Returning to Old Order vs. Letting a New Order blossom from the Understanding of Original Order
Posted by Guest Blogger on Friday, April 17, 2009 at 08:14 PM
by Happy Cracker
LindsayWheeler brought up an interesting point yesterday about a return to the Old Order, which he defines as being monarchical rule and Christianity. Permit me to think aloud ...
It seems to me that a fraction of New Right thinkers, who may or may not be represented on this website, desire a return to an even Older Order - i.e. to an order which predates Christianity.
Now we can “return” to an old order, if that order was historically well-documented, simply by imitating the outlines and defining characteristics of that order. In fact, there is no other way we can return except by pretending to uphold the old order and declaring its advent politically. What we are essentially doing is trying to re-enliven a set of past historical circumstances by aping the essential features of those circumstances in our own lives. A fitting analogy would be to say that this is like trying to relive a specific phase of your adolescent past, by gathering together the items you have from those days and doing the activities you did in that phase.
The first thing to understand about this is that this would be a profoundly superficial process. It would necessarily be a matter of recreating the outward symbols and manifestations of the Old Phase, while the context of these actions and the meanings attached to them have been irretrievably altered by intervening experience. One would walk through the forests of one’s youth, dressed in clothes harkening back to those bygone days, all the while listening to music that one listened to at the time: yet the old context cannot be fully retrieved, and what can be retrieved will be viewed through an intervening layer of meta-context which knows this to be a re-enactment of past events. Its strange for human beings to behave in this insincere way.
Returning to the idea of monarchist reinstauration: We proclaim a King, some nobles, and we have a reinstauration of the old order. Needless to say, this old order thus resurrected will be in so many ways a new order - only its rough organizing principles could be said to be from the Old Order. Beneath this structure would breathe a new life - and the whole project would probably be fraught with absurdity as the contrast between new and old became everywhere present. But the superficial nature of the instauration - essentially imitating old names, styles of dress, and organizational charts - is what is important in this consideration.
There will no doubt be some essential elements which necessitated and justified aspects of the Old Old Order’s existence, which we in the New Old Order will lack. These are the things that create context for action, such as: limits of knowledge. Limits are important for defining the context, by defining what is known and unknown - what belongs to the space of speculation and imagination, and what to tangible knowledge. We have a completely different body of knowledge from those people in the period of monarchical rule in Europe. Lacking an essential, yet intangible, element such as this will result in deviations in meaning between actions carried out in the context of the Old Old Order versus those carried out in the New Old Order.
One might not, for example, be able to watch a post-reinstauration King hold court with the same degree of patience and reverance as the Old Old Peasants did, firstly because one is born in an age of rapid information access; secondly, because knowledge of the existence of thriving states under the absence of monarchical rule constrains the dimension of one’s reverence for a King. In order to rectify this deviation, one could then arrange to have those who fail to show proper deference clubbed - but Old Old Peasants didn’t need to be clubbed to experience reverence for the King, so this one example of a deviation will ruin the sincerity of our play acting. Furthermore, once one begins to invent new material outside the framework allotted, the meta-context implicit in these actions will infect other thought processes and ruin the naivete which we are attempting to reconstruct.
This idea is actually quite funny, one can see a great deal of unintended humor resulting from a seriously-intended reinstauration event.
Some members of the New Right seem to be looking for an older order than the “Old Order” - they seem to be looking to paganism, or the reverence for germanic heroism, or some such primeval order.
Perhaps however it is most honest and respectful to those who pursue this path, to say that they are looking to aspects of the old order. It is certainly possible to re-enliven aspects of older orders, especially if they are found to compensate for a perceived lack in our present order. This is constantly being done in music and fashion - one simply does not attempt this for the totality of contexts or for such causatively deeply pre-determined areas of human life as political organization. It’s OK to bring something back if one does it in a way that contributes something, as opposed to something which demands a further readjustment of established context in order to validate it. For example, Jonathan Bowden wears a medallion with the opila rune on it - a rune symbolizing family, roots, inherited land, and similar ideas. Picture an opila painted in black across the side of a building - it could be a powerful symbol. Borrowing aspects of past orders is certainly possible.
Theoretically at least, underlying each of the temporal iterations of human order is an ontology (itself subject to change, but much more slowly!) which defines the limits of what is possible in each and all of the various individual orders. This is the “underlying order” - which we may attempt to augur, for example through a philosophical understanding of human history and/or through a scientific understanding of evolutionary biology. It is based in an aspect of our being which has a slower rate of change than the temporal and outward aspects of human society. (I am referring to genetics, but the advent of genetic engineering problematizes the idea of contrasting rates of change for human ontology and temporal aspects of human society).
There are limits on what can be known about past eras. Those seeking to reinstate aspects of an even older Old Order therefore face epistemological constraints which demand a cautious approach.
Yet a perfect understanding of our ontology - what we are as people, and as northerners (for those who are) and (for those who are) as Anglo-saxons - would theoretically contain all possible iterations of visible temporal orders. In striving to deepen this understanding of our identity, we can draw something like a Master Template defining, in rough terms, the aspects of our societies which we view as essential. Whether a King, a chieftain, or a Prime Minister rules over us - the deeper features of our character as a race which James Bowery has traced in his various threads and interviews, represent the ontology underlying the outward manifestation of societal order.
Actually, if this were to be rendered as a math problem, what it would look like is a series of conditional probability distributions showing how an intended outcome corresponded probabilistically to a given behavior, for the whole joint distribution of intended outcomes and human behaviors. How to control for time: the conditional probability distribution for all intended outcomes and behaviors is recalculated with new values as a result of each prior action - thus one needs not only a perfect knowledge of the probabilities of intended outcomes given the behaviors, but also a knowledge of how each of these impact future distributions. After each calculation the conditional distribution (Outcome | behavior) would have to be recalculated.
These are rough ideas for calculations for an individual human being - then one somehow has to account for all human beings.
Yet this is what we are approaching when we use intuitive philosophy to grasp for a template for our group life that will house comfortably our inner nature without destroying us strategically. It is an idea of the organizing principles which would allow us as a group to maximize happiness - even that sort of happiness that comes from struggle and becoming, from enlivening our higher natures, which is not always easy and forthright.
In short, the philosophical adventures of those who strive to seek an underlying Original Order are neither a desecration of the Old Order, which passes away naturally anyway, nor the attempt to reinstate a radical New Order which would in some way contradict the essential fundaments of that which we are.
They are an attempt to ascertain the Original Order which underlies both of these things.