Democracy
is often praised as the ideal model of government by those who
totally distort and misunderstand its meaning. True democracy is
literally “rule by the people,” not by elected representatives.
Parliamentary democracy, on the other hand, is a republic, modeled
after the Roman Republic, and not the Athenian or Viking democracies.
In
a parliamentary democracy or democratic republic, the multitude of
governing officials forces a compromise between several groups of
people who have only their own self interests in mind. Rather than
meeting at a logical center, democracy results in a constant struggle
or duality requiring constant voting, reviewing, monitoring, and
changing of laws. As such, democracy is not the application of
traditional principles towards civilization, but rather the
subordination of laws to irrational ideologies, campaign schemes, and
corporatist swindles.
What
most defines modern democracy is the influence of party financiers,
who fund political campaigns to brainwash the electorate, and bribe
the government to pass favorable laws that are so complex as to hide
their real intent from the public.
Confined
to the city-state, democracy is a successful form of government, but
in a nation of millions, one vote holds no real significance, since
it is guaranteed that the quality of the populace has dramatically
decreased. There are no longer any natural controls to weed out
weak-minded and undesirable people; but rather we live in an
artificial environment that is ripe for producing just those types of
people, especially since we have mechanisms which discourage hatred
and other natural reactions that regulate against negative social
evolutions.
Nevertheless,
it is not the will of the people as severed from traditional
principles which should govern. The motto of democracy is not vox
populi vox Dei (the
voice of the people is the voice of God), but rather vulgus
vult decipi (the
people want to be deceived) ergo
decipiatur
(therefore let them be deceived); hence, the proverb, “Do not
listen to those who are accustomed to claim that the voice of the
people is the voice of God, because the tumult of the masses is
always close to insanity.”
As
forms of populism, democratic principles are designed to free the
lowest human tendencies or are freedoms that should only be allotted
to paradisiacal man who self-governs. Contrarily, in fallen man, a
certain democratic ideology is supported so long as it doesn’t come
into conflict with personal prejudices, whereas conservative and
liberal ideologies are aimed at either retaining bourgeois control or
securing entitlements for the proletariat; neither ideology is
comprised of scientific theories beyond a certain narrow prejudicial
view.
A
limited government, that is, less government control, is beneficial
insofar as to prevent destructive programs that re-engineer society
away from what is natural and real, but not to the extent that a
total collapse of order ensues. Free market capitalism which ends in
consumerism is not favorable since it erodes all principles and
virtues and replaces them with marketing trends and the herd
mentality. What is intellectual and good is not going to be the most
popular, but since the market is moved by popularity, society is
allowed to discriminate against the best and brightest who can no
longer gain a foothold.
In
the West, where physical beauty is abundant, there is a common
tendency to replace the intellect with the passions and thus
aestheticism, or with common philosophy and thus rationalism, as was
the case with the Renaissance, of which Schuon writes, “naturalism
could not kill symbolism—sacred art—without humanism killing
anagogy and, with it, gnosis.” Such “progress,” as
characterized by its rebellion against nature and the divine, has
given rise to relativism and social justice, which has redefined the
human as a totally profane and dependent slave.
Since
science has adopted the myth of progress, everything in the social,
economic, and scientific domain has come under the control of
political propaganda to further the progressive agenda. As these
programs become popularized so does progress become inverted and
extended downwards into the most subhuman depths possible.
Progressivism has thus flourished in an environment where society has
lost sight of its own tradition and history.
One
may note that what is natural for the lower self and castes is not
natural for the higher. We are concerned therefore with what is
natural for primordial man, possessing as it were intellectual
intuition, which is receptive of the archetypal world or angelic
principles. Our current period, however, is one in which the
influences of lower castes dominate. In an environment where the
intellect is lost, man becomes a slave first to science and the
machine and then to feeling and desire.
Since
it is the intellect which discriminates between true and false or
good and evil, all forms of right discrimination or discernment are
thereby being outlawed, which leaves one as a slave who no longer
possess the potential for intellectuality.
We
have said that democracy, insofar as it does not hinder tradition,
could only fully succeed if everyone was enlightened, in which case
there wouldn’t be a need for laws; but we have come a long way from
this point, to which our civilization is by all accounts devoid of
even a legitimate tradition.
Nevertheless,
conservatism in theory is supposed to conserve as closely as possible
those principles and virtues which are found in man as prototype.
Liberalism, on the other hand, seeks to free certain privileges and
tendencies allotted to higher man, which would be harmless if bound
by the proper order and grounded in reality, but which amounts to an
attack on higher man when intended for reprobates or when such
privileges are unearned or when lower man lacks the responsibility to
possess them.
In
actuality, conservatism ought to mean a traditional or theocratic
monarchy or the conservation of its principles. Liberalism then is
the liberation from a traditional civilization and its aristocratic
government. The left is therefore intrinsically heretical, where
orthodoxy means conformity to the real, and heresy is a rebellion
against it. True conservatism preserves liberty within a traditional
framework, whereas liberalism succeeds merely in creating a freedom
from something, thereby negating traditional authority.
It
is the latter which has occurred in the name of progress and
revolution in the last few centuries, due in part to the fact that
the existing hierarchy had long degenerated and thus could no longer
properly perform its functions. The remaining conservative-liberal
duality exists in appearance only, whereas conservatism has made
concession after concession until finally becoming a
pseudo-conservatism. Our democracy, no matter what prefix we attach
to it, be it republican, social, or other, is therefore powerless to
stop the inevitable decline of civilization which has already
endemically set in.
As
such, the blame falls more on the insincerity, hypocrisy, and general
falseness of conservatism, for one cannot love God and rebel against
divine principles. To live as closely to the Creator as possible is
to order the world according to the intellect and man’s higher
qualities, whereas liberalism is a rebellion which fashions the world
after the individual and man’s lower tendencies. It is the divine
monarchy and not secular democracy which is just and true, for to be
closest to that which one is defines true liberty.
Moreover,
if the people believe in a Divine Creator and Intellectual Principle
then democracy fights against this Principle by its defiance against
order and embrace of chaos. It allows for a false freedom and false
rights which can only be destructive, and only loosely takes on the
appearance of morality so as to gain sympathy, but even less assumes
the intellectual responsibilities which naturally go along with any
type of rule.
Ideally,
the imperial state must therefore reserve the right to decide on all
matters and to ensure such efforts through a feudalism or fiefdom. In
this system, culture is ordered and protected from chaos and
degeneration by a hierarchy in which the monarch decides who and what
to support, especially with funds, equipment, and land, and likewise,
decides who and what to oppose. Those who lack merit must be allotted
the least responsibilities and can therefore only participate in
society by obeying their superiors, otherwise their influence would
work counter to any traditional society.
Modern
civilization, on the other hand, is no longer ordered from above, but
from below, by each and every businessman and worker who make up the
majority and who pretty much do as they please, which is to say,
create and organize society and its institutions according to no
intelligent design or sacred principle whatsoever. Whereas divine
monarchs uphold the standards of God which appeal to one’s higher
spiritual qualities, such as intellect, creativity, and merit, the
corporate masters create standards which appeal to one’s lower
passions, and as such, act as demons tempting man to sin. Without the
proper measure, placement, and construction, society shall face
problem after problem because nothing is anymore in its right place.
Although
the failings of conservatism reside in its break with tradition,
conservatism grew out of liberalism and the social revolutions which
toppled the old order, thus leaving the bourgeoisie to represent
traditional principles once upheld by the sacerdotal and regal
castes. Whereas the higher castes degenerated, so too did the
bourgeoisie, who soon distorted the sacred principles into a total
parody which served their own ends.
We
then see the fall of all virtues beginning with the rise of
liberalism in the seventeenth century. Whereas traditionalists once
stood for “God, King, and Country,” for absolute monarchy, the
medieval tradition, and initiatic guilds, liberals, on the other
hand, were in favor of anything that would gradually break down the
existing order, be it liberalism, progressive conservatism,
constitutional monarchy, parliamentary democracy, and anything which
benefited the new bourgeois class, including the free market, free
trade, voting rights, property rights, equality under the law,
deregulation, privatization, and so on. These worked to tear away at
all those old structures of order.
However,
the descent from hierarchy (meaning “sovereignty of the sacred”)
to the profane is uncontrollable, whence liberalism becomes socialism
or communism, or until there is no longer anything traditional in
conservatism or liberal in liberalism, such that these terms have
effectively been rendered meaningless. It then becomes necessary to
redefine four basic characteristics: 1. Traditionalism, or rule by a
sacred law with a spiritual hierarchy; 2. Statism or Totalitarianism,
a totalitarian government in control over all social, economic, and
foreign affairs; 3. Naturalism, or individual autonomy, natural
rights, a limited government, and a free market; and 4. Anarchism, or
no state control.
In
the Dark Age, where the traditional center has withdrawn, the sacred
law is abrogated and those who occupy the seats of authority are no
longer legitimate, but are inclined to abuse their powers. In this
case, it becomes necessary to limit the power of government by
constitutional restrictions and a bill of natural rights. In fact,
natural rights have always existed in some form or another since
ancient times on through the medieval era.
The
US constitution once served this purpose but has long been assailed
by federalists and progressives who drafted and interpreted laws by
grossly distorting the commerce and general welfare clauses.
Government by consent has given way to government by precedent, the
motions of which are all unconstitutional, and the power of the
president has become unlimited through thousands of executive orders.
This
has sparked talk of secession, not as to dissolve the federal
government, but as a hollow gesture for state’s rights. However,
even with a true dissolution, the state and local governments are
just as corrupt as the federal government, which, with the latter out
of the way, would only usurp more power. It is only upon the
dissolution of the entire system of government that one may rebuild
anew.
*
* *
In
ancient times, before Draco and Solon, the Greeks and Romans followed
an oral law interpreted and applied by the aristocracy. The later
written laws consisted of a general statement of procedures and
rights, mostly concerning debtor-creditor or plebian-patrician
relations. Perhaps the best provision of these laws is the perpetual
defense of property rights against foreigners, the worst of course
being the separation of powers which breaks away from a true
monarchy. In the case of Rome, we see a total degeneration and
absence of the elite due somewhat to constant warring, but which
evidently led to a period of anarchy, secession, and bad reforms,
among them being amendments allowing the mixing of the castes, the
right of plebeians to government, military, and priestly posts, the
redistribution of land and wealth, and finally the right of plebeians
to enact laws. Needless to say, the late Greek and Roman laws were by
no means sacred laws, and the reforms against the elite were due
mainly to grievances against the tax of one-sixth earnings, which in
comparison to taxes today does not seem at all draconian.
However,
the degeneration of the elite was obvious: the priests hid the
mysteries behind an impenetrable veil, while the rulers valued war
and conquest over peace and spirituality. Thus we agree with Plato
that the purity of caste should be anxiously guarded, “for an
oracle says that when a man of brass or iron guards the state, it
will be destroyed.”
Aristotle
confirms that caste is a true principle “on grounds both of reason
and of fact. For that some should rule and others be ruled is a thing
not only necessary, but expedient; from the hour of their birth, some
are marked out for subjection, others for rule.” In the living
creature, which consists of soul and body, “one is by nature the
ruler and the other the subject…although in bad or corrupted
natures, the body will often appear to rule over the soul, because
they are in an evil and unnatural condition.” For “the intellect
rules the appetites with a constitutional and royal rule [whereas]
the soul rules the body with a despotic rule. And it is clear that
the rule of the soul over the body, and of the mind and the intellect
over the passions, is natural and expedient, whereas the equality of
the two or the rule of the inferior is always hurtful… Where then
there is such a difference as that between soul and body, or between
men and animals (as in the case of those whose business is to use
their body, and who can do nothing better), the lower sort are by
nature slaves, and it is better for them as for all inferiors that
they should be under the rule of a master. For he who can be, and
therefore is, another’s, and he who participates in an intellectual
principle enough to apprehend, but not to have, such a principle, is
a slave by nature, whereas the lower animals cannot even apprehend a
principle: they obey their instincts.”
For
Aristotle, there are three true forms of government: monarchy,
aristocracy, and constitutional government, and three corresponding
perversions: tyranny, oligarchy, and democracy. When all are good, he
says, constitutional government is the worst; but when all are bad,
democracy is the most tolerable. Yet it is obvious that both a
bourgeois aristocracy and an unnatural democracy immediately falls to
a tyranny due to the lack of spiritual qualifications in the lesser
castes. It always comes down to a sacred government as governed by
true principles as opposed to a secular or heretical government as
governed by the passions and corrupted logic.
As
Solon says, “Each day grow older, and learn something new… But
now the Powers of Beauty, Song, and Wine, which are most men’s
delights, are also mine,” so it is today as too many people turn to
various means of escapism and no longer care about evils done by
corrupt governments who are oppressing and destroying the people they
pretend to serve. All that is required for tyranny, says Plato, is
for good people to do nothing to oppose it. Solon adds, “If now you
suffer, do not blame the Powers, for they are good, and all the fault
was ours. All the strongholds you put into his (Titan’s) hands, and
now his slaves must do what he commands.” And Heraclitus says,
“Strife is the father and king of all; some he turns out to be
gods, some men, and he makes the latter slaves and the former free.”
For “it is necessary to understand that war is universal, and order
is fighting, and everything comes about through fighting and
necessity” since “the lightning bolt steers all things.”
Accordingly,
if man has any rights at all he must first and foremost have the
right to self-defense. That is why America’s founding fathers meant
for the right to bear arms as primarily a defense against government
tyranny. Thomas Jefferson wrote, “When governments fear the people,
there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is
tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to
keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves
against tyranny in government.” And Thomas Paine wrote, “It is
the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government.”
They meant for the armed citizenry to be more powerful than the
military, as George Washington stated, “A free people ought not
only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient
arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who
might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own
government.”
Noah
Webster expressed similar concern: “The supreme power in America
cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of
the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of
regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United
States.”
Knowing
that liberty and security can only come through force, never through
democracy or majority vote, Patrick Henry stated, “Guard with
jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches
that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright
force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…The great
object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a
gun.” The same is echoed by Richard Lee: “To preserve liberty, it
is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms,
and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”
Unfortunately,
the constitutional safeguards have long deteriorated, and the rights
of the citizens have been surrendered to the government and the
corporations. It is under this circumstance which Alexander Hamilton
speaks of when he says that, “If the representatives of the people
betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the
exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to
all positive forms of government.” And Thomas Jefferson: “What
country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned
from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of
resistance. Let them take arms.”
Alexander
Hamilton goes on to say that, “The obstacles to usurpation and the
facilities of resistance increase with the increased extent of the
state, provided the citizens understand their rights and are disposed
to defend them.” For “in a confederacy the people, without
exaggeration, may be said to be entirely the masters of their own
fate. Power being almost always the rival of power, the general
government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of
the state governments, and these will have the same disposition
towards the general government.”
But
this system has clearly broken down, as state government does not
“afford complete security against invasions of the public liberty
by the national authority.” The federalist war presidents, notably
Lincoln, Wilson, Roosevelt, Johnson, Nixon, and Bush, have all
sacrificed state and individual rights to the federal government.
This
behavior may be characterized as a “statism,” which is prevalent
in the Western model of democracy in which enemies and traitors
infiltrate and subvert the government with the aim of destroying the
people to further their own ends. It is covertly against the will of
the people and aims to sway public opinion through a dirty tricks
campaign of propaganda, deception, intimidation, fear, persecution,
and other illicit means.
Whenever
there is direct democracy on matters of preserving one’s natural
identity, the enemies of the people, especially from the major
parties, will claim that democracy has failed and that the people had
acted out of fear or emotion and were not politically or culturally
educated. Immediately, they will move to overturn the decision
through a national or international body on account of it being
“against human rights.” In effect, what these deplorable
hypocrites are saying is that humans are subhuman apes who must hand
over all rights, money, land, and freedoms, including the freedom of
thought, to foreign enemies of the people. Hence, it is now against
the law not to discriminate against your own kinsmen, but even more
of a crime to have any sort of instinctual protections from
foreigners or criminals.
As
our true culture must be defended and preserved against the
commercialist nightmare, so too must the right to self-preservation
and self-determination be defended against a false multiculturalism.
The cult of political correctness and other mental complexes must be
dismantled. We must not exterminate all reason and intelligence for
some wholly insignificant and contrived emotions which are fabricated
by the “tolerance bureau.”
Schopenhauer
claimed that all truth, before being accepted as self-evident, passed
through stages of ridicule and violent oppression as a product of the
fear response, but we must object that in most cases hard truths are
never learned in any way that might benefit man as a catalyst for
change. Often these truths are forgotten or ignored as irrelevant
because most people are too selfish to make sacrifices towards
enforcement of principles, whereas the widespread obsession with
material goods and desires undermines wisdom and virtue.
Such
is evermore the case with the corrupted political system which the
people continue to support because it supposedly upholds some
semblance of law and order. But if this were true our civilization
would not be declining as it is. Nor can we say it is rooted in
religious values, for what has survived today is merely the
misunderstood renderings which combines a mindless legalism with the
bigotry of a “chosen and exceptional people.”
Modern
laws are not derived from the “will of God,” but from those who
are wholly unqualified to interpret his will, for they would have it
that God is a totally irrational and hypocritical sentimentalist who
wills ignorance and suffering. This pretense that modern laws are for
good allows those who write and enforce the laws to believe in their
infallibility, whereas the law is merely a way for the plutocrats to
maintain wealth and power, and the legal system is the vehicle to
oppress the people and force them to do the ruler’s bidding.
Similarly,
there is often a lot of talk in political circles about unity, as if
making peace was more important than principles, but where this leads
to is undoubtedly a centrism by concession and capitulation.
Modern
politics, however, can only be a struggle, since it is clear that the
worst subversive elements in society have taken over the government
and political parties. These forces are expanding on a daily basis
assuming more powers and encroaching upon more areas of our lives.
Bankrupt and for the most part opposed by the people, these
governments multiply into international super-governments instead of
ceding powers which they already have abused.
But
there can be no unity with tyrants, usurpers who subvert and wreck
nations and trample the people underfoot; nor can there be any
conformity to the false and irrational notions of the monkey-trainer
media which, howsoever much they deny it, make up the propaganda arm
of the government.
Unity
can only be towards some end which is good, but when the multitude of
rulers are corrupt and ignorant then any sort of government by them
will direct people towards their doom. Their unities are false, for
the union of contraries is to some proximate end and not to an
ultimate end; and from this proximate end begins another deviation or
division into another more varied end farther away from the center,
thus not resolving to a true unity but to dissolution and chaos
because of the very defective nature of the governing idea in
question.
For
this reason, democracy is an inherently flawed system of government
due to its multiple governors and ideologies. There can be no
intellectual or moral unity, for will, being the principle of moral
actions, cannot direct to an end that is of contraries both good and
evil or to principles both true and false. Since there can only be
one or the other we cannot seek a unity in principle, morality, or
policies, but must demand conversion.
Wherefore
God is the cause of all things and thus their ruler—“as there can
be nothing which is not created by God, so there can be nothing which
is not subject to his government” (Aquinas)—the legitimacy of
temporal governments must depend on their likeness to divine
government, which aims above all to establish order and perfection
and to direct all creatures toward the supreme good; hence, “there
are two effects of government, the preservation of things in their
goodness, and the moving of things to good” (Aquinas). A true
unity, therefore, can only be accomplished between the people and
true principles and not through corruption and desire.
The
subjugation of logic to sentiment is immoral, for it results in undue
harm and injustice. Whereas the emotional response is seen through
the individual standpoint, logic takes into consideration the overall
end result through a wider perspective, as by a whole community or an
entire chain of consequences. Unfortunately, neither religious nor
secular laws can claim their basis in logic and metaphysics, but are
rather given over to individual prejudices and special interests.
It
is necessary yet for government to exercise its powers in moderation,
taking utmost care not to remove the choice and will of the
individual. Government must err on the side of the individual, but
must remain a director, not a provider. At present, the West is drunk
with morality. This moral crusading has led straight to
totalitarianism, where every action or behavior is regulated by the
unlimited power of government.
Often
times the moral law is meant to assuage man’s irrational jealousy
or hatred, such as in preserving female virginity or as in
prohibiting behaviors considered taboo by a snobbish minority. It
serves no good to outlaw drugs, prostitution, and gambling, and
over-regulate alcohol, tobacco, and firearms, which only results in a
police state with huge government debts, hundreds of superfluous
departments, and a terrorized citizenry which has lost its due
protections. These illogical laws have created much larger evils than
the supposed crimes they’re meant to protect against. But the
government cannot admit the mistake because it has largely been
usurped by corporations which subjugate the citizens for their own
undeserved profits, or government is used to parent children which
subjugates children stripping them of their rights. In all cases,
corrupt, narcissistic government has acted as a decadent dictator,
which harms its own people and selectively decides who to punish
while rewarding others for criminal behaviors.
In
all truth, the government does not grant rights or protections; it
takes away all rights for one to do anything without the approval and
supervision of the government. In many cases, the law defends immoral
and unintelligent people and allows them to continue their wrong
ways. But if society was placed under threat of retribution for their
evils enforced by the naturally strong or intellectually superior
then most of the problems today would be nonexistent.
In
the end, government must not be used as the road to salvation as by a
legalism, but exists merely to safeguard the greater good against
injustice.
Whenever
the government is given authority to control a certain aspect of
society, the society as a result will collapse by its own weight, as
we see today when the majority of people get back more than they put
into government programs that operate on ceaseless, growing debt.
Rather than anyone benefiting from this fraud, they are actually
placing themselves and their children of several generations into
debt slavery. Indeed, there is a serious dysfunction of the system
when the government must subsidize not only the people’s food and
housing costs but their health care and retirement pensions as well,
yet the government goes much further in subsidizing large and small
businesses, all the while refusing to protect the national economy
from rampant globalism and fraud.
In
point of fact, Western government is nothing more than a corporatism
supported by a dumbocracy or “dictatorship of the dumb.” The
people will typically believe in the propaganda which influential
authorities devise, and those who don’t are dealt with harshly. The
government is heavily invested in corporations, resulting in a
conflict of interest between regulators and the companies.
Corporations thus get away with massive fraud and mass murder, while
standards at every level of business continue to deteriorate. Designs
and inventions lack expertise, and products are made without any
craftsmanship whatsoever, the majority of which are hideously
defective.
This
happens in a civilization which lacks values, since values depend
upon the hierarchy of principles, which has been abolished by the
progressive pseudo-science of equality and egalitarianism. The
original sin of modern civilization derives from democratic and
economic freedom in which the intellect is negated for a devious
intellectualism that is devoid of purpose and virtue, save for the
service of individual desire and vice.
Nevertheless,
since we live under a corrupt, anti-traditional pseudo-democracy, a
few simple strategies must be adopted.
In
this case, the greatest threat to the people comes from too much
power in government. Such power is derived from taxes which fund not
only projects but the armies and enforcers of the laws. One cannot
therefore support natural rights and high taxes. Representative
government should not be given authority over any matter in which the
people wish to preserve their rights. It thus follows that the
greatest enemies of the people are those who claim to oppose the
majority of government policies, yet call for more government
authority in the form of higher taxes. The paying of such taxes to a
corrupt government is the entitlement and legitimization of the
government’s policies. In this case, five percent tax is too high.
Government
power should be as limited as possible. It should not have authority
to grant licenses or permissions for businesses, services, or
activities. One should not need the government’s permission to buy
and sell, operate a business, travel, or drive a car. Political
parties, activist groups, bureaucracies, lobbying, campaigning, and
campaign financing must all be outlawed. Major issues should instead
be resolved by individual communities or by the national people by
right of force. The individual must retain the right of force to
defend himself from malicious entities; so too must the community and
national people reserve the right of force to defend their land and
people from not only criminals but malicious corporations. Once the
people relinquish their right to use deadly force they have already
lost their freedom and guaranteed their enslavement to the
government.
Distinctions
in class should be discouraged, for it must not be thought that one
is superior because one has more wealth. Class does not equal caste.
Products designed only for the rich should be discouraged. Nor should
businessmen be considered inventors and owners of tools and utilities
that the people use for the common good. On the contrary, those ideas
belong to man, whereas it is the privilege of the businessman to
produce it, and the duty of the businessman to the people to make
products for the utmost satisfaction of the people, in terms of
quality, universality, compatibility, affordability, and ease of use,
rather than the maximization of profit for the business. Ideas for
various inventions have existed by several people long before they
were produced. Inventions preexist due to possibility and common
functionality. One should not be able to claim ownership, as if by
right, over an idea, simply because one produced it first and filed
for a copyright or patent.
Piracy
has long been a defense against corporate injustice, and today in the
free flow of information it is impossible to stop it. Digital
technology, crypto-currencies, and computerized 3D printing of
plastic and metal objects will usher in the next revolution that may
break the stranglehold of large corporations, the managerial class,
and the global trade debacle.
Consequently,
employment in valueless jobs should not be sought, since it is no
longer our concern to grow the gross domestic product of the nation
in order to increase tax revenue. Belief in an economy is therefore a
delusion; there is only the individual family. Jobs should be valued
by the necessity and usefulness of products or services they produce,
not by the amount of sales they generate.
Education,
too, has become too expansive. Most people should not be encouraged
to become “the best,” but to become self-sufficient and
self-reliant. They should be encouraged to farm and keep livestock
and live off the land, not to be pawns or consumers in a mindless
economy, and not to be dependent upon factories for food and living
needs. Food is the most sacred thing to man. Food should be as pure
and simple as possible, not containing any toxic pesticides,
additives, or genetically-modified substances.
Essentially,
one must remember that everything must be done for the individual
freedom over and against corporate crimes. It is not the duty of
government to regulate vices, but to provide for the common defense
of its citizens. The individual must be defended against all
pseudo-authorities in government, science, religion, and business. If
these entities violate the people and usurp powers not granted them,
then the people must fight back through nullification of unjust laws
and authoritative power. Only with such defenses can the people be
preserved so that a future destiny may be possible.
Above
all, it must be remembered that all government departments and their
programs, including warfare, welfare, espionage, policing,
regulation, corporatism, subsidies, monopolies, inflation, bank
fraud, debt, and the boom-bust cycle would not be possible without
the central bank, fiat currency, and fractional reserve banking. By
creating money that is backed by nothing, thus inflating the money
supply and deflating the purchasing power of the currency, the
central bank is essentially stealing from the people’s wealth
without their consent and redistributing it to the government, banks,
and corporations, thereby enabling the expansion of government and
corporations through debt spending.
Therefore,
no single policy matters if not the ability to issue money and credit
out of thin air. The single focus of any political movement must be
to abolish central banking, fiat currency, and fractional reserve
banking. The state must return to a commodity-based currency and
allow only fully-backed reserve credit. Immediately thereafter, all
of the evils wrongly attributed to capitalism, but due in reality to
socialist central banking, would collapse into a pile of rubble.
The
Socialist Illusion
In
Principles of
Communism, Marx writes
that the course of the communist revolution will “establish a
democratic constitution, and through this, the direct or indirect
dominance of the proletariat,” who, according to Marx, originated
in the eighteenth century with the industrial revolution and the
birth of the machine and fossil fuels.
The
bourgeoisie also did not exist before the modern age and only came
about through an anomaly, that is, a wholly material civilization,
which is no longer ordered by universal principles. It is only here
where we see a class struggle between two camps, merchant and
servant, which are concerned only with production and money. The
merchant, moreover, gradually became disconnected from his art equal
to the degree that manufacturing became more mechanized and
businesses grew larger.
By
contrast, in the height of the Middle Ages, there were in existence
initiatic guilds which were spiritual vocations by nature, and this
was reflected in their art of which there was no distinction between
art and craft. The artisan was an intelligent worker whose art was
the expression of divine principles, which cannot be reproduced by
machines. Even in the manufacturing period towards the end of the
Middle Ages, artisans put a sort of individual character into their
art; they did what they loved to do, which not only came natural to
them, but was also a sacred rite through which they invoked a
presence, a spiritual state or ecstasy, which was at the same time
intellectual. There is nothing of this in the assembly lines and
modern trades which are by no means arts or crafts, but rather
robotic movements of which any individual or intellectual expression
becomes an anathema.
Capitalism,
industrialism, and progressivism are all things which grew from
scientism, which combined with mercantilism to serve the deathblow to
traditional civilization as organized by a hierarchy of castes.
Mercantilism reduces life to work and wealth, having for its main
tenets that all raw materials be exploited and that manufacturing,
markets, exports, wealth, and the working population constantly
increase. In this way, mercantilism was much aligned with materialism
and atheism, with its worship of the economy, which characterizes
both capitalism and socialism. In the transition from traditional to
modern civilization the castes were dissolved; government and the
economy were no longer overseen by the sacerdotal caste. The artisan
who lived to fashion his art gave way to the worker, while
mercantilism gave way to globalism and socialism.
Whereas
capitalism is the rule of the bourgeois and socialism is the rule of
the proletariat, tradition is the rule of the warrior-king who is
given divine right from the hierophant. In capitalism, warriors and
priests are subordinate to merchant-rulers, while in socialism,
warriors, priests, and merchants are to be gradually done away with
altogether. Both present the same problem: businessmen or merchants
are trained in business and are ever conscious on how to generate
money and manage businesses, just as builders are conscious on how to
build and servants on how to serve. This makes them naturally unfit
for government, especially in today’s world where companies fix
problems by buyoffs and spending, which is also the only thing that a
democratic government knows how to do. Therefore, only
aristocrats—warriors or spiritual men—should govern, whose
consciousness isn’t busied on anything other than preserving peace,
justice, and protection of the people.
But
the castes no longer exist, like everything modern which has since
lost its meaning, for to partake in a caste one must be spiritually
reborn and bound by the universal principles from which a traditional
civilization is based. This unfortunate error, which the moderns
think can just as well be overlooked, has from the start spelled doom
for any people adopting egalitarian democracy supporting the fantasy
of equality. In the end, this departure leads to a civilization
characterized by heresy.
Marxism,
with its dialectical materialism, has been worked out into a
pseudo-science and a pseudo-religion to which all other religions and
sciences must conform. Its highest law is that all differences lead
to conflict and therefore must be dissolved. In his Communist
Manifesto, Marx wrongly views humanity as nothing more than a history
of class struggles between oppressor and oppressed, ruler and ruled.
Nonetheless, if that were so one must also state that such is an
inescapable law of the universe, since in everything there is an
object and subject, a thought and action, a cause and effect, a will
and act; so too is there a truth and falsehood, and a consequence for
our actions.
Marx
was wrong to say, however, that the upper castes in traditional
civilizations were merely lawgivers, for they too were in conformity
with such laws which were not their own, since spiritual law has a
nonhuman origin, just as cause and effect is independent of the human
will. Nor can we admit that a monarchy equates to tyranny, which,
truth be told, only exists when the government grossly abuses the
people or their nation or the environment in which they live. Such
abuses are often the product of the authority’s incompetence. In
the periods between the fourteenth and seventeenth centuries, due to
religious incompetence, empires were decimated and the properly
initiated sacerdotal and regal castes were eradicated. The kings who
assumed their positions lacked qualifications and were increasingly
profane. But since one cannot judge a system by its degeneration, all
of history cannot be thought of as a “class struggle.”
Whereas
class is social and entirely modern, caste, on the other hand, is a
vocation, which is in every way the natural ability that a person is
born with, and is therefore nothing more than skill and virtue. True
oppression comes from an unnatural usurpation or from a rebellion
against the true and rightful laws of the universe so as to surrender
to one’s own vice and temptation. The performance of any thought or
act—indeed, very consciousness—is a struggle within itself, and
to refuse this reality is to fall into the trap of the mediocre and
of spiritual slavery. Because of the fear of differences, Marxism
echoes, or rather, amplifies, degeneration by proposing the
equalization of man unto the lowest common denominator through the
abolition of “all things traditional.” Such is a world in which
slaves rule, where fools become kings, and the wise become the
persecuted. Marxism, along with industrialist capitalism, leads to
lower forms of life, and this is supported by research on declining
intelligence.
Marx’s
assertion that class antagonism has its basis in private property is
also a gross oversimplification which viewpoint fails to recognize
anything but the economy. Verily, injustice comes from sin, from
greed, sloth, jealousy, disloyalty, and indecency. There is always
going to be someone who is smarter, stronger, or more skillful no
matter how much one tries to engineer society, for man is made by God
and nature, not man and machine. Even if class was done away with
there would be inter-class antagonisms because man is inherently
jealous. Nevertheless, class can never be fully dissolved lest there
would be only a worker class but no intellectual class. Who would
command the military? Who would be the designers, inventors,
managers? Who would decide the laws? Marxism would cast civilization
into a downward spiral toward lower and lower types of man.
Wealth,
on the other hand, would lose its meaning. Ideally, wealth is a
measure of one’s skill, knowledge, or ability to do work. Capacity
for knowledge and certain skills is genetic, and what isn’t purely
genetic is traditionally passed on from generation to generation
through learning and upbringing. Thus, in theory, inheritance and the
traditional caste system makes perfect sense. However, when wealth is
disproportionate to knowledge, skill, or ability to do work then we
have an imbalance. This gives the wrong elements too much influence
in society, and therefore, society is evermore being brought down to
a lower level, as is the case today.
Notwithstanding,
both socialism and capitalism are presented to the people as a
liberation, as man’s salvation, and as a pseudo-religion that can
somehow exist along side orthodox religious doctrine, yet all three
revolve around the economy.
After
the French Revolution, conservatism appears in opposition to
liberalism but only illusorily, for conservatism only seeks to
conserve those poisons, such as capitalism, manufacturing, and free
trade, which destroyed the spiritual and monarchical powers, and
liberalism is only a liberation from those two traditional
authorities. From this point, the idea of caste is dissolved and a
superficial system of classes takes its place; the highest truth
comes no longer from God, from the sacerdotal and regal authorities,
but from money, the economy, work, and the means of production. The
center is no longer that immutable unmanifested point at the summit,
but rather at the circumference and the accidents, in mindless
production, materialism, and the economy.
The
fallacy of conservatism is therefore pointed out by Marx who refers
to an apparent conservative or bourgeois socialism which is not
unlike today’s conservatism of so-called reformers of every kind,
and which likewise went hand-in-hand with a Christian socialism. In
the words of Marx, “A part of the bourgeoisie is desirous of
redressing social grievances in order to secure the continued
existence of bourgeois society. To this section belong economists,
philanthropists, humanitarians, improvers of the condition of the
working class, organizers of charity, members of societies for the
prevention of cruelty to animals, temperance fanatics,
hole-and-corner reformers of every imaginable kind. This form of
socialism has, moreover, been worked out into complete systems.”
However, after acknowledging the destructiveness of industrialism and
free trade, Marx deems the solution to be an impossible proletarian
supremacy by transforming everyone into a proletariat and thereby
dissolving all class distinctions and all political power.
From
our perspective, democracy, conservatism, socialism, and communism
are all just various revolutions against tradition of which there can
be no substitute. It must then follow that all of these forms are
false in various degrees for the purpose of usurpation of power and
therefore must be treated as such, that is, as hostile illusions that
cannot be trusted, but which must be denounced as intolerable frauds
and noxious poisons to any healthy society.
Marxism
has for its ultimate goal the elimination of tradition, but above
all, the Aryan tradition, and with it, the elimination of European
racial identity. Marxism, moreover, seeks to abolish the natural
order of mankind, of which includes religion, race, caste, empire,
nation, culture, family, private property, etc.—all of which are
integral components of a natural human civilization. In Principles
of Communism, Marx
writes that the ethnic nationalities must “mingle with each other”
and thereby “dissolve themselves, just as the various estate and
class distinctions must disappear.” Communism also “makes all
existing religions superfluous and brings about their disappearance.”
Here Marx figured well that assimilation destroys tradition and that
the host culture always gives way to the foreign subculture, which
often lacking intellectuality, need only appeal to one’s lowest
passions. This strategy is furthered by Trotsky’s policy of
“political correctness.”
Whereas
the natural human tendency compels one to positive action, Marxism is
entirely negative and can only be drawn to those poisons which
dissolve, destroy, and disrupt the fabric of our civilization,
through global trade, global finance, global governing bodies,
international military and policing, multiculturalism, feminism,
foreign aid, open borders, mass immigration, social justice, and the
global redistribution of wealth, in the hope that one day the Marxist
may come to rule over all the earth of which all inhabitants have now
become “equalized.”
Now
all of these policies have wreaked havoc on the West where the
European has quickly become a minority in the world population. Among
the African, Asian, Semitic, and mixed races, the European comprises
a measly fraction of the overall percentage, well below the
proportionate ratio. In only the last sixty years the percentage of
global white population has been cut in half while the African and
Asian populations have quadrupled. This Eastern and Southern
population explosion has resulted in food and water shortages,
greater pollution, destruction of land and natural habitats, loss of
species, mass migrations, and high demand for fossil fuels.
Even
though overpopulation is clearly at the heart of the most severe
problems today, including climate change, the unruly politicians
refuse to recognize it and propose instead a sentimental program that
brings all people together, save but in appearance, while the world’s
poor and diseased suffer and die unnoticed.
It
is painfully obvious that an ideology based on destruction and the
lower passions can only end in total destruction and irrational
subhuman behavior, until finally there is no more life on this
planet.
The
folkish revival that pulls us out of the Dark Age can only be through
a reconstitution of an intellectual elite supported by a traditional
monarchy. Tradition, as it were, is counterrevolutionary and
resistant to limited systems of any kind, as must needs be, since it
was a series of revolutions which further degenerated civilization,
many of which were led and organized by a foreign population, as is
the case with the Jewish Bolsheviks. Rather than continue this
delusion that Europe, and indeed the world, is under a so-called
“white rule,” we must realize that the West is being dominated by
foreign masters, and that if any rights exist it would start and end
with the right for a people to be ruled by their own traditions and
those possessing the right qualifications thereof. Until this happens
there can be no talk of rights and humanity, which are everywhere as
nothing more than sad and appalling counterfeits.
The
Capitalist Illusion
Nikolai
Berdyaev put the blame for destroying spirituality squarely on the
shoulders of the bourgeois, industrialist, capitalist civilization,
which he says has enslaved man to matter and opposed him to eternal
principles. In adopting the machine, man not only lost his organic
character but had cut himself off from contemplation and the inner
communion with the Spirit. In an attempt to dominate nature, man lost
his culture and purpose to technology and technique. “The doctrine
of progress,” he writes, “is first and foremost an entirely
illegitimate deification of the future at the expense of past and
present, in a way that has not the slightest scientific,
philosophical, or moral justification.” What has progressed is
man’s development toward lower types of being starting with a
material practicalism, which cut man off from nature and made him
utterly dependent within a safe, sheltered, spoon-fed existence; and
this gave way to the impractical, culminating in irrational
sentimentalism and the complete surrender to the lower passions. Thus
we move from one extreme to the next.
Whereas
science is ever-changing and unable to foresee all possible
consequences, spiritual truths remain constant; therefore, science
and innovation alone cannot be the guiding principle of civilization.
Science would not have gotten out of control had the sentiment not
become dominant in modern man. But being allowed to develop into the
most gynocentrist extreme, the modern world has fallen to the most
deviant behaviors of females and children, including the widespread
obsession with childish holidays, worthless events and activities,
sports, socializing, partying, sex, and the worship of material
goods. Cults of civility and mere appearances rule the day.
The
capitalist has always remained in denial of his crime, choosing
instead to remake religion around capitalism; likewise, the socialist
followed suit after the failure of communism. Indeed, one may notice
how brand icons have replaced religious icons and in many cases have
even taken religious icons for their own, which constitutes a
pseudo-religion. This and the fact that capitalism arose in the
colonialist era as a means of furthering international trade, which
in all cases tears away at the spirituality and virtue of the
community, and shows it to be an anti-traditional poison. We are now
at the point where modern science is replacing man and the world with
machines, technology, and robots, and we must ask the question, what
place is there left for man?
One
may, in this vein, charge the modern world with a prometheanism,i
the likes of which we have never seen before.
The
Libertarian Fallacy
The
libertarian philosophy derives from Locke’s natural law and natural
rights theory, according to which all men are created equal. However,
equality does not exist in nature, nor do we find large collectives
or nations. Everywhere we see masters or alphas who guide their flock
or family. And what exactly is the natural state of man? That which
is discerning or that which is tolerant?
If
people are admittedly not equal in terms of intelligence, skill, or
morality, then neither are they equal in law; therefore, one must
rule over another. However, such power should be limited and
justified by reason.
As
a system, libertarianism goes astray in its proposition of the
absolute right of the individual over and against the community, and
in its proclamation of the free market mechanism as a central
principle, both of which seem to quantify nature by giving primacy to
the lowest common denominator.
The
mass market industry of large corporations secures the concentration
of wealth in the hands of the few and brings about the
solidification, not the competition, of the marketplace. This flaw in
the free market gives the wealthy more rights to certain things than
everyone else, even as to allow the rich to be above the law. It does
not mean that certain goods are worth the price at which they are
sold, nor does it mean that businesses are worth their value.
Capitalism is essentially the rule and manipulation of the lower
passions and especially the ignorant.
Economic
liberalism tends to divide the people into producers and workers.
Many of the so-called producers do not produce anything but are
merely businessmen who make deals which exploit others. Often
producers merely own the machine tools or shops and do no work but
take all the credit. Thus producers are worshiped only for their
ability to create jobs. Very rarely it happens that someone invents
something remarkable that truly works, is practical, and is offered
at a fair price. Where products are produced they are almost always
junk products, which are by no means better, but survive and overtake
the competition based solely on their cheapness of production cost,
distribution rights, and mass marketing.
After
spirituality and artisanship was replaced by factories and machines,
producers inflated their worth above the workers. Whereas once
craftsmanship was of very high importance, now it is looked upon as
something that can be continuously adapted to produce higher profit
margins for producers. Because of modern technology, particularly
modern transportation, products can be sold not just locally but
worldwide. In this case, almost always the mass-produced product is
cheap and inferior, but because of its standardization and
monopolization, it pushes out all the competition save for a handful
of businesses who can produce at this same level and copy the same
model.
Never
does such a company deserve the huge profits that it makes, but most
of all it ruins the community by stripping the personality from the
marketplace and making it impossible for small localized businesses
to survive. As a result, diversity of products is absent and local
cultures are nonexistent. Instead, culture gets decided upon by big
corporations. All new and local cultural phenomena get morphed
through the business process into a commercialism that is hostile to
the higher spiritual idea but respects only empty commercialism and
marketing.
As
corporate power grows through wealth, intelligence and ethics
disappear, while corporations push more and more harmful products on
the community, avoid paying taxes, commit massive fraud, and even
start wars over control of sales and production. If producers were
the geniuses they’re so often made out to be, then why is it that
nothing works right, designs are flawed, products are made
defectively or cause harm, while workers are treated like slaves and
the criminal and incompetent executives get rewarded with huge
salaries and bonuses?
On
the other hand, a Marxist centralized control over the economy
removes not only free market liberty but the power of the people to
revolt against a corrupt system. Just as wealth is power, so too the
individual consumer exercises power by choosing what or what not to
buy and what business, service, or product to or not to support. This
power is especially important when considering the currency and the
fractional reserve banking system whereby the government funds its
many programs that only result in massive debt and a loss of natural
rights.
Nevertheless,
neither socialism nor capitalism is just, but an incorruptible,
merit-based, cooperative system decided upon by spiritual and logical
principles that is modeled as closely to the free market as possible.
Against
Central and Fractional Banking
Central
banking began in the late seventeenth century as a way for the
modernist, mercantilist, warmongering, and colonialist British
government to lift itself from underneath a heap of war debts.
Through quasi-fiat currency and central banking Britain was able to
collect hidden taxes by stealing from the money supply and
manipulating the economy.
In
the same manner, the Federal Reserve, which acts as a private central
bank, was formed in order to protect large corporations and to fund
wars, welfare, and an expansive government through unlimited credit
and deficit spending that is only made possible with a fiat currency.
Whereas large banks manipulate the market through rate fixing (such
as the Libor rate and interest rate swaps), and the wealthy
manipulate the stock market through speculation and high frequency
algorithms, central banks manipulate the economy by artificially
injecting more money into the financial system, thereby lowering the
interest rates. They do this in order to monetize the debt. By
devaluing the currency in this manner they are essentially stealing
from the people’s wealth, devaluing their assets, creating
inflation, and driving down wages. Manipulation of currency also
manipulates the stock market and creates the boom-bust cycle, while
the central bank protects bad corporations by giving out unlimited
zero-interest loans.
Whereas
all wars in the modern era were fought over mercantilism, ruling the
world is defined in terms of controlling the global economy. The
Jewish bankers, and Western elites have planned and deliberately
caused wars and financial crises in order to benefit themselves, the
evidence of which is overwhelming. The banks and certain corporations
take in outrageously high profit margins during war time, often
selling to both sides of the conflict. Corporations fund radical
political movements around the globe and encourage militarization for
this distinct purpose. Expansion of government is also encouraged for
the same reason.
After
World War One, the allies forced Germany to accept a privatized
central bank, which devalued the currency in order to pay off the
enormous war debt put on them at three times the value of all German
assets. In turn, foreign bankers bet against the German currency,
which they endlessly lent out with interest, and were making a
fortune through this financial genocide, which directly starved
millions of Germans to death. This lasted until Hitler nationalized
the central bank and issued its own fiat money, essentially
extricating Germany from the global financiers and setting the course
for World War Two. Winston Churchill wrote that World War Two was
fought not because Germany invaded Poland, but because Germany
extricated itself from the global economy and international finance.
After the war, Secretary of State Cordell Hull revealed that
economies decided political alliances; that war was not waged against
those countries with which America had trade agreements, and in turn
those same countries joined the alliance against the axis powers.
Moreover,
it was the collusion of government with the banks which gave us the
many financial crises, including that of 2008-09.
The
Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 forced the banks to issue high
risk loans for housing to poor nonwhites under the pretext that to
reject them was racist. The mortgage backed securities were bought by
government sponsored enterprises, a holdover from the 1930’s, then
bundled and sold on international markets. This not only freed
capital to allow the banks to issue more loans but ensured that the
risky loans were guaranteed by the government. It was a strange cycle
of government and activist coercion, including lawsuits, protests,
and other schemes, against the banks to issue more funds and loans to
poor nonwhites, followed by government bailouts of the financial
industry, which can only be seen as a backdoor method of funding the
socialist agenda.
The
banks, however, were co-conspirators, never challenging the unjust
law in court, since they were taking in hefty profits while charging
their loses to the public. In 1999, the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933,
which kept savings and investment banks separate, was repealed. The
banks were then free to securitize mortgage defaults and sell them on
the international market as derivatives and hedge funds, which
borrowed and bet against those very loans at a rate of over ten to
one-hundred times the amount without any collateral or reserve
holdings. Once the market hit a major recession it became impossible
for the banks to meet the margin calls and the entire scheme
collapsed into thin air, erasing hundreds of trillions of dollars.
Then
in a period of two years, the government issued trillions of dollars
in bailouts and subsidies, and the Federal Reserve secretly gave out
sixteen trillion in near zero interest loans to all those banks in
the US and abroad which, due to massive fraud, have caused the
financial collapse. The Fed continues to buy billions of dollars
worth of junk securities every month to artificially inflate housing
prices, while millions of homes have gone into foreclosure. The
politicians and bankers who defrauded the people and ruined the
economy have not faced any repercussions for doing so but were in
fact rewarded for their financial genocide. Bank fraud has forced at
least one-hundred million people into poverty, whereby the risk of
death and disease rises greatly. Thus bank fraud is directly
responsible for the mass killing of people, yet no one has even been
charged with a crime.
Since
the Federal Reserve was created in 1913, the dollar has lost
ninety-five percent of its purchasing power. By a series of inflation
and deflation, the major banks which run the Federal Reserve and
control the currency have profited immensely through massive fraud
and the complete destruction of the currency and the economy. Yet the
Federal Reserve is not accountable to any branch of government.
Thomas
Jefferson once said that “banks are more dangerous than standing
armies.” Since then, fractional banking has proved to be the
greatest swindle of all time. Since banks are only required to have
ten percent reserve holdings they are essentially stealing the other
ninety percent from the central bank or the taxpayers by artificially
lowering interest rates and printing money out of thin air and
loaning that out. When the scheme worked, as Andrew Jackson said,
rather than put the funds into the business to back the loans, the
bankers paid themselves huge bonuses; but when the scheme failed
which it was bound to do, they charged it to the central bank and the
taxpayers.
Unfortunately,
this scheme has grown into a market worth hundreds of trillions of
dollars of what is nothing more than counterfeit money and worthless
securities, not to mention a mountain of debt. Sooner or later, the
entire financial and governmental system will collapse just as the
Soviet Union did, but on a far vaster global scale.
A
recent study showed how over forty-thousand global corporations are
controlled by one-hundred and fifty interconnected firms. These
financiers have thus a stranglehold on the economy, and it is only
upon such a collapse that will allow civilization to rebuild itself
free from government and corporate totalitarianism.
Against
Keynesianism
Keynesianism,
or the notion that government debt spending produces growth in the
gross domestic product, has been refuted by the Austrian school.
Unlimited government credit through money creation by the central
bank is merely the enabler of socialism. In light of this, most of
what is attributed to the evils of free market capitalism is actually
made possible by central economic socialism. For instance, the fast
food industry and large chain-store retailers are made possible by
government subsidies, welfare, and imbalanced global trade deals.
Most of the employees would not be able to live off of the low wages
they are paid if not for government welfare making up the difference.
Unfair global trade deals undercut product prices and consumer wages.
If there had been a truly free market in place that is free of
government control, these otherwise impossible evils would not have
existed.
Against
False “Rights”
Unlike
natural rights which preserve the common good, civil rights are
unnatural which allow for free access to goods or services that must
be taken from one group and transferred to another. These false
rights merely further the aims of socialism through discrimination by
claiming to do the opposite.
By
way of opposing this false doctrine of human rights let us first
point out that rights are subordinate to principles and must be
either true or false. A right does not originate with a person, or
certain type thereof, but from an external reality independent from
the human condition. A claimed right which goes against the good is
therefore a false right.
Virtually,
all of these new rights are social programs which place inferior man
above the superior at the expense of the latter. For instance, the
right to mass migration is a false right, because it unjustly uproots
the natural inhabitants of a land and subjects them to the rule of a
foreign population with which there are little to no compatibilities.
It is based on a lie, for we are led to believe that immigrants are
needed for work, but they are unskilled, uneducated, and of a foreign
culture.
Equality
is not a right, because some people are valued more than others, and
this value should be reflected in different privileges and incomes.
Housing, food, education, health care, etc., are not rights, for no
one can be obligated to offer a product or service to those who
cannot pay for it.
Industrialism
and free trade are not rights, for they eliminate culture and
identity and enslave man to vice, plastic, and the machine.
Trade
is only profitable if exports exceed imports, but this becomes
impossible as manufacturing in other countries grows. There isn’t
even a right to material progress, for as judged from its radicalized
manifestation it has clearly caused more harm than good. Modern
transportation has brought with it the curse of neocolonialism and
mass market commerce, whereas the machine allows for mass production
of lifeless products. Where this has led to is a life totally removed
from the environment, from mental and physical hardness, from true
values, and replaced it with plastic, concrete, steel, chemicals,
pollution, radiation, and advertisements as far as the eye can see.
That anyone can call this good is a tragedy, but to expect a total
good to come out of this by some right of progress is arrogantly
foul, for it only breeds selfishness and degeneration.
Socialists
have even made credit a civil right, whether it comes from the
government or private industry. Through unjust laws they have forced
the banks and other industries to fund the socialist agenda. The
redistribution of wealth is thus being carried forth by bogus
anti-racism laws and lawsuits which have extorted trillions of
dollars from private and public industries, from whites to nonwhites.
This has led to total economic collapse, which is falsely blamed on
capitalism or some other blind. Nonwhites believe they have a right
to welfare, food stamps, housing, credit, health care, etc., so long
as they are taking it from whites or a predominantly white system.
That such results in global financial ruin is not their concern. They
simply redouble their propaganda efforts against “white capitalism”
and rely on the stupidity of the masses. Their propaganda is but a
means to an end, the goal of which is not social justice, but
revolution and totalitarian government.
On
Ethno-Nationalism
Julius
Evola observed that nationalism acted merely as a mask of the
revolution, whereas the traditional state requires a radical
counterrevolution. The revolution, he says, acts as a virus eating
away at principles or controls whereby order gives way first to
liberalism and the republic and then to socialism and radical
conflict. The nationalisms of the past one-hundred years have all
resulted in catastrophic events, major wars, or as breaches of order
that paved the way for worse forms of government.
In
this sense, the people have rightly been suspicious of nationalism
but wrong in supporting socialism and liberal conservatism, which it
is obvious, are not safe alternatives. The solution to this problem
is in the elements which nationalism lacks, that is to say, universal
principles, upon which all traditional civilizations are founded.
Without this, nationalism can only be a transitional movement which,
upon assuming power, might result in a negative and destructive
culmination rather than a positive and transformative one.
Indications
to this extent are seen in the collectivist nature of nationalism
which even praises rationalism and modernism. The nationalistic
tendency is the exaltation of national achievements, including a
presumed superiority of architecture, technology, medicine, science,
art, and craftsmanship, much of which accounts for modernist hysteria
and useless garbage. Such a view rejects the doctrine of caste and
hierarchy and replaces it with a philosophy of mechanical invention,
scientism, and mass-produced goods as sacred. The nationalist sees
those qualities of excellence which produced everything great, from
the traditional priesthood to advanced civilizations, as something
that, as a rule of science, anyone generally of the same race or
nationality can replicate, completely disregarding any distinction
within the populace, or even the fact that the drawbacks of
scientific knowledge have now outweighed its benefits. Industrialism,
consumerism, and servantilism enslaves man to materialism and grants
hims access to a host of dangerous poisons which destroy him and his
planet on a daily basis.
Again,
modern man has lost his true organic character through the
subjugation of the Spirit by the lower passions. He is led by such
things as outrage, opinion, feelings, and base instincts. So goes
much of nationalism which conserves merely the degenerated shells of
tradition without actually realizing what makes up the inner core and
foundation of such a tradition.
The
Western nationalist parties, all of which have similar policies, are
scarcely different from the Christian conservatives and bourgeois
socialists in that they aim to preserve much of what we despise about
modern civilization. They make mountains out of superficialities
without consideration for the fact that modern culture is only a
rotten shell of a corpse which has died many centuries ago.
What
we are left with today is the progression of the superstition of
life, all the childish fetishes, superstitions, and ceremonies
perpetrated out of convention and masqueraded as tradition, including
everything from manners, behaviors, customs, perspectives, or
religiosity to the social, economic, and political systems.
Everything that modern man believes in and practices is a
superstition and cultish ritual for the purpose of satisfying his
ego, which demands that children ape the actions of the parents. This
instinctual behavior, coupled with a stubborn pride, allows
diabolical errors to continue well after the resultant destruction is
made apparent.
Much
to our disappointment, the nationalist parties have appropriated
Christianity for political purposes or for a religious nationalism
against various religions they deem a threat without actually
espousing the principles of Christianity; and it has become quite
easy to do this since modern Christianity has lost its core meaning.
They use the name of Christianity to justify everything under the sun
no matter how much of a conflict it poses to actual metaphysical
principles. There are no new ideas, no new ways of life, nothing to
actually change the people or mold them into achieving their true
potential.
Against
Christian Liberalism
The
Catholic church, which has been radically transformed from within by
liberals from at least the nineteenth century on, regards migration
as a holy sacrament, which they justify by an improper reading of
scripture; for the “way of the pilgrim” is spiritual, though
incompatible with this age, and is entirely different from economic
migration or immigration as a means of conquering a land. What the
church supports, however, is clearly the latter, as is evident by the
policies and propaganda of the recent popes. This dumbing-down of
religious doctrine is nothing new; it was from the Catholic liberals
also that we heard the call for a “defense of the West” by which
they meant to isolate the people away from any esoteric knowledge of
which modern Christianity has lost. Acting from a point of complete
distortion of exoteric doctrine it became possible to politicize
religion, that is to say, a falsification of doctrine by an
alteration of symbols in order to further progressive political
agendas.
On
the one hand, the church condemns class warfare, greed, and the
destructive waste that goes along with industry and development, and
on the other, it echoes Marxism by supporting globalism, mass
immigration, and more industrialization of underdeveloped nations,
even claiming that it is our duty to do everything in our power to
help immigrants. The church fails to condemn democracy and modernism,
and rather lays the blame for all evils on the West, or more
particularly, on whites or a “white oppression” ignoring the role
which the Jews have played in manipulating minds and causing
divisions upon the greater part of the world.
Nevertheless,
the Populorum
Progressio set a new
standard for Catholic doctrine, distorting charity, hope, and peace
into pure politics and a Marxist war against “rich nations” (the
new “pagan nations”) demanding that the West open its borders to
mass migration and develop the rest of the world. It calls for a “new
humanism,” demanding a global redistribution of wealth to pay for
all of the world’s infrastructure, technology, education, food and
housing, health care, and a slave labor by Westerners to achieve
this. It asserts that “development is the new peace,” demanding
the impossible equalization of all nations. It calls for a
dictatorial “world authority,” stating that it is the duty of
governments to tax the people to death to provide for a “world
fund” and “global development,” which is “the only hope for
peace.”
The
modern church, no longer a guiding beacon, has become a product of
the times, whereby in this downward pull, as Tacitus records, “genius
died with public liberty,” and all that is left is sentimentalism,
hence, “moral philosophy is never so highly praised as when the
manners are in a state of degeneracy”; yet this is a slave morality
wholly unsuited to men of vocation, and it is only the wrecker of
nations that would support it.
According
to Schuon, “charity is not a sentimentalism that causes one to be
blind to the objective differences of phenomena.” Religious
charity, he says, “has become blurred in the consciousness of the
majority of people, being replaced by social concepts having no
connection with traditional truth”; moreover, “poverty, any more
than illness or any other misery, does not carry with it in the sight
of God any ‘right’ to impiety, displeasing as this may sound to
religious demagogues who, under pressure of a materialist and
atheistic environment, bow before this kind of blackmail.” There is
no excuse for criminality or for a false global unity. Global
development and mass migration does nothing to unseat the corrupt
governments of the world or their overlords. The solutions which the
church provides is neither plausible nor desirable, and would only
cause more problems than it purports to solve; far from a world
peace, it is spawning more violence, destruction, hatred, and
increasingly dangerous wars, which will consume entire continents if
the progressive tide is not beaten back.
___
i
According
to Greek myth, Prometheus’ liver was devoured by the eagle each
day only to grow back without ever being extinguished. Whereas the
heart as the seat of the intellect is the place of rebirth, the
liver as the seat of the passions cannot grant wisdom. As the eagle
is associated with the intellect, in Prometheus it only represented
an infernal descent where the spiritual force was used to swell the
psychic or passionate element in him over and against the intellect.
(From Reflections on Tradition and Its Malcontents)
