A reply to Roebuck’s “Pact.”

Over at the Orthosphere, a site that aspires to Reactionary associations, but often seems (to me) to fall on the side of polite compromise with the ideological banes of the Reaction, the notion of broadly “Christian” compromise has once again been raised. On a practical level, of course, all those who profess some real belief in Christ and the Scriptures are opposed to certain of the most horrific degeneracies of our day. And, that’s all well and good, so far as it goes.

But our civilization is coming to its collapsing point, and it is crucially important, now, that we understand the ideological underpinnings of our current situation. Insofar as that goes, it is important to see that the root of the Modernist crisis, lies in the Protestant apostasy. I say this without rancor towards individual Protestants, many of whom, I know, live in good faith and desire to see the West healed as much as I do. I was once a Protestant; I know the sincerity and benevolence involved. But I came face to face with the bitter truths of the situation years ago, and now encourage Protestants to do likewise.

My response to the pact with Protestantism, proposed at the Orthosphere, is directed towards the general idea, and the tenor of its proposal; I want to encourage Christians to cease making the same mistakes they have been making for so long, now.  In proposing the pact, for example, Mr. Roebuck mentioned that when he proposed his ideas or criticized Catholicism, his goal was not to provoke Catholics, but simply to “state what I believe.  Stating what one believes is necessary for a man to have a feeling of integrity.”  Of speech offered in this spirit, he said:  “It is this sort of public speaking that we must not forbid, for we must keep up our fighting spirits.”  In a brief and civil reply to this, also deleted by Mr. Roebuck, I pointed out that this is the mindset and tactic of a Leftist.  The belief that there is a morally compelling need to allow speech based on the sincerity and conviction of the speaker, for the sake of keeping up a “fighting spirit,” is a recapitulation in itself of the entire problem of Western Civilizational collapse.  Any and every Leftist could and would make this argument: “I’ve just gotta be me; I have a right to be heard!  My sincerity and conviction are morally compelling in themselves!”

The correct view, is that professing the Truth is necessary (but insufficient) for a man actually to have integrity; we don’t care about your beliefs, or how it makes you feel to express them, and we certainly aren’t interested in encouraging partisans of erroneous schools of thought to “keep up a fighting spirit.”  This is what Leftists have been saying for centuries, and they have sought our sympathy and goodwill with this approach; tendering it, is the mistake we have been making with the Left all along; rather than continue to indulge our temptations in this direction, based on the seeming sincerity and decency (more or less) of our near opponents, I want to encourage Christians to see that, at some point, toeing the hard line is necessary.

I am aware that many Protestants are men of good will.  It is time that we – especially if we style ourselves as “Reactionaries,” as they do at Orthosphere – point out this basic fact to the benevolent persons in our lives, who unreflectingly subscribe to Leftist systems and views.  Protestants of all stripes certainly belong in this category.  We would accomplish much more for the benefit of the West, if we could help the larger body of Protestant persons to wake up to the reality of the situation, and Protestantism’s role in it, and so mobilize these people in a truly reactionary direction.  But as long as we keep “working together” with them, pretending that the real problem lies only in the most recent manifestations of Leftism (Communism, the Gay Agenda, etc.), rather than in the philosophical system of which they are the authors, we are trimming the thorns, but leaving the thorn bush alive; the thorns will keep growing back.

My lengthier post, which Mr. Roebuck rejected, discussed why I viewed Protestantism as the author of the system, to which the Reaction is entirely opposed – and hence, why the idea of a pact with it, is absurd.  I take this position not out of hatred for Protestants, but precisely because I do understand that most of them are in good faith, and if they could be brought to contemplate facts, which are very plain matters of reason and the historical record, the repentance of the authors of the Modernist philosophy could be instrumental in rolling back its subsequent developments.  The post rejected at the Orthosphere, follows.


No, we’re not so entitled [to defend our convictions, whatever they be, as a matter of right].

As Steves pointed out, error has no rights. The idea that it does, in fact, is the essence of Liberalism/Modernism. That is to make freedom a decontextualized goal in itself. Zippy just made a great post on the incoherence of this, on his blog:

No Protestant should fool himself, into thinking that he advocates a religious rather than a political freedom. The Catholic Faith upholds the truths of reason and the apostolic preaching, in asserting that Christ is King over all, including civil society; and, she affirms the truth of reason, that the purpose of the state is to coordinate and prosper the actions of the commonwealth with an eye to the people’s true eudaimoneia, directing them towards their natural end – God, and the salvation of their souls. Thus, though the state arises from the people and exists for their benefit, authority is vested neither in the popular will nor in the government itself; authority is vested in God and His laws, Divine, Natural and Ecclesiastical. The state and all people are subject to them, and have a duty to obey and implement them. They have no right to think, say or act differently.

Therefore, while the Church affirms that there can be grounds for toleration of some limited departures from the Faith and the Natural Law (only when this serves the greater good), there could never be the concession of a right to dissent in thought, word or deed. This is because a right, to merit the name of “right,” must conform to what is Right – i.e., to objective morality. To concede the right to dissent from truth and morality, is a) to dethrone Christ as King, and deny Him His rights; b) to negate the entire criterion of justice and truth. This is the essence of Modernism and Liberalism.

This is why Protestantism is necessarily a political movement. How could it not be? The Protestant claim to have a “right” to judge ultimate truth by their own lights naturally extends to the utter destruction of the entire social order. If each man has a “right” to follow his conscience on matters of religion, and no earthly authority should intervene, the dissent will start small, but expand ad infinitum, having undermined all moral justification for authoritative interference. The only restraining force, is the “ick” factor – i.e., what is “beyond the pale” today, can be changed by a few news stories and sitcoms, into a “new normal” of tomorrow.

This is what some call “The Left Singularity;” it’s why “Cuckservatives” and Classical Liberalism trail behind the Left, impotent to stop it. At first, some naively thought that “merely dogmatic” disagreement would not corrupt the morality (then) common to society. But dogmata are the supporting beams of the architecture of Truth; naturally, the principle of promoting error’s “rights” under color of authority would topple the edifice, given time. After five centuries of disintegration, those who continue to believe that error has rights – including Protestants, who were the first to believe this, and strongly believe it still; they merely bicker about what is “beyond the pale” – are unambiguously the enemies of justice and civilization.

This is why I’m quite sure you will find that Mark Citadel does not regard Protestantism as a part of Western Christendom, but, with the Catholics, understands Protestantism to be phase one of Liberalism and Modernism. It opened the Left Singularity. Or, as Evola would put it, if Christ is the Author of our Faith and of the Sacred Tradition, Protestantism is the anti-christ, and the author of the Counter-Tradition. The reason the Catholics and the Orthodox get along, is not just because we share so many points of doctrine in common; it is because we are agreed that one must submit to the divinely established authorities and yield his submission to the integral truth of Holy Tradition and reason, and that there can be no “rights” to develop and act upon alternative theories in dissent from this, by our own lights. This is why, even though the Eastern schismatics err on some points of theology, objectively speaking, many of them may not even be reckoned as material heretics by the norms of Catholic doctrine, since they intend to submit to the Magisterium, but are simply mistaken about it for several complex reasons. Protestants, however, do not intend to submit to the Magisterium; they are therefore material heretics at best, but are usually formal heretics in fact.

So, where does this leave us as to “pacts?” With the Orthodox (Eastern and Oriental), there can be one, because many in those groups have the intent of belonging to the Church (whether they are visibly members, or not). But Protestants have set themselves up precisely as rebels against the Church and Her Apostolic Tradition and Authority. They are not of us; they are the first rebels against us, and the authors of the entirety of the rebellion against us. Let’s say there is a terrorist network training bombers to go out and cause chaos. Would you enter into a pact with the terrorist network, agreeing not to condemn them, because the real culprits are the guys who actually set off the bombs? Or would you understand that the chaos won’t stop until the network itself is uprooted and scattered like dust in the wind?

Until Protestantism is uprooted, her mass of weeds is burnt to ash, and her earth is salted, there will always be fresh crops of leftists rising up from her soil, claiming the right to dissent from Truth, making war on every king or Church or legislature that stands in their way. Do you not see how even your pact, is a perfect example of the modus operandi of Classical Liberalism? “We can all disagree, and even fight to the death for each other’s right to say what they think, but hey, we’re all in this society together, amiright?” This is because you are a member of the Original Leftism, but seem unable to understand it.

Until Protestantism is ended, the notion that men have an almost “sacred” right of conscience, to believe and act in certain ways, even if they are erroneous and harmful objectively, will exist. There can be no pact with such a thing; rather, it is the very thing that must be defeated. I don’t know how I can be clearer. Protestantism is the very thing, the very matrix of the Modernist evil, which Reactionaries must destroy at any price (within the bounds of morality). A pact with the source of our misery and oppression is out of the question. I call upon all sensible Protestants to examine their beliefs, as I, a former Protestant myself, did. It is plain to reason, that egalitarianism and the “rights” of dissent, and the consequent war against throne and altar, have their genesis, there. Only repentance or destruction is acceptable.


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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


Connecting to %s