Join Us… We Are The Future


Two new things happened today: a listing of right-wing and conservative blogs and a new mission statement.

The former came about because blogrolls are too short and too political, since they are related to Google PageRank™ which now controls the internet, making it less of a frontier and more of an obedience test like the rest of our moribund society. Google should know better. I am told some in the company agree.

The latter was formulated to address two issues. One, very few understand what I and others are on about; they either see this blog as too Republican, or too extreme, but never as what it is, which is an unemotional cold logical look at human survival. Now the statement is simpler and maybe they’ll get it.

Second, this blog and its writers are not getting the credit they deserve. Going through the (many) blog links, I was struck by how few of these blogs have struck around, and even more, how few of them express anything but iterations of whatever is the trendy “dissident” view of the moment. The audience runs after the trend, then gets bored because it’s more of the same stuff they find anywhere else, then goes back to anime and video games. It’s time for them to see Amerika as the thought-leader that it is.

I started writing about political topics in the early 1990s, and really got my core philosophy going with a series of anti-democracy and pro-organicism flyers during the years of 1995-1997. Then I published extensively on the American Nihilist Underground Society, CORRUPT, and related blogs and sites at the time. I started Amerika to have a free-form place to talk about practical political and social concerns in commonsense but traditional philosophy.

You may notice a lack of the usual “blog stuff” around here: emotional appeals, discussions of theory unrelated to reality, the “Jewish Question” or anti-minority sentiments, and attempts to corral you into groups. The enemy here is an idea — individualism/egalitarianism — and every problem is a symptom of that. We strike at the neck of the Hydra, not its many heads.

As a result, this blog is a bit difficult. For Republicans, it has none of the usual signals and symbols. For underground people, it has none of the defensiveness or familiar tropes. What it does do is get to the root of those issues and explicate them for those who want to understand what is wrong and what must be done to fix it.

Join us… we are the future!

Brett Stevens On DNA India Talking Nihilism


Over at DNA India, the Sunday features section includes a brief mention and partial interview with myself regarding nihilism and how it intersects with happiness. You can read the article, “International Day of Happiness: What is happy for those who believe life has no purpose,” on the DNA India site in Roshni Nair’s column.

In the meantime, here is the full interview for grins ‘n’ giggles:

Before kicking off my queries about nihilism and happiness, I’d like to know what you make of World Happiness Day.

In my experience, the most common human event is the takeover of a term. Certain words, symbols and images convey great power, and so those who want to be powerful attempt to possess those things for purposes of thought control of the group. They almost always do this by creating a positive vision that involves the term, and then use that vision to define other terms as good or bad, which makes people want to do the good and run away from the bad. It is mind control, just not the type with radio waves and mystical charms. It operates through peer pressure.

As you allude to later on, there is a whole industry dedicated to making you think that what you have is not happiness, and that therefore you are bad, and should spend all of your time and money on self-help books about happiness. Luckily “happiness” is a vague term — it can mean “the state of momentary happiness” or “a state of mind of being happy” depending on context — and they can utilize that ambiguity to inject their own definition. This clever ruse makes them gatekeepers of what makes you happy (good) and what makes you sad (bad). This gives them imense power.

This particular charity I like more than the rest because they dared to have a campaign titled “Your happiness is part of something bigger.” Unfortunately, “something bigger” will quickly be redefined to mean charity work in odd places or some other rather individualistic pursuit, but for now they make a good point that our modern societies are epidemics of loneliness and isolation. That alone is quite important because most people deny that and pretend that everything in society is good, when in fact some is good, and some is rotten.

Does happiness exist, or do you think it’s just an umbrella term for the absence of suffering?

I am certain that happiness exists, but I am also certain we very rarely recognize it. “Happiness” varies its meaning in context; if you say “I seek a life of happiness” you are using a different word than when you say “that ice cream brought me happiness.”

Happiness in the moment may mean absence of suffering, as Arthur Schopenhauer suggests, but happiness in the life-long sense consists of contentment plus the realization that you are heading in the right direction. People like to feel that they are not wasting their lives, and that requires them to be engaged in some task external to them which is “good” in addition to having a pleasant life which they basically enjoy experiencing.

Happiness is misunderstood. On one side people like to think it means a constant state of ecstatic joy, forgetting that if it was constant, this would be a very boring life. On the other side, they say things like “happiness” is the absence of suffering and forget that we make affirmative decisions to improve our state beyond simply eliminating suffering.

As a nihilist, would you agree with the saying that goes, “You can’t be happy unless you choose to be”?

Absolutely. Enjoying happiness consists of giving yourself permission to recognize you are happy, and then enjoy it. Someone who is determined to be unhappy regardless will never find happiness. Someone who believes in happiness, and seeks it, must choose to be happy when he finds it even if it is not what he expected (in this life, things rarely are what we expect).

I think of Michel Houellebecq’s comments on a somewhat tangential topic:

INTERVIEWER: What is your definition of a Romantic?
HOUELLEBECQ: It’s someone who believes in unlimited happiness, which is eternal and possible right away. Belief in love. Also belief in the soul, which is strangely persistent in me, even though I never stop saying the opposite.

A line from your metalcrypt interview back in ’04 read: “The quickest way to find happiness in life is to find out what’s real.” Can a nihilistic life be a happy – or rather, fulfilling – one?

I’ll go farther and say that a nihilistic approach — which is basically a form of extreme realism and ego-denial — is essential to finding happiness. You need to be aware of reality and honest with yourself before you find any joy in anything. Otherwise, it is a projected joy, an unstable and untrustworthy thing. People say you can be happy by acting happy, but the point of the divide between self and world is that the two must be in agreement or you will never believe your own emotions. And instability is by definition not very happy.

A nihilist will look at life and work on his own perceptions until he is as close as possible to seeing what is real. This lets him perceive things, both physical and metaphysical, that tell him what is important. When he acts on those and achieves them, even if to a minor degree, he then has the groundwork of happiness in life, made by his own hands.

A nihilistic life is thus not a magic bullet like a self-help book or a strong drink. It is a steady process of, for lack of a better word, “maturation.” In it the young nihilist learns to discern between illusion and reality, and by acting on reality, is able to filter out all the stuff that wastes his time, and replace it with things that return contentment, happiness, even joy. At the end of it, the real and the ideal have come into alignment and his life is full.

What’s the greatest misconception people have about nihilists like yourself, wrt concepts like happiness and contentment?

People think we are angry bearded men who live in vans and basements. We are in fact people who say that “you must live according to what is real, not the illusions inside your head” and we tend to live in vans parked in basements. At least, I did for almost a year. It was a great experience because I owned very little, had few obligations on my time, and could spend my days exploring the world and the great works of literature, philosophy and science. My real piece of advice there is to remove the automotive seats and put a real sofa or two in your van. Comfort makes a world of difference.

Pragmatists often cite “the happiness industry” as a tool of conformity – the kind, they say, which pathologises sadness/treats it as a pariah emotion. What are your views on this?

The happiness industry is really a sadness industry; they preach what their audience lacks, but is happiness, but their real financial incentive is to disguise sadness as happiness so the audience keeps coming back. If self-help books worked very well, many people would be cured and never buy another one. That’s a bad product. For them to enact thought control through language, they need to first convince you that any kind of sadness or discontent is a sign that your life is unhappy and you need their products.

Again the time scale fools us with this word. Sadness is part of a happy life; a life without emotional ups and downs would be not only boring, but would steal all power from joy. Ours is a relative universe and we do not know “hot” without “cold,” nor “joy” without “sadness.” What I have found is best to avoid is the entropy of the soul, a type of boredom, depression and purposelessness all rolled into one. With it, one can never be happy.

I read that you started identifying as nihilist when you were in your teens, in large part due to your parents being academics and exposing you to such literature. Other than this, were there other influences/influencing factors that made you gravitate towards nihilism?

I became a nihilist at age fifteen, having slowly developed my philosophy of total realism and denial of human judgments, feelings and desires up until that point based on my observations of adults, who terrified and depressed me. My background was a broad reading in the classics of Western literature but more importantly, time spent alone in the forests near my home. At that time, our American city was small enough that there were boundaries to the comfortable glass, plastic and concrete world where the only rules were transactional. I went beyond these boundaries, into the woods, and spent whole days and sometimes nights there, observing the type of order I saw. I approached it much as I later would computer programming: looking into the structure and process, or abstract relationships between objects as expressed in cyclic interaction, of natural creatures, plants and forces like rain and sun. I went from the simplistic, deranged human world to this place of utter clarity and profoundly brilliant design and my brain was at rest. From this transition point, I realized that the enemy of humanity was not Hitler, Satan, the Jews, the Rich or the other scapegoats, but our own tendency as individuals toward giving in to illusion because it supported our appetitive impulses. “We have met the enemy, and he is us.”

Over the years, how challenging has it been for you to find a balance/navigate the despair associated with nihilism with happiness/fulfillment?

Oddly, I do not find despair in nihilism; I find it in humanity. Having to live in a failing civilization, among a failing species, in which idiots perpetually rule and only illusions are famous or revered, yes, that’s a bit of an ugly fate and a depressing one. But nihilism? My version of nihilism is complex because it denies human orders in favor of the type of mathematical order that underlies reality. For that reason, it is open to possibilities beyond the material, so long as they are not mere human wants rephrased as truths.

How pivotal has ANUS been in making you the person you are today, and are you still active on the site?

ANUS was an excellent early experience from which I learned a great deal about how to organize and express ideas. In subsequent projects, I have tried to expand my message to be clear to more people and less idiosyncratic. ANUS today remains an archive that people visit at numbers that still strike me as oddly high, but it has been mostly drowned out by the “new internet” and its insistence that its one method of expression (big media, Wikipedia, social media) is right and everything else must be silenced. This is how humans control each other: they set up a fake truth that is a subset of the actual options possible, and then force everyone to obey, which actually shuts those people off from some possibilities they need to at least be aware of. My plans for the future are to turn these old writings into a series of books, the first two of which are now complete and in search of a publisher!

I’m over at Return of Kings today


Today you will find me blogging at Return of Kings with a piece entitled “How To Survive The Late Empire Period Of Your Civilization.” This is one of my favorite writings, because it summarizes in an easy form most of what you will find on this site, and introduces new readers to the radicalism of my early days. I hope you enjoy it.

While some are critical of Return of Kings, I think that is the tendency to try to scene-police by fragile boundaries instead of looking at intent: the intent of ROK is in the title, and its transitional period through PUA/MRA (or the non-European origins of its founder) do not concern me. What concerns me is unified voices against decline, and everything else can fuck right off :)

Books for Canadians

To help fund this site, consider buying the following conservative-friendly books and products. This list includes both writings about conservatism and classics that reveal truths necessary in order to understand conservatism (or any other philosophy).


A   B   C   D   E   F   G   H   K   L   M   N   O   P   R   S   T   U   V   W   X


Achebe, Chinua
Things Fall Apart

Alexander, Christopher
A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction

Politics [freetext]
Nicomachean Ethics [freetext]

Aurelius, Marcus

Austen, Jane
Pride and Prejudice


Babbitt, Irving
Democracy and Leadership

de Benoist, Alain
– [review] The Problem of Democracy
– [review] Manifesto for a European Renaissance

Bloom, Allan
The Closing of the American Mind

de Bonald, Louis
The True and Only Wealth of Nations

Bork, Robert
Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline

Bradbury, Ray
Fahrenheit 451

Bradley, Owen
A Modern Maistre: The Social and Political Thought of Joseph de Maistre

Breivik, Anders
2083: A European Declaration of Independence

Brooks, David
Bobos In Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There

Brownson, Orestes
The American Republic

Buchanan, Patrick
– [review] Suicide of a Superpower

Bucke, Richard Maurice
Cosmic Consciousness: A Study in the Evolution of the Human Mind

Buckley, William F.
God and Man at Yale

Burnham, James
Suicide of the West: An Essay on the Meaning and Destiny of Liberalism
The Managerial Revolution: What is Happening in the World

Burroughs, William S.
Naked Lunch


Calhoun, John C.
A Disquisition on Government

Card, Orson Scott
Ender’s Game

Carlyle, Thomas
On Heroes, Hero-Worship, and The Heroic in History

Cavalli-Sforza, Luigi Luca
The History and Geography of Human Genes
Genes, Peoples, and Languages
The Genetics of Human Populations

Céline, Louis-Ferdinand
Journey to the End of the Night
Death on the Installment Plan

Chambers, Whittaker

Charlton, Bruce
Thought Prison

Churchland, Patricia Smith
Neurophilosophy: Toward a Unified Science of the Mind-Brain

Coon, Carleton
The Races of Europe

Cooper, James Fenimore
The American Democrat

Crichton, Michael


Davidson, Donald
The Attack on Leviathan

Delillo, Don
White Noise

Donovan, David [interview]
– [review] Once a Warrior King: Memories of an Officer in Vietnam

Durant, Will
– [review] The Story of Philosophy


Eckhart, Johannes
Selected Writings

Eliot, T. S.
Notes Towards the Definition of Culture

Evola, Julius [profile]
– [review] Metaphysics of War


Faulkner, William
Collected Stories

Faye, Guillaume
– [review] Archeofuturism: European Visions of the Post-Catastrophic Age
Convergence of Catastrophes
– [review] Why We Fight

Fehrenbach, T.R.
Lone Star: A History Of Texas And The Texans

Feser, Edward
“The Metaphysics of Conservatism”

Fitzgerald, F. Scott
The Great Gatsby
Tender is the Night

Fleming, Thomas
A Disease in the Public Mind: A New Understanding of Why We Fought the Civil War

Folsom, Burton W.
The Myth of the Robber Barons

Fukuyama, Francis
The End of History and the Last Man


Gates, R.R.
Heredity and Eugenics

Garrett, Henry
IQ And Racial Differences

Garvey, Marcus
Philosophy and Opinions of Marcus Garvey

Gasset, José Ortega y
The Revolt of the Masses

Gilder, George
Men and Marriage

Goldwater, Barry
The Conscience of a Conservative

Gottfried, Paul
War and Demoracy

Grant, Madison
The Passing of the Great Race

Griffin, Roger
Modernism and Fascism: The Sense of a Beginning under Mussolini and Hitler

Guénon, René
The Crisis of the Modern World
The Reign of Quantity & the Signs of the Times

Günther, Hans F.K.
The Racial Elements of European History


Haidt, Jonathan
The Happiness Hypothesis: Finding Modern Truth in Ancient Wisdom
The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion

Hammerton, James A.
“A Critique of Libertarianism”

Hardin, Garrett
“The Tragedy of the Commons”

Hemingway, Ernest
The Sun Also Rises


The Histories

Herzl, Theodor
The Jewish State

Hogg, Quintin
The Case for Conservatism

Hollander, Paul
Political Pilgrims: Western Intellectuals in Search of the Good Society

The Odyssey
The Iliad

Hoppe, Hans-Hermann
A Short History of Man: Progress and Decline
Democracy–The God That Failed

Houellebecq, Michel
The Elementary Particles
The Possibility of an Island
The Map and the Territory
H. P. Lovecraft: Against the World, Against Life

Huntington, Samuel
The Clash of Civilizations
American Politics: The Promise of Disharmony

Huxley, Aldous
Brave New World
The Perennial Philosophy


Kaczynski, Theodore
Industrial Society and Its Future

Kant, Immanuel
Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals

Kipling, Rudyard
Kipling: Poems

Kirk, Russell
The Portable Conservative Reader
The Conservative Mind

Kirkpatrick, Jeane
Dictatorships and double standards: Rationalism and reason in politics

Kuehnelt-Leddihn, Erik Ritter von
Menace of The Herd


Lasch, Christopher
The Culture of Narcissism: American Life in an Age of Diminishing Expectations

Laslett, Peter
The World We Have Lost: Further Explored

Linkola, Pentti
Can Life Prevail?

Lynn, Richard
Eugenics: A Reassessment (Human Evolution, Behavior, and Intelligence)
Race Differences in Intelligence: An Evolutionary Analysis
The Global Bell Curve: Race, IQ, and Inequality Worldwide
IQ and Global Inequality
Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations


de Maistre, Joseph
Considerations on France

Mallock, W. H.
Is Life Worth Living?

Mead, Margaret
Male and Female

Mill, John Stuart
On Liberty

Murray, Charles
The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life
Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010

Mussolini, Benito
My Autobiography: With “The Political and Social Doctrine of Fascism” [freetext]


Nietzsche, F.W.
Beyond Good & Evil
Human, All Too Human
On the Genealogy of Morals and Ecce Homo

Nisbet, Robert A.
Conservatism: Dream and Reality

Niven, Larry
Lucifer’s Hammer (with Jerry Pournelle)


Oakeshott, Michael
Rationalism in Politics and other essays

O’Meara, Michael
New Culture, New Right: Anti-Liberalism in Postmodern Europe

Orwell, George
Animal Farm


Peek, George A.
The Political Writings of John Adams

Republic [freetext]
Timaeus and Critias [freetext]

Pinker, Stephen
The Blank Slate

Putnam, Robert D.
Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community


Roepke, Wilhelm
The Social Crisis of our Times

Rushton, J. Philippe
Race, Evolution and Behavior: A Life History Perspective


Saunders, George
CivilWarLand in Bad Decline

Schlafly, Phyllis
Feminist Fantasies

Schmitt, Carl
The Concept of the Political
Political Theology: Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty
The Nomos of the Earth in the International Law of Jus Publicum Europaeum
Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy

Schopenhauer, Arthur
On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason

Scruton, Roger
The Case for an Environmental Conservatism

Shelley, Mary

Southgate, Troy [profile]
Tradition and Revolution

Sowell, Thomas
Ethnic America: A History
Race And Culture: A World View

Spengler, Oswald
Decline of the West
Man and Technics: A Contribution to a Philosophy of Life

Stephen, James Fitzjames
Liberty. Equality. Fraternity.

Steele, Shelby
The Content of Our Character: A New Vision of Race In America

Stevens, Brett (heh)
Introduction to Post-Liberal Thought

Stoddard, Lothrop
The Rising Tide of Color Against White World-Supremacy

Sunic, Tomislav
Against Democracy and Equality (with Alain de Benoist)


Tainter, Joseph
The Collapse of Complex Societies

Taleb, Nassim Nicholas
Antifragile: Things That Gain from Disorder
The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable

Taylor, Jared [profile]
– [review] White Identity: Racial Consciousness in the 21st Century

History of the Peloponnesian War

de Tocqueville, Alexis
Democracy in America


Vonnegut, Kurt
“Harrison Bergeron” [freetext]


Wade, Nicholas
A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race and Human History

Watkins, Calvert
The American Heritage Dictionary of Indo-European Roots

Weaver, Richard
Ideas Have Consequences

Weininger, Otto
Sex and Character: An Investigation of Fundamental Principles

Willinger, Markus
Generation Identity

Wilson, David Sloan
Darwin’s Cathedral: Evolution, Religion, and the Nature of Society

Wilson, Francis Graham
The Case for Conservatism

Wolfe, Tom
The Pump House Gang
Radical Chic & Mau-Mauing the Flak Catchers
The Painted Word
Hooking Up

Woodruff, Paul
– [review] Reverence: Renewing a Forgotten Virtue

Wright, Peter
SpyCatcher: The Candid Autobiography of a Senior Intelligence Officer


X, Malcolm
The Autobiography of Malcolm X: As Told to Alex Haley

Banned in L.A.


A reader writes with this pictorial proof that is banned on the Los Angeles public internet. As usual, Leftists work together to exclude anything that presents a competing point of view to their normal lock-step, hive-mind, lynch mob group think.

NPI conference Become Who We Are: The Identity and Spirit of Our People, October 31, 2015


The National Policy Institute will present a conference entitled Become Who We Are: The Identity and Spirit of Our People on October 31, 2015. Festivities — with speakers Jack Donovan, Guillaume Faye, Kevin MacDonald, Roman Bernard, Keith Preston, Richard Spencer and Sam Dickson — will commence from 10 AM – 9 PM at The National Press Club in Washington, DC.

NPI describes the event as follows:

BECOME WHO WE ARE ARE is an all-day, one-track conference on Saturday, October 31, 2015, taking place at The National Press Club in Washington, DC. It features presentations, discussions, lunch and dinner, and, in the evening, a live musical performance renowned folk artist R.N. Taylor.

This looks like an exciting event which shows a focus on the right shifting from racial issues to identitarian ones, and of mainstream conservatives removing themselves from the liberal apologist regime and once again tackling the problems that will define our future.

Response thread (07-12-15)


A few weeks ago, I posted an open thread where you, the readers of and contributors to this blog, could post your questions and comments on its direction. Posting these periodically allows not only feedback to those of us behind the scenes, but also allows the community to exchange ideas among itself. Since you were so kind as to participate, let these comments be addressed:


First and biggest: the question of “What do you want?” instead of mere criticism of what is. It is easier to see flaws, and constitutes a cheap shot. I had previously attempted to address this via the “about” page of the site, but there is more to add. Generally, it is clear that I oppose all forms of liberalism and formalist systems, such as “democracy” and “egalitarianism,” on the basis of their ideological single-factor approach to a multifactor situation. As stated very well here, those single ideas become religion:

Any time you have “one overriding idea”, and push your idea as a superior ideology, you’re going to be wrong. Microkernels had one such ideology, there have been others. It’s all BS. The fact is, reality is complicated, and not amenable to the “one large idea” model of problem solving. The only way that problems get solved in real life is with a lot of hard work on getting the details right. Not by some over-arching ideology that somehow magically makes things work. – Linus Torvalds

The point of ideology is to have a center, not a single idea which addresses every question; the center is its goal and method of thinking, and that proliferates into many other ideas which become methods and values. Liberalism has one dimension, egalitarianism or the idea of individual equality and thus exemption of the individual from judgment by a centralized authority, which is why it fails: equality is all face value and does not lead to flexible methods, but robotic repetition of the same form in diverse instances. Like the idea of universal solutions itself, this fails because it is rigid and rejects the notion of equality for thoughts which are easier to the human mind. However, it is more popular because as an easily comprehensible lie it takes away most of the fear of the uncertain that exists in how humans approach reality, and substitutes simple scapegoats for broader problems. In general, liberals are people who intuit that Western civilization is in collapse but have no idea how to fix it, so they settle for ideas that are popular and thus achievable despite the fact that they do not address the problem and for that reason, both misdirect our energy into nonsense that creates secondary disasters, and hide the actual path that we need to take.

In contrast, people like myself argue conservatism which is the notion of preserving the ideas that have created the best results in the past. This has two prongs:

  1. Consequentialism. This means simply paying attention to cause->effect logic. For any given problem or goal, consequentialists look at all previous attempts, the method used and the result obtained. This produces a chart of two columns, “A” for methods and “B” for results, which they then invert and look down column “B” for what is closest to the end result they desire. They then choose the corresponding method from column “A” and modify it to fit the customized needs of their specific situation, editing that as the process goes on until they have a solid fit.
  2. Transcendentalism. The first method naturally leads to a question of what we should desire. For most conservatives, this is a gut-level response based on previous “golden ages” of humanity. Some choose 1950s Mayberry, others the Greco-Roman greatness, with most seeing more overlap between the two than difference. Transcendentalism refers to the process of finding a beauty and logic in the order of nature and the cosmos that allows us to align ourselves with its internal organization, and see the wisdom of if not outright replicating nature, using some kind of order in balance and harmony with the inevitable process of nature, including natural selection, destruction, death and entropy. This causes conservatives to aim for not just baseline function but methods that achieve optimal results without disregarding nature. Optimality includes beauty, spiritual health, and an “ascendent” or self-organizing civilization rising above the mediocre condition at which most live. As a wise man once pointed out:

    Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty. This is known as “bad luck.” — Robert A. Heinlein

    Transcendence is the mental process by which one sees the reason to lift oneself up from this state of raw individualism. No place has more individual freedom than the third world, which can be explained as simply a lesser degree of the civilization process. However, people not working together produces an impoverished, dirty, corrupt and internally divided settlement and precludes any of the advances of higher civilization like philosophy, science, learning, art and the advancement of the intelligence of the people through selective breeding. Most people, being venal beings not much advanced from Darwin’s apes, will inevitably prefer a lesser degree of civilization as it offers them more “freedom,” individualism and liberty with fewer responsibilities. However, civilization represents a tradeoff: the loss of many abilities that are not constructive anyway in exchange for a moral, hierarchical and social order. Transcendental thought sees this from parallels to nature and the cosmos and does not rely on any specific religion or political tradition.

This is the core of conservatism. These are not methods themselves, but a method of thinking about methods, and since the above cannot be applied directly, it gives rise to a study like science or philosophy of what works and to what degree it achieves optimum circumstances like those in ancient Greece or Rome (or India or the Mayan and Aztect empires). Those ages do not denote technological or power concentration peaks of humanity, but the societies which had the greatest degree of internal balance and thus produced the greatest art, learning, philosophy, science and wisdom of our times. While our modern technology and science are advanced, they represent footnotes to this original learning and, where they deviate from it, illusion.

For these reasons, the manifesto to follow will seem like it is mostly a radical Republican platform with elements of deep ecology, royalism and post-libertarian though in it. That is because all of these share an origin in the above two principles, despite being disguised deliberately by their creators because the last millennium has been one of increasing liberalization and thus hostility to any recognizably conservative ideas. Conservative ideas are recognizable because they tend to speak of things like quality and health instead of “new methods,” which is why it is perceived as backward looking but instead is a recognition that not much has changed since the dawn of humanity, and that usually, “new” ideas are charlatanism disguising old ideas as new. In fact, most changes in quantity instead of quantity are human solipsism, or the tendency to view the world as adapting to the self instead of the other way around, and the newness — like other advertising techniques such as altruism, egalitarianism, compassion, empathy and idealistic utopianism — disguises a desire to manipulate for personal gain at the expense of what is shared between all people in a society, namely social order, quality of hygiene and institutions, and degree of evolutionary refinement to the genetics of the population itself.

Conservatism exists because it works; what opposes it, Crowdism — of which liberalism is one variant — exists because individuals want a group to defend their radical individualism. With Crowdism, the individual acts to destroy social hierarchy and a hierarchy of knowledge under which the acts, desires or beliefs of the individual are subject to criticism by those who might know better. A Crowdist wants “anarchy with grocery stores”; he wants the benefit of civilization without the corresponding responsibility to make it work, and to ensure his own happiness through improving the quality of his behavior and condition. Instead, he wants the group to provide that for him, and to find meaning in external ideology instead of internal discipline. Crowdism is an easy way around the challenge of life itself, and every society that undertakes it both infantilizes and domesticates itself, then enters a “death spiral” where it imposes increasingly unrealistic ideology as a means of keeping society together, simultaneously widening the distance between the official version of reality and actual reality, setting itself up for a collapse when the collision with reality finally comes.

If there were one thing I would like to see different, or perhaps added, is a manifesto of sorts. A simplified (okay, dumbed down) bullet pointed roadmap. Let’s face it, if we are ever to appeal to the masses, it is crucial they can relate and understand. An indicator of understanding would be the ability to repeat and expound. – Cpl Horatius

Excellent idea, with one caveat: the masses do not understand much of anything. Each person understands to the limits of his or her IQ. For this reason, most people are left in a primitive reality where there are “good” and “evil” based on the intent of others, which conceals the actuality which is that evil consists of error usually arising from solipsism, and good from adaptation to reality. For that reason, any manifesto will have to address the right-hand side of the Bell Curve. Your point that it must be simple and clear however stands nonetheless, because few people have time or energy for convoluted descriptions. This is balanced — however — against the necessary complexity of the issue, and dumbing it down too much creates a symbolic surrogate or token proxy which creates a false target within the objects of our minds, instead of accurately describing the objects in reality.

Part of any manifesto must be to relabel those non-existent things known as ‘rights’ to ‘privileges’, to better reflect what they are.
In the entire universe, there are no ‘rights’ to be found. They do not exist, yet we agree to pretend they do, and undermine the whole of society by doing so.
Privileges can be rescinded, based upon performance, or the lack of it. But once a ‘right’ is handed-out, gratis, taking it back becomes strangely problematic. crow

Excellent starting points. A conservative does not view anything in the world as having a single direction, much like cause->effect occurs in one direction but must be reversed to understand it. Similarly, rights without responsibilities are tyranny. A conservative views rights/responsibility pairings as roles or duties within a social order and its correspondingly hierarchy, both vertical and horizontal, of authority. Rights, like voting, encourage bratty behavior by handing out authority that is disconnected from its effects. People can insist on rights, or espouse crazy opinions, without being held responsible for what that would do (or does, if they achieve it). Rights as seen by most moderns are absolutes, which causes inevitable collisions, and from that we get an endless list of laws and rules which tell us how to apply these rights, subverting the concept of rights itself, which like all other things distills down to whatever is most popular, which causes problems because what is easily understood supplants complex truths in these popularity contests.

Describe Your ideal America…Remember, the answers must describe how You WANT things to be in 50 years. – 1349

This “ideal” involves the conservative dual principles of what works and what works best. As such, it is not dependent on any age. Any civilization which undertakes this process will rise above the rest and then have to defend itself against them, first through outright military attack and second through sedition by mixed-race/mixed-caste people and home-grown neurotics who will infiltrate and offer passive-aggressive ideas like liberalism to corrupt the communal intent of that civilization. On the other hand, a civilization that rises has a chance at excellence instead of mere subsistence. For many centuries, Western Europe was the 5% of humanity who rose above the norm and became something greater, but instead of emulating their model, the rest of the world has attacked them because of envy and resentment which constitute a scapegoating mentality in lieu of the simpler but harder process of simply emulating what succeeds, in accordance with conservative principles. Hopefully the following offer Americans a vision of what their civilization could be; I freely acknowledge these are not unique to me, because they are not opinions but analysis based on what has succeeded throughout history.

1) Is it independent? (I.e. does it make independent decisions in foreign and domestic policy & does it take its own measures to implement those decisions?
2) Is the term “American” (or some other word You’ll use for your ethnonym) tied to some territory? If i’m American, does it mean that i’m from there and there?
3) What’s the phenotype of Americans? Skin colour, height, body constitution, eyes colour, delicacy of fingers and face features – and ANY OTHER parameters.
18) How is it determined that someone is American? By territorial ties (‘i’m from here”)? By blood ties, kin? By politcal allegiance (“i am a citizen of this country”)? By economic ties (“i work for an American enterprise”)? By language, aesthetics and worn symbols? By religion and philosophy (“i believe in this and this, therefore i’m American”)?
5) How MANY Americans are there in 50 years?
9) What’s the political regime?
10) What’s the dominating family model?
11) What language(s) do Americans speak?
14) Are they religious? What is (are) their religion(s)? – 1349

I envision an America under a king, with independent aristocrats governing regions, and within them the current states, with local lords ruling over localized communities — about the size of the Dallas metropolitan area — within them.

Aristocrats are chosen by finding the best people among us, using criteria of intelligence plus nobility of character, and having them choose others of the same attributes. This creates an inverted pyramid of good people stemming outward from the first we choose, and that choice should be left to the wisest among us now.

These aristocrats will be given ownership of the undeveloped land in their areas of rule if they are local lords, and large estates if they are above that level. This buys them off by guaranteeing them income for life that cannot be threatened, and also places most of the natural land under their care, to be left as it was in England in its natural state with minor incursions for hunting, which since they are only by the aristocrats, constitute a far lesser strain than allowing mass entry.

“American” is determined by WASP (meaning roughly Western European, genetically) heritage plus an ability to uphold the culture we desire. This culture would be derived from the UK-German mix that founded this nation. The original Americans were mostly English, then German, then Scots, and after them Dutch, Scandinavians, some Northern French and a handful of aristocrats from other European nations. Everyone else would be sent back to their homelands, with all mixes being sent to Northern Africa which is the traditional mixed-race location for humanity. Amerinds (“Native Americans”) and Central Americans would be repatriated to their genetic homeland in Siberia, while African-Americans would go to Africa. I support reparations for African-Americans for the difficulties their ancestors faced in slavery, recognizing that slavery offered them — generally, with a few notable exceptions — a better life than was possible in Africa, where most of them were prisoners of war resulting from tribal conflicts. I also support a strong Israel, with the Palestinians driven into the sea and the Biblical range of territory granted to the kingdom of Israel, with relocation of all American Jews and mixed-heritage people of Jewish descent to there. I will never support the Holocaust or pogroms against the Jewish people; these are puerile scapegoating and the shame of all who indulge in them, however a strong Israel requires union of all Jewish people within her, in addition to support from other first-world nations. Anti-Semitism is stupid but recognizing the failure of diversity in all forms is intelligent.

I suggest the religion question be left up in the air, and reduced to a morality question: those who can support the morality of the traditional church, which mirrors that of the pagans before them (but not the liberalized morality of the neo-pagans), should be constituted as participating in the culture we desire.

This would reduce America to about 120 million Western Europeans, which would end the ongoing ecocide of species in North America.

I support the British monarchy but think America must be independent owing to the practical difficulties of governing a far-off land which led to the original American revolution.

According to our morality, the family model is the nuclear family. I do not support actions taken either against homosexuals, or intending to normalize them as heterosexuals. Rather, I propose they be declared bachelors and spinisters and left alone, preferably in gay districts within every port city. Any who engage in pogromism against homosexuals are my enemy, because this both produces cruelty and through that morally corrupts the population, and also leads to homosexuals acting as heterosexuals and reproducing contrary to the will of nature.

In accord with the above, Americans would speak English, look Western European (indigenous), and uphold the dual cultures of Germany and Britain. Although I do not support public schooling, I would recommend that those who benefit from schooling — 120 IQ and above — be instructed in Greek, Latin, German and French in addition to English.

4) How healthy are Americans? Do they use alcohols or other drugs? What do they eat? Do they go in for sports? How physically active are they? – 1349

This varies with the individual. As a culture, our ideal would be physically fit but not to the neurotic degree of moderns. Physical activity would mostly consist of outdoors work and walking around. Were I king, I would end the practice of apartments and bias culture against constant driving. Instead, people would live close to local communities and do their shopping, socializing and working there.

7) What form of property dominates? (Private, cooperative, national?) What size of businesses dominates? (Small, medium, big companies?)
8) In what types of settlements do Your ideal Americans live? If there are various types of settlements (homesteads, villages, towns, cities), where do most people live? What do Americans do in each type of settlement?
6) Which economic activity brings them the most wealth? (Agriculture? Industry? Services? Marketing? War & conquest? Selling natural resources? Etc.)
17) Do Your ideal Americans have a mission on the scale of a region, continent, the globe or the Universe? What is it (are they)?- 1349

Private property would be the basis of the economic model, with the caveat that misuse of it would lead to its interruption.

A network of small cities (70,000-150,000) and towns (25,000-50,000) would form the basis of this society. This avoids the dual evils of isolation and big city anonymity.

Economic activity would be regulated by local lords depending on what makes sense to do given the surrounding geography and resources.

Our mission would be to be excellent in all areas, which mostly consists of improving ourselves but also of space exploration and conquest of territories which are failing and their conversion into national parks.

15) Do they have their own schools of thought, pleiads of philosophers?
12) Do they have their own schools (i mean, “movements”) of music, architecture, fine arts?
13) Do they have their own big schools of science and technology? Their own strong, competent communities of developers, technical designers?
16) How do Your ideal Americans communicate with each other? Live conversations? Snail mail? Phone? Internet? Social media? Etc.
And who owns the dominating news media? Who owns the media of social communication? – 1349

Do we need new schools of thought? Everything that needs be said has been said by the Germans and the Greeks.

Each local area would have its own artists. Movements may arise from that; this would be up to local lords, who through the patronage system would support deserving arts and cultural movements.

Media and industry would be up to local lords, with supervision from the king. Were I king, I would make lying illegal, and any media that made a statement later proven to be false and that they should have known was false at the time, would find itself confiscated and reallocated.

I think the disease has been pretty well diagnosed at this point, so a shift towards thinking about the future would be effective. This can be tackled from multiple angles: how might we get there (specifically, I am interested in whether, how, and where a secession could occur in the U.S., and whether such a thing would be a good thing anyway), what do we want, what problems can arise, etc. On a related note, my wife is getting turned off by my constant nagging about society’s ills, so it would be nice to have more positive things to discuss.=)

One thing about discussing problems in such a detailed, abstract level is that it can be depressing, not very empowering. I don’t mean that the truth should be distorted, but I mean that too much focus on the negative without any sense of agency can condition us to feel defeated and accept it.

I wonder if any kind of unified movement, or mission statement, or any other kind of focused action would be beneficial if we are serious about improving the world and making an impact. Clearly, such a thing should not fall into the same trap of democracy, compromise, and pandering, but I still think there are ways to aggregate the thoughts of many individuals and create and refine something larger. The Less Wrong community I think is a fairly successful example of this, with its point system, though I must seriously qualify this statement: I think the singularity is a pipe dream for autistics and nerds, and a huge waste of time, and in addition they have such a large ego (or something) that they spin their wheels reinventing the wheel (long, semi-fictional articles that essentially reduce to some ancient philosophical view with new terminology). But, it seems that their problems (by nature, as they are futurists) stem from too much fantasy, ideology, and disconnect from history — essentially, they lack a grounding in reality — and (hopefully) a serious conservative community would by nature lack these problems (to that point, Less Wrong has done votes that showed 80% to be liberal, so there’s that too). Another danger that Less Wrong presents is the cult of personality — while we should pick strong leaders, we shouldn’t pick narcissists and grant them infallibility. Eliezer Yudkowsky is the case in point, and it seems that he has done nothing in terms of progress towards stated goals except market himself and collect donations.

…But more simply, a “start here” page would be cool, consisting of a mission statement, a reading list, and practical suggestions. – Cynical Optimist

Singularity is a variant on the Great Democratic Hope: we will all become one hive-mind and rule by sheer autocracy. It is nonsense for NEETs and other neurotics who make up the liberal side of things.

Let us look toward the future: democracy has failed, the United States no longer exists because its citizens have nothing in common, and the EU has followed the same fate. Thus people are returning to those bonds which never decay: family, neighbors, culture, religion and values.

The singularity that we seek is in fact the dis-singularity, in which we realize that nihilism is true:

Nihilism is the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated. – “Nihilism,” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

There are no shared values, truths or knowledge. Instead, knowledge (including that of truth, and from that values) are esoteric: that is, cumulative, with those who learn the groundwork going on to learn more in an infinite chain, and what they learn is incommunicable to anyone below them in experience, which includes the ability to have experience or native ability, specifically IQ.

The only singularity is the realization that the idea of a human collective, even unified by technology (this is the real root of that seemingly technological dream), cannot exist because people are inherently unequal in understanding. As the Dunning-Kruger-Downing effect illustrates, people reject that which is above their understanding while people with uncommonly high understanding give credence to baffling nonsense because they assume the competence of its source. Thus a collective will be united by the lowest common denominator, which will be artificial to its environment and the natural laws that govern it (these are mathematical/informational laws, not material laws per se) and will therefore set up the collective to fail; its response to failure, which occurs by degrees and not sudden collapse, will be to tighten its ideological control to the point where the society controls itself until it is unable to keep itself going and fails. This form of death afflicts all great empires because all great empires go out the same way: lack of internal cohesion, manipulation by financial interests allied with populist movements, resulting in some form of “idealistic” and egalitarian ideology which then enters the death spiral of controlling its people to avoid confrontation with reality and through that, passing into solipsistic oblivion. Rome, Greece and the Soviet Union ultimately went out the same way; the Maya were destroyed through class warfare, as were the Aztecs; ancient India — once the most advanced civilization on earth — perished as prophesied through caste-mixing as a result of egalitarian class warfare. I am certain that if we learned enough about Easter Island we would find that it, too, vanished suddenly because its internal leadership struggles put it into the death spiral of power and control designed to keep reality at bay. The nature of all liberal movements is reality-denial and apologism for civilization collapse, scapegoating “inequality” instead of the instability and failure to notice reality that put society on a bad course.

Once we accept the fundamental nihilism of human relations, we see that instead of a singularity point we need a directional shift from equality to hierarchy. In hierarchy, the best are put higher than the rest in terms of wealth and power, which allows them to use their superior abilities to make life better for everyone, themselves included. This contrasts the every-man-for-himself attitude of egalitarian societies in which owing to equality all people are competing to rise above the lowest common denominator, and thus see each other (and society itself) as oppressive competition. If we created an all-wise AI, it would realize the same thing and quickly appoint itself king. It would be hilarious but predictable that the Terminator style wars between humans and the machines would be like the World Wars and Napoleonic Wars at essence wars for democracy. If we shift direction, we acknowledge the nihilism in human affairs and gain quality leadership at the expense of a painful illusion.

But what is the solution? Should we operate peacefully and within the law, bringing people to our cause through logic and persuasion? Should we violently overthrow the current order and replace it with our own? Should we just wait things out and enjoy the fall?…I seem to get mixed messages from you about what you think should be done to fix our society. – Theseus

If I were in his shoes, I would be wondering if there is any point in appealing to the masses at all. An effective enough power grab would certainly be the trick to avoiding this but then, the question becomes, how to seize power.

…I bring all of this up because I just do not know if outlines and manifestos are the point so much as finding like minded people and helping them to fight their bad habits that would make them susceptible to leftism to begin with. – -A

I would hope all of us would see the importance of appealing to the “average Joe”. Without eventually convincing enough bell curve pinnacle-dwellers, I doubt we will witness the end of this madness short of a “Mad Max” scenario. – Cpl Horatius

As you have pointed out, it’s difficult to argue core conservative principles because we spend too much time explaining what it is not because it is simply a lack of constructed illusions. This inherent difficulty coupled with our introverted and prudent character instinctively drives us from interacting. Partly in disgust, and part fear of being misunderstood. This I think is a real problem. Engagement in a masculine hierarchical system I believe is the only real cure to this. – Ron

As to how to get there, I adopt the phrase “by any means necessary,” but I mean this less in the sense of terroristic action and more along the lines of trying everything available to us. Hitler got into power through democratic elections followed by changing the laws; we know that small groups, such as the 2% of our population that is gay, can have a broad effect and win elections. This is how most change occurs: a small group, usually 2-5% of the population, unites on a clear idea and agitates for it in a convenient time pocket when the established system is failing. Conservatives have enough money, positions of power, influence with industry and votes to get a candidate in office, and if that candidate can then systematically act against the system to alter laws, it will be an easy transition. If that fails, conservatives can unite behind a corporation that can achieve autonomous status. As Charles Murray suggests, acts of civil disobedience to sabotage the EU and USA and destroy them may also be useful. If none of the above apply, armed revolution could be an option, but should probably take place in outlying areas first because the power of modern militaries is to hit concentrations of forces and destroy them, but are less useful against uncooperative populations and widely-dispersed, invisible guerrilla militias. Cyber-warfare to destroy the economics of the US and EU could plunge those countries into instability and cause shifts that favor strongmen. Additionally, a crypto-conservative might masquerade as a populist Hugo Chavez style Socialist candidate in order to seize power using the apparatus of the left and then, through internal subterfuge and removal of political enemies, take over. Terrorist acts as suggested in The Turner Diaries, such as using a nuke to destroy Washington, D.C., are another option, although in my view it would be better to not provoke popular resentment through mass murder.

The first step in all of the above is unity in what we want and understanding it in clear, simple terms.

I think Brett is somewhere in between Absolute Monarchy and the Democratic method of the South, where a Democrat was a rare individual who had the privilege to vote.

In modern terms, the phrase “libertarian royalist” describes my approach: free markets sans usury under the guidance of aristocrats, which requires a strong culture and ethnic nationalism. One of my biggest beliefs is that it is important to enact gradual change wherever possible, and to fix nothing that is not broken. For this reason, I favor a cultural shift followed by strong action to correct the errors of liberalism, followed by benevolent and mostly extremely minimal rule, as aristocrats are known to do.


I think this blog should focus more on me. In fact, it should be almost entirely about me. – crow

Perhaps not “almost entirely,” but I think a crow feature story is a really good idea. There are other readers/commenters here who would be very interesting to profile. Actually, I think many of you are far more interesting than I am (summary: philosophy geek + applied technology nerd) and should be the topic of at least short interviews.

Let’s replicate Jewish Group Evolutionary Strategy as described in Culture of Critique series in order to build a parallel society to preserve and expand our genetic and cultural existence. – Refman

The Jewish and Amish strategies of both of interest. However, as you may note, Theodor Herzl ultimate came up with the solution of Israel because he realized that to be outsiders in a dominant culture is to always be a suspect and to provoke ire for not participating in what everyone else does.

-I have an interest in European/ISIS/worldwide trends. Marine le Pen.
-Economy will be on the minds of everyone in the west, although the root causes to our decline are more interesting to me.
-People are too naive. They have to be informed about islam, immigration, and over-sized populations. They remain ignorant! – Tucken2.0

These are good ideas. Economy should be mentioned more; probably Marine Le Pen and ISIS are topics for more news-oriented blogs. Not sure what can be said about ISIS other than that Islam is a smokescreen; the real problem is clash of civilizations, with a third-world Arab mixed-race one wanting to destroy Europe for the sin of being more prosperous and less self-destructive than Arab countries. As in the West, the solution for Arabs is not constant war against “the West” but abolishment of democracy, return of aristocrats, cultural refinement and some form of eugenics, probably exiling their idiots to North Africa instead of arming them for endless unsuccessful jihad against technological powers. ISIS are basically clowns on the television screen committing whatever atrocities they can to wake up the West, but their study of democracy is flawed: democracies fight wars like cowards, and once they have retreated stop caring about whatever happens in the now memory holed areas. Regarding the naïveté of most people: this is an inbuilt limit of their intelligence; see above around where it says “Dunning-Kruger-Downing.”

I would like to know what Brett thinks about Anti-Aging Technology such as SENS. – -A

I know nothing about this and will not go the route of an internet dilettante by looking it up in a search engine and assembling a hasty opinion. Approaching the general topic as a philosopher, I see only one reason to oppose life extension: it might make a population risk-averse when they are at their greatest level of wisdom. Old people now are a bonus because, safely retired and unable to be threatened by boycott, they speak their minds more freely.

I would like to hear more too but, he seems to have a very hands-off philosophy to just about everything but promotion of the kind of thinking necessary for society to flourish. His answers are likely to be along the lines of letting culture in the hands of the elite few set itself organically. – -A

Well-intuited. Our first task, no matter what method we use to gain power, is to achieve harmony among the beliefs of enough of the people on the right to wield power, even if only cultural and intellectual ifnluence.

I’d also like to have more discussion on Islam and why it is so dysfunctional, at least in practice, and also on the Mormon religion and community. I have a hunch that Mormons are the only identifiable group getting things right, however hokey some of there beliefs may be. And even then, the hokey-ness isn’t that pronounced when interpreted in a more abstract sense: a lot of the difference between Mormon and traditional Christianity (e.g., views on the trinity as being three separate beings vs a unified entity) may just be a relabeling of terms. – Cynical Optimist

As said somewhere above, “Islam” is often Western shorthand for mixed-race third-world peoples with average IQs in the 1990s. That they are Islamic has little to do with their behavior, because all third world peoples are existentially threatened by the presence of the more advanced West and out of resentment wish to destroy it. The problem with Christianity is not so much doctrine, but its interpretation and application, which right now is in the hands of Crowdists and liberals who have infiltrated the church thanks to the clueless leaders who wish to become more popular by imitating what is popular, with predictable results. Christianity has all but exterminated itself at this point and will continue to do so until it reverses course.

…and how to solve the dispute in alt-right between christian traditionalists and neo-paganists. – Refman

I suggest we stay secular, not as a refutation of religion, but from the knowledge that what is required is a shift in leadership. This means tolerance to both of those faiths, but the belief that neither is essential in order to understand what must be done.

Aging and cell division can wreak havoc on the mind but Brett, the primary writer, seems like his focus is every bit as sharp as when I started reading his stuff in ’98. The best among us can only keep the temptation to compromise at bay for so long after which you can go ahead and set your watch for their eventual “moderation” and resultant loss of spirit, so the miracle of this site is that it still exists at all. The clock never stops ticking and selfless refusal to deny this is what makes people like Brett different. – Doug

High praise from a credible source. Glad to have you as a reader, and I am impressed that you kept reading since 1998, which was still the early years of my work.

When I was a child I used to see demons and aliens, and could travel in my dreams thru space and time at the speed of thought.

As I grew up the dimensions became more definite and distinct, and I could no longer transit them. I was becoming sane. – oznoto

Adulthood is based on deference to external standards and murders the internal awareness of the child. I believe the practice of transcendental meditation can recover many of those abilities.


Well, that and the fact that for awhile there the site was very compatible with the hand-held (even the comment sections) but at some point it reverted back to a desktop-only site. – Doug

The font size in the comment field is tiny, it’s less than my penis. – 1349

These are both good bug reports and will be addressed. I would like to make the site mobile friendly but it was not a priority at the time of the redesign as statistics indicated very few people coming in via mobile.

Types of post

Intellectualism is fine and I enjoy a good argument but when I first found your site I’d have sworn you were a Republican. I have noticed a more polemical attitude in your writings. – Aodh MacRaynall

Someone once described my writing as “extremist common sense” and using that as a cue, I have since described myself as an extremist moderate. The extremist part derives from recognition that not only has the present system completely failed, but Western civilization has been in decay for a thousand years. The reason I come across as a Republican is that I advocate the gentlest transitions, most gradual improvements and least emotional responses possible. I recognize this makes my writing boring, but in my view Crowdism is the vital threat to us, and it thrives on individualism and the corresponding sensations of victimhood and passive-aggression, and these are inflamed by drama. Instead, I turn the focus away from the individual toward what is happened to society at an organic level, and suggest opposing it by the least disruptive means first. This may seem like Republican talk, and it overlaps with Republicans on many things, but its goal is more Nietzsche/Linkola than any Republican will ever be.

You post too often these months. – 1349

What type of post schedule makes more sense? Once every two days? Four?

However, more of everything would be great. Both the social and the environmental elements of your philosophy have a place in this blog and both make great food for thought. Both are important subjects in general. As for current events, why not? – -A

Interesting. Current events often require some time for the details that comprise a vision of the truth to emerge in media, and at that point most have forgotten about them, but I will give it a shot. In general, I despise the blog community which acts as a giant echo chamber, where when a new big event happens everyone chatters about it for 48 hours in an attempt to suck up some of that excited traffic, then drops it like month-old leftovers. I would rather explain current events from existing theory, but those are generally short posts as there is not much to say. I agree on there needing to be more socially conservative and environmental topics on this blog, as both are important to me; this journey began through my fear and horror at the possibility of ecocide, a condition which has only worsened in my lifetime.

Another idea is a series of blog posts on “excellence” that would highlight various examples of that in the world — acts of virtue, music, sports, science, literature, film, whatever. People that exhibit this excellence need not identify as conservatives, and in most cases they may be outspoken liberals, although in terms of what matters — behavior, not image presented to the world — they would tend to be very conservative, I think. – Cynical Optimist

This is a really interesting suggestion. I have tried doing this through book and movie reviews, but might expand those to the areas you mention especially the classics, since few seem to know them. I find it amazing how few have read, analyzed and contemplated The Odyssey for example.

Philosopher of the Month

Analyze the most important contributions of ancient to modern philosophers, monks and dissidents from the West to the East. One or two essays a week for one month on someone particular should be satisfactory. – Chris

Interesting; this is a good suggestion. It was also accomplished mostly by Will Durant with his excellent The Story of Philosophy. One of the big problems here is that I see nodal points in history of importance, like Plato, Kant, Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, and the rest as mostly filling in those gaps. Maybe these can also be handled with book reviews.

Some topics that you’ve touched on before that I’d be interested in hearing more about include: endogamy, population control/reduction (how do you reconcile this with your anti-abortion position?), your vision of the virtuous life, your ideas about how to rebuild community and infrastructure, and book recommendations. – Colleen

These are excellent suggestions. I can lay one to rest: abortion leads a society to consider murder as normal, where the only effective means of population control is to remove socialist-style subsidies and nanny state protections and allow the best to thrive and the rest to die out. In particular, slashing third world aid and Western welfare would accomplish a great deal along these lines.

I’ve enjoyed it, but perhaps a bit of a focus on practicality. Paul Washington

Good suggestion. Perhaps the bit above on political transition will satisfy you for now?

Writing Style

If I had one criticism, it would be that each entry seems to have the same rhythm and style. It’s a declaration, it’s a block of thought, meaningful but not varying enough in approach. I would suggest that you collect your ideas, then superimpose them onto a completely different form of writing. An obituary, a limerick, a complaint to a department store, a church sermon, a child’s view, a song lyric. I think you always sound like an intelligent guy writing an essay. You can add an element of variability. – lisacolorado

This is interesting, and from a reader who has been here for a long time writing comments of analytical perception. My style is chosen for (1) efficiency and (2) descriptive accuracy, and everything else went out the window. I used to do “personalitied” writing as most blogs do, but realized that path sacrifices both of the things above in favor for lulling the reader into complacency. It will be a difficult transition if undertaken.

We must make use of potent counter-propaganda, and so I think “controversy” is good. – Tucken2.0

I agree wholeheartedly, hence articles like “Legalize Rape” and “Fatwa: Pope Francis”.

Power is based in culture, that’s how the reds have won, by ridiculing the opponents. – Refman

This is also a good point. Perhaps more satire and mockery is called for as well.


That’s all for this round. Thank you for reading, commenting and most of all thinking about the topics presented on this blog, which in my analysis are necessary contemplations for humanity to have a future.