Regicide Never Went Out of Style


“The cause of democracy’s stupidities is confidence in the anonymous citizen; and the cause of its crimes is the anonymous citizen’s confidence in himself.” -Don Colacho

Princeton University recently released a study that confirms what we’ve known for a long time: America is an oligarchy.  Their study also confirmed the other thing that we’ve also known for a long time:  Our leaders’ voting record and political choices on governance don’t reflect the views of the public.

The Princeton study showed that our leaders’ voting record supports laws that favor the top 1% and big business interests.  We all know that it’s not in our interest to have policies crafted by and for big business interests, but we shouldn’t be mad about our government’s actions not representing our own choices.

The public’s view isn’t supposed to be represented in politics, and I’m damned glad that the common man’s view isn’t represented.  The problem is not that the public’s views are not represented in politics, it’s that the handful of views that are being represented in politics are against our own interests.

Is America an oligarchy?  I don’t have reason to doubt the Princeton research.  Even if it the report were garbage, and America wasn’t an oligarchy it wouldn’t matter because if the common man’s viewpoint was represented in politics we wouldn’t be doing any better.  The common man isn’t supposed to lead, nor is his sense and sensibility supposed to be used a compass or guide for the state and nation’s interests.  The reason why is that the common man does not have the mental and intellectual capacity to competently do what a political state’s leader is supposed to do.

Niccolo Machiavelli’s The Prince lays out some of the requirements for people who wish to be the leader of a nation.

“But, it being my intention to write a thing which shall be useful to him who apprehends it, it appears to me more appropriate to follow up the real truth of a matter than the imagination of it; for many have pictured republics and principalities which in fact have never been known or seen, because how one lives is so far distant from how one ought to live, that he who neglects what is done for what ought to be done, sooner effects his ruin than his preservation; for a man who wishes to act entirely up to his professions of virtue soon meets with what destroys him among so much that is evil. Hence it is necessary for a prince wishing to hold his own to know how to do wrong, and to make use of it or not according to necessity.”

Whether or not Machiavelli wrote The Prince as satire, it’s an irrefutable truth that a leader must know how to wisely, creatively, and with great utility use some level of mis-truth and deception.  True, the common man can be deceitful, lying, and have aspirations to greatness (more likely delusions of grandeur), but if he cannot be corrupt in the name of protecting and advancing the needs and interests of the state and nation then he just a common charlatan and scam artist.  Provided that such a common man cum leader was not a horrendously corrupt confidence artist he would still be of little benefit.

Francis Parker Yockey gives us a better definition of what kind of man this would be.

“He gambles in the hope of winning, and if he loses, he whimpers. He would rather live on his knees than die on his feet. He accepts the loudest voice as the true one. He follows the leader of the moment — but only so far, and when the leader is eclipsed by a new one, he points out his record of opposition. In victory he is a bully, in defeat he is a lackey. His talk is big, his deeds small. He likes to play, but has no sportsmanship. Great thoughts and plans he castigates as “megalomania.” Anyone who tries to pull him up and along the road of higher accomplishment he hates, and when the chance offers, he crucifies him, like Christ, burns him, like Savonarola, kicks his dead body in the square in Milan.”

That’s what the common man is, and what a wreck the state would be if such a person was at the helm.  It is not enough to have a person who does not appeal to the lowest common denominator, because it is not enough to have good intentions and a strong loyalty or dedication one’s people.  The vision and inspired leadership that is gifted to so precious few is the only thing that can guide a nation and satisfactorily lead the state in matters of war and international relations.

The common man is called common as a matter of class identity and intellectual ability.  If he were not common, then he would not be a part of that social spectrum of people.  The only thing that the common man can bring to the table are base passions, weak intellectual and political prowess, and a lack of vision.

I’m not mad that our politicians and the laws that they create are not representative of the common man.  I’m not even entirely upset that we’re stuck with an oligarchy.  What does upset me is that the laws, regulations, and governance that we do have are not in the service of protecting our people or a positive way of life.  The State is supposed to be at the service of the people insofar as it has some responsibilities to care for and protect its citizens, but it is not supposed to be an amplifier for the commoner’s voice, nor a supplicant chained to the will of the people.

Julius Evola explains this sentiment more clearly.

“The State is not the expression of ‘society.’  The basis of sociological positivism, namely the ‘social’ or ‘communal’ view of the State, is the index of a regression and naturalistic involution. It contradicts the essence of the true State, inverting every proper relationship; it divests the political dimension of its proper character, original quality, and dignity. The ‘anagogical’ end (namely, of a power drawing upward) of the State is thus completely denied.”

When Americans shriek about politics not being representative of their will they’re still committing regicide.  That we don’t have anymore royalty to hang, or regents put under the guillotine is inconsequential.  If Christ came back today and demanded his throne you can bet that there would be a throng of commoners demanding his removal because He did not honor their will. If you’re a Christian who recites The Lord’s Prayer you should think twice about voting for a politician who vows to be your voice.  The Lord’s Prayer couldn’t be any more explicit:  “Thy kingdom come, thy will be done…” [emphasis added]. and not “My kingdom come, my will be done.”

For those who still hold some value in our electoral system, think about this proposition when you go to the polls:  Don’t vote for a politician who honors your will or caters to your demands.  Stop “killing the king”, let our political elite do what they need to in order to protect our state, and above all else ask yourself if the candidate is looking out for the best interests of your race and nation.


Nicholas Escalona

I think you distort things greatly when you speak of “deception and mis-truth” and call The Prince as a witness. You should not say “mis-truth,” because it is vague and encompasses intrinsically evil acts, but only “deception.” Since The Prince mocks virtue and speaks directly of evil acts, this compounds the confusion. Surely, you do not think that the commonweal justifies what nothing can justify, as this article makes it appear. If we criticize our rulers not for ruling, but for ineffective or evil ruling, as we ought, then we should say unvirtuous rulers are the problem, not the solution.

Thomas Buhls

Defining what is or isn’t virtuous would seem to be the problem then. Not all leaders have the stomach to do misjustices or cruelties in the course of protecting a state’s sovereignty, and political power all while looking out for the welfare, comfort, and development of its citizens.

Nicholas Escalona

Well, recognizing that misjustices are not virtuous would be a fair start.

Damian Wise

Does regicide give people more power then voting does? if they can take matters into their own hands, and install a leader not of the elite, by committing the act of regicide, will they find a government, that is more representative of their interests? Or will the new leader become corrupted, and become part of the elite they wished to overthrow?

Leave a Reply