Wishing North America Better Times

     No country today is as relevant to the West as is Russia. Russia is the miraculously-back-from-the-dead ex-alcoholic who had a terrible car crash that he wasn't expected to survive. John Howard Kunstler is quite right to insist that the current suppression of free thought on college campuses is something paradigmatically new, almost a kind of "Red Maoist Guard".

 The Red Guard-like action on campus may continue, though it’s hard to imagine the “Snowflakes” besting their infantile hijinks of 2016. What they are demonstrating now is that coercive identity politics is just a new form of leisure-time recreation on campus, like Ultimate Frisbee and the beer blasts of old! Have fun wrecking faculty careers and basking in the Facebook feed! A few still-sane people of all political persuasions are sick of their censorious attacks, reckless persecutions, and insults to reality — such as the mandatory “white privilege” trainings and gender identity personal pronoun crusades. I predict that there will be a revolt among the university trustees and boards of directors against college presidents and deans who pander to the Maoist hysteria, as the damage to higher education and intellectual freedom more generally finally manifests in dropping enrollments and the loss of public funding.

A good term for the University Nexus is "The Cathedral". Harvard has been ruling the USA since the Civil War, and the world since 1945. But The Old Liberal Guard is out. The Red Guard is "in", thanks to the Second Civil War, which was fought "peacefully" during the 1960s. The radicals of the 1960s cleaned up, went to college, and then seized power as professors. They will not extend the same courtesy of free association and thought which was given to them - they know how they used it, and they don't want that done to them. So they are "removing all the safeties" on their torpedoes: Conservatives are blackballed at the least, and humiliated and ruined at the worst. And most of them are actually just very conservative old school liberals. If they're willing to do this to their old party affiliates, imagine how they view their actual political enemies. Free Speech? Don't You Believe It!" Fee Spreech. Sprechen Sie Communismus.
     Russia has the advantage of having actually done Communism "up right" : they weren't play acting when they rode through Poland, created the Gulags, cooperated with and then fought the Nazis to the death, and then hung on through a Cold War with the entire free West. At the cost of only a quarter of their population or so, not to mention all the misery and suffering. They are, in this area, every way our superior, having done it whole hog, and then managed to survive and repudiate it. The rise of Putin can be entirely explained in terms of Russia's search for a stable and just ruler who will throw them back to the trajectory of their spiritual destiny. Putin may be a nasty guy (I can't really know this one way or the other) but he makes good decisions for Russia, and that is good for the whole world.
     Why is Russia hated? Well, besides the fact that they are living testifying drop dead eat your hat proof that Communism doesn't work, and will swear on a stack of Slavonic Bibles by the ghost of Alexander Solzhenitsyn (who embarrassed Harvard with his piety, erudition, and dignity), that we are in a heap of trouble if we keep up all this keeping on, they are also European, Western, very White (Oh the horror, the horror!), and Christian to boot. They are into a double hat-trick of penalties in the SJW rule book. And, AND, they have nuclear weapons and apparently aren't going to be lectured to by the Faux Liberaux intellectual giants who have masterminded the eradication of separate restrooms for Ladies and Gents.         
     One can only hope that, out there, somewhere in the troubled streets of our gigantic eyesore Metropoli, which exist as giant cancers all across the Western World, or hidden deep in the hills of the Appalachian mountains or the endless rolling plains of the prairies, are a few heroes, saints, or even martyrs left, who with unspoiled eye and untainted heart, look upon the rest of the North American hominids with love, bravery, prudence, and firmness. It will take all of our cunning, all of our virtue, all of our bravery, and all of our strength to face the appalling harvest of apathy and despair which threatens to overwhelm the increasingly desperate North American continent, to re-organize it, stabilize it, and turn it back from the brink of wrack and ruin. But for that, we need leadership. Men of good will abound, and are perhaps even a slight majority. But that is not enough. No other country on earth is better suited to empathize, understand, and provide an example for us as Russia is today.  That is why "Russia-gate" is such a primal, deep fear among our feckless elites. They are beginning to doubt their own narrative, just on the eve of their total triumph - What if it is all a Lie? What if this way, madness lies?
     Because the sky is dark with chickens coming home to roost. A multi-dimensional vortex of economic, financial, political, cultural, religious, and sociological factors is brewing up a perfect storm for us here Stateside. If we can face it manfully and in all truth, it will be a magnificent opportunity, as it was for Russia, to recapture what is best in Life, to find ourselves again as a polity, as citizens, as Christians, as men of the West. If we run from it, it will swallow us whole anyway.
     Who wants to live forever? Physically, no. Because that would mean an eternal lack of perfection. Spiritually? Hell, yes. There are worse things than dying. After all, gentleman, (and gentle ladies), we live in an ordered and hierarchical world, subject to Cosmic Law, with "more things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of in your philosophies". We are bearers of the Christ, emissaries of the Creator, the mediators of heaven and earth. What could be better than discovering the meaning of that? Who knows, it might be a lot more exciting than one more Net Flix (TM) binge.
     By the powers, I cannot forget the beauty, truth, and goodness in the world, or cease to seek it's meaning. Because he who finds that, "finds more" (Dr. Michael Bauman). To die would be a great adventure, so die before you die. Second star to the right. Let's rebuild America.

Support Your Local Dollar Despot

     It is no longer possible to use words like "capitalism" and "socialism" in a derogatory manner - nobody knows what the most precise definition is, and can't be bothered to clear that up anyway. Instead, the word oligarchy is more promising. Even that adjectival noun doesn't do America justice. What we have is plutocracy. Aristotle defined aristocracy as rule by the better few, while oligarchy would simply be rule by the few: the unjust form of aristocracy. If aristocracy (as embodied most of all in the ancien regime in France) fell because of the revolt among the many in the "Folk" or Volk, our republic today is failing because of the revolt of the "many" elites against the remaining healthy "many". The elites are using "majority-minorities" to bludgeon their populist political opponents, who (barely) can still constitute the "Many". If one weighs the NAACP, SPLC, the ACLU and all of the many arms of the liberal elite associations, its very numbers and sophistication amplifies its power to the point of constituting a rival "Many", and gives them control over Media, Education, Government, Entertainment, and (now) most of the main-line Churches.
     In other words, the Western world has entered a downward spiral of degeneration in which each group launches revolutions in mores and laws against the more conservative elements in the other groups. There is no longer a "commonwealth". The main issue here is not class or social justice, but Justice. Neither is the issue which class or caste should rule. The issue is whether the American people can secure just rule by any group or person. Monarchy having been excluded from the outset, America had left to choose between the natural aristoi or the body of commoners. This dynamic played itself out (for instance) in the struggle of Jackson against the old parties and entrenched leadership.
     However, the disappearance of Christianity as a cultural force has opened up more possibilities. Instead of being ruled by (relatively) sound and sane natural aristocrats or populist leaders at the head of a (relatively) normal movement, we are now confronted with the proletariat, the lumpen-proleteriat, the huddled mobs and masses, and actual dissidents who range from the bizarre and macabre to the suddenly-weirdly-possible (if current population trends continue). These forces exist in any society, but are normally held in check by just and sound rule or statecraft; the fact that they are no longer creeping when out in the open means that they sense their time is nigh.
     The new leaders which have emerged to manage these possibilities are either demagogues or plutocrats. Donald Trump is arguably both, while Hillary was certainly both, but in much cleverer disguise. The human mind desperately wants to think in terms of simplistic binaries (eg., Us vs. the 1%), but as the bottom drops out of what was left of once-great America, a multitude of insane options present themselves. John Howard Kunstler argues that America will eventually accept "corn-pone Nazis" if that means it can keep Suburbia. The Left apparently actually believes we are in danger of fascism coming to power, and they are pioneering fascistic methods on our streets in order to prevent Fascism with a capital F (you have to destroy the village in order to save it). This despite the fact that George Orwell already noted long ago that the word has lost any objective meaning. Corn-pone fascism comes in a leftist dipping sauce and spices if that's your poison.
     Why is it, that year after year, America's debt goes up and up, living arrangements seem more temporary, life feels more hectic, and the whole nation feels like a moonscape settlement in a dystopian science fiction novel? Because America no longer has any morals or even mores left. Carthage, too, once the world's greatest trading empire, possibly possessing ships that were seaworthy to cross the Atlantic, believed that money alone could defeat and rule the rest of the world, and seemed invincible. The British Empire itself went broke trying to keep its coffers ringing with tribute from around the globe. The love of money is the root of all evil. And America loves money. Not just a lot, but almost the exclusion of everything else. Money is the only language degraded intellects can parse.
     In America, the dollar is King - "The business of America is business.". We will not get Russian oligarchs, at least not yet. We will get the "soft" version of a melting-pot mob presided over by gluttonous plutocrats, all squabbling over the enormous carcass of what was once the wealthiest nation on earth. This is because as times worsen, people turn to what they know and understand, something simply, something denominated in binary Ones and Zeros - the Almighty Dollar. If illegal immigration pays for Tyson and the rich and Democratic hereditary legacy-bureaucrats, then illegal immigration we will get. If pollution and drug trafficking generate revenue streams, then we will get mountains of waste dumps, dirty lakes, and plenty of cheap heroin and meth. America has been schooled, almost from infancy, to value the "main chance". Even the Civil Rights Era could not escape this legacy, keeping their "eyes on the prize", which was access to all the power, glitz, and money afforded by inroads made into "white America". North America has become the center of a global banking Empire which wants to wrap tentacles around the entire globe, until the world is flat again, with no walls or borders.
     The poor don't know any better, and generally can be halfway forgiven for not being able to overcome their cupidity and ignorance, but their number is swelling by the day, and in a "Democracy", numbers matter. They are also engaging in inexcusable violence and shameful displays of hatred and stupidity. And "poor" is a relative term - financially, they still enjoy enviable slices of the Imperial Pie, compared to global counterparts. Their greatest poverty is primarily in cultural capital, like mores and traditions, and they give away what little they have to embrace anyone who is willing to lie to them.
     I am not sure what excuse the rich would use for their short-sighted idiocy in allowing this trend to gain ground, or even adding accelerants to the mixture in the form of Third World immigration, but they will live to regret it. The middle class is shrinking from both sides, either selling out as middle managers for the bozos who are masterminding one of Dante's circles in hell, or else falling abjectly into the seething mass below them. The ones that are left are woefully short more on brains than actual virile manpower, and that is not good either. The middle class still thinks America Can Be Made Great Again, if we just return to 1950s nationalism, or something close to it. My sympathies, but not loyalties, are with them. At least they still remember a time in which ordinary Americans had more in common with each other than not. Their instincts are good and right, but they are hopelessly outclassed by the enormitude of the problems confronting this country, which are not primarily of their design, and will not submit to their belated objections in the form of The Donald. The Donald cannot fix America, even if he knew how.
     Everyone in America wants to get rich quick, even the lumpen-proleteriat, who faithfully and religiously purchase lottery tickets each week or sue their local Walmart because the floors were too slick for their flip-flops. Minorities can barely wait to have their own local power structures, replete with Byzantine levels of corruption and greed. The Italians and Irish gave us our first really gigantic big city political machines, and other minority groups will continue this time-hallowed conservative tradition of money and power being marks of God's divine election in the promised land of the kingdom of God. But maybe this was there from the start, implicit in industrial civilization, as pioneered by the Puritans. Certainly the Abolitionist movement can be viewed as a very effective version of a political machine, if judged by the attainment of goals and aims. Even the Allies during WW2 engaged in effective juggernaut propaganda, all in the name of Freedom, Justice, and (above all) the Dollar.
     It's hard to tell where it all started anymore, but start it did. Western Civilization is (today) for the most part concerned with making money.This means that, in the end, money is all we will have left, and that in name only, because money is not the same as economic wealth or resilience, let alone culture or civilization. We will have to buy everything, including loyalty and the air we breath, and we burn worthless derivative bundles in our potbelly stoves to keep warm during the winters. American resourcefulness, hard work, and tech-savvy go a long way, especially when the world is awash in cheap oil. But macro and micro-economics are not enough to prevent the human tragedy we see unfolding. Man doesn't wish to, and indeed cannot even if he did, live in a world in which he is just another brick in the wall.
     Our global elites have tried to create this world, imagined in countless fantasies, of one unified mankind living in the peace and harmony of an economic paradise. But they tried to build it with manipulation, lies, and promises printed on paper. America is being run like a gigantic corporation, which wishes to take over, or at least control, all the other little corporations it created in its own image in the name of Democracy. Instead of a light on a shining hill, we would be the capital city of a New World Order. God may intend something like this to happen, but it will be built by the Spirit, with the wisdom and power of God, and not according to the dictates of a secular humanism run rampant on cheap (and now declining) fossil fuels.
     God's plan involves re-integrating Time (including Past-Present-Future) in one narrative, and dividing (and thus stabilizing) Space into many diversities which are united in the deeper love of the Spirit, the "shields of the earth". Our rulers want to fragment time (by splitting everything into nanoseconds and re-inventing natural law as if the past could be ignored and the future averted), and crushing space into one uniform order. This way lies the cindery plains of hell. The very people who are most self-righteously pushing for the will of a God they no longer believe in, are doing the most to ruin any chance that this generation can ever begin to glimpse something of the beauty and majesty of God. This is the definition of hypocrisy, Phariseeism, and tyrannically unjust social orders.

 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.

     This is the legacy of 1789. It is time to go backwards, in order to go forward again. For those who wish to, here is a great place to start, at Gornahoor. Failing that, or even in addition, you might need to start planting a Victory Garden.
    

La Revolution Devore Ses Infants

Posted on 2014-04-04 by Logres

During the years leading up to 1789, Paris had increasingly become the exclusive city in France, a city-among-cities, with no peer. One of the dynamics behind the destruction of the ancien regime was Paris’ desire to subordinate the legitimate and ancient diversity of the pays (regions) of old France. Paris would become the truly capital city, rather than the body of the king, since in the medieval world, the city or seat of sovereignty, was in the actual person of the king, wherever he happened to be touring. With the Enlightenment justifying its bourgeois aspirations, and Art turning to the bizarre and degenerate, the entire city descended from famine into chaos.

We can see an analogous process at work today. America has decided to be the “Paris” of a global order which encompasses nothing less than the world plantation. All of the world’s goods flow into American territory, just as French produce and goods flowed into the environs of the burgeoning Parisian enclaves. With a philosophy behind it to justify its aspirations (multiculturalism, tribalism, and the continuance of Revolution), the “new American” seems poised to plunge his country into the same chaos that engulfed France in 1789. This is because, as we all know, the Revolution must play on.
With notable differences (Paris had a lot more potential to control the local French countryside than America has to control all of the world, and Paris was more homogeneous than America is today), it is true to say that America and its satellites and imitators comprise a global arrangement increasingly aspiring to universal “values”, which is to say, global sway. This is what the neo-liberal consensus comes to mean. When they say “human rights”, what they mean is the “customary rights of those over whom we hold sway, our serfs”. There are no visible aristocrats, just beautiful people making large incomes living in good style, in cosmopolitan centers of “Westerness” all over the world. Oswald Spengler points out how the megalopoloi come to dominate the countryside in late phases of civilization, reaching their tentacles into the land to suck wealth out of it and legitimize itself by aggrandizement vis a vis the provinces. In the final analysis of this cycle, it is the ostentatious display of arbitrary power and wealth, at the expense of everything else, which marks the final phase. The outer shell of civilization, precisely as it grasps power, wastes away.

In something reminiscient of pyramid schemes and cultic orders, with perhaps a bit of sheer bee-like and herd-like behaviour thrown in, everyone’s greatest concern is to escape the smaller town and go “where something is happening”, which is to say, money, power, and other attractions.
This phase is operates to help America become a “world city”. More and more people are invited; more and more countries are invaded. The entire country, from the Everglades to Gnome, Alaska, becomes a truly diverse cosmopolis. This befits America’s status as “most advanced region” of the planet, future home of the “world-city” that turns all other places into backwaters, from which to draw more staying power and ferment. True, others imitate us (Europe, most of all), yet half-heartedly. Some regions even attempt to un-imitate us: witness Putin’s intransigence over the Ukraine. And wouldn’t the invasion of the Ukraine make Russia more diverse?

What happens when 1789 comes round again, & the countryside (this time) is prepared to resist, not just in the Vendee, but all across the planet, when China and Brazil and Portugal all say “no” to the unbridled spread of the end of history?  Or will they? Will America be forced to fulminate more Revolution at home, in order both to project enough power, and to maintain enough solidarity to convince the other regions to cooperate? What happens when the Revolution begins to devour its own children? My guess is that the stakes have risen, since America is becoming divided, and losing its power to project grandiosity and force. So there is a lot on the table, to lose, at this point, for the Revolution, with Russia thinking about dusting off the crown of Christ and China waffling over whether liberal democracy is really a valid replacement for a civilization that lasted over 4000 years.

What ought to be done to prepare, in an outward sense?

Plinio Correa de Oliveira makes some tantalizing remarks about the Revolution and Counter-Revolution which should help the contemporary “American”.

1. Those who are “of the Reaction” are, by their very nature, exposed to ridicule and a feeling of helplessness, sometimes even in their own eyes, as their ignorance contributes to a lack of realization of who they are: in this sense, the “wholeness” they partially lack is mimicked by competing systems of thought which may confuse their soul, providing a sense that although they can never fit, yet what they cannot fit into possesses some of the qualities they intuitively seek, such as legitimacy (in this case, illusory). It forces them to view themselves in a tragic light. This, of course, is all the better for “the Revolution”, as it consigns their worst enemies to the outer darkness, partially self-imposed. We get to pay the upkeep on our own soul-prison.

2. Many are latent Reactionaries: that is, their upper levels of soul are dominated by the current thought paradigms, but deeper down, they are instinctively “men of the Right”. These people simply need firm guidance, and to be shown strong moral character, coupled with principled action and depth of soul. They will be drawn, just as instinctively, to those of the first category who have stabilized themselves and emerged with the Hyperborean spirit. This second category could be termed “Demeterian“, instinctively drawn to those who can incarnate the power that they seek and lack. This would be a warrior class, maybe even a priest class, and in converting these classes, the natural capos or leaders would achieve a preponderance of force that would allow for an overthrow of the Revolution, and a change in the balance of power. The Revolution succeeds by hiding its aims; the Counter Revolution can only succeed by revealing its aims to this class, but the manifestation has to be multi-dimensional, profound, and utterly authentic. Nothing less would convince the sturdy, hapless enforcers of Revolution who unwittingly serve the very forces they hate at a deeper level.

3. He compares the Revolution to the vine in the Amazon rain forests called the strangler fig. I have often made the mistake of thinking (and so have others, I suppose) that “this couldn’t last”. But in a startling metaphor from the Liber Naturae, (Buch der Natur), our author shows us that the goal of the strangler fig is to kill the host and establish itself as a free standing tree. Of course, the original tree will not be allowed to live after it has served its purpose: this is why the Revolution hid and covered its aims. It wanted “this and that”, or “old and new”, together: tolerance for the lower castes, that’s all. But the true aim is the annihilation of the original tree, which suggests that envy and hatred are, in reality, the real motivating causes of the Revolution after all, rather than compassion. The two organisms are incompatible, and only one has the essence of Life. This dissembling is a weak point in the Left, as they are now the “authentic and legitimate order”, and our author says that firm and unwavering contradiction in a manly spirit, even against overwhelming social disapproval, is the only way of unmasking the lie – as Veuillot says, the emptiness flees contradiction. Any real resistance will be met by deceived men of the number two category, and their involvement in persecution will only serve to enlighten them as to the real aims of the Revolution and the real worth of the “rebel” (who is the opposite of one). The Left has been winning without even trying for so long, that a real dose of suffering of any kind, at whatever level (including the wallet) would quickly make it clear that only the men of the Right have the freedom to overcome circumstances. This is quite clear right now in the crisis over Crimea: Russians are willing to sacrifice to restore the Third Rome, however imperfectly, and Americans are too lazy to even understand the issues involved, let alone drip any blood. Russia wins. America has been purging herself of the men who are of the mettle to make American force stick overseas; it remains to be seen whether she can perfectly finish the Revolution at home, as more and more of the aims come out of the closet in order to ascend the decayed altars like demons haunting the throne.

4. It is imperative to promote the association of men who are truly of the Right. Cologero has gone to great lengths to do just that, & it will be up to us to continue this push. By providing a “home” and the camaraderie that all men need, noble or not, but which we alone tend to lack, given the circumstances, an important element of morale is introduced, as well as the opportunity to learn from one another, and no longer feel “alone”. Many here have voiced how lonely it is out there, and this is true. But the hearth fire burns, despite the cold winter night. There are various ways of seeking this kind of fellowship, but it is fundamental to mental sanity during the apex of Revolution, the height of its power, just before it begins to turn upon itself. We are going to need all of our wits and resources in the years ahead, as Chaos is standing at offstage right, and the raving lunatics of the Left are congregating at stage left. After all, when Satan is on the throne, what can he really say about Revolution?

That’s probably insulting to Satan. What we’ve got on our throne is a collective demon or elemental force, generated by centuries of passions and muddled thought. Satan is a man of Law, and wouldn’t dream of having dinner with revolutionaries. He’d rather joust with a man of the Right.

God Bless America, the Dumb

Americans have a penchant for stupidity - we specialize in molly-coddling it, in ourselves first, and then in others, if we have any patience left.

"In November 2011, I met an American missionary who has served in Guatemala for 36 years. He described a recent (unpublished) doctoral study examining Protestantism in one part of Guatemala. The Hispanic scholar had hoped to substantiate Max Weber’s thesis on the connection between Protestantism and economic development. The data, however, drove him to conclude that the gospel taught by present-day American missions makes no perceptible difference to the economic life of the believing communities."

Source

What about the vaunted "Third Wave" of Protestantism that is supposed to save us all, in the West?

Apres moi, l'deluge

"It’s all too common for the political class of a troubled nation to lose track of the fact that, after all, its power depends on the willingness of a great many people outside the political class to do what they’re told. In Paris in 1789, in St. Petersburg in 1917, and in a great many other places and times, the people who thought that they held the levers of power and repression discovered to their shock that the only power they actually had was the power to issue orders, and those who were supposed to carry those orders out could, when matters came to a head, decide that their own interests lay elsewhere. In today’s America, equally, it’s not the crisply dressed executives, politicians, and bureaucrats who currently hold power who would be in a position to enforce that power in a crisis; it’s the hundreds of thousands of soldiers, police officers and Homeland Security personnel, who are by and large poorly paid, poorly treated, and poorly equipped, and who have not necessarily been given convincing reasons to support the interests of a political class that most of them privately despise, against the interests of the classes to which they themselves belong."
Source

How did America arrive at this impasse? Very easily, as easy as just taking "a holiday from history" (in De Gaulle's immortal words). America was a commonwealth, not a nation (as Rosenstock Huessy points out), and if the "common good" is undermined (or in our case, inverted to represent the lowest caste of degenerates, whether holding PhDs and political power, or basking in self-victimization and violent crime), the commonwealth goes up in smoke. Then (as they say in Oklahoma) "where are you going to be at?" I think the answer will appear rather sooner than later, although it could take a "long descent" and a bitter road, as history repeats itself as tragedy, then farce.

Modern American Democratic Propagandists

Our picture today is the Iron Crown of the Lombards, which is said to be made of the nails of Christ's cross (the inner band, that is).

American "thinkers" are finally catching up to de Tocqueville - I guess over 150 years is just enough time? Our "perverse yearning for equality" is starting to turn heads, even American ones, at what we've become - a gigantic dysfunctional corporation. Hate your work milieu? Want some time alone to yourself? Well, pretty soon, your work environment will grow to include all civic discourse (which, as Marx taught us, is nothing but economics writ large). Don't worry, "progressives" (name change after "liberal" became a dirty word, thanks to homeward bound roosting chickens) advocate the annihilation of all "intermediate institutions". After all, the reign of the atomized individual (with his sacramental rights to participate in modern dark Satanic rituals, such as after conception "contraception") is more important than anything else, especially benighted religious flim-flam.



Do you still think that Democracy means freedom? Many, maybe most, do. "Think" is the wrong word here. I think it's not so much a "point of view" (let alone a belief or a philosophy) as a reflexive "mindset". Now introducing Bernays & Lippman, two men of impeccable liberal-democratic credentials (and all benefits accruing thereunto) who most emphatically thought that You, the sovereign subject, were anything BUT free.

Here is the alternative, and there is really only one alternative (and not the "halfway house" of "Republicanism" either, although it is always conveniently forgotten that even Thomas Jefferson believed a natural aristoi):

"I reject republicanism. At the head of races, above the elite, there is
Monarchy. Not all monarchs have been good. Monarchy, however, has always been
good. The individual monarch must not be confused with the institution of
Monarchy, the conclusions drawn from this would be false. There can be bad
priests, but this does not mean that we can draw the conclusion that the Church
must be ended and God stoned to death. There are certainly weak or bad monarchs,
but we cannot renounce Monarchy. The race has a line of life. A monarch is great
and good, when he stays on this line ; he is petty and bad, to the extent that
he moves away from this racial line of life or he opposes it. There are many
lines by which a monarch can be tempted. He must set them all aside and follow
the line of the race. Here is the law of Monarchy.” - Codreanu

Now, "race" here must mean something more than pure genetics, after all
Codreanu was half-German, not full blooded Romanian. What Codreanu is defending
is the idea (and ideal) of self-government as expressed through familial ties,
personal loyalties, and cultural "lines of force". All of which find logical
expression in Kingship (one could go on to talk of the King of Kings, or the
Empire, but now we are concerned with the "shields of the earth").

Here is an account of the martyrdom of Charles II:

Far from being an upright quest for justice, the trial of King Charles is seen
by many as perhaps the greatest act of deceit in British history. Author C.V.
Wedgwood wrote that, “Cromwell’s faction was determined to kill the King mainly
because this symbolic act of revolution would satisfy discontents that might
otherwise be directed toward the more fundamental and more farsighted
constitutional changes sought by Lilburne’s Levellers”.Nevertheless, just or
not, King Charles I was taken before what was left of Parliament to stand trial
for his actions.To say that such an act was unprecedented is a vast
understatement. The King was accused of making war against Parliament, not the
actual nation, and no effort was made to show how this “Rump” (which had been
purged by military force) was a true representation of the English people.
Realizing this, His Majesty protested that this left his accusers with no legal
right to judge him saying, “you never asked the question of the tenth man in the
kingdom, and in this way you manifestly wrong even the poorest ploughman, if you
demand not his free consent”.

In other words, the King was made a scapegoat for usurpers who had a radical base to appease. Sound familiar? It should - this always happens in Democracies. Yet many Christians believe that we make an idol of the "king", a teaky-wood god which we crave for vanity and because of our desire to vicariously live out life as an "alpha-male". This suspicion is deep-rooted in Christianity, particularly in the West:

Source
"According to St. Jerome, however (in Matt., c. xxiii), some of the faithful in his day attached a superstitious importance to these aids to piety; he censures certain classes of women who seem to have, in some degree, identified sanctity with an exaggerated veneration for sacred relics: "Hoc quod apud nos superstitiosae mulierculae in parvulis evangeliis et in crucis ligno et istiusmodi rebus, quae habent quidem zelum Dei, sed non secundum scientiam, factitant" (That which superstitious women amongst us, who have a certain zeal for God but not of right knowledge, do in regard to little copies of the Gospels, the wood of the cross, and things of that kind)...."

No doubt, it is possible to overdo things and to worship the Encolpion instead of the relic inside it or the transcendent reality beyond it. It is also possible to forget (in a secular world) that man was made for worship, that he must worship, and that if he cannot have his king, a dark father figure will come in by the back door as the real Father is ejected out the front.

Forthcoming posts will deal more directly with these objections, and others (such as the idea that human nature is basically evil, and cannot be trusted with "absolute power").

For now, we simply note that America is descending into a "soft totalitarianism".

More arguments in favor of monarchy.

Here is Kaiser Wilhelm's opinion of Hitler. It must not be forgotten that the monarchies presided over the suicide of Europe, but that the republican elements (nationalism) and the new mass democracies were even more enthusiastically in support of it than they were (the monarchies were all "kindred"), and in fact, in many instances, pushed their thrones into war as a pawn.

Here is an excerpt from a 1938 interview of Kaiser Willhelm II Ken magazine. In
this interview Kaiser Willhelm II expresses a very harsh opinion of then German
leader, Adolf Hitler. Kaiser WIllhelm II was known to have a strong
disliking of Adolf Hitler and the National Socialist movement in general. However some modern historians try to convince us that he was a staunch National Socialist sympathizer. However as you can read his own words, you can see that nothing is farther from the truth. Here is what Kaiser Willhelm II had to say about Hitler and the National Socialist movement.

“There is a man alone, without family, without children, without God....He builds legions but he doesn’t build a nation. A nation is created by families, a religion, tradition: it is made up out of the hearts of mothers, the wisdom of fathers, the joy and the exuberance of children. [Of Germany under Hitler he says]....an
all-swallowing State, disdainful of human dignities and the ancient structure of
our race, sets itself up in place of everything else. And the man who, alone,
incorporates in himself this whole State, has neither a God to honour nor a
dynasty to conserve, nor a past to consult....

For a few months I was inclined to believe in National Socialism. I thought of it as a necessary fever. And I was gratified to see that there were, associated with it for a
time, some of the wisest and most outstanding Germans. But these, one by one, he
has got rid of or even killed....He has left nothing but a bunch of shirted
gangsters....

This man could bring home victories to our people each
year without bringing them...glory....But of our Germany, which was a nation of
poets and musicians and artists and soldiers, he has made a nation of hysterics
and hermits, engulfed in a mob and led by a thousand liars or fanatics....”

How ironic that the Catholic Church chose to move against monarchism within
its spiritual organization exactly as the outer world tired of liberalism
and bourgeoise!

Certainly Vatican II was also a Council of protest and contradiction, so to speak, a reaction of the liberal Church against the remnants of feudalism and monarchy inside the Church. Hence, the emphasis on collegiality in the government of the Church. Only by means of this Council did the Church officially accept the great conquests of the French Revolution and the liberation of the bourgeoisie: tolerance, liberty of religion and conscience, ecumenical openness, etc.However, the irony of History, she did so just when society was prepared to criticize the new forms of slavery produced by the liberal bourgeoisie.

Also ironic - continued arguments as to why American hegemony is a good thing take a monarchical turn: There Can Be Only One!

But why should this be? Unless, indeed, Monarchy is the actual pattern of real Nature? Sovereignty itself is derived from the unifying principle of monarchy.

America is Dying - Slowly

2. What are your views on America today?

America is a sick society. It is an oligarchy. The state and her "culture" is the property of private interests, and therefore, so is her foreign policy. She is attempting to lead the development of an a-cultural world order dominated by finance and commodity capital, and, therefore, all nationalists and separatists within her borders are mercilessly hounded and regularly assaulted. The extreme left and their neo-conservative hangers-on are funded exclusively by corporate capital, and the public records of their political largesse are available at the Capital Research Center. However, the good news is that the oligarchy is currently losing a war in Iraq, is drowning in unrepayable debt, and is addicted to China’s commodity capital, providing the latter with a substantial lever of power against her imperialist tendencies. Therefore, there is no feasible way for America to recover outside of the slow dismantling of the federal system, and a return to regional and state sovereignty. America’s fall from global power means that the world will be remade into a series of regional power centers, each developing the specific potential of her region.

Matthew Raphael Johnson interview

Education in the Internet Generation

"Yes, young Americans are energetic, ambitious, enterprising, and good, but their talents and interests and money thrust them not into books and ideas and history and civics, but into a whole other realm and other consciousness. A different social life and a different mental life have formed among them. Technology has bred it, but the result doesn't tally with the fulsome descriptions of digital empowerment, global awareness, and virtual communities. Instead of opening young American minds to the stores of civilization and science and politics, technology has contracted their horizon to themselves, to the social scene around them. Young people have never been so intensely mindful of and present to one another, so enabled in adolescent contact. Teen images and songs, hot gossip and games, and youth-to-youth communications no longer limited by time or space wrap them up in a generational cocoon reaching all the way into their bedrooms. The autonomy has a cost: the more they attend to themselves, the less they remember the past and envision the future. They have all the advantages of modernity and democracy, but when the gifts of life lead to social joys, not intellectual labor, the minds of the young plateau at 18. The fonts of knowledge are everywhere, but the rising generation is camped in the desert, passing stories, pictures, tunes, texts back and forth, living off the thrill of peer attention. Meanwhile their intellects refuse the cultural and civic inheritance that has made us what we are up to now."

Mark Bauerlein, The Dumbest Generation, 2007

Another take on America

Evola again on America.

The Americans are the living refutation of the Cartesian axiom, "I think, therefore I am": Americans do not think, yet they are. The American 'mind', puerile and primitive, lacks characteristic form and is therefore open to every kind of standardisation.

This reminds me very much of Ortega y Gasset's primal fear that America, far from representing "what was best in Europe" or being another focal point of civilization in a varied mode, actually was a barbarian superpower lacquered over with a thin veneer of technological apparatus.

America is not immune to history.

Raised Up and Cast Down
Archilochus, fragment 130 (tr. M.L. West):

It all depends upon the gods. Often enough, when men
are prostrate on the ground with woe, they set them up again;
and often enough, when men are standing proud and all seems bright,
they tip them over on their backs, and then they're in a plight—
a man goes wandering, short of bread, out of his mind with fright.

The same, tr. Guy Davenport:

Attribute all to the gods.
They pick a man up,
Stretched on the black loam,
And set him on his two feet,
Firm, and then again
Shake solid men until
They fall backward
Into the worst of luck,
Wandering hungry,
Wild of mind.

The text is uncertain. The following is from M.L. West, Iambi et Elegi Graeci, Vol. I, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971; rpt. 1998), p. 51, with his critical apparatus:

τοῖς θεοῖς †τ' εἰθεῖάπαντα· πολλάκις μὲν ἐκ κακῶν
ἄνδρας ὀρθοῦσιν μελαίνηι κειμένους ἐπὶ χθονί,
πολλάκις δ᾽ ἀνατρέπουσι καὶ μάλ᾽ εὖ βεβηκότας
ὑπτίους, κείνοις <δ'> ἔπειτα πολλὰ γίνεται κακά,
καὶ βίου χρήμηι πλανᾶται καὶ νόου παρήορος.

1 ita cod. S (hic unicus): ἰθεῖα (sc. δίκη) Hoffmann: τοι ῥεῖα Schneidewin invito metro: τέλεια Hommel (Gymn. 58, 1951, 219): alii alia: possis πείθοι' ἅπαντα

4 κείνοις Blaydes: κίνουσ᾽ S: κλίνουσ᾽ Valckenaer (postea interpungens) δ' addidi post h.v. lacunam stat. Meineke

5 χρήμη S: χρῄζων C. Gesnerus gravem suspicionem movet quod statim in secundo versu proximi excerpti (= Theodect. fr. 16) stant verba minime corrupta φήμη πλανᾶται

What Must Be Done?

In the words of Chernechevsky, What Must Be Done? In some other immortal's words, in times like these, what is the difference between treason & stupidity? If any? America is now entering (congratulations to all all and sundry!) the interregnum between decay & collapse/chaos. Everyone has contributed; this was a team effort. Republicans supported gigantic corporations who outsourced our livelihoods & decimated the environment, not to mention suborning private property and the rule of law. They are the plutocrats. The Democrats supported factionalism and minorities who were out for themselves, and not in an enlightened manner. They are the oligarchs. Both factions support(ed) the burgeoning size of our cancerous federal government.

It is clear that something must be done. It is not clear exactly what, nor by whom, nor if this is "for all the marbles". But the general outline is taking shape out of the mists.

It has been known (at least by those who cared to know) that there was always a rather fine and subtle line between liberal-democracies and tyrannies. Particularly as we witness the 20th century in retrospect, or more so, as lived. Going back and forth in contemplation, we see that Freedom itself must be a relative concept. Even when we think we are most Free, and precisely then, and exactly because we think this, we are the most unfree, or at least, are progressing the fastest towards such a state. This is the story, or will be the story, of America in the late 19oos. A story of a State which was allowed to die with a whimper, and which found no spirits worthy of her founding to echo back and sustain her in the hour of need and challenge.

Where is the gratitude of freed slaves? Of new found immigrants? Of old settlers? Where is loyalty at all? It is gone. For the most part. People want their piece of the action and their slice of the pie. It is gone at least as part of the civic life. We had assumed that Progress meant an infinite increase in standards of consumption (I won't say "living") for all. The earth's ecology will no longer support this idea. And the extension of such to all has eroded the hopes of the white middle class in their own country, which they have (arguably) sustained and built (and destroyed).

So now we are back into the stream of history, the Wheel of Fate, the "course of human events", out of which we had perilously and laboriously and luckily raised ourselves. We are now off holiday from history. Soon, will come the return of the Gods and the punishment of Nemesis.

"You don’t hear the word usurpation in Congress for the same reason you don’t hear the word fornication in Las Vegas. When a vice becomes popular and profitable, it loses its proper name."

The only hope is to embrace what opportunity to rebuild that we find, as things fold in upon themselves. This current state of emergency (Notstand/justitium) is nothing new, it is the logical outcome of a century of liberal-democracy, its "fruit" (if you will). In the halcyon days of the 19th century, it was easy to believe that the extension of the franchise & the unleashing of economic "miracles" & the de-censoring of Enlightenment agit-prop was responsible for all the good one saw around one's self, or hoped to see. It was easy, in short, to think that the growing technology & wealth, as exhibited in the Great Exhibitions which shook Victorian England and Puritanical France and which colored the world of Sherlock Holmes with the tint of gaslight, that this was an infinite world which could be steam-punked across the face of the planet, and which would itself herald an even greater miracle, perhaps a city-world like Coruscant.

This is increasingly bizarre & hopeless. All but the most radical realize that the forces tearing apart society are so strong now that it is impossible, and that they garner strength from the very vision which is proposed, namely that of a universal despotism in which the globe would become Hamlet's prison, Panopticon.

Far away, come the sounds of Thunder. The lightning strikes the earth. The Wheel of Fate turns. Hubris & Nemesis are coming together.

Soft Totalitarianism

For some time, I have thought this myself-
"Most of ‘apocalyptic’ literature, warning us of the dangers of totalitarianism, such as Huxley’s Brave New World, Orwell’s 1984, and Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451, warn us of a fascist government (Orwell’s Animal Farm of course warns us of socialist totalitarianism). But whether the authors warn us of a communist or fascist dictatorship, they all perceive totalitarian societies as based on non-subtle (overt?), masculine force. They all have failed to envision a totalitarian society that was subtle, seductive, and feminine. The most successful totalitarian government in history has been the United States. Using feminine coercion rather than masculine, the U.S. has accomplished much more than Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini or any other 2-bit dictator ever hoped to accomplish.

In Fahrenheit 451, my favorite of the apocalyptic novels, Bradbury correctly notes that a totalitarian government must, if it is to maintain itself, kill history. There must be no historical consciousness; there must only be the reigning government, which has always been, and always will be, world without end. In Bradbury’s novel, the government kills history by burning all books from the past."

Just yesterday, I read in my nursing book that "results of progress may cause old ways of thinking to not apply anymore". The question here is not, what is ideology doing in a nursing book, but what kind of ideology has succeeded in making itself its own rationale? If Progress makes everything "not work anymore", then OBVIOUSLY we need more Progress. My boss the other day opined that America would not "go down the drain" but that we just needed more "creativity". I am sure everything will be fine.

Here is a liberal definition of fascism:
"Robert O. Paxton, a professor emeritus at Columbia University, defines fascism in his book The Anatomy of Fascism as: "A form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion."

But this definition fits La Raza quite as well as the smeared Tea Party. It also fits the NAACP.

Chris Hedges nails it. Liberal policies have CREATED a pre-fascist, as well as a proto-fascist, polity in America:
“It is time for us to stop talking about right and left,” McKinney told me. “The old political paradigm that serves the interests of the people who put us in this predicament will not be the paradigm that gets us out of this. I am a child of the South. Janet Napolitano tells me I need to be afraid of people who are labeled white supremacists but I was raised around white supremacists. I am not afraid of white supremacists. I am concerned about my own government. The Patriot Act did not come from the white supremacists, it came from the White House and Congress. Citizens United did not come from white supremacists, it came from the Supreme Court. Our problem is a problem of governance. I am willing to reach across traditional barriers that have been skillfully constructed by people who benefit from the way the system is organized.”

This is perfectly correct. And in fact, the relationship between Liberalism and Communism is far more complicated than this (given that National Socialism and International Socialism can be related as well):
"Moreover, this social mismatch has been entirely rectified. What the bohemians of Greenwich Village believed in 1923, everyone in America (and the world) believes now. The beliefs of an ordinary Calvin Coolidge voter would strike the ordinary John McCain voter as outlandish, ridiculous, insane, and often downright evil. America has no surviving intellectual tradition besides progressivism - which is no more than a synonym for communism. (My own grandparents, lifelong CPUSA members, used "progressive" as a codeword all their lives.) Communism is as American as apple pie, and America today is a completely communist country. As Garet Garett put it 70 years ago, the revolution was."

As Moldbug notes, the relationship between Liberalism & Communism is, well, "complicated".

It is not only complicated by Empire and Imperial politics, as well as such things as the results of the Civil War, it is complicated by religion & class divisions, as well as the money market situations (in which some Americans have a very vested interest, and are getting richer than anyone in history).

What seems fairly clear is that "Fascism" is a definition that everyone agrees is "bad", but almost no one agrees upon. This of course doesn't mean that general contours aren't there, or that some counters/markers can be identified with some safety. However, once a definition is agreed upon, MANY different polities or groups can fit the label. American business, for instance, is largely operative at the behest or at the service of government. Wall Street and Beltway have a CLOSE relationship. Is this not "corporate fascism"?

Another complicating factor is American transcendence over ethnic/cultural norms. When a race with a homogeneous culture constitutes a base, it can potentially "go" fascist (as Serbia did with Milosevic, who was "socialist"), but it is also a potential barrier or bar to Imperial/Global Fascism on the scale displayed in the post Berlin Wall era. Putin-era Russia, therefore, is both proto-fascist on an internal level, but is a barrier to global fascism in the external sphere. And proto-fascist formal polities can often prevent a "pre-fascist" mentality from blossoming among the "volk", a situation which we can only envy in America, where liberal over-kill and looting of the state for the benefit of the elites and a "new people" have effectively created a "learned fascism" among heartland peoples. Franco, for instance, managed to have the forms of fascism, without the power thereof, and in so doing kept Spain from radicalism of the Right or Left.

It's complicated. Basically, what we have in America is a situation of control flowing from the bureaucratic elites downward, channeled into the ferment of the progressive masses. These masses are directed by forms of political correctness into the proper channels, and the religion of democracy guides the rituals and forms in the upper crust, while providing the "bread and circus" faith from below in the masses. The engines of Science & Empire function to keep the brew fermenting, but more and more raw material (read "colored people") are being thrown into the crush. They, too, will be assimilated, and the product thereof may be a mixed race/culture with all of the worst characteristics of the donors. Like decaying DNA, our polity seems to suffer a degrading with each generation, both intellectually and morally. And in our case, the original blueprints are up for questioning as well. Were the Founding Fathers really wise to create a "proposition" nation? If so, have we done well in the battle to keep it?

Our current America is a giant corporation, with the CEO as president. The dollar is stock. And the shareholders are squabbling ferociously. Arguably, this is a pre-fascistic situation, with proto-fascistic forms already in place to guide us. To what & where?

Anyone for "Red Tory" tea?

Conservatives worth their salt should concentrate on creating the alternative base (whatever it costs, whatever it entails) that will preserve the country in the coming Winter.