Amerika

Posts Tagged ‘monarchism’

Aristocracy

Wednesday, August 16th, 2017

The modern era is defined by the focus on the human individual which is its core. That perspective inverts, or changes into its opposite, every value of the past, because those values were not focused on the self but on the order outside of the self. We must re-learn everything that was common sense in the past because we have not forgotten it; it was altered.

Such is the case with aristocracy, which modern people do not understand at all. To them, aristocracy means “rule by rich people.” This is typical of the modern materialist view which judges people as economic and political actors only, and is blind to the actual question of humanity, which is individual quality by wisdom, intelligence, spirit, moral character and talents.

Aristocracy recognizes that most humans are low in ability and motivation to do anything more than serve a relatively limited role in a local area. It also sees that, in emulation of nature, humans are pack animals who need strict hierarchy so that each individual knows what to do at any given time. If that is not present, humans revert to their monkey nature and become destructive.

The order of the pack can be achieved several ways. The simplest is combat; the strongest and best fighter wins. The problem with this is that it excludes wisdom, so humans sometimes choose instead those who make the best leaders, which is a combination of fighting and intellectual skill. This produces leaders who are able to manage others and understand long-term goals, and under that, we prosper.

In this way, aristocracy rises naturally. Any group of two or more people requires a leader, much as every home has a Man and Wife in complementary roles. The leader is not chosen by a vote, but by natural ability, judged by those who are most likely to be his peers; in other words, a hierarchy forms from the top down, and choices pass this way as well. This process emerges from human behavior.

To the dismay of moderns, this means that not only is there no voting about who should be the aristocrats, but there is also not universality. That is, if you are on the bottom of the pyramid, it is not expected that you would understand the choice per Dunning-Kruger and therefore, your opinion is not sought or wanted. Those of the highest ability, as demonstrated and perceived by others of high ability, make these choices.

Even more to their surprise, this means that aristocracy is the exact opposite of what they think it is. They think it means that we give power to the wealthy; what it actually means is that we find our best people, and give them wealth and power. This way, they will use that wealth and power toward good ends, and have no need for more so are uncorruptible.

The point of aristocracy is to conserve the good in our society by placing it on top of the hierarchy as an example and so that the rest of us benefit from its abilities. These good people then own most of the land, and tend to keep a good deal of it natural, as the “green belt” in Britain was before it was torn down to make housing for immigrants.

In turn, aristocrats are permanently bound to duty. Rarely do any quit their positions, and they know that they and their descendants will be held responsible for whatever they do. Further, they are not politicians who view their roles as a job, and society as something contracting with them, but representatives and part of that society, inseparable from it.

It is not surprising that aristocrats in the past and present tended to be hard-working and diligent about getting the details right, something none of our politicians seem to care about.

Aristocracy includes a hierarchy and caste system. The hierarchy expresses itself in different levels of aristocrats — kings, dukes, counts, lords — who form a cascading power structure from the king downward (empires are generally a religious construction, and violate the principle of nationalism, so will not be discussed here).

Power is strongest when it is most local. The lord of a certain parish or county will have more direct power over his citizens than the king, who has no limits on his power, but tends to administrate at a higher level. This means that instead of bureaucracy, case-by-case decisions by those actually in power are used to regulate society, making law and red tape less important than anticipate consequences of any action. A law says that pollution from a plant must be below a certain level; a lord may order the plant to cease any action that pollutes at all, or any other action that in the view of that lord, disrupts the local community.

As a result of its cascading structure, aristocracy creates a society around it that follows a mesh pattern as seen in agrarian societies. Instead of huge cities as hubs, there are many smaller cities surrounded by towns and outward from that, villages. These overlap to some degree such that while the individual is never that far from civilization, human habitation is also dispersed so that its negative effects are lessened and no one is anonymous. Instead of a binary hierarchy, where there are those in control and those who are subject masses, there is a tiered hierarchy where everyone has a place and, unless they prove grossly incompetent, will retain that place on the basis of its local connections. This spreads stability and security, and ends the competition that has incompetents aggressively campaigning to become wealthy.

In addition, under aristocracy civilization is liberated from herd opinion. There are no thronging masses waiting to be inspired by the political trope of the day spoken from on high. Instead, there are leaders who are directly accountable for their actions, and who can filter out troublemakers by exiling them. Aristocracy inherently recognizes that whatever is popular is wrong, and that what requires someone of intelligence, moral character and experience to see is what will work best in the long-term, which is the only time scale that counts because only when people can rely on their surroundings to be consistent throughout the ages can they trust that their work and efforts are worth doing.

Aristocracy also implicates a caste system, which generally fits the form of 1% Brahmins, 9% Kshatriya, and 90% Vaisyas and Sudras. Brahmins are the leaders, priests and wise men; Kshatriya are the warriors and artisans, and make up today’s middle classes; the Vaisyas are the merchants, and while they can be quite wealthy, are not accorded respect as leaders, and Sudras are the working class with several levels within it. This caste system ensures that each person can compete at a level where they can do well, and that they are not given power they do not understand how to use.

This caste system arises from an understanding that traits are heritable, as Charles Darwin taught us in the West. Someone who is good at leadership, if he marries a woman of similar ability, will have children with that ability unless they are abused or have some mutation so grotesque that it damages them. In the same way, the other castes perpetuate their traits as well, and the only way for people to rise in status is through multiple generations of actions which are above and beyond what others at their level do.

Such as it is, this outlook is cynical about wealth. Those who are good at making money are bad leaders because the two are entirely different skills; someone who is good at making money aims only toward a narrow end, profit, while someone who is a good leader aims for good results in reality, which means something that benefits civilization as an organic whole, or an entity in which each of us serves unequal roles apportioned to our abilities. Aristocracy is based in duty and excellence, and the ability to make money easily implies an opposite of that, which is why aristocrats do not behave like our rich people now.

Inherently nationalistic, aristocracy recognizes each nation as a tribe of its own and the interests of that nation as inseparable from those of the tribe. There can be no separate entity, like government, which manages society for its own ends; aristocracy manages society to thrive because only that grants the aristocrat success, and since they already have money and power, only success at real-world tasks will allow them to advance in stature in their society. Since humans are social animals, and status competition is a hard-wired behavior, this redirects an otherwise abusive human behavior into a constructive one.

Those who criticize aristocracy generally mention its downfall, but few mention that it avoided the worst of the wars which we unleashed on ourselves later, drove off the worst of the threats, and made our society prosperous enough that mass revolt was even possible. As we have seen through the last few centuries of conflict, corruption, social decay and a failure of our cultures to produce the same abundant art, learning, architecture and literature that they did under the monarchy, we were better off in the long-term with aristocracy.

Why We Need Aristocracy Always

Monday, August 7th, 2017

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.

Interview With The Mad Monarchist

Monday, July 24th, 2017

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.

Find The Enemy Before He Destroys You

Wednesday, July 12th, 2017

When under attack, there are two reasons to find your enemy quickly: first, to figure out where to counterattack, of course, but second, to know where the enfilading fire is coming from.

As we approach the end of modernity, it becomes clear that the enemy is not clear. We are fighting a guerrilla war where the enemy can look exactly like us, act like us, and still be evil in intent. This means that we are surrounded by false enemies that we will not know are distractions until we destroy them, and then notice that the problem remains.

Mjolnir took up the quest to avoid the “JQ” and instead to focus on the actual problem, which is mental breakdown within our citizens and social order. Their analysis encourages a more holistic view than the JQ can provide:

These “Hitler was right” types have no sense of reality – or of history – and think that Joe Public is suddenly going to start embracing the Führer and revolt against their masters. The problem is they spend all their time in little cliques and on the internet and then believe everyone is like them deep down.

[There is] a wider problem in the movement, and that is a sort of autistic focusing on a single antagonistic group, as though with the removal of that group, the whole world would hold hands and sing songs together. For some it is the Jews, for others the Muslims, still others Negroes, and so on. And here I believe young Jack has been led astray by older heads who ought to know better, but who, like their Leftist counterparts, have never grown up – people who in middle age and beyond still fantasise about the Third Reich of their imagination. While I do not subscribe to the official narrative concerning the Third Reich and the Jews, the fact remains that that regime had determined upon an expansionist war in the East, beyond the 1914 boundaries, in order to turn White European ethnostates into German colonies, a war that would cost millions of lives of the best of European men.

…So what does one do with the Jews? The simple answer is they have a place to go: Israel. And that is why Israel is actually needed. Individuals who have attempted to ensure our genocide must be punished as individuals, just as those individuals of our own people would be. Yet one cannot put all the world’s woes on Jewry. Do not forget that only a few centuries ago, they lived in ghettoes and were forbidden power. So who let them out and why?

Our problem has always been eternal human weaknesses. No strong nation perishes solely from outside influence; it commits suicide by choosing illusion over reality. Since our society began to thrive, our people have been entranced and zombified by the idea of “equality,” which really means that each person can be part of society no matter how much or little they contribute.

When this situation — a default weakness of humankind, emboldened by The Renaissance™ and legitimized by The Enlightenment™ — gained power, the result was the French Revolution, which left behind a prole-goverment so unstable that it quickly embarked on a world war to spread democracy to everyone. Since that time, we have been repeating this pattern, over and over again.

The solution is to get away from the idea of equality. We are not equal and we need hierarchy. We cannot rule ourselves with mass votes, no matter how much we adjust democracy with Constitutions and regulations; democracy is evil because it is based on the lie that people are equal when in fact they are not.

Part of this involves changing how our culture works. We can expect to be unequal participants in a larger process, each with a unique role, or we can demand that we are equal and be interchangeable conformists repetitively doing the same stuff. The most profound realization of our time comes from recognizing that equality does not work, so our choice must be the other option.

That notion is creeping in from the edges of mainstream consciousness:

My personal opinion is that the form of government where a person is anointed as ruler by the clergy and receives not just a mandate from voters to exercise governing powers for a certain period of time, but a sanction from God, through the Church, to his rule—and the rule is for life, until the monarch passes power to his heir—has proved itself favorably in history. It has many advantages in comparison with any election-based forms of government where a person comes in for some specific term.

While everything said there is true, it still dances around the issue: some are more fit to rule than others, just like some are better musicians, plumbers, neurosurgeons, soldiers, artists, writers, athletes and dancers than others. You cannot take a generic (“equal”) person and turn them into a world-significant leader. You must find the raw material for that leadership first.

Democracy and equality totally oppose that idea. In the narrow mental landscape of equality, only a “meritocracy” is safe, which means treating everyone like they are equal and forcing them to leap through endless hoops, choosing the most obedient and least likely to see things differently. This is how societies fall into lock-step around illusions and self-destruct.

The future belongs to those who recognize what just became obsolete in the past, and therefore what to avoid investing in. Equality is the ghost of the last century and the one before it, but as of 2016, its validity as an idea died. The future belongs to those who think outside of the mental ghetto of equality.

Alt Right Ideas Lead To A Lord Of The Rings Civilization

Tuesday, June 20th, 2017

The Alt Right confuses modern people (“moderns”) because it does not fit into their ideal of government. It takes together what seem like disconnected ideas and from them, projects a vision of a civilization that is traditional but future-oriented.

As at least one commentator has noticed, this looks a lot like what was portrayed in The Lord Of The Rings:

Often this is referred to as “anarcho-monarchism,” which captures the way monarchy is different than government: monarchy does not regulate and control its citizens, but rewards good behavior and throws out bad behavior, while setting a standard and exhibiting leadership, or the shaping of a nation toward a qualitatively better version of what it is while defending it against threats:

The text of his sole anarcho-monarchist manifesto, such as it is, comes from a letter he wrote to his son Christopher in 1943 (forgive me for quoting at such length):

My political opinions lean more and more to Anarchy (philosophically understood, meaning the abolition of control not whiskered men with bombs)—or to ‘unconstitutional’ Monarchy. I would arrest anybody who uses the word State (in any sense other than the inanimate real of England and its inhabitants, a thing that has neither power, rights nor mind); and after a chance of recantation, execute them if they remained obstinate! If we could go back to personal names, it would do a lot of good. Government is an abstract noun meaning the art and process of governing and it should be an offence to write it with a capital G or so to refer to people . . . .

And anyway, he continues, “the proper study of Man is anything but Man; and the most improper job of any man, even saints (who at any rate were at least unwilling to take it on), is bossing other men”:

Not one in a million is fit for it, and least of all those who seek the opportunity. At least it is done only to a small group of men who know who their master is. The mediaevals were only too right in taking nolo episcopari as the best reason a man could give to others for making him a bishop. Grant me a king whose chief interest in life is stamps, railways, or race-horses; and who has the power to sack his Vizier (or whatever you dare call him) if he does not like the cut of his trousers. And so on down the line. But, of course, the fatal weakness of all that—after all only the fatal weakness of all good natural things in a bad corrupt unnatural world—is that it works and has only worked when all the world is messing along in the same good old inefficient human way . . . . There is only one bright spot and that is the growing habit of disgruntled men of dynamiting factories and power-stations; I hope that, encouraged now as ‘patriotism’, may remain a habit! But it won’t do any good, if it is not universal.

Last week, as I watched the waves of the Republican electoral counterinsurgency washing across the heartland, and falling back only at the high littoral shelves of the Pacific coast and the Northeast, I found myself reflecting on what a devil’s bargain electoral democracy is.

Our goal in this time is to treat the West like a garden: prune the dead, nurture the healthy, and remove that which will never be healthy. We can take what remains of the good and put our focus on it, and reward it, therefore getting more of it, while driving away that which sabotages or otherwise ruins our civilization.

In doing so, we will be doing what intelligent people have done since the dawn of humankind, which is to focus on qualitative improvement instead of trying for something “new” that reflects more our own biases and prejudices than realistic thinking:

Why The West Needs Kings

Friday, May 12th, 2017

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

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

Trumpism Is Not An Attack, But A Defense

Sunday, November 13th, 2016

Over at The New York Times, the usual gang of idiots make the case for refusal to accept a Donald Trump presidency. They couch this in moral language:

Evil settles into everyday life when people are unable or unwilling to recognize it. It makes its home among us when we are keen to minimize it or describe it as something else. This is not a process that began a week or month or year ago. It did not begin with drone assassinations, or with the war on Iraq. Evil has always been here. But now it has taken on a totalitarian tone.

Evil has settled into the USA, all right, but it happened long ago, and was inherited from the crumbling Western Civilization in Europe.

This evil, like all evil, appears to be good. It sounds pleasant and causes our brains to release squirts of dopamine when we hear it. It is the idea that there are no differences between human beings, therefore we can accept everyone, sparing us the need to be on guard against error and evil, including malevolent human beings.

The Trump election was an act of self-defense by white and other Americans who realize that the ideology of equality will not stop until it destroys our society. By demanding that the unequal be raised, it is inherently bigoted against and will always seek to destroy the successful, normal, healthy, moral and sane.

Only when mediocrity rules will people feel “safe” because their own failings are invisible, camouflaged in the chaos of a lack of social order and acceptance of evils.

With Donald Trump, people voted against Political Correctness and the idea that we need to “correct” our society with equality. Instead, they voted for nature: let those who can succeed rise, and the rest need to go somewhere else, because trying to “fix” this natural Darwinistic condition of life causes us to become a monster managerial state like the Soviet Union.

The Left, which supports one form of this evil, is counter-attacking by telling us that acting in our self-interest is bad, while everyone else acting in their self-interest is good. This is a classic egalitarian position: a double standard disguised as morality, in order to take from the successful to give to the unsuccessful, who will then run society into the ground by repeating the same behavior patterns that made them unsuccessful in the first place.

As The Huffington Post writes:

We elected a racist demagogue who has promised to do serious harm to almost every person who isn’t a straight white male, and whose rhetoric has already stirred up hate crimes nationwide. White people were 70% of the voters in the 2016 election, and we’re the only demographic Trump won. It doesn’t matter why. What matters is there’s a white nationalist moving into the Oval Office, and white people — only white people — put him there.

What they call “white nationalism” is really “white self-defense,” if it is even “white,” given the high number of non-whites who voted for Donald Trump.

We do not want to be forced to give up our society to the same people who occupy most of the globe and are having troubles succeeding with their methods. First, we want to be able to exist, and not be ethnically cleansed through mass immigration and outbreeding; second, we realize that most societies do not succeed and that we need to stick to the methods that made ours succeed, including having a unified culture and heritage, and taking Charles Darwin at his word and promoted the most competent instead of taking politically correct positions.

The Left wants a recurring human dream to become real. This dream appears in pacifism, egalitarianism and other fantasies that we can all “be One” by removing our differences. In nature, as in mathematics, differences propel change and through that, better results displace weaker ones. This is reality; the Left opposes this not for the reasons they state, but because as individualists, Leftists want to avoid having to face the challenges of life itself. They want the intent of their egos to be more important than the results of their actions, and this life-denying philosophy will lead to failure here as it has elsewhere.

Across Western Civilization, notably the United States and Europe, a revolution is brewing against Leftism. We have now seen where it leads and that resembles the Soviet Union plus anti-racism, the philosophy which has given Leftists unlimited power since the second World War, too much for our tastes. We see that it is a path to doom not just for us, but for our civilization and with it, for humanity.

Modernity — outside of technology, which we like — has brought us existential misery and failing societies. We are pushing back. As another article in The New York Times (ironically) tells us, this may require doing away with the illusions of The Enlightenment™ which enshrined individualism as our highest goal:

Indeed, the modern history of Europe has shown that those countries fortunate enough to enjoy a king or queen as head of state tend to be more stable and better governed than most of the Continent’s republican states. By the same token, demagogic dictators have proved unremittingly hostile to monarchy because the institution represents a dangerously venerated alternative to their ambitions.

Reflecting in 1945 on what had led to the rise of Nazi Germany, Winston Churchill wrote: “This war would never have come unless, under American and modernizing pressure, we had driven the Hapsburgs out of Austria and Hungary and the Hohenzollerns out of Germany.”

This election is more than a pivotal American event. It is a huge change in the direction of Western politics, and a watershed moment for humanity. We are realizing that what seems good is often evil, and what seems evil is often good, because appearance is not how we should judge our choices; results are.

Humans are self-destructive by nature. Our big brains tell us what to like, and those brains understand the world through forms that are convenient for our brains to process. This breaks down the complexity, nuance and depth of nature into little identical boxes called categories, and leads us to think those categories are more real than reality. But they are not.

The Left needs to understand that peaceful coexistence with the rest of us is not possible. We have rejected Leftism as a philosophy and will continue to do so. We have resurrected our self-interest through self-defense against people who want to destroy us. If it is fair for others to do that, it is fair for us to do it, and no amount of egalitarian hand-waving can conceal that fact.

Benefits of Monarchism

Sunday, October 30th, 2016

benefits_of_monarchism

Reactionary Future weighs in on the topic of compromise and tradition:

The closest analogy would in effect be monarchism, and it must be noted that it was under monarchism that Christianity arose. A fully secure and competent monarchical organisation, and not a mere bourgeois insecure power sham monarchy as in the case of constitutional monarchy would indeed be able to embrace the virtues and end capitalism as well as the rest of your demands, precisely because capitalism is a matter of anarchist based conceptions of property as mere possession. A true neoabsolutist monarchy would acknowledge that primarily all within the sovereign’s territory is their possession, and subsequent ownership by those in society is property, and that ownership of property would need to be in accordance with the greater good which is now aligned with the sovereigns good.

To expand: monarchism is an artifact of aristocracy, which provides a forward-facing society by choosing its best people and entrusting them with power, instead of seeing who has the power and trying to limit them or force them do what is perceived to be “right” by a large committee with no actual accountability.

The Alt Right Needs To Double Down

Wednesday, August 31st, 2016

city_ablaze

Within minutes of globalist candidate Hillary Clinton opening up both bores of her nagging grandma guilt shotgun on the alt right, dissent broke out like a rash as the alt right began the difficult task of finally formalizing itself.

Self-policing becomes inevitable in artistic movements, musical scenes, cults, gangs, religious sects and political shockwaves like the alt right. Any distinctive ideal which does not police its supporters will be taken over by those who want to use it for their own ends.

This “entryism” explains why so many once-promising movements become the opposite of what they started as. For example, most Leftist movements start as well-intentioned programs to help people. This can be seen most clearly with the Greens and Anarchists, who started out with unique ideas and ended up as wings of the Leftist parties.

In the case of the alt right, there are numerous people who are now trying to re-define the alt right as one of the following:

  1. A less PC version of the mainstream right.

  2. A more PC version of White Nationalism.

Those attempts ignores the fact that the alt right rose up in the first place because neither of those options — Republican or White Nationalist — fit the needs of the generations who grew up after the Leftists took over in 1968. In particular, the alt right attacks two trends:

  1. The current leftist takeover of our society through political correctness.

  2. The need to get Western Civilization out of a death spiral and back on a path toward greatness.

Conventional conservative movements have utterly failed to arrest either one of these trends. In fact, by pledging to be “bipartisan” and work within the System, conservatives have co-opted themselves by adopting the assumptions of Leftism within a conservative context, thus obliterating any “conservative” ideas.

On the other hand, White Nationalism has also failed, mainly because it is an outrage and not a plan. White Nationalists want a variety of things, usually centered around the idea of all white people hanging out together and being equal. This kind of “ethno-bolshevism” does not appeal to Europeans, who defend their specific national identities, nor Americans, who identify with various strata of whiteness (Western European, class, region).

That alt right does include something simpler: white self-interest. This is inherent in the term “nationalism,” which in its historical and correct use refers to ethnic nationalism, or the definition of a nation by its founding ethnic group and not political or economic systems.

White self-interest includes a desire to disconnect ourselves from political correctness by rejecting the stigma of the term “racist,” to cut ourselves free from immigration and the liberal welfare state, and to be able to freely associate — which requires abolishing anti-discrimination and civil rights laws — with our own without some Leftist politician shipping us inner city people, foreign refugees or deranged homeless people.

But on a broader scale, and in consideration of the second concern of the alt right, how did we get to this state?

Some blame individualism. This seems plausible, except when one wonders what the cause of individualism (placing concerns of the individual before nature, civilization and God) might be. There must be some root for this dysfunction.

One might plausibly blame diversity. Northern Europe encountered its own Siberian and Mongol immigrants early on, and the same people who populate Northern Europe once also wandered through China and India. When diversity is introduced, it destroys social trust, and so people become individualistic: the self against the world, including civilization.

Another view is that individualism arises when a society becomes fatalistic. This can come from several sources. First, by succeeding, it loses any inherent sense of purpose, which in early civilizations is to defeat threats in nature and establish consistent nutrition and safety. It could also be, as I argue in my book Parallelism (yet unpublished), that success as a society causes a ballooning of the population of people who could not survive without civilization, leading to the “idiots rule” situation of today because what is popular shifts from what is realistic to what is unrealistic.

Still another view comes to us from the writer Thomas Pynchon, building on what William S. Burroughs wrote: entropy. Over time, things decline. The more centralized they are, the more catastrophic that decline is. And so, when a society becomes efficient and orderly, it creates the seeds of its own destruction.

Knowing life, or the way things work out at a level of pattern and not material, it seems likely that a combination of these introduced a crisis. Against all odds, Western Europeans thrived; in turn, this brought parasites and attackers, and then created a society so focused on stability that it forgot to be Darwinistic and periodically clean house and re-order itself.

This could be the core dilemma that the alt right addresses, and the reason for the seemingly savage and chaotic nature of its activity. We do not need new policy, but a house-cleaning, where we send away the Other and then turn to the bad amongst us, which can no longer hide in the chaos of diversity, and exile it. Under this calculus, both Hillary Clinton and the fourth-generation welfare families would be headed to Brazil via cargo plane.

In this perspective, the alt right can fail only one way: by not being extreme enough.

Already it is under assault from special interest groups. Some want it to go National Socialist, and blame the Jews for the downfall of Western Civilization; others want “civic nationalism,” which is essentially the liberal State, instead of ethno-nationalism; still others want a religious basis to it. And then there are the many who want it be simply a restored form of GOP conservatism. All have missed the point.

In this way, they will reproduce the exact same thing that made Republicans and the White Nationalists both fail: they will destroy a comprehensive message and replace it with a special interest group that will leave the status quo mostly intact.

Mainstream conservatism and White Nationalism both failed. They attracted those who were fanatical about certain issues, which created groups which could not find agreement on the big issue: what type of society do we desire, and how do we get there?

White Nationalism for example tells us that we want the existing System but only for whites, ignoring the problems that groups of mixed-whites have had merging in the past. Look to Northern Ireland, or even Poles in the UK, or perhaps the fate of Sudeten Germans or even the veiled conflict between the mixed-white North and the WASP Confederate States of America.

Even more, it leaves the same system that produced this bad result — democracy, rule of law, individualism and personal liberation from social standards — intact. White Nationalism, like most revolutions, will reproduce the conditions before it, just in a worse form (a type of decay). Republicans will leave the decay intact in order to pursue symbolic issues and rake in money.

This leaves us with a problem in the West: we have been taken over by parasites, and nothing will drive those parasites away except to cut off their source of nutrition. That happens for the lower through the welfare state, and for the higher through the state itself, which hires them as politicians and bureaucrats.

For the alt right to succeed it must then oppose the root of the problem, so that people are guaranteed actual change to avoid the conditions they see today — and to obliterate the decay which has chased Western Civilization for centuries, eroding our faith in ourselves and our sense of our future having meaning and something good coming out of it.

This requires that we identify the actual enemy, which is both intangible and invisible. It is popularity. Put together a group of people, and they react socially, which means that they avoid difficult truths and instead focus on what keeps the group together. This leads to compromise on all important issues.

To tackle this, we must be both moderates and extremists. We must be moderates in that we do not scapegoat partially culpable groups (minorities, the rich, the elites) but focus on the policies that bring us into conflict. Diversity, for example, is a policy: the idea that a state can be comprised of people of different backgrounds.

It is not extremist to note that culture arises from genetic similarity, and that politics arises from that. Nor is it extreme to say that voting removes responsibility from both voters and leaders, and that it leads to bad decisions. Where we must be extremists is to say that enough is enough, and we need these dysfunctional policies — which produce parasites both high and low — removed.

Us extremist moderates have a difficult task. We must be cool-headed and realistic, but then knowing the nature of the human tendency toward entropy, must push hard for long-term solutions applied evenly and completely. This redefines the term “moderate” from meaning “bipartisan” to meaning “common sense,” and then gives it a strong authoritative push toward full implementation.

The grim truth of humanity is that we destroy ourselves. We try to find a theory that fits all the people in a group, instead of looking for a theory that fits all the data in the external world and history. In so doing, we end up choosing a crowd-pleaser that is a loser, every time.

With popularity, entryism occurs into every idea. It is watered down to what flatters individuals by making them think themselves magnanimous, and it makes the group have warm fuzzies because it feels that it is unified and cannot be divided, therefore each individual is safe in the protection of the crowd.

Most movements self-police the wrong way. They set boundaries, and look for those who overlap beyond that edge, and then declare the problem solved. This misses those who are subverting the definitions at the center of the movement, and cuts out people who are providing necessary challenges.

The only way to police is to look at the center. Is this person basically heading in the same direction toward solving the problem? If so, let them in. If they deny or subvert a central part of the argument, such as being pro-democracy or thinking that solving one aspect of the problem magically fixes the whole, you have an entryist: a zombie of the dominant paradigm who has found your movement and will, deliberately or not, subvert it.

The alt right needs to double down on its core appeal: modern society is insane. It is illogical, destructive and cannibalizes its best people to keep its worst voting for the Leftist ideals that it has endorsed. This is the end result of leadership by committee, or vote by popularity.

With that in mind, it makes sense to look at how the alt right can defend itself.

Entry Thresholds

These are minimum requirements for someone to participate in the alt right. They focus on goals, not boundaries, and serve to draw focus to what is actually being worked towards.

  1. Strong ethnic nationalism.

  2. Irreverent, extreme and nearly sadistically offensive humor.

  3. Resistance to centralization.

The average liberal convert will want to find a version of the alt right that avoids the great liberal no-no of ethnic nationalism. This person will start by saying that maybe all of those who can assimilate to our culture can be included, or that what we need is focus on a political and economic system.

Saying “Western European countries are for Western Europeans only,” and pointing out that France should be for the French, will alienate this person and drive them back into liberalism to see the contradictions in their own thinking for awhile.

Similarly, those who fear realistic humor are opposed to realism itself. If something is true, it forms the basis for humor, especially if it is absurd. The convert from liberalism will try to neuter this into a crowd-pleasing “we can all get along” sense of mild humor.

Finally, one must beware of those working within the liberal paradigm, which is that a universal value is established, everyone is forced to obey it, and then government enforces it. If you argue for free markets, localism or any other form of decentralization, this person will experience a freakout.

Acceptance Thresholds

These apply to those you are willing to give voice to, by repeating their memes or ideas or by advocating their inclusion in anything more exclusive than the general group. Here you are trying to filter out people who have understood the basics, but are unwilling to be moderate extremist in application.

  1. Rejection of democracy.

  2. Rejection of equality.

  3. Assertion of biological imperative.

We are in a democratic system. Therefore, most people will be coached in finding a democratic implementation of any solution they find attractive. The problem with this is that even limited democracy quickly leads to mob rule, and the mob always chooses flattering illusions over reality, just like committees always pick the solution that rocks the boat the least. Individuals fear for themselves and choose compromise over solutions.

Equality is the basis of democracy and the Left. Those who want to set up a white ethnostate and then implement equality have missed the point. We need hierarchy, or each person acting in a capacity suited to their abilities, which are innate and biologically determined and cannot be implemented by education or obedience.

Finally, the biological imperative will scare them senseless. This says that culture is not universal, and that its root can be found in the genetics of specific populations. Those populations create their culture wherever they go, as fits their abilities and inclinations, which they share as these are genetic traits.

Anyone who does not grasp the above has adopted only the surface of alt right theory and does not understand the alt right as something distinct from a slightly more extreme version of mainstream politics.

Inner Goals

When choosing leaders, it is important to look for those who share the ideals of a movement on the basis of goals. That is: what type of society do they want to create? What is their definition of civilization? Those who do not understand these are entryists who will, by compromise, re-create that which they claim to dislike.

  1. Restoration.

  2. Repatriation.

  3. Physical Removal.

Restoration means a removal of democracy and materialism and their replacement with a society in which inner values determine outcomes. This means an end to “systems” and an organic society where all institutions are in unison, collaborating on a spirit toward transcendentals, or the intersection of what is excellent, true and good.

Very few are willing to publicly endorse Repatration, and they usually hide behind the pragmatic argument that it is difficult. So what? — most change is difficult, but if it ends in a better condition, then it is worth doing. Even carrying on with the present ruin of a civilization is difficult.

As a side note, those who oppose repatriation with reparations may be reacting emotionally. The right way to heal a historical wound is with generosity and benevolence, but also an unwavering commitment to setting the problem aright. Diversity fails, so those who are diverse to the founding group must exit the host nation. No compromise.

Finally, we reach the controversial idea of Physical Removal. This states that a healthy society is not Leftist, and for that reason, those who are Leftist must be viewed as a fifth column and sent elsewhere. It does not (necessarily) mean killing them, but in its gentlest form, means exiling them to a Leftist wonderland like Brazil, where vibrant diversity, rampant sexuality, and few social rules means they will be at home.

At all times ask yourself: what is our goal? It is not measured in the issues of today, or of tomorrow, but those things which for 6,000 years of human history have separated the thriving and rising civilizations from those which are headed to third world status.

The alt right is not another wing of the failed ideological movements of the GOP and White Nationalism. It is the antidote to those: a historical shift where people are willing to undertake the difficult and do the unthinkable, and remove the layers of our current system as if we were peeling an onion, creating a functional and ascendant civilization instead.

At the end of analysis, there are two ways to create human civilizations. Either we develop a spirit toward the good in ourselves and promote those who exhibit the best of it, or we accept everyone and try to bribe and threaten them into being good. We have tried the latter, and it has failed, so no vestige of it can remain.

This is why the alt right must double down. All of the entryists will serve to dilute its message and appeal to those of us who recognize that not only is diversity Hell, but so are all aspects of modernity, including sacred cows like democracy, pluralism, government and equality. They must all burn or we end up in the same condition.

To a person from the present year, this will seem like ludicrous extremism. And yet it avoids what defines extremism, which is a special interest group which takes to violence for one issue. We want civilization change. We want it now. Our current path is a path to death, and the only solution is to get entirely off of that path.

The Post-Reactionary Society

Thursday, July 28th, 2016

gateway_to_the_lands_beyond_postmodernity

What made Neuromancer, the 1984 sci-fi book by William Gibson, stand out was its ability to visualize what a network-enabled world might look like. Despite some anachronisms, the book showed us how it would look if people were cruising around cyberspace, and launched a whole flotilla of imitators.

In the same way, it is important that we are able to visualize what a Reactionary — for the sake of clarity, let us put together philosophies that are more similar than they are different: Reaction, Alternative Right, Neoreaction, New Right, Paleoconservative — society might look like.

A good start can be found in my distillation of the Right, or at least of the non-Leftists out there who tend toward realism, with the four pillars:

  1. Rule by culture. Government and police are inferior methods compared to citizens who view society as a cooperative endeavor toward a goal, according to principles held in common. These are a product of culture. To defend culture, all who are not of the ethnic group must be excluded; this is a principle called Nationalism. With nationalism, government is deprecated and day-to-day order is kept through use of shame, ostracism and exclusion to keep outsiders and saboteurs at bay.
  2. Hierarchy and excellence. Society can either take its rich and powerful and assume they are good, or find those among its people who are excellent — superior in ability, leadership, intelligence and moral insight — and give them the wealth and power to use well. 99% of humanity will make these decisions wrong, and all people in groups will choose to avoid facing real issues. We need those who do the opposite to have power and wealth to ensure that it is used well, much as (in theory) we entrust nuclear weapons only to those of excellent character.
  3. Positive reward systems. Again we face a primary division: we either force everyone to conform and look for anomalies to punish, or we diligently reward those who do well so that they ascend to positions of leadership. A heroic culture does some of this, but on a more practical level, so does capitalism: it rewards those who find opportunity and meet needs, as kept in check by culture and hierarchy.
  4. A transcendental goal. No healthy society has merely material goals. It aims to achieve the impossible so that it can constantly improve, such as the motives of ancient societies to achieve balance, harmony, equilibrium and excellence. Religion is part of this, but not the whole. We must collaborate toward a goal again and have it be more than tangible, but eternal.

But what would this look like to an average person? In my upcoming book, Parallelism, I describe more, but here is a basic illustration:

America has become a nation again; all those who were not Western European in blood, or who could not pass for that and demonstrate a majority of Western heritage, were repatriated with reparations to their home continents. Ireland in particular was thankful for the reverse in its population crash and new blood of the many German-Irish hybrids sent back.

The big cities suffered crashes as a result. This provided a convenient excuse to gut them and relocate their populations to a network of smaller cities, each under fifty thousand people. These are separated by extensive farmland and wild land, with the proviso that 50% of all land must be kept in a natural state, unvisited by humans except for maintenance purposes.

A network of aristocrats has cropped up, with most serving as local lords. These positions go to lower aristocrats, and the young of higher aristocrats, so that they may learn how to lead. These local lords serve as judge and jury, leader and advisor in their communities, both telling people what to do and making helpful suggestions.

They are aided by, in each town, a team of wise elders. These men have survived into old age and also are valued for their judgment, so now, they convene every afternoon to advise their local neighborhoods, villages and quadrants of cities. They have the ability to dispense payment of some funds, and to exile people.

Beyond that, there is not much law enforcement. Those who transgress are exiled instead of being jailed. This means that some people lose their citizenship for something as simple as smoking a joint or getting drunk and beating on a wife. The wise elders and lords know that Darwin is still with us, and in a healthy Darwinian cycle, much of each new generation is pared off because it does not meet quality control standards.

In this society, “Good is the enemy of perfect,” and the leaders fear most of all that they will unwittingly enact a half-solution and let problems ferment under cover of time. As a result, despite their merciful nature, they tend to be free with their demands for exile, sending away the foolish, retarded, criminal, incontinent, unchaste, corrupt and parasitic. Perhaps a fifth of each generation is sent to the lands to the South, for nature to remix their DNA into the third world brew and stabilize it.

Unlike previous societies, this society idealizes laziness and pleasure. Its goal is to get through its required tasks with as little fuss as possible and to then spend most of the day in enjoying life. This way, people do not live for false goals such as ideologies and trends, but see life itself as timeless and participate as a means of being excellent versions of what they were born to be.

Jobs have been scaled down. Each person has a social rank based on what roles their ancestors serve, and they serve those same roles. Apprenticeships take care of most education except for the upper castes, who hire private tutors, as do small groups of people who want their children to have formal education. This provides essentially unlimited labor for any college graduate. There is no public education; apprenticeships, journeymen, homeschooling, and private education have taken over. Similarly, there are no “rules” about jobs. People are offered work and can take it or not. The rest is up to them.

Laws are almost nonexistent. The courts and lawyers cost too much for any normal person to get justice, inverting their own function. Now all cases are heard in front of a lord and, if a local lord fails too many times, his fellow lords may intervene. Sometimes they do not, recognizing that all but a few complaints are individuals projecting their failure onto whoever is in power at the time.

As a result however life is more relaxed. With countless legal costs and expenses from government regulation cleared aside, living is far cheaper, as is food. Most people work a few hours a day, then come home to spend their time with family, books, games, loafing and playing instruments. There is no desire for novelty or uniqueness because these things failed with the collapse of the last regime.

Lords can order executions. A murderer is normally ordered to pay restitution to the family of his victim, and will spend the rest of his life doing so; if he fails, a posse is summoned and they take him to a place of execution and kill him in the traditional way with a spear through the eye. No one much cares, because to get to that stage you have to really screw-up, and this society is more focused on defense of the healthy normal than the screw-ups.

Local business exists in pretty much the same form as now. Grocery stores and other vital suppliers maintain the techniques that made them highly efficient but, in the absence of regulation, are able to lower costs. They also fear less for the ability to hire and fire at will because the employees have no recourse, but in a cheaper society, have a few months to cruise if they just save a little money. Charities exist in a private sense only, and churches routinely help those who encounter life’s little speed bumps.

The Lords tend to divide people into three groups: contributors, destroyers and grey people. Contributors are those who have since an early age shown a pattern of doing good, or at least attempting it, in the mundane sense that gets no reward but is noticed by others. When another contributor testifies for an individual, he is seen as a contributor as well, and if he fails, the one who testified for him will experience doubt regarding his contributor status.

Contributors will find their interests defended. A grocer whose store is vandalized will be attended to. Other types of business have disappeared because none will defend them. For example, a strip club that burns to the ground will find no contributors willing to vouch for it, and so no one opens strip clubs. Similarly hair salons and manicure shops find themselves without defenders, and quickly fade away.

At the edges of the civilization are anarchy zones, where there are no rules and decent people refuse to set foot if they can help it. Many exiles end up here, but generally, these communities are unstable and frequently break out in violence and disorder. As a result, they are not permitted near the rest of civilization, nor is backflow allowed. What happens in anarchy zone stays in anarchy zone, as does everyone involved.

America has its first monarchs, and they tend to be descended from the Anglo-Saxon tribes. At the top of the pyramid of aristocrats are those who could be in line for the monarchy, and they choose among themselves who will attain that role. Most of them hope to heck they never have to do it, because it is a job with zero vacation, zero hours that are truly off, and a term for life plus penalty of death if the nation fails.

Technology persists and its results are everywhere, but on a slower scale, because people realize that greater efficiency leads to greater control, and that it is usually better to be slightly less-efficient and to have more relaxed lives. A cultural revolution has occurred where people no longer look to external social factors for guidance, but have turned within, to look to what they can know so that they may understand the world in a transcendental method. This is a more religious society, without an official religion.

This has changed what people value. Where in the past, they thought of themselves, now they think of where they fit in an order, including that above material and beyond our world. People seek to improve themselves, and this is seen as the activity of life, in addition to just mucking around and having a good time. Life moves slowly and people find themselves, against what they thought would be the case, more fulfilled and less neurotic.

Critics of the Reactionary society said that it would never work, but what they really meant was that it would not work for them, and so many of them have voluntarily relocated to “free” societies in the third world. The rest are focused on the activities of humanity for time immemorial: learning, growing, enjoying, appreciating family and knowledge, and being active outside. As a result, a great relaxation has set in where people are content to simply be themselves.

Perhaps at the end of all of this experience what humans have learned is that humanity itself is a prison. Our drive to control, perfect, make uniform and refine leads us to self-destruct, and it did in every society on earth but ours. Instead, we stopped doing what “everyone” agreed was right, and struck out for what we could verify in reality was good for us. It has made all the difference.

Recommended Reading