Thanks for the shout-out - good essay. I myself am still thinking through how one bests handles ethnic diversity given what we know about its downsides; your answer is as good as I've seen.
I should also mention that, from what I've seen, the racial stuff simply fades into the back ground at least within the Latin Mass communities. There's already such an.... oppression, felt, from the outside world, that there's an in grouping already there. The only time I ever experience it is when people try and bring specific "racial traditions" and impose them on the community, but then is usually becomes clear that everyone is just searching for something to make a tradition of the community, because we really don't have traditions yet, and they simply feel comfortable with those ones. Where I'm at, and with who we have, we usually default to the Irish and British norms.
Getting back to the original point of race, I suspect the major religions already mentioned in my other response would feel the same kind of thing as regards race, and that most other of the dissident right would as well. And, that if you shift the Overton window of most religious centers, most of them would do so somewhat easily. The fracturing of society is, in large part, able to be used to bind together those that are feeling ill at ease, to help them feel peaceful with one another, and form societies in which they feel at home.
And, from there, they can form the human bonds needed for a Polity
One of the things I was surprised to discover in the writing of Julius Evola was the notion of race as a spiritual rather than physical aspect -- such that it was (in his mind) entirely possible for a European by birth to have an Asian spirit, or so on. Since each of the world's great religions developed in the context of a particular people, perhaps there's something very deep at work in your notion that you can align a small group of people around a religion. For instance, if I started a Shinto Temple as the basis of my new Polis, I imagine that I'd get more Asians; but I also imagine that the type of white people I'd attract would be different than if I started, say, a Baptist Church. That wouldn't necessarily work at a large scale with a faith imposed top-down, but absolutely would for founding a polis.
If you have a good recommendation for an intro into Evola, I'd appreciate it. I've always just tried to jump into him at random places that have happened to come up. Maybe that's part of the problem - I'm honestly not sure. He just seems really out there in Left Field as a reactionary that is doing it as a practical solution and not a true believer in Faith.
Where as I believe in Catholicism, write primarily for them, and then open up my writings to other faiths because I think it makes sense for everyone and I'd rather face a Polis of believers than a gang of marauders, if that makes sense.
If you've found him repulsive in general, I wouldn't really encourage you to read any of his books because they're all pretty dense and painful. That said, I wrote an introduction to his thought on my blog, called "Nerd Among the Ruins" which I think fairly summarizes his thought. I personally found I couldn't understand Evola's political beliefs until I understood his spiritual beliefs, so that's where I started. He was (in his early years, especially) no fan of Catholicism, but in later works (such as the Grail) he is less unkind. I don't think the two points of view need be enemies; Wolfgang Smith has reconciled Evolan Tradition with his Catholic faith in what seems an effective way. (P.S. I don't consider myself an expert in Evola or call myself a Traditionalist, so please take all of the above as merely the musings of a half-educated dilettante of his work.)
Ok. I went back and re-read them. Some conversations with Anhaf about Eastern religions have put more context on them since, as well as simply re-reading the essays a few times.
My immediate take is that I think Evola was looking for the right answers, and finding them in the wrong places, if that makes a kind of sense. I personally attribute the feats we see in the pagan works not to religion, but simply to a combination of genetic entropy, story telling, and legend. But mainly the former.
Now, I’m not a materialist. I am certainly happy to attribute intervention from spirits into it as well. I simply don’t in those specific cases, as the Greek stories told don’t seem to hold them as anything other than leaders, possibly for battle prowess and strength but it seems for leadership capability. However, the stories also specifically state that their ancestors had been able to do more powerful feats.
It makes interesting trains of thought. But, as you state in your first two essays (I can’t read the third) not ones I endorse.
I'll have to ponder this. I'm not sure. I'll be honest, I've been entirely repulsed by Evola's works. To me, it runs the opposite, and you can see it thus in the way that the Catholic faith has been practiced around the world in it's different Cults that spring up among its practitioners.
Among different locales, they have different ways of practicing the same feast days - the Mexican day of the dead is one obvious one. The New Orleans Mardi Gras is horrid in modern times, but its roots were very pious. The painted Eggs of Eastern Europe are the beautiful style that we have the hollow, faded descendant of painted egg Easter egg hunting from. My 'village' has specific songs we sing on all souls day, two boys selected to play St Michael and Satan, a flaming sword, and a Satan head is tossed into the fire. Its all very fun. We may be mostly 'white' but that's merely a color, and no one pays attention to the couple latino's, the Californians, the Italians, the Irish, the White South Americans, etc. We just care about each other.
You can see the same in the different patron Saints of different cities and Parishes in Europe. They have feasts and parades for them in different places in Europe that still have strong Catholic roots. It's all very modern these days, but in the old days, it was there. There's nothing stopping it from coming back. There's nothing stopping Druids or Protestants from doing the same - though there's a lot more to overcome, because they don't have unifying doctrine from what I can tell, talking to them. They're much more infiltrated by Revolutionary thought, with nothing to pull them back to basics besides their own preferences - where the major religions can cite Dogma and tradition.
I could be off on that last bit - I only have so much time, and I base it off interactions, and not deep study.
As I've pondered it, it also helps that some of the more organized religions - Catholicism (particularly traditional latin mass), Eastern Orthodox, Muslims, etc; seem to self select for more intelligent and cohesive individuals. They already have a lot of what it takes to hold a society together in a Polity if they simply change their mindset to it, from my individual experience and observations of them. It is purely anecdotal, but I'm fairly certain that this holds true.
Whether this carries over across to Protestant sects I am uncertain and unconvinced. That I leave to readers to figure out, determine, discuss, and experiment with. The same with Pagans. I merely write and encourage them to try, because the Empire is falling, and I'd rather deal with a Polity of Pagans and Protestants, than roving gangs of them.
That concept is called "The Benedict Option" and is described by Rob Dreher in his book "The Benedict Option: A Strategy for Christians in a Post-Christian Nation" (published in 2017).
No. It is most definitely NOT the Benedict Option. The Benedict Option is a withdrawal from the world, to rebuild. I've met Dreher when he was researching for his book, and talked with him about it. He wouldn't remember me, as I'm a no name guy, but yeah, this is definitely different.
Instead, this is crafting a Polity with the aim to pursue the common good for the citizenry. That will, by necessity, involve interaction with the outside world and pursuit of power as according to the situation.
Dreher cucks, almost reliably, on all issues when it comes down to it. He almost fears to be taken seriously, from my perspective.
He could have changed, I'll give him that. I stopped paying attention to the man on a regular basis years ago when I felt he had nothing substantial to offer.
I must admit that I haven't read his book. The "Benedict Option" was explained to me by Christian preachers, and they certainly don't want to separate Christians from the outside world. On the contrary, they want to re-establish Christendom by pulling Christians together geographically in order to push outward again.
Thanks for the information, though. I'll check what Mr. Dreher's current view on the topic is before addressing him in the way I did in my original comment.
Oh, and I would say that because he wrote it in a non-denominational way, many read into his work in ways that they want to. When he fielded questions from Evangelicals about "withdrawing from the world goes against our views" well... for a Catholic it doesn't. We can pray for the world infront of the Eucharist, and we still have to make money, so we'll still have some interaction with the world, without having to go on "mission trips" or stuff like that as Evangelicals feel called to do.
Anyways, my whole experience with him and his Benedict Option is odd, to say the least.
Thanks for the thorough explanation mate, I appreciate it.
Those preachers, I mentioned, described the "Benedict Option" in a similar way you describe your polity. As I've said, they want to bring back Christendom, which is a polity founded on Christian values and virtues.
The "Benedict Option" might have become independent from Mr. Dreher's original idea. I'll keep your criticism in mind when that subject comes up again.
Or it’s possible he changed his ideas of it over time. When I spoke with him, it was before he had written the book and was in process.
It’s also possible it was generic enough that everyone “took what they wanted, and ran” type of deal.
He was very tied to liberalism, religious freedom, all that. I’m very much like, “kick all the people that don’t agree with you out of your process, don’t include them, it’s an us/them world. Play for keeps.” You don’t -need- to be an asshole, but you might have to be. I’m not against stacking bodies if it came to my friends/family’s bodies, or theirs. He seemed like he was against getting his hands dirty.
He wrote the book in a way that can appeal to any denomination, while he himself is Orthodox.
He wrote it also that it can mean simply a "lifestyle" choice. Like 'homeschooling your children' or something. It's hard to explain.
What I'm talking about is really, completely, building a Polis, a municipality, around a religious center of worship. Doing it completely, in a thought out, organized way.
Right now one can only do a fledgling Polity, obviously, and it's a multigenerational undertaking. His vision is for raising children and a single generation, to go out and convert the world.
I would argue that his may work, or not. My vision is much more historically rooted looking just at America and the state that we're in locally here, not the West as a whole. Though it may apply there too. And that mine is much more looking at what will be needed to survive the fall of the Empire of the USSA, where as his was simply a decline in social norms.
So he and I see things drastically different in terms of what we're focusing on as the problem, as well as what we're trying to achieve as the end solution. His solution is more immediate short term; mine is a multigenerational, long term, community/polity.
Yes, I think that much of the Continental USA will be localizing soon into Polises. Infact, you may even see the Mauryan Empire's Mandala System make a comeback, except it will be with American Characteristics & with tinges of the Fatalism that pervaded Mauryan society (comprising Devout Buddhists, Jains & Hindus from the Dharmic traditions).
The Neopagans & 'Beyond christianity' crowd in particular will incorporate the Mauryan Rajmandala system (They will not call it this, but it will be what they internalize) should they successfully build their localities in a post WW III America.
Yes, I think so as well. If people want to not just get steamrolled by strong men, or make themselves useful to them, they need to start getting organized yesterday. The next best is Today.
This has already sort of happened in the Balkans. Though it was more intermixed before the Yugoslav wars and less dense concentrations of people have since been relocated, people generally grouped up among religious lines: Orthos/Catholics/Muslims. This can be seen most now in Serbian Orthodox concentrations in northern Kosovo and Republika Srpska in Bosnia. And indeed, religion was the split of the Serbian ethnicity, full stop: Croatians *are* ethnic Serbs, no ifs ands or buts. They're just Serbs who were converted to Catholicism, voluntarily or by force. Still the same ethnicity, still speak the same language despite using different written alphabets (Gaj's Latin rather than Cryllic).
But even the religious line is split by ethnicity. While most Macedonians are still Orthodox, they and their Serbian Orthodox counterparts don't get along due to the sort of differences Aristotle mentions: even in his day, Macedonians were considered the less intelligent neighbors of the Greek city-states. To this day, Serbs still regard Macedonians as mountain trolls: short and dumb, though tough as nails.
If religion and actual ethnicity ain't enough to keep a people from outward animosity toward each other, the more interesting question might be: How did Tito keep the Yugoslav Republic together for so long?
I reckon the answer is twofold: 1) A massive, common threat that was the Soviet Union. Stalin was always inclined to invade, had worked up plans to do so, and had many attempts on Tito's life. 2) A share in prosperity that depended on the Yugoslav people's sticking together. Until the IMF/NATO/EU/Clinton stepped in and denied them trade credits and wrecked their economy by every means available (and also did what they could to sow political turmoil, which really began to take hold as the threat of Soviet invasion dissipated), Yugoslavia was among the most prosperous nations on Earth, with an incredible quality of life for its people.
Thanks for the wonderful and insightful comment, and giving some perspective/history on the Balkans/Eastern Europe that is on topic.
It's part of why I wonder what will happen in the US. People talk about how the US will 'Balkanize' but I always wonder what will be the organizing factors that will make them do so. The Balkans, as you say, had very clear dividing lines in both Ethnicity and Religion; sadly the outside powers got involved, stirred the pot, and made the giant mess of things. The US does not have clear dividing lines, and thus will be even more messy, especially if outside powers or propaganda takes over if we have a civil war or break down.
But, this is why there's such a drive and thirst for it. Why it is, in fact, relatively easy and feels very normal and natural to start building a Polis. If you get people together in a Parish or worship setting, and start building a parish, doing business ventures, marrying children, etc, it will both be easy and hard.
Because of, like you say, our government's habit of stepping in to mess with said politics both domestically and abroad. I've thought about it and come to the conclusion that such Polities should try and flex muscles in local elections only, and not on the national level. We've seen eminent domain used when they do so, and destroy such communities in the past, even before the Empire was dying. That's just a prudence call on my part, so to each their own.
I think the question for polis building is one of identity and the degrees to which they will align with other identities under a larger, more encompassing -- though less near & dear -- identity.
Tito did a really great job keeping the Yugoslav Republic together, and some of that was trying to suppress ethnic identities in favor of the broader Yugo identity -- but in some cases it didn't work. For instance, Tito ordered that the JNA (Yugoslav People's Army) no longer use the Cyrillic alphabet as a way of being more inclusive to Croats, Slovenes, Macedonians, etc. and easing tensions within the military. But the JNA was predominantly made up of Serbs, both officers and enlisted, who blatantly ignored Tito's order and kept on using and marking everything in Cyrillic without the slightest fucks given.
Just one example, but people tend to prioritize their ethnic/religious identities, regardless of size, over the more encompassing identities that align them with others of different ethnic/religious backgrounds. But -- and herein is where I think the hope lies -- the smaller the differences, the more likely, generally speaking, people will tentatively take on a broader identity for the sake of mutual benefit, whether it be for prosperity or a case of the-enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend.
I would anticipate that, in America, people will give far less of a shit about denominational differences in the event of Balkanization simply because none of the factions, generally speaking, are big enough to really prosper on their own *and* there is too much at stake with regard to the bigger, common enemy of evil/wokeism/globohomo/Clown World. While Catholics will still attend Mass and Protestants will still attend their Coldplay concerts every Sunday, I'm confident they'll both subscribe to the larger Christian identity out of expediency, as the differences between Christian denominations is much, much smaller than the difference between Christianity and atheism, Islam, etc.
Similar thing along ethnic and regional lines, I imagine. I.e., rural whites and their token, well-behaved Christian blacks have more in common with each other than they do Mexicans. Those same token rural blacks probably won't give much of a shit about their urban black counterparts and rightfully so. Expediency attained by looking passed less important differences is the key, I imagine.
The Balkans will probably play out similarly. The biggest tensions in the region right now are between Orthodox Serbs and Muslims in Bosnia/Albania/Kosovo. Similarly, Orthodox Greeks have been at odds with Muslim Turks forever and there has been great tension between Orthodox and Muslim Macedonians. Compared to the tensions with Muslims, Serbs don't give nearly as much of a shit about Croats right now, and there have been attempts from the Orthodox mountain trolls in Macedonia to reconcile with the Serbian Orthodox Church amid tensions with Muslims.
Truth be told, Croats and Serbs will probably have some sort of mutual support -- along with Greeks and Macedonians -- in the next big conflict in the region. Bosnia as a state will collapse as soon as Republika Srpska makes a move and Serbia will retake Kosovo with ease. They learned their lesson from the NATO bombings of the 90s and have acquired tons of Russian air-defense systems. My best guess is they're waiting for NATO to be further weakened/pre-occupied before making a big move. Russia, of course, supports their Orthodox Serb allies very strongly. In the midst of a broader Christian/Muslim conflict ranging from Bosnia/Kosovo/Macedonia to Cyprus and potentially even Turkey itself, I'd be *shocked* if Croatia and Serbia don't find common ground or even peacefully rejoin into a broader Christian Republic, given that Catholic/Orthodox tensions are the lesser of Christian/Muslim tensions and they already share a history and ethnicity.
I am so far away from your target audience. I’ve moved roughly every other year, my ancestors are a bunch of people that never settled down in one spot, to the point of I can go back 5 generations in one direction and every single one of them moved a minimum of 500 miles to a place they had no family at and married someone of a different ethnicity, and I’m a Fed.
But your project is really appealing and you make a persuasive case. My wife really likes this idea, and the more I think about it, the more I want to be part of a polis my kids could be fully a part of. I have a feeling most will end up following in my ancestors footsteps and move far away, but who knows. Maybe one will take after their mother and stay with the community.
The highest blood I have in me is 1/4 Italian, back several generations, and all my family is scattered across America. The whole tree, on both sides. While we're more in touch than the average American, we don't nearly have the lineage or patrimony of some that you'll come across like good sir Fortisaxx. My immediate family (outside my marriage) includes divorced parents, a brother in a different time zone, and all that.
I have lived in all the different time zones, and from the ages of 20-26 moved, on average, every 6 months.
Then, I converted to Catholicism, and started to want to put down roots. I learned more of our Western History. I learned more of what we have lost.
I have learned what we have thrown away as garbage was a priceless pearl beyond compare.
I am blessed and working on it. I'm working on convincing those parents of mine, and my wife's, that we'll do what we can to take care of them in their old age, to give them the dignified death if we can afford it. We have ~30 acres, and will build a grandparents home, not splitting the land, if they're willing to invest and keep it in my name, and pass it on to my kids. I might bash on boomers all day long; and might abhor the choices my parents made. But if I don't break the cycle, and show my children how they need to treat the elderly, how should I expect them to treat me? To expect otherwise is insane.
The same with my children. We'll give them land, and invest in the home, but it stays one parcel. We'll put it in a trust, and try and build the trust so that the land can only be sold every two generations, and the money put in escrow and not available to those that sell it.
It is a generational project, and it is meant to be so.
All of which is a TL/DR way of saying...
We all have different journeys dear sir.
That doesn't mean we can't end up in the same place, or make our own patch of dirt.
That's exactly what this project is about - convincing people that they can do it. That it is, in fact, natural to care about THIS DIRT. That your family should care about it, should do so for generations. That everything in the human condition should be involved in it as well.
It really is that simple to think about. And that hard to do.
Hah. Ok. I would disagree, being Catholic. But you're welcome to stay around and offer opinions - I ask that you respectfully keep proselytizing to a minimum, as I would in your stack as well.
Religion has NEVER functioned to unite people from different racial backgrounds.
The United States was and is primarily Christian. That never united its white and black populations. Not to mention countries like Brazil or South Africa, which are primarily Christian as well. Race always functioned as a major social divider because everyone knows where the division is.
This idiotic take is from someone who has no understanding of world history, religious history, or human nature. Men who write like this are disconnected from reality and are too stupid to have self-awareness.
The fatal assumption is that 'White' cannot be that which binds a community to itself. It can. Every other abstract substitute for 'race' (like 'ethnicity') is doomed to fail Whites. So, if you're White and you want to remain White, accepting the idea of an 'ethnicity' based upon something other than caring about Whites because they are White (and not for other reasons) will not change the future for the White race.
Not a fan of your translation of Aristotle. Have you ever gone back to view the stones? Some of the anthologies show the stones and even detailed views of the cracked parts where questions arise.
Thanks for the shout-out - good essay. I myself am still thinking through how one bests handles ethnic diversity given what we know about its downsides; your answer is as good as I've seen.
I should also mention that, from what I've seen, the racial stuff simply fades into the back ground at least within the Latin Mass communities. There's already such an.... oppression, felt, from the outside world, that there's an in grouping already there. The only time I ever experience it is when people try and bring specific "racial traditions" and impose them on the community, but then is usually becomes clear that everyone is just searching for something to make a tradition of the community, because we really don't have traditions yet, and they simply feel comfortable with those ones. Where I'm at, and with who we have, we usually default to the Irish and British norms.
Getting back to the original point of race, I suspect the major religions already mentioned in my other response would feel the same kind of thing as regards race, and that most other of the dissident right would as well. And, that if you shift the Overton window of most religious centers, most of them would do so somewhat easily. The fracturing of society is, in large part, able to be used to bind together those that are feeling ill at ease, to help them feel peaceful with one another, and form societies in which they feel at home.
And, from there, they can form the human bonds needed for a Polity
One of the things I was surprised to discover in the writing of Julius Evola was the notion of race as a spiritual rather than physical aspect -- such that it was (in his mind) entirely possible for a European by birth to have an Asian spirit, or so on. Since each of the world's great religions developed in the context of a particular people, perhaps there's something very deep at work in your notion that you can align a small group of people around a religion. For instance, if I started a Shinto Temple as the basis of my new Polis, I imagine that I'd get more Asians; but I also imagine that the type of white people I'd attract would be different than if I started, say, a Baptist Church. That wouldn't necessarily work at a large scale with a faith imposed top-down, but absolutely would for founding a polis.
If you have a good recommendation for an intro into Evola, I'd appreciate it. I've always just tried to jump into him at random places that have happened to come up. Maybe that's part of the problem - I'm honestly not sure. He just seems really out there in Left Field as a reactionary that is doing it as a practical solution and not a true believer in Faith.
Where as I believe in Catholicism, write primarily for them, and then open up my writings to other faiths because I think it makes sense for everyone and I'd rather face a Polis of believers than a gang of marauders, if that makes sense.
If you've found him repulsive in general, I wouldn't really encourage you to read any of his books because they're all pretty dense and painful. That said, I wrote an introduction to his thought on my blog, called "Nerd Among the Ruins" which I think fairly summarizes his thought. I personally found I couldn't understand Evola's political beliefs until I understood his spiritual beliefs, so that's where I started. He was (in his early years, especially) no fan of Catholicism, but in later works (such as the Grail) he is less unkind. I don't think the two points of view need be enemies; Wolfgang Smith has reconciled Evolan Tradition with his Catholic faith in what seems an effective way. (P.S. I don't consider myself an expert in Evola or call myself a Traditionalist, so please take all of the above as merely the musings of a half-educated dilettante of his work.)
Ok. I went back and re-read them. Some conversations with Anhaf about Eastern religions have put more context on them since, as well as simply re-reading the essays a few times.
My immediate take is that I think Evola was looking for the right answers, and finding them in the wrong places, if that makes a kind of sense. I personally attribute the feats we see in the pagan works not to religion, but simply to a combination of genetic entropy, story telling, and legend. But mainly the former.
Now, I’m not a materialist. I am certainly happy to attribute intervention from spirits into it as well. I simply don’t in those specific cases, as the Greek stories told don’t seem to hold them as anything other than leaders, possibly for battle prowess and strength but it seems for leadership capability. However, the stories also specifically state that their ancestors had been able to do more powerful feats.
It makes interesting trains of thought. But, as you state in your first two essays (I can’t read the third) not ones I endorse.
Hit me up on DMs and we can swap subscriptions if you want.
Hmmmm....
I'll have to ponder this. I'm not sure. I'll be honest, I've been entirely repulsed by Evola's works. To me, it runs the opposite, and you can see it thus in the way that the Catholic faith has been practiced around the world in it's different Cults that spring up among its practitioners.
Among different locales, they have different ways of practicing the same feast days - the Mexican day of the dead is one obvious one. The New Orleans Mardi Gras is horrid in modern times, but its roots were very pious. The painted Eggs of Eastern Europe are the beautiful style that we have the hollow, faded descendant of painted egg Easter egg hunting from. My 'village' has specific songs we sing on all souls day, two boys selected to play St Michael and Satan, a flaming sword, and a Satan head is tossed into the fire. Its all very fun. We may be mostly 'white' but that's merely a color, and no one pays attention to the couple latino's, the Californians, the Italians, the Irish, the White South Americans, etc. We just care about each other.
You can see the same in the different patron Saints of different cities and Parishes in Europe. They have feasts and parades for them in different places in Europe that still have strong Catholic roots. It's all very modern these days, but in the old days, it was there. There's nothing stopping it from coming back. There's nothing stopping Druids or Protestants from doing the same - though there's a lot more to overcome, because they don't have unifying doctrine from what I can tell, talking to them. They're much more infiltrated by Revolutionary thought, with nothing to pull them back to basics besides their own preferences - where the major religions can cite Dogma and tradition.
I could be off on that last bit - I only have so much time, and I base it off interactions, and not deep study.
Race will never fade into the background.
It exists. White people exist. Black people exist.
You can repeat the lie as much as you want, but it changes nothing.
Thanks.
As I've pondered it, it also helps that some of the more organized religions - Catholicism (particularly traditional latin mass), Eastern Orthodox, Muslims, etc; seem to self select for more intelligent and cohesive individuals. They already have a lot of what it takes to hold a society together in a Polity if they simply change their mindset to it, from my individual experience and observations of them. It is purely anecdotal, but I'm fairly certain that this holds true.
Whether this carries over across to Protestant sects I am uncertain and unconvinced. That I leave to readers to figure out, determine, discuss, and experiment with. The same with Pagans. I merely write and encourage them to try, because the Empire is falling, and I'd rather deal with a Polity of Pagans and Protestants, than roving gangs of them.
That concept is called "The Benedict Option" and is described by Rob Dreher in his book "The Benedict Option: A Strategy for Christians in a Post-Christian Nation" (published in 2017).
Info: https://www.theamericanconservative.com/meaning-of-the-benedict-option/
No. It is most definitely NOT the Benedict Option. The Benedict Option is a withdrawal from the world, to rebuild. I've met Dreher when he was researching for his book, and talked with him about it. He wouldn't remember me, as I'm a no name guy, but yeah, this is definitely different.
Instead, this is crafting a Polity with the aim to pursue the common good for the citizenry. That will, by necessity, involve interaction with the outside world and pursuit of power as according to the situation.
Dreher cucks, almost reliably, on all issues when it comes down to it. He almost fears to be taken seriously, from my perspective.
He could have changed, I'll give him that. I stopped paying attention to the man on a regular basis years ago when I felt he had nothing substantial to offer.
I must admit that I haven't read his book. The "Benedict Option" was explained to me by Christian preachers, and they certainly don't want to separate Christians from the outside world. On the contrary, they want to re-establish Christendom by pulling Christians together geographically in order to push outward again.
Thanks for the information, though. I'll check what Mr. Dreher's current view on the topic is before addressing him in the way I did in my original comment.
Oh, and I would say that because he wrote it in a non-denominational way, many read into his work in ways that they want to. When he fielded questions from Evangelicals about "withdrawing from the world goes against our views" well... for a Catholic it doesn't. We can pray for the world infront of the Eucharist, and we still have to make money, so we'll still have some interaction with the world, without having to go on "mission trips" or stuff like that as Evangelicals feel called to do.
Anyways, my whole experience with him and his Benedict Option is odd, to say the least.
Thanks for the thorough explanation mate, I appreciate it.
Those preachers, I mentioned, described the "Benedict Option" in a similar way you describe your polity. As I've said, they want to bring back Christendom, which is a polity founded on Christian values and virtues.
The "Benedict Option" might have become independent from Mr. Dreher's original idea. I'll keep your criticism in mind when that subject comes up again.
Likely so.
Or it’s possible he changed his ideas of it over time. When I spoke with him, it was before he had written the book and was in process.
It’s also possible it was generic enough that everyone “took what they wanted, and ran” type of deal.
He was very tied to liberalism, religious freedom, all that. I’m very much like, “kick all the people that don’t agree with you out of your process, don’t include them, it’s an us/them world. Play for keeps.” You don’t -need- to be an asshole, but you might have to be. I’m not against stacking bodies if it came to my friends/family’s bodies, or theirs. He seemed like he was against getting his hands dirty.
Yeah, I wouldn't have run away from Constantinople back in 1453 either, if you get what I mean.
He wrote the book in a way that can appeal to any denomination, while he himself is Orthodox.
He wrote it also that it can mean simply a "lifestyle" choice. Like 'homeschooling your children' or something. It's hard to explain.
What I'm talking about is really, completely, building a Polis, a municipality, around a religious center of worship. Doing it completely, in a thought out, organized way.
Right now one can only do a fledgling Polity, obviously, and it's a multigenerational undertaking. His vision is for raising children and a single generation, to go out and convert the world.
I would argue that his may work, or not. My vision is much more historically rooted looking just at America and the state that we're in locally here, not the West as a whole. Though it may apply there too. And that mine is much more looking at what will be needed to survive the fall of the Empire of the USSA, where as his was simply a decline in social norms.
So he and I see things drastically different in terms of what we're focusing on as the problem, as well as what we're trying to achieve as the end solution. His solution is more immediate short term; mine is a multigenerational, long term, community/polity.
Does that make sense now?
Excellent Essay!
Yes, I think that much of the Continental USA will be localizing soon into Polises. Infact, you may even see the Mauryan Empire's Mandala System make a comeback, except it will be with American Characteristics & with tinges of the Fatalism that pervaded Mauryan society (comprising Devout Buddhists, Jains & Hindus from the Dharmic traditions).
The Neopagans & 'Beyond christianity' crowd in particular will incorporate the Mauryan Rajmandala system (They will not call it this, but it will be what they internalize) should they successfully build their localities in a post WW III America.
Yes, I think so as well. If people want to not just get steamrolled by strong men, or make themselves useful to them, they need to start getting organized yesterday. The next best is Today.
This has already sort of happened in the Balkans. Though it was more intermixed before the Yugoslav wars and less dense concentrations of people have since been relocated, people generally grouped up among religious lines: Orthos/Catholics/Muslims. This can be seen most now in Serbian Orthodox concentrations in northern Kosovo and Republika Srpska in Bosnia. And indeed, religion was the split of the Serbian ethnicity, full stop: Croatians *are* ethnic Serbs, no ifs ands or buts. They're just Serbs who were converted to Catholicism, voluntarily or by force. Still the same ethnicity, still speak the same language despite using different written alphabets (Gaj's Latin rather than Cryllic).
But even the religious line is split by ethnicity. While most Macedonians are still Orthodox, they and their Serbian Orthodox counterparts don't get along due to the sort of differences Aristotle mentions: even in his day, Macedonians were considered the less intelligent neighbors of the Greek city-states. To this day, Serbs still regard Macedonians as mountain trolls: short and dumb, though tough as nails.
If religion and actual ethnicity ain't enough to keep a people from outward animosity toward each other, the more interesting question might be: How did Tito keep the Yugoslav Republic together for so long?
I reckon the answer is twofold: 1) A massive, common threat that was the Soviet Union. Stalin was always inclined to invade, had worked up plans to do so, and had many attempts on Tito's life. 2) A share in prosperity that depended on the Yugoslav people's sticking together. Until the IMF/NATO/EU/Clinton stepped in and denied them trade credits and wrecked their economy by every means available (and also did what they could to sow political turmoil, which really began to take hold as the threat of Soviet invasion dissipated), Yugoslavia was among the most prosperous nations on Earth, with an incredible quality of life for its people.
Thanks for the wonderful and insightful comment, and giving some perspective/history on the Balkans/Eastern Europe that is on topic.
It's part of why I wonder what will happen in the US. People talk about how the US will 'Balkanize' but I always wonder what will be the organizing factors that will make them do so. The Balkans, as you say, had very clear dividing lines in both Ethnicity and Religion; sadly the outside powers got involved, stirred the pot, and made the giant mess of things. The US does not have clear dividing lines, and thus will be even more messy, especially if outside powers or propaganda takes over if we have a civil war or break down.
But, this is why there's such a drive and thirst for it. Why it is, in fact, relatively easy and feels very normal and natural to start building a Polis. If you get people together in a Parish or worship setting, and start building a parish, doing business ventures, marrying children, etc, it will both be easy and hard.
Because of, like you say, our government's habit of stepping in to mess with said politics both domestically and abroad. I've thought about it and come to the conclusion that such Polities should try and flex muscles in local elections only, and not on the national level. We've seen eminent domain used when they do so, and destroy such communities in the past, even before the Empire was dying. That's just a prudence call on my part, so to each their own.
I think the question for polis building is one of identity and the degrees to which they will align with other identities under a larger, more encompassing -- though less near & dear -- identity.
Tito did a really great job keeping the Yugoslav Republic together, and some of that was trying to suppress ethnic identities in favor of the broader Yugo identity -- but in some cases it didn't work. For instance, Tito ordered that the JNA (Yugoslav People's Army) no longer use the Cyrillic alphabet as a way of being more inclusive to Croats, Slovenes, Macedonians, etc. and easing tensions within the military. But the JNA was predominantly made up of Serbs, both officers and enlisted, who blatantly ignored Tito's order and kept on using and marking everything in Cyrillic without the slightest fucks given.
Just one example, but people tend to prioritize their ethnic/religious identities, regardless of size, over the more encompassing identities that align them with others of different ethnic/religious backgrounds. But -- and herein is where I think the hope lies -- the smaller the differences, the more likely, generally speaking, people will tentatively take on a broader identity for the sake of mutual benefit, whether it be for prosperity or a case of the-enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend.
I would anticipate that, in America, people will give far less of a shit about denominational differences in the event of Balkanization simply because none of the factions, generally speaking, are big enough to really prosper on their own *and* there is too much at stake with regard to the bigger, common enemy of evil/wokeism/globohomo/Clown World. While Catholics will still attend Mass and Protestants will still attend their Coldplay concerts every Sunday, I'm confident they'll both subscribe to the larger Christian identity out of expediency, as the differences between Christian denominations is much, much smaller than the difference between Christianity and atheism, Islam, etc.
Similar thing along ethnic and regional lines, I imagine. I.e., rural whites and their token, well-behaved Christian blacks have more in common with each other than they do Mexicans. Those same token rural blacks probably won't give much of a shit about their urban black counterparts and rightfully so. Expediency attained by looking passed less important differences is the key, I imagine.
The Balkans will probably play out similarly. The biggest tensions in the region right now are between Orthodox Serbs and Muslims in Bosnia/Albania/Kosovo. Similarly, Orthodox Greeks have been at odds with Muslim Turks forever and there has been great tension between Orthodox and Muslim Macedonians. Compared to the tensions with Muslims, Serbs don't give nearly as much of a shit about Croats right now, and there have been attempts from the Orthodox mountain trolls in Macedonia to reconcile with the Serbian Orthodox Church amid tensions with Muslims.
Truth be told, Croats and Serbs will probably have some sort of mutual support -- along with Greeks and Macedonians -- in the next big conflict in the region. Bosnia as a state will collapse as soon as Republika Srpska makes a move and Serbia will retake Kosovo with ease. They learned their lesson from the NATO bombings of the 90s and have acquired tons of Russian air-defense systems. My best guess is they're waiting for NATO to be further weakened/pre-occupied before making a big move. Russia, of course, supports their Orthodox Serb allies very strongly. In the midst of a broader Christian/Muslim conflict ranging from Bosnia/Kosovo/Macedonia to Cyprus and potentially even Turkey itself, I'd be *shocked* if Croatia and Serbia don't find common ground or even peacefully rejoin into a broader Christian Republic, given that Catholic/Orthodox tensions are the lesser of Christian/Muslim tensions and they already share a history and ethnicity.
I am so far away from your target audience. I’ve moved roughly every other year, my ancestors are a bunch of people that never settled down in one spot, to the point of I can go back 5 generations in one direction and every single one of them moved a minimum of 500 miles to a place they had no family at and married someone of a different ethnicity, and I’m a Fed.
But your project is really appealing and you make a persuasive case. My wife really likes this idea, and the more I think about it, the more I want to be part of a polis my kids could be fully a part of. I have a feeling most will end up following in my ancestors footsteps and move far away, but who knows. Maybe one will take after their mother and stay with the community.
I am about the same dear sir.
The highest blood I have in me is 1/4 Italian, back several generations, and all my family is scattered across America. The whole tree, on both sides. While we're more in touch than the average American, we don't nearly have the lineage or patrimony of some that you'll come across like good sir Fortisaxx. My immediate family (outside my marriage) includes divorced parents, a brother in a different time zone, and all that.
I have lived in all the different time zones, and from the ages of 20-26 moved, on average, every 6 months.
Then, I converted to Catholicism, and started to want to put down roots. I learned more of our Western History. I learned more of what we have lost.
I have learned what we have thrown away as garbage was a priceless pearl beyond compare.
I am blessed and working on it. I'm working on convincing those parents of mine, and my wife's, that we'll do what we can to take care of them in their old age, to give them the dignified death if we can afford it. We have ~30 acres, and will build a grandparents home, not splitting the land, if they're willing to invest and keep it in my name, and pass it on to my kids. I might bash on boomers all day long; and might abhor the choices my parents made. But if I don't break the cycle, and show my children how they need to treat the elderly, how should I expect them to treat me? To expect otherwise is insane.
The same with my children. We'll give them land, and invest in the home, but it stays one parcel. We'll put it in a trust, and try and build the trust so that the land can only be sold every two generations, and the money put in escrow and not available to those that sell it.
It is a generational project, and it is meant to be so.
All of which is a TL/DR way of saying...
We all have different journeys dear sir.
That doesn't mean we can't end up in the same place, or make our own patch of dirt.
That's exactly what this project is about - convincing people that they can do it. That it is, in fact, natural to care about THIS DIRT. That your family should care about it, should do so for generations. That everything in the human condition should be involved in it as well.
It really is that simple to think about. And that hard to do.
لا عزة الا بالاسلام
English, please good sir
There is no pride and respect except with Islam
Hah. Ok. I would disagree, being Catholic. But you're welcome to stay around and offer opinions - I ask that you respectfully keep proselytizing to a minimum, as I would in your stack as well.
No issues. There is this catholic podcaster that comes on the FFWN channel on rumble. E Michael Jones. He publishes a magazine called Culture Wars.
Jones is an odd duck from what I little I know. I wouldn’t judge Catholicism by what he says.
I actually agree with most of what he says
Religion has NEVER functioned to unite people from different racial backgrounds.
The United States was and is primarily Christian. That never united its white and black populations. Not to mention countries like Brazil or South Africa, which are primarily Christian as well. Race always functioned as a major social divider because everyone knows where the division is.
This idiotic take is from someone who has no understanding of world history, religious history, or human nature. Men who write like this are disconnected from reality and are too stupid to have self-awareness.
This is pathetic. Go play video games.
The fatal assumption is that 'White' cannot be that which binds a community to itself. It can. Every other abstract substitute for 'race' (like 'ethnicity') is doomed to fail Whites. So, if you're White and you want to remain White, accepting the idea of an 'ethnicity' based upon something other than caring about Whites because they are White (and not for other reasons) will not change the future for the White race.
Not a fan of your translation of Aristotle. Have you ever gone back to view the stones? Some of the anthologies show the stones and even detailed views of the cracked parts where questions arise.
No, I haven't.