How To be King, in Point Form.

One of the first orders of business in the renewal of Statecraft for Restoration is defining the scope of Statecraft. This scope is enormous. Statecraft is a total human science, a synthesis that draws together everything from the nuts and bolts of everyday public policy to philosophy and even theology. Systematically defining the field and parsing it into subdivisions seems a very daunting task. To this end, I thought it would be a good a idea to turn to the world of old books for exemplars, and so present my translation of the tables of contents of vols. II and III of Restoration de la Science Politique by the immortal Karl Ludwig von Haller, the father of Reactionary political science and the man who actually coined the term, “Restoration”. These two volumes specifically cover issues pertaining to patrimonial States (i.e. those in which Sovereignty is a personal right based on proprietary ownership), and do so exhaustively, treating everything from abstract principles of Natural law to the details of a lifestyle fit for a King. I hope the tables prove to be useful in stimulating thought and discussion on positively and systematically defining the field of Statecraft in terms of both generalities and particular specialties and subspecialties, and also hope to arouse interest in this absolute classic of a book, one of the greatest treatises on the State and Statecraft I have ever read. 

Read more


Progressivism on Steroids: The “Conservative” Anti-Humanism of Jonah Goldberg

Way back when, as a student interested in the analysis of modern mentalities of government, I picked up the following, simple set of methodological procedures for going about the analysis of discourse, considered as the empirically observable point of access to mental phenomena that can’t be studied directly. Read more

Why the post-Liberal Right needs a Philosophy (and Philosophers) of Right

Post-Liberal thought at the present state of its art is a heterogeneous mess, a jumble of scattered critiques, arguments, analyses, and insights that seem to lack inner coherence; a crowd of particulars that await being gathered in a formal synthesis under a set of explicit and general abstract principles and thus given rigorous systematic unity comparable to that of a body of law (juridical or scientific; law is law). In some ways this is perfectly fitting for a movement that, after all, is congenitally suspicious of legalism and extols the virtue of traditional ways of living governed by a multiplicity of local manners, customs, and usages whose origins nobody can remember (cf. Max Weber’s “eternal yesterday”), time-honoured conventions and treaties, and unspoken gentlemen’s agreements which constitute the etiquette that keeps the peace between potentially belligerent men and institutes a usual way of doing things that strikes everybody as reasonable and fair. Read more

‘Committing Sociology’ After Trump’s Election? An Open Letter to the Canadian Sociological Association

Sirs, Madams:

“‘Committing Sociology’ After Trump’s Election” was the provocative title of a session of the Canadian Sociological Association 52nd Annual Conference. Here is the statement of purpose of the session:

The goal of this session is to have a critical discussion of the role sociologists can play in an era dominated by identity politics, the feeling by some people of being ignored or the fear of declining, post-truth, fake news, and the rise of xenophobia, misogyny, and intolerance. […] The goal of the session is to have a dynamic discussion of issues and the roles sociology and sociologists can play in navigating them. It is also to see if a network of sociologists can and should be formed to challenge the rise of non-sociological times.

The language strongly suggests Leftist political commitments on the part of the panelists, and the reference to “an era dominated by identity politics, the feeling by some people of being ignored or the fear of declining, post-truth, fake news, and the rise of xenophobia, misogyny, and intolerance” seems to allude to the rise of the new dissenting Right. What’s really remarkable here, though, is the suggestion that the rise of the new politics of the Right, which found partial expression in the election of Trump, is a harbinger of “non-sociological times”. This idea seems worth discussing at some length.

Read more

Degeneracy in the Age of Enlightenment and Beyond: The Trailblazing Neoreactionary Sociology of John Brown

This very long article, which you can find at Thermidor Magazine, represents at stab at the intellectual project of a “full reboot of the social sciences” associated with the political project of the new Reaction. I propose that this reboot entails overhauling the canon of historical founding figures of the discipline, among which an 18th century English writer by the name of John Brown should be counted. Brown clearly saw, at the very time the present Liberal order was only beginning to really get off the ground, that this order bears within itself an inherent potential to create self-destructive pathology. There is, of course, nothing unusual in this broad claim- but what is interesting is the way Brown makes it. Brown poses the problem of social pathology (“degeneracy”) in terms of a systematic feminization and overall degradation of the governing caste, which if carried far enough is guaranteed to render elites utterly unfit and the State incapable of functioning. In short, Brown looks at social problems of his times exactly the way the new Right does now, and uncovers that much of the pathology of the present was already clearly present in the England of 1757 in an early form. I critique some shortcomings in Brown’s analysis of the etiology of the disease, and go beyond him to discuss what has changed since his day, how, and why. I have brought almost everything I have in my intellectual arsenal to this piece- more accurately, short treatise- and dare say that you won’t have wasted your time by reading it.

Liberty after Liberalism: A Post-Constitutionalist View of Freedom

A certain rear-garde line has it that the new Reactionaries are a lot of totalitarian freedom-hating disciples of Hegel and Mussolini. I contend, against this sophomoric libel, that in reality the new Reaction is in a privileged position to enshrine personal liberty on rock-solid grounds and succeed where the now-discredited Constitutionalist tendency on the old Right failed. The trick, I argue, is to have the right idea of what “liberty” means. We will then be in a position to talk about what must be done to save the many, many virtues of the Anglo-American tradition of individual freedom from its self-defeating vices. Read all about it at Thermidor Magazine.

Liberalism: The God with no Name

Behind all the Liberal hoo-haw celebrating individual autonomy, choice, moral relativism, and atheism, there stands a deontology (and a rigorous one at that) and a corresponding theology. This theology dares not speak its name, nor the name of the God it worships, but it can clearly be seen at work in the discourses and practices of Liberalism if you look at them closely enough. And it turns out, under the microscope, that Liberalism isn’t quite as Liberal as it likes to make itself out to be. This is the subject I wrote about in my latest article for Thermidor Magazine. Check it out…