Why I support aristocracy

Dark Blue, by Pawel Czerwinski

Why I support aristocracy |
Friday – December 5, 2025

Throughout the history of civilized society, aristocracy, or really the hierarchical order, has been the commonplace, and it wasn't until the advent of bourgeois nationalism and liberalism that such things as human rights became salient; indeed, these ideas took the world with a storm. But it is important to keep in mind that no society has ever worked, including the liberal societies within the imperial core, without a ruling class; of course in the liberal land that ruling class consists of a warmongering and violent revolutionary elite that have divorced power from the just and the noble. It's not that aristocracy is good, so much as it is an inevitability of the human condition: life is hard and within the material domain man seeks stability. Indeed, without stability life would become very difficult and very much an impossible enterprise. This is why man entered into society or created society in the first place. Of course, the revolutionary elite didn't earn anything, they didn't fight for the right to rule: instead the revolutionary elite stole power from dying and diseased old men. These conditions only come about in the pursuit of materialism; any society not ruled by the short term aims of materialism do not take the liberal form and this is indeed true with many societies still around today. Of course, then there's the rather, in modern times at least, uncomfortable detail of pedigree: you are born into the right to rule and yes, this is good because it creates within man of ascendant rank a responsibility to actually rule and take responsibility and this form of government has very little to do with the performative form of government that is the modern liberal democracy, where everyone have to be equal and unique at the same time. I guess men are equally unique in democracies? Well, that is at least the contradiction at the center of democracy. Of course, there's no such thing as democracy: one way or another there will be men better suited for leadership, but the problem with democracy is that this performative aspect inverts the natural flow of hierarchy, because it puts men who are not suited to rule in power, men that are governed by the material need to justify their own positions. Indeed, politics is nothing more than a fancy way of inventing new ideas to justify someone's material position in society. In the past normal people didn't have to deal with the hysteria of the populist horde continually stampeding away from one fad to another: in the past ordinary men earned their dignity through their stable and clear position in society. In the past all men were not expected to perform the same function, all men were not compressed into that one singular unit, the modern individual: in the past soldiers were born soldiers. Yes, men who ruled earned their right to rule and people didn't unnaturally assume that any given man was capable of ruling, but in modern times everyone is essentially meant, in theory at least, to constitute the same thing, that one and lonely individual brick in the wall. Of course, the revolutionary elite knows better and quite often they make no attempts to seal their lies and their manipulations: they do elevate certain plebeians to their positions, because after all they have to come from somewhere.

    It's hard for modern people to imagine the world in a different light, because they've been fed the same propaganda their entire lives. Why is it natural in the minds of a given individual man that anyone should be able to assume command? It's not and if you ask most men they will tell you this simple truth, with the one exception that most men can become the leader of the state, etc. Of course, there are two problems here: the first problem is that the state has assumed so much power and makes itself part of so many aspects of life that its hard for most modern men to imagine another life; the second problem is that liberalism panders to the gentile sensibilities of most men, of course little Jimmy should be able to become the next [insert political title] of the country; but I should also add that the entire concept of the nation-state, something I've covered in the past, has also very much muddied the waters in regards to politics, something I've also covered in the past. When people say that a ruler should seek to take responsibility, they refer to the modern concept of leader and the whole community which includes the nation, but in the past you must realize that power was only held by people who could actually take this responsibility and as a result they didn't recklessly destroy. Yes, if there's anything the modern liberal order is good at, it is to destroy the creations of the past. It wasn't democracy and liberalism that brought man out of the stone age: it was the powerful and righteous might in the warrior culture that cultivated and made the creations that most men today take for granted possible, and here I'm not referring to material creations, I'm referring to the basic safeguards and prerequisites of basic life, something I've briefly covered in my "Collectivism and Individualism series".

    I am again, not in favor if aristocracy because I believe that aristocracy in and of itself is good: I am in favor of aristocracy because I recognize the basic tendency of all societal orders, including the liberal one as I previously mentioned, to tend towards hierarchies, and the natural flow of man in his social state is to earn power, not through elections or democracy but through share ability. There's simply something profoundly unnatural about this material and artificial order, and this is and should be taken as a sign of our times, the Kali Yuga. Everything is and will continue to be artificial and contrived, all in order to safeguard the materialist order. While this may have been true towards the end of aristocracy in the last three centuries or so, I would be remiss if I decided to draw my conclusions about aristocracy from the last two or three centuries. Of course, there are modern forms of aristocracy that go beyond the bastardization of power within liberal democracies, but these are hardly real forms of aristocracy. At any rate, all societies are under the impression of liberalism and the expectation of evolution towards this state, or perhaps degeneration towards this state, the progress maxim.

    Before I end, ask yourself this: do you trust any given man to be in power? Or do you perhaps, just perhaps, prefer certain men to be in power?

Reginald Drax – December 5, 2025.