My Politics for the Twenty-First Century


Image from the cartoon version of Animal Farm.

I really can’t imagine that anyone is considering voting straight party-politics for the 2016 Presidential election, the way most Americans have been voting for a hundred years, or at least since WWII.  On the Democrat side, you have one overwrought politico who may represent the worst of twentieth-century politics brought forward, or an independent self-described socialist who is admirably anti-established and relatively well-positioned on topics like foreign wars and the banks, but who demonstrates no intent to deal with the crises of immigration or political correctness (the war against White Europeans) and whose position on guns has taken a turn toward the horrid.   At least there is a probable candidate there, although she is the most frightening of all the possibilities, the bare face of the New World Order.

Amongst the Republicans, you have a true mess.  Donald Trump leads the pack in all the polls by sheer demagoguery; his defense of traditional Americans in the face of everyone else’s ignoring the attack on them, along with his straightforward statements of honest truths on the European and American invasions, touch the hearts of average Americans not blinded by chemtrails; but does he have a deeper, functional understanding of any of the problems involved in sorting out these messes, and could he put together a team to address them? Will he even make it to the ballot as a Republican? Some of the other Republican wannabees have more mainstream background but they are colorless and have no apparent sincerity, and no appeal.  Rand Paul is the only one with any philosophical coherence to his policies, but he has drifted too far toward the cuckservative mainstream to keep his father’s once-loyal legions; Ted Cruz makes statements that sound good on most issues but is blatantly untrustworthy. Rubio is the Republican Obama…  Ben Carson is in outer space, and Carly Fiorina reminds me of an untamed ferret.

And all, ALL of these candidates claim to be strong supporters of Israel.  Which means we have no alternative to continuing to feed our malignant leech and preferred sister-colony.  Funny how those are the only candidates who can get the financing to make it to the stage, huh?

There may be two political parties, but they are ruled by the same masters.   To be honest and up-front I don’t have much hope for the survival of this Republic.  I’m sure the Founding Fathers had little hope that their descendants could handle what they produced, and they were right.  But I write, here and probably elsewhere, about things that I think might help it try to function.  The first thing is, the current party system has to go.  It is an artifact of the way our Constitution is structured, with its first-past-the-post, winner-take-all approach to elections.  Although the European parliamentary system clearly doesn’t work either – look at Europe, or what’s left of it! – it does at least allow for minority (read: political minority) voices and coalitions governments.    The two-party system, by having to lump all voters into two categories, creates groupings who differ from each other in ways that don’t matter and unite in those that do; that are merely two soup lines to feed the same slop to different consumers.

The Republican Party is the party of the capitalist, and the Democratic party is the party of the non-White and the cultural Marxist.    The whole structure has shifted so far to the left since 1960 that Republicans hold what is left of the electorate center, who espouse views like open borders that not even the most liberal of the 60s Democrats would have admitted to.  Both favor wars for oil (supposedly) and for “Democracy” in far-flung parts of the globe (with some hesitation from Paul and Sanders).  Their views, even for those two, on the Federal Reserve are murky.    What is worse, the political positions of the voters who support these candidates are incoherent.

To wit, as you probably know, the concepts of “Right” and “Left” as applied to politics come from the post-Revolution French Assembly, in which the supporters of the King (they didn’t kill him right away, you know) sat to the right in the assembly house, and the Jacobins and anti-royalist sat to the left.  We all know who won that one.  Presently, we have no King (only a pawn), so what do those terms mean?  “Liberal” and “Conservative” have the same problem.  In the nineteenth century, a Conservative favored strong government intervention and control (I over-simplify); a Liberal was likely to be an economic liberal, advocating the free market – today’s Libertarians!  What do these mean now?

Conservatism, as applied to today’s voters, mostly likely means support of Capitalism, corporations over State control; although the mixing in of the Christian Right base (which occurred starting in the 60’s to win the South to the Republicans, the party that had destroyed their society almost exactly one century earlier)  made its positions incoherent and unpredictable.   Likewise, today’s so-called Liberals call for abolition of traditional Liberties, especially vis-a-vis the first two Constitutional Amendments and consist of a coalition of Marxist underclasses – supposed minorities of Race and gender, neither of which really are that – and delusional White Europeans whose share of bled-thru European imposed shame and guilt over WWII leads to suicidal voting against their own self-interests.

The positions these groups espouse have no ideological coherence.    Part of the problem on the Right is the Frankenstein conjunction of Capitalism and Christianity.   Today’s Conservatives espouse smaller government but fail to act on that promise when elected.  They tend to support the idea of borders more than the liberals do.  They tend to oppose abortion (of all the things that don’t matter!) and support capital punishment (?).  They generally favor gun rights.  The are against restrictions on corporate abuse of the natural environment, and this is the aspect of the anti-conservation Conservatives that troubles me the most.  A true Conservative, in any sense of the word, would support Nature; but more of that elsewhere.

Meanwhile the Left is composed of people who take the opposite stand on all those issues.   Which means they support the right of the mother to kill the unborn child and deny the right of society to kill the murderer.  They claim to want to protect the environment but have fallen prey to a Global Warming mythology that probably oversimplifies the topics.   Most importantly, this internationally-led and financed supposed coalition of underclasses stands against the US Constitution and the citizens who founded it.  They foster, through the media (which is controlled by the powers who clearly hide beneath the skin of both sides, both parties) things like White Guilt (reinterpreted as White Privilege), multiculturalism (read: abolition of all cultures), and gun control (which is not about guns, but control).

In short, the system is broken, and it cannot be fixed by an uneducated and miseducated mass of people whose own positions are politically, philosophically and spiritually incoherent.

As for myself, I find that I have become a Nationalist, a term that by itself has no real meaning for most of you, or in today’s world; the term Nationalism, when used at all, is a pejorative, used by internationalists and multiculturalists to refer to those primitives who still adhere to the principle of the nation-state.   Part of the reason that the term has such detrimental associations to some is that they have no idea of what a nation-state is, or should be.  The term “nation” comes from the Latin natio, which refers to birth.  It connotes the sense of a people connected by ancestry and place.  The traditional France and Germany were nations, though they may be no longer (but some hope, could be again).  The United States may have begun that way in fact, but due in part to its founding philosophy (and more of all this elsewhere) became, by our time, not nation or state but Empire.  And Empire, as we who study history know, is the last stage of civilization.    So why would I call myself that?

It would appear from the perspective of the unenlightened modern man that “nationalism” refers to the traditional way of looking at the world and its countries and is due to be superseded by internationalism, multiculturalism, and the erasure of all boundaries – although NAFTA and the TPP, along with the current invasion of Europe and also America, may have alerted some.   It is clear to me that what lies along that path is a wasteland, a dystopia of destroyed cultures and alienated man.

Nationalism is, in fact, a concept of short historical duration.  It occurred to me, standing in Schloss Charlottenburg, listening to the history of the monarchs of Europe before in the seventeenth and eighteen centuries, that there were at that time no nations in the modern sense; that that those began really with the American and the French Revolutions and acquired modernity only after Napoleon.  What I had a sense of, was an extended family of nobility, standing and thinking of each other in gardens all over Europe, regretting their surrounding of lesser classes and less interesting people.  I do oversimplify, but I did at that moment subjectively experience, how temporary and modern, yet how transcendent is the concept of the nation-state.    Historically, the Napoleonic era, with thanks to Napoleon himself, spelt the end of the class-based society which had dominated Europe for centuries.   After Napoleon, there were French; after Bismarck there were Germans.   This never happened in America, because there was no one people to unify, and what unity existed was destroyed by the Civil War.    After 1865, America was Empire.  The traditional empires of Europe were destroyed by WWI, and Europe’s brief period of Nationalism ended with WWII, after which it was dominated by and subjugated to, two empires – the Soviet, and the American, which had gobbled up the British empire over the course of the two Brother Wars.

It may be that nineteenth-century Nationalism, represented the peak of a curve from which we are now descending at an accelerating pace.

Democracy always fails.  The worst tyranny is the absolute dominance of the majority; the masses are enabled to vote, empowered and encouraged to do by those who desire the destruction of the host civilization.  Inevitably these masses, the have-nots, discover that they can vote themselves the property of the haves, who also inevitably, leave or are slaughtered.    What is left is a society with no structure which strongly calls out for a strongman to set it aright, resulting in tyranny.  Which, unbridled, leaves to a system of oligarchy and perhaps dynasty. Or if no strong hand arises, chaos ensues and we get what we see now in Africa and the Middle East (though those disasters are mitigated by other factors).

To, to make this clear, I would prefer to see a series of nation-states, each composed principally of one dominant people and culture, tolerant to other people and cultures to the extent that the dominant people and culture could be preserved, for that State.   To forcibly mix peoples provokes conflict and war; to allow them to naturally separate avoids the same.  This allows for a closer agreement of like minds within the existing State, or at least allows them to work out their conflicts more civilly and within an agreed context and form of society.  It enables them to provide a bottom line, a safety net, for the worst-off of their members, without being dragged down by trying to feed the world, who are not allowed to flock to them for charity.  In this framework, some peoples will be better off than other; some with survive and some will not.  This is the way of Nature, and of the world.

As to the organization of society, among the people with whom I would be most comfortable being a member of a nation, as opposed to simply a State (which dominates strictly from above), I would suggest that the best form of government be some sort of meritocracy, within which strict measures would have to be taken to protect against oligarchy, and although some measure of Republic might ensure, against democracy.

Which means, I guess, that I vote this time with tongue in cheek.


Kalki Written by:

Be First to Comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *