Author Comment    
Lady Aquila

Jul 17, 05 - 8:57 AM
Aristasia, Sex and Platonism

Members may be interested in the folowing discussions between Tellurian Traditionalists and Aristasia:

We knew the Aristasians didn’t share current liberal assumptions regarding the things you mention. The Aristasians’ revulsion for the Pit, the Eclipse, and so on, is shared of course by trads and for largely the same exact reasons. Trads who’ve browsed the Aristasian site and discussion threads know how much they have in common with the Aristasians. On the specific topic of what you term “homo-affectionality,” however, there’s a gulf between trads and Aristasians which would appear to be unbridgeable. I for one find this very sad because I really like Aristasians — I love about them mainly their rejection of the post-Eclipse world of course, but I also love their intelligence, their wit, so many aspects of their taste — I nearly always enjoy reading their stuff, sometimes extremely, and would love to be able to get close to them. That can never happen — not, at any rate, as long as they’re engaged in their fantasy rôle-playing (ummjack, when she steps out of the lesbian-lite rôle-playing to post comments, occasionally, at another site where I’m a regular, shows no sign of this unbridgeable gulf …). Just as does male homosexuality, lesbianism — which, it has to be acknowledged, permeates Aristasianism whether or not you try to present it as “not the real deal but sort of an ill-defined, mysterious, spacey, can’t-be-pinned-down-as-anything-definite female eroticism or at most a kind of not-quite-but-almost platonic lesbianism-lite” — entails a whole way of life that is at bottom incompatible with normalness and therefore with trad conservatism. I consider Aristasians allies of trads but only up to a point. On a fundamental level we’re at right angles to one another — sort of in parallel universes.


Aristasia: pessimism and the critique of "homosexuality"
I agree with most of what you say. Aristasia is a parallel universe (Aristasians would refer to liberals and conservatives alike as Outlanders - Umm Jack, by the way, is not an Aristasian, she is a cultural conservative who is welcomed as a friendly contributor to Aristasian discussions).

As to whether alliance can “go deep”,it depends what is meant. Aristasians are not going to become Tellurian conservatives any more than Tellurian conservatives are going to become Aristasians. But while “liberalism” has a virtual monopoly on language and thought, the free exchange of ideas among the minorities which reject that monopoly seems valuable.

Possibly Aristasians are better off under a “liberal” regime than under any possible “conservative” revival. That does not stop us criticising the bases of liberalism, since our concern (in intellectual discussion at any rate) is with truth, not convenience. This is important, because enquiry should not be hamstrung by vested interests.

Also, you must remember that Aristasia-in-Telluria grew in a British environment, where conservatism is no longer a serious possibility because the very roots of the culture have been killed (see my notes on Africa ). Aristasians, therefore may be called pessimistic in Tellurian terms. Americans may have to wait until 2055 (when whites will become a minorty) for the same sense of pessimism to descend. The same thing will happen to Britain in 2100, but it hardly matters. The culture is already destroyed beyond any reasonable hope of reconstitution. The lion is dead and smells worse every year.

What I do take issue with is your use of the term “lesbian-lite” and such phrases as “lesbianism — which, it has to be acknowledged, permeates Aristasianism”. To my mind this accepts too easily and uncritically the whole post-Freudian notion of “sexualty”.

Some one said that the criminalisation of homosexuality toward the end of the 19th century was the major step in “conceptualising” it (this, from the liberal point of view, is a Good Thing). I have a feeling that the whole idea of homo-sexuality as something equivalent to normal, procreative sexuality is rather new, and dates from about that time, partly because of the weakening of dynastic concerns, the propagation of individualism etc., all of which have continued since then (the habit of calling every one by Christian name, so rife in Pit society, is surely a result of seeing people wholly in terms of their individuality rather than their dynastic roots).

Aristasia is curious in this respect. While it posits the ideal of Aristasia Pura, a place in which the two feminine sexes are entirely equivalent to the two sexes in Telluria and form the basis of dynastic society, it also questions, in a way that no liberals and very few conservatives do, the very existence of “sexuality” as something parallel and equal to the biological/dynastic function of human sex.
Lady Aquila

Jul 17th, 2005 - 8:59 AM
Re: Aristasia, Sex and Platonism

Aristasia. ( ... Is there something wrong with this picture?)

You’re verbally blurring what seems to be a lesbian-type sexual mal-orientation of some sort — call it what you will — into a kind of definition-defying obfuscation.

Look — what is the difference between, on the one hand, a woman who values Aristasian-variety Daphne-duMaurier-Hitchcock’s-Rebecca-type upper-middle- and upper-class British atmospherics, style, taste, mannerisms, and so on but likes men for intimacy, and on the other hand one who values all that but likes women for intimacy? Is there some important difference? Perhaps an all-important one? While we’re at it, incidentally, what about Daphne du Maurier herself? — clearly she liked Aristasian-style atmospherics. Did she like men or women? It was men, I believe. You cannot get around or ignore the question of whether a woman prefers men or women for you-know-what … (please substitute what you like for “you-know-what” — it needn’t have a carnal dimension but be it carnal or be it a sentiment so “pure,” “true,” and ethereal it makes our carnal natures irrelevant, the point can’t be evaded but must be confronted in the last analysis to make sense of Aristasianism). We can’t live without healthy fantasy, which we all indulge in to one extent or another and which can serve as a wholesome guide to some of life’s most important pursuits. But the Aristasian view of this particular maleless fantasy of theirs as ranking above reality may reflect perversion or something like an immature failure to emerge from female adolescence (sort of as if author Carolyn Graglia before her “Valkyrie” moment of “feminine awakening” was stuck in fantasizing herself actually living in a Hitchcock’s Rebecca type movie or something). I like the atmospherics. I really, really like them. But when you realize there are no men in this world, you confront the fact that “something’s wrong with this picture.”


Aristasia agrees!

I agree with pretty much everything you say - except, of course the valuation. Even that I can see from your point of view and sympathise withal (just as I can see the point of view of American war-supporters and sort-of admire it, while also seeing the point of view of the East which deplores the iron fist of “democracy”).

I certainly have not been “backtracking” or implying that Aristasia is not radically separate from many Tellurian values - and not just in the area of the sexes either - our rejection of “Enlightenment” rationalism in some ways puts us even further from the classical-liberal society of the past several Tellurian centuries. Even so, while we reject classical liberalism as a basis for Aristasian thinking, we tend to think it is the right thing for Telluria in its current state (I mean things like constitutional government rather than “absolute” monarchy).

I was simply questioning the whole concept of “homosexuality” in the modern sense as a parallel to biological “sexuality”. The concept is a relatively modern one as far as I can see and is based on certain assumptions not unconnected with the spread of Freudism (in the earlier stages we are talking about the preconditions for, rather than the results of, its spread). What I believe it is entirely dependent on is the Darwinian revolution, but it would be a very big job to try to explain that!

The idea that any imitation of consummation is somehow parallel to the actuality is really a rather strange one (although it seems to be second nature to the current mind) and belongs, in my view to the post-Darwinian world.

And - having said that, Aristasia seems to be the only milieu in which the notion of real consummation between feminine creatures (not human females, because, by definition they could not be that) has ever been postulated. But the idea of translating that literally into Tellurian life is - precisely because one does realise the issues involved - not really in question.

I have also to say that not all Aristasians would agree with this position. It is a subtle one in the sense that it does not (as most liberal - and modernist conservative - thinking does) automatically and forcibly attempt to align theory with the convenience of the reasoner - (i.e. if one wants a thing one declares it possible).

But you are certainly right. The difference between Aristasian life and ideas on the one hand and Tellurian conservatism on the other is final and irreducible. I have never wished to deny that.

Lady Aquila

Jul 17th, 2005 - 9:01 AM
Re: Aristasia, Sex and Platonism

Body and Soul

“Aristasia … also questions, in a way that no liberals and very few conservatives do, the very existence of ‘sexuality’ something parallel and equal to the biological/dynastic function of human sex.”

This is interesting. It seems rather like a feminine version of Plato/Socrates’ comments on the love of young men. Since it’s feminine it’s more elusive and culminates in something with a lot more atmospherics and attention to fashion detail than the Platonic Vision of the Good. It seems though there’s a similar distinction between sex, which involves practical social functions and specific physical acts, and an eroticism that points to communion of souls and something ideal. The latter does not by nature have the same sort of concrete physical expression and in fact (at least for Plato/Socrates) would be corrupted by such an expression.

The Catholic view, I think, is that the distinction shouldn’t be drawn to that extent, because God made the world and pronounced it good, which means that reality matters and its functioning is good and the thing we ought to engage and work with. Both sex and sexually-based erotics are part of that world, and they both work a whole lot better if they feed each other as part of a unified scheme. The discipline of respect for natural functioning is necessary. If you try to create a new arrangement that doesn’t build on it things are likely to go haywire. I’d be inclined to include the Aristasian interest in physical discipline as an example. It looks like an attempt to give something that by nature is rather insubstantial the weight and force of reality.

Naturally, the Aristasian view might seem appealing because something’s gone horribly wrong with understandings of sex that make its proper functioning, including its emotional and spiritual functioning, extremely unlikely. Still, to me a view like Catholicism that points toward the restoration of a complex hierarchical reality with a place for all things makes more sense than one that tries to live in a parallel universe that just rejects the everyday things (and people) around us.

From what Novaryana says of course it’s obvious that the Aristasians do respect reality and natural functioning to a far greater extent than liberals, who view all things, our bodies and their functioning included, as neutral resources to be used for whatever arbitrary schemes we concoct. I’d tie that technological view of reality, which I think is the basis of the notion of “sexualities,” much more to the 17th c., for example to people like Bacon and Descartes, than to Darwin.


Aristasian "Platonism"
I agree with pretty much all of this. Aristasia is certainly closer in many ways to Platonism than to Catholicism.

Though I have to say that, while I have recently heard quite a bit from traditional Catholics about the “positiveness” of their position toward nature, I should have thought that, historically, Catholicism is as ambiguous as any other Tradition about the question of “the world, the flesh and the devil”, as opposed to the inherent goodness of creation. Such ambiguity does not signify confusion or inconsistency, but reflects the inherent ambiguity of creation (or Maya) itself. But perhaps we had better not wander off down that path!

I absolutely agree that the root of the “technological” approach is in the 17th century (one could go further back, but that really suffices for our present purposes); and I fully understand that my reference to Darwin was horribly obscure unless one has read the chapter on “The Myth of the Modern World” in The Feminine Universe ( ). Certainly I was not referring to any of the more immediate or obvious corollories of Darwinism as they are usually understood.

Let me try to explain. Our thesis is that, while the substantialist (broadly, rationalist) point of view originates in the 17th century and becomes dominant in the 18th, it is hamstrung by the lack of a mythos or story-picture, which is a psychological necessity if the the human mind is fully to internalise a world-outlook. Darwinism supplied the needed story-picture or pseudomythos which made a fully substantialist outlook for the first time generally possible. It is a story-picture that describes for the ordinary person, in graspable, “mythic”, terms, how form, or Essence, can be the product of substance and the magnitude of the conceptual shift this entails can hardly be exaggerated.

It is for this reason, I would argue, that among many other things, “homosexuality” became “conceptualised” at the end of the 19th century rather than the beginning of the 18th.

I apologise in advance for the length of the following quotation, but I think it is the minimum necessary (and probably less than that) to give some idea of a thesis which, I think, many readers of this site may find of importance:
Lady Aquila

Jul 17th, 2005 - 9:03 AM
Re: Aristasia, Sex and Platonism

Quotation from The Feminine Universe

“The effects of the introduction of this pseudomythos into Western Culture can scarcely be overestimated. C. S. Lewis, in his inaugural lecture as Professor of Mediaeval and Renaissance Literature at the University of Cambridge(6), makes a strong and well-substantiated case for the contention that between the early nineteenth century and the twentieth there was a change so radical — a transmutation of culture so complete — that it far exceeded all the changes that had taken place throughout the rest of Western history. He argues that between the age of Jane Austen and the very earliest Western civilisations known was a greater kinship than between her age and ours: that they were, for all their differences, together on one side of the divide and we on the other.

“We do not have to go so far in order to uphold the view that a cultural change of quite enormous proportions took place during the mid-to-late nineteenth century. Nevertheless (and bearing in mind that Professor Lewis was only considering the patriarchal Iron Age in the Western world and had not seen the Eclipse) this contention is worthy of serious consideration. Never before had the world seen a substantialist culture. The changes in literature, thought and all other areas of life were phe­nomenal. While the philosophy of substantialism had been with us since these seventeenth century, it had not penetrated the blood and bones of the culture, and then, relatively suddenly, it did. The world was quite rapidly transmogrified into a different place. In many ways, the human soul suddenly found itself cast adrift — cut off from all its metaphysical moor­ings. And the world itself was, or rather appeared to be, cut off from its moorings. The things about us, seemingly severed from their oontological roots in the Celestial Archetypes became to us but random accidents floating in an aimless, meaningless void. For the first time in history, the mass of educated people, as opposed to a handful of hard-line theoreticians prepared to think substantiaism through to the bitter end, were suddenly cast into an accidental, non-Essential cosmos.

“From this psychological earthquake flow innumerable consequences, from the neurotic iconoclasm of Cubism, Dada, atonal music and mod­ernist poetry to the extreme political fanaticisms of the twentieth century. ­All reflect a world where Form and order, and consequently all sense of proportion have departed. Nonetheless, as we shall see, the ‘mod­ernism’ of the twentieth century was by no means uniformly malevolent. The tide of battle had turned decisively in favour of substantialism, but the war was not over, and great things yet remained to be done before the Eclipse closed off all healthy possibilities.”

From The Feminine Universe

Jul 19th, 2005 - 9:21 AM
Homosexuality and Identity

The whole idea of basing one's identity, major part of it, on one's sexual behaviour, is a relatively new concept. Even in those cultures where what we might today call 'homosexual' behaviours are practised, such as in the Ancient Greece or the pre-modern Japan of the Tokugawa shogunate, no-one adopted the label of 'gay' or 'lesbian' and turned it into a comprehensive centre of one's lifestyle, identity and culture.

When one's existence is defined and perceived solely by what one does sexually in bed, or with whom, we know we have come to the depth of the inverted cultural paradigm.

Former U.S. presidential candidate Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., a notable cultural conservative in the largely liberal American Democratic Party, correctly points out the cause of these problems to the Eclipse of the 1960s:-

"So, in this process of the recent four decades, we have adopted changes in our popular and related culture, which have had the effect of causing the clock of human progress to run backwards... They have become captives of a trend of change in mental life, in the direction of becoming herded human cattle, becoming the willing victims of a society of little bread and much entertainment, increasingly degraded entertainment, as the self-doomed Roman Empire entertained itself before us.

"One principal outcome of that mass-brainwashing by CCF-related influences, was the eruption of the mid-1960s "rock-drug-sex youth-counterculture." Since President Abraham Lincoln led the U.S. into its role as a continental power, through the defeat of Lord Palmerston's asset, the Confederacy, it has been the case, since President Lincoln's victory, that to conquer that powerful nation of the American people, one must first corrupt their minds, as the work of the CCF is thus more appropriately named the "Sexual Congress for Cultural Fascism." Our enemies, those from without and from within, must first induce us to corrupt and destroy ourselves, intellectually and morally. When that post-Kennedy youth-countercultural ferment fostered by CCF, is compared with its equally evil twin, today's right-wing "fundamentalist" insurgency of Pat Robertson, Tom DeLay, et al., we have in those combined, intertwined cases, a leading example of that which typifies the CCF-centered process of cultural corruption of the minds of Americans and Europeans alike."

Full text
Umm Jack

Jul 20th, 2005 - 1:44 AM
Re: Aristasia, Sex and Platonism

Oh dear, where to start.

American Traditionalists remind me of the Holy Roman Empire, and I'm sure everyone will get the joke. I suppose I am a cultural conservative, but I am one who accepts the full weight of the fifth commandment. I honor and love my parents and therefore I must honor and love the country in which they saw fit to bring me into. She has my allegience as I find her, not as I might wish her to be. I think many Traditionalists are just hyper-individualists whose tastes run towards things the Pit is not very good at providing. They don't love their country. They want to give their allegience and devotion to a creation of their own devising. I have a wary respect for the full flowering of this tendency in Aristasia, because it demonstrates a level of discipline and devotion that is inherently worthy of respect, but I have very little for the racialist versions on the website to which Mr. Scooby is referring. America is not monoracial and America never has been monoracial. An American race is currently being forged. Ridiculous enforced multi-"culturalism" is going to be replaced by reverence for American culture, but while this culture will be English-speaking, and Christian, it will not be white. No pessism is necessary because the changing color of the country is nothing to mourn.

I regret the loss of the sapphic sensibility that will necessarily accompany this change, but I imagine the ladies of Aristasia will welcome our exiles. The rejection of the Freudian and post-Freudians notions of sexuality in America, a rejection that is a wave that has been gathering strength for decades and is about to crest, will sweep away much that is good as well as much that is horrible. A full return to the vision of the dynastic function of sexuality is well underway here; I don't think it can be turned back, even should anyone want to.

Jul 20th, 2005 - 10:05 AM
Re: Aristasia, Sex and Platonism

This is a very interesting projection for America's future. I have to say that I do not see much evidence for it. I am not saying this in order to conradict Miss (oh, Umm Jack - what is the respectful way to refer to you?) Um Jack's statement. It may be true, but I suppose it would have to be something that is going on under the surface, as it were.

If it is true, is it a "good thing"? Persumably it would create a society less degenerate, but not especially friendly to Aristasia (which won't bother us if they don't bother us, if you see what I mean).

Will there be a reform of dress, I wonder? If people go on dressing like bongos I cannot believe they will not still be bongos. Conservative bongos. How nice.
Miss Hortense

Jul 20th, 2005 - 11:12 AM
Re: Aristasia, Sex and Platonism

The liberal view of race, like the liberal view of sex (or "gender" as they ignorantly call it), is that each race is a tabula rasa with no inherent qualities or characteristics. Any differences between the races are a matter of "social conditioning" and not of nature.

Of course, they could be right.

But suppose they aren't? Then they are apparently preparing to mix a resurgent European culture with a predominantly non-European population. Which is like mixing VERY large amounts of two chemicals whose reaction upon each other is unknown.

The result could be - interesting.
Blonde Management

Jul 20th, 2005 - 12:12 PM

We are instituting a rule forbidding the discussion of racial questions at the Club.

We are sorry to do this as we are aware that various questions surrounding it may be of interest to many. However, it is the subject of such hysterical propaganda in the Pit and is so peripheral to the concerns of Aristasia that we feel it best that it be avoided here.

We hope you will understand.
Umm Jack

Jul 20th, 2005 - 10:03 PM
Re: Aristasia, Sex and Platonism

Very sensible, miss! Let us discuss dress reform instead, as it is a matter of much more import.

This is an example of a wildly successful American business selling patterns for lovely, feminine clothing:

Lest you think these patterns are used solely for fancy-dress parties and Halloween costumes, here are some pictures of an American social event at which the girls are dressed in these styles:

Here is an interview with an inspiring, devoted American mother who displays the glorious feminine understanding of the intimate connections among manners, dress, and morals:

I must warn against perusal of the rest of the Ladies against Feminism site, as it is a horribly good example of the American type-three tendency to mix the beautiful and pure matters of the hestia with the low and sordid matters of the agora.

Finally, here is good essay on dress reform from one of my co-religionists:

Oh, no, I cannot make a post about dress reform without including

I do hope that provides some indication that my hope for a superb regeneration here in the land of the free is built on rock.
Princess Mushroom

Jul 21st, 2005 - 8:54 AM
Re: Aristasia, Sex and Platonism

I have followed up your links and find them truly fascinating. When I first read your contribution, I wanted to ask, in relation to the restoration of America:

Will the Supreme Court stop acting as an unelected legislature, passing anti-family and anti-religion laws?

Will the mass-media stop acting as a deformist propaganda service?

Will the Universities stop being forcing-houses for deformist philosophy?

Perhaps you regard these things as less than crucial if there is a sufficent groundswell in a large enough number of private hestias.

Believe me, ma'am, I don't want to be devil's advocate here, but what I see is a number of isolated individuals and groups, not amounting to, or likely to amount to, "critical mass".

Now, of course I don't disparage the work of the hestia. That is what Aristasia is based on. It is profoundly important, and I salute all these people. But the claim that America is embarking on a counter-course to that taken in the 1960s does not seem to me to be sustained here.

Another point from your post:

I must warn against perusal of the rest of the Ladies against Feminism site, as it is a horribly good example of the American type-three tendency to mix the beautiful and pure matters of the hestia with the low and sordid matters of the agora.

Now this is a very important point. Aristasians have been saying for years that one of the problems of the Pit is the lack of a total rejection of it as a whole there have always been lots of Pit-dwellers revolting against this or that aspect of the degeneracy - be it something political, religious, moral or aesthetic - but then collaborating on many other points (often, it seems twice as hard - as if to make up for their "daring" in opposing the Pit on one or two matters).

This is obviously not true of a family like the Cartwrights, who base every aspect of their life on their principles, but it seems to be the usual Pit performance.

I am sorry if I sound negative. Having travelled through the South-Eastern United States, I found a country in a far healthier state than the Yeek (but then the Yeek is long-dead and ponging badly); but as for a general renaissance of values, I should like to feel convinced, but I fear I am not.
Umm Jack

Jul 21st, 2005 - 10:33 AM
Re: Aristasia, Sex and Platonism

Will the Supreme Court stop acting as an unelected legislature, passing anti-family and anti-religion laws?

Silly answer: As long as they don't fine me excessively for wearing skirts I'm sure I don't care what they do.

Serious answer: This is beyond my ability to answer. However, I do know that the "religious right" was created, as a political force, by a certain Supreme Court decision that I am not sure I ought to discuss on this board. I think you underestimate the orneriness of Americans. We do not identify ourselves with our institutions of government; if they do things we don't like, we fight, and we win.

Will the mass-media stop acting as a deformist propaganda service?

No. Not for some time, if ever. But no one is forced to expose herself to their horrors, and people are free to create and distribute competing works. It is already entirely commonplace for children in traditional families to be raised with no or nearly no access to television. When I was a child, this meant no electronic entertainment at all, of course; but I now that I am raising children, I can show them cartoons and serials from the Real World, and I do. I am very far from the only one.

Will the Universities stop being forcing-houses for deformist philosophy?

The universities have almost completely ceased to be places for any real scholarship in the humanities, and the deformist philosophy they foster is killing its adherents, both spiritually and physically. For many people, however, their horrible atmosphere of inversion has acted like the terrible room in "That Hideous Strength" acted on Mark Studdock. It has awakened a deep thirst for the Normal, the Straight, and the True.

I don't know enough about the "hard," or real sciences or mathematics to say for certain, but my limited experience with people in those fields has always been that their devotion to truth protects them.

The "soft" sciences, or pseudo-scientific propaganda mind control machines, are in my opinion the most serious danger to regeneration. But like the deformist philosophies that underlie them, they have no stability and are being more and more recognized for the nasty variety of witchcraft that they are. For example, I read many online journals of students who are required to take "sociology" courses, and there is a consistent recognition that "feminism" in that field is really an attack on the role of the mother and the integrity of the family.

Now, as for whether any of that is as important as the hestia:

Of course it isn't. And perhaps the missing piece that will make that clear is that these websites are part of a large cultural movement that is now in its second generation. It is not my culture; America is very large. In many ways it is as exotic to me as Aristasia. But what I imagine is difficult to see from across the pond is how large and strong it is. There are millions of adults in America who never went to school, never had their image-spheres polluted by the deformist propaganda machine, never learned the lie that the family exists to oppress women - who are still living in the Real World. You will not meet them and they will not seek you out, and I think we all know why without having to spell it out. But as they raise their families America will become what they are. They are the future for the very simple reason that they are having children.

My warning against perusing the site has to do with the specific issues raised by the Supreme Court decision I referred to above. Rejection of the Pit in toto is something I certainly agree with, but almost all cultural conservatives permit ladies to refer in public to matters that ladies would have denied all knowledge of in times past, and I don't know that their reasons for doing so are entirely Pittish. They do so out of obedience to the Word of God, and violate pre-Eclipse standards of decency in their zeal to combat a particular post-Eclipse horror. I do not know that they are wrong.
Miss Hortense

Jul 21st, 2005 - 3:52 PM
Re: Aristasia, Sex and Platonism

Of course it could be a dumb question, but why are we so favourable to the resurgence of people who don't approve of us, don't like us, and generally think we are sinful g'boingers?
Princess Mushroom

Jul 21st, 2005 - 4:11 PM
Re: Aristasia, Sex and Platonism

Following Umm Jack - the silly answer is that one has a certain instinct to support the good guys against the bad guys even when one doesn't much like any guys.

More seriously, despite what some liberals like to pretend, the likelihood of a "theocracy" in America is tiny, and while people babble about "diversity" - meaning corrosion of all values except liberal ones - a genuine diversity of traditional and other viewpoints - rather than the blanket imposition of liberal corosipop-culture - could do a lot of good.

Already in America one finds that the mass-media, advertising industries etc are much more restrained about pouring out pure filth than their Yeekish equivalents and this is very largely because of the strength of the "Christian lobby". I have noticed a healthy tendency for Catholic and Protestant traditionalists in America to begin stressing the values they have in common rather than the things that separate them, and showing more respect for other religions as traditional and moral entities. Some of them even show respect for Aristasians as fellow traditionalists.

Is this all a case of uniting in the face of a powerful common enemy? Possibly. Would it evaporate if the enemy were defeated? Perhaps. Not straight away, and the defeat of the enemy is so far off as to be outside anyone's present calculations.

Are we Tellurian traditionalists? No. But we cannot help favouring a Telluria that is more like the Real World: one that is cleaner, more innocent and less deformist. We are not huge admirers of any form of patriarchy and certainly a Christian Authoritarian Government would be no good thing. But that is a bogey conjured up by the left. America is certainly too (genuinely) diverse for that to be a real possibility.

Strong pressures pushing America toward decency and regeneracy, which might, to some degree, counterbalance the huge, ultra-moneyed forces, aligned to push the whole west into total moral and cultural decay, are surely a positive sign.