Great! More of this is necessary I suppose. Nowadays Substack Dissident Right is, to certain extent, still moldbuggery, nationalism or vitalism (that latent or open homosexuality and obsession with one's own body, occasionally fun I admit). Our friend Nigel T. Carlsbad is sorely missing. Good you are still around.
Glad to hear it! What always gets me about the vitalists is that they rightly complain that modern society stifles freedom to move around, seek adventure, live dangerously, etc., but it never seems to occur to them, unlike past generations, to just go out and buy motorcycles- a time-honoured way for those feeling weighed down by button-down bourgeois society to gain some exposure to the life of the freebooters and adventurers of old.
A slightly off-topic question, however: If my assumption that Haller rejects the notion of a monarch being a corporation sole is correct, and that a bishop *is* a corporation sole, then wouldn’t his categorization of a prince-bishopric, for example, as a (spiritual) monarchy be contradictory?
Perhaps he overlooked such a possibility of a sovereign corporation sole (for which I wouldn’t blame him given their historical rarity), or perhaps I’m being too semantic and technical, or simply misinterpreted his taxonomy.
Good question! I don't think Haller would have any problem with the corporation sole. What he warns Kings against is being led to think of "the State" as a *public* corporation, a creature and possession of the so-called "people" or "nation", with the King as its chief executive officer, since such an executive officer, by definition, is but a servant of the corporation, and moreover, at first implicitly, later explicitly, one who can be removed at the pleasure of the membership (see the famous language of the Declaration of Independence among others). None of that applies to the corporation sole; it is a non-issue.
Great! More of this is necessary I suppose. Nowadays Substack Dissident Right is, to certain extent, still moldbuggery, nationalism or vitalism (that latent or open homosexuality and obsession with one's own body, occasionally fun I admit). Our friend Nigel T. Carlsbad is sorely missing. Good you are still around.
Glad to hear it! What always gets me about the vitalists is that they rightly complain that modern society stifles freedom to move around, seek adventure, live dangerously, etc., but it never seems to occur to them, unlike past generations, to just go out and buy motorcycles- a time-honoured way for those feeling weighed down by button-down bourgeois society to gain some exposure to the life of the freebooters and adventurers of old.
Great post as always.
A slightly off-topic question, however: If my assumption that Haller rejects the notion of a monarch being a corporation sole is correct, and that a bishop *is* a corporation sole, then wouldn’t his categorization of a prince-bishopric, for example, as a (spiritual) monarchy be contradictory?
Perhaps he overlooked such a possibility of a sovereign corporation sole (for which I wouldn’t blame him given their historical rarity), or perhaps I’m being too semantic and technical, or simply misinterpreted his taxonomy.
Good question! I don't think Haller would have any problem with the corporation sole. What he warns Kings against is being led to think of "the State" as a *public* corporation, a creature and possession of the so-called "people" or "nation", with the King as its chief executive officer, since such an executive officer, by definition, is but a servant of the corporation, and moreover, at first implicitly, later explicitly, one who can be removed at the pleasure of the membership (see the famous language of the Declaration of Independence among others). None of that applies to the corporation sole; it is a non-issue.