Parrott’s Paradox: A PSA From the Society of Antiquated Buffoons

buffoonery

“We’re not progressing because we’re too progressive”, says Matt Parrott in a recent Trad Youth article.  Then again, with Trad Youth’s Alinsky-styled antics, it seems the proper path to progress is promoting populist positions which perturb the plebeians, prompting popular protest against pusillanimous politicians (who putatively prefer Platonic plutocracies) – a plan popularized by progressives but is now parading as passionate perennialism.  And should the reader find my alliteration pedantic, he ought to note the proffered paradox is (perhaps), the only way I know  to illustrate the constant drumbeat of the West’s descent into the void – a quickened pulse of repetitive collective thumping, dragging us further downward with every new cry:  “Liberty!” boom-boom.  “Equality” boom-boom.  “Fraternity” boom…

“The people” have been the constant albatross around the neck of Western Civilization, their every move in history, a move away from the crystal towers of mythic Christendom and towards the seething, populist hell-pit of the modern world.  Demons and Democrats are both populists.  They’re neighbors after all.

So who needs progress?  Not the members of the Society of Antiquated Buffoons!  We represent the “regressive” party but unlike Parrott, we don’t have a Saul Alinsky to paint the way backwards for us.  Unless, of course, Jesus Christ counts?  His disciples built the crystal towers of Christendom.  His enemies are tearing them down; progress.

They were built the first time by a miracle of Christ.  A divine meteor struck Europe’s sand, throwing it high into the air and crystallizing it.  A mythical palace emerged which shined bright in the European sun.  “The people” tore it down, pillar by pillar, year by year, and now all that’s left are a few shards of glass entrusted to the members of the Society.

Is the crystal castle perennial?

Well, I don’t care for castles per se.  I don’t care for hierarchy per se.  I don’t even really care for families per se (at least, the family institution, as an institution, is only accidentally in my affections) – it’s the real flesh and blood constituents of these abstract categories I care about.  That’s the essence of what it means to be an antiquated buffoon.  I don’t love castles because they’re castles; I love them because they’re English castles.  I don’t love my mother because she’s a mother.  I love her because she’s *my* mother.

Matt Parrott says he’s loyal to an abstract idea, not an institution, party, or a man.  But we buffoons are not loyal to abstract ideas.  We are loyal to a man.  Our King.  And it’s through our hearths and our homes (our immediate blood relations) that we know our King.  But this is only true of that one people who lived in the crystal castle.  A black man holding to the abstract perennials wont re-build the castle, nor will an Asian man do so.  Certainly not an Arab, either.  They’ll raid the devil’s cache of abstraca if they have to.  So will the white self-haters who spill the blood of their brethren because they have an intense hatred of God.

They’re the techno-crats.

It’s not technology per se we antiquated buffoons despise, although some of the less careful buffoons may have framed it that way (J.R.R. Tolkien despised technology, and Russell Kirk refused to learn to drive).  Rather, we despise how technological innovations have been used by “the people” to further tear down the crystal castle and usher the West further into the void.

I do agree with Parrott that the internet (like the printing press before it) has the power to topple regimes.  But like the printing press before it, I’m afraid it will only prove to quicken the descent into the void.  Toppling our current regime is only one more victory of “the people” over the tyrants – the same old story throughout the history of the modern West.  They’ll not replace the fallen with tribe and tradition.  Rather, more Satanists will fill the vacuum.  Satanists who are better than their predecessors at pandering to the masses.  (I can see why Marx thought there’d be an eventual dictatorship of the proletariat).

No, technology will not be our savior.   What we need is another meteor, but until then, those of us in the Society of Antiquated Buffoons will carry on our buffoonery by being regressives and doing our best to rebuild what we’ve lost.  When we’re tempted to despair, we’ll take up our shards of broken crystal, look through them, and see the world as it used to be and could be again.

This entry was posted in Best of Shotgun and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Parrott’s Paradox: A PSA From the Society of Antiquated Buffoons

  1. SINCE the time that school divinity began to flourish there hath been a common opinion maintained, as well by divines as by divers other learned men, which affirms:

    “Mankind is naturally endowed and born with freedom from all subjection, and at liberty to choose what form of government it please, and that the power which any one man hath over others was at first bestowed according to the discretion of the multitude.”

    This tenet was first hatched in the schools, and hath been fostered by all succeeding Papists for good divinity. The divines, also, of the Reformed Churches have entertained it, and the common people everywhere tenderly embrace it as being most plausible to flesh and blood, for that it prodigally distributes a portion of liberty to the meanest of the multitude, who magnify liberty as if the height of human felicity were only to be found in it, never remembering that the desire of liberty was the first cause of the fall of Adam.

    But howsoever this vulgar opinion hath of late obtained a great reputation, yet it is not to be found in the ancient fathers and doctors of the primitive Church. It contradicts the doctrine and history of the Holy Scriptures, the constant practice of all ancient monarchies, and the very principles of the law of nature. It is hard to say whether it be more erroneous in divinity or dangerous in policy.

    -Sir Robert Filmer, Patriarcha

  2. Fr. John+ says:

    Shotgun, you are sounding more like Cambria every day. (that’s a compliment) LOL

  3. Matt Parrott says:

    I think you mistake our love for “folk” with a love for “masses.” Our job is two-fold, to rekindle a relationship of mutual love with them and to inspire them to be folkish again. Think of it like a Miss Doubtfire situation, with the global oligarchs and Jews as the awful mom and her asshole boyfriend.

    Presuming that we intend and expect a degenerate Modern relationship with our folk is baseless and contrary to our body of work.

    I’m not sure where the Alinsky stuff is coming from. Typically, that entails institutional subversion, which isn’t our strategy at all. We’re not sneaking up on anybody.

    Matt Parrott says he’s loyal to an abstract idea, not an institution, party, or a man. But we buffoons are not loyal to abstract ideas. We are loyal to a man. Our King.

    You’ve partially got me dead to rights, there. I’m loyal to Christ, of course, but my love for my folk is entirely derivative of my love for Christ and his demands for my stewardship and defense of my folk. How anybody could actually have a romantic affinity to White Americans as they are today is beyond me.

    I do agree with Parrott that the internet (like the printing press before it) has the power to topple regimes. But like the printing press before it, I’m afraid it will only prove to quicken the descent into the void. Toppling our current regime is only one more victory of “the people” over the tyrants – the same old story throughout the history of the modern West. They’ll not replace the fallen with tribe and tradition. Rather, more Satanists will fill the vacuum. Satanists who are better than their predecessors at pandering to the masses. (I can see why Marx thought there’d be an eventual dictatorship of the proletariat).

    This is where I believe you’ve got your historiography and deep politics wrong. If technology can fundamentally undermine the machinations of the mercantile elites, then it’s quite possible that tribe and tradition actually will prevail if or when we topple this regime.

    • The early neo-conservatives interested me (and still do) primarily for their work in recognizing the importance and lasting effects of ethnic communities in America; but as the neo-conservatives progressed, especially after the “Cold-War”, there was an infamous ideological disagreement between Fukuyama and Sam Huntington.

      I wont expound, but I fell into Huntington’s tradition: we no longer have a clash of ideologies before us, but a clash of civilizations, or a clash of “identities”. I suspect you agree with this tradition (broadly), but the more I read Huntington, the more I’m convinced the Western cancer isn’t going to be solved by swapping political trappings.

      It’s not popular to say in the alt-right, but we’ve got a heart problem, not a political problem. That’s not something political theorists are equipped to deal with. It’s a problem for poets (gah! More alliteration!)

  4. Tim Harris says:

    I gotta say, I only understood about 10% of Mr. Perrott’s essay. Forty years of study has not sufficed. Certainly, appealing to an “abstract idea” is like waving a red towel in front of a bull, for people like myself for whom seeing through that fallacy was the lynchpin which, once pulled, brought the whole edifice of Lincolnism and modernity tumbling down. However, the rest of the essay seemed to indicate he was not using that concept the way we do — though again, I don’t really understand most of it.

    In a nutshell, I think the problem with the essay is a confusing of first- and second-order experience. There is a great cleavage between being part of a folk, and *thinking about* being part of a folk. Once you start *thinking about* it, you need a theory. And the theory can go astray rather quickly, without vitiating the *thing thought about*.

    Perhaps the response however should be trying to clarify, and move the discussion forward, rather than complete rejection.

Comments:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s