From The Mad Monarchist (15 October 2012)
English Mistery (or Mystery if you prefer) is one of those topics, along a few others, I have long debated whether to bring up or not. It is one of those things few people have heard about and I am sure many monarchists would say it for the better that it stays that way. A good deal of explanation will have to go along with any discussion of English Mistery and, in this day and age, if you are explaining, you are usually “losing”. Those who had heard of English Mistery probably still know very little about them and, concerning what they do know, their thought process probably goes something like this: English Mistery = Fascism = Absolute Evil = shut your eyes, plug your ears and run for your lives. However, I cannot resist bringing up the subject, saying at the outset that there are ways in which I strongly disagree with them as well as ways in which, controversial though they may be, in which I do agree with them. English Mistery, by its very nature, was never going to be a very popular or mainstream organization but it certainly, in my opinion anyway, could have been more successful had they been organized by a more upstanding leadership and if they had cut out their more bizarre aspects and beliefs.
In many ways, English Mistery was as reactionary an organization as one could ever hope to find. However, it still had a revolutionary taint to it, starting with the man who founded it; a disillusioned Freemason named William Sanderson, a writer of moderate note and member of the Imperial Fascist League. Perhaps because of his background, it was always a close-knit and secretive organization and continued to regard Freemasonry as a bulwark of civilization (a rather absurd attitude to take given Masonic involvement in virtually every revolution in the western world). Sanderson founded English Mistery in 1930 to promote his view of leadership through what he called a “Masculine Renaissance”. At its inception it was predominately a discussion group and never really moved much beyond that. Areas of discussion included national politics, economics, the Anglo-Saxon race and the role of women in society. It is easy to see the drive for a “Masculine Renaissance” as a reaction to the new feminist movement, seen in Britain with the suffragettes who campaigned for the right to vote in the 1910’s and 20’s. The racial angle was tied in many ways to the economic situation as (rather ridiculously) everything from the pitfalls of capitalism to the spread of communism was blamed on the Jewish minority. They also tended to favor eugenics, which is often pointed to today as something to be ashamed of, often by people on the left, even though at the time support for eugenics was widely accepted around the world by those who put their faith in science or what passed for it at any given moment.
Another negative aspect (putting it mildly) of the group was their hostility toward Christianity. Now, it must be said, this was not as heavily stressed as many other positions and, indeed, according to some, was not an official position at all. However, there definitely was a very anti-Christian bent among the leadership of English Mistery which is rather nonsensical for a group claiming to exalt tradition. One of their leaders, and probably their most prominent ‘thinker’ was Anthony Ludovici who was extremely anti-Christian while at the same time being anti-many other things most Christians, at least back then, would have been opposed to as well such as socialism, Marxism and feminism. Much of the anti-Christian element came from the great admiration so many of the leading members had for the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (who called it a “religion of pity”) and because of an understanding of Christianity as a religion commanding the self-sacrifice of ones own people in favor of others, encouraging pacifism and egalitarianism. All of which would certainly have surprised Christians of the past to be sure. Not so bad (in my book at least) was their opposition to democracy, liberalism, multiculturalism, communism and, of course, republicanism.
That is an idea of the many things English Mistery was against, but what were they for? They favored, essentially, a return to a feudal sort of society. Their rejection of egalitarianism and belief in the superiority of good, long-term breeding meant that they placed a great deal of emphasis on the aristocracy and advocated a return to a very aristocratic society in which the hereditary lords would possess much (even very much) more power and authority. This was sometimes rendered as a form of national syndicalism, but for the most part such efforts seemed to be merely an effort to put a more modernistic gloss on what was essentially the old medieval guild system-based economy. And, of course, their championing of a strong aristocracy extended to the monarchy as well and they were, officially at least, extremely royalist, advocating a restoration of the monarchy to actual power and authority in the government of the country. In that, of course, I would sympathize with them completely, though as with other such groups, I cannot help but be somewhat suspicious. I say that only because, reading their own words, I cannot help but wonder if they meant them to apply to the monarch actually on the throne.
This is my problem with many monarchists who embrace any political ideology. They talk a good game about loyalty to the king or restoring the authority of the king but often apply it only to a non-existent, imaginary king who they expect to place on the throne who will be in total agreement with them and their worldview. They may be perfectly willing to submit to a king they agree with, but not one they disagree with. Therefore, when you get down to it, they actually do not believe in loyalty at all but really place themselves above the Crown itself. However, I cannot say that is what English Mistery was all about, merely that I could not help but get that impression from them at times. They were though, in what they advocated, very aristocratic, very royalist, anti-modernity, anti-anyone or anything foreign and anti-American (and to be fair, even after getting into World War II, the U.S. was not exactly pro-British Empire either). They romanticized rural life, the English countryside, farms and lordly estates. They were also very much for maintaining the British Empire, come what may. All of which are good things in my book though they do nothing to cancel out the negative aspects of the group.
Even though I would have had some big problems with English Mistery, I find it very tiresome that they are so associated with fascism. Obviously, to some extent, this cannot be avoided. Their founder was a former member of the Imperial Fascist League and others went on to be members of the British Union of Fascists (which was guilty of many things but republicanism was not among them). However, no one today even knows what a fascist really is (even those who call themselves fascists) and I cannot help but roll my eyes whenever anyone is called that. Was English Mistery a fascist secret society? I hardly think so. For one thing, they were very anti-feminist and, believe it or not, in Britain at least, fascism was pretty darn pro-feminist. Many of those celebrated old suffragettes from the 20’s became leading members of the fascist movement in Britain. English Mistery was very aristocratic and fascists tend to be very egalitarian (at least as far as people of the same race are concerned). Hitler vowed to abolish all class distinctions, Mussolini detested the Italian aristocracy and in Britain the fascist cause tended to focus on the usual socialist line of taking from the rich to give to the poor, which makes perfect sense if you want mobs of people on your side, there tending to be many more poor people than the rich. And, of course, we have the support for monarchy. Fascism has a pretty mixed record when it comes to monarchy but the most prominent have been opposed to it or, at best, not fully committed to it. Hitler detested monarchy, Mussolini tolerated it but said he wanted to get rid of the King and the Pope eventually, Mussert and Quisling were republicans, Franco certainly was not and Salazar in Portugal claimed to be a monarchist but never did anything about it.
The only thing English Mistery seemed to have in common with fascist groups was their nationalism and perhaps their ideal economic model (if we are going to call that national syndicalism) but I can really see little else. Most would say they had racism in common but not all fascists were racists (shocking, but true). Another thing most would probably say that had in common was a love of cruelty but, though I wish it were not so, certain members of English Mistery espoused a greater love for cruelty than most fascists. There were one or two who wrote not only in defense of but actually glorifying slaughter just for the sake of slaughter really. Some may think that goes hand-in-hand with fascism but, to be fair, neither Franco, Salazar, Dollfuss in Austria or even Mussolini operated death camps or had extermination squads. The Nazis certainly did but even the Nazis, as far as I know, dealt with this as a duty and something to be carried out with emotionless, machine-like efficiency and not something to be celebrated for its own sake. It may surprise some people to know that even the infamous SS tried to weed out from their ranks men who were sadists because they tended to view such individuals as unstable. However, it should also be said that not all members of English Mistery were alike nor did the actions of every member match the words of every other member. Some members served heroically in defending the lives of various peoples in the empire during World War II. Some were even celebrated for their work in the artistic fields and in journalism.
In fact, some members of the group considered the biggest fault of English Mistery to be that it was simple a discussion circle that never actively attempted to do very much. One such man was conservative MP Gerard Wallop, later Earl of Portsmouth, who eventually left English Mistery to form, with other former members, the “more pro-Nazi” group “English Array” so, obviously, English Mistery was not altogether as terrible as some seem to think. It was after this split-off in 1936 that English Mistery effectively died a slow and quiet death as most members drifted off to other, more radical and, usually, more revolutionary (as opposed to counter-revolutionary) organizations such as English Array or the British Union of Fascists. There is plenty to criticize English Mistery on and certainly there is a great deal to criticize about many of its most prominent members. However, in regards to some of their views, such as their desire for a more rural, aristocratic society, their opposition to Marxism in all its forms, their push-back against the feminization of society and their professed ardently royalist skepticism of democracy; I cannot but agree with them. Still, the hostility of certain members toward Christianity and their support for Freemasonry are just two non-negotiable items that would not allow me to sympathize with such a group.
In many ways, English Mistery was as reactionary an organization as one could ever hope to find. However, it still had a revolutionary taint to it, starting with the man who founded it; a disillusioned Freemason named William Sanderson, a writer of moderate note and member of the Imperial Fascist League. Perhaps because of his background, it was always a close-knit and secretive organization and continued to regard Freemasonry as a bulwark of civilization (a rather absurd attitude to take given Masonic involvement in virtually every revolution in the western world). Sanderson founded English Mistery in 1930 to promote his view of leadership through what he called a “Masculine Renaissance”. At its inception it was predominately a discussion group and never really moved much beyond that. Areas of discussion included national politics, economics, the Anglo-Saxon race and the role of women in society. It is easy to see the drive for a “Masculine Renaissance” as a reaction to the new feminist movement, seen in Britain with the suffragettes who campaigned for the right to vote in the 1910’s and 20’s. The racial angle was tied in many ways to the economic situation as (rather ridiculously) everything from the pitfalls of capitalism to the spread of communism was blamed on the Jewish minority. They also tended to favor eugenics, which is often pointed to today as something to be ashamed of, often by people on the left, even though at the time support for eugenics was widely accepted around the world by those who put their faith in science or what passed for it at any given moment.
That is an idea of the many things English Mistery was against, but what were they for? They favored, essentially, a return to a feudal sort of society. Their rejection of egalitarianism and belief in the superiority of good, long-term breeding meant that they placed a great deal of emphasis on the aristocracy and advocated a return to a very aristocratic society in which the hereditary lords would possess much (even very much) more power and authority. This was sometimes rendered as a form of national syndicalism, but for the most part such efforts seemed to be merely an effort to put a more modernistic gloss on what was essentially the old medieval guild system-based economy. And, of course, their championing of a strong aristocracy extended to the monarchy as well and they were, officially at least, extremely royalist, advocating a restoration of the monarchy to actual power and authority in the government of the country. In that, of course, I would sympathize with them completely, though as with other such groups, I cannot help but be somewhat suspicious. I say that only because, reading their own words, I cannot help but wonder if they meant them to apply to the monarch actually on the throne.
This is my problem with many monarchists who embrace any political ideology. They talk a good game about loyalty to the king or restoring the authority of the king but often apply it only to a non-existent, imaginary king who they expect to place on the throne who will be in total agreement with them and their worldview. They may be perfectly willing to submit to a king they agree with, but not one they disagree with. Therefore, when you get down to it, they actually do not believe in loyalty at all but really place themselves above the Crown itself. However, I cannot say that is what English Mistery was all about, merely that I could not help but get that impression from them at times. They were though, in what they advocated, very aristocratic, very royalist, anti-modernity, anti-anyone or anything foreign and anti-American (and to be fair, even after getting into World War II, the U.S. was not exactly pro-British Empire either). They romanticized rural life, the English countryside, farms and lordly estates. They were also very much for maintaining the British Empire, come what may. All of which are good things in my book though they do nothing to cancel out the negative aspects of the group.
The only thing English Mistery seemed to have in common with fascist groups was their nationalism and perhaps their ideal economic model (if we are going to call that national syndicalism) but I can really see little else. Most would say they had racism in common but not all fascists were racists (shocking, but true). Another thing most would probably say that had in common was a love of cruelty but, though I wish it were not so, certain members of English Mistery espoused a greater love for cruelty than most fascists. There were one or two who wrote not only in defense of but actually glorifying slaughter just for the sake of slaughter really. Some may think that goes hand-in-hand with fascism but, to be fair, neither Franco, Salazar, Dollfuss in Austria or even Mussolini operated death camps or had extermination squads. The Nazis certainly did but even the Nazis, as far as I know, dealt with this as a duty and something to be carried out with emotionless, machine-like efficiency and not something to be celebrated for its own sake. It may surprise some people to know that even the infamous SS tried to weed out from their ranks men who were sadists because they tended to view such individuals as unstable. However, it should also be said that not all members of English Mistery were alike nor did the actions of every member match the words of every other member. Some members served heroically in defending the lives of various peoples in the empire during World War II. Some were even celebrated for their work in the artistic fields and in journalism.
In fact, some members of the group considered the biggest fault of English Mistery to be that it was simple a discussion circle that never actively attempted to do very much. One such man was conservative MP Gerard Wallop, later Earl of Portsmouth, who eventually left English Mistery to form, with other former members, the “more pro-Nazi” group “English Array” so, obviously, English Mistery was not altogether as terrible as some seem to think. It was after this split-off in 1936 that English Mistery effectively died a slow and quiet death as most members drifted off to other, more radical and, usually, more revolutionary (as opposed to counter-revolutionary) organizations such as English Array or the British Union of Fascists. There is plenty to criticize English Mistery on and certainly there is a great deal to criticize about many of its most prominent members. However, in regards to some of their views, such as their desire for a more rural, aristocratic society, their opposition to Marxism in all its forms, their push-back against the feminization of society and their professed ardently royalist skepticism of democracy; I cannot but agree with them. Still, the hostility of certain members toward Christianity and their support for Freemasonry are just two non-negotiable items that would not allow me to sympathize with such a group.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are subject to deletion if they are not germane. I have no problem with a bit of colourful language, but blasphemy or depraved profanity will not be allowed. Attacks on the Catholic Faith will not be tolerated. Comments will be deleted that are republican (Yanks! Note the lower case 'r'!), attacks on the legitimacy of Pope Francis as the Vicar of Christ (I know he's a material heretic and a Protector of Perverts, and I definitely want him gone yesterday! However, he is Pope, and I pray for him every day.), the legitimacy of the House of Windsor or of the claims of the Elder Line of the House of France, or attacks on the legitimacy of any of the currently ruling Houses of Europe.