Our own special breed of pollen

What makes us different from them?

The difference is that we don’t gather ourselves around a societal problem (illegal immigration, tailbacks, social inequality), like the other political ideologies have done (liberalism, socialism, etc). Instead, we base ourselves upon a universal analyses of the political evolution of civilization. From this knowledge we approach any societal problem and formulate a political solution.

We formulate our starting principle with the long-term in view and we also formulate political solutions that will have the greatest effect on the long run. We think bigger than that, beyond a quick fix of an immediate need, beyond the popularity of a temporary leader-figure. One may reply: “An immediate societal problem can gain the activism of the masses. A universal analyses of the political aspects of man will not gain the activism of the masses.” My answer is: “Basing the political ideology on an objective analysis is the only way it will not fail.” Republicanism, whose mission it was to prevent the expansion of government influence, has failed.

Fascism and National-Socialism, whose missions were to make Italy and Germany the leading powers of Europe, have failed. Communism, whose mission it was to abolish Capitalism and ensure a generous supply in the daily demands of ordinary labourers, has failed. Other examples are Humanism and Anarchism. Humanism challenged people to question the authority of existing traditions, by making them study the cultures, philosophies and facts of the world, so that they could think for themselves. This clearly failed; in a lecture I gave to 50 random adolescent students, for example, it turned out that only 2 or 3 knew what is going on in Libya. Surely they consider themselves unique individuals, qualified to question the authority of their teachers. While all are wearing the same ipods during the day and watch the same talent shows in the evening.

Anarchism intended to make both the individual and the community completely autonomous, and therefore free and equal. Yet this failed because it didn’t take human nature into account; it’s typically human to want the highest outcome for minimal investment. With other words, to cut corners hoping some do-good can be found willing to do extra work in the service of others. Since our aim is to formulate an ideology that can revive all that is Great, Noble and Virtuous in man, beginning with Western culture and indirectly of all cultures, we need a political philosophy that can see beyond the immediate.

How are we different? Nazis, Republicans, leftists, Communists, anarchists, Greens, Libertarians and presumably a dozen others are like plants in spring, blowing their mimetic pollen across the electorate and intellectuals alike. We’re not just a splinter group of one of those. How are we different? How are people sure they’re not just picking a cryptic version of one of those others?” – Brett Stevens, ‘Resisting Assimilation’, 2011.

The difference between us and them is simple: We always go with the truth and the facts, make an objective analysis of the situation, and base our effective solutions upon that. Does that make us ‘D66-style pragmatics’? No, because we do have ideological values, since we constantly need to consolidate the integration of values within society if objectivity, requiring a reasonable mindset, is to be possible at all. Loyalty, Duty, Rationality – you can only succeed in your purpose if you consequently maintain its pursuit. Creativity is also important – you must be able to improvise and use the fluctuating circumstances in your favour instead of being thrown off-course by them.

If a person has these values, the values required to consequently maintain the pursuit of an objective, we speak of a coherent inner life. If people aren’t taught to endure, haven’t learned to bear hardships and to persevere, this is what happens: Other ideologies initially do follow objective reasoning and they do acknowledge the facts of the world. Until at some point a sensitive issue comes up, for example immigrant crime-rates. Then they suddenly look the other way in order not to estrange their following and thus their power-base.

Americans are a good example of this: Always declaring that the individual must be free in conscience and choice, and that the government must have minimal interference with this. Unless it’s about stimulating people to go (back) to church and to do prayer in class. Then using the governments’ influence is suddenly not an issue and political groups such as the Tea-Party look the other way. Consider everything that follows an elaborate explanation of what happens and why others go wrong.

I’ll tell you why all political movements are flawed except this one: They gather around political programs favouring some group, thus ensuring themselves of a power-basis of loyal activists, instead of gathering around an objective philosophy. They might start off with an open mindset, gathering ideas and people, and suddenly their movement is large and they find themselves with the opportunity of taking governing responsibility. Every choice they make is in accordance with their ideology and choices are explained to the following every time. Until such a leader finds himself in a situation where he has to choose what’s not the right thing for the values of his ideology.

Let’s say he wants labour-elevation programs, but is faced with budget cuts and money shortage. Or he needs the cooperation of some group, let’s say farmers, mayors or the police. So he has to give them some favour or privilege that stays behind closed doors (for example the police get some extra paid office hours that in reality aren’t used – or a Libertarian representative is coerced into withholding his veto from a protectionist regulation). The leader chooses this for the long term survival of his ideological movement and its political influence, but it does estrange the leaders from their ideological following and waters down the ideology itself. If a political movement grows big, it’s unlikely to retain its philosophical ideology.

It is a custom of democratic countries that what has a large following must also be a player in making policies and running the country. That means the ideology gets tied up with the establishment. And the establishment consists of all sorts of old boys, lobby groups and officials, who “have their own age old ways of how things are done around here”. This interaction with the establishment gives the ideological leader an image of the corrupt the moment he becomes a politician.

And he’ll be dealing more and more with those people and less and less with his following, with every step of government-responsibility he gains. Hitler was forced to stop the Sturm-Abteilung when they wanted to go against the captains of industry, this is what happened in the night of long knives. Lenin found himself reintroducing private property in the NEP, and Wilders had to abandon his pensioners-point – although he had repeatedly stated to be without compromise on the issue. What also doesn’t help is that political movements that get big, attract followers who want to lift along with its growing influence to serve their own ends rather than those of the ideology.

When an ideological leader becomes a conductor of government, he has to keep asking himself the question: “What are the grounds on which I’m choosing this decision and not that one?” He has to perpetually ask himself: “Can I still justify this decision to my ideology and my following, and if so, how?” But that’s not how leaders usually are. Instead they drift along on “this is how things are done around here”. Why?

Because [I] they lack the coherent inner lives required to constantly cling to their ideals and keep rowing against such a “business as usual inertia-tide”. And [II] they lack the power-basis to force these establishment members to take the necessary steps to integrate his ideals into society. They lack capable personnel who share their leaders’ ideology, so they are forced to use other personnel. These others often have different ideologies, serve different groups, and therefore work for his ideological agenda only half-heartedly, slowing down effective implementation.

This discourages the ideological followers and their idealism dies down, and suddenly their leader, the once ideological orator, is just another “manager of public affairs”. Now, imagine that the leader, faced with the slacking conduct of his administrative personnel, rallies his following to put his workers under pressure – to force them to make policy that translates the ideology into societies’ daily life. This could work! This mixture of force and vigour could overcome the inertia-tide that surrounds those who’ve already secured comfortable positions at the top. But this wouldn’t work if the farmers already walked out because their leader had to ban protectionism in order to get industry working along. Or if the mayor and the police already gave up support because they didn’t want to be made to crack down on crime so hard. This fails because if people don’t get instantly what they want, they drop out.

As noted, the common person doesn’t see further then his immediate needs, and this seems to contradict with what is required for political activism – that is that the current generation makes a sacrifice of time and effort for the generations of the future. I draw on the wisdoms of philosophers in the past here, who remarked that great leaders lost their battles owing to the inconsistent attitudes of their people:

No man can struggle with advantage against the spirit of his age and country, and however powerful a man may be, it is hard for him to make his contemporaries share feelings and ideas which run counter to the general run of their hopes and desires.

I am not suggesting that they resist him openly by means of well thought out schemes, or indeed by means of any considered determination to resist. They show no energy in fighting him and sometimes even applaud him, but they do not follow him. Secretly their apathy is opposed to his fire, their conservative interests to his revolutionary instincts, their homely tastes to his adventurous passion, their common sense to his flighty genius, their prose to his poetry. With immense effort he rouses them for a moment, but they soon slip from him and fall back, as it were, by their own weight. He exhausts himself trying to animate this indifferent and distracted multitude and finds at last that he is reduced to impotence, not because he is conquered but because he is alone.” -Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, 1835

Whatever we may think or affect to think of the present age, we cannot get out of it; we must suffer with its sufferings, and enjoy with its enjoyments; we must share in its lot, and, to be either useful or at ease, we must even partake its character. No man whose good qualities were mainly those of another age, ever had much influence on his own.

But reason itself will teach most men that they must, in the last resort, fall back upon the authority of still more cultivated minds, as the ultimate sanction of the convictions of their reason itself.” -John Stuart Mill, ‘The spirit of the age’, 1831

Therefore, ordinarily a big change in leadership, civilization and ideology can only occur during a time of extraordinary duress. Else people just can’t be bothered to throw their full weight behind it. For example in 1687/8 the Dutch stadhouder Willem III managed to organize a huge army and fleet to invade England, and did it within a couple of months. He did this despite the fact that Amsterdam, at the time the richest city on earth that was going to have to provide for this campaign, had persisted in a trade-friendly military neutral course for many years.

It was only that the people moved to restore the stadhouders’ military command by removing the wealthy tradesmen regents, when their republic was on the verge of being overwhelmed by Louis XIV and his Catholic helpers in Britain and Germany. Likewise, the NSDAP with its radical political agenda, could only gain power in Germany when the stock market crash and the Treaty of Versailles had severely undermined the nation. The people of the Roman Empire were only ready to accept that Octavian gathered all political and religious powers in one person once their city threatened to collapse under civil war. They were effectively breaking with the age old republican tradition because they hoped he could restore order – and he did, in a spectacular fashion. By now it should be clear to the reader what I mean by “a universal analyses of the political evolution of civilization”.

The more of a coherent inner life you possess, the more likely you are to adequately respond to the challenges that arise in your life. Therefore it’s nonsense to think that a group of people can lead a country to better days if the individual behaviour of these people in daily life doesn’t further the goals they say to pursue. In contrast a group of people with coherent inner lives will be able to find an effective solution to any societal problem that arises. Basically we see with effective leaders from the past, like Octavian and Willem III, that they always maintained a coherent inner life, and waited for the opportunity to present itself.

If you look at the first nineteen years of their lives, there was no indication at all that they would ever be powerful men. Today, whimsicalness is everywhere around us in society. When watching TV, when going out, when regarding literature – whimsicalness seems to be what people want (but not what they should want). From these preferences, therefore, it’s unlikely that a leader with a coherent inner life will drift to the top. And in todays’ society a leader needs to gain a broad support if his idea is to be commercially or electorally attractive. Before we look at any specific societal problem (like other ideologies do), this itself seems to be a course for disaster.


  • Objective philosophy, not a policy-programme
  • Learn to bear privations
  • Select a following that is able to bear privations and to endure
  • Use political influence to rearrange society in a way that it makes a coherent inner life the top 1 priority for all

This is also what distinguishes us from the rest. They provide solutions but only push these up to a point – until the inertia overcomes them – and from then on their ideologies become pure rhetoric. Because they lack a universal historic analysis, their political movements are bound to repeat this mistake. Instead of rhetoric, we offer realistic adaptations to the reality in which we find ourselves. Our continuous pursuit of the coherent inner life makes us inertia-proof: We are simply cut from different cloth.


  1. Entity Fnarq says:

    I couldn’t help noticing that you name loyalty and duty as two cornerstones of the coherent inner life, but that you do not explain them as you do the others. I’d be interested to hear how you feel they fit in. For one thing: loyalty or duty to what?

    Also, talk about privations more, please. What sort of problems, and creative problem-solving, might help individuals form a coherent inner life?

    1. Thanks for having read this essay. I appreciate it! I decided not to spend so many words on Loyalty and Duty because I didn’t want to make it longer than it already was. But surely I can provide some brief explanation right now. With Loyalty, I mean to help your friends and to stay true to what you believe in. If you ever have a teacher, friend or boss of who you know that you can count on him/her if it really comes down to it, then you have to help that person too. Cling to the things you value, and don’t just change your values the moment these values bring you into inconvenience (bear privations). When a thing is your Duty, you have to do it and you have to persevere in it. I hope that this “movement” can overcome the stage of “come and go if you wish” musing and that it can start to give people Duties. Else people will uphold the agenda of such a movement until a point, where it becomes inconvenient for them (like the farmers and the police in the examples). I noticed that people often say: “Hey! I am genuine to myself, to my unique identity, I am true to my values!” The idea that their unique identity is the cornerstone of their values means that they can change these values whenever they feel like – whenever they choose to redefine their identity. Whereas Duty, in contrast, means being true to something greater than yourself, a moral standard that transcends personal taste or an eternal truth that transcends temporary historical circumstances. And since this thing is greater than yourself, you are also elevated by taking on the Duty – you become, in a sense “knighted” the moment you commit yourself to uphold it (self-transcendence). Two excellent remarks (by Crow):

      “There is a lens before the eyes of almost everyone, that distorts what is, and transforms it into what almost everyone thinks it is.”

      “The challenge is to reveal, for all to see, the nature of what lies before them, and to identify it for what it really is, and not as what people choose to think it is.”

      So, what it comes down to is that people are initially enthusiast, until they find out that they have to struggle against the prejudices of random other people (those whose views are distorted by the lens). I’m hoping a sense of Duty can give them the power to keep struggling and not to give in (the power to bear privations). And that, once they find people who have overcome the prejudices – who see things in their true light – that they create a long lasting bond with one another (Loyalty). That’s the only way the world can be lead to better days. Not by momentary opportunity-alliances between atomistic individuals.

  2. crow says:

    I like the way it is going, apart from the obligatory long-winded-ness…

    A coherent inner life, above all else.

    There is a lens before the eyes of almost everyone, that distorts what is, and transforms it into what almost everyone thinks it is.
    The idea of ownership of all one perceives, is the real enemy in the camp.
    The challenge is to reveal, for all to see, the nature of what lies before them, and to identify it for what it really is, and not as what people choose to think it is.
    One word stands out in the list above, for being missing:

  3. Entity Fnarq says:

    “…what it comes down to is that people are initially enthusiast, until they find out that they have to struggle against the prejudices of random other people (those whose views are distorted by the lens). I’m hoping a sense of Duty can give them the power to keep struggling and not to give in (the power to bear privations).”

    We all have lenses, of course. The question is how clouded-over they may have become, by one influence or many. We ought to help each other wipe the glass now and then. When you see the sign “sliced ham $1.99/lb” and say “Oh look, diced lamb is $1.99/lb”, I owe it to you to say, “Are you sure you’re seeing that right?” – and to do so in a way that respects your intellect and is more likely to make common cause than divide us.

    “And that, once they find people who have overcome the prejudices – who see things in their true light – that they create a long lasting bond with one another (Loyalty). That’s the only way the world can be lead to better days. Not by momentary opportunity-alliances between atomistic individuals.”

    Shared visions, not just lip service. Idealism tempered by realism, not just realism tarnished by ideology. Loyalty not to a greater group, but a greater good. Am I getting close?

    Still, there’s the language. Underneath the noble ideals, do we use words like loyalty, duty, honor, and reverence to temper and empower the individual spirit? Or to scourge it? I ask because I find very little in this body of thought about the individual except as an instrument of will, work and wealth. We are, each of us, more than that.

    “Humility,” proffered as Crow does after pressing return, can be understood in good and bad ways. When offered – as it appears to be here – somewhat bluntly and prescriptively, the individual can understand it to mean “humility for thee, then (perhaps) for me.” Its common cognate, humiliation, is not far away. The honey turns to vinegar; the flies turn back to dung.

    Scourging the individual is such an established fact through history, and today’s individual is so guarded about encroachments on his spirit, that any really effective new approach is going to have to include what’s worth keeping about him. And that is much more than work, wealth, and will. It is creativity, caring, and curiosity. It’s the life of the mind, the awe before mystery, the humility and help of humor, and where needed, the duty of dissent – of raising one’s own voice now and then to say, “Are you sure you’re seeing that right?”

  4. “I find very little in this body of thought about the individual except as an instrument of will, work and wealth. We are, each of us, more than that.”

    I’d say we have to regard ourselves not as “individual versus …” in the sense that we have to achieve our goals at the cost of the world. I’d say we are better off regarding the interests of our dear ones as an integrated part of our goals.

    The key to a better society is having individuals who are able of solving their own problems. So a coherent inner life is an empowerment ethic for the individual. But it is much more than that – it is also the basis of a community. Personal example: I want to be friends with people with coherent inner lives because I can identify with them and I can’t identify with whimsicalness.

  5. Entity Fnarq says:

    I want to be sure I know what you mean by whimsicalness. Is it what makes some people’s inner lives incoherent? The capacity to go all gaga for a lifestyle, trend, idea, whatever, such that you leave most of “you” behind and end up in the Himalayas, a diaper on your head, communing with the Baba au Rhum? The state of being what, in less egalitarian times, was called a flibbertigibbet?

    I hope you don’t mean just whimsy. I don’t know that humanity could live without whimsy.

  6. I might have some examples of whimsicalness. Last evening a woman, friend of mine, spoke to me of some guy who was a buddy of her husband. This buddy told the couple about all of his casanova adventures, about the sexual habits of the women hey had slept with and how they had screamed during the sex. He also said: “a man will always love the woman he can’t have”. Then she asked: “What do you mean by this? Because often, men fancy a girl that’s very pretty, that they would want to have an adventure with, but that they ultimately wouldn’t want to have as a fiancée. So what do you mean by ‘have’, do you mean ‘fuck’?” After that point the guy’s story stopped having coherence, but he did make an advance on the woman in question. “So what was he thinking? Sacrificing his friendship with her husband just for a brief pleasure?” I asked her. I said: “Well his mindset is just a bunch of dwindling desires, waxing and waning like the quarcks of an atom. Whatever the direction of the desires, whatever the direction of the atom, of the man. Therefore it’s pointless to define his intentions. It’s a trick played on us, trying to comprehend his motives, seeking a rational definition of what’s devoid of rationality to begin with.”

    When I was 14 or 15 years old, reading Plato’s Republic in the library, some girls came to sit on the same table and I overheard their conversation. One of the girls said: “Oh, how I like them immigrant boys. Always dancing so sweetly and sensually and they have such a spicy colour.” A few years later my cousin told me that during a dancing, this young woman had been pulled up a stage by some black people to show her moves on R&B music. She had undressed herself, and the next day she had been very ashamed. Oddly enough, when some guy had approached her previous to that evening, just to have a chat of common courtesy, she had behaved in an distant, unapproachable way, with an attitude as if this were beneath her. So she has a princess complex and still behaves like a slut? Women like her seriously lack a sense of self-perception. That’s because their selves consist of nothing beyond dwindling fluctuating whims.

    Another example: A guy came to visit the monthly gathering of our local political party. He told us about his ambitions, how he wanted to finish his education, then go to university and study political science. He got into reading the files on the agenda, showed up a few times on meetings and debates, then he suddenly disappeared. Yesterday I heard he had failed to pay fees so had been removed from the party.

    Maybe these examples explain what is ‘whimsicalness’. Man isn’t very malleable so perhaps we ultimately can’t destroy it. But what we should do is:
    –> Stop the media from constantly celebrating whimsicalness in daily life
    –> Prevent whimsicalness from leaking to areas where it matters (leadership)
    –> Therefore, this movement must aim at selecting leaders and members who possess a coherent inner life

  7. Entity Fnarq says:

    “To thine own self be true, and then thou cans’t be false to no man.”

    (My self-educated grandfather said, “It’s all in Shakespeare.”)

  8. [...] than ‘Conservative’, since I study history with an outlook towards the future. This universal historical analyses allows one to gain an objective understanding of civilizations, and irreconcilable paradigms [...]

  9. Maximillian Alexander says:

    I must concur. as much as I love the history of the early N.S. movement, it was based around one man, the Fuhrer! And a societal aim, a utopian goal. I do not think N.S. in name can ever be what it was, who could replace Adolph? Plus I see that the world runs in cycles I cannot ever hope to influence society into a utopia, I can only live the ideals of a utopia now. Which are the principles of Loyalty, Honor, and deed. As things ared in a decline as nature ordained man can only make then limited choices he has to live under certain guiding truths.

Leave a Reply

41 queries. 0.953 seconds