The doom of the Elves is to be immortal, to love the beauty of the world, to bring it to full flower with their gifts of delicacy and perfection, to last while it lasts … – J.R.R. Tolkien, The Silmarillion
Anyone aware of the three estates theory discussed by Butch Leghorn and the Propertarians understands the basis of what I am discussing here. The theory may be summarized thus: the first estate corresponds to the left, is feminine, and coerces with speech, the second estate corresponds to the right, is masculine, and coerces with force; and the third estate corresponds to the libertarians, is evolutionary (childish in a way), and coerces with remuneration. Some might object, saying that the first estate of the middle ages was not leftist; this is true, but it is largely due to the fact that it was closely tied with and arguably influenced by the second estate. So long as the first estate is mindful of the needs of the second estate, and natural law in general, leftism is minimized.
In Darwinian terms, the masculine right is clearly K-selected, and possess Nietzschean master morality; that is the morality of a sovereign (which really upsets the left). Nietzsche himself articulated in Beyond Good and Evil that some of the key traits of master morality are an honor for what one sees in himself, for one’s hierarchical equals, for ancestors, and for tradition. Likewise, K-selected organisms are competitive, in-group oriented and have inegalitarian social structures (examples being large carnivorous mammals, as well as great apes).
I once considered Non-Aggression Principle libertarians to be completely r-selected, but given that competition is inevitable in markets, I would go to argue that they have a mix of r and K selection strategies, and likewise a mixture of master and slave moralities. (Nietzsche actually believed that this ‘mix’ of moralities was inevitable in most higher civilizations, and also a result the intermixture of aristocracy with commoners, more on this here). It’s fine, oftentimes even helpful, if these individuals are present in the realm, just so long as they are not the ones ruling over it.
The left, however, given its support for ‘gibsmedat’ as though there were infinite resources to go around is clearly r-selected. Likewise, the left resents the sovereign and any group of people who attempt to claim a hold on resources (which can range from land to a civilization, to even things like one’s own biological ethnicity) as property, leading to the slave morality so characteristic of the left. The most extreme manifestation of this is in the anarcho-communists and Antifa.
It should be noted that what is termed by Nietzsche as ‘slave morality’ clearly fits within what MBTI psychology calls ‘extraverted feeling’ (emotions and value judgements are sourced from without), whereas ‘master morality’ corresponds to what is termed as ‘introverted feeling’ (emotions and value judgements are sourced from within) by psychologists. These moral phenomena are not coincidences, they are merely opposing psychological functions.
Now back to the biology behind all this. It is common knowledge that Karl Marx thought that capitalism would give way to communism due to a revolution of the proletariat. I would agree that capitalism can give rise to far left ideologies, but not so much through a revolution of the proletariat. Rather, capitalism, particularly once the industrial revolution became widespread, provided an unprecedented abundance of resources which led a gradual increase in r-selection among Westerners during the modern era; this then caused the political ‘progression’ from aristocracy (K-selected, right) to Whiggism (liberal capitalism – r/K mixture), to the r-selected, far left-wing SJW cultural norms which are common in the present day West. N.B.: Capitalism also selects for the ‘socialized’ temperament in humans, often leading to, yes, socialism. I personally suspect the North Sea trade networks of the middle ages to have begun the process of creating the socialized, liberal, cosmopolitan mindset found in many NW Europeans as well as their North American white liberal analogs.
However, now the West is reaching its carrying capacity, so K-selection is on the horizon, which is evidenced by the fact that millennials are having sex at a later age than their forefathers (K selection delays sexualization); I myself am 20 years old and still haven’t done it yet. There are also right-wing movements (the Alt-Right and Generation Identity) which have gained traction among millennials. Likewise, there is important evidence that millennials are more conservative than previous generations were at their own age (article), which is just more evidence for increasing K-selection. Gnon wins.
In light of the Western Christian Holy Week, I will set forth some ideas regarding how I think Christianity might be made more compatible with our current needs (I speak as an ethnocentric reactionary). It is slightly critical, but there may be solutions to some of the things I bring up. This post is not trying to argue the Christianity is true or false, or that it is good or bad; it is simply taking into account that many Westerners are Christians, and so it would be wise to have an interpretation of the faith that agrees with the cultural and ethnic preservation of the West.
Use the Septuagint instead of Hebrew texts for Old Testament scripture, besides, the Septuagint is older than the Masoretic and other extant Hebrew texts, and scholarship indicates that it is what the apostles used. This also helps disconnect Christianity from the culture and language of Talmudic Judaism.
Figure out how to harmonize martial aristocracy and moderate kin selection with Christian ethics. I Timothy 5:8 might help solve this.
Figure out how to interpret the words of Jesus in the gospels so as not to produce a leveling, Marxist, dysgenic (re)sentiment. It is this perceived sentiment from the gospels that makes critics on the right think that leftists are just “Christians without a Christ”, and it is also responsible for foolish and corrosive “liberation theology” (cf. critical theory/”Cultural Marxism”).
Interpret the meaning of the imperative ‘love not the world’ (first epistle of John) and other statements like this so as not to produce a world-rejecting (quasi-gnostic) sentiment. Ultimately one must accept the physical realm in order to be motivated to refine civilization.
Systematize a non-Zionist interpretation of Romans 11, also deal with Genesis 12 accordingly. Modern Jewry is to have no special spiritual status different from gentiles.
Interpret II Corinthians 6 so that Christians and non-Christians can cooperate towards common political ends. The West will not be saved without this.
Western churches should consider attempt reforming their view of original sin to be more in line with that of the Eastern Orthodox Church. In the Eastern understanding, man is viewed as inherently fallen, not guilty, by original sin (link) — this should help remove the axiological pipeline between original sin and white guilt, male guilt etc. which plagues the West today.
Divorce the concept of God from the Near Eastern tribal divinity ‘YHWH’ — the Septuagint should help with this since God is not called ‘YHWH’ in the Septuagint. A well-studied history of Israelite monotheism should also help do this (YHWH may have simply been a borrowed epithet for the uniquely monotheistic God of the Israelites).
Develop a way in which Western Christians can at least respect, and hopefully appreciate the pre-Christian culture of Europe, and acknowledge its role in the original foundation of Western Civilization through the Greeks and Romans (as well as the Celto-Germanic contribution of the manorial aristocracy). We could really use some of the Roman aristocratic virtues — Dignitas, Gravitas, Pietas, Virtus. Generally speaking, we need to keep an organic continuity with pre-Christian antiquity somehow — the renaissance might be a time to look back on for advice on approaching this matter.
Web sites I found which may be of interest to reactionary Christians
There is a very creative blog I ran across by a Catholic medievalist writing about his perspectives on anime and religion; you can follow the link I posted below to his blog.
“The playbook of the establishment is very simple and very effective: claim that questioners of diversity are driven by plain hatred, that they are poorly-educated hicks who can’t stand losing their white privilege, and are too parochial to understand the progressive cosmopolitanism marvelously spreading through the West.”
“Through these major epochs, Europeans came to de-emphasize the martial virtues associated with feudalism, and as they turned to commerce, new virtues came to gain precedence: commodious living, orderly existence, and the Protestant emphasis on hard work (notwithstanding the excessive brutality of the religious wars and the interstate rivalries resulting from nation-building during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries). David Hume, in An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals (1777), noted this transformation from the martial temper of medieval times to the “sociable, good-natured, humane, merciful, grateful, friendly, generous, beneficent” qualities of the moderns.”
Clearly, Hume understands the origins of cosmopolitan morality.
So yes, the excessive empowerment of the third estate through laissez-faire capitalism (edit: currently through Neoliberal Ayn Rand ideology) clearly has something to do with the pacification of Western nations to their own destruction, and it’s not just da Jooz, it’s the entire socio-economic phenomenon which has atomized and de-masculinized Western men.
Update 4/15/17: This is not to argue in favor of socialism, but for the recognition of how capitalism has changed the social structure of the West in such a way that previously masculine virtues like defending your own tribe have become de-facto sins simply because they are a hindrance or of no use in the marketplace. As far as I am concerned, economics is not something to fetishize and ‘muh free market’ is not an end in itself.
There is a tendency among us humans, especially those who are ardent humanists to overlook beauty which is living because it is not in any way a product of something uniquely ‘human’. Herein lies the difference between the so-called ‘culturists’ and ‘racists’. A ‘culturist’ appreciates the beauty of non–living things created by man — art, music, architecture, literature. He, therefore, seeks the preservation of culture, often against iconoclasm, religious decline, and degeneracy. A ‘racist’ on the other hand appreciates the beauty of the animate, living thing, not created by man, and recognizes that this beauty is a product of some amount of genetic isolation and natural selection. He, therefore, seeks to preserve the beauty of a race from influences such as miscegenation which would necessarily end its unique beauty.
Regarding the word ‘racist’, I use it in this article to denote a puerile label placed upon individuals wishing to preserve human biodiversity, not the view that all members of the same biological race are identical — which is clearly not true.
Iconoclasm is not just manifested in the destruction of the icons, statues, and stained glass windows beloved by Christian traditionalists, it is also manifest in the destruction of a racial type, or even the corruption of the natural beauty of the earth itself — something the anti-environmentalist ‘right’ needs to get a grip on.
This has caused a great rift I observe in the broader right. Those who value inanimate beauty follow suit in the tradition of various popes and Christian monarchs and those who value animate beauty — of the biosphere and living things follow National Socialist thinkers like George Lincoln Rockwell and William Luther Pierce.
I am bold enough to think that both animate and inanimate beauty is worth preserving. In no aesthetic sense am I an iconoclast. I value the preservation of a ‘civilization’ as a culture just as much as the preservation of any human race, which is in fact living and will continue to reproduce its unique beauty (and further refine its beauty) given the right conditions.
So I do not call myself a National Socialist or a ‘Western Culturist’. The error of the National Socialist is his lack of respect for organic cultural tradition (edit: this is common but not universal among NS), and the error of the culturist being his iconoclasm of animate, living beauty. I call myself a national monarchist in that I value both the beauty of inanimate human culture and animate natural race. And there are precedents to national monarchism throughout the ages –pretty much any monarchy centered around one people (as a biological concept of common descent) counts — Anglo-Saxon England, pre-Norman Ireland, Mediaeval Scandinavia and Eastern Europe, modern post-WWII Japan, and there are probably many more examples. There is no reason to assume as a culturist or traditionalist one must disregard biological race or ethne as the solid foundation of a nation, and there is no reason for a biological ethnocentrist ‘racist’ to assume that cultural tradition should be smashed to create some utopian society. Let the true right unite!
There are essentially three different ways in which modern states have kept their traditional identities intact: Islamofascism, Empire, and Insular Nationalism. The national IQ scores which I mention in this article are from this website (yes, it’s Lynn’s and Vanhanen’s data; if you have any criticisms of it, please cite an alternative source).
Islamofascism (bad idea)
Islam provides rules and virtues for people with limited intelligence to observe and daily rituals to enforce them – although this is a false promise since it achieves the opposite. – Curt Doolittle
Islamofascism is the strategy of the nations of the Middle East and Northern Africa who have an average IQ in the 80’s to retain their traditional identities in the present day. It usually involves persecution of religious minorities, polygamy, marrying women at an age most Westerners would find too young, either executing or imprisoning homosexuals (which even Christians should admit is excessive), as well as a general desire to violently conquer new territory by reason of a superstition (and then either execute, or heavily tax people who refuse to convert to the superstition).
This form of government today is favored in the West by the most unintelligent members of the extreme right and extreme left who often advise genocides of Jews, Whites, or the mass murder of gays, and so on. This is not a form of government which any intelligent person living in the present day can take seriously — there is a reason why it only exists in the present (information age) in nations with an average IQ below ~90. It is definitely not something to emulate; it is fundamentally non-Western, and though it has at times cropped up in the West (mostly in the Middle Ages), it is best left in the dustbin containing the more ugly bits of our history.
This form of government is not unique to the Middle East, however, I suspect that it likely originated there. Charlemagne seems to have emulated it when he butchered the pagan Saxons whom he conquered between 782 and 785 AD. Eventually, Charlemagne’s successors would realize that Islamofascism doesn’t work in the long run; this is where the next strategy comes into play: empire.
Empire is a very old form of government which was really first mastered by the Persians with their bureaucracy of satraps. It was later adopted by Alexander the Great of Macedon, then by the Romans. During the Middle Ages, it took shape in the Byzantine, Holy Roman and Angevin Empires. In the early modern period, there was, of course, the Hapsburg Empire, and the Spanish Empire, and in the later part of the modern era, the British Empire reached its peak. Today this form of government is roughly present in Russia and China, and perhaps to a certain degree the Trumpian United States. In all these empires, there is power granted to lower positions of authority underneath of the emperor or king who happens to manage the entire empire, thus various tribes and ethnic groups are usually allowed to have rulership from their own king or local vassal. Because of the multiethnic and multicultural nature of empire, there is a necessity for the emperor to tolerate the decisions of various kingdoms or tribes to adhere to their own religious opinions. The wisest imperial rulers understood this well, from Cyrus the Great of Persia to the Roman Emperors, and even the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V who tolerated the decision of some of his dependent states to turn Lutheran. It is also understood by the Eastern Orthodox leader of Russia, Vladimir Putin, who must tolerate the folk-ways of all the various tribes who inhabit their own individual republics within his large domain. Regarding the IQ of empires, in the present day, most of them fairly high such as in Russia (97) and China (105).
I have noticed that among reactionaries, it is usually the Catholics who favor empire. There is nothing wrong with this, but it must be accepted that any empire, due to its large territorial expanse, will inevitably include various religious groups who must be treated in a dignified manner. Failing to do this will place any such state closer to the realm of Islamofascism, and I sincerely think that you are all more decent people than to create an Islamofascist style state.
Another interesting note is that Nietzsche seemed to have favored a pan-European empire over nationalism. This, I think, may be due to his extensive study of the classics, and possibly a romantic idealism he possessed regarding the Roman Empire. Brett Stevens seems to have followed suit in his promotion of pan-nationalism.
The European Union is essentially a perversion of the Roman Empire. It has sought the ethnolysis of Europe. The lesson learned here: empires must have good leaders, or else they become death traps.
There are of course certain advantages to empire, it gives a way for small groups of people and kingdoms to unite for common defence, and it is a way of reconciling traditionalism and hierarchy with a multiethnic domain — that being said it can be hard to create and control — all of its members must be willing to live under one roof — something which I do not believe will ever happen in the US as long was we have a large population of angry leftists. I should also mention that it is usually, if not always, because of the conflicting interests of various ethnocultural groups that an empire falls apart; it is almost an inevitable part of the lifecycle of an empire as the ruled come to resent the rulers due to a lack of shared identity. In fact, a good analogy of an empire might be to compare it to a heavy, radioactive atomic nucleus which can fissure under the right conditions. So if one seeks a more internally stable model of government than empire, that of the insular nation state (which can be monarchical) should be examined.
Nationalism, contrary to what some would claim, did not originate with Hussites and is not an inherently left-wing form of government. In fact, the concept of an insular nation state is probably the first concept of a nation-state in the West, beginning with the Greek polis, and the early Roman state. It was for the sake of the independent nation, and against subjugation under an empire, that king Leonidas and the 300 Spartans bravely fought the Persians at Thermopylae. It is, in more modern times, what inspired Irish nationalists to break away from the British Empire and create a nation centered around their own culture and religion. The fundamental feature of this type of government is that it maintains the identity one ethnic group with a single culture, and usually rules only the territory in which this ethnic group lives. The culture and ethnic group of the state’s inhabitants are preserved through very strict immigration laws — cucking is rare compared to in the modern ‘West’.
Among reactionaries, I have observed that the insular nationalist approach is taken by Orthodox Christians and Protestants, as well as polytheists, Cosmotheists, and irreligious individuals. I think that the desire for an independent nation-state that was likely one of the main reasons behind the split of Eastern Europe away from the Catholic church in 1054, as well as the decision of many Northern-European countries to break with Rome during the reformation. These nations perceived (whether rightly or wrongly) the Catholic Church to be too internationalist; that it violated their national sovereignty, so they created their own national churches, which were usually in communion with each other through either an Eastern Orthodox communion or a Protestant communion of Anglican and/or Lutheran churches.
In the present day, there are some notable well-developed nations which follow the model of insular nationalism to keep their traditional ethnic and cultural identities afloat, and they are also nations with some of the highest average IQ’s in the world: Iceland (101), Japan (105), South Korea (106), and Hong Kong (108). Consequently, I am not inclined to believe that ethnocentric nationalism is simply an ideology of “stupid rednecks”. As the description insular nationalism implies, most of these nations are islands; some of them are areas of continental land close to the sea. This was also true of early insular nationalist states such as various Greek city-states, and the early Roman state.
Generally speaking, these states are quite technologically advanced. Their insular, mono-ethnic, monocultural status creates a sense of ethnocultural safety and stability which allows individuals to focus on the advancement of science and technology (which also increases IQ via the Flynn effect). In other words, people can pursue science because they aren’t spending all their time and energy desperately trying to keep their identity intact through culture wars; the state keeps the identity of the people intact for them through strict immigration laws, and sometimes a traditional national religion. There is an advantage over empire here indeed; there is a sense of unified identity, of power, of making one’s own rules as a people; this leads to a stronger sense of pride in one’s nation than an empire can probably ever have as a whole.
Individuals who wish to revive the West must do so in a sincerely Western manner. Islamofascism, an ideology of certain low-IQ non-Westerners will not due. Thus a decision needs to be made in various instances between the formation of a multi-national empire and an insular nation state. Different strategies will work for different people and will have different results. When considering realistic political objectives, I would rather live in an insular ethnic nation state than an empire, but I am also aware that some sort of pan-national empire may be necessary for defense purposes. In a romanticist mindset, I am also aware that empire may provide an important opportunity to politically reunite European-Americans living in the US and Latin America with their homelands in Europe, something I would be in favor of, but Europe has to get fixed though before this can happen.
Davidski, the author of the Eurogenes blog has recently brought up an interesting genetic study regarding the ancestral origins of non-native Americans (non-Amerindian peoples living in North America).
So Western civilization has been in a long, slow decay for at least a century, the uniquely European racial type is in danger of extinction, and who is to blame? Many on the Alt-Right would agree with this fellow.
I, however, realize that the problem is much greater than this. The Jews, you see, have always been some of the most talented members of the third estate, which consists of merchants, financiers, and workers of all sorts, but not usually landowners (who are really members of the second estate). So we must not excuse other members of the third estate, as they, through their power of remuneration are ultimately those who have challenged the power of the second estate, the conservatives (aristocratic/martial class). This has played itself out in history in many ways. Classical Athens, the cosmopolitan city that it was, with its policies geared towards the best possible international trade opportunities, clearly an embodiment of the third estate, and also ranked high in terms of liberalism, both in terms of immigration policy, and because it was a democracy. Athens challenged Sparta, which was an embodiment of the second estate, to war and lost. Similarly, Carthage, a city founded by Phoenician traders, which profited from its central position in the Mediterranean, was destroyed by the disciplined, not-yet-decadent Roman Republic after three punic wars.
It was not until the power of the third estate reestablished itself among the high-IQ natives of Northwestern Europe living around the North Sea, that it began to win in its battles against the second estate. After the Roman Empire fell, international trade was restarted in Northwestern Europe by the Frisians, then the Vikings, and then continued by the Hanseatic League. All of this is discussed in Michael Pye’s book The Edge of the World. By the late Mediaeval period, a large, rootless, cosmopolitan merchant class had grown in the Netherlands, Southeastern England, Northern Germany, and Scandinavia, making these areas ripe for the acceptance of both Nominalism (which would establish a metaphysical basis for the individualist axiology of liberalism) in the late Middle Ages, and later, Protestantism in its more radical and low-church varieties (which also has some roots in Nominalism). I would speculate that these phenomena which stem from the individualist axiology of capitalism are the reason why cosmopolitan values, and hence also political correctness, are so deeply entrenched in Germanic-speaking Europe, compared to the rest of it.
So, by now you should at least be thinking something like this person below. I would argue that it is ultimately the culture of capitalism and low church Protestantism, deeply rooted in Mediaeval international trade around the North Sea, which was ultimately behind the Puritan faction in the English Civil War. When the Puritans emigrated from their East Anglian homeland to North America, they brought their iconoclastic culture with them; and were ultimately the predecessors of the Whigs of the revolutionary war, and the Unionists of the American Civil War.
Then, in the middle of the 20th century, the Anglo-Saxon capitalist nations of the USA and Britain fought a war against Germany; I will allow you to speculate whether or not this was because Germany at the time was disrupting the ambitions of a certain *ahem* group of international bankers which were well established in these Anglo-Saxon countries.
Today, according to the well-known youtube channel Black Pigeon Speaks, it is the desire for more debt slaves (to privately owned national banks) to inhabit Western countries which is the driving impetus behind lax restrictions on third-world immigration into Europe. There is also, of course, the case of the globalist George Soros, as well as corporations which propagandize leftism (such as news media), and both Jew and gentile capitalists who are desiring an influx of ethnic non-westerners into the West to utilize as cheap labor.
On Holiness Spirals
Nick B. Steves pointed out to me a while back that holiness spirals are an important factor behind leftism which need to be dealt with in some way. He advised me to see what Jim had to say about it. So I went to Jim’s blog, and it appears that Jim’s arguments are completely valid regarding holiness spirals an essential driver behind left-wing behavior. Holiness spirals can be roughly defined as voluntary behavior which one does in order to publicly appear holier than others.
The thing is, that, at least from my perspective, there appears to be a clear correlation between an excessively powerful third estate, and the presence of holiness spirals in a culture. Though it may be less obvious than other examples I will give, Classical Athens even shows evidence of them — have you ever considered that Athenian democracy may have simply been invented as a platform for holiness spirals? The case of Athens also begs the question: were Socrates and Plato in holiness spirals? (This is something to think about; Socratic philosophy, with its emphasis on epistemology — “The only good is knowledge, and the only evil is ignorance” — may be the basis of the modern holiness spiral of fanatical rational-empiricism)
As another example of the correlation between a powerful third estate and holiness spiral behavior, take for instance the Canaanites, including the Phoenicians, some of whom founded the civilization of Carthage; making ordinary sacrifices using animals was not competitive enough for them, so in competing for higher and higher degrees of holiness, even children became acceptable to sacrifice. Then, of course, there were the Jews, competitive masters of finance, many of whom were self-hating as Jim points out, who played a key role in the foundations of Bolshevism as a means of achieving personal ‘holiness’. And, of course, there were the radical Protestants along the coasts of the North Sea, entrenched in a highly commercial lifestyle, who decided to be better Christians than everyone else by abstaining from holidays and Church aesthetics not prescribed in the Bible (this is formally called the regulative principle of worship). On the other hand, from the descriptions left by Julius Caesar and Tacitus of the Celts and Germans, I know of no evidence of holiness spirals in pre-commercial, pre-Christian, Northwest Europe, and even when these people conducted human sacrifices, mere criminals and slaves were usually considered sufficient (De Bello Gallico, Liber XI, Ch. 16; De origine et situ Germanorum, Ch. XL); there is no record I know of regarding self-immolation, or immolation of one’s children among these people in an attempt to gain higher respect from a deity or to publicly appear more holy. I have also not found evidence of holiness spirals in the pages of the Rig Veda, composed by the Indo-Aryans of the Punjab region around 1300 BC; this literature, however, is largely composed of hymns to various gods, and not accounts of everyday life among the Indo-Aryans.
It is true that the Christian Bible contains injunctions against holiness spirals in some areas, but I think it is necessary to get to the root of this problem before we should try solving it. Clearly, in the West and Near East, holiness spirals coincide with commercialism. Why could this be? I once thought that this is primarily due to an overabundance of resources resulting from highly productive agricultural and industrial sectors in these societies. This hypothesis may partially be true, but after more reflection, I believe it could originally be a result of the religious application of the individualistic competition inherent to capitalism. Just as the Puritans knew that the marketplace was an arena for competition in which a hard work paid off, they understood the religious sphere of life as a marketplace of holiness open for competition. Likewise, Phoenician traders would have seen the sacrifice of various gifts to their gods, going all the way up to their most precious possessions, their own children, as a competitive marketplace for holiness.
So what is the solution then? Society needs to become moderately more collectivistic; having a religion which places emphasis on collective ritual and honor rather than individual righteousness should help keep holiness spirals down. Moreover, it would also be wise to move away from a guilt culture, and towards a shame culture to a moderate degree. Guilt culture is the established norm of modern Western societies, and it seems clear to me that this is at least partially due to the Christian concepts of sin and contrite repentance (source; source). However, many Mediterranean Catholic and Orthodox countries, as well as most East Asian countries, have shame cultures, and these are the parts of the developed world where political correctness is the weakest (source). An important characteristic of guilt culture is that it makes one’s ethical status a matter of great individual concern even if one is not punished by the tribe for ones ‘sin’; it is important to note that this is likely at least partially produced by the individualist axiology which arises from capitalism. In a guilt culture, one’s ethical status is something one is supposed to improve upon using internal guilt (checking one’s privilege, repenting etc.), whereas in a shame culture, one’s ethical status is only a concern on the level of the tribe as an enforcer of rules (source). It is easy to see how an emphasis on individual self-enforcement of value (guilt) in combination with competitive capitalistic axiology leads to holiness spirals and creates Western ethnomasochism as a not just a phenomenon, but a societal norm.
A side note on European paganism and guilt culture: European pagan religions avoided guilt culture by considering the gods to simply be powerful forces in the universe which one had to appease with proper rituals (prayers, sacrifices etc.), but not necessarily love, or feel internally guilty about offending. In my view, this may be the basis behind the Catholic and Orthodox sacrament of penance (although penance is supposed to have contrition), and this is likely one reason why some Mediterranean Catholic and Orthodox countries today have a shame culture, rather than a guilt culture.
So who should be shamed? No mainstream Republican will admit it, but it’s the capitalists, the people of the third estate: both Jew and gentile who have been unable to curb their egoistic appetites for wealth. It is the habit of placing capital ahead of nation which is placing our civilization and people in danger of extinction. Carthage, that is the supreme power of this estate, the Ring of internationalist Power if you will, must be destroyed.
So am I national socialist then? I wouldn’t say so; I would rather call myself a national monarchist; I think a strong aristocracy (second estate), whose power is immutable from wiles of the financial class, is necessary to prevent the ascendancy of a plutocratic oligarchy. Republics and pure meritocracies are simply too easy for plutocrats and their puppets to infiltrate and control (which is probably why the freemasons et al. like them so much). Internationalists, globalists and self-proclaimed cosmopolites — “citizens of the world” should play no part in politics; if they have no allegiance to their country, why should they have any say in running it? It is also true that with an of an aristocracy, you at least know exactly who is in charge, and there is a guarantee that there will be a group of people capable of stopping parasitism by force. For an aristocracy to do this, however, it is important that it carry the alleles for sufficient intelligence and in-group altruism to protect their tribe or nation from its enemies. It is not without cause that an aristocracy is also known as a nobility.
I often like to compare the third estate of classical liberals, libertarians, and capitalists to men, who in Tolkien’s world are corruptible and greedy compared to elves (whom I compare to the nationalists of the second estate). As the wise lord Elrond noted, men are weak, and it is because of men that the ring survives. Likewise, it is because of the greed and the resulting liberal cosmopolitan values of these weak men that we are in the mess that we are in today with this ring of international capitalism. But men are not useless; they help us battle the Marxist orcs (SJWs), and they serve as an entryway to our movement.
I have been watching small bits of the television series Outlander, which is mostly centered around the Jacobite rebellion of 1745, and it reminded me of a recurring fundamental theme of the neoreaction which I have perhaps insufficiently addressed. What we are trying to achieve is similar to what these Jacobites attempted, a restoration of the old order of society which was destroyed by the Whigs/liberals. At heart, I am a restorationist, and I am an ethnic nationalist. Though I am not a neo-Jacobite (I do feel it is a very romantic cause), I am certainly a restorationist of something much older, more permanent, and more general than Catholic monarchy; the tripartite aristocratic system of Indo-European societies. This, of course, includes monarchy and lower levels of aristocracy which all fall into the second function/estate. It also includes a first estate of priests (which can be Christians, pagans, or simply moral philosophers), and a third estate of free workers and merchants.
The fact that I favor this system is why I could never consider myself Alt-Right or a National Socialist; neither system is on the true right; they are incomplete, and really only responses to temporary problems.
Perhaps I am biased towards aristocracy because I myself have multiple lines of ancestry which were at one time aristocratic, including my paternal lineage which is most likely of Norman origin based on surname analysis (correction: my paternal lineage may not be Norman, based on Y-chromosome analysis), but I also recognize that democracy gives unfair advantage towards people of lower IQ who would use it to elect a simple wealth-redistributionist, and thus has some dysgenic effects. Democracy also creates a virtue signalling playground, and thus selects for the genetics of individuals who like to attract attention in such ways.
I think, borrowing from very early European monarchical systems among the Celts and Germans, that a monarch should, under necessary circumstances, be elected (probably by other aristocrats) from a royal family, so as to avoid being stuck with a mentally incompetent ruler who just happens to be heir to the throne.
Who would have the political power of an aristocrat? Possibly as in very early Germanic society, all land-owning men could be counted, who are ultimately vassals of the king. See these articles on the Germanic aristocratic order (1, 2 (see section on law), 3).
As for what ideology each monarchy has; religious traditionalism, ethnic nationalism, or multiethnic capitalism; it must ultimately differ between different states. One single ideology (religious, ethnic, or otherwise) will not fit with each and every group of people for both cultural and biological reasons (which are usually intertwined with each other). It is essential we understand this when trying to advance the concept of an aristocratic form of governance to the normies.