Posts Tagged ‘free markets’
Tuesday, December 20th, 2016
With the election of Donald Trump, many who supported him are asking themselves what they stand for. Are they conservatives? Moderates? Or merely against the far-left direction that the country has taken since WWII, including the disastrous policy of diversity?
Underneath all that Trump stands for, there is a simple principle: realism. He believes in assessing his ventures by their results, not the feelings generated, and expects to see those investments functioning smoothly and making people wealthier. Otherwise entirely a moderate candidate, he differs only from the bulk of politicians in this way; he opposes politics itself, and prefers results-based realism.
Most writers remain locked in the prison created by the categorical boundaries of words. They wonder if this means that Trump is in favor of the “free market” and “freedom,” or other abstractions that serve as proxies or symbols for what we ultimately want, which is a healthy nation (and, if we are sane, a restored and self-improving Western Civilization).
What they forget is that all of these things are means to an end, and that end is the goal of a healthy nation and thriving Western Civilization. Currently we do not have that because we stopped cooperating toward that purpose, and instead focused on the human individual and its “reason” as the be-all end-all of social goals. From that, we got a society which could not remain united.
Having a purpose such as health, however, does not unite a herd. They do not all understand it, which means that it must be left to wise elders or otherwise competent people. This offends the mob. And yet, it is the only stable state of humanity because most knowledge exists in specialized domains. You do not elect your pilot on a transcontinental flight, nor your neurosurgeon, or even your arborist. You choose the competent.
Conservatism — for those of us who still use the word, knowing that “mainstream conservatives” is based mostly in the first word — is that which conserves, which means keeping up those time-proven ways of life that produce the best civilization, including a transcendental view of life such that we hold it holy and revere it. Unlike Leftism, conservatism is complex and nuanced with depth and breadth (Leftism is simply “equality now!”).
This approach requires tearing objectives down to their most basic targets, as measured in terms of results and not social appearance and emotions as Leftist “successes” are. At the end of the day, it is realism through consequentialism plus a desire for excellence and beauty in all forms. We want sanity in our society, after centuries of insanity accelerating after WWII, and we cannot point to intermediaries or proxies for that.
For example, “freedom.” Freedom from what? To sane people, we think of the ability to go about our lives and do that which is not destructive. However, when we say the word freedom, we tear down that complex idea and replace it with an unbounded abstraction. We have no idea what we are fighting for, but it can fight back, because anytime anyone does anything destructive, he will claim “muh freedom.”
Free markets are the same way. These are a means to an end; basically, everything but free markets amounts to some type of socialism and always fails so spectacularly that we want to avoid it forevermore. Wealth redistribution — this is all that socialism is, in reality — converts thriving places to impoverished ones where half of the beets on the truck are rocks and all the potatoes go toward vodka.
Conservatives need to refocus on goals and not methods. Using methods, or “means-over-ends,” in place of goals is a Leftist trope because it enables them to replace functional things with social conceits. Applying ourselves toward purpose and goals allows us to achieve the fulfillment of conservatism, which is preserving the way of life that works out best.
Monday, March 28th, 2016
Longtime readers know that the magical formula for restoration of the West — aristocracy, nationalism, capitalism and transcendental experience — becomes controversial in any group because almost everyone objects to one of its pillars. Let us look into capitalism.
Your task is to design a country. You have two basic choices for economies: you can let the economy sort itself out through the actions of individuals, or you can set up a power structure to command it. This most importantly functions in assessing how many or how much of each product or resource will be available at any given location.
Implicitly, the “free market” option is reward-based: where reward exists, someone will find a way to meet it, and so — this is the bottom line — the need will be met. It may be more wasteful than an absolutely ideal system, and it creates rich people along the way, but it ensures that needs are met. This means that its weakness is everything else.
The “command economy” option however is punishment-based. Central command sets up targets; you either do that, or something bad will happen to you, because there is not a reward structure in place. This mirrors the fundamental problems of all subsidy states, which is that performance above the minimal becomes optional while ideological compliance becomes mandatory.
From that view, it becomes hard to want to adopt a command economy because free markets work. That does not mean they are without problems. In particular, Free Northerner picks up on the problems of a broken reward structure:
The current socio-economic system is designed by rootless, soulless, high-IQ, low-time preference, money-/status-grubbing homo economicus for benefit of those same homo economicus. It is a system for designed for intelligent sociopaths. Those who are rootless with high-IQ and low-time preference can succeed rather well in this system, but it destroys those who need rootedness or those who are who are low-IQ or high time preference.
What makes these people powerful? Others want to buy their products. How was this accomplished, through voodoo or hypnotism? No, through the inherent tendencies of a herd of humans. So, we have created a false elite of people whose success results from their popularity with the largest segment of our society, the clueless and neurotic quasi-competents who make up most of our species.
In this, there is a weakness in capitalism: unless the audience is controlled, it will create a demand for products that match its (moronic) level of taste and ability. The result is not Wal-mart, but McDonald’s: for the price of a pound of beef at the grocery store, you get a half-pound burger made mostly of soy, but there are celebrities and cartoon characters drawn on the bag and thirty-two ounces of flavored carbonated sugar water!
Contrast that to the 1930s, where everything was more elevated. What was the difference? The buying power was in the hands of the upper castes. Is it surprising, then, that the commercial elements of our society wanted it to grow and to become bottom-heavy? No: they wanted the easy audience to expand, marginalizing the hard audience, who now find that 99.99% of what they encounter in public is insufficient for their needs.
Capitalism has always revealed the queasy relationship between proles and commercial interests. Commerce loves morons because they will pay high markups for cheap items rebranded with novelty, popularity or self-image boosters. Proles love commerce because it makes them feel powerful; someone finally cares what their opinions are. Commerce requires them, in a bondage-style relationship, and for their dollars, it gives them control. They can command what product thrives and what dies. They can tell someone else what to do. They have power.
In that way, capitalism is in their view a replacement for social order. Social order ranks people above one another; with capitalism, all are equal, provided they have dollars in their little fists. Even more, in this form, capitalism works as an equalizer, reducing all to the same level as consumers of the same products. This is why even our wealthiest end up drinking soft drinks and eating fast food: whatever becomes available and succeeds, quickly crowds out everything else.
Capitalism becomes suicidal through this process. Whatever succeeds generates clones, and then the market must kill them off. The race downward means that at some point, innovation is killed and replaced by a circular pursuit of customers who are the least discerning, eventually creating the type of economic curve we see in the third world: a few companies own nearly everything, nothing new is invented, and most small businesses are marginal.
There’s another problem with capitalism of this sort. Like other forms of demotism, including peer pressure and democracy, it cripples decision-making, as libertarian sources notice:
What about Americans’ right to “preserve their culture”? I’m tempted to call it the nativist version of a “safe space,” but cultural preservation is far more totalitarian. A “safe space” is but an enclave – a small corner of the world where politically-correct norms prevail. To “preserve a culture,” in contrast, requires a whole country to impose traditional norms on everyone. And this is crazy: You don’t even have the right to force your culture on your adult children, much less millions of strangers.
The problem with libertarianism is its liberal heritage. “Classical liberals,” like liberals today, believed in the rule of equality and the “invisible hand” of markets and popularity which would choose the best. This is just not so, and if anything, the herd always chooses the worst and does so on the basis of the individual, which precludes any social change that is not optional just like performance under socialism.
So why do I support capitalism?
For two reasons: first, it works and the option fails every time; second, no System of any form can be trusted to run a society by itself. There are no “invisible hands.” There need to be highly visible hands, namely strong leaders and strong culture. The other three in the magic bullet list — aristocracy, nationalism, and transcendental goals — take care of that. Nationalism protects a group so that it can have culture at all. Aristocracy creates good leaders. Transcendental guidance places the fancy world of shiny material objects far away and focuses on the existential quality of life instead.
In fact, the best thing about aristocracy — which necessarily includes a caste system — is that it arrests the endless quest for growth and social mobility, replacing it with stability. As Anomaly UK predicts:
The key point is that nobody in the system has the aim of destroying society. That is an incidental byproduct of the competition for power.
The competition for power, not power itself, is what corrupts. When power exists, it is either in the hands of the good or not. That is easily fixed. But a condition of endless competition for power corrupts everything, including capitalism. Millennials and others should note that our current “capitalism” is far from being capitalistic, having been merged with the welfare state, and also lacks these forces above it. Our crisis is of that making, not capitalism.
Monday, March 7th, 2016
I lurk at Neoreaction blogs; the brand outweighs the message, and for the most part, neoreactionary blogs cover territory that myself, Houellebecq, Charlton, et al covered decades ago. But sometimes there is insight. Neovictorian23 puts a finger on a fundamental problem with free markets:
Crawford has some insights that can add value to the conversation. He probably doesn’t consider himself “Darkly Enlightened” but his placement of our entire lives, and our most basic perceptions, within our relation to other humans is a bracing antidote to the Cogito ergo sum of Descartes and the Sum ergo cogito of Ayn Rand. He’s certainly no “collectivist” but his critique of the libertarian fiction of the Sovereign Consumer making rational choices while swimming in a sea of corporate persuasion is devastating. Neoreaction needs to pursue this line more thoroughly.
For those of us who are free market advocates there is no running away from this problem: much as demotism — the dominance of mass opinion over common sense — rears its head in democratic politics, it also does so in the markets. Consumers (statistically) prefer Big Macs, Budweiser, Marlboro Lights and The Expendables to quality. Therein lies a problem.
One defense of free markets states that thus the masses occupy themselves, and others break away, but this seems to ignore the fact that if many exist as a market for a trivial product, this product will soon displace the better versions which existed before. In the United States, at least, we have seen this pattern play itself out time and again.
What results is that good and functional products get relegated to the luxury category, and cost five times as much as the usual. This is not the worst possible outcome, in that those who allocate money to these products get the quality version. The real effect is that an entire society shifts from quality products to mediocre ones, and adjusts its expectations of life to match. Bad products produce a negative attitude in the population which rewards more of the mediocre.
For this reason, we see the myth of the rational consumer as dangerous: in the desire to find an “invisible hand” system which manages society in the absence of rule by the excellent, a.k.a. aristocrats, we find ourselves facing the same problem that all human systems do. Most people operate at the level of monkeys. They can snap out of it for technical tasks, and even disguise it behind socializing, but underneath, their motivations are the same desperate grab at power while making themselves look important that distinguishes our Simian cousins.
There is no way around this problem. On the Left, the pundits suggest we have a centralized economy which commands what is right, but this works poorly; on the Right, the tendency is to suggest that the market will even itself out. I suggest not a third path, nor a hybrid, but a way between those two using both: a caste system.
When a caste of higher status purchasers exists, and the financial reward is there and nowhere else, the free market system behaves sensibly by rewarding products that fit the discriminating tastes of this group. Those without the money to indulge in certain things go without them, but as a result the rest of us do not suffer lower standards created by “democratization” of commerce.
This form of market was in operation as little as fifty years ago. The upper half of the middle class did all of the buying; everyone else tagged along. As a result, we all benefited from the more discerning taste of those consumers, and products were more durable and of finer characteristics. Since that time, we have abandoned caste for raw democracy, and the products have adapted to their audience and become, like that audience, mediocre.
Free markets are a wonderful tool. Tools themselves however do not present solutions, only methods toward solutions. Without guidance, the tool becomes the master and the goal is forgotten. In the case of free markets, the tool prospers under discipline from the more refined parts of society, but when left up to the winds of change, ends up as a third-world bazaar where quality is forgotten and only novelty and popularity matter.
Tuesday, February 23rd, 2016
Germanwings Flight 9525 joined the short list of airline disasters almost a year ago when it crashed into a mountain. The fascinating wrinkle here is that it was deliberately steered into the stones by a suicidal co-pilot. As usual when there is a tragedy, the first goal is someone to blame.
Many want the company to be liable. In particular, they point to its defensive, offputting reaction:
But the company’s chief executive, Carsten Spohr, projected an image of cluelessness immediately after the crash, blandly assuring the world that Lubitz had been “100 percent fit to fly” and insisting that he saw no need to change the airline’s screening procedures. Then, a Lufthansa spokesman outraged families by describing the airline as a “victim,” like the dead passengers. “You can be a victim when a terrorist blows up a plane,” Henrik Drüppel told me. “But not when one of your employees kills all the passengers.” Lufthansa had every right to grieve the loss of its crew, of course, but missing from the airline’s response was a sense that it bore any responsibility for the crime. (Prosecutors in Germany and France are continuing to investigate whether anyone besides Lubitz might be culpable for the crash; no charges have been filed.)
What no one is talking about here is that Lufthansa was manipulated into this decision by well-meaning laws.
Every now and again, people talk about the plight of the mentally ill. This mentions only half the problem; the other half is the risk of the mentally ill. They are crazy. This means they do crazy things. This is dangerous to the rest of us.
We can sugarcoat that however is necessary to flatter the crowd. We can talk about how they “struggle” and the “challenges” they face. But if we are honest, we should also talk about the danger of having suicidal, delusional, hallucinating and destructive people around. All of those terms apply to copilot Andres Lubitz who was ultimately responsible for the crash.
Under a strict, unregulated open market, Lufthansa would have dropped Lubitz like a hot potato after he dropped out of flight school because of raging depression and certainly after he forged a clean bill of mental health on an FAA form. But if they tried that in today’s society, they would run up against all kinds of rules: medical confidentiality; rights of mental health patients; civil lawsuits for discrimination.
And in that last one is the real reason for the Lufthansa 9525 tragedy: we are so afraid of discrimination that we tie our own hands against real threats.
I have infinite sympathy for Lubitz. Paranoid visualizations, hallucinations and crippling psychotic depression cannot be anything but misery. I do not know how to treat him. I know however that someone in that unstable state should not be responsible for the health and safety of others.
We see the high cost of tolerance in other areas too. We cannot notice that the Third World people have different abilities and inclinations than ours, or that their need is not to come here, but to improve There. We cannot point out that most people are selfish and short-sighted and so democracy is a failure.
Equality, tolerance, non-discrimination and the rest were sold to us as “harmless.” How true is that? Like the shattered remnants of Flight 9525, our society lies shattered on a mountain, as we pick among the wreckage wondering how far backward we will have to trace to find the cause to blame.
Friday, February 12th, 2016
If you grew up after 1789, when the French Revolution formalized liberalism as the Western doctrine, you have grown up indoctrinated in Leftist propaganda. Any idea with its root in egalitarianism, or the equality of all people, is leftist.
This includes democracy, freedom, equality, diversity, pluralism, consumerism and… White Nationalism. While Nationalism itself is an idea as old as time, namely that the ethnic tribe constitutes the nation, White Nationalism is like National Socialism a modern creation. In other words: a liberal version of an ancient conservative idea.
White Nationalism misses the point. This is not red team versus blue team; it is how to save the West from imploding thanks to the influence of democracy, and through that, individualism. We need culture, cooperation and purpose to return and to rule ourselves with kings, not votes, because votes and purchases are made by groups who demonstrate the salient trait of humans, which is vanity as individuals and mass delusion as groups.
Anything short of that is failure. Our current society is a disaster and an unpleasant existential experience because it is failing. All of our institutions are inferior substitutes, our leaders are all corrupt salesmen, the voters are delusional and oblivious, and our culture has become dumbed-down mass appeal madness. This cannot be fixed solely by driving out the ethnic Other. We must fix ourselves, too.
Over at the $PLC, Derek Black makes some interesting points in the midst of groveling and logical fallacies:
Promoting a victim complex for whites does not recognize the oppressed experiences of others not in the position of a white person in society
He may have taken another bad direction into liberalism, but he has a good point about victim complexes. We do not need a victim complex; we need a can-do “let’s fix this” culture. The two are opposites.
White nationalism supports the premise that multiculturalism is a failure, and that politicians trapped in a multicultural status quo are oppressing white people in “their own country.”
Here he is correct, but he misses the underlying point: white people voted for this. Voting transforms individuals into a scared, pretentious herd that always votes for easy lies instead of honest solutions. The solution is to end democracy.
On the other hand, white nationalists consider white people in the US to be ostensibly the victims of an ongoing genocide brought about by immigration and miscegenation, and feel that when they try to speak up about it, they are subjected to a vicious double standard.
No one sensible could argue that this is not true. But: who is enforcing the double standard? White governments, at the behest of white voters.
Most arguments that racial equity programs disadvantage whites who would otherwise be hired or accepted to academic programs mask underlying anxieties about the growth of non-white social status.
Here he is off-base. The problem is that our society is being destroyed, and the only healthy societies are homogeneous ones not heterogeneous ones. This is not about our personal inconvenience, except in that having a society collapse into Brazil 2.0 is highly inconvenient and fatal.
More importantly, white nationalism’s staunch opposition to the gains in numbers and in influence of non-whites makes it a movement by nature committed to suppressing these people.
I think he misses the point here, too. The goal is to have zero non-whites and in fact, zero non-Western Europeans. Western Europeans are the only group on earth that is truly a persecuted minority because of our small numbers and relative wealth. Everyone loves to beat up on the successful nerdy kid, and that’s us.
Though there are plenty of powerful Jewish activist groups pursuing their chosen agendas, it is inaccurate and outrageous to talk about people of Jewish descent as “the enemy” of anyone, as it is essentializing a large group into a fairy tale antagonist.
I agree with him here. Jews are another group under attack, as we can see daily when 90% of the world’s liberals are keen to blame Palestinian terrorism on Israeli “oppression” despite nothing of the sort occurring.
The small, smart and successful groups (3S) like Western Europeans, Jews and North Chinese are always under assault by the rest because we have achieved what others cannot and they resent us for that.
There is no way to advocate for white nationalism but by arguing that minorities pose a threat to our supremacy.
Spot the sleight of hand: is it “supremacy” to ask that we have our own countries? Of course not. He has shiftily conflated world domination with wanting, say, Germany for Germans or Israel for Jews.
Advocating for white nationalism means that we are opposed to minority attempts to elevate themselves to a position equal to our own.
Again he is wrong. We want them to do it in their own countries and to leave us alone. We have our own destiny to plan and work toward.
I believe that a healthy sense of identity and belonging are necessary, and I think being proud of where you came from is important regardless of race or class.
He’s right here. Every group should be nationalist and work in its own self-interest. That is Darwinian, moral and common sense.
I do not believe advocacy against “oppression of whites” exists in any form but an entrenched desire to preserve white power at the expense of others.
Here he is off-base again. We want our own countries and our own destiny, the same as anyone else. Why is this denied? It is white genocide by the resentful herd that gnashes its teeth at the fact that it has not made a successful life for itself as we did for ourselves, before liberalism at least.
The point that White Nationalists miss is that we are not fighting for the current system minus minorities. We are fighting to restore our civilization to a point of sanity, and while race is part of that, it is not the whole. Our society is existentially miserable as it is now and would still be without the presence of minorities. Nationalism is a means to an end, which is allowing ourselves to be ruled by our culture instead of an ideological government and its “proposition nation” united by politics, television, economics and a team identity of a jingoistic variety.
Conservatives “conserves” the behaviors of humanity that produce the best results. Those are four:
- Aristocracy: A hierarchy of our best people ruling as kings, instead of having a “System” of rules and laws to take the place of clear thinking. This includes a caste system so that people make decisions only at the level for which they are competent.
- Nationalism: Germany for Germans, Israel for Jews. This allows the group to have a shared culture which regulates behavior through reward and shame, instead of punishment and law enforcement.
- Free markets: Free markets require Nationalism and Aristocracy, but are the only way to do business that rewards performance instead of conformity.
- Transcendence: We need goals beyond the immediate material convenience of our society. We need purpose and to aspire to greatness, not merely react to “issues.”
There are no substitutes. Either you want the above, or you are happy with the status quo… if it would only favor you a bit more. That approach will land us back in the current position in no time because it is built on the same illusions.
Our society is dying. We are near the drop-off point. Our solution is to stop using methods that do not work, and to start using methods that do. These time-honored methods work. Democracy, diversity, equality, pluralism, tolerance and altruism do not. It is that simple.
Friday, January 22nd, 2016
You see the alternative right in the news lately because with the rise of Donald Trump, we have seen that the “mainstream right” has become dominated by those who are good at compromise, not winning.
Such things should be expected in any political system because when you set down rigid rules, the strategy required to win according to the rules replaces actual winning. This creates a selection matrix for those who are good at playing the System, not those who are going to push hard for goals outside of the system itself. From this condition arose the modern cuckservative who essentially embraces left-wing goals in order to get along with the other politicians who are, in effect, his coworkers.
In response to this, the alternative right began as a cultural movement toward certain ideas and developed into an organ of truth-telling in a time of universal deceit. On the surface, it is a dissident movement against the conclusions of a corrupted system; underneath, it is an attack on the methods and values that allow such systems to perpetuate themselves when all sense and logic suggests their conclusions are wrong. The alternative right is a correction to our current political process as much as to its contemporary policies.
As might be expected, “alternative right” is an umbrella term. It includes those who would otherwise identify as white nationalists, paleoconservatives, New Right, orthosphere, monarchist and anarcho-capitalist (including National Anarchist). There is no resolution as to the outcome of its ideas in the alternative right because it is a think tank for cultural change which wants to build momentum and clarity of vision before it selects specific proposals. You can see this in action over at Alternative Right or its spinoff, Radix Journal.
The one thing the alternative right is sure about: classical liberalism of the equality plus free markets idea is not welcome. In fact, across the alternative right, the sense seems to be that “invisible hand” systems of this nature always produce what we currently have, which is mob rule with cynical low-quality corporations at the top. This outlook synthesizes right wing and left wing ideas, but more importantly, accurately describes the situation of our civilization as a human problem and not a political one. The bigger the mass, the lower the quality.
That leads to conflicts such as the following analysis from Outside In:
This blog, I’m guessing predictably, takes a count me out position. Neoreaction, as I understand it, predicted the emergence of the Alt-Right as an inevitable outcome of Cathedral over-reach, and didn’t remotely like what it saw. Kick a dog enough and you end up with a bad-tempered dog. Acknowledging the fact doesn’t mean you support kicking dogs — or bad-tempered dogs. Maybe you’d be happy to see the dog-kicker get bitten (me too). That, however, is as far as it goes.
A short definition, that seems to me uncontroversial: The Alt-Right is the populist dissident right. Set theoretically, NRx is therefore grouped with it, but as a quite different thing. Another obvious conclusion from the definition: the Alt-Right is almost inevitably going to be far larger than NRx is, or should ever aim to be. If you think people power is basically great, but the Left have just been doing it wrong, the Alt-Right is most probably what you’re looking for (and NRx definitely isn’t).
For the Alt-Right, generally speaking, fascism is (1) basically a great idea, and (2) a meaningless slur concocted by (((Cultural Marxists))) to be laughed at. For NRx (XS version) fascism is a late-stage leftist aberration made peculiarly toxic by its comparative practicality. There’s no real room for a meeting of minds on this point.
As a consequence of its essential populism, the Alt-Right is inclined to anti-capitalism, ethno-socialism, grievance politics, and progressive statism. Its interest in geopolitical fragmentation (or Patchwork production) is somewhere between hopelessly distracted and positively hostile. Beside its — admittedly highly entertaining — potential for collapse catalysis, there’s no reason at all for the techno-commercial wing of NRx to have the slightest sympathy for it. Space for tactical cooperation, within the strategic framework of pan-secessionism, certainly exists, but that could equally be said of full-on Maoists with a willingness to break things up.
He brings up two specific points of interest centered on the same point:
- “If you think people power is basically great, but the Left have just been doing it wrong, the Alt-Right is most probably what you’re looking for (and NRx definitely isn’t).”
- “For NRx (XS version) fascism is a late-stage leftist aberration made peculiarly toxic by its comparative practicality.”
For right-wingers here it is important to translate from libertarianism, which inherited a mostly leftist vocabulary. Statism means having a modern government as opposed to strong power, which can take several forms; “fascism” is a generic container for all authoritarian rule. With that out of the way, you can see his point: the alternative right has not yet escaped the framework of government designed by liberalism. That means that it both supports authoritarian rule, and the type of socialist or other managed state desired by mass political movements.
I think he is correct in these critiques. However, to understand the issue in depth, one must look into the history of the alternative right. The alternative right is a cultural revolution which wanted to escape the taboo on a series of related ideas like monarchy, nationalism, eugenics, human biological diversity (hbd), and anti-democratic thought. It does not come from a libertarian view, but more of an atavistic one. The alternative right is Oswald Spengler meeting Colonel Kurtz at a Nietzsche book club.
As a result of this “cultural” approach, the alternative right is not a political agenda but an attempt to change values. During the late 1990s, I wrote about what were then considered “extremist right-wing” notions on an underground philosophy/culture website, which then expanded into CORRUPT.org during the early 2000s, and now continues on here. Influential also during this time were writers like Michel Houellebecq, bloggers like Bill White and Bruce Charlton, artistic movements like black metal, and the rising libertarian wing that people like Eric S. Raymond chronicled as a means of criticizing the present order. All of these influences flowed together for a number of writers who saw this civilization as a dying, falling empire.
Looking into the future, we can see where alternative right, Neoreaction and the oldest threads of conservatism overlap — and that this is an agenda we can agree on, and which the mainstream right is increasingly supportive of:
- Strong power. We must have arbitrary leaders chosen for their ability to lead, not popular appeal. These both give us direction and keep the insanity of the herd at bay.
- Free markets. Capitalism works; it requires guidance from strong leaders and culture however. Socialism does not work and destroys societies.
- Nationalism. Diversity does not work and destroys societies; homogeneity works very well and should be enforced, exiling all Other.
- Transcendentalism. There must be a higher goal than reacting to the situation as is; we need a way to plan for a future that makes us rise to the excellent, good, beautiful and true.
Right now, no movement expresses these ideas in their raw form. But much as the alternative right used the method of cultural change to accelerate right-wing thinking, and Neoreaction builds from the libertarian wing, future right-wing movements will return to the crucial moment called “the Enlightenment™” when the West broke away from organizing our society according to an order larger than the individual. Those movements will insist we break away from Enlightenment-style thinking entirely.
That much is certain. The question upon us now is how to include the changes since that time in a society which, while greater in every intangible way, did not possess the convenience of the present which we enjoy. My suggestion, a type of thought called Futurist Traditionalism, is that we focus on the fourth point, a transcendental order to existence, and use it to guide our adoption of technology. In other words, we must look to our goals and not our methods and, if our goals are good, use any methods appropriate for achieving them.
With that in mind, what would our right-wing post-Enlightenment future look like? My guess is a lot like now, except that instead of layers of government, you will have a local lord and his staff to solve all problems, and kings at the national level to lead you. There will not be any regulation to speak of, but the local lord will have arbitrary power, so if you pollute a stream he will show up, investigate and make you fix it. Taxes will be low and most of the land will be owned by the aristocracy, who will keep it in near-natural condition. There will be a caste system to keep competition low and stabilize society, but among those who are of the higher castes, free market thinking will be natural and happen with low intrusion from the lords or kings. Life will not be “managed” as by a state, but anarchic, with the dark side of anarchy present: no one will be obligated to accept you, let you live among them, or to sustain you, so your behavior has to fit with that of your neighbors. Culture will be more important than government, and with that, media and entertainment will recede in importance. As with all successful societies, nations will be homogeneous, with a few smart people on top keeping the rest in check because most people and all large groups are unrealistic and destructive in their urges.
After the disaster that was the French Revolution, however, I think the new aristocrats will add one major change to the past and the status quo they will integrate: exile of the lower echelons. The French Revolution happened because under the good leadership of the aristocracy, the lower echelons — who practice r-strategy reproduction and fornicate frequently to produce as many offspring as possible — expanded in population to beyond the carrying capacity of their environment, and then blamed their leaders for not having been so fascist as to curtail the reckless fornication. In the future, leaders will selectively exile the least useful members of the lower echelons, gradually improving the quality of the population and avoiding the bottom-heavy form of overpopulation that brought us liberalism.
The point of the alternative right is to cast doubt on the idea of the diverse, liberal state with lots of regulations as our best possible future. Instead, we need to finally tackle some grim realities: that most people are literally insane, but at a low level, and their decision-making is bad. That in groups humans always pick the wrong answer. That equality is nonsense, and democracy is suicide, and diversity is merely population replacement for the convenience of our Leftist leaders. And in crossing a taboo line, we must acknowledge that our survival depends on us reversing the pathology of equality, which everyone seems to follow because parroting the dominant idea leads to success.
With liberalism, we have now seen the truth: it behaves like an infectious pathology, spreading between minds, forming a giant mass of zombie ideologues who refuse to acknowledge the failing of their ideas. These take over society, displace the nativist population with imported third-world labor, and destroy that civilization as thoroughly as Athens and Rome exterminated themselves biologically and culturally. To avoid that, we must give up on the fond ideas of liberalism, and return to realism, which is what all non-Leftist movements including neoreaction and the alternative right share.