Never Trust A Conservative

                       By Spencer J. Quinn

Soft, cowardly, pleading, treacherous Paul Ryan

“Never trust a conservative.” As an oft-repeated mantra in Paul Christensen’s recent novel The Hungry Wolves of Van Diemen’s Land, this sentiment accuses so-called conservatives as being closeted liberals who are only a few decades behind on the liberal curve. As our civilization lurches leftward, what seemed cutting edge liberal years ago (for example, black-white miscegenation), conservatives now consider to be mainstream and healthy . . . or at least they don’t have the courage to challenge it.

Today’s conservatives, Christensen’s story tells us, are essentially yesterday’s liberals. According to theory then, in 2040, when liberals are pushing for the legalization of pederasty and polyamous, non-age-specific civil unions, the “conservatives” of the day will be chairing LGBTQ church clubs and pining for the days when we only had to worry about gay marriage.

This all leads to how dozens of prominent conservatives in the GOP, including Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, had recently either “un-endorsed” candidate Donald Trump or distanced themselves from him after the media received audio recordings of Trump saying lewd things about women.

A tall, powerful billionaire bragging about his prodigious exploits with beautiful women. For this, many so-called conservatives in the GOP are willing to hand the White House over to Hillary Clinton. For this, many of the so-called conservatives in the GOP would actually prefer more non-white immigration, more socialist policy-making from the Democrats, and more pandering to anti-white hate groups like CAIR, La Raza, and Black Lives Matter.

These Republicans may appear conservative, but really they’re just conservative liberals. Liberalism these days starts with a sacrosanct rule regarding race: abnegation for whites and affirmation for non-whites. No exceptions. A liberal can be defined as someone who embraces this rule. Conservatives also embrace this rule; they just like to talk about it less. That, essentially, is the difference between the Democratic elite, which would never un-endorse Hillary for any of her crimes, and the GOP elite, which un-endorsed Trump simply because he brags about seducing women.

It seems to me that Christensen was right. Never trust a conservative. My only corollary to that dictum is that it’s okay to trust race-realist conservatives or right wing conservatives. I lovingly refer to such people as the R3Ws: Race-Realist Right Wingers. Anyone calling himself a conservative but isn’t a R3W is not worth our time.

As for the Trump issue, sure, it’s never good to kiss and tell. Yes, Trump was being crude and sophomoric. Certainly, by behaving promiscuously, Trump does not live up to the puritanical standards we set for our leaders. But the facts of life get in the way of treating this as anything other than what it is: a minor embarrassment for a presidential candidate.

Here are the facts.

1. We need men like Trump in the world of business. These are ambitious, highly-motivated, hard-working men who want to put their personal stamp on the world. Men like Trump are what we call BSDs. ‘B’ stands for ‘Big’, ‘S’ stands for ‘Swinging’, and ‘D’ stands for what John Derbyshire calls “the male organ of generation.” BSDs build things, invent things. They employ millions. Without them, our world would be much more mediocre.

2. Getting to the top as a BSD is fraught with risk, and not just of the financial variety. Identity is also on the line. For normal people — for example, an accountant or sales manager — failure could entail losing a job. But such people can still apply for work as accountants or sales managers elsewhere. Their financial stakes are at risk but not their identities. On the other hand, for more BSDs, failure entails losing everything. The only way to survive after that would be to either suffer the pain and indignity of rebuilding everything from scratch, or to no longer identity as a BSD. How many of us have egos hardy enough to withstand that kind of humiliation? How many of us have the chutzpah to put our last names on every business venture we start, thereby making our names synonymous with failure if things don’t work out? How many of would risk a lifetime of Maginot for an outside shot at becoming Napoleon? Not very many, which is why we should be grateful for each and every person brave enough to do it.

3. Since success is so risky for BSDs, success had better have some perks, otherwise there would be fewer incentives for taking risks to begin with. Yes, the money and power are great. But sex is also an incentive. Further, we all know there is an entire class of women who aspire to shower sexual attention on BSDs. It’s not part of the politically-correct narrative these days, but it is nonetheless true. To expect a billionaire BSD like Trump to play the boy scout — when there are literally thousands of women out there who’d prefer he just play — would be unnatural for two reasons. For one, men are men, and powerful men are powerful men. This is how it has always been, and Trump has done nothing to deviate from this ancient pattern. Secondly, to shame Trump for his lewd comments is an anti-prosperity action since it de-incentivizes taking the risks to become a BSD. Truly, having bragging rights like the ones Trump was indulging in are one of the main reasons why men put it all on the line to become BSDs. We would much rather live in a world with BSDs than without them, so perhaps much of this shame can be deflected.

4. Trump was merely trying to seduce women, many of whom knew what they were doing and wanted to be seduced when they came before him. No one is talking about rape. And no one is talking about under-aged girls. So then, what exactly are we talking about other than an attempt to smear Donald Trump by his political opponents?

Unfortunately, this is not all. Would that it were. If the so-called conservatives in the GOP would use these talking points and others like them to help defend their candidate rather than simply abandoning him, then they would deserve our trust. But by not doing this, and in some cases by deliberately undermining Trump’s efforts to win, these conservatives are not only revealing their contempt for their constituents, but their liberal stripes as well.

This is enemy action.

There are two possible outcomes off all this, and for us, the R3Ws, as with our risk-taking BSD friends, it’s either all or nothing. In effect, the R3W base of the Republican Party is trying to be the next BSD in town.

If Trump wins, the R3Ws must press their advantage as much as possible. Remember how the neocons and Bill Buckley conservatives purged the R3Ws? Well, it’s finally time to start purging them back. First, the R3Ws should push the GOP elites into the Democratic Party where they belong. They hate us anyway, so it shouldn’t be too difficult (and as Democrats they could at least be useful in retarding that party’s Leftward swing). Any candidate who doesn’t at least tolerate the R3W agenda should be energetically defeated. Even sweeter would be if such candidates were funded by deep-pocketed GOP donors who secretly despise R3Ws. We want these people to lose money. We want them to start investing in the opposition. A Trump victory will grant R3Ws the political leverage to start talking about race and racial interests to their representatives. If they don’t listen, we should find ones that will and tolerate nothing less. If they resist, then we must be merciless, outing them as liberals and tar and feathering them with evidence of their betrayal.

Just as importantly, R3Ws need to take heart in their majority and storm the mainstream. We need to start talking about white racial interests, at the office, at parties, at family get-togethers, everywhere. We have to make it normal again. And if non-whites don’t like it, they can do what many non-whites like to do: riot and commit crimes and throw temper tantrums in public. At this point, we can leave them to the tender mercies of our much-maligned yet suddenly emboldened law enforcement community. I’m sure a president Trump would shoot a wink in their direction for their efforts.

Basically, Trump had his chance to condemn the R3Ws and he never did. This means that under Trump, R3Ws could potentially seize their seat at the head of the table once again. Couple this with the Wall, mass-deportations of illegals, and the halt on Muslim immigration, and we may have a slim chance of salvaging this nation as it was originally intended to be. But we would have to impress upon Trump that he is riding on the back of a monster. Sure, we can take him as far as he wants to go. But if he betrays us, he should know that we can dump him as fast as he can grab a woman by the you-know-what.

If Trump loses, however, the R3Ws will lose everything we have invested in this country. The cuckolded GOP elite will be vindicated in their treachery, and will shift the party leftward in order to better compete with increasingly liberal and multiracial Democrat Party. They won’t be too broken up over it since that’s the direction in which they want to go away. As observed in The Hungry Wolves of Van Dieman’s Land, these people are indeed liberals, just not as far along on the liberal path as their more honest liberal colleagues. Expect the Republican Party to eventually endorse non-white immigration as well and become more multiracial as a result. They will have to be if they care to win congressional or gubernatorial seats, let alone nurse semi-realistic chances at the White House. After Hillary collapses in a couple years and has to resign in office, picture a popular Kaine-Booker ticket in 2020 crushing Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio by seven points.

Meanwhile, the millions of R3Ws who voted for Trump will be left out in the cold. Especially the white ones. The one political party which ever promised to meet their needs and fight for their interests will be greedily sucking up compliant non-white immigrants to replace them. This is our future if Trump loses, which is hardly a future at all. We will resemble the Southern elites after the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860. We will know that our nation has no need for us and only demand we stick around so it can exploit us for our labor and tax dollars. Further, we will have no chance of having meaningful effect on government. At that point, our choices will be simple and terrifying: keep our identities and fight, or give in and contribute to our eventual demise.

I sincerely hope that when the time comes enough of us will choose the former to achieve our ends. But in either case we’ll have learned our lesson to never trust a conservative.

Right-Wingers Versus Conservatives

                        By Spencer J. Quinn

       

One of the more interesting things about this current election cycle is that it has been forcing many of us on the Right to redefine who we are. Maybe not so much for long-time readers of Counter-Currents and other sites aligned with the Alt Right, but for normies and ex-normies, candidate Donald Trump has forced us to choose in a way we have never chosen before. Are you Right-wing? Or are you conservative?

Once upon a time these two terms were nearly synonymous. Right-wingers were by default conservative and vice versa. Throw in the equally explosive moniker ‘hawk’ and you have the fairly powerful coalition that got George W. Bush re-elected in 2004. Fast forward twelve years and we find that immigration has changed all of this. Normies face a fork in the road which they have never faced before because they know that a good chunk of their fellow travelers will not be following them no matter which way they go. Indeed, they might even find themselves with new fellow travelers, which can be quite disconcerting.

So what do the terms “conservative” and “Right-wing” mean then? A conservative, in this case, is a classical liberal with varying degrees of Christian or traditionalist temperament. A person who supports the Constitution as it has been amended and who goes to Church regularly and opposes abortion and gay marriage and black-white miscegenation can be accurately considered a conservative. Note, however, that a conservative is not necessarily a political creature. Or, if he is, he is not necessarily going to vote one way or the other based on his conservatism. For example, many American blacks can be considered conservative based on the definition above, yet they overwhelmingly vote Democrat. “If she can’t use our comb, don’t bring her home” is a common expression among blacks to discourage miscegenation. Blacks in California in 2008 for the most part opposed the Proposition 8 ballot initiative which would have legalized gay marriage. Furthermore, abortion remains a highly controversial subject among blacks.

These are not liberal people, yet they vote liberal. This is because “conservative” these days describes more a way of life than a political choice. Hence we laugh at so-called “conservative” pundits who believe the GOP should reach out to blacks or other minorities based on whatever conservative values they share. If American blacks saw conservatism as a political position, they would have reached out to the Republican Party a long time ago, not wait around for the Republicans to come to them. We call the GOP the stupid party for many reasons, and this is one of them. To be sure, conservatism can be part of the political choices we make, but based on the voting patterns of American blacks and others, there’s something else going on.

That something, is, of course, race. People either vote as their tribe votes out of mindless solidarity, or, if they are more politically aware, out of their tribe’s immediate interests. In the case of blacks, who, compared to other races, lack the impulse control, talent, and IQ to compete well in a first world economy, their interests coincide with the political party that doles out the most free goods, services, and privileges. Hence their fealty to the Democratic Party.

Most conservatives who disavow Right-wingers do not believe any of this. It take a cynic to believe it, it is true. And Conservatism as we know it today is not cynical. If you believe in God or some kind of divine, overarching order of things, you’re not a cynic. If you follow the Ten Commandments or any other ancient table of ethics, you’re not a cynic. If you love your ancestors and wish to give many offspring to the future, you’re not a cynic. If you truly believe that blacks and other minorities will embrace laissez-faire economics on its merits and ignore the racial inequality it creates, you can’t possibly be a cynic. Just the opposite perhaps. The conservative ethos, as tempered by Christian morality and the free market, is a beautiful thing, an elegant intellectual and spiritual construct which has guided Westerners to create the greatest civilizations in history. One wouldhave to be a cynic to turn one’s back on that. I believe that conservatism is so attractive and so mesmerizing that many conservatives would rather be wrong than cynical. This is the point of weakness at which wish replaces thought.

A Right-winger, on the other hand, is first and foremost a political creature. And political creatures must be at least somewhat cynical. In other words, they will reach for Machiavelli before the Bible or Burke. Where conservatives and liberals debate, Right-wingers and Left-wingers fight. The former two can easily coexist, especially if they are all of one race. The latter two cannot, mostly because Left and Right wrangle over the murky grounds of race, and have been doing so for over a century. These days in America, the Right and the Left fight over votes, with the Left ruthlessly cheating and the Right ruthlessly exposing them for it. Soon enough – say, in the next twenty years — this fighting will move to the streets with fists, knives, bottles, guns. We will have dozens of little Bleeding Kansases all across our country as Right and Left slug it out over political and cultural control of their neighborhoods.

But what do Right-wingers stand for these days? Certainly not the divine right of kings as they did during the French Revolution when the terms Right and Left were coined. Certainly not conservatism, even though most on the Right are conservative in their day-to-day lives. Certainly not the adverse of everything Left. Of course, that’s part of it, but it is merely a corollary to what really drives the Right (and the Left) these days. And this is the very thing that non-Right wing conservatives disavow: race.

Of course, the concept of race encompasses many shades and flavors, and therefore is anything but simple. Under the Right-wing banner we would have to admit white supremacists along with the more peaceful White Nationalists, white identitarians, and white advocates. Included as well would be proponents of Western civilization who are chauvinistic about everything Western except race. Whether you wish the races would separate into nations or promote cohabitation under Pax Caucasica, you would still be a right-winger. There would remain plenty of room for bickering, of course (when wouldn’t there be?). Yet we would all correctly view the most important struggles of our day, at least in America and Western Europe, as being white against non-white.

White interests, when not threatened by non-white interests, are laid out nicely in the US Constitution. They consist mainly of limited government, freedom, and democracy which revolve around the very white concept of human rights. These things, along with capitalism, bring out the best in white people – when reasonably regulated. The Constitution, as it originally appeared, countenanced absolute freedom as much as it countenanced absolute democracy – namely, not at all. Furthermore, with mass-transportation unheard of in the early days of the American republic, pure capitalism didn’t pose the same threat to the white race that it poses today. It wasn’t as if Alexander Hamilton could easily supplant indigenous whites with millions of low-wage, brown-skinned laborers in order to make a buck.

These days, whites are being encroached upon by millions of non-whites who, by their genetic nature, do not thrive in the environment created by the Constitution. They require powerful governments, less freedom, and less democracy. They cannot compete as well as other races, and so must rely on government to help maintain their precious illusion of equality. They don’t mind that this breeds corruption, accrues debt, and invites decline. They are also perfectly happy to let others pay for the charity they enjoy. They simply do not care because their allegiance is to their race, not our country. And, frankly, they are not smart enough in general to realize that the parasitic policies they pursue will eventually kill the country that hands out the largesse upon which they rely.

Because Conservatism as we know it existed well before the 1860s when the current trend of racial mixing in the Northern hemisphere got started, it does not have the vocabulary to deal with race. To its architects, race was a minor thing: the French versus the English, the Poles versus the Russians. Sure, there would be conflict every once and a while, but, for the most part, people got along. Without realizing it, they had more in common than not.

Today, this is not the case. Whites are living with countrymen with whom they have very little in common genetically. This dissimilarity is so great and so immutable that it is beginning to threaten the principles upon which most modern Western nations have been founded. Right-wingers recognize this, and therefore have become vital to the survival of the West. Conservatives do not recognize this, and therefore have become outdated.

In essence, conservatism is what Right fights for, but to actually fight for it is not conservative.

The fight itself is ugly and bloody and racial, a far cry from the beatific ruminations of an Edmund Burke. Sadly, there is no other way. Both sides fight for two things: The Right fights for the white way of life and to be rid of the non-whites who threaten that. The Left, on the other hand, fights for the non-white way of life and for the ability to exploit white people. That’s the struggle in a nutshell. It must be fought and it must be won.

As Samuel Huntington pointed out in his classic Clash of Civilizations, culture follows power. If the Right wins this thing, we will have the experience to introduce much-needed racial elements to conservative thought and the political capital to impress it upon the masses until it becomes irrevocably part of their culture. This will be a Good Thing.

If the Right loses, however, the enlightened conservatism it fights for will be replaced with the more brutal and primal conservatism of kings and warlords and harems and slaves. That’s conservative too, let’s not forget. There’s nothing “liberal” or “Left-wing” about clitorectomies or stoning women for adultery or hanging men for sodomy. Is there?

Is there?

Put bluntly, if the race-realist Right is vanquished, conservatism as we know it will die. And the last people to realize this will be the conservatives themselves.

The Left, the Right, and Social Revolt - Part 2

                            By Kerry Bolton

The single true resistance to capitalism and its moneyed interests can come only from a return to the idea of the organic state and its traditional guild economies.

Organic Society

Rome had its ‘corporations’, by which is meant guilds or syndicates of craftsmen, not to be confused with the present wider usage of the term to describe a business enterprise. (Hence when the Left refers to ‘corporatism’ as the capitalist form of political domination, it is another corruption and befuddling of terminology). Each craft guild had its patron god. In the West, culminating in the Gothic epoch, the guilds of craftsmen and burghers had their patron saints. Religiosity infused the guilds as it did the rest of society. We have been told since the Renaissance epoch, when the name ‘Gothic’ was coined as a pejorative for the highest epoch of the West – that this was an era of superstition, ignorance and repression, from which have been ‘progressively’ liberated by the Reformation, the Renaissance, Cromwell’s parliamentarianism, 1776, Jacobinism, ‘The Declaration on the Rights of Man and the Citizen’, 1848, The Communist Manifesto, ‘The Fourteen Points’, ‘The Atlantic Charter’, the ‘United Nations Declaration on Human Rights’, and other such excrescences, each of which has been a ‘progressive’ step away from the traditional nexus that holds an organic society together, bringing us closer to the creation of the global Homo economicus.

What the 1789 Revolution proceeded to do was abolish the guilds as an encumbrance to ‘liberty’ – the liberty of trade, the freedom of the free market; the rise of the bourgeoisie, and eventually the oligarchy. How ‘the people’ gained from this ‘democracy’ is explained by its supposedly being a stepping stone towards greater and better things (either towards communism, or towards liberal-democratic-capitalism, since both sides of the coin laud 1789 as the harbinger of their respective utopias). This ‘liberty’ destroyed the ‘fraternity’ that had been provided by the guild in practical, spiritual and cultural ways. What is now called a ‘job’, that generally pointless, time-wasting drudgery on the economic treadmill, was once a ‘calling’, and one that was divinely ordained, no less – the Western Gothic equivalent to Hindu dharma. Work was craft. The classes were not static, as they are so often accused of being in that epoch, but one could work through by one’s excellence and diligence, from apprentice to journeyman to master. The journeyman could travel throughout Europe and be welcomed as a brother in the guilds of his craft; meaning that Europe, or the Western High Culture, was considered a transcendent unity.

Free Trade capitalism is no more a legacy of the Right, at any stage of history, than Trotskyism.

Society functioned as an organism; that is, as an ‘organic’ or ‘corporative state’. Original ‘corporatism’ meant what its etymology implies: a body (corpus). Individuals are analogous to cells, the cells compose the organs such as self-governing guilds, self-governing towns, and ‘estates’; and these organs are co-ordinated by the brain: the monarch and his councils. Something of this outlook is examined in my previous article for Arktos Journal on Dante who, like his contemporaries in general, expounded on the organic social order as the application of Christianity; what was maintained as ‘Catholic social doctrine’ right up until the contamination of the Church with banal liberal ‘progressive’ social doctrines in our own time. Under an organic social order each unit (cell, organ) functioned as an indispensable part of a totality (social organism).

If we accept this analogy, we might define anything that disrupts the functioning of this social organism at any level as a social pathology. The class struggle of the Left attacks the social organism on the level of the organs (classes); the individualism of Liberalism attacks the social organism at the cellular level. Both are social cancers. Free Trade capitalism (Classical Liberalism) is no more a legacy of the Right, at any stage of history, than Trotskyism.

Evola unequivocally identified ‘corporatism’ and the organic state as the traditional forms of social organization. He devotes entire chapters to these subjects in Men Among the Ruins: Chapter 4: ‘The Organic State – Totalitarianism’; Chapter 12: ‘Economy and Politics – Corporations – Unity of Work’. Why there should be such puzzlement among the Right as to the genuine course of socio-economic doctrine is therefore itself a puzzle.

The fundamental spirit of corporativism was that of a community of work and productive solidarity, based on the principles of competence, qualification, and natural hierarchy, with the overall system characterised by a style of active impersonality, selflessness, and dignity. This was very visible in the medieval artisan corporations, guilds, and craft fraternities. … The problems of capital and the ownership of the means of production were almost never an issue, due to the natural convergence of the various elements of the productive process in view of the realisation of the common goal.¹

Guilds

In 1943 Father Denis Fahey, when he was a very influential theologian, translated Professor G. Kurth’s (1847-1916) Workingmen’s Guilds of the Middle Ages. Fahey was one of the last significant exponents of traditional social doctrine in the Church, and will be recalled by some readers for his authorship of what became an Old Right classic, The Rulers of Russia. Kurth, a Belgian scholar of international repute for his works on Medieval life, wrote in the introduction that every century in Christendom other than his own had benefited from the Catholic institution of the guilds. ‘These magnificent associations were the glory and the strength of the workers of humble means, and flourished wonderfully throughout the Middle Ages’:

Every century has benefited by them, with the single exception of our own. The nineteenth century alone has seen workingmen isolated from one another, with no bond between them, reduced to the condition of grains of dust blown about by the wind, and finally falling into an undeserved state of misery and misfortune. What was the reason of this? Because the French Revolution in its furious hatred of religion wanted to destroy everything that religion had created, and the guilds were the first victims of that lust of destruction. All workingmen ought to know and detest the Chapelier Law of June 14–27, 1791, of which the first article runs as follows: ‘As one of the fundamental principles of the French Constitution is the annihilation of every kind of guild for citizens of the same status or profession, it is forbidden to re-establish them, under any pretext or in any form whatsoever.’²

What the proletariat (itself a new class of the uprooted and alienated former burghers, craftsmen and peasants, pushed into slums to work as factory fodder) got instead was class struggle and trades unionism. As Spengler stated, this Leftism was an attempt to seize capital from the new money class, to become the next owners of capital, according to Marx’s historical dialectic; not to transcendcapital, which would have required a restoration of faith, village, guild and craft. Any such restoration Marx regarded with unrestrained outrage. He condemned such ‘reactionism’, in The Communist Manifesto, as a movement that had arisen as an alliance among clergymen, noblemen, and what remained of craftsmen who looked to a revival of the guilds. It was ‘reactionism’ because it threw a spanner in Marx’s dialectical ‘wheel of history.’

The French Revolution had destroyed the social foundations of craft industry and agriculture in the name of ‘the people’. Indeed, the Jacobin answer to the peasant revolt in the Vendée region was one of annihilation. Trade unionism the following century was a poor substitute, attempting to catch scraps from the table of commerce, in conflict with the class that Jacobinism and other revolts and reformations before and since, animated from the ruins of the traditional order: the bourgeoisie. Behind the class conflict stood undetected the plutocrats and oligarchs, who had more than any other been restrained by the Church with its teachings against usury. Here again, the Reformation has much for which to answer in the name of ‘freedom’: the Protestant states tended to ‘liberate’ the usurer. Protestant theology on commerce and banking undermined Catholic teaching not only against usury, but against the ‘just price’, and the labourer being ‘worthy of his hire’. Protestant clergy defended usury against the Church’s traditional teaching that ‘money should not beget money’. This was an axiom of many traditional societies across time and place.³

It was the consequences of capitalism and industrialism that prompted Pope Leo XIII to issue his encyclical Rerum novarum in 1891, and Pope Pius XI his Condition ofWorkers, in 1931. They urged a restoration of guilds, and brotherly regard between both the owners of capital and those who laboured without any such means. They provided the political basis for Salazar’s Portugal, Dollfuss’ Austria⁴and corporatist movements and states across the world. While Fascism and other forms of ‘national syndicalism’ (as Flangism in Spain was termed) were among the most militant forms, in replying to the violence of Communism and the entrenched repression of capitalist states, these had however been predated by the Christian Democratic movement during the 19^th century, of which the above-mentioned Professor Kurth was a leading ideologue, while in Britain ‘guild socialism’ arose and formed an early alliance with the Social Credit economic doctrine; itself a response to usury. Although it is now largely forgotten, during the 1930s the world ideological conflict did not just involve capitalism and socialism, but also corporatism, with corporatist movements and states arising from Hungary to Italy and Greece, from Australia to Brazil. There is nothing however about corporatism and the organic state that is discernible in present-day Christian Democracy, with the CDU in Germany for example advocating the free market, while its Weimer-era precursor, the Centre Party, advocated ‘corporatist-solidarist ideas’.⁵

Kurth commented on the materialist epoch, inaugurated by the Jacobin outlawing of the guilds that the Church tried to address:

It may be truthfully said that that law constituted the most abominable crime ever committed against the interests of the workingman during the nineteen hundred years of Christianity. Nearly all the misfortunes of the modern worker have arisen from the fact that, when large-scale industry took its rise, he found himself deprived of the numberless resources with which guild organization would have furnished him, to prevent economic decay.⁶

Kurth, writing of the guilds with the hope that they would be restored in the modern era, stated:

Most of the guilds organized a scheme of mutual assistance among their members and came actively and charitably to the aid of those who had fallen into misfortune. Oftentimes they gave a dowry to the daughters of the poorer colleagues or defrayed the expenses of the education of their orphans. Thanks to a small subscription, sick members were, during the time they were incapacitated for work, in receipt of an income that preserved them from destitution. Several guilds even found the means of assuaging the more cruel kinds of suffering outside their own ranks, and bestowed ample alms on leper-houses and hospitals.⁷

This mutual assistance seems very much superior to the degradation of the uprooted, city-dwelling proletariat of subsequent centuries, and perhaps one could venture to include the system of economics that prevails today. William Cobbett in his History of the Protestant Reformation in England and Ireland recorded how much better off the workers and peasantry had been in England prior to the Reformation, in terms of diet, working hours and holidays. Today’s workforce works very much longer than their counterparts of pre-Reformation times.⁸

Only the Right has ever represented a resistance to money-interests, and those on the Left who have realized this have come to the Right to restore pre-capitalist organic social bonds.

Moreover, the guilds were self-governing. They formulated their own charters, provided their own welfare funds; they were prospering corporate entities that compared favourably to those of private or family wealth. The elders of the guilds were elected by the whole membership, usually for one term only. General voting to the local councils was exercised through guild membership; therefore it is nonsense to think that commoners were devoid of political voice. They were better enfranchized than is the case today with our nebulous democratic electorates and parliaments. Politics, like economics, was exercised at local level. It was the revolutions of ‘the people’, Jacobinism, English parliamentarianism and the Reformation, which centralized political and economic powers. Master guildsmen underwent examinations comparable to those of today’s universities or polytechnics. A master printer was examined on his knowledge of Greek and Latin. A master baker had to prepare an impressive meal to be judged by a panel of master guildsmen. The guild diplomas were as honoured as those of the humanities and sciences from the universities.

Kurth states of the situation pertaining since the French Revolution:

Since the French Revolution, owing to the decay of the sense of solidarity in the Mystical Body [of Christ] and the suppression of the guilds, men have come to think of life as a battlefield where the weak are destined to become the victims of the strong. They call this the struggle of existence. These sinister notions have nowhere wrought such havoc as in the realm of industry. Competition has there become the sole rule and every man tries to produce at the cheapest in order to sell at the cheapest: for thus all his rivals are crushed. Everybody now realizes that to achieve this happy result either the workers’ wages must be lowered or the public must be cheated in regard to the quality of the goods. In the Middle Ages people thought differently. They believed men were made for mutual assistance not for mutual cannibalism. Their first concern was that the worker might be able to live honourably on the product of his labour, and that the public might be loyally served for their money. To this end every necessary means was adopted to prevent that unbridled competition through which some become unduly rich by exploiting their fellowmen, and reducing multitudes of them to misery.⁹

Today competition is held to be sacrosanct. This Social Darwinism, which politically is Whig Liberalism, can readily be seen to be the same today as when it was being described by Kurth, but now this doctrine is called ‘Right-wing’. In place of what the Church called the ‘Mystical Body of Christ’ in the world, we have the mystique of ‘market forces’, which we are assured exist and in which we must have faith despite this mystical force not much being in evidence.

Free Trade Subversive

Marx correctly called Free Trade revolutionary and subversive, and stated on that basis that he backed Free Trade.¹⁰Evola and Spengler, as we have seen, concurred, from another perspective.

Other socialists towards the end of the 19^th and beginning of the 20^th centuries, recognized the inadequacy of the Left in regard to capitalism. Sorelian Syndicalists found common ground with the Catholic-royalists of Action Francaise in detesting the legacy of the 1789 Revolution, and both saw in corporatism the means of establishing the organic society. Henri De Man, the leader of the Belgian Labour party, and Marcel Déat, a leader of French socialism, were among the leaders of the Left who joined with the Right in a synthesis that aimed to transcend capitalism in all respects.¹¹

The Right never was a manifestation of capitalism. In France the Left, led by alienated bourgeois intelligentsia and funded by oligarchs, agitated mobs to destroyed the remaining vestiges of the organic social order, and inaugurated Free Trade as a constitutional principle. Only the Right has ever represented a resistance to money-interests, and those on the Left who have realized this have come to the Right to restore pre-capitalist organic social bonds. When journalists, academics, and other mental defectives describe Liberal parties as ‘right-wing’ and even ‘extreme Right’, and governments enacting economic privatization as being ‘Right-wing’ and ‘conservative’, this is pure bunk, subverting, distorting and retarding the true Right – the only actual revolt against materialism and decay.

Footnotes

1Evola, Men Among the Ruins (op. cit.), p. 225.

2G. Kurth Workingmen’s Guilds of the Middle Ages (1943 translation)

3K. R. Bolton, Opposing the Money Lenders(London: Black House Publishing, 2016), pp. 3–4.

4https://web.archive.org/web/20170331171416/http:/thermidormag.com/engelbert-dolfuss-and-the-tragedy-of-inter-war-austria/

5Samule Gregg, Becoming Europe (New York: Encounter Books, 2013), p. 83.

6G. Kurth, op. cit.

7Ibid., Ch. II: Mutual Assistance.

8William Cobbett, op. cit.

9G. Kurth, op. cit.

10Karl Marx, Elend der Philosophie, Appendix, (1847).

11Zeev Sternhell, Neither Left Nor Right: Fascist Ideology in France (Princeton University Press, 1986). Sternhell, an Israeli scholar, provides an objective, detailed account of the crisis in Marxism in France and Belgium that saw a convergence of Socialist revisionists and Rightists. Revolutionary syndicalists and traditional corporatists were among those who found common ground in opposing liberalism and capitalism.

The Left, the Right, and Social Revolt - Part 1

                            By Kerry Bolton
   

The revolutions of the past centuries have brought social revolt in the name of ‘the people’ — for the benefit of oligarchy.

The philosopher-historian par excellence of Western Civilization, Oswald Spengler, noted that there is no proletarian, nor even a communist, movement that does not serve the interests of ‘money’ and ‘in the direction indicated by money’. He pointed out that this is so because ‘socialism’ of the class-struggle variety arises from the same Zeitgeist as capitalism.¹ Julius Evola said much the same, and even more stridently: ‘Nothing is more evident than that modern capitalism is just as subversive as Marxism. The materialistic view of life on which both systems are based is identical; both of their ideals are qualitatively identical.’² Marx’s correspondence with Engels and others shows how thoroughly bourgeois Marx yearned to be. The distraction of the festering boils on his groin³ and his will to destruction prevented him from attaining the good things in life – the typically bourgeois things – for himself and his wife and daughters, other than what he could bludge from Engels, or from his father or other relatives. Marx’s doctrine was a projection of himself onto society as a failed bourgeois, his hatred of ownership a reflection of his detestation of small tradesmen who expected to be paid for their goods and services. His doctrine is a mirror reflection of capitalism, and the failure of an educated man with expensive tastes to rise beyond Soho squalor.⁴

Socialism does not aim to transcend capitalism. Its aim is to appropriate capitalism for another class.

Socialism does not aim to transcend capitalism. Its aim is to appropriate capitalism for another class. Hence, the proletariat becomes the owner, in theory, of capital, but capital retains its power; it is not overthrown.⁵

From the French Revolution to Marxism there is an unbroken lineage via Blanqui, Blanc, Babeuf and others. The Masonic lodges played a role in maintaining this lineage from the Illuminati and Jacobin clubs to the International Working Men’s Association. Hatred of Western Civilization, which is to say Christendom as exemplified by the Catholic Church, is a predominate theme for this line of revolutionists. It would not be surprising if this revolutionary ferment that aimed to destroy Western (Catholic) Civilization and hatched secret societies such as Freemasonry and Illuminism had its origins in the Reformation. Is it no more than coincidence that the personal crest of Martin Luther was the Rose-Cross, which became the name of a secret society, the Fraternity of the Rosy-Cross, Rosicrucians, from whence Masonry claims a lineage? What is known of the society is that it issued various manifestos calling for a new order to replace Catholicism. Masonry also claims lineage from the Knights Templar. Regardless of whether charges of heresy against the Templars were justified, Templar and Rosicrucian influences on secret societies would have provided an impetus for the anti-Catholic sentiment that found radical expression with the Illuminati, Grand Orient Masonry, Jacobinism and the rise of Leftism culminating in Marxism. Even if it is not a conspiratorial lineage, it is a world-view capable of proceeding with a life of its own.⁶

It is notable is that these revolts in the name of ‘the people’ have tended to consolidate the position not of the amorphous mass, but of oligarchy. This is done in the name of ‘democracy’ because traditional regimes based on a symbiosis or a synthesis between faith and monarch get in the way of the Free Market.

Right and Left

We might trace the Western malady back to the Reformation of Henry VIII. In the name of ‘freedom from popery’, the English Reformation led to the destruction of the Catholic social order that had ensured the social well-being of the common folk; it dispossessed the Church of property for the benefit of an emerging oligarchy, and perhaps more than any other upheaval set England on the path of decay – and, considering England’s role in hatching subsequent theories, set the West itself on the path of decay.⁷

Their democracy is really freedom for oligarchs to expand their power and wealth without the encumbrances of a traditional social order.

The Right and the Left assumed definitive form during the English Revolution: Cavaliers versus Roundheads, Puritans, Levellers and sundry other factions. Again, in the name of ‘the people’ we see a victory of the oligarchy. The Kingdom had been brought to near-ruin by the expenditures of King James and Queen Elizabeth. Parliament refused to allow King Charles I to levy taxes. He enraged the money merchants by grabbing their gold reserves stored at the Royal Mint and he confiscated the pepper and spice inventory of the East India Company, whose monopoly was challenged when he approved the rival Courteen Association. With the backing of mercantile interests, Cromwell usurped the authority of the Throne.⁸

Oligarchy Marches On

Something else called a ‘revolution’, and a ‘Glorious’ one no less, brought William of Orange from the Netherlands, then the centre of the money-merchants. It was from here that Rabbi Menasseh ben Israel, leader of the Amsterdam Jewish community, had petitioned Oliver Cromwell in 1655 to allow the Jews re-admittance to England on account of the international commercial relations they could provide (the precursor of ‘globalization’), on the grounds that the ‘world prefers’ the ‘profit motive’ ‘before all other things’.⁹ This outlook of materialism and profit justified by religion was the basis of Puritanism and its revolts, and hence of the capitalist revolution against tradition,¹⁰ in which can be included the American Revolution and the present-day neo-Puritan ‘prosperity gospel’ of the American televangelists, who have assumed a significant political role in the USA and as allies of the Israeli lobby. This revolution, or invasion, in England was yet another revolt against Catholicism, and a coup for the Whig (Liberal) party. William’s extravagant expenditure led to an act of lasting significance, the establishment of the Bank of England in 1694. The world financial centre gravitated from The Netherlands to England, and further undermined the authority of the Crown in favour of Parliament. Another ‘revolution’ in the name of resisting ‘popery’, extended the power of a Whig oligarchy. Party politics became fixed and the nexus between monarch and God, which is to say the foundation of traditional societies, was rent.¹¹

It is a symptom of ideological befuddlement, promoted especially by the abysmal ignorance of journalists and political scientists, that today Whiggery, also called ‘Classical Liberalism’, is confused with the ‘Right’. The historical legacies of Whiggery and the Right are not only different but antithetical, as different as a fight between a Cavalier and a Roundhead.

When Henry VIII, Oliver Cromwell, William of Orange, Duc d’Orleans, Jacob Schiff, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Churchill, Mandela, Bush (X 2), Clinton (X 2), Obama, et al. – the immense gaggle of liberal-leftists whoring themselves for George Soros’ money, and the neo-Trotskyists of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), shout ‘freedom’, ‘democracy’, and ‘human rights’, like their ideological forefathers shouted ‘down with popery’, and ‘liberty, equality, fraternity’. Their democracy is really freedom for oligarchs to expand their power and wealth without the encumbrances of a traditional social order.¹² Hence the jubilation of American banking interests when the March 1917 revolution,¹³ prepared since 1905 by hack journalist George Kennan, with funding from Jacob Schiff of Kuhn Loeb & Co., brought down Czarism.¹⁴

The dozens of long-planned and well-funded ‘spontaneous’ ‘colour revolutions’ throughout Central and Eastern European and North Africa are of the same order, as is the combination of social revolt and NATO bombs that gave ‘freedom’ to globalize and privatize the immense mineral wealth of Kosovo, once the mines had been ‘liberated’ from the Serbian state. When the Allies sent their go-to man, Trotsky, from New York to Russia in 1917, and the Germans sent theirs, Lenin, it was a replay of William of Orange being sent from Holland to England. When the Bolsheviks set up Ruskombank under the direction of Olof Aschberg of Nye Banken, Stockholm, it was a replay of William establishing the Bank of England.

How far back this dialectic goes – social revolt in the name of ‘the people’ for the benefit of oligarchy – is indicated by Spengler’s reference to the revolt of Tiberius Gracchus, serving as a lackey for the Equites, a former military caste that had become an oligarchy.¹⁵ When the Duc d’Orleans paid the dregs of Marseilles to act as a revolutionary mob, expecting he would become First Citizen of the Republic, he was acting as a precursor of Jacob Schiff and George Soros. What the mob overthrew in the name of ‘liberty’ and for the benefit of the bourgeoisie and later oligarchs was the final vestige of the traditional – organic – social order of Western Civilization that had been inherited from Rome and fine-tuned by the Church into a uniquely Western ‘Gothic’ form. This was ‘class struggle’, but not precisely in the order and direction assume by Marx. Rather than a lineal ‘progression’ (the ‘dialectics of history’, according to Marx¹⁶) of serfdom – capitalism/liberalism – socialism – communism, the dialectic has been of serfdom – liberalism/socialism – capitalism – oligarchy. Spengler and Brooks Adams¹⁷ were much better historians in explaining cycles of rise and fall and the role played by money. Conversely, while Francis Fukuyama and other apologists for liberalism have argued that it is capitalism that is the epitome of history, beyond which there is nothing better, Spengler, Evola and other philosopher-historians of the actual Right, contend that capitalism is the final symptom of a civilization in its death-throes, the triumph of money; while Plato in The Republic long previously saw oligarchy and then democracy as the symptoms of decay.

Footnotes

1Oswald Spengler, The Decline of the West(London: Allen and Unwin, 1972, Vol. II), p. 402.

2Julius Evola, Men Among the Ruins ([1972] Inner Traditions, 2002), p. 166.

3‘Hidradenitis suppurativa’.

4On Marx see: Bolton, The Psychotic Left(London: Black House Publishing, 2013), pp. 70-100.

5Oswald Spengler, op. cit.

6Bolton, The Occult and Subversive Movements(London: Black House Publishing, 2017), passim.

7William Cobbett, The History of the Reformation in England and Ireland, (1824-1827).

8Some background on this is provided in John F. Riddick, The History of British India: A Chronology, (Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 2006), p. 4.

9Menasseh ben Israel to Oliver Cromwell. This lengthy letter, entitled ‘How Profitable the Nation of the Jews are’, reads like The Protocols of Zion, but its authenticity is not disputed. The letter was published in Paul R. Mendes-Flohr and Jehuda Reinharz (eds.), The Jews in the Modern World: A Documentary History (Oxford University Press, 1980), pp. 9-12.

10See the famous book by the German sociologist Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (1905).

11E. Vallance, The Glorious Revolution: 1688 and Britain’s Fight for Liberty, (Little, Brown and Co, 2006).

12K. R. Bolton, Revolution from Above (London: Arktos Media Ltd.), passim.

13John B. Young, National City Bank, ‘Is a people’s revolution’, New York Times, 16 March, 1917.

14New York Times, 18 March 1917; and 24 March 1917, pp. 1-2. On the nexus between revolution in Russia and oligarchic interests see: Bolton, Revolution from Above. For the best scholarly documentation on the history of the Russian Revolution and its oligarchic sponsors see Dr. Richard B. Spence, Wall Street and the Russian Revolution 1905–1925 (Trine Day, 2017). Spence is a senior historian at Idaho State University, who has previously examined the enigma of Trotsky’s travel arrangements between New York and Russia.

15Spengler, Decline, op. cit., 402, 404 n1.

16Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels, The Communist Manifesto (1848).

17Brooks Adams, The Law of Civilisation and Decay ([1896] London: Black House Publishing). Anyone who has Spengler’s Decline of The West, should have Adams’ book beside it. (Do not be confused by comments on Amazon by reviewers about another ‘poor quality’ edition; the BHP edition is of fine quality.)

Usurocracy Delenda Est

By Charles Lyons

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. — Thomas Jefferson

In the postmodern world, we find ourselves living in the age of Money-Power. With the exception of a few rogue nation-states or sectarian groups, there are no ‘fascist’ or ‘Communist’ Bogeymen lurking in the shadows. The current left vs. right paradigm we see played out in the political circus is nothing more than a dog and pony show. Instead, we are beginning to see the rise of a new paradigm in the West: the people vs. the elites.

Invoking the term ‘the elites’ is typically reserved for the tin-foil hat crowd tuning into Alex Jones – or at least it used to be. Understanding who ‘the elites’ are is extremely important. However, even more important than knowing who they are is understanding their power structure. Even your average partisan hack will call out the meddling of folks like George Soros or the Koch Brothers. Populists like Steve Bannon or Michael Anton will refer to the elites as the ‘Davosie’¹ which is getting much closer to understanding the full scale of the problem.

Liberalism breeds useless men. It is thanks to useless men that we find ourselves in a situation where we are dominated by Money-Power.

The problem is nothing other than the very ideological foundation of the West. Liberalism – the triumph of individualism, egalitarianism, human rights, democracy, free markets – has paved the way for the ascendancy of usurers and merchants of the highest order. The Political has been usurped by the Economic. What is ‘The Political’ or what is politics? Politics, or The Political, is activity in relation to power.² The Political divides the world into friend and enemy,³ whereas The Economic divides the world into consumer and producer. According to the foundational principles of Liberalism, the state is theoretically reduced to a watchman for fear that a state exercising authority may become authoritarian, thus potentially violating individual liberty or human rights. Of course, it is merely a theoretical concept that the watchman state will not exercise power. The watchman state is entirely capable of exercising power, and if ‘the people’ are unwilling to utilize the power of the state, then other actors will. According to Spengler, ‘it must be concluded that democracy and plutocracy are the same thing under the two aspects of wish and actuality, theory and practice, knowing and doing.’⁴ What we find is that the contemporary Conservative has no understanding of The Political. The Conservative is ideologically shackled by his very own principles, his belief in Liberal ideals such as limited government and the free market. His impotence is derived from his own ideological beliefs. As a political actor, he is entirely useless. Liberalism breeds useless men. It is thanks to useless men that we find ourselves in a situation where we are dominated by Money-Power.

When I speak of Money-Power, I speak of banks, markets, corporations, speculators, international finance, the corporate media etc. These various institutions form the organs of the current capitalist system. In order to change the system, all-out war against these institutions will be required. The capitalism-reformers who wish to rein in the excesses of capitalism are naively wrong because they fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the beast they wish to wrangle. To quote Alain de Benoist,

This is a double error, first, because it is precisely the impotence of the politicians to face the problems inherent in deregulated financial markets that has opened the way for the total liberalisation of the financial system. Second, and above all, because to is to ignore the fact that the very nature of capitalism makes it a system alien to every moral consideration. ‘Capital resents every limit as a fetter’, said Karl Marx. The logic of accumulation of capital is a lack of limitation, the rejection of every limit, the rule of the world by the logic of the market and the transformation of all values into goods, the Ge-stell of which Heidegger spoke.⁵

It is here we see that Money-Power run amok gives birth to the abstract horror of Globalism. We see its tentacles reach all across the globe, de-territorializing it, deracinating it, exploiting it, atomizing it. Only once it has paved over the planet in concrete and turned it into a giant strip mall will the process of total commoditization⁶ be complete. Concepts such as identity impose a limitation upon the global-capitalist system. Hence, the beast must either commoditize identity or destroy it.

Homo economicus displays sociopathic behaviors which allow him to thrive in this atomized, managerial system.

The economic system has mechanisms in place for breaking down barriers in order to continue its expansion. These various mechanisms affect us culturally, socially and psychologically. Money-Power has created a new man, Homo economicus, to serve as its subjects in the new world order. Per Samuel Francis, ‘the managerial state also is fused with and relies on the mass organizations of culture and communication for the legitimization of its social engineering.’⁷ Through currency manipulation, therapeutic managerialism, mass media, and corporate advertising, Homo economicusis born. According to Ron Paul,

The Fed encourages irresponsible accumulation of personal debt. People live beyond their means with the help of an expansionistic monetary policy. They trade in their futures for the present. They neglect the need to save in order to consume more and more. In this sense, the Fed is the ultimate promoter of consumerism and living for the present. This amounts to a terrible cultural distortion in which short-term thinking wins out over long-term planning.⁸

By means of currency manipulation alone, they are able to fundamentally alter the actions of society on an individual level. Through this cultural distortion, we see that the elites have altered the psychology of the individual to abandon long-term planning in favor of ‘living in the now’. An individual who lives ‘in the now’ is less likely to invest the time and resources in family and children. He is more concerned with the immediate gratification that has been internalized by market pressures, which are influenced in turn by monetary policy. These pscyhological internalizations are reinforced by a managerial therapeutic state which uses advertising, education, and propaganda to socially engineer the individual to become an ideal citizen in this new economic order. We see this on a daily basis throughout the West, for example with various media outlets telling us the benefits of not having children. People who are more concerned with ‘living in the now’ certainly do not care for the future of their progeny, and we can infer that they are more likely to disregard their history as well. This is compounded by Liberal individualism and capitalist alienation of the worker. We see the rise of an individual who has become totally atomized. He lacks any sense of belonging to a real community because he has been ‘emancipated’ from ‘archaic’ and ‘taboo’ communities and institutions, only to finally realize that he cannot find peace along this road.

This begins to describe what Christopher Lasch talked about in his book, The Culture of Narcissism, where he describes the development of a societal pathological narcissism that began to appear beginning back in the late 19th century, and which has only intensified as we have seen the progress of capitalism. Here, Lasch describes the inherent narcissism present in Homo economicus:

In the last twenty-five years, the borderline patient, who confronts the psychiatrist not with well-defined symptoms but with a diffuse dissatisfactions, has become increasingly common. He does not suffer from debilitating fixations or phobias or from the conversion of repressed sexual energy into nervous ailments; instead he complains ‘of vague, diffuse dissatisfactions with life’ and feels his ‘amorphous existence to be futile and purposeless’. He describes ‘subtly experienced yet pervasive feelings of emptiness and depression’, ‘violent oscillations of self-esteem’, and ‘a general inability to get along’.⁹

Lasch goes on to further describe how the narcissist becomes an ideal phenotype for working in business corporations, political organizations and government bureaucracies. Lasch adds, ‘for all his inner suffering, the narcissist has many traits that make for success in bureaucratic institutions, which put a premium on the manipulation of interpersonal relations, discourage the formation of deep personal attachments, and at the same time provide the narcissist with the approval he needs in order to validate his self-esteem.’¹⁰ Homo economicus displays sociopathic behaviors which allow him to thrive in this atomized, managerial system. The capitalist managerial state benefits from social engineering individuals with a narcissistic personality. As mentioned previously, their sociopathic tendency to view human relationships in a purely transactional sense makes them ideal cogs in a managerial bureaucracy.

Capitalism knows no other pluralism than the multitude of products, which is only the appearance of diversity.

Not only that, but the narcissist makes an ideal consumer as well. Given his vague dissatisfaction with life in general combined with his short-sighted behaviour, he is more likely to consume goods and services, often times recklessly. The consumption of goods provides them with a brief period of happiness in their otherwise empty-feeling lives. As one could imagine, this pathological narcissism, which is present throughout society, impacts other aspects of the human experience, such as relations between the sexes. One need only visit the average ‘manosphere’ website or read F. Roger Devlin’s Sexual Utopia in Power to get a larger picture of the current relations that exist between men and women in the postmodern world.

As one can see from this brief examination into the psychology of the average individual, the tentacles of Money-Power reach well beyond the economic realm and have a firm grasp on psychology, culture, sociology, etc. Through social engineering mechanisms we see the constant push towards cultural homogenization and the promotion of consumerism, with the end goal of creating the abstract ideal of ‘man’ as a consumer. Capitalism knows no other pluralism than the multitude of products, which is only the appearance of diversity. It aspires to a vast, homogeneous market where men can compete for the same possessions.¹¹

What is to be done? Reformism is simply not an option given the degree of corruption that exists within society. Today it is capitalism and the market society on the economic level, liberalism on the political level, individualism on the philosophical level, the managerial-bourgeoisie on the social, and the United States on the geopolitical level¹² – these are the enemies. A total comprehensive approach will be necessary in order to combat each of these on their planes of existence. The old saying is that politics makes for strange bedfellows and the same holds true here as unconventional alliances will have to be formed to oppose these enemies. In the mean time, as conflict against the system escalates, we may witness the transformation of this soft totalitarian regime into a hard totalitarian regime; this will become more and more necessary for it if it is to retain its power. We are already beginning to see this with tactics such as deplatforming, censorship, lawfare, and intimidation from the ruling class. If – or better yet, when – such a transformation takes place, you can expect many more people to be ‘awaken’ from their stupor, and for conflict to escalate even further.

The real question is: what will be left of the West when this final conflict is resolved? Only time will tell.

References

1Davosie was a term coined by Michael Anton in his essay The Flight 93 Election. It is a reference to the gathering of corporate, financial and political leaders at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.

2Yockey, Francis Parker. Imperium (Wermod & Wermod), p. 167.

3Schmitt, Carl. The Concept of the Political (University of Chicago Press), p. 26.

4Spengler, Oswald. The Decline of The West, Volume II. (Borzoi Books), p. 401.

5de Benoist, Alain. On the Brink of the Abyss(Arktos Media), p. 18.

6Commoditization is the process by which all aspects of human existence have been diluted down to their economic value and nothing more.

7Francis, Samuel. Leviathan & Its Enemies (Washington Summit Publishers), p. 109.

8Paul, Ron. End the Fed (Grand Central Publishing). p. 151.

9Lasch, Christopher. The Culture of Narcissism (W. W. Norton & Company), p. 37.

10Ibid. p. 43–44.

11de Benoist, Alain. On the Brink of the Abyss(Arktos Media), p. 161.

12Ibid. p. 184.