The girl behind the counter


This summer, she’ll be 23. She’s working hard, much harder than I am. I’m not quite sure how she manages to put up with my lazy ass. You might say she deserves better. Not an investment banker perhaps, because the ones who haven’t been replaced by computer algorithms are in their 60s now, about the same age as the last journalists, computer programmers and taxi drivers. Nonetheless, I’d imagine she’d like me to spend my time more productively.

Growing up as a teenager, I didn’t expect there would be any taxi drivers left in the country by the year 2027, but an entire generation of tourists who grew up watching American movies expects to have the privilege of commandeering these old men when they visit New York city. This is what these Indian tourists associate with American culture, the privilege of getting to yell at men who have less prestigious jobs. I blame the outsourcing of help desk jobs. Most taxi drivers in practice just press a few buttons on their dashboard and pretend to operate the steering wheel, while the tourists repeat some lines they remember from movies.

Admittedly, I didn’t expect there to be cashiers anymore either by now, so when my sweetheart told me she was going to pursue a master’s degree in retail, I advised her against it. It led to a big argument. “What do you want me to do then, work at Hooters?” She yelled at me. I wasn’t impressed by her empty threat, because Hooters wouldn’t hire anyone who hadn’t graduated with a four year degree in consumer psychology, after an incident caught on video a few years ago where a man, later revealed to be suffering Huntington’s disease, squeezed a waitress in her bum and she responded with punching his teeth out.

Back as an 18-year-old, faced with the difficult decision of whether to go to college or not, she decided to pursue a double-major, one in retail, the other in history. Neither degree is extraordinarily challenging and the college classes barely overlap. When they do overlap she would watch the recordings at home. She could have saved a lot of money by signing up for a digital college instead, but employers seem to prefer graduates who actually had to go to classes and do group projects the old fashioned way.

Officially the master’s degree is called “retail management,” just as a cleaning lady is now called a “sanitary hygiene specialist.” In practice however, rather than “managing” anything, she will stock shelves, pretend to check the storage room for people who desire products they stopped selling but forgot to remove from the website, or explain to them why they’re not allowed to combine their coupon with a bonus card.

That is, if she ever gets a job with the degree. It’s quite likely that she will apply for a volunteer position or another unpaid internship after finishing her degree. If this were to happen we won’t die of hunger, rather; she will receive gift cards that can be redeemed for food at a number of fast food restaurants that suffer from a loss of customers.

Her biggest dream is to operate the counter. There’s a dying demographic, of old people in their 80s and 90s, who are too senile by now to learn how to operate the self-checkout machine or order food from the internet, but by virtue of the mercy of their neighbours haven’t been deported to a nursing home yet.

It’s obviously a highly competitive career track to try to enter. I remember how I begged her to be realistic and look for something with more opportunity. One out of every 15,000 pistachio nuts contains a little worm, but as a result of some sort of subconscious human intuition, humans are still better at recognizing the nuts that might contain a worm than computers are. You have to do a series of reflex and hand-eye coordination tests to become a worm-picker, pardon me, a “product quality control specialist,” tests that 95% of people never get through. Had I read the fine print on their website I would have seen that.

After what we now refer to as the “pistachio incident” she stopped listening to my advice and I must admit I can’t blame her. She had wasted 150 dollars purchasing training material from a website that claimed it could “guarantee you’ll pass the test” and 250 dollars on attending a “worm pick specialist training weekend.” She then had to spent a total of 360 dollars for the privilege of participating in the first three tests, after which she failed and was left with nothing.

I did everything I could to help her after that incident. When she had to write her progress reports on her unpaid internship at Costco, I helped her think of skills she could still improve and things she had learned. “I should remove wine stains on the floor with ammonia instead of bleach, when the floor is made of linoleum.” “I should be more patient with customers.” You can never be too patient with customers.

Now she’s finishing her master’s thesis. I’ve never been more proud of her. Her working title is “systematic discrimination of African American citizens by retail specialists in coupon acceptance rates.” We downloaded 75.3 gigabytes of leaked video camera footage from some of the nation’s largest supermarket chain stores. We carefully went through every video to check for instances where people paid using coupons.

So far we have found that after adjusting for confounding variables, African Americans are 22% more likely to have their attempt at using multiple coupons rejected than white Americans. A shocking conclusion, in a country where people like to think that racism is just a thing of the past. When I close my eyes at night, I still dream about the obese lady who argued with the cashier about whether or not pickled cucumbers still qualify as a vegetable. I fear that I will one day die in my sleep and this is what eternity will be.



Politicians, advertisers and celebrities make their living by motivating great numbers of people. This happens through trends, which encourage participation so that individuals may inherit the cachet bestowed by the novelty of the event, and through panics, in which crowds focus on a great evil and spin into a circle pit called a “hive mind” in order to destroy it.

But what about the excluded middles, or things that are both not good and not evil, but are nonetheless not part of a sensible vision for what society should be?

The vast majority of people consider evils to be that which is extreme. They draw a distinction between a little sin and big sin because, if viewed as a threat, the big sin is more disturbing. What they do not see is that all evils are disruptions of an order and have consequences. The person treated unjustly treats others unjustly, and the bad idea unchallenged spreads among the credulous.

Our perspective does not include ourselves. That is, we see the world outside of ourselves but even more importantly, we assume that anything which is not ourselves will not change. We also assume it is good as it is. We do this because we are familiar with it and we must justify it as good, or be in constant stress over the fact that we are surrounded by bad.

Because of that, we think of our civilization as being in a state of “doing just fine” that needs to defend itself against extreme threats. This allows us to blow off the slow decay and the small evils which are part of it. Neoconservatives talked a big game about boiling a frog, a metaphor for how slow change goes unnoticed, in politics, but none have applied this to society at large.

The net result of small evils is blight. Blight occurs from acts that are not outright evil, and can be viewed as minor infractions, vandalism, stupidity or crassness, but they have a multiplier effect: they create more of themselves. As in all things, what we tolerate, we get more of. Blight produces more blight by lowering the standard of accepted behavior and giving people a path to “success” to conform to.

Our laws trip us up because laws effectively do one thing: they legalize activities below a certain threshold. If cocaine is illegal, but prosecutors cannot get a conviction for under three grams, guess how much cocaine everyone will carry around on an everyday basis?

Blight thrives on this quasi-tolerance. It loves when we go off on huge crusades against big non-problems and ignore many small evils. That allows blight to grow, because it has a secret: blights of different types support one another. They are forces of decay, not evil, but in the end they lead to the death of a civilization. Is that not evil?

We should abolish any law or social attitude that forces us to tolerate:

  • Traffic
  • Advertising everywhere
  • Graffiti/Vandalism/”Street art”
  • Television in public
  • Obesity
  • Promiscuity
  • Public drug use.
  • Businesses for idiots (nails, hair, pawn, tattoo).
  • Ugly tract housing.
  • Boxy corporate architecture.
  • Prostitutes on the street.
  • Homeless/bums/winos.

All of these things increase ugliness and make our minds conditioned to justify and accept ugliness because otherwise, we must criticize the system and our own participation in it. These blights create an exponential process of the introduction of more blight. These are just examples; more types surely exist.

Blight is not morally bad, but it does not form part of the vision of a sane person about where they want to live. It is moral decay, and social decay, but it does not register on our threat meters. Perhaps if that changes, and small evils become scarce, bigger evils will feel less emboldened and immune.

Right brain, left brain and the spectrum of respectability


Occasionally, social scientists — one of the upper levels of the clerisy — wax too esoteric in discussing the nature of angels on the heads of pins (of oppression) that they forget their primary job of preaching the gospel of the Cathedral.

Jonathan David Haidt is a Jewish social science professor at New York University. If the Clerisy had formal ranks, Haidt would have to figure somewhere between bishop and archbishop. Nevertheless, the man is bucking the current Cathedral trend of labeling conservatives as bad people and bigots. Instead, he asserts that brain structures vary with political beliefs. In other words, your political outlook is hard-wired into your brain and not a conscious choice.

This used to be a claim that leftists loved to make about criminality (while ignoring its troubling logical conclusion); the idea of ascribing political belief to biology is relatively new. Haidt’s book centers around the latter conclusion, although strands of this kind of thought have circulated for a few years now. For example, around the 2012 election a similar summary of studies was released by, which laid out essential behavioral differences between “conservatives” and “liberals.”

Haidt’s book, The Righteous Mind, sets out the major differences between liberals and “conservatives.” “Conservatives” apparently value the following concepts about equally: avoidance of harm, fairness, loyalty, authority and sanctity. Liberals, by contrast, care only about the first two.

Anyone who has ever personally encountered a far-left individual will recognize that this psychological profile has some merit — they tend to be psychotically obsessed with fairness and are physically cowardly. But what does it tell us about the conservative? The five qualities listed all seem like concepts that normal people would value, well, roughly equally.

It is accepted wisdom in the alt-right that the Republican Party in the United States is not a real right wing; instead, it is analogous to the Right-Opposition in the Soviet Union, simply a slightly less-left party. It is the place for people who are normal and are (justifiably) uncomfortable with what is going on in their nation. The Republican Party, the only “right” that people like Dr. Haidt will ever interact with, is simply the safest space for the American with normal social instincts to politically gather, unless they want to risk social ostracism.

What Haidt’s study has inadvertently revealed is not a profound neurological difference between right and left, but the neurological difference between normal white Americans and leftists. The proof is plain in the questions he asks. For example, a question on “racism”:

A group of politicians proposed a law that would add modest new restrictions on getting a driver’s license. The new law put in place a rating system for driver’s education courses to decide if they meet basic requirements. The politicians attempted to evaluate every driving school fairly, but it was found that classes attended mostly by non-white students were evaluated lower than those attended by white students. The politicians have no outward preference for one race. However, they were found to have an unconscious bias against non-white candidates that was affecting their rating decisions unintentionally.

The test taker is asked to identify whether the politicians are racist or not racist. The rest of the questions have a similar bent; they basically divide the test taker into those on the left, or in the center of the Republican Party.

The intent of the test was for Haidt to figure out why there is such stubborn resistance to the minor aspects of Cthulhu’s progress. What he exposed, instead, is the full extent of how mentally unbalanced leftists are. An overdeveloped sense of fairness is one of the signs of borderline personality disorder. As for pain avoidance, we need no psychology to place that failing firmly in the category of cowardice.
As of today, true right wing tendencies must either be sublimated, or expressed non-politically, in fora like entertainment or videogames. If Haidt ever did want to test members of the authentic right, I’d be interested in the results of his data. Until that day, any attempt to measure the differences between right and left will boil down to the testing the far left against the center-left.

But perhaps, in a way, it makes sense to reduce the fake-conservative opposition down to a biological phenomenon. As the ultimate cuckservative William Buckley Jr observed “Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.” A broken clock is right twice a day, and Buckley was correct in his observation. It helps The Narrative to explain that, despite fifty years or more of browbeating, why “those people” come along ever so slowly, and capitulate only after putting on at least a symbolic fight.

The deterministic “science-y” position on the psychology of “conservatism” has to become dominant for The Narrative to remain coherent. After all, “conservatives” have been hearing the Good News of the Cathedral and they still whine and complain. What gives, bro? Haven’t you heard the message of True Equality?

Cannibal racists stalk American streets


An epidemic of missing black men has descended across America. The New York Times first discovered the crisis when it recognized that of 1.5 million black men who otherwise would have survived, only 600,000 were in prison. This means that 900,000 black men have gone missing.

Last year, sixteen thousand Americans died by homicide. The rest of those 900,000 missing black men disappeared for unexplained reasons. Even taking into account normal mortality and social blight that affects all races like drug addiction and smoking in bed, the vast majority of these missing black men must have fallen prey to shadowy forces.

Although The New York Times was afraid to say it, I am not: an Iron Curtain of cannibal racists stalks American streets.

These racists are crafty and educated. They have abandoned the Ku Klux Klan garb of the past and do not have “white power” tattoos and piercings. They look normal and act normal. They walk among us. But when darkness falls, they take to the streets, prowling for black men to attack — and consume.

Cannibal racists leave behind no evidence. Unlike the Archie Bunker types of the past, they do not tell racist jokes at work. They do not scatter flyers with copious misspellings in mixed-race neighborhoods. Undetectable, they rove the streets at night, striking quickly and rendering their prey unconscious, then dragging them out of sight …to feed.

Almost 900,000 black men have been consumed by these cannibal racists, and yet government takes no action. Neither does the church. Where is the outrage? No one will step forward and identify the problem because they are afraid. The bones go to the lonely places of the earth and the cannibal racists withdraw, assuming their disguises as normal people, at the same stores, bars and high colonic clinics as the rest of us.

Do we need any proof other than these shockingly high numbers? The only possible explanation is carloads of violent cannibal racists, riding through the night looking for a chance to feed. Silently they descend, leaving only scuffed bloodstreaks and the echoes of screams behind them. Either that, or The New York Times is cooking statistics again to give limousine liberals a pity trip.

Understanding the extremism of modernity


Ideology makes itself tempting by providing a single set of symbols and categories to explain civilization and its problems. What if, on the other hand, politics were not a cause but an effect? Including possibly the type of mistaken effect that occurs when something is used as a justification, or an explanation after the fact to make an event seem favorable.

Biology explains much of our society and its behavior better than politics does. Imagine that society were a single animal, or a herd of animals. Knowing that it was in trouble, perhaps with a disease or famine or threat of invasion, that herd might go a bit wild. It would accelerate normal behaviors of life to extremes in order to save what it could of itself before the end.

Using the herd analogy, a herd under stress tends to produce more offspring so they will outlast its losses. It becomes more violent, both to fend off attackers and possibly subjugate other herds and occupy their environmental niches. As part of this, it forces its animals to demonstrate greater loyalty.

What does this translate into for humanity?

  1. Hypersexuality. Like crazed animals, we repeat the sex act frequently as if it were a talisman against our downfall.
  2. Obesity. Cornered animals will often eat impulsively to give themselves something to do, and to try to boost health.
  3. Zealotry. When the herd is threatened, its members obsessively come together and exile discontents.
  4. Competition. Members of the herd assert position and test others to firm up the command and control hierarchy.
  5. Paranoia. Feeling constantly alert, and wary also of instability within, members become hyper-alert and suspicious.
  6. Superstitious. Confronting an ill it does not understand, the herd becomes neurotic and superstitious looking for causes.

Our past 200 years could be viewed as the spasms of a dying animal or a dying herd. Aware of its short time, it is manically trying to conduct the patterns of life in compressed form so that there is a chance of survival.

This creates pathology where the method is repeated without the purpose, and as the method does not produce the right results, it is repeated even more obsessively. Like instinct in the domesticated animal, it arises out of place and is repeated creepily and fanatically.

For the West, the writing has been on the wall for centuries. A peak of culture, massive internal conflict, massive political instability, lack of good leaders, incursion of commerce into all areas, and lower echelon revolt that seems more destructive than constructive. We can argue about causes later, but it is clear that we are in decline.

That has — like all crises — created a division in our society. At the highest level, there are two groupings of humans: those who recognize the problem, and those who do not. The denialists invent excuses for how our collapse is a good thing, which explains the beady-eyed fixation of the left on the Third World, and/or come up with other “problems” that are not real but will distract us, like the war on drugs or the quest for social justice.

As the doom still approaches despite our efforts, and no real consensus exists about it, people become more frenetic and unstable. Very few of them can articulate what is going on because it requires someone who has the equivalent of a PhD in philosophy and history who also has lived as an outsider, and thus not been tainted by denialism, his or her whole life.

Some exist. The herd takes revenge on them as it always does, by ignoring what they say and then pretending to not notice the steady increase of doom, because this gives the herd power with what it has left. Yet the only real power consists in recognizing the problem and counteracting it, because otherwise all of what we have exists on borrowed time.

How to read between the lines


There are facts, and then there are interpretations, and then there are complete sets of facts. This idea will disturb you because you are trained to think in binaries, where on/off are the only options. They tell us this is the influence of technology, but more likely it is an older corruption that causes this.

Great power can be had by those who represent truth. If that “truth” is constructed so that it must fit through the interpretive demands of an ideology, it will carefully filter out certain facts and yet still seem true, in that binary state of on or off. This is why our society fears the idea that truth occurs in degrees, a condition called esotericism.

When approaching the industry — generally heavily invested by multinational corporations — that is media, one must then consider what is being published: a product, designed to produce both an audience and a need for other products, which represents the facts in such a way that does not offend either audience or advertisers. We are now far from truth-land and into thinly disguised advertising.

Looking at the media today, it becomes clear that any reading of this propagandistic nonsense requires a careful eye to look for what is not present, or as it was called in the past, “reading between the lines.” Witness this story about the Walter Scott shooting by Michael Slager:

In a police dashboard camera video published by the local Post and Courier newspaper on Monday, Slager can be heard laughing after the shooting and telling a fellow officer his adrenaline was “pumping”.

What else was said? Did someone ask him a question? Or did he just offer this up? “Can be heard” is the equivalent of editing a tape. He may have been weeping for 99% of it, got hysterical in 1%, and then we hear about how he was laughing.

Why do they not clarify this?

Scott’s death reignited a public outcry over police treatment of minorities that flared last year after the killings of unarmed black men in Ferguson, Missouri, New York City, and elsewhere.

Whose outcry? How many? Where? And what were these peoples’ qualifications as important judges of such things? Was this actually widespread, or a few thousand people on Twitter? What defines an “outcry”?

Also not answered.

North Charleston fired Slager last week after he was charged with murder. A cellphone video showed him shooting at Scott’s back eight times as he ran away.

Why don’t we get the blow-by-blow? What else did the video show? Is there an attempt to remove context here? It sounds like the following happened: he pulled a man over, the man ran away, he shot him.

If the situation is more complicated than that, this journalistic story is fraudulent.

The Post and Courier also reported that Pierre Fulton, who was riding in Scott’s car during the stop, said he didn’t know why Scott fled, but defended his friend.

“I’ll never know why he ran, but I know he didn’t deserve to die,” he said in a statement released by his attorney, Mark Peper, to the newspaper.

This is the oldest method of the side-show magician here: deflect focus. The press is concerned about why he fled; they use this to carefully conceal what happened between the stop and him fleeing. What else went on? Why isn’t it mentioned here?

Slager is also accused of using excessive force during an August 2014 traffic stop in North Charleston in a lawsuit filed April 10 by Julius Wilson. Wilson, who is also black, was stopped for driving with a broken taillight, the same offense Scott was pulled over for the day he died.

Wilson says Slager and two other officers pulled him from his vehicle, restrained him face-down on the pavement and Slager fired a stun gun into his back.

The above quotation attempts to imply by comparison. These words come from a lawsuit, which means they are completely unverified, and we do not hear anything about Wilson’s police record. If he is a con man, this paper is worthless, and if he is a criminal, it is likely to be similarly bogus. No mention of an official investigation and why Slager did not face charges. That makes it sound like there is nothing to the case, but that is not mentioned. Why?

Instead, we are moving toward narrative: pulled him from the vehicle, restrained him, then killed him.

That sounds more like a political execution than a traffic stop, and that is what they want you to think.

Reading between the lines, we see that this story makes no sense unless we assume that Officer Slager got up in the morning, pulled on his jackboots and Klan uniform, and drove off looking for a pretext to stop a black man. Seeing a guy with a broken tail-light, he pulled him over, restrained him and shot him in the back eight times as he was running away.

There are so many missing events in this story it does not even add up.

This was a routine traffic stop, but one of the occupants of the car fled? (The other occupant, who “doesn’t know,” cannot say if he does know and the reason involves his friend’s criminal activities.)

Obviously Scott was not restrained, because he was running away. What happened? Even more, why was he out of the car and moving around? What happened in between these events that we do not see in this news story?

When people like me say the news is fraudulent, it is not just because it is corrupted by commercial interests that we say this, but because the news is also corrupted by political interests, which translate into money and power, and then become commercial interests.

Americans are still living in some Golden Age of the past when you could trust the news. You cannot. You cannot trust movies or magazines either, because they are products designed to increase revenue, and that does not occur through a sober, non-emotional, fully factual look at situations. It happens when they fan the flames and leave out key details to rile people up and sell more newspapers.

Scene policing the right way and the wrong way


As Neoreaction and other right-revivalist movements have prospered, members have become fearful of entryism or the intrusion of the beliefs of the enemy. The most common way to subvert a scene is to assimilate it, or introduce enough details to point it toward the dominant paradigm, then agrue it as a variant of the same and absorb it into that larger, more generic entity.

For a right-winger, the goal remains to defeat the idea of The Enlightenmentsup: that the important order to society is the individual and what it considers to be true, not established rubrics of wisdom like natural law, social order and historical truth. Leftism can be summarized as organized individualism, expressed through egalitarianism or the desire for equality.

Equality exists to protect those who are not equal in reality. If a dozen men are looking at a bridge crossing a river, and they all agree it is a bridge except one who thinks it is a gryphon, then that person needs protection in order to be equal. Egalitarianism creates a society where reality and truth are optional if any individual disagrees with them.

How do we beat this crazy notion? Insisting on truth and realism is the first step. It denies the importance of equality, saying in effect that it does not matter whether all of us and our opinions are important. What matters is the order out there, not how we want to feel about it and definitely not forming a group agreement as to what reality is. Reality is what it is. We see it to different degrees, but under egalitarianism, the person who sees none of it is equal to the person who sees 95% of it, and both opinions are important.

In Neoreaction, the tendency is to “scene police” to avoid entryism, but there are two ways of doing this. The first is the leftist way, or regulating inclusion. Egalitarianism proves perennially popular because it includes all without regard, if they pay the small price of admission, which is to become egalitarians. The leftist method of policing society is to exclude non-egalitarians.

This leads to what are effectively ad hominem attacks: this person is from outside the group, therefore what he/she says is wrong. Where leftists apply this rule only to exclude non-egalitarians, conservatives work from a tribal perspective, and tend to apply it to people of other races, sexes, religions, or even transsexuals. This approach is factually incorrect because the person no matter what their background may be speaking the truth. If you ask what time it is, and a gay black Chinese transsexual tells you the correct time, you do not disregard it because the hand that holds the watch is alien.

A more sensible way to scene police is to assess truth. Observe the difference:

Leftist scene policing:

That guy said that Nietzsche opposed abortion, but he’s a gay black Chinese transsexual, so he’s wrong!

Rightist scene policing:

That guy said that Nietzsche opposed abortion, but nowhere in the 1,200 pages of his writing can I find a reference to abortion.

N.B. I have no idea what Nietzsche thought about abortion.

Under the leftist method, the focus of conversation is re-directed from What is truth? to Who is speaking?. This provides entryism to the leftist dialogue on inclusion, and inevitably ends in favor of more inclusion when the person who is speaking is correct. It makes the conservative look like an idiot to any sane-minded person. It also subverts the quest for truth and creates truths that are denied because of who said them.

With the rightist method, on the other hand, the attempt by an entryist — for sake of argument, assume that this is a gay black Chinese liberal transsexual — to divide the conservative group is thwarted. The dialogue is kept as a focus on truth, and the issue of inclusion is avoided, because what matters is not who said what but whether what they said was true.

It is further worth considering that conservatives of other groups will, in accordance with the principle of identitarianism, want those groups separated from your group as much as you do. Consider great nationalist thinkers like Malcolm X, Theodor Herzl, Marcus Garvey, Meir Kahane, Ariunbold Altankhuum and Osiris Akkebala, who argue for racial separation for the preservation of their own people.

Scene policing is worthy and important. Any idea that a movement admits as truth can subvert it. This makes it doubly important to focus on the ideas, and not who is speaking, because the best agent of subversion will find a way to pass as one of you and then destroy your philosophy from the inside out.

Hidden democratic entry through capitalism


For 226 years, conservatives have struggled to resist liberal ideas. This proves almost impossible because what conservatives want is a civilization as a whole, where liberals have the easier job of criticizing details and chipping away at it. Destruction is always more powerful than creation in this way.

Conservatism proves difficult to articulate. As written about here, it has two parts: first, rely on what produces the best results throughout history, and second, aim for the highest level of quality possible. This clashes with the leftist idea that what is important is not civilization, but the individual.

The EnlightementTM started this trend. After years of plagues and invasions, Europe finally had stability, and so the social aspects of society took over. To make a group of people happy, treat them as individuals. No matter what they want, it is correct. This is the core of The EnlightenmentTM: what the individual wants to believe is true, is true, or at least must be accepted as a preference.

For example, if someone points out that Mike Brown was, indeed, committing felonies and attacking a police officer when he was shot, a liberal might choose to not recognize those facts at all. Instead, they might say “This is another example of police brutality and institutionalized racism,” and either deny those facts are true, ignore them, or explain them away with more dubious logic. It takes ten times as long to debunk a lie as to tell one, so for each detail they are always a step ahead of the game with another excuse.

The problem with liberalism is that it is not an ideology, although it ends up creating one. It is a mentality. The mentality of solipsism produces individualism which causes groups to demand egalitarianism, which can be roughly summarized as acceptance for all individuals no matter how broken or unrealistic their ideas or behavior.

Neoreaction experiences the birth of liberalism within itself, an avowed anti-liberal outlook. The hidden democratic entryism comes through the capitalism inherent to producing an internet movement: the product that cultivates the biggest audience wins. At that moment, the goal changes from “express truth” to “express what people want to hear.” This shift is cosmic but so normalized that most do not even recognize it happening.

Cultivating an audience is what converts internet movements from goal-based expeditions to echo chamber “hugboxes” in which people confirm their beliefs through the affirmation of others. They are essentially support groups for the wounded who believe this belief will salve their hurts. If you wonder why “no one does anything,” it is generaly because hugboxes are not about doing, but feeling.

Hugboxes, like capitalism itself, reward the most extravagant stagements that affirm the narrative. People do not line up for cold logic and detailed reasoning; they show up for the circus. Pro-wrestling styled fights, Maury Povich style drama, and nature documentary style free flowing emotion are what attract the crowd, even in an alienated belief like Neoreaction or white nationalism.

Look at the history of movements on the internet. The Men’s Rights movement went from demanding consideration of male status to demanding “equality” in a defensive role, mainly because it became flooded with incel cuck betas and browbeaten husbands looking to feel better about their plight with some strong statements. But ultimately, they just re-affirmed feminism by demanding equality, and in doing so argued against themselves. Equality always rewards the underdog because anyone in presumed higher position does not need equality.

In the same way, white nationalism became ethno-bolshevism. It started as the idea of affirming a white political presence, but became a leftist-style type of class warfare which demanded equality among whites and retreated to a position of talking about fantasy genocides and race wars instead of doing the obvious to gain power. It neutralized itself.

Capitalism is like other invisible hand systems: it requires guidance, or the tool becomes the master. With pure capitalism, we arrive at a planet covered in advertising for Coke and McDonald’s, where products are cheap junk because it produces the highest margins, and dumping toxic waste in lakes because externalities deferred equal profit. Capitalism requires culture to keep it in line so that people shun brands that dump toxic waste, and by “people” I do not mean a few hundred thousand east coast liberals, but just about everyone.

When capitalism applies itself to ideas, it shifts them into the McDonald’s model. Why tackle the big picture, like the big picture of what civilization is wanted that conservatism struggles with, when one can be like liberals and attack issues? Why seek truth, when it is more rewarding to stir up drama, resentment and outrage? Truth becomes pushed aside and with it, effective action dies.

Neoreaction is increasingly looking not like a political or social movement, but like a “we want condos in SF too” movement for the young men who did not achieve success with their dot-com dreams. This has occurred because Neoreaction has, through its group action, banished its own objectives and dreams.

This hidden democratic entryism through capitalism has undone many ideologies before. It is why modern society remains so intractable: it infiltrates everything it touches because its method is to flatter the ego of individuals in exchange for them ignoring the actual goal and replacing it with personal drama.

For Neoreaction, the goal remains as clear as it ever was: reverse The EnlightenmentTM. Ten thousand more pages of theory and drama will not change that. How to do it? Focus on what has worked before, for leftists and others: get a committed group to agree on a simple idea and then infiltrate social institutions and use those to maneuver the population toward that idea.

Literally, that is all that must be done.

And yet it remains beyond reach because simple truthful answers are less interesting than constant drama and posing at being academic theoreticians. Do we need more theory? Not when the answers, goals and methods are each plain and obvious.

As described by others, The EnlightenmentTM is the zombie ideology manipulating the West to its doom:

What stands out for me, and for other writers I have learned from, is that the assertions those enlighteners make about how the mind works, and about the nature of the human being, are intimately tied to their political project to liberate us from the authority of kings and priests. In other words, it is epistemology with an axe to grind, polemical at its very root.

Yet this original argumentative setting has been forgotten. This is important, because Enlightenment anthropology continues to inform wide swaths of the human sciences, including cognitive science, despite that discipline’s ritualized, superficial ridicule of Descartes. We need to be more self-aware about the polemical origins of the human sciences, because those old battles bear little resemblance to the ones we need to fight. – “The World Beyond Your Head: NR Interview With Matthew Crawford”

The EnlightenmentTM changed the West from a place that believed in external order, to one that believes whatever the individual wants to think is true should be breated as a social equivalent to truth. Since feelings and simple answers are easier to understand than reality-based logic, those false solutions get chosen first. This spreads and soon a society that only acknowledges lies exists.

In the West, we are cruising on the wealth and knowledge of the past. Our technologies were developed thanks to centuries of labor by those who did the really hard work, and we have been steadily improving ideas from two centuries ago but have not invented our own great revelations. That is because we are too busy fighting over the attention of groups to sell them products, and not focused on reality.

Neoreaction has a chance to reverse this process. It involves recognizing how democracy is a mental disease like any other lie taken to an extreme, and how we need to watch for it both out there and inside our own gates. Then, we must do what is obvious and work toward a goal so we do not become another circular echo chamber of a hugboxes like the ruins of every other belief in this modern time.

“Racism” does not exist


“Racism” is a made-up term with an implicit political ideology. It is a binary term, implying a negative and by reflection that all which is not that is good.

It is comparable to the old courtroom question: Answer yes or no. Have you stopped beating your wife?

There is no good answer, of course. Damned if you do — and say “yes” — and damned if do not, and say “no.” That is the whole point: the accusation itself is the conviction.

Investigations into racism (like recent college rape trials) are often compared to witch-hunts, for a good reason. They shift the burden of proof to the accused. When you are accused of being a witch, or being a racist, you have to somehow prove you are not racist.

And the only proof? Adopting an anti-racist ideology yourself, and acting to include other races in your activities for the sole reason of their race.

People accept “racism” as an idea because they believe in good and evil defined by human means, a change that happened to religious thought during The EnlightenmentTM

Before there were attempts to mix different populations in the same political entity, the “nation-state,” racial strife was nonexistent. Conquest and enslavement were more common within races than through colonialism.

The racism binary denies the root of racial antipathy in the question of the direction of a civilization. “Who are we?” is the basic question that unites a society. When race is replaced by politics, this becomes confused and societies fall apart. Those who have racial antipathy are afraid of that consequence more than they are specifically afraid of the abilities of other races, or lack thereof.

Anti-racists deny the fact that they are in fact racist, which is why they hide behind this binary of racism=bad and therefore anything non-racist=good. Mixed-race groups are inherently bigoted against any who are not mixed-race. They are not stable until they replace the indigenous group with a mixed-race group in a process comparable to genocide. They fear, hate and dehumanize people who are not mixed-race.

If we examine the term “racism,” we see a clever attempt to hide the failure of mixed-race policy.

We also see the first real technique of social control. Unlike previous authoritarian and totalitarian governments, social control works by having a mob form spontaneously to enforce the ideals of the government. That way, government cannot take the blame for controlling its citizens.

Like other forms of social control, the racism binary operates by the coercive threat of ostracism. If you do not affirm anti-racism, you become an ideological enemy, and no one will hire you, rent to you, sell to you or befriend you. You will die friendless and alone, they say, wagging their fingers.

But as time goes on and the anti-“racist” mixed-race societies spiral downward into social chaos, the nature of this political binary reveals itself. It was always a means of control. And the more it fails, the more the tyrants will come out from behind the curtain and directly enforce it with threats of terror.

Solipsism is the nature of Crowds


What does a crowd of people lack that an individual has?


When in a crowd, the individual takes credit for anything good that comes of the crowd action, but if something goes wrong, there are always the others in the group to blame.

It is a perfect perversion of civilization into parasitism. Take the benefits, externalize the weaknesses.

Crowds have great inertia for this reason. They sponsor rent-seeking behavior where people see that something profitable is happening, so they join the crowd for the good parts. But the costs? Those they pass on to others.

We can see this phenomenon in all human activities: business, government, religion and socializing. When people are in a group, they feel that membership entitles them to the good but when something goes wrong, they push the problem off their desks and go on their merry ways.

As the West spirals down to internal collapse, the nature of the crowd stands revealed. By removing accountability, it detaches people from reality. They then go further into themselves and mentally associate with only the positives — what they desire, easily understand and feel — and ignore everything else.

This creates a mental state known as solipsism. In this state the individual believes that the world exists within himself. He knows only what he wants it to do, and excludes the idea of consequences outside of that intent. Good intentions become reality to such a person.

As a side effect, crowds create great inertia. When a good thing appears, many people show up to take their part of the benefits. When its errors become visible, they deny them, because in their solipsism they want only the desired and wish the bad away. When it finally cracks, the group scatters and the blame game begins. But at that point, everything under its control has been ruined.

This phenomenon can be seen in the rise of companies. A good idea comes forth; just about everyone wants to be hired by this company. To it they bring their own wants and a lack of care about what makes it actually succeed. They do not care about its future; they only want to take what is there now. With many contradictory directions, the company becomes enmired in trying to ensure compromise. Its business changes from whatever earns it money to managing itself internally.

The modern West finds itself in this situation, as it has been since it legitimized Crowds as the rule of law in 1789 with the French Revolution. Centuries later, the inertia is finaly slowing. As Slavoj Zizek recently argued in a revealing interview for those who read between the lines:

We have a right to set limits. We feel too guilty in Europe — our multicultural tolerance is the effluent of a bad conscience, of a guilt complex that could cause Europe to perish. The greatest threat to Europe is its inertia, its retreat into a culture of apathy and general relativism. I am dogmatic in that sense. Freedom cannot be sustained without a certain amount of dogmatism. I don’t want to cast doubt on everything or question everything. Liberal dogmatism is based on what Hegel called moral substance. That’s why I am also against every form of political correctness, which attempts to control something that should be a part of our moral substance with societal or legal bans.

Inertia is what comes of personal freedom without limits. With democracy, we become a Crowd, and then we become solipsistic. At that point, no one wants to either rock the boat or pay attention to reality at all.

Zizek contrasts “social freedom” to this, which seems to mean the ability of societies to make choices. With democracy, we go in only one direction, which is more personal freedom. That turns our societies into moribund entities in the business of compromise, but no longer in the business of thriving.