How to Reckon the King

In How to Find the King, I looked back to my experience as a member of the Grand Canyon Crew for insight into how a band of men discover who among them are noble, and who the noblest. The Grand Canyon Crew was remarkable for its fraternity. We were all equals; if there was to be a Head Boatman, he would be primus inter pares.

This sort of fraternity within a band of brothers is the feudal ideal. Its archetype is the Round Table. Arthur wanted to be, and was indeed, first a brother among brothers, and only in virtue of that brotherhood would he want to be their King.

Most bands of brothers are not as fraternal as the old Grand Canyon Crew, let alone the Round Table. Some in such bands are nobler somehow. What distinguishes the nobler brothers?

  • They are older, or more experienced – either as to the length of their careers or as to the extremity, danger or severity of their adventures – than their fellows. This earns automatic respect from other men.
  • They are notably better than their fellows along some important dimension of intelligent leadership toward good policy and right action: sagacity, wit, Odyssean canniness, foresight, sympathy, comprehension, prudence.
  • They are better than their fellows at a wider array of useful skills and talents. Noble men are well-rounded polymaths, who are also grounded in practical, active life. This is why the traditional ideal of the gentleman – of the man’s man – includes competence at music, poetry, philosophy, war, combat, the hunt, animal husbandry, farming, dance, romance, languages, courtesy, politics, business, arts, and crafts. These days we might add engineering, science and information. The noble man is good at many of these things, albeit rarely all; he is not usually as good at any one of them as some others might be, who specialize in them. I.e., he might know his way around the kitchen, but he is no chef.
  • They are handy, nimble, quick, graceful, percipient.
  • They are sons of noble men, scions and heirs of noble families, who have succeeded in their rites of passage to manhood, so that, as solid in their mature and intelligent inheritance of their cultural patrimony, and confident both in themselves and their powers, and in the security and justice of their welcome among their forefathers, their filial piety is unblemished by any rebellion, their manhood unsullied by any puerility, or – even worse – anxiety thereat. By the noble character of their forefathers are they known and reputed noble among their companions.
  • They are righteous, and ethical: honest, just, fair.
  • They are not egocentric or parochial. They are comprehensive; their interests and knowledge range widely. Patriots and patriarchs who love their own above all others, they are yet nevertheless men of the world, cosmopolitan, at home in their bodies wherever they may find themselves, and there comfortable.
  • They are sophisticated without being sophistical, lawful without being Pharisaical or casuistic, careful without being finicky, petty or mean, organized without being obsessive, spirited without being enthusiastic, inquisitive without being curious, cautious without being timorous, brave without being foolhardy, alert without being nervous, relaxed without being languid.
  • They are religious: outwardly, inwardly, deeply; they fear God, and seek him, and would do his Will; so that they dedicate their lives to the Good.
  • They are ready and indeed eager to die for what is Right and Good and True, if that is what is required of them under the circumstances. They do not welcome death, but it does not daunt them.
  • They are healthy, fit, strong, handsome, well built, and agile (for their age). They usually smell good, even (as with horses) when exercised. They are neither abstemious nor excessive in their habits. They keep themselves clean, well-groomed, and properly dressed.
  • They are physically and morally tough, with extraordinary powers of endurance, patience and indeed good cheer under long and acute suffering, and unflagging vim in the face of great obstacles.
  • They are apparently blessed with the Mandate of Heaven. This need not be so obvious as being alone able to pluck a sword from a stone. It can come down to good fortune, bearing in mind that, “the harder I work, and the better my work, the luckier I get.”
  • They are lethal, fell, dangerous: able and willing to destroy what needs to be destroyed. They are fierce, fearsome, and often a bit intimidating.
  • They are not ruled by their passions, but on the contrary rule them justly, and with compassion. They do not, e.g., mortify the flesh to an unhealthy extreme, but rather enjoy to the full such corporeal pleasures as life affords; but nor on the other hand are they slaves to sex or food or drink.
  • They are not proud, ostentatious, self-regarding, greedy, bossy, meddlesome, overbearing, or overweening. They seem not to notice themselves much at all.
  • They are kind, loving, sympathetic and attractive to women and children, and understand their languages, so that they can as it were inhabit their worlds, and therein play and converse with them, respectfully and intelligently. They are good, fun playmates, and good sports. But they are neither childish nor womanly.
  • They treat their subordinates as wards, seeking their good and their best. They treat their superiors with respect and honor. They are loyal to their subjects and their lords, alike.
  • They are courteous, straight, true, and frank.
  • Their appetites are healthy; they are nowise perverted.
  • They are decisive, without being hasty. They are definite, and single-minded, and clear in and about their intentions and objectives. They are rarely confused about what is happening or what should be done.
  • They are pleasant, polite, often quite funny. Their laughter is ready, infectious, and delightful.
  • They are alive to the beauty, tragedy, grandeur and sublimity of life. They notice and appreciate facts, patterns and values that others miss. They see and gauge the secret significations and significance of things both small and great.
  • They are good masters, whom others are happy to serve, both man and beast. They seek and find and elicit the best in others, praise and reward it fitly.
  • They are sociable, and engaging. When they enter a room, it is theirs for the taking.
  • They don’t much mind bad weather. They seem rather to like it. Storms prompt them to laughter, even glee.
  • They are comfortable in the dark, and move easily through the night. They are far-sighted. They always seem to know where they are, where they ought to go, and how to get there. They have a good sense of direction, and while they can read a map well, they are good at navigating by dead reckoning.
  • They are adventurous, hardy, interested and energetic. They enjoy challenges, and rise gladly to meet them capably. They are ready, eager, urgent to win through to a good they seem to bear always in mind.
  • They are generous, just, open of mind, heart and hand. They are magnanimous.
  • Their lives are so ordered to the Good as to engage them always in some high Quest in its service; and this Quest superordinates their days and acts. They are never distracted from it much, or long.
  • In crises they are calm and steady even as they unleash terrific power. At such times their intensity of will can be so great that light seems to stream from their eyes, and they to glow, so that they carry all before them.
  • They are mighty. There is about them some strange and thrilling air of majesty, and of glory.

Such are noble men. Of such is the King.

It is relevant here to remember the code of chivalry, memorialized in the Song of Roland:

  • To fear God and maintain His Church;
  • To serve the liege lord in valour and faith;
  • To protect the weak and defenceless;
  • To give succour to widows and orphans;
  • To refrain from the wanton giving of offence;
  • To live by honour and for glory;
  • To despise pecuniary reward;
  • To fight for the welfare of all;
  • To obey those placed in authority;
  • To guard the honour of fellow knights;
  • To eschew unfairness, meanness and deceit;
  • To keep faith;
  • At all times to speak the truth;
  • To persevere to the end in any enterprise begun;
  • To respect the honour of women;
  • Never to refuse a challenge from an equal;
  • Never to turn the back upon a foe.

39 thoughts on “How to Reckon the King

  1. Pingback: How to Reckon the King | Aus-Alt-Right

  2. From Hesiod’s Prologue to his Theogony: “Whomsoever of heaven-nourished princes the daughters of great Zeus honour, and behold him at his birth, they pour sweet dew upon his tongue, and from his lips flow gracious words. All the people look towards him while he settles causes with true judgements: and he, speaking surely, would soon make wise end even of a great quarrel; for therefore are there princes wise in heart, because when the people are being misguided in their assembly, they set right the matter again with ease, persuading them with gentle words. And when he passes through a gathering, they greet him as a god with gentle reverence, and he is conspicuous amongst the assembled: such is the holy gift of the Muses to men. For it is through the Muses and far-shooting Apollo that there are singers and harpers upon the earth; but princes are of Zeus, and happy is he whom the Muses love: sweet flows speech from his mouth.”

      • Not today’s “men…”

        THEY SINCERELY believe a King CAN BE a faggot and I will assume most Orthosphereans do so too AS LONG AS such faggotry stay in its closet?

        I am also willing to bet that barely a single Orthospherean will be candid enough just to type out…

        “The King of white man CANNOT BE QUEER…”

        And then press “post comment.”

      • Already done, in the body of the post:

        Their appetites are healthy; they are nowise perverted.

        Heteronormality is implicit in the very term for the royal office, which means, literally, “kinning.” No heterosex, no possibility of dynastic stability under primogeniture, ergo no king whom the barons might willingly support. A man who won’t be a father cannot be the father of his people. He can’t even be a proper elector, let alone a baron.

      • Kristor…

        “Man has always known how to reckon a king…”


        Today “we” have a “gay man” who absolutely does not know how to reckon a king.

        So I aim to bolster your point amongst a dull “white” mass.

        White man’s King CANNOT BE a faggot.

        And it only reads blunt because one is so soft on reality.

      • There are to be sure men who today would not recognize a kingly man if they met one. But there are always such men – foolish, deluded, blind, perverted, dull, vicious, etc. That’s why we need government in the first place.

        I grant that it seems as though we have many more such fools scattered about the landscape than I remember from the previous age, back in 1960. And they seem much more foolish than they did back then.

        Nevertheless man, considered as a species, has always known, and still knows, how to reckon kingliness. This is why kings are depicted properly even today, at least in works that do not pretend to irony. E.g., Aragorn in Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings.

        The King is an archetype. It is wired into us, because it is wired into the order of being. The only way to prevent its proper operation among us is to muck up our wiring – to ruin it somehow. That’s what Satan is always trying to do to us.

      • Yes Kristor… But “our” pathology is not Man’s general understanding of reality, rather, it is “white man” setting up “gay man” on an equal plane thus distorting reality so perversely as to abort any potential for the ascension of a righteous king who wasn’t then just the dominanting WILL of a single “white gay man.”

      • But as you are so fond of pointing out, that move is self-annihilating. Or, as I said to Sam Thomsen:

        … as vitiating its source, error is self-correcting. You can’t argue with the Logos and win.

        If the problem is as pervasive as you suggest, there can be no more kings, or anything else good, so that homo sapiens is incorrigibly finished. I doubt that it is that pervasive. If it was, there would be no Reactionaries or Traditionalists.

        [Question: is it our pathology, or is it only “our” pathology – i.e., a pathology of someone else? You use scare quotes so often and so indiscriminately, it is impossible to know exactly what you mean. Your habit of using all capitals for this or that word is also impossible to understand. It obscures your meaning. Please from now on use no capital letters except at the beginnings of sentences and proper nouns, or in acronyms like FBI. Please also use no scare quotes except when you are quoting someone. If you do, I’ll be editing those of your comments that make it through moderation, deleting all the scare quotes and capitalizations that make no immediate sense.]

      • Kristor…

        First, “we” (as in only those who want to perceive and not all of we, i.e., ALL of us) are IMMERSED (not indiscriminately CAPPED, but rather, discriminately enlarged to emphasize the operational fact of the matter) in a perpetual (italicized to mark the point of reactionary attack) self-annihilation.

        Secondly, two antithetical entities can ONLY COMMUNICATE (operational fact) utilizing a liberated language which necessitates (reactionary attack) each side submitting to the ANTITHETICAL GIVENS (operational fact) of the other side. In other words, for Christians and anti-Christians to communicate using a single English language, Christians grant anti-Christians their anti-Supremacy and anti-Christians “grant” (actual square quotes because cucks are reading) Christians their transcendent free will. This FALSE INCLUSIVENESS for the sake of fake communications is what I aim to articulate out of existence.

        In short, “we” understand King and “they” understand homosexuality, i.e., anti-kinning, so TOGETHER WE could only speak of The Faggot King.

        You know what they call that deal?

      • OK, I can see that you do have a rhetorical tactic in mind when deploying your all caps, idiosyncratic terms and scare quotes. The problem is that your tactic simply does not work. It confuses readers. It actively frustrates the propagation of your ideas. I usually find your comments unintelligible. You would do much better if you just wrote everything out in longhand, like everyone else does. Your refusal to do so looks to me like a profound rejection on your own part of the message that part of you so strongly wishes to convey. You have this set of insights that seem very important to you, but you – you alone – refuse to communicate them intelligibly.


        Believe me when I tell you that I do not ask this question antagonistically, but out of a sense of concern for you: what sort of self-annihilation is working in you, by which you yourself prevent the clear articulation and propagation of these ideas that are so important to you? Why don’t you want to make yourself understood?

        Alright then, on to your substantive point that in order to communicate with someone who holds to beliefs that contradict our own, we must accede in some measure to their presumptions: not so. Obviously not so. I do agree that right liberals have not contested the basic moral and ontological presumptions of left liberalism; you are right about that. But this is not the case for Traditionalists, Reactionaries, or even some on the Alt-Right. The surrender of right liberals to the presumptions of left liberalism is an accident of history, and not baked in to language as such.

        The bottom line is that if we absolutely cannot communicate with our philosophical adversaries other than by adopting their presumptions, then *we just can’t communicate with them,* period full stop. In that case, we have but three options: surrendering to them, or ignoring them, or (if we have any confidence in our convictions) killing them.

        Your argument is incorrect. We can communicate with our adversaries, and indeed sometimes convince and convert them, without implicitly acceding to their fundamental view of things. Indeed, I find that stipulating to their view of things for the sake of discussion can be a wonderful way of developing a devastating reductio ad absurdum – devastating to their presumptions, that is. And they can be defeated, and converted. I know, because I myself, along with almost everyone I have read in the discourse of latter-day Reaction, was once a liberal. I myself, and all of the latter day Reactionaries I have read, are counterexamples to your argument. If your argument were correct, none of us would ever have left liberalism behind, or even thought of doing so.

        If your argument were correct, then the common view of politics would never have evolved. We’d still, all, be Traditionalists. We’d still be operating under precisely the same presumptions about man and world that were current in the Paleolithic. Indeed, there would then be no such thing as discourse respecting political order. Politics then would not be a conceivable thing to think or talk about.

        I urge you therefore to abandon your idiosyncratic syntax and diction, and to heal that division in yourself that inclines you to that use of then which frustrates your own deep urge to help and heal your fellow men, and communicate with us, your natural allies, and aye with our enemies, in a language that we can understand.

        Don’t bother replying to this, or for that matter commenting here in future, without using standard syntax and vocabulary. Don’t bother commenting using terms under your own private, idiosyncratic definitions. If you must refer to your idiosyncratic definitions, do so with new terms, that are not already in use under other definitions. Neology is one of our traditions here, and we’d be glad to add some handy new terms to the Orthospherean lexicon – so , have at it!

        If you do reply using your idiosyncratic syntax and private definitions of already common terms, your comments simply will not make it through moderation. You’ll be wasting your time in writing them.

        Please don’t waste your time. I have a hunch that some of your insights are truly valuable, and I for one would appreciate your more effectual participation in the discourse. It would be a shame if your own confusions about what you want – exhibited in the self-annihilation effected by your perversions of syntax, diction, and usage – were to prevent the edification among us that your contemplations might otherwise allow.

      • I am impressed, thordaddy has declared war on language itself and reinvented it according to his own purposes, putting him in the company of such radical writers as Alfred Jarry, Tristan Tzara and William Burroughs (two homosexuals and a jew, sorry). I’d encourage you to keep going, if not here, start your own blog.

  3. Pingback: How to Reckon the King | Reaction Times

  4. Your characterization fits the heroes of ancient epics and medieval romances with admirable thoroughness and fidelity. You bring vividly to mind where the heroes of Conrad’s tragedies begin before they fall, and of Tolkien’s heroes at their best. I’m tempted to say one could take your list and use it as a kind of manifesto for a traditional movement in fiction, something to keep these ideals alive while we wait for our increasingly effete civilization to finally collapse.

    They are kind, loving, sympathetic and attractive to women and children, and understand their languages, so that they can as it were inhabit their worlds, and therein play and converse with them, respectfully and intelligently. They are good, fun playmates, and good sports. But they are neither childish nor womanly.

    Strikes me that part of the problem with modern intellectual discourse is that men and women are forced to always inhabit the same sphere, and thus continually dilute their masculine and feminine qualities in their writing and–more importantly–behavior. As we see the Internet differentiate into mutually incoherent domains (e.g. progressive vs. reactionary, masculine vs. feminine), perhaps some new form of this privacy may be reborn. But I don’t know. The Internet is so weirdly public. I wonder if it’s too intrinsically egalitarian to bring down egalitarianism.

    • As nothing will so incline a people to jettison a bad law as its strict enforcement, so nothing brings down egalitarianism as efficaciously as the near approximation of its complete implementation. The untrammeled internet is the apotheosis and end of egalitarianism.

      • Yes, another apt example of the general principle that, as vitiating its source, error is self-correcting. You can’t argue with the Logos and win.

      • No… Not at all!

        The internet has done nothing to transform high IQ white male’s anti-egalitarianism (I would normally put quotes here because having no desire for objective Supremacy means one cannot actually be anti-egalitarian in the most fundamental sense) into desire for objective Supremacy. In fact, the growing anti-egalitarianism of the alt-rite is the very vehicle in high IQ white male has hidden his anti-(white) Supremacy…

        Many Orthosphereans facilitate in this degenerate obscuring.

  5. Nothing will heal until the “elite” homodykes are made to heel, kneel and then repeal a life of sexual degeneracy which they have viciously inflicted on an innocent populace still reeling from the raw deal.

  6. The King having been found and reckoned, what remains is for his ascension to be consecrated and formalized at law. The spontaneous order outlined thus far still hasn’t attained to the level of public, Sovereign power distinct from the purely voluntary associations of private society (or is the whole idea that it ought to remain there, supported by the law of Nature alone?).

      • Winston: only that there must *always* be a frame of reference. Albeit “homodykes” is purposely extreme and overwrought terminology. But we all already know that, so it’s a little pointless to mention it. By the same token it’s also pointless for Thordaddy to incessantly use this kind of descriptive language in this particular forum, and he’s been told as much by the moderators and certain posters in about every conceivable way you can think of.

        In any case, ignoring it doesn’t work any better than acknowledging it does. Obviously. I hate to be blunt, but Thordaddy is the definition of a rogue poster. Rules of decorum simply do not apply to him to his mind. This is made obvious by the fact that he will invariably answer a constructive criticism from someone or other (anyone) with the *exact* same kind of language that his interlocutor criticized to begin with. He is simply incorrigible. No point to trying to correct him.

      • No Mr. Morris…

        “Gay man” is extremely subversive… A literal call to war against Man himself.

        Homodyke is, in fact, the nature of the West’s default elite.

        PS My “rogue” status is actually only the manufactured result of indiscriminate censoring as I have several posts explaining EXACTLY why I use caps and quotes and how it is that Orthosphereans are somehow able to communicate with anti-Orthosphereans both using the exact same language.

    • scrooge…

      I am impressing no relationship on any degenerate by the mere fact that I desire to strive towards objective Supremacy. In reality, I would be creating real separation.

      So, in fact, it is the diabolical relativist who maliciously attempts to impose a violent and vicious mob on any white man who possesses such desire for Perfection.

      Yet, even the thick skulls at the Orthosphere, who would absolutely scoff at your notion of “contraception as responsible family planning” or your self-annihilating interpretation of the Greatest Commandments, simply cannot perceive the above just as you cannot perceive the above reality. You along with the Orthosphereans who are far less liberated than you literally do not know that the high IQ white male no longer knows Perfection. So much so that the mere concept of the perfect man is not even intelligible to him. Imagine, a mere 10-15 years ago, Liberalism was mocked for that utopian desire for perfecting man, and now Liberalism knows nothing of Perfection, and neither do its submissives.

  7. Kingliness is the true meaning of charisma. The second word has been perverted, of course, so that it means for many people a life-of-the-party extrovert, but it really means the ability to inspire loyalty. When one meets a charismatic man, or a natural king, one feels a natural impulse to follow him, in word and deed. In his book Charisma, Phillip Reiff says we encounter charisma when we encounter a man we “are not enough alike.” And for Reiff, this is mainly a matter of respect for his renunciations. We see that he has rightly abstained from some gross indulgence, in which we ourselves have wallowed.

    • This is an excellent point. One of my strongest feelings when I first met the men of the Grand Canyon Crew was, “Wow, these guys are awesome. I want to be more like them.” I *admired* them. With that in mind, I worked harder than I ever had. When the first season was over, I worked out with much greater discipline and intensity than ever before. This increased effort to be excellent extended to every department of life.

      And on the River, I imitated them in everything. So doing, I learned much about how to live comfortably in the desert, on the River, and among people. It would have taken me far longer to have learned these things on my own. I learned their ways, their culture. Eventually, I contributed to that culture. And this I was able to do because, in imitating those men, *I became like them;* so much so that I was one of them.

      It is a mistake to shortchange the power of imitation. It is the basic medium of tradition. Children imitate their parents; then, having joined a fraternity or sorority of some sort, they imitate their more admirable friends (who are all what they are largely on account of having imitated their own parents). Pedagogy puts the polish on imitation, no more. At its best, teaching furnishes the student with a systematic formalization of the practices he has learned – or, should have learned – by imitation of his betters.

      “Charisma” is of course the Greek kharisma, “favor, divine gift,” from kharis, “grace, beauty, kindness;” which derives in turn from the PIE *gher-, “to desire or like.” Reiff’s notion that charisma is what we apprehend in a man less defective than ourselves relates straightforwardly to kharisma in the original Greek sense of a divine gift, and to the character of what is divinely given: namely, grace, beauty, mercy. The charismatic, noble man has by his renunciations of defects from the Golden Mean enabled a better expression of the goods divinely given him in his very being. More than most men, he is like the man God intended him to be; so therefore is he graceful, beautiful, and kind.

      • And what happens when a young white boy IS NEVER IMMERSED within a group of (white) men who inspire him to excellence? And instead, said white boy is immersed in a swamp of homosexuality…. What is deemed the “sexual revolution” by the academics, but is really a sexual assault on “our” white children?

        Then what do *you* do for the progeny?

        At minimum, he must be persuaded towards a determination to strive towards objective Supremacy, i.e., Perfection, whether he’s immersed in excellence or total degeneracy.

      • This is why epic literature is so important in the transmission of culture. If you have no opportunity to watch admirable men and join in with them in their motions, then stories about heroes are the next best thing. They arise in the first place from among companies of such men.

        In the evenings, we boatmen would tell each other – and the passengers who listened – stories of our various adventures and misadventures. Almost all of them involved some disaster that had befallen the narrator, what he had then done, and how that had worked out – or had not. Many began with unforced errors, often on the part of the narrator. So while many redounded to the narrator’s eventual credit (or, just as often, his sheer dumb luck) – total catastrophe having been avoided by a hair – they were often told at the narrator’s own expense.

        They were cautionary tales. They were didactic.

        Most of them prompted laughter at the narrator, led by the man himself.

        It did not matter that many in the audience had heard the stories before, or had even participated in the actual events they described. We listened with great pleasure, and were always edified. This pleasure and edification are analogous to the pleasure and interest to be found in rehearsal, training, practice. There is always something to be learned from telling the story of an adventure, even for the narrator who lived through it. None of us, e.g., wanted ever to find ourselves in the mammoth hole of Crystal Rapid, but in case we ever did, we wanted to learn ahead of time what it was like from the few – such as yours truly – who had by their own mistakes ended up in it.

        When boys cannot keep company with their elder betters, in the process suffering through a few adventures of their own, the next best thing is stories of such adventures.

      • Thordaddy, we do what we can with these kids, depending on what means we have to have a positive influence on them. My dependent boys (ages 15 and 12 respectively), for example, are very much “men’s men.” The 12 year-old in particular (Sam) is a young man, not a young *boy*. But the older one (Gabe) is, in certain respects, just as manly. Best boys you ever saw by many accounts. No brag, just fact. Homo-whatever has no impact on this family!


Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.