Please or Register to create posts and topics.

An Attempt to Develop a Coherent Reactionary Philosophy

Since the enlightenment and the West’s rejection of the God as the eminence of political authority many political theories have been put forward which have ebbed, flowed, meandered and coalesced into the societal structures which dominate dictate the norms and rules of our countries. It should be readily apparent to those who delve into the subject that the political structure has become a competing duality of Liberalism vs. the dead end of Liberalism; Communism. Some may call this the Hegelian Dialectic, personally I think dialectics go back much further than Hegel and are an intrinsic part of the Human desire to know the Truth. Whatever you wish to call it everywhere one looks into the machinations of this function at work. From the economic philosophies of Capitalism vs. Socialism the foundations of which are usury to the moral degeneracy where the fight is over the exterior relations of the flowering of degenerate Avant-guard and never about the interior forum where such degeneracy takes root and grows.

It is as if the foundations of the modern world have been built on a sand and the fight of those who wish to return to sane principles is not to once again build upon the foundations of tradition, but to ever patch the cracks and hold up the crumbling pillars in a Sisyphean effort of null return. Like a gardener who has cast his seed into the brambles and fights with the weeds as they soak up all the water and choke out the starts.

In these times where the surmounting effort and toil grows greater day by day to preserve the last vestiges of a glorious civilization it is only natural for those tired of the labor to cast their beleaguered eyes upon whatever novelty by chance offers a glimmer of light to enjoin the last hues of the pink and amber of a dying sun. Yet what novel philosophy is so inclined to function in the modern world? Surely there are many, yet these are only the stars of the night and there is no Polaris amongst them to guide the forlorn sailor home. So many are confused and hopelessly adrift following the faint glimmer of false lights like Eurasianism, Neo-paganism, Libertarianism, and a multitude of errors as numerous as the heavenly host.

Yet I submit to you that the answer to our present lies not in the future, but in the past, and the transcendental principles which guided our forefathers. Let there be no mistake, these principles were the pillars and the foundation which uplifted, upheld our great civilization which liberalism has corrupted for the purpose of tearing it down and building the Liberal abhorration which surrounds us.

First and foremost is the First Principle which was as Jesus said: The law or the prophets could be summarized into this: Love God with all your soul and your mind and to love thy neighbor as thysef. It means that it is everyman’s duty to put God first and to will the good.

The first derivative of this is and that with every right there corresponds a duty. This was the central tenant of feudalism, which was a political system of reciprocal relationships whereby authority came from the God to the King and from there flowed into his vassals, so on and so forth. Each tier had rights and duties germane to his station. So a Duke was granted the rights to rule his Duchy as his own, yet his duty was to administer justice, provide security, taxes, and answer his Kings call when needed. In comparison to today the Idea has been so corrupted that Rights have been so abstracted that their duties have been denatured from them. For instance, a Duke of the modern world: Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk may do what he wishes with his fiefdom yet he has no duty to do anything with it for the good. The nobility of the past built cathedrals, hospitals, roads, universities and all sorts of good works which uplifted the people under them. The nobility of today, for tax reasons most of the time, give to their foundations, which they own. These foundations really are just there to advance communism, the synthesis of all that is rotten in the world, so far from operating on First Principles, Christ’s summation of the Law, they do the opposite.

The second derivative of the First Principle is that Rights fundamentally exist in the real, not the abstract. This means that Rights correspond to the good, not the ability to do something. For instance, we have the ability to speak, we have the right to say the truth. We have the ability to own property, we have the right to use said property for a good end. The discontinuity between the past and today can be summarized by the First Amendment stating that we have free speech now means that we have the abstract right to lie, because we have the ability to do so. How can God grant the right to lie? Is it not prohibited in the 10 commandments? Does a Communist political party have as much right to exist as the Catholic Church? One rejects God totally and the other is the Church God established, how then can God grant them equal footing? To say so would mean God elevates evil to the good. To put in in the real we find ourselves in a situation today where a man can make his own money, buy up institutions which espouse evil, and then he has the same rights, if not more, than the man who works with his hands. How can such a man be resisted? Is it not inevitable he will rule over the man who works for a living?

Feudalism had its problems, but they were caused not by the principles upon which it was founded, but by the weakening of those principles. Europe became too rich too fast, and many were caught up in the sins of pride and vanity. The economics of an agrarian society changed and the transition to a manufacturing society began, men became foppish, usury took root, the nobility became too stagnant, and corruption infected everything. In a way it can be said that the principles of feudalism worked too well.

Yet what would a society today structured along the lines of those principles look like? Would we have feudal lords, dukes, kings and queens? One thing remains the same: we already have our court fools, look no further than Adam Greenspam. Still the question remains. First, we must realize that the structure of medieval Europe was practical and oriented to the reality of an agrarian society. That structure would not apply to the global information age of today. Everything back then was local, and land based. Now it is about networking, market dynamics, ect. Still It’s hard to say what exactly a society founded upon the principles I have laid out would look like, only to say it would look far different. I will still lay out some concrete things that I think would apply.

First would be the re-establishment of the Church as an institution with rights. No longer would the Church be an organization where people go to feel good about themselves once a month, if they go at all. It would be a real presence with the rights and duties afforded to it, intrinsic to her nature. That is I would place the schools, hospitals, and many of the social welfare, (not welfare in its modern connotation, but what it really means) at her disposal. I would also give the Church veto power over the media. This would give the Church the real footing and teeth to be the advocate for the good she was always meant to be.

Secondly, would be the recognition of the principle that Authority and Rights come from God. Abstract rights would have to go. That would not mean that evil things which are enshrined as rights today would be automatically outlawed. The principle of tolerance, which is that a thing is permitted if by outlawing it the illegality would cause a greater evil, would still apply. So things like free worship would still remain, yet the Church would have the primacy.

Thirdly, though there would be no landed nobility, but the upper classes would be expected to contribute to the uplifting of society. We would set our sights on improving as a people, not by tearing human beings down to the lowest common denominator. Those who contributed would have social recognition, and those who didn’t would be shamed. Perhaps this sounds too dreamy, but such was the model that worked in Europe and we have the beautiful sculptures, works of art, cathedrals, buildings, and the like as proof. What thing of beauty has Bezos, Gates, Musk, Bloomberg, or Fink ever left us? Or do they not spend all their money oppressing our souls? If they were subject to ridicule and banned from the public forum how would their tune change?

These are just some ideas, there are many more I could give. Yet I hope it paints a clear picture. It will be said by the reader that these Ideas are all well and good, yet they are unachievable. And the reader will probably be right. Yet we should still keep them in our mind to focus our goals and give ourselves a clearer picture of what we struggle and hope for. The return of sanity and the principles of tradition which brought about the flourishment of our great civilization, given to us by God, who will one day rule of over us in his Glory. Viva El Christo Rey!

QE has reacted to this post.

I will only highlight that with the Church no longer a Bulwark or able to influence the levers of Power, free speech, despite it's inherent drawbacks or propensity to tolerate evil, is possibly all that has kept us out of the Gulags or Guillotines.

You argue one must use free speech for Truth, but if Truth is not Judge, Jury, and Executioner, one ends up in Today's situation where the Lie persecutes righteousness/Truth.  I was almost fired for my Belief due to Covid; without the protection provided by a Classically Liberal interpretation of the 1st Amendment, I would have become subject to/a victim of the Lie.

However, current conditions do demonstrate the logical end of Toelerance.  The only way a 'Liberal' society can function is if the people are Catholic (in which case one would have a Catholic  Society 🙃).

Ryan Augustine has reacted to this post.
Ryan Augustine

Your right. We often are the beneficiaries of the classical liberalism. My attempt was to try and envision what a modern society founded on traditionalist principles might look like. How we get there is another story, one I don't really have the answers to.

A society which is founded upon these principles can, should, also afford legal protections for free speech, ect. without affording them the high status of rights. I want to say the important thing is to form the foundation and the zeitgeist. What we want our future to look like. I wrote this post as an exercise because there doesn't seem to be much forward thinking on our side of what our strategic goals should be.