Disguised

I don’t know if evolution is true. I wasn’t there when it happened, and I know at least as many smart people who deny it as believe it.

However, it fits with what I know of how the universe works: many things flower, some are chosen because they fit, and the cycle begins again, ever-refining.

As I like to remind people, however, this is no way a denial of the various spiritual systems (we often call them “religions”) that spring up on earth.

Any being important enough to be called a god can bend time and space, and make a few billion years happen in a second, or vice-versa. When you’re talking about the divine, there is no way to use the material as a yardstick, except its patterns, in which evolution roughly fits.

One thing that keeps me interested in evolution is its mythic symbolism. Our glorious simian heritage may or may not be fact, but often, we act like monkeys. In fact, there’s a monkey half of us that we wrestle with everyday.

The inner monkey knows the lawn needs to be mowed, but might prefer to watch re-runs of Gilligan’s Island instead. Sometimes, the inner monkey gets drunk, eats too much, watches porn or does other things that might make an outsider observer think we really are only bunches of cells, with impulses that build up and discharge as behavior, without the presence of a conscious will.

As we experience it, the only force which opposes the inner monkey (let’s call him… Jake?) is the will, in which our thoughts are refined to questions of cause-effect with the intention of acting out our imaginative visions. We see, we learn, we imagine, and instead of projecting, we make incarnate.

There is something divine in that will. Like the force of the universe itself that wrought wonder from nothingness, our minds allow us to fixate on what we find appealing, beautiful… even love might be an appropriate term. In that, we are greater than the sum of our parts.

But every day we struggle with the inner monkey. No matter how smart we are, or how successful, if the inner monkey games us, we lose at life. We have let fear and bodily reactions triumph over imagination and will.

Naturally there are some who have turned their back on this challenge. They do not like the idea that life itself is a performance sport, and that we must master our impulses and become more than the sparking and fizzing of cell-bundles under duress.

These people go down at path that is at first mirthful, then smug, then selfish, and finally, as close to “evil” as I can identify on this earth. Evil is that which turns away from beauty and infinite potential, and focuses on the means and not the ends, as a way to avoid the question of ends.

When you are young, well-intentioned (but wrong) people teach you about symbols of evil that they describe in well-meaning (but wrong) terms to warn you of the path of Satan, evil, etc. These are meaningless. There is no Satan, except as a human symbol. What there is is a choice to go down the path of denying the beauty and potential in life in order to hold on to what you control, and that becomes evil.

Our choices are after all like the ramblings of the Hearst Mansion or an ancient insane asylum, twisty passages that start off innocent but with each step, you’re farther from getting back to where you started. Small detours end up having huge consequences.

Evil is one such path. It starts with a simple motion, like self-pity or resentment, or even excessive pride in something you have done, in opposition to pride for what aeons of ancestors, nature or divine forces have done. The path deepens and soon you are far into the woods, with no idea how to get back to the sunny glade.

Evil does not announce itself. Heavy metal bands and revivalist tracts are united in their desire to show you a lurid Satan, naked adrogynous and powerful. Actual evil is mundane, uninteresting and tragic. It is people turning away from the possibility of beauty, so that they may seize what they feel is tangible and they can hold on to in order to withstand the ravages of time. It is not power they seek, but an absence of power and an absence of cause-effect logic.

Unlike movie evil, real world evil is not exceptional — most people do it — nor is it stupid. It is crafty, because like drug addiction it makes people depend on it. It will never knock at your door and howl like a demon. It disguises itself.

Imagine waking up in the bowels of hell. The first thing you would do is disguise yourself as one of the wretched inhabitants, so they do not figure out who you are and in resentment destroy you. Evil does the same among us here in the middle.

When you go out into this world, evil will present itself as good intentions, fond notions of brotherly love, peace and happiness among people. Evil is not stupid; it knows you long for these things, because they take the load off you that requires you make moral choices and struggle to get them right.

It’s like advertising: you don’t talk about what’s wrong with the product, or how it actually works, but you spin a pleasant fable that gives it mythological abilities for good. It’s not a gadget, it’s a new Utopia just waiting to be found.

In the same way, when you venture out into the modern debacle, you will encounter angry people who want to debase you and make you feel bad about yourself. They appear as sweetness and light, as being “helpful” and well-meaning.

Not all people who appear kind are evil or angry, just as not all people who appear angry actually are. But watch how others disguise themselves. See what lives in their eyes. Sometimes you find a serpent, sugar-coated and gushing pleasant words.

The past is alive

The way to be cool is to be detached. The less you look like you care, the more you can claim to be above it all, different from the mainstream, and cool.

As a stance goes, this isn’t the worst angle to take. However as time takes over, “cool” doesn’t work so well since truly not caring and being above it all results in dysfunction, poverty and alienation.

At that point, it starts to look like being cool isn’t just another option in a procession of many stances, but one of a few fundamental paths one can take in life.

One can engage, and buy into society at face value; one can engage, and be cynical. One can drop out and pursue higher goals, like religion or art. There are also decent paths in disciplines, like the military or the professions.

Each of these paths is what moderns refer to using the gnomic term “lifestyle.” But it is not that: each is a path. A path is a combination of career, life philosophy, and all other things related to how you spend your time.

For example, you can choose a “higher” path like that of a hermit philosopher. Alone in your hut, or dingy apartment, you can be profound and re-assure yourself that no one else could possibly understand, which is why they crawl around like rodents at their measly jobs.

On the other end, you could decide to go to school and open your mind to whatever they make you choke down and regurgitate. You can spend your time on it for seven years, and at the end of that, find yourself in a decent job or profession. That profession then becomes your path.

Others find paths in disciplines. If you are a sword-maker, you have a position in a community, if one such place still exists. You may not get paid a lot, but you don’t starve either, and so you have a comfortable life and a “calling” that others will know you by.

The point is that each of us make a decision to trade our time for some role in society, even if that role is drop-out. We are inseparable from our context, which is not merely social (who likes you) but civilizational, embodying shared roles toward achieving the goal of a certain type of civilization. Even further, this role is a personal sense of what you believe in.

While this choice is upon us by the nature of being alive, most people refuse to take it. Their attitude is passive, of doing jobs for money and of participating in society only because there are laws and police. They do not choose their destiny, but react to its parameters.

For the last 200+ years, society has pandered to these people in order to accommodate them. It talks about equality endlessly, so that they know that any choice is acceptable, and feel the burden of choosing lifting. They are accepted just for being human and if there are bad consequences of their choices, all the “normal” people owe them a living and respect, just for being human again.

But the past is alive. Memories of a time when people were defined by their choices, not their evasion of the consequences of those, haunts us. It isn’t that far ago — centuries are small change in history — and it isn’t even that removed. We can dust off the old photographs, read the old books.

We see fragments of it any time someone chooses to stand up for what they find to be true (not “believe,” since that word in its modern use implies arbitrary excuses for denying reality). It haunts us in our dreams, too, as we wonder if the justifications we make in daytime can protect us from doubt in the night.

That nocturnal doubt takes a simple form: perhaps a better path could be chosen, or was available.

We have this in a minor sense like an inoculation each time in the moments before sleep seizes us we recall an interaction, perhaps with an attractive person, in which we “could have said” something witty and did not. Next time, we think.

And what is our solace when next time is not possible in this lifetime? When we have spent our quarter and the game is over? It doesn’t happen at the moment of death, but in the decades before. From roughly 20-70 we spend our active years. What did our choices say about us?

Certainly we can hide behind the comforting political dogma and “scientific” notion that all our choices are equal. But in the depths of the night, we realize that other paths awaited and we foreclosed them. Was it through bravery, or did we simply shirk our duty?

We will always measure ourselves by our ancestors. Not what is convenient, trendy, hip, cool, chill, phat, profitable, politically correct, popular, fly or off the chain. Those are temporary things.

What we fight and die for is what defines our innermost essence, our souls if you still believe in those antiquated things, or maybe just the primal center of our personalities.

For two generations we have known relative peace. History however is turbulent, and makes change not through peaceful resolutions over coffee, but war and mayhem.

When the times of chaos come again, what will you stand and die for? Do you think highly of yourself, and of your world, to take a stand somewhere?

The past is alive and it shapes us to this moment and beyond.

Do it for the children

When you need to know how our modern society actually works, remember the phrase “Go get ‘im, boys!”

Politics works through fear or the inverse of fear, which is talismans against fear. Outside of things they worry about, people do not care about governance in the same way they generally don’t care about their lawn mowers, so long as they keep working.

If you want to mobilize people for something positive, you need to cook up an image of its enemy and demonize it, then claim that your positive plan is necessary to drive out the demon and, only incidentally of course, achieve your goal.

This amounts to going out to the town square, setting up your stump, and bloviating dramatically for a few hours. The crowd first shows up to be amused, then gets afraid, then reacts in simian rage. The speech ends with “Go get ‘im, boys!” shouted over the pitchforks, torches, tar buckets and nooses.

Not a positive view of humanity, is it. But we are a species in evolution between our chimpanzee ancestors and our future state as mostly-logical beings. We’re here on the margin so we can prove whether we have the will to reach higher, or simply to fade away.

And so this is how it is.

The targets of our rage

Politics works best when we create a hollow justification to mobilize people. This either has to be something hated, or a talisman against hatred that proves we’re nice.

For this reason, the biggest justifications are:

  • The poor.
  • The minority.
  • The physically damaged.
  • The children.

If you had $5 for every time you heard “Think of the children!” or “My opponent’s program disproportionately disadvantages minorities, women and the poor,” how many gold-plated Uzis could you afford?

Because those justifications are so successful, the biggest targets are the opposite of these pity-justifications above, and are pity-targets:

  • The rich.
  • The majority.
  • The normal.
  • The autonomous.

These targets do not need to be literal “Go get ‘im, boys!” and they are often manifested in other forms. For example, we don’t say we should hang normal people, but we imply to them that they should feel guilty for having what others do not.

The targets of our pity

The flip side of this is that we use our pity-justifications. We use them for our own purposes. In their name, we do what is convenient for us.

As in the example of the politician above, this can be a legitimate use. If we need new water treatment plants, but because they’re boring no one wants to fund them, we’re in a pinch. We end up saying that Hitler hates our water system and that it needs to be upgraded, or it will disproportionately affect minorities and the poor. The poor! Minorities! You must just about be Hitler to not vote for this water system upgrade.

However, “Do it for the children” has become a cliche because it’s a hollow justification. So is fighting racism, and other politically-correct crusades. People are beginning to figure out that racism, homophobia and sexism are found whenever someone needs more funding for their government programs or an easy job (“diversity coordinator,” now found in almost all corporations).

But in the process, we’ve forgotten that our mentality is using our children as tokens. We do this even to our own kids. They are not there for their own lives, but as accessories and status symbols to make our lives better.

How many times have you seen a parent treat their children like a product, or a precious antique, without regard for how this shapes the child’s mind? We joke about the “baby bangle” but it’s how most modern parents treat their kids.

In other words, kids, you are here to make me look good, feel good and have something to talk about with my friends.

This varies from the arrogant “yummy mommies” who ramble around in giant SUVs, always with a reason on the tip of their tongue as to why they should go in front of you in line or get that last loaf of bread — it’s for the children, remember, and they’re good mothers and so they’re in your face, and do you have kids? If not, you’re no one — to the young women sitting around in cafes comparing their children’s latest “art” projects, which since the kids are three amount to nothing more than discordant scribbles.

These children will grow up in a paradoxical frame of mind. On one hand, they’re told they are free; on the other, there are hidden objectives of the parent that the child is expected to fulfill, visually.

Plenty of hidden sabotages await in this setup. For example, the upper middle class in the United States and Europe specializes in teaching its children to be compliant, kind, generous, passionate and artistic — all skills that will put them at a disadvantage at a job, and guarantee they’ll get date raped. To make Mommy and Daddy happy, they raise their children as doormats who do “significant” things but have no skills. The parents like to keep the kids dependent.

It’s the same way, when you think about it, with other pity targets. People like compliant minorities who show up to have magical insights in films, but don’t actually have a culture of their own to clash with the dominant culture. They love the poor who need them, not the poor who are not photogenic and an opportunity for the giver to publicly appear magnanimous.

To internalize this lesson shows us the downside of equality, which gets us politics of “Go get ‘im, boys!” We use other people for their value as symbols, and in the process destroy them. Normally we’d call this “predation” and run it out of town with pitchforks and torches.

Checking in

We live in a time of great content confusion.

People confuse entertaining content, that panders to their need for variety, over descriptive or accurate content.

What they consider “good writing” is usually the opposite, meaning that instead of being descriptive, it is effusive and emotive, producing dramatic entertainment but little to no information.

As a result, it’s often uncertain whether we are reaching our audience at all. Or maybe, we should start being more entertaining and slip in accuracy as we can. It might work.

Hence the questions to you, dear readers: should we stay the course, or change direction? What kind of articles are needed here? Should we continue publishing daily, or slack off a bit? Are the pictures entertaining enough?

Or are we too extreme? Not extreme enough? Too focused – not focused enough. And so on.

Comments are open. Let us know.

Anti-majoritarianism reflects self-doubt

You’re going to see a lot more of situations like this. A law or rule is on the books, and it seems unfair to minority groups, so they protest.

In response, government gives them money. Mitt Romney notices they’re part of the 47%. The rest of the country wonders, “Uh oh. Can I actually say this? That the 47% is mostly non-white and the 53% is mostly white?”

Perhaps the Republican Party is slow to figure it out, but the people voting for the Republican Party are not slow. They realize that the Democrats have been using immigration and domestic minorities to pad the voter rolls, in addition to their homegrown cadre of the disaffected, neurotic, self-pitying and futilitarian.

(I should define: a “futilitarian” is any person who believes that humanity is screwed for any effort higher than self-interest, so society should just stop harshing on my buzz, man, and give everyone a chance to live an easy life of non-work jobs, free porn and lots of entertainment from Panem et Circenses, Inc. who is just coincidentally a government contractor. I digress.)

This election isn’t just about getting America back from the Barack Hussein Obama Socialist Agenda(tm). It’s about getting America back, period. Either the majority wins out, or they get replaced by big government, more immigration, a Soviet-style wealth redistribution plan and internationalist rule in the UN style.

When people figure out an inkling of this, and I just mean a little slice of it, doesn’t take much, they begin to freak out. First is that they are conditioned to “not notice” (which means force their brains to ignore) race and class issues. They’re already squirming because they are seeing something they are programmed to not accept as true.

Second they’re losing their marbles because they don’t understand it. “Why do they hate us?” asked 4.1 million well-intentioned ladies hired in middle management simultaneously. Burly outdoors types are wondering if this is the great race war.

The answer is a lot simpler. Think back to when you were a kid. How did you make it through school? If you were popular, you joined the future leaders of America types. If not, you made excuses for not being popular, and joined kids who were united by not being popular.

As any high school movie shows us this unpopular group includes at least half of the kids in the school and comprises many subcultures. Goths, punkers, white rappers, nerds, stoners, geeks and surfers.

When these different groups join together, they have the most power in the school by their sheer numbers. Unlike in the movies the popular kids aren’t scheming against the nerds, they’re busy being popular, getting into Harvard and planning how to spend all the money they’ll make at their future careers.

But what it takes to join all these different groups is a kind of social contract that says “because not being popular is part of who we are, we agree to accept each other totally and form a different type of popularity.”

This is what the Democrats, Communists, Socialists and any other non-majority party do. They unite different groups under the banner of anti-majoritarianism or first, not being part of the majority, and second, wanting to unite and take over from that majority.

I had this one job that rewarded people for sales made on the phones. This quickly separated everyone out like oil and water, between the go-getters (annoying tools) who had lots of sales, and the “slackers” who didn’t even bother to harass ordinary people with these stupid sales pitches.

When someone got enough sales to be part of the cool group, they kind of disappeared. This new identity was something they were proud of and they had a new social group. The rest of us just fell off their radar.

During one pre-Christmas rush, all the slackers got together and started just ignoring the go-getters. We wouldn’t transfer calls to them, or give them any information, or even talk to them. The result was total breakdown of the system and who did the burden fall on? The go-getters. For once the slackers were home at Christmas and the “winners” got to spend the night on the phone, explaining Windows 95 networking to the drunk, lonely and bitter.

The American majority is mostly white, middle class, socially conservative and economically classical liberal, religiousish, family centric and essentially nerdly. They’re not cool like the slackers, the minority groups famed for their music and colorful art and cooking, or the Democrats.

Most of them don’t understand yet. They hate you, the anti-majoritarians. They don’t hate you because you’re white, middle class, possibly Christian or chaste. They hate you because you’re the majority, the well-adjusted people who are happy here. You represent what they can’t have and they project their dissatisfaction with themselves onto you.

Anti-majoritarianism reflects self-doubt on the part of those who hate the majority. If they had the ability, they would either join the majority or find another way to have what that group has. Obviously they have not, so obviously they can not, and this secret in plain sight makes them enraged.

They won’t stop until you the majority are destroyed and replaced with people more like them. Again this is not race, but the mere fact of your majority status, that they will use against you. They don’t care what the truth is. If the facts don’t agree, they’ll fake them. If the newspapers don’t agree, they’ll start their own. They will do whatever is necessary to gain control.

The American majority slept through all the liberal social experiments because the majority believed that these were legitimate ideas to advance society, in the interests of the majority. Instead it turns out to be a replacement and destruction program. The majority now is figuring out that even if they attain minority status, they will still be destroyed through violence, wealth redistribution and lots of hateful laws.

I have observed that almost nobody understands just about anything during this election. People are telling you stupid stuff, like to write-in George Washington or stay home. The real fact is that you can’t afford to. This election will determine whether this country destroys its majority and thus becomes a third-world war zone, or reverses course and regains its former greatness. There are no other options.

Quantum reality

Catchy title, don’t you think?
I don’t know if the term exists, or not, but if it didn’t, it does now.

We are what we believe.

Quantum physics notes (incredulously) that sub-atomic particles behave differently, depending upon who is examining them, and what those different people expect to see.
There is talk, in religion, of every being having a piece of ‘God’ within them. Created in ‘God’s’ image.
Some take this to be the soul. While the more foolish believe that it means ‘God’ looks and behaves just like them.
But whatever it is, it probably has – in some measure – the ability to create.
People create things, all the time. Well, some people.

Apply this to political ideologies, and you get people creating realities, based upon what they believe.
Conservatives subscribe to a far different reality than Liberals.
So which is actual reality? Is there one?

Conservatives, by nature, prefer to work with what they see as manifest reality, and operate within its ruleset.
They are consequence-based, so this follows.
Whereas Liberals, by nature, prefer to subscribe to what they prefer, whether it is reasonable, sustainable, or not.
If it sounds good, to a Liberal, he adds it to his view of reality, and to what he believes.

You will hear conservatives speak of the way things are.
Whereas liberals will speak of how things should be.

It always amazes conservatives, that liberals can not see reality.
It always amazes liberals, that conservatives can not see ‘the obvious’.

Perhaps we need some concept of ‘God’ in order to put our own power to create, into a constructive context.
Because, without that, we create alternate realities, willy-nilly, with no thought to the consequences.
These alternate realities, being so often at odds with each other, and with the base reality, itself, can lead, and do lead, to enormous problems, down the road.

I lean, of course, to conservatism. Although I am not a conservative as most people think of that term.
Because conservatism does its best to hold on to what worked, and what currently is working, rather than dream up ill-considered ‘change’ for the sake of it.
Whereas liberalism (read leftism) while initially looking good, always (always!) leads to disaster, and historically to millions of deaths, when it arrives at the communist stage.
Which may be good, if population-control is your thing.
But very bad, if you feel human life is sacrosanct.
And even worse, if you find yourself, personally, on the wrong side of it.

Quantum Reality.
Whatever reality you subscribe to becomes the only one. For you.
So:
A good idea, perhaps, to spend time discovering what reality actually is, rather than subscribe to cleverly-disguised imitations, that, sooner or later, turn into nightmares.

Self-hatred comes with success

You scrimp and save, struggle all your life to get ahead, fight hard every day and then some day after decades of battle you wake up and find yourself sitting on a pile of money with no cares in the world.

What do you do then?

The answer for most people is “I don’t know.” When they retire, they have a sudden voice. They’re accustomed to fighting it out at the job. It’s their identity. It keeps them busy. Although they complained about it for the first 30 years, they came to depend on it, so now there’s this huge void.

If you look at wealthier societies worldwide, you can see the same pattern in operation. They struggle for generations to get wealthy and when they do, an anomic misery sets in. There is no longer a purpose to life, it seems, so they try to invent one through empty sex, drinking too much, lots of toys, and importing third-world labor so the original citizens can afford luxuries.

And yet all is in vain. They find no meaning in this because they keep doing it, exhausted and on the other hand seemingly tirelessly, hoping for different results. It’s not that they’re pathological, and expect different results. They simply have no idea what else they would do.

In this we can see the paradox of advanced societies. During those years of struggle, they build up massive intellectual capital, including complex systems of laws and customs for business. Eventually, these so clearly define society that the only variations occur in the details, not at the larger level of making decisions that involve elses.

This leaves the people stranded. The tool has become the master. The game has become the quest. There is no goal, and therefore no meaning, but there are things to uphold. Thousands and thousands of them: laws, appearances, insurance bills, and numerous other complex but unfulfilling tasks. The mania for comfort and security has obliterated the ability to be flexible.

Modern societies make us fat and not lazy so much as emotionally exhausted. We give up on the values that guided us through harder ages. We find nothing to replace them. Coming up with a new goal would endanger the comfort of others, who are still fuzzy about goals but want that security and comfort. They rebel. No one can change anything. The vortex draws us in, and soon we start to exterminate ourselves.

It begins with mild depravities. Just enough fetish and transgression to whet the appetite, then go back to normal life. But others watch, including the next generation. They take it further. Soon it’s not enough to dip your toe in rebellion, but a full on revolution is required. It becomes hip to hate your own society.

Looking over it, you can find few reasons not to hate it. Shopping malls replace churches and forests, cubicle farms replace open communities and history. Values systems die because of their incompatibility with commerce and universal sociability. Cuisine becomes junk food, national pride rooting for a football team, and jobs are jails and home life is even more fractured.

When you replace your souls with the process that was supposed to protect them, you’ve gone to the far side of a cycle. The only solution is to hurry (run don’t walk) back to the start, when a few people came together and agreed to build a massive civilization, and defined their values system as the way they’d accomplish these goals. Then there was meaning. Now there is only self-hatred, until we change it.

Why democracy inevitably trends toward liberalism

Francis Fukuyama began his watershed The End of History and the Last Man with a definition of liberal democracy: it describes democracies that are centered around the facilitative principle of providing civil rights and equality to their citizens, which necessarily includes economic and consumer freedoms as well as political and civil ones.

Much like thinkers before him, Fukuyama hit on an important principle: no ideology is static. Whatever we implement today leads to something tomorrow that is implicated by the nature of our ideology. For example, in democracy, the idea that individuals are free leads to the idea of equality so all individuals are free, then the idea of consumerism, then the idea of socialism in order to subsidize these individuals in their free choices even if those choices are not supportable by the economy.

Don’t tell the big media “conservatives,” but the same economic freedom that leads to consumerism also leads to welfare. For people to be truly free and equal, they need the nanny state to step in and make sure that they don’t face the consequences of their actions. You might call this an anti-reality bias, as it is biased against results and biased in favor of feelings, emotions, judgments and desires of human beings.

What people don’t like to admit is that democracy tends toward this bias. If we assume that everyone is equal, and everyone can do whatever they want and society will facilitate it, there is only one type of society this can lead toward: the bazaar, or a permissive, rule-less, chaotic and unstructured system tied together only by commerce and the shared belief in ideology. If you can imagine a fusion between the Soviet Union and an American shopping mall, this is the inevitable end result of democracy.

The underlying reason for this is that democracy is a zero-sum game. In theory, we all vote for what we want, and the end result is whatever is most popular. However, this denies that fact that for one person to get what they want means that another is excluded from what they want. The only way around this thought is that pluralism allows us each to do whatever we want, so we can have what we want and what the other guy wants.

This is a fallacy because people do not want individual things unless they are pluralists; they want types of civilization, types of places to live, types of lives (“lifestyles,” in the odious magazine parlance) and types of futures. These are not determined on the individual level. They are determined by civilization, or people working together according to common values and goals. This means that when one person gets their ideal type of civilization, it excludes what everyone else wants. And vice-versa.

As a result, democracies tend toward only one direction: compromise, which means pluralism or many little “parallel societies” existing within one, and in order to support that, the notion of equality and thus, liberalism/leftism in its many forms. Even more disturbing is that liberalism itself is a continuum, so that if a society starts at a moderate form it will inevitably drift toward one of the two extremes, a total managed state (Communism) or un-state (anarchism).

Permissiveness occurs wherever pluralism goes, and it obliterates the ability of a nation to choose any kind of social standard. What results is the bazaar, with its minimal standards for behavior, and a cult of compassion and “open-mindedness” that rewards acceptance/tolerance of any behavior no matter how bizarre, so long as it is deviant enough to warrant protection and thus confer upon its acceptors the role of facilitator of pluralism.

The only real problem with this process is that it un-does civilization itself. There is no longer any common goal or purpose, other than supporting the notion of pluralism and commerce. Like a shopping mall, the society thus exists only for as long as it can profit off of its own citizens, and when any real challenges arise, it knuckles under and runs away to something more cash money deliverable.

If you find yourself wondering why our civilization is always in disarray, yet “powerful” economically and militarily, this is because we live in an anti-civilization. The consumers demand no rules, thus equality, thus democracy, and this creates a giant financial state that supports them for so long as it is convenient. Eventually the civilization collapses, and the only people concerned are those who recognize what greater civilization might have been in its place instead.

What is an alternative right?

Nobody likes the mainstream parties. There’s a simple reason. If you’ve ever tried to pick a restaurant in a group in ten friends, or sat in on a committee meeting, you know how when you get a large group together, you end up not with the intersection of their best traits, but their traits in common, which are by definition unexceptional.

When people assemble a party like the mainstream Democrats or Republicans, they’re trying to distill a wide range of perspectives into a single platform. For example, the Democrats have to accommodate classical liberals, progressives, Utopians, anarchists, Socialists, left-greens, feminists and Communists. You can’t make everyone happy, so instead you focus on symbolic and mostly arbitrary issues.

The right is even more confused because the right is not based on a singular idea (egalitarianism) for a singular group (the discontented) as leftism/liberalism is. The right is based on the idea of finding methods of living that work well, preserving values that uphold those methods, and basically “conserving” good things against the onslaught of easy answers like commerce, popularity and hedonism.

As you can imagine, there’s no good way to sum up these two abstract ideas in an issue, so they become general tendencies. The Democrats become the party of acceptance and, to facilitate that, entitlements and special interest politics; the Republicans become the party of defending common sense against the insanity of such personal politics, and so end up cheerleading for capitalism, small government, capital punishment, religion and the military.

The problem is that especially for young people, these facets of society seem to be part of the problem because they are infected with the same decline that has blighted all of the West since the appearance of liberalism. Conservatives appear to be defending the dysfunction and greed (which is really a desire to escape the rat race) instead of upholding a moral right.

For these reasons, interest in a right-wing alternative has been building. People are realizing that issues politics will not solve our problems, which require “deep” solutions which involve a re-examination of the architecture of our social system.

However, they are caught between the mainstream right which skims the surface of conservatism and an “underground” far right which over-amplifies certain aspects of the right and turns them into a religion which justifies both social non-participation and failure. Like many self-styled ideologues, these undergrounders are looking for an identity and a way to explain their drop-out status as anything but a loss.

This leaves the average American or European — middle class, semi-religious, not very dogmatic, but interested in practical solutions and increasingly, long-term solutions, especially as they have kids and their kids have kids — with not too much of a good choice. The obvious and practical solution is to participate in the mainstream right and use it to demand deeper solutions, but this requires direction and clarity that most people — busy with jobs, families, churches, volunteer groups, etc. — are unlikely to have.

To this end, a number of Alternative Right movements have risen around the West, trying to combine the ideological clarity of the underground with the mass appeal and pragmatism of the mainstream right-wing. Many of them, including the site linked, have done a credible job of it.

However it is still hard to define an alternative right. We know it’s not far-right, but it’s also not neoconservative because neoconservatives have deeply imbibed the liberal dogma of egalitarianism. It’s definitely anti-liberal, but anti-movements don’t go far until they realize what they actually want. It needs something else, a direction, that unites the disparate parts of its belief system.

As mentioned in other parts of this blog, conservatism is fundamentally consequentialism. This means that it is concerned with the results of actions, not our feelings or judgments of them. From this comes its worship of eternal truths, or things that work because a study of reality shows them to produce optimal results, and from that a study of transcendental beauty and timeless good.

Any alternative right — or pressure on the mainstream right — that will succeed is going to work outward from these ideas. They are not fences to keep ideas in a chaotic mass, but like the center of a wheel the anchor to which spokes connect, drawing all the sub-ideas together. They are like the root note in a scale to which key and chord harmonize.

While we watch Marine Le Pen succeed in France and Mitt Romney run the most outrageously conservative campaign since Ronald Reagan in the USA, it’s important to not get lost in the symbols of what what stand for, and to remember what it is that we value and why we are involved. Then we can pressure the mainstream to adopt these alternative right views and get closer to honest conservatism.

Unite the right to win a better world order

People are so dramatic that sometimes it seems like they want any excuse to give up.

One of their favorite forms of giving up is extremism for extremism’s sake. Why spend your time and effort on an achievable task, when you can invent the morality of a “perfect” solution that shows no promise for reality? It makes you seem above it all.

Another great way to give up is to invent your own spin on a belief. Don’t stick with a plausible interpretation of history; claim you have something new. Better yet, patch it together from incompatible bits of existing philosophy, so it requires impossible total control.

Giving up is what many are doing on election 2012. They have convinced themselves that both parties “are the same,” and that the system is rigged. Or that no candidate represents their values. Or even that it’s all hopeless and there’s no point participating.

All of this denies the fundamental truth of politics, which is that there are essentially two directions. They aren’t positions or parties, but paths of thought.

The first is leftism. It’s new, starting in the 18th century, but seems to appear in every society when it gets too bottom heavy. The idea of leftism is that everyone should be able to do whatever they want to, with minimal hierarchy, because what people feel and perceive is most important.

The second is rightism. It’s ancient, being invented when every society is created. Its idea is that we should pay attention to how reality works and use proven, workable and eternal ideas to guide ourselves. Perception and feelings are secondary to the outside world in this view.

It’s not popular to say this, but America and Europe are basically in the same fix. A massive leftism lobby is slowly taking over and replacing the indigenous people with leftist voters, who are both immigrants and home-grown people who are mentally broken because of the effects of liberal social programs. This mob grows like a snowball, and its only desire is to destroy all culture and heritage, all values and preference, and replace them with good “non-conformist” conformists who have one goal alone, reaching the leftist Utopia through equality. Leftism takes prosperous societies and leaves behind starving third-world ghettos because it removes sanity from human minds.

We can either go toward more leftism, or toward more rightism. Those are your two options. There are no others; even the most far-out and creative belief system is going to be going more toward one direction than the other.

You might look at Mitt Romney and think, “This guy is really too restrained and moderate for what needs to be done. What we need to do is turn around, fast, and throw out the ingrates and put ourselves back on track.”

While that’s true, you should pay attention to our opponents — the leftists — and how they beat us and took over. They found a popular idea. They steadily advanced it, through baby steps and daily acts of disobedience, until they’d browbeaten or guilt-trapped others into joining them.

Soon they became a popular trend, like joining the local bowling league. You knew other people through being leftist, and met girls that way, and had a social group. They were a society within a society. But they did it all through baby steps.

The only way to un-do the damage they’ve done is to take baby steps as well. Peel a layer of the onion, wait, and observe that not only has the country not imploded, but it’s doing better. Then peel another layer, and do the same thing.

While people hunger for sudden explosive change, it’s the guys like Mitt Romney who are pushing us to victory. They are supremely able administrators and they push relentlessly and constantly for baby steps in the right direction.

In other words, no matter where you are on the right, from a moderate who leans left on gay marriage to an extreme radical counter-revolutionary, you are serving your interests best by joining mainstream politics and approving its message mass support for a rightist direction.

This path has the advantage of not risking an unstable rebellion, not damaging the lives and careers of our people, and also giving us time to make slow and cautious moves instead of rushing off into wars like last century.

Times change, and with it we must, or we fail to adapt and become obsolete. This is the age of liberalism’s failure, as all of its social programs turn into disasters, which means we must be the antithesis of those ideals but also use its methods.

As we push forward with patience and deliberation, our opponents quake in fear because this is the one attack they have no defense against. A slow invasion and replacement. It’s what they did to us, so turnabout must be fair play.