Privately we can say more than we can in public. While this statement has always been true, the degree of its application has varied. For example, now we live in an age where most anything truthful must be said in private, because people are sensitive to appearance more than reality through the mechanism of democracy.

The first assault of democracy is categorical/rational logic. It uses logical tokens as if they were reality, and argues from that point, instead of using logical tokens descriptively. The result creates a tangent that heads straight out into space, with people “educated” above their station spouting off logically-correct assessments that clash with reality in every way.

Under this assault, we expect that ideas segregate themselves to their own little categories and do not leave. For that reason, if we say we are “anti-democracy,” we do not expect democratic thought in ourselves. This illusion is what allows entryism, which more properly is called assimilation, or the tendency of a generic larger pattern to absorb any breakaway smaller entities.

Such has been the problem with post-leftist movements: all of them get assimilated because the leftist ideal of equality interacts with the human mind at such a basic level. “Equality” signals that the individual is sovereign in his choices, and therefore picks only what flatters him.

Neoreaction built up a good head of steam but has run into stagnation lately because much of its growth has been hijacked by the usual tendencies. These did not start out that way, but became that way because of the nature of preaching to an audience. That is, to make money via blogs and books one must generate an audience and get them fascinated by a repetitive message, which promptly walks right into the trap of pandering to what flatters them.

For this reason, conservatism cannot exist without a hierarchy based on ability toward leadership, which is a skill rooted in philosophical judgment. Otherwise, it gets assimilated by the great prole revolt based on selling products, votes or personality to people. Its surface appearance has value because it is “different” and can be used to brand a personality as distinctive, so it becomes popular, but through that process, it gets normed to the standard for the age.

If you wonder why all efforts to rise above the democratic standard fail, it is because it forces all entrants to pitch their materials to the approval of other people. Those people then approve what flatters them, at least as soon as the fledgling movement reaches critical mass, and opportunists arise who see a chance for personal advancement in pitching to those people. This then changes the nature of the movement and humbles it to the norm.

I have now seen this process happen with a half-dozen movements — artistic, social, and political — and it follows the same pattern every time. The only way to escape it is to early on appoint leaders not by popularity but by competence. Neoreaction eschewed that unpopular tactic, and therefore, it has ended up creating its own internal advertising market and distorting its truth to fit that market.

In this, it mirrors in parallel the same complaints that afflict mainstream conservatives, who bend their ideas to fit both “working within the system” including its inevitable compromise and pandering to the voters, who inevitably do not want to hear that the voters are too incompetent to make most if not all decisions, and yet it is true. Until we fix this fundamental fracture, nothing can be done to reverse decline.



People fail by attempting to reduce conservatism to issues. “Issues” form the basis for conversation about politics, talking points that show concrete examples of how ideals would be applied. But in doing so, the conversation moves from causes to effects, and soon people are fighting over details of appearance and not root cause.

Conservatism is more than liberalism a philosophy; liberalism is a method called egalitarianism which is designed to compensate for a loss of stability in civilization. Conservatism focuses on the health of a civilization as if it were an ecosystem, and recognizing that humans are until they discipline their minds basically inconsistent and animalistic in their pursuit of desire, looks toward end results in reality instead of what people think about those results. Liberalism takes the opposite view, which is that we must talk about how things “should” be and their impact on the individual without considering the broader context in which the individual operates.

A larger ideal underscores the conservative mentality: how to make a civilization which is not just doing okay, but rising and beating the constant tide of entropy which sweeps almost everything into the dustbin of history. We exist on a globe where most civilizations have failed and left little behind; it seems they die at the peak of their powers, as if giving one last heave before collapsing. Until we reverse the decline of our society, we head toward the same fate, and most conservatives are in denial of this fact.

Modern life is boring and pointless. We have entered the age of tyranny of method, following our adoption of egalitarianism, to try to convince ourselves that with the right 300,000 pages of regulations, laws, procedures, policies and position statements we can transform the half-chimpanzee human being into a perfected Utopian man. We cannot. Instead, we have dedicated our time to the tedious, frustrating, detail-obsessed and mindless and as a result, people are miserable. One in ten million can articulate why this is so or even that it is so; the rest blame themselves, or blame others, but fail to blame the design/structure of their civilization. Like a car whose designers were incompetent, modern society can be fixed and will spend most of its life in the shop, but will never run well. In the same way all the best cinematography and acting cannot make a badly-written movie into a good one, no amount of “trying harder” will make this society better.

And so, at the end of the day, there is a single issue: are we acting so that our civilization will end up healthier, or not? Like all tasks, this one distills to a binary. We are either doing what we need to in order to accomplish the task, or we are doing something else and, by the constant currents toward decay which run throughout existence, stagnating into decay. Almost all of our political discourse exists for the singular function of hiding this decay and convincing us that by fighting twice as dogmatically over “issues,” everything will turn out all right. In this sense, liberals have at a subconscious level grasped more of the situation than conservatives, in that their goal is to remake society and they pick up on the urgency and need for this to be a powerful and wide-ranging remaking.

On the other hand, conservatives understand what liberals do not, which is that no amount of methods can fix this. We cannot make society better by writing new laws, funding institutions or fighting wars. We can only fix it by changing its design, which requires a cultural shift, and then a seizure of power back from the crazies. For the last two centuries, conservatives have been in retreat, trying to hold back the insanity while “working hard” and prospering on their own, which results in their families being devastated by their absence at stressful jobs and resulting near-psychosis from those horrible conditions. We are at war with modernity itself and the society created by egalitarianism, and we want to bring actual civilization back. Any stepping away from that viewpoint is defeat and will result in us bickering over issues on the foredeck as the ship slowly slips beneath the waves.

The illusions on which conservatives rely


There is, I believe, in every disposition a tendency to some particular evil, a natural defect, which not even the best education can overcome. – Fitzwilliam Darcy

Our greatest strengths prove also our greatest weakness for, having found a way to explain our world, we then rely on it and by that nature exclude that which is outside of what it understands as effective.

This tendency ignores the ability of other points of view to be relevant not in the sense of possibly true, but in the sense of “true enough” to be present in human minds for long enough to destroy what we are attempting.

Conservatives have for the past 200 years suffered under an excess of individualism. This causes them to see decay in the world, and retreat into the comforts of being right, and in enriching themselves and maintaining their own small networks instead of tackling society head-on.

For this reason, your average conservative works too much and focuses too much on success. He spends time on his job instead of his family. He makes himself wealthy and takes comfort in being right about how liberalism is running the country into ruin, but he does nothing about it.

Yes, he complains. He writes angry letters but because conservatism is shut out of social discourse, he finds himself among those who basically agree with him, repeating the same old truths. He is not preaching to the choir; the choir is a giant circular conversation dedicated to confirming its worldview.

In the meantime, history marches on. Leftists, virtually unopposed in literature and media because they are virtually unopposed among the social group from which those industries hire, take over first the newspapers and then the elections. This allows them their greatest victory: making their views seem normal and majoritarian.

The conservative however sticks to his Social Darwinist doctrine. “Those who do right will prosper, and the rest suffer,” he says. “Look, I’ve got a business and a happy family and a home in the suburbs. What could go wrong?”

Except that this is how conservatives always respond. Being conservative, they do not like radical change even when it is incumbent upon them. For them, it is mentally more convenient to take refuge in family, friends and wealth than look at who is at the steering wheel of society.

The worst among these are those who embrace the drop-out philosophy. Not having realized that hippies endorsed much the same thing (apparently) these types, usually religious, suggest that we all get fixated on church and home and ignore what is going on behind the curtain.

It is no wonder that societies pass into liberal tyranny so easily: those who know better have stopped participating.

You, the reader, will be able to generate thousands of objections here. The GOP is garbage, you say, and everything always turns to the crowd no matter what you do. This is somewhat true: if you do nothing, it will certainly be this way. Some things require constant resistance by those who know better.

We might compare liberalism to a bad fad. Everyone is wearing acid-washed jeans at school, so why not join in? Our herd instinct is to be deferential. But this obviously moronic fad will lead nowhere and should consume none of our time. The Good ConservativeTM forbids his wife buy the kids these jeans, so they sneak off and buy them on their own and, because their rebellion does not immediately result in anything wrong, write off their conservative dad and his out-of-date opinions.

We face a flood of people doing the wrong thing. They are enemies of all that is truthful, realistic and (most importantly) results in an acceptance of what is unchangingly true throughout history, and leads to the optimal side of life: “the good, the beautiful and the true.” To recede into our own little worlds and discuss this among ourselves is worse than masturbatory.

It is ineffective.

What mainstream conservatives fail to understand


I avoid the sports pages because they are the officially approved method of administering the “opiate of the masses” to oneself, along with the rest of the media products that have no actual use in a healthy life.

Occasionally however the sports pages produce something of interest because much like the audience for GamerGate, the audience for sports is aggressive and realistic. Too much intervention by cultural Marxism or PC and they head for the hills.

In this case, a basketball player has managed with a single statement to demonstrate what mainstream conservatives have not understood for years. In the midst of conservative outrage, Dion Waiters demonstrates the conservative reality principle:

Waiters informed Northeast Ohio Media Group that he is a Muslim and that’s the reason he excused himself prior to the national anthem.

“It’s because of my religion,” Waiters told NEOMG. “That’s why I stayed in the locker room.”

Mainstream conservatives want you to be outraged at this. Why isn’t he standing up with the rest of us for patriotism, the flag, free-market economies and American exceptionalism?

Answer: because those do not reflect his country.

Each of us has his own country or rather the group within it with whom we identify. Mainstream conservatives want to magically turn everyone into brown-painted WASPs, worshiping at the altar of America, apple pie and “freedom.”

The truth is that people do not want actual freedom, no matter how much they talk it up as an ideal. They want a social group they can stand with and be proud of, an identity. This is always a combination of race, ethnicity, heritage, religion, class and culture.

For run-of-the-mill white Americans, all the stuff that conservatives get jazzed about is great. But that doesn’t apply to everyone else. Trying to force it to is to deny the uniqueness of the backgrounds these individuals come from.

Unlike mainstream conservatives, realists recognize the need for identity in human beings. Identity is the cornerstone of morality, group unity and motivation to help others. It is how humans have always survived.

This answer is not popular, because it in turn answers the question “But can’t we all just get along?” with a resounding NO. However, reality is never popular, because the answers do not change from year to year, and involve confronting hard facts of reality rather than indulging in pleasant daydreams and social warm fuzzies.

Conservatives should know better. But mainstream conservatives, always in retreat, have settled on generic positions to avoid receiving any significant criticism. It has made them insane.

Israel-Hamas conflict shows true nature of liberalism


It benefits those in power that people find it difficult to understand the nature of political categories. Left and right best serve power when blurred and overlapping so that people choose parties by issue, keeping constant conflict afloat while failing to ever resolve anything that might threaten power.

How many people who you meet on the street can identify what “conservatism” is? How many can identify what “liberalism” is? That suits those in power just fine because it keeps people reacting, never leading. Few will acknowledge that all politics are identity politics; liberalism is based on “moral superiority” designed to make people popular in a mixed social group, where conservatism is based on continuity of good ideas, heritage, values, language, customs and other things that make life better directly.

Where conservatism is direct, liberalism is indirect. It seeks equality as its sole goal because promoting equality always looks good to a group of people who are uncertain about their role. From that comes other ideas: anarchy – no rules, socialism – subsidize the nonconforming, civil rights – deflect blame onto government. It inherently rejects improvement or refinement as goals and instead seems to think that life will always be bad, so the little people might as well be in control.

The Israel-Hamas conflict reveals this thinking in action. The true nature of liberalism compels it to root for the “underdog” in any conflict not because liberals believe that is right, but because they must uphold their public image as compassionate in order to justify their seizure of power. Thus if an entirely defensible and laudable party like Israel faces off against an underdog, the party who seems to be in power — money, might, majority, moral high ground — becomes the enemy. This has ordinarily sane people indulging in the mental insanity of liberalism and endorsing Hamas, an organization dedicated to killing Jews and not much else.

Underdog-based thinking provides a convenient basis for liberalism. It makes its members into perpetual contrarians so they can never “fail” by the standards of their society, and gives them a reason to always feel superior to others. Their moral rightness comes from the idea of equality which demands one lower the higher and raise the lower, thus always rooting for the underdog causes no clashes and also makes flattering headlines. These flatter both liberalism itself, and those who are “part of the Movement.”

In Gaza, liberalism revealed its fundamentally bankruptcy. It focuses on appearance and nothing more, for the sake of manipulating people like you and me. Who can say “no” to the moral high ground? But it is not the moral high ground to always support the weaker party in a struggle. There may be reasons why that party is weak, such as that its only objective is murder or that its ideology is unstable. Even more, the stronger party may bring benefits to all by increasing competence, and isn’t incompetence the downfall of all humanity?

But liberals choose — a moral choice — not to think about such things. They are thinking how they look and how massive popular they will be with their brave “new” ideas. They preen, they pose, they show off and do stunts on the White House lawn. Their goal is the opposite of conservatism. Conservatism thinks about results, so it picks the action which will bring best results. Liberals think about appearances, and so choose whatever option makes them look good, and then ignore the consequences and cover for each other as the disaster unfolds.

If there is a lesson to learn from Gaza other than the obvious historical lessons about majorities and minorities being incompatible, it is that liberalism is a mental disorder. It convinces people to act by appearance and ignore reality as it will be in the future. Thus we have people out of their heads on the drug of artificially boosted self-esteem that liberalism provides, cheering for the genocide of the group that the last world war was fought in part to protect.

The leisure imperative


Conservatives in the 1980s struck me as somewhat terrifying. They answered just about any question with “just work hard and get ahead.” Three decades on, I can see that they answered this way because they saw no solutions on the political front. The general idea was that society had gone to hell, so all we could do was enrich ourselves and live moral lives on our own.

With the advantage of looking back over that gap in time, we can now say firmly that these conservatives were wrong. Working hard and getting ahead makes it easier for the left to surge in, take over all levels of politics, and run the country into the ground. Then they’ll take whatever you have and repurpose it to serve the victims-of-the-day: poor, minority, gay, foreign.

Keeping that in mind, it’s time for conservatives to re-visit the mania for “hard work.” Specifically: time. From reading the biographies of not just great authors but greats of all stripes, I ascertained a common theme along the lines that six hours of solid work a day is about what most humans can do. The rest is peripheral time, doing repetitive simple tasks, but not anything too essential.

I don’t think it makes sense to give all of those hours to a career alone. People should always have interests outside of a job. After all, a job is a means to an end. You work to keep society alive and to sustain your family. If work replaces life, people become bitter, distracted, envious, petty and mean.

People around the internet seem confused about why others in their country do not feel any unity or commitment to improving society. The answer is that it’s every man for himself out there. Any obligations you make to others are a loss for you, and take time out of your already overburdened day. The best control mechanism ever may be keeping everyone busy.

The average office worker around here has no time to think much less rest. They wake up, get ready, and get to work; this takes an hour at minimum. They work eight to ten hours, sometimes more, usually because he who sits at the desk longest gets promoted. Then they go to the gym, dinner at a restaurant, and then maybe get a drink. Then it’s to home for a couple hours of TV before bed.

Nowhere during this day did this person experience a thought of their own creation. Their brain filled itself with reactions entirely. At work, they are given work to focus on; at the gym, they are listening to headphones; at the bar, talking to others; watching TV, their brains are awash in the visions of others. Are we even individuals if we have no individual thoughts?

This is not asking people for profundity, but familiarity. People need to learn who they are and to think about what they really value. They need to contemplate their use of their own time and their role in the universe. Right now they lack even the moment for this. In addition, they need more quality time with family, hobbies, friends and community.

“Work hard” defines not a plan, but a compromise. The unstated bargain allows us to tolerate the insanity around us instead of pushing back. Even worse, it makes us into people who are too busy to think and thus are without depth or insight. We need to slow this society down, spend more time on life itself instead of means to that end, and rediscover what our real values are.



Conservatism suffers when liberals attack because conservatism is forced into a defensive role. This occurs both because liberals carry with them an attitude that they are good and their opposition by reciprocal implication advocates bad, and because liberalism rests on a single issue: equality. This is a shift in quantity from what exists to a “new” alternative.

On the other hand, conservatives do not advocate alternatives but improvement. In our view, the human problem arises from a lack of focus on consequences of our actions and a failure to approach life with a reverent transcendental outlook. Thus people look toward the immediate, do a halfway job, and then when it fails claim that the problem wasn’t their own moral bankruptcy but the lack of a “new” system that prevents these problems.

Imagine a farm. New ways of doing things that you already do are important, no doubt. But there is no need for a new farming system. The basics have been known since time immemorial and the “new ways” are generally taking existing ways and making them more effective, which is a quality-based improvement. There is no need for a new quantity, but more diligent application of existing knowledge.

Those of us who are non-liberal generally find 80% agreement on our beliefs. We do not think that quantity-based reforms are needed. We do not think institutions like government are the solution. We believe in culture, self-reliance, allowing the best to rise and the worst to fall, and in having a society that is targeted toward more than transient immediate self-gratification. But how to phrase this as a single issue?

Such beliefs arise from the duality of conservatism, which focuses on both consequentialism and existential experience. Consequentialism means that we measure our acts by their results, and take responsibility for those results not only after they happen, but when making our next choice. History serves as a laboratory and we can pick what works and keep advancing it through the ages, improving it qualitatively without adopting a new quantity alternative. Existential experience reflects whether the whole of our lives seems to be headed toward a place of beauty, truth and goodness, as these are long-term goals for any mentally alert person with enough experience. We value time with family, introspection, wrestling for moral goodness and doing the right thing.

I suggest we can combine those two prongs into a single measurement which we might call “wellbeing.” As Nietzsche asked, we should also inquire: how healthy is our society? This requires we look at the dark underbelly of human existence and all that we (personally) push out of our minds. Are people headed toward a good place, or bad place? Are we making beauty or trendy ugliness?

With a single issue, we can counter what the left advances which is the implicit “equality = good.” Our response is that equality is one tool in a large set and that it does not address the core of the issue. Two centuries of democracy have given us lots of equality, but a sick society rotted to the core. Wellbeing can turn this around, and point us instead toward healthy improvement in who we are.

Conservatism is realism


It’s good to see people debating ideas with fire again. I see this on the breaking edge of the conservative front. But it also seems that confusion intrudes mainly because very few have anchored themselves to a taxonomy of ideas.

For any field, there are only a few general approaches. Over time, hybrids emerge, but as time further goes on, those tend toward one of their influences. This is because the different ways to tackle a problem are relatively visible from the beginning.

In terms of politics, there are only a few views, but those are compounded by the question of method. The most common mistake is to read that backward, and read from method into ideal. In fact, the left would like you to do that, as it lets them tar the right as killers, forgetting that the greatest killers were leftists and with the French Revolution, every leftist takeover has begun with execution of ideological enemies.

But this leads us back to the question of what conservatism is. To conserve is a method; thus there’s something that came before the impulse to conserve. Many like myself see conservatives as simply realists. They look at what works because it is logical according to the rules that control the composition of the cosmos. But there’s another dimension, which is a form of idealism based on improvement and perfectability instead of radical differences in method. A conservative finds society as it is, and instead of looking for a different path, just begins clearing and grading the old until it is improved to the point of optimum. Hence a conservative tendency to look for “the good, the beautiful and the true” by applying methods related to improvement, such as conservation and optimization.

A recent article attacked one of my posts explaining how NRx/etc. is basically paleoconservatism. Over at Poseidon Awoke, a defense of neoreaction:

What is conservatism? I think Rothbard nails it in For a New Liberty, speaking of Herbert Spencer’s pragmatic abandonment of the liberalism of early America: “Hence, Spencer abandoned liberalism in practice to a weary, conservative, rearguard action against the growing collectivism and statism of his day.” Conservatism is simply pragmatic liberalism. Conservatives say “I can live with today’s liberalism, but here I draw the line and will budge no further” every day, forever. Conservatism is not a reaction against the left, it is simply its sad shadow, whispering “not so fast!”.

So, is it really the goal of neoreactionaries to jazz up conservatism? No. Neoreaction is not paleoconservatism, it is a genuine rebirth of rightist thought, in direct opposition the the world that the left has created. Conservatism enunciates a set of values that it feels at a gut level, but which it cannot intellectually defend because it can only think in leftist ideological terms.

The DE is intellectual and it is cultured. It understands that human flourishing is the highest goal, and that civilization is the vehicle of that goal, and that civilization can only be preserved by renouncing liberté, égalité, fraternité. No one is equal: deal with it. The DE is filled with children born in a leftist world, who now have incontrovertible genomic proof of inequality of both individuals and populations. They have facility with genomics, evolutionary biology and evolutionary psychology. Biology and nature are authoritarian — obey or die — and acceptance of that authority is rightest. The left is the domain of liars who believe nature can be conquered with education and social programs, we see their lies and we seek the truth.

I would not rely on Rothbard, as he had an agenda against conservatism to advance. Equally, I would be careful about trying to boil conservatism down to a single method, when we should be looking at its motivations and values instead. Those two mistakes in Rothbard’s analysis have led to his outlook missing out on the radical nature of conservatism.

Conservatism is the idea that all of our problems are known, and the solution to each is the same: people need more self-control and morality, and we need to pick those with the best self-control and advance them above others (similar to martial and athletic competitions) so that those more sensitive instruments can make decisions. This idea arises naturally from the notion of improvement. We don’t need new methods; we know what methods have worked for time immemorial. When we promote good people, and demote bad people, society thrives. To do that, we need a strong moral standard; for that, we need a strong national culture and strong religion. For that, we need a goal and direction. For that, we need a founding transcendent idealism, like the notion of improvement and thus conservation.

NRx/DE/NR are trying to make more appealing this vision by giving it a dangerous, quasi-Nietzschean edge. They overlap with The Red Pill, which is essentially the thinking man’s paranoia about realpolitik and Machiavellianism especially as applied on a interpersonal levels. They also overlap with Men’s Rights and Pick-Up Artist “game,” which is a way of understanding how people manipulate each other and how not to be manipulated. These are big sellers because they appeal to sex and fear, and it’s always good to have them on board, although someone with a literature degree might point out that these have been elements of conservative literature since the dawn of time.

What does make sense is to look at these new conservative movements in the marketplace of ideas. They are all essentially methods of explaining the oldest conservative goals to the newer intelligentsia, who arose after WWII when going to college and being “intellectual” became status objects rather than something one did incidentally, like playing polo, as part of a certain class identity in the Anglo-Saxon hierarchy.

Paleoconservatism is not well understood. If we study it like liberals, through methods and institutions, we see free markets, classical liberalism and a strong cultural identity. If we study it like conservatives, we see an entirely different kind of society, one which does not seek to make everyone safe or to make mass culture accessible. It is an elitist, nationalist, role-heavy, warlike and unironic society in which twee and pandering behavior is seen as unmanly.

When we speak of paleoconservatism, we are including the orbit that comprises the traditionalists, who are those who look toward the following for their guiding light:

“My principles are only those that, before the French Revolution, every well-born person considered sane and normal.”
Julius Evola

Evola built in the house that Nietzsche built by rejecting all of the ideas of not just the French Revolution, but the Enlightenment before it and indeed, all those who would “improve” society by changing its methods.

He in turn built on the notions of Plato, who illustrated through his cycle of civilizations how our desire to “fix” problems led us to increasingly unstable forms of government, and who pointed out that most people by projecting their own intellectual containers onto reality have created an illusory world and how socializing just gives it more power.

The entire heritage of Western philosophy and literature springs from that root, and reveals to us not a new for new and radical movements, but a need to stop doing stupid stuff that became trendy. This is a radical notion: that humanity creates its own problems. That the poor (generally) deserve to be poor, and that “we are all one” ideas like equality, diversity and internationalism are simply sales tactics of sleazy snake oil merchants. That our ultimate guide is to return to our own inner knowledge, and knowledge of nature, and throw out all the “improvements” made by well-intentioned people who somehow invented a role for themselves and thus a subsidy for themselves in the process.

Yes, friends, conservatism is radical. It is the idea that civilization is best achieved by not using civilization as a goal. It is the notion that good intentions are in fact the path to hell. It is a rebellion against all those who seek control through appealing to our baser instincts. This is why NRx and other movements are convergent on conservatism: it is philosophically consistent, where everything else is created in the liberal model and thus is just a collection of methods.

Rethinking 1776


Mrs. Powell: “Well, Doctor, what have we, a republic or a monarchy?”
Dr. Benjamin Franklin: “A Republic, ma’am, if you can keep it.”

Time has proven, Dr. Franklin, that we cannot keep our republic. The American Right will find it difficult to consider the unthinkable: that perhaps the Founding Fathers were wrong. This seems paradoxical until we consider the element of time, and how philosophies naturally grow over that duration. The Enlightenment ideals espoused by our Founding Fathers formed the foundation of American conservatism since the beginning. Even today, if we were to reset our society back to the government our Founders gave us, most of us on the reactionary Right would be pretty happy with that situation. That society had it all: Limited government, a landed aristocracy to establish hierarchy, minimal suffrage, low taxes, hard money, federalism, and liberty! There’s much to like and little to dislike.

Enter time. Where would the United States be in another quarter millennia after the reset? Since one thing followed another last time, a similar development would occur. That would return us back to where we are at the present time, a progressive nihilistic disaster run by lumbering, debt-ridden, bureaucratic managerial state. With the Enlightenment philosophies as the backing for that early form of America, it would once again follow the path of whittling away at the intricate structure set up by the Founders. How are we to deny the vote to anyone, if all men are equal? How are we to avoid allowing the courts and legislature chip away at our social infrastructure with progressive ideals that themselves are descended from the same Enlightenment dogma? History would repeat itself.

And so we might ask, what is the point? That a few generations may enjoy the republic just to have their posterity suffer once again under progressive democratic socialism? We on the Right desire law, order, and hierarchy. Another sign of a true reactionary — and all conservatives, as those who desire reality over the inexorable human desire for greater importance to the individual and its desires, are reactionaries — is the desire for stable governance. Gentle reader, has the United States ever been a stable country since its founding? On the contrary, it has been an sequence record of conflict and government expansion. Thus, why reset to this point in time? Why not go back further? The biggest reason is that 1776 is all that we on the American Right really know. The idea of a monarchy is truly foreign to us.

During the Founding, one man in particular favored a monarchist-style government. That man was Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton proposed the idea of an elective-monarch who operated in the confines of a constitution. His idea was rejected. If Hamilton had his way, it probably would not have mattered anyway. The constitutional monarchies that exist today are often worse off in terms of the “progress” they have made than we are. Most of them have evolved into socialist democracies with universal suffrage. The monarchs in many of those countries are merely figureheads. The personal lives of the English Royal Family has become as equally vapid as the celebrity worship found in Us Weekly or People magazine. If we are to have a monarchy, it must be one without suffrage. Americans will have to get over their monarchophobia. We have seen how the mob behaves. Do we really want to put them back in the driver seat?

This leaves us in an unsteady position. With the knowledge of the past, we must craft the future. And yet, where the past was error, we must throw out those ideas and replace them with others. The question is then one of quality or degree. How far back do we go, and what do we borrow from the distant past? We are like astronauts on a new world, looking at guidebooks of history and attempting to adjust what we find there to work for our new — or renewed — colony.

It is clear that the United States Government (USG) will collapse. This will be broader than a Great Depression style collapse, most likely a full on dissolution of the USG and the Union itself. Once this happens, the nation will Balkanize into new nation-states, and we must begin reforming something that resembles civilization. This much is inevitable, given the decay seen already. As we go into the lead-up to this downfall, we on the Right must ask ourselves: is it the Republic we wish to restore, or something far earlier?

What terrifies the right wing


The right-wing exhibits all the signs of a defeated group.

They launch counterattacks, but do not expect them to succeed. Their highest goal — both aboveground and underground — seems to be to lessen the decline, or to hold out waiting for some magic future day when judgment comes.

The aboveground Right formed of the accepted right-wing parties talks glowingly of “bipartisanship” and “pragmatism” but these compromises never work in their favor. The underground right phrase their ideas in such antisocial terms that they guarantee they will never be supported, creating a clubhouse where they can say naughty words but will never affect any change.

These are at best actions to hold back the defeat from further expansion, but they’re strictly rearguard. There is no seizing of the initiative. That is because the right has no hope it can succeed.

On the surface, their pessimism is understandable. Since 1789, the West has steadily turned leftward. After the first world war, this habit really picked up, and gained steam with the Great Depression when many starved and socialism seemed like a tempting idea. Then WWII happened, and after that, the disaster of revelations about the Soviets who were out-of-the-closet totalitarians that the left had been cheering for for the previous three decades.

This is why the one thing that disturbs the Right, terrifies them and drives them into rage is a simple thing:


They don’t dare hope for real change. That puts everything on the line. With hope, they have something to lose. With hope, there’s a chance they might fail. After years of feeling beaten, marginalized and thoroughly out-maneuvered, hope is too much to ask. Seeing it drives them into a tempest of doubt, resentment and neurotic self-criticism.

But perhaps they should reconsider.

As the saying goes, “it’s always darkest just before dawn,” and the right should take this to heart. Liberalism is like most terrible ideas a process that works so long as it is not tested. Whenever it comes up against reality, it implodes.

Most people support liberalism for social reasons. They want their friends to think they’re nice. They want to expand the franchise to as many people as possible, and attract people to their personal projects and ideas. Chanting popular ideas that make it seem like our society is not decaying inward, but actually succeeding, gives everybody warm feelings. And then out come the pocketbooks.

At the same time, people are tiring of perpetual war. Liberalism knows one mode: revolution. It phrases all of its reforms as wars for progress. After lifetimes at war, people stop believing. They begin to feel that sinking feeling, like the best years of their lives perhaps were misspent.

Right now, the West is experiencing a let-down. We were told in 1968 that when the hippies took over, human goodness would reign. What we got instead was endless corruption, a broken system and multiplication of the social problems we had in the past. The more we try to buy our way out of depressions with socialism, the more our money becomes worthless and our society breaks down.

People are ready for change. The Right isn’t ready for them.

There are two forms of hope. One is waiting for a god or outside force to intervene and save you. This doesn’t work so well, in my experience. The other is to take hope in the work of your hands, in your knowledge of reality, and the ability to apply logic and solve problems. That is the kind of hope that the Right needs.

And yet, they fear it. They fear taking those steps. As if the whole thing might unravel…

Let me distill it for them: you have nothing to lose. If the pattern continues, the progressives/leftists/liberals will run everything into the ground and leave you with a country that resembles a hybrid between Brazil and the former Soviet Union. They will do this to all of the West because liberalism is a pathological ideology and they will go swiftly into denial until the end.

With nothing to lose, it’s time for the Right to make its move. 200 years ago we were the establishment; now, we’re the counter-establishment. We represent a new (relative to what has been done) way of doing things. Our ideas have the grandeur of a historic past that was better in every way outside of the leftist ideology.

People like me enrage the Right. I bring to them hope based in the idea that we can solve our problem of social decay like any other problem: by studying it, figuring out a goal, and breaking down the problem into steps toward that goal.

To adopt that idea would mean that they would have to abandon their comfy clubhouses, and their bipartisan agreements that make everyone rich, and their nasty habit of screaming invectives at the TV screen and feeling superior about themselves but doing nothing. It would mean putting their beliefs on the line. Acting, not chattering.

They are afraid to give up what they have for an uncertain future. That’s understandable. But it’s also why we need bravery. In all areas of life, we must take a leap of faith from what we know to what is new, and conquer it.

When they hear me say that, their rage intensifies. In their minds, I am attacking what they have and trying to destroy it. But what they have is on a path to inevitable failure if they do not change course.

Instead of placing our future hope in events that will not happen, let us work to fix it. This requires relatively few steps, the first of which is to raise a bunch of noise and make it clear what we represent. It means getting out of armchair. But if we follow the path of hope, we can create a new future.