The original meaning of the word ‘liberty’ does not suggest at all ‘liberation’ - in a sense of emancipation from collectivity.  Instead, it implies inheritance - which alone confers liberty.

Alain de Benoist, Democracy Revisited: The Ancients and the Moderns

We are not free men.  How can we be?  We do not have the freedom to own our natures, the most near and ineradicable of all our inheritances.  Indeed freedom exists, we are told, only to the extent that we white, heterosexual males disdain this inheritance and take to ourselves something fictitious … something from which our oppressive whiteness, heterosexuality and maleness have been assiduously expunged.

Well, notwithstanding the sheer, bloody racism of this demand, its central postulate of an absolute psychological plasticity under the general-ship of reason would undo our psychological health in very short order.  Crude artifice, self-deception and the perpetual battle against Nature would generate only galloping individual and societal psychopathies.

If we were lucky, life would be a petty hell.  Without any ownership to our true natures what honesty would there be in our affairs?  What would be the basis for trust, for example?  A legal deed?  Mere calculation of shared interest?  Only a race of Machiavellis - or one of liberals - would relish such a world.

More likely, though, brutality on the most atrocious scale would rise to dominance.  A psychopathic society, as opposed to the merely neurotic and unstable one we are developing today, would be a genuine, living hell – nothing petty about it.

But actually it’s all rather simpler than either of these scenarios.  Had absolute plasticity ever existed, as liberals believe it does today, Homo Sapiens could not have evolved at all.  Absolute plasticity and evolution are oil and water.

In brief, our human heritability (where we have come from) is the larger part of our security (who we are).  But no liberal will acknowledge this.  They cling like limpets to the blank slate, to the sovereignty of reason and to the cultural marxist notion that white male racism, sexism and hetero-sexism are, together, the very hearth of evil.  Light and liberation rest exclusively with the progress of our seeing ourselves as oppressors and our ‘victims’ as equals.  Supposedly, we free both them and us thereby.  It is the ultimate political liberation through self-annihilation … Liberal Nirvana.  Applause.  Extended applause.  All stand.  Enthusiastic cheering.  Hugs n’ tears.  Couch sessions.

So it’s goodbye to respect for our traditions and our forefathers, our history, our culture, love of our people and the country we should bequeath our children.  Instead, we must exalt in the rootless cosmopolitan, Liberal Man, the master of the new dawn.  Don’t think about black IQ or black criminality or the fact that you don’t find prognathicity and dark brown nipples remotely attractive in the female.  You are socially constructing.  (It is, however, acceptable for your wife and daughter to notice the generosity of the Negroid male organ, although that is also a social construct, of course.)

Well, what are we going to do about this political pox upon us and about the liberalism that cultured it?  I mean, it’s all very well to say, yes, we must take the great political game away from them.  We must act metapolitically.  Talk is cheap.  But how, practically, does one re-Conservatise the zeitgeist - or, failing that, wearily, morosely follow one of liberalism’s troublesome children – Spengler or Nietzsche perhaps – to the gates of … the joint with the big gates?

At the head of this piece I quoted from an essay written by the French New Right philosopher, Alain de Benoist.  Here’s more:-

In his attempt to show that liberty is the fundamental principle of democracy (Politics, VII, 1), Aristotle succeeds in de-emphasizing the factor of equality.  For the Greeks equality was only one means to democracy, though it could be an important one. Political equality, however, had to emanate from citizenship, i.e., from belonging to a given people. From this it follows that members of the same people (of the same city), irrespective of their differences, shared the desire to be citizens in the same and equal manner.  This equality of rights by no means reflects a belief in natural equality.  The equal right of all citizens to participate in the assembly does not mean that men are by nature equal (nor that it would be preferable that they were), but rather that they derive from their common heritage a common capacity to exercise the right of suffrage, which is the privilege of citizens.

Back in the pre-1832 Britain of true Conservatism there was an inegalitarian but wonderfully organic constitutional system that respected and accorded suffrage to all the centres of power in the nation.  It was swept away in stages so that by 1918 – commendably late, really - democratic equality was established.  The old system had, it seemed, proved unable to adapt to the popular demand for change.  And the rest, as they say, you know.

The rest was nominally egalitarian, in the sense that giving one vote to every adult weighted us down in the mire of mass tastes and desires.  The free pursuit of these things is not liberalism.  But it is close enough to liberalism - to the exclusive pursuit of liberty through politics - for the masses not to notice the difference until the 1970’s.  With the coming of Margaret Thatcher “mass tastes and desires” split from the liberty bandwagon and floated off into consumerism and economism.  Liberals were left with culture politics which they still operate today under the egalitarian cover of One-Man-One-Vote.

OMOV is nothing like true egalitarianism, of course.  Like absolute plasticity, egalitarianism is not a real world possibility.  The end of Conservative government by (but not for) the old constitutional parties of interest – the Crown, town and country, the City – did not bring an end to elitism.  Political zeitgeists, whether liberal or Conservative, will always throw up permanent elites.  From the little man’s perspective it is a question these days of choosing the one he perceives to be least pernicious.  Bush or Kerry, Blair or Howard, the choice is still a culturalised paternalist.

This brings us, inevitably, to the crux of the matter.  The old, franchise-restricted Conservative/Whig elite, politicking in its pre-1832 Conservative zeitgeist, bestowed upon its people a wealth of which we benighted white, heterosexual males can scarcely conceive.  With what historical irony does one reflect that the ‘liberties’ we enjoy today would never be thought such by a free Englishman of the 18th or early 19th Century.  Today’s ‘tolerance’ would not be confused with the toleration that Charles II presaged Protestants to exhibit towards their Catholic countrymen in the mid-seventeenth century.  Limitless toleration of black and brown-skinned migrants would have caused murderous riots.  And the great effort to rail-road us towards that Liberal Nirvana I mentioned would, rightly or wrongly, have been denounced as Judaic despotism.  The clamour for banishment – all over again – would have been irresistible.

The lesson is simple.  An OMOV democracy will, eventually, detach the practise of politics from the common interests of the people, because those constitutional elements which conserve and promote common interests stand in opposition to OMOV itself.  Therefore, OMOV is a traitor to our cause and OMOV must be abandoned.

A century and a half ago it would have been impossible to introduce such an idea into political discourse.  Today, as the anomie piles up, it might be.  The left itself, with all its talk of ‘stake-holders’, has gone some way to making it so.  For, whilst no one could sensibly propose actual disenfranchisement there is an argument to be made for the double and triple enfranchisement of stake-holding parties.

The basis of this is not so much the old American Revolutionary dictum of “No taxation without representation” as its modern and less egalitarian counterpart, “No representation without taxation.”

In what ways, broadly, is our income confiscated by the state?  We are all taxed as consumers.  Very well, we all have a right to a say in the electoral process, if we are sufficiently mature of years to use it wisely.  But why should that be the only right, rather than the minimum right?  Is there some moral absolute by which we must have an equal say?  If so, then let it be debated.  For we are also taxed as savers, as property-owners, as employees and as employers – all moral foundations for enfranchisement.  Why should the electoral clout of a wealth creator be valued as equal to an habitual petty criminal, a welfare-user or a government bureaucrat?

Within the system are ample opportunities to favour certain interests with an extra vote and, thereby, swing the zeitgeist towards a more Conservative mindset.  A vertical extension of the franchise is simply the most immediate, productive and peaceful means of influence available to anyone seeking change at the metapolitical level.  The right should not be afraid to talk about it, or to introduce it into public discourse.  Let’s debate.