Provisional Post

[edited several times for more precise language]

I have now been writing on this blog for exactly a year. I have changed my views on certain subjects, and posted some socially bizarre stuff occasionally; I suppose the memetic edgelord mentality of the Alt-Right rubbed off on me a little. I have known for several months now that with the Alt-Right in its current state, I do not fit in there, but I often do not know if I really belong in Neoreaction either, with its current leadership (edit 8/7/17: not that its leadership is all bad — I respect Nick B. Steves — but some articles written on the Social Matter website have a similar metapolitical problem shared with certain parts of the Alt-Right).

The Alt-Right, (some) ethnic nationalists, and Neoreaction have a problem — it starts with the conflation of law and religion which develops into an excuse for discretionary rule and parasitic rent seeking. This problem began in the Near East where law was conflated with religion through the rule of priest-kings (in Sumerian theocracies), and eventually through religiously based law codes such as the Mosaic Law and over a millennium later Sharia Law. This conflation may have entered the West first through the emulation of Achaemenid Persian monarchy, possibly in Plato’s concept of a “philosopher king”. It was not fully realized in the West, however, until Rome began to politically interact with the Near East and the conflation political ruler and priesthood (Pontifex Maximus) occurred in Julius Caesar (who was, by all means, a discretionary ruler and a parasitic rent seeker). For this reason, one might think of Julius Caesar as a sort of Isildur, he introduced to us the Ring of Power granted though conflating law and religion and was assassinated in possession of this power, just like Isildur (I was not the first one to think up this comparison).

This conflation of Imperator and Pontifex Maximus continued among the Roman emperors until the title of Pontifex Maximus was taken up by another line of operational priest-kings — the Papacy — which held both political and religious power over Western Europe during the Middle Ages. The conflation of religion and law would also, somewhat ironically, fall into the hands of those who opposed the papacy the most — the Puritans — who set up their own theocracy based on the Mosaic Law. The cultural successors of the Puritans have continued this trend and have an operational theocracy (with academia and mass media replacing religious institutions) of their own in which they excuse their unipolar discretionary rule by conflating law with their own religions through progressivism and neoconservatism. Democracy has acted as the means by which these operational theocrats conceal the fact that WE ARE RULED by them. Inasmuch as the Amerikaner neocons and SWPL progressives hold up this operational theocracy (usually because of the utility, and sometimes social power it gives them), they are the final “Hobbits” who need to let go of the Ring.

But back to the problem in the dissident Right. There are many who desire discretionary rule instead of allowing for rule determined by markets in cooperation. Rather than destroying the Ring resulting from religion-law conflation (Sauron/YHWH?), they covet it for their own clique or sect as an excuse for discretionary rule which opposes natural law through the parasitic extraction of rents. Why is there the hubris to do this? They either lack the intelligence to see this as a parasitism, or they come from cultures where such a parasitism is considered moral (or both). They may see themselves as Stewards of Gondor/Western Civilization (I am not picking on Tolkien fans; it’s just an analogy), but they must choose whether they will oppose natural law and as a movement perish as Boromir did, or resist the temptation to grab onto parasitic discretionary rule, and survive in honor as Faramir did.

As for me, I do not desire the discretionary rule of a dictator, institutional theocracy, pope or priest-king where law is conflated with religion. I desire aristocratic rule where the monarch is first among equals (other aristocrats being his equals), which develops by markets in cooperation based on the moral principle of non-parasitism. Different markets will serve different people desiring different commons. If you try to impose rule upon me by discretion and not by reciprocity (in accord with natural law), then I will oppose your parasitism through a market in cooperation with the millions of others who oppose it to the end that the said parasitism utterly impossible.

To summarize and conclude this discussion: the Right is subject to internal war because it is in a decision-making process between conflationary, Near Eastern, parasitic discretionary rule and deflationary, European, non-parasitic, market-cooperative rule based on natural law. That’s the way it is. All the religious, moralistic, and metapolitical disputes appear to trace back to this conflict.

How did I come to understand these concepts? — I must give credit to Curt Doolittle with his video on morality, his blog, and his discussions on Sound Cloud.

*When I speak of religion, I am not only speaking of beliefs regarding the supernatural (including whether it exists). I am also speaking of the metaphysics behind various ideologies, as well as phenomena as common as “folk-wisdom” or cultural mythology. Pseudoscience is not the same as religion, but it is regularly employed in arguments for various religions.

**[edited] As an end note, religious concepts were almost always connected to political power in traditional societies in the institution of sacred kingship, as they were to other aspects of life such as agriculture. Religious authority and political power, however, were not always conflated into a single institution or device as happened in the Fertile Crescent, and then in Rome, and then in England, and then in Massachusetts.

Changing the subject, I think some clarifications are also necessary:

  • I began this blog saying I was a Millenial, but many if not most researchers would place me in Generation Z (I was only four years old when 9/11 happened, and I don’t remember it).
  • Because I think that the fifth political theory (though incomplete and only a temporarily appropriate model) has important valid arguments, I am not sure if it is still appropriate for me to call myself a nationalist, at least not in the hard sense of the word. So I have considered changing my blog name. If anyone thinks this is a bad idea, let me know in the comments.
  • The label “Alt-Right” seems to be a constantly shifting label. Yes, I remember “heilgate”, and I reject National Socialism as a political system, so if you have seen me using the term “Alt-Right”, keep in mind I am speaking in the broadest sense possible, and am usually referring to non-National Socialists elements unless I indicate otherwise. However, unless the Alt-Right somehow discontinues being popularly understood simply as “Nazism”, I think it is necessary to develop a different market in cooperation for the continuation of European and Eurocolonial ethnic groups. The concept of ethnic identity must separate itself from sectarian ideologies if it is to work in the West.

Now, for the time being, I think that I have said all that needs saying. There are simply enough other people who are publishing opinions very similar to my own, that it is not necessary for me to write very frequently. This is a good thing because within the next several months I will not have very much time to write anything for this blog. The only instance in which I plan to publish an article in the near future is if a cost is imposed upon me by someone making a misrepresentational critique of something I have previously written, and I need to write a refutation (this has happened before).

In the mean time, I will leave you with some very comprehensive websites you can visit to avoid boredom:


Fifth Political Theory

*Before criticizing 5th PT as “Judaism” as one commenter did below, remember that non-state actors can be just as powerful, if not more powerful than state actors — and this is possible, without parasitism, through reciprocity which leads to cooperation.

A blog on Tolkien’s elves:

An amusing channel if you want to have an existential crisis (I don’t agree with their political views, but the science is interesting):

A brief explanation of Tolkien’s mythology (2 videos)





4 thoughts on “Provisional Post

  1. 5PT is basically “Becoming Jews: The Guide”. It’s a defeatist approach to the problem, where we give away our rightful possessions in exchange for a life of subservience.
    It’s not even a sure thing that once we abdicate from power and resign ourselves to ourselves, once we become a minority, other groups will leave us alone instead of dissolve us by violent (many here, you can pick any) means.
    We wouldn’t have self-determination or anything else either. Ask a Jew if he likes Jewish history, they’re only thriving now in the past couple centuries and because they grasped a monopoly on Banking/Moneylending/Goldsmithing due to a very specific circumstance of the Church making illegal for Christians to engane in these activities and also tolerating them.
    We will not have such opportunity ever again, and nothing says that others will tolerate us – our women would probably be kidnapped and sold for concubinage, like they do in the Middle East with the Kurds, or how Turks and Mongols did with the whole of pre-Mongoloid Central Asia, or how Arabs did with Coastal Europeans in their massive Slave Trade.

    5PT is ethnic suicide and should not be taken seriously.


    1. No. The 5th PT is simply an idea someone has who is aware of the limited power we currently have to form separate states. I never considered 5th PT to be perfect or complete, but it is situationally applicable. Also, I do not see a large emphasis on banking coming from 5th PT. Markets are not the same as banks.


  2. About Propertarianism also: It relies too much on other peoples capacity to function by themselves, and not as they are, followers and servants.
    Most, if not almost all people out there has no Agency, not knowing this by now when society screams that at your face is selective self-delusion maybe aimed to sooth depression or something of the like (not wanting to lose Hope).
    It’s a very well done step up from Libertarianism but impractical in reality just like it, apart from very small and little specialized communities. Anti-Puritan likes to babble about the Icelandic Private Society, but the context there cannot by any means be applied to larger and more complex structures – even Communism would work in the setting those Icelanders were in.


    1. I think Gamergate and the Trump phenomenon disproved your idea that most people *have* no agency. Agency can also change with a changing informational and political environment. I think you are behaving like a troll attempting to make emotional appeals, and possibly someone trying to use cynicism to justify an ideology — which is exactly what certain Abrahamists have done to justify their own parasitic ideologies.

      The reason liberals do not join the Alt-Right is because they rightly perceive that many of its political ideas are unjust in that they lack reciprocity. Its not that liberals don’t have agency — Satoshi Kanazawa has already documented that they are more intelligent than conservatives — its that they see discretionary rule as immoral. Now you can hope the average white IQ will drop 5 to 10 points so that people will willingly accept a dictator, or we can proceed according to the moral principle accepted in the middle and upper classes where power is concentrated.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s