But if history is on the side of anything, it’s on the side of those who are waiting for Washington’s global power to collapse. It’s already visibly declining, and once it’s gone from the world stage, no other liberal power can or will take its place. Not even the combined EU could do it. As Moldbug noted, everything that Americanism touches is poisoned. But once American force is gone from the global scene, and once America is no longer seen as the example that must be emulated in order to be powerful and prosperous, the poison will stop pumping and the world can start slowly healing, just as Russia is slowly healing from 70 years of Marxist rule.

Which is going to start happening, probably quicker than you’d think.

In short, the Church teaches that man is social. The so-called “state of nature” is bullshit from beginning to end, and you are right to point out that man is naturally social and naturally tends to form for himself social organizations. Society IS man’s state of nature. Man is not meant for solitary life (though some few, the monks, can aim for this – which is a super-human, an angelic life – but even then, the monks are to remain keenly aware of their communion with the Body, for whom they pray and sacrifice and on whose behalf they keep their Office, etc.); man is meant for communion – union with others.

Now, the Church teaches that there are two “perfect societies,” in the Aristotelian sense of the term – the Church and the State. St. Thomas first adapted the Aristotelian term to theology, but really all the concepts involved are quite traditional and rational. The term “perfect” does not mean that everything these societies’ members do is perfect, it simply means that both of these societies lack nothing as societies for the pursuit of their proper ends. The end of the State is the citizens’ personal and common “eudaimonia” – maximal human flourishing, weakly translated sometimes as “happiness” (“the pursuit of happiness” has this in mind); the end of the Church is “spiritual eudaimonia” – i.e., salvation. The individual man is not capable of furnishing everything necessary for either his worldly or his spiritual flourishing, and therefore too rigid a concept of “individualism” is unnatural (though it is virtuous for each individual man to come as close to the ideal of autarky as he may).

“Social Engineering” is rooted in Relativism, Atheism, Deconstructionism. Perverts, who chafe at the natural and supernatural good, desperately yearn to be “free” of these. They gnash their teeth at the Faith, at nature, at tradition, and lie to themselves, pretending that, because there is no Truth, things may just as easily have turned out another way. Patriarchy, heteronormativity, etc., are all in place only because the enemy won the field first. If they take the field back, there is no reason why they could not construct the perverse system that is more in touch with their hubris and infirmity. There would be no reason to suppose that their system would be of any less validity or viability, according to their thought.

One could loosely say that they strive to be “engineers,” and we strive to be “builders,” of society. They devise a new manner of society on the assumption that Truth and nature do not exist, and so they are constantly having to come up with ad hoc solutions to the inevitable intrusions of nature and Truth. That is why their constructs are always breaking down, always leaking and clanging at every emergency stop-gap they’ve installed. We, on the other hand, honor and revere the blueprint which Nature and Nature’s God gives us (something our Constitution’s drafters but flattered themselves as doing, though they came a far bit closer to it than the French Revolutionaries), honoring tradition and nature in a saner way. We, too, are fallible, so sometimes we have to make a correction; sin pits man against his own nature, sometimes, so we have to constrain the passions towards what is truly natural, rather than what merely “comes naturally” (if one can speak so). In other words, our corrections are always designed for the better flourishing of natural ends, rather than for the suppression of the same as though they were undesirable manifestations of “privilege” and “oppression.”

A good article, with spot-on thinking.

The Left trembles at the thought because they know without the velvet glove of institutional Liberalism, man does revert to Traditionalism and this scares them to death.

In Portugal, Antonio Salazar set up what could have been the beginnings of a Reactionary country, but his problem was that the time just wasn’t right. External Liberal powers were secure enough in their geopolitical position to take an interest in where Portugal was going, and try to influence it. His dreams would not live on past his death and today the country is an economic wasteland under democratic rule.

One of the key ingredients to a successful Reactionary project then, is what we might deem a ‘total geopolitical instability’. This would prevent foreign powers from having the time or resources to meddle in what might be going on. If you have a Reactionary State founded and the ratio is…

1 Reactionary State
120 Liberal States
75 Other types of state or failed states

Then the Reactionary state simple will not survive, for almost all the countries of the world will conspire against it under the cloaks of various concerns which we are all too familiar with. However, if the ratio is more like this…

5 Reactionary States
12 Liberal States
179 Other types of state or failed state

Then we have a high likelihood of success, so that we are not interfered with while ‘bending those reeds’ as you put it. Give man 100 years in relative isolation, the absence of luxury, and the disappearance of Liberal propaganda, you’ll see how quickly he becomes a mirror of his ancestors of old.

So is it social engineering? To an extent, and for a while. But not totally, and not forever.