Amerika

Author Archive

The Alternative Of Real Ecology by Kveldulf Gunnar Larsson (2016)

Monday, December 11th, 2017


The Alternative of Real Ecology
by Kveldulf Gunnar Larsson
Solitude Books, 274 pages, 2016. $16

When contemplating the environmental crisis dawning over our world, the thinking individual faces a grim choice: to admit the truth is to call for the taboo, such as fewer people, but to fail to admit the truth is to dedicate oneself to endless compensatory behaviors that will never fix the problem. This is why nothing has been done despite most in the West wanting a solution for decades.

The Alternative of Real Ecology offers a solution in the form of descending into the fullness of admitting the truth about the collision between humanity and our environment. Human needs are in conflict with the needs of natural ecosystems, and this is a zero-sum game, which means that anything we give to humans, we take from nature. At this point the debate takes on a mature outlook: we must talk about the appropriate number of humans on the planet in order for enough of nature to thrive that our planetary ecosystem can function without losing species.

That recognition admits two types of response. Either we as a species change what we are doing, which is impossible under liberal democratic political systems, or individuals are left with the question of how to address the environmental crisis through individual choices, knowing that the vast majority of humans will not do the same. This book uses a discussion of the latter to explore the changes that would have to be made in the former scenario.

Uncontrolled human breeding demands more space for growing food, housing, and recreation; unless the population growth is controlled the loss of habitat will increase. “Humans have the right to breed and grow food.” Yes they do, and therefore the biodiversity will be exterminated. They can breed as much as they want and eat/throw away a much food as they want. In other words: “Humans can take away as much natural habitat as they see fit.” (231)

In noting this, this book follows up on the ideas of Pentti Linkola and Theodore Kacyznski, who noted that only non-democratic solutions are serious. If we want to preserve nature, we have to limit the amount of land used by humanity, probably to a quarter or third of the available land, and to do that, we need a political system that is not based on individual rights which cause a tragedy of the commons as each person exploits the maximum amount of resources (which increased land use) possible.

The style of The Alternative of Real Ecology might put people off at first, but win them over as the pages turn. Somewhere between a Socratic dialogue and a notebook of ideas, the text flows like a conversation between quotations representing either common arguments against environmentalism or statements by public figures, and the rebuttals of the author. A mood of negation of pervades the text as it points out hollow platitudes and nonsensical objections to the obvious.

At its core, this book suggests that normal (modern) human life and environmental survival are opposites, and so humans must become “inhuman” or conditioned to assign no additional weight to human preferences. In this mindset, we are able to separate what we need from what we want; at that point, the solutions to overpopulation, overconsumption and other human ills become obvious. The author sets a mindset of “no contribution” more as a thought experiment and baseline than recommendation, but comparison to it reveals how impoverished our “green” actions have been.

One cannot deny his humanity and stay human (that’s logical) and therefore one must become inhuman to deny his humanity. This is where Real Ecology comes into the picture.

…The priority of Real Ecology is Nature and the duty to point out that it will be destroyed. Not how much the existence of humans will be miserable. It is not the duty of Real Ecology to stop the ecocide. That’s impossible. It’s there to stop destroying Nature by one person at a time: the inner change and non-contribution. (92)

By forcing the issue and pointing out that, without radical species-wide change, ecocide is inevitable, The Alternative of Real Ecology enacts a certain kind of inner change in the human being, which is the framing of the environmental issue in appropriately binary terms. Either the human species gets its act together in a large way and reduces its land use, or we watch the inevitable tragedy.

In this way, the book acts like any form of radical realism. It identifies causes, and looks to their effects, and illustrates for us the choices we have regarding the inevitability of those effects. Its “inhuman” outlook separates us from illusion, and opens the dialogue to a results-oriented conception of environmentalism. In turn, this pushes the human dialogue on the environment past the socially-acceptable to the realistic.

Of the two solutions it identifies — inner change and non-contribution — the former proves the most interesting in that it is a fulfillment of the deep ecology notion of re-designing human life to fit within our natural environment, instead of making the environment subject to human whims, to be shaped in order to serve what our herd think believes is what we need. Larsson makes the whole book an exercise in understanding the depth of this reorganization of our minds and desires, both in nuance of the big points and associated details, forming a list of often-forgotten important environmental concerns.

However, he remains suitably bleak, pointing out that the bottom line cannot be adulterated: we have too many humans and each of them, if they can, will live a high-resource industrialized lifestyle; implicated in this also is the notion that our social mobility causes us to compete through money and possessions, which further drives the consumerist mania that is consuming our environment.

Real Ecology doesn’t deal with solutions. No matter how unpopular or controversial, they are ‘solutions’ and their presentation is all it takes 1) non-realistic: the sudden disappearance/vanishing of the human species. That’s not possible to achieve, so only a theory, 2) partly realistic: suicide. To sacrifice yourself for Nature, and 3) realistic: not having children. The non-contribution. Rather than promoting (Real Ecology doesn’t promote them) these ‘solutions,’ it’s better to present the realistic ones: non-contribution and inner change. Real Ecology will not promote a fantasy, theoretical solution, non-realistic ideas. That’s what realism (real) is about. (111)

It remains unclear how literal this is, since the Darwinian effect of the environmentally-conscious not having children is that environmental consciousness as a trait disappears from the human species. The inner change, however, is wrought in this book through many clever mental puzzles of the variety above, in which a distinction is made between arbitrary but true propositions that are thus unproven or irrelevant, and ultimate solutions which are too extreme. By shifting the Overton window of ecology in this way, Larsson channels our own instinct to look for a moderate center point, which is a change in attitudes toward things previously considered to be universal goods, like the economy or human rights.

This book challenges the reader with surly, often malevolently defeatist thought-problems of this nature. Its largest point is that ecocide is not a forgivable sin, and that for as much as it rages about how no solution can be found, clearly the basis of a solution — fewer people, less consumption, more social order — informs our thinking not about environmental issues per se but general issues, with us naturally wanting to ask, “Will this improve or worsen the condition of our world?”

Printed on recycled paper, The Alternative of Real Ecology taunts and mocks us for our impotence on this issue and seeks to re-frame the environmental question as the question of what type of civilization we will choose for our future, knowing that ecocide not just terminates us, but rebukes the gift of life and will make us guilt-ridden and self-hating. A quick read, it is emotionally provocative and thought-provoking as a result of that, pleasantly separating it from the self-help nature of most “green” books.

Rejecting The Enlightenment™

Monday, December 11th, 2017

Western Civilization slowly emerges from The Age of Ideology as Leftism, having achieved its final goals with globalism, reveals its fundamental impracticality and the misery of life under an ideological (i.e. reality-denying) regime. In its place, a new era appears as people reject anything but the innate and observable, having come to distrust scientists, academics, reporters, and ideologues.

Some object this. Like most Leftists, and they are all Leftists of some form, they differ only in the degree to which they are willing to apply their one idea, which is human equality. Some want a fairly conservative Leftism, where others want to jump into Communism with both feet out. All want to drag us back into The Age of Ideology to some degree.

As is always the case in human affairs, people disguise their intentions, and so many talk about returning to liberal values as found in The Enlightenment,™ the massive cultural change which kicked off The Age of Ideology. Stephen Pinker, who has produced at least one really great book, seems to have joined in this desire to resurrect the failed past:

These are just a few of the issues Pinker will discuss in “Enlightenment Now,” but he explains that the book is more than a compendium of encouraging statistics – it’s an urgent reminder that we need to preserve the Enlightenment values of reason, free expression and scientific inquiry that have led to such remarkable human progress since the 18th century.

…Instead of behaving like petty authoritarians and lamenting the imaginary fascist takeover of the country, anti-Trump forces need to reaffirm their commitment to Enlightenment values and institutions: free expression, universal human rights, unfettered objective inquiry, the rule of law and democracy.

Most people have no idea how all of these values connect to egalitarianism/individualism, which is the one idea of both the Left and the Enlightenment™ (“hmm”). Let us view them in sequence:

  • Reason. For us to believe in human reason, we must believe that it is evenly distributed among the population, but this requires us to think of the step after an idea is generated. When someone produces an idea, it must be recognized by others as correct or not. We either put our faith in exceptional human beings or in the generic “human reason” which assumes that a crowd is convinced by a correct argument, which in turn requires we believe they all possess at least an equal minimum of analytical ability. In reality, people have widely differing abilities to the point that they might as well live in different worlds, and those at lower levels not only fail to recognize accurate ideas, but actively reject them.
  • Free Expression. In theory, we all support free speech… until we encounter spam. The large amount of opportunistic, insane, stupid, delusional, egotistic, and vandalistic speech will make us reconsider! This means that we do not want egalitarian free expression, which is like a herd of monkeys all screeching at once, but quality of expression, which requires that in contrast to allowing a free-for-all, we listen to those who demonstrate the ability to make at least one coherent point.
  • Scientific Inquiry. To seem to oppose science appears to most to be the ultimate apostasy of our age. After all, science brought us hot showers, penicillin, and microwave dinners. People forget that science is in the hands of individuals, and individuals are not as unbiased as science is proclaimed to be, and so they can cherry-pick data, exclude items from study, and draw over-broad conclusions based on limited data. Science remains popular because it is presumed to be “objective,” which forgets that people do not understand the same thing at all from the same facts. This is why science us usually wrong and our “unassailable scientific truths” change every decade.
  • Universal Human Rights. The core of egalitarianism is found in individualism: no individual wants to face the Darwinistic or Social Darwinistic consequences of being wrong in how they understand reality, so they demand reality be abolished and be replaced with human socializing and its laxer standards of judgment. In reality, people have different abilities including to comprehend basic consistencies in our world, and so it makes sense that they would have different roles, duties, privileges, and responsibilities. Extending the same rights to all merely punishes the more productive and intelligent whenever someone of lesser ability struggles near them.
  • The Rule of Law. We like to believe in the rule of law as opposed to the rule of men, or the decision-making of individuals who are probably smarter and wiser than us. With the rule of law, everyone is treated the same, which means that our past contribution or lack thereof is not taken into account. What this does is essentially punish those who have contributed in the name of protecting the vulnerable, and instead of allowing a sensible case-by-case judgment, relies on blocky categorical rules which are never precise enough, leading to endless and tedious legal wrangling. Over time, law degrades us and compels us to do the illogical.
  • Democracy. Look at the people around you. You know that they are unequal in their ability to perceive reality, analyze it, and creatively understand the possible solutions — that means setting up little dioramas in their minds, and then hitting the “play” button on a mental video player to see how interactions play out — that describe the choices we can make in life. Now you realize that ability is distributed unevenly, with the real talent being rare and exceptional. Democracy means that the lower talents win out over the higher every time, which is why democracies die by a thousand cuts, making many bad decisions that ultimately add up to fetters of precedent that prevent anyone from solving any real problems. Democracy destroys civilizations and makes people blockheaded, timid, deluded, and prone to opportunism.

In summary, we do not need a return to the values of The Enlightenment,™ which are ancient at this point and reflect the same type of thinking that killed both ancient Athens and the modern Soviet Union. The herd is not good, but instead is a compilation of the thoughtlessness of individuals who are then separated from responsibility for their actions by the fact that they can blame the crowd. “Everyone was doing it!”

Enlightenment (™) values created The Age of Ideology by separating our thinking from cause-effect in reality and instead directing it toward human consensus, or what most individuals will insist that others believe because this benefits individuals by deconstructing the cause-effect relationship between their actions and the results of their actions, which can result in a loss of social status if the results turn out poorly, showing that the individual does not understand reality well and thus is delusional, less intellectually capable, inexperienced, or otherwise maladapted.

The coming age — barely dawning on us now — is one where people think less of the individual and more of the organic whole, such as their civilization, ethnic group, faith, and caste. Trying to make everyone equal actually created unending disaster at every level, and as we awake from the stupor of good social feelings and rediscover reality, we are casting equality and The Enlightenment™ aside.

Do We Live In A Totalitarian State?

Sunday, December 10th, 2017

Democracy instructs us that we have “freedom,” “liberty,” and “equality,” but all of these seem to be modified definitions. Freedom is subject to forced association, liberty to serving in the jobs of the workers’ state, and equality means that the higher subsidize the lower so that the illusion of cooperation is achieved.

This leads us to wonder what other terms have mutated definitions. In particular, we start to suspect that we are living in a neo-Communist or totalitarian society. A handy resource can be found in one definition of totalitarianism which reveals the structure of the state based on control:

1. An official ideology, consisting of an official body of doctrine covering all vital aspects of man’s existence, to which everyone living in that society is supposed to adhere at least passively; this ideology is characteristically focused in terms of chiliastic claims as to the “perfect” final society of mankind.

2. A single mass party consisting of a relatively small percentage of the total population (up to 10 per cent) of men and women passionately and unquestioningly dedicated to the ideology and prepared to assist in every way in promoting its general acceptance, such party being organized in strictly hierarchical, oligarchical manner, usually under a single leader….

3. A technologically conditioned near-complete monopoly of control (in the hands of the party and its subservient cadres, such as the bureaucracy and the armed forces) of all means of effective armed combat.

4. A similarly technologically conditioned near-complete monopoly of control (in the same hands) of all means of effective mass communication, such as the press, radio, motion pictures, and so on.

5. A system of terroristic police control. depending for its effectiveness upon points 3 and 4 and characteristically directed not only against demonstrable “enemies” of the regime, but also against arbitrarily selected classes of the population, such arbitrary selection turning upon exigencies of the regime’s survival, as well as ideological “implications” and systematically exploiting scientific psychology.
Carl J Friedrich (1954) ‘The unique character of totalitarian society’ in: Totalitarianism. New York: Grossett & Dunlap.

To understand how this applies to our present society, we must understand the nature of decentralized, indirect, and informal control. In these systems, there is no single leader, only a singular idea. There is not even a party. Instead, people collaborate informally to enforce an idea on others, and that idea — more than a manifestation of it — constitutes the core of the totalitarian society.

In this type of system, the “terroristic police control” consists of fear of social consequences which can cause an individual to lose jobs, friends, family, housing, and even services as banks, doctors, attorneys, accountants, and even grocery stores pull away from the controversy.

The control that this system exerts can be seen in enforcement of an idea from people who perceive they are receiving personal benefit from doing so, therefore are fanatical in their search for an excuse to enforce this on others. Each person they destroy gains them greater social status.

At that level, the system has a monopoly through indirect means. Since it is driven by individualistic behavior, people form herds which are dedicated to running away from threats, which means that all it must do is indicate that certain ideas, individuals, or behaviors are threats, and the crowd will destroy them.

This is a form of individualistic herd behavior, sometimes called the “selfish herd theory”:

He suggested that groups of animals as diverse as insects, fish and cattle all react to danger by moving towards the middle of their swarm, school or herd, known as the selfish herd theory. Individuals in a herd benefit from being able to control where they are relative to their group-mates and any potential predator. It also reduces the chances of being the one the predator goes for when it attacks.

Such behavior may be a sub-form of the tragedy of the commons: if safety, or areas where one is safe, are a resource, each individual exploits those to the maximum and social order is sacrificed by the collective selfishness of individuals, as happens in most human organizational failures.

Decentralized totalitarianism exploits the fear-driven nature of human behavior. When humans organize into groups, they rely on external cues — the behavior of others — to identify threats to the herd. If the herd can be induced into constant panic, that panic can be used to target any threat by making that threat into the scapegoat, or by assigning agency for actual threats to the imaginary enemy. Satan is deceptive: we blame him for evils, when really he is merely the symbol of those evils.

Control systems of this nature depend on a dysfunctional codependency between individuals and their manipulators, who have as much in common with salesmen as dictators. The herd depends on the leaders to signal threats and potential rewards, and out of fear and fear of missing out, then depends on those leaders, who also require the power of the masses which are used as a political weapon, or a means to the end of destroying political enemies and thus asserting the power of the controller.

Aldous Huxley predicted that the mob rule brought on by the French Revolution would ultimately end in the rise of cynical controllers who hid their methods through indirect and decentralized means, letting people lead themselves into servitude with their fears and desires. Humans would be defeated by individualism, not outright control.

A system of this nature rules through duality. Individuals are induced into acts which neutralize them, while the same authority that they trust for those inspirations also teaches them to fear anything but the condition under which they find themselves. As Huxley wrote, perfect tyranny appears to be freedom:

The nature of psychological compulsion is such that those who act under constraint remain under the impression that they are acting on their own initiative. The victim of mind-manipulation does not know that he is a victim. To him, the walls of his prison are invisible, and he believes himself to be free. That he is not free is apparent only to other people. His servitude is strictly objective.

The older dictators fell because they could never supply their subjects with enough bread, enough circuses, enough miracles and mysteries. Nor did they possess a really effective system of mind-manipulation. In the past, free-thinkers and revolutionaries were often the products of the most piously orthodox education. This is not surprising. The methods employed by orthodox educators were and still are extremely inefficient. Under a scientific dictator education will really work — with the result that most men and women will grow up to love their servitude and will never dream of revolution. There seems to be no good reason why a thoroughly scientific dictatorship should ever be overthrown.

This inverts the unduly famous statement from 1984, “Freedom is Slavery.” In the Brave New World of Huxley, he shows how what people think of as freedom becomes a form of slavery. This damages not so much the individual as a civilization because control methods lead to oblivious and inept societies because they create an internal backlash and encourage people to ignore important details that could indicate systemic problems. We saw that in both the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany.

Control causes a loss of civilization. The inner-directed populace that works together toward the goal of having an excellent existence is replaced by a bickering crowd of monkeys who take civilization for granted, lower their standards, and are interested, carnie-style, in what immediate benefits they can receive right now. They would not pass the marshmallow test:

In the 1960s, Stanford University Professor Walter Mischel gave young children a simple proposition. They sat with a marshmallow in front of them for fifteen minutes – and if they could hold off from eating it, they would be given two treats at the end of the time period. Some of them ate the treat straight away – but others succeeded in overcoming temptation.

Subsequent research found that the children from the original experiment who could delay gratification had scored better academic results, earned higher salaries, and been less prone to obesity.

In this way, totalitarianism — like democracy — makes people less capable because they become accustomed to being outer-directed, and lose the ability to conceive and formulate their own direction. This appears similar to the case of children who watch too much television and then, are unable to figure out what to do with themselves when the television is off.

Decentralized control triumphs by creating this codependent relationship. It enforces its will upon the citizens, who then come to lean on it for guidance because it regulates what is rewarded, and end up becoming entirely defined by it. People lose the ability to understand their world and respond to it in a way that maximizes their position, and see the world entirely through the filter of government and social pressure. This way, reality is forgotten and abilities are lost.

Its decentralized nature allows control — which, as you recall, arises from individualistic fear — to remain invisible. It camouflages itself in social chaos and by maintaining internal debate and competition, both of which take the place of normal healthy functions and distract from the decay. As Mario Vargas Llosa opined:

It may not seem to be a dictatorship, but it has all of the characteristics of a dictatorship; the perpetuation, not of one person, but of an irremovable party, a party that allows sufficient space for criticism, provided such criticism serves to maintain the appearance of a democratic party, but which suppresses by all means, including the worst, whatever criticism may threaten its perpetuation in power.

In theory, the group we cannot criticize is the group that rules us, but what about a group that we cannot identify? If the group is fully decentralized, it has no membership list, official rules, hierarchy, or even headquarters. Its members may not even be aware that they are members, and will be spread among every industry, institution, and social role. They are united only by one thing: that they are infected by the same idea, and so are pathologically driven toward it, despite its eventual destructiveness.

Huxley again, this time from the 1947 introduction to Brave New World:

The greatest triumphs of propaganda have been accomplished, not by doing something, but by refraining from doing. Great is truth, but still greater, from a practical point of view, is silence about truth. By simply not mentioning certain subjects, by lowering what Mr. Churchill calls an “iron curtain” between the masses and such facts or arguments as the local political bosses regard as undesirable, totalitarian propagandists have influenced opinion much more effectively than they could have done by the most eloquent denunciations, the most compelling of logical rebuttals. But silence is not enough. If persecution, liquidation and the other symptoms of social friction are to be avoided, the positive sides of propaganda must be made as effective as the negative. The most important Manhattan Projects of the future will be vast government-sponsored enquiries into what the politicians and the participating scientists will call “the problem of happiness” — in other words, the problem of making people love their servitude.

An empire based on distraction proves more powerful than one based on commands. When truth is obscured by a simpler but less realistic symbolic view of the world, then people will ignore the important issues and pursue the scapegoats and their positive counterpart, trends which lead to rewards through socializing, because those who ride the trends are the ones who become popular and get rich, which enables them to escape the disaster created by lack of social order.

With this in mind, let us revisit those five traits of totalitarianism:

  1. An official ideology, consisting of an official body of doctrine covering all vital aspects of man’s existence. This doctrine must cover all aspects of human existence and have Utopian overtones. In our distributed totalitarian society, egalitarianism — the idea that all people are equal, or should be, in varying economic, social, legal, and political ways — serves this role. It explains our purpose, lack of social order, morality, and method of control all in one.
  2. A single mass party consisting of a relatively small percentage of the total population (up to 10 per cent). Since it is decentralized, this group does not form a party, but a mob. They join together in ad hoc, informal, and tacit demonstrations of their belief and destruction of those who do not agree, like a lynch mob or witch hunt.
  3. A…near-complete monopoly of control…of all means of effective armed combat. This one proves more complex: self-defense is justified only when defending an individual and its right to pursue its desires, but it is viewed as illegitimate in defense of anything at a level broader than the individual, such as civilization, culture, heritage, values, or faith. This gives the power for violence exclusively to egalitarians.
  4. A…near-complete monopoly of control…of all means of effective mass communication. When everyone who becomes popular agrees on the same ideas, and only those who exhibit these ideas become popular, then a de facto monopoly exists not just among media, but entertainment and academia as well.
  5. A system of…control…against arbitrarily selected classes of the population…systematically exploiting scientific psychology. I have removed the term “police” because any form of control will do, and this describes the “struggle sessions” that happen whenever someone accidentally says something that is not politically correct, and must have their career and interpersonal relationships destroyed by the threat of ostracism.

Viewed from this angle, totalitarianism ably adapts to a decentralized format. What is more, it represents the crossover between totalitarianism and a cult, combining the socializing-based nature of a cult with the control-based agenda of tyranny:

Some aspects of the mind control methods of cults are inherent to Leftism when it occurs in a social setting (excerpted partially):

  • Isolation of the person and manipulation of his or her environment.
  • Control of information going in and out of the group environment.
  • Separation and/or alienation from family and friends.
  • Induced dissociation and other altered states by putting person in mild form of trance (through speaking in tongues, chanting, repeating affirmations, extended periods of meditation or prayer, lengthy denunciation sessions, long hours of lectures or study, public trials or group humiliation, about seat criticisms focusing on one individual, sexual abuse, torture, etc.)
  • Degradation of the person’s sense of self, through confession, self-reporting, rebuking, criticism and self-criticism, humiliation, and so on, in individual or group sessions.
  • Peer and leadership pressure, especially using powerful guilt mechanisms.
  • Induced anxiety, fear, and confusion, with joy and certainty being offered through surrender to the group; instilling the belief that the person’s survival physical, emotional, spiritual depends on remaining with the group; also induced crises, so that the person must submit to symbolic (or real) acts of submission to the group via betrayal and renunciation of self, family, and previously held values.
  • Extensive indoctrination sessions (through Bible lessons, political training, sales training, self-awareness lessons, lectures by leaders).
  • Alternation of harshness and leniency in a context of necessary discipline.

These describe complete methods of control, but distill to a few central methods of cults:

Psychiatrist Robert Jay Lifton, who once taught at Harvard Medical School, wrote a paper titled Cult Formation in the early 1980s. He delineated three primary characteristics, which are the most common features shared by destructive cults.

  1. A charismatic leader, who increasingly becomes an object of worship as the general principles that may have originally sustained the group lose power. That is a living leader, who has no meaningful accountability and becomes the single most defining element of the group and its source of power and authority.
  2. A process [of indoctrination or education is in use that can be seen as] coercive persuasion or thought reform [commonly called “brainwashing”].
  3. Economic, sexual, and other exploitation of group members by the leader and the ruling coterie.

Other descriptions of cults outline similar pathologies.

In the decentralized totalitarian state, the charismatic leader is replaced by a series of behaviors which signal charisma and social success, such as wearing black sweaters and jeans to flaunt the rules or inserting obscenity into mundane conversation, which enables members of the crowd to become leaders in turn for their fifteen minutes of fame.

The crowd then enforces its process of indoctrination through trends and norms, encouraging conformity to the same values by using the same terms, whose meanings have been edited to make them suggest an obvious conclusion. Those who step out of line are excluded, and since connections and friend nepotism are how most people get ahead, to fail to conform is to fail.

Finally, the herd exploits itself. In the view of someone infected with ideology, all people and things are means to an end, which is achieving that ideological Utopia. This conflicts with the natural human impulse toward ends-over-means thinking, such as that which insists that there be good results in reality by any means necessary.

A feedback loop between the individualists and the tyrant thus arises. They depend on strong leadership to reduce life to a narrow set of options so that the individual need focus only on the social, therefore using ideology as a means of gaining acceptance and then achieving wealth and power within the system.

In this way, we see that individualism and tyranny are one and the same, much like individualism and collectivism/egalitarianism are one and the same, because they are designed by individuals to enable them to succeed. This occurs at the expense of social order, and creates a death spiral where society must become more totalitarian as it becomes more chaotic.

Government Is Self-Rationalizing

Saturday, December 9th, 2017

Humanity encounters crises because we are self-referential. Through our specialized jobs, but even more our tendency to socialize, we are accustomed to getting through life by convincing other people that we deserve things. This leads to a condition where we are self-rationalizing; we act based on what others will approve of, and then later explain what we get to ourselves as the best possible condition that could have been.

This presents a problem because our first step determines our last step. Once we start down a path, we begin rationalizing it within the group, and the group reinforces its dominant bias or narrative agenda, which has us going further down the path because otherwise, someone might be to blame for screwing up. And so step one leads to step two, with no chance to get off the crazy train until the crash.

Internal pressure provides the most fascinating study. In a group of people, getting anything done is a struggle, so we filter our thoughts for what we believe we can achieve. At that point, making the group happy so that it holds together becomes more important than anything else, and we contort and adjust our ideas to match what the group will approve. This filter kills any ideas of a different path before they are voiced, much like an early form of political correctness.

Human groups thus find themselves following a behavior pattern where they start out small and have focus on a goal, but if they succeed, grow large and then shift their focus toward making everyone happy. At that point, reality is ignored, and results become bad in consequence. Out of fear of instability, the group works harder to unify itself, instead of re-focusing on the goal. In this way, the most successful human endeavors become the ones most pathologically devoted to self-destruction.

Somewhere in there, the sheer frustration of working on a doomed process takes over and people become actively destructive. They know, but cannot articulate, that their time is being wasted. They resent others for being implements of doom and yet have no idea what they would do differently. Vandalism, perversion, self-destruction, and resentful passive-aggressive behavior result.

We can see this self-referential self-rationalizing mentality in democratic governments, since they are unable to recall any past programs that provide benefit to anyone, as then they will be seen as the aggressor who takes from others. This is why we have hysterical political mumbling like the budget fumble currently roiling the swamp in Washington, D.C.:

As the population ages and lawmakers grapple with the effects automation has on job displacement, more funds at the federal level are going to be an absolute necessity. It’s simply not going to be tenable to keep on raising and spending what’s raised and spent today. And other countries prove there’s plenty of room to raise more revenue without kneecapping economic growth.

The easiest thing to do first is to raise some money on the corporate side. The U.S. used to raise 4-5 percent of GDP in corporate taxes. Today, that’s down to 1.6 percent. The corporate income tax once made up about one-third of total U.S. revenue. In 2017, it won’t even make up 10 percent. (At the same time, the personal income tax has remained steady, raising 7 or 8 percent in GDP, for about 45 percent of total revenue.)

…And then there’s rates on the wealthy, which most certainly have room to go up. If it were entirely up to me, rather than hiking what is currently the 39-percent top bracket, I’d add new brackets on top so that multi-millionaires aren’t paying the same marginal rate as the upper-middle class. America’s concentration of wealth is such that there’s plenty of room to raise taxes on the rich with nary an economic blip; in fact, there’s a case that income inequality is itself a drag on growth. The top marginal rate used to be above 90 percent, and was at 50 as recently as the 80s, so going higher than today’s rate isn’t some ahistorical anomaly.

The missing portions of this article furnish the most interest: we see zero analysis of cause and effect, such as “we raised the rates this much and this was the result.” Instead there is just the notice that people got away with something similar in the past, so maybe we should assume that the demands on us are identical and adopt those same old policies.

Even more, what we witness here turns from a reasonable argument about balancing a budget into a demand to keep funding exactly what we are doing now. There is no ability to say that we should look at acts of the past as something that requires assessment, or even a consideration for how we will eventually get rid of our crippling debt, which is devaluing our currency. There is just rationalization of what we have done and a panic-stricken begging for someone to keep the money tap flowing.

How do we escape this death spiral? Until there is a reckoning, known colloquially as “hitting rock bottom,” we do not, because under democracy politicians will not remove any program that benefits someone anywhere. Instead, they will insist that our current spending is the only possible universe in which we could exist, tax until they crush the producers in the economy, and spend until the government runs into default by fully devaluing its currency. Once we assume democracy, this is the only path that it can take.

Much like any other iteration of The Human Problem, this instance shows us the codependency with power that atomized individuals possess. They demand a protector because they fear personal consequences for screwing up or misunderstanding how reality works. They seek to abolish reality by replacing it with a human simulacrum of reality, and this path too leads them away from sanity.

We could save ourselves untold years of misery, trillions of dollars, and wasted potential by admitting that we have hit rock bottom because there is no other way that we can go except forward into rationalization, and thus downward toward the abyss. For us to do that, however, we must see sacrifice as part of duty, instead of merely a duty toward our individualistic selves.

Mark David Chapman, American Hero

Friday, December 8th, 2017

It was 37 years ago today… when a lonely and maladjusted man, perhaps a forerunner of the /pol/ aggro-NEETs of our decade, took aim and destroyed the greatest icon of the hippie era. John Lennon led the Beatles into pretentious pseudo-intellectual pop music that was beloved for its Leftist politics more than anything else, and turned catchy songs into a mantra-like indoctrinate for the 1960s.

When Mark David Chapman raised his .38 special and perforated Lennon, he not only entered himself into the history books as an early type of what later became the spree shooter, namely the attention-driven perpetrator of violence, but also delivered the crucifixion that Lennon had pretended to undergo with his artistic drama and attention whoring.

Having made himself famous for being half of the writing team that produced catchy songs — Lennon-McCarthy invented a way of writing a simple three-part melody and then wrapping it around a pop song format — John Lennon, the Irish-descended outsider who never felt at home in England, turned on and attacked the societies that had enriched him, both England and the United States. It was as if he blamed them for celebrating him despite his failings, and in resentment at condescension he lashed out.

After leading numerous people into the hippie movement, proclaiming atheism and pacifism while living in exclusive parts of New York, Lennon found himself in conflict: the hippies were drifting toward what was essentially Communism, but Lennon found that distasteful, despite being unwilling to connect an ideology of individualism with the type of larcenous, abusive behavior that necessarily goes along with it.

In fact, he descended into that behavior, making numerous people connect the individualism of the hippies with their personal selfishness and the types of mentally controlling philosophies — egalitarianism, socialism, pacifism, asceticism — that they endorsed. Chapman was motivated by dislike of Lennon’s anti-philosophy:

By then, Chapman was already a religious zealot who, though a former Beatles fan, had turned against Lennon for once bragging that the Beatles were “more popular than Jesus.”

At his evangelical group, Mark sang the words: “Imagine there’s no John Lennon,” to the tune of Lennon’s hit song “Imagine.”

Entering his fourth decade, Lennon thus found himself somewhat artistically becalmed, writing songs about seemingly profound truths that he may have no longer fully believed, but since his fame and continued relevance was based in being a hippie icon, he was trapped into being a trope himself, a media figure. Fortunately Mark David Chapman intervened and spared us all further tedium.

Right Wing Folk / Rock Duo Lilou & John Record Patriot Child (2018)

Friday, December 8th, 2017

Right-wing music innovators Lilou & John recently unleashed their third album, Patriot Child, in which they take their music from angrily sentimental folk music to a hybrid of rock, punk, and heavy metal. As part of the Right-wing cultural wave, this duo are creating music to express the agonies and triumphs of the turning of the tide.

Having followed the growth of this band for some time, Amerika reached out to them for information about the upcoming album, which will be released on January 1, 2018, and to explore the motivations behind this group swimming against the current:

I just finally managed to accept that you guys are like a cross between Bob Seeger and Roky Erickson with an anti-modern, Right-leaning twist, and now you have gone and changed styles. How would you describe the style on the new album, and how does it bring out your personality and what you want to convey?
 
John: Thanks for that description, Brett! We are constantly evolving, thanks to Lilou. The producer calls the new genre “garage punk rock” but we frankly don’t know what to call it. It will be a bit of a crossover just like Dissidentica. Lilou always wants to explore new ways of expression and she has taught me how fun it can be.

I started to listen to Stiff Little Fingers, Cockney Rejects and Blitz when I was in my teens, and Motörhead has always been one of my favorite bands of all time. Therefore it seemed natural for me to make a right wing punk rock album. I have always been very angry and this album is a great way to get it out of my system and protest against all the shit people are forced to put up with just so the oligarchs can feed their offspring and the petty bourgeoisie can have their “outdoors-indoors luxury barbecue with finger buffet” in peace. 

The album also reflects the fact that we are not a political band. Everything we do is very personal. Many of our songs are written in defense of freedom of speech simply because we are fed up by virtue signaling and the infamous Swedish Opinion Corridor. The bottom line of everything is that no ideology or religion can triumph art, science and logic reason and we combine many left and right elements in our everyday life and music. We believe that the only place to be is outside of the box of conformity, whatever political color that conformity may have.

Thus, the music is very revolutionary and rebellious. The funny thing is that if you rebel and revolt against the system today the ruling classes will label you “right wing’ no matter what you think. Therefore many people on the right wing think we are quite the odd couple, but they also realize that we share the same interest in getting rid of political correctness and that we are not afraid of being seen fraternizing with “Nazis.” As Mel Brooks put it: “I know where I stand, do you know where you stand?”

We have also gotten much credit for the lyrics on our last album that span from Zionism to the defense of Political Incorrectness, and there were even National Socialists who gave us credit for the courage to record “Next Year in Jerusalem” even though we knew some of our fans would not like it. We say what we think and we record the songs we want to record and it seems people like the honesty. We do not pretend to be something we are not. That is probably why we do not get along with the music industry.

On this album we have taken the lyrics a step further and pushed it in a more radical direction. We write about things such as the Identitarian movement, the Charlottesville ambush and Soy Boy Russophobia, and that is yet another reason why we wanted a much harder sound on this album compared to our first two albums. It should be angry but at the same time we wanted to keep our originality. We want it to be a completely new sound and a new approach.

I am split between experimental and traditional when it comes to the kind of music I want to create, and Lilou never wants to do the same thing twice. It bores her to death. She is our creative engine that makes sure everything is top notch. I just add my anger and a desire to provoke the virtue signaling petty bourgeoisie because I hate their cowardice.
 
You made the choice to go with female vocals on this work, but these are unlike anything the rest of us have ever heard. How did Lilou achieve this unique sound, and what do you think it communicates when placed inside of such loud and stripped-down music?
 
John: I fell in love the first time I ever heard Lilou speak to me on the phone. After that I heard her sing and it only made my love deeper. I would say she sings in a very old right wing tradition of hard working women that dates back long before the industrial age. She is the only person I know who can outmatch an electric guitar even without a microphone and still make it sound good. I personally hope it can show people there is an older, much more genuine female ”gender role” (even if I hate that expression) that goes back to the viking women who did not suffer from any kind of petty bourgeoisie virtue signaling whatsoever. Zarah Leander perhaps had a similar voice but I think Lilou is more versatile and pissed off ha ha.

Today the music industry is focused on profit only so they need singers and musicians without personality to make global hits. They need people who are spooned from birth by the powers that be and thereby suffer from a total lack of identity. Otherwise they cannot sell the stuff they produce on the open market, since globalist extreme-short-term capitalism requires one global coca-colonized culture.

Lilou on the contrary is certainly not an angel with a cute fragile voice they can sell to the highest bidder. She had to fend for herself as a kid and thereby learned to make it through life on her own. She is the toughest woman I have ever met. Feminism and such things…if she got a job because of affirmative action she would take it as a personal insult. To her that would mean that the employer thought she was useless and needed a helping hand just because she is a woman. Unlike the feminists who dominate the music industry of today she is proud of her sex and perhaps even more than me she understands the complementary natures of men and women. I think those are the answers to her unique vocal style. She is a viking woman: 100% wife, 100% mother, 100% singer, 100% fearless.

Lilou: I think in general the right wing movement needs more women to step up. Women have an extremely important role to play since men often think bigger whereas women think about what is realistic. Men build empires, women make sure they do not build them too fast or in bad locations.

New York Magazine recently referred to Sweden as the “Western European capital of the Alt Right.” Why is Sweden emerging as a hotspot for right wing activity?
 
John: Sweden is a social experiment like nothing else. The whole country reminds of a stunt from Jackass where you try to do something that potentially can kill the whole film crew and you attack your co-workers if they have any objections. This has resulted in a catastrophic development of society and a situation that is extremely unstable.

However, the oppression of free speech has led to a huge increase in the number of dissidents. Many thousands of people have lost everything after corporate media witch burnings. They have no jobs because they have protested against the new left policy of “tolerance.” Families have been ripped apart and mothers, fathers and children have been stigmatized as untouchables, they have become the modern day lepers. And just like the lepers of old, the dissidents of Sweden have absolutely nothing left to lose. Many of those people have come to realize that they might as well fight back. They have hit rock bottom and such people are formidable warriors. That is what you see happening in Sweden.

Nobody wants to be that last rat that abandons the sinking ship. Nobody wants to be that sucker who failed to see the coming of the revolution in time and forever be branded as a traitor. Sweden is the most extreme example of left wing politics and therefore it is natural for Sweden to be one of the countries where the resistance is strongest and most organized.

Even if we are not Alt Right ourselves we have no problems working together with them. Much of what we do suit their needs and their support is invaluable for us to grow. We only wish that more mainstream Conservatives would soldier up and start working for a new cultural wave, but I guess they are afraid that we will turn out to be yet another Jew-bashing band, or perhaps they have understood that we think the real problem in today’s society is petty bourgeoisie virtue signaling in combination with the Anglo-American oligarchy of global commerce, and feel guilty after hearing our lyrics?
 
Despite initial media hostility, it seems like your music and websites are reaching more people. What do you think is responsible for this? To borrow a term from the Left, are you “raising awareness”?

John: You are absolutely right that the times they are a-changing and perhaps we are raising awareness that alternative media is just as good as (or even better than) corporate media for promotion. In the beginning there were people who warned us for podcasts and news sites of certain political colors but we have proved them all wrong.

We try to create a combination of great looking artwork, high quality productions, strong lyrics, genuine vocals, catchy melodies and rhythm to create the right beat. That seems to have appealed to Nationalists, Conservatives and Libertarians, but also Liberals, Socialists and all kinds of people who just like good music. We just need more reviews and more radio airtime so people know we exist.

Today we are one of the most famous politically incorrect Swedish rock/pop bands and we have grown rapidly in just a year. We are currently heading into Russia and hopefully this interview will make more Americans interested in our music too. We think of our music as a global revolution and as long as we work together as a village of writers, debaters, philosophers, musicians, singers, authors and politicians we are unstoppable.

Lilou: I wanted to do something totally new, something that has not been done before. I had an idea that we could merge contemporary pop and rock music with right wing lyrics and song style to create something nobody had heard before. Personally I believe many right wing bands have been stuck in the 80s for too long. We want music that can appeal to a huge number of people and become global hits. Therefore we must think in a new way and I believe people are beginning to realize that. We are also attracting a growing number of female fans: teenagers, adults and seniors. I think that is quite uncommon for right wing music historically.

I also think that the right wing needs stars and celebrities. And even though we are far from it (we are too fat, old and lazy to become stars ha ha) our music and approach make us into perhaps some of the first right wing pop and rock idols. In Sweden we have seen quite a few people writing that we are “their” rock band and that the left wing artists are becoming obsolete. We just need more bands to step up and release modern music that can actually compete with the bands of the music industry.

Can you tell us about recording the album, how you did it and what you had to do to achieve these unique sounds, and when the album will be out, and where customers worldwide can purchase it?

Lilou: When we record an album we try to be prepared long ahead, but a few weeks before the session we always change some major thing anyway. This time we have replaced an entire song because it does not fit into the style we want to achieve. We plan for an EP of five songs since EPs will probably replace LPs as the new standard format. Furthermore, it gives us the chance to release albums more often and we can focus on higher quality on a small number of songs each time.

I have put much time into the artwork, everything I do has to have the right feel to it. We never want to rush anything and therefore we set the release date to January 1. That way we have enough time to hopefully record at least a few music videos before the release. Somehow we always find ourselves stressed out in the end anyway.

It is always good to listen to the demo songs a few hundred times to get new ideas and change what needs to be changed. The final sound is a product of slow, organic growth, from the first few words John scratches down and the first melody I come up with all the way to the guitars, the bass and the drums.

John: Our formula is rather “primordialistic” in a way. When we started playing together we asked ourselves: If the cavemen had electric guitars, what kind of music would they play? Probably music based on rhythm, quite simplistic, with heavy bass guitar and expressive vocals. They would probably use the instruments to create a music landscape for the singer to explore with his or her voice.

It was Lilou who thought we should release our next album on January 1, 2018. That way the release will mark the beginning of a new year of revolt. We are currently talking to a bunch of retailers online, mainly right wing e-shops who might be interested in selling the music. That way we support the people who support us. Of course we can be found on Spotify, Bandcamp, iTunes etc too, where our first two albums are already for sale. We are thinking about physical copies, and we have a physical copy of our first two albums on one CD for sale online. 

That said, if anyone in North America would be interested in selling our music, they are most welcome to contact us. We are grateful for everyone that wants to support us. We want to thank you and Amerika.com for giving us this opportunity. You need us to win the culture war and we need you to get anywhere at all.

Thanks to you for taking the time to do this interview! In anticipation of the new album, here is a short manifesto written by the band to explain their unique outlook on the world.

PATRIOT CHILD: THE MANIFESTO

“Doesn’t everyone want their parents dead?”
-David, Promotheus

We are Lilou & John, the primordialist helter skelter rock band from Sweden.

We started out with one idea: To record music that explored the ideological changes taking place all over the modern world – the global shift from corporate media Consumerism to independent media Identitarianism. We have seen it happen in Europe, Russia and America as well as India, The Middle East and Japan, a new way of looking at life that does not ask the question “how can I pursuit my career” but “how do I find my roots?”

We wanted to write our own story about the great father-killings of our generation, the story about the Identitarian children that refused to obey their Consumerist parents and decided to walk their own way.

Psychotic Snowflake Anthem is the story about corporate media and the Russophobic propaganda war against independent media. Petrodollar Wars is the second part of the same story, the financial empires, the deep state and corporate media support for the military-industrial complex and Imperialist-Consumerist wars while pretending to protest. In Enemy of the Matrix we hear the primordial voice of cultural self-awareness that has survived the corporate media purges and is awakening across the world. Generation Identity is the story of that voice spreading to the youth who will no longer keep quiet. Finally, Patriot Child is the revolutionary anthem that sums up the whole point of the album. 

How Individualistic Parents Destroy Their Offspring

Friday, December 8th, 2017

Modern society broke from traditional society with the advent of individualism. This philosophy says that the individual places his desires first, before any kind of natural law or social order, and individualists usually demand universal rights for everyone so that the self-centered acts of the individualists vanish into a background of everyone else doing the same.

They fear losing social rank for being self-centered, and because this self-centeredness is their primary personality trait, they are aware of it and perpetually seeking to conceal it, where ordinary people are oblivious to this need nor have this fear. As a result, ordinary people take universal rights at face value, and fail to suspect the deception.

Now the individualism — we often use terms like solipsism, narcissism, and egoism for this — takes over because in order to compete with the individualists, ordinary people have to get individualistic, or they get left serving as a clean-up crew for the individualists. Society falls apart.

In consequence, people begin to use each other, which is how individualists treat other people (or nature, civilization, ideas, even emotions) as a means toward their own gratification of their desires. To parents, their children are visual objects which make the parent seem more important, altruistic, profound, insightful, wise, loving, empathetic, or any other thing that is generally agreed upon as “good” in the lowest common denominator of social circumstances.

Maybe this began with a specific generation. More likely it was always a behavior that some people engaged in, but once the intellectuals decided they wanted more “freedom,” it took over and become the norm. Now humanity acts it out generation after generation, getting weaker each time, in a repeating pattern of treating children like fashion accessories:

Davis and Merrill finally divorced in 1960, much to Hyman’s relief. But after that she claimed Davis became more possessive.

She wrote: ‘She focused all of her hopes for emotional fulfillment on me, proclaiming that I was the most talented, brilliant, beautiful being on earth.’

Hyman added: ‘[Hyman] was to be the fantasy daughter of the world’s greatest mother and the presents she lavished on her would know no bounds.’

This girl hates her mother. She was angry enough to write a tell-all book that made her mother look like a lunatic, and then fled into the relative wilderness of rural America, conservative Christianity, and conventional housewife living. She wanted to sever herself from the narcissist that she viewed her mother as being.

For the remaining five nines of Western humanity whose parents are not celebrities, a lesser path awaits. We know that we were intended to make our parents look good, so we have a fundamental inability to trust them. In addition, the psychological damage done by this narcissism tends to shape our lives into our 60s, depriving us of opportunities and joys.

Even more, we know that our society has changed to be arranged around the idea of people using everything else as a means toward their own individualism. This creates a “race to the bottom,” and leaves us without much hope that we can escape. To hold back from individualism is to place ourselves at a disadvantage.

However, this gap can possibly be bridged. Most of what this society has to offer would have been seen as superfluous a century ago. We need enough wealth, and perhaps just enough to avoid paying much tax into the sick system, and fewer gadgets. For most of us, dropping the TV and going down to one computing device would work well enough.

Already we are seeing signs of this de-gadgetization. Many people are opting for simpler phones, eschewing the smartphone for a device that is less distracting. The new hip way to use the internet is to be never on it. Anonymity has become more important than social media notoriety. People are disconnecting to find something more relevant to do in their physical worlds.

In other words, they are connecting to something else instead of the individualist culture. It is more fun, in the end, to reach out to others and to things bigger than ourselves which can be sources of meaning. For us to do that, however, we must possess a sense of love for life itself, and a sense of purpose that is larger than ourselves.

These come from being willing to have faith in this world that something good can come of it. Much we can reconnect with individualistic parents by being willing to love them without being victimized by them, we can reconnect with our civilization by realizing that despite its recent history of error, it has a greatness within that we can bring out again.

Doing The Wrong “Right” Thing

Thursday, December 7th, 2017

At the start of a journey, the end remains shrouded in mystery. Adventures tend to be cumulative, with each stage dependent on the previous one. When the explorer finally looks down on the objective, it may not resemble at all what was anticipated way back when the journey began.

Frequently people discover that what seemed like the right path at the start of the journey was clearly a wrong path as they approach the end, even if they were able to get to a better path from that wrong path in the first place. Something of this nature currently embroils the West as we realize that modern civilization, or maybe just civilization, is killing us.

Our species struggles with The Human Problem, which is our tendency to adapt to the audience instead of the goal. Humans are social animals because other people are closer to our understanding than the world outside of humans out there, but this creates a trap in that in order to accept others, we must broaden our standards to include both lowest common denominator and any outliers or exceptions.

That in turn forces an inversion, or removal of some truths that are not socially acceptable, which reduces our mission from what must be done to the simplified version consisting of what others can understand and what does not offend anyone. Over time, this turns the mission from its original purpose to something which fits all members of the group comfortably.

We can see this in action in all areas of human life:

  • A rock band. They finally got some recognition after their first demo. The drummer wants to be more like what he hears on the big internet stations. The bassist wants to be more arty and obscure. The guitarist wants to become jazz-fusion with a surface covering of their old style. The vocalist wants to continue doing what they did. Agreement cannot be found, so they mix it all together. The songs get more pop, with more jazz technique, but arty touches when possible, and they double down on the tropes in their music that reviewers noticed. Six months later, no one remembers them.
  • A church. The old roof leaks; a new one is needed. The elders of the church gather. They determine that it will take them years to achieve the funding for a full roof replacement, but patching the roof will take only a few months of fundraising. They also note that laying on a plastic sheath will take a few more months, and will cost half as much as a new roof, but is modern and fashionable although it does not fix the underlying problem. The group takes a vote, and it is decided that the sheath is the best option, because it is both acceptable and achievable. In six months, the roof leaks again.
  • A corporation. The old product is doing well, but competitors offer competition. Some in the committee room argue that the company should adopt something more like what the others are doing, while many say it should stay with what is true. Finally a compromise is reached: the company will offer its old product, but tweaked to be more like the competition. This pleases no one and fails, which means that within a year it is no longer on the company website.

In each case, the mission migrates from what is possible to what the group will accept, and everything else is filtered out, resulting in the choosing of a lesser option.

Our human world contains the idea of “doing the right thing” which is usually interpreted to mean ensuring that every person has a stake in what is done. However, when everyone has a stake, no one has a full stake, which means that decisions are assigned as a responsibility of the nebulous collective, and no one faces any real accountability for their actions. They blame the herd.

As we see it, “doing the right thing” involves supporting our society: first, getting a career and money; second, giving money and time to institutions; third, trying to choose the right option of many in politics, society, culture, and socializing with others. What we do not realize is that these seemingly-correct paths are in fact journeys to doom.

Consider the job. We go, because we need money. It takes up all of our time and we neglect our family, culture, learning, and souls. The job bores us because most of it is make-work nonsense. We become frustrated, and take that out on our families and neighbors, because there — unlike at the job — there are no consequences.

Much as drowning people at night often become disoriented and swim downward instead of toward the surface, in our society we are blinded by a desire to do right according to the definitions of the Herd, and so we pursue our own doom as if it were goodness and mercy.

We go off to jobs. We work hard to get ahead. We pay those taxes to support the parasite state. On Saturday, we get up and mow the lawn so that everyone else in the neighborhood sees us as respectable (for the record, neither this blog nor this author are “respectable”). We fritter away the rest of the day trying to catch the sales at the grocery store, find replacements for failing gadgets, adjust our computers into working order, cleaning the house, organizing all the stuff that piles up, and engaging our kids in respectable activities.

Then on Sunday, we rush off to church to be told how to be good and moral to the “less fortunate,” then come home and find out we have no idea what to do with the remaining time, so we turn on the television or Facebook and farm our brains out. Then we do it again, and one day we wake up at age 65 and find that the world no longer needs us. It used us and threw us away. And it took our best years for its own purposes, mainly for the eternal social goal of subsidizing the lower by taking from the higher so that an external administrative force — the State and its Leftist constituents — to have a perceived necessity.

The Human Problem manifests in this way: the smart people do what seems to be the right thing, which consists of what appears to our blocky human intellects to be an order that beats back unruly nature and substitutes a universal, level, fair, and organized system that succeeds because it makes everyone in the social group nod along, thinking that this is a good idea. We forget our purpose, and instead focus on the methods we perceive as necessary for that purpose, along the way losing our direction and souls.

Those methods inevitably involve deconstruction; human intellects favor isolated institutions with single-issue functions, which divides up the question of “civilization” into a series of disconnected roles, like the thought of a neurotic mind raging on in their own monomaniacal intent without ever correlating the whole or acting in parallel. We never look at the whole picture of survival and adaptation, and consider last if at all the question of the existential, namely whether we are living in such a way that makes us see the beauty in life and work to enhance it.

Our mania for this false type of order leads us to create cities where every person has a narrow function, jobs where we perform so that those above us approve without regard for what is actually needed, tolerance of those who are dysfunctional such that the individuals in the group are not threatened by the possibility of being noticed for their own failings, and a sense of stewardship of society as defined in terms of human individuals, such that we perceive that what is “right” is what subsidizes every member of society instead of obeying the selection instincts of nature and focusing only on those who are the type of people we want to be in the next generation.

In other words, what we think is right is in fact incorrect, which means that it is not wrong because it is morally wrong, but wrong because it consistently does not work out well in reality. Our minds are not perfect replicas of the world; in fact, we know the world only through interpretations of it, and these vary among people. If the “Bell Curve” that applies to IQ is consistent with other abilities, this implies that in fact very few of us are very good at all at understanding the world, with perhaps 5% having a mostly-clear picture, another 5% having a reasonably clear picture, and everyone else existing in a muddle.

This divides humanity into two groups, a 10% who basically “get it” and a 90% who essentially do not. As human societies grow, they become dedicated to managing people externally, or control, which basically consists of setting up an organization outside the social order in order to enforce rules, like an administrator or manager. This group is external because it is appointed or hired to do so, giving it the gloss of “objectivity” and “neutrality” that allows the vast majority of individuals to settle in like pleased chickens because they believe they are safe from loss of face, prestige, social status, and the good will of others, for their mistakes and character flaws. That external group then, because its mandate is to enforce unity, uses the 10% who are reliable as a means of subsidizing and stabilizing the 90% who are not. In defiance of evolution, it sacrifices the good in order to keep the rest in line for minimum function.

If the 10% were to cut itself free from the 90%, it would experience an exponential growth in happiness and a proportionate massive reduction in tedium, crime, vandalism, cruelty, vice, and passive aggression. However, the 10% likes to hold on to the 90% because if another society attacks, having a large number of warm bodies who can wield weapons is more important than having a few experts. This was the lesson for Europe of the Mongol Invasions, re-learned by Germany when she fought against the Soviet Union, whose quarter-Asiatic citizens fought in human waves much like is common in Asian land warfare.

Traditional societies sequestered the 90% in lower castes, kept them comfortable but without much disposable income, and limited their political, social, cultural, and economic power to avoid their bad behavior from corrupting the core of social order. These societies understood civilization as an organic whole, or not as a group of people to be managed, but as a living thing in which each person served a role. Organic civilization is only aided by doing what keeps the civilization healthy, which takes a higher precedence than trying to save each person, especially trying to save them from themselves. This allowed the 10% to prosper and the 90% to live as they always do, in a miasma of selfishness, self-sabotage, attention whoring, drama, confusion, greed, incontinence, and self-destruction.

When our civilization decided to be egalitarian, or dedicated to preserving the individual at the expense of civilization, it created the type of environment we recognize from the modern job: an external source of control managing individuals through enforced conformity so that everyone stays within the lines of the minimum required of them, and thus unity is upheld. This made the 10% into slaves of the 90%, since the 10% both contribute more and have specific mental needs, such as freedom from uniformity, tedium, conformity, and the type of ugliness that mass culture, popular architecture, and government pamphlets have in common.

Jobs serve not actual needs but the need for people to gel together like a slime mold. While businesses address needs, or at least consumer demands, jobs are partially creations of regulations, politics, and social attitudes, and as such they serve more to keep everyone busy and feeling self-important than to achieve actual end results in reality. In fact, for most people, going to work is a social event, which is why they keep going. Driven by a need to be recognized, they use the workplace as an extended social group.

This social basis creates groupthink through rampant extroversion. Extroversion, or allowing oneself to be guided by what others are doing, leads to a desire to achieve good feelings by making the group feel good. Class clowns know this; when they make others laugh, they feel better about themselves. In a group, where people are managed based on external appearance, extroversion proves to be a winning strategy because those who are getting along with the group are automatically seen as not a threat; introverts, or those who are entirely self-directed, are seen as unpredictable and therefore threatening to the group, in addition to being less present in social events so prone to be overlooked or forgotten when a time for promotions and awards comes around.

Groupthink in turn creates the worst condition of a dying civilization, namely its self-referentiality. Instead of paying attention to the results of its actions in reality, it exclusively looks inward to see what other people think of any action, which occurs because rewards to individuals come from whatever pleases the group. Like a group of people so intent on their conversation that they then walk off a cliff, civilizations in the grip of groupthink self-destruct by pleasing themselves at the expense of doing what is necessary in a reality-referential context. As with all instances of The Human Problem, the group adapts its purpose to the group instead of adapting to its environment, and so dies out like any delusional species.

In the grips of this self-referential social order based on control, people become domesticated, infantilized, and atomized, or entirely separated from anything larger than their own self-interest. From this comes many of the behaviors which are blamed on anything other than the group — capitalism is blamed for greed, under-socialization is blamed for apathy, atheism is blamed for immorality, and nihilism is blamed for lack of faith in the group morality — which form intractable social problems because the same means used to “solve” them are the methods that perpetuate them. This places the civilization in a death spiral where it will keep pathologically repeating the same behaviors and expecting better results, when it is in fact swimming downward toward a cold and lonely death.

To solve this problem, our only recourse involves ceasing to take society at face value, and also, to apply the same treatment to ourselves. What we think we want is usually a path to our doom; what we actually need, more than personal needs or social needs, is stability through a thriving organic civilization. With that, we will be rewarded for doing what is good, and those who do bad will be encouraged or forced to move on. This replicates the role that natural selection served among humans before we formed fixed, organized civilizations.

We can see that instead of worrying about Leftist ideals on the basis of face value, and concerning ourselves with whether this plan or that plan would fix our issues and problems, we should be concerned about the environment we provide for ourselves because civilization shapes us. The type of civilization that we select will in turn make us into the ideal citizens for that type of civilization, and if we choose one that indulges the group instead of striving for adaptation, we will end up becoming obese tattoo-vandalized blue haired neurotics. If we choose adaptation, all of what we see as “good” will be that which produces good results for organic civilization as a whole, and so we will make ourselves stronger, smarter, healthier, and of greater moral character.

A healthy civilization rewards the good and punishes the bad; an unhealthy civilization equates good with bad so that all are equal, and therefore that they can be used as a mass for purposes of warfare, profit, or staying in power. This is the difference between noble rule and tyranny, more so than methods, because one can have a good dictator or a bad democracy, and in fact, all democracies rapidly and inexorably become bad.

Human minds work through symbols. As with the difference between religion and a cult, at some point in every human group the symbol for the goal replaces the goal itself, and this inverts the value system so that instead of rewarding productive behavior, it penalizes it by forcing the productive to serve the unproductive. This occurs through social means because we try to motivate the group to stay together so that it works as a mass, and therefore control remains uninterrupted, instead of realizing that power is rare and is the property of those who have the intelligence and moral character to use it well, because if not used well, it self-destructs.

Motivating the group toward a hierarchy naturally enforces a focus on purpose because this is how more intelligent and moral people operate: they measure the results of our actions in reality, and select the best, so that they further beauty, excellence, and realistic thinking (“truth”). When a society orients toward hierarchy, it creates what is best called “the genius pump”: a constant upward pressure that produces people of great ability because their contributions are recognized, instead of used as a weapon against them as happens in egalitarian societies. If the good are rewarded and the bad punished, this creates a sorting mechanism where those who consistently do good — the 10% — rise above the rest, and then are further rewarded for doing well in their new capacity, so that the most competent and best ascend toward the top of the hierarchy. This intensifies competition among the best, elevating those who are genius at leadership and ensuring that they find mates of similar ability. From this comes a healthy aristocracy not impoverished by property taxes to pay for the 90% and a sane society encourages such people to have large families, and the best of those children then rise further, creating a constant stream of better people to keep the rest in line and drive the group not as a mass but as many unequal roles working toward the same goal toward greater degrees of qualitative excellence, or gradual improvement in the details of what the organic civilization already is, instead of looking for new methods on the broadest level, or the opposite of details.

To appreciate this type of society, we need to accept that we live in a relative universe. As Plato points out, a drawing of a circle is never a circle, only an approximation thereof; Schopenhauer says that we experience life only through layers of interpretation, since we never make contact with the thing itself, being removed from it by intellect and the distance inherent to perception; Nietzsche tells us that there are no truths, only interpretations. This means that there is no subjectivity or objectivity, only an ability to have greater precision in approximating what we know of reality. In this esoteric view, people are not equal in their ability to perceive the world, and knowledge is cumulative and relative to the individual, so only those with the ability and the drive to be more accurate in their perceptions will achieve greater levels of approximation of understanding reality, creating a hierarchy of accurate perception that parallels the hierarchy of the good.

In the traditional view, we each are part of a whole living thing known as the cosmos, and civilization emulates that in order to be as efficient and excellent as possible. We serve our roles like cells in a body, not focused on making the cells happy, but on achieving the goal that they share despite each having a different place in the hierarchy, both vertically by ability and horizontally by location and competition between those on the same levels. In contrast, the modern view holds that life is something we manage from outside as if we were hired in a job to administrate it, independent of our own connections to the world or inner traits like excellence and intelligence. The traditional view makes us active participants who take responsibility for their actions; the modern view delegates all thinking to an external party, the State, and designates obedience as our only obligation.

That viewpoint descends from government through society. We treat ourselves as means-to-an-end at jobs, and we condition our children to be defensive and neurotic by treating them as products to be managed. Husbands treat wives as tools, and wives see men as managers, eliminating unity and even actual love between them. We treat nature as a substrate to be exploited, and instead of making our cities into a glorification of beauty, we create ugliness as if it were the fundamental design goal. All of this flows from equality, which makes the individual the focus and civilization the means-to-an-end, at which point inner traits are denied, and therefore hierarchy is forgotten, reducing us to a mob that consumes everything in its path through a tragedy of the commons comprised of individual wants, desires, needs, and assertions of authority.

At the time of this writing, The Age of Ideology is ending, putting to rest the egalitarian delusion. In the final calculus, ideology was the product of individuals using civilization for their own ends, and this conditioned people to be less thoughtful and more destructive. We are now searching for a new or at least different civilization design, one that puts the goal first and the audience second.

When we look back over this time through the lens of history, we will see a broader scope than ever before. Human civilizations will be seen like rocket tests, where each time a design is tested and it blows up on the launching pad, it is redesigned. Every human group so far has detonated because of The Human Problem sabotaging it from within, and it has become clear that for our species to explore the stars, we will need a civilization design based in hierarchy and transcendental purpose, or a type of purpose that is ongoing and immutable, meaning that it can never be fully achieved but we can always more closely approximate it.

Humanity has suffered from exhaustion for some time. Our rockets keep blowing up, but we have been unable to change the design at a low enough level to make it succeed. Instead, we keep applying the same bad theory and seeing the same sad results. When we finally get to the root of that theory, we find (as always, with bad things) the fear that human individuals have for themselves has unreasonably swayed us toward denying the need to be good. When we overcome that fear, nothing holds us back; the stars await.

Nationalist Public Radio, Episode Thirteen: Interview With Richard Spencer

Wednesday, December 6th, 2017

The team of miscreants from Nationalist Public Radio interview long time alt right spokesman and progenitor, Richard Spencer. We cover the future of the alt right, the ongoing censorship wave, religion, and what it means to be alt right. We are thankful to Mr. Spencer for giving us such in-depth and articulate answers.


Download (113mb, 48 minutes)

Detroiting And The Meta-Ferguson Effect

Wednesday, December 6th, 2017

Detroiting occurs when a city has a majority of non-white voters. It does not matter which race they are, so long as they are non-white. It even occurs when a former majority of Western Europeans loses the demographic majority to a group of other European-descended people, like Irish, Eastern or Southern Europeans.

When a majority loses control of a city like this, a revenge pathology plays out. The new majority does not succeed as much as the old majority did, and so they fall into scapegoating the old majority for their problems, which conveniently justifies taxing the heck out of the remnants of that old majority.

Whether the mayor of that city is of the old majority or new majority matters little. The votes determine who wins, and so winners pander to the new majority, which wants government jobs with good benefits, welfare programs, diversity programs, and most of all, nothing to go to the old majority and its wealthy, ancient neighborhoods.

This pattern afflicted Detroit. After unions devastated Michigan, anyone with the ability to leave headed for the hills, looking for industries which were not ruined by worker greed. To keep the city thriving, government brought in new citizens, but those — whether legitimately or not — triggered white flight.

The city entered its death spiral. In order to keep the new majority happy, it raised taxes on the old majority, causing more of them to leave. This shorted revenues, and so the city raised taxes, eventually becoming a sea of hopeful faces looking for government help while the station wagons kept leaving for less unstable places.

Since that time, the city has endured minority rule. New majority voters — of whatever stripe — will never vote for what old majority people want, and instead, will always vote themselves more helpings of Other People’s Money (OPM), which old majority people will shrug off for a few years and then suddenly flee to the suburbs. Soon you have a third-world ruin of a destitute, bankrupt, and decaying city.

The more people flee, the more the city taxes and offers benefits to buy peace with its citizens, and then the more people flee.

Detroiting happens without a single African-American being present. It even happens in Asian communities, as in Houston, and is common in Hispanic communities. Some say it happened in Orthodox Jewish communities in New York. What this tells us is that detroiting is not the province of any specific racial group, but of racial difference. When a new majority rises, it draws everything it can from the old majority, so that it can get ahead on the wealth of the past, just like rich kids with inheritances.

It turns out that human behavior is fairly predictable after all.

When detroiting hits, most old majority people simply leave. To them, it is a business question: no matter how long their family has lived there, the civilization around them has failed on a local level, so they need to get on to another locality. They abandon the family home for pennies on the dollar, say goodbye to parks and churches, and flee to someplace else.

In the Boomer generation, people would often do this several times in the course of a career because there were many reasons why an old place had to be bailed out of. The big employer in town closed down, the military base moved, the freeway shifted, or a bunch of foreign ethnics moved in. They just shrugged and figured another good place got ruined, and moved on.

What stopped this mentality in 2016 was recognition of what we might call The Meta-Ferguson Effect. If you recall, the Ferguson Effect referred to what happened after a police officer shot a misbehaving felonious minority youth and after several days of riots and the police officer being fired, other police officers simply stopped noticing minority crime. If an arrest could end in a shooting, shatter their careers, make their names known worldwide in a negative light, and starve their families, there was no point risking it; let them eat each other.

The Meta-Ferguson Effect, on the other hand, refers to how people who are not police officers view what happened in Ferguson. When the police backed down, it signaled to the rest of us that any group of non-majority people can detroit any community by showing up, discovering “racism,” and driving out the majority people who want things like police patrols. This caused them to stop and think: if we spent three times as much as we did on our wars on eliminating poverty, set up massive anti-discrimination legal regimes including affirmative action, contorted our media to show minority people as the majority, struggled to make every aspect of our society multicultural (“diverse”), and elected two presidents — Bill Clinton and Barack Obama — on the promise that they would end the racial conflict, what would it take to stop the minority-majority conflict? They quickly realized that the answer was that there is no end to the conflict; it is Detroits all the way down.

Barack Obama was the turning point. He was elected in a misguided attempt to seal over the wounds of racial disharmony. Instead of fixing a problem, and letting normal life continue as majority people hoped, the election of Obama emboldened the racial grievances. “We’ve got them on the run now!” might express the attitude of professional race commentators, “identity politics” SJWs/SWPLs, and the ad hoc minority groups that form after a police shooting to protest injustice, or to demand more welfare and more political power. Obama was elected to end the outrage of minorities after an event like Hurricane Katrina, but instead, brought us seemingly endless Fergusons, with the dead minority person and ensuing three days of violent riots, looting, and burning becoming a national trope.

Majority people looked into the future and saw endless dhimmitude, or the state of being a conquered people subject to paying “tribute” to their new overlords. When well-meaning idiots declare every person to be equal so that they can overthrow the social hierarchy of their own civilization, this invites in those who have fewer illusions but may be even more stupid, and they will use that equality to construe themselves as victims and therefore, the majority as an oppressor, gaining access to the wealth and power of the civilization. You would think humans would have noticed this pattern repeats time and again, but the European-descended mercantile and lower castes apparently either were oblivious or did not care.

Very few people can understand that the problem is with diversity itself. It does not matter what the other groups are; they will behave this way because it is in their advantage to do so, and they are already at a disadvantage by being aliens in a civilization. No matter how much they “assimilate,” and only real idiots believe in assimilation which requires people to entirely give up their identity to serve the identity of a different group, they will always know that their people did not create this civilization, that it was not designed for them, and that they exist in it only to perpetuate it for the benefit of those not like them. They can have no pride in being mere tools of an empire which was never intended for them, and which uses them as means to its own ends.

Instead, fools spent their time arguing over which ethnic groups are permissible. “Oh, no, I like this one,” they say, with all of the wit of someone choosing an ironic shirt to wear because it makes them stand out in a group. This is all that altruism is, one monkey showing another that it has a shiny object that they do not possess, and therefore, it is a superior form of monkey. You can tell immediately who the useful people in a group are, and who the useless are, because the useful are focused on tasks or ideas, where the useless are focused on themselves and comparing themselves to others, including the base behavior of trend-following. They just want to be in the spotlight. They compete for attention. And they fear, more than anything else, any event which might make them look incompetent and therefore lose social status, so they demand that all standards be lowered to the absolute minimum.

When any two or more ethnic groups meet, a competition emerges. One group will rule the rest, and whoever is in that group is safe from being ruled by the rest. If one group seems to be permanently in power, the others adapt, but resentment grows. Soon they counter-attack with thousands of tiny acts of sabotage. This causes the majority to retaliate, and then out come the accusations of “oppression” and “racism.” Diversity is a dead end.

In our society, when Western Europeans are on top, you get Western Civilization; when another group is on top, they build their ancestral civilization. Mexicans make tropical chaos, Asians make frenetic hives, Africans make equatorial combat zones. This is nothing more than each group producing culture from its genetics; we each make whatever type of society fits us. These societies fit no one else, but this is to the advantage of each group, as it keeps itself from being assimilated this way. Humans have been capable of mass migration for thousands of years, and so any group that did not firmly and strongly assert its identity was quickly replaced with an ethnic hybrid of itself, which is essentially an act of genocide.

It was obvious that Mike Brown was guilty, but no one from outside the majority cared. The same was true of Rodney King, O.J. Simpson, Trayvon Martin and Hurricane Carter. Just as in prison, your skin is your uniform. You either find your tribe and work toward their dominance or you will be dominated by others, and they will use you as a means to their own ends.

Recommended Reading