Forget The Yellow Vests

Yellow Vests Revolution Event Protest

Last weekend, to distract myself from writing, I decided to watch a livestream broadcast. In the end, what I chose to watch was not just any livestream; it was not your typical self-help video, game walkthrough, or how-to guide for some inane thing like putting on sunscreen or building a birdhouse. What I settled on was a little harder-edged than all that, a little manlier, something that might make my facial hair grow a few fractions of a millimeter thicker — I decided to watch a yellow vest protest.

I had read the favorable reports online. I had seen the images on Gab that assured me these yellow vests were middle-class men and women who were fed up with unchecked immigration and were protesting against their national dispossession. The more libertarian inclined observers claimed that the yellow vests were protesting high taxes. The mainstream media and Marxists incorporated have assured all of America that this is a protest over a hike in fuel prices; or maybe a hike in fuel taxes; or maybe a fight over a reduction in pension payouts. The Marxists haven’t quite gotten their story straight yet.

The most remarkable thing about these theories is how every one of them is almost certainly wrong. I’m skeptical by nature, but even if you aren’t as inherently skeptical as me, if you know nearly anything about the French, then you know these theories have to be bogus.

The French don’t care enough about their fellow man to protest mass immigration; they love their country passionately, but they don’t love their fellow countrymen very much. If you think the French are protesting high taxes, then you’re especially deluded. The French love taxes. They love state intervention. They love boards, committees, collectives, and all the inefficiencies that accompany them. What the French dislike, however, is having their particular class or industry taxed. They do not as a whole feel any ideological sympathy with low taxes and limited government in general. That’s Anglo-Saxon government. French governments stick their fingers into everyone’s business and that’s the way the French like it; provided, of course, that it’s always someone else’s business and not their own. They love to protest, but it’s not to stop taxation, it’s to transfer taxation like a bad cold onto some other group. This inevitably leads to a situation where the rich are taxed much more than everyone else and so they flee to foreign shores that are more tax friendly. There are more French in London these days than Paris. I exaggerate, of course, but it’s not far off the mark.

After doing a bit of research, it seems that my initial doubts were justified. The protests are not being organized by a single organization. They’re not being urged on by one charismatic leader. This means that it is nearly impossible to find a consistent set of ideals that the protestors universally share, but there is one point that seems to stick in the gullets of all the protestors: they want to keep the wealth tax, the impôt sur la fortune, that their president, Emmanuel Macron, had reduced by 70%.

Like any sensible former banker, Macron cut the nation’s corporate tax and rolled back taxes on total wealth in order to generate some investment in the nation and to tempt some of its rich citizens into returning home from their foreign tax havens. It worked. Macron also reduced public welfare spending to make up for these tax reductions. His entire budget was formed around the idea that, in his words, was to “celebrate those who succeeded.” It was, in short, a very right-wing budget plan. He cut welfare spending and tried to revitalize the economy through private investment.

The protestors don’t seem to care that France’s wealth tax did not seem to raise much revenue. It doesn’t matter to them that the wealthy had all fled or cleverly hidden their gains. The French have grown accustomed to being miserable and to cope with their misery they have decided that everyone in France, rich or poor, old or young, must be miserable, too. For the French, being wealthy is worse than a crime, it’s a success. And you can’t be miserable if you’re successful. This is why the wealth tax is so important to the French, it’s a symbolic middle-finger extended in the direction of those who have the audacity to succeed in their miserable nation. Since 1789, the average Frenchman is either a Jacobin in hiding or a Jacobin in the streets, but make no mistake, he is always a Jacobin.

All of this was immediately apparent when I began watching the livestream. The protestors were, by and large, feckless twenty-somethings. They milled around beside a bridge guarded by riot police and blared loud techno music and threw bottles and rocks from time to time at the officers. The protestors set a wheelbarrow on fire. Then it was a boat they had set fire to. There were several North Africans running around. There was a black man and an old woman holding up a banner together in front of the police, which said something vague about liberty and Macron being a puppet of the rich. When they decided to depart, the black man kissed the woman’s cheeks a few times in French fashion, and they ran away in different directions as the police started to fire tear gas into the crowd.

There was nothing middle-class about any of what I saw. Hardly anyone there looked old enough to have worked for very long, if at all, and there were plenty of immigrants there agitating, no doubt, for their slice of the redistributionist pie. If I were a website that published right-wing news, I’d veer far away from stories romanticizing the gilet jaunes. This is not a new France in the making, nor is this a middle-class revolution, nor a cry against immigrant abuse. This is more like a gathering of sharks that smell blood in the water; there’s free food and they want some of it. It’s sad but from what I can tell of the yellow vests, these are just surly Jacobins doing what surly Jacobins do.

Advertisements

The Wild Socialism of Oscar Wilde

(Note: This article was originally published at Thermidor magazine, but it has gone inactive since then. I have decided to republish the work here.)

wilde-18

I have been told that Oscar Wilde was a clever man. In books of quotations I have found hundreds of quotes attributed to Wilde on a variety of topics, and some of them do indeed strike me as being quite clever. They have a certain wit and porcelain white charm that makes them excellent for impressing people when spoken at the right time and the right place. If your prime ambition in life were to delight your friends at dinner parties, I suspect that the only quotes you would ever need on the tip of your tongue would be Wilde’s.

But, fortunately for us all, life is not a hoity-toity tea party. Those great things that drive the engine of civilization, things ranging from electrical engineering to consumer spending models, are considerably more complex than a few punchy one-liners could do justice to. It seems that Oscar Wilde suffered from that very common and very human ailment of not knowing one’s limits. As long as his specialty remained dinner party banter or elegant prose, Wilde was firmly in his element; this was where his genius was able to soar with outstretched wings. The problem, however, comes from Wilde’s fumbling with politics.

I am referring to one 1891 essay in particular, the curiously titled, “The Soul of Man Under Socialism.” To Wilde’s credit, even if one disagrees with practically every point he makes, the essay is still an enjoyable read. Wilde, much like George Orwell, was one of those men who had such independence of thought that even if one despises his conclusions, one might still find his reasons intriguing. It is for this purpose alone that the essay, despite its flaws, is still worth reading on a rainy afternoon with not much else to do.

Let us begin by analyzing the most commendable bits of this essay. That is to say, let us start where Wilde himself would most likely want us to start: by displaying the finest China in his collection.

The things people say of a man do not alter a man. He is what he is. Public opinion is of no value whatsoever.

Public opinion whirls like a pinwheel. It is favorable one day and the very next day it might be scathing. A deed, however, remains forever the same deed as the day it was done. And if we consider a man to be the sum of his actions, then we can say just as confidently, a man is what he is. On the worthlessness of public opinion, Wilde was spot on.

High hopes were once formed of democracy; but democracy means simply the bludgeoning of the people by the people for the people.

Any red-blooded reactionary can agree to this. Democracy means that a feckless mob can set aside its clubs and torches and use its votes to bludgeon people into obeying the herd. In this respect, democracy is superior to anarchy, but only slightly.

In old days men had the rack. Now they have the press.

The press is awful today and there is no reason for us to assume that the press would have been any less awful in 1891. What the rack can do to a man’s joints the press can do to a man’s reputation through lies, fallacies, exaggerations, and cherry-picked truths.

A man who does not think for himself does not think at all.

This is a truism but it is well-phrased and well-intended; overall, an excellent dinner party quote.

Now that we have looked at the best that this essay has to offer, let’s roll up our sleeves and begin a slow dissection of the nitty-gritty details. It is time to deal with the worst.

Wilde makes it abundantly clear from the beginning that he despises private property. He says that private property is comparable to slavery in that the solution to poverty is not to be more charitable to the poor any more than it is to be more charitable to one’s slaves. The solution to poverty is a thorough detonation of the institution that, according to Wilde, caused the poverty in the first place. Private property must go.

It is immoral to use private property in order to alleviate the horrible evils that result from the institution of private property. It is both immoral and unfair.

Wilde goes on to make the case for socialism as a kind of quinine pill against the evil infection that is poverty. There will be no more beggars hunched in dark alleys, no more barefoot children with holes in their trousers, no more stinking, choleric slums. Most importantly socialism will not only strike a death blow to poverty but it will also lead to the birth of a never-before-seen Individualism. This is individualism that is so grand, so original that Wilde saw fit to give it a towering capital I. We have reached levels of individualism that even Yoko Ono cannot reach.

Property, Wilde tells us, is really just a nuisance. It requires work and work is degrading and an incredible bore. It is amusing, of course, to read an essay by a flamboyant socialite who came from monied parents and was educated at Oxford telling his audience what a nuisance property is. But back to our summary.

It is from this terrible nuisance that mankind has grown into a disobedient creature, and that is, in fact, our greatest virtue, since disobedience is a natural response to the oppressive reality of private property. Wilde writes, “Disobedience, in the eyes of any one who has read history, is man’s original virtue.” The agitator is, therefore, a kind of virtuous gadfly who buzzes angrily in the hair of society to remind it of its sins.

Wilde assures us the Individualism that has been lying dormant in man, building up pressure like constipation in a man’s bloated gut, will come spewing out thanks to the glorious laxative of socialism. We will see things in our soul that we never imagined before. Private property has obscured Individualism by making one-half of the world’s population underfed and the other half overworked. The true personality of man would astound us all, it would grow “naturally and simply, flower-like, or as a tree grows.”

Wilde then goes on to draw connections between his notions of socialism and Individualism with the teachings of Christ. The poor are praised because Christ understood that only among the poor has Individualism reached fulfillment. Christ had urged his followers to give up their cloaks, their cares for the future, and their pride. All of this was so that they would not be burdened with property and so their true Individuality would never be compromised.

I cannot help but interrupt here to say that it is easy to give this kind of advice when you have a closet full of feathered scarves and woolen coats, like Wilde did, and it is no trouble at all to give one or two to the poor when the mood strikes you or on the rare occasion that you get mugged. But I digress.

Jesus, at least in the eyes of Wilde, also renounced family life in much the same way as socialism encourages us to renounce it. Christ shrugged off his obligations to find a wife, to have children, to even bury his father formally which led to his uttering of those famous words, “Let the dead bury the dead.” It was all for the purity of his individual personality. It is in this existential realm that Christ intersects with great men like Wagner and Shelley, who we are told, are saintly for their non-conformity and unshakeable Individuality.

What, then, is the state to do if both Christ and Marx have declared private property to be void? The individual is to “make what is beautiful” while the state is to “make what is useful.” Wilde imagines the state not as a code of law and its enforcers, but as a labor board, which through voluntary associations alone will organize workers and produce what needs to be produced. The harshest, most brutal labor is to be done by machines. This might put some men out of work until they can find alternative jobs that strike their fancy, but they need not fear, because under socialism a man will still be provided for even if he does not work. Why any man would work under such conditions is another matter, and it is one that Wilde does not bother addressing.

Once machines have taken over the worst jobs, man can set about fulfilling his purpose in life: to make beautiful things. Wilde then goes on a long, meandering analysis of art and its relation to public opinion. As you might imagine, Wilde sees public opinion as art’s most daunting hurdle; it seeks to trample the kind of Individualism that Wilde cherishes. It deforms art into a pitiful imitation of the whims and opinions of the herd. Art will overflow like the fertile banks of the Nile once private property is abolished because, we are told, art will then be freed from the evils of public opinion.

In this respect, public opinion is considered to be a form of authoritarianism, and according to Wilde, all original thought is ruined by authority. Just how the abolition of private property is supposed to prevent the public from forming opinions, and then sharing it with one another, goes unexplained.

The essay proceeds to link different artistic mediums such as theater, literature, and the decorative arts to the tyrannizing influence of authority. The prince, the pope, and people are all tyrants and, according to Wilde, the art that is born from their authority can never be very good. The essay concedes that especially in the case of princes and popes, good art has sometimes been made, but we are told that it was only from men who were wholly bad at being princes or popes. This is, of course, not very convincing when one realizes just how much fine art, perhaps the majority of the world’s fine art, came from the meddling of princes and popes. But Wilde must have his soapbox.

In fact, let’s cut the summary short. We have the gist of it by now. To the modern reader, Wilde’s essay seems anachronistic and naïve and hardly worth much consideration at all. I do, however, see the value of studying it in relation to the attitudes of modern progressives. Despite how much progressivism has changed since 1891, despite how many dreams were crushed with the collapse of the Soviet Union, progressives truly are the same as they have always been.

The first dogma of the progressive canon that Wilde endorses is one that underlies the entire essay. He places an emphasis on capital-I individualism, or to speak more precisely, he promotes individualism to the exclusion of all else — individualism taken to such an extreme that it disrupts the order of society. Agitators are held up as heroes. Rabble-rousers are anointed as the new saints. If disobedience is a virtue then the most unruly, the most troublesome men in society are also the most virtuous.

It is not surprising, then, that if disobedience is a virtue, Robin Hood becomes the quintessential hero of the progressive. He is the eternal fantasy that the progressive seeks to live out in his own life, or rather, he is the fantasy the progressive creates to shroud his violent subconscious in more appealing drapery. Robin Hood robs from the rich to give to the poor, mostly because the progressive cares more about robbing the rich than he does feeding the poor. Robin Hood is touted as virtuous precisely because he is disobedient; he shuns taxes, plowshares, tedium, hereditary titles and just about anything else that does not involve a “noble cause.” But what happens when Robin Hood kills the sheriff and becomes the new ruler of Nottingham? He will have to ruthlessly suppress any man who would disobey him, just as the original sheriff had done, in order to prevent being ousted. And if he stood on his principles, and refused to punish the new masked man hiding out in Sherwood Forest, he would be out of the job in short order. It is quite clear that if a man cares about civilization at all, disobedience for its own sake can never be a virtue. It is thoroughly self-defeating.

This leads me back to a point that I have mentioned before in other writings and will certainly go on mentioning in the future: the left is a perpetual opposition party. It can never build civilizations with its philosophy, but it can most certainly tear them down. I am sure Wilde would agree with me when I say that the progressive aim is to eventually reach anarchy. The difference, however, is that I would curse this anarchy whereas he would cheer for it.

Moving on to the next point, Wilde falls prey to the most common failure of all progressive thought; it is the one shortcoming that hounds every word a progressive speaks or writes. The eternal enemy of the progressive is his own misunderstanding of human nature.

When private property is abolished there will be no necessity for crime, no demand for it; it will cease to exist.

I think that if I were to gather all human naïveté into one place, at one time, and then concentrate it into one single quote, this would be the inevitable result. Why is it so painfully naïve? It presupposes that all crime has a financial motive and overlooks entirely the role that irrationality plays in the formation of deviancy. What if your neighbor wants to murder you, not because you have a lawn mower and he does not, but because he does not like the way that you wheeze when you laugh? What if a man took your daughter to bed but did not bother to make sure that she approved first? What if, after all of the means of production are made public, the government caretakers keep most of the property for themselves and do not distribute it as equitably as you imagined? Irrational obsessions, power dynamics, sexual fetishes, sadism — there are innumerable causes for crime that Wilde, in his Victorian innocence, reduces to a mere balance book. He could not have been more mistaken. Private property is just a passing variable whereas crime is a constant.

Mankind must accept that there will never be a lasting solution to crime. Humanity will never reach a point where we can throw up our hands and say that we are done with crime now and forever. Crime is the human equivalent of entropy: the crime-stoppers exist not to solve the problem of crime, but to keep it perpetually in check, to prevent it from overpowering a civilization and ending it. Crime is like a disease waiting patiently for the immune system to weaken so that it can overwhelm the body and silence the man forever.

Now that we have dealt with the issue of crime, let’s deal with the issue of private property. The crux of this essay, and as far as I can tell, the crux of socialism in its broadest sense, is the vilification of private property. Nothing can mar a philosophical principle or aesthetic insight faster than basing it on a superficial observation. One of Wilde’s quotes in particular will illustrate this point.

To live is the rarest thing in the world. Most people exist, that is all.

This is a seemingly brilliant sentence. It is timeless wisdom and speaks to those of us who try to have some special perception beyond just the everyday surface level understanding of things. When placed in its proper context, however, this quote is not so profound at all.

With the abolition of private property, then, we shall have true, beautiful, healthy Individualism. Nobody will waste his life in accumulating things, and the symbols for things. One will live. To live is the rarest thing in the world. Most people exist, that is all.

Here is where Oscar unfortunately botches it. He correctly identifies a universal problem of the human condition, namely that most people just exist and do not live with any vibrancy or perception. Wilde has forged a diamond out of dirt which he then scratches up horribly by suggesting a very childish solution to this problem. He might as well have said that the solution to lightning strikes is to abolish bad weather.

Private property is the basis of all civilized society and we have to admit that such an outcome is not coincidental. It is something fundamental in human nature. There are different degrees to which a society might embrace private property, some might regulate it, some might leave it alone entirely, but all societies, if they are to be civilized, must admit the necessity of it.

For my final complaint with this essay, I have to depart from the political commentary that I have provided thus far and stray into the deep and shady thicket of aesthetics. It might seem counter-intuitive to discuss aesthetics in a political essay on socialism, but considering the vast proportion of “Soul of Man” that Wilde devotes to aesthetics, and how tightly bound his aesthetic notions are with his political views, it would be a shame not to mention it.

Much like we observed with Wilde’s politics, Wilde’s aesthetics are tragically colored by his obsession with capital-I individualism. He seems to admit no possibility of tradition or common culture; all art is either individual or it is not art at all. This is a sentiment frequently echoed by our post-modern art institutes and architectural schools, much to the detriment of civilization. As art has veered steadily away from tradition to individualism, art has turned from polished marble statues and Biblical irony to pink vaginas dangling from a ceiling and canvasses smeared with manure. This will never be art. Undoubtedly, a man who loved glamorous things as much as Wilde would agree that such buffoonery could never be art. I would like to know, however, whether Wilde could admit that his own aesthetic philosophy helped contribute to this decline.

The artist can fashion a beautiful thing; and if he does not do it solely for his own pleasure, he is not an artist at all.

This quote of Wilde’s exemplifies the modern attitude toward art. Even though it might seem strange to speak of aesthetics in a political way, I put forward that this attitude toward art is distinctly leftist. Only a leftist would place so much emphasis on the individual that the artist is permitted to overshadow his art. But this is exactly what has happened in our era: men like Picasso, Warhol, and Pollack are remembered solely for their personalities, not for their art, because their works are simply an extension of their personalities. There is no artistic value to these works once the egos of these men have been removed.

If we contrast this attitude with that of the Renaissance masters, we find that the opposite is true. Even if history knew nothing of Michelangelo or Raphael, even if their names were lost forever and not one fact was recorded about their lives, their works of art would still be as magnificent and awe-inspiring as ever. We might lament the fact that history forgot such talented men, but we would always treasure their work. If history were to forget Picasso and his colossal ego, however, his work might be regarded with some amusement, in the same way that clowns in brief encounters can be mildly amusing, but it would never rise above that level; it would never be anything more than a gimmick.

There is also another approach to criticize this quote of Wilde’s. It could not be more wrong once historical evidence is evaluated. Wilde rightfully regards Michelangelo as an artistic genius of the highest order. Yet, according to Wilde’s own definition of an artist working solely for his own pleasure, even the likes of Michelangelo would not be considered an artist. He would be just another hack fashioning beautiful things on behalf of those tyrannical princes and popes that Wilde mentioned earlier in the essay. Even though the tale about Pope Julius II chaining Michelangelo to some scaffolding to force him to paint the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel is probably apocryphal, there is one thing that is true: Julius made Michelangelo an offer he could not refuse. Julius was not the type of man who would suffer being refused by a pipsqueak sculptor. Michelangelo’s life itself proves Wilde wrong. Despite the papal authority pressing down firmly on Michelangelo’s shoulders, despite Michelangelo’s own incessant moaning, “I am not in the right place — I am not a painter,” can anyone say that the Sistine Chapel is not top-notch art?

Perhaps authority plays a much more significant role in both good government and good art than the progressive will ever admit. Perhaps human nature will never fit into the little idealistic cage that progressives have built for it. For the time being, we have poked a sufficient number of holes in Wilde’s essay to let the pus drain. Unfortunately, however, we will never be done poking holes in bad theories. As long as eloquent and clever men like Wilde fall prey to the progressive virus, there will never be an end to the sores and pestilence that society will have to suffer.

I would like to conclude this paper with one of Wilde’s finest quotes. It was spoken originally in reference to drinking absinthe, but it can just as easily describe the progression of the human mind from adolescence to adulthood, or rather, from a progressive to a reactionary.

After the first glass you see things as you wish they were. After the second glass you see things as they are not. Finally, you see things as they really are, and that is the most horrible thing in the world.

A Short Primer on the Left-Right Divide

Politics is tricky business. It’s especially tricky in the West because our old, comfortable notions of what constitute left-wing and right-wing politics are starting to show their age: there are cracks in the walls, the rafters are starting to look shaky, and birds are roosting in the attic upstairs. These ideas that were once so useful are seeing less use these days.

The terms left-wing and right-wing are said to have originated with the French Revolution. Those who sat on the left-hand side of the General Assembly’s president were those who supported democracy, equality, freedom, and human rights. Those who sat on the right-hand side supported monarchy, tradition, religion, and hierarchies.

It’s no coincidence that when we read this laundry list of ideals, the right-wing ideals sound vaguely objectionable to many people today. This is because the left-wing has been so dominant in Western politics, and it has been dominant for so long, that new definitions of left-wing and right-wing arose to account for the differences among the great mass of leftists. The old left-wing was split down the center like a slab of cold stone; the spike that broke it was economics. Those who supported collective property rights, the Marxists, became the new left. Those who supported private property became the new right.

In America, the old paradigm was much simpler than Europe’s. The right-wing wants smaller government, the left-wing wants larger government. To most Americans, who are potbellied Sunday beer drinkers and lovers of franchise dining, this is a sufficient definition. But both the European and American definitions have one noticeable flaw in their design.

The new right and the old right have private property in common. This becomes more apparent as the new right struggles to stand its ground against the left in practically every skirmish that flares up between the two sides. The post-Napoleonic right cannot seem to make camp for very long before they are sent fleeing from the latest barrage of leftist artillery. The problem, of course, is that the new right is really just leftism masquerading as a right-wing philosophy. It uses leftist ethics like freedom and human rights to try to defend private property, which is about as sensible as trying to fend off a spear by skewering yourself on one. This flaw allows the left to win one victory after another, often with hardly a murmur of complaint from the modern right. The right is slowly realizing that it cannot defend its ideals while embracing left-wing ethics.

This, in turn, alters the right-wing’s definition of freedom. Freedom, for the right, is not about the left-wing “pursuit of happiness,” or any of the strange bedfellows that kind of ideal brings together. There is no room for social justice, feminism, intersectional sexuality, or equality. Freedom, for the right, is about using the proper power in the proper sphere. This means that if a man owns a shovel, he can use it in his own garden however he pleases.

Even though it might sound contradictory to those right-wingers who are still holding tightly to leftist ethics, the above attitude will inevitably culminate in monarchy. If they are guarded proudly and confidently, property rights will give birth to ranks, titles, distinctions, and authority.

Many Americans and perhaps a large minority of Europeans would agree with the statement that private enterprise is much more efficient than government services. Many Americans would agree that if the United States government were run like Amazon or Ikea then the government would be considerably better off than it currently is. This is no coincidence. Gardens and squares are better maintained when they are privately owned, businesses turn more profit when they are privately owned, so why would the government be any different? Monarchy is nothing more than private property taken to its most logical conclusion: the government should be owned, not borrowed.

It’s because private property transcends economics that the issue of economics is no longer the most serious bone of contention between the left and right. The post-Napoleonic right, after two hundred years, is finally circling back on itself and becoming more closely aligned with the original right-wing. This isn’t the right-wing that believes in a free society we should have no discrimination based on race, sex, or class. That’s left-wing idealism playing dress up. This is the right-wing of ceremonies, titles, and crowns; hierarchies and good order.

When we consider how the new right is reverting more and more to becoming the old right again, it helps us understand the rise of nationalism in Western politics. Nationalism is only logical if the right wants to return to a culture that values property and the protection of property over intangible ideals like equality. Property rights require laws and laws require an authority to enforce them. Authority, in turn, begets hierarchies: a natural divide between the law abiding and the law breaking, the lenders and the borrowers, the competent and the incompetent, those who deserve power and those who deserve none. This body of law and tradition, authority and its chains of command, become the basis for a nation state. Language and custom help cement these bonds even further. Nationalism is, therefore, the modern man’s equivalent of monarchism. It’s a mad dash back to those ideals that men used to hold dear before the left tainted them with its propaganda.

At this point, no doubt, some Americans who have read far too many Ayn Rand novels would like to chime in. They would argue that according to this definition of right-wing, there is collective action in the form of the nation state, and because of this, it can’t truly be right-wing. There’s a simple rebuttal to this — all politics is collective action. There’s no such thing as individual politics. Property rights, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and so on, require authority to keep them safe. And if authority is involved, so are the large numbers of people who are entrusted with carrying out that authority.

Let’s ignore those simple-minded libertarians then and form a picture of just what is left-wing and right-wing in the twenty-first century. Not surprisingly, the new lines of division look curiously similar to the ones of 1789, as the right-wing gradually rediscovers itself.

The Left-Wing

+ Favors globalism – The left likes open borders, international solidarity, and cooperation between entities that ignore national boundaries.

+ Favors egalitarianism – The left wants no distinctions of class, gender, or race and whenever these arise, the left wants them eliminated.

+ Favors universal suffrage – The left wants equality and so no distinctions can be made with respect to voting rights.

+ Favors rights over responsibilities – The left wants equality so there can be no discrimination between those who contribute a lot to society and those who contribute nothing.

+ Favors collective property – The left feels that an equal society can only be maintained by a constant redistribution of wealth from the haves to the have-nots.

+ Favors planned economies – The left regards business institutions as the primary source of economic inequality and so it must be managed by collective associations.

+ Favors state secularism – The left snubs its nose at religions because of their traditional outlooks that too often clash with left-wing ideals. It prefers a secular society that upholds its egalitarian ideals with a religious fervor.

The Right-Wing

+ Favors nationalism – The right likes border controls, cultural solidarity, and cooperation between independent nation states.

+ Favors hierarchy – The right thinks there is a place for everyone in society but the intelligent and capable will naturally rise to the top; distinctions are natural and unavoidable.

+ Favors limited suffrage – The right knows that some are more capable than others, so some are better suited to lead than others.

+ Favors responsibilities over rights – The right says that the nation protects its citizens’ liberty but in return citizens must help protect their nation.

+ Favors private property – The right knows that power boils down to ownership. If a thing isn’t owned by one, then it’s owned by many, and that will lead to inefficiency and power struggles.

+ Favors free enterprise – The right feels that business works best when it’s owned privately and should be regulated only if it begins to conflict with the wellbeing of the nation, or if the nation needs help in times where its survival is in question.

+ Favors state religion – The right admits that life is not just rank and property. The ideals of a culture should be embodied in their national religion. Outside religions might be tolerated, but they do not reflect the national character.

Here’s an image I made to simplify these points even further.

Left-Right-Divide

Of course, there are no rock-solid rules in politics. This is why I opted to use the word “favors,” because although these points about the left and right are generally true in our era, there’s no guarantee that they will be true in every specific case.

One of the most surprising conclusions to draw from this new dichotomy is the breakdown of conventional notions of capitalism and communism. Both philosophies are globalist. Both are in favor of collective ownership, albeit in different ways (the communist through state control, the capitalist through corporate control). Both favor secular outlooks since religious idealism tends to get in the way of economic pursuit. The similarities between these two systems is only logical when one considers that both philosophies view man as a primarily economic being. He isn’t. The cold war is done.

Another conclusion is that both left and right wings claim to represent freedom. The difference is in how each side chooses to define the term.

Freedom to the leftist is something very vague and ephemeral. He seems to think that freedom means that he should be free to do as he pleases in society without limitation: his freedom is a social freedom that allows him to be so thoroughly equal to others that all distinctions are erased. If that seems overly idealistic, that’s because it is.

Freedom to the right-winger is the freedom to own and do what one pleases with one’s possessions. This applies not only to things in a material sense, but also to be able to enjoy those rights and privileges afforded to one’s rank, whether that rank makes one a citizen, a CEO, or a king. Right-wing freedom is therefore a freedom of sovereignty: one has ownership over certain goods and titles and these things give you the liberty to do as you please within the limits of these things. My garden is my property and I’m free to work it however I please, but then again, I might have to pay a share of my cabbage to the local noble because he owns the police force that keeps my garden protected from thieves. Ownership is what matters most. If that seems a little cruel and cold, that’s because it is.

These two approaches to freedom, left-wing equality and right-wing hierarchy, are irreconcilable. They cannot coexist peacefully without one of them becoming dominant over the other. For a long time, the West was dominated by the left-wing and its notion of human rights and civil liberties, and that is what held the West in a state of polite silence — none truly satisfied with the result but none so dissatisfied that they would risk spoiling dinner with an argument. But lately the left’s dominance of politics is not so certain. Uncontrolled immigration, heavy state spending, and the breakdown of families and community life have all revealed unique flaws in the left-wing approach to politics. The last time this happened, when the national right butted heads with the liberal-Marxist left, it resulted in two cataclysmic wars. Dinner is sure to be spoiled again soon.

I would encourage everyone to read this list carefully and to pick a side wisely. I can’t help but feel that these two paradigms will be the deciding paradigms of our century. In the future, one side will surely achieve dominance over the other — that is, if any of us are still around after the smoke clears.

Hamilton In Retrospect

proxy.duckduckgo.com

Alexander Hamilton was always the odd man out in American politics. This was due not just to his unique philosophy but also because his entire life set him apart from his contemporaries. He was not born in any of the original thirteen colonies. He was born on the tiny Caribbean island of Nevis to a Scottish father and a half-British, half-French mother; he was born out-of-wedlock in an era that took illegitimate births very seriously. When his father found out that his mother had been married before and even had a child with another man, he abandoned the family. Hamilton’s mother died when he was thirteen years old, leaving him orphaned. The boy was sent to live with his uncle who committed suicide not long afterward. Nobody can claim that Hamilton was born with a silver spoon in his mouth.

Hamilton was adopted by a local Nevis merchant and seemed destined to live an unremarkable life in trading. Everything changed, however, when he wrote a letter to his adoptive father about a hurricane that had struck the island while his father was out at sea. A family friend, struck by the powerful language and clever expressiveness of the letter, decided to publish it in a journal. It was a distinctive honor for a young man who was mostly self-educated. In the end, the letter impressed influential people on Nevis enough for them to gather a small fund to send Hamilton to be educated in New York.

Perhaps the only thing more unusual than how Hamilton came to the thirteen colonies was the political philosophy that was shaped by his mostly self-taught mind. There was always something earthy and practical in his ideas. Although he wore the same white breeches and powdered wigs as his peers and mouthed all the same silly slogans about the rights of man, Hamilton was never truly a classical liberal. Hamilton was a man wholly out of place and time, a foreigner in his own tongue, a stranger in his own home, a man who had slipped through the gaps of one era and fallen into another. He was a Bonapartist two decades before Bonaparte. He was a Caesarist one thousand eight-hundred years after Caesar lay dead on the marble steps of the Curia Julia.

Hamilton understood something that few Americans of his era understood; in fact, he understood something that even fewer Americans of our era understand. The core of Hamilton’s philosophy is something that liberals of all stripes, classical and modern, try their best to ignore or deny: good government comes from good leaders. Government is, by necessity, an executive function.

The Executive

Hamilton made no efforts to disguise this truth of his. Wisely he also decided not to affix a particular label to the ideal leader he had envisioned. He didn’t dub this man a king, an emperor, a consul, or a dictator. Instead he gave his ideal leader a very neutral title that wouldn’t ruffle too many liberal breeches. The word he used was “the executive.”

Energy in the Executive is a leading character in the definition of good government. It is essential to the protection of the community against foreign attacks; it is not less essential to the steady administration of the laws; to the protection of property against those irregular and high-handed combinations which sometimes interrupt the ordinary course of justice; to the security of liberty against the enterprises and assaults of ambition, of faction, and of anarchy. [1]

After reading such things as “all men are created equal,” Hamilton’s writing should ring like a silver clarion in any reactionary’s ears. This is truly an angelic passage. In one short paragraph, Hamilton provides not only a justification for a strong executive, but for a reactionary, he provides a baseline definition of the term. That is to say, if a reactionary were to dream up his ideal executive, regardless of whether he chose to name that executive person a king, a kaiser, or a consul, his ideal would very neatly match the vision of an executive that Hamilton outlined above.

The first role that Hamilton chose to list was, I think, not chosen first by coincidence. The protection of the community against foreign attacks is the foremost duty of any government. If we were to think of society as an organism, it’s clear that even the most capacious, the most resplendent brain would achieve nothing without the immune system there to fight off invading organisms. Michelangelo would have never lived long enough to pick up a chisel if the common cold had been enough to kill him. Edison would have never recorded his voice on a phonograph if scarlet fever had taken his life as a child. The first rule of survival is that you must be able to fend off threats to your survival.

This point is, unfortunately, lost on many Americans today. America is currently suffering from a tragic case of pathological altruism. But even if we agree on the necessity of national defense why does it have to be one man, an executive, to lead the charge?

I’d argue that it all boils down to pragmatism: if it’s not one man making the decisions, it has to be a committee, and a committee requires a consensus, and a consensus requires time and compromise, neither of which are very good at dealing with invaders. One mediocre decision, made swiftly and decisively, is worth far more in a crisis than an excellent decision made slowly and with a dithering hand. That is why the executive branch exists. The legislature can sit around and talk over luncheon meetings, wheel-and-deal at committee hearings, and give speeches on the floor of the House that are all sound and fury, signifying nothing. The executive, on the other hand, has to do things.

In Hamilton’s America, the president would not have to ask Congress for the funding of a border wall. Since it’s obviously in the national interest, and since it provides immediate protection for American citizens, it would be a simple case of having to mouth the words, “Thy will be done, Mr. President.”

Hamilton also anticipates the legal entanglements of a strong executive acting against a vested interest in the government. He writes immediately afterward that the executive is “not less essential to the steady administration of the laws.” This means that a few uppity judges who think they can oppose a border wall by standing in defiance of the federal code would also be subject to executive justice. Their status as judges would not protect them from a president with a clear mandate.

The next role of the executive is the “protection of property” against those who “interrupt the ordinary course of justice.” This phrase is a little ambiguous, I admit. Due to the particular wording, “against those irregular and high-handed combinations,” I’m led to believe that Hamilton is referring specifically to corruption in high office. This would mean that Lois Lerner and the IRS wouldn’t be able to hold conservatives to a different standard of scrutiny on their taxes than liberals. It would mean that the Clintons would not be able to sell 20% of the USA’s uranium reserve to Russia after some very generous Russian donations to their so-called charity, the Clinton Foundation. Don’t expect congressional hearings on these matters to go anywhere fruitful. A Congressional gathering of criminals and sympathetic ideologues will never come to any conclusions firmer than a waffle. These are both serious interruptions to the ordinary course of justice, and they require, as a matter of necessity, the kind of justice that only an executive can provide.

The final role that Hamilton mentions is perhaps my favorite. “The security of liberty against the enterprises and assaults of ambition, of faction, and of anarchy.” It’s often assumed, especially among Americans, that one man with power is the greatest threat to a nation’s liberty. This is true, perhaps, in sleepy nations with a strong sense of local loyalty and a well-worn system of provincial representation, in nations like Switzerland, for instance. But America has never been much like Switzerland. Hamilton, a keen student of history, is well aware of this fact and isn’t fooled by such silly, New World prejudices against a strong leader.

He understood that America spans thousands of miles and contains a wide variety of dialects, pastimes, and preferred alcoholic beverages. We’ve always been a patchwork people. In Hamilton’s era, the states themselves were marked by such variety that the union was always in question. It took about seventy years but eventually these tensions could no longer be held in equilibrium, and so when the chords snapped, America went to war with itself. In our era, the problem is only exacerbated by the presence of too many foreign tongues, too many races, and too many crackpot ideas. The diversity in America today is on a tenfold scale of magnitude greater than America on the eve of the civil war.

In such circumstances, liberty isn’t threatened by one man with power. It’s threatened by the varied schemes and machinations of the political class. It’s the chattering ones, the race of lawmakers, who cause the most trouble in nations with no coherent identity. It’s only natural because they are the ones most able to turn the apathy that comes from diversity into personal gain; anarchy suits them nicely. In 49 BC, Rome was split by quarreling families in the Senate, upstart magistrates out in the provinces who ruled like demigods, and in every department and at every level of government, there was flagrant corruption. That is, until Caesar crossed the Rubicon.

Liberty cannot survive the pangs of ambition, faction, and anarchy. Liberty is too delicate to defend itself. It’s too enigmatic to be secured by committees and party politics. It requires the order that comes from a firm hand and a wreathed head — the rule of Caesar. Hamilton understood that the future of American liberty depended on a strong federal government with a strong executive at its head.

There are rival interpretations, of course. Jefferson in particular felt that the citizens themselves should be responsible for maintaining their liberty, clutching their guns and ready to rebel should they suffer too many affronts to their liberty. I find this view hopelessly naïve. Everyday men and women, middle class people, have to go to work. They have to pick up the kids from school, buy some carrots and squash at the store, order a nose hair trimmer for grandpa’s eighty-fifth birthday. They’re busy. They have neither the time nor the energy to police their government as assiduously as one man with a mandate.

This Jeffersonian paradigm leads to the absurdity of modern American politics: the great masses of the middle-class are excluded from the political process on every day except election day, while the people with the most free time, the extremely poor and the extremely rich, get to play politics all they want. Students, grifters, bums, and louts spend their time rioting to win handouts from the rich politicians, and the politicians are more than happy to surrender to their demands, because they’re smart enough to realize that they are simply buying poor votes with middle-class tax dollars.

This vicious cycle is hard to break. The politicians raise the minimum wage on the urging of the poor, this increases unemployment, which leads to more generous welfare packages for the poor. The politicians get their votes, the poor get their cash, and the middle-class quietly signs the check. The politicians raise disability benefits, extend health insurance coverage to people who can’t pay, regulate the height and make of factory equipment, hand out subsidies for worthless ethanol in gasoline, prop up inefficient solar panels, dole out Medicaid drugs for junkies, and throughout it all, middle-class America asks in a very meek and inoffensive voice, “All right then, where do I sign?”

Jefferson got it wrong. Rebellion is not in the middle-class DNA. The middle-income ranges stand too much to lose and too little to gain from armed revolt; they have neither the time nor the energy to keep up with the struggle of politics in a democracy. To his credit, of course, Jefferson probably never anticipated extending suffrage to the American underclass of thieves, pimps, felons, illiterates, foreigners, and invalids. He might have even opposed it for women. He certainly would have opposed it for former slaves. Nonetheless, I find his fundamental thesis flawed, even accounting for the different ideas about who could and could not vote in Jefferson’s era. The middle-class are not natural rebels.

Hamilton realized, more than many of his contemporaries in the New World, that the greatest champion of liberty is a strong executive. We can’t police the politicians and make sure that their dealings are as clean as they should be — but an executive can. We can’t stop an unholy alliance of the rich and the poor, a political coup, lawless judges, or a gradual pruning of our constitutional rights for the benefit of lobbyists — but an executive can. To put the matter in Hamilton’s own words, “The sole and undivided responsibility of one man, will naturally beget a livelier sense of duty, and a more exact regard to reputation.” [2]

One man, one nation, one people. The executive office, the federal government, and the American identity. Hamilton was not looking to Switzerland for his inspiration, he was looking to Rome — the Roman Empire.

Human Nature

It’s only logical that we should discuss human nature when discussing one of America’s founding fathers. As a whole, the fathers loved opining on the nature of man, as most classical liberals were fascinated by the topic. These quotes sound to us now, at this point in history, like an angelic harp plucked high in the heavens, beautiful but surreal. The quotes comfort us and they fit well in speeches and lectures, but there’s something far too naïve about them. There’s something that never quite satisfies modern man, perhaps because modern man is living in a world that’s a testament to just how wrong the liberals were two hundred years ago. Even with a radical change in man’s institutions, mankind remains as flawed as ever.

It’s a tragic case of overreach. Liberalism paints a picture of man that is far too flattering. It paints over his warts, blots out his scars, whitens his rashes, and turns man from a flawed but brilliant creature into an Olympian. To a liberal, a man is not just usually kind, he’s fundamentally good. A man is not often just, his very nature is fairness. The liberal fallacy is to take some of mankind’s better qualities and derive an abstract, universal principle from them.

This is one reason why an astute reader can find the beginnings of Marxism in the works of America’s founding fathers. Marxism is one, short step to the left of liberalism. Jefferson’s writings in particular illustrate this point, although, to be clear, Jefferson was not a Marxist; but Marx was almost certainly a Jeffersonian.

There was one founding father, however, who stood against his era’s fallacies on human nature. Hamilton was under no misconceptions about man’s limitations and he based his ideas on government off of this premise: that governments exist specifically because men are flawed.

Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of men will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice, without constraint. [3]

Man is a wily creature. He’s hard to control and especially hard to reason with when he’s overwhelmed with emotion. By admitting the limitations in man’s nature, Hamilton is not trying to reinvent the wheel like his contemporaries. He’s not trying to better man by bettering his institutions. He’s not taking a stand for social justice, equality, or universal welfare. On the contrary, Hamilton is confessing to the simple truth that his cousins in London, the Tories, long believed: governments uphold the law and the law exists to bring some rational consistency to the irrationality of man.

This view is neither pessimistic nor optimistic. There’s no need to argue about whether or not we should want to embrace this line of thinking. Man is flawed, and any system of government that does not hold this truth as one of its foundational principles is fated to have an unfortunate end. There is no correcting or uplifting man; no setting him straight or redeeming him en masse. There are wonderful individuals, to be sure, but there is no solution that will make all men, everywhere wonderful. The government, then, should not seek to correct men’s natures, but to curb them just enough so that society can function in accordance with “the dictates of reason and justice.”

I never expect to see a perfect work from imperfect man. The result of the deliberations of all collective bodies must necessarily be a compound, as well of the errors and prejudices, as of the good sense and wisdom, of the individuals of whom they are composed. [4]

Power Divided

Hamilton had an exceptional ability to understand the dynamics of power. When power is divvied into shares, when it’s parceled out to a committee instead of to an individual man, the group acts with far less restraint and is much less prudent in the use of its power. Without individual accountability, there is nothing to restrain them.

Has it been found that bodies of men act with more rectitude or greater disinterestedness than individuals? The contrary of this has been inferred by all accurate observers of the conduct of mankind; and the inference is founded upon obvious reasons. Regard to reputation has a less active influence, when the infamy of a bad action is to be divided among a number than when it is to fall singly upon one. [5]

It’s the same principle of collective versus individual ownership: a collective is never as careful or as exacting with a piece of property as one man who has it all to himself. After all, the state has to pay people to clean its parks, while a man is more than happy to tend to his own garden. Tenements with green spaces shared by hundreds of residents inevitably become slums. Democracy, in short, is the tragedy of the commons taken to the national level.

It’s apparent that in Hamilton’s America there would be a clear chain of command, a distinct executive hierarchy at both the state and federal levels, where one citizen could very confidently draw a line of responsibility up the chain above him and hold those men accountable for their actions. Diffusing power between many different branches of government and a thousand committees and departments is the surest sign of governmental dysfunction. “A feeble executive implies a feeble execution of the government.” [6]

In true High Tory fashion, we must admit that power divided cannot remain powerful. Hamilton’s federal government, much to his credit, would look very little like the bloated and dyspeptic U.S. federal government of today. It would be a beautiful anachronism in a world dying from democratic excess. What it would look like specifically, I’ll explain in more detail soon.

Aristocracy

In a similar vein, Hamilton is intensely skeptical of the masses. Individuals can exercise ownership but the masses can only split the spoils between a thousand different hands. It’s only natural that when individuals bear a greater burden of power in the executive and judicial system that an aristocracy will arise. This is not something to resist. There is no need to wheel out the guillotine. Hamilton reasons that an aristocracy is inevitable and should therefore be encouraged; provided, of course, that it’s instituted in such a way that the interests of the aristocrats align with the interests of the nation.

All communities divide themselves into the few and the many. The first are the rich and well born, the other the mass of the people. The voice of the people has been said to be the voice of God; and however generally this maxim has been quoted and believed, it is not true in fact. The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge or determine right. Give therefore to the first class a distinct, permanent share in the government. They will check the unsteadiness of the second, and as they cannot receive any advantage by a change, they therefore will ever maintain good government. [7]

The wording here is very important. Take note of the part that says, “a distinct, permanent share in the government.” This approach is the exact opposite approach of America today. America’s elite are always struggling to remain in office; they promise outlandish things like more and more money to the poor, they cheat the system with mail-in ballots, they raise taxes to extortionate levels, they bribe and bully their opponents, and they form grand conspiracies against the public. They have no permanent stake in government, however, so all of this scrounging for power is done to line their own pockets. Ideas of civic duty are not strong enough in a nation as diverse as America to keep politicians honest; they are using their elected positions to enrich themselves and the nation is, of course, only a secondary concern.

An aristocracy, a true aristocracy, works nothing like this. From the old Roman Senate to the Meiji House of Peers, true aristocrats have no need to beg for approval from the flip-flopping common folk. They hold the lion’s share of the nation’s land and money, and therefore the lion’s share of the responsibility that comes with them. A true aristocracy is not elected, it’s invested. Ownership makes all the difference.

People who are invested in a government are much less likely to make the kind of radical changes needed to overthrow it. They might plot against the powers of the executive or the people, they might make underhanded deals just like they do now, but they are unlikely to want to burn the whole framework of law and tradition to the ground. An invested aristocracy has too much to lose; especially if there’s a strong executive around to reign them in, or even a highly organized and politically charged populace that reveres the executive and will gladly reign them in on his behalf.

In this respect, Hamilton’s legislative houses would resemble Prussia after 1848 much more than modern America and Britain. In Prussia, representatives were chosen through a three-class franchise system, where the people in the first class, the wealthy, paid the most in taxes and therefore received a greater share of the vote than the other two classes. The third class, the poor, paid almost nothing in taxes and therefore received a comparatively small share of the vote. Historians estimate that in this system one vote in the first class would have 17.5 times more power than one vote in the third class. Some detractors might say that this system is unfair. A Hamiltonian would rightly argue that it’s unfair to give those who are heavily invested in the government the same voting power as those who are not invested at all.

The more one studies the Prussian constitution, the more one realizes that Hamilton would have much rather fashioned America on a German model instead of an Anglo-Saxon one. The lower house of the legislature had mostly an advisory role. The upper house was comprised of landowners, wealthy industrialists, and direct appointments made by the king and they were, as Hamilton predicted, a deeply conservative bunch. They had no interest in kicking over the apple-cart to fleece middle-class tax payers for more cash; after all, they were the primary tax payers.

The king, in true Hamiltonian fashion, was the energetic executive around which the entire system of government rotated, like dust, debris, and planets orbiting the sun. The king had full control over his cabinet, all house legislation required his consent (although he also required the house’s consent to pass legislation of his own), he could appoint any official he wanted at the federal level, he had full control over the armed forces even to the point of being able to declare war or peace under whatever conditions he pleased. He could never be impeached and if the legislators got a little too uppity, he could dismiss either one or both of the legislative houses at his leisure.

The entire Prussian system was designed to provide “a distinct, permanent share in the government.” And it worked beautifully. The system was transposed onto the German Empire in 1871, albeit with an uncomfortable number of concessions to liberal pluralism in order to win the consent of all the German states, most of which had been reluctant to form a federal union with Prussia. But it still worked well.

The system was not abolished until 1918, and even then, it was not by choice. It took a communist revolution in the middle of a world war to bring it down, and its socialist-pluralist replacement, Weimar Germany, was so unsatisfactory to both the left and right wings of German society that it hardly survived a decade. The old system was just superior. Hamilton would have wept.

Nationalism, Before It Was Cool

Prussia’s federal system would have certainly impressed Hamilton. The Meiji system in Japan, which was modeled mostly on the Prussian constitution but with a few British elements thrown in, might have appealed to him most of all. Had his life not been cut short by an 1804 duel, he might have been able to find many merits in Napoleonic France. It’s no coincidence that historians often consider these governments to be the first nationalist governments: they consisted of a powerful federal authority, centered around a strong executive figure, with local governments retaining some authority in local matters but ultimately subordinated to the federal government. Hamilton’s federalism was nothing more than nationalism before the word had even been coined.

It’s telling how Hamilton’s criticism of feudalism does not rely on the stock set of criticisms that liberals often use. He didn’t complain about “tyranny” because ditch diggers couldn’t vote in a feudal system. He didn’t chide the monarchs for their “greed.” For Hamilton, the feudal system would inevitably have to yield to a federalist system in the same way that a horse and buggy would have to yield to the explosive rush of steam: a federal system is simply more efficient. It’s a much more suitable vehicle for executive authority.

Though the ancient feudal systems were not, strictly speaking, confederacies, yet they partook of the nature of that species of association… Each principal vassal was a kind of sovereign, within his particular demesnes. The consequences of this situation were a continual opposition to authority of the sovereign, and frequent wars between the great barons or chief feudatories themselves. The power of the head of the nation was commonly too weak, either to preserve the public peace, or to protect the people against the oppressions of their immediate lords. [8]

An executive is nothing more than a figurehead if every man under him is an also an executive with supreme sovereignty over his own domains. There must always be a hierarchy; a lesser and a greater order. Hamilton’s federalism, therefore, is an attempt to paint a sharper line of division between the provincial and the national. An executive is not a caretaker of unruly playmates — he’s the undisputed head of a nation. He’s its first peacekeeper and the champion of its citizens’ liberty.

Why Hamilton?

The inevitable question arises: Why is a reactionary picking over the words of a classical liberal like Hamilton? Surely, it would be better to spend my time writing about proud, card-carrying reactionaries like Carlyle or Froude. I have two points to defend my decision to write about Hamilton, both equally valid, but one being of considerably more importance than the other.

The first reason, as stated in the introduction, is that I don’t consider Hamilton to be a classical liberal. He was a crypto-reactionary, a pseudo-liberal; by this I mean that he used the lingo of a liberal to express ideas that were distinctly at odds with the ideas of liberalism. In this regard, I feel that Hamilton deserves more serious consideration as a reactionary thinker.

The second reason is related to the first but it is a good deal more significant in the grand scheme of politics. It’s precisely because Hamilton was able to disguise his ideas behind the drapery of liberal rhetoric that he was able to have some influence on America in its post-revolutionary distress. When the Articles of Confederation failed to unite the states, Hamilton didn’t throw in the towel. He didn’t catch a ship to Britain and he didn’t start plotting a coup to get George III reinstated as head of state. He was too clever for that kind of nonsense. He asked a much simpler, much shrewder question: how can America get the executive leadership it so desperately needs?

And that is what we reactionaries are also going to have to ask ourselves. We’re not going to be able to bring back the Stuarts. The Habsburgs wouldn’t wear a crown even if we handed it to them on a velvet pillow. The very mention of a tsar, kaiser, or king sounds absolutely ridiculous to modern ears. You can forget all about a Fuhrer. These terms fly in the face of the neoliberal colossus that has dominated the discourse in the West for the past hundred years.

But words like federalism and president are still relevant in American discourse. They’re neutral, inoffensive terms. We only need to shift the conceptual basis of them a little bit to get everyday Americans thinking more like we think. Using Hamiltonian federalism, it would not be too hard to convince Americans that the office of president was always supposed to be more powerful, more certain of itself than it currently is. We can have both a constitution and a strong executive; the two are not mutually exclusive.

I have claimed before that the best states are ethnostates. I still believe this. But in an already ethnically diverse America, forming an ethnostate is unthinkable. It would require decades of civil warfare where the outcome of victory would always be in doubt: after all, there is a sizeable portion of the white population that would get to extol their own virtues by not siding with the “racists” of their race. Fighting for a white ethnostate would split the whites of America and unite all of the other races against us, leading to the worst possible scenario: our side divided with the left united against us.

A political platform that pushes civic nationalism with a strong executive at its head is much more likely to succeed: it can unite whites and rope in the smarter, harder-working minorities without much trouble. This would lead to the inverse scenario mentioned above: our side united with the left divided by a thousand different ethnic interests. A strong executive with a clear mandate to protect American citizens and their rights could do far more to protect white citizens than a civil war with a questionable outcome.

A strong executive with popular support could cull the deep state, build a border wall, kick women out of combat roles, rip up every law related to affirmative action, repeal supreme court rulings on things like desegregation, and do everything every right-winger has dreamed of and he’d be able to do it all within the limits of the law. Just imagine if a federalist party were to prop up a president with a constitution like the 1848 Prussian constitution to help him rule.

When kings return to America, and they will return, they will not call themselves kings. When America’s Caesar sits down for the first time in the oval office, most Americans will have no idea that he’s our Caesar because nobody will call him something so pompous. There will be no wine in the streets, no wreath on his head, no public deification of his likeness. But despite there being no recognition for his true title, he will be the man to tighten the screws and scrape away the rust of our political machinery, just like Caesar did in Rome.

Ask yourself, would you rather live in a divided Balkans, fighting and dying for a tiny patch of land or would you rather live under an enlightened despot like Augustus or Bonaparte? I have asked myself this question and I have chosen to examine Hamilton’s writings for a very specific reason.

In Hamilton, we find the beginnings of an American Empire.

 

 

Notes

[1] Federalist No. 70 (18 March 1788)

[2] Federalist No. 76 (1 April 1788)

[3] Federalist No. 15 (1 December 1787)

[4] Federalist No. 85 (16 August 1788)

[5] Federalist No. 15 (1 December 1787)

[6] Federalist No. 70 (18 March 1788)

[7] Farrand’s Records of the Federal Convention, v. 1, p. 299. (19 June 1787)

[8] Federalist No. 17 (4 December 1787)

Ode to a Dying Youth

bathrooms-e1489174632615

I read an article today, in some British paper with a very tenuous connection to right-wing politics, about the rising number of children referred to gender reassignment therapy. It’s painful for me to even write those words, gender reassignment therapy. They remind me of Maoist euphemisms one might read over a “reeducation” camp door or in a little red book that a man with a gun forces his captives to read. Not only can gender not be reassigned, any attempt to do so could hardly be called therapy. But we all know how the left likes to mangle everyday language.

The article itself is nothing special. Anyone who turns on a television or listens to iTunes knows about the Western trend toward buggery. Transgenderism is a new frontier for Marxists, who are eager for a cause célèbre ever since gay marriage was successfully imposed on America a few years ago. What stood out to me was one comment at the bottom of the article. To be fair to the paper’s readers, it was not highly rated, but the comment stood out to me because of how obnoxiously libertarian it was.

“If the parents are paying for this with their own money, then what business is it of others?”

The old adage is true. It’s not hard to spot a vegan or a libertarian. He’ll usually do the job of announcing himself by contorting every issue to be about the one versus the many, the individual against the collective. It’s especially easy for me to spot one because in my younger, more innocent years, I too was a radical individualist with perhaps some symptoms that could properly be placed on the autism spectrum.

The logic is surly and insistent. If I want to do something, and it isn’t hurting others, then others shouldn’t be able to stop me. It’s clear why a lot of people, especially young men who resent authority, are tempted to define their political beliefs in such simple terms. It’s easy. It’s liberating. It’s also very fallacious.

No one is a pure, unalloyed individual. We share our ideas, our language, our cuisine, and even our genes with others. Society is an oceanic web of interlinking threads where it is impossible to pull on one of those threads without having innumerable others move as a result. Our value as individuals stems directly from our value in society: our words have no meaning without others around to interpret them; our ideas are fantasies without others to help debate them, reject them, or make them real; our DNA is just a droplet of water sizzling on a hot pan, destined to dry out forever, without the opposite sex around. The phrase no man is an island is just as true now as it was in 1624.

I’m not going to say anything as radical as children are the property of the state; nor will I go so far as to say that children are the property of their parents. The problem occurs here because both the Marxist and the libertarian are obsessed with dollars and cents. Ultimately, to a materialist, people are always property and life is about living to accumulate pleasures and to reduce one’s pains before they are all buried in the great void of death. It’s a grim view. Materialism seems joyous and hopeful at first, but the emptiness of its ideas eventually point back at nothing, like a mirror reflecting nothing in the dark. It’s telling that the Marxist who encourages children to revolt against their own bodies, and the libertarian who condones the act in the name of freedom, each care nothing about the children and their welfare. The two care more about upholding an ideological principle.

It’s a situation that deserves some thought. Let’s rule out the youngest kids. Children under the age of twelve are so impressionable that any firm conviction they claim to have about belonging to the other sex was undoubtedly planted there by their parents. (Or perhaps, these days, planted by their school teachers and general practitioners.) There’s no subtlety in a predicament that can be blamed squarely on the child’s upbringing. The teens who haven’t grown up indoctrinated in Marxist gulags are the ones that are the most interesting.

Being a teenager is awkward. There’s an unwelcome surge of hormones that cause mood swings and squeaky voices, a restless sexuality with youthful prudishness. Couple this with the fact that teenagers don’t have enough know-how to be able to handle these challenges gracefully, and it’s clear that few people enjoy their teenage years, except in retrospect. Being a transitional stage in life, it’s uncomfortable by necessity, because if it were too enjoyable we’d never want to grow out of it. It’s where children become adults. It’s the bud before the bloom.

We all devise coping mechanisms to make it through those years. I read Romantic poetry and decided that, like Keats and Byron, I wouldn’t live to see the age of forty. Strangely enough, this comforted me. I felt that all of the humdrum awkwardness of my daily life didn’t matter; all that mattered was my writing. In a hundred years no one would remember my shaggy hair or how my face turned tomato red when I spoke to girls — but they’d remember my odes to a Grecian urn.

These thoughts were silly, of course. But they allowed me to reach twenty without ending my life or running away to join the foreign legion, with nothing more than a few notebooks of dreadful poetry. Now just imagine the mindset of teenagers today.

Imagine that you’re awkward, like all teenagers are. You have lopsided hair, a voice that doesn’t quite inspire, maybe you’re a little too short or a little too tall for others, and most importantly you’re terrified of women because now, unlike before, you’re interested in them. Imagine that your local witch doctor comes along and says in a soothing voice, “It’s not your fault you’re ungainly and unpolished. It’s not your fault that you feel helpless and frustrated. There’s nothing you can do because you were born with incorrect genes. You’re a woman in a boy’s body.”

It clicks suddenly in your teenage mind, “Ah, that explains it.” And like all witch doctors, there must be a cure-all, a panacea known as gender reassignment therapy. The witch doctor then writes a prescription for some pills, all covered by insurance, of course, recommends a few councilor friends who will echo the same diagnosis and recommend the same pills, and finally the doctor hands you a paper with some YouTube links that tell you what a brave person you are for admitting that you’re transgender, that there are meetups and support groups, there’s even a flag for you to wave. And don’t forget that Google, Apple, Delta Airlines, and Harvard are all on your side.

Thus, at a young, impressionable age, you were inducted into a new religion that does irreversible damage to your endocrine system. It stymies your social development and bulldozes your mental health. In one generation, we’ve gone from poetry to buggery.

Conservatives, and especially libertarians, need to recognize the implications of this LGBTQRXYZ religion. It’s comparable to the crack epidemic, but instead of being condemned, it’s roundly encouraged by the upper echelons of our society. It won’t get you arrested, it’ll get you applauded.

Sadly, it’s not enough to raise your kids right anymore. Teenagers are inherently vulnerable, as all good Marxists know, and it’s because of this that they’re being targeted. Now parents have to try to counteract the poison that society is injecting into their children. We have to learn to let teenagers be awkward and ungainly. We have to let them cope and self-medicate. The alternative is unthinkable.

I’ll end this piece with a hat tip to one of my own teenage heroes, John Keats. It’s not a particularly memorable line that I’m providing, certainly nothing as quotable as, “Beauty is truth,” but given the context of this article, it seems oddly relevant today.

Blissfully haven’d both from joy and pain;

Clasp’d like a missal where swart Paynims pray;

Blinded alike from sunshine and from rain,

As though a rose should shut, and be a bud again.

“Yellow” Journalism

Narrative Control BBC

Sarah Jeong is a Korean-American, thirty-something social media socialite with black-rimmed glasses and short, pink hair. She is the latest model Marxist pulled straight off of the progressive assembly line — a graduate of Berkeley and Harvard Law. She has written nothing of any significance; nothing of any particular wit or insight. Based on her Twitter statements it becomes abundantly clear that despite her imposing educational credentials, she not only looks like a Starbucks barista, she almost certainly has the IQ of one, too. With that in mind, it’s not too hard to see why the New York Times hired her recently.

If we were to define the term Europhobic as an irrational fear of European people and their culture, then it is beyond all doubt that Jeong is a Europhobe. She attended universities founded by dead white men, she works for a newspaper founded by dead white men, her mother country is free today because of dead white men, and yet she spends seemingly half her life on Twitter deriding white men. One of her rants included a fake graph showing how white people give off a mysterious doggy smell when it rains, which is especially rich when you consider that she comes from a country that still eats dogs. Remember that the key word in our definition is irrational.

Perhaps the only thing more disappointing than a once reputable newspaper hiring this pink-haired harpy is how conservatives have so terribly missed the mark with this one. The right-wing parts of Twitter and Gab are trying to fan the flames of outrage. They desperately want to get Jeong fired. I can’t blame them, of course, because nothing would make me feel better than to see Jeong lose her job for racist remarks: a full-fledged progressive, anti-racist losing her job because of racism.

But if the irony seems too thick and sweet to be true, then it almost definitely is. It’s important to keep in mind where the word originated. Racism was a term conjured up by Marxists to get ethnic minorities to help them tear down the power structure of the West; it’s a continuation of the class struggle dynamic, carried over to racial, rather than economic classes. The left created the word and as such they get to determine the parameters under which it gets used; and logical consistency is not one of those parameters. They are more than happy to use the term against their enemies while smugly dismissing any criticisms that they might meet the criteria for racism as much as their enemies. Reactionaries must etch this point into their skulls like they would the Lord’s Prayer or the maxims of Confucius: leftists are not concerned about logical consistency. They are concerned first and foremost with power, and they will use any means necessary to seize it.

Remember, dear reader, you’re just a prole from a fly-over state so you don’t have enough power to hold them accountable for their logical inconsistencies. They control Cornell and Harvard, they control the New York Times and the Washington Post, they control the NSA and the FBI — what do you control, silly altar boy?

In true Confucian fashion, we have to spend a moment to rectify names, or in more modern parlance, clarify our terms. Since we know that racism is the domain of ethnic minorities looking to undermine a European, hierarchical power structure, the term is wholly inadequate for right-wingers looking to criticize left-wingers. Jeong is an ethnic minority, living in a Western country, where European people are still currently the majority and Western culture is still the prevailing zeitgeist. Under these conditions, it doesn’t matter how much venom and acrimony she flings like a shit-slinging simian at passing white people, the word racist will never phase her. If anything, it becomes a term of endearment for her. This is why those Democrats-are-the-true-racists criticisms often made by baby boomers never persuade anyone: they accept the leftist ethic of racial equality as a desirable goal.

Reactionaries need a term that paints the line of division between the left and us much more starkly, much more distinctly than a leftist buzzword like racism can do. We on the right aren’t fighting for a world of racial equality, or for a melting pot, or for a multicultural globo-homo panoply of rainbow sexualities. We are fighting to preserve our heritage. We are fighting to preserve the West. This is why I prefer the previously-mentioned term, Europhobe. Whether or not Jeong hates the idea of racial equality is something we cannot, and should not bother to prove. All we have to prove is that she hates us, the white people of the world. And she has already admitted to that.

Once we have clarified things in this way, it’s obvious that the editors of the New York Times will never fire Jeong for Europhobia because they themselves are Europhobic. They want to tear down the power structure of the West and replace it with their egalitarian, fairy-dust-and-unicorns fantasy land. The morals underlying their ideal state are all just castles built in the sky and their end game is some intangible, far off speck in the human imagination, like Atlantis or El Dorado or Prester John. Don’t get suckered into defending leftist ethics by default. Don’t waste your time accusing leftists of racism.

Remember, ladies and gentlemen, we don’t want to beat progressives at their own game. We want to change the game entirely.

Sunday Thoughts (2018.07.22)

The other day, in a painfully white, fluorescent office, I listened to three doctors talk among themselves. They were chuckling over Trump’s recent visit to the United Kingdom, the royal snub by princes Charles and William, the rotund orange balloon, a petty likeness of Trump, floated over London to protest the visit. They smiled smugly and said that the Brits could keep him, each doctor quietly assured that every one in the room agreed with the idea wholeheartedly. Bear in mind that I work for a very prestigious organization; one that might be mentioned in the same breath as Harvard or Yale. I’ll leave the particulars to your imagination. Here, every one takes for granted that civilized, intelligent people must support things like equality, inclusion, and an impotent redistribution of wealth. I’m a silent reminder that no, not quite every one here feels that way. But, of course, I have to lock away my protests in the quiet iron cage of my mind — stating them openly would be the end of my career.

As I listened to them talk, I could see a candle-lit parlor filled with men and women speaking French in powdered wigs. Among polite society every one more or less agreed that reason was supreme, and that the enlightenment would usher in an era of fair government, gender equality, and freedom from the petty superstitions of the Catholic canon. The women fanned themselves and thought that kings were so silly and outdated; why can’t people govern themselves just as well as a tyrant? After all, look at America! The men chatted over glasses of port about their daydreams where women had as much education and power as a man. After all, look at Elizabeth and Maria Theresa! The few bishops there in that good company admitted, among confidants and drinking buddies only, that there were a lot of old, outmoded traditions that could be shaved away from the Christian core. After all, Christ himself said all people, Jew or Gentile, are one in him!

Egalitarianism is not new. It’s mankind’s oldest temptation. At least, it’s mankind’s oldest civilized temptation, and there have been many well-intentioned philosophers who have had to drink a bowl of hemlock for giving in to this temptation. From the powdered wigs of 1789 to the powder white coats of doctors at one of America’s most aristocratic institutions, every era has its well-intentioned idiots — and every era has its Jacobin ready to hack off a few heads to try to make mankind something purer than it can ever be.