Government is the technics of the mass.
Government is the outward manifestation of its Race-Culture. It shares, or one could say, ‘should share’, the mores, traditions [e.g. common-law, precedents, customs], and combined historical outlook of the entire body of persons making up the Nation. As experience teaches us however, technics will always take on a life of its own in the systematic evolution of all organisms through birth, life, and senility. It may be that these changes in technics will be considered good or bad by those which stand to lose or gain power over their particular agendas; to protect these investments, sometimes literally, a monolith of control, that is to say, a government large enough to control whatever may chance to arise and disrupt it, had to be created. Hence, the concept ‘bigger is better’ was justified.
The literal growth of individuals, nationally, becomes the Race-Culture with the passing of time, so also, its technics. Western culture has always evolved within this cycle of change, and has created various ‘forms’ of government to deal with the ongoing role of ‘people vs. state’. In this age however, technics, as a tool ‘of and for the People’, has become synonymous with overt control, manipulation of the press, and behavior modification on a mass scale for the purpose of directing the life of the ‘the people’ to the aims and goals of persons who are, for the most part, out of step with the ‘host race-culture’ of the West.
These persons who control the technics of our age, through an ongoing process, have convinced the people that bigger armies, buildings, and ‘bigger and better’ government are essential to a free world; yet the bigger the government then, conversely, means that its [government] will or force of will becomes, as rudimentary probability will show, as BIG as the technics of government have become. In other words, the force of a government is matched simply by its very size. This has always been seen as the natural outcome of any civilization, which, seeks to extend itself for as long as possible. It is simply the birth, life, and senility of every organism.
The largest organic manifestation of the modern Western technic has been the ascendancy of that ever-encroaching ‘mechanism’, over man. Bigger and faster machines seemed the panacea of capitalism, for absolute production was the art of the Modern; but in doing so, he ensured that ever ‘brutal and microscopic man, his capacity ever smaller, to fulfill the spiritual and esoteric truths of his ‘inner soul’. Ever ‘less’ was his sense of aspiration and manly self-discipline, which is, ultimately, his mark of nobility, and which lies at the very root of his ‘genius’ – true Aristocratic Nobility – which will lead, ultimately, to that very disintegration of that ‘noble character’ under that unpleasant reality of the ‘mob’, that dearest of maneuvers, so loved of the Modern who, having no direction, other than its own ‘direction’, its own needs, devolves to the level, that inevitable level, of the mediocre and selfish ‘mass man’. This, of course, levels all to the lowest ‘value’ of the one mind, the ethos’ of the smallest and meanest; this, the continuing experiment of the modern ‘equalitarian’.
It is, then, in consequence, that this ‘value of the mechanism’, this value given to ‘production’, is the true value, the true sense of ‘god’, in which the Modern has placed his values. It is part of his present and future presence. But has this method, this ‘value’ proven itself through the ages?
It has not.
This force/value, this ‘technic of the mechanism’, has not come to fruition in Western man’s perception of himself as a Noble man, as a character which holds to the spirit, as well as the body, in harmonious union. He, the Modern, happily seeks the bigger and faster machine, while remaining microscopic in outlook, as well as meaner, or low born, in his daily intercourse with his fellows. His laws increase proportionately, and his spirit grows meaner in order to overcome his opponents. He shows not that care and compassion so readily needed for a social organism to survive. Swept away by the daily demands upon his time by unrelenting machines and their owners, his pace is unnatural, artificially keeping pace with something that is, inherently, non-human. His natural needs and duties are now subsumed by the need and duties of the ‘mechanism’. The technics of this age however, were to bring ‘all mankind’ that equity, that equality of labor and production so sought after by the [French] Revolutionists. It was to bring Democracy.
Democracy, or at least a ‘form’ of democracy, has been brought to bear upon every established Western, and even non-Western countries, not by simple ballot, but through the force of arms, revolution, assassination, kidnapping, fiscal maneuvers and the like, to prove that democracy works; that is, which ‘speaks’ for the mass.· The Modern is used to ‘coercion’, in the name of ‘democratic’ ideals – hence the ‘proof’ that it works. Coercion, especially under the colour of ‘law’, at whatever level, has been the driving force behind ‘all’ forms of government, including the Modern’s vision of ‘democracy’ since the 15th century.
In his writings on the German philosopher Goethe, G.H. Lewes gives us a view of the precepts and form of democracy demanded of by the [democratic] revolutionaries of France [of which the hungry American revolutionaries suckled from], which numbered three principle characteristics promulgated by these revolutionaries which, to Goethe, were the ultimate in absurdities:
The first was the doctrine of equality; not simply in the eyes of the law (this was accepted), but of ‘absolute equality’…the second revolutionary principle was the doctrine of government by the people…the mob became the tyrant…the third revolutionary principle was, that political freedom is necessary to man…[emph. added]
Over the past five-hundred years, Western man has come to believe these tenets with the utmost veracity, so as to cringe at any criticism whatsoever regarding his monopoly of power based, as it were, on anything but the democratic process.
To accept democracy however, one must believe that every ‘man’s opinion has its worth equal to that of the next man’s’. This, of course, is the accepted appearance of the democracy of the West. But to the waking eye, it is obvious that something is wrong with the machine, with the process by which we have put so much faith in; as Lawrence Brown points out however, democracy ”… in operation is not concerned with everyone’s opinion – that is merely its technical form – but only with the organized opinion of those whose opinion’s can be made politically ‘effective’.” [emph. added] All these points must be addressed in the context of the Modern for, ultimately, the source of the government must now dictate which of these conditions, namely, ‘equality’, if it be admitted that such does exist, or the simple-minded ‘appearance’ of equality in the [organized] political process, governs the West.
The legacy of modern Western governments, that is, the modern Nation/State, branched from two main sources, neither of which was truly democratic: Hereditary and Elective leadership. Of these two forms, ‘hereditary leadership’ was the first ‘great’ leadership technics of the West, and was seen in the formation of the ‘absolute’ Monarchy; the monarchy, in turn, was the progeny of the original system by which ‘the people’ chose their king by affirmation; the ‘rule’ of ‘rule by divine right’ came much later. Elective government, akin to what our early efforts on this continent would show us, was based on the ‘leadership principle’, that is, based upon merit: merit based on ‘character’, ‘personality’, and ‘example’ which was the day to day habits and conditions of life that created the ‘character’ of the person chosen, and by which the people felt a certain affinity. Close living approximation aided in this effort; we have a harder time of it, simply because it is ‘hard to know’ who we choose for our leaders. Constitutional government is a relatively new form of technic, since with time the formulation of ‘legal nuance’ comes with the complex form of national legal systems, which are the inevitable outcome of ‘modern’ civilization. Anyone who takes any time whatsoever to observe what is going on around them will, of necessity, see the multitudinous amount of Lawyers and their hangers-on. Lawyers, by definition ‘study and practice law’ for the betterment of the social politic. When the ‘size’ of government dictates the presence of so many lawyers, the common man is removed, and then again, from the system which was ‘designed’ for the common man. A system in which a man could defend himself, without benefit of a lawyer. Constitutionalism was designed to provide a ‘simple’ set of guidelines for the public to follow. Here, then, does the irony of the moment become manifest.
Constitutional States are seen, today, by the modern, as the growth of ‘civilization’ over that of barbarism; the Modern does not question the accuracy of this perception – but would, if he were honest. We, therefore, ‘the posterity’ of those who ‘defined our constitutionalism’, those of us who ‘love’ and ‘care’ for our Nation and its living Culture, must question this perception, and we will.
From Sargon the Great, Hamurabi, Cyrus and Alexander; from Alaric, Charlemagne, Louis XIV, from the Magna Carta to King George I, the struggle between the race-culture and those who formed and developed its technics [form government], were continually striving for dominance. This, the continuing struggle [duality] necessary for a people to grow and overcome themselves. When all the smoke has cleared from these various combats, and the field becomes visible to us one again, it allows us to see what was not understood readily by us ‘in the eye of the storm’. Each particular struggle between dominant and opposing parties was part of the natural rhythms and cycles of our culture. The people, ultimately, know what is best for their future, even if unable to articulate themselves to others, like the modern.
Each particular form or technic of the past has its ‘supporter’ and ‘detractors’, depending upon who considered what is bad or good; it should be remembered that even during the American Revolution it was the thought of the day by most of the ‘leading’ citizens of the Revolution to make George Washington a ‘King’ in the manner of the English, a system that most ‘educated’ men of the day were conscious of, knew both its good and bad character. The early American revolutionaries were not fighting ‘rule by a King’, but were fighting the ‘how’ of that rule. They struggled against an aristocratic system, which had failed them; and which [the ruling system] did not readily understand the tremendous power that open spaces and freedom can give men. The English forgot what their own beginnings had wrought through ‘struggle and change’, through sacrifice and blood. In this case, like so many others, it was that pyramidal system, or its officer corps, which had become estranged from the consciousness of the many. It is interesting, then, that in the above context democracy, as such, was an illusion – for it was a single head [in both cases] that controlled the body. The previous ‘age’, just as with the new, had produced great events, and the ‘great’ men that anticipated them. The paradox was that this flowering had taken place at the very time in which ‘complete’ autocratic control was paramount.
That the flowering of the West was seen during the lives of men such as Petrarch, Louis XIV, Erasmus, Cervantes and Locke who, each in turn, either made his way in a most tempestuous world, or as in the case of Louis XIV, made his world out of tempest, is an anomaly to the Modern who deems ‘equality on all levels’ essential to a progressive State. Yet ‘democracy’ in this era of change and vitality, as an ‘institution’, was not a reality anywhere. Aristotle remarked in the third century [b.c.] that “…almost all things have been found out”, but added that “…some [things] have been neglected, and other which have been known have not been put into practice.” And so, the great experiment continues in each and every age. Doubts and ambiguities continue to be a part of the continuing story of the West. As such, the West continues to have second thoughts concerning the changing of the guard, of which post the Modern dutifully protects; the Modern is afraid of losing his hegemony over the thoughts and minds of those who make up his democracy, his civilization. Moreover, why should he? Is not the West already civilized?
Civilization, just as in the cycle of birth, life, and senility, is that senility, that ossification of the ‘soul and body’, which points the way of death. It is, and is ever, the simple static control, of control. If this control, this civilization of the Modern, truly represents the volksgeist of the Western race-culture, such as we admit today then, it is truly, the race-culture that is decadent. Its demise is assured. The only remnant of the great Roman was his ‘judicial’ legacy; of the Greek, only his ‘classicism’; of the People, nothing. Therefore, with time, shall the West also be. Each organism in turn, evolving into another phase of birth, life, and senility; of its cycle of change. We, as a people, should not be afraid of this probability however, but rather acknowledge its potentiality; and if we are not afraid to do this, when it comes, it will come with our understanding and conscious deliberation as to its merits or demerits. Ragnarok may come early, or it may come late, but when it does come, it does not have to be the end of the world.
Let me say, here an now, that I am not ‘anti-democratic’, yet, since we, our Western Culture, have evolved into – now out of – a democracy, let us be fair and concise on this subject peculiar to the West, specifically of America in which we live, and to whom I generally address this work. We, like our race-culture before us, have grown into this setting [i.e. government, social conditions, financial, etc.,], it is not a ‘do or die’ blueprint of our established condition of life; “…neither race alone nor its setting can account for the outcome, but the two together in their interactions.”
In this light, let me once again remind you of the ‘primary end’, which all people create government and social technics, and that is to confront and meet the needs of its own life, establish conditions for its continuation, and protect and nurture it. Any organism that does not protect itself from destruction does not deserve, nor will it, survive. This is simply Nature’s Law. In a democracy, it is the [theoretical] ‘will’ of the majority consensus, which dictates the terms of its own existence and, as we have seen, if that people is not conscious of that particular ‘presence’ then, that force [i.e. will] of its ‘system’ will, of necessity, decide for them.
A People’s will-to-express is directed, not to the ambiguous expression of thought or action but, rather too, and for themselves, their kind, and those to whom they share similar values and specific characteristics by which, in turn, they distinguish themselves from other peoples. This living, breathing organism, is the race-culture. Its purpose: To live more completely, to live in fashions that are natural to their spirits which, long ago, proved itself worthy to best suit their disposition in achieving their aims in life. This specific nature will carry itself in the ‘root and stock’ of its people which, in its determination to carry on, will endeavor to pass on to its future progeny the same characteristics, and to ‘establish’ them for the future; in the hope that the same way they looked at God, the Universe, Nature, at each other, would never die. This would allow themselves, as well as their children, to maintain and advance themselves against their enemies, and retain their social forms which would not only last long, but would be satisfying to their taste and instinct.Y
This actualization is not simple stability, far from it. Stability always becomes the stagnant principle. By and of itself, it is never enough. A healthy people, a ‘true’ higher culture, wills not only to last long, it seeks to be itself for as long as possible meaning, that certain upheavals will be necessary to continue that actualization. A vigorous people will always preserve its identity. Any government, be that ‘democracy’, ‘republicanism’, ‘oligarchy’, ‘autocracy’, or ‘dictatorship’ that fails to bear this end in mind, is bound to fail: It is no longer healthy. It is passing from its dawn, into its twilight. It has entered into its own ‘transvaluation of all values’; it is now decadent.b So, we see in the West. The ‘force’ of the democracies of the West has brought consistent and constant change to their environments. To a point, this has proved positive, yet every ‘duality’ must have balance. Through historical observation, one can see that every healthy people have ‘hated’, ‘feared’, and resisted change necessitated by constant ‘readjustment’. When this [cultural] change continues beyond a balanced equilibrium, that unconscious perception of self, it becomes a shock to both body and soul; it truly becomes a ‘culture shock’ to use a well know euphemism. Like a tree, matured after long seasons of growth, for generations, one cannot pluck it from its rooted place in the earth, move it, again and again, and expect it to remain healthy, or even to live long. So, it is, with the race-culture of the West. It will resist this method of control, of disease. It will erect barriers against ideas and bodies foreign to itself. It will not allow those that are not part of their blood, customs, mores, and traditions to exist amongst them. Can an Oak then, be grafted with a Redwood and remain an Oak? It is the same with those of the West. Either it must preserve itself and its distinctive character(s), or it must, and will, cease to be a People. The passing senile democracies however, have done this very thing!
The primary imperative of any people is its own survival – above all others. This is the ‘natural’ state of Nature. This is the ‘way’ of Nature. This is Life, like it or no. To this end should that same people’s government exists for. Any other need is unacceptable! To dilute the higher-culture with foreign race-cultures and ideas is to subvert the very goals and worth of Western man, which is, and has always been, the ennobling of man. For if, Western man fails in this endeavor then, truly, all mankind will wallow in the filth and decadence of death. The Modern admits this, but only ‘obliquely’, through the canard of international politics; he is loath to admit the racial/cultural implications of our unique systems, for this would ‘alienate’ his alliances. He supports his allies, because it is ‘good for business’, at the expense of those he claims to protect and serve. The modern serves too many masters. Since the turn of the 20th century however, the West, as a people and culture, has been directed to do this very thing, against its will and instinct. The West has been led astray.
[copyright/Rise of The West]
- · The simple examples of Haiti, Somalia, South Africa, Bosnia, and places relatively obscure to many, should show any knowledgeable person what is meant here; to the student of history, it is only verification of what is meant here. It is not for any ‘democratic policy’ which has brought such force of arms and propaganda to bear in these many and diverse places. It is to the ‘hegemony of power’ alone, which has brought the Modern to call for ‘democratic supremacy’. As the ‘Whiskey Rebellion’ and ‘War between the States’ will show, the Modern has displayed his devout need to control the ‘masses’, the diverse children of ‘his’ grand experiment, and form them in his own image, has been the way-sign of his idea of democracy. It remains the same today. [The most telling has been the Modern’s inroads into the European theatre, and not in the dessert of the Middle East, as many would suppose. Danger is always brought to the masses as if looking through a glass darkly.] National retrogression has been the logical step in relation to this trend. The feeling of antipathy by the populace for the governmental technics of today is to be expected, adding, also, the weight of ‘such diverse ethnic imperatives which cry out to be heard, has forced the hand of the Modern by destroying and murdering those who would declare themselves independent of this control. The escalation of this attitude is also obvious given the rate of disease and crime brought on by the ridiculous attitude of ‘open immigration’ and the de-Nationalization of this continent. It all comes down to ‘who’ will control the destiny of the mass, and the nation as a whole. Each man must decide his own fate, and discover which fate is best for both himself, and his fellows. FLS
 Lewes, G.H. – The Life and Works of Goethe
 Brown, Lawrence R. – Might of the West, pg. 482, Joseph L. Binns, 1978
 Simpson, William Galey – Which Way Western Man?, pg. 182, National Alliance, 1978.
Y Cf. Carl Jung’s – Instinct and Unconsciousness – Viking Press, for a profound study and discussion into this quality. I have referred many times to this process in human development, and must reiterate the tremendous advantage of one who is able to know himself or herself in this fashion. It is the ‘still, small voice’ of human kind, which allows us to travel to the stars, to build great empires, or to simply look at one’s surroundings unlike the other animals. We may have added reason, as such, but the quality of instinct, that metaphysical manifestation of the inner soul of man, must be brought out of the black hole in which it has been thrown, and brought back into our political and personal lives. Instinct presupposes survival, for how have we survived for so long if not actively using it? Trust your instincts; be loyal to yourself, which is your race multiplied a million-fold.
Let me add in passing as well, that amongst the ‘aryan tribes’, that of the Celtic peoples, in particular, share a highly tuned ‘sense’ of instinct. Poetry, Art, Trades, are so highly based on ‘mystic’ intuition, to mark them as ‘unique’, if not a ‘higher’ type of ‘intuitive types’ amongst their brethren. The Germanic elements are highly evolved, just as are the more northern elements but, for whatever the genetic/spiritual reason, the Celtic People’s have been gifted with this ability to ‘discern’ qualities: the qualities of ‘dreams’, of the ‘mysticism’ of elemental confluences, and generally, the mood of individuals. There is so much more – but that is for another time. FLS
b Decadence shows a lack or inability to maintain a ‘moral’ imperative. It is ‘decline’ in the purest and most elemental sense; it is a ‘process’, which acts over a certain period of time to change the fabric and the ‘face’ of the nation or people in question. The Modern has foisted this state upon the West with much ado, since he is self-indulgent; he supports the same in others. Being ‘self-indulgent’ to a point is certainly ‘human’, it is the uninhibited value, the excess, which is so negative to the value and spirit of Western men and women. Morals, as well, is problematic today, since we do, as a people, have a ‘sense’ of morality’ it is akin to metaphysics, yet is more quantifiable, insofar as we have ‘codified’ such morality since our beginning, and ‘traditionally’, we have abided by those precepts, but today, we are not allowed, in many cases, to follow traditional moral direction. Tradition, as an ‘institution’ is what the modern reacts to the most, for it is through Tradition and Hierarchy, that system of levels, of ‘bearers’ and ‘non-bearers’ which aids and guides the ‘people’ for long durations. A people who admit a certain ‘status quo’ which is alien to their origins, will always live a ‘dual’ life, a schizophrenia which will, ultimately, destroy them, if not corrected. FLS