Resisting assimilation

If you ever want to know why nature is a great yin-yang between darkness and light, consider this: without fracas, issues would never get discussed; nothing would ever get stirred up; no resolution would happen except well-this-is-how-we-always-do-it inertia.

A week or so ago, one of my blogscreeds provoked a bit of a intense response across the right-wing blogosphere. In short, people thought I was full of the proverbial used food and wanted to set things straight.

Now, while our society trains us to be good docile obedient stupid compromise-driven pacifistic convenience-motivated conflict avoiders, I think we need to look at the plus side of this: we’re now talking about an issue that is vital to our future, which is the elephant in the room for the alternative right, New Right, far-right and paleoconservative elements out there:

  • What is our diagnosis? Everyone thinks they know what’s wrong with the world. Or do they? On closer inspection, most have a laundry list of complaints, but they don’t know why these things got off-course. That means, by definition, they don’t know how to fix them except with the traditional government square-peg-to-round-hole-pounding of banning things, funding their opposites, and setting up
    “awareness” campaigns to bore us all with “public safety” commercials.
  • What is our plan? How do we intend to get to power? Or are we going to be those political burnouts who stand on the sidelines, reminding us how sad it all is and how sad it is that no one listens, and how it doesn’t have to be this way, but sad, sad, sad instead? Are we a revolutionary movement, with bombs and fatwas, or are we a bunch of guys in suits who are going to talk sense into the world? Do tell.
  • What is our platform? Should we gain power, what changes will we make? What will society look like when we’re doing? How will this fit with our existing system of law? You wouldn’t adopt any view without knowing not only its airy ideology, but what that looks like in real life. People want a coherent picture, tangible examples and some discussion not of what we don’t like — whining is cheap in the internet age — but what we’re going to do that creates a situation better than it. You don’t pick a new car on the basis that it doesn’t make a rattling noise like the old one; you pick the better all-around option.
  • How are we different? Nazis, Republicans, leftists, Communists, anarchists, Greens, Libertarians and presumably a dozen others are like plants in spring, blowing their memetic pollen across the electorate and intellectuals alike. We’re not just a splinter group of one of those. How are we different? How are people sure they’re not just picking a cryptic version of one of those others, specifically the first and third?
  • What are our limits? We need to make it clear to people what our methods are. We don’t want to be effete like the liberals who spend billions in “education” programs that don’t work, but we have to ask ourselves also if we’re ready for the MP40 to the back approach. We have to be honest: some issues require the MP40. You’re not going to get people to voluntarily stop littering because the people who litter already are oblivious to consequences and don’t care about them. But you can handle a lot of the rest with indirect programs which are not only less “fascist,” but preferable in terms of efficiency and low impact.
  • What is our ideal? Every successful political campaign present an ideal. Whether idyllic peasants sharing potatoes under a balmy Russian sky, or 1950s American families gathered around the white picket fences to chat it up in innocent suburbia, we need a picture of our ideal. This is separate from our platform and its picture, because everyone knows that platforms are paths-to an ideal that may never be fully realized. Not every peasant will enjoy the balmy potatoes, and not every American ends up in suburbia. But we need to look at what we love and crave as a future and spill it out as a pastoral.

Until we resolve these things, for the most part, we’re just hobbyists discussing a fond vision of an alternate reality, whether we do this on the internet or not. It’s modern society: any chirping cheeseball can put forth a notion, detach it from reality and get a few hundred thousand people discussing it. They do this quite successfully for trivial things like rock bands, TV shows, favorite products and even dumb trends like putting bacon in ice cream.

In other words, that we have a few hundred thousand warm bodies pounding on their keyboards in unison about some idea proves nothing. If anything, it’s a useful moneymaker for our adversaries, who’d just love an organized uprising of Hollywood-style totalitarianism. The donations would keep rolling in at a snappy pace, then.

But on the other hand, all good things start small. Every giant tree was once a seedling that for a long time looked just like any other weed. The Puritans who founded America were probably considered the 16th century equivalent of potheads home in England: “Right, religious liberty. Good luck with that. Don’t eat too much when you get the munchies.”

However, for any cultural shift to succeed — and in a time when politics responds to trends both illusory and realistic, the only change that happens is a cultural shift in attitudes and expectations, and politics follows that — it must be distilled down into a clear, simple and easily-transferred message. A meme, if you will.

The Republicans have a meme: we beat up the bad guys and cut your taxes. The Democrats have a meme: we’re the civil rights party. Even the Libertarians have a meme: government is a parasite, and we’ll really cut your taxes. Communism has a very effective meme: everybody gets fed at the same time in the same amount. We need a meme of that level to compete.

Even more, we need to make sure we simplify our own approach to the bare minimum. We don’t need ten thousand pages of impassioned writing; what we need are the right five paragraphs that express what we’re about so the average thinking person can anticipate what life with us in power would be like. The more we simplify and streamline, the closer we are to being understood.

Conservatism — and political philosophies built around one part of the conservative platform, like nationalism — is just growing out of the stupor that followed World War II. We don’t give up on doctors if we find a single bad doctor, but people are acting like we give up on conservatism because there was that one guy with the weird mustache. As conservatism grows out of this reaction, we’re looking toward the next stage.

For us to get there, however, we’ve got to hammer out some of these basic issues. Here’s Greg Johnson, one of the people I make sure to read every chance I get, on the source of this fracas:

I do think it is too early for a political movement, and that we should spend our time and money on metapolitics. At best, political activism today should be regarded as a kind of metapolitical education, since we need to have a tradition of people with concrete political experience if we are to someday get involved with politics and play for keeps. (Looking at it that way will also prevent the kind of burn out fostered by false hopes of actually making political headway in the present climate. Managing expectations is always crucial.)

But when the time for politics comes, it will necessarily be a form of modern mass politics fueled by resentment—in our case righteous resentment. My metapolitical role, and the aim of this little essay, is to make sure that we are clear about that fact right now and adjust our attitudes and plans accordingly. – Counter-Currents

Greg Johnson is an intelligent man, and this is not an unconsidered viewpoint, so we should treat it like the product of years of research, which it certainly is.

However, I have to disagree for two reasons:

  1. Better target of resentment. People don’t want this to be personal. They don’t want to target a group. If you want to whip them up into justified resentment, try pointing at a group of people who made a choice to be wrong, namely liberals. Even better, we can point out to this group that their choice, while wrong, can be un-done and they can come over to join us here in the smarter-than-the-rest camp. This is by the way straight out of the liberal playbook: they convinced the electorate that conservatism was an ignorant mental attitude, and if they just changed sides, they’d be cool. We should play up to this with a twist: liberalism isn’t just wrong, it’s emasculating and because it’s a Nanny State, it’s no fun. It’s boring. It’s old and tired like grey-haired hippies sitting around smoking dope and listening to brain-dead music like Bob Dylan, trying to “re-live” those “glory days” of yelling incoherent slogans at bored riot cops.
  2. Don’t cut our balls off. If some slimy minority group kicked our ass and dominated us, it means that we’re somehow inferior and have lost in our souls. The modern person is savvy enough to resent those who get easily misled. If we say that some random group of religious fanatics zoomed in and took over our brains, it makes us sound like chumps. If we say instead that for reasons unknown, some of our people got misled and we have to fix the situation, we’ve got a masculine situation — fix the problem — where we’re not being bullies and beating up on a minority group.

The above are political reasons, meaning that they refer to the craft of politics and how to motivate masses of people with memes. (If you can think of a better definition of politics, let me hear it.)

But I’d like to add another. Finally: it’s a poor diagnosis. What screwed us? Class warfare and revolt, starting in 1789 with the French Revolution. What brought it on? Dumber whites outbreeding smarter whites. Why have we been chumps ever since? Because once you create a system like democracy, where people vote by what they wish to be true and not what is true, you set up a society of chumps right for the raping. White people drugged themselves with football, alcohol, religion, liberal politics and social pretense long ago. As I mentioned in a review of Tomislav Sunic’s excellent Against Democracy and Equality: The European New Right, long before the Judeo-Christian confusion we had Greece, and in Greece, the people followed the same failing path we’re now on. This confusion arises naturally from human perceptual errors; it doesn’t require a foreign initiator.

To make it even clearer, no great civilization is taken down by a tiny external minority. That minority isn’t smart enough or strong enough, and the majority isn’t dumb enough, to let that happen. Great societies die from within. The usual perceptual errors — everyday stuff, like thinking we can tell little white lies about whether that dress makes our wife look fat or not — end up being unopposed. The smart people get distracted by irrelevant stuff. People no longer agree on anything. Then the society begins falling apart.

If you’ve ever run your own business, chaired a committee meeting, whipped volunteers into shape or just tried to keep your rock band together, you know that these challenges are constant. They are always there and they are inherent to the human condition. If you do not oppose them, they take over and win, like weeds in your garden. You will always have to weed your garden, as long as you have that garden. You can never relax. You must always be at a state of “moral attention,” as Scott Fitzgerald called it. You can never let down your guard. That’s what it is to be alive: every day is intense! Every day is a struggle! Life and death hang in the balance at every turn, at every moment, every day… it’s just that when you make a bad decision, sometimes it takes 2,000 years for it to move from cause to effect.

If some evil minority took us down, it’s because whites — distracted by sports, beer, keeping up with the Joneses, picking their noses — let them. If whites let them, it’s because they gave in to one or more mental errors. Since we see those errors crop up in each other every day, and in every civilization since the dawn of time, it’s clear those errors are inherent to humanity. If some evil minority took over, it’s because error took over first.

Beating up on that evil minority distracts us from the real issue, which is fixing our society so we stay vigilant against these errors and other pitfalls. Even if every single thing others say is true, and this evil minority is as evil and powerful as they suggest, it does not change the truth of what I am saying. We are too strong to be taken over by even a tiny minority of evil supermen. We did it to ourselves. More importantly, we can only fix it by fixing ourselves to make ourselves resistant to the infection; even diseases that we have eliminated by destroying all the pathogens represent a threat, because if the pathogens reappear, they’ll wipe us out again. We cannot make ourselves healthy by destroying that which threatens us because it will always be there. We can make ourselves healthy by, tautologically, making ourselves healthy: strengthening body, mind and soul so they can resist all pathogens both known and unknown, because future challenges await.

If you killed all the Jews and African-Americans tomorrow, and even all the Democrats and vaporized Hollywood with a thermonuclear weapon, you would still have a dying Western civilization. I like the idea of machine-gunning hipsters for aesthetic reasons, but if I shot every hipster in north America, the day after the bodies cooled some kid would discover Sonic Youth and start wearing sweaters, being inauthentic, posing at being knowledgeable, etc. These are eternal human failings. It is our job to evolve morally so that we can resist them forevermore, because they will always be there, because they are inherent to the mathematics of the universe.

Take hipsters, for example. If you think through the question of a social life half-way, you might believe that by wearing “different” clothing, saying “unique” things, and finding the newest hippest bands, you might have a social life. Someone who thinks the situation through all the way realizes that only by being an authentic friend, a true leader and a good person do you get not only popularity but the good kind of popularity, where you surround yourself with good people. The hipster just makes an error (true, it should be a fatal one, but that’s neither here nor there). It’s the same way many kids learn you shouldn’t steal, you shouldn’t drink too much, and that it’s better to just do your homework before class: by taking a shortcut and then failing.

Western civilization took a shortcut in 1789 and we’re still feeling the fallout. WWI was a direct response to 1789 (through the Franco-Prussian war and a few other flare-ups); WWII was a direct response to WWI. We are paying endlessly for the error we made back then. Was it an innocent error? No, and yes; no, the people involved should have known better, and yes, in that the vast majority of people who supported them were probably not able to know better. Did the Jews do this to us? No more than the Scientologists, the cocaine-fueled late night infomercial pitchmen, and the politicians. Many groups are showing up to feed on the carcass (and in the case of Jews, that’s some Jews, not all, just like some Gentiles and not all contributed to our decline; many Jews and Gentiles are busy working to fix the problem).

Critical mass favors those who come up with the most direct solution with the fewest disadvantages. We cannot attack the wrong group; it causes needless destruction, and makes us think we’re fixing the problem when we’re actually “fixing” some partial problem, unrelated problem, non-problem or other issue that is not the real problem we must fix. Even more, we’re getting off track and trying to do a one-shot cure for a deep ailment that requires constant vigilance against it, which in turn requires we build up the health of the good things in our society so we have the strength to resist it.

I think we could learn a thing from the Jews, specifically those hanging out in Israel:

Under the new law, groups involved in activities that deny Israel’s existence as a Jewish state can be prevented from receiving public funding.

Those activities include marking Israel’s Independence Day as a day of mourning.

Civil rights and Israeli Arab politicians say the law is undemocratic and unfairly singles out Israel’s Arab citizens.

The current version of the law is more moderate than the original, which called for prison sentences for anyone holding Nakba memorial events. – BBC

They’re scared.

Even their liberals are finally getting it: Arabs hate Jews not because Jews are Jews, but because both groups are competing for the same thing.

When that happens inside Israel’s borders, only two outcomes are possible: Jews exile or Holocaust the Arabs, or Arabs take over and then do the same to the Jews.

Two men enter, one man leaves.

Israel is opting for a sensible solution which whites should emulate:

  • Point out we’re unique. There aren’t many of us; we’re cool and different.
  • Point out that others have other places to go. Whites are 8% of the world population; just about everywhere else, outside of specific Asian and African countries, is mixed-race populations. Brazil? Iraq? Mexico? Pakistan? Libya? Morocco? Syria? California? All mixed-race remnants of once great empires.
  • Two things cannot exist in the same space. Such a basic fact from physics, and yet we ignore it. But we can be reminded: do you want to live in the USA, or Mexico? In Israel, or Syria? You must make a choice.
  • Quit the pretense. We’re not making abstract decisions; we’re deciding who will survive. So it doesn’t matter if we’re open-minded or not, or if we’re universally benevolent. We need to fight for ourselves. We do this by not funding our opposition, making laws against their bad behaviors, and changing laws so we’re not required to hire them, rent to them, or live near them. Let nature do the rest. The 2% who are so dramatic they want to mix races will do their thing and get absorbed by the Other population; the rest will keep doing what they always do, which is partner up and live around people like them.

Some Jews, like some whites, are learning not to be “intolerant” but be practical:

Falling into a routine where “minor” attacks prompt minor responses would lead to escalation of this so-called “limited” terror campaign, whose impact on the country and its citizens may be just as grave as that of suicide bombings and multi-fatality attacks.

Lack of global sympathy in the face of such attacks may aggravate the situation further, limiting the IDF’s freedom in responding to terror later. This coming on top of the ongoing de-legitimization campaign against Israel, another seemingly “softer” tactic, may ultimately prove disastrous for the Jewish state. – YNN

They have figured out that diversity is death for their populations, namely that as soon as you try to unite society around more than one thing — race, religion, ethnicity, customs, values, level of IQ and even aesthetics — society splits up, with everyone doing their own thing and no standard in common. This in turn means open combat in the streets, and that commerce takes over from culture:

In such a time, we have infinite things to work against, and only one to work for: a healthy, thriving, clear-sighted and non-neurotic population.

“Multiracial societies always end in violence,” says Mr. Griffin. “The reason for the trouble in these cities is that racial tension was already there, as it always is in mixed-race societies. Yes, we urge white people to stand up for their rights, but it is the Asians who are burning the cities this summer.”

Mr. Griffin may not be entirely correct to say that “mixed-race societies” always end in violence. Sometimes they end in despotism, since the rule of force is all that can hold such societies together. There’s a good reason why the empires of ancient times like that of the Romans were both multiracial as well as despotic; it’s the same reason such multiracial conglomerates as the Russian and Habsburg empires were authoritarian in more recent times. The only way to hold different races and cultures together in the same political-territorial unit is by clobbering whoever steps out of line. Those who push for the outlawing of the BNP and similar groups are bringing modern Britain closer to the same outcome.

In any case, Mr. Griffin is by no means the first to warn that multiracialism breeds results other than peace and tranquillity. “As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding,” the late Conservative political leader Enoch Powell told his countrymen 33 years ago, in warning against non-white immigration into Britain. “Like the Roman, I seem to see ‘the River Tiber foaming with much blood,’” as a consequence of the naive belief in multiracial harmony. – VDARE

How’s this working out in Israel?

But even the specter of a renewal of such attacks — which deeply scarred the Israeli psyche and left the country’s peace movement in tatters — was enough to bring calls for retaliation.

Arriving on the scene soon after the blast, Eli Yishai, Israel’s hard-line interior minister, urged revenge. “With these murderers, these terror organizations…we must act, or we will lose our deterrence,” he said.

Nearby, young Ultra-Orthodox Jewish men vented their anger, chanting “death to Arabs.”

“It’s a very sad day, said one of them, Meny Friedman. “Finally we have the ability to get out what we have to say about Palestinians.” – AP

Those young men chanting death to Arabs get it, at least partially. Israel belongs to one group and only one group can rule it. Any other group, even if they’re “nice,” will lead to the destruction of the Jewish people.

This is possible in a multi-ethnic society like Israel’s. It can be possible in the USA, if one ethnic group gets convinced its interests are in danger, as the Tea Party shows is happening with white people.

But even among ethnically solidified groups, there are people who don’t get it:

As the Latino population and its political influence have grown, the number of Jewish groups across the country working to build and strengthen Latino-Jewish ties has increased as well. The New York office of the American Jewish Committee (AJC) held a meeting last week for Latino and Jewish leaders, and AJC’s Latino and Latin American Institute is planning a national Latino-Jewish leadership summit for 2012. In addition, in San Antonio, Texas, former mayor Henry Cisneros and local Rabbi Aryeh Scheinberg are organizing a strategic dialogue between about 80 Latino and Jewish leaders later this month.

Since last December, leaders from some of Los Angeles’ most influential Jewish organizations have been meeting, coming together on two separate occasions with their Latino community counterparts. The exact outcome of this organizing effort is still to be seen, but it could lay the groundwork for an unprecedented level of Latino-Jewish cooperation.

In Los Angeles, Latino-Jewish relationships are not new. The communities’ leaders often point to the election of Ed Roybal, Los Angeles’ first Latino city councilman, supported in large part by Jewish and Latino voters in 1949, as the first great victory of the Latino-Jewish alliance. Some even credit the intercommunity connections with staving off a wider explosion of tensions in 1998, after the state Senate primary between Richard Katz and Richard Alarcon got particularly nasty.

Even so, the number of efforts by Jewish organizations in Los Angeles to “reach out,” to “build bridges” or to otherwise connect with Latinos has soared in recent years. – Jewish Journal

What would they say if this program was tried in Israel, and this group wanted to important Hispanics (or even another group, like Vietnamese or the Amish) to try to integrate with Israeli society?

Probably “stop it you fool,” in Hebrew.

Why do Jewish groups try this in the USA?

Because our liberal propaganda convinces every group to do this. Whites do it; Jews do it. Even various well-intentioned clueless African-Americans are trying to accomodate the Hispanic, even though this new group will edge African-Americans out of their traditional careers and neighborhoods.

Self-destructive tendencies are not unique to whites. Wherever liberalism goes, they go. And liberalism shows up everywhere because it’s a basic error, like thinking you can drink those 24 mimosas and still walk home without vomiting on yourself.

This partly explains what happened in Arizona, where a surging Hispanic population so panicked the state’s residents that they began pushing lawmakers to pass immigration-related bills aimed at making the state less hospitable to illegal immigrants. This wasn’t about reaffirming the rule of law. It was about returning Arizona to what it looked like 50 or 60 years ago, when the number of Hispanics in the state was much smaller than it is now.

It seems to have worked. The analysis of census data done by the Hispanic Pew Center shows that in Arizona, the number of Hispanics came in at 1.9 million, or 180,000 fewer than expected. – CNN

And look here! White people decided they were tired of the mess, so they made some peaceful laws to turn off the tap. From the tap flowed money: easily acquired work with regular paychecks, government aid, free hospital care, and so on.

I’m not a Hispanic Indio living in poverty in Mexico, but even I’d have to admit: why not take advantage of it? If your northern neighbors are so stupid and greedy that they offer this all in exchange for $20 lawn mowings, why not take advantage of those morons?

Who’s killing you now, white man? It’s the moron within. Or rather: that you tolerate that moron’s vote and opinion as equal to your own. That equality is dogma straight out of 1789, as refined by Western post-Communists in 1968.

You’re tolerating stupidity out of social fear. You don’t want to appear to be not-nice, not-sociable, not-tolerant or not-friendly. You don’t want to be (of all horrors) elitist. So you bleat along and accept stupidity as equal to intelligence. Hey, it’s all good.

Throughout history, when an occupying power has wanted to destabilize and destroy a nation, it has settled a foreign people in its midst. The seeds of the Balkan conflict were sown when the Turks planted Albanian Muslims in Kosovo to uproot the Christian Serbs who had long defended the borders of medieval Christendom and had more than once turned back the tide of an expanding Ottoman empire. The Soviet Union under Stalin methodically encouraged Russian emigration into the occupied Baltic states in a campaign of long-term Russification, to such an extent that nearly 30 percent of the populations of Latvia and Estonia were Russian.

Despite this, Americans did not worry about the massive migration of Mexicans and other third-world immigrants for many years due to their belief in equality and the idea of the American melting pot. Unfortunately, both concepts are complete myths, devoid of any support from logic, history or science. Despite the best efforts of the academic thought police and pop literary fantasists, such as Jared Diamond and Malcolm Gladwell, various scientific disciplines have quietly, but inexorably been demolishing the equalitarian hypothesis with regard to race, culture and sex. – WND

We’ve gone into the psychology of liberalism elsewhere on this blog, but suffice to say there are always Malcolm Gladwells and Jared Diamonds. There are always neurotic people who, missing a purpose in life, decide to band together and “fix” society with insane ideas that nonetheless give everyone good feelings. And there will always be Robespierres to manipulate that group, whip them into a frenzy, and send them off to kill the rich/powerful/intelligent/beautiful/honest.

That is a fact of life, and the sooner we address this and the need to forever be vigilant against it, the sooner we see what our actual task is in finding a solution. In the meantime, unless we adopt some radical crazy solutions like race war, Holocaust II and Day of the Rope, most of our people are with us:

Given equal choice, every race strongly prefers itself:

And white people actually prefer themselves the least, but right now there’s just so many of them. – OKCupid

Like every other race and ethnic group on earth, whites date whites. Central Europeans tend to date Central Europeans, even if both have been in America for five generations; Eastern Europeans tend to date people like them, and Southern Europeans tend to date people like them. Each group tends to marry and breed with those people.

Excepting the 2% (probably a maximum, more like a half-percent) who were raped as children or otherwise have some gaping hole in their souls they need to cover by being “different,” people try to replicate something like themselves for a variety of reasons. Mostly, it’s biological, but it’s also ethnical, aesthetic and ideological.

Then again, saying “I’m going to have German-American children like I was a German-American child” is a politically achievable and socially acceptable end, where mass gassings are frowned upon (usually).

For the study, the researchers surveyed black adults in Michigan. The results suggest the more the participants identified with being black – or the more being black was an important part of who they are – the more happy they were with life as a whole, Yap said.

The study also explored the reasons behind the connection. Yap said it may be fueled by a sense of belongingness – that is, blacks with a strong sense of racial identity may feel more connected to their racial group, which in turn makes them happy.

This sense of belongingness is especially important for happiness in women, Yap said. – PhysOrg

Racial identity is healthy. Celebrating it is also healthy. But in order to do that, we need to make sure the focus is on ourselves, not on blaming others. We need a clean theory of our own health.

From there, we can branch out to other difficult truths, like “diversity of any form always fails and destroys whatever society is stupid enough to host it.”

Huge numbers of Britons would support an anti-immigration English nationalist party if it was not associated with violence and fascist imagery, according to the largest survey into identity and extremism conducted in the UK.

A Populus poll found that 48% of the population would consider supporting a new anti-immigration party committed to challenging Islamist extremism, and would support policies to make it statutory for all public buildings to fly the flag of St George or the union flag.

Anti-racism campaigners said the findings suggested Britain’s mainstream parties were losing touch with public opinion on issues of identity and race. – The Guardian

Look at this. Look at what’s waiting for us: if we produce a coherent platform, and eschew pointless and angry behavior, there’s a huge audience just waiting for us to come in and solve their problems. Of course, we have to do that without screwing up while in power. We’re not going to get there however if we embrace violent rhetoric without purpose. People are cool with violence, so long as there is a purpose to it and the situation isn’t better solved with another method. If our problem is diversity, saying we’ll make no legal obligation to support diversity — the same solution you’re seeing in Israel — is not only a practical solution, but a political winner.

Our people don’t need resentment. They are ready for our message, with a small gentle push or two. They are seeing that the last forty years of extreme liberalism, from 1968-2008, wreaked havoc on us and destroyed our society. They’re seeing, for the first time, that their future and the future of their children is threatened not by a single issue but by the very notion of liberalism and the multicultural society.

But they’re not going to vote for anyone who acts like a Nazi, and I tend to agree with them. I don’t want a repeat of WWII. I think The HolocaustTM was stupid, not only because it was cruel but also because it took resources away from winning a war. I and most others don’t want to live in a totalitarian state.

Many people now want to find a hero, and they want it to be Hitler. They want the world to admit that what the Nazis said back then was true and we should emulate them. I think we can leave off the question of whether the Nazis were right; the problem was that, right or wrong, they also launched a series of disasters we don’t want to emulate. As a result, we need to forget the past and look toward a different strategy for the future.

We need to think bigger than the problems of today. Multiculturalism, Hollywood perversity, government corruption and political correctness are symptoms of a culture in a dying tailspin. We need to fix that tailspin, undo liberalism and the underlying psychology that creates liberalism in every society and every era in history, and get ourselves back on track toward positive objectives.

We’ve got a lot of work to do. I’m glad the right wing is debating these issues in earnest, so we can get ready for the next stage, which is to leave hobbyism behind and start winning some elections, fixing some problems and gaining the trust and gratitude of our people. After all, that’s who we’re working for.

6 Comments

  1. Entity Fnarq says:

    “Conservatism — and political philosophies built around one part of the conservative platform, like nationalism — is just growing out of the stupor that followed World War II. We don’t give up on doctors if we find a single bad doctor, but people are acting like we give up on conservatism because there was that one guy with the weird mustache. As conservatism grows out of this reaction, we’re looking toward the next stage.”

    If you really think Der Paperhanger was just a bad conservative, you are so not ready for the next stage.

    Reading your Creed section and quite a few of the recent entries/discussions convinces me that Amerika.org may have a few good ideas – conservationism, counter-consumerism, maybe even some narrow applications of traditionalism – but that they are well subsumed under a desire to remake people’s minds, ever closer, in all areas of action and thought, toward a well-disguised and selectively benevolent state of conformity.

    It’s a mug’s game, Mr. Stevens. Nationalism, ethnocentrism, etc., are closer still to tyranny than consumerism (or your cartoon notion of liberalism). I can only guess that you prefer them because at least they are a deliberate, guided, and intellectually robust form of tyranny – and perhaps also because you think the notional breeches and high boots flatter you.

    1. Amerika.org may have a few good ideas – conservationism, counter-consumerism, maybe even some narrow applications of traditionalism – but that they are well subsumed under a desire to remake people’s minds, ever closer, in all areas of action and thought, toward a well-disguised and selectively benevolent state of conformity.

      This just reminds me that we need clarity in vocabulary.

      Tyranny means unjust rule for its own sake. Yes, no?

      Conformity and non-conformity is a false binary/dichotomy. If you are non-conformist, you’re a reactionary to conformity. If you’re conforming, that can include non-conformity. The only way it makes sense is to cite specifics, e.g. “He is a non-conformist of the school zone between Hayes and Mickelmister streets.”

      Nationalism, ethnocentrism, etc., are closer still to tyranny than consumerism (or your cartoon notion of liberalism).

      The best tyranny is invisible.

  2. crow says:

    “The best tyranny is invisible”.
    Perfect. When is tyranny not tyranny?
    When it isn’t, and nobody thinks it is.
    Lao Tzu would say:
    “The best leader is the one that seems not to lead,
    and when the people succeed, they think they did it,
    all by themselves”.

    Brett: Do you own a copy of Tao te Ching?
    I recommend the Stephen Mitchell translation.
    So many of your notions are tao-like.
    While being offshoots of traditional conservatism.
    Religion is always at odds, these days, while taoism, being a “way”, is a vastly under-utilized resource for what you so often see as “common sense”.
    Call it what you like, but the parallels are too clear to miss.

    1. Brett: Do you own a copy of Tao te Ching?
      I recommend the Stephen Mitchell translation.
      So many of your notions are tao-like.
      While being offshoots of traditional conservatism.

      I’ll have to seek this out. Thank you for the high compliment. I don’t know much about Eastern religions, other than a devout enjoyment of all things Vedic (as well as the Christian contemplatives like Emerson, Blake, Schopenhauer, Bucke, and that fellow who shows up sometimes to comment, Bruce Charlton).

  3. crow says:

    I finally read the whole, mammoth, waaaay-too-long thing.
    You understand the too-long thing? Good. That’s important.
    Truly excellent work, nonetheless.
    Practical, beautiful, sharp and efficient, like a swallowtail arrowhead.
    Assimilation of the current “enemy” among our own people is the ultimate in smart goals.
    Maybe nothing will make many of them smart, but everyone has a use.
    The challenge is discovering what it is.
    Loved the reference to honesty and the importance of same. That is so major a topic, so utterly overlooked for so long.
    Damn good job Sir. Thank you.

  4. Entity Fnarq says:

    @Stevens: “Tyranny means unjust rule for its own sake. Yes, no?”

    But is it a yes/no? Tyrants can rule on behalf of things much bigger than themselves – a group (ethnic, religious, economic, ideological…) or an entire society. But they do always hold their first responsibility as staying in power.

    There’s also petty tyranny, which actually has some positive uses – mostly in training (as opposed to teaching) of the young, or soldiers, or apprentices, or athletes. Pace Fred Rogers, but in those contexts “just your being you” can ruin everything for everybody.

    This is not, however, broadly true of society, where what is usually needed is a moderation of the individual’s “mee-mee” traits. Petty tyranny denies the individual utterly for a (hopefully) limited time to make him an instrument of a group, ideology, or society. It is in that sense the school for tyrants – the gateway drug to greater tyranny.

    “Conformity and non-conformity is a false binary/dichotomy.”

    Point taken, but conformity has gone underground and takes many guises. It lurks under many of the “harder” virtues – loyalty, discipline, duty – as well as the “softer” ones, ie: those you associate with lib-dem society.

    “The best tyranny is invisible.”

    But if I understand you correctly, we want better than just “the best tyranny.”

    @Crow: “Assimilation of the current ‘enemy’ among our own people is the ultimate in smart goals.
    “Maybe nothing will make many of them smart, but everyone has a use.
    “The challenge is discovering what it is.”

    Enemies are rarely people or groups (and “smart people” do tend to form a group). They are ignorances, falsenesses, cruelties, greeds. In fine, even embodying an “enemy” is a self-fulfilling prophecy, casting the problem as one of containment and control (in your example, assimilation).

    Everyone has a use if we can convince them they are useful and use them wisely. It’s going to be a big tough job. Yes, we could just put all the greedheads in business, all the sadists in the military, and all the liars in politics or advertising. They will be used, but wisely? Will any oversight be in place? Or will they come to use us?

Leave a Reply

41 queries. 0.883 seconds