Why the American Founding Fathers were the Henry the VIIIs of the New World

King Henry, with his numerous wives, was not only looking for an heir. No, in fact he, and his clerical advisors, were determined to give a firm and rude-enough message to the Vatican, the former seat of the head of the ecclesiastical power over the British Isles, that the Church of England was to be self-administrating, for better or for worse.

Fast forward, a half-millenium later, and Anglo-Saxon people are known for impeccable manners, knowing which fork to eat with, and politeness brought along to almost obsessive fault. Clearly, something has changed.

In a similar way, the Founding Fathers were sending a message of independence,  sovereignty, and assured disrespect. In contrast to the stately dignity and inflexible order of the British monarchy, the colonies in rebellion veered towards excitement, opportunity, and fluidity which engendered in my opinion, most notably, the Clause against Peerages, the oxymoronically named “Title of Nobility Clause”; Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the Constitution. “No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States”

The message was clear, an experiment was undertaken, and excitement, therefore interest, was in the air. Revolutionary France was keen to help the experimenters, and so were the British liberals keen to drag their feet against the baying of the dogs of war in their own country, a confused regret which led to a second effort to assert governorship over those colonies, which had at one time been the first, official, kingly, efforts of English colonisation, with the War of 1812, another unfruitful attempt since the idea of American independence had its roots planted far too strongly for such a muddled and yet still half-hearted attempt at conquest. As such, the experiment rolled on, throwing off sparks, and making a huge, industrial rattling as it stretched thousands of miles across the continent in the span of a single century. But in times of keen adversity, would scientists be able to rally and motivate staunch resistance?

The answer is no, that pencil-necked scientists and intellectual eggheads prone to languishing over-analysis are not capable of such an effort, which can only and must be done by men acting on instinct amounting to a father’s care for his own in a time of dire need. The head of which family will lead? 

It’s time for a change.

Was the American Revolution a Set Up?

The comparison between New France and New England alongside their progenitors on the European continent is not one that can casually discarded by Neoreactionists. Indeed, within the historical situation of that comparison could be found important clues as to the nature of the cultural and institutional systems that we deal in. So, the biggest difference between the British colonies and their crown, and the French colonies and their crown is that in France, the monarchy became a republic and bloodily while in the former the war happened in the Americas, and the British crown was maintained.

So, after acknowledging the difficulties in establishing the class of nobilities in the colonies in previous writings, I will now turn to the fact that strategically minded persons during the Colonial Era likely were aware of such a dilemma and were acting accordingly. If the spread of Communism during the 20^th century is called the Domino Effect Theory by Republicanists, let Neoreactionists commandeer that term for use, at least for the duration of this essay. The “dominoes” falling down are the monarchies jeopardised by the burgeoning third estate, merchant class, which was spreading its technological and societal changes into the homelands of which these same merchants were using as a primary trading partner. There is some historical research that could accompany this perspective but, for now let us continue in the realm of ideas. Primary trading partners they were for those colonial merchants indeed, because of cultural ties to the mother-countries.

I guess it’s hard to believe how much religious sentiment went into the maintenance of the concept of a divine monarch. Probably, that’s how the Kingdom of France fell so quickly, though. With enormous Church “reforms” and extremely bloody, murderous, massacres both under the new law and in impromptu battles it is possible to still catch a glimpse of understanding on how violent or abrupt, those changes came to the French nation. When an idea hits at exactly the right frequency, it can be powerful, and powerful because it can spread so quickly. Often, in the Politically Correct Cathedral, the presentation of new ideas is seen as an unmitigated good, whereas to reactionaries, and in the Neoreactionist community, getting bad ideas in the wrong place should certainly be seen as something to prevent. The tensions on the European continent with its history of a large war after every several generations were high, the hierarchy was well established and ornate, yet at the same time was unsuspecting to this Republicanist virus. Yet, competitive royal bureaucrats were still likely to keep an open ear for new ideas that could increase their status. If, perhaps, good ideas came in the form of military and its technology, what good ideas could come from the merchant class? Except the ideologies from a newly enriched merchant class weren’t good; for the French kingdom, they were very, very bad. A warning, that intellectuals sometimes enjoy seeing themselves as the force behind massive change, but this isn’t always so clear. If Mr. Rousseau’s philosophy spurred on the Tyrant Robespierre, there had to have been fertile ground for that ideology to take hold. Can there be an argument against the fact that New World wealth coming in to Europe could not have possibly weakened the societal norms?

If France ended the 18^th century so badly, how did it go differently in Great Britain? Initially, it can be seen that the kingdom was maintained. As difficult as the regicide in the 17^th century was, it likely had the added effect of making the crown more aware of its vulnerabilities. Advisors, as well as the nobility themselves, would be instructed in not allowing and in fact anticipating actions that could lead to another dethronement. If the colonies had to be provoked into Civil War so as to prevent their undermining ideologies from crossing the Atlantic Ocean, well then so be it. In a matter of life or death, most people will err on the side of caution. Different ways of provocation such as taxation or the “Boston Massacre” could have been designed to allow the colonists room to raise support for a realization of their own identity in the colonies. Denying New England and Mid-Atlantic colonies the right to have representation in Parliament is a way to “let those colonists know who is boss”, sure, but it is also a way to prevent the ideas of those same colonists from reaching close to the British throne. The purpose and intent was to give a cleaner break and to prevent subversion on the British Isles themselves.

If so many people like to think of the victory of those thirteen colonies as surprising, or a “miracle”, why can’t some question be raised whether the British deliberately lost that Revolutionary War? The battles fought could conceivably have been to save face. Remember, the Domino Effect, where one monarchy falls and then the rest fall, obviously what was keeping those monarchies up was social pressure between the noble families throughout Europe to not be seen as weak, or making oneself a target. Remember that the military is under the king and that many time the king, who decorates his successful admirals and generals, is often the titular Commander-In-Chief. And so, in context, it is easier to see why a king had to save face in the situation where he stood to lose the valuable asset of the colonies. The British Navy and Army might have been underplayed and the royal coffers may have been used to buy support to prevent a colonially influenced revolt in England. The British could have held a lot in reserve, knowing that a second political and societal war would have had to be fought on the homefront if the colonies were to be held onto. This problem wasn’t one that was caused by Canada or Australia because of their relatively smaller populations and wealth, and it wasn’t caused at the Indian subcontinent because of racial and cultural differences.

In retrospect, the cynical move by the British crown in the 18^th century likely saved the royal family and a lot of British tradition too. It is hard to underestimate how quickly an idea such as Republicanism could move through a culture that has been primed for it, and while those ideas spread quickly and it may be difficult to do it, a hard and penetrating analysis should be done by traditionalists when one begins to spread. Cut your losses earlier rather than later, and keep some in reserve to allow maneuvering.   

The Concept of Exit

The concept of Exit in neo-reaction does not seem to be thoroughly mined yet. Let me try my hand. As someone that often enjoys "splitting the distance" between the New Right and Neo-Reaction, the concept of secession is not a fresh one to me. Actually, it is one that someone, trained by B.U.G.S., argues against most times. "The culture is too anti-white for secession."

But the dream continues, and secession pops up again and again, while "homelands" are the end goal for White Nationalists, Nationalists, and White Separatists. Even the idea of a White Republic has been floated multiple times - perish the thought. Yet the concept of Exit is, in itself, a multi-faceted idea, and it takes more forms than that of merely secession.

Exit in any relationship can be an intruiging idea. And, it is a fairly well known negiotiating strategy that "the person most willing to walk away is the one with the most power." Leaving it all behind is a thought that comes instinctively to the side in the relationship which is the least satisfied. And, for non-establishment political theorists, the sense of dissatisfaction is tremendous. It is one of the main motivations to work toward a new ideal, whatever that may be. In a system defined by its inexorable multi-century drift toward one side, the words "Enough is enough" come effortlessly to a strategic politician's lips.

Yet, Exit can be more than secession and can be more than a realisation that working outside the established political system is the proper course of action. Exit can also be a willingness to experiment with un-official currencies, and a thedish expectation that one's children will not attend the "free" government schools. Exit can be a refusal to buy into pop fashions or a unwavering preference to tune into alternative news sources instead of going to the major outlets. Exit could, and probably should, be an association with a traditionalist religous practice instead of finding the closest and least-demanding "Church".

With many different dimensions to Exit from, Neoreactionists and cohorts in the Dark Enlightenment could certainly pick niches of their own, doing their best to take away from the cultural, spiritual, economic and informational hegemony of the establishment Cathedral. Many Christians will see the scriptural basis for keeping the world at bay:

And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.

So while secession will likely continue to be a perennial favorite as far as method for Exit, it need not be the only, or even most important one. Man does not live only in his body, or in his geographical location; he also lives in spirit and mind. What Exit should be for Neoreaction is a transcendent way of living and learning with the purpose of not only existing against the old order, but toward the new and coming Reaction.

Checklist on the Neo-Reaction Cannon

There is a canon for Neoreactionists which came out in the last week or so. http://www.aimlessgromar.com/2014/01/23/why-theres-a-need-for-a-neoreactionary-canon/

For completeness' sake, I am writing down the articles I've finished:

"Monarchy" http://tinyurl.com/7zpfrg4

"The Reactionary Consensus?"

Why indeed?

     After reading the comment sections for a critique of the "neo-reactionary" movement, an article derisively named "Geeks For Monarchy", an interesting comment came from one of the biggest anti-N.R. commenters. 

Why did America's founders break away in the first place? Why did Americans fight and die for independence against a seemingly 'benign' British monarchy? Why did the French rise up against their 'benign' monarchy? 

     This is easily seen after reading my previous blogpost, "Republicanism Hitting the Wall". Also, there is the funny irony that those who try to name-call "Geek!" are in fact, likely, the "geek"-iest group of all. Did this commenter really believe that being ruled by a mon-arch who lived the distance of a risky two to three month trip by boat is approximately e-quivalent to having your own leadership that is closer by? Did this commenter really fail to see the obvious warm-blooded connection between having sovereignty over yourself with, naturally, a local leader?

     One reason that an anti-Libertarian meme has been recently brought out in "neo-reac-tionary" circles is because that N.R.s understand that the second estate, the nobility, does, in fact, impose a degree of economic restriction. This is especially so in situations where colonization by foreign peoples and cultures is a problem. Libertarians want "open bor-ders", or an easy way for aliens to gain citizenship. A monarch, who sees the inherent threat to his nation's culture and peace says "No". Libertarians want currently illegal drugs to be able to be sold on an open market. Again the monarch, and very likely the clergy, or first estate, says, "No". 

     The reason for republicanist gain and monarchist loss, the reason for misfortune nearly all the time for us fallen men, is economic. In this way, the case against the gluttony of the third-estate merchant class grows and continues to be brought to the forefront of the argument. The French traders, after loading up on expensive furs from the Americas were, in one form or another, restricted from completely wide open trading by the French nobili-ty's bureaucracy. This type of friction continued until the merchant class had "greased e-nough palms" to build the support to overthrow the king, who in the noble tradition valued stability over wealth. Down went the kingdom. It's for this very reason that the Anglo-A-merican colonial leadership did not try for monarchism on the East Coast. 

     It's prudent to point out now that Stability is, and should be considered paramount, in light of Mexican colonization and also, potential for Chinese or Islamic colonization. The Libertarians are out of suggestions in the short term, and can only speculate about the future. All the while, the cultural and racial capital has been drained from a formerly first-world nation. What's the argument against that, republicanists?

     However, the Tech-Crunch commenter continues:

You guys who do not live under a monarchy do not know what you a talking about. Why do you think the First World War came about non-competing benign monarchies eh? 

     Rather, it seems that the republics, seeing an opportunity to dethrone the Germanic kings, went for it. This is a sad chapter in traditionalist history because the republicanists won. The French Republic and the American Republic's influence on the English language and cultural ties to the British kingdom overwhelmed the Central powers or Kingdoms. The Tech-Crunch commenter apparently saw an opportunity when another N.R. supporter used the term "benign" to describe monarchies. But, that opportunity was enough for that com-menter to see fit to let loose with his venom, in fact giving a little insight into his republi-canist prejudices. His loss. 

If I've made historical errors, no doubt someone is taking note of it... Thank you for reading.

Source

Republicanism Hitting the Wall

     A propositional nation... Sounds adventurous, right?

     However, in the long run it can lose its luster and be very well potentially exhausting. Well, there you have it, ladies and gent's. The first finger in the eye. But, let's deconstruct it a little further, alright?

     In the beginning you had a ship, it was followed by another and another, until the whole virgin territory was set up with enough critical mass of then-modern society members that society itself was first allowed purchase on the verdant shores. Only one tiny problem... the land itself was already inhabited. A tiny problem, yes, because the previous inhabitants were of Stone Age technology. What were they to do against gunpowder and top-of-the-line war-fighting technologies? Nothing but give way, that's what.

     At that time, the settlers colonized and colonized. As a consequence, they grew and grew. Their cities (our cities) were established at places were transportation was easiest, and outposts pushed further into what is naturally called the hinterland - or frontier. With so much available land, resources were easy to find and exploit, and much trading business was formed and proved succesful. Meanwhile, the resources moving through the government also found their niche - aggrandizing and protecting the interests of these merchants.

     Meanwhile, 17th century Europe was changing, as well. An established feudal structure, comprised of different classes of people, was adjusting. The first class was the highest to God - the Church, the second - the nobles, and the third class - merchants. Nobles, who had risen to power during prolific military campaigns, were headed by a monarch. He wasn't, an- ymore, ruling absolutely but he held power in both the imagination as a figurehead of State, and above the military generals as an integral source of political aspiration (those who were knighted could make it into the lower rungs of nobility). But the three classes of people did keep to their designa-ted roles as a rule. (The serfs, of course, were the lowest subjects of the realm, but as they did not have political power, they are omitted from this discussion.)

     An interesting dynamic emerged, back in the colonies. Without pressure from warfare's constant threat, the third class - the merchants - were able to leapfrog the churchmen into the power vacuum left in the absence of a valued nobility. "Not valued?", one might argue... "What about the Tories?". A weak and marginalized group, would be the response. In the co-lonies, this was because: with no military campaigns to put much value on a comparitively rigid hierarchy where the king would many times serve as the general of generals (who could forget the Crusades?) the merchants, instead, formed powerful administrative structures... Colonial toryism was idealist romanticism, and was crushed in the English and Spanish colo-nies during the revolutionary wars. It had been progressively weakened as the power flowed into the trading groups of merchants who had capitalized on resources that flowed to them unchecked by any military resistance from the, again, Stone Age fighters of the N.American continent.

     Since this had happened on one side of the Atlantic Ocean, the other side's - the Europe-an side's - merchant class was emboldened and galvanized into action. Power grabs were made continentally, most notably in the French nation, as revolution finally toppled the nobi-lity and Church there. The guillotene and appropriation of the government and ecclesiastic buildings by the nascent State left an indeliable mark... However, republicanism was just beginning for the Occident...

     Indeed, the new-found power for the merchant class proved to be never enough. It ine-vitably was proven that the former hierarchies had been instituted for a reason, and as un-occupied land ran out, the merchants began to cannibalize on the citizenry. Throughout the 20th century, consumerism, brought upon by high pressure marketing techniques, gutted the nuclear family and caused large Church denominations to buckle under the pagan motiva-tions of Mammon. Holidays were abandoned, and the child-bearing half of the marital con-tract was encouraged to "sally" forth into the workplace. At this point, morality and tradi-tional respect for hierarchy has been discouraged by "rebels without a cause"... and upon such a weakened societal structure, it is clearly only a matter of time. There is a distinct sensation that we are waiting for the next phase... can you feel it too?

J.P.O.