The Forgotten Crowns of Europe

Autocracy is one of the key planks of any Reactionary manifesto. We reject the underlying principles of democracy, the idea that the leadership and direction of an entire nation should be determined by a plebiscite as if each citizen were equal in sound judgment, in virtuous motivations for his vote, and in full knowledge of its consequences. With history as our guide, we see governments as more efficient and virtuous in the aggregate and over the long term when a designated elite holds power. One could of course rightly point out that modern ‘democracy’ is largely a sham, and that we are run by an elite anyway, but this would ignore the fact that it is the democratic process which has empowered many of those elites in the first place, and that only after this have they cemented their position through chicanery, job swaps, and reliance on voter ignorance and apathy.

Historically, most civilizations have been under monarchical rule, that of a dynastic family with leadership passed down from generation to generation. This is, without a doubt, the most common and preferred ‘organic state’, though there are of course notable exceptions.

red: monarchy
blue: republic or other non-monarchical system

In the side-by-side comparison above, you can see the decline of monarchy over 116 years, but while historians often say that WWI was the deathblow to European monarchy, the truth is it was already weakening before this. By 1900, Tsarist Russia remained the only significant outpost of absolute monarchy, with others being limited in some key constitutional respect to varying degrees. even if in word only, which was in most cases a concession to Liberalism. This was a divergence even from past forms of limited autocracy.

Supporters of monarchy can only be grave in their assessment of the current situation, the full scope of which is now made clear by the map, since the constitutional entanglements of 1900 pale in comparison to the captive nature of royal influence in contemporary European politics. The official heads of state in charge of countries like the United Kingdom, Norway, and Denmark are decaying tourist attractions who debase themselves before the people in a misguided push to remain relevant. The most embarrassing moments have included Prince Henrik dressing up as a panda, and Queen Elizabeth II agreeing to be mimicked in an atrocious Olympic opening ceremony as a parachuting daredevil, touching down between mockups of British industry curiously produced by blacks and other ethnic minorities.

These things should not come as a surprise. Just as we have acknowledged that the priestly caste would be led into degeneracy in the Modern era, monarchs likewise have no magical protection from the zeitgeist. It is omnipresent. Of course however, these things can never be ignored and immediately disqualify the participants from being worthy of our respect or service. When the grand duke of Luxembourg opted to exercise his last power, a veto, against a bill on euthanasia, his assembly stripped him of this power without even an attempt on his part to resist such actions through the force of his title. No doubt the crown prince of Liechtenstein, who expanded his own powers in the early 2000s breathed a sigh of relief that he was unlikely to be held captive in such a manner.

The sad truth is that as the stranglehold of the Modern era solidified and its apparatus (that being representative assemblies) carried out its bidding to strip all formal responsibilities and powers from those deemed ‘undemocratic’, most royal lines offered up no resistance. After all, their wealth remains curiously unaffected, and perhaps the adoration of magazine rack tabloids keeps them warm at night where respect and loyalty once did.

Still, I wanted to take the time to talk about two royal lines that perhaps could find themselves on our side of the battle line when the inevitable end to the European spectacle comes.


Whenever you hear a more than cursory recount of the Spanish Civil War, the term ‘Carlist’ is often mentioned as a faction of Francisco Franco’s insurgency against the communist-backed Republican forces. Sadly, few have a grasp of what ‘Carlism’ was beyond some kind competing royal legitimist movement. Indeed this was the birth of the movement, but it became more than that.

Essentially, the laws of succession in Spain traditionally were non-salic (meaning daughters and sisters could ascend to the throne), however when the salic Bourbon monarchy of France had one of its princes, Philip V accede the throne, there was a big question as to which law of succession would apply. A kind of semi-salic system prevailed whereupon females could only take the throne if the previous monarch had no sons or brothers who could take it.

The problem arose when Ferdinand VII became gravely ill with no male heirs, but a pregnant wife. He changed the law to ensure that regardless the sex of the unborn child, it would succeed him. The child was Isabel II. The previously presumed heir, Ferdinand’s brother Infante Carlos, was outraged by the theft of his crown and left for Portugal, with a great deal of the country in uproar. In the period after this, there was an uprising in support of Carlos, particularly in Catalonia.There were in fact a series of such insurgencies (known collectively as the ‘Carlist Wars’) lasting between 1833 and 1876, after which the movement pursued peaceful methods to make its case for Carlos’ line of succession.

For all but the most starstruck by royal quarrels, this will seem like a lot of waffle, but it provides the backdrop for the greater sociocultural conflict Carlism represented. After the end of Napoleonic occupation of Spain, the country questioned its absolutist roots due to the influx of Liberal ideology from France. Ferdinand VII, after initially restoring much of the Traditional order, had made deals to get Liberals to support Isabel II’s claim to the throne, while Carlos was a staunch believer in the traditional powers of the monarchy and importantly the Church as a necessity. While Spain was mired in economic hardship, Liberals attacked Spanish institutions relentlessly, wanting a full seperation of church and state, as well as a centralization of federal control, which included dismantling the Basque autonomy (now you know where all that trouble with Basque separatism began). Carlist ideology, over time became the vehicle of Ancien apologetics, the embodiment of the Traditionalist spirit in the face of a veritable wave of inept monarchs from Ferdinand’s line who effectively lost the Spanish Empire, incompetent dictators, and passing attempts at Republican governance. Despite high and low level protests, Spain gradually modernized, hence why in 1886, Fr, Félix Sardà y Salvany wrote ‘Liberalism is a Sin‘ as by this time the left had begun to probe the Roman Catholic Church for weaknesses.

battle scene from the Carlist Wars

Much like the later Romanian Iron Guard, Carlism was not an elite movement. It drew support from all strata of society, from peasants to landed nobles and the priesthood. Its core beliefs were outlined in the four word slogan: Dios, Patria, Fueros, Rey.

Dios (God): Carlism believes in the Catholic Faith as a cornerstone of Spain, and must be politically active in its defense.

Patria (Fatherland): Carlism is heavily patriotic, Traditionalism sees the Fatherland as the nesting of communities (municipal, regional, Spain) united under one.

Fueros (similar to medieval charters): Part of the limitation of royal powers is the acknowledgment of local and regional self-rule (and of other types of communities in the political body, especially the Church).

Rey (King): The concept of national sovereignty is rejected. Sovereignty is vested on the king, both legitimate in blood and in deeds. But this power is limited by the doctrine of the Church and the Laws and Usages of the Kingdom, and through a series of Councils, traditional Cortes and state-independent intermediate bodies. The King must also be the Defender of the Poor and Keeper of Justice.

During the Spanish Civil War, the Carlist militias were enlisted on the side of General Franco against Marxist forces, and many died in the bloody battles that ensued. This alliance with the general was however never easy, as his support for their claimant to the throne was ambiguous, and they conflicted with Primo de Rivera’s Falangists over the centralization of the state. In fact, some suspect Franco played the two sides off against each other to preserve his own leadership. His dislike of Primo de Rivera was indeed documented, with some even accusing Franco of allowing Republican forces to murder him.

Regardless, during Franco’s regime the Carlist movement fractured over an internal claimant dispute, some even supporting the Isabellan line that continues to this day. It certainly didn’t help when the major claimant, Carlos Hugo I, embraced Titoist Socialism and turned his back on the Traditionalist values of the Carlist movement. He has since passed, and his younger brother Sixtus, who holds the title Duke of Aranjuez is the Carlist regent. While he doesn’t claim the throne himself, many of his supporters have taken to yelling “¡Viva el Rey!” during his speeches. His hope is that in the future, one of his nephews will re-embrace Traditionalism. Sixtus was present in 1988 when renegade bishop Marcel Lefebvre ordinated four bishops into the controversial Traditionalist Catholic body, the Society of St. Pius X. He was also said to be present at a recent confab of the European far right in Vienna, organized by our favorite Russian mischief-maker Konstantin Malofeev. Prince Sixtus would not be engaging in such things if he was not still very much interested in the legitimacy of the Carlist claim and the ideals that have propelled it through history, despite its sorry state at present

General Franco had clearly expected his choice for enthronement, Juan Carlos I, to continue his own legacy, a grave mistake. The king dismantled the regime and turned the country over to democracy. His son has continued to degrade the dignity of Spain in his passivity. This is unacceptable. Momentum for Reactionary solutions in Europe should aim for a return to Traditional Spain ultimately through the Carlist claimant.


This child could represent a turning point in Georgia’s future, a decisive turn away from the siren song of American hegemony and liberal democracy. The Bagrationi dynasty is one of the longest existing Christian royal dynasties in the world beginning in the Middle Ages. It ruled Georgia until the country’s fragmentation in the 15th Century. After the various provinces were annexed by Russia, it became a mere noble family, and after the February Revolution, was declared null and void by the new state. With many of the family’s members in exile with no way of knowing if those who stayed had survived, it was natural that a split in sovereign claims would ensue. Those in exile became the Mukhrani branch, while those surviving in Georgia became the Gruzinsky branch.

After Soviet occupation ended, a marriage between members of both lines finally produced Giorgi, in the eyes of most people joyously mending the rupture and introducing the prospect of a return to the throne by the Bagrationi dynasty.

While support for monarchical restoration in Russia remains tepid but growing, in Georgia it is very high, with 82% of participants in an interactive survey apparently wishing for some form of restoration. Patriarch Ilia II, the most respected figure in the entire country, has thrown his support behind a return to monarchy, and there is hope that the Bagrationis, who hold a mystical status in Georgian history, might mend the conflicts with breakaway provinces; South Ossetia and Abkhazia. 

What interest should a Reactionary take in such matters? The presence of this man…

solid gold

Sir Levan Vasadze is the chairman of Prometheus Capital Partners, and has involved himself in a number of ultraconservative agendas, including the World Congress of Families which he hosted (designed to form an international bloc against gender ideology). As Konstantin Malofeev has been called ‘God’s Oligarch‘, so Vasadze has been called ‘Georgia’s Malofeev‘. What’s more, he is also one of the godfathers of the young Bagrationi, and has such a strong relationship with the royal family that they bestowed upon him the tile of Raindi which is equivalent to Knight. It seems clear from both action and association, that his goals align with ours:

“The West is attacking our Christian culture with atheism, new forms of socialism and sexual radicalism — worse than what we saw during the last 25 years when we were part of the Soviet empire.”

“Tolerance is a term of the Franco-Gallic medical school and means human organism’s ability to tolerate poison. It is the dead body that has perfect tolerance. It is very interesting where they [the liberals] want to take the national organism, don’t you think?”

There is also some suggestion he may have been in attendance at the Vienna summit previously mentioned. Restoration of the Bagrationis would give an explicit Reactionary hand in Georgian political life as well as geopolitical outlook. The key to moving Georgia out of the orbit of USG lies in the latter’s endless social crusading and the former’s return to royal governance. 

When we say that out of chaos come the strong men, out of necessity we shall see our fortunes restored, it is incumbent upon us to be abstract in our assumptions, wisely hedging our bets on exactly what the ascendancy will look like. I would say that in the case of Georgia and Spain, we have reasonable answers for the long term question of rule. That is, should the seizure of such rule become possible.


34 thoughts on “The Forgotten Crowns of Europe

  1. You have promising heirs; while we have third class British comedians, US Marine Corps NCO's, Spies of Japanese intelligence during the World War Two, morbid obeses who don't know anything about Islam or Turks, bumpkins, and seniles who think Liberal democracy and Progressivism are the best solutions for Turkey and Islam world. Btw, I am not blaming them (not always, sometimes their actions are inappropriate for an imperial dynasty.).

    Consider yourselves lucky.


  2. I always thought the Carlists had the better claim to the Spanish throne and like the Rexists in France would with support of the Catholic Church would have triumphed. With the article by Testis Gratus on the Need for Authoritarianism over at WCR we see how the Catholic Church was fundamental to the success and then failure of Franco's regime. Similarly the condemnation of the Rexist movement in France by the Catholic Church heavily influenced its decline.

    I read an article recently that may give some hope to the French, their king in waiting – Louis XX – has declared that “The republican secularism is an illusion”. There is a strong undercurrent of reaction in France – catholic and monarchist as well as the FN – yet whether or not they will be able to overcome the chaos that is unfolding there it's hard to tell.,279161


  3. Hi Mark. This is off topic, but about something you said before.

    I do not know much about Stalin, but apparently the reason why Stalin could carry out his terror campaigns is because he did a good job purging the far leftists (Troskyeits) from the Soviet Communist Party. These people were the ones that abolished traditional Russian norms during the Lenin years, which caused so much social chaos that it required Stalin to stabilise. Once Stalin was in power, he decriminalised homosexuality and adultery, I think. This is why Russia supported him, despite him being such a paranoid totalitarian.

    Am I right to believe in this.


  4. Stalin certainly reversed much of what Lenin had done. The reason he was able to rally the nation was primarily in response to WWII, rather than anything else. Russians see this as a great patriotic war, their finest military hour. Stalin gained huge credibility from managing it, which I suspect was a far bigger factor than his social conservatism.


  5. (part 1) Hi, Mr. Citadel. Sorry for this being so off-topic but I need to probe your thoughts on this. I've just finished reading your “Amoral Counter-Signaling is Retarded” article and I have to say that while I agree with pretty much everything you've said there (in regards to principles in general and abortion in particular), there is a thought that has been nagging me for some time now.

    And that is whether there is something of the historic left, of Enlightenment thinking, of Liberalism that the reactionary Right can recover / save in a sort of (probably ill-conceived) Hegelian synthesis. And I'm not speaking here of the emerging patriotic left in Central Europe (the Milos Zeman and Robert Fico types) and not even of right-libertarianism of the Kuehnelt-Leddihn variety. What led me to this line of thought was the observation that some Reactionaries and some NRx types tend to exhibit a certain… political tribalism which might be counter-productive.

    Now I have to preface all this with the fact that I believe society should be an icon of the Higher Order of things with Christ and Church, Sovereign and People, Man and Woman etc. as molds for the social order. But I also think that attachment to one's Volk (for lack of a better word) and one's Civilisation (in the grand scheme of things) is also natural, organic and such attachment should definitely supersede sectionalistic attachments to the “right wing” as it were. I will not lie that there is also (but, importantly, not primarily) a tactical consideration here: some people have been conditioned emotionally to think of themselves as “left wing” – it might be prudent for us to provide them with some appropriate place in our new order of things; as to how we might conceptualise our Reaction to the general public, I think Le Pen's idea of nationalism (native interests) vs. globalism (rootles cosmopolitan interests) might just work in the given conditions nowadays on the Continent.


  6. (part 2) Now to get on to the meat of things (sorry for my long-winded style). I am not perfectly convinced that the “right”, the Reaction so to say, was right every single time, on every single issue. This is one of the reasons I was wondering whether it might be prudent for us to try to save some of the Enlightenment thought. By “to save” I mean to recover and then trnasmogrify according to our own molds. Here are a few key issues that might be so “recovered” ideologically by reactionaries:

    — Nationalism. Of course, I do not mean here the radical civic nationalism of the French revolution. I mean the legacy of Romantic Nationalism of the post-Congress-of-Vienna period which has been intermingled, unfortunately, with liberalism, but has, I think some intrinsic value nonetheless.

    Subpoint 1: I also have in mind National Mysticism and other Volk-ish variants such as National-Christian politics (i.e. Legionnarism) which are clearly Reactionary in nature though sharing some of their origins with National-Liberalism. How should we approach these doctrines which fall clearly in our camp despite their illegitimate origins? I have read somewhere (I can't remember where) about “crucifying” such doctrines – i.e. mixing the horizontal relationship that volk-ish/racial/ even liberal nationalism creates (between the members of a people/ or more largely a race or civilisation) with a vertical similar relationship (let's call it patriotism) between Sovereign/Crown/God, individual, and the Fatherland/Soil.

    Subpoint 2: How do we deal with the entirely reasonable and justified emothional attachment that Central European peoples have with the 1848 moment and its legacy of Nationalism? In 1848, the Revolutionaries were mixing the old civic-nationalism-liberalism ideological complex, with a new, entirely organic and reactionary in its nature Romantic Nationalism. The legacy of those Revolutions was not degenerate liberalism but a healthy nationalism. It is under their influence that, for instance, Mihai Eminescu in Romania turned Romania's Conservative youth movement into a Nationalistic Reactionary movement, to be further expanded on by intellectuals such a N. Iorga. Without such foundations, there would not have been an Iron Guard as we have known it. Without Eminescu it is difficult to imagine Codreanu.


  7. (part 3)
    — Freedom of Religion. Of course I do not mean here in any sense equality of religions or the supposition that human being is “free to choose” at his own moral and philosophical pleasure. But I mean a liberty of conscience that is based more or less on Natural Law. God is a Sovereign, not a Tyrant and while malicious and socially dangerous heresies might need extirpation from time to time, religion and Truth cannot be imposed on the soul without acquiescence or even “choice” (What word does St. John Cassian use? I'm sure it's not “choice”). The Grace of God has to be accepted that is. And this could serve as a Christian basis for religious toleration and freedom of conscience.

    Subpoint 1: In some Central European countires (Poland, Lithuania, Hungary, Moldavia) there is a very old, pre-Enlightenment tradition of religious toleration (and liberty in general) that has transformed, in the 1500's in general freedom of religion (and of speech and so forth). This is pre-Liberalism; these people were not nihilists, they were Renaissance Chrstians. Some of them, like Transylvania's unitarians, might be of dubious dogmatic background. But, for instance in the Polish-Lithuanian state the Orthodox Church supported the policy of religious freedom. Such a policy was based on Christian concepts and, as such, was not liable to degenerate into “religious equality” and “whatever goes” like the Enlightenment counterpart has.

    Subpoint 2: In the Republic of Venice they did not have this and the result was a policy of terror unleashed upon the Greek populations and other Orthodox people in their possessions. Should we as reactionaries praise that more than the Hungarian, Polish-Lithuanian and Moldavian policies on religious toleration. I'm not so sure, the Central European tradition of liberty seems pretty “based” to me.

    Subpoint 3: Where does Henri IV and the French Politiques figure in all this?


  8. (part 4)
    — Freedom of Speech and other such. I do not want this to be perceived as an exhortation of libertarian values or trying to introduce them surreptitiously into Reactionry thought. I am mainly thinking of places where such liberty is traditional, such as Central Europe and the Anglosphere. It seems to me that Caesar imposing too much on individual counscience is not a good thing. I do not place conscience and certainly not the individual over society. But it seems to me that freedom of thought is in the natural order of things, a necessary feature of the human mind and spirirt. As such, where it is appropriate, how should we approach matters of liberty of speech and conscience? I am tempted to err on the side of liberty and I could not tell you exactly why. It seems to me that the power of Caesar should not go beyond assuring proper civil order, certaianly not in the realm of sanctifying the soul.

    Subpoint 1: Perhaps we can find, in various pre-Enlighntenment thought solid traditional (and Christian) arguments to base a preference for freedom of speech and other such freedoms on. I certainly think that at least in some places such “civic liberties” are necessary, at least for no other reason than they've been traditional.

    Subpoint 2: Even if we go the other way, how do we approach such things as the Hungarian Golden Bull, the Magna Charta, the Polish Nihil Novi act or Henrician Articles? I just cannot wrap my mind around any suggestion that such developments were “leftist”. In the 19th century there was a debate in Hungary: is the monarchy of Hungary limited or constitutional (important point)? And all of that was related to mainly pre-Enlightenment developments (I think the result was that Hungary's is limited, while the Polish monarhcy was constitutional before the partitions – remember, all this is European pre-Enlightenment thought).


  9. (part 5)
    * And now that I think of it how do we relate to a) the Patriotic Left in Central & E Europe and Russia which has a tendency of being pro-Fatherland/Nation, pro-Church (not the Czech one though), and even pro-Tradition (there is some of that in the Russian incarnations of the Patriotic Left, like Rodina); b) those right-libertarians which have a tendency to go beyond libertarianism in a neo-feudal or even NRx direction?

    Quick note on myself: I'm ethnically Romanian, an Orthodx Christian (obviously) and I've always been a monarchist. Politically, I used to be a Christian-Democrat with strong Libertarian tendencies and now I have moved towards the National-Christian (Legionnaire) position with some old school Reactionary tendencies (but it seems, also, still with some Libertarian or post-Libertarian tendencies).


  10. I will respond to each comment individually, as I think I have the same word limit for my responses as you do for comments.

    What you seem to be saying here is, 'can the left be accommodated in some way in a future order'. The answer is categorically no, because there is no form of Liberalism (the only form of leftism that remains with any shred of prominence) which is not entropic and destructive. None. The Liberalism of George Washington led to the Liberalism of Abraham Lincoln, which led to the Liberalism of Woodrow Wilson, which led to the Liberalism of Barack Obama. I do not view Liberalism as being in any way a legitimate political position, no more than satanism could be a legitimate religious position.

    Can people be pulled rightward using the rhetoric of Nationalism vs. Globalism? Yes. 100% yes. This is a very important narrative for us to push right now. We also oppose the current economic system, which provides a point of contact with radical leftist elements of the old type. You might be surprised how many present Reactionaries were radical leftists in the past, but with some coaxing understood that socialism and communism were not solutions.


  11. I always recommend people read Free Northerner's work on the 'Nationalist' question, these pieces relating to his concept of 'Thedism':

    My disagreement with Nationalism is firstly what you point out, its Enlightenment origins in a belief of equality within a state, (i.e – Italians should be united under one state and made 'citizens of Italy' with equal standing). Secondly, the idea of nationhood as an ideal, when often peoples actually benefit from being in extra-national systems, such as city states, confederations, or empires. Just to give a quick example, riffing off of something Millennial Woes once said as a Scotsman, the Scottish have a kind of personality which does not perform at optimum given its environment unless it is being ruled. Though the Scots resent the English for a number of reasons, Woes feels that their English-dominated union is better for both parties, not just the English. The various constituent 'nations' of Russia provide another good example, Udmurtia, Bashkortostan, etc. These are nations which would struggle outside of Russian dominion.

    Beyond these points, I have no disagreements with nationalism. I believe races of people should segregate themselves to enclaves in order to preserve their unique traditions, they should not be forced to mix, and should have a strong sense of who they are, their history, their culture.

    I think this should answer your first subpoint; Codreanu seemed to recognize in his writings that hierarchy existed, something a nationalist like Mazzini would have denied. If I remember correctly, he compared the idea that classes in society were meaningless to thinking that every man was qualified to run a street car. He believed in an elite. The 'horizontal' relationship should be primarily defined by race/exoteric religion/custom. The 'vertical' relationship should be primarily defined by patriarchy/esoteric religion/caste. See that the first three bind a people as a communal unit, a natural community or 'Sobornost' as we say in the Russian. The second three divide people out along a vertical path, man and woman, priest and layman, aristocrat and peasant.

    For subpoint 2, I must stress I am no expert on the different revolutions that occurred during this period. I understand that while they had Liberal anti-feudal, anti-monarchical tendencies, they also had elements of liberation from foreign rule which ia dear to the hearts of many European nations. This said, I don't see this as exceptionally relevant today. What is gone is gone. Saying that we wanted to reverse the border/imperial changes of 1848 would be silly. All of the kingdoms and empires from this period are dead. Our movement is far more interested in metapolitics than geopolitics, and as such can appreciate figures like Mihai Eminescu and Nicolae Iorga for who they were (just to say, I don't know if the Legion did kill Iorga, but if they did I think it was a mistake. He was against Codreanu's imprisonment and tried to appeal it. I don't think he was a bad man)


  12. I believe that religion is the fundamental grounding of an organic community. When members have a different religion, they speak past each other. It is one of the driving reasons why Jews were never and could never be welcome in Christian Europe, though of course not the only one. In fact, had Jews not been engaging in various villainies throughout a lot of European history, they probably would have been tolerated as much as the Egyptian Copts used to be tolerated by the Arab majority.

    I do believe that races of people, nations if you like, should be monolithic in their beliefs because of religion's important place in understanding and communication. Remember when I listed exoteric religion as one of the horizontal bonds of society? It is important. God is not a tyrant of course, but what do we engage in when we baptize children, when we raise them to know no other faith than Christianity? Is this a form of tyranny? I don't think so. Most pressure to conformity in life does not take the form of law, it takes the form of social conditioning and pressure. People who are within a correctly functioning community of the nation should feel compelled to want to join their compatriots in divine worship.

    In Russia, all white Russians were expected to be Orthodox, since they were practically all born Orthodox and apostasy was a crime (one of my distant relatives actually had to give up his noble estate because he left the Church). However, this was not the case for people living in the Islamic caucuses, nor the Buddhist far reaches of the Empire. These were different races, and the Tsar and Church didn't bother them too much.

    You raise good points about Central European states, but might I offer that this was in most cases a way of accommodating diverse populations without tearing the nation apart along sectarian lines? It is no coincidence these states were in Central Europe, the dividing line between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. Perhaps they saw what happened to the United Kingdom when it flip-flopped between absolutist Anglican and absolutist Catholic as monarchs battled for power.

    I don't believe sincere Christians should persecute other Christians for holding generally recognized schismatic beliefs, at least not at this time. Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox should not fight. If we can come together in common struggle, it might provide a lasting peace that could serve as the foundation for, in a few hundred years, reconciliation and the union of the 'two lungs' as it has been called.

    Subpoint 2 – Obviously I don't believe the west should have gone into schism in the first place, so I can sidestep this question! In all seriousness however, Venetians and Greeks are a different race. If Greeks were under Venetian Imperial rule, and were not causing trouble, then it was gross immorality to do what the Venetians did and I condemn it.

    Your subpoint 3 is interesting, if you mean leaders putting their state above all other concerns. Generally this has been posed as against Roman Catholic doctrine, but I'm not sure how an Orthodox should view it. Obviously we have always been more amenable to multiple states having different interests.


  13. You must come to understand freedom of speech and conscience as Reactionaries do, and not as Liberals do. We hold that freedom of speech and conscience has never existed in history, nor will it ever exist. Let me just paint a picture for you:

    Lets imagine I am a Christian baker and I say that I will not bake a wedding cake for two sodomites to have a fake wedding, and we see my business decisions as part of my speech.

    In one scenario, the government makes discrimination illegal. I am fined a huge sum of money and have to shut down my business.

    In another scenario, the government allows me to discriminate, but the culture I live in is very pro-gay, and so people boycott my business, phone in threats, and protest until I have to shut down my business.

    You see how the result was the same, even though in the first I had no free speech and the second I supposedly had free speech? It is a distinction without a difference, because like I said, governmental policy and law account for very little of the control that is over us.

    Most speech, maybe 95% of all speech, should be controlled by custom and expectations. The same way you do not say “fuck you” to your mother (hopefully), you should not make sexually lewd comments to a respectable lady in the street. The 5% of speech that is regulated is that which presents a clear and present danger to the society's wellbeing. I would say Russia's law against propaganda of non-traditional relationships comes under this and is legitimate. Lese Mageste laws, blasphemy laws, are other examples of where such things are appropriate. Because in the West, we have been tricked into focusing on what speech is controlled by our government, we have been oblivious to how much of our speech is controlled by what Liberals have done to society, to the general public. Liberals figured out that it was good to have the truth be illegal, but it was even better to have the truth be socially unacceptable and unpopular. Do you see how that works? This is vital to understand.

    I am generally against constitutional monarchies. Monarchs are limited in most of human history by 'unwritten constitutions' of expectations and literal power. The Tsar of Russia has absolute power in theory, but he couldn't just do whatever he wanted, nor did he try. When you introduce a written constitution, you give Liberals something to 're-interpret' and they have an easier time doing this than with cultural expectations.

    Take the United States as a case study. Much of what Liberals have done in terms of legal change to their progressive agenda has been through 're-interpretation' of the Constitution. Abortion is a great example, as support for abortion was not as widespread as it is today when the Court ruled it to be available on demand any time. The ruling changed public opinion, it conditioned people to accept abortion as good.

    When you have a constitution, you require a constitutional court. Constitutional courts are one of the easiest things to infiltrate. Its why Viktor Orban very quickly immobilized his own court before moving the country in an Illiberal direction. He knew the court would try to stop him.

    All monarchies are limited, but limitation by constitutional is not optimal in my view. It should be limited by custom.


  14. a) you mean like the Communist Party of Russia, right? These are, by my estimation mostly nostalgia outfits. Russian communists don't really care about communism, they care about the 'glory' of the Soviet Union, its might, its territorial expanse. This is fine, but I just don't know why they have to call themselves communist. The Marxist left is different to the Liberal left, but there is no future for Marxism. It was a failed experiment, like Nazism. My view on modern day Communists and Neo-Nazis is essentially the same.

    b) we should encourage them to go in that direction more. honestly, once you start down this road, it is difficult to stop and yet remain intellectually honest. Smart Libertarians will come to us.

    You sound like you're in the right place (your English is impeccable by the way). I hope you continue reading this blog, and the broader Reactosphere. You've asked some really good questions here and I'm happy to respond to the best of my ability.

    God bless.


  15. Well, here the reality is that in the Moldavian and Transylvanian part of the country there is like a 6% or whatever of Romanians, ethnic Romanians who've always baptized their children Catholic, in the Latin rite. (this isn't about Greek Catholics) It's always been here. They are born Catholic. Their existance is in fact a complicated historical thing from the times of Prince Latcu and even before that (as it always goes with these kinds of things) – anyway the idea is that in Moldavia and Transylvania there has always existed a part of the Romanian population that is either Roman Catholic or (in olden times) Hussite (these were sometimes ethnically mixed Vlach-Slav), or (in later times) Protestant (not so many ethnic Romanians today but still).

    The problem here is that for some ethnic groups, such divisions are traditional. Also: Hungarians (Calvinist, Catholic and some other minor groups), West Ukrainians/Ruthenians/Galicians (Greek Catholic, Orthodox and Roman Catholic). Not everyone had a Tsar Alexis. But, wait a second – also, in Russia, Baltic Germans (some Lutheran, some Orthodox), though they no longer really exist as a separate thing… or do they?

    Anyway (long-winded again) the point is that the approach of a Reactionary or Traditionalist to such things would be different depending on whether he is French or German or Hungarian or Serbain or Russian. In Central Europe such traditions of religious let's say toleration go back, way back to the time when Lithuania was Christianised and how that happened and to the time when the House of Anjou tried to excise Orthodoxy and “other schisms” from the Kingdom of Hungary and failed. Afterwards the situation just stagnated and, indeed, the various Sovereigns were not willing to split the various Realms apart between the various ethno-religious groups, but also within ethnic groups some differences occured, with varied results (for instance, in Transylvania, a lot, and I do mean a lot of the Roman Catholic Romanians over centuries simply Magyarised and became Hungarian).

    response to resp. on Subpoint 2 – this is why many Greeks welcomed Turkish conquest of Greek islands previously under Venetian rule. The Turks instituted Millet system everywhere and entire islands declared “Catholic” under the Venetians promptly retuned to being 95-97% Orthodox. Afterwards the Greeks elsewhere actually did start to cause trouble, in machinating for Turkish conquest, in order to end Frangokratia.


  16. 1.Ok, let me first clarify what I mean by freedom of speech – hooliganism, sex parades, pornography, harassing people, and other such malefica cannot possibly qualify. In the military also and in school, you can't talk back to superiors. But writing a newspaper article (very old school) in favour of socialism, for instance, however noxious… for practical reasons I think the Sovereign should not go there. I can't explain it ideologically from a reactionary position but I rely on the general cultural-political tradition of a part of the Mittel-european space. I think something similar could be said of the Anglosphere. In regards to Putin's policy I think that's appropriate for Russia. However in regards to our own space I tend to think that while sex parades should obviously be banned simple propaganda and “advocacy”… in regards to whatever, even Bolshevism, well, banning it might do more harm than good. And this sort of attitude might be a more generalised culturally-specific thing among the wider population around here.

    2. In general I tend to agree with you. In my country our tradition was also that of a Basileus & Autokrator, but very very limited by custom, both in comparison to Byzantium and Russia (also with diff. between Moldavia and Wallachia). However, there are different situations for different peoples I think. In Poland when Nihil Novi came about and then the Henrician Articles there weren't lberals around.

    In Hungary the Monarch was not the Sovereign. The Holy Crown of Hungary was the Sovereign (in liew of the Virgin Marry), and the Crown was composed of the King and the Nation of Hungary. The Hungarian Nation had a blurry definition, but it comprised, essentially of the first 2 estates (nobles and clerics; possibly also some gentry), regardless of ethnicity/mother tongue or, later, denomination. In both Poland and Hungary coronation was somewhat of a contractual act – it could not be complete without the Monarch swearing an oath. In Poland, the oath was tailor made for each King. In Hungary the King would swear to honour the ancient constitution which included, till the late 1600's if I remember correctly, the privilege of the Hungarian gentry to rise up in armed revolt against the King's government in defense of “the Crown”. Similar right of armed rebellion also existed in Poland and Lithuania. The origins of this go as far back as 1200's for Hungary and 1300-1400's for Poland. It is also of note that the traditional “constitutional” courts (various) in the Lands of the Hungarian Crown (both Hungary and Croatia) have been for a long time notoriously conservative and quite legitimist. I'm not sure if this could qualify as “reactionary” but in Hungary in the late 1600's I think they allowed the Habsburg King to no longer swear to uphold the right of the “Hungarian Nation” to armed rebellion (it didn't help, the Hungarians always rebel).


  17. a) – exaclty this. And also in the Czech Rep. with their “Social Patriotism” party and in Slovakia with Robert Fico's party – the same thing. And in Russia the likes of Rogozin tend to be more Nationalistic and even Christian-Nationalistic even if they claim they're “socialists”.

    Thanks for the warm welcome. Your thoughts have been very constructive and helpful. There is something that I need to point out though – the Russian spirit is visible behind your words so to speak. This is what I meant when I said that Reactionaries and “Far-right” neo-Volkish people from various parts of Europe will tend to have differeces determined by their national character. Take this characterisation for instance: are Legionnaires in Romania far-right neo-Volkish, are they Reactionary or are they New Right? It is in fact, impossible to say. The Guard was/is a unique movement, defying such cathegorisation. A bit like Evola's Radical Traditionalism. But in other places (France) an identitarian / New Right type, an altar-and-trhone Reactionary and an ethnonationalist of the older right variety let's say can be very different thins.


  18. To your first point, I don't think Romanians should interfere with these groups or harass them. My point is that in the Organic State that Reactionaries would create, my hope is that these groups of ethnic Romanians would become Orthodox due to a sincere desire to share in the fullness of the Romanian life and experience, and of course the fact that Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism are not hugely different in their fundamental beliefs about the world. I also have general problems with Protestantism because I think it leads to a wrong frame of mind regarding religion.

    Balts… well, some say they are Germans. I don't know enough about it.

    What you say about the Romanians becoming Magyarized is I think somewhat common. Shared religion can encourage interbreeding as well, so it wont be uncommon for say a Romanian line in Transylvania to eventually become dominated by Hungarian instincts if they share religion with Hungarians. I know Transylvania is a sore spot for Romania/Hungary relations, because it has been owned by both throughout different periods of history.


  19. Remember the reason why the first things you mention should be prohibited. They are destructive to the general society and the good of the people as a collective yes? Consider, is advocacy for socialism damaging to the people as a collective also, and to what degree by comparison? I personally have an innate disdain for the media as an enterprise. I can hardly think of any good thing achieved by having a news media. What is the purpose of this estate. In previous times, we were given national policy by what the religious authorities and the sovereign ruling class commanded. Today, we have an intermediary body between us and them, who criticize, interpret, spin, and obfuscate. For what? As you know, Codreanu despised the media in Romania during his political career, as it was run by Jews and was dedicated to liberalizing Romania. I struggle to find an example of mainstream media organizations where this is not the case. Does the media contribute to stability, or do they often act as a destabilizing force for the broader culture? This is a key question.

    Your point about the Hungarian monarch agreeing that the gentry could rise up in armed revolt made me smile, because such an agreement is meaningless. If the gentry wish to revolt and have the means, the king can do nothing about this. This is a realist game of power. If the nobles are in revolt, who will decide if the king has threatened the crown? Some kind of court will arbitrate between the king and the mob with swords? Now, usually armed revolts don't occur. If a monarch is exceptionally bad, he meets a 'tragic end' in some kind of 'accident' or 'poisoning' etc. I recognize this is normal throughout history. Every royal line goes bad at some point, and then another new royal line takes over. This is what we would call the 'extreme check and balance' on monarchical authority. If you piss enough people off, you will end up dead. Cases where kings can be truly exceptionally terrible and not pay the price (Ivan the Terrible being an example) are noteworthy because they are pretty rare, and even Ivan paid, for the instability generated by his brutal reign ended with no legitimate heirs able to take the throne and be universally recognized throughout Russia, the period of the 'False Dmitrys'.

    In an understanding of the Mandate of Heaven, we say that nobody has the right to revolt against or murder the king, but if it does occur and is successful, the king must have, at some point, lost the Mandate of Heaven and it passes to a new family line.


  20. There is differentiation between peoples for sure, and no one-size-fits-all model will graft onto peoples in a perfect way. When Evola speaks of Tradition with a capital T, we are talking specifically about key assumptions which changed with the Enlightenment.

    So, to give an example, you as a Romanian and myself as a Russian would see Tsar Nicholas I and Vlad Tepes as not merely secular authorities, we would say they had a sacral quality, a spiritual role in the nation. We would also agree that women should obey their husbands and not involve themselves in politics but be good mothers and wives. We would also say that different races are not interchangeable; the people of Somalia could never build Singapore. It is only these kinds of very broad presuppositions we are talking about when we speak of Reactionary or Traditional positions, not specifics about how exactly an autocratic government operates or is constituted, that may well be determined by the type of people in question.

    The Legionary movement was Traditional in its character, even if not all the solutions it offered (it was strangely vague on policy, as Codreanu stated “the country is dying for a lack of men, not a lack of programs!”) could be classed as such. Evola of course praised the Legion despite not being Christian and despite having extensive ties to the German SS and Italian Fascist Movement. Clearly he deemed the Legion to be superior in its understanding of the spirit as integral, above and beyond the Duche or the blood.

    Things like the identitarian movement are just partial steps towards a truly rightist attitude, and it is not as if they disagree fundamentally with the aspects of Reaction which don't concern race, but that these are just not their focus, and it is preferable in populist movements (which identitarianism tries to be) to mark out positions on as few issues as possible in order to broaden support. If a Reactionary government of the throne and altar variety were to address the race issue, I doubt identitarians would have much to complain about.


  21. a. We've been waiting since Prince Latcu on the R-C Romanians. Realistically, if ever the R-C Church gives up on its flioque nonsense and at some point the 2 “lungs” of Christendom are reunited, the Rom. Orth. Ch. will need to create a Latin Rite exarchate for the R-C Romanians

    b. I wans't speaking of Balts (like the Latvians). I was speaking of Germans from the Baltic region. They had been Lutheran but after Russia conquered the Baltics many of them converted to Orthodoxy, while some stayed Lutheran. Some famous Baltic Germans were Karl Nesselrode, von der Pahlen, Alfred Rosenberg, Roman von Ungern-Sternberg, Wrangel family (yes, THAT Wrangel), and aparently the late Patriarch Alexiy of Moscow also had Baltic German origins. Before WWII most Baltic Germans were forcefully “returned” to the Reich, while after WWII what was left of them in Russia was “relocated” to nice places between Tomsk and the Pacific.

    But just as you've noticed, they lived in a place (the Baltics) which is on the border between the Western rites (whether Catholic or Protestant) and Orthodoxy (just like Hungarians, Romanians, Ruthenians, Poles, Belarussians).


  22. In regards to the first point, what will happen is that we'll play their game and we'll do it better. Currently the Romanian Church has its own media arm. The online part of that has been particularly successful. We'll have our own NGOs and we'll flood theirs. In Central Europe any Soros type NGO has a tendency to go way too right wing for its masters at some point. The reason for this is that the people who are for civil liberties and a strong civil society around here are also for patriotism, even nationalism, social conservatism and the Church and see themselves as anti-Marxists. There's way more of us than there is of them and I'll have a good laugh watching how they try to infiltrate the (notoriously right-of-centre) Romanian intellectual class.

    Here's something that might make you laugh. There is an NGO in Romania with the name “the Spiritual Militia”. What kind of an NGO might that be? By name alone you would assume it's some kind of quasi-Legionnaire thing, right? Well, no. It's a Soros-type pro-tolerance outfit, but they had to have such a badass name as “Spiritual Militia” in order to atract anyone because the youth in Universities tends to go more towards ASCOR (the Church sponsored Orthodox Students NGO) and other such. In other words, they are on to us, but we still have life in us.

    On the second point I was just trying to say that in places such as Hungary, Slovakia, Poland, Parliaments with power are traditional, not some kind of post-Enlightenment invention.


  23. I think you're right on the mark here. Thanks for your thoughts.

    On the point of monarchs – Vlad Tepes was a great hero but he was in a sense a tragic figure. A tough Warrior-caste leader who won us many battles but also in the end converted to Roman Catholicism for realpolitik reasons. The one we regard as our archetypal “Sacral King”, the one Romanians metaphorically (or not) say would one day “rise again” is St. Stephen the Great (of Moldavia) – may he pray to God for our souls. On the same point – why do you say Ivan the Terrible was necessarily bad for Russia. I was under the impression he also had good points and the common people enjoyed his reign. I mean, I understand why he'd be hated in Novgorod, but was he so bad overall?


  24. It's still the Romanian guy. Sorry for hijacking the thread again, but over this day I've been thinking about this and I'd like to probe your mind on this if you have the time. I believe I'm not 100% on board with you on “recovering” ideas from our past that might have been “tainted” by liberalism or Elightenment thinking. I'm sure I'm not the only one thinking about this and I've just realised 2 things:

    1) This was already done with Nationalism and, in part, with 1848. I think the Volk-ish, Third Positionist movements between the 2 World Wars did exaclty this. People like Franco, like Codreanu (and their intellectual antecedents – in the Romanian case, Eminescu) made Nationalism into a thing of the Right, made Nationalism rectionary.

    2) I've just had a revelation: I think this is what the New Right in France and elsewhere sought to do with a lot of things (such as syndicalism, environmentalism) in their “hybrid politics”. And I also think Dugin is doing exactly this with his 4th Political Theory. He is trying to “recover” socialism (and National Communism) for the right. He always talks of getting beyond right and left and I've always had 2 feelings on him: first, that whatever he says, his political theory is of the right; second, I felt unease at his analysis of socialism and communism. But then I'm not a Russian. I think what he's trying to do with his own brand of hybrid politics is to recover aspects of Russian history and to put them in rightist terms. As I've said, to transmogrify such issues according to our own molds.

    I should also add:
    3) I think it will be inevitable that the “Reaction”, contemporary Third Positionism and 4th P.T./New Right will have some Libertarian influences due to simply the fact that many of the people involved are post-libertarians. So we should be careful how we manage this. Perhaps not go as far as Dugin in “hybridization”, but we must be aware it's bound to occur. The solution I'm thinking of is to always remember to put Church and the spiritual first. I'll be thinking over these issues for the next month or so and get back to you.


  25. The whole question of the rite is for me not amazingly important. I don't see these as being relevant to schism or fundamental to the faith, they are at some level entirely exoteric. I'm fine with different churches having different rites.

    Germany and Russia have an interesting history of course, though most of what once Prussia has disappeared. I actually think, contrary to popular opinion, the two groups have much in common. The region east of the Ural Mountains actually received a huge influx of German migrants (I can't remember exactly when this was, but within the last 400 years) as farmers and they got on okay until reforms meant they had to pay higher tax and serve in the military. Remember also, Russia was for a time in 'Holy Alliance' with Prussia and Austria Hungary.


  26. Well, I think Eastern Europe is moving in the right direction regarding the insidious influence of West-controlled NGOs. Hungary has basically ejected all of them. I think Bulgaria is likely to do the same.

    It depends what parliament means. Were these not historically collections of noblemen, rather than elected officials, i.e – they were boyars? Most places have that. Even the Russian Tsar had to work with the nobles. The notable exception, Ivan, ended up in a bad place. This may be more standardized in Eastern Europe, and I don't have a problem with that. An aristocracy is very much natural. Codreanu spoke of his plan for the Legionary Elite to serve alongside the king, right?


  27. Ivan the Terrible similarly is a very tragic figure. As I remember the story, he was raised at a time when he was surrounded by death. Nobles fighting nobles, princes fighting princes. There was constant traumatic conflict and threat. His mother was likely poisoned by one of these warring noble factions, already igniting in him a hatred of the nobility. While his initial period of rule was very good (he commissioned the beautiful St. Basil's Cathedral for example, and expansion into Siberia), things went very bad in the 1560s. His beloved wife was poisoned, again suspected to be the work of a noble, and one of his trusted advisors defected to Lithuania. These betrayals cut Ivan so deeply, he never recovered his full sanity.

    This is when Ivan formed the Oprichniki to terrorize all of the landed families of Russia. Nobody was safe from execution and torture, which filled Ivan with glee. He killed his grandson his own son in fits of rage. He eliminated some of the most respected officials in the army and civil service. Towards the end of his life, I think he realized what he had done, and sent money to monasteries to have them pray for all the people he had killed. He was re-christened as a monk, and buried as one.

    As he made Russia bigger, he also left it weaker. A tragic figure for sure, and I'd leave it to better historical experts than I to make a full verdict on his place in Russian history.


  28. 1) Codreanu did, but I would err on Franco. Franco was much more akin to Pinochet really. The Traditionalist Reactionary force in Spain was, as I said, the Carlists and they didn't manage to attain power. Franco is to Spain what Antonescu was to Romania. The two situations are virtually parallel. Again I want to stress, the things that I disagree with about nationalism were ejected by Codreanu for the most part. His nationalism was not the same as Mazzini's or the petty nationalism of today. I doubt we will see a rise of 'Third Positionist' movements again similarly to how I doubt we'll see Marxism rise again. These were specific ideological products of the era. What we could see is some other kind of movement arise which does the same thing hopefully as the Iron Guard, but calibrated for the contemporary condition which is very different from 1930s Romania.

    2) Dugin's recovery of socialism is not, I think, a recovery of socialism, but an agreement with the socialist critique of capitalism, of consumerism, of bourgeoise Liberalism. Socialists are correct in one aspect, that an attitude that tends towards a more communal and organic spirit, a sense of civic duty, is superior to a highly individualistic culture. The problem with the Socialist view is

    A) It is godless
    B) It expects too much of a single entity (one sovereign government)

    I'm glad that localism (which is somewhat connected to Libertarianism) is becoming popular in our circles, because originally it was a Reactionary position. Remember, one of the precepts for Liberalism, Mercantilism, was about growing federal control of the economy. Dugin essentially wants to take the socialist critique of capitalism, and the nationalist critique of globalism, and synthesize them. I believe when you do that, you end up with Sobornost, you end up with the organic position of community from the ground up rather than the top down. I agree with you, in terms of the true right/left spectrum, he is a rightist (this is why he has said things like we need a consistently fascist fascism), but the Communists did have some things in common with us in that they were against the atomization of society. They still saw people as economic units, which is bad, but there was a Spartan mentality to their thinking. Catholic Distributism comes to mind as something that might be relevant here. G.K Chesterton was after all a Distributist.

    Anyhow, I agree that we place the spiritual above all. Very important.

    Drop by anytime.


    • Say for contingency sake Mark. How does one prevent royalty from being murdered when a restoration is attempted?

      Could people have done differently to prevent the French and Russian Royalty from being murdered hence leaving no Royalty to restore to the throne or is it an inevitability.?


Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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