Unreported race riots. Black Nationalism. European extremism. Brain drain. We. Violence as voting. Cures. Awakening. AmRen overview, highlights and significance. Flailing religion. Conservatism++. Last-minute substitutions. #nrx evaporation. Pan-Europeanism. Love, possibly. What is falling, push. Aggregation: here, here, there and here.
This Memorial Day, you will hear about our brave soldiers and how they sacrificed themselves so we could be free. They undoubtedly believed that, at least many of them did. Our cynical leaders keep that illusion alive and laugh at us as we follow it. These men were sacrifices on the altar of equality, or human egoism enshrined as social benevolence.
We know the American Civil War was an ideological war, but what few know is that the World Wars were also ideological wars of the democratic “free world” versus those who were trying to preserve what was left of social order. In this way, they followed the political archetype of the Napoleonic Wars:
The overthrow of Louis XVI and the establishment of republican government placed France at odds with the primarily monarchical and dynastic governments of the rest of Europe. In the Declaration of Pillnitz (1791) Austria and Prussia issued a provocative general call to European rulers to assist the French king reestablishing himself in power. France declared war in April 1792.
Three years after the French Revolution, France has made the first moves against the rest of the West. What does she do? She goes back to the Mongol idea of total state and total mobilization:
In response to reverses at the hands of the First Coalition, the Revolutionary government declared a levy en masse, by which all Frenchmen were placed at the disposal of the army. By that means unprecedentedly large armies were raised and put in the field during this period. Battles on the Continent in the mid-18th century typically had involved armies of about 60,000 to 70,000 troops, but after 1800 Napoleon routinely maneuvered armies of 250,000; and he invaded Russia in 1812 with some 600,000.
With this greater power, much as the Mongols outnumbered the small European outposts they attacked, France soon held political dominion over all of continental Europe. He even followed the Mongol doctrine of warfare:
Napoleon’s military successes resulted from a strategy of moving armies rapidly and striking quickly, sometimes by surprise, often so as to prevent the coordination of the forces opposing him, which he was then able to defeat piecemeal.
Like the Mongols, he over-extended himself, lost greatly in Russia and finally at Waterloo, and the French king was restored in 1815.
However, the French Revolution and Napoleonic invasions set off a chain reaction of other revolutions:
This was followed by a concerted effort at political reaction and a renewed series of revolutions from 1820 through 1848.
This in turn destabilized Europe so much that it produced an age of national coalitions as bad leadership overwhelmed Europe as a result of those revolutions and the resulting compromises which were forced on monarchs by the new political climate.
It was the culmination of these destabilizing events that produced the precarious balance that finally detonated in 1914, creating a sweeping war between the most liberal states and the less liberal, and spawning secondary revolution in Russia. This first World War then laid the groundwork for the second, and sacrificed many Western men.
That revolution in Russia produced a Marxist (Leftism 2.0) state which then waged guerrilla war against the West in Vietnam, Korea, Cuba and throughout Africa. This in turn caused many sacrifices, although in this case the lives were lost in fighting Communism and less under the illusion of fighting for democracy.
As this Memorial Day comes to its beer-and-barbecue apex, remember the fallen, and that what they fought for was not what they died for. We can do better, and end the permanent crisis of this modern era by deposing democracy, Leftism, equality and all other seductive illusions.
If the dissident Right has a weakness, it is that it is Red Pilled but not Black Pilled. With the Red Pill, you see through some of the illusions of our time; with the Black Pill, you see through the illusions of humanity itself.
We are the system that oppresses us. While that system creates many dictators, tyrants and control-crazed governments, the root of its power is in the human herd, which tends to be self-deluding, much as people tend toward narcissism if not checked by a superior force.
The traditional Right emphasizes hierarchy to deal with this issue. Every person in society has a superior force to hold them in check, all the way up to the kings who have an intuitive knowledge of the divine and hold themselves in check with that (or are, like most natural creative geniuses, intensely reality-driven).
Our modern Red Pill types however do not see through to this underlying need. They see how Leftism is delusional; this helps them understand why #FeelTheBern-style socialism will lead to disaster, and Marxist sexual politics are merely more underdog-on-top style Leftist inversion. But what about the weakness that caused these to take over?
“In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule.” Fred Nietzsche tells us this and he is most probably right, if we are looking for insanity alone. But most of life occurs in gradients, not binaries. Insanity occurs at different degrees, and can be either a permanent or temporary condition, but it is one of the two and only that. And people might be classed as insane, sane and then those in the middle who are not insane but also not pointed in the directions of realism, discipline and purpose that are required for full sanity. They are both insane and sane, in varying degrees, but have not passed the threshold of recognized insanity.
The interesting thing about the Black Pill is that it unites Darwinism and Christianity by recognizing evil. To a Christian, evil is a type of error committed out of a spiritual ethic of convenience; to a Darwinist, evil is any persistent illusory thought that allows the animal to avoid adaptation. In humans, illusion occurs at the personal level through narcissism and solipsism, a type of self-worship that allows the individual to negate risk by altering the conception of it in their minds, in other words: explaining away actual problems, and inventing distracting mysticism that includes scapegoats to deflect from the actual problems. In groups, this solipsism becomes a phenomenon of mass-insanity, a trance-like state in which people slavishly emulate a social successful behavior even though it is obviously false.
We know that the trance state is more likely to occur in people who under extreme psychological distress, and who believe in the possibility of spirit possession. All of these conditions were satisfied in Strasbourg in 1518.
The city’s poor were suffering from severe famine and disease. And, crucially, we also know they believed in a saint called St. Vitus who had the power to take over their minds and inflict a terrible, compulsive dance.
Once these highly vulnerable people began to anticipate the St. Vitus curse they increased the likelihood that they’d enter the trance state. And once in it, they acted out the part of the accursed: dancing wildly for days at a time.
While this mass delusion is easy to criticize because of its surface-level supernatural basis, if it exists as a psychology, it can be invoked by many means, most of which are not supernatural.
Before looking too far into the supernatural roots of this phenomenon, we should look at the pragmatic ones, namely that people were starving. Why was that so?
Following the Mongol invasions and the weakening of European aristocracy, peasants and serfs gained new freedoms. Many of them moved from Europe into the former Mongol colonies in Eastern Europe, changing the Asiatic population there to be blonder and bluer-eyed. But still, the population surge within Western Europe destabilized it.
Consider how poverty arrives. There can either be a fault of production, or a glut of labor. The latter case seems more applicable for Europe’s serfs: given new freedoms, they choose reckless reproduction, and as a result made themselves less valuable. This is the classic pattern of r-selection: quantity over quality, leading to a lottery in which a few win out big and everyone else is equally miserable.
Almost all human poverty arises from this tendency and it explains the poverty of the third world. They are overflowing with people, most of whom have only basic skills, and as a result, everyone lives in the muck and misery and a few super-wealthy tyrants crack the whip over the befuddled, self-distracting and delusional horde.
One might even see the Mongol invasions as an extreme r-strategy: produce robotic human warriors who while canny tacticians and able politicians, are terrible leaders and so create short-lived empires that fall to ruins very quickly.
This is why humans are self-deluding: the foolish desire more quantity, and the intelligent, by selecting quality, become marginalized. This creates the pattern we are all familiar with where vast crowds chase trends and fascinations, and a few smart people confine themselves to out-of-the-way places to do creative and useful things, to the unacknowledged benefit of the rest.
In our current times, delusions remain prevalent — accepted by all but a few — which are every bit as supernatural and unrealistic as the dance of Saint Vitus:
- Democracy. People make bad decisions in groups that favor the lowest common denominator because that makes it easy to achieve agreement within the group, even on simple decisions like choosing a restaurant for the evening.
- Rights. People vary in degree of quality; none are equal. Giving them rights entrusts each person with the same power, meaning that the bad abuse it and the good shy away from using it if possible. This creates a race to the bottom because bad behavior provides an advantage.
- Anti-hierarchy. Without someone of intelligence and wisdom guiding it, any human venture will fail. This applies to those in business, social life, religion and government alike. The vast ineptitude of our current society is a testament to this.
- Equality. Equality works well for comparing simple mathematical amounts; it fails for any measurement with more than one quantitative dimension. People vary in abilities, but more importantly, in character. Some are born programmed to do good, some bad, and most, indifferent.
- Freedom. Like “free will,” the term “free” makes people sit up and notice. They love the thought of being able to do “anything” because such a wide-open thought creates brain freeze. But really, most people need to be able to do a few things, be restrained from doing bad, and left alone otherwise.
- Diversity. Throughout history, diversity has been the heralding of the fall of empires. Different populations cannot occupy the same space without mutually destroying one another. There is a reason that all mixed-race countries are impoverished, chaotic, filthy and confused.
Once they make you accept these illusions as fact, they have broken your ability to think because you will always be working around and rationalizing these insane ideas. Our pretentious fallacy is that this condition is in any way different from the delusion of the Saint Vitus dance, when in fact they are one and the same: desperate people who cannot control themselves looking for a way to distract themselves, and ending up in a repetitive trance-like pathology of illusion.
Geert Wilders has made a name for himself by telling the obvious truths that others are afraid to say. He would make a great writer, because writers are masters of the obscured obvious, but his real skill is in opening doorways of thought. With his assault on Islam, he opened a doorway past the idea of it being taboo for Europeans to criticize post-colonial peoples.
That, in turn, helped open a doorway past the idea that Europeans should be ashamed of their success in leadership, arms, intellect, technology, learning, hygiene and resisting Asiatic and Arab invasions.
But here, I fear he makes a misstep, although he is doing in order to try to open a doorway to government replacement across Europe:
The West’s angry voters may be sick of politics, but they are not sick of democracy. Their anger is a sign of hope. It gets them moving. It inspires them. All over the West – from America to Europe to Australia – we are currently witnessing a big democratic awakening. Spring is in the air. The West awakes! The angry voters are not extremists, they are the new mainstream.
The anger of the people is caused by the failure of the present ruling classes to address the problems of the people. Our governments are failing in their most basic obligation to keep country and people safe.
The voters may not be sick of democracy, but that is because they have created a scapegoat for the failure of democracy: our current leaders.
Every population gets the government it deserved, and we elected these people. We will do it again, just in a different form. The history of democracy shows We The People consistently electing people whose ideas are flattering to the constituents, not qualified leaders, alternating between the Left and the Right every few elections.
No, Mr. Wilders — democracy makes the same tired pathological mistakes every time. We need to replace this broken system. It will fail us for as long as we persist in it. And as we do so, we need to replace the theory of democracy, or equality which is the basis of Leftism, with the idea of hierarchy, earned reward, excellence and for the first time in centuries, for Western Europeans worldwide to have a purpose.
Yesterday in Paris, France the concept of exit died on the floor of the Google headquarters. Leftists worldwide have realized how wealthy the technology sector is and they want their money so they can pay for the bennies that keep the citizens complacent and stupid:
A dawn raid was launched on Google’s office in Paris yesterday as part of a probe into ‘aggravated tax fraud’ and money laundering.
Around 100 police officers, five magistrates, 25 computer experts and about 100 tax officials entered the US internet giant’s premises at 5am as France ramped up its efforts to clamp down on alleged tax evasion.
Google is accused of owing the French government £1.2billion in unpaid taxes.
While Google is arrogant enough to hide its money however possible, let us be honest: this is a shakedown. If you have the money, Leftist government will take it because all of the voters want it. Leftism creates a perpetual cycle of not having enough and working too much, and this makes workers angry at anyone who is not in that condition. These shakedowns are frequent and eventually kill off industry so that the Leftist cancer can enter its final phase.
The reason that the concept of “exit” died is that a principle has been formalized: if you have money, They will come to take it from you.
The notion of fairness in laws or some kind of reason existing behind the whole process is fallacy. The French have creatively interpreted their laws, which democratic societies produce in vague abundance, to legitimize the theft of money from Google (who creatively interpreted tax and accounting codes for the opposite purpose). This is what Governments do. They also wage war.
Most “collapse” scenarios are like most human thinking, linear and binary. Suddenly there is a huge SNAP! and society just falls apart, leaving a smouldering ruin through which starvation-crazed people wander. In reality, collapse is like Brazil: a society slowly fades away into third world levels of hygiene, wealth and order. It never really fails, it just becomes useless, kind of like ancient Greece and Rome.
When an empire dies, you are left with vast monuments in front of which illiterate peasants squat to defecate. Brazil is in approximately that condition now. This does not mean an absence of government however, nor the more important problem caused by herd mobilization. In every society, the people create the government. When the herd needs money or fears the competition from an exit-stage, politicians arise who will promise to take action.
This creates the They mentioned above: a vast and desperate herd, needy for plunder, and its enablers — who also have a motive of corruption themselves. The enablers will in fact work both coming and going by taking protection money from businesses, and then confiscating a few to demonstrate their power and keep the rest in line. And when the herd calls for Google’s head? Then government will do whatever it has to in order to generate a pretext for seizure.
Not surprisingly, Silicon Valley will react with evasion as it is already doing in response to government demands that it decrypt its customers’ data:
In Silicon Valley, there’s a new emphasis on putting up barriers to government requests for data. The Apple-FBI case and its aftermath have tech firms racing to employ a variety of tools that would place customer information beyond the reach of a government-ordered search.
The trend is a striking reversal of a long-standing article of faith in the data-hungry tech industry, where companies including Google and the latest start-ups have predicated success on the ability to hoover up as much information as possible about consumers.
Now, some large tech firms are increasingly offering services to consumers that rely far less on collecting data.
Tech companies have already figured out that against governments, especially third world regimes, they cannot win. The internet exists in its wires, switches and servers, and all of those are located in the physical world, and can be controlled. Markets can be closed.
If we had a true Terminator-style collapse of civilization that was nice and crisp and binary, this would not be a problem as people could set up a bootleg internet and keep it running with energy generated from flatulence or something. But in Brazil, there is still government… corrupt, incompetent, and slow, but still able to feed itself.
The anarchist fantasy turns out to be far from the reality (although it sounds cool):
Night City was like a deranged experiment in social Darwinism, designed by a bored researcher who kept one thumb permanently on the fast-forward button. Stop hustling and you sank without a trace, but move a little too swiftly and you’d break the fragile surface tension of the black market; either way, you were gone, with nothing left of you but some vague memory in the mind of a fixture like Ratz, though heart or lungs or kidneys might survive in the service of some stranger with New Yen for the clinic tanks.
Biz here was a constant subliminal hum, and death the accepted punishment for laziness, carelessness, lack of grace, the failure to heed the demands of an intricate protocol.
Alone at a table in the Jarre de Thé, with the octagon coming on, pinheads of sweat starting from his palms, suddenly aware of each tingling hair on his arms and chest, Case knew that at some point he’d started to play a game with himself, a very ancient one that has no name, a final solitaire. He no longer carried a weapon, no longer took the basic precautions. He ran the fastest, loosest deals on the street, and he had a reputation for being able to get whatever you wanted. A part of him knew that the arc of his self-destruction was glaringly obvious to his customers, who grew steadily fewer, but that same part of him basked in the knowledge that it was only a matter of time. — William Gibson, Neuromancer
Human illusions always favor solidly defined and rigidly delineated events instead of the gradualism with which natural events occur. Decay is a natural event, since it is not deliberate like a human command, but the result of human actions in the world and the consequences created by those. This often resembles a “conspiracy of details,” with humans accomplishing their goal but experiencing unintended results as well.
For this reason, the concept of “exit” has died: there is no way out of a dying civilization except to overthrow the parasite (the government, the elites, and the less-than-honorable portion of its populace) and deport it, then set up a more sensible social order. This is why the wisdom of our forebears was always to stand and fight rather than try to escape, because in the end, there is no escape from the consequences of our actions, whether individual or collective.
“So tell me, in just a few words, why you detest modern civilization,” said a friend over brandy and cigars back at the club.
“Too many ways to count,” harrumphed another member of our group.
I could see his point. Most evenings there, I spend my time there trying to avoid a gross faux pas while absorbing as much nicotine and mulled alcohol as possible. The conversation is good but generally, I have long given up on the interesting topics. Schopenhauer was right: talk about dogs and horses. But a reply was called for.
“It wastes your life,” I said. “Let me tell you three key ways and remember, gentlemen, that I started out in this life as a die-hard Liberal. I always want the best for humanity and to treat people well and fairly. But this has led me to surprising places.”
Believe it or not, antiwork conservatives exist. They recognize above all else that life must have a purpose, and that purpose is to enjoy life. In other words, to do life and to do it well. This requires the two components of conservatism, consequentialism (or realism) and a transcendental or optimizing goal that aims for excellence, beauty, immense inner satisfaction, existential pleasure and that sort of thing.
On top of that, we are practical men — and we are all men; did you ever know a woman to turn down a chance at being important at a job, rather than “stuck at home with the kids”? — who recognize that there is very little we must actually do. We need some kind of food, some roads, and to avoid dying in famine or warfare. Everything else is gravy, icing on the cake, and we can do without it.
Technology improves all these things, but on a curve like everything else under the sun. It is at first difficult, then a great boon, and finally, it settles into the same position of burden as everything else because it requires the same staff and labyrinth of rules to support it. At the far end of the curve, we are working for technology and not it for us.
The same is true of management. After the middle part of the curve, it becomes as much of a burden as aid. Soon we have more managers than workers. In the same way, clerks can become a burden. At some point, having all these people to take care of paperwork becomes a burden. And what if we reduce both to the minimum? Maybe we lose a few percent more each year in wastage, but we lose less of our lives to this mind-numbing, tedious labor.
During the late 1990s, this idea really exploded. Mike Judge made a movie called Office Space and Michel Houellebecq wrote a book called Whatever. Houellebecq introduced the topic, which was that jobs make us miserable and nothing that important goes on in them. Judge translated this for the masses into comedy that showed how even good jobs involved a few hours of work at most, management was insane, and most people were lonely and isolated.
These criticisms are not new. They began in the 1950s when the huge boom in Western wealth converted our surface cultures from “do the right thing” to “make the sale.” This disease spread from the top to the bottom, and now all of our jobs are a combination of past roles: clerk, salesman and now, IT guy. Most of what we do has nothing to do with any practical task.
If anything, the rise in online business has destroyed the role of salesman. The customer can find what he needs unless he is a total moron, in which case he is either a rich moron who can hire a personal assistant, or a poor moron who has no hope of buying anyway. The whole foundation of our post-1950s boom has just collapsed from within.
Now we shuffle everyone into office jobs, where one person now does as a singular role what one worker did in the past. This is a response to how dumb and neurotic everyone is, thus useless. Our managers are idiots, and our workers retards, so we dumb down the whole thing for them, which means that anyone with an IQ above that of a microwave hot pocket is in deep trouble because he or she will be bored, lonely and subtly enraged during their entire working tenure.
All of these are procedural or tactical critiques of jobs. We could do them in a tenth the time, and eliminate two-thirds of them, or numbers roughly along those lines. This is well-known among higher-ups but they also fear prole revolt, so they have designed the ultimate trap maze to keep the mice running in circles with just enough to buy goodies so that they do not notice their utter existential slavery.
The real critique is this: when your society starts making jobs be the forefront of existence, it means you have lost direction. You have given up on making sense of life and are trying only to keep the paychecks coming so the economy does not crash. Life itself has been disrespected and relegated to second-class citizen status. No one sees this as insanity because to do so is to realize that they are wasting the best hours of most days doing nothing of any real importance.
Goes Nowhere, Does Nothing
I stole this term from Star Trek. They wrote “GNDN” on the pipes running through the Enterprise in that cool font because those pipes were there for appearance only, to keep the audience pleased, as it were. The problem with living in a dying civilization, and modernity is certainly one of those, is that no matter what you do it will not matter.
In the past, people who did exceptional things had the belief that their works would live on by benefiting others. Now, we know that anything good will be ground under the wheel so that something mediocre but more profitable can take its place. Even if something is excellent, no one will recognize it because it appeals to a numerically small audience instead of the milling-about masses.
The people want 50 Cent, not Beethoven. They want Budweiser, not a pub on every corner with its own blend. They desire cigarettes, not pipes brimming with Empire Virginias pressed, panned and aged to perfection. This means that only fools pursue excellence, because the real model for victory is disguised mediocrity that is cheap to produce and sold at high margin, like Coca-Cola or the Republican party, come to think of it.
We are familiar with the trope of the innovative artist: laboring alone in poverty, he makes great works and is totally ignored. He dies in squalor and confusion, and then fifty years later someone makes a fortune by “discovering” his works and making him a household name. We have replaced this role by cutting out the innovative artist and replacing him with the recombinant aesthetics of the “creative” who have been taught to be so.
These people come up with “new” ideas that are re-mixes of old ideas, and give them the best slick surface that training and money can buy, and then are lauded as new undiscovered artists. The public, accustomed to the trope — and tropes are fun, like simple dances, because everyone can participate — lunges for the mediocre wrapped in shiny paper and then the artist is forgotten. See, we have made the process more efficient, just far lower quality.
All of this means that no sane person is going to spend their time on making objects of greatness. That is a path to getting ignored in the present, and, because our society is degenerating, not noticed in the future. No one cares about quality. As a result, if you slave away writing great symphonies, they will go into a dusty old library where no one notices them, which then burns down as a result of the incompetence of its staff.
We Are The Robots
The last one hits me closest to the heart: a society designed around equality turns its people into mechanical parts. The old saw about cogs in the machine comes to mind. Each person must be a worker, a consumer and a participant in some kind of social scene. We have converted everything that is not-work and not-buying into socializing.
This means that life is a robotic process of following what others are doing and trying to participate, without any ability to show distinction except by doing a different version of what everyone else is doing. Someone always wins that lottery, gets his fifteen minutes of fame, and then disappears into the memory hole, and everyone else chases the new trend.
In short, our society is vapid and worthless like most dying empires. It has replaced actual goals with nonsense and now demands we spend our time on this nonsense, robotically going through the motions. Anything that actually reflects us or our unique abilities is ignored, then trodden over as the crowd rushes to the next attraction or should I say, distraction. Your time is wasted by this process alone.
When people say that Europeans are not breeding at replacement rates, or that idiots seem to rule in every area of life, I point to this dilemma: when life becomes a repetitive process, anyone who wants to really live checks out and heads for the hills. There are not enough jobs as writers, artists, musicians and the like for everyone, and in those honesty is deprecated, which makes them a form of slavery to trend. It is misery.
Then take a look out the door. Constant make-work and busy-work. Cars drive around as if aimless, businesses scream advertisements, government lines the roads with signs warning us about how fun things will kill us. Every few years there is a new panic — drugs, Nazis, global warming, AIDS — that turns out to be a non-issue for most of us. There is no peace of mind or contemplation, because to have those would reveal the emptiness of it all.
“And that, gentlemen, is why modern society is worthless, in a nut-shell. This society has lost purpose. We no longer aim high for anything. There is only the activity we do to compensate, and it is designed for idiots by idiots, which slowly kills off the non-idiots.”
“Much as Satan fell to earth, and decided it was better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven, by giving power to Man over nature and God we have made a Hell of what could be Heaven. Since it is not visible like an apocalypse or zombie attack, it goes unrecognized. They waste your time, all of it if they can, because they have no purpose of their own.”
And with that, I sipped the brandy before it got too warm, and puffed my smoldering cigar back to life.
Above you can see the parents of Matthew de Grood, who was recently found “not criminally responsible” for killing five people in a psychotic break:
“I find on a balance of probabilities that at the time he caused their deaths, Matthew de Grood was suffering from a mental disorder that rendered him incapable of appreciating or knowing that his actions were wrong,” Macklin said.
…The trial heard de Grood became withdrawn about a month before the attack and started posting about the end of the world, religion, vampires and Darth Vader on Facebook.
De Grood reported hearing voices telling him to kill before he grabbed a knife from a kitchen in the northwest Calgary home and stabbed the victims.
In the modern West, we are drowning in a wave of mental incompetence that has us asking the wrong questions entirely and coming up with nonsense answers as a result. In a sane world, the point of criminal trials is to remove threats to the good people out there, not protect the broken. In a sane world, five people at a party could at least put up a decent fight — by working together — when someone has a psychotic break.
Past societies would have hung this guy and ignored any questions of culpability because what matters is the victims, not the aggressor. Who cares if he was mentally competent at the time? If you allow people to go crazy, kill five people and then walk away with their lives, there is no responsibility at all. It encourages others to have a looser standard.
If instead you have a simple ironclad rule — kill unjustly, and you will be killed — people have an incentive to treat their family members who are going through psychotic breaks. They have reason to take their psychiatric meds. They also have a clear standard for when it is acceptable to kill in self-defense, since that is clarified as part of determining what is “unjust” in a killing.
Instead, the great equality lie has replaced their brains. They worry about whether he was fully culpable instead of how to protect ordinary decent people against the raging craziness out there. They do not look at the parents and ask what went wrong there. They do not point out that if this guy obviously went nutty a month before the stabbing, plenty of people had a chance to intervene before the disaster.
Instead, it is feel-good time. Feel good because we are compassionate. Deny that the cause of most human misery is delusional or crazy actions. Gather around to talk about how civilized we are, not like those brutish louts with their inhumane death penalty. And then for kicks, go dump a bucket of AIDS blood on the graves of these five victims in a futile attempt to desecrate them further.
Reactionary Future has a response to “Why The Alternative Right Will Absorb Neoreaction”. It raises some questions worth poking into:
Monarchism is non-nationalist, so how you can have monarchical nationalism is beyond me.
We are on the Right now, or at least, we have left Leftist-land. In Leftist-land, all is thought about the System: a labyrinth of rules and institutions designed to enforce order so that equality can tenuously exist.
On the Right, we think about choices.
Monarchism is more than a method or institution; it is a philosophy: “let the best rule the rest, so the rest do not oppress the best.” It recognizes the primacy of individuals — in moral quality, intelligence and character — over any kind of System.
It is the anti-System.
Therefore, monarchism and Nationalism are not competing Systems, but philosophies. Nationalism says that the healthiest nations are comprised of a single ethnic group united by language, culture, customs and values. This can co-exist with Monarchism, and in fact, is compatible with it in that Nationalism is the type of anti-individualist philosophy that only the best are going to implement.
I remind us all that all of our human problems originate in human choices. You can take the human out of the jungle, but you cannot take the jungle out of the human (I am speaking of my own race here). Most people spend most of their time chasing after illusions, distractions and pleasant fictions. It is not that reality is so bad or awful, but that most people are delusional because they are fascinated by themselves and their power over others. There is no Satan; evil comes from within us and our poor choices which we make because we pick what we want to believe instead of what we have realistic reason to believe is true. This is why evil, decay, democracy, promiscuity, vandalism, civilization collapse, crime, filth, etc. are recurring problems that spring up wherever there are humans: we have a bad nature within us, both animal and neurotic, that we must beat down through discipline or it wins out and civilization collapses.
Systems are denial of this fact because Systems are inherently predicated on equality.
One is based on authority flowing down, the other is based on imperium in imperio.
Imperium in imperio usually refers to an unofficial source of power within an official one, such as an unofficial institution within a state. We might look at the Cathedral, the Ku Klux Klan, the Masons and so on as examples of this. In theory, culture (derived from nationalism) could apply here, which is his point. But again: we have left Leftist-land. Our vision is that culture, not government, is what makes the nation.
This is made even more strange in the second of the quotes in which it is claimed that government should be like a business, but limited.
If we must have government at all, or some analogue of it, it makes sense to understand that it will behave like a business. It will act in self-interest. No matter how many “checks and balances” we put into the equation, government will always act for its own increase in power, growth and wealth. Unless its goals are strictly necessary, then, it becomes a parasite.
For this reason, government (and analogues thereof) should be limited. It is difficult to imagine a modern state without a professional military or some entity for making roads. There will be something like a government even in private enterprise, when it must hold territory and administer it. As the Open Source movement found out, government-like behavior even occurs among volunteers when they must hold a virtual territory and manage it. So there is not a clear dividing line between government, business and any other power structure…
The point of this is that much as humans have a vast tendency toward dark organization as our writer Johann Theron describes, groups also have a tendency toward dark organization in the form of self-interested power. Individualism is self-interest, and it becomes easily parasitic when disconnected from reality and goals limited to the strictly necessary; government is group self-interest, not unlike Crowdism, and in order to advance the careers of all the people in government, it expands not through a grand plan but through the failure to make concrete decisions.
Well, by who is it limited? And if they can limit it, then they are the government are they not? Or is this the shareholders? in which case why the “we should”? There is an evasiveness here that is typical, and I have mentioned that the concept of a constitutional sov corp is inherently retarded before.
If we are proposing a monarchy, by the aristocrats, one would think.
As you can see above, my faith is not in Systems — such as the Constitution — but in quality of individuals.
The final paragraph is the icing on the cake, in that it is clearly outlining anti-government libertarianism, which is impossible to square with monarchism except in the overall spirit of obtaining liberty.
This seems to assume that monarchism creates a government. It does not; it creates a hierarchy and power structure, within which there are some functions like that of government.
I find zero value in liberty, freedom, equality and other popular terms because they are clearly manipulative. Like the term “free will,” they create an unbounded (and thus attractive) definition out of a simple thing.
Do you want liberty and freedom? No: you want non-interference when you are engaged in activities that are not destructive. We can put activities in three camps: helping the goals of civilization, working against those goals, or not helping or hurting (the widest category, which includes both innocuous activity and useless activity, which technically is closer to hurting than helping). An intelligent civilization encourages the first category, exiles anyone engaged in the second, and ignores — neither rewards nor censures — the third. That is what we unconsciously desire when we say “liberty,” but the term liberty is a begging-the-question argument in itself. It demands we address a question — that of liberty — without any necessity of doing so, and by that mechanism, imports itself into the political discourse. But if it is unnecessary? Then it, too, is parasitic.
It is fairly simple, either you support imperium in imperio, or you don’t. Neoreaction as it stands supports it, which places the likes of Moldbug out of the fold, which is something that should really be discussed, and something I have been pointing out for a while.
There is a third category: reject Systems entirely. Moldbug’s primary contribution to this part of the debate was insisting that we recognize government for what it is. “Exit” is a thought experiment, not literal. These are ways of getting people to see that formalized systems do not work well for human governance.
As with any theoretical school, the founder is the person who introduces a new vocabulary which generally consists of a series of arguments that open up possibilities. After that, others take this further. You will find that in any non-Leftist thought movement, “Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny,” or: thought develops much as human history did, from primitive to present, which takes on a circular form because human history is circular, or the rising and falling of empires as they discovered realism and then forgot it.
This is why all non-Leftist movements have some different types of people in them:
- Burkeans/Nietzscheans: want strictly organically-occurring things, focus most on spirit.
- God will save us types: want an informal theocracy and reject all other questions.
- Central power aficionados: want a streamlined force to impose sanity, order and sorting good from bad.
- Monarchists: we are basically anarchists who recognize that a power hierarchy is needed.
- Anti-Industrialists: believe that humanity’s technology and Progress have led it astray.
- Libertarians: basically anarchists who want to let culture shape itself through capitalism.
- Race is all types: give us 130 IQ Nords and we can make any system work.
Each of these viewpoints has something to offer, although when taken outside the scope where its ideas are successful, it becomes parasitic. My libertarian-style pro-capitalism stance is not popular on much of the internet, but everything other than capitalism fails, so we should stick with it. However there are no Systems which magically make things work, so capitalism needs balance from (say) monarchism, rule by culture created by Nationalism, and a society with purpose or a transcendental goal.
When you see debate within Neoreaction, you are watching these different perspectives war it out much as they did in history.
Land, the neoreaction blogsphere, the alt-right, WN, identarians etc. etc. all veer into imperium in imperio, whilst Moldbug and about half a dozen people (myself included) veer away from it.
I think this merits more focus. Land makes a good point that this society is heading into the toilet and cannot be as a whole saved. For him, the point of exit is twofold: escape the madness, and put pressure on it that induces collapse — “what is falling, push” — by demonstrating an alternative that is superior, much as Moldbug did in thought form.
The Alternative Right is more traditional conservative than libertarian. They recognize that without civilization, man is nothing, and without a group of the same ethnicity having sovereignty over some territory, the race dies out and the prospect of civilization coming back in any meaningful form goes away. In their view, we are not looking for personal solutions but trying to escape self-extermination as a race and possibly species.
The stakes are high these days because humanity occupies most of the world, and there are more impoverished angry people with AK-47s than good people.
In his book The Possibility of an Island, French writer Michel Houellebecq offers a thought experiment about exit: a cult-like group invests in technology and finds a way to achieve total exit. Its members live on autonomous islands, defended by massively powerful computers and weapons, and clone themselves to achieve a type of limited immortality. The book illustrates how this future may be just as miserable as our present time.
The point a conservative might make is that civilization is a product of evolution like anything else. Humans need groups. Groups need standards. You can either do that through all-powerful government, or organically — the best “imperium in imperio” — through culture, which requires nationalism and monarchism.
This leads us to what we might call “The Stevens Assertion”: our problem is bad leadership. We have chosen poor options because most people usually choose illusions, which are always poor options. If we stop doing the wrong and stupid things we are currently doing, we can restore ourselves to health. That will require getting rid of leadership by mob rule, which requires dethroning the idea of equality, another poisonous and illusory notion like “freedom” and “liberty” that gives us brain-freeze with its wide scope, which makes it seem powerful, when really it has substituted for more precise expression with a generic category.
It is why articles that cover the whole Alt-right/ neoreaction fiasco have such a hard time making sense of it all.
Is it really hard? Neoreaction is a variant of Reaction, which means that it is Conservative. The Alt-Right is realist Nietzschean and Darwinistic conservatism.
Much of the confusion in Neoreaction consists in not separating thought-experiments from realistic plans. (People reading The Republic frequently have the same confusion).
What unites us is that we recognize our society is failing, that Leftism is at least the proximate cause, and that making war on Leftism (“equality”) is necessary if we wish to survive.
Like Neoreaction, the Alt-Right is a big tent. If you go halfway to the right, you become a white nationalist; if you go all the way, you end up as a monarchist and nationalist. Libertarianism is closer to the white nationalist idea in that it relies on Systems every bit as much as a Constitutional Republic, and so it is still fundamentally Leftist. As Neoreaction grows out of the Libertarian illusion, it will keep its best attributes (capitalism) and pick up some others from the Alt-Right.
Where the Alt-Right has taken the lead, replacing the New Right, is that it is not in favor of European socialism. Realists recognizes that to have bennies, you must have big government, and big government will always act in self-interest to increase its power by adopting an ideological outlook. Not everyone has gotten that message, and some are still caught up in class warfare fantasies, as well as the usual “blame the Negroes and Jews for everything” types.
When you look at convergence on the Right, it is these various disparate tributaries of Realist thought merging and converging on something like a set of new ideas:
- We must act together to save civilization, although we should not try to save all of its members and in fact should send a fair number of them away.
- We want neither Systems nor Governments; these lead to tyranny and ineptitude. We need strong leaders of quality and rule by organic culture, which requires strict nationalism.
- Leftism is incompatible with Realism and those who are Leftist must not be compromised with, but defeated and sent away.
- The West is worth saving, but to do that we must stop engaging in illusions, destroy the current ruling institutions and people within them, and then remove the failures and reboot with the healthy people.
In another few months, this will probably be more formalized, I think.
This morning’s new brought this entertaining item about how our “energy efficient” washing machines fail to fully clean clothing, hence it smells bad. Based on a whiff of people around here, the solution has been to use detergent and fabric softener that is more heavily scented.
Hiding the problem has worked for many years. In fact, some could say that hiding the problem is all that we do in the modern West: push the disaster under the rug, then bring out a dance team to perform a musical named Diversity Is Our Strength or The Recovery Is Right Around the Corner. Certainly in Barack Obama and Angela Merkel the West has found itself leaders who specialize in making the right noises and then creating a distraction, an “anti-problem” if you will, to deflect our attention while quietly removing notice of the actual problem.
And then there is the Austrian election. Most people who could not afford luxury housing wanted the far-right candidate, but those who are good little tools of the system and could move away from the multi-ethnic disaster zones were more concerned by public image. To them, it is more important that Austria be able to sell goods to other Leftist idiots than that its policies work. This is typical of dying regimes.
Now the EU tells us that it is going to block far-right “populists” from power. This, coupled with apparent anomalies in the election in Austria suggest that Leftists are doing what they normally do: filter out anything which does not agree with The Narrative, whether that means forging votes and losing or invalidating contrary ones, or even as the EU seems to want, outright banning anything but Leftist candidates.
As with all ideological regimes — or, those which replace truth and realistic thinking with pleasant thoughts about how equal we all are — we are living in a Potemkin village. Ideology is more important than reality to these people. As a result, they filter out any data that does not fit the narrative that they are telling us is truth. Then, when effects in reality do not match the promise, they fake it. They fudge the data, delete the non-conforming votes, or outright lie.
The best part is that this is not done through a coordinated and centralized campaign. Instead, it is effected through a swarm: many individuals, each doing crazy things, because each one needs to believe that the illusion is true so that they feel better about themselves.
This leads to a mathematical postulate: in groups, the weakness of humans is cumulative, where strengths remain at the level to which they are shared between members of the group. This occurs because weakness always involves denial of reality, and this creates a feedback loop where the denial becomes popular or in other words becomes denied a second time.
People cluster around illusions that make them feel good by denying reality, so that they can distract themselves and escape from their real-world problems for a few moments. This puts denial in the same camp as alcoholism, over-eating, sex addiction, drugs, and watching too much television. It is a weakness of the human design, and also an in-built limit on our quest for power.
There is no escape from this situation until we end the mechanism that puts illusion in charge: the notion of human equality. Some people are better than others in every area, and in the area of leadership/morality, there are a few who stand out above the rest. If you put those in charge, you do not need the maze of rules and regulations that both do not achieve their goals and waste everyone’s time with tedious, frustrating and mindless activity.
Our path has two branches. If we follow our present direction, we become Brazil 2.0: a mixed-race, impoverished, disorganized, neurotic, self-indulgent, chaotic and filthy third-world wasteland. There is no sudden collapse (although bubbles be poppin’ yo) but a long, slow decline to irrelevance.
Think of the ancient Greeks. Once the leading human civilization on earth, they became more civilized — and it killed them. Within a few centuries their former empire evaporated into ruins, leaving an ethnically-replaced population that more resembles Turks or Armenians than Greeks, whose capabilities seem to peak at gigolo and food service occupations. That is our future, unless we turn from what is popular toward what is real.
The media, which thrives by panic, and lately, to their discredit, certain Republicans, have been bemoaning the future of automation. They think that robots will quickly displace all of our jobs, including fairly high-level ones, and there is some evidence that they are correct.
I have a different take on this issue: I hope robots take all of our jobs, every last one. First, because since robots are not as flaky as human beings, they will do a cleaner, more reliable job. Second, because we should abolish jobs since they are one of the worst things to ever visit humanity.
Jobs are jails. Most people spend almost all of their waking hours during the week either preparing for or attending their job, at which they do very little of actual import. Most of it consists in performance for the sake of appearance so that others keep the flow of money coming. When bungled, the average job has zero consequences in store for the bungler. It is clear that jobs are obsolete even without robots because if most people stayed home, life would keep right on truckin’.
The modern addiction to jobs spreads misery, achieves terrible results because there is no responsibility to results for salaried employees, and ensures that people never get to relax. Jobs keep us manic and disturbed, living in fear and debt, slouching toward something worse than serfdom.
A tale of modern jobs present a parable:
A story I came back with is essentially the same one that’s been told a fair number of times over the past few years, but is worth repeating. It concerns Stanwell and its remove from Denmark to Italy.
From its earliest days, apparently, the Stanwell workers were paid by the piece. This method rewarded the better, faster worker and all workers kept their heads down and worked. They did not idle. I saw this myself when visiting the factory with Bjarne Nielsen years ago, and not understanding the reason for the rare lack of congeniality, thought that the Stanwell crowd was simply lacking in affability. No, they simply did not want to be distracted from the income-earning activity in front of them.
When international cigarette/tobacco conglomerate Rothman’s bought Stanwell, they decided to give salaries. They probably thought this would allow them to more accurately predict payments to the workers, as opposed to having to tally up individual production each day or week.
Nonetheless, with a secure income, the workers slowed up and production decreased. Orlick, the pipe tobacco company (among other things they own, I suspect) then bought Stanwell, but profitability didn’t increase. When the initial change from piece work to salary was instituted, the old line managers retired and were replaced by new, less knowledgeable people. This switch proved to be just as costly, if not more so, than the change to a salary system.
With the old guard, the factory was visited on a regular basis by the likes of Tom Eltang, the Bang boys and others. It was visited, in short, by the very best pipe makers in the world. The best of the best. These guys came for various reasons. They could hand pick the best briar from the stacks of wood Stanwell warehoused; they would pick up repairs to do for Stanwell (especially Eltang, who did their repairs for a number of years); they would use the Stanwell blaster to sand blast their imperfect bowls. Sandblasting machines are typically too expensive for a single pipe maker to buy. Then, they would sit down with the workers and have a free lunch on the factory. This was not unimportant to a bunch of less-than-rich pipe makers.
Guess what happened at these lunches? Right…people talked and ideas were exchanged. From Stanwell’s point of view, they got design and production ideas from the greatest pipe makers in the world. We all know how beautiful some of those relatively inexpensive pipes were. This exchange of thought was a boon to Stanwell that was invaluable to the brand, but was lost when modern corporate methods were employed. If the new design cost Stanwell $500 or $2000, big money to a poor pipe maker, it might earn Stanwell 10 or 100 times that expenditure. It was a true symbiotic relationship.
Soon, with slower production and no new ideas or energy, the Danish factory proved to be unprofitable and was closed down, with production moved to a large Italian factory. Good-bye symbiosis. I can’t say that the factory in Italy is making bad pipes, but I can say, with the applied knowledge of a European insider, that the refined shapes Stanwell produced in the past can not be executed by the mass maker in Italy. The designs of Tom Eltang, Ivarsson, Anne Julie and others requires a bit of expert, experienced hand work. That expertise and experience is not in a large factory dedicated almost solely to creating big numbers. The above explains the boost in prices on good, used Stanwells. I always thought they were undervalued, anyway. — Marty Pulvers
Jobs replace the free exchange of labor with a collective subsidy not different than unions and somewhat like socialism. Instead of being paid for results, workers are paid for attendance and obedience. This means that the foolish thrive and the useful are ignored. Bosses value those that they can control and easily replace more than those who exceed norms.
This makes life in a job miserable and destructive to the soul. But for machines, no such problem exists. If a pipe-maker creates a quality design, and then a robot manufactures ten thousand of those, the difference to the end consumer is minimal.
Let us hope robots take all of our jerbs. This will produce an immediate catastrophic effect on the human psyche: people will be forced to spend at least eight more hours a day getting to know themselves. They will be forced to ask what makes their lives meaningful, since products will be much cheaper with robot labor.
Across the land, people will get up in the morning and be forced to do… nothing. For the first year, loafing will predominate. They will drink to excess, play the buttons off their video game controllers, watch television endlessly, take drugs and fornicate with other carnies like themselves. But then, something will happen that will terrify them.
They will become bored. None of these stimulations by themselves make a good life. And with the passage of time, mortality sets in. Suddenly they will have decades ahead of them that they must fill. They will not have fancy titles and “important” job responsibilities, or an excuse to boss others around, giving themselves a sense of purpose by being In Control.
People will have to actually spend time with their family members. They will get to know their children, neighbors and friends in detail. They will also come to know themselves, since even in the most television- and alcohol-blasted moments, they will still have thoughts and desires.
They will begin to dream. When everything is easily possible, they have no excuse for not challenging themselves with something that might not earn money, but could make a difference. A barn made of hand-carved wood, intricately etched in designs retelling the tale of an epic battle? A great symphony? Hand-to-hand combat for dominion of a local area? The possibilities will actually be endless.
As far as the economics go, some form of universal basic income in exchange for non-profitable labor will come to pass. Every park will have a guardian, every building a doorman-guardian, every patch of forest a forester. There will be no litter on the streets and no unsupervised areas. People could work for four hours a day on these pursuits and still have plenty of time to get to know themselves.
It could be that in the end of Fahrenheit 451, individuals will become masters of books. They will memorize a single volume, study it in depth and retell it, possibly with improvements much as the ancient Greek singer-poets did. They may, as the European aristocracy did, adopt small scientific pursuits and attempt to explore them in ultimate detail.
People will quickly fall into two camps: those who can handle the existential burden of having nothing to do, and those who so need to be distracted that existence will become hell for them. Perhaps those will turn to roller derby full time; who really cares? Those are the people who clog our current existence with misery.
Now, this is no Utopian vision. It mainly fixes the void of meaning in modern life. There will be consequences as well.
For example, robot pipe-makers replace human pipe-makers, and humans will lose the ability to perform that task because it is no longer needed. Unless he is living by intellectual property alone, through licensing his design, a pipe-maker has no purpose unless he is making luxury objects for those who fetishize “handmade.” This will produce designers who make impractical but distinctive designs.
Another disadvantage is that robot quality will mean uniform service, and will take Social Darwinism out of the equation. If it does not matter how you choose, or where you buy food, because you will thrive the same with any option, people will survive no matter how bad their decisions are. Equal survivability obsoletes our facility for making critical decisions.
There will be solutions for those as well. Perhaps a return to public dueling, or robots that move through the streets very slowly looking for victims to consume, or an ideological movement based on buying hand-made items only. But in the meantime, it will be very silent in the human soul for the first time in a long time, and actually difficult mental decisions will have to be made.