The visceral popularity of Donald J. Trump reflects public frustration with living in an increasingly de-masculinized republic. People are tired of tolerating behavior that goes contrary to their values, and now they are ready to roll the dice on radical change.
Several issues — of symbolic rather than demographic importance — were thrust on We The People by our precious liberal elites. Homosexual marriage, which affected fewer than a handful of people, was forced on Americans from above, followed by transsexualism with Brucelyn Jenner and acceptance of Chelsea Manning in the military.
These attacks were part of a feminist propaganda wave that has dominated America for the past seven years. Generation X was the last group of Americans where some moms stayed home, but now, every kid believes that working moms is normal. This means getting along with those working moms who are almost all leftists. With the rise of Barack Obama, men fled the workplace and women took over, resulting in a surge of feminist propaganda to pander to this new audience.
Trump only stepped in it when Chris Mathews set an abortion trap for him. The establishment attacked afterwards because Trump is the only person to put some balls into the issue, and thus to threaten the feminist hegemony which has kept our workplaces stable, if miserable, for most of the past decade.
Trump’s argument on abortion was a threat to the establishment. He argued that if abortion is morally wrong under the First Amendment (right to life) then it logically follows that punishment would be necessary for the act of killing a fetus. Note that no one asked what the punishment should be; one possible answer would be an abortion tax or penalty to help pay down the debt or fund some orphanages for instance.
Hillary has chosen the wrong year to run for office based on Vagisil. It’s not all her fault the public wants its balls back. Obama emasculated the military by not letting them fight ISIS head on, by having an incompetent female and a gay male run branches of the military, and by deriding America’s past military achievements as “Western Imperialism”. Obama also defunded the military so that he could give out more EBT cards, and refused to defend soldiers when an Islamist opened fire on a military base (“That’s not terrorism! That is gun violence. Now if you’ll excuse me, I have eighteen holes to attend to before brunch…”).
People are finally tiring of being thrown scraps (EBT cards, Obama-phones, etc.) from the DNC in lieu of having a functional society. We need quality leadership, a stable economy, and some kind of identity other than liberal ideology. Is it possible that some of these people would actually rather have their good paying manufacturing job back instead of sacrificing their well-being on the altar of global multi-national corporate deism?
The truth is a woman gets good financial incentives to kill a fetus or not kill a fetus. Kill a fetus and there’s a lot less costs. But also many women are having anchor babies and a large segment of that population just loves how the welfare payments and social services increase when they pop out a bun.
Every sporting event is a wave of pink breast cancer patients these days. The spectacle of 300-pound NFL linemen wearing bright pink while they purposely injure and concuss each other is not pretty. Go to any public institution like a hospital and women in pink will approach you to tell you whether or not you are politically acceptable in their presence. It is as downright Soviet as it sounds.
The anti-feminist revolution is well under way. We will cram an alpha male in the White House and force a former beauty contest winner on them as First Lady whether they like it or not. We will verbally assault the female reporters on Fox News who behave more like escorts than intellectuals. We will create a hefty abortion tax, defund the breast cancer programs that have become Young Leninist indoctrination camps, and cancel any college classes based on postmodern feminist rhetoric.
In short, we are going to give this country its balls back. This is the snap-back: the pendulum has swung too far for too long and now, we are going to pick it up and use it as a weapon to beat down the idiots who have vandalized our lives for the past seven years. Get ready for the single largest and strongest backlash in history.
The more the feminists push their agenda, the more the anger grows. Most reasonable people are pragmatists who also can look far enough into the future to realize that practical idealism, not “feelings” and equality, makes for a good society where ideology makes Soviet-style ruins. The Russians loved their female equality too. It was easier than reality and a good way to get promoted there, too.
The modern world is based on rationalism, or the idea that we can understand our world using logic independent of direct experience. It tends to overlap with empiricism, or the idea that replicated results are the highest form of sense-experience.
From the opposite side of the debate comes the older view: human reason is misleading unless it is deeply intuitive and guided by morally honest, self-disciplined character. Our logical deductions often reflect more of the chaos of our own minds than the world around us.
In practice, rationalism means the assumption of equality a.k.a. “universality.” This thinking assumes that all objects sharing some attribute belong to the same category, and they behave the same way. It allows those objects to be treated as generic, and without any changes to our logical approach for their type versus another.
This reveals the human projection behind rationalism: we want the world to be uniform for the convenience of our thinking, which does not want to know particulars. It wants to make broad conclusions and apply them mechanically to achieve magical results. That provides the maximum convenience and ego-flattery for the individual.
Rationality starts with deduction, and ends with broad almost religious conclusions, but in the middle there is the imposition of assumptions about logic. Rationalists tend to assume that the boundaries of a category are more important than its center, in the same way the nuances of words in interpreting law has become more important than the spirit of the law. “Technically correct” is the hallmark of rationalism.
The utility of rationalism is found purely in material sciences. Technically, its results are correct, although there are always externalities and imprecisions that somehow were never noticed, and they are usually not mentioned.
If you wonder why our society is so advanced and yet so incapable of getting basic things right, you are seeing this rationalistic approach in action. When Microsoft Word glitches constantly and does by default some very stupid things, rest assured you are seeing the remnants and externalities of rationalism at work. People looked at the details and treated them as universal, instead of seeing how the parts connect up.
Rationalism has one sole advantage: it extends analytical thinking, or a bad analogue of it the way Budweiser is technically “beer,” to people who are not geniuses. The Crowd can participate if they memorize enough equations, rules and methods to be able to have some way of breaking apart a problem. But as with all things modern, the deconstructed is never assembled again into coherence, spreading entropy and misery alike.
Forget the term “Alternative Right” for just now; today we speak of alternative thinkers, or those who see the current human method of civilization is not working and are looking for something different and preferably more functional.
Among alternative thinkers, a number of theories are advanced for the decline of civilization and how to fix it. Here is where a split occurs between those with a single theory, and those who combine multiple theories. Single theories are more persuasive, but multiple-theory approaches are less ideological.
The temptation we face is to try to invent a doctrine that is as persuasive as liberalism/leftism, which boils down to the idea that all people are equal and by letting them do whatever they want, some magic “invisible hand” will make everything work out okay. Contrasting that is conservatism, which says the only way to know how to lead is to choose what is proven to work (consequentialism) and to choose the best possible options according to what we know of the mathematical or informational order of nature (transcendentalism).
This pressure creates a huge audience for any persuasive theory that can compete with liberalism. We can see the progress of this through the various “third ways,” Communitarianism, Distributism, and different flavors of conservative hybrid which have been promoted over the years. Audiences reward authors who come up with plausible alternatives to liberalism that are, well, “liberalism-like.”
On the other hand, those of us on the multi-theory side of the shelf believe that no competing theory is needed; we instead see that liberalism is bad theory, and suggest not doing it, and instead of liberalism using the many methods that worked in the past — including for societies that encountered the problems we face now at a later point in their civilization life cycles. The multi-theory view is not as simple as “go back to the past,” because it describes our future through the futures others civilizations found after they moved on from the point of development at which we are now stuck, much like originally civilizations moved forward to those types of ideas to escape the problems of null civilization.
But multi-theory outlooks are not good products. They are not persuasive or satisfying. “Egalitarianism is an illusion, drop it and go with what works” sounds like what your plumber, painter or proctologist would say, not an exciting vision from Harvard or Silicon Valley. The single-theory approach is not entirely wrong either; there are elements of truth to it. Neither is it complete, however.
Let us look at the theories.
Inherency Theory
This is the domain of various people who want us to return to having a religious basis to daily life. Their idea is that you either accept religion as the core of life and inherent to existence, thus affirming that God exists and there is innate purpose to the universe, or you are heading down the path to evil.
As recorded elsewhere, this approach is not quite coherent. For us to have choice, there must be actual choice, not “join the happy herd or join with Satan.” Further, very little if anything in existence operates by face value, such that what says it is good is actually good. In addition, it denies the arbitrary nature of human thought: people have different abilities, moral characters and as a result of these imperfections, different goals. People choose the theory that matches where they are in life and intellectual ability.
That outlook, called esotericism, is the oldest form of religious understanding and that which the best thinkers from every religion have embraced. It says that an apathetic guy with an IQ of 95 will never understand the same religious truth as a highly motivated transcendentalist with an IQ of 130. They live in entirely different inner worlds and thus while they live in the same physical world, perceptions vary so widely that insisting they pick up the same “truth” is nonsense.
Julius Evola wrote that modern organized religion confuses the esoteric and exoteric, with the latter being closer to liberal ideology in that those who accept a single face-value truth are considered to understand that doctrine in full. Nothing in human experience suggests this is correct, and the audience shapes the doctrine, which means that successful doctrines will have lots of room for interpretation so that they are widely adopted. People accept the doctrine as best they can understand it, and then interpret it as is convenient for their own goals, destroying the doctrine but making it successful.
Another problem of the innateness approach is dualism. For that view to make sense, there must be some force which works in magical ways that are entirely contrary to what we know of life. An excellent article shows us where this thinking goes awry:
Another example of this pattern in the history of philosophy would be the debate over the relationship between mind (or soul) and body. The Realist view in this case would be “dualism,” which holds that mind and body (and mind and brain, for that matter) are completely distinct, and in particular that the mind is something non-physical or immaterial, just as it seems to be to common sense. A Reductionist view would be “identity theory,” which says that the mind is real but that it is really identical to the brain — in other words, that the mind is, contrary to common sense, just one physical object among others. An Anti-Realist view would be “eliminative materialism,” which says that the mind does not really exist at all: strictly speaking, there are no such things as thoughts, experiences, beliefs, desires, and the like, but only neural firing patterns, hormonal secretions, behavioral dispositions, and so on and so forth.
While the basics of this idea are sound, the dualistic portion is not. We know the mind is related to the physical because when our brains are tired, they do not work as well, and when parts of brains are damaged, our thoughts change. Schopenhauer covered this with historical studies and twin studies in his works. Dualism dies on that pillar of human understanding.
However, the point about religious Realism is sound: a Realist would hold that the mind is physical, but that it is possible a metaphysical dimension also exists. Some Realists invent that out of physicality, talking about quantum materials like Roger Scruton has; others take the Hindu view and suggest that physicality is a logical (i.e. computational) manifestation of mind, and therefore that the physical workings of mind are effect and not cause of a larger pattern at play.
Either way, the theory of the innate single path is not a workable option because it requires such a dualism and, as shown above, denies esotericism.
Economic Theory
This variant of the single theory takes two forms: (1) our problem is capitalism and (2) our solution is capitalism. A multi-theory approach simply observes that capitalism works, and alternatives have all failed, so we have to accept capitalism as a fact of life and balance it with other theories, as is the basis of the multi-theory approach.
The “our problem is capitalism” people can be fairly well dispensed with for being in logical contradiction. If our problem is capitalism, what alternative works as well? Almost all of these exist for a single purpose, which is to avoid blaming the real culprit — egalitarianism, with its roots in individualism — for our plight. In other words, they are liberal apologists, which is why the high correlation with frequency of advocacy of Socialism is not a rounding error.
The “our solution is capitalism” people are, as said above, both correct and incorrect. Their theory is not wrong but it is not complete. Saying “our solution is capitalism” is like saying “our solution is roads”; capitalism is a means to an end, and not a goal in itself, but because it is a successful method without working alternatives, it cannot be discarded.
The problem with capitalism is that we might refer to it as financial democracy because it inevitably includes consumerism. It is a form of demotism, or rule by mass participation, just like democracy and social popularity. All three of these — consumerism, democracy and social popularity — are “invisible hand” systems and they are thus varieties of liberalism.
If you wonder why libertarians always drift leftward, this is why: libertarianism is a Leftist doctrine.
Race Theory
One of the most enduring and popular theories is race theory. This states that our problem is racial degeneration and that the solution is Nationalism. Like the “capitalism is the solution” theory, this is both right and incomplete. Without Nationalism, a nation dies. But Nationalism alone cannot save a dying society.
It also misses the real threat to any racial group, which is the threat it cannot see. Any idiot can figure out that outbreeding with radically different groups will obliterate the tribe, which is why most of them do it; their parents were bad and now the children hate their origins. But what about the barely-perceptible trace admixture?
White Nationalists, who are generally well-meaning people, argue that we should lump together all European-descended people and breed a new race. But this new race will be 2% Asian and 2% North African at a bare minimum because of the trace admixture in Southern/Irish and Eastern Europeans. At that point, the original racial group will have been destroyed… because of the method attempted to save it!
Even more wrong is the idea that race alone can save us. Nationalism, which means every group that is not Us is Other and must be sent home, is one of those theories that persists because it not only works but produces the best possible results. But by itself, it serves as a form of disaster because the Other is scapegoated, and so the Us group ignores its own problems, including liberalism.
The downfall of White Nationalism is not only its ethno-bolshevism which hopes to make all “white” groups equal by interbreeding them, but its desire to excuse liberalism. White Nationalists believe that our problem is not the liberalism that has created the diversity disaster, but the Other themselves, even though the Other are just a means to an end directed by liberalism.
For this reason, White Nationalists would remove the Other and then leave us on the same dysfunctional path with no one to blame but ourselves.
Conclusion
People want a single theory so that they have something as simple and polarizing as Leftism to use to fight Leftism. But to fight a bad idea, you need a competing idea for what the idea should be, not merely a competing idea in the same form. Against the notion of ideology itself, multi-theory people suggest the denial of ideology through sheer practicality based on a study of history. Single-theory notions do not do this and thus, while they may set Leftism back a few steps, they remain on the Leftist path, and will save us from nothing.
Worse, they will use our momentum that demands change to achieve this temporary setback, and in doing so, will squander the momentum without changing the actual underlying problem. Like most human activities, single-theory doctrine is self-defeat disguised as victory through a failure to think from cause to effect.
I have not come up with a better formula for the modern time than “confusion.” People have no idea what to do, or what they should want, so they fall back on simple animal methods and cover them up with social lies.
Coincidentally, that same approach got us into this mess, mainly because as societies grow, they become surrounded by people without purpose. They are just there for the jobs, food and company. This is why at its root what did the West in was individualism. But that is still a controversial thesis, so it should be left off for now.
Brett Steven’s post very helpfully highlights how the alt-right is indeed Nietzschean, meaning it is basically still liberal and still sophist. It doesn’t, and can’t offer any structure or insight which is not arbitrary. It is (if you still want to use the Moldbug cladistics metaphor) a variant of liberalism that has developed from conservatism due to a shift in communication methods (the internet) so will be subject to selection pressure as brought to bear by the unsecure power of current political structures. It will therefore be ground down into (even more) mush.
He tackles two ideas here: first, the political future of alt-right as a political group, and second, the question as to what Nietzsche and Moldbug were trying to achieve.
As far as the first goes, it should follow the pattern of everything else in a modern time: leftward drift as people rise in the movement who bring with them certain assumptions. In politics, the assumptions are everything, because they are the step right before the conclusion that the individual draws — thinking it is his own thought — that propels him into full-blown Leftism, which has its root in egalitarianism.
It was these assumptions that doomed white nationalism. Since America and the UK did not have single ethnic groups, they went back to their roots and dug up the old Nativist, Know-Nothing and England First movements. These movements essentially affirmed the Western European identity of the USA and UK, and cast out those who did not fit this mold, usually the Southern/Irish and Eastern Europeans but also all non-Europeans.
The Nativists were the people who wanted to repatriate slaves and send all immigrants home with foreign aid for their countries of origin. They are so racist they are not racist — you might call it “meta-racist” — because their thinking is so practical. Homogeneity works; diversity requires a police state to temporarily work before the nation collapses and tyrants take over.
This leads to the second point: Moldbug and Nietzsche aim for two different things in the same vein. They are trying to change our assumptions, to program us to be ready to make the leap from the familiar Leftist programming to seeing the sanity on the other side of the abyss. Leftism is based in fear of nature; when we embrace the parts of nature that will work for us, we can overcome this fear and restore all the things we need: nationalism, aristocracy, capitalism and a transcendental goal, including un-deading God.
Moldbug is basically the operator of an intellectual salon. He offers a new vocabulary mainly to force us to admit the actual role of the state and egalitarianism as a control method. Then he gives us some ideas about what we might want to do to respond, which launches us down a path toward thinking those ideas through and realizing what would be required.
Nietzsche hoped to jump-start our spirits. Like the Traditionalists, he realized that our problems originate within. People do not have a spirit toward goodness, hope, excellence or beauty. They are conditioned toward the individual and its fears that make up the justification for the Leftist worldview. He is pointing us to the stage before some realizations, not the realizations themselves, for the most part.
Both of these are offering us the “pocket”: the state right before the punch. The punch itself is up to us, and not all can make this choice. This is natural selection. Civilization belongs to those who can upkeep civilization and everyone else belongs in the third world, which occurs in some form for all races on all continents. In the pocket, Nietzsche rewrites our assumptions and lets the best rise above the rest by their response to that knowledge, which in itself constitutes a choice to act or not.
It doesn’t, and can’t offer any structure or insight which is not arbitrary.
This however I disagree with. You cannot beat fatalism by running from nihilism. All of our choices are arbitrary and none are subjective. Even if there is an all-powerful God and His purpose to the cosmos, it is our choice to accept that like any other fact of Reality. Trying to make these things inherent is to deprive us of choice, and like liberalism, to standardize all people in order to save them, instead of allowing natural selection to do its work, which is much as that of religion, “good to the good, and bad to the bad.”
Leftism, Socialism and individualism are based on the opposite principle, which is “good to everyone” because this assuages individual fears by making everyone feel included and accepted. However, like a union or Communism, this means that the good get the same reward as the bad, which makes being good inefficient and consequently indirectly rewards the bad. No surprise such societies self-exterminate.
Much has now been written on the Alternative Right, with very much focusing on the different groups in this big tent, and very little focusing on the ideas they share and on which these different groups harmonize. In a big tent, many groups come together in awareness that they have little in common, but in the belief that what they have in common is more important than what they do not.
The Alternative Right can be understood best as simply “Nietzschean Conservatism.” Some conservatives talk economics, others religion, and still others race, but few put them all together around a simple idea, which is survival/health/sanity as expressed by Fred “Mad Dog” Nietzsche in his many books. The goal of Nietzschean theory is to return humanity toward adaptation to reality, instead of adaptation to social morality.
Mad Dog’s point regarding The Enlightenment™ was that it pointed us in the wrong direction. Instead of thinking about consequences in the real world, we were thinking about how our actions looked, how unique they were, and the nonsense impositions of “good” and “evil” which reflect the desire of the herd to defend itself from criticism. My addition: that herd-fear is the fear of individuals, in a bundle, and thus the root is individualism not collectivism.
Nietzsche backed away from ideology — decision by appearance so as to motivate a politicized crowd — and looked at aesthetics, which is a way of saying we need to stop looking at minimums in our decision-making and instead turn toward excellence. Many solutions “work,” but for how long, and how good is the result? The leftist utilitarianism fell before his pen-sword, wounded mortally.
As a result, he offered many solutions which are unsatisfying to modern people. He raged against anti-Semitism and blind nationalism, but was a Nordicist who argued for a spiritual revival within our people leading to a restoration of our feral need to conquer. He thought the church corrupt and hollow, but longed for a rediscovery of God through an exploration of inner space. He deplored the Romantics, and yet brought out the best ideas from Blake, Wordsworth and Milton in new form.
The Alternative Right is similarly a mix. It does not make sense, as Ben Shapiro does, to look at the groups involved because those categories do not reflect the individuals involved, or why they are in the Alternative Right. All of us are here because we are Realists and recognize that the opposite of Realism is Delusion, and that Delusion is the default state of humanity and that giving in to it is how great civilizations die.
More than anything else, the Alternative Right is achieving harmony and balance with that issue: The Enlightement™ was craftily-concealed Delusion, and the only solution is Realism as a means to Darwinian adaptation with the added human need for excellence. This of course eliminates all the social moralists, including cuckservatives and others who specialize more in gaming the system than achieving results we can be proud of.
You can see why this is threatening to those who make their money — and this comes down to ducats, shekels, pennies and yen at its core — in mainstream politics are threatened. Realism says we do not need a vast parasite class comprised of politicians, pundits, consultants, strategists, journalists, bureaucrats and academics. We need a few realistic leaders and wise people guiding them, and nothing more.
Even more, the Alternative Right has — to borrow a line from The Wizard Of Oz — looked behind the curtain of democracy, modern capitalism and pop culture. These are phantoms based on mass mind manipulation, usury and pretense of novelty. They are hollow and always have been. The Alternative Right says that our whole path consists of looking in the wrong areas, and points us toward the real areas.
Unfortunately, guys like Ben Shapiro — and Mitt Romney, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders — have made their careers by inventing clever reasons not to look in those directions. They are the anti-Nietzscheans because their goal is social morality and not realism. They are utilitarians because utilitarianism is measured by social response, and so has been assimilated by social morality. That is how the game is played.
But fear not, Ben and others. The new Nietzschean frontier is easily learned, and you’ll do just fine, when you stop fighting history. Liberalism was a vast detour that our people undertook based on the promises made by Liberals, including neoconservatives. All of those promises have turned out to be wrong or, worse, lies. And now, the reversal has begun.
At this point, most people who have been paying attention have realized that the USA is on its way out. It is dying for the same reason the USSR did, which is that it created a System to control its people, and that system chose the obedient and moronic over the good. Decline in a nutshell.
The Union of Socialist American Republics (USAR) replaced the USA in the 1990s when we let the 1968ers hit their forties and take over government. Zombie Boomers and brainwashed Generation X kids came together to praise Bill Clinton and the new “looseness” of American culture. It was not just rotten like the 1960s, but combined its rotten Leftist core with 1980s-style slick business acumen.
The result in the USAR is essentially a Communist country, but it fuels itself with the fires of capitalism. You must obey the official ideology to not be fired from your job and driven into hiding. Those who parrot the right memorized responses, like talking about how tragedy will bring us together and diversity is our strength after every terrorist attack, get ahead. Those who notice reality are marginalized.
The idiots won, you see. Leftism is the philosophy of idiots, or at least protecting idiots. That is what “equality” means: an idiot is as good as a genius. Sure, we pay the genius more… maybe… but that means he pays lotsa taxes in order to support the idiot. The smartest are enslaved to the dumbest, and because the dumbest are the largest group and growing in number, we have a permanent single-party system for the Pro-Idiot Party, who happen to be CommunistsSocialists? liberals.
Many talk about “exit,” or trying to peacefully withdraw, but we see how well that worked for the Confederate States of America (CSA) last time, and common sense tells us that when a liberal government needs money, those who “exit” will be the first to be forcibly re-absorbed. The beast will never have enough. But one option is to use a variant of the Putin/Orban strategy and try to drive away the morally pretentious North.
Vlad Putin and Viktor Orban are not fools. They know the West thinks a certain way, and that it is liable to make war on those who express public disagreement. But they have learned something from the response by American liberals to the American South: if you make those Coastal liberals think that there is nothing in your land but rednecks and crazy people, they will want you to leave. Their disgust will make them let you go.
As a result, Orban and Putin have approached their ideological shift cautiously while appearing to use Trump-style bravado. They make laws against public gayness, maybe throw up an immigrant fence here and there, and make public statements that seem overblown. In each case, they are cagily advancing their own interests while camouflaging them as rednecky incompetence so that Western liberals just give up.
We can see this process in the response of Coastal states to North Carolina’s enactment of a bathroom gender law. Under this law, you use the restroom which corresponds to the gender listed on your birth certificate. If you are a transsexual, you change your gender on that certificate and then you are able to use the bathroom of your new sex. The bill carefully avoids forcing business owners to have only two bathrooms and permits them to have unisex bathrooms. On the whole, it is a fair and sensible bill.
But that is not enough for the Coastal liberals! The fire god wants blood, you see… and blood is shown by forcing an ideological agenda for the sake of appearance, not reality. First the West Coast liberals claimed this bill was anti-LGBT (a fancy term for “not biologically heterosexual”) and then the New Yorkers chimed in. Now the sharks circle for the kill… and yet:
New York state has joined the cities of Seattle, San Francisco and New York in restricting non-essential public-employee travel to North Carolina. The moves are in response to a newly passed North Carolina law that critics say is discriminatory to the LGBT community.
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s executive order bans “all taxpayer-funded trips trip to North Carolina, unless they’re essential to public health or law enforcement,” NPR’s Hansi Lo Wang tells our Newscast unit.
Great hope can be found in this. This mostly symbolic act shows the disgust that Coastal liberals feel for someone daring to have another opinion. This disgust is a weapon, but it can be turned around on them. I suggest all of the Southern States should pass similar bills, and go even further. Tax birth control and tampons. Demand everyone go to church. Get extreme and act as crazy as you want, so long as you do it in a way that makes those Coastal liberals get queasy.
The only place safe from the ever-greedy belly of socialist-style government and the neurotic fatwas of Coastal liberals is the place that no one wants. Become that place. Make the South look utterly terrible to these Coastal neurotics and schizoids, and let them pull back. If they want a wall, let’s build that wall. Let us seal ourselves off from the North forever because we are so disgusting to their eyes.
In the meantime, cut free of their neurosis and the easy-money jobs of the cities that make people into robot zombies, we can rebuild civilization and eventually have enough tactical nukes to vanish them if they charge over the wall. Let the Coastal liberals face the fate of their reality-denying, misery-spreading Leftist mental health issues. We must break free, and it begins by making them not hate us, but be grossed out by us.
Late stage empires are rootless. People have no fixed pursuits because they have no consistent values. As a result, they pursue novelty to distract themselves from the emptiness. This spills over into policy because whatever the hive is excited about becomes an opportunity for marketers, advertisers, politicians and celebrities to use in their own appeal.
These “obsessions” happen periodically and sweep through like a desert wind, then depart and are forgotten. The fear of eggs as a source of cancer was one, back in the 1980s. For several years, the news was filled with scientific studies about how eggs were linked to different cancers and were probably killing us all right now. There were calls for increased taxes and regulation of eggs.
Then, it all vanished. Someone put out contrary data, or discovered some common sense, and they bucked the herd. Once one person had stood up to the great wall of conformist neurosis, others did the same and the wall came tumbling down. It had always been a phantom of our minds, as it turned out, but for most of a decade people accepted it as ironclad fact.
Another nonsense freakout was the AIDS epidemic of the 1980s. If you listened to the media, and the scientists who apparently wrote studies hoping to get picked up by the media, AIDS was going to wipe us all out. It was going to become airborne and you could get it from doorknobs if you had a cut on your hand. And then, poof!, this attack of fear also disappeared.
There are other great freakouts. From the 1940s through the end of the 1980s, people were just about certain that humanity would perish by nuclear warfare. Admittedly, there was a greater chance of this threat than eggs giving us all AIDS, but it also made little sense given that the risk was widely known. Panic and obsession crowded out good sense as usual.
Since that time, we have had global warming and now global terror. Neither of these are an actual threat, but with a twist: they are visible manifestations of bigger problems. “Global warming” consists of lumping together observations of some of the impacts of overpopulation and blaming gasoline for them; terrorism is just the tip of the iceberg of the many problems of globalism, a stupid Tower of Babel project for our elites and their fawning egalitarian useful idiots.
On the flip side, some obsessions are positive. When something succeed, all the monkeys imitate it slavishly. The best example of these is multitasking, an illusion which is failing. Back in the 1990s, someone came up with the idea that the ideal dot-com employee could multitask, which originally meant that they could be on hold on the phone and still get stuff done elsewhere on their desk.
Then the idea of “multitasking” became a trend. Employers were asking janitor candidates if they could multitask. Articles and books were written about the importance of multitasking, and motivational speakers earned a living by teaching people who to multitask in daily life. And then, the first people bucked the trend. They pointed out that multitasking meant lower attention to each task, thus less depth and quality.
And now, the multitasking trend is vanishing into silence, just like all the other panics and fads.
Let us look at diversity. In the 1970s, the West was looking for allies to stop the spread of Communism through the third world. We came up with the idea of forcing them to be linked to us by economics. So we started importing them into Europe and the USA as cheap labor, enjoying the luxury of newly-affordable goods and services that provided, and the notion of the healthy mixed population — a goal of Leftists since the French Revolution at least — was born.
Over the last four decades, diversity has always been the answer. It is a form of pacifism which entails no longer struggling to rise above the lower, but mixing everyone into one big happy pool so that there is no longer racial strife and class warfare. It makes women swoon and men think about golf. The illusion being pitched is that with this problem of racial strife out of the way, we can all go back to what we were doing.
And yet the reality starts to dawn. Diversity does not mean that people are here to live elsewhere; it means they live among us. It means our children, who are still not neurologically mature, will bond with them and want to marry them. It means that they will always be given preference in jobs and customs, since we are trying to show how nice we are. It means endless costs and slowdowns making life so miserable normal people want to die.
Look for this trend to die this year. Like the others, it will blow away, forgotten in our embarrassment and irritation at having been duped for so long.
In general, individual differences in educational achievement were to a large extent due to genes and the influence of the family environment was negligible. Moreover, there is no evidence for gender differences in the underlying etiology.
Taken from the abstract of “Arithmetic, reading and writing performance has a strong genetic component: A study in primary school children.”
Hard determinism wins in the end. The !SCIENCE! is settled. You can truck your kiddoes to Kuman. You can do your bloody best to get them hooked on phonics; not on Chronic. Whether they play for the Green Bay Packers or the Green Bowl Packers has nothing to do with your behavior as a mommy or daddy. It simply doesn’t matter. Either they win the sperm-shot lottery, or its Gorbutt, PA forever.
I utterly reject most of what I wrote in the paragraph above (but not quite all). It’s there to caricature an unfortunate philosophical point of view. Determinism (religious, biological, social or financial) is often used as a pathetic copout. Families that produce multiple generations of athletes, scholars, business pioneers, war heroes, or successful politicians have more going for them than just Lilith’s Enchanted Ovum and shining pools of +5 Sperm of Smiting. Family lines that consistently produce a certain quality do so because they repeatedly do something right long after they “put the biscuit in the basket.”
A certain level of Bio-Determinism certainly exists. The odds of three generations of Berras playing Major League Baseball strictly at random are about even with my odds of walking into a Trump Casino, playing six hours of Red Dawg and ending the viability The Donald’s candidacy just from the turn of a friendly card or two. The New York Yankees don’t pick their starting catcher by throwing darts. Three generations of Bush didn’t get elected at least governor, if not higher, just from social connections. What we on the Alt-Right call HBD has a significant but not overdetermining role in determining who ends up finishing where in life’s grueling Ironman triathlon.
OK, so what else helps if I want my kids to be smarter, better-looking, and oh yeah, !RICHER! than I ever was? This is why we here at Amerika preach consequentialism. A lot of what you get out of life is the result of what you input. To do is to be said Socrates. It’s like a mathematical function. You set the independent variable going in and then you get a certain result coming out. Determining which values of x will get you at least an acceptable y is analogous to the System Identification Problem from Systems Engineering.
In the JPW Family, the magic ticket from what hard-over HBD types describe as the genetic lottery is mathematical ability. We aren’t all great at it, a lot of us know enough to bang out code, solve intricate systems, and build a good, basic predictive or explanatory mathematical model. We JPWs can do the stuff that gets you hired and out of Gorbutt. So how does that get passed on to the next generation like the baseball skills of Yogi Berra being handed down to Dale?
When you have a tradition, you fight for it. You demand of the generation that comes next. You preserve it athwart an entropic, collapsing world like Amerika. In my family we tell how my maternal grandfather worked as a mathematician for the US Navy. We Americans used to kill the enemy with our minds as well our drones. We let both our children know that we agree with Descartes with regards to which field of study will lead them to the highest rung on the ladder of thought.
In a partially, but not entirely np-complete fashion, genetics does matter. Yet, when it gets overplayed, determinism becomes both an excuse for failure and a facile justification for subtle and self-defeating forms of bigotry. Anyone who has either read Walter Williams or read about a fvcked-up Kennedy brat in rehab would logically concede this point.
HBD can be useful for making large-scale predictions. It doesn’t turn you into a savant-like Hari Seldon. It does not excuse failure to make something out or your own life and relying on genetic determinism isn’t going to get you into Harvard unless you are Princess Lieawatha.
Do what will make you successful and seek what you are naturally predestined to be good at. Both genetics and effort work together and can have positive or negative feedback with regards to determining whether you will get what you want out of life. Determinism is no excuse not to identify what works, codify it as tradition and establish Conservatism as a fight for those traditions that lead to superior outcomes.
Longtime readers know that the magical formula for restoration of the West — aristocracy, nationalism, capitalism and transcendental experience — becomes controversial in any group because almost everyone objects to one of its pillars. Let us look into capitalism.
Your task is to design a country. You have two basic choices for economies: you can let the economy sort itself out through the actions of individuals, or you can set up a power structure to command it. This most importantly functions in assessing how many or how much of each product or resource will be available at any given location.
Implicitly, the “free market” option is reward-based: where reward exists, someone will find a way to meet it, and so — this is the bottom line — the need will be met. It may be more wasteful than an absolutely ideal system, and it creates rich people along the way, but it ensures that needs are met. This means that its weakness is everything else.
The “command economy” option however is punishment-based. Central command sets up targets; you either do that, or something bad will happen to you, because there is not a reward structure in place. This mirrors the fundamental problems of all subsidy states, which is that performance above the minimal becomes optional while ideological compliance becomes mandatory.
From that view, it becomes hard to want to adopt a command economy because free markets work. That does not mean they are without problems. In particular, Free Northerner picks up on the problems of a broken reward structure:
The current socio-economic system is designed by rootless, soulless, high-IQ, low-time preference, money-/status-grubbing homo economicus for benefit of those same homo economicus. It is a system for designed for intelligent sociopaths. Those who are rootless with high-IQ and low-time preference can succeed rather well in this system, but it destroys those who need rootedness or those who are who are low-IQ or high time preference.
What makes these people powerful? Others want to buy their products. How was this accomplished, through voodoo or hypnotism? No, through the inherent tendencies of a herd of humans. So, we have created a false elite of people whose success results from their popularity with the largest segment of our society, the clueless and neurotic quasi-competents who make up most of our species.
In this, there is a weakness in capitalism: unless the audience is controlled, it will create a demand for products that match its (moronic) level of taste and ability. The result is not Wal-mart, but McDonald’s: for the price of a pound of beef at the grocery store, you get a half-pound burger made mostly of soy, but there are celebrities and cartoon characters drawn on the bag and thirty-two ounces of flavored carbonated sugar water!
Contrast that to the 1930s, where everything was more elevated. What was the difference? The buying power was in the hands of the upper castes. Is it surprising, then, that the commercial elements of our society wanted it to grow and to become bottom-heavy? No: they wanted the easy audience to expand, marginalizing the hard audience, who now find that 99.99% of what they encounter in public is insufficient for their needs.
Capitalism has always revealed the queasy relationship between proles and commercial interests. Commerce loves morons because they will pay high markups for cheap items rebranded with novelty, popularity or self-image boosters. Proles love commerce because it makes them feel powerful; someone finally cares what their opinions are. Commerce requires them, in a bondage-style relationship, and for their dollars, it gives them control. They can command what product thrives and what dies. They can tell someone else what to do. They have power.
In that way, capitalism is in their view a replacement for social order. Social order ranks people above one another; with capitalism, all are equal, provided they have dollars in their little fists. Even more, in this form, capitalism works as an equalizer, reducing all to the same level as consumers of the same products. This is why even our wealthiest end up drinking soft drinks and eating fast food: whatever becomes available and succeeds, quickly crowds out everything else.
Capitalism becomes suicidal through this process. Whatever succeeds generates clones, and then the market must kill them off. The race downward means that at some point, innovation is killed and replaced by a circular pursuit of customers who are the least discerning, eventually creating the type of economic curve we see in the third world: a few companies own nearly everything, nothing new is invented, and most small businesses are marginal.
There’s another problem with capitalism of this sort. Like other forms of demotism, including peer pressure and democracy, it cripples decision-making, as libertarian sources notice:
What about Americans’ right to “preserve their culture”? I’m tempted to call it the nativist version of a “safe space,” but cultural preservation is far more totalitarian. A “safe space” is but an enclave – a small corner of the world where politically-correct norms prevail. To “preserve a culture,” in contrast, requires a whole country to impose traditional norms on everyone. And this is crazy: You don’t even have the right to force your culture on your adult children, much less millions of strangers.
The problem with libertarianism is its liberal heritage. “Classical liberals,” like liberals today, believed in the rule of equality and the “invisible hand” of markets and popularity which would choose the best. This is just not so, and if anything, the herd always chooses the worst and does so on the basis of the individual, which precludes any social change that is not optional just like performance under socialism.
So why do I support capitalism?
For two reasons: first, it works and the option fails every time; second, no System of any form can be trusted to run a society by itself. There are no “invisible hands.” There need to be highly visible hands, namely strong leaders and strong culture. The other three in the magic bullet list — aristocracy, nationalism, and transcendental goals — take care of that. Nationalism protects a group so that it can have culture at all. Aristocracy creates good leaders. Transcendental guidance places the fancy world of shiny material objects far away and focuses on the existential quality of life instead.
In fact, the best thing about aristocracy — which necessarily includes a caste system — is that it arrests the endless quest for growth and social mobility, replacing it with stability. As Anomaly UKpredicts:
The key point is that nobody in the system has the aim of destroying society. That is an incidental byproduct of the competition for power.
The competition for power, not power itself, is what corrupts. When power exists, it is either in the hands of the good or not. That is easily fixed. But a condition of endless competition for power corrupts everything, including capitalism. Millennials and others should note that our current “capitalism” is far from being capitalistic, having been merged with the welfare state, and also lacks these forces above it. Our crisis is of that making, not capitalism.
Triacetone Triperoxide (TATP), often referred to as “acetone peroxide,” was the explosive used in the recent Brussels attacks. It is relatively simple to make from commonly-available ingredients. It is an entropy burst explosive, releasing massive amounts of fast-moving gas as its internal structure collapses.
Straight out of the early 1980s to you, here is the G-file on acetone peroxide, courtesy of Textfiles.com:
You need:
acetone (hardware, paint store)
hydrogen peroxide (hair bleach type – 15 volume or higher – hair/cosmetics store)
sulfuric acid (concentrated; if you use battery acid,boil until white fumes appear to remove all of the water)
You also need a thermometer, ice, salt, and containers.
Procedure:
Combine 30 milliliters of acetone and 50 milliliters of hydrogen
peroxide into a glass container and mix thoroughly.
The container must now be put into ice/salt water and cooled to
below 5 degrees Celsius. The easiest way to do this: take a coffee
can, put in water and salt to about half full, put container
(empty) into can, put plastic lid on can to keep container from
floating, put can in freezer, when water is frozen, take out,
remove lid, proceed. This will provide excellent cooling and also
keep container from floating.
Now, put a thermometer in the mixture. When it is below 5 degrees
Celsius, start putting in the sulfuric acid, one drop at a time.
Keep stirring and watching the thermometer. Adding the acid
produces heat; if it gets up to 10 degrees, stop adding acid and
wait for it to cool. You need to add a total of 2.5 milliliters of
sulfuric acid, one drop at a time.
What happens if the temp gets significantly higher than 10 degrees?
I don’t know, because I never let it happen. The BlackBook usually
warns you if you are in danger, and there is no warning here, but
still, don’t try it! Keep the temperature down. Also watch the
acid, as it tends to splatter.
Keep stirring for a couple minutes after adding all the acid. Put
the container in the fridge (not freezer) and let it sit overnight.
When you get it out the next morning, there will be a white
precipitate on the bottom.
Pour the solution through a coffee filter, paper towel, or other
filtering paper. This will collect the precipitate. Pour a couple
of spoonfuls of ice-cold water through the towel to remove acid.
Now set the paper out to dry. The resulting powder/crystals are a
very powerful primary explosive. According to the book, “Keep away
from shock, friction, and flame.”
This material can be loaded into a 2.5 inch length of brass or
copper tubing and pressed down to make blasting caps. The pressing
may be hazardous – the book details the manufacture of a loading
press which includes a shield to protect the user. The book says
this type of blasting cap will detonate most homemade explosives
without a booster explosive: “Acetone peroxide is a very powerful
initiator and can be used by itself as the main filler when making
homemade detonators.”
This is the explosive of choice — called the “Mother of Satan” by some terrorists — of those who are attacking us in Europe. All of its ingredients are easily obtained, and the process of making it is simple and (relatively) stable. In other words, we cannot stop it from happening.
It illustrates the failure of diversity: without social trust, a society turns on itself. If you cannot trust that your neighbor and you — barring his insanity or sociopathy — have the same goals and values, you can expect terrorist attacks on a regular basis. Also expect complaints to be ignored, because they will be used spuriously.
Our future is one in which either we hyper-regulate many common chemicals, or we get used to the gentle sound of explosions and the wailing of victims. This is the future under diversity in a free society, and if it has a flag, it should have the TATP molecule on it.
