Wishing The Death Of Liberalism: Stanley Fish And The Flight 93 Election

The phenomenal essay The Flight 93 Election has been making the rounds on social media and caused a bit of a stir amongst our nation’s ever-fretting pundit class. Written by Publius Decius Mus of the now defunct Journal of American Greatness, the piece is a devastating evisceration of Never Trump conservatism. Its most notable features, however, aren’t the eloquent rhetorical sledgehammers it lays down on its opponents, but rather its implicit reactionary insinuations.

Decius makes two especially salient points in the essay. The first is that conservatism in America serves as little more than a kind of controlled opposition for the inexorable march of liberalism. That conservatives have become (always were?) tomato cans to be smashed by liberals every election cycle as they push the national conversation ever leftward. As Decius puts it:

If you’re among the subspecies conservative intellectual or politician, you’ve accepted—perhaps not consciously, but unmistakably—your status on the roster of the Washington Generals of American politics. Your job is to show up and lose, but you are a necessary part of the show and you do get paid. To the extent that you are ever on the winning side of anything, it’s as sophists who help the Davoisie oligarchy rationalize open borders, lower wages, outsourcing, de-industrialization, trade giveaways, and endless, pointless, winless war.

This illustration of conservative impotency sets up his second and most troubling point. Decius points out that:

To simultaneously hold conservative cultural, economic, and political beliefs—to insist that our liberal—left present reality and future direction is incompatible with human nature and must undermine society—and yet also believe that things can go on more or less the way they are going, ideally but not necessarily with some conservative tinkering here and there, is logically impossible.

This is the essay’s main thesis: that things simply cannot go on as they have. That the embattled conservative tradition in the U.S., or rather what little remains of it, needs a radical change, a high risk, high reward political Hail Mary pass. For Decius and his JAG colleagues, Trump is that Hail Mary pass, the last best hope for restoring the Republic.

The only problem with Decius’ radical and brilliant analysis isn’t that its assessment of the situation is incorrect, but that its prescriptions aren’t nearly radical enough.

Decius, like many conservatives, seeks a restoration of an earlier American Republic free of liberalism and its associated pathologies. But in reality, this goal is self contradictory, as the liberalism Decius so rightly decries has been written into the DNA of the Republic he so loves from its very genesis.

The putrid corpse flowers of degeneracy now blooming grew from seeds planted by the Founders themselves and their treasured “self-evident” truths, “truths” which were fictions from the start. To deny this at such a late hour, in hopes of salvaging some lost Arcadia, is to practice self-deception. But, for American conservatives, self-deception is a tradition, and ironically may be the sole tradition likely to survive the triumph of the liberalism they claim to oppose.

A few years ago, a humorous story emerged from China; a credulous man bought what he believed were two puppies from a merchant in Vietnam. At first, all went well, and he bathed and groomed his new puppies daily. It was only once his new pets started displaying very undoglike behavior, namely by killing his pet chickens and displaying voracious appetites, that he begin to suspect something might be amiss. It turned out he had actually adopted two bear cubs, who had started to wreak havoc, now that they were approaching their natural sizes.

You couldn’t dream up a more apt metaphor for that of the modern conservative’s relationship with the liberal tradition. The conservative has convinced himself that there is actually no conflict between his values and those of the classical liberal tradition he so admires.

This is what separates him from the reactionary.

This illusion of harmonization is made possible by the belief that liberalism’s internal logic has no necessity to it—that it isn’t bound to follow its own premises to their logical conclusions. For example: believing that suffrage would remain limited to a select group, even though it would naturally be in the interest of certain factions in a democratic society to seek to expand it. Or that introducing the concept of universal rights wouldn’t eventually entail “liberation” to spread them throughout the world, and to impose them upon peoples and cultures for which they are intrinsically incompatible. It the belief that your cub needn’t ever grow into a bear.

While obviously naïve, from a sentimental perspective it’s completely understandable. After all, bear cubs are adorable creatures (almost doglike!), and it’s easy to see how one could get attached and wish they could stay small bundles of fur forever. This is essentially the conservative’s plan for saving his liberal Republic: convince himself that if only this or that policy were adopted, if only this or that historical event had turned out differently, somehow his beloved liberal society could have retained its youthful virtue. Perhaps if he just fed his bear a little less, it would naturally shrink down to a manageable size. Or maybe he could teach it table manners so it could eventually sit at the table with his dinner guests; granted, it may never master the art of small talk or remember to use its salad fork, but one can’t let the perfect become the enemy of the good.

Ever since the end of the Second World War, conservatives have attempted to play this game, to try and make peace and learn to coexist with the 400-pound bear sitting in their dining room. Even the Vatican thought it was time to leave behind its traditionally reactionary ways and join the modern world. Reformers like John Courtney Murray presented elaborate arguments for how Western liberalism was compatible with the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church after all, and this line of thinking led to such disasters as the second Vatican Council.

Richard John Neuhaus, the founder of First Things magazine, was a thoroughgoing Murrayite Catholic. A dyed in the wool conservative, Neuhaus fervently believed liberalism (or at least his particular understanding of it) represented the pinnacle of Christian society and presented the best model for human flourishing yet available.

Neuhaus’s theological and political views are thoroughly engaging and deserve an essay (or several) of their own. Neuhaus’s view of liberalism, however (like that of most Conservatives), always had a certain air of esoterism to it. The pretension was always that, though it may seem to the uninitiated that the essence of liberalism is antithetical to traditional notions (both Christian and Pagan) of the good life which consist in the pursuit of virtue, in Neuhaus’s reading these versions are actually false liberalisms. The progressive fanatics at The Nation and New Yorker, though quite literate and intelligent, actually misunderstand the true meaning of liberalism, which just so happened to dovetail perfectly with Neuhaus’s own religious and political outlook.

It turns out that brilliant radicals like Tom Paine and Thomas Jefferson had misunderstood what the liberal Republic they themselves had founded was really all about. That former Trotskyites like Christopher Hitchens (who wrote admiringly about both men) were mistaken in their assessment of America as the ideal vessel with which to spread global liberal revolution.

The conservative defenders of liberalism have always possessed an impressive acumen for this kind of self-deception—hence why reading the brilliant Stanley Fish’s 1996 essay Why We Can’t All Just Get Along, which is a dismantling of Neuhaus in the pages of his own magazine, serves as such a delightful treat. The gist of Fish’s long, but well worth reading dialogue with Neuhaus, is that the narrative that liberalism tells itself, namely that it is a system of enlightened governance neutral in regards to matters of faith and concerns itself only with neutral “reason” is, in fact, a falsehood (this condensed version of Fish’s argument is almost criminally simplistic but necessary here for the sake of brevity). Liberalism, much like Neuhaus’s Christianity, operates upon a priori principles which are themselves only deductible through an act of faith. Thus, liberalism is itself a kind of religion based upon certain  divine revelations, revelations which its acolytes refer to as “self-evident truths.”

Thus, liberalism is not a neutral system in comparison to, say, traditional Christian civilization, but rather a competing one which seeks to displace it, a system whose starting premises are not only just as much acts of faith as Christian ones are, but acts of faith which are, like all revealed religions, irreconcilable to all others. This is why the earnest conservative or traditionalist attempts to play according to liberalism’s own rules are doomed to failure. As Fish points out:

If you persuade liberalism that its dismissive marginalizing of religious discourse is a violation of its own chief principle, all you will gain is the right to sit down at liberalism’s table where before you were denied an invitation; but it will still be liberalism’s table that you are sitting at, and the etiquette of the conversation will still be hers. That is, someone will now turn and ask, “Well, what does religion have to say about this question?” And when, as often will be the case, religion’s answer is doctrinaire (what else could it be?), the moderator (a title deeply revealing) will nod politely and turn to someone who is presumed to be more reasonable. To put the matter baldly, a person of religious conviction should not want to enter the marketplace of ideas but to shut it down, at least insofar as it presumes to determine matters that he believes have been determined by God and faith. The religious person should not seek an accommodation with liberalism; he should seek to rout it from the field, to extirpate it, root and branch.

This insight is brilliant, but at the same time, much like the perception that your pet “dog” is actually a bear, is also in hindsight obvious. In his essay, Decius comes extremely close to this very same realization when he states:

The deck is stacked overwhelmingly against us. I will mention but three ways. First, the opinion-making elements—the universities and the media above all—are wholly corrupt and wholly opposed to everything we want, and increasingly even to our existence. (What else are the wars on “cis-genderism”—formerly known as “nature”—and on the supposed “white privilege” of broke hillbillies really about?) If it hadn’t been abundantly clear for the last 50 years, the campaign of 2015-2016 must surely have made it evident to even the meanest capacities that the intelligentsia—including all the organs through which it broadcasts its propaganda—is overwhelmingly partisan and biased.

This is a similar to Fish’s own insight that, at the end of the day, it is liberalism’s table you are sitting at and its rules you are playing by. The conservative may win a few hands at liberalism’s blackjack table (he might even experience a hot streak or two!), but when all’s said and done, the ancient wisdom of the Vegas gambler will ring true: the house always wins.

Decius and his fellow travelers see this and correctly view Trump as the start of a solution to the problem of liberal hegemony, but they do so for the wrong reasons. The great service Trump would do for our liberal Republic would not be to restore it to a previous stage, as Decius wishes, but rather to begin the process of its dissolution and usher in the coming age of Caesarism.

For regardless of whether Trump wins or loses in November, the age of the American Republic is coming to an end. The task now is not a restoration of liberalism but rather, as Fish advised, to seek to rout it from the field entirely—to reject its premises and replace those premises with our own. This is the only real way to deal with liberalism. The only other option that remains is surrender and the acceptance of your fate as an ideological helot. Whether Decius and his fellow travelers like it or not, the age of the Caesars is now upon us.

The only question that remains is which Caesar it will be.

Liked it? Take a second to support Social Matter on Patreon!
View All

43 Comments

  1. Love the fact that, after reading MM, this is all comfortingly familiar (albeit in a “…that’s yer friend in the woodchipper there, eh?” kind of way) rather than radically challenging.

  2. “But in reality, this goal is self contradictory, as the liberalism Decius so rightly decries has been written into the DNA of the Republic he so loves from its very genesis.”

    Exactly. I’ve been making this point to the “muh constertooshun” types on my social media feeds for quite a while now, unfortunately only with partial success. It’s amazing how many people still want to hang onto the fantasy that nominating Ted Cruz would have ushered in the utopia.

  3. ConantheContrarian September 19, 2016 at 10:45 am

    I have been thinking about the last three paragraphs regarding Caesarism and who might be Caesar. At first, as a republican, I flinched. But as I thought about it, I could live with the archetype as personified by Pinochet or Franco. I could be wrong about them, but they seemed to be decent men with the best interests of their nations in mind and in their hearts. In a fallen world of fallen men, there is no perfect Caesar.

    1. Pinochet and Franco were decent men, but they both made big mistakes, i.e – Franco should have enthroned the Carlist claimant to the Spanish crown rather than some squirt who would undo all he had done.

      Right now I’m looking at Emperor Alexios I Komnenos. Still scratching my head as to why this man isn’t an Eastern saint.

  4. Brilliant peice.

    “The putrid corpse flowers of degeneracy now blooming grew from seeds planted by the Founders themselves and their treasured “self-evident” truths, “truths” which were fictions from the start. To deny this at such a late hour, in hopes of salvaging some lost Arcadia, is to practice self-deception. But, for American conservatives, self-deception is a tradition, and ironically may be the sole tradition likely to survive the triumph of the liberalism they claim to oppose.”

    Deception is at the root of liberalism. For the masses to except liberalism, they have to be under the illusion that everyone is equal, that stripped of the limits imposed on them the lower classes would get on as well as the upper.

    For the masses to accept democracy implies they think it will work out well. They think they have access to adequate information to decide who or what to vote for. They think it gives them the power to choose who rules them.

    They operate under the illusion that the iron law of oligarchy doesn’t hold for democratic government, that everything being for sale in liberal societies doesn’t lead to a malevolent plutocracy, that politicians who need money to finance campaigns won’t just get bought out by special interests. That rich, highly capable, smart, and devious people won’t use their ample funds and social networks to game the system. That democracy can do anything to stop social decay, instead of causing it.

    “Ever since the end of the Second World War, conservatives have attempted to play this game, to try and make peace and learn to coexist with the 400-pound bear sitting in their dining room.”

    International leftism triumphed in that war, and it’s always masked itself in a smokescreen of propaganda and technology. Hence opposing liberalism got one seen as being a Neonazi Luddite. No one wants to fight that PR battle. And no one wanted to oppose the most powerful political machine in history. Calumny wasn’t the only weapon in their arsenal.

    David was afraid to take on Goliath, so naturally Goliath won.

    The whole cub/bear analogy is great btw. Truly memeworthy.

  5. “Richard John Neuhaus, the founder of First Things magazine, was a thoroughgoing Murrayite Catholic. A dyed in the wool conservative…”

    Do you know anything about the history of American conservatism?

    John Neuhaus was originally part of the Rockford Institute but left and, with a bunch of neocon funding, started First Things. First Things has always been a major neocon publication.

    More recently, First Things has become even worse, often advocating for the Third World immigration invasion of the West.

    But I guess that is not out of character for Catholics, since Pope Frankie also supports the Third World invasion of the West. Second to Jews, The Catholic Church more than any other religion advocates for the 3rd world invasion of the West.

    To hell with these people. I was Catholic but left when I saw how anti-Western the Church has become. If you look at long-term demographic trends, within 50 years the Catholic Church will almost exclusively be a jungle religion.

    1. On top of that, when Neuhaus left the Rockford Institute and started the neoconservative First Things, he joined with the neocons in purging all the paleocons from Conservatism Inc.

      1. Here’s a NY Times piece on the Neuhaus/neocons vs paleocons dispute:

        http://www.nytimes.com/1989/05/16/us/magazine-dispute-reflects-rift-on-us-right.html

        Eventually Neuhaus and the neocons went around to every major donor and asked them to stop funding paleocon publications. Neuhaus told them that the paleocons were all xenophobes / racists / anti-semites.

        Just looked at First Things website again — hadn’t looked it in a while — and it is so cucked. I feel like I have an STD from even visiting the site.

        1. https://www.amazon.com/John-Courtney-Murray-American-Proposition/dp/0929891155

          It’s long and expensive, but this is the book on what happened.

    2. If you were baptized into the CC one doesn’t necessarily “leave” – they just stop going to mass and cease practicing.

  6. Let’s get clear on author’s intent when he references the ancient suicidal plebeian Publius Decius Mus! The author couched his rebellious, anti-Christian message in roman metaphors. We should consider the supposed origins of ancient Rome which was the most decadent government known to mankind. Decadent in this that their armies, and their society were homosexual, and bisexual, their dining rooms had adjacent vomitoriums where they regurgitated what they had just eaten to make room to eat more, and they ate their meals lying down. The classical Latin language itself is a command language lacking in words like” please” and” thank you.” They devalued their women not thinking them worthy of separate, individual names thereby naming numerous women in the same family names like Cynthia I, Cynthia II, and Cynthia III. Rome was founded by two young men who were supposedly raised by a wolf. Again, if we pay particular attention to the human ethics inferred by alluding to the ethics of a pagan nation founded by wolf-raised feral children (i.e. Romulus and Remus), we gain insights into the desired ethical foundation of a man like Donald Trump. The author howls for mankind to return to these ethics. He wants us to take off our regalia of puny Christian ethics so that we may be more untamed. Virtu’ or” behavior showing high moral standards allude to the virtues or moral standards of an ancient roman citizen, not an American citizen, the virtues or high moral standards of a wolf, not a contemporary human being.

    1. Someone got triggered. “Gratias” is Latin for “thank”, by the way, so I’m really not sure what you’re about.

    2. There is so much nonsense in this comment. The Romans considered homosexuality one of the worst things a man could be accused of, in the legions sodomy was punishable by death. Yes, homo and bisexuals existed in ancient Rome just like in every other society, but they viewed as degenerate by all morally serious people. The Emperor Hadrian’s liaison with the teenage boy Antinous was an aberration in imitation of an upper class Greek practice. It was common to name boys after their fathers as well as girls, thus many men were known as Secundus, Tertius, et cetera. Far from devalued, the Patrician matron was an exemplar of feminine virtue. And if you object to the idea of wolflike virtue ie. loyalty to the pack, individual strength, and survival in the face of any threat, I can only presume that you prefer the virtues of the rabbit. Much of the success of Christianity can be attributed to the faith having fallen on the fertile soil of Imperial Roman civilisation. Christ’s teachings without the context of divine empire become corrupted first to liberalism then to communism.

      1. Pius Vindex – I was scratching my head of how to (kindly!) rebut Pelvo’s, er, commentary – you’ve saved me the bother – many thanks for that!

        1. Just doing my bit.

    3. What is this rubbish? Equating all of Roman society with the strange habits of some decadent elites is an old and worn out trope. Roman embrace of Christianity did little to fix dysfunctional elites from the looks of Byzantine history.

      1. Yes, thank you. A good history professor once said it was like looking at the lives of Hollywood people and assuming that was the moral code of the great mass of America. There was a reason Christianity spread west and that’s because through the effects of Roman tradition and Roman Stoicism, as well as Greek philosophy, it was highly intelligible to many Romans.

    4. their dining rooms had adjacent vomitoriums where they regurgitated what they had just eaten

      Go back to the comic strips where you found this joke, they should be about your intellectual level. Vomitoria were passages by which a stadium might disgorge (and admit) hordes of spectators, not regurgitation rooms, and your credulous repetition of what’s basically a dick joke taken as real history should shame you into silence and study for some time.

    5. You really don’t understand much. Nobody is saying Donald Trump would make a great caeser. He’d barely make a good Pinochet, but if the great men are to come forth, then the present system needs to burn to the ground. The Republic has to die. Trump could help in this regard, particularly for Europe, given his foreign policy approach.

      1. Well, I wouldn’t say NOBODY is saying Trump would make a good Caesar.

        Those guys are just crazy.

  7. FWIW, this is the best criticism I have read of what I wrote. I will get around to responding sooner or later.

    1. I look forward to reading it!

  8. Yes, do – I’ve never heard of De Jouvenel, so write something about his thoughts. But you’re wrong about liberalism. As far as I know, apart from some Muslim societies, there are no other countries which are self-professed absolutist states, and the remainder are either run on liberal principles, or at least pay lip-service to them. So by your definition, liberalism should be fading away.

    And yet, it isn’t. Why? Any ideas?

  9. Kenneth J. Schmidt September 20, 2016 at 6:10 am

    Richard Neuhaus was one of more interesting people of the late 20th Century. For a couple of years in the late 90’s, I actually wrote a regular column for a right-wing Lutheran weekly newspaper just on Neuhaus and his wacky adventures in politics and religion. RJN tried to forge a kind of alliance between Neo-Conservatism and the religious right. He found to his embarrassment, that the Neo-Con Jews are not going to let Christians have any say in their internal counsels. He never has the guts to admit this in print.

  10. With today’s technology it won’t be Caesar. It will be Big Brother. The temptation will be too strong.

    1. Exactly so, and this is why I have strong reservations about the hopes, wishes and tendencies of most of the contributors and readers of this site. The next Great Sovereign, whenever he appears, will be nothing like what we have known in the past. He will the first truly God King, all-knowing and all-powerful. Forget Artificial Intelligence – this is already happening and will arrive during our lifetime. Many IT researchers believe that the next short step beyond that will be Superintelligence, and will be a new era for Mankind.

      Perhaps the end of Mankind? Be careful what you wish for…..

      1. I’m sceptical of all claims there’s any kind of omniscient, omnipotent superintelligence on the horizon or even possible. They’re predicated on a purely materialistic theory of mind. I doubt any machine could ever really think as a human does.

        That said, assuming the most optimistic claims about AI come true, a neoreactionary state only becomes even more necessary. No leftist can be trusted with that kind of power, the consequences for humanity could all too easily be utterly ruinous.

        1. Leaving your skepticism aside, you’re right about the rest, and that I see is the problem. No-one can say with certainty what “mind” is, but everyone knows what “information” is. That any machine will think as a human is unlikely, but I don’t think that will be the aim of the creators – we already have a surfeit of human minds, and something else/more will be the target.

          I too believe that neoreactionaries should be concerned. Electrical theory, electronics, information technology and quantum mechanics are all children of the Age of Liberalism and are all laced together with liberal assumptions. The political and social climate is symbiotic with the rise of these techologies. That is not to say that conservative societies with core values did not innovate – they did, but the progression was arithmetic, and could be comfortably absorbed. Liberal destruction of core values in Europe from the Renaissance and Reformation onwards created a situation where the progression of technology became geometric – society, innovation, science and thought reigned free in an apparently value-less continuum, and have brought us to to-day, where we can now speak sensibly about AI.

      2. Yes, I hadn’t thought of superintelligent AI in this context, but you are right.

        There is an article in Wired celebrating AI censorship of “trolls.” That is one example.

        You could add facial recognition systems, biometric IDs, license plate scanners, electronic surveillance, and the coming abolition of cash to the technologies enabling total control.

        I prefer the existing liberal constitutional order to some dream of a philosopher-king Caesar. Because philosophers don’t have the personalities to gain total power. Psychopaths do.

      3. This is one of the reasons that I, personally, prefer a return to aristocratic republicanism, rather than monarchy and the sort of all-powerful philosopher-king which finds so much currency in NRx circles. AR provides a way to escape the current liberal order with all of its fallacies while yet not delivering us into the hands of an unaccountable tyrant. It unifies power into the hands of the natural aristocracy, while dividing power enough to at least (hopefully) prevent the replacement of responsible and legitimate executive power with the arbitrary and illegitimate.

        Man is by nature a sinner. There may be some who are irreligious and who would quibble with that assertion. To them I say, “Open a newspaper, for criminy’s sake!” The folly of depositing all power into the hands of one man must surely be manifest to all, on some level or another.

        However, I do not think we’ll see absolute monarchy in an American or post-American context anywise, and probably not in any sort of Anglospheric context, likewise. The reason for this is cultural. There’s no basis for it in our culture. Our culture wouldn’t countenance it. And any post-Great Reset America, or constellation of successor states, will still retain the prevailing social culture they inherited from the fallen Empire. The fall of the present order and its replacement with a new will not occur within a cultural vacuum. I know that many would argue that “power is paramount” and would trump anything to do with culture. I highly doubt that. It’s easy to talk about “power” in the abstract. It’s much more difficult to simply wish away the basal instincts ingrained from lifetimes of cultural implantation.

        1. Who are your “natural aristocracy?” The rich? The meritocratic elite from the Ivies? Generals and admirals?

          However you define it, you will leave a lot of smart people out of it who will have to be suppressed brutally.

          Come to think of it, China might be an “aristocratic republic” with the CPC’s decades long process of talent spotting, training, and testing its technocratic leaders. That might be where we are heading.

          1. Oops, accidentally replied to your comment as a general comment below, sorry!

  11. I can barely express how good this is. The comparison to the bear cub is so without blemish, I have my suspicions you were the Vietnamese merchant setting up the perfect metaphor!

    The original article, and then this one, ought to be essential readings for Reactionaries. Illustrates exactly where Conservatives, not just of the American variety in this instance, fall down even if their root instincts are correct. I hope you get some kind of response.

  12. “Who are your “natural aristocracy?”

    See today’s “This Week in Reaction” for the answer to this question.

    “However you define it, you will leave a lot of smart people out of it who will have to be suppressed brutally.”

    Keep in mind that there is a lot more to being part of the natural aristocracy than “being smart.” In fact, there are scads of very smart people out there who in no wise deserve to be considered superior, simply because they refuse to cultivate the other relevant aspects of their lives.

    “Come to think of it, China might be an “aristocratic republic” with the CPC’s decades long process of talent spotting, training, and testing its technocratic leaders. That might be where we are heading.”

    Again, this is a far too narrow and technocratic definition of “aristocracy” to be compatible with what I and other NRxers mean by the term. Calling the PRoC an “aristocratic republic” is about like calling the United States a “representative republic” – in neither case is either of the constituent descriptors really accurate.

    1. I read your piece. It seems like you will have a super-aristocracy picking the members of the natural aristocracy – obviously qualitative judgment will be required to pick out those who have the qualities of self-discipline and industriousness required.

      It cannot be much different in practice than the CPC’s system for picking leaders (based partially on Confucian values) or the military promotion system.

      1. Hi Chico,

        I’m not sure how you concluded that from what I wrote. I thought it was apparent that I’m saying the natural aristocracy will arise, well, *naturally* once institutionalised and sclerotic constraints relating to the present inverted system are removed.

        1. We have ways now. They are called the Market, the SAT and grades, the Officer Evaluation Report, and Elections. Not to mention football and baseball.

          Surely a natural aristocrat could rise by at least one of those means.

          1. Surely a natural aristocrat could rise by at least one of those means.

            Let us consider them…

            The Market: Maybe. It is essential that an aristocrat prove himself worthy of handling wealth wisely.

            SAT: Surely you are joking. Social bias favoring cognitive factors over others is pretty much what killed aristocracy in the first place.

            Officer Evaluation Report: Maybe, assuming the “Officer” is already an aristocrat.

            Elections: Now I know you’re joking. Favors even more sociopathic psychological traits.

            Football and baseball: A natural aristocrat will be good at some martial activity. Combined with other traits, proficiency in football or baseball should be considered.

            I think aristocracy is not so much bestowed by a sovereign as recognized.

          2. “I think aristocracy is not so much bestowed by a sovereign as recognized.”

            Thank you, Nick. This is pretty much exactly what I was trying to say.

  13. Absolute power in one man, in a State based on public law (i.e. the modern State as we know it) is a *terrible* idea. The old Reactionary tradition argued in favour of indivisible “absolute” Sovereign power, but founded on private right, and thereby limited from the outside by the other possessors of private rights- which meant every free male head of household. The imagine is a neighbourhood where a big-shot technically owns all the land, but nonetheless hazards being bitten by a dog or shot if he just barges into the houses and churches and so on built on the lots rented from him. Perhaps the reset wheel will land on this sort of system, but who’s to say for sure.

  14. Hi P. T., I searched to find you here. I just wanted to say I loved your article “There Can Be No Peace With The Post-Human American Empire” on katehon.com. It is refreshing to read such truth. History is repeating itself, isn’t it. The same liberalism came just before the fall of the Roman Empire, including the sexual deviancy you talked about. Excellent article, thank you.

    1. By the way, sorry my comment was in this thread. Please move or delete if you wish to.

  15. I think that what I said here more or less covers the issue you raised:

    http://amgreatness.com/2016/11/01/fools-errand-case-trump-vindication-republic/

Comments are closed.