STEEL-cameralism v Absolutism Round 3

This round will be shorter. (See Round 1 and Round 2.)

Recently, Chris posted a manifesto for a UK Restoration.

There is much – very much – to agree with here. However, we see a major flaw in one particular proposal which get’s to the heart of one of our problems with Absolutism as a system.

Chris:

• The UK is a Catholic nation, the Church of England has been a horrendous disaster, and cannot be restored without the help of the Church. Unfortunately, this institution too has been overrun by communists. The Society of St. Pius X is the legal successor of the British Catholic Church. All clerics affiliated with the Novus Ordo Church are assumed communist until proven otherwise, and purged as functionaries.

 

• The Church has full authority over all educational institutions from kindergarten to university; she gains ownership of all existing media and publishing firms. Freedom of speech is not infringed; communists can remain communists and keep trying to peddle their poisonous product, to adults at least. But no point of strength won under communism can survive its fall. A state without a form of intellectual framework such as Catholicism is impossible. Protestantism is beyond the pale and is indelibly tainted. This only leaves Catholicism.

Before we begin our main critique, we must point out that we see a possible contradiction between the last proposal and the following claim:

All universities and seats of learning are placed in the hand of the military.

Maybe, Chris means that the education system will be first in the hands of the military and then handed over to the Catholic Church.

If so fine. However, we ask: why should the military give up control?

Anyway, let’s press on.

The problem with the proposal to make Catholicism the official religion in the UK is that it would almost certainly lead to violence, disorder and even civil war, and it would likely fail.

What, we ask, about the Northern Irish Protestants or the Protestants in Scotland? Many of these people would be supporters of (a) reactionary regime. If, however, someone tried to establish a throne and altar Catholic regime, (a system that is as alien as an Islamic Caliphate) goes against the last five-hundred years of English law and custom (supposing you care about this). It will have little support in these regions – never-mind England.

Firstly, this is a problem with the Absolutist  strategy – it has less chance of working than a different reactionary program – such as STEEL-cameralism.

We recommend the following book for a discussion of the difficulties that such a project faces in general and what kinds of political formulas that a military who have taken power must use to win popular support (even if such support is only temporary, which it will for an Absolutist).

A more general criticism, however, is that this kind of proposal suffers from what Edward Luttwak termed, in a different book, “strategic autism”. (The person or people – such as China’s leaders – are NOT literally “autistic”).

The following passage, from this review of Luttwak’s book, captures the concept well:

First, along with other great powers, China is “autistic”—the demands of managing a sprawling and diverse nation bring to the fore leaders who typically lack experience or perspective on international affairs. Great-power autism reduces the ability of the regime as a whole to appreciate mounting hostility caused by its actions.

Lastly, we will address theoretical issues or the question of statecraft.

Chris writes:

A state without a form of intellectual framework such as Catholicism is impossible.

What kind of impossibility does this mean?

Logical?

Metaphysical?

Practical?

Or, does it mean that it is unlikely?

How so?

Why, we ask, does the state care about what people worship?

Why, indeed, does the state – especially the democratic state, place so much emphasis on total conformity to a set of abstract Ideals?

To answer these questions, one must understand the nature of the state itself and how a democratic state fosters Universalism.

Universalism is just another word for Catholicism.

Catholicism and Universalism are two-sides of the same coin.

Universalism has more energy and ambition that Catholicism (because it is younger or perhaps because it can mutate and adapt better in a democratic state. )

To think that a state needs the kind of all embracing ideological system, is to still be thinking in the democratic idiom.

There are many lessons from the Grand Master, and here is one:

The state is not a “mystical” enterprise; it is not the “repository” of our hopes and dreams and desires.

The state is a business – a bloody business.

This is the mistake, or an oversight, that even someone as evidently talented as Carlsbad makes. (See this post, and the comment we left). Carlsbad thinks that there are only two possibilities:

1: A regime of shop-keepers. (Davos Man).

2: A regime of priests.

There is, however, a third possibility. The third possibility is the STEEL-cameralist one.

There can be three kinds of states:

1: Those run on the charity formula.

2: Those run of the business formula.

3: Those run on the military formula.

Catholicism is option 1. So is Communism and so is Progressivism.

This is not surprising, since they all stem from the same source: Christianity.

Government, cannot, however, necessarily be a charity because charity is voluntary. 

Government is necessary. 

Thus, the attempt to fuse religion and the state – which is what the left seeks (as Prince Metternich made clear – see here.)  – always leads, in reality, to a state that is a criminal enterprise.

One of the most important lessons that we should learn from the Grand Master is that a well structured state no longer needs political formulas.

Beyond preventing crimes against persons and property, the only thing the state really cares about – regarding its tenets – is that the rent is paid, on time and in full.

If, however, you want to have a full-blown ideology, we would suggest not attacking the latest and greatest edition of De Jouvenel’s Minotaur with an earlier, out-competed version.

You must attack it with something new. Something which it is has no prepared defenses against.

If you can, never attack the enemy head on, where they are at their strongest.

Attack them in the flank and rear.

IF STEEL-cameralism needed something more substantive for a worldview, if only to defeat all the others, then the CANNON it would bring up would be something called:

Philosophical Naturalism.

This is the Imperial Guard of Imperial Energy, and we generally don’t like to commit it unless we have to.