Philosopher Nick Land talks about the transition that the West is currently experiencing as a shift from being nice to being more realistic. “Nice” is like bourgeois values: offend no one, befriend everyone, and always gesture vividly toward your acceptance of all people, behaviors and ideas.
Naturally, this niceness is fatal to any group because it opposes the idea of standards, as well as the basic notion of finding some things to be true and others not, therefore unacceptable as answers to certain questions. To be nice, one must believe that all people are basically the same and thus are “universal,” or uniformly good for the most part.
The problem with nice is that it is a form of competition. If your neighbors are nicer than you, you are seen as a less desirable business partner, mate, customer, friend, coworker and seller. When one person on the block goes down the path of nice, the others must “keep up with the Joneses” and virtue signal their niceness as well.
This psychology originates in the bourgeois ideal of being a mercantile middle class. You are not responsible for leadership directly, and yet you have a duty to earn money and keep up (including the Republican “work hard and go to church” mentality) and so you adopt nice as a means of marketing yourself.
When every man is a shopkeeper, he must always think that any person around him is a potential customer. So when it comes time to act, standards are out as these will alienate someone; nice is in because it enables anyone to be a customer, and who cares if they are good or not, so long as they have money?
Like most human illusions, this one is fallacious too. The shopkeepers that are longest-esteemed are those who uphold standards and enforce social order because they are trusted by the upper portions of the bell curve, and everyone else imitates those. When the herd takes over, however, this becomes inverted.
In addition, those who are starting out with nothing will use nice as a way to get a foot in the door… with guilt. Who can turn down a nice guy? White knights everywhere rely on this theory, and it works enough that society keeps producing white knights like an unwanted but voracious weed.
Businesses use a variation of the “nice guy” strategy any time they support a little league team, highway cleanup or local symphony. Unlike regular nice, however, this gives back to the community as a whole. This means it is not personal like nice normally is. However, this means that other businesses can use nice as a simpler version.
The problem with nice is that, like other bourgeois ideas such as “the customer is always right,” it results in acceptance of anything-goes behavior. This in turn makes the business less efficient for others because it is busy being nice to the insane, selfish, lonely, bored and sociopathic.
When the mental virus of nice leaves behind business and migrates into the broader culture, it creates a pathology of deference. Individuals lose the self-esteem they need in order to demand that there be standards. Instead, they take the only safe option that is compatible with nice — they get out of the way — creating that “anything goes” feel.
This creates a society of neurotic people who are afraid to stand for anything, and as a result, welcome any new degeneracy or foreign invaders in their midst. To them, the only winning strategy is more nice, because any lack of it leaves them exposed to someone else demonstrating more of it and thus capturing the high ground, at least in social terms.
Equality creates this form of competition because in an egalitarian society, being non-egalitarian is the only real sin aside from obvious sociopathy like murder, assault, rape and violent theft. Those who are nice are inherently egalitarian; by the converse, those who fail to demonstrate nice will be seen as ideological enemies.
The bourgeois mentality of salesmanship and the prole culture ideal of equality thus conspire to create a society where everyone is a sitting duck. To defend themselves against bad behavior is to invoke the wrath of the Crowd; to accept bad behavior and use it to demonstrate nice, on the other hand, is a win. This way, good becomes evil in results, a form of inversion.
The way around nice is removal of the anti-hierarchy created by equality, which mandates a vast mass who are equal ruled by a few leaders who exist to implement further egalitarian reforms. If we recognize each person as having a place, it makes sense to see them as having immutable self-interest related to that position.
When we escape the mental grotto of nice, we can see that not only do people work in self-interest specific to their roles, but that it is more humane to recognize them as they are. Give people clear direction and limit the damage they can do, and they are less likely to live in a miasma of lowered self-esteem based on their past failures and bad acts.
In order to have this exist, however, the best must always oppress the rest, because in one of those rare but ineffable binaries of life, otherwise the rest will oppress the best. Since having the best in power provides the best results, and these distribute to all citizens, it makes sense to put the best in power, much as we select the most talented surgeons or mechanics over the rest.
A new era dawns in which cold, hard logic will be victorious over social sentiments and individualism. Cold, hard logic is like ice in winter that kills all but the hardy; it removes mental confusion by focusing on results and reasoning about how to achieve those, and leaves feelings and group emotions by the wayside.
This view liberates us from a fundamental curse: caring about what is popular. Ultimately, nice is an expression of popularity and fear. People fear that they will not be included, and therefore, it is popular to include everyone, which requires abolition of standards. As we awaken from the stupor of this idea, our civilization can become functional again.
Something went wrong in the West during WWII. Perhaps it was that after fighting “the war to end all wars,” people lost faith in the system but cashed in anyway. Perhaps it was the population boom, or the sheer misery of modern society, but something caused an explosion of bad behavior:
Before the baby boomers came around, the so-called Greatest Generation came of age in a time of war and depression and learned firsthand the benefits of social solidarity and so they continued to invest in society throughout their lives, Gibney said.
…He points to a general election where both candidates were hesitant to discuss entitlement reform or tax increases as one of the reasons why climate change, high levels of student debt and a last minute, backstop approach to infrastructure may continue indefinitely.
“My assertion isn’t that all boomers are sociopaths, but that a sufficiently large percentage of them behave in ways that appear to be sociopathic and because they’re such a large generation … any personality defects could easily translate into political dysfunction. I think that is what happened.”
Sociopaths, or individualists? As one esteemed Neoreactionary is fond of saying, there are only two paths in life: the path of service to others, and service to self. When one serves the self, that comes before anything else, and other people and objects are means to that end. Humanity certainly has been behaving that way of late.
In my view, it may not be so simple, in that there is a third path, which is service to transcendentals, like principle, aesthetics and quality. But this would probably qualify under “service to others” for most people, if we include ancestors, nature, the future and optimal human existence as others.
Looking at this in a historical context, we see that the 1920s offered one of the first real “Me generation” vibes. That group became the parents of the kids who were born in the 1940s and comprised the most virulent wing of the Boomer generation. Their psychology was created in part by the utter futility of the First World War, and what most saw as clear signs of civilization decline.
Then, as if by magic, they were saved. After a horrible war, the Americans came out on top by virtue of having lost the least to bombing and invasion. This however created an epic entitlement mentality, and this showed in how the “Greatest Generation” treated their kids. This created a nasty dynamic of resentment between children and parents.
As a result, the Baby Boomers took revenge. They used the Leftist views of their parents against them, and in doing so, seized the moral high ground and took over their civilization. Unfortunately, their ideas were nonsense, and so they created disaster, to which their response was to fall back onto the ideas of their parents… entitlement.
Millennials get quite a bit of blame for being essentially The Me Generation II, but having grown up and been indoctrinated in an educational system re-designed by Boomers, it is not surprising that the clay bears the impression of the mold. Those who come after them have seen the disaster being repeated, and have less of an individualist mentality.
Was this sociopathy, or institutionalized sociopathy? The latter seems likely, since Leftism by virtue of having its roots in egalitarianism tends to individualism, as did The Enlightenment™ before it. We programmed ourselves to be selfish and as a result, produced a desperate mentality which led to this sociopathic result.
The Left has been trying to crank up the idea that the Russians hacked our election or otherwise interfered with it on Trump’s side, probably as a precursor to attempting impeachment or invalidating the election.
The first Russian institute document was a strategy paper written last June that circulated at the highest levels of the Russian government but was not addressed to any specific individuals.
It recommended the Kremlin launch a propaganda campaign on social media and Russian state-backed global news outlets to encourage U.S. voters to elect a president who would take a softer line toward Russia than the administration of then-President Barack Obama, the seven officials said.
A second institute document, drafted in October and distributed in the same way, warned that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton was likely to win the election. For that reason, it argued, it was better for Russia to end its pro-Trump propaganda and instead intensify its messaging about voter fraud to undermine the U.S. electoral system’s legitimacy and damage Clinton’s reputation in an effort to undermine her presidency, the seven officials said.
The lügenpresse are counting on the fact that the average voter has zero experience with policy think tanks. Policy think tanks make strategic recommendations and generally have no awareness of actual policy, i.e. what is being done. Instead, they speak in hypotheticals.
For example, that the document says “it was better for Russia to end its pro-Trump propaganda” does not imply that Russia was issuing pro-Trump propaganda, only that it could be assumed as a possibility and therefore, the suggestion can be made to alter that strategy.
The fact that we have two documents, both pointing in different directions, suggests that these were contingency documents, or potential position papers drawn up to deal with different events that might emerge. Nothing suggests these were adopted as policy but the implication is there in the press.
In the meantime, Trump has rebuked Russia by blowing up an airbase they helped maintain in Syria. What he said during the election was that he viewed Russia as a potential ally, not that he would favor Russia.
If we went through Washington, D.C., looking for think tanks that had made policy recommendations (which is enough to make them “Obama-linked” in the press lexicon) we would find all sorts of absurd plans recommending that the USA redirect resources that might not exist toward possible ideas that look good on paper.
This is the type of analysis this Russian think tank offers, couched in bureaucratspeak of potentialities and possibilities:
It is hardly to expect the development of Obama’s environmental agenda from President Trump, who’s known for his skeptical remarks in relation to climate change. At the same time, it seems that the general strategic course of the United States in the Arctic, outlined in the end of the XX century, will continue. An indirect evidence of the continuity of the current Arctic policy of the US is the fact that almost all the key officials of the State Department responsible for implementing the US policy in the Arctic under the Obama administration, retained their positions under the new President.
In this way, the Russian version follows a format we have seen many times before, which is to second-guess other nations and take broad policy positions, mainly as a way of alerting politicians of options and signaling across the sea (indirectly) about Russia’s concerns and thus likely future actions.
This is not the smoking gun the media wants to try to hype it into being. Behind all of these Russia-stole-our-‘lections stories we can see the hands of a powerful Establishment and the Obama-Clinton gang, who are still looking for a path to permanent, Soviet-style power.
Bryan Caplan finds himself confused by the link between recognizing the importance of IQ and wanting most of humanity dead. He argues for acceptance of fact without rancor, but seems perplexed by the vitriol expressed (h/t Outside In):
My fellow IQ realists are, on average, a scary bunch. People who vocally defend the power of IQ are vastly more likely than normal people to advocate extreme human rights violations. I’ve heard IQ realists advocate a One-Child Policy for people with low IQs. I’ve heard IQ realists advocate a No-Child Policy for people with low IQs. I’ve heard IQ realists advocate forced sterilization for people with low IQs. I’ve heard IQ realists advocate forcible exile of people with low IQs – fellow citizens, not just immigrants. I’ve heard IQ realists advocate murdering people with low IQs.
…If someone says, “I’m more intelligent than other people, so it’s acceptable for me to murder them,” the sensible response isn’t, “Intelligence is a myth.” The sensible response is, “Are you mad? That doesn’t justify murder.” Advocating brutality in the name of your superior intellect is the mark of a super-villain, not a logician.
Generally, his point is agreeable, but that is mostly because human groups require a span of IQs to cover all of the roles in society. Every general needs soldiers, and every soldier needs a cascade of leaders in order to give him guidance so that he is not left alone and confused to make decisions he has no hope of getting correct.
However, as one of the misanthropes he describes — or as we might call it, a “human quality control advocate” — I can attest to the power of wanting to purge the weak. This comes more from the conditions of our time than an innate will to do harm based on this realization.
Let us look at the factors involved:
Overpopulation. There are too many of us, and too few good ones, especially in power. The urge to purge the excess and pare away the useless is great because daily, we see many people whose absence would make life better.
Idiocracy. The herd rules us. When we look at the products available and the decisions made by our leaders, it is clear that mass opinion sways the day, and like a demonic compass it always points toward full retard.
Stupidity. Our time is stupid. The cities are ugly, the jobs moronic, the culture idiotic. We want a war on stupidity and bad decision-making, and associate it with the stupid people we see among us.
We also live in a time of lies. IQ is denied, as well as most other natural and intelligent things. When people “wake up” from the stupor of egalitarianism, they react as does any consumer who has been defrauded: with injured rage.
The temptation is to make a continental mass grave to remind future humans not to go down this path because it ends badly. This arises as much from the perception that all decency and truth are lost on this world, and that all is futile, which produces a suffocating rage.
A more sensible view is that we could divide the useful from the useless. A janitor who does his job in a conscientious way and does not live like a degenerate is necessary just as a rocket scientist is, but people of any intelligence level who are given to evil merely thwart the realization of the good.
This would be done informally, in a natural method, if applied intelligently. A hierarchy of natural leaders would be set up; they would decide who to retain, and send the others away. Those who could not find a place would have to relocate to easier places to live, like the third world.
Diversity does not work because it cannot work. It is paradoxical to place groups with different goals together and insist they compromise, because this deprives all groups of their goals, and thus creates tension which will inevitably detonate in ethnic violence.
This week, the exciting ethnic violence came to us from sunny Fresno where an African-American Muslim man shot three white men:
Dyer said that it’s too soon to determine if the shooting rampage was terrorism-related. However, a review of Muhammad’s social media shows he quoted the phrase “Allahu Akbar” in a tweet. The Arabic phrase translates to “God is the greatest.”
In addition, Muhammad’s Facebook posts indicated that “he does not like white people, and he has anti-government sentiments,” the chief said. The four men who were targeted Tuesday were white, Dyer said.
Dyer noted that in Thursday’s shooting at Motel 6, which was caught on surveillance video, Muhammad did not make similar statements.
Diverse society has failed Kori Ali Muhammad as well. He wishes to live among his own people and according to their own values. In a society which is permissive and facilitative, as diverse societies must be because they cannot have a majority culture or purpose, he is denied those things.
Until we stop blaming specific groups, and instead recognize that all groups act in self-interest as coded into their genes and therefore that diversity and assimilation can never work, we will continue to suffer an increasing spiral of race riots, police shootings, and spree killings from diversity unrest.
Look through the donations. Some of these users forgot to use tumblers and have large-capital streams coming through that look like money laundering.
This fits with what we know of Antifa: people are being paid fairly generous sums of money to attend Right-wing events and basically created mayhem, which is referred to with a wink and a nod as “protesting.”
In the meantime, those who would benefit from a strong Leftist and therefore corrupt state — unions, the Left, organized crime, multinational corporations, corrupt billionaires — have reason to funnel their extra income to or through Antifa as a means of achieving total control.
Richard Spencer spoke at Auburn University and advanced the Alt Right cause by pushing back the Left, and in doing so, causing the university and its police to become accountable, at which point they acted in self-interest by disabling Antifa by removing their masks.
Reiterating his key talking points, Spencer denounced diversity as “a way of bringing to an end a nation and a culture” defined by white people.
“There would be no history without us,” he said, prompting shouts from the crowd. “The alt-right is really about putting Humpty Dumpty back together again.”
…Spencer, 38, director of the white nationalist think tank National Policy Institute, has been a target for his radical beliefs. He has advocated a “peaceful ethnic cleansing,” where people who are not of European descent voluntarily leave the United States.
Bonus points if he upgrades that to “people who are not of Western European descent voluntarily leave the United States,” presumably as the welfare state and racial subsidy programs like Affirmative Action, Civil Rights and HUD are cut.
Here’s his speech:
The importance of this event, in addition to the content of his speech, is that he forced back the usual way of doing things, which is for the Establishment to favor its Leftists pets, the antifa who scare normal people into cucking and supporting whatever Leftism, Inc. is banging the tin drum for during that fiscal quarter.
According to Southern, the Berkeley police disarmed the free speech marchers while allowing the black-clad Antifa domestic terrorists to use M-80 explosives, pepper spray and teargas. As soon as Antifa became violent, the Berkeley police stood down and retreated away from the melee, leaving the free speech marchers dangerously exposed.
Part of the reason for this was that Berkeley police were not actually involved in the demonstration. For them, it was another public event, so the right thing to do was to obey union rules and retreat whenever it sounded like an officer might be in danger.
In Auburn, instead, Spencer forced the establishment to take responsibility for its actions. This created an incentive for the university to desire order, since it could not simply externalize chaos onto society at large, and so officers did the sanest thing ever, which was to remove Antifa masks and so make them behave because they were no longer anonymous:
This was necessary because the school had canceled the event because of threats of violence, and once forced by a federal court order to allow the event, they realized that if they did not denature Antifa, they would have violent riots just like in Berkeley. Police adapted:
A supporter of Spencer, a white nationalist leader who is planning a rally at Auburn on Tuesday, filed a motion in court Tuesday seeking an injunction to force the University to allow him to speak. The court on Tuesday granted that motion, attorneys for the plaintiff and the University told The Plainsman.
The motion was filed in U.S. Federal District Court in Montgomery by Cameron Padgett — a Spencer supporter who said he booked Foy Hall for Spencer’s speech — and his attorney.
…”This afternoon, a federal judge ruled that Auburn must allow Spencer to speak in the Foy Auditorium tonight,” they said in their letter. “It is now more important than ever that we respond in a way that is peaceful, respectful, and maintains civil discourse. We are aware that various campus groups have planned events for this evening. Please know that additional security measures are being taken by the Auburn Police Division to uphold the safety of our community.”
Had police demanded this as a matter of course, they might have been accused of discrimination against the Left. But now that the issue had been raised, and then made secondary to a Constitutional need to allow the event to go on, police had to ensure the safety of the event, which required disarming Antifa.
This shows a pattern for us on the Right. Instead of taking on the responsibility for preventing violence, we need to externalize it to the community, and with them finding their backs to the wall, they will respond by unmasking Antifa and Black Bloc types, which has been seen to prevent the violence.
Violence in Berkeley, California, for example broke out because police allowed a large group of black-clad, masked people to gather with primitive weapons in public, and then retreated when firecrackers were thrown. This ensured violence.
On the other extreme, the police in Auburn showed how easy it is to prevent this violence. Mobs act as they do because individuals are anonymous in them, and are empowered by the mob to act out their own pathologies, knowing that the mob will defend them. Remove anonymity and the violence decreases.
In the meantime, America’s public universities and cities now have an Alt Right problem: there is law on the record that says that speeches cannot be canceled simply because of the threat of violence, and we now know of a working method for ensuring the violence does not break out.
For those reasons, public venues no longer have a case for blocking the Alt Right. As America spirals downward into disorder and hatred, these events will become more contentious, but now we have a model for making them work, which defeats Antifa in their aim of “no platforming” the Alt Right.
The post on the Daily Stormer last December claimed I had been trying to extort and threaten the mother of Richard Spencer, a white nationalist whose family has a vacation home in our town. It had a photograph of me and contact information: phone numbers, email addresses, and links to social media profiles for me, my husband, my friends, my colleagues. It had my son’s Twitter handle. He is 12 years old.
…Do we tell our children that we’re running in the middle of the night because we’re Jewish?
There are too many lies so far, so we are going to stop there. First and foremost: are you running because you are Jewish, or because you committed the Federal crime of extortion in collusion with a Leftist terror group?
Here is the vital quotation from Richard Spencer’s mother:
On November 22, Gersh and I spoke on the phone. She relayed to me that if I did not sell my building, 200 protesters and national media would show up outside — which would drive down the property value — until I complied.
Tanya Gersh does not refute this statement anywhere. By doing so, she admits it is true. She spins it slightly different, but never refutes it.
However, she wants to shift the blame to anti-Semitism — admittedly a component of The Daily Stormer — instead of her own actions.
Jewish people may be as self-destructive as whites, which makes sense since Jewish people are just white people with an additional 2-5% of Semitic DNA.
Gersh, by denying the actual complaint and blaming anti-Semitism, is weakening every case of outrage at actual anti-Semitism. She broke the law. Deflecting from that will make people very angry. This is how Holocausts happen, just like the 40% participation in the Communist Party by 2% of the general population made it all too easy for people to buy into the anti-Semitism and go along with the raging mob.
Then, with no warning, Sherry Spencer published a post on Medium attacking me and telling a twisted version of our interactions.
Gersh seems to forget her own statements:
“She (Sherry) is profiting off of the people of the local community, all the while having facilitated Richard’s work spreading hate by letting him live and use her home address for his organization.”
She contradicts herself and in doing so, proves that her statements in The Guardian are lies.
That being said, Amerika stands against anti-Semitism. Jews act in self-interest like every other group, and the solution as Theodor Herzl said is nationalism, or relocation of Jews to a land of their own where they are safe. (The last part is crucial; they are not “safe” while Palestinians, Syrians and others are raging around with homemade missiles and suicide attacks.)
We also do not take the position of The Daily Stormer, although we do not support the lawsuit against them either. The correct response to abusive and criminal realtors like Tanya Gersh is to submit a complaint to the regulatory board. Note: she has not been prosecuted for her extortion attempt.
Instead of acknowledging her own failings, Ms. Gersh and those who support her have embarked upon a disastrous lawsuit which can only end badly:
Andrew Anglin, publisher of far-right site Daily Stormer, has been sued in Federal Court today for $300,000, stemming from his reporting about Tanya Gersh, a Montana real estate agent who he accused of attempting to extort Richard Spencer’s mother into selling a Whitefish, Montana property. In the lawsuit, Anglin is accused of creating a “troll storm” against Gersh that caused her emotional distress and anxiety.
…The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana, Missoula Division, seeks compensatory and punitive damages. It accuses Anglin of invading Gersh’s privacy and intentionally inflicting emotional distress. It also outlines how his campaign violated the Montana Anti-Intimidation Act.
If the courts approve of this suit, they are going to open the door to infinite frivolous lawsuits by people enraged at their clashes with others. After all, what did Gersh lose? She received threatening messages by phone, email and social media. She lost her job, but then again, she also committed a crime, so Gersh losing her real estate license or job is hardly Anglin’s fault. It is Gersh’s fault.
On the other hand, if the court refuses this case, they may open the door to more online harassment. Then again, one wonders if that cat can be put back in the bag, since too many people rely on online information as “true” and not enough realize that it is the new daytime television, i.e. of dubious truth value at best.
In the bigger picture, however, the truth is plain: Gersh is not a good actor here; in fact, she is committing what can only be viewed as extortion. American courts are unwilling to raise this case because they fear violating political correctness.
At Amerika, we both reject trollstorms and think Tanya Gersh belongs in jail. Sherry Spencer did not deserve this attack, which leveraged the threat of Leftist rioters against her, and Richard Spencer should be able to speak his mind without all of these puny, parasitic people attacking him.
All of this is more evidence that America the nation ended years ago. There was a chance for a nation here, but instead, we divided it up into special interest groups, and now they are warring it out in court, essentially passing the costs on to the rest of us. As Roosh V elaborates:
As for prudent measures to protect yourself, I recommend not criticizing or speaking against individual Jews in the United States, who can reach out to multiple organizations with deep pockets. Jews are a privileged group that can not be criticized like heterosexual men or white people can by the media or organizations like the SPLC, which came after me in 2012. This lawsuit proves that even a middle class Jewish woman in the middle of Montana has the full backing of the powerful Jewish lobby—with tens of millions of dollars in the bank—to attack her enemies.
He’s right, but we should elaborate on this: Jews are only one of the many special interests dividing America. GMO foods, elderly pensions, women, military contractors, Hispanics, the pharmaceutical industry, minority races, minority religions and mothers against drunk driving all have their advocacy groups, donors and lobbyists. This is how democracy always ends, as a de facto oligarchy that becomes so chaotic it culminates in tyranny.
In the meantime, the actual problem remains unaddressed. Sherry Spencer should not have been persecuted for her son’s beliefs. Tanya Gersh (and others) did the persecution. We need to end the situation where people can be attacked for their beliefs alone, and grow up and accept differences in thought.
April 20th brings with it many memories, including Columbine, teenage potheads, and of course, Adolf Hitler. This brings out the HitLARPers who want us to believe that if we just adopted National Socialism, everything would be fine, and they are going to act the part as defined by Hollywood to show us how.
My own opinion has long been that Hitler, like every other leader, was a mix of good and bad. The bad in his case seems traumatic because it invokes genocide and tyranny, but in reality, this pales in comparison to what, say, Joseph Stalin or Chairman Mao did. The Left just LARPs on the anti-Hitler trip in order to conceal how much more their people have been committing murder, torture and oppression since the French Revolution at least, having become known for secret police, gulags, executions at dawn and guillotining whole families.
But Hitler had a few good points. He recognized that diversity cannot work. He wanted to restore an organic state based in the ethnic group. He knew that modernity was a failure and its aesthetics needed reversal. Unfortunately, he tried to do these from within a modern context, and so ended up with modern results, namely catastrophe. Not that he could have escaped it; the world was poised for downfall, and most people were suicidal after “the war to end all wars,” so it demanded a fratricidal and pointless war and got it. Did anyone win WWII?
The Left always lies, and the Left is the party of modernity, and modernity has turned out to be kind of boring, where we all live in bubble worlds and work in cubicles and no one is really happy but the money is OK so we carry on. Maybe we can finally escape the Left. It will require going farther Right than Hitler and rejecting modernity entirely. We need to restore Western Civilization, and since the dawn of time, there has been only one structure of civilization that has worked. It is not that we want to go back to that; we want to go forward to it, like moving from winter to spring even though spring was only six months ago.
In the meantime, the Alt Right needs to get over its HitLARPing. We are not White Nationalists; we are nationalists, but only as a part of a general program that wants a traditional society. That means rejecting modernity entirely, starting with the sacred cow (and mental crack for white people, apparently) of “equality.” If you want to celebrate Hitler, celebrate what he tried but could not do, which is abolish the idea of equality and with it, the State. We need nations, not nation-States. We want a traditional society because it works and everything else does not.
Hitler had his day, but he was more symbolic — resistance against modernity and racial erasure — than literal. To the (possibly inevitable) sadness of the Germans, they followed him literally and encountered a great defeat. This was not from their lack of prowess, but from the vast forces they faced, since illusion is always more popular than realism. And yet, we would be ultra-morons to make the same mistake twice.
To avoid making that mistake, we must revisit the core of modernity, individualism. Individualism makes people demand equality, so that all individuals are included, no matter what they have done in the past. But to an independent person, individualism is a crutch, a thing to be overcome. If you want to be more Hitler than Hitler, accept the nihilism of literal reality, and that you are a small part of a vast civilization, not a god-like consciousness to which civilization should be dedicated.
It is fascinating and lugubrious that we face the same challenges as we did during the First World War and the French Revolution. Nothing, really, has changed; we are still trying to advance the same dying ideas and they are failing as they always have. This Hitler Day, let us reject those ancient and moldy failures and move on to something more sustaining and cheerful!
Over cocktails with Leftists, the most extraordinary thing was said: “You either give to the top or you give to the bottom, and Republicans choose to give to the top.”
This statement was striking in its simplicity. Is that all? It shapes the mind to think about giving, instead of creating, and this shows the difference between Left and Right.
The Left, defined by its only idea, egalitarianism, seeks to redistribute wealth. On the Right, where we recognize the necessity of deciding issues on a case-by-case basis and recognize the particularity of solutions as superior to general theory, the question is not redistribution, but the production of wealth, because we realize that without affirmative acts to produce wealth, it dissipates.
This leads in turn to the realization that the Left does not recognize that civilization requires ongoing and regular acts to maintain. To them, it is there and can be taken for granted, and thus the only question is carving up the wealth that exists to make sure everyone feels included, because this is the way to win at the game of socializing and peer pressure.
They exist in a perpetual present tense where what we have today exists as if by a divine hand, and did not require the work of yesterday to create, and will exist tomorrow without the work of today. In this, we see a disconnect in cause-effect reasoning caused by the proximate intermediary of socializing, which tells that all things exist by human intention alone.
In other words, humans intend for no one to go hungry, so they write a check from the Treasury and the problem goes away. Or they intend for all people to be equal, so they proclaim it and execute dissidents on the guillotine. Maybe they want everyone to be accepted, so they force acceptance of all people, no matter how much they deviate from social norms.
What they forget is that civilization as we know it comes from the affirmative acts of our people. It takes work to make food, shelter, and an economy. Social norms keep people moving in the same direction, and enable civilization to function in the first place. Inequality drives people to rise above others and therefore, to put the competent at the top of our hierarchy.
Leftists do not recognize these needs, and as a result, are entirely blind to the task of maintaining civilization. This means that to them, the questions of leadership are as simple as how to spread money and power around. Conservatives aim to create that wealth and power, and to them, division of it is done so that more is produced.
This is why conservatives emphasize giving money and power to the competent. It is not a question of making everyone feel accepted, but ensuring that the people who are most likely to make more wealth and power are in a position to do so. This is entirely lost on the Left, who do not exist outside of a perpetual present tense where these things already exist.
Inertia drives the Left. Finding themselves in a civilization where benefits are present, they assume these are perpetual and given by heaven. This inertia may reflect a fear of the passage of time, including aging and mortality. It manifests in a denial of the cyclic nature of reality and our part in it.
It also provides a rationalization and decline and justification for profiting from it. If civilization “just exists,” without requiring us to be means to the end of its perpetuation, there is nothing wrong with taking everything that one can and giving nothing back. One is freed from the guilt of watching another labor for shared benefit while taking for personal benefit only.
This inertia and rationalization provides the individual with the ability to act selfishly without guilt, while simultaneously not worrying about the future. In this view, what existed at the birth of the individual will exist in perpetuity regardless of the actions of the individual. They view themselves as having no effect and no obligations.
From this comes the “bourgeois” mentality or the view of the successful middle class, which is that society is a competition for resources and the only political involvement required is to “virtue signal” or demonstrate moral goodness through transferring wealth to those with less success. Politics is a means of symbolic gestures that lead to personal success.
When we view Leftism through this filter, its origins as an adaptive pathology become clear. It seems to be an ideology, but really, it is a defensive rationalization for the individual to disclaim obligation to maintain civilization. This explains its enduring popularity as well as its incoherence.
Once it is visualized this way, Leftism becomes defeatable. It is no longer an active philosophy that has actual goals. Instead, it is a pathology of people seeking to accept and deny the decline. They perceive it as a way of making themselves more important in a shrinking pond. If this power is removed, Leftism becomes inert and thus unrewarding, and will be discarded.