Posts Tagged ‘aristocracy’

Only One Political System Will Support Western Restoration

Wednesday, May 24th, 2017

In a recent Q&A, Jared Taylor of American Renaissance wrote about an ideal form of government for European-descended people:

As I mentioned in an earlier reply, I hesitate to prescribe a form of government for white people. The Athenians did well with the city state and mass democracy. The Roman republics and empires were both effective forms of government. We have had good monarchies and good aristocracies. The United States of 1840,, with its limited government and local autonomy were not bad models. The Scandinavians were happy with cradle-to-grave socialism until their populations became increasingly non-white. I believe that the key to our success is in our nature, our culture, our asporations, and our will to transcend — not in our form of government.

As a longtime reader and admirer of Mr. Taylor, I commend his political acumen: he focuses on one thing and one thing only, and in doing so, fleshes out an issue whose relevance most people — brainwashed by the doctrine of equality — cannot understand.

However, to his mind and yours, dear readers, I submit an idea to amplify what he has said. Perhaps there is not an ideal form of government for European-descended people. However, we know that there are bad forms of government, because we are living through one.

Any government of the Left — that species of philosophy which begins with the idea that all men are equal, and ends in the idea that we must destroy society in order to save it — will naturally oppose a nationalist (or to use the PC term, “ethno-nationalist”) civilization. And yet we know that only nationalism works because every other approach culturally and genetically erases the people of that nation.

For this reason, it makes sense for us to escape the insane game of trying to make egalitarianism work, and recognize that only one method of organizing civilization works toward that end: aristocracy. It inherently rejects equality, ends mass culture, puts the good in charge and points society toward doing the good instead of the convenient.

This is especially relevant because a mixed-race, open air market of a society is much easier to create and live in than one where we try to do the right thing, except for the fact that this hybrid anti-culture will destroy us and leave only ruins behind with no hope of renewal.

Our civilization has fallen. It was once great, but rejected the understanding of reality necessary to maintain that greatness, and now remains out of control, in a death spiral, without an ability to even discuss these issues beyond halfway measures. Diversity was not the source of our downfall; lack of social order was, and it led to diversity, which will finish the job if we let it.

Democracies however have a bad record of pulling out of tailspins, and by “bad” I mean zero successes. We can try to work around democracy with an oligarchy, military rule or dictatorship, but these are unstable as well.

History shows us that for us, there is one working type of civilization, and it consists of a handful of things, of which aristocracy is one. Like nationalism, it is not a solution in itself, but a prerequisite toward having the cluster of things that comprise the solution. Until we accept that, we continue down the path to doom.

Biblical Support For Monarchy

Sunday, May 14th, 2017

From The Orthodox Life, an insight into the Biblical necessity of monarchy:

Lacking a monarchical form of government, every man in Israel “did that which was was right in his own eyes”. Instead of promoting peace and freedom, this state of affairs produced a nation full of people with hardened consciences:

The recognition and acknowledgment of God’s holy standard is a foundational necessity for repentance, and this fact is poignantly made in the book of Judges. This book spans several centuries, and covers numerous cases where Israelites raped and murdered one another, while committing flagrant forms of idolatry. Significantly, the book simultaneously repeats the refrain that “every man did that which was right in his own eyes” (Judges 17:6; 21:25). We would be appalled just to read that Israelites were willingly committing acts of wickedness. But how much more shocking it is to hear that they committed these acts without even comprehending the gravity of their evil! It is ghastly to imagine that men can rape and murder in spite of their consciences. But it is even more mind-boggling to think that men can rape and murder in agreement with their consciences. Men’s consciences may become so seared that they don’t even feel guilt when committing such acts. People in such a state may express sorrow for getting caught, but they are not yet in a position to exercise true repentance. Before godly sorrow and meaningful confession can take place, the conscience itself must first be pricked. (Source: The Sacrament of Confession)

…The phrase is used again in the context of kidnapping, and also as a finale to the entire book of Judges:

Therefore they instructed the children of Benjamin, saying, “Go, lie in wait in the vineyards, and watch; and just when the daughters of Shiloh come out to perform their dances, then come out from the vineyards, and every man catch a wife for himself from the daughters of Shiloh; then go to the land of Benjamin. . . . And the children of Benjamin did so; they took enough wives for their number from those who danced, whom they caught. . . . In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes. (Judges 21:20-25)

In each case, notice that the phrase “everyone did what was right in his own eyes” is paired with the phrase, “In those days there was no king in Israel”. In other words, the lack of monarchy implies anarchy. The consciences of the populous were insufficient for bringing righteousness to the nation. A godly king was needed.

Morality and realism are parallels throughout history. Benevolent gods advise their population to do what is to their advantage in acquiring the best possible life, and this includes both earthly and metaphysical principles. Both are exhibited here: without leadership, people make stupid decisions and do what is immoral, because that is the nature of the human individual.

Without monarchy, society turns to anarchy. This does not happen like flipping a light switch, but gradually, as things do in nature. Like most paths to death, the path away from monarchy consists of many small details conspiring to make a miserable situation. If we heed the wisdom of the past, we too will turn from democracy and its subsequent anarchy and pursue aristocracy instead.

Searching For Potential Monarchs

Sunday, May 14th, 2017

It was clear by the 1500s that the monarchies of the West were under assault, and following the Napoleonic Wars many aristocrats stepped down and faded away in order to avoid the violent conflict that was killing off their people.

At this point, many exist in the shadows, quietly leading highly productive lives while doing their best to stay out of the newspapers and television news. They know that their time will come again.

One such case involves what might be the most eligible heir to the throne of England, whose ancestors were deposed in the internal struggles caused by the fragmentation of the aristocracy due to assaults from the Church and special interest groups:

Again consulting the show’s article we see that after the birth of Edward there were two sons born to Cecily and Richard. The youngest, Richard, became King Richard III in 1483 but died childless in the Battle of Bosworth (1485). The second son was George, Duke of Clarence, who was executed in 1478. His daughter Margaret (lived 1473-1541) had five children and among her present-day descendants is Michael Hastings (born 1942), who emigrated to Australia in 1960, married, fathered five children, and currently lives in Jerilderie, New South Wales. Since the line of descent from Henry II to Michael Hastings is legitimate, and the line of descent from Henry II to Elizabeth II is not legitimate, it follows that Michael Hastings is Britain’s legitimate king, and the present occupant of Buckingham Palace has no valid claim to be Queen of England.

As the existing power structure fades, it makes sense to remember that there are aristocrats all around us, but that they do not want to be found until the moment is right. At that point, we will see how much we need them, and effect a seamless power transfer from dying democracy to a revitalized West.

Why The West Needs Kings

Friday, May 12th, 2017

Let us consider the possibility of aristocracy in the modern West:

The fact is that all other forms of government have failed. Democracy leads to corruption; dictatorship leads to instability. Who would trust an oligarchy or timarchy? This leaves us with only monarchy, which is fortunate because this is rule by the best instead of the best salespeople. Let the sick age of democracy end and let us move on to something better.

Watching Democracy Die

Thursday, April 27th, 2017

We know democracy is an illusion for two reasons: first, most people are not capable of making the decisions necessary for leadership; second, in groups people — even smart people — behave like ninnies by picking what is socially convenient instead of what is true.

In fact, we might view the election of Donald J. Trump not as a triumph of democracy, but as a vigorous slamming of the barn door after the horse is long gone. Democracy has destroyed the United States as it was, replaced its people and buried them in mountains of nonsense laws. No one in power seems committed to changing anything at a fundamental level, and in fact, we see they oppose it. One election cannot fix the vandalism of hundreds of elections.

Luckily, democracy has begun its death spiral worldwide, starting with the fact that people no longer trust it. Worldwide, distrust of governments is at an epic height; even more, people have lost faith in institutions in general because these have become corrupted:

The government’s trust problem certainly predates Donald Trump: trust has been falling for decades. Apart from a short-lived spike in support after the terror attacks on New York in September, 2001, the last time a majority of Americans suggested that the government in Washington, DC could be trusted to do what is right was in 1972, according to the Pew Research Centre. By 2015, less than one in five Americans held that view. And the trust problem spreads beyond government: survey evidence suggests that answers to the question “do you think most people can be trusted?” are also at a historical low in America, with only about a third of people answering in the affirmative.

That suggests that deep-seated, long-term factors might be at play. “Ongoing globalisation and technological change are now further weakening people’s trust” suggests Richard Edelman, creator of an eponymous “trust barometer,” who notes that it isn’t just America and it isn’t just government; trust in chief executives and markets is also down around the world. Bill Bishop, commentator and author of “The Big Sort: Why the Clustering of Like-Minded America is Tearing Us Apart,” argues that much of modern life works against community and trust. He suggests that low trust in government is linked with the decline of social capital (blame television), globalisation and the cult of the individual.

Decline in social capital comes about because under democracy, anything that people do not share is viewed with suspicion, which means that difficult and complex ideas are discarded and replaced with moronic lies. Globalism is a tempting target, but is relatively recent. The cult of the individual (called “individualism” on this site) related directly to the mentality of the crowd, which is a group of people who want to remove social restraints to their acting as is individually convenient. That allows them to externalize cost to society at large and have few restrictions on their own behavior or moral activity, although over time the crumbling of their society results from this and eventually disadvantages them.

People are fundamentally exhausted with the political process. We have constant elections, television, speeches and other drama, but none of it seems to fix longstanding problems, and people are getting the impression — correctly — that no matter what they do, those who work in government, business, non-profits and religion will simply twist popular opinion to support whatever works best at destroying the public so it remains a helpless, quivering, and paralytic mass ripe for the plunder. We are lost in the hands of parasites.

Undoing democracy is surprisingly easy. We need to appoint a regent to rule in the interim, then select aristocrats, and have them select a king. To find aristocrats, we look at people who are the natural leaders — about five percent of the population — and from them, select those who are simultaneously both of penetrating intelligence and morally good. Those then rise in the hierarchy and from those we select leaders, and then encourage those to breed with the like-minded to produce a permanent aristocracy.

No system is perfect, but the best system is informal and emphasizes strong power with high accountability, or “skin in the game” as those wacky Neoreaction kids say. We either die with democracy, based on our pretense that we are so cool as individuals that our votes will make magic results, or grow up and choose actual leadership, and with it get rid of the idea of government and its Nanny State ways that inevitably make it more powerful to our loss.

Jane Austen, Western Restorationist

Wednesday, March 22nd, 2017

Some time ago, Greg Johnson at Counter-Currents wrote about women and someone brought up Jane Austen. Six years later, this provoked Leftist celebrity-academia to sperg out and get schooled by AltRight.

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.

White People Show Symptoms Of Abuse Pathology

Saturday, February 4th, 2017

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.

Witness this ultra-cucked guilt blitzkrieg on the topic of immigration from people in denial that business requires a stable civilization:

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.

As a result, you will exterminate yourselves by failing to breed, which is consistent with being miserable because your lives are spent babysitting lazy, oblivious and deceptive fools that you rely on for labor:

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.

Division Of Power Produces Instability

Saturday, January 28th, 2017

The Los Angeles Review Of Books has, in a roundabout way, discovered Neoreaction:

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.

Throne And Altar

Thursday, December 29th, 2016

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.

A New Window of Opportunity

Tuesday, November 15th, 2016


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.

Surely, South Africa should stay in touch.