My Position, in Short

I am going to do a longer more in depth entry on this topic, but this is to respectfully explain things to people who may or may not be fascists, but who think fascism is a right wing ideology.

First off, anyone can be a political philosopher.  There is no objective reason why the opinions of Spengler are more or less valid, by default, than those of Stephen Molyneux, Rocking MrE, or Radamanthes Octavian.

Putting socialist command economies on both ends of the political spectrum (communism and fascism), means that you don’t have a political spectrum which represents all the options.  This is a leftist weasel tactic to prevent non-socialist options from being considered.

The only model which represents all values in a coherent fashion is the full gradient which runs from absolute statism/collectivism to absolute individualism and the absence of the state.  Ancap, or just anarchy, would be on the far right.  Nationalism can occur at any place along the political spectrum.

I used to be ancap, but after a visit to India (which has a largely do-nothing government and police force), I realized that anarchy isn’t going to work with everyone.  So I decided that the next best thing is to have as little government as possible, and to have countries with no government ONLY when it comes to groups who can handle living in a thoroughly voluntary society, which is not most people(s).

I was never an advocate of Democracy, as Democracy is mob rule (at best), and it attempts to legitimize one group of people violently forcing their will on others.  The initiation of force is always a disparity, and voluntary interactions are infinitely preferable.  Furthermore, all the most successful institutions are meritocratic.  There is no democracy in business, education, or religion.  Bill Gates doesn’t make his decision based on what all the factor workers and office clerks vote on, he makes them based on what he thinks is best, and all the people beneath him benefit from his superior intellect.  People are not equal, so it is foolish to believe that everyone’s ideas are equally valid and equally wise, and numbers should not be the deciding factor in how a system is run.

The only true fairness is letting everyone be free to rise of fall to the level of their natural abilities.  There is no natural equality of outcomes, and when people are free to rise and fall, and immediately benefit from their work then society is the most free and the environment is conducive to progress.  Democracy, and demotic politics in general, are not conducive to this.

What I want is to have the smallest government possible, which would be kings.  I support a return to monarchy because kings are easier to remove, have more of a natural vested interest in the country they rule, and in general I support the privatization of everything, including government.  Privatization and personal investment means better quality.  I am the next door neighbor of the ancap, but I recognize that ancap won’t work for everyone because of HBD.

I recognize and agree with human biodiversity (HBD), which is really not a theory but just an obvious fact.  Part of intelligence is due to upbringing, but the rest is due to genetics.  Two siblings can be brought up in the same way by the same parents and still have unequal intelligence, this is because the DNA is sorted independently during meiosis and conception, so not everyone gets the “lions share.”  Not all people are equal, but as much as I may dislike multiculturalism, I still have no reason to like socialism even if I’m living in a racially and ethnically homogenous country.  I don’t see why my money should be taken forcefully and given to the least productive members of society.  Just because they’re “mah people” doesn’t mean I want to subsidize the breeding of the lowest end of the bell curve.  That’s called dysgenics, and it’s a good way to become 3rd world without bringing in any actual 3rd world immigrants (see the USSR and Khmer Rouge).  However, I don’t have any default reason to care about anyone I don’t personally know, except in terms of how their existence positively effects mine.  Group affinity is only productive and viable when it stems from enlightened self interest.  Meaning, I want to be as free as possible, and have my way of life and quality of life continue.  So I have an interest in my group surviving (so that my standard of living can continue), but not in propagating the low end of the bell curve at my personal expense.  However, if everyone around me decides to become Marxists, then I’m going to get out and find a different group, just like how people always tried to leave East Germany and the USSR.  Loyalty is not unconditional.

Any government that attempts to clamp down on me in any way, take my resources unnecessarily, or crawl up my bum is most certainly and 100% unwelcome.  When we remove all the unnatural restraints the stifle growth then mah people will be free to grow and multiply competitively, and we need not worry about being outbred by Guatemalans or whatever.


Published by:


I could be described as a libertarian monarchist with religious leanings and sympathies towards anarchy and nationalism. I have realized that a lot of my views are reactionary. Most of the time it's when I see something I don't like that I feel inspired to write. I'm basically like a badger being poked with a stick. I'm fairly ornery when poked, but I don't wish people harm provided that they don't seek to harm me either directly or indirectly. I don't at all care for the left, and I am not at all happy that they are out to destroy my way of life and undermine my freedom. But one of my goals is to spread awareness as much as I can. My Manifesto in Short.: 1. Dejure rights and positive liberty are invalid concepts. Man in his natural state is free. He is free to create what he wants, occupy and defend a territory he exists in, associate with who he wants, wear what he wants, say what he wants, follow whatever religion he wants, and essentially do whatever he pleases. Government is an artificial imposition which requires force both to come into existence and to exist. Therefore, government is not in a position to grant freedom or rights, as those already exist prior to the institution of government. Government can curtail freedoms, but it can never give them. The only fully legitimate function of government is to protect the natural rights of others from being violated by forces which they are incapable of combating, for example, protecting a farmer from the Mongol invasion. Protecting someone from having their feelings hurt is not a legitimate function, as never having hurt feelings is not a natural right. 2. Freedom of association and speech are more important than anyone's feelings. Feelings are subjective, and there is no reason why one person's feelings are any more valid than anyone else's. A law to protect one person's feelings from being hurt is certain to harm another person's, therefore, feelings cannot be a basis for law. My freedoms do not end where another person's feelings begin. 3. Democracy is a failure, and it is predicated on faulty premises. In order for Democracy to work, two criterion must be fulfilled, 1) those who tally the votes must do so honestly, and 2) those who vote must be moral and intelligent enough to make wise and proper decisions. The first premise is impossible to prove, and the second is not true of most people, therefore, Democracy is a questionable endeavor at best, and ultimately doomed to failure. In fact, under the best of circumstances Democracy is mob rule, but aside from that it also opens the door to demagoguery, tribal politics, and lobbying. 4. Communism and Islam are no less evil than Nazism. Communism has killed more people than Nazism, and in fact Stalin alone killed more people than Hitler. Islam has killed, and continues to kill more people than Communism and Nazism together. The only reason why communism and Islam are given a free pass is because Cultural Marxists are in charge of education, the media, and entertainment. Cultural Marxists have decided to institute communism by attacking the culture, and they have recognized Islam as something which they can use as an ally (for the time being). That is why both of those toxic ideologies get a free pass, but really they should not. Hitler worked with both Communists AND Muslims before the allies entered the war, and during the war he continued to work with Muslims. If some guy were to go around in a Nazi uniform and goose-step and Sieg hiel as he walked down the street he would never be able to get a job. His life would be over, and he might even be met with physical violence. If a white guy did it then things would be even worse. However, Muslims are able to walk down our streets wearing their terrorist clothing, their robes and hijabs, which represent thousands of years of slaughter, antisemitism, and persecution of religious and ethnic minorities (not to mention violence against women), and people just let them go. I want a complete and indefinite hiatus on Muslim immigration, and I want us to start repatriating the Muslims that are already here. 5. I utterly reject the concept of the "social contract." I did not ask to exist, nor did I have any control over what part of the world I was born in, which people group I was born into, or what other groups might happen to exist around me. Since my existence is entirely involuntary, I cannot be held responsible for the fact that I exist, nor is my existence sufficient grounds to argue that I owe something to someone else. I do not owe anyone money, goods, or services simply on the basis that I exist or that they exist. 6. Collective guild is a rubbish concept. No one can help what group they are born into, and no one is born owing anyone else anything. Debt is the result of borrowing resources on some level, and having just entered in the world one does not have the capacity to borrow, or really do anything beyond the most basic biological functions. Therefore, the notion that one baby is born owing something to another baby is absurd at best. 7. I thoroughly support Israel. I fully admit to supporting Israel for religious reasons, but if those were not in place I would still support Israel out of enlightened self-interest. Israel fulfills the real world equivalent of the function Gondor serves in Tolkien's Middle Earth. By that I mean they are close to the evil army, and draw a lot of it's attention and focus, and in doing so they protect the west. The difference is, that in Tolkien's world the west does not actively seek to import orcs and other members of the evil army, behind Gondor's back, whereas our moron leaders in real life do constantly import the evil army. Also, Jews are not a monolithic group, There are both left wing and right wing Jews. Those who are on the left are not motivated by religion to do what they do, but by the perverse Marxist ideology which they have adopted in place of their religion.

Categories UncategorizedLeave a comment

Leave a Reply

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

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s