Universalism is Political Suicide

I’m going to start this article by making a counter-intuitive point: I believe in a universal common humanity that binds all people. I have met people from all over the world. I have laughed and joked with them, and broken bread. When you meet people of different backgrounds you come to see what is the same in all of us. And this is true not just geographically and culturally but also historically. How else can someone like me make sense of the writings of a twelfth-century monk? (If you’re wondering: Otto of Freising.) How else can a modern Japanese man understand and enjoy a play written by a bloke from Stratford-upon-Avon circa 1603? Aristotle wrote of anger over 2320 years ago:

Anger seems to listen to reason to some extent, but to mishear it, as do hasty servants who run out before they have heard the whole of what one says, and then muddle the order, or as dogs bark if there is but a knock at the door, before looking to see that it is a friend; so anger by reason of the warmth and hastiness of its nature, though it hears, does not hear an order, and so it springs to take revenge.[1]

Anyone who has ever been angry understands what he means, no matter their background. Or how about when Thomas Aquinas says this of courage:

Or they may make us shirk a course of action dictated by reason, through fear of dangers or hardships. Then a person needs to be steadfast and not run away from what is right; and for this courage is named.[2]

We all instinctively know the nature of courage such that St. Thomas may speak to us across history and culture. Let me open Shahnameh: The Epic of Kings – one of the classics of Persian literature by Ferdowsi, written around 977 – at random and see if we can understand any passage written therein:

At cockcrow, the sound of beating drums came from the palace. Esfandiyār, as massive as an elephant, mounted his horse, then swiftly rode as the wind moved his troops from their position and rode on.[3]

We understand instantly that it is morning, and a leader mounts his horse ready to lead his men into battle. We understand instantly notions of conflict and war, heroism and cowardice, victory and defeat, from three lines written over a thousand years ago in a faraway place. These things are understandable because they appear to be universal. The concept of the universal is intoxicating to us because we can recognise it everywhere. But then this exciting recognition gets confused for being a politically desirable goal.

However, universalism as a political doctrine (rather than as men standing amazed as apes before the heavens), is everywhere and always the tool of a dominant hegemon to conceal their sectional interests. The Persians and Romans were past masters of such a doctrine and it was arguably perfected by the British in the nineteenth century. An empire asserts its values as being natural and universal in the name of its own power. In this way, subjects can be hoodwinked into supporting their oppressors. And so it is today. Universalism is the political doctrine of our enemies: the ruling class of the Empire of Lies also known as the American hegemon. Universalism is the tool with which the empire keeps us subjugated under its lesbian stiletto. Its revolting egalitarianism, its vision of the rainbow nationless world conceals its aggressive dominance. Pretty rhetoric designed to appeal to the vapid skinny-mocha almond-milk quaffing women who fill out the ranks of its managerial and professional classes ensures that they pine for their own annihilation. There are men in these classes too, but they too are spiritual women. Or, if you prefer lesbians, for the universal vision of this Empire is of a black lesbian caressing a rainbow-coloured dildo which represents her total submission to the regime. When the regime has succeeded in turning you into a lesbian, you too will say ‘thank you big brother’ as its preverbal rainbow-themed phallus penetrates you. And you’ll do it in the name of human rights and sustainable living.

If you seek to resist all this, you cannot do it in the name of a universal humanity. Your answer must be: I don’t want this for me and my people. You can save your group but all of mankind might be a bridge too far, in fact all of your nation might be a bridge too far. You must organise at the level of you and your people. If the essence of politics is in the distinction between friend and enemy, there can be no universal. There is, of course, the question of who is ‘your people’ in this scenario: the inhabitants of your local town? Your nation? The members of your race or ethnicity? The members of your faith? At some level ‘your people’ at this moment is anyone who doesn’t want their home turned into black lesbian land, but of course that includes everyone from conservative black nationalists to Muslims in the Middle East and African Christians, and this is a group too wide to be meaningful. In fact, even though the forces that oppose the Lesbian Empire are many, they are too diverse to overcome their differences in opposing the ultimate evil – and this is why the Empire rules.

I would like you to make two mental moves: first, write off the masses entirely. Is it really your mission to save the great unwashed? They don’t want to be saved. Whichever way you define it, your people are not simply the generic mass, they are people like you, people who seek to resist the Empire. These are all the people who need saving. The masses are pigs. These hogs are content watching Netflix and wearing masks to the shops and repeating the slogans of the Empire: they are of no relevance. They should be seen as the swine they are. If you capture a farm, the pigs come with it, but the only beings of real relevance to that capture are the farmer and his cronies. The pigs will support whoever feeds them. Second, once you take the sub-human masses out of the picture, the elite become a majority and we become a minority. The essence of political power is in minority organization as against the disorganized mass: therefore, each resistance group will be at its most efficacious working alone to its own particularities and interests as against the disorganized mass of the current elites. At best, we can recognise a broad coalition that has a common enemy, but any attempt to steer such disparate groups all together risks becoming very quickly the disorganized majority again. Nonetheless, leaders of resistance groups should focus all their firepower on the common enemy rather than on each other, since the goal is to be more organised than the enemy.

Thus, if you follow what I have been saying: the network of tens I have discussed would function better as a network of networks of tens each working for their own particular and narrow interests as against the disorganized majority of the Empire. Keith Woods recently made a video saying that the Dissident Right is not a movement because it is made up of so many disparate factions.[4] He is correct, but each faction in itself has the potential to be more politically efficacious by dropping any and all pretensions to universalism, including the universal goals of saving the entire nation or the entire world. My suggestion is that each faction first concentrates on getting organised among themselves, not trying to steer what the other factions are doing. This involves every faction going beyond merely online activity – incidentally, that is for others to do, I am just a scholar not a political activist – but greater organisation will make every faction more powerful. My hope is thus for the Empire eventually to be caught in a game of constantly playing whack-a-mole against hundreds, thousands, of tightly organised groups standing up for their people, their narrow interests, fiercely particularist. This is, in fact, how other empires have fallen, once the lies of the universalism of the ruling class are punctured and tribes stand up for their own interests. The Empire’s power is in centralisation because they own all the levers, but so wide is their base of power now that it is quite diffuse: the elites can, in effect, become a disorganized mass when compared to other tightly organised groups, especially those who have set their sights on the narrow and achievable goal of resisting the Empire for their group only. One hundred based tightly organised activists should defeat one thousand disorganised lesbian journalists, NGO agents or academics: it is Mosca’s Law.

---

[1] Aristotle, The Nicomachean Ethics, ed. Lesley Brown (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), p. 128.

[2] Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, (Vol. 23: Virtue) [1a2ae. 55-67], ed. W.D. Hughes (London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1969), question 61, article 2, p. 121.

[3] Ferdowsi, Shahnameh: The Epic of Kings, trans. Reuben Levy (Tehran: Yassavoli Publications, 2018), p. 192.

[4]

.