The Alt Right and Neoreaction are casting about for a future they can visualize as successful and comfortable. For the most part, ideas like “patchwork” and “formalism” have been recognized as thought-experiments, not realities, and it has simultaneously become clear that liberal democracy is in full collapse. So what comes next?
Our education system is state church making everyone go to church and attend religious festivals. In other words, degree inflation To deal with this, needs a full on attack on priestly power. We need a revolutionary transfer of power analogous to the dissolution of the monasteries.
Let us dial it back a bit and review the events that have led to this point. Several thousand years ago, the society Plato described as ideal shifted from inside-out to outside-in; that is, it went from deciding what would enhance the divine in reality, and using material power as a means to that, to desiring material power in itself by assuming that such power was divinely ordained or did not require the divine.
Since that time, we have been trying to find material reasons for striving for something beyond the material, and failing by gradual degrees to the point that our civilization has slipped into partial third-world status. This occurs because while idea can influence the material, the converse is not true; material is a method, and the tool becomes the master in absence of a purpose independent from the tool.
Revolutions occurred because the kings, the last vestige of inside-out reasoning, were thwarted by the bourgeois and peasant revolutions. This replaced clear power with unclear power. Instead of having a single point of decision-making, it was done in almost an ad hoc manner based on what the herd was trending about at the time, which made individuals feel important just like playing a lottery did, but failed to produce any clear direction.
To understand this, we must look at the nature of revolutions. Revolutions say that the methods used by society are wrong, and so must be replaced. This is done to argue that the current system cannot be reformed because it is limited to methods that do not work. The consequence of it is that a semi-functional system is discarded and then recreated.
In this way, revolutions are like tantrums. People do not like how things are going, but have no idea of where else to go. They have a tantrum, and depose those in power, then recreate society as they know it. Since what they know was the previous regime, they rebirth it but without certain methods, which means that its fundamentals remain unchanged.
The real revolution we have to experience is not swatting away things we find wrong in the present system, but looking to where this system has mistaken purpose and fixing that. Bad methods arise when the goal is confused, and that occurs when society has no inherent purpose but randomly acquires goals in response to threats.
We might characterize the last few thousand years as the “reactive” era. Instead of thinking of divine goals, people reacted to problems on the material and methodological level. This contrasts the fundamental nature of the West, which I posit as “reflective,” or prone to look within for an understanding of the world outside, a variety of inside-out thinking based in finding transcendent ideals.
This is not limited to a religion, or religion itself. Rather, it is an approach to life that requires us to discipline our internal selves to the order of nature — avoiding hubris, or the all-too-common human solipsism that makes us think our intent is more real than the world around us — and then according to that structure, to find ideals that make life rewarding on an existential level.
Is education ruined? Perhaps, but all things can be fixed with a basic method, which is to replace the purposelessness of class revolt with a sense of purpose to our civilization, and then to apply Plato’s formula of “good to the good, bad to the bad.” This creates a Darwinian filter that promotes the best over the rest, improving quality and through that, finding clarity.
We need no more revolutions, or any other reactive approaches. We need a creative approach. This can only be found through the reflective principle, and the idea of gradualism or qualitative improvement that has guided us in the past. It is this seemingly unconventional but ultimately sane answer that guided us in the past, and the spasms and tantrums of revolution that interrupted it.
You are controlled, whether you acknowledge it or not, by a narrative of self-pity that induces you to act against your best interests.
This self-pity narrative takes the following form: some large and shadowy organization or government is manipulating you, and you are a victim, and so the best option is to overthrow and take what is yours along with everyone else.
These narrative never pay attention to how large controlling entities are created. When people revolt, chaos results, and then there is a need for some strong power to keep basic order, like having the lights stay on and the trains run roughly on time. The more people revolt, the greater the power of what comes to rule them in the next step.
And yet, people never learn. They refuse to, because in order to learn, they must accept first that the problem is us, or really, our intent. We intend to be “free,” but have no idea what that means, so we abolish sensible rules alongside the bad ones, and end up with a failure of social order and then the tyrants step in, promising to solve our problems — in exchange, of course, for power.
Even in the most free societies this happens, but instead of granting power to one tyrant, we create many: government, industry, special interest groups, mafias, unions, lobbyists and gigantic corporations. We then try to regulate those, but this makes them more powerful by giving them a maze of rules to hide behind.
Witness the narrative of self-pity:
The bad guys control you. You win by rebelling against them. And then, you get another large company which extracts money from you by making products which are designed not to be repaired. It has been the same every time. The victimizer is us, and we are our own victims.
Leftists hate White Americans. White Leftists hate White Americans and fear their precarious state of being that which they hate. So what does the White Leftist attempt to do? Take control and brand themselves as different White People. According to the DNC Chairmarxist from Idaho, who is running for the national DNC Chairmanship, she is here to dictate what White people are permitted to say.
No, I kid you not. This is what the DNC Chairmarxist from Idaho, Sally Boynton Brown; has to say for herself.
“My job is to shut other white people down when they want to interrupt,” Brown said during a DNC candidate forum. “My job is to shut other white people down when they want to say, ‘oh, no, I’m not prejudice; I’m a Democrat; I’m accepting,’” Brown bellowed during the forum, which was hosted by MSNBC’s Joy Reid.
So guess what happens? People believe the dishonest DNC CHairperson and start assumming they can help her out and take matters into their own hands. You get garbage like this.
This will eventually escalate into assassination. This will happen for several reasons.
People who disagree with certain opinions held by a spectrum of Conservative, Traditionalist White people feel morally entitled to silence and stifle these opinions. This eventually becomes a self-imposed moral mandate to do so by any means necessary.
People who want those opinions gone are becoming increasingly shrill and desperate in their attacks. The escalation stages have gone from:
Insulting and berating anyone who dares to suggest these people are correct.
“Jokes” about people’s family members.
Direct verbal confrontations with people’s family members for the sake of personal harassment.
Physical violence targeted at these people intended to intimidate them into silence.
People such as Lauren Duca and Chrystelyn Karazin offer passive-aggressive cheerleading for each new step of violence. People on airplanes who get screamed at by nut-jobs have it coming for dressing provocatively.1 Ten year old kids can be accused of being future school shooters by “Comedy” writers and it’s totally cool because everyone is “just kidding.” People can be punched in the street and they deserve it because they disagree with a popular YouTuber while sounding “arrogant and smug.”2
So obviously, the next step is the assassination attempt. At which point the passive-agressive maggots who cheerlead and excuse every step in the escalation progression then silently disappear. No responsibility or culpability is assumed when cute little Knockout Games get turned into, you know, violence-violence.
So I’ll lay this post down a marker. These people who hate the messages of certain individuals and use that as a justification to cheer for escalating harassment against them in public propitiate two consequences that Lauren, Christelyn and all the rest are not going to like.
Someone who is a couple of root beers short of a crate will feel justified in publicly murdering some of the people getting abused by these Leftist demonstrators. For those reading this whose beliefs are to the left; remember what a joyride you thought it was when the weirdo wounded Gabby Giffords.
Someone or a whole bunch of someones who are collectively a good gallon short of a keg are going to decide that the only lives that matter are the lives of people represented by the group most willing to send the other guy straight to the morgue. This is how Rawanda-Burundi turned into Rawanda-Burundi – one cute little “joke” at a time.
That won’t bother the Left. As long as the ones getting the machete are non-Leftist white people.
1 — I wonder if Lauren Duca believes the same about women getting diversity-raped in Sweden and Germany.
2 — No racial stereotyping intended there. No Siree, Bob.
The Purge: Election Year was released thirteen months after President-Elect Trump’s announcement of his candidacy, giving the producers plenty of time to tap into the periodic emotional frenzy of democratic societies. The theatrical poster evoked the themes of Trump’s campaign, including the tagline “Keep America Great.”
For those unfamiliar with the Purge series, it portrays a near-future USA where a pseudo-fascist nationalist party rules with popular approval. Once a year, in an extreme hybrid of ancient Greek ostracism, eugenics, and Escape From New York, all laws are suspended for 24 hours. While most people with the means and organization (middle-class and above) seal up in their homes and wait it out, some venture out into the wild to enact some extra-legal justice or to unleash the beast within them in psychopathic violence. The more disorganized areas of the country, like urban ghettos, predictably devolve into a melee of chaos that leaves a good portion of the population dead.
Interestingly, in the movies’ internal history, this policy has resulted in a healthy economy and 1% unemployment rate, as well as widespread popular support. The movies portray the Purge as a time of fear where families cower in the fortress-like homes, but what would really happen if professional law and medical services were removed (with warning)? Look to the behavior of American pioneers: common citizens join together for protection in times of danger, such as savage redskin attacks. In this light, the Purge seems like a way to weed out those communities incapable of such basic organization.
In Election Year this becomes explicit, accompanied by the anti-majority ethnic animus which has reached a fever pitch over the past decade. The establishment — apparently all conservative white males of Anglo-Saxon heritage — are under threat by a new, exciting candidate in the form of a white woman with hipster glasses. After a failed assassination attempt, she and her gay-looking bodyguard end up with a group of various ethnic minorities from poor neighborhoods.
They fight their way back to safety against a cadre of stereotypical evilwhites including militia men with Confederate/Nazi flag patches and Russian tourists. Long story short, our oppressed heroes join up with the multicultural Rebellion ripped off from Star Wars for the millionth time, and win over the evil conservative white people in the end. The Purge is ended forever, and the incompetent are safe again.
Unlike the first Purge film, this fails even on the level of exploitation/thriller by wasting most of the screentime with its bloated moral message. It performed well at the box office due to the political tie-in, suggesting producers will attempt more such movies, but the surprise majoritarian electoral upset may have changed the cultural taste. Already the tropes trotted out in this movie seem like the tired cliches of a past age.
The professional media class is in clueless disarray because it insists on finding an economic reason for the Trump and Brexit revolts. In doing so, it (as usual) cherry-picks data to support its own assumptions.
The election was a complete repudiation of Barack Obama: his fantasy world of political correctness, the politicization of the Justice Department and the I.R.S., an out-of-control E.P.A., his neutering of the military, his nonsupport of the police and his fixation on things like transgender bathrooms. Since he became president, his party has lost 63 House seats, 10 Senate seats and 14 governorships.
The country had signaled strongly in the last two midterms that they were not happy. The Dems’ answer was to give them more of the same from a person they did not like or trust.
Preaching — and pandering — with a message of inclusion, the Democrats have instead become a party where incivility and bad manners are taken for granted, rudeness is routine, religion is mocked and there is absolutely no respect for a differing opinion.
Not surprisingly, that attitude met raised middle fingers in the UK and US after only seven decades of its present form. These middle fingers to business-as-usual are a revolution against civilization decay brought on by allowing a criminal class to seize power. They are a desire to get out of the scam that is liberal democracy, equality and diversity.
People have tolerance for new policies. They are willing to give them a chance. When you tell them that immigration is good for the economy, they may believe you. But then when they see that immigration tanks the economy and also destroys social order, they turn on you. Why? — because you either (a) lied or (b) are so incorrect as to be delusional. That means it is time to remove you from power and also rip out anyone who supported you, because all of you are de facto insane.
Europe and the USA are currently in the process of removing the Leftists who have ruled us for the past 200 years, and we are heading toward the fork in the road where we chose to give Leftism a chance. This time, we are sure that Leftism is 100% fail and so we need something that is, first and foremost, not Leftism.
That already feels like a different era. The winds of change in western democracies have since whipped up into a storm and, as the Brexit vote and the election of Trump demonstrated, voters have stopped giving the answers their politicians expect.
…On the hard right, Matteo Salvini, leader of the anti-migrant Lega Nord, is also surfing the wave, describing Trump’s triumph as a strike against globalisation: “It’s the revenge of the people, of courage, of pride, of the desire for work and security; and it’s one in the eye for the bankers, the speculators and the journalists.”
In other words, for exactly the same reason the Soviet Union fell: nothing was working, and those in power were not subject to recall when things were not working.
Even more, as in the Soviet Union, they were guided by a social ideology: an idea that is so appealing to human brains — equality — that like lab test monkeys on crack, they sacrifice everything for it.
This is the core of Western decline. When civilization succeeds, it simultaneously loses its inherent mission and gains a kind of “algal bloom” of people who could not succeed without the safety of civilization. This increases unrealistic thinking as a factor, and causes people to rationalize the lack of mission instead of doing the hard work of finding a new one. From this comes individualism, which in its collectivized form is Crowdism, which in turn manifests in Leftism which is a spectrum from classical liberalism through Communism that inevitably advances toward the latter stage, a tendency called “Progress.”
Those who rationalize the decline are “goodwhites.” These double down on their ideology because it makes them feel good about the transition to third-world status, and they are vicious to anyone who fail to join them in denial, illusion and fantasy:
Goodwhites pose as our moral superiors: so-o-o-o tolerant, open-minded, progressive, humane… But they are in fact, though, nasty pieces of work: vindictive, self-righteous, cruel, contemptuous of their fellow citizens.
The correct response to all that is not niceness, it’s a good hard kick in the crotch.
This is what voters have realized. The goodwhites will never stop because they are reality-averse. They do not care about the consequences of their actions. They do not seek to be responsible. All they care about is feeling good through the crack-like drug of social ideology, and they want to destroy — not just defeat, but crush and kill — all of us who resist.
Trump/Brexit is more than a series of political events. It is a cultural revolution against the class of criminal parasites who have dominated the West for the past seventy years by demonizing any potential alternatives as Literally Hitler. Those in turn are merely the farthest advance of the same group that has corrupted the West since at least the French Revolution.
This group is made of our own people, the “goodwhites.” They are either mental defectives themselves, or socially weak — low self-esteem — people who are easily cowed by the stronger, clearer “philosophy” of the defectives. But now a revolution is underway to throw them out, and in so doing, to begin the renovation of Western Civilization.
The modern world creates a vast amount of stress, but most of what is written on this topic misses the point becaue instead of seeking out the cause of stress, it becomes mired in victimology.
Richard Spencer mentioned in one podcast that people get “red pilled” by life (referring to the movie The Matrix) causing them to “see” realism. Psychologically this might be categorized as “developmental stress”. Here is one description:
In our Trauma Continuum, we recognize “developmental stress” as a unique and separate category of behavior. It involves the neocortex part of the brain and the Social Engagement System part of the autonomic nervous system. We describe stress as “developmental” because an excess amount of it delays children’s development. Stress is simply the body’s adrenal response to an increased demand for energy.
Developmental stress has distinct behavioral symptoms, and involves awareness that is anchored in present time. The Social Engagement System (SES), a set of five cranial nerves identified by Stephen Porges, help keeps people socially and emotionally engaged during stressful relational experiences. The SES allows people to receive support from those closest to them, which reduces the flow of cortisol and other stress-related hormones.
The take-away in this argument is that excess stress can delay children’s development. This means that adults emerging from this “condition” are effectively “behind” and getting “red pilled” won’t work actually. It is therefore futile to think SJWs just need to get pilled. What happens in my opinion is that they become virtually entirely dependent on the SES.
For the non-SJWs getting stressed can also be a problem, as described herewith:
Distress causes concern or anxiety, is experienced as exceeding our normal ability to cope and feels unpleasant. It can be short-term or longer-term, typically decreases the ability to perform tasks and if long-term can lead to mental and physical fatigue.
Eustress is a term for positive stress that helps to motivate, to focus attention and energy and feels exciting. Eustress improves our ability to perform short-term tasks that are within our normal ability to cope. Stressors are difficult to categorize objectively because people react differently to similar situations. Having a child, taking a holiday, getting married, beginning a new job, buying a home, retiring, moving and receiving a promotion all seem like eustressors because they imply positive events.
The take-away in this argument is that stress can be positive or negative. In a negative sense it decreases performance and in the positive sense it increases performance. However, what the article does not mention is that:
The left (brain) hemisphere controls the muscles on the right side of the body while the right hemisphere controls those on the left.
The take-away from this left-right brain to body alignment is that it affects stress response. In other words, a person will benefit from eustressors only as far as his body alignment allows. For example, if a right-brained person with a dominant right hand is being stressed by something, that person will not be able to write. Or if that same person has a dominant right leg he/she will not be able to run. This mechanical inability will increase stress levels, which, if unaware of this condition, this person’s performance will deteriorate further.
So, there are a number of natural conditions that prohibit humans from experiencing positive stress. The point however, is that stress provides additional energy that can and should be used to each person’s benefit. This can also be used to organizational benefit of course. For example, the Military is famous for testing soldiers where only those unaffected by stress will stand a chance to be qualified.
This is when war becomes glamorous. The best men become soldiers fighting for the family, country and their God. They perform the most beautifully timed and daring acts to become celebrity stars with uniforms and flashing medals. The projected military expansion is expected to maximize the use of drones combined with Special Forces soldiers on the ground. Everybody is enamored with drone technology while it all would have been impossible without soldiers that can handle stress.
Closer to home, home-owners and workers also need to be able to handle stress. This is reflected by the recognition given to people confronting criminals and hoaxers. We are still glad when hearing about some grandmother slapping a mugger with her purse. Then we are amazed when we hear how some journalist or television channel has been lying to us.
The stress the media and their billionaire shareholders put us under inhibits our performance and is slowing us down because we only realize that our own representatives (people like us) are playing us after the fact. Then we become dumbfounded because you cannot seem to stop this fraud and corruption, meaning that we have become powerless and afraid.
Quite simply put, this is “Politics-of-Fear” perpetrated by liberal-democrats. This is what we have become – fearful and powerless. But fortunately stress is also positive and already leads the way out of this mess. All we have to do is to follow our new warriors (who enjoy the stress) to fight all those traitors in our midst while soldiers fight foreign enemies.
Therefore the term warrior requires redefinition because our declining civilization requires a “reset” (sic). Our new warrior dispensation has been described by Curt Doolittle as follows:
We need warriors in the following matrix: three classes i.e. upper, middle and lower class squared off with three specializations i.e. Force (soldiers), Communication (gossip and trolling) and Trade.
I believe that we have advanced some way down this path already. I believe that many of us like to have stress while our liberalized enemy is literally afraid of it. With such an effete enemy it’s going to be beautiful.
So there was this teacher-dude named Socrates who enjoyed a game of mental chess. Perhaps you could consider it a fairly highbrow version of The Dozens. He’d debate the best and brightest of Ancient Athens and leave them sucking their thumbs with the pants around their knees.
Anyone playing Dozens in East St. Louis will wager his life if he plays too well against the local street pharmacist or one of his boys. Socrates wagered his by playing against the foremost citizens of Athens and was sent up the Acropolis by a kangaroo court and ultimately faced the death penalty. The whole history of Western Philosophy, Government and Civilization would have gone in a different direction if the dumb old coot had handled his bidness like a Clinton.
You see Socrates, like the Clintons, had his fan boys and admirers. There were people in Ancient Athens who would do a few things for him and pull the wires where needed. Just remember which flunky turned which trick, and no Hemlock and Tonic for the Smarty-Pants. His little B!tch-Boy Crito was ready to get Socrates out of town. But No! Socrates was difficult and couldn’t get past his hang-ups. He speaks his Beta-Maleness below.
Then consider the matter in this way: Imagine that I am about to play truant (you may call the proceeding by any name which you like), and the laws and the government come and interrogate me: “Tell us, Socrates,” they say; “what are you about? are you going by an act of yours to overturn us — the laws and the whole state, as far as in you lies? Do you imagine that a state can subsist and not be overthrown, in which the decisions of law have no power, but are set aside and overthrown by individuals?” What will be our answer, Crito, to these and the like words? Anyone, and especially a clever rhetorician, will have a good deal to urge about the evil of setting aside the law which requires a sentence to be carried out; and we might reply, “Yes; but the state has injured us and given an unjust sentence.” Suppose I say that?
No Clinton would ever be that stupidly callow. Hillary Clinton was no more likely to ever be indicted for her market making in state secrets than Cersei Lannister was to stand trial before The High Sparrow. I mean if the state tries to injure one of the elite, the state will be dealt with. We have an entire caste of people who are immune. They get their pathetic little Lynchs and Comeys to make the system run more properly.
Perhaps the silliness of Socrates was a distant foreshadowing of Kant’s Categorical Imperative. Could you really run an entire state if everyone decided the law was mutable and selective in application? Ganzalo Lira suggests the state remains possible only when citizens are almost uniformly law-abiding even when the boys in blue are off at the doughnut shop. He describes a failure of this state of affairs as Middle Class Anarchy.
I’m betting that more and more of the solid American middle-class will begin saying what Brian and Ilsa said: Forkit. Fork the rules. Fork playing the game the banksters want you to play. Fork being the good citizen. Fork filling out every form, fork paying every tax. Fork the government, fork the banks who own them. Fork the free-loaders, living rent-free while we pay. Fork the legal process, a game which only works if you’ve got the money to pay for the parasite lawyers. Fork being a chump. Fork being a stooge. Fork trying to do the right thing – what good does that get you? What good is coming your way? Forkit. When the backbone of a country starts thinking that laws and rules are not worth following, it’s just a hop, skip and a jump to anarchy.
And why should this just be restricted to passive resistance by aging citizens? Suppose the muscles, sinew and raw materials that build and maintain a nation make the same decision. Fred Reed ponders this from a military perspective. Is a general any better than the level of compliance he receives when he issues commands?
[I]t’s the grunts who will begin to revolt, first in small ways (as in the 101st in late 1968, “No sir. We are not going up that hill again.) and then, quickly thereafter (As in 1973, “Fuck you, asshole.”) By that time the media may get wind of things and spin it exponentially out of control. That’s what I think.
Regardless of what you may think of the following three things:
Illegal socialization of losses and privatization of gains by powerful and politically connected banks who are then bailed out of their own collapse.
The ongoing and poorly led conflicts in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan.
An ambitious politician literally selling our nation’s most vital secrets in return for more money to burn on political ambitions.
Ask yourself the following question. Yea, though I walk through the Valley of The Shadow of Death, am I truly the baddest fothermucker in the valley? If not, make your preparations. A world where people live like Kurt Schlichter’s polemical description is not livable. It is a chaotic hell.
The idea of the rule of law today is a lie. There is no law. There is no justice. There are only lies. Hillary Clinton is manifestly guilty of multiple felonies. Her fans deny it half-heartedly, but mostly out of habit -– in the end, it’s fine with them if she’s a felon. They don’t care. It’s just some law. What’s the big deal?
It’s no big deal. It really isn’t. The universe cares not if you, I or Pope Francis all three get gacked tomorrow. It’s a big deal to me if I get gacked, but that only matters if the neighbors think it matters. Hillary Clinton’s continued and disingenuous excuse for a career asks Amerika an important question. “Oh, what difference does it make?” Be ready for some very unpleasant answers.
The disease runs deep. How deep? So deep that our entire perspective is polluted with assumptions that affirm the steps preceding our current condition. This creates a sense of learned helplessness: we see no other way than what we have now, and while what we have now is bad, it is stable and so we put up with the long slow decay.
That’s normal — people have been doing this for over 2,000 years. For a long time, we were able to coast in the middle where we were slightly dysfunctional, but historical events pushed that over the edge. Now, if we want to get back to before the decline and start over, we are going to have to take on a truly ancient outlook:
For in truth the notion of monarchy had, by that time, undergone its own period of absolutism to become its own opposite as well, and the German kings of England were there by the sufferance of oligarchic powers.
To get a true idea of kingship, we will have to go back a bit, not merely to the middle ages, but even as far back as Aristotle.
As liberal democracy melts down into a puddle of entropy, and we see that for the past two centuries our leaders have steadily worsened in their mismanagement of our wealth and futures, the idea of looking for alternatives raises its head. Who wants to have to constantly fight over elections, political ideologies, and whether one form of control brings more “freedom” than another? And our results could not be any worse than a series of world wars, disastrous social experiments like equality and diversity, and other frivolous nonsense that anyone with a brain would reject — but which, in groups, even intelligent humans enthusiastically affirm despite their being obvious signs of these paradoxical practices failing all around them.
Monarchies are proven to help build social solidarity, creating a sense of continuity and togetherness around one family; they are also a healthy way for a country to project patriotic feelings, which otherwise might turn nasty. Monarchs serve as relatively neutral figures, especially useful in societies that are beset by class, clan, ethnic, religious or linguistic divide.
My feeling is that not only is he right that monarchies are superior, but that monarchies are returning. Democratic governance, like unions, adds a huge overhead and creates a parasite class which is much broader than an aristocracy could be. Because democracy must mobilize large groups of people around ideas, all notions are simplified and turned into victimhood narratives. There is no way to make a sane decision with this approach.
And yet, what would it be like to really roll back to an ancient aristocratic system? Plato gives us the lynchpin in The Republic:
When discord arose, then the two races were drawn different ways: the iron and brass fell to acquiring money, and land, and houses, and gold, and silver; but the gold and silver races, not wanting money, but having the true riches in their own nature, inclined toward virtue and the ancient order of things.
There are two basic approaches to choosing leaders. Either you see who gains power, and let them have it, or you see who are your best people, and give them power and wealth. The former picks people who are good at elbowing others out of the way, and the latter chooses those who are good at making situations excellent by looking past our immediate fears and pragmatic constraints. The ancient aristocracies were of this latter type.
Plato describes an archetypal class warfare situation, sort of like Revolution 0.1b: the top of the IQ and character curve are the gold and silver races, and they fascinate themselves not with methods, but with outcomes. Below them are those who are interested in methods, and finding methods that work best to take wealth from the combined bounty of society, which rewards cleverness and a meanness of spirit. Profit after all requires that more be taken than is given, and while in healthy capitalism there merely an exchange of values that benefits all, as soon as civilization encroaches on that business, it raises costs and creates an adversarial relationship.
A better technique is to make method secondary to goal. Aristocrats function in terms of goals, not methods, and as a result, they reach good ends; others focus on methods, and let those methods determine the end as a side-effect of self-interest to the exclusion of all else, also called “individualism.” As a society grows, it inevitably generates more people than it can employ, and those then need subsidizing, which converts self-interest into individualism as people desperately try to find ways to keep all that they have.
In every sense of the word, Leftism is one of these workarounds. We proclaim everyone equal and give them all subsidies, but then, some people gain privilege in the centralized system required to administer this giveaway. They in turn benefit because dumping money on the clueless means that these people then spend that money crazily, rewarding businesses of a crass type which tend to have higher margins than difficult or thoughtful work.
Every human civilization in history has gone out at some point through this mechanism. To a Leftist, this means that civilization itself is doomed; to a more sensible analyst, it means that the method that “seems” right is in fact wrong, much like throwing water on an oil fire is a terrible idea, but not a visually and immediately perceptible one — until it is tried. Civilizations destroy themselves through equality and the resulting dependency it creates.
Monarchism is an antidote to this process of decay. The best people are entrusted with wealth and power as caretakers of it, preventing reckless growth. This means that people have work and can live on a lot less, so they are under a lot less stress. This in turn promotes a greater enjoyment of life, and a tendency to spend more time on experience and less on proxies for sustenance.
If we go to monarchy, there is no point going half-way. We need a redesign of our economies, politics, and society. This only occurs by changing a centralized principle, and by reversing the direction of wealth from method to goal, we create that change in a way that will always point us toward the better.
You show me a good loser. I’ll show you a loser. – Cameron Newton, QB, Carolina Panthers
Canadians are generally decent, soft-spoken people who offend virtually nobody. It doesn’t make them weak or unmanly excepting the subset whom I’ll speak of below. The Tories, Canada’s Cuckservative alternative!* Leave them alone with a knife and a 5th of Canadian Mist and they’ll never need birth control again. Once a supposedly conservative political party no longer stands for the proposition that a legitimate, traditional marriage involves the union of one woman and one man under the auspices of God the Creator; I can’t think of any particular aspect of Western Culture or societal values that they still give a rat’s rear end about preserving. Their own jobs and pensions maybe?
But it was not just how they went about it that signaled a changing party. It was what they did. While most attention focused on the resolution dropping the party’s insistence that marriage was “the union of one man and one woman,” that was far from the only noteworthy decision of the convention. For the Conservative party to vote to decriminalize marijuana, to take but one example, would not so long ago have been unthinkable.
And how did this capitulation make them feel? Liberated. They could have peace. What utter baloney. Canadian Cuckservatives are only liberated because the leftist rape phallus has temporarily shot its wad. They don’t have to throw in the towel – not when it would be more fun if they used it to go hang themselves. This is exactly what they are doing. Auto-erotic asphyxiation on the installment plan.
The Revolution™, you see, will never reach an end. They will have peace until the Thinking People need another dildo to distract the mob. I can garun-fricken-teeya they will be stuck with the tab the next time the eternal Progressive Visigoth Holiday runs out of beer. There is no such a thing in Realityland as the gubbermint dime. There is always an implicit (or real) bayonet at some poor producer’s throat for every last bleeding shekel of largesse. The vice will invariably be tightened time and again, as long as there is some discernable delta between Canada and Venezuela. As long as lootable fuel remains, they can always get made to once more feel the Bern.
This brings us around to where we pretty much should just acknowledge Cam Newton was one hell of a lot more politically astute than either Mitt Romney or John McCain. When a man advertises himself as the political equivalent of a boytwat, then the political equivalent of a priapic phallus will smell it on the wind. A “leader” like a McCain or a Romney is only necessary or wanted for something that can occur in the backseat of any Coupe Deville in five minutes or less. This tells the life story of the modern US GOP and the Canadian Tories as well. Cuckservativism Is Suicide. The Conservatives throughout North America deserve far better.
This question came up recently in a discussion of conservatism where the phrase “1788 conservative” was used. This one floats around at the periphery, but I have heard it in real life as well as on the internet, and think it deserves elucidation.
The name “1788 conservative” refers to this:
“My principles are only those that, before the French Revolution, every well-born person considered sane and normal.” ― Julius Evola
The French Revolution began in 1789, and so “1788 conservatives” are those who see this as a horrible error and want to go back to the point before the error, and try again.
We tend to see the French Revolution as formalizing the decay of the West. The decay existed long before that, but picked up when political and military pressures weakened our aristocracy and our society did not support them. Rules made on paper are never good, but having enlightened and intelligent people in charge always works.
The aristocracy made this happen at every level: kings, dukes, and lords. These served as a mediating force on growth and finance, kept most of the land intact as hunting preserves, conserved culture and religion, and avoided the unbroken string of idiotic decisions and pointless wars that democracy has embarked upon.
The term “Right-wing” came about after the French Revolution to describe those who thought the ancient order before the Revolution was a better idea than the revolution; after that, “conservatives” — or those who accept the new government of the post-Revolution years, but want to conserve as much as possible of what went before — and “liberals” who accept the ideals of the Revolution but want it applied through conservative methods, became the only options.
1788 conservatives merely take conservatism to its root: we conserve that which has worked best in the past as proven by history, which is a society with heavy cultural influence regulating liberty, aristocracy in the lead, no government and no safety net, and a tendency toward excellence, divinity and other transcendental goals. We are the most honest form of conservative and the least politically correct and socially acceptable in a democratic regime.
What makes 1788 conservatives unique is that we recognize the inter-connected nature of aspects of civilization. We cannot deconstruct and separate ideas, as the democrats do, from their effect and the existential experience of life in that civilization. Leadership is connected to values and all is vested in the organic nation, or the people born of a similar root with similar abilities and inclinations which form the basis of culture and values.
In our degenerated time, where most of the people who should be able to think exist in a one-dimensional cartoon of ideological thinking, these ideas are mostly lost and forgotten. However, as liberal democracy continues to fail despite our patching it up more than Windows 10, the brightest lights among our people are reconsidering the era of kings as a future and not the distant past.