Opus Dei & Gearoid O’Colmain

ICAReviews introduced me to Gearoid O’Colmain, who seems to be a French Irishman, or perhaps an Irish Frenchman, who is at least quasi-Marxist, economically leftist, but critical of much of the “left” and especially anti-natalist ideologies like feminism and homophilia, what he calls “bourgeois sexuality.” (This isn’t unique, of course, it’s standard orthodox Communism.) He’s also not afraid to openly criticize Judaism-qua-Judaism and Jews-qua-Jews, almost unheard of on the left, who essentially believe that Jews are demi-gods.

Too good to be true? Of course. Even though O’Colmain is sympathetic toward even right wing nationalism, and doesn’t seem to be anti-white, and is pro-working class, he’s a typical Opus Dei E. Michael Jones type. He does want a New World Order, just one run from the Vatican. In other words, one of these quasi-Catholic LARPers.

http://www.gearoidocolmain.org/occupation-reflections-recent-trip-iran/

We’ll get a global government, whether we like it or not:

Nonetheless, I believe we will have a global super-state in time whether we like it or not. Multipolarity has not brought global peace, nor did the multipolar order of 1913 prevent the first world war.

So, the only solution is to kiss the Pope’s ring:

Only a return to traditional Roman Catholicism could offer the prospect of overcoming the challenges of multicultural Europe. For the basis of European civilisation is constituted, as Alain Soral has wisely noted, by the Greek logos and the Roman caritas which are united in Christianity. Today logos has been buried in liberal and atheistic irrationalism and pseudoscience, while we have lost all sense of the beauty and necessity of Christian compassion or charity.

And “return” (/eyeroll) to the romantic days of medieval Europe:

The Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church was intended by God to be the guide of humanity, a link between heaven and earth guiding all men to their salvation. It was meant to be a one-world government under God. Since the Enlightenment ( a revolt against reason rather than for it) godless elites have striven for the creation of a universal republic, a Promethean dream of humanist supremacy, a universal Anti-Church- a world government under Satan.

Because “humanism” … “humanist supremacy” … is … “Satanic.”

These dorky pseudo-Catholics always want to “return” to the pre-Reformation days, precisely because the history before the printing press is rather spotty so they can project all their romantic notions on it. There’s a hilarious comment on, of all places, that cesspool of Google-Zionist-Globalism, YCombinator’s Hacker News, suggesting that medieval knights weren’t profit-seeking warlords, even though they could have been, but held to some gentlemanly code of chivalry. This is absurd, hasn’t anyone read the actual source materials of the Crusades? Yes, of course, the Crusades were a defensive measure against Muslim imperialism against Europe, and yes, the Catholic chuch did a credible job of federating Europeans to fight off the threat. But just read the source materials. The first-hand account of the Crusades I read, likely the very first primary source, in fact, written by an actual participant, spent the first half detailing the multiple-dozens of European cities the Crusaders would attack, then demand a “market” (I’ll always remember that is the word the translation used.) The entire first half was, “then we camped around this city, and the people surrendered, then came out with the best ‘market’ we had had in weeks. Then we attacked another city, they put up a fight, but we won, and they gave us an even better ‘market’.”

“Market” of course meant the people in the city had to open their gates, then give their food, tools, and weapons (and likely daughters as well) to the invading army – those knights who “weren’t warlords” – otherwise they would get murdered. The Crusaders spent the first half of their journey attacking Europeans until they sacked the recently Greek city of … Constantinople … which was almost certainly the actual goal, before (supposedly, likely mythologically) finishing up in “Jerusalem” – really, a little village called Al-Quds.

Yes, they stopped the Muslim advance – thank Jew-sus – but the only reason these quasi-Catholics have such a hard on for that time period is precisely because the history we have is so vague, and so distorted, they can project their romantic fantasies on that time. That’s why we called it “the Dark Ages” after all. (The only thing comparable is the romanticism we project onto the Greco-Roman culture, which is similarly shrouded in primitive, essentially pre-historiography. Or, for that matter, ignorant Protestant Bible-thumpers romanticizing mythological Old Testament tales about “Israel.”)

But then the Printing Press happened, literacy appeared, and the ugly – and not nearly as romantic – history came into focus. Sorry, Catholic Europe was not at all some sort of utopia. These people reject Voltaire precisely because he had their number. The Catholic Empire was a step in the right direction, but what came after was superior in every way.

I hate to be forced to channel the “New Atheists” of the 1990s (I’m not an atheist) but they are making me: grow up. The Church is a human institution, an outgrowth of the Roman Empire’s war against the Middle East and its imperial assimilation of Oriental cultures. “God” had nothing to do with it. The Pope was never anything more than a bureaucrat – interesting, because he was an example of “soft power” over “hard power.” Interesting, because the Church had an effect on our genetics (monogamy, outbreeding, etc., pace Kevin MacDonald.)

Again, the reason these neo-reactionary quasi-Catholics romanticize this time period is precisely because they know so little about it – we know so little about it. And the reason the post-Reformation period seems so ugly to them is because, for the first time, we have a continuous, written record about the reality – and it’s just not nearly as romantic – reality never is.

I’d have so much more respect for these quasi-Catholics if they at least gave us a reasonable interpretation of the social organization that the Church promoted. You get a little bit of this from Jones, etc., not much, but a little. For instance, the economic aspects of the monastaries, the distributionism economic system, the attempts to federate the monarchies (which you can be assured the Vatican hated, as they wanted Empire, not federation, but soft power can only do so much.)

But come on, it’s 2018. “A link between heaven and earth guiding all men to their salvation. It was meant to be a one-world government under God?” These are supposed to be the alternative to Protestant Bible-thumping? It’s all mystical woo-woo, meaningless verbiage.

I posit that it’s completely empty precisely because they can’t actually make it relevant. They have all the pieces, the instincts are certainly there (natalism, compassion for the poor, federalism, etc.) But they can’t actually bridge the gap from superstition to reality, in fact, it’s precisely the superstition (and their romance of the history) that they are defending – they are NOT actually defending the decent instincts the superstitions were created to explain. Nor are they even really defending the institution (that would be a good angle, IMO.) It’s the “mystery” and the “romance” that they are defending.

Why? Because they can’t accept reality – specifically, the reality of death, I guess. I heard these religion fanatics say this all the time, if there is no “God” then human life is meaningless. Says who? You literally can find no meaning in life without resort to a “god” based on ancient superstitions – and it’s always your particular version of “god” that is the only one?

You see the smart, educated types like E. Michael Jones trying to bridge this gap with his talk of “logos” – that’s how Jones avoids sounding like a superstitious peasant. The superstitious can talk about “God” … the Sky-Father … while the more philosophical types can discuss “logos,” “natural law,” “rationality” and the “order of the universe.” But really, for E. Michael Jones, the only “natural law” that he cares about is how anal sex is gross (I agree, but it’s hardly something to create an entire metaphysics around now is it? That is what animates Jones.) The critique of usury is great, very important, very much needed, but when will they get on with it? Jones actually punts on the economic specifics, he even says, “hey the Pope just said ‘ask your priest’ because we can’t figure out all these fancy financial instruments!”

Gotta give it to the Muslims – they take anti-usury seriously and have actually created serious economic systems without usury – even the Jew bankers have had to create “halal finance” to launder all their oil money.

But also – race? Jones – and I assume O’Colmain – really believe that race doesn’t matter, that genetics don’t matter, that evolution is one of those “godless humanist” plots, and every retarded fetus with a genetic mis-development has a “soul” that must be saved. Africa would be just as technologically advanced as Europe if they just adopted Augustinian Catholic “logos” or whatever.

This is why I can’t be a “right winger” – they are liars, mystifiers, and con artists. Jones is too smart to actually believe any of this stuff – and so is O’Colmain. But they need the, er, “less cognitively evolved” on their side so they can keep up the Universalism and not be “racist.”

They want an Empire.

Isn’t anyone else ready to MOVE ON?

15 thoughts on “Opus Dei & Gearoid O’Colmain

  1. Can’t disagree. Funny how all factions are pushing for world government with themselves on top. Duginists with that “multi-polarity” bullshit (read “weakening the West” – and a barely-hidden drive to roll over a chaotic, decadent Europe in their new “armata” tanks); muslim elites instigating their illiterate hordes’ dream of “caliphate” as they play dumb; Jews wth both communism and Chabad’s plan (1. weaken Islam by bombing Iran 2. replace a mosque in Jerusalem with “Solomon’s Temple” 3. ???? 4. Moschiach comes and all goyim bow to them as sacred rulers of Earth). Catholics are the same, and also have at least two horses in the race: as the official church becomes more and more progressive, with Popes sounding like Open Society Foundation operatives, these lesser factions put out their drems of God’s righteous empire. As you mentioned, it’s clearly a LARP for the low-IQ crowd (vast majority of caths). The church will probably either go with progressivism or somehow try to grift itself into the “third temple” gran finale (remember Shimon perez, Jew and Jesuit-educated, insinuating about ecumenical world-gov run by the Pope?). All cards are on the table – when they introduce the UBI along with chinese-style “social credit” (as conditional) in the West, the momentum for the final act will come.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. @#654

      This may surprise some readers, but I actually agree that a “New World Order” is inevitable. Kaczynski was right about technology. Global communication isn’t going away and likely global travel isn’t going away either. The powerful ARE globally networked, and they aren’t ever going to be globally disconnected.

      So we’re really just fighting over the nature of that New World Order.

      The fact that the Catholic church, itself a global system, can be criticized means that it’s no longer in power; obviously Francis just wants to make it a socially liberal NGO, but the reactionary Catholics actually believe they can rebuild Catholic power via superstition. That may work on Africans and even Mestizos, it’s not going to ever work on Europeans or Northern Asian, Japanese, Chinese, Koreans, etc. The fact that Catholic reaction is based on moronic superstition from the pre-industrial agricultural era shows that if Francis fails to turn it into a liberal NGO, it’s done.

      One of the reasons NRx exists is because that other global system: Jew-ism/Zionism, is also losing power. You can’t quite criticize Jew-ism yet, but the writing is on the wall.

      The only hope for the West, for Europeans, for Whites, is precisely the Liberal World order of multilateral institutions like the UN and the EU. (Hey, I’ve always said I was a liberal.)

      But that style of multilateralism is a White thing – liberalism is a White Privilege. The only way that is going to work is via Federalism, NOT imperialism. The old Altanticism (of which George H. W. Bush was the last holdout) almost worked, it was undercut by Jewish anti-whiteness and capital’s need for cheap labor and multi-racialism to destroy White class solidarity.

      But it can work again. All we need is two basic rules:

      1. Whites only.

      2. Federalism, not imperialism.

      Richard Spencer got #1 correct, but got #2 completely wrong. Whites are “egalitarian individualists” and that is baked-in to our cognition, and there isn’t enough time to breed it out. If it’s true the new global conflicts are going to be “4th Gen War” then our decentralized, leaderless, federalism is a strength, not a weakness, anyway.

      The old Atlanticists made the mistake of trying to impose a top-down imperialism on all Whites, and eventually the entire world. Scale that back a lot, and we’d have a workable system.

      Part of the problem is that the old Atlanticists only had other Whites to fight. Now we have China and maybe soon even India. That will make fighting with other Whites for dominance no longer possible; join or die.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Agree. But not with EU/UN in their current forms (basically enforcers of social engineering/chaos). And Spencer’s imperial ambition is inviable and silly. Sometimes I think that he might really be a fed, another professional distraction put out by the obscure Regnery machine. His manicheism (you’re either with “evil Anglo-Zionist” Atlanticists or with the Eurasian axis) and fanatical vanguardism (“people can’t take care of themselves” – as opposed to true multilateralism/self-determination) impoverish his positions.
        An interesting development is the growing tension between him and that weird clique of “ironybros”, who are a mixed bag of repulsive nihilists, mysoginists (before you cringe at the word see that “Beardson” fella talking about women) and debauched kids that virtue-signal, semi-seriously, as religious. They’re trying to enforce a kind of pragmatic sense of image (“optics”) that not only doesn’t bring anything new to the table, it represents total psychological surrender to long established paradigms. These kids are depressing because their schtick is nothing but conformism behind a veneer of vitalism/aggressive sarcasm. It’s a new spiritual low for the West. Debauched castrati.
        And Regnery’s golden boy seems to be losing (Fuentes is growing subscribers on twitter while Spencer declines, if this crap even vaguely indicates anything). It’s a melancholic spectacle.

        Like

    2. I agree about everyone wanting their own “NWO” but the Third Temple thing is waaay more a Evangelical thing than anything to do with Catholicism, even of the most conservative kind.

      Russia needs Ukraine and Belarus if they don’t want become a Asian country, the White Slavic population is falling and being replaced by Central Asia Muslims, the ideal scenario for Europe would be a EU Country with its own Army without NATO(USA) control to the West and Russia re-taking Belarus and Ukraine to East.

      Liked by 2 people

  2. At this point any kind of non-HBD-wise “right-wing” is controlled opposition.
    Notice that he quotes Alain Soral, a literal Jacobin and ex-member of the Communist Party, who seems okay with the browning of France as long as they don’t like Zionism and eat baguette, I guess.
    And Catholicism discredits himself as the “One True Church” every time the Pope opens his mouth. Believe me, many NRX types have grown past it.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. @maieuticinitiate

      NRx was always just another distraction, like libertarianism was a decade or two ago. Ten years ago I was really into reading NRx stuff, but I grew out of it because it’s just another “ism” based on ideology instead of reality.

      Jordan Peterson is sort of “NRx-lite” – also compatible with the current ruling class and no threat to the actual system, another way to keep smart young White men from taking their own side.

      Honestly, I’m beating a dead horse, NRx has already peaked, and there’s really nothing to show for it. Monarchs? Throne and Altar? “Traditional Catholicism?” … DONALD TRUMP is going to “stage a coup” and declaring himself the God-Emperor?

      Come on, these people are a joke. Yarvin was interesting, but he retired, and his cult groupies don’t have half of his candle-power and I don’t think really understood him anyway.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. Some very good points in there. What I find worthwhile in E Michael Jones is the introduction of a moral framework within which to examine events. It’s odd but that is something that was new to me. It made me aware of the false contemporary pseudo- morality enshrined within liberal and capitalist ideology. I was raised in a society practically bereft of any moral framework except the pursuit of self fulfilment happiness etc. The moral high ground is occupied by media creations. Utterly false substitutes for something that does exist but has become submerged and eclipsed by an inflation of self. Even Nietzsche knew the death of God as an idea was a tragic event with ominous repercussions.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. @Cartman

      I’m a critic of Jones because he’s worth critiquing, he has something worth responding to. The fact he acknowledges a moral system is useful despite the fact he can only justify his morality via superstition – many (most?) modern moral systems are similarly based on superstition even if they are non-theistic.

      Also great point about Nietzsche – his supposed fans don’t seem to have actually read him. He absolutely did see the “death of god” as a tragedy, a premature development that humanity had not yet developed a replacement for.

      I have to wonder about this though:

      “any moral framework except the pursuit of self fulfilment happiness etc.”

      Do you have a better moral framework? I would think there is something worthwhile above the level of the individual – there’s really no such thing as a pure “individual” anyway, as humans are a social creatures, mankind is a herd animal. There really is no “humanity” on the individual level. So one could make a good case for a “moral framework” that exists for the “fulfillment” and “happiness” of the tribe, or the clan, even the “selfish gene” let’s say. I’ve long said that the old religious concept of “eternal life” is some sort of muddled attempt to understand the genetics of children and grandchildren – that is how human beings gain “eternal life.”

      But I get a little nervous when people start complaining about “the emptiness of modern life that’s all about happiness.” What is the alternative? Sadness? Unfulfillment? When people say they long for something “bigger than themselves” – ok. Do you mean family, tribe? I hope not just an “ideology.” Ideologies are a dime a dozen, I can create a couple of ideologies in the next few days.

      At the end of the day “happiness” and “fulfillment” is all we can judge by – if not, then what? The Bible, or the Koran, or the Gita? Ayn Rand’s Objectivism? The Libertarian non-aggression principle? Those who subscribe to an ideology do so because it makes them happy, in one sense or another, after all – even though it’s better described as “moral self-righteousness” than “happiness” I would suspect.

      I do think capitalism is vastly overrated, especially since really-existing capitalism is just a system of points enforced by a network of central banks. No, I’m not saying that Bitcoin is the answer, but the entire point of money is that it’s a way to coordinate human effort without a centralized authority – by having centralized authorities coining money, we’re just back to a tyranny. Surely, with the internet, we can do better than let Janet Yellin issue fiat money and give it to her political constituents.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I recently read ‘Sapiens’ which has been hyped by the media. Compared to Spengler or Evola or Jones it reads like a schoolboy essay. That book is the product of a tecnological age floundering in the moral void. There’s no analysis of any concepts beyond this superficial materialistic level. Ultimately there’s nothing but blind evolutionary forces and make-believe constructs.
        It’s so badly written that if it wasn’t the establishment view it would be ridiculed and maginalised. At least with Jones you get a critique of stuff like Sapiens.

        Like

      2. @Cartman

        The “material” universe is far from “superficial” – it’s far more interesting and complex than ideologies and religion/religious philosophy, which seems far more “superficial” to me. Religious philosophy is just language, and mistaking language for reality.

        I challenge anyone to come up with a coherent religious philosophy using only English Prime:

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Prime

        “Ultimately there’s nothing but blind evolutionary forces and make-believe constructs.”

        Jones has a lot of interesting critiques of various social phenomenon, but ultimately he bases his ideology on make-believe constructs, which really limits his worth.

        Liked by 1 person

      3. These sort of discussions always remind me of St Augustines comment: I know perfectly well what time is until someone asks me to explain it.
        It seems to me that the modern world has increased the intellectual horizon at the cost of something that was essential. I started my blog to try to clarify this suspicion but I still can’t see it clearly. We seem to be progressing and diminishing in different aspects at an alarming rate.
        I suppose if you don’t have that nagging suspicion then people like Jones just seem like high quality snake oil peddlers.

        Like

      4. @Cartman

        “at the cost of something that was essential.”

        1. People who were raised religious feel the loss of “faith” as they get older. It’s really just a displaced “loss of innocence” and “loss of youth.” I share the sentiment – I was raised religious and loved it, my religious community was wonderful and I have nothing but pleasant nostalgia for it. I like to think I’m self-aware enough to not confuse my emotions for “spirituality” (which is just an emotion, after all.)

        2. On a “grander” scale, the “loss” one feels in the modern world is the loss of pastoralism (agricultural society) due to industrialization. Industrialization is barely 300 years old, a blink of an eye on the evolutionary time scale. Humans have not even come close to adapting to it. My read is that 95% of this anti-modernism, especially as described by conservatives and the religious, is just discomfort with industrial society. (Ted Kaczynski was right, after all, and a literal genius.)

        That is my “nagging suspicion” about the whole thing. I also subscribe to St. Paul’s dictum: “When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.” (1 Corinthians 13:11)

        Liked by 1 person

      5. Definitely connected to the industrial revolution. Notice all the pastoral metaphors used in religious texts and common sayings, folk wisdom. Wordsworth and D H Lawrence were latter day Kaczynskis.

        Liked by 1 person

  4. “The critique of usury is great, very important, very much needed, but when will they get on with it? Jones actually punts on the economic specifics….”

    Too harsh? What if an alcoholic who was still drinking objected that this abstinence recovery program was too light on specifics on the back end? Maybe you would say, ‘hey buddy, you’re lying down drunk in the gutter every night; we can start working out some specifics after you’re dried out for a few months’? Or instead of an alcoholic, maybe think of a morbidly obese person. Like, hey, let’s get you off snacks and tubs of ice cream first and worry about whether you’re more of a tennis player or a gymnast after we get you able to walk a mile. Or a long term sloth unemployed person —hey let’s first get you doing something with purpose 8 yours a day. Etc. etc.

    I read Jones as saying usury is so shot through the system that, for the sake of argument, we have to punt on after-usury specifics. Like how you really don’t even know what’s best about a person or ideal for them if they’re disintegrated by drugs or on death’s door by letting their appetites go, not having specifics for what might be done after clearing usury out of the system is perfectly reasonable.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s