[Previous typos have been corrected]
Anthropomorphic deities in any religion often serve as a model by which humans shape their lives, and order their actions. Christians sometimes ask what would Jesus do? and such things as this. In the ancient Hellenic world, a warrior might ask what would Ares do? or a ruler might ask what would Zeus do? In a strictly, perhaps fanatically monotheistic system, because there is only one unique divinity, everyone strives to have all the same virtues, often embodied in that divinity, and all the same qualities; ethics are universalized. In the enlightenment, this manifested itself in the ethics of Kant and the destruction of aristocracy; and in more modern times it is manifested through the destruction of traditional gender roles.
In a polytheistic system, however, different gods act as a role model for certain vocations. Zeus (and similar deities such as Odin and Varuna) is a role model for judges, and people for whom wisdom and justice are necessary virtues, Ares is the role model for the warrior, Apollo for the young man, student or athlete, Rhea for the mother, and there are many others. If one takes a broader view of Indo-European religion, one will find that the various deities usually act as archetypes corresponding to the various “three estates”: the oratores, bellatores, and laboratores (priests, aristocrats, and commoners). Research Georges Dumezil’s Trifunctional Hypothesis to find out more about this. Polytheism, for our ancestors, was not just some silly idea of Zeus throwing thunderbolts at people he was angry at (you can also find many such instances of so-called ‘silliness’ coming from the monotheistic deity of the Pentateuch). For them, polytheism was a cosmic blueprint for how society was supposed to be run. Not everyone worshiped the same gods nor was everyone expected to live up to the same virtues. The hierarchy among the gods, and their various duties in keeping cosmic order was the model for a hierarchy among humans and their various roles in a complete society. The different virtues of different gods marked the virtues different virtues different people were supposed to aim for depending on who they were, whether a priest, king, warrior, or farmer. Polytheism is probably the most reliable way to avoid Kantian categorical imperative ethics because it destroys the notion that all maxims by which individuals act must become universal law. It does this through the multiplicity of archetypes, showing that there are inevitably different types of humans with different virtues to be exercised.
Catholicism and Orthodoxy kept a quasi-polytheistic tradition going through a hierarchy of saints and angels, whom devotees would look up to in iconography. A warrior might look up to St. George, a mother to St. Mary, etc. The patron deities which set the virtues for various vocations were replaced by patron saints which served the same function. However, once all vestiges of polytheism were lost through radical Protestantism, we lost our blueprint for an orderly society where each person fulfilled his or her role according to his or her inherent virtue(s); humans became ‘equivalent’ understood as interchangeable units, leading to utilitarianism, democracy, Marxism, ‘gender studies’, and globalism.
So if any religious revival is to take place in the West, polytheism, or a similar system such as the veneration of saints found in Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Anglicanism, and Lutheranism, must be present in some form or another. We cannot build a new West on the foundations of evangelicalism, Puritanism, or any other form of radical Protestantism. We must have anthropomorphic ideals and archetypes in place to encourage mothers to be caring for their young, warriors to be courageous and fierce, rulers to be just, and so forth. Otherwise, we will just end up back where we started.
I have been watching small bits of the television series Outlander, which is mostly centered around the Jacobite rebellion of 1745, and it reminded me of a recurring fundamental theme of the neoreaction which I have perhaps insufficiently addressed. What we are trying to achieve is similar to what these Jacobites attempted, a restoration of the old order of society which was destroyed by the Whigs/liberals. At heart, I am a restorationist, and I am an ethnic nationalist. Though I am not a neo-Jacobite (I do feel it is a very romantic cause), I am certainly a restorationist of something much older, more permanent, and more general than Catholic monarchy; the tripartite aristocratic system of Indo-European societies. This, of course, includes monarchy and lower levels of aristocracy which all fall into the second function/estate. It also includes a first estate of priests (which can be Christians, pagans, or simply moral philosophers), and a third estate of free workers and merchants.
The fact that I favor this system is why I could never consider myself Alt-Right or a National Socialist; neither system is on the true right; they are incomplete, and really only responses to temporary problems.
Perhaps I am biased towards aristocracy because I myself have multiple lines of ancestry which were at one time aristocratic, including my paternal lineage which is most likely of Norman origin based on surname analysis (correction: my paternal lineage may not be Norman, based on Y-chromosome analysis), but I also recognize that democracy gives unfair advantage towards people of lower IQ who would use it to elect a simple wealth-redistributionist, and thus has some dysgenic effects. Democracy also creates a virtue signalling playground, and thus selects for the genetics of individuals who like to attract attention in such ways.
I think, borrowing from very early European monarchical systems among the Celts and Germans, that a monarch should, under necessary circumstances, be elected (probably by other aristocrats) from a royal family, so as to avoid being stuck with a mentally incompetent ruler who just happens to be heir to the throne.
Who would have the political power of an aristocrat? Possibly as in very early Germanic society, all land-owning men could be counted, who are ultimately vassals of the king. See these articles on the Germanic aristocratic order (1, 2 (see section on law), 3).
As for what ideology each monarchy has; religious traditionalism, ethnic nationalism, or multiethnic capitalism; it must ultimately differ between different states. One single ideology (religious, ethnic, or otherwise) will not fit with each and every group of people for both cultural and biological reasons (which are usually intertwined with each other). It is essential we understand this when trying to advance the concept of an aristocratic form of governance to the normies.
In this post I will present an allegory of the three estates of the realm, using material which is totally unrelated to NRx. Out of respect for my more socially conservative readers, I warn you that I will be referring to some things that may be a bit uncomfortable for you to think about; so you may want to skip reading this post if you are not feeling particularly adventuresome.
I will follow the model of the three estates of the realm as it is presented on the blog Poseidon Awoke: Realist. The first estate, the religious priesthood, is considered to have the qualities of femininity, short-term outlook, and coercion with speech. The second estate, the warrior-aristocrats, is considered to have the qualities of masculinity, a long-term outlook, and coercion with force. The third estate, the free commoners, is considered to have the qualities of being evolutionary, having a mid-term outlook, and coercion using remuneration. Continue reading “A Contemporary Allegory of the Three Estates of the Realm”