The surge in transgenderism and the malleability of gender is noticeable to us conservative normies as an infringement against the natural order because it is—to them—a relatively recent phenomenon. It is an obvious form of instilling disorder and chaos because it disrupts the foundational nature upon which a person bases his or her reality. Your gender is inherently a part of who you are. You ARE a man, or you ARE a woman. Casting doubt on such a basic truth significantly debilitates a person’s ability to perceive reality when they cannot safely do as little as understand a blatant, obvious component of his identity.

The same is true for race. Race is a biological characteristic that a person cannot change, and it is a element of his identity. A man IS white, or Asian, or whatever. The enemy pushes racial admixture to destroy whites, but it is a much deeper form of disorder than genocide. Attempting to racially mix people into an amorphous mass of nothingness disrupts a characteristic that is meant to allow people to not only identify themselves but also distinguish among one another.

Humans are limited in their ability to actively care and provide for others. Biological distinctions allow us to understand on whom we should expend what level of attention. Our families are the most similar to us, so we easily recognize their relative importance. Race is meant to allow us to perceive a broader sense of familial bond that directs our attention beyond our immediate relatives.

Without such distinctions, people would have a reduced ability to differentiate among peoples and correspondingly decide how to expend their effort. In the absence of such distinctions, I would guess that people would spread themselves so thin among others that their thousands of cursory interactions would have no impact on anyone.

A somewhat analogous version of this has already occurred with regard to the replacement of hobby with entertainment. Formerly, people could use deep investment in productive hobbies like woodworking, crafting, etc. Those hobbies require genuine understanding and development, and hobbyists can relate to one another to a greater degree than they may relate to people not engaged in that hobby. Now, millions of people “participate” in fandoms of shows and movies that require no effort to consume. Consequently, people end up relating to millions of others on an insignificant level, and their interactions consist of nothing more than likes and comments on social media regarding a certain character or plot point.

Our distinctions exist for a reason.

We've watched a social circle form within dissident right for the last 4 or 5 years, clearly inspired from old reactionary and proto-conservative literature fused with Machiavellianism, grope desperately to try and found areal movement in real life. Their leadership consists of a bunch of content creators, two of which our leadership knew of since 2016. As a whole, they seem more honest and sober than most other content creator communities, including (and much to the faithful's scandal) our familiar traditional Catholic grifters. Despite vain origins, these dissidents have organized meetups, exercised impressive doctrinal tolerance to maximize their in-group preference, and they've made several online and real-life, industry-specific nonprofits already. They might be hitting a bit of a wall when grafting their clearly minority [and in our traditionalist opinion, clearly ill-founded philosophical] worldview into the real world because, unlike us, they don't have any pre-existing infrastructure on the ground; nor is the American populace well acquainted with their approaches, and the same fortunately can't be said for the Church. They really are the definition of atomized individuals pushing into the darkness.

But what's most frustrating part is these dissidents understand the need to tangibly organize more intimately than traditionalists. They're clearly demonstrating how to behave as a common good better than we are, they demonstrate the materialistic imitation of something like our visible church at a time when traditionalists seem not to. It can be frustrating sometimes. What makes the dissidents so motivated to action? Are they closer in ideation to the enemy? Is the lack of a public god to draw their eyes up force their treasures into pure earthly affairs?

And here are many traditional Catholics new to the Faith, glaring like entranced Narcissus gazing into la nouvelle politique, exotic and exciting, foreign intellectual imports, as if they're relevant for as much, wasting time talking up dead tyrants, kings, or literally any other morally bankrupt footnote in history. The neophytes think "revolt against the Modern world" or "become ungovernable" are actually traditionalist mantras. The neophytes think, like naïve children, that anything against the enemy of progressive politics must be with us. The neophytes make amuck of our own religion by consistently pathologizing subpar political ideology as being inherently Catholic, neglecting their own untried footnotes on Catholic Action. And finally, the neophytes try to teach as master, here for their talk and willing to do nothing else.

We know you sympathize with us how frustrating this is. Talk about sins against your duty of state - talk about the devil attacking you most where you ought to be making meaningful progress! Tradition is turned into a conduit for cheap edgy humor on the internet, rather than using the internet for gainful networking with fellow brothers and sisters. We feel like there's an arms race to prove who's more dedicated to what they believe in. Infidels are after our aspirations better than many of us have been. Yes, that's right: the Baby Boomers and Gen X'ers set up most of the Latin Mass chapels we see today. What have you actually done, new generations? Will you join us?

To do nothing but sit and muse upon the past and what had been, resuscitating dead ideology and pretending old grandeur to substitute modernity's shortcomings, this is the mark of death. We cannot prioritize what we thought ought to have happened in the past. What it not God's will to have passed the way it did, after all? We're alive now. What about your children? We're called to convert the World and our generation for Christ here and now. If it didn't work 80 years ago or 240 years ago, it's of little account today.

“We have the truth but no zeal, they have zeal but no truth.”

The Social Kingship of Christ

•The social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ is a necessity

"So long as Christ does not reign over nations, His influence over individuals remains superficial and precarious.

If it is true that the work of the apostolate consists in the conversion of individual and that nations as such do not go to Heaven, but souls, one by one, were must not forget, nevertheless, that the individual member of society lives under the never-ceasing influence of his environment, in which, if we may not say that he is submerged, he is, at least, deeply plunged. If the environment is non-Catholic, it prevents him from embracing the Faith, or if he has the Faith , it tends to root out of his heart every vestige of belief.

If we imagine Catholic social institutions, with Our Lord no longer living in the hearts of the individual members of society, then religion has there become a displeasing signboard which will soon be torn down. But on the other hand, try to convert individuals without Catholicising the social institutions and your work is without stability. The structure you erect in the morning will be worn down by others on the evening. Is not the strategy of the enemies of God there to teach us a lesson?

They want to destroy the Faith in the hearts of individuals, it is true, but they direct still more vigorous efforts to the elimination of religion from social institutions. Even one defeat of God in this domain means the weakening, of not the ruin, of the Faith in the souls of many."

"We will not change the essence of things ; Jesus Christ is the cornerstone of the whole social order. Without him, everything collapses, everything becomes divided and perishes."

"If Jesus Christ does not reign through the blessings inseparable from his presence, he will reign through the damages unavoidably caused by his absence."

“It would be a grave error to say that Christ has no authority whatever in civil affairs, since all things are in his power.”.."..not only private individuals but also rulers and princes are bound to give public honor and obedience to Christ.”

"Jesus Christ has been constituted king, and the true dignity, the true liberty, the true emancipation of modern nations is to have the right to be governed in a Christian manner. Would per chance the nations have been falling from their glory ? Would their fate have been less noble, less happy since the scepters to which they obey are bound to submit to the scepter of Jesus ?"

"Let us repeat it, my brethren : Christianity does not reach its full development, its full maturity, where it does not take on a social character. Such is what Bossuet expressed in this way : "Christ does not reign if his Church is not mistress, if the peoples cease to pay to Jesus Christ, to his doctrine, to his law, a national homage." When the Christianity of a country is reduced to the bare proportions of the domestic life, when Christianity is no longer the soul of public life, of public power, of public institutions, then Jesus Christ deals with this country in the manner he is there dealt with. He continues to give his grace and his blessings to the individuals who serve him, but he abandons the institutions, the powers which do not serve him ; and the institutions, the kings, the nations become like shifting sand in the desert, they fall away like the autumn leaves which are gone with the wind."

"As long as the Prince is not won over to the truth, the apostolate may multiply its individual conquests ; but it does not gain its final victory. With Constantine, the whole world, I mean the known and civilized world, becomes Christian without delay. The baptism of Clovis brings about that of the whole Frankish people… The peoples entered the Church en masse only when they followed their princes."

"Perfect agreement between the priesthood and the empire is the common law and the normal state of Christian societies."

Louis Cardinal Pie, 1815-1880

AMERICAN ADOLESCENT RELIGION IN SOCIAL CONTEXT

(Christian Smith, Soul Searching: The Religious and Spiritual Lives
of American Teenagers)

Therapeutic Individualism

The cultural ocean in which American adolescents swim saturates them in the ethos of therapeutic individualism. Therapeutic individualism is not so much a consciously and intentionally held ideology, but rather a taken-for-granted set of assumptions and commitments about the human self, society, and life’s purpose that powerfully defines everyday moral and relational codes and boundaries in the contemporary United States.

Therapeutic individualism defines the individual self as the source and standard of authentic moral knowledge and authority, and individual self- fulfillment as the preoccupying purpose of life. Subjective, personal experience is the touchstone of all that is authentic, right, and true. By contrast, this ethos views the “external” traditions, obligations, and institutions of society as inauthentic and often illegitimate constraints on morality and behavior from which individuals must be emancipated. James Nolan observes, “Where once the self was to be brought into conformity with the standards of externally derived authorities and social institutions, it now is compelled to look within. . . . No longer is society something a self must adjust to; it is now something the self must be liberated from. . . . Where once the self was to be surrendered, denied, sacrificed, and died to, now the self is to be esteemed, actualized, affirmed, and unfettered.”

In a society governed by therapeutic individualism, the traditional authority and functions of priests, pastors, parents, and lawmakers are largely displaced by a new authoritative class of professional and popular psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, and other therapeutic counselors, authors, talk show hosts, and advice givers. In the process, many activities and behaviors once defined as moral failures— alcoholism, drug abuse, financial debt, domestic violence, gambling, family neglect, obesity, sexual promiscuity—are redefined as either perfectly legitimate “lifestyles” or as psychological and medical dysfunctions, diseases, syndromes, codependencies, or pathologies. The latter are then, for better or for worse, treated with therapy, medications, self-help seminars, support groups, and rehabilitation programs. Meanwhile, the self increasingly comes to be viewed as the victim of abusive or oppressive personal pasts and current social experiences that violate the self’s right to personal health and fulfillment. Members of therapeutic individualist cultures are encouraged in various ways to “get in touch with their honest feelings” and to “find” their “true selves”— presuming that they have essential, self-originating emotions and selves that are distinct from any social formation and lost or hidden from everyday awareness. Moreover, moral duties, pain, and suffering are not seen, as they traditionally often were, as an inevitable part of life to be endured or perhaps through which one should grow in personal character and spiritual depth. Rather, these are largely avoidable displeasures to be escaped in order to realize a pleasurable life of happiness and positive self-esteem.

Moral decision making in therapeutic individualism is always profoundly individually self-referencing. Right and wrong are determined not by external moralities derived from religious teachings, natural law, cultural tradition, or the requisites of collective social functioning. Rather, clearly unaware that feeling itself is profoundly socially formed, individual subjective feeling establishes for individuals what is good and bad, right and wrong, just and unjust. In general, therapeutic individualism significantly displaces substantive reason and rational analysis with personal sentiments and emotions as the grounds of knowledge and morality.

In a therapeutically individualistic culture, the reasoned arguments, assertions, and professions implicit in the phrases “I think that . . .

” and “I believe that . . .” are increasingly supplanted by the personal expression “I feel that . . .” Therapeutic individualists come to feel, for example, that murder is wrong, that the Bible teaches the deity of Jesus Christ, that a particular tax policy will stimulate the economy. Moreover, people shaped by this ethos are loath to claim that their own beliefs and morals necessarily apply to anyone else, for other people may have different feelings about matters, and no one person has the right to violate any other person’s subjective sentiments, which are, after all, what determine what is truly authentic and real for each individual. In the end, the most assertive of moral arguments are expressed as “Poverty sucks,” “For me, it is wrong when . . . ,” and “I’m not trying to impose this on anyone, but that’s how I personally feel about it.”

Therapeutic individualism did not drop out of the sky, nor is it the spontaneous creation of its individual advocates and adherents. Ironically, given its emphasis on individual autonomy, subjectivity, and self-creation, therapeutic individualism is the collective cultural product of a historical complex of social and institutional forces that generated and sustain its ethos.
-At one level, therapeutic individualism is a reaction against the impersonal, bureaucratic, rationalized, instrumentally utilitarian institutions of modern public life. Its ethos provides a way for moderns to rescue some sense of individual uniqueness, spontaneity, and meaningful emotion in the face of a massive, proceduralistic, mechanistic, and alienating public sphere.
-At another level, therapeutic individualism’s ethos perfectly serves the needs and interests of U.S. mass-consumer capitalist economy by constituting people as self-fulfillment–oriented consumers subject to advertising’s influence on their subjective feelings, a point elaborated in the following section.
-In yet another way, the rise of therapeutic individualism corresponds to the secularization of the U.S. public sphere as the decline of the authority of religious traditions over the institutions of public life. Publicly irrelevant pastors and priests are, for good or ill, displaced by their functional equivalents, therapists and psychologists, who are taken to be very relevant and authoritative. Then again, therapeutic individualism is also a by-product of modernity’s cultural pluralism, in which increased frequency of routine interaction with “the other,” who may be quite different from oneself, may problematize objectively main- tained shared epistemological and moral orders. What then becomes collectively shared is a much thinner ethos of personal subjectivity, feeling, and self-fulfillment.

Whatever its social and institutional sources, therapeutic individualism is, now pervasive in American culture and society, both in many people’s personal lives and increasingly in public institutions themselves. Its assumptions and commitments infuse every level of the educational system; practices of courtship, marriage, family life, and divorce; some public social programs; key cultural elements of the economy, such as the advertising industry and mass media, entertainment, and recreation; the health care sector and public health system; very many elements of religion; and, increasingly, the justice system and the government itself. Most every youth growing up in the United States today, perhaps Amish youth excepted, will receive some significant exposure to therapeutic individualism. Many will receive very heavy and consistent doses of socialization into its assumptions, precepts, and ethos, even as its social pervasiveness renders it natural, intuitive, and invisible to most people being inducted into its worldview. Therapeutic individualism thus seems to be the obvious way things are.

All of this appears to have had important influences on the character of the religious and spiritual lives of American adolescents.

As therapeutic individualism has institutionalized itself as a natural dominant framework not only for much of social life around religion, but in American religion itself, we expect youth’s assumptions about religious teachings, faith, church, and spiritual development and experiences to be transformed. Religion as an external authority or tradition that people encounter and that makes authoritative claims to form their believing, thinking, feeling, desires, and living becomes increasingly inconceivable. Therapeutic individualists instead seek out religious and spiritual practices, feelings, and experiences that satisfy their own subjectively defined needs and wants. Faith and spirituality become centered less around a God believed in and God’s claims on lives, and more around the believing (or perhaps even unbelieving) self and its personal realization and happiness.

The very idea and language of “spirituality,” originally grounded in the self-disciplining faith practices of religious believers, including ascetics and monks, then becomes detached from its moorings in historical religious traditions and is redefined in terms of subjective self-fulfillment. Spirituality is thus renarrated for all comers as personal integration, subjective feeling, and self-improvement toward individual health and personal well-being—and no longer has anything to do with, for example, religious faith and self-discipline toward holiness or obedience.