"The peoples who existed closest to the proposed “state of nature” turned out to have constantly made war on and enslaved each other, engaging in all manner of bestial practices and cannibalism." This was most certainly not true of Australian Aborigines, Inuit, or Kung.
If my studies are correct the differentiating factor was hierarchism. All hierarchical cultures suffered from poverty, repression, incaceration, slavery, torture, and war. All flat power cultures had none of this.
A caution: I have studied this specifically for sixty years and lived within the consensus protocol cultures and, in fact, I am paid to record the laws thereof with a view to government recognition. Conversely, I regard European culture as the realm of savages.
But if you have read the histories and anthropology of the savages, then of course you would think otherwise.
Tradition risks becoming the white man's Ghost Dance.
Traditions function only when they fit the needs of society at a given moment in time. There is no point in tradition when inherited forms of social and cultural life have already been annihilated as they have in North America and Australasia.
To amplify (and to draw on a post I made on Niccolo Soldo's substack), the material or social basis for tradition is the family. North America and Australasia are currently in the process of revolutionary changes in family life that make the old way of life irrecoverable. The prospects for genuine tradition are bleak.
The post-nuclear family model (fragile, female-led, weak or variable levels of attachment by adult males and low levels of fertility) is becoming normalised amongst the masses. Traditional nuclear families will remain the norm for those with the means to form and sustain them. The sub-proletariat (unmarrigeable or involuntarily celibate) will live in the pod and consume pornography and (if they are cashed up) will travel to the Third World as sex tourists.
Traditional pair bonding will be honoured in sentimental political rhetoric, but the corporate sector has no interest in supporting any such thing. And the corporate sector remains the only constituency that counts.
IMO this is a catastrophe that will produce truly dystopian conditions (with anomie and atomisation on a scale that surpasses what we now see), which is why I increasingly think of the US and its core clients as Cthulhuland. Hope this clarifies things.
It all started with Roman Law, the much-revered pillar of Western Civ. Hon'ble McConkey does an excellent job in meticulously dismantling this fake idol. Makes a good fit as a dance partner to dethroned Enlightenment 😵
Blanket execution doesn't feel quite right 😝 I'd lobby hard to leave Coffee & Covid's Jeff Childers intact. There're many others to spare, notably numerous heroes of covid legal wars 🤸
The point that I was trying to make is that talk about tradition is one thing, the prospects for sustaining them another. The more lucid elements on the Right make the point that traditions are good, useful, etc but real-world conditions in the emerging post-liberal society make the survival of any traditions problematic. The annihilation of inherited socio-cultural forms has largely been accomplished. It feels to me that we are close to cultural Year Zero.
Yes, it needs to be pointed out that the U.S. Constitution isn't conservative - but it's not anti-conservative either. It simply sets up ways to prevent a dictator. It was a compromise document that came 15 years after the revolution. Fake conservatives focus only on the Constitution because it's safe, that way the Left can't attack them for racism. They won't mention that the Founding Fathers right after limited immigration to "White men of good character". THAT was conservative. The big mistake was to not put this in the Constitution.
But it's not anti-conservative, it's just that the government wouldn't enforce conservative behavior. The FFs were certainly conservative in their own lives, as were everyone else. They couldn't imagine that media and politics would be co-opted and used against normal human behavior in the future.
As for the Enlightenment, it's popular to attack it on the Right. Okay, so some philosophers said that "Man is inherently good". How much do you think people actually walked around being motivated by that?
And no, the Enlightenment was NOT about "equality". The Enlightenment supported White expansion, White colonies to which the poor Whites in Europe could move and become farmers. It did not say that Blacks were equals. There were plenty of liberal writers who wrote in favor of European empires and wrote that society could only work if there was a natural hierarchy of Man. That is why the Left hates the Enlightenment.
Which by the way is simply called the colonial era in many European countries, it's Americans who obsess about "Enlightenment ideas".
What the Enlightenment actually did, was to do away with the vestigious feudal laws, which was necessary. Later Mussolini would note in the Doctrine of Fascism, and Hitler too in his book, that you can't oppose the Left by talking about going back to monarchical rule, knightly orders, etc. The feudal was over, and that was good.
The Founding Fathers were liberals, and they did not oppose White expansion. They did not oppose slavery. They did not oppose conservative life. Their big mistake was to not write pro-Whiteness in the Constitution, but in their time that seemed unnecessary, just like if you'd warned against a pro-transvestite campaign in the future.
(I say liberals, because the rest of the world knows that liberal is a right-wing word. Small government, protection for people against government overreach. That is where the First Amendment and Second Amendment came from - arch-liberal ideas. The U.S. Left turned into a more European-style socialism around WWII, but after the war hijacked the word "liberal," which was positive in the U.S., because Americans had mainly heard "socialism" in communist propaganda. Socialism is the whole Left, by definition. Always has been. Marx' communism came later and is part of socialism, but isn't all of socialism. The U.S. Left should rightly be called Social Democrats. Which Labour in Britain proudly call themselves.)
I fully agree that classical liberalism is exhausted intellectually and politically but take issue with several key points.
Firstly, the Enlightenment was a varied and complex movement, now widely misunderstood through the belief that it is best understood through the political thinking of egalitarian pamphleteers and kooks like Rousseau or Tom Paine.
In truth, the Enlightenment began and flourished with thinkers who were complex and subtle: Bacon, Hobbes, Gassendi, Spinoza, Leibniz, Locke, Montesquieu, Hume, Vico and Kant.
Secondly, the Enlightenment is invoked by egalitarians. But they ignore the fact that many of the philosophes actively and enthusiastically supported the so-called Enlightened despots. Diderot's patron, the Empress Catherine, formally enslaved more Russians than any ruler in that country's history to date. Other philosophes explicitly rejected the notion of either social or racial equality.
Thirdly, the Enlightenment does not automatically lead anyone to a belief in innate human goodness. Mandeville, the Scottish philosophes and Sade, for example, all came to very different conclusions.
Finally, classical liberalism is exhausted on a practical level because the financially independent bourgeoisie that was its core constituency is extinct in the West. A mock-bourgeoisie was kept alive on life-support for much of the twentieth century but the rolling financial crises since the end of the Cold War make it obvious that the social order necessary for a liberal state no longer exists.
Cheap shots at long-dead philosophes smacks of the approach taken by certain types of self-declared conservatives. Do we really need more of this?
One of the core premises of the Enlightenment which set it apart from earlier periods in European history, was the belief on the part of the philosophes that man was inherently good.
I wonder how much this philosophy has influenced the recent widespread embrace of Eastern spiritual practices such as meditation and yoga. Eastern thought take things a step further than Rousseau -- instead of merely being good by nature, *we actually are God*. It's easy to understand the appeal to modern Westerners. If we're already perfect, why bother striving for anything?
"The peoples who existed closest to the proposed “state of nature” turned out to have constantly made war on and enslaved each other, engaging in all manner of bestial practices and cannibalism." This was most certainly not true of Australian Aborigines, Inuit, or Kung.
If my studies are correct the differentiating factor was hierarchism. All hierarchical cultures suffered from poverty, repression, incaceration, slavery, torture, and war. All flat power cultures had none of this.
A caution: I have studied this specifically for sixty years and lived within the consensus protocol cultures and, in fact, I am paid to record the laws thereof with a view to government recognition. Conversely, I regard European culture as the realm of savages.
But if you have read the histories and anthropology of the savages, then of course you would think otherwise.
💬 what serves to best restrain the lawless proclivities of the citizenry of any nation
...is of course Lord Moulton’s obedience to the unenforceable, ie willingness to obey self-imposed law which in turn emanates from ↓↓
💬 moral and ethical traditions of our civilizational bases in Christianity and classical culture.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Tradition risks becoming the white man's Ghost Dance.
Traditions function only when they fit the needs of society at a given moment in time. There is no point in tradition when inherited forms of social and cultural life have already been annihilated as they have in North America and Australasia.
Ok then, whence do the said needs originate?
To amplify (and to draw on a post I made on Niccolo Soldo's substack), the material or social basis for tradition is the family. North America and Australasia are currently in the process of revolutionary changes in family life that make the old way of life irrecoverable. The prospects for genuine tradition are bleak.
The post-nuclear family model (fragile, female-led, weak or variable levels of attachment by adult males and low levels of fertility) is becoming normalised amongst the masses. Traditional nuclear families will remain the norm for those with the means to form and sustain them. The sub-proletariat (unmarrigeable or involuntarily celibate) will live in the pod and consume pornography and (if they are cashed up) will travel to the Third World as sex tourists.
Traditional pair bonding will be honoured in sentimental political rhetoric, but the corporate sector has no interest in supporting any such thing. And the corporate sector remains the only constituency that counts.
IMO this is a catastrophe that will produce truly dystopian conditions (with anomie and atomisation on a scale that surpasses what we now see), which is why I increasingly think of the US and its core clients as Cthulhuland. Hope this clarifies things.
It all started with Roman Law, the much-revered pillar of Western Civ. Hon'ble McConkey does an excellent job in meticulously dismantling this fake idol. Makes a good fit as a dance partner to dethroned Enlightenment 😵
🔥 thecirculationofelites.substack.com/p/the-excrescence-of-roman-law
I should have known. Shakespeare got it right. "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers".
Blanket execution doesn't feel quite right 😝 I'd lobby hard to leave Coffee & Covid's Jeff Childers intact. There're many others to spare, notably numerous heroes of covid legal wars 🤸
The here and now. Human nature.
The point that I was trying to make is that talk about tradition is one thing, the prospects for sustaining them another. The more lucid elements on the Right make the point that traditions are good, useful, etc but real-world conditions in the emerging post-liberal society make the survival of any traditions problematic. The annihilation of inherited socio-cultural forms has largely been accomplished. It feels to me that we are close to cultural Year Zero.
Yes, it needs to be pointed out that the U.S. Constitution isn't conservative - but it's not anti-conservative either. It simply sets up ways to prevent a dictator. It was a compromise document that came 15 years after the revolution. Fake conservatives focus only on the Constitution because it's safe, that way the Left can't attack them for racism. They won't mention that the Founding Fathers right after limited immigration to "White men of good character". THAT was conservative. The big mistake was to not put this in the Constitution.
But it's not anti-conservative, it's just that the government wouldn't enforce conservative behavior. The FFs were certainly conservative in their own lives, as were everyone else. They couldn't imagine that media and politics would be co-opted and used against normal human behavior in the future.
As for the Enlightenment, it's popular to attack it on the Right. Okay, so some philosophers said that "Man is inherently good". How much do you think people actually walked around being motivated by that?
And no, the Enlightenment was NOT about "equality". The Enlightenment supported White expansion, White colonies to which the poor Whites in Europe could move and become farmers. It did not say that Blacks were equals. There were plenty of liberal writers who wrote in favor of European empires and wrote that society could only work if there was a natural hierarchy of Man. That is why the Left hates the Enlightenment.
Which by the way is simply called the colonial era in many European countries, it's Americans who obsess about "Enlightenment ideas".
What the Enlightenment actually did, was to do away with the vestigious feudal laws, which was necessary. Later Mussolini would note in the Doctrine of Fascism, and Hitler too in his book, that you can't oppose the Left by talking about going back to monarchical rule, knightly orders, etc. The feudal was over, and that was good.
The Founding Fathers were liberals, and they did not oppose White expansion. They did not oppose slavery. They did not oppose conservative life. Their big mistake was to not write pro-Whiteness in the Constitution, but in their time that seemed unnecessary, just like if you'd warned against a pro-transvestite campaign in the future.
(I say liberals, because the rest of the world knows that liberal is a right-wing word. Small government, protection for people against government overreach. That is where the First Amendment and Second Amendment came from - arch-liberal ideas. The U.S. Left turned into a more European-style socialism around WWII, but after the war hijacked the word "liberal," which was positive in the U.S., because Americans had mainly heard "socialism" in communist propaganda. Socialism is the whole Left, by definition. Always has been. Marx' communism came later and is part of socialism, but isn't all of socialism. The U.S. Left should rightly be called Social Democrats. Which Labour in Britain proudly call themselves.)
I fully agree that classical liberalism is exhausted intellectually and politically but take issue with several key points.
Firstly, the Enlightenment was a varied and complex movement, now widely misunderstood through the belief that it is best understood through the political thinking of egalitarian pamphleteers and kooks like Rousseau or Tom Paine.
In truth, the Enlightenment began and flourished with thinkers who were complex and subtle: Bacon, Hobbes, Gassendi, Spinoza, Leibniz, Locke, Montesquieu, Hume, Vico and Kant.
Secondly, the Enlightenment is invoked by egalitarians. But they ignore the fact that many of the philosophes actively and enthusiastically supported the so-called Enlightened despots. Diderot's patron, the Empress Catherine, formally enslaved more Russians than any ruler in that country's history to date. Other philosophes explicitly rejected the notion of either social or racial equality.
Thirdly, the Enlightenment does not automatically lead anyone to a belief in innate human goodness. Mandeville, the Scottish philosophes and Sade, for example, all came to very different conclusions.
Finally, classical liberalism is exhausted on a practical level because the financially independent bourgeoisie that was its core constituency is extinct in the West. A mock-bourgeoisie was kept alive on life-support for much of the twentieth century but the rolling financial crises since the end of the Cold War make it obvious that the social order necessary for a liberal state no longer exists.
Cheap shots at long-dead philosophes smacks of the approach taken by certain types of self-declared conservatives. Do we really need more of this?
I would say that we are inherently good...and evil, but the first prevails... Otherwise I couldn't hope for the better.
One of the core premises of the Enlightenment which set it apart from earlier periods in European history, was the belief on the part of the philosophes that man was inherently good.
I wonder how much this philosophy has influenced the recent widespread embrace of Eastern spiritual practices such as meditation and yoga. Eastern thought take things a step further than Rousseau -- instead of merely being good by nature, *we actually are God*. It's easy to understand the appeal to modern Westerners. If we're already perfect, why bother striving for anything?
Plato? The only king Plato met was Dyonisios I tyrant of Syracuse. Did you mean Aristotles and Philippos II?