We face a difficult awakening: sleepwalking through a late stage empire that is both a bourgeois middle class consumer society and Leftist ideological regime, we suddenly find ourselves seeing that everything that we were told was a lie, and that we are in fact in a perilous position and need to act now to avoid certain doom and to ensure that our people survive.
Glad we got that out of the way. Whew, that’s quite a lot.
No one knows where to get started. No one knows where we are heading. This leaves us confused; should we become white nationalists? Conservatives, or radicals? Is it time for war in the streets? Or do we try elections? We wonder what to read, what to begin doing, and what to hope for.
Reality proves more complex. Our task will resemble peeling an onion: we have to dismantle layers of what we know as modern society, then once we are at the core, rebuild it so that it fits with the societies that benefited us best throughout history, especially ancient history. We want to restore Western Civilization and that requires destroying what is now.
This appalls mainstream conservatives who spend most of their time defending the present society against the ten million incursions of Leftist insanity. This is a path to doom. Our first goal is not to save everyone, everything, or anything like it. Our goal is to seize power and remove the instruments that Leftists use to rule us.
Let us look, then, at layers of the onion.
Few will be surprised to see this here: the Left fears nationalism because united national populations have little use for the conjectural and herd-like ideas of Leftism. As a result, as noted 2400 years ago, Leftist would-be autocrats begin by importing foreign populations because those, out of fear of the majority, always vote for the revolutionary, anti-majority, and anti-convention party, namely the Left.
They call it “diversity,” but the actual goal is the opposite, namely having permanent control. Eventually, diversity destroys the original population and leaves behind a non-nation, which then requires ideological strongmen like those offered by the Left in order to keep general order.
To oppose diversity, we need to smash immigration and Civil Rights. That in turn requires gaining political control of our society. We can take advantage of the failure of Leftism and offer a platform that combines the last few things that have succeeded for the Right:
Under Trump, American doctrine has focused on self-sufficiency: instead of sending our wealth abroad to countries that do not give us the same freedoms, we cut back on hostile foreign elements and freeloaders and instead be self-sufficient. That new dishwasher may cost twice as much if made in the USA as in China, but only for the first few years, and then costs will go down if we also remove the high costs of American labor like enforced healthcare, excessive regulations, and legal protections for unions.
With the power we can gain from making a more functional country, we can then begin repealing the laws that make the Leftist agenda possible. Without civil rights, we would no longer be forced to accommodate the Other, and populations would settle naturally into different spheres.
Leftism possesses a single idea, equality, and it translates that into many realms. Feminism is sexual egalitarianism, diversity is ethnic egalitarianism, and class warfare and its wealth transfer agenda are economic egalitarianism, or the idea that we make people equal by taking from the successful and giving to the unsuccessful.
As a result, our society supports a number of economic egalitarian programs in the form of welfare, grants, loans, free public education, pensions, and subsidies to industry. All of these must be removed in order to prevent the cultivation of a permanent class of people dependent on government and its wealth transfer agenda.
Removing all government involvement in education and healthcare in particular will improve the quality of life greatly for those living in America. Leaving education to government invites its use as propaganda and its defense of unions, affirmative action, and other parasitic programs in hiring. Removing government interference makes educators accountable.
This also allows us to return money to those who would normally pay it in taxes, which means that those who invest well will get ahead over those who waste their money on trivialities. This in turn promotes intelligence and self-discipline as national values, replacing the “if it feels good, do it” mentality of the Left.
As Mitt Romney famously said during the strongest moment of his fading presidential campaign, 47% of the country pays no taxes and receives money from the government nonetheless. To fix this, a flat tax would ensure that every person felt the pain of voting decisions just like any other, and would remove the free riders voting for more free stuff from Other People’s Money.
To make this fair, tax could be adjusted according to impact because it scales with wealth. A tax bill of $500 can be a great deal to a poorer person, and far less important for a rich person, because $500 represents more of the total wealth of the poorer person and thus more of his purchasing power. Adjusting by purchasing power would remove this minimum floor.
At the same time, a flat tax would ensure that people had an incentive to get in there and vote for less expenditure. No one likes to pay taxes, but when you can vote to receive more than you pay in, that brings parasites from within and beyond our borders to support the great Free Stuff Army, a.k.a. the Left.
Some time ago, our government realized that it was becoming more complex and that accountability occurred through public image crises in the media. As a result, Congress created the fourth branch of government, the Administrative State. These agencies consist of appointed bureaucrats and have their own judges and internal process that is more relaxed than normal legal accountability.
In addition, these allow politicians to dodge responsibility. They can simply complain about the agencies that they oversee, or replace bureaucrats within them, and never face accountability for these. To solve this, laws can be adjusted so that every agency has direct congressional or presidential oversight. This restores responsibility to the process.
Further, this shifts the burden of government complexity back to elected officials, which will in turn manifest in far fewer undertakings by government. Government naturally shrinks in response to such events because greater complexity translates to greater risk, and so politicians streamline government.
Since we are talking about stopgaps here in patching up the current system, it makes sense to talk about the Constitution. We need a new amendment which explicitly specifies an originalist interpretation of the Constitution, and then we need to roll back all amendments after the Bill of Rights since these have led to a Leftward concentration in government.
At that point, it makes sense to go through the bulk of our law and condense it to intelligible lengths and minimal complexity. We have become bloated and overgrown and our law reflects this, but reducing the complexity of that law will make it accessible to normal people again and remove the many loopholes and hiding places that have been created.
With our new interpretation of the Constitution, we can go back through these laws and remove those which conflict with a natural rights agenda. This will remove government from its role of enforcing morality and return it to a role as guardian of an organic culture, reducing the power of Leftism further.
Currently, it takes years to get to court, cases last months or years, and cost into the multiple millions. This does not provide justice for anyone except lawyers.
With a few legislative acts, America could define an adequate waiting period for trial, limit the length of trial, and reduce costs. This would discourage making trials into spectacles and judicial activism, i.e. “legislating from the bench,” by minimizing the media feeding frenzy.
Under these reforms, normal Americans could afford to bring lawsuits again, disciplining companies that have destructive acts and punishing those who systematically violate laws.
Now, let us think about ways that we can rebuild the ruined West and make it greater than ever before:
We know that democracy has failed, despite having triumphed over the dictators, and that while the dictators have returned in places like China and maybe Russia, they do not seem to be doing a great job of ruling their countries. Even more, the limited Constitutional republic set up in the United States has also devolved into mob rule.
That means that these systems are effectively dead and we need something else. As we get further away from the French Revolution, it becomes clear that many of the charges leveled against the aristocracy were nonsense, and they in fact ruled us better than democracy has. We had fewer truly catastrophic wars and more stable life under the aristocrats.
History shows us that the greatness of Europe emerged under the kings. Our architecture was inspiring, our music epic, our visual art beautiful, our plays hopeful, our cities attractive, and our countrysides amazing. We had military strength without being thoroughly militarized, and law and order without intrusion.
Life was more excellent with the aristocrats, and it is clear that unless we want to try some form of “limited dictatorship” which will quickly fail, we are going to be heading back to aristocracy. Nations discover aristocracy in the springtime of their lives, and some recover it later on, and if we are to survive, we must be one of those.
Aristocracy in America can come to pass through something as simple as a Constitutional amendment. The legal side would not be difficult to arrange, since amendments patch the Constitution itself, and so change the fundamental law of the land. Even more, aristocracy does not violate any of the natural rights laid out by the Constitution.
This leaves us with a knotty problem: how to choose an aristocracy?
Obviously we would not do anything so foolish as to use the vote or choose the rich, since most of them made their money off of a degenerate time, but we would not exclude them either. We then face a chicken-or-egg problem that is simply resolved by noticing that people are unequal, some are more sensitive and insightful than others, and some of those are more capable of leadership than others. We all know such people in our lives.
To put them to work, we create a pyramid. All of the people that our best leaders think would be good leaders, we place in a pool of names. Then we ask them who they know who would be good leaders, and repeat the process until we have a reasonable pool. At that point, the candidates have to go back to our team of best people, chosen perhaps by the most astute among those who achieve this change in law and culture to our society.
This presents a challenge in that we must pick the best in order to find the best, but this principle remains consistent: for accurate measurement, choose the most sensitive instruments that you can.
We will get nowhere as a diverse country because diversity does not work and never has. This constitutes a bottom line for our survival, since we see that with diversity, over time outbreeding ruins our people and leaves them unable to achieve their former greatness.
Since we are not an unkind people, the best method of achieving this will be repatriation-with-reparations, which basically involves giving Other groups sums for settlement of any grievances and then relocating them to their root continents: Asia, Africa, or the middle east.
Many object to this on the basis that it is unfair to us to have to compensate other groups after the disaster of diversity has harmed so many of our people. In reality, the situation presents no different of a challenge than that which appears whenever we close out any other failed policy. It costs money to fix the disaster we created.
Our people slept through numerous civil rights bills, immigration laws, amnesties, and refugee plans. No politician was punished for these; granted, one of the many problems with democracy is that if an otherwise good politician does something stupid, as is usually the case because of the quid pro quo of committee-oriented thinking as is the norm in democracy, there is no way to punish that person. However, these laws appear to have been not only popular but a source of pride for many people.
This tells us that, like equality and democracy, diversity represents one of those addictive thoughts that people enjoy because it validates their behavior or makes them feel good about themselves. Popular notions of this type give in to underlying human pathologies and make us feel safe because we no longer need to feel bad about our failings. In that sense, we can see them as learning experiences and hurdles we had to get over and now that we see the truth, we have to end them as humanely as possible.
If recent history has taught us anything, it tells that positive reward systems — where people are compensated for doing good things — work better than exclusively punishment-based systems where people are penalized for doing wrong. Instead of orienting people away from performance from risk of being punished, we orient them toward wanting to contribute knowing that unless they do outright bad, their only risk is lack of reward.
These replace all subsidy-based systems as found in socialism and other egalitarian schemes, namely anything that takes from the whole and gives to a smaller group, such as welfare, public education, socialized medicine, and free social services. Instead, our goal should be to make life as cost-effective as possible in order to save people from having to maintain subsidies.
In our quest to reform our civilization, we can first apply this in finding people to come up with fixes for the many systems we will be replacing from the modern age. If they can create and implement working ideas, especially ideas better than all competitors, they deserve hearty rewards.
So much of the modern disease involves the notion that to accomplish anything, we need to use government to concentrate wealth and power and then force everyone into the same behavior so that mass change occurs. In transitioning out of that modern time, we take a different approach: our best set standards, and others emulate as they can, with each contributing unequally in whatever way fits his talents and inclinations.
Much of our task involves not telling people what to do, but allowing organic motion to occur, or that which arises naturally from the circumstances of existence. If we set up a sensible society, people will act sensibly, and then start to drive toward excellence in order to experience the recognition and enjoyment of their peers. This will continue the cultural movement toward the Right not simply as resistance to the Left, but as a creative force above all others.
Our success in this area will come from having people who pay attention to quality, and always reward quality over quantity. A certain benevolent elitism, much like nationalism requires a benevolent xenophobia, helps guide a society toward ever-improving standards, and by doing that, it pushes itself beyond its comfort zone and people find themselves striving to be better so that they can achieve what they see others do. As they rise, a gentle competition exists between people, raising the heights of achievement even further.
Waking up from the downfall of a civilization and the struggle of the late stages of its existence, especially democracy, disorients and alienates the individual. With a roadmap, the disorientation ends, and a path opens up by which people can overcome their alienation and bond with their fellows, their past, their future, and life itself again.
We who were cursed to live in this time are also gifted with a great challenge. Few experience this amount of intensity in their lives, with a corresponding sense of existential worth to the battle before us, that can make them come out of their reticent selves and live for something more than the material moment. We are fortunate to partake of this struggle.
Currently, many are flailing in this task. They have not yet articulated that our task is to restore Western Civilization, nor have they accepted that no single method — race, libertarianism, totalitarianism, religion — can do this for us. We need to rebuild a civilization and while that requires all of those, no one can do all.
Modernity has ruined everything that it could, either outright or by infesting it with the modern notion, so we are every bit as much explorers as our ancestors who voyaged uncharted oceans or our descendants who will explore deep space. Our time belongs to us, and after it, the future belongs to the memory of our greatness. It is a glorious time to be alive.