Seven Layer Dip (An Explanation Of Parallelism As Applied to Politics

Photo Credit: "Dishin' With Di Recipe #42"
Photo Credit: “Dishin’ With Di Recipe #42”

Seven Layer Dip can be found at quality parties throughout the American southwest. Layers of cheese, meat, guacamole, salsa, bean dip, sour cream and vegetables are stacked and eaten with corn chips. However, it also provides a potent metaphor.

In the forthcoming book by this author, Parallelism1, the text describes a philosophy where all factors are considered instead of only those factors which the human notes because they are convenient for his thesis. Where modernity operates through the method of quantitative change, or selecting one element among many, parallelism takes the opposite approach and considers all elements at once.

When we talk about how to revitalize the West, this comes into play. Some say we need a renewal of religion, others want an end to democracy, still others demand hierarchy, some want race war, and some say we need rigorous capitalism to burn out the parasite infection. None of these are wrong, but all are incomplete.

Restoration of the West will require a combination of extrinsic and intrinsic factors. The intrinsic factors are a change in our attitudes and cultural outlook, but the extrinsic factors are what protects and nurtures the develop of those intrinsic factors. Liberalism is a lie; there is no “single idea” that can fix our problems, but a cluster of related notions united by principle.

For example, if our principle is the idea of an ascendant society, we can choose to orient that society toward existential well-being, or people feeling safe and secure. That requires in turn a stable type of society, which will correspond to the four pillars: methods which have worked since the dawn of time and will work for any intelligent species at any time.

In this way, our restoration plan works like the seven-layer dip. Religion, race, culture, values, government/anti-state, economic system and intrinsic renewal leading to attitudinal change work together toward the same goal. All are there, in every bite. This is the only sane model and those who reject it are focusing too much on what cultivates an audience, and not enough on what works.

1 — Looking for publishers at this time. Rejected by the big three. Too controversial, or just too inept?

Antiwork Ideas Spread In Sweden

Sweden has just mandated a six-hour workday. While this will irk the blustery “work hard and get ahead” American conservatives, it is in fact a move toward sanity:

“The eight-hour work day is not as effective as one would think,” Linus Feldt, the company’s CEO told Fast Company.

“To stay focused on a specific work task for eight hours is a huge challenge. In order to cope, we mix in things and pauses to make the work day more endurable. At the same time, we are having it hard to manage our private life outside of work.”

…He said the new work day would ensure people have enough energy to pursue their private lives when they leave work – something which can be difficult with eight-hour days.

The culture of perpetual work is viewed as a form of patriotism to our egalitarian ideal, in which all the smart people get tucked into miserable offices to work hard and pay for the rest. If you refuse this daily cuckolding, you are seen as striking a blow at the heart of our Republic.

And yet, because this work is nonsense two ways — most of the tasks are unnecessary, and most of the projects ill-conceived or pointless — people get caught into an ugly cycle. They hang out at the office, doing a whole lot of nothing, but cannot spend that time on something meaningful, so instead become trapped in a cycle of wasting time and then working too much.

The Swedes address the nonsense culture of work as well:

Mr Feldt has said staff members are not allowed on social media, meetings are kept to a minimum, and that other distractions during the day are eliminated – but the aim is that staff will be more motivated to work more intensely while in the office.

Sending people home for more hours a day enables them to have full lives and get to know themselves, at which point they are more able to make sane decisions regarding the world around them that previously was inaccessible. When we exist in a mutually consensual false reality comprised of human social interactions, actual reality becomes obscured.

The Right-wing parties have conventionally emphasized work as a good thing because to them, it is a valuable personal behavior. In doing so, they have subsidized the Left by creating a culture of constant work, so that Rightists have no time to fight Leftist insanity, and high taxes arising from the income generated. This is why they tend to bloviate on about the importance of work, and how they defeat themselves.

A more sensible Right-wing approach is to view civilization through an existential filter: the societies that are pleasurable and ascendant are the ones in which citizens are naturally productive, but this requires doing away with the notion of equality and replacing it with hierarchy, in the process moving along the parasites. This is why Leftism constructs itself around equality; it seeks to ensure that this does not happen.

In the meantime, the average Western citizen is subtly miserable, which is why people are destructive, dissolute and refuse to breed at replacement levels. Striking back against work culture and mindless brain-distractions provides one method of circumventing this damage.

Two Types Of Success

For those who write, there are at least two types of success: popularity and accuracy. There is an inverse relationship between the two but a sweet spot — a relatively narrow spot, and never ensuring Kardashian-level popularity — exists.

This fragile balance however easily disturbs itself because the writer will experience massive pressure to “succeed,” generally at the expense of only a little bit of accuracy at first, much as when writing a sentence a writer can opt to make the sentence simpler, punchier and more flavorful at the price of introducing inexactitude.

At first, the writer may sacrifice perhaps ten percent accuracy and relevance and substitute it with what makes writing popular, which is (literally) more of the same stuff that people always like to read: sex, violence, scapegoating, victimhood, one-dimensional morality plays, hype. But over time the percentage increases because the audience is mostly driven by the filler instead of the content, and stop rewarding it, at the same time any audience concerned with content drops out.

This blog has avoided the sweet spot for this reason and opts instead to be an internal dialogue for all critics of the human tendency toward illusion. Its goal is not to popularize these ideas, but to float them to those who will popularize them, which has been successful over the years (writings on this site include versions of texts developed in the late 1980s).

The payoff of this approach is that the filter of communication is reduced, and the ability to be exact is increased, which fits with the mission to diagnose human illusion and explain why it is wrong and produces bad consequences.

This means that our writers do not hand people the appearance they seek, visually or in the arguments advanced. People expect certain clusters of ideas to clump together and form a football team style “side,” and then to bang the tin drum about them and cheer and use those ideas to imply that other people are morons.

Here a different approach is taken, which is to recognize that all of us humans are morons by nature — or rather, monkeys, sometimes with car keys — who can improve ourselves by understanding ourselves, and through that our world, and finally, the options available for our purpose.

Some of our coming articles are a bit rough, especially for those on the right. Conventions will be violated, convenient explanations debunked, and holy cows spit-roasted with jalapeno sauce. Then again, if you are reading here, you expect nothing less.



The kids are alright. What I mean is, we should view the world through the eyes of a young teenager, because that person has a perspective we all learn from.

We start out with as close to an empty mind, except intuition, as possible at birth. We mature, and then people layer heaps of obligations upon us. Reasons why we cannot do things. Obligations, especially to pretense and public image. Fears and doubts.

But a teenager is on the bend. They still retain the innocence and clarity of childhood, but are struggling with the entropy and calcification of adulthood. When they encounter adult worlds, they speak a truth through immaturity: this is not right.

Their measure is not moral, nor is it practical. It is both aesthetic and realistic. The aesthetic part is that they realize we create misery, us adults, by bowing down to complaints, disadvantages, restraints and fears. The realistic part is that they realize that aesthetics determine our attitude toward life, so if we want good results, we need to put people into an open, loving, hopeful, cheerful state of mind.

Say that to your average adult and they will drop fifty cents in your coffee and tell you to “Get a job!”

Children are inherently aware of our tendency to ruin things. That is, foreclose on the possibilities of them, and replace those with the obligations toward other people that destroy the potential of every good thing in life. Why look toward the sun, when we can stare into the fearful faces of the crowd?

The teenage question is ultimate, What is right? where “right” comprises morality, aesthetics and long-term hopes and dreams. A teenager can still admit they want a Tolkien-esque world, but with computers and toilets, and point out that most of what we do as modern people is wasted time for the sake of appearance. They command us to set ourselves free.

Every time I interact with a smart teenager, I am struck by their clarity. Their morality is to not ruin the experience of life. In their minds, life should always be an adventure of discovery, a sensation of goodness, a hope of something amazing around every corner. I am inclined to think they are right.

Since I was young, through my own adulthood, I have observed that adults are like concrete on a freeway in rain: beaten down into a uniform mud-like substance, aware only of what it fears, never aspiring. As long as the mortgage is paid, the kids are in bed and the wife is not in therapy, things are good. But this is a negative vision of life.

Immaturism demands that we make life into a good experience as a whole. Maturity breaks life down into many questions which we must take at face value in order to be seen as good citizens, but immaturism views life as a whole. Is the experience a good trade for death? And if not, how can we fix it?

Academic philosophers love to divide the questions of life into many smaller categories, like aesthetics versus practicality. Immaturism views them as existing in parallel, meaning that each is a slice of understanding the same basic issues. Life is what it is, and our responses to it reveal what we understand.

Immaturism takes life as a whole and looks to the quality of experience. The kids are alright. They understand that without a life we can have faith in, we drift into subdivisions of the question itself, and justify our choices as to the whole with callow excuses and rationalizations. We either look at the big picture and details together, or we mislead ourselves.

Contrary to our adult biases, children are the farthest thing from non-judgmental. They are quick to reject that which ruins their vision of life. Since their vision is hopeful, it provides a good basis for how to choose what is healthy and what is not. That which does not add beauty is poison, and must be smitten and driven away, or we admit its cold darkness into our own souls.

Metaphor For The Enemy: Locusts


Parasites. Do we look any further? No: the easiest role is as one who takes more than one gives, and then hides that fact — if a language-enabled creature like humans — behind a sociable, or flattering to others, justification like altruism, egalitarianism or pity.

the locusts have no king,
yet they advance together in ranks. – Proverbs 30:27

Parasitism is easy because it requires no plan. In fact, it is the anti-plan: the idea that there needs be no goal, no method of achieving a future, and no principle. Only take what is convenient. Opportunism, narcissism and moralism coincide in the mentality of the parasite, which takes what it wants without considering consequences, then excuses itself with some broad platitude about how everyone deserves to eat.

Our society is swarming in parasites. Yes, the poor are mostly parasites, but so are many of the “successful” who knowingly take on useless jobs for the salaries and power. And the news reporters, politicians, lawyers, self-help instructors, populist priests and psychologists? What do they do that is not parasitic, but thickly disguised?

Humanity finds it hard to believe that, having vanquished nature, we find the same roles that exist in nature cropping up among us. But it is true: people are either docile prey animals, predators, parasites or the (rare) independent creatures of lawless atavism.

If humanity survives, future generations will look on this time as the age of publicly legitimized parasites. They will say that without scorn, only cold emotionless diagnosis, which is why such undramatic clarity is so massively feared in our time.

Our Leaders Now Resemble Serial Killers


Many in our truly clueless media caught on to the meme about Ted Cruz being the Zodiac Killer, which is implausible only because the Zodiac Killer was competent and stuck to a plan. But the recent fawning media gush over Tim Kaine’s youthful photographs has illustrated how clueless the media is yet again.

Following the footsteps of Mr. Cruz, the young Kaine appears to have wanted to make himself appear much like another famous serial killer, Richard Ramirez a.k.a. “The Nightstalker.” Kaine has the same fixed grin and dead eyes that Ramirez displayed in court, but may have the advantage of never having been arrested for serial killing. Possibly that is the “white privilege” he keeps talking about.

Anti-Communist Lyrics From Mainstream Bands


From a heavy metal band named Crimson Glory on their album Transcendence (1988), the song “Red Sharks”:

Trapped in their world no free passage to leave
You accept their tyrannical dream
You pray to their gods not to your chosen ones
Freedom’s clutched in the jaw of red kings
Give us your freedom, we’ll give you hell
Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil
Give us your freedom, we’ll give you hell
Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil
Glory to red sharks
Answer to your red dictators
Feeding from your dreams
Cast into a sea of red sharks
Holding the power a hand that grips fate
Stripping from you all but fear
Hovering vultures like demons feed
On all who bow to their communist scheme
Give us your freedom, we’ll give you hell
Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil
Give us your freedom, we’ll give you hell
Hear no freedom, see no freedom, speak no freedom
Glory to red sharks
Answer to your red dictators
Feeding from your dreams
Cast into a sea of red sharks
Bloody red sharks

Interesting to see these artful but anti-communist lyrics floating around out there. Thanks to an alert reader who sent this in.

Is the Alternative Right Actually White Nationalism In Disguise?

Neurotic Vox theorizes about the Alternative Right:

The alt-right is often dismissed as white supremacist Trump supporters with Twitter accounts, and they are certainly that. But spend some time talking to key players and reading the movement’s central texts, as I did, and you’ll find it’s more than a simple rebranding of the white nationalist movement. It’s the product of the intersection of a longstanding, long-marginalized part of the conservative movement with both the most high-minded and the basest elements of internet culture. It’s a mutated revival of a monster William F. Buckley thought he killed in the early 1990s, given new energy by the web.

In my view, this is totally wrong: the Alternative Right is an alternative to white nationalism as much as the Republicans.

The goal of the Alternative Right is to establish principles by which civilizations thrive, in contrast to the dying principles upon which we base our current time.

These include nationalism, naturally since all other options have failed, but also extend to many other options. In particular, the Alternative Right studies how the the common sense opinion of a population is replaced by that of its professional politicians.

A better way to view the Alternative Right: a recognition that liberal democracy has failed, and a searching for alternatives which are both not oppressive and not prone to decay like liberal democracy.

Of course the establishment wants it to be equated to white nationalism — they fear it!

Dark Patterns Arise From Light Intentions


From Slashdot, an analysis of the balance between rationalism and aestheticism:

‘There’s this logical positivist mindset that the only things that have value are those things that can be measured and can empirically be shown to be true, and while that has its merits it also takes us down a pretty dark place,’ said digital product designer Cennydd Bowles, who is researching ethical design. ‘We start to look at ethics as pure utilitarianism, whatever benefits the most people. Yikes, it has problems.'”

Exactly. Logical positivism and other forms of deduction are based on what currently exists and how categories can be applied to it. In reality, we must make choices before that stage, and argue from our inner needs for beauty/excellence/truth instead of arguing from the human needs that exist.

The problem with logical positivism is that it looks at human participation that already exists, and the needs of the people involved. This is a turning-away from the question of what should be done to advance the principle of civilization, which seems to me to be a hybrid between beauty and truth. Without that, civilization becomes tyranny.

But even more, we must consider the warning of William S. Burroughs:

Exterminate all rational thought!

Rationality reasons from what is, as opposed to aesthetic/moral thought which looks at what might be beautiful enough to honor the eternal truths.

A more sensible viewpoint looks toward aesthetics. What is beautiful, good and true? Make it happen. The people who exist now will be displaced, sure, but the result will be better.

The grim fact is that the darkest moments of humanity reside within its lightest intentions. Humans, by their intentions, create misery and horror. Only escaping that to the natural presents a realistic outcome.

When we rely on “logical positivism,” we are measuring the past. We are looking at what happened and trying to construct a future out of it, starting with the present instead of looking at the continuity between past, present and future.

The grim reality is that what we must make our decision upon is not just the present, but the continuity between ages. We must look at the curve between the past and the future, and fit ourselves into it.

This requires an arbitrary form of decision-making, based in the eternal, and aesthetics. This offends everything about “scientific” choice making, but also, offers us the ability to design our future, instead of merely reacting to what is in the present tense.

Neoreaction Conference To Be Held In London


We do not live in tolerant times. As in the former Soviet Union or today’s Cuba, there is an official Correct Way to think and those who fail to think this way, even if they do not explicitly disagree with it, find themselves excluded from opportunities and social groups.

Despite that, a brave group of arts community members are trying to bridge the divide. Later this year, they will launch an exhibit named Neoreaction, which is ‘an open [conference for] open minded progressives’ that explores Neoreactionary and Reactionary thought. This will be a short conference of talks and screenings on the subject of neoreactionary philosophy and politics, which the presenters view as one of the most interesting discursive spaces online in current times.

Hosted at a gallery in East London, the conference will be metaphorically playing with (ideological) fire, since Neoreaction and Reactionary thought are in opposition to modernity, liberalism and in fact every political assumption widely held in Western societies today. Already two members of the team, fearing for the loss of social and economic opportunities, have had to drop out, but the rest are soldiering on.

If you wish to attend, or are from the media and wish a press pass, please email which forwards to the organizers, who will remain anonymous until they are able to verify your good faith participation.