October 21th 2020
United in Freedom. Strong in Loyalty.
Modern states began their decline with the Industrial Revolution, when free competition and individual initiative took the reins of social dynamics and mercantile and manufacturing companies began to assume a good part of the public functions that were previously entrusted exclusively to the State.
Social inequality diversified, expanding the hierarchical structure which, until that moment, had a privileged minority and an immense majority of the lower class. But the transcendental novelty brought by the Industrial Revolution did not lie in the multiplicity of social and economic strata, but in the foundation of inequality, which came to reside in a decisive way not in the cradle but in free and fair competition, where “fair” is synonymous with inequality established on the basis of personal merit derived from the effort, talent and luck of individuals.
Parallel to the process in which the Modern State was losing social power where the Industrial Revolution was most prosperous with its model of “just inequality”, there was a counter-movement that sought to react to the collapse of the “Old Regime” by creating a new absolutism equally based on “cradle inequality” and the control of free individual initiative at the hands of an aristocratic clique, but which adopted revolutionary rhetoric in order to avoid the revolution of individual freedom.
On the basis of this new absolutism of popular aristocracy and not, at least initially, on that of the masses of “urban industrial peasantry” excluded from free competition because they lack training, means and opportunities and, therefore, condemned to a servile condition, a variant of the “Old Regime” arises, “Socialist Collectivism,” characterized by reducing social classes from two to one on the basis of imposing a populist egalitarianism. Against this, and in constant conflict, the liberacist model evolves, based on the principle of just inequality.
The collectivist (socialist) alternative to the decline of the modern world consists in an antemodernity, that is, in a return not to absolutist monarchies but to a new collectivist absolutism that takes the form of court feudalism in which different political dynasties compete for power, hereditary of course.
The liberacist alternative, on the contrary, consists of a post-modernity that seeks to increase the individual freedom that emerged in the Renaissance, thanks to which ordinary people are no longer subject to the yoke of servitude, isolation, immobility and gregarious anonymity.
The first option, the collectivist one, is indebted to the French Revolution, in which the popular classes did not demolish the foundations of the “Ancien régime”, but universalized the privileges of the nobility extending them equally to all. Proof of this is that that revolution was followed by a collectivizing (Napoleonic) imperialism that sought, then as now, to impose by force on all countries and peoples the antemodern ideology of the ancient noble privileges universalized in the form of human rights.
The scheme of this internationalist imperialism is simple: We are all noble. But, to achieve this, we must reduce inequalities so that, with its filings, equality can be financed. An economically inefficient system that generates successive and repeated failures, after which one enters into a dictatorship exactly like that of the Old Regime, controlled by a minority class, in this case, of political aristocrats.
It is the aristocratic zeal that moves socialist collectivism. All men are born of noble birth, with privileges guaranteed for life. That was the French Revolution. These are its consequences. A universalization of noble rights, a globalized Ancien régime. The equality of uniformity and anonymity of the collective erected as the only individual with the capacity to decide through its head: the new monarchy and its court. Because it is not a matter of overthrowing royalty but of occupying it. It is not a representative of the citizens who assumes the government of the nation, but an emperor who launches himself to the conquest of other nations.
The second alternative, the liberacist one, is indebted to the American Revolution which, in turn, has as its antecedents the Glorious Revolution and British liberalism. Here the noble privileges of the old world are not universalized, but directly and cleanly eliminated. No one is born with any other right for life than life itself and fair competition on equal terms as the only source of social inequality in which each is master and responsible for his own destiny. The State is a mere manager-guarantor of free and fair competition, an arbiter of fair play between individuals and companies and, at the same time, the legitimate defender of this space of freedom.
In the American Revolution (and its subsequent aftermath) everyone wanted to end the aristocracy by universalizing a single right: to have only what each one deserves thanks to their effort, talent and luck. That was the real revolution, because it ended the privileges of the old regime and not simply popularized them. The French Revolution established the injustice of equality: all noble, all with the same rights of birth, all without freedom to shape their own destiny… except the courtiers: the politicians and their partners who benefit from state intervention in the economy. The American Revolution established the justice of inequality: all ignoble, all masters of their destiny and debtors of themselves. Also the aristocrats, who had to descend into the ring of free competition to maintain their social position.
We have reached the final stage of a cycle started in the Renaissance, when modern states will be definitely replaced by the new normality of the Old Regime or by a model of society advancing on the path consecrated by the American Revolution. The collectivist response, antemodern, is now embodied in Naconal Socialism. The liberacist, however, is working on the model with which it must confront the old absolutist enemy in this Rampjaar (disastrous year) of 2020.
National Socialism limits or postpones its economic deficiency by allowing free initiative controlled by the ruling class, the new political-business aristocracy, through state intervention in the economy. A free competition of individuality castrated by the arbitration of rigged rules of the game and by fiscal confiscation. A monopoly of protected free competition. An absolutist regime whose servants enjoy a populist oligopoly in which they believe to be free and, at the same time, to be “protected” in the feudal way by the Welfare State that guarantees them certain birthright.
Populism consists in making people believe that all have been born equally fortunate, blessed by noble privileges that give them free rights and life supported by… the people.
The National Socialist model of free competition is therefore deceptive, because it assumes a situation very similar to the oligopolistic mercantilism of the Indian companies, which enjoyed aristocratic privileges against the background of an incipient free market. In fact, the National Socialist State is constituted, to a greater extent than it may seem at first sight, as a copy of the East India Company. A state corporation of companies brought together by a court of political aristocrats. Exactly the same model adopted by China after the economic failure of the Soviet international socialist regime.
The “national” companies of the Third Reich or of the People’s Republic of China, controlled by a political-business oligarchy, are the tentacles of the current renewed Old Regime, specifically adapted to compensate for its weakness in the face of the liberacist states that emerged precisely from the end of those colonial companies that settled in British America and of the predecessors of Robber baron (robber barons) that governed them. Some governors of the colonial companies whose shadow has persisted to this day in the epic imaginary of the current “Sons of Liberty” as “Globalist Elites”, identified with a new aristocracy that resists losing its old oligopolistic customs, and who act in practice as vassals of the emerging Chinese National Socialist empire, which they serve in the conviction that the New World Order will guarantee them the noble privileges through which they intend to play to their advantage in the new “mercantilism” characterized, as that of four hundred years ago, by an omnipotent intervention of the State in the economy.
The Antemodernity of the new absolutist regime, National Socialism, consists precisely in returning to medieval conditions to, from there, impose the absolutism of the Modern State as the new and only normality through which to save us from the chaos represented by the Plague of the 19th. And it is precisely in Europe where there is the most favorable breeding ground for the return to the Middle Ages.
Present-day European neo-feudalism began in the Cold War with the use of social democracy as a vaccine for “attenuated communism” by preventing the massive spread of the communist virus. The spread of the ideological international socialist pandemic was prevented, but the side effects of the social democratic vaccine constituted, via “antigenic original sin” and immunological weakening of the European social organism, the basis for the establishment of a national socialist regime under different political-sanitary formulas: social democracy, Christian democracy, social liberalism, progressive Christianity (Protestant and Catholic). … as well as the new commercial preparations of the active collectivist principle: migrationism, conservationist ecology, asymmetrical feminism … Islamism.
Under the medieval conditions established with the alibi of the new Plague (permission from the feudal lords to leave our village towns, to meet, to approach others, stripped of personal contact, with online medical care behind the confessional grid, curfews and business closures, witch-hunt and dissident…) the majority of the population will be infected with attenuated communism (the vaccine is, in the end, the disease) in its most undetectable, asymptomatic form, once the evidence of the totalitarian evil is hidden by the media’s analgesics and anti-inflammatories. Meanwhile, a large part of the dissident minority will be subtly controlled by two extraordinarily simple and effective social engineering procedures:
- By making the resisters reject the use (for their benefit) of technological and scientific advances, conveniently wrapped in a medieval satanic (conspiratorial) aura, and thus making them self-confined in their “medievalized mental and physical villages” and renounce fighting with the new weapons, which will be enjoyed exclusively by the collaborationist “authorities” and the occupying power.
- Making them focus their attacks only against a part of the collectivist conglomerate, that of the aristocrats, the new “robber barons” to whom is attributed (and only to them) the plan to reinstate the world oligopoly and to submit to the servitude of their new colonial companies. The power of the Han Empire, its colonial companies and its business elites is thus safeguarded.
A return to the Middle Ages that is not only explained by the psychosocial effects of the social-democratic vaccine, but because at the head of this society are small feudal lords aware of their mediocrity and limited power.
The founding fathers of the United States knew that their destiny was linked to that of their fellow citizens. On the contrary, the bastard children of social democracy in its multiple versions are convinced that they and their families can be saved, even if the others, the “people,” condemn themselves. That is the most solid and immediate reason to explain the behavior of the majority of the political-business leaders of the West in the face of the lightning offensive of National Socialism led by China. That is the last and decisive reason why our leaders allow and collaborate with the massive deception that takes us back to the Middle Ages.
Neo-feudalism has placed in the hands of mediocre officials the feudal power unified by the court of Brussels. Those are our pastors and those are their sticks. It has established a new social class which, depending on the quality of the people it governs, is only concerned with and occupied with their particular interests. They act this way out of weakness. Because they think that they and their families have secured a place on the Titanic’s rescue boats which they consider lost. And they think so because they are seeing, in awe, that the vast majority of voters/taxpayers accept with resignation the fate that awaits them as third-class passengers, while listening to the soothing music of the media.
A mutiny, however small, of passengers who do not accept their third-class destination and our leaders would become aware that either we are all saved or they are not. And then, and only then, would they take the lead in the revolution to stop the collectivist invasion with which they now collaborate.
But they know that none of this will happen as long as we all think, in a collectivist and gregarious way, that without a mass, without an already formed and loyally directed majority, it is not possible to twist destiny with our own hands. That it is better to collaborate, not to resist, not to be pointed out, to let oneself be dragged by the human tide, trying to keep the spirit of Lynch from setting its eyes on us. Even though we know deep down that none of this can save us from the cold waters of loss of freedom and prosperity.
There will be no salvation without revolution. There will be no revolution if we do not regain faith in the power of our individuality.
Let’s forget about the majority. Let us act without waiting for anyone, and when we find others like us, let us join them. It happened in the Tea Party. And then, in each of the battles that, seeming doomed to defeat, ended with the great victory of independence, freedom and prosperity.
We are not third-class passengers. We become first class passengers simply by realizing that the ticket we were boarded with is a fucking paper that tears effortlessly and that, in situations like the one we are experiencing, each person’s individual strength is worth its weight in lead and gunpowder precisely because in front of it there is only a cowardly minority hiding behind an ignorant mass.
What is about to be forged, although hardly anyone sees it, is a new alliance of individuals in the form of corporations. An Order like that of the Templars. A virtual state not restricted to a territory (even if they possess territorial assets), which functions as business corporations guided by the sole purpose of guaranteeing the greatest freedom and prosperity for their citizens-shareholders. The new Indian companies under the sovereignty of the people of free individuals, who compete among themselves to be the best areas of freedom and prosperity. A Libercist Order with its doctors, teachers, lawyers, guards…
Either those liberacist corporations, or the new global National Socialist absolutism, with its old regime and its robber barons. There is nowhere else to go since about 15,000 years ago: either to the collectivist Empire or to the Freedom Corporation. Or back to the Old World antepostmodern or beyond the horizon of the New World discovered by the founding citizens.
On November 3rd, all of us liberacists, from both sides of the border, will be able to win some time. But, in any case, whatever happens in that battle, we have no choice but to set the New Revolution in motion and create the foundations of the Liberacist Corporation of the New West. It doesn’t matter if it starts with a few people or with a broad set of citizens, institutions and businesses. That seed must be planted now or we will all be confined to the Dark Ages of a thousand years.