the Kinist State
Posted: 23 October 2008 12:49 PM   [ Ignore ]
Inner Circle
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  138
Joined  2008-01-29

Ran into an interesting word the other night regarding natural government as the organization of families, “estatism”.

Has anyone heard of this before? Did a quick google search, and found this book:

“The Familial State” By Julia Adams. It may be purchased on Amazon. Adams discusses the estate system behind european monarchies and their disctinction from later forms of absolutism. Absolutism and debt appeared to be the midwife to the modern, bureaucratic state. Adams seems to borrow much from Max Weber.

Julia Adams. The Familial State: Ruling Families and Merchant Capitalism in Early Modern Europe. (The Wilder House Series in Politics, History, and Culture.) Ithaca: Cornell University Press. 2005. Pp. xi, 235. $35.00.

Historical sociologists such as Charles Tilly and Immanuel Wallerstein have impressed historians with provocative frameworks for understanding major historical transformations. Julia Adams positions herself to make a similar intervention with an ambitious reformulation of the dynamics of early modern state building. Her book adapts Eugen Weber’s model of patrimonial statehood by centering the gender and family components of household governance at the heart of Weber’s patrimonialism. Adams takes as her primary example the Dutch Republic rather than the English, French, or even Spanish cases that usually provide the master narrative for early modern state formation. She emphasizes that the oft-discussed family politics of early modern Europe involved the control of capital as well as more often highlighted political and cultural implications. She defines “these states under construction as familial states, stressing the ideal-typical tie between paternal political rule and the multiple arrangements among family heads that inhibit and shape the evolving political organizations and the economic flows they managed” (p. 4). These perspectives give a freshness to her work and to subjects that historians have been debating and discussing for decades.

How would estatism and differential, personalized liberties appear today? Anyway, I think Adam’s book has much to offer. I’ll try to add more to this thread as I delve into the subject.

Meanwhile, this link may also shed light—
http://www.yale.edu/sociology/faculty/pages/adams/ (some interesting pdf files)

How could reformers not see God conceded to give man both ethnos and familial Kings as suitable forms of Government? Deuteronomy seems to render these institutions very plain. The bias for contractual government and rights of parliament induced a constitutionalism which displaced personalized, family rule and the ‘justice’ of organic orders.  I think there is an aspect of Kinism which strikes deep against the political revolutions that belong to the Reformation. We are questioning the heart of modernism…
?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 October 2008 01:49 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Interested Party
RankRank
Total Posts:  34
Joined  2008-10-04

Kalko, I was reading Boethius’ Consolation of Philosophy (recommended, due to circumstances - barbarians invading Rome, a Christian senator imprisoned by a barbarian king), and he made a comment early in the book that seemed to me to contain the kernel or germination of the Christian, medieval ideal of a monarchy (a king who carries his scepter like a cross). I can’t look it up right now, but (of course) the modern ideals come from Roman paganism, which involved a rejection of monarchy as inherently tyrannical. Kingship was rehabilitated by the Christians, and the monarchies long opposed most of the organized evil and viral ideologies that cancerized the West.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 October 2008 01:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Interested Party
RankRank
Total Posts:  34
Joined  2008-10-04

And there is also Louis Bonald, who regarded kingship as the best defender (or perhaps only defender) of any achievable form of republicanism. A lot of thinkers (even pagans) today are talking of a “new Middle Ages” (Umberto Eco and others, vis a vis the Imperial decline of America in the late form). We should explore this avenue and theory of monarchism much more.

Note: Son of Uther has raised the issue (also via the Dutch) of federalism that operated in other European minor narratives (Johannes Althusius) and asked what Alan de Benoist can contribute today to the theory of federal headship and organic government. We may have to appeal to Swiss, Dutch, Danish models as over against Enlightenment models that triumphed in France, Germany, England.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 October 2008 09:48 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Inner Circle
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  138
Joined  2008-01-29

Thank you HOpe!

Obviously I’ve just scratched the surface of monarchism. I agree with everything you said, and will research some of the books and names you dropped. smile  It is certainly true that early monarchism has been maligned. Interesting how paganism has undermined Christian kingship…

Thank you for posting too! YOu have a wealth of information, and please share more! Wow…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 October 2008 10:31 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Interested Party
RankRank
Total Posts:  34
Joined  2008-10-04

You are too kind, but thank you anyway.

In Book I, Fortune comments to Boethius, quoting Homer, that the country (home of his soul) is not governed by majority rule (as Athens was) but “one its Lord and one its king.” I think that this may represent a return to the monarchical ideal, for it occurs as the Dark Ages open up. (Consolation of Philosophy, Book I, Chapter V).

And many people have helped me, so I’m just passing it on. You should read Erik Kuenhelt-Leddin (whom you may have heard of) if you are interested in pursuing monarchism further, intellectually. He is a Catholic (I am not). Lots of good observations.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 October 2008 11:16 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Inner Circle
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2182
Joined  2008-02-18

kalklokard,

I often think old New England is a society we should study and try to emulate in some ways. Pilgrims were very “Kinist” like in their thoughts. The left the Netherlands because they wished to remain English.

Related thread:
Those Misunderstood Puritans

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 November 2008 01:33 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3285
Joined  2007-05-04

There are a number of different opinions about the form of government a Kinist nation would have; some of us are monarchists, some, like myself, are American Constitutionalists/Traditionalists, and I am sure there are some out there with ideas I am not even aware of.

I read the following article with great interest, because it is one of the few I’ve seen which addresses the Biblical sources for republicanism vs. monarchy, and the resulting responsibility we have for how we vote November 4th. Or not vote, as the case may be.

Yes, God Does Tell Us Who To Vote For
by Scott T. Whiteman, Esq

Since every Evangelical Christian and man of worldly wisdom knows that God’s preferred mode of government is theocratic-monarchy, and that in a monarchy, the fiat will of the King rules, and the wishes of “the People” are irrelevant, you are probably already objecting to the premise, that God instructs us how to vote. 1.) God instituted a Monarchy, 2.) People don’t vote for kings; therefore, God does not regulate the vote. “The proposition is clear, because God’s law doth not regulate a non-ens, a mere nothing, or an unlawful power.”[1] And we Americans, with the unbridled right to vote, may therefore vote for the candidate of our choosing, neglecting entirely any absolute standards God might have. Since He is silent on voting we are free to make any prudential or private determinations about voting for the “lesser of two evils,” the candidate with the best chance at winning, or even the candidate with the best hair.

But then, perhaps in a age of rampant Biblical illiteracy and ignorance, we don’t know what we purport to know. Is it true that God instituted a Monarchy? Or was the form of Government first instituted by God, through Moses, a Constitutional Republic and various levels of covenants (Federalism) with “the People” having the primary place in God’s heart, government being instituted for His own Glory for the Public good?[2]

Worth a careful read.

God bless,
Laurel

 Signature 

Deo Volente, Deo Vindice.

God is not unjust; he will not forget your work and the love you have shown him as you have helped his people and continue to help them. Heb. 6:10

“Victory is won not in miles but in inches. Win a little now, hold your ground, and later, win a little more.”– Louis L’Amour

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 November 2008 02:22 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Inner Circle
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  138
Joined  2008-01-29

I thought texts like Ex. 18 and Deut 17 gave credence to an elected monarchy amognst the aristocracy or princes of Israel, with preference or consideration given to inherited rights and lineages? This would be an aristocratic, familial monarchism, where the King is no more than “first among equals”... concilarist, yet hierarchical and organic.

We often confuse absolutism with elective monarchy. We also attach the stigma of Rome to monarchism. I think it’s important to differentiate between the two. Furthermore,  I don’t read absolute, universal rights in the Bible. For example, how slavery or debt applied to brother israelites (christians) vs. pagans. ? Also, constitutionalism vs. common law. Liberties could vary in old days, and we have plenty examples of solemn vows and oaths of patriarchs and pricnes with respect to foreign peoples as well as kin. This would lead to a personalized arrangement of blood covenants, with socially classes and kin having varying degrees of priveleges and bondage. As vows and oaths progress, a system of common law develops. However, modern constitutionalism levels all personalized vows in exchange for an abstract equality of man. I’d much rather see us return to organic law. ?

Also would be interesting is how to apply such a government to modern day complexities and fragmentation? Would we replace parliament or congress with an ‘estate system’? I think estate systems seperated the temporal into at least two parts—the conquered peasantry and manor lords who were often foreign conquerors? How did the commons originate?  Did societies like Ireland and Scotland have a commons? Their tribal system remained intact whilie the Anglo-Saxon one was conquered by Norman over-class. ?

A lot to consier.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 November 2008 07:01 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Interested Party
RankRank
Total Posts:  34
Joined  2008-10-04

Laurel-

John Eidsmoe gave a speech at a conference (I think you can google him) in which he defended tribal republicanism as the best and most desirable form of godly governance.

Meanwhile, in the orgy of latent barbarism that will shortly commence, I found this little gem from a CNN website:

“mcain a b——obama should win mc cain a f—-n clown wit his old white a—he dont wanna stop the war innocent people dien fa no reason obama gone win wit his s—- a—obama all day b——.”

When liberals accuse you of a sin, you can be certain of one thing - it’s the sin that they are most cherishing in their heart, or else what they would do if they were in your shoes. Something to remember. And nothing proves that Democracy is bankrupt like the above.

Virtually anything would be better than this, republic or monarchy. That’s my vote.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 November 2008 08:15 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Inner Circle
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  138
Joined  2008-01-29

One thing for sure: if we had a monarchy we wouldn’t have to worry about a nonwhite unitarian being our King.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 May 2009 03:27 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  667
Joined  2007-01-26

The standard defense of the Legitimist monarchy (what some would call “absolute”) is Politics Drawn From Holy Scripture, by Bossuet. Bonald, Chateaubriand, and the other French Catholic “Reactionaries” are a wealth that needs to be read by Kinists, Ethnarchists, and those with related sympathies. Critics of the Enlightenment Ed. and Trans. by Christopher Olaf Blum (love the middle name) is a recent work from ISI Books that revives much of the more vital work by the Reactionaries.

Better yet, just go over to ISI and support those folks by buying their wonderful books. There is very little neoconservatism over there. The readers club is a good bargain, and they also have a trove of free PDFs and MP3 lectures by top academics focused on traditionalism and political/social reaction.

Erik Kuenhelt-Leddin’s rejection of “racism” as the equivalent of equality is unfortunate. Apparently his definition of culture includes the obtrusion of the un-assimilable. Kuenhelt-Leddin was a fixture at Buckley’s National Review. I’m trying harder and harder to find anything that was printed in the early National Review that I agree with anymore. I certainly agree with none of it now, and it isn’t even witty or engaging as before, even if I disagreed with it. It all looks like neoconservatism to me. The social-cultural homogeneity of pre-modern Europe was destroyed by the Enlightenment and the modernism/leftism it spawned. I guess that was a great gift to Europe! Try to reconcile these two quotes from Kuenhelt-Leddin,

We share with the beasts a craving for sameness and a gregariousness which makes us desire the company of people of our own age, sex, race, creed, political conviction, class and taste.

But it is exclusively human to have a thirst for diversity, i.e., to be happy in the company of those who are different from us in every respect, as well as to travel, to enjoy other foods, hear other tunes, see other plants, beasts, and landscapes.

This “thirst” for the exotic is a form of escapism and immaturity and is present in decadent societies where genuine culture has largely ceased to exist. It is one thing to respect and find interest in other cultures/peoples. It is quite another to thirst to be constantly in their company and to take their gods as your own gods. To me, this is a form of cosmopolitan decadence, and results from the rise of the isolation and deracination of the money cult, which Medieval man the world over had the sense to restrain.

Thanks again, Hope. You are bringing a lot of value and I look forward to seeing you around here more often, if you are able.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 May 2009 09:39 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]
Interested Party
RankRank
Total Posts:  34
Joined  2008-10-04

Love to be around here, John Marshall, Laurel, and Karkoland. There is a lot to be thought about and learned. Thank you for your undeserved and overly charitable welcome.

Ledhin noted that Americans view monarchy as politically childish. They may now view it as inherently evil.

Still there may be an opportunity here as postmodernism guts “what’s left”. If we begin to grow our own organic authority structures (large families/strong families, extended families, educated/prepared families, self-conscious families) there may not be anything left standing in the way of real authority. The words “organic, conciliarist, etc., etc.” are music to my ears. I am confused about the practical side of it, how it would look, how long it would take, what chance would it have against the corporate state, etc.

Someone urged me to read Dante’s De Monarchia. John of Paris (a medieval thinker) also wrote a treatise on organic government (secular) around the same time. You all are right - there is no shortage of materiale.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 May 2009 04:20 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]
Forum Regular
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  87
Joined  2008-02-15

I found this study of “Church” vs. “Ecclesia” to be helpful. What Is The Ecclesia? Written by Ben Williams and Published many years back in The American Christian.

 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: 28 May 2009 10:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3285
Joined  2007-05-04

This “thirst” for the exotic is a form of escapism and immaturity and is present in decadent societies where genuine culture has largely ceased to exist. It is one thing to respect and find interest in other cultures/peoples. It is quite another to thirst to be constantly in their company and to take their gods as your own gods. To me, this is a form of cosmopolitan decadence, and results from the rise of the isolation and deracination of the money cult, which Medieval man the world over had the sense to restrain.

Good points, JM.

Reminds me of “white bread” 50s America, which was, in its own way, out of touch with its true being and ready to be opened to the exotic of the 60s and downward from there.

God bless,
Laurel

 Signature 

Deo Volente, Deo Vindice.

God is not unjust; he will not forget your work and the love you have shown him as you have helped his people and continue to help them. Heb. 6:10

“Victory is won not in miles but in inches. Win a little now, hold your ground, and later, win a little more.”– Louis L’Amour

Profile
 
 
   
 
 
{google_analytics_script}