The Philosophy of Human Flourishing [pt. 3]: The Role of the Nation and Economy

[This continues from part two, where the morality of human flourishing is proposed.  This continuation applies the morality to both the government and economic institution.]

In modern democracies, the government, corporation and individual are differentiated by moral standard and economic power.  I do not differentiate between the economic actions of a national governing body, economic institution, small business, or individual economic actor — the choices of each can have effects on the whole of society.  While the individual, corporation and government all tend to have differing amounts of power, the good nation is able to unite all aspects of its productivity towards improving its own collective lot and bettering its economic and social standards for all good citizens.  This necessitates that the same moral standards not only to be present for the individual, but also the collective and corporate (government included).  If we recognize a body of governance as an economic institution (dependent on the market), then creating the necessary moral framework for maintaining civilization is made apparent.  The standard of morality for man is choosing that action which is most helpful (or least harmful) to social utility being classified as a ‘good’ action.  In compliment, choosing an action that is not the most helpful (or least harmful) in regard to maximizing social utility is classified as a ‘bad’ action.  The actor that can neither make a rational or moral choice (an actor who is either irrational, immoral, or both) should be ostracized or institutionalized from society as he can only harm the overall welfare of his nation.  The standard of morality for the economic institution (government included) is the same as the standard of morality for man.  A tyranny is a government that takes actions that do not have the best interest of its national in-group in precedent — in other words, those actions and policy that are not created to maximize social utility are ‘tyrannical’ actions — generally, such tyrannical governments have the interest of a minority in precedent and lack concern about the citizens to which they lead.  As applies to the individual, the government that no longer has the interest of the national in-group at heart should be removed from power and replaced.

As the same moral standard is applied to both the government and the individual, the government should also be understood as an economic institution; an economic institution that has authority over a national in-group and enforces legal and moral standards keeping the nation efficient and prosperous.  The government is the foremost part of a hierarchical system built to reward those who prosper and protect, while punishing and ostracizing those who decrease the prosperity of the national in-group.  The question then arises: what form of government is best to serve the interests of the national in-group?  The benefits of monarchy over democracy are numerous.  Democracies and representative forms of government create a class of individuals with a high time-preference governing a nation.  The representatives that lead a democratic form of government are concerned only with the well-being of a nation for the period in which they are creating law.  They tend to pursue economic and demographic policy that is only sustainable in the short-term and neglect the long-term consequences of their law.  The philosophy inherent in democracy and representative forms of government is a philosophy of nihilism, best summed up by the famous quote of John Maynard Keynes, “in the long run we are all dead.”  Modern American ‘democracy’ has neglected to enact proper economic and immigration policy, and unless corrected, will eventually lead to the balkanization of the United States.  The 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act (Hart-Keller Act) transformed what was an over 90% white nation into a nation that is predicted to have a nonwhite majority by 2045.  The south-western United States will begin to resemble Mexico more than the rest of the United States, and will become an enormous economic burden to the more economically successful ‘white’ parts of America.  There will be no end to the collective racial demands of non-white Americans at the expense of white, liberal, and tolerant America until there is no more white, liberal, and tolerant America.  Racial nationalism will eventually be the end result of American balkanization.  And to think, that the Hart-Keller Act was passed under false pretenses, with Ted Kennedy claiming that there would be no substantial demographic changes to the United States. 

As the American democracy has utilized demographic replacement to retain power, the government has enabled a parasitical central bank in the Federal Reserve to coordinate economic policy for the United States.  The Federal Reserve, signed into existence in 1913 by then-president Woodrow Wilson, has replaced the role of the market and nation in self-regulating currency and interest-rates for the United States.  The Federal Reserve currently operates by printing United States Dollars, and loaning them to the United States government and other governments at interest.  In this process to pay off the loan in Dollars, the U.S. asks the Federal Reserve to print more Dollars used to pay off the previous loans — Dollars which are backed by nothing besides the waning might of our American democracy.  This process causes massive inflation and acts functionally as a tax on the value of all Dollars saved by ordinary citizens in America.  A Dollar saved over a life-time is going to be of marginal value compared to its worth when originally earned.  The Federal Reserve System acts to enrich people in the present by stealing value from the future through inflation.  Our current democracy enables an independent monopoly to enrich economic parasites on the back of hardworking American citizens!  The proper and efficient government works to increase the value of its currency (or system of currencies) over the long-term.  Representative democracy is incapable of accomplishing this because of its hedonistic nature of high time-preference.  In contrast to a democratic system of government, a monarchy stands to benefit when its nation benefits; the monarchy grows in power and prosperity as its people grow in power and prosperity.  After all, the repercussions of bad policy tend to be much greater for a monarch than a democratic politician.  It only takes one drop of poison to kill a tyrannical monarch, but an entire war or collapse is necessary to rid a nation of a bad democracy. 

Since many of the problems of democracy have now been elucidated, let us now consider what makes a good monarchy? — after all, there can exist a bad monarch, just as there exists a bad democracy.  A good monarchy must be built around a national and ethnic identity to provide strong and universal legal rules for maximizing national efficiency.  Nations that have multiple ethnicities or religions lead to long-term power struggles, war, death, and wasted resources to establish might and authority over a nation.  Secondly, the monarchy must be comprised of the most powerful and intelligent individuals in the national in-group, as otherwise a more powerful government will form. This creates national inefficiency, bloodshed and civil war when the weaker government should fight to retain power.  Might should always make right in government.  Third, the government should vest absolute power in one man; it should be in the form of an absolute monarchy.  The ideal monarchy would not be hereditary, nor a pure meritocracy, but would instead run the nation like a company.  The monarch would have a large aristocratic class to advise him and help him make wise policy decisions.  In the end, however, the monarch would make decisions much as a business owner runs a productive enterprise.  He would make the choice that provides a good product (policy and law) for the consumer (citizen) while also enabling the expansion of the monarchical enterprise (as opposed to a democratic franchise) and hence increasing the king’s own international worth and status.  If something would happen to the king, either natural death or assassination, a new king would inherit the national enterprise.  This new king would be whomever was willed by the previous king before death, much as control of a business is distributed by will at the death of the former owner.  If a king acted as the owner of a corporation does, he would have a low time-preference being that the king would care about the long-term intergenerational existence of his national in-group and hence his personal reign and power.  For without the national in-group the king would have no kingdom.  This is opposed to the high time-preference of democratic systems of governance, which works to harm the interests of the national in-group and in western countries has even been used to replace them!  Fourth, the power and influence of women in government and business must be minimized.  Under a monarchy, it should be understood and enforced by the aristocracy that all monarchs should be a king and not a queen.  When women gain political power it is a sure sign of decadence and national decline.  The women can best contribute to national social utility by becoming mothers and raising strong and healthy children.  When the most intelligent women pursue economic power (careers and education), they are necessarily spending time not creating family.  In many cases, the most intelligent women are so dedicated to their work that they have no children at all.  What good are resources if you have no children to carry on as your posterity!  In order for a nation to be stable and functional it must reproduce.  Under a democracy, the least educated and newest immigrants (generally racial minorities) have the most children. This fact of democracy, whereby the most intelligent and productive are encouraged to lessen the amount of children they produce — all while paying taxes that feed (on average) less intelligent and productive children — creates a dysgenic effect on society leading to a dependent, radical and racially distinct underclass; certainly not a good characteristic for the long-term stability of a nation.  Women have evolved to be caretakers, not power-seekers and laborers.  Humans are most socially efficient when they operate under a monogamous system where men are men and women are women, binary genders must be the norm (and non-conformers institutionalized) if civilization is to be on the rise.  It is necessary that men have the strength and resources necessary to raise a family, and the women have the nurturing and mothering ability to most-aptly raise children.  If the characteristics necessary for motherhood are not found in a particular woman, she should be encouraged not to become a mother.  Similarly, if a man does not have the strength, responsibility and resources necessary to become a father, he should not become a father.  In many cases, it may be mutually beneficial for aristocratic families to arrange marriages that will lead to increasing inter-familial hospitality, thereby creating a more united and strong national ruling class.

Earlier, upon spelling out the metaphysics of the Human Flourishing, I acknowledged that everything was pre-determined.  The implications of metaphysical determinism on government and history are immense, I shall apply them as follows.  First, the deterministic functions of objective reality create the tendency in history to follow patterns, and move in a politically cyclical pattern to reach a certain political and economic equilibrium.  This political and moral equilibrium is that which maximizes social utility in the long-term.  The current state of society tends to be divergent from this end, but what ‘should’ occur (or is the moral action) is what would happen if society was metaphorically at the limit of its function.  However, this optimistic and metaphysical view of reality raises an important question: why then are humans in the present so divergent from the moral equilibrium.  In other words, why do progressives exist?  To answer this question we must imagine the extreme: a world in which only a reactionary intuition exists among men.  In such a world, there would be no moral end or ‘should’, there would only be what ‘is’; a purely reactionary environment.  Also, since there could be no further rightward shift among society, necessarily some people would make a moderate ideological shift leftward (a shift against their moral intuitions).  This ideological shift among a minority of the population would give a society with a purely reactionary intuition a leftward end (since the society in the present is as far-right as possible) — hence negating the basis of any moral notion of ‘should’ in metaphysical history.  Simply put, the progressive intuition acts to make the reactionary intuition more prevalent — thus the term ‘reactionary’.  In our political-economic world, as it exists today, the growth of the progressive intuition to practical universality will eventually collapse in among itself, just as the reactionary society would collapse in my hypothetical scenario.  This progressive collapse will prime man for its necessary evolutionary shift back to reactionary dominance.  For the spread of the progressive intuition after the post-enlightenment abundance of resources will be countered over a much longer period of history with scarcer resources.  This will occur as the reactionaries rebuild the resource abundance that enabled their post-enlightenment societal dispossession.  Given any small slice of metaphysical history, the amount of time (on average) where a reactionary intuition was the norm among humans will be much larger than the amount of time a progressive intuition was the norm among men;— progressive decadence is necessary for future reactionary governance.

As the progressive moral intuition should be countered but is never completely displaced, the metaphysical destiny of history has implications for governance as well, and may even be used to establish an esoteric and mystical understanding of the divine right of kings.  If the current intuitional state of society is determined by certain immutable historical factors, it is futile to resist the current trend of governance, necessitating an ideology of pacifism among the general public.  The right time to replace the intuitional zeitgeist of governance is when it becomes historically necessary, a time of which will become apparent to all people living under such a national system.  Another way of understanding a historical zeitgeist is thinking of it as the metaphysical alignment of might with right.  When a certain national system loses its authority and fails to represent the interests of the people it represents, a metaphysical realignment of might with right is necessitated.  In America, such a time is fast approaching but is not upon us yet.  Given this historical fact of future American balkanization, it is important that we prepare for such a time, but not act as if the time is now.  Now is the time of the leftists, the future is for the reactionaries, thus we must keep a low political time-preference in contrast to the appropriate high political time-preference of the intuitional progressives.  This rule can be summed up fairly nicely by the words of Jesus in Mark 12-17, “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God’s.”  As divine right and pacifism is necessitated morally under all governments, under a monarchy it should be universally understood.  The king, since all things are predetermined, is also chosen by history to lead all of his people.  The aristocracy and nation should understand and respect this fact of his rule.

As I began this series on the topic of existence, I will conclude this series on the topic of death.  Not all men fear death.  Men do not fear death when they are devoted to a cause of utmost importance.  Throughout history these causes have been protecting civilization, family, religion, and moral principles.  The man who is completely confident in the meaning that transcends himself lacks the fear of death because he is not the end of what has mattered most in his action.  Rather, the action encompassing his life has been devoted to that which he places as greater than himself, and that which will comfort him at his death when his individual weakness shows itself.  Death is the ultimate judgement upon which merit will be determined and that which reveals whether he has followed the permanent and objective meaning.  The nihilist, the deceiver, and the relativist will all suffer a sickly and horrid death because they were caught in the egotistical illusion of the permanence of empirical reality.  A reality which works to squander life of all permanent meaning.  Death decides whether man has acted with the correct purpose and meaning in his heart.  To find this meaning it is necessary that before our deaths, we turn away from the modern world and towards our own nation.  Because only through correct thought and action, leading to a good death, will we find true human flourishing.


Popular posts from this blog

Social Guilt as Social Parasitism

The Philosophy of Human Flourishing [pt. 1]: The Tautological Nature of Reality

Segregation or Integration? — A False Dichotomy.