As our modern age spirals down into ruin, corruption, pollution, poverty and megalomania — typical conditions in the third world — we must ask ourselves: what makes this time modern?
The crowd pleaser answer, which is the surface or first glance analysis, which therefore makes everyone feel smart for having noticed the obvious and banished the actually threatening, is “technology.”
Looking deeper, we see that technology is a non-answer. Humans have always had technology; it differs only by degree. Even more, there are other distinguishing traits of the modern time.
Without going into excessive detail, we should look at modernity as a type of civilization design, or a set of assumptions about how humans live. Its root is externality: instead of seeking inner sanity, it seeks inner death and outward similarity, so that all of us can go through life without taking on existential or moral challenges.
The heart of the modern time is the urban gated community. One pulls into the parking garage in a fancy car, gets out and goes to an apartment, never contacting others. Food, wine and drugs are delivered. Work is the only requirement. Nothing that forces us to question our purpose or strive for something higher is present.
This is why the essence of modernity is quantity over quality. Quality requires toughening, a pushing of ourselves against challenges in the moral and metaphysical realm as well as ordinary mental and physical self-discipline. That in turn belittles us, and reminds us that we are mere mortals, and that offends and angers us.
So: the revenge. We blot out all that is not purely external. This means that all aspects of our society become one-dimensional and crassly simplistic, that commerce takes over culture and daily life, and that we will be ruled by whatever idiot flatters the other idiots with a shiny, flashy new idea that explains why our problems are not our problems, and we need to be looking elsewhere.
This is how all societies go out. It is a byproduct of success: as we grow, we enable those who could not have done this on their own, and they tend to breed by an r-strategy (many kids, low investment) and thus quickly flood our society with serfs, proles, plebs. Back in the day, we kept them in check by calling them those names and limiting their prospects.
But eventually, there are too many. They have a bright, shiny “new” idea: democracy, equality or some variant thereof. Basically, suspend standards; let the mob rule. At that point, the hand is reaching for the “flush” lever, and all comes undone. That is modernity.
Bruce Charlton writes about a concept from Tolkien, the eucatastrophe. In this configuration, everything seems lost until the end, when a twist brings about not just a positive result, but one better than can have been imagined.
It would seem like nonsense, except that this pattern appears so often in life. Imagine early humans: the species of monkey which could not hunt like the rest, and started to rely on tools, exiled from the group. Instead a great series of civilizations arose.
At the risk of sounding slightly cheerful, let us look at a possible eucatastrophe for humanity:
AD 2016
Defying all expectations, Donald Trump is elected President of the United States. Whatever he does next matters less than the fact that his election has re-shaped a mood from liberalism to common sense realism. The United States ceases its relentless pro-Leftist propaganda worldwide, and starts looking inward.
A ripple effect of right-wing parties take root in Europe and Asia. The electorate, having seen now that any Leftism leads inevitably to something like Communism, want off of the crazy train, and they are willing to gamble on the comeback kids in the far-right. Attitudes shift.
Pitfall: The temptation here is to stop with this, and to assume that our solutions are political in nature and need only one strong step, instead of many small and unique ones guided by a handful of over-riding principles.
AD 2020
Let us leave politics. People have changed. There is a recognition that the last few thousand years have been screwups, death by a thousand cuts at a very gradual pace, and so people are changing how they live. The old values — honor, pride, race, culture, reverence, excellence, cosmicism — are back.
People begin to rediscover God. By the principle of mythic imagination, he does not “exist,” at least until people use their creative minds to see the possibility of his existence, knitting themselves into a pattern of the universe that includes both God and man. Soon His presence is felt again, and doubt disperses.
Simultaneously there is a revolution against the consumer lifestyle. With big picture goals, people no longer need to find false gods in products and salaries. A movement toward smaller cities and towns, more time off and less time at work, takes root. People find their gadgets have no souls.
Across Europe, a low self-confidence perpetrated by two sadistic and fratricidal World Wars begin to lift. People sing “Wir sind wir” on their daily walks through their towns and cities. A great exhalation occurs; relaxation and hope arrives.
Pitfall: When one starts to feel good about oneself, the usual response is to stop striving, but this enters the death-cycle of calcification. That ends the process that provides the sense of well-being.
AD 2024
There is no mass awakening. Instead, the guardians shake off their slumber. Intellectuals — those who think for the sake of thinking — are deposed not by more nerds, but by intensely practical men of infinite faith in existence who want to create the best.
Laws are torn down like unwanted advertisements, bureaucrats and politicians are ejected from jobs, media is bashed back to its rightful place as a servant. The upper fifth of the population by intelligence becomes hard, seeing not trendy grey areas but lines in the sand, and it rejects the parasitic and self-serving.
The far-right trend continues, but these parties now have a different focus. It is like an unstated agreement that the non-indigenous must go, but now they focus on making life better. Instead of many regulations, they create cultural change that rewards more time at home, more reverence, and a zeal for excellence.
As far as the non-indigenous go, the exodus is in full swing. First the benefits were cut off, then the laws against discrimination went. Soon they had no welfare and no jobs, and they were evicted. When they rioted, whole sections of the city were blocked off and fire trucks were not sent in. As they stood in the ashes, they realized they had defeated themselves.
With nothing for them there, the non-indigenous leave. The miscegenated find themselves similarly excluded, and in a huff, proclaim their hatred for the societies that birthed them and depart for happier ground in Africa and Asia. No one blinks an eye. Ancestral traditions return.
The night is again full of spirits.
AD 2028
What amazes everyone is that this revolution has occurred without murder. Former enemies, having seen the writing on the wall, shrug and give up on the ideas that they trusted to animate their lives, but which did not bring them joy. In fact, a focus on joy and reverence as balanced principles has returned to Western European civilization worldwide.
People know now that they will be rewarded for doing not just good, but right. And so, punishing thieves is common, as is resigning from a job if the company pollutes. The mega-cities evaporate as people move to smaller cities and towns. A sense of morality returns, this time as a prerequisite for tolerating someone else.
Among those who read literature and history, a discontent arises. Our gains have been so great — but now what? An interest in ancient history arises, and some even peer back into the dark early ages of humankind to see an entirely different social order, one based on hierarchy and excellence.
What were once cynically called “cultural events” become commonplace. People welcoming the new moon at midnight is a regular sight. Nature-worship returns, and large groups collaborate to remove unnecessary buildings and parking lots and plant trees again.
A massive exodus occurs out of Europe. Many if not most are discontented with this new order and hate it with all of their hearts. They move to Brazil, Singapore, and Dubai. Somehow life goes on, in fact with fewer glitches and less neurosis than before.
Pitfall: One cannot stop halfway on a path. This is only the beginning. To see it through to its end requires people of a certain understanding, but now they have the foundation for it.
AD 2040
The world has changed. History is dead; it has been replaced by an endless present, where every moment is sacred and none is the center of existence. People live for eternal things and so lose sight of time. In every town, there is silence, broken only when necessary, as people drink up this state of mind like a parched man seeks water.
Men come home to their families and experience ineffable joy. Farmers see the potential of infinity in their fields. Warriors thirst for the clash of armies. People report feeling a sense of place that they cannot articulate. As if they have come home.
Technology resumes advancing. Massive improvements are made in manufacturing and space travel. The night sky opens with potential, both within the soul and out there, in the undiscovered vastness made by the gods. People begin to dream again, to relish life, and to worship nature both red in claw and green in gentleness.
Third world peoples, having returned to their lands of origin, begin to discover what type of society works for them and stop caring about what the rest of the world thinks. The mixed-race begin to be absorbed into these populations, with outside influences vanishing into the more genetically-diverse locals.
The human retreat from cities liberates the land for a new type of arrangement: half of it goes to humans, and the rest is wilderness. People realize that more than having to do this for preservation, they must do it to keep their own dreams alive. Of a wild place, wild gods, and infinite possibility. Television stations shut down in cascades.
When they look back on the recent history of humankind, people now see a nightmare of several thousand years, culminating in the disaster of democracy. If you tell a person from this time that he is “equal,” he will punch you in the face for denying him his uniqueness and role.
Illusions collapse like dominoes. Entropy retreats to the corners of the world. People live with purpose again, and embrace the tragedies and warfare as a necessary part of life that leads to more eucatastrophes. As that is what everyone agrees has happened: it was darkest before dawn, and then the sun broke over the horizon.
Thomas Malthus dropped a meme-bomb on both Economics and Environmentalism. The damage that he inflicted infests some corners of both of these fields today. Wrong ideas can have an impact analogous to a nuclear weapon.
Abundant loud and violent stupidity gets detonated at the time the foolish ideas are adopted and the long term effects are also toxic. The idea has a half-life, so to speak, like Strontium 90. As long as the wrong idea can be attractively packaged, it will get parroted by masses until it is put to the acid test. Kevin Williamson of NRO describes just such a scenario.
In 1980, there was a famous bet between Paul Ehrlich, Malthusian par excellence and author of The Population Bomb, and Julian Simon, a fellow at the Cato Institute, regarding the prices of a handful of widely used metals (chrome, copper, nickel, tin, and tungsten). Ehrlich believed that the Earth was running out of resources, and that scarcity would send the price of these metals higher, while Simon believed that human ingenuity and the creative power of capitalism would lead to abundance, and hence to lower prices for those benchmarks. Simon was right, Ehrlich was wrong. But there is almost no price to pay for being wrong if you are wrong in the service of that which is popular….
The corrupting meme infesting both economics and environmentalism is that of The Big Catastrophe. The SHTF Moment. The big mile-marker that tells us Romulous Augustulus is about to be deposed by a some hide-wearing barbarian from the Faustian Woods. I mean, if Paul Ehrlich re-ups those futures contracts long enough, will every last one of them go into the money? It could just be that he’s gotta’ believe! If he so endeavored, he’d hardly be the only non-religionist taking a Kierkagardian Leap of Faith.
I think its more than just a lingering case of Normalcy Bias on my part to ponder another possibility here. What if several million dedicated preppers wind up the badly dissappointed laughingstocks of their neighborhood as the MREs pile up in their basements, and the Martians never seem to get around to launching that invasion? Just how well is your favorite Peak Oil Blog doing right about now? When was AGW going to doom the Earth again?
Maybe, just maybe, there is only one looming Armageddon. We have on scriptural authority that none will know the hour or the day. Given that market information blackout; I wouldn’t advise calling up your commodities brokerage of choice and writing any Armageddon calls. We can all ignore the cranks and whack-jobs because nobody has seen any of those black swans quite yet. Yet maybe that mindset puts us in even more danger.
It doesn’t have to burn out. It could fade away. The termites that eat a foundation, probably don’t wreck an entire wooden barn in just a day. Entropy can work over time. Things can degrade more slowly than anyone primed for The Big One can readily recognize the growing sarcoma. Will McIntosh posits just such a societal failure in his novel Soft Apocalypse.
What happens when resources become scarce and society starts to crumble? As the competition for resources pulls America’s previously stable society apart, the “New Normal” is a Soft Apocalypse. This is how our world ends: with a whimper instead of a bang. New social structures and tribal connections spring up across America, as the previous social structures begin to dissolve. Soft Apocalypse follows the journey across the Southeast of a tribe of formerly middle class Americans as they struggle to find a place for themselves and their children in a new, dangerous world that still carries the ghostly echoes of their previous lives.
That’s plausible, simply because the vast majority of SHTF events are obvious threats that intelligent people can recognize and head off at the pass. More insidious threats such gradual decrease in humanity’s IQ, the growing world economic deficit, and the steady decline of beauty and aesthetic pleasure in the town you live in are not all up in your grill like a bad Rap video on World Star Hip-Hop. They don’t gross us out. They don’t particularly scare anyone. Then you wake up and notice things just don’t work that well anymore.
This sense of it just not working anymore is an opportunity for proper diagnosis. Amplifying that sense of anomaly can help us awaken the sleepers. When we look for the small cracks in the foundation rather than the approaching tidal wave, we can start seeing where our lives, our society and our nation need to be fixed. All of these problems didn’t just come flying out of Voldemort’s wand. They started small. And like Cassandra of Albion – Enoch Powell, the people who warned us about them were ignored or vilified.
The realization that Doomsday isn’t on the calendar is a start. The next step is to realize that the absence of Doomsday from the calendar doesn’t render any of us immortal or immune. Then, we can put together the clues and start fixing the societal problems that are killing us all one more coffin nail or tonsil polish at a time. This becomes more possible when we rid our thought ecology of Malthusian Doomsday fantasies and remove the Modern Blindfold.
Recently a new group called Identity Evropa has been making waves through the alternative Right underground through its formalized fusion of identitarian and alternative Right beliefs. We are fortunate to have interview responses from Nathan Damigo, leader of this group, for your reading pleasure today.
What does “European” mean to you? Does this mean people who reside in Europe, or those descended from the indigenous people of Europe? What about mixes?
Every day when I wake up I look in the mirror and see Europe. I see it in the face of my mother and that of my father. I see it in my nieces and nephews, as well as random passers-by when I traverse the country.
To me, European is both racial and spiritual. It transcends geographical location and informs us of who we are, where we came from, and where we are going. Wherever I am, Europe is with me.
Only we can be us. There are many people in this world with partial European heritage. Our ancestors conquered the world, leaving their mark wherever they arrived to a greater or lesser extent. Some of the peoples who were conquered still bear that mark, they can see hints of it when they look in the mirror, however they also see that of their own indigenous people. They are not us, nor we them.
When did Identity Evropa form, and what was its purpose? Who was involved, and how did all of you arrive at this perspective on politics and society?
Identity Evropa was founded in March of 2016. It was born through the remnants of a previous attempt to create a network of people interested in fighting for our future. A small collective remained together after our decision to scuttle the project, which we felt lacked the “it” factor and was in need of rebranding with a new vision.
Those involved with the project were already a collective of Eurocentric individuals with a shared understanding of the world. They came to their understanding of race through different avenues, but all through intellectual honesty. They are unfortunately unable to receive the proper recognition for their work at this time, but their contributions have been tremendous, and we could not have accomplished what we have so far without them.
What do members of Identity Evropa do? What do you hope to achieve as an organization and as individuals?
At this stage, Identity Europa members attend meet-ups and build relationships with other members. This is a lifelong project. Slow is smooth and smooth is fast. Most everyone coming into this are meeting others with their views for the first time. We want everyone to feel comfortable in the emerging communities in which they are now a part of.
We are however gearing up to promote our organization as well as our ideas on college campuses across the country. Members will be able to participate in this, and other future projects that will gradually become more direct as we continue to make gains and progress in our capabilities.
What would your ideal society look like? What would everyday life for normal people be like?
An ideal society would be one that places human nature central in its premises and builds institutions around that, not in contradiction with it as we have today. It would be progressive, advancing the interests of its people (not individuals) through policies that increase the level of functionality within its systems. Its structural planning would not be myopic and given to the base impulses of the masses for short-term and selfish gains, but on that of eternity.
How do you think we can get to that state, and (approximately) how long do you think it will take?
It could be a matter of decades if we chose to utilize our collective agency. Already the West is stirring. We are more numerous than most people at this stage realize; change is always brought about by a small but determined minority. The longer people take to get involved, the longer this will be strung out.
How did you become “awakened” and leave behind the mainstream political, social and economic illusion?
I was raised as a minority in the most technologically advanced place on the planet, Silicon Valley. It was not some horrendous experience being a minority among mostly Asian children of parents who worked for tech companies and Latinos. They were for the most part friendly.
However, even as a child I noticed double standards. I found my friends shaped their political ideologies based on what was best for their racial and ethnic communities. I attempted in vain to instill in them a civic national pride and identity, only to be met with rejection. They were not interested in what was best for America, but only that of themselves. While this was never explicitly vocalized, it was the hidden lesson I learn.
I came to a point in my mid twenties where I realized that no matter how hard I signaled how non-racist I was, the majority of non-whites would never do anything but advocate their own racial interests. They did not care about my interests or that of the nation my ancestors created. When I finally acknowledged that this was the norm and nothing could be done to change it, everything else began to fall into place.
What do you think this illusion consists of?
Abstract fetishism coupled with cognitive dissonance with institutional antidialogic holding it in place.
What is your relationship to the National Policy Institute (NPI)?
National Policy Institute and Identity Evropa have a great working relationship. Richard Spencer has been very supportive of what we are doing, and our visions for the future of the identitarian movement. Our close work has lead many to ask if Identity Evropa was part of the National Policy Institute, but I can proudly say that we are an independent, grass-roots organization.
What is the alternative right? Do you consider your identitarian approach to alt-right in nature?
The alt-right is a loose, and in many ways disparate, coalition of dissidents who meet in their opposition of globalization, unregulated capitalism, multiracialism, and abstraction fetishism. As a coalition there are many different political ideologies, religious theologies, and strategies for achieving long-term goals, however the central theme of the alt-right revolves around race and identity. At this point it is primarily a cultural movement without political representation.
Identity Evropa’s approach is alt-right in nature and a natural extension of the counter-culture that has fomented and expanded for the last several years on the internet. We are meta political, with our primary focus at this point on fraternity and network building, creating a new community composed of those whose interests meet at the intersection of race and culture.
How can people keep track of what you are doing and support you?
Following us on social media is the best way to keep track of what we are doing, while joining our fraternity or investing financially in us are the best ways to support our growth. We have a lot planned for the future and hope that everyone would find a way to get involved. The future is ours, but only if we make it.
Finding the fountain of truth, or the Holy Grail or the Tree of Wisdom has been a human pursuit for a while now. This pursuit is flawed in the sense that gold has similar characteristics to fool’s gold which is often found in the same place.
A singular pursuit for “only” gold can therefore end up in failure despite good intentions. You have to be aware of the presence of fool’s gold too, because that would be a success in itself, despite being a failure relative to gold.
The positivist will stubbornly pursue a foolhardy quest to save the world and will be very disappointed when his horse breaks a leg. On the other hand, the arrogant pursuit of what one believes to be his entitlement is also destined to end in failure.
The fact of the matter is that success is available, visible and achievable despite the real and abundant opposition to it. Think about competition, the crab effect and parasitism and it is no wonder that success is in short supply and failure so easy to achieve.
One example of this is described by Jim Collins where he assessed more than 20,000 listed companies in order to identify only eleven successful feel-good stories. It is therefore difficult to believe that success and failure emerges from the same fountain. This is not about “hoping” or “thinking” to be successful, it is about actual success or failure. However, it is not binary either, there are grades of success or failure too, but it suffices for the sake of argument to estimate that the choice itself is binary with the outcome less so.
Therefore, one makes a choice and then manages the risk towards that selected choice. There is no other way to success. For example, should one desire a child the decision is fairly binary, but getting that baby delivered safe and sound requires a number of very serious hurdles. In fact, it’s quite an industry with insurance cover, labor law etc. and depending on boy or girl, sick or healthy, there is an entire world waiting (in anticipation) for that baby.
But, getting back to the fountain of success and failure I have to first refer to Maslow’s hierarchy of human potential. This is a simplistic reference and will undoubtedly require further investigation by experts in the field. However, it looks like this:
What Maslow found apparently was that some individuals were only motivated by their basic needs while others found self-actualization attractive. It is possible that an entire group of individuals share a potential for basic needs and likewise for self-actualization. It is therefore possible to imagine that a change-over in group potential happens in the area depicted as psychological needs. The assumption is that there are no other groups. In other words, one group is working its way up, while another group is working its way down ending up with both groups meeting in the middle, as it were.
It must be recognized that when Maslow defined this pyramid, he did not envision a group “working downwards”, but actually that everybody (and each) working their way upwards with some going further than others. However, when he sampled students for this study, they were already distributed in this fashion. So, it’s not just a question of getting wiser as you get older.
For example; a group that might have a strong(er) potential for “belongingness and love needs” could be collective societies whereas a more individualist societal group would exhibit a “need for Esteem”. There is no right or wrong here although it would be easy to start the accusation trade of insults at this point. Remember that it is a question of graded “chance” slowly changing in perhaps a linear fashion across both psychological needs as identified above.
Unfortunately, Maslow did not do an intelligence correlation as far as I can tell at this stage; however, what he did may help further investigation. In addition, self-actualization points towards people with emotional intelligence without guilt or shame. The group populating the self-actualization need category must be relatively small when compared to the basic need category. Although a limited number of people are born into the self-actualization group, most people (like myself) will have to slog their way ever upwards.
The last point concering single humans (which is what the pyramid refers to) is that it is fairly obvious that the basic needs individual will be a lot more focused on his safety than the self-actualization individual. One example is that collectivist societies exist precisely to “save the hive” (r-selection etc.). Another example is that the Mensa organization describes their participants as “dependents” meaning they require general support and not just to fix their washing machines, but to protect them. I can well imagine me and my entire family being quite defenseless while in a “heightened state of self-awareness.”
The next stage of this discussion starts by pointing out the risk of improving oneself. Let us assume that I have a basic need to survive as it were. That means I need food and water and while sleeping, some safety too. In fact, I will also need to be very aware of my safety while searching for water and food. Typically this sort of potential is quite an achievement and those people capable of doing it are sometimes called loners while staying on mountain slopes.
However, imagine you are a mountain lion when suddenly one day, you get that smell of a female lion. That will trigger those survival genes because unbeknownst to the lion, his genes know that his own survival improves with a family around him. The female genes know exactly the same thing hence a family is born. What really happened though, is that the individual risk for each member of the family has been reduced, causing them to have a better life expectancy. In other words, by moving into Maslow’s “belongingness and love needs” category the family exhibits a better potential not only to survive but to develop those tools only available to a group. In fact, those tools a single lion never would have had.
The important point here is that the lion is already programmed for group behavior. The same applies to humans. We are actually organized already without knowing it and although physically independent we remain psychologically dependent. In fact it takes effort “not” to mix with family, friends, colleagues and even strangers. Unfortunately in the case of humans, there is no natural organization beyond the natural family of which monarchy may perhaps be seen as an extension.
This is the point where organizations must be incorporated in Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. Recent studies show that organizations exhibit (on their own) similar traits as humans. Therefore an organization can also be categorized as “basic” (such as a school) or as having “esteem” (such as a professional society). Therefore organizations can also grow and improve themselves by learning and becoming wiser.
The above is the upside. The downside is where (most) humans decide not to improve, either voluntary (such as a hermit) or involuntary (such as someone caught up in a collective group). That also applies to organizations. Therefore, the deduction is that a single person cannot improve “itself” without an accompanying organizational change.
To reiterate: humans can only improve if their organization allows it.
The lion improved his life expectancy by taking on additional responsibility i.e. responsibility for himself as well as responsibility to his group. However, overall the risk is less, despite the added responsibilities. In fact one can say that the total responsibility is less although it is different when compared to being single. The real reason therefore, why emotional intelligence was identified, is because the individual will have to be able to adapt to something different in order to grow his potential.
The same fountain of hope can also be a fountain of despair because the individual or organization may not be able to adapt, in fact even refuse to adapt to grow its potential. This is quite natural and these people and organizations must be allowed to state that desire (Amish).
A test for the above hypothesis is to apply it to Western Civilization. In short it is an Individualist society that aspired to improve its esteem by colonizing the world. However, as they improved their potential they lost the capability to keep themselves safe. This opened the door to migrants and subsequent mayhem because the migrants do not care for esteem.
The mistake in Western Civilization is that it did not cover the loss of safety as individuals and organizations improved their potential. This new level of safety is not just more safety, but “different.” The benefit was accrued, but the organization never adapted to implement the “different” safety required by that improvement. Hence society improved to a point after which it was dragged back down, as is now evident in worldwide fatality increases and general loss of vision which previously equated to a Type 1 civilization.
This also goes some way to identify the mechanism that initiates societal entropy that previous civilizations missed. The human-organizational dependency was never explored and it would be a good time to start now.
I received my copy last week and took Thursday off to read. I am very much enjoying it. I may have to order my wife her own copy, as she is becoming impatient.
Another reader says:
[A] week ago you wrote a short article in which you asked for pictures of copies of “Nihilism”. Here is a picture of my copy which arrived today.
With such readers, the book has succeeded beyond my hopes. The emails, reviews and mentions out there are responsible for briefly restoring my faith in humanity, specifically between 3:13 AM and 3:17 AM last Tuesday. The above reader is correct in that some time ago, I encouraged people to send in their pictures of the book so that they could be published here. This request is still open not in the least because it is great fun to see all these copies showing up from across the world.
Nihilism: A Philosophy Based In Nothingness And Eternity also received a review from internet apocalypse/whiskey/sex/robotics hub groin.com, which is (fair disclaimer) one of our sites, but run by an entirely different staff:
Nihilism by Brett Stevens (2016) Highly Recommended.
Are you ready to challenge your basic assumptions about humanity? If you answered yes, then I would highly recommend you add this book to the end of summer reading list. Its author keeps the readers turning the pages by strongly challenging basic assumptions about whether modern civilization is on the right track or not. Stevens argues that society is in denial about how bad things are, like in Voltaire’s Candide. His condemnation of society as well as his remedies both challenge the reader to brainstorm with him about how it could be possible to get civilization back on track. He avoids fatalism by not saying everything is doomed. But rather suggests his own solutions, which is refreshing (whether or not you necessarily agree with all of them). The author believes that much less government imposed order would be beneficial to humanity. This is interesting because it evokes some libertarian principles. There is Rousseau/Hobbesian inspired state of nature aspects to this book. At the same time it is ironic. Since it crosses with a form of Jacksonian social Darwinism, which is looked down upon by scholars traditionally (yet has always had populist appeal). A highly provocative book, for deep thinkers. – Steve C.
Ideology could be viewed as an infection, or more like a computer virus. Once it infects one area, it quickly moves to all others, conquering whatever it can find and turning it into an agent for replicating the virus.
For the citizen, this means that it is impossible not to have an opinion on issues, and your opinions will be judged on a binary scale: with us (Leftist) or against us (everyone else).
This means that areas which should be free of politics become propaganda shills pumping out the lies at high speed. Witness ESPN, in theory a sports network, spreading SJW style PC propaganda.
This episode starts with the words of a sports commentator, Boomer Esiason, who spoke on the controversy caused by Colin Kaepernick, the black quarterback from an adoptive white family who refused to stand for the national anthem because he wanted to express solidarity with the racial grievance group Black Lives Matter.
Let us look at his comments, as quoted by ESPN:
I cannot say it in the strongest, most direct way, that it’s an embarrassment and it’s about as disrespectful as any athlete has ever been… The NFL football field is not a place for somebody to further their political ambitions… Put on that blue (police) uniform and put the shield on and see what it’s like to put your life in harm’s way every single day, and then get back to me when you’re making $35,000 or $40,000 a year as opposed to the $11 million he’s making.
Boomer Esiason is worse than white to an SJW; he’s a Nordic-style Caucasian, the ultimate enemy that our Leftist press associates with Nazis and Vikings and probably scientific theories about race. He is what the Leftists wish to eliminate because that strain of Caucasian has always resisted the temptation to give in to easy third-world style theories about society that empower Leftists and lower standards so that everyone can be equal.
Your standard Nordic person stands for striving for excellence, and overcoming the guilt and self-doubt and pessimism of a dying civilization, and the Leftists, they hate that like skinheads hate inter-racial couples.
(Esiason has obviously not been in the job market for some time. Around here, police officers start in the $50,000 per year range and can rapidly add on to that by moonlighting as security guards, where they get paid somewhere in the range of $20-40 per hour.)
Stephen A. Smith, an African-American, then weighs in with his political outlook:
Boomer Esiason, I hate to sit up there and say it to you, but you’d have to be black to understand. Because not being a black man, being as white as you are, to say the statement that you said just comes across as being incredibly insensitive to what it’s like to be a black man in America. There’s just no other way to slice it. I am quite certain he didn’t mean it that way, knowing his character, what he stands for and who he is; I don’t think Boomer Esiason meant it that way, but to a black person, it could come across no other way as far as I’m concerned.
…This stuff, as it pertains to black folks, and the police officers of this nation, is not a new issue. It’s something that’s been going on for decades upon decades. I totally understand why Boomer Esiason wouldn’t know much about it, or be sensitive enough to it, because if you are a white individual that is not subjected to some of the insidious things that take place against the African-American community, of course you wouldn’t know. That’s not something for Boomer Esiason to be criticized over. But to sit up there and so flippantly throw it out there, as if there’s no argument, there’s no validity whatsoever, to anything that Colin Kaepernick echoed, I think reeks of a heightened level of insensitivity that, to be quite honest with you, I’m very shocked that Boomer Esiason articulated.
But in this particular instance, he would really have to be black to understand, and more importantly, he would need to be black to really make the kind of statement that he made, but to go in a different direction the way that he did, it just showed either a level of insensitivity that I was shocked to hear coming out of his mouth, or just complete ignorance as to what black folks have been going through in the United States of America, and it’s really unfortunate that he took that position and I just feel compelled to say that.
To give this a spin that will con viewers into accepting the enclosed SJW propaganda payload, presenter Max Kellerman launches into a typical SJW tirade:
You don’t have to be black to understand; Uh, I understand. I mean, this is not that difficult to understand. I don’t think he crossed any line, unless the anti-intellectual line. There’s a strong culture in the jock culture of anti-intellectualism. Essentially when things get too complex to think about, you shut down your brain and just go with your emotion.
Kellerman’s approach is shaming following by keeping-up-with-the-Joneses: it’s not that these white people are mean, it’s that they are simplistic and have determined to be stupid. To be smart, follow the liberal point of view. That is how you, too, can be an “intellectual.” Never mind that it is also “shut[ting] down your brain and go[ing] with your emotion,” because now, you are on the side that we all here at ESPN agree is the smart one and therefore, the right.
Smith’s comments were not entirely off-base. They distill to this: only African-Americans can tell whether Colin Kaepernick was correct. Guys like Boomer Esiason start off by assuming that all of us here in America are in this together and working toward the same goal, therefore we can have a social standard. This is not true; under diversity, each group has its own standard, or we breed them all together and have no standard.
How is an African-American supposed to have loyalty to America? His people did not build this; they were enslaved to pick its cotton and clean its toilets. It was not designed for him, nor does it reward what he does, except in the limited realm of sports and celebrity culture. What Smith wanted to say, but could not articulate, was that Esiason offended Smith by assuming that they shared an experience and goal, which deprives Smith of his cultural identity, specifically the one that Colin Kaepernick was trying to recapture from his white family.
To an altrighter, the entire debate is ridiculous. Why would an African-American stand for the national anthem? And on the flip side, why would he expect a white person to understand? Our interests are different and we need our own countries. This is why most of the alt right seems to have warmed to the idea of reparations with repatriation, or “we pay you what you would have received in welfare to relocate to the continent of your ancestry.”
Turn off the televisions. These people are not your friends; they are your enemies. They have corrupted every institution that is important to you, including the ones you think are neutral, and so it is time to destroy them, because they surely intend to destroy you.
There is a diversity of views among the self-described alt-right. But the one unifying sentiment is racism — or what they like to call “racialism” or “race realism.” In the words of one alt-right leader, Jared Taylor, “the races are not equal and equivalent.” On Monday, Taylor asserted on NPR’s “Diane Rehm Show” that racialism — not religion, economics, etc. — is the one issue that unites alt-righters.
They seem to have missed the point that for the last 70 years, bashing white people — and using that as an excuse to demand subsidies from them — has been the modus operandi of the dominant left-wing parties. The putative conservative parties have done nothing to arrest this, but instead in an attempt to be popular by following bandwagon trends, have endorsed it.
The alt right is the pushback. But not just against anti-whiteness; against the decline of Western Civilization at large. For Western Civilization to survive, and reverse its collapse, however, its people must survive: those who are genetically Western European, which is what most of the world means when it says “white.”
The alternative right, commonly known as the alt-right, is defined by the Southern Poverty Law Center (an organization that tracks hate groups), as a “set of far-right ideologies at the core of which is a belief that ‘white identity’ is under attack by multicultural forces using ‘political correctness’ and ‘social justice’ to undermine white people and ‘their’ civilization.”
In other words: This is not conservatism or the Republican Party. This is a movement that fosters anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant, anti-multiculturalism, and anti-women rhetoric. This is a white supremacist movement, and one that Trump has not only refused to denounce—it’s one he actively courts.
If you oppose multiculturalism, you are a racist, in the view of both mainstream right and left. What does this tell us? The only permissible view is to accept the importation of many foreign people, eventually obliterating the native population. No leader who cares about the wellbeing of his people does this, and yet we have voices from both sides of the imaginary aisle demanding it.
This outlook follows the pathology of Leftism: it is not reflective of reality, but of humanity. It wants what humans wish were true. This leads to illusion, and is how every human society self-destructs, but because popular things produce immediate rewards, the illusion — what our ancestors called “evil” — is always chosen, like dogs drinking antifreeze and becoming poisoned. This is the challenge of civilization.
The alt right constructs itself around a simple ideal. It suggests that we do what is real, not what is popular. This launches us into a reality-first assessment that sees biology as more important than intentions, education or politics. From that, we find ourselves arriving at ethno-nationalism, or the idea that a nation is its people, specifically the genetically founding group.
The advantage of nationalism, in addition to the fact that homogeneous societies are the most stable and happiest, is that it does away with the need for government, and with it politics and “systems” of elaborate rules designed to make evil (illusion-dependent) people equivalent to good ones. People rule themselves by cultural standards, and that way, when they ostracize someone, it is for an actual transgression.
An eternally popular human illusion might be stated as “we are all one.” In this illusion, all people are the same everywhere, and so with the right rules, we can make them do good even if they are not good. This way, no one needs to be looked into to see if they are evil, and if they do an evil thing, they are automatically forgiven and still part of the group. This anti-Darwinian and pro-evil stance results in civilization decay.
But while it is generally known that these factors are interconnected, there is still no cohesive explanation for the almost simultaneous adoption of immigrant multiculturalism across the Western world.
He explores a number of theories, and invents a few terms, but ultimately, finds no answer. Here is the answer: multiculturalism spread because it is a variant of the “we are all one” idea, which is popular because it enforces the idea of equality, which is in turn popular because with equality, the individual is accepted regardless of his abilities or evil acts. Equality is created by individuals through the group, but it protects the group only as a way of protecting the individual; its actual goal is to weaken the group, so that the group cannot ejecting low-performing or evil members. Equality is the anti-Darwin. Equality is also the eternally popular illusion.
All of Leftism — class warfare, diversity, sexual liberation, socialism, big government, etc. — arises from the idea of equality. Since equality is not-real (evil) it must be enforced. The best way to do that is to destroy everything but equality in the minds of the people, which requires deconstructing (destroying) culture, heritage, the family, personal integrity, history, art and love.
Diversity is an arrow in this quiver. With diversity, the heritage and culture of the host nation are destroyed, and it is unable to state any standards but those presumed to be universal, which are something like this: “All people like to eat and drink, and be safe, and have jobs, and not be interfered with unless they are committing grand theft, murder, rape or assault.”
This is why it spread like wildfire: it is a version of the ideology which had already spread like wildfire, Leftism, and so people adopted it as the latest means of making Leftism more powerful, thus protecting the individual from judgment.
Civic nationalism is magic dirt nationalism. It’s the idea that anyone anywhere can be shoved into the blast furnace of America and made into an American. There’s just something about being here that makes you belong here. I mean after all, we’re a nation of immigrants right (no reference as to where most of them came from before the last few decades)? Please invade us, just make sure you adopt our language and love of voting and mindless consumption. Race and religion don’t real; it’s being a good citizen that matters!
Name the theory above: it is a system. Instead of choosing the right people, you choose universal equal people, and have the right rules to shape them into perfect replicas of Abraham Lincoln, John F. Kennedy, Harriet Tubman or Martin Luther King, Jr.
This is why the dirt must be magic. When you get them here, into our system, they are transformed like raw materials in a factory. That universal human set of desires — eat, drink, safety, no oversight — becomes a series of incentives through which these people are manipulated. Then, they see the wisdom of our ways, and become Us, or at least something that carries on Our ideology.
If you are thinking that ideology behaves like a virus here, you are correct. Much like fungi of the genus Ophiocordyceps, the ideology of equality hijacks human brains and turns them into zombies, destroying them to propagate itself. This may be one of the few universal rules of the universe: all ideas seek to replicate themselves. (This also makes a handy theological argument: if the basis of the universe is ideas replicating, all life is a replication of the essential idea of life, which fits the profile of God.)
Systems arise from equality. Without equality, there is no need for systems, because people are known as they are by their acts. When we cannot hold people responsible for their actions because they are equal, we need a nanny state to guide them every step of the way, and because it uses a utilitarian approach, it begins its activity by assuming that all people are equally screwed up and so they have to be treated like retarded children.
But recent evidence suggests that, in reality, social mobility rates are extremely low. Seven to ten generations are required before the descendants of high and low status families achieve average status. Thus in modern Sweden the descendants of the eighteenth-century nobility are still heavily overrepresented — 300 years later — among higher social status groups: doctors, attorneys, the wealthy, members of the Swedish Royal Academies. In the United Kingdom, the descendants of families who sent a son to Oxford or Cambridge around 1800 are still four times as likely to attend these universities as the average person. Social mobility rates have also been relatively impervious to government policy. They are no higher in societies like Sweden, with generous interventions in favor of the children of disadvantaged families, than in the more laissez-faire United States. For that matter, they are no higher in modern Sweden than in eighteenth-century Sweden, or medieval England.
This reverses the magic cult of equality.
Equality requires that we presuppose that human intent is more important than who those humans are, inside, including innate traits like those passed on by genetics, which is — no giant surprise here — nearly all of them, or by a conservative estimate, 80% of all of them. (I point interested readers to The Blank Slate or the works of Arthur Schopenhauer, in which twin studies feature prominently.)
With human intent, we can design systems. We can break out the carrot-and-stick and manipulate people by appealing to their reason. This denies the fact that reason, like everything else, is unequally distributed among every population. If it was evenly distributed, the group would have only two states: unison or complete disorder. Unequal distribution allows the group to move in waves rather than binary states.
When we turn to genetics as the basis for human behavior, we are suddenly looking at a situation where human intent is almost all nonsense, cover stories, justifications, rationalizations and manipulative lies; people do what they do because they are wired to do those things, and if we demand an appeal to their reason, they just do what they were going to do anyway and then make up ad hoc excuses for why it was important, contributing the mental equivalent of spam to the discussion.
However, this is an antisocial truth. To be social, people must trust one another through the symbols they use to communicate. The biology-first anti-equality view of life says that not only is that not necessarily true, but that relying on it encourages lying and deception. Oops.
This brings us back to “racism,” which is a Left-word for people wanting to associate with those like themselves.
Like other natural instincts, which are acted upon but cannot be articulated, our desire to associate with those like ourselves is a force multiplier. Having a group that does not require an expensive committee of oversight, otherwise known as government/police, achieves a great efficiency: all the effort that would have previously been spent disciplining (white) human monkeys can now be devoted to other things, like art, learning, architecture, etc.
Originally our societies had almost no government. There were committees of old men to judge matters brought before them at the local level, and kings who were more war and religious leaders than those who “preside” or attempt to shape society toward ideological goals, and then helpful people like local pastors and philosophers who could make sense of complex things and give advice to both individuals and the aforementioned leaders and judges.
In order to uphold equality, we need government, police, psychologists, lawyers, bureaucrats and others who essentially take wealth from the group and use it for their own purposes. Society goes further into breakdown.
Of course, here we hit an iron line: equality is social, and anti-equality biology-first thinking (one facet of realism) is antisocial for the reasons mentioned above. People want to think they can control the world through symbols, image/appearance and manipulation. In reality, that only works in the short term.
This is another reason why the alt right endorses racism: it is imperative that we shatter the illusion that only that which is social is good. Thus, we embrace “social evil” — or that which is antisocial but true — so that we may fight actual evil, or that which in reality has bad consequences but in the human mind seems appealing.
In this view, every human effort fails not because it makes uniquely wrong choices, but because it makes the same wrong choice, which is to be social. When it becomes social, it gets sold out, and then whatever it had that was unique is destroyed and replaced by the same illusions that fail every other time.
For this reason, establishment conservatives and global Leftist elites are doing our work for us. They are calling us evil, in social terms, and by doing so, are signaling that we are right in reality because we have denied social taboo with nothing personal to gain from doing so.
Your daughters love this kind of masculine, violent and realistic approach because it makes them know they are safe, instead of temporarily feeling safe when swayed by the words of hipster manchildren or feminist studies professors. It creates a knowing deep within them. The alt right are the 2010s equivalent of leather jacketed bad boys on motorcycles except that this time, it is not hype. They are here to destroy illusions, and that is why they are feared.
All people who wish to find reality should venture toward a forest.
There, they will look out over a vista of the chaotic… and yet sensible. Everything here has a place, and these places incorporate chance, rather than assuming it does not exist.
At this point, logically, we have a choice in analyzing our perception. Either this vast abundant nature is the result of materiality itself, and randomness, or it is the presence of a Will, a force which leads not just toward life but toward Good.
Leaving aside for a moment the fact that mathematically, randomness does not exist — every effect must have a cause — we can look at this as a complex question. Something created all of this, either itself or a divine force, or both. Could a divine force choose to sleep so that it might dream something like this?
In the last hours of the day, nature is either animate or inanimate. The animate includes some sense of Will or purpose; the inanimate supposes that matter was created — and we know not the means — and just ended up this way.
And yet, there are hummingbirds and eagles in addition to sparrows. There are flowers more beautiful than what is merely required to attract bees. This is the opposite of corporate, or doing the minimum to achieve the bottom line, and more resembles the art and architecture of the past that sought to exalt life.
Here a choice must be made.
Does God exist? Or is all simply random, despite randomness not existing in nature?
We can presuppose it is all arbitrary, of course, and nothing will contradict us. One cannot prove a negative. And all of this could have occurred via a computer loop intensively cycling out of control, and yet…
And yet… it seems to have aimed for the best. For the most beautiful, good and true. That implies a will, or at least a mathematical tendency toward the good, which we cannot quantify.
The greatest in history have taken their stand. Chaos is a servant of the Will, and the Will tends toward making greatness where emptiness previously resided.
At this point, it becomes impossible to accede to atheism, and while no force pushes us inexorably toward theism, there is a lingering sense that something animates all of this.
Animate or inanimate. It distills to that question.
When one is young, and the many factors that go into decisions of this nature remain unknown, randomness seems possible. It Just Is. And yet, as time passes, and one sees how much human intentions go awry, and how nothing is random…
When night falls
she cloaks the world
in impenetrable darkness.
A chill rises
from the soil
and contaminates the air
suddenly…
life has new meaning.
We live in a world of mystery and magic, invisible to our material means.
In it, some force of unknown dimension pursues a greater level of organization, or a greater beauty.
Within minutes of globalist candidate Hillary Clinton opening up both bores of her nagging grandma guilt shotgun on the alt right, dissent broke out like a rash as the alt right began the difficult task of finally formalizing itself.
Self-policing becomes inevitable in artistic movements, musical scenes, cults, gangs, religious sects and political shockwaves like the alt right. Any distinctive ideal which does not police its supporters will be taken over by those who want to use it for their own ends.
This “entryism” explains why so many once-promising movements become the opposite of what they started as. For example, most Leftist movements start as well-intentioned programs to help people. This can be seen most clearly with the Greens and Anarchists, who started out with unique ideas and ended up as wings of the Leftist parties.
In the case of the alt right, there are numerous people who are now trying to re-define the alt right as one of the following:
A less PC version of the mainstream right.
A more PC version of White Nationalism.
Those attempts ignores the fact that the alt right rose up in the first place because neither of those options — Republican or White Nationalist — fit the needs of the generations who grew up after the Leftists took over in 1968. In particular, the alt right attacks two trends:
The current leftist takeover of our society through political correctness.
The need to get Western Civilization out of a death spiral and back on a path toward greatness.
Conventional conservative movements have utterly failed to arrest either one of these trends. In fact, by pledging to be “bipartisan” and work within the System, conservatives have co-opted themselves by adopting the assumptions of Leftism within a conservative context, thus obliterating any “conservative” ideas.
On the other hand, White Nationalism has also failed, mainly because it is an outrage and not a plan. White Nationalists want a variety of things, usually centered around the idea of all white people hanging out together and being equal. This kind of “ethno-bolshevism” does not appeal to Europeans, who defend their specific national identities, nor Americans, who identify with various strata of whiteness (Western European, class, region).
That alt right does include something simpler: white self-interest. This is inherent in the term “nationalism,” which in its historical and correct use refers to ethnic nationalism, or the definition of a nation by its founding ethnic group and not political or economic systems.
White self-interest includes a desire to disconnect ourselves from political correctness by rejecting the stigma of the term “racist,” to cut ourselves free from immigration and the liberal welfare state, and to be able to freely associate — which requires abolishing anti-discrimination and civil rights laws — with our own without some Leftist politician shipping us inner city people, foreign refugees or deranged homeless people.
But on a broader scale, and in consideration of the second concern of the alt right, how did we get to this state?
Some blame individualism. This seems plausible, except when one wonders what the cause of individualism (placing concerns of the individual before nature, civilization and God) might be. There must be some root for this dysfunction.
One might plausibly blame diversity. Northern Europe encountered its own Siberian and Mongol immigrants early on, and the same people who populate Northern Europe once also wandered through China and India. When diversity is introduced, it destroys social trust, and so people become individualistic: the self against the world, including civilization.
Another view is that individualism arises when a society becomes fatalistic. This can come from several sources. First, by succeeding, it loses any inherent sense of purpose, which in early civilizations is to defeat threats in nature and establish consistent nutrition and safety. It could also be, as I argue in my book Parallelism (yet unpublished), that success as a society causes a ballooning of the population of people who could not survive without civilization, leading to the “idiots rule” situation of today because what is popular shifts from what is realistic to what is unrealistic.
Still another view comes to us from the writer Thomas Pynchon, building on what William S. Burroughs wrote: entropy. Over time, things decline. The more centralized they are, the more catastrophic that decline is. And so, when a society becomes efficient and orderly, it creates the seeds of its own destruction.
Knowing life, or the way things work out at a level of pattern and not material, it seems likely that a combination of these introduced a crisis. Against all odds, Western Europeans thrived; in turn, this brought parasites and attackers, and then created a society so focused on stability that it forgot to be Darwinistic and periodically clean house and re-order itself.
This could be the core dilemma that the alt right addresses, and the reason for the seemingly savage and chaotic nature of its activity. We do not need new policy, but a house-cleaning, where we send away the Other and then turn to the bad amongst us, which can no longer hide in the chaos of diversity, and exile it. Under this calculus, both Hillary Clinton and the fourth-generation welfare families would be headed to Brazil via cargo plane.
In this perspective, the alt right can fail only one way: by not being extreme enough.
Already it is under assault from special interest groups. Some want it to go National Socialist, and blame the Jews for the downfall of Western Civilization; others want “civic nationalism,” which is essentially the liberal State, instead of ethno-nationalism; still others want a religious basis to it. And then there are the many who want it be simply a restored form of GOP conservatism. All have missed the point.
In this way, they will reproduce the exact same thing that made Republicans and the White Nationalists both fail: they will destroy a comprehensive message and replace it with a special interest group that will leave the status quo mostly intact.
Mainstream conservatism and White Nationalism both failed. They attracted those who were fanatical about certain issues, which created groups which could not find agreement on the big issue: what type of society do we desire, and how do we get there?
White Nationalism for example tells us that we want the existing System but only for whites, ignoring the problems that groups of mixed-whites have had merging in the past. Look to Northern Ireland, or even Poles in the UK, or perhaps the fate of Sudeten Germans or even the veiled conflict between the mixed-white North and the WASP Confederate States of America.
Even more, it leaves the same system that produced this bad result — democracy, rule of law, individualism and personal liberation from social standards — intact. White Nationalism, like most revolutions, will reproduce the conditions before it, just in a worse form (a type of decay). Republicans will leave the decay intact in order to pursue symbolic issues and rake in money.
This leaves us with a problem in the West: we have been taken over by parasites, and nothing will drive those parasites away except to cut off their source of nutrition. That happens for the lower through the welfare state, and for the higher through the state itself, which hires them as politicians and bureaucrats.
For the alt right to succeed it must then oppose the root of the problem, so that people are guaranteed actual change to avoid the conditions they see today — and to obliterate the decay which has chased Western Civilization for centuries, eroding our faith in ourselves and our sense of our future having meaning and something good coming out of it.
This requires that we identify the actual enemy, which is both intangible and invisible. It is popularity. Put together a group of people, and they react socially, which means that they avoid difficult truths and instead focus on what keeps the group together. This leads to compromise on all important issues.
To tackle this, we must be both moderates and extremists. We must be moderates in that we do not scapegoat partially culpable groups (minorities, the rich, the elites) but focus on the policies that bring us into conflict. Diversity, for example, is a policy: the idea that a state can be comprised of people of different backgrounds.
It is not extremist to note that culture arises from genetic similarity, and that politics arises from that. Nor is it extreme to say that voting removes responsibility from both voters and leaders, and that it leads to bad decisions. Where we must be extremists is to say that enough is enough, and we need these dysfunctional policies — which produce parasites both high and low — removed.
Us extremist moderates have a difficult task. We must be cool-headed and realistic, but then knowing the nature of the human tendency toward entropy, must push hard for long-term solutions applied evenly and completely. This redefines the term “moderate” from meaning “bipartisan” to meaning “common sense,” and then gives it a strong authoritative push toward full implementation.
The grim truth of humanity is that we destroy ourselves. We try to find a theory that fits all the people in a group, instead of looking for a theory that fits all the data in the external world and history. In so doing, we end up choosing a crowd-pleaser that is a loser, every time.
With popularity, entryism occurs into every idea. It is watered down to what flatters individuals by making them think themselves magnanimous, and it makes the group have warm fuzzies because it feels that it is unified and cannot be divided, therefore each individual is safe in the protection of the crowd.
Most movements self-police the wrong way. They set boundaries, and look for those who overlap beyond that edge, and then declare the problem solved. This misses those who are subverting the definitions at the center of the movement, and cuts out people who are providing necessary challenges.
The only way to police is to look at the center. Is this person basically heading in the same direction toward solving the problem? If so, let them in. If they deny or subvert a central part of the argument, such as being pro-democracy or thinking that solving one aspect of the problem magically fixes the whole, you have an entryist: a zombie of the dominant paradigm who has found your movement and will, deliberately or not, subvert it.
The alt right needs to double down on its core appeal: modern society is insane. It is illogical, destructive and cannibalizes its best people to keep its worst voting for the Leftist ideals that it has endorsed. This is the end result of leadership by committee, or vote by popularity.
With that in mind, it makes sense to look at how the alt right can defend itself.
Entry Thresholds
These are minimum requirements for someone to participate in the alt right. They focus on goals, not boundaries, and serve to draw focus to what is actually being worked towards.
Strong ethnic nationalism.
Irreverent, extreme and nearly sadistically offensive humor.
Resistance to centralization.
The average liberal convert will want to find a version of the alt right that avoids the great liberal no-no of ethnic nationalism. This person will start by saying that maybe all of those who can assimilate to our culture can be included, or that what we need is focus on a political and economic system.
Saying “Western European countries are for Western Europeans only,” and pointing out that France should be for the French, will alienate this person and drive them back into liberalism to see the contradictions in their own thinking for awhile.
Similarly, those who fear realistic humor are opposed to realism itself. If something is true, it forms the basis for humor, especially if it is absurd. The convert from liberalism will try to neuter this into a crowd-pleasing “we can all get along” sense of mild humor.
Finally, one must beware of those working within the liberal paradigm, which is that a universal value is established, everyone is forced to obey it, and then government enforces it. If you argue for free markets, localism or any other form of decentralization, this person will experience a freakout.
Acceptance Thresholds
These apply to those you are willing to give voice to, by repeating their memes or ideas or by advocating their inclusion in anything more exclusive than the general group. Here you are trying to filter out people who have understood the basics, but are unwilling to be moderate extremist in application.
Rejection of democracy.
Rejection of equality.
Assertion of biological imperative.
We are in a democratic system. Therefore, most people will be coached in finding a democratic implementation of any solution they find attractive. The problem with this is that even limited democracy quickly leads to mob rule, and the mob always chooses flattering illusions over reality, just like committees always pick the solution that rocks the boat the least. Individuals fear for themselves and choose compromise over solutions.
Equality is the basis of democracy and the Left. Those who want to set up a white ethnostate and then implement equality have missed the point. We need hierarchy, or each person acting in a capacity suited to their abilities, which are innate and biologically determined and cannot be implemented by education or obedience.
Finally, the biological imperative will scare them senseless. This says that culture is not universal, and that its root can be found in the genetics of specific populations. Those populations create their culture wherever they go, as fits their abilities and inclinations, which they share as these are genetic traits.
Anyone who does not grasp the above has adopted only the surface of alt right theory and does not understand the alt right as something distinct from a slightly more extreme version of mainstream politics.
Inner Goals
When choosing leaders, it is important to look for those who share the ideals of a movement on the basis of goals. That is: what type of society do they want to create? What is their definition of civilization? Those who do not understand these are entryists who will, by compromise, re-create that which they claim to dislike.
Restoration.
Repatriation.
Physical Removal.
Restoration means a removal of democracy and materialism and their replacement with a society in which inner values determine outcomes. This means an end to “systems” and an organic society where all institutions are in unison, collaborating on a spirit toward transcendentals, or the intersection of what is excellent, true and good.
Very few are willing to publicly endorse Repatration, and they usually hide behind the pragmatic argument that it is difficult. So what? — most change is difficult, but if it ends in a better condition, then it is worth doing. Even carrying on with the present ruin of a civilization is difficult.
As a side note, those who oppose repatriation with reparations may be reacting emotionally. The right way to heal a historical wound is with generosity and benevolence, but also an unwavering commitment to setting the problem aright. Diversity fails, so those who are diverse to the founding group must exit the host nation. No compromise.
Finally, we reach the controversial idea of Physical Removal. This states that a healthy society is not Leftist, and for that reason, those who are Leftist must be viewed as a fifth column and sent elsewhere. It does not (necessarily) mean killing them, but in its gentlest form, means exiling them to a Leftist wonderland like Brazil, where vibrant diversity, rampant sexuality, and few social rules means they will be at home.
At all times ask yourself: what is our goal? It is not measured in the issues of today, or of tomorrow, but those things which for 6,000 years of human history have separated the thriving and rising civilizations from those which are headed to third world status.
The alt right is not another wing of the failed ideological movements of the GOP and White Nationalism. It is the antidote to those: a historical shift where people are willing to undertake the difficult and do the unthinkable, and remove the layers of our current system as if we were peeling an onion, creating a functional and ascendant civilization instead.
At the end of analysis, there are two ways to create human civilizations. Either we develop a spirit toward the good in ourselves and promote those who exhibit the best of it, or we accept everyone and try to bribe and threaten them into being good. We have tried the latter, and it has failed, so no vestige of it can remain.
This is why the alt right must double down. All of the entryists will serve to dilute its message and appeal to those of us who recognize that not only is diversity Hell, but so are all aspects of modernity, including sacred cows like democracy, pluralism, government and equality. They must all burn or we end up in the same condition.
To a person from the present year, this will seem like ludicrous extremism. And yet it avoids what defines extremism, which is a special interest group which takes to violence for one issue. We want civilization change. We want it now. Our current path is a path to death, and the only solution is to get entirely off of that path.
