With that backstory out of the way, we can look at the actual appeal of Jane Austen, and then expand upon it. Luckily, you have a credible guide; I wrote extensively on Jane Austen while entrenched in academia, before realizing that academia was just as much a lie as the private sector and bailing out of both as much as possible. And so, there are some expansions that can be argued as well.
Austen writes books that many still consider “women’s novels” for their topic matter, which is fine as long as you think that Apocalypse Now was a war film and Repo Man was a film about cars, or that Naked Lunch was really about heroin, for that matter. Setting is not content; a good novel is like a virus, with an outer shell of setting and characters, and a payload of philosophy and detailed observation of life.
As revealed in one of our recent Austen reviews, her thinking as a writer extends beyond the concerns of her characters to human questions of morality, existential fulfillment and even civilization itself. She may write through the lens of women’s issues, but Austen belongs on the shelf with Nietzsche, Houellebecq and Céline.
Naturally, the Establishment is resisting the idea that Austen could be Alt Right, which tells you right away that some similarity between the two can be found, because otherwise they would not bother getting the hive-mind in a buzz about this issue. As Hannibal Bateman writes:
Indeed, the Jane Austen outrage didn’t just stop with The Chronicle but has now penetrated into other elite purveyors of liberal discourse via The New York Times and The Paris Review.
From The Times article “Jane Austen Has Alt-Right Fans? Heavens to Darcy!”:
But it has prompted the most sustained chatter among Austen scholars, a more reliably liberal bunch who, like Ms. Wright, emphatically reject white nationalist readings of her novels.
“No one who reads Jane Austen’s words with any attention and reflection can possibly be alt-right,” Elaine Bander, a retired professor and a former officer of the Jane Austen Society of North America, said in an email.
…Of course Jane Austen comes out of a White world. This is why the commentary on the original Counter Currents article were so relevant. Because Jane Austen as a European writer speaks to peculiar conditions of European man, the same way Langston Hughes and Chaim Potok speak to their respective black and Jewish readers. All of Austen’s work takes place in a world where European identity, and in particular, regency English countryside identity, were presupposed.
Austen not only touches on, but by arguing for certain attitudes within them, endorses some of the most taboo institutions to Leftists, including caste systems, eugenics and aristocracy. In the Austen world, people are either good or bad, and those that behave according to the psychology of Leftism are parasitic and threatening.
Click here for an imaging of what Jane Austen might have looked like. Just two centuries ago, and already so much is forgotten. But her vision lives on because it remains relevant for any sane and thinking person in this time, as well.
For example, her classic Pride And Prejudice melds eugenic theory with an intensely realistic morality. All of the bad men are slightly effete, harmless-looking and parasitic; all of the good ones are elitist, good-natured and generous. The self-deluding characters end up with other self-deluders and make themselves miserable, and realists find each other and escape.
In her book Emma, Austen describes the Leftist mentality as similar to a lonely over-disciplined child playing in a doll house. The people and consequences are not real, only symbolic, and this manifests in a profound and damaging loneliness. In the background, civilization chortles on, oblivious to these deeper issues, as if Austen is reminding us that most of humanity is inert.
For this reason, it is both a mistake to argue that Jane Austen is an Alt Right writer as it is to argue that her work does not contain some ideas which overlap with the Alt Right. She writes about a white world of a different era, in which social rank (caste distinctions) and personal qualities are more important than commerce. Her world is appalled by European foreigners, much less non-whites, whose presence she would find as awkward as she finds the concept of slavery.
In other words, like most literary superstars, Jane Austen was that odd mixture of intense Realism and a passionate sense that the idea is greater than the material, or Germanic-style Idealism. In her books, characters are practical, but also live for spirit and a strong sense of doing what is right not only by themselves, but by principle itself.
Claiming that her philosophy fits into the Alt Right world is thus both true and not the whole story. As The Chronicle writes:
On the popular blog of the alt-right publisher Counter-Currents, the world of Austen’s novels is extolled as a prototype for the “racial dictatorship” of tomorrow. One commenter wrote, “If, after the ethnostate is created, we revert back to an Austen-like world, we males ought to endure severe sacrifices as well. … If traditional marriage à la P&P [Pride and Prejudice] is going to be imposed, again, in an ethnostate, we must behave like gentlemen.”
In Jane Austen, the only reason the ethnostate works at all is the presence of an aristocracy. Austen’s work is intensely elitist, and she recognizes that most people are horrible and most human events are in fact failures. For example, witness this classic voicing by Elizabeth Bennet that expresses elitism and aristocracy at the same time:
There are few people whom I really love, and still fewer of whom I think well. The more I see of the world, the more am I dissatisfied with it; and every day confirms my belief of the inconsistency of all human characters, and of the little dependence that can be placed on the appearance of merit or sense.
Most things are garbage; most people are confused. The few who rise above merit attention, and this theme runs through Emma and Pride And Prejudice as well as other Austen works. In a foreshadowing of modern literature, most of her characters end up self-destructing or slotted into dead-end existences, while the few good ones struggle and then finally find a path of meaning for themselves.
This elitism is the core of hierarchy. When sorting out a human group, it makes sense to place the best above the rest, not just by external traits (wealth, power, status, popularity) but by internal traits (honor, intelligence, wisdom, pathos). Much of Austen’s work consists of filtering out the internal traits from the external image presented by characters, including slimy ones.
For those of us in the present day, this becomes essential because under democracy, everything is political. In Austen’s world we can see a comradeship of the gifted in which the political is recognized as a front, and the internal traits and motivations of individuals determine their quality and thus their relevance to that world. Austen may be as anti-democratic as she is insightful.
Her characters are — unlike modern “literary” protagonistas — not uncomfortable with their roles. Women want to get married and have families; men want to be men; proles want to prole, and elites are concerned with the abstract issues that are relevant to leadership. Each thing has its place, and the only remaining task is to sort them all by hierarchy.
That type of comfort only occurs in a strict hierarchy of both leadership and social status, demonstrated in her time by aristocracy and caste. Every person has a place, or zone of comfortable operation, paired to his or her characteristics. Scullery maids are not expected to be ladies, nor are footmen expected to be gentlemen. But all are accepted as they are and even seen through a kindly filter.
One reason that Austen remains popular is that she shows us a time before the neurotic existence occasioned by modernity, which has its roots in the removal of this leadership and hierarchy and their replacement with egalitarian mob rule. In Jane Austen’s time, being accurate in speech was still more important than flattering others, and discerning inner traits was permissible. Neither is true today.
This leads us to another uncomfortable recognition: the white world of Jane Austen could not exist without its other aspects such as aristocracy. The world she describes will never emerge from equality and democracy. It is an entirely different direction that we could have at any moment, were we willing to surrender our pretense of equality.
Aristocracy in turn could not exist without her elitism, or recognition that inner traits exist and are important, and that we need those with the best inner traits on top because if decisions are left up to lesser people, crisis and horror result. It is this realization, which reverses the logical framework for both the French Revolution and The Enlightenment,™ that really scares the Left.
If we read Austen as honest and alert people, we encounter a vision of human existence which directly refutes Leftism while simultaneously adopting and disciplining the emotional responses behind it, much as Elizabeth Bennet learns to discipline her emotions in Pride And Prejudice. While that vision includes the ethnostate, it is not limited to it.
That in turn normalizes the ethnostate as a concept. Instead of being a radical idea, it is an ingredient in the most sensible recipe for happiness; it is not chosen for its symbolic meaning or personal value, but because it works, like every other idea demonstrated positively in an Austen novel.
Her insight is to show us that the reason these policies work at the national level is because they work at the personal level. The question of civilization is not institutions, but individuals, and individuals follow the same framework and so can be predicted. Is Austen Alt Right? Perhaps neither yes nor no, but she attacks modernity the same way the Alt Right does, and we should heed her wisdom.
Advanced civilization runs into a problem: the capable must take care of the incapable, since they have both been born to the same civilization. Instead of adopting the elitism that would keep the incapable in check, the capable make themselves into servants of the incapable by “managing” the inept, sloppy, oblivious and narcissistic.
This creates a sense of futility in society, starting from the top-down. Who dares hope for a good outcome when stupidity always wins, and when the intelligent are required to work long hours to keep the insanity from overflowing? Society can either exist as a top-down entity, where the intelligent rule, or it is ruled from the bottom-up by the stupid, who then oppress the intelligent and make them de facto slaves.
You undoubtedly have experienced this reading the newspaper. Story after story describes idiotic and incompetent people doing moronic things, and then at the end you see that they will become wards of the state or otherwise continue. There seems to be nothing you can do: you are outnumbered by fools and, because “society” wants to help them, they win — while you labor away and try to be responsible to pay for it and manage the chaos.
People in Western Civilization probably identified with Jesus on the Cross because of their own martyrdom in this way. Where once they directed others toward creating positive results, they became glorified babysitters once those efforts succeeded and resulted in a vast population of less competent people. Day after day, they were exposed to the ugliest and most desolate of human behavior.
Consider the manager in a small firm. He does not expect his employees to be geniuses when he starts working there, but over time, he comes to see them as an adversary. If not constantly told what to do, they just screw around… with no thought about what is needed for the sake of the business. They will overlook jobs that need doing as a result, simply because they were not instructed every minute of the day.
Even more, they tend to be flakeouts. They will do a job halfway, and then wander off toward something else. Count on them to fill out paperwork wrong, to take sick days whenever they can, to steal items from work or just to do everything poorly because they can get away with it. They have no sense of purpose in the job.
The manager does what everyone must do in such a situation: he cracks down. He enforces work hours more rigidly and puts in place checks and balances and paperwork to force people to do things the right way. They then find ways around that. He redesigns. It is a constant battle, a Tom and Jerry style slapstick comedy, with the workers apparently dedicated to creative ineptitude and laziness.
All of us have experienced low-level jobs where this was the norm. For those from upper-half-of-middle-class backgrounds, it was usually an eye-opener to realize that not everyone cares about getting the job done, and seeing how management are essentially slaves to the complete lack of dedication of their own workers.
This outlook shows what exhausted the West: we became babysitter-managers instead of conquerors.
We can see the results of this today in the behavior of Western people. We like worn-down middle managers, always having to acquiescence to “whatever the herd is doing,” and never able to create sanity in our own lives.
Rather than return to such a policy targeted at a new group of persecuted people, the United States should continue to accept humanitarian immigration, not because refugees can improve local economies—though they can—and not because they can provide tangible intelligence against ISIS—though they do—but because getting out of the way and allowing people to escape violence is the bare minimum of moral decency.
America may have no moral duty to put out fires around the world, but it does have a moral duty not to block the fire exits.
Translation: if other people are having a problem because of their own incompetence, it is your job to take them in and manage them so that you can get brownie points for being such a nice white knight.
No wonder white Americans are dying out. Sure, the middle class salaries and top-notch shopping are nice, but this provides no future other than being a glorified janitor who does not even get the respect that the guy who cleans the toilets gets. Instead, we know the drill: import Other group, have what we offer be not enough, and get spat on while we struggle like salesmen to make it right even though it never can be.
Diversity occurred in the first place because of this lack of social order. Social order occurs when — as naturally happens in the military, athletics and business — there is a strong hierarchy. Those on the top are there for reason of greater competence, and they tell the others what to do. But we interrupted that with the doctrine of equality, itself a descendant of the idea that we must manage our low-skill citizens.
Instead of having the intelligent making decisions, we had a large contingent of poor people who simply refused to do their role. And so, we imported the Irish to replace them… then the Poles to replace them… then the Italians to replace them… and since then it has been a Ponzi scheme to bring in new groups of third-world people who are not yet ruined by our lifestyle based on individual rights which allows the weak to the command the strong.
That is the real reason for immigration, after all. Unions, worker’s rights, riots and revolts… these meant that, to the bourgeois middle class, it was impossible to do anything but pander more to our low-skill people. Business shrugged and took the money it blew in a year on lawyers to keep the union menace at bay, and threw it into pro-immigration lobbying. Finally it could turn a profit again.
You did this to yourselves, idiots. You, the voters, who are afraid of strong power, opted instead to defend the weak, which made all of the existing problems weak and launched new ones. You cannot blame The Rich,™ The Jew,™ or even business itself. You the voters did this. You refused to fight back against the ongoing creep of the managerial state, and now you are all miserable because of your bad — no, let’s call it what it is: stupid — decisions.
That tolerance for stupidity (the opposite of tolerance is not intolerance, but having standards) caused an abuse pathology in white people: we are abused by those who use our guilt against us and demand we take care of them, even though they have little to offer. I am thinking mostly of dumb whites here, but we have now expanded the franchise… white people live in a constant miasma of Stockholm syndrome, PTSD and neurotic delirium.
Every time a story like this is published, its comment section predictably devolves into a digital screaming match — on one side are parents and would-be parents espousing the primal human instinct to reproduce, and the folly of denying that drive. On the other side are activists who, like Kelly, believe the way to best protect our children is by not having more. Or, put another way, if you want to preserve the planet for future generations, shoot the stork. Caught in the middle? Twenty- and thirty-somethings torn between the desire to start a family and guilt over doing so.
…“We have a generation of people whose decisions are deeply and painfully complicated by climate change,” Josephine Ferorelli, co-founder of the nonprofit Conceivable Future, which frames global warming as a reproductive justice issue, told Salon. “There isn’t a correct answer here — it’s an impossible choice. So we’re trying to refocus the conversation to something larger.”
If any of these people were not stupefied by their own propaganda, they would realize that having first-world high IQ babies is always preferable. The world is drowning in people and will do so regardless of what we do here in the first world, but we could stop our role in the problem by ending immigration and sending back the people we have now educated here.
Nope, we cannot do that. The role of the manager is always to sacrifice himself because there will always be more clueless people who need being told what to do. Seduced by the power and salary, he nonetheless becomes a slave, bending his back to solve problems of an obvious nature and as a result being distracted permanently from any creative, forward-looking and eternally-valid solutions.
Shoot the stork? Shoot the stupid. Humanity has since its earliest days been awash in incompetents. They may be perfectly nice, pleasant and compassionate people, but they are incompetent. As a result, they destroy anything they touch, either directly by making “decisions” involved with it, or indirectly by passive-aggressively enslaving their betters to become watchdogs over the herd of sprawling ineptitude.
Future historians of the West will record that its decline began with the idea that everyone who was born within a society had created an obligation for that society to take care of them. Better is the rule of nature, where the wolfpack kills or leaves behind the inept wolf, not from a moral judgment but from a sense of self-preservation. Elitism and aristocracy are right; humility and compassion are wrong.
The supermanager is neoliberalism’s governance mechanism, a way to negotiate and smooth over differences between sectors of power in society, just as the supermanager avant la lettre did so in Nazi Germany.
…The most plausible explanation is that supermanagers are paid for governance where the state has been redeployed elsewhere or, even, effectively dissolved…One could think of this in a rather perverse way as real marginal added value, compensation for the difficult work of governance without a Rechtsstaat — without a rational, sovereign state, or with a receding or redistributed one.
…Before Margaret Thatcher began the privatization of council housing and long before welfare reform was a twinkle in Bill Clinton’s eye, the Nazis were turning heavy industries, nearly the entirety of the financial and banking sector, and even some social services over to private hands and to new, innovative public/private hybrids.
Naturally this is tied to National Socialism because in Leftist behavioral patterns, anything which contradicts Leftism must be “fascism,” which is their shorthand for any non-hybridized Right-wing society.
Reprivatization recognized a fundamental truth: formalized authority subdivides power, attempting to separate those who produce from those who rule. Informal authority closes this gap and eliminates layers of politics.
If the Right has a fundamental principle, it is the combination of realism and transcendentalism that recognizes that the order of nature is not only the most efficient but the most moral. For this reason, it prefers to create a social hierarchy and choose its leaders not by appearance, but by what they are able to achieve.
When liberal states separate power from results, they create an intermediary which serves as a chronic parasite that attempts to redirect productivity toward the collective in the name of achieving equality. This in turn produces worse results.
The ultimate extension of Rightism can be found in the aristocracy, which takes wealth and power and distributes it among the best leaders the society has produced, entrusting them with it because it is in their interest to advance it. By doing so, it eliminates the conflict of interest between government and productivity.
As the Leftist era of the postwar world and centuries after the French Revolution comes to an end, interest arises in getting rid of these middlemen, marketers and manipulators. The quest for equality destroyed our ability to be productive and with that, our ability to apportion some of that productivity toward activities that are not strictly wealth-generating, but make life better by improving civilizational and cultural health.
Those who can improve productivity of all sorts, including the non-commercial kind, are the original supermanagers. These people know not only how to react to opportunity but how to expand it by increasing function outside of what immediately returns profit so that future health, stability and sanity increase the output and existential wellbeing of the society and the people within it.
That tendency creates the patterns we see in Leftist societies: equality is achieved by reversion to a mean, where everyone lives at the level of the lowest, except those who rise through the ideological hierarchy. This leaves behind ruined societies ruled by incompetent super-elites who “make money” at the expense of productivity.
As we look toward how this civilization has failed, the inevitable question arises of whether or not we can reverse the decline and avoid it again. The civilization that can find a path around this pitfall, which destroys most advanced civilizations, will inherit the future of humanity.
To reverse our decline, we must understand at least somewhat how it came about, and what sort of civilization design or structure will avoid or at least strongly resist this type of entropy. Many suggest the pithy phrase “throne and altar” to refer to a society ruled by aristocrats and administrated by kings.
This proves to be a poor idea however for a simple reason: it divides power. Kings function well when they have unlimited power and are not constrained by precedent, but are instead informed in tradition, because this enables them to uphold the principles of tradition without having to repeat the methods approved of by convention.
In addition, having greater wisdom than most, kings tend to be well-informed of the existence of the metaphysical, partially from having brains designed by nature to separate human patterns from ones found in non-human nature, and through that, to determine both what is real and what is excellent for humans among that set of options.
What a healthy society needs is a king who understands religion, not a priest playing the role of king, because while religion reflects an actuality understood at a personal level, making religion into an organized entity requires having leaders, and if those compete with the kings for power, it creates the same instability that fractured European societies in the past. Instead it makes sense to have a king with religious leanings informed by a matrix of aristocrats who support him and provide internal criticism, also being fully educated in the religion of the land.
This will not be a popular view. People want solutions that, like the designs of our democratic time, involve a balance of powers. They fear what happens when a king has unlimited power. But by doing so, they hamper power, and by making it ambiguous, create a contest for it in which we fight each other instead of focusing on cooperation.
In 1988 the possibility of the end of the Cold War loomed. This affected not only America and the Soviet Union, but triggered a series of ripple effects as other nations, preparing for the change in world order, reacted by altering themselves.
We can see these ripple effets in the end of Angolan War hostilities (1989), the independence of Namibia (March 1990), the re-unification of Germany (October 1990), the George H.W. Bush New World Order Declaration (11 September 1991) and the South African Peace Accord (14 September 1991).
Because other nations were taking advantage of this wonderful “Window of Opportunity,” it resulted in a flood of peace and prosperity washing over the world. In other words: “it was an opportunity for all parties to come together.”
The peace and prosperity part did not last long however, because the fall of a great power creates a power vacuum into which the previously-restrained uncertainty expands. Since that time, the Middle-East has been mired in various perpetual wars of “alliances” (sic). Currently the United States (and its “partners”) are involved in five undeclared wars and military actions in seven nations.
The utopia proclaimed by a Globalist New World Order lasted a mere 25 years, effectively a single generation.
The disaster caused by the resulting shift to a neoliberal dispensation is slowly being recognized by the man on the street. The same Western decadence that Russians hated from 1991 became the cancerous symptom now also recognized by realistic Western observers: the erasure of culture and its replacement with unrestricted commerce, managerial government, and Leftist ideology which because it reflects popular illusions is now following the Soviet path.
The flood of realism now stretching across the Western world started in France with the Front National political party, supported by the AFD German Party and was followed by the Brexit vote. The “danger” lamented by mainstream media of crashing markets due to a supposed return to fascism, came to naught, and instead, a ripple effect is driving right-wing parties into office as it becomes clear that Leftist policies have failed worldwide.
In fact the markets have been responding favorably, demonstrating the inherent failure of not only politicians, but of neoliberal-driven mainstream media too.
The discontent harbored by the average person on the street finally crossed the Atlantic where Donald Trump won the 2016 US Presidential election on a Nationalist ticket. There can be no doubt anymore that neoliberal policies are inherently flawed and that the majority choose Nationalism as a better option.
The international discovery of a better way proposes a “new” window of opportunity for all nations. The impact on each Nation is different because it is not prescribed. Although America is not prescribing Nationalism per se, by rejection anti-Nationalism it is taking the lead and could serve as an example.
The curious case of South Africa requires further investigation. Where Democratic protests in America use minority (black) players against a white Government, the same type of protests in South Africa is against a “black” Government. The interesting part is that whites in South Africa never protest but would rather “propose” alternatives in media forums.
This means that South African Nationalism is far from clear, because there is no “South African way” like Americans and Australians have. This is due to excessive foreign influence preventing South Africans from establishing their own unique identity.
The window of opportunity for South Africa therefore is not to find a new “sponsor” in some foreign land, but to act on its own. Because all “sponsors” are busy with their own affairs in the aftermath of the opening of a power vacuum, it will allow South Africans to sort itself out.
The first step would be to acknowledge that not only has communism failed, but that liberal democracy also failed. This would re-open the 1991 Table of Peace, where real discussions can take place, instead of degrading bribery and corruption to manage childish rating agency threats.
This time the Zulu King could be the Chairman supported by a layer of knowledgeable South African aristocrats sworn in as Chiefs.
But what should not take place is some little palace revolution against the current President, just to perpetuate the failing status quo against a new “progressing” World.
Most modern people have no idea how aristocracy works because we have been indoctrinated with the idea that only a “meritocracy” is fair.
Meritocracies are, in theory, systems where those who demonstrate ability get given greater power than those who do not. Somewhat obviously, this occurs in gradients, not a pure binary. But the principle is the same: sort the population by ability.
In reality, because we are an egalitarian society, this consists of setting up hoops for people to jump through: education, certifications, internships, entry level jobs, public relations exercises.
What this does effectively is choose people who are good at playing the game of the System, but simultaneously, it drives away those who are concerned with direct effect. They are disenfranchised and driven from power by the flood of people who want to be good at the system.
Correspondingly, these game-players do not care about whether they are effective. For them, the goal is to attain the position and to maximize the utility of it toward making themselves wealthy and socially powerful. By its nature, this displaces any concern they have for the consequences of their actions.
If you wonder why so much of the modern world is incompetent, think of it this way: a person who wants to do good tries to gain power so they can do good; a person who wants only power seeks the power, and is more efficient at doing so by eliminating the concern over doing good.
For this reason, meritocracies are a failure like any other kind of System. They produce “false elites” who are more concerned with doing what is necessary to advance than being effective. This is why our leaders often can be observed to be making the right noises after an event, but never changing the course which produced it.
If the modern norm is to select whoever is best at the working the system for power on the basis that they “deserve” it, aristocracy is a direct opposite.
Aristocracy measures inner traits like intelligence, moral goodness and character. It selects people based on their ability to uphold principles, and then surmises (correctly) that they will be able to use that generalized and elevated ability in any specific decision to make better quality decisions.
The most important trait of aristocrats is a tendency toward excellence and beauty. They improve life by making the experience of life better, which creates a soothing existential state for their citizens even when faced with horrible dark and difficult times. This makes people aspire to improve themselves and their civilization in quality.
To modern people, this seems hopelessly indirect: “We want solutions!,” they cry. For most people, cause and effect are not understood. They see a problem, and they want a direct fix, like curing poverty by giving the poor money. An aristocrat looks to what produced the condition and then ameliorates it gradually and indirectly.
This creates a society where citizens must be self-reliant but do not suffer the high externalized costs of social chaos. They have social order instead, which allows them easier socialization, marriage and family in addition to giving them better options for less painful employment and more free time.
No system is perfect and there can be no Utopia. Once we dispense with the illusion that there should be, it is clear that aristocracy is superior to democracy. Unlike democracy, it allows for decisive leadership and nurtures its citizens. However it requires us to give up the pretense of equality.
At least 95% of it has always been crazy and has languished in third-world status. This is primarily a result of disorganization and low average population IQ. These populations could reverse that status at any minute by selecting their intelligent people and giving them wealth and power. Those people organize the chaos.
Western Civilization has been tripping down the merry road — the path to failure is always easy and comfortable — toward third-world status for some time. It started when we reversed the principle of civilization. To have civilization, you select the good people and put them at the top. Reverse it and you fail.
Instead of taking the wealth and power and giving it to our best people, we started having little contests for who should be in charge. Who makes the best products, stock market decisions, or most popular speech; that kind of thing. The result of these is that we have chosen our leadership and our values by consensus, not reality.
Reality is what remains out there, doing its own thing, when you close your eyes and after you are dead. Not all of us can perceive much of it, but we all perceive some, in varying degrees. As the saying goes, “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing,” and those who perceive little of it tend to be delusional and third-world in mentality.
Whatever happens in our day-to-day struggles, we must keep focus on the goal: put those who perceive the most of reality, and have a tendency to maximize it, at the top of the hierarchy. Otherwise, the rest of us gang together into Crowds who destroy all good things, as we have seen in the West.
Hope by itself is a curse. It is a deflection from reality and a journey into our own emotional infinite loop. But hope with desolation, like life with death, points us toward what we must do: maximize life. Make ourselves our hope. Or rather, make our decisions and those who make them best our future path.
The West needs many things, but they form a pyramid like Mazlow’s hierarchy. At the top of that are these essentials:
Aristocracy. Take our people who perceive reality the most and also are inclined to maximize excellence and give them the wealth and power. Beat down the merchants, con men, advertisers, lawyers, carnies and other types who flatter us with pleasant illusions and then take control.
Nationalism. Every ethnic group demands its own space, and every race its continent. In Europe, nations matter. In America, our Anglo-Saxon (Western European) heritage is our core. Our people create the social order we need, and it cannot be created any other way.
Hierarchy. Like in the military or the church, we need methods of moving the better people up higher than the rest. Most of this is done by assessing choice, but another important dimension is to avoid the subsidies that governments so relish. Let Darwin into our lives in all ways.
Transcendence. We need a goal above materiality and social pressures. This goal cannot be achievable in full, but must always be there ahead of us on the horizon, encouraging us to improve qualitatively forever, always reaching higher toward excellence, beauty, wisdom, truth and goodness.
This is our mission. Right now, we are trying to stop the decline, but we cannot do it without having an extremely long-term goal, on the order of tens of thousands of years. We must think not of our time, but of all time. And no matter what comes our way, this light shall guide us from desolation to light.
The closest analogy would in effect be monarchism, and it must be noted that it was under monarchism that Christianity arose. A fully secure and competent monarchical organisation, and not a mere bourgeois insecure power sham monarchy as in the case of constitutional monarchy would indeed be able to embrace the virtues and end capitalism as well as the rest of your demands, precisely because capitalism is a matter of anarchist based conceptions of property as mere possession. A true neoabsolutist monarchy would acknowledge that primarily all within the sovereign’s territory is their possession, and subsequent ownership by those in society is property, and that ownership of property would need to be in accordance with the greater good which is now aligned with the sovereigns good.
To expand: monarchism is an artifact of aristocracy, which provides a forward-facing society by choosing its best people and entrusting them with power, instead of seeing who has the power and trying to limit them or force them do what is perceived to be “right” by a large committee with no actual accountability.
Harambe (1999-2016) was a western lowland silverback gorilla who lived at the Cincinnati Zoo. He was killed on May 28, 2016, after a small child was able to gain entrance to the enclosure. Because of the humanist idea that human lives are most important, Harambe was killed, even if the widespread perception was that the ineptitude and laziness of the child’s parents was the cause of the incident.
As Western Civilization has run itself down into collapse over the years, the degree of responsibility exercised by the individual citizen has declined. Individualism is the singular form of equality, and equality operates in inverse to responsibility because equality mandates that all be included regardless of the outcomes of their actions.
We can see this in other forms of Leftism. Socialism demands that workers be paid equally whether they add value or not. Welfare subsidizes non-contributors. Unions reward the least competent alongside the most competent. In each case, a disincentive is created to do more than the minimum, which makes everyone feel good because lowered standards mean that no one will fail to do what is required to be included in the group.
This “managerial” nature of modernity suggests a loss of purpose. When a group has purpose, the leaders can measure citizens by their ability to achieve that purpose; when it discards purpose, its only goal is to “keep the group together” which means including everyone regardless of achievements. That is the nature of Leftism: a replacement of purpose with control, or keeping the group together through ideological reward and punishment.
Irresponsibility reached its peak in the years 2012-2015. The second Obama presidency meant that the idiots had well and truly won, because the least qualified president in American history was enthusiastically affirmed by a large group of voters who apparently did not understand or care about the damage being done by that presidency. SJWs raged across the internet, destroying lives at a whim. The EU seemed to laugh at its own citizens while sponsoring their doom.
With the death of Harambe, a powerful symbol was created: human irresponsibility resulting in the death of something rare and precious. There are not many gorillas left, and those that do exist are threatened by the encroachment of human civilization caused by our quantity-not-quality expansion to reckless levels. On the other hand, idiotic and apathetic parents are plentiful, as are stupid children. We shot the wrong party in Cincinnati.
2016 has brought us massive pushback against the irresponsibility not so much of our leaders, but of “our” people. They keep voting morons into office, fail to notice how dire our situation has become, deny actual problems and chase symbolic ones, and engage in other behavior that Harambe would recognize as belonging to lesser monkeys and lacking the gravitas of a powerful silverback.
The pushback has rise to full power with Donald Trump not so much as a candidate, but as a symbol for the refusal to apologize, grovel, pacify and compensate. In other words, he is a rebellion against the type of thinking that led to the shooting of Harambe because of the irresponsibility of a family. Those who are responsible, this symbol says, are not responsible for the actions of the irresponsible.
The racist tirade started after a student, who has not responded to News24 requests for comment, posted a message on the Third Year Civil Engineering students WhatsApp group in Afrikaans. Other students on the group asked if all communications could be in English as others did not understand Afrikaans.
The request sparked a flurry of responses with the student, Lourens Van Niekerk, taking it a step further.
“Omg all the blacks who agree with that potato who thinks everything should be English are a cancer to this society…This is why Trump is the God Emperor of mankind. He sees right through you. Stop taking everything for granted and blaming whites. Our privileges have been earned.”
In other words, we made ours; get your own.
This is part of an ongoing realization by people in the first-world, especially the competent, that most of humanity is parasitic and failure-bound. Only a few percent of any human population manage to have lives of relative sanity, and the rest are neurotic and manic monkeys, flailing around by chasing symbols and being distracted by shiny objects, unable to focus on the reality in front of them.
Going down this path of thinking leads to two realizations: first, diversity cannot ever work, because our interests are separate from those of all other groups, and therefore our interests are contradictory when placed in the same society; second, that democracy cannot work because most people are mentally lazy, and in any group, the mentally lazy will win out over the others.
The book The Bell Curve created no end of media ire because it dared to mention racial differences in intelligence. But the bigger point was missed by the crowd: every group experiences the same pattern of intelligence distribution, with a few radically dumber and a few very smart, and most on a slope in the middle.
What this means is that even among smart people, the very smart will be marginalized; add to this the “committee mentality” that favors convenience and lack of risk over strong action, and therefore always makes short-term compromises instead of long-term solutions, and the social nature of human thinking, and democracy is a disaster.
This scares our elites, because they depend on democracy — and its slothful, distracted, vapid thinking — in order to stay in power. The Alt Right scares them because it shows conservatives returning to the field with a lack of belief in irresponsibility, rejecting both diversity and democracy in favor of recognition of the genetic hierarchy in all human groups, and the genetic roots of culture.
Some, such as Brad Griffin of Occidental Dissent, another website, think “democracy can become a tool of oppression”, and that monarchy or dictatorship might be better;
That is the real fear. The other boilerplate stuff, about how terrible it is to be racist and how wacky and irresponsible if not outright mean the Alt Right is, serves only for framing, because people have heard it all before and tend to skim over it. But the authors want to lump anti-democratic thought in with this other stuff and proclaim it all bad, because their actual target is that anti-democratic thought.
Without democracy, leaders would have to be responsible. They would have to tell the Cincinnati zoo to ignore the cries of the irresponsible parents who allow their children to self-destruct. They would have to tell idiots that they are, in fact, idiots, and do not deserve high rank. And so on. The social nature of human politics would be upended, and replaced with a realistic one.
Peak irresponsibility shows people tiring of having to tolerate stupidity and ineptitude on a daily basis in order to uphold sacred bovines like equality and pluralism. We want results. As one saying on the internet goes, apropos of Harambe, “This is why we can’t have nice things,” referring to the tendency of idiots to show up and leave behind dead gorillas and litter as a result of their own irresponsibility.
Humanity may well be entering a new age. If the motto of the old one was We Must All Get Along, the new age will be Put The Non-Idiots In Charge, because equality has favored the idiot and marginalized the intelligent. When society descends to the level of murdering rare animals for our own pretense of equality, such a shift is long overdue.
Within minutes of globalist candidate Hillary Clinton opening up both bores of her nagging grandma guilt shotgun on the alt right, dissent broke out like a rash as the alt right began the difficult task of finally formalizing itself.
Self-policing becomes inevitable in artistic movements, musical scenes, cults, gangs, religious sects and political shockwaves like the alt right. Any distinctive ideal which does not police its supporters will be taken over by those who want to use it for their own ends.
This “entryism” explains why so many once-promising movements become the opposite of what they started as. For example, most Leftist movements start as well-intentioned programs to help people. This can be seen most clearly with the Greens and Anarchists, who started out with unique ideas and ended up as wings of the Leftist parties.
In the case of the alt right, there are numerous people who are now trying to re-define the alt right as one of the following:
A less PC version of the mainstream right.
A more PC version of White Nationalism.
Those attempts ignores the fact that the alt right rose up in the first place because neither of those options — Republican or White Nationalist — fit the needs of the generations who grew up after the Leftists took over in 1968. In particular, the alt right attacks two trends:
The current leftist takeover of our society through political correctness.
The need to get Western Civilization out of a death spiral and back on a path toward greatness.
Conventional conservative movements have utterly failed to arrest either one of these trends. In fact, by pledging to be “bipartisan” and work within the System, conservatives have co-opted themselves by adopting the assumptions of Leftism within a conservative context, thus obliterating any “conservative” ideas.
On the other hand, White Nationalism has also failed, mainly because it is an outrage and not a plan. White Nationalists want a variety of things, usually centered around the idea of all white people hanging out together and being equal. This kind of “ethno-bolshevism” does not appeal to Europeans, who defend their specific national identities, nor Americans, who identify with various strata of whiteness (Western European, class, region).
That alt right does include something simpler: white self-interest. This is inherent in the term “nationalism,” which in its historical and correct use refers to ethnic nationalism, or the definition of a nation by its founding ethnic group and not political or economic systems.
White self-interest includes a desire to disconnect ourselves from political correctness by rejecting the stigma of the term “racist,” to cut ourselves free from immigration and the liberal welfare state, and to be able to freely associate — which requires abolishing anti-discrimination and civil rights laws — with our own without some Leftist politician shipping us inner city people, foreign refugees or deranged homeless people.
But on a broader scale, and in consideration of the second concern of the alt right, how did we get to this state?
Some blame individualism. This seems plausible, except when one wonders what the cause of individualism (placing concerns of the individual before nature, civilization and God) might be. There must be some root for this dysfunction.
One might plausibly blame diversity. Northern Europe encountered its own Siberian and Mongol immigrants early on, and the same people who populate Northern Europe once also wandered through China and India. When diversity is introduced, it destroys social trust, and so people become individualistic: the self against the world, including civilization.
Another view is that individualism arises when a society becomes fatalistic. This can come from several sources. First, by succeeding, it loses any inherent sense of purpose, which in early civilizations is to defeat threats in nature and establish consistent nutrition and safety. It could also be, as I argue in my book Parallelism (yet unpublished), that success as a society causes a ballooning of the population of people who could not survive without civilization, leading to the “idiots rule” situation of today because what is popular shifts from what is realistic to what is unrealistic.
Still another view comes to us from the writer Thomas Pynchon, building on what William S. Burroughs wrote: entropy. Over time, things decline. The more centralized they are, the more catastrophic that decline is. And so, when a society becomes efficient and orderly, it creates the seeds of its own destruction.
Knowing life, or the way things work out at a level of pattern and not material, it seems likely that a combination of these introduced a crisis. Against all odds, Western Europeans thrived; in turn, this brought parasites and attackers, and then created a society so focused on stability that it forgot to be Darwinistic and periodically clean house and re-order itself.
This could be the core dilemma that the alt right addresses, and the reason for the seemingly savage and chaotic nature of its activity. We do not need new policy, but a house-cleaning, where we send away the Other and then turn to the bad amongst us, which can no longer hide in the chaos of diversity, and exile it. Under this calculus, both Hillary Clinton and the fourth-generation welfare families would be headed to Brazil via cargo plane.
In this perspective, the alt right can fail only one way: by not being extreme enough.
Already it is under assault from special interest groups. Some want it to go National Socialist, and blame the Jews for the downfall of Western Civilization; others want “civic nationalism,” which is essentially the liberal State, instead of ethno-nationalism; still others want a religious basis to it. And then there are the many who want it be simply a restored form of GOP conservatism. All have missed the point.
In this way, they will reproduce the exact same thing that made Republicans and the White Nationalists both fail: they will destroy a comprehensive message and replace it with a special interest group that will leave the status quo mostly intact.
Mainstream conservatism and White Nationalism both failed. They attracted those who were fanatical about certain issues, which created groups which could not find agreement on the big issue: what type of society do we desire, and how do we get there?
White Nationalism for example tells us that we want the existing System but only for whites, ignoring the problems that groups of mixed-whites have had merging in the past. Look to Northern Ireland, or even Poles in the UK, or perhaps the fate of Sudeten Germans or even the veiled conflict between the mixed-white North and the WASP Confederate States of America.
Even more, it leaves the same system that produced this bad result — democracy, rule of law, individualism and personal liberation from social standards — intact. White Nationalism, like most revolutions, will reproduce the conditions before it, just in a worse form (a type of decay). Republicans will leave the decay intact in order to pursue symbolic issues and rake in money.
This leaves us with a problem in the West: we have been taken over by parasites, and nothing will drive those parasites away except to cut off their source of nutrition. That happens for the lower through the welfare state, and for the higher through the state itself, which hires them as politicians and bureaucrats.
For the alt right to succeed it must then oppose the root of the problem, so that people are guaranteed actual change to avoid the conditions they see today — and to obliterate the decay which has chased Western Civilization for centuries, eroding our faith in ourselves and our sense of our future having meaning and something good coming out of it.
This requires that we identify the actual enemy, which is both intangible and invisible. It is popularity. Put together a group of people, and they react socially, which means that they avoid difficult truths and instead focus on what keeps the group together. This leads to compromise on all important issues.
To tackle this, we must be both moderates and extremists. We must be moderates in that we do not scapegoat partially culpable groups (minorities, the rich, the elites) but focus on the policies that bring us into conflict. Diversity, for example, is a policy: the idea that a state can be comprised of people of different backgrounds.
It is not extremist to note that culture arises from genetic similarity, and that politics arises from that. Nor is it extreme to say that voting removes responsibility from both voters and leaders, and that it leads to bad decisions. Where we must be extremists is to say that enough is enough, and we need these dysfunctional policies — which produce parasites both high and low — removed.
Us extremist moderates have a difficult task. We must be cool-headed and realistic, but then knowing the nature of the human tendency toward entropy, must push hard for long-term solutions applied evenly and completely. This redefines the term “moderate” from meaning “bipartisan” to meaning “common sense,” and then gives it a strong authoritative push toward full implementation.
The grim truth of humanity is that we destroy ourselves. We try to find a theory that fits all the people in a group, instead of looking for a theory that fits all the data in the external world and history. In so doing, we end up choosing a crowd-pleaser that is a loser, every time.
With popularity, entryism occurs into every idea. It is watered down to what flatters individuals by making them think themselves magnanimous, and it makes the group have warm fuzzies because it feels that it is unified and cannot be divided, therefore each individual is safe in the protection of the crowd.
Most movements self-police the wrong way. They set boundaries, and look for those who overlap beyond that edge, and then declare the problem solved. This misses those who are subverting the definitions at the center of the movement, and cuts out people who are providing necessary challenges.
The only way to police is to look at the center. Is this person basically heading in the same direction toward solving the problem? If so, let them in. If they deny or subvert a central part of the argument, such as being pro-democracy or thinking that solving one aspect of the problem magically fixes the whole, you have an entryist: a zombie of the dominant paradigm who has found your movement and will, deliberately or not, subvert it.
The alt right needs to double down on its core appeal: modern society is insane. It is illogical, destructive and cannibalizes its best people to keep its worst voting for the Leftist ideals that it has endorsed. This is the end result of leadership by committee, or vote by popularity.
With that in mind, it makes sense to look at how the alt right can defend itself.
These are minimum requirements for someone to participate in the alt right. They focus on goals, not boundaries, and serve to draw focus to what is actually being worked towards.
Strong ethnic nationalism.
Irreverent, extreme and nearly sadistically offensive humor.
Resistance to centralization.
The average liberal convert will want to find a version of the alt right that avoids the great liberal no-no of ethnic nationalism. This person will start by saying that maybe all of those who can assimilate to our culture can be included, or that what we need is focus on a political and economic system.
Saying “Western European countries are for Western Europeans only,” and pointing out that France should be for the French, will alienate this person and drive them back into liberalism to see the contradictions in their own thinking for awhile.
Similarly, those who fear realistic humor are opposed to realism itself. If something is true, it forms the basis for humor, especially if it is absurd. The convert from liberalism will try to neuter this into a crowd-pleasing “we can all get along” sense of mild humor.
Finally, one must beware of those working within the liberal paradigm, which is that a universal value is established, everyone is forced to obey it, and then government enforces it. If you argue for free markets, localism or any other form of decentralization, this person will experience a freakout.
These apply to those you are willing to give voice to, by repeating their memes or ideas or by advocating their inclusion in anything more exclusive than the general group. Here you are trying to filter out people who have understood the basics, but are unwilling to be moderate extremist in application.
Rejection of democracy.
Rejection of equality.
Assertion of biological imperative.
We are in a democratic system. Therefore, most people will be coached in finding a democratic implementation of any solution they find attractive. The problem with this is that even limited democracy quickly leads to mob rule, and the mob always chooses flattering illusions over reality, just like committees always pick the solution that rocks the boat the least. Individuals fear for themselves and choose compromise over solutions.
Equality is the basis of democracy and the Left. Those who want to set up a white ethnostate and then implement equality have missed the point. We need hierarchy, or each person acting in a capacity suited to their abilities, which are innate and biologically determined and cannot be implemented by education or obedience.
Finally, the biological imperative will scare them senseless. This says that culture is not universal, and that its root can be found in the genetics of specific populations. Those populations create their culture wherever they go, as fits their abilities and inclinations, which they share as these are genetic traits.
Anyone who does not grasp the above has adopted only the surface of alt right theory and does not understand the alt right as something distinct from a slightly more extreme version of mainstream politics.
When choosing leaders, it is important to look for those who share the ideals of a movement on the basis of goals. That is: what type of society do they want to create? What is their definition of civilization? Those who do not understand these are entryists who will, by compromise, re-create that which they claim to dislike.
Restoration means a removal of democracy and materialism and their replacement with a society in which inner values determine outcomes. This means an end to “systems” and an organic society where all institutions are in unison, collaborating on a spirit toward transcendentals, or the intersection of what is excellent, true and good.
Very few are willing to publicly endorse Repatration, and they usually hide behind the pragmatic argument that it is difficult. So what? — most change is difficult, but if it ends in a better condition, then it is worth doing. Even carrying on with the present ruin of a civilization is difficult.
As a side note, those who oppose repatriation with reparations may be reacting emotionally. The right way to heal a historical wound is with generosity and benevolence, but also an unwavering commitment to setting the problem aright. Diversity fails, so those who are diverse to the founding group must exit the host nation. No compromise.
Finally, we reach the controversial idea of Physical Removal. This states that a healthy society is not Leftist, and for that reason, those who are Leftist must be viewed as a fifth column and sent elsewhere. It does not (necessarily) mean killing them, but in its gentlest form, means exiling them to a Leftist wonderland like Brazil, where vibrant diversity, rampant sexuality, and few social rules means they will be at home.
At all times ask yourself: what is our goal? It is not measured in the issues of today, or of tomorrow, but those things which for 6,000 years of human history have separated the thriving and rising civilizations from those which are headed to third world status.
The alt right is not another wing of the failed ideological movements of the GOP and White Nationalism. It is the antidote to those: a historical shift where people are willing to undertake the difficult and do the unthinkable, and remove the layers of our current system as if we were peeling an onion, creating a functional and ascendant civilization instead.
At the end of analysis, there are two ways to create human civilizations. Either we develop a spirit toward the good in ourselves and promote those who exhibit the best of it, or we accept everyone and try to bribe and threaten them into being good. We have tried the latter, and it has failed, so no vestige of it can remain.
This is why the alt right must double down. All of the entryists will serve to dilute its message and appeal to those of us who recognize that not only is diversity Hell, but so are all aspects of modernity, including sacred cows like democracy, pluralism, government and equality. They must all burn or we end up in the same condition.
To a person from the present year, this will seem like ludicrous extremism. And yet it avoids what defines extremism, which is a special interest group which takes to violence for one issue. We want civilization change. We want it now. Our current path is a path to death, and the only solution is to get entirely off of that path.