You and some other writers are getting very close to something big even if we don't fully know what it is yet. I wish I had a more succinct way of describing this but all I can come up with is a tortured metaphor. Everyone is standing on the side of a mountain in the morning overlooking a valley that still is completely dark, to the east the sun is starting rise, but it's light is still obstructed by the hills so only an incandescent glow can be seen peaking out from behind them. Once the sun crests the hill that valley will filled with it's rays so quickly it will be hard to even remember how dark it was the moment before. The Small town, the river, all the trees, all the details will be so obvious once it happens but until then we can see almost nothing. The Key is the waiting, you can't make the sun come up faster even if the hour is dire and your desperately want it to be morning.
I hope that isn't too pretentious of a way of illustrating the situation but I couldn't think of any other way to describe it. With how rapidly things have advanced in DR thinking in the last five years I really do feel like we are relatively close to something big but I have no idea what it is.
Not to be blithe, but I think it's important to pare things down a little bit. I don't think it is prudent to reject that our states should be ordered to the common good, which is to say whatever good we can only achieve by working together. Moreover, this is *not* an enlightenment idea, but one explicit in Aquinas and evident in Aristotle. I worry that a reaction against a naïve idealism (and perhaps "naive" is not a strong enough word) will revert to explicitly anti-rational cynicism, which is somehow worse. I think that if we are careful we will be able to assert an idealistic politics (that is: "idealistic" in the literal sense, not the pejorative sense, "ideal" as meaning a conception of politics informed by immaterial truth) without lapsing into either ignorance or malice.
Basically following Del Noce I think we can reduce the modern political deviation to a denial of the idea of original sin, ultimately of human nature and truth as such. If we plug these back into some theory aiming for the common good (and couple these ideas back into the truths which modernity has contributed to consciousness), I think we can avoid political catastrophe.
I don't think that "analytical political science" needs to be naïve. The term "science" just means knowledge, after all. While that probably sounds like a stupid statement, aren't BAP and other reactionaries like him characterized by an explicit rejection of knowledge? See this footnote for some further thoughts:
The closest I can meet you is to say that such political knowledge must exist without some connection to authentic realized understanding. In other words, truth should not be polluted by ideology. But this does not preclude political theorizing, only a political theorizing which is detached from real experience and intellectual intuition of being (which intuition your post is not lacking, albeit in a form which to my mind is relatively confused and implicit, at least in this first essay).
Yet this bid for authenticity is not narcissistic solipsism, because I am "wagering" that authentic experience will in fact recognize the validity of just authority, the immaterial order of values and the intrinsic claim such an order has on the one who sees them, etc.
Essay 2:
I think we can rediscover the meaning of femininity through meditation on the Blessed Virgin and communication with her.
In my opinion, female power is beauty, just as male beauty is power. That is, women are more beautiful, and their power comes from this beauty, while men are more powerful, and their beauty comes from this power.
I am not speaking of "beauty" or "power" in the simple superficial sense, although that's a good entry point. I mean, everyone agrees that women are generally much more beautiful, and it's an empirical fact that men are generally much physically stronger. But I have found that women generally have more beautiful souls, as well. And the soul of a man generally has more power; men more often strive after some lonely ideal (the female ideal is wholeness).
There is some momentous truth about being expressed in the image of the Blessed Virgin as the throne of God. Not in a Jungian sense (that is: *not* in the sense that these ideas only have reality insofar as they are useful to immanent life), but in the sense that our political bodies ought to be oriented towards that ideal, an ideal which is more real than our material existence.
So I take issue with your characterization of femininity as Evian (for lack of a better term). Rather, Eve stands to female as Adam stands to male: both sexes in their fallen, incomplete, imperfect, unregenerate aspect. If we are to remain with Eve (and with her male counterpart, the old Adam), we shall get the Whore of Babylon and the Antichrist, each of which represents the inevitable end-point of each sex's rejection of the revelation of the Father to mankind in Christ.
Essay 3:
You really pick up steam here. This is the best part of the whole post, honestly.
Your description of the Britons' sorrow for their queen reminds me of this interesting little episode from Zizek's theory-movie: https://youtu.be/pbgrwNP_gYE?t=190
I like the last few paragraphs as well. The idea that a state's condition reflects that of its inhabitants is an interesting idea which seems to have been lost in modernity.
The sentiment of women needing their "King" is something I have felt for many years, and counterparts my opinion that men MUST have a wife in order to properly exhibit the full spectrum of positive Manly qualities. We need a powerful reason to do more and be more. While the Great Commission given to us by Christ is such a purpose, we need women to keep us accountable to that purpose.
I know you don't care much for the man, but many of your observations on the nature of women and their maladaptiveness under modernity have been extensively explained by Julius Evola quite clearly.
Regardless, this was an incisive dive into a much needed topic of discussion. The raw power analysis has been done to death, it is time to live in accordance with a vision and in hopes that this vision can be realized, to some extent, on this earth.
It's easier to perceive the orientation of the civilizational spirit when that civilizational energy is surging.
Currently, in our entropic state, it feels like our civilization is a projectile that has reached the apex of its trajectory, and temporarily has a vertical velocity of zero. Which direction it will head in, and why, is difficult to say - and perhaps its acceleration will be slow at first... but there is tremendous potential energy waiting to be unleashed at some future point.
Only then will we again feel the orientation of the spirit.
Separately, this is fantastically well put: "By attempting to deconstruct a natural object through critique and vivisection rather than understanding how it exists in life, the approach misses the opportunity to learn, intuitively, from its animating genius. Like in politics, this modern perspective inevitably transforms into a science of deconstruction, narrowing the frame to only see the disorder, and turning observers into physicists of death’s mechanics rather than students of life’s cultivation."
" America properly begins with John Winthrop’s 'The City on the Hill' and not the drafting of the Declaration of Independence or the constitution. And without the former, the latter two quickly fade."
Spare me the self-aggrandising lies of Puritan snakes.
You and some other writers are getting very close to something big even if we don't fully know what it is yet. I wish I had a more succinct way of describing this but all I can come up with is a tortured metaphor. Everyone is standing on the side of a mountain in the morning overlooking a valley that still is completely dark, to the east the sun is starting rise, but it's light is still obstructed by the hills so only an incandescent glow can be seen peaking out from behind them. Once the sun crests the hill that valley will filled with it's rays so quickly it will be hard to even remember how dark it was the moment before. The Small town, the river, all the trees, all the details will be so obvious once it happens but until then we can see almost nothing. The Key is the waiting, you can't make the sun come up faster even if the hour is dire and your desperately want it to be morning.
I hope that isn't too pretentious of a way of illustrating the situation but I couldn't think of any other way to describe it. With how rapidly things have advanced in DR thinking in the last five years I really do feel like we are relatively close to something big but I have no idea what it is.
Essay 1:
Not to be blithe, but I think it's important to pare things down a little bit. I don't think it is prudent to reject that our states should be ordered to the common good, which is to say whatever good we can only achieve by working together. Moreover, this is *not* an enlightenment idea, but one explicit in Aquinas and evident in Aristotle. I worry that a reaction against a naïve idealism (and perhaps "naive" is not a strong enough word) will revert to explicitly anti-rational cynicism, which is somehow worse. I think that if we are careful we will be able to assert an idealistic politics (that is: "idealistic" in the literal sense, not the pejorative sense, "ideal" as meaning a conception of politics informed by immaterial truth) without lapsing into either ignorance or malice.
Basically following Del Noce I think we can reduce the modern political deviation to a denial of the idea of original sin, ultimately of human nature and truth as such. If we plug these back into some theory aiming for the common good (and couple these ideas back into the truths which modernity has contributed to consciousness), I think we can avoid political catastrophe.
I don't think that "analytical political science" needs to be naïve. The term "science" just means knowledge, after all. While that probably sounds like a stupid statement, aren't BAP and other reactionaries like him characterized by an explicit rejection of knowledge? See this footnote for some further thoughts:
https://i.ibb.co/B4mtS90/reactionary-vs-progressive.png
The closest I can meet you is to say that such political knowledge must exist without some connection to authentic realized understanding. In other words, truth should not be polluted by ideology. But this does not preclude political theorizing, only a political theorizing which is detached from real experience and intellectual intuition of being (which intuition your post is not lacking, albeit in a form which to my mind is relatively confused and implicit, at least in this first essay).
Yet this bid for authenticity is not narcissistic solipsism, because I am "wagering" that authentic experience will in fact recognize the validity of just authority, the immaterial order of values and the intrinsic claim such an order has on the one who sees them, etc.
Essay 2:
I think we can rediscover the meaning of femininity through meditation on the Blessed Virgin and communication with her.
In my opinion, female power is beauty, just as male beauty is power. That is, women are more beautiful, and their power comes from this beauty, while men are more powerful, and their beauty comes from this power.
I am not speaking of "beauty" or "power" in the simple superficial sense, although that's a good entry point. I mean, everyone agrees that women are generally much more beautiful, and it's an empirical fact that men are generally much physically stronger. But I have found that women generally have more beautiful souls, as well. And the soul of a man generally has more power; men more often strive after some lonely ideal (the female ideal is wholeness).
There is some momentous truth about being expressed in the image of the Blessed Virgin as the throne of God. Not in a Jungian sense (that is: *not* in the sense that these ideas only have reality insofar as they are useful to immanent life), but in the sense that our political bodies ought to be oriented towards that ideal, an ideal which is more real than our material existence.
So I take issue with your characterization of femininity as Evian (for lack of a better term). Rather, Eve stands to female as Adam stands to male: both sexes in their fallen, incomplete, imperfect, unregenerate aspect. If we are to remain with Eve (and with her male counterpart, the old Adam), we shall get the Whore of Babylon and the Antichrist, each of which represents the inevitable end-point of each sex's rejection of the revelation of the Father to mankind in Christ.
Essay 3:
You really pick up steam here. This is the best part of the whole post, honestly.
Your description of the Britons' sorrow for their queen reminds me of this interesting little episode from Zizek's theory-movie: https://youtu.be/pbgrwNP_gYE?t=190
I like the last few paragraphs as well. The idea that a state's condition reflects that of its inhabitants is an interesting idea which seems to have been lost in modernity.
The sentiment of women needing their "King" is something I have felt for many years, and counterparts my opinion that men MUST have a wife in order to properly exhibit the full spectrum of positive Manly qualities. We need a powerful reason to do more and be more. While the Great Commission given to us by Christ is such a purpose, we need women to keep us accountable to that purpose.
I know you don't care much for the man, but many of your observations on the nature of women and their maladaptiveness under modernity have been extensively explained by Julius Evola quite clearly.
Regardless, this was an incisive dive into a much needed topic of discussion. The raw power analysis has been done to death, it is time to live in accordance with a vision and in hopes that this vision can be realized, to some extent, on this earth.
It's easier to perceive the orientation of the civilizational spirit when that civilizational energy is surging.
Currently, in our entropic state, it feels like our civilization is a projectile that has reached the apex of its trajectory, and temporarily has a vertical velocity of zero. Which direction it will head in, and why, is difficult to say - and perhaps its acceleration will be slow at first... but there is tremendous potential energy waiting to be unleashed at some future point.
Only then will we again feel the orientation of the spirit.
Separately, this is fantastically well put: "By attempting to deconstruct a natural object through critique and vivisection rather than understanding how it exists in life, the approach misses the opportunity to learn, intuitively, from its animating genius. Like in politics, this modern perspective inevitably transforms into a science of deconstruction, narrowing the frame to only see the disorder, and turning observers into physicists of death’s mechanics rather than students of life’s cultivation."
" America properly begins with John Winthrop’s 'The City on the Hill' and not the drafting of the Declaration of Independence or the constitution. And without the former, the latter two quickly fade."
Spare me the self-aggrandising lies of Puritan snakes.