Brexit, Brexit Everywhere, Nor Any Exit To See

Water, water everywhere,

Nor any drop to drink

So go the famous lines from The Rime of the Ancient Mariner. That endless poem was written by an Englishman, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, but we can be sure he wasn’t talking about Brexit — the burning thirst for relief from an imminent ugly death notwithstanding.

Last week’s advisory referendum on whether or not the United Kingdom should leave the European Union turned out an unexpected result: leave. A solid majority of 52% of the voting public voted to leave, compared to 48% who voted to stay. Nigel Farage of UKIP fame and Boris Johnson, former mayor of London, led the campaign to leave, facing what was previously imagined to be overwhelming opposition from both of the United Kingdom’s major establishment parties, the Conservative and Labour parties. David Cameron, leader of the Conservative Party and Prime Minister of the UK, has already stated his intention to resign due to the result of the vote, which he opposed.

Expectations on the Right were low after the suspiciously narrow victory of a geriatric Green Party apparatchik over a nationalist candidate in Austria’s presidential election, but they’ve surged again in anticipation of the United States’ November presidential election that will test American nationalism against the ruling progressive clerisy for the first time.

Those expectations will have to be moderated with a dose of reality concerning power dynamics.

While the success of Brexit was an indisputable morale victory for British nativists and their sympathizers worldwide, its impact on the actual structure of the British state and the EU, both official and unofficial, is negligible, if not inflammatory and liable to damage the demographic base of nationalists. I’ve written extensively before on the dictum that right-wing activism always fails, and the outcome of the Brexit referendum does not bring it into question. Why?

The outcome of the vote is just a guarantee that a battle is going to occur. The actual victory is yet to be won. Nothing has been won back quite yet, except the right to a challenge of the status quo, and if my two eyes are of any help, the opposing forces are numerous and powerful.

The impositions on Great Britain by the European Union and the problems caused by EU membership and EU-supported ideology are not manifested abstractly, nor can they be revoked or solved with a simple vote, or a simple change of minds. They are manifested in tens of thousands of highly-paid bureaucrats deeply entrenched in the state apparatus. They are manifested in scores of elites and aspiring elites (both domestic and foreign) who reside in London, Oxford, and Cambridge, and work 40-hour weeks, fifty weeks a year, turning the gears and cogs of the machinery of the state. They cannot be removed with the flick of a pen because they are the ones holding the pens.

Britain’s membership in the European Union and the problems caused thereby are not simply a question of what bill the British Parliament passes. There is no on/off switch for EU membership anywhere. The question is how to remove or repurpose the multitudes of faceless bureaucrats and the elite support network behind them. In 2015, there were 2.9 million employees of the UK central government. What do you do with 2.9 million bureaucrats? Not all of them are EU bureaucrats, but the intertwinement between the UK and the EU is so extensive that many of them might as well be. Back in 2008, a figure for the number of actual EU bureaucrats was given at 170,000. They’re not a force to ignore, either.

That’s not counting the wealthy elites who throw their considerable financial fortunes at EU-style integration with the mainland. Nor is it counting the bought-and-paid-for media. Nor is it counting British academia, which for all intents and purposes has already been an internationalist non-British academia since the 1930s.

What do you do with all these people to enact a separation from the EU that isn’t just nominal, but real and results in real improvements in British well-being and sovereignty?

If you don’t have an answer yet, you better start thinking quickly, because they are already working overtime to scheme up a way to prevent Brexit from happening, and if not that, then to delay it until Britain becomes more diverse, and if not that, then to attach so many provisions and exceptions to Brexit that the status quo only changes in name, and if not that, then to invent a slew of treaties and agreements with the EU to be passed immediately upon formal exit from the EU that will recreate the EU in all but name.

How will nationalists and nativists stop them? They don’t control the millions of government, media and academic positions that determine what agreements and treaties get passed. Electoral politics is going to remain the main strategy at first glance, but if right-wing electoral politics was the right tool for this kind of job, Britain wouldn’t be in the mess it is in today at all. It is perfectly possible for the British Right to win consistent electoral victories and still find that every new law, agreement, treaty, and government regulation ends up benefiting and promoting left-wing groups and causes.

You can coordinate 52% of the population of Britain to vote against EU membership, but how do you plan to coordinate 52% of the population of Britain to consistently campaign and vote against the multitudes of legal minutiae and government dictates promulgated by left-wing bureaucrats, who might number in the millions?

It’s easy to list the problems caused by the EU. They are many and will be fatal to Britain. It’s much harder to actually solve them by getting rid of all the flesh, blood, gold, and brick invested in the system that led to decades of EU membership.

The key thing to ask about Brexit is this: who got fired? Who lost funding? Which bureaucrats are homeless? Which people are blacklisted and will be forever unhireable due to their support for the Remain campaign that lost? No one got fired. No one lost funding. No bureaucrats are homeless, and they will fight regulation and treaty to keep their positions and maintain the status quo. David Cameron is never going to suffer any serious consequences for his positions and decisions.

There are hundreds of thousands of people in Britain who receive monthly paychecks from pro-EU organizations (including the government), who cannot imagine a different lifestyle, who have invested their entire lives and personalities into their careers as left-wing bureaucrats, whose only skills are the skills of bureaucrats and left-wing ideologues, who only have friends who are also pro-EU functionaries of various kinds, who have married foreigners and brought them to Britain thanks to EU laws, and so on. Those people’s lives and personalities don’t change with a Brexit announcement, and they will viciously resist any change to the status quo.

The entire apparatus of the state that had an existential interest in preventing Brexit — the media, academia, the establishment parties, the NGOs and foundations, the permanent bureaucracy — is still right where it was on June 22. Brexit has given Euroskeptics a democratic, moral mandate, perhaps, but it has not given them the power to excise or remodel this apparatus in order to make Brexit meaningful.

The British middle and working classes are probably going to be economically punished by the state for their insolence and refusal to cooperate with the high-status program of EU integration. Expect more immigration, expect more dysfunctional and violent immigrants, expect more haranguing about racism, bigotry and Islamophobia and the need for more African refugee settlement in Britain to spur diversity and tolerance. It’s already begun on the front page of CNN.

The American globalists across the pond are not happy about the rebellious peasants in the far-off backwater province of Great Britain. The activists and bureaucrats who decide immigration and economic policy will appease them at the expense of the Leave demographic.

The failure of the Cathedral-State to ensure a loss for the Leave campaign indicates a growing weakness. However, it is still by any measure the more powerful faction and still has the power to import enough socialism and diversity into Britain to destroy it completely, long before the right-wing opposition develops an effective counter-plan that doesn’t involve elections. The state’s growing weakness, if anything, will make it more likely to attack, harm, and eliminate its domestic enemies.

One likely outcome is that, after years and years of delay and fruitless negotiation, the United Kingdom finally officially leaves the European Union, only to immediately become party to a stack of treaties and agreements recreating the conditions of EU membership in all but name. It would not be hard to mimic the essentials of EU membership without making it obvious. Everyone, including Boris and Nige, agrees that Britain should have all kinds of agreements and treaties with Europe even after Britain leaves the EU. What kinds of treaties will those be? That will be overwhelmingly decided by the academics, journalists, elites, and bureaucrats who will make the final decision.

Another likely outcome is that, as the BBC is reporting, Scotland will hold a second independence referendum (the first was held in 2014), secede from the United Kingdom, rejoin the European Union, and then function as one prong out of two to punish and isolate the remainder of nationalist Britain. Scotland, unlike England, is extremely left-wing, voted 62% to remain in the EU, and the ruling Scottish National Party — backed by the establishment — has no qualms raising the prospect of leaving the British union specifically in order to join the European one. Northern Ireland also voted to remain with 56% of the vote, and the well-known Irish Sinn Fein are already calling for Northern Ireland to secede and unite with the rest of Ireland in the EU.

Particularly vociferous leftists are even petitioning for the secession of London from England, in order to rejoin the EU. They’ve collected more than 175,000 signatures. The thought seems ridiculous now, but the British have historically been fond of international zones for neutral cities, kept peaceful by international forces. They proposed or carried out that idea everywhere from Jerusalem to Danzig, there’s no reason they might not finally try it at home.

A United Kingdom of England and Wales — let’s assume with London still in it — would most likely end up surrounded by the European Union on all sides after Scottish and Northern Irish secession and accession to the EU. Not only that, but that future EU would be even more left-wing and tyrannical than one with England and Wales still in it because they would have that much less rightward pressure on them. And on top of those two horrible outcomes, the remainder of the left-wing bureaucracy in England would probably also end up replicating the EU in all but name through various byzantine treaties and agreements.

This scenario might even be better for Brussels than the current arrangement, since a coterie of little, isolated statelets like Scotland are easier to control and administer like provinces than a small number of enormous states like Britain, France and Spain. That may explain, aside from incoherent rage, why the inner circle of powerful Eurocrats are now pushing for a speedy Brexit.

I sincerely hope this worst-case scenario won’t occur, but it is the current trajectory that Britain is on. The nativist element in Britain can only act as a retardant on the left-ward drift of Britain and the convergence with Brussels as long as they don’t carry out a seismic and decisive change of strategy. Barring that, the state and the elites that back it will have their way.

The Internet lit up with #Brexit hashtags again yesterday as Iceland eliminated England by 2-1 from the UEFA Euro cup, but for all these Brexits, there is no real exit on the horizon for Great Britain. No easy exit, at the very least.

Now is not the time for the Farage camp to rest on their laurels, even for a jiffy. It is time to prepare for a furious and unrestricted pushback.

Mark Yuray is verified on Gab. Follow him there and on Twitter.

Liked it? Take a second to support Social Matter on Patreon!
View All

18 Comments

  1. In many ways, Great Britain (and specifically England) is the perfect experimental case for Neoreaction.

    First, NRx is, by a massive majority, an Anglophone movement. Yes, there are dissident right and even neoreactionary writers in other languages, but the corpus of neoreactionary writings and thought is indisputably in English. You might not think that matters, but it does.

    Second, despite everything, Britain still has the trappings of the ancien regime. She still has landed gentry, lords, and a royal family all tracing their roots back to before the recent unpleasantness.

    So, a theoretical return to sanity for Britain looks like this:
    Queen Elizabeth II dies. It’s going to happen soon; long live the Queen.
    Charles, Prince of Wales either dies (he’s not that young) or abdicates his right to the throne. Given his behaviour his whole life, that doesn’t seem that unlikely.
    Prince William, Duke of Cambridge was born in 1982. That puts him demographically on the far end of the mainstay of neoreaction. So let’s say he’s been reading Moldbug and likes what he sees, or that he rules a short time until Prince George comes of age and takes the throne. In either case, it’s crucial that NRx has captured the attention of the person on the throne.

    So, the new King likes what he hears in Moldbug and on Social Matter. He takes a look around his country with open eyes, and sees the brown trajectory of a Brazil. Instilled with the love of his ancestral land, he decides to take action.

    First, he gets together a coterie of friends in high places. As King, this is actually fairly easy. Let’s say he convinces the Earl of Essex on-side, in no small part by promising to revoke London’s independent city status (so the tax revenues flow into said Earl’s coffers).

    Once he has a group of powerful friends (say, the Earl of Essex, the Duke of York, and his brother the Prince of Wales – if he’s the younger) he starts exercising his royal perogative. First, it starts small. He turns some of the ceremonial duties into real ones once again and starts to influence the market. The swans once again truly become property of the Crown. The lands of the House of Windsor take on real economic production.

    Then it gets bigger. The BBC, under the sole supervision of the Crown, is quietly re-organized, with large internal purges that are not reported. Any civil servants who stand up to this are quietly dismissed at the pleasure of the Crown. High-ranking bureaucrats find their appointments barred by the Crown. None of this goes against the Parliament, who only decide funding and whether or not these various Ministries exist. At the same time, the Crown throws the generals some more power in the Ministry of Defense, telling them to clean house, after they personally swear oaths of loyalty to the Crown (if they haven’t already).

    At the same time, the King engages in a large-scale public relations campaign. He goes fishing and hiking. He goes fox-hunting and quail-shooting. Carefully-chosen photographers take pictures of him with his shirt off, holding a rifle. At the same time, other carefully chosen photographers take pictures of him in an immaculately-leathered study, wearing reading glasses and going through books like War & Peace, or discussing matters with the Lords of the Realm, smoking a pipe and looking serious.

    Finally, after about ten years of this, a crisis is reached. Someone attacks the royal motorcade on the streets of London. The culprit is caught: a radical Muslim with ties to ISIS, living in the worst Shariah zones of East London.

    The new BBC comes out swinging strong for “I’m not racist, and I’m not saying all Muslims are bad, but we need to do something to protect the people! This has gone too far; they’ve attacked the Royal Person!” This is a loyalty test. Any politicians or bureaucrats or ‘experts’ who dissent from the line even slightly are noted down.

    Meanwhile, Scotland and Northern Ireland leave the Union. England waves goodbye, and the line on the street is, “Better off without them.” And it’s true; Scotland and Ireland both are net heavy drains on the English economy.

    Finally, a bill is introduced in Parliament on “The Muslim Question” and what to do about Islam in the streets. This causes a public uproar: royalists on one side, immigrants and internationalists on the other. Things are very tense, and they reach a tipping point: there are a few street brawls and maybe some murders.

    As a compassionate gesture, to protect the people and defuse the situation, the King dissolves Parliament before the bill passes. In the interim, he quietly directs the Ministry of Defense and the Home Office to put together a registry of all British residents whose grandfathers were from other countries. No news of this reaches the public, both because the registry is easy to compile (modern-day Britain is a very efficient surveillance-state) and because it is made quietly clear to the highest levels of management at the BBC, the Telegraph, the Daily Mail, etc. that any word of this would cost their jobs and land them in an interview with the Home Office to determine whether or not they are working for any foreign powers.

    It grows from there.

    Note the first portion, though: we, as a movement, have GOT to capture the elites of Britain. If we can’t, given how well-suited Britain herself is to implementing Neoreactionary practice, I don’t know what we’re even doing here.

    Note also that, for this plan, the greater alt-right populist movement is a death knell. Nothing makes the elites shy away from something like the proles picking it up.

    1. Dedicating Ruckus June 28, 2016 at 1:53 pm

      This is an interesting and plausible idea, and it leads to a better outcome than most. Unfortunately, I think it’s likely to be doomed by events.

      Like Moldbug’s Procedure, this idea depends on a fairly long period of the enduring status quo — that is, the relatively slow entropy-driven degeneration that was the norm in the West from say 1945 on. Moldbug’s more-detailed prescription, crudely paraphrased as “create Antiversity, become authoritative, provide restoration plan, win”, would have taken probably decades at least. Similarly, this is a slow-effect plan; it relies on a fairly long period of no existential crises during which the Royals can leverage their formal authority into reality again.

      The assumption of this working time seemed reasonable around 2010, when Moldbug was writing. However, since then, the Left has for whatever reason decided to immediately double down on trying to fill the First World with Third-worlders. This is perhaps the most immediately catastrophic unprincipled exception they could have chosen to suddenly stop making; it turned up the heat enormously. Significantly, unlike most others, this particular leftist policy has the potential to cause harm that is irreparable even in the event of a future Restoration. Should the Europeans actually be chased out of Europe by Arabs, for instance, it is far from clear that a return to political and cultural sanity in what was left of the European nations, wherever they might be, could rectify the damage.

      This accelerated schedule has greatly changed the parameters in which any restoration must operate. It is now quite urgent to implement damage-control measures at least before the Left can successfully carry through further destruction. (The question of why exactly the Left chose this moment to shift into high gear, and what precisely they think their endgame in all of this is, I will leave unexplored for lack of a clue.)

      So what are the parameters now? The first stage of Moldbug’s Procedure has been half-implemented. A large and growing number of people now place no credence in the pronouncements of the Cathedral; this has fuelled the rise of the alt-right. However, we have no Antiversity to provide an alternate center of power. The information vacuum will presumably be filled by a chaotic cloud of diversely tendentious clamors, individuals to believe whom they please. (The ability of the Cathedral to tame this chaos has, for the moment, been hampered by Cathedral organs’ univocal determination to pretend that the ongoing Third World invasion is not in any sense a problem; this is so transparently false that despite their positions of power, Cathedralites have so far been unable to re-amass their squandered credibility. How long this will last is anyone’s guess; it is mysterious to me why the Cathedral does not merely trim toward nationalism, deflate the alt-right’s support, and move on as before.)

      So what is to be done? I have no notion, Cassandra’s visions being (thankfully?) denied me. The replacement of the Cathedral’s information organs with a chaotic vacuum is unlikely to be enormously propitious, cathartic in schadenfreude though it may be. It is possible that the nationalists and the alt-right will come into power and successfully implement damage control against the Left’s most current attack. This would probably be a step forward; nationalism, while flawed, is at least more real than the globalism of the “international community”. However, it seems unlikely that the alt-right or the nationalist parties as they currently exist will end democracy or let the kings return, and without that, any respite gained will be only temporary.

      At the moment, I cannot see any path to power for the intellectual and elitist programs of neoreaction. The stormy seas of history have us, and our designs as well as our enemies’ are tossed by the wave. Making long-term plans at this moment, though it may be a useful intellectual exercise, seems doomed in terms of actual implementation. It seems the only way forward is to become worthy, watch for opportunity, and pray.

      1. It’s true that the Cathedral’s decision to pour molten lava onto the frog is practically ensuring a populist right-wing backlash. That’s why it’s important for the NRx plan to remain impervious both to state suppression (official or unofficial) as well as populist explosions.

      2. Regarding timing, it fits Obama’s schedule. Now he is in his last 2 years with no national elections until he leaves office. If he’s going to do his worst, he will do it now. Maybe this affected Merkel’s timing, because Obama will support her fully now.

        Hillary is trying to “trim toward nationalism” and reject as much of her controversial past positions, adopting a lot of Trump’s positions now. She’s rejecting TPP publicly all of a sudden, for which she was a major advocate. Not sure what else the Dems could do, they have some lousy candidates.

        1. Dedicating Ruckus June 29, 2016 at 3:11 am

          I think you may be attributing overmuch influence to specific elected politicians. It may have been Merkel who decided to start flooding Europe with refugees, but conspiracy theories aside, she alone can’t give orders to every newspaper and TV outlet in the Cathedral, not to mention Facebook. The most interesting thing here is not Merkel’s immigration decisions, but the media cover without which Merkel’s immigration decisions wouldn’t last a month; it’s this that I’m pondering the timing and justification of.

          1. She says “refugees welcome” and they flood in. They get their information thru the internet, social media etc. How is mass media necessary for this? Isn’t it just a case where an uncontrollable Angela Merkel who spent a career maneuvering into this position, got or was given an evil thought, made this announcement, and now the whole world looks on in horror, helpless?

    2. I like this plan. The question is: does anyone have Prince William’s racist blog URL?

    3. Arthur Marian June 28, 2016 at 6:47 pm

      Nope, Rhetocrates – this won’t work. I think you’ve been reading too much Shakespeare, and not spent enough time in the UK. This scenario is like a blueprint from a CheKa manual of the 1920’s, as amended by the Gestapo in the 1930’s. Of course conspiracy and subterfuge can be very successful, but then, what? Naked power? Tyranny? Such a solution will only last, at the most, a generation or two, and then will be totally discredited, perhaps for centuries.

      What, then, will work? What can last? For good or ill, most inhabitants of the Anglosphere have evolved an inner morality that resonates with external virtue. If somehow you can tap into that moral sense, you can then begin to create something that will not be ephemeral. The classic example is, of course, Mahatma Gandhi, who basically shamed the British out of their Indian possessions without firing a shot, with the consequence of reducing the greatest Empire the world had ever seen back to its original form as an island off the coast of Europe. He never hated, demonized, or belittled his overlords – he spoke quietly and with respect – simplicity and humility were his weapons, and they were ultimately spectactularly successful.

      A few good men and women, and then some more, and still more. Respectful, dignified, peaceable – spewing no contempt for others or their cultures, but holding onto their Truths. If they get jailed for their views, so much the better, as martyrs are always valuable political capital, and prisons have often been good recruiting grounds for dissidents. There is nothing new in this – the early Christians at the beginning gathered the poor, the slaves and the dispossessed until they overwhelmed the Roman Empire. Islamic fundamentalists are doing this right now – the jailbirds, the lost, the destitute are specifically targeted to become part of the Islamic State.

      But, hey! It’s just an idea.

      1. R. J. Moore II June 28, 2016 at 9:53 pm

        Ghandhi’s ‘vvin’ depended upon the overvvhelming support of the British chattering classes on the Bolshevik side, and the tacit acceptance of ‘self-determination’ by the rest. Like America, India did not ‘vvin’ its independence, it vvas gifted to them by a sclerotic empire that had lost the vvill to continue persecuting the vvar – France vvon the American VVar of Independence, contrary to popular (American) versions of the story. The Times freed India.

        1. Arthur Marian June 29, 2016 at 7:05 am

          OK, I’ll give you that. Let’s assume Gandhi was a nasty, scheming cynic, and by studying the strengths and weaknesses of the British he came up with a cunning plan to free India with the minimum pain. I think the method would have been almost identical: no infrastructure was destroyed, the railways, army and civil service were already mainly run by native Indians so was handed over whole. Not all Indians supported independence, and Gandhi’s method prevented Indian society from tearing itself apart and requiring a long period of reconstruction.

          Whilst there was communal violence and blood-letting in the North between Muslims and Hindus, as they vied for territory, the main enemy, the British, parted without firing a shot. Wasn’t that worth something? I would say Virtue was rewarded.

  2. Mark – I assume from your enthusiasm for Brexit that you think it’s a Good Thing. I’m not so sure, and would like to hear your reasons. To be sure, Nationalism was integral to the debate, both the traditional-nostalgic variety and the more modern, harder version, but to see the vote mainly as a rejection of socialism and the left-wing dominance of the EU is, I believe, a mistake. Many left-wing voters also chose Brexit as they considered the EU as not “left” enough, and perceived it as a conspiracy of Germany, and the banks and corporations to drive down the costs of labor and impose what they saw as harsh fiscal discipline which would hit at the poorest.

    Britain was always a reluctant member, grudgingly accepting the need for a common market, but grew increasingly hostile to the centralizing tendencies of the EU “Center”. Economic growth and development has been stagnant in Britain, as in most of the Western World for some time, and crises on Europe’s borders, deflation, and mass uncontrolled immigration have added to the cocktail. Despite all this I think that it’s interesting not that 52% voted to leave, but that 48% wanted to remain in the EU.

    There is, indeed, a large public sector in Britain, as in the rest of Europe, but my many years of experience with it tells me that it reflects the political views of the general population, and is not hostage to any particular ideology. I don’t understand your question about who got fired. Fired for what? For holding a specific point of view? Politicians will surely lose office, some will resign, and others will take the place, that is in the nature of things, but there will no mass sackings – the bureaucrats will do what they’re told – and that’s it.

    1. I don’t think it’s a good thing so much as I think it’s funny and just desserts for the fractured elites in power. Is gravity a good thing? I’m glad it’s there, I guess, but sometimes I could do without it.

      I’ll comment on the views of public sector employees, since that is an interesting point. It’s often claimed that public sector employees share the political views of the population at large, and yet, if that was the case, the government would probably be run a lot more efficiently than it is. But it isn’t. Why?

      Anyone who receives privileges or benefits from the state (in this case, a cushy public sector career), is going to act as an agent of the state in order to shore up their own position. This is not even so much a commentary on human nature as it is on inertia, but human nature plays an important role too.

      Public sector employees’ opinions don’t matter. Their incentives are aligned with the Left and with the state, and they faithfully act on those incentives on the whole, the few who don’t corresponding perfectly to the proportion of the general population who have untrammeled agency — a small share, to be sure.

      How about those “conservative women” who “totally aren’t feminist,” but support women in the workplace and the other 603 shibboleths of feminist ideology? Same thing, same dynamics.

    2. R. J. Moore II June 28, 2016 at 9:55 pm

      Even given the Communist tendecies of some Brexiters (and Scots UK, as vvell) a smaller country is forced to be more rational simply due to competition, & is less able to inflict its mental disorders on anyone else. Secession is basically alvvays good, even if its the Commies – at least you got rid of the Commies!

  3. Arthur Marian June 28, 2016 at 8:14 pm

    I can’t quite see that there’s a connection between the private political convictions of a public employee and the efficiency of of a government service. Government by its very nature is inefficient and requires constant adjustments – it is not a cookie factory where raw materials, production methods and targets can be set and measured. People are messy, with various needs and priorities, and any government will reflect this, in any society, at any time in history.

    I don’t agree that public sector employees are automatically aligned with the Left. Is a policeman preventing a burglary aligned with the Left? Is a community garbage collector aligned with the Left? Is a public health inspector investigating food poisoning aligned with the Left? With the state, certainly, but there’s no ideology here.

    As regards feminism, I’ve never quite understood it, nor hostility to it, either. Women are people, period. Some want babies, some want careers. Some like men, some hate them. Some are vociferous, some are quiet. All of them, like us men, want to be treated with respect. Oh, and they all have physical bits that I rather like, but that’s another story.

    1. R. J. Moore II June 28, 2016 at 9:58 pm

      This is one thing the AltRight often doesn’t get, ‘good government’ is a sort of impossibility if by ‘government’ you mean ‘bureaucratic managerial states’. Vox Day (among others) is enthusiastic for ‘nation states’, vvhereas I’d much rather see the Holy Roman Empire – complete vvith intercine vvars and vendettas – than anything that involves a God damn lavvyer vomiting out pages of muhPatriotismLavv.

      1. It goes without saying that if you judge whether a person is a ‘person’ by male traits, you will probably distort that person, if that person is female. It’s intriguing how feminism is just an extension of certain chauvinistic ideas about man that feminism claims to exist to counteract.

        I would judge the ‘humanity’ of a man by male traits, and the ‘humanity’ of a female by female traits, setting aside what they have in common. Vociferous opinions and agency on childbearing are male; after all, if you don’t bear the child and aren’t built to bear the child, you get a choice about child-bearing. And, as the apostle said, women should remain in silence (during important social gatherings.) This prevents them from being disrupting rather than acting as a social glue, which they do otherwise.

        Anyone who has dealt with women not under subjection in the workplace understands what I’m saying.

        Our other interlocutor should read some Carlyle – there is definitely a difference between liberal ‘governance’ by right-policy-formula-law and rule by judgment-law. The latter is indeed a producer of bureaucracies that are not only more or less inherently leftist, but also sclerotic to an extreme – constantly needing Low-High vs. Mid internal bloodshed to keep them from assuming the crown.

        1. That should read ‘the former’ in reference to governance systems.

          It is a real problem when you bind yourself so far down with agreements in that in order to not be a lawbreaker judgment is impossible.

  4. R. J. Moore II June 28, 2016 at 9:43 pm

    I think it’s interesting that many US nationalists support Brexit but DON’T support dismembering the USA, even though the FedGov is far more intrusive and repulsive than even the EU. muhConstitution.

Comments are closed.