What do Russell Brand, J.K. Rowling and Eddie Izzard have in common? I could summon a few harsher common attributes, but I will restrain myself to mentioning the attribute of primary concern to the subject of this article: they all epitomize the Bourgeois, the quintessence of hypocrisy.

What does it mean to be bourgeois?

The term Bourgeois is a French one that has its origins in the time period just preceding the French Revolution of 1789. Prior to the catastrophic revolution that saw the rise of liberalism through Post-Enlightenment philosophy, and which also resulted in the brutal and unjust execution of King Louis XVI, France had been divided into three classes, known as “Estates”. The First Estate was the Clergy, who took direct orders from the Pope. The Second Estate consisted of the Aristocracy, those who made decisions and owned swathes of land from which they directed and guided the Third Estate: The masses. Most individuals belonged to the Third Estate, which could be colloquially deemed “ the peasantry”.

The term bourgeois was used to attempt to categorise those members of the Third Estate who were economically affluent, but were nevertheless not Clergy or Nobility. As a result, it can be said that the Bourgeois occupies a kind of “ in-between class” and as a result has in a sense an ambiguous, androgynous characteristic. The word comes from the French burgeis, meaning “walled city”, due in course to the large proportion of the bourgeois who had abandoned the rural lifestyle that in many defined and romanticized the traditional Third Estate, which can be considered the true working class. It could be said that the emergence of the Bourgeois can be attributed to the Industrial Revolution which began in the mid 18th century, which saw an influx of the peasantry into the cities and the emergence of so-called “white collar professions”.

The Bourgeois and White Collar Professions:

The attitudes embodied by the occupants of these white collar professions can be summarised as those of consumerism, hedonism, materialism, decadence and a desire for social comforts that was initially utterly alien to the rest of the nation, for the White Collar Class is a combination of the worst qualities of the 2nd estate and the 3rd estate: they possess the inferior education of the Working Class (to which I proudly belong, for we have other better qualities), but possess the attitude of superiority of the Upper Classes, but unlike the Upper Classes, have achieved nothing of value in order to have earned this attitude.

Self-styled conservatives, who cannot bring themselves to correlated free-market capitalism with our current societal decline, will find little to grasp onto in this article and may feel subsequently alienated and confused. However, it must be said that what I am about to write attacks equally, if not more so, the current swathe of “ Conservative” voters as much as it does those of a cultural Marxist inclination.

The descent of society into the throes of so-called civilization, development and secular moralism, when they are carefully observed, can be seen to emerge not from the Aristocracy, nor from the working class, who have traditionally abided loyally by the principles willed by their spiritual and intellectual superiors in the form of the Clergy and Aristocracy, but filter downwards from the bourgeois to the Working class and upwards from the bourgeois to the Aristocracy, who have in recent times adopted consumerist and colloquial attitudes, and even in some cases a feeling of shame at their superior qualities that make them, and only them, fit for a position of authority in government and the intelligencia.

Mussolini on the Bourgeois:

Benito Mussolini once described Britain as “the fattest and most bourgeois country in the world”, and it is no wonder, for the British like no other race, are a people renowned somewhat infamously the world over for our supposedly posh and snobby sensibilities which in actuality do not reflect the true spirit of the British at all, but reflect the shadow that Post-Enlightenment philosophy has encouraged us to become.

The real cultural damage impacted by the bourgeois class has very little to do with economics, but rather with the sensibilities and consumerist appetites that the lifestyle invites. The archetype of the culturally damaging bourgeois figure is often described as the “Champagne Socialist”, an advocate of excessive but pretentious moralising that emerges from a feeling of guilt and inadequacy, subconsciously generated from the realisation that the middle class to which they belong has neither the grandeur or authority of the Aristocratic class, which they attack, nor any of the humility and dignity of servitude possessed by the working class, to which they pretend to belong to or at least be in the service of.

The Bourgeois on the International Stage:

The bourgeois was at one point confined to Europe, but is no longer. At one time, subsequently after its establishment, the USA existed almost entirely as one large conglomerate of the Third Estate, populated by gold prospectors, fisherman, labourers and agricultural workers, with a small Aristocratic fringe that was confined to New England known as the “Boston Brahmin”, though they had little in the way of a true Aristocratic authority despite their title’s suggestion. The bourgeois emerged in America comparatively later than in Britain: in the early 20th century, and is now so prevalent that it applies to the vast majority of Americans, particularly those along the coasts.

The bourgeois class can be found in all societies they infest to be meddlers and modernisers, attempting to uproot the status quo due to their feeling of purposelessness. Since the bourgeois cannot feel a purpose or profound meaning in society, rather than changing themselves they attempt to change society to suit themselves, attempting to destroy the Aristocratic class and elevate the Working Class from humility into decadence.

In many ways, this behaviour mirrors that of the Diaspora Jew, the stereotype of a wandering minority that feel an urge to uproot societal norms and impose a new societal order that adequately accommodates them, encouraging through guilt an alteration of the conduct of the society, but never providing any positive contributions, only being interested in changing the society to better suit their own interests.

Bourgeois and Champagne Socialism:

Hypocrites though they may be, the Champagne Socialists never seem to see the hypocrisy of their actions or intentions; claiming to be selfless and in pursuit of the Common Good, selfishly, everything that the Champagne Socialist seeks to do is in the interests of the Middle Class and at the expense of those at either end of the economic spectrum. They seek only to fatten the Middle Class and to create a Communistic society in which the upper classes and the working classes are both eliminated.

The bourgeois, despite their facade, have no interest in preserving or enhancing the quality of the Working Class. In actuality, their fiscal egalitarianism would result in the complete elimination of Working Class society, traditions and values, and replace the class system with one large Middle Class. In actuality, the world “class” would have no relevance in a Socialist system; rather, there would only be one perennial and all-consuming Bourgeois.

There is much more to be said on this matter, and the works of the philosophers Julius Evola and René Guénon provide an excellent avenue through which to understand the concepts I have touched upon more thoroughly. I highly recommend Guénon’s The Reign of Quantity and the Sign of the Times for a more comprehensive exploration of the subject matter.

The average human being, described originally by Karl Marx in an unexpectedly anti-egalitarian fashion, is so dull, senseless and uncomprehending as to barely even constitute being classified as alive. These humans: the rabble, the canaille, or as Marx termed them the “Lumpen Proletariat”, are not concerned nor are biologically capable of being in any way concerned with socially revolutionary ideas or political dissidence.

Such dissidence would be in contradiction with their sub-rational desire to prolong their miserable lives for as long as possible, using whatever means available to do so. Unlike those of a greater existential class, characterised by the great warriors of the ancient Aryan past, any sense of existence that transcends the present time and space is hidden behind a veil of fear and inherent biological dullness, and thus they are incapable of understanding the virtue and logic of self-sacrifice which came so naturally to the noble and transcendent men of old. They are ideologically immovable in as far as a newly proposed societal construct exists outside of the mainstream collective consciousness, after which point it is readily absorbed into the permeable cell membrane of the Protozoan Slime.

Said term, originally coined by the 20th century poet T.S. Eliot, in many ways crystallizes the essence of Fallen Man, tending always towards that which is easy and that which is perceived as safe, a conglomeration of insignificant and simple organisms clinging desperately to the sustenance of the structure of their amino acids, feeling a “oneness” in the characterless, formless biological mush. The modern-day human amoeba is only capable of respiration, a small degree of movement and reproduction, though even this most basic of tasks is treated as overwhelmingly difficult by the homosexuals. In the words of Julius Evola 98% of the human race are “a violation of the Cartesian Axiom “I think, therefore I am”: they do not think, yet they are.”

It was the great reactionary conservative Joseph de Maistre who once said that “A country gets the government it deserves”. This is demonstrably true. We have moronic leaders because our leaders are elected by morons because human beings have a naturally tendency to connect to those who are of a similar nature to themselves, demonstrated by president Barack Obama, who scored a meagre 102 on his presidential IQ test and barely qualified as intellectually average. This observation produces a vast body of conversation in of itself, and provides the basis for understanding why ethnic identitarianism is the only political ideology which aligns with primordial human nature and has been discussed in other writings.

The 2% that make the difference: For the the few, not the many

To apply the aforementioned figure of 98%, it must be said that this number wasn’t randomly selected. Despite assertions in recent years that IQ is an inaccurate means of measuring intelligence, mostly coming from those who have a low IQ themselves, the figure of 2% corresponds on the Intelligence Quotient to those with a score that exceeds 130, the borderline that defines those of a highly superior intellectual predisposition. This level of intelligence has significant implications in terms of the social, cultural and political determination of a functional society. The reason for this is that 130 has been argued to be the threshold for those whose minds work not based on binary interpretations of reality, but based upon a system termed “Fuzzy Logic”.
To elaborate on this, and to explain its significance to political debate, one must have an understanding of how human psychology influences decision making and ideology. The intelligence of a human being relates to their ability to divulge information from stimuli and to interpret this information, often with what is known as “imperfect information”; this means that an individual does not have information concerning all aspects of a problem, and must make a decision with limited information. This of course, is a necessary skill for any politician, or any kind of leader at all for that matter.
Considering this, it should become apparent that the in-fighting currently occurring between the centre-left and the centre-right regarding “debating all the facts”, is a ludicrous one, because in real politics, and in all aspects of life, decisions are made based on limited available information, a reality that any true leader understands. The mainstream plethora of pseudo-intellectuals can only operate at this plebeian level of intelligence, debating and endless supply of labels, factoids and trivialities that have no connection to the heart of the principle being debated. This relates to a term in rhetoric known as “Fuzzy Logic”, referring to the idea that whilst Absolute Truth and Complete Fallacies do exist, there also exists a spectrum of truth in which there can be degrees to which a statement is true or false. Generally speaking, Fuzzy Logic is implicitly understood by those who operate at higher intellectual echelons, but is alien to the minds of the general public.
Applying this principle, it becomes obvious that the plebs in government (the super-plebs), elected in turn by the plebeian population (the sub-plebs) are ill-equipped to deal with the problems of our age, because they cannot understand the levels of the problem, whether they are of a right-wing position or a left-wing position. We are no closer to dealing with the predicaments of the modern age if our leaders do not have the intelligence to deduce the root of the problems, and insist upon attacking the symptoms of problems and not their genesis. Attacking feminism without attacking its cause, Egalitarianism, and the foundation of this cause, which is 17thcentury Enlightenment Philosophy, is doomed to failure because it does not exist as an independent principle, and is only fallacious up to a certain degree in of itself. Understanding the various levels of a problem and having a vision to produce a counter-proposal that transcends and eliminates the principles behind a problem are the components of a true leader that will never be elected in any democratic system.
Herein lies the perpetual Catch 22 for any prospective Philosopher-King: to effect any change within world, one must influence this lumpen rabble, to influence this lumpen rabble, in this day and age one must be elected democratically (for any exercise of primal force and usurpation is treated with scathing condemnation) and to participate in a democratic procedure would be to perpetuate the idea that this rabble is entitled to these democratic procedures. The great curse of the anti-egalitarian: he needs the masses more than they need him, or at the very least more than they think they need him, for the masses have no profound understanding of what is truly best for them and never will.

References & Further Reading: 

Characteristics of various IQ levels, in relation to their ability to understand problems:

Gaining an understanding of Enlightenment Philosophy and the Counter-Enlightenment:

Imperfect Information: