A New Society


Why is it that the Left are succeeding? The answer to this is that the Left have a goal they are marching towards while the Right and the Third Positionists do not propose anything new and grandiose, they have no Telos, no end goal.

The Right are backwards thinkers. They seek to return to some idealised past they do not even have experience of, they fantasise about a world in which they would, to be honest, want to escape in the first place. (Can you imagine any of those effeminate ‘zoomer’ conservatives trying to get by in the 1950s or any earlier period? They would be at the bottom of the social hierarchy.) We cannot reverse time back to some other period, and why would we? Why look back to past when we can envision something that is better?

We must be both backward looking and forward looking. We should look at time as not some horizontal line moving in a single direction but as a sphere through which we can retrieve the truths of the past (how society functions/should function) and bring them forward to the future. There are foundational principles that should be determined and considered individually then brought forward to the future, but this does not mean we should just copy and paste some previous period and try to put it in place now. We should aim to transcend the past and create something new instead of trying to repeat the past.

This is why conservatives will continue to fail, they are being dragged kicking and screaming into the future. Instead of proposing their own alternative modernity they talk about the past, making nations ‘great again’ instead of building something fundamentally new and captivating. This does not appeal to the wider public, people are drawn towards new things, they are drawn towards flashing lights and loud music, they are stuck in a consumerist mentality. Fast cars, loud music, shiny objects. These are things which are compelling, and they are for a reason. We Europeans are innovative and drawn towards what is new. Fascism and communism proposed something fundamentally new, a break with tradition, a new way of organising society that is better for the people of the nation (this isn’t to say that in practice they were, we are speaking of what they proposed to the masses).

The Left continue to propose a society which is new, one in which people are not economically exploited. This is compelling to us because we all know that the existing economic system is not to the benefit of the people, particularly the working classes. In Third Positionist circles we know that the people at the top are benefitting from things like mass migration and foreign ownership, we know that we are being used as pawns to the benefit of the 1% at the top. Taxing the wealthy more than they are and putting that money into programs that raise up the people down below is appealing to people across the board. What holds the Left back is their social policies (particularly the influx of more people from the Third World into the West, something which, again, benefits only the wealthy by creating a larger consumer base and further arguments for stagnating wages). It is thus Left-wing economic policies which ultimately drive them forward and drive more people to vote in their favour – if I am going to be exploited by corporations I may as well get free health care out of it, right?

The Right trails behind the Left because they don’t want to lose the money given to them by their donors. They are motivated purely by individual interests, they feel no duty towards the majority of the population, they are only in politics for the individual benefits. The Left, on the other hand, are comprised of avid activists, political partisans, people who have a determined vision of the world which they are all working towards. Sure, they have infighting of their own but unlike the Third Position they have a grand vision they are working towards.

We are losing because we do not have a shared vision. The Third Positionists bicker over small details but ultimately we are not proposing something new which will capture masses. This is why we cannot come together as one, this is why we are a collection of disparate groups constantly ‘infighting’ over nonsense such as the role of women in the movement, or who our ideological influences are/should be. We have yet to form a single coherent ideology which we share, only then should we debate over such small matters like religion and Nietzsche.

We are not partisan to an idea, a goal, a telos. We can’t win because we have nothing to win with. We are stuck in the rear of the train with the conservatives while the Left are in the front carriages. The Left are running the show, they are laying the tracks and we are all heading towards the final stop. If we want to take over the train we must come to an agreement on the society we actually want otherwise we cannot hope to win over the masses whom we need in order to bring about a new society.

The energy is there in the masses, they do not approve of what is happening to the West, but they see no alternative because nobody else is proposing one other than the Left. Their choice is between capitalism (which will bring about the demise of the West) or communism (which will bring about the same end). They can either pick the capitalists exploiting them or the communist who is offering them better schools for their children, health care and universal basic income. Which side would you pick if you saw only these two options? Personally, I prefer the Third Position: A synthesis of Left-wing economics and Right-wing social values.

The intention of this essay is to spark a debate about an alternative. A handful of other thinkers, like Guillaume Faye, have actually contemplated a new vision for us. But all too few people have actually tried to pick up his torch and carry it forward. Instead we have stuck to watching grievance pornographers on media platforms talking about how bad the situation is and how evil the Left are instead of actually trying to provide something of substance. This is another aspect of the movement which needs to be excised. What we need are solution, solutions are more important than simply complaining about the way the world currently is.

This is, of course, not a completed theory. It is a rough sketch, a starting point. This essay is only a paving stone in the path on the way towards a new vision. The author will continue to develop the ideas laid out here, but it is also up to the reader to contribute something better. You need to start thinking also about a new society, we all do. Our debates should not be about insignificant details, we need to be debating systems. If you disagree with any of the points in this essay then you need to not only say “I disagree”, you need to argue why you disagree and put forward an alternative. It is not enough to simply critique an idea; you need to provide an alternative.

European Nationalism

The days of petty nationalism are over. In order for any European people to survive we must move beyond the existing form of nationalism to European nationalism. European nationalism needs to be considered primary and any other form of nationalism secondary. Consider France. France is in the possession of over fifty nuclear weapons. If France falls while nations like Poland consider only their own, Poland will fall too. France’s fifty nuclear weapons will be in the hands of an insane cult whose members believe they will be rewarded with virgins if they die in a ‘holy war’ (alongside all the other weapons that France is in possession of).

European nationalism is the precursor to the European state which we will here propose. We cannot just envision an end goal; we must contemplate a means to that end. The obvious solution to this is the creation of European nationalist organisations in all Western countries, the creation of political parties with a platform that includes the migration of people of European descent into European countries and the repatriation of non-Europeans to their homelands or America/Australia/New Zealand.

We can turn the post-colonial nations into multicultural areas to satisfy the desires of the Leftists and conservatives. They can have their own areas to indulge in their cosmopolitanism while we are allowed to live in peace. Everybody gets to live the way they desire, and nothing is imposed on anyone against their will. This is the only form of peaceful separation possible.

In order to bring this about we must start political organisations and parties that run explicitly on this idea. We cannot sugar coat or weaken the argument; we must say explicitly that this is what we desire. If we give up on any point we have conceded ground to opponents who will continue to try and make us back down on any policy. This is because the Left have a monopoly on accepted discourse, they have weaponised language in their favour.

The only way around this is to be straightforward with what we want. We need to be blunt and straight to the point. We want Europe governed by European people for European people, our opponents can have the ex-colonial countries to themselves.

This idea isn’t ludicrous, the colonial nations were populated by the shifting of large populations from point A to point B. This process has continued for hundreds of years. Today we have large cruise liners and aeroplanes which can do the same thing; we can move the European people who want to live amongst their own to Europe and move the non-Europeans to their homelands or the colonial melting pots. It doesn’t matter if it takes one year or ten years, it can be done and should be done.

We can popularise this idea through calling ourselves ‘European Nationalists’. We want the European peninsula to ourselves; we want the cultures to be preserved instead of erased. Only the European people have any interest in preserving what exists because it was built by our ancestors.

The term European Nationalist erases the popular objection from the Left: “What is British/French/Greek/Italian/etc? The British/French/Greek/Italians are comprised of different groups!” We can do away with this argument by calling ourselves European Nationalists, we want to preserve and reaffirm the European people – all of them, all the European cultures.

What would this future state look like?

Instead of the individual nation states we have now we should divide the new nation into cultural regions. The European population is shrinking every year, it will take time and effort to reverse this process. For now, we must be pragmatic. The only way forward is the creation of cultural regions within the European state. How these regions will be governed will be explained in the following section.

The State & Education

A car or motorbike engine with less moving parts is more reliable than one with more, a state is the same, the more people you have, the more departments you have the less effective the state will be. This is a problem when it comes to theorising new political systems. If we are to contemplate what would be the most effective political system it would be one with a single individual at the top, a totalitarian system. This would obviously be the most effective as it is a single person making all the decisions, but this obviously wouldn’t be the best system because it opens itself up to numerous other problems. Our aim must be to have as little moving parts in our political system as necessary.

We want cultural regions to have charge over themselves, but we are also talking about an enormous land mass and a border which needs to be guarded to prevent people getting in from Third World nations. Therefore, we need two tiers of government. One that governs the cultural regions, and another which governs the European landmass. Therefore, we need a federal council and a regional council. We have minimised the amount of ‘moving parts’ by creating two tiers, but what will these tiers be composed of?

This is where our education system comes in.

The current education systems in the Western world are completely and utterly useless. We will propose here an alternative which plays an important role in our theory of the state.

Firstly, we need teachers who not only educate the students but identify their skills early on and guide them towards their individual talents. Kids should be encouraged in their youth towards careers which they can excel at. If a child is showing a talent early on for engineering they should be guided towards that area, we can send them to trade schools early on so they can reach their full potential. This will be beneficial not just for the individual, but the collective. They will be happy, and they will also contribute towards the community as a whole. Instead of encouraging kids to all go to university – something which creates a stigma around working in trades – we should consider all employment roles as just as much of an achievement as others.

There should, of course, be electives. Everyone should be able to test their skills in other areas and apply their knowledge in one area to another. A welder can weld steel beams but also create amazing pieces of art.

Just as teachers would identify children with gifts for trades, we could also identify children who have talents to be doctors and researchers and we will find them when they are younger. They can be completing their degrees at sixteen and qualified researchers by eighteen. Each school for each trade should be a full-time boarding school. Children should be provided an intensive and comprehensive education while they are still young, and their minds are still spongelike. This education system would be far more efficient than the one we have now. We would find the cure for cancer far quicker with an education system like the one laid out here. As for the rulers, they will have their own separate school that is quite different to the other schools.

Like other students, the teachers will need to be educated to find students who show talents in areas relevant to the governing of the European Imperium.

The Ruling Class

We are suggesting here a ruling class because the best way of maximising freedom for the population is to free them from politics. The problem with democracy is that it leads to totalitarianism, something which we want to avoid in the system we are proposing here. The only way for the public to be free is to leave a ruling class in charge who are educated capable of making the necessary political decisions, thus leaving the public free to pursue their own self development. We need politicians who are out of sight and out of mind, who let the culture grow, flourish and evolve organically instead of trying to guide it.

It may seem contradictory that we are saying here that we need a ruling class to ensure maximum freedom. This isn’t contradictory at all. The general public is not educated in political science or political philosophy, they are incapable of knowing which decisions are right and why they are right. They are only aware of what is said in newspaper headlines (because most of them never read the actual articles – why should they read the articles? People don’t want to be stressed out; they want to be free). The best way to become free is to free yourself from political decisions and let a ruling class make them, one which you can trust and one that is not led by their own individual interests like the politicians we have now.

To try and explain how this system we are going to present here is not totalitarian we need to draw a distinction between authoritarianism and totalitarianism.

The system we are proposing here is authoritarian in the sense that it is a government which has authority over political decisions. The amount of people involved is reduced in order to make it efficient. The rulers in the federal council are in charge of making snap decisions in emergency situations without consulting any external body (there is no separation of powers in situations which need immediate actions).

This system is not totalitarian as they can only act without consulting any external group in emergency situations. There emergency powers are not permanent.

There is also no cult of personality, no subservience to the state. These kinds of things will be completely and utterly impossible in the state which we are proposing, as you will see.

Indeed, the rulers will be completely disconnected from society. There will be a sense of sacredness to their role, they will go through rites of passage. From a young age they will be separated from the rest of their youth and go through years of intense study to determine whether they are suited to a regional or federal role. They will be educated in political science, philosophy, the various European cultures, military strategies, economics and other relevant topics. Most importantly, they will live a life of isolation from the public and hedonistic pleasures. They will be told from a young age that they have a duty to the state and to the people, their role is to serve the Imperium.

It is important that we disconnect the rulers from normal society to ensure that they are free of any external influence. At no point have we ever had leaders who are separate from external influences, they have always been beholden to others. We need to break this cycle by creating a system which makes decision-making as objective and neutral as possible.

But what decisions will they be making?

At the federal level the rulers will be in charge of the market economy (which we will discuss below), foreign policy, international trade, military endeavours (security of the European border) and other relevant areas which need to be decided at a federal level. What they cannot interfere with is cultural matters which will be restricted to the rulers of cultural regions.  

At the regional level, the rulers will be in charge of local regional issues (building development, infrastructure, education, inter-regional trade and other roles usually taken on by state governments or councils in our existing societies). In this system regional areas will be as autonomous as possible. This autonomy can be reduced during the aforementioned emergency situations, however.

One final, crucial remark: Both the federal and regional governments need to be comprised of an odd number of people in order to prevent ties when voting on policies. Keeping in line with what we said earlier about having as little moving parts as possible, we should suggest having one federal ruler from each region (to represent each region) and 5 or 7 rulers at the regional level. This means we must ‘carve up’ the European peninsula into an odd number of cultural regions. We won’t concern ourselves with how Europe will look in this essay.

The Economy

In the Western world paper notes and coins have become all but obsolete, we now pay for everything with our cards. This technological development should not be scorned at, it provides us an opportunity to surpass capitalism and move towards a new economic system which works for the people instead of parasitic elites.

Virtual currency also exposes the relationship that money plays between us, we can see it for the fiction it is. People are increasingly noticing how the real system works, money is nothing more than a collection of numbers, the quantity for an item is completely and utterly fluid. It is the people at the top that set the price, it actually has very little to do with the cost of resources and the labour required. In my youth you could purchase fish and chips for 50 cents Australian, now to purchase minimum chips the cost is $5. The value of the labour involved in production hasn’t changed, it is still the same amount of work to produce the chips. The resources purchased by a small fish and chip shop worker have increased – resources that come from large nationwide corporations that have continued to increase the price of the resources in order to continue boosting their own profits, thus the small family owned shop must increase the price of the chips in turn.

Our alternative to the capitalist system is a two-tier economic system. The metropolitan tier will be managed by the ruling class, and the regional tier by the workers.

Metropolitan life and regional life are two different ways of Being, they need to be treated as such. The only commonality our system will have between them is the card they will use to purchase items (this way people visiting a city or regional area can still make purchases. How they earn the credits on their card will, however, be different).

In the regional areas we will encourage the existence of small, family owned businesses. People can grow and sell produce; run little stores, and we can even reintroduce bartering and trading. The people in regional areas will have more economic freedoms than those in metropolitan areas, they will be living a simple and wholesome existence, surrounded by nature and a close community. We can also bring back trades that are going extinct like blacksmithing.

We will concentrate mass production and other forms of industrial production within metropolitan areas. Large corporations will be state owned but managed by innovating individuals. This will be somewhat of a synthesis of capitalism and socialism. The people managing large corporations will be paid higher than those working in lower areas, but they will have to obtain those roles on merit instead of nepotism: Our society will be built on equality of opportunity but not of outcome. If a managers child wants to run a corporation they will have to earn it instead of having it handed to them.

The workers in metropolitan areas can be paid by signing into work and out of work with their card. Instead of being paid weekly or fortnightly they can be paid at the end of each shift directly to their card. The pay will come directly out of the state as the corporation is owned by the state. The wages in the metropolitan areas will be determined by tiers with the factory workers being towards the bottom and the manager at the top earning the highest. This model would be somewhat similar to the worker co-op model. Regional areas will have a more relaxed economy, though their infrastructure, hospitals and such will still be the responsibility of the state, as will their museums, art galleries and anything pertaining to culture as it is the role of the rulers to protect the culture of the region and allow it to develop organically.

This isn’t your standard socialist vision. I am not talking about an egalitarian society run by workers collectives, people who excel in business should be able to rise to the top and grow the company, but they shouldn’t do it out of a drive for wealth. Indeed, our society would be opposed to the individualist, liberalistic consumer culture we have now. We have seen the consequences of this vision, look at our medicated, miserable society. People who run a company should feel pride in their product, they should feel a sense of care for their workers, they should also not be willing to sell out their own nation.

We also want our citizens to have the opportunity to engage in their creative side, thus we will reduce working hours to 6 – but we will also allow them to work more than this if they wish. We can increase their leisure time and encourage them to pursue artistic endeavours. The European people are creative, we are artistic and philosophic, but in modern society this creativity is stifled. It is also worsened by our consumerist existence. We are made anxious by precarious employment; we worry about being able to pay the bills and keep a roof over our families heads. Thus we look to trash television shows and any other form of distraction in our free time that makes us stop thinking about reality itself. It is evident that the existence we lead is toxic and destructive, we fight to avoid the thoughts in our minds instead of grappling with them and turning these modernist anxieties into art in the way that great novelists of earlier periods did.

Deep down we all understand that something is terribly wrong with the way society is now. That is why the people in power ruling over us have created a society of distractions to prevent the population in the West from thinking philosophically about existence, they want us to consume instead of think! Trash tv shows and novels are promulgated at the public to stop us from sitting in silence for any brief period of time – it is dangerous under a capitalist society to have a public that thinks and engages in their philosophical nature. The population will start to realise that their lives are not being led in a way that is beneficial to them. They will realise that they are nothing but a cog in a machine, their identity has been ripped away from them, their nation and culture has been sold off to the highest bidder.

A stupid population that tunes into the trash pumped out of Hollywood instead of Plato’s Republic is less of a threat to the income of cultural parasites in gated communities. Thus our aim must be to make our fellow Europeans think again. We must encourage our family members and friends to think philosophically, only then will they open their eyes. Cut the wires on their television set, make them read a book, lecture them on Heidegger… Do not give up, do not give in, purify their minds!

Donate Bitcoin: 1MDs3yt74g8kf7t8VcmDJPZREcCtQ22Gm5

4 thoughts on “A New Society

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s