Theonomy

This is the NRx sect that still hasn’t shown up. (The slot is wide open.) A critical but informative essay at First Things explains:

Bible law requires a radical decentralization of government under the rule of the righteous. Private property rights, especially for the sake of the family, must be rigorously protected, with very limited interference by the state and the institutional church. Restitution, including voluntary slavery, should be an important element of the criminal justice system. A strong national defense should be maintained until the whole world is “reconstructed” (which may be a very long time). Capital punishment will be employed for almost all the capital crimes listed in the Old Testament, including adultery, homosexual acts, apostasy, incorrigibility of children (meaning late teenagers), and blasphemy, along with murder and kidnapping. There will be a cash, gold-based economy with limited or no debt. These are among the specifics broadly shared by people who associate themselves with the theonomic viewpoint.

(‘Triggered’ by this — which is well worth re-visiting.)

ADDED: This is worth spelling out (from the same essay) —

A reconstructed world ruled by future Rushdoonyites will not, needless to say, be democratic. Rushdoony is straightforward in condemning democracy as a “heresy.” He writes that he is in agreement with John Dewey on the proposition that “supernatural Christianity and democracy are inevitably enemies.”

August 14, 2015admin 52 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Neoreaction

TAGGED WITH : , ,

52 Responses to this entry

  • Mai La Dreapta Says:

    Problem: how is “government under the rule of the righteous” different from the Progressive programme? Not for nothing is Cromwell regarded as the ancestor of the moralizing, totalizing crypto-Calvinists of Harvard.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Yes, I’m sure there are still a few niggling complexities to iron out.

    [Reply]

    scientism Reply:

    Self-declared righteousness is not righteousness.

    [Reply]

    Lucian of Samosata Reply:

    Someone is Spartacus, but I’m not seeing any procedure for determining who.

    [Reply]

    Posted on August 14th, 2015 at 2:45 pm Reply | Quote
  • Theonomy | Neoreactive Says:

    […] Theonomy […]

    Posted on August 14th, 2015 at 2:50 pm Reply | Quote
  • Nick B. Steves Says:

    Actual Theonomists are the intellectual descendants of the very people NRx blames most for Progressivism. You keep expecting them to show up, but they won’t touch it with a ten foot pole, seeing as it is overrun with atheists, papists and other pagans. The social ideas, assuming they could be preserved in amber, are an excellent fit; the social structure is cut from precisely the same cloth as the Cathedral. The NRx critique is that the structure is the problem; that ideas good or bad (and increasingly bad) follow the structure.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Sure. I don’t really expect them to turn up, sadly. But the fact that they are real Ultra-Calvinists is why they would be so stimulating. After all, NRx is cladistically-embedded in this lineage — it’s a dissident sect — that’s where all the nonlinearity, or irony, comes from.

    [Reply]

    Mai La Dreapta Reply:

    Less exciting than one would hope. I have known actual Reconstructionists; most of them were, alas, still democrats, and they believed that the programme of Reconstruction could/should be realized in the basic retarded democratic sense: by convincing enough people to vote for Reconstructionist politicians and then eventually hold a referendum to replace the Constitution with the Bible, I guess. The stupidity of this theory cannot be overstated. (At least they aren’t liberal democrats, in the sense that they recognize that the theonomist programme is totally at odds with the notion of civil and human rights.) Some of them do, I think, realize that democracy is unworthy as either means or end, but this tends to be something left implicit.

    The DE does better by making rejection of democracy step one, rather than a corollary left unspecified in the list of core tenets.

    [Reply]

    freihals Reply:

    “Sure. I don’t really expect them to turn up, sadly. But the fact that they are real Ultra-Calvinists is why they would be so stimulating. After all, NRx is cladistically-embedded in this lineage — it’s a dissident sect — that’s where all the nonlinearity, or irony, comes from.”
    There in lies the difficulty—so many “priests” in all the different but-related-by-first-principles ingroups are all to willing to disrupt the free association preparation building. So many are consumed with the dead fixtures of the beginning that they fail to see the end outcome is something of an entirely, qualitatively different structure.
    ESR has always been good at dispensing with the superficial and honing in at the true and essential matter.

    [Reply]

    Posted on August 14th, 2015 at 2:58 pm Reply | Quote
  • Chris B Says:

    We have a Calvinist derived reactionary current already.

    http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.tw/2009/07/why-carlyle-matters.html

    His absence from this post is puzzling.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    … but it’s one without contemporary religious expression, isn’t it?

    [Reply]

    Chris B Reply:

    Apart from neoreaction which is based on him? But having neglected that, it can be anything we want..
    We can even have a trike, maybe vote for Trump, set up a kingdom in Idaho; the skies the limits.

    [Reply]

    Posted on August 14th, 2015 at 3:46 pm Reply | Quote
  • Mark Citadel Says:

    I use the term Theonomy in a more broad sense than Rushdoony (FYI – I think he’s theologically wrong, but interesting). Theonomy comes from the root words Theos (God) and Nomos (Laws), and is a counterbalancing governing force for human beings alongside Autonomy (Law of the Self) Heteronomy (Law of the Other) and Patronomy (Law of the Father). These four laws, to varying degrees govern the lives of men. Theonomy via its etymology isn’t exclusive to Christianity, nor to any specific doctrinal interpretation such as that of Rushdoony.

    Actual Reconstructionists aren’t really Reactionaries in any sense. They favor the enforcement of an ideal that wasn’t truly realized ever in history although it may be a little more complicated than them simply being the new Puritans. If it had been realized, Christianity wouldn’t exist, and Judaism would remain under such laws today. Instead, those who are loyal to the Traditional ideal remain almost exclusively Catholics (in the tradition of Cortés) or Orthodox (in the tradition of Ilyin). I don’t know if Protestantism is in the end compatible with Reactionary concepts because it has an inescapable idea of dissolving any aristocratic element in the priesthood. That’s not to say there aren’t good Protestant Reactionary thinkers, but that a Reactionary State cannot be based on Protestantism without encountering real long term problems.

    Reconstructionism, like fascism, can be an ally against Liberalism, but in the end with the emergence of a Christian Reactionary State, I think it would look far more like Constantinople than Ancient Israel, which is precisely what Rushdoony seemed to advocate.

    [Reply]

    jay Reply:

    ”I don’t know if Protestantism is in the end compatible with Reactionary concepts because it has an inescapable idea of dissolving any aristocratic element in the priesthood. That’s not to say there aren’t good Protestant Reactionary thinkers, but that a Reactionary State cannot be based on Protestantism without encountering real long term problems.”

    The priesthood of all believers doctrine is inescapable and is inherent in the very scriptures themselves.

    [Reply]

    Mark Citadel Reply:

    The first several hundred years of believers would disagree. This kind of ideology leads to women in the priesthood.

    [Reply]

    jay Reply:

    What does 1 Peter 2:9 refer to then other than the priesthood of all believers.

    jay Reply:

    More Specifically 1 Peter 2

    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Peter+2&version=ESV

    OLF Reply:

    Churches of the Catholic Tradition (Vatican, Orthodox, Myaphisites and Nestorians), contrary to popular opinion, recognize priesthood of all believers, and the Sacrament of Chrismation is really nothing else save making the Baptized Christian into the member of the Royal Priesthood. What Churches of the Catholic Tradition don’t recognize however, is the equality of all priesthood, they have ecclesiastical hierarchy, and that is implied by the very title of an “ordinary priest”, indeed he is not just “priest”, he is a presbyter which means elder (of his parish). Likewise with bishop, the word is episcop which means that he is the overseer (of his diocese). I recommend the writings of St. Ignatius of Antioch if you want to better your understanding of traditional ecclesiology.

    Mark Citadel Reply:

    “What Churches of the Catholic Tradition don’t recognize however, is the equality of all priesthood, they have ecclesiastical hierarchy”

    This is what I was trying to say. Apologies it was worded incorrectly. One might draw comparisons between the two main strains of Islam. In Sunni Islam, the imams do not appear at all ranked in a hierarchical structure. One is not higher in a chain of command than the next, at least not in a way that isn’t only a deference based on acclaim. Shi’ite Islam is very different, closer to Catholic Christianity in this regard. One could say (referring back to the French Revolution), that there could not be a Protestant ‘estate’ in the same way there was a 1st estate of the Catholic clergy. It’s not exactly analogous to an aristocratic caste, I’d agree, but as close as one can get with regards to the religion.

    Protestantism has an intractable dislike of the Catholic priesthood model which sees priests as in hierarchy above common man, and I mean priest in the sense of those devoted to ritual, mediation, etc. by vocation, rather than just the faithful at large who are of course connected to God individually as well.

    As its commonly understood, at least in Catholicism, there are three types of priests

    “first, the priesthood of all believers (1 Peter 2:5–9);
    second, the ordained priesthood (Acts 14:23, Romans 15:16, 1 Timothy 5:17, Titus 1:5, James 5:14-15); and
    third, the high priesthood of Jesus (Hebrews 3:1)”

    The second is what this criticism refers to.

    Posted on August 14th, 2015 at 4:24 pm Reply | Quote
  • michael Says:

    Fr. Richard John Neuhaus died a few year back but back issues of first things will still have his hilarious and savage “While we are at it” section I used to go right to it when a new copy arrived.

    [Reply]

    Posted on August 14th, 2015 at 5:21 pm Reply | Quote
  • Theonomy | Reaction Times Says:

    […] Source: Outside In […]

    Posted on August 14th, 2015 at 6:30 pm Reply | Quote
  • ashv Says:

    Actual Calvinist here. Yeah, when I first read Moldbug the stuff he said meshed with what I’d read in Rushdoony, Bahnsen and North. Their answers were often deficient but nobody has pursued the relevant questions as well as they have. North in particular was instrumental in prying loose my unexamined assumptions about the Christian character of the American founding by pointing out that the Constitution created the first formally atheist government (by forbidding religious tests for office) — see his book on it at http://www.garynorth.com/philadelphia.pdf . I agree that they weren’t formally anti-democracy but they at least managed to not confuse democracy with virtue.

    Regarding the the Moldbuggian ultracalvinism thesis — it’s entirely correct, but its wider reception has ignored several details. It wasn’t the Calvinism per se that launched progressivism, it was Calvinism plus emphasis on emotional conversion experience plus Puritan character. English Puritanism was Calvinist, but so were Scottish Presbyterians and French Huguenots, neither of which contributed significantly to the development of progressivism (the former gave us Carlyle, of course). In America, the Half-way Covenant created Unitarians, the source of Abolition, Prohibition, Women’s Suffrage, and so forth. (The Unitarian Universalist history on this is largely accurate: http://uudb.org/articles/unitariancontroversy.html )

    America has had its share of rightist/reactionary Calvinists too, as seen in the Southern Presbyterians such as Dabney and Thornwell.

    [Reply]

    Posted on August 14th, 2015 at 9:15 pm Reply | Quote
  • Shlomo Maistre Says:

    Admin,

    Need theonomy, conceived broadly, denote reconstruction of a religious society based on Christianity specifically as opposed to other religions? If so, why?

    I fully concur with your perspective regarding the trichotomy – as I’ve written before:

    http://deductiveprosecutions.blogspot.com/2013/05/three-red-pills.html

    [Reply]

    Posted on August 14th, 2015 at 10:10 pm Reply | Quote
  • bob sykes Says:

    A major problem produced by Protestantism is the belief that the meaning of the Bible is self-evident and open to any moderately intelligent reader of good will. The existence of some 30,000 or so Protestant sects should raise some questions about that claim.

    The Bible is full of obvious contradictions and many problematic stories, like Judges 11:29-40. The Orthodox rabbis and the Roman Catholic Church have gone to extraordinary lengths to subdue and rationalize the text. As a long-time lapsed Catholic and a one-time reader of Fr. Neuhaus and First Things, I fail to understand where the Biblical authority for those statements comes from.

    On the other hand, I don’t really care. I am thoroughly agnostic and no longer regard the Bible as anything other than a loosely connected set of ancient stories, some going back tens of thousands of years, and certainly not a guide for good government or moral conduct.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    My understanding of the claim about biblical interpretation is that it’s enfolded into divine providence, as a revelatory event whose source is divine communication, not human hermeneutic capability. Scriptural intelligibility is itself a manifestation of grace.

    [Reply]

    Posted on August 15th, 2015 at 12:35 pm Reply | Quote
  • n/a Says:

    Ashv,

    “Regarding the the Moldbuggian ultracalvinism thesis — it’s entirely correct,”

    No, it’s much closer to entirely incorrect.

    “In America, the Half-way Covenant created Unitarians”

    That’s a novel version of history.

    The Unitarian movement was not called “Unitarian” initially. It began almost simultaneously in Poland-Lithuania and Transylvania in the mid-16th century. Among the adherents were a significant number of Italians.[8][9] In England, the first Unitarian Church was established in 1774 on Essex Street, London, where today’s British Unitarian headquarters are still located.[10] Since the theology was also perceived as deistic, it began to attract many people from wealthy and educated backgrounds,[11] although it was only at the late second half of the 18th century that it started to gain some wider traction within Christendom.[12] In the United States, it spread first in New England, and the first official acceptance of the Unitarian faith on the part of a congregation in America was by King’s Chapel in Boston, from where James Freeman began teaching Unitarian doctrine in 1784
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarianism

    [Reply]

    Posted on August 15th, 2015 at 3:42 pm Reply | Quote
  • n/a Says:

    “the source of Abolition, Prohibition, Women’s Suffrage, and so forth.”

    It’s also completely ahistorical to suggest abolitionism or women’s suffrage originated with Puritans.

    Abolitionism is a movement to end slavery, whether formal or informal. In Western Europe and the Americas, abolitionism was a historical movement to end the African and Indian slave trade and set slaves free. King Charles I of Spain, usually known as Emperor Charles V, following the example of the Swedish monarch, passed a law which would have abolished colonial slavery in 1542, although this law was not passed in the largest colonial states, and so was not enforced. Later, in the 17th century, English Quakers and evangelical religious groups condemned slavery (by then applied mostly to Africans) as un-Christian; in the 18th century, abolition was part of the message of the First Great Awakening in the Thirteen Colonies; and in the same period, rationalist thinkers of the Enlightenment criticized it for violating the rights of man. James Edward Oglethorpe was among the first to articulate the Enlightenment case against slavery, banning it in the Province of Georgia on humanist grounds, arguing against it in Parliament, and eventually encouraging his friends Granville Sharp and Hannah More to vigorously pursue the cause. Soon after his death in 1785, they joined with William Wilberforce and others in forming the Clapham Sect.[1] The Somersett’s case in 1772, which emancipated a slave in England, helped launch the British movement to abolish slavery.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolitionism

    Theophilus Oglethorpe: The son of Sutton Oglethorpe, he came of an old Yorkshire family from Bramham and he had loyally supported King Charles I against the Cromwellian forces, and in consequence suffered severely at the hands of the Puritans with his home and lands being confiscated. With the restoration of the Monarchy, the Oglethorpes, as good Royalists came back into favour

    Granville Sharp was a grandson of the Archbishop of York.

    [Reply]

    Posted on August 15th, 2015 at 3:51 pm Reply | Quote
  • n/a Says:

    Women’s suffrage (also known as woman suffrage or woman’s right to vote)[1] is the right of women to vote and to stand for electoral office. Limited voting rights were gained by women in Sweden, Finland and some western U.S. states in the late 19th century.[2] National and international organizations formed to coordinate efforts to gain voting rights, especially the International Woman Suffrage Alliance (1904), and also worked for equal civil rights for women.[3]

    In 1893, New Zealand, then a self-governing British colony, granted adult women the right to vote, and the self-governing colony of South Australia, now an Australian state, did the same in 1894, the latter also permitting women to stand for office. In 1901 several British colonies became the federal Commonwealth of Australia, and women acquired the right to vote and stand in federal elections from 1902, but discriminatory restrictions against Aboriginal women (and men) voting in national elections were not completely removed until 1962.[4][5][6]

    The first European country to introduce women’s suffrage was the Grand Duchy of Finland, then part of the Russian Empire, which elected the world’s first female members of parliament in the 1907 parliamentary elections. Norway followed, granting full women’s suffrage in 1913. Most European, Asian and African countries did not pass women’s suffrage until after World War I.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_suffrage

    [Reply]

    Posted on August 15th, 2015 at 3:54 pm Reply | Quote
  • n/a Says:

    THE SPANISH STRUGGLE FOR JUSTICE IN THE CONQUEST OF AMERICA
    by LEWIS HANKE
    https://archive.org/details/spanishstrugglef006537mbp

    The Aim of This Book

    THE purpose of this work is to demonstrate that the Spanish con-
    quest of America was far more than a remarkable military and
    political exploit; that it was also one of , the greatest attempts the
    world 1 ftfc *$eeH tfc^^ in the relations

    b S^^^M?jgp. This attempt became basically a spirited defense
    ^Tthe^rights of the Indians, which rested on two of the most funda-
    mental assumptions a Christian can make: namely, that all men are
    equal before God, and that a Christian has a responsibility for the
    welfare of his brothers no matter how alien or lowly they may be. [. . .]

    One of the greatest
    battles on the nature of the Indians, which will be described later
    in the book, took place in Valladolid in 1550 and 1551 when Juan
    Gin^s de Sepiilveda and Las Casas fought bitterly over the question
    whether the Aristotelian theory that some men are by nature slaves
    was applicable to the Indians. [. . .]

    Suitounded by his Dominican brothers, Betanzos repudiated the
    idea that the Indians were beasts. In the words of the notary who was
    called to witness this event and whose formal record of it was dis-
    covered not long ago in a Bolivian monastery: [. . .]

    Las Casas then urged a colonization plan for the Indies as a whole.
    Any laborer who wants to go to the New World, even a foreigner,
    should be encouraged to do so by an offer of good land, low taxes, and
    prizes for those who produce silk, pepper, cloves, ginger, wine, and
    wheat. Those who establish sugar mills are to be assisted with loans
    and permitted to introduce twenty Negroes. Thus will the land
    flourish, the royal revenue increase by leaps and bounds, and the New
    World be populated, “and not destroyed as is now the case.”

    The King was being advised on all sides that laborers must be sent
    to the Indies. About this time Las Casas advocated the introduction of
    Negro slaves, as had been previously suggested in the Utopian me-
    morial of 1517, because he felt they could withstand the heavy work
    required by the Spaniards better than could the Indians. He soon re-
    pented of this, realized that it was as unjust to enslave Negroes as In-
    dians, and washed his hands of all such proposals. 13

    spanishstrugglef006537mbp_djvu.txt

    Wikipedia: Bartolomé de las Casas, O.P. (c. 1484[1] – 18 July 1566) was a 16th-century Spanish historian, social reformer and Dominican friar. He became the first resident Bishop of Chiapas, and the first officially appointed “Protector of the Indians”. His extensive writings, the most famous being A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies and Historia de Las Indias, chronicle the first decades of colonization of the West Indies and focus particularly on the atrocities committed by the colonizers against the indigenous peoples.[2]

    Arriving as one of the first European settlers in the Americas, he participated in, and was eventually compelled to oppose, the atrocities committed against the Native Americans by the Spanish colonists. In 1515, he reformed his views, gave up his Indian slaves and encomienda, and advocated, before King Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, on behalf of rights for the natives. In his early writings, he advocated the use of African slaves instead of Natives in the West-Indian colonies; consequently, criticisms have been leveled at him as being partly responsible for the beginning of the Transatlantic slave trade. Later in life, he retracted those early views as he came to see all forms of slavery as equally wrong. [. . .]

    According to one biographer, his family were of converso heritage,[8] although others refer to them as ancient Christians who migrated from France.[7]

    wiki/Bartolomé_de_las_Casas

    [Reply]

    Exfernal Reply:

    1 ftfc *$eeH tfc^^

    Translate this into something intelligible, please.

    [Reply]

    Posted on August 15th, 2015 at 4:03 pm Reply | Quote
  • n/a Says:

    The earliest records of prohibition of alcohol date to the Xia Dynasty (ca. 2070 BC–ca. 1600 BC) in China. Yu the Great, the first ruler of the Xia Dynasty, prohibited alcohol throughout the kingdom.[1] It was legalized again after his death, during the reign of his son Qi. Another record was in the Code of Hammurabi (ca.1772 BCE) specifically banning the selling of beer for money. It could only be bartered for barley: “If a beer seller do not receive barley as the price for beer, but if she receive money or make the beer a measure smaller than the barley measure received, they shall throw her into the water.” (from Pearson textbook “Arts and Culture, An Introduction to the Humanities”, Volume One, Fourth Edition, Benton & DiYanni, pg. 16).

    In the early twentieth century, much of the impetus for the prohibition movement in the Nordic countries and North America came from moralistic convictions of pietistic Protestants.[2] Prohibition movements in the West coincided with the advent of women’s suffrage, with newly empowered women as part of the political process strongly supporting policies that curbed alcohol consumption.[3][4]

    The first half of the 20th century saw periods of prohibition of alcoholic beverages in several countries:

    1907 to 1948 in Prince Edward Island,[5] and for shorter periods in other provinces in Canada
    1907 to 1992 in Faroe Islands; limited private imports from Denmark were allowed from 1928
    1914 to 1925[6] in Russian Empire and the Soviet Union
    1915 to 1933 in Iceland (beer was still prohibited until 1989)[7]
    1916 to 1927 in Norway (fortified wine and beer also prohibited from 1917 to 1923)
    1919 in the Hungarian Soviet Republic, March 21 to August 1; called szesztilalom
    1919 to 1932 in Finland (called kieltolaki, “ban law”)
    1920 to 1933 in the United States

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition

    [Reply]

    OLF Reply:

    And prohibition in China is connected to prohibition in the USA how? Same question with abolition, and everything else you like to cook up.
    It’s clear that in case of the USA low-church WASPs were entirely to blame for Progressivism, elsewhere… not so much. Still, compare low-church Lutherans of Finland and Sweden with high-church Lutherans of Germany, for example. It’s clear that low-church Lutherans were lefter than high-church Lutherans despite both being Lutherans, and where there’s smoke, there’s fire as the saying goes.

    [Reply]

    Posted on August 15th, 2015 at 4:34 pm Reply | Quote
  • ashv Says:

    Yeah, this is all irrelevant to the cladistic issue being discussed. There aren’t any original ideas in the world. Do you really want to argue that Carry Nation and Elizabeth Cady Stanton were inspired by the Xia Dynasty?

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Thanks.

    [Reply]

    Posted on August 15th, 2015 at 10:06 pm Reply | Quote
  • Anon314 Says:

    I dont think there will be any Reconstructionists simply because most Christians in NRx will trend towards Christian/Secular Traditionalism. The only Recontructionist Ive ever read about in recent memory was Gary North at Lewrockwell.com.

    [Reply]

    Posted on August 15th, 2015 at 10:18 pm Reply | Quote
  • John Hannon Says:

    If NRx is really that desperate for friends then it might as well pally-up with the Westbro Baptist crew.
    Rushdoony/Phelps – at this level of insanity why split hairs?

    [Reply]

    Posted on August 16th, 2015 at 12:37 am Reply | Quote
  • n/a Says:

    OLF,

    “It’s clear that in case of the USA low-church WASPs were entirely to blame for Progressivism, elsewhere… not so much.”

    First, this is moving the goalposts. The line pushed by moldbug, taken up by Nick Land, and taken seriously by people with axes to grind or simply a poor understanding of history and a need to belong to to a quasi-intellectual movement, is specifically that New England Puritans are to blame for “progressivm” everywhere. This is the line that was being pushed by ashv and which I responded to.

    Second, no, it’s not at all clear “low-church WASPs” were entirely to blame for “progressivism” in the US. If many of the people involved in advancing progressivism in America were Protestant Americans when American was still overwhelmingly peopled by Protestant Americans, this would hardly be surprising. It’s obviously not the case that “progressivism” in America has ever been the exclusive domain of “low-church WASPs”. Not in the 19th century, and certainly not in the 20th or 21st century.

    http://racehist.blogspot.com/2013/09/yankees-and-womens-suffrage.html
    http://racehist.blogspot.com/2015/04/ethnic-origins-of-nations-fifty-most.html
    http://racehist.blogspot.com/2015/03/the-25-most-influential-liberals-in-us.html
    http://racehist.blogspot.com/2015/03/the-port-huron-statement-not-product-of.html

    Nor was America ever cut off intellectually from Europe.

    [Reply]

    OLF Reply:

    You’re right, America wasn’t ever cut off intellectually from Europe, and it was probably importation of Revivalism from Europe, in 1820s, in combination with low-church WASPiness that triggered Progressivism. They were obsessed with saving everyone, because they though that if you don’t do your best to save everyone, you yourself won’t be saved; they made creed unimportant (“we are all Protestants”), advocated mandatory state schooling in order to indoctrinate the children of the Papists (“we hate the foul Papist idolaters”), etc.

    http://www.sparknotes.com/history/american/precivilwar/section8.rhtml
    http://www.sparknotes.com/history/american/precivilwar/section9.rhtml

    [Reply]

    Posted on August 16th, 2015 at 4:18 pm Reply | Quote
  • n/a Says:

    (Nick Land apparently chose to delete an earlier version of this post. Slightly edited, to give Nick no excuse to delete it again.)

    ashv,

    “Yeah, this is all irrelevant to the cladistic issue being discussed.”

    It’s irrelevant to your assertion that Unitarianism arose in New England that Unitarian congregations formed in England a decade before the first was founded in New England? It’s irrelevant that Unitarianism arose two centuries before this in central Europe?

    It’s irrelevant to your assertion that “the Moldbuggian ultracalvinism thesis [is] entirely correct” and “It wasn’t the Calvinism per se that launched progressivism, it was Calvinism plus emphasis on emotional conversion experience plus Puritan character.” (that New England Puritans, via Unitarians, were “the source of Abolition, Prohibition, Women’s Suffrage”) that Royalists, non-dissenting members of the Church of England, Quakers, etc., were involved in abolitionism well before it became popular in New England? It’s irrelevant to the assertion that there’s something uniquely Protestant about anti-slavery sentiments that anti-slavery sentiment existed in 16th-century Catholic Spain?

    No, it’s not irrelevant. You’re grossly ignorant of basic history, like one has to be to take moldbug seriously.

    “There aren’t any original ideas in the world.”

    If people are able to have ideas without first hearing them from someone else, and if more than one person can have the same idea, this might be a tiny hint that the entire “cladistic” conceptualization of leftism that forms an article of faith for your nerd cult is unfounded.

    “Carry Nation”

    Carrie Nation was born Carrie Amelia Moore[4] in Garrard County, Kentucky, to George and Mary Campbell Moore. [. . .] In 1874, Carrie married David A. Nation, an attorney, minister, newspaper journalist, and father, 19 years her senior.[1][8] The family purchased a 1,700 acre (690 ha) cotton plantation on the San Bernard River in Brazoria County, Texas.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carry_Nation

    If someone like this strikes you as a Yankee, again, you have a very poor grasp of history.

    In fact her ancestry was Irish, Scottish, and Southern. In religion, she was apparently a Methodist.

    Now that I’ve pointed this out, I anticipate you’ll attempt to move the goalposts, of course. You don’t care about facts. You care about belonging to a clique of nerd pseudo-scholars/pseudo-philosophers who spend more time honing their imitations of moldbug’s writing style and reading each other’s blog posts than they ever have reading a work of standard history or even the “old books” moldbug told them to read.

    “Elizabeth Cady Stanton”

    While her ancestry was half-Yankee, it was also half-Dutch/Scottish/Irish. She was raised a Presbyterian (and didn’t we just hear from you Presbyterians are not the bad Calvinists):

    Her religious skepticism began early in her life. As a young girl she chafed against the Presbyterianism of her family, but the critical turning point came in 1831, when she was a student at Troy Female Seminary
    http://www.albany.edu/history/digital/stanton/religion.html

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    You know perfectly well why I deleted it, as your new version — without intemperate abuse — makes clear.

    [Reply]

    Posted on August 16th, 2015 at 4:56 pm Reply | Quote
  • n/a Says:

    (A deleted version of this post originally appeared before the reply to OLF.)

    ashv,

    “Yeah, this is all irrelevant to the cladistic issue being discussed.”

    It’s irrelevant to your assertion that Unitarianism arose in New England that Unitarian congregations formed in England a decade before the first was founded in New England? It’s irrelevant that Unitarianism arose two centuries before this in central Europe?

    It’s irrelevant to your assertion that “the Moldbuggian ultracalvinism thesis [is] entirely correct” and “It wasn’t the Calvinism per se that launched progressivism, it was Calvinism plus emphasis on emotional conversion experience plus Puritan character.” (that New England Puritans, via Unitarians, were “the source of Abolition, Prohibition, Women’s Suffrage”) that Royalists, non-dissenting members of the Church of England, Quakers, etc., were involved in abolitionism well before it became popular in New England? It’s irrelevant to the assertion that there’s something uniquely Protestant about anti-slavery sentiments that anti-slavery sentiment existed in 16th-century Catholic Spain?

    No, it’s not irrelevant. You’re grossly ignorant of basic history, like one has to be to take moldbug seriously.

    “There aren’t any original ideas in the world.”

    If people are able to have ideas without first hearing them from someone else, and if more than one person can have the same idea, this might be a tiny hint that the entire “cladistic” conceptualization of leftism that forms an article of faith for your nerd cult is unfounded.

    “Carry Nation”

    Carrie Nation was born Carrie Amelia Moore[4] in Garrard County, Kentucky, to George and Mary Campbell Moore. [. . .] In 1874, Carrie married David A. Nation, an attorney, minister, newspaper journalist, and father, 19 years her senior.[1][8] The family purchased a 1,700 acre (690 ha) cotton plantation on the San Bernard River in Brazoria County, Texas.
    /wiki/Carry_Nation

    If someone like this strikes you as a Yankee, again, you have a very poor grasp of history.

    In fact her ancestry was Irish, Scottish, and Southern. In religion, she was apparently a Methodist.

    Now that I’ve pointed this out, I anticipate you’ll attempt to move the goalposts, of course. You don’t care about facts. You care about belonging to a clique of nerd pseudo-scholars/pseudo-philosophers who spend more time honing their imitations of moldbug’s writing style and reading each other’s blog posts than they ever have reading a work of standard history or even the “old books” moldbug told them to read.

    “Elizabeth Cady Stanton”

    While her ancestry was half-Yankee, it was also half-Dutch/Scottish/Irish. She was raised a Presbyterian (and didn’t we just hear from you Presbyterians are not the bad Calvinists):

    Her religious skepticism began early in her life. As a young girl she chafed against the Presbyterianism of her family, but the critical turning point came in 1831, when she was a student at Troy Female Seminary
    http://www.albany.edu/history/digital/stanton/religion.html

    [Reply]

    Posted on August 16th, 2015 at 5:40 pm Reply | Quote
  • This Week in Reaction (2015/08/16) | The Reactivity Place Says:

    […] Land is always looking for Theonomists to join in the fight. Brought to you by this Oldie but Goodie. In addition, some rather Moldbuggian […]

    Posted on August 17th, 2015 at 6:21 pm Reply | Quote
  • Lightning Round – 2015/08/18 | Free Northerner Says:

    […] Theonomy. […]

    Posted on August 19th, 2015 at 5:05 am Reply | Quote
  • Mycroft Jones Says:

    We Reconstructionists are around. It isn’t that we aren’t at the table; the table isn’t interested.

    From the Reconstructionist point of view, NRx is a pale rip off of Reconstructionism; it steals our analysis, but rejects our political program and solution.

    Reconstructionists have a plan, and have real work to do. What is NRx doing at the moment beyond navel gazing?

    [Reply]

    Posted on August 19th, 2015 at 7:52 am Reply | Quote
  • Mycroft Jones Says:

    Also, John Glubb’s “Fate of Empires” and Calhoun’s Rat Utopia experiments are important addendums to Rushdoony’s work; they flesh out the “wheel of time”, cycle of sin and righteousness found throughout the Bible on almost every page. Societal descent into insanity is cyclical; as is the recovery.

    [Reply]

    Posted on August 19th, 2015 at 7:55 am Reply | Quote
  • Mark Citadel Says:

    I’ve written an in-depth response to the question of Christian Reconstructionism raised here. I think they might be allies, but at base they aren’t really Reactionaries in any sense.

    http://citadelfoundations.blogspot.com/2015/08/three-religious-strains.html

    [Reply]

    Posted on August 19th, 2015 at 8:59 am Reply | Quote
  • Mycroft Jones Says:

    Mark, we share a common analysis; and wish NRx no harm. But we aren’t NRx. NRx is mostly weeping and wailing and wringing your hands. Reconstructionists are revolutionaries. Many Reconstructionists are direct descendants of the Puritans under Cromwell. We chafe at this ungodly world, and want nothing more than to go set up our own colony free from interference. Benedict option? It worked for the Puritans (Massachussets Bay Colony). And for the Amish. All this NRx talk against the Puritans is ignorant and uninformed. We the descendants remember what really happened, before the Anglicans rewrote history.

    [Reply]

    Posted on August 19th, 2015 at 5:10 pm Reply | Quote
  • Mycroft Jones Says:

    Mark, you are very wrong about Reconstructionism and holiness spirals. Rushdoony explicitly lays things out in a way that prevents holiness spirals. Have you actually read his books? Reconstructionists have clear boundaries and limits on holiness.

    [Reply]

    Mark Citadel Reply:

    While I don’t own any of Rushdoony’s books, I have watched several interviews with him and read many of his takes on specific issues. Reconstructionists need to answer for a few things.

    1) Their disconnection with the historical practice and interpretation of Christianity
    2) How they would prevent something like what is occurring with Sunni Islam in the Middle East (because believing that the Civil Law is in effect, does give Christianity its own Sharia which must be enforced to the letter)
    3) How does their ascendancy theory mesh with realities (i.e – how do they expect to ultimately achieve their goals)
    4) In what ways can they deal with the connections between the Protestant Reformation, and the Enlightenment itself, both constituting the rebellion against an established and structurally legitimate authority.

    Some of the answers they might give for these queries could be perfectly reasonable, but the ones I have heard thus far aren’t amazingly strong.

    As I said, and I group Reconstructionism with Fascism in this regard, I wouldn’t view you as an enemy at all. We both share a common hatred of Liberalism. I’m far more skeptical in fact of the people whom Reactionaries are getting into bed with who are overtly Liberal but for instance, don’t like feminism.
    My critique is to show that really all fundamentalist groups, no matter how close they may be to the Reactionary political framework on certain issues, are not at heart Reactionary. Land’s hypothesis was that Reconstructionists might be part of the Theonomic wing of the NeoReactionary project in which he is one of the most influential players. My critique was meant to point out how this perhaps isn’t a positive road to travel down, because there are some big contradictions which could prove irreconcilable. I think we’d both agree on this point it seems.

    Would you not agree with my hypothesis of the three religious strains: orthodox, liberal, and fundamentalist?

    As an aside: you will be unable to achieve what the Amish have done because the US government would immediately stop you as soon as you executed someone for sodomy, as would any other Western government. The Benedict Option, as useless as I think it is for Christians at large (its too weak), is completely unworkable for Reconstructionists.

    [Reply]

    Posted on August 19th, 2015 at 5:12 pm Reply | Quote
  • Mycroft Jones Says:

    Read Rushdoony’s books, Mark. All your questions are answered, in depth. Start with the Institutes of Biblical Law, then The One and The Many, and go from there.

    I will say this: please don’t write any more about Reconstructionism until you’ve read Rushdoony. Not just listened to a few interviews and read a few summaries. Rushdoony had a comprehensive worldview that comes from the Armenian Orthodox tradition. It is rich, nuanced, and balanced.

    You don’t even have to buy his books; his children made sure you can read his books online for free if you want.

    Your article about the three strands is so far off the mark in regard to Reconstructionism, I just don’t have an hour to go through it and point everything out. Not during the work day.

    Your worries about Sharia are unfounded. First, because you don’t understand how the Biblical Law works. Second, because you are thinking of a cartoon version of sharia, not a sharia as it is actually practiced, relative to historical Christianity.

    [Reply]

    Posted on August 19th, 2015 at 9:06 pm Reply | Quote
  • Mycroft Jones Says:

    Also, when you say the Benedict Option isn’t an option; you are wrong. Also, defeatist. Hopefully it is only through lack of knowledge.

    [Reply]

    Posted on August 19th, 2015 at 9:16 pm Reply | Quote
  • theo$ | Says:

    […] admin of a nexus of neoreaction recently saw fit to feature under the title of Theonomy information on so-called Chistian Reconstructionism. many of said movement, as with many so-called […]

    Posted on August 21st, 2015 at 4:19 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment