Leadership, Submission, and the Neoreactionary Social Order
The two terms which best describe our Modernist-Liberal age are ‘rebellion’ and ‘inversion’; the most obvious example of this is the breakdown of healthy sexual relationships, thanks to the rejection of traditional values, not just by society, but also by many of the churches; Dalrock and Sunshine Mary explore this thoroughly. But as important as sex is (not only does it perpetuate the species, it’s also our number one raison d’être, after all) our inversions and rebellions go far deeper than just the advocacy of feminism and promiscuity. In fact, the foundational mythos of our civilization has become an over-turning of natural law and the natural order of things, and by this point in history it has us circling the drain.
Let’s start with the microcosm of marriage.
The natural, neoreactionary, and Christian prescription for marriage can be summed up by: “Husbands, love your wives; wives, submit to your husbands.” This is how you make a marriage work, and ensure that both parties are as happy and healthy as possible. But that word ‘submission’… it fills us with a visceral aversion, doesn’t it? Despite it being the accepted wisdom for thousands of years.
So much aversion, in fact, that your typical TradCon or Churchian Preacher – despite claiming to support traditional ways – finds themself unable to embrace what the Bible actually says. They wind up reflexively inverting it. Sometimes they get the roles completely backwards, telling wives that they need to lead their husbands; this completely ignores human nature. A woman’s natural instinct is to seek out a man who can be strong and protective of her and her offspring, a man who’s naturally dominant; for her to want to dominate a lesser man speaks of deep-seated emotional issues. A male, meanwhile, who doesn’t demand respect is likewise a twisted up little creature, revelling in his own debasement, while secretly resenting his betters.
Female-headed households are black pits of mutual- and self-abuse.
Other TradCons and Churchians don’t go quite so far, but they still get the equation backwards; they demand that their congregations “Man Up!” and earn the leadership role; they take all of the modern female misbehaviour, and drop it at the doorsteps of the men in the congregation. Often they conflate the Cads with the Dads (hint: if they’re listening to your sermon, they’re not one of the Cads), but even when they’re speaking exclusively to the Dads, the lesson is inverted: the Bible doesn’t say that men need to lead their wives it says that women need to submit so that the men can lead them.
Let’s take a break from marriage for a moment, and consider the Principles of Leadership:
7. Develop the leadership potential of your followers. A corollary to this, is that to be a good leader you must be a good subordinate. Leadership is all about keeping the Green Machine (or in your case, the Blue Machine) oiled and working. It’s not some sort of messianic practice – Leadership is about being the best damn soldier you can be. Peons are the worst possible subordinates to have – you want thinking, intelligent, creative and responsible people under you. You want leaders.
For any organization to operate effectively, subordinates need to have faith in their leaders; they need to show submission to the hierarchy. As expressed in the above quote, this doesn’t mean unquestioning obedience; quite the opposite. It means thinking, questioning obedience. The best subordinate you could hope for is one who knows your failings, and helps to cover for them, one who stays faithful to you and the mission, one who doesn’t use every little mistake as an excuse to start in-fighting.
Good subordinates are becoming increasingly hard to find.
The progressive celebration of rebellion subverts true leadership; rather than military service being every man’s duty to Queen and Country, the military is the home of the brainwashed baby-killers. In 1961 Kennedy tried to remind the world, “ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.” Today that sounds downright totalitarian. In 1970, Clint Eastwood disobeyed his lawful commander, but could trust on the loyalty of his subordinates in the film Kelly’s Heroes; today, you play a modern war shooter, and the Secret Villain is your own General.
Progressives just keep progressing, I guess.
Authority is a chain, with love and care going down, and trust and respect going up; at least, that’s how it’s supposed to be. We live in an inverted age, after all.
A mother demands obedience from her children, which she earns through obedience to her husband, who himself earns it through obedience to a higher calling. Rather than weakness, a woman’s submission is a display of womanly strength; she recognizes that the marriage and the family are bigger than herself, that her husband is likewise making sacrifices in consideration of her – loving her when she’s irrational, just as she loves their children when they’re bratty. If – after discussion and consideration – the husband still puts his foot down, and says no to something she was arguing for, she will display the strength of character to bite her tongue and trust in him.
And later, if she’s proven right, she’ll resist the urge to say “I told you so”; she has the wisdom to know that even imperfect leadership is better than the alternative.
The locus of power has moved away from strength, however, it’s now allied with weakness: children no longer need to be obedient, they now have rights. Wives no longer have duties, they have entitlements. Men no longer have obligations, they have ‘freedom.’ And the result of all of this? A positive feedback loop, spinning out of control.
As I wrote about the necessity of obedience and submission earlier, I could hear the questions in my head: “Wait, didn’t the Liberals demand self-sacrifice and obedience to Obamacare?” and “But surely, Clint Eastwood was in the right to rebel against that incompetent officer…” and “Haven’t you yourself said that modern companies don’t deserve loyalty?” This is all true, and it proves my point: rebellion and inversion don’t remove the power structure – they just replace it.
You simply can’t get rid of structure and hierarchy; all you can do is make them ugly. As I described in my video The Corporate Boyfriend, “Woman, you shall be ruled over by a man,” isn’t prescriptive, it’s descriptive. It’s in women’s nature to be ruled, and if isn’t a loving husband, it’s going to be something else.
In traditional society Women are called on to submit to their husbands, because that’s what’s required for the husband to lead: he can’t be the one to make the first venture, not the way the TradCons would have it. A rebellious woman is un-leadable, and she makes herself unloveable. The Alpha Male who could dominate her wouldn’t; he has other options. She still wants to be dominated, but she won’t allow an ordinary man to dominate her: where does she end up?
She winds up with the Omega Sexual Degenerate: the Cad, the Player, the PUA. The travelling salesman, or the exploitative CEO. To her own chagrin, she eventually realizes that she’s being used, and blames it on the man who used her. “Surely,” she writes in the Huffington Post, “Isn’t this just further proof that men are abusive? Isn’t this just further proof that we need freedom to divorce? All the men I’ve met are the problem, so surely the problem is men?”
My honey, you shut yourself off from all of the Good Men long ago.
Don’t be too quick to laugh at her, though, for the rest of us are no different: in rejecting the whole notion of authority we’ve left ourselves wide-open to the exact same form of shysterdom. “This leader isn’t perfect,” we say, “so I refuse to follow him.” We put heroes under the microscope, and magnify each of their failings. “Arnold Schwarzenegger? Bah, he cheated on his wife; plus, he’s just an actor.” No heroes, then, so we’re free to be degenerates – but we still crave a hero, don’t we?
And that’s when he strolls in: the shyster with the slicked-back hair. The preacher with an impeccable track record. The Narcissist who pulls you into his psychodrama, whom you worship as a God… only to find out that he’s a Fallen Angel.
This is where we wind up, folks, when you turn against hierarchy, when you denigrate submission, when you become a perpetual iconoclast and rebel: we wind up as a bunch of crabs in a bucket, pulling each other down. Hierarchy still exists, as do abuses of power, but now there’s no Hope or Beauty left: we’re all ugly, we’re all evil, we’re all freaks in the freak kingdom. The modernists tried to destroy power-imbalances and make everybody equal, but it turns out that some people are more equal than others.
We used to have a hardworking farmer. All we have now is a pig in a top-hat.
I’m pretty sure this is what Paul meant when he said that “The wages of sin are death.”