Religion and reaction

A few weeks ago, The Avenging Red Hand put up this post, in which he wonders when he can be part of the new reaction if he’s religious.

This is a question that should probably be answered by Nick B. Steves, who writes well on the interaction of the Orthosphere and the reactosphere (whether he explicitly means to or not). However, I’ll take a crack.

I’ve sort of already responded in a series of book reviews meant to highlight the fact that the US has gone through several periods of increased religious (Christian) conviction and that those periods have also been periods of increased progressivity. In addition, in another review, I noted Sam Francis’s skepticism about the real conservative-ness of the Religious Right.

More recently, we can thank “religious leaders” for the bit of success the “immigration reform” efforts have had. These leaders don’t yield to anyone in the Democratic Party in their eagerness to elect a new people (much as Sam Francis would have predicted).

It’s really only reasonable to conclude that mass-religious movements (like, perhaps, all mass movements) won’t be a source of right-ward shifts. In fact, they’ve been consistent sources of left-ward shifts for a many centuries.

However, this says nothing about a person’s religious beliefs. I strongly suspect that any large gathering of reactionaries will include a disproportionally large number of religious people (though I’ll be surprised if we get a lot of unitarians or lutherans, etc). I’d go so far as to say that I welcome this phenomenon and hope it continues. The reaction, however, is not – and, in my opinion, should not be – a religious movement (after all, that’s what progressivism is for).

Here’s the key bit from The Avenging Red Hand’s post:

When I say I am Orthodox, then, I dont mean that I see Orthodoxy as somehow useful to my agenda, as a way to strengthen the culture or maintain social order or build a community or something, and that as a result of that I’ve adopted the forms of Orthodoxy or joined myself to an Orthodox Church.

As long as that’s true, I don’t see any inherent conflict.

Update: GBFM also writes in this subject rather regularly.


49 Responses to Religion and reaction

  1. josh says:

    You are overlooking the obvious. You are defining periods of “increased religion” to include only NEW religious movements, generally based on creating a worldly kingdom (ie political movements). In other words, you are pointing to groups who reject traditional social and religious orthodoxy as well as the authority of the institutions that adjudicated disputes in the state religion (there is always a state religion) and pointing out that they lead to anti-traditional social and religious views. Well, I’ll be darned! Revolution is revolutionary!

    You are overlooking the obvious. We are talking not about periods of religious increase, but of periods of apostasy and heresy.

    Meanwhile guess who hasn’t been getting more religious since the last revolution:

    Now the 1960s was also saw an increase in religion, and, like the other religious movements associated with leftism, it was focused either on magic, ie. trying to directly control the supernatural to achieve worldly ends. In other words, “Ye shall be as Gods”. We Catholics refer to this as demonic. Its roots are not in the Church of Christ, but in the Kabala, and the gnostic and pythagorean traditions which entered the Christian tradition via “Judaizing” protestant apostates, often actual ethnically Jewish (and practicing crypto-Jewish) conversos. Even the intellectual traditions of Scholasticism which tried to understand nature as it is vs. the modern kabalistic attempt to make nature conform to our will by incantation (We hold these Truths to be self-evident…) are diametrically opposed.

    From a purely sociological point of view, Catholic Christianity led to the centuries long accumulation of social capital known as the high middle ages. From a metaphysical point of view, the question comes down to the rejection or acceptance of logos (Carlyle called it the “everlasting yea” and the “everlasting no”). Catholics accept a reality in which reason and laws (even moral laws) are built-in to the very structure of reality. To accept the existence of legitimate heirarchy and authority requires the kind of formal corporate realist thinking developed by the Church and other traditions (eg Confucian). To accept binding ethical commitments requires formal realism and a conception of goodness itself that is based on logos. To a Christian, Christ is the logos made flesh, no true Christian can reject logos just as no true Scotsman is not from Scotland.

    You will probably respond that that is an intra-Christian theological issue that means nothing more to you than a discussion of the Trinity. Fine. It is inarguable that the middle ages was a time period of increasing Christianity and increasing social order and that the social order peaked at the high point of the strength of the Church. Additionally, the counter-reformation was a period of increasing social order on the continent. At the very least, it is ahistorical to argue that Christianity is inconsistent with an ordered society.

    You need to expand your frame of reference. Revolution can’t be coterminous with Christianity and also a rejection of traditional Christianity that leads to a total rejection of not just Christ, the Father, and the Human soul, but even the existence of substantial forms (the avant garde of your “Christian” tradition doesn’t believe that *cats* exist). That doesn’t make sense. We are talking about two different things here. So what is it that revolution is rejecting that we reactionaries accept?

    • Foseti says:

      So, in order to further the reaction, we need a mass movement into orthodoxy? Does that really advance the discussion?

      • Tomás de Torquemada says:

        Yes, yes.

      • josh says:

        I don’t advance discussions, per se.

        I also didn’t say that. As far as I can tell social capitol builds slowly. We have destroyed quite a bit in a small amount of time. The best we can hope for is , as Bob Dylan says, to “wake up an strengthen the things that remain.” I doubt a mass movement can help unless it is a mass movement dedicate to the idea that charity starts at home, which is kind of the antithesis of a mass movement.

      • KevinNowell says:

        I second Tomas’s “Yes, yes”.

        Reactionary government can be achieved secularly; but, only in a secular country. U.S.A. is not a secular country. It is a heretic country. You can’t convert heretic into a reactionary in his politics without first converting him into a reactionary in his religion. Not for long at least.

  2. I believe ethno-nationalists can and should be Christians, of a biblical, traditional type. Most modern Christianity deviates seriously from both the Bible and longstanding tradition, and is just a front for progressivism. Because of that I can’t hold it against those who find Christianity repulsive; I did for a long time, until I read the book myself. All brick and mortar churches have to pay lip service to anti-racism, but if you find an otherwise traditional one you should be OK. I’m open to working with traditionalist pagans.

    • KevinNowell says:

      It is Christian to be “anti-racist” in the sense that we should love our neighbor and the parable of the good Samaritan teaches us that all people are our neighbor.

      Of course Christian churches would and should “pay lip service to anti-racism”. This is completely orthodox and as it should be. America is a multi-racial society. Ethnic strife naturally arises in such . It is natural that those responsible for teaching morality would put more of on emphasis on living peacefully with other peoples in a heterogenous society than they would in a homeogenous society.

      The problem is when this truth is perverted to mean more than it does. Treating all peoples well does not mean one cannot prefer to live amongst one’s own ethnic family. Or that one should be blind to reality and not notice the truth that different peoples are different. Or to not use this information accordingly.

      The reason liberalism is so powerful and ascendant is that it includes true virtues. Liberty IS a natural right of man. Brotherhood IS good and virtuous. We ARE all equal before God. But there are other truths as well. Hiearchy is necessary. Authority should be respected. Men and women are different. Marriage is for life. God is real, and so is sin.

      When we take some truths but the rest we eschew,
      when we replace “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” with “Do not do unto others what they have not consented to”,
      when we stray from scripture by taking tradition out of the picture,
      when we put earthly delights above the hope of spritual heights,
      when we store our treasures on Earth and forget what eternity is worth,
      when we become filled with pride and take Mammon as our bride;
      then, reality is distorted,
      sins are supported,
      criminals are imported,
      goodness is thwarted,
      babies are aborted and
      lives become morbid.

  3. josh says:

    Tex Watson says that the whole clan knew that Charles Manson was Jesus Christ and that Charlie would sometimes read passages from Revelation along with quotes from the white album. In joining the Manson family and leaving his Methodist family, did Tex become more Christian, less Christian or equally Christian?

    • Peter Blood says:

      It looks to me like there is too much Christianity for too long. Anyone can call himself a Christian and carry around a head full of cockamie notions, and it’s all “Christian.” Heh, I wonder if we could identify the real thing anymore.

      Even a whiff of real persecution would clear out a lot of deadwood.

  4. Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM) says:


  5. spandrell says:

    It seems to me that the only stable forms of Christianity are the Orthodox churches, where their church is just one more part of their tribal identity, so people take it very seriously. To deviate or innovate in their teachings would be tribal treason.

    Western Christianity though it’s either a leftist singularity of holier-than-thou Protestants who make up shit for kicks, or the constant tension of the Catholic conglomerate fighting to defend the hierarchy against ambitious priest upstarts.

    • The Orthodox Churches become wedded to their nations over a succession of generations baptized, married and buried in the Church. Atomized protestants have no conception of this. The Reformation really was a disaster for the West, though in fairness blame can be shared with an overweening Roman Church.

      Incidentally, the Catholic Church is most robust in places where it acts more like a national Church instead of a universal Church, as in France, Croatia, Hungary.

      I agree with others on here. I don’t know how you have a conservative reactionary movement without religious faith.

  6. @Foseti

    I think you have gotten yourself into a dangerous tangle over this issue.

    Let me ask – can you point to any non-religious sustainable society? (I mean, one where the polity was sustained over at least a few generations – unlike fascism) – well, you can’t because there aren’t any.

    Until very recently, humans were always religious – or were brought-up as religious. The phenomenon of non-religious people brought-up and operating in a secular society is what is new in the world. We are in uncharted territory, off the map (which is why craziness is our daily diet).

    So when you talk about non-religious reaction, you are talking about some abstract, theoretical *possibility*.

    And then you are comparing the various actually existing forms of past and present reactionary-and-religious society with this pure, perfect, abstract possibility of a non-religious form of reaction.

    Not surprisingly, reality fails to measure-up to the perfection of your ideal.

    With this strategy you can never be refuted – don’t worry! – but this is because what you are doing is intriniscally irrefutable, not because it is coherent or correct.

    • Foseti says:

      I think you’re missing my point.

      I’m not arguing that we shouldn’t be a religious nation. Much like Francis, I believe the US is a Christian country and I don’t think that’s bad.

      However, I don’t believe that Christianity will be the source that overturns progressivism. Further, I think Christianity – at least the movement versions of it – will actively hinder this process.

      So, no, I cannot name a non-religious sustainable society, but I’m not arguing that we should try to do that.

      However, I also cannot name a progressive movement of any kind that wasn’t rooted in aggressive (heretical?) Christianity.

      Are we Christian? Yes. Will Christianity be the source of our worldly deliverance? No.

      • @Foseti – I’m not sure what you mean by deliverance.

        If you refer to the current USA, then there will be no deliverance – but I assume that only if the US breaks-up is there any hope of good things in some of the pieces.

        So, post-break up there may be Christian states or collections of states (e.g. Utah/ Idaho as a Mormon State; perhaps segments of the Bible Belt as a Baptist state or something like that..

        These are Christian possibilities – there are other non Christian possibilities.

        What are the alternatives? Secular Right? Well, the only successful examples are Nationalistic – and Nationalism just isn’t very strong, it just isn’t motivating modern people in the way that it did in the immediately post-Christian generation, when it went through the developed world like a wildfire.

        Motivation is the key – unless there is a religion/ ideology which is clearly and obviously changing peoples lives, making them delay gratification and embrace hardship – then there is no point in thinking about it.

        Does secular society have anything providing motivation to match 60,000 full time self-funded Mormon missionaries in their early twenties?

      • Tarl says:

        Does secular society have anything providing motivation to match 60,000 full time self-funded Mormon missionaries in their early twenties?

        Unfortunately, secular society has demotivated thousands of times as many young men as this into listless pleasure-seekers. The call of secular demotivation is certainly much more far-reaching than the call of religious motivation.

  7. Raskolnikov says:

    In the end, christianity is load of crock. It might help to keep people in line, give them a purpose in their lives etc., but in the end it’s a fairy tale. We didn’t go through postmodernism and what have you not to cowardly retreat to the fairy tales of old. And if you insist on going back, then go all the way back to paganism. Christianity is just a hysterical jewish sect which has colonised the European mind for centuries and it’s about time to shake it off.

  8. Raskolnikov says:

    Also, the political manifestation of christianity can’t be reactionary or conservative. True christians are hippies.

  9. Raskolnikov says:

    They were christian in name only. That christianity has come to be a conservative bulwark is a historical coincidence.

    • josh says:

      A historical coincidence that lasted for more than 2000 years or are you suggesting that the Church of the middle ages was left-wing, something that would come as a serious surprise to every leftist who ever lived.

      • Raskolnikov says:

        The catholic church, especially during the middle ages, is a miracle of performative contradiction. Pretty much like Che Guevara-shoes manufactured by underpaid, underage Vietnamese girls or killing in the name of Gandhi. It should have been leftist, given the actual content of the gospel. I still haven’t quite wrapped my head around how human beings are capable of such a feat of hypocrisy (or plain stupidity), but that’s what it is nonetheless.

      • KevinNowell says:

        Or perhaps you misunderstand the Gospel?

  10. Francis St. Pol says:

    You sound terribly Lutheran.

    • Francis St. Pol says:

      “Christian in name only”, “actual content of the gospel”, according to whom?

      • Raskolnikov says:

        I am not a christian at all, but I do believe that those heretical sects like the Brethren of the Free Spirit and the Hussites are most in line with Jesus’ teachings. Of course early christians were like that too, but they were overpowered by such feudally organised outfits as the catholic church due to blind selection, that is to say, selection on the basis of political power, not intellectual merit.

        According to whom, you ask? According to those endowed with common sense and a pair of eyes. I don’t feel like playing postmodern games about the indefiniteness of interpretation; it’s more or less clear what the gospels say and that’s good enough for me. It’s the endless, femininely hypersensitive postmodernist nitpicking, which seems to postpone making decisions and taking action indefinitely, which led me to neoreaction in the first place.

      • Tarl says:

        Funny how people who openly admit they are not Christians are always so eager to tell Christians who the “true Christians” are (or were), how “true Christians” should behave, what Jesus really taught, etc. etc.

        I take such advice every bit as seriously as when the New York Times gives political advice to the Republicans.

  11. SMERSH says:

    Christianity was a good religion for civilizing our manly, semi-barbaric warrior ancestors. Their traits moderated the radical message of Christianity and produced an institution that functioned well for a long time.

    But Christianity is not necessarily equally well suited to helping a bunch of ultra-civilized, effeminate men throw off a post-Christian heresy, regain control of their countries and remove invasive third world hordes, some of which are fellow Christians.

    Loving your neighbor (instead of your cousin) created the high trust, non-clannish North West European societies that we know and love. But coincidentally, their neighbors were all Europeans, so it was not dysgenic for them to love their neighbor.

    Today, we face a problem of loving our neighbor too much, and too unconditionally. Furthermore, it is dysgenic for us to love our black, Hispanic and Muslim neighbors and it is destructive us to allow them to live in our societies in large numbers. We need to “love” them from a distance, behind strong walls.

    We face a set of circumstances that are very different from those of our newly Christianizied ancestors. And we’re not the same people that they were, Christianity has radically re-shaped us. What was adaptive for them may be maladptive for us.

    Can Christianity get us out of this mess? I’m willing to be convinced by actions, but I haven’t seen any that would give me hope.

    Personally, I feel that the pendulum may have swung too far. We may have become too civilized, too nice, too Christian. We may need to become more like our barbarian ancestors in order to survive.

    I’m open to being convinced that Christianity offers the way forward for North West Europeans, but for now I’m thinking about Paganism, especially the kind of Paganism that treats the Gods as exemplars of certain virtues, rather than supernatural beings hiding out in the mountains somewhere.

  12. Raskolnikov says:

    Pardon me, but I thought neoreactionaries were tough guys. Turns out they have their sensitivities too. Speaking of which, I’ve always found christianity distastefully effeminate. You know, wilfully submitting yourself to some other man and all that. Yuck.

  13. VXXC says:

    Foesti and SMERSH nailed it.

    “Are we Christian? Yes. Will Christianity be the source of our worldly deliverance? No.” YES.

    “Christianity is not necessarily equally well suited to helping a bunch of ultra-civilized, effeminate men throw off a post-Christian heresy, regain control of their countries and remove invasive third world hordes, some of which are fellow Christians.” YES.

    They won’t get off the couch for Christ or against him. You’re not alone but I wouldn’t even bother trying to get either the effeminate American or the Christ is my refuge [from ugly reality] crowd off the couch.

    One of the reasons I recommend a bias for action – and for those who have proved men of action – is I’ve committed the error of attempting to use reason, logic, facts, self-interest, common sense to raise others to act in self-defense of all or anything we hold dear.

    NO. It’s a Chimera. Men of Action will act but out of their own beliefs or instincts, ties that bind, loyalty, oaths. Men of Talk shall talk forever. Creatures of the couch shall never rise off it.

    You don’t need a MASS movement unless you are facing an equal or greater MASS, and Massing force against force is your method. Mass is only useful if you can trust the massed.

    Mass is primitive, which doesn’t mean it doesn’t work. I am just saying a mass movement isn’t necessary, necessarily helpful, or even likely. Nor is it possible to create by reason, that is Chimera.

    You need men of action. You only need enough to thwart those who would act against them or resist them, not “masses”. The least destructive, most conducive to order reboot is one where the masses are persuaded to be still. Castro 1959 you know is an excellent example. The few strove with the few while the many followed their natural inclination to avoid trouble.

    Washington had the sympathies of most of the country and nearly all men of substance, but only 3% fought.

  14. Handle says:

    This discussion has spread over too much ground and needs focus. Let’s review:

    avengingredhand said he feels torn between overlapping conversational communities.

    On the one hand, he’s a devout Orthodox Christian which deeply shapes his perspective on the world, his preferences for social life and organization, and the language he uses to discuss it. He would, I guess, probably be comfortable living in a Orthodox Republic of some sort. (Most Mormons I know openly express the wish to live in a Mormon Republic). He may even believe (and many commenting here seem to be saying) that such a system of public life is the only feasible human possibility for reestablishing a stable, traditional form of society.

    On the other hand, many of the reactosphere blogs he enjoys, and which express ideas to which he is broadly sympathetic, are written by secular atheists (or “rationalist materialists”, or “modernists”), or at least, in that style. They are not, nor do they care to become, fluent in Orthodoxy and do not use language or explanations that discuss Christ or Scripture, and what preferences they express or proposals they offer do not involve mass conversion into Orthodox Christianity.

    Even if they do, such support would ensue not from sincere belief in the Truth and Correctness of Orthodoxy (quite the contrary), but from a consequentialist or instrumentalist perspective in the vein of Platonic / Straussian Noble Lies. That while one may view a belief to be false and mythological, one may nevertheless judge widespread genuine adherence to such a mythology to be socially beneficial.

    A few of them express a good deal of antipathy, contempt of, or condescension towards religion in general or Christians in particular. This has a long pedigree, and you needn’t go farther than Mencken for the pure, eloquent, and unquestionably witty distillation of the anti-religious reactionary mindset. Even those that are tolerant of or congenial towards religious people or actually religious themselves nevertheless embrace a Historical narrative that lay a great deal of Progressive decadence and degradation at the feet of ‘mass-movement Christianity’, especially (but not exclusively because of a long history of cross-fertilization / contamination) in the extreme Egalitarian-Universalism of Mainline Protestantism.

    This feels like a personal attack to the extent one perceives solidarity and commonality with people in the past who would also label themselves as falling somewhere under the ‘Christian’ tent, and is bound to give rise to a certain amount of mutual suspicion.

    aveningredhand asks not just “Am I welcome here?” (of course he is), but more “Do I belong here? Are these my true friends? Do we really believe in the same fundamental or really want the same things?”, and also in the words of Sam Keen, “Who are my people?” (As an aside, people seem either reluctant or insufficiently certain to spell out what exactly it is that they want. I wonder what people’s answers would be to, ‘If you could only change one thing …?”)

    Foseti is exemplary of an insightful neoreactionary blogger who, while broadly friendly and amiable towards reactionary religious people and even the notion of such religious devotion becoming pervasive, nevertheless sees Orthodox Christianity as being neither necessary nor sufficient for establishing an improved / restored form of Western Civilization, cured of the pernicious Blue-Orthodoxy and the many intellectual diseases that presently ravage our discourse and decision making. More to the point, Foseti countenances (and has done yeoman’s work in dozens of supportive supplementations of) Moldbug’s chronicle which derives much of the radical leftism of the past few centuries from fundamentally Christian impulses or tendencies.

    Whether or not these impulses are ‘heretical’ or not seems, to non-Orthodox Christians at least, evasive and very much besides the point. That response feels the same as when one talks to a Marxophile and tries to point to catastrophic failures and wicked crimes of “actually existing Socialism”, or the conclusive results from the best controlled social experiments ever conducted (East v West Germany, North v South Korea) and is told in response, “Those were heresies, True Communism has never been tried!”

    Nevertheless, the splitting of American Christians into ‘revelationists’ vs ‘universalist de-theologized Christian heretics’ seems both a useful construction and compellingly accurate description of our world to me. A lot of confusion emerges from the fact that Progressive Universalists don’t think they’re being religious and regard revelationsists with open contempt and vitriolic animosity.

    Foseti and Moldbug demonstrate that Fanatical Universalism and Dogmatic Egalitarianism seem to be recurrent risks of multiple mainstream Christian mass-movements in our History (certainly in Puritan times and in the early Progressive Era), and that the implication is we should be deeply suspicious and skeptical of the prospect of being saved by another Great Awakening into Orthodox Christianity (or perhaps Mormonism).

    For what it’s worth, I have a great interest in learning History, but I’m not a ‘Historicist’. It’s good to have an accurate view of what actually occurred (especially when we are constantly being marinated in lies about it from womb to tomb). But our age is so unique and distinct (if in nothing else, then in our level technology) that I think it’s hard to extract broad lessons and apply them to our age without great care and a very solid case. But as a result I don’t find exemplary appeal to past forms of social organization presumptively persuasive. I also think it’s better to reason differentially on the margin instead of comparing starkly different contexts.

    For this reason, I prefer to rank mildly distinct contemporary situations, and try to find, for lack of a better term, “regression analysis correlation coefficients”. And, to make a long story short, I don’t see the ‘actually existing’ contemporary evidence for either the necessity or sufficiency of widespread Orthodox Christian belief in producing preferable societies or governments. There have been places I’ve lived where most people were mostly secular (or ‘heretical’ Christians), and those places were very good places to live not because of their religion, or because of its absence, but because of other cultural and biological factors. Selecting for quality human beings seems to be the key. To the extent we can make a fair comparison, if Singapore is doing a better job and shows no evidence of having derived that improvement from increased Orthodoxy, then one is justified in finding assertions of necessity to be suspect.

    This is not to say that an Orthodox Republic (or something like it) wouldn’t be among those better societies or even best amongst them (I am open and amenable to that suggestion), but merely that it isn’t the only way, and that I’m skeptical it will resist those Christian-related tendencies described above which, arguably, got us into this mess.

    But mostly, since I am a Multizionist, I’m open to seeing the experiment tried and especially open to allowing and empowering it be conducted without outside interference. That means in the most important sense that we are allies.

    There is no argument better than visible performance under the pressure of competition, and I think we can all learn a lot from each other’s attempts. In this way (and considering that the muticultural, multi-ethnic form of US empire is inevitable if not already a fait-accompli), I tend to be favorably disposed to a more Ottoman / Millet form of hyper-confederalism within a larger disinterested (no favoritism) Empire responsible for little more than internal stability, imperial security and foreign affairs. Why not a Mormon Millet, an Orthodox Millet, etc.? Let God show us the way, that we may see it with our own eyes.

    • josh says:

      “Whether or not these impulses are ‘heretical’ or not seems, to non-Orthodox Christians”

      Allow me to clarify my point. It is not just that these Christians are getting Christianity wrong, it is that the particular form of revolutionism that we are talking about is something that was implanted in the Christian tradition beginning with the Cathars and continuing to the present BY AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT TRADITION namely Rabbinical Judaism (which incidentally is based on the Talmud and later Kabala, not the the Torah) when Christians began living in cities in close contact with Jews.

      If you want to say that Rabbinical Judaism is inherently leftist, you would be correct, but the revolutionary aspects inherent in the protestant movements are not part of the Christian tradition per se.

      I should also point out that Rabbinical Judaism is a result of the destruction of the temple which changed Judaism from a religion of ritual, sacrifice, and a priesthood to adjudicate disputes, to a debating society where arguments were won by sophistry and force majeure. This is essentially what happened to Calvinism as well btw.

      • Handle says:

        Well, ok. It’s the fault of the Jews and their black Yiddishe magic. I understand your Historical-Theological theory, though it seems pretty far-fetched to me.

        But even stipulating that it’s true, consider the implications of your own words:

        the particular form of revolutionism that we are talking about is something that was implanted in the Christian tradition beginning with the Cathars and continuing to the present BY AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT TRADITION namely Rabbinical Judaism

        If ‘authentic’ Christianity is so gullible and susceptible to theological corruption, so vulnerable that it’s so easy for medieval Rabbinical Judaism to implant radical revolution into it as an attractive foundational concept, then why should anyone expect a ‘genuine restoration’ to survive against that kind of influence. Is this a ‘Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice …” model? Or a half-millenium binging addict saying, “trust me, I’m clean now?

        What was wrong with original, authentic, genuine, Christianity that it proved almost helpless to resist against this Maimonidesian plague of intellectual infection? And why did those Christians with the longest Histories of proximate relations with Rabbinical Jews fail to succumb at similar periods of exposure? In fact, aren’t they the regions that have preserved the most ancient forms of Christianity? Hmm… You’ve got a long road to hoe my friend.

      • josh says:

        Maimonides is not part of the Kabalistic tradition that I am talking about. I’m talking about specific incidences of specific movements. I’ll give more detail when I have time.

        Why is everyone weirded out when you suggest that the origin of our revolution problem is jewish, but not when you suggest its Christian. I’m just trying to get it right and to point out that it isn’t Christianity which is incompatible with an orderly society.

        In any case, this is not the same as saying its all the fault of the Jews. The Puritans and Whig Freemasons were heavily Judaized Gentiles. The Jewish and protestant traditions split to some degree only to reconvene with the advent of the Marxism.

        Also, Christianity proved almost helpless? The counter-reformation was helpless. Are the 1950s that long ago? The puritans had to ethnically cleanse the cities they were so scared. You think its over? Is history over?

        Finally, its better to love God and make use of politics than to love politics and make us of God.

    • I’m a monarchist, for the record, but on the points that matter to this analysis you’ve read me right.

      Also, just as a note, I dont think Orthodoxy is the ‘the only feasible human possibility for reestablishing a stable, traditional form of society’ everywhere. I’m not even sure it is in the West. Certainly Catholicism and Protestantism were capable of sustaining such societies in the past, though I suspect bringing them back from the dead is a much harder task than merely keeping them alive.

      I do think, ceteris paribus, that it is probably *the best* way, but I cant prove that, except to note that Orthodoxy, especially of the Slavic variety, seems to be the form of Christianity most resistant to the various egalitarian memetic viruses that have infected Protestantism and Roman Catholicism.

  15. VXXC says:

    Our politics is unbalanced and all encompassing, it has usurped the place of religion and even the family in tens of millions of lives.

    (Secular Caesarism?)

    Why Christianity? Because God sees us all as babies and does not distinguish between sigmas anymore than we distinguish the down on the miracle of children. <<< Which is a great point for the humbling and stabilizing influence of religion.

    As to Politics it has ever been so, the problem isn't Congress it's that we turned our Political Contract into religion with the New Deal.

    The height of our governing genius was captured by Alexis De-Tocqueville, however the hardy souls he observed would not have made either government or religion all encompassing. We have lost among many things our balance.

    There is a place for a political contract, a place for religion, a place for family. If you are looking for a Political Religion that believes the State is what bonds us all together and takes the role of Father – literally – then you have an answer – Progressive.

    If you seek a more balanced life for yourself and your country, return our politics to a political contract of limited powers and limited duties. We have an answer already written, signed and sworn to as well.

  16. My goodness, where have I BEEN??!!! Playing with that stupid twitter thing… that’s where. Gah!

    I have tweeted with ARH quite a bit… He’s okay in my book. I don’t think labels matter too much, and I’ve never been too fond of the neo- prefix. Cask Strength Reactionary works fine for me. You’re either reactionary… or not.

    I think religion (“Deep Heritage”) *is* one of those things that is important on a number of levels… and most of the smart secular right seems to get that. Foseti, Jim Donald, Nick Land, Mangan certainly speak more sense about the interplay of religion and public life than 98% of neocons, 99% of Christians, and 99.99% of all Evangelicals.

    I think ARH is quite right not to see religion as a tool in his political arsenal. That’s exactly how progressives view religion. Better no belief with a respect for belief, than an abuse of belief.

    So ARH, welcome to the reaction, prefixes optional… and all that in spite of your schismatic church!!

  17. RS says:

    > you needn’t go farther than Mencken for the pure, eloquent, and unquestionably witty distillation of the anti-religious reactionary mindset

    Qua philosopher he was very derivative of Nietzsche, which I don’t think he would really deny. Just sayin’, if one wants the severest antichristianity it’s in Jenseits, Genealogie, Der Antichrist. Maybe Gotzendaemerung.

    And in Stirner, who I think was N’s biggest single influence, though a virtual nonreader of Goethe and Schopenhauer can’t really know.

  18. […] Religion and reaction. Related: If it helps, I am religious and a reactionary. […]

  19. RS says:

    I guess Stirner is probably the original father of rightist unchristendom, though other than a small (I think) flurry surrounding his book in 1844, he was quite obscure until Nietzsche became considerably celebrated around ’95. Stirner quit his job as a teacher or something before bringing out his book, expecting to surely be fired. Not sure if he did labor jobs or what. He wound up divorced in short order. Circa ’75, N’s pronounced antichristianity was enough to put his return to academia (after illness) rather out of the question in any German-speaking land. Later, he fretted that the beyond-pronounced Der Antichrist might get censored by Bismarck’s regime.

    Goethe was pointedly and explicitly nonchristian, but I’m not sure whether he elaborated it into any big philosophical deal. No doubt there were others like him.

    Stendhal seems to have been rather rightist, and wasn’t christian, but is not really a philosopher.

    I don’t spend much time on Enlightenment French philosophes, but to my knowledge each one was rather leftist on balance.

    Mencken would surely have been aware of Stirner, because the latter became a huge topic in Germany sometime between N’s reception (~’95) and N’s canonization as a supreme national classic (sometime before the Great War). Since Mencken followed German-language discourse and wrote a monograph on N while also translating Gotzendaemmerung, he would surely have known all about Stirner even if he didn’t read him. Of course there is only one Stirner book and it’s not hard to get through. Before N’s rise, Stirner was practically unmentionable — his radical outlook being viewed, by the few who had ever heard of it, as tantamount to complete social nihilism.

  20. RS says:

    Ah, I think I forgot all about Fichte, or was it Feuerbach. Wesen des Christentums(?) — Essence of Christianity. I think it’s pretty early, not sure where on the political spectrum.

  21. […] Foseti on religion and reaction, Foseti on the Zimmerman aftermath, and Foseti on Unz. […]

  22. I missed this when it was first posted as I was out of town.

    I’d like to add something, though I think it will dispose Foseti less favorably toward me than otherwise:

    Although I am not faking my Orthodoxy to serve a political agenda, nor did I adopt Orthodoxy, ultimately, for political reasons (and I find that kind of conversion suspect at best), I do believe that Orthodoxy can and does serve as a source or grounding of asabiyyah, public morality, social order, etc.

    That is not a reason to become Orthodox, but it is a benefit of an Orthodox society, where one exists.

    I would not be willing, then, to say something along the lines of “I am a reactionary, but I am Orthodox.”

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: