Amerika

Author Archive

Nonsense Leftists Say

Wednesday, June 21st, 2017

“He’s hungry, and I have food,” said the man being devoured by a rabid dog. “I have no more right to my flesh than he does.”

“We must not give in to fear,” said the man calmly being pummeled by a drunk. “Fighting back is exactly what the he wants.”

“All men are potential rapists,” said the woman to the men who would die to defend her.

“It is a grave injustice to be ruled over with no voice in governance; we demand a share of the power,” cried the gonads to the brain.

“We simply want to live, grow, and reproduce, just like every other cell,” said the bacterium.  “It’s xenophobic to create supremacist definitions such as ‘host’ and ‘infection’.”

“I feel like a bird,” said the rabbit as he jumped off a cliff.

“Look at all these beautiful, vibrantly colored paints,” said the artist.  “I will mix them all together uniformly and spread the mixture evenly across my canvas.”

“Love is love,” said the man to the boy as he opened a bottle of lubricant.

“Your appetites are unsustainable,” said the cat lady to her multiplying clowder.  “You’re just going to have to learn to live together with less.”

“Violence never solved anything,” said the man as he watched raiders take his harvest again.  “We simply need to educate them and open a dialog.”

“I’m not an extremist, don’t lump me in in together with them,” said the new leader installed by the occupying force.  “I didn’t participate in the invasion, and I denounce violence in all its forms.”

***

They call it an “awakening” because in a relatively short span of time, you come to realize that everything you have been told is not only wrong but designed to conceal the real problem: our civilization is in decline and just about everyone is lying, crazy or otherwise delusional. Nothing can be trusted.

Our society fell years ago, and those of us who still believe in the idea of civilization are under assault. What remains of a once-great civilization is being steered into oblivion by the dizzyingly insane and malicious.  If not stopped, they will continue to recklessly destroy, disintegrate, and grind up into meaningless shreds anything of value. 

The longer this continues, the uglier our options for survival become. We are not yet at the end.  We are far from the end. The end is not even an end, just a greater slow slide into irrelevance and third world style subsistence living. Those of us who are fighting are struggling for the ability to exist on a better level than the majority of humanity who live in poverty, corruption, disorder and filth.

Destroyers of civilization have disordered minds ruled by their appetites. They know only their own desires, and are constantly stewing with reality-denying nonsense. Those with clear minds who glare back unfazed at realty, those with an innate desire to know and understand truth, will reject this nonsense and join our ranks. But they are an eternal minority, not just here but in all of humanity.

Those who do not quietly shrink back when danger approaches but stand erect with feet firmly planted in the ground, eager for glory — these will fight with us. Those who have enough love in their hearts to imagine a civilization that is not constantly in decline, and to look instead toward the possibilities of greatness and beauty which this abundant life offers us, they will come to understand us.

Be patient. This crisis has taken centuries to become visible to the normal above-average intelligence person. Most are afraid of what is required and so will make excuses, rationalize and bow out. They will go back to their televisions, political platitudes, jobs and shopping as a way to silence the fears in their minds. This is a miserable way to live, but it is morally and intellectually easier than facing the problem head on.

Humanity has survived many bottlenecks, or events where most of us died or faded away, in the past. Ultimately, this horrific era of modernity may become a great filter through which our people will pass, leaving only the most honest, most courageous, strongest, and noblest. The future is dark but through it shines a luminosity that tells us that beyond this layer, greatness awaits.

Against Free Speech

Saturday, May 27th, 2017

What does “free speech” mean?  Like any “human right,” it is only vaguely defined: people should be allowed to say whatever they want, and should not be prevented from doing so.  

The definition immediately raises questions.  What about screaming “fire” in a crowded theater?  That has obvious immediate harmful effects, and so everyone is comfortable marring the clean absolute freedom with caveats to the effect that it only applies in reasonable situations.  A crack in the clarity of the freedom appears, and soon a gang of subsequent exceptions crowd in, widening the rend until the whole thing collapses and leaves behind a garish rubble heap of political correctness and hate speech.  

Now the new and improved definition of free speech goes as follows: people should be allowed to say whatever conforms to the prevailing narratives, and the government shouldn’t stop them in an obvious way, unless it’s hate speech, and in that case they should go to jail.”

This colossal failure gives us a chance to reassess.

What is our intent with free speech?  What state are we aiming towards, what is our goal?  What is it about free speech that we like, and is free speech the best vessel for that?

What we want is an absence of restrictions while pursuing and creating truth, virtue, and beauty.

Free speech is an absence of restrictions for anyone while pursuing anything.

When stated this way, the indiscriminate egalitarian nature of free speech becomes obvious.  Egalitarianism is so deeply ingrained and reinforced at nearly every moment in the modern environment that it takes us deliberate effort to even recognize its presence.  Since it is inherently false–humans are not equal; equality is a concept outside of the natural world and only makes sense in a purely abstract setting like mathematics–its presence will always confuse, misdirect, and corrupt.

In this case, defending the right of anyone to say anything is not the best path towards truth, virtue, and goodness.  At best, it’s an awkward, flawed method of sneaking in true, good, and beautiful speech along with a torrent of what is effectively noise.  It’s an inherently egalitarian strategy for overcoming or holding back the more obviously destructive excesses of egalitarianism, and so ensures its own failure by having a foundation upon the force that it is meant to oppose.

Let’s cut to the point.  The best path towards truth, virtue, and goodness is simply to uphold those directly.  Since these are not recognizable to all, and some can recognize them better than others, this requires hierarchy.  In the egalitarian mindset, this is seen as unfair, because some are treated differently than others, but once human differences are taken into account and egalitarianism is rejected, it becomes clear that in fact the only way to be fair is to treat some differently than others in accordance with their differing natures.

When “speech” is not treated as a singular, indivisible abstract concept we become able to separate signal from noise because different subsets of society will have different criteria for what is considered noise.  Some will hear a Bach fugue as a meaningless jumble of frantic notes and others will hear a pop song with as much interest as a washing machine, but this only becomes a problem when there’s only one radio station.

Similarly, when the task of governing is justly assigned to those who are most suited to perform the task well, whose traits include a greater ability to recognize truth, there is less noise amongst the group than there would be if it included everyone, some of whom are less able to recognize truth.  And when this latter group is not burdened unjustly with reigns of power it is not suited to hold, there is less cause for concern when it produces speech that strays from truth.  Overall, as a side-effect, this allows for greater freedom of speech for all because there is less need to police speech.

Under current conditions, free speech is often a useful tool that can overcome restrictions against true speech, virtuous speech, and beautiful speech.  Let us not mistake the method for the ultimate goal.

Expunging Nonwhite Supremacy from the White Psyche

Tuesday, May 9th, 2017

The West is sick.  Westerners have seen their once-great empires fall and their once-great cultures dissipate into inert materialism cloaked with decadence, and have become demoralized and despondent.  

A miserable rot has grown in the Western soul that fills them with self-doubt.  Under the guise of being morally critical of their actions and their history, whites have developed a self-loathing that colors their thinking from deep within an unacknowledged crevasse in their psyche.  This depression has left many whites with a feeling that bad things will happen to white people, and they will deserve it.

Like seeing the chemo-ravaged body of a terminal cancer patient or a listless mangy dog, observing a man stricken with white guilt is revoltingly tragic.

One way this sickness manifests is in attitudes towards mass nonwhite immigration.  Many whites either dismiss mass nonwhite immigration as natural and neutral, as simply allowing people to do what they want, to travel and live on any part of the globe they want and think no further than that.  Others actively advocate for nonwhite immigration as a means of being “nice” by allowing foreigners a chance to participate in Western wealth.  Both of these attitudes require a myopic refusal to consider consequences beyond the immediate.

The reality is that space on Earth is limited.  There is a finite and unchanging quantity of land around this planet upon which to live, to cultivate, to extract resources from, and to simply enjoy.  When one individual uses a portion of land in a given way, that limits how others can use that land.  That these limits are not hard — homes can be made smaller and stacked higher, agriculture could be intensified — does not mean that they do not exist.  That they are not immediately visible — a city-dweller may wander into the countryside, look at an empty field or a forest, and only see more room for humans to live — does not mean that they do not exist.

Because of these limits, every instance of allowing one individual to use a portion of land, whether directly or indirectly, necessarily means that others cannot use that land to the extent they could in that individual’s absence.  Other factors may be at play to make it a net benefit, but denying the existence of these limits or ignoring them is delusional.

Mass nonwhite immigration to white nations means that whites in those nations become more limited while the nonwhites benefit.  Beneath the flimsy myopic rationalizations, in order for a white mind to believe this is a good thing, there must be something within their psyche that prefers benefiting nonwhites.  Something in their mind is causing them to act in favor of nonwhite supremacy.

Once a nonwhite population has accumulated in a Western nation, we see an even more blatant manifestation of nonwhite supremacy in affirmative action and related practices.

What is causing this sickness, and how can it be cured?  Simply exposing it and bringing it into the open air of sustained conscious thought is a large first step.  Beyond that we can suggest these possible causes along with their remedies.

A skewed understanding of history: Someone who is told exclusively ideologically selected and exaggerated anecdotes of their peoples’ history will tend to internalize a bias towards that ideology.  A bias towards white inferiority and nonwhite superiority (two inseparable sides of the same coin) in public education and mass entertainment is clearly visible to those not under their unthinking spell.

The remedy here is simply to read more plain history.  It may be tempting to administer this historical learning through a counter-bias that seeks to show only the nice aspects of the in-group’s history and vilifies the out-groups’, but this will not rectify the underlying problem, which the belief or feeling that if one’s group has historically done bad things, then that groups deserves punishment.  In reality, all groups have done bad things–slavery and conquest are the historical norm.  This realization arises naturally out of a mind that has learned broadly and deeply the history of many groups.  From there, history becomes not a source of guilt and depression, but a source of data that informs a better understanding of how civilizations can work, and a source of inspiration and meaning through understanding the lives of great men.

Social posturing: The current cultural climate in the west glorifies abasing whiteness and rewards praising nonwhiteness, and this partly arises out of a mindset that equates victimhood with righteousness, which requires viewing nonwhites as eternal victims.  While insincere adherence to this social standard is technically possible, and some whites may simply mouth the required platitudes without true belief, we can observe that this adherence is more effective at increasing social standing when it is sincere, and engaging in nonwhite supremacy is easier and more mentally comfortable when truly believed.  In practice, within the morass of fleeting fragmented thoughts arising chaotically between long stretches of distraction that constitutes the modern mind there may be no clear answer to what is truly believed and what is simply repeated and imitated.

If we accept that, particularly during modernity, for the bulk of humanity the norm is to prioritize alignment with prevailing social currents above rational thought or spiritual guidance, then we see that attacking this problem directly will not work.  The best logical arguments and the most glorious appeal to a beautiful cosmic order don’t stand a chance against fear of ostracism and the ecstasy of social acceptance and elevation.  But this psychic toxin is not entirely incurable: rather than try to convince the masses to push against the social currents, change the currents themselves.  This means not focusing on the great mass of social followers, but on those who they follow, which is necessarily a smaller, more manageable and replaceable group.

Curing this sickness will be a vital step towards a population that has the self-confidence and clear thinking needed to restore Western civilization, and is unapologetic about the greatness to which it aspires.

What Really Killed Those Cute Bahamian Swimming Piggies

Friday, March 17th, 2017

There is a predictable pattern to the way that mass media news outlets report on events.  First reports tend to be highly sensational, and either due to ignorance, bias that favors an ideological narrative, or bias towards the popular (“clickbait”), also tend to leave out or misreport important facts.  This departure from truth is further amplified by social media, which promotes simple explanations that point the blame solely at a guilty few who can be satisfyingly hated due to presumed malicious motivation.  We have explicated the steps in this cycle previously.

So it is with the Bahamian swimming pigs.  After seven of these beloved creatures were found dead on their tiny home island, the first, biggest, wave of mass exposure this event received cast the blame onto a few reckless tourists who through cruel stupidity fed the pigs alcohol.  This was a popular framing, first because it allowed people to indulge in feel-good hate against an unfair oppressor, and second because it allows advertisement of an easily achieved personal moral superiority: look at these pig murderers, I would never murder a pig for laughs, and therefore I am good, even though that’s a very low standard for good.

Now, after the Internet outrage mobs have dispersed to new distractions, National Geographic reports that there may not be any malicious oppressors at all:

Though initial reports suggested that tourists had given the pigs fatal doses of alcohol, Humane Society inspector Ventoi Bethune told National Geographic that the dead swine had likely ingested sand.

Veterinarians who visited the site found large quantities of sand in the deceased animals’ stomachs, which Bethune says may have been caused by a recent influx of visitors throwing small amounts of food on the beach.

“The pigs have been on the island so long, they are used to foraging for natural food,” Bethune says. The pigs would only go the beach for an occasional treat.

But with the increase in tourism, the pigs are relying on humans more than ever.

Though the modern mindset is shaped from an early age to expect harm from intentionally evil agents–like comic book super villains–in reality those threats are not so great, because they’re rare, easy to spot, and easy to deal with.  If the pig murderers had been a few malicious individuals, we could imprison, exile, or execute the culprits and the problem would be completely solved; at least until another set of this rare type of person appeared.

What is in fact far more dangerous is carelessness and well-meaning naiveté.  This is commonplace; its negative effects are far more difficult to spot, and there is no obvious solution.

None of the individuals responsible for the pigs’ deaths intended to kill the pigs.  None of them expected it to happen, and most likely the vast majority don’t even realize that it happened.  If we wanted to assign blame, we would have to hand out a large number of fractional pig murder sentences, which is absurdly impractical and ineffective.  And to hate those responsible, to declare ourselves morally superior, we would need to pass a higher standard than the cartoonish modern conceptions of morality such as “don’t be a dick”.  Those who fed the pigs probably thought they were being nice, friendly, and good.

But we are able to sketch out some direction that a solution would take if we leave behind the need to blame as the most important component of a solution.  Assigning blame is important when it means holding people responsible for their failures, but becomes a distraction from solutions when punishment and retribution take the place of identifying causes.

In this case we see that the pigs died because they ate too many bits of food left in the sand, which was the result of a combination of too careless humans, and too many humans.  From there we can propose either making the human visitors less careless (good luck), or reducing the number of human visitors to the island.

Though this is less satisfying than beating a few assholes, it would mean the remaining cute swimming piggies would be less likely to die — and that is what really matters.

The Subreal

Thursday, February 23rd, 2017

A person doing a science job fills out a series of forms concordant with the appropriate regulations to request allocation of government resources to a proposed study.  The forms go through the bureaucracy, moving from one office to another, eat ink to propel themselves and mature enough to watch the fresh new forms they’ve spawned move on through their own approval processes.

The rubber stamps are collected, the study is approved, and begins.  More people doing science jobs are recruited or reassigned, and the government resources are channeled into the subcontractors and lowest bidders.  Science papers written by other science-doing people are read.  After an acceptable duration of extensions past the deadline, a new science paper has been created by this set of science-doing people.

A press release is sent out, and a hundred news articles are excreted from the appropriate templates making the same recommendation that resulted from the study in appropriately different words.  The conclusion of this highly structured time and effort is this: you, person in the general public, should not clean your ears with q-tips because you might press too hard and damage your ears.

This is not fiction, not a contrived example — this happened.  And this type of thing happens often, every day, all around us.

It is subreal.

The subreal is the hyper-mundane minutiae with which the modern world forcefully confronts us.  It hits us with a sense of wondering confusion similar to the surreal, but instead of being fantastical, instead of having a feel of being far-fetched and bizarre, it’s the opposite — it’s banal, so shockingly unremarkable and un-nuanced.  The painfully unimportant things that are treated so seriously and carefully.  The contradiction between being so outrageous, yet simultaneously so unworthy of outrage, beats us down psychologically and induces a passive apathy.

We are being forced to have public discussions on whether someone should have a legal right to choose their pronouns.  Who wants to care about this?!  What possible response to this makes any sense but ridicule?  And yet, academics must put significant intellectual effort into its refutation, lest it grow and metastasize unchecked.  This feels like it can’t be real.

It’s the routinization and systematization of that which could be done without conscious thought, like a mandatory corporate seminar that provides an acronym of steps on how not to sexually assault coworkers.  This puts the nuanced, organic experience of social interaction onto rails that apply a coarse legalistic set of rules to allowable behaviors, as if programming a robot.  Maintain at least 0.8 meters separation between coworkers.  Do not comment on physical appearance.  Do not touch each other, unless only the palms of the hand touch in an allowed way.  Disable all reproductive subroutines.

It’s a society whose culture consists of the lowest common denominator of human experience–propaganda that somehow seems to manage to inject synthetic hormones for sentimentality into the naked facts that: we all eat, we all have positive feelings for our children, we all don’t want to die — and further, that this deflated one-size-fits all husk of a culture is celebrated.

It’s an environment where the most popular forms of socializing revolve around groups who merely like a manufactured and mass-replicated entertainment product.  Satisfy your need for human interaction by repeating phrases from the product, or relating your excitement at an aspect of the product.  This will not be difficult, you may simply choose an aspect that is present in every incarnation in the genre: mutual agreement with your co-humans can be found in relating the satisfaction from seeing the oppressed character righteously pummel the ultimate oppressor who has no motivation but irrational hate, or in the saccharine pleasure of the invariantly repeated melody.  Everyone you meet will do the same, and so you will feel accepted.

Where an entire life can be lived without experiencing any semblance of a noble action requiring courage, loyalty, or honor.  The phrase “so brave” is more likely to be uttered with derisive irony than genuine praise, and the phrase “I love you” is made routine and has the sincerity of corporate marketing.  Popular ethics is composed of Kindergarten teacher admonishments: be nice, don’t hit, and don’t you think you should share?

It’s a mechanized life, scheduled down to the minute, of not really doing things, but being places chosen from an approved menu of options.  A job?  Choose one from the classifieds.  A career?  Choose a program from a school.  Show up at this time, then leave at that time.  At night, return to your shelter, chosen from the options offered by your realtor.  Companionship?  This app gives you several options that have been determined to match by an algorithm whose inputs include your choices of entertainment products.  We’ll make sure that if you are a person who watched and liked Star Wars you won’t have to talk to a person who watched and liked the New York Mets.  We understand you’re not a person like that.  It’s important!

Go on an adventure, buy yourself a motorcycle.  But you must also buy and wear one of these Department of Transportation approved helmets, and you must not leave your boot laces tied too long.  This is for your safety, and if you don’t do so you may receive a printed piece of paper designed to enforce the regulatory details resulting from decades of revised legislation which means that you must pay the government the amount that legislators have agreed will make the general public safer.  Once you meet all the regulations you may have fun on your approved exciting adventure.

What are you?  You are a clump of cells which are clumps of atoms.  Where are you?  You are on an insignificant pale blue dot lost somewhere in the incomprehensibly vast emptiness.  Why?  As experts in the mundane, we can confidently assure you that none of this means anything.  There is no forest, only a clump of trees.

When the vitality, the idiosyncrasies, and meaning has been sucked out of life, what is left is the subreal.

In this environment, being real is radical.  Sanity is not an extreme, it’s sandwiched between the surreal and the subreal.  It’s a sum that’s more than it’s parts.  It’s fitting details into a larger coherent context.  It’s an acknowledgement that rigid, explicit rules miss important exceptions and are often an avoidance of a solution.

What is real is honesty, identity, courage, loyalty, virtue, responsibility, and much more than words or abstractions can capture.  The system produced by the subreal is like a ship with only a maintenance crew and no captain: the handrails are cleaned daily and the engine operates within the specified parameters, but none have awareness beyond their assigned tasks.  When this system inevitably finds itself in stormy waters, those of us with souls will find joy in the richer, fuller experience of life that will arise.

Yes, The Washington Post Really Is Fake News

Wednesday, January 4th, 2017

In our world of microscopic attention spans and oversocialized lives desperate for purpose, news stories follow a predictable arc:

  1. Shocking revelation: something terrible happened; some great danger is revealed; or something very unfair and mean is happening.
  2. Mass hysteria and speculation: a headline gets shared around, the event is rapidly and all-too-neatly fit into a preferred narrative, and a mob forms (even if just an online social media mob) to retaliate and hate, because doing so is like crack to bored and anxious people.
  3. The truth comes out: after the mob disperses, or rallies to the next fake outrage, important details about the original shocking revelations come out. Previously unseen facets and particulars of the event mean that it no longer neatly fits into the preferred narrative, but almost nobody cares, because that makes it too difficult to blame the preferred cause and slip into the fun ecstatic rage.

The result is that, for the majority, only the sensational, biased, oversimplified version of the event is retained in memory, and the preferred narrative is reinforced.

The Washington Post has demonstrated this wonderfully with their fake news report on how (shocking revelation!) Russians hacked into the US electrical grid! Kalev Leetaru, a Forbes contributor, dissects this lügenpresse story:

From Russian hackers burrowed deep within the US electrical grid, ready to plunge the nation into darkness at the flip of a switch, an hour and a half later the story suddenly became that a single non-grid laptop had a piece of malware on it and that the laptop was not connected to the utility grid in any way.

However, it was not until almost a full hour after the utility’s official press release (at around 10:30PM EST) that the Post finally updated its article, changing the headline to the more muted “Russian operation hacked a Vermont utility, showing risk to U.S. electrical grid security, officials say” and changed the body of the article to note “Burlington Electric said in a statement that the company detected a malware code used in the Grizzly Steppe operation in a laptop that was not connected to the organization’s grid systems. The firm said it took immediate action to isolate the laptop and alert federal authorities.” Yet, other parts of the article, including a later sentence claiming that multiple computers at the utility had been breached, remained intact.

One might naively expect a news article title to be a short summary of the content of the article, but we see here that in practice, a title acts more as meme, a particle of communicable information that can be used to broadcast directed ideological pressure.

This is significant, as one driving force of fake news is that as much of 60% of the links shared on social media are shared based on the title alone, with the sharer not actually reading the article itself. Thus, the title assigned to an article becomes the story itself and the Post’s incorrect title meant that the story that spread virally through the national echo chamber was that the Russians had hacked into the US power grid.

Even after numerous stealth-edits, the Washington Post still has not made contact with reality:

Yet, even this correction is not a true reflection of public facts as known. The utility indicated only that a laptop was found to contain malware that has previously been associated with Russian hackers. As many pointed out, the malware in question is actually available for purchase online, meaning anyone could have used it and its mere presence is not a guarantee of Russian government involvement. Moreover, a malware infection can come from many sources, including visiting malicious websites and thus the mere presence of malware on a laptop computer does not necessarily indicate that Russian government hackers launched a coordinated hacking campaign to penetrate that machine – the infection could have come from something as simple as an employee visiting an infected website on a work computer.

Leetaru ends with three important points: news media organizations are not concerned with facts, they tend to simply parrot government sources, and the need for instant gratification has turned journalism into sensationalist gossip:

Putting this all together, what can we learn from this? The first is that, as with the Santa Claus and PropOrNot stories, the journalism world tends to rely far more on trust than fact checking. When one news outlet runs a story, the rest of the journalism world tends to follow suit, each writing their own version of the story without ever going back to the original sources for verification. In short – once a story enters the journalism world it spreads without further restraint as each outlet assumes that the one before performed the necessary fact checking.

The second is that the news media is overly dependent on government sources. Glenn Greenwald raises the fantastic point that journalists must be more cautious in treating the word of governments as absolute truth. Indeed, a certain fraction of the world’s false and misleading news actually comes from the mouths of government spokespeople. Yet, in the Post’s case, it appears that a government source tipped off the post about a sensational story of Russians hacking the US power grid and instead of reaching out to the utilities themselves or gathering further detail, the Post simply published the story as fed to them by the government officials.

The third is that breaking news is a source of a tremendous amount of false and misleading news as rumors and falsehoods spread like wildfire in the absence of additional information. Top tier newspapers like the Washington Post are supposed to be a bulwark against these falsehoods, by not publishing anything until it has been thoroughly fact checked against multiple sources. Yet, it appears this is not the case – in the rush to be the first to break a story and not be scooped, reporters even at the nation’s most prestigious news outlets will take shortcuts and rush a story out the door. What would have happened in the Post had waited another day or two to collect responses from all involved, including Burlington Electric? It would have avoided publishing false information, but it also likely would have been scooped by another newspaper who wanted to be the first to break the story.

All of this confirms what we’ve repeatedly observed: for most of the mainstream news media, a slick website and an aura of respectability mask the underlying ideologically motivated fake news.

Why the Alt Right Won’t Succumb to Leftist Hysteria

Saturday, November 26th, 2016

typical_russian_soccer_hooligans

Why is using NSDAP imagery a bad strategy?

First, the Alt Right does not equal National Socialism, so Alt Rightists would be misrepresenting themselves. But we also aren’t Libertarians, yet there is no outrage when Alt Rightists use Libertarian sources. So this is not the real reason why using NSDAP imagery is a bad strategy.

The real reason is that people in the political mainstream have a conditioned repulsive response to NSDAP imagery: their minds shut down when they see a swastika, and they become unable to consider any ideas with such branding or association. This is reinforced by mainstream media that actively vilify and attack NSDAP symbols and ideas. Because of this, introducing anti-progressive, anti-liberal, and anti-modern ideas to them generally works more smoothly without it because it denies them that excuse to stop listening.

However, there is a problem with this. That conditioned response is not triggered only by NSDAP imagery. It is also triggered — though to a duller degree — by any hint of suggestion that significant racial or sex differences exist, by critiques of democracy as a fundamentally flawed system, and any lack of support for egalitarianism. Even expressing the desire for the continued existence of European people can cause alarms and inhibit thought in those who are in the political mainstream.

Further, the mainstream media make no distinction between genuine NSDAP convictions and any anti-egalitarian ideas. Those who make purely scientific observations about racial differences are still called “Nazis.”

And so the same reasoning that suggests complete rejection of any symbol associated with the NSDAP in any way would also seem to suggest avoidance of the very ideas that are at the heart of our cause. In order to not be shut out of mainstream discourse, and in order to avoid being tarred with incorrect labels that reinforce that censure, it seems we must water down our communication to the point that anything substantial is lost, and simply hope that one day WWII propaganda and the mass media that reinforces it will fade away on its own.

This is obviously not a sound strategy. We have two routes around this impasse.

With the first, we can charge ahead boldly and speak openly, honestly, and unapologetically the truths that need to be said. We will be vilified and attacked, and many will shut off their minds when they hear us, but the conditioning is not absolute, and brighter minds (which are more important to us) will have a chance of breaking through. We will never convince everyone, but we don’t need to or want to. This is the path that has been taken by this site.

With the second, we can meet Hitler in a warm embrace, emblazon the swastika on hitherto innocuous cartoon frogs, and crank up the death camp ovens to 6,000,000 degrees. Take the Nazi straw man that has been wielded against us, pump him full of post-ironic steroids and send him back to the enemy so that their absurd hysteria entertains and delights us. Create such an over-the top scathingly mocking caricature of the left’s caricature of us that the epithet “Nazi” falls limp and impotent from their hateful lips. This is the path taken by sites like The Daily Stormer.

What must be recognized is that those in the first path do not benefit by attacking those in the second. Doing so will not save them from being labeled “Nazis” — nothing will. Now is not the time to be tip-toeing around the left in the hope that they’ll leave us alone. Even the flimsy excuse of not wanting to hurt Trump’s image has become completely irrelevant now that he has won.

On the contrary, those who take the first path have much to gain from the success of the second path. If these trolls and jokers succeed in breaking the NSDAP taboo they will have opened a wide space of ideas in which all the principles and ideals that lead to an ascendant civilization can breathe freely and thrive.

The left has absolutely no credibility. At this point, this rare chance we have with Trump, this narrow opening through which we may possibly use political means to save our civilization it would be utterly foolish for us to pay any attention to leftist hysteria except as an opportunity for exploitation.

Realize that any leftist, any mass media outlet that would attack the Alt Right because of a few audience members raising Roman salutes would have attacked the Alt Right in any case. Instead of succumbing to your their hysteria and bickering with your allies, focus your martial energies on your enemies!

State Owned CBC Reports on Toronto Flyers Citing Amerika.org

Tuesday, November 15th, 2016
Image Credit: CBC.

Image Credit: CBC.

Like clockwork, the Leftist news hysteria explodes over the Alt Right flyers that recently showed up in Toronto. The CBC reports on this terrifying dissemination of information:

A Toronto resident who says she was horrified to see a racist poster on a pole while walking to her children’s school on Monday is blaming it partly on Donald Trump’s victory in the U.S. presidential election last week.

Not having learned their lesson from the recent presidential campaign, leftist media continue to stubbornly refuse to understand the current year in hopes that if they repeatedly misreport on it, it will just go away. In reality, Donald Trump is not the cause of these growing cultural forces, he is the result of them; he astutely took advantage of them. These flyers would of course have gone up whether or not Trump won.

One woman’s response is quoted as “It is racist. All cultures should be respected.” If she had visited the sites shown on the flyer instead of letting herself be spooked out of thinking, she may have learned that the Alt Right largely agrees with the later. Cramming a plethora of incompatible cultures into a geographically tight space, like Toronto, where conflict will inevitably arise, is not respect, it is a meat grinder. This is why we advocate ethno-nationalism, which allows each culture to chose its own path and flourish in its own space.

The thought control police “have yet to determine if the posters will be investigated as a hate crime”, but until then, Canadians can be relieved to learn that, for once, their tax dollars are going to a worthy cause: advertising the Alt Right and Amerika.org.

The Stories Keep Rolling in…

The momentous choice on the cusp of the political singularity

Monday, November 7th, 2016

the_infinity_of_the_night_sky

Imagine a spacecraft whose captain has succumbed to space madness being drawn ever faster towards its doom at the center of a collapsed dead star, a black hole. Upon any of the crew who express concern at their impending fate, the captain inveighs condemnations, declaring them hateful and divisive.

It does not matter how she rationalizes her mad quest to join the gravitational singularity; what matters is that if the few remaining crew who retain their sanity fail to stop the captain and then make immediate course corrections, they will all end up dead and compacted into a neat burial in the universe’s deepest grave.

Action is necessary, but the choice to live is binary. After a successful mutiny the range of directions the spacecraft will take is wide, and a small change in velocity before the near miss with the singularity will have a huge effect on which direction they end up speeding off afterwards, due to the gravitational slingshot effect the huge mass of the black hole provides. After the rendezvous, the high momentum will make changes in direction require more energy. As such, the mutineers must give thought to where they’d like to end up now, while they’re escorting the captain to the airlock (“Airlock her out! Airlock her out!”).

The gravity of this election provides us a similar opportunity.

The news media have exchanged their valuable but ephemeral capital of public trust for election influence, and while this will cost them in the future as their audience turns elsewhere, for the moment it has bought them what they wanted. A recent poll shows that “most voters say they think Hillary Clinton broke the law by using a private email address on a personal server while she was secretary of state”, but that these concerns may have been blunted by unproven “allegations about Donald Trump’s behavior toward women.” The frenzied lies and bias of the media have contributed to the current state where most people do not care about government corruption, in part because their minds are distracted by non-issues.

What they really care about is their side winning. If a guy on your team sneaks in an illegal hit against the other team, you cheer, but if a guy on the other team does it, you shout and clamor until the ref does something about it. You tell yourself when your guy hits, it’s OK, it’s good, because your teams needs to win — winning is more important than the rules of the game, or even the purpose of the game.

At this point in the election, the gloves have long come off and all the players are just brawling. Conservatives want to resist this, because they have an aversion to cheating and a desire for everyone to play by the rules, particularly themselves. We need to remember that we are not playing a game; we are deciding our future, including whether or not we survive. This transcends party politics, and so it makes no sense to hold ourselves to standards that the other side has long abandoned — we instead have our own standards to which we hold ourselves.

Stephan Molyneux, a man who strongly adheres to the ideals of rationality, skepticism, and a scientific results-oriented view of the world, has not only taken a side in this election, but describes our current predicament with passionate conviction: “The future of everything you treasure, everything you hold dear, everything your ancestors built is right now hanging by a thread.”

Everything’s looser now, more chaotic. People still go about their daily lives as usual, the truckers still deliver goods, the janitors still clean, and the engineers keep the electricity and oil flowing. But in their minds are doubts about the current reigning order. Most dislike the way we’re governed, but know no alternatives, and a hidden anxiety grows rampant. The heat is on, the whole system is more energized now so that pathways that were previously barred due to high activation energies now appear within reach. This whole election has been a catalyst for an until-now slowly growing reaction.

The next few years will require a consistent, strong fight. Possibly this will take the form of putting into action America’s massive civilian arsenal, but hopefully we will be able to simply maintain pressure on President Trump to not veer from his mandate. In such a chaotic environment where opposing forces escalate to unknown ceilings, we may not now see the specific paths that will open up. What will serve us best at this moment before the plunge is a clear vision of where we want to go, of what we want to build when we emerge on the other side.

The Political Singularity

Saturday, October 22nd, 2016

do_you_want_total_war

As the countdown to the election of rapidly approaches, the enemy scales up its attacks, intensifies its hatred, and screeches more loudly its lies.  Each day, it seems, bring forth a newly attempted scandal from the Democrats, and a new emboldening toward frankness and bare honesty from Trump, recently unleashed from the designated loser the Republican party. 

Every day brings a further dulling of the left’s attack words (“racist”, “sexist”, etc), so they push them harder.  Trump’s mere presence has caused the left to rally and focus their energy reserves against him in a way that unmasks them, leaving them more vulnerable to counterattack, and may deplete them.

If we extrapolate the escalating energy levels of these high intensity political forces, we find the conditions and possibilities of November 8th to be unpredictable in a wide range.  The old political equations break down at these energy levels.  After that date, anything could happen — coup, death squads, foreign invasion, nukes, Kekian revelations — anything. Order will be suspended

We are approaching the Political Singularity.

In that moment, we will leave behind the familiar order where liberal democracy is on top. In this order, anything egalitarian is right and whatever is most egalitarian wins. In the new future, self-interest replaces egalitarianism. Globalism falls to nationalism. Good intentions die in the face of practical, common sense defense of the objectives of each person and his tribe.

The modern time has equated social order with equality. This is in fact an absence of social order because it removes all hierarchy but the equal political role of all people, except for appointed leaders who lie and steal as they see appropriate. People cannot conceive of an order outside of this framework.

And yet, we step into a brave new world. The political assumptions that defined 1789 and 1968 are no longer valid. We will have to re-invent civilization from its roots in order to have it prevail, and this terrifies us because for the first time in our lives we are relying not on precedent but our own judgments, based on our knowledge of the world.

While this is terrifying, it is also wholly refreshing.

Our whole lives we have been forced by social pressure to work within a narrow frame of what is acceptable based on what has been done in the near-past. Ideology, which is a type of pretense, guided us not by giving positive examples, but by raging against any choice outside the dominant trend. We were trapped and our results ended up bad because we could not change their founding assumptions.

On November 8, regardless of who wins, the antiquated order of liberal democracy dies. People no longer trust government, media, academia and special interest groups to provide us with answers. We are casting aside the old rule book, and re-inventing what it means to be civilized.

In that moment, many illusions die, but we will also face a task harder than any we have faced. We must look to the results of each type of action and make hard choices about which are better than the others. There will be no textbooks, news articles and think tanks to guide us. All we will have is our desire for a better civilization and our knowledge of what principles achieve it.

Since its earliest days, liberal democracy has faced criticism from those who noted that it resembled mob rule. Now we see the end results of that herd domination: endless debt, failed institutions, corruption and third world disorder among our previously-orderly societies. Liberal democracy has failed.

Instead, we must look to a new dawn. The old assumptions have died. We are now painters with a blank canvas before us with only knowledge of golden ages past to guide us. We know that modernity — egalitarianism — ends in ruins, but what will we appoint in its place? This is the political singularity: we are back to square zero and running out of time.

Recommended Reading