Chief Egregore Officer

Postliberal reactionary. I write philosophical essays. I am interested in the intersection of consciousness, esoteric mysticism and political theory. 時々日本語でも書く。

[Chief Egregore Officer @ChiefEgregore]

Questions for "Creedal Nation" defenders (that means you @JoelWBerry @ConceptualJames)

1. What, if any, is the upper bound on "citizens" if anyone who accepts the creed is a citizen? If the entire world adopted the creed overnight, would the entire planet be "American?" Would the entire planet deserve voting rights in America?

2. What should we do to help "Americans in absentia," which is to say people who do authentically embrace the American creed but are physically not located within the USA's borders? Are they being denied their rights as "citizens" because we have failed to issue them a SSN or otherwise recognize them as Americans (after all, by authentically embracing the American creed they are just as American as any of us, right?)

3. What do you do with a child born to American parents who rejects the American creed? As a creedal nation that means he's not really American, right? Do we strip him of his citizenship? Expel him? Render him stateless? Does he belong to no nation?

4. Can the creed change over time? If citizenship and membership to the nation are contingent upon belief in the creed, it implies the creed cannot change. What safeguards should we have in place to ensure strict continuity of the unchanging creed? How can we ensure how that creed is interpreted over time does not change?

5. Or if change IS allowed, does that mean citizenship and membership to the nation need to be constantly reevaluated against the new creed? How much can the creed change before it's invalidated? By what mechanism can the creed change? Is the creed whatever the powers that be say the creed is? Is the creed just blind allegiance to the dominant zeitgeist?

6. Or is the creed just the proceduralism itself, as opposed to the specific contents of the constitution? If I amend the constitution to be radically different than it is today, am I still adhering to the creed? If I go through the process, get the votes, and rewrite the constitution to ban all free speech is that still our creed? Because I did it through the official process?

7. If your answer to the above is "no" it implies the creed exists outside the constitution, transcending it. If so, what is the creed? Where is written? Where can I learn it? Or is it just the arbitrary norms you are comfortable with based on the particular time and place you specifically reached adulthood? Is that creed? The zeitgeist of 1990-2000? Why should that be the creed and not the creed of say 1776?

8. If you could magically swap all the Americans in the world with all the Indians, such that each inherits the constitution and state apparatus of the other, which group would be "American?"

9. Why is it that when empires fall people revert back to pre-political national identities rather than a shared creed? Why did the Yugoslav creed not persist beyond Tito? Why did the Soviet creed not persist beyond the USSR? Were they just inferior creeds? If so, can you be confident the American creed is uniquely indestructible?

10. Are there any conditions where it's appropriate to amend the creed? If changing environmental pressures render the creed catastrophically maligned to present conditions, such that adherence to the creed is yielding catastrophic outcomes, must we persist in it because to change it would dissolve the nation? Even if the outcome is extinction, which will likewise dissolve the nation?

The truth is I expect you will not attempt to answer these questions because you cannot. The Propositional Nation is not coherent. Rather, it is a common feature of empires to establish some kind of imperial identity structure, which is a tool employed to enable the various peoples subject to that imperial system to partake in it to some degree. But in all cases these imperial identity structures are necessarily layered ATOP existing pre-political national identity realities, and those imperial identities only persist as long as the empire continues to be strong enough to enforce compliance with its power structures.

When the empire wanes, as every single empire in history has done, people universally revert back to their pre-political identities. Even when those identities are suppressed aggressively by the imperial system, people do not forget who they are and they revert once they have the opportunity to do so.

The American Empire is no different except that its particular conception of a propositional identity was "full membership to the nation" as contrasted with other imperial identities like the USSR's "United Workers of the World" which did not necessitate a denial of the ethnic reality of the Russian people to sustain the propositional fiction.

We are not a creedal nation and we never have been. This is just a fiction employed by the American Empire to secure buy-in and cooperation from the world we sought to govern. The American people are the ethnic core of that empire (another common feature of all empires). We are a real people with legitimate and particular interests, and we deserve a homeland, demographic security, and a government that overtly advocates for our particular interests, as is the function of all properly ordered governments, which is so say that all governments have a fiduciary duty to uphold the interests of the people whose name it bears.

The American people cannot be served while the American Empire pretends they don't exist or are otherwise a generic category indistinguishable from the entire world. The Propositional fiction is the explicit enemy of the American people and it will not survive beyond my generation's lifetime.

[Chief Egregore Officer @ChiefEgregore]

To the extent that the Managerial Class look down on "flyover" America it is because they are so far removed from blue collar work they have no real comprehension of the significant human intelligence that was invested into the resolutions of those problems closer to nature.

[Chief Egregore Officer @ChiefEgregore]

@uubzu

[Chief Egregore Officer @ChiefEgregore]

@FUDdaily Facilitating them.

[Chief Egregore Officer @ChiefEgregore]

@Sargon_of_Akkad The most vindicated man in history. The embodiment of Cassandra Complex.

[Chief Egregore Officer @ChiefEgregore]

Kier Starmer is reportedly set to meet the Nowak family.

I think it would be entirely appropriate for them to demand that he kneel.

[Chief Egregore Officer @ChiefEgregore]

Social media and dating apps.

I don't think social media has necessarily literally induced BPD in women at higher rates than the past (although its root cause is not explicitly understood so it may be possible), but rather social media does drive a kind of arms race where there is a "flaunting" meta-game being played on top of the actual dates themselves.

It's not just that dating apps inundate women with so many options as to completely balloon their own sense of self worth but additionally that there is an Instagram driven contest to show off how lavishly one is able to live, and dates or relationships become a vehicle for this kind of flaunting.

In other words some women are not seeking "a good date" with a guy they like, but rather are seeking some kind of lavish experience which they can photograph and signal to everyone else online that they have a certain status or value which enables them to be given these lavish experiences. The man is secondary. The experience is secondary. The display of being high-value enough to be bestowed these experiences is primary as it reveals your ranking in the sexual marketplace.

These "BPD crashout" behaviors could thus be understood as a kind of lashing out to anything that frustrates their ability to project their own status. A date that goes poorly or a breakup or a man doing anything that might undermine her ability to broadcast her "perfect life" threatens her ego and self-worth by threatening her outwardly projected online perfection and thus triggers a virulent response because of the direct link between her ability to project the image of desirability and her self-perceived value as a woman.

It's also why they cannot take accountability where they should because to do so could diminish their perceived value by owning her own flaws. Instead she can preserve her projected value and status by shifting blame for any failing to the "unworthy" man.

So if I had to point to anything I'd say it's that social hierarchy meta-game enabled by Instagram more than the actual intersexual relationships themselves that drives this kind of behavior to the extent that it exists.

[Chief Egregore Officer @ChiefEgregore]

@Sargon_of_Akkad If I were the family given this opportunity I would seize it to tell Starmer off in the most colorful language imaginable publicly with as much fanfare as possible , consequences be damned.

[Chief Egregore Officer @ChiefEgregore]

@OliverRyanUK The entire Western world collectively looks forward to your impending unemployment.

[Chief Egregore Officer @ChiefEgregore]

@TheGhostSleepi1 When Rupert Lowe comes to power it will be strictly necessary to essentially reconstitute law enforcement from the ground up. It should be presumed that everyone currently employed as a police officer is ideologically contaminated and is thus unfit to serve the public.

[Chief Egregore Officer @ChiefEgregore]

@ChristianHeiens @macromedia45 I keep getting right below 1500 then losing. Been stuck oscillating around 1450 for a hot minute.

[Chief Egregore Officer @ChiefEgregore]

@AngloSaxon85 “Too disturbing to show in court” is not a legitimate concept. It’s a court. The full evidence, no matter how grotesque, should be shown.

[Chief Egregore Officer @ChiefEgregore]

@ChristianHeiens Inhuman.

[Chief Egregore Officer @ChiefEgregore]

I think you're right about asking big questions but the ones you specifically raised I think are secondary to the more urgent questions of "Who are we?" and "To whom should the state responsible?"

Because questions like "What is the good life?" or "What is virtuous?" are ultimately irrelevant as long as we remain moored to a system that is actively working against the American people, or a system that is incapable of even recognizing who those American people to whom it owes allegiance and duty are.

In abstract I know what I want. I want the total restoration of the high trust society that we used to once be.

I've been all around the world. I've lived on three continents. And I am old enough to remember what the America of my childhood was like and how it contrasts with the present. And so I can say with a certain degree of authority that living in a high trust society vs. a low trust society directly affects your daily quality of life more than any other factor tied to the political.

At a macro level a high trust society is one where your economy can grow and flourish because property crimes are infrequent and treated seriously. The positive benefits on your life that a healthy economy provides should be obvious. It is also a free society because by being high trust the need for oppressive state intervention is minimized.

Where there is a monoculture of people who have largely homogenous expectations with respect to interpersonal relationships or manners, conduct, decorum, etc., there is little need for state intervention, surveillance, etc. because the people largely can be self-governing in this context.

The low trust society by contrast has its economy inhibited by bad actors, where even a small group of these bad actors can have an outsized impact on the overall economic health of a society because every act of theft, every scam, etc. has cascading negative consequences. It raises costs for everyone else. It places a burden on companies and the state to employ measures to resist being victimized. And where there is not a homogeneity to cultural norms and societal expectations, conflicting norms inevitably create interpersonal conflicts that invite state tyranny as a means of mitigating those conflicts or suppressing them, which will necessarily leave at least one party feeling "tyrannized" as their norms are selected against.

But at the micro level the high trust society is also one where you personally experience less stress and can simply enjoy your life more. It's the difference between walking down the street carelessly because you are confident bad actors are not likely to engage with you, and the stress of having to maintain defensive posture with your surroundings because bad actors are likely to engage with you.

In practice that manifests as "I can freely take my phone out to take some pictures of the beautiful city" versus "This is London and I need to maintain vigilance if I am going to take my phone out lest it be stolen."

Or when approached by a stranger it's the difference between "This person is probably good natured and I can have a pleasant interaction with them" versus "This person is accosting me with some kind of self-serving intention and I need to be guarded in this exchange."

I'm reminded of the reported experience of our new Boer refugees and their bewilderment at how lax they can be with their personal belongings (i.e. leaving them in the truck) because they will not be stolen here. It's this conflict-minded guardedness applied to every single interaction throughout your day that manifests as a kind of perpetual stress response. It's not healthy but more importantly we don't have to live this way because we did not live this way prior to "diversity."

And so when I ask myself the big questions, what it really boils down to is this. I want to actively restore my nation to the high trust society it used to be, and so I must then ask what changed us from a high trust society to a low trust one, and what could be done to undo that change?

And when I evaluate along this axis I inevitably conclude that

1. Multiculturalism has been an unmitigated catastrophe and is the primary reason that we are no longer high trust.

2. The multicultural delusion is itself enabled by Enlightenment axioms about human universality (Tabula Rasa) that have now been meaningfully tested at scale, and are utterly discredited by the very clear manifestation of the null hypothesis.

3. The state itself is maligned to its raison d'être (the active promotion of the interests of the American people) because it has been ideologically captured by the people who embraced the multicultural delusion, and so the state increasingly struggles to accurately identify who the American people even are, as it applies this universalizing mindset to both the American national identity, and the people to whom the state feels it is responsible. Or worse, it actively advantages those foreign elements over the American people in a manner analogous to how a corporate entity might deliberately cater to people not originally interested in their product at the expense of their original customer base.

And so when I then look to evaluate remedies to our predicament I thus conclude that:

1. The primary victory we need to achieve is a reassertion of who the American people are. Ending Birthright Citizenship would be the single biggest victory plausibly achievable in the near future on this front, but beyond that the American state needs to be compelled to correct its understanding of who actually belongs and is actually a citizen. Paper citizenships need to be revoked. Extraordinary numbers of strangers and aliens to us need to be removed. I see the 100M deportations figure and that tracks with what I think is realistically necessary.

2. The state must similarly be compelled to recognize that its duty is explicitly and exclusively to those correctly identified American people. The Democrat party at the State of the Union address earlier this year very publicly disagreed with the statement that their "primary responsibility was to the safety of the American people."

I am not being hyperbolic when I say that this is a treasonous position for elected officials to hold. They have all but stated outright that they understand their role is not to represent Americans but to represent foreigners in attaining access to the spoils America has to offer. That is to say that there is a very large contingent of the "American" government that is actively working against the interests of the American people in a naked betrayal of the singular reason this state apparatus even exists.

These people cannot be allowed to rule at any level. If you do not understand your primary responsibility to be to the American people, you cannot be in government. Period. The Democrat party as it exists today is a completely illegitimate entity with respect to governance and I no longer recognize them as being a legitimate authority over us because by their own admission they do not recognize themselves to be our representatives. They thus hold the same degree of legitimacy to rule us as the government of Mexico or Brazil or any other foreign nation, which is to say none.

And with that in mind, I think the actual American people constructing a parallel government would be a legitimate response to a situation where we are unsuccessful in purging these people from the state.

3. Large numbers of foreigners must be expelled at industrial scale until the demographics return to something close to homogeneity such that shared cultural norms that enable high trust societies to happen are restored. And to the extent foreigners continue to be tolerated at all it must be in the context of strict enforcement of our norms with no consideration whatsoever for their foreign preferences or norms. You will adopt a "When in Rome" mentality in our country or you will be compelled to leave.

All this to say that when I look to the future and think "what are the questions we need to be asking ourselves" the critical question is "Who are we?" and the implied follow up "To whom should the state be loyal?"

I think we are by nature a virtuous people and a remedied understanding of virtue and the good life will come naturally when we are free from the various tyrannies of the failed multicultural utopian delusion.

[Chief Egregore Officer @ChiefEgregore]

@RestoreHalifax https://t.co/kUCzdNyc5E

[Chief Egregore Officer @ChiefEgregore]

"WHEELIE BINS could be here" he thought. "I've never been in this neighborhood before. There could be WHEELIE BINS anywhere." The cool wind felt good against his high vis vest. "I HATE WHEELIE BINS" he thought.

[Chief Egregore Officer @ChiefEgregore]

@SydSteyerhart Similar to how Zoe Quinn is the most consequential woman of the 21st century because her unfaithful coochie was the butterfly flapping its wings that produced the Trump hurricane.

[Chief Egregore Officer @ChiefEgregore]

@uubzu Persuasion. I am not infallible but I have a pretty good track record with being able to see the writing on the wall and so I trust my own truth-seeking faculties, and would much prefer to be able to persuade the masses of what I see than to lock myself into Cassandra Complex.

[Chief Egregore Officer @ChiefEgregore]

I was on a trip with my sister and we stopped at some fast food place for lunch in rural PA. Entirely White staff. Was the best service I'd gotten at a fast food place in years. My sister commented on it, how nice the staff and atmosphere was.

She didn't like it when I pointed out the obvious.

[Chief Egregore Officer @ChiefEgregore]

"WHEELIE BINS could be here" he thought. "I've never been in this neighborhood before. There could be WHEELIE BINS anywhere." The cool wind felt good against his high vis vest. "I HATE WHEELIE BINS" he thought.

[Based Cow @_BasedCow_]

They do not yet comprehend what is coming.

[Restore Halifax @RestoreHalifax]

Here is a BBC complaint template you can use:

Subject: Makerfield Question Time: Restore Britain Exclusion.

Dear BBC Complaints Team,

I am writing to make a formal complaint regarding the BBC's decision to exclude the Restore Britain candidate, Rebecca Shepherd, from the Question Time special broadcast from Makerfield on 4 June 2026 ahead of the 18 June by-election.

Recent polling in Makerfield placed Restore Britain in third place with around 7% support, ahead of several parties represented on the programme, including the Green Party, Liberal Democrats and Conservatives. Despite this, Restore Britain was not invited to participate.

In my view, this decision raises serious concerns about fairness and due impartiality during an election period. Excluding a party with measurable support in the constituency while inviting parties polling lower may have limited the range of views presented to voters during an important stage of the campaign.

The BBC is required to observe due impartiality under its Editorial Guidelines and Ofcom rules. The basis on which this decision was reached is therefore a matter of legitimate public interest.

I request a full response to the following questions:

1. What criteria were used to determine which parties and candidates would be invited to the Makerfield Question Time special?

2. Was polling data showing Restore Britain in third place and ahead of several invited parties considered during the selection process?

3. How does the BBC consider the exclusion of Restore Britain to be consistent with its obligations regarding due impartiality?

Please treat this as a formal Stage 1 complaint. I would appreciate a substantive response rather than a standard template reply.

Yours sincerely,

[Your Full Name]
[Your Full Postal Address]
[Your Email Address]
[Your Phone Number]

Please note: the BBC complaints form requires you to select the broadcast date. As the programme airs on 4 June 2026, the form will not allow that date to be selected until the day of broadcast. Please wait until 4th June before submitting your complaint.