The Old & New Right

We spend a lot of time arguing over what the right and left are, which one is superior, but the right has changed a lot, to the point we’re starting to confuse it for the left.
Republicanism/libertarianism, democracy/populism, socialism, communism, anarchism, these political philosophies are all essentially leftwing, altho libertarianism and populism have a right and left side, anarchism has an individual and social side and of course they can all be corrupted.

To me, rightwing = authoritarian elitism.
The new right is the new elite.
The old elite were the monarchy, clergy and nobility.
The old elite hasn’t entirely gone away, in the commonwealth us peasants still pay taxes to the monarchy, clergy and gentry and they rule us through the house of lords/senate, it works essentially the same way in all constitutional monarchies, from Denmark, Spain to Japan.
The new elite are the bureaucracy, technocracy and banksters/globalists/multinationals/UHNWIs.

What is the ethos, insofar as they have one, of the new elite?

Politically they’re duopolists.
They want what’s essentially a two party dictatorship with only superficial differences between them.
They don’t trust the masses to govern, instead our fate is decided for us by their think tanks.
They use the MSM to manufacture consent.
They want a big, bloated bureaucracy, overpaid and overstaffed, making unnecessary rules, regulations and taxes.
Ultimately I believe they mean to do away with what has become ceremonial democracy, supplant it with overt dictatorship, technocracy and plutocracy, a single party state.

These people have become considerably more atheistic than the masses they rule over, that’s why they no longer push religion on us, instead they push (pseudo)science, especially climate and medical, and we’re going to see far more scientific authoritarianism in the future.
For many of them I believe Malthusian Transhumanism is their new religion.
They think they can become superhuman, attain salvation through tech, extend their lifespan indefinitely by editing their genes and merging with machine.
These people are avant garde and cutting edge, progressive, but not in a leftwing, let’s help the little people sense.

While they attempt to attain godhood, they mean to soft cull about 90% of the masses with big pharma, frankenfoods and transsexualism among other techniques and use tech to turn the remainder into obedient worker drones completely incapable of challenging authority.
The old elite/right needed their populations to be fruitful and multiply, the new elite/right wants to sterilize most of us, to preserve nature for themselves to exclusively enjoy and get us down to more manageable numbers.
Increasingly they can make and maintain most of what we consume with machines.
They want to reduce our consumption while maintaining theirs.
Austerity for us while they live in opulence.

All of this is not to say environmentalism has to be Malthusian or sinister in nature, but they’re co-opting and taking it in that direction.

Fiscally they’re crony capitalists.
They’re monetarists and corporatists.
Banksters print money out of nothing and loan it to government at interest.
They want far more corporate welfare than social and for far more of it to go to big business than small, but they don’t mean to scrap social welfare altogether, they may even increase it a bit provided the poor submit to monthly vaxxinations and RFID.
They want to undertax and underregulate big business and overtax and overregulate small.
Ultimately I believe they want to become the new gentry, so it’ll be impossible for them and their descendants to go poor, government will pay them far more than welfare recipients just for being who they are.

Socially the new elite/right have no ties to country or nation.
They’re the heads of multinationals, globalists who travel around the world.
They know mass immigration is a hidden tax on the working class.
They know without any sort of assimilation it leads to alienation, atomization and isolation.
They don’t give a damn, in fact they’re counting on it.
The new elite/right uses race and sex to divide and conquer just as the old elite/right did, but in reverse, reverse racism and sexism.
Many are Jewish and so fear any sort of nationalism other than Zionism.
To them, civic, economic and liberal nationalism is a gateway to ethnonationalism.
They use their crony war on drugs and terror to curtail our civil liberties, monopolize the drug trade (as they’ve monopolized human trafficking) and crush any nation that dares oppose them or Israel’s expansion.

Essentially the elite/right is no longer a king or priest with a big funny hat, shaking their scepter at people while pointing to signs in the heavens (altho with the latest holographic tech and growing interest in ufology, they may revive this practice), the new elite/right are banksters, financiers, industrialists, philomisanthropists and tech gods, these people are far more sophisticated than that, but they have an interest in us maintaining that outdated conception of what elitism is, so we fail to recognize the new elitism being built all around us.

Ive got to stop you right there.
Democracy is fundamentally aristocratic.
Representative democracy is leftwing and is actually ochlocracy.

The elite were always the financiers. The Roman archetype is Crassus.

I think you mean representative democracy is aristocratic and rightwing while democracy is mob rule and leftwing.
I see your point, perhaps I’ll post more about this later.

You could say there’s degrees of aristocracy/rightwing.
Plutocracy and technocracy are more aristocratic than timocracy which’s more aristocratic than democracy.
And representative plutocracy is more aristocratic than direct plutocracy and so on.

Here’s a curveball, what’s more aristocratic, democracy or ergatocracy?
Plutocracy or stratocracy, technocracy, noocracy or theocracy?

Is republicanism to libertarianism what democracy is to populism what ergatocracy is to socialism?
Do forms of government have socioeconomic counterparts?

You might say, everything the establishment promotes is rightwing, authoritarian elitism, it’s just a modern or postmodern authoritarian elitism.
Instead of monarchy it’s duopoly/two-party dictatorship.
Instead of theocracy/religionism it’s technocracy/scientism.
It’s corporatocracy/corporatism as opposed to older forms of plutocracy.

I believe they’re Malthusians, they don’t want to reduce the quality and quantity of their consumption and reproduction, only ours.
They’re transhumanists, they’re going to use tech to try to make themselves superhuman and the masses subhuman.

Globalism could be achieved in a leftwing, liberal egalitarian way, but it’s being achieved in a rightwing, illiberal inegalitarian way.
These international organizations could theoretically be democratic/bottom-up, instead they’re undemocratic/top-down.
Globalism could theoretically be achieved largely by consent, instead it’s being achieved largely by coercion, conquest and sanctions.

Perhaps immigration from various parts of the world could be done in a way that benefits the working class, but mass immigration without any sort of assimilation whatsoever while stirring shit between the races and sexes detriments the working class and its ability to organize for its interests.
We oughta stop thinking about globalism in strictly leftwing terms, this is a rightwing globalism.

Getting back to the nationalism/globalism dichotomy…
Our elite are treacherous, they have both a nationalist side and globalist side.
Their nationalist side is Zionist and their globalist side is corporate.
They’re Zionists and corporate globalists, not liberal, democratic or social globalists.
You could also say they’re techno globalists, corporatocracy and technocracy go hand in hand for these people.

Is globalism in itself leftwing?
Perhaps, perhaps not.
If it is, corporate globalism is at least on the right side of the leftwing.
We wouldn’t say racial globalism, where one race subjugates or replaces others by committing genocide is leftwing, we’d say it’s far right.
The Roman and British Empires were forms of globalism, but we wouldn’t say they were leftwing, we’d say they were rightwing.
Just as globalism by one race conquering others is rightwing, globalism by corporations conquering nation states and subjugating their populations should be seen as rightwing too.

Corporate globalism weaponizes identity, uses it to coerce populations into globalizing (if you don’t globalize, you’re a racist) and sow discord between them.
The Spartans use to forcefully diversify the neighborhoods of the peoples they conquered and sow discord between them, often they couldn’t even speak each others languages.
If they could barely understand or hated each other, how could they organize and resist the Spartan’s reign?
That was the idea.
Perhaps any diversity, but especially forced diversity is a weakness, not a strength.

Corporate globalism is rightwing.

In short, there’s nothing liberal, democratic or social about what our establishment does, it’s all corporate and techno.
It’s rightwing, authoritarian, elitist, but it’s not the old rightwing of monarchy, clergy and nobility, with some loyalty to the ethnic group they sprung from, it’s duopoly/two-party dictatorship, technocracy and corporatocracy, with no loyalty to the ethnic group from which they sprung.

Funny often the monarchs and nobles of Medieval Europe intermarried with one another and practiced incest, so they’d be less inclined to go to war with one another, so they didn’t have much loyalty to their people either.
An English Monarch may have some Spanish blood, and a Spanish Monarch may have some Moroccan blood.
You might even say monarchs tended to be both elitist and globalist in outlook.
You might even say monarchs were the 1st globalists, corporations 2nd.
You might even say nationalism is a leftwing thing, especially if it’s peaceful nationalism.
Often the only thing that can keep a diverse population together, from fighting or balkanizing is a strongman, a dictator.
Of course the elite know that, and since they hate democracy, mass immigration may be a way to replace it with a dictator of their choosing.

For me, republicanism, its attributes (constitutionalism, representation, separation of powers, states’ rights, supermajoritarianism) and socioeconomic counterpart(s) libertarianism and communitarianism as opposed to authoritarianism and totalitarianism, is leftwing.
Republicanism can be combined with plutocracy (or any form of oligarchy), timocracy, democracy or ergatocracy, from most rightwing to least.

For whatever reasons, biological, climatic, cultural, geographic, the Mediterranean frontier in antiquity and the oceanic frontier in modernity, whites were willing and able to imagine and form more liberal, egalitarian and fraternal forms of government and societies, from Locke’s republicanism/libertarianism in the 17th century, Rousseau’s democracy/populism in the 18th, to Proudhon’s anarchism and Marx’s socialism in the 19th.
Even Gentile’s fascism and Hitler’s Nazism had some egalitarian characteristics.
The most successful of these was timocratic republicanism which later evolved into democratic republicanism.

This form of government and society opened up all sorts of social, political, economic, cultural and scientific opportunities.
It generated a lot of displacement, rags-riches and riches-rags stories.
Overall society became more peaceful and prosperous.

Some were more willing and able to take full advantage of these opportunities than others becoming the nouveau riche.
Gradually they largely turned on the liberal, egalitarian and fraternal systems that made their rise possible.
They’ve become the new ruling class, and just as Athenian Democracy and the Roman Republic gave way to the Macedonian and Roman Dictatorships, 1st pagan, then Christian, so too may our republics give way to corporate, scientific dictatorships.
That appears to be where we’re headed.

Right-libertarianism/capitalism + geographic, socioeconomic, cultural and scientific frontiers tends to diminish or eradicate old, decaying elites, paving the way for a more egalitarian society.
However, as more and more opportunities are seized, new elites emerge, unless opportunities were somehow vast and unlimited.
Incrementally these new elites replace right-libertarianism/capitalism with right-authoritarianism/corporatism, becoming oligarchs.

They may even do so under the pretense of promising to redistribute some of the wealth if given power (left-authoritarianism/socialism).
I’m not opposed to left-authoritarianism/socialism, but the people have to be careful with whom they support.
Julius Caesar and his grandnephew Octavian claimed to be populists, and perhaps they were to some extent, but nonetheless they killed Roman Democracy.
Those who seize power may promise to share the elite’s wealth but instead tax some members of the bottom 99% to give to other members of the bottom 99%, themselves (and the top 1%), then kill whatever’s left of freedom and democracy.

Perhaps next time new frontiers appear, humanity should try left-libertarianism/cooperativism as opposed to right-libertarianism/capitalism or left-authoritarianism/socialism.
Left-libertarianism/cooperativism is usually conceived anarchically, but it could be conceived democratically.
Left-libertarianism/cooperativism could even be synthesized with right-libertarianism/capitalism.
This could prevent monopolies, duopolies and oligopolies from forming.

From the point of view of the establishment, both what we consider leftwing, and rightwing, are leftwing.
That’s because the establishment is far right, but not in the premodern, monarchy, clergy and nobility sense, in the postmodern sense.
The establishment are oligarchs, they believe in technocracy, scientism, corporatocracy and corporatism.
They despise both republicanism, and democracy, both libertarianism, and populism, socialism and communism.
They’re the new authoritarian right.
They also despise the old authoritarian right, Christianists, Islamists, fascists, Nazis.
They play off all these groups against each other just as they play men, women and the various races off against one another.

There oughta be a single ism for these people, one that encompasses all of their lesser isms, corporatism, globalism, identity politics, Malthusianism, scientism, transhumanism.
They call themselves liberals, but that’s a fucking joke, they’re illiberal, authoritarians.
They want to supersede liberal democracy with a postmodern totalitarianism.
Of the aforementioned isms, Malthusianism may be the most fitting, because it’s the most sinister, no one would refer to themselves as Malthusian except them in secret.
Neo-Malthusianism or neo-feudalism is also apt.

[b]Neo-feudalism or new feudalism is a theorized contemporary rebirth of policies of governance, economy, and public life reminiscent of those present in many feudal societies, such as unequal rights and legal protections for common people and for nobility.

The concept of neofeudalism may focus on economics. Among the issues claimed to be associated with the idea of neofeudalism in contemporary society are class stratification, globalization, neoconservative foreign policy, mass immigration/illegal immigration, open borders policies, multinational corporations, and “neo-corporatism”.[/b]

This describes them perfectly.