Aristocracy

An in-depth breakdown of my religious, philosophical and political beliefs, and how I arrived at them.

Intro:

People have been asking me for a while now, what exactly I believe; what political system do I want, if I don’t want democracy, what political ideology do I hold to as a person who despises Liberalism - Am I a Paleoconservative in the camp of Pat Buchanan and Paul Gottfried, or am I a fascist who reveres Oswald Mosley and Benito Mussolini, or something in between.

And I think that’s a fair question, given that I have been rather vague when it comes to the specifics of my ideology. And since I’m not Jordan Peterson, and I don’t find his obfuscating and deliberate nebulousness particularly impressive or amusing, I have chosen to instead answer the question of ‘What do you actually believe?’ in-depth.

It’s essential to note, before I delve into specifics, that my views are all interconnected in some regard. Underlying my political, anthropological, social, and even metaphysical worldview is a principle of aristocracy, hierarchy, and inequality.

The foundation of reality is inegalitarian, from before we are born, what we are is determined, our genetic predisposition to diseases, our height potential, facial structure, IQ potential, eye colour, hair colour, etc. All meaningful things are, in some way, either wholly or in part predetermined.

The only difference between a 5’3 (161 cm) basement-dwelling gremlin with an IQ below 70, and Dolph Lundgren, the handsome 6’5 (198 cm) genius actor, isn’t some difference in virtue (at least I don’t believe that to be the case, my Buddhist friends will disagree though), it’s pure luck.

Dolph Lundgren won the genetic lottery, said 5’3 gremlin didn’t, and that’s it, no one did anything wrong, or anything right, that’s just how it is. And this isn’t just the case for humans; it’s the case for nature as a whole.

Scientists estimate that 99.9% of all species that have ever existed have gone extinct. A 2023 study from Stanford University shows that since 1500 AD, species have been going extinct at a 35 times higher rate than before, that is, ever since humans started becoming more technologically advanced, i.e superior to other animals in not merely a cognitive capacity, but also in a physical capacity.

And it shocks me that this isn’t more apparent to people, the basic description of Neo-Darwinian evolution is that it’s the “survival of the fittest.” And why would humans be exempt from that?

Why would humans, as another species of animals on this planet, somehow be different from all other animals?

What arrogance, to think that we can overcome our nature, that we can overcome reality, the reality that created us, the world that birthed us, and the world that will inevitably kill us, to think that we shape reality, and that reality doesn’t shape us, to think that as long as we believe something enough, it will be true. It’s utter nonsense, and that’s why I choose to be consistent and hold to a core belief in inequality and hierarchy.

Religion:

Background:

My religious development has been rather interesting. I grew up in a secular household, to a staunchly atheistic father, and to an agnostic, vaguely spiritual mother.

At the age of 14, I read ‘The God Delusion’ by Richard Dawkins, the theological magnum opus of the famous new atheist biologist, author and ‘sceptic’, who was seeking to once and for all prove ‘God’ (mainly the Christian one) to be a delusion. And I thought it was the most profound thing ever, 14-year-old me felt like a genius after reading it, it emboldened my atheism, I felt so smart after reading one book, a book that the Marxist literary critic Terry Eagleton described by analogising Dawkins’ knowledge of theology to:

— “Someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds” —

Now I eventually came to realise that the entire new-atheist schtick was horseshit, for lack of a better term, and I reacted to that by becoming a Christian at age 17.

And I’m glad I did, when I became a Christian after somewhat of a leap of faith in a true Kierkegaardian manner, I realised how easily I had been strung along by the new-atheists, and I decided to learn everything I could about my beliefs.

At age 17 I started reading C.S Lewis, then Christian thinkers like St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, Francis Turretin, G.K Chesterton, Søren Kierkegaard etc. and then eventually philosophers like Aristotle, Plato, Kant, and David Hume, it’s safe to say that contrary to what the new atheists would have you believe, becoming a Christian made me more sceptical, and more hungry for knowledge than atheism ever did, it fostered my love for philosophy, and it really laid the foundation for my philosophical knowledge today.

I, however, later concluded that Christianity isn’t historically true. I won’t get into specifics about why in this essay, both because I don’t want to discourage people from being Christian and because it would take up a lot of the article, since it isn’t a simple matter.

I would now consider myself a perennialist, not exactly in the style of prominent traditionalist perennialists like Julius Evola or René Guenon (though I admire them both immensely), but more in the literal sense of the word. I believe there is metaphysical truth in many of the perennial philosophies and religions that have survived centuries and millennia.

Metaphysics:

I would mainly identify with Platonism, a system I kind of implicitly fell in love with as a Christian - After all, Christian metaphysics have borrowed a lot from Platonism, so much so that the early church father Clement of Alexandria believed that the Greek philosophers were kind of demi-prophets who came before Jesus to reveal the truth about metaphysics, and so much so that Nietzsche even referred to Christianity as ‘Platonism for the masses.’

My view is that the souls of people are fundamentally unequal; some people are closer to the form of beauty, of genius, of humour than others, hence metaphysically I view all people as being unequal, not just physically, but metaphysically.

I landed on Platonism since I believe it’s the only system that can answer the question of epistemology adequately, and every person who has tried to discredit it, be it Aristotle, Hume, Nietzsche, Heidegger or someone else, has ultimately fallen short.

I think certain additions to metaphysics by people like Hegel are very interesting, I instinctively see truth in Hegel’s phenomenology of spirit (or Geist as he calls it in his native German), that spirit is at all times unfolding in reality, culminating towards the absolute, that the 3 types of spirits (the subjective, the objective and the absolute) ultimately do exist and are a core part of reality, that they are sign of metaphysical alignment guided by ‘the one’.

I think his dialectic reasoning is ultimately too simplistic and doesn’t account for truth (hence my Platonist epistemology); however, it does apply to concepts like will, social morality, law, etc. And I do see truth in the broader concept of the holistic development of will, consciousness, and knowledge on the personal level, and law, societal structures, social morality, etc., on a societal level, all culminating and striving towards the absolute, and having a purpose.

I believe the purpose is to align with the form of the Good, and that all things happen for a reason, ultimately striving towards this in the form of Geist.

Another example of my perennialist leanings is when it comes to the lived experience of humans.

The Buddhist (and Hindu) concept of Duhkha, the first of the 4 noble truths of Buddhism, is almost identical to my view of the world. Duhkha as a concept has been very westernised in Europe and the West more broadly, being interpreted in this kind of Schopenhauerian pessimistic lens, which reads Duhkha as being a philosophy of despair, an inherent awful part of reality that should just be accepted because you can’t really do anything about it.

Even the concept of Nirvana has been trivialised in the Western conception of Buddhism, framing it in this very modernist light, that because Nirvana is such a rare thing, it doesn’t make sense to go after it.

I, however, believe this is completely wrong. The Tripitaka (Buddhist religious texts) never frames Duhkha nor Nirvana in that light. Duhkha is not this kind of westernised original sin that you just need to live with, which is the way many westerners understand it, it’s at its core ordered towards Nirvana, it looks upwards, it says ‘even if Nirvana is rare, we should still dedicate our lives to strive for it, because that’s the right thing to do’, it’s deeply ascetic in nature, you should constantly look up from it, not be complacent with it.

Now I disagree with Nirvana as a solution, mainly because I believe Nirvana is impossible; complete detachment from the desire of the flesh is not something that can be obtained, since I believe that desire is innate and a core part of our being.

I believe more so in a kind of Aristotelian light that we should strive after virtue, and ultimately eudaimonia (Flourishing), and that even though flourishing is rare, we should still strive towards it.

My ethics are, in general, quite Aristotelian.

Many people critique me for this, by saying,” Platonist metaphysics, Aristotelian virtue ethics, Evolian adjacent aristocratism, even agreement with Hegelian phenomenology, it does seem like a bit of a syncretic creation, and there is no way you actually believe this syncretic creation of yours is the actual truth of the universe no one else has been able to answer.”

And my answer to that is simply that, no I don’t believe that, this is my best attempt at explaining the world as I see it, I see Plato’s philosophy as not being incomplete, but being open to additions also, I believe the Hegelian explanation for the unfolding of history makes sense, and that it aligns (obviously not in totality) with Platonist metaphysics.

The best explanation of ethics is, in my opinion, Virtue Ethics as laid out by Aristotle, and I believe ultimately that eudaimonia (or Flourishing) aligns with the form of the good, hence aligning it with Platonism also.

Politics:

Background:

Unlike what many people (especially on the left) assume, I didn’t grow up in a right-wing household. My mother was and still is a liberal, and my dad is kind of libertarian adjacent classical liberal.

For most of my youth I was very liberal, I believed multiculturalism was good, I believed that equality should be strived after and that immigration enriched Europe (I did live in a 99% white area in rural Denmark, and didn’t live in a multi-ethnic and multicultural area, however 15 year old me didn’t consider that), and I believed that Christianity was evil, and that ‘rational humanism’ was the way forward for humanity.

This all changed once I went to what’s known as ‘after school’ in Denmark, a year-long boarding school-like experience in a larger city.

Growing up in a rural village area, moving to a city of 300.000 people was quite the experience.

And that was the beginning of my journey to the right.

There is a quote, probably falsely attributed since I couldn’t find a source for it anywhere, to the Spanish novelist and philosopher Miguel de Unamuno, that:

— “Fascism is cured by reading, and racism is cured by travelling.” —

The basic idea being that the more educated you become, the less fascistic you become, and the more you interact with other cultures and peoples, the less racist you become.

For me however, the exact opposite happened. This was the time in my life when I really got into politics. I had friends with all different kinds of beliefs, left, right, pro-immigration, anti-immigration, pro-LBGTQ, and anti-LBGTQ.

And I really started thinking about these issues. At the same time I was considering these political questions, I was seeing the fruits of leftism on full display. Aarhus, the city I was living in, is incredibly left-wing, like most major European cities are. I saw the consequences of mass Immigration very explicitly, first-hand, for the first time, and I saw vandalism, I saw the crazy, blue-haired leftists, and the pride parades, and it dawned on me.

“This is not the society I want to live in.”

And thus began my journey to the right. I first began with engaging with ‘Normie’ right-wing content. Piers Morgan, Ben Shapiro, Douglas Murray, I really liked Nigel Farage, etc.

And I began reading conservative philosophers, like Roger Scruton. But the more ‘normie’ content I consumed, the more I started seeing inconsistencies, “race is meaningless” yet all other groups than white people care about race, “all humans are equal”, yet some people are pedophiles and perennially leach on society while others are virtues and benefit society greatly, “you just need to vote for the Conservative party” yet the conservatives are doing 90% of the same things as the other parties are doing.

Hence, my aristocratic spirit began. Party politics started meaning less and less to me, and subsequently, I started listening to Jonathan Bowden’s speeches, and man, did they affect me.

After listening to Bowden’s speeches, many of them more than 5 times, I started really embracing aristocratic politics and philosophy. I started by reading Nietzsche, I re-read Plato, and moved on to more niche philosophers and theorists like Evola, Guenon, Schmitt, Thucydides, etc., later moving on to studying governmental structures of ancient Greece and Rome, and during the Victorian Era of England and even late in the 18th Century United States.

Hence, I developed the views that I have today.

Ideal system of government:

When it comes to the system of government that I would like, I would propose a mix between an aristocracy and a limited democracy. The aristocracy would consist of former military, philosophers, political scientists, scientists, priests, historians, Law experts, etc., and they would not only be judged based on their ability and their track record, but on their moral character as well, whether they are divorced, have a criminal record, what their religion is, etc. And once elected, they are in the Senate for the rest of their life, or until they either retire or are physically or mentally incapable of serving in the Senate. They would make up half of the Senate.

This is to ensure that there is a part of the Senate that is unaffected by popular opinion. My view is not that the point of the state is to do ‘the will of the people’, whatever that means; no, the purpose of the state is to do what is good for a nation, whether popular opinion is supportive of it or not.

In 2003, when US President George W. Bush invaded Iraq illegally, not only based on misunderstanding, but based on lies, his approval rating was north of 60%. The people would later come to realise that he lied, and he is now one of the most unpopular presidents in US history. But if we are to follow the logic that popular opinion dictates what a government should do, Bush did nothing wrong.

This goes to show that short-term approval ratings are practically speaking meaningless for whether or not a policy is actually good or bad.

The aristocracy will be able to ignore the drama of re-elections and having to appease a short-sighted population, and strictly focus on what is good for the nation.

They would also serve as half of the Supreme Court.

The other half would be made up of people elected through a limited democratic process. To get the right to vote, one would have to pass a test that tests knowledge on national history, political history, political theory, religion, philosophy and national culture. The test would be created by a diverse (not in the 21st century ‘melting pot’ sense, diverse, diverse in the sense of different backgrounds, fields of expertise, and philosophical and religious views, all would of course be native to the nation) set of people to ensure there is no overarching bias in the test, and it will be at a level of difficulty that ensures that only 10-20% of the population can vote.

This works both as a guardrail against politicians exploiting an unintelligent voter base, which happens so often in our modern democracies, but also as an incentive structure for people who want to vote to get smarter.

If you want to have a say in how your nation is run, you have to have an understanding of politics and the history of your country.

The people elected through democratic means would make up half of the Senate, also.

In situations of emergency (ground war, potential civilisational collapse, etc.), it will be possible for the prime minister to become a temporary dictator, similar to ancient Rome (like Quintus Fabius during the Second Punic War).

If the prime minister refused to give up his power after the crisis was over, the military would be legally required to arrest him and try him for treason, which would be worthy of the death penalty.

The prime minister would also be the commander in chief of the military, though their primary allegiance would be to the constitution of the nation.

This would be my proposed system, instead of a parliamentary democracy, or a democratic republic, I believe this system would both avoid all the problems of democracy (an easily manipulated population, corporate interests dominating policy, and short-sightedness and prioritization for re-election instead of good legislation etc.), and avoids tyranny at the same time, I would say even more effectively than a democracy.

Domestic politics:

When it comes to most social issues, I lean quite typically traditional conservative, I’m against abortion, I’m against gay marriage, IVF, surrogacy, etc. When I start becoming more radical, it is when it comes to immigration.

I am almost entirely against third-world immigration into the West. I can think of extraordinary circumstances where a temporary visa may be given to, for example, a Saudi billionaire to establish a business in a Western country; however, only Europeans should be citizens in the West (including people of European ancestry in the US, Canada, Australia, South Africa, etc).

As for all the people here, I think a policy of total remigration is the only way to retain a national identity for Western countries. Immigration is deeper than just ‘they commit a disproportionate amount of crime’; it has to do with the fact that European nations are slowly ceasing to exist.

The word ‘nation’ comes from the Latin word ‘natio’, which literally means “people from the same ancestry.” And the people who make up European nations are being replaced.

Out of principle, I want my people, the great European people, to have their own lands where they can determine their destiny.

And I want the same for other people as well, but my primary concern is my people.

Geo-politics:

When it comes to my theory of international relations, I would call myself a classical realist. My historical inspirations that led me to this belief are primarily the great ancient Greek general and historian Thucydides and the Italian philosopher Niccolò Machiavelli.

However, the modern realist I consider my favourite is John Mearsheimer, who isn’t a classical realist, but an Offensive Realist, mainly because of his incredible predictions when it comes to the consequences of NATO expansion in Eastern Europe, and the rise of China in the East, which he predicted would happen 30 years ago.

I am (as most people who watch my stuff know) very critical of the state of Israel.

I think their actions in the Middle East, since even before their founding in 1948, have been horrible, and I think they have deceived the right wing in Western nations into supporting them (the topic of a future essay of mine).

Most problems the West have in the Middle East, in fact, stem from Israeli activity, so I think they should be completely cut off as an ally, and if anything, they should be regarded as an adversary.

I think the Russia/Ukraine war is tragic. I am of the view that Western NATO expansion did provoke the war (Read Scott Horton’s book Provoked for a full breakdown), but that Vladimir Putin was still unjustified in his invasion.

At the time of writing this essay, the war is a World War I-style war of attrition that has left hundreds of thousands of people dead on each side. Russia has about 100,000,000 more people than Ukraine, which means Ukraine will run out of men before Russia, regardless of how well they do, and according to a recent poll, the majority of Ukrainians want to negotiate a settlement, even if it leads to land concessions, and I think that is the only option.

Economics:

Economically, I would call myself a Market-Corporatist. I support Corporatist economics in general, but I still want a state-overshadowed market economy.

I generally want minimal state intervention, since market economics has, in my opinion, shown itself to be the best for development and productivity; however, liberal capitalism has also led to an unholy amount of degeneracy.

I want a market economy, where the government would have the power to intervene and block something like ‘Only Fans’ from ever existing.

The difference between Liberal Capitalism and Market-Corporatism would, however, be that the state is the final arbiter, and that the state will always put the interests of the people above the interests of markets.

Things like Healthcare, Schooling, and Pharma etc., will be strictly governmental, while things like Restaurants, Entertainment, Stores, Manufacturing, etc., will be market-based; however, governments will intervene to benefit the people, for example, if certain entertainment is degenerate, it will be banned, if certain manufacturing is effective and high quality, they will receive governmental grants.

The basic concept of industries being split up into corporations and being negotiated by the government will, of course, still apply.

Outro:

I would like to in the future make more educational content on this Substack, where I expand on areas like; Zionism, Nietzsche’s philosophy, Classical realism etc. and if you want to help me do that, a paid subscription would help a lot, It costs as little as a large Coffee at Starbucks and it will help me make you disgustingly educated so you can understand complex topics and destroy your friends and family in debates.

I know there are a lot of topics I didn’t get to cover here, but if you have any questions, I would like you to leave them here: https://shorturl.at/TzPBS

I will start doing a Bi-Weekly Q&A where I answer your questions in-depth, since I get so many repeat questions every week, and I want to ensure that you all get your questions answered (Paid Subscribers to the Substack will be prioritised in the Q&A).

Thank you so much for reading to the end. If you want to support, but you’re not quite sold yet, or you don’t have the money to, a free subscription and a recommendation to your friends and family would mean the world to me as well.

Thank you for your time.