There is always a king. The rightful king is always out there. He is the noblest man of his generation, and (by definition) there is always such a man. The only question is whether he is known, recognized and honoured as such. Where he is not, all men worry whether they might themselves be the rightful king; and, thinking they might be, feel resentment that their dignity is not properly recognized. A fortiori, they resent anyone who lords it over them. In such circumstances is individual liberty most jealously, zealously guarded. In such circumstances, it must be.
In the absence of an identified king, all authority is sapped, all the way down the hierarchy – for the same dynamic is at work for every level of the patriarchy. Such is chronic kinglessness, in which everyone has some power and no one feels himself powerful. Kinglessness engenders anomie, for all laws of the kingless state are unlegitimated by any royal authority. All laws and rulings are then under radical question, their power of moral suasion uncertain, as being indefinite, up for grabs; so that obedience and lawfulness become a matter of mere expedience. Chaos ensues; no one is or feels safe, or reliably correct.
Authority is then never quite settled, and political strife is constant. Where the king is known, and honored, there is no political strife, because his edicts are Law, and are everywhere accepted as such. Political strife arises only when there is some question about who is the rightful king. It is a war more or less violent to see who will rule. Where no rule is royal, ergo sacrosanct, there is no security of rule, or therefore of law.
In any group of men under stress the noblest among them will soon become apparent to all. All will want to be his friends and allies, and will want to be like him. Ditto for any group of nobles.
No formal procedure is needed for royalty to emerge in this way.
The Orthosphere 
Pingback: There is Always a King | Aus-Alt-Right
This King is exempt from the regular procedure: 1. Become Worthy, 2. Accept Power, 3. Rule.
He already is worthy.
Pingback: There is Always a King | Reaction Times
The rightful rule of a rightful king is not infinite, so in such conditions there is still room for jealous, zealous guarding of individual liberty. One could argue that the rule of the Lord of Creation is infinite, although I’d say the Lord of Creation made creation in such a way that it is not. But, I’ll stick to human matters.
Tyrant, as you know, was originally the name of a king who had come to power through some sort of usurpation. Today it means a ruler who oversteps the proper limits of his rule, as this is also a usurpation of power. You may wish to define a rightful king as one who would never be tempted to tyranny, but I think this would misread human nature. The will to power makes all of us liable to tyranny, even the noblest man alive.
Achilles accepted the kingship of Agamemnon, but still objected to his taking Chryseis. Agamemnon was the noblest of the Argives, but he was not free of the will to power. His commandeering of Chryseis was tyrannical, and his usurpation introduces the disorder that is the Trojan War.
Aye, even the noblest man of a given generation is after all Fallen. There being no way to prevent all his errors, we should be ready for them, so as to control their pernicious effects, to the extent possible. This is best done by limiting his powers to their proper sphere. Such limitations are imposed in the final analysis only by other men more or less noble – from princes and dukes down to common freemen – exerting their own authority over their own proper domains, from principalities and duchies down to freeholds. I.e.: yes, we may never altogether relax our vigilance in the defense of our proper liberties.
But, then, also: in the absence of a recognized and legitimate aristocracy, and thus of a proper king, the difficulty lies in determining the extent of the liberties proper to our station; for in such circumstances, no man can be quite sure of his station.
Kristor…
Only after a Fall can there be a will to Perfection and no worldly obstacle.
And the denial of this most simple of truisms be at the heart of the anti-matter.
I like this idea, since it reminds me of Chesterton’s “The Return of Don Quixote” but how often has “the noblest man of his generation” wielded any power? I can think of St. Louis and king Arthur but few others.
David, Pericles, Marcus Aurelius, Saint Empress Pulcheria, Empress Purandokht, Saint Prince Vladimir, Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, An-Nasir Salah ad-Din, Roger of Sicily, Isabel of Castile, Theodore Roosevelt may have come close.
George Washington, Alfred the Great, Charlemagne, Augustus, Churchill – I think that it is possible to compile quite a sizable list of extraordinarily noble kings, once one starts digging into the record. Nevertheless, the procedure by which kings are found and elected is often pretty messed up, so that it ends up choosing poorly.
I never said there were no good kings but I wouldn’t call any of these men or women the most noble of their time, with the possible exception of Marcus Aurelius (though I’m pretty sure he would disagree vehemently).
I don’t know much about Saints Vladimir or Pulcheria.
Saladin was not a particularly noble man, despite constant claims otherwise. I feel the same about Roger.
I guess my point is that “the world knows nothing of its greatest men.”
Churchill?
Sure. He wasn’t King, true, but he was an excellent man along many dimensions of virtue, and a good leader, of the sort one wants for king. And he was the King’s vicar.
The fact that he was not a king is not my objection, but I will let it go.
Don’t really buy the concept of nobility, certainly not in the form it’s expressed here.
Then I recall your support of Donald Trump, who certainly is one of the most ignoble people to ever grace the public consciousness. If ignobility is real, then I suppose nobility must be as well. I just don’t expect to find it in kings or concentrated at the top of a social hierarchy — quite the opposite.
I’ve come very recently to perceive a sort of nobility in Trump. Although I have long planned to vote for him, it was with a very clear perception that he was, indeed, something of a clown. But watching the tape of his speech at the Al Smith dinner, particularly as the faces of his audience grew stony, I began to think, “this is what speaking truth to power actually looks like.” Even if he is utterly wrong about everything he says, he is a man prepared to pay a terrible price to speak the truth as he sees it. This sort of courage is always noble–the premier virtue, as Aristotle taught us.
Trump is by no means ignoble, since he is not sneaky, duplicitous, underhanded, devious, or back-stabbing. He’s brutal, but since he doesn’t sneak up from behind or work through the agency of paid assassins, he’s not ignoble. Your view of nobility is too subjective, too closely tied to your approval. In the old honor culture, it was common to respect the nobility of a valiant enemy who he fought well, with honor, and out in the open.
Well said. I, too, have come lately to apprehend a certain nobility in Trump. He seems to have been changed – talks about having been changed – by his experiences on the campaign trail. He had been Hal, and has begun to become Henry. When he talks of the people he has met, there is a sorrow and compassion in his voice that is unmistakable. He loves his people. And he knows perfectly well that in persisting with his campaign he is effectually offering the sacrifice of his own life for their sake.
Not, of course, that he is the noblest man of our times. Not yet, anyway. But the Lord moves in mysterious ways. When it comes to kings, he has many times ventured far from and far below the accustomed aristocratic circles to choose an unknown, problematic boy. Viz., Arthur, David, Moses. This, especially, in times of crisis.
As for the very notion of nobility, I had not actually ventured any characterization of it at all, but rather merely used the term as if it still signified something that all readers would understand. I can sympathize with the confusion a.morphous expresses over the idea. He is right: none of us have been taught to understand nobility, yet we all recognize ignobility, so we must implicitly know what nobility is. But it’s hard to put one’s finger on its character on that basis alone, just as it is hard to characterize beauty only on the basis of disgust and revulsion at ugliness.
I do have some thoughts on the matter, but I will reserve them for a future post.
Yeah right. Oddly for such a virtuous chap he has been involved with 3500 lawsuits, many over fraudulent business practices.
Anyway, your opinion, sincere or not, is evidence against the thesis of the original post. If your idea of nobility is so skewed from mine, then there is no hope of finding and agreeing upon the most noble individual.
That men vary in their opinions does not mean that there is no Truth. It means only that men err.
That men err does not mean that they cannot do right. If they could not do right in the first place, then they could not fail thereat by erring.
So, no: that JM Smith’s opinion is different from yours is no evidence against the thesis of the original post.
When I was in college, a friend and I painted houses one summer. We painted about ten houses and had one lawsuit. Since Trump clearly owns the equivalent of more than 35,000 houses, he’s doing pretty well, law-suit wise.
My opinion is sincere. I am not saying the man is flawless, only that he is certainly “taking on the system” at considerable personal cost, and that there is an undeniable degree of nobility in this. When we look at nobility as a character trait, and not as a social class, we find that it always involves freedom from certain vices, such as cowardice, envy, spite, miserliness . . . As you said, this nobility can be found in men of very mean circumstances.
So according to you there is some objective fact of the matter about degrees of nobility, and so at least one of JMSmith and myself must just be wrong.
For your scenario of the emergence of the most noblest person to be valid, such disagreements need to be settled somehow, either through force or reason or some other method. How, practically, do you think that’s going to work? We are having an election to be sure, but that’s not exactly about nobility and I assume JMSmith isn’t going to change his opinion once Trump undergoes the crushing defeat people are expecting.
The almost unanimous condemnation of him by elite opinion (conservatives as well as liberals) also doesn’t seem to pull much weight.
If there is no fact of the matter then no opinion whatever can be either right or wrong, or even meaningful. But, “My opinion is that opinions are meaningless” refutes itself. It can’t be true. So, yeah, there is an objective fact of the matter.
That said, both you and JM Smith can be right about Trump. He can be a scoundrel *and* manifest certain noble qualities. No one here has suggested that he is the noblest man of his generation. We are neither promoting nor defending him; we are merely talking about him. He does not seem royal to me. He seems to me rather to be the sort of strong demagogue that Polybius predicts must rise at the devolution of democracy to ochlocracy. How he is quite relevant to the subject of the post is therefore a bit of a mystery.
As to how the rightful king might practically be found, I do have some preliminary thoughts, which I will however save for a future post.
There is no need to settle the question. You’re confusing ontology and epistemology. For a couple of thousand years men could not agree on the circumference of the earth, wit a minority holding that it had no circumference. There was no way to settle the question, and yet the circumference of the earth was an objective fact.
The question would need to be settled for nobility to become the ground of political legitimacy, but not for it to exist.
Trump is the living embodiment of at least 3 out of 4 of those vices. (Not so sure about cowardice, although he did evade military service — according to him, dating was his personal Vietnam because of the danger of sexually transmitted diseases, but he bravely forged ahead).
I’m not saying that DT is an all round great guy. Until about a year ago, I thought he was a clown (albeit a clown who was far more successful than I). Until a month or so ago, I thought he was our clown, meaning the only instrument available to beat the Democrats and drive the neocons from the party. But as Kristor wrote below, the campaign has changed him, and a certain nobility has been revealed. Not a perfect nobility, but a certain nobility. This nobility is connected to the prospect of “crushing defeat” that you mention. A man who rides to almost certain “crushing defeat,” and does not run away or surrender or propose a truce–that is a noble man. And this stands out in the crowd of cowards that infests the halls of our government.
Well, unlike Kristor I don’t believe there is an objective measure of nobility so I am happy to let us disagree. If you think Trump contains nobility then there is really no point in further discussion. To me (and to most people), he’s the embodiment of the opposite: he’s petty, mean, vindictive, proudly ignorant, crude, unprincipled, vain, dishonest, and I could go on. There’s not a trace of visible nobility.
He is not accepting defeat with grace or dignity, instead he’s whining about “rigged elections” with no evidence, he’s threatening violent conflict and delegitimization of our basic democratic institutions (which he has no feelings and understanding of — his knowledge of how government works wouldn’t suffice to pass a middle-school civics test).
If you want an example of a politician exhibiting nobility in defeat, here’s McCain’s concession speech from 2008: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bss6lTP8BJ8 Try to imagine Trump doing the same.
I’m rather shocked by this. It’s one thing to disagree about fundamental issues in politics or religion or metaphysics or even morality. But to have such polarized judgements on such a gut-level value judgement…it really makes me feel like I’m talking to aliens here, and there is no possibility of mutual understanding.
Believing as you do that there is no objective matter of fact, you may take comfort in the thought that your evaluations of Trump – and of everything else – are nothing but vain, empty noise, and are therefore irrelevant to reality, and can make no difference to anyone’s lives as really lived. Thus you may rest easy with regard to Trump versus Hillary, because you can reassure yourself that no matter how good or evil either of them *seem* to you, there is in the first place no real good or evil out there to be manifest in anything. Trump isn’t *really* ignoble, in any respect; there is indeed no such thing as ignobility. It’s all a figment of your imagination. No worries!
“Going nowhere”
A.morphous aims…
At “Redundant Game.”
No Singularity
So it’s homo…
Everything’s a SINGLE same
“Universal equality.”
Not the EXACT same
That would equal Self…
Homo=same=exact same=self
And a home gone insane
HOMO-sexuality…
Is pleasure
Pumping through the veins
The sexual narcissist
He invites
Hordes of Great Pain
Earns much disdain
But nonetheless,
Not wiped clean
Like a common shit stain…
Amorphous, given that you seem to regard Trump’s rejection of democracy as a bad thing in a discussion with monarchists, this may be the cause of some of your incomprehension.
Where Trump is tending towards nobility, it is where he is perceived as “white supremacy.” And where Trump is attacked is in mainstream Christianity’s “tolerance” of his radical sexual autonomy. So per Charlton’s media inversion, it is a “tails I win, heads you lose” scenario for the anti-white Supremacists.
They scare “us” where Trump goes right… And guilt “us” for Trump’s sexual wrongs.
I didn’t say that, I said that judgements of nobility do not have an objective basis.
That some of our thoughts and words and representations of the the world are social constructs does not make them arbitrary and does not make them meaningless.
How could it? Whatever the status of language and ideas (objective or subjective or somewhere inbetween), it is all we have. Ideas and words manifestly mean a lot to us, regardless of the nature of their relationship to an underlying reality.
Oh, grow up.
There is – obviously – no difference between saying that there is no objective matter of fact respecting nobility and saying that judgements of nobility have no objective basis.
This is true, but only insofar as our thoughts and words and representations have some objective basis in fact. Thoughts, words and representations must be *about* something real in order to have real meaning. If there is no such real thing out there, that our thoughts and words and representations can be about, then our thoughts and words and representations are not about anything at all. They are, in a word, nothing but hallucinations.
I doubt you really believe there is no objective basis for our thoughts. No one can believe that notion coherently; for, if there is no objective basis for our thoughts, then there is no objective basis for the thought that there is no objective basis for our thoughts.
Sure. But if they have no relation to an underlying reality, the meanings that they have for us are hallucinations.
Sucks to be wrong, no? Why not stop?
In the West, these WHITE men woukd be most truthfully and accurately called “white Supremacists.” And it is the anti-white Supremacy of the modern West… Otherwise cuckservatively known as “anti-racism,” which stands as the “progressing” proof made known by Kristor’s OP. The masses are anti-white Suoremacy up to and INCLUDING the Orthosphere. And so the pressure is always greatest on the most nominal of liberationists. To MERELY call one’s self a “Christian” or Roman Catholic is now a VERY RELIABLE INDICATOR OF ONE who will inevitably fold into that mold of modernism.
“If I can’t pray, I don’t want to be a part of your dialectic”
–Nicolás Gómez Dávila (I think)
A true king will be a right handed king as any right hand supremacist like myself would have to agree. Everyone knows that loyalty to handedness is the structure that undergirds our civilization.
wS…
Why is it so hard for a “white” self-identified Roman Catholic to conceive of the “white Supremacist,” ABSOLUTELY?
Why is it so difficult for a high IQ “white” male to conceive of a “white Supremacist” AS:
A white man who believes in and therefore strives towards (objective) Supremacy, ie., Perfection?
How come the “intellectual” class on the “RIGHT” AND LEFT LITERALLY CANNOT CONCEPTUALIZE THE ABOVE (hint: they’re ALL anti-wS)?
I’ve tried for years and years…
NOT TO HAVE these same high IQ “white” males say the above conception of “white Supremacist” was false…
THEY LITERALLY.cannot conceptualize a white Supremacist, absolutely… They CAN ONLY CONCEIVE “white supremacist” AS A RADICAL LIBERATIONIST woukd do.
As YOU continue to do…
Simply UNABLE TO conceive of a white Supremacist as a white man who believe in and therefore strives towards Perfection, ie., objective Supremacy.
IT’S CRAZY.
Evidence of “radical autonomy.”
AND NOT A Roman Catholic…
Roman Catholics WORSHIP Perfection.
Why is it so hard for you to conceive of a Right Handed-Supremacist as a right handed person who is striving for supremacy? Why is your arbitrarily selected physical trait any better than mine?
wS…
Here again you Babel in bad faith as the underlying issue is…
The RADICAL LIBERATIONIST’S stunted conception of (w)hite (S)upremacy SERVING as “absolute truth” for the dull masses AND YOUR CONSPIRATORIAL RELATION to the imposition of this retarded, relativistic “reality…”
For it is in your UNWILLINGNESS to conceive a “white Supremacist” ABSOLUTELY that you are, IN FACT, seeking to annihilate him IN THE REAL at MERE Conception.
You are a liberated “Roman Catholic” AT BEST… Perhaps evil though in your desire to annihilate those white men who believe in and therefore strive towards objective Supremacy.
“He is the noblest man of his generation”
This is only true in the formal sense that the king is at the top of the feudal hierarchy, and is in that sense true tautologically. Unfortunately, that is not how the phrase is likely to be read. I strenuously disagree that kings necessarily possess any particular moral quality above their subjects, and still more that “nobility of spirit” automatically confers authority over anyone. To say so would be to invite endless strife as each man protests his superior kingliness. No king could rest secure, knowing that a more virtuous man might be found to unthrone him any day. Kingship must rest on a publicly accessible criterion, namely being the previous king’s eldest legitimate son. The king’s authority comes from God, not his own qualities.
The law is the law, and the legal King is King- but nonetheless, the man who is lawful King ought to act like one, and cultivate virtues that agree with the Nature of his station.
The USA being Kingless from the start, and having degenerated into lawlessness in any case, the selection of a King has to default to the law of Nature by which people spontaneously want to follow a man in whom they intuit a Kingly nature.
Yes. Lawful kings who don’t act royal soon lose the Mandate of Heaven, which is mediated by the fealty of their barons.
Bonald: I don’t disagree; I didn’t get to this yet, but we are barking up different sides of the same tree. Absolutely correct that kings do not necessarily possess any particular moral quality more than their subjects. Often they do; not always. Still, there is by definition of the terms involved always one man out there who would be best as king. But in practice, only God knows who he is. There’s no practical way for men to find him out. Fortunately, in any generation of men, there are probably quite a few who would be good kings.
It seems to me that feudalism is (among other things) a method of discovering the man who should be king and then securing his reign. The search costs being so high, the method needs to find, not the *perfect* gentleman at every time x – which, as you say, would be a recipe for just the sort of constant political strife we now enjoy – but a gentleman good enough to keep the loyalty of his barons, in which alone his power – his suasion – after all concretely subsists. And familiarity – which is to say (among many other things), primogeniture – is one of the dimensions along which the barons are going to tend to approve of their sovereign.
Familiarity has to be in the mix. There must be something like brotherhood operating between and among a king and his dukes, for their loyalty to each other could oblige them at any moment to sacrifice their lives for each other. And if a prince is to survive the death of his father and become himself king one day, he must love and be loved by the barons as they were his uncles.
Feudalism is portrayed as a bloody affair, and indeed so it can be. But what moderns usually miss is that at bottom it was driven and suffused by familiar love, and for the most part cooked along quite pacifically.
I take nobility of spirit to include (among other things) humility. A man who wants to be king, who feels he ought rightly to be king, is probably not suitable to the office. The danger to the king, then, is not from noble men, but ignoble.
And this “familiarity…” This “familiarity”which is seducing Dr. Charlton towards Mormonism and a soul originating outside of Perfection… This familiarity conceptualizes RACIALLY… And the legitimacy of Kingship is racially substantiated. There are no deracinated religions NOT THEN PATHOLOGICAL… Religion without “familiarity” is no such thing… Religion without Race is self-annihilating… And so is a belief in origination outside Perfection…. Totally unfamiliar. Deracinated “Christianity” IS A SOUL KILLER.
tD…
“For it is in your UNWILLINGNESS to conceive a “white Supremacist” ABSOLUTELY that you are, IN FACT, seeking to annihilate him …”
WRONG! It is in YOUR unwillingness to conceive of a “Right Handed Supremacist” Absolutely that YOU are IN FACT seeking to annihilate him! It is you who are a liberated, anti-right handed supremacist at best and it is my sincere wish that you cease your bad faith babel post haste!
wS…
In the realization of the white Supremacist… Is the right-handed white Supremacist…
But if you think “right-handed” is the equivalent to “white” in the context of their respective phrases THEN you might be suffering from a BAD CASE of Equalitis.
Everyone KNOWS that the “white Supremacist” is ZEITGIEST ENEMY number ONE… That would be the devout white Christian for you really subversive elements… AND his “right” or “left” handedness is more of your subterfuge.
In reality, it is cover for the fact that you desire to exist as that aspect of the white race that DENIES objective Supremacy and will still call yourself a Roman Catholic.
Wrong again! The so called white supremacist is a subset of the Right Handed Supremacist. It is you who are trying to make equals of Right Handedness and Left Handedness by subversively lumping them together under the false label “white supremacy”.
@ Thordaddy & Winston Scrooge: Gentlemen, please take up this conversation at your own sites. It is getting tiresome for the rest of us.
Kristor…
That’s literally false and only figuratively true in a very undermining manner.
*What* is literally false? What do you mean? See, Thordaddy, about 90% of what makes your comments tiresome is that they are so unclear. Spell it out, sans your private jargon.
Agreed. Amen!
Kristor…
YOU ARE a white Supremacist…
And your reluctance in saying so signifies the inevitable death of Christianity in the West…
And winstonScrooge AIMS to obscure this truth with all his Babel.
To NOW SAY YOU ARE A MERE “white Christian” is to say you are either a pathologically altruistic “liberal” or a backwards “racist.”
You may think is it proclaims your worship of The Perfect Man, but the dull masses do not believe it anymore.
No idea what you are saying here.
What does this mean? What is the difference between a white Christian and a “white Christian”? What is the difference between a liberal and a “liberal”? Or between a racist and a “racist”?
Do you see how confuse the reader with these scare quotes you sprinkle around so liberally ?
Who said that he was a mere “white Christian”? I didn’t. I’m lots of other things, too. I’m right-handed, e.g.; American, of Scandinavian descent; Californian; Catholic; married; etc. Also, I’m not “white,” I’m white. I’m not “Christian,” I’m Christian.
You say that I am a white Supremacist. I know from our past colloquies that to you, this amounts to saying that I worship perfection and that I am white, so that my worship qua white man of perfection entails my dedication to the perfection of my character as a white man. I’m pretty sure I got that right. It doesn’t involve my thinking that I am better than anyone else, it just means that I worship the Supreme Being – this being the sense in which I am a Supremacist – and seek to realize the perfection proper to such as me insofar as that is possible to a creature of my ilk. But how is all this materially different from saying that I worship God and seek the Good? Why not just say that I worship God and seek the Good? Why use a secret jargon, whose meaning is privy only to you and to those few who, like me, have pried it out of you?
If on the other hand you mean that my Christianity entails a conviction of the supremacy of my own race over all others, why not just say that? Why muddle the two things together? Why confuse worshipping God and seeking the Good with believing one’s own race superior to all others?
+++++++++++++++++
PS: I note in passing that you have not answered my question: *what* is literally false?
Don’t hold your breath expecting a clear or satisfying answer.
Kristor…
ALL THIS CONFUSION OF YOURS simply revolves around your unwillingness to conceptualize white Supremacist IN THE MOST ABSOLUTE MANNER…
As a white man who believes in and therefore strives towards objective Suoremacy. PERIOD!
And this ^^^ is so BECAUSE…
You only conceive “white supremacist” as a Jew, nigger, jihadist, migger or homodyke would conceive “white supremacist.” You only conceive “white supremacy” as white degeneracy.
And it is in this vain that you paint yourself a “Christian white man…” A “white Christian…” As an anti-white Supremacist EQUAL in your anti-white Supremacy to those degenerate elements of the ZEITGEIST… So then how are you a white Christian when you are equal in your anti-white Supremacy to that whole of the ZEITGIEST?
Well, the ZEITGIEST MUST BE TELLING THE TRUTH on that one particular issue of “white supremacy” as white degeneracy.
“White Supremacy” IS NOT MY PHRASE…
It is the phrase of the Jew and nigger subterfuge USED to subvert and convert healthy-minded, white Christians into all-out, open anti-racism, ie., hatred for their father(s).
It has worked like a “charm” even on someone of your intellectual caliber and a father to boot.
YOUR RACE is your father. That’s how the white West does it…
And THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS deracinated Christianity.
AND there is such a thing as a white race of men.
And there is such a thing as a white race of men striving to be better than all other race of men.
And so, this white race of men embrace Christianity in order to solidify their standing as a Master Race of white men.
This is the white race. The white race is KNOWN for its desire for objective Supremacy… It is a defining desire of the white race. Thus making said white race a target for annihilation.
So why not say I’m just a Christian?
Because it’s an admission of submissive self-annihilation to a critical mass of the white race.
Why say that I am a white Supremacist?
Because it is an UNEQUIVOCAL CLAIM TO BEING an avowed enemy of the ZEITGIEST and an undeniable rejection of the “self-annihilation for salvation” “Christians,” ie., the deracinated, anti-racist “Christians,” who are the grimly dominate face of mainstream Christianity.
This is a little more clear than your other comments have been. But I’m afraid you are just wrong, both about me and about Christianity. I am not Christian “in order to solidify [the standing of the white race] as a master race.” I am not Christian in order to do this or that – not even in order to save my soul and win my way through to everlasting life. I am Christian because the Christian revelation is true.
Nor do I find anywhere in Christianity – in Scripture, or the Fathers, or the Saints and Doctors, or the Councils, or the Magisterium – any jot of a warrant for the claim that Christianity is inherently racial. What is your source for this notion? Chapter and verse, please.
Kristor…
You ACTUALLY BEING tired some in reading what I write is literally false. Your writing on the other hand can literally exhaust an individual. Yours was a figure of speech that practically operated as a means for winstonScrooge TO ESCAPE the same predicament as you…
He is a self-identified white Roman Catholic…
SO HE IS LITERALLY A white Supremacist…
He denies this fact though…
And also denies that this represents HIS public deconversion from Roman Catholicism.
It’s like claiming to be a real father and then protesting that you’re not a man…. Fatherhood loses just because.
Thordaddy, “tiresome” means “boring.” “Wearisome” is another synonym.
Kristor…
There is NO PRIVATE JARGON…
“White supremacy” is a phrase at least 50’years old plus…
“Equality” IS anti-(objective) Supremacy… Anti-Perfection. A push for total redundancy as highest reality… Infinite regress/progress.
Anti-racism IS anti-white SUPREMACY… NOT JUST ANTI-white as it is LARGELY of whites who are really “whites” because they HATE WHITES AND objective Supremacy. These DEGENERATE SLIME are “white” self-annihilators.
Self-annihilator IS self-explanatory. One who annihilates the Self. And this self-annihilation CAN BE DONE “parts” at a time as “we” discussed the other day.
YOUR Race is YOUR father IN THE MOST PARTICULAR INSTANCE. So anti-racism is hatred for your father in the strictest sense. In the context of MRKA, this means hatred for your white father. And this individual hatred find collective validation in the hatred for the (F)ather. Ergo, anti-racism becomes anti-white Supremacy.
Again…
You DO NOT WANT TO CONCEDE to THE FACT that you are a white Supremacist and the ZEITGIEST’S murderous animosity for both “white supremacy” and Western Christianity IS DUE their singularity of kind.
This is not a trivial concession…
It is a PUBLIC DECONVERSION… A failed Litmus Test to the “valorization” of the Zeitgeist.
Kristor…
The idea that your concrete realization of Christianity exists outside your Race is a radical absurdity and the very idea used to destroy the white man’s concrete realization of Christianity.
Anti-white Christianity IS anti-white Supremacy… And the ZEITGEIST SAYS SO EVERY SINGLE DAY!!!
So to feign speechless bewilderment at this simple, straightforward observation OF FACT…
Has to put you on the side of deracinated “Christianity…” Anti-white Christianity… Anti-white Supremacy… Thus proclaiming the absurdity of a concrete realization of Christianity OUTSIDE your father(s).
Cite to chapter and verse, Thordaddy. I’ll consider anything from scripture, saint, Father, Doctor, council or Magisterium.
If you cannot supply such a cite, then one of the words you are using unconventionally is “Christianity,” and you are using it to mean something that no one else means by the term. Which is silly.
Kristor…
A short summary while you should not have to hold your breath as I have never tired of explaining my belief in Perfection which is far more exhausting than simply reading one who repeatedly explains his belief in Perfection to those who cannot conceive of Perfection, absolutely.
NO PRIVATE JARGON…
You CANNOT TIRE in reading one who believes in Perfection. How so? Why so?
“White Supremacist” is the ZEITGEIST’S ENEMY NUMBER ONE even before the Christian.
The ZEITGEIST AND MAINSTREAM Christianity are BOTH anti-white Supremacy and FOR “universal equality.” Ergo, ALLIES!!!
The Church is in a state of radical autonomy… Autonomy gone radical. Ergo, MODERNIZED!
A denial in being a genuine white Supremacist IS THE DENIAL to being a Christian, racially incarnated. Ergo, PUBLIC DECONVERSION.
Now, if you dare say you cannot understand what I’ve written above then you are part and parcel to the Zeitgeist.
Thordaddy, if you believe in perfection, and seek to realize it, then one of the first things you should work on is perfecting your prose style. One can tire of reading one who believes in perfection if that one is not himself yet perfect.
Not really my department but doesn’t scripture actually say the opposite of this tedious racialism?
Galatians 3:
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
29 And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
[ and maybe somebody can square that quote with the obsession with enforcing rigid gender roles that permeates contemporary Christians. ]
Christianity is not an ethnic or racial religion, as is clear from the verses you quote. But neither is it anti-ethnic or anti-racial (or anti-gender-role). What these verses tell us is that earthly categories (such as sex, class and race) do not translate into a chosen people (i.e. those who are “saved,” or “in Christ,” or “Abraham’s seed”). Men, or whites, or blacks, or Jews, do not, on Christianity, have some special advantage getting into heaven; but this does not mean that these categories do not exist, or that they are not significant in matters other than salvation.
When Paul wrote these verses, he was making it clear that gentile converts (and slaves and women) were not second class Christians, but he was not disputing the reality of these categories in classical society (or in any society that would follow). He was not aiming to overcome racism, or abolish slavery, or smash the patriarchy, as a wider reading of Paul makes clear.
Kristor…
I know what “tiresome” means in the conventional sense, but “we” are subject to a liberated language where a “white Christian” can be an anti-racist and the white Supremacist is a “white degenerate.” But this DOES NOT REQUIRE me to invert the conventional meaning of “tiresome,” only, I can still liberate its usage… “Boring” equals “make you sleepy.” “Wearisome” equals “make you suspicious.”
I reject the entire idea as literally false. I neither make you sleepy nor ultimately suspicious. These are YOUR EXCUSES in defending your denial in BEING a genuine white Supremacist… And ONCE your LEARNED BEHAVIOR to deconstruct “white” is thwarted by the realization that such maneuver is the stuff of anti-racism, ie., the stuff of a hatred for your father… The one who SHOULD BRING a concrete realization of Christianity to your
mind… Then what?
Well… I don’t know what your next evasive step is?
The white Christian is a white Supremacist!
True or False?
Start here. It’s the Litmus Test that is coming to all the white males near you.
It is an extremely simple decision with profound implications.
If you use words in an unconventional sense, as it is clear you are absolutely determined to do, then you are engaging in the use of an idiosyncratic jargon. In doing this, you are not communicating your ideas. You are rather only confusing your readers. If you want to promote your ideas, you would do better to express them in conventional language.
I’m not going to offer any further substantive responses to you until you start expressing yourself clearly, using terms conventionally. In fact, I’m not even going to publish any more of your comments until you write them more clearly and conventionally. I’m just going to delete them.
The greatest white supremacist of all was Humpty Dumpty. As an egg, he was certainly white. He also took a decidedly supremacist attitude towards words, saying that they meant whatever he wanted them to, because he paid them very well.
Kristor…
YOU BELIEVE IN (P)erfection…
And then deny being a white (S)upremacist.
So you are a radical autonomist.
Nonsense. You are far too free with your equivalations.
[A comment which shall not appear on account of its unconventional use of terms. In this comment, Thordaddy insisted that “white Supremacy” does not mean what the zeitgeist means by the term. – Ed.]
[A comment which shall not appear on account of its unconventional use of terms. In this comment, Thordaddy insisted that humor about white supremacy is pathological deracination. – Ed.]
[A comment which shall not appear on account of its unconventional use of terms. In this comment, Thordaddy insisted that “white Supremacy” *does* mean what the zeitgeist means by the term: a white traditional heterosexual Christian male who believes in the First and Second Amendments. – Ed.]
Pingback: How to Find the King – The Orthosphere
a.morphous | October 25, 2016 at 7:56 PM
… [D]oesn’t scripture actually say the opposite of this tedious racialism?
Galatians 3:
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
29 And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Amorphous – Yes indeed it does. I would cite these other verses as well:
Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.” (Mark 12:30-31)
Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things. (Col 3:2)
When an alien resides with you in your land, do not molest him. You shall treat the alien who resides with you no differently than the natives born among you; have the same love for him as for yourself; for you too were once aliens in the land of Egypt. (Lev 19:33-34)
There are many others.
Kristor – Thordaddy will never cite any scripture to support his bizarre theory that true Christianity somehow supports his white supremacist mumbo jumbo because he simply cannot. The support for this exists only in his mind and nowhere else.
[A comment which shall not appear on account of its unconventional use of terms. In this message, Thordaddy insisted that no citations to anything in the literature of Christianity were needed to show that “Christianity” means something different than what all Christians have meant by it. -Ed.]
[A comment which shall not appear on account of its unconventional use of terms. In this comment, Thordaddy called an Orthospherean crazy for wanting to see a citation to a Magisterial text that supported the notion that Christianity is inherently racial. – Ed.]
He can’t get around the fact that there is ample scripture to support the truth that racism is not a Christian virtue. Nor can he get around the fact that he can find no scriptural support for his novel point of view.
Because I never said Christianity was inherently racial…
And so it is crazy to REQUEST OF ME a passage from Scripture claiming Christianity to be inherently racial.
What I have stated numerous times is that Christianity IS THE WORSHIP of The Perfect Man (nonracial) and that no Orthosphereans KNOW this nonracial truth OUTSIDE of their racially-incarnated self. Ergo, Orthosphereans are white Supremacists IN THE EYES of the Zeitgeist. Which is the Zeitgeit seeing Truth most truthfully in order to subvert it absolutely.
SO PLEASE STATE EMPHATICALLY if you believe the Truth to be otherwise?
Thordaddy, this comment was barely within the pale of comprehensibility, so I’m publishing it.
You said:
This is to say that Christianity *just is* racinated, or else it is not Christianity. To repeat, again, what I said in response:
Nor do I find any jot of evidence anywhere in the Magisterium that Christianity is racialist, or racinated, or anything of the sort. There is of course in it much talk of peoples and nations. But that’s different.
Christianity IS the worship of The Perfect Man…
And so where there is worship of The Perfect Man, there is Christianity.
I’ve said this hundreds of time and dare you to refute just exactly what Christianity is as stated above?
The white Supremacist worships The Perfect Man… Only, he truthfully credits your Christianity while you work to discredit YOUR white race in its collective worship of The Perfect Man.
It’s NUTS!
Thordaddy — I have never heard of anyone who believes Christianity is what you say it is.
The worship of “the perfect man” does not fully encapsulate what it means to be Christian. It is not even the main point of Christianity. To make it the main point is a perversion verging on idolatry.
Christianity is not the worship of the Perfect Man. It is belief in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man; he was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried, and the third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father; from thence he shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end. And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spake by the prophets. And in one holy catholic and apostolic Church; in one baptism for the remission of sins; and in the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.
Amen.
Christianity is not the worship of [T]he Perfect Man — Kristor
NONSENSE…
Without The Perfect Man, YOU worship “universal equality,” ie., total redundancy, and reject all singularities.
Thordaddy, all I did was give you the Nicene Creed. The Credo sets forth the definitive de minimis criteria of Christian belief. It does not mention the notion of the Perfect Man.
I’m not going to publish your subsequent comments on this subject. They are too badly written.
Even if true (and I do not concede this point) what difference does that make?
Pingback: Troll Jujitsu | Winston Scrooge
Pingback: Lightning Round -2016/11/02 | Free Northerner