Vpx is correct to call Trump a moderate, and the elite hate him, for he listens to the concerns of the non elite. He is a populist. My concern is that he will not allow a better structure to occur. The best system, in the west, is a republic of laws: where the Law is king, and the Law reflects the Law-giver, God. This means an overt encouragement of Christianity, a Catholic (universal church) a reasonably sized army, and few laws firmly enforced.

And the government intrudes less into our lives. What Free Northerner calls a privatized government. That allows neither Lords nor the Lords of the corporations to micromanage anyone. For the King is sovereign in parliament, with the consent of the people.

This has been abraded by treaties that favour the corporations, and corporations that favour the elite. But that shoud change It will mean that the credentialed, however, will not rule, but live in their sheltered workshop, the university.

The current social order is slowly(?) collapsing. The money’s run out, inflation and cheap debt are reaching the limits of their ability to mask insolvency, the natives are growing increasingly restless, low-level guerilla war is rising, and our culture and cohesion are breaking down. What can not last forever, won’t. Eventually this social order will be replaced.

What will it be replaced by?

One option is a slow limping decline/dark age. Another is simple collapse and anarchy, possibly an on-going low-level civil war. Another possibility, particularly in Europe, is Islam. A fourth possibility is a leftist singularity. The most likely possibility is a right-wing surge of the native population and the violent expulsion of the elites and invaders.

You’ll notice that all of these are bloody. Neoreaction wants to avoid this. To do so, we are building an ideological and, eventually, structural basis for a leader* to arise and implement the neoreactionary agenda by making a bargain with the elites.

The neoreactionary bargain to the elites will essentially be this:

Your regime will fall. It can fall to the leftist chaos, Islamic invaders, or right-wing populists, but it will fall. Any of those three groups will happily and ruthlessly exterminate you and your families, probably after torture, reeducation, work camps, rape, and/or enslavement. The leader knows that violent revolutions of any type tends to end poorly for the country and he also would like to avoid death camps and mass executions if possible. So he will make a deal.

If you willingly divest power to the leader, he will restore orderly government. He will expel the Islamic invaders, halt the leftist singularity, and placate the right-wing populists. Current higher elites will be allowed to keep some of your wealth (and your lives) as long as you obey the new order; lower elites and officials hostile to the new order will be retired on a modest, livable stipend and not be further harassed as long as you remain private. Some of the most criminal of the elites will have to meet final justice but it will be served cleanly and measuredly, there will be no torture, no camps, and families will be spared and treated well.

You can give power to the leader, who will formalize and privatize government, or you can try your odds with chekists, Islamic militants, and right-wing death squads?

This is the neoreactionary bargain to the elites: surrender power to a leader to formalize government and be treated well, or be exterminated by one of the populist groups.

I cannot see the elite doing this. THey follow dysfunctional scripts. They always double down. And they damage, for they affect not merely our institutions but our lives. In this world we must all be beautiful. We must embrace ugliness and call it beauty. We must all be healthy: we must embrace the plagues that kill us and call that recovery. And we must not serve one another.

We must not be interdependent. This is Ann, who discussed crying as she, when she had to leave this accomodation, cleaned the kitchen for the last time.

Flash forward to today, wherein one of the main focuses of my writing and lecturing is Diabolical Narcissism. Diabolical Narcissism is the psycho-spiritual driver behind most of the cultural pathologies we see around us today. Diabolical Narcissism is broadly defined as when a human being, like the fallen angels, freely chooses to purge themselves of all charity, leaving them incapable of love or empathy, and capable of only the demonic emotional palate of anger, hatred, jealousy and fear. These people are incredibly dangerous to souls as they, like the demons, literally hunt other human beings, attempting to murder not their bodies, but their souls, out of pure spite.

One of the points of nexus I made early on in researching Diabolical Narcissism was that the subset of Marxism commonly called “feminism” is nothing less than the explicit attempt to turn women en masse into Diabolical Narcissists – whereas women have historically comprised less than 20% of the total of Diabolical Narcissists in western populations. Feminism demands that a woman be totally selfish, and beyond that hate men qua men, hate marriage, and even hate their own children to the point of demanding the state-protected, state-financed ability to premeditatedly murder them.

But where it all began was with the notion that any sort of work performed by a woman around the house was drudgery, a waste of time, an act of patriarchal oppression, even legalized slavery. Many women today in the post-Christian west are shockingly bad housekeepers, and not just because they are working outside the home. Many stay-at-home wives and mothers are content to live in squalor, even proud of the fact that they are “sticking it to the man”, boasting of their refusal to clean or inability to cook.

Are we surprised? As true charity is purged from every corner of our culture, replaced with a self-worshiping narcissistic humanism, is it any wonder that today’s women are simply incapable of understanding how it could possibly be that cleaning the kitchen, doing the laundry, or even that most primordial of caring acts, FEEDING another human being, could possibly make them happy, much less fulfill them as women on this mortal coil?

One of my favorite movies is 1954’s “Marty” starring Ernest Borgnine. A side plot in the film revolves around two widowed sisters, immigrants from Italy, living in the Bronx. One widowed sister has just moved in with her son, his new wife and their infant child. The mother is angry and frustrated with her daughter-in-law because the mother can no longer be the sole housekeeper. While her behavior toward her daughter-in-law is selfish and wrong, she gives a moving speech to her sister, also a widow but still living in her large family home and taking care of her remaining bachelor son, Marty, about the horror of growing old and not having anyone to take care of, not having anything to do.

To today’s women and girls, this sentiment is incomprehensible. How could a woman complain, much less fall into a depression, because she doesn’t have to clean up after anyone, doesn’t have to do anyone’s laundry, doesn’t have to cook? In other words, how can a woman not be overjoyed at having no one to love?

Goodness me, how I do hate feminism with a perfect hatred.

Far better to live plain. Far better to be provincial.

Do not be the elite, and do not be like them.