What I am for

On a hierarchy of priorities basis race doesn't even register as the most important thing for me. We non liberals can get so wrapped up in refuting liberal and left-wing talking points that what we stand for gets drowned out by the never ending task of refuting the torrential rain of liberal bullshit. 

Non leftists / non liberals are handicapped by being stuck in refutation land, unable to articulate a positive vision. Learn how to say no to madness but never to say yes, they learn what they are against but never what they are for. Liberalism keeps them from realizing what they are for by keeping them preoccupied by a torrent of bullshit.

Race matters, and I am firmly against anyone who hates the white race but this is about what really interests me, what I really stand for, what I really want, and how I want the world to move beyond it's existing neurotic paradigm, so let me talk about that 

I want a multiplicity of games. Capitalism is a game, democracy is a game.  I don't believe in stretching the definition to include dictatorship as a form of game even though there are game elements to it.  I don't care at all about equality and I don't believe it's possible anyway. Equality as "virtue" represents a never-ending war on human nature and tendencies. Besides, people got equality in the Soviet Union and they still voted for blue jeans. Nobody actually likes equality when they permit themselves to think. Real equality means you have to run a race only to have your legs kicked out from under you before reaching the finish line. Only a sadist would think that was the basis for a good society.

A multiplicity of games accomplishes a lot more for furthering human happiness than equality ever would. A person can be bad at one game but will rarely be bad at all of them. Having only two games: capitalism and democracy boxes people in to either succeeding at one or the other. A multiplicity of political and economic systems operating in parallel with each other encourages human flourishing by giving every person the opportunity to (possibly) succeed at at least one. 

And unlike the pursuit of equality, which destroys any incentive for mastery and success, a multiplicity of games fosters a high level of human agency and "empowerment" for lack of a better term. It also encourages the species to speciate, separate, to occupy all possible niches of mastery and competence. It encourages evolution of both the cultural and genetic nature. It creates an evolutionary arms race that improves the flourishing of sentient life.

Everything else tends to fall in line as a sub principal of the overarching principle of increasing the variety of games. This is the essence of Republican reactionary thought: that it is not really reactionary and not strictly committed to republics as a political form. The goal is something so weird, and so different from what everyone else is trying to do that it looks like so many other things that it isn't. It looks like Nazism but it isn't, it looks like hyper-progressiveism but it isn't, it looks like reactionary thought or neoreaction but it isn't. It looks like conservatism but it definitely isn't. Republican reaction is actually constitutional game design in the disguise of everything else.

And I really do mean game design. It is my intention to eventually develop board games that simulate different political systems, to test political systems with an extremely analog method using real human beings. None of this nonsense academic theorizing or Marxist critique that knows nothing because it never experiments to verify its theories. Game design must naturally involve real players playing the game, and this is especially true when you're designing political systems. Is a crime to subject everyone to an experiment when you haven't even worked out the details of gameplay. 

Other than that I stand for certain things and against others but these are just personal preferences. I like the Chinese Communist Party  because they have unified political and economic power at the top instead of letting economic power dominate the political. Their politicians are not required to sell out as soon as they get elected, and China actually has a demonstrated capability for subjugating globalists interest. As far as I know the Chinese are not importing millions of foreigners in order to enrich the business community, nor tolerating deranged academics and gender theorists. There's definitely something to be said for making your whole society one big hierarchy, and I especially admire the CCP for using communism to suppress communism.

But I find that this approach would probably be brittle and definitely inappropriate for the American / European soul. Americans are not cut out for the kind of oppressive conformity required of such a system. Academia should probably have some sort of Pope appointed by the President or maybe a conservative foundation. The universities should be stripped of their power to appoint their own professors or determine who gets in. We need to recognize that the mentally ill are attracted to higher education the same way bullies are attracted to the police and take steps to exclude the insane from academia. Leftism should definitely be classified as a religion and barred from all participation in government. Millions of lefty lunatics need to go to internment camps for compulsory reeducation. America needs its burning of the books and burying of the scholars moment. A heavy hand is required to unfuck this whole situation but going forward the proper format for flourishing Western Civilization is a multiplicity of games. Humans are a Paleolithic species operating with medieval institutions and 21st century technology. A multiplicity of games / political / economic systems creates a test bench for finally upgrading those medieval institutions without succumbing to communism, and the heavy hand necessary to suppress leftism runs the risk of creating a brain drain in the West. Without societal experiments that brain drain might become irreversible.