movement removed morality from Christianity. Without morality, nothing works. As John Adams said:

    ————————————————————————
    we have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
    ————————————————————————

    The problem is not liberty, the problem is lack of morality. In fact liberty depends on morality. The lack of morality in Liberalism dooms liberty and guarantees that we will soon have tyranny.

    • I agree with most of what you say on morality. The Mexican exclusion, though, might be necessary in the beginning to prevent third world, Latin American cultural influence. Western European societal values need to be dominant before others are assimilated.

      No offense, but if you are not Christian, what makes you qualified to instruct people in how to act Biblically?

      • Traditional old European societal values have been lost anyway, so you will have to teach them to Whites through religion. And if they have to be taught anyway, I don’t see why they can’t be taught to Mexicans just as well. The more exclusionary a proposal is, the less likely it is to be successful.

        The “Bible” can refer to the Christian Bible or the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament). I follow the Old Testament. And since everything Jesus taught supports the Old Testament, I don’t see why I can’t discuss biblical values with Christians. Of course I don’t teach belief since I don’t have Christian beliefs, I stick to values and biblical action.

      • Franklin,
        Your first paragraph sounds very “liberal” in tone, ie “diversity”. Traditional western values are very much alive in literature and in some people, mankind doesn’t change that much, we just go through cycles. Americans, especially white Americans (and I would say southerners and mid westerners even more especially) are much closer to the traditions. Modernism needs to be overcome and replaced with proper values before its safe to bring in people from other corrupted cultures. We need to reinstate our culture so we have something for others to assimilate to.

        As to your second paragraph, Jesus Christ is the apotheosis of the Old testament. Without Him, the OT is mostly just history.

      • But it requires more than agreement on values to create (or renew) a nation. It also requires a group with a sense of solidarity derived from similar descent and a shared history, and it requires individuals who identify themselves with the nation. …

        Bottom line: America has enemies, and also people who, while not formally enemies, wish her ill. As patriotic Americans…

        Weren’t you just a few days ago talking about seceding from America and founding your own country? Or was that somebody else with the same name? Seems like you are the one who lacks a sense of solidarity with the shared history and values of your country. Now you are all of a sudden a patriot. You can’t really have it both ways.

      • Since Mr. uncertain shows no interest in understanding, or showing sympathy for, our position, he personally does not deserve a response.

        For those who have some sympathy for our cause, I simply observe that the point of secession (which I did not fully endorse, but only showed sympathy for) is to preserve a remnant of the real America, the America of our ancestors.

      • I thought that Latin America had been evangelized by Western Europeans by the time the English Dissenters and regicides landed in Massachussets. I would posit that Latin American values are, on average, entirely western. What they have is bad government as a consequence of their erroneous decision of rebelling against the Spanish crown… influenced by, yes Americans.

        For example, can Catholics be Americans? Is this a strictly racial statement? After all, just by looking at the “Apotheosis of George Washington” and everything else built on that city, you can see strong Masonic influences which are incompatible with Catholicism.

      • Ralph,

        The Latin American countries were Spanish and Portuguese colonies, but they weren’t really settled like N. America was. As a result, a lot of the native culture remained intact with a euro veneer on top. That said, Argentina and Uruguay are apparently very European in flavor.

    • Franklin:

      Do you really want to exclude us from your movement? Liberals do not make this mistake. They accept anyone who shares liberal values.

      About liberals: They can afford to admit into their coalition anyone who shares their values because their agenda is essentially destructive: To destroy the traditional American order. To this enterprise, widely diverse peoples can contribute.

      But it requires more than agreement on values to create (or renew) a nation. It also requires a group with a sense of solidarity derived from similar descent and a shared history, and it requires individuals who identify themselves with the nation. It is possible for outsiders to come to identify themselves so much with their adopted nation that they may be considered members, but this is somewhat rare, especially in this day of officially-encouraged multiculturalism and anti-assimilationism.

      So outsiders may be sympathetic with our cause without being members of our group. We are Christian Americans [the American Traditionalist Society, that is], as opposed to Christian Mexicans, or Christian Chinese, or even Christian Frenchmen. These latter persons will be sympathetic to and supportive of our cause, but to the extent that they are not Americans, they are not fully members of our enterprise.

      [Of course, Christian Frenchmen and especially Christian Englishmen will be more like us than the other groups mentioned. For many purposes, they can be considered to be full members of our group.]

      But some peoples are not only not Americans, but also bear an organized and sharply-defined grudge against America. A prime example would be pious Moslems, who are commanded by their god to subdue infidels by force if necessary. Another example would be some Mexicans. To quote from Lawrence Auster’s 2006 essay “The Second Mexican War,”

      According to a Zogby poll in 2002, 58 percent of the Mexican people [AR: Presumably, this means Mexicans residing in Mexico] believed the U.S. Southwest belongs to Mexico, and 57 percent believed that Mexicans have the right to enter the United States without U.S. permission. Only small minorities disagreed with these propositions.

      Note that it does not say “58% of Mexicans want to retake the U. S. Southwest.” It says that 58% of Mexicans believe that the U.S. Southwest already belongs to Mexico, as if the treaty of Guadeloupe Hidalgo never was signed.

      Of course, many Mexicans bear us no ill will, and many Mexican-Americans are assimilated and patriotic. But many are not. And persons who hold the views discussed above are hostile to America, a fact which we ought to recognize. This is why Jeffersonian proposes excluding Moslems and treating Mexicans with caution.

      Bottom line: America has enemies, and also people who, while not formally enemies, wish her ill. As patriotic Americans, we need to recognize these realities and take reasonable steps to safeguard our interests, yet without becoming paranoid, racist or crudely xenophobic.

  8. I am seeing a lot of exclusionary ideas on the Orthosphere recently

    No kidding. I actually found myself checking the “About” page to reassure myself that the official Orthosphere creed is Christianity and not the American Civil Religion.

    • But Christianity is fundamentally exclusivistic (“exclusionary” as you put it; is there a difference?), is it not? What I mean is, doesn’t Jesus say in the New Testament not to “cast your pearls before swine,” and the like? Aren’t we told (again in the N.T.) that non-believers (in Christ and His deity) shall be damned? Are we to accept the members of what Ann Barnhardt (correctly, in my opinion) describes as “Superfun Rockband Church” simply based on their profession of Christianity and Christian ethics? Shall we not “know them by their fruits?”

      Perhaps I am just misinterpreting your concerns?…

      • It saddens me how badly Christians understand Jesus. Who exactly are the swine? Note the context of this quote. Jesus is talking about hypocrites who criticize others without seeing their own faults, something all too common in modern Christianity. Elsewhere Jesus says that the good Samaritan is his neighbor, to be loved as yourself because he is a good person, in spite of the fact that the Samaritan has different beliefs from Judaism or Christianity.

        And what is the context of “know them by their fruits”? Jesus goes on to say:

        ———————————————————————–
        “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord!’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of My Father in heaven. On that day many will say to Me, ‘Lord, Lord, didn’t we prophesy in Your name, drive out demons in Your name, and do many miracles in Your name?’ Then I will announce to them, ‘I never knew you! Depart from Me, you lawbreakers!’

        “Therefore, everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them will be like a sensible man who built his house on the rock.
        ———————————————————————–

        The point is that what people say and believe isn’t what counts. It is actions that count. The “fruits” are the actions. Those who don’t act on Jesus’s words, all of which support the Old Testament, are lawbreakers.

        In my Act Biblically group, I am doing my best to support what Jesus taught which is vastly different from what modern Christians practice.

      • Luke 12:51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:

        Mark 6:11 And if any place will not welcome you or listen to you, shake the dust off your feet when you leave, as a testimony against them.

        Pretty divisive. As for not believing, but instructing others how to act:

        John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

        As a non-believer, maybe you want to take a second look at the verse you quoted especially this part:
        “Then I will announce to them, ‘I never knew you! Depart from Me, you lawbreakers!’”

      • Franklin said, “The point is that what people say and believe isn’t what counts. ”

        I would point out that saying something is an act; an act that reflects belief.

      • Franklin, I think a nation is going to have to be run differntly than a meet up group. Your little group will not have to band together for multiple generations to pay taxes, fight wars, build institutions, etc. Further, I can love a Samaritan without having to give him a vote in my government.

    • I can understand why you’d be afraid of Americanism. But what’s going on here does not appear to be Americanism as we know it, but an attempt to recreate America from the ground up. Therefore, it cannot be the same kind of “patriotism” you’d expect at a NASCAR rally or a Rodeo in TX.

      Here is a reason why some Christians cling to American ideas:

      http://en.minghui.org/emh/article_images/2003-9-7-cxt-2.jpg
      http://en.minghui.org/html/articles/2004/11/3/54142.html

      (That’s a picture of a woman tortured by Chinese communists for being a member of a state banished religion.)

  9. “Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is Liberty.” – II Cor. 3:17, is what my Bible teaches me. If this is true then its opposite is also true: Where the Spirit of the Lord is not, there is no liberty.

    And to quote George Washington on the subject of religion and morality,

    “And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. …reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. …”

      • rogerunited: The problem is, to quote Hamilton in Federalist no. 1,

        “So numerous indeed and so powerful are the causes which serve to give a false bias to the judgment, that we, upon many occasions, see wise and good men on the wrong as well as the right side of questions of the first magnitude to society. This circumstance, if duly attended to, would always furnish a lesson of moderation to those who are engaged in any controversy however well persuaded of being in the right. And a further reason for caution, in this respect, might be drawn from the reflection that we are not always sure that those who advocate the truth are actuated by purer principles than their antagonists.” …

      • I’m neither a libertarian nor a federalist. I don’t know why I posted the above, it wasn’t a complete thought.

        None of us are moral enough enough of the time to have no laws.

      • Well, self-government, more specifically Christian Self-Government, by which I mean primarily (although it extends to larger societal spheres, of course) controlling or restraining onself – one’s passions, one’s impulses, ambitions and so forth, and not the libertarian model of lawless self-determinationism – was an important founding principle. So I can understand why you made such a statement, but recanted it on reflection. Self-government is absolutely vital to liberty and happiness; to the kind of society that most of us seem to long for here. …

  10. The American idea of indiscriminate liberty of religion and expression is inviable.
    The liberty of particular religions must be decided individually.

    The State is not monopoly of coercion as libertarians falsely maintain. The State is a structure of laws and customs. Thus the State is informed by some vision-Dike as it is in Greek, The Way or the Dharma or the Tao.
    So if you do not allow some Church to inform the State, it would be informed by something else. And that would be secularism again.

    • I’ve noticed that libertarians seem to think the state springs forth from nothingness as opposed to being made up of the people it governs. I hadn’t thought of it, though, in the way you stated it, of the state being informed by something. Would you say that something is the society that comprises the state? So, in an overtly Christian society the state would tend to be Christian assuming that the secular elements of society weren’t over-represented?

      • A minor differentiation: Libertarians argue that the State, as such, exists arbitrarily; that it has no rhyme or reason to its laws, but merely establishes them “because it can.” So, for instance, if the State (or one of its subsidiaries) makes a speed-limit law saying, in essence, that a two-thousand pound vehicle shall not exceed fifteen or twenty miles per hour within that zone, this, according to Libertarians, is an exercise of arbitrary authority based on arbitrary numbers. If that makes any sense. Fundamentally libertarianism has never made much sense to me, based on my understanding of its doctrines.

      • Aristotle spoke of three irreducible levels of the City.

        1) The State
        2) The Family
        3) The Individual

        You are not to think of Church as something entirely separate from the State. The state is a structure of laws, customs, particular history of a particular people–it is a rational thing and the public reason, that is the matters that arise in the state and the arguments that are permissible in a given state, that public reason informs the State.

        Man is a visionary being. Each man has a vision of the Good and he acts to realize this vision. This is what politics is- the pursuit and the struggle to realize one’s vision.
        Now, individual visions are largely formed by the State. But the vision of the State itself, that is the public reason, is itself a product of the struggle of various individual visions.

        However, the State exists only if enough individuals share a vision. This is what ‘friendship’ is in Greek philosophy (“philia”)–sharing of visions. Thus, a State is a community of friends and the vision itself is the Truth the friends adore. You can read it in CS Lewis-The Four Loves-the friends are pictured standing side-by-side looking ahead. While the love called eros is pictured as lovers looking into each other.

        There is a lot that can be said on this. I would recommend looking at the site What is Wrong with the World for discussions on the Greek and Christian concept of the City.

  11. Pingback: The Thinking Housewife › Republicans Against Marriage

  12. Franklin, after reading your posts here I am more convinced that we should not have some assembly and vote on who is in or out. I lean toward a type of Monarchy, where the monarch is the embodiment of this new movement. I live in Chicago and can tell you that Mexicans are socialists, even if Christian. Better to not have socialists complaining at every turn and missing the point entirely. Moral men need guidance and a frame work to function efficiently in. Most illegals and blacks simply don’t work together well and foster dissent at many levels, making governing difficult. The point is: the people in this movement are there because they want to cooperate and create something they know is worthwhile, that will continue to propagate the history of the western world. We want to be free to say “no” to certain groups and philosophies and not be prosecuted for it. Alex

  13. Pingback: A Work of God? or a snare of Satan? | Thewhitechrist's Weblog

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s