On Revolution: Changing the Status Quo

1. What Has The West Been Dishonest About? We Aren’t Free of Sin Either.

Lets face it: no civilization really understands its group evolutionary strategy. But we can understand ours:

When the first Aryans combined horse, bronze and wheel, they were able to cover long distances with speed. They took big risks, and horse, chariot (cart), and armor were very expensive –  but they were able to prey upon neighboring people, as well as defend their own. So they used this military technology to expanded from western China to Spain.

It turns out that if you’re militarily capable of it, and develop a professional warrior caste, that capturing better territory and enslaving primitive locals for labor, was a profitable industry.  But only some subset of the population is fit for being ruled cost effectively and at low risk.  So where consanguineous tribes had tolerated wide variations in personalities, the rulers did not, found the most aggressive the most troublesome, and by constant prosecution of outliers, the rulers achieved with man, what they had achieved with dog, sheep, pig, cow, and horse: gradual domestication of the animal man.

Slavery is expensive – you are responsible for all costs, serfdom less – taking only the proceeds and some of their labor, employee less – taking most of the proceeds and paying them, and credit slave even less – using dilutive fiat credit to grant them consumption and capturing most of the real proceeds of their production.

So over the centuries our ancestors have used the combination of hanging half to one percent of the population per year, delaying reproduction and limiting reproduction with manorialism, the harsh winters to starve the feeble and lazy, frequent wars under the promise of booty, and the conspiracy of the church to enfeeble the underclasses so that by the late middle ages Europe consisted largely of the progeny of the middle genetic classes.

Christianity provided little more than an excuse to justify Aryanism: the industry by which the martial class domesticated man for profit.  This was followed by the White Man’s Burden – a restatement of Aryanism in Moral terms. Which was followed by the American Project – a restatement of Aryanism in heroic terms.  Which was followed by Postwar Democratic Secular Humanism – a restatement of christianity in secular terms. And which we have seen most recently as Neo-Conservatism: a restatement of Judaism in Aryan terms.

Now let us flip that around and say that because we have domesticated man, maintained tripartism, practiced unconflated rule for each class, and created markets in everything, the natural common law, and an ever more correspondent definition of truth, we have dragged humanity out of ignorance, superstition, poverty, labor, disease, and the constant fear of the vicissitudes of nature. We have made this world more so than any other civilization.

Not because we were first, but because we were FASTEST to learn and adapt, despite being a small population on the edge of the bronze age.

The problem facing mankind, we didn’t finish the job: We wrongly constrained Germany’s attempt to complete the formation of the north sea’s hanseatic civilization, and created a civil war that nearly destroyed us; and allowed the second ideological invasion of the West in the form of pseudoscience, and are now bringing aboard millions of those people who we have struggled for 1400 years to prevent from spreading the cancer of their ideology – a more venomous version of the first professionalization of lying.

So, will we go quietly into the night, or will we continue to domesticate mankind, or will we return to the domestication of man, profiting from the domestication of man, and continuing the transcendence of many, through the most expensive commons that any civilization has ever developed: truth.

2. Why Doesn’t Democracy work?

[D]emocracy does work if it’s under one-family-one-vote, in a small homogeneous polity, under agrarianism, and if we have four houses of government in the Anglo Saxon model: monarchy, aristocracy, business and industry, and the church (proletarian, insurance and caretaking).

Because the classes and families have enough in common to use majority rule as a means of selecting priorities for funding with scarce resources. But democracy wherein men, women, and classes possess equal votes just results in proletarian parasitic rule with every possible malincentive. We can use majority rule to select priorities among people with common interests but we cannot use majority rule to select preferences among people with disparate interests. That’s just illogical.

The data says that without women voting we would have been fine. Women expressed their reproductive strategy in politics under democracy. They undid civilization. That is a painful pill to swallow. Paternalism and property rights, the jury, and truth telling and the absolute nuclear family, and delayed reproduction under manorialism were means by which we suppressed the reproduction of the lower classes, and controlled women’s destructive behavior – reproducing at will at random and causing the tribe to bear the consequences of her Malthusian impulses. Women select by r-strategy (volume), not K-strategy (excellence). Civilization requires suppression of free riding of the masculine kind (aggression) as well as the female kind (reproduction).

We undid Indo-European history and the family as the central political unit, with one act. So, how do we construct compromises rather than oppressions? Different houses – whether physical and representative, or electronic and virtual, for those groups with different reproductive strategies.

3. Is There a Way Out of Our Current Situation? Can We Gain Control of Our Own Countries Again?

[O]f course. But… Gossip is cheap. Violence is very expensive – but very fast and effective. And preferences are demonstrated not stated.

There is no cunning solution. There is no easy answer. None. You are either going to use violence to demand change, or lose your civilization forever.

We will either agitate a small minority to raise the cost of our competitors’ loading, framing, overloading, engaging in pseudoscience and lying, and raise the cost of their colonization, or we will prove we are just talking not acting.

4. How Do We Create a Revolution?

The problem with a revolution is that in and of itself, it‘s just an expression of frustration. It doesn’t necessarily bring change for the better. And some revolutions are far worse than their original states: France and Russia in particular.

To implement change one has to have something to demand. And what one demands has to satisfy a lot of people‘s interests. Those demands have to be possible to put into operational processes that we call ‘institutions‘. They have to be possible to persist regardless of the beliefs of the participants. So they have to create the right incentives.

  1. So to create a revolution you need moral authority – something that people will willingly use violence to bring about. And as a moral imperative, and moral justification,  TRUTH IS ENOUGH. We are tired of lies, pseudoscience, and obscurant rational justifications. We are tired of our elites burning our civilization.

    The truth is enough. Unlike gossip, guilting and shaming. And unlike pseudo-science and propaganda, the truth is expensive.  Truth is the most powerful argumentative weapon ever developed. And Propertarianism teaches us how to demand truth and speak the truth.

  2. After moral authority – then you need a political solution – something to demand, and in sufficient detail that it is possible to discuss rationally, and implement as formal institutions.
  3. Then you need a sufficient plan of transition that a revolution isn‘t necessary, and people don‘t die by the millions to do it.
  4. Then you need a rough set of goals – not a plan – for nullification, secession, revolution, and civil war – and hope you can accomplish it with incremental nullification and secession but willing to conduct a revolution or civil war if need be. And you pursue all of them at once.
  5. Then you need an ‘organization‘ – a group of people who act as the general staff that answer questions, and propose ideas on how to implement, how to transition and how to raise the cost of the status quo so that the transition is preferable to the uncertainty and instability.
  6. Then you need a small number of people willing to die for their people, culture, and civilization, but who have reasonable belief that their sacrifice is not in vain.

I don’t go into tactics because that‘s unwise. But in general, I try to get across this idea: How many hours of electricity, days of water, days of food, days of ‘order‘ are in the production line every day? I mean, if bad stuff happens in Ukraine and Russia, 40% of food is produced by the people. Everyone can go back to the village to relatives and the farm. What happens in the developed world if it‘s disrupted?

We live in the most fragile time in history. It no longer takes masses in the streets to bring about revolution. It takes a small number of people to increase the friction of daily life. It has never been easier to create a revolution. People just need a plan, moral authority, and something to demand. 

It‘s our job to give it to them. (Or, mine at least.)


7 responses to “On Revolution: Changing the Status Quo”

  1. Your post brings many good points. I wish that I could say that you were wrong; but the best I can do is to say this: I am loth to be convinced.

    I will say that I believe that you err by promoting truth while opposing philosophy. If you feel that truth is merely a utilitarian concept, then I believe that you will struggle to achieve cogency.

    But then there I go, limply promoting passive concepts like “cogency” while you stoke the fires revolution. In the red glare of those hot flames, my passive concepts seem a feeble thing. Nevertheless, in this fallen world, neither my beatitude nor your ardor is destined to outlive the other. Both must persist.

    If you obtain the revolution you want, I hope that you know what to do with it.

  2. I find myself agreeing with your hypothesis completely, save for one minor detail (An insignificant detail where your arguments are concerned as they still remain valid): Aryan does not mean Indo-European, nor does it signify Nordic. See Fortson’s “Indo-European Language and Culture: An Introduction.” Would Indo-Europeanism be better perhaps? It’s regrettable we don’t have another term to describe the idea of these people, a term we can all get behind.

  3. There are a couple of questions that this raises. First, technology seems to have made a return to an agrarian structure uncompetitive, or do you believe that we are headed back towards lower tech levels (or that it is competitive)? Second, it has been my experience that many, if not most, if not nearly all men are incapable of accepting certain truths. Are you counseling a course of action that prioritizes plain truth, or truth disguised in mysticism?

    • We cannot (in current numbers) return to agrarian production ( that I know of) if only because there is no means of reorganizing a population this large fast enough to prevent die offs.

      most men are not capable of other than imitation, but enough men are capable of reason that law that makes use of incentives will produce outcomes that make all men appear rational. In other words, natural law by a small number will produce the appearance, behavior, and consequence of reason.

Leave a Reply