A possible path to survival

Yeah, the thing about how the Left wing of the Assembly would sulk away in shame after being told off by the King was just Haller’s trademark deadpan sarcasm- few writers have ever understood the absolute mendacity, amorality, perfidy, fanaticism,and brazen shamelessness of Leftists or conveyed it as vividly as he did. The important thing there is exactly how the King should have told them off, not that it would actually have worked. He also explicitly understood that Leftists intend to form a surrogate priesthood wherever they are, hence their hatred of Christianity and actual priests.

Re: individuals, collectives, and corporations: Corporations are all well and good- where they actually exist, where they have actually been created by a membership. But positing imaginary corporations where none exist is what Leftists do in order to bring down Kings, despoil them of their rightful personal property and the power that flows from it, and then put them to death. Not every collective is a corporation. The proprietor and employees of a family business certainly comprise a type of collective; they all must work together and get along more or less well, the owner can’t just treat them like garbage or tell them to do just anything, but must get some kind of consensus or broad agreement, etc. But they collectively don’t amount to a corporation for that. The employees aren’t shareholders, and the boss not an executive that they appointed and can remove. His power is his own, in no way something delegated by his employees, but that inheres in the fact of his proprietorship The tie that unites them into a collectivity is the set of *individual* contracts between the boss and the members of the staff, not any single act of incorporation. The type of collectivism opposed by Haller’s individualism is the Leftist doctrine that any set of people doing things together, be it a Kingdom or private business enterprise, is, or should be, a type of corporation, specifically a commune or co-op that is owned and governed collectively, in which each individual is equal in rights, and whose King or boss, if any, is but an officer who holds the collective power delegated in trust, with none of his own, and can be removed at the will and pleasure of the directors. Louis XVI allowed himself to be bamboozled by the Left into believing that he was the CEO of a vast corporation of the people, as opposed to what he actually was- the proprietor of a Kingdom- and found himself promptly terminated by its board of directors. This is what Haller’s individualism was meant to forestall.

Absent a Hallerian revolution in consciousness, when (not if) the present Regime collapses, the most likely outcome will be that the remnants of the Cathedral, deep State, etc. will simply commence to erect a new People’s Republic, like the one that exists now and has for centuries, with themselves in charge, as is this case now and has been for centuries, and everybody else will acquiesce, as they do now and have for centuries. For four centuries they have dominated everything, dominate everything now, and will continue to, because Marx, his predecessors, and his successors interpreted the world before they changed it, or better, changed the world by interpreting it. In particular, a Leftist who wants what is rightfully yours will get it by convincing everybody that what you and everybody else thought was rightfully yours, what you thought you won with your own effort and talent, really belongs to him, was unjustly taken from by him by violence, and must be restored to him by violence. He will make this case by means of fictions that blatantly contradict common sense and the plain facts, and which will come across as all the more convincing to midwits for it. Hence it was that, while the law of the land and the entirety of English history had it that Parliament sat at the pleasure of the King, Puritans convinced everybody that the King sat at the pleasure of Parliament (fiction of popular sovereignty); that Enlighteners convinced everybody that the personal domains, and their attending rights, of the Kings of Europe, hard-won in struggles attested to by the plain facts of history, were really public trusts of an imaginary corporation of the people (fiction of social contract); that Marx convinced everybody that the fruits of industry really belong to workers and not those who pay them for their work and pay for the tools and raw materials with which they work (fiction of labour theory of value), and so on to our day, where everybody is made to believe that anything a White man has, whatever it may be and no matter how he got it, really belongs to Blacks (fiction of “systemic racism”). No doubt some fifth variant of the master fiction (that inferiors are the rightful superiors of their superiors and the rightful owners of what they do not own) will be cobbled together to ground Our Democracy 2.0.

Four centuries worth of universal, cradle-to-grave indoctrination into Leftist fictions has left the White man unable to even *imagine* any form of political organization other than a People’s Republic- not excluding the so-called dissident Right, presently unable to dream of anything than dictatorship (i.e. a People’s Republic with a longer term of office for its President and perhaps, the right of the President to appoint a successor) or anarchy (BAPism, i.e. boy’s-adventure stories with more philosophical erudition). Nothing will change until the mind of the Aryan has been thoroughly de-wormed, until he is once more able to see what has been concealed right in front of him. This involves the systematic and exhaustive identification, dissection, and demolition of Liberal fictions, today as much taken for granted as common sense and the true nature of things once were, to the point where people carry the fictions around in their heads and use them as first principles in their reasoning without even knowing that they’re doing it. This is Haller’s work. The details of how exactly to restore natural social relations cannot be worked out until the White man’s mind is freed and the sight restored to his eyes. Natural social relations certainly won’t restore themselves without strenuous effort and without collective action; but they will restore themselves spontaneously in that all anybody will really have to do is follow their instincts, the voice of Nature that teaches that women should submit to men; that men ought to admire other men of personal means and talents superior instead of resenting them and plotting their downfall; that one ought to proudly serve and, in time of need, take up the cause of a benefactor, instead of biting the hand that feeds him; and so on like that.

This voice of Nature continues to speak at the level of everyday life: women give themselves only to the men they think superior (“Chad”); men greatly dislike taking orders from men they do not respect, but will freely attach themselves to the service of men they acknowledge as superlative in strength, wealth, or know-how; most people think it low to not reciprocate a favour or keep a promise; and so on like that. We need only let this voice speak in politics, and in its own language. The rest won’t happen without effort; but it will happen by itself.

There’s a chapter in War and Peace in which Tolstoy literally interrupts the story to give his personal opinion on the individual versus collectivist debate. He says that the individualists are wrong, for when Napoleon stood in Moscow, he did not have any control over his army — his army controlled him, and he was taken by forces greater than he was.

Which was a very dumb thing to say on Tolstoy’s part, because no shit that your troops pay less attention to your orders when you’ve marched them deep into a losing winter war. Had he moved the chapter a bit earlier to the part when Napoleon decided on invading Russia, thus singlehandedly changing the course of history, would’ve looked even dumber.

On the other hand, the individualists are also wrong. Napoleon was able to jump on the movement that was the hubris of the Ancien Regime. Hitler jumped on the hubris of Prussia. They did not create states out of thin air.

Any large scale movement grows beyond the total control of one individual, even while in order to successfully operate it must have one individual at its head. An individual can stand atop a house of cards and lean toward the direction he wants it to grow — but lean too far and the house crashes down.

“The state religion is how the elite collectively organises to rule”.

While inclined to agree with Plutarch that “it would be easier to build a city in the clouds than form or preserve a State without any kind of religion”- no, you don’t need religion to organize the elite any more than you need it to organize a research team or a joint-stock company. Christianity, in any case, doesn’t organize elites into a governing class, but believers into a flock. It was rather the King that organized elite warriors into his aristocracy, and elite merchants into the bourgeoisie of his towns. And is there a State religion now? It can only be a loose figure of speech. The Cathedral has no Pope, no formal Ecclesiastical hierarchy or organization, no priests (its psychiatrists being as close an approximation of actual priests as it has). It administers no rites and no sacraments; it doesn’t even have a set doctrine any more, but rather an ever-mutating congeries of legal claims and ploys, wholly opportunistic and situation-specific propaganda, and a proliferation of neologisms that are abandoned the minute they serve their purpose, or simply become too boring. Moldbug pointed this all out years ago.

What actually unifies economic, political, and intellectual elites at present is their shared scorn and hatred for the productive middle and working classes (esp. if White), which they virulently despise- since, while they see the productive classes as their rightful inferiors, at law all citizens remain equal and some of them talk back to their putative betters, and worst of all, sometimes vote for the wrong candidates in elections yet to be abolished. The only faith this nascent oligarchy has or needs is faith in its own inflated social pretensions and affectations.

“For Haller’s social order to work, needs divine backing for family.”

The family already enjoys the sanction of Christianity and indeed, every religion worthy of the name. In any case, while it’s good to have this backing, it’s not absolutely essential. For the family is an immediate product of Nature, not a creature of doctrine. Put simply, men take and keep brides, and sire children, wherever nobody stops them from doing so. Delete Enlightenment, and patriarchy spontaneously springs up anew like plants after a long winter. Religion, too (also a product of Nature, but less immediate) will naturally serve as a pillar of support for patriarchy once again, once Enlightenment no longer stands in its way. No special plan or programme needed.

“The wars of the Roses started because a King who was weak and vain took the throne, and demanded extraordinary power, power improper for a sovereign to exercise, save in military emergencies, which a strong King might well have gotten away with, but he could not, and died of it. But this established a precedent that anyone could grab the throne, and lots of people set to doing so.”

Sorry my previous post should have been in response to this as you are clearly talking about Richard II (who was also a sadistic homosexual psychopath)