The loyalty oath

Reactionaries are wondering how to gain power – gain power against the existing Cathedral, with its no limit credit card, horde of purchased voters, and an increasingly unhappy but loyal army.

I don’t see that as a problem. I see chaos coming.  Power will fall into the street, hot, radioactive, dangerous, and desired, to be picked up first by one group, then another, each new pair of hands slippery with the blood of innocents, after the fashion of the Arab spring.  So, here, I address the topic of keeping power, of making normality stable, after some lengthy period of horrifying chaos driven by fanatical utopians.

The Roman Empire in the west ended in anarcho piratism, which took centuries to stabilize into feudalism.  I rather like feudalism, but it seems to take a while to gel.  It never did quite gel in the British Isles until William the Bastard.

The natural state of government is government by a tribe, racially cohesive, sharing common beliefs, a common religion, mutual affection, suspicious of outsiders and frequently hostile to them.

However, west of the Hajnal line, European tribes are too weak, too incohesive, to hold power.  East of the Hajnal line, they are too small.

Orthodox Jews, conservative Jews, are cohesive enough, and numerous enough, but reform Jews are perpetually at each other’s throats.  Orthodox Jewry is a religion of permanent exile, even in Israel it is a religion of permanent exile, hostile to and subversive of the surrounding society.  It can be conspiratorially influential, but is incapable of outright ruling, incapable even in Israel, subversive and in exile even inside Israel.

Recall that the Old Bolsheviks were a heretical Reform Jewish sect, but as soon as they had power the Jews purged each other till the party was Judenrein.  The Trotskyites still are a reform Jewish sect, and they hate Jews as much, and probably more, than neo Nazis do.  Were the Trots ever to gain power, they would go Khmer Rouge on each other – and on everyone else as well, but especially on each other.

Tribalism makes for corrupt governments, if the government supposedly represents several tribes.  The natural condition is that the government is controlled by one tribe, possibly ruling over other tribes.

Since the natural size of tribes is rather small, this presents a problem.

Religions are of course in large part synthetic tribes, hence the tendency to theocracy.  If the theocracy recruits on sincerity and zeal, you get the left singularity as the ruling class rapidly becomes holier than Jesus, and shortly thereafter holier still.  Thus rule by the Cathedral, our Harvard based theocracy.

The optimum system seems to be a pleasantly corrupt theocracy, where archbishops are good old boys who come from the right family, usually military family, and saints are revered, but saints are not allowed anywhere near the levers of power.

Modern society being too large for natural tribes, theocracy is inevitable, but you have to exclude believers in hostile religions without recruiting for zeal and sincerity in the official religion.  Saints are dangerous.  Saints that show excessive enthusiasm for the levers of power (pharisees) should be dealt with harshly even if they are saints of the official religion.  Saints of the official religion should be rewarded for their saintliness with a hermitage on some bleak island far far from the capital, serviced by a slow ship at infrequent intervals.  Saints of hostile theocratic religions should be severely persecuted if sighted sneaking up on the levers of power – they should get the inquisition.

An inquisition is relatively harmless if, like the Elizabethan inquisition, primarily concerned with protecting the powerful against hostile theocracies.  If, like the Spanish inquisition, it has pretensions of sincerity and holiness, can get very nasty.

Repeating:  The state requires a tribe.  Actual tribes are weak, small, or nonexistent, hence the need for a synthetic tribe.  Other, hostile, synthetic tribes will attempt to infiltrate.  You have to exclude them, which requires a loyalty oath, and some degree of demonization.  Indeed the loyalty oath should incorporate some demonization of the competition, which the Thirty Nine articles failed to do.

My favorite regime is restoration England, because under the theocratic government established in the restoration, began the scientific and industrial revolutions.

The scientific revolution began immediately in the restoration, as science and the  scientific method received the royal blessing, and became high status, with every pirate who aspired to be a gentleman collecting botanical specimens while shaking down rajas for chests of bloodstained gold.  Today, official science is high status, but official science is not science, but anti science, for the scientific method is at best despised as ignorant and vulgar, at worst demonized as neo-nazi.

Today, replicating research is felt to be a hostile act against the person whose research is being replicated, thus anti scientist, thus anti science, anti scientific

The industrial revolution began a little after, but it was still the case during the industrial revolution, that to get into parliament, or be a professor at a high status university, or to get a good job in the public service, or suchlike, you had to swear allegiance to the Thirty Nine Articles incorporating the Second Book of Homilies.  They still took efforts by other theocratic religions to infiltrate the state religion seriously.

The  Thirty Nine Articles was intended to exclude Puritans, Calvinists, and Roman Catholics, and the Second Book of Homilies covered assorted other mischief makers.

The great weakness of the Thirty Nine articles was that they placed selective pressure on hostile groups to change their antigens to avoid these antibodies.  Thus William Wilberforce and the Clapham sect (the saints) claimed to be Anglican, though obviously they were not.   They believed themselves to be the saints, the elect, and regular Anglicans to be damned. They also believed in Jesus the community organizer, and believed themselves holier than Jesus, were nine tenths of the way to being Unitarians, and viewed Unitarians as closer to their beliefs than regular Anglicans.

As hostile groups change their antigens, the loyalty oath needs to be updated with new antibodies.

One might suppose a loyalty oath can be trivially defeated merely by lying or doublethink, but remember, the threat is not infiltration by individuals, but infiltration by hostile organizations.  If the hostile organization tells its members to lie, it can never be sure if they are telling the truth.

The hostile organization cannot safely tell its members to lie, but it can, and regularly does, tell its members to engage in doublethink and doubletalk, thus, Jesus the community organizer, redemption is voting for Obama, salvation the successful implementation of a progressive state:  Observe Pope Francis, for whom Salvation is homosexual Bishops.  However it has to somewhat openly preach doublethink and doubletalk to its members, which is to say, change its antigens.  Which is why you need to update the antibodies at regular intervals.

Progressivism practices entryism against all existing organization, coordinating them all to promote progressivism.  Thus, for example, the Science Fiction Writers Association becomes an organization dedicated to turning all science fiction into turgid boring dreary impenetrable progressive propaganda.

So every organization needs a loyalty oath to exclude progressives.  We should not, cannot, wait for the collapse.  Have to start now.  If you want an organization to go camping in the woods, and don’t want it to become a entirely urban organization campaining against carbon, have to have a loyalty oath against progressives.  If you want to organize cooking classes, and don’t want it taken over by feminists campaigning against women in their homes, have to have a loyalty oath against progressives.  If you have a fishing club …

In a world were all activities are coordinated to promote the progressive world view, an organization that functions to visit the wilderness without opposing industrial society and capitalism is a reactionary organization, and needs to defend itself  against attack.