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 20th 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 18th 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 17th
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
18th 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.
