Print this post Print this post

The Adult in the Room

1,834 words

Mitt Romney spends most of the time during the Presidential debates standing above the fray (literally, he’s 6’2″) with a plastic, fatherly smile glued to his exceptionally Nordic skull. When he does speak, it’s with a slight edge of impatience, akin to that of a busy father who’s been interrupted by a stupid question. Even his gestures are pervaded with condescension. At one point during an especially heated exchange between himself and Rick Perry, he rested his hand on Perry’s shoulder like a father calming an angry child.

Romney perceives himself as the adult in a room full of blathering ideologues and angry demagogues, and he’s absolutely right. He is. He’s not there because he’s a fanatical proponent of an extreme and reductionist ideology (Ron Paul) and he’s not there because he’s a careerist pursuing his fifteen minutes of fame and its concomitant book sales (the rest). He’s there because of a deeply held conviction—a religious conviction—that he has a responsibility to lead America through this time of darkness. While he was being groomed for manhood and leadership, the rest of the candidates have spent their entire lives wallowing in and imbibing from the contemporary American sewer of decadence, egalitarianism, and tacky populist religiosity.

Mitt Romney is the only adult in the room because he’s the only man there who’s actually experienced an initiatic transition from childhood to manhood. He does tower over the others in competence and in having a transcendent purpose. While Ron Paul may perceive himself as the champion of America’s founding ideology, Mitt Romney is the true heir of the authentic American Tradition from which that ideology emerged. To understand why this is, one must understand Romney’s faith: Mormonism, and the role of Mormonism in American history.

René Guénon offers a remarkably lucid critical account of Mormonism’s genesis, though he notably omits its Masonic influences. A chapter of his Miscellanea is dedicated to “The Origins of Mormonism,” beginning with a variation on the Spaulding-Rigdon Theory of the Book of Mormon’s origin:

Among the religious or pseudo-religious sects widespread in America, the Mormon sect is assuredly one of the oldest and most important, and we believe that it would not be without some interest to look at its origins.

At the beginning of the nineteenth century there lived in New England a Presbyterian pastor named Solomon Spalding, who had abandoned his ministry in favor of commerce, where it was not long before he went bankrupt. After this setback, he began writing a kind of novel in biblical style which he entitled Manuscript Found, and which, it seems, he counted on to restore his fortune; in this he was mistaken, as he died before he could find a publisher. The subject of this book concerns the history of the North American Indians, who were portrayed as the descendents of the Patriarch Joseph; it was a protracted account of their wars and their supposed migrations from the time of Sedecias, king of Judah, up to the fifteenth century AD. This account was supposed to have been written by various chroniclers, the last of whom, named Mormon, is said to have deposited it in an underground hiding place.

While his perspective and account are especially jaundiced, Guénon reluctantly admits that the institution is well-structured:

The success of Mormonism seems astonishing. It is likely that it is due more to the hierarchical and theocratic organization of the sect—very cleverly conceived, it must be acknowledged—than to the value of its doctrine.

Setting the accuracy of its theology or integrity of its founders aside, the institution is build on solid Radical Traditionalist design principles. In fact, it stands alongside Judaism, Catholicism, and Freemasonry as among the only major Traditional institutions in American history. Even if Mormonism’s church fathers rejected the prevailing Protestant sola scriptura theology for the wrong reasons, the net result was a deeply hierarchical, initiatic, and sturdy institution capable of robust leadership in the managerial, martial, and mercantile spheres of power projection.

The Protestant churches were integrally vulnerable to subversion of its followers to which they remained accountable, while Mormonism operates like a benevolent monarchy. The Mormon Church was (and likely remains) capable of effectively mobilizing its disciplined and loyal warrior priesthood at its discretion. The Mormon Church is capable of effectively controlling and manipulating markets, developing a fully mature shadow economy with vast holdings and parallel distribution networks.

The Church Fathers didn’t come up with this model on their own, but rather adapted what they could learn at the time from Judaism, Catholicism, and especially Freemasonry to arrive at a functional synthesis. Much of the symbolism within the church is readily recognizable Masonic symbolism (the apron’s a different color), and even Joseph Smith’s last words were a Masonic distress call “Is there no help for the widow’s son?” as the angry mob overtook him. While those of a more conspiratorial mindset could definitely frame Mormonism as a Masonic plot, I believe the parsimonious conclusion is that Smith and his associates were simply constructing a secretive initiatic institution and adapted the most readily-accessible paradigms and practices.

While the Mormon Church originally fought a war against the United States government and actively plotted its overthrow, it did so while remaining integrally American. Due to what Guénon refers to as its “clever” design, it has managed to serve as a refuge for Yankee Transcendentalist and Masonic traditions which have since atrophied and declined in the outside world. Now, in the wreckage of the failed American experiment, Mormons remain the last authentic Americans. The Mormon political theorist Cleon Skousen and his buffoonish demagogue protege Glenn Beck serve as the interface between the Church’s political agenda and the Tea Party cargo cult it seeks to guide.

The Tea Party doesn’t realize it, but Mitt Romney is the only candidate who comes close to being capable of preserving the American Tradition and way of life they’re championing. The reason he has continuously failed to connect with them is that he’s unwilling to indulge their delusional Birther conspiracies and demagogue in favor of radical libertarian approaches to critical institutions like health care in the same way the opportunist candidates are eager to do. His shrewd pragmatism is mistaken for a lack of radicalism by the Tea Pary’s true believers, believers who have been encouraged by the movement’s self-appointed “leaders” to rally behind vacuous political showmen like Herman Cain.

Joseph Smith’s later prophecies served to construct a mythic framework for the rise of Mormonism in American politics, foretelling in his White Horse Prophecy that his minions would rescue the Constitution when it’s “hanging by a thread.” Mitt’s father, Michigan governor George Romney[1] declared in response to it that “I have always felt that they meant that sometime the question of whether we are going to proceed on the basis of the Constitution would arise and at this point government leaders who were Mormons would be involved in answering that question.”

Does George’s son perceive himself in those mythic terms, as a man of destiny with a sacred responsibility to rescue the Constitutional Republic? I believe so, though it’s admittedly speculation. Mitt may well be an opportunistic system politician hellbent on acquiring power for power’s sake. I believe, however, that he’s propelled to seek the Presidency in pursuit of a mythic spiritual quest to rescue America from oblivion as a supreme act of noble stewardship. I believe he’s the only fully grown man in the entire contest and the only true adult in the room.

Regretfully, he has joined his church in recently defying the firmly commanded teachings of the Church Fathers in breaking from the Radical Traditionalist formula of interlinking Tribe, Tradition, and Transcendence in favor of a Modern and Globalist perspective.

Brigham Young, the second Prophet of the church, known by some as the “Mormon Moses,” didn’t mince words on the question of race:

Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so.

Romney, in stark contrast, is so passionately anti-White that he wept tears of joy at the announcement in 1978 that his Church would be turning on its White heritage in favor of integration…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ek_jkwGg3I

In defense of the LDS, it continues to lag behind the anti-White Zeitgeist to some extent, explicitly disapproving of interracial marriage. Boyd K. Packer, the next in line for the Church Presidency, has even publicly spoken out against interracial marriage. When weighed against its aggressive efforts to globalize its membership and its utter refusal to account for sustaining the heritage of its founding identity group, that remains insufficient. Had the Church had the good sense (or prophetic guidance, as it were) to develop a coherent strategy for globalizing which respected and protected the ethnic identities of its members, it could have remained an ideal vehicle for preserving the White American identity. Having made this fatal mistake, it is rapidly succumbing to the corruption and decline which is an inevitable consequence of defying the Christian obligation to stewardship for your nation.

It’s within the realm of the possible that the Mormon Church could recover from this likely fatal decision, but it’s unlikely. It’s unlikely that any of the Church’s fathers have the foresight to realize the consequence of their Globalist Error or the courage to defy not only the prevailing winds of respectable public discourse but also the recently-arrived yet large and rapidly growing faction within the church which is non-White and non-American. They’ve been promised full and complete inclusion and integration in a church infrastructure, and are unlikely to leave or submit to the restructuring necessary to honor and protect the myriad identities within the church without a fight. The church’s elders have evidently not accounted at all for the necessity of autonomy and autocephaly for the vastly different and temporally competitive ethnonational identities under their aegis.

If Mitt Romney were attempting to become President of the America envisaged by Joseph Smith when he wrote his White Horse Prophecy, his candidacy would be a cause for hope and a sincere opportunity for a rebirth of the Traditional American people and our way of life. Regretfully, he’s attempting to become President of this degenerate globalist monstrosity which calls itself America out of sheer habit. As such, the Church’s impressive cryptic and public efforts to rescue “America” will at best serve to prolong the agony, enlisting the service of millions of traditional White American families behind a futile effort to prop up this bloated, bankrupt, anti-White, anti-Christian, and anti-Mormon regime.

Note

1. This article originally contained an aside about George Romney not being qualified for the Presidency due to his being born in Mexico. He was born in the United States to US citizens who then relocated to a polygamist compound in Mexico while retaining their US citizenship. As such, his eligibility was never seriously in question.

Related

If you enjoyed this piece, and wish to encourage more like it, give a tip through Paypal. You can earmark your tip directly to the author or translator, or you can put it in a general fund. (Be sure to specify which in the "Add special instructions to seller" box at Paypal.)
This entry was posted in North American New Right and tagged , , , , , , , . Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

17 Comments

  1. Tharms
    Posted November 15, 2011 at 10:09 am | Permalink

    “1. This article originally contained an aside about George Romney not being qualified for the Presidency due to his being born in Mexico. He was born in the United States to US citizens who then relocated to a polygamist compound in Mexico while retaining their US citizenship. As such, his eligibility was never seriously in question.”

    I believe that this footnote is incorrect. The codes defining citizenship where changed sometime mid-century to allow for children born overseas to be given automatic citizenship, but only if a the mother had not been overseas for more five years prior to the child’s birth. This change would have occurred long after George Romney’s birth, who was indeed born in Mexico, not the U.S.. (McCain also would not have been covered by the new code, which may have been the reason for the red herring regarding Obama’s birth certificate.) Of course, the fact is, prior to the 20th century, and perhaps even well into, no one would have questioned whether an American’s child had American citizenship. It was a free and trusting, and civil, country back then.

    So exactly how many American-Mexican grandmothers did little Mitt Romney have? One does not leave one’s country to live in a polygamist compound unless one has a polygamist motivation for doing so, e.g., one doesn’t move to a nudist colony in order keep ones clothes on. Personally, I don’t think this should be an issue, but at the same time I’m not excited about having a president who prays in a church that does think that personal relationships should be regulated by the state. There is no way that Romney can distance himself from Prop 8, and it is more than a little curious how the liberal media is going out of its way to argue that Mormon’s shouldn’t be discriminated against while not bringing up the fact of the Mormon church’s involvement in anti-gay political action all over the country.

  2. Posted November 14, 2011 at 1:22 pm | Permalink

    Matt, this was an excellent essay. Even though you haven’t quite persuaded me to campaign for Romney (difficult to do from India anyway), I appreciated the summary of Guenon’s view of Mormonism, which I hadn’t known about, and your comments on the LDS church itself. As far as Mormonism’s claims to Radical Traditionalism, I agree with what James O’Meara wrote. As far as Mormonism itself, I share your dual feelings about it however. In spite of my doubts about its authenticity, based on the quality of Mormons I’ve known personally and their political record, it’s difficult to conclude that they are completely off-base. I would certainly much rather have a Mormon in the White House than a Scientologist.

  3. Mimir's Well
    Posted November 11, 2011 at 9:22 am | Permalink

    Interesting article overall, with some great insight…
    The point made regarding a “transistion” into manhood has much truth to it. We (whites), as a whole, have lost virtually all cutural institutions that define what makes a man/women, or when periods of infantcy, childhood, and adulthood begin/end. The LDS church does this, and yes indeed, it does it well.
    As many of the commentators have pointed out, the LDS church does do a very effective job in developing a sense of collectivness among its members. Something that the WN movement desperately needs. And as pointed out, because of their collectivness and hierarchical structure, they can be blindly led down paths that will ultimately destroy them. Such as allowing blacks to hold the priesthood in the ’70s and now with the church’s recent soft stance regarding illegal immigration their current “I am a Mormon” TV commercials that show mixed couple Mormon families. It is my belief that these last two incidents are “prices” being paid by the church to the media/banking/political power structure for a chance at inclusion, with “Sister Wives” being thrown in as a bone to one, ease their acceptance into the mainstream, and two, as a payment for their willingness to prostitute themselves.

    Hell, maybe it’s all a ruse…The ship may be going down. Having a black or a Mormon, traditionally “outsiders,” at the helm when it does go down puts the blame on them.

    Mitt’s campaign website praises Israel and states, “In his first 100 days, Mitt Romney will reaffirm as a vital U.S. national interest the existence of Israel as a Jewish state.”
    Call me an extremist, Mr. Parrot, but unless Ron Paul gets the nomination I will abstain from voting again (just as with McCain). It’s my belief that without the real changes that RP discusses all else is rearranging deck chairs on a sinking ship.

  4. Jim Stark
    Posted November 11, 2011 at 9:13 am | Permalink

    It doesn’t matter how good of a “captain” you are on a sinking ship that is lost.

    Leadership is not lacking. Democracy promotes followers, not leaders. The more incompetent, the better at this point. America’s problems cannot be solved with the present form of government and economic system.

    It’s interesting that the article mentions the hierarchical structure that makes the LDS church so effective, but ignores this prescription for government or society.

    “Mitt Romney is the only candidate who comes close to being capable of preserving the American Tradition and way of life they’re championing. ”

    A strange statement. I don’t think anyone with any sense should want to preserve the America of the last 50 years or “The American Tradition.” Liberty, Freedom, Equality are dead.

    “The reason he has continuously failed to connect with them is that he’s unwilling to indulge their delusional Birther conspiracies and demagogue in favor of radical libertarian approaches to critical institutions like health care in the same way the opportunist candidates are eager to do.”

    That’s a nice touch. So he can be slavish and pandering. Yep, that’s what we need in a great leader. Turn negatives into positives! The article loses me at this point. More libertarianism will be great. It will sink the government even quicker.

    I’m not impressed with Mormonism at all. Gee, why don’t we study Scientology and see what their “secret” is?

  5. Fourmyle of Ceres
    Posted November 10, 2011 at 7:01 pm | Permalink

    Harold Covington cites the Mormon example as how a small, self-selected group of people with teh duty of fulfilling a transcendental Purpose can take nothing – the desert of the Salt Lake Valley – and transform it into “Our Beloved Deseret,” the nation-state Young formed from nothing but faith, and a tremendous amount of focused, disciplined, work, in the belief of fulfilling a transcendent Racial Duty.

    That having been said, on to the crux of the matter, for this very good analytical piece.

    Matt Parrott in blockquote:

    The Church Fathers didn’t come up with this model on their own, but rather adapted what they could learn at the time from Judaism, Catholicism, and especially Freemasonry to arrive at a functional synthesis. Much of the symbolism within the church is readily recognizable Masonic symbolism (the apron’s a different color), and even Joseph Smith’s last words were a Masonic distress call “Is there no help for the widow’s son?” as the angry mob overtook him. While those of a more conspiratorial mindset could definitely frame Mormonism as a Masonic plot, I believe the parsimonious conclusion is that Smith and his associates were simply constructing a secretive initiatic institution and adapted the most readily-accessible paradigms and practices.

    Smith was the spiritual entreprenuer; Young was the religious genius, the master organizer. Smith took the best of what other Christian Institutions had to offer, including the general Conference from the Methodist Church. It is not by accident that the starving, worn people who first made it to Salt Lake Valley – the Trek of ’47 – first put enormous efforts into building the astronomical observatory Parley Pratt required. Note that the General Conference falls on the days of solstice, and equinox.

    I have always believed Young, like Moses, required his people to be separated from “the world” for a time so they could focus solely on their spiritual development. Arrington’s book, “American Moses,” discusses this to the extent possible for a Church Historian.

    In short, in microcosm, all of the elements for a Northwest Republic can be found in the LDS Church, including a New Traditionalist religion, based on what Christianity SHOULD have become, as well as a…Church!

    As well, Young “saw” the Salt Lake Temple – again, another hideously expensive production – as the true center of the Church, and the church community. If memory serves, Smith restored the first two Orders of Priesthood – the Aaronic order, open to young men at the age of twelve, and the Melchizedek Order, open to men at the age of eighteen – at that time, the age of Adult maturity. With enough of this power available to him, Young received the keys to form the third Order of Priesthood, the Abrahamic Order. The rules, if memory serves, is that you had to have been at least forty years old, have made tremendous contributions to the Church, and MUST NOT mention the existence of the Order, or request application. Membership today is probably limited to the Seventies. The Church even had its own Order Militant in the beginning, the Danites.

    The Masonic issue is resolved by the belief that Smith saw clearly the true issues around the development of the Masonic Orders, and was stripping away the superfluous window dressing.

    New Traditionalists, indeed.

    In defense of the LDS, it continues to lag behind the anti-White Zeitgeist to some extent, explicitly disapproving of interracial marriage. Boyd K. Packer, the next in line for the Church Presidency, has even publicly spoken out against interracial marriage. When weighed against its aggressive efforts to globalize its membership and its utter refusal to account for sustaining the heritage of its founding identity group, that remains insufficient. Had the Church had the good sense (or prophetic guidance, as it were) to develop a coherent strategy for globalizing which respected and protected the ethnic identities of its members, it could have remained an ideal vehicle for preserving the White American identity. Having made this fatal mistake, it is rapidly succumbing to the corruption and decline which is an inevitable consequence of defying the Christian obligation to stewardship for your nation.

    Packer continues to have his many supporters. Note that all true, valuable Church growth is within the Mormon Cordidor – look at the placement of new temples – while foolish international expansion is a product of the Hinckley Years. Good from the perspective of public relations, and Hinckley was the PR guy for the Church, bad from the perspective of developing an Elite, an internal Aristocracy, as Young, especially, intended.

    One good economic contraction, and all of this folly with temples around the world (Nigeria!) will disappear, and the Church”s true North-South temporal axis will prevail. A Packer Presidency would accomplish this overnight.

    It’s within the realm of the possible that the Mormon Church could recover from this likely fatal decision, but it’s unlikely. It’s unlikely that any of the Church’s fathers have the foresight to realize the consequence of their Globalist Error or the courage to defy not only the prevailing winds of respectable public discourse but also the recently-arrived yet large and rapidly growing faction within the church which is non-White and non-American. They’ve been promised full and complete inclusion and integration in a church infrastructure, and are unlikely to leave or submit to the restructuring necessary to honor and protect the myriad identities within the church without a fight. The church’s elders have evidently not accounted at all for the necessity of autonomy and autocephaly for the vastly different and temporally competitive ethnonational identities under their aegis.

    I agree, under the present Leadership, this will not change without a fight.” Or, falling away as the expected benefits fail to accrue in a timely manner, while the Roman Catholic Church continues its recruitment methods apace. Ever see the Cathedral of Mary Our Queen in Salt Lake City? Ever wonder why so expensive an investment was made in the middle of Nowhere?

    One small cause for hope, or, at least, an object lesson we can learn from.

    The Church considers the heirs of the Trek of ’47 to be the foundation of Church “Royalty,” if you will. These people have an internal clannishness that is well-hidden from the “Gentiles” – THEIR term for US – but within this group is an organization that has internally, invisibly, guided the Church from its beginning.

    They are called The Fifty. Unknown to all outside the First Presidency, and accountable ONLY to the President of the Church, they are the Elite, the internally developed Aristocracy, who will guide and transform the Church in the years ahead.

    My guess is, they will amaze us all as they call The Families Home, where none may make afraid, and rebuild the Church from within, with Smith, Young, Eldon Tanner (father of Correlation, and the best thing to happen to the Church since Brigham Young) and Packer’s cold, clear-eyed, singular focus on excellence, by any means necessary.

    The word “tolerance” will be removed from their lexicon.

    We REALLY can learn from this.

    What’s In YOUR Future? Focus Northwest!

  6. CompassionateFascist
    Posted November 10, 2011 at 6:36 pm | Permalink

    Romney’s Mormon antecedents are – almost – irrelevant. This is a globalist, job-outsourcing, anti-white insourcing, Wall Street billionaire who doesn’t give a flying F about his race or his country. But he’s a godsend for us in that, if nominated, his candidacy as a nominal Mormon and RINO liberal will split the Republican Party, and then likely throw a 3-way election to an Obama receiving well under 50% of the popular vote. Combine that existential political crisis with a complete economic crash, and we’ve got the ingredients for Civil War. Which is the only way the White Republic will ever be restored.

  7. Jaego Scorzne
    Posted November 10, 2011 at 4:43 pm | Permalink

    Again the curse of high brow White Nationalism comes up. Birther Conspiracy? Not one person conversant with official documents and online copying believes that the messy piece of crap they produced is geniune. But we have to (we think) match the attitude of the official media and academia to be taken seriously. It wont work – they will never accept us – and we will destroy ouselves in the process of trying to become like them. And of course the Movement splits at every such juncture.

    Is the problem Conspiracy? Sigh. The Founding Fathers were Conspirators and believed in Conspiracy – as did Evola, Guenon, etc. Conspiracy is the nature of life. We’re there are three you will have two whispering against one sooner rather than later. And even within the relative (very!) unity of individual, the various triplicities can be in similar conflict: ego and id against “superego”; id and superego against ego; commonsense and social approval against intuition; and so on. In the strictest terms, only the Sage is capable of the Republican form of Goverment as Edward Carpenter makes clear in his “Towards Democracy”. The modern sage Franklin Merrill Wolfe said so as well.

  8. Savrola
    Posted November 10, 2011 at 3:50 pm | Permalink

    the guy who pulled off the road and cried when the Mormons decided to declare blacks human.

    Very masculine and mature, Matt.

  9. Lew
    Posted November 10, 2011 at 1:47 pm | Permalink

    The notion that Romney is the adult in the room because he experienced an initatic transition to adulthood seems dubious. Since when is an intiatic transition required for full manhood and adulthood? Required according to who? Romney has a law degree from Harvard, an MBA from Harvard, experience on Wall Street and is an ex-governor. Those are the reasons most people regard him as the adult in the room.

    And it’s clearly not true that the other candidates have spent their entire lives wallowing in decadence. Michelle Bachman might be a buffoon, but she did care for over 20 foster children. Describing her behavior has tacky religiosity is a grossly inappropriate and false. She appears to have done more to live according to Christian principles that Mitt Romney.

    And while Romney is certainly well accomplished and competent, it’s clearly an exaggeration to suggest he towers over the others. Ron Paul has an MD. Given that he worked as an OB/GYN and has spent two decades in Congress, it’s not clear where he would have found time to wallow in decadence. It’s true Ron Paul is an ideologue who only cares about sound money for Brown people. He has also done than Mitt Romney has ever done to oppose the neocon’s wars on Israel’s behalf.

    Newt Gingrich has a Ph.D in History. He is also the ex-Speaker of the House and was the architect of the GOPs national victory in 1994. Gingrich is clearly anti-White, and his accomplishments don’t mean squat in terms of benefits for Whites. They are, nevertheless, proof that Romney doesn’t tower over him.

    This article clearly exaggerates Romney’s stature relative to the other candidates, unfairly demeans the other candidates, and attributes Romney’s success to his religion rather than to the actual reasons people support him (his background and experience).

    It’s an odd combination that results in a puzzling essay.

    • Posted November 10, 2011 at 3:53 pm | Permalink

      Lew,

      Since when is an intiatic transition required for full manhood and adulthood? Required according to who?

      Ours is one of the very few cultures in a global and historical context which does not provide some ritual to accompany the transition from being a boy to becoming a man. I’ll admit my style was flamboyant and sweeping, but I insist that much of the decadence in America can be attributed to our culture’s failure to effectively define manhood and initiate males into it.

      Michelle Bachman might be a buffoon, but she did care for over 20 foster children. Describing her behavior has tacky religiosity is a grossly inappropriate and false.

      Bachmann’s indeed a charitable and nice person. There are plenty of charitable and nice atheists, too. While she deserves praise for her good works, she remains the poster child for Protestant Christianity turned against its host. For instance, she actually believes—along with far too many fellow Christian Zionists—that America is subject to a death curse if it fails to remain in lock-step with Israeli policy:

      I am convinced in my heart and in my mind that if the United States fails to stand with Israel, that is the end of the United States . . . [W]e have to show that we are inextricably entwined, that as a nation we have been blessed because of our relationship with Israel, and if we reject Israel, then there is a curse that comes into play. And my husband and I are both Christians, and we believe very strongly the verse from Genesis [Genesis 12:3], we believe very strongly that nations also receive blessings as they bless Israel. It is a strong and beautiful principle.

      You note in defense of Dr. Paul…

      Given that he worked as an OB/GYN and has spent two decades in Congress, it’s not clear where he would have found time to wallow in decadence.

      I suppose “wallow in decadence” conjures images of drug-fueled orgies and indulgent debauchery. The most potent opponents of tribe, tradition, and transcendence aren’t those fools, but rather the serious and disciplined proponents of radical modernist ideologies and their applications. The ironic thing about Dr. Paul is that his threat to the regime lies in his having taken the regime’s own doctrines of rapacious capitalism, social contracts, and atomic individualism to their logical conclusion…in his having gone full retard in pursuit of Modernist ideals.

      • Lew
        Posted November 10, 2011 at 7:03 pm | Permalink

        Matt,

        If wallowing in decadence means supporting ideas that lead to civilizational decline, then Romney is as decadent as anyone despite whatever superstitious rituals he went through, and he is definitely more decadent than Paul, and his devout Mormonism has not insulted him from becoming decadent because Mormonism itself is decadent as you have pointed out yourself.

        Romney is a pro-Israel, pro-interventionist, pro-Wall Street, pro-open borders, anti-racist neocon who believes in spreading American democracy by the sword. His foreign policy positions are not substantively different than Michelle Bachmann’s positions. Obama’s main anti-Romney talking point is that Romney is a man utterly without principle who will say and do anything to win an election. Romney definitely changes his policy positions more often than anyone, and by the standards of system politicians that is saying a lot. For example, Romney was for the health care mandate as governor, and now he is against what is effectively the same mandate applied on a national scale.

        To be sure, Romney’s rhetoric on health care has not been as strident as the other candidates’ rhetoric, but Romney is definitely with rather than against those you label the Tea Party cargo cult on the substance of health care. Romney has said many times he will repeal Obamacare, just as the Tea Party demanding, even though his own Massachusetts health plan was the model for Obamacare.

        In short, Romney is just as decadent the others. He is a very poor example to hold up for purposes of writing a paean to an old form of Mormonism that all evidence suggests is as dead as the Christianity of Charles Martel.

  10. Jaego Scorzne
    Posted November 10, 2011 at 11:00 am | Permalink

    The author himself admits that the LDS has compromised with the Global Zeitgiest for the sake of worldly power. What more need be said? Ron Paul has not – and despite the many inadequacies of his libertarianism, his is utterly unacceptable to the Globalists. He would actually begin to investigate their great engine of ruin, the Federal Reserve. For this, he deserves our support. Of course he is a fool on Blacks and Immigration. But if they hate him that much, he has to be good for us – In the Short Term.

  11. Posted November 10, 2011 at 6:55 am | Permalink

    Interesting perspective, but I don’t think it ultimately holds water.

    “Setting the accuracy of its theology or integrity of its founders aside, the institution is build on solid Radical Traditionalist design principles.”

    Guenon was more interested in the former than the latter, and I would suggest we should be too.

    “The Church Fathers didn’t come up with this model on their own, but rather adapted what they could learn at the time from Judaism, Catholicism, and especially Freemasonry to arrive at a functional synthesis”

    “Building” and “synthesis” are exactly the problems. Without even looking at the theology, we can predict it will, like all such “modern” “improved” syntheses, it will reflect not principial Truth but all the modern materialistic, “space age” shibboleths [“God is a man like you, born on the planet Kobol!”]. The “afterlife” is proudly [like all “now it can be told” revelations] announced to be “really” life on another planet, and Guenon has great fun quoting po-faced discussions by the Elders of how big each planet needs to be to support each pioneer Saint and all the crops he’ll need to grow to support his many wives and kids.

    Anyhow, the point is that while the Traditionalist structure might suggest an ally, it’s precisely the whole random, hand-made construction that makes it a nice home for, well, demons; or, if one prefers, modernism. The more recent developments you cite are thus predictable; in fact, in its gross materialism and space-age theology, Mormonism is arguably the forerunner of all the modernist nonsense, and many a Mormon is proud to claim the Church to have been “really ahead of its time, man.”

    To be fair, Evola went further than Guenon and included Catholicism in the bin: when, he asks, against the Chestertonians, did the Church ever hold back modernism? Why would we expect it to succeed, or even care to try, now?

    Another reason Romney, and this article, interested me is that I’m from Michigan, and grew up there during the elder Romney’s reign. Now here was an American or Randian, legend:

    “He joined Nash-Kelvinator in 1948, and became chairman and CEO of its successor, American Motors Corporation in 1954. There he turned around the struggling firm by focusing all efforts on the smaller Rambler car. Romney mocked the products of the “Big Three” automakers as “gas-guzzling dinosaurs” and became one of the first high-profile, media-savvy business executives.”

    That’s right, Romney was promoting — successfully — small cars and energy efficiency in the 50s. Today, the Tea Party would run him out of town.

    Romney was one of the last of the breed of “progressive” Republicans, and even ran for the party’s nomination as an anti-war candidate [What! He’s pro-terrorist!]. And therein lies my other concern:

    “Mitt’s father, Michigan governor George Romney (who was born in a polygamist compound in Mexico and therefore unable to serve as President)”

    Now, I don’t recall hearing a word about this back in 1968; but, I guess I was wrong:

    “But during the period when he was still being touted as the only Republican who could defeat President Lyndon Johnson, Romney’s opponents often raised the issue of his eligibility. William Loeb, the late publisher of the Manchester Union Leader who made his conservative views well known to New Hampshire primary voters, simply dismissed Romney as “Chihuahua George.” But Romney was eligible. Romney’s grandfather emigrated to Mexico in 1886 with his three wives and children after Congress outlawed polygamy. Romney and his parents, who retained their U.S. citizenship, returned to the United States in 1912, the year Mexico erupted into revolution. The future governor didn’t arrive in Michigan until 1939, when he was 32 years old. He didn’t run for office until 1962. ”

    So basically, a non-issue, like McCain’s Panama birth [which the quoted article is discussing, in 1998], which is why I didn’t recall anyone mentioning it back then. But how ironic that an article that sneers about “birthers” [as I’ve pointed out elsewhere, an ugly little dehumanizing Stalinism of the sort Orwell and Marcuse diagnosed, and the sure sign of a closed, and conventional, mind] can yet blithely retail 40-year-old canards from the ultra-right Loeb!

  12. Sandy
    Posted November 10, 2011 at 5:19 am | Permalink

    Grant Berkley wrote a book, The King Arthur Conspiracy, telling the tale of two amateur historians, Wilson and Blackett, that investigated Arthur’s trip to America. A most interesting book for those interested in Anglo-Saxon folk tales. In the book he told how a Mormon chairman of the Smithsonian decreed that all ancient American artifacts were to be dedicated to the American Indian and that no hint whatsoever that the ancient artifacts were actually from the otherside of “the pond.” Thus American history was further falsified.

  13. George
    Posted November 10, 2011 at 5:10 am | Permalink

    Mormonism is just another race-mixing religion that HELPS the Jews in their war against Whites. WHY is this Mormon nonsense even on this website? We do not need the masses, we need a small number of dedicated fighters, who are not held back by a dualistic religious morality, and are not afraid to get their hands red. Of course, this comment will probably not go public, as we would not want any of our wonderful Mormon “comrades” getting their feelings hurt – would we? GET REAL!

    • Posted November 10, 2011 at 3:24 pm | Permalink

      George,

      We do not need the masses, we need a small number of dedicated fighters, who are not held back by a dualistic religious morality, and are not afraid to get their hands red.

      By all means, don’t allow me or anybody else to stand between you and the simple and obvious path to victory you’ve grasped. If any revolutions are being held up for fear of offending me then—by all means!—offend away.

    • Lew
      Posted November 10, 2011 at 5:34 pm | Permalink

      I am ambivalent about Mormonism.

      On an anecdotal level, the Mormons I have known my personal life have invariably been some of the finest people I have ever met. Their probity, work ethic and organizational genius is amazing. Romney got the Nevada primary moved up with the help of influential Mormons in Nevada. Mormons also tend to be White with large, healthy families. Although I am not a Christian myself, I can’t hep but point out that Jesus Christ said “by their fruits ye shall know them.” By this standard, Mormons are definitely doing something “right,” and their faith, practices and overall approach to living has to be at the root of it. Whatever they’re doing, they’re doing it right. Mormonism produces observable results, and practicing Mormonism seems to lead to healthy living in most cases.

      On the negative side of the ledger, however, the same traits that make Mormons effective also make it highly unlikely they will ever use their collective talents to do anything but harm the White race.

      Mormons are deadly serious about their church culture and religion. It makes them effective. The problem this fact presents from a nationalist perspective is that Mormonism is an extremely philo-semitic faith just like Christian Zionism. Therefore, any Mormon who takes his faith seriously must necessarily also take philo-semitism seriously — and that’s a problem to put it mildly. Moreover, the Mormon leadership condemns racism and supports race mixing, and the devout rank and file Mormons take their cues from the leaders. If they didn’t, Mormons would probably lose their effectiveness.

      In a way, the Mormom belief system combines the worst of all possible worlds. They promote race mixing founded on Christian universalism, Masonism and Judaism. It’s a trifecta of problematic influences.

One Trackback

    Kindle Subscription
  • EXSURGO Apparel

    Our Titles

    The Importance of James Bond

    In Defense of Prejudice

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater (2nd ed.)

    The Hypocrisies of Heaven

    Waking Up from the American Dream

    Green Nazis in Space!

    Truth, Justice, and a Nice White Country

    Heidegger in Chicago

    The End of an Era

    Sexual Utopia in Power

    What is a Rune? & Other Essays

    Son of Trevor Lynch's White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    The Lightning & the Sun

    The Eldritch Evola

    Western Civilization Bites Back

    New Right vs. Old Right

    Lost Violent Souls

    Journey Late at Night: Poems and Translations

    The Non-Hindu Indians & Indian Unity

    Baader Meinhof ceramic pistol, Charles Kraaft 2013

    Jonathan Bowden as Dirty Harry

    The Lost Philosopher, Second Expanded Edition

    Trevor Lynch's A White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    And Time Rolls On

    The Homo & the Negro

    Artists of the Right

    North American New Right, Vol. 1

    Forever and Ever

    Some Thoughts on Hitler

    Tikkun Olam and Other Poems

    Under the Nihil

    Summoning the Gods

    Hold Back This Day

    The Columbine Pilgrim

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater

    Taking Our Own Side

    Toward the White Republic

    Distributed Titles

    Tyr, Vol. 4

    Reuben

    The Node

    A Sky Without Eagles

    The Way of Men

    The New Austerities

    Morning Crafts

    Siege

    Asatru: A Native European Spirituality

    The Prison Notes

    Standardbearers

    Tyr

    The Lost Philosopher

    Impeachment of Man

    Gold in the Furnace

    Defiance

    The Passing of a Profit & Other Forgotten Stories