1 of 2
1
The roots of Traditionalism
Posted: 25 June 2009 12:30 PM   [ Ignore ]
Forum Regular
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  87
Joined  2008-02-15

Taken from Wikipedia. Needs to be replaced with equivalent review/study from Kinist perspective. This doesn’t even mention a few important names such as Frederick Bastiat.

Traditionalist conservatism, also known as “traditionalism,” is a political philosophy that developed in the United States. It tends to emphasize cultural renewal and is characterized by an adherence to the principles of prescription (law), custom (law), social order, hierarchy, faith, the natural family, ordered liberty, and tradition.

Traditionalist conservatism as an organized intellectual force emerged after World War II in the writings of a group of university professors (labeled the “New Conservatives” by the popular press of the time) who rejected the notions of individualism, liberalism, modernity, and social progress[1] and revived interest in what T. S. Eliot referred to as “the permanent things” (those perennial institutions that ground society: the church, the family, the state, community life, etc.).

The acknowledged leader of the New Conservatives was independent scholar Russell Kirk, (father-in-law of Dr. Jeffrey O. Nelson, co-founder of the Russell Kirk Center for Cultural Renewal), whose most famous work was 1953’s The Conservative Mind: From Burke to Santayana (later republished as The Conservative Mind: From Burke to Eliot). Kirk’s writings and legacy are interwoven with the history of traditionalist conservatism, with his influence felt at the Heritage Foundation, the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, and other conservative think tanks.

Other New Conservatives (later known as traditionalists) included University of Chicago professor Richard M. Weaver, sociologist Robert A. Nisbet, and Mount Holyoke College professor Peter Viereck.

Burkean origins

Traditionalist conservatism could be said to have begun with the thought of Anglo-Irish Whig statesman and philosopher Edmund Burke, whose political principles were rooted in moral natural law and the Western tradition. He believed in prescriptive rights and what he referred to as “ordered liberty” as well as a strong belief in trascendent values that found support in such institutions as the church, the family, and the state.[2] He was a fierce critic of the principles behind the French Revolution and in 1790 his observations on the excesses and radicalism of the French Revolution were collected in Reflections on the Revolution in France. In Reflections he took to task the radical innovations of the revolutionaries, such as the “Rights of Man”. American social critic and historian Russell Kirk wrote that “...the Reflections burns with all the wrath and anguish of a prophet who saw the traditions of Christendom and the fabric of civil society dissolving before his eyes.”[3]

Early American Traditionalist Conservatism

Burkean traditionalism was transported to the American colonies through the policies and principles of the Federalist Party and its leadership as embodied by John Adams and Alexander Hamilton. Federalists opposed the French Revolution, defended traditional Christian morality, and supported a new “natural aristocracy” based on “property, education, family status, and sense of ethical responsibility.”[7]

Burke’s influence in America continued beyond the Federalist Party in the lives and work of such various thinkers and writers such as John Randolph of Roanoke, John C. Calhoun, Joseph Story, and later James Russell Lowell, President Woodrow Wilson,[8] and Irving Babbitt.[9]

Early Twentieth century

“The Bookman” and “The American Review” In the twentieth century traditionalist conservatism on both sides of the Atlantic was centered around two publications: the Bookman and the American Review. Owned and edited by the eccentric Seward Collins, these journals published the writings of the British Distributists, the New Humanists, the Southern Agrarians, T. S. Eliot, Christopher Dawson, and others. Eventually Collins descended into the madness of fascism and lost the support of his traditionalist backers but not before the former contributors to his journals left an profound mark on the history of traditionalist conservatism.[10]

“The British Distributists” In the early twentieth century the forebears of modern traditionalist conservatism was found in three distinct branches of thought. The first came from Britain through the efforts of Hilaire Belloc and G. K. Chesterton and the socioeconomic system they advocated:distributism. Originating in the papal encyclical Rerum Novarum, distributism employed the concept of subsidiarity as a “third way” solution to the twin “evils” of socialism and capitalism. As a system it favored local economies, small business, the agrarian way of life, and craftsmen and artists.[11] In such books as Belloc’s The Servile State (1912), Economics for Helen (1924), and An Essay on the Restoration of Property (1936) and Chesterton’s The Outline of Sanity (1927), traditional communities that echoed those found in the Middle Ages were advocated and big business and big government condemned. In the United States distributist ideas were embraced by the journalist Herbert Agar, Catholic activist Dorothy Day, economist E. F. Schumacher and were comparable to the work of Wilhelm Roepke.[12]

“The New Humanists” Another intellectual branch of early twentieth century traditionalist conservatism was known as the New Humanism. Led by Harvard University professor Irving Babbitt and Princeton University professor Paul Elmer More, the New Humanism was a literary and social criticism movement that opposed both romanticism and naturalism. Beginning in the late nineteenth century, the New Humanism defended artistic standards and “first principles” (Babbitt’s phrase). Reaching an apogee in 1930, Babbitt and More published a variety of books including Babbitt’s Literature and the American College (1908), Rousseau and Romanticism (1919), and Democracy and Leadership (1924) and More’s Shelburne Essays (1904-1921).[13]

“The Southern Agrarians” The third and final group of traditionalist conservatives from the early twentieth century were the Southern Agrarians. Originally a group of Vanderbilt University poets and writers known as the Fugitives they included John Crowe Ransom, Allen Tate, Donald Davidson, and Robert Penn Warren. Adhering to strict literary standards (Warren and traditionalist scholar Cleanth Brooks were to later formulate a form of literary criticism known as the New Criticism), in 1930 some of the Fugitives joined other traditionalist Southern writers to publish I’ll Take My Stand, which applied standards sympathetic to local particularism and the agrarian way of life to politics and economics. Condemning northern industrialism and commercialism, the “twelve southerners” who contributed to the book echoed arguments made by the distributists and a few years later joined Hilaire Belloc and Herbert Agar in a new collection of essays entitled Who Owns America: A New Declaration of Independence. The Southern Agrarians had a great influence on New Conservative scholar Richard M. Weaver and writer-farmer Wendell Berry.[14]

“T. S. Eliot and Christopher Dawson” A champion of the Western tradition and orthodox Christian culture, T. S. Eliot was also arguably the “last great poet of the English language.” Known for his poem The Waste Land, Eliot was a political reactionary who used literary modernist means for traditionalist ends. His After Strange Gods: A Primer on Modern Heresy (1934) and Notes towards the Definition of Culture (1948) align with the grand tradition of Christian humanism extending back to Edmund Burke, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Thomas Carlyle, John Ruskin, G. K. Chesterton, and Hilaire Belloc. Educated by Irving Babbitt at Harvard University, Eliot was friends with, Allen Tate, and Russell Kirk,[15].

Praised by T. S. Eliot as the most powerful intellectual influence in Britain, historian Christopher Dawson’s contribution to traditionalist conservatism was long-standing. Central to his work was the idea that religion was at the heart of every culture, especially Western culture, and his writings, including The Age of Gods (1928), Religion and Culture (1948), and Religion and the Rise of Western Culture (1950). A contributor to Eliot’s Criterion, after World War Two Dawson believed that religion and culture were going to be more central to rebuilding the West in the wake of fascism and the rise of communism.[16] Other traditionalist conservatives influences would be felt by the New Conservative movement of the 1940s and 1950s, including the writings and thought of Bernard Iddings Bell, Gordon Keith Chalmers, Grenville Clark, Peter Drucker, Will Herberg, Ross J. S. Hoffman, and Dorothy Thompson.[17]

 Signature 

ANOINTED NATION EMBASSY OF CROSSVILLE
Real Christianity uncut, uncensored. Accept no substitutes!

Sedition Project Games
Retro computer games are fun and easy to make. Find out how, today!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 June 2009 12:34 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Forum Regular
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  87
Joined  2008-02-15

Mid-Twentieth Century, “The New Conservatives” In the 1940s and 1950s the New Conservatives appeared on the academic scene rebuking the progressive worldview inherent in an America comfortable with New Deal economics, a burgeoning military-industrial complex, and a consumerist and commercialized citizenry. University of Chicago professor Richard M. Weaver was among the first of the New Conservatives and his Ideas Have Consequences (1948) chronicled the steady erosion of Western cultural values since the Middle Ages.[18] Weaver was joined in 1949 by Peter Viereck, whose Conservatism Revisited examined the conservative thought of Prince Klemens Metternich.

The 1950s brought a flowering of New Conservative thought with 1953’s The New Science of Politics by Eric Voegelin, 1953’s The Quest for Community by Robert A. Nisbet, and 1955’s Conservatism in America by Clinton Rossiter. However, the book that defined the traditionalist school was 1953’s The Conservative Mind: From Burke to Eliot, written by Russell Kirk, which gave a detailed analysis of the intellectual pedigree of Anglo-American traditionalist conservatism.[19]

Other New Conservatives included John Blum, Daniel Boorstin, McGeorge Bundy, Thomas Cook, Raymond English, John Hallowell, Anthony Harrigan, August Heckscher, Milton Hindus, Klemens von Klemperer, Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, Richard Leopold, S. A. Lukacs, Malcolm Moos, Eliseo Vivas, Geoffrey Wagner, Chad Walsh, and Francis Wilson[20]) as well as Arthur Bestor, Mel Bradford, C. P. Ives, Stanley Jaki, John Lukacs, Forrest McDonald, Thomas Molnar, Gerhard Neimeyer, James V. Schall, S.J., Peter J. Stanlis, Stephen J. Tonsor, and Frederick Wilhelmsen.[21]

Russell Kirk and the Six Canons of Conservatism
The Conservative Mind was written by Kirk as a doctoral dissertation while he was a student at the St. Andrews University in Scotland. Previously the author of a biography of American conservative John Randolph of Roanoke, Kirk’s The Conservative Mind had laid out six “canons of conservative thought” in the book, including:

  1. Belief that a divine intent rules society as well as conscience… Political problems, at bottom, are religious and moral problems.
  2. Affection for the proliferating variety and mystery of traditional life, as distinguished from the narrowing uniformity and equalitarian and utilitarian aims of most radical systems.
  3. Conviction that civilized society requires orders and classes…
  4. Persuasion that property and freedom are inseparably connected, and that economic leveling is not economic progress…
  5. Faith in prescription and distrust of “sophisters and calculators.” Man must put a control upon his will and his appetite…Tradition and sound prejudice provide checks upon man’s anarchic impulse.
  6. Recognition that change and reform are not identical…[22]

Kirk goes on to examine the thought of a wide array of conservative thinkers, including Anglo-Irish statesman Edmund Burke, American Federalists John Adams and Alexander Hamilton, British literati Samuel Taylor Coleridge and Robert Southey, Southern conservatives John Randolph of Roanoke, John Calhoun, American Catholic political thinker Orestes Brownson, New England writer Nathaniel Hawthorne, British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli, British Catholic John Henry Newman, American historian Henry Adams, the New Humanism of Irving Babbitt and Paul Elmer More, and Anglo-American poet and literary critic T. S. Eliot.

Late Twentieth century and Early Twenty-first century, Traditionalism and the Conservative Movement
In the United States during the 1940s and 1950s a nascent conservative movement was emerging through the writings of traditionalists such as Weaver and Kirk, libertarian writers F. A. Hayek and Ludwig von Mises, and anticommunist thinkers such as Whittaker Chambers, Frank Meyer, and James Burnham. This “intellectual phase” gave way to an “institutional phase” in the 1950s where magazines such as National Review and think tanks such as the Intercollegiate Studies Institute were created. By 1964 the conservative movement entered an “electoral phase” with the nomination of Republican Sen. Barry M. Goldwater of Arizona for president. Goldwater’s subsequent defeat resulted in a “New Right” emerging led by figures such as anti-feminist activist Phyllis Schlafly, California Governor Ronald Reagan, direct-mail icon Richard Viguerie, Heritage Foundation founder Paul Weyrich, and others. As the conservative movement matured it coalesced around Reagan, finding its apogee in his 1976 presidential run and 1980 presidential victory.

Traditionalism at this time was still isolated to those scholars such as Kirk, Weaver, Nisbet, Viereck, and classicist Eric Voegelin. In 1957 Kirk founded Modern Age,[23] a conservative academic quarterly which to this day has remained traditionalist in scope and over the years has published various traditionalist thinkers, such as Max Picard, Andrew Lytle, Richard Weaver, Robert Nisbet, C. P. Ives, Ross Hoffman, and others. In 1960 Kirk founded the oldest conservative quarterly review of books, The University Bookman.[24]

Also during this time various institutions were created which maintained a traditionalist philosophy. Once such organization was the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, which since its founding had a close relationship with Kirk. Through Kirk’s influence (as well as other well known conservatives) it has been a center for traditionalist students, hosting lectures, symposiums, conferences, and debates and publishing both Modern Age and The University Bookman as well as a variety of books by traditionalist scholars through its imprint, ISI Books.[25]

In the 1970s Fr. Ian Boyd formed the G. K. Chesterton Institute for Faith and Culture, which became a leading center of traditionalist Catholic thought. In the 1980s traditionalist scholar Claes G. Ryn founded the National Humanities Institute[26], a center for the study of the humanities from the conservative perspective. Former Intercollegiate Review editor Gregory Wolfe founded the Center for Religious Humanism (which publishes a traditionalist arts journal, Image (journal).[27] In the mid-1990s, after the death of Russell Kirk, the Russell Kirk Center for Cultural Renewal was founded and not long after the Howard Center on Family, Religion, and Society was created by Allan C. Carlson and John Howard, both previously of the Rockford Institute,[28] a paleoconservative think tank with traditionalist leanings. Other traditionalist organizations include the Trinity Forum, Ellis Sandoz’s Eric Voegelin Institute, the T.S. Eliot Society, the Malcolm Muggeridge Society, the Thomas More College of Liberal Arts’ Center for Faith and Culture, and the University of Kentucky’s McConnell Center. A major funder of traditionalist causes, especially the Russell Kirk Center, is the Wilbur Foundation.

Related political philosophies There is some confusion over whether American traditionalist conservatism and paleoconservatism are one and the same political philosophy. While there is some overlap concerning principles and even policy prescriptions, traditionalist conservatism differs with paleoconservatism in that traditionalists emphasize culture while paleoconservatives emphasize reactionary political action. Paleoconservatism is also, somewhat, more influenced by Old Right and anti-immigrant politics. Paleoconservatism also is generally understood to be more ideological in nature and more militant in its approach to other conservative political philosophies, including neoconservatism. It may be ventured that paleoconservatism is possibly the political expression of traditionalist conservatism, especially as many paleoconservatives such as former presidential candidate and journalist Patrick J. Buchanan express traditionalist conservative ideas and support traditionalist conservative causes such as cultural renewal and defending Western Civilization. Traditionalist conservatism, however, is older than paleoconservatism (which emerged in the late 1980s among traditionalist conservative academics and journalists in response to the growing influence of neoconservatism), and while many paleoconservatives (Claes G. Ryn, Paul Gottfried) are also traditionalists, not all traditionalist conservatives are paleoconservatives.

 Signature 

ANOINTED NATION EMBASSY OF CROSSVILLE
Real Christianity uncut, uncensored. Accept no substitutes!

Sedition Project Games
Retro computer games are fun and easy to make. Find out how, today!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 June 2009 12:44 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Forum Regular
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  87
Joined  2008-02-15

Apparently far-right Germanic pagan groups such as the Asatru Folk Assembly have taken to calling themselves “Radical Traditionalists.” They even have a six point list of “ideals” [like Russel Kirk’s six “canons of conservative thought” from the Conservative Mind]:

  1. Resacralization of the world versus materialism.
  2. Natural social hierarchy versus an artificial hierarchy based on wealth.
  3. The tribal community versus the nation-state.
  4. Stewardship of the earth versus the “maximization of resources.”
  5. A harmonious relationship between men and women versus the “war between the sexes.”
  6. Handicraft and artisanship versus industrial mass-production.

These are certainly good points, though they of course leave out the most important basis for any sound and lasting society, which is that all important Tree of Life in the midst of the garden or restored edenic paradise. The Anointed is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

 Signature 

ANOINTED NATION EMBASSY OF CROSSVILLE
Real Christianity uncut, uncensored. Accept no substitutes!

Sedition Project Games
Retro computer games are fun and easy to make. Find out how, today!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 June 2009 12:51 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Forum Regular
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  87
Joined  2008-02-15

Traditionalists, Contemporary traditionalists Traditionalist conservatism today is primarily centered around the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, the Russell Kirk Center for Cultural Renewal, the National Humanities Institute, and the Edmund Burke Society.[citation needed]

Prominent modern traditionalist conservatives include Joseph Baldacchino, President of the National Humanities Institute and Co-Editor of Humanitas; Jeremy Beer; Thomas Bertonneau, Visiting Professor of English as SUNY-Oswego; Bradley J. Birzer, Associate Professor of History at Hillsdale College; Christopher Olaf Blum, Professor of Humanities at the Thomas More College of Liberal Arts; Cicero Bruce, Assistant Professor of English at Southern Catholic College; George W. Carey, Professor of Government at Georgetown University; Allan Carlson, President of the Howard Center for Family, Religion, and Society and editor of Front Porch Republic; James Como, founder of the C. S. Lewis Society; T. Kenneth Cribb, Jr., President of the Intercollegiate Studies Institute; Allan R. Crippen, II, founder of the John Jay Institute for Faith, Society, and Law; Ian Crowe, Associate Professor of history at Brewton-Parker College and director of the Edmund Burke Society of America; Hugh Mercer Curtler, Professor of Philosophy at Southwest Minnesota State University; Rod Dreher, columnist for the Dallas Morning News, [[beliefnet.com]], and editor of Front Porch Republic; Lee Edwards, Professor of Politics at Catholic University of America; William E. Fahey, President the Thomas More College of Liberal Arts; Michael P. Federici, Professor of Political Science at Mercyhurst College; Bruce Frohnen, Visitng Associate Professor of Law at Ohio Northern University College of Law; Paul Gottfried, Professor of Humanities at Elizabethtown College; Vigen Guroian, Professor of Religious Studies (Eastern Christianity) at the University of Virginia; Mark C. Henrie, Editor of The Intercollegiate Review; Annette Y. Kirk, President of the Russell Kirk Center for Cultural Renewal and Publisher of The University Bookman (and Russell Kirk’s widow); E. Christian Kopff, Professor of Classics at the University of Colorado, Boulder; James Kurth, Claude Smith Professor of Political Science at Swarthmore College; Peter Augustine Lawler, Professor of Government and International Studies at Berry College; Daniel J. Mahoney, Professor of Politics at Assumption College; Mark G. Malvasi, Professor of History at Randolph-Macon College; Wilfred M. McClay, Professor of History at the University of Tennessee, Chattanooga; W. Wesley McDonald, Professor of Political Science at Elizabethtown College; independent historian George H. Nash; Jeffrey O. Nelson, publisher of The University Bookman, and Studies in Burke and His Time (and Russell Kirk’s son-in-law); George A. Panichas, formerly of the University of Maryland and former editor of Modern Age; Joseph Pappin III, professor at the University of South Carolina, and editor of Studies in Burke and His Time; James E. Person, Jr., a biographer of Russell Kirk; Gerald J. Russello, editor of The University Bookman; Claes G. Ryn, Professor of Politics at the Catholic University of America, Chairman of the National Humanities Institute, and Co-Editor of Humanitas; Ellis Sandoz, Hermann Moyse Jr. Distinguished Professor of Political Science at Louisiana State University and Director of the Eric Voegelin Institute for American Renaissance Studies; Caleb Stegall, attorney and former Editor of The New Pantagruel; Ewa M. Thompson, Professor of German and Slavic Studies at Rice University; John M. Vella, Managing Editor of Modern Age, The Intercollegiate Review, and The Political Science Reviewer; Gleaves Whitney, Director of the Hausenstein Center for Presidential Studies at Grand Valley State University; Gregory Wolfe, the Editor of Image and Founder of the Center for Religious Humanism; R. V. Young, Professor of English at North Carolina State University and Editor of Modern Age, and John Zmirak, Writer-in-Residence at the Thomas More College of Liberal Arts, especially noted for his culinary and imbibinal expertise manifest in such works as “The Bad Catholic’s Guide to Good Living” and “The Bad Catholic’s Guide to Wine, Whiskey, and Songs”, two works that are widely credited with bringing traditionalist conservatism into the kitchen.

 Signature 

ANOINTED NATION EMBASSY OF CROSSVILLE
Real Christianity uncut, uncensored. Accept no substitutes!

Sedition Project Games
Retro computer games are fun and easy to make. Find out how, today!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 June 2009 12:52 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Forum Regular
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  87
Joined  2008-02-15

Traditionalism is also associated with the thought of British philosopher Roger Scruton and in practical politics through the activities of the Cornerstone Group in Britain and the Disraeli-MacDonald Institute in Canada.

Prominent traditionalists

  * Russell Kirk
  * Eric Voegelin
  * Peter Viereck
  * Richard M. Weaver
  * Robert A. Nisbet
  * Clinton Rossiter
  * Daniel Boorstin
  * Patrick J. Buchanan
  * Forrest McDonald
  * John Lukacs
  * Stanley Jaki
  * Mel Bradford
  * Claes G. Ryn
  * James Kurth
  * R. V. Young
  * T. Kenneth Cribb, Jr.
  * Allan Carlson
  * Bruce Frohnen
  * Rod Dreher
  * Peter Augustine Lawler
  * E. Christian Kopff

See also

  * High Tory
  * Red Tory

References

  1. ^ Frohnen, Bruce, Jeremy Beer, and Jeffrey O. Nelson, ed. (2006) American Conservatism: An Encyclopedia Wilmington, DE: ISI Books, p. 870.
  2. ^ American Conservatism: An Encyclopedia, Bruce Frohnen, Jeremy Beer, and Jeffrey O. Nelson, pp. 107-109, ISI Books, 2006
  3. ^ Kirk, Russell (1967, 1997) Edmund Burke: A Genius Reconsidered, Wilmington, DE: ISI Books, p. 154.
  4. ^ Kirk,Edmund Burke, p. 155
  5. ^ Blum, Christopher Olaf, ed. (2004)Critics of the Enlightenment, Wilington, DE: ISI Books, pp. xv-xxxv.
  6. ^ Viereck, Peter (1956, 2006)Conservative Thinkers from John Adams to Winston Churchill, New Brunswick, NJ: Transction, pp. 87-95.
  7. ^ Viereck, p. 89.
  8. ^ Kirk, Edmund Burke, pp. 220-221.
  9. ^ Viereck, p. 104-105.
  10. ^ Frohnen, Bruce, Jeremy Beer, and Jeffrey O. Nelson. (2006)American Conservatism: An Encyclopedia.Wilmington, DE: ISI Books, pp. 30-31, 76-77.
  11. ^ Carlson, Allan. Third Ways. ISI Books: Wilmington, DE, 2007, pp. 1-34.
  12. ^ Frohnen, pp. 235-236.
  13. ^ Frohnen, pp. 621-622, 591.
  14. ^ Frohnen, pp. 798-799.
  15. ^ Frohnen, pp. 263-265.
  16. ^ Frohnen, pp. 219-220.
  17. ^ Viereck, p. 107.
  18. ^ Nash, George H. (2006)The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America since 1945, Wilmington, DE: ISI Books, pp. 30-36.
  19. ^ Dunn, Charles W. (2003)The Conservative Tradition in America, Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, p. 10.
  20. ^ Viereck, p. 107.
  21. ^ Nash, pp. 50-55, 68-73.
  22. ^ Kirk, Russell (1953)The Conservative Mind: From Burke to Eliot, Washington, D.C.:Regnery, pp. 7-8, Regnery.
  23. ^ Frohnen, pp. 578-580.
  24. ^ Frohnen, pp. 883-884.
  25. ^ Frohnen, pp. 436-438.
  26. ^ Frohen, p. 758.
  27. ^ Frohnen, p. 422.
  28. ^ Frohnen, p. 409.

 Signature 

ANOINTED NATION EMBASSY OF CROSSVILLE
Real Christianity uncut, uncensored. Accept no substitutes!

Sedition Project Games
Retro computer games are fun and easy to make. Find out how, today!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 June 2009 12:59 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Forum Regular
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  87
Joined  2008-02-15

The Tradionalist School

The Traditionalist School of thought, also known as Integral Traditionalism (in the sense of Integralism) or Perennialism (in the sense of perennial philosophy, or Sophia Perennis) is an esoteric movement inspired by the interwar period writings of French metaphysician René Guénon and developed by authors such as German-Swiss philosopher Frithjof Schuon, the Ceylonese-British scholar Ananda Coomaraswamy, Italian occultist Julius Evola,[1] Titus Burckhardt, Martin Lings, Huston Smith, and Seyyed Hossein Nasr. The movement divided in 1948-50 after a split between Guénon and Schuon.

Popular among the European Nouvelle Droite,[2] Traditionalism is a fundamentally anti-democratic, anti-modern, anti-liberal ideology critical of modernity and the bourgeois constitutional state. To the “modern error,” the Perennialists propose an everlasting wisdom of divine origin, “a Primordial Tradition”, transmitted from the very origin of humanity and partially restored by each genuine founder of a new religion.

“Tradition” in Perennialism has a special meaning far removed from the generic meaning of folklore. “Integral Tradition” does not have a human origin and may be considered as principles revealed from Heaven and binding man to his divine origin, or to what Schuon called a “transcendent unity”. Perennialists claim that the historically separated traditions share not only the same divine origin but are based on the same metaphysical principles, sometimes called philosophia perennis.

 Signature 

ANOINTED NATION EMBASSY OF CROSSVILLE
Real Christianity uncut, uncensored. Accept no substitutes!

Sedition Project Games
Retro computer games are fun and easy to make. Find out how, today!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 June 2009 12:59 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Forum Regular
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  87
Joined  2008-02-15

Philosophia Perennis

The term philosophia perennis first appears in the Renaissance. It is widely associated with Leibniz who in turn owes it to the 16th century theologian Augustinus Steuchius.

The French author René Guénon (1886-1951) was in a certain sense a pioneer in the rediscovery of this Philosophia Perennis or Sophia Perennis in the 20th century. His view, largely shared with later Perennialist authorities, is that “Semitic religions” have an exoteric/esoteric structure. Exoterism, the outward dimension of religion, is constituted by religious rites and a moral but also a dogmatic theology. The exoteric point of view is characterized by its “sentimental”, rather than purely intellectual, nature and remains fairly limited. Based on the doctrine of creation and the subsequent duality between God and creation, exoterism does not offer means to transcend the limitations of the human state. The goal is only religious salvation, which Guénon defines as a perpetual state of beatitude in a celestial paradise. In the Traditionalist view esoterism is more than the complement of exoterism, the spirit as opposed to the letter, the kernel with respect to the shell. Esoterism has, at least de jure, a total autonomy with respect to religion for its innermost substance is the Primordial Tradition itself. Based on pure metaphysics - by which Guénon means a supra-rational knowledge of the Divine, a gnosis, and not a rationalist system or theological dogma - its goal is the realization of the superior states of being and finally the union between the individual self and the Principle. Guénon calls this union “the Supreme Identity”.

By “Supreme Identity”, Guénon and Schuon do not refer to the personal God of exoteric theology but to a suprapersonal Essence, the Beyond-Being, the Absolute both totally transcendent and immanent to the manifestation. In their view the innermost essence of the individual being is non-different from the Absolute itself. Guénon refers here to the Vedantic concepts of Brahman (Transcendence), Atman (Self) and Moksa (Deliverance). For Guénon the Hindu Sanatana Dharma represents “the more direct heritage of the Primordial Tradition”. More generally the great traditions of Asia - (Advaita Vedanta, Taoism and Mahayana Buddhism) - play a paradigmatic function in his writings. He considers them as the more rigorous expression of pure metaphysics, this supra-formal and universal wisdom being, in itself, neither eastern nor western.

 Signature 

ANOINTED NATION EMBASSY OF CROSSVILLE
Real Christianity uncut, uncensored. Accept no substitutes!

Sedition Project Games
Retro computer games are fun and easy to make. Find out how, today!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 June 2009 01:02 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Forum Regular
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  87
Joined  2008-02-15

Traditionalism and religion

Although Guenon pleaded in his first books for a restoration of traditional “intellectualité” in the West on the basis of Roman Catholicism and Freemasonry, it is clear that, very early on, he gave up the idea of a spiritual resurrection of the West on a purely Christian basis. Having denounced the lure of Theosophy and neo-occultism, two influential movements that were flourishing in his lifetime, Guénon was initiated in 1912 in the Shadhili order and moved to Cairo in 1930 where he spent the rest of his life as a Sufi Muslim. To his many correspondents he clearly designated Sufism as a more accessible form of traditional initiation for Westerners eager to find what does not exist any more in the West: an initiatory path of knowledge (Jnana or Gnosis), comparable to Advaita.

Many followers of Guénon, such as Frithjof Schuon, Martin Lings and Titus Burckhardt, have been initiated into Sufism. Others remain Christians, such as the religious philosopher Jean Borella. Marco Pallis was a Buddhist and Ananda Coomaraswamy was a Hindu.

The most influential representatives of this school in Northern Europe are all Muslim converts: Kurt Almqvist, Tage Lindbom and Ashk Dahlén.

It could be argued that Traditionalism has a strong, although discreet, impact in the field of comparative religion and particularly on the young Mircea Eliade, although he was not himself a member of this school. Contemporary scholars such as Huston Smith, William Chittick, Harry Oldmeadow, James Cutsinger and Seyyed Hossein Nasr have advocated Perennialism as an alternative to secularist approach to religious phenomena.

Criticism of modernity

For Guénon, the author of the Crisis of the Modern World, the end of this descending process is modernity itself, which manifests the lowest possibilities of the Kali Yuga. Guénon also called our age the Reign of the Quantity, because man and the cosmos are more and more determined, ontologically speaking, by matter. The tragedy of the Western world since the Renaissance is, in his view, that it has lost almost any contact with the Sophia Perennis and the Sacred. Consequently, in the Western context, it is virtually impossible for a spiritual seeker to receive a valid initiation and to follow an esoteric path.

Academic reception

Traditionalists are usually hostile to the work of academic scholars. Guénon himself had held academic scholars in low regard, seeing them as part of the problem of modernity, and his later followers generally held similar views. Academic reception of Traditionalism began in 1971 with the publication of an article by Jean-Pierre Laurant on “Le problème de René Guénon” in the Revue de l’histoire des religions. During the 1980s, scholars writing in English focused mostly on Julius Evola because of the use of his theories made by Italian far-right groups during 1970s turmoils; during the same decade, scholarship in French on René Guénon himself became better established. It was not until the 1990s that scholars writing in English began to publish on the wider phenomenon of Traditionalism.

Controversy followed publication of Mark Sedgwick’s Against the Modern World in 2004. Certain critics with traditionalist sympathies have published reviews which questioned the content and methodology of the book and the motives of its author, charging him with various personal motives, including being “a Euro-Atlantic spy” and having himself “not been allowed to enter an initiatory order with ‘Traditionalist’ connections.”.[3][4]

In his book Guénon ou le renversement des clartés, the French scholar Xavier Accart seriously calls into question the connection sometimes made between the Traditionalist school and the far right movements. He shows, for instance, that René Guenon was highly critical of Evola’s political involvements and was worried about the possible confusion between his own ideas and Evola’s. Guénon also clearly denounced the ideology of the fascist regimes in Europe before and during the Second World War. Xavier Accart finally claims that the assimilation of René Guénon with Julius Evola - and the confusion between Traditionalism and the New Right - can be traced back to Louis Pauwels and Bergier’s Le matin des magiciens (1960).

References

  1. ^ Renaud Fabbri argues that Evola should not be considered a member of the Perennialist School. See the section Julius Evola and the Perennialist School in Fabbri’s Introduction to the Perennialist School
  2. ^ Davies, Peter; Derek Lynch (2004). The Routledge Companion to Fascism and the Far Right. Routledge. p. 322. ISBN 0415214947. http://books.google.com/books?id=9s2mOVfOWg8C&printsec=frontcover&dq;=“Nouvelle+Droite”+evola&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0.
  3. ^ http://www.geocities.com/divinecities/roberthorvath/sedgwickang.html
  4. ^ http://www.sacredweb.com/articles/sw13_fitzgerald.html

  * William W. Quinn, Jr., The Only Tradition (1996) ISBN 0791432130
  * Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Knowledge and the Sacred (1989) ISBN 0-7914-0177-4
  * Harry Oldmeadow, Traditionalism: Religion in the Light of the Perennial Philosophy (2000) ISBN 955-9028-04-9
  * Huston Smith, Forgotten Truth: The Common Vision of the World’s Religions (1976), reprint ed. 1992, Harper SanFrancisco, ISBN 0-06-250787-7
  * Julius Evola, Men Among the Ruins: Post-War Reflections of a Radical Traditionalist (1953, revised 1967, with a new appendix, 1972).
  * Mark Sedgwick, Against the Modern World: Traditionalism and the Secret Intellectual History of the Twentieth Century ISBN 0-19-515297-2
  * Jean-Pierre Laurant, René Guénon: Les enjeux d’une lecture (2006) ISBN 2-84454-423-1
  * Carl W Ernst, “Traditionalism, the Perennial Philosophy and Islamic Studies” in the MESA Bulletin (1994)
  * Andrew Rawlinson, The Book of Enlightened Masters: Western Teachers in Eastern Traditions ISBN 0-8126-9310-8
  * Jean-Pierre Laurant, “Le problème de René Guénon”, Revue de l’histoire des religions (1971).
  * Marie-France James, Esoterisme et Christianisme: autour de René Guénon. (1981)
  * Pierre-Marie Sigaud, ed, Rene Guenon [Dossiers H] (1984)
  * Jean-Pierre Laurant and Paul Barbanegra, eds, Rene Guenon [Cahier de l’Herne] (1985)
  * Antoine Faivre, ed, Dossier on “Perennialisme” in Aries 11 (1990)
  * Roger Griffin, “Revolts Against the Modern World: The Blend of Literary and Historical Fantasy in the Italian New Right” in Literature and History (1985)
  * Franco Ferraresi, “Julius Evola: Tradition, Reaction and the Radical Right” in Archives Européennes de Sociologie (1987)
  * Xavier Accart, René Guénon ou Le Renversement des clartés Paris, Milanos: Edidit Arche (2005)

 Signature 

ANOINTED NATION EMBASSY OF CROSSVILLE
Real Christianity uncut, uncensored. Accept no substitutes!

Sedition Project Games
Retro computer games are fun and easy to make. Find out how, today!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 June 2009 01:23 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  667
Joined  2007-01-26

Hi Ken,

Thanks. That’s a lot of material to digest. We are very familiar with some of these names, and others are new to us. I was somewhat familiar with Asatru, and I concur with most of its “plank.” Guenon is very familiar to us, as I’ve written about him on many occasions. We certainly feel ourselves connected to the Kirk-Weaver-Nesbit-Eliot circle, and take a lot of our ideas from them. You are what you read, after all.

There once was a Kinism entry in Wikipedia, but their editors decided that we were not enough of a “movement” to warrant inclusion in their encyclopedia. Our serious intellectual output has been scant, though there is a lot of well thought out blog entries and some essays. I think you came aboard after the Review links were taken down, but we once published an “academic” review that was intended to give Kinism more intellectual credibility, but I shuttered it due to the effort involved. I do have plans to revive the journal, however, as we seem to have come across some new talent, some of which you see on these forums.

The obstacle we face is that none of us are true academics. We don’t have the kind of time that academics are given to write. We have to balance work-famiily-church-kinism. I am working on a book-length treatise, but it will be at least a year before it comes out, and possibly two.

Again, thanks.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 June 2009 02:18 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Forum Regular
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  87
Joined  2008-02-15

I think The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism by Max Weber is also an important part of the above historical review of Traditionalism even though he was considered liberal by the German Right-wing of the time.

The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism Weber began his studies of rationalisation in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, in which he argued that the redefinition of the connection between work and piety in Protestantism, and especially in ascetic Protestant denominations, particularly Calvinism,[25] shifted human effort towards rational efforts aimed at achieving economic gain. In Calvinism in particular, but also in Lutheranism, Christian piety towards God was expressed through or in one’s secular vocation. Calvin, in particular, viewed the expression of the work ethic as a sign of “election”. The rational roots of this doctrine, he argued, soon grew incompatible with and larger than the religious, and so the latter were eventually discarded.[26] Weber continued his investigation into this matter in later works, notably in his studies on bureaucracy and on the classifications of authority into three types—legitimate, traditional, and charismatic. In these works Weber described what he saw as society’s movement towards rationalization.

His “Ancient Judaism” sounds interesting to me, I would like to read that one.

Ancient Judaism In Ancient Judaism, his fourth major work on the sociology of religion, Weber attempted to explain the “combination of circumstances” which resulted in the early differences between Oriental and Occidental religiosity.[43] It is especially visible when the innerworldly asceticism developed by Western Christianity is contrasted with mystical contemplation of the kind developed in India.[43] Weber noted that some aspects of Christianity sought to conquer and change the world, rather than withdraw from its imperfections.[43] This fundamental characteristic of Christianity (when compared to Far Eastern religions) stems originally from ancient Jewish prophecy.[44]

I can forgive his use of the term “Jewish” in reference to the pre-“Jewish” Israelites of the Bible as his analysis still has value since he merely uses the Old Testament as his source and not any teachings of modern Jewry or Talmudic Judaism. I take the distinction “Ancient” in “Ancient Judaism” to mean he was drawing a sharp line of distinction between the ancient Biblical Israelite tribal confederacy and the modern Talmud based but largely atheistic and non-tribal/non-agrarian “Judaism.” Though the modern Jew is fiercely tribal in an ethnocentric sense, they are not at all tribal in the sense of the Agrarian or Kinist or ancient Israelite belief that a loose confederation of smaller agriculturally based societies or tribes is better than a massive urban collective or hive state centered around economic materialism and a god-like central government. I think it is plain to see from Max Weber’s work where the West went wrong when it took the Biblical example as it’s model. The prophets clearly warned Israel of chasing after the false gods/idols of other nations and desiring to have a king to rule over them as the other nations had. The West has I believe risen and declined based on which Biblical tradition it most closely modeled itself on, either the Biblical era of kings and monarchy or the era of tribal confederacy with no central authority other than God Himself as revealed in His Word which was Law.

more on “Ancient Judaism” by Max Weber:

Weber analyzes the interaction between the Bedouins, the cities, the herdsmen and the peasants, including the conflicts between them and the rise and fall of the United Monarchy. The time of the United Monarchy appears as a mere episode, dividing the period of confederacy since the Exodus and the settlement of the Israelites in Canaan from the period of political decline following the Division of the Monarchy. This division into periods has major implications for religious history. Since the basic tenets of Judaism were formulated during the time of Israelite confederacy and after the fall of the United Monarchy, they became the basis of the prophetic movement that left a lasting impression on the Western civilization.[45]

Weber discusses the organization of the early confederacy, the unique qualities of the Israelites’ relations to Yahweh, the influence of foreign cults, types of religious ecstasy, and the struggle of the priests against ecstasy and idol worship. He goes on to describe the times of the Division of the Monarchy, social aspects of Biblical prophecy, the social orientation of the prophets, demagogues and pamphleteers, ecstasy and politics, and the ethic and theodicity of the prophets. Weber notes that Judaism not only fathered Christianity and Islam, but was crucial to the rise of modern Occident state, as its influence were as important to those of Hellenistic and Roman cultures. Reinhard Bendix, summarizing Ancient Judaism, writes that

  free of magic and esoteric speculations, devoted to the study of law, vigilant in the effort to do what was right in the eyes of the Lord in the hope of a better future, the prophets established a religion of faith that subjected man’s daily life to the imperatives of a divinely ordained moral law. In this way, ancient Judaism helped create the moral rationalism of Western civilisation.[46]


Weber is considered one of modern sociology’s forefathers. In that respect and for the same reasons that his more right leaning German contemporaries criticized him Max Weber can also be useful for studying where modern sociology went wrong from the beginning. I haven’t studied him so I couldn’t say where or how his thinking went wrong and ended up as modern thought but I am sure it is there waiting to be discovered by the curious Kinist who knows what to look for.

But as far as I can tell it would appear to me that modern sociology went wrong sometime after Max Weber because I cannot see any serious flaws in what I’ve read by him so far though that consists entirely of quotes and excerpts and not any serious study of his entire works. For example he was critical of both socialism and Marxism and lamented the shift from traditional value oriented society to a goal-oriented one describing it as a “polar night of darkness”.

Economy and Society (1922), and one that he did not particularly like himself – he only thought it particularly efficient and successful. In this work, Weber outlines a description, which has become famous, of rationalization (of which bureaucratization is a part) as a shift from a value-oriented organization and action (traditional authority and charismatic authority) to a goal-oriented organization and action (legal-rational authority). The result, according to Weber, is a “polar night of icy darkness”, in which increasing rationalization of human life traps individuals in an “iron cage” of rule-based, rational control.[53] Weber’s bureaucracy studies also led him to his analysis – correct, as it would turn out, after Stalin’s takeover – that socialism in Russia would lead to over-bureaucratization rather than to the “withering away of the state” (as Karl Marx had predicted would happen in communist society).[54]

It has been noted that Weber was not a “liberal in the American sense,” and not, “strictly speaking, a democrat in the sense that the French, the English, or the Americans gave the term.”

In the final years of his career Weber became vocal critic of socialism, both in European and Bolshevik variants. He saw Lenin’s ideal of applying hierarchical mode of organization in the firm on society at large as an attempt to universalize serfdom. He believed that workers in socialist society still would work in hierarchy, but this time in much worse form of it, fused with government power.[citation needed]

Weber developed, independently from Ludwig von Mises, a critique of socialism as an economically impossible system.[57] His works also influenced the Austrian School of economics and authors like Friedrich von Hayek and members of the “Mises circle” of authors such as Gary North who’s writings can be found at LewRockwell.com.

 Signature 

ANOINTED NATION EMBASSY OF CROSSVILLE
Real Christianity uncut, uncensored. Accept no substitutes!

Sedition Project Games
Retro computer games are fun and easy to make. Find out how, today!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 June 2009 02:19 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
Forum Regular
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  87
Joined  2008-02-15

Jacob Peter Mayer wrote a 1944 critique of Max Weber, entitled Max Weber and German Politics: a study in political sociology. Published in England during the war, this work never appeared in German translation.[3][4] Mayer had been an archivist for the Social Democratic Party (SPD) and the primary book reviewer for the Vorwärts, the SPD party paper. He was a target of Nazi persecution, from which he escaped to England. There he became involved with the Labour Party and was a member of the faculty at the London School of Economics during the last part of the Second World War.[6]

Mayer labeled Weber’s philosophy as the “new Machiavellianism of the steel age.” The conception of the state that Weber supported was viewed as a middle phase in a destructive tradition of German realpolitik - a tradition that Mayer saw to extend from Bismarck to Hitler.[3][4] Mayer interpreted a “tragic” satisfaction with which Weber was seen to embrace “the empty character” of Heinrich Rickert’s neo-Kantian philosophy of value.[4] Mayer viewed Weber’s value theory as a nihilistic contribution to the rise of National Socialism.

 Signature 

ANOINTED NATION EMBASSY OF CROSSVILLE
Real Christianity uncut, uncensored. Accept no substitutes!

Sedition Project Games
Retro computer games are fun and easy to make. Find out how, today!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 June 2009 02:48 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]
Forum Regular
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  87
Joined  2008-02-15

I found this concept interesting. I have often argued against syncretism and the synthesis of the Hegelian dialectic as if they were one and the same idea. I never thought of distinguishing syncretism and synthesis in this way. I always had a feeling Marx had an unfair monopoly on Hegel.

Guénon distinguishes synthesis from syncretism: syncretism consists in assembling from the outside a number of more or less incongruous elements which, when so regarded, can never be truly unified. Syncretism is something outward: the elements taken from any of its quarters and put together in this way can never amount to anything more than borrowings that are effectively incapable of being integrated into a doctrine “worthy of that name”. To apply these criteria to the present context of the symbolism of the cross:

  [...] syncretism can be recognized wherever one finds elements borrowed from different traditional forms and assembled together without any awareness that there is only one single doctrine of which these forms are so many different expressions or so many adaptations related to particular conditions related to given circumstances of time and place.

A notable example of syncretism can be found, according to Guénon, in the “doctrines” and symbols of the Theosophical society. Synthesis on the other hand is carried essentially from within, by which it properly consists in envisaging things in the unity of their principle. Synthesis will exist when one starts from unity itself and never loses sight of it throughout the multiplicity of its manifestations; this moreover implies the ability to see beyond forms and an awareness of the principal truth. Given such awareness, one is at liberty to make use of one or another of those forms

I was once once enamored with the works of Jungian comparative religion studies and still have the mythology series and other books by Joesph Campbell [Primitive Mythology, Eastern Mythology, Occidental Mythology and Creative Mythology as well as The Hero with a Thousand Faces]. When I got serious about my Christian beliefs I felt obligated to put the idea of finding common threads in world religions and ancient mythologies behind me. But if viewed from the above perspective perhaps there is room for comparative religious studies from a Christian perspective.

 Signature 

ANOINTED NATION EMBASSY OF CROSSVILLE
Real Christianity uncut, uncensored. Accept no substitutes!

Sedition Project Games
Retro computer games are fun and easy to make. Find out how, today!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 June 2009 02:58 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]
Forum Regular
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  87
Joined  2008-02-15

Man I am lovin this guy Russell Kirk! Check this out especially the second one but also the first since Libertarianism was also founded by and still dominated by anti-Christ Jews:

Kirk and Libertarianism

Kirk grounded his Burkean conservatism in tradition, political philosophy, belles lettres, and the strong religious faith of his later years; rather than libertarianism and free market economic reasoning. The Conservative Mind hardly mentions economics at all.

In a polemic essay, Kirk (quoting T. S. Eliot) called libertarians “chirping sectaries,” adding that they and conservatives have nothing in common (despite his early correspondence with the libertarian Paterson). He called the libertarian movement “an ideological clique forever splitting into sects still smaller and odder, but rarely conjugating.” He said a line of division exists between believers in “some sort of transcendent moral order” and “utilitarians admitting no transcendent sanctions for conduct.” He included libertarians in the latter category.[6][7] Kirk, therefore, questioned the “fusionism” between libertarians and traditional conservatives that marked much of post World War II conservatism in the United States.[8]

Kirk’s view of “classical liberals” is positive though; he agrees with them on “ordered liberty” as they make “common cause with regular conservatives against the menace of democratic despotism and economic collectivism.”[9]

Tibor R. Machan defended libertarianism in response to Kirk’s original Heritage Lecture. Machan argued that the right of individual sovereignty is perhaps most worthy of conserving from the American political heritage, and that when conservatives themselves talk about preserving some tradition, they cannot at the same time claim a disrespectful distrust of the individual human mind, of rationalism itself.[10]

Jacob G. Hornberger of the Future of Freedom Foundation also responded to Kirk.[11]

Kirk and Neoconservatism

Late in life, Kirk grew disenchanted with American neoconservatives as well. On December 15, 1988, he gave a lecture at the Heritage Foundation, titled “The Neoconservatives: An Endangered Species.” As Chronicles editor Scott Richert describes it,

  [One line] helped define the emerging struggle between neoconservatives and paleoconservatives. “Not seldom has it seemed,” Kirk declared, “as if some eminent Neoconservatives mistook Tel Aviv for the capital of the United States.” A few years later, in another Heritage Foundation speech, Kirk repeated that line verbatim. In the wake of the Gulf War, which he had opposed, he clearly understood that those words carried even greater meaning.[7]

Midge Decter, director of the Committee for the Free World, called Kirk’s line “a bloody outrage, a piece of anti-Semitism by Kirk that impugns the loyalty of neoconservatives.” [12] She told The New Republic, “It’s this notion of a Christian civilization. You have to be part of it or you’re not really fit to conserve anything. That’s an old line and it’s very ignorant.”[8]

Samuel Francis called Kirk’s “Tel Aviv” remark “a wisecrack about the slavishly pro-Israel sympathies among neoconservatives.[13]

 Signature 

ANOINTED NATION EMBASSY OF CROSSVILLE
Real Christianity uncut, uncensored. Accept no substitutes!

Sedition Project Games
Retro computer games are fun and easy to make. Find out how, today!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 June 2009 03:52 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]
Forum Regular
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  87
Joined  2008-02-15
John Marshall - 25 June 2009 01:23 PM

There once was a Kinism entry in Wikipedia, but their editors decided that we were not enough of a “movement” to warrant inclusion in their encyclopedia. Our serious intellectual output has been scant, though there is a lot of well thought out blog entries and some essays. I think you came aboard after the Review links were taken down, but we once published an “academic” review that was intended to give Kinism more intellectual credibility, but I shuttered it due to the effort involved. I do have plans to revive the journal, however, as we seem to have come across some new talent, some of which you see on these forums.

The obstacle we face is that none of us are true academics. We don’t have the kind of time that academics are given to write. We have to balance work-famiily-church-kinism. I am working on a book-length treatise, but it will be at least a year before it comes out, and possibly two.

Again, thanks.

My pleasure. I enjoy the time I spend gathering intel. Sometimes I feel like Johny-5 from that entertaining 80’s flick Short Circuit. “NEED INPUT!” “MORE INPUT!” lol

I wouldn’t worry too much about not being regarded as much of a movement right now. Just look back at the history of any movement that has since achieved universally known status. Every one began in obscurity and had a long history of intellectual or academic development which it’s modern inheritors or the great mass of nominal followers at least are not even aware of. Many Christians who jumped on the bandwagon of Christian Right political action like those who campaigned for Ralph Reed were not even aware of the debt they owed to Van Til, Rushdooney, Chalcedon, ICE and the whole Christian Reconstructionist movement and Dominion Theologins like Chilton [my favorite] for all those years of behind the scenes intellectual foundation laying. And ultimately that is why they failed to carry their “conservative revolution” all the way. For lack of knowledge my people perish…

This is a thinktank nurturing the seeds of a bright and promising future building on the best of the past but looking toward a better future. I believe your book will be very well received and may mark a real turning point for Kinism. I believe in the power of a book to change the world. Just look at what the Bible did! I wonder what the world would be like if it had never existed. Would the Law written on our hearts and the revelations ascertained from the Lord’s handiwork of creation/nature have been enough?

Then again, some might argue that even armed with a handbook for living written by God Himself [the Bible] men still haven’t managed to build and maintain a sustainable and perfectly just and healthy society. To which I usually argue two points.

1. It isn’t God that failed to offer workable solutions to our problems it is man that has failed to come to a consensus and work together in an effort to put God’s solutions into practice. Like the old saying ‘too many chiefs not enough indians’ men too often either look for other men to lead them or want to do the leading themselves when both types ought to be following not man but God.

2. Most of the criticism of the sort that accuses God’s plan of failing are like the Pharisees who did not really understand God’s plan or how He works. They are thinking like the first century Judeans who expected the Messiah to set himself up as King of the World and as Conqueror in the style of Alexander the Great It was the same thinking that built the Tower of Babel which God destroyed and scattered. The center of authority is in Heaven not on earth. It is spiritual not physical. That is the only solution. Seek ye first the Government of God in Heaven and model your society on earth as it is in heaven. Everything else takes care of itself naturally. Consider the lilies of the field or the birds of the air. They are provided for by the order God set up. They never question His authority or try to set up their own in place of Him. We have and still do and that is why we suffer so much and find that no effort seems to amount to anything or make things better.

Another problem with these critics is their universalism. Just like the Tower builders of old the only solution they can conceive of must be global in nature of they do not consider it a solution at all. They would do well to heed the Biblical wisdom to get their own house in order before they worry about the house next door [houses being analogous to nations and even whole races] which is the same principle Jesus tried to teach the wayward Pharisees when He told them to pull the log out of their own eye before they tried to point out the spec in their neighbor’s eye.

 Signature 

ANOINTED NATION EMBASSY OF CROSSVILLE
Real Christianity uncut, uncensored. Accept no substitutes!

Sedition Project Games
Retro computer games are fun and easy to make. Find out how, today!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 June 2009 10:44 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]
Inner Circle
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2182
Joined  2008-02-18

Ken,

Interesting links thanks for posting them.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 July 2009 03:13 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  667
Joined  2007-01-26
Ken - 25 June 2009 02:58 PM

Man I am lovin this guy Russell Kirk! Check this out especially the second one but also the first since Libertarianism was also founded by and still dominated by anti-Christ Jews:

Kirk and Libertarianism

Kirk grounded his Burkean conservatism in tradition, political philosophy, belles lettres, and the strong religious faith of his later years; rather than libertarianism and free market economic reasoning. The Conservative Mind hardly mentions economics at all.

In a polemic essay, Kirk (quoting T. S. Eliot) called libertarians “chirping sectaries,” adding that they and conservatives have nothing in common (despite his early correspondence with the libertarian Paterson). He called the libertarian movement “an ideological clique forever splitting into sects still smaller and odder, but rarely conjugating.” He said a line of division exists between believers in “some sort of transcendent moral order” and “utilitarians admitting no transcendent sanctions for conduct.” He included libertarians in the latter category.[6][7] Kirk, therefore, questioned the “fusionism” between libertarians and traditional conservatives that marked much of post World War II conservatism in the United States.[8]

Kirk’s view of “classical liberals” is positive though; he agrees with them on “ordered liberty” as they make “common cause with regular conservatives against the menace of democratic despotism and economic collectivism.”[9]

Tibor R. Machan defended libertarianism in response to Kirk’s original Heritage Lecture. Machan argued that the right of individual sovereignty is perhaps most worthy of conserving from the American political heritage, and that when conservatives themselves talk about preserving some tradition, they cannot at the same time claim a disrespectful distrust of the individual human mind, of rationalism itself.[10]

Jacob G. Hornberger of the Future of Freedom Foundation also responded to Kirk.[11]

Kirk and Neoconservatism

Late in life, Kirk grew disenchanted with American neoconservatives as well. On December 15, 1988, he gave a lecture at the Heritage Foundation, titled “The Neoconservatives: An Endangered Species.” As Chronicles editor Scott Richert describes it,

  [One line] helped define the emerging struggle between neoconservatives and paleoconservatives. “Not seldom has it seemed,” Kirk declared, “as if some eminent Neoconservatives mistook Tel Aviv for the capital of the United States.” A few years later, in another Heritage Foundation speech, Kirk repeated that line verbatim. In the wake of the Gulf War, which he had opposed, he clearly understood that those words carried even greater meaning.[7]

Midge Decter, director of the Committee for the Free World, called Kirk’s line “a bloody outrage, a piece of anti-Semitism by Kirk that impugns the loyalty of neoconservatives.” [12] She told The New Republic, “It’s this notion of a Christian civilization. You have to be part of it or you’re not really fit to conserve anything. That’s an old line and it’s very ignorant.”[8]

Samuel Francis called Kirk’s “Tel Aviv” remark “a wisecrack about the slavishly pro-Israel sympathies among neoconservatives.[13]

It is for this reason that Kinism is inimical to Libertarianism, which is not conservative or traditional at all, despite sharing with conservatism a similar critique of statism, and to some extent collectivism (though not entirely). I wrote a short essay on my weblog on the difficulties a Kinist finds in Libertarianism-economism. Though Rand criticized Libertarianism to some extent, it is clear that her “Objectivism” and Libertarianism share a common foundation. Rand was friends with and corresponded with the same Paterson that Kirk corresponded with. Economism is what I call the Rand philosophy, since I refuse to call it Objectivism. It has nothing to do with objectivity, and everything to do with contending that rationality=ontological objectivity, which is absurd. It means when men disagree they are being irrational. This approach means taking reason, which is an instrumentality, and making it substantive, that is, a set of conclusions at which all men who are rational arrive. This is a sort of rationality mysticism that is foundational to her theory of natural rights and natural law.

The repudiation of Libertarianism by Kirk, marks him as a true Burkean conservative, but Traditionalism is something that is allied, but distinct from that. I think that there is a gap in scholarship regarding the continuity between ancient Traditionalism and both pre-modern and modern conservatism.

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 2
1
 
{google_analytics_script}