Tag Archive | "secularism"

The Rise of the Secular Theocracy


Webster defines “theocracy” as the government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided.  Throughout high antiquity, theocracy, in one of many forms, was the standard, rather than the exception.  The rulers of Rome were the embodiment of a regal spirituality; in Tibet under the Lamas, political power became concentrated in the priestly class, who functioned as much as religious leaders, as they did as political ones. Evola, in Revolt Against the Modern World idealizes the “Olympian ruler” or Chakravartin, as the wielder of power and one who is divinely inspired.

In modern times, the church is either removed from any visible participation in the State, or it is governed and restricted by the State.  In other words, a sign of modernity is the overwhelming restriction being placed upon faith, in order that politics can dictate moral decisions.  In the process, divine guidance  is replaced by secularized theological concepts.  The end result is the creation of a secular theocracy, whose proponents are as zealous and imposing as any theocracy has ever been.  Modern existence is thus a contradiction in which any transcendent source of power is removed, yet there is a certain quasi-religious character.  While they do not claim a divine entity as their inspiration, their zeal is such that they believe their ideals to be unquestionable and infallible.  Indeed, if it was necessary to decry the kingdoms of Old Europe as being inherently tyrannical as a result of having imposed the unquestionable law of “divine right,” then the so-called democracies of the world too, must also be considered as such, and must be condemned even more forcefully.

Here we must pause and define the religion of this secular state.  As the notion of a “secular theocracy” is at once an inherent contradiction that implies a faith without revelation, so to is the society which arises from it.  In the secular theocracy, heresy against God becomes deified and the undifferentiated man becomes upheld as the example of individuality and uniqueness.  The modern state, possesses its own dogma and code of ethics, as well as a way in which it is promulgated in society.  In the political cults of many states, there are creation stories and formative myths, and many actions can be explained as a contrast between good and evil.  In other words, the ideas established by political consensus operates in order to replace the Church or another religious authority.

“Acceptable” in today’s society…

The most sacred tenets of this secular theocracy are ideas such as materialism, egalitarianism and feminism; its Heroic Epics are the lurid tales of persecution such as the Holocaust, with artificial heroes like Elie Wiesel; its sacred scriptures the countless pages of dreary and bureaucratic legislation; its rites are the mundane trips to fast-food restaurants or malls, where citizens worship at the shrine of quantity.  At the core of this modern world’s morality is the notion of “freedom” and the acceptance of everything that was once considered immoral and indecent.  And all these ideals are today as unquestionable to the common mind as the notion of geocentrism was in the time of Ptolemy; the heretics of secularism are those who profess opposition to its vapid values of “tolerance” and “inclusion,” or those who don’t accept the official histories and dogmas.  And like the religious empires of the past, liberals in what Guenon termed the “Far West” have never given up at bringing this new faith to other lands.  As the conquerors of old, they have attempted to transplant their denomination to the far-flung corners of the globe.

Israel Shamir points out that there are multiple ways of interpreting the problem of secular theocracy.  Its ultimate manifestation is liberalism, which as Shamir states, can be interpreted either as a secular Protestantism a là Max Weber, or as a secular Satanism.  However, he ultimately rejects these theses as being incomplete, and concludes that liberalism is secular Judaism.  Says Shamir:

[I]t is only natural that the ideology they promote is so close to Jewish heart. Its adepts retain classic Jewish attitudes; and the “uniqueness of Israel” is a tenet of this “non-religious” school, whether in the form of the “unique” Holocaust, or a “unique” attachment to Palestine, or a “unique” love of freedom and diversity. Indeed, while mosques burn in the Netherlands and churches are ruined in Israel, no emotions are stirred up in comparison to those set in motion when graffiti is written on a synagogue wall. The US grades its allies by their attitude towards Jews. The Holocaust Temple [“Museum”] stands next to the White House.

Destruction of the family at the hands of radical homosexuals

Certainly, if modern society is representative of “secularized Judaism,” then it is a rejection of Christianity.  And perhaps, this is why the media, in an effort to disguise the fact, claims a so-called “Judeo-Christian” origin for today’s society.  Where Western European society had historically been based on Roman Catholicism, the Emancipation of the Jews required a paradigm shift into which the Talmudic ideology was slowly but surely normalized.  Whereas before Judaism was a rabbinical the rejection of Christian doctrine, formed after Christ, Judaism — including the Talmud and its brazen hostility towards gentiles — was now incorporated into the ordinary faith of Europeans.   Thus, as long as Europe was Christian, they were able to maintain a semblance of a traditional society.  But with the rise of the Reformation, the Enlightenment, the French Revoltion, and subsequent historical events, this society was consumed entirely.

We need only look at the progression of events to realize the damage that the secular theocracy has caused: the denial of majority group rights and fragmentation of societies, the attacks on the cultural foundations of the peoples around the world, the promotion of homosexuality and feminism at the expense of families, and the fading of care and compassion.  Secular theocracy, along with liberalism and democracy have ultimately failed to produce the utopia that its propagandists claimed that it would create. Those with insight can already hear the sounds of the shattering and fall of the ideology and thoughts of the liberal democratic systems.  Such people are sure to be the vanguard in the fight against the tyranny of fundamental secularism.

Posted in Most Recent, SocietyComments (1)

The Oath Against Modernism for Non-Catholics


On 8 September 1907, Pope St. Pius X issued the encyclical Pascendi dominici gregis, which condemned modernism in relation to the Roman Catholic religion, which, in part, translated from the original Latin, reads:

Undoubtedly, were anyone to attempt the task of collecting together all the errors that have been broached against the faith and to concentrate into one the sap and substance of them all, he could not succeed in doing better than the Modernists have done. Nay, they have gone farther than this, for [...] their system means the destruction not of the Catholic religion alone, but of all religion.

In order to understand this proposition, let us consider, first, what the Catholic church defines as Modernism, which may be found in the Catholic Encyclopedia:

An exaggerated love of what is modern…The modern ideas of which we speak are not as old as the period called “modern times”. Though Protestantism has generated them little by little, it did not understand from the beginning that such would be its sequel…In general we may say that modernism aims at that radical transformation of human thought in relation to God, man, the world, and life, here and hereafter…

A full definition of modernism would be rather difficult. First it stands for certain tendencies, and secondly for a body of doctrine which, if it has not given birth to these tendencies (practice often precedes theory), serves at any rate as their explanation and support. Such tendencies manifest themselves in different domains. They are not united in each individual, nor are they always and everywhere found together. Modernist doctrine, too, may be more or less radical, and it is swallowed in doses that vary with each one’s likes and dislikes.

In particular, the crisis that the Catholic church faced at the time may be described as three-fold: first, the character of Scripture had been reduced to its materialist view, stripped of its higher meanings, or even worse, disregarded selectively as being merely historical relic.  Such a problem can still be seen not only among those who accept the Second Vatican Council, but among many camps of self-proclaimed Christians today.  In such quarters, Christianity has been reduced to a lukewarm faith of people who continually revise their faith to fit the spirit of the times.

Second, through the idea of democracy, the importance of the hereafter was denied, and secular cults were promoted as the competitor to belief in the Catholic faith.  Since secularism and democracy promote the idea that man bears no responsibility to the Divine, this implied the creation of a society arranged around the potential of a comfortable earthly life.  As a consequence, it allowed for the infiltration of every type of moral impropriety into the daily lives of Catholics.

 Last, an attempt to combine the vocabularies, epistemological, and metaphysics of modern philosophers with that of the Church Fathers occurred, so as to make them compatible with the newly-emerging secular world.

Perhaps, if we can truly understand why the Catholics had been concerned about the state of their faith in 1910, we can also understand why other faiths, particularly the Islamic faith, feels themselves to be in the midst of a crisis.  Such ideas are actively being promoted by the globalist, controlled media, and perhaps with a more hostile face than in the past.  People who make policies in the name of the post-Christian west feel that the Muslim world is such a threat to the modernist way of life that the entire industrialized world must be mobilized against it in order to bring them to democracy and modernism.  Such people, which include not only politicians, but also banksters, media moguls, and pseudo-intellectuals wish for Muslims to renounce their way of life and reject what they feel to be Divine Revelation.

Those well versed in history will perhaps be able to note that during the French Revolution, the idea of total war combined with the spread of militant secularism were the main themes.  Such themes are once again being promoted in an attempt to destabilize the Islamic world, just as they were used to destabilize France.

From Pope Pius X’s stark warning over a century ago, to the troubled period of the early 21st century, the message remains the same. While the encyclical is addressed to the Roman Catholics in particular, the message can be heard by all the religious traditions of the world in general.  It is an exhortation to strength in the face of militant secularism which denies faith, and the worship of the individual instead of God.

In the Oath Against Modernism, we are presented with a sort of plan that upholds Tradition as a whole and defends it against unlawful innovations and revision, the content of which is so edifying as to be worthy of the consideration of every intellectually-oriented practitioner of traditional religion, and to these last, the application of this very oath to each of their respective religious traditions, mutatis mutandis, should not pose much difficulty.

Posted in ReligionComments (0)