Amerika

Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category

Conservatives, Conserve Heritage; Miscegenation Is Death

Tuesday, August 22nd, 2017

Conservatives are those who conserve, and because not all actions turn out as well, they conserve the best of what is offered. This is the opposite of a utilitarian standard: instead of whatever is “okay” by the lowest common denominator in a large herd, they choose what is best, even if most people are not clear in their understanding of that.

As part of this, conservatives are natural environmentalists, despite mainstream conservatives doing little along these lines. They are also defenders of culture, although mainstream conservatives have done nothing there. But even more, they conserve genetics, which means keeping the best of the past and bearing it forward into the future.

This is why miscegenation is death, as Jared Taylor notes:

There is one argument for anti-miscegenation laws that is stronger now than ever. Whites used to have eight or ten children, but now they are not even replacing themselves, and every out-marriage is a tiny step towards extinction.

…But why preserve a white majority? Is it not because whites have a legitimate yearning for societies that reflect their own nature and culture, and that only whites can build such societies? If, in every generation, 9 percent of whites are contributing to their own demographic dispossession, that alone will ensure that they eventually disappear.

And what about the victims of miscegenation whom Derbyshire himself writes about: the Chinese men who wanted to attack him when they saw him with a Chinese woman, and the black women who hate it when black men chase white women? (Derbyshire leaves out other combinations but they can produce resentments that are just as strong.)

Racial-sexual loyalty is a powerful emotion. Should we just ignore it?

Racial, and more importantly ethnic, loyalty is powerful because it protects something powerful: traits are not just heritable, but genes cluster together in groups to produce those traits, and so when miscegenation — mixing of races and ethnic groups — occurs, not only are some traits lost, but the overall makeup of the ethnic group, like a network of traits, is lost too.

When Germans are 1/4 Korean, they are no longer Germans. They are something new. In the same way, if Germany because 1/4 Polish or Irish, Germans would no longer be Germans, with the same habits and abilities of Germans, but something new that has through a process of genocide replaced the Germans.

Seen through sane eyes, avoiding miscegenation is how a population maintains its health, along with other breeding habits that we have denied because the individualists among us want to believe that what matters is what they intend, not who they are. As Billy Roper writes, ethnic preservation cannot be separated from other healthy breeding practices:

People understood that eugenics, or purposeful, conscious and selective breeding, is just as real for two legged animals as it is for any other variety. They strove for quality in their offspring, which meant that they strove for quality in their mates, whether they were selecting breeding partners for themselves, or as was often the case traditionally, for their children. Not any more, of course. People drag around their accidents of birth like proud badges of martyrdom, forcing them on everyone else, eliciting painfully awkward, nervous grins and tolerance. Or else. Hell, most of you probably think I’m the world’s biggest jerk already, for not wanting to group slobber hug the cast from ‘The Ringer’, which is a funny movie, by the way. Hold on, I get worse.

When people no longer care about the genetic quality of their offspring, when they actively deny that genetic inheritance plays a significant role in intelligence, personality, temperament, and jump shots, they get just what they deserve. When they fail to see that inherited psychological and cognitive characteristics cluster in racial groups, and pretend that “love” is blind to color and really all that matters is a person’s heart, Kumbaya, then they get what they pay for.

Not only did America’s Founding Fathers make it illegal for nonWhites to become citizens of the United States, they also made it illegal for different races to intermarry. A lot of people don’t know that until very recently, those laws were still on the books, too. Anti-miscegenation laws were a part of American law in some States since before the United States was established and remained so until ruled unConstitutional in 1967.

Why would someone care about the genetic health of their offspring, the level of pollution in their rivers, the future of their civilization, or the presence of great art, symphonies and novels? After all, we will all be dead relatively soon, and what happens after that is not directly relevant to us. However, that is not quite the full story either.

We find meaning in life through connection to things larger than us. These can be material things or spiritual things, but either way, by connecting to the world beyond ourselves, we have discovered beauty and importance to life. We cannot make life important on the basis of ourselves as individuals, because we are pursuing tiny pleasures, miniscule powers and transient wealth. We can however discover what is great in life and, through it, find what we value in ourselves.

That drive to virtue is the basis of dislike of miscegenation. It is beautiful that our people have existed for millennia, upholding their values and unique abilities, and conquering many obstacles in order to create great civilizations. It is amazing that all of us, no matter how small, can have a role in that if we choose to do so.

But, in order to do that, we must overcome our egos. This is what is meant by the idea from Toynbee that great civilizations are not killed, but commit suicide, when we pair that idea with another from Plato, which is that in order to know what is true, we must first want to be virtuous and take our place in a complex order where we each have a unique role, but we are not all the same, either as equal individuals or one mass hive-mind.

The ancient Greeks knew that hubris was the death of a civilization. Once people see themselves as more important than any external order — nature, logic, civilization, morality, or religion — they begin to act like squabbling monkeys, fighting over personal importance and temporary issues. The goal is forgotten, and the possibility of anything great is foreclosed.

You can see this individualistic outlook in some recent entertaining Communist propaganda from The New York Times:

Having lived her first 43 years under Communism, she often complained that the new free market hindered Bulgarians’ ability to develop healthy amorous relationships.

“Sure, some things were bad during that time, but my life was full of romance,” she said. “After my divorce, I had my job and my salary, and I didn’t need a man to support me. I could do as I pleased.”

Ms. Durcheva was a single mother for many years, but she insisted that her life before 1989 was more gratifying than the stressful existence of her daughter, who was born in the late 1970s.

“All she does is work and work,” Ms. Durcheva told me in 2013, “and when she comes home at night she is too tired to be with her husband. But it doesn’t matter, because he is tired, too. They sit together in front of the television like zombies. When I was her age, we had much more fun.”

Nevermind that the actual topic of this article is that people in “free” societies work too much. You can also ignore the fact that Communism failed to produce much of anything consistently, where the West built a great industry. The answer is somewhere in the middle, perhaps a capitalist state without any government entitlements or benefits, so that people could work less and have enough. But the real point is that Ms. Durcheva was proud of her days when she did not need a man to support her and could do whatever she wanted.

Whatever she wanted. That is the face of individualism: do not do what is right, or what is meaningful, but what you, the raging ego, decide that you want. Notice that there is no discussion of whether this activity was productive or filled her soul with joy. She was a king in her own little sphere, with her job where she was important and a personal life where she could be free from commitment. Life became not an activity with purpose, but a series of sensations, all dedicated to the individual. That is why we call hubris “individualism” now.

The New York Times only wants to draw more women to Leftism with the promise of being able to do whatever they want. It is the call of manipulation because every human responds to it: the idea that they do not need to struggle for meaning or sanity in life, but can become entirely self-sufficient, separate from nature and the logical results of their actions. They are in control, and no one can make them live up to standards, be good, or even be useful. It is all about the ego, which is both a warm feeling and an infinite abyss.

We face the same problem in explaining why miscegenation is destructive. Why care about anything but the self, my beautiful self? Even if that portends the death of meaning, people do not seek meaning because they do not understand it. When it is there, they appreciate it, but when it is not, they settle for egomania and hollow, simple pleasures.

Avoiding miscegenation is part of a path to meaning. Some of us naturally connect to something larger than ourselves; we are the producers and the civilization-builders. Others do not, and will pretend they are not miserable by rationalizing how much of “muh freedom” and independence they have. But in the end, that is a path to emptiness and death, even if the body lives on.

Explaining The Passive-Aggressive Nature of the Modern Era

Monday, August 21st, 2017

Human behavior occurs in layers because different levels of intellect penetrate more deeply into our motivations. For most people, the world is a two-dimensional surface filled with brightly colored squares for categories, and they manipulate these around like a puzzle game until they all fit.

This outlook is incomprehensible to anyone a layer above that, who sees instead a schematic, where one thing leads to another like a Rube Goldberg machine, and so certain things are linked together like smoke and fire, but they are uncertain as to whether these things can exist from another cause, or whether the link between them is always absolute or at full force.

At the top, there are very few who find themselves look at a three-dimensional machine which has both degree and time. The links between its parts are not like light switches, but more like volume knobs, and things change over time, either becoming more complex or simpler. There are no ironclad links, only particular situations and these must be viewed on a case-by-case basis.

This means that what is true to one group is nonsense to another, in both directions. The problem with this is that the more complex and therefore more accurate, sensitive and realistic views of the top are gibberish and insanity to those below; the Dunning-Kruger effect essentially states that you can only understand what you have the circuits to process, and anything more complex is mysticism.

For that reason, most people look at political allegiances, those in the middle look at economic motivations, and those at the top look at psychological outlooks and inner needs, such as recognition, when analyzing the behavior of their fellow humans.

I ask you to take a top-down look, as if you were in that higher group, and maybe you are, as we inspect the nature of modernity. Modernity is both a span of years, a philosophy and a time co-existing with certain factors brought on by technology. But the real core of it appears to be in that change in philosophy from previous eras, and its correlation with decline of civilization.

Historically, modernity began at about the time when the middle class — those above unskilled labor, but beneath aristocracy — began to become prosperous from their shops, trades, factories and farms, and started to challenge the aristocratic classes. They eventually allied with the peasants, who had in previous centuries staged unsuccessful revolts, and implemented equality and democracy so that middle class power could grow.

This means that we live in a time of middle class values and attitudes. The middle class cannot be separated from its mercantile roots, that is, in “making money” through buying, selling, trading and speculating, as opposed to origins in leadership or intellect. These roots lead the middle class to inherently defensive values.

Defensive values are those which have no direction except to avoid certain fears; to have a defensive belief, one must assume that the world never changes, or that it is irrelevant. To the middle class, everything is about buying and selling. They do not think about how to produce the conditions where such buying and selling are protected by a stable civilization.

Instead, they have shopkeeper’s values: do nothing that could cause anyone to have a potential grievance against you. This is another way of saying “the customer is always right,” which means that you adopt no opinion other than whatever is commonly accepted, because to do so is to endanger your business. That leaves you with a values system based in representing your own personal business interests only.

If you wonder why communism is the flip side of the coin of capitalism, or why socialism makes billionaires, it is for this reason. Our entire society is being conducted as if it were a shopping mall or bazaar. The only value system is in saying what makes the customer feel happy, and in doing nothing that will offend that customer.

For a shopkeeper, equality is inherent. Anyone with coin is welcome and whatever their dysfunction or merits, are equally desired as customers. You never turn down money, and dealing with someone who is crazy takes about the same amount of time as dealing with someone who is sane. Further, since your customers are other middle class people, they are looking for the lowest prices possible, so reducing quality to make a product more accessible is inevitable, which leads to a customer base which is as much in the working classes and unskilled labor group — proles — as the middle class. For that reason, no standard can be too low, but standards can easily be too high, which might offend someone. Modernity is a “race to the bottom” in order to expand the customer pool.

This defensive outlook means that no one can do anything except through a posture as a victim, because that way, they are the one offended instead of the one offending. This arises from egalitarianism itself, but that in turn has a prototype in the equality of customers. All are welcome, except those who disagree that all are welcome, because that would infringe upon profits.

Business is afraid of offending someone, not violating community standards, which are so broad that there is not an individual victim if they are violated, and for that reason, can be violated because in practical terms, no customers are lost. The only way around this is if customers form a group to boycott, because then they are being victimized by denial of that group. Business will bow to that, but what if groups conflict? Whoever has more victim status wins, because the herd will be offended by the greatest victimization, and not by victimizing someone who is less of an Official Victim.

The middle class are those who take civilization for granted because their only concern is their own success within it. This is the nature of individualism when translated into economic form, much as the peasant revolt is a form of hubris or individualism by those who attempt to rise above their station in life, and are inept at making the decisions associated with that higher station.

Modern society fits into a passive role because it is not concerned with forward action to achieve goals, but instead is backward-looking toward assumptions of stability, and defensive in that it aims to avoid taking a stand other than going along with the herd. This is why civilizations die, each person imitating all others, and no one with eyes on the road ahead.

Targeting the High-Average

Monday, August 21st, 2017

The people who effect the most change in society are those of high-average intelligence, whom I call artisans. People of straight-up high intelligence only change things if they can reach the high-average people.

People whose IQ falls in the 100 to 140 range are both relatively smart and numerous, at slightly less than 50% of the population, with another 50% below 100 and a vanishing few above 140. If this section of society moves, the whole thing moves. That means we have to get to them. So how do we do that? We can answer that question by asking the counter-question, why aren’t people in that range following our way of thinking already? There are three reasons:

  1. Ignorance. Artisans don’t know about our views because they are not exposed to them.
  2. Not smart enough. Artisans are good at implementation, less good at understanding the finer details of theory. We can’t teach them the rudiments (too fundamental for their level of mental articulation) or the final consequences (too complex), only the practical applications and the direct antecedents of those, that is, “Do this for this reason.”
  3. Not ready. Artisans are brainwashed by modernity and are not yet ready to see things our way.

So what do we do? 2 is a hopeless cause, because you can’t put a square peg in a round hole. They will never get the depths of it, except on a gut level. That means we have to tackle 1 and 3, and, as with all things of this nature, we have to tackle them in tandem. The solutions are simple:

  1. Keep convincing the spiritual and mental aristocrats, and get the trickle-down started.
  2. Replace modern values with our own. Appeal to the artisans’ sense of identity, orderliness, and purpose. This tactic operates at a fundamental gut level, and will mostly be done through art and literature.
  3. Simultaneously with the above, discern what our immediate next step is as a society; I see us going through a relatively brief libertarian phase involving massive roll-back of laws and regulations. Creating a “wild west” culture and society makes us all feel a little more adventurous, more willing to try things we normally wouldn’t. The imperative is to spread ideas conducive to deconstructing the suffocating bureaucracy and regulatory mechanisms of modernity in order to make this happen.

To make the first tactic work, we can’t rely on institutional or systemic methods. Those fail. This one can only be carried out by the alt-heavy, which means finding other people on the same mental level and convincing them slowly over a period of years through many one-on-one conversations, and befriending them in order to do so. I won’t say more on this point, because those who fall into the alt-heavy group already know what to do, and have been doing it for years.

The second tactic requires art. Alternative media is already taking off, and it’s already got one foot on the Right, so let’s bring it in all the way. Conservatives have already bewailed that culture-creation is the sole province of the Left, so it’s not as if we’re taking hostile territory. This is not an invasion, but a gold rush, a scramble for empty lands. We already have plenty of alt-heavies and alt-middles working on the information war, but this front requires action from both as well. Alt-heavies who are artistically inclined need to focus on conceiving of new artistic paradigms and creating the foundational examples, and alt-middle aesthetes will naturally follow their pattern.

The third tactic is made easier by the second. As our values replace those of modernity, there will be a natural backlash against the strangled regulatory state we’ve lived in for so long. The approach is simple: ride the backlash while steering it with the artistic and intellectual works. If we do it right, we land squarely back in Tradition.

We’ve successfully manipulated the Overton Window to the point where the above is possible, but intellectual tactics, by themselves, can’t unseat modernity. It’s time to stop pushing the Overton Window and begin pulling it. Replacement of modern values with our own creates a natural “pull” that keeps us from reaching equilibrium until we achieve a Traditional society again, analogous to the attractor in a phase-space. We can’t attack the trunk (everyday life) so we have to attack the branches (intellectual sphere) and roots (fundamental values). Note that it is impossible to move from where we are to a Traditional society without a “chaotic” phase, though this need not imply violence. What we want is to push for a situation where there are considerably fewer rules, where everything is fast and loose and open, and where our current and future crop of thinkers, artists, and writers can most effectively disseminate their message.

The above may not look like a workable strategy, but it is. You have to pay attention to the consequences of each point, and remember that the consequences of each tactic interact with one another and develop at the same time. If you can’t think organically, you won’t get it. If you can, you’ll see the obvious result; the luminaries of the next generation will be ours (from 1), our values will already be displacing modern ones (from 2), and we’ll be entering into an open and unstable social state where those luminaries will be the guiding lights. The inevitable outcome is a traditional society

The Great Clarification

Monday, August 21st, 2017

To shut down a white person’s brain, to see what a blue screen of death looks like on a white face, show it a photo of Hitler.

With Charlottesville, the traumatic symbols spiked the collective frontal lobe of the white race. Now we see a fully submissive and docile population, ready to happily shed any freedom, ready to give up any resource, ready to turn the other other cheek.  The Washington Post, CNN, the governor of Virginia — all of these, and more of their kind, hold the leash and they are leading the white masses out behind the shed with a 12 gauge in the other hand.

It’s not pretty.  It induces a feeling of fatalism, despair. Western civilization is just giving up.

But it’s not over yet, and every sudden yank on the leash provokes the beast more.  The situation becomes clearer with every atrocity, every suppression, and every further twisting and multiplication of the falsehoods.  Those paying attention — resisting the lure of distraction into blissful oblivion — and choosing the path of life will escape their mental shackles and see how the sides have actually sorted out.

White people have divided into two sides. On one side they will see a people who have chosen to continue to exist, and on the other they will see the former’s cast off husk of shed dead skin, remaining animated by hateful necromancy a while longer as a hindrance. One side has a future, the other chooses not to.

This is the great clarification. We are forced to make a choice between death and life. Ultimately, this is a process of refinement, focus, and re-ignition. A new energy enters the fray. We are no longer talking about airy concepts that will have no effect on our lives, which is why most people use them as lifestyle accessories, adorning themselves in the latest visionary, artistic or progressive ideas. These are not trends like owning a fidget spinner or binge-watching Game of Thrones on Netflix. This is life and death for us all.

As always, Darwin prevails. Those who chose to align to the laws of the universe by wanting to live and evolve will produce the founders of the next cycle of Western civilization.  We who now notice and oppose the forces of Western decline precede them.  We are the survivors, the real visionaries, and the people who will create the next stage of Western civilization.

Confederate Monuments Debate is About Race, Not History

Sunday, August 20th, 2017

In the West, we are a people defeated by democracy, which always chooses the simplest option over the most accurate. We were warned by history, and thought we knew better and could control the beast with our laws, but it ate us alive. Now we are fighting over whether to rise again or anesthetize ourselves with idiocy while waiting for Brazil 2.0 to crush our souls with its hopeless futility.

As the Left agitates to remove Confederate monuments, many raise a number of arguments against this, namely that we are erasing history and showing a dangerous ideological mania which — like panics, fads, trends, and other herd behavior — will lead us to a Soviet-like future. But another argument can be framed, which is that these monuments speak to an essential part of our present as well as the past.

One Leftist argues that these statues represent whiteness, which he/she/it assumes is automatically bad:

An infographic from the Southern Poverty Law Center demonstrates that the majority of the monuments were built between 1910 and 1920 as Jim Crow became law throughout the south and, later, during the 1950s and 1960s as African Americans demanded full citizenship.

…It seems only right that the debate about Confederate memorials happens now. It is too easy to condemn white nationalists and neo-Nazis. Their explicit hatred makes them monsters. But how should we understand Trump’s “innocents” – those who were simply there to protest the removal of Robert E Lee’s statue?

That statue represents an idea of whiteness they refuse to relinquish; it is a part of a politics that trades on white fears, ongoing cultural wars that scapegoat black and brown people and policy decisions deeply rooted in racial animus. Until we confront honestly all of this, we will remain on this racial hamster wheel.

Diversity never works. We know that it cannot work because each ethnic group has a self-interest of its own, namely to be in charge of its future, which requires that it be dominant so that it can establish moral, legal, cultural and genetic standards that support it and prevent it from perishing through outbreeding.

When there are multiple groups in a state, and one of them gets new rights, the healthy response — although not the best response, which is to end diversity — by the other groups is to double down on their own identity and assert it. The Confederacy was many things, but mostly it represented to the people of the South a way to live apart from the ideological and financial regime of the North.

In the South, some things were more important than money and popularity, like way of life, heroism, folkways, and the calm existence of an agrarian society. Slavery, which was destined to die as machinery became more advanced, was a part of this in the same way that serfdom was part of Europe: bulk labor was needed and for the most part, was treated well but prevented from having power in society.

As African-American rights became a focus in America, Caucasians asserted their own needs through remembering this part of history. The Left knows this, and that is why they attack these statues and other parts of history: they want to erase Caucasian identity so they can dominate America and remake it in the form that they want. For white Leftists, that is a soft USSR; for every other ethnic group, it is them dominating all other ethnic groups, whether they are consciously aware of this or not.

This is why politics in America has boiled down to identity politics:

This isn’t a battle over ideas or the Confederacy’s place in American history, it’s sheer and mindless identity politics.

American towns and cities are now increasingly being besieged by agitators who flaunt the law, direct their hate toward fellow citizens, and openly attack the crucial principles at the heart of the American way of life.

The resounding message that these events send is that in 2017, it’s impossible for this country to accept people of different creeds and points of views. You are either on the “right side of history,” as President Barack Obama said, or you are on the wrong side.

The narrative is increasingly join us, or be crushed.

The “right side of history” involves destroying Caucasians for having been successful in the past, and for trying to be so again, which requires removing diversity so that Caucasians can assert their self-interest. The rise of identity politics is a natural and inevitable consequence of diversity. We know this because the statues went up in response to African-American identity back in the 1920s-1960s.

Angry mobs want white identity dead because mobs want equality. The type of people who join mobs want to force society to include them regardless of their deficiencies, so they use equality to make mediocrity on par with productivity and excellence. They join mobs in order to be anonymous and escape accountability for their acts, and to use the ambiguity of the mob to force their personal agenda on society.

As one protester for the Right pointed out, this is not about history but about the future:

“The left in this country is trying to destroy white culture and white heritage and American heritage, because history doesn’t fit their politically correct scenario,” Roy said.

Roy argued that the United States was a “white country” until 1965, when Congress removed quotas in federal immigration law that heavily favored northern Europe to the exclusion of other immigrant groups.

…He now views Vermont as a “leftist safe space,” and said the reaction to his involvement in the white supremacist rally shows “communist mentality” and “group think.”

“There’s nothing wrong with white people standing up for their own interest and identity,” Roy said.

The Left is a spectrum, which means that Leftists differ only in a matter of degree. A Communist is simply a Democrat with power, in part because non-working ideas like Leftist require increasing doses of power to function. The Left pretends to be collectivist, but like a mob, a collective is formed of individuals acting toward selfish ends, namely forcing society to support them and allow them more power than they deserve by right of their level of intelligence and moral character.

All of this activity distracts from the fundamental idea: either every ethnic group has a right to self-interest, or one ethnic group is hijacking a presumption of victimhood — based in a slanted historical narrative — in order to game the system and use it to accomplish their own ends. Right now, there is a coalition of non-white and Leftist groups, but that will not last once Caucasians are disempowered.

In response to this, the answer is not to focus on the Confederate part of the equation, but admit that the Confederate flag is a symbol for Western European culture in America, and that we have a right to our own self-interest. Not only that, but we acknowledge ahead of the curve that diversity has failed, and seeing the enmity in those opposing us, have a right to end it and move on toward our own future.

Revenge

Sunday, August 20th, 2017

Sunrise wrapped me in a warm glow, like the blanket of a kind mother, as left hand opened the door and my right hand steadied the silenced Beretta. The mark, a slightly fattish middle-class woman behind the counter, opened her mouth to say something, but there was no time and no one to hear.

I put two shots into center mass. The second one exploded the heart as subsonic 9mm bullets have an uncanny tendency to do. She slumped forward, and then I performed my finishing move, which is to slide the tip of the silencer right up against the base of the skull where the medula oblongata is, and then tip it upward so that the trajectory passes through the whole of the brain mass to the forehead. I squeezed one more time, which liquefied the brain, and her arms went as limp as they would be on the coroner’s slab. Removing a soft folding hat from my pocket, I slipped it over my head and left through the backdoor, walking past her employee who was loading boxes onto a dolly. He took one look at my black spectral form and fled.

There are, in my profession, excited debates about the correct way to go about removing a mark. For me, there is no question: two shots to the center mass, which through lungs, heart, veins or spine will cause blood pressure collapse and make the target go limp. Some guys think you should go for the head shot first, which to me is just a statistical game; hitting the head right the first time is tricky enough when you are moving, but often both you and the tango are in motion when you squeeze that trigger. I knew one kid, new in the business and fresh off a tar habit, who insisted on going for the lobotomy shot, straight through the forehead. This worked for his first two jobs, then he fired on a union stooge right as the guy moved his head, and succeed only in blowing off a corner of the skull. The mark flew into a screaming panic, whipping his head around and covering everything nearby in thick webs of blood, at which point my boy had to leg sweep the mark, kneel in his back and put two into the back of the head. That sloppy job meant he would not get hired again, because the point of a hit is to instill total fear and obedience, and if you cannot work as a hit man, you are a liability, so… he saw me coming, and just nodded. He knew. I put two in his chest and gave him a minute to die peacefully before I snuggled that silencer against the base of his skull and exploded his brain. The eyes went blank and I could tell from the pungent odor that he had vomited blood at the same moment the sphincters released, sitting in his chair at the back of a dive bar. I always feel good when I leave a horrible mess because people get paid really good money to clean up. I think of my mother, who worked afternoons as a high-end maid, and wonder if she gets any of the trickle-down income from a good splat. Of course I haven’t talked to her in years, but I think of her often.

Walking away from the scene of my latest kill, I kept my pace invariant and moderately fast but not hurried. I want to look like an asshole customer, not a killer, so I pinch my lips and put a somewhat irate expression on my face. This makes people clear out of my way and forget me, just glad that I am not coming to their shop, although for the wrong reasons. I wear a reversible jacket, and as soon as I can get to an area that is impoverished enough, I duck behind a car and reverse it and pull out the second hat, a blue one, which I swap for the first. Instead of a guy in a black coat and hat, they now see a man wearing a white jacket and blue hat who emerges from behind a line of trucks, walking entirely differently than the first. This guy is almost prancing, happy to have a day off on after a busy week, looking forward to the football game or the bar. I keep that act up, which is easy, until I can make it to the restaurant near the park. Buying a sandwich, I get it to go in a large bag, then wander through the bushes into the park. Somewhere in there, the gun and $500 went into the bag and the sandwich went into the bushes. Marco the delivery boy is waiting for me there on his moto. I pass him another five and the bag, and he zips off toward another moto which is coincidentally — and no one but a real fool believes in coincidences — coming our way, who somehow gets possession of that bag. It is headed to a local repair shop that has a forge, where it will be melted down and hammered into rugged steel sculptures for tourists. The evidence is part gone. I go another dozen blocks, then duck into the back of a dive bar. In the bathroom, I rummage in the ceiling tiles and find the bag of alternate clothing I had prepared. Now I am wearing a Hawaiian shirt, sunglasses, shorts and a camera. The old clothes and all of the makeup on my face — a false moustache, sideburns, some cheek lifts and a chin enhancement — go into the bag as well, which I pass over the bar with a five and watch as the bartender strolls into the kitchen and tosses it into the flames of their stove. This entire network is maintained both because people are well-paid and because there is one penalty for failure, namely that me or someone like me will come walking in the door, the nose of the silencer rising slowly under slight apologetic eyes.

Among those in the profession, there is also disagreement about what weapon should be used. Right now, following a certain successful movie, the de rigueur mode is the .22LR in a Ruger that is more silencer than pistol. I have a few objections to this. The same thing that makes this gun so distinctive is what makes it ineffective for the political task of a contract killing. What we do is terrorism. Our goal is to instill fear in others so that they obey the rules made by those who pay us. Our primary weapon is ambiguity. Someone does something out of line, and dies. Was it a paid hit? Or a robbery gone wrong? This is what makes people think about it, talk about it, and live in fear of it. If the hit is too obviously a contract job, then the ambiguity is gone, and people realize that all they have to do is fake obedience. When the hit comes out of nowhere, and no one knows from where or by whom, obedience becomes the law. The 9mm/.380 round is present in most unsolved deliberate murders. Even more, I like the heavier rounds. The riff about contract killers using the .22 LR because of greater accuracy is just that, a myth. Almost no one is that accurate. We are shooting while in motion at people who are most likely also in motion. Our real weapon is stealth. You never know where we are, or when we come. You cannot defend against us, because the minute you sit down and lift up a cup of tea, there is the dark figure walking in the door, silencer rising like a malevolent eye. We do not knock, and we show up randomly, then ensure you are gone. I have suggested to employers in the past that the most terrifying hit is for the person to simply vanish. Three guys show up with a dart gun, and snipe the person. They have about ten seconds before they slump over unconscious as the neurotoxin paralyzes them, then the other two guns run in and roll them up in a rug. That gets passed off to two other guys in a van, who drop it off with two other guys in another van, and so on across the country until we pass some guy in a funeral home a five and he loads them into a crematorium. Gas, flames, bones. Those are crushed into powder and dumped into the sea. People are pretty bad at cause/effect thinking, but when someone steps out of line, and then cannot be found all of a sudden, they get the message. Obey or become void.

I nurse a drink at the bar. Like all good operators, I have a cover story: I am a poor boy who takes care of his mother and has a war wound that prevents him from working, so they assume that I am on benefits and living poor. In reality, the “mother” is a series of recording, and the dingy apartment that I live in has a front room that looks like a tenement, and a back room and bedroom straight out an upscale condominium. I live well, considering that if I stage two removals a month, I am earning more than most professionals. Like most of us, I am saving up for two events: first, I want a few million in the bank so that I can retire at age fifty; second, I want a hundred thousand dollars so that I can fake my death — incinerated corpse in a car smashed against a brick wall on a country road, the ID for my work name in the athletic bag thrown free from the shattered car — and depart without my erstwhile employers knowing. If I forget what I know, I am at risk; if I leave the profession behind, I am also at risk, so the only solution is to die. I had a real name once, but thanks to the passage of money across counters at the periphery of the bureaucracy, he is long dead, and my new name is as legitimate as any. My fingerprints have been surgically altered, as has my face. I am no one because I am someone who does not really exist, and when it is time, he will also die and I will become a ghost, wandering this earth for my own reasons entirely, finally. To keep cover, I order a second beer, and drink it just as slowly, then another. I will kill the afternoon here because my time is not my own. Unlike petty criminals, I am a professional. I do what is necessary to get the job done well. This means that I must be invisible, deep within my cover and doing what he does. I hit another dive bar, then another, finally stop at the grocery store to pick up a bottle of bourbon and to make sure I look good and drunk when I do. I reek of cigarettes and alcohol, just another node of the urban detritus that makes this life so oblivious and ugly at the same time.

Among people of my profession, it is a matter of pride that we are working a job. Gutter criminals slouch through life looking for opportunities to exploit others, but it is part of their lifestyle. For us, our lifestyle is entirely removed from the job, as much as you can if you need to constantly maintain a false identity and sleep with at least one gun under your pillow. We do not commit crimes, except as is necessary for our cover identities, other than those we are hired to do. We stay physically fit, practice shooting, maintain networks of those who can offer related and necessary private services, and know that one risk of our profession is getting caught and sent to prison where we will most likely be terminated by another of our profession. This is the price we pay for receiving envelopes with enough cash to buy a decent automobile. Like any other profession, we have lore, and there is some debate about the right method to execute the kill. For me, the goal is to be invisible and reliable so that people feel there is no escape. This is why I am at the higher end of the pay scale, but not too high, because then you will not get enough jobs. If you mapped all the hit men in my city on a scale from highest to lowest price, I would be dead in the middle, plus one. The jobs keep coming and my offshore bank account takes every cent that I do not need to live. When I get home, I put the bottle of bourbon in the cabinet with the others. Each one represents a day living out my persona. Some are kills. Early on, I was tempted to buy something nice, but opted to stay in character instead. My guy buys middle-of-the-road bourbon to go home and drink himself asleep in front of the television while his aged mother’s CPAP unit wheezes in the next room. He is a loser. I am not.

Most of us have some story about how we came into this unusual line of work. For most, it begins with a tale of pity and woe. Their dad beat them or their mother ran out. I have no such excuse. The answer in my case was that I came from a normal middle class home, maybe one notch above dead middle, and started enjoying recreational substances in my tender teenage years. This led to an unfortunate habit, and then an unfortunate lifestyle where I sold large amounts of these weapons-grade stimulators of the pleasure centers of the brain, and that in turn led to an arrest because one of the guys I was working with could not keep his mouth shut. After several years in one of the infernal centers of mutual torture known as a correctional facility, I found myself at a bus station with fifty dollars and my clothes. I knew right away that they would be watching me, so I wasted another year of my youth as a food service technician, more generally known as a busboy, moving up to kitchen prep. My erstwhile friend was just relaxing, figuring that I was as weak as the rest of these idiots, when his car broke down on a lonely road. I had spent my time in the prison library and then, after a day of scraping wasted food from heavy porcelain plates, reading more at the public library. I had a used laptop I had acquired from from a friend, and loaned it freely, then used it myself to look up information of note on the internet. I still have a thumb drive of all of those texts, enough to spend a year reading, detailing the procedures and standards of my profession and related skills. I have much of them memorized, having spent countless hours in the night in my rented room in a tenement which I shared with a few others in my temporary profession, reading and re-reading until I had absorbed every quantum of vital information from them. My friend, who when stopped for a minor offense had rolled over on me so he could keep using — a curious term, common to those who smoke, snort or inject high-powered psychoactive substances: a transitive verb made intransitive, because when you use drugs there is only one purpose and one object to all actions — opened up the hood, nicely silhouetted by the headlights, and never felt what was coming next. He came to in the back of a truck I had borrowed, and would return unscratched and scrupulously cleaned in the morning, heading far into the country. His eyes pled with me but I showed no emotion as I double taped his mouth and put him on top of the seven-foot heap of alternately stacked firewood I had made in a pit far off the roads, deep in the woods. His muffled whimpers did not give me any satisfaction or induce any compassion as I soaked that wood first in diesel, next in gasoline, and then scattered the dust of a dozen crushed road flares over the mound.

I drew out my combat knife. “Nod twice if you want this to be relatively painless,” I said, but he was too panicked or angry to do anything but thrash. I put the knife away, lit a cigarette, and pitched it at the base of the mound from ten feet away, then watched until fire consumed the wood. His thrashing only lasted for about thirty seconds because the heat of forty gallons of mixed fuels and burning wood cooked him from within, his eyes squirting across his chest as the steam released from his broiling brain. I stepped into the shadows and watched until the mound burned down. Hours later, I took out a hammer and smashed any bones to dust, but found very little. The magnesium blazed with the gasoline and diesel, creating an inferno that was hot enough to melt his belt buckle, which I deposited in a nearby river. Any forensic scientist finding the ash would see nothing but fine grey powder. This did not stop me from scooping the cooling ash into a large metal trash can borrowed from a nearby park, and emptying it into a fast moving river. Now there is nothing but scorched dirt, and he will never be found. His car I cleaned thoroughly after parking it in front of a repair garage that I knew doubled as a chop-shop, keys in the ignition, a hundred dollar bill in the visor. I knew exactly what would happen and so he was recorded as missing, which allowed the police to pretend there was no crime, and keep their statistics looking good for the middle-class taxpayer, and his parents and friends to assume that he had run away to a life they would never imagine. The pretense of people is the greatest aid to my profession. Those who see a victim die will deny their own fear, and justify their obedience as a sensible business decision; his parents assumed that he was another drug casualty and never looked for him because finding him would lower their own social status. No one wants a wayward child. Perhaps someone missed him, or cried for him, but this was no concern to me. Those who wrong me face a singular penalty: total erasure, and a lingering fear in those around them that someone is watching, and stepping out of line brings a terrible price.

For the next few months, I looked around for something new. I never intended to spend my life in a restaurant, making meals for fatuous burghers gobbling burgers at high-end restaurants. With my record, I knew that I needed a new identity if I was to do anything but scrub floors or wash plates for the rest of my life, so I started saving up to invent myself a new cover story, and instead of living as me and venturing into that alternate life, living entirely as that life and having a third identity for when I was doing whatever I would do to earn money. I felt no particular sense of being evil, or doing wrong. In my view, I was reacting entirely plausibly to the world they had made. I grew up with parents smart enough to both know that our society was slowly collapsing into undead human ruins and false pretenses of authority, and to cleverly go into denial about that fact, inventing a religion of their own where somehow everyone would come to God and the gods of the market and stop acting like monkeys drunk on fermented fruit fallen at the base of their favorite trees. I could see the rottenness in everything but more importantly, I saw it in people. People would watch their communities fall apart, and do nothing, just because their home was not directly endangered. We all knew that high school was horrible, that the kids were sadists and the teachers only serious about producing enough obedient little robots to advance their own careers, but no one did anything. I could not imagine having a job as my father did, getting up every morning to go to some box of an office where most of what he did was keep dumb people from screwing up all of the time. There was no future, and so I got into drugs, and then the same people who had made the life into which I was born into Hell were afraid of me, and wanted me in jail, so that they could keep being miserable and hiding in their homes like mice.

When I put my killface on, and go out into the streets to find my target, shoot them until they fall and then liquefy their brains, it is the faces of the middle class that I see. The good obedient people who take society at face value and assume that everything will work out fine just so long as they keep earning enough money to be comfortable, by ignoring this dark underside in which I live, perpetuate the rottenness. Their leaders lie to them and they applaud. Those leaders are no different than me. They see a market, and they want their share. They know there is no Heaven, no judging God, and no right and wrong. There is only a predatory animal that can achieve its goal and be comfortable, and the rest of the stupid scared sheep who will let it happen by retreating to their homes, credit cards and job titles. They know that people like me are out here, and their only hope is to avoid us. This is what those who employ me count upon. The middle class business owner will run into problems, take out an emergency loan or ask for protection, and then think that he is clever because he has a nice house and a security guard out in front of his shop. That security guard sees me coming and he will take his break right then because he is not going to risk his life for someone who never did anything to make society better for all of the rest of us. Sure, they give money. They pay taxes. They care about the poor. But they do not care about the world in which we live, the factories pouring smoke and weird chemical blends into our rivers, the legal corruption of government and corporations, the dishonesty of most people, the horror of our institutions. They just want their own little slice and to hide when people like me come storming around, at least until the day when I raise my silenced pistol and line it up with a circle on their center body mass, squeezing the trigger like an inborn instinct, watching them fall and then ending the dance with a brain-stem coda.

At the last of the bars, I finish another watery beer. Time to buy bourbon and stumble home. I see a man in an expensive motorcar and he looks at me with a kind of pity: a loser, he thinks, because I do not have his bank account or job title. The fact is that I will be retired sooner, and if this man gets in the way of the invisible economy I protect, my eyes will be the last ones he looks into, searching for a reason as the copper-coated lead eats its way through his heart. At the grocery store, I make sure to look bored and disinterested. You have to look like the rest of them, which means pretending that you are the five feet and ten future minutes of space around you, and to be ignorant and uncaring about anything else. You do not want to make it better. You are unaware that it can get worse. All you want is your bourbon, and your television. My neighbors in the hood pity me as well. They see me as some beaten-down guy who gave up on life. At least this is honest, because they know many like me. We take a look at what is out there and realize that there is nothing. Nothing but more days just like the one before, until you retire and then no one cares what happens to you. My life changed a few weeks after I erased the witness against me. I was walking home, staying alert but looking stuporous and distracted like anyone else. As I passed a row of cars, a voice called out, quiet enough to be legally denied and rich with a grainy, deep undertone of resignation. “Hey, Houdini,” it said. I raised an eye in its direction.

“C’mere,” he said, from inside a darkened car, a puff of blue-grey cigar smoke emerging with the sound. I went and sat with him, because this was the type of man who you addressed according to his rules. I had met men like him in prison, and I knew that while I could kill him, or deceive him, that he was like the tip of a forest extending into a field, and that I could not see the legion that would follow. He was a man in an organization.

“I hear you’re good at making people disappear,” he said. I thought about how to respond, and after a moment, just gave him a broad smile. He explained the ground rules: every day, I had to be somewhere I could easily be found, at noon. Someone would come out of the lunch crowd and sit down next to me, then leave a bag of trash. In it would be a picture with a name and address written on the back. If I took the picture, I took the job. When it was done, they would find me the same way, and the bag would have money in it. The amount depended on how well I was regarded and the quality of the hit. There was no getting out. Once I took that first bag, I was in it for life, just like he was. I thought about it and told him a location. Some time later, maybe a year but perhaps less, I realized that I had come to enjoy it. In the midst of the rottenness, it felt good to be destroying, even if that might make me part of the rottenness. I am a force of chaos breaking down a rotten order and most days, it feels good:

Again, there’s no justification for the “diversity of tactics” approach to protesting (smashing and burning things). LeMaster seems concerned about the “baggage” anarchism has but she’s not asked to justify her decision to align herself with that baggage. Again, this seems like the obvious question to ask but it doesn’t get asked for some reason.

There’s more in the piece, including one anarchist who took it up after attending a punk rock show, but the article never does offer much of a justification for the violence which is the main distinctive of anarchist protests. As a reader, you’re left with the impression that participants feel there’s a certain outlaw romance to the whole thing, i.e. dressing in black, wearing a mask, breaking windows and breaking the law, running from police, etc. That kind of excitement tinged with the risk of being arrested must create a real adrenaline rush and some group solidarity among those who do it. You can imagine them sitting around later talking about all the chaos and replaying their role in it for friends.

Does any of that justify destroying Muhammad Ashraf’s limo or doing $100,000 worth of damage to buildings in the form of broken glass? I don’t think so but clearly, the anarchists must.

The names and locations blur together, but I keep a notebook. Each time I come home, I wait a few hours then go on down to the grocery for smokes. On the way, I visit a storage locker where I press my thumb on a pad that is mounted inside the unit I rent every month. It registers that I am alive and warm. If I fail to do that within a week, a file that is hidden in a dozen places on the internet will be mailed to every major news organization in the world. It is a list of the hits I have done, the times and the names, with the reasons why if I know them and a code-name for who did them. It does not matter that the real names are not there because it is easy to see who these would be, for those in the know at least. I do not expect the press to do anything with these, but I know they will float around, that will ruin the mystique. The kills are magical when they come out of nowhere, and a person who thought themselves untouchable in middle-class respectability is found dead with the characteristic pattern of shots. People fear the nameless power and obey it, just like they fear society but obey it, good little mice just interested in their own grain and to be able to hide silently in their holes while the terror continues. Every day they swallow that terror and hide it within themselves, and the denial makes them cancerous. That cancer made me take the path I did, and it makes it necessary that I do what I do. There is no escape as it grows in power, like clouds covering the earth, and soon it will take them too. I see the fear in their eyes as I raise the silencer. It is not that moment, but every other moment that they live in fear as I did as a child, that is my revenge.

They Are Afraid: The Establishment Hits Out With New Bans On Alternative Right, Billy Roper and VDARE

Sunday, August 20th, 2017

As of this morning, Alternative Right has been removed, presumably by its corporate overlords at Google-Alphabet. Simultaneously, Billy Roper has had his accounts removed at Reddit and Twitter, all on the “interpretive logic” of violating the terms of service or content policy (1990s term: acceptable use policy).

In fact, this is part of a wider pattern of mainstream media — including social media, which has now bought into the industry — censorship of Right-wing and white-wing thinkers since what I have called the Alt Right’s victory at Charlottesville. I call this a victory because it forced the Left to admit solidarity with Antifa, and despite media wailing about neo-Nazis and “car terrorism,” this is media hype and will be dead in two weeks, while the message the Alt Right sent will remain: you will not erase us; we have a right to a history, culture, heritage, values, symbols and most of all, to act in self-interest for our self-determination as well. And we owe you nothing.

For the Left, Civil Rights is yet another gambit designed to achieve “equality,” which means caste revolt, so that the lower classes (proles) prevail over anyone who knows better (natural leaders of intelligence above 125 IQ points) with the aid of the middle classes (115-120ish). This inverts society, so that whatever is dumb and popular with the proles wins out over everything else, and while people are chasing these trends, civilization decays, as happened between the French Revolution in 1789 and the defeat of National Socialism in 1945. Since that time, we have been children of the grave, knowing that we are living in a moribund ruin but unable to stop it because, hey, it’s popular.

At Charlottesville, Civil Rights lost its veneer of being “good.” It used to be assumed that class warfare and racial equality were always good, but now, we see people protesting these things because they are doing the exact opposite of what they are intended to do, but since it is happening to white people — a majority who must be overthrown for equality to happen — no one has paid much attention. Until now, that is. And now, the Civil Rights and Equality Agenda (CREA) is being seen for what it is: warfare against those who built this society so that those who could not build it can take it over, like a cuckoo laying her egg in the nest of another type of bird. These are parasites, whether they mean to be or not, and whether they are good or not, and Western Civilization is destroyed but wants to rise again, and for it to do that, it must get rid of both these parasites and its own endogenous screwups and predators.

The Left is in full-panic over Charlottesville because they know that while they can spin the “car terrorism” meme for some time, only the media indoctrinated will believe it once they see the video of Antifa attacking the car before the incident, and when the indictment comes out, it is going to be revealed that this was not a deliberate attack, but an attempt to escape by someone who was not mentally all there. At that point, the Left knows that people will shift their views to be against the Left and its defense of parasitism. People have put up with it for decades, but now they see that it is a path to USSR-style doom, and they want out. That is what scares the Left, and is why they are deleting accounts.

President Trump out-maneuvered the press by blaming both sides, which meant that he blamed Antifa as well, which ruined the press narrative that peaceful Leftist protestors had been “attacked” by the Alt Right, and validated what the videos showed, which was police officers corralling the Alt Right into the waiting Antifa, who then attacked. So, from the average American view, we have the fact that the Alt Right tolerated some neo-Nazis the same way they tolerated Alt Lite, libertarian, Proud Boys, etc. among them, but on the other side, we have the Left showing up with bats, bottles of urine, bricks and pepper spray to attack the Alt Right. That makes the Alt-Right possibly not all good, but the Left is looking increasingly all-bad.

This resonates with everyday white Americans who are tired of double standards and a one-sided Establishment narrative to the point that they are willing to excuse the Alt Right for being the underdog in this fight, but oppose the Establishment for its decades of hypocrisy:

But the president’s words sat just fine with LaMothe. “I think when he called for the unity of the country, that should have been what was pounded on,” LaMothe said in between taking a drag on his cigarette. By pounded on, LaMothe meant respected. He loves Trump and says the president never gets a fair shake from the media.

He says he hates the idea of neo-Nazis and recalls when growing up, he had friends who were black. But now he thinks the white guys he saw on his TV marching in Charlottesville have some reasonable arguments.

“This is a different white supremacy movement than before, because I don’t think whites are saying, ‘Well, we’re better.’ They’re saying why can’t we be treated all as equal?”

LaMothe thinks affirmative action programs should be scrapped. He also thinks neo-Nazis who sparked mayhem in Charlottesville are no worse than a lot of activist groups on the left. “I didn’t hear anything from Barack Obama about Black Lives Matter and that was another hate group,” he says.

In the meantime, after seeing the same masked rioters destroy the streets of Hamburg during the G20 conference, burn and vandalize London in 2011, and savage Portland and Berkeley — looking more like the LA Riots of 1992 than the peaceful anarchist gathering the Left claimed it was — people are having a different view of Antifa, which is more fair and realistic than the sunny gloss offered by the mainstream media:

After left-wing protesters marched through downtown Minneapolis, Minnesota in response to last weekend’s demonstrations in Charlottesville, Virginia, they hoisted the flag of the violent left-wing group “Antifa,” raising it in front of the county’s government center.

…Antifa, meaning “anti-fascist,” has been responsible for several destructive riots and protests, including one in February where members of the group set fires, threw fireworks, attacked the crowd, and damaged property in order to stop Milo Yiannopoulos from speaking at the University of California, Berkeley.

Antifa also vandalized stores, broke windows and rioted during President Donald Trump’s inauguration, before being met with armed law enforcement officers.

Even more, it is clear to people out there who is winning. You do not have the world’s largest corporations, governments, and media establishment uniting to declare a group terrorist, drop it from industry standard services and censor it unless that tiny group is not just threatening them directly, but threatening to win popular appeal from those who are sick of these parasites using us and doing nothing for us. We can live without Google, Paypal, Twitter, Reddit, Facebook and the Left. We cannot live without our people, and we are being taxed to death to pay for others who now we see intend to destroy us.

They do not, as they claimed for all those years, just want to coexist with us and be treated fairly. They want to dominate us, take over our countries, destroy us genetically — some call this genocide — and do it by treating us unfairly all while claiming that they are the victim. Diversity is dead. Equality is dead. The remaining mentally alert people in America and Europe have realized that there is a new “one drop” rule: one drop of equality, socialism, diversity or pluralism means that your civilization collapses. It takes two centuries, in which time all sorts of predatory people will profit from you, but it is your death warrant. We want off the death train to nowheresville.

For the last seventy years, they have pushed diversity on us as the right thing to do; the way to avoid Nazis and the KKK; the way to finally have good “race relations”; and more recently, a way of paying for the huge pensions and benefits gap created when the more-numerous Baby Boomers are replaced by the less-numerous Gen X and Millennials. Now people have seen through the lies, and the Establishment is in full panic, so they are censoring us. While they do that, they reveal their fundamental intention toward unfairness and inequality, and since they have shown us their moral emptiness, we no longer trust them, and we are fighting to escape their clutches.

Where Conservatives Lost The Understanding of Conservatism

Saturday, August 19th, 2017

The same people who shriek “define your terms!” in any debate are perfectly comfortable living among entirely vague terms. Think of “equality,” or even “justice.” We have no simple, straightforward way to define these without referring to institutions, not their goals or the ideas behind them.

Conservatism fits into the same trap. As written here before, it descends from Plato, who wrote that our pursuit was to find the best life possible, that this consisted of virtue instead of pure self-interest, that it had a relative morality of “good to the good, bad to the bad,” that civilizations have a life cycle in which democracy is death, and that our best use of our time is to pursue transcendentals, or immutable yet ongoing goals such as excellence, beauty, goodness, accuracy and ascendancy.

This brings us into conflict with not just Leftists, but the world. In this life, we either have purpose, or we become agents of entropy, falling back into navel-gazing and pursuit of our own fascinations that are unrelated to the world. Conservatism emphasizes that purpose by focusing on order, which is naturally larger than the individual or materiality; the Left denies that purpose by focusing on universal acceptance of the individual, which by its equation of good and bad is a rejection of order, hierarchy and transcendentals.

With the French Revolution, the notion of “conservatives” arose to refer to all of those normal and learned theories that existed before egalitarianism rose and took over. Conservatives are a resistance movement in favor of tradition, classical knowledge, logical fact, truth and wisdom. But because it must collaborate with the Left in the new regime, it is compromised, and so most conservatives gave up on reclaiming their nations and focused instead on themselves with a “work hard, pray hard” ethos that emphasized business, patriotism, equality as a means toward meritocracy, and religion, but only as applied within the individual. They would never violate holy equality by suggesting a goal for civilization, only personal choices.

This confusion becomes visible whenever conservatives decide they like some egalitarianism, but that it can go too far. They forget that ideas naturally lead to others, and that any idea will expand in scope until it has the power it needs to implement itself, which in the case of universal philosophies like egalitarianism, is essentially world control. You can see this in action in a creative but misleading article which hopes to show us “good” egalitarianism versus that dark side communist stuff:

The American Revolution was sparked by the Enlightenment, Judeo/Christian moral beliefs, mixed with Greek and Roman philosophy and political theories. At its best, the American Revolution promotes universal human equality–a work still in progress–individual freedom, freedom of thought and speech, the rule of law, etc.

The French Revolution, in contrast, is Utopian, collectivist, authoritarian, intolerant, and punitive. It is anti-religion generally and anti-Christianity specifically. It accepts the belief that the ends justify the means.

Other than the obvious comparison to communism, which is not wrong so much as it is misleading, the above misses the point because the actual history is that the French Revolution and American Revolution were motivated by the same ideals, but the Americans choose to try to restrain them in the hopes that democracy would not take on its final form as they read about in Plato. The intent behind the founding of the United States seemed to be to create an extremely limited government that would hold democracy in check, and be run by the wealthy, educated and accomplished citizens arising from a natural aristocracy.

At its core, however, this does not differ from the French idea, which had an ideological heritage going back to the Enlightenment™ and the Renaissance.™ The individual is equal, in this view, and so all are treated the same under the law, which eliminates the privilege and power of aristocrats and the naturally more competent by degrees, essentially seeking to limit the power of those who are succeeding so that those who are not can participate as well. Instead of recognizing social order, this strives against it, and the Americans tried to re-implant social order in it through a complex series of rules designed to preserve the manor-based order that had bloomed in the new colonies.

In other words, like the French order, the American one was Utopian. Worse than believing that the ends justify the means, it believed that ends could be passed on by regulating means, at which point only the good and safe remained, which removes the need for society or its leaders to have agency and be working toward the good, as opposed to simply avoiding past known evil methods. The question of intent was not addressed, and so over time, as always happens in democracy, it was filled in by the default actions to which humans gravitate. This quickly asserted itself as mob rule, because if not driven by purpose, a human reverts to thinking of himself, and so will demand the ability to do anything he wants — despite not being able to name these things or their utility — and have an iron law where society cannot throw him out. And so, the American order fell into the same condition as the French order, because the two are different locations on the same continuum from hubris through full Soviet Communism.

A fellow anti-democracy analyst explains this in terms of what the founders did not see versus what they were able to comprehend:

It is not entirely unexpected that Dunning-Kruger cases like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison would have completely misunderstood what Plato was trying to warn them about. They believed that Plato was warning them that democracies always give way to authoritarianism, and thus built strong defenses against authoritarianism into the design for their democracy. But what Plato was really trying to tell them was that democracy inevitably devolves into such horrendous moral, social, and economic chaos that decent, smart, educated people will, with full deliberate intent, beg an authoritarian leader to take power and restore order, even if it does impinge on their liberties to some degree. The fear that these pseudointellectuals really did design a system that will make it impossible for a Caesar to come and save us is what keeps me awake at night.

In other words, if we do not have a purpose for our civilization, we fall back into being rabble, no matter how smart or educated we are. It happens in little stages, one year at a time, with those who are feeling alienated working like fanatics to dismantle whatever they can. They are clever, not intelligent, and so their methods are crude but effective in that they zero in on the support structures that keep society away from anarchy. For them, life is somehow not fair because they were born men and not gods, and it is this sense of hubris that makes them want to overthrow every order and replace them with anarchy where whatever is popular — that which gives in to the same impulse in others, since it is an infectious lowest common denominator among humans as it is with our simian ancestors — wins out every time, this being an order they think they can control since they share the disease with others, and so know what they want to hear, and therefore what they will support by making false elites and false leaders out of whoever says it.

Let us revisit Robert Conquest’s second law of politics:

Any organization not explicitly and constitutionally right-wing will sooner or later become left-wing.

With what we know, we can expand upon this: any organization which is not explicitly directed toward a purpose will sooner or later become infected with hubris, from that give rise to a collective of individuals called a Crowd, and through that, arrive on the spectrum of Left-wing beliefs which terminate in Full Communism. We either have purpose, or ourselves, and when we declare ourselves to be the end instead of a purpose, everything unravels into silliness and stupor. The individual fears purpose because if there is a goal, the individual can fall short of that goal, and this is the root of all of the social horror that humans experience.

It is likely that people push for socialism, communism, equality, feminism, and the like not for economic reasons, but simply because they want to avoid being judged as individuals, and in the anonymity of egalitarianism can escape notice of their failings. This in turn dooms them because by becoming solely inwardly-focused, as happens with hubris and individualism, they lose sight of anything that could give their lives meaning, and end up in a darkened room formed of desires and power but without any potential for growth or discovery.

Conservatives understand this fundamental spiritual truth of humanity, which is that we die inside if we are given too much power as individuals, much as civilization dies if power is given to the wrong people. It loses momentum and collapses into its own circular inertia. Then everything grinds to a stop, much as it is in the contemporary West, which gave up on any hope of greatness during the second world war and has focused on growing its economy ever since so that some of us can win the wealth lottery and escape the Brazil 2.0 that is arising around us.

But as with any human structure, “conservatives” are a varied lot. The Bell Curve applies mercilessly here as well, which means that perhaps one percent of conservatives are worth reading, listening to and following; the rest are repeaters, and because they are focused on self and not world, they are repeating excuses, scapegoats, superstitions, trends, fads, panics and stampede-inducing ideas. This means that by definition, most conservatives are mostly wrong about most things most of the time. That does not mean that conservatism is wrong, only that any idea as interpreted by a group gets reduced to what is most convenient for the individual to belief in the context of an imaginary justification of his life to other people in his social group. Tom Wolfe calls that the fiction-absolute, and we might categorize it along with justifications, excuses and superstitions as the human animal attempting to control, rather than understand, his environment:

Even before I left graduate school I had come to the conclusion that virtually all people live by what I think of as a “fiction-absolute.” Each individual adopts a set of values which, if truly absolute in the world–so ordained by some almighty force–would make not that individual but his group . . . the best of all possible groups, the best of all inner circles. Politicians, the rich, the celebrated, become mere types. Does this apply to “the intellectuals” also? Oh, yes. . . perfectly, all too perfectly.

The human beast’s belief in his own fiction-absolute accounts for one of the most puzzling and in many cases irrational phenomena of our time. I first noticed it when I read a book by Samuel Lubell called The Future of American Politics. Lubell was a political scientist and sociologist who had been as surprised as everybody else by the outcome of the 1948 presidential election. That was the election in which the Democratic incumbent, Harry Truman, was a president whose approval rating had fallen as low as 23 percent. Every survey, every poll, every pundit’s prediction foresaw him buried by the Republican nominee, Thomas E. Dewey. Instead, Truman triumphed in one of the most startling upsets in American political history. Lubell was determined to find out why, and so he set out across the country. When he reached a small Midwestern town that had been founded before the turn of the 19th century by Germans, he was puzzled to learn that the town had gone solidly for Dewey despite the fact that by every rational turn of logic, every economic motivation, Truman would have been a more logical choice. By and by Lubell discovered that the town was still predominantly German. Nobody had ever gotten over the fact that in 1917, a Democrat, President Woodrow Wilson, had declared war on Germany. That had set off a wave of anti-German feeling, anti-German prejudice, and, in the eyes of the people of this town, besmirched their honor as people of German descent. And now, two World Wars later, their minds were fixed on the year 1917, because like all other human beasts, they tended to champion in an irrational way their own set of values, their own fiction absolute. The question Lubell asked was very much like the question that Thomas Frank asked after the election of 2004 in his book What’s the Matter with Kansas? By all economic and political logic, the state of Kansas should have gone to John Kerry, the Democrat, in 2004. But it didn’t. Had Frank only looked back to Samuel Lubell, he would have known why. The 2004 election came down to one state: the state of Ohio. Whoever won that state in the final hours would win the election. Northern Ohio, the big cities of Cleveland, Toledo on the Great Lakes, were solidly for Kerry. But in southern Ohio, from east to west, and in the west was the city of Cincinnati, Ohio went solidly for George Bush. And the reason? That great swath of territory was largely inhabited by the Scots-Irish. And when the Democrats came out in favor of gun control, the Scots-Irish interpreted this as not merely an attack on the proliferation of weaponry in American life but as a denunciation, a besmirching, of their entire way of life, their entire fiction absolute. Guns were that important in their scheme of things.

Leftists have the same thing, only worse: for them, the best life can only be found in being defined by their opposition to the majority, and so they are addicted to and dependent on their image as Leftists to make them feel good. This is why they are fanatical and their cluster of opinions is narrower than people on the Right.

But on the Right, most conservatives still do not understand their own belief system. They have a gut instinct toward certain ideas that they think put the world in balance, like fairness derived from competition instead of government subsidy. They distrust anything that violates their local culture. Some of this is fiction-absolute, and some of it is common sense, ingrained over centuries. The Left can disrupt this easily however by shifting context, at which point the gut instinct gets a bit confused. To avoid this, conservatives tend to operate within a narrow context, which means that they always appear to be failing to answer the insane prevarications of the Left.

Because their beliefs are hybridized with Leftism by the very nature of having to work with a system — democracy, equality, tolerance — that is fundamentally Leftist, most conservatives have forgotten the nature of conservatism. To them, it is the methods it uses to fix human mistakes, and not the purpose of engaging in those, which is to create a virtuous civilization in which each person is rewarded for engaging in virtuous living. The point is to be good, not to have “muh freedom” or strong business and defense, and only secondarily is this related to defending Christianity, Israel, or even America. Conservatism is the same philosophy worldwide, but it is applied differently depending on where a society is in its cycle from birth to death, and therefore both what can be done and what must be done to address the problems of that stage are both relevant questions. That conservatives change strategy with context does not mean that their goal or principles change, only that they are using different methods to achieve them depending on their environment, but the problem with this is that most conservatives will understand only the methods and not the goals, which is why conservatism today is seen as a parody of itself scripted by the Left, even by its strongest adherents.

Even worse, conservatives succumb to a basic fiction, which is that if something is demonstrated to be logical or good, the rest of civilization will magically discover it and move toward it, a delusion which is a common solipsistic pathology of assuming the world will eventually agree with them that in turn makes them inert and unable to act:

“It often seems that partisans believe they are so correct that others will eventually come to see the obviousness of their correctness,” says behavioral scientist Todd Rogers of the Harvard Kennedy School, lead author on the research. “Ironically, our findings indicate that this belief in a favorable future may diminish the likelihood that people will take action to ensure that the favorable future becomes reality.”

…Data from over 800 people in China, Japan, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom indicated that the belief in a favorable future is a cross-cultural phenomenon, and additional findings revealed that the biased belief is distinct from other phenomena such as optimism and the false-consensus effect. Even when people are given an incentive to make accurate predictions about how people’s beliefs will change between now and the future, they tend to believe others’ attitudes will change over time to fall in line with their own current beliefs.

Importantly, field experiment data suggest that believing in a favorable future can influence people’s behavior in the here and now. Working with the Democratic Governors Association, Rogers and colleagues sent out two variations of a fundraising email to more than 660,000 supporters. Recipients were less likely to open the email if the subject indicated that a Democrat had the lead in a closely contested race compared with a message that suggested he was trailing in a closely contested race. Of those who opened the email, people were less likely to click the donation link and were less likely to make a donation when the Democrat was portrayed as having the lead compared to when the Democrat was portrayed as being behind.

What you are seeing here is the philosophical equivalent of the endorphins released when your body realized that it is freezing to death and cannot generate enough heat to save you. This triggers a dump of happy opiates into the bloodstream so that everything seems rosy and warm in those moments before inevitable death. This is mental state of the average conservative: in order to feel good about their existence in a dying civilization at all, they must rationalize their position by assuming that the rest of the world will someday agree with them. This allows conservatives to be individualists, or those who focus on their own working hard and praying hard, and ignore the fact that the world is falling apart around them and that if they do not intervene, we will all be doomed. Similarly, white nationalists spent generations waiting for that moment when whites would awaken and start the race war. Both of these are preemptive justifications, not realistic thinking, and represent a deep inner despair.

Coming from the ashes of an election in which Americans elected a man with almost no relevant experience, a shady past and obvious leanings toward the far-Left, the Alt Right attempted to fix these core problems of conservatism. Instead of confusing goals with method, it wanted solely to discuss goals and ignore method. Instead of focusing on the personal, it argued for re-taking society and making it healthy again, in a viewpoint that saw a temporary authoritarianism as better than a long-term one. It hoped to slide between the insanity of mainstream conservatism, which was trapped in hopelessness and a “work hard, pray hard” outlook that left it entirely impotent, and the non sequitur of the underground Right including white nationalism, which had no plan but endorsed and exhibited pathological behaviors that sent ordinary, upper half of middle class European-descended Americans fleeing to the hills.

After Obama, it is clear that Western Civilization is in decline, and as Samuel Huntington predicted, there was a “Berlin 1945 moment” for Leftism and liberal democracy which has created a void where we once thought our future would be. There is a space for someone to inherit the future which people expect will naturally follow this one, and so ideological conflict has broken out in the remains of the fallen West. For those who are conservative, but recovering from the errors of conservatives in the recent past, we realize that now is the time when we must seize authority and restore Western Civilization because any other goal will devolve into a variant of Leftism, and leads to defeat both for us and our people.

Building a Right-Wing Cultural Wave Through Music, Art and Literature

Saturday, August 19th, 2017


by Lilou & John

It all started with one simple question: Is it possible for a right wing indie band to rise to an international level, using only alternative media for promotion while ignoring MSM, thereby strengthening the right wing movement as a whole and weakening the left wing?

When we released our first album 100 Faces roughly a year ago in August 2016, the answer to that question quickly revealed how essential it was to us. After political discrimination from the Swedish regime radio and “Nazi” accusations from a local newspaper, we decided to try.

On April 7, the same day as the latest Stockholm terror attack, we declared an all-out culture war against the ruling classes, and released our second studio album, Dissidentica, containing songs such as “Payback Day” and “Spirit of America,” both of which have reached a fairly wide audience in both Sweden and the US.

Our mission was to open up a new market that barely had been noticed for many decades. In fact, our mission was to make accessible up one of the potentially greatest music markets in the world: the Right wing music market. A market that, despite its global potential, was almost non-existing since both customers, musicians and producers were silenced by the Left-leaning mainstream media.

Music paved the way for the Left in the 1960s. Their ideas were mostly a shallow combinations of rampaging covert-capitalism, blaring communist slogans, scapegoating and the bored minds of upper middle class youths occupied with first world problems such as how to get a clean conscience. But they knew how to use music to achieve their goals.

This is a fundamental difference compared to the Right wing. Right wingers are often surprisingly ignorant when it comes to the power of music. It seems most right wingers are waiting for that big pop star to come out as a Trump-supporter, the pop star that will change the attitudes towards Conservatism among people. That is but a dream which will never come true until there already is a big right wing music market, complete with festivals, fans and music magazines.

There are, however, many small right wing bands that already play great music. The far left knew how to use them in the 1960s, they were not waiting for Elvis to suddenly pop out of the box and say, “Hey, I love Lenin!” Instead, they supported the small bands that were playing, and made them big.

As a matter of fact, we believe that the main reason why there is no big Right-wing band with worldwide recognition is that the Right has yet to discover that artists such as Bogme, My Eclectic Self, Rotten Copper and Brandon Duncan (all of which happen to be Americans) are more than just great artists. They are some of the right wing’s best units in the culture war.

The problem is that they are peeling potatoes because somehow the culture army doesn’t seem to find any use for them, and instead sends out divisions of academic writers armed with 3,000 word articles. Those units are well-equipped to win the information war, but never the culture war. In the meantime, the enemy is using all his best units, the pop stars, the rock stars, the rap stars, every day. We actually find it quite amazing that some people still wonder why the Right wing has not won the culture war yet. To be honest, the Right wing has not even begun to fight!

Therefore, as an answer to our initial question: yes, it is possible for an indie band to rise to an international level, using only alternative media for promotion while ignoring the mainstream media, thereby strengthening the Right wing movement as a whole and weakening the Left wing. We are not there yet, but we are working hard in that direction.

As to our band, we have contacted Swedish alternative podcasts, blogs, think tanks, news papers and news sites for interviews and reviews. In just a few months we have seen a dramatic change in attitude as more and more alternative media are writing and talking about us. A highly popular citizen journalist channel Granskning Sverige has even started to use the chorus from “Payback Day” in their broadcasts, and a major news site Fria Tider, perhaps the Swedish equivalent to Breitbart News in terms of size, published a very positive review of our second album just before summer.

The same thing is slowly happening in the US, as right wing activists from all over America are contacting us, especially after we released the “Payback Day” music video on YouTube. Our next album will probably go in a punk direction, and we strongly believe that the concept of “Conservative Punk” will set an example of how to attack the enemy culture fortifications instead of constantly being upset because of the left wing assaults.

We hope that this article will help more people to realize the potential that lies in the new right wing music and the importance of supporting the bands that dare to challenge the left wing. Brandon Duncan, the mastermind behind the electronic band Nerve War, commented the right wing music scene on music site Belzebubbles earlier this year:

“Honestly, I haven’t heard much of it, besides yours, Megadeth, and maybe some country music artists. It seems like the entire music, movie and arts world is dominated by people who are on the left side of the political spectrum. So I guess what I think of it, is that there needs to be more of it, across all genres and forms of entertainment. Until there is, the left will continue to win the culture war.”

Why American Retail Is Dying

Saturday, August 19th, 2017

A friend asked me today to investigate what sort of laptop they would buy, and in the course of research I found myself looking at NewEgg, Amazon, Walmart, Costco and, on a whim, Best Buy. They wanted it quickly, and no method is quicker than purchasing it locally or semi-locally. But there were some shocks in store.

First, Amazon is not the good deal it once was. Prices mysteriously adjust themselves to what their algorithms think you can pay, and shady merchants have taken over much of the search results. NewEgg fared well, but as always there is the feeling that their best deals are close-outs which manufacturers have dumped at cost on the mail order site in order to clear them out. Costco has the same feeling, and fewer options, but they stuck to the Sears-style “good, better, best” with three options in each category and a few outliers. This made shopping easy, and it would not surprise me if most Americans are not using this as their primary choice now. Walmart was bizarre, having implemented algorithms too smart for their own good, which then specialized in low-end machines with very little difference between them. They know what people buy, but not what they would buy if given only a few options which pushed them upward toward better machines for only a hundred dollars more. People spend $500 on phones, but $400 on laptops that will last three years at the outside? Bizarro world.

But Best Buy was the most instructive. The corporate stodges, who are not so much a type of person but the mentality formed of people above demanding “results!” and people below who are noncommittal to any course of action, or in other words the typical human organization where each person is using it for their own ends, have decided that this year is the year of the 2-in-1 laptop, so that is all you can get there. They do “good, better, best” within a narrow spectrum that emphasizes the better machines, but in doing so, offers few inspiring options and marks everything up by a couple hundred dollars. Their profit comes from people who do not know any better than to go look at what’s new, buy it for an outrageous price, then take it home and use it until it breaks or gets boring, then repeat. This company is not struggling because people prefer online, but because it is an inferior option. For the number of laptops they have, there should have been more choices, but instead the heavy hand of manipulation was there, trying to sweep us sheep into their little plan.

If anything came from this, it is that the Costco and NewEgg options will dominate. NewEgg lets you choose from a wide variety of machines and assumes you will either figure out which one you need or find someone to do it for you, and they have no salespeople and almost no customer support. Costco chooses a few machines that are not cutting edge, but being older are more thoroughly debugged, and you pay $50 more if anything than at NewEgg, and have very few choices because for most humans, the appeal of sorting through eleven pages of laptops is limited. Walmart, Amazon and Best Buy seem to have — much like Western Civilization — destroyed themselves with their own cleverness.

Recommended Reading