Thursday, July 5, 2012

1flesh and the Sexual Reaction

There is an interesting website I stumbled upon today called "Patheos". While reading its articles, specifically under the section titled "Bad Catholic", one piece in particular caught my attention. Its title was "The Secret Is Out" and its contents cover a new website created by them (the author, Marc, and "his friends") which is called 1Flesh. This seemed like a pretty interesting name and my first assumption was regarding the unity of the two bodies as written in Genesis 2:24; "Wherefore a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they shall be two in one flesh." (Douay-Rheims, Challoner Revision)

I decided to browse their arguments and came away more informed. Here are a few key points which really stood out for me:

  • 58% of women who undergo abortion “reported that they “currently used” contraception during the month of their last menstrual period.”
  • natural methods of family planning — specifically the Creighton Model FertilityCare System — are more effective at preventing unintended pregnancies, with a use-effectiveness of 96.8-98%.
  • After more than one year of use [of oral contraceptives], her [triple-negative breast cancer] risk is increased by 4.2 fold.
  • James Sheldon of the US Agency for International Development notes this in his analysis Confessions of a Condom Lover, published in The Lancet: “In South Africa, for example, with 48 million people in 2004, public programmes provided 346 million condoms, and condom use at last sex was high, especially among single people aged 15—24 years (69%). Yet infection continues apparently unabated.” Compare such results to the story of Uganda. Their government and religious leaders focused not on condom distribution, but on the promotion of monogamy. According to analysis published in Science Magazine, by 2004, “despite limited resources, Uganda has shown a 70% decline in HIV prevalence since the early 1990s, linked to a 60% reduction in casual sex.”

All good Christians should be pushing for natural family planning, monogamous relationships, and abstinence.  This site definitely gives everyone a good reinforcement of their Christian beliefs in regards to the physical acts of love. I applaud the efforts of these bloggers and hope much success for them in their efforts.

Monday, July 2, 2012

Konstantin Pobedonostsev - The Russian Reactionary

The Mad Monarchist has an excellent piece on Konstantin Pobedonostsev which I encourage everyone to read. Once you have an understanding of his background and political and religious views the following should be read. It is a short work but does not lack in its intellectual high quality and ability to attack the foundations of Leftism.

Reflections of a Russian Statesman

It is broken into several sections entitled: On Parliamentary Democracy; On "Freedom of the Press"; On the Nature of Power; On Education.

Only a one year suspension?

Would you like a perfect example of how absolutely disgusting our modern society is? Below I will show you. But before that allow me to address all of those who may say, "Oh, Ruskin, that is just a few lost children," and continue to make a near endless list of other excuses for these little punks. There are no legitimate excuses - absolutely none - for the way these punks were acting. None of your protestations about them being from a bad upbringing or having some psychological/emotional fault will change my opinion.

Here is the background on the story. An elderly bus monitor, Karen Klein, was verbally assaulted and insulted by middle school students. These insults were not simply "you are ugly", they went so far as to say things such as "If I stabbed you in the stomach, my knife would f***** go through like butter, because it’s all f***** lard" (quote Daily Mail article). Yes, you read that correctly. A group of 7th graders said this to a 68 year old woman.

In what world do teenagers even remotely begin to think it is okay to lodge such insults against an elderly person? Not only that, but in what world do teenagers even speak like that to anyone? While I hold the young punks responsible for their action, this would not occur without the failure of their parents - I am using "parents" quite loosely. Although I was raised in a secular and quite permissive household not exactly known for its high morals and refrained language, never would I nor my sister dare utter such words towards an elder, and at least speaking for myself, against any other person.

It seems to me the argument in favor of corporal punishment grows louder each and every day. This applies not only to the classroom but also on the bus. Set the rules, make them well known, be clear there will be no tolerance of violation, and inform all of the consequences should there be any violation (which there would be). Any who break the rules receive a nice ass-whooping in front of all their peers. But of course the school board will defeat that because of the obnoxious parents which virtually govern the body because it is subject to election. Ideally this would be eliminated and school attendance become voluntary so that they may properly punish a child by banishing him from attending if physical punishment does not work.

Yet this all seems to fall back onto the parents. We see adults of all stripes doing ridiculous, childish, and rude things which make us want to see them punished too. At least I do. And what better way to do this than to subject them to embarrassing punishment among their peers? I agree wholeheartedly with The Mad Monarchist when he said we should even use corporal punishment on adults.

Saturday, June 30, 2012

Poetry corner: A plea to the benevolent poet

I am a temple loathed by its God.
An empty slab of marble laid out,
Whose corners stretch column to column,
In finite loneliness beneath the moonlight.
Pray for me, blessed poet of benevolence.

Raise forth out of the dirt of the earth,
An army of words spoken like a sword,
As it penetrates deep the darkness,
Vanity, and lust of the shallow heart.
Pray for me, blessed poet of benevolence.

My heart is a raging inferno of in-finiteness,
A horrid abyss of great deceitfulness,
And whose warmth has been robbed,
Until its appearance is like a stone in snow.
Pray for me, blessed poet of benevolence.

May the hands that tremble with fear,
And applaud with ignorant enthusiasm,
Be revealed as a mere hollowness,
Frozen in time; to be forgotten; disregarded.
Pray for me, blessed poet of benevolence.

With the lurking nature of darkness,
(Whose claws stretch forth with light's retreat,
And fangs into my imagination sink deep,)
Comes the revelation of tormented reality.
Pray for me, blessed poet of benevolence.

And what of the city, with bustling streets,
Which sits anxiously upon the shadow,
Whose master is called Death?
For into the shadow may it plunge!
Pray for me, blessed poet of benevolence.

'Tis the hour of noon and I sit here,
Under the tree whose leaves cry blood,
While I dream a malevolent dream.
Have you forgiven Baudelaire? What of me?
Pray for me, blessed poet of benevolence.

Thursday, June 28, 2012

All hail the Decadents!

It had been written by Theophile Gautier that the 19th century group of late Romanticist poets, known as the Decadents, were in fact great prophets of the inevitable rise of Liberalism. Although they deeply upset the closely held traditions of their respective nations, often leading their work to censorship, it holds within its melancholic lines a prophetic nature. We were warned, so says Gautier, by these men about the future under the reign of the Enlightenment. 

Gautier says, “Baudelaire abhorred philanthropy, progressivists, utilitarians, humanitarians and utopianists.” In other words, Baudelaire condemned Rousseausism in all its forms. Today, Rousseausism has so triumphed that the arts and the avant-garde are synonymous with liberalism, an error enforced by literature teachers, with their humanist bias. I follow the Decadents in trying to drive Rousseauist benevolence out of the discourse in art and literature. The Decadents satirized the liberal faith in progress with sizzling prophecies of catastrophe and cultural collapse.
>>Camille Paglia, Sexual Personae (1990), p. 429<<

The Conservative Christian audience of this blog may be rather shocked by the writing of the leading Decadent author. Yet it would only be due to their failure to understand him properly. Charles Baudelaire, for those who do not know of him, was a 19th century French poet. His life was a long poem bathed in melancholic tone. Baudelaire had stated before that the infamous counterrevolutionary, Joseph de Maistre, taught him how to think. Alongside de Maistre was the American poet and short story writer Edgar Allan Poe, known for expanding dark romanticism and the use of twist (unexpected) endings, were the two most influential figures to Baudelaire. What may surprise most is that Edgar Allan Poe had also considered de Maistre to be his maître à penser.

T. S. Eliot, that profound American-English poet and champion of the Traditionalist Conservative philosophy also praised Charles Baudelaire. This may seem to many an unusual situation since Baudelaire's writings would appear to be anything but Christian, in fact some of his works are even used by devout Satanists to this day. So how can a man whose thought was developed from reading de Maistre, loved Poe's writings, and was praised by Eliot, able to also be labeled a Decadent poet and have his works recited by Satanists? It is all due to the extreme paradox of the man and his mind. One wrapped in melancholic darkness yet founded upon Reactionary principles.

"There is no form of rational and assured government save an aristocracy. A monarchy or a republic, based upon democracy, are equally absurd and feeble. The immense nausea of advertisements. There are but three beings worthy of respect: the priest, the warrior and the poet. To know, to kill and to create. The rest of mankind may be taxed and drudged, they are born for the stable, that is to say, to practise what they call professions." - This was the politics of the man, which is obviously derived from his reading of Joseph de Maistre.

"All beauties, like all possible phenomena, have something of the eternal and something of the ephemeral— of the absolute and the particular"

"I am a cemetery loathed by the moon."

"This life is a hospital where each patient is possessed by the desire to change his bed."

"Alas, the vices of man, as horrifying as they are presumed to be, contain proof (if only in their infinite expansiveness!) of his bent for the infinite."

"To be wicked is never excusable, but there is some merit in knowing that you are; the most irreparable of vices is to do evil from stupidity."

"The finest trick of the devil is to persuade you that he does not exist."

"Evil happens without effort, naturally, inevitably; good is always the product of skill."

"Perhaps it would be sweet to be, in turn, both victim and executioner."

"There are in every man, at all times, two simultaneous tendencies, one toward God, the other toward Satan."

"Unable to do away with love, the Church found a way to decontaminate it by creating marriage."

"This is what a girl really is.
A little fool, a little slut; the greatest idiocy united with the greatest depravity."

"God is the only being who need not even exist in order to reign.
Whatever is created by the spirit is more alive than matter."

"I can scarcely conceive (would my brain be a spellbound mirror?) a type of beauty without unhappiness. Supported by — others would say, obsessed by — these notions, one may conceive it would be difficult for me not to conclude that the most perfect type of masculine beauty is Satan, — as rendered by Milton. "

"Progress, that great heresy of degenerates."

"It is at once by way of poetry and through poetry, as with music, that the soul glimpses splendors from beyond the tomb; and when an exquisite poem brings one’s eyes to the point of tears, those tears are not evidence of an excess of joy, they are witness far more to an exacerbated melancholy, a disposition of the nerves, a nature exiled among imperfect things, which would like to possess, without delay, a paradise revealed on this very same earth."

Thursday, May 17, 2012

A post on (once) Great Britain

I love the old British culture. The one that gave to the world Shakespeare, William Wordsworth, Samuel Coleridge, Lord Byron, Charles Dickens, George Orwell, J. R. R. Tolkien, G. K. Chesterton, C. S. Lewis, Aldous Huxley, J. K. Rowling (yes I am an H. P. fan), Edmund Burke, Benjamin Disraeli, Enoch Powell, and countless others. We cannot forget the language, foods, customs, and myths which have also come from that magnificent island.

Where did it all go so wrong? When did Great Britain stop being so great? When I was younger Great Britain for me was something out of the story books. I am not old enough to have ever lived during a time when Britain was great, unfortunately that was years before me. But for this American boy it was a land of knights loyal to the code of chivalry which was transformed into a beautiful nation of hard working laborers with an intellectual class of elites which understood fine music and behavior. This was a place which produced great minds that in turn produced literature, art, music, and customs, all of which were lost when crossing the Atlantic.

All the Americans whose works that are worth reading, had wrote in such a way as to appeal to the British standards of excellence. Those noble of character were men of American blood but who held a British heart. Yet such blissful ignorance does not often stand the test of time. As reality set upon me and the world was not just that of beautiful sonnets and stunning short stories, I saw that Great Britain was really not so great after all. I asked myself if Great Britain was ever really great or if the stories about it were. It took some time for me to find the answers. No place is perfect, of course, but a place can be great and Great Britain for a long time did live up to its name.

Unfortunately sometime between the Second World War and the rise of the Libertarian stock into politics (Thatcher's thugs) that island of shires fell apart. It lost the soul which made it great. Now Great Britain was no better than my country. There is nothing exceptional about it - but there was in times past. I do not hate my country but this is one where popular sentiments run amok, in Great Britain the culture was a combination of many things but above all it nurtured a sentiment of faith, virtue, and community. Perhaps it may do so again at some distant point in the future. Maybe future generations will not have to read about a once Great Britain but can actually see it with their eyes.

Sunday, May 13, 2012

Faith precedes and pervades Politics

How many times have you encountered that person who proclaims, "Religion has no business in government."? I have encountered them far too much for my tastes. They profess such nonsense, which is oblivious to them. Faith, we are told, is an entirely relative/subjective/personal view which has no objective or transcendental character. Thus the imposition upon society at-large of theological views is to demand others adhere to a self-adopted theological or even moral, system which is only correct for you. Politics then should be entirely separate from morality which derives from theology.

This is entirely impossible for many reasons. The most obvious of course is that society needs a common moral bond to hold itself together, to determine what is right and wrong, how to fairly compensate an injustice, and from where these decisions derive their objective legitimacy. Civilized society itself needs a hard surface upon which it may arise. That hard surface is a shared morality derived from theology. Yet others propose we construct our society upon a bed of loose sand, for that will surely hold a society together.

From where do we derive our morality? Perhaps you may listen to the knaves when they exclaim that morality is the cobbling together of personal affections, sentiments, and ideas a person, and only a person, consciously approve of. Reason and logic are to form our morality is basically what they mean. Yet, simultaneously, reason and logic are entirely relative in this respect. What one affirms is not necessarily correct; it however has derived from the application of logical reasoning on the individual's part. This is, once again, a horrible assertion. Reason and logic operate, logically, only when applied to determine an objective conclusion. I am not stating that reason and logic are wrong or should never be applied for they are positives so long as administered in properly designated sections of life.

Morality in fact is derived from the transcendent; it is reinforced through observation of divinely sanctioned natural law. God has constructed the world in a proper order, this order we are only to discover and then live by appropriately. It may be discovered through analysis of the world, but this form is incredibly difficult and the full realization of natural law has only been achieved this way by a few bright philosophical minds, yet even then large parts were absent. The other way is through revelation. Natural law is revealed to us by God through his worldly messengers. From that point it is our responsibility to both observe its truth through the workings of the world and adjust our morals to live in continual approval of this truth.

So how is it that religion is to be stripped from politics when politics is the expression of ethics and morality? Those who demand faith be stripped from politics do not mean all faith, only our faith. Theirs shall persist; it shall pervade all political discourse and intrude upon our understanding of the world. Do not be fooled for a second. Secularism is not a removal of faith from politics; it is the replacement of our Christian faith with the Secular creed. Secularism is a rival system of faith divorced from our Christian faith and challenges us for dominance. Just because their faith lacks a sense of the transcendent, churches, and so on, does not make it any less of a faith. It is a faith insofar as it erects a system of accumulated philosophical tenets expressing a complex understanding of the world.

One particularly important issue to note is the difference between politics preceding faith and faith preceding politics. Most equate a person's faith with their politics, which is actually quite true. But they do not adequately analyze whether this faith precedes their politics or whether the politics precedes their faith. Faith however always precedes politics, whether or not we fully acknowledge this reality is not of issue at the moment. A person is a political Reactionary because he is, ipso facto, a reactionary in his Faith. This is why there does exist a tangible "Right" and "Left". On the Right, and by Right I mean the 7 types of Reactionary, we find the religiously devout, theologically disciplined, and for the few irreligious ones among our ranks, a philosophical affirmation of our general worldview, except it is more hollow than hallow.

The next time a person argues that morality, ordinarily attacked as religion, arising from faith, should be removed from public discourse, remember that they are adhering to a faith as well. They are in fact attempting to coax you into surrendering from the battle. Would you surrender if Islam was being preached the same way secularism and all its particular ideas are? If not, then why would you surrender to an, at best, equally sinister plot to overthrow your civilization and route out your faith?

**Faith here is meant to be separate from, yet intrinsically attached to religion. Faith being our understanding of the world around us and religion being a particular creed which informs our world view.**

Saturday, May 12, 2012

On the Wealthy

Laissez-faire types complain I am a Socialist, Socialists complain I am a Fascist, and everyone else thinks I am just off my rocker. Yet, I do not see myself as a Socialist, Fascist, or insane. Most laissez-faire's develop a problem with me when the issue of the rich arises. They protest, that I have the cold, envious heart of a Leftist residing within my chest for daring to speak ill against those traitors traders, speculators, manipulators, and bourgeois sycophants. Is that reasoning not grand? If you dislike a person, or group of persons, who have money, you are obviously envious.

I cannot help it that when I think of these Wall Street millionaires and billionaires the first person in my head is Ebenezer Scrooge. This would not be the case had many of these upper class urbanites not treated everyone else as dirt beneath their feet, contributing philanthropically without any sincerity, and pursuing to continue this, in the words of George Fitzhugh 'war of the rich against the poor, and the poor against each other'. The late PM Benjamin Disraeli stated in his 'Sybil, or the Two Nations', "Two nations between whom there is no intercourse and no sympathy; who are as ignorant of each other's habits, thoughts, and feelings, as if they were dwellers in different zones, or inhabitants of different planets: the rich and the poor."

Disraeli was not protesting the inequality between all wealthy and poor persons, just as I do not. He was denouncing the bourgeois (to steal a term from the Socialist dictionary). It was not royalty, gentry, nobility, or aristocrats, whom he had a problem with, nor would I have a problem with such people. Instead it was, as I believe it was in the days of our Lord when he walked the earth, the man of trade who is the most devious. In the Bible we find many references to the moral depravity of those with great wealth.

“I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” Matthew 19:23-24

"As for what was sown among thorns, this is the one who hears the word, but the cares of the world and the deceitfulness of riches choke the word, and it proves unfruitful." - Matthew 13:22

"No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money." - Matthew 6:24
“There was a rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. And at his gate was laid a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man's table. Moreover, even the dogs came and licked his sores. The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried, and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side. ..." - Luke 16:19-31

It was the merchant class which committed themselves to struggle against the Church, Monarchs, Nobles, and Aristocrats, throughout Europe. They invested a sum of their fortune into the pursuits of Enlightenment philosophes. It was not liberation for society they sought from some imaginary oppression; it was liberation for their class. I cannot recall who said it but they stated, 'every revolution is the aspiration of a rising elite'. No revolution occurs without a fashioned elite ready to take the throne. Thanks to modern capitalism which arose out of England during the late Middle Ages, new elite did arise whose sole focus was on making money.

With that money they felt it their right to sweep away the old institutions and install new ones. Their new God was to be enthroned for all to worship. The new emotions shall triumph; Pride legitimized rebellion, Greed legitimized plunder, and 'Reason' legitimized atheism. Yet we are taught that pride is a deadly sin, greed is disgusting, and reason has to be chained to an altar. There is to be only one God for man and we must choose. Either we are to have the God of Heaven and the Earth, who had given his only begotten son to save us from our sins, and listens to our sighs or we are to have the god of Money, which chokes dry the well of virtue and rains down upon men the horrors of indifference.

I am not the only Reactionary who holds these sentiments. The late Gilbert Keith (G. K.) Chesterton shared my views on the matter. Beside him surely stood other Reactionaries that acknowledge the accompanying sinfulness of accumulating wealth among the class who are at war with the poor.

"Among the rich you will never find a really generous man even by accident. They may give their money away, but they will never give themselves away; they are egotistic, secretive, dry as old bones. To be smart enough to get all that money you must be dull enough to want it." - G. K. Chesterton, 'A Miscellany of Men' (1912)

"The rich are the scum of the earth in every country." - G. K. Chesterton, 'The Flying Inn' (1914)

"The poor object to being governed badly, while the rich object to being governed at all." - G. K. Chesterton

Most modern "Conservatives" tell me I should be a defender of the wealthy because I proclaim to be a Conservative. Never have I suggested confiscating anyone's wealth as a Socialist would because private property is always to be respected. This principle is held in higher regard by me than by them. For they propagate the doctrines of Republicanism and Representative Democracy, a public government, whilst I profess adherence to the doctrines of Monarchy and Aristocracy, a private government. Of these two, public and private government, which do you believe is most likely to uphold the principles of private property? The one who is set to lose most if they dare set a precedent that private property is not to be respected, for their authority relies entirely upon this principle.

"I must tell you that the liberty and freedom [of the people] consists in having of Government, those laws by which their life and their goods may be most their own. It is not for having share in Government, Sir, that is nothing pertaining to them. A subject and a sovereign are clean different things. If I would have given way to an arbitrary way, for to have all laws changed according to the Power of the Sword, I needed not to have come here, and therefore I tell you...that I am the martyr of the people." - King Charles I of England

Wednesday, May 9, 2012

Whig domination of history

In classrooms, the media, and among our silly peers we find a view of history that is both perplexing and dogmatic. A reckless fusion of ideals that produce history viewed in black and white. We are expected to believe that history is divided among men who can often be assigned either the classification of "good" or "evil". These classifications are to be assigned for no other reason than to reassure our faith in modernity. That history is but the long march towards enlightenment, where we have either presently achieved it or are continuing down this supposed evolutionary path.

I find several particular issues with what is referred to as the "Whig view of history". Progress, enlightenment, civil liberty, and scientific advancement are, according to most, the basic fundamental goals in the developments of man. When such were allegedly denied, as during the supposed "dark ages", the great masses of men yearned for these things. Yet, setting atop them was the yolk of ignorance and superstition. Those clinging to faith, king, and tradition, were but fools, or better described as pawns, being played by a spiteful elite constituting oppressive, tyrannical monarchs, aristocrats, nobles, and clergy.

This cannot be any further from the truth. First, in order to understand the Whig view of history one must grasp what it proclaims to be the highest achievements, or desirable ends, of mankind. This could reasonably be summed up with three words; leisure, liberty, and license. The great masses of Whigs (more commonly referred to as Liberals) subscribe to, in some form or another, the theory of utilitarianism; that the greatest happiness of the greatest many is a just ethical endpoint. Yet, happiness itself is often ill-defined by them. Let us, for the sake of argument, proclaim happiness, in Liberal terms, to mean maximum autonomy.

Leisure thus plays a critical role. The industrial revolution, scientific breakthroughs, and modern globalization are key contributing factors to the overall maximization of leisure in predominantly Liberal (Western) nations. If leisure is to be treated as a key contributing factor to happiness, and the greatest happiness of the greatest many is a just ethical endpoint, then leisure itself must, ipso facto, be a just ethical endpoint. But leisure itself must be properly defined. I believe most would agree that leisure, in Liberal terms, means more freedom to pursue (secular) interests. Less work hours, less dedication to prayer, easy access to (more than necessary) food, along with more affordable material goods, would generally constitute the requirements for leisure (aside from the basics of housing, clean water, etc...)

Liberty also plays a critical role in the development of history. Whigs originally, and many still do, believed negative liberty to be the full realization of human progress. Others however have considered positive liberty to be the full realization of human progress. Negative liberty demands freedom to (speak, think, protest, vote, etc...) while positive liberty demands freedom from (poverty, inequality, sexism, racism, etc...) for man to fully realize his individual autonomy, which is the basis of happiness. During the 19th century Western man believed there was but little work left for the full realization of negative liberty. Yet as Socialism became an influencing characteristic of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, positive liberty exploded in its importance. This has become the central point of disagreement among modernists - negative and positive liberty, which fully maximized human autonomy, thus human happiness.

License is the last of the summary terms for desirable achievement, but definitely not least important. That men, and women, have many 'oppressive' moral restrictions lifted from their shoulders is now assigned its place in the achievement of a utilitarian utopia (or dystopia). The sexual revolution, originally beginning around World War I but fully erupting in the 1960s, is a perfect result of this view of history are progressing towards the greatest happiness of the greatest many. Women were now 'liberated' from unselective motherhood, then tolerance and eventual acceptance of sodomy, and it added a long list of other taboo breaking actions and thoughts such as rebellion as a positive, gangsterism, drug experimentation, interracial relations, and so on.

If we take these three terms as the basic components of autonomy, and understand autonomy as the bedrock of the greatest happiness of the greatest many, which itself is a the just and desirable endpoint, then a Whig view of history may be placed into context. All of these things; leisure, liberty, and license have come quite recently, finding themselves often lonely or excluded from the many chapters of human history. Yet they are to be established as the ends millions of people had been yearning for since time immemorial. With this mere assertion we have written off the millions who have rallied to their faith, kings, princes, nobles, knights, and traditions. In just one fowl swoop we have relegated these men to the dustbin of history, except in times of needing a figure that epitomizes ignorance or evil to which the modernists may rally the masses around in unanimous condemnation.

Such a view of history relies upon the assumption that they who preceded our time were; A) oppressed, B) ignorant, C) evil, or D) a combination of A, B, and C. Today, we must conclude, the people are more enlightened than ever before, the political systems are unquestionably good, and the moral aims are undeniably legitimate. Except for a few outliers, Westerners have reached almost a new state of being. This era is the realization of greatest happiness of the greatest many in history. And for this, it must be concluded as a good. History itself then must be analyzed from the standpoint of a modernist, who observes the present then assigns "good" and "bad" to history based upon our ethics. To me, this epitomizes the full extent of generational imperialism. Our present generation apparently has such a superior state of ethical and moral enlightenment that they may rightfully judge those who have now passed. Such a duty seems fitting only for God - but have we not now ourselves become God-like? Even the creator may be judged by us on our ethical terms.

For those of us who are not utilitarian, not Liberal, and thus realistic, history has a different flavor. It is not black and white. There is not a line in the sand easily drawn with "good" on one side and "bad" on the other. This is not a game of football where there are two teams, one wearing our color and the other a rival color. History should always be viewed objectively; any good historian would not insert a biased opinion without clearly defining it as such. Yet, here we are. Suppose we decide to view history within the context of a particular worldview, then what would a Reactionary recommend? It would be recommended to view history more along the lines of the fall of man, that we are naturally prone to sin, and that all men have both good and bad characteristics, but it is how one decides to use his influence that matters.

Good is not to be understood however as self-autonomy, leisure, liberty, or license. Rather it is to be viewed as the redirecting, or reordering, of oneself and society towards God. Through this the good shall be revealed. Common good can only be achieved by directing ones efforts towards God, justice, righteousness, and virtue. If, from this, flows a proper understanding and implementation of liberty along with fulfillment of leisure, then that too shall be good. Thus history assumes a different character altogether. It becomes a story, not of evolution and advancement, but of either an affirmation of the transcendent through proper ordering within divinely revealed natural law or a rejection of such with a descent back into barbarism and anarchy.

Monday, May 7, 2012

The 7 types of Reactionary

After spending countless hours perusing the AltRight/Orthosphere Reactionary websites I have come to a conclusion that there are exactly 7 types of Reactionary. We are all undoubtedly Reactionaries, but of what particular ideological leaning depend largely upon which group you find yourself in. What is also noticable are the particular intellectual figures most emphasized by the members of each reactionary group and also their particular form of religiosity.

The 7 groups are listed below, in alphabetical order:

High Culturists
Right-wing Populists
Third Positionists
Traditionalist Conservatives

It is important to note that, since we are all Reactionaries, all the types listed above do have overlaps. This system of organizing must also be understood as a hierarchy. Because we are all Reactionaries, a classification along the lines of "Socialist" or "Liberal" or "Conservative", these are sub-groupings and within them are sub-sub-groupings. The following are the listings of sub-sub-groupings, to show what I mean:

Aristocratists - Nietzscheans, Neo-Pagans (Nouvelle Droite), and Conservative Revolutionists
High Culturists - High Tories and Elitists
Monarchists - Pan-Monarchists, Absolutists, Divine Rightists, Autocratists, and Caesarists
OrthoConservatives - Christian Reactionaries and Latin Conservatives
Right-wing Populists - Nationalists and Populists
Third Positionists - National Anarchists, Evolians, and White Nationalists
Traditionalist Conservatives - Paleoconservatives and "old school" Conservatives

All of the 7 types also have their own ideological figureheads, with certain figures this can overlap. Of the influential figures Joseph de Maistre has perhaps the largest influence. He has influenced all of the 7 types, although some more than others. Then there are figures specifically for a particular type who have very little, if any, influence outside of that type. In particular I believe Benito Mussolini has largely influenced only Third Positionists, others may enjoy some ideas of his but do not count him among their intellectual influences. The following are a list of significant figureheads in each type:

Aristocratists - Friedrich Nietzsche, Alain de Benoist, Oswald Spengler, Ernst Junger, and Carl Schmitt.
High Culturists - T.S. Eliot, Dante Alighieri, Aristotle, Niccolo Machiavelli, and Cicero
Monarchists - Joseph de Maistre, Louis de Bonald, Juan Donoso Cortes, and Jacques Bossuet
OrthoConservatives - Joseph de Maistre, Juan Donoso Cortes, Louis de Bonald, C.S. Lewis, and Charles Maurras
Right-wing Populists - Thomas Jefferson, Charles Coughlin, Pim Fortuyn, and Jean-Marie Le Pen
Third Positionists - Benito Mussolini, Julius Evola, and Francisco Franco
Traditionalist Conservatives - Edmund Burke, G.K. Chesterton, Benjamin Disraeli, Enoch Powell, and Joseph de Maistre

I find myself influenced in some way by most of these thinkers. Above all, for me at least, is the great Joseph de Maistre. He sits alone above the rest, as the greatest Reactionary intellectual in Western history. Of the types listed above, Right-wing Populist is the type I find least affiliation with. The group I identify with most is the OrthoConservatives; a good combination of tradition Christianity (specifically Roman Catholicism), moralism, hierarchy, and racial solidarity.

If you care to comment, of the 7 Reactionary types listed above, which do you believe best represents your philosophy?