Notes on Populism, Elitism, & DemocracyGreg Johnson
Translations: French, German, Polish
Is democracy a good system from the perspective of racially-conscious whites?
(1) When both the United States and North Korea describe themselves as democracies, it is safe to conclude that “democracy” means close to everything and next to nothing. For my purpose, I will define democracy as the idea that the power to make political decisions should reside with the “many.”
By the “many,” I mean more than a minority, but less than everybody. A society can be ruled by one man, a few men, or many men. But it cannot be ruled by all men, since in every society there will be at least some people who cannot be allowed to exercise political power, e.g., minors, the insane, criminals, etc.
(2) Most White Nationalists are strongly inclined towards elitism, even though the opinions of the majority on such questions as economic nationalism and non-white immigration are far more sensible than those of the ruling elites who are imposing globalization and race-replacement on the people. If white societies were truly democratic on these issues, we would be a lot better off. But, although today’s so-called democracies could be improved by being more democratic, that is hardly an argument for democracy as such.
(3) I would like to argue that democracy, defined as placing political sovereignty in the hands of the many, is not a good system for racially conscious whites, or anybody else for that matter. To make my case, however, I must distinguish democracy, plain and simple, from two good ideas that are so similar to democracy that they are often confused with it.
(4) The first good idea mistaken for democracy is what I shall call “populism,” or the principle of popular sovereignty, or the principle of the common good. I define this principle as the idea that government is legitimate only if it serves the common good of a people.
In his Politics, Aristotle makes this principle the highest law and the criterion for distinguishing between good and bad forms of government. When a single man rules for the common good, we have monarchy. When he rules for his own private good, we have tyranny. When the few rule for the common good, we have aristocracy. When the few rule for their private and factional interests, we have oligarchy. When the many rule for the common good, we have what Aristotle calls “polity.” When the many rule for their private and factional interests, we have democracy.
Yes, for Aristotle democracy is by definition a bad form of government. But he believes that “polity”—popular government for the common good—is at least conceivable.
The idea that the common good is the proper aim of politics is often mistaken for democracy, but they are not the same thing. The common good can be served by one man, the few, or the many. Furthermore, it is an open question as to which group—the one, the few, or the many—is most capable of securing the good of all.
White Nationalists are, of course, racial populists. We believe that the only legitimate regime is one that secures the existence of our people and a future for white children.
(For more on Aristotle, see my essay “Introduction to Aristotle’s Politics,” Part 1 and Part 2.)
(5) The second good idea that is often mistaken for democracy is a so-called “mixed” regime that has a democratic element. For instance, the United States has a mixed constitution with elements of monarchy (the President), aristocracy (the Supreme Court and the Senate before it was popularly elected), and democracy (the House of Representatives). Representative democracy itself is a hybrid system, since the many appoint one man or a few to represent their interests. Virtually every European society today has a mixed constitution with monarchical, aristocratic, and democratic elements, as did ancient Rome and Sparta (which was technically not monarchical, since it had two kings at the same time).
In his Politics, Aristotle argues that a mixed regime is more likely to secure the common good than an unmixed one. In an unmixed regime, the one, the few, or the many are liable to pursue their factional interests at the expense of the commonweal, simply because the other elements of society are not empowered to resist them. In a mixed regime, all three groups are sufficiently empowered to resist the attempts of the others to serve their interests at the expense of the common good. Yes, Aristotle was the first theorist of “checks and balances.”
In an unmixed regime, we have to depend on the virtue of the rulers, since their selfishness can lead society to ruin. In a mixed regime, we do not have to depend entirely on the virtue of the rulers, since the one, the few, and the many all take part in rule, and even when their virtue fails them, they will still oppose the selfishness of the other factions out of selfish motives of their own.
Thus Aristotle long anticipated Machiavelli’s critique of ancient political theory, namely that it was too dependent on human virtue. Aristotle would, however, reject the idea of modern political theorists that a good society can arise out of base motives. A good society can only be the product of virtuous statesmen, although he would grant that base motives can be harnessed to preserve the products of virtue, even when virtue occasionally nods.
(6) Why is democracy, pure and simple, a bad system? Simply because men are unequal.
To understand and pursue the common good, statesmen need certain moral and intellectual virtues: wisdom, intelligence, courage, justice, self-control, etc. But these virtues are not evenly distributed in the population. Thus it is very unlikely that the majority, by deliberating together, will ever hit on policies that are conducive to the common good (or even their own factional interests, for that matter).
Nor would majorities working together be able to enact and sustain such policies over the long run.
Moreover, the many cannot even be trusted to elect superior individuals to represent their interests, since they tend to fall for the bribes and flattery of slick and unscrupulous demagogues.
(7) If the majority do not have the necessary virtues to serve the common good, then the only question is whether rule by one man (monarchy) or a few men (aristocracy) is best suited to serve the common good.
If virtue is the sole criterion for rulership, then monarchy is the best system only under extraordinary and highly unlikely circumstances. For a monarch would have to be superlative in a whole range of virtues that are seldom combined in a single individual, and even more seldom combined to a superlative degree.
Aristocracies can draw upon a whole range of men of consummate virtue: the wisest sages, the most stirring orators, the most cunning strategists, the bravest warriors. Only a god could possess all of these virtues at the same time. If one could find such a god-king, that would be the best of all systems of government. For he would combine all the virtues necessary for wise decisions with the power to actually decide.
But it is folly to repose all one’s hope in a miracle. Thus aristocracy is a better system than monarchy, because only real regimes can serve the common good.
Furthermore, all existing monarchies are actually aristocracies in practice, for if a king is to rule well, he must of necessity select advisors, delegate powers, and thus create “peers.”
(8) However, aristocracy also has its limits. The main problem of aristocracy is that whenever power is exercised by groups, they must deliberate, and their deliberations must be able to produce decisions. Ideally, these decisions should be the wisest possible. But sometimes any decision, even a reckless one, is preferable to no decision at all.
There are many procedures to terminate deliberation and force a decision. One can put a time limit on discussion. One can put matters to a vote. One can even leave it up to the toss of a coin. But in such cases, human beings are essentially abdicating their responsibility to an impersonal system.
But if one needs more than just a decision, if one needs accountability for decisions, and if one needs an executor of decisions, then one needs a person who can decide. This is particularly the case during an emergency such as a war or a time of constitutional crisis when the existing laws and institutions prove themselves inadequate.
In the end, one cannot be governed merely by laws and institutions. Legislators cannot envision and provide for every future possibility. Thus there will always be circumstances where individuals have to make decisions in the face of novel circumstances.
And even if legislators could foresee every possible circumstance, one still needs individuals to apply the laws. And the application of laws cannot simply be governed by a higher set of laws, for how would one apply them? One cannot appeal to a third set of laws, for those laws also need to be applied. In short, the idea of general rules to govern the application of general rules leads to an infinite regress.
The only way out of that regress is to recognize another kind of intelligence, which can judge the applicability of general rules to particular circumstances. This is the faculty of judgment. But if judgment cannot be reduced to abstract general rules and incarnated in law books, it must be incarnated in a particular individual, the judge, who has the intellect to understand the general rules, the vision to apprehend and the tact to appreciate concrete circumstances, and the insight to apply the former to the latter.
Judgment is required on all levels of a system, from traffic courts to matters of life and death for the entire nation. Thus even the most exalted and refined aristocracy has need of a monarch: someone who has the responsibility and the power to exercise judgment in exceptional situations regarding the destiny of the nation as a whole.
Aristocracy by necessity is driven to embrace monarchy just as monarchy is driven by necessity to embrace aristocracy. Aristocracy is the best principle in normal circumstances, monarchy in emergency situations. In normal circumstances, the monarch should take his throne and preside over deliberations but give maximum latitude to aristocratic rule to ensure the most intelligent possible decisions. In emergencies, the aristocracy should give maximum support to the monarch to help him, and them, and the body politic, to weather the storm.
(9) But although the few are far more likely to be able to discern and execute policies conducive to the commonweal, once they have power, how can we be sure they will actually do so?
To answer this, we must face a difficult fact: a White Nationalist society will never happen unless we can assemble an elite of extraordinary individuals who create it and endow it with sound institutions. Since such a society can only be created by an elite, it must, of necessity, be led by it. So, again, how can we insure that such an elite, once installed, actually pursues the common good?
The answer is twofold. First, one must structure the elite so that it can perpetuate and improve itself. Second, one must structure the system as a whole so that the many have the power to keep the elite serving the common good rather than its own factional interests.
(10) Although White Nationalists have a strong tendency to hereditarianism, hereditary aristocracy and monarchy are not the best systems, because there is a strong random factor in heredity that makes it possible for superior parents to have inferior children and inferior parents to have superior children.
Thus if we are to be ruled by the best, we need ways to (a) recruit and promote the best children of the masses to elite positions, and (b) identify and demote the inferior children of elites to stations that better suit them.
Elite parents will quite naturally love their children more than the common good. They will give their children every advantage of their station. Thus a well-governed society needs to take active measures to negate these advantages and to cultivate and promote geniuses from humbler circumstances.
One of the best ways to do this is a rigorous and entirely public education system, as opposed to the present mixed public-private system which is designed to perpetuate the current corrupt elites while smothering or co-opting their potential rivals from humbler circumstances.
The best institutional model for a White Nationalist society is the Catholic Church, which is ruled by a non-hereditary aristocracy which it recruits and promotes from its own ranks, and which elects a monarch from among the aristocracy.
Another useful model is the Venetian system. Although Venice was ruled by a commercial elite, it maintained an aristocratic rather than a merely oligarchical form of government by promoting to and demoting from the ruling stratum based on merit. Venice also had an elective form of monarchy, like the Papacy and other Italian city states, such as Genoa.
Of course a White Nationalist society will be founded neither by a priestly nor a commercial aristocracy.
For the Old Right, a White Nationalist society would be founded by a martial/political aristocracy, which would more closely resemble the knightly orders of the Middle Ages or another militant order, the Jesuits, both of which were models for Himmler’s SS.
The New Right seeks to create a White Nationalist society by dethroning the current hegemony of anti-white ideas and instituting a counter-hegemony of pro-white ideas, propagating this hegemony through the educational system and culture and colonizing the entire political spectrum with a range of pro-white options.
The vehicle for creating and perpetuating white hegemony is an intellectual and spiritual aristocracy, organized as a non-hierarchical network that can penetrate, subvert, and control all existing institutions that shape consciousness and culture.
Such an intellectual and spiritual aristocracy need not worry about exercising power, so long as it sufficiently shapes the consciousness of those who do, which is merely to say that the New Right is a metapolitical rather than political movement. Politics is guided from afar by metapolitics.
But a society sufficiently penetrated by New Right metapolitics would take on the form of a mixed regime with an aristocratic/monarchical leadership. Of course, most white societies already have that essential system, albeit in more or less degenerated forms. Thus New Right metapolitics aims at pouring a new, racially-conscious spirit into the existing institutional bottles.
(11) Recall that the two good ideas that are often called democracy are (a) the populist principle that a system is just only if it serves the common good, and (b) the mixed regime with monarchical, aristocratic, and popular elements.
With that in mind, we can raise the question: Do monarchy and aristocracy have need of a popular element? The answer is: Yes. If monarchy and aristocracy are to serve the common good, the people need to be empowered to constrain them.
But what form can this popular element take, given the obvious failure of representative democracy?
First, representative democracy can be improved by increasing the quality and decreasing the quantity of the electorate. One could limit votes to heads of households, property owners, or the gainfully employed. One could raise the minimum voting age. One could institute educational and public service requirements. One could give extra votes to the highly intelligent. In short, a democracy is more likely to elect an aristocracy if the aristocratic principle is used to determine the electorate.
Second, since democracy works best in small, homogeneous communities, one should adopt the principle of “subsidiarity,” meaning that any issue should be handled by the authority that is smallest, least-centralized, and closest to the “grass roots,” as long as it is capable of dealing with the problem effectively. Subsidiarity would allow deliberative, “direct” democracy and also improve representative democracy, since the smaller the community, the more accountable the elected representatives.
Third, although the many are less qualified to frame and execute national policies than the few, the people are acutely aware of damaging policies, such as free trade and race-replacement immigration.
Thus the people or their representatives should have the power to veto legislation that is inimical to the common good. The people should also have the power to depose public officials, including judges, who are inimical to the public good.
To prevent the people and demagogues from abusing these processes, they should, of course, be confined to extraordinary circumstances. They could, for instance, be carried out by calling special elections, referenda, or plebiscites.
Fourth, the people should also be able to propose and impose legislation of their own through ballot initiatives and special elections. Again, to prevent abuse, these would have to be confined to extraordinary circumstances.
Fifth, to keep the elites honest, the Ancient Greeks gave the people the power to audit public accounts.
A little imagination could expand this list further. None of these measures would impede honest servants of the common good. But they would provide powerful deterrents to corruption.
* * *
The powers that be have invested a great deal in promoting the value of diversity, even while pursuing policies that systematically destroy it. This has played into the hands of the New Right, since we are the true defenders of human biological and cultural diversity.
In a similar manner, the establishment has invested a great deal into making an idol of democracy, even as they ignore the will of the people and trample the common good.
This can redound to the New Right’s benefit as well, for although we are frank and unapologetic elitists, we can argue in all honesty that we represent “true democracy,” or what is true in democracy, namely the principle of the common good and the idea that, in the name of the common good, the people must be empowered to resist the corruption of elites.
Western Civilization Is Destroying Its Historical Heritage, Part I
Plato’s Phaedo, Part II
Plato’s Phaedo, Part I
Nueva Derecha vs. Vieja Derecha Capítulo 2: Hegemonía
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 535 Ask Me Anything
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 534 Interview with Alexander Adams
Notes on Strauss & Husserl
The Honorable Cause: A Review
Corporatism or guild socialism could be the means by which representation that is both popular and informed, could be secured. It is also a means of establishing new organs of economic and social organisation, based on a pyramidal hierarchy with a popular base. Franchise based on heads of households, property owners or the gainfully employed is not the best means of securing the most capable electorate. It is still decision making without any direct knolwedge of what one is voting about based on a nebulous ‘electorate’. A professional franchise would be specific and as informed as can be expected, and a corporative system or what has been called the ‘organic state’ is oragnised from the the most basic level of the shop floor upward, whether as factory guilds or artists guilds. The concept also implies returning mere ‘production’ to its former status as vocation and craft.
At the apex remains the monarch, as a transcendent institution ensuring continuity and unity or a president (if one must be crass) chosen for such qualities.
Another well argued essay by Greg Johnson. I suspect it may come under criticism from some sectors of WNism, maybe even people here, for being perceived as too accommodating to existing political orders. I will have more to say later if this conversation takes off.
Bur for now, this essay reads like Greg Johnson is calling for a political form close to what I have always considered the ideal political form for White societies: a modified version of the early American Republic.
Perhaps that’s much too strong a way to put it. But even if Greg Johnson is not “calling for it,” he has made a good argument that the early American Republic is a political form that is perfectly consistent with serving White interests because it has all the required elements for good governance and stewardship.
Now, before knees start jerking among the reflexive America/Enlightenment haters who read here, notice I said a modified version of it not an exact copy. The notions of equal rights implied in the early Republic would have to be highly constrained to serve White interests going forward.
That said, the early Republic contained elements that fit with all of these principles. Most importantly, it featured a highly limited voting franchise, so it was not a “democracy” as that word is understood today (one vote per person based on universal equality). Voting input was limited to White men who owned property. Beyond this, there was a system of checks and balances to ensure the accountability of the leaders to the public good. Finally, the Federalism principle allowed for local autonomy and decision making on matters that didn’t affect the national interest. Local autonomy is vitally important because of the huge number of cultural differences that divide Whites.
None of these parallels are surprising because the “monarch,” “aristocrat,” “popular” typology is basically another way of describing James Madison’s “separation of powers” principle. Madison extensively used this idea when he designed the structure of the early American government.
For anyone here who think it’s vitally important to reject anything to having to do with “America,” I would point out that Madison’s ideas on structure were not entirely original to him; Montesquieu, a Frenchman, influenced his ideas on separation of powers.
I’m not convinced that any form of “spiritual” Aristocracy is needed in the political order. People often argue that a positive, forward-looking WNist vision needs a “spiritual” element.
No. Absolutely not. Trying to incorporate spirituality into a general WNism for broad appeal is guaranteed to foster divisiveness and division. Humans satisfy their spiritual needs in so many different ways it’s impossible to introduce spirituality into WNism in a way that won’t be divisive. If anyone has a counter-argument to this point, I’d love to hear it.
I can’t resist:
“… it cannot be ruled by all men, since in every society there will be at least some people who cannot be allowed to exercise political power, e.g., minors, the insane, criminals, etc.”
Who but the insane and criminals make up the governments in the Kali Yuga?
I was thinking something along the lines of Lew’s comments. As a former constitutionalist/libertarian, I can see value in the division of power in a “mixed” system.
Our two competing groups of criminals restrain each other, so that they inflict less harm than either one might if it were in complete control.
Also one can see that the metapolitical program is not only the most hopeful means of bringing about real positive change, but of keeping a government on track.
Some great thoughts here. One of the major uncommented-upon realities of our political system is the political power of women. Let me first preface my remarks by saying that women are beautiful and wonderful, the people that I love the most in my life are women. But, in politics, there are some issues that need to be addressed. As Anne Coulter has pointed out, women are largely responsible for the march of liberalism, and candidates from Kennedy to Clinton to Obama and untold congressional liberal office-holders owe their elections to women. They would have had no chance of election in an all-male electorate, and certainly the founders (and the ancients) intended for men to be doing the voting. If there are an females reading, you are thinking that I am a huge [derogatory term inserted here, probably one with cultural Marxist origins]. Women are obviously absolutely essential to society and indispensable partners to males, and life would be worthless without them. But, the same qualities that make them wonderful (emotional, feelings-oriented, caring about others, gentle) make most of the ladies completely unsuited to making the hard decisions involved with national policies. Its downright mean-spirited to chase the penniless immigrants and their adorable babies from a nation’s shores, etc.
The fact that over half of voters are women ensures that liberals like Obama will be elected, and policies that are caring, such as helping illegal immigrants become citizens, will have widespread support (and it ensures that there is so much focus on the clothes the candidates and their wives are sporting). I very rarely read about the effect of women’s sufferage on the transformation of the nation’s politics and the nation, which has been massive; it would make an interesting article.
With this in mind, I am in complete agreement that an aristocracy of sorts is ideal, but it would be a very large aristocracy. My proposal would be limiting the vote to:
1) Heads of households (typically the male in most, as banning women from the vote would probably not be feasible, it would have a similar effect).
2) Property owners (people who have a stake in the system).
3) Age requirement (30 seems an age when people are more mature and logical).
This make the vote within reach of most people (and people demand influence in their government, with the risk of revolution if they feel disenfranchised).
There would ideally be a constitution, with a number of safeguards against granting itizenship or accepting immigrants, etc. (a system designed to make it nearly impossible for non-Whites to enter). This might include recall elections, vetoes by different levels of government and so forth.
“The best institutional model for a White Nationalist society is the Catholic Church, which is ruled by a non-hereditary aristocracy which it recruits and promotes from its own ranks, and which elects a monarch from among the aristocracy.”
It seems to me that the Catholic Church’s hierarchy, especially in the top echelons, has been marked with corruption from its earliest days. I think this is an aristocratic form that has too few members. It seems that the danger of the corrupted oligarchy is possibly greater than that of democracy gone wild. The EU, and most of the modern “aristocratic” organizations I can think of off the top of my head are rotten. I would much rather put my faith in the average home-owner as opposed to the average corporation owner (or Catholic cardinal) to steer a nation. I look back at the US founding political organization as something very effective and successful.
Bravo for taking the hard stance. It was always held that women’s interests were upheld by their Fathers, Brothers, and Husbands – better than they could do by voting themselves. The whole idea of women as having separate interests is subversive – as can be seen now that our Democracy has come to maturity and both Parties compete in pandering to them.
I agree with your view that women’s suffrage has been a disaster for our race. However, I suspect that the bigger problem for our race is not so much women as such but rather single and/or childless women. I don’t know the statistics, but I bet that married white women with children are, on average, no more inclined to suicidal sentimentality than white men. I have said before that I can only imagine that white mothers, in a normal society that recognizes racial reality and has not been turned against its own heritage, would be a powerfully conservative force.
Please don’t worry about offending women. There is no need for the extreme vitriol often displayed against women in this movement, but no question that touches on our survival as a people can be limited or taboo.
Just had another thought: Is hypersentimental universalism among younger women some sort of misdirected maternal energy and instinct?
“In February, 64 percent of unmarried women said they would vote for Obama over Mitt Romney, the presumptive Republican nominee, according to a Democracy Corps survey analyzed by Democratic pollsters. Only 31 percent picked the GOP candidate. The gap — 33 points — was 10 points bigger than in it was in January.
Now look at what married women say: 56 percent said they would vote for Romney, and only 37 percent for Obama, with virtually no change from January to February.”
And I bet a large portion of that 37% are childless.
So … my point is that in a White Republic, women’s suffrage could be tied to maternity, which would not only ensure wise exercise of the franchise but also foster pro-natalism without resort to coercive measures.
I think this is a very good idea.
I like the idea of tying suffrage to community service. And one of the highest forms of community service is being a mother.
I think that ending women’s suffrage across the board would improve the quality of the electorate, but it is a rather crude measure compared to making women’s and men’s suffrage contingent on public service, educational attainment, intelligence, and other objective measures of value.
Simply denying female suffrage and affirming male suffrage does not address the fact that there are women who are smarter and more public-spirited than some men, which means that we would have a better society if we enfranchised superior women and disenfranchised inferior men.
I also think that we should not fall into the Republican trap by lamenting “socialist” measures that women voters find appealing. I am not a free market libertarian. I am for social justice, social responsibility, and social welfare. A lot of these are good things, and they would be better things if we had a racially homogeneous society.
I like the idea of limiting the vote to mothers, and encouraging pro-natalism. However, in order for a political system to be stable, it must be built to last, and that means it must satisfy peoples’ needs for perceived fairness, justice and equality. Some women are not able to be mothers, due to infertility, age or health reasons. The proposal to limit voting to heads of households assumes that husband and wife will enter the voting booth together, and since men hopefully wear the pants in most relationships, they would typically sway the household’s vote their way.
I don’t disagree with proposals to limit voting to intelligent and well-educated people and so forth, but not everyone can have a high iq and/or have a great education. Not having the vote for those types of reasons is a statement that “you aren’t good enough”, and it must really chap peoples’ hides, leading to chronic dissatisfaction and instability (a central psychological component of Whites is the need for fairness). A property requirement makes voting theoretically accessible to everyone, but in practice, the stupid and irresponsible would generally be excluded, because they usually aren’t capable of maintaining a home.
I am also wondering about an age requirement, perhaps allowing 18-year olds to vote in local elections, 24-year olds in regional (state) elections, and 30-year olds in national elections might better balance inclusiveness/equality with the need for maturity.
Getting back to politics in the old republic, I think it generally got the job done on all fronts prior to sufferage for all males (and then it really went downhill with universal sufferage). Maybe politics was unattractive at times (with Andrew Jackson’s rowdy mob of drunks ransacking the White House), but the country did pretty well. By the time of the Civil War, all White men could vote, and with that war, the old republic was pretty much destroyed, replaced with the federal overlordal system.
To solve the fairness question without compromising the Republic, I would allow women to run for office but not vote.
Beyond that, I would craft a gallant and genteel Society that glorified Women who lived up to Society’s standards. Beatiful clothes, Balls, Tournaments – plenty of occasions for both sexes to take pleaure in each other. In additon each would have their own culture and “spaces”. Putting women on pedestals? Sure, men enjoy glorifying women. But the big difference: no more blank checks. Like the Old South, women would have to deserve it by living up to the Ideal. And the first line of defence would not be men, church, or goverment – but other women.
There would be freedom for unusual women who didn’t want to marry or though married, didn’t want or couldn’t have children. But none of this would be the approved path – the path of marriage and children that gives the greatest pleasure to the greatest number and preserves society. And just as in America’s past, the childless and unmarried would eagerly support those who were following the common path. None would ever again be allowed to agitate or propagandize against Nature’s Wisdom.
Having children early with tax breaks provided would be best. There would be every possibility for higher education and careers for such mothers once into their mid 30’s. A wise Society would be very interested in rewarding for women who had done their duty in a timely fashion. But those who those who stayed home and had many children would be seen as just as productive – if not more so.
I have to say that although my impressions of this political plan (outlined in the article) are that it could work well in practice, I am not sure if it would be stable. The problem with limiting the electorate to such things as household heads, property owners, and certain levels of employment is that people will naturally try to gain such positions in order to obtain the privilege to vote. Eventually people without such positions will begin to demand the privilege of voting as well, and we cannot be sure that we will not eventually end up with the same kind of “democracy” we have now in which almost anyone can vote (if I remember correctly, something of this sort happened in ancient Athens, where the ability to vote was originally more restricted and later expanded). And a degeneration to a non-“aristocractic” form of “representative democracy” would not really be desirable; in fact, I would even prefer pure “direct democracy” as currently practiced in Switzerland to anything resembling the normal “representative democracy” we see today. But these are merely a few thoughts I had on the matter, while my personal tastes are more elitist due to influence on me by elitist thinkers like Spengler.
I also want to comment: I see many people praising the early American republican system as a model, but I could point out that the fact that the American republic degenerated over time into the monstrosity we see so clearly by the 20th Century says a lot about the negative potential of such a system. Even in his lifetime, Thomas Jefferson, originally a believer that the republican system would ensure the election of virtuous leaders, came to despair of the republic after the revolution and even seemed to have concluded back then that it was far too conducive to demagoguery. I am not sure why those who praise the early American republic overlook these kinds of facts, which are pretty close to “home.”
You could say the same thing about hereditary monarchies, dictatorships and every other model. Which model in human history has not degenerated into something undesirable over time? The early American model with modifications such as a limited franchise to restrict the scope of the equality principle solves many problems.
Yeah, but the American model degenerated pretty quickly. It’s very telling that the NANR looks to European thinkers for inspiration more so than it does American thinkers. Even if you were to exclude thinkers from the equation prior to 1776, it seems to me that the European thinkers the NANR is indebted to would dwarf the American ones.
I mean, I have Americans (white conservative Americans!) tell me that this country is based off of immigration. This is patently false even though immigration is a huge part of our history. It’s certainly not the BASIS of the United States of America. Yet, many people believe it on a gut level. Now, a liberal German or a liberal Englishman might say something similar, but on some level, it’s easier for everyone to discern that he’s full of shit. This speaks to something, I think.
And where did I say that I specifically want hereditary monarchies, dictatorships, etc.? I am opposed to any form of hereditary government because I support the principle of selection in terms of how elites are chosen, and I am opposed to dictatorships because they are inorganic systems which naturally reduce leadership quality. What I personally prefer is an strong aristocratic system which is open to all parts of society and chooses its members based on merit (personal qualities, ethical values, ability, etc.). This idea is very common in European history, some of the most well-known examples being from early 20th Century Germany. However, I really do not intend to advocate this elitist system (which I personally prefer) here. Rather, what I think will be found relevant is a discussion of the issue of government from a democratic perspective.
What I pose to all of these republicans, is the problem that a republican system is far too highly susceptible to degeneration – very quick degeneration in many cases – and that a “direct democracy” would actually be preferable to it, not to mention much more difficult to corrupt. We have many advocates of direct democracy in the New Right (although this is not to say that all New Right thinkers support this, since there is much variety in their political positions), including Alain de Benoist and Guillaume Faye. We also have the example of Switzerland and studies of the Swiss model. I think it could easily be argued that a homogeneous “direct democratic” state, although not at all aristocratic in nature, is much more difficult to corrupt or degenerate than any republican system, and wherever corruption would occur it would be more limited because of the nature of the system. What would you say to that?
Daniel, I apologize; I didn’t mean to suggest you support those models. My point is that history shows all models degenerate. Degeneration is not unique to America.
Some (not all) of the degeneration in America is due to people who never should have been given a say in things being given a say in things.
The solution to this particular problem with the model– who should participate in selecting the ruling elite? — is to correct the defect in the model by restricting the equality idea. Society would need to limit the franchise based on a rational set of criteria for suffrage based on proven good citizenship and then not budge. You draw a line and don’t move it, just as we don’t move it now for criminals, people under 18, and people not in control of their faculties.
What you are calling localized, Swiss-style, direct-democracy I see as another way of describing the American Federalist paradigm. The Swiss have “cantons”; the US has states. The underlying principle seems similar: local control over local problems.
I suspect we are in agreement on the advantages and necessity of local rule but using different terms. The Republican model can accommodate forms of local rule and did for a long time.
Let me add also, if I may, it has never been clear to me who the ENR is indebted to that Americans could not also draw on assuming the person’s ideas are adaptable to an American context (blended Euro stock + mass heterogeneity).
Euro Rightists often say Europe has a “richer” tradition to draw from than America. Well, in a political context, I’ve never understood what this means. America is an offshoot of Europe. The English didn’t invent a new society from whole cloth. They brought their legal system and social structures with them. In addition, we’re all part of Western civilization. Therefore, unless I ‘m misunderstanding (and I guess I am), we’re all Euro and American rightists alike drawing from the same political thinkers from Plato forward??
If you mean Euros have far richer cultural tradition to draw on, well, of course. But that’s a separate matter from politics.
“Let me add also, if I may, it has never been clear to me who the ENR is indebted to that Americans could not also draw on assuming the person’s ideas are adaptable to an American context (blended Euro stock + mass heterogeneity).”
I agree. That’s why I support this site.
“Euro Rightists often say Europe has a “richer” tradition to draw from than America. Well, in a political context, I’ve never understood what this means.”
With all due respect, I don’t find this claim to be very cryptic.
“America is an offshoot of Europe. The English didn’t invent a new society from whole cloth. They brought their legal system and social structures with them. In addition, we’re all part of Western civilization. Therefore, unless I ‘m misunderstanding (and I guess I am), we’re all Euro and American rightists alike drawing from the same political thinkers from Plato forward??”
I think you’re conflating two different things here. Yes, the colonies are an extension of Western civilization (i.e. the white man’s world). However, there is a sharp chasm between the American psyche and the European one with respect to political sensibility. The Europeans I’ve met are befuddled by our sense of individualism and “rights,” for example (even though Europe strives to “out liberal” us in various ways). Since we are concerned with concrete justifications for forming a certain type of collective society, it’s only natural that the Europeans rather than the people who left to “start a new life” are going to have a bit more guidance to give us, I think. I mean, we have some greats like Yockey (who himself looked to Europe) and Mencken and even our Founders in certain respects. But again, I don’t think we have anyone that suites our purposes on the level of Spengler or Evola or Schmitt or Devi.
“If you mean Euros have far richer cultural tradition to draw on, well, of course. But that’s a separate matter from politics.”
They have a richer tradition in both respects.
Thank you for explaining. Europe has much richer historical and cultural traditions. It’s because Europe is our ancestral lands. In politics/social theory, I don’t think four thinkers adds up to a much richer intellectual tradition. I don’t see where those four people offer substantially more valuable intellectual material for moving White civilization in new directions in North America versus America’s output. Lothrop Stoddard was an American, as was Ezra Pound, Samuel Francis, Madison Grant, John Calhoun, and the ones you mentioned. They have relevance too. Reasonable people can disagree. It’s not important. It’s just a difference of interpretation. I was just seeking a better understanding of what they mean by it. Your comments helped clarify that.
“Europe has much richer historical and cultural traditions. It’s because Europe is our ancestral lands. In politics/social theory, I don’t think four thinkers adds up to a much richer intellectual tradition.”
Heh, I was just naming four at random; I was not implying that those four alone dwarf the American intellectual tradition as far as right wing meta-politics go; I could certainly have gone on.
“I don’t see where those four people offer substantially more valuable intellectual material for moving White civilization in new directions in North America versus America’s output. Lothrop Stoddard was an American, as was Ezra Pound, Samuel Francis, Madison Grant, John Calhoun, and the ones you mentioned. They have relevance too.”
Absolutely. I’m always evoking Stoddard. He’s very useful, particularly in countering American “conservative” types who think eugenics talk is just for “Nazis” and crazies. He cuts far beneath the left/right paradigm. That said, if one wants a complete existential outlook for why he believes what he believes, does he compare with a Nietzsche or Heidegger or Spengler or even Hegel? (I can’t imagine a more lofty justification for fascism than Hegel’s grandiose metaphysics.) I’m not trying to say that Stoddard wasn’t important. I just think he’s less foundational than those other thinkers. His fits in somewhere “lower” on the scale, I think. So does Mencken and Yockey and Francis. Hell, I’d even give credit to men like Gore Vidal even though he’s not a “right wing” traditionalist by any stretch. But those men aren’t laying down something from scratch for us in the same way as those other names. Again, I know I sound like some snob who’s making these other names out to be unimportant but that’s not how I’m trying to come across, believe me. I have their writings on my shelf and I really can’t tell you how indebted I am to them. It’s just that my opinion is that in terms of meta-politics, it’s the European minds who’ve supplied us with the heavy meat and potatoes.
Now, I’m by no means a super well-read guy relative to most of the people that seem to comment on this site. This is just my view on the matter based on what I know today.
“Reasonable people can disagree. It’s not important. It’s just a difference of interpretation. I was just seeking a better understanding of what they mean by it. Your comments helped clarify that.”
Sure. Again, I don’t want to short-change the American “right” tradition. But the fact of the matter is that the American tradition ITSELF is not favorable towards cultivating the sharpest minds towards formulating a right wing discourse. In America more than anywhere else in history, I think, you’re born a liberal.
Actually, Alex Kurtagic has recently written an article for TOO where he talks about America’s “break” (or something to that effect) in one section and that’s exactly how I feel. Even though all of the colonies are essentially Western in character, the broad political road map cultivated an attitude among Americans that identity is flexible and countries are propositional. Now, there’s always been debate about how flexible that proposition really is. But the propositional foundation was always there and that should be troublesome from the perspective of someone wanting to preserve a race.
Probably none of the above because Stoddard was an American. Although, interestingly enough, Stoddard influenced Alfred Rosenberg’s ideas on the so-called “under man.” So, here we have an example of an American influencing the German NS perspective — a perspective I suspect most Rightists would regard as diametrically opposed to American or classical liberalism. Yet, this foundational NS idea directly related to racial hierarchy, the idea the races are not equal, came from … an American, the land of supposedly ruthless leveling based on abstract rights and equality.
Rosenberg and the NS thinkers must have drawn from many sources, but the Germans used Stoddard’s idea of the “under man” in a lot of their visible public propaganda. Therefore, the Germans must have viewed these ideas descended from Stoddard as having significant value for the struggle whether or not his ideas were anchored in any deeper metaphysics, a small point of historical evidence I think calls the relevance of deep metaphysics to political struggle into question.
As an American and atheist though, I admit I am heavily biased against continental philosophers from the late 18th century forward, especially German philosophers, and metaphysicians in particular. Unlike Anglo/American theorists like Hobbes, Locke, Hume and Jefferson, the Germans generally don’t make their points in a straightforward way. They are hard to understand because of how they write, not due to the inadequate intelligence of their readers. Heidegger is the prototype for the unintelligible German metaphysician.
So, the way I look at it is this. If, supposedly, disconnected abstract theorizing is a problem with Anglo thought — take Lockean rights for example — it seems to me that the fuzzy, unclear terminology and Byzantine arguments often found in continental thought create just as many problems in terms of the utility for society as any disconnected (supposedly) abstractions.
For example, a type of claim I’ve seen made often is that Anglo/Enlightenment ideas like Hobbes/Lockean individual rights are not rooted in anything essential; they’re abstractions. Therefore, rights are a poor organizing principle for society.
Well, OK; but if you take an idea such as Heidegger’s Dasein idea which is often discussed in right circles it is clear it poses its own problems. The Dasein idea, to the extent I can even understand it, is supposed to capture or represent something fundamental or essential. At the same time, few people seem to agree on what it even means. So, with this factor in mind, how is the Dasein idea any better as a conceptual tool for society than a supposed Anglo-American abstraction like rights?
Rights may be abstract, but so is every socio-political and ethical idea. Rights can at least be easily defined and made concrete. You set up a legal charter, specify what people can do and/or the state not do, and create a process to put the right people in place to enforce it.
There was video here the other day featuring Alexander Dugin. Dugin started out discussing the failures of the major 20th century political theories, then he segued into a dramatic and fascinating buildup to his solution. He called it a new “4th” political theory. Dugin then said Dasein is to be an important part of his theory on the basis that it gets at something “essential” that modern society has forgotten. Except no one agrees on what Dasein means; many smart and informed people find it completely unclear, yet Dugin uses it in his theory. How, exactly, does that represent an improvement over an Anglo-American abstraction like rights? Rights are abstract (so is every socio-political-metaphysical idea) but can be defined, understood and applied quickly by any society that cares to use the idea. Dasein, in contrast, is supposed to be more “rooted,” but people can’t seem to agree on how to define it. So, these continental ideas are not without their own serious weaknesses.
Hegel’s metaphysics might in theory be a good foundation for right-wing fascism. We know with a certainly, however, it was an excellent foundation for left-wing, anti-human Marxism. Hegel and Marx spawned communism, and they were born, lived and died in Europe not America.
When is the last time you read a right-wing political site and saw Hegel and Marxism mentioned in the same paragraph? When is the last time you saw Marxism and American capitalism mentioned together as inverses of each other, or what Marxism has in common with American/Enlightenment universalism, or Marxism and Christianity? (those are rhetorical questions). The last three I see mentioned all the time; I can’t remember the last time I saw Hegel mentioned in connection with Marxism. It’s not that those three interpretations have no truth to them, but I think this consistent linkage of Marxism to American trends while ignoring the Euro connection can lead to a blanket rejection of American ideas that isn’t warranted…like rights, etc.
In sum: in building a new foundation for the right, continental thought presents more problems than some seem to appreciate while valuable strains of Anglo-American thought go under-appreciated as potential tools for serving our ends. IMO of course.
Very thorough and logical, you don’t waste print.
Ultimately, I think the primary thrust of the New Right should be to install our own creative minority into power, without consideration of what the common people think. The 20th century was proof positive that when given power and undreamed-of opportunity, the masses not only fail to capitalize, but this freedom becomes extremely corrosive.
From a spiritual prospective, the primary purpose of the state is to organize the people into castes whereby their respective levels of creativity can be best utilized and sublimated. I don’t see what power the plebs should have other than their right to demand security and bread.
Well, we should not be too concerned with what today’s common people think, since their minds are controlled by our enemies. But my vision of a decent society is one in which there is a broad middle class of self-employed farmers, businessmen, and professionals. There will also be a working class that is keenly aware of its interests. These people must be empowered to protect their interests, or society will cease serving the common good and instead pursue their factional interests.
Perhaps a sustainable arrangement might be one in which only military officers may run for national or presidential office, only ordained priests of the state religion may be appointed to the judiciary, and only those who’ve served honorably in the national service would have suffrage.
National service would be a minimum two year paramilitary stint men and women would typically serve between high school graduation and vocational training or college. While it would naturally achieve tangible things with all those able bodies, it would also instill a coherent national spirit and identity, cut through regional and class identities to encourage a singular national identity and groom meritorious candidates from the underclasses for inclusion in the elite ranks.
Those who are either ideologically incompatible with the state, shiftless, feebleminded, disabled, or otherwise incapable of meeting the rather minimal standards of the National Service would be free to go about their lives, but wouldn’t have an actual say in the state’s affairs. The military in-group which controls the state would be beholden to the mass of NS veterans and checked by a judicial branch which interprets its legislation and activity through a coherent metaphysical framework.
If orchestrated thoughtfully, such a model could be arrived at through an ambitious reform of the current American system with three basic steps:
1. Adaptation and expansion of the National Guard into the domestic service corps.
2. Drafting everybody under 30 into it (grandfathering the geezers). People who dodge the draft are already denied suffrage. Create a loophole which allows individuals to legally opt out without being punished, but denies them suffrage.
3. Constitutional amendment limiting national office to military officers and judiciary selection to ordained priests in the state church.
I would be interested in knowing if such a proposal is compatible with Lew’s vision of an evolutionary adaptation to the existing framework in a Traditional direction. It appears that whether or not it’s truly Traditional would be determined by whether or not the military elites and the state church are properly initiatic and authentically Traditional.
I would be interested in knowing if such a proposal is compatible with Lew’s vision of an evolutionary adaptation to the existing framework in a Traditional direction.
I do see those ideas as compatible with my suggestion because they restrict the equality principle but not unreasonably so. The exception is your proposal for a branch restricting membership to adherents of a state religion. I’d have to know a bit more about how you see the state religion idea working to give informed input. If you mean the entire hypothetical nation is to be made up of only people who share a commitment to the same religion, it’s a great idea. I could see it working in places where ethnic homogeneity and a de facto state religion already exist. Certain places in Europe probably qualify.
But, I’m an American influenced by the American experience. When this topic comes up, I approach it in terms of the best way to solve these problems for large ethnically and ideologically blended Euro groups. For this type of population, I don’t see how you require a state religion or require people to live under a judiciary drawn from one religion without creating discord and instability. A state religion doesn’t seem feasible for heterogenous groups with many cultural differences.
However, again, in looking to the early American republic, I think the federalist paradigm offers a good potential solution the White “heterogeneity problem.” This paradigm is my proposed solution to everything that White folks will probably never agree on. Just let all the various White folks with different cultural, religious or otherwise incompatible beliefs freely disaggregate into units or subsets of a larger state. I think the US model works here. You had a centralized government to run the national issues and smaller units with their own governments to run the local matters, giving the locals autonomy on their issues.
It wouldn’t necessarily have to be geographic “states” in the US sense. Maybe it could be network of geographically dispersed city-states or Poleis. The point is to allow sufficient disaggregation for White folks who want to live different without causing so much fragmentation is endangers collective defense. At this level, government at the state level (or whatever the subset unit is), a leadership drawn from one religion might be an ideal solution for a local population.
In the context of the early United States, I believe a few states had official religions for a time (I don’t have time to look it up at the moment), and almost all of them had a de facto religion. Few cared if everyone governing them were some form of Christian because most people were Christians themselves.
It’s worth noting that the American first amendment prohibiting “no establishment” of a state religion initially applied only to the US Federal government. The states were left free (in theory) to establish religions if they wanted to, and, again, I think some did for a while, but I have to check that.
The anti-federalists anticipated this problem of a centralized government trampling local autonomy by demanding a Bill of Rights. It was a negative charter that enumerated what the Federal government could not do to the states or people but also included a catch-all 10th amendment (ignored since Lincoln’s time) that said all powers not specifically enumerated to the Federal government were to be retained by the states and people (allowing for local autonomy).
The Constitution enumerated Federal powers and restraints and did not apply to the states the way it does today until after the Civil War. It’s why the South had slavery and other places didn’t.
It tends to be forgotten among Rightists (especially Euros who don’t understand American Federalism and can’t be expected to) that an important reason the US has become so corrupted is not just because of the grotesque and inappropriate extension of the equality principle. It’s also because there is no more local autonomy. The Federal government now dictates everything Americans must do down to what schoolboards must do or not do. One near-term interim or what Faye might call a “transitional” institutional change that could help some white folks right now (without providing a total solution to Whites’ problems) would be bring back state and local autonomy via the 10th amendment. My state would quickly re-enact segregation.
I agree that freedom of confession is a right to be preserved. I also have no interest in living in an oppressive theocratic regime. But I don’t see any choice. You have to choose a vehicle or get out of the street. If you attempt to avoid deciding which initiatic institution sits in the catbird seat, they’ll covertly contend with one another for it and you’ll have no say in the matter. It’s best to find one which explicitly and directly supports the regime and is aligned in its interests with our survival and success.
We in America had this notion of religion and deep politics being two separate things because that was the historical case in America. If you wanted to worship as you saw fit, you went to the chapel. If you wanted to network and conspire, you went to the lodge. American towns had several churches and one lodge. In the twilight of American Freemasonry, Protestant, agnostic, and “other” Americans are completely out of the game which is being played…and only vaguely aware that something’s going on that they’re not in on. There’s a reason why there’s not a single Protestant among the Presidential candidates or the Supreme Court justices.
I would also hope that the elite at the helm would be tolerant of diverse traditions and confessions in the White American cultural patchwork. Let the Amish dictate their own affairs, let the Mormons run Utah, and so on. But you can only achieve that if there’s a coherent unified elite which can decide on that practice. You can’t simply scribble it on a document and hope whichever elite wrests power respects the letter and spirit of that document.
And why was this right revoked? Because of an honest misunderstanding? Or because the elites concluded it was not in their interest to honor that arrangement?
You can’t have that, because the elites who won the game of deep politics aren’t inclined to relinquish power and control to the states. Why would they want to do that? You seem to be under the impression that founding documents have some sort of transcendent power and effect independent of the oligarchs and their intentions.
As we’ve seen with immigration, war, and other issues, the elites absolutely can and will do what they want in spite of the framework. They ask for permission within the framework, but only as an empty gesture. They decided to grant amnesty, tried to go about it the nice way, then shrugged subverted the framework altogether when the framework didn’t serve their purposes.
If you don’t clearly and explicitly define who is accountable for interpreting and acting on the document, then there’s no point in scribbling up a fancy document.
In a well run State, the average person wont even be interested in politics – and that’s a good thing. I always tell people that ignorant angry skinheads and rednecks aren’t the intellectuals so OF COURSE they’re not eloquent or well informed. They only take an interest because they know something is drastically wrong and no one is standing up for them. And so many educated people can’t stand the Truth told in a simple way – they prefer beautifully crafted lies. And this is a most potent form of corruption – to equate style with Truth or to prefer it to Truth. In America, the ignorant are often right and the educated wrong. The People can feel they are being wronged and see they are being screwed – they just can’t explain why or how or what to do about it very well.
My old professor said that his New England town still had direct Democracy. But of the 13,000 people only a few hundred were really active. Hierarchy at work: even when not excluded, people will exclude themselves.
Talk of dismissing plebs and commoners and building an “elite” is foreign to my individualistic ears, even after discerning that Jews did not rise like matzoh balls but burrowed their way to the top using a road map.
I consider the word “conservative” to have outlived its usefulness, along with Clint Eastwood. Far more useful for forming a decision on Romney is Andrew Hamilton’s recent article,
Romney Handler Dan Senor, and my comment there regarding Romney’s Israeli handler.
Bill Kauffman and Gore Vidal make interesting reading on the subject of populiam:
Bill Kauffman: American Anarchist
Look Homeward America: In Search of Reactionary Radicals and Front-Porch Anarchist
The Populist Patriotism of Gore Vidal
You seem to be under the impression that founding documents have some sort of transcendent power and effect independent of the oligarchs and their intentions.
No, let me clarify. I don’t believe writing a legal document means the parties in power will necessarily respect it, or that any legal document has transcendent power. The fact that many American conservatives seem to believe this shows serious confusion in their ranks.
So no, to clarify, I’m not raising the details of the Constitution and the early republic because I’m thinking like a conservative. My point has been to suggest how America’s early mixed framework might be adapted to serve white interests more effectively than other forms of government.
Micheal O’Meara’s review of Guillaume Faye’s The Transitional Program put me on to this way of thinking. Whatever problems exist with Faye, he is correct that it can be a useful intellectual exercise to look at existing structures and examine ways they might be shaped to serve revolutionary goals.
Prof. O’Meara says it better than I will ever be able to say it:
Faye understandably focuses on French institutions. I’m thinking about North American transitions.
So yes; I agree. A legal document alone means nothing when it comes to enforcement. It’s words on a page. Believing otherwise, again, would be to take an absurd position.
What matters re: society’s highest or “supreme” legal charter is (IMO):
1) Who has the power to interpret its meaning
– and –
2) Whether the parties in power will use that power, and force if necessary, to enforce that meaning.
The fact that the charter alone is useless without the right elites to enforce it in no way undercuts the case for using a republican model that does not empower elites based on religion.
This problem exists with every legal charter that has ever existed and at every level of society.
A community can write a law mandating 20 mph in a school zone. They can put it down in the legal code to serve the public good. But if there is no cop there to enforce it, it means nothing. If there is a corrupt cop there to selectively enforce it, perhaps by letting his friends speed or taking bribes to let people speed while writing tickets for everyone else, you will probably end up with a bitter, angry and therefore unstable community.
The problem always boils down to how do we get the right elites in place and keep them in place serving the public good rather than their own interests (honest cops)?
If we’re theorizing about a units with a heterogeneous population that are bigger than a small US state or a Swiss canton, I don’t see how empowering a state religion can possibly even be considered as part of the government framework.
Religion is too divisive. There might not be anything more divisive than the religion question.
The problem you raise of “covert” factions contending for power behind the scenes while paying lip service to the public good is a tough issue to solve. But, there have to be solutions to it other than introducing religion into the power structure.
White folks are already individualistic and divided by numerous other cultural differences. In this context, how can religion possibly serve as a basis for unity in the national interests (assuming, again, a large heterogeneous population)? What religion would you even propose? Any answer this question is bound to alienate a large subset of whites.
Should an institutionally mature and geopolitically relevant “religion” be willing to sponsor our primary goals, the static unity of our current movement would be divided with one of its fragments becoming politically relevant. I see the pluralism you’re promoting as being incompatible with the singular zeal necessary to overthrow the current order. I also suspect that a sizable share would either sincerely convert, tactically convert, or overtly support such a development.
As an absurd hypothetical, how would you respond if the Amish suddenly became a revolutionary vanguard? Would the kinists unite against their anachronistic anabaptist excesses? Would the Traditional Catholics among us take sides with the Jewish and capitalist oligarchs against them because of their heretical take on apostolic succession? Would skeptical racialists wait for the next train? I think forward motion and real power would go a long way towards papering over those things.
Just a few months ago, the White Nationalist movement pretty much united as one voice behind an anti-racist libertarian whose entire worldview is a smorgasbord of Jewish ideologues. Stormfront practically endorsed the guy. WNN did. The only thing that thwarted a full alignment was his vociferous anti-racism and his lack of success. And I suspect the latter had more to do with the courtship breaking down than the former. While the movement does have its factions, and they do bicker among themselves in the fever swamp of political irrelevance, I suspect we’re a cheaper date than you presume.
If an initiatic order is necessary to organize and mobilize a vanguard, then it’s going to necessarily impose a coherent worldview/religion on its adherents. You saw this with National Alliance’s ‘Cosmotheism’. You saw this with the Christian Identity of Rockwell. At the very least, it would preclude compatibility with vehicular sects like Mormonism, Catholicism, Islam, and Scientology in order to preclude subversion. You’ll need to exclude people due to their confession in order to get off the ground, so it’s something that must be dealt with.
That being said, exclusion from the vanguard does not mean opposition. Most of the Protestant denominations are passionately aligned behind the very Pharisees themselves. In the Middle East, Orthodox Christians support friendly Islamic regimes while being targeted by hostile Christian factions abroad. As such, it seems theoretically possible to align other confessions as junior partners behind a senior partner, no?
Call me a Darwinist. Whichever institution is willing to endorse our survival as a people should win support. Whichever White cultures, folkways, and confessions are hostile to an explicitly pro-White religious vanguard seizing power from the current oligarchs ought to be defeated. Whichever path we take, there will be people with blond hair and blue eyes standing in our way. If you’re referring to the problem of having two sizable and mobilized pro-White religious vanguards contending for our support, then I would certainly favor a separate sovereign peace for the two.
While I’m all about preserving White cultural diversity, I’m also cool with culling some of that diversity if it’s the sort of diversity that’s unwilling to tolerate the presence of a pro-White elite. You can’t make an omelette without breaking some eggs, no?
I’m Orthodox, and I believe that it’s the ideal vehicle for some pretty straightforward theological, institutional, and geopolitical reasons. That being said, I would encourage my church to be a loyal junior partner behind another religious vanguard which was successfully mobilizing against the Jewish and capitalist running pigs. I would gladly accept being disqualified for inclusion in the vanguard and elite circles. I hope and suspect you would, as well.
I alienated nearly every single White when I calmly and politely insisted that I have a right to preserve my heritage and identity. *shrug*
Very well said, all of it.
Another Orthodox racialist. I see a trend developing here, one worth exploring.
I wasn’t clear when I said answering the religion question is bound to alienate White folks. I meant it will alienate committed WNists who agree on basic fundamentals like racial separation but not religion.
You seem to see religion and partial theocratic rule as necessary and essential to the White project in a way I didn’t appreciate until we had this exchange; I don’t, not that it matters. We can agree to disagree. I always learn something from your comments and articles even when disagreeing (much less often than I agree). There will never be “one right” solution to all the various problems.
Within the specific frame you’ve outlined here, taking your ideas on their own terms for White folks inclined to embrace them, I agree that empowering a priest/religious class makes perfect sense. I had a feeling you were going to say Orthodox, I admire and respect the Orthodox, and I see evidence Orthodox has potential in Europe but none for America (though who knows what the future will bring; and of course you didn’t say the dominant religion had to be Orthodox).
I do think you’re overestimating the extent to which racially inclined White folks will jump on board with whoever’s train leaves the station first.
Let’s not lose the forest for the trees here. The following isn’t speculation; it’s hard historical data. Humans, including white folks, have been slaughtering each other over religious differences for centuries, even ones that seem utterly trivial from my atheist perspective (Catholics v Protestants, Sunni v. Shia).
To form a political coalition, or create a system of ideas to serve as a theoretical basis for a unified coalition, you have to think in terms of “what brings people together” and “what drives people apart.” This was Lee Atwater’s tactical paradigm; his metaphor was magnets and wedges, draw together with the magnet, split apart with the wedge (I understand an anti-White Republican’s tactical paradigm designed for mainstream American politics isn’t precisely applicable here.).
But, in very broad strokes, Atwater was right: to get people into the same train you have to use magnets and wedges to bring the right people on board and kick the rest off. And, in the context of the North America’s heterogenous White population, you’re arguing for a role for a major wedge, maybe the biggest one ever based on the historical record: religious, esoteric and metaphysical orientation.
Personally, I might jump on with the right Christian train, a pro-white Orthodox sect or maybe Mormon. I know many people who wouldn’t, however. And you couldn’t pay me to jump on a pagan train.
It doesn’t seem likely religious nationalists will follow a secular vanguard if the secular train leaves first (or vice versa), nor are they likely to join up with a secular faction if one becomes politically relevant first. You can break this dynamic down further to pagans never following Christians, and so on.
Now, of course, the two objections I’m making here 1) “your approach might not work” along with 2) “everyone won’t support it” applies to everyone’s ideas on approach including my own which I understand and freely admit. These are difficult problems.
This is why, again, I argue for the American federalist paradigm. I see it as a way to get a lot of dissimilar people into the train, headed in the same direction, but sitting in different cars where they can’t bother each other or, conversely, can interact if they care to.
Anyway, I’ll go ahead and close with this.
I don’t seek to “promote” pluralism so much as I want to recognize its reality and explore social-political arrangements that will let White folks overcome it for purposes of collective self-defense. It was not my intent to promote pluralism for its own sake but to propose a possible solution for the problems around it.
I also wonder about that. But I would note that the movement seemed to transition just fine from a Christian Identity religion under Rockwell to explicit atheism under Pierce, then to a silly made-up “religion” of Cosmotheism…with nary a hiccup. My wager is that White Advocates–especially younger ones–are generally skeptics, but willing to support an explicitly religious project if it’s neither hostile nor threatening to them.
I see a coherent and organizationally mature vanguard as necessary and essential. In Communist China, you have this essentially secular Mandarin elite which serves that role. It’s not that I’m impressed by religion for religion’s sake, it’s that I don’t see any non-religious institutions that meet the minimum requirements. I think the closest thing to that would have been perhaps Freemasonry or the National Alliance…both of which are deeply problematic and essentially defunct.
From my perspective, I see the religious aspects of those disputes as more often than not proxies for tribal and inter-elite contentions. Al Qaeda is largely a franchise for enraged insurgents provoked by imperial interlopers. The Crusaders were pursuing quantifiable territorial goals for their nations. And so on. As such, your examples seem to support my point, that these religious institutions are pivotal players in these matters.
Once you have that faction, that coherent passionate faction, it must indeed concern itself with coalition building and such. It’s my opinion that you’re skipping a step. There must first be some sort of “we” before the “we” can start playing the game you’re speaking of.
I would support some sort of indigenous pagan vanguard if it were not hostile to my church. I would rather be a disenfranchised but respected subject of a pagan nation-state than a voting citizen in the current regime. Christians have throughout history gotten along just fine under non-Christian governments. The current government’s not Christian. My position is that if Christians want to be the senior partners, then we can do so by taking the lead in the fight…not by cutting our pagan and skeptical cousins down.
I’m cool with federalism and regional autonomy. But in order to gain control over the federal government (a necessary first step to implementing your proposal), I think there must be a coherent vanguard. I feel like you’re skipping a step here, as well.
I’m really enjoying this discussion, as well. I fear we may be debating it to a standstill and I don’t want to exhaust or irritate you. You’ve also given me some ideas to digest.
With regards to the ‘extraordinary gentlemen taking control’, this is surely the greatest battle, now at the dawn of transhumanism. Imagine Obama/Soros types becoming Lawnmower Man… there won’t be a way back from there.
One small step on the evolutionary scale may be overcoming the 16h/8h sleep-cycle. It’s possible right now (with certain assistance) to operate 8day/2day or something similar. Whether it can be maintained long term without certain side-effects, I’m not sure. It’s just that the Jesuits, Templars and co. all possessed a ‘force of will’ mega-boost in their endeavors and this proved crucial to success.
Regarding political systems, I trust GJ and Co are more than capable right now in steering affairs… but please, leave the masses and the bitter out of your wise council.
This is exactly how I have been thinking over the past year or so, and I drew up a constitution that would structure much of what you have suggested. You can have a look here http://anirishtory.wordpress.com/2012/08/31/constitution-of-the-commonwealth/
Interesting thread, particularly the exchange between Matt and Lew. I’ll throw in my two cents.
Elites, while necessary and inevitable, are subject to corruption in a way that the masses are not. This is not to say that the masses cannot be corrupted, but it’s in a different manner. In any event, since you’re going to have both sorts, a sound system must account for each.
Frankly, I don’t believe that any system, any mere mechanism, is beyond corruption or system failure. To think otherwise is buying into a mechanistic and “progressive” worldview that we can achieve perfection if we only build a better clock. Not so. The best that can probably be done is to create a system that, at least at the system level, is capable of reforming itself and reversing errors. A truism is that unsolved problems accumulate over time. This is true for an individual, as it is for a nation. The system that we suffer under today cannot solve problems, and it can’t reform itself. We must avoid that trap and the ossification and decay that results. In other words, we can safely assume that whatever system we devise will degrade at some point or another. The only relevant question is can it, again from a systems perspective, recover?
The White Republic should therefore have a “Sampson Option” of sorts. It should be explicitly writtin in the Constitution, and taught in the schools, that there is an affirmative duty to revolt, by whatever means necessary, if the government violates its primary purpose of securing the existence of our people and a future for white children. It shall be the affirmative duty of the ordinary citizen to bring the traitors to justice and expel any non-white invaders, by whatever means necessary. This must be an integral part of the culture. That’s probably the best protection you’re going to get.
Beyond that, I’ll offer a list of more “mainstream” suggestions, some with explanation.
1. Term limits
2. Clean Elections: elections publicly funded; it should be not only a crime, but culturally absurd to give money to a politician. This is designed to dramatically reduce the power of corporations; also reduces the power of political parties, as they can no longer cut off a representative’s funding.
3. Open Primaries: again, reducing the power of political parties. A party can no longer use convention shenanigans to threaten a representative. Instead you have a single primary where everyone who has enough signatures can participate, no parties required.
4. Non-Partisan Elections: political parties develop their own institutional interests, which are typically not in the national interest. We don’t need them. Representatives can form caucuses instead. Of course, those caucuses could concievably attempt to operate as parties, but if we defang them, why bother? Why be beholden to something that can neither help or hurt you? Once we strip parties of the power of the purse and control of the nominating process, they aren’t going to be able to “whip” people into line very well. In a sense, that’s what parties are for: to force representatives to vote the party line, instead of how they would have otherwise voted, which is to say getting legislation passed that otherwise would have failed, or blocking legislation that would have otherwise passed. For those who enjoy the short hand convenience of Republican or Democrat in lieu of research, there will no doubt be plenty of private entities that will happily rate the candidate for you on the basis of the things you care about, just as there are today (taxpayer’s report cards, that sort of thing). Information is easy to get today, we don’t need party brands in the new republic.
5. Swiss direct democracy: the great advantage of direct democracy is that you get to “unpack” a particular issue, and vote on that issue alone. No more “you can’t beat city hall,” or “there is no point in voting because the representatives break promises.” The issue can be forced. This allows the citizenry to overpower special interests, and shoot down legislation that is deemed harmful. When the powers that be know that ridiculous legislation is going to be shot down anyway, there is less incentive to engage in mischief in the first place. Our system today, in contrast, encourages harmful interests to get everything they can while the getting is good. What can anybody realistically do about it? A further advantage is that direct democracy makes parties and even respresentatives less important, which I see as good.
6. Graduated franchise: retain universal sufferage with one vote for all citizens in good standing, but create additional votes as well, perhaps for honorable military service, gainful employment, marriage/motherhood, etc. Voting should no longer be seen as something that only requires being 18 and retaining the ability to fog a mirror. It must be earned, and just as in virtually any other organization (we don’t expect the 16 year old stock boy to have as much say in a company as someone who has proven themselves for 20 years), more accomplishment, stake in the future, and service means more votes, and therefore more say in the community. Think of it as earning more shares in the community. All citizens in good standing are entitled to an opinion and a say, but those who are more heavily invested and have developed an honorable track record are entitled to more of a say. Quite a bit more.
7. Universal conscription of two years military service for males; perhaps six months of local civil defense/medical/other service for females. Conscription for males will require them to leave home for at least some, perhaps all of the two years. The much shorter period of concription for females will be local and will not require them to leave home. The girls need to do some service, but at the same time their most important service, motherhood, will be quite time consuming.
8. Those who run for office must demonstrate more service than is required. I’d suggest a minimum of four years military service for males, or becoming the mother of three for a female.
9. Limits on current and former representatives: getting elected to office must be a public service, not a ticket to riches. All pay raises while in office subject to voter referendum. Once their (limited) term is up, their earnings for the next ten years are open to public audit. Cannot be a paid lobbyist for at least 10 years, by which time the congress critters they know will all be gone.
10. Enumerated issues subject to automatic referendum: with direct democracy, the citizenry can put issues on the ballot by its own initiative (collecting signatures) and can repeal any tax or regulation, and can recall any representative or unelected bureaucrat (or defund any agency) for that matter. But some issues must go to the voters automatically, certainly including but not limited to tax increases.
11. Officeholders must take an oath prior to assuming their position: this oath should include a racial component as the most fundamental loyalty, perhaps swearing out the fourteen words. Full citizenship, and obtaining the one base vote that comes with it, should also require such an oath. We see how many people fetishize the Constitution today, and talk about their oath to it. Well, let them fetishize the race in the future, and the oath they took to that.
12. Vastly reduce the power of the Court. It’s my understanding that the court doesn’t have great power in the Swiss system, and we should look at their approach.
13. Decentralization: end direct election of senators; the state government needs direct representation at the federal level in order to maintain decentralization. Having just another set of federal officeholders beholden to the voters is useless.
14. Think very seriously about including a procedure for states to nullify federal legislation, though this of course is tricky. But certainly there should be some enumerated areas where states and or localities can go their own way, so long as it doesn’t involve inviting the non-white hordes in. Perhaps a majority of governors should be able to nullify laws affecting the states. In any event, something to think about.
15. Exile: Today, we don’t really have communities. Instead, we have cage matches, where one side seeks to completely overturn the values, traditions and mores of the other. This is a disaster from a traditional standpoint. Communities should be able to defend themselves, and they can’t do it if hostiles are allowed to fester and undermine the basis of the community. We need to really think about exile. For example, should not the libertine take it upon himself to move to a more libertine community, rather than agitate within a more tradionally minded place? And at the national level, we’ve got to make it clear to white racial degenerates that they are free to race mix…just not in the White Republic. We’ll happily help pack their bags, just don’t bother coming back.
I could go on, and in much greater detail, but I think something of this sort is close to the best we can do.
I’m obviously a bit late to this discussion. This site generates so many worthwhile articles that I miss many of them if I don’t check in regularly.
Anyway, I’ve already commented on the question of democracy in response to other articles (I think one by Matt Parrott in particular), so excuse me if I’m a broken record…
Democracy is in our DNA. Democracy was largely created by white people. The most successful forms of it have been acheived by white people. The best standards of living and quality of life for the largest number of white people in all of our history has been in democratic white-run states. If we want higher standards of living and even better quality of life for white people, then we should want ever more democracy – especially economic democracy.
Next, the genie of democracy is out of the bottle and will not be put back. The only conditions that I imagine this not being the case is in some planetary human disaster where we revert back to warlordism. Assuming this won’t happen, the genie of democracy won’t be put back because as a high IQ people, we whites will not tolerate it. Nor should we want to, since as a high IQ people, we are strengthened by the input of all our intelligent, creative people.
Last, in the best, purest, cleanest forms of participatory democracy, the natural aristocracy rises to the top. Our aim as racially aware white people should be to keep the marketplace of ideas open, to not tolerate censorship, to not create secret police or death squads or any form of political repression against fellow whites. In such a free marketplace of political discourse, the natural white aristocracy needs no structural, institutionalized leg up. They should be perfectly capable of doing it themselves, or else they aren’t really that exceptional to begin with.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Edit your comment