The principles that animated the American revolution and founding are no less deadly than those of the French revolution. In some respects, they are more evil. The reason being that the former, uniquely, are an insidious evil, not the honest, so to speak, evil found in the French experiment.
In the same way that communism, which is easily recognizable and nearly-always violent, is less dangerous than liberalism, which has a veneer of respectability and a subtlety that can go undetected. Mass executions of clergy and religious, followed by anti-Catholic legislation are easy to see. What is harder to detect, much less combat, is naturalism, inflamed by an individualistic and capitalistic spirit, preaching rights for true and false religion, alike.
Both systems of revolution, importantly, share the same, underlying anti-Catholic principles.
There is a soft Americanism that is being pushed by (no doubt) well-intentioned persons. It is an error, not rising to heresy, certainly.
The position is largely attitudinal, but its doctrine consists in key omissions. It is still trying to marry the American spirit and project with Roman Catholicism—which does not nor cannot work. Counterrevolution, conspicuously, does not apply to America in their minds.
The only antidote is an un-doing, in a fundamental way, of the American founding and constitution. Using legal means, of course. Not only is accidental reform of American ineffective (history has borne this out), it is wrong in principle.
The American Catholic hierarchy, before the council, were assiduous in their efforts to prove they were good Americans, forgetting that proving that they were good Catholics comes first, and necessarily would exclude the former. Unfortunately, to be a good American, in the proper sense, means repudiating the prevailing notion of what it means to be a ‘good American’.
In the same way that communism, which is easily recognizable and nearly-always violent, is less dangerous than liberalism, which has a veneer of respectability and a subtlety that can go undetected. Mass executions of clergy and religious, followed by anti-Catholic legislation are easy to see. What is harder to detect, much less combat, is naturalism, inflamed by an individualistic and capitalistic spirit, preaching rights for true and false religion, alike.
Both systems of revolution, importantly, share the same, underlying anti-Catholic principles.
There is a soft Americanism that is being pushed by (no doubt) well-intentioned persons. It is an error, not rising to heresy, certainly.
The position is largely attitudinal, but its doctrine consists in key omissions. It is still trying to marry the American spirit and project with Roman Catholicism—which does not nor cannot work. Counterrevolution, conspicuously, does not apply to America in their minds.
The only antidote is an un-doing, in a fundamental way, of the American founding and constitution. Using legal means, of course. Not only is accidental reform of American ineffective (history has borne this out), it is wrong in principle.
The American Catholic hierarchy, before the council, were assiduous in their efforts to prove they were good Americans, forgetting that proving that they were good Catholics comes first, and necessarily would exclude the former. Unfortunately, to be a good American, in the proper sense, means repudiating the prevailing notion of what it means to be a ‘good American’.
🔥23🤔3❤2👏1
Detailed response and critique of Gideon Lazar and his arguments about America and the founding.
https://x.com/americanreform_/status/1927895891257741674?s=46
https://x.com/americanreform_/status/1927895891257741674?s=46
X (formerly Twitter)
American Reform (@AmericanReform_) on X
Again, I don’t think you even understand my criticism, especially given that your original position, “the United States is [has been] a Christian nation”, is provably false. This is chiefly what I took issue with. Your posting this quotation from Justice…
🔥11⚡2
R - Pius XII No. 46.jpg
1.3 MB
In 1953, Pope Pius XII, emphasizing the hylomorphic nature of man, identified natural dispositions—which have a genetic basis—as “strongly influenc[ing] both the education of man and his future behavior”.
The relevant excerpt from his speech to the Participants in the International Symposium of Medical Genetics can be seen above.
The relevant excerpt from his speech to the Participants in the International Symposium of Medical Genetics can be seen above.
🔥19❤3👏2
The WM Review has kindly shared one of my essays on a big and often misunderstood question—namely, is America a Christian nation?
This is my first original essay and I hope to be composing more of these, on relevant political topics.
Additionally, other essays are in my queue that will be published along with my usual translation work. Please let me know in the comments if you like the writing or have suggestions.
https://x.com/thewmreview/status/1928803361328955604?s=46
This is my first original essay and I hope to be composing more of these, on relevant political topics.
Additionally, other essays are in my queue that will be published along with my usual translation work. Please let me know in the comments if you like the writing or have suggestions.
https://x.com/thewmreview/status/1928803361328955604?s=46
❤16👍3👎1
Thought experiment for Mr. Kennedy Hall regarding the infallibility of canonizations - https://x.com/americanreform_/status/1929640990635446481?s=46
X (formerly Twitter)
American Reform (@AmericanReform_) on X
@kennedyhall Will be listening to this, thanks. Not an easy argument to make using the traditional principles of ecclesiology.
Just as a matter of consistency, if Abp. Lefebvre or Bp. Fellay were to be canonized by the conciliar hierarchy, would you vigorously…
Just as a matter of consistency, if Abp. Lefebvre or Bp. Fellay were to be canonized by the conciliar hierarchy, would you vigorously…
🔥9🤔2👏1
Fr. Denis Fahey contrasts the Catholic and Jewish programs of ordering society.
🔥25👏4
Since the Second Vatican Council, there have been no Catholic priests or prelates, outside of Bishop Richard Williamson (RIP) and now Fr. James Mawdsley, who have publicly and routinely treated all declared enemies of the Church with consistency. The problem is mainly the inconsistency, and I do not wish to extend it, meaningfully, outside of that.
What do I mean?
In dealing with or talking about Protestants or Muslims, good priests are unafraid of openly opposing them, offending them, or occasionally subjecting them to ridicule, even mockery. The same is not true of the Jews, curiously. For them, an exception is made, yet they are the perennial and fiercest (temporal) enemy of the Catholic Church. Judaism, in its essence, is a repudiation of the Messianic Dignity of Christ and wants to overthrow Catholic order in society, whether in its liberal or Talmudic form.
Now, giving offense is not a good thing in itself, nor should it be sought after gratuitously, but it is a consequence of the Gospel and the Truth. Insofar as the Catholic faith pervades the social and political sphere it sometimes is necessary to give offense to men to avoid offending God, or in fact, to positively obey His will.
Now, this principle of Jewish omission is true of both traditional and non-traditional priests, alike, though to a much greater extent in the latter camp. It’s not just a Novus Ordo problem and omission, so to speak. Colloquially, it means everyone goes ‘soft’ on the Jews.
If Protestants are going to be justly criticized in their theology and politics, and they certainly should, the Jews should be justly criticized, with equal energy and fervor. If anything, given that Lutherans are not presently dominating elite sectors of Western society—whether finance, banking, Hollywood, news outlets, tech companies, government, academia—I see no reason why they should receive more criticism than the Jews. When things go wrong, the leaders are to blame. It’s common sense.
That said, if I am getting something wrong or missing something, I am open to hearing a different view.
Final point, yes, I acknowledge that criticizing those who have power is not without consequences, but I’m trying to draw out an inconsistency in which Catholics will bear and fight, say, Protestant persecution, yet not when it comes from the Jews.
What do I mean?
In dealing with or talking about Protestants or Muslims, good priests are unafraid of openly opposing them, offending them, or occasionally subjecting them to ridicule, even mockery. The same is not true of the Jews, curiously. For them, an exception is made, yet they are the perennial and fiercest (temporal) enemy of the Catholic Church. Judaism, in its essence, is a repudiation of the Messianic Dignity of Christ and wants to overthrow Catholic order in society, whether in its liberal or Talmudic form.
Now, giving offense is not a good thing in itself, nor should it be sought after gratuitously, but it is a consequence of the Gospel and the Truth. Insofar as the Catholic faith pervades the social and political sphere it sometimes is necessary to give offense to men to avoid offending God, or in fact, to positively obey His will.
Now, this principle of Jewish omission is true of both traditional and non-traditional priests, alike, though to a much greater extent in the latter camp. It’s not just a Novus Ordo problem and omission, so to speak. Colloquially, it means everyone goes ‘soft’ on the Jews.
If Protestants are going to be justly criticized in their theology and politics, and they certainly should, the Jews should be justly criticized, with equal energy and fervor. If anything, given that Lutherans are not presently dominating elite sectors of Western society—whether finance, banking, Hollywood, news outlets, tech companies, government, academia—I see no reason why they should receive more criticism than the Jews. When things go wrong, the leaders are to blame. It’s common sense.
That said, if I am getting something wrong or missing something, I am open to hearing a different view.
Final point, yes, I acknowledge that criticizing those who have power is not without consequences, but I’m trying to draw out an inconsistency in which Catholics will bear and fight, say, Protestant persecution, yet not when it comes from the Jews.
❤27💯6🔥1
Media is too big
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
“They’re not even American, these so-called Democrats and Republicans”
- Fr. Charles Coughlin
- Fr. Charles Coughlin
❤26🔥4
Please, if you can, pray for a friend of mine who is converting to Catholicism and is being baptized tonight.
❤47🙏27
L - Pesch No. 20.jpg
1.7 MB
Fr. Heinrich Pesch, ethicist and economist in the Solidarist school, describes the essence of capitalism and its animating spirit:
“Capitalism is a type of economic structure which stemmed from individualistic freedom to pursue gain, and the principle of individualistic economism prevails in it in such a way as to serve predominantly the interests of those who own capital, especially money capital.”
“To provide the people of the nation with external goods is not an End but rather a Means in capitalistic economics.”
X 🔗
“Capitalism is a type of economic structure which stemmed from individualistic freedom to pursue gain, and the principle of individualistic economism prevails in it in such a way as to serve predominantly the interests of those who own capital, especially money capital.”
“To provide the people of the nation with external goods is not an End but rather a Means in capitalistic economics.”
X 🔗
🔥18❤2👍1🤔1
Working on a couple of small projects and want to see what you guys would like published next. Two options, and I will be releasing the “pick” on Thursday evening at The Journal of American Reform.
Anonymous Poll
39%
Essay on dogmatic and political tolerance of false religions
61%
Essay on race and errors to be avoided from 1930s
Two days ago, with striking imagery, Sr. Maria Gloria Riva was invited to speak on spiritual matters before a captive and seated male audience, including Leo XIV and numerous other figures. Many cardinals and bishops were also present, seated in the hall, attentively listening.
On the stage, Sister Riva addressed moral and religious matters, talking about “the last things, the brevity of existence, and the meaning of our lives.” In addition to the substance of her message, the context of the lecture lent itself to the impression that she was speaking with a certain authority. Any reasonable observer could be forgiven for thinking it.
This gathering was, perhaps, inspired by remarks made earlier this year by Francis I in which he stressed, “Do not forget that since the time of the Garden of Eden, they have been in charge. Women are in charge!”, followed by a warning against the Church falling into a “clerical mindset”.
As Catholic World reported, “The nun’s participation was planned by the Dicastery for Evangelization with Pope Francis before his death. Francis had expanded women’s leadership roles in the Church, including opening the ministries of lector and acolyte to women.”
Source: https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2025/06/09/eternity-is-before-us-nun-says-to-pope-leo-xiv-in-jubilee-speech/
It is noteworthy to mention the admonition of St. Paul who had a decidedly different view of a woman publicly discussing religious and moral matters before men, whether her teaching was explicit or implicit.
“Let the woman learn in silence, with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over the man: but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed; then Eve. And Adam was not seduced; but the woman being seduced, was in the transgression.”
Original on X
On the stage, Sister Riva addressed moral and religious matters, talking about “the last things, the brevity of existence, and the meaning of our lives.” In addition to the substance of her message, the context of the lecture lent itself to the impression that she was speaking with a certain authority. Any reasonable observer could be forgiven for thinking it.
This gathering was, perhaps, inspired by remarks made earlier this year by Francis I in which he stressed, “Do not forget that since the time of the Garden of Eden, they have been in charge. Women are in charge!”, followed by a warning against the Church falling into a “clerical mindset”.
As Catholic World reported, “The nun’s participation was planned by the Dicastery for Evangelization with Pope Francis before his death. Francis had expanded women’s leadership roles in the Church, including opening the ministries of lector and acolyte to women.”
Source: https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2025/06/09/eternity-is-before-us-nun-says-to-pope-leo-xiv-in-jubilee-speech/
It is noteworthy to mention the admonition of St. Paul who had a decidedly different view of a woman publicly discussing religious and moral matters before men, whether her teaching was explicit or implicit.
“Let the woman learn in silence, with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over the man: but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed; then Eve. And Adam was not seduced; but the woman being seduced, was in the transgression.”
Original on X
🥴13🤔8❤7🤮7
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
Bp. Richard Williamson (RIP) describes the recent past and future of the White race
🔥31❤13⚡3
American Reform
https://x.com/americanreform_/status/1934618882259522027?s=46
Sammons replies: https://x.com/americanreform_/status/1935045492951458250?s=46
X (formerly Twitter)
American Reform (@AmericanReform_) on X
@EricRSammons I’m familiar with this but I don’t think you answered my specific question. In the article you said, “There are still antisemites in the world, and it’s still a sin to be one.” Even while maintaining the term is abused by conservatives and too…
👍8❤2