It becomes more and more clear that the robber barons of the Deep State – few of whom work for the US Government, of course (it goes mostly the other way round) – have for the most part, and despite the burgeoning daring work of the 3% who resist (thanks, Tucker!), taken over. They’ve rigged the game, throughout – all the games – for their benefit.
This right now is the transition from Democracy to Ochlocracy, which has been predicted, and many times seen, for more than 2,000 years.
Hunting as I do daily over the links provided by our valuable and indefatigable allies at Synlogos, I am struck again, as I have of late been more and more often, with the bootlessness of it all.
Our struggle looks doomed. As usual.
What mundane prince might save us? None, at the last. For, we are all doomed to die. We are doomed to lose all that to which we have devoted our lives, including our progeny and their heirs, all of whom shall like us, and like the grass, wither away. That shall all happen, no matter the outcome of the midterm elections, or the war in Ukraine, or … of anything else whatever.
Mundane princes then are in the final analysis neither here nor there. While it behooves us as a matter of plain duty to attend to their motions, still in the end they amount to nothing. All that matters to us in our private persons is our ultimate reconciliation – each of us – with ultimate reality.
Pray then with me the Jesus Prayer, as often as you can remember to do so:
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy upon me, a sinner.
Nothing could be more lethal to our worldly adversary, and to his designs.
And he has apparently been reading deeply in the traditionalist canon for many years. The address below was recorded in 2016.
His advocacy of traditional architecture is of course quite well known. And, of course, impudently scorned by the apostles of architectural modernism.
It will be interesting to see how hard the glitterati work to ridicule him. Now that he’s King, it is likely to start in earnest. They’ve been after him for decades already, of course, as a dolt, and a poltroon, a weakling and a fool. My earliest impression, from my boyhood, was their avowed conviction that Charles is a dunce. But that sort of ad hominem attack is of course in complete concord with their determination to destroy every institution of the West whatsoever. It is formally analogous to their toppling of the statues of our cultural heroes. In his very body, Charles is an exponent of the Traditional Order: that suffices to his immolation on the altar of the Modern.
It has nothing necessarily to do with Charles himself.
This is evident from his address which I here post. Charles is in it revealed as a thoughtful, careful man, who grapples with history from the deepest, widest, highest perspective.
It is the sort of perspective we should all want from a king. It is the sort of perspective to which kings are purposed, and called; it is the perspective proper to their offices.
It is obvious that we can’t go back. We must go forward. The project of the Orthosphere is to limn a cult, a culture, and a society that can work properly for humans after modernism – including the modernist “Church” – has crashed, by dint of exploration of the traditional societies that worked.
Creating a new Christianity that is not the old time religion can’t work. That has already been tried. We are now living in the midst of the results of that experiment. So, one thing we can be pretty sure of is that a properly flourishing Western civilization will have to be founded upon and ordered by – and, in the last analysis, governed by – traditional, orthodox Christianity. Thus one of the main subsidiary projects of the Orthosphere is the explanation of and apology for orthodox Christian doctrine. To the extent that moderns find Christianity incredible or repugnant, it is usually because they misunderstand Christianity. One of our jobs is to do what we can to dispel their confusion.
The egregor of the Left is in full control of this gal. I tell you, she’ll go down in history. This photo could be right up there with the shot of the Marines raising the flag on Mount Suribachi. Look at it closely, blow it up if you dare. You will never be able to unsee it; the quivering glossy ululating uvula of existential protest!
Man, I tell you, this is who we are, as Americans. It is the core of our democratic society.
The culture wars are grown of late so acute that it seems we shall all, on both sides, be soon forced to an outwardly testified decision for one side or the other, at cost of our lives. Perhaps I exaggerate; perhaps this shall all blow over yet again, for a while, so that we of our sort may skate by without undue cost.
Or, perhaps it shall not. Perhaps this moment is for us like all the others of our lives under the orbit of the Moon, in which we must make this very same choice.
Come what may in the wider world, we must all choose for ourselves before we die and can no longer choose. So – given the near approach of death for us all – the choice looms at every moment urgent.
Sometimes a basic term is misunderstood because everyone assumes its meaning is clear.
Conservatism at root is the desire to conserve the existing order. It’s a natural instinct. “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”
Conservatism as a movement arises when the existing order is attacked by revolutionaries. The revolutionaries believe the old ideas are false and unjust and must be replaced. The conservative knows the existing order is good and tries to protect it.
The American conservative movement became potent in the postwar period. At that time the existing order was being attacked by liberal and leftist revolutionaries. The superstructure of the American order was basically sound although its religious, philosophical and social foundations had been severely weakened. At that time, mainstream American conservatism was about the business of protecting an existing order that was outwardly healthy because its visible structure still reflected traditional ways and beliefs.
Some visionaries understood that the foundation was weak and they called for it to be strengthened. They were mostly ignored. To switch metaphors: heart surgery is dangerous, only to be undertaken when the patient is in imminent danger, and most conservatives believed the patient had only a superficial injury.
The revolutionaries were able to overthrow the old order because of the weakness of its foundations. They have taken control. They are establishing a new order based on revolutionary principles: DIE, BLM, CRT, LGBTQ+,… They do not have total control yet, and counter-revolution is still possible, but the hour is late.
Since the existing order is now revolutionary, the conservative instinct is now to preserve the revolution. That is the fatal flaw of mainstream conservatism: thinking that the existing revolutionary order is good just because it is the existing order. Mainstream conservatism only opposes “extremist” revolution. It supports mainstream, establishment revolution: moderate amounts of feminism, atheism, globalism, immigration, affirmative action, and so on. Mainstream conservatism sometimes makes good-sounding promises, but it does not deliver what is needed.
Within living memory mainstream conservatism opposed the revolution. Conservatives can still be honorable if they work to re-establish the good ways of the old order.
Liturgical innovation – e.g., priestesses – is metaphysically obtuse. It presupposes that the sacraments are merely human artifacts, when in fact – the Lamb having been slain from the foundation of the world – they are logically prior to the creation. We are not the masters of the sacraments, any more than we are the masters of the oceans or the skies. Our office is not to deform them, but to reckon and grapple with them, as objective aspects of Reality.
If Reality is Real, then the sacraments in respect thereto, as given ideally, are nowise subject to correction. They are, rather, handed down from on high. There is then nothing we might do about them, or want to do about them, other than to admit them wholly to our lives. Do they want correction? That then is to be had only in their admission to our lives.
Not us, first, but the rite, and of course the obedience in it signified.
What the hell is a ritual for, after all, if in the last analysis it is just meaningless? If a ritual is meaningful, then it must just force us to its formal purposes. In what other way might we be interested to participate in it?
N.S Lyons has a Substack article No, the Revolution Isn’t Over, subtitled None of the fundamental drivers of “Wokeness” have relented. It’s a masterful presentation of the basic facts that explain our dire conditions.
Almost everything he say is correct and important. But the situation is not quite as hopeless as one would think from reading Lyons. There are always reasons for a guarded anti-pessimism. (“Optimism” may be too strong a word.) Since Lyons’s outline of wokeness is useful I quote his section headings, summarize his points, and then give reasons why it’s not quite as hopeless as it first appears.
*
Lyons correctly says that Wokeness is a religion in the sense of providing metaphysical principles to order human life. It is based on a simplistic dualism of Good and Evil and rather than being a new invention, Wokeism is deeply connected to the tradition of Western religion and philosophy stretching back thousands of years. Lyons does not develop his opening assertion that one does not simply walk away from religion but if wokeness is an organic development of our civilization, it is not easily rejected.
I add that since Wokeism is egregiously absurd and wicked, no society ordered by it can survive long. Wokeism can do a lot of damage before we discard it but it will eventually be discarded because it doesn’t work.
It is said that you cannot fight something with “nothing,” meaning that you cannot rally the people by condemning evil and nothing more. But the absurd wickedness of Wokeness will eventually break its spell over mankind, leaving the way clear for sane religion to be noticed by the masses. Continue reading
In my previous post I said our side should hack the political system, not withdraw from politics as some on our side (many of whom are Christians) counsel.
The political system is hostile to us but still capable on occasion of producing outcomes beneficial to us. And the withdrawal of people of good will from politics only makes it easier for our Opponent to torment us. We must wisely apply political force where it is likely to do us good and not be misled by foolish idealism of either the anti- or pro-politics type.
The present counsel refers primarily to voting, although obviously voting does no good unless there is a candidate who is a person of good will, and governing does no good unless done by people of good will. But the vast majority of us will not hold office. We will only vote.
To “hack” the political system, then, is to view voting not as a civic duty, but as one means among many of defending ourselves. Politics as civic duty dates from the old days, when America functioned reasonably well regardless of who occupied governmental office. In those days the election of a bad party or politician was never a catastrophe, and it made sense to vote for a questionable candidate as long as his party was, in the long run, better for America than the other party.
But now all of official America is committed to destruction. To vote with the goal of supporting the existing order is to cooperate with destruction.
Instead, we must vote with the goal of protecting ourselves. And if no candidate is likely to protect us, don’t vote. That’s the way our Opponent votes, and he has been successful so far. Continue reading
The Orthosphere 