Checking in

We live in a time of great content confusion.

People confuse entertaining content, that panders to their need for variety, over descriptive or accurate content.

What they consider “good writing” is usually the opposite, meaning that instead of being descriptive, it is effusive and emotive, producing dramatic entertainment but little to no information.

As a result, it’s often uncertain whether we are reaching our audience at all. Or maybe, we should start being more entertaining and slip in accuracy as we can. It might work.

Hence the questions to you, dear readers: should we stay the course, or change direction? What kind of articles are needed here? Should we continue publishing daily, or slack off a bit? Are the pictures entertaining enough?

Or are we too extreme? Not extreme enough? Too focused – not focused enough. And so on.

Comments are open. Let us know.

38 Comments

  1. Duane says:

    First, whatever you do, keep the layout simple.

    The core of ANUS – the essays, short articles and band reviews – are superb, but I feel half of the forum users don’t share its values and are there for sophistry and intellectual masturbation.

    Corrupt is defunct, and I wish Amerika could repost it’s deleted(?) articles on everything from computer programming to philosopher bios.

    In Mala Fide is dead, which is a shame because it had great insight into every day issues from practical living to local news feeds. The patriarchy was great too. : )

    Expand this place: Put more people on payroll and create a “caste” like system – studies for the esoterists, political and economic theory for people with half a brain, entertainment with some accuracy for casuals. Don’t skimp out on practical living.

  2. Mihai says:

    Well, it also depends on what you want, Brett. It’s your site, so you should first decide on the direction you would rather orient yourself towards, and then, perhaps, users can inform you about improvements or topics that should especially be brought forth.

    Personally, I would like this site to combine principles with more lucid, unequivocal approaches.
    For example, you always talk about “common goals”, but you never really explain what this actually refers to. I don’t mean any offense, but it does sound from time to time like some kind of corporatist “target reaching”, which is exactly the opposite of which I hope to see here.
    Some examples of how you envisage “common goals” is required.

    I also fear that this site may become a platform for party politics and debates, with every negative thing that comes attached to them. I am, of course, talking about your open support for the Republicans. I don’t comment much on this because I’m not american, so it doesn’t really interest me that much. But I am warning about a possible decline in quality if you will fail to keep party politics in check. Not to mention that your strategy that motivates this support may itself be flawed, but, once again, it is not really my direct business.

    1. Anonymous says:

      Mihai, all the talk about conservatism is likely a clever scheme to introduce normal conservatives to the ideas of traditionalism. Notice how much emphasis he puts on the notion of equality? That’s exactly the value that is the greatest contrast between post- and pre-Enligthenment society.

  3. 1349 says:

    Everyone is a model for everyone around. If you wish to produce a certain type of man, you must give an appropriate example – in your speech and activity. You will attract the ones that are already of the desired type and (re)shape some of the rest. So why ask your audience? This is kind of… democratic. =)

    it’s often uncertain whether we are reaching our audience at all. Or maybe, we should start being more entertaining and slip in accuracy as we can. It might work.

    Work in what direction? What’s the target audience? American middle class, mostly white, mostly christian etc.? Do they read blogs at all?..
    Should your question be understood as “how can we make this blog more popular?”

    I am in no way your target audience, and even a potential enemy if you endorse your country’s possible attack on Iran, Russia or China leading to a world war (unless it be a war between NOBLE sides, like in Mahabharata or the Iliad), or if you approve of your country (even under conservative rule) spreading atheism, liberalism, consumerism, pornography etc. around the world as a method of submission and conquest.
    Not your target audience, still i’ve been reading almost all your posts for the last several months and even feel i should’ve paid something for this, because writing all this is hard work that i freely “consume” and don’t even leave useful comments to.

    As for the things i’d be glad to see here, i think they’d be out of place.

  4. Lisa Colorado says:

    I always go to this blog because it looks like a glimmer of light and a way out of Amerika. It reassures me of intelligent people who reject all things that are popular and try to think of something new.

    In all of the common talk I see back and forth, nobody seems to have the notion of coming up with anything un-thought-of. I seem to recall reading a story by Mark Twain where he is among ants and their only two thoughts are “done” and “not done.” He explores the idea that ants are there to do physical jobs that are done and undone, but on another level they are saying “thought” and “not thought.”

    In traditional conservatism I’d like to see a way to live in the coming socialist paradise without compromising so much as we’re going to have to if people like Bob get their orgasm of Socialistic victory.

    I think you’re getting burned out. We of the crew of readers who regularly post replies are probably not enough attention. But I feel like I need this. On the other hand, these times are teaching us to say goodbye. We just have to.

    I want you to keep going. Take a break. Why not recycle some of the older things, starting from the beginning, which I’ve looked at and found to be the germ of some great ideas that I would love to get into. I like that you’ve had Crow doing some of the posts. I don’t think you should stop. You know what they say–first they ignore you, then they make fun of you, then they adopt your ideas.

    I wish I could write a blog like this. I tried one, called Gertrude, and I loved it. I filled it with my most inspired reveries. I just couldn’t sustain it for some reason. I had nobody cheering me on. Well, I’m here to cheer you on if that’s what you need to see.

    I worry that if you take a day or two off, you will take more and more days off.

    But I bet it takes up a lot of your time writing it.

    What’s fun for you to write? Just do that.

  5. Tucken says:

    Good work is done as far as I’m concerned.

    What this place could use is better opportunity for discussion and gathering of resources. I would recommend a forum, discussing 1 topic/week and getting to the bottom with it. Getting down to the truth of matters, whether uncomfortable or not, then sum up the results and work accordingly.

    In a mere year you could have the very best conservative politics ever made. Backed up with modern scientific solutions – I’d recommend http://www.ted.com for those.

    With a redirection of resources you could ease up on the articles, I suppose. It’s up to you and where you want to take it. Is Amerika size enough, intelligent enough? Is it in accordance to your plans? It may be time to take this to a new level if you’re to get anywhere with it.

    My recommendation is a forum, take your time to do things properly. With Amerika you have the right idea, but its content isn’t quite there yet. Validate things scientifically, at least the most major stuff – the things Amerika propose and stand for.

    Lastly. History is a science which works with traditionalism.
    Gather data. Experiment with traditions – are they valied or not? Go to leftist sites – poll them/ask them questions.

    Otherwise continue as you are. I am confused about the concept of leftists, however. What the hell is a leftist, anyways?

    Good luck

  6. HW says:

    Seems fine.

    Not sure what I would change. I disagree about the Mitt Romney campaign, but I come here because literally no one else in our corner of the internet has even tried to make a plausible case for Romney.

    I’ve never seen a mainstream presidential candidate with less of an ability to sell himself, with less charisma, with less of a compelling rationale to his own supporters than Mitt Romney. He sounds like a Midwestern vacuum cleaner salesman from the 1950s.

    As far as the election goes, October will be more interesting because the debates will break the current lull and give us something to talk about. I predict there will also be some soul searching and recriminations on the Right after the election.

  7. Republish my entire blog.

  8. gg says:

    i often say nothing because i feel it is obvious or self evident but regarding this i will say…

    i appreciate the effort you put into these articles. it is obvious to me that you have a working system, a solid mechanism and the energy to fuel it. My impression is that you are a person of sincerity and integrity. With all of that in mind i have wondered why their have been no attempts(that i can find) to supply a potentially extra potent form of whatever one wants to call this… a worldview? a set of principles?

    why no spoken word available here?

    my answer to this has been that there must be a reason… since it would seem so obvious that it must have been considered at least a few times. is it a tone of voice that offends and/or repels others regardless of what is being said?, do you have a disturbingly southern accent or a hardcore lisp that invokes the giggles? massive speech impediment? lack of desired skill at delivering the message audibly in an acceptable form?

    MY TWO CENTS: audio files of the authors reading their own articles out loud would do a number of good things for the website, its purpose, and for its readers. all forms of communication can obscure and/or reveal something intended or unintended. but… THE HUMAN VOICE… it is a powerful thing. One neednt be Jonathan Bowden, may he rest in Valhalla with infinite lives and uber weaponery, to deliver the message. one can simply read out loud with sincerity and heart and fight the good fight(in this case it would be the proper use of ones audio space). long after you are dead and are unable to evoke a voice, a simple audio file can suffice. it is another way to reach the people.

    this very option being available could inspire efforts from those who would not be so inspired by simply written forms to…. participate and “get all interactive up in this mofo”.

    that is my request/suggestion. i think it is a good one. audio files/authors read their stuff out loud in addition to written articles. i like listening to speeches.

    we are not immortal. we most likely do not have the patience or inclination to wait a few million years in a stagnant pool of our own waste hoping that things will randomly hit some combination and be…. properly guided by natural law overtime. ‘chaaaaange’.

    1. 1349 says:

      that is my request/suggestion. i think it is a good one. audio files/authors read their stuff out loud in addition to written articles.

      Yes, quite a good one.

      Writing is a very narrow channel of information.
      In many traditions direct live communication is considered the best means of translating knowledge to students and youth in general. With what you suggest, amerika.org would use at least some part of it…

      1. ferret says:

        Then an embedded video would be even better. Or, maybe, a YouTube channel.

        1. 1349 says:

          Yep.
          Dugin uses youtube extensively.

          Watch this:
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUVUATQuw7g
          =))))

  9. Nail-in-da-hand says:

    You can’t change your style just to be popular. that would be lame.
    Just stay the course.
    But write less politics and more other stuff.

    (pics are entertaining and meaningful by the way)

  10. thordaddy says:

    Mr. Stevens,

    I was drawn in by your commenting elsewhere. I came here and was not disappointed. Your writing is elevated, but not inaccessible. Your layout is sharp and clean. Your header is bold, familiar, but still asking.

    You ask,

    Or are we too extreme? Not extreme enough? Too focused – not focused enough. And so on.

    So I’ll answer.

    From the radically liberated perspective, you are an extremist. Your writings convey a clear and concise rejection and rebuke of “equality.” You are, from the radically liberated perspective, a Supremacist, i.e., NOT an anti-Supremacist/egalitarian.

    But from the Supremacist perspective, you are not an extremist at all. You are still integrated and habituated to the world of radical liberation. You reject “equality” not because you are a Supremacist, but because “equality” is imposed on you and this is an affront to your LIBERATION.

    So in sum, your battle is with other more radical liberationists. Your battle is with those radical liberals that wield “equality” as a weapon to minimize your autonomy. But this leaves you only rejecting “equality” because you think it’s used as a weapon to minimize YOUR autonomy.

    You have to move beyond this to take your writing even higher and still keep it accessible.

    You reject “equality” because you embrace objective Supremacy.

    This is the last taboo in the radically liberated society.

    PS Have you thought about monetizing this blog as incentive to write or offset costs?

  11. Time Curator 23 says:

    “Or maybe, we should start being more entertaining and slip in accuracy as we can. It might work.”

    Mr. Brett Stevens please do not do that my friend. It would be a disgrace to your soul. Please leave that task to those below you.

    You have plenty of warriors and bards standing behind you willing to rally, entertain, and trick people toward truths.

    Just have faith in your efforts and remember the major changes you will contribute to will be long term and probably not in our life time.

    You have a great “voice” and a noble heart. Take a nice long break if you need, but don’t ever give up!

    1. Time Curator 23 says:

      “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”
      — Bernard of Clairvaux

      “Fanaticism consists in redoubling your effort when you have forgotten your aim.”
      — George Santayana

  12. Jacob says:

    I think you could be equally effective publishing every-other-day. Maybe Monday, Wednesday & Friday publishing even.

    Another possibility could be to reflect the format of a news-type website more and allow different authors different columns that stick until they update (e.g. Forest Johnson having his own)?

  13. Mike says:

    I was a die-hard liberal until about two years ago…no longer, thanks in large part to this site. The way you start out most articles dealing in abstractions that most rational people could not possibly disagree with, and only then, once the reader is on your side, apply your philosophy to politically charged issues is very effective to opening the doorway to new ways of thinking. I recommend all my friends with an interest in philosophy/politics to this site. I wouldn’t change a thing, unless your goal is quantity of readership over quality.

    1. crow says:

      Comment of the month :)

  14. corporal jigsore cuckoo says:

    I greatly value the articles on society/culture/consumerism/environment. The recent election coverage and US Republican party flag waving resulted in manic scrolling from this loyal reader. I was left more confused than anything, thought you guys knew better…

    1. Ted Swanson says:

      You were confused that the US Republican party flag was waved? I would have been much more confused if the US Democratic party flag had been waved!

  15. thordaddy says:

    There is a nexus to be found in this blog between the mobility of thoughts and information and the rootedness of establishing a networking domain. There is both freedom and burden to be found in cultivating this creation of yours that self-evidently displays an immense amount of thought and effort. Knowing this helps to clarify your motivations for continuing. This blogs stands as evidence that Mr. Stevens has no desire to be “equal” to others. But it also fails to evidence any inclination at being superior to others. This is why you now ask yourself where exactly am I standing? Perhaps there is a leap involved? Perhaps there is a place where you really want this blog to go but you are in need of an assistance that you are too prideful to ask for?

    I say carry on with a new thought at the forefront.

    Why do I want this blog to be a superior blog and what will I do to get it there?

  16. crow says:

    I say Brett Stevens is like nobody on earth.
    His blog is unique.
    It may be in a format that could be said to appear slightly dated, but isn’t that the essence of conservatism? Do we really want change, just for the sake of it?
    I say leave it as it is, pending Brett’s decision to modify it.
    It is clearly a destination many web-clickers return to, day after day, year after year, and so it does its job admirably.

    I’ve thought, in the past, that a forum might be better, or as an adjunct to the blog, but I feel now that it would just dilute the potency, and become reduced to gibberish by posters with insufficient self-control, along with the career saboteurs who desire only to wreck it.

    The only outstanding drawback, in the past, has been Brett’s reluctance to ban certain people that unquestionably required it. Which speaks highly for his regard for freedom of speech. A situation that seems to have been resolved, in recent times.

    Anyway: Amerika is an institution. It’s been running longer than some of its readers have been alive. If it changes from its current direction, then I would like to see it do so slowly.

    1. Anon says:

      It’s true that a forum may dilute the potency of the blog, and open up the site to the attacks of those who lack proper discussion skills, and saboteurs.

      However, one drawback of not having a forum is that discussions in the comments “get lost” once the article post gets dated. So, people don’t check back to an article’s comment section to conclude a debate, idea, or discussion, when newer articles appear. Then again, this is the essence of blogging, and some may prefer that. I value concluding a discussion instead of ending it prematurely purely because a “newer topic” is being discussed – reminds of news-entertainment sites and the fleeting nature of modern “news”.

      That being said, a forum would require moderation (any forum does), in which case the regular and trusted commenters may have to step up and assist where necessary.

      I will also add my voice to the need for less explicitly political articles. In a way, it detracts from the message because it can be seen as “politicking”. It’s obvious that if you share the core values which this site promotes, live in America, you will not support the Democrat party. True, you may abstain from voting due to its democratic nature, and the blog authors provide a strong argument against this.

      So I would enjoy a return to what made this site great: lucid writings on “core” topics – conservationism, traditionalism, deep ecology, realism, consequentialism, etc. I do not think this site should veer into the direction of “how-to” articles. Again, the directness and explicit nature of it would dilute the message for me. I don’t think this site is here to spoon-feed.

      That being said, I’ve found no greater writer on the web than Brett, unless it be S.R. Prozak over at the American Nihilist Underground Society. There is rumor these are monikers for the same distinctive personality. :-) Certainly there are similarities in writing style; regardless, with someone like this at the helm, the advice of “keep on keeping on” seems to be the most appropriate.

      1. 1349 says:

        However, one drawback of not having a forum is that discussions in the comments “get lost” once the article post gets dated. So, people don’t check back to an article’s comment section to conclude a debate, idea, or discussion, when newer articles appear. Then again, this is the essence of blogging, and some may prefer that. I value concluding a discussion instead of ending it prematurely purely because a “newer topic” is being discussed – reminds of news-entertainment sites and the fleeting nature of modern “news”.

        Right. You’ve described one of the main evils of web 2.0.
        Blogs with absent or unfinished discussions.
        Social networks are even worse: you can’t even see what people talk and think about unless you purposefully search for things you already know about, or search randomly.
        Blogs resemble television (consumer-oriented one-way information without a possibility to answer, discuss and argue), social networks atomize individuals, making them forget what live and coherent communication is.

      2. Anonymous says:

        »That being said, I’ve found no greater writer on the web than Brett, unless it be S.R. Prozak over at the American Nihilist Underground Society. There is rumor these are monikers for the same distinctive personality.«

        You mean the guy who wrote some articles at anus.com/articles ? I don’t think so. Besides, people probably want to keep their secrecy.

        I remember the old nazi leaning Anus site as quite provocative when I first clicked in on it and saw our Lord Jesus Christ in the Goatse hole and read some anti jew stuff. That kind of style is bound to repel normals very effectively. This Amerika site is much more likely to get normals to read and understand.

  17. WhyWontMyStuffGoThrough says:

    My personal view is that although articles are wonder, it’s like every article is explaining the different between left and right, Leftism and conservatism. It’s all heavy theory. When I first started reading, I was saying YES! YES! WOW! Now it’s more like, “yes, yes, that makes sense”. Things aren’t generally as earth-shattering as they used to be.

    It’s always insightful but it starts to blend together. I dunno, maybe some more practical stuff would be nice. How to achieve such things in our own lives. Steps to take.

    And again I suggest you read Mencius Moldbug on strategy, especially the last several paragraphs: http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2008/01/how-to-actually-defeat-us-government.html

  18. 1349 says:

    Make a “best of” list of articles and repost them somewhere in one place so that we could easily return to them at any time to “check in”.
    (An example is “Future consciousness”.)

    Or even compile them into a book. =)
    I could even translate it into Belarusan or Russian one day (in some distant future). Ferret will make the Hebrew version, or maybe the Russian one, too. =)

  19. EvilBuzzard says:

    You could keep more content on your FP if you used a tag or linked the articles w/ a two paragraph insert. At the rate you currently push content, that would allow an article to stay FP-visible for 2 days longer before it scrolled off under newer content.

  20. ferret says:

    Or maybe, we should start being more entertaining and slip in accuracy as we can. It might work.

    This would attract more readers interested in sole entertainment. There is a chance some of them would try to read articles. But it would be difficult to keep the traditionalist soul. And accuracy is important for attracting serious readers.

    should we stay the course, or change direction?

    If the goal remains the same, the course, you are sure is leading to it, should not be changed. You can experiment with alternative courses, but on your own, bearing in mind the goal, and not under a popular demand.

    What kind of articles are needed here?

    Only the articles you fully believe in, not a stuff that pleases others without contributing to what are you doing. This applies to the writing style also. Yours is the best for your articles.

    Are the pictures entertaining enough?

    They are perfect. Some of them I even tried to find in a high resolution. Only sometimes (very rarely) distracting from the article, e.g. the article “Nothing is free”, a very good one, was followed by only 3 comments, perhaps because of the emotionally intense picture.

    The bottom line – it is a very good thought provoking site. Thank you for doing it.

  21. This site will always be relevant to *me* but on the ‘avoiding repelling the normals’ side of things, with this sort of website, criticising bad human traits can descend into a rather miserly misanthropy. It may be that there’s only one principal writer who specialises in a certain kind of critique. This isn’t always bad for the faithful such as me, but to appeal to a greater readership, I would suggest more of the balance that Corrupt.org had. This is how I see them.

    Alex Birch: An all-rounder, recounting his real world experiences at his job and in exercising and applying it to New Right schools of thought.

    Brett Stevens: Expert on the psychological roots of liberalism.

    Frank Azzurro: Experience of fatherhood, movie reviews and the like in addition to social/political commentary

    Sophie Theotoky: Wry social commentary from someone in a liberal social environment

    That Polish guy: Contrarian and general wind-up merchant, destroyer of hypocritical SWPLisms

    With this sort of diversity (for want of a better word :P), people are more easily drawn into this New Right world. Corrupt tipped me over the edge when internet warrior sites like Anus could not.

    Just a thought.

  22. Meow Mix says:

    You could just try to branch out into writing articles for more mainstream conservative websites while still retaining this blog.

    1. Time Curator 23 says:

      Yes, separate the levels of content, because the levels of understanding are separated. Trying to bring practical Republican support into a blog that does not actually support Republicans is too much. It’s like packing too many kids into one classroom, and indiscriminately so, mixing the smart kids with the slow ones.

      Discrimination is a sure sign of a first class teacher / troll. You need to start simple and normal, offend the unwanted, and lure the wanted on to further websites. It’s a slow process, but the important thing to understand is that it works. Gradual change is the best way to open a mind.

      But, really, this is just one side of what is going on here. Brett is not only trying to bring more mainstream conservatives to this blog. The other side here, the other thing Brett is doing, and I think this is more important, is bringing the fringe into the mainstream.

      It’s great to open minds, but it becomes counter-productive when all it does is pull people away from normalcy and into obscurity. Brett knows that a bunch of educated people sitting around on the sidelines is not enough, that they have to get in the game, and take power.

  23. Thanks all for your comments.

    There’s a lot to think about here.

    As long as good people like yourselves keep reading, those of us who labor here keep writing.

    Words, against the vast onslaught of decline. In that we see the mystery underlying nature: how information can — can — be the decider, more than mass of material, or even personalities.

    I continue to believe in the Good, the Divine and the Beautiful, and consider them to be the same good thing, along with the Common Sensical and perhaps, the Fun.

    1. EvilBuzzard says:

      Words have a power. Read “A Canticle For Leibowitz” if you ever doubt.

  24. free mugs says:

    I have spent a lot of time reading articles on this blog. I agree with the ideas expressed and support the movement. I think ideas should be banked in a little longer in order to produce longer articles. In turn, more time could be allocated in the structure to captivate the readers and encourage pro-action. Perhaps in the form of convincing speeches or manifestos. Should that filter the pro-active readers from the entertained bunch? I think longer articles should at least help.
    Longer articles over burst of pop-blog entertainement. The subject matter is too profound and important to use this way.

Leave a Reply

39 queries. 0.749 seconds