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.

In order for there to be any way forward, in order for us to grow, we must know from whence and for what reasons the current predicaments of the world and more specifically those that bale Europe, emerged. The issues in question do not bear repeating and I don’t wish to patronise my readership in doing so, other than to summarise them briefly as leftism, centrism, the bourgeoisie conservativism of Jacob Rees Mogg and Nigel Farage (which ultimately only seeks to conserve and still a particular moment in time rather than to uphold any penial lperennial values), rabid consumerism, alt-rightism as characterised by Milo Jewannopolous and Jordan Peterzion, and the atheistic, Nietzschean Nazism and skinhead ideology which may be described as national socialism (often Christian nationalists) and is mostly prominently manifested in the United Kingdom by the EDL, Britain First and the National Front.
Jonathan Bowden, one of the only true intellectuals
of recent times within the British nationalist movement.
Bowden died in 2012 after a mental breakdown and resulting
cardiac arrest. 
It is important also to provide a foreword on the genesis also of Christian ethics and an absolute morality that is founded in religious scripture. In pre-Christian Europe, morals were considered separate in some ways from higher powers, and were rather reasoned to in a secular manner, usually through a utilitarian philosophy that is justified through the idea of reincarnation. Rather than a list of “thou shalt not” instructions, pagan morality was rooted in the concept of a “greater good” in which the action that would cause the most good or least harm for an individual and also for their descendants (who were seen as being one spiritual entity, only physically separated) was chosen. Ergo, pagan morality demanded a level of intellect and intuition which was done away with for the most part after Christianization, replaced with a rigid cut-and-paste set of rules. Immanuel Kant was one of the first philosophers in the pre-Christian era to add intuition to his Christian faith and to rationalise the commandments and provide them with a logical foundation.
Kant, in the way he rationalised his moral foundation, can be seen as a one of the first secularists in that he divorced his morality from his theism. However, when Christianity collapsed at the end of the 19th century, Christian morals began to be perceived as a lie along with the Old Testament teachings; this, however, was the fundamental and foundational mistake. People had not been adequately trained in rationalising their moral foundation, and when their system of morals which was built on their list of commandments was questioned, people were lost. 

“All our knowledge begins with the senses,
proceeds then to the understanding,
and ends with reason. There is nothing higher than reason.”
Immanuel Kant, 1724-1804

Liberalism in its present form originated as hedonism (along with an ill-fated attempt to formulate a form of secular morality) filled the vacuum left by the collapse of Christianity at the end of the 19th century which was inevitable, but accelerated by thinkers such as Charles Darwin. Scientific thinkers finally uncovered the lies that Middle Eastern religions were built on about the age of the Earth, evolution, creation and a worldwide flood, not to mention the linguistic evidence which demonstrated it was impossible that all languages diverged from the Tower of Babel 3000 years ago given the tremendous number of inscriptions which prove the contrary.

Liberalism, for a brief time, attempted to manifest itself alongside the guise of a secular morality as expressed by philosophers like Kant, which lasted in my view into the last 20th century (around the 1970s) before it was swiftly abandoned after the realisation of its irrationality; the mess that resulted from the collapse of secular morality and thus the final descent into nihilism (whose seed was planted by the modernist Nietzsche whom Julius Evola reviled) can be seen manifest in the Goth, emo, pseudosatanic, rave, hooligan and even skinhead subulture. The “Nazi skinhead” subculture which had its day in the 1970s and 80s, and the relics which still survive and I fear may begin to constitute a large proportion of my readers, is not inherently traditionalist, right wing or moralist at all, and only seeks (or sought) to use racial ideology as a vehicle for its own nihilism and racial violence and abuse as a narcissistic fetishism with which to glorify the self image rather than in the interest of preserving or upholding a form of perennial wisdom or the value of tradition. There may be exceptions, but I am yet to meet one. The garden variety black, white or otherwise racial supremacist is merely a narcissist.
Baron Julius Cesare Andrea Evola;
20th century traditionalist philosopher.

I will return to the concept of the “hooligan right” in a later article, as for progress to be made within nationalism the complete annihilation of this subculture is necessary. I will simply summarise the important next step in nationalist politics with the following quote by former BNP culture officer Jonathan Bowden: “Truthfully, in this age those with intellect have no courage and those with some modicum of physical courage have no intellect. If things are to alter during the next fifty years then we must re-embrace Byron’s ideal: the cultured thug.”

There was a gap of around half a century between the collapse of Christianity in its true form (if anything about Christianity can be described as true) and the legalisation of paganism in 1955; it was also several years before pagan ideology was reconstructed into a form in which it could be practiced with historical accuracy, for accurate resources to begin to be produced and for the prejudice associated with the adoption of one’s ancestral religion to have largely dissipated.

During this time, the seeds of the “Rock and Roll” movement, the suffragette movement which enslaved women in masculinity, and the advent of democracy were sown which released the floodgates to a hedonistic and narcissistic world view driven by Hebrew capitalism and opposed by an equally blind system of Marxism. which at its core is equally atheistic and hence can result in nothing more than unjustified “morality” (somewhat of an oxymoron) which can temporarily prop up a society, and will inevitably result in chaos.

There may have been an opportunity during this small dark age in order to stem the flow of nihilism and to reinstitute a pagan system of morality, which is as I have discussed rooted in utilitarianism but incorporates but is not reliant upon a sense of theism, but that opportunity was lost and is now long gone as far as any mainstream escape from the endless decadence is concerned.

Philosophers who adopted secular moralism (such as Immanuel Kant) did their best to rationalise and intellectualise morality, but failed to understand that a rationality of absolute morality needed one essential characteristic in order to function: Absolute submission. To what or to whom is a question for this individual, but this conformity either to the self, to a God or to an ideology is the only way to create a personal view of an absolute right and wrong, and for a general system of right and wrong an absolute submission from the general populace towards this ideology.

Of course, in the 21st century we are conditioned to resist the concept of submission to anything other than our desires and pleasures, and the concept of dedicating oneself solely to something higher, more detached and more divine than oneself is considered completely alien and unattractive.

Appealing to modernist, and thus hedonistic yet not purely nihilistic sensibilities, I can only do my best to motivate you the reader towards submission from the perspective of providing a materialistic or physical reward. This reward, on the face of it, can appeal to the natural human instinct for the provision of community values and thus utilitarianism that is inherent in all but the psychopathic. A system of submission to perceived divine ideals ultimately will result in a more fruitful and happy society (or societies), even if it means the sacrifice of the individual in order to achieve this, but it is important to understand that this ought not to be the highest of motivations and that a desire to fulfil one’s Dharma, higher ordained purpose within a system, and to do so consistently and unconditionally, ought to be the very highest of ideals.

“Liberalism” is the complete antithesis of the concept of Dharma, and Dharma can have no place in liberalism as a result. Whilst Dharma requires absolute submission to the self and to higher values, liberalism expects a complete separation from the self and a sense of morality. The very concept of morality in of itself is anti-liberal, and is perceived as a constraining factor prevention the degradation of the self, the self and all associated with it again being perceived as a constricting vehicle preventing true liberation. This is the idea pushed by communist nutcases like David Icke who push the idea that a sense of self is irrational and unhealthy and that until our consciousness “evaporates” we are in some manner enslaved.
Enoch Powell, conservative PM; a rare patriot.

However, this concept that to be anti-moral, and ergo against the will of the self is in some manner beneficial makes the assumption that to be held to these values is in some way painful or degenerative. I make the argument on the contrary that in actuality a separation from what we perceive as reality and from the morals which generate pleasure for ourselves and our descendants is in actuality degenerative and that a feeling of ultimate attachment, rather than a complete detachment, ought to be the divine ideal.

Whilst of course it is true that a sense of morality, of identity and of self does enslave, one has to ask the question of liberalism and anti-identitarianism: If one has to be enslaved to something either way, why not pick a kind master?

This may come across as no more than a mere ramble, but I hope it was useful for some and acted as educational material to some degree. I will be sure to expand on this topic in future. I will leave you, dear reader, with a few quotes of encouragement.

“Neither pleasure nor pain should enter as motives when one must do what must be done.” Baron Julius Cesare Andre Evola 

“Deeds will not be less valiant because they are unpraised.” John Ronald Reuel Tolkien

 “Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy. Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.” Winston Churchill

“Independence, the freedom of a self-governing nation, is in my estimation the highest political good, for which any disadvantage, if need be, and any sacrifice are a cheap price.” Enoch Powell

Until next time, Heil Europa! Heil og saell!