[edited several times for more precise language]
[edited several times for more precise language]
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.
The Alt-Right is clearly a movement which has attracted attention from young people as of late. The reason why I believe it exists is for various reasons, but first and foremost is the concept of race, as a biological concept, as property. I do not see this as a bad thing, because race not only influences the inheritance of important evolutionary adaptations, such as intelligence and behavioral traits but also provides the necessary platform for the continued, directed evolution of a closely related group of people. Under the system of Propertarianism, race, as a form of property (I speak of property here as a norm, rather than some mystical characteristic of a thing) would most likely fall under the category of commons. Now this property, for Northwestern Europeans and their relatives in North America, is under threat from low birth rates and the mass immigration of racially different people. It is also under threat from miscegenation.
Race, I believe, has gained importance in the right due to the fact that for many people, it is the only long-lasting, tangible property which they effectively lay claim to, as opposed to something they are paying a rent, lease, or mortgage on. As post-industrial society has become extremely complex, and what property one has today may be very different from what one has tomorrow, the Alt-Right is effectively investing in a form of property which can survive stock market crashes, housing bubbles and more. Race can also survive vast changes in public religious opinion, though often one religion or another will be detrimental for its long-term survival.
So I think that even the members Alt-Right are to be considered sovereigns; they are, I believe, aristocrats under the system of Aristocratic Egalitarianism because they have mutually agreed to protect each other’s property, their race, from outside threats.
I have felt compelled to write this post because I feel that I have not made it sufficiently clear why I defend the political views that I do on this blog. In time I may amend, or modify this post to clarify my position. It boils down largely to the fact that a house divided cannot stand. If a political nation includes large factions of people who disagree on everything political and hate each other’s guts for it, there is no reason to keep the country in one piece. Doing so results in wasteful damage to persons, property, and culture. In addition to this, the human species is biologically diverse, and without a means of preserving this biodiversity, it would be impossible to continue in whatever evolutionary path our particular ancestors have been in for tens of thousands of years up to the present time. Melting everyone into the same genetic pot would make whatever evolutionary adaptations we possess different to other human populations to be thinly dispersed in the human species at best, and in the case of recently evolved recessive traits, it would practically eliminate them. It would be like reversing the evolutionary clock of Homo sapiens at least 70,000 years back to the time when modern humans first entered Eurasia from Africa, before branching out into all different parts of the world. This was when our relative genetic variation was very small compared to today. I think that my concern is especially relevant due to the fact that modernity has removed many selective pressures which got us where we are, and the large human population of the earth combined with the modern ease of mobility would inhibit recent (as in a few tens of thousands of years old) evolutionary specializations from re-emerging and becoming easily fixed (widespread through selective pressures) through reproduction within small, insular human populations.
I consider myself a universal ethnic nationalist in that I have no problem with any ethnic group establishing a nation-state unto itself. I also think that if people desire to create a multi-ethnic nation-state, that this is fine just so long as all the parties joining do so voluntarily. In fact, I envision that a mixture of mono-ethnic, and multi-ethnic nation-states is probably a fairly bright future mankind can hope for in the next half-millennium. Both types of nation-states are good for different reasons, have different advantages and disadvantages, and ultimately will play different, but important roles on a global scale. So there it is. I am not a true fascist, nor am I an imperialist. Those of you who might wish to accuse me of such positions lack the basis to do so.
I would also like to note that ethnic, rather than just white nationalism would be the most beneficial for European-Americans, namely because of our diverse ancestry. For instance, someone of Anglo-Germanic ancestry such as myself has a distinct biological and cultural heritage from someone of Italian or Slavic ancestry. If we wish to preserve what our ancestors brought over from Europe, I don’t think pouring everyone into a giant stew pot and seeing what comes out is the way to do so.
The ethnocentric portion of the neoreaction seems to have taken two different strategies comparable to the means of warfare represented by the two Indo-European sovereignty deities, known from the Vedas as Mitra and Varuna, Germanic myth as Tiwaz and Wodanaz, and Roman religion as Dius Fidius and Iuppiter (Jupiter). Whereas Mitra represents the priest, jurist, and lawyer, Varuna represents a vengeful magician king, as do his counterparts Woden, and Jupiter. This distinction is explained fully in Georges Dumezil’s work Mitra-Varuna, but it can also be observed by the casual scholar of the Indic Vedas, Norse Eddas, and the ancient Roman religion. If you are unfamiliar with this theory, you can view Dumezil’s book here.
The nature of the Alt-Right is, and has been, a fundamentally Wodenic, or Varunian one. It is often focused on a sort of racial mysticism, combined often with an independent, Nietzschean type of irreligion and an ecstatic frenzy for warfare. It has also attracted outcasts from every corner of society under the hegemony of political correctness, which reminds one of Odin’s role as a patron of outcasts (you can read about his various attributes here). On the other hand, Propertarians represent a type of neoreaction more akin to the characters of Mitra, Dius Fidius or Tiwaz. Unlike the Varunian Alt-Right, Propertarians seek to take advantage of the concept of justice, contracts, courts, and the law to get their way, only using violence when these methods fail to produce desired outcomes. Ultimately, each approach applies itself to different circumstances, and both will likely be necessary for the neoreaction to have its intended effects.
The following videos highlight some quotes of Nietzsche and Schopenhauer. I think there is a fundamentally Wodenic, or Varunian spirit in both of their philosophies, but particularly in the highly individualistic viewpoint Nietzsche.
The Mitra-Varuna dichotomy I describe above seems to mesh fairly well with the Nietzschean concepts of the Apollonian (corresponding to Mitra) and the Dionysian (corresponding to Varuna). Nietzsche, of course is very Dionysian; he is a reaction against the excessive Apollonianism which began with the Protestant Reformation and continued with Whig politics, and the Enlightenment values which still pervade to this day.