Civilization might be described not as a tangible thing, but a process. Through that, it can be seen as a goal, and since that goal must necessarily be broad, a direction. In this, civilization seems paradoxical: its purpose is generally itself, or a qualitative improvement in the process of becoming civilized.
Several theories exist about this direction as it can be implemented by individuals. Some hold that it should be altruistic, with people working to provide for others who have less. Others suggest that it should be self-interest, or each working for his own improvement. A third option — an ancient option — exists, but more on that later.
On the surface, altruism sounds like the best option, and it is this surface appeal that explains its popularity with younger people, most women and underconfident men. We all work and give some of what we have to those with less, therefore instability is removed and people feel a lack of resentment for one another.
There are a number of problems with this. The first is that any gift-giving is a form of taking control of another person and serves to reinforce their lower status, provoking the very resentment it hoped to placate. The second is that whatever one tolerates or subsidizes, one gets more of, so poverty expands. Further, this form of transfer essentially overworks the successful to provide for the rest, damaging the brightest lights of our civilization by burdening them with guilt and misery.
Self-interest appeals more to those with experience who have seen the vastness of the world and realized that human patterns do not change. Most people are incompetent, many because they are dishonest or delusional, and very few possess the ability or inclination to understand the effects of their actions, probably on the order of 98-99%. Since understanding politics, leadership, and the far-reaching consequences of our actions begins around the 125 IQ mark, by definition fewer than 5% of our population has a chance to grasp these disciplines. Then there is character; even among the intelligent, few think of more than their immediate benefit in the short term. On the positive side, self-interest mirrors natural selection and puts the most competent on top, which ranks it above altruism which essentially enslaves the competent to the rest.
While there is truth to both of these options, they pale before the third, which is to have a direction that unites the individual to civilization. This option is to make our goals the transcendentals, or those intangible things to which we can always aim but which we can never fully obtain: goodness, beauty, excellence, truth and even identity, or the notion of the civilization itself as a distinct and worthy enterprise removed from all others. These can include both self-interest and altruism as methods toward the transcendental goal; after all, it only makes sense to put the best on top, and to help the deserving when in need, as a means of achieving these extremely long-term ideals.
What defines transcendentals is that they are intersectional, or existing within all other areas. Altruism that achieves transcendentals is good; self-interest that achieves transcendentals is good. The method no longer replaces the goal, and therefore, a direction at a level higher than technique can emerge. The difficulty is that transcendentals are appreciated by very few, both from limits of natural ability and character, and require a society willing to experience humility to the degree that it favors hierarchy.
And yet, with transcendentals there is hope: a chance that we can unite not on needs and fears of ourselves, but on a cooperative process in which participation enriches us. This is the qualitative improvement of society in living form, an entity declaring itself worth having and then making good on that promise by enhancing itself in the intersection of many thousands of methods.
At the core of this process hides identity. Without a belief in its uniqueness, no society can last. With that belief, it is able to declare its values without neurotic doubt, and then begin the arduous process of putting those values into practice, refining their meaning as it does. Culture shapes genetics, and reality shapes culture, and this way all of the different disciplines come into coordination.
If you want to find the root of nationalism, it can be uncovered through identity. Groups do not segregate themselves and deport the Other from hatred of the Other, but so that the group can apply and improve its own standards. We cannot control ourselves with mere methods like altruism and self-interest, but with culture we can define our direction and then improve it, and in that alone the process of civilization is found.
To all the gods of the past, and anyone who still — despite the onslaught of distracting/deconstructive propaganda — understands anything more complex than technological pattern repetition, I send this missive: let my people go.
Let them go from jobs that involve non-essential activity, workplace stress from the bad behavior of others, and obedience to appearance over function. Let them find ways to use their talents that have meaning, or a real need and a real effect.
Let them go from ugly cities where the pretense and reckless behavior of others makes the environment dirty, violent and boring. Let them find places to live where there are people who can appreciate them for who they are and give them a unique place in that hierarchy and structure.
Let them go from race guilt, or from feeling pity for others and self-hatred for the self-interest of their ancestors. We all act in self-interest and those who deny it are liars and snake oil salesmen. There is nothing “wrong” with conquest, especially when the conquered groups are just screwing around waiting to devolve.
Let them go from public opinion which always favors the pitiable and the angry over the plain truth of what is best in life, which is a chance to dedicate oneself to improving something qualitatively and raising a family. Let them find places where they are valued.
Let them go from casual sex, consumerism, disposable products and other arguments to the short-term peak stimulus over long-term enjoyment of life. Let them find contentment, beauty, elegance, reverence and love instead.
Let them go from the illusion that they can rule themselves. May they find leaders who love them as a parent loves her children, recognizing imperfection and yet always encouraging them toward betterment, in the timeless way of love.
Let them go from ideology, or the belief that what human emotions think “should” be true is worth sacrificing ourselves for. Let them instead focus on what works, and improving it toward a peak of qualitative excellence rivaling the ancient Greeks.
Let them go from social control. Give them leaders above them with wisdom, so that they may be rewarded for the good they do, and to beat back mass opinion, which is always wrong and punishes the excellent so that the mediocre — who are numerically superior, always — feel accepted.
Let them go from the World Wars. These were mistakes brought on by democracy, and led to us engaging in unconscionable and inhuman behavior. Let Hitler rest and the rest of us reflect on where we went wrong so that we never do it again.
Let them go from their own hubris. Let them realize that the apple and the snake are an illusion, much as personal power is, because real power comes from union with our world and its transcendental component.
Let them go from pity. There will always be poor, sad and miserable, and our duty to them is to rise above and show them a path out of their degradation, not to pity them by approving of their failure as if we believed it.
Let them go from atheism and the illusion that the world is empty and material, and not a giant informational space where beauty prevails if given the chance.
My people have labored in unconscious servitude for centuries and it crushes them by denying them existential beauty and hope, and it pains me to see it — as it pains those above me, namely the gods and ancient sages of our people. Let them go, I pray of you.
We have a new world to conquer and make beautiful. Let them go from these parasitic wastes of time. Let them discover beauty instead. I am not fool enough to believe this can be done by humans, nor arrogant enough to think I can do it. I ask you instead: let my people go.
If you grew up after 1789, when the French Revolution formalized liberalism as the Western doctrine, you have grown up indoctrinated in Leftist propaganda. Any idea with its root in egalitarianism, or the equality of all people, is leftist.
This includes democracy, freedom, equality, diversity, pluralism, consumerism and… White Nationalism. While Nationalism itself is an idea as old as time, namely that the ethnic tribe constitutes the nation, White Nationalism is like National Socialism a modern creation. In other words: a liberal version of an ancient conservative idea.
White Nationalism misses the point. This is not red team versus blue team; it is how to save the West from imploding thanks to the influence of democracy, and through that, individualism. We need culture, cooperation and purpose to return and to rule ourselves with kings, not votes, because votes and purchases are made by groups who demonstrate the salient trait of humans, which is vanity as individuals and mass delusion as groups.
Anything short of that is failure. Our current society is a disaster and an unpleasant existential experience because it is failing. All of our institutions are inferior substitutes, our leaders are all corrupt salesmen, the voters are delusional and oblivious, and our culture has become dumbed-down mass appeal madness. This cannot be fixed solely by driving out the ethnic Other. We must fix ourselves, too.
Over at the $PLC, Derek Black makes some interesting points in the midst of groveling and logical fallacies:
Promoting a victim complex for whites does not recognize the oppressed experiences of others not in the position of a white person in society
He may have taken another bad direction into liberalism, but he has a good point about victim complexes. We do not need a victim complex; we need a can-do “let’s fix this” culture. The two are opposites.
White nationalism supports the premise that multiculturalism is a failure, and that politicians trapped in a multicultural status quo are oppressing white people in “their own country.”
Here he is correct, but he misses the underlying point: white people voted for this. Voting transforms individuals into a scared, pretentious herd that always votes for easy lies instead of honest solutions. The solution is to end democracy.
On the other hand, white nationalists consider white people in the US to be ostensibly the victims of an ongoing genocide brought about by immigration and miscegenation, and feel that when they try to speak up about it, they are subjected to a vicious double standard.
No one sensible could argue that this is not true. But: who is enforcing the double standard? White governments, at the behest of white voters.
Most arguments that racial equity programs disadvantage whites who would otherwise be hired or accepted to academic programs mask underlying anxieties about the growth of non-white social status.
Here he is off-base. The problem is that our society is being destroyed, and the only healthy societies are homogeneous ones not heterogeneous ones. This is not about our personal inconvenience, except in that having a society collapse into Brazil 2.0 is highly inconvenient and fatal.
More importantly, white nationalism’s staunch opposition to the gains in numbers and in influence of non-whites makes it a movement by nature committed to suppressing these people.
I think he misses the point here, too. The goal is to have zero non-whites and in fact, zero non-Western Europeans. Western Europeans are the only group on earth that is truly a persecuted minority because of our small numbers and relative wealth. Everyone loves to beat up on the successful nerdy kid, and that’s us.
Though there are plenty of powerful Jewish activist groups pursuing their chosen agendas, it is inaccurate and outrageous to talk about people of Jewish descent as “the enemy” of anyone, as it is essentializing a large group into a fairy tale antagonist.
I agree with him here. Jews are another group under attack, as we can see daily when 90% of the world’s liberals are keen to blame Palestinian terrorism on Israeli “oppression” despite nothing of the sort occurring.
The small, smart and successful groups (3S) like Western Europeans, Jews and North Chinese are always under assault by the rest because we have achieved what others cannot and they resent us for that.
There is no way to advocate for white nationalism but by arguing that minorities pose a threat to our supremacy.
Spot the sleight of hand: is it “supremacy” to ask that we have our own countries? Of course not. He has shiftily conflated world domination with wanting, say, Germany for Germans or Israel for Jews.
Advocating for white nationalism means that we are opposed to minority attempts to elevate themselves to a position equal to our own.
Again he is wrong. We want them to do it in their own countries and to leave us alone. We have our own destiny to plan and work toward.
I believe that a healthy sense of identity and belonging are necessary, and I think being proud of where you came from is important regardless of race or class.
He’s right here. Every group should be nationalist and work in its own self-interest. That is Darwinian, moral and common sense.
I do not believe advocacy against “oppression of whites” exists in any form but an entrenched desire to preserve white power at the expense of others.
Here he is off-base again. We want our own countries and our own destiny, the same as anyone else. Why is this denied? It is white genocide by the resentful herd that gnashes its teeth at the fact that it has not made a successful life for itself as we did for ourselves, before liberalism at least.
The point that White Nationalists miss is that we are not fighting for the current system minus minorities. We are fighting to restore our civilization to a point of sanity, and while race is part of that, it is not the whole. Our society is existentially miserable as it is now and would still be without the presence of minorities. Nationalism is a means to an end, which is allowing ourselves to be ruled by our culture instead of an ideological government and its “proposition nation” united by politics, television, economics and a team identity of a jingoistic variety.
Conservatives “conserves” the behaviors of humanity that produce the best results. Those are four:
- Aristocracy: A hierarchy of our best people ruling as kings, instead of having a “System” of rules and laws to take the place of clear thinking. This includes a caste system so that people make decisions only at the level for which they are competent.
- Nationalism: Germany for Germans, Israel for Jews. This allows the group to have a shared culture which regulates behavior through reward and shame, instead of punishment and law enforcement.
- Free markets: Free markets require Nationalism and Aristocracy, but are the only way to do business that rewards performance instead of conformity.
- Transcendence: We need goals beyond the immediate material convenience of our society. We need purpose and to aspire to greatness, not merely react to “issues.”
There are no substitutes. Either you want the above, or you are happy with the status quo… if it would only favor you a bit more. That approach will land us back in the current position in no time because it is built on the same illusions.
Our society is dying. We are near the drop-off point. Our solution is to stop using methods that do not work, and to start using methods that do. These time-honored methods work. Democracy, diversity, equality, pluralism, tolerance and altruism do not. It is that simple.
The 1980s were a pivotal time for the West. The great revolution had come in 1968, been mainstreamed and dialed back in the 1970s, but its consequences had created misery as the Left battled everyone else to get us to stop noticing the Cold War and the real threat of Leftism.
A grim truth emerged: modern society itself was the problem. Whether we beat the Soviets or not, everyone would still have to go to work in the morning. And work was stupid: repetitive, boring, clerk-style shuffling of paper and edging around rules. The clients were stupid; that was their problem. The projects were dumb. It was “cover your ass” all the way down.
No one wanted to point out the obvious, which is that our society had become insufferable. It had been this way for a long time, since the 1800s, but traditional social institutions held it back for some time. But with the fall of the Western European elites in 1968, and then the mainstreaming of diversity, everything fell apart.
Now instead of a society, we had a giant marketplace with every man for himself as we all tried to dodge the vast problems created by the pretense of our voters. The politicians would suggest something stupid; the voters would go for it. Huge swathes of our society defined themselves as “good” based on their adherence to this zombie-like, parasitic ideology.
We lived in a totally venal time. Casual sex was accepted not just by the hippies, but the marketplace, which resulted in lonely people with ruined lives and no families. Mass culture was just total garbage. The music was stupid, the movies idiotic, and the television brain-wrecking programming to be a selfish shopper and good office tool.
There were no responsible adults. Conservatives became caricatures who barked out the mantra of “keep your head down, work hard and do the right thing” as if that solved anything; mostly, they wanted us to make the same mistakes they had in order to validate their big contribution, which was not addressing the problem. Liberals as mentioned above were crazy zombies who enjoyed luring other people into making mistakes and then dancing away in the night.
We shared no purpose. Yes, yes, we wanted to beat the Soviets, but that was mainly because of what we knew about life in the Soviet Union: starvation, paranoia, alcoholism and state-sponsored executions. But as to why our society existed? The only meaning any of us had was to get a career and buy our way into comfort so we could ignore the ongoing collapse of all institutions, values and intelligence into a vast mishmash of stupidity.
None of us knew how to state the fact that we were in the middle of an ongoing process of radicalization as a means of not noticing that Leftism had failed us, that it controlled our society, and that our real problem was the huge number of people who acted like acephalous robots in carrying out the Leftist agenda. The more our ideology failed us, the more we pursued it.
There were breaks in the facade, such as when Ronald Reagan took power, but he was not there to challenge the fundamental destruction of the family, our culture and the once-productive way of living. Instead his party offered us symbols like jobs, flags, abortion and military strength. These were substitutes for what we needed, which was to look at our society and realize we were on a wrong path and had to get off.
Even Reagan seemed doubtful. All of our media, entertainers, and intellectuals seemed united against him; anyone who spoke up about how bad he was could expect a career boost as audiences bought the product, fellow travelers promoted them for having the right opinions, or popular focus came their way. A steady stream of celebrities of all sorts bashed Reagan thoroughly but only because of his deviation from the Leftist agenda.
And then, we won. The Soviets turned out to be even more incompetent and decadent than we were, and so they crumbled from within and left a wasteland behind. As more leaked out about how terrible life there had been, you would have thought that the West would avoid the same path. But no, we just found “gentler” ways of going there.
Our weakness was that normal people just kept on being normal and did not fight the decay. They went to college and ignored PC, went to stupid jobs and ignored the waste, married ex-sluts and had kids and kept trying to be regular people. Whenever someone mentioned the decay and that we should fight it, the first voices against them were normal people. “Just don’t rock the boat!” They were afraid of losing what they had, and so they resisted the change that could save them.
The 1980s passed into history as we elected a new Leftist president and he began making changes. The disaster outside began to gain momentum with massive approval from people who believed the salesman’s words that he would stop racial conflict and make us less dangerous than under Reagan. Especially women approved, I recall.
Still the conservatives floated on. Somehow, it would all be changed. The people who lived good lives (and “worked hard” on nonsense) would be rewarded. Even if the bad guys took over, God or the free markets would reward the good. And yet, conservatives were self-destructing. On the surface, they had everything; underneath they could not deny the well-founded fear that our society was committing suicide. They cracked frequently. Everyone else just retreated into their garages, hobbies, entertainment and drugs or alcohol.
Our history since the Great Leftist Takeover has been fairly linear. Everything gets worse, and everyone gets more afraid, so no one does anything and the crazies gain more power to enact even more crazy versions of their Leftist ideas. You can see the gleam in their eyes; they know they will be rewarded for their ideological conformity, and so to them it is like “working hard” at a job for a conservative, the magic bullet which will fix everything.
These are Soviet times. There is a right way to think, and those who think that way will be rewarded; those who do not will be destroyed by the angry crowd. The normal people cower in their homes and jobs hoping to be spared, but if history is any lesson, they will not. Still they do nothing. Like moss, they grow on their warm rocks, unable to change their fates.
But the grimmest fact is that this current downfall is merely the crest of the wave. Our decay has been coming for a long time since people realized that they could use mass opinion against sense. They learned that if they had a mob of supporters, they could get away with anything, for a time at least. And so we followed the Greeks down the same path to suicide, replacing what worked with what was popular.
This started long before the terms liberal and conservative existed, although conservatives are the ones who try to preserve what is left of this ancient order. Nonetheless, they are easily compromised by the same force that undoes everything in our society, which is that among humans illusion with a short-term promise is preferred to time-honored traditions that achieve the best long-term results.
Most people exist in a weird dependency with society: they want the power to do whatever their personal dysfunction demands, and so they insist on freedom and Leftism, even though those are essentially the promises of canny salesman who are manipulating normal people into the grave. People are miserable, but will not admit it as they cling to the power of individualism which allows them to legitimize their dysfunction.
Now we have reached a crisis point. The wave has crested and the crash downward has begun. What to do? There will be panic as the normals realize that the salesmen lied and that all those warm, fuzzy thoughts in fact concealed a sharpened blade of doom. They will, in the Simian tradition of humans, look for someone to blame instead of blaming themselves for taking a sales pitch as fact.
Conservatives are rallying, but will they go far enough? What we need is to overthrow it all: democracy, Leftism, diversity, pluralism, tolerance, altruism, entertainment, mass religion and popularity itself. Most of all we need to disenfranchise normal people who have proven their ability to do one thing well, which is to hide from reality and ignore problems until it is too late to do something about them.
There is much we cannot save and much we should not. The USA and EU are dead and should be thoroughly destroyed because they were stupid ideas; the original population of America and the population of Western Europe however can be conserved. Those who are Leftist, criminal, perverse or broken should be exiled. All of those who are Other — not of a Western European heritage and values — should be given reparations and repatriated to their home continents. After that, we can start working seriously toward rebuilding a civilization damaged by a thousand years of sheeplike stupidity.
Contrary to what you are told in media, the ideas above are not radical: they are how most of humanity has survived through most of history. Self-interest, culture instead of government, strong aristocratic leaders, ethno-nationalism and esoteric religion have always worked. Democracy, diversity and individualism have always led to death and destruction.
The real radicals are those who insist that these forms of dysfunction can work and in fact will turn out for the good. These people are idiots who are busy pointing at their suburban neighborhood and saying “See, I have the good life” which is equivalent to people on the upper floors of a building burning below insisting that there is no need to evacuate. Bad ideas lead to certain doom and delaying tactics like those of our conservatives will always fail.
Our current time is sleepwalking in denial. We suppress our knowledge of how miserable our existence is, how ugly everything is and how corrupt all people are so that we can claim we are living the good life as individuals. That egotistic bragging gets us nothing but it helps people keep pretending that the problem does not exist, which is what most normal people do. We are surviving only because of the vestiges of functional institutions that we still barely retain, and the wealth of the past brought about by the methods to which I suggest we return above.
Like Adam and Eve, we exist in a temporary garden of Eden. In denial we took the apple with a salesman’s promise that it would make us powerful, and instead, it has destroyed the excellent life we once lived and replaced it with outward prosperity and inner misery. Stupid dupes of the lie, we are now telling each other lies to keep pretending that nothing is wrong, even as destruction gathers around us.
Humanity is mostly bad and evil because it is normal. Normal means not so much selfish as oblivious to consequences beyond the meal we are instagramming or the great sale at a merchant that we are live-blogging. Normal means people who cannot lead and do not understand leadership. Normal means death. Normal means dysfunction. Unless, of course, we use those time-honored methods to appoint shepherds for the normal who point them away from their usual petty concerns and toward that which makes a functional civilization.
People will call you a racist and a Hitler but those are lesser things than what we need. We need a redesign of civilization and a restoration of function. We do not need “new ideas” but to throw out the new ideas and go to those that we know are functional. We do not need mere racism and anti-democratic thought, we need to throw out diversity and democracy. The enemy is our bad system of civilization, not the Other. They are just along for the ride to our doom and, because they are normal, are also oblivious.
Living in this world is torment for me, much like being in Hell. I see all of the good things being destroyed and replaced with all of the usual stupidity while normal people pretend they are so smart and clever for not noticing. I see billions of pages of writing that are off-point. I see salesmen of all sorts preaching interesting “solutions” that do not address the problem. No one is committed to stopping the suicide march.
Our problem is not any of the scapegoats: technology, The Jews™, The Rich™, power itself or some vast right-wing conspiracy. Our problem is our bad path of individualism, democracy, diversity and other notions based in the power of the individual, which consists of the ability of normal people to deny reality and not face negative consequences for it. Instead, we face those consequences together in collective suicide.
This decay has gone on for a thousand years without stop and clearly, the bad guys have won. It is time to stop putting our heads in the sand, admit the breadth of the problem and the “radical” notions which will fix it, and then to act to that end. Nothing else is important and nothing else matters when one faces certain death otherwise.
American Nativism was a movement in the 1800s which said that the original founding population of America was Western European and that adulterating that with non-Western European immigrants would destroy it. In particular, these Anglo-Saxons argued that bringing in Southern, Eastern, Mediterranean and Irish European groups would destroy our culture.
It turns out they were right, about everything. These new groups voted Leftist, having lower IQs and being more prone to unrealistic thoughts which they then defensively asserted preemptively as reality. These groups introduced lower standards of social behavior. And they voted, so soon corruption became the norm in politics. Anyone who remembers Tamany Hall shepherding Irish voters or the Chicago machine herding Eastern Europeans knows what this was like.
The fact remains that Western Europeans are the world’s only real minority and are an exceptional group that most closely resembles the historical European ideal. These historical Europeans ranged throughout Asia and India, came over the steppes and dwelt in Northern and Western Central Europe. From there, many other civilizations prospered as offshoots, possibly reflecting caste divisions in this ur-European tribe or its re-integration with the population that once produced it.
What will destroy Western Europeans is assimilation, including by “trace admixture” groups like the non-Western Europeans. Eastern Europeans are part Asiatic; Southern Europeans, part Persian; Irish, part North African; Jewish, part Persian, Arabic, Asiatic and Armenian; Greeks, park Turkic. Mixing these groups into the Western European gene pool will destroy Western Europeans just as surely as breeding them with sub-Saharan Africans. It is not what they are mixed with that counts, but that they are mixed at all, just as diversity of any kind is destructive, no matter what groups are involved.
Luke Ford notices JayMan’s comments on de facto American Nativism:
There are rational and sensible reasons to advocate for a strict moratorium on immigration to every developed nation (not just Europe and the Anglosphere), but if you seriously want to turn back the clock at this point, why don’t we be consistent here and just kick out every single Sicilian, Irishman, or eastern Slav from the United States, considering the poorer intellectual achievement of these European populations. After all, who are they to sap the creative juices of the master race?
JayMan is correct, but not for the reasons he thinks. These groups may have lower achievement but the important fact is that they are not Western Europeans. Western Europeans stand alone and need to act in their own self-interest, exluding all Other of any type.
To prevent ethnic genocide, one cannot simply keep the name of the group but replace it with near misses. The group must be preserved genetically so that it can continue its culture, values and civilization. The greatest threat to Western Europeans now is “white nationalism” or “ethno-bolshevism” which would breed us all into one uniform, admixed population and destroy the historical Western European remnant.
For years, I listened to people telling me “complex” Leftist theory is. After a brief bit of analysis — coming on the heels of having read the classics of Western philosophy — I found myself laughing at their statements. Liberalism is no more complex than a vending machine, but it contains a twist that baffles 98% of humanity.
Recently an article in the Boston Globe discovered this glitch and opined about it in the usual neurotic muddle of liberals that tries to incorporate many details of the current time to “hide the ball” about the actual simplicity of liberalism:
In liberalism’s race to get ahead, Hartz said, the insecurity of those who win provokes their escalating displays of wealth, but the anxieties and pain of those who fall behind cut deeper scars. Liberalism offers no remedies for these scars because it only defends purely individual rights. Deep divisions might undermine the unwritten social solidarity that is the essential foundation of liberalism itself.
Let me translate this: liberalism says we are all equal, and yet results in reality say otherwise. How do we resolve this paradox? The answer is that we do not, and so we become neurotic in our attempts to do so. Even in the most idealized of liberal societies, some have risen above others. Even the most Communist society must have some leaders, and they will have dachas in the countryside.
The author of that piece cannot face this paradox. His solution? More liberalism:
Donald Trump is an old standby of unconscious liberalism, but Bernie Sanders just might be a real democratic socialist. His campaign focuses on rectifying income inequality, a product of liberalism that liberalism cannot address because it only speaks of individual rights.
Someone will be hired to administer equal income. This person will have more-equal income than the less-equal people to whom he distributes. In every area of life, someone will be better at running the show than others. This person will either receive more income, more power, or both through rewards like dachas which technically are not income but would be purchased with income.
It’s time to point out that liberalism/Leftism is entirely nonsense. People are not equal in ability, therefore they are not equal; some rise above others because of their greater ability, which is an observation straight out of the pages of Charles Darwin’s books. What the American founding fathers meant by “equal” is that people deserve the right to pursue their destinies independent of a government shaping them toward ideological ends. It was actually a statement against liberalism, but to the Boston Globe author, it might as well have been written in Greek.
We have had over two centuries of theory trying to explain around the basic paradox of Leftism. These liberal ideas “sound good” but do not work in reality. This spurs a need for people to invent more of them, since people like the idea of liberalism because it sounds socially acceptable. That is, in sum, what you need to know about liberalism.
An experienced and more cynical American consumer might identify more of what liberalism actually is: advertising. It is promises that sound good, made to the consumer so that they buy the product. The product in this case is rule by liberals, who promptly vote themselves big fat salaries and government regulations that benefit their industries while destroying every other competing force. This ultimately dooms the society.
Looking back through history, we can see the Magna Carta as a formalization of liberalism. A group of merchants wanted to have greater power so that they could make greater profits and so they induced change in the political system to favor them. Being smart, but not quite as smart as their leaders, their first move was to find a way to depose those leaders, and they found they could do it through this universally-popular advertising.
The Americans tried to limit this impulse with a Constitution that in their view would protect citizens against government so that commercial interests would not run roughshod over the needs of ordinary people. It took only a few decades for people to hack around those limits and, with the rise of Lincoln, America became exactly what its founders did not want: an ideologically-driven state imprinting on its citizens that ideology.
While liberals generate mountains of words to try to hide their fundamentally simplistic view behind surface complexity, it wreaks great destruction upon us. We are chasing ghosts and illusions and in consequence, ignoring the actual problem of civilization, which is how — in the absence of regulation by nature — to keep citizenship open only to the useful people and avoid diluting ourselves into mediocrity, then facing the inevitable wrath of entropy.
All of this for a little twist, which is the idea that we are all equal except for liberals who are more-equal intellectually, and therefore we must serve them in order to gain… equality. Imagine if we had skipped this silly episode in our history and simply stuck to reality instead. How much farther along would we be?
The Roosh V drama brought to light a troubling aspect of the Right, which is that we tend to give credence to angry, simplistic voices demanding ideological when we should look toward more realistic solution. These “loudmouths” infest every right-wing movement and inevitably drive away good people because they are fanatical without reason.
Against Roosh they raised, repetitively, two basic points: he is not white, and he writes about casual sex. The first point is non-serious, since anyone who is saying anything that supports our viewpoint is an ally and keeping them out because they are not of Us is the most reductionist form of nationalism. We should accept truths found anywhere and make them work for us. The second is something I find troubling as well, but when I see a voice that is partially broken and partially fixed, especially if it has gone from broken to mostly fixed, I see an ally who is only improving in clarity. We all have our mistakes to regret.
More importantly, however, the loudmouths clarified their role as destroyers. Simplistic approaches to our task result in “policing” of membership as a means of selecting only those with strong simple statements of ideology, which produces fanatics who cannot consider any of the subtleties of applying their beliefs — and are thus likely to engage in the thuggery, sneering superiority complexes and other behavior which will drive normal, well-adjusted people away. Loudmouths destroy the right by sacrificing its future audience for its present clubhouse mentality.
Strong statements appeal to the right because we face a mental virus, liberalism, which succeeds because it is simple. Liberalism boils down to a single idea: individualism, or the notion that the individual should not be accountable to social standards or results. Phrased as “equality,” this belief polarizes people because it appeals to their fear of being insufficient or wrong and demands they be included and tolerated despite mistakes. Conservatives have always thirsted for a similar statement that in its simplicity conveys strength.
At this blog, it has been suggested for many years that conservatism is not actually that much more complex. We have two basic beliefs, realism and transcendentalism. Realism means we take the world as it is and act on it according to its order, not our desires for what “should be”; transcendentalism means that while doing so, we steer ourselves always to what is best and not merely utilitarian or adequate. We have the simple, clear path we need.
However, as any realist will remind you, people are unequal — and minds are unequal. Each person understands what he can comprehend and those at the lower end of the curve will over-simplify to their level of understanding. In human groups, the tendency is to go after emotional statements or ideologically extreme simplistic ones because those are easily understood.
For this reason, the Right must police itself, but not in the simple “blue team vs. red team” way that the loudmouths desire. We need a hierarchy where the more accurate voices come out on top, not the clearer (i.e. simpler, louder, angrier) ones. We do not need to replicate Fox News in the alternative Right, new right, underground right, etc. We need to return to the days of statesmen and orators where the whole truth was heard.
We can see the loudmouth travesty play out wherever conservatism appeals because liberalism has failed. A normal person goes seeking answers, and gets back a rant on God, guns and the flag (plus “working hard” at do-nothing, pointless jobs). Someone goes to a white nationalist and instead of finding a working solution, encounters angry people who are more concerned with harming other races than promoting their own. Naturally, people of sound mind flee from these crazies, which gives the crazies the clubhouse they want: everyone inside must bow to their authority now, or be driven out and called nasty names.
In my experience, most of these loudmouths are only partially extracted from liberalism. They are still seeking the great simple ideological imperative through some kind of victimhood status. If given power, they will degenerate conservatism into a right-flavored form of liberalism as a result. Our hierarchy needs to push the loudmouths down to the bottom where they can stop driving away everyone who does not share their simplistic perspective.
As conservatives, we are grim realists who can understand that diversity, democracy, pluralism and equality are illusions which will never work. We can see that our society is in full decline and must be arrested by radical action. But we are not radicals for radicalism’s sake, which is what the loudmouths are, nor are we acting out emotional fantasies as they are. It is time to recapture our initiative from these people who will destroy it.
As an old almost forgotten adage goes, “The truth hides in plain sight.” This means that most human activities are dedicated to hiding truth because it offends us personally, at an emotional level, and since it is in plain sight that common sense must be obscured. We must become magicians and snake oil salesman, distracting the audience with the waving of the hand while the other hand slyly hides the prize.
So it is in politics where in 2016, it is suddenly popular to bash capitalism again. This, as the world’s leading socialist state in Venezuela implodes, socialist Europe goes broke and cannot lead itself, and even our socialist-style social programs here in America have driven us to a $19 trillion debt. Of all the things to blame, it would seem that capitalism would come dead last!
And yet, that is why it is blamed: the crowd needs a scapegoat. It cannot admit to itself that not only are its social programs mere gimmes disguised as altruism, but that they have failed to do anything of real impact except make the problem worse. Our social programs take most of our taxes, and most of that is taken from the middle class, which is why the middle class is eroding while the underclass grows.
That shows us the intersection between typical human political thinking and typical human individualism. Individualism says that the world is there for the individual, and implies that nothing changes since the time the individual first encountered it. Try this with older generations: you will note they are stranded in 1965 in their minds because that is when they came into the world. Typical human political thinking is that since “everyone must get along,” you can use those who are succeeding to bolster those who are not, and then — problem solved! Except, of course, that viewpoint looks at the wrong problem.
The real problem is not that some are starving; it is that their society does not provide wealth that they could take advantage of. Robin Hood programs take income from where it generates more income and distribute it to where it goes to dead-end uses because its spending is exclusively at the consumer level, and the lowest level of consumer activity at that. The reason nature concentrates resources is so that they can have more effect; dispersing them lessens that effect. This is why socialism and welfare states are paths to death.
And yet these programs are popular. Why? Me, me, me: people think in terms of themselves and they like the safety implied by welfare and socialism. “I cannot fail, because I will be subsidized,” the thinking goes. Even more, they delight in the thought of taking from the people who did make it big and giving to the rest. Punish those bastards for making us all look bad. They forget that in the meantime they set up giant bureaucracies and dump money onto clueless people who spend it badly, enriching all the wrong people in the process.
Capitalism on the other hand does not deserve an -ism at all because it is business, pure and simple. The only difference between capitalism and communism is accountability. Under capitalism, the individual makes financial decisions and reaps reward or failure. Under socialism, the group absorbs both loss and gain. It is like decision insurance and as in insurance, only the owl-eyed bureaucrat makes out like a bandit. Then because the entire system is risk-averse, no one makes decisive actions, and so entropy takes it to the cleaners.
Our current fad for blaming capitalism — popular among both inveterate leftist Boomers like
Jerry Garcia Bernie Sanders and clueless products of public television Millennials — is to avoid blaming what we should blame. Yes, we should blame our socialist drift which has driven the West into debt and trashed its public institutions. But even more, as a society we are unable to make any good decisions. We are risk-averse there too. And what kind of insurance do we have there? Oh yes: democracy, or the system where no one person is accountable.
The leader is elected, but he is held in check by laws and the representatives. They can in turn blame the opposition party. And the voters can blame each other. The problem is that decisions are not made, but assessed. If enough people vote for something, it is adopted and everyone can blame everyone else. The scapegoat mania spreads. And so in the West, we have a rotting infrastructure: it is unpopular to demand spending on anything but bennies. Both USA and EU are awash in third-world refugees who secretly (or in some cases, not so secretly) resent us and want to destroy us: it is unpopular to cut anyone out, to violate any individual’s human/civil rights. And so it is that the same risk aversion that destroyed the Soviet Union has taken hold here.
The real culprit in 2016 is democracy, or emocracy as we might call it because it consists of people making decisions with their emotions instead of reality-based thinking, and yet we cannot blame it because it is popular because it hands out the bennies. So what can we blame that has a small audience of supporters, so as to remain popular? Why, capitalism of course; in theory only the rich support it, and they are few. See, Romans, the day is saved; we have found the witch and we can burn it. Nonetheless doubts remain.
I first encountered these doubts when I saw the results of first British socialism and next Euro-socialism. In the UK, people talked about how they had adopted the new ways, which seemed suspiciously like a productized form of what their Communism enemies were doing. At first, this hybrid between the socialist welfare state and union dominance of production seemed pleasant. Then I saw the expensive rotting council slums, the industry which could not make a working car, the massive bureaucratic shutdowns. When I went to mainland Europe, I was at first pleased with how the state supported students, the elderly and the poor until I saw the cost. Everything was expensive and any change was nearly impossible because of red tape. No, I thought, I prefer the frontier mentality of America where we expect next to nothing from government and pay accordingly. That has its own problems, but the solution is not to go toward this European socialist model.
Humanity is its own worse enemy. The perpetually popular ideas are risk-averse ones that spread that risk to the group and in the process, remove accountability from the decision makers. Trade unions, welfare states, socialism itself and mandatory insurance all fall into this area. The perpetually unpopular ideas are the ones which place the burden on the individual and favor the individuals who do right, because these make people aware of their risk of failure. The fear spreads like a plague. Once it has taken over, people will do anything but blame the cause.
As a result, humanity has come down to a vital decision point in the West. Do we stop the risk-averse madness and start taking responsibility, or do we continue beating the dead horse of these failed policies in the hope that someday they will magically start working? Common sense says one thing, and mass popularity — democracy — says another. One comfort is that either way, these may be our last elections and so the problem will solve itself, one way or another.
Roosh V, popular blogger at Return of Kings, is currently under assault from left and right, especially after this Daily Mail article about his response to threats made by SJW Leftists against his person.
In my view, Roosh is one of the good guys. He wanted to talk about how modern values are terrible and so he found a way to reveal their failings, namely the pickup artist agenda, which shows how vapid casual sex really is — and attracts the kind of audience that can fund a blogger. He then went on with Return of Kings to write about how a restoration of classical society might be possible. That is a mighty achievement, and Roosh has introduced more people to traditionalism, rightism, realism and family-oriented thinking than just about any other source.
Yes, they come tainted, but this time is tainted, and all things are gross, so all of us reach a point of decision with a weight of past failures and illusions. We are all trying to purge the ghost of Leftist thinking from our minds, which is a mighty task since we have been inculcated since birth in constant Leftist propaganda, from our televisions, corporate advertising, “scientists,” even parents and friends. We are awash in lies and finding a way out is hard.
I dislike casual sex and by extension, I dislike pickup artist (PUA) behavior. At the same time, I admire it, because it demystifies casual sex. Casual sex happens when two or more people are looking for someone else to use as a masturbation aid. I say masturbation aid because these people do not want lovemaking, or the emotional/physical bonding of people, but to experience orgasm in the least involved way possible. Casual sex is a step removed from using a fleshlight or raping a goat, but only a short step. PUAs called that bluff and revealed the psychology behind casual sex, then mostly migrated toward being Men’s Rights Activists (MRAs) who demand more out of life than willing vapid sex partners.
As it stands, it is unclear whether Roosh has participated in any of this stuff beyond through a very vivid imagination and more engaging retelling of the literature in the field, which peaked in the 1970s and has not really added anything new since. Perhaps he has always been blogging from the basement with PUA/MRA as his canvas, but his real objective indicated by the name of his website, Return of Kings. Or maybe it is all farce. Either way, Roosh has enraged the usual Leftist suspects and turned on many people to rightist theory, and for that alone he deserves defense.
In the current day and age, claiming to be conservative evokes disbelief. Not only is conservatism the banished enemy of our dominant liberal ideology, but “conservatives” — these days — seem to be people without a plan. Many people have gone looking for another alternative to being the captive opposition.
However, questions of philosophy do not reduce to who claims to hold a view, but what that view is. Over the years, every view becomes adulterated to fit to its audience instead of its audience fitting into it, and so periodic renewals occur when someone points out that the original idea has decayed. A view that is correct will always be so, and if it has been misinterpreted, needs correction not abandonment.
Another way of viewing this is that someone who possesses a conservative philosophy will manifest it no matter what name they call it. Philosophies generally have two major prongs: how to know what is true, and how to know what to do about it. In liberalism, this could be summarized as:
- True: Whatever is new — not the existing order — is true.
- Do : If it makes people feel happy to think it is true, do it.
In this we can see the utilitarian nature of liberalism: whatever most people think will make them happy is right. Also revealed is its nature as a rebellious philosophy, namely that it assumes whatever has existed in the past is a nightmare and any replacement is an improvement.
We can imagine situations where this approach would seem right. If someone is emerging from a truly abusive situation, such as a bad family dynamic, the best thing to do is discard all that they have known as normal and to select new methods. Without further data, they pick whatever the group thinks will be good.
Naturally, this leaves us with half of a philosophy. How do we verify what of our preferred methods turned out well and therefore should be kept? Liberalism assumes this will be handled by the preference of the group, but that assumes that people remember what has gone before and what the options are.
Conservatism updates this with a philosophy that more resembles the scientific method, but with an artistic twist. Here is the conservative outline:
- True: Whatever works according to results in reality, is true.
- Do : If what works leads toward transcendental goals, do it.
The scientific basis the reality test: does this produce the results it claims to, when actually tested in the real world? If not, it may be “real” as a thought can seem to be, but not accurate and therefore not true. The artistic twist comes from the transcendental goals, which are absolutes which can never be fully realized: excellence, beauty, goodness and truthfulness.
Unlike most philosophies, conservatism does not try to translate reality into symbols. Terms like “true” and “good” are left as an exercise to the reader, with the knowledge that the smarter and more honest/noble among them will figure it out while the other 98.6% (approximately) will do what Simians always do, which is do whatever their egos want to do anyway and rationalize it as good or true after the fact. (Some see liberalism as being of this nature, since it requires only intent and feelings and has no reality-based test).
As a guiding force for actual living people, conservatism works under any circumstance. It encourages us to know our world, and then to act for the best results. This does not mean that we can deny how the world works and conjure up an image of how we wish it would work, and then enforce that on others with the consensus of the group. At its heart, conservatism opposes group consensus because that consensus is a lesser method than truth.
The term “conservative” comes from the idea of conservation itself, which means saving good and functional methods under the constant onslaught of human desires to do anything but those. When we look at humanity, we see a species capable of remarkable self-delusion and a tendency to indulge in wishful thinking which it mistakes for realism. Against this flood of chaotic nonsense conservatives attempt to hold on to what actually works, fully realizing they are the smallest minority in their society because everyone else wants the opposite.
Trying to divorce the idea of “conserve” from the notion of conserving what is good has cost modern conservatives plenty. I fully acknowledge that these people are misguided, but I see them more as a consumerist production version of a good thing, like soda replacing sassafras, McDonald’s replacing food, light cigarettes replacing cigars, and Budweiser replacing beer. There is always a market for a dumbed-down version of any idea because this flatters the egoism of those who partake in it. They no longer need to know quality from junk, but can indulge in something conveniently sugared and salty and cheap and pretend they have the real thing.
Conservatism took me to some surprising places. In contrast to mainstream conservatives, I see the importance of conservation in both nature and human beings. This means setting aside giant chunks of land for its natural purpose, and liberating people from pointless activities including make-work jobs and bureaucracy. It also showed me the importance of keeping the law away so people can enjoy pleasurable activities like drinking at the pub, smoking a cigar with friends, or even the “reckless” fun things the Nanny State tries to keep away from us.
Not many anti-work and pro-conservation conservatives exist anymore, but we used to be at the forefront of both of these movements, resisting “Progress” back when progress meant industry at any cost. Conservatives have always defended the quiet life and the wild life so long as it brings actual pleasure, and not merely grim conformity like drug use and promiscuity seem to. We conserve life itself, holding back the flood surge of illusions dreamed up by lonely people in their unrealistic minds.
As new movements — inevitably based on liberal ideas infused with some conservative leanings — come and go, conservatism remains a bulwark because it is not a policy, but a way of thinking. It encourages us to recognize life for what it is and make the best of it. It forms the starting point of our thought and a workable basis for discovering where we should go. Since most of human thought is entirely irrelevant, it stands out as the one right answer in a sea of distractions.