Who’s the Boss — Folk or Elite?

Reconciling Folkishness and Elite Theory

If you prefer audio of this article, click here.

Here at Imperium Press, we have published many books that support the idea that a few men determine the morality, law, and culture of their societies, AKA elite theory. This is radically opposed to liberal theory that sees spontaneous grassroots change as the determinant of social reality. At the same time, this blog is dedicated to developing folkishness, the “Aryan Worldview” that sees the primordial and, as Spengler would call it, “dream-heavy” mythic substrate of a people as being in the driver’s seat. Aren’t these views incompatible?

In this article, we will show how they’re not. First, we will show how power and ideals can be reconciled. Then, we will show how folkishness and elite theory are perfectly compatible and ultimately expressions of one thing.

The realism vs. idealism debate never dies. Recently it has flared up again as Neema Parvini posted an article savaging James Lindsay as a believer in the “history of ideas” taken at face value. Lindsay believes that people put forth ideas, the ideas duke it out in the public space, and the ideas that win are those that people find the most compelling. Parvini calls this into question since it just so happens that the ideas that win are always those that serve the purposes of power acquisition and consolidation. Funny how that works.

This prompted Keith Woods to respond with an article pointing out that this cannot be a cynical power grab, that those seeking power must earnestly believe the ideological noise, if noise it be. After all, what motivates power-seekers? Is it pure power lust? Usually, it’s not. It’s fairly clear that Lenin’s political career was motivated by the execution of his brother. Often what motivates men to seek power are ideals themselves, a sense of outrage against injustice.

Power vs. Ideals

We have reconciled these in an earlier article and will summarize it here, before moving on to deal with folk vs. elite.

Realism vs. idealism, or power vs. ideals, is a chicken and egg question. Who gets into power? Men. What drives men? Ideas. What put those ideas into their heads? Power.

Is there no end to this cycle? Is there no norm of wrong or right? Long have the people been in a quandary.

Parvini objects to Woods’ critique by saying his theory is not a theory of motivation, which is true. We need not concern ourselves with what drives men in order to see that the selection mechanism of what prevails is power. Fair enough, elite theory “brackets” motivation as irrelevant to the selection effects of power. But where do the ideas come from that form the material being selected? If we were to say that the ideas come from individual conscience, or reason, or natural law or some such thing, we would be getting to the party awfully late.

Ultimately, ideals come from the will of a man, a will which is not reducible to an argument or reason, not reducible to what Christians mean broadly by the term logos. The early history of Islam is sketchy, but it’s fairly clear that Mohammed did not conquer simply to spread an idea he agreed with, but because an Arabian god commanded him to do so. Genghis Khan did not conquer to spread Tengrism, but because he could. King Wu overthrew the Shang dynasty because he felt he held the Mandate of Heaven. Caesar founded the Roman empire as a by-product of his ambition to become as great a man as Alexander of Macedon.

What we have described is the Odinic great man,¹ and his will is the true headwaters of ideology. Does he need to gather around him a group of loyal followers? Yes, he does. Does he need to organize them on the basis of ideals? No, he doesn’t. This is the fundamental error of idealism. The most consequential men in history, such as those listed above, organized men on the basis of charisma, personal interest, material superiority, or any number of other pre-ideological foundations. The final “reason” behind ideology is that men tend to follow the strong horse.

But this still leaves something unexplained. Haven’t men fought and died for ideas all throughout history? Yes, they have fought and died for those ideals installed by the strong horse. In revolutionary times, the will of a Mohammed or a Constantine shapes the world according to itself, and in the long stretches of history between those revolutionary times, the will of a Mohammed or a Constantine becomes ideology.

Ideology is a poor organizing principle for dissidents, because it is a conservative force. Ideology always depends on assumptions, and the assumptions are inherited from the will of the last great man. Identitarians and illiberals are simply wrong that “the West” entails anything other than anti-racist secular humanist liberalism. It is clear to the most serious analysts—many of whom are liberals—that the foundations of our society demand what we have today, and more. Where we disagree with the liberal is that those foundations are rotten. He has the right analysis, but the wrong values. We have both.

So, we can reconcile realism and idealism quite simply. Realism defines idealism, and idealism legitimates realism. If you want to answer the question “ideals or power?” you must first answer the question when. Before the revolution, power. After the revolution, ideals. But ideals only ever support power.

Now let us move on to reconciling folk and elite.