Culture, Politics

Political Revolution is Covert Psychological Warfare

Wilhelm ReichHow is it that the victories in the culture war are so one-side? It seems that for every one or two battles that don’t go in the win column for the political revolutionaries, there are a dozen others that take more territory in their favor. Christians routinely speak of losing the culture and that we now live in a post-Christian era in Western Civilization. How has this happened, especially since Christianity has always had a voice in American society?

It cannot be for a lack of institutions, organizations, conferences, books, articles, etc. There are Christian universities, seminaries, and apologetics programs turning out people to “take back the culture” by the thousands every year. And yet, the revolutionaries and atheistic iconoclasts keep marching forward as though these institutions didn’t even exist. To be sure, the progressive manufacturing centers we call universities are producing activists too, but Christians seem incapable of even slowing down these secular missionaries.

So why has the culture war been lost so badly? Why has Christianity been so thoroughly defeated in the culture of Western Civilization?

There are a lot of ways to answer this question, and all of them are most likely to prove controversial. But there is one reason in particular why Christianity has been defeated. The reason Christianity has been conquered in the West is due to its adherents completely misunderstanding the tactics of the enemy.

Christians have been fighting against the tide of the secular left, militant atheists, and sexual revolutionaries as though it was merely a philosophical dispute which then influences public policy some time in the near future. This miscalculation views the culture war through the lenses of election cycles rather than generational development.

This is has been a serious blunder; so serious in fact that Christianity has been thoroughly routed in every institution, including the Church.

The true nature of the radical social project we are encountering is covert psychological warfare. The radicals have infiltrated the institutions that shape the culture and have succeeded in psychologically conditioning the masses through systemic indoctrination to think in categories that undermine truth, beauty, and goodness.

This revolutionary tactic frames the manner in which issues are discussed by predetermining the language that will be permitted into the debate. Christians think they are ‘defeating the enemy’ when in reality they have already surrendered their arms because they have succumbed to the linguistically allowable categories of discussion. As long as the psychological framework justifying this covert operation goes unchallenged Christians will continue debating around the husks.

Political revolution is covert psychological warfare.

To be sure, there are numerous contradictory philosophical persuasions informing this covert operation, but it is incorrect to refute the philosophy without addressing the psychology of revolutionary moral anarchy. Moreover, it is a tactical error to begin with an attempted refutation of the philosophy undergirding this mindset because it will have no affect on the psychological conditioning that has taken place over generations of institutionalized brainwashing. A person does not reason their way into relativism, for relativism is an affront to reason. Adopting the relativistic framework requires an abandonment of reason, which can only take place through psychological manipulation. Using the tools of reason against views that require the abdication of reason is like giving medicine to a dead man.

The subtlety of such an operation is why covert psychological warfare is so successful. Unless people are aware of what is going on, they will not be able to guard themselves against it. Christians have been blindsided in the culture because, for the most part, they think we are in a battle of wits rather than a spiritual war. For evidence of this just take a hard look at mainstream apologetics in American society. What is the first move made against our atheistic opponents? It is most often to surrender the power of the gospel in order to appear “objective.” How many times has it been said that we, as Christians commissioned by the King of kings, should put aside our biases and weigh the evidence neutrally? How often has it been said that we can just set aside the Bible, or the divine deposit of faith, in order to use the tools of pure reason against our spiritual rivals? To ask these questions is to answer them, because these are the methodological mantras of the analytic sages of mainstream apologetics. Forget about conversion, we are being implicitly told that all that must be accomplished in defending the faith is to demonstrate that God most likely exists according to a probability calculus, or that God is the “best explanation” for why things are the way they are, or that Jesus was at the very least a historical figure etc.

Mainstream apologetics has stripped the defense of the faith of its commission to baptize the nations by emptying the gospel of its divine power. These methods are not only an all out philosophical surrender, but they are useless against the psychology of revolution motivating rebellion against the Creator of Heaven and earth.

 

– Lucas G. Westman

Standard
Culture, Philosophy, Politics

Virtue Signaling Inc.

Virtue Signaling Inc.The downward spiral of movement conservatism into an abyss of political and cultural irrelevance is accelerating at a staggering rate. The election of President Trump exposed the hopeless futility of contemporary conservatism, and as events continue to unfold during Trump’s tenure, the dialectic of “tradition-lite” has morphed into an industry of perpetual virtue signaling.

The first example of this pathetic development is Rod Dreher’s response to Pat Buchanan’s article, If We Erase Our History Who Are We? Dreher denounces the founder of the magazine he writes for (The American Conservative) with a vocabulary appropriated from the enemies of truth, beauty, and goodness. Dreher describes Buchanan’s article as, “disgusting, racist, indefensible,” and continues by saying (original emphasis), “It is abhorrent, and must be rejected in the strongest of terms by conservatives.” Never missing an opportunity to virtue signal his outstanding level of courage, Dreher says, “If this is where the Right is going, it can go right off that racist cliff without me.”

There is a significant problem with this puerile reaction (at least one that goes beyond the desire to make sure progressives see Dreher as “one of the good ones”), which is in the same article he implicitly identifies exactly what Buchanan is attempting to do with his argument. Dreher says,

“It is fine to disbelieve in egalitarianism as an ideology and as a basis for policy. Most conservatives do, and most conservatives rightly reject the idea that all cultures are equally good. And it is reasonable to argue against the puritan iconoclasts who would destroy monuments and historical memory in the name of a mindless, ideological dogmatism.”

This is kind of analysis identified by Dreher is precisely what Buchanan’s argument accomplishes! Anybody who is remotely familiar with the writing career of Pat Buchanan would know that he has made this argument multiple times. And to summarize, the argument is basically this: how far back should history fall into the memory hole given the unconstrained idealizations of the progressives in antifa? Why stop at Confederate statues? As President Trump stated in his press conference, Washington and Jefferson owned slaves, so are they the next victims of the cleansing of American history?

So here again we see Dreher giving with one hand what he takes with the other in order to prop himself up as the likeable “crunchy-con.” You cannot be a critic of the progressive ideology if you continually enslave yourself to progressives’ delicate sensibilities.

The virtue signally does not end with Rod Dreher. This trend now has a home in the “intellectual” circles of movement conservatism. Not only are conservatives piling on the South with progressives looking to reshape reality in the image of their faceless Utopia, but they are now openly defending the pathetic sophistry of philosophers who defend the gratuitous evil of abortion.

Sherif Girgis goes out of his way to defend the presentation of Professor Elizabeth Harmon’s argument for the continued killing of preborn children. Girgis says of Harmon’s view, “Professor Elizabeth Harman of Princeton University defends a striking and original view of when the unborn have moral status—when it might be wrong to harm them.”

This is false. Professor Harmon’s view is neither “striking” nor is it “original.” The argument is a sophistical re-articulation of attributing moral status upon the preborn baby when consciousness is acquired through natural development. However, Harmon’s argument is much worse than this because she bases the moral status of the preborn on our knowledge of whether or not the mother will make a choice to abort the baby. If the mother is going to choose to abort the baby then this baby never had moral status to begin with, and if she chooses to continue the pregnancy the baby now has moral status. This is circular reasoning in defense of evil. It does not deserve to be taken seriously, and it most certainly does not need to be treated with respect.

Another thing to take note of is the demeanor in which Professor Harmon makes the argument. Her expression of nonchalant indifference regarding the life of preborn human persons borders on sociopathic.

To be sure, Girgis goes on to offer criticism of the argument, but the most significant error he is guilty of making is virtue signaling his ability to take garbage philosophy seriously.

Conservatism Inc. has transformed itself into an enterprise of endless virtue signaling. All the evidence you need for this is found in conservatives allying with the left in the denunciation of the South as collectively racist and the conservative defense of sophistry in the name of feigned intellectual hospitality.

 

– Lucas G. Westman

Standard
Culture, Politics

A Brief Examination of America’s Two Party Political System

An Examination of American PoliticsWith a majority in Congress and control of the White House, the G.O.P. has failed to repeal the Affordable Care Act. This is quite remarkable given the fact that the promise to repeal the ACA over the last 7 years is the primary reason why they have been able to get to this point of being the majority party at the federal level.

The reality is that the G.O.P. has never wanted to repeal the ACA because they are just as committed to centralizing tyrannical power as their democrat “rivals.”

So let’s take a brief look at what is going on with the major parties in mainstream American politics.

The Democratic Party is fully committed to institutionalizing to the furthest extent possible the tenets of sexual revolution. There is no amount of insanity and depravity that is off the table in this regard. In the area of economics they look to completely implement socialism even if it requires incremental steps in the name of whatever pet social injustice of the day advances the cause.

These are the explicit aims of the Democratic Party.

The implicit aim of the Democratic Party is to pretend that they are against the interventionist, liberal hegemonic foreign policy but do nothing about curtailing it in any meaningful way. This also includes the massive surveillance state spying on American citizens. Progressives will lament the assault on civil rights and civil liberties all day long, but the reality is that they only care about the sexual revolution. If they can get away with trading civil liberties for the advancement of political control via sexual revolution, that is a bargain they are willing to take.

The Republican Party is fully committed to advancing and exponentially increasing our foreign interventions abroad, maintain the steady growth of the surveillance state, instigating conflict with Russia and China, obeying the policy dictates of AIPAC, and selling their souls to their corporate masters in the military industrial complex. Trillion dollar wars and global military hegemony is what defines the G.O.P. Everything else is just rhetorical window-dressing to get votes.

These are the explicit aims of the Republican Party.

The implicit aim of the Republican Party is to pretend that they are against the sexual revolutionaries and centralizing domestic policy. They make a lot of noise about this or that “big government” policy, but they will do absolutely nothing to stop it from becoming a reality. In fact, once a progressive project passes into law it is almost guaranteed that the G.O.P. will not only maintain its central features, but also expand its reach into the country.

So there you have it, the two major political parties in control of governing this country and they are in total agreement in advancing the maliciously repugnant secular tyranny of American greatness.

 

– Lucas G. Westman

Standard
Culture, Metaphysics, Philosophy, Political Philosophy, Politics

Peter A. Redpath on Metaphysics, Science, & Wisdom

A Not So Elementary Christian Metaphysics“4. Why recovering a proper understanding of metaphysics is essential to restoring a proper understanding of philosophy, science, and their essential relation to wisdom.

In my opinion, the disembodied reason of Descartes, the depersonalized, collectivist reason promoted by Rousseau, and the anti-contemplative reductionism of modern and contemporary physical ‘science’ falsely-so-called are foundational elements of the murderous depersonalization promoted by modern utopian, and scientific, socialism like Nazism, Fascism, and Marxism. Having a view of human reason totally out of contact with reality, these thinkers and the Enlightenment socialists they spawned, had no way of properly understanding real, individual, human relationships: individual, free, rational, living, loving acts. They had no way of comprehending human beings as metaphysical, contemplative beings, or moral or political agents. According to all these thinkers, outside of mathematically-measurable data, or mechanistically or socialistically controlled events, no truth exists about the physical universe that real human beings inhabit and no real relations that exist in that world are comprehensible.

For the purpose of understanding the main arguments of this book, need exists to comprehend that the metaphysical principles that underlie the prevailing, contemporary, Western understanding of science and its development are not philosophical. They are sophistic principles of human nature, conscience, and natural law; chiefly ideological, propagandistic, principles derived from Rousseau’s sophistic, utopian dream of human nature, science, and happiness. Strictly speaking, no rational justification exists to reduce the whole of philosophy, science, wisdom, and truth to the procedures of the contemporary social system of mathematical physics. Such a reduction is founded upon a rationally unjustified assumption, nothing else.

Hence, if we want to transcend this fundamentalistic, Enlightenment mindset, and the murderous, utopian socialism that exists chiefly to justify it, in place of the disordered understandings of human reason that Enlightenment intellectuals mistakenly claimed to be the metaphysical foundations of philosophy, science, wisdom, and truth, then the acting person (the sentient, embodied individual actively engaged in free, personal, living relationships) must once again become a founding, metaphysical principle of philosophy, science. In place of some collectivist mass, disembodied spirit, or collection of mechanistically-controlled individuals as the foundation of scientific understanding, to re-establish the proper union between wisdom and science, the West needs to re-establish primacy of the individual, sentient being engaged in personal action as a first principle of knowing, truth, science, philosophy, and wisdom.

Moreover, need exists to recognize that our contemporary Western educational institutions and the socialist political regimes that give birth to and support these gulags are necessary effects of the application to the practical order of Enlightenment sophistry about the nature of philosophy, science, wisdom, and truth: of the political attempt to reduce the whole of knowledge to a social-system-science of historically-emerging clear and distinct ideas.

In short, mainly under the influence of Descartes’s and Rousseau’s disordered metaphysical understandings of science, philosophy, wisdom, and truth, the Enlightenment project unwittingly gave birth to educational institutions that are institutes of sophistry, essentially socialistic forms of propaganda and secularized fundamentalism. These arose as the necessary means for engendering a poetic, metaphysical myth in the form of utopian history that the story, ‘narrative,’ of the birth and the development of the practical science of modern physics, which only the socialistically-minded, mathematical physicist, like a shaman, can supposedly comprehend.

Under the influence of Descartes, Rousseau, and their progeny, modern physics sought to be intellectually all-consuming, to be the only form of human learning, of human truth. No rational argument can justify this quixotic quest. So, the modern ‘scientific’ spirit turned to poetic myth, sophistry, fairy-tale history, and fundamentalistic spirituality to create the metaphysical arguments it needed rationally to justify its all-consuming nature. In practical terms, this means that, if universities are primarily institutes of higher education, and metaphysics is the highest form of natural human education, the modern scientific spirit necessarily inclined Western intellectuals to create propaganda institutes, and political regimes that support the existence of such institutes, to justify modern mathematical physics’ false claim that it is the only form of human knowledge, science, and wisdom about the universe.

Most critics of modernity today correctly call these neo-gnostic, fundamentalistic, principles ‘secular humanism.’ Precisely speaking, they wrongly call them ‘philosophy,’ ‘science.’ Educationally, under the influence of Rousseau, these sophistic principles maintain that all learning is revelation, or disclosure, of the something that replaces the traditional Western creator-God, of something they call the ‘human spirit.’ By ‘human spirit’ they mean a universal scientific spirit (the spirit of progress, true human freedom, the human project: the utopian-socialist will-to-power) that grows by first revealing itself in forms of backward Scriptural writings and organized religious practices: the same sort of universal, anti-Catholic, anti-Semitic spirit that was a main cause of the development of Fascism, Nazism, and Marxism.

For their adherents, metaphysics is the epic poetic story, an Enlightened, fairy-tale history, about the evolution, or emergence, of human consciousness, the universal human spirit (‘true science’) from backward states of selfishness and primitive religions like Judaism and Catholicism, to that of a new political world order dominated by Enlightenment systematic science and the religion of love of humanity, ‘secular humanism.’ And tolerance is this mythical history’s chief engine of progress, story-telling, and means of reading history.

The means of such emergence consists of a synthesis of what Rousseau calls the ‘voice of conscience’ (which he conflates with natural law) and poetic enthusiasm, or, more simply, ‘tolerance,’ an increasingly inclusive socialist feeling for love of humanity, an increasing willingness to incorporate all human differences into a higher state of socialist, political consciousness as a means for achieving the political goal of a world socialism: for everyone to think in the same neo-Averroistic way Enlightened intellectuals think.

Traditional Western universities, classical liberal arts, the classical understanding of philosophy, natural law, individual liberty, the dignity of the individual human being, and republican government, individual rights, and families are unsuitable handmaidens for generating, growing, and sustaining these myths. Needed are imperious, centralized bureaucracies.

St Thomas Aquinas Framed and Labeled TSCTo defeat these myths, Westerners need (1) a radically different approach to philosophy and science: one that insists on the existence of forms in physical things, including that of a soul within the human person; and (2) a return to an educational philosophy rooted in human beings possessing human faculties that become maturely developed through human habituation.

A necessary condition for the start of such a recovery program is that, like the utopian addicts we are, Westerners must bottom out and recognize that (1) what my friend and colleague John N. Deely rightly calls ‘postmodernism falsely-so-called’ is simply modernism on steroids and essentially out of touch with reality; and (2) we cannot build, or recover, a culture based upon the conviction that no real communication exists between substances. As Deely well says in a recent monograph, Semoitic Animal: A Postmodern Definition of ‘Human Being’ Transcending Patriarchy and Feminism, ‘Just as in politics you cannot effect a revolution and at the same time preserve the ancient regime, so in intellectual culture you cannot develop what is new simply by repeating what is old.”

If we want to transcend depersonalization in contemporary science, we have to transcend the Babelism of modern thought that is essentially related to the denial of the existence of individually existing human beings naturally capable of communicating with each other independently of social science and the utopian, socialist state. We have to restore wisdom to science because, absent wisdom, strictly speaking, science cannot be science. In such a situation, scientific reason becomes displaced by sophistry, intellectual malpractice, propaganda, myth: utopian dreams.”

– Peter A. Redpath, A No-So-Elmentary Christian Metaphysics – 


 

– Lucas G. Westman

Standard
History, Politics

Christopher Ferrara’s Judicial Thought Experiment

Christopher Ferrara's Judicial Thought ExperimentIn the article, A High View of Justice?, I argued that the interpretative theory mainstream conservatives utilize when reading the constitution has significant flaws,

“This gets to an important point concerning these competing views of constitutional jurisprudence. A primary problem with the conservative view is that they seem to adhere to a jurisprudence that does not consider the important question of what a justice ought to do. What a justice ought to do when deciding a case is much different than focusing on what the constitution affords justices the power to do when deciding a case. Progressives, on the other hand, seem to be totally focused on the question of what a justice ought to do when deciding a case no matter the constraints within the text of the constitution. This is why progressive justices will “legislate from the bench” on certain issues; they believe they have a duty to sanction justice exceeding the constraints considered to be culturally arbitrary. The problem with the progressive view, I maintain, isn’t that they focus on what justices ought to, it is that they are the philosopher kings of an erroneous political philosophy informed by the tenets of a fallacious liberalism.

Consider this from the perspective of the current debate concerning marriage and the Obergefell decision overturning laws throughout the states that had enshrined the traditional, conjugal view of marriage. What if the justices had decided differently? What if the justices not only upheld the traditional marriage laws where they already existed, but overturned the laws in other states that opened marriage to redefinition while stating that the only valid laws are those adhering to traditional marriage? Now, if the traditional view of marriage is true, right, and just could any conservative seriously argue that this is an act of unjust judicial activism? Would it be unjust to protect the family from progressive redefinition? It is important to also consider whether something being unjust and something being unconstitutional is the same thing.

The justice adhering to the textualist interpretative view of the constitution may argue that they cannot make such a ruling because they have no power to do so. The constitution does not afford them the authority to rule on the definition of marriage. This perspective will most likely result in these justices not being able to rule as they ought to in this instance. If this is the case, then it is a reasonable criticism to say that the conservative view of the constitution prevents justices from doing as they ought to in cases requiring adherence to a higher view of justice afforded by the written text of the constitution.

But can this be a correct and moral jurisprudence, let the constitution reign though justice be thwarted?”

Keep these arguments in mind when considering this judicial thought experiment taken from the pages of Christopher Ferrara’s book, Liberty: The God that Failed.


Changing History: A Thought Experiment

It is not hard to imagine what would happen if Catholics in public life awoke from their liberty-minded trance and remembered that the God who judges His creatures for failing to obey His law does not require a visitor’s pass to enter the courtrooms and legislative chambers of the Western democratic republics. He is there already, and the same judges and legislators who routinely defy His will even piously invoke His name.

Suppose for example, that five of the six Catholic justices now sitting on the Supreme Court bench join in a majority opinion overruling Roe v. Wade. Let us suppose that this opinion holds that the Fifth Amendment protection against the deprivation of life and liberty without due process of law, applied to the States via the Fourteenth Amendment, extends to life in the womb. Suppose further that the opinion holds that the Fourteenth Amendment itself, which provides that no state shall ‘deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws applies to persons in utero. Finally, let us suppose that the opinion ends with this astonishing declaration:

The Constitution was not drafted and ratified in a moral or theological vacuum. The Framers lived in a society whose common law tradition still recognized the Law of God, and in particular the ‘divine positive law’ of the Ten Commandments, as the ultimate source of human positive law. The classic commentaries of William Blackstone place this historical conclusion beyond serious dispute. The justices of this very Court take an oath to God, and we deliver our opinions while sitting beneath a frieze depicting Moses the Lawgiver holding the tablets containing the Commandments.

We recall here Dr. Martin Luther King’s historic declaration in his ‘Letter from a Birmingham Jail’ in the midst of the civil rights movement of the 1960s: “One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that ‘an unjust law is no law at all.’” For too long, the legal distortions created throughout the fabric of this nation by our unprecedented legal decision in Roe have placed conscientious Americans in the same position as Dr. King, writing from his jail cell. Indeed, Roe has given rise to a new civil rights movement and concomitant social turmoil that show no signs of abating nearly forty years after Roe divided this nation in a way not seen since the abolition movement that followed the everlasting embarrassment of our decision in Dred Scott vs. Sanford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857).

But beyond a mere appeal to history, which provides the context for our textual interpretation, we hold today that the Constitution’s morally freighted terms ‘person,’ ‘life,’ and ‘liberty’ cannot be considered apart from the same ultimate source of moral authority that Blackstone, our nation’s common law tradition, and Dr. King had in view. As this Court observed in Zorach v. Clausen, 343 U.S. at 314, ‘We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.’ Men are creatures of that Supreme Being, accountable to Him for any human law that contravenes His law, which is written on the heart. Our unfortunate decision in Roe is such a human law. We overrule it today, not only in the name of history and tradition, but in the name of God.

That the issuance of such an opinion now seems absolutely inconceivable is in itself a demonstration of the depth and breadth of the dictatorship of Liberty. But what would happen if the Court so decided? The mass media would of course erupt in an unprecedented storm of outrage. These would be calls for impeachment proceedings to remove all five Catholic justices. But what would be the impeachable offense – that the five justices had violated their oaths to God by citing His law in their opinion? Who in the Senate would be foolhardy enough to lead a prosecution of five sitting Supreme Court justices based on their adherence to God’s law, supported moreover by references to history, tradition and Saint Martin of Birmingham?

Consider the galvanizing effect the decision would have on a nation whose population is still overwhelmingly at least nominally Christian. Surely, in response to the liberal onslaught, conservative talk radio and TV would hail the justices as heroes, as would evangelical Christian leaders and even many members of the ordinarily craven United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. The Pope would hail the decision, emboldened by the courageous witness of the justices, and Catholics around the world would join the Pope. Certain orthodox Jewish leaders who have long allied themselves with Christians on moral and social issues would lend support to the justices as they come under attack by the media jackals and Congress. And what could the President do? Like Thomas Jefferson in his frustration over Justice Marshall’s interference in his attempt to railroad Aaron Burr to the gallows… he would be reduced to ranting having no legal effect on the life tenure of the five justices. The justices would hold on to their seats and the ‘separation of powers’ that was supposed to characterize the American Republic would receive a tremendous vindication.

In the States, pro-life initiatives in the courts and legislatures would gain powerful impetus. If not outright bans on abortion, state after state, freed from the dead hand of Roe, would be able to enact measures that drastically reduce the number of abortions. Christians would come out of hiding throughout the political process, now openly proclaiming that God’s law ought indeed to govern positive law and judicial decisions, and what were we thinking before? The resulting rightward shift in national politics could produce a fundamental realignment in Congress and even another Catholic president, but this time one who would not be afraid to proclaim his faith while urging Americans to unite on the great moral issues of our time, using the bully pulpit of the presidency to preach national repentance and conversion of hearts while the liberals seethe with rage.

All of these things could well happen because five jurists had the courage to remind their nation that there is a God in heaven, that we must all die and face His eternal judgment, and that both men and nations have a duty in this world to follow His law. In short, our imaginary Supreme Court scenario could be a defining moment in the battle for the soul of the West, with the potential to change not only the course of American history, but the history of the world. And what is to stop this imaginary event from becoming a reality? Nothing, save fear of the powers that be. When our leaders overcome that fear, the rescue of the West from the clutches of Liberty can begin.

As the Protestant-led NRA movement recognized long ago, only when conservatives – both on and off the bench, in America and in every Western nation – begin to invoke and defend the law of God, rather than the will of the people or the text of a document standing alone, can there be any hope of regaining the vast moral territory we have already lost and of avoiding a final defeat that can only mean the destruction of what is left of the moral order and the overt persecution of believing Christians throughout the Western world. Whoever among us still does not see this is fiddling while the West burns.


 

– Lucas G. Westman

Standard
Politics, Traditionalism

Traditionalist Political Realism & Modern Political Agendas

Traditionalist Political RealismThose who are committed to truth will eventually move towards traditionalist political realism, and those moving toward traditionalist political realism will inevitably begin to recognize the certainty of concrete political agendas.

Traditionalist political realism is a view that is totalizing in nature. It is informed by a theological commitment to the Social Kingship of Christ, which in turn is championed by the Church Militant in its proclamation of the Great Commission. These theological commitments are supported by a metaphysical structure articulated in the ancient tenets of classical realism, which were baptized by the Patristics, and perfected by the Scholastics. Traditionalist political realism also recognizes the reality of hierarchy and authority, which are not add-ons to maintain social tranquility, but are built into the fabric of reality and organically develop in accordance to the social communitarian nature of man. The traditionalist will also pay little attention to rights and focus on duties because there is no such thing as a right not fully guarded by a duty that is ultimately secured by loyal allegiance to the authorities protecting a given culture, which is best expressed in the structure of Catholic monarchy. Rights are empty platitudes if not secured by men committed to their protective duties. It is because of a commitment to duty that the jurisprudence of the traditionalist is perfectionist in nature. Laws are meant to make men better, not to simply secure alleged universal rights derived from the fictitious state of nature whereby a “social contract” is built to invent a just, civil society.

This description of traditionalist political realism obviously stands in stark contrast to the modernist political idealism infecting our current culture, institutions, and government.

Traditionalist political realism recognizes the existence of powerful groups motivated to enact an agenda in society according to a theological and philosophical vision of reality that is looking to overthrow the Catholic worldview. It follows, quite naturally from this, that these inherently secularist, quasi to neo-pagan groups will be informed by a spirituality which prompts them to either be a “prime mover” on the world stage, or if not orchestrating events to implement a specifically selected program, said groups exploit events (usually tragic) to nudge society toward their desired end.

For example, can anybody really deny the historically realized agenda to overthrow throne and altar? Not many people who are privy to the facts of the French Revolution would deny this, and some would even extol the virtues of this particular scheme because of the shared spirituality of anti-logos revolutionary commitments.

Concrete political agendas can be scary for some people today because everybody wants to believe that they have a voice in the public square, that their vote counts toward important political changes, and that they can alter the manner in which government conducts itself following the era of revolution; as if the anti-logos spirituality will be quenched once power has been attained. To the contrary, the political revolutionary commitment will not cease until all opposition has been crushed and is no longer a threat to their chaotic rule. Everyone wants to believe revolution and the groups pushing for societal discord is a thing of the past, but that is ultimately a naive suggestion. It exists here and now. Traditional political realists are those who are not afraid to bring up this uncomfortable fact.

Traditionalists are the scapegoats on behalf of truth.

The Church, guided by the Vicar of Christ, used to acknowledge the reality that there are enemies looking to destroy the Mystical Body of Christ. The Freemasons are one example of this recognition. Times have changed. The heresy of modernism has blinded the clerical hierarchy into believing that if they lay down their arms and accommodate the enemies of Mother Church, these revolutionaries will renounce their agenda. This mentality surrenders the Great Commission given to the Church Militant and establishes a spiritually neutralized Church Ecumenical where the Gospel of Jesus Christ takes a back seat to “meeting people where they are at” or focusing on the “the accompaniment of sinners.” Conversion and repentance are considered to be harsh measures for the ears of modern man. This too is a lie. Modern man, now more than every must hear the Gospel of Jesus Christ no matter the cost.

We must never forget the words of our Lord Jesus Christ,

“If the world hate you, know ye that it hated me before you. If you had been of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. Remember my word that I said to you: the servant is not greater than his lord. IF they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you: if they have kept my word, they will keep yours also. But all these things they will do to you for my name’s sake: because they know not him that sent me. If I had not come, and spoken to them, they would not have sin: but now they have no excuse for their sin. He that hateth me hateth my Father also. If I had not done among them the worlds that no other man hath done, they would not have sin: but now they have both seen, and hateth both me and my Father. But that the word may be fulfilled which is written in their law: They have hated me without cause. But when the Paraclete is come, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father, he shall give testimony of me: And you shall give testimony, because you are with me from the beginning.”[1]

Christ continues this teaching saying,

“These things have I spoken to you, that you may not be scandalized. They will put you out of the synagogues: yea, the hour cometh, that whosoever killeth you, will think that he doth service to God. And these things will they do to you, because they have not known the Father, nor me. But these things I have told you: that when the hour of them shall come, you may remember that I told you.”[2]

The fallen, sinful world hates Jesus Christ, “because the light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than the light; for their words were evil.”[3] St. Paul, following the Captain of his own salvation tells us through the church of Corinth (emphasis added), “ For both the Jews require signs, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling-block, and to the Gentiles, foolishness: But to them that are called Jews, and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God, is wiser than men: and the weakness of God, is stronger than men.”[4][5]

The Church Militant has been handed what looks like an impossible task. Jesus Christ the God-man, has told us that the world hates him because he is the light exposing the evil works of men; Christ has told his followers that the world will hate them too because they preach the message of Christ crucified, which continually exposes the darkened heart of fallen man in need of salvation; St. Paul, who suffered the hatred of men towards the Gospel he preached, tells us that this message is a stumbling-block because it is not what carnal ears want to hear.

The Church Militant is not meant to compete for popularity points among those who love the world and perishing in their sin.

And while the Great Commission seems impossible given the stakes, Jesus reminds us of a truth that fuels our passion (emphasis added), “These things I have spoken to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world you shall have distress: but have confidence, I have overcome the world.[6]

The Church Militant is in a battle against those who collaborate against the Kingship of Christ. However, the Church cannot vanquish an enemy it refuses to identify. It is time for the Church Militant to rise up, forget about the nonsense of ecumenism, and commit to proclaiming the revealed truth handed to us in the Great Commission. There will be hostile opposition to baptizing the nations into all that Christ as taught, but our King reminds us that the victory has already been won; He has already overcome the world.

 

– Lucas G. Westman


[1] John 15:18, 19

[2] John 16:1-4

[3] John 3:19

[4] 1 Corinthians 1:23-25

[5] “The Jews, in the mean time, ask for miracles, such as God formerly wrought in their favor, and the Greeks, or the Gentiles, to be converted, expect from us, what they would look upon as the highest points of human wisdom and knowledge; for that which appeareth the foolishness of God, is wiser than men, and able to confound the highest human wisdom; and that which appeareth weakness of God, is stronger than men, who cannot hinder God from converting the world, by means and methods, that seem so disproportioned to this his design. Wi. – Foolishness. That is to say, what appears foolish to the world in the ways of God, is indeed most wise: and what appears weakness, is indeed above all the strength and comprehension of man.” Douay-Rheims Commentary

[6] John 16:33

Standard
Culture, Philosophy, Political Philosophy, Politics

Pagan Rome & Neo-Pagan America

Pagan Rome & Neo-Pagan AmericaThe opening paragraphs of Diane Moczar’s book, The Church Ascending, say this,

“What do you think the following passage describes?

‘Once upon a time, there was a country. After a revolution in which it overthrew the rule of a foreign king, it became a small republic. Its religion was simple, emphasizing republican virtues such as piety, discipline, patriotism, and simplicity of life; most citizens were small landowners. The people had a talent for practical rather than theoretical accomplishments; they were fine builders, engineers, and administrators.

The country began to expand, at the expense of its neighbors, and conquer native peoples. It developed cities and an urban culture and began to use slave labor to an increasing degree. It became very wealthy. And as it came into contact with other cultures, it took in ideas and influences from all over the world. People began to say it was losing its own identity.

The early religion declined, and many people took up exotic cults from the East, while intellectuals tended toward atheism. The old republican virtues broke down, and civil war broke out. Birth control, abortion, infanticide, divorce, and homosexuality became common. There was a woman’s liberation movement.

People stopped reading, except for digests and popular science, and the language became debased. There was a craze for spectator entertainment: sports of all kinds, but also other spectacles, which grew more obscene and violent as time went on, and the jaded popular taste demanded new thrills.

Pollution was widespread, and many people died of a mysterious new disease. Economic problems, such as inflation and high unemployment, developed. But what many citizens feared most of all was terrorism and war from ruthless barbarian powers to the East.’

This is, of course, a word picture of ancient Rome, from its origins to its decline. But it also bears an eerie resemblance to the history and current state of our own country. Other nations – particularly England – have also viewed Roman history as a mirror of their own world. Certainly it holds many lessons and warnings for those who would understand the growth and decline of civilizations, the overextension of superpowers, and the role of moral decay in political collapse.”[1]

This is a striking sketch of ancient Rome, as the author indicates, because it is a depiction of the historical trajectories of our own country, and Western Civilization as a whole.

In addition to the Moczar reference, consider this illustrative description of the pagan environment St. Paul found himself doing his missionary work,

“Travelers throughout the empire found a diversity not only of beliefs and rituals but also of landscapes – geographical and otherwise. Yet unifying and dominating the religious, political, civic, recreational, and architectural landscape of the Mediterranean basin in the first century was the cult of the emperor. Devotion to the emperor – including not only the reigning emperor but also his family and his predecessors, especially Julius and Augustus – was a multifaceted affair that permeated the culture. It was a form of religious and nationalistic, or theopolitical, allegiance, both to deified humans (the emperors) and to a cultural and political entity (the Roman Empire). In many respects, therefore, it was one of the most fundamental cohesive elements in the empire, helping to hold its diverse constituencies together.

The cult of the emperor was in some ways a continuation of the Hellenistic ruler cult, which was known in much of the territory that became the Roman Empire. But for Rome it was a very significant change in attitude behavior from the period of the Roman Republic, and it met with some resistance in Rome itself. Perhaps the change was inevitable, however; after all, as ancients and moderns alike have often assumed, no one but (a) god could subdue and then control a huge portion of the known world. From the time of Julius on, Caesar was not only the top political but also the top religious figure, the chief priest (pontifex maximus). Julius was treated in many ways like a god even before his posthumous elevation to deity, at which point his (adopted) son Gaius Octavius (Augustus) and successor became, naturally, the son of god. And even before Augustus was formally deified after his death in A.D. 14, he initiated programs dedicated to himself, Julius, and Rome that would become the imperial cult.

This cult spread like wildfire throughout the empire during the first half of the first century, especially in the cities, and most especially in the colonies (extensions of Rome) in Greece and Asia Minor like Pisidian Antioch, Corinth, and Phillipi. (Recent scholarship has demonstrated the falsity of the common notion that the imperial cult did not flourish or impact Christians until the time of Domitian at the end fo the first century). In provinces Roman citizens were expected to participate in the cult of Rome and the divine Julius, while noncitizens were to be devotes of Rome and Augustus.

By the end of Paul’s ministry as recorded in his letters and Acts, temples for the imperial cult had been erected, or were being erected, in nearly all the major cities of the empire; these temples were often the largest and most central sanctuaries in a city. The huge, elevated imperial temple at Pisidian Antioch was visible for miles. Even more modest temples for the cult, such as the one at Corinth dedicated to Octavia (the sister of Augustus and wife of Mark Antony, who divorced her for Cleopatra), were impressive edifices. In addition to temples, cities erected other buildings and monuments dedicated to the emperors, as well as statues of them. Sometimes imperial statues were placed inside temples devoted to other gods. Coins, which previously bore the images of gods, now also bore the image of the emperor. Cities celebrated the reigning emperor’s birthday, accession, conquests, and so on, resulting in a busy calendar of ceremonies, festivals, parades, and contests (athletic, gladiatorial, and other types) in his honor. Cities – and within cities, leading citizens – vied to sponsor the most impressive events and erect the most monumental structures. The emperor was everywhere, all the time – sponsored by his friends.

The imperial cult, then, was in part a form of prestigious civic and patriotic service, a kind of ‘God and country’ phenomenon. Public oaths of allegiance were part of this theopolitical activity. But the cult also encompassed more explicit forms of religious devotion to the emperor and to Rome. These included ceremonies honoring the ‘genius’ (‘immortal spirit,’ but also a kind of guardian deity) of the emperor, sacrifices offered by the imperial priests, the burning of incense, special meals and so on. The imperial cult was a multifaceted ritual of power – human and divine.

All these cultic activities were, in fact, both religious and political, and devotion to the emperor and devotion to the empire were inseparable. Behind and within the activities was a theology, a set of convictions about Rome as the gods’ choice to rule the world, an election proven and displayed in Rome’s victories throughout the world, and in the ‘peace’ those victories achieved. The emperor was divinely appointed and empowered patron, protector, father, and epitome of Rome and its power. Augustus was the bringer, and his successors and guarantors, of peace and security – in a word, of salvation.”[2]

Given everything that has been said in these lengthy passages, should we be surprised that America can fit this exact description, from its beginning to modern times, when the founders themselves looked to pagan Rome as the exemplar model of good government?

 

– Lucas G. Westman


[1] Pg. 3-4

[2] Apostle of the Crucified Lord, Gorman, Pg. 15-17

Standard
History, Politics

Catholics on the Court: Then and Now

Catholics on the Court“All-male, all-Roman Catholic majority on Supreme Court puts religious wrongs over women’s rights.”

Thus read an advertisement which appeared in the New York Times in response to the Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby and other employers who objected on religious grounds to providing their employees with various forms of birth control.

The obvious insinuation of the ad, which was placed by the atheist group, The Freedom From Religion Foundation, was that the male, Roman Catholic justices were swayed by their religious beliefs to vote in favor of allowing corporate owners the freedom of conscience to abstain from paying for their employees’ birth control and abortifacients.

While it is more likely the five justices came to their decision based simply on the rule of law, the principle of religious freedom, and plain common sense, various groups are pressing the accusation that the justices let their Catholic religion influence their decision. It is most interesting to note that this is not the first time such an allegation has been levelled against a member of the Supreme Court.

In 1927, the Court ruled in Buck v. Bell that the forced sterilization of those deemed “unfit” to procreate was a constitutionally acceptable practice. It was in this case that Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. gave the world his now infamous statement, “three generations of imbeciles are enough.”

The plaintiff in the case, 18-year-old Carrie Buck, was considered “feeble-minded” and had already become pregnant, though it was later discovered that this was due to rape rather than to her alleged genetic proclivity for licentious behavior. Today it is strongly suspected that she was actually fairly healthy, and that her adopted family had institutionalized her in order to cover up the sexual assault, which had been perpetrated by a nephew. Nevertheless, after a poorly-argued case, the Court ruled 8-1 in favor of forcibly cutting her fallopian tubes against her expressed will.

Only one justice—Pierce Butler—dissented from the majority decision. He was the Court’s lone Catholic.

Because of his Catholic religious affiliation, Butler’s fellow justices questioned beforehand whether he would, as Holmes put it, “have the courage to vote with us in spite of his religion.” Afterwards, it seemed to them that he had not. History though, would vindicate Butler.

Less than two decades after Buck v. Bell, the Nazis (who modelled their own system after American laws) demonstrated to the world the true horrors that eugenics programs could produce, and thereby helped to shock society, at least for a time, out of its quest to create a perfect master race.

During the Nuremburg trials, the Nazi eugenicists tried to defend themselves by pointing to the Buck v. Bell decision. Eugenics was, after all, considered a proven science at that time and was believed by many to be crucial for the common good.

In retrospect, most people realize that Buck v. Bell was a terrible miscarriage of justice, yet it was a decision in which only one of nine U.S. Supreme Court justices had the courage to dissent. It was a decision in which only one Supreme Court justice had the foresight to resist the latest trend in “healthcare.”

That justice was Pierce Butler—a Catholic.

 

Nicholas Kaminsky


(This article was originally written by Nicholas Kaminsky in summer, 2014 for The Family in America: A Journal of Public Policy.)

Standard