Brooks Adams and A Positive Vision for the Right

In my last two posts I criticized Curtis Yarvin and Right-Nietzscheanism, receiving a mix of praise and criticism. My aim in these criticisms was to clear away political formulas that do not offer the right a viable path to victory. Critique without solution is mere complaint, so let me offer a solution.

First, let me define the problem as this: heritage Americans are being replaced demographically; the traditionally Christian morality of America is buckling under the advances of LGBT+, and right-of-center voices, should they begin to make an impact, are targeted by a weaponized legal and financial system. There are peripheral issues here, but these three seem to encapsulate the American right’s biggest complaints. A solution to this problem would necessarily include, at least, the cessation of demographic replacement, a restoration of America’s traditionally Christian morality, and making the right impervious to legal and financial warfare.

Now that we have an idea what a solution would look like, we are now tasked with answering how we get there. The right has looked far and wide for this answer, turning to thinkers as diverse as Julius Evola, Vilfredo Pareto, Curtis Yarvin, Frederich Nietzsche, and Thomas Carlyle. A thinker rarely touched is Brooks Adams. Brooks was one of the great grandsons of John Adams and was the most academically successful of his brothers. Why Adams has been more or less forgotten is uncertain, but his dry writing style and relatively moderate language does not help spread his popularity. Caryle and Evola are much sexier!

What is sexy, however, is winning, and Brooks Adams gives us a historical treatment of social revolutions. If the right desires to gain political power, if the right desires a social revolution, then it would be wise to look at how successful social revolutions have happened in the past. Let us then turn to Brooks Adams’ The Theory of Social Revolutions and see how social revolutions happen, and then use this understanding to build a strategy for launching a social revolution of our own. Once the social revolution has occurred, then the right will be in a position to address the problems outlined above.

In the second paragraph of The Theory of Social Revolutions, Adams says, “About a century ago, after, the American and French Revolutions and the Napoleonic wars, the present industrial era opened, and brought with it a new governing class, as every considerable change in human environment must bring with it a governing class to give it expression.” With this one sentence the whole of Adams’ thesis can be gleamed: social revolutions are the results of one economic center replacing the old center. “Those who, at any given moment, are the strongest in any civilization, will be those who are at once the ruling class, those who own most property, and those who have most influence on legislation”, meaning that economic power is synonymous with political power. Do we not see this today? George Soros can bankroll left-wing attorney generals because he is a billionaire, and Hollywood can influence culture as much as it does because it has the money to be the premier cinema scene. More than this, what many call “Globo-Homo” is, through the eyes of Adams, the observation that those with money have the power to disproportionately influence politics and culture.

“For example”, Adams tells us, “the modern English landlords replaced the military feudal aristocracy during the sixteenth century, because the landlords had more economic capacity and less credulity. The men who supplanted the mediaeval soldiers in Great Britain had no scruple about robbing the clergy of their land, and because of this quality they prospered greatly. Ultimately the landlords reached high fortune by controlling the boroughs which had, in the Middle Ages, acquired the right to return members to the House of Commons. Their domination lasted long; nevertheless, about 1760, the rising tide of the Industrial Revolution brought forward another type of mind. Flushed by success in the Napoleonic wars the Tories failed to appreciate that the social equilibrium, by the year 1830, had shifted, and that they no longer commanded enough physical force to maintain their parliamentary ascendancy.” Each of these three social revolutions occurred through an economic revolution. Landlords replaced the aristocracy as the political center of England because they had more economic might and had no qualms with using that might to take the land of the clergy (specifically the monasteries), who were the natural allies of the aristocracy, thus empowering themselves and weakening their rivals. Until the Industrial Revolution, the Landlords maintained dominance, but then were replaced by the bourgeoise, who, as the center of the new industrialized economy, replaced the Landlords as the economic (and thus social and political) center.

Taking this analysis to the French Revolution, Adams describes how the presence of feudalism alongside that of an emerging bourgeois sparked what would become the revolution of 1789: “The essence of feudalism was a gradation of rank, in the nature of caste, based upon fear. The clergy were privileged because the laity believed that they could work miracles, and could dispense something more vital even than life and death. The nobility were privileged because they were resistless in war. Therefore, the nobility could impose all sorts of burdens upon those who were unarmed.

During the interval in which society centralized and acquired more and more a modern economic form, the discrepancies in status remained, while commensurately the physical or imaginative force which had once sustained inequality declined, until the social equilibrium grew to be extremely unstable.” As the economic disparity between bourgeois and nobility was quickly vanishing, as the belief in the nobility’s superstructure faded, but while the nobility still retained vast legal privileges (such as their sons being exempt from wars), the new economic center decided to use its new strength to force out the outmoded ruling class.

Brooks Adams develops all of this in much more detail, but to continue would risk making this article too long. To reiterate, the economic center is the social center is the political center, and all other planets revolve around this sun. Addressing replacement, the collapse of traditional American morality, and a weaponized legal system will require, and/or constitute a social revolution. For this social revolution to occur, if Adams is right, then the right needs to become the economic center. In practice, this would look like white Christians becoming a bigger economic force than Amazon, Walmart, and Blackrock. It is, admittedly, an uphill battle.

There are some arrows in our quiver, however. I do not claim to know which arrows will do the job, or what all the arrows in our quiver even are, but I can propose a couple. For those more economically savvy than I, you are being given the torch. Those who take up this torch, keep in mind that specific policies and specific tactics should not be spoken about too publicly, as this would telegraph our plan of attack. As with my past policy posts, I will keep these relatively general.

Tax Raises: Levy a 1% income tax on companies like Amazon and use the tax revenue to subside local businesses. Amazon made close to 200 billion dollars in 2021, yielding two billion dollars on a 1% tax. Why local businesses? By and large this is where white Christian America still has power. Tradesmen, hardware stores, small consulting firms, etc. these are our areas. Spread the two billion around to them. Will it make them rich overnight? No, but it is a step in the right direction. If this cannot be done at the federal level, states could use their means of taxation to accomplish the same end. Requirements for receiving these tax dollars can be set so they are spigoted, so they are directed, towards our people.

Tax Exemption: In the wake of Covid-19, many small businesses closed for good. Giving small businesses tax exemption status, maybe on condition that the businesses that accept tax exemption show, within one tax year, that they raised their employees’ wages or hired new employees, could garner support from both Republican and Democratic voters.

Subsidize CNC Companies: CNC machines present the possibility of decentralized manufacturing. Margins in this industry, so I am told, are quite good. Subsidizing new CNC shops would foster a manufacturing sector that is independent from globohomo. This might be the closest analogue to the economic revolutions mentioned by Adams.

These three policies are just the beginnings of a much larger platform to flip the American economy in favor of small and local businesses, those segments of the economy that represent the right’s interests more than companies like Amazon, Walmart and Blackrock. Will these three policies do the job? No, and I am under no illusion they will. What I am trying to start is a conversation of how the state can be used to economically empower the right. Will the powers that be like that? No, so any concrete effort in this direction cannot use the language of the radical right and will likely have to find a way to appeal to both Republican and Democratic voters. Democratic voters? Yes, they really like local businesses.

When elections can be stolen, as the Democrats claimed in 2016 and the Republicans claimed in 2020, when companies like Amazon and Blackrock have billions of dollars to spend on buying elections, a simple majority can be sidestepped and tampered with. To combat the powers that be a 60% to 70% vote will likely be needed, for a vote that large has little room for electoral wiggle room. To reiterate, Brooks Adams gives us an explanation for why, and how, social revolutions happen, and reading Adams gives the right a road map for how to launch a successful social revolution. It will take time to workshop the specifics, but if this path is what led to past social revolutions, or, if we take Adams seriously, all past social revolutions, then this appears to be the path forward for the right.

8 Comments Add yours

  1. Aeoli Pera says:

    It’s a good fundamental basis to work from, but in application I’d suggest we think less in terms of elections and more in terms of food being illegal for white people (because shortages disproportionately affect minorities!).

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Anon says:

    National policy is an unrealistic goal, as unrealistic as economically dwarfing Amazon

    What is not unrealistic is local economic dominance, especially in a time of massive economic upheaval, the sort of which the globalists have been bringing upon themselves.

    CNC shops are a good start, a lot of factories I have been in are not very big and can be run for the benefit of local communities by a reasonably intelligent and motivated person.

    Trades are also a good choice. It is actually the choice I made leaving highschool and assuming that the country wasn’t going to last long. Trades have the benefit of apprenticeship which allows the existing tradespeople to ultimately decide who the next generation will be simply by deciding who they will take as an apprentice or not.

    In my experience, automotive shops are not a good idea. Lots of automotive shops make pitiful money for the amount of work they do. My suggestion is for your community of people, you should concentrate on aquiring to somebody’s garage, all the tools needed to work on various cars, if you can find somebody willing to keep a lot of tools and drink beer with his friends when they need to do maintainence on their vehicles.

    All this is from the experience of avoiding college and intentionally choosing to be blue collar in hope of becoming the new economic center.

    My top suggestion for the right is to become plumbers. Plumbing is a trade few people want to do because they are squeamish about cleaning drains when it has to be done and so the pay is high and unemployment virtually impossible. Many drugged up losers hold positions as plumbers because they are licensed and there is nobody to replace them. If everyone on the right looking to change their economic situation went and became a plumber right now in six years the industry would be dominated by the right and it would be impossible to unseat us.


  3. Nosotras says:

    I suggest the opposite. Whites need to withdraw from the economy completely. We must create extreme hardship for society because we thrive under those conditions. The lesser races are weak and soft. Starve the parasite.


    1. Anon says:

      Withdrawal from the economy is not a good vision for the future. People need to do productive work to be competitive in life. This is why we should instead concentrate on creating parallel economies; it drains productivity from the system and adds it to our communities.


  4. GDR says:

    Minor quibble: you could make this more accessible to normal people by noting that prior to the French Revolution the nobles no longer did any managing of estates or government, and everything was done by a new faction of bureaucrats from the mercantile and clerical classes. These people didn’t just know how the system of governance worked; they were the system of governance. Once they gained consciousness as a faction it was over for the leftovers.

    Also explains the harshness with which the revolutionaries punished the lower and middle classes, who were their biggest threats and potential competitors.


  5. Lon Spector says:

    Fiddling while Rome is burning.


  6. Alex says:

    Everything you suggest is racist and sexist. You are going to have to close all those “gaps.”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s