All of us in this modern time run the risk of succumbing to a certain kind of inertia: that of giving in to our hope that everything will just turn out fine. We see two paths, one of the incredibly difficult realization that our current path leads to doom, and the other being the much easier way of assuming that everything will just work out fine, so keep doing what we are doing.
As it turns out, history shows us some lessons of where our current path will lead, and it is to our erasure and removal from history, not any kind of positive result. We know this because in addition to the examples of ancient Greece and Rome, whose original ethnic populations no longer exist, we can look at the example of India, which was once a white nation but now has only linguistic, legal and economic traces of that order:
According to Hans F.K. Gunther’s The Racial Elements of European History (1927), the conquering Indo-Aryans called themselves the Haris, meaning “the blondes,” and, according to the Vedas, they called the dark skinned indigenous people the Dasas, or “slave bands of black descent.” These people were later called Dravidians. Like the Greeks, many of their gods were blonde. The Vedas describe the Storm God Indra as having cheeks, beard, and hair the color of gora, which is Sanskrit for “golden-yellow.”
The Aryans themselves separated into three classes, or castes: the Brahmins, priests and scholars; the Kshattriyas, nobles and warriors; and the Vaisyas, farmers and craftsmen. This parallels the division of Proto-Indo-European societies into clerics, warriors, and herder-cultivators. We find the same division in Rome: flamines, milites, and quirites.
In India, below the three higher classes were the Sudras, or slaves, who were non-Aryan. In an attempt to preserve these social and racial divisions and codify ancient customs, the Brahmins drew up the Laws of Manu. They forbade intermarriage, and in some cases even social mingling among Indians of different castes. They also recognized the existence of three instead of two racial groups: more or less pure Aryans, dark-skinned Sudras or Dravidians, and the Varna-Sankara (those of mingled colors). The Sanskrit word for caste, varna, literally means “color.” The caste system can be viewed as the world’s most long-lived and elaborate system of racial separation.
Although it survived into modern times, the caste structure failed to preserve the Aryan racial type. Higher-class Indians are never blond or fair skinned, though they are taller and lighter than other Indians and some have Aryan features. Examples are the actress-model Aishawarya Rai and the Indian-American Governor of South Carolina, Nikki Haley, whose parents are Sikhs. Color prejudice and a preference for lighter skin remain strong both in India and among Indians of the diaspora.
In other words: the finer people (blonder, more intelligent) invaded a place occupied by the coarser (darker, less intelligent) and tried to limit the latter with some kind of system of rules. It failed, and now all of the people there are darker, and not unintelligent, but less intelligent than the finer people.
Those terms, coarser and finer, are borrowed from H.P. Lovecraft but work adequately for these descriptions.
The bigger story here is not finer-versus-obviously-coarser, but finer-versus-crypto-coarser, and in India, we see that whatever the paternal line of the nation was, it quickly became absorbed into a maternal line of Asiatics. The same will happen to the West, where Asian women are easily acquired and white women become increasingly neurotic, solipsistic and disagreeable.
In turn, what happened in India probably provoked an exodus, resulting in many of the Dravidians/Australids ending up in Africa, and coloring the population there, despite that group having perhaps been lighter-skinned previously.
Much as diversity destroyed white people in India, it can do so here, and by the same mechanism: we will end up mostly Caucasian, with a large amount of Asiatic, and some of the African and Australid in us. We will then resemble existing mixed-race populations like those of South America, Israel and the Middle East.
Our only hope for avoiding this rests in declaring separation of the original unmixed Western European group from all other influences. This requires that we stop demonizing other ethnic groups, which produces a result similar to that of the racial-caste system, and instead to separate from them, so that we do not mix and produce yet another human average that erases its original influences.
Civilization represents an agreement between people to give up some freedoms in exchange for the efficiencies of scale that organizations offer. At some point, this goes too far, and the method becomes the goal, at which point civilization is in decline.
Our civilization encountered its problems by succeeding, which exposed it to new troubles that no one had faced before. This also meant that there was no precedent by which to recognize these problems.
When the method became confused with the goal, our civilization mistook taking care of its citizens for the original goal, which was taking care of those who contributed. Soon people were accepted merely for being alive, and this created a majority of people without purpose who promptly took over and used civilization for their own ends.
Their triumph, a series of individualist ideas from the Renaissance through the Obama presidency, seemed unstoppable until it began to fail, and the way its backers pushed it further revealed that these ideas were never about what was good for civilization and thus for contributors. These ideas were the reign of the parasitic.
As those old ideas fall like so many dominoes, people are becoming more willing to wield the one weapon that civilization really has: the ability to exile or refuse to admit people who are not contributors. This recognizes the eternal truth that you get more of whatever you subsidize, and whatever you discriminate against, you get less of.
Our well-intentioned — and we all know the old proverb about the road to Hell — policies have created mini-industries where people are impoverished, disabled or otherwise dysfunctional as careers which span multiple generations:
They were the fourth generation in this family to receive federal disability checks, and the first to be declared no longer disabled and have them taken away. In days that had grown increasingly tense, as debts mounted and desperation grew to prove that the twins should be on disability, this was always the worst time, before the medication kicked in, when the mobile home was filled with the sounds of children fighting, dogs barking, adults yelling, television volume turned up.
…Talk of medications, of diagnoses, of monthly checks that never seem to cover every need — these are the constants in households like this one, composed of multiple generations of people living on disability. Little-studied and largely unreported, such families have become familiar in rural communities reshaped by a decades-long surge that swelled the nation’s disability rolls by millions before declining slightly in 2015 as older beneficiaries aged into retirement benefits, according to interviews with social workers, lawyers, school officials, academics and rural residents.
…A separate Post examination of census data found that households reporting at least one disabled adult are three times as likely to report having a disabled child, too, although most households affected by disability report only one disabled member. Multigenerational disability, The Post found, is far more common in poor families.
The age we have just left, The Age of Ideology, was based in human individualism, or the idea that no individual should be left behind and that the individual should be protected against obligation to society, culture, heritage, religion, values and even logical realism. This was manifested in “equality,” or the notion that the human individual, not social standards, was our focus.
When ideology takes over mass opinion, there is no way to say no to any program that promises to benefit individuals who are below whatever lowest common denominator we define as the equality minimum in any way. As a result, welfare policies proliferate, eventually reaching the point where we are subsidizing multiple generations to be ill and do nothing productive.
Hegel thought history zig-zagged between concepts and their opposites until it found an optimum; more realistic observers noted that history runs in cycles, where sanity is established and then rebelled against — sort of like the Garden of Eden mythos — and it takes centuries to get back toward sanity. The first step back toward sanity is abolishing equality.
This can be as simple as saying that not every individual needs saving, which affirms the need for Darwinian natural selection among human populations to cease the proliferation of deleterious mutations, instead of encouraging their proliferation by subsidizing those who are suffering. But the herd opposes this because it would require us to make society sane again, which would make the individual less important and social order, values and standards more important.
A great purge is coming. Tolerance, equality and diversity have compelled us to admit too many among us who are dysfunctional, and those who are functional (this includes an in-built tendency to value civilization and contribute to it) are splitting away from the rest. In their view, membership in society is limited to those who can contribute, and this implies further filters as well.
For example, only those who understand a culture will know how to contribute to it, and only those who are hardwired with the genetics of a culture will be able to instinctively uphold it. For that reason, in order for there to be a purge of the useless, first civilizations must revert to being mono-ethnic, and in recognition of that the Left holds obsessively to the concept of diversity.
We are slowly recognizing that tolerance of all means destruction of the productive, because tolerance requires subsidies and that takes money from the productive to give to those who are non-contributors. Where in the past we thought there was a middle, we forgot that there are merely degrees, and that over time, any direction tends toward its furthest extreme.
Equality became a mental virus that took over our souls in pursuit of its extreme. Where we originally wanted merely to help people, and scapegoated hierarchy instead of recognizing that people are inherently unequal, we unleashed an omnivorous beast which soon consumed all other ideas and remade them in its image, resulting in a terminal spiral of guilt and victimhood fetishism that has destroyed our joy in life:
“What is it, honey?” I brush the bangs back from her face.
She lets out a big sigh. “I wish I wasn’t white.”
I start. Nothing in the parenting manuals has prepared me for that.
“All we’ve ever done is hurt people,” she continues. “I wish my skin was dark and that I had a culture.”
We cannot separate class warfare from diversity because they are one and the same, which is an expression of egalitarianism, itself a manifestation of our desires for individualism. Once we thought these things were survivable but now, we know they are not, and history is turning as a result.
In this stage of technology and social organization, many seek a holy grail of sorts in the idea of the swarm. A swarm consists of small autonomous objects that coordinate with each other without having to use a centralized authority to pass messages.
For example, a drone swarm is dropped on a target with a general idea, like taking out anti-aircraft weaponry, but then collaborates improvisationally to determine what to do. There are no formal leaders per se except for those who sent the swarm out in the first place.
In this way, swarms resemble what most of us think of when we hear the word swarm: insects. A swarm of bees act for their queen, but take on roles in an ad hoc manner when in the field; a swarm of locusts just eats everything in sight. We might say that swarms are semiconscious.
Our brains use a technique like swarming which has an analog to threading in computer science. Many ideas present themselves, and only those which are compatible with one another are selected, and that general type is compared to what is perceived externally. This presents the most internally consistent and most realistic options.
Democracy avoids the swarm by instead creating something more like a yeast bloom. In this, many equal organisms participate only in what rewards their immediate nutritional needs. They are thus both individualistic to the point of being oblivious to larger reality, and acting as a collective, where each individual does the will of the group so that the individual gets his own reward.
The “yeast bloom” approach fails because it is linear and invariant. As long as there is food, there will be more yeast, until at some point there is no more food, and then all of the yeast die. If you wonder why our society tends toward extremes in reasoning, it may be this basic model: we are either thriving or about to suddenly die, and people are trying to guess which.
If we designed a society around a swarm, it would consist of people who were basically autonomous but responsive to a hierarchy, or multiple levels of authority. At the bottom level, there are cells of a few units, with a leader, and those leaders report to someone above them, who reports to someone further above, eventually reaching a command and control level. That is where humans are different.
We need kings, and leaders beneath them, but in place of some universal overlord of all, we have principles, cultures, religion and basic belief. We are fully of the swarm, in that our overlord was set by our mission when deployed, and this task of adaptation to our environment has produced evident principles over the centuries. We know the basics, but no one but our leaders can understand them.
Swarms can re-orient after loss by identifying local leaders and having those select the leaders above them. In contrast to mass voting, this consists of recognition of evident traits in those leaders, which is not a matter of preference but of analysis. People follow those who are able to lead.
If the 20th century had a metaphor, it was the assembly line which produced identical parts. As we venture into the 21st, it has become clear that the problem with identical parts is that they are unable to achieve the flexible response that is needed for changing conditions, so we are transitioning to swarm-based thinking.
As democracy collapses, the idea of equality — including “one person, one vote” and the idea that all people should be treated the same way despite unequal contributions — will itself become distrusted, leading to the recognition that we need leaders. The balkanization that happens when formerly-diverse republics fragment will transfer focus to local leaders, and those by recognizing that they need more, will then re-form the constituent societies of our former state, but do so separately, preserving the swarm.
For a swarm to work, all of the units must be highly compatible and able to both understand the signals sent by others, and act according to values or principles shared by the others. This requires a greater compatibility than ideology or economics can provide, and so the unity will occur at the level of genetics, so that there can be no errors in transmission as occur with education.
While many think of insects when the term “swarm” is mentioned, our actual future is like a group of drones dropped over a battlefield. They separate, then group up in small clusters, then take on specialized roles with some commanding, some observing, some acting and some helping the others. This provides maximum efficiency and flexibility.
To modern people, swarms seem paradoxical because they are individuals acting together for something more than self-interest or shared interests; they are acting toward the principles for which the swarm was deployed. Culture, heritage and values rule over the hand-to-mouth logic of purely economic or ideological living.
As the age of ideology fades, our human future will look more like this swarm, and less like a horde of insects or yeast, ravenous to the point of being suicidal, unleashed on an environment that they will consume, then move on to another, never reflecting on the choices or possibilities available to them.
Through doing this, we will come to understand ourselves better as individuals. Like drones in a swarm, we will each take on generally specialized roles (watcher, leader, fixer, helper, worker, warrior) and understand ourselves in this context so that if we do it well, we will feel good about ourselves, instead of comparing ourselves to some idealized person who wins everything at once.
From the perspective of this future, we will see the years of the age of ideology as having been as chaotic and disorienting as they have been. But without that burden holding us back, like a chronic infection, we will be able to take on more ambitious projects without our human linearity and individualism getting in the way.
No discussion about politics can avoid mentioning race. This becomes further complicated, because “race” means not just the four root races but all of the ethnic groups formed from them, like Germans or Maori. It gets more complex because the races are genetically different and therefore have different average abilities and tendencies, which implicates class and caste as well as ethnic origin.
Politics in fact is inherently tribal. “Tribe” proves to be a complicated term, but to be trendy, we should use it as an intersectional term, meaning the overlap of race, ethnic group, caste, region, and political orientation. Your tribe are people like you. There are many levels at which that determination is made.
Competing with tribe is ideology, or the notion that life “should” be different than it is according to natural order, and that humans should force a human-only pattern onto the world. Ideology is a way of holding together a group of people and motivating them, and so it naturally competes with religion, culture, and heritage.
At the end of the day, political thinking divides into two camps: the ideologists and the naturalists. Naturalists think that we should use the mathematical and informational patterns of nature to guide us, and so tend to see race as a prerequisite — a necessary element, but not thecompleteset of necessary elements — for a healthy society, where ideologists want to abolish race and replace it with ideology.
This division means that we will discuss race from two angles. The Left (ideologists) will argue that we should not have a majority race, which fits their single philosophy, egalitarianism, or that all people should be equal, which requires reducing or removing inner traits like caste, race, class, ethnicity, sex, religion and family. The Right (naturalists) will argue that we should either preserve the majority or at least allow it to preserve itself.
Since America birthed itself with some degree of ideological direction toward egalitarianism, even if as a means of affirming it in order to limit it and avoid a situation like what destroyed Athens, a hybrid approach was adopted: classical liberalism, or the idea that individuals would have freedom and liberty to pursue their own course in life. This is a form of the pluralism inherent in equality, which means that people do not have to work together toward a goal, but each tries to survive as in nature, and we see what comes out on top, even though civilization is the opposite of nature in terms of order and what it rewards. The “freedom” approach of classical liberalism, now called libertarianism, seemed to work, but the ideas that take time to fail are the most deadly, and by the 1960s, a combination of wartime propaganda (Cultural Marxism) and American individualism led to an increasingly Leftward drift.
As this Leftward drift manifests, it demonstrates an increasingly Communist-like attitude toward race which it views as its primary method of smashing the majority and removing the religion, culture, heritage, caste, ethnic, class and sex distinctions which impede the imposition of total ideology:
We may call Trump dumb but he figured out this country while we never did, understanding as the black militant H. Rap Brown put it 50 years ago, when he said that “racism is as American as apple pie.” And 46 percent of Americans voted for him, not in spite of that racism but because of it.
The Aztec civilization was also highly developed socially, intellectually and artistically. It was a highly structured society with a strict caste system; at the top were nobles, while at the bottom were serfs, indentured servants and slaves.
Strong nationalism — the idea that every nation is composed of only one ethnic group — enabled the Aztecs and other ancient civilizations to remove themselves from the genetic chaos blowing around, and focus instead on refining their traits so that they preserved desired abilities, which they then distributed to the rest of the population by elevating those who bore those traits to the level of nobility, at which point others emulated them, and they were prosperous, causing gradual genetic influence in the direction toward which that society aspired. Caste and nationalism supported one another; for example, look at ancient India:
Under the caste system, Indian society was divided into four hereditary divisions. The highest is the Brahmans (priests and teachers). Second was the Kshatriyas (rulers and warriors). Followed by the Vaishyas (merchants and traders) and finally was the Sudras (workers and peasants). In additional to these four castes, there were the Harijans or Untouchables, which were not in the social order. The Indian caste was hereditary and marriage was only permitted within the same caste. Each caste had its own occupation and any contacts with another caste was strictly regulated and prohibited.
Researchers found that people from different genetic populations in India began mixing about 4,200 years ago, but the mingling stopped around 1,900 years ago, according to the analysis published today (Aug. 8) in the American Journal of Human Genetics.
…Moorjani’s past research revealed that all people in India trace their heritage to two genetic groups: An ancestral North Indian group originally from the Near East and the Caucasus region, and another South Indian group that was more closely related to people on the Andaman Islands.
Today, everyone in India has DNA from both groups. “It’s just the proportion of ancestry that you have that varies across India,” Moorjani told LiveScience.
…Archaeological evidence indicates that the groups began intermarrying during a time of great upheaval. The Indus Valley civilization, which spanned much of modern-day North India and Pakistan, was waning, and huge migrations were occurring across North India.
In fact, Western civilization famously had similar caste systems, designed to separate people by role and heritage, as was seen in the Nordic countries:
The jarls were the upper echelon of the freeman in ancient Norse society, either noblemen or wealthy landowners, merchants or traders.
…The karls were considered what is known as ‘freemen’, meaning they were free to own land, build property and start a family or business.
…Slaves in ancient Norse times were known as thralls, and they were the lowest rung on the Viking social ladder. Thralls had little to no rights in Norse times, they were not able to own land and they would perform jobs and chores for their owners. With all this considered however its important to note that the bad treatment of a slave was looked down on.
This paralleled the social order created in English society nearly a thousand years later, as remnants of caste were present during the Victorian era:
The Victorian Upper Class consisted of the Aristocrats, Nobles, Dukes, other wealthy families working in the Victorian courts…The Upper Class was by inheritance a Royal Class. Many Aristocrats did not work as for centuries together their families had been gathering enough money for each generation to live a luxurious life.
…The Middle class was the next in social ranking. The Victorian period was very prosperous for the middle class. Middle-class people also owned and managed vast business empires.
…The lowest among the social hierarchy were the working class. This class remained aloof to the political progress of the country and was hostile to the other two classes.
These castes were genetically different, and the pattern resembled that of India. Modern Europe was formed when nomadic hunters mingled with a farming population that was closely related to them, but the higher echelons of Europe came from the root of Western European society, the Nordic-Germanic element. These took up positions in the higher castes, and managed the darker, smaller people who worked for them.
Over time, every civilization succumbs to entropy which occurs when the more numerous lower echelons overpower those above them, who understand things they do not. These things are then lost, and the society loses a degree of internal complexity and becomes essentially an open-air shopping mall where some people have money and others do not.
This is why caste revolt is so important to the Left: their goal is to rationalize this decline and instead, view it as positive, and to make it come about by creating the conditions that cause the imposition of caste and then thwart those conditions, allowing the society to become totally “equal” by losing all structure and standards, including heritage.
By the converse, diversity causes racial conflict and in turn accelerates class conflict, because without a sense of shared unity that comes from being a homogeneous population, groups fragment into internally competing sub-groups. We can see how this process happened in American history:
Let’s back up to the early 1600s. This was a time where racism didn’t exist. People didn’t call themselves Black or White. Back then it was all regional. We’re Irish, we’re Greek, or we’re African and so on. Fast forward to the colonization of what would become the United States of America. This is about 1640. You basically had two groups of people. There were the rich and the workers. There were a few slaves but most people were indentured servants or free labor.
In this way, we can see how questions of race and caste are intermingled, and how the Left has used racial and ethnic diversity to force caste revolt, while the Right attempts to suppress caste revolt by preserving ethnic homogeneity, which confers a sense of shared identity and purpose.
Interestingly, the revolts against traditional social order are initiated by those who seek to expand their profit motive, giving in to the individualism that says they can take civilization for granted, and should be concerned only with the immediate effects on themselves and their profits when making decisions. This bourgeois mentality arises from those with enough mental power to be clever, but not smart, leading to a fragmentation of the power of the higher echelons:
Drawing with varying degrees of conviction and plausibility on Marx’s ideas and insights, the class-based account of modern British history begins with the social origins of the bourgeois revolution of the mid-seventeenth century–otherwise known as the Civil War or the Great Rebellion–that witnessed the transition from feudalism to capitalism and thus from late medieval to early modern times. The victims and beneficiaries of these changes were, respectively, the declining aristocracy and the rising bourgeoisie (or, in other versions, the rising gentry), and it was during the Civil War that these two classes, set on very different historical trajectories, first clashed directly. But although in the short term the bourgeoisie vanquished the monarchy, the peerage, and the established church, its revolutionary movement was curiously incomplete. By the late seventeenth century, after the Restoration and the “Glorious Revolution,” the traditional forces of authority were back in control, and for much of the eighteenth century the aristocracy, by now transformed into a quasi-bourgeois elite of agrarian capitalists, reasserted themselves.
If you wonder why so many celebrities, business leaders, professors, shopowners and union bosses lean Left, this is why: they want to destroy the power of anyone who is naturally superior to them in intellectual, morality or wealth. We are in the grips of the final parts of that process now, after it won the upper hand during the turbulent 1960s.
As a result, at this point, racial politics of the ideologist variety have won out, and since they are being used to shatter natural social order as manifested in caste, they are exclusively obsessed with race, to the point where the Right wants to have freedom of association — which would allow it all-white suburbs and offices — just to escape the vast horde of predator-parasites who hate our majority here in the United States and Europe, but want to be here for the socialist style welfare state benefits and also, to conquer us by outbreeding us.
They hate you. They always will hate you. Every group acts in self-interest, and theirs is to conquer you.
The grim fact of racial politics is that it is based in self-interest. Every group has a self-interest, which is in having control of its destiny and then becoming the best version of itself that it can. In order to act on that, it must not exist in the situation that produced the Indian caste system; any situation that is “diverse” threatens the ethnic group.
For that reason, it must win by beating down all other ethnic groups. This somewhat Machiavellian view is borne out by history. The groups that conquered others and drove them away lasted longer than those who attempted to co-exist, producing centuries of ethnic conflict until both groups, exhausted, were destroyed or hybridized.
This is not the fault of other groups, nor does it vary with the group. Any immigration above tiny levels, which is also a bad idea as it obliterates the original group through trace admixture, brings about a conflict between groups, no matter who they are. Simpler groups fight back with crime; smarter groups attempt to conquer by gaining education, wealth and power in law and business.
Ironically, the solution to this problem is for a majority group to double down on its identity and assert that identity positively in a stronger sense, which causes the groups that wish to overthrow it to reveal their nature as aggressors. The more that the majority group focuses on “racism,” instead of strengthening its culture and opposing diversity, the more it plays into the win scenario for its opposition.
Perhaps a greater step further is to oppose equality — the philosophy of lower caste revolt — itself, and by doing so, to assert a strong social order which in turn also broadcasts the importance and solidity of racial and ethnic identity.
Identity must be both racial and ethnic, as when it is racial alone, it allows itself to be adulterated by other ethnic groups from the same race, which ends up then creating a generic racial group which has no particular claim to any identity.
Already the signs are on the wall that this is happening. During the 1990s, “diversity” was a magic word for that bright cosmopolitan future where we ruled the world by inviting them here. Europeans, who both are less accustomed to diversity and are seeing its effects more immediately, have led the way in visualizing how destructive diversity is:
The most common view among the 10 European countries surveyed is that cultural diversity is neither a plus nor a minus in terms of quality of life. In no nation does a majority say increasing diversity is a positive for their country. At most, roughly a third in Sweden (36%), the UK (33%) and Spain (31%) describe growing racial, ethnic and national diversity in favorable terms.
It was the worst performance for her Christian Democrats (CDU) since 1949. They got less than a third of the vote and lost ground in all 16 of the country’s states—this for a party that used to dominate the right of German politics and was capable of winning absolute majorities. The old party of the left, the Social Democrats (SPD), did worse, barely scraping 20 percent. Coming in third with 13 percent of the vote was the brand-new Alternative for Germany (AfD), an anti-immigration party that will send 93 members to the 709-seat Bundestag, the parliament in Berlin.
Leftism is caste revolt. Racial and ethnic diversity are the weapon that Leftism uses to bring about caste revolt. When one part of this structure fails, the whole thing goes down in flames, and is replaced by sentiments of tribalist unity as the basis of nations, renewed identitarian awareness, greater trust in caste and tradition, and finally, a hearty cynicism for Leftism as it joins other ruins on the junkpile of history.
We are seeing a massive shift here. For the first time since the French Revolution in 1789, Leftism is actively losing ground; for the first time since The Enlightenment,™ the idea of human equality — a form of individualism — is also losing ground. But first, we are going to go through a period of great upheaval.
As with many bad ideas, Leftism seemed hip and refreshing when it was untried, but once it was applied, it made a mess of things. Multiple failures of Leftist programs — overpopulation, diversity, collapse of the family, debt, command economies, ignoring third world warlords, nuclear proliferation, pollution and widespread ineptitude — are now coming due. Liberal democracy and Leftism have fallen, and the furious activity we see of late is an attempt to hold on to the franchise granted to those who were allowed to succeed because they were good Leftists or fit the Leftist ideal.
What matters for us, then, is to understand race and caste so that we can reverse the process by which race became the dominant issue of our time, which is the Leftist agenda of caste revolt that is now shattering in ungraceful decay around us.
Acknowledging the educated-but-not-intelligent nature of the social media userbase, Reddit user RasputinUK viciously satirized Reddit users with an unforgettable portrayal of the psychology of that group:
I applaud you for applying all the concepts you are learning at community college. I also recognize your courage in leaving the safe space to compose and send this response.
You impress me with your ability to incorporate phrases into a coherent foundation to support your arguments. I would even venture to say you are probably the smartest barista at the coffee shop or clerk at Whole Foods.
Modernity, by its denial of caste, has instructed people through its propaganda to believe that anyone can, if they are “educated,” be intelligent, when the truth is that intelligence occurs in varying degrees and is innate, although it is enhanced by nutrition and mental activity at a young age.
As a result of this education-propaganda industry, we now have baristas who can read and write well enough, but not understand any arguments more complex than one level of analysis. If you ever wonder why political debates seem like a battle between linguistic categories with no depth, this is why: the new American audience does not understand what it is discussing, but is sure that it is right and anyone with actual intelligence is wrong.
We can see this same problem in effect within the professional class of journalists and bureaucrats, who are stumped by relatively simple statements:
Days after the controversial right-wing media pundit said it was more “credible” to blame Hurricane Harvey’s devastation on the city’s election of a gay mayor than climate change, the official in question hit back with a succinct yet effective response:
I don’t believe Hurricane Harvey is God’s punishment for Houston electing a lesbian mayor. But that is more credible than “climate change.”
They say she said that it was “more ‘credible’ to blame Hurricane Harvey’s devastation on the city’s election of a gay mayor than climate change.” The use of the scare quotes around “credible” is designed to imply that she was in fact arguing for the notion that Hurricane Harvey’s devastation was attributable to a gay mayor (although, as said above, the devastation was in part her fault).
But let us look at the statement:
I don’t believe Hurricane Harvey is God’s punishment for Houston electing a lesbian mayor.
But that is more credible than “climate change.”
The first hint to understanding this statement is to understand that the topic is climate change, which is compared to something which Coulter says she does not believe, which she then says is “more credible,” a relative measurement. In other words, she is trotting out a statement she thinks is wrong, and saying that this is more believable than climate change.
In other words, she is slamming climate change and the gay mayor hypothesis at once. This escaped the “professional” writers at the Huffington Post. This is exactly the same depthless and logic-averse perception that is common on Reddit, and while that level of intellect does not interfere with making adequate coffee, it is too weak for politics.
This shows us that while Idiocracy has gone from satire to prophecy to documentary during the Obama years, the real threat is not from people who are obvious idiots, but from our new ethnic- and racially-diverse middle class which specializes in looking intelligent but has zero penetration of analysis.
Our voters do not blatantly indulge in idiotic behavior, but instead are perfect mimics, dressing up in suits and acting as if they were politicians, leaders, and intellects. The epidemic of incompetence in American politics, law, business and academia reflects this new idiocratic “educated” class.
In the past, our people were saner and knew that with very few exceptions, the intelligence of the child reflects the abilities of the parents, and therefore that society can be divided into levels, called “castes,” based on the likely inherited intelligence and moral character of the offspring.
By doing that, we elevated the intelligent above the rest, knowing that the rest — even if “educated” — would be unable to do more than imitate understanding of complex ideas. Here is a rough breakdown of the intelligence aspect of caste:
Jarls — aristocrats, thinkers, religious leaders — 125 and above.
Karls — warriors and artisans — 115-120s.
Thralls — laborers — below 115.
The West thrived because, using this system, it was able to consistently produce people of genius by breeding the parents with the highest chance of producing such offspring, and because these roles were social as well as leadership-related, the people of higher intelligence defined the tastes, products, manners, language and common knowledge of that society.
In our inverted clown world, we have demanded the rejection of any qualitative thinking. This is necessary for us to accept “equality”; there can be no substantial inner differences between things, and the external appearance of them must define their essence. This produces an idiocracy of educated fools, and it is not surprising that our society is correspondingly incompetent at this point.
It is often said on the Right that places like Poland, Russia and Hungary offer the Alt Right an example of how to resist Cultural Marxism. There is truth to this, but the truth is only partial.
Although these countries are safer places to live because of their defiance of globalist interests, specifically its mania for multiculturalism, they also show us that the way to resist Cultural Marxism is clear to them in ways it cannot be clear to us. We have gone down a different path, and the solution we need is different from what Eurasia needs.
Eastern Europe has not experienced the caste revolt that makes our problem in the West so intractable. Eurasian nations are not in a revolutionary state. They are in a disordered state, but their proles do not have the privilege and financial backing that they do here. Nor do the financial interests benefit as much from riling them up as they would in the West. Their plebs are not weaponized and driven by the possibility of success as ours are. In this sense, they are not so much Right-wing as not infected with the Leftism that comes with wealth and the inevitably ensuing caste revolt.
We suffer from the intersection of low caste, high wealth, and influence. Our plebs have deceived us into giving them the crumbs from underneath our tables, and we have deceived ourselves into believing that they can be just as wise and capable as our naturally higher caste people. They have proclaimed: “Liberté, égalité, fraternité” and they have cut off our heads for buying it. With our success came new challenges, the most radical of which is the caste revolt sponsored by Leftism, individualism and solipsism.
Eurasia has never really ever been first world, and thus has not grown wary of success. They have not suffered the tragedy of the commons, caused by too few leaders of distinction or too many followers of indistinction. The comforts of a thriving civilization have not brought them too much zeal and too much distraction. Eurasia, just like Asia, has only become wealthy because they had close alliance with European nations, which even though they are in decline, are still living off of the advancements of their technological inventions, which is why most people do not realize that we are in decline. When it comes to technological advancement of civilization Eurasians contributed almost nothing compared to Europeans. Particularly German- and English-speaking Europeans created all of this stuff, but then it came to rule them.
Eurasia has not been plagued by diversity hysteria the way Europe has. We have grown comfortable with our powers, but we have transferred that comfort to those who cannot control their appetites for greater comforts or luxuries. We gave our people equal rights and they spent those rights on porn, cigarettes, beer and donuts, so to speak. These are the problems encountered only by successful civilizations, and since we are more successful than Eurasia, we encounter problems that are baffling to them.
The West suffers because they have peaked and allowed themselves to grow soft. They have also forgotten how they became successful. It suffers under the dual burden of being wealthy, and therefore attracting parasites, and the intense labor required to keep a complex society functioning. We have exhausted ourselves by making a paradise that ultimately our proles and foreigners will get to enjoy, and this sickens the Western soul and makes people despairing, since there is no future that they can believe in. The good news is that the West can save itself because it has only itself to blame for its predicament.
To reverse our corruption by success, we can fix ourselves by mentally ejecting the notion of equality from our lives. This requires noticing that all people have a degree of ability; this includes both responsibility and comforts. Some can have many comforts available, but not give into them, and still perform their responsibilities. Recognizing what one can and should have is necessary for proper order to be achieved and maintained. Each of us has a nature, and we should endeavor to know our nature in order to know our place in the order. This is the essence of natural law: there is a hierarchy which is not inherent in the sense of being forced upon us like gravity, but innate in that if we can perceive it, we can gain efficiency and quality by adhering to it, much like noticing any opportunity or threat that is not immediately visible.
We also must know the nature of those less able to make wise long term decisions. This is why libertarianism is not a solution: when we give liberty to those who will make poor decisions, their resentment only grows when their decisions impact them. Libertarianism would only make sense if genetics were a myth. Libertarians are natural liberals who deny genetics, and deny Darwinism. We should instead have authority over those who are incapable of making wise decisions, and place them in positions where their decisions have less of an impact on society. Without hierarchy, the lower echelons dominate the others, but these levels of society are the least aware, insightful and competent, and so our fortunes fall, where the meaner social climate of Eurasia allows the stronger to dominate the weak.
The West will restore itself by cleansing the bad and restoring good people into positions of absolute authority. To do this democracy needs to be abolished and Leftists need to be exiled to the failing civilizations that are the ultimate end results of their ideas. Groups with recognizable distinctions need to be peaceably separated. We need to seek out leadership types who have minds open to these ideas, and to convince them that these ideas are the best way forward.
This requires us facing full-on what it means to do away with equality. Different groups create different types of order, and different castes within those groups have different degrees of understanding to those ends as well. We must have Monarchs, Dukes, Marqueses, Earls, Viscounts, and Barons composed of our wisest and most competent people. Distinctions where they exist, must be recognized and people sorted according to them, because this is the only way that we can restore beauty, truth and goodness to complement the nature that surrounds us.
Civilization is an order within the greater order that is nature, thus it should also include Darwinism and other important aspects of the natural world. This means we also need to end socialism, which only serves to dumb us down, and make us less capable of providing for our own needs. All people will be placed in positions in society, if there is no position for them, they get to be with nature, or another place that might accept them.
Right now, many on the Right look to Eastern Europe and see that it does not share our problems, and figure that the West should emulate it, or that disaffected Westerners should flee to Eurasia. In reality, this is comparing apples to oranges, and will lead only to failure. The path to our success is clear, and awaits only the time where we summon enough intestinal fortitude to own our problems and make the changes that banish them.
Most people are afraid to admit that we need aristocracy. They realize that if hierarchy is needed, they as individuals are no longer little autonomous kings who can do whatever they want and have the rest of the monkey troop defend them… that in turn means that they will have to pay attention to external order like social standards, nature, logic, history and the question of whether or not what they are doing is actually good, or merely self-serving.
Those of us who have been around for some time see a simple pattern: whatever is created will quickly be brought to destruction by the Herd, which invades and demands that the matter in question fit its own convenience, instead of whatever form is most effective for reaching the goal. The individual replaces the goal. That is why we call it individualism.
Unless there is a hierarchy, where the wiser are bumped to the top so that they can intervene before the infinite stupid ideas of humanity are acted out, stupidity wins. This is affirmed by an unusual source:
We all know from reams of experience that if consumers are offered a cheaper, yet environmentally irresponsible option vs. a more expensive, yet environmentally conscious option: The vast majority of consumers will sadly choose the cheaper option. Better-for-me unfortunately trumps better-for-everyone just about every time.
Meditating on this phrase reveals its simple and profound truth: people choose what is more convenient for them, at the expense of civilization and nature, every time. This means that we need a force to intervene and force civilization at large to do what is right, because its impulse is to do otherwise unless such an intervention occurs.
Participants with post-secondary education saw a 57% decrease in cardiovascular risk after following the diet, and those earning more than €40,000 (about $47,000) a year saw a 61% decrease. Those of lower socioeconomic status saw no benefits.
…The foods eaten by subjects of this study varied widely depending on their socioeconomic status. The more educated the participants, the more likely they were to report eating a broader variety of vegetables, plus more whole grains and organic vegetables. More educated participants had daily diets that contained higher proportions of monounsaturated fats like those found in olive oil and nutrients like calcium, vitamin D, and fiber. Meanwhile, higher-income study subjects ate more whole grain breads, fruits, nuts, and fish, and fewer meat products than subjects with lower incomes.
Those who are wealthy and educated are, on the whole, more intelligent than those who are not.
Most people exist in a simple world where if you take a peasant, “educate” him and give him an office job, he is suddenly equivalent to one of these people. He is not; he is still a peasant, albeit one with some skills. This means that he will find himself out of his depth on a regular basis, and make bad decisions because he is not competent at the level of critical thinking and analysis, which are higher IQ skills, nor is he morally oriented toward leadership, a trait which seems correlated with some in the higher IQ registers.
But as even dietary differences show, there is more to it than that. Those with higher intelligence know different things, and are generally healthier as a result. They can discern what they should do, and can interpret simple instructions such as the Mediterranean Diet in more accurate ways, much as they are better with law, philosophy, literature and art.
PSF: You mentioned previously that a lot of your influences happen to be working class rock and rollers like AC/DC. How do you reconcile that with your aristocratic bearings?
LB: Well, we’ve always said that rock and roll is just like anything else — it’s something that’s better done by the upper classes, as is almost every other enterprise of human endeavor.
That definitely applies to the Mediterranean Diet, and education at least.
Where this gets complicated is that caste has multiple layers. Looking at the IQ distribution charts that make up the basis of the book The Bell Curve, we can see that roughly 13% of our population is above 120 IQ points, which educators who are honest about this issue consider the minimum for a college education.
Among those, less than one percent are above 130 points, which is where people stop trying to earn money and start trying to change history through the battle of ideas. All of our great works of art and philosophy, and most of our innovations, come from people in this group. When these are also of high moral caliber, they provide our best leaders.
Those who have high moral caliber and high intelligence, as opposed to what we might call “medium-high” or “middlebrow” intelligence, are those who naturally should rule a society because they are more competent.
A survey published in this month’s Economic Journal proves the point perfectly. Two economists, Professor Gregory Clark and Dr Neil Cummins, have studied 634 upper-middle-class surnames – including Bazalgette, Bigge, Nottidge and Pepys – from 1850 until today. Their findings show how extremely sticky wealth is. Five generations apart, the descendants of the rich of 1850 remain rich today. They are more likely than others to live longer, attend Oxbridge, have nice houses and become professionals.
Naturally, this offends the middlebrow, who tend to be of the Vaisya caste and thus talented with mercantile concerns, but essentially morally oblivious and not capable of seeing through the long-term consequences of their actions. This is why every society dies the same way: the middlebrow merchants, who are accustomed to manipulating people and understand their hidden desires, unite with the proles to overthrow the upper castes.
As we see with every revolution, including the French and Russian revolutions, this initiates a cycle called the Napoleonic arc where the greater incompetence of the middlebrow and prole army leads to a less prosperous civilization, and then the only way to unite the failing nation-state is by perpetual warfare, which means ideological warfare to spread the People’s Revolution elsewhere. Naturally this too ends in disaster, and the states tend to collapse much like post-Revolutionary French government or the Soviet Union.
Ironically, the American Revolution succeeded because it overthrew a king, but not the natural upper-middle-class (high Kshatriya or low Brahmin) aristocracy in America. That was overthrown during the Civil War, when the industrial and as a result, prole-heavy, North invaded the agrarian South in order to plunder its riches and assert the lower-caste Northern “elites” as rulers instead of the natural elites of the South.
They used race as a justification in that war; to the North, the war was hyped for a Gulf of Tonkin type pretext based in the injustice of slavery. To the South, where slaves were prized and often loved, slavery was the natural extension of European feudalism, which since it had been made illegal and replaced with legal systems, could only live on through chattel slavery. In this case, the serfs were black because they could endure the heat of the fields where people whose ancestors came from near the Arctic Circle could not.
Caste relates to race because to the Left they are the same issue. The Left has one and only one idea, “equality,” and they seek places to demonstrate it. This means overthrowing upper castes, or racial or ethnic groups whose higher IQs make them de facto upper castes in a mixed-race or mixed-ethnic society. To the Left, miscegenation and diversity are weapons for overthrowing that upper caste.
Right-wing movements succeed when they emphasize putting society into order so that people are more prosperous, which includes having the invisible leadership of a caste hierarchy, such that the wealth and power belong to the most competent, instead of the actors, celebrities, athletes, politicians, scam artists, merchants and poseurs we have handed it to now, who are neither morally nor intellectually competent to wield it.
On the other hand, the Right fails when it accepts the Leftist proposition that caste is not important and must be inverted, with the lower in power and the naturally higher subjugated, which is the eternally emergent argument from the idea of “equality.” If the Alt Right wants to succeed, it will have to talk about caste and “huwhite” ethnic hierarchy as well as race.
As our regular readers know, Amerika represents roots conservatism, which is the habit of preserving what works and then gradually improving it qualitatively that has guided humanity since the dawn of time. That basic philosophy takes many forms, which have their own principles and methods interpreting it, but is more radical than anything else in that it faces the basic patterns of reality instead of focusing on categorical, material and discrete symbols as replacements for that reality. Part of this realism is recognizing the importance of aristocracy, or a leadership based on quality of people and not inverted assessments like wealth or elections or even popularity, and to that end we are monarchists, or those who want an escape from democracy to the more stable times of kings, lords and honor. One of the most persuasive writers about monarchy, The Mad Monarchist has explored not just the reasoning behind monarchy, but the remaining royal houses and the slow but gradual increase of interest worldwide in a restoration. For a monarchist, one cannot restore Western Civilization without also bringing its ancient leadership caste back to life. We were lucky to get a chance to interview this creative and dynamic, if hardline traditionalist, thinker.
The big question: why monarchy? What does it offer that nothing else does, why is it the best option, and how do people get to the point of realizing that this is true?
That is usually the first question; I have been asked it many times and have given many different answers. For some, the answer is based on religion, in my case Christianity which commands it. Yet, there are also practical reasons. Monarchies today are more cost-effective than modern republics, their populations are more united, they are disproportionately more prosperous and so on. They tend to be more durable and resilient than republics. The United States is the oldest major republic in the world and yet it is as a child compared to the longevity of monarchies such as Japan, Denmark, Great Britain or even tiny Monaco. All of these would, I think, make a strong case for monarchy being the “best option” but it is also part of how monarchies tend to be organic. This is partly why they are so different from each other and so long lasting. They grow up along with a nation and so are a natural fit for their people and culture rather than being something which an elite group “invents” according to a particular ideology and then expects everyone to adapt to.
As to how people get to the point of realizing the truth of this, the open-minded can, of course, be persuaded by reasoned arguments but such individuals are few. People also do tend to adapt to their circumstances and, despite what they claim, usually do not want any radical changes. However, I think there does come a point when people or their republican rulers must face the fact that their system is not working. Republics, at least in modern times, post-revolutionary republics, tend to be very Utopian and ideological and this will inevitably end in disappointment as they promise something, a Utopia, which cannot be achieved. At that point, I would think, people would have no choice but to look back to more “ancient wisdom” for a viable alternative. Democracy does complicate this point as it can be either a help or a hindrance. In China, for example, after tens of millions of people died and the rest remained mired in poverty, the ruling Communist Party did finally admit to itself that communism had failed and they began to abandon it but this would not have been possible if China had been a democracy. At the same time, it also means that the form of government itself is almost impossible to change by any orderly process.
Do you prefer absolute hereditary monarchies, or constitutional monarchies?
I would prefer either to a revolutionary republic but, of the two, I tend to incline toward absolute hereditary monarchies though, it must be said, the same thing will not work for everyone in every part of the world. My general preference is a traditional monarchy in which the monarch rules and is, as Bishop Jacques Bossuet wrote, “absolute” but not “arbitrary.” The two are not always so opposed as they seem. The former Empire of Japan was technically a constitutional monarchy, yet the Emperor had, effectively, absolute power in the end. Monaco has been a constitutional monarchy since the reign of Prince Albert I and yet he and every successive Sovereign Prince until the current one has suspended the constitution at some point. I prefer a monarch that is absolute in that his (or her) position is inviolable and beyond dispute but not arbitrary in the sense that he can do whatever he pleases. The monarch should be absolute but I think everyone should be absolute in terms of what is their own.
How does monarchy relate to caste?
I would say it relates to it only in as much as the historical conditions which led to the development of caste systems usually led to monarchy as well, which is not saying much as almost every people on earth, left to their own devices, naturally developed into a monarchy, even if only of the primitive, tribal variety. However, as caste deals with people interacting with each other rather than the ruled interacting with their ruler (which most of the ruled never have and never will) it has meant that caste is not as easy to eradicate as monarchy. Caste systems continue in a number of republics in spite of efforts to stamp them out. Similarly, republics themselves tend to ape monarchy after being without it for a sufficient time or, in some cases, almost immediately out of force of habit. Monarchies have tended to simply embrace caste differences and make them more beneficial and less cruel. Though, much of that will depend on things like religious differences. For the same reason that getting rid of the aristocracy never resulted in equality, I find it hard to imagine a world in which no trace of caste remains.
Are monarchies nationalist by nature?
Many will doubtless be upset with this answer but I would have to say, “yes” though, as always, this is not invariably the case. Monarchs tend to be bound up with the history of their nation, some more so than others but ultimately this is usually the case. Certainly, in cases such as France, the history of the monarchs is the history of the nation. Monarchs have often represented the way nations viewed themselves as a unique and special people, which I think is a healthy thing and which has certainly been proven to aid in longevity for a people. For a nation such as Japan, this is quite obvious. In others, it is harder to see but, as I have often said, even in the past when nationalism was not the most important thing to western peoples, that still did not mean that it was unimportant.
Many, incorrectly I think, attribute nationalism to the revolutionary era but ultimately it was the revolution, the downfall of monarchs and the elevation of “equality” and the “brotherhood of man” that led to internationalism and globalism. I have also said more than once that it was hardly a leap to go from arguing that the bloodline of your ruler does not matter to arguing that the bloodline of the people themselves does not matter, which is where we have come to today. I also think it no coincidence that in surviving monarchies which have done away with male primogeniture, which technically means a change in dynasty every time a girl is born first, has come about at the same time that western countries have abandoned the nation-state in favor of the multi-cultural, come one, come all approach to the demography of their populace.
Do you think monarchism is more likely, or less likely, to have a revival now — 228 years after the Revolution™ — as opposed to a previous time?
This is the sort of question that tempts me to dishonesty. I tend to be very pessimistic yet am stubborn enough to carry on regardless of the chances of success. I was born within sight of the Alamo so it is not in me to give up a fight simply because there no possible way to win. Most, however, are not like that and so you must hold out some hope for them to be motivated. Thankfully, I do think there are legitimate grounds for hope that can be found in almost any historical era and recently I have seen some that such is the case today. We are seeing increasingly the vanguard of the liberal mindset eating its own tail. The flaws in their utopian ideology are becoming evident as they are forced to violate their own principles in order to keep the façade of their model state from collapsing. I do not see how people can fail to notice this.
In the United States, for example, we have seen, with the election of Trump, the revelation of the hypocrisy of our ruling class and our institutions on a scale that certainly took me by surprise. You now have leftists championing states’ rights, pledging absolute faith to the intelligence agencies they ridiculed under George W. Bush and former peaceniks now clamoring for war with Russia or Syria. Likewise, you see Republicans unwilling to embrace “free market” healthcare, dropping any pretense of opposition to the homosexual agenda and admitting that their system of classical liberalism means that Satanists must be treated exactly the same as Christians. Other countries have different situations but I think many are coming to a similar climax. In Europe, the backlash against multiculturism has been good to see, though not as successful as I would have wished. I do see some reason to hope that in the republics, a rejection of the current system and a desire to reassert national distinctiveness could result in the restoration of fallen monarchies. However, I do also worry that, in their unthinking fury, some surviving monarchies may fall victim to these same forces which seek to tear down what exists.
Many have said that democracy has fallen, and others like Samuel Huntington have intimated that the age of ideology is over. With democracy and ideology dead, what is left, and how does this lead to monarchism?
My only question concerning the death of democracy would be whether it was ever truly alive in the first place. Ideology does seem to be on the decline somewhat, mostly because of the failures I mentioned above. People see the system failing to deliver paradise, they see the hypocrisy of their rulers and they are becoming restless. What is left will be a vacuum and that can lead to monarchy but only if the new leadership that comes along can keep a cool head and if the people have truly abandoned their slave-like devotion to the old liberal god. My concern is that the people have still not realized that utopia is unobtainable and they simply want some other system or ideology to deliver it. Likewise, as mentioned, I worry that existing monarchies and other traditional institutions could be torn down by hotheads who blame them for simply adapting to their environment. I see many on the right rejecting existing monarchs because they go along with the current ruling class and often mouth the same platitudes. I see them rejecting Christianity and embracing a sort of Germanic neo-paganism because they see the major churches likewise going along with the ruling class and repeating the same mindless, liberal “social justice warrior” type talking points. This greatly concerns me.
It concerns me because it is clearly understandable, yet to my mind is extremely tragic because, by turning against these things, the leftists have effectively prompted the right to do their job for them. The revolutionary types overthrew everything traditional that they could but for those institutions that they could not overthrow, they infiltrated them, spread garbage all around them, indoctrinated their members until we have reached the point that the right views them as tainted and is ready to tear them down for them. Because, rest assured, no matter how much the Prince of Wales talks about global warming or how often the King of Norway talks about a borderless world, diversity and inclusivity, the left still does not view them as allies or trust them to be genuine about these things. If they did, they would not prevent these monarchs having any actual power, they would not constantly be holding the threat of a republic over their heads. Modern, reigning royals can repeat all the popular leftist lines but the leftists do not think they really mean it. Unfortunately, many on the right think they do. I would hope the right either learns to disregard what modern, effectively caged, royals say and do and focus on the institution, the legacy and the heritage they represent. At the same time, I would hope that these royals overcome their Stockholm syndrome and take care not to get on the wrong side of their people.
If that happens, I think traditional monarchy could be the ideal solution, perhaps the only solution as one of the things that makes it most appealing to me is that traditional monarchies had government without politics. They had no political parties, good government was not hampered by two feuding camps locked in perpetual ideological war and people could focus on their own lives.
How did you get started out writing, and is this something you have trained for or self-instructed?
It was something I always seemed to be drawn to, won some awards for in school more years ago than I’d like to say, though I do remember being extremely terrible at spelling as a boy. One teacher, I think in the third grade, even gave me a pocket dictionary because my spelling was so consistently bad. I have never had what I would call formal training for it, I did take at least one writing class in my university days as I recall but my focus there was on history and geography.
What first drew you to monarchism, and how hard was it to break out of the conventional thinking that progress is real, the present is the best human society, that democracy is the only functional form of government, and so on? Did you receive pushback from family, friends, romantic interests and business associates?
I was fortunate in that I come from a very conservative family. I had my usual round of youthful foolishness in high school but by the time I went to college I quickly came to be solidly monarchist. I was probably never more monarchist or religious than when I was in a university that did nothing but try to convince me to be the opposite every day. Breaking out of the conventional thinking was not difficult for me. Given how my father and one of my grandfathers were ardent Confederate sympathizers, the idea that the U.S. government was God’s gift to the world never occurred to me. My late mother, I can remember as a child, also kept up with the Windsors and the Grimaldis and older members of my family, even the most “American” of them, were never really opposed to monarchy on principle. Being very religious, very “Bible-thumping” types, simply relating the passages of the Bible commanding obedience to kings was enough to get them on side or at least to admit that they could not object to monarchy.
For the same reason, they never believed democracy was the last word in government as they knew from their Bible lessons that the majority usually do what is wrong and only a few will do what is right, so none of that was very difficult. One incident that did impact me which I will never forget, though it was a great many years ago, was reading a passage out of my Grandfather’s encyclopedia which demonstrated “spin” by showing two passages about Britain’s King George III, each relating basically the same information about the man but one making him seem very good and the other very bad. That one event really opened my eyes and after that it became almost a game for me to read through my history books and pick out the facts from the opinions. That had a tremendous impact on me, particularly concerning the American War for Independence. As for family, friends, girlfriends, there has been no serious pushback or opposition. Everyone I was around for any considerable period of time was, I am proud to say, either converted to being pro-monarchy or at least not anti-monarchy. That being said, most of my immediate family is gone now, I live 50 miles from the nearest thing that could be called a city and I don’t travel anymore so my only contact with friends is by internet or telephone. As far as romantic interests go, my personality was more “pushback” than my opinions ever could be.
As for business interests, that was never really a problem. I did teach for about five minutes, realized that job would require far, far more patience than I would ever possess and I did know that any higher academic career would go nowhere with my opinions and my inability to keep quiet about them. Thankfully, none of that was necessary. I worked for my father growing up, whose views are not radically different from my own and today I have reached the point of being independent and self-sustaining in economic terms so I have no business partners or anyone over me that I have to worry about upsetting.
How does monarchy relate to aristocracy and feudalism?
Much the same as with the question about the caste system, they tend to coincide though they do not necessarily always go together or one lead to the other. There have been aristocratic republics and some would say that republicanism itself could be viewed as an overly complicated sort of feudalism. Monarchy, I would say, sits naturally at the apex of the feudal pyramid and in terms of aristocracy, monarchy takes the natural and inevitable divisions of society and smooths out the rough edges, making it more beneficial. Even in a monarchy these things can get out of hand, no system being immune from human error, but monarchy does not deny human nature as a modern, “egalitarian” republic would. For example, many American Senators and Congressmen occupy seats that their fathers and grandfathers occupied in their turn. A monarchy recognizes this, codifies it and you get a House of Lords, which is more direct and honest. A monarchy also makes these things work better by using human nature to best benefit. Prior to the Revolution, the French aristocracy had fallen into a terrible state but had King Louis XVI, a very upright and moral man, remained on his throne for the rest of his natural life, I have no doubt that the aristocracy would have changed to follow his example. Monarchs have also been able to do a great deal of good by using the natural drive to “keep up with the Joneses” to benefit the whole of society.
How could a modern republic — let’s pick a hard one and say the USA, or at least Texas — transition to monarchy? Can this be done through democracy, ironic as it may seem?
Technically speaking, it can be done through the existing legal process. In the case of the USA it would simply require a number of constitutional amendments and, while very difficult, there is provision for that in the current system and unlike many younger republics there is nothing in the constitution to forbid it. Texas could become a monarchy by amending the U.S. Constitution to do away with the requirement that state governments be republican. Of course, the Texas constitution would also have to be amended but this is easier. The alternative would be more difficult which would be for Texas to secede from the Union and then write an entirely new constitution that would make Texas a monarchy. The problem there, of course, is one illustrative of the flaws in the U.S. system itself which is that secession has been ruled to be impossible by the Supreme Court, unless, perhaps, the other states agree. Even the most idealistic republics, when all else fails, revert to “might makes right” and such a thing could still be possible but would require the use of force to accomplish it. Many years ago I had a list of the constitutional amendments that would be required, at minimum, to make the USA a monarchy but I have long last track of it. It can be done and, unless one is willing to resort to illegal means, is the only way one has to proceed. However, I think history will support me in saying that no ruling elite which truly ruled ever gave up power simply because of a vote.
If people are interested in what you do, where should they go looking for your work and news about what you have been up to?
Simply punching in “The Mad Monarchist” to your Google machine would probably work, I am told that after nearly a decade at this, mine is the first to come up on such searches. However, to go the source directly, I can be found at madmonarchist.blogspot.com where I have long been. My posts are less frequent but more substantial than they were in years past but, over this much time, there is much for new readers to peruse.
The racial dynamic in prisons puts whites at a tremendous disadvantage. First, whites are often outnumbered by both blacks and Hispanics. But far more important, just as they show no racial solidarity in “the free world,” whites in prison do not band together to protect each other from predators. As No Escape reports, Hispanics sometimes rape Hispanics, and blacks sometimes rape blacks, but neither group permits anyone of another race to rape its own people. If a black tried to “turn out” a Mexican, the Mexicans would riot and try to kill him. Blacks also defend each other from white or Hispanic rapists. It is only whites — unless they are known members of white racialist gangs who do stick together — who are on their own and can be raped with impunity. It would be hard to think of a more cruel consequence of stripping whites of racial consciousness.
It is important to read this in context: these are whites in prison, many of whom are not really good people at all. It is quite possible to go to jail in this country for something that is not bad, but the majority of people in jails are sociopaths. Lots of people use drugs, for example, and some guys get sent up for wrong place/wrong time. But the rest are probably greedy dealers.
White Nationalists bemoan the fact that whites do not stick together. They do not do it at the ballot box, nor in the media, nor in conversation. Whites seem to identify more with the type of automobile they drive than with race. If pushed, most of them will admit that they like to live near, work with, and befriend “people like me” but will not elaborate.
This is why we should face the ugly truth: there is no such thing as the white race.
But first, let us look into the other reasons why whites are not particularly race-loyal. The first is that whites still perceive themselves as a majority in power and as a result see no reason to be racially alert, and the process of awakening takes many years, so when thrust into prison or another rough situation, they are not prepared to think in racial terms.
Another important reason for the missing white cohesion is that whites are highly competitive. This means that we see each other not as natural allies, but as the other team that needs to be beaten down. In highly competitive situations, helping out the opposition means losing position and prospects.
With this we see the problem of high-trust societies like we have in Western Europe. That high social trust is used against us in class warfare, where those with more than others are perceived as free riders and demonized for their lack of sharing. Think of how your average white parent would react to a child in preschool who refuses to share a toy.
High-trust societies function efficiently and as a result are wealthier and more resilient than other types of societies. However, they also have an Achilles’ Heel, which is that the trust can be weaponized into demands for universal sharing of resources. At first, this seems like a good idea, because it promises to reduce conflict.
The problem with it however is that it also reduces trust. When any person can launch a social attack on you for what you have, it is best to socialize only with those who you know will not do so. This is why class warfare produces even more radical class separation: each class can only trust others of the same class, and so naturally acts to exclude all other classes.
In addition, whites do not perceive a need for racial unity because they still see themselves as the majority in Europe and the USA. For those of us who have grown up in majority-minority areas, this is laughable delusion, but most people take a snapshot of the world around age eleven and expect it to be (mostly) that way for the rest of their lives.
As a result, most whites expect that the mostly-white communities of the 1980s and 1990s still exist, when in fact rising majority populations, refugee resettlement and redistribution of Section 8 housing to the suburbs has changed the nature of those communities. In addition, propaganda in schools has raised new generations who see this not as threatening but positive and cheer their own replacement.
Majorities are notoriously slow to defend themselves. The reason for this is that they do not recognize themselves as having an identity as a majority since they view themselves as the norm. To whites, identifying with being white is like introducing yourself as an aficionado of breathing air.
Because of this majority status, people within a majority identify with smaller groups (lifestyle, class, region, profession, religion) and see no link between themselves and others who share a genetic background, identified as generic because it is of the majority, but not the special interest group to which they belong.
Minorities on the other hand are constantly reminded of their racial identity. They are aware every minute of every day that this society was not designed, created or maintained in its healthy days by people who looked like them. Instead, it belongs to the Anglo-Saxons who founded it, drove out the murderous Indians, and set up systems of law, economics and culture which reflect their heritage.
In addition, it is important to note that white diversity does not work, just like every kind of diversity does not work. Poles and English and Germans and Italians can work together, but at the end of the day, they want to go home to neighborhoods filled with people “like them.” This is why ethnic groups have steadily been pulling apart in America, starting with white groups.
This is why there is no white race. There are white ethnicities, but many of these reflect an origin in Nordic-Germanic people and subsequent admixture, so they are alien to the root and resent it much as minorities resent the majority. Someone of Irish-Italian descent who is told that white diversity does not work inevitably retaliates by insulting Western Europeans. Diversity creates resentment, even among whites, and among admixed whites like Southern and Eastern Europeans, envy and hatred of the Western European founders can be seen as clearly as it is in Hispanic, Black, Asian, Arab and Amerind groups.
We do not view ourselves as a white race because of internal differences, and trying to force us to do so will fail as it has in the past. We know that there is a seed of our people which came out of Asia, brought its blonde-haired long-faced blue-eyed presence among us, and melded with lower castes of previously mixed whites from Central Europe with some ancestors from the Mediterranean.
All of our literature alludes to this distinction in castes, where those who are blonde, tall, long-faced and cerebral rule over the darker, shorter, and brown-eyed lower echelons. In German, Scandinavia, England, France and the Netherlands this is recognized as true, as it was in American class tension literature from the last century. Whites are different based on percentage of Nordic-Germanic (“Aryan”) heritage.
Those who are not Nordic-Germanic tend to want to displace that group, so that the shorter/browner trace admixed Central Europeans — who are either a previous iteration of Europeans, or a group with some mixture that happened in the near Middle East — can rule in their place, just like minority groups agitate for overthrow of whites. Every group wants to rule the world, and needs to displace higher groups to do that.
Some would call this white supremacy, but in actuality, it is a revelation of the caste system within whites which ranks us by degree of admixture, plus the natural tensions of diversity in which every group wants to be in power.
The good news is what white unity is not what we need. Our future will be one of balkanization, or many small tribes breaking away from the failed nation-states of liberal democracy. These groups will be defined by a cascade of race, ethnicity, caste, religion and region on a basic level, with additional modifiers like lifestyle, sexual preference, politics, philosophy and profession.
For example, you may find a neighborhood filled entirely with Irish Catholic ship-builders, or a gay neighborhood that is open to whites and Asians. Maybe there will be a community of metalheads or punks somewhere, like the squatter communes of the 1970s. Perhaps people will find nice WASP neighborhoods isolated by high walls and armed turrets. We are entering a time of collapse when government is an enemy.
In the coming “balk,” being one big group is not useful. Being a distinctive group is however. For example, Western Europeans can recognize each other by sight and immediately read caste/class status, so they group together well. That distinctiveness counts in the split seconds before encountering another person or group will turn out to be friendship or racial violence.
There will be no middle ground. Where old school racism was based on stereotypes and perceived slights, new school racial politics will have a simple rule: if he is of my tribe, he is good; if he is not, he must be killed quickly before he calls others from his tribe to conquer mine. Friendship or violence will erupt seconds after meeting, and to be indecisive is to die.
This saves us from a unique form of suicide that many — usually from the admixed groups of “whites” — think is a really good idea. They want to create a white group, at which point they abolish distinctions between types of white (Western, Eastern, Southern) and caste/class differences. That will produce a generic white group with none of that traits of the group that made Western Civilization great.
Our suicide move would be to throw all whites into a category for purposes of defense, just like in the prison written about above, at which point interbreeding will be natural. This means that all of the white sub-groups will assimilate each other, losing ethnic distinctiveness and caste orientation. This will create generic Europeans who will lose their distinct traits.
To do that, in effect, will be to genocide ourselves. Western Civilization pops up from time to time in different places. Those societies eventually fail, and then the members of the tribe move on to another place and start another society. Ancient Greeks fleeing the fall of Athens went into Central Europe just like Europeans fleeing their socialist states came to America.
But the core, the essence, of Western Civilization remains its Western European people. These are basically still the same group that ranged the steppes, set up empires across Asia, North Africa and Europe, and provided the genetic seeds for the Greek, Roman, German and Nordic empires. These are the Western Europeans.
America has fallen, and Europe is dead for all practical purposes, but as long as we have our people, Western Civilization can rise again. This is why all of our enemies, both white and non-white, want to destroy that group. (Note: there are many non-whites who do not want to destroy us, but their position is a relative rarity because diversity creates such intense minority-majority resentment).
If we mix all the whites together, we will bring in the trace admixture of Asiatic found in Eastern and Southern Europe, which rather than being reduced will be amplified as racial mixing tends to be. At that point, we will have destroyed the seed of our unbroken heritage, and replaced it with a mixed future.
That will lead to white third world countries, where a light-skinned group with the features of the Middle East rules over a slightly darker but dumber herd. If we mix within the “white” race, we will produce a hybrid society like those of Iraq, Mexico, India, Brazil, and the Levant. We will have destroyed our potential for restoring Western Civilization that way.
As the West slowly awakens from its latest stupefactive flirtation with equality, interest in nationalism has risen to new heights. The problem is that the newly-minted “nationalists” are taking Leftist assumptions with them, and so they want an egalitarian nationalism, which is the exact opposite of what nationalism is.
We can see nationalism in white attitudes toward other whites. Nationalism is not race-patriotism, or swearing fealty to the “white” race, but hierarchy including caste and a rough calculation of how much Nordic-Germanic is present in each person. Its ultimate goal is not to form a political herd, but to preserve the subspecies of our peoples, and this cannot be done by combining or associating them.