The Tuilleries

THE TUILLERIES, 20TH JUNE 1792

On 20 June, “a mob of terrifying aspect” broke into the Tuileries and made the king wear the bonnet rouge (red Phrygian cap) to show his loyalty to France.

The vulnerability of the king was exposed on 10 August when an armed mob, on the verge of forcing its way into the Tuileries Palace, forced the king and the royal family to seek refuge at the Legislative Assembly. An hour and a half later, the palace was invaded by the mob who massacred the Swiss Guards. On 13 August, the royal family was imprisoned in the tower of the Temple in the Marais under conditions considerably harsher than their previous confinement in the Tuileries.

This scene is from 20 June 1792 when the mob broke into the Tuileries and confronted Marie Antoinette.

Interesting Points on Serial Monogamy

Some interesting thoughts from a poster at Reddit of all places, thoughts which seem resonant. I predict many people would react to this with emotional defensiveness, which for me would serve as weak evidence that it is true and the defensiveness is being used as–of course–a defense mechanism. If it were plainly wrong then people would calmly explain why it’s wrong, not get emotional about it. In any case, it’s totally consistent with my personal experience and the experience of friends.

Western society is structured in such a way that people don’t begin earning enough money to have children until they are in their thirties. This is in contrast to most of human history, where we had children in our late teens or early twenties. What this leads to is people entering relationships and using birth control. After two or three years, no children are born. Our brain interprets this as one partner being infertile and because we’re still young decides it’s time to move on, to the next partner.

This leaves people traumatized, but as humans we’re very good at rationalizing trauma. Especially when everyone goes through the trauma. Thus for example, cultures can practice circumcision of boys and girls, and when people point out to them that this ritual is traumatic, they refuse to acknowledge this.

Similarly, Western culture refuses to acknowledge that break ups are traumatic. We all notice the symptoms, but refuse to connect cause and effect. We find that increasing numbers of young women are anorexic or go to the plastic surgeon to slice off their genitals, but we don’t question whether this could have anything to do with boyfriends who have plenty of comparison material and alternative girls to go to. Boys on the other hand become “manorexic” and spend their days in the gym.

This entire traumatic process goes on for three or four, or even more times. Every new relationship is less passionate than the previous because we develop a strong shield (though most damage seems done after the breakup of the first), until people reach their late twenties and make a rational calculation on who to “settle down” with. Even before that time relationships are irreparably damaged. Having been hurt before, people maintain “exit strategies” for when the relationship turns sour. Thus men and women maintain a number of “friends”, who the other partner views with jealousy, because in reality the friends end up not being friends so much as “exit strategies”.

This then eventually leads to a marriage that’s lacking in passion with children who grow up with parents living passionless lives. The children are affected by the example they see and generally end up emotionally stunted. Alternatively they grow up in divorced households, which is equally problematic as girls who grow up without their father enter puberty earlier and boys without a father appear to be more violent.

We rationalize all of this to ourselves by arguing that we first want to “develop” ourselves, which we do by studying English, medieval dance, or some other comparable subject. The fact that this is a sham is easily demonstrated by asking the majority of people what they like about the subject they’re studying. Instead of beginning to talk passionately about their main interest, like a kid with Asperger’s syndrome would about dinosaurs or trains, they’ll generally tell you that it’s “hard to explain like that” and seem a bit offended that you dared bring it up in the first place.

In reality we have a defective culture, created by babyboomers who live unsatisfying lives with unsatisfying marriages as they were the first generation to grow up with birth control and promiscuity and now try to compensate for this by accumulating wealth at the cost of younger generations. Promiscuity is fun when you’re in your twenties, but the Babyboomers forgot to die at age 27 from a drug overdose.

Localism Over Universalism

At the core of the Reactionary worldview is encouraging organic local variation. This contrasts with the Progressive worldview, which involves imposing progressivism everywhere; the libertarian worldview, which involves imposing liberal values everywhere; and the Democratic worldview, which involves imposing democracy everywhere.

Quoting Moldbug:

The Brahmins, universalists, ultracalvinists, etc, do not hate “our culture” at all. They have a very distinct culture of their own – with a family tree that spends a remarkable amount of time in Massachusetts, upstate New York, etc, etc. (In Charles Royster’s excellent and only mildly neo-Unionist picture of the Civil War, The Destructive War, he mentions a foreign traveler in 1864 who asked some random American to explain the war. “It’s the conquest of America by Massachusetts,” was the answer. Massachusetts, of course, later went on to conquer first Europe and then the entire planet, the views of whose elites as of 2007 bear a surprisingly coincidental resemblance to those held at Harvard in 1945. But I digress.)

Emphasis mine. History since 1864 is the conquest of the planet by Massachusetts and their values. What we have now is Progressive Universalism, a subcategory of what I would call Enlightenment Universalism. The core of progressive universalism is insulting, condemning, and destroying any culture not in accordance with it, namely anything that is not in alignment with coastal American values. An example would be the national freak-out that occurred when Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson innocently said in an interview that homosexuality was sinful. Another, broader example would be the incessant federalization of the United States since the Civil War and the growing size and dominance of the federal government over state and local governments.

What is operating here is an axis between localism and universalism. Universalists insist that their values be imposed absolutely everywhere. Localists adopt a “live and let live” attitude. Enlightenment universalism is based on a blank slate view of human nature, which says that people everywhere are the same and therefore the same set of values is best for everyone. This is in contrast to a more scientific particularist view which states that people everywhere are different, culturally if not genetically, and therefore not suited to the same values or the same systems. In Liberty or Equality, “arch-liberal of the extreme right” Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn highlights the paralysis of uniformity and how it goes hand in hand with the French Revolution and democratic governments:

uniformity
uniformity2uniformity3uniformity4uniformity6

The clownish uniformism of post-Revolutionary France has been inherited by all modern liberal governments, and many illiberal ones besides. In its extreme form, in North Korea foreign radio is prohibited and you and your entire family can be sent to a labor camp just for listening to it.  In the United States, this drive to uniformity is expressed in various places, from the jokes of late-night talk show hosts (which are completely unfunny to people not on the Massachusetts cultural wavelength) to calls from the President to reduce “income inequality” nationwide.

In contrast, take the geopolitical and cultural diversity of the Holy Roman Empire as an example:

HRR_1789_EN

This geopolitical structure is reminiscent of Moldbug’s “Patchwork” model. In this context, hierarchy and not democracy is used as a tool to preserve regional variation. The imposition of democracy on such a structure would just homogenize it and destroy local variation, especially if driven by a post-Puritan and progressive/liberal fanaticism. Progressive/liberal fanaticism is not the only threat; there is also the threat from fascist totalitarianism, which seeks to impose a cookie-cutter uniformity on culture in the same way. Given that fascism was soundly defeated and is almost universally equated with pure evil, I currently consider progressivist uniformism the greater threat, however.

Any kind of universalist uniformism is tiresome. The universalist imperialism of Washington must be identified, resisted, and laughed at. Whether Democrat or Republican, most everyone in present day politics sees government as a tool to impose a certain uniformism on the nation and the world. This is the legacy of democracy and the French Revolution. Democracy says: we all vote, and in the end we all accept the dictates of the vote. We ought to refuse to accept the dictates of any national votes, however. We should build a strong regionalism, with powerful local officials who insulate us from the universalism of Washington. In the longer term, we should aim for smaller states and a breakup of the United States. We are seeing the first inklings of a trend in this direction with proposals to break up California and other states.