An Open Letter to The Coming Republican Majority

Controversy! Before the article proper has already begun! “The Coming Republican Majority”…who am I to predict the unpredictable? Will polling data not change? Will there not be some electoral foul play? “An Open Letter to”…who ought to be writing to the world’s most important legislative body, other than someone of equal or greater importance? Already, I have claimed the future and the importance of the world’s most important legislative body. I am being controversial because by titling this article “An Open Letter to The Coming Republican Majority”, I am implying that I, a) know for certain that the Republicans will take the House and/or Senate in November, b) have the authority to address this alleged coming majority, and, perhaps most audaciously, c) think that they will read this article.

Why would I create so many problems for myself? Sometimes people create problems for themselves to grab attention. A child misbehaves, thinking bad attention is better than no attention at all. A rapper insults someone in a song, eliciting a response from the disrespected artist’s fan base. A legislative majority is spoken to, and maybe a few staffers listen. I am not expecting any elected Republican to listen, but I do think a few staffers will. Many of the talking points of the 2014/2015 Alt-Right are being repeated today by Tucker Carlson, Darren Beattie, Steve Bannon, and, something I am still processing, Kanye West. Staffers look at our stuff, or at least did. Why listen? Why does anyone listen? Because there is something potentially worthy of being offered. What do I have to offer you, Mr. Staffer? I can tell you how to frame the past one-hundred years that explains how conservatives have lost power, how all groups lose power for that matter, and how you can deliver a (near) permanent victory.

What I am about to tell is a story. There are many stories to tell, and there is more than one true story. While I will try and tell a broad story, it will inevitably leave out important things. If there is one sure sign of ideology it is the conviction that there is nothing more, that all has been said. What we will do here is not ideology, there is always an openness to another story. However, we tell certain stories for certain reasons. A father reads his son the Iliad, but reads his daughter Madame Bovary. This story is for staffers who have to articulate to their boss and their boss’s constituents why the left has taken so much ground and need to formulate a comprehensive way of beating the left in a definitive way.

The Story

Sometime at the beginning of the 20th century there was an economic revolution. Ousting the bourgeois, the upper-middle class businessmen who, taking after the Rennaissance Humanist, had a private, rather than public, concern for culture, was the new managerial class, who believed themselves capable of, and obligated to, restructure society. Unlike the businessmen who preceded them, who made their wealth from industry and saw culture as a private affair, an affair to be affected by building libraries (Andrew Carnegie comes to mind), the new managerial class were largely intellectuals who received funding from NGOs and thought culture was a public affair to be changed top down. A paradigm example of this new managerial class is the Tavistock Institute for Social Research. Made up of forty members, this think tank is the leading resource on psychology (crowd psychology in particular) and sociology. For those in graduate school, or who have been through graduate school, look at the references in your texts and you will see that a good number of them are citations of Tavistock journals. Since Tavistock is the leading authority on the social sciences, and since the social sciences find their way into the humanities and the hard sciences, The Tavistock Institute has a great deal of say in all academic matters. Many common phrases, such as “mid-life crises”, “fandom”, and “sub-culture” were coined by Tavistock. Among the more infamous members of Tavistock were the Frankfurt School.

Both out of ideological conviction, and to cement their power over the displaced bourgeois industrialists, the managerial elites attacked those things dear to the bourgeois: national identity, the American Constitution, Christianity, and private property. It is true that the bourgeois justified their hegemony on these things, and by attacking the legitimacy of bourgeois society the managerial elites were discrediting the old ruling class and, in so doing, shoring up their own legitimacy, but to reduce this attack to pure power relations is to slip into Marxism. Fellows at The Tavistock Institute, to circle back to the most powerful of managerial NGOs, in all likelihood truly believe that their many psychological operations (two notable ones being the pushing of transgenderism and the division of culture into subcultures) are making the world a better place. In fact, The Tavistock Institute’s main goal since World War Two has been to prevent World War Three, and this means removing the causes of the two world wars. The causes? One cause is mass mobilization, mobilization along the lines of racial, national, or class identity, and thus the need to ensure the absence of unified cultures and the presence of many subcultures. Cultures can mobilize for war, the American, British, German, Italian, and Russian cultures all did. Subcultures, however, cannot. Cottage Core, Dungeons and Dragons, and Neo-Reaction are, unliked a unified national culture, incapable of mobilizing a country for war. Thus, for the person dedicated to stopping a third world war, who believes that mass mobilization was a main cause of the two previous world wars, it behooves those with the means to delegitimize unified cultures and to promote the proliferation of subcultures. To envision the managerial elites as either purely economic agents or ideologists is to miss the mark. There is likely both some economic interest and ideological purity to them.

An old economic center is replaced by a new, that new center now has the means to effect cultural change. Those with money have the ability not only to bankroll candidates, but also to establish cultural institutions. It takes money to run campaigns, establish schools, universities, and media companies. We must not fall into the extreme of Marxism, which declares money to be all-powerful, or the extreme of Manicheanism, which distains any refence to the economy. Rather, we must take the middle path and say that money is necessary. An artist needs to eat to live, and this requires some cash, but to reduce the artist’s painting to that cash is nonsense. To assert the radical opposite, that money has no role in art, is to deny that the artist needs to eat. The economic center becomes the cultural center because those who do not have to worry about food, clothing, or security, have the freedom to invest time in affecting culture. Aristotle said as much, declaring that the mere life is the prerequisite to the good life.

There has been much talk about how the current left is different from the old Marxist left, with the New Left’s “cultural turn” and a more or less acceptance of market economics being two main supporting arguments, but this is to overlook a critical continuity between the old left and today’s managerial left. Like Marx, who in The Communist Manifesto advocated for the abolition of property in land (no home-ownership), the abolition of all right of inheritance (putting an end to family businesses), the extension of factories owned by the state, along with the combination of agriculture with said factories (gradually eliminating the family farm), targeted the source of the middle class’s wealth, the managerial class appears bent on destroying the American middle class’s moral foundation, and seeming unconcerned that the vast majority of Americans “will own nothing”, and, campaigning under the banner “Build Back Better”, tacitly endorse the idea that these Americans, who will own nothing, “will be happy” under this arrangement. These groups are not identical, Bion is not Engels, but they share a common hatred for the middle class, the middle class who represents the antithesis to revolutionary ideals.

Summarizing, then, the (upper) middle class, who made their wealth through industry and held culture to be a private affair, were replaced by a managerial class in the early 20th century, who made their wealth primarily through NGO and university grants, and not only believed culture to be a public affair but felt it their duty to change culture top down. This class, becoming the new center of the economy, had the means to become the new cultural center, and proceeded to, both out of ideological conviction and economic self-interest, attack the moral foundation of America’s middle class: Christianity, private property, our English inheritance, The Constitution, and national pride. Today the left has power because yesterday the left seized the commanding heights of the economy.

The Solution

In every acorn is a tree, in every child an adult, and in this story the solution. If a group becomes the cultural center after becoming the economic center, then should conservatives wish to command the culture again, then they need to control the economy again. To gain cultural power, first conservatives must reorientate the economy to the middle class, who is naturally conservative, but setting their bourgeois attitude towards culture for one more like the managerial class. This is to say that after the American economy is once again centered around production, rather than NGOs and non-profits, men of industry (captains of industry, to coin a phrase), must see culture as a public affair, as something bearing upon all citizens and needing the guidance of the good man.

What are some ways to recenter the economy? Bringing back manufacturing jobs from overseas, subsidizing Made-In-America and locally owned businesses (instead of foreign and multi-national companies), trust-busting Amazon, Vanguard, and Blackrock unless they commit to strengthening America’s national strength and redirecting all funds going to leftist NGOs and non-profits to companies committed to the success of America, her people, and her traditions. Before every bill is written, before any vote is made in Congress, before any donation is given, before any pen wets the draft of an article, the question, “does this benefit the middle class”, should ring in the mind’s ear over and over again. America is not synonymous with the middle class, but most of those who support her predominantly middle class. As “not all” is a poor objection to generalized statements about race or gender, so is “not all in the middle class are conservative.” To support the trend, rather than the particular, is our game

Once these and like measures are taken, the captains of industry must use their economic position, their freedom from necessity, to influence their local politics, lobby for good men to run libraries, schools, and universities, and should they find these institutions to be broken beyond redemption, then they shall create their own. Artists need to be funded and given access to exhibits. Christian schools need the kind of funding public schools receive, coupled with quality faculty that universities dream of. Decency codes need to be reinstated in Hollywood, and awards ought to be given to films depicting heroism. The Song of Roland, Henry V, and Beowulf, to name three favorites of mine, should be made into IMAX action movies. Finally, including in housing codes needs to be a standard of beauty, because what comes into our eyes enters the soul and cookie-cutter buildings are a sad excuse for architecture. The youth of tomorrow should be surrounded by examples of goodness, truth, and beauty, inspiring them to be virtuous men and women.

So, future Republican majority, tell the American people how spectacle wearing think-tank employees have ousted the industrious middle class. Tell the American people that the country belongs to those that build, not those who criticize. Point to the managers’ billions of dollars, and explain how it is being used to undermine the working man’s traditions. Once the target is drawn, strike and strike hard.

8 Comments Add yours

  1. Eric says:

    Reblogged this on Calculus of Decay .


  2. NC says:

    thx for the latest Mot20C episode. All good except that REM song at the end. …..
    As for the Republican’ts, just look at the Italian PM just elected = same as same. Then Brazil just got coup…
    Will be the same next week when somehow the Daemonrats win again.

    BUt hay WEF Musky owns Fiddeler now = so all is good.


    1. Gnillik Yot says:

      Well, this didn’t age well.


  3. Dana Peck says:

    Steps towards the goal: Investments in domestic manufacturing worker productivity get substantial tax incentives; investments in non-manufacturing enterprises are heavily taxed; campaign contributions can only be made by residents of the elected official’s geographic area and must be publicly reported the day they are made; media charges to campaigns are capped based on some $/voter formula (most campaign expenditures go to media outlets, why campaign finance reform never goes anywhere); public agency employment is term-limited to a total of ten years.



  4. df says:

    Excellent article. We need MORE action plan-type articles like this in circulation instead of just complaining about the Left.


  5. Withered Rose says:

    Absolutely. Too often the right is stuck between moaning, and discussing ideas without application. Moaning is better left to ghosts, and, as faith without works is dead, ideas without application is useless. If we are as smart as we like to think, we should be coming up with concrete solutions to concrete problems.


  6. Shannon says:

    I enjoyed your article and agreed with a lot of your salient points particularly about our buildings just being cookie cutter when we have the ability and resources to make great building masterpieces just like those still standing today that were built years ago. President Trump instigated bringing back manufacturing here and emphasizing made in America. I believe that we have the neccessary tools and people to bring back America to its height of glory. I agree with national identity and this is one thing that is coming back internationally where people are identifying themselves by their country and not a bureaucratic block. I know that in 2016 was the start of national pride in our country again. I think we are people need to also fight back because we can elect people who are able to help but just like in chess you need to maneuver different pieces to win and I think many forget to include the public in helping with the battle.


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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s