About

I didn’t bother reading the previous About page before discarding, as I am sure it was drivel. I wrote it at a time of uncertainty about what I was doing here. I am less uncertain now, so what follows will be less drivelly at least.

What is the point of this blog? Why would I risk so much just to engage in folk musings on Western society? And there is at least social risk in being unorthodox, that is, not at least a ‘Progressive’ these days. Seems a folly then, but the world is already a mad house, what do I care which kind of madman I am found to be in this endless raging brawl in an asylum at drugging hour. A peaceable life is a rare possibility in contemporary Modernity. We aren’t anything like ‘Post’ Modern: Loosing your Sir Francis Bacon Scout keenness for scientific progress under a regime of ‘reason’ does not extricate you from  living under the Enlightenment Project. But this is a common method of Protestant art of war; linguistic tactics. To isolate oneself morally from the cultural world you live in through some virtue signaling incantation; “I am not X, Xs are bad; they have wrong think”. And though people on the Right play this game too, only people on the Left isolate themselves morally from their own history; rejecting all the past ages as ‘ignorance’, up to and including last week. They live in a new world of their own moral perfection. Never self critical, always smug, and yet so poorly reasoned, so unsystematic.

Not that many don’t mean well, but they are unaware of themselves. They are deluded by their own assumptions. And their biggest assumption is their own inherent rationality. Granted as the birthright of one born in the Enlightenment, or post Enlightenment, or Post Modernicus, or Something. Funny how they can undermine the very thing they posit their flagrant assumptions on, all-at-once. Funny, if not so destructive to healthy society. There is a toxic mix of radical doubt and absolute certainty in their metaphysics. That they don’t believe, but in the most barren sort of metaphysics, is case in point; because they ‘don’t believe’ in it in violent purity. But more, they have ridiculed metaphysics, and left it as the play thing of New Agers and other flakes.

Okay, okay, we’re shooting fish in a barrel without water now. I could go on all night deconstructing the soul of the deconstructor; I know you are, but what am I?

I do have a milieu; I am a Christian Reactionary. #CRx is our gang sign, and our colours come from our national flags. I am in this school only because I have never been required to sign any membership agreement. And know of no particular dogma to which I must ascent other than what the name, Christian Reactionary, implies. Ironically, very Modern. For choice of cultural framework is Modernity, and the root of all heresy.

Though perhaps not every CRx would claim to be a Monarchist. At least he should have an understanding of the social function and reality of Monarchy. it may be that the Hierarchical social function manifests variably in different ethnic groups, or by some other community variable, but if we are of Occidental dissent, Monarchy is in our biocultural past. As I am, this question interests me greatly.

In claiming to be a Monarchist I do not mean that I find it the best choice for governmental structure, that is, against other options. I didn’t even choose it for myself, it chose me. I was a typical American kid who hated the king as my birthright right, being of the progeny of that Rural Gentlemen’s Revolution. All the cliche biases against Monarchs were memed into me at school. But the logic of my other convictions, and not least of all to Truth, has made Monarchy irresistible. And by Monarchy I mean a natural social filter, both biological and logical, or memetic, system that selects for leadership, leading ever upward; till we find in the Throne the legitimacy of the people on the land.

I will mostly be postulating this thesis here, and will have pretty scant defence, that is the purpose of the blog; to flesh out these intuitions about power and community and cult and family. This power sorting can be found in all human groups, that though they will sort by various means and under various beliefs, they will sort by three basic principles: Merit, cunning, and virtue. Though these three enfold often, they provide three nodal points on a continuum. Some people are selected, even to leadership, just because they are proficient at the work. Others because they know how to play the game, and promote themselves. And still others because they are genuinely good. An Ideal leader, or ruler would poses all three in equal measure.

Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves:

be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.

‘Presidents’ do not escape the social function of Monarchy. What is a President but a term king— a rented king. In Canada of course we have a Prime Minister of the Crown. We have a Monarch. Hence, we do not take our PM as seriously as the Yanks do their President. Yet in our social consciousness, even if it is just in the dimmest corner, sits the quiet regal old woman-over-the-sea eating cucumber and cream cheese sandwiches on crustless white bread, watching Coronation Street; and all the history of her people that she bears in her office. But the Americans have no such metaphysical resting place for social legitimacy, above the President. If they love him they feel like Patriots (well Democrats never feel like patriots), if they hate him they feel like exiles. Their very inner sense of belonging to the Nation is rooted in who sits in the Oval Office; on that shabby American throne

Ironically the Modernity that dethroned the King has accentuated the Monarchical  function in the President. For rootless people will be more inclined toward symbols than place, and most Americans are not well rooted in place or cult or history. The poor are more so because they are more sedentary, but of course they are despised for their ignorance. Yet let me be clear, I do not mean that the President is anything more than a shambles of a king. He bears none of the Divine Rights of course, though he has his finger on the God button. He also bears none of the responsibilities. Certainly there have been mercenary kings, but all Presidents are necessarily mercenary, they are elected to serve short term social and economic interests. They loot the purse and the body politic. The long term planning and love for a people and its land that has been present at least in some kings, is unavailable the President.

But does this mean that a proper Monarchy brings Utopia. Of course not. There is no such thing on this earth, and never will be by man’s hand. (That’s some old school Christian pessimism there. Maybe I’m just a NeoCurmudgeon. #NCurd)

But we can approach the question from a totally different vantage. Instead of going to Monarchy and asking it to show us what it’s got before we accept it, if for fun we just assume our thesis, that Monarchy is a real and natural, and thus irrepressible sorting function in, at least certain, ethnic communities. From here we have to ask of the President if he is in any way a good thing of his kind, let alone a better kind of Monarch than a proper king; which he presumable is, being the usurper of the Throne.

There have certainly been Presidents who have been more successful in their monarchy than others. Franklin Delano Roosevelt was a fairly kingly President. Not just in his unifying office during the war, but in the long range building projects, and the efforts toward the common weal and the poor. Of course there is some amount of myth to FRD, but Monarchy is Myth. And Myth too is a Natural function in human communities. That is, the social function that religious myths served in the past endure even into the unbelieving age.

Yet, much like the President is a propped up King, our current myths are conveyed through novels, movies, and comic books, in a disordered way. The chaos of contemporary social myth is part due to the timidity of Moderns to make strong claims, and part to their desire not to be under such. Yet some claim must be made, morality insists through its own logic to be claimed. It is impossible to act socially without moral justification. Moral justification must be founded on something. These days it seems to be Egalitarianism, and all the emotional responses which that engenders when attempting to incarnate it into the body politic.

**** ***  **   *   **  ***   ****

We answered the Reaction part of Christian Reactionary first. yet, the Christian part is the most important. As I would be a Christian whether a Reactionary or not. Even ‘Reactionary’ is taken on with a bit of ironic smug. I hold views that are considered reactionary by revolutionaries. But more, I hold views about human community that are rooted in Nature. And this does not mean anything about being an environmentalist; though that should be a given. (We are the de facto stewards of the world. We should be excellent in that charge.) Rather it means that, as exampled above, I do not believe we can just invent any society we like, that our hopeful imaginations are not always grounded in reality. Only hopes grounded in reality are worth having. And certainly social policy and social engineering need to be grounded in Nature and the nature of those ruled and ruling to be functional.

But Christ compels me always to act out of Love; that this is what heals, and holds communities together. Not a standard socio>psychological category for sure; other than to deconstruct it into chemical impulses of selfishness. Still, one that endures in contemporary society, at least in popular sentiment; “all you need is love”. Though we do not support any dogma this facile; love outside of community structure and rule is meaningless. Love is complex. It cannot be satisfied simply by the emotional state of the lover, the social activist, say. The actions must bear in mind the best good of those acted on, or who are being ordered in society. Our current social policies mean to serve the interest of some group or other, but are they best in producing an overall healthy population?

Truth must be a factor as well. We cannot act merely dogmatically nor emotionally, and the contemporary Left has brought dogmatic emotionalism to crescendo. If our policies fail to bring a better state of things, then we have to look carefully as to why. Too often in the contemporary moral tyranny we live under, policy proponents tend to look for a population group that has failed some initiative; usually White people, or men; read: straight white men. And if one of them ain’t handy, a Christian will do. Because the policy had the best of intentions, because it is something that they ‘really feel strongly about’, it cannot be at fault. No, “We just have to figure out how to get everyone on board”.

Christianity is a very complex affair. As we live in the age of heresy It is difficult to even know what Christianity is generally. Though not yet a Catholic, I am both catholic and Catholic in my outlook. That is I think the Church is One and we have a duty to restore it to this state, prayerfully of course. I have also considered Orthodoxy, but it feels foreign. I am an Anglican of the catholic tradition. This seems both like my ethnic home and my community of worship. I am not entirely happy with the state of my church’s political or social policies, or even all of its doctrine. For any disagreement, I do not feel I have the right merely to abandon my community because of some insight on my part. This is the very act of choosing that is Protestantism; and the contemporary Christian practice of shopping for the church that ‘suits you’. And one of the great costs to the division, and schism of the Church is the softening of the discipline implied in a unified moral authority of the Church. The profundity of this loss cannot be overstated. The tragedy of this loss is in how many Christian souls have no idea it is missing.

**** ***  **   *   **  ***   ****

This is a sample of my musing style at least I suppose. I write here on culture, art, social theory, folk tales, traditional European theocracy, Christianity, and Natural Law. I have several years Liberal Arts training, such as it remains in the schools, but lack credentials, so my musings must speak for themselves. and foolish or not, this is just something I feel compelled to do.