Here it is, folks! The long-awaited book!

Become a paid subscriber and click the link behind the paywall! If you have any trouble, leave a comment or an email and I’ll send you the copy! I also have a Russian-language version to share in PDF!

Alternatively, read the full raw text below!

Thank you for supporting me!

You can download the English-language version of the book in EPUB format here! Alternatively, you can download the Russian-language version of the book in PDF format here!

You can also email me at rololives@protonmail.com if the link isn’t working for you.

Below is the raw text (197 pages). Enjoy!

**

Not a Prison But a Fortress – the Case For Authoritarianism in the 21st Century

By Rolo Slavskiy

Introduction 

Nothing discussed in this book should be particularly difficult for the average reader to understand. The language used is simple and the points belabored and repeated several times. Clarity and brevity have taken priority over literary showboating. If nothing else, that makes the book that you have in front of you unique. Most writers who take to writing about dissident politics have little to say, but certainly spend a long time saying it. They aren’t the only ones guilty of this crime though. I remember being forced to read a book in college by a researcher who claimed to be able to speak 12 languages and who wrote literally hundreds upon hundreds of pages in stilted academic prose about how potatoes and pigs had actually shaped the entire course of world history. Well, this book is nothing like that – I respect the reader too much to subject them to that kind of literary agony. There is also no grand thesis explaining all of history being advanced here – no master-key to crack open the secrets of political history. I won’t make the claim that it’s all about pigs or potatoes or class struggle or genetics or anything like that.

I do, however, present a rather simple model for understanding politics: a simple line with Oligarchy at one extreme and Authoritarianism at the other.

<——————————————————>

Oligarchy    Authoritarianism

All political systems fit somewhere on this spectrum. So, for example, all Westerners live under the so-called Liberal Democratic model of governance, which is at the far left-end of Oligarchy. I am not the first to propose this model or see politics in these terms, but I hope to be the first to explain why these categories are relevant in our analysis of the situation that we find ourselves in today.

Furthermore, politics have a perennial quality. That means that there are patterns or habits that can be mapped and studied without knowing many details at all of a particular country. All one needs to know is how an Oligarchy functions as opposed to an Autocratic state in principle, and to know where on the political spectrum one’s political system sits. With these two givens and with little need to know even the names of the current reigning caste of politicians, one is able to acquire a fairly accurate understanding of how their political system actually works.

Also, because Liberalism and the Liberal Democratic political system are so dominant at this point in history, a lot of time and energy is spent in this book analyzing what this system really stand for and how it really operates. Simply providing an unvarnished picture of Liberalism, however, is akin to a direct attack on Liberalism, as we will see. Like all Oligarchic political systems, Liberal Democracy has to hide its true nature to maintain power.

In contrast, very few people understand what the Authoritarian model looks and acts like. They equate the term with Totalitarianism, which is the end-result of Oligarchy, not Authoritarianism. In many countries, people are only ever exposed to Liberal Democratic politics and do not even know that there are alternatives, remaining convinced that their current political model is the best, freest and least corrupt in all of human history, even though they may readily acknowledge that their country is corrupt, broken and totally dominated by powerful moneyed interests.

An alternative way of thinking and approaching politics is sorely needed now.

This book hopes to provide a modest blueprint on how to restructure our understanding of politics, so that we may break free of the current system that we find ourselves trapped in.

PART 1

Liberalism  – a Death Cult 

Liberalism is an ideological system based on political idolatry. It props up certain values and principles as its gods and worships them blindly. To combat the perennial threat of older, truer value systems re-arising, Liberalism is forced to wage a savage war of repression against the traditional worldview, to prevent it from rising up to overthrow their own.

Sooner or later, intelligent people grow tired of discussing politics and begin to realize the necessity of studying the core principles at the heart of their current political regime. The first step to rebuilding something better is to make the conceptual transition to the concepts of values and principles of Tradition instead of relying on the arguments and worldview of the current regime. It’s also time to forget the political lexicon of our enemies and start communicating in our own language.

Our task is to understand and explain why everything has gone so horribly wrong, and to suggest something different – to find the roots of the disaster that is modern society in the rotten ideas from which our political systems have sprung and rooting them out of the brains of thinking people. For us, this is a unique role, since no one anywhere in the modern intelligentsia or the mainstream media or the political caste discusses the fundamental ideas that led us to the current state of affairs. Put simply, our people need a mental escape from the conceptual and literal prison for nations that is Liberalism.

Ideas are important, and bad ideas are the manifestation of metaphysical evil in our world, because bad ideas have a devilish logic that over the course of decades and centuries lead entire civilizations to their logical endpoint destination, leaving behind rivers of blood and mountains of skulls in their wake. A short overview of the history of Liberalism shows just how quickly it turned into Totalitarianism, which immediately went to war with the rest of the world. This is a feature, not a bug, because without a bid for world domination, Liberalism would not have survived. It is vital for Liberalism to spread to other countries, otherwise, having protected their own peoples from Liberal ideas, these Traditional societies can then easily crush the states that have adopted Liberalism and by doing so, weakened themselves. The revolution had to become a totalitarian project on a global scale and all of its apostles understood that peace can come only if the whole world, without exception, fell under the authority of the global Liberal oligarchy.

And so long as there is competition and resistance to the Liberal system, the wars and the repressions will continue.

It is worth noting that in the old days the process of change was much slower and met with much greater resistance, in comparison with the changes that have taken place over the past century, and even more so with those that are taking place in the Liberal countries right before our eyes over the last several years. Liberalization and the destructive process feed off one another in an accelerating cycle of entropy and decay.

Despite the sad situation in which all post-Traditional countries find themselves in our time, there is still a chance to finally address the fundamental problem of our time, simply because we are already coming close to the logical end of this monstrous experiment. That there exist some fundamental problems that the politics of the usual cannot solve becomes clearer and more difficult to deny, even for those who have invested considerable emotional and intellectual resources in not noticing the obvious. In other words, it is much easier to criticize socialism, libertarianism, liberalism and all the other “isms” in 2022, having let the experiments run their course and seen the damage that they have wrought on civilization.

Our task then is not only to deconstruct Liberalism, but to provide an alternative – something to replace Liberalism with, so that people feel more comfortable burying the mistakes of the past and moving on. To do that, we need to look at core principles and core ideas to build our understanding of the world on a more sturdy foundation that is also more flexible when it comes to understanding and proposing solutions to the problems that we face in modernity. We can refer to this new system as “Traditionalism” but the term makes no difference, and can be treated as a place-holder for now.

What is considered Reactionary thought now is what used to be known as pre-modern thought, before the wave of revolutions swallowed each of the European nations and then the rest of the world one by one.

There is no Political Bible of the Traditionalist faith – no dogma to adhere to and no Marx to turn to for answers to all the pressing questions of our day. Instead, we have a certain mindset, a set of core principles that provide guidance if we orient ourselves towards them. Let us list some that come to mind almost immediately when discussing traditionalist modes of thought.

Quality as opposed to quantity.

Meritocracy as opposed to equality.

Truth as opposed to consensus.

Strength as opposed to freedom.

There are numerous corollary values that can also be cited here. But these are good enough to illustrate the first principles from which a traditional outlook on life, system of governance, or, ethics can be constructed. Each deserves further explanation.

Quality

The Industrial Revolution destroyed the native craftsmen tradition of Europe. Centuries and even millennia of masters honing their techniques, their knowledge of materials, and the organizations that they built to preserve them were wiped out by mass-produced goods. This was a huge part of our indigenous culture that was deliberately destroyed.

In a few places, there are still holdout craft traditions like Italian leather shoes or English tweed suits, German watches or other cultural artifacts that we now associate with the peoples that continue to make them. In other words, most people subconsciously associate these crafts with ethnic identity, but simply aren’t able to put two and two together as to why this is. For most people, these authentic cultural heirlooms are prohibitively expensive and out of reach. The masses buy and consume mass-produced junk from factories while the elites continue to shop as if they were in the middle ages, spending unspeakable amounts of money on boutique work made by master craftsmen. This is hypocritical to say the least. These people, or rather the descendants of the same elites who brought about mass-production stay clear of it. Whether it comes to the clothes that they buy, or the food that they consume or the furniture that they adorn their lavish mansions with, none of their goods have ever seen the insides of a modern factory floor.

Quality for me, but not for thee.

In places like America or Russia, the locals lament that they have not preserved their local crafts traditions as well as some other places like the aforementioned European countries and also a handful of Asian states. This becomes a source of low cultural self-esteem. The few industries that have somehow retained a native character with elements of master crafting are one of the few sources of national pride. In America, there are Harley-Davidson motorcycles and in Russia, the closest equivalent would be the Kalashnikov line of weapons. Popular, that is, unskilled products of folk as opposed to master labor, are only to be found in some form in the national cuisines of these countries.

However, most work is either in the process of being automated away or is increasingly being staffed with unskilled migrant labor. As a result, meaningful labor has been eliminated as a concept in most modern people’s minds. Few jobs allow one to hone their craft and strive for innovation or mastery in their field. Only IT, which is being used to eliminate all other forms of work by pursuing automation, has any elements of innovation or “mastering of one’s” craft left in it.

In other words, native society does not benefit in any way from the march of technology . To bring meaning back into work requires a restoration of old labor values – and no, this is not a Communist idea, seeing as Communism does not acknowledge the difference between skilled and unskilled labor and has done more than any other system to eliminate the concept of artisanal craftsmanship in exchange for standardized labor. On a deeper level though, the very concept of work has been stripped of its meaning and re-conceptualized without us knowing.

Consider: In medieval times, it was seen as a tool for self-development. People were to grow internally through the honing of their craft. Monks became master wine-growers and furniture-makers along their path of spiritual self-development. Work was holy and treated as such. Work then, had metaphysical dimensions, whereas it is now simply a chore that is done to eke out a paycheck and make the employer a handsome profit.

On a macro level, we need to start asking questions as a society about what the value of mass-produced products and services truly are. The process of automation and outsourcing (or insourcing via migrant labor) simply steals potential wealth from the native population and concentrates it in the hands of the few people who own mass-production facilities, whether they be staffed with robots or poor brown people. The money saved on production costs is pocketed by people who are unsympathetic to the ideas and values that a traditionalist would hold dear. In the meantime, our health suffers from shoddy mass-produced goods. Our working lives become monotonous and meaningless as work itself loses its meaning, and self-realization through the pursuit of one’s craft becomes an impossibility. For most people, a life of ascetic spiritual training is not possible – meaningful work was their only path for meaningful self-development. These people have been robbed not only of meaningful jobs, but of meaningful lives.

For what purpose do we feed this infernal machine if we only become poorer, sicker and sadder from it?

Meritocracy

On a fundamental level, we all understand that people are different. Some are smarter than us (even if we deny it out of jealousy or spite), others are stronger, more conscientious and so on. And so, even if we were to design a system where everyone was able to get the exact same start in life, the result would be some people finishing ahead of others either materially, emotionally or spiritually. Liberalism struggles with the idea of inequality and even the concept of values, in general. Pointing out that something or someone is better or worse than something else, however, is considered to be poor taste in polite Liberal society. Relativism is Liberalism’s response to inequality. By denying that there is a moral, practical or physical scale of values, Liberalism can simply pretend that everything and everyone is different, but that no one idea, person, or culture is better or worse than any other. Except the European peoples and their culture, of course. Because they are credited/accused of inventing the concept of objective standards in the first place and by doing so, putting themselves at the top of the heap based on standards of beauty, art, intellect, etc. Liberalism, to survive, has had to work hard on suppressing those who reject relativism and seek a return to a meritocracy, whether it be in the academic fields, spiritualism or any other walk of life.

But, a society that does not value and utilize talent will either stagnate or fall susceptible to revolution. Intelligent and capable people who feel that they have no stake in the system and no way to realize their talents in it will either drop out, work to actively undermine the system, or as is often the case, a mixture of both. In contrast, a system that constantly searches out talent among its population and puts it to good use will prosper and thrive.

Sadly, untalented and petty people often worm themselves into the structures of any organization that they can. They do this because they know their own worthlessness and seek the protection of institutions whether they be governmental bureaucracies or corporate management and every other group in between. Hobby groups are often started by devotees to a certain craft or field of inquiry who, upon achieving some form of status or recognition for their work, are then swarmed by parasites who seek a piece of that hard-earned prestige for themselves. Whether it be right-wing activism groups or health and fitness clubs or just about anything at all really, there are parasitical busybodies in the population that constantly seek out a target to latch themselves onto.

The only way to combat this entropic trend is to create results-oriented organizations. Reality and results always act as a cleansing agent if only we allow nature to run its course. To make an obvious example, armies staffed by generals who got their rank through opportunism and favor-making are quickly routed by armies with competent leadership. But modern society is completely divorced from reality and wedded to ideology whether it be political, ethical, medical or scienctific. Results and reality are simply suppressed by the stifling entropy of the status quo. Advancement is achieved by adherence to the reigning Liberal ideology, not by any objective measure of merit. Under Liberalism, talent, greatness and truth are also swept under the rug because they would undermine the position of lesser men who use equality as a mask to exercise tyranny over their betters and eventually drag their nations into ignominy and stagnation.

Truth

If someone were to ask you what the meaning of life was, a short and sweet answer to pre-empt any long, drawn-out philosophical discussion might be: “truth in all things.” And even here, most people have heard the saying, “the truth will set you free.”

While this is certainly true, it is not all that truth can do.

Consider: Truth in the field of military science is the difference between a rocket hitting its intended target or hitting one’s own positions. Truth in the field of physical education is the difference between muscle gains and a slipped disk in the spine. In other words, truth is a weapon in our pursuit of strength. Truth sets us free because it makes us stronger, and we need that strength to break our shackles to set ourselves free. Consensus, conversely, leads to entropy and mistakes.

If we can look at the true reality of the world we inhabit without blinking, then we gain a powerful advantage over our opponents. The truth-seeker who wants to understand the hidden mechanism at work in all things gains an incredible edge over the blind ideologues and the masses of ordinary people who can only approximate truth by relying on social consensus. Of course, nowadays, there is a reigning consensus or orthodoxy in every single field of scientific inquiry or general knowledge. We have consensus in the fields of history, ethics, science and even in social categories like who our friends can be, how we ought to spend our free time and what we can wear and where. The pursuit of truth is no longer a concern or our society – Liberalism is only concerned with consensus. Modern science in particular has long ago abandoned the scientific method and instead relies on committees of hand-picked scientists meeting together to form a consensus and then claim a monopoly on truth. They are no different from cynical religious elites that employed the same tactics centuries before our time.

The truth is always vilified and people who pronounce it publicly have often been ritually castigated. In general, only a handful of truth-tellers throughout our history have been vindicated by the passage of time because truth is dangerous and only a few people are able to recognize or put any stock in it. Most people simply have no understanding of what truth is – they only know approximations of truth derived from heuristics i.e., social consensus, authority figures, coercive persuasion. But a society divorced from fundamental truths is destined to disintegrate under the weight of its own lies. Conversely, a society that is more open-minded to truth and less ideologically dogmatic is far more likely to develop and thrive.

Strength

To understand strength, we may as well start by understanding its opposite value: freedom.

Freedom is an amorphous concept. It begs the question: freedom from what? Or freedom to do what, exactly? For most people, freedom has come to mean freedom from obligations, respect for others or themselves, freedom from their history, their culture and their ethnic roots, freedom from their families, freedom from having to care and freedom from all concept of the sacred. The pursuit of this sort of freedom only weakens the individuals and peoples who embrace it. A man without a family, without a community, without a nation, without a metaphysical system or even an ethical code is far weaker than a man who has retained all these … “shackles” as the libertines would label them.

When the powers that be set about destroying all of the aforementioned institutions and ties that we had, did they do it to set us free or to better enslave us? They “freed” us from all that gave us strength and now we thrash around in our one-bedroom cells in the megalopolises raging at the futility of our situation. This was all deliberate, this was all by design. People without support networks have no power to change or resist anything that the elites have imposed on them. Divide and conquer is a concept that does not limit itself to the battlefields of 19th century Europe – you see it in action in all facets of life.

Furthermore, on a deeper level, people have been conditioned to see freedom to act on their worst urges as a sign of empowerment. This could not be further from the truth. Power comes from discipline, and it is an objective fact that we encounter as individuals in our own personal endeavors or that armies learn the hard way when they conduct their wars. Our vices and our passions and our misidentification with them weaken and eventually enslave us. A man who frees himself from internal discipline only changes masters. Instead of serving his higher self and his higher calling, he decides to yoke himself to the capricious whims of his body and the merchants who can service his hedonistic inclinations. Eventually, whole nations are reduced to slavery this way by their addiction to cheap credit, cheap goods, cheap entertainment, and the like. A man with discipline is his own master, and so too can only deeply disciplined nations truly be free.

The traditionalist seeks strength as opposed to freedom and by doing so, he is able to truly set himself free.

Liberalism’s Sacred Cows

Free Speech

Free speech is perhaps the most pressing social issue of our time or at least the current cycle of political discourse. Our enemies prohibit anyone even mildly critical of the Liberal regime to voice their opinion with active censorship. They then use more coercive measures against those that manage to get their voice through the net of censorship, with economic sanctions against individuals by monopoly industries, and constant harassment, eventually leading up to imprisonment by the secret police. The hypocrisy is so staggeringly apparent now that it is hardly even worth mentioning here because even the layperson understands the consequences of speaking their mind in public, at work, on the internet or, in some cases, even among close friends and families. There is an active Liberal terror campaign that is constantly on the hunt for individuals to isolate, freeze and make examples of.

But if we look deeper into the idea of free speech, we are forced to conclude that we should not confuse a simple social instrument for a higher, absolute metaphysical concept worth killing and dying for. To begin with, we need to realize that there are no societies that allow total freedom of speech. Additionally, it should be noted that no society has ever allowed public criticism of people who hold real power. Real free speech aimed at the powers that be was always underground because it was always persecuted, and people who wanted to taste this forbidden fruit were always forced to hide their faces, make great personal sacrifices and risk harsh punishments. In that sense, our situation now is not all the different from any other period in world history only the scope of forbidden has expanded to encompass all aspects of life from child-rearing, diet, the language and of course, the big questions surrounding politics and economics. If in a traditional society criticism of the king was forbidden, then literally all aspects of life under Liberalism are subject to the dogma of the ruling class. This is what Totalitarianism actually is. Authoritarianism is best understood as standing at the complete opposite of the political spectrum – but we’ll have more to say on that later.

Limits on free speech have always existed. And here it is worth noting that there is nothing inherently wrong in limiting speech in some cases.

Consider: In sane countries and cultures, there have always been decency laws, customs and norms either on the books or in the collective understanding of the people. For example, America used to ban pornography up until the 1970s when a kvetch of Jewish lawyers convinced the Supreme Court that pornography fell under the protection of the First Amendment.

America, as a result, got a lot sleazier, true, but it did not become any freer.

Now it is important for us to understand what freedom of speech was and what it was not. As a concept, it is almost a uniquely Indo-European phenomenon, created to improve the quality of discussion within society. Its purpose was simple: to facilitate the discovery of truth. It was assumed that allowing free debate would create a situation wherein the tribe could consider many options and then make a better informed decision. In other words, free speech was a means to an end, not an end in and of itself, and it has been a tool that has mostly worked for the benefit of the tribes of our ancestors for thousands of years.

But for any system to work, several conditions have to be met. In the case of allowing free speech in the form of open debate on important decisions, the conditions are the following:

• The people participating in the discussion are members of one particular tribe
• The people participating in the discussion are intelligent and competent
• The people participating in the discussion can, if willing, forgo debate and simply slaughter each other to resolve the dispute

The first pre-condition for debate has been completely forgotten in our modern world. We allowed Liberals to take the idea of ​​open debate and tear it away from the ethnic and cultural roots it had in order to turn it into a kind of ephemeral ideal, completely separated from reality. But if someone is not part of a tribe, then they do not have the same interests as the tribe. And since such people have a dual-loyalty, opinions and suggestions offered by them are of no value, because no one can know whether or not they are made in good faith or as part of an ulterior agenda. There can be no debate about a given course of action with outsiders, only negotiations before or after a battle. The fact that we are obliged to allow racial, cultural and religious outsiders to discuss and define our policies for us is nothing short of absolute insanity. Two different tribes engage in debate only with their swords.

Consider: is there any reason to give wolves a chance to hold a debate with sheep? What can there even be a debate about if the two groups have different interests? Only about the hour that dinner will be held and the seasoning that should be added to the meat, perhaps. Some sophisticated sheep, eager to participate in such debates, probably think that they are very cultured for doing so. And yes, they can even win a debate against the wolves by proving that mustard tastes better than horseradish on sheep flesh. See, the wolves are ready to discuss the time of dinner and the number of guests, maybe even the number of courses … but for some reason they do not want to discuss the possible cancellation of the feast. For such thoughts, they can even resort to labeling the occasional brave lamb who ventures to raise the topic a “Wolfaphobe” so that other sheep will ostracize him and his opinions and more willingly hand themselves over to the jaws of the wolves.

There is a metaphor buried somewhere deep in that story, no doubt.

But the insanity of the free speech absolutists knows no bounds. At this point, we might as well hold congress in a mental asylum and ask the patients there to take charge of our nations. It might actually be an improvement. And while this sounds like an absurd proposal, it is actually the result of the hellish internal logic of granting free speech privileges to all and so it is an event that must come to pass sooner or later. After all, if freedom of speech is an absolute, sacred ideal, then NOTHING can limit it. Eventually, the mentally retarded will debate the fate of entire peoples’ on stage, while normal people will be arrested for pointing out their mental deficiencies. Impossible? Well, retarded people can vote, can they not? We’re already halfway there.

It used to be well understood that not all opinions are equally valuable. Only those who had already demonstrated success and brought the tribe victory or honor were allowed to participate in serious discussions. Exceptions were made for those in whom the tribe saw potential as future leadership. No one accepted the opinions of foreigners and incompetents as valid.

In the end, debate was simply an alternative means of resolving disputes. Both sides knew that they could always just fight each other to death, and giving god or the gods the last word, with sword in hand, decide whose opinion was correct that way. But in order to minimize losses from conflicts within the tribe, they created a mechanism for resolving disputes without shedding blood. In this sense, free debate has the same origins as various sports games. It was a clever method of encouraging competition, keeping people alert and ready to fight, but minimizing potential disastrous fratricidal shedding of blood.

In other words, free speech was useful at promoting the general health of the people.

This begs the question: Does pornography serve any purpose in society? Are the opinions of foreign agents valuable and worth taking seriously? Should we allow children, the mentally disabled, and women to make our decisions for us? Why?

At some point very recently in our civilizational development, free speech became a political idol – its purpose and proper use forgotten, replaced instead by blind worship. Free speech and open debate was no longer used as a tool to help make informed decisions, but became a false god before whom all respectable people were obliged to fall to their knees. Of course, as soon as the free speech absolutists achieved their political goals, they immediately began to unceremoniously censor everyone else, revealing the nature of the ruse for all who had eyes to see. That is, when the liberals were still a hated and despised political minority, they hid behind the protection of the idea of ​​absolute freedom of speech for everybody. It was important for them to push their extremist version of free speech in society while they occupied a weaker position relative to their enemies. Now though, the mask has come off, coincidentally at the same time as we were all told to mask up.

Until we break this political idol we will not be able to move on to more serious political discussions.

And I want to repeat one important point: debate is important and debate is needed. The serious thinkers of our time are constantly debating amongst themselves, as they try to brainstorm a way out of the mess that we find ourselves in. But this only works because these people have the same goals and want to improve the condition that their people find themselves in. In other words, they are using free speech as it was intended to be used, unlike others who try to find common ground with sworn enemies of their people.

Human Rights

The concept of “human rights” is a mockery of natural law and as fake as the flying spaghetti monster that atheists worship as their supreme deity and should only be brought up by traditionalists in mockery if it is even brought up at all. First and foremost, rights are not worth the paper that they are written on. Almost every single government in the world has laws on the books defending the right of citizens to organize and exercise their rights to free speech. All of these governments brutally repress anyone who decides to exercise these rights to criticize the ruling class. Examples of this hypocrisy abound.

Consider: The UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights has a clause that guarantees the rights of the world citizenry to refuse medical procedures forced upon them. This same organization is pushing for mandatory vaccination of the entire population of the world with several doses of toxic experimental slurry to protect them from an epidemic that does not exist.

The stark reality is that rights simply do not provide any safeguards or constraints on power. They only exist in the brief period between when they are drafted and when power decides to trample all over them. There has yet to be a battle between rights and power where rights have come out on top and have not surrendered at the first contact with the enemy.

The only force that holds back the abuse of power is a countervailing power. Or, more specifically, organized power. 

Without organized power defending rights, there are no rights to speak of. It is much like the lines between nations on a map. Without military might to back up these borders, these lines only exist up until the moment that a neighboring power crosses over them. No serious nation in the world relies on “rights” to back up their territorial sovereignty and no serious individual should believe that his situation is any different.

If there are no organizations willing to defend certain rights within a country, then these rights do not exist. In that sense, rights are nothing more than armistice agreements between two opposing powers. The potential aggressor is leery of the firepower that the opposing side can bring to the table whether it be bullets and tanks, lawyers and bad press or riots and ropes. The defender need not necessarily be stronger than the aggressor, but must be strong enough to inflict at least enough damage for them to think twice. People without organized power behind their backs are not negotiated with – they are simply told what to do.

Consider: People in Bolshevik Russia had more rights than any other nation in the world … on paper. Yet, they froze and starved to death in the concentration camps all the same.

Furthermore, rights are a double-edged sword. Granting rights is the preferred method of predators to ensnare their prey. We only need to bring up the distasteful case example of pedophiles and the tactics that they employ to justify and advance their cause.

Contrary to popular belief, most pedophiles do not openly state that they have the right to rape young children. No, no, they are far more cunning. Instead, they claim that children have “the right to choose”. They argue that children should be empowered to make decisions like adults and free from parental oppression. This may be an extreme example, but it clearly shows that rights are not all they seem at first glance. Granting rights is the preferred tactic of predators and exploiters because they are well aware of the implications of accepting this poison gift.

In our example, their diabolical trap is pretty obvious: if we accept that children should have the same rights as adults, then they can also voluntarily choose to engage in sexual relations with older homosexuals.

But as we all know, children do not know how to make wise decisions and usually entrust their serious decision-making to adults. By giving them adult rights, we are simply depriving them of the protection that children need. And the cunning predator is no longer an abuser or a rapist, oh no. He is, in fact, simply an ardent supporter of their rights, that is, their right to choose – a champion of civil liberties, in fact!

And what if we asked the moneylenders for their opinion on this matter? Surely they, too, would agree that children should be eligible for money loans, because that would mean a whole new client base, with poor long-term planning skills and physical weakness which is easily deceived and intimidated.

What about the brave corporations and politicians who have worked so hard to empower women to work, vote, and spend money on consumer products? Were they concerned about the well-being of women? Did they understand that giving women rights would deprive them of any social protection they could previously have relied on?

What about current efforts to lower the voting age? Are children more informed or less? Are they more manipulable or less? Is it easier and cheaper to buy their votes or more difficult?

To ask these questions is to answer them.

Only a vanishingly small percentage of people are able to read the small text on any contract and understand that rights come with strings attached and that those “strings” are obligations and risks. But a person who has no rights is protected in the same way as a child. Most people are simply unable to show interest, let alone develop an understanding of important political issues or an awareness of the hidden processes of power that are required of them to participate in any political system. Despite the fact that most people are political rubes, they are held responsible for their political system’s shortcomings, because Liberal dogma states that they all have the capacity to be informed citizens, and that the system governs with their support and consent.

Both the observed reality, and literally all the sociological research that we have amassed over the last centuries, seem to indicate that a significant part of the population is very far from this ideal indeed. In fact, a large swath of the population lacks the following abilities: internal monologue, long-term memory, internal visualization and the ability to make sense of and analyze data. But this is a discussion that verges on the metaphysical and is beyond the scope of this short work.

What is undeniable is that a significant part of the population is not even able to read at a level more difficult than the 4th grade of school. We can see this mapped out on simple IQ distribution curves. Half of the White population of any given country have IQs below 100 and probably couldn’t handle reading this text, let alone the subtitles of their favorite show, if they moved too fast. We are not trying to denigrate or humiliate anyone here by pointing out and accepting this fact. We love our people and wish the best for them, which simply cannot be said about the current ruling caste. Suffice it to say, most people are simply too naive to be involved in politics and so they always end up being deceived, manipulated and humiliated. Someone has to step in and end the abuse, even if that means taking away the “right” of these people to continually be fleeced, swindled and led to the slaughter by those who wish them harm.

As far as we are concerned, those who speak endlessly about the need to promulgate and grant more and more rights to the unsuspecting population are simply speaking the language of predators.

Personal Liberty 

There is no human institution that is more universally derided than slavery. Modernity brags about its crusade against slavery and claims a moral victory that it did not earn by taking credit for ending slavery, even more than they take credit for annihilating Germany twice in the two European Civil Wars. The only problem with the assertion that slavery has been abolished is the simple fact that it hasn’t. As we sit here now, people all over the world being forced at gunpoint to take an experimental vaccine by their governments or employers several times a year. Before that, they were forced to hand over their children for K-12 indoctrination by the state. Economic conditions are such that many people live in a state worse than slavery in some of the richest countries and the richest parts of those countries.

Slavery, in one form or another, is a constant in society. In other words, slavery is older than civilization itself and simply part of the natural order of things that always appears, no matter what measures are taken to curb it. But we should define what slavery is to better understand why Liberalism has not been able to eliminate it. A simple working definition of slavery is when a relationship exists between two or more people or groups of people where one group follows the orders of another, and has no recourse to object to or challenge the dictates of their masters. The only problem with this definition is that it simply doesn’t work, as we will see.

Consider: Men have often served in institutions that have severely curtailed their freedom. The military is a classic example. The modern armies of the world are quite similar to prisons in that the soldiers are stripped of their possessions and their privacy, their lives are regimented for them, and they are forced to follow strict codes of behavior and closely monitored at all times, with punishment frequently doled out for even the most minor infractions. And yet, despite the similarities, we do not consider military service to be the same thing as a prison sentence – and for good reason.

Institutions and relationships where men subordinate themselves to other men are quite common. And while some of these contracts are entered into voluntarily, they often aren’t – such as in countries with a draft. Draftees are offered an option: military service or prison. Furthermore, once the contract is signed, it cannot be backed out of at the drop of a hat – there are severe punishments for soldiers who do not show up for their duties.

If we still believe that choice is the factor that differentiates these kind of social arrangements from what should be considered actual slavery, well then we can simply bring up people who have families to raise and have to work underpaid jobs that damage their health and their joi de vivre simply because they have no other choice for employment in their town. They could, of course, not go to work, but then the bank or the company would kick them out of their home and they would be forced to live on the streets, where most do not survive for long. A slave can also choose death as opposed to slavery, so is the difference here simply aesthetic – one wears chains and the other does not?

There are also young professionals that work for years at a time for no compensation as interns at big corporations where only one or two out of hundreds then get the coveted paid position at the company. While there is still the chance that they may land the job, they would never consider themselves as slaves, but as candidates. But should they fail to land the position, these interns then angrily take to the internet to complain about how they were treated like slaves.

There are also groups of seemingly rational people who willingly throw themselves into cults where they have their possessions stripped and work for the largesse of someone else in exchange for peace of mind and social support. While in the cult, they are brothers and sisters of the sacred circle of light and sunshine (or something like that) but once they have a falling out with the group, they suddenly realize that they had been tricked into a cult and stripped of their individuality and their possessions, and forced to work for another for no recompense. Funny that.

So, perhaps at this juncture we should instead define what a free person is, since we can’t seem to make any headway in determining what a slave is.

For traditional societies, a free person was someone who was able to achieve a certain level of self-sufficiency and control over his own affairs. This makes sense because a man with no means cannot remain a free man for long. It was an observable reality that men who had no means to achieve sufficiency on their own often traded their freedom in for some sort of economic stability and recompense. By the traditional definition, most people with jobs are slaves, or at least servants and not truly free men. In fact, servus, the latin root of servant, explicitly meant slave in Rome; and slaves were referred to as ‘indentured servants’ in the early colonial period. So what we have here is a something off a distinction without a difference.

Another variation of slavery worth considering was the indentured servitude of one kind or another that was a common feature in Europe and the Americas right up into the 20th century. But here, again, there is nuance. Once their contract was fulfilled, the servants became free again. And their children were not bound to be indentured servants simply because their parents were. In that sense, the common people shipped to the Americas to work on the estates of wealthy land-owners were not slaves, but thralls, if we use the ancient term.

And what about the serfs of Europe who were bound to their lands through the generations? None of them considered themselves slaves, but they could not leave their land without permission and they had to surrender a portion of their labor to their lords and the Church each year in taxes.

This begs the comparison: don’t we pay taxes every year? What happens if we choose not to pay them?

Well, it’s really not so different from what happened to the peasants. At best, we can refuse to work, just like the peasants could, in theory. But then, we starve, just the same as they would have. Of course, if one decided to become a homeless person, beholden to no one, one could, in theory, be considered a free man. However, all one has to do is visit one of the many homeless colonies in North America’s cities to see that the master of the average homeless man is the drug dealer that comes by twice a week to check in on his victims and push more product on them.

If personal happiness is the key barometer by which we define slavery, then it is worth considering that many black slaves were quite happy to serve their White masters. We know about this because they wrote and spoke out against emancipation when it occurred in the American south. And then, many butlers and household servants were quite happy serving their lords and did so for generations.

Was Alfred Batman’s slave? Did he do it for the money? Would firing him be the morally correct thing for Bruce Wayne to do?

We are forced to conclude that neither economic conditions nor personal liberty considerations are the primary criteria for defining slavery. All in all, the point here is simple: slavery isn’t a cut and dry economic concept.

After all, there were slaves who lived opulent lifestyles that would make any free man envious. There were servants who enjoyed the comforts of country manors while freer men worked in coal mines. Serfs had far more days off in the year than the average salaried man has today. Noble-born hussars would be lucky to reach 30, while villagers would live peacefully into their ripe old seventies and beyond. Janissaries were technically slaves, but lived far better than the average ottoman subject, and ended up running the Ottoman Empire.

We should instead consider that more than anything else, slavery is a mental, emotional and spiritual condition, NOT a socio-economic one. And the reason why slavery constantly recurs throughout human history in one form or another is because some people are biologically and spiritually inclined to be slaves. Others are masters of themselves by nature or are striving to achieve this state. Liberalism cannot simply legislate this away by declaring the equality of all men. Men are not equal – they never have been and they never will be.

And so, having thoroughly desecrated the sacred idols of Liberalism and its moral claims to legitimacy, we can move on to analyzing the actual power structure by which it maintains its hegemony.

The Hidden Power Structure of Liberalism

Mao Zedong once said that power flowed from the barrel of the gun. But if that were the case, soldiers, hunters, and the guys who sweep up at the gun range would rule nations. As we can clearly see, even though the system – any political system – relies on men with weapons to keep it in power, that does not mean that every country is Sparta.

Liberal Democracy is not kept in power with guns, but through an oligarchic power structure.

• Liberals rule by controlling the political institutions.
• These institutions then work to control the vote.
• The voting process and the vote results are then used to give the system legitimacy.

The ability of Liberalism to maintain power is dependent on keeping this structure running and on the illusion of prestige that all institutions confer. People listen to the experts because they received accreditation from institutions proving that they are experts.And all the while, the media needs to keep pumping propaganda, the institutions need to prevent any meaningful reform, the secret police needs to keep arresting dissidents and the oligarchs need to keep bankrolling the whole affair.

Liberal Democracies are composed of two visible parts: the Democratic Process and the Democratic Institutions themselves.

The Democratic Process consists in taking the masses of people and dividing them up into voting blocs based on their age, ethnicity, social status, sex, location, religious views, relationship with their fathers – anything that is politically salient. These blocks are then targeted by professional political activists, mass advertising and special, tailor-made speeches written by political analysts and eventually recited by politicians. This all takes mountains of money – money which oligarchs are happy to provide in exchange for political favors from the politician that they sponsor.

Liberal Democracies are set up so that different cliques within society, be they ethnic or business (or almost always both) can divide the spoils of the country amongst themselves. Without political organization in the form of a political party or a secret society or an open society or a lobbying group, the masses can vote as much as they like, but they do not have a true voice because they will never be given a say on what the vote will be about. People who do not belong to a voting bloc or who cannot drum up the support of at least one faction of oligarchs are just plain out of luck in this system. They are more powerless than medieval peasants, who at least had the clergy and the monarch to appeal to if the local political system failed them.

Now, voting is only half of the equation (if even that). The other half is provided by the Democratic Institutions, staffed by proponents of the liberal democratic process that facilitate the whole operation. These are considered the “watchdogs” or “guardians” of Liberal Democracy. In a sense, they are. But they do not guard Liberal Democracy from the oligarchs that would use it for their interests, but rather from the people who naively think it ought to serve theirs. Should the people ever get behind a populist leader, the Democratic Institutions are there to stop him from gaining power or from effectively exercising it while in office. This is part of what they call ‘checks and balances’ and it is an essential feature of the system that we, the simple masses, never seem to appreciate as much as our overlords do. We all vaguely know the institutions that uphold Liberal Democracy, so there is little point in spending too much time on them. But briefly, they are:

• The Media
• The Courts
• The Legislature
• The Policy Institutes

The media are a professional class of poorly-paid, but self-styled aristocrats. Their function are to spread propaganda for one faction of oligarchs or another, and to defend the system as a whole.

The courts and judges and the preferred lawyers of the legal system decide which laws are enforced and whether laws are being broken or not. An easy rule of thumb: the courts generally find that the oligarchs have not broken any laws (unless another, stronger group of oligarchs think that they have, of course). There are laws concerning practically everything and anything. Woe to the man who thinks he hasn’t broken any laws. It is, after all, the function of the legal system to prove that he actually has, and the law folks are very good at what they do.

The “People’s” House, with both the higher and the lower houses, is comprised of politicians who were successful at winning the approval of the media, winning enough voting blocs, and employing the services of the best professional political technicians. Of course, this was all made possible with the generous support of one oligarch or another. Though there may be bickering factions within the houses, they are simply bickering over who brings home the biggest slice of pie to their sponsors. Occasionally, they throw a crumb or two to their voters when all the real politicking is done.

Finally, someone somewhere has to write out the policy that the oligarchs want implemented. The different policy institutes and think tanks compete amongst themselves to propose the most convincing plan on how to achieve the oligarchy’s aims. The aims themselves are, naturally, never up for debate, but the oligarchs are more than willing to let the professionals handle the process of their implementation.

And now that we have the blueprint of the enemy’s secret weapon, it suddenly becomes possible to conceptualize how to go about destroying it.

Liberalism – the Prison of Nations

If the Liberal Democratic system of control is already up and running, then dissidents will be persecuted and the law will be anything but “liberal” with them. Liberal Democracy is difficult to defeat from within by political means because it is a sluggish and slow system that is specifically structured to prevent the rise of a strong man that could overthrow it by making sure that power is not concentrated in one office or one institution.

Liberal Democracy is not a political fortress, as much as it is a political prison.

The ruling oligarchs who build and maintain Liberalism hate and fear the masses that they rule over, which is why the whole political structure of the nation is geared towards preventing the rise of internal dissent. Prisons and castles may look the same to the casual observer, but they serve different purposes. A Liberal Democratic nation is a prison created to defend from internal threats, whereas an Autocratic nation is a castle created to defend from external threats.

The story of the Roman Senate vs. Caesar is the archetypal example of the eternal conflict between Authoritarianism and Oligarchy. I would go so far as to say that these are the only two forms of government and all other models simply lie on the spectrum in between the two diametrically opposed ends.

In an Autocracy of any kind, be it a dictatorship, a military takeover, or a monarchy, there is one man who assumes immense power. He may have gotten there democratically, through military action, or by birth. Once in power, there is little reason for him to leave, so Autocrats rarely do. Given the option, the masses would prefer and even use their right to a plebiscite (if they have one) to elect a strong, charismatic leader with unlimited power who can assume the mantle of their champion. Even Liberals have no problem admitting this preference of the people to be the case, and they simply resort to chastising the masses for their bad behavior and believing in the false siren cry of Populism.

To the proponents of Oligarchy, the masses frustratingly do not share their concerns about checks and balances or so-called Liberal Democratic values and principles. The people want real solutions to their problems and they view (rightly) the tangled and corrupt system of jockeying interests and factions that any Oligarchy sets up (the checks and balances) as an obstacle and an enemy. Naturally, they will attempt to appoint an Alexander the Great of sorts, a people’s champion, to cut through the Gordian Knot of graft if they can. If he proves to be good at his job, the masses would prefer that he stay there because they may not get another chance to push up one of their own to power.

Liberal Overreach

Because of the parasitical and antagonistic nature of Liberal Democracies in relation to the host nation that they have captured, they tend to lose wars. And a lost war is always a legitimacy crisis. Activism against Liberal Democracies has to be aimed at delegitimizing the regime and getting people comfortable with the idea of its total and complete overthrow.

Luckily for the enterprising dissident, Liberal Democracies tend to be greedy and adventurous abroad, leading their country by the nose into wars that are fought to line the pockets of the oligarchy. As a result, the manpower, the morale, the money and the legitimacy of the occupation regime is soon depleted. Furthermore, when dealing with determined enemies internal or external, Liberal Democracies are like glass cannons. They may be able bring a lot of firepower to bear, but they cannot, in turn, endure much damage at all. Few people are willing to die in yet another oligarch’s war, and using a mercenary force of professionals is not ideal against a determined enemy willing to take losses to dole out losses in kind. Never-ending Oligarch wars are also an extremely expensive undertaking for the country as a whole even if certain Oligarchs profit handsomely off it in the short term. Discontent and blowback are inevitable.

The Manufacturing of Consent

Liberal Democracy is quite good at manufacturing consent from the masses, but only because it depends on being able to manufacture consent from the masses. Giving people the vote and political power is a risky gambit: the oligarchs have to make sure that the masses vote a certain pre-approved way and stay within bounds. Again, Liberal Democracy’s very claim to legitimacy is that it is a government “by and for the people”. A Liberal Democracy where the masses do not believe they have a say in government is like having a Monarchy without a Monarch – it’s discrediting, bizarre and can’t maintain any semblance of popular support for long. Without at least the acquiescence of the masses, you simply have an occupation government of Oligarchs that gives the people no political recourse and that engenders a common hatred towards them that can only be suppressed with overwhelming and constant application of force.

The events of recent years have done much to shatter the illusion of consent in the West. The mask has come off and the naked occupation is clear to all who have eyes to see and who do not receive paychecks from the oligarchs to pretend that they do not. People who no longer believe in their government can only be ruled with terror; occupation governments viewed as illegitimate by the people are resented and eventually resisted. The Oligarchs are bound to continue lashing out and brutalizing the masses to keep them in line in the years to come.

But not all countries have been fully taken over by the Global Oligarchy. Most of the non-Western world is still in varying stages of conversion, and in many of these countries the fight is far from over. As long as the Liberal Democratic machine is not fully up and running and there are still alternative competing sources of power within the country, the political situation is still a toss-up. As a result, any political activism has to be focused on identifying and propping up the anti-Oligarchic forces still resisting in the country.

Is there a powerful military? A man of the people in the Presidency? A religious network with influence on people’s hearts and minds? Reactionaries have to prepare the weapons that an aspiring Autocrat might eventually need to wield against his foes.

It is actually quite easy to find these centers of resistance because they are the ones that are being the most viciously attacked by the Liberal Institutions. Reactionary political activism in a country where the occupation is not total must be focused on attacking and undermining the legitimacy of Liberal Democratic institutions. Pressure has to be brought to bear on all of them and their encroachment on society fought at every turn.

The Appeal of the Reactionary

People have needs and desires that society must provide for them, or at least not actively prevent them from reaching out for on their own. If a political system denies people something that they need to be fulfilled, the people will suffer and begin looking for someone or something that can provide what they are missing.

Examples abound: In war-torn Somalia, the warlords control the supply of USAID food and so they run the show. In the USSR, there was a deficit of “fun” so the CIA created a culture for export that oozed sex appeal and hedonism and aimed it at the Soviet youth. In Weimar Germany, there was political anarchy and the teetering government brought a failed artist turned disgruntled vet and his men into the fold because they were needed to bring order back to the country.

As things stand now, Liberalism has made war on life itself. Now more than ever, people struggle to have needs that aren’t directly related to consumption of products or entertainment met by society (although with inflation, liberalism is struggling to meet even basic biological needs, too). Meaningful relationships between husbands and wives, between groups of men who share similar interests, between people and their community and between man and God have been all but outlawed.

But the need for these social, biological and religious functions remains.

People generally want to be healthy, seek spiritual fulfillment, would prefer to be happy as opposed to depressed and want to feel like they are a force for good in the world. Modern society has failed to provide them with these things. That means that those who are capable of providing these things, or proposing a path to reaching them, will be able to attract interest simply because there is no one else fulfilling this function. We may as well refer to such people as ‘Reactionaries’.

So, in no particular order:

• Reactionaries must continue to develop a self-affirming and positive meta-narrative that fills people with pride and hope as opposed to shame and guilt.
• Reactionaries must develop and promote a path to self-improvement in all areas of life.
• Reactionaries must show how to meet the physical, emotional, intellectual and spiritual needs of people.

Healthy men who have a clear understanding of how the game is played and an ability to offer to the people what the regime cannot are a serious threat. Reactionaries need more than just a set of dogmas or books on the history of the French Revolution. When it comes to offering new toys and new spectacles, the Reactionary cannot compete with the regime and so must focus on what the enemy can’t provide – they have to offer that which Liberal Democracy cannot.

Breaking Free of Liberal Politics™

Nowadays, those who want to pretend to be rebels against the system join the modern left, while those who want to pretend to be running the show join the modern right. It is impossible not to notice that the modern left is dominated by the affluent and the privileged playing rebel, while the right is dominated by the destitute and downtrodden playing the ruler. If this is not enough to convince you to start questioning what you think you know about politics, then perhaps cheering at basketball or soccer matches is more your speed.

But the truth is that in any system, there are only two political groups of any note: those who are for or part of the system and those who are against or targeted by it. 

And how do we tell which is which? Well, we need simply look and compare who is being repressed with who is being celebrated. Everything else is a distraction, but there is an ocean of delusion and wishful thinking on both sides.

The only way to affect change in any political system from within is to engage in one form of activism or another. Those who do, regardless of the extent of the impact that they are making, can be considered political actors. That is, they may not be scoring any goals, but at the very least, they are still in the game.

But what is the nature of political activism? What is its purpose? What goals is a particular movement or organization of political activists trying to achieve?

Within the Liberal paradigm, every single political actor has to adhere to the following playbook to have even the chance of success in the system:

Step 1: Find a sugar-daddy from the ranks of the oligarchs

Step 2: Participate in the electoral process while suppressing any dissident views for fear of losing oligarchic funding or coming under sustained media attack

Step 3: Win at the voting booth and go on to change absolutely nothing, or lose at the voting booth and watch the status quo continue undisturbed

People have finally begun to open their eyes to the truth of the Liberal con and this is already a kind of progress in dissident circles. And to admit that the electoral process in Liberal Democracy, at its most essential, cannot be distinguished from the practice of prostitution, sooner or later, leads to people starting to look for alternatives. This realization is just a matter of time and a reaction to the further disappointments that voters have to look forward to down the line.

Fringe theory is becoming mainstream understanding right before our eyes.

How then to explain the clarion call to participate in low-level electoral processes coming from the great intellectual leaders that the opposition – whether from the Left or Right – is currently saddled with? Perhaps they smell a profit to be made in swindling their followers and playing nice with the current system that is in place, despite knowing that there is no real chance of ever promoting a dissident agenda no matter how hard their supporters vote. Unfortunately, there are very few people thinking “outside the box” and there is, of course, a very simple answer for why that is. Politics is a very important, high-stakes game. but, unlike other games, the rules of the game, and even the method of scoring goals is not explained to the players before the play begins. Even worse, the players are told fake rules from an early age and then penalized for playing by them, or simply trounced by those who know better. Few involved in activism seem to realize this, instead they stick to their old set of rules – rules that the system gave to them at some point through its media, education system or pre-approved activism channels – even if it leads to the destruction of themselves or their movements – whichever comes first.

Any genuine opposition movement operating in the current system feels that it has to temper its views and cannot fully tap into the populist spirit of the people. There are two reasons for this:

1. The oligarchs don’t support such positions and so do not finance such operations
2. There is a controlled opposition that enjoys the benefits that their role in the charade affords them

In general, when we talk about politics, the average person thinks that we are thinking in terms of a broad category, covering every possible aspect of the word. But this is far from the case. In Liberal Democracy, it is about Politics™, not politics in the broadest sense – and there is a huge difference between the two terms. Our vision of politics and the world is so caught up in a powerful and influential brand that we have forgotten that other options exist.

For example, when we search for something on the Internet, we say that we Google™ certain things. We also make Xerox™, not just photo copies. In America, snot is wiped with Kleenex™ and not with a napkin. Serious problems begin when, due to the hegemony of these brands and ideas in our heads, we forget that both Google and Xerox have alternatives, and most importantly, there are alternatives to Politics™.

Politics™ is a process by which one particular caste rules in modern society. The caste of large landlords, bankers, businessmen and investors i.e. people with large sums of largely stolen money – engage in Politics™ to protect their treasures from enemies within their caste, from the government and from other castes. A professional caste of managers is then hired to run the entire system for them. At some point, perhaps, the managers may develop a political will of their own and the tail will begin to wag the dog. But that is beyond the scope of this work.

In other words, Politics ™ is a system that they have built, thanks to which they resolve their internal disputes and protect themselves. You may not have noticed, but the liberal caste has forbidden other castes to participate in Politics™, calling them anti-democratic forces in society, which should not be allowed to come to power. If the Army intervenes, well that’s a Junta! And if the Church steps in, well then it’s the return of the Inquisition! The electoral process is holier than Christ himself – again for unknown reasons and based on an incomprehensible political theology.

Consider: Is it really more moral to have oligarchs buy off a union boss so that he makes his workers vote for “your” political candidate every 4 years over having a council of cardinals rule the country or some general with his staff of officers? If so, why?

And will we ever be given the right to vote on whether we want to continue to participate in the system of Liberal Democracy? Of course not. We can only vote for one corrupt businessman, honey-tongued lawyer, or self-serving ideologue over another, but voting to change the entire rotten system is strictly prohibited.

The Bad Nations 

But there are still islands of resistance in the world. In Iran there is a Theocracy – where the religious caste still partially rules. In China, there is a Party-ocracy – where one party still (in theory) runs the country. And in Europe, during the last 20 years, Technocracy has appeared – a system in which a caste of well-credentialed managers rule without even pretending to listen to democratically elected politicians.

Pre-revolutionary Russia had a traditional system of joint rule by the military caste and the institution of the monarchy. Russia never had Politics™ until the 90s, when Boris Yeltsin destroyed the Party-ocracy and instituted Liberal Democracy in its place. But over the past 20 years, we have seen Russia drift away from the radical reforms of the 90s to the current state, where the country is at a political crossroads, and it is still not clear which direction Russia will turn. The Opposition™ there is the remnant of the Yeltsin system and wants the country to return to the status quo of the 90s with a revival of good “old-fashioned” Politics™.

Dissidents the world over however, still largely believe that they can simply choose one of the representatives of the business caste, support him through the elections, and by doing so come to power following the enemy’s playbook i.e. engage in Politics™.

They are gravely mistaken.

Part 2 – Political Ideology: a Post-Mortem

Having said a few words on Liberalism’s sacred cows, its moral claims to legitimacy and outlined the actual power structure of Liberalism, we can now go a step further and address political ideologies as a whole. Modernity has replaced religious dogma with political ideologies and claimed that it has made the world a freer place. Nothing could be further from the case. Without understanding the role that political ideology as a concept plays in the system of control that the modern world has set in place, no real meaningful resistance to the reigning paradigm is possible.

The Ideology of Victory

All ideologies make the world a worse place, either in one country or in another, or in one aspect of life that they attack and replace with another. There is a price that must be paid in order to blindly believe and outsource your way of thinking to ideologues and their hare-brained utopian schemes and we are paying our dues today.

Let me ask a simple question: do we serve our ideology or our country? Or rather: if you were faced with a choice between consistently following an ideology close to your heart and your home country, what would you choose?

This is not just a question of loyalty, but a question of identity. Ideologies create surrogate, elective, secondary identities that divorce people from their primary identities as members of nations and peoples. Split and torn loyalties are the results of the introduction of political ideologies. They fulfill the same function as religious schisms do, because they operate on the same principles as fanatical religions and divide the world into believers and political heathens. Liberalism, as we know, waged war against Christianity, accusing the churches of Europe of many destructive practices for which they were undoubtedly guilty, but which Liberalism itself copied and then expanded upon.

But the purpose of this book is not to lay out the crimes of the various religious and political ideologues that followed them over the centuries. There are simply too many to list.

Let us instead consider the meta-narrative that we are taught about recent world history.

As we all know beyond a shadow of a doubt, the American victory over the Germans in both world wars was due to their love of freedom and the superiority of Anglo Republicanism as compared to German Despotism. The victory of the US over the USSR was then in turn due to the power of free market principles. These are the standard meta-narratives that are fed to all Americans from an early age. Or at least they used to be, only to be replaced by a system that promulgates anti-White narratives and a particularly virulent for of Semitism. Nowadays, we are taught that America defeated Nazi Germany because ​​of the values of tolerance and multiculturalism. America then defeated the Soviet Union because it had more per capita gay discos in the country. We scoff at the new meta-narrative being pushed by our ideological overlords, but we fail to realize that the old one was just as absurd.

All this is to say that victory is an ideology in and of itself and that victory should become the only serious ideology of serious people. 

Of course, many ideologues believe that their pet political theory will make the country better (and make them a brilliant career in this new utopia) and as a result call themselves Russian-Democrats or Libertarian-Americans. But this is just a cover for what amounts to dual-loyalty. All decent people are interested in questions about the future of the country and all are interested in questions concerning its development. But cognitively-impaired people are somehow sure that the answers to these questions lie only in the narrow confines of their political ideologies.

Political Ideology as Religious Dogma

Need an answer to a pressing societal question? A solution to a complex economic problem? It is enough to just open the sacred PolitBible of your political religion, or to consult with its voodoo priest to find out the correct answers. Everything is clear and simple and already laid out for you – centuries ago even, by people living in radically different times and circumstances. Thankfully, no one needs to do any thinking anymore when they can just spout off some quotes from someone that did their thinking for them.

In Eastern Europe, everyone is more or less a battered, abandoned and abused child of the Soviet project, and as a result, are generally more aware of the oppressive nature of political ideology than in the West. Until recently, in the lands of the former Russian Empire, all issues could be resolved by referring to the sacred texts of Marx and Lenin, while everything else was bourgeois propaganda. After the collapse of the Soviet circus, the old ideology was largely forgotten, but people still did not take the lessons of this failed experiment to heart. Sadly, many decided that the problem was not in Ideologies per se, but only in the particular ideology of Communism. Many rushed to embrace the laissez-faire Capitalism of the West as a panacea for all of their society’s woes.

Today, we often hear the nonsensical babble of these born-again ideologues all over the internet. Their message is simple: as soon as we listen to the words of these new ideological evangelists and elevate them to the position of high priests, we will finally be able to build a heaven on earth where last time we failed – this time for sure.

In contrast, a traditionalist should only be interested in one thing: the holistic development of their country and the people living in it. One’s country must grow and prosper even if it is not a Libertarian utopia, or not ruled by a dictatorship of the proletariat, and even if it has not had a national leader that one can take pride in for some time. Grounded, intelligent people just look at the current situation and think about how to make the country stronger and make life difficult for its enemies from that point onwards.

But the masses have been transformed into “ideologoyim” who are only capable of repeating slogans and playing the role of cannon-fodder for those who organize one ideological crusade or another. A cynical man might comment that it seems that the peasants are allowed to tinker and dabble in various ideologies only so that they can find yet another reason to argue with their parents, neighbors, and co-workers and thereby weaken and divide themselves.

But political ideology is a smokescreen – there are only the interests of groups of people who hide behind ideologies to promote their own agenda.

Consider: as we all know, during the Second World War, the Germans had a bad and evil ideology and that is why they lost the war. The little details surrounding the actual war are irrelevant and no one knows them. Like, for example, the fact that Germany did not have oil on its own territory, leading them to try and capture Baku, which was then deep in the Soviet Union, but ultimately failing to take it. The battle around Stalingrad and the failure of the southern front to break through and seize the oil fields effectively ended the German war effort. A critical thinker might ask what ideology has to do with an offensive that stalled out due to fuel shortages and stiff military resistance, but he would receive no answer, only moral condemnation.

This is because everything in the modern world must be seen only in terms of good and evil, our ideology (good) vs their ideology (bad).

The Japanese, by the way, had a similar problem. The official narrative goes something like this: Japanese Bushido/illiberal Japan is responsible for the fact that they too did not have enough oil on their islands to resist the American fleet after the oil fields in the South Pacific were lost and an embargo on their home island was established. So, in fact, everything is clear and logical here: history has clearly proved to us that Capitalism and Communism are stronger and more moral than Fascism and Bushido.

Consider another example: During the First World War, the ideology of the Germans was also clearly eviler than their enemies, which is why they lost that war too. The little detail that Germany did not have enough land to grow grain and could not achieve food self-sufficiency, leading their population to starve and eventually capitulate is irrelevant. What we do know is that the French ideological system, which was based on … existentialist angst and crunchy baguettes (???) proved itself to be better than the Kaiser’s ideological system, which was based on … stylish mustaches and spiked helmets, probably.

Of course, our second example comes off as particularly absurd, because World War I is not quite as “ideologized” as World War II. But the point remains that modern society thinks exactly this way if it thinks at all. Another example: Americans literally believe that they defeated the British Empire in the War of Independence because they valued freedoms more than the King of England. It had nothing to do with having a huge home field advantage and fighting a war of attrition against an over-stretched imperial army, of course.

Here are some more uncomfortable ideas worth considering.

• During periods of all-out war, ALL countries centralize production
• All warriors and armies have their own version of “Bushido”
• Better supplied, equipped and trained armies tend to win
• Only later, after the war, do the winners hire ideologues to explain to the masses and the defeated nations why it was that they deserved to win

Were FDR’s factories any less centralized and appropriated by the government for the war effort than Germany’s and the Soviet Union’s? Did the soldiers who stormed the beaches of Normandy have tolerance and a copy of Ann Rand in their hearts and coats or were they there to fight for their nation? Was it samurai values that forced the Japanese to kamikaze their planes or did they not have enough fuel for the journey back home? What did Lend-Lease, which provided the Soviet Union with enough credit and supplies to keep the war effort going longer than their enemies prove about the moral righteousness of Bolshevism over that of the Reich’s exactly?

History is quite clear: one must win first to have the luxury of ideologizing later.

The Ideological Smokescreen

Ideological systems claim to be many things, but if one looks past the propaganda (both good and bad) that justifies whatever system we have in place currently and simply focuses on who is in power, the truth of the situation sharpens into focus. This is not difficult to do, it simply depends on how deep one is willing to go mentally, without getting overwhelmed by the revelations that an honest line of inquiry of this sort will reveal.

For example: 

• Generally, in Communism the people who rule are the Communists.
• In a Monarchy, the ruler is a Monarch.
• And in a Liberal Democracy, the Liberals run the show.

This is simple enough, but we can narrow down and isolate the ruling group that is in power even further. Most people, however, are not willing to take even the first step and can only see the faults of the systems that they are not a part of or are not ideologically sympathetic to. They believe the lies that the system tells about itself or get hung up on the petty differences between various factions within the system and do not see the forest for the trees because they succumb to this petty factionalism. In other words, they identify with one team against the other, even if they do not belong on any team and are simply spectators on the sidelines, like most of us are, just watching the show.

This mentality is as sad as it is counter-productive and should be avoided at all costs because it blinds the observer to the simple truth that no system tolerates opposition to the system itself. Any inter or intra-party debates will always be within an orthodox ideological framework accepted by everyone in the system. In other words, the basketball match that the peasants watch from the stands has rules, which cannot be changed no matter how hard they cheer for one team or another. And needless to say, there’s also no discussion of switching to soccer allowed, no matter which way the match goes.

In a Marxist system, you can criticize your political opponents for not being good enough at practicing Marxism. Those are the rules of the game: you can’t attack Marxism itself in a Marxist state. And this principle holds true for all political systems. If these rules weren’t enforced, there would be a threat that real political change could occur, which is not something that the ruling class ever wants simply by dint of them already being the ruling class. Why would the Harlem Globetrotters want to change the rules to soccer when they’re already slam-dunking on the Washington Generals? Although, perhaps a better analogy would be asking the team owners to suddenly remake the basketball court into a grass field with two goals at the ends.

Why would they?

Attempts to change the fundamental nature of the political system itself usually lead to civil wars, revolutions, coups, counter-coups or are done as a result of a foreign takeover. That doesn’t mean that there isn’t room to maneuver for dissidents in any given political system, it simply means that the usual political channels are not open to them, and they have to work at a severe disadvantage.

Under any system of government there is an official propaganda narrative about the essence and purpose of this system. Examples abound: the dictatorship of the proletariat, a shining city on a hill, the defender of the Islamic world – and all these narratives get away from the observable functional truth of these various countries and the systems that they have put into place.

The most important characteristic of any system of governance, once you push past the propaganda, is to what goals the country’s political/economic/cultural system is incentivizing and pushing its smartest people to direct their talents and how it is providing them with the resources to do achieve them.

In America, the talented people go to Wall Street to steal money from naive retirees, or they take small entrepreneurs to court for not wanting to bake LGBT cakes at their bakeries. In the USSR, the smartest people were busy building different types of missiles. And in modern China, such people are buying up land to build casino chains throughout Southeast Asia (when they’re not running the world’s factories).

The rest of society is subordinated and tertiary to the main pursuit of any given society. The true nature of a given system is where the top talents focus their efforts. There are also many clues that help us figure out just what civilizational hobby is the “Chosen Sector”.

For example: even if the official ideological dogma of the country is quite strict, there are fewer ideological restrictions on people working in this Chosen Sector. Only results matter there. In other words, the missiles must hit their targets and if this should happen to violate Engels’ geometric voodoo theories, well then the official regime inquisitors are willing to remain silent and look the other way.

There are no utopian systems of government, only systems of government that use their most intelligent human capital in constructive ways. If the most intelligent people are encouraged to become philosophers and society is built in a way to support them, you get ancient Greece. If human capital is directed at producing the most amount of widgets for the lowest input prices possible, you get materialistic mercantile societies like 19th century Great Britain.  Imperial Russia took its best and brightest and used them in the armed forces. They became the largest and most powerful land empire in world history as a result.

The first order of business is always to consider where a country’s talent and resources are being directed, and whether this is a worthy pursuit for one’s nation and one’s people.

The Corruption of Nationalism 

The concept of Nationalism, boiled down to its most essential, is a collective shared identity that is acknowledged by a large group of people who do not necessarily share close blood-ties. In other words, nationalism is almost like an ideology unto itself. But it would be more accurate to say that nationalism is the key driving agent of collective identity that is then supplemented, or, more accurately, hijacked by ideology. In other words, there are states that have been formed around core nations using the driving power of nationalism. However, these states have used nationalism to achieve ideological ends.

Consider: the American government uses the American nation-state to promote messianic Liberal Democracy around the world. The USSR used the Russian nation-state to promote messianic communist revolution around the world. Many nations have fallen captive to a bait and switch operation where their nationalism is channeled into an ideological project that forms a substitute identity for the captive population instead.

The people are easily misled and often tricked into substituting an ideology for nationalism by subversive elites who have an interest in performing this ideological sleight-of-hand on their victims. We see this at work in the various social justice causes circulating in the White world where you see very few ethnic migrants in various “green” movements, as an example. Despite preaching cosmopolitanism, these dangerous ideologies rely on the group mind of the captive people (northwest Europeans mostly) to organize and push their agenda.

Again, Communism may be an international cosmopolitan ideology, but it relied on captive nations to promote its agenda. The workers of the world did not march off to fight in the international revolution; it was the Chinese, Vietnamese, Koreans, Russians, Cubans and so on that did. To this day, many people with nationalist leanings remain captive to the ideology that became associated with the national feeling. These people understand nothing about Communism, they only associate it with feelings of national pride. It is the same with Americans who confuse Capitalism with national pride.

In other words, the parasite is often confused with the host. Our job is to distinguish between the two by coming to a better understanding of what pure, undiluted nationalism is. There are few more-maligned schools of political theory than nationalism. That being said, there is no need to try and convince the reader of the efficacy, morality and logical consistency of nationalism as a political theory. It is hard to imagine that someone without nationalist leanings would even bother reading this text. Instead of offering a rousing defense of nationalism, we would instead devote that time to understanding how it came about and how it can make its triumphant return to the world stage.

Nationalists may be enthusiastic about the prospects of a national revival in their respective countries, but few have any concrete ideas on how exactly nationalism is built. It is no exaggeration to point out that few nations have any national sentiment left among their populaces. And so, the nationalist faces a paradox: he finds himself defending the hard-won rights and legacy of the very same people who want nothing to do with them or with him and his message. It is easy to fall into disillusionment and despair upon having one’s message fall upon deaf ears.

There is only one school of thought prevalent in contemporary right-wing circles about the possible revival of ethnic nationalism among a significant swath of the population. There is no name for this idea or school or thought, although the term “accelerationism” has been used to promote a strategy with the core assumptions of this line of thinking at its core.

It is thought that when a certain critical point is reached, when a people has its back to the wall and has no escape, that they will be forced to circle the wagons and fight, or simply be wiped out. The reasoning is that all peoples have at least some sort of self-preservation instinct that simply needs the right conditions to come out. And so, many nationalists adopt a “the worse the better” position on the unfolding calamity that is the 21st century.

However, there is little to prove that a defeated people ever fights back, no matter how hard their back is pressed to the wall. Further defeats tend to follow previous defeats and then quickly turn into routs. There are just as many instances of surrounded armies throwing down their weapons as there are of heroic last stands. In fact, examples of the former greatly outweigh the latter.

Furthermore, there is little to indicate that nationalism is a natural feeling present in the population of any given country. This is not to say that nationalism is not an extension of natural law or that it is a utopian ideal like Marxism or Libertarianism. On the contrary, nationalism has the distinct honor of having been tried and having demonstrated extraordinary results in these trials. But we must acknowledge that it is not found in its polished state in the raw masses either. In other words, the enthusiastic young nationalist who goes searching for nationalism among the peasants is not able to find it because it is simply not there. It is like trying to find a polished gem in the earth. One may stumble across a vein of precious ore hidden somewhere in the mountains, but great toil and refining is necessary to take that raw material and make it into a valuable gem.

It is the same with great men. Fewer, if any, are found in modern society because the art of personal refinement has been lost. Raw potential exists, as it always has, hidden in the veins of the people. But only after great toil do we see the brilliant shine of a nationalist spirit.

We can go even further and conclude that nations do not exist in a state of nature.

At best, we can observe tribal units occurring more or less “naturally”. Tribes, of course, are confederations of clans. Clans are the result of extended families having children with second and third cousins. Nuclear families are the result of a man and a woman deciding to have children. In all these organizations, blood ties are the glue that binds the organization together, but as we continue to scale up, there isn’t enough “glue” to go around.

Nations are the result of alliances between tribes. Nations have only ever historically come about through the efforts of great men to unite various tribes against a common threat or to put an end to sectarian wars. At the inter-tribal level, it is difficult to merge bloodlines in the same way that a clan or a tribe is able to, thereby requiring a different kind of “glue” to keep the whole project together. This is where the role of founder-kings is so important to understand. Nature can only take us so far. We are evolved to organically organize no higher than tribal units where intimate blood ties can be established among all members of the tribe. Beyond that, special effort needs to be applied.

Nations are founded by founder-kings. In America, the founding fathers are a shining example of an ancient archetype re-emerging in modern garb. In Communist states, past and present, there was always the Dear Leader, the founding father of the new state. What worshipping Lenin as a demigod had to do with creating a dictatorship of the proletariat, no one seemed able to explain, but everyone was content to continue living with the contradiction regardless. Nations can often survive for long stretches of time without king-like leaders, so long as the memory and veneration of the founder-kings remains strong. Once this fades however, the nation starts to come unglued, like in America where, as we speak, statues of the founder-kings have been toppling for almost half a decade at the time of this writing, and the nation continues its slide into anarcho-tyranny.

Consider: the ideology or political leanings of the founder-kings has little bearing on their importance and the role that they play as the foundation of identity for a nation-state. They can be Communists, Classical Liberals, Monarchists, Christians, Pagans, Atheists – it simply does not matter. What matters is the crucial uniting role that they played in life and the role that their memory continues to play after their death. the ancient Greeks are a particularly strong example of this. Their founders were always sanctified as heroes, sacrificed to at annual festivals, and this sanctity used to encourage religious respect for the founding Constitution.

We are left with a simple and obvious conclusion to draw about the prospects of rekindling the national spirit in the people. However, before we simply conclude that we must await the leader that was promised and move on, it would be illuminating to consider the problem from another angle.

The Group Mind

There are various forms of collective organizations with their own unique characteristics that are worth considering in our analysis.

The most commonly known is the mob.

A mob is a group of individuals that are united by a common purpose and act as one to achieve their aim. The only problem with mobs is that they are generally a destructive form of collective organization and identity, accomplishing little, but often leaving carnage in their wake. As a result, mobs have served as a stand-in punching bag for liberals who want to attack nationalism. They denounce nationalism as little more than violent mob action.

Mobs are one of the most well-studied sociological phenomena and the conclusion that some sociologists have reached is that a mob is the result of a group of people falling under the influence of a “group mind”. While this group mind is not material, its effects on those that fall under its spell certainly are. Normal, well-behaved people have often been observed committing heinous acts of arson and murder while in the thrall of the mob mind. But one does not have to conjure up images of medieval peasants rioting in the streets to observe the effects of mob behavior in modern society.

Concerts are a perfect example of the mob mind in action. Attendees lose themselves in the emotional wave that is brought about by the powerful subwoofers and the drugs passed out during the event. They scream together, jump and thrash about in unison and lose their individuality in the moment. Becoming one with the mob mind and feeling a sort of unity and personal oblivion in it is the main appeal of such events. Normal people seem to be drawn towards activities that degrade their own personal consciousness and seek out escapes through which they can be subsumed back into a state of un-being, even if only temporarily.

All this is to say that the mob is indeed the archetypical example of individuals succumbing to a group mind. However, this has nothing to do with nationalism. In fact, it is diametrically opposed to the nationalist idea and the effect that nationalism attempts to foster.

A mob settles around the lowest common denominator. The average person in any country is far from a paragon of virtue and so even better than average individual people are often reduced to a near-animal state while enthralled by the power of the mob mind. Individuals only feel the primary instincts while in the mob such as euphoria, fear, anger, grief and so on heightened to a dangerous degree. And while an individual may find temporary release by entering into this state, he does not become better for it.

Selfless people who serve others and who pursue their ideals are few and far between, unfortunately. But Nationalism is their gift to the ungrateful and selfish masses.

Nationalism, at its core, is created by exceptional men or groups of men, leading by their example, to lift up the average quality of even the below-average man. They do this by creating a different kind of group mind. That is, the group mind that nationalism fosters is actually the heightened consciousness and morality that is only present in a few select members of the population which is then shared with the masses. It is a pure act of service to others, done out of love and the desire to lift the pathetic condition of the average man.

By pointing at heroes of the past and showing themselves to be an example of the same qualities today, these exceptional men have a remarkable effect on the behavior of average people. They do this by not setting themselves apart from the masses. Quite the opposite, they emphasize the shared identity that they have with the people. Superior they may be, but separate they are not. The average man, in turn, allows his identity to be subsumed by the identity of these superior men. They copy their behavior and their convictions, and they repeat their proclamations as if they were their own. As a result, the average man is raised up out of his miserable condition, instead of languishing in mediocrity as he would continue to do if left to his own devices, or from degrading further as he would in a mob.

Nationalism only comes into being when there are exceptional men who can will it into reality in the minds of their people. Once again, the masses are not capable of thinking in these terms on their own. As a result of these exceptional qualities being shared top-down with the masses, national life improves dramatically: as corruption and vice fall and civic engagement and virtue skyrocket.

It bears remembering that none of this is utopian theorizing. All of this has occurred in multiple countries in living memory.

Nationalist Genesis

Modern nationalists tend to be unaware that there is anything more to nationalism other than taking pride in being born to a certain nation, and often do not have anything of interest to say about their own people and their own culture. Charitably, we could say that the exercise is akin to asking a fish what water is. People born into a national culture do not know that it is unique because they have known nothing else/have nothing to compare it to. Until they spend significant amounts of time away from their people, they do not notice anything special about the particular conditions they find themselves in and universalize their situation instead, assuming that all other peoples live this way and therefore their culture is not anything unique or special.

This is a problem because a people unable to realize their own uniqueness as well as critically examine the fault-lines in their own culture and national character are unable to defend themselves against its subversion by racial enemies. A realistic appraisal of one’s own culture is crucial to accentuating and fostering strengths whilst mitigating weaknesses. Paradoxically, it is often foreigners that have a better understanding of the natives than the natives themselves. Furthermore, it is often the case that natives who once tried to assimilate to a foreign culture are the ones who then take a renewed interest in the culture they left behind.

Consider the archetypical example of Moses. The myth is well-known to most people in the world and among some, still believed to be incontrovertible historical fact. It goes something like this: Moses was a Hebrew/Hyksos who was assimilated into Egyptian imperial culture until he one day rejected it, threw off his foreign garb and returned to his people to lead a nationalist revolt and establish a new religion based on worship of what can charitably be inferred to be some sort of volcano demon.

Ghandi is a similar case. In his youth, he eagerly embraced British Imperial culture until he was kicked out of the all-White carriage on a train in South Africa. He then experienced a nativist re-awakening, shed his tweed suit and began to promote Hindu independence.

Arminius/Hermann was taken as a prisoner from the Cheruski tribe in Germany and raised in Rome, going on to serve in the legions. He eventually turned on the Romans, led the legions into the forests of Germany and annihilated them.

Lycurgus spent his life traveling the ancient world and studying in Egypt before returning to Greece to found the militarized Sparta of legend.

Examples abound. Archetypal phenomena like this resurface throughout history with slight variations over and over again.

History is replete with examples of nationalists, i.e. people that possessed the seed of a nation within their own person, that existed without nations. Oftentimes, they walked through the ruins of imperial conquests or great environmental cataclysms that had led to societal collapses. These exceptional individuals served as arks of knowledge and wisdom that were able to create a new nation out from scratch. So long as the raw material was there, they were able to forge it into something cohesive and effective at surviving and thriving in the environment that they found themselves in. These great leaders were prophets as much as they were political leaders. They began, almost always, with almost no materials at their disposal, either in the form of human or material capital.

The natives often don’t know enough or don’t care enough to assert themselves or to fight for their own survival. History has shown again and again that only charismatic individuals or groups with an extremely acute understanding and feeling of their own identity are able to awaken the masses from their apathetic slumber. National self-identity is not a naturally occurring phenomenon in all people – far from it. This identity is forged through either identity crises brought about by an aborted attempt at assimilation with an Imperial culture, or by intellectual/artistic/literary/cultural religious re-awakenings.

The latter occur when a cognitive elite takes an interest in their own nation and begins to investigate and promote this identity, rejecting their cosmopolitanism for something more grounded and exclusive. Russia benefited from a nationalist re-awakening in the 19th century, promoted by poets, writers and artists who took an interest in peasant culture and the nature of the country that they lorded over. The cultural product that they produced in this 100-some year period was so profound and inspiring that it is still the basis for Russian identity today. Another example: our modern image of the Viking is also largely a result of the nationalist revival in Scandinavia in the 19th century. Even the names in Scandinavia change, from primarily biblical to primarily references to the Norse pantheon. These writers are still a source of national pride and identity because they spoke for those who could not speak or who could not even understand what it was that they felt inside of them. And so, again, these nationalist writers imparted a great gift onto the people of their nation by speaking for them and elevating their understanding of themselves.

That is what nationalism, at its very core, is all about.

To reiterate: nationalism is a process by which individuals who are far more intelligent, empathetic and superior in every conceivable way devote themselves to improving the lot of their ethnic kin by sharing in some of these qualities. Either they become leaders that exemplify these higher qualities and serve as inspiration for the masses to emulate or they become cultural figures that elevate ethnic or national self-identity with their art.

Ask any Russian what it means to be a Russian and they will direct you to read the works of some of these golden and silver age writers. They themselves almost certainly haven’t read these books, despite being forced and cajoled to in school, and even if they have, few understand what they read or even remember it. Even fewer people take the time to read the ancient chronicles of the slavic people or to learn about the Rurikids and so on .But this is normal – the peasant masses have never been capable of creating or even preserving culture very well. It is certainly true that folk tales were primarily passed down by peasants and these preserve stories that in some cases go back to ancient Aryan times. These weren’t written down until being collected in the 19th century. But this is a faint echo of what culture actually is.

For the most part, the people can preserve the culture that has been handed down to them in at least some symbolic capacity.

But over time, they lose touch with the original meaning and purpose of the culture that has been bequeathed to them, altering and reformatting it as they go until they finally lose it almost all-together, as has happened now. Even before our degraded time, the peasants had already forgotten what the symbols and designs that they sewed onto their clothes and their drapes and their tablecloths meant. If they still practiced their native customs and rituals, they did it out of habit, the original symbolic meaning of the act mostly forgotten or distorted. All of this indicates that they were merely stewards, not originators of the culture. After all, if they were capable of generating culture, why have they not done so again since then?

Some key points:

• Culture is created by a cultural elite that sets about with a clear objective to create culture.

• Culture is not just a quaint collection of ornaments, habits and costumes, but a set of “best practices” that have been codified into a tradition.

• Culture is the expression of the ethnic soul of a people and the state that it finds itself in.

• Culture is not created arbitrarily, but is both utilitarian and transcendent at the same time.

The creation of good, life-affirming culture is the greatest gift that one can bestow on one’s own people.

There will have to be a new culture created where the old one has died. But it will only be “new” in the sense that a rebirth or reincarnation is considered new. Tradition is eternal, and re-emerges in various, cosmetically different forms periodically throughout our history. The “new” culture will be quite similar to the “old” culture from the more pristine days of the ancient past than the recently deceased, decayed culture that we still had the remnants of by the end of the 19th century. Nationalists need to move past gazing with longing at the outward form of culture and its representations in trifles like decorations or rituals. We must look past the admittedly beautiful veneer to see the truths that these outward forms were intended to convey. We should ask, “why did our people do what they did, behave as they did, think as they were wont to?”

If we can pierce through and understand the hidden motivation of the cultural architects who created these cultures in the first place, we will have access to the blueprints from which we can design a new culture, similar to the old one, but possessed with vitality and renewed purpose. We should ask:

What did the swirls and the dots and the stripes and ribbons on the dresses, the plates, the knives, and the burial mounds symbolize?

Why were they put there in the first place?

Do they represent the stars? The place of man in the universe?  Our relation to the higher powers?

If so, what answers and explanations can we, now, proffer about these same phenomena? How would we represent and express them?

What truths do we want to immortalize in the moving canvas of our new living breathing culture?

Consider: there was a thought experiment done once by a team of nuclear scientists who were trying to figure out a way to keep a radioactive waste dump off-limits for the duration of the substances’ half-life decay. They knew that these sites would be dangerous for humans for the next ten-thousand years. In that time period, any signs that they could put up would be worn away by winds and rains. The language would no doubt be forgotten as well. How could they pass a simple “Keep Away” message across the millennia? And what if civilization collapsed in the interim, as it is wont to do? They determined that the only way to make sure that the message “Keep Away” could be preserved would be to create a dedicated team of people entrusted to pass on the message to the next generation and so on. The first generations would, no doubt, remember and understand the true purpose of their mission. They would even understand what radiation poisoning was scientifically and practically. But, over time, as the memory began to fade, the people would begin to forget the details. Radiation might be forgotten and a simplified explanation profered: whatever it is, it’s bad and makes you sick, so stay away. Then, in time, alternative explanations might emerge, with some attributing the sickness of the waste pile with demons and constructing myths and rituals around the new interpretation of the phenomenon. Eventually, a whole religion might emerge around the dark caves inhabited by fell spirits, taught by the priests who periodically offered sacrifices to appease them. They would still wear something resembling a white lab coat, but just barely. When asked what the garments were for, they would simply huff that they were sacred and a part of the priestly tradition and that question time was over. Then, when the world cycled back to civilization, a team of new scientists might start asking questions about the caves and rediscover the radioactive waste in them. The priests would, naturally, balk at their explanations and continue with their warped, distorted and corrupted practices and condemn anyone who strayed from the dogma. They might even condemn the free-thinkers to eternal damnation and help them along the way by throwing them into a raging bonfire.

All this is to say that living culture serves a purpose. The traditions that are codified around it serve to transmit and protect core practices by making them more accessible and easily passed down to ordinary people. Over time, without constant renewal and supervision by cultural elites, the original meaning is lost and confused by the external forms that are wrapped around it by the peasants who never truly understood the original meaning in the first place or who misunderstood it after a few generations and the meddling of priests who probably saw an advantage to be gained by misleading them.

The outward form that a culture has taken may be beautiful, but it is not sacred – the hidden truth that it was meant to convey is. Find that, and one can renew the culture from scratch.

Therefore, the task that today’s nationalists have set before them is either to become examples of superiority that inspire others through their example or to provide profound insights into their own people’s national character. It is not enough to talk about immigrant crime. It is not enough to whine about the corruption of one ruling party or another. It is not enough to debate economic theory endlessly.

Consider: If people want to hear about market theory, they go to the Libertarians. If people want to hear about social inequity, they go to the Marxists. Well, what exactly do people go to the nationalists for? The answer is simple: they go to the nationalists to learn who they are. They want to understand themselves on an individual level and on a collective level. Sadly, they get none of this from modern-day nationalists, who do not seem to have anything of interest to say on this topic.

At best, modern nationalists serve as a barometer indicating the level that the masses are at in terms of their own national self-understanding. In other words, if even an ardent nationalist can’t tell you anything about his country’s folk medicine, its culinary roots, its ethnic architecture, its ancient fairy-tales, what distinguishes them from their neighbors, how they approach friendship, business, work, love, faith, art and so on then they are simply the blind leading the blind. Paradoxically, of all the problems that we face, this one could be solved with the most ease. All it would take would be a concerted effort to reach out to researchers, authors and historians who write about these topics and to begin a discussion with them. Modern nationalists simply cannot be bothered to do so because they believe they know everything that there is to know about their own people by dint of simply being born into the tribe because nationalists are addicted to misery and defeatism and generally, as a rule, are incapable of engaging in anything productive.

Nationalist Plurality

There are different kinds of Nationalism that are as different from one another as the political parties within the Liberal Democratic paradigm (minimally) or as different as the various left-wing ideologies (like Socialism vs Communism). That is to say, that within a nationalist paradigm there could also be plurality within the polity. We are so used to living under the left’s political paradigm that we view the alternative as a solid monolith because we are simply too far from it to see the details. As a field of inquiry, nationalism has been treated the same way that an alien corpse might be inspected by a team of squeamish scientists in hazmat suits poking and prodding it with sticks from afar, too afraid of getting close and unsure exactly what they are looking at.

There are more democratic variants of nationalism, just as there are more authoritarian ones. In the same way, monarchies are not monoliths. Some kings relied on popular support from the masses, others on their nobles, or a faction of nobles, or the money of foreigners to support their rule.

Most forms of nationalism that are discussed on the right are what can be termed democratic. The adherents to this nationalism believe in most of the reigning dogmas of the age: electoral politics, women’s empowerment, materialism and so on. They only want to do away with the foreigner element. The justification for this position usually revolves around an argument surrounding popularity, that, basically, the more “extreme” right-wing positions would not be accepted by society at large. This is, of course, an extremely misguided position to take.

First of all, no nationalist party or movement will be allowed to run on or enact an anti-immigrant platform by the current global regime. To surrender the rest of the platform because one thinks that this is a necessary compromise is deluded. No opposition is tolerated whatsoever that is not controlled. Secondly, not everyone has been personally shanked by a brown immigrant or fleeced by a Jew. Almost everyone, however, has experienced the effects of societal decay most notably felt in the wayward behavior of women, the disintegration of the community, and of the family, the loss of faith in liberal institutions and so on. The more wide-reaching one’s critique of modernity, the more it speaks to the situation that ordinary people find themselves in. Thirdly, the nationalist idea needs to gain popularity not to win victories in the rigged elections, but to achieve a complete overthrow of the current regime and restructuring of the political system. Events like these happen relatively often, with the ending of various French republics, the collapse of the Soviet Union and other examples coming to mind in just the latter half of the 20th century alone.

The general trend in the world is an accelerated march towards Totalitarianism, which many people actually welcome with open arms. Periods of extreme libertine excess always lead to harsh totalitarianism as a reaction. As the situation stands now, we see people lining up to surrender their bodily autonomy by subscribing to a continued series of vaccines, QR codes and eventually chips implanted either into their body or eventually into their brains.

The idea that people are not willing to support or go along with sweeping societal changes is simply and demonstrably wrong. On the contrary, the people clamor for these sorts of sweeping measures when they feel that something has gone wrong in their personal lives i.e. a loss of purpose, spiraling depression, economic difficulty and so on. The average person does not feel himself to be in control of his own life and demands that his problems be solved through top-down measures by forces more powerful than himself. In some sense, the average person, devoid of willpower and the ability to think critically, is quite correct to look to outside sources for help – he is right to believe that he can’t do much on his own in the state that he is in. The regime knows this and so it creates crises that the people then clamor for solutions to that the regime then so generously provides.

On the level of pure theory, whether these changes lead to a totalitarian techno-control grid or whether they lead to a renewed and positive form of Authoritarianism is dependent on the people in charge guiding the changes. As things stand now, we lurch from manufactured crisis to manufactured reaction and drift ever closer towards a prepared “solution” that allows for the regime to tighten the screws on its emerging global totalitarian control grid.

Democracy vs the People

“Democratization” is the process by which terrorists destroy a country by pitting the peasants against each other. The average person is not interested in politics because he correctly intuits that politics in a democracy is just a dispute between oligarchs. Everywhere, until the moment when peasants were given the “right” to vote, they had strong and sincere mutual solidarity. In other words, the people didn’t care about the elections. The historical fact is that the “right” to vote was given to them only to make it easier to divide them into different political factions and then break the back of society, by politicizing average people against one another. This process has already been practically completed to its logical end in the United States and in the West as a whole. This was done by conning the public into thinking that “values” and “principles” were being debated by the political parties, which succeeded in sucking in the masses and emotionally investing them in a fight that they had no dog in.

In contrast, under an Autocracy, social solidarity persists and this is MUCH more important than the democratic process and the futile debate it generates. The enemies of the country are always looking for a reason to start quarrels within clans and turn families against families, neighbors against neighbors, etc.

But the ideal form of social organization is the people standing behind their Champion/Autarch/Leader/King against the oligarchs in one form or another. The king knows that the oligarchs and the presumptuous nobility want to dismember him and share the power amongst themselves, and that the people hate them and for that reason, the wise autocrat is typically the most ardent populist. The peasants are his natural source of support, thanks to which he can confidently keep the oligarchy in check, suppressing their intrigues and forcing them to be useful to the nation.

Both “Political Freedom” and “Democratic Development” boil down to one key idea – handing over more power to the oligarchs.

That many urban peasants consider themselves to be politically literate does not change the fact that they are only misguided pawns working against their own interests. The opinion of the peasants will never be taken into account in the democratic process. Simply put, the oligarchs know that a close-knit group of peasants is more dangerous than the disunited factions of “citizens” who are constantly squabbling with each other. As a result, they are constantly engaged in trying to recruit the powerless masses to participate in their own inter-factional squabbles, creating political parties for this purpose, claiming that they only follow one or another ideology, although in reality they simply represent various oligarchic factions. Even if collapse is never the stated goal, at the very least, a static condition of factionalism is – a condition of ‘Divide et Impera’. Liberal Democracy is a political system designed to play people off against each other and that eventually leads a country to civil strife, open war and eventually collapse.

Remember: most people are not politically educated, and even worse, most people are very easy to manipulate with emotional triggers because they have certain … mental limitations. To control these people and convince them to go along with the program, the oligarchs just need to manipulate their emotions. Emotions are expressed through biochemical conditions that, when triggered, cause people to behave in a certain way. In particular, fear is a biochemical state that, when activated, does not allow one to think rationally, only to rapidly respond to stimuli created by the same media.

The Power of Propaganda

Partisan propaganda is the preferred method of deceiving and manipulating the peasantry, and has been refined over the course of the 20th century to become a true dark art. Stimulating people’s fear reflex, among others, is the preferred method of emotional control of the oligarchs. The past years have proven that through powerful media propaganda campaigns, people can be made to believe or do anything. The media and the oligarchs routinely inflict horrific emotional violence on the people.

But even worse, the objects of manipulation consider themselves well-informed citizens and are proud of the fact that they are fulfilling their civic duty every time they vote for one destructive oligarchic faction or another, or focus all their attention and energy on the next demonization target of the oligarchs. They routinely break the commandments of Christ and begin to hate their neighbor – just because he voted for someone else because they worship the false gods of their preferred political ideology above all others. Over time, this division leads to conflict within families, among neighbors, within the entire country and, ultimately, to the disintegration of the state.

What lofty principle can be worth the pain and destruction that we see unfolding now?

How can anyone watch the division and hatred being sown among the people and not see the rivers of blood that will flow in the near future?

Before we go any further, it is worth considering how we got to the point where politics became worth discussing at all. After all, there is very little that anyone who isn’t part of the ruling caste can do or say to change anything, especially in a Liberal Democracy. As things stand now, there are no politicians or parties that represent the ethnic interests of the native European people in their own countries. Furthermore, any attempt to organize outside of the system is immediately clamped down on, in every country, without exception.

But this has often been the case in our history.

What is new and unprecedented about our situation is that we have an extremely politicized and factionalized peasant population now that we simply didn’t have in prior ages. Nowadays, all but the very unintelligent have an opinion on politics. To be more precise, everyone has picked a political faction to identify with and to cheer for. The end result is that the masses of powerless peasants have been enlisted in the oligarchs’ internal squabbles and are ready to butcher each other over fake ideological squabbles. As a result, unified resistance to the agenda of a small ethnic oligarchy has become much more difficult.

Autocracy vs Oligarchy 

As alluded to earlier, the only two meaningful categories with which we can make sense of different political systems are the perennial concepts of Oligarchies and Autocracies. Both lie on opposite sides of the real political spectrum.

If one can accept and understand this, then one is no longer infected with the parasitic ideology of one’s enemies. We need more people checking into ideological rehab if we are to have any hope of getting out of this mess.

Characteristics of an autocracy:

• The preferred political system of the masses
• Higher levels of freedom of political and personal expression
• Less internal stability

All of these points deserve an explanation.

The first point is the easiest to prove. Given the option, the masses would prefer and even use their right to a plebiscite (if they have one) to elect a strong, charismatic leader with unlimited power who could be their champion and solve their problems. In most free and fair elections, the people tend to vote for charismatic populists who promise them reforms that run contrary to the oligarchs’ interests.

Regarding the second point: if there are no elections and the vote of the people does not matter, then there is no pressing need to police the opinions of the masses. People have a wider spectrum of beliefs that are afforded to them by the government and by the self-appointed busy-body kappos that are ever-present in any community. Usually, the leader himself is off-limits to criticism, but in exchange, more leniency is permitted on every other topic of interest. Citizens are generally more peaceable and amicable towards one another because they do not participate in party politics and so have less reason to be at each other’s throats. Furthermore, because there are no parties, there is no party media machine driving people into a lather and sowing hatred among neighbors to promote their factional interests. Without a political team to cheer for against an enemy political team, people tend to get along with each other better.

The third point: when you have a system that is structured around giving one man colossal amounts of power, you have created a high stakes/high rewards political situation in the country. You will have ambitious men who cannot pass up the opportunity to take out the leader in a surprise coup and then take his place while keeping everything else unchanged. Military governments in the 20th century have been notable for the number of coups and counter-coups and failed conspiracies that have occurred during them. Looking further back, the period of the Roman Emperors was a period of constant political upheaval. Kings and monarchs were always surrounded by webs of conspiracy and intrigue. In contrast, when you have a vast and bloated oligarchy with weak or no effective leadership in the country, there is less of a high stakes/high reward target to go after. Replacing one oligarch does nothing, and there are far lower risk strategies one can pursue to gain power.

High Risk/ High reward leads to a more volatile and dynamic system.

Low Risk/ Low Reward leads to a far more stable and stagnant system.

Naturally, these conclusions can all be spun in a positive or negative light depending on the skill of the propagandist and who his employer is at any given time. Nowadays, most of us live under various forms of Oligarchy. Unsurprisingly, we never hear anything good about any forms of Autocracy and instead, we are told in no uncertain terms that it is our moral and civic duty to make war on them wherever they appear.

Oligarchies have taken on many forms throughout history and nowadays, the Liberal Democracy model is in vogue, but there used to be far more unabashed “pure” oligarchies that operated in the world as well as decadent aristocratic republics and other similar variants. There are, of course, reasons that the current ruling class prefers the current system of doing things. Again, in a Liberal Democracy, the oligarchs buy the press, build the Liberal institutions and, of course, sponsor a politician frontman for their agenda, to then vie with other oligarchs for control and power. The guidelines and rules around this process are generally referred to as “the Democratic Process” and the oligarchs generally stick to them for fear of rocking the boat too much.

Crucially though, no matter how cutthroat the internal competition gets between various factions and between the oligarchs themselves, they generally cooperate when it comes time to take down a possible threat to their power from an Autocratic outside source. If a champion of the people should ever emerge, he has to be destroyed by the Oligarchy. More importantly, the very institutions of autocratic power that a champion could wield against the oligarchs have to be eliminated as well. There can be no position higher than the positions enjoyed by the oligarchs themselves because any position of higher power could be taken and then used to cut down the oligarchs. As a result, generals are kept on a tight leash, presidential powers are severely curtailed, religious figures declared cult leaders, and monarchs ritually murdered and their power diluted and shared amongst the oligarchy.

Oligarchs hate and despise the people not because they fear the people in and of themselves, but because they know that they are hated and despised by the people and that one day a leader might be pushed forward by the people who would, in turn, unleash vengeance upon them. They fear what the people can do with such a leader at their head, so they make sure that emerging leaders are either brought into the fold or killed off. They encourage factionalism and division among the people, for obvious reasons and they will use any means necessary to achieve this. Mass importation of a hostile population, forcing the people into financial destitution, destroying the folk culture and religious norms, promoting vice within society to weaken its members… we see these tactics used time and again by despotic oligarchs to shore up their power.

All the things that make a people strong, such as their close communal ties, their folk tradition, their religious teachings, their moral values, even their physical health have to be undermined so that the oppression and the looting can continue.

Oligarchy is eternal and its various forms are myriad. You can have a political oligarchy that then takes on elements of an economic oligarchy. Or you can have an economic oligarchy that then ends up taking political power. In other words, the ruling caste of the USSR and the USSA had far more in common with one another than they would ever admit to their own populations.

Consider: A Praetorian guard-like institution could become a possible kingmaker and competitor to the Oligarchs, so the military is kept weak, out of electoral politics as an institution and reduced to little more than a money-laundering operation. A Yeoman middle-class with its own property or businesses that is capable of self-organizing against the oligarchs has to be continually undermined and eventually reduced to serfdom and slavery, lest they one day rise up and start an insurrection. A religious caste concerned with keeping their flock out of the jaws of the wolves and hyenas has to be condemned and discredited by any means, so that vice can flourish and lead the masses into bondage.

As for the end goal of oligarchy, well, it is more a process than an end goal. The process is the continued dismantling of any structures and safeguards that can prevent the Oligarch’s looting operation of the country. Usually this deliberate weakening of the host nation’s people, culture and morals leads to collapse or conquest and the parasites moving on to infect another host. Oligarchies always end up losing out to Autocracies, which is why a system of Global Oligarchy is being put into place right now. It is so that this time, no Autocrat anywhere in the world can ever rise up to challenge the power of the Oligarchs ever again.

Political Technology 

The political control system of any country is specially created so that an intelligent and active minority can wield it. The effectiveness of the control system is measured by one criterion alone: the amount of power it is able to concentrate or leverage relative to the size of the apparatus. In other words, if one person, using a super-computer, can effectively rule and run the affairs of state of a large country, then that is well and truly an extremely powerful political control grid.

If, however, no group or organization can effectively wield enough power to control a state, then we consider such a country a failed state. The governments of smaller states have generally been able to more effectively wield power over their population than larger states. There used to be limits to power, but with the political technologies that we have at our disposal now, the oligarchic power elite is on the cusp of being able to wield power globally and totally.

Right now, the globalist elites believe that they have the means to effectively rule the entirety of the world themselves (with the help of several thousand bugman bureaucrats). The drive to digitalize everything is part of the agenda to create a global government. The logic is simple: if everything can be uploaded into a single network – supply chain management, medical access, tax revenues, etc. – then a relatively minuscule organization can oversee and control it all.

Political systems are built like winches – they are clever little inventions that are fine-tuned and tweaked continually to provide the most amount of power to the smallest number of people. The concentration of power allows the already-powerful to become even more powerful, and eliminates redundancies (lower institutions of power) which also reduces local resistance. To achieve this end, the nation-state has to be eliminated and subordinated to the global power structure being built now to replace it. Then, all lower levels of organization will be eliminated as well. This will not stop on the level of states and counties and regions. Even community gatherings will be eliminated sooner rather than later. Whether a pandemic hoax or global warming or an alien contact will serve as the justification for this process is still in the air at this point. But the means are irrelevant when the goal is quite clear. Organization is always a prerequisite for resistance and lower-level power structures are all potential focal points of friction or outright resistance. But if they are eliminated, then people can no longer organize on a local level and become governable by a global ruling class.

Leveraging power through the use of cleverly designed systems is not limited to managerial bureaucracies. We see it in the electoral process as well. In fact, it is the key to the ruling castes’ ability to maintain power.

We can illustrate this with a classic example: the American electoral system.

Let us provide a rough sketch of the electoral data that we have on the country. First, only about half of the eligible population even votes in the main elections (Barack Obama shattered all records when the voter turnout broke 60%).

And we know that there are only two real parties that participate in very competitive elections once every 4 years (every 8 years is even more competitive). The margins are razor-thin. The popular vote goes about 50/50 in most normal general elections, but this is not always reflected in the final electoral college score. So, it logically follows that in the greatest democracy that the world has to offer, only 25% of the population (.5 x .5 = .25) gets “their” president come election day. Also, this analysis assumes that the votes are counted fairly, which they are not and never have been.

That aside, we now need to look at the primaries. Before the main elections, there are also internal party elections, which means that if there are at least two candidates within the party, then we can divide the number of voters who get “their” guy by the end of the process again.

Let’s take a concrete example: In 2020, there were 7 candidates with the Democrat Party and Biden allegedly received 51% of the votes among registered voters in his party. So, we are forced to divide the number of voters that got “their” guy by about half. The math here is simple (.25 x .5 = .125) and tells us that in fact only 12.5% of the country’s residents have received “their” candidate. This, of course, does not consider the fact that the number of people who are actually registered Democrat supporters is not half the voting population.

The real numbers are as follows: In 2018, there were 110,943,417 registered voters total. Of these, 44,242,975 were registered Democrats, 32,570,817 were registered Republicans, 31,489,028 were unaffiliated / independent, and 2,640,597 were registered with third parties.

44,242,975/110,943,417= 40%

Let’s summarize what we have calculated so far:

1. Roughly half the country votes (330,000,000 x .5 = 165,000,000)
2. Of them, half got their candidate elected (165,000,000 x .5 = 82,500,000)
3. But only 40% of voters are registered for the Democrats, so only 40% of the total register pool choose who their candidate will be in the primaries. So if we continue following the decision-maker vote in our analysis, the real calculation is more like 165,000,000 x .4 = 66,000,000
4. Of the number above, (the number of registered Democratic party voters), only half voted for the primary candidate that then went on to the general election (66,000,000 x .5 = 33,000,000)
5. Only 33,000,000 out of a country of 330,000,000 got the guy they wanted into office. This is 10%.

This rudimentary analysis does not even go into the “super-delegate” system that the DNC has, which allows for party officials’ votes to count more than those of the registered voters during the primaries. It also does not mention the fact that some states have a system whereby these use a popular vote to determine which candidate their votes will go to, while others use a republican-style apportioning of counties with numerical votes attached to them to decide who carries the state. A candidate can win the popular vote and lose the general election because of the electoral college and the same can happen on the primary level as well. Both parties know all the ins and outs of the system and mercilessly abuse it to leverage power to their liking. It is worth bringing up only to demonstrate that the 10% that we came up with at the end of our rudimentary calculations can easily be closer to 5% if the various machinations in the American republican representative system are taken into account.

It turns out that if you have only 10% of the country as your supporters who are ready to carve out an hour of their time only once every four years to throw a ballot into the ballot box for you, then you can leverage this to gain power over the other 90% of the country. Not bad.

The Globalized Power Grid

Different political systems have different rules – but the principle is the same. Political systems are designed to give active and organized minorities the power to control the masses. It has always been this way and will always be so.

In addition, the party leadership structure governing the Democrat voting population is an order of magnitude smaller. For the Democrats (one of the largest political parties in the world), the core party infrastructure consists of only a few hundred people, and there are only several dozen potential leadership candidates among them. Voters then only get to choose between the choices they have been provided with. All in all, having run the numbers, we are forced to conclude that the process of wielding political power in a mass democracy is actually easier than it seems. Everything becomes much simpler when we discard false assumptions about the political process. First and foremost, not everyone needs to be convinced of the correctness of any one particular group or political leader’s views. As we have demonstrated, a relatively small percent of the population will do. The rest is just a question of leverage.

We have now proven that a few hundred party apparatchiks working with a few hundred bureaucrats in the capital can effectively wield power over a nation of hundreds of millions. If anything, the numbers we are working with are inflated. The logic for this rationale is simple.

In 1970’s America, there were more oligarchs capable of exerting power over the political system than there are now. This is because consolidation has been occurring at a breakneck speed all over the world. A handful of monopolies now control entire industries. There are fewer big banks than before, but the few that remain are far more powerful, having eaten their competitors. As a result, the number of politically significant power-brokers has decreased and their power has gotten more concentrated. The country’s, and the world’s population may have grown, but this has had no effect on power distribution.

Now, as we see the final bid for the consolidation of power on a global level in full-swing, we have to realize that this is the most pertinent and relevant political question of our time. In fact, it is the one that will decide the fate of our world for the discernible future. The battle-lines are quite clear: Authoritarian nation-states vs the oligarchic global government. A few hundred oligarchs believe that emerging technology and a few thousand bureaucrats can run the affairs of most of the world as long as they eliminate “redundancies” and “inefficiencies” or at least subordinate them to their control and streamline them.

If the global oligarchy wins, national governments will become redundancies and will simply be phased out and transformed into satrapies of a global empire. National governments, in theory, have an incentive to resist this forced paradigm change, but few, in practice, do. If we pay close attention to the rhetoric of national leaders at international conferences and forums, we can find out where they stand on the issue. Those who argue for the nation-state as the ordering principle for the world are few and far between. The rest argue for greater integration and global governance. This is the actual political struggle of our time.

Part 3- Political Praxis

Having spent most or our time and energy up to this point analyzing political theory and meta-politics, we should pivot now to explaining the mechanisms by which Oligarchy has been defeated in the past, and how it can be defeated going forward.

The most consistent political route by which restorationist, anti-Oligarchic movements come to power is through the use of the political technology of Populism. Of course, not all populist leaders are actually elected in ordinary elections. This is because when a potential populist leader emerges, the deep state mobilizes to prevent their election. The classic example is, of course, Julius Caesar, who could have easily become consul of Rome on account of his immense popularity and proposed popular reforms. Knowing this, the Optimates declared him a criminal and then the die was cast, the Rubicon was crossed and Caesar became the populist ruler after seizing military control of Rome, albeit for a short while. Caesar meticulously kept up the pretense of older political structures and never declared himself Fuhrer, which is worth noting. Sadly, instead of liquidating the remnants of the old deep state, Caesar decided to come to a compromise with them. Only after his betrayal and murder and the civil wars that followed did his adopted son rise to power and, learning from the lesson of his adopted father, liquidated the Optimate faction, ushering in a golden age for Imperial Rome.

The lesson here is clear: populist leaders, carried into power by the popular will of the people, must thoroughly purge the old deep state, or be eliminated themselves. Although it is disrespectful to the Romans to compare modern politicians to them, the examples of John F. Kennedy and Donald Trump serve as comparable examples of popularly elected leaders being cowed and destroyed by a deep state that they refused to, or were unable to, dismantle.

The only real political strategy that the masses are capable of pursuing is Populism. The people are always looking for a champion they can push up to the highest level of the power hierarchy so that he can fight for them and punish the predatory oligarchs that are making their lives hell. After such a person has taken power, people are no longer particularly worried about the invented rules, according to which it turns out that he needs to be changed out every four years or has to follow prescribed rules that limit his power. The people do not understand and do not care about these rules and see them (rightly so) as artificial limits concocted by the powers that be to limit the power of the people and their champion.

The Return of Authoritarianism

There is a natural corrective path in the political order that many nations and peoples have gone through at some point in their their history. The order goes as follows: Mass Democracy ====> Populism ====> Autocracy ====> Monarchy.

In a truly free and fair mass vote, the people would elect a strong right-wing leader with a populist agenda. This is not speculation, this is simply the result of watching the last century of electoral processes around the world. After the populist champion takes office, people, at the first opportunity, would transfer to him all the earthly power he needs to solve the problems that plague the country. If he succeeds in this, then people will bless him, wish him long years in office, and hope that he comes up with a reliable succession strategy. Few will work themselves up into a lather at the idea that the sacred democratic principle of separation of powers, term limits and so on are being violated.

The oligarchs, for their part, are afraid of this natural political process, because they are well aware that if it is allowed to run its course, it will lead to them hanging off tree limbs and street lights and having the money they stole from the people stripped from them. To prevent this eventuality, they create Liberal Institutions that “legitimately” protect their incessant predatory operations, from retaliation and the real will of the people. The media, corporations, and various “human rights” organizations exist to confuse the masses with propaganda of disagreement, distract them from key issues with flashy trinkets, and then create a false moral narrative to frame it all as something virtuous and respectable.

Consider: True die-hard Liberals are always a minority in any former nation-state and are heavily concentrated in a few mega-cities. Why should we be guided by them and their sensibilities when the real prize is a whole army of millions of patriots who do not share their sensibilities and would relish the opportunity to start an all-out war against the enemies of their homeland, starting with oligarchs, journalists, politicians and hipsters that infest the capitals?

Furthermore, there is nothing more just, humane and conducive to the great prosperity of the nation than a powerful Autocrat, and that is why this is the most vilified form of government, against which all the efforts of the propaganda machine of the liberal-democratic forces are directed. These efforts are all part of a fraud and sabotage campaign to prevent a legitimate Autocrat from rising up on a Populist wave of support, establishing himself in power and then crushing the oligarchs under his heel.

Regime Change and Revolution

One of the most common ways under which systematic political change is achieved is with conquest. That is, an invading power takes control of a territory and reorganizes the political system that had been in place before the invasion. Invasions are not the end of the world, in fact, the fact that an invasion was successfully carried out against a country is often the result of inept governance by the defeated political elite that had been unable to prepare for and fend off such an outcome.

No nationalist can support the invasion of their own country, even if by an allied power or a sympathetic regime. It is antithetical to the nationalist idea, even if there are greater political opportunities under the new occupation government.

Few occupying powers feel comfortable sharing power with idealists regardless. It is far easier to bribe a few corrupt politicians than it is to get in bed with people who actually expect positive changes to be made in their country as a result of the occupation. Nationalists are often used and then discarded by the occupying power, as is the case in places like Ukraine most recently where the nationalists were used as cannon fodder first in the overthrow and then sent off to die in the meat-grinder in the Donbas so that they would no longer be a threat to the cabal that took power in Kiev. Those that grew disenchanted with the new status quo after the revolution were quickly and systematically eliminated by the secret police.

Revolutions are, by their nature, almost always coups led by one section of the population against the reigning elite. The most common revolutions in Europe were confederations of nobles working together to overthrow a monarch or bring his power to heel. Poland and England are the most famous early examples of monarchies being brought low by bands of oligarchies and, of course, France is the most well known case of a bourgeois revolution by a merchant oligarchy, which ushered in the era of modern politics that we have now. The subsequent revolutions brought members of the merchant classes to power at the expense of the nobles. From there on, serfs, the urban proletariat and the common criminal lumpenproletariat were employed to bring further revolutions to fruition. Revolution is difficult to separate from the degrading effect it plays on society. Each subsequent regime is less noble and more totalitarian than the one that preceded it, no doubt a result of the degraded nature of those who effected the revolution in the first place.

True peasant revolts are few and far between – but they are all defined by their spiritual and autocratic motivations. That is to say, the peasants/slaves/serfs/masses have only ever truly revolted to bring a new prophet king to power.

Consider: The first two servile wars in Rome were started by magician slave rebels who made claims to the ancient Roman kingship and brought tens of thousands of slaves under their banner against the Roman Oligarchs. Almost all mass rebellions that are not coups from the top or one sector of society against another are both religious, restorationist and authoritarian in their nature.

We do not live in a world where historical laws and processes are set in stone. But, as we have done above, by studying history, we can indeed notice certain meta-political habits that appear to be perennial in their fundamental nature, even if their context and circumstances differ widely. It is in the interest of all dissidents to learn these habits and lean into them instead of naively believing that they can re-invent the wheel from scratch.

The Political Machine 

Politics has a perennial quality to it. That means that you can study the ur-structure or ur-concept of politics to come to a general understanding of how it works in the same way that you can figure out the basic design of a diesel engine and then apply that knowledge to more complex machinery. People just get distracted by all the bells and whistles of the leather salon, the hubcaps, the rims, the democratic process and so on. But that’s all a distraction from the actual motor that moves the thing.

Hopefully that makes sense. Oftentimes, the simplest ideas are the hardest to convey. The situation is made more complicated by the fact that right-wing writers generally make themselves as obtuse as possible to discourage the light-hearted from ever gleaning what it is they’re blathering on about in their tomes.

Imagine: that a nation or a tribe or a corporation owns 100 gold pieces. That is the total wealth of the people in the thing. Concentration of capital almost always occurs in one form or another though, so, if there are 100 people in this thing, there are probably 10 that own all the gold pieces. 10 people out of 100 owning 10 pieces of gold each out of 100. Now, some of the oligarchs want to increase their wealth. They make a deal with some of their fellow gold-holders and they say something like: “Let’s kill the other 4 with coins and split the remaining coins amongst ourselves. Everyone who joins our plot will end up richer.” They gather the majority of the other coin-holders and maybe some of their own retainers, and they slaughter the unlucky 4 and increase their wealth.

What we have just described is a process that is always at work in all politics in all countries at all times.

The key points:

• There is a finite amount of stuff worth fighting over, always.
• By making deals and forming coalitions, political players can steal the wealth of their competitors.
• Politics is about forming working coalitions that can secure access to others’ wealth and power.

Kind of primitive, but this model will serve our needs well for the time being.

The gold coins in our example and money, in general, isn’t the key point I’m trying to make here. Politics can be about money, but it can also be about power or prestige. We’re not talking about the goal of the struggle, but the process that takes place. We’re talking about the engine taking the car, any car, from point a to point b, not the car or whether the destination itself is worth going to. We’re talking about technology, folks. And yes, politics has a technology at its core that largely stays unchanged much the same way that a car, fundamentally, needs an engine to be a car.

In short, politics, or the science/art of politicking is about forming coalitions to take on other coalitions.

That means that if you’re not reaching out to people with wealth and power and influence – basically all the things that make men do things and follow orders and make moves, then you’re not doing politics. And if politics is about squabbling over stuff, but doing it in a more-or-less civilized way, by following certain rules and guidelines, (like who can fool the peasant masses better in one election cycle or another, for example,) then revolutions are just a messier form of politics. But the principle remains the same.

Revolutionaries go to people with money, power, and influence and offer them more money, power, and influence. They form a coalition of people who are willing to put their bets on a new regime that will reward them for their support. Oftentimes, these are disgruntled second-tier elites who feel that they are not getting their share. Or it is a coalition of oligarchs licking their chops and eyeing the power and wealth and prestige that an autocrat has amassed and sharpening their knives, ready to cannibalize him and feast on this political body.

Once revolutionaries have their own coalition ready, they then go to war against the ruling coalition. If they win, they chop off the heads of the political elite who refused to support them and their cause. They may even chop off the heads of the elite who went along with their cause too. This is because revolutionaries often write out a lot of checks that they can’t cash. In other words, they make promises that they either can’t keep or never intended to keep to get key people on their side. Once the throne is theirs, the long knives come out. Also, revolutions are destructive, and that means there’s less to dole out once the dust settles. That means that purges are a necessity for any revolutionary regime, because there was too much stuff promised to too many people and there’s not enough to dole out and keep everyone happy.

Does it matter whether these revolutionaries are Marxist-Leninists or Leninist-Marxists or Juche-Anprimitivists or Space Marines? No, of course not. The different flags and bells and whistles are just pageantry for the gullible “ideologoyim” who are susceptible to such things. But not for you. Not anymore. You and I, together, have peered into the monitor darkly and begun to peel back and discover the hidden processes behind all things.

Dissidents might want to get serious and consider politicking in the near future and serious politicking only begins the moment when political movements start writing checks. There’s a lot of stuff up for grabs, even now. There are houses, boats, prestige, positions, thin women and even marble blocks just waiting to be shaped in someone’s likeness… Yes, indeed, the motherland is overflowing with milk and honey – only the wrong people are suckling at its teat.

Are there, perhaps, people that might want some of that sweetness? People who have had a taste of all the Demiurge’s material blessings and feel personally slighted that they haven’t gotten more? Are there men in the military retired or serving who are married to women who feel entitled to a beachfront property? What about a husband in the police force that thinks diamond necklaces will keep his wife from leaving him? State-level politicians who have had a falling out with their usual deep-pocketed donors?

If such things do not exist then we are up against the most impregnable political fortress known to man. That would mean that we are up against a political system in which literally everyone has been bribed into complicity and obedience. Where even petty rivalry and ambition has been drowned in oceans of material plenty. A utopia, actually. One where oligarchs dole out the wealth judiciously and fairly. One in which there aren’t people – people with power and grudges – that haven’t been stolen from. A system in which the ruling oligarchs are not hoarding the wealth like literally every single oligarchic caste in history has. A system where the rulers have no enemies, only well-wishers and friends.

If this is the case, why then would anyone even want to rebel against such a system? Surely, we must acquits to the wishes of a ruling caste that has created the most fair and morally upright system ever devised by man, no?

If, however, we consider our current political paradigm to be one of the most corrupt and indefensible political projects in political history, then we must also consider the possibility that this system has screwed over a lot of people. That it has written a lot of checks that it never cashed. That people are disgruntled with the current status quo. Not just school-shooters-in-waiting, mind you, but serious people. People with stocks in big companies going back generations. Families with names of dead relatives written on university walls.

Ah, but these people are all “cucked” and “blue-pilled” right? They do not agree with our revisionist views on 20th century history and haven’t been convinced by brown peoples’ low IQ scores.

That is, indeed, a tragedy.

There the dissident stands – preaching his political faith on a soapbox on the street corner, surprised that only bums and vagrants take the time to stop to listen. Perhaps dissidents should consider writing their ideological screeds on the back of political checks and see if they have any more luck that way. Perhaps it is time to realize that not everyone can be converted into the one and only true political faith. Most people do tend to listen more closely when it is in their material interest to do so. Time spent ideologizing would be better spent shaking hand and whispering sweet promises in the ears of people who matter.

Political Orthopraxy 

Most political organizations structure themselves in the same way that religious organizations did in the past. Correct belief is the cornerstone of both types of organizations. As religious belief finally died out more than a century ago, political belief came up to replace it. If someone proclaims his faith in the Bible, he is welcomed into the Church. If another person proclaims his faith in Das Kapital, he is likewise welcomed into the Internationale.

But if we take the martial arts, for example, one can’t simply believe in Judo. One has to learn all the moves and by doing so the neophyte moves up the initiation ladder. He is not asked to believe in much, only to focus his energies on learning the practice. In other words, organizations that are built on correct belief are quite different in their advantages and disadvantages to organizations that are built on correct practice.

“Faith” based organizations have the following advantages:

• Greater reach
• Quicker growth

They have the following disadvantages:

• Lower quality in members
• Entropy among the rank and file and the leadership

This should make sense intuitively.

Imagine an organization of Judo followers who did not require mastery of Judo techniques to join their organization. They would obviously have a wider pool of potential candidates to choose from, since physical ability or the significant time investment required would no longer serve as a barrier to entry. The school could simply bestow belts on anyone with the inclination to purchase them, or even hand them out for free if they were so inclined and by doing so grow their ranks. Furthermore, if the Judo school did not actually practice Judo, how would they decide on who would become a leader in the organization? Knowledge of Judo theory? Whoever spoke most eloquently about the benefits of accepting Judo’s teachings into one’s life at public gatherings? How would quality of leadership be ensured?

Conversely, if the Judo school actually took practice seriously and came up with a grueling program of Judo learning, they would lose many potential students who would be weeded out of the process or not even try to begin with. But the masters would be true masters and as a result, the leadership of the school would be competent and the fewer students who remained would be capable.

Most organizations exist in a state of limbo, where they have a mixed system that leans one way or the other. The worst organizations formally declare that they are interested in correct practice, but who have leaders who are simply correct believers. This is certainly true of almost every government or international body nowadays, staffed as they are by professional politicians who have no interest or expertise in the actual tasks that the organization was created to implement. We have generals who don’t know how to fight wars, head doctors who have never worked with patients, headmasters who have never taught students and so on.

For competing in general elections, all that is needed are catchy slogans and an open-door, open-tent policy to get as many people into the voting booth as possible once every several years. But there is not a single country in the White world where the principles of ethnic nationalism, traditional values or economic populism are allowed to compete in free and fair general elections. Most right-wing ideas are banned in public discourse either by the initiative of the media or by the legislature of the country that has passed gag laws on “hate speech”. The countries that still do allow some semblance of truth to be uttered in public still have other ways of making sure that no upstart reactionary party gains any ground in the electoral process.

It seems quite obvious that since the road to mass politics is closed to dissidents for the foreseeable future, there is no need to create mass-movement organizations. Quality, not quantity should be the aim. Quantity also has the added disadvantage of attracting the attention of the secret police. And quantity allows for easier infiltration of both rank-and-file and leadership positions.

Consider: it is easy to replace a dissident Judo master with a controlled opposition agent if all the secret agent has to do is read a quick summary of Judo philosophy to play his part well. It is much harder to send an infiltrator into a dojo for 10 years until he achieves his black belt and eventually mastery over the other masters. And at that point, can the secret police even be sure that their agent is loyal to them as opposed to the dojo that he dedicated so much time and effort into? This is not a theoretical speculation. We know of many stories of agents sent in to infiltrate criminal organizations that had their members perform tasks to climb the internal ranks. Eventually, this led to the agents playing both sides or switching sides altogether.

In other words, the more barriers to entry that an organization sets up, the higher the quality of the people in the organization and the harder it is to infiltrate and subvert said organization. These barriers have to be designed intelligently to select for a certain kind of people, weed out others and also provide a path of growth for the new member.

The Secret Police 

One of the most inexplicable characteristics of dissident discourse is the complete lack of attention paid to the very real and pressing problem of the secret police and their agenda. Despite literally hundreds of round-ups of dissidents all over the world by the secret police and the constant problem of infiltration and subversion, no real thought is dedicated towards addressing or combatting the problem.

As experience has shown us, the secret police will infiltrate literally any group, no matter how small, even if they are not right-wing or nationalist in their leanings. We all live under a Liberal Democratic Terror Government in one form or another and these governments can only function with an extensive network of secret police monitoring the population at all times to make sure the “illiberal” elements are detected and effectively neutralized before they gain any momentum.

Remember: no system tolerates dissent against the system itself. The only “dissent” allowed is the kind that functions within the parameters of the reigning ideology. Key doctrinal points are not up for debate. They are ruthlessly suppressed by the secret police instead.

The extent of the monitoring, spying and suppression depends on the extremism of the current reigning ideology. Monarchies and authoritarian governments, being minimally ideological in nature, have historically had less need to rely on vast secret police operations. This is because the only real dogma that was reinforced in these societies was loyalty to the monarch or autocrat. But in totalitarian ideologies like Communism or Liberalism, there is a far larger set of required beliefs that the average citizen has to subscribe to – at gunpoint. The reason for this is simple: these systems base their legitimacy on the support of the people for their program. Therefore, it is of critical importance to force the people to support them. This is euphemistically referred to as “education”. If people need to be indoctrinated to see reality the way that their rulers want them to, it is only further proof of how unnatural and forced these ideological dogmas are.

The role of the secret police is really just another archetypical form that we have seen before in societies that preceded ours. It may seem like we are dealing with a new phenomenon, but once again, we are forced to acknowledge that there is nothing new under the sun in this world.

The secret police are simply the faith militant in another guise.

The only thing that has changed since the days of the Church harassing everyone and modern times was the replacement of religion for political ideology. Just as there were enforcers of religious dogma then, there are enforcers of political sacred cows now. And so, if we know that the secret police are constantly on the prowl, looking for dissenters to put away into the absolute sprawling modern industrial prison complex, then this should be factored into any decision to engage in political activism of any kind.

Before we go any further, we have to understand the nature of the struggle that we are in: we have all been born into a prison that is total and complete. This sounds like an extreme position to take and it is, perhaps, hard for many to accept at first. Most people only realize that they are in this prison when they accidentally push up against the bars and get into serious trouble for doing so. This is regrettable, but perhaps inevitable for some of the more slow-witted and hard-headed among us. Learning from the mistakes of others is an important skill to acquire.

The metaphor of a prison becomes all the more real when one considers the social dynamics at play in any given group situation when a real and pressing threat is present. People know this thought exercise as the Nash Equilibrium and it applies to all facets of life in society whether on a micro or a macro scale.

In just about any group engaged in dissident politics, there are always members of the group that would rat their friends and comrades out rather than close ranks and refuse to cooperate when the secret police come knocking. Of course, if all members of the group refuse to cooperate with the secret police, everyone in the group will be the better for it. But, most people, their ideological leanings notwithstanding, will almost always choose to turn informant to achieve a marginally better outcome for themselves. The fact that many modern dissidents do not even know what the Nash Equilibrium is and stubbornly refuse to look it up is further proof that they will not be ready to choose a strategy of cooperation with the other prisoners to defection. But even if they did take the time to familiarize themselves with the superior benefits of cooperation as opposed to self-serving treachery, they’d still almost all, to a man, choose to rat out their comrades because people are more often than not moved to action by “rational” self-serving motivations. That’s what makes the prisoner’s dilemma so interesting; the Nash equilibrium is predicated on participants being totally self-interested actors, but self-serving “rational” action leads to the worst possible result. Only exceptional individuals who think beyond themselves act in non self-serving ways “irrational” ways. In other words, only groups of higher-than-average conscientiousness can escape the prisoner’s dilemma (and avoid actual incarceration).

The vast majority of people simply follow the iron-clad laws of “rational” self-interest and therefore are unable of escaping the political prison that they find themselves in. The same problem occurs on an even smaller scale at the office or just among groups of friends. Pointless, self-sabotaging, subversive behavior is the norm when a stressful situation of any kind emerges. We’ve all had friends who ratted us out to their parents or to the teachers or to our peers or even our bosses for no seemingly discernible reason. No one likes a tattle-tale, so they took a hit to their own social status just to undermine ours. But we must never underestimate the common person’s capacity for stupidity and sabotage. On a larger scale, we see the same self-serving behavior on the part of comprador elites who sell out their country to foreign powers. They do this for short-term gain, even though they and the country and their fellow elites would have benefitted more by not breaking ranks and forcing the enemy to the negotiating table to offer better terms.

Society used to combat this entropic social “prisoner’s dilemma” with concepts like honor, shame and various social structures that enforced cooperative behavior and doled out punishment for anyone who broke ranks and acted in their own rational, but selfish interests. Without these concepts and coercive structures, people acting in their rational self-interest actually achieve sub-par outcomes and society as a whole suffers. It is unsurprising then that these concepts have been systematically dismantled so that bad behavior cannot be punished within communities or societies either on a micro or a macro scale. This was packaged and marketed as “freedom” from oppressive norms, but all it did was cripple the ability for people to self-organize. Again, any organization or group or collective, when faced with an external threat faces a prisoner’s dilemma type situation. Without the countervailing threat of retribution from the people that one rats out, the average person crumples and sells his people out for far less than 30 pieces of silver.

Almost all attempts to formally organize individuals with reactionary views have historically been infiltrated and taken over by the secret police. Periodically, like-minded men gather together to start talking about busting out of prison and this eventually leads to them all either being arrested or being subverted. The prison guards in our metaphor know that there is a very small percentage of the prison population that is capable of even formulating an escape plan and getting the other prisoners to go along with it. As soon as these individuals emerge, they are immediately swooped down on before they can put their plan into effect. The guards are outnumbered by the prisoners, but that is not a problem so long as the leaders in their midst are found and neutralized in time.

The Political Faith Militant

Our Liberal oligarchic ruling caste likes to pretend that it believes in nothing. Or rather, until recently, it liked to pretend that it cared only about money and was unashamed of it. They told it to our faces when they proclaimed that “greed is good.” But then, almost overnight, we entered a world-saving messiah phase that we are still stuck in now, where the ruling caste makes a big deal out of pretending to believe in something resembling a universal kindergarten morality that focuses on getting along and playing nice and enforcing it at the point of a gun around the entire world. Worse, they have made themselves the arbiters of a new code of morality that seems to be designed to engender one thing and one thing only: controlled chaos to bring a new world order into being.

At the time of this writing, the so-called “Great Reset” is in full swing. Globalist politicians in strange-looking kimono spacesuits are openly talking at world councils about abolishing civilization as we know it because some carbon goddess is upset at us. The globe appears to be cooling, but we are being told that it is in fact warming and that we are science deniers (and bigots for good measure) for disbelieving the evidence of our lying eyes. And if we point out the similarity of modern Global Warming prophecies with New Age prophecies of a burning globe from around the turn of the 20th century, we are quickly condemned as kooks. But regardless of what the fluctuations in the temperature are or whether it is getting hotter or cooler, darker or sunnier, the solution remains the same: the population of the world (White countries in particular) has to be culled, Churches have to be closed (a phantom virus is the justification for now), and power handed over to a global government capable of preventing the weather from changing, stopping phantom viruses from emerging, and quashing local rebellions with a global police force before they can become a threat to the planetary oligarchy.

It’s worth remembering that there was a method to this madness.

First, a great fear was unleashed that made people go along with the new virus regime. Then, controls were put into place to control the inevitable angry outbursts that followed. Fanatical agenda cultists were first incubated, then let off their leashes and sent to cajole the masses into participating in the dark voodoo rituals masquerading as safety measures. The final step will be the ritual liquidation of those who refuse to take part in the revolutionary agenda. This is all simply the next phase of the never-ending “Permanent Revolution” that modernity has unleashed onto the world and this cycle will no doubt be the most extreme and bloody iteration yet.

Now, there is no easy way to ease the modern man into metaphysics. For some, the shock of having their atheistic worldview challenged is serious and profound and the slightest brush with the unknown and the unknowable is enough to send some into a tailspin. People who have no concept of metaphysical realities are incredibly fragile creatures. But traditional societies had no problems discussing these issues and phenomena, and many societies around the world continue that tradition to this day in one form or another. Even though there are no laws (yet) banning metaphysical discussion, polite society took the initiative and banned it before the government ever had to get around to it. Worse still, certain dangerous metaphysics are promoted while others are suppressed. In recent years, there has been a growing realization among the peasantry that the ruling class seems to enjoy dabbling in the occult and making a mockery of those who cling to “primitive” beliefs and morals. This revelation should be shocking for those who have been arguing for centuries that the elite concern themselves only with accumulating material wealth and influence and little else. But, somehow, this revelation has not yet been noticed or picked up by even the honest culture critiques, doubtless for fear of sounding too folksy or religious.

The Political Haruspices 

Now, for many, the concept of “an elite” that rules over society is already a step too far. It is hard for their indoctrinated minds to conceive of the idea that Liberal Democracy is anything but rule by the people and for the people, with only a few minor bumps and hiccups here and there. To imply that there is a ruling caste is already considered “fringe” or a “conspiracy” by many. See, every single society in human history had a ruling caste… except ours, which cannot have one because it is better than all other societies that came before it, and is the logical end point of all human development – all human history in fact. There never has been, nor will there ever be a society as perfect and caste-free as ours… at least that’s what the ruling caste and the peons dumb enough to repeat their mantras as their own tell us.

But if we take a step down the social ladder, then we can’t help but notice that the average upstart hustler or member of the now struggling striver class does indeed think of the world in purely monetary terms. This is understandable. Their position in society is perilous, and they remained perpetually poised on the precipice of slipping and falling into working-class ignominy. Paychecks and mortgages and the social ladder occupy their minds and they cannot conceive of what a member of the upper class who has already made it to the top of the ladder would spend their time and money doing. It is crucial to understand that people who already have obscene amounts of money and the status that it affords simply do not have the same priorities as someone who does not.

This should be self-evident as well, but even so we are taking things slow for a reason.

So far, we have established that given the past experience of human civilization, the probability of us having a ruling caste like all societies have had before ours is high. We have also established that the ruling elite does not think in the same terms as those in the lower classes because they have already made it to the top and no longer need concern themselves with making the climb.

And now, the final point: the truth of the matter is that we are not ruled by secular, materialistic capitalists/bankers/con-men/oligarchs intent on becoming richer simply to fill their backyard pools with gold coins and then go swimming in them. Our ruling caste seem to be more concerned with “loftier” matters.

Here, perhaps, our road can converge again with our denser, but more correctly-minded critics. They would probably agree that the elite seem to not be spending much time hustling like the rest of us have to, but prefer to be seen carousing in the media while championing various fashionable cause celebres. In fact, they would argue that our ruling caste (which does not exist, of course) is good because it uses its wealth and money to publicly support various good works and raise awareness for key issues affecting our world.  That is, after all, what the ruling class is generally seen doing: rallying the masses to engage in acts of mass philanthropy.

Here, we – the conspiracy theorists, and they – the GoodThinkers, are saying the same thing, but speaking past one another. Both us and the GoodThinkers can agree that the elites seem invested in their various “philanthropic” schemes and devote huge amounts of money into their implementation. But, unlike them, we can allow ourselves to notice the true, hidden nature of these projects and point out that ritual techniques are being used behind the scenes to manipulate the masses.

For example: it is fashionable to dedicate great energy and attention to the cause of saving Mother Nature from the evils of man-made global warming with more than half the efforts ostensibly aimed at achieving this goal dedicated towards abolishing any skepticism of the agenda.

But to what end? 

This question can, and has to be answered, on multiple levels. The vast majority of open-minded, truth-seeking types can make good progress in getting to the bottom of the ruling caste’s various schemes, but eventually shy away from fully putting themselves in the shoes of the elite and considering that there are metaphysical motivations well-hidden behind an admittedly self-serving material agenda. As the possibility of a greater metaphysical reality is gradually realized, it becomes clear that the elites are spending their time engaging in textbook ritual practice on a larger and larger scale, predominantly enabled by the mass media and advances in social-sharing technology.

We can take the Global Warming project as an example because it is truly illustrative. Around it, we see a ruling caste, which has gone global, pushing a bizarre hoax on the populations of the Post-First and Post-Soviet world. There is even reason to believe that the scope of the project is expanding to include the Third World as well. And here, the astute truth-digger is right to notice that there are financial incentives, such as the large-scale wealth transfers and the usual graft motivating and fueling the whole operation. But a crass self-enrichment agenda could be achieved in a myriad of ways, and it was not as if in the years prior to the coordinated adoption of the Global Warming project that the elite was doing poorly.

If anything, their slice of the pie has been steadily growing for a long time now.

The Global Warming project encourages anti-natal attitudes and practices among the population and promotes the idea that a largely female-driven movement that engages in racial grievance marches, discourages reproduction, and advocates outlawing the consumption of meat and even industrial society altogether (only in Post-First and Post-Soviet countries mind you) will somehow change the weather.

The Global Warming agenda therefore appears to be a thinly-disguised doomsday cult and not a sober, scientifically-minded, well-meaning effort to save the world from total destruction by greenhouse gases. Hysterical, destructive and dangerous doomsday cults have popped up all over the world throughout history, so we can easily draw comparisons and notice that the similarities here are as astounding as they are undeniable.

Religion For Me, But Not For Thee

All this is to say that we have not left ritual and religion or belief in voodoo magic behind.

Our society has simply changed the color of the robes handed out to its priests from black to white. Most people blindly believe the priests of their society, whatever the color of their robes and whatever the ontological justification that is given to them. Mandate of Heaven, Dictatorship of the Proletariat, Trust the Science – all justifications for the dictates of the ruling classes. Whether we are a primitive tribe drawing on cave walls in southern France, or the pinnacle of human civilization that is Liberal Democracy, we still share the same social characteristics.

If anything, we would argue that we have degraded far below any state that our ancestors may have occupied.

More to the point, it doesn’t really seem to matter what kind of society we have, because we will still have the same metastructures in it. The color of the robes change, but the priest class remains in one form or another. In fact, all of this seems to hint at a sort of blueprint of all things including human society that we seem bound to adhere to, no matter what we try – the only real choice we seem to have is not whether we will live in a society of castes or not, but whether the elites that comprise the top caste have our best interest at heart… or not.

Whether we have methods of redress open to us … or not.

Whether the body of the people is still strong enough to produce a champion capable of taking the Oligarchy head on … or not.

Modern society has been hijacked by an occult elite that does not rule in the open like the older, honest and traditional nobility used to do. Instead, our rulers aggressively promote atheism and ignorance of metaphysics to the masses and yet seem to believe and practice something entirely different behind closed doors. This should ring alarm bells for all of us, but few see and fewer still want to understand where this is all going. And we cannot hope to understand their actions and their plans well enough to mount an effective resistance without coming to grips with a correct understanding of how the enemy thinks.

The global ruling elite is pursuing an anti-traditional global agenda that seeks to destroy everything that previous generations have built and bled for. And while ruling castes arise naturally in human society, there is nothing natural about a ruling caste that is as parasitical and demonic as the one that we are ruled by now. In some sense, for many it may not even be necessary to believe in the metaphysical reality of our struggle, or in the metaphysical feasibility of the occult agenda that the elite are striving to implement. It is, however, necessary to understand that the enemy does believe in it and are pursuing their voodoo agenda with a deadly purpose. It is also worth noticing that the global elite go to great pains to hide their true nature and to encourage the masses to not think too deeply about higher realities.

Every single major agenda that they promote uses religious technology to effect its implementation. Neither the Global Warming, anti-White, anti-Christ, COVID nor perhaps the alien agenda in the near future, are exactly “rational” by any serious definition of the word. But the hysterical, fanatical fury of these various agenda is fundamentally religious in nature. Adherents behave in the same way that a roving band of armed naked fanatics would in medieval Europe. Comparisons to the Flagellants and the witch-hunters could no doubt be made.

We spoke previously about the need for dissidents to provide that which the enemy cannot if the reactionary idea is to gain any traction.

Therefore, to leave out the spiritual drive/desire is a dangerous oversight. If this need is not catered to by dissidents, who would rather prefer to keep their movements strictly secular in the spiritual (not to be confused with strict religious dogma of one kind or the other) they cede the niche to their enemies, who have no problems exploiting this human need for their own purposes. Furthermore, with all of the economic, military and organizational might on the side of the global oligarchy, there is little to motivate anyone in their right mind to offer any resistance to the global revolutionary agenda. Put simply, the odds do not look good, and so basic animal instincts in the mass of people say that it is best to keep one’s head down and hope for the best. But hoping for the best is even more dangerous than doing nothing in some cases.

In the meantime, the enemy are happy to exploit the religious impulse to their own benefit.

Seeding the Reaction

Any serious dissident will consider the use of any and all weapons available in the struggle against the Global Oligarchy and the dark voodoo dogma they are promoting. The reaction to the dogma of the permanent revolutionary agenda will have to tap into powerful religious impulses if it is to have any chance of holding its own. The idea of a great Reactionary uprising has to be seeded into the hearts and minds of thinking people in much the same way as any religious or political prophecy is. The inevitability of Judgement Day, the coming of the Proletariat Uprising, and, in our case, the much-awaited Return of the Rightful King, are powerful meta-narratives that can prepare people to face the trials ahead and work, over the generations if need be, towards their realization.

People absolutely do need to be prepped and primed ahead of time. Our moment – the return of Tradition – has to be prophesied and proselytized like any good religious scripture would be. Most people do not need to be convinced that this is a “good” thing, and most do not need to be brought up to speed about what this moment will entail in any significant detail. In fact, the vaguer the better. The most relevant idea is that the great reactionary moment will occur sooner than anyone thinks it will, that it will shake the foundations of modern society to their core, and that it is as unstoppable as it is inevitable.

Understanding of the rest will come, in time.

It is a near certainty that a collapse or a revolution or a cataclysm or a crisis of some kind or another will occur in our future. These moments provide rare opportunities for dissidents in search of a window of possibility. So long as the dissident familiarizes himself with the perennial traditions, he will be well-placed to capitalize on such moments of chaos. We discussed eternal concepts and epistemological foundations on which to build any political structure. From there, we explored the traditional power process by which the power of Populism is used to reach Autocracy and defeat Oligarchism. Order can be restored for a time, but only so long as the Authoritarian tradition is guarded, understood and enforced. In time, entropy takes hold and the process of disillusion begins again. By that time, hopefully a new author comes along to explain what is to come next to people with ears to listen, and begin the restoration process anew.

Final Thoughts 

We’ve covered a lot of ground in a very short time together.

First, we took apart the core precepts of Liberalism and proposed new ones. We took a look under the hood of politics in a Liberal Democratic system and realized that voting has almost nothing to do with the current system that we have in place. We cannot vote out journalists, the secret police, the oligarchs and the institutions that they fund. Nor can we vote to change the nature of our political system. A drastic change of course is not possible under the current system. That means that if we do not like the trajectory of our politics, we have little hope of “democratic” redress.

Then, we touched on the perennial nature of politics and concluded that our system isn’t all the different from systems that preceded it. The fundamental way in which power works is unchanging. The color of the robes of the priests who administer the reigning dogma may indeed morph, but nothing about the way in which the masses are cajoled into obedience has changed.

Finally, we concluded that political ideology is simply dogma-based religion in disguise and that our elites worship a very dark god indeed.

Having said all that, am I calling on anyone to go out and “do” anything about the current situation that we find ourselves in? Well, that depends. Acting within the rules set by the current political paradigm is, at best, a poor use of one’s time. Thinking of ways to move past the paradigm and escape “politics as usual”, on the other hand is another matter. More than anything else, thinking people need a new approach to understanding and engaging with politics. Blind partisanship and fervent proselytization of a new political faith are a recipe for more of the same. Change can only begin when we break free of the old political model, its values, its presuppositions and its power structure entirely.

Sadly, the simplest ideas are often also the hardest to convey. What’s worse, even very intelligent people find themselves invested in old paradigms on an emotional and conceptual level. It is often only a severe shock that causes serious soul-searching on an individual level and the same can be said of societies. On the bright side, we won’t have to wait long for such a shock to occur. Chances are, one shock will follow another in rapid succession in the coming years.

Let us welcome then, the uncertain future with open arms and with a certain clear-eyed certainty. Unlike our peers, we go armed with the knowledge of powerful, perennial concepts relating to politics and power. The more insights we can glean now, in our current period of relative calm, the better equipped we will be to mount the corpse of the old political system and proclaim a newer, older and better order when the time comes.