U.S. Representative (((Jerry Nadler))) made a statement yesterday concerning the Equality Act: “What any religious tradition describes as ‘God’s will’ is no concern of this congress”.

Why do we tolerate this? Beware anyone who insists upon the legitimacy of this government in any way. Some may argue that the “Judeo-Christian” congressman he was arguing against means there’s hope within it, but even he admits that it is perfectly fine for fellow congressmen to not believe in God, upholding the heresy of religious indifferentism, which is of course not God’s will.

Catholicism is the most Powerful Force of Unity in European History: The Future is the Past

“The bonds of dependence, far from loosening, have tightened again. But alongside force there is no longer authority, alongside obedience, no longer recognition, alongside rank, no longer superiority. The master is no longer so because he is a master, but because he is the one with more money, because he is the one who, even though he does not see beyond the small horizon of ordinary human life, dominates the material conditions of life; by means of which it is even possible for him to subdue or to oppress those whose breadth of thought is immeasurably more powerful than his own: the possibility of the most despicable fraud and the most awful slavery.” -Julius Evola
***
Those who place their hope in modern men are bound to be disappointed. Only the revival of the Traditional ideal, of the imperial ideal, and of its incarnations can rectification take place. Only light can cast out darkness, and there is no light to be found in the parties or movements or governments of the modern era nor the “representatives of the people”. Even should they claim to conserve, to be well-intentioned, they too surely bear the taint of the modern spirit by virtue of their position and will inevitably succumb to its influences. We must turn instead to those who bear light within themselves, as part of their very being, for only they possess the right to rule and the capacity to subdue the forces of the dark age.

“The principle of reaction ought to be this: that one can denounce the defects, the errors, the degradation of a system - that one can be, for example, decisively against the bourgeoise and against capitalism - only by commencing from a plane above it, not below it. One should react, that is, not in the name of “proletarian” so-called “social” or collectivist values, but rather in the name of aristocratic, qualitative, and spiritual ones: that which could bring about a yet more radical rectifying action, if only men could be found who are truly up to the heights.” -Julius Evola
***
The greater cannot proceed from the lesser, to propose this would be admitting a mathematical impossibility. In opposition to the modern world, we must always appeal to higher forces, never compromising or yielding to those beneath them. To fail to do so would mean your recognition of the evil of the modern world is vain.

Grasping the intricacies of Evola and Guenon will not stop a savage from curb-stomping you.

There is no right-wing in America.

Putting faith in ecelebs is an exercise in futility. Ecelebs rise on mass disregard of the fact that we are not allowed to operate in public. We want “leaders,” but we fear the consequences of following them. Invariably, that fear leads to rumor, which self-defeat the prospect of establishing momentum.

The nation's faithful must think as philosophers and act as warriors. This is the revolutionary nexus that a new politics must be constructed around, the hardened core of men who can embody something beyond themselves.

“The faces of men and women [in the modern world] take on the appearance of masks, ‘metallic masks in one, cosmetic masks in the other’” -Julius Evola
***
These modern masks can in no way be assimilated to the ancient concept of the persona. The persona was the mask worn by ancient actors, signifying the person or deity they portrayed (Evola).

Our English term “person” is derived from the persona, and should we understand it according to its ancient significance, the “person” is the higher element in man associated with something typical, non-individual, and even supra-individual. Modern masks on the contrary, are expressions of the individual; they are abstract and formless, paving the way for the reign of quantity. When modern man dons such a mask, he forfeits his person in favor of his individuality, and becomes no more than a numerical unit in mass society.

“Individualism includes a dangerous mythology at its heart; taken to an extreme, it can reap destruction for individual persons, families, institutions and society. Something essential to our humanity, especially the values and virtues of the communal, is at high risk in this pursuit; it can lead to social failure and personal loss, cynicism
and even despair. As a way of life, it constitutes an abstraction that hollows out the self, emptying life of some of its balance and richness. One’s identity can actually become quite brittle and fragile in this attempt to escape accountability and soar with the eagles. There can be a serious form of escape amidst the brilliance and creativity, and even a move towards a soulless existence.”

[There emerges] a dislocation in the relational order: when they aspire to be more than human, they actually become less than human....We often find the radical conception of freedom as absolute and unlimited lies at the heart of many of the most dehumanizing tendencies...in modern history. Where freedom is seen as radically self-constituted, responsibility is restricted to the responsibility of agents to themselves, and it is at this point that the claim of radical autonomy cannot be distinguished from the escape into unaccountability. (Schwöbel, 1995, pp. 73-74)

Theomania, the desire to be like a god, is real (or surreal) and has worked its ruin. Schwöbel notes that there is an interesting historical-cultural co-incidence between the birth of radical concept of freedom and the denial of God in Western philosophy (1995, pp. 72-75). He suggests that it results from humans attempting the kind of freedom one normally attributes to God—omniscient, omnipotent, infinite. This perspective on freedom tends to imply that the self must occupy or usurp the space once given to God in Western consciousness—human and divine freedom in a strange way are set up in a direct conflict and competition

“Now what is ‘rational’, that is, whatever relates exclusively to the exercise of individual human faculties, can obviously never in any way reach the Principle itself and, under the most favorable conditions, can grasp only its relationship to the Cosmos.” -René Guénon
***
This is the source of many errors perpetuated by modern philosophy and modern religion (specifically Protestantism); by reducing everything to man’s level, man becomes incapable of grasping that which transcends him. Rather than allowing the divine to elevate him through mystery and intellect (that is, spirit), which would grant him understanding, he seeks to lower the divine, or at least his comprehension of it, to the merely human plane.

Moreover, this reduction implies that moderns are utterly incapable of understanding God. At most, they can recognize the subordination of the Cosmos to Him, but this is hardly enough to serve as a basis for partaking of the divine. Hence, the Vatican II/Protestant tendency to anthropomorphize God and to reduce “experience” of the divine to feeling and sensation.