CCCLXXXVII – Reactionary Meta-Analysis

Editors Note: I have a backlog of posts written during the hiatus. I will post one per day until I run out—at the time of this writing it takes us deep into December. It’s good to be back!

---

I want to approach a basic question from two different angles. The basic question is “What does it mean to be reactionary“. The one angle is “Who becomes reactionary, and why”, the other angle is “Why am I reactionary”.

I can speak for myself so I will answer this part first. I am reactionary for the same reason I am Catholic: it makes the world make sense. I can sense the instability of democracy, and I spent a lot of my college years trying to define why right-liberals were right in an absolute sense. I couldn’t answer the question to my satisfaction. I found relativism and whataboutism at the root of most arguments, and there was nothing I could hang my hat on that says that this or that political point of view is concrete. A short way of saying this is that I was looking for the moral high ground, an unassailable position from which I could rhetorically devastate my political foes. Reactionary politics scratches this itch because it is rooted not in political philosophy but in moral philosophy. I can say I would prefer a Monarchy because when they say “the buck stops here” they actually mean it–there is no one to whom they can pass the buck for anything pertaining to the custodial care of their subjects. They must take direct and personal moral responsibility. Direct and personal moral responsibility means that they have a spiritual stake in the corporeal well being of their subjects. This has the advantage of being both true in an unassailable sense, but also helps make sense of the current reality, where we have a diffusion of responsibility across grand and grotesque bureaucracies. As I said at the beginning of this graf: this reality filter strikes me as being true, and it helps make sense of other parts of reality than just the one that I am focused on.

“Who becomes reactionary” is a trickier question. I think it’s not as simple as looking out ones window and observing who is indeed a reactionary, because then you might surmise that reactionaries are uniformly curmudgeonly academic types and/or arrogant young men. But I am more interested in what unifies the curmudgeonly academics and the arrogant young men. Why have these two groups found a common home under the reactionary banner? A pragmatic view might say that the Curmudgeonly academics know enough and are established enough in their careers that they can call it like it is and put up with any nattering they get as a consequence. Likewise a pragmatic view might say that the arrogant young men are, well, arrogant and found the reactionary worldview in search of the unassailable argument-winning political theory.

But again–I feel like this misses the point. The unifying theme, I think, is that reactionary politics is both new and old. It is old in that it has its philosophical roots in ancient western history, and it is this deep history that satisfies the academics, who are discerning about their worldviews because they are intelligent enough to know a mature and reasoned worldview from an immature and impulsive one. It is new in that it is uncommon and countercultural, it is “punk rock”, it is underground–and arrogant young men are comfortable being unpopular if they are satisfied that they are right. While the academics don’t need to care about popularity, the young men don’t want to care about popularity, and prefer being right to being nice. The arrogant young men can borrow credibility from the deep history which satisfies the academics, while being comfortable not being in the in-crowd. Young arrogant men are comfortable in the out-crowd because it is smaller, feels more tribal, more like a brotherhood. Crowds are for the cows, tribes are for hunters.

So given this, what does it mean to be reactionary?

It means you don’t care about being popular. It means you love tradition. It means you are aggravated by the plastic clichés of modernity. It means you want your world view to be grounded on something more rational than mere gamesmanship.

Taking this one step further: How do you find reactionaries–or make them?

• Look for people interested in history or old things.
• Look for people who are uncomfortable in modernity’s many procrustean demographic boxes.
• Look for people who are struggling to make sense of the world.

If you stumbled on this blog, and any of these categories speak to you–welcome! I hope you take a look around.

AMDG

CCXLII – Orthosphere and the Political Right

I like to throw peanuts from the back row of the comments section of the Orthosphere sometimes, and another commenter likes to throw walnuts and while Kristor ably advises him on the virtues of peanuts, I occasionally am tempted to give this commenter a piece of my own mind.

On two recent occasions, the commenter has made the claim that the Orthosphere operates within the umbrella of the political right: First in a peanut-throwing contest with me, and more recently in a more educated way with Kristor. Both exchanges are nearly identical so I will quote it once:

Your site has a quote from de Maistre at its head [“Wherever an altar is found, there civilization exists”]; that is as Right as it is possible to get. You are obsessed with authority and submission, that is also as Right as it gets.

Regular readers will know that I have forsworn discussions of politics in this space but I am inclined to allow this because it’s less politics and more political philosophy–why we think the way we think about political affairs.

---

The left/right divide is a feature of liberalism. This means classical liberalism. The apellation “classical” signifies that this is not liberalism as the political buzzword we hear on the news–it is the older political theory that emerged from the French Revolution. “Liberalism” then refers to freedom. Classical liberalism then is the idea that Freedom is the chiefest virtue of a people. Liberal government is one which tries to balance the necessarily implicit restrictions on freedom that come with governing with the priority of maximizing the freedom of the people subject to that government. Left and Right are ways of categorizing how this balance ought to be struck. Left-Liberals tend to maximize the authority of the state, while Right-Liberals tend to maximize the authority of the individual. This might seem counter intuitive because the narrative seems opposite from what we see on the news cycle but every left-liberal regime has led to a consolidation of power in the apparatus of government, and every right-liberal regime has tried to slow or reverse this consolidation.

The typical political ideology chart has “political freedom” crossed with “economic freedom”, which serve as proxies for this dichotomy. Political freedom represents the authority of the government; economic freedom represents the authority of the individual. The combinations of these two axes give us everything contained in the umbrella of Classical Liberalism.

The Orthosphere are traditionalist reactionaries, if I had to apply an ideological label to them. Traditionalist insofar as tradition informs our shared virtues. Reactionaries, insofar as it is a reaction for the affluence and excess of our modern day and age.

The commenter hears “traditionalist” and thinks “rightist” because that is the meme–rightists are, to paraphrase Obama’s description, “gun-clinging bible thumpers”. So tradition just makes the meme-ridden political edgelords think of the bible, and the connection is made.

As traditionalist reactionaries, the Orthosphere doesn’t really have skin in the game of American politics. Those who vote, vote in conformity with their conscience, but not because the Orthosphere has a stated policy position on how to vote on certain issues. Orthosphere generally doesn’t get into the nitty gritty of specific issues except where it crosses into the confines of Traditionalist reactionary thought. And this is the crux of the confusion which the commenter seems to have.

Left vs. Right politics is like a bunch of hyenas fighting over a water-buffalo carcass. Everyone wants to control the carcass but at the end of the day it’s just a rotting dead piece of flesh. The Orthosphere isn’t interested in fighting over that carcass, and that’s why the Orthosphere doesn’t fit neatly into the left/right dichotomy. Orthosphere seems to me to be chiefly concerned with what happens when there’s no more meat on the bone, what then? What comes next? Or, what would be better now? The Orthosphere is not interested with taking power–I can’t speak with personal knowledge but I can say it is unlikely that any contributor or like-minded commenter wants a political revolution with Orthospherian ideals.

Honestly, the Orthosphere is not really the stuff of political revolutions anyway. It helps us cope with whatever the political winds happen to be, and prioritize our citizenship in heaven.

If you understand these points I’ve just laid out, you understand why it is so bizarre when the commenter refers to the Orthosphere as an agent of the Right. You might as well call the ticket collector the main event of the circus–doing so completely misses the point of both the ticket collector and the circus.

Until the commenter can step outside the left/right box just a little bit, he will continue to be bewildered by the Orthosphere and the Orthosphere will continue to be unable to communicate with him effectively.

AMDG

CXXXII – Excursus on Individualism

The relations of Man I think have been well defined over time: Man and self, Man and Man, Man and Family, Man and Country, Man and God.

One of the consequences of post-enlightenment political thought is the idea of Man as a self contained unit. Catholic political thought conceptualizes the smallest social unit as a family, thereby implicitly considering Individuals as a ‘unitless number’ when contextualized outside of the family. The “liberation” of Man from any other context-giving unit has fueled this perennial question of “What is the meaning of life” or “what is mans purpose”.

A husband and wife are “one flesh” through the sacrament of Matrimony. A king is “one flesh” with his people. Adam is “one flesh” with Eve. This is the root of the consideration. Man’s life is not his own. God is our heavenly King, and we will be united with him (as one flesh) in the hereafter. Our relationship to God is properly ordered as a prodigal son to a loving father, as such. Worship of God is due reverence and obedience. No man can be conceived outside of his relationship with God. The worship of God gives life meaning and purpose at it’s most basic and fundamental. If the answer to “What am I supposed to do with my life” is “Honor and glorify God,” then the logical next question is “How do I do that,”: The question is changed from an existential one to a practical one.

Our Sovereign has a similar relationship. In a frictionless monarchy in a vacuum, the Sovereign is one flesh with his people. He has a duty to his people just as we have a duty to him, and this reciprocity lends itself to stability and purpose for all around. “Civic Duty” is the philosophical descendant of this idea of a filial obligation to ones sovereign. In a democracy such as ours, the relationship is confused. We imagine ourselves as both Sovereign and Subject, so we tend to make increasing demands on our elected officials as the ones who put them into office, and demand a higher obligation as subjects of those officials. It is very difficult to conceive of the relationship; nevertheless Civic Duty gives us some purpose as well: Peace, stability, virtue for our nation. The means to these ends are manifold, and can be selected voluntarily.

In Family units, man has obligations depending on role but all stemming from this concept of one-ness with the whole. As paterfamilias, or as prodigal son, there is a filial obligation proportionate to role and responsibility. Outside of this, Man is at sea without a paddle, lost without a compass.

Relative to his fellow Man, the obligation is looser: Love thy neighbor as yourself, which JMSmith teachs via Orthosphere implies that the neighbor is one who helps you. We have an obligation of indifference, perhaps even benevolence to all people, but our neighbors are those immediately around us who help us in various ways.

Implicit is Mans relationship to self. Indeed, “Love thy neighbor as thyself” makes less sense if we do not first love ourselves. This is also where Individualism is fallacious. If Man turns to Self for meaning and purpose, he cannot find it, he see’s only his reflection staring back at him. If Man turns to Family, Country, and God for meaning and purpose, he will find himself rising to a common purpose.

Individualism pursues its own ends, Catholicism pursues oneness with the whole: Not artificial oneness that the “socialists” prescribe, but actual literal oneness that comes with Unity with God. Until then, we are actually one with our families, whose flesh is our flesh.

LXXXV – Chicken Little Cries Wolf

The Incoherent Rage of Greta Thunberg is fascinating to me. I saw this image as I was scrolling through my news aggregators and I can’t help but think they’ve gone full Chicken Little on this one. La Nostra Casa e in Flamme, or, Our House is on Fire.

via Crisis Magazine

There’s a lot to unpack with what is going on with poor little Greta, but I just want to point out something. You may recognize it, it’s one of my favorite points to raise.

Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, Lex Vivendi

The liturgy of environmentalism has no formal rites, their only dogmatic precept is outrage. Greta Thunberg checks that off, willingly or not. She is using outrage to sell products, though. Look at this picture: There’s something of a mirthlessly humorous contrast between the title of the book (Our House is on Fire) and the fact that she is selling a book. Imagine, if you will, trying to convince people, literally, that their house is on fire.

A man walk into someone’s house, calmly. He tells them, “Sir and Madame, your house is on fire.” They disagree– “Why, I was just upstairs a minute ago and it was quite comfortable.” Our unwelcome interlocutor responds “I am afraid you are quite incorrect, your house is on fire, and shame on you for doubting me. To mark my authority, I would be more than willing to sell you this brochure, wherein I explain why the house is on fire and why you should be more upset about it than you are.” The couple refuse to pay, and refuse to take the man–who has now taken the character of a salesman– seriously. “Well, alright.” He says, “but you’ll be sorry. This house is on fire, and you’ll burn along with it.” With that, he walks briskly out, climbs into his humvee and drives swiftly to another neighborhood.

What Greta is saying is not lining up with what she is doing, and so people doubt whether she actually believes what she is saying. The disconnect between Thoughts, Words, and Deeds, makes her seem ingenuine. This is why no one cares about her message.

LXXIII – Political Ideology vs. Christian Doctrine

Titular clarification inspired by suggestions from JMSmith in the comments on my previous article.

---

I previously wrote two articles about the distinctions to be drawn between political ideology, which necessarily must change depending on the political circumstances of a given time, and Christian Morality as codified in Doctrine, sometimes referred to as the Magisterium.

In the first, I assert that “Ideology is Jealous, Morality is Just”. That is to say: Ideology demands conformity. Ideology will change until a sufficient number have adopted it, and then Ideology will demand that you conform to it. Political ideology is defined by rivalry. Likewise I assert that Morality, as codified in the Magisterium, does not change and requires only that we conform to it, or more accurately, that we conform to God.

In the second, I expand on the idea that modern forces are trying to turn faith into a political ideology, thereby changing it so it would be acceptable to more people. I further state that doing so is wrong.

A Case Study in Ideologization of Religion

Please see this article, and read it in full: “Christian Group warns against rise of Christian Nationalism”.

Lets take this point by point.

• “Merging of American and Christian Identities poses a threat to US Democracy and religious communities.”

America was founded by Christians, this is a fact. Christian values inform the underlying structure of our government, as documented by the Constitution. This is also a fact. Christianity does not pose a threat to religious communities, except in wishing that they would convert to Christianity. There is no threat of bodily harm to these communities inso far as Christianity is concerned. This is a fact. Nationalism is a political ideology. Christianity is a religion. The commingling of the two concepts is dangerous only to Christianity, not to anyone else.

• “As Christians we are bound by Christ (…) whether we worship at a Church, Mosque, Synagogue, or Temple, America has no second class faiths.”

Both of these claims cannot be true. Christianity–specifically, Catholicism, from which all other schismatic sects are born, is true. This is not a political claim. Catholic worship involves celebrating the Sacraments, at a Church. It is to this we are bound by Christ. We can do whatever we want, politically, insofar as it does not interfere with our obligations to Christ. No other religion acknowledges this obligation, therefore no other religion is true.

The rest of the article is a political treatise barely worth analysis. This group is a political organization trying to use a religious banner to make a political point. The point they want to make is this: Whites should be denigrated, borders should be open, and the Orange Man is Bad.

Christianity makes none of those claims.

³⁶Master, which is the greatest commandment in the law?
³⁷ Jesus said to him: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind.
³⁸ This is the greatest and the first commandment.
³⁹ And the second is like to this: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
⁴⁰ On these two commandments dependeth the whole law and the prophets.

^{Matthew, 22:36-40}

¹⁷ Tell us therefore what dost thou think, is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or not?
¹⁸ But Jesus knowing their wickedness, said: Why do you tempt me, ye hypocrites?
¹⁹ Shew me the coin of the tribute. And they offered him a penny.
²⁰ And Jesus saith to them: Whose image and inscription is this?
²¹ They say to him: Caesar’s. Then he saith to them: Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and to God, the things that are God’s.

^{Matthew, 22:17-21}

Any Christian who claims that a political obligation supersedes an obligation rooted in the Magisterium is wrong.

AMDG

LX – Ideology vs. Morality (Cont’d)

The Truth of Catholicism is not up for debate. I’d like to lead with that up front. Nothing that happens can shake the firmness of a tree rooted in Truth. As something that is True, there can be discussions about meaning or consequence but there is no doubt about the truth of the matter.

This is important because there is a temptation to turn faith into an ideology. Ideology is debatable. Ideology can contain elements of Truth, but that Truth is used to support a political position.

There is a lot going on in the world these days, political, religious, economic. The American Presidential election is ramping up and is looking to be a dramatic event. As I understand it, there are no Catholics running for President. That is fine. I frequently get wrapped up in politics, and get frustrated and even angry about what it means for the world, the dire consequences of ideology not supported by truth.

You may have heard about the questions surrounding Pope Francis and Pope-Emeritus Benedict. These are important questions. They do not change the Truth of Catholic teaching.

You may have heard the debate surrounding a number of political issues. Should Abortion be legal? Should borders be open? Should tariffs be high? Should economic unions be preserved? These are important questions in their own right. They do not change the Truth of Catholic teaching.

Faith is not an ideology. There is not a political platform that comes with being Catholic. Being Catholic influences what political platforms are worth listening to.

I wrote this as a reminder to myself. There is a lot going on in the world. If I devote my life to God, none of these worldly things matter by comparison. If I devote my life to Politics, my efforts are misplaced by their proper focus of God.

What tips or tricks do you have for dealing with the goings on of the world?

AMDG

XLIV – Ideology vs. Morality

A modest elaboration on an earlier thought:

Ideology is Jealous, Morality is Just

Ideology is futile grinding and gnashing of teeth.

Ideology can be summarized thus:

[GROUP] are smarter and more essential than [RIVAL] so they ought to run things. Things would be much better with [GROUP] in charge. [RIVAL] doesn’t really get things because of a fundamental misunderstanding which is central to the rivalry. [GROUP] has the better position on a number of key issues, and these positions are supported by common principles which everyone in [GROUP] agrees on.

Ideology is a check list, and it requires, by definition, compliance on penalty of exclusion.

Morality has no such implications. Morality says “This is true.” People who disagree do not present a different morality–that is Ideology. People who disagree are themselves immoral. Morality cares little for your opinion.

Modern relativism seeks to turn everything into an Ideology, where everyone can have a position on everything. But that is a fallacy: Ideology is rivalry, Morality just is. Morality needs no affirmation. Ideology seeks it through both community and rivalry.

Just a thought.

AMDG