Author Archive

Discovering Nihilism

Wednesday, December 7th, 2016

Reader-submitted photo.

Writing about nihilism presents a problem in that most people equate nihilism with fatalism, or the giving up on any chance to make life saner, better, more pleasurable, or even excellent. Fatalism is in fact the most common human response to life, and consists of both a grudging acceptance of the failures of life because it is more convenient than fighting them, and a resentment which allows the individual to consider themselves a victim, pity themselves, and then use that feeling as a justification for indulging their self-centered urges as compensation for their suffering.

Nihilism as espoused in Nihilism: A Philosophy Based in Nothingness and Eternity, on the other hand, is a radical skepticism toward the means of perception that are convenient for humans. The large Simian brain tends to fit perception into what is convenient for its own modes of thinking, which means that it projects its own order onto reality, and tends to create a tunnel vision by making a first impression and then filtering out data that does not conform with that thesis.

In addition, nihilism rejects false dualities like “subjectivity” and “objectivity” based in universalism, or the idea that all human minds work alike, which is a projection by the individual that makes them feel as if they control their world. There is no truth, communications or standard value system; rather, each of us acts according to what we are as genetic organisms, and that determines what we can understand and thus what truths we perceive, how we interpret language and thus how we translate communications from others into our own meaning, and a values system specific to the degree of excellence and realism we can analyze and interpret.

The doctrine of nihilism wages war against proxies, or intermediate human measurements which can be gamed and therefore create dark organization within human groups. Proxies create conditions for their own satisfaction which do not achieve satisfaction of their ostensible goal, creating perverse incentives for deception by adhering to the letter of the law and ignoring its spirit. Instead, nihilism argues for a morality of cause and effect, such that we measure our acts by their results and consequences and not our intent.

This “black pill” reverses every idea of The Enlightenment,™ which posited that human reason was universal and therefore, we could understand things in groups instead of relying upon the exceptional among us to comprehend them. Nihilism is a war-cry for the competent to rise in a hierarchy and oppress the rest, even if merely by dominance of opinion, because humans are not equal and accuracy of perception is more important than ideological conformity and the social good feelings it produces.

Over at Praefuscus Ferrum, occult writer D.A.R.G. has conducted a three-part examination of the book, culminating in an inspection of its esoteric and traditionalist aspects:

Brett Stevens advocates nihilism as a gateway to realism and idealism which, hand in hand and dealt with higher intellect, take the mentality of the individual towards transcendentalism. In a summarised manner, it is an extreme acknowledgement of what is without trying to impose human illusion over the tangible and measurable universe, only to then head towards the highest ideals that we can think of in an ever-ascending path. The beneficent effect of this outlook is twofold: first, it bypasses any impulse towards compromise and mediocrity, and second, it forces us to consider the permanent first of all, and the temporal in view of it.

Furthermore, to achieve such a vision, humans are required to put aside their egos, and so any illusions of socially-imposed egalitarianism in favour of a holistic vision of what is good as per ultimate consequences. Unfortunately, some divide this into two black-and-white categories in the common means versus ends dilemma, which is only so for those afflicted with narrow minds and short sightedness. Each question should be evaluated in its own context, not dealt with in prescribed absolutes such as “this is bad/good”, and rather as “what will the effect of this course of action be in this condition?”.

To follow up on these ideas, readers might also seek out the general introduction to nihilism offered by the publisher.

This follows an in-depth analysis of the underpinnings of Germanic Idealism present in the philosophy of nihilism

However, according to Brett Stevens, reality must be perceived or understood as having an underlying logic. But like the ancients and their esoteric holistic fusion of science, philosophy and religion, and unlike most post-Descartes and Aristotelian philosophy, it recognises that reality is ineffable.

This recognition may explain why so many different coherent explanations have cropped up in modern philosophy, without one or another possessing an objective superiority. This ineffability of reality leads to the esoteric method and the recognition of occult properties: those which we may never perceive directly; not even through scientific instruments, for physical science can only study effects. The apparent incoherence of esotericism, including the way Brett Stevens approaches nihilism, can only be resolved through direct experience in what is termed as a ‘coincidence of opposites’.”

The author also explains the roots of nihilism in heuristic realism:

By destroying all illusion of human-given value one comes to a direct and plain experiencing of reality. Thereby the plain, consistent workings of an immanent reality become apparent, or the emanations and manifestations thereof. This is the Godhead of the semi-esoteric Western Christian, which in the Tree of Life consists of the Supernal Triangle containing the higher Trinity (the “Father”, for all intents and purposes) that defines the abstract ‘mechanics’, relations and polarities of reality at every level.

Be that as it may, such conceptualisations may serve a further conscious study, but an attentive and self-directed mind will perceive and attain these notions unaided by theoretical systems, mystical or otherwise. The individual may thus be led, in his search for value, to consciously selected methods and systems by the way they address reality itself rather than by external imposition. This attainment of power is exciting and decisive in the future of the individual.

Any writer would be fortunate to attract the readers who have written in on this book — alert, introspective, analytical and rigorous — and it is its triumph that, regardless of ultimate popularity, it has found the group who are forging the future of humanity in hearts and minds. With any luck, it will be a popular Christmas gift this year, spreading perplexity and terror to humanity.

Read Between The Lies (#1)

Tuesday, December 6th, 2016

From The Wall Street Journal, an inspection of the “post-ideological” era:

If President Barack Obama sought to usher America into a postracial era, it is increasingly apparent that President-elect Donald Trump is opening the door to the postideological era.

In fact, it’s nearly impossible to identify a clear ideological bent in the incoming president’s early moves. It’s probably a mistake to try, because the definitions of left and right, liberal and conservative, are being scrambled right before our eyes.

Some Trump moves so far track with his populist outsider campaign image. Others are moves a conventional conservative could make. Some on his team would have been comfortable picks by any standard-issue Republican; some could as easily have been made by a Democratic president-elect.

Reading between the lies is an acquired skill.

First, it helps to notice that these three paragraphs say essentially the same thing in different ways: Trump did not act as Leftists expect him to because, instead of appointing people who support his exact vision of the whole, he is choosing people on a realistic basis, selecting those who can serve well in each office.

Then, it makes sense to look for the hidden agenda. These are the first three paragraphs of the article and generally speaking, any major themes will appear there. Here is the sleight of hand: the definitions of left and right, liberal and conservative, are being scrambled

This is the usual Leftist trope. “Bad = Good” is how you get equality. “Left = Right” is what they are hoping for, because that way, they can keep being Leftist and call it Rightist, just like they did with all those neoconservative RINO cucks in the past.

Finally, we should look at the actual content of the verbiage above: “post-ideological” and the final sentence: Some on his team would have been comfortable picks by any standard-issue Republican; some could as easily have been made by a Democratic president-elect.

That final sentence summarizes the actual content of the article, and “post-ideological” is the conclusion he uses to explain it away, hoping that you will not realize that “post-ideological” equals rejection of ideology equals Realism of a sort, which means conservatism. As you may recall, conservatism is consequentialism plus transcendental goals.

In other words, we have not shifted toward in ideological Right, but by rejecting ideology, have moved away from the Left, and all that is “left” is the Right.

The media, being what they are, will not want to admit this. If you are a journalist with no power except your voice, you want some way to seem more important than reality as it is, and the best way to do this is to have a moral voice. This makes you socially important, and at that point, you are in the domain of the Left even when badged as Right.

When our media is read between the lies, much is revealed, but mostly how much adornment is given to the plain and obvious to make it seem fascinating for the aimless among us.

Fixing The Trabant

Tuesday, December 6th, 2016


A decade ago, the new car was purchased. It was a triumph of scientific engineering, using all the principles that people knew to be good and well.

“It uses Ironic Prediction,” the salesman said. “Whatever you think is normal and right, it does the opposite, because life is just not how it appears.”

The family took it home. It was an odd car, with multiple engines in strange compartments, odd utilitarian seating, and styling that was a cross between art deco and a concrete box. But no mind: it was new, and the envy of all the neighbors, and besides, there might be something to this scientific ironism thing.

As days went by, the family praised the car. Unlike their past car which was fast and dangerous, the new vehicle never made hasty moves. In fact, it was difficult to steer at all, so generally the best path was to find a simple route to wherever you needed to go. They spent more time walking to and from parking lots far from their objective, but the family rationalized this as good exercise producing good health.

Glitches arrived with age. After the first six months, the father noticed that the car was making a knocking sound. He took it in to the repair shop. The mechanic called him a few hours later.

“The exhaust system had troubles, so we re-routed it through the cabin. No more knocking noise.”

Now the family drove everywhere, even in the depth of winter, with windows open as exhaust spewed out from the vents under their seats. It got to the point that the car went in again to the shop.

“Well — I can make the exhaust go elsewhere, but it is a little bit expensive…”

So they paid. They needed a car, and it was the pride of the neighborhood, so they shelled out almost the cost of the car again to have a new radiant exhaust system put in. Now wherever they want, the car blasted exhaust in all directions, so that they arrived in a cloud of smoke.

This kept the peace for almost four more years. Then one day the knocking was back, as if there were a prisoner in a cellar under the car. The mechanic lifted the hood.

“Eeeyugh,” he said. “A tough problem. I have a workaround.”

When the car came back, it was wrapped in rubber tubing. The new cooling system worked by chilling alcohol and pumping it through the engine, then up to a radiator on the roof. They could not open two of the doors and the car had lost all aerodynamic properties, but that was fine as it did not go fast anyway, which was what they liked about it.

“Finally fixed, so we have more time for work and play,” said the father gaily.

Barely another year had passed before the wheels fell off. As the tow truck pulled away, the father viewed the mechanic — the only one around for hours — warily.

“I can fix this, but it is not expensive.”

When the car came back, the children burst out laughing. The rear wheels had been replaced by several dozen roller skates. The front wheels on the other hand were made out of cast iron.

“It certainly looks like the latest scientific enhancements,” said the mother hopefully. They had moved from their nice suburban home to an apartment so that they could keep up the payments on the car fixes.

Finally normal life could return! The car, in a cloud of smoke and the grating noise of iron wheels, never arrived anywhere fast and was impossible to park because the steering was erratic, since they had replaced the wheel and brakes with a theremin six months previous.

Most of what brought the normalcy back was that they had worked around the car. Since they had no money, they no longer went out to restaurants. The children rode their bikes everywhere so that they did not have to be in the smoky, unstable car. The father found that walking to work, an hour each way, was much easier than struggling with the temperamental steering system.

But some places required a car. So they all got in what had once been their pride, and hustled off in a shuddering wall of noise and the grinding sound of roller skate wheels. One day, just as they had purchased their groceries for the month, the car simply failed to start.

And so they paid. Paid for the taxi ride home with all their groceries, melting in the heat. Paid for the tow truck. Paid for the repair shop to take a look.

Then: “The drivetrain needs an overhaul. It is still designed with too much conventional wisdom. We need something unexpected, a flair of the human…”

When the car came back from the shop, the family was too tired of the process to even laugh. Now it had a giant contraption like a salad shooter mounted on the hood. It rotated as they drove, casting brightly colored lights over the walls of nearby buildings. The only difficulty was that to see around it, the father had to lean his head out the window, which caused him to constantly have an aching neck and back, in addition to being barely able to steer the car.

At this point, they used the car only on official holidays. Otherwise, it was just too troublesome, and it always ended up costing them money. “Stay away from the verdammt horseless carriage!” the father said. “Too much modern progress can kill you.”

Unfortunately, they still needed to use it on some occasions. When the eldest son got married, they drove up to the church in a cloud of smoke, grinding wheel noise and carnival aura of multicolored lights. But when it was time for the couple to leave, the car refused to start.

“No problem, we can walk. It is only a few dozen miles,” said the son, his bride enthusiastically agreeing. No one wanted to be the first to criticize the car which had been the pride of the neighborhood now for some years.

The father went back to the shop, feeling much older than he was. “What now?” he said simply.

The mechanic poked around inside the engine compartment, then looked under the car, checking fluids and fiddling with bolts. “The problem is that its design is still too much, begging your pardon sir, natural. We must re-align every part of the car on a grid, and give each one equal importance.”

The father looked down at his old shoes, patched pants, and thin wallet. “No,” he said simply.

“You must,” said the mechanic. “You have put so much money and years into this already, and everyone knows, it is the only right way.”

“No,” said the father again.

When he got home to his wife, he said, “We are not the pride of the neighborhood anymore. I sold the car. Maybe we can just have a normal life.”

“Good,” she said. “That Enlightenment™ thing never worked for us anyway, no matter how many times we patched it up.”


The history of modern humanity can be summarized thus: an Idea was introduced that seemed profound because it was not real. No matter how many modifications we made to it, it did not work, even though it flattered us.

In the process, we found that those who spoke against the Idea — despite their lack of being 100% good heroes much of the time — were right, and we denied them. The American Nativists, Anders Breivik, Adolf Hitler, The Ku Klux Klan, Ted Kaczynski, Varg Vikernes, the John Birch Society, Enoch Powell: they were right all along, even if they did some bad things as well.

Equality does not work. The Enlightenment™ is dead. Long live the naturalistic future.

Political Correctness: An Extension Of Archetypal Leftist Psychology

Tuesday, December 6th, 2016


The Left rose through a singular power: a simple idea that made people feel comfortable in their social group, binding them together into a band to conquer all so that it would serve this idea.

For that reason, it makes sense not to say that Leftists are individually totalitarian, but that the thinking of Leftism is inherently totalitarian and individual Leftists will not be satisfied until they achieve a state that is both totalitarian and reality-denying.

The nature of ideology, after all, is to replace reality. It is the anti-reality. It tells you not how things work, but how they should according to human social logic. Leftism is at war with reality.

As a variant of Crowdism, Leftism is based in individualism. Every individual in the group wants guaranteed acceptance by the group. For this reason, they form a gang to make this so, but while their method is collectivism, their motivation is individualism.

What gives Crowdism power is the transfer of society from cooperative — where all people work unequally toward a goal that all understand — to control-based structures, where a formal goal is set up and applied equally to all in order to maintain power structures despite the fragmentation of society into many special interest groups, with individualists being one of these.

This gives rise to dark organization or a counter-current within society, formed of the individualist gang, that operates against its goals. Special interest groups do not share the goal of society as a whole, and therefore become parasitic: they take from the whole to support their own agendas.

For these reasons, the gang/cult of the parasite is always in motion. Its agenda never rests because it has hacked the human brain with a simple pleasing concept that short-cuts everything else. “If everyone is accepted, no one is at risk, and there will be no conflict,” is its underlying appeal, and the very fact of this simplification makes the meme powerful. It appeals to fear.

Since its motive is always conquest from within, the Crowd uses a number of hooks to short-circuit the psychology of others, and these in turn shape its own thinking into a pathological (repetitive without regard for results) obsession. This mental state can be recognized by the following internal cycles:

  • Begging the Question. To advance itself, Leftism uses this fallacy to transition political ideas to perceived social morality ideas. As we see with political correctness, the basic form is to assert that certain things are universally good, and therefore that in the converse, anyone who opposes those ideas is bad. The basic form of the fallacy is as follows:

    The fallacy of circular argument, known as petitio principii (“begging the question”), occurs when the premises presume, openly or covertly, the very conclusion that is to be demonstrated (example: “Gregory always votes wisely.” “But how do you know?” “Because he always votes Libertarian.”).

    A special form of this fallacy, called a vicious circle, or circulus in probando (“arguing in a circle”), occurs in a course of reasoning typified by the complex argument in which a premise p1 is used to prove p2; p2 is used to prove p3; and so on, until pn − 1 is used to prove pn; then pn is subsequently used in a proof of p1, and the whole series p1, p2, . . . , pn is taken as established (example: “McKinley College’s baseball team is the best in the association [ pn = p3]; they are the best because of their strong batting potential [ p2]; they have this potential because of the ability of Jones, Crawford, and Randolph at the bat [ p1].” “But how do you know that Jones, Crawford, and Randolph are such good batters?” “Well, after all, these men are the backbone of the best team in the association [ p3 again].”).

    Strictly speaking, petitio principii is not a fallacy of reasoning but an ineptitude in argumentation: thus the argument from p as a premise to p as conclusion is not deductively invalid but lacks any power of conviction, since no one who questioned the conclusion could concede the premise.

    The final line may be the most important: this argument type is a linguistic sleight-of-hand, and the only reason it works is that the premise is associated with universal moral good, a concept that itself is an assumption. But because of its appearance in a social setting, the argument seems convincing because universal acceptance is a necessary basic attribute of socializing in large and thus broad groups. This is how the Crowd forms.

    For example, consider the Leftist argument for diversity: variety is good, therefore we need ethnic variety. The only way to oppose this seems to be to criticize the conclusion of the argument, when the real solution is to attack the assumption and the inexact language that allows it to seem relevant. Variety is good in certain contexts, and only certain types of variety, and these do not analogize to civilizations very well.

    The Left moves into circulus in probando by stacking its assumptions: “Because (we assume that) morality is universal, (we assume that) diversity is good, and since (we assume that) diversity is working so well, we need to expand the program.” In fact, all of Leftism can be seen as a circulus in probando starting with the idea that personal intent is more important than reality — the core of individualism and The Enlightenment™ — and moving to universalism, democratization and finally, to the extension of those principles to other areas. Diversity might be viewed as ethnic democracy, welfare as subsidized universalism, and strong state control as democratization of power.

  • Rationalism. Humans like to think that reason alone will bring them to correct answers, but they forget that our reasoning is shaped by our minds and must correspond to a reality more complex than our minds. Reason is thus not a singular thing, but many grades of an idea, and in addition to that, it varies with the individual.

    For those reasons, saying that reason will guide us to correct answers necessarily overloads our minds with the imposition of the idea that all people are the same, and that reason works like a calculator, when in fact it is more varied. That in turn creates the curse of rationalism which is that it enables people to have tunnel vision by identifying a plausible answer and then finding facts to support it, instead of assessing all facts and finding a model which fits all of the known data.

    Rationalism in this sense is not essentially distinct from rationalization, or developing a way of visualizing an unfortunate event as a positive one. In this case, the unfortunate event is civilization collapse, and so instead of fighting it, the Left rationalizes it and directs its attention away from fixing the problem to finding a way to feel good about the problem. Both rationalism and rationalization start by accepting a perception and then altering facts by filtering out those that do not conform to the thesis so that the perception appears not just true but inevitable.

  • Control. When cooperation can no longer exist because society is pulling itself apart into special interest groups, control appears: force everyone to go through the same procedures, or “means” versus “ends” or goals, equally or in the same way, so that details can be managed from central control or through a centralized narrative, even if independently interpreted as is the case with egalitarianism, the founding idea of the Left.

    The modern method can be seen as Social Control, or use of the threat of ostracism and reward for making people feel good as dual pincers of the control mechanism. Guilt is the primary weapon there: those who are not ideologically conforming become aware that others will be “upset” or “offended” by their acts, and are made to feel bad not about the consequences of their actions in reality, but in the perceptions of others.

    This process of regulating people through public appearance proves deadly effective because humans — like our Simian forebears — are social creatures. Alienation does not require government intervention, and because it causes others to fear for themselves if they are associated with the alienated person, spreads like a disease. It is more effective than any other means of punishment because the consequences are all-pervasive.

    When noticed by humans, social control is referred to as peer pressure with all the implications of collective punishment that this indicates. A small group, like a local community, fears being associated with bad ideas, so it punishes those who have them. In addition, this group will punish a group within it for deviation from the norm. This means that the individual is totally dependent on the group for behavioral cues and must follow whatever is decided, in an inversion of democracy but an extension of democratization. When all people have a voice, conformity results, and then it is made mandatory.

  • Crybullying. To advance a petitio principii fallacy, one must act as if the assumption therein is normal and universally liked. This requires playing the role of an innocent, benevolent and passive party. However, when someone refuses the assumption, this requires the fallacy advocate to act the role of wounded victim, which then justifies (synonyms: rationalizes; excuses) retaliation.

    This produces a type of weaponized passive aggression or indirect bullying. The Leftist needs to appear somewhere, insist on a Leftist method, and then act wounded while summoning the troops — the rest of the gang/cult — to attack. This enables Leftists to infiltrate any area of society and, by using their passive aggressive “victimhood” narrative, force others to conform to what the Leftist desires.

The psychology created by the above cannot be properly viewed as a philosophy, but an inversion of philosophy: instead of finding reasons to act in certain ways, it assumes basic human impulses — which like most undisciplined things, are usually wrong — are correct and then invents explanations for those that make them seem reasonable.

That however implicates a philosophy with two branches:

  • Means Over Ends. Leftism embraces a classic “means over ends” analysis. In that view, the goal does not matter so much as behaving in a correct way, in this case for social approval. That allows necessarily goals to be ignored if the methods needed are upsetting or inconvenient to the group, which “wags the dog” because then instead of thinking toward purpose, people think away from purpose and let methods become a substitute for goals. This rationalizes the lack of purpose inherent to a dying civilization and creates an imitative society where people repeat past successful acts without knowledge of what made them successful, simply by placing trust in the method and being afraid to contemplate goals.
  • Cause And Effect. Normally, we see our actions as the cause of an event which had certain effects, or outcomes. In the inverted world of Leftism, cause is removed by the assumption of moral goodness to methods, which signifies that the methods are both effect and cause. This removes the human ability to see cause, and by declaring the irrelevance of ends or effects, obliterates our ability to formulate independent goals. This creates atomized, infantilized, and domesticated people who depend on strong authority for guidance, as their acts otherwise are goalless and therefore become self-destructive in addition to pointless.

The root of this philosophy is a resistance to life itself: people would prefer to be gods in their own minds than to realize their place in an order — structure, hierarchy, flow of events — that makes life what it is. This is the essence of control within the human mind. It rejects all that is natural and replaces it with a world composed entirely of human thoughts, feelings and judgments. This is comforting to the under-confident and neurotic.

All high-level societies die through some form of Crowdism, which is usually Leftist. When a civilization is forming, its purpose is clear: create civilization, beat back nature and disease, and organize so that the pleasures of life are possible. After that point, civilization is taken for granted because most people cannot see the reason to choose a new purpose, since they have the effects of the work that created that civilization.

Dysgenics factor in here as well, especially in cities large enough to be anonymous. People need only to find a job, rent a place to live, and purchase food from street vendors. Everything else is optional. It is not surprising that modern Leftists are enamored of the job/rent/restaurant lifestyle. This, and the advances in institutionalized hygiene and safety that save people from their own bad choices, create people who are living but have no will to live other than the mechanical and material process of survival itself. With this, purpose and bravery die.

Anti-goals afflict successful civilizations only. One mode of thought, embraced by primitivists and Nietzscheans to varying degrees, is that civilization — if it wishes to survive — needs to back off of “perfecting” everyday life, and should preserve dangers. The idea of social Darwinism that is not in love with jobs and money holds that there should be no externalized costs to individual actions, such that each individual faces the consequences of his actions including potential death. This means strict punishment for any costs incurred to society by the individual, a lack of things like insurance and uniform methods of survival, and daily challenges so that the clueless weed themselves out.

Another possibility for civilization survival is to design it such that every action must have a purpose, and the results are compared to that purpose, with those who achieve parity between intention and reality being promoted in a hierarchy. This creates constant internal evolution and at the very least disenfranchises those who are inept at everything but collecting social approval. In other words, society must be less “social” and more purpose-driven.

Diversity presents a fundamental problem in any society because with the presence of a single person from the Other group, either social standards must be widened to include the standards of both self and Other, or those who are Other will be at a disadvantage and appear to be victims. That in turn jump-starts the begging-the-question fallacy by making it easily observed that the Other is failing, and assuming that this is bad, and therefore that “change” must occur.

Above all else, we must remember what Walt Kelley told us years ago: “We have met the enemy, and he is us.” Inside of each of us is a monkey. This monkey reacts to life out of fear and lives in a miasma of superstition, projection and denial through filtering out inconvenient and upsetting information. This monkey is driven by impulse, which leads to rationalization of that impulse, and reverts thought. The healthiest civilizations are disciplined more in terms of private thoughts than public behavior, but not through Control; instead, they aim for realism and other methods of refining the spirit to be rigid about its thinking and to push down the monkey impulses.

Our inner monkey resents life for not being equal to our intent as individuals. That choice forces us to either accept reality as it is (nihilism) or to accept only ourselves, then rationalize that denial as good, and in turn blot out reality without a consensual hallucination of human thoughts, feelings and judgments. Since this has its root in the monkey impulse toward self-importance in defiance of a reality structured otherwise, it is also a regression and the source of the dark organization that is Crowdism.

We have come to recognize Typical Leftist Behavior (TLB) with increasing frequency as the achievement of Leftist goals (diversity, equality, democratization, globalism) has made reality totally unknown to most people, resulting in terrible consequences when their ideas are put into practice, as usually happens with reality-denial. TLB takes many forms but all are based in the schema above.

The threats in front of us — Leftism, The Enlightenment,&trade civilization collapse — are themselves effects of this inner transformation of human beings. We no longer intend to achieve good results; we focus instead on making our feelings happy despite the darkness around us, but this deprives us of a sense that life can be a joy and a pleasure. That in turn pushes us toward more dark thoughts and behaviors.

Salvation for Western Civilization begins when we not just reverse this process, but commit ourselves instead toward a purpose which replaces the original purpose of survival that kept our civilization united in its early years. We also must protect ourselves genetically, so that we are not replaced with the Other, even in traces, as those alter what we were and through atavisms of that, what we must be again.

The Left won because it had a simple idea that dominated all other thinking. The solution is not to try to replicate that, but to understand that simple ideas which dominate are in themselves a terrible notion, and that instead, we need a more nuanced, purpose-driven and realistic view of life. As Leftist society crashes in chaos around us, more are turning toward this idea or something like it.

XOG Intensifies Desire To Remove Non-Narrative Content From Internet

Monday, December 5th, 2016


The Xenophile Occupation Government (XOG) has through its Cathedral organs decided to work against memes. They will do so by creating a centralized registry of images, in which any tagged on one service will be banned on all. This is post-Orwellian madness designed to remove the presence of anything but the Leftist narrative:

Web giants YouTube , Facebook , Twitter and Microsoft will step up efforts to remove extremist content from their websites by creating a common database.

The companies will share ‘hashes’ – unique digital fingerprints they automatically assign to videos or photos – of extremist content they have removed from their websites to enable their peers to identify the same content on their platforms.

…YouTube and Facebook have begun to use hashes to automatically remove extremist content.

This is occurring because of pressure from the EU and US to remove both “fake news” and “extremist content” because it is allowing the “populist” — read: realists who have observed the failure of Leftism — revolt to boil over in opposition to the cadre of elites who promote each other, ensuring that they always win. The EU has been pushing for big social to remove “hate speech”, which shows us that “extremist content” means non-Leftist content and not, for example, jihadi propaganda:

If the Silicon Valley companies do not speed up their response to tackling illegal hate speech on their platforms, they will be be held accountable under European law, the Commission said Sunday.

Back in May, the companies all voluntarily signed up to a code of conduct, in which they promised to remove hate speech within 24 hours of it being posted and to promote counter-narratives. The code arose from concerns about a proliferation of hate speech on the platforms following a spate of terror attacks in Europe and amid the refugee crisis.

…”If Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and Microsoft want to convince me and the ministers that the non-legislative approach can work, they will have to act quickly and make a strong effort in the coming months,” she told the Financial Times.

When this database is created, it will undoubtedly include “fake news” from sites other than those which repeat the Party line. As some have pointed out, this is obvious censorship by collusion:

What the left is trying to do is designate anything outside its ideological bubble as suspect on its face.

In October, President Obama complained that we need a “curating function” to deal with the “wild-wild-west-of-information flow.” Who would be doing this “curating” is unclear — but we can guess: “Obviously,” Noah Feldman writes at Bloomberg View, “it would be better if the market would fix the problem on its own . . . But if they can’t reliably do it — and that seems possible, since algorithms aren’t (yet) fact-checkers — there might be a need for the state to step in.”

In other words, censorship.

In reality, this will shake out this way: some sites will be designated fake and some content designated extremist. Those who post either will find themselves shadowbanned on the big sites. In this way, the average person will see nothing but content from the Left-leaning mainstream media and be forced to conclude that no alternative exists.

Civilizational Extinction Among The Stars

Monday, December 5th, 2016


Astronomers are re-assessing the likelihood of advanced civilizations in space. They believe that the creation of such civilizations is more common than we think, but that we may find only empty ruins:

As Frank puts it “We don’t even know if it’s possible to have a high-tech civilization that lasts more than a few centuries.” With Frank and Sullivan’s new result, scientists can begin using everything they know about planets and climate to begin modeling the interactions of an energy-intensive species with their home world knowing that a large sample of such cases has already existed in the cosmos.

“Our results imply that our biological, and cultural evolution has not been unique and has probably happened many times before. The other cases are likely to include many energy intensive civilizations dealing with crises on their planets as their civilizations grow. That means we can begin exploring the problem using simulations to get a sense of what leads to long lived civilizations and what doesn’t.”

The second paragraph could have come straight from Plato. Civilizations may be plentiful, but their survival might be rare. This mirrors the pattern we see on Earth, where the more advanced civilizations die out.

One answer for their dying out is that they make life miserable. In an attempt to make everyone safe, and to eliminate caste distinctions, societies standardize to a utilitarian norm that is ugly, tedious and miserable. As a result, the smarter people drop out and have fewer children, and then the path to Idiocracy takes care of the rest.

A society designed to survive might be deliberately imperfect and avoid management and administrative tropes. It might instead be more anarchic but also more homogeneous, in that it would allow any behavior but eject those who failed to do anything worthwhile, causing constant internal risk and improvements through its hierarchy.

This would prevent the tendency of advanced societies which is to become big enough to lose sight of their original purpose, then to implement control as a means of keeping the herd together, and then perishing as the herd runs amok and the smart people die out. Perhaps, as with seeds in a forest, one in a thousand civilizations lives past a few centuries, and the rest revert to undeveloped states.

Richard B. Spencer To Speak In Texas On December 6, 2016

Monday, December 5th, 2016


Richard B. Spencer, fresh from heilgate and being named as a public face of the Alt Right by various publications with Soviet-level ideological lockstep, will be speaking at Texas A&M University on December 6, 2016. You might note: that is tomorrow.

According to his Radix Journal website, Spencer intends the event as a test of free speech despite the chaos threatened by counter-demonstrators.

Presented by Texas activist Preston Wiginton, the event promises to be exactly as divisive as it needs to be. Wiginton, readers may remember, also brought Jared Taylor to TAMU for another evening of Leftist tears and Rightist hopes. Spencer’s presentation should be equally focal.

How Online Bans Happen

Monday, December 5th, 2016


Most people know that services like Twitter and Facebook operate as tyrants on their own, but they do not realize that for those who are not vastly popular, most bans happen through a far more mundane experience:

  1. Several idiots complain in short succession. Leftists love to rally to do this, usually from a “third channel” like IRC or Slack (think JournoList in the small).
  2. The online site has a small team of minimum wage people who review complaints, and they are punished for failing to censor something that continues to be a problem, and almost never punished for refusing to censor a non-problem.
  3. The company wants paying advertisers anyway, so this allows it to exclude “populist” not-for-profit efforts.
  4. There is no way to weigh in with a positive vote for a user, or to speak against the ban, only the sudden disappearance by arbitrary and invisible forces.

Naturally this system is easily gamed. If you and five of your friends decide to report every Alt Right account on Twitter, they will most likely vanish, since the minimum wage person looking over the account will see “something” “offensive.”

The only solution is to decentralize, or escape the model of online services where one giant media conglomerate controls a quarter of internet traffic.

As an intermediate, having “free speech” services is not a bad idea, but they will find that they need to bring in money. At first, when it is two guys in a basement, that amount will be small; as they hire more staff, buy more servers and rent office space, they will need to either charge fees, acquire advertisers or constantly beg for donations like public television stations.

When they charge fees, users will expect expedited services, including the ability to protect their brands/services by censoring those who speak ill of them. If they acquire advertisers, those will insist on “family friendly” content, which now means among other things politically incontrovertible content, or inoffensive stuff to the current Leftist mentality. And if they beg for donations, having someone point to posts by people that society fears, like neo-Nazis, child pornographers or LARPers, will be enough to drive down their donations and dry up the service.

The Alt Right has several fronts, and one is the “Alt-Lite,” who are people primarily concerned with eliminating censorship so that they can live in a classically liberal or libertarian style society. While this approach does not work because humans tend toward self-destructive illusion and will therefore quickly compromise such a society, as happened over the past two centuries, it is a good intermediate to avoid the total Leftist domination that is the norm.

On the other hand, if we are designing a society for the future, it is one that uses the internet of the past: entirely decentralized, with us visiting the sites of individual users to see their content, and no central control by market-dominating social media and search engines. This is why, in the long game, blogs will win out over social media. But for the now, we must push toward that decentralized result.

Brett Stevens Q&A On Reddit, December 22, 8 PM EST

Sunday, December 4th, 2016


On December 22, 2016 at 8 PM EST, I will be answering questions and expounding on life in general at Reddit’s /r/altright, a community for those on the Right outside the mainstream. If you do not have an account, sign up for one here and fire away with the questions.

Many thanks to the /r/altright moderation team for making this possible. I look forward to interacting with all of you.

Why This Blog Is So Boring

Sunday, December 4th, 2016


You may notice a total absence on this blog of the signals that you use to identify “friendly” texts: personal narratives, emotional appeals, oversimplification and application of symbols as reality.

Some time ago, I encountered a fork in the road: go down the path of pandering to the emotions of other people, or focus more intently on accuracy and the interpretation of symbols. I chose the latter.

This means that the texts here will not fit what you expect from a web log (blog). Instead, they will be more descriptive, like an essay instead of an entertainment product.

What you do not realize is that this is an investment of faith in your ability to understand them and rise to the occasion. We are drowning in a society of peer pressure products, all of which encourage dumbing down and the retreat into the Simian emotions of the individual desiring acceptance from the Crowd.

The only way to fight back is to choose another path. The path chosen here is one that would have been familiar two centuries ago, and it involves somewhat cerebral writing removed from the individual. Think of a Zen master meeting a Templar Knight: the self is deprecated, and the focus of the writing rises into focus.

This will mean that Amerika will never be popular like the blogs that use rock ‘n roll terminology to make their readers feel important. Here, neither readers nor writers are rock stars; all of us are means to the end of finding some clarity in a world of confusion. This means that our writings will not sound easy to the ear like more product-oriented undertakings.

At the same time, the argument advances to the forefront, digging into the vast richness of topics yet unexplored. You are cast outside of yourself, and into a role as part of an ecosystem in understanding these. The basics of transcendence of both self and social group simultaneously are cast.

To most, this means “boring.” None of the cues are there. Nor are the easy and bready bits of text that make it easy to read. This is more like a school assignment or professional journal. And yet, by adopting that perspective, we restore the focus to the topic and away from both observer and writer.

It is an archetype of a new type of humanity, yet unrecognized, but painfully necessary.