An Appraisal of the SSPX from the Viewpoint of White Advocacy

The Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) is a priestly fraternity founded in 1970 by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who was one of the very few bishops to oppose the modern innovations imposed on the Catholic Church after the Second Vatican Council (1962–65). The SSPX does not have a sanctioned, official position within the Church, but it vehemently opposes any attempt to characterize it as “schismatic,” or opposed to basic and lawful Church authority. Its self-imposed mission is to preserve the kernel of the Church free from corruption, specifically the Latin Mass and the ordination of priests, and thus keep alive the old paths that produced millions of holy men and women.

The SSPX knows that enemies have infiltrated the Church—modernists, Jews, freemasons, and homosexuals—and have accomplished a profound and tragic transformation of the old Faith (see “The role of Jewish converts to Catholicism in changing traditional Catholic teachings on Jews“). Pope Francis with his leftist activism is not an isolated phenomenon, but simply the culmination of this maleficent penetration of the Church. It is crucial to understand that the Church we see today—wimpy and liberal—is emphatically not the Church of old. That Church is long gone, but a remnant perpetuates the old no-nonsense, masculine traditions. The SSPX is that remnant, along with patches of conservatism here and there in the New Church.

We must distinguish between the SSPX and its followers. The SSPX, strictly speaking, consists only of the priests and its few bishops. These priests offer Mass for many faithful (“traditional Catholics”), who are often mistaken for “members” of the SSPX. In this essay I will, however, sometimes lump priests and laity together under that term, or simply, “the Society.”

The SSPX is a very positive movement for Whites for several reasons. Perhaps the most important is that Society families produce White children at a rate virtually unknown anywhere in the contemporary West. The SSPX and its faithful make up one of the very few vital bodies in the entire West. By “vital,” I mean a body that is full of life and energy, from the Latin vita, “life.” And isn’t that what Whites need above all else? Life? Descendants? White children? What other group in America is “vital” in this sense? What other group in the U.S., apart from Mormons, and Mennonites, is producing large numbers of White children?

Another major service provided by the Society is standing firm against the agenda of Pope Francis. This includes his scandalous love affair with “migrant” Muslims (who would like nothing more than to execute him and turn St. Peters into a mosque), his espousal of the global warming agenda—and thus the globalist agenda—and his tragic failure to uphold sexual morality. In the latter sphere, he has left the Church fatally vulnerable to the LGBT agenda and (with his document Amoris Laetitia), those who attack the institution of marriage. Since the Church was the last real bulwark against the disastrous reign of loose morals, this leaves the West even further lacking in the sorts of social supports needed for a healthy, productive society.[1] The SSPX by its mere existence represents a standing rebuke to the agenda of Pope Francis, and stands almost alone in the Catholic world working to counteract the mad program of Francis. This alone should earn the gratitude of those who love the West.

In the U.S., there are only about 20,000 people who attend SSPX Masses; traditional Catholics are not numerous. Yet, the SSPX is much more important than its numbers might indicate, for the simple reason that it carries on the traditions of the ancient Western cult. The Catholic faith was the original cultus of our High Culture and “has had a vital role in the development of the West.” The Catholic Church was not a wimpy or egalitarian social force. It was a muscular entity that united everyone under a reassuring canopy of dogma and sacrament; it had a major role in holding the West together in the face of the Muslim onslaught. Often it was the only entity that considered Europe as a whole, the only force rising above the often petty contentions of individual princedoms. The Catholic West conducted many wars against Islam, and all of them were summoned by the Popes. The Church became a handmaid of the Left only in the past fifty years.

I know the SSPX well; I have attended SSPX masses for almost twenty years. I returned to the Church when I was in my mid-thirties, when I thought I was well on my way to eternal bachelorhood. But then I fell in love with a young Catholic girl, and we proceeded to marry and have six children, and may have more. I and my family now live in one of the biggest SSPX parishes in the world, with over thirty-seven hundred souls. I must say, the Faith has been a boon to me in affording me the chance at marriage and a family, but it also rescued me from behavior that would have introduced me to an early grave. Religious faith has many benefits.

Before I discuss race, some prefatory comments are in order. My personal view is that all men are descended from a common ancestor, and are thus brothers. All possess certain innate rights and are due proper justice and respect. My thoughts here coincide with, and are informed by, Catholic teaching. It seems to me we can all agree on these basic points. I do not view White nationalism as incompatible with Catholic charity or justice whatsoever, at least if one defines White nationalism as implying that races naturally come into too much conflict when mixed and would thrive from division into separate nation-states.

The idea that “charity begins at home” also does not conflict with Catholic teaching. We naturally love what is closer to us, family, then neighbors, and less so as one moves outward (also Catholic doctrine). Whites certainly can—and should—assist other Whites or fellow citizens before helping outsiders. This does not rule out charity for other nations or races, but it does place the emphasis squarely on helping those who are closer. (“America First!”) The “pathological altruism” of the modern West stems from suicidal liberalism, not Catholic teaching: “Christianity has not had a consistent message of ethnic suicide or moral universalism.”

The Catholic position on human “equality” also deserves a few words, since it is a central political and social concern. Many believe that “Christian” egalitarianism has been a major cause of the decline of the West. Catholic teaching, however, holds that men are equal only in that they have a common human nature (body and soul) and a common end (fulfillment in God). This concept of equality is largely spiritual; when men operate in society, inequality of ability and achievement quickly becomes evident. Catholic teaching always understood and accepted this. Pope Leo XIII wrote,

There naturally exist among mankind manifold differences of the most important kind; people differ in capacity, skill, health, strength; and unequal fortune is a necessary result of unequal condition. Such inequality is far from being disadvantageous either to individuals or to the community. Social and public life can only be maintained by means of various kinds of capacity … (from the papal encyclical Rerum Novarum)

Pope St. Pius X stated,

Human society as God established it, is composed of unequal elements . . . to make them all equal is impossible, and would be the destruction of society itself  . . . Consequently it is conformable to the order established by God, that in human society there should be princes and subjects, masters and [workmen], rich and poor, learned and ignorant, nobles and plebeians . . . (E. Cahill, The Framework of a Christian State, p. 289)

It is Communism and its evil twin, the liberal democratic/globalist regime, that have strived to crush and level Western man, not the Catholic Church. The Church always upheld social and political hierarchy.

With these fundamental questions addressed, we proceed. Racially, the SSPX faithful in the U.S. are overwhelmingly White. There is a sizeable number of Hispanics, and a few blacks and Asians, but the Whites must amount to about ninety percent of the whole, if not more. Being Catholic, the Society is cosmopolitan (it has churches worldwide) and there is admittedly some race mixing. I have seen a handful of White-Filipino or White-Asian marriages, and a few White-black. The mixing is on a small scale, but the Society (like the old Church) is amenable to it. White Nationalists might sneer at these facts, but intermarriage will remain a minor matter in the SSPX. It does nothing to alter the fact that the SSPX brings large numbers of White children into the world. Intermarriage, I think, hits a raw nerve today largely because of the race crisis brought on by mass immigration. Absent this dangerous situation, we might look upon the occasional interracial marriage as a curious novelty, not as a pang to the heart and a loss of precious genes. We might.

The state of marriages and families among the SSPX faithful is—make no mistake—sometimes less than ideal. The faithful exist in various stages of conforming to the Catholic faith, and there is much ignorance. There are some broken marriages and badly raised children. The faithful (many of whom are converts) have had to go through the process of tearing themselves away from extreme feminism, hedonism, and other mindsets of the modern and postmodern world. It is an extremely difficult process, and many are only in the early stages of making the break.

Yet fruitful marriages abound. The portion of SSPX faithful who marry is far above the present rate in the U.S. Only fifty percent of adults in the United States are married, as opposed to seventy-two percent in 1960, a drastic decline of over thirty percent. The rate among Society faithful, I think, meets or exceeds the 1960 U.S. rate. Very few become priests or nuns; the great majority “commit matrimony,” as the priests jest. And once married, something magical happens. These couples are open to having as many children as possible. It is a remarkable phenomenon. The women willingly accept this calling, and they do so with pride. When SSPX couples meet, one of the first questions is always, “how many children do you have?” The happiness of the parents is evident.

There is also a very low rate of illegitimacy, almost certainly less than three percent, when the White rate in America is now approaching thirty percent. This protects children (and mothers) from a wide range of bad social outcomes.

In my large parish, families of ten or twelve children are common. There are at least two families with eighteen kids. The birth rate in the Society is about three times greater than in the U.S. as a whole. (Using some rough calculations, I estimated the birth rate—births per 1,000 women of childbearing age—in the Society at about 170, while the U.S. White birth rate is 60. That would make it 2.83 times greater, but I have a hard time believing the number is not closer to 4.) Whatever it may be, the begetting of the next generation is the sine qua non of the race, and traditional Catholics are tackling the job splendidly. I would challenge you, dear reader: how many children have you given the White race?

The crucial bottleneck here is finding women willing to contract permanent marriages and have children. It is hard enough to find a woman willing to get married and have any children. That is the great value of the SSPX. In the Society there are many young White women eager to marry and have as many children as they can. Try finding that anywhere else. They are willing to marry outside the faith, too, as long as their partner converts. Say it with me, “Whites need to have more children.” With the Catholic solution to fertility introduced here, I might ask, is the survival of the race worth going to Mass? It might come down to that.

Then there is the training of children. People in the SSPX know that children need to be trained, guided, formed. This awareness seems to be utterly lacking in the U.S. as a whole. The mere sight of modern children makes it painfully obvious that their parents have never given a thought to their training. Look at the children you see in public. They yell, throw themselves around, and make yowling demands upon their parents, demands that are usually met with parental submission. This is not normal, my friends. SSPX parents rarely permit their kids to grow up with such a sense of entitlement. Self-control is a byword for traditional Catholics, and much thought is given to child-rearing.

This training in self-discipline is absolutely crucial. No one who lacks self-control can accomplish anything of importance. Thus, traditional Catholic parents not only have the children, they are also raising them to be productive members of society.

SPXX families also raise their children almost wholly shielded from the worst monstrosities of the modern world, such as promoting homosexuality, transgenderism, and feminism. Parents foster good moral health. For Catholics, homosexuality has always been a horror, “the sin that dare not speak its name”; enough said about it. Traditional gender roles are emphasized quite thoroughly, both in the home and in the schools. There is a real emphasis on giving boys free rein for their natural masculinity, and they glory in it. Traditional girls’ roles are a bit harder to inculcate (although some families excel at it). Women are less enthusiastic and less knowledgeable about this type of training. Extreme forms of feminism have so permeated modern society that many men and women of the Society are not aware that they hold such views. Nevertheless, this does not prevent the women from fulfilling their roles as mothers of large families. And really, who cares what they think if they fulfil this duty?

Families, schools, and priests in the Society all foster an appreciation for Western Culture. The traditions of the West in music, art, literature, and philosophy are valued, taught, and assimilated. How many schools or colleges in America can say that? This emphasis on Western culture is not necessarily conscious, but it exists. And that is enough. When was the creation of the great works ever completely conscious?

The Society teaches the duty of patriotism. Traditional Catholics are truly patriotic and many serve in the military. In general they participate dutifully in the political process and stay informed on the issues. (They work with the democratic process, which in my youthful rage I spurned; who was right?) Many men in the Society see the world in ways similar to the viewpoint of White Nationalism, especially concerning the immivasion crisis and the dominance of the hostile elite.

At a time when the public schools operate as a vast, sinister project indoctrinating students in all the current paths of social dissolution favored by the hostile elite, at least some fraction of young men and women will be able to begin their adult lives free from this complex of depravities. Thanks to the SSPX.

There is much evidence that the practice of religion benefits individuals and society. By raising young adults in a religious tradition, the SSPX benefits society as a whole.

Politically, the SSPX knows as well as anyone in the modern West the danger posed by the Jewish influence and the Islamic invasion. The Catholic Church was the only solid defense the West ever enjoyed against Jewish influence.“With the political success of the Church, society as a whole became organized around a monolithic, hegemonic, and collectivist social institution defined by its opposition to Judaism.”  In 1910, during the papacy of Pius X, the Catholic Encyclopedia described the causes of anti-Semitism as follows:

 

  • The deep and wide racial difference between Jews and Christians which was, moreover, emphasized by the ritual and dietary laws of Talmudic Judaism;
  • the mutual religious antipathy which prompted the Jewish masses to look upon the Christians as idolaters, and the Christians to regard the Jews as the murderers of the Divine Saviour of mankind, and to believe readily the accusation of the use of Christian blood in the celebration of the Jewish Passover, the desecration of the Holy Eucharist, etc.;
  • the trade rivalry which caused Christians to accuse the Jews of sharp practice, and to resent their clipping of the coinage, their usury, etc.;
  • the patriotic susceptibilities of the particular nations in the midst of which the Jews have usually formed a foreign element, and to the respective interests of which their devotion has not always been beyond suspicion. (See “The Church and anti-Semitism—Again.”)

 

The Church often kept strict controls upon the Jews. However, as a result of the Enlightenment and liberal ideas, the nations awarded the Jews a citizenship and political equality. This opened wide the social and political spheres to the Jews, and they rushed in and got to work. This happened only in the states that had thrown out the Catholic Church. On this topic, one of the innovations of the New Church the Society rejects is Nostra Aetate, the Vatican II statement that retreated significantly from the old militant Catholic view of the Jews. (This document also features this gem: “The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems.”) The SSPX preserves this old wisdom, with the result that it features prominently on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s website. A badge of honor.

To sum up, the Society of St. Pius X will never be a frank ally of White Nationalism. The Church shies away, in charity, from probing too deeply into the race question; after all, its kingdom is not of this world. However, despite whatever reservations one may have about the Catholic faith or teachings, traditional Catholics are doing the arduous work that Whites all across the West (and White Nationalists) should be doing, but all too often are not: begetting and training the next generation of Whites. For that, the SSPX deserves gratitude and respect.


[1] Kevin MacDonald has this to say:

. . . beginning in the 1960s there have been dramatic increases in out-of-wedlock births and divorce . . . The results are clear: divorce, single parenting, and births out of wedlock are strong risk factors in a wide range of child problems, including delinquency, criminality, poor performance in school, poor physical and emotional health and early mortality . . .

People at the lower end of the IQ distribution also have more difficulty controlling their impulses  . . . As a result, they suffer more from the erosion of cultural supports for high-investment parenting—delaying sexual intercourse, not getting pregnant before marriage, etc. When I was going to high school no one was having sex in my school—a Catholic school where the traditional supports were strongly in place . . . There’s no question that traditional religious belief was a major part of those cultural supports.

[4] Kevin MacDonald: .

173 replies
  1. Peter Sorrentino
    Peter Sorrentino says:

    I agree with you 100 percent. As a faithful that attends mass given by SSPX priests. I have six beautiful white children and we all listen to mass given by true leaders of the holy Roman church.

  2. anarchyst
    anarchyst says:

    The “beginning of the end” of Catholicism was sealed with the infiltration of the Catholic Church “Vatican II Ecumenical Council” of the 1960s by Jews and Protestants who were involved in the “modernization” of the Catholic Church.
    Much Catholic ritual was discarded, as well as the promotion of the absolution of the Jews for Jesus Christ’s crucifixion and death, despite vitriolic Jewish hatred of Jesus Christ which exists to this day. The fact is, the Jews DID get the Romans to crucify Jesus Christ and DID accept full responsibility for the crucifixion and death of Jesus Christ. As is the case today, they got others (Pontius Pilate) do do their “dirty work” for them…
    Abandoning the use of Latin in the Mass destroyed its “universality”. Previous to Vatican II, one could attend Mass anywhere in the Roman Catholic world and understand the meaning of the Mass.
    Prohibition of the celebration of the Tridentine Mass (except by special ecclesiastical permission) pushed many Catholics away from the new “Modern Mass” and the New Church, in general…It took a brave Cardinal Lefebvre and the Society of St. Pius X to “push back” against Vatican II and re-legitimize the celebration of the pre-Vatican II Tridentine Mass and other Catholic rites.
    In pre-Vatican II times, the priest (celebrant of the Mass) was considered to be a part of the congregation, and a representative of the people.
    By turning the priest around to face the congregation, the priest was no longer a representative, but an “actor”, diminishing his status and importance.
    One area where the Catholic Church could improve itself involves celibacy, which is NOT Church “dogma” or doctrine. Celibacy was put in place during the middle ages in order to keep Church property from being inherited by family and relatives of priests and bishops. Celibacy was based on purely financial considerations–nothing more. It is interesting to note that Episcopal (Anglican) priests who convert to Catholicism can bring their families with them to the Church while Roman Catholic priests are denied marriage.
    It was a grave mistake by the Church to de-legitimize celebration of pre-Vatican II principles.

    • Charlie
      Charlie says:

      “Celibacy was based on purely financial considerations–nothing more.”

      There was a little bit more to it than just that. The concern was that Priests would put their own family concerns above that of the congregation that they were to serve. If their child was having a birthday they might prioritize that over the funeral of a parishioner. Since you’re not even a Christian, it’s advisable to keep your ignorance of the subject to yourself lest you continue making a (more) fool of yourself.

      • anarchyst
        anarchyst says:

        Your criticism of the truth by attempting to deny my Christianity exposes you as being small-minded and unable to ascertain TRUTH. Celibacy WAS a way to keep Church property from leaving Church hands. As to your assertion that priests would sacrifice their apostolic life for family concerns, you are sadly mistaken. Last questions–are you a Baptist? Do you subscribe to Jack Chick publications? You r visceral hatred of Catholicism is showing…regards,

      • George Kocan
        George Kocan says:

        Celibacy, perhaps, heads the list of complaints against the Catholic Church by outsiders. However, it cannot be because it has not worked well for the Church. Celibacy combined with a vow of obedience has created an army of low-cost servants and missionaries who have spread the Faith throughout the world. It has created a parish-school system that successfully over-shadowed the existing public school system in the US and other places. Any rational enemy of the Church most certainly would target that institution at the highest priority.

        • Charlie
          Charlie says:

          “Any rational enemy of the Church most certainly would target that institution at the highest priority.”

          Don’t be afraid to name the Jew. It is my enemy, your enemy and the enemy of all civilized peoples.

    • Pierre de Craon
      Pierre de Craon says:

      Cardinal Lefebvre”

      The good and saintly archbishop was never offered a red hat, anarchyst. Life, after all, is unfair.

      • anarchyst
        anarchyst says:

        You are correct…Archbishop Lefebvre–not Cardinal Lefebvre…thank you for the correction…
        Regards,

  3. George Kocan
    George Kocan says:

    I have no affiliation with the SSPX, but do assist at a Traditional Mass which has the approval of the local bishop. Yes, indeed, such adherents to tradition do have large families. They also have abandoned the official Catholic schools and either rely on home-schooling or their own, independent schools. The focus is not on racial issues but on the Moral Law, which is tough enough in the present anti-Catholic pop-culture. Nevertheless, certainly, any racial group would benefit by adopting true Catholic tradition and abandoning the neo-pagan trends which have infiltrated Amchurch. However, I continue to see a problem in this area. Many young persons are avoiding marriage. I have been informed on good authority that young, traditional men are not marriage material. Some simply do not want marriage. Others are stuck with difficult vices, such as porn, which make them bad risks.

    • Pierre de Craon
      Pierre de Craon says:

      George Kocan’s comment is so thoroughly dishonest and coyly subversive as to be fairly characterizable, without exaggeration, as base.

      The moral preening of his first sentence—and ought we to assume that his “local bishop” is, like him, a doctrinaire Republican Party operative?—then yields place to his second and third, where several backhand sneers cut people with immeasurably more intestinal fortitude than he possesses down to size.

      The last four sentences truly take the cake, however. George feels no compunction about going full “concern troll” although he contradicts himself in the process. Which is it, George? Do the SSPX’ers and other Traditionalists who, unlike you, are more concerned with the Faith than with “the approval of the local bishop” have large families (presumably with married parents), or are they avoiding marriage and, presumably, offspring, too? (Even Republicans can’t have it both ways, George.)

      Furthermore, what evidence have you provided that the “good authority” you smugly point to isn’t simply equatable with the gossip of the resentful and the cowardly? Anyone who doubts the answer might readily choose to drop in at your indult mass several times and then do the same at an SSPX mass or a Trad Resistance chapel. Such a person would soon realize that what George is saying here is “which are you going to believe—what I tell you or your lying eyes?”

      As for the last sentence, written to imply that the ubiquitous vices of (((modern society))) are rather linked to the SSPX et alii, it is beneath contempt, especially as it comes from the mouth of a man who refers grandly to the “Moral Law.” Need George Kocan be reminded that slander, of which he is here plainly guilty, has at various times and places been punishable by public flogging?

      Were we living in so well ordered a time and place and were I younger and healthier, I would not shrink from applying the whip to his back myself.

      • George Kocan
        George Kocan says:

        I do not remember writing that much. I assist at a Latin mass approved by the local bishop. That is an option for many Catholics. It was not always so. I hope to see more of it. Many traditional Catholics prefer to worship within the conventional authority structure of the Church. I have shied away from the local SSPX branch because I was informed by a former member of financial improprieties. Over the years I have come to know many traditional-minded Catholics. We share the same ultimate goals both politically and spiritually.

        • AmericanusRex
          AmericanusRex says:

          George you sound like a woman spreading rumors.

          “I have it on good authority that sspx boys are perverts”

          “A friend told me the SSPX is swindling money”

          Pathetic.

    • Deep North
      Deep North says:

      While this is true, it is women who are causing our declining birthrate. Men are focusing their sexual urges in other directions because of all forms of feminism. In our society women are career obsessed and status driven like never before. They waste a good portion of their 20s attending college, working and traveling the world. Their focus is on “muh career”.

      • Sawtelle
        Sawtelle says:

        Deep North

        You would be surprised how many women in their 20s would get married if men started asking again.
        What’s wrong with making a living or career as you call it?
        Are women supposed to live off their parents all their lives?
        Not having children? It takes 2 to conceive a child.

        • Charlie
          Charlie says:

          Western Women no longer see Marriage as a commitment but a stepping stone to gaining wealth. Using each subsequent marriage to build their empire and amass wealth so that once they’re no longer desirable they can live their life in luxury and use that time to further corrupt society and serve Satan and the Jews.

        • Deep North
          Deep North says:

          Women entering the workforce and increased divorce rates coincide over the last 50 years. As I said in my previous comment, it is young women who prioritize career over family and children. This lowers the white birthrate. Women may still want children, so they put it off until they have stabilized their careers and financial situation. The longer women put off having children, they are less likely to have bigger families.

          Why would men these days take the risk of getting married only to have their wife divorce them and take the house, kids as well as pay child support and alimony? I have personally seen it.

          The book/essay “Sexual Utopia in Power” explains how much modern feminism has ruined the family unit. It’s not just men playing video games and watching porn.

          Maybe in your area 20 ish women want to settle down and start having children. I live in a very large city that’s not too different from others. My experience is that for women under 25, they are not prioritizing marriage and children first. From the cage of 18 to 25 women are focused on higher education. They’ll graduate with student debt. They’ll enter the workforce for a couple years to gain experience and pay off student debt. Then they might want kids if only Mr. Right comes along.

          • Charlie
            Charlie says:

            “Then they might want kids if only Mr. Right comes along”

            Jews have romanced the Western Woman to seek out the undesirable White male for mating. The ex-convict, the doper, the slacker, the wife beater, the negro lover, weak snowflake…… This all the means to the end of destroying the DNA of the White race.

      • Pierre de Craon
        Pierre de Craon says:

        Please do not reflexively accept George Kocan’s claims as true, Deep North. They aren’t, not least because they are in conflict with one another.

        What is more, what “feminism”—which is nothing more, of course, than one of the many masks of the (((new Medusa)))—has to do with any man’s “sexual urges” is far from self-evident. What is gained by giving up the manly and fulfilling quest for a suitable wife for the less time- and energy-consuming quest for hookers, rent boys—or sheep?

      • George Kocan
        George Kocan says:

        Yes, they chase careers based on a college resume which plunges them into debt. And then when young men do enroll, the find themselves in an environment hostile to male norms of behavior.

    • Sawtelle
      Sawtelle says:

      George,

      How do you know that young men who attend Latin masses are interested in porn. People marry for love and when it is possible in terms of what’s going on in their life and the life of a prospective spouse. It’s presumptuous to make assumptions about other people, especially speculating about why they don’t marry.

    • Michael Adkins
      Michael Adkins says:

      George Kocan,

      Put this in your head:

      “The Odinist religion places an exceptionally high value on human freedom and on individuality. This applies both in mundane and in spiritual matters, and it is so strong that we do not even worship our Gods, in the sense that most people worship their Gods. To us the Gods are models, inspirations, self-aware personifications of the forces of nature, or even friends, but they are never our masters or we their slaves.”

      Onin The Religion of Odin -A Handbook-

      • George Kocan
        George Kocan says:

        I have never heard of the Odinist religion. Thanks for the heads up. However, it appears to me to be largely defective as a religion conducive to group evolutionary strategery. In contrast, Catholic doctrine emphasizes individual salvation and the importance of prayer and worship as an act of community solidarity. The parish system in the US reflected for a long time the respect for the individual and respect for ethnic identity. In the old days, before Vatican II, Catholic parishes were national parishes, German, Irish, Polish, Italian and so forth. This worked so well that it frightened the ruling English/Jewish elites. Paul Blanchard even wrote a book to warn Americans about the looming power of Catholic institutions, “American Freedom and Catholic Power.” Fortunately for the elites, they were able to fix that with sexual liberation and urban renewal.

        • Michael Adkins
          Michael Adkins says:

          George Kocan,

          The Catholics would not have risen to power without the genetics of the European peoples. Although, SSPX seems an interesting idea the real question remains “can we win with it?” Because “winning is everything!”

          • GeorgeKocan
            GeorgeKocan says:

            History suggests that the genetics of European peoples had some influence over adopting the Gospel as an organizing principle of their societies.

          • Alizia
            Alizia says:

            George Kocan writes: “History suggests that the genetics of European peoples had some influence over adopting the Gospel as an organizing principle of their societies.”

            Irene writes: “Can we win adopting a universalist ideology? No!”

            These are two interconnected concerns of mine, and obviously of profound relevance to the white identity and European renovation movement (of course European renovation is my own term as far as I know).

            It is, I think this is obvious, quite impossible to demonstrate how European genetics led to or allowed the acceptance of Christianity, so this assertion must be taken in a different way. After a period of great chaos and struggle Christian government was eventually settled on, and this was an urban power-center, while the countryside (the majority) was left to its semi-pagan or largely pagan devices. (I gather this from my reading of Christopher Dawson’s ‘The Making of Europe: An Introduction to the History of European Unity 400-1000 AD’). Christianity ‘won’ for a group of different reasons, not the least being that it was a Greco-Roman creation, naturally an intellectual, literary and governmental movement (because urban), and because it did in fact offer a universal model within the contexts of Europe. But this also extended eastward and southward. The ‘Europe’ we now know and define is a unique blending of influences: Rome, Judea, Greece and then ‘Alexandria’: the place where the influences blend. One could also say ‘the Mediterranean world’ (and surely I am saying nothing that all here readily can understand).

            Europe came to be through a ‘universalist ideology’ in fact. I am aware of what I have understood to be a ‘paganist critique’ of Christian forms, and I certainly have read a good deal about this and understand it (and validate it), but ‘white people’ and ‘European peoples’ are in no sense a monolith, they are a plurality, and we need a universalist ideology that can be revivified within our sharp need for identitarian distinctions.

            For this reason, myself, I am attracted to an ‘intellectual Christianity’ but I use intellectual in the Thomistic sense: pertaining to intellectus (and I hope I won’t bore anyone with my repetitions). The Battle of our day, that is, the battle among white identitarians, is in a sense our Kurukshetra. A dramatic way to put it certainly but apt: there really do seem to be a number of highly telling battles going on in our present with drastic implications for Europe. I suggest that the only way to grasp this is directly through intellect in the Latin sense of the word.

            I also do not think that ‘the Gospel’ was what was adopted. I say this trying to be rational and fair. Certainly the Gospels stand at the center of the Christian revelation. But if something was ‘adopted’ it was more that a set of ideas, or some internal sense, was adopted that had to do with intellectus. The ‘Gospel’ represents therefor something far larger. I do not mean to make an heretical statement! To enter into communion with the Totum Christum Is, by definition, to expose oneself to an intelligence outside of the realm of definition and thus a μυστηριον. According to my own way of looking at things, it is Greek and rationalistic that we can consider, intelligently, the notion of higher categories and thus of metaphysics, and metaphysics implies universals.

            True indeed that the Occident, for reasons I do not fully understand, has become a category ‘open to all’. The strength of even the most unalike peoples to us (say the Chinese) has come to them through adoption of and domination in our categories! Now, the Occident has this perverse idea that it must open itself culturally and genetically to any and to all people, and these people use European categories of moral thought to construct their invasive ideology! Without Europe, they could not think in those terms.

            How to turn this all back? How shall Europe redefine Europe, control its own definition, and literally-figuratively beat down those who use our own categories against ourselves? Who establish and operate against us an undermining and destructive praxis? How do we become exceedinly charitable in our universal ethics toward ourselves, but exclusive and intolerant of others?

            But there is another aspect here too: the categories that we developed have remodeled the world fundamentally. We have set in motion (thinking of E Michael Jones here) a logos-centered was of perceiving. I do not think that we can suddenly *stop* this or retract it. It seems more to me that we must learn to say ‘No!’ to those who abuse, in essence, our generosity.

            So, the message might then be: We can definitely help *you* further develop the catetories that have made us powerful and relavant. But you must do that in your own locales and within your own genetic pools … or not as the case may be.

        • Charlie
          Charlie says:

          “Fortunately for the elites, they were able to fix that with sexual liberation and urban renewal”

          You speak of the elites but what you mean is Jewish Supremacists, Zionists and Jewish Mafioso. What they replaced parishes with is Alcohol, Drugs, Homosexuality, Fornication, Porn, Instant Gratification, Materialism and placing the degenerate Negro race on a pedestal.

      • Leon Haller
        Leon Haller says:

        Mr. Adkins:

        I strongly wish to preserve the White race, and if Odinism in some quarters advances that goal, great! There is but one problem: Odinism is not true. It is mythology and nothing more. And that is all it ever will be.

        Even if Christianity is not true (and I am not endorsing that position), vast numbers believe it to be so, and have the deepest possible emotional drives invested in its truth. Christianity has a vast infrastructure, and a history profoundly intertwined with the rise of the West. It has proven its worth in servicing human psychological needs.

        What White Preservationists need to do is infiltrate the churches, and bend them in ways conducive to WP. The conquest of the churches by the White-destroying Left is perhaps their greatest accomplishment in White dispossession. WPs should NOT acquiesce in this conquest, which is what trying to revivify dead myths essentially is.

        • Michael Adkins
          Michael Adkins says:

          Alizia, Leon Haler,

          The best way to answer your concerns is to refer to an essay that appeared on this website (Monotheism vs. Polytheism by Tom Sunic) April 28, 2015 and most importantly the comment made by Franz Berg:

          This piece below was first published in Chronicles (A Magazine of American Culture), April 1996. Can we still conceive of the revival of pagan sensibility in an age so profoundly saturated by Judeo-Christian monotheism and so ardently adhering to the tenets of liberal democracy? In popular parlance the very word “paganism” may incite some to […]

          A relatively simple paradox to resolve: Simply allow filial piety and pride in the ancestors. Then we are there! In more exact terminology there is no Judeo-Christian European heritage and religion. It is a fiction, a Semitic construct.

          The answer is simplicity itself. The secularist left (i.e., Neo-Liberal Austrian Marxism) is not channelling Judeo-Christianity at all. They are simply channelling historic old-fashinoed age-old Judaism; they are apostates and traitors against the European world who have exchanged historic Indo-European Christianity for historic Semite Judaism. This is the plain meaning of the contemporary Marxist consensus.

          In actual history there is no distinctly defineable European Pagan or Christian heritage. They are different perspectives on the same thing. They are our historic Nordic Romanity, the Pan-European heritage that comes to us from ancient North-Central Italy through the Latin language and the Germanic Runes. Our entire European heritage derives from there, including both our Nordic Roman Paganism and our Nordic Roman Christianity, and the both of which were carefully formed and launched from the Imperial Court of Caesar Augustus in the Augustan Golden Age and the City of Rome. Then our Nordic Roman Pan-European Pagan Christian religion (i. e., Pagan Roman Catholicism) was clarified further by the Emperors Vespasian, Constantine and the subsequent great Emperors of the Nordic Roman or European world.

          Think Nordic Rome. That is the key to unlocking the European enigma. Ask any Semite, any Muslim or Jew and they will reveal the truth to us: the reality of historic European Christianity is nothing but pure unadulterated European Paganism. As the Semites endlessly remind us, European Christians are Pagans and the European Pagans are the actual historic Christians. They are one and the same. All we need do is take pride in who we are and have always been: Trinitarians of the White Indo-European Triune God, Pagans and Christians indivisibly the same. To invent a non-existent division between them is to contradict the Semites while playing carelessly into their most crafty schemes.

          Our ancestral religion is the religion of Homeros, Virgil, Dante, Wagner and Don Miguel Serrano, the religion of historic Aryan Kristianity, aristocratic Catholic Romanism, Esoteric Hitlersim. Pan-European National Socialism. The actual and true Triune Pagan-Christian religion of our White European past, present and future.

          Historic Christians are not literal monotheists/Unitarians but dynamic polytheists/Trinitarians who believe in Kristos, the Triune God of the Infinite. We don’t believe in the Semite Unitarianism of the One God. We believe in the multi-faceted Infinity of Many Gods: This is the omnipotent and incomparable Noble Truth that will never die.

          • Alizia
            Alizia says:

            The way I attempt to understand what you have said here is to agree that this ‘pagan man’ had a unique way of seeing and describing reality. The world of phenomena was alive with gods. But then so too is the imagination of man, but I do not mean ‘imagination’ as ‘phantasy’ but rather imagination as the perceptual lens.

            I guess in my case I conceive of, and imagine myself to be in some sort of communion with, a real and alive entity that exists in timelessness. My perceptual model is Johannine in essence, but then I wonder if that is really just another way of admitting to a ‘pagan’ understanding!

            You point to multiplicity, and I require singularity. And I attempt to define that through a hierarchy-of-imagined forms.

            If this sounds like babble it just might be!

          • Alizia
            Alizia says:

            Michael writes: “A relatively simple paradox to resolve: Simply allow filial piety and pride in the ancestors. Then we are there! In more exact terminology there is no Judeo-Christian European heritage and religion. It is a fiction, a Semitic construct.

            “The answer is simplicity itself. The secularist left (i.e., Neo-Liberal Austrian Marxism) is not channeling Judeo-Christianity at all. They are simply channeling historic old-fashioned age-old Judaism; they are apostates and traitors against the European world who have exchanged historic Indo-European Christianity for historic Semite Judaism. This is the plain meaning of the contemporary Marxist consensus.”

            While it is certainly ‘an answer’ I am not sure if it is the answer! I admit to puzzling over your response here and, I am also aware, of attempting to correct it. I hope you will excuse me for this. To have this conversation with you requires that I admit to being, at the core, a pagan. But that must be true for all of us otherwise the whole fact of the Incarnation would not be really considerable. There is therefor no non-pagan entity.

            Because I am ‘composed’ as it were of all the things that you mention and then many others that you don’t. I am the stuff of the Earth though it is true of a European Earth. That is our starting point, and this is what I take away from what you have written: the description of a situation. And though you make a reference to Kristos and the triune concept, I am somewhat sure that you are not speaking to the Christ of the actual Incarnation. In this sense, I think, you are speaking in romantic abstractions. This is not a ‘bad’ thing’. I must say that I don’t really have a problem with that, per se, and that I have lived and thought out of those categories. But it is only fair to say that with that group of abstractions, romantically presented, you are not really speaking to Christianity, and in this sense the Christ of St Paul and those early disciples. You would be forced, I think to translate out of the Christian revelation what is its essential meaning in order to support your view of Christianity.

            I would also say that in some way — I am guessing here — you have a modernist perspective. But then we all do and it is unavoidable. It is a condition of our minds. That means a sort of sociological, almost scientific, relationship to these historical elements, an encapsulating interpretation. Your outline is ethnographic but does not seem to include a relationship to an immediately perceived divinity. But the figure of Christ, certainly to St Paul, and the reality of a Holy Spirit, were not abstractions but real things, real potencies. And I also tend to ponder over the fact that they were understood as ‘new’. Not having been on the Earth before. In other words, the event of the descent of the Savior was a specific event in specific time, not necessarily a symbolical model for this world and for all possible worlds. This specific event put into motion specific ramifications which unfolded in specific time. If I take another view, I have I think entered ideologically into modernism. (Yet I am a modern!)

            While this does not negate, necessarily, what you have written, it would I think condition what you have written so that it is seen as a conveyance of a certain model of perception. It is exegetic. Thus you notice a ‘triune divinity’ which can be likened to other triune divine manifestations. And certainly this must be a truth: a truth about the Indo-Europeans or the Indo-Aryans as seems to be the case. But it does not necessarily subsume the fact of a divine incarnation in specific time, with all its transformative effect, rather (from my perspective) the Incarnation of Christ subsumes the generalized analytic structure that you speak to, which is more the structure of a symbol.

            The rest of what you have written – too much to comment on! — is important material to help people to organize and recover a European Identity posture. But it remains within a conceptual realm and thus only provides a sort of picture or a ‘narrative’ that can be very useful. But since you are speaking to one who, as a pagan, desires to recover herself within the reality of Christ and the Holy Spirit, and in a Catholic context, I suppose that you must expect some level of response like this!

            Still: Smash Cultural Marxism! 😉

  4. Curtis Mouser
    Curtis Mouser says:

    Catholic schools are the victims of the freak cultmarx agenda now. They all have to follow crazy tranny rules, employ vibrant types in huge numbes thanks to (((PC pols rules))), when they could operate semiindependent of the state previously.

  5. Irene
    Irene says:

    Lefebvre (right spelling? ) lived for decades in Western Africa! The SSPS is against homos, Muslims (but they want to convert them!) and totally support their christian African bros immigrating to Europe. Obviously they don’t support Le Front National which is against African immigration.
    Google e.g. Lefebvre and Africans: This guy was always sorrounded by Blacks (may I call them negroes?)

      • Irene
        Irene says:

        The SSPX has missions all over Africa!
        The fact that Christian churches generally are crazy – literally- about converting the last negro they can put their hands on is enough to reject their insane universalism, irrespective of the talking heads’ opinions.

    • Leon Haller
      Leon Haller says:

      White Preservation needs to be theologically re-theorized as a Christian value (which it is, though few seem to grasp this point). “Christian brotherhood” is a spiritual not temporal concept. It is not meant to be confused with literal genetic brotherhood.

  6. Barkingmad
    Barkingmad says:

    Social and public life can only be maintained by means of various kinds of capacity …

    Thank you, Pope Leo. You are so right. Now, can the living followers of traditional Catholicism please take that message to the IQ-fixated, alt-right, pro-white, nationalist bunch? Thank you kindly.

    When push comes to shove and things get really, really bad (as they’ve only just started to do), I’d rather know someone who can fix the holes in our house’s roof rather than be surrounded by science virtuosos busy explaining the origins of the universe.

    Anyway, I really enjoyed reading this article. I think that commenter “anarchyst” is correct about celibacy. If some eastern European Catholic churches have married priests, why shouldn’t this be universal, too? And no, I’m not confusing them with the eastern European Orthodox church. I mean eastern rite Catholic. If a single man is ordained then he has to stay single, but a married man can enter the priesthood.

  7. Sophie Johnson
    Sophie Johnson says:

    Yours is a very interesting and persuasive analysis, Mr Nemmersdorf. Without the least intention to detract from it, I cannot but note also that yours is a privileged position: you have your rare SSPX community; it is easier for you than for the rest of us to have large families, for you protect one another from the material pursuits that dog the rest of us. That is, your shared values and physical proximity enable your children, and indeed yourselves, to forego holidays, trendy clothes, technological gadgets, private schools, etc. that we and our children are not helped to forego. More often than not, our families need the second salary (the wife’s income from full-time employment), and this precludes the possibility of large families.

    And your SSPX community shields you from the mainstream Catholicism that shows us disgusting sights like Pope Francis kissing the hands of ‘holocaust survivors’. He, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, is not a stupid man, nor an uninformed one; he cannot but know that the ‘holocaust’ is an ugly hoax, and the bedrock of the infernal Jewish immorality that is let loose on our society. In case Pope Francis somehow missed the forensic, documentary and sense evidence that confirms this, he should have been alerted to it by the case of Bishop Williamson of the SSPX. But he declines to be alerted. Instead, he quietly condones the gagging of the Bishop … and proceeds to bow before the Jews, their hideous persecution of the Palestinians and their unceasing efforts to destroy Christianity notwithstanding.

    How can we accept this man’s Catholic Church as one that might command our allegiance, and commend it to our children? Indeed, do we not compromise ourselves spiritually, morally and ethically if we give such a Catholic Church our allegiance? And, of course, there is the sexual abuse of boys that we have seen in this Church. That should ensure that all Popes are very hard on homosexuality. Yet, as you say, nothing of the sort comes from Pope Francis.

    Even so, your thoughts do commend the healthy moral and spiritual condition of the Church community. Perhaps we can look to the SSPX as our model, and discuss this with our parish priest – or if not with him because he is not amenable, then amongst ourselves. It has certainly inspired me to return to the Catholic Church, and leave the environment of the homosexuals-raddled (both male and female) Anglican clergy; it has certainly ceased to be Christian. Thank you.

    • Lyle Bright
      Lyle Bright says:

      This might interest you: https://www.fisheaters.com

      It is a good site overall. I have come to see that reestablishing the ‘proto-European faith’ is very important to the White Identity project. Obviously there are many of who feel this way. See ‘Paideia’ by Werner Jaeger. A great deal is there as well.

      • Pierre de Craon
        Pierre de Craon says:

        Lyle Bright:

        I applaud your recommendation to Sophie of Paideia. A true classic, it combines scholarship and insight in equal measure.

        I regret, however, that I cannot say the same for FishEaters. It is a site that has a long and unappetizing history of shouting down and banning people who exhibit what its mods consider insufficient adulation for the corrupted institutions of the postconciliar church. I have never known any true Traditionalist who participated in it for long or who left it otherwise than dismayed and disheartened.

        • Alizia
          Alizia says:

          Pierre writes: “Fisheaters is a site that has a long and unappetizing history of shouting down and banning people who exhibit what its mods consider insufficient adulation for the corrupted institutions of the postconciliar church. I have never known any true Traditionalist who participated in it for long or who left it otherwise than dismayed and disheartened.”

          Your comment interests me because Fisheaters is a site I have accessed a good deal. I have so little on-the-ground experience with any of this, all of it in fact, that I can only take a mental note of what you say. I am a ‘theoretical Catholic’ and not very expert in history.

          Since I feel it imperative in my own case to form my understanding of Catholicism on a correct base, I must necessarily put to the side the modern post-Conciliar form and must turn back to the truer definitions of doctrine. To that end I have read ‘The Destruction of the Christian Tradition’ (Coomaraswamy) and just began ‘The Liturgical Movement’ by Fr. Didier Bonneterre).

          I read ‘The Destruction’ long before I had personally decided to return to Catholicism, but I now think it was a big influence: modernity in its perversity is a result of losing ground within ‘proper categories’ of thought, and the destruction of Catholicism and Christianity is a terribly destructive event for Europe (this is one thing I feel very sure about, though it is debated by atheists). The destruction-process Coomaraswamy outlines is applicable to the meta-social environment, of or so it seems to me.

          But what I desired to ask is for some of your sources for what you consider sound and proper Traditionalism.

          • Pierre de Craon
            Pierre de Craon says:

            Dear Alizia,
            You could hardly do better than begin with the books and articles of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, many of which are online. Their overriding concern is to demonstrate why the new conciliar religion that Vatican II gave birth to is a betrayal of the faith, not a “development” of it. The most exacting and detailed study of the long-planned Modernist subversion, however, is certainly Iota Unum, by Romano Amerio.

            Fifty to seventy years ago, Léon de Poncins wrote several books documenting the conspiratorial nature of the tendencies, trends, and personalities that led to the council. The most active and also the frankest conspirators were, of course, Jews. Nonetheless, within the hierarchy itself, as far back as the early decades of the twentieth century, were extraordinarily degenerate men whose advance in the institutional church was fostered by secret and powerful homosexual networks, In the Americas and in Europe, whose reach and influence extended as far down as the acceptance and admission process that determined who got into seminaries and who didn’t.

            I know that there have been book-length studies of this homosexual conspiracy, but unfortunately there are none with which I am familiar. However, the writings of Pope Saint Pius X, now more than a century old, show a heightened awareness of the homosexual threat.

            As for guides to what constitutes Catholic orthodoxy (as opposed to accounts of its latter-day subversion), the many encyclicals and bulls of the same pope—virtually all of which may be found online—are an excellent place to start. Then there is the old Baltimore Catechism, if you can find a copy. As its name implies, it is a precise, schematic statement of Catholic doctrine.

            Further reading might include the many published sermons of John Henry Newman. Besides being very beautiful in language and composition, they are rich in moral, doctrinal, and practical wisdom.

          • Alizia
            Alizia says:

            Thank you for that. I ordered the book ‘The Catechism of the Crisis in the Church’. Just now reading ‘The Liturgical Movement (Angelus Press) and it is helping me to understand the roots of the revolutionary upset of Vatican ll.

          • Alizia
            Alizia says:

            Excellent article on Immigration. I copied that to a pdf so I can study it in more detail. Those are very strong arguments and the base for a defensive strategy.

  8. Sophie Johnson
    Sophie Johnson says:

    Yours is a very interesting and persuasive analysis, Mr Nemmersdorf. Without the least intention to detract from it, I cannot but note also that yours is a privileged position: you have your rare SSPX community; it is easier for you than for the rest of us to have large families, for you protect one another from the material pursuits that dog the rest of us. That is, your shared values and physical proximity enable your children, and indeed yourselves, to forego holidays, trendy clothes, technological gadgets, private schools, etc. that we and our children are not helped to forego. More often than not, our families need the second salary (the wife’s income from full-time employment), and this precludes the possibility of large families.

    And your SSPX community shields you from the mainstream Catholicism that shows us disgusting sights like Pope Francis kissing the hands of ‘holocaust survivors’. He, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, is not a stupid man, nor an uninformed one; he cannot but know that the ‘holocaust’ is an ugly hoax, and the bedrock of the infernal Jewish immorality that is let loose on our society. In case Pope Francis somehow missed the forensic, documentary and sense evidence that confirms this, he should have been alerted to it by the case of Bishop Williamson of the SSPX. But he declines to be alerted. Instead, he quietly condones the gagging of the Bishop … and proceeds to bow before the Jews, their hideous persecution of the Palestinians and their unceasing efforts to destroy Christianity notwithstanding.

    How can we accept this man’s Catholic Church as one that might command our allegiance, and commend it to our children? Indeed, do we not compromise ourselves spiritually, morally and ethically if we give such a Catholic Church our allegiance? And, of course, there is the sexual abuse of boys that we have seen in this Church. That should ensure that all Popes are very hard on homosexuality. Yet, as you say, nothing of the sort comes from Pope Francis.

    Even so, your thoughts do commend the healthy moral and spiritual condition of the Church community. Perhaps we can look to the SSPX as our model, and discuss this with our parish priest – or if not with him because he is not amenable, then amongst ourselves. It has certainly inspired me to return to the Catholic Church, and leave the environment of the homosexuals-raddled (both male and female) Anglican clergy; it has certainly ceased to be Christian. Thank you.

  9. alphonsusjr@gmail.com
    alphonsusjr@gmail.com says:

    As a parishioner at one of the largest SSPX installations, I’m delighted to encounter this essay. I shall now read it with relish (I’ve skimmed enough of it already to know it’s promising).

    I give you this:

    “Any inequality today is a horror. For the Catholic Church [the actual Catholic Church, not the post Second Vatican Council abomination represented by the perfidious likes of Pope Francis], it’s not at all a horror. God has designed everything unequal, practically everything: the flowers, the animals, the plants, the mountains, the nations, the peoples, the races, the sexes, the individuals, everything in God’s creation is unequal. What God plans is a great variety, and an order in the variety, with some things higher and some things lower. And St. Paul says in the Epistle to the Romans, ‘Don’t start questioning God on why he put this lower and put that higher.’ It’s like a building, that stone is lower than that stone and that stone is higher…. Compare blacks with whites, broadly speaking, blacks will be superior in some things and whites will be superior in others. But generally speaking, the blacks are lower down on the wall and the whites are meant to be higher up on the wall. That’s just the way it is. That’s the reality. When the whites stopped doing what they should be doing, which is leading the blacks, then….”

    -Bp. Richard Williamson (2008 lecture on The Sillon, No. 3 in the Stockholm Conferences 2008 audio series at the St. Marcel Initiative website)

    And:

    “This immigration has taken place in France, Great Britain, Germany and also the USA, amongst other countries, especially since World War Two, for two main reasons. Firstly, the Europeans in these countries wanted to enjoy the conveniences of materialism without the inconvenience of having babies. So there were not enough workers for their factories or for all the menial tasks henceforth beneath their dignity as university graduates, university degrees having become as common as daisies. Secondly the enemies of God, seeing as usual farther ahead than His friends, foresaw in the immigration of an alien population a great means of diluting the national identity of countries which by their long and proud history risked not easily being absorbed into the Antichrist’s New World Order.

    “However, neither of these reasons would have come into play had not liberalism washed out the common sense of these nations. For as common sense has it, ‘Birds of a feather flock together,’ and it is not normal to push people together who do not belong together. But liberalism with its false equality and false charity would override common sense, and would make a point of defying it by doing everything possible to undo national identity. Once again, here is a punishment the apostate nations have deserved.

    “For if they had kept the Faith of St. Paul, they would never have let themselves be deceived by the liberals’ false equality and charity, which are no more than a parody of Christian equality and charity. St. Paul says, ‘For as many of you as have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus’ (Gal. III, 27,28). Similarly, ‘putting on the new man, him who is renewed unto knowledge, according to the image of Him who created him. Where there is neither Gentile nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian nor Scythian, bond nor free. But Christ is all, and in all’ (Col. III, 10,11).

    “Notice how in each of these quotations, St. Paul frames the equality of different human races, classes and sexes within Christ. In other words the equality is before God, and will only be fulfilled in Heaven. St. Paul would never have dreamt of denying or wiping out the inequality of human differences before men. As to the inequality in this life between Jew and Greek, see Romans and Galatians; between bond and free, see Philemon; between man and woman, see Ephesians and Colossians. The will of God for men on earth is that Catholic save Jew, that the man free look after the bondsman and that the man be head of the woman. So when the white men give up on saving Jews, looking after other races and leading their womenfolk, it is altogether normal for them to be punished respectively by the domination of Jewish finance, by the refusal to follow of the non-white races and by rampant feminism.

    “For by refusing Christ, these whites no longer understand the divine dimension of the true equality between men. Retaining however from Christianity, because it suits their pride, the sense of the value of every man, then all eternity’s equality has to be squeezed into this little life on earth, where it necessarily crushes the hierarchies willed by God between races, classes, and sexes. So by affirming the equality of men without Christ and without eternal life, these white men betray alike Jew and bond and woman.

    “In chronological order, before Christ, nobody in their senses would have dreamt of denying the inequality of different races, classes and sexes. When Christ came, nobody in their senses imagined that men’s equality in Christ wiped out these differences, it transcended or rose above them. However post-Christian modern man, by refusing anything transcendent or anyone above him, has lost all grip on reality, and in all likelihood it will take rather more than a few thousand cars getting burnt for him to see straight once more.

    “Then what? Then we need to pray that the much greater disasters soon to take place will open as many eyes as possible, to save as many souls as possible, and if the white men still refuse to convert, let us pray for some great conversions amongst Jews, Muslims and blacks so that they may take over where the whites have left off, and may continue to show us the way to Heaven. So long as God is served, all honour to His servants, of any race, class or sex!”

    -Bp. Richard Williamson, “Thoughts,” November 2005 (available in the Eleison Comments section of the St. Marcel Initiative site)

    Also see Ch. 10, entitled “The Myth of Equality,” from the book Who Shall Ascend? by Fr. James Wathen

  10. alphonsusjr@gmail.com
    alphonsusjr@gmail.com says:

    Many thanks for giving us this sober but encouraging essay. I look forward to also exploring the essays linked within.

    Navigating the post-Judas Council (i.e., the Second Vatican Council, 1962-65) wasteland is a hard slog. Avowed liberals abound, of course, but so do CatholiCucks running such “conservative” outfits as the National Catholic Register, EWTN, etc. And total CatholiCucks like George Weigel and his absurd hagiography of the “conservative” John Paul II don’t help.

    Those looking for an unadulterated Catholic site might begin with the akaCatholic site.

    • Leon Haller
      Leon Haller says:

      Thanks for this info. I always despised JPII – why did he not use his authority to speak out against the OBVIOUS (to me, as far back as the very early 80s) Muslim colonization of Europe? Western peoples have a MORAL right to be true to themselves, not to be ruined by genetically alien, psychologically unassimilable, behaviorally inferior nonwhite colonization.

  11. Deep North
    Deep North says:

    Catholic high schools should be ashamed of themselves. Tuition at Catholic high schools in my area can cost between $10k- $20k per year. The high tuition shuts out many working class and poor whites who have deal with the chaotic public school system.

    Wait until we get a Pope from the Third World. I’m sure that will alienate many white Catholics who know but won’t say that Catholoscism is a European institution.

    • Sawtelle
      Sawtelle says:

      San Francisco catholic schools can cost as much as $45.00 a year. It’s expensive, but there is so much scholarship money many kids pay no tuition at all. And there are more catholic and private high schools in San Francisco than there are public high schools.
      In the suburban town of San Mateo south of San Francisco is the Catholic high school Juniperro Serra. It has a scholarship fund of 40 million dollars.

    • George Kocan
      George Kocan says:

      I have observed African (Negro) bishops to be much more traditional that the bishops of Amchurch in the US.

      • alphonsusjr@gmail.com
        alphonsusjr@gmail.com says:

        Much truth there. This doesn’t mean that millions of Africans should be imported into white countries.

      • Leon Haller
        Leon Haller says:

        Who cares? They can advocate traditionalism within THEIR OWN COUNTRIES, while staying the hell out of MINE! Third World peoples = Third World countries. I prefer my people and the superior civilization we have created by and for OURSELVES ALONE.

        • GeorgeKocan
          GeorgeKocan says:

          Who cares? Considering the minority status of traditionalists in the Church today, we need friends and allies. Negroes enjoy a certain amount of immunity from neo-pagan and Modernist criticism. Many Ethiopians have been traditional Christians for centuries and have not bothered Europeans or Americans.

    • Leon Haller
      Leon Haller says:

      I’d say we already have one – a Third Worlder in geography and mentality, if not perhaps in race.

  12. Tom
    Tom says:

    For those interested, there’s a series of wonderful videos (from a Swedish TV program entitled The Swedish Crusade) documenting the transformation of a Swedish Lutheran pastor into an SSPX priest. The series is quite illuminating. The videos start with
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Zj5tSIZxME

    The other videos will follow naturally and will be on display.

  13. ariadnatheo
    ariadnatheo says:

    Six to ten “beautiful children”” and their mother at home raising them and honoring the lares and penates sounds wonderful but how many Americans can afford them on one salary nowadays?

    • Karl Nemmersdorf
      Karl Nemmersdorf says:

      You are subordinating the spiritual to the material. Would you predicate the existence of new life upon the question of material sufficiency? Simply do your duty and God will provide. He Himself said so:

      St. Luke Chapter 12:
      27 Consider the lilies how they grow: they labour not, neither do they spin. But I say to you, not even Solomon, in all his glory, was clothed like one of these.
      28 Now if God clothe in this manner the grass that is to-day in the field, and to-morrow is cast into the oven: how much more you, O ye of little faith?
      29 And seek not you what you shall eat, or what you shall drink: and be not lifted up on high:
      30 For all these things do the nations of the world seek after. But your Father knoweth that you have need of these things.
      31 But seek ye first the kingdom of God and his justice: and all these things shall be added unto you.

      • Sawtelle
        Sawtelle says:

        I meant $45,000 a year for some Catholic schools but most of the students get most of their tuition from scholarships.

      • ariadnatheo
        ariadnatheo says:

        “Simply do your duty and God will provide.”
        Seems a tad irresponsible. If one breadwinner can hardly support his family of , say, 3 children and the couple (wife a homemaker), relying on God (in the US the Welfare system) “to provide” while continuing to produce more offspring is a pious cover for lack of self-restraint, of responsibility to his family and common sense.

          • Leon Haller
            Leon Haller says:

            That’s silly. God does not provide. That fact alone does not mean that God does not exist, nor that humans are thereby discharged from moral obligations. But a little commonsense empiricism and personal responsibility are in order.

            Otherwise, interesting article. I doubt SSPX will save the White race. But I do believe that modern Christianity can be and ought to be and perhaps must be racially reformed, purged of its attachment to secular, “diversitist” heresy. The new pagan religion of Diversity must be exposed as incompatible with traditional, ecumenical Christianity (ie, there is an essence to Christianity which must be appealed to and racially reconstructed so as to affirm White Preservation – to allow for it in ethical terms – even if Christianity as a whole is concerned with things transcending the City of Man).

    • George Kocan
      George Kocan says:

      Fortunately, the fed gov subsidizes the costs of children through tax breaks. However, one must not forget that how many children a family has depends heavily on the family’s values.

        • Pierre de Craon
          Pierre de Craon says:

          You are joking or uninformed.

          Indeed. Still, either description you propose is less reprehensible than a third possibility: that he means to deceive and subvert. He has already been nailed several times playing that last-named game.

        • Sawtelle
          Sawtelle says:

          There 2 tax subsidies for children. The dependents deduction and the earned income tax credit. It’s tax season, just look at the forms. You will find the dependent child tax subsidies.

          Most average income families with more than 4 children would receive food stamps for the children.

  14. John O'Donnell
    John O'Donnell says:

    I admire the SSPX, but they believe that we still have a Pope. History has shown that there can be lapses during the time that heretics have been elected to the Papacy. There is much written about Vatican II. Suffice it to say that the Sedavacantists have it right, we have not had a legitimate Pope since 1958. A Catholic is automatically excommunicated for heresy, and being a Freemason is one of those offenses. So I admire the SSPX for their adherence to traditional Catholic teachings and the Latin mass, but I myself attend a Sedavacantist service, where we do not recognize the heretics in Rome as true Popes.

    • John O'Donnell
      John O'Donnell says:

      I forgot to add that the Catholic faith was, is, and was never was meant to be a race based religion. Yes, it originated and flourished in White Europe, but it is welcoming and open to people of any continent or race. I am in no way condoning the immigrant invasion occurring in Europe and North America, but that travesty should not be linked to Catholicism in any way. Remember, Popey Francis is not a Catholic, he is part of the infiltration and invasion of Catholicism.

      • Lyle Bright
        Lyle Bright says:

        Hello. I have wondered about this. That is, the tendency of white Catholics to missionize among POC and then to, somehow, open the door to those POC coming to the white countries.

        However, with an attitude change, based in race-realism, the problem could easily be solved. Charity would then function in training and helping POC in their own countries, but both sides would understand that race-blending is not desired and must be frowned upon. Both by Whites and then by any POC.

        It is a question of establishing strong, defined divisions and hierarchies, first in the mental sphere, then in practice.

      • alphonsusjr@gmail.com
        alphonsusjr@gmail.com says:

        As explained in the excerpt from Bp. Williamson I posted above, the vocation of Europeans is to lead. It’s no accident that once the Jews rejected and murdered the Incarnate Logos, the Faith went to Europe, from there to be radiated beyond. It’s precisely Europe’s infusion with the Divine Logos that’s responsible for its extra-extra-extra-extra extraordinary achievements in every field–such as the production of a Mozart. Even though Jews and East Asians have a higher average IQ (so we’re told), it’s nevertheless Europeans who have given us the greatest achievements–such as the symphonies of Beethoven. This was because of their being rooted in Christ, the Incarnate Logos and source of all things highest.

      • alphonsusjr@gmail.com
        alphonsusjr@gmail.com says:

        Wrong. As well catechized traditional Catholics know, Christ is the head of the Church, not the pope. You’ve lapsed into papolatry, as is common among CatholiCucks. They’re the ones likely to be heard saying absurdities such as “John Paul the Great” when referring to the disastrous John Paul II.

      • Irene
        Irene says:

        Williamson embraced a universalist ideology, then he went to South America to preach the Gospel to brown people.
        If he had married, had children and learned a useful profession he might have deserved some respect.
        The guy is a disaster- from a nationalist point of view!

    • Karl Nemmersdorf
      Karl Nemmersdorf says:

      Powerful. Bishop Williamson has a great grasp of the fundamental realities. My one quibble with him is that he delves too readily into conspiracy theories. To have been caught on tape denying the Holocaust was a massive error on his part. Especially when he evidently didn’t know that much about it, as he admitted when he announced that he would study the matter when the stuff hit the fan.

      Thanks, Alphonsus, for your comments. One of my favorite authors is E. Michael Jones. Surely you’ve read him. He has great interviews on Youtube.

      • Pierre de Craon
        Pierre de Craon says:

        … as he admitted when he announced that he would study the matter when the stuff hit the fan.

        With respect, Karl, may I say that you are misinterpreting the sequence of events in small but important ways. At the time you refer to—that is, in early 2009, in the wake of the Swedish journalist’s video ambush—+Williamson was still one of the SSPX’s bishops. That is, he had not yet been shown the door by +Fellay. Bishop Fellay, acting in his capacity as Superior General, formally required +Williamson to study the evidence and arguments supportive of the so-called Holocaust. (He neither could nor did demand that +Williamson simply change his mind about the nature of an inherently disputable matter of secular history, of course.)*

        Needless to say, it is hardly surprising that +Williamson’s “study [of] the matter” has thus far not altered his opinion of the historicity or otherwise of the event. On the other hand, it seems pretty evident that the bishop’s knowledge of the various revisionist and debunker arguments, which was far from complete in 2009, has grown in the years since the ambush.

        I hardly think that the foregoing description shows the bishop in a poor light, however. I think you would agree, Karl, that there are few people in the world who would not profit from learning more about the Holocaust—or about anything else for that matter.
        ______________________
        *The Holocaust, after all, despite the tireless efforts of the Jews to get conciliar Rome to elevate it to dogmatic status by ex cathedra pronouncement, may still be considered a historical matter, and as such it is open to examination and questioning—at least by those few willing or able to withstand the murderous (((counterassault))) from its Establishment partisans.

  15. Mr. Whyte
    Mr. Whyte says:

    Having said that, I want to state emphatically that I do not believe that the SSPX can save the Church, for one reason: it is not Catholic. By definition, a Catholic Church must be in full communion with Rome. A Roman Catholic, by definition, submits to the authority of the Supreme Pontiff. It does not matter whether the current Pope is a befuddled old hippie from the dark age of the 20th century, or a truly orthodox man of God, or a corpse-exhuming psycopath. (Those who are confused by that last example, please do an internet search on “cadaver synod”.) He is still the Bishop of Rome, still the Pope. Our current Pope is as valid as any other; he is not a formal heretic, and he has not changed one bit of Sacred Tradition. (By the way, a material heretic can still be a valid Pope: HYPERLINK)

    Don’t make the mistake of thinking that the Pope IS the Church, or that the liturgy IS the Church, either. There have been very, very bad Popes in the Church’s history. None of them destroyed the Church. The liturgy has also changed throughout Church history. No one has ever claimed that the Extraordinary (Latin, “Tridentine”) form was practiced, unchanged, since the Resurrection of Christ. In fact, the current Ordinary form is probably closer to early Church liturgies.

    The Church is the bride of Christ. Our Lord promised that the gates of Hell would not prevail against Her. A small “elite” of Traditionalists/Sedevacantists in exile does not constitute the Catholic Church. They may constitute a new branch of Protestantism. But they are not Catholics.

    I say this as one who strayed from the Church, down the path of upper-case “t” Traditionalism, and eventually into Sedevacantism. It took several years of studying and hard decision-making, but now I am back in the fold of the One True Church. I was as disgusted with decadent 20th-Century modernism as anyone in the SSPX, but I will not separate myself from the Body of Christ.

    Imagine, if you will, that you are living in the early 20th century, and you are one of a particular “tribe” who has a special enmity for the Church. Your people have tried to do headlong battle with the Church for centuries, but have failed each time. Now you realize what you have to do: infiltrate, and subvert. You must suppress your true nature, and enter this organization which you despise. Your ultimate goal is to destroy it, piece by piece, step by step. The time is ripe: material abundance and complacency have weakened your enemies. You realize that you may very well not live long enough to see your hard work come to fruition. That is irrelevant. You are part of something larger, something which drives you onward as you face an extremely daunting task. You truly believe that you, and your people, will succeed in finally abolishing this horrible organization which has brought so much misery to your kind. There is one thing that you do NOT do: you do not retreat with your people into your own world, to lick your wounds and wax bitterly about the evil Roman Catholic Church. You do what is necessary. You get to work, bringing about change from the inside.

    Is there a reason why we cannot do the same? Is their “faith” greater than our Faith?

    Those of you in the SSPX probably have not met many young seminarians, priests, and lay people in the Roman Catholic Church. I can tell you that, at least in America, a change is coming. These young people, God bless them, are not interested in 1960s and 1970s “progressivism”. They can tell Truth from lies, and they know that beauty is a manifestation of that Truth, whether in liturgy, architecture, prayer, dress, or anything else. Get out there and meet some of them. You will be inspired.

    • Pierre de Craon
      Pierre de Craon says:

      Your comment, Mr. Whyte, is a tissue of errors, self-serving distortions, and probably more than one outright falsehood. You give yourself away as an apologist for the conciliar Newchurch with the phrase “full communion.” Nowhere in Catholic tradition was this expression ever found before John Paul II decided to reinvent the unreinventable. Before he coined this absurd, incoherent term, one was either in communion with Rome or one was not—full stop. In practice, the “full communion” grift amounts to you and your ilk preferring to sup with animists, Buddhists, snake charmers, and topless “sacred dancers” than cope with the embarrassment of the existence of Traditionalists, whose grave crime, in the eyes of those who sneer as you do, is believing no more and no less what every faithful Catholic believed before 1962, when the tired old faith and the divine and apostolic revelation on which it is 100 percent founded were no longer deemed cool enough for “modern men”—whoever they are when they’re at home.

      If you were a true Catholic rather than a conciliarist, you would squarely face the dilemma of the modernism regnant in the institutional church: If the preconciliar faith was true then, how can it be false now? If the new religion of conciliarism is true now, why wasn’t it true then?

      As to your tired old claim that the SSPX and other non-sedevacantist traditionalists do not acknowledge the authority of the pope, it was dismissed as rubbish by an authority named Benedict XVI; ever hear of him? The problem you pretend isn’t there—the unprecedented conflict between Faith and Authority—is a problem of conciliar Rome’s creation, and it has been exacerbated by radical papolatrists, of which you appear to be one.

      What is more, when Authority has lost its bearings and has changed from supporting the Faith to mocking and defying it, Authority’s true nature and meaning are done no service by pretending that the unbroken skein of postconciliar papal disasters is nothing to fret about.

      Look at it thus. If one’s biological father loses his mind because of some debilitating illness or injury, it is no breach of piety or love or honor to face the fact that obeying him is no longer either proper or licit. Failure to obey warped and diseased Authority does honor and service to the centrality and importance of true Authority.

      When you dismiss Catholics willing to face facts as rebels or schismatics, you make yourself Pope Whyte. And evidently, you find no difficulty being in full communion with him, do you?

      Last but not least, these sentences need to be called out:

      I can tell you that, at least in America, a change is coming. These young people, God bless them, are not interested in 1960s and 1970s “progressivism”.

      Ah, the New Springtime fairy tale! How peachy that this oft-promised explosion of multicolored blossoms is always just around the next corner. In the meantime, let’s all sit back, have another microbrew, and talk about the latest George Weigel book or Scott Hahn video. Oh what a joy that the Church Militant is now metrosexual!

      • Mr. Whyte
        Mr. Whyte says:

        I should begin by saying that my clumsy attempt at copy-and-paste from Word caused the first paragraph of my initial post to be cut off. In it, I stated that I admired the young faithful of the SSPX for their dedication to traditional marriage and large WHITE families. It is not my intention to belittle or sneer at Traditional Catholics, and if I come across as doing so, I apologise.

        On to Mr. de Craon’s response. Sir, you are indeed an angry man. Nothing wrong with that per se, but in your anger you have failed to notice that I stated I was once in your shoes. I have heard all the arguments against “Newchurch”, and agreed with all of them at one time. No longer. An author who is more intelligent and well-spoken than I am had a similar experience, and writes about it here: https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/religion-and-philosophy/apologetics/my-journey-out-of-the-lefebvre-schism.html

        One thing I’ve noticed about Traditionalists and Sedevacantists: they can write long, angry missives about the “conciliar” Church, without mentioning the name of our Lord once. I should know: I have done the same thing. Let me say it again: Our Lord Jesus Christ promised us that the gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church. Christ was not a liar. A gang of 20th Century modernists did not destroy the Church in the space of ten years. That is an absurd idea–unless one doubts the Son of God.

        The Catholic Church needs people like you, and like all the SSPX faithful. It needs all of you desperately in this age of Cultural Marxism and anti-White, anti-Christ, thinly-veiled Satanic Supremacy. I am going to pray for your return to the One True Church of our Lord. (Only a few years ago, I would have scoffed at anyone who said that to me. Christ is indeed infinitely wise.)

        And some of those microbrews are delicious! Especially the ones from Belgian monasteries.

      • Vajkard
        Vajkard says:

        In the ancient city of Štanjel in Slovenia, there is a church (Catholic, of course). And there is a poster on a church door, stating something like “Help poor children in Africa, o parishioner”. There is also a photo of skinny negro child to intensify the feeling of compassion”. Needeless to say, there are many such posters on great many church doors across the country.

        And that is what Catholicism in particular and Christianity in general is all about: patricians vs. plebians.

        • PaleoAtlantid
          PaleoAtlantid says:

          The ‘patricians’ are very keen, with Jewish help of course, to destroy family and racial pride in us ‘plebians’. Their chosen instrument is race-mixing. That old aristo and professional patrician Otto von Habsburg was an enthusiastic sponsor and supporter of Coudenhove-Kalergi.
          As ever, the secular princes and the “Princes of the Church” are united in their common determination to screw us!

      • Mr. Whyte
        Mr. Whyte says:

        “When you dismiss Catholics willing to face facts as rebels or schismatics, you make yourself Pope Whyte. And evidently, you find no difficulty being in full communion with him, do you?”

        Oh, if only, brother, if only…

        That’s a joke. But you raise a valid point in regard to Catholics who confront what they have determined are “facts”. It is ironic that you make the analogy of self-appointed Popes, because an individual Catholic who makes himself the arbiter of Catholic orthodoxy has done just that. I obey the Church, rebels and schismatics do not. Which is not to say that they are evil in any way. They simply are no longer Catholic.

        May God bless you, and hasten your return to His Church.

        • Pierre de Craon
          Pierre de Craon says:

          … you are indeed an angry man.

          Odd that a “true Catholic” would need to fall back upon (((psychiatry))) for a rejoinder. In its cozy presumption, the sentence fits right in with Bergoglio’s almost daily incoherent attacks on the Faith—the Faith given once to the Apostles—and those who don’t think it is “adaptable” to the needs of a given time or place.

          I am going to pray for your return to the One True Church of our Lord.

          What interests me about this comment is that Mr. Whyte plainly confirms the malleability of his own vision of truth and faith. It used to be taken for granted that the judgment of one pope, in this case Benedict XVI, on a matter of authoritative teaching was routinely deemed perpetual unless it was formally and specifically contradicted by a successor.* Yet as Mr. Whyte says in all but so many words, he, like Bergoglio, now considers Benedict’s authoritative statement old hat, and he offers a painful-to-witness display of loyalty, not to the Church, but to its greatest betrayer in perhaps 1,600 years.

          In some ways the oddest thing about misplaced loyalty to this deranged father who has set Authority and Faith in opposition to one another is that, as is plain to all, Francis virtually never speaks formally or even coherently—preferring as he does sound bites to sound catechesis and the approval of Muslims, Jews, and journalists to the piety of the faithful—save on those far from rare occasions when he spits venom at those who would model their own belief and praxis on, say, Francis Xavier instead of Martin Luther—or Martin Luther King!

          Finally, one of the reasons I am deeply in sympathy with the tone of Karl Nemmersdorf’s article** is that it has nary a hint of the patronizing, pharisaical triumphalism that Mr. Whyte adopts toward me and, far more significantly, toward all adherents to Tradition. Like him, I know that Francis is a true pope (at least pending an authoritative judgment to the contrary from an orthodox successor), but I also know, as he seems to have forgotten, that Galatians 1:7–10 is no less binding now than it was when Paul wrote to the Christian community in Galatia.

          What is more, I think it is fair to say that both friends and foes of Christianity in general and of the Catholic Church in particular are correct in asserting, as Karl puts it, that the church “will never be a frank ally of White Nationalism … after all, its kingdom is not of this world.” But in the shrinking Western world in which we now all live, authentic Christianity and White Nationalism are and must remain tacit but firm allies. Why? (1) Because as matters stand, the only sizable Christian communities in the nations of North America and Europe are the white communities whose ancestors created those nations and (2) because no authentic Christian leader can fail to recognize that every Third Worlder or Jew or Muslim or animist entering the West further imperils the remaining Christians in the once-Christian societies that compose the West. Put otherwise, toxic, displacement-level immigration puts Christian lives and souls at risk, and Jesus was anything but coy or cautious in describing the fate awaiting anyone who jeopardized another’s eternal salvation.
          _________________________
          *The judgment I refer to, of course, is Benedict’s judgment that neither the SSPX priests nor the four bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre were ever in schism, that the masses celebrated and sacraments administered by those clerics are licit as well as valid, and that those lay Catholics who attend their masses and adhere to their catechesis are in any wise outside the Church.

          **I share the gratitude of others that Kevin MacDonald has seen fit to publish this article.

          • alphonsusjr@gmail.com
            alphonsusjr@gmail.com says:

            Well said once again, Pierre. My impression is that Mr. Whyte and his ilk have replaced sound judgment with mere sentimentality. Such are those infected with the dread spirit of the Judas Council Revolution and its wretched “New Springtime.”

          • Karl Nemmersdorf
            Karl Nemmersdorf says:

            I set the dogs of war loose with this article, I see, but you, my dear Mr. Craon, are the fiercest of them all! I wish I had your knowledge and logic.

          • Pierre de Craon
            Pierre de Craon says:

            Thank you, Karl.

            I think it’s not entirely off-topic to add that we are both fortunate to be afforded space here at TOO to speak, to argue, and to reason. Can you think of any other venue where the juxtaposed names of Kevin MacDonald and Marcel Lefebvre wouldn’t strike an administrator or reader as incomprehensible, irreconcilable, or just incongruous?

            The virtue and vision of such men ought to stir us to emulate them, however limited our own resources and gifts.

          • Karl Nemmersdorf
            Karl Nemmersdorf says:

            Agreed! I think this conversation shows that many Catholics today have a real interest in the survival of Western Culture and Whites. Catholics individually could be a real ally of White Nationalism, IF the pagans do not alienate them needlessly.

    • alphonsusjr@gmail.com
      alphonsusjr@gmail.com says:

      On the boilerplate “SSPX is not in full communion” CatholiCuckery, see this essay published by The Remnant:

      Gnostic Twaddle: ‘Full Communion’ and Other Cosmic Connections, by Christopher A. Ferrara

    • Alizia Tyler
      Alizia Tyler says:

      I cannot offer a conlusive opinion on the points Mr Whyte raises, except that it seems to me that unless on have and understand and practice the real docrine of the Church in the form of Mass, Missal and Breviary, that there would be no hope in reconstructing or of ‘saving’ the Church. It is certainly a good thing if young seminarians are becoming more conservative. But how can they act accordingly if they are constrained, as it were, by modernist liturgy?

      Therefor, it seems to make a great deal of sense that there are branches of Catholicism that operate to the side. They would have to in order to preserve the real and foundational traditions. If they did not and were not carrying on in this way, these traditions would not survive.

      What I find interesting, though it is painful to witness, is the depth of the conflict between sections of the Church, as here between Mr Whyte and de Craon. I would myself side more with de Craon because he is arguing from more solid principles.

      I suppose it must come down to accepting acrimony and conflict: this can only be a sign that really important things are being fought over. One shies away from the heated conflict, but one really must follow it through and arrive at a decisive position.

      • Mr. Whyte
        Mr. Whyte says:

        Alizia, thank you for your reply. You are correct in stating that branches of Christians (not, strictly speaking, Catholics) operate on the sidelines of the Catholic Church. These faithful people, such as the SSPX, will eventually re-enter the One True Church of Our Lord, and She will be much stronger as a result of it.
        As of today, Modernists control the Church. That is because they have spent more than a hundred years in patient labor to do so. Their “faith”, it pains me to say, is stronger than the Faith of most Catholics, but I believe that their days are numbered. I believe it because our Lord declared it so (Matthew 16:18). These 20th Century “progressives” will not wrest control of the one holy, catholic, and Apostolic Church, and make Her into an instrument of their White-hating, de facto Communism. In the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, they are of their father, the Devil.
        (To those of you who are scoffing at that description, believe me: I was once in your position also. I actually spent most of my adult life as an atheist. The Holy Spirit, however, had other plans for me. But this is not about me; I only mention that in passing because I understand the position of non-Christians who nevertheless love their race, and also that of Traditionalist Catholics, who love the Church and want to protect Her from Her many enemies.)
        May God bless you, and all other faithful Christians who love Him, and love our European race, and want to preserve both for all ages.

        • Alizia Tyler
          Alizia Tyler says:

          If what you say is true, then I must say I am not sure where your difference with Pierre de Craon lies. But I really have to say that I am fairly new to an attempt to understand what happened in the Church. Alongside that issue, which right now for me is best explained in Pius X’s Enclyclical against ‘modernism’, is the almost fantastic and unrelenting pressure of our present age which, as I understand things, pulls everyone down into chaor and confusion. I have come to see it as demoniac but I have also come to see the demoniac in non-Hollywood terms. The demoniac is that which diverts one from a focus on the invisible, guiding Spirit.

          As I see it, the question of European identity and white identity, if one takes it really seriously, leads one to understand that, in essence, one must resolve to undertake a complete renovation project. That is, though various events and occurrences, Europe has really ‘fallen’. We in this sense have fallen. We realize this and we struggle (I certainly struggle) to recover that path which is genuinely one of salvation. White Identity, then, seems the tip of the iceberg if we really are to come to understand what is required of us; that is, what destinay has given to us.

          I have read that the Second Vatican Council, with all its strange politics, was ‘presided by and directed by the Holy Spirit’. If that is so, and if as some of the YouTube videos that are readily available to watch indicate, and the result is ‘clown masses’ and the Eucharist crushed on the floor or left in the pews, and a complete loss of the capacity to grasp what the Symbol refers to and why it is meaningful, I might still be inclined to agree that the Holy Spirit has guided things to this state, if out of that almost unreal destructiveness some true renovation will occur.

          Therefor, I can only turn to myself as just one more fallen creature of a perverse modernity, a debilitating present, and attempt to come to see the degree to which I am an *outcome* of these destructive processes. And then, from within that perspective, become more adept at seeing and naming what the destruction is, how it comes about, and what reverses it. As far as I can tell the only thing that can *reverse* it is a genuine encounter with Spirit. And that is the most demanding undertaking.

          So, that is why I menioned Mass, Missal and Breviary. I have the old Benziger Breviaries dated 1950 and as I attempt to grasp their structure, and attempt to see what actually performing the Office might be, I see that I am forced to read the essentialist teaching of the Church. Lex orandi, Lex credindi has come home to me as a truthful fact! in the sense that I am seeing it work in me.

          As the modernists control the Church, and modernism (of the Pius X definition) is not Catholicism but the undermining of it, I must conclude that if the Church has abandoned Mass, Missal and Breviary, then the renovation cannot take place but the corruption continue. And that somehow this is all in the design of a larger intelligence: God’s plan as it were.

          The part that seems excruciating to me is that in this terrifying descent into functional nescience (I describe the demoniac as leading to that and that is its end) is the infighting and disagreement that arises between us. Stepping into the Traditionalist debate, and opposing modernism and modernists, leads directly to outright conflict. I tend to agree with you that we all on the sudden are no longer really speaking about the Salvific and the Savior, but about points of separation, doctrinal issues and such. But that is what happens when we are in a functional fallen state, and still falling! (I mean the state of Christendom).

          The box into which I am writing this does not allow me to see the whole thing. I hope that I have not rambled too much.

          • Mr. Whyte
            Mr. Whyte says:

            “If what you say is true, then I must say I am not sure where your difference with Pierre de Craon lies.”

            Nor am I. We both want to preserve the Church and our people. As far as I can tell, our only point of disagreement is how to bring that about.

            “I have come to see it as demoniac but I have also come to see the demoniac in non-Hollywood terms. The demoniac is that which diverts one from a focus on the invisible, guiding Spirit.”

            Yes, exactly. The demon does not manifest itself as a hideous monster that brings terror. That would undermine its mission. Instead, it comes to us as the voice of reason and “progress”. It whispers to us that our Sacred Tradition must change with the times, or die. It presents its accomplices, the modernists, as possessing awesome power, the grip of which can never be broken. It leads us into despair and isolation. It tries to convince us that the Holy Spirit Himself has sanctioned its destructive efforts.

            It hates nothing more than when we remember the promise of Christ, and begin to fight against His enemies, from within His Church.

          • Alizia
            Alizia says:

            Mr Whyte wrote: “It hates nothing more than when we remember the promise of Christ, and begin to fight against His enemies, from within His Church.”

            I see the point you are making and I respect it. I can sincerely say that I am unqualified to adjudicate complex questions about the Church and what happened to it. I have a great deal to learn, but one still has to hold to the thing that really matters: one’s own relationship to the Church and to God that takes place within oneself. Essentially, that is where I am working.

            The other part of your point which I do get is that one can only have influence on the Church if one remains in communication with it. Where I live, so steeped in ignorance, few really have a sense that something happened to the Church! And the people who should know something, do not seem to. If it is hard to find like-minded people attuned to white identity issues in N America, it is ten times more difficult here!

            In respect to the difficult issue of white identity, and restoring European power and self-awareness, I resolve not ever to ‘break ranks’ with anyone who is on the same side as I am. It is imperative that we hold together, despite different perspectives and opinions. My first solidarity is with you and the second level of solidarity of smoothing differing views is secondary.

          • Pierre de Craon
            Pierre de Craon says:

            We both want to preserve the Church and our people. As far as I can tell, our only point of disagreement is how to bring that about.

            The second sentence quoted here is belied by your own words, expressed plainly twice and implied virtually everywhere else. To be specific, you have declared that I am not in “full communion” with the Church and hence am not a Catholic. As I unequivocally proclaim myself a Catholic, we have a very grave disagreement above and beyond any merely tactical modalities.

            My profound disagreement with your declaration also appears higher up in this thread several times. As Alizia and others surely recall, you have produced no substantive evidence whatsoever in support of your radically erroneous and scandalously uncharitable statement. You simply arrogate to yourself the right to choose who is a sheep and who a goat.

            You will, I trust, not be surprised that I here detect standard postconciliar confusion and self-contradiction at work, a disordered condition that Bergoglio has doubled down upon to such an extent that he has accustomed an inimical world to look forward eagerly to his near-daily betrayals of the faith and his constant descent into moral and intellectual chaos.

      • Pierre de Craon
        Pierre de Craon says:

        @Alizia Tyler:

        Your comment is thoughtful and deeply touching, and I thank you for it.

        One sentence is especially thought-provoking: “I suppose it must come down to accepting acrimony and conflict.” Yes, conflict is both a necessity and an inevitability today if good is ever to defeat evil and right to defeat might. But while I don’t doubt that acrimony is another inevitability, it would be a pity were it ever to be viewed as necessary or wholesome.

        More than fifty-five years ago, a high school teacher of mine told the class that the two hardest demands Jesus made were “love your neighbor as you love yourself” and “love your enemies, do good to those who hate you.” The especial difficulty of the second demand is that the sophistically minded, Jews especially, have always insinuated to the gullible that the sentence’s meaning is that good must sometimes surrender to evil lest feelings be hurt or self-esteem be impaired.

        As often happens, the actual meaning here is far easier to comprehend than to express or to put in practice. Surrender to evil is never desirable, of course, but accomplishing that end without acrimony amounts virtually to a counsel of perfection—at least it sure does to me!

        Your words serve as a salutary but not entirely comfortable reminder to me to work a bit harder at differentiating the two.

        • Alizia Tyler
          Alizia Tyler says:

          Hello there. I had an interesting experience recently and I think the anecdote will prove relevant to this conversation. I live in Colombia and it is here that my desire to return to the Church began after a number of years of study and thinking. I had resolved to attempt to make contact with a traditional church, that is, one that is more conservative than so many others which, in my opinion, celebrate Masses that do not seem to have much solemn spirit. In comparison to the Latin Mass (Tridentine Mass) that I have only seen in videos they are noisy and quite unsacred. There is, in effect, no sacred ritual performed and so very little solemnity.

          I had the strange fortune of asking for an interview with a priest whose church I often passed when walking. I told him what I was looking for, that is, a church that was more traditional and where the older, traditional aspects of the Church were respected. He listened carefully, and then suggested that he send me by email some of his own writings. He explained that he was not only a ‘modernist’ but a ‘postmodernist’ which was his ironical way of emphasising his ultra-modernist stance. His opinion was that the Church had to change in order to ‘go forward’. I asked him if he knew any traditionalist priests and he said no. He further said that he avoided them because he and they all butted heads with each other (and used the gesture of two first striking together as illustration).

          I left a little dismayed. But later when I got his 8 different documents —- essays on various topics —- I was flatly amazed. They were bizarre essays on psycho-religious topics such as ‘prana’, the oroboros, the work of Carl Jung, Eastern Mystic concepts, et cetera. I read one through and scanned the rest. Not in one were mentioned Jesus Chris, the Holy Spirit, the Patristic Fathers, the Mass, Salvation, nor any of the Sacraments!

          This was amazing to me because I had, for 6 moths, immersed myself in pre-1962 materials such as the Missal and Breviary I had mentioned above. The lesson for me is that there are radical elements that are very certainly in authoritative positions who have radical designs which I cannot reconcile with the Traditional Church. Therefor, and as a result of this one meeting, I felt I came to understand something about ‘the state of the Church’ and the nature of the problem it faces. I made the tentative conclusion that this man does not really understand what motivates him. It is in essence an ‘intellectual’ issue in the Thomistic sense. He obviously had no formation in or relationship to Thomistic metaphysics, and thus (I suggest) was in truth not really a Catholic!

          If one is not teaching from the right material, one’s teaching will guide people into completely inimical areas.

          Therefor, in my view, it becomes obvious that in order to preserve a certain ‘original content’ that a certain radical discrimination is required. And that radical discrimination is, in truth, intolerant. It cannot tolerate the infusion of nefarious elements. And when one is necessarily intolerant, acrimoniousness is in fact the only possible result (‘caustic, bitter, stinging’) (bitter, embittered, hard, rancorous, resentful, et cetera).

          Why? In my opinion because one is aware of what will be and is being lost when people and authority loses its capacity to function from an intellectual plane (intellectus). If we lose the capacity to understand and appreciate, and thus to protect, the essence of the doctrine, we lose the world of value essentially.

          It is really quite a problem insofar as ‘modernism is the sythesis of all heresies’ and the most radical and potent of heresies. But we are, if we are really honest, the products of radical modernism. We see the world through the lenses which impelled modernist intentionality.

          In my view, which is theoretical for the most part given my lack of experience, I tend to observe the acrimoniousness from this position.

          • Alphonsus Jr.
            Alphonsus Jr. says:

            Alizia, you’ve made an extraordinary series of comments. I thank you deeply for them.

            Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.

          • Karl Nemmersdorf
            Karl Nemmersdorf says:

            Alizia, your comments are very moving and interesting. You are a rare person, a real seeker. I hope you find a traditional Mass very soon! God bless.

    • AmericanusRex
      AmericanusRex says:

      Ceasar I followed your blog for sometime.

      You convinced me of the superiority of the Christian psychoclass vis a vis their domination of the bicameral minded South American. Particularly keen is your insight into the relationship between human sacrifice, child abuse, and schizoid shamanistic culture.

      I simply applied the same rationale to your “criminal history of Christianity” perspective on the Christian destruction of European paganism.

      Obviously human and even child sacrifice was an aspect of European paganism. So following from your premise I surmised that it was inevitable that Christianity (a religion whose central tenant is the ending of blood sacrifice ) conquered the more bicameral minded pagan European people (Augery, the haruspex and many other forms of schizoid shamanism were widespread throughout the Roman empire.)

      In fact it seems that the evolutionary advantage of Christianity is that it denies the necessity of human sacrifice. A big win for the psychic development of Europeans.

      I love your work though I think it convinced me of something other than your intended point!

      • César Tort
        César Tort says:

        Thank you for the compliment. I have responded to such kind of objections—very similar objections of what philo-Semite Lloyd deMause and one of his many Jewish pupils, Robert Godwin, say! (DeMause’s psychohistory is sort of secularised Judaeo-Christianity and somewhat anti-Greek and anti-Roman.) The response appears in my book Day of Wrath.

        For a more profound analysis of why after Constantine the West suffered a psychogenic regression from my ‘psychohistorical’ POV, see the series I linked above. The gist of our argument is even manifest in my today’s post on The West’s Darkest Hour, article 30 of ‘Apocalypse for Whites’.

    • Karl Nemmersdorf
      Karl Nemmersdorf says:

      Um … no, I don’t follow your blog. Please let me know, however, if you supersede St. Paul, St. Augustine, St. Aquinas …

      • César Tort
        César Tort says:

        @ Karl Nemmersdorf,

        St Paul has already been debunked in several articles of my site (for newbies, watch ‘Kazantzakis on Paul’).

        As to St. Augustine, keep tuned as he will be next after our translations of Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums of what Karlheinz Deschner wrote about St Athanasius and St Ambrose.

        (Our latest translations from Kriminalgeschichte are debunking St Athanasius, and I still have to add six more entries on this “saint” before the chapter on Ambrose.)

        • Karl Nemmersdorf
          Karl Nemmersdorf says:

          You are so cute! St. Paul debunked. And you’re working on St. Augustine. In fifty years less than twenty people will recognize your name, but these two great men have been venerated for two thousand and sixteen hundred years respectively, and will be for just as long in the future.

  16. Jerome
    Jerome says:

    Great article and what an inspiration to read after all the Christian-bashing one comes across in racialist circles. Another Catholic traditionalist group worth mentioning is the FSSP – not as hard core as SSPX but in full communion with Rome. So the Church is not completely lost, thank God….

    • alphonsusjr@gmail.com
      alphonsusjr@gmail.com says:

      Again the “full communion” CatholiCuckery is spouted. I thus again refer readers to this essay published by The Remnant:

      Gnostic Twaddle: ‘Full Communion’ and Other Cosmic Connections, by Christopher A. Ferrara

      • Mr. Whyte
        Mr. Whyte says:

        Ferrara makes some valid points in that essay, especially about the capitulation of modernist Catholics to the Church’s sworn enemies. He is also correct about the uselessness of “dialogue” with other religions, which, as far as I can tell, has accomplished nothing. Modernism is a temporary troublemaker in the Church–it is not part of Sacred Tradition. It will be defeated, just as the Arian and Jansenist heresies were.

        The central theme of his essay seems to be a disagreement on semantics, namely the idea of degrees of communion with the Church. But is there a better term than “partial communion” to describe those who adhere to the ridiculous idea of “Recognize and resist”? Even the Sedevacantists ridicule that position, and they are correct. It is a stupid concept. (That does not mean that those who practice it are stupid people–simply misguided) You accept the validity of the Pope, as a Catholic, or you reject his validity, as a non-Catholic.

        As an aside, I noticed yet again that the name of Jesus Christ was not mentioned anywhere in Ferrara’s essay. Why do Traditionalists do this?

        • Pierre de Craon
          Pierre de Craon says:

          The central theme of his essay seems to be a disagreement on semantics …

          I am not sure whether you are here being evasive or simply really thick, Mr. Whyte. All dogma, doctrine, public prayer, and liturgy are founded on words and the precision of meaning attainable with words. Thus, where semantics is invoked with respect to Faith and Tradition, it is the biggest of big deals. Or are the events associated with the names Chalcedon, Nicaea, Constantinople, and related others as little known to you, Mr. Whyte, as they evidently are to Pope Francis?

          Why do Traditionalists do this?

          One possible answer is that they are rather more hesitant than you to go full Pharisee at the first opportunity.

          I pass over in silence the pretty contemptible presumption inherent in your tiresome and utterly baseless generalization from one column by a lawyer and journalist writing for a soft-core Trad newspaper to everything written or proposed by Trads on every point of the theological compass. I do, however, rejoice in your admission that you yourself are not a Traditionalist—not even to the otherwise derisory extent of holding fast to the scattershot catechesis of the earlier postconciliar popes.

        • Alizia
          Alizia says:

          Mr Whyte wrote: “Modernism is a temporary troublemaker in the Church–it is not part of Sacred Tradition. It will be defeated, just as the Arian and Jansenist heresies were.”

          Please excuse my pretention, which I must admit to insofar as I am very new to all of these considerations. Yet when I read this sentence it caused me to ponder. First, I must say that what ‘modernism’ is is not that easy to grasp. I say this because we are so steeped in it that, like a fish attempting to analyse water, we cannot really see what subsumes us. Well, that is the idea I am working with. I would also mention an interesting statement I read by a little known philosopher named Basil Willey (in ‘Seventeenth Century Background’): that it requires a ‘master metaphysician’ in order to be able to accurately see and reveal the ‘metaphysical swamp’ we find ourselves in.

          As I begin to understand how the French and German ‘liturgical movements’ in combination with the rising tide of socialism and then the effects of the 2 European wars radically transformed men’s minds, in combination with the entire wave of modernity, I am not inclined to see the infection of the Church as a passing phase. And —- pressing forward in the same vein —- if we are to take seriously the idea of End Times and assaults by nefarious elements, it seems inaccurate and also dangerously naive to consider this infection as a passing ‘troublemaker’.

          My theory is that the demonic needs a better definition. I do not have that definition. But like everyone I am aware, though my own self-analysis, of how the demonic creeps in to a person’s soul and body structure through processes of seduction. The ‘higher mind’ is seduced by the sentimental mind, and the sentimental mind is subservient to the seduced body, and the ‘entire world’ (advertising, political rhetoric, movies, tv, the discourse of common people, the schools, the universities) is the vehicle through which the seduction-process takes place. If what I suggest is true, the ‘modernism’ in combination with a Marxian undermining effort must be seen as far more than a ‘troublemaker’.

          It is only the higher mind when protected and held, if you will, by Grace that can even *see* the deleterious effect of loss of faith in our present, and if those who should understand this higher mind and also reason and act from it have themselves been seduced away from it, it is no light affair.

          If ‘modernism’ is the ‘synthesis of all heresies’ then it seems to me that there needs to be a great deal more said about what this modernism really is. According to the definitions of Pius X and those aware of the problem its advent will amount to a radical assault with intense effect and ramification.

          Therefor: to hold to a position in contra to it involves one in a difficult and demanding process of establishing definitions. I submit that the ‘bitter traditionalist’ is perhaps more in tune with an understanding of what has been lost and what will be further lost as modernism advances and the destructive work is carried out. It desires to achieve, naturally, the death and destruction of the soul, and how can that be a light affair of a ‘troublemaker’?

          • Mr. Whyte
            Mr. Whyte says:

            Thinking of modernism as a passing troublemaker does not mean that I dismiss it, or consider it to be irrelevant. It only means that I refuse to see it as eternal. Also, the generations who kept the modernist heresy alive are now dying, and the young generation of Catholics is not interested in the silliness of the 1960s and 1970s.

            I am a former “bitter Traditionalist”, but that path only leads to the sin of despair. It is also based on misunderstanding, but there is no room for that discussion here–entire websites are devoted to it.

            The Devil has tried to destroy the Church before, and he will keep trying. Christ told us that he will not succeed. To believe otherwise is to doubt the Lord.

          • Alizia
            Alizia says:

            Hello again! Along the lines that I think you are working in, I listened to a talk by Fr Ripperger: ‘The Psychological & Spiritual Effects of Being Negative’. Seems he directed it mostly to the ‘bitter traditionalists’. I thought of you when I was listening to it (Sensus Fidelum, YouTube).

            I always like his talks and he seems to have a very solid Catholic foundation. And though he seems very traditional I gather he does not identify as a rigid one. I’ll have to look more into his background.

            As I have said and will always say: I am a pretentious opiner and have very little (no) credentials and very little experience with Catholicism generally. I am really a theoretical Catholic if you catch my drift.

            When I write I like to think of it as experimental. To see how it looks externalized and what reaction it gets.

            Do you really think that the generation that initiated the ‘modernist heresy’ are passing away? I read Pascendi and concluded that modernism is ascendent everywhere! It is much more powerful now than it was then. Because it leads to a form of nescience those who are well in it, because they are nescient, cannot even see and understand it or what the alternative to it is. I reckon that these people then are incapable of faith.

            Modernism is, then, and as I see it, a way of expressing that one has lost the faith. I notice modernist perspectives in most of the posts in this thread (the first one I have participated in on this Forum). We are steeped in it. Well, I feel myself to be so in any case.

            I do not imagine that you would say that traditionalism in itself is a sin, but rahter that bitterness or anger or frustration or ‘negativity’ lead to sins.

            It may be true that the Devil will not succeed in destroying the Church, yet the Devil does succeed in bringing souls into veritable danger and separation. Thus if the Church is infected with non-Catholicism, and it is really (as the Trads say) ‘another religion’, then it is imperative to define and uphold a true traditional Catholicism and not be seduced away.

            All that you are saying is that one should avoid negativity which is damaging to the individual. But you could also be recommending some form of laxity and ‘going along with the crowd’ which could be dangerous.

            And why would you insist on the element of ‘being out of communion’? When that does not appear to be the case with SSPX, unless I am mistaken?

            What do you think of SSPV?

          • Alizia
            Alizia says:

            Because I am interested in the entire question of the critique of modern culture, and because this particular site (Occidental Observer) is part of a new critical movement, and because this thread has to do with a critical and traditional form of Catholicism, it seems a wise choice to continue to work within this division between ‘bitter traditionalist’ and whatever stands as the actual opposite to this traditionalist for which I do not have a name.

            Let me put forward an observation to see how it sits. It is a general statement: There is something about our present which, when looked at from a certain angle, appears truly malignant. What is it? What about it gives this impression? I suggest it is the prevalence of The Lie. In the Vedas they spaek of an ‘age of quarrel hypocricy’ (Kali Yuga) and this is an apt symbol around which to construct a view of this Lie. My impression is that no matter where one looks, no matter what one reads, no matter who one attempts to trust, one is aware that someone is lying.

            Take for example what is likely to be one strong motivating perception among the New Right: that the very system we live within, the media, the corporations, the government collusion, the entire construct, is built on and enforces a Grand Lie. We are the ones who are in the vanguard in bringing this message to those who cannot or who refuse to see it (the Cuck). The Red Pill is a medicine of perception which is antidote to The Lie. Or in any case having swollowed that pill one, at least, begins a process of waking up and of seeing correctly and truly. The only capability that allows this awakening is Intellectus. Discriminating intelligence.

            Discriminating intelligence operates independently of the emotional and sentimental centers. But it is sentimentality and emotionalism that seduce one away from discriminating intelligence. In our present, and always at the hands of Progressives and Liberals so-called, their principle tool is sentiment. For example guilt and shame. Their entire position is built on and is upheld by sentimental arguments (this is my impression). And when strong intellectual arguments are brought out against their constructs they do not bother to defeat them with clear argument but rather cut right to the chase through moral shaming. This is how they keep entire multitudes in thrall to their false-ideologies. And thus there arises an ‘hysterical ideologue’ and within that The Lie has a special life.

            Now, if we relate this Lie to a general obfuscating murk and if we further associate it with The World in a Catholic sense, and if we further associate it with a demoniac influence, we then stand on the edge of a sort of horizon, perhaps a precipice, from which we view the world. But there is one other element: our own self. That is to say that we ourselves are subsumed not only as within The World but that we also, by virtue of complicity, must ourselves in one way or another be invested in lying.

            So, the Christian path is one of 1) unravelling one’s own complicity in lies which is, ultimately, what sin means; and 2) applying discriminating intelligence to our analysis of the ideas, the systems, the social structures, the institutions, that surround us. Yet if you really think it through this is a terrifying project. How can you ask people to distrust that in which they have placed their trust? That is, to actively cultivate a critical intelligence? Say to a conventional Catholic that the Pope is an operative against the essential and core values of Catholicism and you will thrust that person into painful uncertainty.

            However, for those who read on these pages and in other places (AmRen, Counter-Currents, et cetera), and for those who sense that the System is a charade or sorts and a lying structure, we are left within a terrible problem of exegesis: interpretation. A hermenuetics of the present. And what shal be one’s tools? Intelligence certainly. But that is not quite enough, is it? Or I should say that intelligence alone is not enough. For Christians and Catholics there must enter in Grace. The spiritual element. But even that is not quite a clear as it should be or as we wish it to be. Because people seem to fool themselves all the time, despite their link to spiritual practice, despite how they themselves interpret their selves.

            So, how shall this condition be described? Mystification? It is afterall the essential issue of incarnated existence and involves the most profound existential questions.

            The Traditionalist, I sense, is one who is motivated either by a sincere drive to get clear about ‘reality’ and to situate him or herself ‘correctly’ in relation to life and being. But there is another pole or aspect, too: simple discomfort with ‘modernity’ and the sense of loss of a solid foundation. One then desires the comfort of the olden structure as a sort of antiquarian. But the antiquarian is not, not necessarily, subjecting himself to, shall I say. Transformation by the Holy Spirit. Or have I ventured into the territory of Pentecostalism ? 😉

            There seems to be something to be said both for and against ‘traditionalism’ but that everything depends on how the traditionalism functions. Were the revolutionaries who put in motion the Liturgical Movement that led to Vatican ll and all sort of errors and corruptions operating in full faith and consciousness that they were Operatives of Evil? I doubt this. Everyone always assumes their own ‘goodness’ and ‘innocence’. And yet we can only judge things by their effects.

  17. Andrea Ostrov Letania
    Andrea Ostrov Letania says:

    Catholic Church had a great run, but it must be retired. It is now a sad joke.

    For most of its history, Europeans lived in Europe, and the Church was defacto white even though its reach was universal.

    Also, as the West was in imperialist mode, it conquered and subjugated other peoples. And the Church, to extend its influence, aided and abetted in the conquests, plunder, and domination. So, it was about White power and domination.

    But that was then, this is now. The European kings and noblemen who gave Church protection are no more. The business class took over the West, and Jews were better at business, and they got to change all values. And the church, without special protection from the military class, is just a voice in the wind.

    Also, non-Western nations gained in power. Even though the West is still the richest and most powerful, it has challengers all over the fast-changing world. And if it travel was difficult and expensive prior to modern technology, today even third world peoples can arrive in the millions by boats and planes to the West. As ‘new christians’, they fundamentally alter the meaning of Western religions.

    With fading of faith among whites, a lot of new Catholics are non-whites. Oddly enough, you’re likely to find more conservative Catholics and Christians among non-whites than among whites. You will find more conservative African and Asian Catholics than conservative white Catholics.

    So, we got white Catholics pushing homomania while the Church tradition is more likely to be defended by non-whites. But then, if non-whites take over the Church, it is no longer a traditional European institution even if those non-whites are more respectable of conservative canon. There is no way the white race can win with Christianity any more.

    Catholic Church should remain only as a museum. It’s over as a positive force.

    At this juncture in history, white people need a new prophecy.
    What is this?
    White people must seek their own Covenant with the Ultimate Power.

    Because of the Judaism vs Christianity dichotomy, we tend to think there is only two ways of God. God’s covenant only with Jews or God’s covenant with all of mankind under same church.

    But there is a third way. There is the hope of a special covenant for each people/nation/race/tribe. One for white race, one for yellow race, one for red race, one for black race, etc.

    So, let each group seeks its own covenant like the one that Jews have with God. Why should all gentiles have a generic covenant that applies to them all? Why shouldn’t each gentile group seeks its own covenant with God? If such is good for Jews, it should be good for any gentile people.

    Jews and Christians all believe in God, but Jews also believe they have a special Covenant with God whereas Christians believe they have a generic covenant with God.
    Special Covenant is more powerful and precious. It makes a people feel special. In contrast, Christianity makes all Christians feel genetic and bland since all the various and diverse Christians must learn to ‘get along’. Jewish Covenant is like the one and only ring that only Jews possess. The Christian covenant is like generic mass-produced rings that go on fingers of all peoples.

    White people must seek their own covenant with God or the Ultimate Power. It will require visionaries, seers, and prophets. It will make religion and history come alive once more.
    Christianity tells white people, “You are brothers and sisters with all other Christians of all races and colors, and you must join and identify with them.” But if white people had their own kind of white zionism or white covenant, the message from the Ultimate Power would be, “Your people are special and unique, and you have a particular destiny that is unlike those of all other groups. You must preserve and defend what is unique and special about you people. The Ultimate Power created you differently to serve a different cause.”

    Not for nothing has Alt Right been characterized as Zionism for European Folks.

    And no movement is as powerful as a religious movement.
    Political movements come and go, but religions and spiritual movements can last for centuries, millennia.
    But spiritual visions can only be realized by prophets and visionaries.

    White people need a covenant with the Ultimate Power by invoking and weaving the mythic, iconic, and legendary threads of the white race.

    Think of the sun as the ultimate power. We cannot look directly at the sun since it will blind our eyes. But the sun’s rays illuminate the surfaces of the earth. Paganism was like the light of the sun that spread over earth and made visible the forms of beauty and majesty. Pagan gods reflected the distinct forms of beauty, utility, and strength seen on earth. And Western paganism was distinct from other paganisms.

    While all places are illuminated by the Sun, each people responded to and used that light differently. Thus, each people have their own interpretation of the light… and that could be the basis of a special covenant for the white race.

    There is one source of light, one sun, for all peoples, but each people weaved that fabric of light differently in thought, creativity, and inspiration.

    • Poupon Marx
      Poupon Marx says:

      Andrea-The most actionable, practical, and likely to lead to restoration, is your article. Almost all articles here are detailed, rather minutia, concentrated, and historical. They rarely reach or reference the future-DIRECTLY. I applaud your courage and audacity to look the sick elephant directly and make the unpopular diagnosis.

      I believe what you are talking about is the “construction” and restructuring of real faith by developing the almost barren Inner Reality of Modern Man. Otherwise, a relationship with he divine will be membership in an external organization with corporate-like structure.

      Your words are definitive, as your body of work on your site is extensive and is unique and powerful. I will post no more on my considered solution. The lack of serious response and the preponderance of ignorance and slopping thinking has dissuaded me.

      A new spirituality is unlikely to be originally created from scratch. Your opinion?

    • Charlie
      Charlie says:

      “The business class took over the West, and Jews were better at business”

      No jews are just better at corruption and have found many useful Goyish to carry out their master plans to avoid having to dirty their greasy claws. Jews are degenerate idiots at best.

  18. Jez Turner
    Jez Turner says:

    Heartening to read this article. People often ask me about religion and I reply, that “I’m not a theologian, I’m a warrior and all warriors fight better with some sort of spiritual sustenance. Try it for yourself.” Traditional Catholicism is an excellent source of such sustenance, but bear in mind, that it is not just one organisation, and should perhaps thought of as a movement, or a range of movements. There is the SSPX mentioned above, but there are also the various SSPX Resistance groups – individuals, parishes and priests that have broken away from the recent liberalising tendencies within the SSPX – Bishop Williamson is prominent in these groups. Beyond these there are The Sede Vacantists (the Papal seat is vacant, in other words the Pope by embracing liberalism cannot be a true Catholic), these are groups that broke away long before Vatican II, e.g. Society of St Pius V. All these groups and organisations are composed of good people and they will greet you with a warm welcome. You will be able to hear what a Mass sounded like to your ancestors and hear the sort of sermons that inspired your ancestors.
    The mainstream Catholic Church, increasingly wary of losing its best adherents, is more and more allowing Latin Masses to be said in some churches – The Latin Mass Society lists them – and at these services, while the sermons, (with an eye to not offending the authorities), will be rather timid and lacklustre, the music and atmosphere will be something akin to pre-Vatican II, so these can be a useful place to start. Understanding Christianity is the key to understanding a great deal of our culture and therefore to understanding ourselves.

    • alphonsusjr@gmail.com
      alphonsusjr@gmail.com says:

      Much of that understanding can come from frequenting the invaluable Sensus Fidelium channel on Youtube.

  19. RoyAlbrecht
    RoyAlbrecht says:

    Excellent topic IMO. Thank you for bringing it up.
    After listening to many of Bishop Williamson’s YouTube videos, essays and lectures and reading both the essay above and the commentaries thereafter the thing that I stumble upon is that Bishop Williamson, as honest and fearless as he seems to be, was expelled by the SSPX in 2013, was he not?

    That expulsion, IMO, put a huge stain upon the SSPX. I still strongly support Williamson’s views and, not having any LEGITIMATE children of my own to bequeath my earthly belongings to, have given serious consideration to making Williamson’s ministry my sole heir.

    I doubt very much that there is an SSPX branch in Iceland, and even if there were, after the Society’s expulsion of Williamson, doubted if I could support it.

    However the question raised by Mr. Whyte, namely;
    to remain within an almost wholly corrupted Catholic Church and work within it to restore it to its pre-Vatican 2 ideology or,
    to split off and keep teaching the faith as it was taught before the Jews Hi-jacked the RCC,
    is a valid question to ask.

    From what I understand, the SSPX has just barely remained within the fold of the RCC, but had to renounce their, IMO, most Truthful Bishop, Bishop Williamson to maintain this position.

    As someone who not only refused to cuck Jewish sock, but continued counter attack them vociferously for his entire life, I totally respect Bishop Williamson for he refusal to back down.
    Somehow, I believe Williamson will be recognized in the Hereafter for his principled stance of strength, when all others caved into the cunning Jew.

    How is it even possible to work within the present RCC if one is;

    1) not allowed to have any open debate on any of the topics that Williamson so correctly holds, IMO, Truthful views on?
    2) confronted with a RCC hierarchy made up of Freemasons and Jews bent on destroying anyone who opposes their plans for Global Destruction?

    Remember, it was the SSPX who kicked out Williamson, not Williamson who left it because, they bow to the Satanic Jew World Order embedded within the RCC.

    IMO, the minute one gives up his free speech rights in exchange for a lighter load to row, the sooner one will be seduced into the same Jewish Freemasonic Satanic Dung Heap that has resulted in the mess we have today.

    • alphonsusjr@gmail.com
      alphonsusjr@gmail.com says:

      True, the SSPX has gone wobbly in the last six years or so. The expulsion of Bp. Williamson was a great shame. Plus the watering down of The Angelus mag, now consciously made less combative when precisely more combat against the devils occupying the hierarchy is needed. And their dialogues with the devil, personified by conciliarist Rome, are exercises in futility. Moreover, after sending Mr. Nemmersdorf’s essay to a certain SSPX priest I know, he sniffed in full CatholiCuck fashion: “I am not sure that this is a viewpoint which, in itself, is ultimately worthy of consideration. The Church is not ultimately a white nationalist institution.” I was tempted to go nuclear against this smug dismissal, but resisted doing so. (It’s a viewpoint utterly worthy of consideration, especially today as whites are under continual assault, and in no way did Mr. Nemmersdorf characterize the Church as ultimately a white nationalist institution.)

      Nevertheless, I’m firmly convinced that the SSPX offers the best hope, outside of direct divine intervention, of resisting the devil and his minions both without and within the Church.

  20. JimB
    JimB says:

    If we can say (and most of us can) that what passes for the mainstream nominal Christian faith of today is a dead, mummified shell of a thing, the SSPX is at least an old man who still has a bit of life, stumbling along. Which is, comparably, a good thing. I wish them well and hope they’ll make a difference, however conscious or unconscious, in our struggle against the forces trying to murder our people.
    It’s great that they recognize at least some of the importance of addressing the Jewish problem, it’s great that they believe in large families and are at least implicitly “racist”, and it’s great that they’re maintaining a moral stand against many of the social pathologies (homosexuality, globalism in general, etc.) that the nominal “Christians” have succumbed to.
    I sincerely implore them, however, to place a more conscious effort towards the racial aspect of this struggle… and, just as importantly, the Jewish problem. Otherwise, just as has happened with mainstream Catholicism and Christianity in general, time coupled with misplaced “goodwill” will eventually facilitate their own destruction at the hands of the Other… whether that Other is Jewish or generations resulting from race-mixing.

    • Karl Nemmersdorf
      Karl Nemmersdorf says:

      An “old man”? Any body that is growing has vitality, youth, potential. And asking the Church to address the “racial aspect of this struggle” is misplaced. The Church is a spiritual institution, not a political one. The Church can support political and cultural initiatives, but its place is not to take the leading role. Its role lies elsewhere.

  21. Via Pulchritudinis Fumigans
    Via Pulchritudinis Fumigans says:

    Politics is the art of what can be done based on what is. The first reality to take into account is the “biological” reality. A country whose population is stagnating, diminishing, or aging, creates a vacuum for younger, more active, poorer peoples. The second reason is a corollary of the first. A country that no longer has children is a country that has lost confidence in itself, its culture, its history and its values. It is plagued with “cosmopolitanism” meaning, not so much a generous welcome of others, but rather the stagnation which preludes death. The immigrants sense that, in this depressed country, they can keep their own customs while benefiting from the local wealth, for the natives no longer have a zest for life and camouflage this death wish beneath a false notion of welcome and sharing. – Fr. Gregory Celier, SSPX, Angelus Magazine, May 2017

  22. Steffen Krauter
    Steffen Krauter says:

    I am a lapsed catholic. The problem I see with reverting back to “traditional Christianity” is the same problem I see with reverting back to “traditional paganism.” Although Christianity has been a more recent occurrence it ultimately seems like larping. In addition to this there are other aspects that are particularly problematic. Christinity is based on a document that is foreign and speaks of the “choseness” of a foreign group of people. The Old Testament is the foundation for the New Testament, and without it the New Testament would have no authority. We name our children after those foreigners, we teach our children history about those foreigners, and give them unduly influence to foreign thought and culture (pre Talmudic Jewish is still foreign). Until we completely remove ourselves and our beliefs as a people away from Semitic religion we will be bound to them. If Christianity and paganism have both brought our people to this point it would seem they have both failed. Wouldn’t it be pertinent to come up with new system? As opposed to returning to things that got us to the point we are now. Atheism doesn’t seem a good option, but neither does Christianity. The ideals of it yes, but not the foundation.

    • Karl Nemmersdorf
      Karl Nemmersdorf says:

      “… come up with a new system.” ? As if one can create a culture-sustaining religion out of whole cloth?

    • JimB
      JimB says:

      Steffen, I for one agree with you for the most part. That’s primarily why, in my post a few posts up, I likened SSPX (or for that matter, any “reset Christianity” movement) to an old man stumbling along. Though that “old man” may still be “alive” to some degree, he’s feeble, weak, and has one foot in the grave.

      To Karl: ““… come up with a new system.” ? As if one can create a culture-sustaining religion out of whole cloth?”

      I agree that “creating a culture-sustaining religion out of whole cloth” is 1) a near-impossible task, and 2) not likely to spread among the masses. But I differ with Steffen’s remark in that I don’t think that Whites even need a religion at all to be a moral/ethical and creative culture. Or, to put a finer point on it, our special knack and affinity for SCIENCE and NATURE ITSELF is more than capable, not to mention has been with us long enough, to fill the vacuum that the absence of traditional “gods, demons, angels” religion might leave. Secularism need NOT be amoral, stale, dead, selfish and materialistic. Maybe it couldn’t be avoided for other races, but Whites are more than capable of extracting true “spiritual” sustenance from reality itself… without the need for such superstition and spooks. In truth, what we call the physical universe, the macro-secular… is but the physical manifestation of unseen, mysterious forces to begin with. I believe that White people are intelligent enough and intuitive enough to “behold the Perfection within the imperfect universe”, and proceed to even greater things!

      The type of “secularism” (or atheism) that the Jews have historically pushed isn’t even in the same realm of the kind of secularism I’m talking about, the macro-secular (universal science and nature). My own outlook could best be summed up as being what Dr. William Pierce called “Cosmo-Theism”. Look it up at National Vanguard if you’re unfamiliar with the term.

      • Junghans
        Junghans says:

        I believe that you are onto the truth of the matter, JimB. I don’t say this lightly, or to be quarrelsome, because I really do appreciate the sincerity of most White Christian believers, however misguided or spiritually delusional. The fact of the matter is though, in the current demographic disaster, any kind of Levantine derived religious superstition is ultimately destructive to White racial survival.

      • Steffen Krauter
        Steffen Krauter says:

        I’m a big fan of cosmotheism myself, and pierce in general. However I think it’s important to be able to meet the needs of all of our people and while many of us could enjoy a morally healthy deism, there are many of us who require the strength and vitality of spiritual communion. Especially for the sake of community building. Something that would be exclusively ours that others would not be able to infiltrate, akin to Judaism.

        We must also face the fact that many of our people are still superstitious and easily swayed (evangelicals), we must put something there for them that is healthy for us as a unit. Not try to go against nature and hopefully convince them of a more enlightened way they honestly can’t understand, that will be reserved for those of us that can accept it. Thus creating a natural hierarchy within our peoples belief system and still being able to promote healthy self love of the masses of our people.

  23. Harvey
    Harvey says:

    Exciting to read about the SSPX experience. During the Vatican II period, larger families were exclusively conversos. These rootless post-war families were unruly, domineering and consistently unpleasant. In the guise of ecumenical egalitarianism, this asiatic subversion resulted in a lot of dysgenic behaviours, after which one might prefer ex cathedra status. Flatly said, I do wish there were less romantic universalism on race in RC doctrine. The Europid ethnos; not Europoid or beyond, is the demography from which our traditions effervesced. Surely tradition is moreso about conserving that reality.

  24. Charlie
    Charlie says:

    One can be a Catholic and believe in Catholicism without being a supporter of “The Church”. The message was Christ’s not the Pope’s. You need not live by the Jew’s laws but only follow God’s. So I would advise, turn away from the Jew. Shun the jew wherever it is present or you encounter it. Warn others of the despot Jew and the treachery of it. The Jew is the deceiver, the beast.

  25. Andrea Ostrov Letania
    Andrea Ostrov Letania says:

    I really don’t know how any self-respecting Catholic can stick with the church.

    It has this moron who says Europeans must allow in limitless number of invaders. Moron pope welcomes Muslims and Africans. He’s like Justin Trudeau in holy garb.

    Catholicism is so over. But how could the Church compete with secular order?
    Catholic Church authority wasn’t just about spirituality but material rewards and culture. In the past, Church provided education for many. Church provided charities to the poor when welfare didn’t exist. And in a world without radios and TV, attending church services was like recreation and even entertainment for the masses. And the church had a symbiotic relationship with the military-nobility class. The warrior class gave the church special protection & promotion in exchange for church’s blessing for Catholic kings and aristocrats. It was like the current arrangement between Saudi Royal Family and Wahabi clergy.

    But look at the modern world. Education is provided for free by the state. State also offers welfare and benefits. People don’t need church charity. And who needs church for entertainment when TV’s, cinemas, and electronic gadgets are saturated with fun stuff?

    The failure of the Church in the modern secular world goes to show that its authority was more about materialism than spiritualism. People stuck to the church to get free stuff, education, and entertainment. When such could be had from the state or corporations and in greater amounts, people turned away from the church.

    If indeed the Church had a genuine spiritual hold on the masses, the loss of its material authority wouldn’t have mattered. But spiritual interest vanished along with material relevance.

    A new mythology of the West must be truly spiritual and visionary. That way, people cannot be bribed away from the Sacred Vision with cakes and ale.

    ——–

    (Mod. Note: Please see my note to “Poupon” re: not boring the heck out of the TOO commentariat with the same old internecine religious stuff, causing irrelevant conflict.)

    • Lucy
      Lucy says:

      @Andrea. You hit the nail on the head. I’m especially familiar with the lack of genuine spirituality among the Catholics in Poland. I hardly can communicate with my sister, who is an eager churchgoer. She spends a considerable part of her pension (she is retired) on church events, as she otherwise would fear God’s unishment. This superficial devotion seems to entitle her to be extra judgemental. As far as I know, younger people in Poland are not very keen on going to church, if they do not gain something from it, e.g. financial reward from the parents.

    • Charlie
      Charlie says:

      “But look at the modern world. Education is provided for free by the state. State also offers welfare and benefits.”

      Education is only “FREE” if you’re an Israeli sucking off the American’s teet. IN AmeriKwa you pay a HEAVY tax burden for the culture wrecking Ejamakayshun system where Whites go to be abused and beaten by the dysfunctional Negro race.

  26. Poupon Marx
    Poupon Marx says:

    (Mod. Note: “Poupon”, you’re stuff is getting really boring, and if you want any comments approved you’ll need to leap over that hurdle, as well as stop concern-trolling to start “religious wars” here. I don’t like being bored with the same-old same-old.)

  27. César Tort
    César Tort says:

    My one-day experiences in a SSPX church

    One Sunday during my August 2014 visit to London I visited the Drake House, where SSPX masses were held. I had to get to the last subway station in London, Wimbledon, to get closer to that house.

    When I arrived at the parish I realized that it was not a common temple but a small and modest house adapted for religious services. Bishop Richard Williamson was not in London apparently. A gentleman from the London Forum whom I met on the trip had told them that someone coming from Mexico was going to visit them. The kindly people of that place that aspired to church had placed an image of the Virgin of Guadalupe in front of the community! I suspected they had put it for me, so I did not dare to tell them that I was an apostate.

    When the service ended, I spoke with the head manager on days when Williamson was absent. He began to speak of the painting of the Virgin of Guadalupe as a miraculous image: just what I had heard a million times in Mexico! The traditionalist Catholics with whom I spoke in the house Drake knew who was the father Joaquín Sáenz y Arriaga. I told them that Father Sáenz had baptized me, but not that I had lost my faith. Sáenz, the priest of my family when I was a child, was also excommunicated for reasons fairly similar to Williamson’s excommunication.

    I took a brochure from House Drake, “Our program of events” among the propaganda booklets of the house. The brochure showed the picture of a fifty-year-old black woman on the cover. That was not all. The list of events at the Drake House included dancing from Brazilian Samba to African Dummers referring to events scheduled for mid-September. This in a city that has no longer white majority and where everywhere I saw mixed couples!

    At a London Forum meeting I had heard wonders about Williamson’s anti-Semitic stance. When I met them, I realized that the ultra-traditional group was ethnically as self-destructive as the ultraliberal Argentine pope.

    So my friends, I must ask again: Has a Christian in this thread started to read my ongoing translations of Christianity’s Criminal History?

    I am doing it from the POV of white preservation of course.

    • AmericanusRex
      AmericanusRex says:

      I’ve been reading your work and I gave a reply of my thoughts regarding it in a response to another of your posts.

    • Alieu
      Alieu says:

      César, I think that since Drake House is not actually a church, it is just a building which is rented out to several different groups including the SSPX. So the brochure is not produced by the SSPX, but the owners of the house who are advertising the other events taking place there. So it is a sign of the broader situation in that area of London rather than anything the SSPX can be blamed for.

      • César Tort
        César Tort says:

        Thank you for the clarification.

        At any event, the same London Forum gentleman who advised me to visit the Drake House for a SSPX mass, also told me that the SSPX faithful of that house ‘are halfway’ red-pilled in the sense of Jew-wise but non-racists.

        My mention of Fr. Sáenz above is germane because he was a notable anti-Semite and my father used to have Sáenz’s books in his library. However Sáenz et al detested the Jews, they did it not in the sense of western or racial preservation, but in the sense of the Catholic anti-Semitism that goes back to some of the earliest Christian writers.

  28. anarchyst
    anarchyst says:

    I cringe when I hear well-meaning people talk about out judeo-Christian heritage.
    Nothing could be further from the truth.
    The only common thread between Christianity and judaism is the Ten Commandments–nothing more.
    The god of judaism is a vengeful god, totally unlike the merciful and welcoming God of Christianity.
    Christianity welcomes ALL, regardless of nationality or social status–not true of judaism.
    Judaism is an insular belief system that shuns outsiders, prohibits proselytization, and promotes a form of supremacy, relegating all gentiles (non-jews) to the status of livestock–subhumans with souls, only to be used for the advancement and benefit of jews.
    Jews DID murder Jesus Christ. Sad to say, even the present-day (post-Vatican II eumenical council) Catholic church has bought into absolving the jews for Jesus Christ’s murder. As always is the case, the jews got others, the Romans to do their dirty work for them–the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.
    Looking back throughout history, jews have ALWAYS got others to do their dirty work (wars) for them, quite often financing both sides.
    Islam and judaism are closely related, the Koran having many of the same attributes as judaism, when it comes to a supremacist attitude. You see, both the Islamic Koran and jewish Talmud promote their respective brands of supremacy, making it OK to lie, cheat, and steal from non-believers, each promoting certain laws for believers that exact greater punishment imposed on non-believers, while promoting no or little punishment for believers that transgress against non-believers.
    Islam must be given credit for honoring Jesus Christ and his mother Mary, while jewish texts denigrate both Jesus Christ and Mary.
    That being said, it could be ascertained that Islam is an arabicized form of judaism.
    Jews have been kicked out of 109 countries. It is time to repeat the practice for number 110.

    • Vajkard
      Vajkard says:

      I don’t see Christianity this way. On the contrary. When I was 7 or 8 years old, I got a book on the Greek mithology, with the legends of Odysseus, Herakles, Prometeus, of Filemon and Baucis, of Daedalus and Icarus. The book was of course a Slovenian translation, so the characters were named Odisej, Heraklej, Prometej, Filemon in Baucis, Dedal in Ikar. I embraced these stories as genuinly mine; they were humane, sincere and full of wisdom. I wasn’t exposed to Christianity at that age, because communism was successful at systematic erasing of any tradition.

      Later in life, I was reading the Gospels. The prevailing tone revolved about righteousness, there were occasional threats and obnoxious preaching often expressed using clumsy hyperboles which didn’t make much sense. They were obviously the product of inferior mind – in more insulting terms, they were the product of lower IQ with sinister, fundamentally hypocritical agenda. I considered the Gospels foreign to me – and they still are foreign to me, because they are Semitic in origin. I blamed myself for such feelings for years. In fact, I was (and still am) able to feel Christianity exclusively through art; how the voices go increasingly quiet and ending in major(!) at words “et sepultus est” from Crucifixus and how the trumpets bring up the blue Italian sky when Et resurrexit fires up from the bitter earth right up to heavens! But when I occasionally attended a mass (a Catholic mass, of course, since Slovenia is a Catholic country), I was always feeling somehow oppressed and bored at the same time.

      Today, looking from a greater distance, I can not but spot the obvious: all three Semitic cults (Abrahamic religions) are quite similar; pushy, obssesed and intelectually revolting.

      Now I stand before a gigantic dilema: what does this mean for the European sacred art, which is the very pillar of modern European culture? What does it mean for the great Mass in B minor by my beloved Bach, that always brings tears to my eyes? Is it all wrong, because it’s built upon a lie, upon a universalistic hypocrisy, the fruit of some inferior but also cunning eastern mind? I hope not: I like to believe that great minds were good at heart and were able to produce magnificent creations not because, but despite Christianity, a foreign cult imposed by fire and sword on ancient pagan people of Europe, with ancient Slovenians at its very heart.

      • Alizia
        Alizia says:

        I would not want to contradict your sentiments in what you have written. The reason is because your sentiments, as I understand them, are vital to the renovation-project of Europe; which I think we all recognize is highly important, needs to happen, must happen. If it does not or cannot happen we may really be lost. It will be Time and Contingency which continues what has already begun and further enables the wiping away of *Europe* (asterisk to indicate an Ideal). I have only been involved in thinking in white identitatian categories for a few short years but I see, and I think everyone sees, that what we stand to lose, and what we are losing, is the very ground on which the European self has been constructed. We either succeed, now, in taking a stand, defining a position, acting in relation to our vision and belief, or we will be crushed under the wheel of mercilless, inane progression of ‘progress’ and by ‘progressivism’ and through the advancing ‘Americanopolis’ to quote Sunic.

        But what activity, what activism, what choices, what decisions, are those that will lead to a powerful, intolerant, cultural movement? If a restoration is possible, what is the ideal foundation of that restoration? In my own view, it is the question that has power, and a question can deliberately be unanswered, or answered incompletely (and intentionally so) because Who can know, I mean really know, what in fact is required for a full European renovation? In any case, I confess not knowing, though I do have certain senses, intuitions perhaps. Along those lines, I have proposed to myself that we are in a phase similar to the Interwar Period. I am sure that this idea is not new to most here.

        In response to what you wrote, the name of Houston Chamberlain came to mind and ‘Foundations of the 19th Century’: a complex. Dense and I thought intensely interesting work. Therein he often spoke of ‘a chaos of peoples’ that formed the intellectual environment (intellectual, mythological, religious) of the the time around the 1st century. It makes sense: different cultures in a culture-clash each imposing its metaphysical and existential views and attempting to define ‘reality’. It is a troubling idea because, and this was so in Chamberlain’s case, it requires a severe analytical effort to refine out of the era, and thus out of the Chaos, strong and clear ideas that really have value. It seems that now, in a similar way, we are in a similar struggle: we are a movement among people and within a Chaos attempting to 1) see things clearly and objectively, and 2) arrive at decisions and decisiveness, 3) in an adversarial environment which does not mean us well (at all).

        I will make a reference here to an essay by WR Inge that I came across in a volume of essays called ‘The Legacy of Greece’ (Oxford, 1921) His essay deals on the Greek influence on Christianity and Christian categories, which is formidable. Although he does begin the essay criticising German racialism, and described the Greeks as ‘splendid mongrels, made up of the same elements, differently mixed, as ourselves’, I find this point superficial to his understanding of how deeply infused Christianity quickly became when it was taken up by the Greek mind. I gathered from this essay that it is simply not quite so that Greco-Christianity is ‘Semitic’. Surely Judea was the formation ground but as it came to be projected through the Greek rational mind, and thus to become Christianity, it became something radically other. I think that what distinguishes it is to be found in within ‘metaphysical essences’. Greek conceptualization opens the mind to rationally-defined hierarchies and a pattern of view which still operates, and must always operate, within our own Occidental categories.

        Inge noticed two modes of mind: one the Hellenizing and the other the Hebraizing. I am very interested in ‘original Catholicism’ but moreso in Medieaval intellectualism and ‘The Great Chain of Being’. I am interested in those sources of ideation, and also metaphysics, that could allow a figure such as Shakesepeare to appear in this plane of reality, and I think I can say with a good deal of certainty that there is nothing, or extremely little, in Shakesepeare that could be described as Hebraizing. What is it that made Shakesepeare Shakespeare? The answer to that question brings one right to the very center of what I think are our concerns, now, and also where ‘renovation’ of ourselves lies. But what is it? Is it an indefinable quintessence? Is it metaphysical and invisible? Is it ‘the Holy Spirit’? When we speak of ‘God’ and ‘the Spirit’, what do we really mean? I do not know how to answer that question, but I am unable to turn away from the magnificence of the Shakeseparean creative mind (and this then is a general reference to a spirit that flows through the Occident). My hope (I must admit!) is that Shakesepare was a crypto-Catholic as some say he was. There. If that is true I can have a far greater faith in how to conceive of and how to define ‘the Holy Spirit’ and I will better understand how to invoke it while negating any Hebraizing tendency.

        And what is the Hebraizing in this context? I do not have it worked out except to say that it would be sheep- or ox-like numbness before authority and then in the face of destiny. ‘Thy will be done’ requires an active, conscious agent since without that agency of mind nothing of any higher sort could be achieved. And even to define ‘higher’ requires a Hellenic mind! The Hebraic mind, it would seem, can really only follow orders and this it does with great zealousness.

        In any case, my impression is that though Christianity rides on the back of Hebrew elements, it is a crafty, creative, original rider. The more research that I do into the formulators of Christianity, the more that I come to appreciate, even with some are, what the Hellenic-European mind has created, and is still capable of creating.

        Inge wrote: ‘At the present time a more drastic revolt is in progress among the plebs urbana, which does in truth threaten with destruction ‘what we owe to Greece’. He speaks there of a new barbarism and, I think, both a willful barbarity and also a willful slave-mind. This newish intellectual movement (Am Ren, Occidental Quarterly, Counter-Currents and the Nouvelle Droite generally) seem quite precisely to me to be Hellenizing currents of thought. Quite logically, and quite necessarily, they turn —- quite actively! —- against the Hebraizing Mind which has been for us an infection.

        • Alizia
          Alizia says:

          Correction In any case, my impression is that though Christianity rides on the back of Hebrew elements, it is a crafty, creative, original rider. The more research that I do into the formulators of Christianity, the more that I come to appreciate, even with some awe, what the Hellenic-European mind has created, and is still capable of creating.

          • Michael Adkins
            Michael Adkins says:

            Alizia,

            I don’t consider your comments babble in any way.

            To answer your question of salvation I’ll have to quote Vilhelm Gronbech:

            In the circle of friends, the soul exhibits its features and its strength. The soul is not a thing born with each generation and renewed with each brood of kinsmen that steps in. It reaches forward; it will, as surely as anything is sure, flow through those which all good kinsmen hope and expect will follow one another. And it reaches back over the known past, embracing all former kin, and extends behind them into the primeval darkness whence their fathers came.

        • Vajkard
          Vajkard says:

          “What is it that made Shakesepeare Shakespeare?“

          Perhaps this should be rephrased as “What is it that made Shakesepeare great?” Well, perhaps the mere struggle to express one’s thoughts and feelings in an obnoxious pidgin such as English is an achievement in itself.

          For a Slovenian the prevailing emotion towards “the West” is that it betrayed the European proto-culture, Slovenian in origin, for booty and vanity. At the end of the story, the shekels (as well as colonies, geographical and cultural) are lost and vanity becomes dhimmitude.

          It could be that Hellenic spirit can (and even has to!) make some sense of Christianity, but this only indicates that there is not much sense in it originally.

    • HelenChicago
      HelenChicago says:

      Exactly. The term “Judeo-Christian” is a new development. Its keenest promoters are Jewish talk radio celebs. They began using it and soon it became de rigeur among conservative commentators. (These same Jewish radio figures have also made a point of using the term “Islamo-Nazi fascism,” but it doesn’t seem to have caught on like “Judeo-Christian.”) A similar phenomenon is responsible for the sudden appearance of the “holocaust” back in the . . . was it the 70s?

    • Protestant
      Protestant says:

      Well said, Anarchyst, very well said! May I just add one thing: that Muslims only pretend to honour Jesus and Mary in order to deceive Idiot Christians. Their imams teach them that Mary was “ashamed” to give birth to Jesus, and that Christ will “return” to help Muslims slaughter Christians and send us all to hell. The sheer insanity of expecting an ordinary man/prophet, as they believe He was, to magically resurrect and “return” to help Muslims behead Christians, who have been faithful to Him for the past 2000 years, doesn’t seem to occur to them. Perhaps it’s because they spend so much time banging their heads against the floor, backsides pointed heavenward.

  29. NoddingHead
    NoddingHead says:

    Madison Grant might have been correct. The randomly violent round-skull “alpine” Slavs are well described here, and they are perfectly contrasted with the Nordic Dutch and Scandanavians in the group. Amazing. Drunken Poles lurching and lunging, swinging baseball bats at other whites. Dumb.

  30. NoddingHead
    NoddingHead says:

    The big push by the (((EU))) to ruin Europe seems only directed at countries who still have largely “Nordic” populations. Poland etc are left alone and their round-skull “alpine” populace are encouraged to migrate to the more “Nordic” countries. Not too sure if Polish immigrants are much of an improvement over Caribbean or African immigrants. Remember, the (((Bolsheviks))) purposely and efficiently killed off the best of the Polish people.

    • Vajkard
      Vajkard says:

      Regarding the bishop Williamson, I believe he is a truly good man, but he is unfortunately defending the indefensible and I’m afraid that he knows this in his heart of hearts – which is his great personal tragedy.

    • Trenchant
      Trenchant says:

      I believe your comments are appended to the wrong article. They belong with the Adam Komiaga piece.

      • Vajkard
        Vajkard says:

        You confused me, I’m sure my comments belong with this article. After many years of struggle with myself, I am now sure that Christianity at its core, not only within the various and increasingly failing denominations, as the article implies, is just a hypocritical lie of Judeo-Christian type.

        And it is well known which European nations, or shall I say tribes, were first to embrace it and spread it through violence.

        They say that there are about 30% of words in English language for which etymology is unknown. These words are probably of Semitic origin.

        • Michael Adkins
          Michael Adkins says:

          Vajkard,

          I suggest giving up provincialism an embrace all European peoples and their indigenous faiths. Because there is only one question, have (and will) the Abrahamic religions serviced us in a way that promotes our genetic continuance?

          • Vajkard
            Vajkard says:

            You say provincialism, is that correct?

            Trust me, there’s nothing provincial about Slovenia, especially the Slovenian language. On the contrary, territory, once considerably larger, of which remains now exist only within the borders of current illegitimate crypto-communist Republic of Slovenia, member of illegitimate Judeo-Germanic EU, is the cradle of European civilization from Neolitic onwards, while ancestors of Slovenians are occupying this territory for about 40k to 43k years.

            There is substantial evidence that most of today’s Germany was settled by people who were speaking the proto-European language, the direct predecessor of modern Slovenian. Besides vast etymological evidence, there is also toponymical evidence in lots of German places with originally Slovenian names.

            If there is any provinicialism in Europe, it is of Germanic kind.

            Germans stole, lied and were systematically fabricating history while being most keen on spreading Christianity by fire.

            Later in history, with Luther, they adopted even more barbaric version of Christianity which heavily relies on the Old testament that I see not much different from e. g. Quran. Christianity in general and Islam as well seem to be religions invented especially for (opportunistically complying) gentiles.

            I have no problem embracing indigenous European people, but the important question remains: who let the Jew in? This is the question that must be answered and not avoided as it was during the reign of National Socialism. Every insincerity will inevitably strike back.

            Slovenians also have a bitter experience with (((Anglo-American))) allies that extradicted the anti-communist Home Guard to Jewish communist butchers right after the WW2. And this is not a small thing, because it casts a sinister shadow on character of the “Anglo-Saxon”.

            If you are interested in languages, below is, broadly speaking, the Slovenian grammar; grammar is in fact not Slovenian, but there is no (modern) European language that resembles Slovenian to such a degree as shown in this oldest Western grammar. The grammar by Dyonisious Thrax (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dionysius_Thrax) in Greek and parallel translation to Slovenian:

            http://freeweb.t-2.net/APprevajanje/pdfs/thrax.pdf

    • Angus Macleod
      Angus Macleod says:

      People who try to divide those of Slavic origins from those of Germanic origins by saying that the former have “rounder” heads etc. have no understanding of the racial and linguistic origins of Europe. Firstly, the “Alpine” sub race is a common skull type in a wide arc from Ireland to the Caucasus region. It expresses itself in Sweden where a large proportion of the population has light brown or blonde hair but wider skulls but are generally still classified as members of the “Nordic” sub race. Other places where you have large numbers of people with Brachiocephalic skulls (wide or round faces) would be in southern Germany. Slavic peoples are just a language group and the people are members of the Nordic, Alpine or Mediterranean sub races or a mixture of them. The accent and/or language that a person speaks with also creates a certain look to the face of an individual. An good example of this would be many Englishmen and Scotsmen appear to have small pushed in mouths. This is not a genetic trait but is a facial response to certain types of regional pronounciation. A Hungarian friend of mine once said that he could be blindfolded and let off at any train station in his native country and would know where he was based on the way people’s faces looked.

      • Vajkard
        Vajkard says:

        Linguistic origin of Europe, proto Indo-European language, that was spoken in vast part of Europe, is Slovenščina (Slovenian language), despite the German “scientific theories” about origins of nations and languages, that are nothing more than Kulturkampf of German colonialism.

  31. Lucy
    Lucy says:

    You’re absolutely right, Anarchyst. There is no such thing as judeo-Christian heritage. Unfortunately, far too many Whites have bought into this (((usurpation))) as the tone is since a whike set by the tribe, even within the Roman Catholic Church. Catholics in Poland were yesterday (January 17) celebrating the Day of Judaism.
    Raised Catholic in the fifties and sixties, actually in the communist Poland, I find the sagas about Christianity’s close links to Judaism a disgrace. Not quite surprisingly, the “holy” John Paul II aka Karol Wojtyla-Katz, who often referred to Jews as “our elderly brothers in faith” had a mother with suitable background.

  32. Peter Presland
    Peter Presland says:

    Thanks to both author and host KM for this article and discussion. It puts the plight of the Catholic Church and indigenous populations of Europe into distressingly harsh relief against the vast tide of Judaic engineered confusion and misery being inflicted upon them. A couple of points not mentioned to date in the comments:

    1. ‘Nemmersdorf’ being the location of one of the most infamous (though ‘victors history’ supressed) Ehrenburg-inspired Bolshevik (ie Jewish) Red Army massacres of the latter stages of WWII, the author has stark additional reason to take a keen interest in the history of the ongoing destruction of Western Europe by its Judaic Masters. However, whilst I fervently hope that his faith in the SSPX as a worthy bulwark against this destruction may prove justified, I fear the pass has already been sold. I strain to resist the sin of hopelessness, but see little reason for hope beyond its exhalted status as a cardinal Christian virue.

    2. The extent to which the SSPX itself is infiltrated by militant Judaic interest is starkly illustrated by this letter. It was sent by Fr. Niklaus Pfluger to Bishop Williamson in December 2010. Pfluger was (and I think still is) “First Assistant” to SSPX SG Bernard Fellay. The letter is described by Michael Hoffman as “obtuse and ignorant”. After reading it, others here may consider it deserving of a more robust description. It beggars belief that a genuine RC Priest would be capable of writing such a repellant, self-serving and hateful diatribe, and it turns out that such ‘beggaring’ is firmly grounded. There is solid evidence that the letter was in fact written by one Max Krah, JEWISH assistant to Bishop Fellay himself, Pfulger being merely the ambitious, useful ‘sign-and-send-it’ idiot doing the bidding of his career arbiters. It is seriously depressing stuff.

  33. Peter Presland
    Peter Presland says:

    Sorry, Screwed up the hyperlink on first posting.

    Thanks to both author and host KM for this article and discussion. It puts the plight of the Catholic Church and indigenous populations of Europe into distressingly harsh relief against the vast tide of Judaic engineered confusion and misery being inflicted upon them. A couple of points not mentioned to date in the comments:

    1. ‘Nemmersdorf’ being the location of one of the most infamous (though ‘victors history’ supressed) Ehrenburg-inspired Bolshevik (ie Jewish) Red Army massacres of the latter stages of WWII, the author has stark additional reason to take a keen interest in the history of the ongoing destruction of Western Europe by its Judaic Masters. However, whilst I fervently hope that his faith in the SSPX as a worthy bulwark against this destruction may prove justified, I fear the pass has already been sold. I strain to resist the sin of hopelessness, but see little reason for hope beyond its exhalted status as a cardinal Christian virue.

    2. The extent to which the SSPX itself is infiltrated by militant Judaic interest is starkly illustrated by this letter. It was sent by Fr. Niklaus Pfluger to Bishop Williamson in December 2010. Pfluger was (and I think still is) “First Assistant” to SSPX SG Bernard Fellay. The letter is described by Michael Hoffman as “obtuse and ignorant”. After reading it, others here may consider it deserving of a more robust description. It beggers belief that a genuine RC Priest would be capable of writing such a repellant, self-serving and hateful diatribe and it turns out that such ‘beggaring’ is firmly grounded. There is solid evidence that the letter was in fact written by one Max Krah, JEWISH assistant to Bishop Fellay; Pfulger being merely the ambitious, useful ‘sign-and-sent-it’ idiot doing the bidding of his career arbiters.

  34. Mr. Whyte
    Mr. Whyte says:

    The Jews, as far as I can tell, have never displayed the level of animosity toward Protestantism that they have for the Catholic Church. Protestantism is fragmented, and therefore easier to control. The more they divide, the easier they are to conquer. Witness the “Christian Zionists”–a contradiction in terms which is proclaimed proudly by Protestants who are convinced of the holiness of their malevolent masters.

    Unity is strength, in White religion as well as politics. The following excerpt from an editorial by an SSPX priest is an excellent description of the danger of separatism:

    And now we must open our eyes to another danger, that is not hypothetical, but very real: that of no longer wishing to return to our legitimate place among the societies recognized by Rome, of losing the desire for the Church and for Rome. No longer desiring a normal relation with Rome and the Church is a shadow of the schismatic spirit. We have been living in independence from the Pope and the Bishops for a very long time, as if that were normal…The Pope and the bishops are little by little confined to the realm of the beings “of reason”, with no influence on concrete life; Rome is no more than a pilgrimage site, and the Church is a Mystical Body with Jesus Christ for a head, the Holy Ghost for a soul, and the “Trads” for members. Our priests can quickly become gurus. Everyone could be a Pope with his Denzinger in hand, and every father of every family could be the Pope of his family. In these conditions, our children would no longer have any idea of what the real Church is in its full incarnation, from head to members, in all the realities of daily life.

    http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2014/05/official-sspx-comment-on-future.html?m=1

Comments are closed.