Rectification of Names

Foseti explains (in his own comment thread) why our contemporary sovereign is properly described as the Cathedral. The terms works because:

It mocks those who think they’re above religion, it conveys information about the structure of their beliefs, and it’s beautifully concise.

(The effectiveness of this term is no reason to ignore its more technical Moldbuggian complement, the Modern Structure, suggests Anomaly UK.)

July 13, 2013admin 6 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Uncategorized

TAGGED WITH : ,

6 Responses to this entry

  • Mike Says:

    Indeed. I think that we also need to elaborate on the structure/hierarchy of the cathedral, just to flesh out the religious connotations.

    I think it looks something like this:

    1) Cathedral “priests” or “clerics”. These are your regular inner-party, academics, journalists and other consent-manufacturers, etc. Your regular left and moderates.

    2) “Ultra-cathedralists” – people who attack the cathedral for not being sufficiently cathedral-like. (Think of Savonarola.) This is the radical left.

    3) Cathedral “followers” or “laity”: Hipsters, bobos, SWPLs, or whatever you want to call them.

    4) Cathedral auxiliaries or “mascots” – these are the victim groups who provide the numbers at the ballot box. Blacks, women, “workers”, etc.

    That’s more or less in order of precedence, incidentally.

    [Reply]

    Posted on July 13th, 2013 at 7:42 pm Reply | Quote
  • Lesser Bull Says:

    Mascots? Say rather icons and lay orders.

    [Reply]

    Posted on July 13th, 2013 at 11:13 pm Reply | Quote
  • John Hannon Says:

    Cathedral is fine – “progressive” not so much. Opposing the progressive impulse implies that neoreactionaries are regressive: connotations of backward, primitive – retarded even.
    Maybe “crusader” would be a more useful term.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Greer: “The surrogate God that western civilization embraced, tentatively in the 19th century and with increasing conviction and passion in the 20th, was progress. In our time, certainly, the omnipotence and infinite benevolence of progress have become the core doctrines of a civil religion as broadly and unthinkingly embraced, and as central to contemporary notions of meaning and value, as Christianity was before the Age of Reason.”
    — discuss.

    [Reply]

    John Hannon Reply:

    That in its broad, general sense, progress is so universally taken to be good and desirable is precisely what makes it so difficult to oppose. Never mind that political attempts to implement it fail and have unintended consequences – its allure remains irresistible. (“Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better.” – Samuel Beckett)
    It might therefore be better for neoreactionaries to find a more focused term than “progressive” in order to delineate the malign aspect of progress more specifically.

    [Reply]

    Alex Reply:

    Lady laid low.

    [Reply]

    Posted on July 15th, 2013 at 12:57 am Reply | Quote

Leave a comment