New Canon on Church and State

I hearby declare Citadel’s statement on Church and State to be neoreactionary canon.

A lot of neoreactionaries are Christian adherents of organized religion – or wish they could be Christian – or wish they could be adherents of some organized religion or other.  I suppose all of us wish that.

Trouble is that today’s Roman Catholicism and the rest are heretical, satanic, and are committing institutional suicide as fast as possible.  The pope wants “speaking ex Cathedra” to become yet another letterhead of Acorn, the Vatican to become a museum run by Havard with tour guides giving spiels written by Ivy Leaguers explaining how stupid and wicked things were in the bad old days, and the Church buildings where once Catholics met to receive the Eucharist to become Marxist Lesbian bookstores, as most of the Churches in San Francisco already have.

Speaking as a believer, Citadel argues the same conclusion I have less convincingly argued as an unbeliever, that I argued less convincingly because an unbeliever.  The Church should be subordinate to the good state as a woman should be subordinate to her husband.

The Church inevitably succumbs to the state religion.  See the Pope kiss Harvard’s feet.  And back when the Church arguably had some independence, and real earthly power, when the Holy Roman Empire had lost all power, but the Church had gained far too much earthly power, we got indulgences and Chaucer’s summoner.   Henry the Eighth was doubtless a bad man, but you got no indulgences from his church, and his summoners were subject to discipline.

The worst of the Roman Catholic Church was not the pornocracy, when Popes were succeeded by the sons of their mistresses.  Hereditary priesthood is an excellent system, and normatively celibate priesthood a horrible mistake.  The Church was great, faithful, orthodox, glorious, and virtuous under the pornocrats and under the Holy Roman Emperors.  The worst of the Church was indulgences and corrupt summoners.

Tags:

86 Responses to “New Canon on Church and State”

  1. lalit says:

    Jim, I can get on board with Moldbug’s hereditary monarchy and neo-cameralism giving the subjects no voice in running the state, but full right of exit. That is all very Good.

    But I start getting uncomfortable when you start promoting hereditary priesthood. What do you think the Brahmins of India were? You are veering dangerously close to an Indian style caste-system. Your previous post also flirted with this sort of endorsement of an Indian-style caste system If I am to extrapolate this trend, can I expect you to start proposing hereditary trade-guilds as well? Sure, it looks silly now, but time has a way of making outlandish beliefs become acceptable. When that point comes, the entire society will begin stagnating, lagging behind more dynamic societies and a day will come when the West will have it’s own version of a foreign EIC to take it over.

    I request you to study the Indian caste system a little more closely and give us your reasoned opinions as to why you believe your proposals will not lead to social/cultural/scientific/economic stagnation.

    • jim says:

      But I start getting uncomfortable when you start promoting hereditary priesthood. What do you think the Brahmins of India were?

      Israel had hereditary priesthood until the rabbis got in on the act. To be a priest, have to be a descendant of Aaron in the male line.

      Saga period Iceland had and today’s Shinto Japan has hereditary priesthood, in the sense that shrines are state created privately owned monopolies of holiness. You generally have to inherit your priesthood and shrine from a previous priest. Seems to work pretty well in Japan. In Japan, to be a priest, you pretty much have to be a son of a priest, or marry the daughter of a priest. Free lancers are strongly discouraged from inventing their own shrines and declaring them to be holy.

      This bribes the indolence of the clergy and prevents holiness competition.

      If I am to extrapolate this trend, can I expect you to start proposing hereditary trade-guilds as well?

      We want the best and most expert tradesmen. We don’t want the most holy priests. I want trades to be efficient. I don’t want religion to be too efficient.

      I only want the state religion to be sufficiently efficient to outcompete free lance religions, with the aid of heavy handed state backing.

      The pornocracy worked pretty well. If it is good enough for the God of the Old Testament, seems good enough. Israel did OK under that system. Japan does OK.

      When rabbis got in on the act, holiness competition ensued, resulting in the Rabbis stubbornly and determinedly picking a fight with Rome, despite the Romans bending over backwards to prevent a holy war.

      • Glenfilthie says:

        ” We don’t want the most holy priests.”

        But Jim: yes, you do. I would think we want priests that walk the walk as well as talk the talk. How can you have a problem with that?

        • jim says:

          Holiness spirals, as illustrated by the rabbis picking a fight with Rome.

          If holiness is rewarded by power in this world, you are going to get a most unholy kind of holiness. You are going to get the behavior for which Jesus condemned the Pharisees. Ideally, you should reward your living saints with a hermitage in the outer Hebrides rather than a lucrative bishopric.

          Old Testament: Hereditary priesthood.

          New Testament: Jesus’ condemnation of the Rabbinate.

          Both point in the same direction, and address the same problem.

          • Glenfilthie says:

            Okay, that makes sense.

            What doesn’t make sense, to me Jim, is that the Nrx guys seem to be pushing a gubbermint that uses a monarchy and a noble class. Is that correct? If so, won’t power corrupt them as well as the church…?

            • jim says:

              Probably.

              But currently we are ruled by a priesthood that is engaged in holiness competition that makes them ever crazier. A bit of corruption would come as a considerable relief.

        • peppermint says:

          What is holiness? I think holiness consists of building the future for White children and protecting our race, and the God-Emperor is holier than anyone else right now

    • viking says:

      having watch my own trade union go from hereditary to Affirmative action and be destroyed in the process i have to say theres the reality problem of it worked far better the original way. I tend to think this is a crux of leftism destroying the good in service to the unattainable perfect. When a society reaches a peak optimization anyone wanting to make a name will eschew maintaining th status quo for experimenting with new things.
      That said Some reactionary thinking seems to favor IQ above all and while IQ is hugely important id rather live in nation of my fellow europeans than a high IQ nation of foreigners,half of high IQ people are born of average parents.A gattaca like caste system seems a recipe for a IQ arms race I find disturbing where does that end? It may be inevitable in the long run but for now I dont think we have a plan.
      Without reading the post yet on the religion article I have thought this. first ill say i had a good experience growing up irish catholic in NYC and am sort of fond of that and the 2000 year history of catholic western history. That said obviously the church was captured this pope and its been touch and go for decades. The thing is Christianity is a cuck religion by definition, it main tenets are be cucked, it derives from a non european source, and no matter how reactionary you fashion it temporarily it only takes one person to point to some very plain scripture that clearly say thou shalt be cucked holy are the cucked etc.On top of that reaction is essentially facing hard facts with hard reason to make a leg of the trichotomy irrational is really problematic. Yeah I get how tempting it is ask any republican they will tell you Christians are natural conservatives. Its tempting to adopt a ready made division in a newly forming army.I also get religion is a great organizing mechanism but there are others and it seems to me race ought to be the one we choose not so much in a stormfront way but it makes sense to have nations of differing races

  2. Alf says:

    Hereditary priesthood is an excellent system, and normatively celibate priesthood a horrible mistake. ”

    Can you expand on this? My assumption was that celibacy was a good method to prevent brahmin priests from becoming vaisya rulers and that similarly to fasting it increases investment on the priest’s side.

    • jim says:

      Well on the one had there is the risk that the state religion dies of cynicism, on the other hand the risk that it dies of fanaticism.

      It can do both simultaneously, being infiltrated by zealous entryists, due to its own lack of zeal.

      The hereditary principle is a good stop against entryism.

  3. spandrell says:

    Buddhist monks today in Japan are hereditary too.

    But the clue here is that religious priests in Japan are not high status. Nobody listens to them. They don’t have any intellectual authority.

    The real priests are the media and the academics. Those have high status, people listen to them, pay them money to blabber and write books. And those aren’t hereditary.

    A problem with Indian castes seems to be the lack of primogeniture, perhaps? There’s millions and millions of Brahmins. How many priests do you need? In Japan one son inherits the temple, the rest leave the family land and go make a living by themselves, losing any connection to the family position.

    I wonder how Turchin’s “elite overproduction” applies to India.

    • lalit says:

      Being a priest in India was also hereditary and open only to the oldest son or else lacking that marriage to his daughter as is the case in Japan. Recently (a half century or so ago), the government got into the act and changed everything and now it is open to all. However, while only the oldest son of the priest got to be priest, the rest of the kids also kept the Brahmin caste. They went and did other things like work as doctors, teachers, scholars, advisers to the King, monks etc. But they retained their status as Brahmins.

    • lalit says:

      Since one had to Born into the Brahmin caste to be a Brahmin, there was no competition for Elite slots. So there is no elite production. So Turchin’s thesis I believe, does not apply to India. What we have in India is the familiar case of stagnation and lack of dynamism. You got to allow some movement between castes or into the Elite caste though not open it to one and all the way the west has done.

      My own view is that all systems are subject to change and decay. I don’t think one can design a system that will last for ever. The good ones last longer, the bad one implode quickly. But even a good system is subject to corruption, mutation, decay and death. There is nothing in this universe that is not subject to this law. Why should social systems be any different?

      • spandrell says:

        Say you start with 1,000 Brahmins, they have children, and 200 years later you have 10,000 Brahmins, 1,000 of them priests, 9,000 of them doing some other stuff.

        Most likely there isn’t enough nice jobs for the 9,000 Brahmins to enjoy the same level of status as their ancestors had when they were only 1,000 of them. That is “elite overproduction”. The elite always multiplies itself, that’s part of being elite, that you can afford more children. But there’s not enough wealth for everyone, at least in preindustrial days. And so the overproduced elites get angry, agitate, start wars and stuff.

        I don’t know that much about old India but it doesn’t seem they were any more stagnant than Europe or China in the same era, at least until Europe started gaining strength after the 16th century.

        • Lalit says:

          In the absence of modern medical techniques, infant mortality was high. So 1000 brahmins would still remain a little over 1000 brahmins after 200 years.

  4. Mark Citadel says:

    I am certainly humbled by your approval of my piece, Jim, and you have presented that approval in a way that only you can, that special ‘Jim’ touch which is somewhat less delicate than my own approach.

    I do want to clarify however, my vision is not a situation in which the Church is subject to the state: this is the false caricature of caesaropapism presented particularly by opponents of Eastern Orthodoxy and Byzantine custom. In the Traditional understanding, the Church is inseparable from the state, and enjoys a power relation with the sovereign which is of some description. I described my preferred relation in the following article.

    http://citadelfoundations.blogspot.com/2016/04/reflections-on-caesaropapism.html

    I don’t want to be misinterpreted by Roman Catholics in what I say here, as certainly it would seem to be primarily addressing their concerns rather than Orthodox concerns about the priesthood (which usually center on things like petty corruption and unbecoming profligacy). What I wanted to get across was that, owing to the extreme nature of the world we find ourselves in, and it is indeed extreme, I think there is a pecking order of loyalty that makes sense. Metternich once said “Moderate solutions will not yield fruit when the circumstances are set in extremes” and I think he was right. If we can be brave enough to admit there are bad priests, just as there are bad TV news anchors and bad doctors, then we can begin work on how to overcome this challenge.

    I think, were I a Roman Catholic, I would see the Papacy as having an animated life beyond Pope Francis, extending back centuries with the weight of a thousand Saints and prior Popes cradled in its grand Tradition. If the Pope orders this destroyed, Roman Catholics ought to be duty-bound to resist such an order. An extreme example perhaps, but we have a rather extreme Pope, all things considered.

    The Church does not succumb to a new state religion at the drop of a hat. Roman Catholicism had valiantly resisted Modernity all the way up until the Axis defeat in WWII. But time takes its toll. A lot of the current Pope’s statements can be seen as virtue signaling to appease the various critics of the Church. Anglicanism is of course the hyper-version of this, with the Church on the dog leash of the child molesters in the British parliament.

    False teachers, as warned about, can be inside a Church as well as outside. I don’t necessarily see Jim Jones and Cardinal Kasper as being substantively different, since both are dead set on creating suicide cults. Churchmen opposed to Reaction are false teachers, but yes, if you install a Reactionary government and normalize the Church as an integral part of the state, the number of false teachers magically evaporates to negligibility. Funnily enough, the rather benign gist of my piece was saying to Roman Catholics “don’t let the Pope make you sweat”.

    • peppermint says:

      it doesn’t matter what Catholics may think they think. The Church rules are very clear, the See of St. Peter is protected from heresy by the Holy Spirit, and the See of St. Peter is openly in heresy, with e.g. the recent Papal claim that countries with one religion aren’t as good and are going to fail.

      Not that it matters, really: Christianity was okay with new physics replacing God’s green earth with a universe of galaxies, though many mainstream denominations started reinterpreting or outright rejecting God, but won’t survive evolutionary psychology and Haidt’s moral axes replacing classical psychology and the cardinal virtues. Heil Hitler.

    • jim says:

      So how do you feel about Henry the eighth?

      He was undoubtedly a very bad man, but he was dealing with a Church that was corrupt and political, in the pocket of one state for use against other states. And, to solve his problems (that the Church was in the pocket of a hostile state), protected the Church from internal corruption and external enemies.

      This parallels Samuel. Samuel’s sons were insufficiently holy. The solution however was not to find someone in the line of Aaron that was holier, but rather rule by a King with no great pretensions of holiness. The Temples were built and rebuilt by Kings, not priests.

      Would you call the Church of England from Henry the eighth to the Regency caesaropapism ?

      I intepret your position not as caesaropapism , but rather as an evasion of all three heresies – the heresies being

      1 that the state should not favor and impose any one religion
      2 that the church should be a branch of the state – caesaropapism
      3 that the state should be a branch of the church

      Much as “God is three and God is one” slides between two heresies.

      .

      • Mark Citadel says:

        The Henry VIII example would be the ‘caricature’ of caesaropapism as an epithet, a Church that operates a lot like any other department under the aegis of the sovereign. I don’t think this model is particularly good, it devalues religion and undermines its function as an organic check on the sovereign. That situation with Henry VIII is an awkward bug of Roman Catholicism that you have the Pope a long way away, and inta-European politics being what they were at the time, it’s no surprise he played favorites. It’s why I think the Orthodox model is functionally better, where each nation has a Patriarch and the only time they all get together as one authority is when there is some pressing doctrinal concern. I think they are getting together in a couple of months to sort out the diptychs, but I can’t recall how long ago it was that they last did so.

        Looking at your three ‘heresies’, I agree that the first is a ridiculous position to hold, and not even really possible, kind of like a communist government dissolving after the Soviet state was set up. It is pure fantasy.

        For the other two, we have to be very particular about what we mean when we say ‘state’ as this is something of a Modern deviation, but can be used as a useful descriptor of ‘the society’s framework’, that is, what contains the society, the authorities that cage it in and make it discernible from that which is around it. I’m hesitant to conflate ‘state’ with ‘sovereign’, because I think the Church is part of the state, and yet ideally not indistinguishable from the Sovereign (monarch or what have you), nor under his absolute remit. As I outlined in the article, the classical caesaropapist model as practiced in Byzantium saw the Emperor have some power over specific religious matters (he was not a secular figure, he was the head of the Church), but it was by no means absolute. The problem is the term ‘caesaropapism’ has been used in reaction, for instance, to the pretty dysfunctional way the Russian Church operated after the 1700s, where it was overseen by a Tsarist ‘administrator’ as if it was a department of transportation. Caesaropapism was coined some time in the 1500s as an epithet against the Eastern model, but as practiced in Byzantium it wasn’t as people described.

        To put it in short form, I think the Church and the Monarch are the two highest authorities in the state, with different remits of power, the lines of which the other ought not cross. The Church should not impede on the sovereign sphere of authority, and the sovereign should not impede on the Church’s sphere of authority. But of course both have active authority over the population and are charged with dictating certain aspects of people’s lives, they should work together.

        • viking says:

          Mark I think beside the whole christianity is inherently a cucking religion issue your plan kind of ignores what Catholics at least see as a huge part of the religion itself we dont call it Catholicism for nothing. To suggest what you are do a catholic is a non starter we see the Church as Eternal and above all governments transcendent even of the world itself its a religion that evolved for a world empire that it may have ended up cucking to death but never the less its a universalist faith. its power games in europe have always been an effort to reassert itself as a crowner of emperors that does not bow to meer kings.Its the churches infallibility that is bestowed on kings This pope is an idiot unlike our last two and is into the short money and will end up like NRO.
          I am one that thinks the Cathedral is wonderful its just in the wrong hands and ought to be seized which i think would be a piece of cake if you would all just listen to me. if that were to happen your idwea as the church of the cathedral empire might work better but as much as i am attached to the idea of the medieval church i really have to admit its fatally flawed as a cucking faith and since DENRX is rational and religion is not no matter how clever catholics are at paying lip service to reason its still a crock

          • Mark Citadel says:

            I don’t really worship at the altar of ‘rationality’. Rationality tells Richard Dawkins that gay marriage is healthy. You can say he’s religious, he’ll say you’re bigoted. I don’t think he’s right, but the human mind is incredibly limited in its capacity to understand the world around it. I put my faith in Tradition, and if you want to sap out all the theological backing for it, then just see it as the greatest, unintended trial and error experiment of all time, which was thrown away after the French Revolution. You need to craft some big intricately rational argument for Patriarchy which you then have to go back and forth with feminist intellectuals over. I just appeal to Tradition. It’s been proven, it’s been decided. No need for further argument. The great thing about a society based on Tradition, is that Liberals aren’t allowed to question it and probe it. They have to literally overthrow it instead, which requires considerably more effort.

            I don’t really want to respond to the juvenile ‘cuck’ stuff as I’ve already dealt with it at my blog. The accusation is just wrong, like your weird assertion that Jesus was somehow a leftist. That in itself can only remind me of when Conservatives and Liberals get together to argue whether Jesus was a Capitalist or a Communist… well over 1000 years before those economic systems existed. I mean, holy shit, maybe Noah was a leftist too, and maybe Buddha was a feminist.

          • Corvinus says:

            “I just appeal to Tradition. It’s been proven, it’s been decided. No need for further argument.”

            How convenient.

            “The great thing about a society based on Tradition, is that Liberals aren’t allowed to question it and probe it.”

            Exactly, because the society you propose is fascist and totalitarian.

          • pdimov says:

            “Exactly, because the society you propose is fascist and totalitarian.”

            The word you’re looking for is “oppressive”.

          • Mark Citadel says:

            Somebody needs a crash-course in both the meaning of Fascism, and the difference between Authoritarianism and Totalitarianism

        • Corvinus says:

          “To put it in short form, I think the Church and the Monarch are the two highest authorities in the state, with different remits of power, the lines of which the other ought not cross. The Church should not impede on the sovereign sphere of authority, and the sovereign should not impede on the Church’s sphere of authority. But of course both have active authority over the population and are charged with dictating certain aspects of people’s lives, they should work together.”

          To put it in shorter form, what you are touting is philosophical in nature, not practical nor based on reality. Until you and your cronies actually put forth the effort to take your ideas and put them into practice, all that is left is ideological impotence.

          The general populace will simply not stand for your vision, which is predicated on the absolute suppression of liberty.

          Maybe you can achieve your utopia on a small scale. I would like to see you try.

          • jim says:

            The general populace will simply not stand for your vision, which is predicated on the absolute suppression of liberty.

            But they are already standing for it.

            It is the nature of the state that it is animated by a religion and imposes that religion on its subjects. The religion of the American Empire is evil, crazy, and extreme, and makes people suffer in many serious ways, by denying them self defense, by denying them marriage and family. It also rapidly mutates to ever more extreme form.

            Any ancient religion would be an improvement, because if it has been around for a long time cannot be too hurtful and crazy, nor prone to terrifyingly rapid change.

          • theshadowedknight says:

            Yes, Corvinus, tell us about our liberty to not serve sodomites wedding cakes or to forego health insurance. Liberty is already taken, and we have mere scraps. I pay a fifth of my income so that I can be harassed by bureaucrats when I try to exercise some of my rights.

            My family sided against the king the first go round. I am not going to repeat their mistake. Long live the king.

            The Shadowed Knight

          • Steve Johnson says:

            “To put it in shorter form, what you are touting is philosophical in nature, not practical nor based on reality.”

            “The general populace will simply not stand for your vision, which is predicated on the absolute suppression of liberty.”

            Lol.

          • Mark Citadel says:

            Not really a utopia, since it has been achieved in the past.

            Also, my ‘cronies’ who certainly are not my cronies, are already beginning to lay the groundwork for this in various Eastern Bloc countries, where your ‘muhh liberty’ bullshit has less and less sway by the minute. Sorry, but there are a lot of people who think liberty has gone a little too far when degenerates run society. They aren’t really fans of letting transsexual freaks perv on their daughters in public facilities.

            And Jim is precisely right on the fact that America is religious. It is religiously leftist.

          • Corvinus says:

            Jim…

            “But they are already standing for it.”

            SOME people.

            “It is the nature of the state that it is animated by a religion and imposes that religion on its subjects.”

            The nature of an autocratic state.

            “The religion of the American Empire is evil, crazy, and extreme, and makes people suffer in many serious ways, by denying them self defense, by denying them marriage and family.”

            Categorical error. The American Empire is a political, not a religious, entity. Moreover, people are marrying and forming families. Maybe not the ones YOU demand, but thankfully, people have the freedom to choose whether or not to abide by your stipulations.

            “Any ancient religion would be an improvement…”

            Again, people will ultimately make that determination, not you. Drives you and Citadel bat shit.

            “because if it has been around for a long time cannot be too hurtful and crazy, nor prone to terrifyingly rapid change.”

            Religion ultimately “mutates”. See 95 Theses.

            Lil Stevie–”Lol.”

            Why even bother responding if you are unable to offer something substantial.

            theshadowedknight–”I am not going to repeat their mistake. Long live the king.”

            Best wishes trying to bring back the monarchy.

            Mark–”my ‘cronies’ who certainly are not my cronies, are already beginning to lay the groundwork for this in various Eastern Bloc countries, where your ‘muhh liberty’ bullshit has less and less sway by the minute.”

            It’s more competitive than you think in the Eastern Bloc between competing philosophies. Indeed, most organized religions have historically tried to defend what they deem traditional and fundamental values against the tides of modernization. And Orthodox churches are traditionally comfortable in close relationships with autocratic governments, as long as they formally adhere to Orthodoxy.

            It is fascinating that the Orthodox Church is quick to praise Stalin’s LEFTIST successes in industry and its sphere of influence, without even mentioning about the RIGHTEST gulags or purges. Moreover, what about those citizens who are not Orthodox? What about their religious liberties? Why should the Orthodox Church receive any official sanction from the government?

            You should be reminded that Soviet authorities were played their role in assuring the deaths of 200,000 members of the clergy, according to a 1995 Kremlin committee report, while millions of other Christians were persecuted while Putin was a member of that intelligence community.

            Exactly why the United States ain’t the Eastern Bloc, and why your movement lacks the type of traction required to make substantial headway here. It is a utopia.

            “And Jim is precisely right on the fact that America is religious. It is religiously leftist.”

            Of course you’re going to get on your knees and fellate Jim’s ego. American society is secular in its government, although its politicians are influenced by their faith, while religious in its communities. Liberalism (and conservatism) are political ideologies, NOT religions.

            “Sorry, but there are a lot of people who think liberty has gone a little too far when degenerates run society. “

            As if you or Jim are NOT degenerate.

            • jim says:

              “The religion of the American Empire is evil, crazy, and extreme, and makes people suffer in many serious ways, by denying them self defense, by denying them marriage and family.”

              Categorical error. The American Empire is a political, not a religious, entity.

              Every child in the American Empire is subjected to religious catechism starting in kindergarden, and for the elites, continuing through postgraduate studies.

              Dissent is ruthlessly crushed. Countries that do not bring their education systems in line with the American Empire most holy Church are bombed to crap, unless protected by the Russian or Chinese nuclear umbrellas.

              The increasingly rapid changes in the most holy catechism are determined in Harvard, and imposed on the American public by any means necessary, starting with the Mormon war and the Civil War.

          • Steve Johnson says:

            “Why even bother responding if you are unable to offer something substantial.”

            That’s a question you’re qualified to answer and not me.

            You managed to blatantly contradict yourself in less than 3 paragraphs – I pointed it out because it amused me. Back to barely skimming the wastes of space that are your comment.

          • Mark Citadel says:

            @Corvinus

            “It is fascinating that the Orthodox Church is quick to praise Stalin’s LEFTIST successes in industry and its sphere of influence, without even mentioning about the RIGHTEST gulags or purges.”

            There wasn’t really anything inherently ‘rightest’ about gulags or purges. This is you just saying anything bad is rightest. And guess what, the purges at least were very healthy at some level because they killed a lot of commies who were smarter than Stalin. I’m glad Trotsky was put in the ground, personally.

            “Moreover, what about those citizens who are not Orthodox?”

            haha. As Ivan Ilyin said, there is no Russian who is not Orthodox. If he has abandoned Othodoxy, he has abandoned his Russian identity. This is why when the Soviet oppression died, Orthodoxy rebounded rather remarkably, though there is still work to be done.

            I don’t care about religious liberty. It is a fiction, like secularism. Every country which has guaranteed ‘religious liberty’ has been covertly installing atheism (i.e – worship of Progress) into children from day 1. Now, non-Russian ethnic groups who practice different religions (like the small ethnic groups in the far east) are not really Russian but are gladly enveloped within its imperium. There is no quarrel with them, or at least there shouldn’t be. They operate within their own enclaves.

            It is wise for the Russian government to see certain groups such as scientologists and evangelicals as hostile enemies within, possibly being moved like pawns by the US government.

            Your childish jibes are just as petty as ever, but they only outline your insecurity, not mine.

            Liberalism is most certainly a religion. Its sacrament is a woman’s right to choose, its priests are television stars, its theologians are university professors, its deities are perverts and dindus, and it crushes dissent and heresy at every turn using hate crime laws and other such nonsense. It is the religion of coca cola and pornography, as Davila described it. Conservatism is not a religion, more of a dummy target, a shadowboxing partner.

            As I have said previously, Corvinus, if you really didn’t believe our ideas were a threat, you would be doing something else with your time, and yet here you are, day in, day out. Are you building a resume for the job of SPLC handyman? If America with all its ideals is such a sure thing, then go out and enjoy the sun, and dont worry about the nasty men on the internet who want to see it all burn.

          • peppermint says:

            Russia has a unique historical relationship with Orthodoxy amongst the White nations. Ultimately, nationalism means me not telling you what nationalism means. Best of luck to your people.

          • Corvinus says:

            Lil’ Stevie…

            “You managed to blatantly contradict yourself in less than 3 paragraphs – I pointed it out because it amused me. Back to barely skimming the wastes of space that are your comment.”

            You didn’t point out anything. If you want to EXPLAIN this contradiction, be my guest. Make sure that your boyfriend proofreads your argument.

            Jim…

            “Every child in the American Empire is subjected to religious catechism starting in kindergarden, and for the elites, continuing through postgraduate studies.”

            No, there is no “leftist religion” involved in America’s educational system.

            “Dissent is ruthlessly crushed.”

            That’s rich, given the fact that the society you tout will openly murder those who dare to cross it.

            “The increasingly rapid changes in the most holy catechism are determined in Harvard…”

            More bullshit. Ok, offer a specific document indicating that all educational policy is determined by Harvard for each and every school district in the United States, followed by evidence that these school districts directly acknowledge that they adhere here to Harvard’s educational dictates.

            Mark…

            “And guess what, the purges at least were very healthy at some level because they killed a lot of commies who were smarter than Stalin. I’m glad Trotsky was put in the ground, personally.

            At least you are admitting that you are supporting murder of any and all opponents to your philosophy.

            “haha. As Ivan Ilyin said, there is no Russian who is not Orthodox. If he has abandoned Othodoxy, he has abandoned his Russian identity.”

            No, Russian identity is not necessary tied to Orthodoxy.

            “This is why when the Soviet oppression died, Orthodoxy rebounded rather remarkably, though there is still work to be done.”

            Orthodoxy is still in league with Soviet oppression. His name is Putin.

            “I don’t care about religious liberty. It is a fiction, like secularism. Every country which has guaranteed ‘religious liberty’ has been covertly installing atheism (i.e – worship of Progress) into children from day 1.”

            Well, you see, scores of people DO care about religious liberty. Which is exactly why the Alt Right will not sustain itself in the long run.

            “It is wise for the Russian government to see certain groups such as scientologists and evangelicals as hostile enemies within, possibly being moved like pawns by the US government.”

            No, those groups have the freedom to exist, to survive, and thrive. They will not go down with a fight.

            “Your childish jibes are just as petty as ever, but they only outline your insecurity, not mine.”

            The classic projection line. You’re not fooling anyone except yourself.

            “Liberalism is most certainly a religion. Its sacrament is a woman’s right to choose, its priests are television stars, its theologians are university professors, its deities are perverts and dindus, and it crushes dissent and heresy at every turn using hate crime laws and other such nonsense. It is the religion of coca cola and pornography, as Davila described it.

            No, liberalism is a political ideology. That is an immutable fact despite the Alt Right’s desperate characterization.

            “Conservatism is not a religion, more of a dummy target, a shadowboxing partner.”

            Now you are being intellectually dishonest. You are being wildly inconsistent.

            “As I have said previously, Corvinus, if you really didn’t believe our ideas were a threat, you would be doing something else with your time, and yet here you are, day in, day out.”

            Of course your ideas are a threat to common sense and decency. But I’m not worried about it as you think I ought to be. Your philosophy may get somewhere on a small scale, but not on this grand-scale, considering you and your ilk prefer to remain hiding in the shadows, waiting for someone to become the face of the movement, and then you get to be the wizard behind the curtains leading the show.

            “Are you building a resume for the job of SPLC handyman? If America with all its ideals is such a sure thing, then go out and enjoy the sun, and dont worry about the nasty men on the internet who want to see it all burn.”

            I and millions of my American compatriots do enjoy the sun. And you said it, you are merely on the Internet proposing it all come tumbling down. Except deep down you know you and your boyzzz are IMPOTENT to make it a reality through your efforts. Even if America somehow “burns” in the next 50 years, that is no guarantee that neoreactionary will become the alternative. There are plenty of other hucksters out there you will have to compete with.

            Are you ready to die for the cause, to actually get your nose bloody?

            • jim says:

              No, liberalism is a political ideology. That is an immutable fact despite the Alt Right’s desperate characterization.

              Many political ideologies are religions to some extent, some to a very great extent. Progressivism is religious, conservatism is just yesterday’s progressivism.

              The sacramental and religious character of progressivism, like the sacramental and religious character of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (itself a sacrament of progressivism) and the sacramental and religious character of communism, is obvious.

              All white states are religious states, in that the ruling elite are united and animated by a common religion, which they proceed to a greater or lesser extent to enforce on everyone. The American empire is alarmingly aggressive, intrusive, and extreme about enforcing and imposing its every more extreme religion, and becoming more so.

              Putin’s Russia, on the other hand, is pretty mild about enforcing Russian Orthodoxy, and is thus considerably less oppressive.

              China would probably be pretty extreme about enforcing Maoism, except that they don’t believe Maoism any more and are not sure what to replace it with.

            • jim says:

              “Well, you see, scores of people DO care about religious liberty. Which is exactly why the Alt Right will not sustain itself in the long run.”

              If people care about religious liberty, how come the enormous fine for disinclination to bake a hypothetical gay wedding cake for a hypothetical gay wedding?

              People like theocracy. What troubles them is that the doctrines of our current theocracy are changing with alarming speed. Give them a theocracy that tells them what to think, as our current theocracy does, and unlike our current theocracy, does not keep changing its mind, and they will be able to feel safe knowing that the latest abrupt change in doctrine will not result in them being retroactively convicted for heresy and witchcraft.

          • Mark Citadel says:

            “At least you are admitting that you are supporting murder of any and all opponents to your philosophy.”

            Confusing murder with justice and self-defense.

            “No, Russian identity is not necessary tied to Orthodoxy.”

            I’m convinced you haven’t read a single essay on Russian identity.

            “Orthodoxy is still in league with Soviet oppression. His name is Putin.”

            Hello John McCain. Still having Cold War flashbacks?

            “Well, you see, scores of people DO care about religious liberty. Which is exactly why the Alt Right will not sustain itself in the long run.”

            No, they don’t. People care about what the elites tell them to care about.

            “No, those groups have the freedom to exist, to survive, and thrive. They will not go down with a fight.”

            Well, there hasn’t been much of a fight.

            “The classic projection line. You’re not fooling anyone except yourself.”

            This barely made sense as a response.

            “No, liberalism is a political ideology. That is an immutable fact despite the Alt Right’s desperate characterization.”

            Maybe if you say it again, it will magically become true. A political ideology of Liberalism’s type is most certainly religious in application, as the reasons given show.

            “Now you are being intellectually dishonest. You are being wildly inconsistent.”

            Waaah!

            “Of course your ideas are a threat to common sense and decency.”

            Read: “threat to my satanic liberal religion”

            “I and millions of my American compatriots”

            Are these the millions of Americans who can’t locate Brazil on a map and think the War of 1812 was fought against China? Whatever will we do?

            “There are plenty of other hucksters out there you will have to compete with.”

            Most certainly we will have competition. Islam will be a big competitor in Europe for sure. Spic drug gangs dream of a new Aztlan.

            “Are you ready to die for the cause, to actually get your nose bloody?”

            Emphatically yes, as many men before me have died for the cause. If that is required, I go the grave gladly.

          • Corvinus says:

            Jim…

            “Many political ideologies are religions to some extent, some to a very great extent. Progressivism is religious, conservatism is just yesterday’s progressivism.”

            Religion –> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods; an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods.

            Progressivism and conservatism are political ideologies. There is no question on this matter.

            “All white states are religious states, in that the ruling elite are united and animated by a common religion, which they proceed to a greater or lesser extent to enforce on everyone.”

            

Corrected for accuracy –> There are no white states that are formally religious states. It is false to characterize the elites as being bound to by any formal religion nor does it actively and perpetually seek to enforce that formal religion upon everyone.

            “The American empire is alarmingly aggressive, intrusive, and extreme about enforcing and imposing its every more extreme religion, and becoming more so.”


            Corrected for accuracy –> Neoreactionaries are alarmingly aggressive, intrusive, and extreme about enforcing and imposing their political ideology upon the masses.

            “People like theocracy.”

SOME people, sure.

            “Give them a theocracy that tells them what to think…”

            No, give people the liberty to choose for themselves what faith to adhere to.

            
Mark…

            “Confusing murder with justice and self-defense.”

            You will murder anyone who gets in the way of your plan to put forth an iron-fisted monarchy.

            “I’m convinced you haven’t read a single essay on Russian identity.”

            Educate yourself.

            http://www.vision.org/visionmedia/current-events-politics-russian-identity/5814.aspx

            http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/4728799/Russias-ongoing-identity-crisis.html

            “No, they don’t. People care about what the elites tell them to care about.”


            I get it, you believe most people are idiots. That people lack the ability to form their own opinions on particular matters. In turn, they can be easily manipulated by your brand of fascism. Go ahead and try, since the term “elites” is overused and overvalued. Its definition has been rendered meaningless.

            “Well, there hasn’t been much of a fight.”

            Today’s political landscape says otherwise. Stop lying.

            “A political ideology of Liberalism’s type is most certainly religious in application, as the reasons given show.”

            

A political ideology is assuredly political in application.

            “Are these the millions of Americans who can’t locate Brazil on a map and think the War of 1812 was fought against China?”

            More like thousands.

            “Emphatically yes, as many men before me have died for the cause. If that is required, I go the grave gladly.”

            

Do, not try.

            • jim says:

              Religion –> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power

              By that definition Buddhism, Wicca, and New Age, are not religions, while Marxism is a religion.

              Indeed, applying that definition strictly, only Marxism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam fit.

          • Corvinus says:

            “By that definition Buddhism, Wicca, and New Age, are not religions…”

            Yes, by that definition.

            “Indeed, applying that definition strictly, only Marxism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam fit.”

            Marxism is NOT a religion, no matter how many times you repeat it.
            Atheism is a natural and inseparable part of Marxism, of the theory and practice of scientific socialism.

            • jim says:

              “Indeed, applying that definition strictly, only Marxism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam fit.”

              Marxism is NOT a religion, no matter how many times you repeat it.

              Marxist “historical determinism” is an all powerful supernatural force that defines good and evil. It is the Jewish god, very thinly disguised. The dialectical method, dialectics, is the Talmudic method. Marxism is Jewish Orthodoxy reinvented to be left of progressivism.

          • pdimov says:

            “Marxism is NOT a religion, no matter how many times you repeat it.”

            There isn’t much substantive difference in practice between “things happen because historical necessity” and “things happen because Allah wills it.”

          • peppermint says:

            Marxism explains why the world is as it is and how you can help make it better, as do competing faiths like Catholicism and National Socialism. Handing children over to commies for their education is exactly like handing children over to Christians for their education, and done for the same practical reason.

            It will be difficult to force parents to hand their children over for NatSoc schooling, since NatSoc believes that children exist because their parents created them and the parents are the people who care about the children first.

            If this leads to religious tolerance, it might be resolved by restricting positions of power in the NatSoc state to the kids who went to NatSoc schools, which would encourage many parents to hand their children over.

            o/

          • pdimov says:

            “It will be difficult to force parents to hand their children over for NatSoc schooling…”

            Huh? That’s exactly what Hitler did, was it not?

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reich_Ministry_of_Science,_Education_and_Culture

            “When an opponent declares, ‘I will not come over to your side, and you will not get me on your side,’ I calmly say, ‘Your child belongs to me already. A people lives forever. What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants however now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community’.”

          • peppermint says:

            Hitler wasn’t really fully NatSoc, he was raised Christian after all, and often did muddle-headed Marxist things without thinking clearly about it. And there was a war on, of course.

            The future NatSoc, in peace time, will have a difficult time forcing parents to hand their children over, for ideological reasons. Marxists can demand it because children belong to everyone and need a standardized education. Liberals can demand it because children belong to the village and need to be taught by the village elders. Catholics can demand it because children belong to God and need to be taught to worship.

            NatSoc recognizes the biotruth that children belong to their parents and anyone else who says they care about the children is either a cuck, a pedo, or a commie.

          • pdimov says:

            Can’t say I agree.

            “This Reich stands, and it is building itself up for the future, upon its youth. And this new Reich will give its youth to no one, but will itself take youth and give to youth its own education and its own upbringing.”

            The NSDAP quite explicitly took over the educational system, before the war.

            “Children belong to their parents” (as opposed to the Reich) is not NatSoc, it’s ordinary reaction. It’s unsustainable under democracy or other demotist regimes, because whoever controls today’s education controls the future public opinion (or votes) so there’s strong incentive for taking over education. Hitler understood this.

          • peppermint says:

            Hitler took the children from the Christians, Marxists, and various flavors of Marxio-Christian syncretic liberals. Certainly, in a war, there could be reason to take the children from their parents and put them to work or military training.

            The internal logic of NatSoc sugests that children should not be taken from their parents under ordinary circumstances, unless you take the limited view that NatSoc is whatever Hitler did, in which case neo-NatSoc is a nearly meaningless larp. The problem with calling that internal logic generic reaction, though, is that Christians have a fairly legitimate claim to the word reaction, making it inappropriate to call this new religion that has much less to do with Christianity than Marxism does generic reaction.

            • jim says:

              Socialism is stupid, therefore national socialism is stupid.

              If socialism, children belong to the state. If children belong to their parents, then a factory belongs to he who built it.

              Hitler purging the Jews from institutions of political power left the left without a leg to stand on, revealing that their power basis was not the masses but infiltration of the state.

              Hitler purging the Jews from everything meant that he did not get nukes and America did get nukes.

          • pdimov says:

            If NatSoc is not what Hitler did (and what the NSDAP did, and what Hitler wrote he’ll do, said in his speeches he’ll do, and subsequently did), what is it? How could I check for myself if its internal logic is what you say it is? From what principles do you start, and where do those principles come from?

          • peppermint says:

            The same thing you called ordinary reaction,, but that name is inappropriate because it leads to legitimate confusion with Christian reaction, whereas Hitler wasn’t living up to these principles but was obviously trying to. In addition, American post-WWII neo-Nazis like William Luther Pierce and Nazi sympathizers like Revilo Oliver were pushing for some of these ideas, and today’s American neo-Nazi White supremacists like Andrew Anglin are pretty up to date on the latest in ‘ordinary reaction’.

            “fash” is the name Jim used, but that name sounds like it’s trying to describe the cultural instead of ideological aspects. These ideas are not new, so it’s inappropriate to call it alt-right.

            It should be remembered that while NatSoc in practice in Germany was not ideologically pure, it was more ideologically pure than Fascism or Falangism, while the other fascist movements never managed to capture their countries. As such, NatSoc can serve as a metonym for these ideas, even when applied in other countries.

            We could also call it bio-nationalism, but that sounds even larpier, and doesn’t trigger everyone the way NatSoc does.

          • peppermint says:

            oops, say Marxist too many times while talking up NatSoc and you sound like a socialist. The only good thing about NatSoc having socialism in the name is when PEGIDA said we love our nation, but we are not socialists, so we are not nazis.

          • pdimov says:

            So what you’re saying is that real NatSoc has never been tried, and that NatSoc, properly understood, is not what Hitler did.

            Or, in other words, NatSoc properly understood reflects American (individualist) mentality, not German (collectivist) mentality.

        • jay says:

          Interesting very similar to the protestant position. But I guess the protestants maybe got it wrong somehow.

          I think the Protestants should copy the Orthodox way of doing things at least in those matters.

      • Iancu says:

        Jim, “that the church should be a branch of the state” is not the definition of caesaropapism. Rather, it is the definition of (some forms of) establishmentarianism.

        In his article, Mark mas making the case that caesaropapism, historically, in the Byzantine Empire was not that. (Namely, it was not the case that the church was merely a branch of the state)

        So, sadly, we should have to plainly reject your understanding of what the definition of caesaropapism should be. (based on the historical record of Byzantium) But you are right that state with no religion is bad, state as a branch of religion (ecclesiocracy, Iran) is bad, and religion as a branch of the state (“enlightened despotism”, Josephinism in the Habsburg monarchy as well as later periods in Britain) is also bad.

    • Aurelius Moner says:

      I read Jim’s article when it first posted, and wanted to comment, saying I reckoned you may not agree with making his reading of your article into Reactionary canon. Indeed, to simply subordinate the Church to the State is already Liberalism (and Protestantism), since it assumes the relativity of Truth and morals from the get-go, making them subject to merely human powers.

      I think of the Church more as a Queen mother who speaks as ambassador for the High King, to Whom her sons, earthly princes, are subject. They protect the Church, a woman and their Mother; they hear her voice with filial piety and obedience. They do not tell her to shut up and make them a sammich, and to expedite their divorce paperwork lest she die.

      Certainly Catholics are not only entitled to refuse their recognition and submission to Francis, JPII, Paul VI, etc., they are *morally obliged to do so* by Catholic doctrine itself. That manifest heretics should pretend to the Holy See is not in itself a great calamity; the primary reason for the severity of the present crisis, is because the faithful have abandoned their moral obligations in the mistaken belief that nothing can be done about the situation. This is certainly not the case. Ideally a Christian prince would put the heretics to the sword. Failing that, the faithful could rid themselves of these heretics easily enough; even if they cannot remove them from the Vatican, they can easily assemble a Council of the remaining, validly ordained, orthodox bishops, elect a new Pontiff, and carry on.

      There are many prophecies, however, that the institutional power of the Tiara and Crown would be removed near the end, to make way for the unimpeded action of anti-Christ. So, by a counsel of Divine Providence, I don’t reckon this will happen, or at least, not until the measure of iniquity is fulfilled. In the meantime, faithful Catholics should feel no obligation to acknowledge or obey manifest heretics; indeed, they are obliged to do exactly the opposite.

      Hear the teaching of St. Robert Bellarmine, which was incorporated into the teaching of Vatican I (by the Relator in response to the Council Fathers’ questions), Mystici Corporis and Satis Cognitum, and which was cited by Pius XI as amongst the reasons for declaring St. Robert to be a Doctor of the Church:

      “The fourth opinion is of Cajetan. There, he teaches, that a manifestly heretical Pope is not ipso facto deposed; but can and ought to be deposed by the Church. Now in my judgment, such an opinion cannot be defended. For in the first place, that a manifest heretic would be ipso facto deposed, is proven from authority and reason. The Authority is of St. Paul, who commands Titus, that after two censures, that is, after he appears manifestly pertinacious, an heretic is to be shunned: and he understands this before excommunication and sentence of a judge. Jerome comments on the same place, saying that other sinners, through a judgment of excommunication are excluded from the Church; heretics, however, leave by themselves and are cut from the body of Christ, but a Pope who remains the Pope cannot be shunned. How will we shun our Head? How will we recede from a member to whom we are joined?

      Now in regard to reason this is indeed very certain. A non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope, as Cajetan affirms in the same book, and the reason is because he cannot be the head of that which he is not a member, and he is not a member of the Church who is not a Christian. But a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as St. Cyprian and many other Fathers clearly teach. Therefore, a manifest heretic cannot be Pope….

      …So, the fifth and the true opinion, is that a Pope who is a manifest heretic, ceases in himself to be Pope and head, just as he ceases in himself to be a Christian and member of the body of the Church: whereby, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics soon lose all jurisdiction…. The foundation of this opinion is that a manifest heretic, is in no way a member of the Church; that is, neither in spirit nor in body, or by internal union nor external.” – De Romano Pontifice I, ii, 30-

      • jim says:

        Consider the abuses depicted by Chaucer. Are they not a proper matter for the King to address, and indeed, Henry the eighth did address them.

      • jim says:

        The state is always and everywhere animated by a religion and winds up imposing that religion on people. If the boundaries of the religion differ from the boundaries of the state there will be trouble, as one state uses the religion to dominate other states.

        You have to have, therefore, nation state churches, that states can have memetic sovereignty.

        • Aurelius Moner says:

          I agree that the increasing central management in the Catholic Church was often inadvisable. The doctrinal reality of the Papal primacy is de fide; the way that primacy conducts itself is another matter.

          Were I a pope, I would promote the following policies:

          1) Encourage local Churches to reinforce their national and cultural identity, by restoring one of their great, Medieval Cathedral usages for their nation’s liturgy, and revitalizing the cult of local saints and customs. This really is the heart of the old diocesan system – that political and cultural boundaries should correspond to the boundaries of bishoprics and archbishoprics.

          2) Ask these archbishoprics and national synods to take over most of their internal business, formally. I would still maintain regular contact with archbishops and metropolitans, informally, and obviously the ancient principle must always stand, that nothing of great importance should be done without it being brought to the notice of the First See. But it’s better when this process is less overt, and direct interference of the primacy is more extraordinary.

          I agree that the state is always and everywhere animated by a religion. But if we simply say that the state sets that religion, we have annihilated the very thing that makes religion to be religion. We have also, believe it or not, turned the state into a perversion of itself. The traditional Catholic (and Orthodox) doctrine, when understood, is best: the transcendent principles of Truth and morality, which must animate the State’s laws and identity, necessarily are the domain of the Church; the State is thus subordinate to the Church insofar as it is the universal judge and teacher of justice; yet the State bears the duty, and therefore also the right, of temporal authority and jurisdiction; the Church only intervenes if the State has perverted itself in this regard, but for so long as the State is Catholic in its laws and character, and its princes are not flouting the popular respect for Truth and morals by egregiously bad example, in all temporal matters the Church yields to the State its proper sphere of direct influence, jurisdiction and authority; in addition, the Church fosters each individual nation’s character through the encouragement of local rites, customs, and the cult of local saints. The trend towards centralizing everything is not a doctrinal principle (indeed, doctrine leans more towards subsidiarity), but is something in need of reform.

          To say that an hierarch will never make a bad decision, is as foolish as to say that a prince never will. Reactionaries are not into designing a “perfect” form of government that will respond correctly to all eventualities (though sensible laws to mitigate obvious exploits and vulnerabilities are all well and good); more generally crises and scandals have to be dealt with as they arise, which is why authority exists (as St. Thomas points out): not only to enforce the law, but sensibly to apply, suspend, make exceptions, etc., to the law as required. The best one can do is vest authority in an aristocracy motivated at least by the traditions, customs and ideal of virtue (i.e., worthiness), and then work and pray for the best.

          I spoke of how the Church intervenes if the secular power is bad; you raise the valid question of what the king does if the spiritual power is bad. If virtue was lacking in my nations’ clergy, and I were the king, I would approach the archbishop first, then maybe the pope (depending on whether the archbishop was sensible or not), and be frank that I was ready to take lethally serious measures if they did not act; I would inform them that I had approached them privately to give them the opportunity to save face and look good. If they still did nothing, I agree that the king is not duty-bound to wait on the Church’s good-pleasure, if he is morally certain that action is required. And in such a situation, hey: it’s easier to ask forgiveness than permission. I would dye my royal palace’ curtains in the blood of sodomite simoniacs in a second. If the pope objected, I’d inform him that I was ready to dye my sofa a matching color. The threat of excommunication from such persons is laughable. They are self-condemned.

          But yes, that means the sovereign is taking responsibility for a personal decision. To me, this was the most despicable thing about Henry VIII. It seems to me, that he had not the strength of his convictions. Did he think that God, at the tribunal of his doom, would simply ask him for a document from some ecclesiastical official saying his divorce was permitted? Or did he not realize that God, at each man’s tribunal, judges justly – and that the value the Church’s judgment has, is in informing us before we arrive at the Judgment Seat, of helpful or harmful preparations for that moment. That is the whole point of the Church being free; when she is free, she tells us plainly how to save our souls and care for our subjects. When she is enslaved, she does not speak with her own voice at all, especially not to her enslaver!

          But if you can simply manacle the Church, install your own crony, and compel him to give you a writ of divorce, what value does that “judgment” have? None. What kind of man craves such a permission? A weak, contemptible man. So, in my view, if Henry VIII felt morally certain that his marriage to Catherine of Aragorn had been a sin, he should have taken the personal consequences for this, divorced her, incurred an excommunication which he would have considered null anyway (obviously), married again as he pleased and gone on to meet His maker on the strength of his convictions. There was absolutely no need to ruin his realm and make a change of religion just to get that document in his hot little hands.

          You refer to yet other abuses. I accept the Catholic doctrine of indulgences, but if there were widespread abuses in my kingdom of clerics going around pretending that the Church had direct jurisdiction over the souls in purgatory (which the Church always disavowed), and that you could simply buy them out of it, I would, again, approach the clergy and inform them that I was prepared to take lethally serious action if they didn’t do something…. etc.

          So, if Henry VIII didn’t have the strength of his convictions, he should not have been such a b#&ch as to think that his crony’s signature was worth any more in God’s sight than the papal refusal he had already disregarded. A king should act on the strength of his convictions and take his own lumps, if he is morally certain that there is a problem with the clergy. Also, what a pathetic obsession – an heir! I understand the desire to leave a legacy; if one has a son, I understand wanting him to inherit the kingdom. What I don’t understand, is destroying my theoretical son’s inheritance in order to make sure that I have a son to inherit the inheritance I have just plunged into anarchy and ruin. Henry VIII’s problem was not the Church; it was his own contemptible lack of character.

          • jim says:

            There was absolutely no need to ruin his realm and make a change of religion just to get that document in his hot little hands.

            But I don’t think he ruined his realm. Despite his own personal faults, he protected his realm from the personal faults of Churchmen.

            From 1800 onwards, Anglicanism was and is substantially more heretical than Roman Catholicism, but today that is only a matter of degree, and not very large degree.

            But from 1660 to 1800, it was a sound state religion, under which we got the scientific and industrial revolutions.

            The greatness of the west largely comes from a society governed by that state religion, and men who gave it adherence.

            One of the reasons I favor hereditary or semi hereditary priesthood is that that automatically gives you localism and subsidiarity. Having a centralized state religion that exceeds the borders of a state leads to the problems that we suffer today, and the problems that gave us the holy wars of the reformation.

            Harvard dictates the culture of the Ivies, the Ivies dictate the culture of the State Department and the entire education system world wide, the State Department directly commands the NGOs, and the NGOs monitor and directly command progressivism world wide.

    • Anon says:

      >my vision is not a situation in which the Church is subject to the state

      Render unto Caesar

  5. Jack Highlands says:

    In a decadent civilization, ALL the institutions become decadent eventually.

    This is a simple concept, but the salt of the West cannot learn it. Unlike progs, they neither deny the decadence nor wallow mindlessly in its short-term benefits, but their longing for some semblance of tradition can drive them to seek refuge in church, or military, or sports, or service clubs and so on. But one by one these become decadent too.

    First the Anglicans, then the Catholics, then even the Evangelicals are idolizing homos and adopting Ethiopians.

    First there are women in combat, then fags in basic, then trannies in the ward room.

    First boxing, then basketball, then football, go the ghetto way.

    First the Rotarians, then the K of C start promoting Kars for (((Kids)))

    In a decadent civilization, ALL the institutions become decadent eventually.

    This is a simple concept, but even red-pillers find it tough. Their very awareness makes some desperate for identity, particularly in the Church. But in time, even the Ecumenicals must fall away or become decadent.

    Make no mistake, the West is facing its Roman hour. Just as Christianity replaced Paganism, something yet unformed is replacing Christianity.

    • viking says:

      While moldbug may be taking it a bit far [or maybe not ] hes right that leftism is holier than Jesus christianity. Christianity has always been extreme holiness signaling and always without care for the existing order because its a mystical transcendent order it serves. Leftism is in conformity with that christian mystical order. when leftism supports faggotry trannyism adultery etc it isnt defending assfucking its defending tolerance, forgiveness of sin, a focus more on ones own sins than the others, deference to gods commandment to leave judging and justice to him, and self abnegation [sacrificing ones children to niggers and trannys shows no greater love than gods sacrificing Jesus] Since paul christianity has been a universalist creed apart from Judaism, brotherhood in christ is fundamental telling a christian that a nigger is stupid and violent only makes any sacrifice for him greater after all even a muslim would help another muslim but a christian will let a nigger rape him then ask the authorities not to deport him.
      There are periods when the church get men interested in power to use political means to expand its power by allying with kings and emperors, But this is always followed by reformation by greater holiness signaling. Christianity is never going to be able to defend against this its fundamental to its creed that the other is always to be put before oneself no matter what and the world is not real and ought not be paid much heed, at times the church attempts to expand its power through intellectualism, this is always followed by a reformation of mysticism.
      The Church no matter how much we may romanticize it how integral to western civilization it was is a cuck and irrational religion. Reaction is based on reason and HBD. What seems overlooked is the church was strong when western civilization was insulated first as the roman empire later as the holy roman empire as the celts and others were incorporated, while it was brought to far away lands an sometime took root those lands were far away. when the world got crowded enough it did less well. islam cleaned its clock something like 1500 battles to 3 even while the Renaissance enlightenment and and industrial revolution were blooming. As west civ recovered its footing Christianity got reformed bad timing the lost ground was never recovered in the east and new nations were lost in the west to Protestantism. and the rest is history.
      Obviously man has evolved a religious fervor gene its not clear this is different from the general tribal gene or how far it can be stretched it seems its athe same or close variant and can be used for almost any organizing task. sure its hard tinvent a new religion butt its been done and we are about due or we could go the other way and stick with nationalism and reason

      • Mark Citadel says:

        “invent a new religion”

        I wish you the best of luck, L. Ron. Why don’t you start it? Write a book and make it a bestseller.

        • viking says:

          Jesus is a leftist because he overthrows the Rabbis and pharisees, he tells people their is a spirit to the law more important than the letter,He in fact establishes a competitor to his own religion. He says the first shall be last then practices that over and over,favoring whores theives beggars etc while castigating the productive. Hes anti law and order because situational ethics so that only god can judge.Hes a pacifist that preaches turning the other cheek to bandits and giving your other coats to bandits etc.Hes against family and social ties tells them to let the dead bury the dead he wants total devotion to the cause. He denies physical reality claiming its not real but there is a secret kingdom you can see but which you should sacrifice you life on earth for.
          Being a russian Im sure you have read tolstoys confession yeah sure if christ is who he says he is all of the above cant be argued with but in that case WTF are you doing.

  6. John Morris says:

    “Hereditary priesthood is an excellent system, and normatively celibate priesthood a horrible mistake.”

    This is the only line in an otherwise excellent post I’d take issue with. I’d say you suffer from the “Chesterton’s Fence” problem here in that you didn’t understand why it was decided to make the priesthood celibate. It isn’t ordained in the bible, merely church policy. But it was sound policy.

    Examine how things worked. The first born sons of the nobility and aristocracy inherited everything. A second was a good backup and in practice was often tasked with important work. But what to do with the others? The Church was a high status institution and moving high born people into it built bonds between Church and State. Bonds that required constant renewal since priests die and leave no offspring.

    Now imagine the alternate world. You would have quickly developed a competing hereditary structure, probably only loosely bound by marriage to the State. But it would be a complete and self contained structure, amassing power in its own name, Cardinals and Bishops would be busily building empires to hand down to their sons, etc. You could have seen open warfare between them, between them and the secular rulers, Church and State merging (likely by marriage) in some realms, all sort of mischief. And if an only daughter can be a Queen in her own name, what of only daughters of a hereditary church position?

    A good argument could be made that with the end of the concept of hereditary offices in the secular world, they could be prevented in the Church as well and thus the requirement for celibacy eliminated. Which might mitigate some of the nastier side effects… such as the widespread homosexuality.

    • viking says:

      That may have been noticed as an unintended benefit but the reason is much more fundamental Catholicism is a mystical religion that teaches the world is not real and should be transcended to live in the real world of the spirit.The practices that enable this transition are many and while its recognized this is a process always striven for but never attained throwing off as much earthly attachment as possible is encouraged and the celibate priesthood emulate celibate jesus as an example of whats possible as martyrdom emulated jesus and has always been a catholic theme.Jesus whole reason for assuming corporal form was to prove what could be done.Every catholic of my age grew up on the lives of the saints tales of astounding self denial while some of these may have been exaggerated most were not catholic guilt comes from this knowledge that others have endured what we have not the courage to. Like any organization it attracted politicians because they were actually needed and because power, they were likely cynical as you say but beside the point.I would think if any practical concerns were going on in the early church it would have been more like a commitment test.-

    • jim says:

      Cardinals and Bishops would be busily building empires to hand down to their sons, etc. You could have seen open warfare between them, between them and the secular rulers, Church and State merging (likely by marriage) in some realms, all sort of mischief.

      And the problem with that is?

    • Aurelius Moner says:

      As somebody preparing for the priesthood in traditionalist Catholic circles, I can attest to two things:

      1) There is a masculine culture amongst the men. Many seminarians and priests played/play sports; they are drawn to (real, difficult) philosophy; they work hard, are attentive and diligent, and they walk and talk like men. There is accountability, responsibility, consequences. They drink whisky, smoke pipes and discuss reactionary politics! I’ve found none of these things in feminized atmospheres, where women, fags and weak men abound. I understand that a bunch of bad eggs infiltrated mainstream seminaries and effeminized them, making it easy for lazy, witless fags to glide into a degraded clerical status. Such people would not succeed in a rigorous, traditional seminary.

      2) The high caliber of the traditional, Catholic priesthood would be severely limited if the priests were married, had kids, etc. When I was Orthodox, I compared Orthodox priests to what I saw of Catholic priests – i.e., Novus Ordo Fairies. Obviously the Orthodox were better. Now interacting with traditionalist Catholic priests on a regular basis, I can say that they are formidable and impressive persons. Their knowledge, the rigor of their spiritual lives (the full Office every day, an Holy Hour, mental prayer, daily Mass, Lectio, a Rosary, House Calls, Confessions) and the diligence with which they keep themselves busy during the times when they are not so employed, is quite a thing to behold.

      Even the monk-priests I knew in the Orthodox Church were not half so dedicated. And the married priests? They did not recite the Office at all, accept for abbreviated Vespers and Orthros for Sundays and Feasts; they did little work during the week; none of them could really be called scholars or profoundly educated men; many of them did not actually know the Fathers, they just knew Fr. Romanides’ revisionist readings, or Fr. Gilquist’s handy-dandy guide to Theosis, etc. Their wives were often embroiled in parish politics; the priests felt like the parishioners were intruding on their family privacy if they expected confessions, house calls, etc., during the week.

      Some of the Russians were better, in strongholds of their church (Joy of All Who Sorrow Cathedral in San Fran had some impressive clergy), but even Jordanville was a spiritual desert when I was there.

      Anyway, long story short: the celibate priesthood is a phenomenal strength. What has happened in the past half-century was not a function of celibacy, for of course there have been many centuries of phenomenal, celibate priests. Occasional periods of decadence come, and when they come, yes, lots of lazy perverts enter the clergy – it’s a cushy job, if you don’t give a damn! If you do give a damn, there would be no way to maintain authentic, Catholic standards without a celibate priesthood.

      Even in the Orthodox Church, the traditional canon and discipline was to ordain grown men (30+) who had already sired their sons, and were ready to start being celibate – for, even an Orthodox priest is forbidden to have sex during the vast majority of the year (during all fasts – Wednesdays, Fridays, 63 days before Easter, 40 days before Christmas, from Pentecost Monday to June 29th, the first 14 days of August, etc. – and on all days before and after celebrating the Liturgy, which comes out to be only an handful of Tuesdays and Thursdays during the year, assuming he only says Liturgy on Sunday). The modern practice of ordaining young newlyweds and ignoring the ascetical discipline, is having a seriously deleterious effect on what quality remained in the Orthodox priesthood.

      • Ahote says:

        Meh, if I could I would ban celibate clergy altogether, even bishops! Traditionalist Catholic clergy and Orthodox monastics are some of the very worst people around. Sure, they have fiery zeal, but as Saint Benedict says “there is an evil zeal of bitterness which separates from God and leads to hell.” Education and all askesis is for naught when the sin of pride has swallowed you whole (it would indeed be less bad if they were common adulterers, than rabid avatars of pride that they are)! Give me a lazy semi-literate good-for-nothing married priest any time over cray TradCath/ROCOR clergy (the raging Puritanism and left-wing mentality of those is unbearable, you can clearly see why those are proto-SJWs).

    • Dave says:

      I suppose you’ve read Dalrock’s reports on the anarcho-tyranny infesting almost all evangelical churches. Preachers like Mark Driscoll praise women to the skies while condemning their husbands for the most trivial offenses. This rot has not yet infected the Catholic Church, possibly because a celibate priest has nothing to gain by AMOGing his male parishioners.

      Jim, why do some churches tear men down in front of their (actual or potential) wives, while others do not?

      • jim says:

        My younger son became Roman Catholic for PUA/Reactionary/neoreactionary reasons.

        He got married in a big very impressive Roman Catholic church.

        He had the priest read the relevant scriptures and doctrines about marriage – that women should submit to their husbands and so on and so forth: Genesis and Paul.

        But the Roman Catholic priest went off script and inserted a feminist prayer into the marriage, which pissed me off no end.

        • Aurelius Moner says:

          I’m sorry to hear that, Jim. You have my condolences for your son’s conversion! I’ll try to ease up a bit when I press for the Catholic Faith ’round these parts; no need to rub salt in the wound…

          You know, you can get these priests reprimanded sometimes for going off-script. Ring up the local bishop and start making noises that you want your fee refunded (if they charged one to use the Church, etc.) in exchange for the “priest” feeling entitled to give you something other than a Catholic wedding service as it’s written in the book. You can at least make the “priest” squirm a bit, which I would enjoy doing in your position. Might make him think twice, next time.

  7. peppermint says:

    Hitler said that the Jews conspired to bring niggers into the Rhineland to bastardize the White race. In our lifetime, it was the Christians.

    We must secure the existence of our race and a future for White children, so that the beauty of the Aryan shall not perish from this Earth.

    The beauty of the Aryan woman is the physical emblem of our monogamous civilized nature.

    The Aryan woman is the bride of the Aryan man. The Aryan woman is our greatest and dearest possession, the loss of which is utterly fatal.

    Christianity is like Esther, here to please our vanity while betraying us to our enemies.

    • Aurelius Moner says:

      For God’s sake, man. I don’t know a single, inter-racial couple amongst the traditionalist Catholics in my state, and I know every traditionalist parish in my state pretty well. And most couples go on to have multiple children.

      Just admit that it’s *Liberals,* some of whom profess a false version of Christianity, that do this is a matter of routine. Traditional Catholics and Orthodox Christians (and Mormons) are the only Aryans reproducing in any significant numbers, but I don’t imagine we’ll be receiving a thank-you note from you anytime soon. I don’t know very many anti-Christian whites with big, happy families.

  8. Zach says:

    If only I could believe in god. That would be great!

  9. […] We. Violence as voting. Cures. Awakening. AmRen overview, highlights and significance. Flailing religion. Conservatism++. Last-minute substitutions. #nrx evaporation. Pan-Europeanism. Love, possibly. What […]

  10. […] declares Mark Citadel’s statement on Church and State to be New Canon on Church and State. He even said “hereby” so you know it’s […]

  11. […] Ultimately, the masculine/feminine analogy being tossed around is insufficient. Perhaps, it can be salvaged if it is explained with the correct amount of nuance, but then why have the analogy at all? Indeed, some have already used it to come to heretical and misguided conclusions. […]

  12. […] Canonizing Citadel. Balkanization problems. Weaponized billionaires. Boomer fail. Free fall. Fish in a barrel. NRx feeds the Alt-Right. Cruelty. A Moldbug achive. The weekly round, plus outliers. […]

  13. […] bits on the very productive on-going discussion of reactionary church-state relations (which even Jim noticed) in Ecclesia et Imperium. He contends, along with Bonald, for the supremacy of the Church over […]

  14. Musings of a mentally retarded pedophile on religion.

  15. […] But the clue here is that religious priests in Japan are not high status. Nobody listens to them. They don’t have any intellectual authority. […]

Leave a Reply