When proposing something as enormous as an alternative political system there is inevitably going to be objections to certain aspects, holes poked into weak points or poorly constructed arguments, or in this case constructive criticism over some points in my original argument which do indeed need work. Indeed, this was something I anticipated when I published ‘A New Society‘.
I was aware that the essay wasn’t perfect, it is a subject which really needs a book devoted to it rather than a relatively brief essay on an obscure journal such as this. But I wanted to get the ideas contained in the essay out in the air where they can be picked to shreds and challenged by more competent individuals than I in order to build and develop them into something much larger and air-tight. My plan worked and in less than 24 hours I received a handful of questions and a short article was published (which can be found here) challenging a few arguments I have made, to which I will respond to here.
1. The essay had “an overall focus on efficiency and effectivity without an equally descriptive view on the goal to which these effects are to be employed.”
The author argues that a pan-European vision is a “valid goal in and of itself. However, societies are usually set up to fulfil one or multiple goals that go beyond their immediate existence.” Such as the desire of the Roman Empire to spread Christianity, colonial empires discovered new worlds and so forth. “What shall be the purpose of our new society?”
The purpose of our new society is implicit in the theory proposed: The survival of the European people and their preservation. Many other great things will come from achieving this primary goal, we can rediscover ourselves and reconnect with our past then plot a course forward, whatever that future may be. That said, I do oppose the idea of pursuing any neo-colonialist, expansionist goals. It is clear that these pursuits in the past by Europeans have consistently been negative for both Europeans and non-Europeans. It is better for us if we keep to ourselves.
2. “Regarding our second point, Williams lays a certain emphasis on the concept of division or segmentation, particularly in the domains of a split into a ruling class and society at large, the split between urban and rural sections of society …”
I knew that the divisions throughout society would receive push-back, I probably could have spent more time explaining my reasoning behind these divisions, and maybe I could have explained these divisions more clearly.
Firstly, the author writes that: “A doctor unfamiliar with the daily struggles of a construction worker will fail to prescribe effective treatment and realistic measures for prevention. A manager unfamiliar with software development will make some very odd decisions for the future direction of important projects.” This sort of division already exists, we all exist in different worlds. There will always be some form of separation between a successful manager managing a large building company and the carpenter making trusses for a house that company has designed. More often than not the person managing a large corporation has little experience on the ground floor packing up the items the company produces to ship them off. Just as the guys packing up boxes will have no clue on how to manage a large company like the people at the top. Nor will the manager be suited to work in the legal department. We can move away from this example to everyday life as well. Personally, I grew up as a skateboarder. When I walk passed a set of stairs with a handrail down the center I see something completely different to someone who has never touched a skateboard. I look at the handrail and see the infinite amount of ways that it can be utilized other than simply using it to assist walking up or down the set of stairs. We all exist in worlds we construct ourselves, we look at things different to others based on our lived experience within the world. The manager of a company knows what managing entails, the factory worker doesn’t, but he does know his role and how it is carried out. The doctor in the aforementioned example doesn’t know what it is like to work as a bricklayer, but he does understand the potential injuries that role entails.
Secondly, the split between urban and rural life is inevitable. Certain areas are going to industrialise and become metropolitan, they will also naturally be riddled with consumerism and some small degree of nihilism. Slavoj Zizek makes a pertinent remark about metropolitan areas and greenhouses gas which is worth mentioning here. He argues that it is best to concentrate our consumerism all it entails to metropolitan areas instead of increasing consumption and population growth in rural areas. If we restrict metropolitan life to the cities we will leave the area outside the cities safe of urbanization, free from the spread of concrete jungles, light pollution and every other negative thing which accompanies city life. Indeed, it is better to keep rural areas smaller and contained, free from metropolitan influence. At present there is a negative perception of people in rural areas as ‘backwards’, ‘hillbillies’, ‘rednecks’ and numerous other pejoratives which are weaponized to impose decadence on these people who simply want to live the life their ancestors lived, simple and peaceful without the decadence and nihilism that is generated in cities. These pejoratives work to push an urban lifestyle of ‘gay pride’ and ‘trans rights’ onto people who simply want to be left alone. We should allow these people to live free of ‘progressivism’ and all the disgusting things it entails and concentrate nihilism in city centers. All that is needed here is to make explicit that there is indeed a separation in mentality between rural and metropolitan life, and that ‘hillbillies’ are not ‘lesser beings’ as the metropolitan nihilists claim they are because they oppose ‘modernism’.
Thirdly, the separation of the political elite and the populace shouldn’t be problematic. The scope of their powers would actually be limited, with their primary goal being security. The system I am attempting to develop is one where the population do have freedom, where cultures can develop and evolve instead of stagnating. Change in society will always occur, the point is to direct that change in a positive direction instead of the nihilistic direction we are heading now. I am opposed to totalitarianism because it would prevent my freedom and my ability to put forward to the public a positive vision of society, I am not anti-freedom because it would impede my creative ability. But I am also not a progressive in that I oppose the direction that society is heading in now (and it is becoming increasingly difficult for us to express our opposition to the direction we are heading in). I concur with Guillaume Faye that we need to find a synthesis which lays between Evola and Marinetti (whose ‘Futurist Manifesto‘ people should read).
In a way there is a touch of anarchism to the society I am proposing. The roles of the government should be restricted to what is justifiable in order to let the people organize themselves. I don’t think every tiny aspect of our lives should be regimented, but we should receive a level of discipline through the education system. I don’t think we should worship the governing class, we should look to them as protectors who enforce a specially crafted constitution. In times of crisis they should have more powers, of course. But what defines a crisis must be determined.
As for the reason for separating them, this is to prevent them being influenced by external powers, to prevent corruption and so forth. If they are disconnected from the outside world we need not worry about people of influence giving them money and other gifts in return for favors. I believe that the system proposed will make corruption as close to impossible as possible: Their powers will be restricted, external influence will be near impossible.
3. Population and Growth
The ‘quantity versus quality’ debate amongst Third Positionists is really a dead end. The answer isn’t one or the other, it is both.
We are at the point where we must rebuild an entire civilisation, this requires a large quantity of high-quality individuals. Part of this process will require using modern technology to replace what cannot be created organically. That is to say, we need to take the sperm and eggs of people with high levels of fitness and intelligence and reproduce the European people artifically to a degree. These children will then need to be raised by families who will need to be assisted by the state until we are above reproduction levels.
This proposal will, of course, draw the ire of idiotic ‘America First’ types who propose nothing more than a slow demise of the European people. The scope of their outlook is restricted thanks to a book that 99% of them have never read. The idea of technology being used to artificially inflate the number of Europeans is ‘demonic’. But we need to be realistic about what we face, and I am sure the late-great Guillaume Faye, the most visionary individual to exist in our circles, would agree.
I would like to thank ‘Treuerunen’ for his/her critique and suggest that my readers check out their work here