Posts Tagged ‘aristocracy’

As The Era Of Formal Organization Ends, An Age Of Organic Systems Rises

Thursday, July 13th, 2017

The modern age has ended in failure: constant racial violence, debt dooming government and consumers, environmental pollution and dying ecosystems, ugly cities, first world populations failing to reproduce, and a rise in anxiety and depression among the young:

When you examine certain other data, though, there’s an interesting recent wrinkle to this trajectory. In a paper published in 2014 in Social Indicators Research, Twenge tracked the results of the Monitoring the Future (MtF) survey, “a nationally representative sample of U.S. 12th graders [administered] every year since 1976,” between 1982 and 2013. Like the MMPI, the MtF asks students about symptoms in a manner that should be generally resistant to cultural change: The somatic items Twenge examined asked about trouble sleeping, remembering things, thinking/concentrating, and learning, as well as shortness of breath. An interesting recent pattern emerged on these measures:

All the items end up significantly higher than where they started, but for many of them most of the increase happens over the first half of the time period in question. From the late 1990s or so until 2013, many of the items bounce around a bit but ultimately remain flat, or flat-ish.

Why have these symptoms appeared to plateau? “It’s hard to prove causation in over-time schedules, said Twenge, “but SSRIs came on the market in the early 1990s, and that’s exactly when these things started to plateau.” These drugs — Prozac and Lexapro, among others — have been prescribed to millions of people who experience these symptoms, many of whom presumably saw some improvement once the drugs kicked in, so this explanation at least makes intuitive sense.

It is the secret in plain sight: despite their wealth and technology, modern people are miserable. This indicates a non-material origin of their sadness, which seems to occur because of a lack of faith in the future, a failure by society to meet their existential needs, and the absence of any particularly compelling purpose to life. When our only goals are to attend jobs, buy stuff and try to escape the ongoing decline, people just do not feel like doing much, including reproducing. It is a hell from which they are only too glad to exit in death.

This, more than anything else, is what has doomed the Age of Ideology, which started with The Renaissance™ when humans proclaimed that the human form was more important than hierarchy, organization, natural order, tradition and even logic. Civilization gave up on having a purpose and decided to focus on individuals instead.

That in turn required mass manipulation, which means that an ideology must be created and enforced, and people will be treated as a fungible commodity like electric power which drives the wheels of government. This decision, made in the name of individualism, in fact penalizes individuality, and leaves people stranded in a society that recognizes their external traits only and ignores who they are inside.

With this misery, people are ready to destroy what we have. They know that it is a path that leads to nothing but death, so there is really no risk in bailing out on it; it is not like we can find something more fatal than sure death. Maybe it will kill us sooner, but if we are miserable, that is not a really disturbing thought.

The end of the Age of Ideology brings about what some are calling “the return of history,” in a nod to Samuel Huntington and his formative book The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, in which he suggested that external human organizations like ideology were dying and being replaced by organic groupings that could be instantly visually discerned, like religion, race, culture, ethnicity and tribe.

The return of history is a scary time. All that we have known is dying; while daily life will probably remain similar, what we view as good has changed, and so people find themselves desiring an entirely different type of society:

Are the norms underpinning the liberal democratic governments of North America and Western Europe as fragile as the communist ideology of Russia and Eastern Europe in the decades preceding its sudden collapse? That’s the implication of a provocative essay by the political scientists Roberto Foa and Yascha Mounk in the latest issue of the Journal of Democracy using World Values Survey data to highlight the broad-based erosion in support for democratic institutions across the Western world.

…The dark specter of illiberalism across the West is symptomatic of a deep and broad-based decline in confidence in democratic institutions and ideas that has been taking place for two decades.

The decline has been longer than that. In 1789, liberal democracy began takeover of the West, and launched us into Napoleonic Wars, a series of revolutions, and finally, two catastrophic world wars. When the postwar order ended with the falling of the Soviet Union, people began to realize that this was the final condition of this path: existential emptiness, shopping, diversity, vapid public figures, dead culture, graffiti-scarred and ugly cities, divorce and promiscuity, and every other aspect of a failed culture on its way toward third world status.

We were told that social hierarchy — especially aristocrats — was the source of our misery, and that if we ruled ourselves, we would do better. That turns out to be a lie; democracy has caused more death and disaster than any other system of government, and it is destroying us from within as well. For this reason, people are backing away from ideology; they see it as a type of black magic because it always sounds good, and just as consistently produces horrible results.

Even unusual sources are observing the death of democracy:

“Democracy is always presented as if it were incomplete, because democracy is not enough by itself,” says Macron, elaborating that there is always something missing in the democratic process; some sort of void.

“In French politics, this absence is the presence of a King, a King whom, fundamentally, I don’t think the French people wanted dead,” said Macron. “The Revolution dug a deep emotional abyss, one that was imaginary and shared: the King is no more!” According to Macron, since the Revolution France has tried to fill this void, most notably with Napoleon and then Charles de Gaulle, which was only partially successful. “The rest of the time,” said Macron, “French democracy does not manage to fill this void.”

Democracy is artificial; aristocracy is natural, since human beings have different abilities and these place us in a hierarchy of capacity. Democracy is external, since we are forced to think about how our actions look instead of their results in reality, while aristocracy is internal because it is focused only on results, which apparently most people do not understand and fail to predict, as the results of democracy show.

The old West has died in a surge of mob rule and egotistic individualism as advocated in The Renaissance™ but arising far before when the middle class wanted the aristocracy out of the way so it could enjoy an unfettered business environment. We now see how that gamble ends, and we want off the crazy train to doom.

Bastides: A Model For The Balkanized, Post-Collapse West

Wednesday, June 7th, 2017

“Nature abhors a vacuum,” goes the old saying. Nature is competition, which is how it ensures a lack of empty spaces. To avoid any one tendency from going too far, nature uses a system of balances, and it balances the anti-vacuum with a fierce territoriality. That way, it can avoid a tragedy of the commons by ensuring that all territory is owned, defended and to some degree managed by its territorial species.

If you wonder why the ancients spoke of natural order, this is what they had in mind, which avoided the opposite extremes of communism/inclusion and capitalism/consumption. Instead of giving way to once force alone, nature balanced them, and so became more violent but also more efficient and less destructive.

This is why we talk about the “4 Fs” of nature — feeding, fleeing, fighting and reproduction — instead of merely three. Fighting is part of nature and it is how territory is established, and through that, stewardship is established. A lion watches over his patch of the wild and punishes any who will exploit it. The birds, rodents and lizards do the same. Populations stay in balance; resources are not over-exploited; each area reaches an optimal carrying capacity and nothing more. Nature, more than humans, is logical.

That third F however means that war and conflict are not errors, but a necessary part of life. Each group defends itself and its territory so that it can survive as a species, sub-species or cultivar, and so that its territory does not fill up with humans who will then exploit its resources to the point of depletion.

Democracy, which like communism is based on the idea of universal inclusion as an antidote to naturally-occurring hierarchy, cannot defend itself against a tragedy of the commons. This is why democracy follows the pattern of a yeast bloom: the population rises to consume all of the resources and then dies out.

In the case of modern democracy, this exploitation mainly consists of our false elites in media, business and government and their support base of a permanent third world underclass. They divide up everything this society has created and abscond with it, converting it into landfill overflowing with disposable entertainment products and tiered sinecures of graft.

Now that the West has had 228 years of democracy and over a thousand of egalitarianism, or anti-hierarchical thought, it is nearing the collapse of those systems. They ate up everything good and left a rotted infrastructure, mentally and racially mixed-up population, and a total lack of unity on any point.

As Samuel Huntington wrote in The Clash of Civilizations And The Remaking Of World Order, the backlash to this over-extended period of history is occurring through a cultural wave of people wanting innate connections to others, instead of merely ideological or financial ones. Nationalism, tribalism and ethno-centricism are rising because those are innate, where ideology is imposed from outside.

This leads to an intermediate stage called balkanization where each group — tribe, cult, gang, subculture — will set up its own community and by necessity, exclude all others with force. After democracy comes tyranny, and as the tyrants this time turn out to be twerps of great incompetence, the first world will instead fragment into many smaller groups, shortly before being invaded by any strong powers that remain. Practice your Chinese!

But, before the great invasion takes over, it makes sense to look at what balkanization entails. William Gibson and Billy Roper offer competing views of this vision; in Gibson, people will form massive vertical structures or other specialized forms of the city, with enclaves of secessionists living in geographically-defensible regions like bridges and abandoned buildings. In Roper, the focus will be less on structures than areas which are self-sustaining and defended with military force.

Imagine a combination of the two, and you will see history rediscover itself as we rebirth the bastide, a type of fortified village used in the past and likely again in our future:

The Dordogne region is famous for its historic fortified towns, known as bastides. They were mostly built during the reigns of King Henry III of England and his son Edward I. They were founded by the English kings and by local feudal landlords…The bastides were defended towns planned on a straightforward rectangular grid.

The towns were typically defended by perimeter walls and centered around a market square, often with a covered section, known as les halles; a number of towns still retain these most attractive structures. Each bastide was founded on the basis of a charter. Land was generally provided by the founder, king or nobleman. Legal rights and subsidies were granted to those who contributed to the building of the towns. In return the founder could raise taxes to finance military campaigns and also levy troops.

While most in our society have been chasing scapegoats like The Rich™ and The Jew,™ the more far-sighted rulers have realized that human hubris drives democracy, and that me-first people in groups agitate for collectivism as it allows each individualist to be subsidized. This hubris and its recent manifestation democracy are actually what destroyed us.

For that reason, interest is rising in aristocracy, or replicating the natural hierarchy in human form. We take the best among us by leadership ability and place them in charge, then have them select a staff. This arrangement is hereditary as this ensures that the best women match with the best men, creating a self-perpetuating institution, at least until hubris attacks in mass delusion again.

We can get there easily through democracy. The first step is to remove all the laws that impede natural organization of human beings; the next is to patch our laws so that we can appoint an administrator or regent who will select the aristocrats and entrust them with ownership of land areas, which will then become localized bastides or something like them under the feudal system.

In the intermediate stage of balkanization, should we survive it by not getting invaded by hostile Asian powers as has been the pattern of history, bastides will be more organic: warlords will seize local areas, charge everyone rent, and use those rents to fund a strong army which can repel any regional threats. Life goes on as democracy fades away.

How Religion Shattered The Leadership Of The West And Let Leftism In

Monday, June 5th, 2017

It does not make sense to blame Christianity for the downfall of the West; the real story is more nuanced.

Christianity was taken up by the rising Left as a means of spreading individualism. Any religion where the choice of the individual to partake is considered a complete introduction to the depth of the faith will naturally become a vehicle for projection, which is why the Catholic church continued the Rabbinical tradition of isolating scholarship to those who had already demonstrated prowess.

This elitist viewpoint is called esotericism, meaning that it is based on mysteries and not memorization. Topics are seen through a qualitative lens that views them as having depth, such that their initial summary in language is a gateway to a series of cause-effect relationships and their implications. The more one learns, the more there is to learn.

Esotericism also relies on logical collisions to determine boundaries, instead of categories. The opposite of esotericism, exotericism, teaches through categories, where a single detail stands for the whole and is presumed to impart that characteristic uniformly to all objects within the category. This provides an easier method of thinking, thus a more popular one.

Logical boundaries on the other hand occur when the thinker looks into the depth of an idea through its extension to a logical extreme and the implications of that, in infinite cycle. This resembles the thinking of a chess player, looking ahead as many moves as possible by accounting for every potential move by the other player. In this view, objects have many details, and it is important to take the interaction of objects with other objects on a case-by-case basis, seeing how the details collide and coincide to determine the nature of those objects. This gives humans less perceived power through an easy method of thinking, but is more accurate.

Christianity suffered weakness because it was based on the Word. The Word first appears in the creation of the world, and then extends as a theme in the Bible through people accepting word tokens as literal truth, without having depth to work through, implying an equality of all people in understanding. This approach lends itself to propaganda.

At first this was an advantage to Christianity. It could induct and unite huge groups of people quickly, which is why the pagan faiths faded away; they simply could not compete. As a theology derived mostly from the Greeks, early Christianity conveyed a strong Indo-European philosophy. But its strengths were also its weaknesses, making it easy to take over from within.

Some claim the rise of Protestantism was part of this process, but it may have been resistance to the effect that having the Bible widely available in lay languages was having within Catholicism.

This upheaval resurrected an old conflict that had lain dormant throughout the middle ages. Before the preceding millennial turn, Throne and Alter had been in conflict as the monarchies of Europe found themselves needing allies during war, and in addition to domestic splintered politics, having to placate special interest groups. The Church too often played as a self-interested party.

With the middle ages, this condition was suspended as some parity was reached and Church and monarchy could work together. However, this was short-lived, as Christianity proliferated into different cults with the rise of mass distribution of the Bible, in part pre-dating the printing press as the supply of hand-copied Bibles accumulated over the years.

At that point, a new internal religious conflict began, one that would eventually give rise to the nascent Leftism of The Enlightenment™ and the Romantic period:

In Cavanaugh’s The Myth of Religious Violence, Cavanaugh presents a thesis which is radically at odds with received wisdom concerning the origin of the secular state. Citing the examples of Baruch Spinoza,Thomas Hobbes and John Locke who presented religious division[ii] as the cause of the conflicts of the period, he notes that this narrative provided:

…the backdrop for much of the Enlightenment’s critique of religion. There developed a grand narrative in Enlightenment historiography — typified by Edward Gibbon and Voltaire — that saw the wars of religion as the last gasp of medieval barbarism and fanaticism before the darkness was dispelled.

More modern liberal thinkers have subsequently traced the birth of liberalism to the so-called religious conflicts of this period, with Cavanaugh citing Quintin Skinner, Jeffrey Stout, Judith Shklar and John Rawls as exemplifying this narrative.

When a conflict of this sort arises, more likely what happens is that one party was neutralized, allowing some event to take place. The “fanaticism” of the medieval era was an attempt to retain balance between different power structures within civilization, because they remembered what happened to Athens, Rome and pre-medieval Europe.

If instead of viewing the religious wars as a conflict between religion and anti-religion, but a struggle for power within civilization, we see that an unnamed third force won: egalitarianism.

As Cavanaugh takes pains to point out, the institutional changes which were supposed to have been ushered in as a result of the religious conflicts actually presaged them. To bolster his argument he provides ample examples of conflict occurring between states with the same denominations, as well as collaboration between differing denominations. The most trenchant observation is provided by the example of Martin Luther:

As Richard Dunn points out, “Charles V’s soldiers sacked Rome, not Wittenberg, in 1527, and when the papacy belatedly sponsored a reform program, both the Habsburgs and the Valois refused to endorse much of it, rejecting especially those Trentine decrees which encroached on their sovereign authority.” The wars of the 1520s were part of the ongoing struggle between the pope and the emperor for control over Italy and over the church in German territories.

In other words, while the Church struggled against the kings, someone else took power. This became The Enlightenment,™ which had fortunate timing in that it caught the early years of the industrial revolution within a century and, because it perfectly justified unlimited growth and tragedy of the commons, replaced religion with the new mythos of the individual.

For this reason, “Christianity caused Leftism” is too simple of an analysis, just like “Christianity is the root of Western Civilization.” The root of Western Civilization is its people, but they depend on quality leadership from the aristocracy in order to be effective. We removed that, and now we are removing our own people so that it can never be reborn.

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.

Recommended Reading