Much of this blog talks about ideas and ramifications. While this will never be a democracy, it is not insensitive to its users and readers either, for whom it exists. For that reason, I think it’s time for one of our periodic “open threads” where you can talk about whatever you want.
In addition, it would be great if our users spoke up about what they feel is good and bad about the direction of the blog. Too much controversy? Not enough? More articles on current events, or fewer? Should there be more environmental topics, or more social ones? Anything is on the plate, and if you just want to call me an idiot who wants to murder six trillion transgender multiracial Muslim orphans, you can do that too.
I never realized that I was a religious person because my religion has never involved worlds beyond this one. Instead, like that of the ancient druids, it involves an order to this world in which ideas are the basis of reality. This order may extend beyond visible reality, but the rules do not change: physical reality is inherently logical, as is thought, and any other layers to reality play by those rules.
This ejects me from most religions. Or I should say: from most religious interpretations. As a nihilist, I recognize that writing something down — even writing it well — does not make it truthful or able to be communicated. It describes what one person knows, and other people in the way of humans immemorial will interpret it according to what they know, which includes looking for what they recognize which in turn includes both cognitive limits and preferences for what they already believe is true. With this in mind, even the most profound religion can be easily massacred by an idiot, neurotic or dishonest person and converted into its exact opposite, and this is the most common case in religion. All religions are interpretations of the same reality; all people are using interpretations of those religions; some of these interpretations make more sense than others. There is no single entity “Christianity” any more than there is a single recipe for spaghetti; people have different stuff in their fridges, different needs and different tastes. This is not to say, as Enlightenment liberals do, that every interpretation is different; like most things, they cluster around a few major points with variations. Even so, most religious interpretations find my approach unusual.
I came to this religious view from spending time alone in the forest with no hope for myself or humanity. Owing to unusual conditions of my upbringing, I was exposed to death, human denial and social posturing early on and was able to see through the “accepted” explanations for them, the consequence of a precocious development of verbal skill. In the forest, I found an order that while brutal never failed: it always kept moving forward and, in my experience, it moves forward to beauty. Higher levels of organization, greater unity of form/function, intensified gestalt, and elegance and efficiency in application all made nature to me seem far more graceful than the blocky, rigid and seemingly retaliatory human solutions. Unlike human logic, the logic of nature was not composed of a public layer and a private layer, only the latter of which approached honesty.
It was self-evident that nature addressed its purpose with finer granularity and a balance between all “details” that could not be achieved by humans, who approach all questions from a perspective of human interaction alone. As part of this, it became clear to me that nature contained a life-force that constantly worked toward greater efficiency, balance and beauty. The earth that supports both hummingbirds and eagles, mice and elephants, weeds and redwood trees clearly emerged from a more developed mind than what humans would do; we would design a concrete block of a building with booze at one end, porn at the other, and luxury goods in the middle, surrounded by dumpsters and tenements. Further, nature gave purpose to all through striving and self-betterment, such that a mouse might have real pride in overcoming its timidity and becoming an expert forager. This struck me as a wise and brilliant order that could only have come from some force geared toward ultimate good.
In contrast, humans seemed geared toward reducing the field of vision to what was immediately before them. They denied time, fearing death, and denied consequences of actions beyond the immediate in order to be less restricted. They used euphemisms recklessly to disguise unpleasant truths and then made social rules to prevent those truths from coming up. Everywhere was a sense of control or limiting what was recognized in reality to cause people to ignore it. No hawk would do this, nor any rabbit. But humans, ensconced in easy paper-pushing jobs and getting their food pre-cut from stores, had no need to face reality at all. Like children behaving badly when the teacher leaves the room, they “ran with it” and went into full denial, aware that a comeuppance was due at some point, but not right now. Parents became selfish and left insoluble problems for their children, all while treating those children as part of their own resume and denying the existence of those kids as individuals. It struck me as a sick, sick time.
At that point, I began to sense what evil was. It took many years to hone the philosophy. My first inkling came when I realized that many sources referred to sin as error, and to my mind, the root of error was failure to notice aspects of reality. As time went on, however, I saw that the root of this error was a compulsion not to notice; denial. With it came compensatory behaviors. Many people, such as liberals or religious fanatics, based their lives around denial and scapegoating. The denial allowed them to scapegoat, and that deflection removed their focus from personal improvement and doing right on their own to forcing the external world to compensate for their lack of self-improvement and hiding that fact with acts of public altruism which served their own goal of removing social rules, morality, standards and the noticing of reality upon which they are based. For them, the personal was the political, which meant that they used politics as a means to make themselves seem important and to distract from their actual agenda, which was always selfish, short-sighted, greedy, manipulative and generally cruel in effect (although not in appearance!). I also noticed how these people were chronically unhappy in ways that reflected their neuroses: liberals always talked about the suffering of others to disguise their own boredom and purposelessness, health food fanatics were always unhealthy, and religious zealots seemed to make every conversation about a coded reference to death.
For many decades, I have considered every theory I have encountered to explain this. Liberals argue that people are made miserable by their surroundings, but I find this not so. Dirt-poor people who knew no better made do and in fact seemed to have a lot of time, drink and smoke a lot and do exciting drugs, and not regret their lot in life. Did they want more money? Sure, but so does everyone else. They found ways for their lives to function and were usually highly social. The miserable people were white women in the suburbs and geeky men in dingy city apartments, railing at the world for not being what they wanted, instead of being willing to work with what it is. Some argue that the root of our problem is language, or grammar, or some fundamental defect in logic, but I found more often that it was a willful misreading of the rules of argument. Others said it was a lack of democracy, or of religion, but those did not seem to help and often led people astray. Over the years, I began to see the root as (1) what most would call “evil” and (2) its root in a type of error which we might call emptiness, or a lack of internal purpose and introspection, which required a solipsistic/narcissistic personality to support itself. For these people, everything they do is compensation (cognitive dissonance) for their own misery, apologism for actual problems and replacement in their consciousness of those with non-problems, and projection of their own desires onto others. They existed in a world of themselves, and saw any intrusion by reality as offensive, violating, victimizing and worth resenting. Most if not all human misery comes from this psychology.
Emptiness strikes when people disconnect from reality. When someone exists in a constant feedback loop with their world, noticing it and doing their part to increase order/good/beauty, they do not have this emptiness; instead, they have purpose, a place, and parts of an identity. For that to happen, they need a strong culture and strong leadership to reduce the billions of possibilities to a narrow but not artificially narrow range. However, most people rage against that under the impression that — much as they believe they will win the lottery — they need these billions of choices to feel a sense of personal power. That power however does not relate to changes in reality, but only in their own minds, and so like drug addiction or masturbation it is never satisfying because it never goes anywhere and pleasure must constantly increase to outpace its dulling through experience, much as any repetitive experience loses its intensity in our minds. Emptiness could be called “evil” but that is perhaps too mythological for this naturalistic Nietzschean, especially when evil is so commonly used to create scapegoats elsewhere. Instead, it makes sense to describe what it is: perpetual misery caused by a refusal to address reality and thus, a world created of the self which becomes a void as the self bores itself. Experience dulls over time, as said above, and so the self constantly chasing a way to stimulate itself becomes listless, entropic.
Over the years, evil has visited us in many ways, but rarely the ones the media and government identify. Hitler and Stalin thought they had a better form for society, and almost certainly they are just as much not all wrong as not all right. The real evil is mundane, occurs in tiny doses, and ingratiates itself to us. Evil does not show up as a giant demon with huge breasts and a giant penis while breathing fire, but as a seductive force that shows us an “easier way” or encourages us to take pity on ourselves, and reward us with something instead. It argues that we can have power without the ability that merits it, that we deserve more importance and less responsibility, and other illusions of the solipsistic mind. In short, it is solipsism, and its devious trick is that by making a world of ourselves, it forces that world into decay creating constant emptiness which we try to fill by destroying and consuming things around us. Instead of making us full, that only widens the hole, creating an army of mental zombies who ruin everything they touch and still remain in misery. If any condition is more like Hell, I have not witnessed it.
Inspired by (short) Twitter conversations with Alice Teller.
With the recent media/government binge of leftist-fueled demands to remove the Confederate battle flag from as many places as possible, many users are wondering where to get one of their very own.
The Confederacy symbolized resistance to the federal state of America which had been created to enforce a uniform standard among different people, in effect hobbling everyone to the demands of the Crowd. People in cities wanted a type of safety that life cannot provide, and absent a shared culture, they found it in ideology. The Confederacy, like the Founding Fathers, resisted this impulse as it inevitably slides to popular illusions which make people feel validated in their own bad choices by scapegoating any who rise above the lowest common denominator. The Northern States chose to make slavery, a fading institution but still important to Southern livelihoods, their battleground and used the Enlightenment doctrine of “equality” as their justification.
The fracture of the United States remain intact since that time. Most people want — because most people always want this — zero social standards so that they can do whatever they want without consequences, and still receive the protection of society. This denies the historical and logical fact that civilization exists because people come together toward a common purpose of excellence, and administer this through higher standards. The people want lower standards. For this reason, every civilization in history has self-destructed, with for some time America and Western Europe being the exception. That exception has now expired.
Those who wish to resist this process — as any sane person would — desire a rising civilization not just for themselves and their descendents, but for humanity at large. We must evolve above our state of choosing low impulse-control and immediate self-gratification as our goal, but that is what most people want and have always wanted throughout human history. It has only been through the denial of this impulse that civilization, learning, social order and moral decency — the kind that allows people to live safely and dedicate their time to something more interesting that accommodating the dysfunction of others — have arisen.
If you are looking for one way to make your stand, it is in support of the Confederate battle flag, which now joins other banned symbols in the annals of human historical shame. Here are several merchants selling the flag:
I am told these make excellent July 4th decorations. They are also suitable as Christmas gifts, housewarming presents, and Bar Mitzvah gifts. Everyone needs a little color in their lives, and if we are to believe our Western democracies are founded on “freedom” and “liberty” and “equality,” diversity of opinion is also important, especially as our government and social order continues its collapse.
The mystery of civilizational death remains with us: at some point near or at their peak, great civilizations simply drop off the radar of history. Either no one is around to communicate what happened, or no one cares to, but either way history becomes like a badly spliced film reel, going from a scene of prosperity in one moment to empty, third-world failure in the next.
One theory holds that these societies get ahold of some kind of erroneous notion and treat it as truth, with each layer of society emulating the one above or below it until all are acting on the same untrue assumptions, resulting in a massive crash with reality at some point. This crash may occur in the environment, economy, society, military, genetics or all of the above, but its cause does not lie in them. Rather, its cause emerges from the denial of reality itself.
We might refer to this compulsive embrace of the illusory as automatic obedience. This passage from Naked Lunch illustrates the power of the figurative example of automatic obedience:
I reach Freeland, which is clean and dull, by God. Benway is directing the R.C., Reconditioning Center. I drop around, and “What happened to so and so?” sets in like: “Sidi Idriss ‘The Nark’ Smithers crooned to the Senders for a longevity serum. No fool like an old queen.” “Lester Stroganoff Smuunn — ‘El Hassein’ — turned himself into a Latah trying to perfect A.O.P., Automatic Obedience Processing. A martyr to the industry…”
(Latah is a condition occurring in South East Asia. Otherwise sane, Latahs compulsively imitate every motion once their attention is attracted by snapping the fingers or calling sharply. A form of compulsive involuntary hypnosis. They sometimes injure themselves trying to imitate the motions of several people at once.)
“Stop me if you’ve heard this atomic secret….”
Our civilization in the West now represents a group of Latahs. The self-proclaimed elites, selected for telling the people what they wish were true but in fact is lies, act out a pantomime of a healthy republic and the others, in wanting that to be true, emulate those elites. Then the next layer of society imitates that in turn, all the way down. The paradox is that the elites got there by imitating the lowest levels of society and then, with its leadership corrupted, society defaulted to that lowest common denominator as others followed. And nowhere in this process did anyone reference reality or pay attention to its relevance.
Those of us who remain awake, when all pressures move us toward sleep, frequently find ourselves asking the question: what went wrong?
Awakening in this time is to realize that all of what you have been taught was pleasant time-wasting, a red flag in front of a bull to hide from him the real game behind the scenes, which is this civilization dying and the rush to sell off anything of value and take the money away before the kaboom.
No person undergoes an easy awakening. It is almost as painful as birth or death, a process of coming to consciousness with the realization that something has gone very wrong and like it or not, we either fix it or go out with it, along with our descendants. This crushes men who have been through war, hell and fire as they realize their sons and daughters must grow up into this world and somehow survive it, hopefully to find others like them so they can have decent lives and keep the line going. Our hopes for the future become in doubt when we realize just how bad the situation is.
There is no way to making living in a dying time seem fun or even palatable. It is, quite honestly, miserable. Everything that is beautiful will be destroyed; everything that is true corrupted. Some will hold on, against the tide. Many choose to self-destruct instead of taking the chance. It is like perpetual Civil War battlefields, the corpses of good men strewn among the ruined trees, and the heartbreak of so much waste resonant in the smoky air.
Nothing helps more than to identify the enemy. I call it Crowdism, or the collectivist instinct of individualists, a seemingly paradoxical construction that refers to the tendency of people who want no social order that might restrict their movements to group together into an advocacy group for “anarchy with grocery stores.” Liberalism is one subset of this. What surprises people most about liberalism is that it is entirely different than its advertising. On the surface, it advertises goodwill and equality for all; underneath the surface, that means a vast faceless mass of useless people chanting the same slogans while a few arch-cynical manipulators take all the wealth and power for themselves. Liberalism is a ripoff, the ultimate theft of a civilization from its people, and it brings with it misery but only long after the good vibes have faded.
The worst aspect of liberalism appears in its war on intelligence. As part of its jihad against social standards, so that the individual faces no oversight and evolutionary pressures, it replaces realistic assessments with ideological dogma. That is, “We must gather food for the winter” becomes replaced by “We must make sure the food that we already have is equally distributed.” Liberalism functions through distraction from the real issue by the creation of crash dummy issues which, being more emotionally polarized, deflect from the actual issues and make it such that to oppose them is to invoke the wrath of the gathered onlookers. Nothing makes greater destruction than a mob, because — without accountability — it passes judgment and demands immediate gratification in impossible ways, guaranteeing that only lies will be believed and all truths will be denied.
Once you get to the leftist state of mind, a perpetual downward slide exists because the doctrine of equality applies only to those who are not already equal, and therefore must style themselves as victims of oppression to explain their failure to be equal. For this reason, leftism always favors those who are beneath others, and uses them to expand its power. If the gay orphans are not getting enough attention, we turn to the gay black orphans and make sure they can vote, receive welfare, get preference in hiring and in renting. This, because life is a competition for resources or a zero-sum game, inevitably becomes war against those who are greater than equal. After all, it is that differential — between equal and where these greater-than-equal people are — which must be cannibalized to make the less-than-equal into equals.
And so they become the target, even if they agree with the dogma and are willing to help. It has nothing to do with intention, and everything to do with position, with the ultimate goal as having every person have the same amount of wealth, ability and prospects. Naturally, this creates a society of boring grey people living in boring apartment blocks and going through rote work, but to the person who is less-than-equal this is a better outcome than some rising above. They resent those with the intelligence or talent to know the difference between reality and fantasy, because that judgment ability causes those to rise above the herd. And the herd hates anyone who rises above, and wants to destroy them and take what they have, heedless of how much those people give back to the group as a whole. The egos of the less-than-equal demand above all else that equality be enforced, and if all end up less prosperous and more miserable, that is an acceptable loss.
As a result, the left sees intelligence — real intelligence, not “education” — as an enemy. Intelligence sees reality as it is and sees the Crowd for what it is, which is a group of unhappy people determined that no one may be happier than they. Intelligence must be destroyed because it makes people greater than equal, and that makes them not only a threat but a resource to be exploited, just as we cut down the forests and killed off the whales. Those who are lower than equal are always protected and assumed to be innocent victims in a conflict, with whatever criminal or stupid behavior they exhibited being explained away as a consequence (and not cause) of their inequality. The spiral goes forever downward, never rising above.
There is only one way to end the insanity, and that is to end leftism. There are intermediates, of course. You can point to the Arab quarter (or analogue) where violence is high and prostitution is frequent. Or even look at a specific politician and claim that it is that bastard who ruined everything. But the real culprit, lurking behind the curtain, is the notion that every person is equal and thus every vote counts equally. This creates an inherent prejudice against the ultimate minority, which is smart-and-capable people, or those who are both gifted in analysis and in application. This small group carries humanity on its back. It does very little of the manual labor, but without its intervention, the labor would consist of doing useless things or doing them halfway, leading to far reduced results. It is often invisible, since problems mysteriously “fix themselves” because without much ado, one of this tiny minority has spoken up or acted to fix them. The average person not only remains oblivious to this group, but refuses to recognize them because what they do is beyond the understanding of such a person. These are the actually intelligent, as opposed to those proud of their ability to memorize and repeat, and these are the people who create and advance civilizations instead of merely participating while secretly scheming for more autonomy, usually for degraded ends.
As a Nietzschean, I look at society as a question of human survival. Ultimately however I agree with the Christians that our problem is evil, although I do not see its origin as “Satan” but the poor choices — prioritizing short-term personal gain over long-term stable harmony working toward the good, the beautiful and the true — of individual humans, who without the intervention of self-discipline are merely talking Bonobos with the same licentious and repetitious urges that that tribe of monkeys exhibits. Evil is solipsism, or the creation of an ego that eclipses all else, and its opposite are those who are intelligent and by that nature, disciplined and prone to notice reality instead of living in a closed-circuit feedback loop of their own desires, judgments and feelings. Most of history is deflection, displacement and distraction of reality by those closed-circuit people, so that their venality and corruption remains unnoticed. They are the destroyers of civilization and they thrive in a time bigoted against intelligence, which tells us exactly what we must do to defeat them.
You may find yourself wondering why all of the mainstream news and opinion seems to be variants of the same idea.
So you took a trip on the wild side, to the underground. At first, it seemed different — at least, it talked about different things. But then the similarity began to appear. The same underlying theories were there: rights, equality, institutions and laws.
The best type of opposition is captive opposition after all. It repeats what its controllers want, but in a form that looks different, and so a new addition to the hive-mind is formed.
What kind of conspiracy could launch this?
The answer you fear: none.
News and opinion writing, video and audio form a market. People purchase — sometimes only with their attention — products that confirm what they wish to believe is true. And therein is the rub. Capitalism is democracy in that there is no control on truth. If people want to believe that legalizing transgender brony rainbow incest is more important than having a functional society, no one should tell them otherwise because they are equal as individuals. That is the essence of The EnlightenmentTM.
Humanity, in the absence of putting the smartest and noblest in power, falls into an ego-emotion cycle. People look for information that makes them feel good about their lives, purchase it with their attention and dollars, and this encourages the production of more of the same. Soon it replaces everything else because it is simply a better product. The ego demands something to feel better about itself, and is served it, then sees nothing but that and concludes that it is true. Then the emotion kicks in: seeing only information which avoids the actual problem, namely the degeneration of Western civilization and its internal collapse, the ego assumes that everything is just fine except for those few issues. These it tunes into through emotion, which in this case means the type of near-autonomic kneejerk responses that make the person feel alive because they are having an intense reaction. Instead of being unselfishly altruistic, people weep over sad stories and delight in outrage because it makes them feel important, powerful and connected. Like the cycle itself, a smaller cycle exists within: the ego sees the emotional reaction, and then uses that as evidence that the ego is in fact well-meaning and thus, good, and thus, important. It is a closed-circuit self-confirming bias in favor of the ego.
For this reason, people go looking for writing which is emotional. Unfortunately for writers, this type of emotion is surface-only; it does not involve, say, the change in a character through learning, but a world in which we take gestures and reactions as literal. Emotion — honest emotion — comes from within at the end of an analytical process, what we might call “realization.” Surface emotion comes from our inner monkey which reacts to surface details so that it does not need to use its intellect to look beneath. That means that emotional writing limits itself to distractions and must deflect from any deeper truths, which require analysis and thus effort by the reader without the nice, settled, pat, compact and solid feeling given by a simian emotional reaction.
Amerika.org — under my guidance, as Managing Antagonist — has gone in the opposite direction. For the most part, it distrusts emotion because it is manipulative, and focuses instead on logical analysis. This limits its audience to very few and makes reading it more of a process like work than the easy enjoyment of breezing through some flattering fluff. For that reason, this blog will never be popular, but perhaps — with your help, Dear Readers — it can be influential.
Living in the modern West now resembles a scene from the movie Melancholia: we watch the doom approaching, and the reaction has been to universally go into denial.
“Universally” means that there is zero mention in the controlled media. It means that your friends back away if you talk about it, afraid for themselves. Whole industries exist to explain away the dysfunction, and all politicians get elected by finding something else to blame other than the problem. If you talk, write or make art about the inbound end, no one will acknowledge it in public. We have created the ultimate taboo.
Modern citizens of the West are literally living in a denial bubble, and right now, the people who shout the denial the loudest are the ones profiting. What else is liberalism, with its payouts and subsidies and political correctness, but an admission that society is collapsing from within, and all we can do is adjust to the new failure? They have no long-term plan because they do not believe there is a long-term, so they are just re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic by making sure everyone plays well with everyone else, and there are enough meager rations handed out equally to keep the peace.
The reason for this wave of denial is that any solutions we wish to take will destroy the principle upon which, since 1789 at least, our society has been constructed: the equal validity and importance of all individuals. To fix this problem, we need to prioritize some things over others, and that violates the idea that all — and this word has a religious connotation in the West — have a place. Some people will not be able to live in 3,000 square foot houses; not everyone can own their own fast-food restaurant, and not everyone gets a fat government job where they are hired for their race, sex or religion and can be as incompetent as they want. Choices have to be made, hierarchy established and most importantly, a values system upheld, while we have done nothing for the past two-plus centuries but eradicate all of the above.
People go along with this scheme because for the most part, they are unthinking monkeys who do only what is convenient for themselves, which was the reason commercial interests wanted democracy: it would paralyze any clear thinking that stood in the way of reckless financial expansion. The bankers and the proles united, danced in the streets, and murdered anyone with an IQ over 125. The result was third-world style social breakdown, but since the West was riding on the wave of wealth and power created by those over-125s and those who followed them, it has taken two centuries for the West to hit rock bottom.
But now… the West has hit rock bottom. This society is broken and it has been for decades. Daily life here is insufferable because it places fools in power, reduces existence to humiliating and pointless (not to mention tedious) tasks, and slowly distills anything good into a simpler and inferior version of itself. We are in a process of breakdown in which all good things are destroyed and all bad things prosper. Entropy is the condition of having too many options, and it always results in a collapse toward the mean, or a race to the lowest common denominator. That however is an ongoing target which lowers every year. And so the disaster grows bolder and darker in the sky, with all of us doing our best to deny it.
Denial has its appeal. To have been aware of a danger and to have done nothing is to be a bad person; yet that describes most people, which creates a market for people who “explain away” the danger. In addition, denial makes friends, customers, lovers and happy voters. They do not want to hear about the difficult truth. They want soft, sugar-added and deep fried lies. They want some illusion on which to rest their heads. When philosophers of the past said most people were weak, this is what they meant: most people lack the self discipline, moral courage and ability to love required to face hard facts. As disaster approaches, more certain every day, their response is to put their heads back under the blanket, and now many industries are doing a raging good business in selling darker blankets and magazines full of “studies” explaining why spending your life under a blanket is not only scientifically valid, but morally good.
Our current outbreak of political correctness is nothing more than a symptom of this general condition. People are afraid that Noticing, or seeing the holes in the narrative that justifies denial, might occur and so they create mandatory issues for us to discuss instead of any which might lead to Noticing. In the mainstream, this is civil rights; on the underground right, it is a collection of excuses, fantasies and illusions which miss the point. The point is that the West is dying and liberalism is doing it, and that we need to destroy the concept of equality to get back on track. We do not need to do new things, only stop doing the defective and ancient illusory things mandated by 1789.
Perhaps the biggest illusion is that doom will be sudden and violent. We all like that idea because it would make an invisible problem into a visible one where the solution is clear. Riots in the streets! Warfare across the land! Our task would become nice and easy and clear at that point. But that is fantasy. As history shows us time and again, empires do not fall in a conflagration, but collapse to third world status and become useless. The “final” events portrayed by history are long after the empire ceased to become viable, and consist of people it would have brushed aside a century earlier essentially walking in and taking over. The death comes from within first, and this is what people are in denial of. Our future is Brazil, Mexico, and Russia: a walking death of total dysfunction and misery in which anyone with brains escapes or suicides. Eventually someone will destroy that, but it will not be the empire we think we live in — like most people, our perception of reality is a generation or more behind — but the remnants of it.
Our society finds itself buried in silent failure of institutions and an infection it cannot identify. Its institutions fail because they do more of what we consider normal, which is to write rules working around both problems and the obvious solutions that offend the primary goal of equality. Every day, the problems get worse and our response is always the same: write rules, hire bureaucrats, dump money on the problem. It is forbidden to say what is obvious, which is that the entire approach is junk because despite us patching it up for centuries, problems have grown steadily worse. To criticize it would be to criticize equality itself — a philosophy known as “egalitarianism,” which is too long of a word for most modern Western readers — and reveal that equality is the infection. Sexism, racism, classism, homophobia, etc. are all synonyms for “not equal enough.” They just pick increasingly marginalized groups because no one can say no to a victim, since in order to have equality we must lift up the victims at the expense of the victors. That is the pathology gripping the West which conveys us to ruin.
My suggestion to all people who are not so selfish that they cower behind denial is to become the apocalypse. It is in our interests that this empire burn out instead of fade away, because if we can destroy the old West we can erect a new one. Thus it is imperative that we act like the left, but worse: sabotage every institution; create drama at every event; make life miserable for people to wake them up; subvert and impede every public event or standard; your goal is to destroy all of this evil empire and its degenerate systems. Your fellow citizens will not resist the tidal wave but will keep rolling over, congratulating themselves on being open-minded while they destroy the last of a good thing, not realizing that they are in a brief bubble of history where they can be self-important for hastening the end. Gay marriage, anti-white racism, pointless foreign wars, corrupting financial systems, a regulatory nightmare that is essentially a jobs program, and other dysfunctions are merely part of the onrushing third-world state that the West has become.
A sensible goal would be for those who are not infected with the brain-fuzzing delusion brought by the television, politics and socializing with others who are diseased to break away from the dying regime. Secede as states and push back from the epicenter of the dysfunction, which is the big port cities where people make more money through flattery than practicality. They will claim they earn all the money; the truth is that money is “earned” by repackaging the products of the so-called flyover states. They claim they have all the culture, but that “culture” is political obedience. They will claim many things and none of them are real. Without us, they will be forced to finally face the results of their delusional philosophies, and then they collapse faster without us to subsidize them. These people are parasites and those who want any future must get away from them and any nation they control. Their “ideology” enables them to get away with it and scares ordinary people into going along with them. On and on, South of Heaven.
What is falling, push. — Fred Nietzsche
Non-liberals could easily fix the West and set it back on course, but they bicker like marmosets and cluck like chickens instead of doing what they need to do: agree that the enemy is equality and start working against it. This would culminate in a breakaway to let the left die on its own as it is busy doing in Venezuela and Cuba, but first, we need clarity on what the alternative is. Life without equality means social order, hierarchy and social standards. Those are what we want, not a series of intermediate battles that no one can win while the assumption of what is good lies with equality. In order to save ourselves, we must destroy equality, and in order to save the West, we must destroy the West and replace it with a non-egalitarian version. Let those who cannot understand this simple fact perish for being inferior of mind and spirit.
Those who believe in the differences between human races and the importance of at least separation tend to call themselves racialists. This separates them from “racists,” who are people who dislike other races, and puts them into the camp of sane people who dislike diversity because it is inherently paradoxical and produces horrible results whenever and wherever it is tried, regardless of what racial groups make up the melting pot. In that perspective, history and logic — and looking outside the window — agree with the racialists.
Racialism however fails to adequately critique itself in part because it is trying to build up the largest following it can. That approach leads to greater numbers, but also produces a type of ideological entropy as each person re-interprets the belief in some unique way. That in turn erodes the group from having focused into being a generalized gripe session, which suits most people just fine as they do not want to actually do anything but would like to talk about what they would do, you know, if they could.
If racialism were able to focus itself on a single agenda, like liberals have done for years, it would have some power. Instead it dissipates its strength in as many perspectives as it has members. Naturally, hammering out an agenda will make many displeased as it will force some pet issues to the wayside, and by giving momentum to analysis, will also explode some much adored fantasies. And yet, it is the only path to anywhere, so it is the route we must follow.
A good starting question is: Why do racialists focus so much on other races? In a time when our media fawns over every possible story on homosexuals, transgenders, women, the impoverished and any ethnic or religious minority, it seems foolish to follow the blueprint set by the liberal media. Further, it is disspiriting as it removes focus from the object — a healthy white or WASP ethnic group — and turns it instead to a fetishism of what other groups do. More importantly, it shifts focus from the object to be conquered, which is the illogical and deceptive policy of diversity, and instead scapegoats minority groups for what ultimately are the actions of white liberals. White liberals passed anti-discrimination law, the Great Society welfare programs, Affirmative Action and the Hart-Cellar immigration act. White liberals enforce shaming of racists and lead the call for the removal of Confederate flags. The enemy is white liberals, or at least white liberalism.
Further, a philosophy comprised of race-isolation alone becomes a type of ethno-bolshevism (thanks to Nick Land for that formulation). It eliminates class distinctions within whites and turns them into an ideological force, as if emulating Communism. Perhaps it makes sense to emulate the political methods of leftists, but not their goals, since any student of history knows where those lead. Under white nationalism, for example, whites are united regardless of ability and exempted from having to demonstrate evolutionary fitness, much like the reward-before-performance ethos of socialism. This movement also creates white victim privilege which results in whites seeing themselves not as conquerors and innovators, but ghetto-dwellers held down by the man. It turns a once noble group into a parasitic, revengeful mob just like liberalism does.
Not only that, but race as an organizing principle tends to drown out anything else. It does not change the underlying conditions which were the causes that got us to this point in history, where their effects can be seen in the manic racial egalitarianism of the left. It does not address the decay in social order and mental ability of our people that began long before diversity. Even worse, it acts as a surrogate for dealing with these problems much as the left invented class warfare and diversity as substitutes for addressing the actual problem of civilization collapse.
No sane person should object to reasoned discussion of race, including leaving the option on the table that diversity is inherently flawed and a destroyer of empires and (thus) should be replaced. At the same time, to go about an issue the wrong way poisons the well and removes the ability to have useful future discussions on the topic, which then banishes the topic to the dustbin of history for future generations. It is time for racialists to mature and face the decision that has hovered over them for many decades: do they really want to restore civilization, or merely complain about it and bully some African-Americans to make themselves feel better?
One fine summer evening, Dylan — his parents having awakened to the futility of novelty spellings a few years before — contemplated his final act. He knew he did not want to survive into adulthood; it was too corrupt, banal, humiliating, pointless and most of all stupid to want to live through it. When he looked at the vista of life ahead of him, he saw nothing but bleakness; the drugs he had begun taking a few months ago only intensified this feeling. It was an enemy he could not escape, and he knew the time was soon.
Whispering aloud as he counted the rounds, he loaded all of the clips he owned for his Glock .45 and got into his black Hyundai. While he drove, his mind reiterated the circular loop that had occupied it for the past weeks: Is this what must be done? Yes, there is no other way. He sniffled once, and turned on the radio in disgust. Nothing but hip-hop, ads for Chinese products, and political jargon that made no sense. He snapped it off without care. He would not need this car for long.
At his destination, which he had looked up on Google maps, he took a final breath and turned off the car. Stepping out, he flung the keys as far away as he could, then took a tire iron from under the seat and concealed it in his sleeve. Steeling himself, he walked up to the door.
“I’m sorry, sir, you can’t–” said the guard, but Dylan sidestepped him and brought the iron down on the back of his head. The guard slumped forward but Dylan, having honed his reflexes with video game and played out this scenario in his mind for many days after having seen video of this place on Youtube, was already moving forward to the next guard. He punched him in the face, pushing aside the frantic overweight Hispanic woman clawing at his face, then bashed her behind the head with the iron. The third guard, a thinly-built man whose uniform hung from his bony frame, was frantically operating his radio but Dylan kicked his feet out from under him. A fourth guard came in with weapon drawn but Dylan, waiting beside the door, dispatched him similarly.
Dylan took a deep breath and wished he had a God to thank. He walked down the carpeted hall, bashing unconscious a secretary he found on the phone, and headed toward the thick oak doors at the end. His entire plan revolved around getting to those before someone locked them. He knew that it was inevitable the authorities were already notified, which meant he needed to maximize time. This, too, he had practiced in his mind using a layout of this building in PDF that he had downloaded from a torrent hosted in Sweden. He yanked open the door just as a sweaty little man in a black suit was fumbling with the lock. Dylan kicked him in the gonads and pushed him aside.
His friends had thought it curious that he had spent hours on the face book for the legislature, but now the work paid off. Dylan could recognize faces quickly from the pictures and with his Glock, he stamped down the ones he knew were left-leaning. Blood exploded out of custom-fitted shirts and shattered heads drained life-fluids across the polished desks and onto heaps of pointless bureaucratic nonsense. He fired systematically, imitating Anders Breivik who he had come to admire, showing these people that liberalism was not merely a type of conformity that you got you ahead in life by flattering the crowd, but a death sentence. Except this time, it was for the guilty ones and not everyone else.
Dylan walked down the rows, firing at an even pace, exploding the hearts and livers of those he detested. Liberal politician after liberal politician died, and with each that fell, the others panicked more and rushed toward the door. They crushed each other in panic, some suffocating under the squealing mass of bodies. A conservative politician cautiously raised his hands and Dylan nodded him aside. Then he kept firing, knowing that at any minute the SWAT team would arrive and his ultimate task would end. A woman died gasping, leaving a streak of blood as she slid down the carpeted stairs and flopped before the podium.
As he neared the end of his ammunition supply, Dylan contemplated his life. Born into hell, where people lied not only by outright falsehood but by omitting or denying important truths, he had suffered under this system for too long. He had long ago purged his anger toward the intermediaries, the minorities and authority figures, but now went toward the source. Liberalism had made this change, with the agitation of the Northerners in 1860 all the way through the Hart-Cellar act and anti-discrimination law of a century later. The stamping blast of the pistol comforted him as more recognized liberal faces pointed blankly toward the sky. He only distantly registered the flash bangs and finally, the stabbing pains in his abdomen and chest. For the first time in his life, Dylan Roof had found a task worth doing well with his whole heart, body and soul. As the room grew dim, he rolled backward and looked toward the sky with a gentle smile. He had found his purpose.
The Civil War (1861-1865) still divides the American public. Its origins remain misunderstood, with the South arguing that the war was a case of states’ rights or the ability to shape their society separately from the intent of Washington, D.C., where liberals insist it was a racial holy war for white supremacy through slavery of African-Americans.
Luckily, a respected historian approaches from a different angle which makes more sense in its historical context:
Fleming contends that the real reason for the war – and for why, of all the nations on earth, only the U.S. associated war with the ending of slavery – was twofold: First, there was the extreme “malevolent envy” of Southerners by the New England “Yankee” political class, who had long believed that they were God’s chosen people and that they should rule America, if not the rest of the world. Second, there were a mere 25 or so very influential New England abolitionists who had abandoned Christianity and even condemned Jesus Christ, while embracing the mentally insane mass murderer John Brown as their “savior.” This is part of the “disease in the public mind” that is the theme of Fleming’s book.
John Brown, who had declared himself to be a communist, had organized terrorist attacks in Kansas which included the murder of entire families who did not own slaves, and the murder of free black men. “Perhaps most appalling,” writes Fleming, “were the murders of James P. Doyle and his two oldest sons, while Doyle’s wife, Mahala, pleaded frantically for their lives . . . . The Doyles were immigrants from Tennessee who . . . had no interest in owning slaves.” Brown claimed that his purpose was “to strike terror into the hearts of the proslavery people.” He planned even larger acts of terrorism at Harpers’ Ferry in 1859 where he was apprehended by U.S. Marines led by Colonel Robert E. Lee, and he was hanged for his crimes.
It helps to recall that Europe was wracked by the Napoleonic wars (1803–1815) just a generation earlier, and that those had a similar drift: enforcing centralized liberal ideology through the State over local areas, including independent kingdoms and States much as the South was independent. Liberalism represented on its surface triumph of the common man through egalitarianism, but underneath that shiny exterior it served mostly to empower commercial interests by freeing them from the constraints of culture and those who might know better. Humanity has always been its own downfall, and mobs always demand what is worst for them, and these wars — arising from the French Revolution and bloody mass murder from 1789-1796 — showed the liberal forces attempting to take over Europe.
In the United States, the situation was similar. The South remained agrarian with a high degree of culture, which is why most of the good literature and art came from the South, and enforced that through a strong social order in which a caste system persisted. This enraged liberals, so they engaged on an ideological war against it. Being crafty narrow-eyed Yankees, they chose to pick a fight over an issue the South struggled with: slavery. While slavery was in decline, and many if not most in the South wanted it gone, the problem was that spontaneous manumission would result in a collapse of the Southern economy. The North defined the issue, and provoked the South into a response, at which point the North demonstrated a willingness to conscript as many people as possible into a war it won by numbers and industrial power.
Consider this response from Abraham Lincoln through Ambassador Charles Francis Adams to a letter written to him by Karl Marx:
So far as the sentiments expressed by it are personal, they are accepted by him with a sincere and anxious desire that he may be able to prove himself not unworthy of the confidence which has been recently extended to him by his fellow citizens and by so many of the friends of humanity and progress throughout the world.
The Government of the United States has a clear consciousness that its policy neither is nor could be reactionary, but at the same time it adheres to the course which it adopted at the beginning, of abstaining everywhere from propagandism and unlawful intervention. It strives to do equal and exact justice to all states and to all men and it relies upon the beneficial results of that effort for support at home and for respect and good will throughout the world.
Nations do not exist for themselves alone, but to promote the welfare and happiness of mankind by benevolent intercourse and example. It is in this relation that the United States regard their cause in the present conflict with slavery, maintaining insurgence as the cause of human nature, and they derive new encouragements to persevere from the testimony of the workingmen of Europe that the national attitude is favored with their enlightened approval and earnest sympathies.
One and a half centuries later, we wonder what it all meant. The answer is as simple as it seems: the American Civil War was part of the ongoing world domination by liberalism, which it attempted at first through the French Revolutionary model, then through Communism, and now through European-style “social democracy” mated with American-style industrial capitalism. This war in turn led to others, culminating in the entangling alliances that formed the parties of the first World War, which then in turn led to that fratricidal disaster. The origin of all: liberalism and its ideological compulsion to force others into obedience because it rightfully recognizes the instability of liberalism and thus the fatal threat of any viable competition.