This article is a much needed corrective. The language is a little inflammatory in places, which will give purchase to our enemies. But we are all already exhausted with self-censorship. I think the question of the role of violence comes down to the ordo amoris. If it is true that we owe a greater debt of love to our family than to the stranger, then violence can rightfully be unleashed in protecting our family from the stranger who attacks it, and the Church should promote this. Analogously, the Church promotes sex within marriage, for that is the rightful place for sex. There seems to have been a concerted effort (the question always arises: by whom?) to corrupt Christian morality by replacing the ordo amoris with universal love, and by replacing marriage with free love. The effect of both will be equally devastating for our society. I am always shocked by how many of my friends - intelligent, professional people - reject the ordo amoris in favor of universal love. When I question whether they love their own children more than someone else's children in another country, they always admit that they do, but they seem to consider it a moral failing. Can they not see how perverse this is?
Yes. It's inflammatory on purpose because we are currently on the terminal extreme of weakness and lukewarmness. If this were the early Middle Ages and everyone was doing melee on the weekends for the fun of it, maybe some moderating language would be in order, but right now we have the opposite problem.
We are in default of our obligation to defend our people.
The Post Vatican II church effectively rejects the Ordo Amoris. (No surprise, it effectively rejects Aquinas.) the work of infiltration was remarkably successful.
This is a wonderful article. I’ve long thought these things and I have watched our children struggle in violent public schools that clearly protect certain students while demonizing others. I have watched Charlie Kirk and the United Healthcare murders be celebrated and justified while the GOP and other conservative groups shame own at every misstep. I want to read Beautiful Losers: Essays on the Failure of American Conservatism by Samuel T. Francis to understand more about how conservatism gets its ass kicked 24/7. You certainly provided food for thought. I am especially interested in how the Catholic Church pushed this pacifism onto us.
The non violent technique has shown to truly resist. Non violent revolutions succeed more often than violent ones and are more likely to produce the sort of society being initially fought for than when violent revolutions succeed in overtaking power. To keep your life is to give it up and to lose it is to try and preserve it.
Yes. And there is a justifiable concern that the type of men quickest to violence are the least worthy to exercise it. But sometimes there is no other choice. It isn’t rational nonviolence to walk quietly into a gas chamber.
What's sad is ANYONE calling for violence against political parties or policies, and call themselves a Christian, are seriously in need to be sent into the wilderness alone and ti pray hard. They've been deceived by the world and have NO IDEA how to truly live how Jesus told us to
Protective violence. Much of the fear and hatred of violence is understandable, because it is open to any type of male. A solid citizen, or a degenerate thief. So they mark it all out of bounds. Just be sure you’re the type of man worthy of making the distinction.
Was going strong until this became a sermon at the end.
There is no "liberal Christianity". What you are seeing today is the effect of Christianity distilled down to its most fundamental principles, its logical conclusions. We wouldn't be weak if it wasn't for the Christian ethos dragging Europe down when it needed its men the most.
There is no moral justification necessary for fighting. That line dismantled your entire project here as weak, being able to constantly fall back to "well to kill our enemies in that way would be EVIL so we can't do that."
Well I'm so so sorry to have disappointed you Mr. "Professional Pervert" by not putting in writing on the internet a legally actionable call to imminent lawless action. I figured the reason for that would go without saying.
If we kill our enemies in what way, exactly? What exactly are you objecting to here? That I pointed out that random spasmodic violence and third-world style chimp outs are rarely effective to right wing ends? This is a historical reality. That I'm completely on board with dispatching the enemy should be clear from the essay. But it should be done in a way that's likely to work. What exactly did you have in mind?
And "there's no moral justification necessary for fighting" is just delusional. If you don't need any moral justification for violence, then on what basis do we condemn rape and murder?
humans are rational animals and must act toward ends dictated by reason. This far predates Christianity. To dispense with morality entirely we have to dispense with metaphysics, Aristotle, natural law, the notion of man as a rational animal, etc.
Caesar took pains to make justifications in the Gallic War, and the Senate then tried to put him on trial for war crimes. The idea that there is a law of war and that there are combatants and non-combatants is neither a liberal nor a Christian concept.
I'm simply saying, whatever your moral code, you should work out the boundaries in advance rather than in the moment of happening.
If you're saying you believe there are no boundaries and no non-combatants, fine. I think that's intellectually incoherent and politically retarded. And would be inclined to think that it's more of an edgelord troll than a sincerely held opinion.
We live in an age of total war, of racial war. Morality only matters insofar as it pertains to our collective tribe. You want to talk history?-how about all of the rape and murder that occurred when a winning army plundered the lands of its enemies (and those were the REWARDS for battle)? There are probably more notable EXCEPTIONS from this rule than the other way around.
No, what's politically retarded is to compromise on a vision for your people's future because of moral scruples concerning your enemy.
To claim leftists love state violence is hilarious. More often than not it is the right who worship the police and egg them on as they attack protestors and unions etc. The right needs to stop pointing the finger at the left and unite with the working man against the state.
Your concept of “free men” is compelling, but your treatment of violence feels far too abstract to support your broader claim. You collapse all violence into one undifferentiated category without distinguishing coercion, aggression, legitimate force, or simple disorder — and those distinctions are foundational to any moral or political philosophy, especially one rooted in the Western tradition.
It also creates a contradiction in the piece: you criticize the left for selectively defining political violence, yet your argument implies that political violence as a category doesn’t meaningfully exist. That ends up mirroring the same moral ambiguity you’re critiquing.
The moral framework you reject is the very one that made the concept of legitimate vs. illegitimate force possible in the first place. Those principles didn’t come from nowhere — they’re distinctly Western and Christian, and the left’s abandonment of them is precisely what hollowed out their worldview. Your argument unintentionally drifts toward the same soullessness by detaching force from any transcendent order.
I’m also unsure where you’re getting the idea desegregation was “unnatural”. If you’ve ever heard of the Melungeons in Appalachia you should really look up on what happened to them back in the day cause they really got the short end of the stick yet it isn’t talked about in history books.
They didn’t fit neatly into the legal white or colored category since they were of mixed native, euro, and African ancestry so during segregation they weren’t allowed to go to any white or colored schools, they couldn’t vote, own property, work a lot professions, and run businesses. As a result to this day they suffer abysmal rates of literacy and poverty.
This article is a much needed corrective. The language is a little inflammatory in places, which will give purchase to our enemies. But we are all already exhausted with self-censorship. I think the question of the role of violence comes down to the ordo amoris. If it is true that we owe a greater debt of love to our family than to the stranger, then violence can rightfully be unleashed in protecting our family from the stranger who attacks it, and the Church should promote this. Analogously, the Church promotes sex within marriage, for that is the rightful place for sex. There seems to have been a concerted effort (the question always arises: by whom?) to corrupt Christian morality by replacing the ordo amoris with universal love, and by replacing marriage with free love. The effect of both will be equally devastating for our society. I am always shocked by how many of my friends - intelligent, professional people - reject the ordo amoris in favor of universal love. When I question whether they love their own children more than someone else's children in another country, they always admit that they do, but they seem to consider it a moral failing. Can they not see how perverse this is?
Yes. It's inflammatory on purpose because we are currently on the terminal extreme of weakness and lukewarmness. If this were the early Middle Ages and everyone was doing melee on the weekends for the fun of it, maybe some moderating language would be in order, but right now we have the opposite problem.
We are in default of our obligation to defend our people.
The Post Vatican II church effectively rejects the Ordo Amoris. (No surprise, it effectively rejects Aquinas.) the work of infiltration was remarkably successful.
This is a wonderful article. I’ve long thought these things and I have watched our children struggle in violent public schools that clearly protect certain students while demonizing others. I have watched Charlie Kirk and the United Healthcare murders be celebrated and justified while the GOP and other conservative groups shame own at every misstep. I want to read Beautiful Losers: Essays on the Failure of American Conservatism by Samuel T. Francis to understand more about how conservatism gets its ass kicked 24/7. You certainly provided food for thought. I am especially interested in how the Catholic Church pushed this pacifism onto us.
The non violent technique has shown to truly resist. Non violent revolutions succeed more often than violent ones and are more likely to produce the sort of society being initially fought for than when violent revolutions succeed in overtaking power. To keep your life is to give it up and to lose it is to try and preserve it.
Yes. And there is a justifiable concern that the type of men quickest to violence are the least worthy to exercise it. But sometimes there is no other choice. It isn’t rational nonviolence to walk quietly into a gas chamber.
Thank you
Excellent ! Well said and so correct.
Wake up White Men and Women…
What's sad is ANYONE calling for violence against political parties or policies, and call themselves a Christian, are seriously in need to be sent into the wilderness alone and ti pray hard. They've been deceived by the world and have NO IDEA how to truly live how Jesus told us to
Protective violence. Much of the fear and hatred of violence is understandable, because it is open to any type of male. A solid citizen, or a degenerate thief. So they mark it all out of bounds. Just be sure you’re the type of man worthy of making the distinction.
wow you are not hiding your power here, western man. this is a Munich beerhall level of clarity. It makes the young man's heart tremble.
Was going strong until this became a sermon at the end.
There is no "liberal Christianity". What you are seeing today is the effect of Christianity distilled down to its most fundamental principles, its logical conclusions. We wouldn't be weak if it wasn't for the Christian ethos dragging Europe down when it needed its men the most.
There is no moral justification necessary for fighting. That line dismantled your entire project here as weak, being able to constantly fall back to "well to kill our enemies in that way would be EVIL so we can't do that."
Well I'm so so sorry to have disappointed you Mr. "Professional Pervert" by not putting in writing on the internet a legally actionable call to imminent lawless action. I figured the reason for that would go without saying.
If we kill our enemies in what way, exactly? What exactly are you objecting to here? That I pointed out that random spasmodic violence and third-world style chimp outs are rarely effective to right wing ends? This is a historical reality. That I'm completely on board with dispatching the enemy should be clear from the essay. But it should be done in a way that's likely to work. What exactly did you have in mind?
And "there's no moral justification necessary for fighting" is just delusional. If you don't need any moral justification for violence, then on what basis do we condemn rape and murder?
humans are rational animals and must act toward ends dictated by reason. This far predates Christianity. To dispense with morality entirely we have to dispense with metaphysics, Aristotle, natural law, the notion of man as a rational animal, etc.
Caesar took pains to make justifications in the Gallic War, and the Senate then tried to put him on trial for war crimes. The idea that there is a law of war and that there are combatants and non-combatants is neither a liberal nor a Christian concept.
I'm simply saying, whatever your moral code, you should work out the boundaries in advance rather than in the moment of happening.
If you're saying you believe there are no boundaries and no non-combatants, fine. I think that's intellectually incoherent and politically retarded. And would be inclined to think that it's more of an edgelord troll than a sincerely held opinion.
We live in an age of total war, of racial war. Morality only matters insofar as it pertains to our collective tribe. You want to talk history?-how about all of the rape and murder that occurred when a winning army plundered the lands of its enemies (and those were the REWARDS for battle)? There are probably more notable EXCEPTIONS from this rule than the other way around.
No, what's politically retarded is to compromise on a vision for your people's future because of moral scruples concerning your enemy.
To claim leftists love state violence is hilarious. More often than not it is the right who worship the police and egg them on as they attack protestors and unions etc. The right needs to stop pointing the finger at the left and unite with the working man against the state.
Your concept of “free men” is compelling, but your treatment of violence feels far too abstract to support your broader claim. You collapse all violence into one undifferentiated category without distinguishing coercion, aggression, legitimate force, or simple disorder — and those distinctions are foundational to any moral or political philosophy, especially one rooted in the Western tradition.
It also creates a contradiction in the piece: you criticize the left for selectively defining political violence, yet your argument implies that political violence as a category doesn’t meaningfully exist. That ends up mirroring the same moral ambiguity you’re critiquing.
The moral framework you reject is the very one that made the concept of legitimate vs. illegitimate force possible in the first place. Those principles didn’t come from nowhere — they’re distinctly Western and Christian, and the left’s abandonment of them is precisely what hollowed out their worldview. Your argument unintentionally drifts toward the same soullessness by detaching force from any transcendent order.
I’m also unsure where you’re getting the idea desegregation was “unnatural”. If you’ve ever heard of the Melungeons in Appalachia you should really look up on what happened to them back in the day cause they really got the short end of the stick yet it isn’t talked about in history books.
They didn’t fit neatly into the legal white or colored category since they were of mixed native, euro, and African ancestry so during segregation they weren’t allowed to go to any white or colored schools, they couldn’t vote, own property, work a lot professions, and run businesses. As a result to this day they suffer abysmal rates of literacy and poverty.