The first rise and fall of the Left.

Before the English Civil war, the state was Throne and Altar, what we would now call the right.  The state maintained slavery, enforced official religion, and everyone was required to pretend to believe in the divine right of Kings, much as today everyone is with equal plausibility required to pretend to believe that women are equal to men.

The English Civil war was intended to secure the rights of Englishmen, but to Englishmen’s dismay, what we would now call right dictatorship was replaced by a dictatorship of the predecessors of today’s left.

Holy leftists were continually outflanked by people even holier and lefter.

This is not some weird Moldbuggian reinterpretation of what leftism means.  Marx also traces the roots of the left to the movements holier than Cromwell and suppressed by Cromwell, the Levellers and the Diggers. A faction of the twentieth century hippy movement called themselves “The Diggers”, claiming to be continuation and revival of the seventeenth century Digger movement.

Cromwell became dictator and ended the left singularity, announcing that England had become sufficiently holy, and repressing those to his left equally with those to his right, much as Stalin declared the Soviet Union sufficiently socialist, and proceeded to kill everyone more socialist than Stalin, as well as everyone less socialist than Stalin. Threatened on the left, Cromwell took the royalist General Monck out of prison and gave him a high command, and his own personal right wing praetorian guard, now known as the Coldstream guards.

When Cromwell died, his son was to succeed him, but, since Cromwell and the holy left had been busily opposing monarchy and undermining monarchism, this failed to take.  General Monck then marched on London, defeating the New Model Army.  He set his Praetorians to “guarding” Parliament,  The puritan parliament immediately voted to dissolve itself and hold a new election with rules more favorable to the cavaliers.  A Royalist parliament was elected, still guarded by Monck’s Praetorians, the Coldstream guards, who continue to guard the British Parliament to this day.  The new Parliament restored the monarchy and Anglican theocracy.  For anyone to get near the levers of power, they had to swear fealty to the thirty nine articles, much as today you have to submit essays showing how progressive you are.

This loyalty oath remained in effect from approximately 1662 to 1826.

The restoration regime was an astonishing success.  It created the scientific revolution, the industrial revolution, and British adventurers conquered most of the world, forming what would later be called the British empire.

Under the restoration regime, science was high status – not official science, but real science, the scientific method.  Today, the scientific method is only carried out by subversive troublemakers, who are likely to be deemed enemies of the state, for example the climate skeptic movement.  Similarly, before the restoration, as today, the scientific method was largely carried out furtively.  The predecessor of the Royal Society was the invisible college, and the reason it was invisible is that they would rather not be seen.

I attribute the success of officially Anglican England to the fact that official Anglicanism was latitudinarian  In Bruce Charleton’s terminology, it tolerated heretics but not apostates.

Today, one must believe everything the state believes, one must believe all official truth, of which there is a great deal.  Deviation is tolerated amongst the lower classes, since they are deemed hopelessly ignorant, but the higher one is in society, the more precise and detailed one’s knowledge of the official truth is expected to be, and the higher one’s status, the more one is expected to agree ever more meticulously and in ever more precise detail.  In contrast, the thirty nine articles mostly focused on points where members of competing theocratic movements would disagree, mostly focused on the antigens of hostile enemy theocratic movements, permitting much greater intellectual freedom than can exist today.

Because the thirty nine articles were latitudinarian, they did not cause an ever rightwards movement analogous to today’s ever leftwards movement.  The requirement to enter the corridors of power was not to be sufficiently holy, which test Charles the Second would surely have failed, but to not be an adherent of Roman Catholicism, Puritanism, or Puritanism’s successor movements.

31 Responses to “The first rise and fall of the Left.”

  1. Dr. Faust says:

    So who’s going to be the one to be America’s first monarch? Will they ever stop moving left or just run the train straight off the bridge until we’re all raceless, androgynous, penniless mutates that pee sitting down? Obama is tempted no doubt but he’s both loved intensely by his followers and hated just as intensely. Clinton? As much as women will line up to vote for her solely because she’s a woman, women hate following other women, and most will end up despising her. Or is some right wing republican going to be fitted into office to play the patsy for the economic collapse?

    • Supersize Me Micky D! says:

      “So who’s going to be the one to be America’s first monarch?”

      A sage-queen or sage-king, as found in ancient Hindu culture would be a welcomed change to the hollow, cultureless, materialistic “leaders” the west has always known.

      Imagine having a leader who is so enlightened that they walk away from it all at some point to turn inward and achieve liberation from this temporal cycle?

      • Dr. Faust says:

        I think the fed and boys in the elite have more sense than people often give them. Anyone who spends time on conservative sites knows one thing. People really fucking hate Obama. His followers love him, so the numbers of approval get conflated. They don’t record the degree to which he’s hated.

        12 years of Democrats in the White House? That seems like it’s pushing things too far. At what point are they trying to sever all relations with the other half?

        An enlightened leader isn’t happening. Has it ever? Gandhi was the closest. There will never be another.

      • Dr. Faust says:

        Once the elite separate themselves from the people they can be overthrown. It’s through their political camouflage that they retain power. Through deception Obama can stand up on his podium and make claims to self-rule when most thinking people know this to be false.

  2. rightsaidfred says:

    I’m thinking that Western Man is so jaded and suspicious that we will get rule by machine: All hail Google! or Apple! or Wikipedia! Skynet, save us from ourselves!

    • Dr. Faust says:

      I wrote a short story about skynet and how I saw it really taking over and killing everyone. It was about how all of the people were so dependent on machines to survive skynet just shuts itself down and everyone dies. The only ones who survive are the amish who exist peacefully side by side with the super computer.

    • rightsaidfred says:

      My touchstone here is a couple of stories about chimpanzees raised in captivity and then released into the wild. Does not end well.

      • Zach says:

        As it shouldn’t.

        According to Robin Hanson we’re so full of shit, that it’s just enough to allow us all to live thanks to hypocrisy. The bs is strong! In our hearts and in our minds. It lives and breathes in each one of us!

        That “Honesty Experiment” interview, got me wondering. I think he’s on to something. Tends to fit with the Natural Rights rationale (it exists because its existing is why it exists). Natural Rights is concerned with deed and not thought or speech; but of course the two cross, meet each other, give a kiss, and separate…

        Similarly, as God, I could be witness to lives, your lives. Imagine the contrast between word, thought and deed.

        Doh!

  3. Red says:

    I wonder how they plan to continue ruling once they finish gutting the US military? Or are they beyond having to worry about military dominance and rule though propaganda alone?

  4. james says:

    Despite giving lip service to ‘the will of the people’ our current ruling class insists on behaving like a Peerage or Brahmins. If they came out as such, and declared themselves to be an untouchable permanent sanctified ruling class, it would be a step up from the current condition. Think how much time and effort and cognitive dissonance it would save society if the rulers didn’t have to pretend they cared what the peasants thought about the issues, or if regular people didn’t think they had to have opinions on every issue of public policy. I’ve been saying this for years.

    • jim says:

      In the lead up to the British civil war, the brahmins claimed to be the elect, or the Godly. When they got into power, proceeded to get up people’s noses twice as fast. They did stuff like smashing the stained glass windows and organs in the churches, banning sports on Sunday (Sunday being the only free day to engage in sports) and, of course, most infamously, desecrating marriage and banning Christmas.

      The underlying dynamic that makes them go off the rails is consensus plus holier than thou disease. Aristocrats don’t compete, as each aristocrat has his own rightful sphere of authority. When, however, you try to make decisions by consensus, you get competition to be more holy, which leads to the problems that happened with the puritans, and with the modern regime.

  5. VXXC says:

    An American Restoration would be Constitutional Government. See if you can find a common theme below.

    http://oaths.us/

    Military
    “I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”

    Police/Civil Service
    I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the constitution of the United States, and the constitution of the State of New York, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of ___________

    Citizenship
    “I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”

    • jim says:

      But what is the constitution? Supposedly the government still conforms to the constitution.

      This oath is ineffectual because it fails to identify the thing to be loyal to, nor the outside threat that is attempting to subvert that loyalty.

      The key intent and benefit of the constitution was that it limited the power of the federal government to defense and keeping the borders open between states, and it prohibited a federal level theocracy, thereby ensuring competition between states with free movement of people, good, and ideas between states.

      The prohibition against a federal level theocracy was smashed in the civil war, and the limits on federal government in the New Deal, leaving what is left of our constitution worthless.

      The Australian constitution is a lightly warmed over prison colony charter, and I don’t think anyone swears loyalty to it because it … because it is a warmed over prison colony charter, but on the whole it functions better than what is left of the American constitution.

      • Red says:

        Actual oaths with swearers repeating the words seem to have a lot more power than general oaths that are widely open to interpretation.

        • jim says:

          You want the swearer to repeat the exact words, to avoid him substituting something that sounds superficially the same, but which to him and his organization means something completely different.

          And you want the words to be anathematical to the most dangerous and threatening enemy organization, antibodies that specifically target their antigens, so that if their agent falsely swears the words, they will get the cold sweats that he is truthfully swearing the words, and start treating him with suspicion.

        • VXXC says:

          Exactly my point. The Oath has power.

      • Dr. Faust says:

        “The Constitution is a goddamn piece of paper.” I recall thinking that no one could be worse than Bush. Then I was wrong. Now I think no one can be worse than Obama and I’m terrified I’ll be wrong. At this point Stalin and his end of leftism sounds warm and inviting compared to endless progressivism.

      • VXXC says:

        Jim, The Oath has power. Men are behind the Oath, men will kill and die for the Oath. People believe in the Constitution. They are only recently aware that it does not govern.

        I answered your objections with “It is necessary…”.

        The Oath is where you get traction. Traction is where you get footing.
        Footing is when you push back, and then the enemy topples.

        Your objections are tailored to your specific enemy. Who thinks nothing of lying of course, so what use is any Oath or affirmation? Your basically asking for a Clinton Proof Oath.

        I have no proofs for this pudding, it does not exist.

        However I do have something real and tangilble. It’s imperfect. However when it governed it governed BEST.

        • jim says:

          The enemy is not one person, but incohesive group, more than a category, less than an organization. Having their agents lie further undermines their cohesion. If Acorn agents lie to us, they will lie to other progressives. If they use lies to get past loyalty oaths, they will trust each other even less than they do already.

  6. VXXC says:

    There’s your 39 Articles Jim. Atavism.

    It’s necessary to point out the words meant something.

    It’s necessary to point out naked treason, rampant corruption [they can be destroyed with this], ruinous plundering of the nation.

    It’s necessary to point out what’s quite obvious; they hate the majority people and culture and everything they built, and have been working tirelessly to ruin and destroy it and met with much success.

    It might be necessary to add article 40: The family is the foundation of all society and civilization. Probably essential.

    I think many of you are academics, chafing under the tyranny of fools. Understandable. But you must work with what you have, and what we have are Oaths and the Constitution.

    My actual politics can be summed in one word: Atavism.

  7. Zach says:

    Off-topic: Greatest progression in movie music history: 00:00 – 00:50
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ku7qnh261CY

    (I had to do it ya old dog!)

  8. VXXC says:

    On/Off Thread – Jim there are many lessons in Post-Progressive Transition and Reconstruction to be found in Russia.

    http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=8710&cpage=1#comment-99545

Leave a Reply