A YEAR OF LIVING DANGEROUSLY (further rumination on populism) Well, over the pas

A YEAR OF LIVING DANGEROUSLY

(further rumination on populism)

Well, over the past 12-14 months I have danced with populism a bit. And I understand the game of feeding the fires of fashionable passions. I have met a lot of people. I have met people who are more likely to carry out a revolution. And during this time we have seen the rise of the trump/sanders movement. And that movement has changed our political discourse as much or more so than any intellectual movement can.

Now, I don’t believe the presidential elections will change much – other than to establish a discourse. But the hope that dramatic change will come about is enough to transfer the interest of all activists from permanent change by revolution to temporary improvement by democratic action – at least for a time.

That’s a way of saying that I need to keep at my work because populism has returned to strategy under democracy rather than strategy toward a revolution – and its a revolution we will require to change the state of affairs.

My experiment with populism was fun, and socially rewarding, but ultimately a failed experiment. Why? for no other reason than it decreased the time I spent on serious work, distracted me from thinking about the more serious issues. It associated my work at least a small part with negativity. And it has caused me personal frustration.

That is because my solution to the problem of social order is a nationalist one, and a universal one. Because it is not a criticism of race, but a criticism of corporatism. Not a criticism of race but a criticism of class. Not a criticism of race but a criticism of multiculturalism. Not a criticism of race, but a criticism of genetic devolution. Not a criticism of race, but an advocacy of preserving the people who, for apparently genetic reasons, are the most creative and innovative people.

I start with the proposition that innovation and creativity and competition and lack of underclass burden, generate ‘goods’ which assist mankind in transcendence of the animal. And that western science, economics, politics, art, and thought is the byproduct of martial epistemology, among minority voluntary warriors (and not majority mandatory soldiers.)

And that all peoples can transcend if they adopt the institutions of ‘truth’, while all the time suppressing the reproduction of the lower classes.

In other words, while I am sure that my own people will succeed by returning to their model. I am also sure that other peoples will succeed by adopting our model. And if they do not adopt our model, then they are adopting ignorance, parasitism, and dysgenia. And as such are our enemies. If a people must persist that is different from whether a people must expand. I advocate persistence of all, but that expansion of people rather than our model, violates our model.

In this way you may call me a familialist, a tribalist, a nationalist, and a racist in the sense that I advocate for transcendence.

But I am not interested in mere complaints about others who are at present unable to adopt the technologies of transcendence that we have invented. They do what they are able. We can make them able to do otherwise, and transcend.

Curt Doolittle

The Propertarian Institute

Kiev, Ukraine